02-23-15 CC Reg Mtg Agenda
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2015 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Roll Call
Mayor Zerby___
Labadie___
Siakel___
Sundberg___
Woodruff___
B. Review Agenda
Attachments
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Retreat Minutes of January 29, 2015 Minutes
B. City Council Special Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2015 Minutes
C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2015 Minutes
3. CONSENT AGENDA
– Motion to approve items on the Consent Agenda & Adopt
Resolutions Therein:
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List
B. Authorizing the Agreement for Secure Document Shredding Services Clerk’s memo
C. Appointment of Tad Shaw to the Minnetonka Community Education Clerk’s memo
Advisory Council Resolution
D. Accept Proposal for Professional Services for the Shorewood Lane Director of Public
Ravine Stabilization Project Works’ memo
E. Approval of the Crescent Beach Lifeguard Services Agreement with the Clerk’s memo
Minnetonka School District
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council Action will be taken)
5. PUBLIC HEARING
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
7. PARKS
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – February 23, 2015
Page 2
8. PLANNING
Minutes
A. Approval of a C.U.P. for Accessory Space Over 1200 Sq. Ft. Planning Director’s
Applicant: Don and Loretta Mann memo, Resolution
Location: 25880 Birch Bluff Road
B. Approval of a Setback Variance Planning Director’s
Applicant: Nick Bender memo, Resolution
Location: 5765 Eureka Road
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Receiving the Feasibility Report for Boulder Bridge Pond Engineer’s memo,
Outlet Project Resolution
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Accepting a Donation of Trees from Charles and Mary Babcock Director of Public
Works’ memo
B. Consideration of Support for Legislation Establishing an Early Voting Clerk’s memo,
Process Resolution
C. Ratifying the Minnetonka Country Club Planning Advisory Committee Planning Director’s
(PAC) Members memo
D. Making Appointments to the Park Commission Clerk’s memo,
Resolution
11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Trails Schedule Trail Schedule
2. Alternative Energy update
B. Mayor and City Council
12. ADJOURN
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900
Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
Executive Summary
Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting
Monday, February 23, 2015
7:00 p.m.
Agenda Items #2A. 2B, 2C: Approval of Minutes from the January 29 Retreat and February 9
Council meetings.
Agenda Item #3A: Approval of the verified claims list.
Agenda Item #3B: This is an agreement for monthly pick-up service of documents that are
private/confidential in nature and cannot be placed in the general recycling container.
Entering into this agreement also provides a discounted fee for the annual spring clean up
community shred event. Funds have been allocated in the administration budget for secure
document destruction service, and in the recycling budget for the community shred event.
Attorney Keane has reviewed the agreement and found it to be in order.
Agenda Item #3C: Tad Shaw has expressed interest in continuing to serve on the Minnetonka
Community Education Advisory Council for another year. A resolution making this
appointment is provided.
Agenda Item #3D: Listed within the 2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a project
known as the Shorewood Lane Ravine (ditch) Stabilization Project. Staff has solicited a
proposal by WSB and Associates for the design and permitting of this project.
Agenda Item #3E: This is the two-year Agreement with the Minnetonka School District
Community Education for Lifeguard Services at Crescent Beach for 2015 and 2016. The
fee is $3,039, an increase of $114 from the 2013-2014 agreement.
Agenda Item #4: Matters from the floor – no council action will be taken.
Agenda Item #5: There are no public hearings scheduled this evening.
Agenda Item #6: There are no scheduled reports or presentations this evening.
Agenda Item #7: There are no parks items this evening.
Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of February 23, 2015
Page 2
Agenda Item #8A: The Planning Commission has voted to recommend approval of a
conditional use permit for Donald and Loretta Mann for additional accessory space on
their property at 25880 Birch Bluff Road. The Manns have submitted a landscape sketch
to satisfy concerns of the adjoining neighbor.
Agenda Item #8B: Nick Bender has requested setback variances to replace his existing small
garage and relocate his deck. The Planning Commission voted in favor of recommending
approval of the variances as requested.
Agenda Item #9A: Staff recommends approval of a resolution “Receiving the Feasibility
Report for the Boulder Bridge Pond Outlet Improvements, City Project 14-14”. This
project is currently unfunded and staff will work with the benefitting residents to petition
for the improvements and provide waivers to the assessment.
Agenda Item #10A: All donations are to be formally accepted by the City Council, if the
Council feels that the donation(s) is appropriate.
Charles and Mary Babcock, residents of 20465 Manor Road, have graciously offered to
fund the purchase of trees, as part of the Shorewood Annual Tree Purchasing Program
which the City of Shorewood sponsors.
Agenda Item #10B: A bill is making its way through the legislature which would establish early
voting in Minnesota. This service would be provided in addition to absentee voting.
Offering early voting would reduce taxpayer dollars in processing in-person absentee
ballots, and would provide a better service to residents. Both Hennepin County and the
League of MN Cities support this bill. If the attached resolution supporting this bill is
approved by Council, the resolution will be provided to the LMC and our legislative
representatives.
Agenda Item #10C: At its last meeting the City Council agreed to include all persons whose
names were listed as candidates for the MCC Planning Advisory Committee. Staff has
extended invitations to that list and those who have RSVP’d are contained in your packet.
We will update the list as we receive additional responses.
Agenda Item #10D: Justin Mangold has expressed an interest in continuing to serve on the Park
Commission. Mr. Jeff Ische is willing to stay on until another candidate is appointed. The
attached resolution makes Mr. Mangold’s appointment for the three-year term ending
February 28, 2018, and extends Mr. Ische for up to three months. Council will have one
candidate to interview on March 9. Council should also be aware that one additional
commissioner has indicated concern about being able to attend every park commission
meeting due to work commitments, and it may be best for him to resign if another
candidate is available to fill his seat.
Agenda Item #11A: Staff reports are provided in the packet and will be given at the meeting.
#2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 24150 SMITHTOWN RD
CITY COUNCIL/STAFF RETREAT SOUTH LAKE PUBLIC SAFETY
THURSDAY, JANUARY 29, 2015 FACILITY TRAINING ROOM
8:30 A.M.
MINUTES
1. Convene City Council/Staff Retreat
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 8:32 AM.
A. Roll Call
Present: Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel, Sundberg and Woodruff; City Attorney
Keane (arrived at 8:39 A.M.); City Administrator Joynes, City Clerk Panchyshyn,
Finance Director DeJong, Planning Director Nielsen, Director of Public Works Brown,
and City Engineer Hornby
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Administrator Joynes stated the intent is to generate a work plan from the discussions today that will help
guide efforts over the next 12 months. He then stated that Council had been provided with a meeting
packet containing supporting material for the discussions today and a copy of his PowerPoint
presentation. Director DeJong had also provided Council will Financial Management Plans for the City’s
various financial funds. He clarified that plan is to have a high level discussion of the various issues. He
also clarified that he does not find value in looking at financial things 20 years out; five years is more
realistic. He stated because the City’s Planning Consultant John Shardlow will not be here until around
12:30 P.M. some of the independent agenda items will be discussed first. Someone from his office should
arrive around 11:30 A.M. to start the preparatory discussions about the redevelopment planning process
for the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) site.
2. 2014 Work Program
Administrator Joynes highlighted the various items on the 2014 Work Plan that are still in progress. The
items on the Plan were issues that were raised during the February 8, 2014, Council and staff retreat. Most
of the items labeled as in progress are items were changed in some way, added or postponed.
3. Review of City Finances
Director DeJong highlighted the Financial Management Plan (FMP) Summary for the City’s various
funds which reflected the estimated cash balance at the end of 2015 (based on the adopted 2015 budgets),
the end of 2024 (absent any changes to the document) and the dollar change.
The financing plan for trail construction includes the use of Minnesota State Aid (MSA) street
reimbursement funds. The City receives about $200,000 a year in MSA funds. Some of the trail
construction costs qualify for MSA reimbursement because the trails/sidewalks are located along side of
roadways classified as MSA roads. Smithtown Road is classified as a MSA roadway from the City border
to its intersection with County Road 19. MSA funds were used to fund a portion of the construction cost
for the Smithtown Road west sidewalk and the plan is to pay for the eligible costs for the east extension
sidewalk with MSA funds also. The intent is to collect as much MSA reimbursement as possible. The
City Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Page 2 of 22
Trail Construction Fund is the only fund that shows a significant deficit at the end of 2015 and that is
because of timing.
For the City to be able to reclassify Strawberry Lane to a MSA roadway, Church Road from Highway 7
to West 62nd Street and the south half of West 62nd Street would have to be designated MSA by the City
of Chanhassen and Shorewood could reclassify the north half of West 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane as
MSA. That could open up additional MSA funds for the City. Engineer Hornby clarified that Shorewood
is short on mileage to do that now but it does have some options to make the mileage available.
The tax supported funds include the Southshore Community Center Fund, the Park Improvement Fund,
the Equipment Replacement Fund, the Street Maintenance Fund, the MSA Street Reconstruction Fund,
the Trail Construction Fund, and the Community Infrastructure Fund. Over the 10-year FMP the funds are
going into a deficit stated in a major way. At the end of 2024 the balance in the General Fund will be far
below the General Fund Balance Policy guideline of 55 – 60 percent of the City’s annual expenditures
and transfers if the City does not identify and utilize other funding sources.
The enterprise funds include the Water Fund, the Sewer Fund, the Recycling Fund and the Stormwater
Management Fund. The cash balances in the Water and Sewer Funds are substantial. The Stormwater
Management Fund basically breaks even. A number of loans into this Fund from the Sewer Fund are
anticipated to help fund projects included in the Stormwater Management Capital Improvement Program
(CIP). The balance in the Recycling Fund is projected to increase substantially because of changes to the
recycling contract. The recycling fees could be reduced or money could be transferred out of the
Recycling Fund to other funds. Councilmember Siakel noted that service could also be expanded.
Administrator Joynes stated for the tax supported funds Shorewood has previously transferred General
Fund tax dollars into other funds to support other activities. Most cities fund street reconstruction,
equipment purchases and possibly trail construction using various financing tools (e.g., bonding). Either
the current Council or a future council will have to make a decision about using other available funding
tools. If not, the General Fund property tax levy will have to be increased significantly to support those
types of activities. He clarified that using other financing tools is not a bad thing to do so Council should
give it some thought.
Councilmember Sundberg stated if the MCC property were to be developed as proposed she asked what
impact that would have on the City’s tax situation. Administrator Joynes stated if nothing else was
changed the City’s tax levy would be spread out over more properties. Joynes explained that if the City
created a tax increment financing (TIF) district for the MCC project area and surrounding area the City
would capture the value of the increased taxes and use them to pay for any infrastructure improvements
around the project area. The TIF district could be larger than just the project area. Councilmember
Woodruff stated he thought the additional tax dollars from that redevelopment would be about a couple
hundred thousand dollars annually without increasing the tax levy.
Director DeJong explained that Council sets the tax levy; not the tax rate. The only way for the City to
increase the amount of taxes it receives from City property owners is to increase the tax levy. If the City
established a TIF district, the City can capture the increases in the City property tax at the City’s rate and
it can capture the increased value for the school district, the county and other agencies with taxing
authority. The City would have a significant amount of money to use to fund infrastructure improvements
around the area. Of the residential property tax about 30 percent of that goes to the City. If the MCC were
to be redeveloped as 100 single-family residential properties with an average property value of $1 million
that would generate about $200,000 in additional taxes for the City, or about $750,000 in total in the tax
increment value. The increment would be the difference between what the MCC pays in City property
taxes now and the tax value for the new development.
City Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Page 3 of 22
Administrator Joynes clarified that the taxing agencies would continue to get their value as if it were still
the MCC property. The City would get the added value from the new houses for a period of time.
Attorney Keane clarified the City would get that added value for a maximum of eight years.
In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Director DeJong explained that the Smithtown
Road east sidewalk extension is scheduled for 2015 and the Galpin Lake Road trail segment is scheduled
for 2016. It is his understanding that Council wanted the Galpin segment to remain in the Trail
Construction FMP with the financing for that to be discussed during this retreat. The financing of it shows
as a transfer in from the Sewer Fund but it is actually Council to-be-determined financing. If that $1.3
million were to be included in the Sewer Fund FMP the 2024 cash balance would be about $200,000.
Administrator Joynes stated if Council decides to move forward with a TIF plan for the MCC area that
would help fund the Smithtown Road east sidewalk extension and then the funds planned for that use
could be freed up for constructing the Galpin trail segment or some other segment.
Administrator Joynes noted that the funds in the Community Infrastructure Fund are primarily from the
proceeds from the sale of the City’s liquor operations a number of years back. Director DeJong explained
that about $50,000 of the approximate $172,000 balance will be used to pay the cost of the renewable
energy study in 2015. Consideration should be given to closing the fund out in 2016 or 2017 with the
funds being transferred into the Trail Construction Fund. He also thought the approximate $120,000
balance in the MSA Street Construction Fund will be transferred into the Trail Construction Fund as well.
Director DeJong explained that the $287,000 in proceeds from the sale of the City-owned house
ultimately ended up in the Park Improvement Fund. That and the estimated $500,000 in park dedication
fees from the MCC redevelopment project are enough to fund the first phase of the Badger Park
improvements. The cost for the second phase is over $800,000. That results in a Fund deficit of well over
about $429,000 in 2015 and then well over $500,000 each year through 2024. He noted that there is some
difficulty in using TIF monies for recreational items.
Councilmember Siakel stated the City could use TIF monies to construct sidewalks/trails and then use
other City funds to possibly relocate Badger Park.
Administrator Joynes noted that under the PUD process for the MCC property everything adjacent to that
area is negotiable with that developer.
Administrator Joynes displayed graphics depicting the level of expenditures and fund balance of the
various funds based on their 10-year FMPs and highlighted what to take from them. The more noteworthy
comments are as follows for each of the funds.
Recycling Fund
The balance in the Recycling Fund is projected to increase substantially because of changes to the
recycling contract that reduced the City’s cost.
The recycling fees could be reduced, money could be transferred out of the Recycling Fund to
other funds or service could be expanded.
The FMP does not reflect any increase in costs over the 10-year period.
Water Fund
This is the healthiest fund. The cash balance is well in excess of what the City needs to operate.
This Fund could loan money to other funds.
City Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Page 4 of 22
The expenditures are significantly higher in 2015 because of the potential watermain extension as
part of the Star Lane and Star Circle roadway reconstruction project and because of the
rehabilitation of a water tower for $450,000.
The revenues from the assessments for the watermain extension are not built into the FMP. The
watermain extension should basically be revenue neutral. The amount of assessment revenue will
begin in 2016 and occur over a period of 10 years.
Siakel suggested Council consider a policy that stipulates when a roadway is reconstructed and
watermain is not there that watermain will be extended. And, to set a per property assessment
threshold that when exceeded the amount over the threshold is paid for out of the Water Fund.
Woodruff thought it prudent for Council to also talk about how to bring in additional revenues
into this Fund.
If a residential property is served by well water and the well is working okay most people don’t
want to pay the cost to convert to municipal water (including the assessment cost of extending the
watermain).
Joynes noted the issue of diminishing shallow aquifers is going to spread throughout the
metropolitan area and state. It is questionable if the State and the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) are going to allow residential property owners to draw from those
fairly shallow aquifers. It is likely that the DNR will eventually ban private wells where
municipal water is available.
Sundberg stated because there will eventually be a public use issue she can support Council
making a decision to extend watermain, where possible, when a roadway is reconstructed.
Zerby noted that during his tenures on Councils, Councils have cautiously encouraged property
owners to connect to municipal water. He clarified that he would like more property owners to
connect to City-water and stated Council and staff need to do a better job of selling it. He noted
there is watermain under Smithtown Road yet very few properties are connected to it.
Hornby explained for the roadway projects in the Valleywood, Wedgewood and Sunnyvale areas
there was nothing to connect watermain to had it been extended because Meadowview Road and
Valleywood Lane were reconstructed without extending watermain. He stated some cities require
people to connect to municipal water when available within a certain amount of time.
Siakel asked if it would be possible to require people to connect to City-water when they sell their
property. She stated she thought there were small steps the City could take to move forward with
watermain extension and hookups to the City’s water system. She noted that it is Council’s job to
be good stewards for future residents of Shorewood as well.
Labadie stated that when she was running for Council the number one question she was asked is
if she would support making people connect to City water when available.
About one-half of the residential properties in Shorewood are connected to City-water. And, there
are about 300 properties where City-water is available but owners have chosen not to connect to
it.
There was Council consensus to talk about City-water in a separate work session along with the
various other funds that need funding over the next 3 – 4 years.
General Fund
The balance in the General Fund will drop slightly below the General Fund Balance Policy
minimum guideline of 55 percent of the City’s annual expenditures and transfers in 2018 and
remain there through 2024.
Funds from the General Fund have been used to help reduce the amount of the tax levy for the
last several years.
City Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Page 5 of 22
The General Fund budget is conservative on revenues and liberal on expenditures from a
budgeting perspective. That revenue / expense gap helps reduce the need to use General Fund
balance to balance the budget. That can change from year to year based on what is going on.
The balance starts to go up in 2023 because the bonded debt for the public safety facilities will be
paid off. Currently about $500,000 is being spent on that. Some of that money will be needed for
capital repairs to the facilities and for future funding of repairs. Some of that funding should be
available for other purposes.
Budget surpluses are not factored into the General Fund FMP and therefore the balance will
likely be closer to the Policy Guideline.
There is excess balance in the Fund based on the Policy guidelines that could be used for other
purposes.
Equipment Replacement Fund
The Fund’s balance varies from year because equipment replacement needs vary. There is no
need to worry about this Fund.
Transfers into this Fund have been increased the last two years.
Sewer Fund
Sewer rate increases were implemented in 2014 based on the results of a rate study the City asked
Ehlers to conduct. The Fund’s balance is now healthy because of that.
The FMP does not reflect additional revenues that will be generated by the MCC property
development.
The FMP does not reflect increases in the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES)
service charges.
The FMP does not include an expense for possible MCES surcharges imposed for exceeding
inflow and infiltration (I&I) rates into ultimately the MCES’ sewer system. The City can get a
credit for the surcharge by making improvements to the City’s sewer system to reduce that I&I
into the system. Every year the Public Works Department televises certain segments of the City’s
sewer line and makes the needed repairs to reduce I&I flow.
Southshore Community Center Fund
There are ongoing deficits in the fund for a variety of reasons. That will continue due to the
current structure for operating and maintaining the Southshore Community Center (SSCC).
Some of the deficit is the effect of compounding deficits.
The deficits are small and the City can deal with them.
Building capital needs are not included in the FMP. The projects are included in the Equipment
Replacement Fund FMP.
The other four cities that co-own the SSCC structure with Shorewood have indicated they do not
want to contribute toward the operation and maintenance of the SSCC and they want to recoup
some of the original construction costs they paid.
Stormwater Management Fund
The balance in this Fund is not very good.
It is likely that in the next year or two the State will implement new MS4 (Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System) requirements for stormwater management and treatment. There are lots of
stormwater ponds and many issues that have to be addressed. There may be requirements to
City Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Page 6 of 22
dredge toxic materials out of the ponds. At a minimum, ponds will have to be monitored and
survey work will have to be done. Those costs are not reflected in the FMP because no one knows
what will be required yet.
It is likely the City’s stormwater rates will have to be increased.
Keane questioned if it would be prudent to increase the rate gradually starting soon rather than
confronting taxpayers with a large increase a few years down the road. Siakel agreed the rate
should be reassessed. Woodruff concurred.
Some cities have a per-residential property stormwater charge and have a separate rate for a
commercial property. Other cities base rates on the impervious surface square footage.
Shorewood has three residential rates – one for lots less than 10,000 square feet in size; one for
10,000 – 50,000 square foot properties; and, one for properties greater than 50,000 square feet in
size. The rate varies from $13 to $19 per quarter.
The big expense increase in 2019 is for the stormwater work planned for along Strawberry Lane
when it is reconstructed. There are other expenses reflected in the FMP for stormwater
improvements made in conjunction with roadway reconstruction projects that may or may not be
done.
There will be two great pressures on this Fund. One is funding to implement MS4 requirements
and disposing of contaminated soils that get dredged out of ponds. The other is the need for a
trunk stormwater system on the west end of the City.
There is a requirement to keep the rainwater on a property or in an area for a one-inch event. And,
for stormwater that flows off the area the total maximum daily load (TMDL) standard must be
complied with.
There is a need for larger stormwater pipes and a need to keep some of the water on the site.
The City sits on the clay basin of the old Lake Minnetonka and there is nowhere for the water to
go.
Park Improvement Fund
This Fund has major cash balance issues starting in 2017/2018 and that remains the case through
2024 based on the projects identified in the Park CIP. 2017 – 2019 are also cash flow problematic
for the Trail Construction Fund and the Street Maintenance Fund.
There are funding sources and tools that could be used to fund some of the projects in the first
few years. But, after that Council needs to identify other revenue sources for this Fund should it
want to move forward with other projects.
Changing the timing of projects and/or the selection of projects can help a little with addressing
the cash flow issue but it cannot be resolved without additional funding.
The only major parks related capital project scheduled is the Badger Park improvements project.
And, there currently is not enough cash in the Fund to do all of it.
Siakel recommended that the City of Chanhassen put some of the park dedication fees it is
collecting for the 31 houses being constructed as part of the Boulder Cove development toward
Cathcart Park (the Park is located in Chanhassen but owned by Shorewood). Nielsen explained
that Chanhassen’s position is residents in various cities, including Shorewood, use parks in other
nearby cities without paying another city for that use. Per an old agreement between Shorewood
and Chanhassen, Chanhassen is supposed to mow the grass in Cathcart Park but that is not
happening. There is a joint meeting of the Shorewood Park Commission and the Chanhassen Park
Commission scheduled for April 2015 to talk about having Chanhassen help out with things at
Cathcart Park. Siakel suggested the two City Councils meet or the two Mayors meet and talk
about funding for Cathcart Park first. Zerby noted he and the former Mayor of Chanhassen had
spoken about this. Sundberg thought the Boulder Cove development is a different situation.
City Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Page 7 of 22
Trail Construction Fund
The anticipated capital expenditures in the next few years are for the Smithtown Road east
sidewalk extension, the Galpin Lake Road trail segment and the Excelsior Boulevard trail
segment. The Strawberry Lane trail segment is scheduled for 2019.
A funding source for some of those projects needs to be determined if Council intends to move
forward with all of those projects.
The cost to construct the Strawberry Lane trail segment will increase substantially if it is not done
in conjunction with the reconstruction of Strawberry Lane.
City staff members do not generally offer to talk about spending money outside of the City they
work for. It is the elected officials that have to make a decision to participate.
Shorewood contributed $10,000 toward the construction of the off leash dog park in Lake
Minnewashta Regional Park in the City of Chanhassen.
Street Maintenance Fund
Starting in 2018/2019 the balance in the Fund starts to be inadequate to fund the necessary
roadway maintenance projects.
The conditions of the roadways are evaluated using the PASER (Pavement Surface Evaluation
and Rating) System and then scheduled for the needed maintenance based in part on the rating.
Roadway maintenance is funded by transfers from the General Fund.
Expenses go up significantly in 2019 and Council needs to decide how to fund those expenses
(e.g., bonding, assessments, higher taxes, etc.)
At the urging of the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) and the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities (AMM) the State legislature had considered a tool that would allow municipalities
to charge fees for roadway maintenance. That legislation has not passed yet.
The LMC has indicated it will not consider supporting a bonding bill that does not include some
type of funding for local roadways.
Hornby noted that almost none of the gas tax trickles down to the local level. The Public Works
Association and the Engineers Association are working with the LMC to try and get more of that
back to local governments. Zerby stated some does; an example is funding for the St. Albans Bay
Bridge. Brown noted that the MSA funding is generated by tax dollars collected at the pump.
Siakel noted there is crumbling infrastructure throughout the State that needs to be fixed. She also
noted that many of the City’s roadways have a PASER rating of 8, 9 or 10 which means they are
in good shape. She asked if the City’s 20-Year Street Maintenance Plan (SMP) accurately reflects
when roadways need to be reconstructed. Brown explained with the current system the City
reconstructs roadways in the worst condition first while continuing to maintain roadways in
reasonable condition so they don’t deteriorate too fast. Woodruff noted the PMP has roadways
with a rating of 4 that won’t be improved for 10 years and suggested that they be scheduled for
reconstruction sooner. Brown explained that generally if a roadway has very poor soils there is
not a lot of maintenance done to them until they are reconstructed.
