Loading...
08-10-15 CC Reg Mtg Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 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 Work Session Minutes of July 7, 2015 Minutes B. City Council Work Session Minutes of July 27, 2015 Minutes C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of July 27, 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. Reimbursement Resolution for Smithtown Trail Finance Director’s memo, Resolution C. Amendment to the Residential Recycling Grant Agreement Administrator’s with Hennepin County memo, Resolution 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council Action will be taken) 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. Continuation of Public Hearing for Partial Drainage and Utility Planning Director’s Easement Vacation – Arbor Creek memo, Resolution Applicant: Chris Hamford Location: 26425 Arbor Creek Lane 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 7. PARKS 8. PLANNING A. Report by Commissioner Patrick Johnson on the August 4, 2015, Planning Comm. Mtg. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – August 10, 2015 Page 2 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Reject Bids for the Lift Station 11 Rehabilitation Project, Director of Public City Project 13-03 Works’ memo, Resolution 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. The Waters Senior Living Concept Plan for The Waters of Excelsior Jay Jensen, Principal Location: Hwy. 7 and Water Street memo B. Traffic Committee Proposal Engineer’s memo C. South Lake Minnetonka Police Department 2016 Budget SLMPD Budget D. Excelsior Fire District 2016 Budget and CIP EFD Budget 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Trails Schedule Trails Schedule 2. Monthly Budget Report Finance Director’s 3. Quarterly Investment Report memo 4. Paper Shred Event – Sept. 19 Administrator’s memo 5. Schedule a Joint Meeting with the Park Commission B. Mayor and City Council 1. RFP for Arborist/Forester 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, August 10, 2015 7:00 p.m. 6:00 PM – City Council Work Session Agenda Item #2A: Approval of Minutes from the July 7, 2015 Council/Staff Work Session. Agenda Item #2B: Approval of Minutes from the July 27, 2015 Council Work Session. Agenda Item #2C: Approval of Minutes from the July 27, 2015 Regular City Council meeting. Agenda Item #3A: Approval of the verified claims list. Agenda Item #3B: This resolution declares the official intent of the City of Shorewood to reimburse certain expenditures from the proceeds of bonds to be issued by the city in connection with Smithtown Road Sidewalk improvements. Agenda Item #3C: The attached resolution authorizes the Amendment No. 1 to the Residential Recycling Grant Agreement #A120136 with Hennepin County. The amendment extends the Agreement to December 31, 2016 and incorporates state requirements relating to organics recycling. Agenda Item #4: Matters from the floor – no Council action will be taken. Agenda Item #5A: Mr. Chris Hamdorf has requested a partial vacation of the drainage and utility easement on his property at 26425 Arbor Creek Lane in order to make better use of his rear yard. Staff has recommended approval, subject to the applicant complying with the City Engineer’s recommendations for site grading. This is a public hearing that was continued at the 27 July Council meeting. Agenda Item #6: There are no scheduled reports or presentations this evening. Agenda Item #7: There are no park items this evening. Agenda Item #8A: Commissioner Patrick Johnson is scheduled to report on the August 4, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. Agenda Item #9A: Staff is recommending that the bids for the Radisson Road, Lift Station 11 Rehabilitation Project be rejected. A resolution is attached for your consideration. Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of August 10, 2015 Page 2 Agenda Item #10A: Jay Jensen, Principal, The Waters Senior Living, will be present to discuss his concept plan for a new senior living community located at the corner of Hwy 7 and Water Street. Agenda Item #10B: Consideration of approval of a proposal for professional services with WSB & Associates to facilitate and support the Traffic Committee. Agenda Item #10C: The South Lake Minnetonka Police Department 2016 Budget is provided for Council’s approval. Agenda Item #10D: The Excelsior Fire District 2016 Budget and CIP is provided for Council’s approval. Agenda Item #11: Several Staff and Council reports are included in the packet and will be provided at the meeting. #2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 24150 SMITHTOWN RD CITY COUNCIL STAFF WORK SESSION SOUTH LAKE PUBLIC SAFETY TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2015 FACILITY TRAINING ROOM 8:30 A.M. MINUTES 1. Convene City Council-Staff Work Session Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 8:35 AM. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Zerby (departed at 11:45 A.M.); Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel, Sundberg and Woodruff; City Attorney Keane (arrived at 8:45 A.M.); City Administrator Joynes, City Clerk Panchyshyn, Finance Director DeJong, Planning Director Nielsen, and Director of Public Works Brown Absent: None Also Present: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Senior Principal John Shardlow B. Approve Agenda Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. Review and Purpose of Meeting Administrator Joynes explained this meeting is a culmination of a number of events that had occurred during the course of this year. During its June 8, 2015, meeting Council received and filed the Summary of Findings and Recommendations Report from the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) Redevelopment Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) after about four months of deliberations. (A copy of the Report was included in the meeting packet.) That effort was led by John Shardlow, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Senior Principal, and other Stantec representatives. At that time Council requested staff schedule a Council work session to give Council an opportunity to discuss its concerns and provide suggestions about the issues, recommendations and findings presented by the PAC about the MCC redevelopment project. He noted that on July 6, 2015, Mattamy Homes submitted its application for an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive (Comp) Plan. He explained the City has a 10-day period to review the application documents to determine if they are complete. Once staff has determined the documents are complete the City’s time-to-respond clock begins. The City has a defined process for acting on the applications for the project. When Attorney Keane arrives he will speak about the legal options during that process. He explained that in January 2015 the City found out that the MCC property located at 24575 Smithtown Road had been sold and that Mattamy Homes, Inc. had obtained a conditional purchase agreement for the property. The property is more than 100 acres in size. That agreement gave Mattamy control of the property and allowed the firm to begin dealing with the City. It also solidified that the owners of the MCC property would not be dealing with anyone else during that time about the future of their property. When Mattamy submitted its pre-application for the Comp Plan amendment the City asked Mattamy to withhold that to allow the City and its residents to take a broader look at issues surrounding the MCC property and issues that might be created by the redevelopment of the property. At that time Council directed staff to solicit bids from consultants who would be able to assist the City with drawing residents into the early City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 2 of 22 part of the process. Council invited residents to become members of the PAC. The PAC met nine times. The PAC was to discuss how the proposed redevelopment would fit in with the City’s zoning and ordinances as well as the impact on surrounding land. The outcome of those meetings was the Report mentioned earlier. He noted that the redevelopment project would be the largest ever done in the City. He explained during its January 29, 2015, and its April 9, 2015, Council and staff retreats Council discussed funding sources for long-term (5 – 10 years out) capital improvement projects Council thought were very important to the City. Council will meet in executive session on July 13 to discuss Southshore Center legal options. During the April retreat Council asked staff to identify a way to finance the purchase of the Center. General Fund reserves had been identified for use to purchase and improve the Center. Director DeJong had estimated there was about $533,000 in reserves above the 60 percent level in City’s General Fund Balance Policy. That has increased since April. Council had directed staff to proceed with construction of the Smithtown Road sidewalk east extension. Council recommended borrowing up to $1 million from the Sewer Fund to help fund the construction. Construction would start sometime in 2015 and it is expected to be completed in 2016. The intent is to use Tax Abatement for the MCC redevelopment to help pay back that loan. Tax Abatement is a tool provided by the Legislature that allows the City to capture tax value and use it for projects in the area close to the MCC property; projects that relate to the MCC project. Two examples are trail projects and roadway improvements. The connection to the MCC project is somewhat flexible. The City, the County and the School District can abate together. The Abatement would have to be approved by the elected bodies for each of those groups. That process will move forward along with the planning process for the MCC project. He stated after Council discusses the Comp Plan amendment application and the findings, recommendations and issues the PAC submitted Council should make its comments, concerns and recommendations known to the developer. Joynes stated he asked Mr. Shardlow to be present to hear Council’s discussion about six issues identified by the PAC. He noted that although Council cannot make decisions during this meeting it can provide staff with direction. 