Woodruff noted that the many of the roadways on the Islands are not scheduled for a mill and
overlay until 2024. He suggested revisiting the SMP. Hornby explained some the roadways on the
Island are a little different because they do not have deep enough soils to do a normal
reconstruction.
Glen Road east improvements have been moved to 2021 which was the first year when there was
not more than $1 million in roadways improvements planned.
Summit Avenue is scheduled for a mill and overlay in 2015. That should be pushed out until
Summit Woods construction is done.
City Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Page 8 of 22
A break was taken from 10:19 – 10:31 A.M.
4. Issues related to the Fire and Police Joint Powers Agreements
Administrator Joynes explained that once former South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD)
Chief Litsey informed the SLMPD Coordinating Committee that he was going to retire after 33 years
with the SLMPD, the Committee started discussions about succession planning. The discussion morphed
into one about the structure of the Department. The SLMPD joint powers organization is comprised of
four cities (Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay) and the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) joint
powers organization is comprised of five cities (Deephaven is the additional city). Deephaven has its own
police department. The Coordinating Committee and the EFD Governing Board are considered separate
legal entities under State law. Both are governed by a set of rules and both have legal authority to make
decisions for the Cities. The Mayors of the four Cities comprise the Committee. A member of each
member City Council is appointed to the Board.
Mayor Zerby explained that on May 21, 2014, the Coordinating Committee and the member City
Administrators/Manager met to talk about the SLMPD organization. Deephaven Mayor Skrede also came
so there was some discussion about the EFD. There was some discussion about the merits of combining
police and fire into one joint powers organization. Skrede had interest in coming up with an arrangement
so Deephaven could purchase EFD Station 2. Because of Litsey’s departure there is an opportunity to
view the public safety organizations from a collective perspective. There was discussion about having a
public safety director with chiefs or assistant chiefs below that position. The Chiefs of both organizations
have additional responsibilities (e.g., financial) because of the joint powers organization structure. They
also have to deal with the politics of working with multiple City Councils. The Committee did decide to
hire an interim chief of police to help the member cities work through organizational and operational
issues, staffing and missions.
Administrator Joynes explained that the funding formulas for the two organizations are different to some
extent. Shorewood is the primary funding source for both. For 2015 it is responsible for 38.56 percent for
the EFD and 48.49 percent for the SLMPD.
Mayor Zerby felt the funding formula does not take into account commercial development, the number of
liquor licenses and so forth. He felt that Excelsior is over consuming policing services; for example, they
recently declared a snow emergency and required police officers to ticket cars and remain present until
the cars were towed away. Excelsior has issued 14 liquor licenses. When he moved to Shorewood 21
years ago there were very few. He believes the money that Excelsior receives from liquor licenses should
mostly go towards policing services. The Excelsior – South Lake Chamber of Commerce, the school
district and other organizations are driving more events. Excelsior is an entertainment hub which he
enjoys. He does not think Shorewood is getting the level of services it pays for. Based on his
observations, it appears the patrol officers are mainly focused on DWI enforcement. People may get
arrested outside of Excelsior but their location of consumption is often in Excelsior. He noted Shorewood
residents want more neighborhood traffic enforcement.
Zerby stated that he would like to challenge the funding formula. With the implementation of a new
records management system over a year ago the SLMPD has the ability to generate new reports that
shows the time police officers are spending in the member cities. For 2014 Shorewood consumed the
amount of resources (40 percent) that it paid for but for the previous three years it was quite a bit less
(about 30 percent).
Administrator Joynes stated that there is the fundamental issue that Greenwood and Tonka Bay combined
contribute about 23 – 24 percent of the funding for SLMPD operations yet they have one-half of the
City Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Page 9 of 22
voting power in the joint powers organization. Former Mayor Woody Love had previously expressed that
if Shorewood’s funding share gets close to 50 percent than he wanted Shorewood to have 50 percent of
the voting power. Unfortunately, it takes three of the four member cities to change the funding formula in
the joint powers agreement (JPA) and two of them are paying the least amount of money.
Councilmember Woodruff stated during his tenure on Council he has always questioned why Shorewood
only has one-fourth of the voting power when it pays one-half of the cost for police operations. He noted
that when the funding formula was last arbitrated it was very contentious; Administrator Joynes was one
of the mediators. He stated when the City of Mound decided to contract with the City of Orono for
policing services the level of police presence and traffic enforcement has increased over what the Mound
Police Department provided. He questioned if the SLMPD could be absorbed by the Minnetonka Police
Department and then have Minnetonka provide police services to the SLMPD member cities through
contract which would specify service level expectations. The current facility could be a satellite location.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she is somewhat intrigued by the idea and noted that she lived in
Minnetonka for many years and was pleased with the level of police and fire services provided.
Councilmember Siakel stated it is about the level of service.
Attorney Keane asked if there is a revenue incentive to focus on Highway 7 DWI enforcement as opposed
to having squad cars in the residential neighborhoods. Director DeJong explained there are about six
forfeitures each year and most of the revenue from that is eaten up by prosecutor costs.
Councilmember Siakel stated it is very difficult to have a police enforce speed limits on Country Club
Road during peak hours.
Mayor Zerby stated Excelsior argues that it is the South Lake residents that get intoxicated in Excelsior
and therefore the South Lake cities should all help pay for that enforcement. His perspective is Excelsior
invites residents to come into the City by having all of the establishments. He then stated he does not
understand why the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) receives the revenues from liquor
licenses for the cruise ships that operate out of Excelsior.
Administrator Joynes reviewed the five issues the SLMPD Interim Police Chief will assess over the next
six months.
Does spending match priorities?
Does the SLMPD have the right staffing and structure? Would a public safety director be more
appropriate? Under the former Chief Litsey the SLMPD did all of its own business functions
(e.g., budgeting, payroll, accounts payable). In some joint powers organizations those functions
are done by one of the member cities though a contract. Money may not be saved by doing that
but time would be and that could possibly equate to another officer.
Determine which policies and procedures need to be updated and update them.
Are there police/fire efficiencies?
Develop a profile of the qualities of what the member cities want in the next chief and assist the
member cities with the search process.
Councilmember Woodruff noted that the Islands receive contract fire service from Mound and police
services are provided by the SLMPD. He explained that it takes a squad car 15 – 20 minutes to travel to
the Islands from the police station with lights and sirens on. Through mutual aid a Mound or Minnetrista
patrol officer will arrive first and an SLMPD officer will arrive later. He questioned if it is appropriate to
provide police services to the Islands through the SLMPD. Councilmember Siakel asked if he was
suggesting the City contract with Mound or Minnetrista or Orono for police services on the Islands.
Woodruff stated that it is worth discussion.
City Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Page 10 of 22
Administrator Joynes encouraged each member of Council to think about issues they would like to
discuss with the SLMPD Interim Chief when they have a one-on-one meeting with him. The Chief will
also talk with members of the other SLMPD member City Councils, representatives from the Fire
Department, some community groups and others. A compilation of what he learns will then be presented
to the Coordinating Committee.
Councilmember Siakel asked what options there are for changing the JPA. Attorney Keane stated when
the JPA was renewed the last time the discussion got bogged down about the funding formula. Siakel
asked when it comes up for renewal next. Keane stated he will research that.
Attorney Keane asked if consideration has been given to resource reallocation given three-fourths or more
of fire calls are medical and usually the first responders to those calls are patrol officers and they are not
trained emergency medical technicians (EMTs). Mayor Zerby stated there has been discussion about that
and the trend is to put more of that on firefighters and less on police. New SLMPD officers will only
receive first responder training and those already trained as an EMT can either maintain that level or drop
to the first responder level.
Mayor Zerby noted that in the past the SLMPD chief has been the Emergency Management Director and
that there has been discussion about shifting that responsibility over to the EFD Chief.
Councilmember Siakel noted that the EFD Board and the EFD Alternate Staffing Task Force are meeting
in work session on February 25 to discuss staffing. She also noted at this time the EFD has no control
over how many firefighters respond to a medical call. Eleven cities had people respond to the fire on
Casco Point in December; the house burned to the ground. Mayor Zerby stated that Chief Gerber stated
there is no way to control the number of responders when a department has paid-on-call (POC)
(volunteer) firefighters. Councilmember Labadie noted that for EFD firefighters to earn pension credits
they have to respond to a certain number of calls each half of the year. Administrator Joynes stated that
for a POC department the intent is to try and get firefighters to respond; it is their hobby. The less they are
incented to respond the less reason they have to continue with the hobby.
Mayor Zerby stated the EFD and SLMPD respond to all calls. The Deephaven Police Department does
not respond to some calls. He related that EFD Chief Gerber has stated that sometimes the codes from
Hennepin County Dispatch are incorrect so the fire department prefers to error on the side of caution for
medical calls.
Councilmember Woodruff brought up the idea of establishing duty crews for the EFD. Councilmember
Siakel noted that the EFD implemented a trial Duty Crew five-month long program in 2013.
Councilmember Siakel stated things are not going be perfect with a volunteer fire department. Paying for
extra people to respond is just what happens. She then stated it would cost the member cities a lot more
money to have full-time staff. That should be revisited again to remind people of what it could cost.
Director DeJong noted that he worked for a city that had a full-time fire department. He stated the cost for
extra volunteer firefighters showing up for a call is less than the cost of one full-time firefighter.
5. Staffing and Succession Planning
Administrator Joynes explained a survey of City staff was done to determine who is retirement eligible in
the next few years and for those who are they were asked if they had a general idea of when they would
retire. Responses indicate that a receptionist/administrative assistant, the City Clerk, the Planning
Director, the Planning Assistant, the Building Official, and the City Administrator all plan to retire or
City Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Page 11 of 22
reduce the hours they work in two years and possibly less. A lead equipment operator plans to retire in
about three years. He thought each of those individuals would be open to talking about phasing out of
their employment.
The Public Employee Retirement Association (PERA) changed its rules recently because of the issue of
the number of municipal employees retiring. It is allowing people to work in some part-time capacity with
modified benefits. About 40 percent of Hennepin County’s 12,000 employees are eligible for retirement
in the next two to three years. The City is going to be competing for replacement employees.
Joynes recommended the City’s Personnel Committee talk to the upcoming retirees about what they want
to do for the next two years. He stated there is an employee or two who has leadership potential that the
City needs to create training opportunities for. Over the next two years that is a viable way to bring
someone up to speed to help Director Brown with administrative things in Public Works.
Mayor Zerby asked how much influence there can be on the retirement dates. Is there any way to lock
into dates? Administrator Joynes explained an employee cannot be asked to retire on a certain date. But, if
the City were to offer a part-time schedule that can be time specific and the City could essentially create a
contract with that employee. Zerby stated he thought there is a need for a top-down look at the staffing
situation. For example, with the last piece of the City being built out he asked if there is a need for a
planning assistant and full-time building inspector.
Councilmember Siakel stated she wants to take a broader look at staffing. She suggested the City hire a
third party to do an assessment of staffing needs. Doing the assessment task can be to some extent
emotional and having a third party doing takes emotion out of the picture. Administrator Joynes stated he
did not think it would be that emotional and thought that employees would want to negotiate a transition
plan.
Councilmember Woodruff stated there needs to be some mutual agreement on the departure date.
There was consensus to start discussions at the personnel committee level.
6. MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) and Forestry Issues and Staffing
Administrator Joynes noted that over the last year Council and staff have been discussing hiring a person
that would have forestry, MS4 regulations and Public Works administrative help responsibilities. It is up
to Council if it wants to move forward with the position. He stated because the City has a number of
financial issues spending the money for this may be more difficult to do. If Council wants the City to
concentrate on forestry issues the City could contract those out. A big part of the job was proposed to
handle resident contact and administrative contact for Public Works. That will not be accomplished unless
a person is hired to do that.
Councilmember Sundberg suggested this also be discussed by the Personnel Committee being it is going
to take a broader look at staffing.
Engineer Hornby explained the City is in its new MS4 General Permit now. There are things that the City
has to do this year. If the City does not hire someone or contract with someone the burden of doing
inspections and documentation needed to satisfy the Permit requirements falls on Public Works.
Therefore, there is some urgency in finding someone to do the next phase of the new permit. The first
year is for the City to get up to speed and write the new permit. He has a proposal to bring to Council for
that; but, there is still a need for administrative help unless the City hires a person with expertise in this
area. Councilmember Siakel stated she assumes WSB has people with the necessary expertise; the City
City Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Page 12 of 22
could contract for that expertise. Hornby stated that his colleague has staff that has the expertise to do the
necessary work for 2015. They can do the inspections at a lower hourly rate. Hornby stated a person he
has worked with in the past at one city is spending 45 percent of his time dealing MS4 activities. That
person also works cooperatively with the conservation district in his county and the watershed districts in
that community to try and share some of the inspections. When that individual first started in that position
they spent 60 percent of their time on MS4 related tasks.
Mayor Zerby stated the City contracts with WSB for two days of engineering services from Engineer
Hornby. He asked if the City had a full-time engineer if it would be able to do the MS4 tasks instead of
hiring another person. Hornby stated if that person had that specialty.
Councilmember Woodruff stated an engineer’s skill set is not all encompassing. Engineer Hornby and
Director Brown, both engineers, have different skill sets. The City needs to have someone focus on MS4
needs. Ultimately, it will cost the city more to buy the services for MS4 tasks than it is to have the
services internal. He noted that he has not seen what he would deem a good work plan that has specific
deliverables and milestones for the next 12 months for the new position.
Director Brown noted that standards are changing for drinking water and waste water. He explained that a
person could spend 20 percent of their time keeping up on all of the MS4 standards. Many communities
are scrambling because of what has to be done to understand the new requirements from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and then put
standard operating procedures in place to deal with them that make sense to people in the field. Every
time the City goes through a new permit process the requirements change.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the sanctions for not adhering to the requirements are increasing
dramatically annually. Engineer Hornby stated the MPCA does audit cities and the City would want that
audit to go well. The MPCA will point out shortcomings.
Engineer Hornby stated from his perspective if the City hires a full-time engineer for all of its needs that
individual will spend about 60 percent of their time or more initially dealing with MS4 related items. He
has seen other cities hire someone with knowledge of the natural sciences to handle the MS4 needs.
Sometimes the person is part-time and sometimes they have other duties assigned to them. He noted that
because he is only here two days a week he has to set his priorities. He does not have enough time to take
on the task of MS4 documentation. He stated a specialist would be much more efficient and that and
WSB has individuals on staff that are specialists in that area. They also exist in the marketplace.
Councilmember Labadie asked if the MS4 requirements are ongoing. Engineer Hornby explained layers
and then more layers will continue to be added to the MS4 program and the State continues to expand its
TMDL (total maximum daily load) requirements. The main thing the City has for TMDL now is for Lake
Virginia. There is discussion about individual bays in Lake Minnetonka being added. The City has an
annual phosphorous reduction goal from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) that it has to
meet.
Engineer Hornby stated the City is going to make a commitment to get something MS4 related done in
2015. The goal would be to have the pond inventory, outlets and pollution basins identified and have a
plan and policy in place for the next number of years. Then the City will implement the plan and policy
over the next four years.
Councilmember Siakel stated she does not think that the responsibilities of a new hire have been fully
vetted out. Therefore, she suggests contracting for MS4 related services in 2015 and then do an analysis
of staffing needs and hire, if needed, a position for 2016.
City Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Page 13 of 22
Councilmember Woodruff noted that in the documentation Council has received from staff about the
proposed position indicated MS4 tasks were only about 25 percent of the need, 50 percent of the need was
forestry related and the remaining 25 percent was for Public Works administrative needs. He reiterated his
desire to have more of a work plan and less of a job description.
Councilmember Sundberg asked how quickly Council needs to make a decision. If it needs to be made in
the next few weeks then she agreed with Councilmember Siakel’s recommendation to hire a consultant
for 2015.
Engineer Hornby explained now is a good time to measure the depth of ponds; it is easier to do standing
on the ice then sitting in a boat or canoe. The City has engaged in the swamp program. An analysis is
being done of all of the ponds and wetlands in the City’s stormwater management system. An effort is
being made to prioritize those that should be on the top of the list for increasing water quality. He
recommended the City hire someone sooner versus later and he encouraged Council to make a decision in
the first quarter of this year about which direction it wants to go. He stated he will have his staff prepare a
task list. WSB likely has the information because it was put together for the MS4 Permit.
Councilmember Woodruff suggested WSB provide a list of what needs to be done between now and the
end of April and then Council can decide to hire a consultant to do that. Council can then decide if it
wants to hire an employee.
Councilmember Siakel reiterated her recommendation is to hire a consultant for 2015 as a short term
solution. Councilmember Sundberg concurred.
Councilmember Woodruff commented that no one is requiring the City to do any forestry work. Mayor
Zerby stated he would like the ash borer inventory to be completed.
Administrator Joynes noted that staff will prepare a proposal for contract services for MS4 related work
for 2015 for consideration during Council’s next meeting or two.
A break was taken for lunch from 11:38 – 11:56A.M.
Discussion moved to Item 9 Minnetonka Country Club
7. Road Reconstruction Financing Options
Discussion of this item was postponed.
8. Southshore Center
Just before the retreat was adjourned Councilmember Siakel asked what the next steps are for the
Southshore Center.
Attorney Keane stated the appraisal amount for the Center should be done by the end of February.
Mayor Zerby stated that once that is available he could again meet with the other four Mayors of the
Cities that co-own the Center with Shorewood. Once the appraisal amount is known Council can meet in
executive session and provide him with direction.
City Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Page 14 of 22
9. Minnetonka Country Club
This was discussed after Item 6 on the agenda.
Fay Simer, with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (the firm chosen to assist with the Minnetonka Country
Club (MCC) redevelopment planning process) introduced herself and noted she would start the
preliminary work before John Shardlow, a principal with the firm, arrives.
Ms. Simer explained that Stantec’s proposal for scope of services included conducting a series of
workshops to help people focus on specific issues (e.g., traffic, stormwater management, land use)
associated with the redevelopment of the MCC property. Their proposal recommends establishing a
Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) that would talk about the issues and ultimately make
recommendations to Council.
Ms. Simer noted that one of the questions they would like answered is who is going to serve on the PAC.
They also have a series of questions related to the scope of the planning effort.
Ms. Simer asked what people’s thoughts are about who should serve on the PAC.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she would like the members of the Council involved throughout the
process to ensure the PAC and Council are on the same track. She then stated she would like some of the
senior population involved in this process.
Councilmember Siakel suggested having one member from the Planning Commission and one from the
Park Commission and a couple of former mayors of Shorewood because they have some working
knowledge of the area and the City.
Ms. Simer stated that she and Mr. Shardlow had discussed having the developer be involved in the
process. She then stated from their perspective a benefit of not having Council part of the PAC is it allows
the developer to participate in PAC conversations. Administrator Joynes stated that having that separation
provides some distance so Council is not put on the spot to make decisions earlier than needed in public
view. Joynes noted that may not be a problem if the City and developer relationship does not become
adversarial.
Councilmember Woodruff expressed his reluctance to have a majority of the Council involved in the PAC
in part because that majority could make a decision in a meeting. Also, he does not want Council to usurp
the Planning Commission’s responsibilities. He stated having one or two Planning Commissioners and
one or two Park Commissioners on the PAC is appropriate, as well as some other residents.
Councilmember Siakel noted she thought one Park Commissioner would be adequate. Woodruff stated he
thought the members from the Commissions may live in the MCC area. He noted that he does not want
past mayors involved. He questioned if it may be appropriate to have a representative from the
commercial area at intersection of Smithtown Road and County Road 19.
Mayor Zerby asked Ms. Simer to describe the PAC’s role and the expected outcome from it. Ms. Simer
stated the PAC’s role would be to participate in workshops and to become informed and educated about
this redevelopment and to share that information with other residents. The goal is to work with the
Committee to create an informed body of residents who can think holistically about the issues having
been provided with real information. The PAC will ultimately be asked to advise Council. Ms. Simer
noted that it is Stantec’s responsibility to ensure Council receives the same information as the PAC and
the summary notes from the workshops. Zerby asked, hypothetically, why not have just a citizens’
City Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Page 15 of 22
advisory committee that anyone can be part of. Ms. Simer stated the people who would come likely
would have a preconceived disagreement with the project or process.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she would like to hear the dialogue of the various members of the PAC
because that cannot ever be captured in its entirety. But, if more than two members of Council attended
then that would be in violation of the open meeting law. Attorney Keane clarified that three members of
Council could happen to bump into each other at a meeting and as long as they do not talk business they
would not violate the open meeting law. But, if there is a plan to have a quorum of Council in one place at
one time that meeting should be noticed subject to State Statute. Councilmember Woodruff stated if any
other members of Council sit in the back of a meeting and do not comment then it does not violate the
law. Keane concurred. Councilmember Siakel stated she could attend PAC meetings if there were two
members of Council on the Committee and comment from the perspective of a resident and that would
not be a violation of the law. Keane concurred. Keane stated a meeting would not have to be stopped
because a third Councilmember showed up as long as Council business was not discussed. Administrator
Joynes asked if one could come as a representative of the Shorewood Economic Development Authority
(EDA). Keane cautioned against doing that. Director Nielsen stated the workshop agenda could say there
may be more than two Councilmembers present; that covers the meeting notice requirement.
Ms. Simer stated she hears that there is interest in inviting others into this planning process and forming a
PAC. But, Council wants to make sure it receives the same materials and information as the PAC and gets
information about what was discussed during the workshops.
Councilmember Sundberg clarified she does not need to be a member of the PAC but she would like to
listen at workshops.
Councilmember Siakel suggested Council agree on a handful of people and invite them to participate on
the PAC. She encouraged Council to select participants that can keep the big picture in mind, make
recommendations for the good of the community, work well together, and are open minded. She stated
she does not think it would be inappropriate to vet people or to have Mayor Zerby invite them to
participate. Councilmember Woodruff stated that is a good idea and stated he agrees that polarizing
people should not be involved.
Councilmember Labadie stated there is a need for public resident involvement.
Director Nielsen stated Mr. Shardlow strongly recommended the PAC participants be committed to this
process.
Ms. Simer reiterated Stantec’s recommendation to invite the developer to the PAC workshops so the
developer can become just as informed and engaged in the process. Engineer Hornby stated that helps
dispel any rumors.
Ms. Simer asked Council to answer the following questions regarding the scope of the issues the PAC
should discuss.
1. Is the Council interested in exploring the possibility of any housing types other than single-family
detached units, either on the golf course property or in the vicinity? Council’s consensus was yes.
2. Does Council support the exploration of possible ways to leverage the value associated with the golf
course redevelopment to improve the quality and expedite the timing of redevelopment surrounding
the County Road 19 / Smithtown Road / Country Club Road Intersections? Council’s consensus was
yes.
City Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Page 16 of 22
Whether or not the golf course redevelopment and the adjacent redevelopment is combined into one
over-arching redevelopment financing strategy, does the Council view the planning for the adjacent
redevelopment strategy as something that should be carefully thought through before signing off on
the final plans for the golf course redevelopment? Council’s consensus was yes.
3. Should the pros and cons of potential realignments of Country Club Road be explored? Council’s
consensus was yes.
4. Should the pluses and minuses of park dedication (in land) on the golf course be fully explored?
Should the potential sale and reuse of the existing park next to City Hall be explored? Council’s
consensus was yes to both.
Councilmember Woodruff asked if it is true that the City does not own Country Club Road. Director
Nielsen explained there is substandard right-of-way (ROW) along that roadway; there is anywhere from
50 feet to 33 feet. As land subdivides the City requires dedication of ROW. There are spots where the
paved surface strays out of the ROW. The ROW that is there is Shorewood’s. Engineer Hornby noted that
the City has a prescriptive right to the roadway where it lies and its use.
Mayor Zerby asked what the City can expect from this process that. Ms. Simer stated an engaged and
informed Committee that can serve as ambassadors in the community for this project. Zerby asked if the
City would be able to get, for example, land swaps or roadway realignments. Ms. Simer stated Mr.
Shardlow will speak to that when he arrives.