3. Review of Financial Connections Administrator Joynes noted the meeting packet contains a copy of the 2015 – 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Any projects highlighted in yellow means that currently there is no funding source for them. He stated that in the next few years the City will need to decide how it is going to fund street improvements and noted there are options available to the City (e.g., bonding, borrowing, assessing). He then stated that it is his understanding that construction of the Galpin Lake Road trail segment is important to Council. That project has been pushed out to 2016 because of the lack of funding. The construction of a Strawberry Lane trail segment and the reconstruction of Strawberry Lane have been advanced to 2017 from 2019 in the CIP. There is no funding source for the three projects. The need for Strawberry Lane improvements and that trail has been exacerbated because of projects in the City of Chanhassen which will cause increased traffic and more activity around the Minnewashta Elementary School. The Tax Abatement that could be captured from the MCC project could help fund the three City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 3 of 22 projects because the Tax Abatement could be used for the Smithtown Road sidewalk extension and free up money for those projects. The Strawberry Lane improvements and trail would be beneficial to the School given the location and challenges. Hopefully, the School District will view that as a good reason to participate in Tax Abatement. He explained there are decisions that have to be made with regard to the redevelopment project, the trail system and approvals for them. Council also has to make decisions about Tax Abatement. If Council decides the City should participate then a public hearing has to be held on that. The School Board and Hennepin County also have to decide if they want to participate. If they do, they will have to hold public hearings and they will require a positive vote by those elected officials. He noted the project and funding decisions and the Tax Abatement decisions will be happening in concert over the next 6 – 8 months. Springsted has been asked to provide a timeline for the Abatement process. (A copy of that timeline was included in the meeting packet.) He stated there is a lot of work that will have to be done to ensure all things come together at the necessary junctures. Attorney Keane explained the formal land use application process is governed by Minnesota Statutes. There is a specific Statute that imposes time deadlines on a municipality for making decisions. The fundamental premise is once an application is filed the reviewing zoning authority has 10 days to determine if the application is complete in all respects. The authority must respond within 10 days if there are any deficiencies. If there are no deficiencies the 60-day clock starts as of the day the application is filed. If there are deficiencies, the authority must enumerate those deficiencies in a written response so that the applicant can submit a complete application. Once the authority determines the application is complete the 60-day clock starts. The municipality has 60 days under the basic rule to complete that application; that includes decisions by both the Planning Commission and City Council. There is a process for extending the 60 days an additional 60 days. It requires the municipality to send a written notice to the applicant stating the period of time has been extended up to an additional 60 days. Mayor Zerby asked what the criteria for doing that is. Attorney Keane responded there is none. Keane explained there is a fair amount of latitude. The municipality just has to give notice to the applicant as to whether additional meetings are required or additional deliberations are needed, for example. Zerby stated the Planning Commission meets once a month. If it meets once to discuss it and then a second time to make a recommendation before it goes to Council that could easily exceed 60 days. Keane stated that would be enough reason to extend the 60 days. Zerby stated for a project the size of the proposed redevelopment of the MCC property he asked why the City would not just extend the 60 days up front. Keane stated the City could advise the applicant that the schedule of meetings and process is going to require the City exercise the extension period. Keane explained Council is going to be required to approve or deny the application within the 60 day period or the extended timeframe. If Council does not take action within the required timeframe the application is deemed approved as submitted as a matter of law. Attorney Keane explained the application for the MCC redevelopment is a tiered application. The first request is for Concept Stage approval. Per the City’s Ordinance there is a second application for Development Stage approval. That application is separate and discrete and it follows a similar timeline. Director Nielsen clarified there is a separate application for the formal Comp Plan amendment and that is done concurrent with the Concept Stage approval. Mayor Zerby asked what has to happen to extend the 60-day time period. Attorney Keane stated the zoning authority can send the notice of extension. Administrator Joynes asked staff to explain the difference between a straight zoning development project and a planned unit development (PUD) project. Director Nielsen stated he would not recommend straight City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 4 of 22 zoning because