Administrator Joynes stated the meeting packet contains information on various financing tools. He then
stated based on his experience it will be prudent for Council to speak with financing consultants that deal
with development.
Mayor Zerby asked how much leverage the City has with the developer.
Attorney Keane reviewed Minnesota Law relating to developments. He encouraged people to be more
thoughtful with regard to the presentation of what the City’s requirements are in terms of community
objectives, the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan, mitigation of adverse consequences, and so forth. He noted
the City has great latitude with the Comp Plan modification and with land use zoning.
In response to a comment from Councilmember Woodruff, Attorney Keane stated conversations about
exchange of assets can be had.
Councilmember Siakel asked if the City could move Badger Park to the MCC property and then invite
someone else to develop senior housing on the Park site. Director Nielsen noted that Badger Park was
dedicated park land and any proceeds from that sale have to go into the Park System. He also noted that
Badger Park was built on swamp land; a filled wetland. The value of that land is not the same as dry, high
ground.
Administrator Joynes asked Attorney Keane if tax increment from the project could be used to correct the
soils in Badger Park. Attorney Keane responded if that was made part of the TIF district that would be
okay to do.
Councilmember Sundberg stated it is not just the monetary value of the land; it is also about the value
doing that could bring to the community by having age-specific housing there.
City Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Page 17 of 22
Mr. Shardlow arrived at 12:45 P.M.
Councilmember Sundberg suggested the renewable energy study information be shared with the PAC and
vice versa.
Ms. Simer summarized the discussion for Mr. Shardlow. Council supports the idea of forming a PAC
comprised of citizens, representative(s) from the Planning and Park Commissions, business
representatives and others. Council would like to be kept abreast of what is going on with the PAC and
receive the same materials and information the PAC receives. Some also want to be able to attend PAC
meetings in a listening capacity. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought there was agreement to have
two Councilmembers on the PAC. Councilmember Sundberg stated she thought that would be
appropriate.
Mr. Shardlow stated the PAC is an advisory/recommending body to Council. If members of Council are
in attendance at PAC meetings it will change the dynamics. He recommended Council let the process
work with the PAC and let it bring Council its recommendation. He noted that Council will be provided
with all of the information the PAC receives. He encouraged Council not to attend the meetings. He also
noted he thought the entire Planning Commission should be part of the PAC. The PAC is the Commission
augmented by other representatives of the City. The Commission already has the responsibility to make
recommendations on amendments to the Comp Plan and advise Council on zoning issues.
Councilmember Sundberg asked if the PAC meetings will be recorded. She noted that she wants to be
able to listen to the dialogue even if it is just a recording. Her preference is to view video recordings.
Mr. Shardlow reaffirmed that Council will receive all meeting materials and a summary report on every
PAC meeting.
Mr. Shardlow noted that PAC meetings will be held on the same nights as Planning Commission
meetings. The PAC meetings will be about two hours long. There will be presentations with opportunities
for questions. There will likely be two meetings per month for 3 – 3.5 months.
Mayor Zerby noted that Councilmembers will submit names to staff for consideration as members of the
PAC. Staff will present Council with a list to narrow down and those selected will be asked to be a
member of the PAC.
Ms. Simer told Mr. Shardlow that Council answered yes to all of the questions regarding the scope of the
issues the PAC should discuss.
Mr. Shardlow explained a lot of communities have created the whole City as a project area by
establishing an EDA. Attorney Keane noted that Shorewood has an EDA. Mr. Shardlow stated if the
project area is authorized by the EDA that would give the EDA the authority to establish TIF districts
within the project area. Stantec has been involved with a number of communities that have done that.
Keane stated that needs to be explored. Mr. Shardlow noted that the bigger challenge is to capture the
value created by the redevelopment of the MCC property to spend on a commercial development nearby.
There will be a need to create the public purpose and the rationale for the relationship between those uses
and explain how it all fits into a broader redevelopment context in order to be able to capture a substantial
value that will be created by the project.
Attorney Keane stated the City will need a financial expert to pull the financial aspects together. Mr.
Shardlow stated he has worked with Springsted, Inc. in many communities to put the background together
to support TIF districts. It is his understanding that Shorewood has used Springsted before. A financial
City Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Page 18 of 22
firm will be needed to help navigate that part of the process. Administrator Joynes stated that once there is
a project, a financial firm will be engaged to assist with the TIF district component. He noted that he
thought Springsted is the most experienced in doing the redevelopment of tax increment and therefore he
suggests using that firm to do that. If Council wants it could be put out for a request for proposal but that
will lengthen the process.
Mr. Shardlow explained the first thing that needs to happen is to let Council know what is possible; what
can the City do and what tools does the City have at its disposal. The objective is to be able to capture as
much of the value and use it for broader purposes. In order to do that certain findings need to be made,
and the project area needs to be set up. There is no reason to wait to do that. Those types of ideas need to
be generated as soon as possible. If the City were to do TIF or use some other financial tool there is an
ability to capture the administrative expenses to pay for the cost to hire Springsted. Mayor Zerby asked
who does the idea generation. Mr. Shardlow stated Council will decide who it wants to bring on board
and Stantec will work with them on that. Attorney Keane stated staff will request a scope of work from
Springsted.
Attorney Keane asked if the City ever levied the 3/16 of a $1 million or whatever the small EDA levy is.
Administrator Joynes responded no. Keane suggested doing that and stated that although it is not a lot of
money it would generate seed money.
In response to a comment from Councilmember Woodruff, Mr. Shardlow stated Stantec will flush out the
process diagram to show roles and responsibilities and deliverables.
Councilmember Siakel asked what the sense of urgency is for getting some of this work done because
there is a lot of work to do. She asked what the priorities are. Mr. Shardlow clarified the only thing that
needs to be done with the financial consultant right away is to make sure the City or EDA does not
foreclose opportunities. He explained the City does not want to take official action that closes a door or
figure out how to pay for something that the City will want to go back and justify how to pay for with
other proceeds. The PAC planning process can be started right away. Topics will include education,
looking at alternatives, natural resources, water impact issues, land use issues, traffic and transportation
issues and so forth. There will be a part that specifically relates to redevelopment and economic
development issues.
In response to a question from Siakel, Director Nielsen stated the developer has asked for the next step
and was encouraged to step back. Nielsen noted that developer would like some level of concept approval
by June or July 2015. The Stantec proposal is in sync with that timetable.
Mr. Shardlow explained he and staff had a very candid conversation with the developer and told him that
the City will make a good faith effort to work with him to try and meet that timetable but the City needs
to do its due diligence. He asked if the Council wants park dedication fees or land from the developer. Is
Council considering any other housing types or styles on the MCC property? Are there any roadway
changes or other changes that would affect the physical layout of the MCC redevelopment project?
Council and the PAC ought to be able to get that resolved. The developer was told if he needs an answer
right away the City may have to establish a temporary development moratorium in order to give the City
time to do its study. The developer is operating under the assumption that its project will be all single-
family residential. The developer had not thought about the study scope questions Stantec asked that
Council responded yes to. The City is not going to amend the Comp Plan for just the MCC and then
shortly after amend it again for a property near the MCC.
Administrator Joynes stated that in discussions with the developer about slowing the process down, the
developer has been fairly agreeable. The City and the developer have similar goals.
City Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Page 19 of 22
Councilmember Sundberg stated the location of Badger Park and the Southshore Center is not ideal.
Maybe there could be an opportunity to transfer their locations to somewhere on the MCC property and
then have a developer build senior housing where they are located. She noted that from her perspective
she does not want to convince the developer to build senior housing on the MCC property.
Mr. Shardlow stated there is a philosophical perspective on how to work with the developer. There is a
certain amount of work the community has to do on its own regarding City issues. He recommended the
developer be invited to attend PAC meetings after the goals and policies have been identified and then be
provided the same information as the PAC is. The developer could possibly have other ideas about how
the City could achieve its objectives. Having the developer involved in the process helps break down
barriers between the community and the developer. He clarified the developer would not be a member of
the PAC; just an attendee. It will be up to Mr. Shardlow as the facilitator to call on the developer.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he would like to see in detail how redevelopment of the MCC property
and surrounding area will help the City achieve the Metropolitan (Met) Council’s 2040 requirements for
Shorewood if they will at all. Director Nielsen noted that the last update to the Comp Plan did mention
areas where the City might have mixed use with the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area being one.
Woodruff stated he wants to know how Met Council’s requirements would be satisfied. Mr. Shardlow
stated the City has an approved comprehensive plan with a property with golf course and no housing on
it. He noted that Met Council’s system statements go out to the cities in 2016.
Administrator Joynes asked Mr. Shardlow if he has any recommendation about the size of the PAC. Mr.
Shardlow stated he tends to error on having a larger group rather than leaving someone out who thinks
they should be part of the process. He noted that the process will not work if PAC members are not fully
committed to the process and meeting twice a month for the next few months; they cannot drop in and out
of the process. He stated there will be lots of ways for the broader community to keep track of the process
if they are interested and to provide input.
Mayor Zerby thanked Mr. Shardlow and Ms. Simer for coming. They departed the meeting.
The retreat was recessed from 1:20 – 1:35P.M.
10. Future Trail Projects Timing and Financing
Administrator Joynes stated that Council needs to decide what it wants to do about the Smithtown Road
east sidewalk extension because of the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) redevelopment project. He
explained there are legal things about when a municipality decides to do a project and how it is paid for
that have impact on whether or not money from tax increment financing (TIF) can be used. The timing
and scheduling is paramount as to whether or not the construction can be subsidized or be paid for out of
general tax dollars. The downside is the sidewalk construction has to be delayed until some of the things
discussed during the MCC discussion are put in place. Council and staff need the counsel from a financial
firm like Springsted to help determine the timing of things.
Attorney Keane stated he thought the preliminary resolution establishing the TIF district with the
preliminary scope of inclusion of public projects and bricks and mortar could be done. Once that is done
then the value can be captured over the life of the district. But, a project cannot be started before the
district is created.
Administrator Joynes stated he thinks there is an opportunity to pay for the Smithtown Road east
sidewalk extension with TIF.
City Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Page 20 of 22
Councilmember Siakel asked if the district could go over to Strawberry Lane. The response was yes.
Mayor Zerby suggested it go over to Highway 7. Siakel asked if the entire City could be included in the
district. Zerby suggested everything west of Country Road 19. Administrator Joynes stated including the
entire City provides the most flexibility. Attorney Keane clarified that including the entire City does not
commit the City to anything; it would provide maximum flexibility. Keane noted that the City of
Minneapolis has been doing that for decades.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he would like the Smithtown Road east sidewalk extension to be
constructed in 2015. He asked what it takes to put all of the necessary pieces in place to make that happen
without eliminating TIF opportunities.
Attorney Keane explained the engineering component should be brought to a shovel-ready state. At the
same time the MCC application will be moving forward. The feasibility for the TIF district can be
determined in a matter of weeks. The financial feasibility has to then be undertaken and that can be done
in a couple of weeks. That is where preliminary runs are generated in terms of what the forecasted tax
increment will be. At the same time the City can be taking the formal steps of creating the district. He
noted that he thought it is completely realistic that the policy plans for the district creation and approval
and the financial feasibility can be done and if the engineering work is in place with right-of-way (ROW)
the Smithtown sidewalk extension could be started in 2015.
Administrator Joynes asked if public hearings are required as part of the process to establish a TIF
district. Attorney Keane responded yes.
Engineer Hornby stated that plans for the Smithtown sidewalk extension project are scheduled to be
complete in May 2015. The plans are more than 50 percent complete now. This week all of the
information for the title work should be available so the property lines can be placed on the drawings.
Then work can begin on determining easements. He noted the wild card in the schedule is the ROW
process. He stated if actual construction does not begin until August the project could span more than one
construction season.
Mayor Zerby noted that the trail schedule included in the January 26, 2015, Council meeting packet
indicated Council will approve plans and specifications for the Smithtown sidewalk extension on May 25
and groundbreaking ceremony is scheduled for June 30.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she assumes construction of the sidewalk extension would not start until
there is a clear understanding of what may need to be done with the roadways and where the entrances
into the development will be. Engineer Hornby clarified that plan revisions would be incorporated into the
construction documents as addendums as construction is going on so the contractor can make
adjustments. If there is knowledge that some areas are going to change the contractor can be asked to skip
those areas for a while.
Administrator Joynes stated he made the assumption that no one wants to jeopardize the possible
financing of the Smithtown sidewalk extension. Construction will be started as soon as the City is eligible
to recapture financing from other sources. Councilmember Labadie stated if the financing gets held up a
month or two then construction of the trail must also be held up. Director Nielsen stated that assumes the
trail will be paid for entirely by TIF and that the developer won’t pay for any of it. Joynes disagreed.
Nielsen stated a MCC redevelopment project will not be in place this summer. He asked if the City could
go back and pay for part of the sidewalk extension after the fact. Attorney Keane responded yes.
Attorney Keane reiterated that the TIF process can be completed in five months.
City Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Page 21 of 22
Administrator Joynes noted there will be a need to have a number of Shorewood Economic Development
Authority (EDA) public hearings.
In response to a question from Director Brown, Attorney Keane explained that unless it has changed
based on his previous experience a project can still be considered for TIF up until the project contract has
been awarded.
11. Other Issues
Mayor Zerby stated he wants to talk about the public safety joint powers organizations. He explained that
Shorewood has contributed considerable community good will over the years. Shorewood does some of
the building maintenance for facility located in Shorewood as well as some of the snow removal
gratuitous. Shorewood Public Works monitors the outdoor warning sirens also gratuitous. Those are just
two examples that readily come to him; there are more.
He then stated that because of the increase in the number of events in the South Lake area he would like
to have the City put policies and permitting in place for special events that spill over into Shorewood
o
from other cities. He noted that his current stance is a 180 turn from when he first joined Council 16
years ago. Back then it was all about working together in the South Lake community. He stated he wants
to be able to show the other communities in the area that there are economic benefits for combining
forces. He noted he is all for the Chamber making money and for its events. He would just like there to be
some equity.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she would support doing that. When she joined Council two years ago
community good will seemed important. That does not appear to be shared by the other South Lake cities.
Councilmember Woodruff noted he supports that as well; the City is running a business. He clarified he
does not want to nitpick things.
Councilmember Labadie stated it is her understanding that the City’s contribution to the Excelsior Fourth
of July fireworks event is almost expected and it is expected to increase each year. She then stated that
this past year she has run in three 5k races in the South Lake area and a good portion of the race was in
Shorewood.
Mayor Zerby noted that the City of Deephaven Public Works Department plows the area at Excelsior Fire
District Station 2 gratuitous. If Shorewood starts to charge snowplowing, Deephaven should also.
Zerby then noted he continues to work with Excelsior on possibly sharing services. Councilmember
Siakel stated there is plenty of opportunity to do that and noted that she thought Mayor Zerby’s comments
were well spoken and that she agrees with what he said.
Mayor Zerby noted that the Excelsior Fourth of July event is quite costly and Shorewood’s contribution
covers only a small portion of it.
At 1:53 P.M. Administrator Joynes welcomed South Lake Minnetonka Interim Police Chief Mike Siitari
and noted that he had been the Edina Chief of Police for 10 years and worked for the department for 31
years. Chief Siitari came to meet staff and Council.
Interim Chief Siitari stated that he worked under the Edina City Manager, who reported to one city
council and there was a large staff. When he was there Edina was getting into cost recovery for special
events.
City Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Page 22 of 22
Administrator Joynes reiterated there will be a separate session about financing for the various funds that
need funding.
12. Adjourn
The City Council/Staff Retreat was adjourned at 1:58 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Freeman
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#2B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING LARGE CONFERENCE RM
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2015 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:07 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present: Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel, and Sundberg
Absent: Councilmember Woodruff
B. Review Agenda
Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
2. INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE
SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
A. 6:00 P.M. Brenna Ramy, 5825 Country Club Road
B. 6:15 P.M. Robert Bean, 5285 St. Albans Bay Road (a phone interview)
C. 6:30 P.M. Patrick Johnson, 26350 Alexander Lane
D. 6:45 P.M. Ken Dallman, 5780 Eureka Road
3. ADJOURN
Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, Adjourning the City Council Special Meeting of February 9, 2015, at
6:59 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#2C
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2015 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 Labadie, Siakel, and Sundberg; Attorney Keane; City
Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of
Public Works Brown; and City Engineer Hornby
Absent: Councilmember Woodruff
B. Review Agenda
Director Nielsen asked that Item 10.B Selection of Individuals for the Citizens Advisory Committee be
added to the agenda.
Labadie moved, Sundberg seconded, approving the agenda as amended. Motion passed 4/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2015
Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of
January 26, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2015
Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January
26, 2015, as presented”. Motion passed 4/0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Siakel moved, Sundberg seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and
Adopting the Resolutions Therein.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
B. Accepting a Donation of Drinking Glasses and Carafes
C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-012, “A Resolution Approving Change Order No.
1 for Apple Road Ditch Restoration Project, City Project 11-15.”
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 9, 2015
Page 2 of 8
D. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-013, “A Resolution Accepting Improvements and
Authorizing Final Payment for Apple Road Ditch Restoration Project, City Project
11-15.”
E. Approve Change Order. No. 1 for Dump Trucks and Plow Equipment
Mayor Zerby explained Patricia Hauser, a resident, made a donation of four water carafes and a set of 12
drinking glasses to the City. She did so to save money by not purchasing bottled water, to help the planet
by not continuing to buy plastic containers, to keep employees healthy by having them use glass instead
of plastic, and to be a role model to other citizens. He thanked Ms. Hauser for her gift.
Motion passed 4/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
7. PARKS
8. PLANNING
A. Report by Sue Davis on the February 3, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting
Planning Commissioner Davis reported on matters considered and actions taken at the February 3, 2015,
Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
B. Request for Waiver of Engineering Fees for Sewer Relocation
Applicant: Kyle Hunt and Partners, Inc. for Morgan
Location: 5580 Woodside Lane
Director Nielsen explained that during its January 26, 2015, meeting Council adopted a resolution
approving the vacation of a portion of the sanitary sewer easement on the property located at 5580
Woodside Lane. The City’s sewer main had been constructed outside of the original easement and
interfered with building a new home for Bennett and Sharon Morgan. The Morgans agreed to move the
sewer main at their expense and create a new easement for the relocated sewer line. They spent $33,600
to do that. On behalf of the Morgans, Kyle Hunt and Partners, Inc. has requested the City waive the City’s
engineering fees (primarily inspection services) which amount to about $2,700. The City could have spent
more than that amount on legal, surveying and engineering costs. Therefore, staff recommends approval
of the waiver of the fees.
Councilmember Siakel stated she thinks the request is reasonable. She asked if the City has ever done
something similar before. Director Nielsen stated that occasionally things are outside of the right-of-way.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 9, 2015
Page 3 of 8
Siakel moved, Sundberg seconded, waving the City’s engineering fees for the relocation of the
City’s sewer main for Kyle Hunt and Partners, Inc. on behalf of Bennett and Sharon Morgan, 5580
Woodside Lane. Motion passed in 4/0.
C. Pre-application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Applicant: Mattamy Homes
Location: 24575 Smithtown Road (Minnetonka Country Club property)
Director Nielsen explained that the developer for the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) property
submitted a pre-application for a Comprehensive (Comp) Plan amendment before the City chose to hire a
planning consultant to study, in part, the land use for the MCC property and properties in the vicinity.
Staff and the Planning Commission discussed this and came to the conclusion that it is premature to deal
with the pre-application. The outcome of the planning study will somewhat become the pre-application
that will be considered later.
Mayor Zerby noted that the pre-application is informational only. He also noted that the MCC property
and the study were discussed during the recent Council and staff retreat.
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Approve Proposal for Professional Services for West Water Tower Rehabilitation
Project
Director Brown explained staff solicited proposals for the design, construction management and
construction observation services for the rehabilitation of the West Water Tower facility located on the
Minnewashta Elementary School property. Most municipalities do this type of project in the fall when
water consumption is lower. Shorewood has an interconnect with the City of Victoria and an ongoing
agreement with Victoria. Those have been needed in the past. The proposal for these services was
provided by KLM Engineering in the amount of $58,800. KLM specializes in this type of project. The
amount is 13 percent of the overall project cost and that is well below the industry standard of 18 – 20
percent. The project is slated to cost around $450,000. He noted that staff recommends Council accept the
proposal.
Councilmember Sundberg asked how many proposals the City received. Director Brown explained KLM
was the only firm invited to submit a proposal. The City uses KLM for these services for this type of
project. KLM specializes in this. The City could have found a firm that would be cheaper but he doubts
there quality would be near as good as KLM’s.
Sundberg asked staff to explain what construction observation entails. Director Brown stated that involves
looking at the contractor’s operations for things like containment (there needs to be a curtain around the
Water Tower), safety, and weld inspections. KLM is specialized in paint coatings and paint technologies
and will monitor that. The majority of the cost of this project is preparation of paint surfaces and the
application of the layers of paint. There will be about four layers. Coating the surfaces is very technical in
nature.
Mayor Zerby noted the $58,800 price tag concerns him because nothing is being built to require design
services.
Councilmember Siakel asked if KLM was involved in the rehabilitation of the East Water Tower facility.
Director Brown responded yes.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 9, 2015
Page 4 of 8
Director Brown noted that KLM is known nationwide. Water towers are its specialty.
Mayor Zerby stated this is about designing and supervising a project. The cost does not make sense to
him. Director Brown stated it is no different than a roadway project where WSB & Associates does
inspections of the work but it does not build anything. Brown then stated the City is making a sizeable
investment in the reconditioning of the West Water Tower and if all the details are not dealt with correctly
the expenditure may not bring the desired results. This type of project is possibly the most technical of the
projects the City does.
Councilmember Labadie asked how many firms perform a similar caliber work. Director Brown
responded that in the Midwest area there are probably five qualified firms.
Councilmember Sundberg clarified that the price does not concern her because of the complexity of water
tower operations. She noted she is comfortable with the cost.
Councilmember Siakel stated this is a massive and expensive project and that she is comfortable with it as
well.
Councilmember Labadie expressed her discomfort with the words “proposed fees”. She questioned if the
cost for these services could triple. She asked Director Brown if he is comfortable with the fees. Brown
explained that KLM has done a preconstruction inspection. Based on its inspection KLM submitted a
very tight cost proposal. He noted that the fees would not triple.
Councilmember Sundberg stated given City’s years of experience working with KLM she doubts the City
would have continued to use the firm if it overbilled the City for work performed.
Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, accepting proposal for professional services for the West Water
Tower Rehabilitation Project from KLM Engineering for an amount of $58,000. Motion passed 4/0.
B. Approve Proposal for Professional Services for Star Lane and Star Circle
Director Brown stated the meeting packet contains a copy of a proposal from WSB & Associates for final
design and construction services for the Star Lane and Star Circle Reconstruction Project. The estimated
fee for final design and bidding services is $37,557 and the estimated fee for construction services is
$56,700. Staff recommends Council accept the proposal.
Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, accepting the proposal for final design and construction
professional services for the Star Lane and Star Circle Reconstruction Project from WSB &
Associates as presented for an amount of $94,257. Motion passed 4/0.
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Making Appointments to the Planning Commission
Mayor Zerby noted that just prior to this meeting Council had a special meeting to interview four
applicants for two positions on the Planning Commission that will open up. All four were very qualified.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 9, 2015
Page 5 of 8
Labadie moved, Sundberg seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO 15-014, “A Resolution Making
the Appointments of Robert Bean (March 1, 2015 - February 28, 2018) and Patrick Johnson
(March 1, 2015 - February 28, 2018) to the City of Shorewood Planning Commission.”
Mayor Zerby noted there are other opportunities for the other two applicants to serve the City.
Councilmember Sundberg stated all four applicants were excellent.
Motion passed 4/0.
B. Appointments to the Planning Advisory Committee
Mayor Zerby stated that during the January 29, 2015, Council and staff retreat Councilmembers were
asked to submit names of individuals they thought would be good members of a Planning Advisory
Committee (PAC) for the planning study that will be done for the Minnetonka Country Club property and
the surrounding vicinity. The list of submitted names was placed at the dais this evening. The names with
a checkmark in front of them are his recommendations; he recommended six people. He thought the two
applicants that were not selected for the Planning Commission would also be good candidates. He
provided his recommendation to get the discussion going.
Councilmember Labadie stated residents she spoke with wanted to know when the PAC workshops
would be held. There had been discussion about possibly meeting after Planning Commission meetings.
Because there is no definite end time for those meetings she does not think that would be good. She
recommended having the workshops before the Commission’s meetings and having a predetermined the
length. Director Nielsen agrees with having them before the Commission’s meetings and suggested they
start at 5:30 P.M.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she would be comfortable recommending all twenty names on the list.
Councilmember Labadie asked how many people Council wants on the PAC.
Mayor Zerby stated he recommended six individuals. All five Planning Commissioners would also be on
PAC. Councilmember Sundberg stated 11 people would not be enough.
Councilmember Siakel agreed with having Planning Commission applicants Brenna Ramy and Ken
Dallman on the PAC.
Councilmember Sundberg stated there is a need for a lot of voices to be heard in order to have a good
cross representation of residents. She noted that she would support having 20 people on the PAC.
Councilmember Siakel suggested having the six names Mayor Zerby recommended plus Brenna Ramy,
Ken Dallman, Steve Charbonnet and Linda Murrell. Those 10 plus the five Planning Commissioners
makes 15. Whoever is selected needs to be committed to attending the PAC workshops. She stated that
maybe a few slots can be left open for a few more people who feel strongly about participating.
Councilmember Sundberg reiterated her desire to have broad cross section of residents in addition to the
Planning Commissioners. She stated what gets people in trouble in planning situations is when residents
think they have not been heard.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 9, 2015
Page 6 of 8
Councilmember Siakel asked Councilmember Sundberg if she thought there is a need to identify 20
people tonight. Councilmember Sundberg stated the names on the list were put there because people
thought they would be solid contributors. She then stated she is not sure the three names she submitted
would be interested.
Councilmember Labadie stated out of the eight names she submitted some indicated a strong desire to
participate but it depends on the time of the workshops.
Mayor Zerby stated that to move this forward he suggested sending the individuals a letter inviting the
people on the list and the two Planning Commission applicants to participate on the PAC and asking for a
response and clarifying that to participate they must be committed to coming to the workshops. Council
could review the responses during its February 23 meeting and then officially appoint the participants.
Councilmember Sundberg liked that suggestion. Councilmember Siakel concurred.
Councilmember Labadie suggested publishing something in the City’s newsletter. Mayor Zerby noted the
timeframe for getting this going does not allow for that. Labadie then suggested having something on the
City’s website.
Director Nielsen stated that Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. which is going to drive the study has a tool
called MindMixer where people can register to access the site, get information about what is going on,
and provide input and ask questions. It is a way to keep residents informed and allow them to provide
input.
Director Nielsen stated that the invitation would ask the individuals if they could meet on February 24.
Mayor Zerby suggested it explain what the PAC is all about.
11. OLD BUSINESS
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Trail Schedule
Mayor Zerby noted the meeting packet contains a copy of the Trail Schedule.
Engineer Hornby noted the land acquisition phase for the Smithtown Road east sidewalk extension has
begun. There will be a kickoff meeting on February 11. He stated he updated the Trail Schedule to more
closely match the information on the City’s website.
2. Quarterly Investment Report
Mayor Zerby noted a copy of the Quarterly Investment Report was found at the dais this evening.
Director DeJong stated that under Stern AG Rosemont Illinois Bonds he put the information on the wrong
one. The one that was due on December 1, 2014, was called. He will swap the information on the two
lines. The corrected copy will be included in the meeting packet that is electronically stored.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 9, 2015
Page 7 of 8
Other
Director Brown stated that Public Works was visited by Hennepin County Environmental Services for a
surprise inspection on how it handles hazardous waste generated on site. That was closed out today and
everything was found to be satisfactory.
Engineer Hornby stated he is seeking quotes to re-televise the sanitary sewer system in the Star Lane and
Star Circle area. The televising should be done in the next couple of weeks. It is being done a part of the
final design for the Star Lane Star Circle reconstruction project.
Director DeJong stated that he, Attorney Keane and Director Nielsen met with two representatives from
Springsted Inc. They are working on timing and background materials for a possible tax increment
financing or tax abatement project to finance amenities around the Minnetonka Country Club
redevelopment area.
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Siakel stated she attended an Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Board meeting on January 28.
Boardmember Fletcher was appointed chair and she was appointed vice-chair. Board meeting dates were
set for the year. There is a work session scheduled for the Board and the EFD Alternate Staffing Task
Force for February 25.
Councilmember Labadie stated she attended a two-day seminar for newly elected officials on January 30
and 31. She commented she represented Shorewood well. She noted that many cities give their elected
officials business cards. Some attendees wore shirts with their City’s logos on them.
Labadie explained that a large part of day two focused on things related to the open meeting law. She
gave Clerk Panchyshyn a copy of the materials she received about that topic to copy and provide to the
Planning Commissioners and Park Commissioners. She highlighted things she learned about how to
comply with open meeting law regulations.
Mayor Zerby noted he worked with the City’s Communications Coordinator to get an embroidery design
for the Shorewood logo. He had the design embroidered on two shirts he purchased. The embroidering
service was paid for by the City. He also noted there are also some enameled pins.
Mayor Zerby stated the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Coordinating Committee is
scheduled to have its first official quarterly meeting of the year on February 11. He noted the new Interim
Chief of Police is Mike Siitari. The Committee will discuss a couple of technology replacement items.
The SLMPD’s network server is 11 years old. There is a proposal to purchase a server that will be shared
with the EFD. The EFD Board has already approved that purchase. He has been involved in consulting
with the two vendors the SLMPD has been working with and he recommends approval of the proposal the
Committee will consider and that the Board considered. The SLMPD has to replace its aged video
surveillance system. All of the existing cameras are analog and the monitors are old CRT monitors that
have degraded a great deal over the years. The new system will have many new features and it help with
complying with interrogation regulations.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 9, 2015
Page 8 of 8
13. ADJOURN
Labadie moved, Sundberg seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of February 9,
2015, at 7:50 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Scott Zerby, Mayor
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#3A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Verified Claims
Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
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.
61256 - 61259 & ACH 25,423.07
Pending Checks & ACH 21,316.88
Total Claims $46,739.95
We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending February 8, 2015.
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.
According to adopted policy the Finance Department will pay claims again prior to year end. This is
because we have over one month between claims lists and may not otherwise meet the state statutory
deadline of paying claims in a timely fashion.
Payroll
G/L Distribution Report
User: Mnguyen
Batch: 00001.02.2015 - PAYROLL- 02092015
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description
FUND 101
General Fund
101 -00- 1010 -0000
0.00
52,296.69
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
101 -13 -4101 -0000
6,910.45
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -13- 4103 -0000
313.50
0.00
PART -TIME
101 -13- 4121 -0000
518.28
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -13- 4122 -0000
533.40
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
1.01 -13- 4131 -0000
1,161.67
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -13- 4151 -0000
24.59
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -15- 4101 -0000
4,308.68
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -15- 4121 -0000
323.16
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -15- 4122 -0000
307.59
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -15- 4131 -0000
470.96
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -15- 4151 -0000
17.69
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -18- 4101 -0000
5,212.69
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -18 -4121 -0000
390.95
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -18- 4122 - 0000
381.12
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -18- 4131 -0000
915.14
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -18- 4151 -0000
24.99
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -24- 4101 -0000
3,838.28
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -24- 4121 -0000
287.89
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -24- 4122 -0000
241.06
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -24- 4131 -0000
475.00
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -24 -4151 -0000
22.27
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -32- 4101 -0000
10,587.51
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -32- 4121 -0000
794.06
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SIIARE
101 -32- 4122 -0000
749.45
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -32- 4131 -0000
1,702.36
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -32- 4151 -0000
580.54
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -33- 4101 -0000
1,774.51
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -33- 4102 -0000
442.31
0.00
OVERTIME
101 -33 -4121 -0000
166.26
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CP1`Y SHARE
101 -33- 4122 -0000
128.58
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -33- 4151 -0000
105.47
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -52- 4101 -0000
3,725.30
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -52- 4121 -0000
279.40
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
PR - G/L Distribution Report (02/09/2015 - 2:10 PM) Page 1
Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description
101 -52- 4122 -0000
272.04
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -52- 4131 -0000
836.73
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
1.01 -52- 4151 -0000
184.54
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -53- 4101 -0000
1,303.78
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -53- 4103 -0000
1,636.04
0.00
PART -TIME
101 -53- 4121 -0000
97.77
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -53- 4122 -0000
224.34
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - C,ITY SHARE
101 -53 -4131 -0000
18.02
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -53- 4151 -0000
8.32
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
52,296.69
52,296.69
FUND 201
Southshore Center
201 -00 -1010 -0000
0.00
1,039.84
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
201 -00 -4101 -0000
515.23
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
201 -00- 4103 -0000
412.50
0.00
PART -TIME
201 -00- 4121 -0000
38.64
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
201 -00- 4122 -0000
70.24
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
201 -00- 4151 -0000
3.23
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
1,039.84
1,039.84
FUND 601
Water Utility
601 -00- 1010 -0000
0.00
5,977.71
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
601 -00- 4101 -0000
4,200.79
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
601 -00- 4105 -0000
157.10
0.00
WATER PAGER PAY
601 -00- 4121 -0000
326.84
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SIIARE
601 -00- 4122 -0000
322.77
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
601 -00- 4131 -0000
825.61
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
601 -00- 4151 -0000
144.60
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
5,977.71
5,977.71
FUND 611
Sanitary Sewer Utility
611 -00- 1010 -0000
0.00
4,888.03
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
611 -00- 4101 -0000
3,276.49
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
611 -00- 4105 -0000
157.10
0.00
SEWER PAGER PAY
611 -00- 4121 -0000
257.53
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
611 -00- 4122 -0000
267.08
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
611 -00- 4131 -0000
825.61
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
611 -00- 4151 -0000
104.22
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
4,888.03
4,888.03
FUND 621 Recycling Utility
PR - G/L Distribution Report (02/09/2015 - 2:10 PM) Page 2
Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description
621 -00- 1010 -0000
0.00
473.45
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
621 -00- 4101 -0000
361.09
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
621 -00- 4121 -0000
27.09
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
621 -00- 4122 -0000
18.77
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
621 -00- 4131 -0000
66.50
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
FUND Total:
473.45
473.45
FUND 631
Storm Water Utility
631 -00- 1010 -0000
0.00
1,167.83
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
631 -00- 4101 -0000
934.32
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
631 -00- 4121 -0000
70.06
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
631 -00 -4122 -0000
67.03
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
631 -00- 4131 -0000
90.20
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
631 -00- 4151 -0000
6.22
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
1,167.83
1,167.83
FUND 700
Payroll. Clearing Fund
700 -00- 1010- 0000
65,598.82
0.00
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
700 -00- 2170 -0000
0.00
31,018.58
GROSS PAYROLL CLEARING
700 -00- 2171 -0000
0.00
7,738.49
HEALTH INSURANCE PAYABLE
700 -00- 2172 -0000
0.00
3,956.21
FEDERAL WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700 -00- 2173 -0000
0.00
1,729.35
STATE WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700 -00- 2174 -0000
0.00
7,166.94
FICA/MEDICARE TAX PAYABLE
700 -00- 2175 -0000
0.00
6,678.81
PERA WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700 -00- 2176 -0000
0.00
2,875.00
DEFERRED COMPENSATION
700 -00- 2177 -0000
0.00
1,226.68
WORKERS COMPENSATION
700 -00- 2179 -0000
0.00
192.00
SEC 125 DEP CARE REIMB PAYABLE
700 -00- 2180 -0000
0.00
399.04
LIFE INSURANCE
700 -00- 2181 -0000
0.00
745.96
DISABILITY INSURANCE
700 -00- 2182 -0000
0.00
318.32
UNION DUES
700 -00- 2183 -0000
0.00
1,553.44
HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT
FUND Total:
65,598.82
65,598.82
Report Total:
131,442.37
131,442.37
PR - G/L Distribution Report (02/09/2015 - 2:10 PM) Page 3
Accounts Payable
Check Detail
User: Mnguyen
Printed: 02/18/2015 - 3:52PM
Check Number Check Date Amount
12 - AFSCME COUNCIL 5 - UNION DUES Line Item Account
0 02/09/2015
Inv Feb -2015
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
02/09/2015 PR Batch 00001.02.2015 Union Dues 700 -00- 2182 -0000 318.32
Inv Feb -2015 Total 318.32
0 Total: 318.32
12 - AFSCME COUNCIL 5 - UNION DUES Total: 318 -32
5 - EFTPS - FEDERAL W/11 Line Item Account
0 02/09/2015
Inv 02092015
Line Item Date
Line Item Description
Line Item Account
02/09/2015
PR Batch 0000 1.02.2015 Federal Income Tax
700 -00- 2172 -0000
3,956.21
02/09/2015
PR Batch 0000 1.02.2015 FICA Employee Portion
700 -00- 2174 -0000
2,904.26
02/09/2015
PR Batch 0000 1.02.2015 FICA Employer Portion
700 -00- 2174 -0000
2,904.26
02/09/2015
PR Batch 00001.02.2015 Medicare Employee Portion
700 -00- 2174 -0000
679.21
02/09/2015
PR Batch 00001.02.2015 Medicare Employer Portion
700 -00- 2174 -0000
679.21
Inv 02092015 Total 11,123.15
0 Total: 11,123.15
5 - EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H Total: 11,123.15
2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- 302131 -457 Line Item Account
61256 02/09/2015
Inv 02092015
Line Item ,Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
02/09/2015 PR Batch 00001.02.2015 Deferred Comp Flat Amount 700 -00- 2176 -0000 2,875.00
Inv 02092015 Total 2,875.00
61256 Total: 2,875.00
2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -457 Total: 2,875.00
AP -Check Detail (2 /18/2015 - 3:52 PM) Page I
Check Number Check Date
Amount
11- MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Line Item Account
0 02/09/2015
Inv 02092015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
02/09/2015 PR Batch 00001.02.2015 State Income Tax
700 -00- 2173 -0000
1,729.35
Inv 0209201.5 Total
1,729.35
0 Total:
1,729.35
11 - MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Total:
1,729.35
7 - MINNESOTA LIFE Line Item Account
0 02/09/2015
Inv Feb -2015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
02/09/2015 PR Batch 00001.02.2015 Life Insurance
700 -00- 2180 -0000
383.04
Inv Feb -2015 Total
383.04
0 Total:
383.04
7 - MINNESOTA LIFE Total:
383.04
10 - NCPERS MINNESOTA Line Item Account
61257 02/09/2015
Inv Feb -2015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
02/09/2015 PR Batch 0000 1.02.2015 PERA Life
700 -00- 2180 -0000
16.00
Inv Feb -2015 Total
16.00
61257 Total:
16.00
10 - NCPERS MINNESOTA Total:
16.00
9 - PERA Line Item Account
0 02/09/2015
Inv 02092015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
02/09/2015 PR Batch 0000 1.02,2015 MN -PERA Deduction
700 -00- 2175 -0000
3,100.88
02/09/2015 PR Batch 0000 1.02.2015 MN PERA Benefit Employer
700 -00- 2175 -0000
3,577.93
Inv 02092015 Total
6,678.81
0 Total: 6,678.81
AP -Check Detail (2/18/2015 - 3:52 PM) Page 2
Check Number Check Date
9 - PERA Total:
8 - PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE Line Item Account
61258 02/09/2015
Inv Feb -2015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
02/09/2015 PR Batch 0000 1.02.2015 Long Term Disability
02/09/2015 PR Batch 0000 1.02.2015 Short Term Disability
Inv Feb -2015 Total
61258 Total:
8 - PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE Total:
1 - WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFPI' SVCS Line Item Account
0 02/09/2015
Inv 02092015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
02/09/2015 PR Batch 0000 1.02.2015 health Savings Account
Inv 02092015 Total
0 Total:
I - WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Total:
Total:
Line Item Account
700 -00 -2181 -0000
700 -00 -2181 -0000
Line Item Account
700 -00- 2183 -0000
Amount
6,678.81
293.19
452.77
745.96
745.96
745.96
1,553.44
1,553.44
1,553.44
1,553.44
25,423.07
AP -Check Detail (2 /18/2015 - 3:52 PM) Page 3
Accounts Payable
Computer Check Proof List by Vendor
User: Mnguyen
City of
Printed: 02/18/2015
- 3:46PM
Shorewood
Batch: 00005.02.2015
- CC- 02232015
Invoice No
Description
Amount
Payment Date Acct Number
Fund
Dept
Vendor 462
A -1 MINNETONKA RENTAL INC.
Check
106741
Floor Scrubber
35.64
02/23/2015 101 -32- 4410 -001
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
35.64
Vendor 134
CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
Check
6974- 243419
Oil Filter
173
02/23/2015 101 -32 -4221 -001
General
Pub Works
6974 - 243502
Utility Truck Battery
95.89
02/23/2015 101 -32- 4221 -001
General
Pub Works
6974 - 243577
Oxygen Sensor
37.49
02/23/2015 101 -32 -4221 -001
General
Pub Works
6974- 243631
Filters & Fuses
34.01
02/23/2015 101 -32 -4221 -001
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
170.12
Vendor 136
CENTERPOINr ENERGY
Check
01302015
5755 Country Club Rd - 12/19 -01/22
387.95
02/23/2015 101 -19- 4380 -001
General
Mun Bldg
01302015
24200 Smithtown Rd - 12/19 - 01/22
1,411.81
02/23/2015 101 -32- 4380 -001
General
Pub Works
01302015
5745 Ctry Club & 25200 Hwy 7- 12/19 -01/
398.25
02/23/2015 101 -52- 4380 -001
General
Park Maint
01302015
20405 Knighsbridge Rd - 12/19 -01/22
121.55
02/23/2015 601 -00- 4394 -001
Water
Non -Dept
01302015
28125 Boulder Bridge - 12/19 -01/22
274.71
02/23/2015 601 -00- 4396 -001
Water
Non -Dept
7945688512261,
5735 Country Chub Rd - Addt'l from Prev 'j
387.76
02/23/2015 201 -00- 4380 -00(
SSC
Non -Dept
8650180612261,
20630 Manor Rd - credit from prev inv
-7.08
02/23/2015 101 -52- 4380 -00(
General
Park Maint
Check Total: 2,974.95
Vendor 137
CENTURY LINK
Check
612E451785 -Fel
612 -E45- 1785 -Bldr Brdg
294.00
02/23/2015 601 -00- 4396 -001
Water
Non -Dept
612E458019 -Fel
612 -E45- 8019 -SE Areas
220.50
02/23/2015 601 -00- 4398 -001
Water
Non -Dept
Check , rotal:
514.50
Vendor 150
CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY
Check
21802
City Hall -Feb
495.00
02/23/2015 101 -19- 4400 -001
General
Mun Bldg
21803
Public Works -Feb
295.00
02/23/2015 101 -32- 4400 -001
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
790.00
Vendor 159
CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER (SHWD
Check
Jan -2015
Drinking Water - Jan
61.95
02/23/2015 101 -19- 4245 -00(
General
Mun Bldg
Check Total:
61.95
Vendor 588
CULLIGAN WATER (SSCC)
Check
101X27429102
Solar Salt
82.35
02/23/2015 201 -00- 4245 -001
SSC
Non -Dept
Check Total:
82.35
Vendor 574
DISCOUNT STEEL.COM - MPLS
Check
01065042
Bulk Steel
101.00
02/23/201.5 101 -32- 4245 -001
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
101.00
Vendor 184
GREGORY FASCHING
Check
02/18/2015 -DCF
2015 - Child Care Reimbursement
450.00
02/23/2015 700 -00- 2179 -001
Payroll
Non -Dept
Check Total:
450.00
Vendor 185
FEDEX KINKO'S
Check
077000005437 -2
Plans Copy -
16.89
02/23/2015 101 -24- 4351 -00(
General
Insp
Check Total:
16.89
Vendor 202
GRAINGER INC
Check
9658760617
Plumbing Works
54.12
02/23/2015 101 -19 -4223 -00(
General
Mun Bldg
Check Total:
54.12
Invoice No
Description
Amount
Payment Date Acct Number
Fund
Dept
Vendor 213
PATRICIA HELGESEN
Check
2011- 2014MNLi
2011 -2014 Minnesota Life Insurance Refu
50.56
02/23/2015 700 -00- 2181 -00(
Payroll
Non -Dept
Check Total:
50.56
Vendor 215
HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMATION'
Check
1000054381
800 Mhz Radio - Jan
111.30
02/23/2015 101 -32 -4321 -001
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
111.30
Vendor 589
GLORIA KRUGER
Check
Receipt46070
5135 St Albans Bay Road - Rental Permit R
60.00
02/23/2015 101 -24- 3217 -001
General
Insp
Check Total:
60.00
Vendor 314
BRADLEY NIELSEN
Check
02/25/2015
02/25 Event -How to get your Development
114.00
02/23/2015 101 -18- 4331 -001
General
Planning
Check Total:
114.00
Vendor 317
JEREMY NORMAN
Check
2015AreticFvr
2015 Arctic Fever- Banner
80.46
02/23/2015 101 -53- 4441 -001
General
Recreation
Check Total:
80.46
Vendor 322
OFFICE DEPOT
Check
754276155001
Board Cork
37.99
02/23/2015 101 -13- 4200 -001
General
Admin
754276213001
Clock Wall
33.08
02/23/2015 101 -13- 4200 -00(
General
Admin
754782871001
Copy Papers
100.94
02/23/2015 101 -13- 4200 -00(
General
Admin
756235316001
Cartridge
191.65
02/23/2015101 -15- 4200 -00(
General
Fin
Check Total:
363.66
Vendor 331
JOSEPH PAZANDAK
Check
Jan- 2015 -CE Crt
Jan 12- 16/2015 Building Officials Institute
375.00
02/23/2015 101 -24- 4331 -00(
General
Insp
Jan -2015 -Mile
Jan Mileage
206.64
02/23/2015 101 -24- 4331 -00(
General
Insp
Check Total:
58164
Vendor 240
KENNETH POTTS, PA
Check
TimothyMcNam
2002 Volkswagen- Timothy Simon McNan
232.68
02/23/2015 101 -16- 4304 -00(
General
Prof Svcs
Check Total:
232.68
Vendor 354
SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE
Check
123136
Caulk
9.58
02/23/2015 101 -32- 4245 -00(
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
9.58
Vendor 590
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, f
Check
877049
Minnetonka Country Club Project- 02/06/1
6,797.63
02/23/2015 450 -00- 4302 -00-
Comm Infr
Non -Dept
Check Total: 6,797.63
Vendor 386
TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC
Check
6035
Monthly Bacteria Svc
100.00
02/23/2015 601 -00- 4400 -00(
Water
Non -Dept
Check Total:
100.00
Vendor 432
UNITED FARMERS COOPERATIVE
Check
20- 595140
Chainsaw Supplies
27.64
02/23/2015 101 -32- 4245 -00(
General
Pub Works
20- 595422
Chainsaw Supplies
102.78
02/23/2015 101 -32- 4245 -00(
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
130.42
Vendor 392
VALLEY -RICH CO. INC.
Check
21268
Watermain Break at Amesbury
4,574.68
02/23/2015 601 -00- 4400 -001
Water
Non -Dept
Check Total: 4,574.68
Vendor 421
VERIZON WIRELESS
Check
9739837576
S & W Lines - Acct842017386- 01/02 -02/0
50.28
02/23/2015 611 -00- 4321 -00(
Sewer
Non -Dept
9739837576
S & W Lines - Acct842017386- 01/02 -02/0
50.28
02/23/2015 631 -00- 4321 -00(
Storm Water Non -Dept
9739837576
S & W Lines - Acct842017386 -01/02 -02/0
50.29
02/23/2015 601 -00- 4321 -00(
Water
Non -Dept
Check Total:
150.85
Invoice No
Description
Amount
Payment Date Acct Number
Fund
Dept
Vendor 393
VESSCO, INC
Check
62415
Chemical Pump & Accessories
1,641.00
02/23/2015 601 -00- 4245 -00(
Water
Non -Dept
Check Total:
1,641.00
Vendor 415
WARNER CONNECT
Check
29922036
Monthly Computer Maint. Svc-Jan Addt'l ! 1,046.25
02/23/2015 101 -19- 4221 -00(
General
Man ;Bldg
Check Total:
1,046.25
Vendor 411
XCEL ENERGY
Check
Stmt #44503800F
5655 Merry Lane - 01/11 -02/09
20.65
02/23/2015 101 -52- 4380 -00(
General
Park Maint
Check Total:
20.65
Total for Check Ran:
21,316.88
Total of Number of
28
#3B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Authorize Agreement for Secure Document Destruction Service
Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
CC: Tim Keane, City Attorney
Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Attachment: Agreement
Policy Consideration: Should the City of Shorewood enter into an Agreement for secure document
destruction service?