there is too much risk with rezoning the property if something falls through with the project. Nielsen explained that following a PUD process is much safer for the City. Joynes then asked Nielsen to explain how the negotiation process works with the PUD approach. Nielsen explained there is not a lot of detail submitted for the Concept Stage approval. The Planning Commission has asked the developer to explain how $1 million houses work on lots less than 40,000 square feet in size. Once the developer receives Concept Stage approval they can move on with the Development Stage part of the PUD; that Stage is consistent with the preliminary plat. The Final Plan Stage / Final Plat is somewhat of a formality of that. Mayor Zerby stated there is an as-right process that means if the City changes the zoning of the MCC property to R-1C the developer would have the right to build what they want in compliance. He asked how many lots the developer could develop under the R-1C zoning. Director Nielsen responded one per 20,000 square feet. Nielsen explained that the road network and public right-of-way (ROW) have to be subtracted out of the square footage of the property and then the remaining acreage would be divided by 20,000. The current zoning is R-1A and that requires a minimum of 40,000 square foot lots. It would amount to about 116 units. Councilmember Sundberg stated the City had been provided suggestions about ordinance amendments related to renewable energy. She asked if it is too late to make those amendments and have them in place for the MCC project. Director Nielsen responded he did not think so and noted that as part of the PUD the City can negotiate those types of things in even if it is not part of the ordinance. He explained that was done with a couple of the City’s environmental ordinances. Tree preservation originally started with a couple of PUDs. Wetland rules were revised to require a wetland buffer requirement. Mr. Shardlow stated he thought it important to keep the concept of win/win in mind when talking about the PUD process. He explained that with a PUD you start with the underlying zoning and what the property owner can do by right. Through the PUD the developer can request flexibility and the City can decide if its wants to grant flexibility. With the PUD the City has the opportunity to negotiate with the developer to incorporate aspects that are currently not in the City Ordinance. There does need to be an offsetting benefit to the developer. To a certain extent Mattamy has been talking about a slight increase in density which would be an offsetting benefit. Councilmember Sundberg stated during Council’s June 22 meeting she asked that the alternative energy Code amendment recommendations from the alternative energy consultant be provided to Mattamy. She asked if that has happened. Administrator Joynes responded it has. Sundberg stated Council needs to decide which of the recommendations are priorities for the City. Administrator Joynes stated it is best to view the PUD process as a negotiation process. Virtually everything is on the table. Staff would like to learn what items Council wants to be on the negotiating table during this meeting. He clarified that does not mean the City will get all of them in the final agreement. Director Nielsen stated one of the recommendations from the energy consultant is to ensure that a provision prohibiting alternative energy is not included in the development agreement or the private covenant of the development. Councilmember Sundberg asked who represents the City during the negotiations. Director Nielsen stated it starts out with the Planning Commission with Council making the ultimate decision. Nielsen then stated if alternative energy is an issue for Council now is the time to make that known. Mayor Zerby stated staff will work with the developer and guide the process. City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 5 of 22 Sundberg stated from her perspective the PAC has indicated it would like to delve deeper into some of the issues it identified and some of its findings and recommendations. She asked if there is time to have the PAC do that. She also asked if it is necessary. Councilmember Siakel stated she thought a parallel issue to the MCC project is traffic. During Council’s June 22, 2015, meeting it gave staff direction to come back with a proposal for establishing a group to discuss traffic. She continues to think that would be a good idea. She thought resolving issues related to the MCC project falls into the Planning Commission’s and the Council’s purview. Councilmember Sundberg stated Council and staff already know what the residents are going to say about traffic. Siakel stated traffic is related to more than just Country Club Road. Administrator Joynes explained the MCC redevelopment project is in a different phase now. The City was able to delay it for a short period while the City voluntarily sought advice. The project is now in an accountability phase for the City. The PAC has done what the Council asked it to do and it is now out of the process. The PAC can no longer have influence in the process. Council is now legally accountable for making decisions in a required timeframe. He noted there is little time to get done what