Background: The City has used the services of Shred-N-Go, Inc. the past three years for secure
document destruction. The service provides a regular scheduled pick up of documents that are placed in
secure containers for proper disposal of private/confidential records that cannot simply be placed in the
general recycling container. Shred-N-Go has provided professional and timely service the past three
years, and offers competitive rates equal to or slightly lower than similar service providers. The
proposed rate remains unchanged for 2015 at $35 per stop for two containers; and increases to $40 for
2016 and 2017. A stop is made every four weeks for the container pick-up. This level of service has
worked out well.
With the three-year Agreement for 2015-2017, Shred-N-Go will provide the Community Shredding
Service on Spring Clean-up Day at a reduced rate of $400 per event; their normal rate for our volume of
shredding for one-time shred events like this is $500. You may recall from last year, the city was notified
that this service could no longer be provided free of charge due to overtime labor and equipment
maintenance costs for this weekend service.
Attorney Keane has reviewed the Agreement and finds it to be acceptable.
Two other shredding companies were contacted for comparison; one had a similar container pick-up
service rate of $40 per stop, and one had a much higher fee for the community shred event of $1200.
Staff has been very pleased with the service and professionalism of the Shred-N-Go staff, and therefore
recommends approval of the Agreement for document destruction services for March 1, 2015 -
February 28, 2017. With this Agreement, we are securing a fee of $400 for the Community Shred event
for the next three years.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Funds have been allocated in the Administration Budget for secure
document destruction service, and in the Recycling Budget for the Spring Clean-up Community Shred
Event.
Recommendation / Action Requested: A motion approving the Agreement for secure document
destruction service with Shred-N-Go for March 1, 2015 - February 28, 2017.
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
This Confidential Document Destruction Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into as of this 1st day of March
4545 Merrimac Lane
2015 (“Effective Date”) by and between Shred-N-Go, Inc. having a place of business at
North, Plymouth, MN 55446
and the City of Shorewood having a place of business at 5755 Country Club
Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 (“Customer”).
1. SERVICES
1.1Services to be Furnished. Shred-N-Go, Inc. will provide the services for the secure destruction of records
(“Subscribed Services”) attached hereto and made a part hereof. Shred-N-Go, Inc. will furnish a Certificate
of Destruction to Customer each time service is performed. The Subscribed Services may, at Customer’s
option be performed as part of a regular schedule or pursuant to specific directions which Customer shall
give Shred-N-Go, Inc. from time to time. Customer may also request custom Services not set forth, in
which case Shred-N-Go, Inc. will consult with Customer as to the terms and conditions of the Services
requested.
1.2 Services to Affiliates and Subsidiaries. Customer’s related, affiliated and subsidiary companies (including
subsidiaries of affiliates) may acquire Services pursuant to this Agreement. Any such acquisition of
Services will be evidenced by an Order executed by an authorized representative of the applicable affiliate
or subsidiary in its own corporate name and referencing this Agreement. Invoices for such Services shall be
directed to and be payable by such affiliate or subsidiary.
2. RESPONSIBILITIES
2.1 Right to Rely on Instructions. Shred-N-Go, Inc. may act in reliance upon any instruction, instrument, or
signature reasonably believed by Shred-N-Go, Inc. to be genuine, and may assume that any of Customer’s
employees or any employee of Customer’s affiliates or subsidiaries giving any written notice, request, or
instruction has the authority to do so.
2.2 Compliance with Contracts, Laws and Regulations. Customer shall be responsible for, and warrant
compliance with, all contractual restrictions and all applicable laws, rules and regulations, including but not
limited to environmental laws and contractual restrictions and laws governing the confidentiality, retention
and disposition of information contained in any materials delivered to Shred-N-Go, Inc. Shred-N-Go, Inc.
shall comply with applicable laws, statutes, regulations and ordinances.
2.3Cooperation and Assistance. Customer shall cooperate with Shred-N-Go, Inc. with regard to the
performance of the Services, subject to normal security requirements and in a manner that is not
unnecessarily disruptive to Customer’s business operations, by providing Shred-N-Go, Inc. such
information, data, access to premises, management decisions and approvals as may be reasonable to permit
Shred-N-Go, Inc. to perform the Services hereunder.
2.4Hazardous Substances. Customer shall not deliver to Shred-N-Go, Inc. any material considered toxic or
dangerous or which is regulated under any federal or state law or regulation relating to hazardous materials.
In the event of the accidental or negligent custodial transfer of hazardous or regulated waste, including bio-
hazard, Customer agrees to arrange to appropriately, safely and legally assume custody of such hazardous
materials at their expense. And further to indemnify Shred-N-Go, Inc. from any property damage or
personal injury resulting from such transfer of material.
2.5Performance of Services. All Services performed by Shred-N-Go, Inc. will be in a professional manner in
accordance with the National Association for Information Destruction (NAID) AAA certification standards
and practices. Shred-N-Go, Inc. is AAA NAID Certified for paper destruction. The policies are available
for viewing upon request.
2.6 Material Descriptions: Itemized lists or descriptions of contents of materials submitted by the Customer to
Shred-N-Go, Inc. shall be generally considered for recordkeeping, reconciliation, and reference purposes
only, and are not to be considered proof that said documents contained on such lists and descriptions are in
fact contained in the materials accepted. Shred-N-Go, Inc. will make provision for validation of such
document contents in advance and under special terms and fees at the request of the Customer.
2.7 Negotiable Items: Customer agrees to make Shred-N-Go, Inc. aware in writing and in advance of any
instance in which negotiable instruments, including but not limited to checks, bearer bonds, travels checks,
or coupons in a single service where the total combined amount of said instruments will be in excess of
$100,000.
3. FEES AND PAYMENTS
3.1 All standard charges for Services under this Agreement shall be as specified and attached. The prices set
first thirty-six (36) months
forth shall remain in effect for the of this Agreement. Thereafter, price
adjustments shall be made only after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice, with the exception of Section 9.2.
For any service requested by Customer that is not listed initial proposal, the charges will be as agreed to in
writing by Customer and Shred-N-Go, Inc. prior to the rendering of such Service. Invoices shall be due and
payable upon receipt of the applicable invoice. Amounts due and not paid within thirty (30) days after
Customer’s receipt of the invoice shall bear interest at the rate of one and one-half per cent (1.5%) per
month.
4.CONFIDENTIALITY
4.1 “Confidential Information” means any information relating to Customer’s property, business and affairs.
Unless such Confidential Information was previously known to Shred-N-Go, Inc. free of any obligation to
keep it confidential, is subsequently made public by Customer or by a third party having a legal right to
make such disclosure, or was known to Shred-N-Go, Inc. prior to receipt of same from Customer, it shall be
held in confidence by Shred-N-Go, Inc. and shall be used only for the purposes provided in this Agreement.
Shred-N-Go, Inc. shall use the same degree of care to safeguard your Confidential Information as it uses to
safeguard its own. However, Shred-N-Go, Inc. may comply with any subpoena or similar order related to
materials handled by Shred-N-Go, Inc. Customer shall pay Shred-N-Go, Inc.’s reasonable costs for such
compliance.
5. TERM AND TERMINATION
5.1 Term. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date set forth below and, unless otherwise
three years
terminated in accordance with Section 5.2, shall continue in effect for as described in the
one-year
attachment, with automatic renewal for successive terms, unless written notice of nonrenewal is
delivered by either party to the other not less than ninety (90) days prior to the date of expiration of such
term.
5.2 Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement if the other is in material or repeated breach of any
of its obligations hereunder and the breaching party has not cured the breach within sixty (60) days after
written notice from the nonbreaching party. In the event of any such termination, all amounts due for
Services rendered up to the effective date of termination shall become due and payable. Upon termination,
Customer shall return (or permit Shred-N-Go, Inc. to retrieve) all Shred-N-Go, Inc. containers and other
property kept at Customer’s site, and Shred-N-Go, Inc. shall have no obligation to provide further Services
to Customer.
6. CLAIMS AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
6.1 Time for Presenting Claims. Customer must present any claim with respect to any Service in writing to
Shred-N-Go, Inc. within a reasonable time and in no case later than 30 days after the occurrence of the event
on which the claim is based.
6.2 Arbitration. Any claim, controversy, or dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or any
interpretation or breach of this Agreement or performance under this Agreement, including without
limitation any dispute concerning the scope of this Article 6, that cannot be resolved within fifteen (15) days
by informal discussions between the parties, shall be resolved by submission to final, binding and
nonappealable arbitration, without any right by either party to trial de novo in any court. Such arbitration
and all pre-hearing, hearing, and post-hearing arbitration procedures, including for discovery, disclosure of
arbitrator’s interests, and challenge of designation of any arbitrator, shall be conducted under the
Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. A single arbitrator shall be
selected by the American Arbitration Association.
6.3 Services during Arbitration. During any arbitration proceedings, Shred-N-Go, Inc. shall continue to provide
Services, and Customer shall continue to make payments to Shred-N-Go, Inc. in accordance with this
Agreement. The fact that arbitration is or may be allowed shall not impair the exercise of any termination
rights under this Agreement.
7. LIABILITY AND WARRANTY
Limitation of Liability. Shred-N-Go, Inc. shall not be responsible or liable in any manner whatsoever
7.1
for the release or loss of any materials deposited in bins for secure destruction unless the release or
loss is due to Shred-N-Go, Inc.’s negligence or willful misconduct. Shred-N-Go, Inc.’s maximum
liability for any and all claims arising with respect to the Services provided under this Agreement
shall not exceed the aggregate amounts paid by Customer with respect to the Services provided at the
particular Customer location during the six (6) months preceding the event which gives rise to a
claim. In no event shall Shred-N-Go, Inc. be liable for any consequential, incidental, special or
punitive damages, regardless of whether the action is brought in tort, contract or any other theory.
7.2 Ownership Warranty. Customer warrants that it is the owner, legal custodian or otherwise has the right to
deliver for confidential destruction any and all materials Customer provides Shred-N-Go, Inc. hereunder.
Customer shall reimburse Shred-N-Go, Inc. for any expenses reasonably incurred by Shred-N-Go, Inc.
(including reasonable legal fees) by reason of Shred-N-Go, Inc. complying with its obligations under this
Agreement to destroy such materials in the event of a dispute concerning the destruction of the materials
provided by Customer to Shred-N-Go, Inc.
8. MISCELLANEOUS
8.1 Notices. All notices hereunder shall be in writing and addressed to either party at its address set forth above
(or to such other address as either party may specify by notice given in accordance with this Section).
Notices to Shred-N-Go, Inc. shall be sent to the attention of its President.
8.2 Binding Nature and Assignment. This Agreement shall be binding on the parties and their respective
successors and assigns. Neither party may assign this Agreement, except to an affiliate, without the prior
written consent of the other party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
8.3 Force Majeure. Each party shall be excused from any delay or failure in performance under this Agreement
for any period if and to the extent that such delay or failure is caused by acts of God, governmental actions,
labor unrest, riots, unusual traffic delays or other causes beyond its control.
8.4 Relationship of Parties. Shred-N-Go, Inc. is acting as an independent contractor hereunder and has the sole
right and obligation to supervise, manage, contract, direct, procure, perform, or cause to be performed all
work to be performed by Shred-N-Go, Inc. under this Agreement.
8.5 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Shred-N-Go, Inc. and
Customer with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. No change, waiver, or discharge of this
Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the party against whom such change, waiver, or
discharge is sought to be enforced. Except as provided in Section 3, this Agreement may be amended only
by an amendment in writing signed by Shred-N-Go, Inc. and Company.
8.6 Invalidity. If any provision of this Agreement is declared invalid by any tribunal of competent jurisdiction,
then such provision shall automatically be adjusted to the minimum extent necessary to the requirements for
validity as declared at such time and as so adjusted shall be deemed a provision of this Agreement as though
originally included herein. In the event that the provision invalidated is of such a nature that it cannot be so
adjusted, the provision shall be deemed deleted from this Agreement as though such provision had never
been included herein. In either case, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect.
8.7 Exclusivity: Customer agrees to retain Shred-N-Go, Inc. on an exclusive basis at all facilities covered by
this agreement for the term of this contract.
9. SUBSCRIBED SERVICES
9.1 Shred-N-Go, Inc. will provide services for the secure destruction of records on the schedule indicated in the
Service Proposal Letter. Shred-N-Go, Inc. will furnish a Certificate of Destruction each time said service is
performed. These prices and terms are to be in effect and guaranteed during term of contract as described in
Section 3.1 and Section 5.1.
9.2 Shred-N-Go, Inc. will charge a fuel surcharge per service, which may change from time to time based upon
current diesel fuel prices.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized
representative as of the Effective Date first set forth above.
CUSTOMER Shred-N-Go, Inc.
By:_______________________________ By:_____________________________
Printed Name:______________________ Printed Name: ____________________
Title:_____________________________ Title:____________________________
Date:_____________________________ Date:____________________________
Contact Name:______________________________________________ Phone: ________________________
Service Address:___________________________________________________________________________
City: _____________________________________ State: ___________ Zip Code: ______________________
Bill To:
Company Name:____________________________________________________________________________
A/P Contact Person: __________________________________________ Phone: ________________________
Email Address: ______________________________________________ Fax: __________________________
Address: ____________________________________________________ Suite: ________________________
City: ______________________________________ State: __________ Zip Code: ______________________
#3C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Appointment of Tad Shaw as representative to the Minnetonka Community
Education (MCD) Advisory Council
Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City Council appoint Tad Shaw to serve as the Minnetonka
Community Education (MCE) Advisory Council representative?
Background: Tad Shaw has served as representative on the MCE Advisory Council for just over 20
years, and he is interested in continuing to serve for 2015.
As no other candidates have come forward, Council may decide to appoint Mr. Shaw for another term.
Should another candidate express interest in serving on this advisory council, Tim Litfin, MCE Executive
Director, indicated an additional member would be welcome.
Options:
1)Approve the attached resolution appointing Tad Shaw as the Minnetonka Community Education
(MCE) Advisory Council representative for 2015.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Approval of the attached resolution provided.
Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will notify Mr. Shaw and MCE of his appointment.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 15-___
A RESOLUTION MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE MINNETONKA
COMMUNITY EDUCATION (MCE) ADVISORY COUNCIL
WHEREAS,
the City of Shorewood annually appoints a Shorewood resident to
serve as City Representative on the MCE Advisory Council; and
WHEREAS,
the City advertised this volunteer board opportunity for appointment
to said Advisory Council;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
that the City Council of the City of
Shorewood hereby appoints Tad Shaw as City Representative on the Minnetonka
Community Education (MCE) Advisory Council for the year 2015.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 23rd day of February, 2015.
_____________________________
ATTEST:Scott Zerby, Mayor
_____________________________
_____________________________
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title /Subject: Accept Proposal for Professional Services, Shorewood Lane Ravine
Stabilization Project
Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
Reviewed by:
Attachments CIP Excerpt, Site Location Map, Proposal by WSB and Associates
3D
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
Policy Consideration: Should the City Council enter into a contract with WSB and Associates to
prepare a hydrologic study and technical recommendations for the Shorewood Lane Ravine
Stabilization Project?
Background: Listed within the 2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a project known as
the Shorewood Lane Ravine (ditch) Stabilization Project, in the amount of $172,500, as shown
in Attachment 1. Attachment 2 is a site location map for the project under consideration.
This project has been a topic of conversation with the Shorewood Lane neighborhood for
several years. Runoff from the West, continues to erode a massive ravine immediately East of
Shorewood Lane. The erosion for this area is significant and has continued to unearth existing
trees and continues towards the direction of an existing power pole that is in the rear yard of
one of the residential properties. Not only is stabilization of this ditch necessary to preserve
the adjacent land; but, this ravine has a direct impact on the water quality of the Gideon Bay
which is immediately downstream of the subject project.
Therefore, staff has solicited a proposal from WSB and Associates, as shown in Attachment 3.
Tasks for the project include project management, data collection and preparation of a
hydrologic analysis. In turn, WSB and Associates will compile a design and complete the
permitting process and see the project through the bidding process. The total estimated fee is
estimated to be $26,200. Staff has reviewed the proposal and tasks and finds this to be in order.
Time Schedule
Based on the current project schedule, WSB proposes to complete the Shorewood Lane Ravine
Restoration as follows:
• February 2015: Kickoff Meeting and Meeting with MCWD
• March —April 2015: Develop Hydrologic Model
• April —May 2015: Complete survey, Develop Hydraulic Model, and Prepare Summary of
Improvements /Cost Estimate
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
• June —July 2015: Design and Permitting
• August 2015: Bidding
• September — October 2015: Construction
Financial Considerations: Costs for this proposal have been included in the budgeted amount of
the 2015 CIP Stormwater Fund, and appear to be in order.
Options:
1. Accept the proposal, as presented.
2. Reject the proposal and provide staff with alternative direction.
Recommendation:
Staff is recommending that a motion accepting the proposal be accepted.
Source Project# Priority 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total
Pick-up-4x4 150 Replace LOW
080
5
35,000
35,000
Radio /ISP Communications System
W -10-01
1
80,000
80,000
Water Main - Star Girds &Lane
W -11 -02
n/a
178,400
178,400
W. Water Tower - Rehab &Painting
W -13 -03
3
450,000
450,000
Meter Reading - Mobile Unit
W -15 -01
3
9,000
9,000
601 - Water Fund Total
841,400
27,000
85,000
953,400
1
611 - Sanitary Sewer Fund
Sewer Jetter - replace unit 60
060
5
51,000
51,000
Dump Truck - replace unit 72
072
5
85,000
85,000
Lift Station 11 Rehab - 20465 Radisson Rd.
SS -13 -01
3
180,000
180,000
Lift Station 10 Rehab -4773 Lakeway Terrace
SS -15-01
3
80,000
80,000
Lift Station 20 Rehab - 26550 Noble Road
SS -16 -01
3
70,000
70,000
Lift Station 7 Rehab -5600 Woodside Road
SS -16 -02
3
80,000
80,000
Lift Station 18 Rehab -4996 Shady Island Point
SS -17 -01
3
10,000
10,000
Infiltration and Inflow Reduction
SS -99-05
1
70,000
70,000
70,000
70,000 70,000
350,000
611 - Sanitary Sewer Fund Total
250,000
281,000
235,000
70,000 70,000
906,000
631- Stormwater Management Fund
Galpm Lake Rd Trail Stornmater
SS003
1
230,000
230,000
Smfthto
85,000
285,000
Shorewood Lane Ditch
STM -13 -01
4
172,500
172,500
Star uc . . r
cm.c n.
00
180,800
23350 Academy Drainage
STM -15-04
4
75,000
75,000
Garden Road
STM -15-05
4
26,000
26,000
Gideon Glen Drainage
STM -15-06
1
5,000
5,000
Amiss Road
STM -16-01
4
78,000
78,000
Manitou Lane
S7M -16-02
4
75,000
75,000
Riveria Lane
STM -17 -01
4
87,000
81,000
Shorewood Lane
STM -17 -02
4
99,000
99,000
Mann Lane
STM -18 -01
4
105,000
105,000
Maple St
STM -18-02
4
24,000
24,000
Eureka Road N
STM -19-01
4
452,000
452,000
Strawberry & W 62nd
STM -19-02
4
283,000
283,000
631 - Stormwater Management Fund
744,300
383,000
186,000
129,000 735,000
2,177,300
Total
GRAND TOTAL 4.907,900 4,001,700 2,787.500 1,344.300 3,702,100 16,743,500
Thursday, January 08, 2015
ATTACHMENT
CIP EXCERPT
ATTACHMENT 2
SITE LOCATION MAP
A
WSB
e- engineering -planning • environmental construction
February 4, 2015
Mr. Larry Brown, Public Works Director
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Shorewood Lane Ravine Restoration
City of Shorewood, MN
Dear Mr. Brown:
47 Tempeiame street
St. Paul, W `-6101
TO �1 -2Ev 4,T
Fax 651 - 2368488
Attached for your review and approval is our proposed scope of services, fee, and schedule for providing
professional engineering services to complete a drainage analysis and design the plans for the Shorewood
Lane ravine restoration project.
The proposed scope of services includes a review of the existing conditions of the drainage area tributary
to Shorewood Lane. Based on this review, WSB will develop a hydrologic model to provide a detailed
drainage analysis along with a hydraulic modeling for designing the channel improvements. This
modeling will serve as the basis for designing the long term solution to remedy the ravine erosion that is
occurring adjacent to Shorewood Lane. Staff will work collaboratively with the Minnelaha Creek
Watershed District (MCWD) on the approval of the proposed design to better position the City to obtain
grant funding for the proposed project.
We are excited to work with you on designing the solution for the restoration of the erosion issue. If you
are in agreement with this proposal, please sign where indicated and return one copy to me. Please do not
hesitate to contact me at 651- 286 -8464 with any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB &JA�sso�c�iall u, Inc.
V
Jesse Carlson
Project Manager
Attachment
ACCEPTED BY:
City of Shorewood, MN
Name
Title
Date
Cc: Paul Horal WSB /City Engineer
Equal opponuniry F mployer ATTACHMENT 3
wsbengcom PROPOSAL WSB
SCOPE OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
FOR
SHOREWOOD LANE RAVINE RESTORATION
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MN
SCOPE OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
Task 1— Project Management and Meetings ($2,390)
Project management will be performed throughout the course of the project. The following subtasks
are included as part of Project Management:
1.1 Attend project meetings with City staff and MCWD staff to discuss existing drainage
conditions, hydraulic analysis, alternatives analysis, and funding opportunities. Meeting
with property owners adjacent to proposed improvements will also be conducted to share
our evaluation and identify concerns they may have. This will include developing
agendas, preparing handouts and graphics, and attending meetings.
Deliverables: Four (4) Meetings. Three (3) meetings with MCWD staffwill be conducted. The first
meeting will be served as a kick -off meeting to further discuss strategy, initial observations and
ensure our direction is aligned with theirs. The second meeting will discuss existing conditions,
review of hydraulic analysis, and jointly identify targeted corrective measures. The third meeting
will review the alternatives analysis, costs, and funding opportunities. One (1) residents) meeting to
discuss existing conditions and recommended management strategy.
Task 2 — Hydrologic /Hydraulic Analysis ($7,660)
This task consists of completing a detailed hydrologic model analysis for the stormwater
management system tributary to the Shorewood Lane ravine and a hydraulic model for the design of
the channel improvements. A HydroCAD model will be developed to model the tributary drainage
areas, stormwater basins, stormwater volumes, and peak discharges in the area. This information will
be used to develop a hydraulic model that will allow us to understand the flow velocities, shear
stresses, and flow rates in the proposed channel. This is will be critical for selecting the appropriate
stabilization practices for the channel. The following are the subtasks that will be included as part of
the evaluation:
2.1 Collect background information including: as- builts, storm sewer sizes and elevations,
existing ponds and their size and management strategy, and other relevant information.
2.2 Survey the current channel conditions — cross section along the length of the of the
drainage corridor. Survey additional areas if background information is not available.
2.3 Develop drainage area map based on survey, contour data, storm, and existing ponds.
2.4 Develop HydroCAD model to evaluate existing conditions.
2.5 Develop hydraulic model for design of the channel improvements.
Deliverables: One (1) hydrologic and one hydraulic model.
Task 3 — Recommendations and Technical Memorandum ($2,780)
A summary of the existing hydrologic conditions will be outlined. Improvement options will be
discussed, evaluated and a recommendation for a drainage management strategy will be provided.
Recommendations will be evaluated based on reviewing the site in relation to local, state, and federal
K IPersonalUesse Cm(mnlaorewoodL e=R PROP Shorewood Lane 204ISdoc
Scope of Engineering Services
February 4, 2015
Page 2
wetland rules. The technical memorandum will be prepared to document the analysis and decisions
made regarding the channel improvement strategy. The following are the subtasks that will be
included as part of the analysis and report preparation:
3.1 Prepare a draft technical memorandum summarizing existing conditions, possible
improvements, and cost estimates. Technical expertise from MCWD will be included in
this task as they have indicated willingness to provide this support and potential grant
funding.
3.2 Evaluate site for presence of wetlands based on historic photo review and assist with
recommendations that minimize or avoid wetland impacts that require mitigation, etc.
This task does not include a field wetland delineation.
3.3 Finalize the technical memorandum based on City staff and MCWD feedback.
3.4 Meet with City staff to deliver the final recommendation for the channel improvement
strategy.
Deliverables: One (1) technical memorandum summary with recommended channel improvement
strategy and cost estimates.
Task 4 — Design and Permitting ($11,620)
Plans and specifications will be prepared for the channel improvements. The plans will include
appropriate plans, profiles, cross - section, and details necessary to complete the construction. A
permit will also be required from the MCWD. The permits necessary will include erosion control
permit and wetland permits. Efforts will be made with the design to minimize any wetland impacts.
Significant material has eroded into the downstream wetland and considerations for removal of this
material may be included with the design. The following are the subtasks that will be included as a
part of preparing the plans, specifications, and permitting:
3.1 Prepare plans and specifications for the proposed channel improvements.
3.2 Complete permitting from the MCWD, including obtaining associated erosion control
and wetland permits.
3.3 An NPDES Construction General Permit is not anticipated for this project and has not
been included as a part of this scope.
Deliverables: Preparation ofplans, specifications, and appropriate MCWD permits.
Task 5 — Bidding ($1,750)
Bidding documents will be prepared and advertised to ensure the City obtains sufficient bids for this
project. The following are the subtasks that will be included as part of the analysis and report
preparation:
3.1 Preparation of ad for bid.
3.2 Respond to questions from potential contactors.
3.3 Assist with openings bids and issuing notice to proceed.
Deliverables: Preparation of bidding documents and facilitating the bidding process.
K IPersonalUesse Cm(mnlaorewoodL e=R PROP Shorewood Lane 0204ISdoc
Scope of Engineering Services
February 4, 2015
Page 3
Total Estimated Eneineerine Fee
The cost to provide the scope of services outlined in this proposal will be billed hourly, based on our
current hourly rates. We are proposing to complete Shorewood Lane ravine improvements at an
hourly rate, estimated to be $26,200.
Time Schedule
Based on the current project schedule, WSB proposes to complete the Shorewood Lane Ravine
Restoration as follows:
• February 2015: Kickoff Meeting and Meeting with MCWD
• March — April 2015: Develop Hydrologic Model
• April — May 2015: Complete survey, Develop Hydraulic Model, and Prepare Summary of
Improvements /Cost Estimate
• June — July 2015: Design and Permitting
• August 2015: Bidding
• September — October 2015: Construction
K IPersonalUesse Cm(mnlaorewoodL e=R PROP Shorewood Lane 204ISdoc
#3E
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Approve Agreement with Minnetonka Community Education for Lifeguard
Services at Crescent Beach
Meeting Date: 23 February 2015
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director
Reviewed by: Bill Joynes, Larry Brown, Bruce DeJong
Attachments: Agreement
Policy Consideration: Consider approval of the Agreement for Lifeguard Services at Crescent Beach.
Background: The City jointly operates Crescent Beach with the City of Tonka Bay. Expenses for
lifeguard services are shared by the cities. Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) has provided these
services in the past, and has submitted a revised proposal for a two-year term for the summers of 2015
and 2016.
The proposed agreement for the City of Shorewood is attached. In 2015, the beach will be staffed from
June 6 – August 9, seven days per week. For 2016, the beach dates are June 4 – August 7.
One lifeguard will be on duty from 12 noon to 5 PM, the same timeframe as the past two years.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The City of Shorewood’s fee for services for 2015 and 2016 will be
$3,039 each year, an increase of $114 from the 2013-2014 agreement.
Options:
Approve the Agreement with Minnetonka Community Education for Lifeguard Services at
Crescent Beach for a two-year term, for the summers of 2015 and 2016 at the rate of $3,039
each year.
Do not approve the agreement.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends Council approve the two-year Agreement
with Minnetonka Community Education for Lifeguard Services at Crescent Beach as provided.
Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will mail the approved Agreement to Minnetonka Community
Education.
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
Proposed Agreement:
Lifeguard Services for the City of Shorewood
Summer 2015 and Summer 2016
Submitted by:
Minnetonka School District
(Contractor)
5621 County Road 101, Minnetonka MN 55345
th
February 10, 2015
1.
A. Lifeguard Services
.
The Contractor agrees to provide the city with qualified American Red Cross Certified
th
Saturday June 6 through Sunday
personnel to Lifeguard the following beaches from
August 9 th, 2015Saturday June 4 th through Sunday August 7 th, 2016
and on a seven
day per week schedule:
Crescent Beach one guard from 12- 5 pm
B. The Contractor agrees to provide:
An appropriate number of lifeguards on duty at all times, according to any
applicable industry standards or regulations, weather permitting;
Ongoing in-service trainings during the summer season for all lifeguards;
Supervision of lifeguard personnel;
Safety equipment (back board & First Aid kits) for the lifeguards
2. City Obligations.
A. Beach
. The City agrees to provide a safe, clean and well-maintained beach and
beach area as stated in this agreement. This includes defined swimming boundaries;
sand and water free of debris and safety hazards; clean and sanitary restrooms; and a
lifeguard station. The City agrees to provide a working telephone, rescue tubes,
megaphone and lifeguard chairs as well as a safety boat with oars.
B. Payment
. The City agrees to pay the Contractor a total of $3,039 per year to be
invoiced in August 2015 and 2016, in return for services as stated in this agreement.
3.Reports.
The Contractor will provide the city with all necessary information relating to the Lifeguard
Services in order for the City to properly maintain the beach. On an as need basis the Aquatics
Director will report to the city representative in regards to incidents and/or accidents. At the end
of the season (October 2015/2016) the Contractor will provide the city with a full report of
beach activity during the season.
1
4.Insurance.
The City is responsible for obtaining property and liability coverage for the beach. The
Contractor will maintain professional liability and comprehensive general liability coverage for
all employees in an amount consistent with Chapter 466 of the Contractor.
5.Indemnification.
The Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its employees and officers from
any and all liability, loss, cost, damages, and expenses including but not limited to property
damage and personal injury, including death, which arise in connection with any acts or
omissions of Contractthe
Contractor and its employees, officers, and agents from any and all liability, loss, cost, damages
and expenses including but not limited to property damage and personal injury, including death,
which arise in connection with the City's performance of this contract or in connection with any
acts or omissions of city employees.
6.Liability.
Employees of the Contractor and all other persons engaged by the Contractor in the
performance of any work or services required, volunteered, or provided for herein to be
preformed by Contractor shall not be considered employees of the City and any and all claims
behalf of said employees while so engaged in any of the work or services provided to be
rendered herein, shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City, and other
persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required or provided
for herein to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the Contractor, and
Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims by any third
parties as a consequence of an act or omission on the part of said employees so engaged in any
of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or
responsibility of the Contractor.
7.Terms of Agreement.
Notwithstanding the date of the signature of the parties to this Agreement, upon acceptance by
all parties, this agreement shall be deemed to be effective upon signature by all parties and shall
remain in effect until October 2015/16 unless earlier terminated by either party, with or without
cause, upon 45 days written notice or as otherwise provided in this Agreement.
8. Default
.
If the Contractor or City fails to perform any of the provisions of the Agreement or so fails to
administer the work as to endanger the performance of this Agreement, this shall constitute
default. Unless the party in default is excused by the other party, the non-defaulting party may
upon written notice immediately cancel this Agreement in its entirety.
2
9. Subcontractors.
The Contractor shall not enter into any subcontract for performance of any services
contemplated under this Agreement nor sign any interest in this Agreement without the prior
written approval of the City and subject to such conditions and provisions as the City may deem
necessary. The Contractor shall be responsible for the performance of all subcontractors.
10. Authorized Representatives.
The Parties to this Agreement shall appoint an authorized representative for the purpose of
administration of this Agreement. The authorized representative of the city is:
City Administrator
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
(952) 474-3236
The Authorized representative of the Contractor is as follows:
Dennis Peterson, Superintendent
Minnetonka School District
5621 County Road 101, Minnetonka, MN 55345
(952) 401-5000
11.Amendments.
Any amendments to this Agreement will be in writing and will be executed by the same parties
who executed the original Agreement, or their successors in office.
12.Entire Agreement.
It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement of the parties is contained herein and that
this Agreement supersedes all oral Agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to
the subject matter hereof as well as any previous Agreement presently in effect between the
parties relating to the subject matter hereof.
In Witness Whereof,
the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed intending to
be bound thereby.
City of Shorewood
___________________________________________________________ Date: ___________________
Name & Title
Minnetonka Community Education
____________________________________________________________ Date:____________________
Dennis Peterson, Superintendent
3
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2015 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Davis, Maddy and Muehlberg; Planning Director Nielsen;
and Council Liaison Labadie
Absent: None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Maddy moved, Davis seconded, approving the agenda for February 3, 2015, as presented. Motion
passed 4/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 20, 2015
Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January
20, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER
1200 SQUARE FEET
Applicant: Don and Loretta Mann
Location: 25880 Birch Bluff Road
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He
explained the Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as
volunteers on the Commission. They are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help
the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is
to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-
binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. He noted that if the
Planning Commission makes a recommendation this evening this item will go before the City Council on
February 23, 2015. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use
permit (C.U.P.) for accessory space over 1200 square feet for Don and Loretta Mann, 25880 Birch Bluff
Road.
Director Nielsen explained the Manns propose to build a new detached garage to the south of the existing
house. Because the area of the new garage when combined with an existing attached garage on the
property exceeds 1200 square feet (it will be 1399 square feet) a C.U.P. is required.
The property is zoned R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland and contains 30,649 square feet in
area. It is about one and one-half of what the R-1C District requires. The site is occupied by the owners’
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 3, 2015
Page 2 of 9
home and attached garage as well as a 14 foot by 16 foot shed. The applicants propose to remove the
existing shed. The new garage contains 882 square feet. The City Code requires the floor area be
calculated based on measurements on the inside of the exterior walls. The proposed garage will be 10 feet
from the east side lot line approximately 116 feet back from the right-of-way (ROW) of Birch Bluff Road.
A copy of the applicants’ request was included in the meeting packet. He displayed illustrative plans for
the new garage. The existing home contains 3172 square feet of floor area not including the basement
level.
Nielsen reviewed how the applicants’ request complies with the four criteria in Section 1201.03 Subd.
2.d.(4) of the City’s Zoning Code for granting this type of C.U.P.
a. The total area of accessory buildings (1399 square feet), which includes the attached garage, does
not exceed the floor area (3172 square feet – main floor) above grade of the existing home.
b. The total area of accessory buildings does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the
R-1C/S zoning district (.10 x 20,000 = 2000 square feet).
c. The proposed garage complies with R-1C/S setback requirements. The proposed hardcover for
the site will be 31.27 percent, down from the existing 32.4 percent. While this is greater than the
maximum allowed in the “S”, Shoreland overlay district, the City’s policy in such cases is to
allow improvements/additions where hardcover is actually being reduced. The driveway has been
reconfigured to further reduce hardcover. This reduction, combined with the removal of the very
nonconforming existing shed, brings the property closer to compliance with the Zoning Code.
d. The architectural character of the new building will be the same as the existing house. Siding and
roofing will match the house.
Nielsen noted that based on the analysis of the case staff recommends that the applicant’s request for a
conditional use permit be granted, subject to the following. He noted the conditions are different from
those listed in the staff report.
1. The existing shed should be removed by August 31, 2015.
2. For the driveway reconfiguration the applicant wants to grade and put down class 5 rock for the
new driveway and let it settle for a year. That should be done by the middle of October 2015.
Commissioner Maddy asked Mr. Mann if he attempted to reduce the impervious surface to less than 25
percent. Mr. Mann explained he will remove about 1,000 square feet of black top driveway. Most of the
reconfigured driveway will be where the existing driveway is. The existing driveway is in relatively good
condition and his plan is to put a 2-inch overlay on it.
Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:16 P.M.
JR Campuzano, 25860 Birch Bluff Road, stated the Manns are great neighbors and Mr. Mann showed
him what he was proposing to do. He then stated Mr. Mann has done good things with the architectural
design of his house and proposed garage. He noted that he has asked Mr. Mann to soften the garage on
side of the lot next to his house with landscaping. Mr. Mann has indicated he would do that. He also noted
that he does not oppose the new garage.
Mr. Mann stated it has been his intent to have some landscaping around the garage.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 3, 2015
Page 3 of 9
Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:19 P.M.
Chair Geng noted that he appreciates the cooperation of the neighbors.
Director Nielsen stated if the landscaping requirement is a condition of approval that should be
documented and there should be some type of sketch of the landscaping provided. He noted that would
not have to come back before the Planning Commission.
Maddy moved, Muehlberg seconded, recommending approval of the conditional use permit for
accessory space over 1200 square feet for Don and Loretta Mann, 25880 Birch Bluff Road, subject
to the existing shed being removed by August 31, 2015; the reconfigured driveway being graded
and class 5 rock driveway put down by the middle of October 2015; and, the applicant providing a
sketch of the landscaping that will go next to the east side of the garage to the Planning Department
before this is considered by Council. Motion passed 4/0.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M.
2. PUBLIC HEARING – SETBACK VARIANCES
Applicant: Nick Bender
Location: 5765 Eureka Road
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the
previous item. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a setback variances
for Nick Bender, 5765 Eureka Road.
Director Nielsen explained Mr. Bender has requested setback variances to replace the existing garage on
the south side of his house with a detached two-car garage on the north side of his house. The proposed
garage will measure 22 feet by 26 feet. He also proposes to replace his existing deck with a new one on
the south side of the house a little further back but it will still not be in compliance with the setback
requirement. The new garage will be about 10 feet from the rear property line; 50 feet is required. It will
be 60 feet from the front property line. Therefore, a 40-foot variance to the rear yard setback is required.
That is similar to the variance that was granted to the property to the south.
The property is zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential and contains 12,020 square feet of area. That is
quite substandard for the R-1A District; the requirement is 40,000 square feet. Also, the lot is more than
53 feet shallower in depth than the R-1A District allows. In addition to the nonconformity of the existing
lot, the house does not currently meet setbacks on the east side of the lot.
The property survey shows that the building setbacks, even after taking advantage of an average front
setback established by adjacent properties, renders the lot unbuildable. Just about anything he would want
to do on his lot would require some type of variance.
Variances are evaluated on the basis of Section 1201.05 Subd. 2 of the City Code. He reviewed how the
applicant’s request appears justified, at least in part, based on the factors listed below.
1. The substandard area of the subject lot is aggravated by its shallow depth.
2. The need for the variance is not economic in nature.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 3, 2015
Page 4 of 9
3. A two-car garage is commonly enjoyed by most residential properties in Shorewood. Some cities
require at least a two-car garage.
4. In past cases the City has recognized that the inability to have at least a two-car garage in
Minnesota constitutes a hardship (now practical difficulty).
5. The applicants did not create their practical difficulty. Both the house and lot were created prior
to current requirements, and the property has never had a two-car garage. The existing garage is
grossly substandard from a Building Code perspective.
6. The proposed garage is a modestly sized for two cars; it is not considered to be oversized. While
the garage could technically be moved closer to the street, it would then interfere with the
windows and entry to the home on its north side. The proposed location minimizes an
overcrowded appearance along Eureka Road. The location of the new deck complies somewhat
better than the old and relates much better with the side entry to the home.
He noted that despite the very substandard lot size, the proposed improvements to the home will only
result in 23.3 percent hardcover on the site; 33 percent is allowed.
Nielsen also noted that based on the analysis of the case staff recommends that the applicant’s request be
granted as proposed.
Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M.
Ken Dallman, 5780 Eureka Road, stated he is present to give support to his neighbor Mr. Bender for
doing an excellent job on his house. What he and the property owner to the south have done to their
houses is appreciated by the neighborhood. He noted that he believes the neighborhood residents will
appreciate what is being proposed.
Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:34 P.M.
Chair Geng stated he likes the location of the proposed garage. He then stated from his perspective
granting of the requested variances is warranted and necessary. He believes it meets the practical
difficulty criteria.
Geng moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of the setback variances for Nick Bender,
5765 Eureka Road. Motion passed 4/0.
Chair Geng noted this item will go before the City Council on February 23, 2015.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:37 P.M.
3. PREAPPLICATION – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (continued from
January 20, 2015)
Applicant: Mattamy Homes
Location: 24575 Smithtown Road (Minnetonka Country Club Property)
Chair Geng noted that the Planning Commission discussed the pre-application for an amendment to the
City’s Comprehensive (Comp) Plan for the proposed residential development of the Minnetonka
Country Club (MCC) property located at 24575 Smithtown Road during its January 6, 2015, meeting.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 3, 2015
Page 5 of 9
The applicant is Mattamy Homes. The topic was continued to its January 20, 2015, meeting but was not
discussed. It was continued to this meeting.
Director Nielsen explained that during the January 29, 2015, Council and staff retreat Planning
Consultant John Shardlow with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., raised five questions regarding the
MCC property and the property near there. The questions and Council’s responses are as follows.
1. Who should be the primary working group through the planning process for the MCC project?
Stantec’s proposal recommended establishing a Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) that would
augment (but include in total) the Planning Commission. A position could be taken that Council
wants and needs to be more hands on throughout the process and if so there could be joint City
Council and Planning Commission workshops throughout the process. Or, the Planning
Commission could be charged with the task.
After discussion Council agreed that the Planning Commission would be the core group. The
Committee would also include a to-be-determined number of residents and possibly business
owners. Council has been asked to submit a list of names for consideration of participation.
The first opportunity for the PAC to meet would be on February 17 with a fall back date of
February 24.
2. Is the Council interested in exploring the possibility of any housing types other than single-
family detached units, either on the golf course property or in the vicinity?
Council’s consensus was yes.
3. Does Council support the exploration of possible ways to leverage the value associated with the
golf course redevelopment to improve the quality and expedite the timing of redevelopment
surrounding the County Road 19 / Smithtown Road / Country Club Road Intersections?
Council’s consensus was yes.
Whether or not the golf course redevelopment and the adjacent redevelopment is combined into
one over-arching redevelopment financing strategy, does the Council view the planning for the
adjacent redevelopment strategy as something that should be carefully thought through before
signing off on the final plans for the golf course redevelopment?
Council’s consensus was yes.
4. Should the pros and cons of potential realignments of Country Club Road be explored?
Council’s consensus was yes.
5. Should the pluses and minuses of park dedication (in land) on the golf course be fully explored?
Should the potential sale and reuse of the existing park next to City Hall be explored?
Council’s consensus was yes.
He stated that based on Council having answered yes to all of those questions it may be premature to
make a recommendation on the pre-application until the Planning Consultant and PAC have completed
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 3, 2015
Page 6 of 9
the study and made its recommendation to Council. In a way, the study output becomes the pre-
application. The existing pre-application should be considered in the context of the larger picture. He
clarified that if there are specific concerns about the project they should be mentioned and captured in
the record.
He noted that the developer is concerned about the timing. Mr. Shardlow has indicated to the developer
that this process need not hold up the construction process which is intended to be started in 2016. The
developer does not intend to move any dirt in 2015.
Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen what he wants from the Planning Commission this evening. Director
Nielsen stated the Commission can pass a motion reiterating what he just said.
Director Nielsen explained the pre-application process does not render a vote. Issues are identified
through that process and it provides the developer with direction. Based on Council having agreed to the
Planning Consultant’s approach that basically becomes the pre-application for the project.
He stated if there is anything specific about the project he suggested they get into the record and that
they be conveyed to the Planning Consultant during PAC meetings.
Commissioner Muehlberg asked who is spearheading the traffic study. Director Nielsen responded the
Planning Consultant’s proposal includes a traffic study and that will be done early on in the process.
Muehlberg then asked if thought has been given to including Hennepin County representatives in that
study. Nielsen explained that if there are to be any improvements or changes made to the Smithtown
Road and County Road 19 intersection then Hennepin County has to be involved.
Commissioner Davis stated she thought the Planning Consultant indicated the traffic study would be
done after there is some idea of what is going to be in that area. Director Nielsen stated the land uses
have to be known before the traffic study is done.
Director Nielsen clarified that the Planning Consultant is looking at his charge as primarily a land use
study/question. But, that has to be supported by transportation solutions. He explained there are two
collector streets – Smithtown Road on the north side of the MCC property and Country Club Road,
Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive on the west. Smithtown Road is designed and operated as a
collector street. Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive are a substandard
collector route.
When the Smithtown Road and County Road 19 intersection was reconstructed one goal was to try and
minimize shortcutting traffic from County Road 19 down Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and
Lake Linden Drive to Highway 41. As part of this study an effort should be made to reduce shortcutting
traffic to accommodate the new traffic that will be generated from the MCC redevelopment project. The
new traffic could be as much as 1,000 trips a day. For the most part, that new traffic needs to be directed
to the County Road 19 intersection. He has asked traffic engineers how far people have to go out of there
way before a traffic route is no longer a shortcut.
In response to a comment by Chair Geng, Director Nielsen explained that what the developer is
proposing will require a planned unit development (PUD) which is a flexible zoning tool. The current R-
1A zoning allows the developer to build one single-family dwelling unit on a 40,000 square foot lot.
There are some undesirable soils in spots on the MCC property and some spots that the developer would
like to protect. He would like to take the number of units allowed and cluster them on the better ground.
That would result in the houses being on lots smaller than 40,000 square feet but the density would
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 3, 2015
Page 7 of 9
remain the same. The developer wants to build $800,000 to $1 million houses. The question is how the
houses fit on the small lots and how will what property owners want (e.g., decks, patios and swimming
pools) fit on those lots as well. What will the setbacks have to be to accommodate that?
Commissioner Davis noted that the developer had expressed reservations about allowing the open space
to be available to the public. Director Nielsen stated that is an issue. Commissioner Maddy stated the
developer also indicated that it could possibly be made public land. Nielsen stated he thought the
developer was uncertain if the open space should be public or private. Under a PUD it can go either way.
He then stated the developer seems to be willing to have a trail loop around the property. But, if it is
going to be a public trail the developer does not want the future property owners to be responsible for the
maintenance and upkeep of that trail.
Commissioner Maddy stated that based on how Council wants to move forward with having a broader
assessment of the area rather than just the MCC property he thought the Comp Plan amendment should
be considered more broadly for the area.
Director Nielsen stated he will pass along to Council and the Planning Consultant that the Planning
Commission has concern about whether the open space should be public or private, concern about lot
sizes and how the houses will fit on them, and that the Commission agrees with taking a more global
approach to the project. There was Planning Commission consensus that would be the appropriate
message to convey to Council.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Patrick Johnson, 26350 Alexander Lane, suggested there also be people on the Planning Advisory
Committee (PAC) who are not stakeholders in the surrounding the area (i.e., they do not own property in
the area surrounding the Minnetonka Country Club property) to provide outside expertise. They could be
planners who do not live in Shorewood, urban planners or possibly a retired developer.
Director Nielsen clarified that PAC members from outside of the MCC area will also be considered.
Planning Consultant John Shardlow with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. was commissioned to do the
study.
Mr. Johnson noted he reviewed some of the information Stantec provided. He stated that based on having
gone through something similar in the New York City/New Jersey area when one person is hired to drive
a project/study they are often looked upon with some amount of skepticism. When other outside people
with expertise who are removed from the project are included with volunteers it brings another level of
credibility to the project.
Council Liaison Labadie stated the intent is to have a broad group of residents from different age brackets
and educational backgrounds; not just those who live or work in close proximity to the project. She then
stated people can submit their names for consideration on the PAC. She noted that all residents have
something to offer independent of the education and where they live. She clarified that a decision has not
been made on how many people will be on the PAC or when the PAC will meet. Having the PAC meet
immediately before the Planning Commission meetings has been proposed. She stated those individuals
selected to be on the PAC need to be committed to participating; they cannot just come and go.