needs to legally be done. Director Nielsen commented the Planning Commission was the core of the PAC. Councilmember Siakel asked why Council has not seen the developer’s concept plan. Director Nielsen stated staff just received it at the end of the previous work day. Mr. Shardlow stated he has been told by the developer that the plan will be more similar to what the PAC recommended – there will be some age- targeted housing, there is a solution to the long cul-de-sac, and there is a large wetland. Councilmember Sundberg asked if there has been any feedback on the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (SCRS) Area. Mr. Shardlow stated some property owners have contracted Mr. Parker with Mattamy and he has contacted some of them. Mr. Parker will not provide any concept for the Area but he may show how the redeveloped MCC property could relate to the Area. Mr. Parker had indicated he would be willing to work with the City if the City wants to take a more aggressive approach to the redevelopment of the SCRS Area. Sundberg asked if Council and staff should be thinking about that. Councilmember Woodruff suggested one of the desires the City should have is to have the developer install fiber optics to the houses. Mayor Zerby stated that from his perspective Council has discussed Item 5 on the agenda. Everyone concurred. He asked if Council should discuss the topics under Item 4. 4. Minnetonka Country Club Planning Advisory Committee Issues A. Traffic Mayor Zerby stated he agreed with the majority of the PAC members’ recommendation that there should be improvements made to the Country Club Road (CCR) to Yellowstone Trail to Lake Linden Drive collector route. He first clarified that he is not a traffic engineer before suggesting that CCR be made to be a serpentine shaped roadway. After researching traffic calming roadway designs it seems to him that with a 10-foot-wide easement from the developer that could be accomplished. After speaking with staff there is another traffic calming device which is a parkway (a divided roadway with plantings in the roadway). That could potentially be done with a 10-foot easement. That would benefit the development as well as mitigate some of perceived traffic issues. That should be discussed with the developer. Zerby went on to state traffic is the number one issue throughout the City. He suggested Council and staff discuss traffic City wide. He would like to do something similar to what was done with the Trail City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 6 of 22 Committee and look at all different traffic pain points in the City. The end result should be a comprehensive plan for traffic. Director Nielsen stated the City does not have 50 feet of right-of-way (ROW) everywhere along CCR. As a result of the MCC redevelopment project the City will end up with its 50 feet. Mayor Zerby asked if the City would be able to make CCR a winding roadway or a divided roadway. Director Nielsen responded yes. Zerby stated it would be an opportunity to fix an issue in the City and noted that Councilmember Siakel had previously suggested some City issue(s) be resolved or mitigated as part of this project. Councilmember Labadie stated it has been brought up that at least one cul-de-sac in the proposed development is too long; it does not comply with regulations and it is a public safety risk. She asked if the City has roadway standards. Director Nielsen explained the City has standards for width, grade, and length of cul-de-sacs. The developer is aware that is an issue and that needs to be resolved. Councilmember Siakel stated in addition to improving CCR there needs to be a trail along side of it. She stated an outlet is proposed onto Smithtown Road and another onto Yellowstone Trail. She asked if two outlets are enough for the size of the development proposed. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission has raised that issue. The developer is aware he should be looking at a lot so there can be another outlet onto Smithtown Road. He noted the intent is to have the traffic go out onto Smithtown Road and then on to County Road 19. Acquiring another property would solve both the cul-de-sac length issue and the third access issue. Mr. Shardlow stated every one of those decisions has implications both ways. Mr. Shardlow then stated it is good to suggest things such as a curvilinear roadway. The group that studies traffic should be provided all of the options for improvements to CRR. The group, after studying the traffic, can make a set of recommendations. Mr. Shardlow noted there are existing traffic issues. He stated someone needs to determine what the relative traffic impacts from the redevelopment are versus those of a fully functioning golf course/country club. The amount of increase in traffic is quite small. He stated the impacts of closing CRR are quite significant. The PAC did not support doing that; it did think CCR should be improved. From his perspective there are a finite number of improvements that can be made. For example, there could be some modest changes in the alignment and some traffic calming at the intersection and possible along the corridor. He stated an issue will be encountered with the topography and the width of the right-of-way (ROW) on Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive. He suggested telling the residents that staff and Council are aware of concerns about traffic and that careful consideration will be given to it from a public safety standpoint and engineering standpoint. All options will be considered and Council will make the decisions that are the best knowing that it will never be perfect. Councilmember Siakel stated from her vantage point CCR and the other roadways in that collector route are the City’s responsibility to fix. The City will work cooperatively with the developer during that process. Director Nielsen stated then when people are speaking of CCR it is really an abbreviation for the Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive collector route. He then stated CRR is the only one that the developer has the ability to do anything about. Mr. Shardlow explained that during the review of a development application there are offsite implications created by the development that give the City the authority to attach conditions to mitigate those impacts City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 7 of 22 albeit they are limited for this redevelopment based on the facts. The subdivision approval process, which the City will be considering, is what gives the City the right to get the additional ROW. Administrator Joynes noted there is only so much the developer can be asked to do outside of the MCC property. The City can get the ROW. But, improvements to CCR are not the developers concern. He stated Tax Abatement could be used for improvements but that competes with other uses of the Abatement. With regard to studying the corridor route, Mr. Shardlow stated he understands the benefits of having a City-wide traffic committee. But, he thought the City would be better served by having a very concise process with some residents, emergency response personnel, fire and police service personnel, and engineers to determine what improvements can be made to improve emergency response on that route. That should be done sooner versus later. From his perspective, that is not a multiple meeting discussion. Mayor Zerby stated there needs to be residents involved as well. Councilmember Sundberg stated she thought Mr. Shardlow’s suggestion makes sense while noting that she does not want to lose the traffic committee concept for a longer term process. Councilmember Siakel asked what it will take for staff to get that done quickly. Director Nielsen stated that during Council’s July 13 meeting it can direct staff to do that and come up with an approach. Administrator Joynes stated he understands Council to be concerned about access from the MCC site, particularly as it relates to public safety and the length of a cul-de-sac(s). The developer’s proposal has to address those issues. He also hears Council saying it wants to improve CCR, but that is outside of the developer’s purview with the exception of providing additional ROW. Mayor Zerby noted that he wants staff to ensure that the City gets the amount of ROW it needs now for improvements as well as for potential future improvements. Mr. Shardlow noted the developer has already agreed to provide a trail paralleling CCR on its property. B. Drainage Mr. Shardlow stated the developer has proposed dedicating a very substantial percentage of the MCC property for permanent open space and to make that open space available to the City with trails. There are very few remaining wetlands and they tend to be smaller pockets. A long time ago a very substantial portion of the property had been wetlands but it was filled in a long time ago. He then stated there are two things for the City to consider; stormwater management and wetland/natural resource restoration. They need to work together. The developer’s first proposal was to put buffers around the existing designated wetlands and then build stormwater management ponds. At the time the developer put its plan together it did not think there was an outlet because it shows up as a land-locked basin on Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) documents. Since then the developer has determined there is a culvert that can be improved that does provide an outlet. The developer had initially proposed ponding on the site that would be able to handle two back to back 100-year rainfalls on site. A wetland expert looked at the site. Based on the expert’s opinion of the history of the site people are convinced there had been a very large wetland on the southern portion of the site. The PAC presented the idea of restoring the wetland; it would be a larger wetland with a larger buffer around it. The idea was to have trails around the larger wetland. The developer has indicated it would do that if that is what the City wants. Or, it would do what it originally proposed if the City does not want the larger, restored wetland. For the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the MCWD restoring the large wetland is a bigger benefit than having a number of smaller wetlands. City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 8 of 22 Although Mr. Shardlow has not seen the plans, he thinks there is an opportunity for the City to work with the developer so the wetland can be a significant improvement to the quality