Mr. Johnson asked someone to expound upon Council’s desire to look at uses other than single-family
residential. Council Liaison Labadie stated that has not been discussed in great detail. At this time
Council wants to keep all of its options open during the study stage.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 3, 2015
Page 8 of 9
5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen noted that Council will interview four applicants for the two Planning Commission seats
that will be open as of March 1, 2015.
Nielsen stated optimistically the kickoff meeting for the to-be-determined Planning Advisory Committee
(PAC) will be on February 17, 2015. If that does not work because of the short notice the fall back date
would be February 24.
Council Liaison Labadie noted that members of the Council will not attend the PAC meetings per the
Planning Consultant’s recommendation.
Director Nielsen noted that at a minimum the PAC meetings will be audio recorded so members of
Council can listen to them if they would like.
Chair Geng asked when the results of the detailed demographics analysis for the City by the Urban Land
Institute (ULI) Minnesota Program Navigating the New Normal and paid for by the Housing Fund will be
presented to Council and the Planning Commission. Director Nielsen stated he is not sure that analysis is
going to be done. Geng stated he thought that would be a good thing to have done. Commissioner Davis
concurred.
7. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
Planning Commissioner Maddy reported on Council’s January 26, 2015, meeting (as detailed in the
minutes of that meeting).
In response to a question from Commissioner Maddy, Director Nielsen stated remodeling of the structure
on the 5680 County Road 19 property has been started for the Plumbing / Heating business.
• SLUC
Director Nielsen stated he had heard that the most recent Sensible Land Use Coalition session was not
very good. He noted he will get the Commissioners information on the upcoming session.
• Other
Council Liaison Labadie stated she attended a two-day session for newly elected city officials’ on January
30 and 31. She thought about 500 people from all over the State attended. The first day she found to be
“light and fluffy”. On day two there was a lot of discussion about open meeting laws. She is going to see
if there is a way to get a clean copy of the material because she thought it would be valuable for the
Planning Commissioners to have.
She explained that anytime there is a quorum of members of a commission, council or any such body the
meeting has to be noticed to the public. Although people can get together at social functions without it
being noticed, if there is any discussion about city business it is technically an open meeting and the city
and attendees can be looking at sanctions. A neighboring city has gotten into a lot of trouble because of
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 3, 2015
Page 9 of 9
that. Shorewood is on the radar of a lot of cities because of the potential Minnetonka Country Club
(MCC) redevelopment project. She learned that all emails should come through City Clerk Panchyshyn,
Planning Director Nielsen or Administrator Joynes. People should not “cc” back to the entire group.
When the Commission does trail walks the walks are noticed. But, that can be a tricky situation when four
Commissioners are riding in the same vehicle and talking about the trail.
Commissioner Davis suggested the Commission review it in a meeting so the discussion becomes part of
the public record.
Director Nielsen stated that when residents ask a Commissioner or member of Council to come to a
project site and talk about a project people should tell them that if they have something to say it should be
said to all of the members of Council and the Commissions. That was the advice of the City Attorney
during the Summit Woods planned unit development project.
Council Liaison Labadie stated if there is a serial chain of communication that is also a violation of the
open meeting law. If a developer wants to walk the site with members of Council or the Commission and
if the developer shows up with coffee and donuts the refreshments should be declined because that is
technically a gift.
Labadie then stated that when the public meeting is closed the discussion about city business has to close.
Director Nielsen stated there are Government Training Sessions available for Planning Commissioners to
attend.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Maddy moved, Davis seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of February 3, 2015,
at 8:23 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
#8A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting
Title / Subject:
Mann — CUP for Accessory Space
Meeting Date:
23 February 2015
Prepared by:
Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by:
Patti Nelgesen
Attachments: Planning Director's memorandum
Draft Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City grant a conditional use permit for the property at 25880 Birch
Bluff Road to allow accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet?
Background: See attached memorandum. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at its 3
February meeting to consider this application. At the hearing, the neighbor to the east of the subject
site requested that some sort of landscaping be planted along the east side of the building to soften the
view of the building from his property. Mr. Mann agreed to plant arborvitae along the east side of the
building.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The application fee paid by the applicant covers the cost of
processing the application.
Options: Approve the CUP; modify the CUP; or deny the CUP.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Adoption of the attached resolution is recommended.
Next Steps and Timelines: Upon approval of the resolution, a building permit for the proposed garage
may be issued.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Sustainable tax base.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
yell
I'M
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 28 January 2015
RE: Mann, Donald and Loretta - C.U.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200
Square Feet
FILE NO.: 405 (15.02)
BACKGROUND
Donald and Loretta Mann have applied for a conditional use permit to construct accessory
space in excess of 1200 square feet on the property located at 25880 Birch Bluff Road (see
Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). The Manns propose to build anew detached garage
to the south of the existing house. Since the area of the garage, combined with an existing
attached garage on the property exceeds 1200 square feet, a C.U.P. is required.
The property is zoned R -1C /S, Single- Family Residential /Shoreland and contains 30,649
square feet in area. As shown on Exhibit B the site is occupied by the owners' home and
attached garage, and a'14' x 16' shed. The applicants propose to remove the existing shed.
The new garage contains 882 square feet. Combined with the existing garage, the amount of
accessory space on the site will total 1399 square feet. The proposed garage will be on the
south side of the existing home, 10 feet from the side lot line, approximately 116 feet back
from the right-of-way of Birch Bluff Road. The applicants' request is explained on Exhibit C.
Plans for the new garage are illustrated on Exhibit D attached. The existing home, shown on
Exhibit E, contains 3172 square feet of floor area not including the basement level.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) of the Zoning Code prescribes criteria for granting conditional
use permits for accessory space over 1200 square feet. Following is how the applicants' plans
®"
0 ®o® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Mann CUP
28 January 2015
comply with the Code:
a. The total area of accessory buildings (1399 square feet) does not exceed the floor area
(3172 square feet — main floor) above grade of the existing home.
b. The total area of accessory buildings does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size
for the R -1C /S zoning district (10 x 20,000 = 2000 square feet).
c. The proposed garage complies with R -1C /S setback requirements. It is worth noting that
the proposed hardcover for the site will be 31.27 percent, down from the existing 32.4
percent. While this is greater than the the maximum allowed in the "S ", Shoreland overlay
district, the City's policy in such cases is to allow improvements /additions where
hardcover is actually being reduced. In addition, the driveway has been reconfigured to
further reduce hardcover. This reduction, combined with the removal of the very
nonconforming existing shed, brings the property closer to compliance with the Zoning
Code.
d. The architectural character of the new building will be the same as the existing house.
Siding and roofing will match the house.
Based upon the preceding analysis, it is recommended that the applicant's request for a
conditional use permit be granted, subject to the following:
The existing shed should be removed before the builder calls for a framing inspection on
the new building.
2. The driveway reconfiguration should be completed prior to final inspection of the
building or 31 August 2015, whichever comes first.
cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Joe Pazandak
Donald Mann
-2-
irsh-Pt
J
N
A
0 300 600 1,200
Feet
dgewood_R
Lake Minnetonka
lCD
CD
ar_d n
�I r.
C,.
Ielsine.Dri
L�
J
� �v
i
UVEERINGCO. W PVC DRPLI D 10.0%
W
2) 225 0502 w W.ADVSTIR.COM , te eD� - °� OUTLET MV.-93E4
µDrk Dt ; I
tgh Weer L
5 Minnesota, described as follows:
-
sof said Lot 15toapoin4 which point is
thence Northerly along a line parallel to.�:,�,''
dinnetonka , which intersection isatright
ly along said shore line to its intersection -
dLot15to the point ofbeginning.
pdon. 77iescopeofourservicesdoesnot - ❑- -�5=-
•legal description with your records or ------
and that any matters of record, such as;;>';_ ______��______= _;� /,;;�''
:property.
nor review and for the review of such
iar with yourplansas you are norarewe
:s Ore. We suggest that you review the
ie survey to such governmental agencies / -
)efore beginning construction or planning
:t, unless otherwise noted. w ,...
orundermy direct supervision and that I
laws of the state of Minnesota. \
fo.: 9235 Date: December 10, 2014
ee
T `
O
ho, o
N
w 1
20.5 °� 9` 1 ,qw, RE -
b r enrfna
```� I � FQOP�SED
I H/
niKe9619
NORTH1 4 I
A�
I
A - oRrna, •� ,,�
to 1
\ I b¢ r$ �✓
-
I,, o
-
`22-
-
1\ ; U Lot 15 Exhibit B
PROPERTY SURVEY
,Par
140818 2014 12 1013 JP PROPOSED
Regarding application for Conditional Use Permit from Donald B. and Loretta L. Mann
We are applying for a Conditional Use Permit because we want to build a detached garage in our yard
that will increase the accessory space as follows:
Internal square feet of present garage attached to house
517
Square feet of present non - conforming shed
243
Total present square feet of accessory space
760
Add: Internal square feet of proposed detached garage
882
Deduct: Square feet of present non - conforming shed to be demolished
243
Total square feet of accessory space after project is completed
1399
We want to do this project for the following reasons:
We need to protect our three vehicles and two boats from the elements and increasing crime.
We want to get rid of our old terrible looking non - conforming 243 square foot shed.
We want to reduce our hard cover by 346 square feet as per survey.
We want to be a good neighbors by cleaning up the appearance of our property.
Exhibit C
APPLICANTS' REQUEST
Foundation footprint: home of Donald B. and Loretta L. Mann 25880 Birch Bluff Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 952 -474 -6444
69'10"
(A) = Two levels of living space
(B) = Two levels of living space
(C) = One level of living space
(D) = One level of living space and one level of garage
Total living space = 3,912 sq ft
Square feet: home of Donald B. and Loretta L. Mann 25880 Birch Bluff Road, Shorewood, MN 55331
Kitchen /dining /living room
Lower bedroom floor
Upper bedroom floor
Family room above garage
Basement
Total
Dimensions
Feet & Inches
Inches
Length
Width
Length
Width
48'6"
24'4"
582
292
33'0"
21'4"
396
256
33'0"
21'4"
396
256
24'4"
24'0"
292
288
312"
23'9"
374
285
Square
Feet
1,180
704
704
584
740
3,912
C -7
The front of the garage: All exterior siding will be cedar shakes and cedar trim same as on the house.
The height from the floor to the mid -point of the roof shall be approximately 14 feet (no more than 15 feet).
d
r
Both ends will look like this. The windows and copper covered eyebrow over them will be same as on the house.
d
N
oltor ewrw 6�-Ali>s OF Pnonosee -b G+ftoo./}G =E alle Li)614
D -3
4S yS'o gjZ ee'/ gza'a` 2oft�
Exhibit E
EXISTING HOUSE
ay3 SquAw,E Poor s���, ?/.A7' b rc QF
Exhibit F
EXIS'T'ING SHED
RE: Mann, Donald and Loretta — C.U.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet
r
File No: 405 (15.02)
At the February 3, 2015, Planning Commission Meeting I agreed to provide a sketch of proposed
plantings on the east side of my proposed garage to "soften" its appearance to my neighbor to the east
of me. I propose some arborvitae type plantings to the east side as shown in the sketch below. The
final number and location will depend on if there is an entry door and /or a window on the east side
which will be determined after I have worked with an architect after council approval.
Donald Mann
NORTH
III
1-3
0 02'
■■■N■O■■■
■�
■W■■
■'�■'��N���■■N■■°N■�N
■p��■N�'
\AN■
■■°■��
:'■°■
N'N8'N■WnN
�■'C■°■N■:■
■�N■�'
0■�NY
o....N°
■
■ ■N
..C.■■
N■
■N■■N
■N�■®■�NN.p■
\■°■n.
■NNN■
gyp■■
■N■■
■
■NN
■ ■ ■N■■
■°iii°
�NNMERE
N ■
■■■nNNNN■■N
NpN
■ ■nWn
■■ ■His
°■■■
ER
■�'p�E
n
■1 ■ ■pB��aN
nN■■■
W■■_
NW�■�
_�_.B
■�
■ ■N
■YU
■ ■
®� ■
■N°pWp
■
■�0�
■'�
�uW■
'N'
■
■� ■�
■
■n
■■
N■■
N■
N�
■NN
■NqO�
..n■■■
■BN■N
■dNB
N
■ ■
■�■■
■. ■
■nNNNB�■■WY
WIMS
ME
0
ME
NEW
ENRON
WE
OEM
Mr.
Emu
■N■
■NON
NN■N■'■�i��iio■N""i7i■wiui
■NBN
■nN
NN■��
■� ■N..NN■■NtlNN
�NN�om�■.
■ ■NNNON■■°N■
NW
NWN-
■■■NNN
■iiN
■■
'■i'■uM,'
'■N
a■
i_
■i■
NN■
�N■
■
■
�WN
■mn
■N
n ■
■■■
■O ■N■'pB
■i
■pp
W
N■°
■
■
NN
N ■p■N
W
■
■ ■i■
■N°■NNiN�mN■
N
Ni ■
■
no
0
coo
�i■s■p■m�■■p■�mm�opNia
■■■■
■■tl
■ ■N■NNNN■
■Bii■imPu■°iN
■N■■■■■NN�
mW
■N
■■NNN
■n■
■N■■
■■
pN■
N■
■ HNNn�°■pN■�■�W�■�
■°■■■■■■■■■
�N■■
�p
�■■■p■N■n�■mC■N
■■ ■NU■■■IN■W■
■■
°■�°�■'■ONp■p■■
■■■■
aB■N
■
■NN
■NN
■ ■■N■.■NNNNNNO■�■■
N
®a
■n
■NN■
■Nr■pN
■ ■N■
■ ■■■W
■B
■■■N
t■
■ ■n
■N
■N■■
■■■
■NN
■w
■■■■
■■
■ 'r°N■N■N■WNii
■■N
■ ■N■■
W��■�■
■ n�
■�.■N�■p■�N■Bn■■i■iu■
■ ■ ■N
■WNi
'i■■°
°
°a■W'Ni�i
"'
■■■■
■
n ■NNY■
N
■ ■NW■
■nBN■.
N
N■
■■NNN�N
■
■■ ■NNN
N■■"'a■
.�W
W■■��NN
■ ■W
■
WEB ®W
■■■■W
■N�W
■OpNN
a�N■
O'N■q■■W■■
■ ■N■■N
■n�O:■■NdO�Y■
•
::lC:
■NO��Y���■°■�
■i■n
■N
o■N■t
■•NN■liB
■■�N
l��■���
'iiN °■
■��
■
ni
■■■■■
■:.�NWW
■NN
WpN■■
■'Eu■■
■■■N■■�pN
®
■�°�N■■■.
■WN■
■■pMEN
�■_
"u■■■
NN■r
■�■W■°■■°
■
■ ■W
■NW■�
■■■N
■ ■�
■
N
.WNNN
■ ■N
■
■ ■ ■°
■ ■NNNNNp■■
■N�N■■A■
III
1-3
0 02'
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY SPACE
TO DONALD AND LORETTA MANN
WHEREAS, Donald and Loretta Mann (Applicants) are the owners of real property
located at 25880 Birch Bluff Road, in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, legally
described as:
"Lot 14 and that part of Lot 15, Birch Bluff, Upper Minnetonka, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 15, thence along the Southerly line of said
Lot 15 to a point, which point is 22 feet at right angles Westerly from the Easterly line of
said Lot 15 extended; thence Northerly along a line parallel to the Easterly line of said
Lot 15 to its intersection with the shore line of Lake Minnetonka, which intersection is at
right angles a distance of 22 feet from the Easterly line of said Lot 15, thence Easterly
along said shore line to tints intersection with the Easterly line of said Lot 15, thence
Southerly along the easterly line of said Lot 15 to the point of beginning."
WHEREAS, the Applicants have applied to the City for a Conditional Use Permit for the
constriction of a detached garage, the area of which, when added to the area of existing
accessory space on the property, will bring the total area of accessory space on the property up to
1399 square feet; and
WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code requires a Conditional use Permit for the
constriction of accessory space exceeding 1200 square feet; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 28
January 2015, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was
reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on 3 February 2015, the minutes of
which meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was considered by the City Council at its regular
meeting on 23 February 2015, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the minutes of the
Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City
staff
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject property is located in a R -1C /S, Single- Family Residential /Shoreland
zoning district and contains approximately 30,649 square feet of area.
2. The total proposed accessory space (1399 square feet) does not exceed the floor
area above grade of the principal stricture (3 172 square feet, not including the basement).
3. The total area of accessory space does not exceed 10% of the minimum lot area
for the R -1C /S zoning district in which it is located (2000 square feet).
4. That the design and materials of the proposed attached garage are consistent with
the architectural character of the existing home.
The subject garage complies with all setback requirements for the R -1C /S. zoning-
district.
6. The total amount of existing impervious surface on the property exceeds 25
percent, but the Applicants propose to remove a nonconforming stricture on the property and
reconfigure the driveway so as to result in a net reduction of impervious surface.
CONCLUSION
A. The application of Donald and Loretta Mann for a Conditional Use Permit as set
forth herein above be and hereby is granted.
B. This approval is subject to the following:
The detached garage will be used strictly for purposes of a residential
nature.
2. The Applicants are hereby advised that the City Code provides specific
regulations relative to home occupations and any future use of the garage
for other than allowable residential purposes would have to comply with
such regulations.
The Applicant will plant arborvitae along the east side of the garage to
soften the view of the east elevation as viewed from the property to the
east.
C. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide the Applicants
with a certified copy of this Resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or
Registrar of Titles.
-2-
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY SHOREWOOD this 23rd day of
February 2015.
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
-3-
Scott Zerby, Mayor
#8B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Bender, Nick – Setback Variances
Meeting Date: 23 February 2015
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum
Draft Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City grant setback variances to Nick Bender for a new garage and
relocation of his deck?
Background: See attached Planning Director’s memorandum for detailed background on this item. The
Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application at its 3 February meeting and voted to
recommend approval of the variances as requested.
Financial or Budget Considerations: None. The applicant’s application fees cover the cost of processing
the request.
Options: Approve the variance; deny the variance; or modify the variance.
Recommendation / Action Requested: As conservative as Shorewood is regarding variances (rightfully
so), this application is what variance procedures were intended. The applicant’s lot is unbuildable in any
way without some sort of variance. As mentioned in the staff report, a property owner’s inability to
have at least a two-car garage in Minnesota has, by policy, been grounds for a variance. Staff agrees
with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the request.
Next Steps and Timelines: If Council is in agreement, a building permit can be issued upon receipt of
construction drawings. It is recommended that the existing garage be removed prior to the applicant
calling for a final inspection on the garage or
Connection to Vision / Mission: Sustainable tax base.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
Lle.�
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 29 January 2015
RE: Bender, Nick - Setback Variances
FILE NO.: 405(15.03)
BACKGROUND
Mr. Nick Bender has requested setback variances to construct a detached two -car garage on
his property at 5765 Eureka Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). He also
proposes to replace his existing deck with anew one on the south side of the house. The
property is zoned R-IA, Single - Family Residential and contains 12,020 square feet of area.
Exhibit B shows the location of the applicant's existing home and garage, the proposed
garage, and the existing and proposed decks. In addition to the substandard lot area (12,020
vs. 40,000 square feet) the lot is 53+ feet shallower in depth than the R -1 A zoning district
allows. His request for variances is explained in his letter — Exhibit C.
The garage, shown on Exhibits D and E, measures 22' x 26' and is proposed to be constructed
on the north side of the house, replacing a dilapidated existing garage on the south side of the
house. Since the new garage is located 10 feet from the rear property line, the request
necessitates a 40 -foot variance to the rear yard setback requirement. The proposed deck is
located toward the middle of the south elevation of the building 'replacing the existing. deck
further back.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
In addition to the nonconformity of the existing lot, the house does not currently meet setbacks
on the east side of the lot. As can be seen on Exhibit B, the building setbacks, even taking
advantage of an average front setback established by adjacent properties, render_ s the lot
unbuildable. The new garage will be 60 feet from the front property line.
®�® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Bender Variances
29 January 2015
Variances are to be evaluated on the basis of Section 1201.05 Subd. 2 of the City Code. The
applicant's request appears justified, at least in part, based on the following factors:
The substandard area of the subject lot is aggravated by its shallow depth.
2. The need for the variance is not economic in nature.
3. A two -car garage is commonly enjoyed by most residential properties in Shorewood.
Some cities go so far as to require at least a two -car garage.
4. The City has in past cases recognized that the inability to have at least a two -car garage in
Minnesota constitutes a hardship (now practical difficulty).
5. The applicants did not create their practical difficulty. Both the house and lot were
created prior to current requirements, and the property has never had a two -car garage.
Further the existing garage is grossly substandard from a Building Code perspective.
6. The proposed garage is a modestly sized for two cars and is not considered to be
oversized. While the garage could technically be moved closer to the street, it would then
interfere with the windows and entry to the home on its north side. The proposed location
also minimizes an overcrowded appearance along Eureka Road. The location of the new
deck complies somewhat better than the old and relates much better with the side entry to
the home.
It is worth noting that despite the very substandard lot size, the proposed improvements to
the home only result in 23.3 percent hardcover on the site, whereas 33 percent is allowed.
Based on the preceding, it is recommended that the applicant's request be granted as proposed.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Nick Bender
-2-
L
U
a �
.� 0 t
O _
W-C
1 ME
Elm B1
ONE
■� m IM
a�
.� rle
6�
a�
o m
o u-
N
r
U
cz<(o
0
U
Y o
= o
O M
F+
CD
o
10
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION
\ Bender Variances
Smo
------------ DWMM
4e-
FOVND RON
-N!
�A "
PRU
of'
GAR
7� .\
S
EKISTI MW G
Z
PRCr
-j, P. L,4
PftMCISFD It
17.0
.............
o
Sc
---- ---------- -
o
-
36.35 1 ---------
---------------- L,.
4e-
FOVND RON
-N!
�A "
PRU
of'
GAR
7� .\
"5 i0VA9 IRON
us R As T,
W7
U
'45,06- E ;=1
1? � j r=-- I
--------------- -------
-FrOr4r-V7'tJ
(to be
It
W44j)
Exhibit B
PROPERTY SURVEY
EKISTI MW G
Z
-j, P. L,4
PftMCISFD It
17.0
.............
o
Sc
�j
"5 i0VA9 IRON
us R As T,
W7
U
'45,06- E ;=1
1? � j r=-- I
--------------- -------
-FrOr4r-V7'tJ
(to be
It
W44j)
Exhibit B
PROPERTY SURVEY
porn: Nick Bender nickjbender @me.corn
Subject: 5765 Eureka Rd Variance Application
Date: January 6, 2015 at 11:53 AM
To: Brad Nielsen planning «ci.Shorewood.nnn.us
AIr Nielsen,
This is a letter describing our practical difficulties nvith our existing garage and deck at our home, 5765 Eureka Rd Shorewood,
AIN 55331. I'm applying to build a new 2 car garage and deck in different locations while bringing them into greater
conformity
Our existing garage is a small single car garage built in the 1950s. The concrete floor or slab is breaking up and has many large
cracks. Pieces of the flooring are coming up in large clucks. The garage isn't elevated enough to divert the water around it, so
during heavier rains we get standing water in the garage. Certain times of the year this water freezes and further damages the
concrete floor. The wall framing is also being damaged by the moisture and movement of freezing and thawing of ice. The size
of the existing garage is very limiting. Ale drive a typical small crossover SUV, which we can barely fit into the garage with no
additional room for other yard and personal items. It can be only used for storage or one small car, not both. The wiring in it
is not to code and is some areas, not safe. Improper wining size, circuit size, and wire protection issues are all present. The
existing garage is only 1.3 feet off the back property line.
I'm proposing to replace this substandard non - conforming garage with a new 2 car garage in a different location. The new
location would be on the north side of the house, 10 feet of the back and north side property line. This is very similar to what
was approved for the adjacent lot directly to the south of me, 5785 Eureka Rd, about 10 -12 years ago. The size of the garage
being more standard for current needs and the location is in greater conformity to my existing set backs. The existing garage
and driveway would be removed.
The deck has many of the same issues. Unusable size, it's in need or major repair or replacement, and with our current interior
remodel its no longer needed in its current location. The only option I have for a deck, is on the south side of the house.
There's not enough room in the back or the front, and the new garage would be on the North side of the house. I'm proposing
a nenv deck on the same side of the house as the existing, closer to the middle of the house which brings it into greater
conforinitj� I would remove the existing deck and stairs. The new deck location would connect to a new double door off the
living room.
This project would bring 2 structures into greater conformi", and would only increase the hardcover fi-om 21% to 23.2 %, I feel
these changes are the best practical solutions.
Thank you for your consideration,
Nick Bender
5765 Eureka Rd
Shorewood, AIN 55331
Exhibit C
APELICANT'S REQUEST LETTER
��
��
-�
Y
b
West
SW
SE
East
M
Proposed Garage & Side Deck
Exhibit E
ASSORTED PERSPECTIVES
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING SETBACK VARIANCES
TO NICK BENDER
WHEREAS
, Nick Bender (Applicant) is the owner of real property located at 5765
Eureka Road, City of Shorewood, legally described as:
“The North 125 feet of the South 350 feet of Lot 4, Eureka, Hennepin County,
Minnesota”; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicant has an existing single-family dwelling and a small garage, both
of which are located too close to the rear property line; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicant proposes to replace the existing, single-car garage with a new
two-car garage and relocate an existing nonconforming deck adjoining the house, both of which
necessitate setback variances; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicant’s request was reviewed by the City Planner, whose
recommendations are included in a memorandum, dated 29 January 2015, a copy of which is on
file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS
, after required notice a public hearing was held and the application reviewed
by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on 3 February 2015, the minutes of which
meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS
, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on 23
February 2015, at which time the Planner’s memorandum and the Planning Commission’s
recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the Applicant
and from the City staff; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.The subject property is located in an R-1A, Single-Family Residential zoning
district, which requires a 50-foot setback from the rear lot line and a 50-foot setback from the
front lot line.
2.The subject property is substandard in lot area and lot depth, having only 12,020
square feet of area where 40,000 square feet is required and having only 96.6 feet where 150 feet
is required.
3.The Applicant proposes to construct a new detached garage on the north side of
the existing house, ten feet from the rear lot line, requiring a variance of forty feet.
4.The Applicant proposes to construct a new deck on the south side of the house,
16.8 feet from the rear lot line, requiring a variance of 33.2 feet.
5.The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing garage on the south side of the
home.
6.Due to the shallow depth of the lot, the front and rear setbacks render the lot
unbuildable without variances.
CONCLUSIONS
A. The Applicant has satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under the
Shorewood City Code and has established practical difficulties as defined by Minnesota Statutes.
B.Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicant a
setback variance to build a detached garage 10 feet from the rear lot line and a new deck 16.8 feet
from the rear lot line.
C. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of this
resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 23rd day of
February 2015.
____________________________________
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
-22-
#9A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Receive Feasibility Report for Boulder Bridge Storm Water Pond Outlet
City Project 14-14
Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
Prepared by: Paul Hornby
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Feasibility Report prepared by WSB, February 23, 2015
Resolution
Background:
The Boulder Bridge Pond was constructed as a stormwater storage and treatment pond with the
nd
Boulder Bridge 2 Addition development and is located north of Smithtown Road and west of Howards
Point Road. Its east shoreline is accessible from Howards Point Road, and the remainder of the pond is
nd
accessible through the rear yards of the adjacent lots in Boulder Bridge 2 Addition.
The Boulder Bridge Pond was constructed as an infiltration basin receiving runoff from approximately
10.29 acres. The pond does not have a dedicated outlet requiring the City periodically pump to
discharge overflow from the pond to Smithtown Road after heavy rainfall periods. Pumping of the pond
takes a considerable amount of effort from Public Works and complaints about the noise when the
pump is running have been received from homeowners within close proximity of the pumping
operations.
Three pond outlet options have been investigated for a pond outlet to improve area drainage and meet
City design standards, including the requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District:
Option 1: Gravity storm sewer to the existing storm system located within Smithtown Road.
Option 2: Gravity storm sewer to the existing wetland located east of Brentridge Drive.
Option 3: Stormwater lift station and forcemain to the existing storm system located within
Boulder Bridge Lane.
Based on the feasibility report, it is recommended that the City proceed with constructing the
improvements as outlined in Option 1. The storm sewer improvements proposed in Option 1 are the
most economical, and also reduce long-term maintenance and operations costs, provide benefit to the
neighboring properties, provides minimal impacts to surrounding properties or streets, and ability to
keep construction confined to those properties that will directly benefit, make this option the most cost
effective.
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
The project schedule proposes construction beginning in July 2015 with substantial completion in
September 2015, and final completion and restoration is slated for June 2016. However, this schedule is
dependent upon funding of the project and neighborhood petition for the project improvements.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
Total estimated project costs for the proposed improvements range from $193,740 to $239,250 for the
options provided in the report. These costs incorporate 2014 construction costs projected to a 2015
cost basis, including 10% construction contingency and indirect costs in the amount of 27% of the
estimated construction costs. The indirect costs include legal, engineering, administrative, and financing
considerations.
Feasibility Report funding scenarios for the project provide the following alternatives:
1.100% assessment to benefitting properties (the City is also a benefitting owner for the streets)
2.Partial assessment to benefitting properties (50% of the project costs)and the City Storm Water
Fund (accounts for public right of way contributing to the runoff)
3.City Storm Water Fund (100% City funded)
4.Other funding resources as may be directed by Council
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached resolution “Receiving the Feasibility Report for
the Boulder Bridge Storm Water Pond Outlet Improvement, City Project 14-14”.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Staff will contact the benefitting property owners and inform them of the need for them to petition the
City for the proposed pond improvement project.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR
BOULDER BRIDGE POND OUTLET IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 14-14
WHEREAS
, the City Council authorized preparation of a Updated Feasibility
Report for the Boulder Bridge Pond Outlet Improvements, City Project 14-14, on July 28,
2014; and
WHEREAS,
WSB & Associates, Inc. has prepared the updated Feasibility Report
which was received by the City Council on February 23, 2015; and
WHEREAS
, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed
project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible; whether it should best be made as
proposed or in connection with some other improvement; the estimated cost of the
improvement as recommended; and a description of the methodology used to calculate
individual assessments for affected parcels.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood, Minnesota:
1.The Council will consider the improvement of the Boulder Bridge Pond Outlet
Improvements, City Project 14-14, in accordance with the report and
assessment of benefitting property for a portion of the improvement project
pursuant to Minnesota Chapter 429 and the estimated total cost of the
improvement of $193,740; and
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 23rd day of February, 2015.
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#10A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Consideration of Donation of Trees by Charles and Mary Babcock
Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
Reviewed by:
Attachments Letter of Donation
Policy Consideration: Should the City Council accept a donation by Charles and Mary Babcock
for trees?
Background: All donations are to be formally accepted by the City Council, if the Council feels
that the donation(s) is appropriate.
Charles and Mary Babcock, residents of 20465 Manor Road, have graciously offered to fund the
purchase of trees, as part of the Shorewood Annual Tree Purchasing Program which the City of
Shorewood sponsors.
The Babcock’s are requesting that the majority of the trees are to be planted within Manor Park,
with others to be planted along Excelsior Boulevard, in addition to the TH 7 overlook, as
described in Attachment 1.
The City Council should consider if additional trees for this park are appropriate or desired; if so,
staff will work with the Babcock’s on placement of the trees in the park, and along Excelsior
Boulevard, as described.
If the City Council deems that this donation is appropriate, a motion accepting the donation
would be in order.
Financial Considerations: Mary Babcock will be issued a receipt and thank you letter from the
City documenting the donation.
Options:
1.Accept the donation, as presented.
2.Provide staff with alternative direction.
Recommendation:
Staff is seeking the Councils direction regarding the proposed donation.
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
2 -zotzea
V1 ,C ... tuNookCollenion , lnc. Pm —MS -204 ATTACHMENT 1
a a w ft r Iff 0 a a 4 a a *66 4k s IL a a & a 0 a 0 a a
circa .vim
ol
O The Country Nmk Coll —..I- PrW.& x SN4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
,
Shorewood Due March 3, 2015
Tree Order Form
I This offer is available only to Shorewood residents on a first -come, first -serve basis. Numbers of trees are
very limited. Please supply a first and second choice if desired. Your check will be returned if you choices are
I not available. Residents who ordered trees in December are guaranteed trees unless there is a growing prob-
lem at the nursery. The trio trees are determined by the Minnetonka arborist based on the best nursery stock
available at the time of distribution and were specifically selected to help areas where buckthorn has been or is
being removed. See reverse side for tree descriptions.
Submit payment in the form of a check payable to City of Shorewood and mail to City of Shorewood Tree Sale,
1 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331. Orders may be mailed or delivered in person to city hall. A
24 -hour drop box is located at city hall for your convenience.
Name
Address
Daytime phone (f JJ, ff, Email
Check # Amount Enclosed: $ ,
wVv�- -
Species
Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry
-
$60
Quantity
1 aa.dd
Total
a
Whitespire Birch
$60
/ 8d DO
Blue Beech
$65
3 90A(3
Kentucky Coffeetree
$50
137, '0
3
Virginiana Ironwood
$75
rs is
Prairifire Crab
$40
.
Woodland trio shade (NEM
$105
Woodland trio partial sun (NEllt9
$105
Plastic tree guards
$2
3 G•
g
Total Due
0 It
;Comments:
Order for these trees must be re-
ceived by December 10, 2014 at:
City of Shorewood Tree Sale
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
i
v.....• .y •ree
This offer is open to Shorewood
residents only. Avery limited number
of trees have been ordered and are of-
fered on a first -come, first -serve basis.
The intent of the sale is to diversify
Shorewood's tree stock in an effort
to reduce the effects of tree diseases
such as Emerald Ash Borer and Dutch
Elm Disease.
Orders will be processed for single
family homeowners. Townhouse and
association properties should contact
the city for order.
Unlike a retail nursery, these trees do
not have a warranty.
Quantity of species is limited. Some trees
are more popular than others. Complete
one of the options below in case your
selection is sold out:
If one or both of your selection is sold out,
please note a second and third choice in the
quantity column. You will be notified of the
change by phone or email.
❑ If my first choice is not available, please
cancel my order and mail my check
back to me.
Before you mail the order, please confirm:
❑ Filled out order form completely?
❑ Checked www.ci.shorewood.mn.us to see if selection is sold out (or
call city hall, 952.960.7900)?
❑ Enclosed check payable to City of Shorewood for exact amount?
,
r
,
,
i
i
,
,
r
r
r
I
r
I
r
I
❑ Checked your calendar to make sure someone can pick up your trees ;
on May 1 and May 2? I
-- --------------- -- ---- -- - - --
#10B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Consideration of Support for Legislation Establishing an Early Voting Process
Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
CC: Bill Joynes, City Administrator
Attachments: S.F. Bill 414; LMC City Policies, Hennepin County Election Manager's Gelms
correspondence, Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City Council pass a resolution supporting the adoption of legislation
establishing an early voting process?
Background: A bill is starting to make its way through the legislature which would provide legislation
to establish early voting in Minnesota (See Attachment 1, S.F. Bill 414.)
Absentee voting is a process by which the voter places his /her ballot into a series of envelopes which is
later processed by election officials prior to Election Day. Early voting is different than absentee voting in
that a voter can cast his /her ballot into the ballot counter during a specified period of time prior to
Election Day.
Attachment 2 is an excerpt from the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) 2015 City Policies which provides
a very good description of the difference between Early Voting and Absentee Voting.
Attachment 3 is correspondence from Hennepin County Elections Manager Ginny Gelms which provides
additional details on the administration of absentee voting as well as an estimation of costs associated
with absentee voting. Providing a process for Early Voting would reduce taxpayer dollars and provide a
better service to voters.
Hennepin County and the LMC supports legislation that would establish a process for true Early Voting
in the State of Minnesota.
Options:
• Approve a Resolution in Support for Legislation Establishing an Early Voting Process for the
voters in the State of Minnesota
• Do not approve.
Action Requested: Council may consider approving the attached Resolution in Support for
Legislation Establishing an Early Voting Process for the voters in the State of Minnesota, and direct staff
to provide the Resolution to the State Legislators.
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
Senate Bill Status Long Description
Page 1 of 1
Legislature Home I Lhiks to the world I Help I Advan:
Minnesota State Legislature
a
House Ir Senate I Joint Departments and Commissions I Bill Search and Status I Statutes, Lw
Legislative Session number- 89
Bill Name: SF0414
Providing for and defining early voting; prescribing the process for early
voting and specifying certain time period requirements; prescribing hours and
locations for early voting; requiring the county auditor to post days, times and
locations of early voting a certain number of days before voting begins;
specifying voting procedures; requiring
the recording of votes in the statewide
voter registration system; requiring early voting rosters be marked by beginning
of election day; prescribing ballot storage and counting procedures; requiring
person voting early to sign roster; specifying roster ballot statement;
requiring the testing of early voting equipment a certain number of days before
election; appropriating money
(rt)
Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislation
to your House Member or State Senator,
For Legislative Staff or for directions to the Capitol, visit the Contact Us page,
General questions or comments,
last updated: 02/11/2015 (tmo)
Attachment 1
https: / /www,revisor.mn.gov /bills /status_description.php ?f SF0414 &ssn =0 &y =2015 2/18/2015
O�
j,EAGUE of
MINNESOTA
CITIES
CONNECTING & INNOVATING
SINCE 1913
2015 City Policies: Early Voting
Issue: Minnesota now allows no- excuse absentee voting by mail and in- person and many
Minnesotans consider the current in- person absentee voting system "early voting" though there
are significant administrative differences between the two voting systems. After the voter has
completed their absentee ballot, it is placed in a sealed envelope to be processed by elections
administrators after the voter has left. Early voting allows the in- person voter the same
experience as voting in their polling place on Election Day by inserting their ballot into a ballot
tabulator. If necessary, the voter is then able to correct mistakes made by the voter when marking
the ballot such as party cross -over voting in a primary election or over - voting. These mistakes
can be discovered by the ballot tabulator, the same as on Election Day. Election results are not
known until the polls close on Election Day.
Additionally, no- excuse absentee voting has led to a significant increase in in- person absentee
balloting forcing cities administering in- person absentee balloting to operate city halls as polling
places beginning 46 days before Election Day, though the absentee ballots cannot be processed
until seven days before Election Day. An early voting system eliminates many of the
administrative costs of the current absentee ballot procedures. Many states have implemented
actual early voting procedures for in- person voting and found them to be a cost - effective and
efficient method to serve the voters.
Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports the adoption of legislation establishing
an early voting process.
Attachment 2
145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST PHONE: (651) 281 -1200 FAx: (651) 281 -1299
ST. PAUL, MN 55103 -2044 TOLL FREE: (800) 9251122 WEB: WWW.LMC.ORG
114—NK
Date: December 4, 2014
To: Mary Beth Davidson, IGR Director
From: Ginny Gelms, RRES Elections Manager
Subject: Early Voting in Platform
In Minnesota, any voter may now submit an absentee ballot in person before Election Day, In Minnesota's
in- person absentee balloting, the voter must place their ballot into a series of absentee ballot envelopes,
which are examined at a later time by an absentee ballot board and either rejected or accepted and
counted. This is not true early voting because the voter does not place the ballot directly into a ballot
counter. The elections division would like to see the legislature authorize voters casting ballots at county
or city elections offices prior to Election Day to place the ballots into a ballot counter. This would save
taxpayer dollars and be better service to our voters,
Our current system is more expensive to administer than true early voting, In our current system, the
voter places the ballot in a series of envelopes and completes the absentee envelopes and forms. At a
later time, the county absentee ballot board examines the envelopes and forms to determine whether
they have been properly completed. If the ballot is accepted by the board, the ballot must then be
prepared for counting. Finally, the absentee ballot board and a ballot counter operator place the ballot in
the ballot counter. The additional materials and labor needed to process absentee in- person ballots costs
approximately $3.05 per ballot beyond the cost that would be incurred if the voters could simply place
their own ballots into the ballot counter themselves. Some of this cost is borne by the cities but much of it
is borne by Hennepin County. In the 2012 Primary and Presidential Elections, there were 47,000 in-
person absentee ballots cast in Hennepin County, which would represent a savings of $143,000 if those
voters could have placed their own ballots into the ballot counter. In future years, as absentee voting
turnout is expected to increase dramatically due to no- excuse absentee voting, the savings realized
would be even greater. The Elections Division is planning for 200,000 voters in future Presidential
elections in Hennepin County to cast their ballots via in- person absentee. At an extra $3.05 per ballot,
that would be $610,000 that would be saved in one election with true early voting.
True early voting would also be better service for our voters than our current system. Under the current
system, voters who submit a ballot early are treated differently from voters who vote on Election Day.
Because absentee voters do not have the opportunity to place the ballot directly into a ballot counter, they
are not notified if they have made an error in filling out the ballot, such as filling in too many ovals for a
race or making a stray mark that may prevent the ballot counter from counting their vote as intended. If a
voter on Election Day makes a mistake, the ballot counter alerts the voter to the error and the voter has
the opportunity to correct it. Absentee voters never get this opportunity. In the 2014 General election, up
to 2% of absentee ballots in Hennepin County had errors or marks that were difficult for the ballot counter
to read. Another issue is rejected absentee ballots. Because of the amount and complexity of paperwork
associated with absentee ballots, a voter sometimes misses a step and their absentee ballot must be
rejected by the absentee ballot board. In the 2014 State General election, 275 in- person absentee voters
in Hennepin County had a ballot rejected, Many of these voters were able to submit a replacement ballot,
but this is a problem that no one would have had to handle under true early voting. A voter could place
their ballot directly into the counter and be confident their ballot was counted.
Twenty states plus the District of Columbia offer true early voting.
Attachment 3
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION ESTABLISHING
AN EARLY VOTING PROCESS FOR VOTERS IN MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, Minnesota law currently provides for no excuse absentee voting by
mail and in- person; and
WHEREAS, with in- person absentee voting, the voter must place their voted
ballot in a series of envelopes that is processed at a later date by election officials; and
WHEREAS, early voting would allow a voter to place their voted ballot directly
into the ballot tabulator, thereby reducing the risk of voter errors and reducing the
administrative costs involved with in- person absentee voting; and
WHEREAS, a process will still be provided for voters to request and submit an
absentee ballot by mail;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Shorewood hereby supports legislation establishing an early voting process for the voters
in the State of Minnesota;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that by establishing an early voting process,
taxpayer dollars will be saved and a better service will be provided to Minnesota voters.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 23rd day of February, 2015.
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
Scott Zerby, Mayor
#10C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Minnetonka Country Club – Planning Advisory Committee
Meeting Date: 23 February 2015
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Attachments: List of Respondents
Policy Consideration: Should the Council ratify the attached list of people interested in serving on the
Planning Advisory Committee for the Minnetonka Advisory Committee redevelopment project?
Background: At its last meeting, the City Council agreed that all people identified on a list of candidates
recommended by Council members be invited to participate in the PAC. The attached list contains those
who have responded to date.
Financial or Budget Considerations: N/A
Options: Ratify the list; remove candidates; or add candidates.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff is seeking Council direction on this item.
Next Steps and Timelines: The PAC is scheduled to meet on Tuesday at 7:00 P.M.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive
amenities, a sustainable tax base.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
Minnetonka Country Club
Planning Advisory Committee
RSVP as of 2/19/15
*Added to Previous List
Pat Arnst Chris Lizee
5480 Teal Circle 5705 Brentridge Dr
Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331
Gib Bendell Justin Mangold
6125 Rampart Ct 5810 Echo Rd
Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331
Jeremy Norman Deborah Zorn
23690 Gillette Curve 4940 Shady Island Rd
Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55364
Linda Murrell Brenna Ramy
27020 Noble Rd 5825 Country Club Rd
Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331
Ken Dallman Diane George
5780 Eureka Rd 25295 Smithtown Rd
Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331
*Linda Halcon
5955 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
*Bob Edmondson
19582 Shady Hills Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
#10D
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Appointments to the Park Commission
Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director
Attachments: Resolution
Background: There are two seats on the Shorewood Park Commission with terms expiring February 28,
2015. Justin Mangold has expressed an interest in continuing to serve on the Commission. Jeff Ische has
indicated that due to his work and family schedule, he would prefer not to continue; however, if there is
not another candidate available to fill his seat, he does not want to leave the Commission shorthanded
and is willing to stay on as long as needed.
At a March 9 Special meeting, Council will interview one additional Park Commission candidate, Mr. Paul
Stelmachers. Consideration of his appointment can be made at the Regular Council meeting on March
9. Should Mr. Stelmachers be appointed to the Park Commission, it would be to fill Mr. Ische’s seat for
the three year term.
Council should also be aware that one additional park commissioner has indicated concern about being
able to attend every park commission meeting due to work commitments, and it may be best for him to
resign if another candidate is available to fill his seat.
The Park Commission openings will continue to be advertised on the city website and in the local
papers.
Council Options:
1)Adopt a resolution to appoint Mr. Justin Mangold to the Park Commission for the three year
term ending February 28, 2018; and Mr. Jeff Ische for up to three months, knowing this could be
extended after three months, if needed. This will provide a little more time to advertise the Park
Commission opening.
2) Do not make appointments at this time.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy
environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through
effective, efficient, and visionary leadership.Page 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
A RESOLUTION MAKING PARK COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
WHEREAS,
the City of Shorewood City Council has advertised for Shorewood residents
to submit a letter of interest for consideration of appointment to serve on the Park Commission;
WHEREAS
, the following individuals have expressed interested in serving on the
Commission
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
that the City Council of the City of
Shorewood hereby makes the following appointments to the Park Commission effective March 1,
2015, with the term expiration as indicated:
Park Commission:
Member Term Expiring
1. Justin Mangold February 28, 2018
2. Jeff Ische up to May 31, 2015
Said appointments are made to the five-member Park Commission which consists of the following
additional members:
Member Term Expiring
3.John Sawtell February 29, 2016
4.Lynda Gooch Hartmann February 29, 2016
5.Steve Dietz February 29, 2016
rd
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 23
day of February, 2015.
___________________________________
ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor
___________________________________
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#12A.1.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-474-3236
Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us 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 – PROJECT IS POSTPONED TO 2016
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year
Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report
Survey (30 days) – May
Feasibility Report (30 days) – June
Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk – July
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report
Council approves Feasibility Report
Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House)
Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans and Specifications
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
Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid-way through plans and specs)
Land Acquisition process not required due to design modifications
o
Individual temporary easements or rights of entry may be required
o
Reduces project schedule
o
10/30/14
Neighborhood post-bid meeting
N/A
City possession of easements/letter of compliance
Groundbreaking Ceremony TBD
Begin Construction TBD
Construction substantially complete – Phase 1 Construction TBD
Construction substantially complete – Phase 2 Construction TBD
Ribbon Cutting Ceremony TBD
Restoration complete TBD
Page 2
Trail Schedule Update – Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road (East)
Smithtown Road East (LRT Trail to Country Club Road) Walkway Schedule
6/03/14
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year
6/23/14
Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report
/14/14 – 9/10/14
Survey (30 days) – (In Process) 7
/18/14–10/10/14
Feasibility Report (30 days) – 8
10/21/14
Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk
10/21/14
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report
10/27/14
Council approves Feasibility Report
10/30/14
Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House)
12/08/14
Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans
and Specifications
12/11/14 -
Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90-120 days)
4/10/15
2/1/15 -
Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid-way through plans and specs)
8/31/15
Complete parcel descriptions and legal descriptions
o
Review proposed easements with staff/attorney
o
Letters to property owners regarding survey staking
o
Field stake proposed easements for Appraiser/RW Agent
o
Easement viewing – parcel owner and RW Agent on-site
o
Appraisal information
o
Appraisal review
o
Council considers resolution to authorize staff to make offers and eminent domain schedule
o
Prepare and deliver offers to parcel owners
o
2/23/15
Begin eminent domain action
5/19/15
Neighborhood informational meeting (Open House)
Council approves Plans and Specifications and authorizes ad for Bids 5/25/15
6/08/15
Receive bids for construction
6/22/15
City possession of easements/letter of compliance
Council awards Construction Contract 6/22/15
6/30/15
Neighborhood preconstruction meeting
Groundbreaking Ceremony 6/30/15
7/06/15
Begin Construction
10/15/15
Construction substantially complete
Ribbon Cutting Ceremony 10/31/15
11/15/15
Restoration complete