of natural resources. And, that it should also look beautiful. Councilmember Sundberg explained that during a recent League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) meeting she attended a presenter indicated that over the last 10 years there have been 5 100-year rainfalls. Municipalities have twentieth century infrastructures that will not meet the needs of twenty-first century rainfalls. Mr. Shardlow clarified that all of the technical work has not been done on assessing the restoration approach. He stated that from his perspective if there is dredging to recreate the wetland there will be a more positive impact on the surrounding properties. If enough dredging is done to get closer to the water table, that some of the drainage issues surrounding properties have could be mitigated as well. But, that needs to be wanted. He thought it could be achieved. The combination of those factors and the improved outlet would benefit the redevelopment project as well as surrounding properties that have drainage issues. Councilmember Woodruff asked if there is a list of drainage issues that could in some way be mitigated as part of this redevelopment. Director Nielsen stated that Director Brown has maintained a list over the years. Woodruff asked if the developer is aware them. Nielsen responded no. Director Brown explained that before the pre-application process the developer was made aware that there was an existing outlet. The developer televised the outlet to determine its condition. Staff made it clear that the MCC property as a whole is, for descriptive purposes, like a bowl. That outlet is the only working outlet that staff is aware of. The outlet goes all the way to Lake Minnewashta. The clay-tile pipe extends to the south, goes down and crosses Highway 7, to the Lake. The former owner of the MCC property had the significant sized pipe installed a number of years ago. The pipe is not in great condition. Staff had suggested developer conduct a full investigation before it decided to get involved. Staff believes the outlet needs to be restored. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought a large wetland would be better than a number of small ones. Woodruff asked who would be responsible for maintaining the large restored wetland. Director Nielsen stated that would be an issue. Director Brown clarified that if a wetland or stormwater basin serves just the development then it has been the City’s practice that maintenance agreement required by the MCWD would be between the MCWD and the homeowners association (HOA). If it serves a more regional area where the City truly has an interest outside of the development then the City enters into the agreement with the MCWD. Director Nielsen noted that a HOA will be required for the proposed development. Mr. Shardlow stated that one of the first things the PAC members were asked to do was to identify every issue they had. The PAC produced a map indicating areas PAC members identified as having drainage problems. He explained there are rules regarding a developer’s responsibilities when it comes to drainage. A developer cannot increase drainage offsite of their property to more than existing conditions. He expressed confidence the developer can go beyond that based on what has been proposed. Mr. Shardlow explained there is an opportunity to create a wetland bank. In the metropolitan area there is currently a shortage of wetlands. The developer has indicated it does not want to take time or take on the struggle of working with the MCWD to create that bank. But, the City could. That could roughly be a $1 million benefit to the City. The City could use the wetland credits to offset any other wetland impacts from any other City project or it could sell the credits. He encouraged Council to give that opportunity consideration. City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 9 of 22 Councilmember Woodruff indicated he thought that would be an excellent approach to that wetland. He stated he thought there had been at least one situation where the City could have used the credits. Going forward, he thought it would be valuable to have the credits. Mr. Shardlow stated the extent to which it functions as a stormwater pond degrades its benefit from a wetland perspective. To what extent it would be a restored wetland and to what extent would it be for stormwater management would have to be negotiated with the MCWD. Director Brown clarified that wetlands and stormwater management are two different things. Councilmember Siakel stated lately Council has been discussing major stormwater issues that have surfaced years after developments were built. She asked what would have to be done to avoid future problems if there was only one large wetland. She stated if the developer has no interest in working with the MCWD to create a wetland bank she asked how the City would go about doing that. She then asked if the developer would restore the wetland and then the City would take over. Director Nielsen clarified it is not about working with just the MCWD. It also requires working with the Corps of Engineers and that is what the developer’s hesitancy is mainly about. He explained the wetland bank process is cumbersome and takes a great deal of time. Mr. Shardlow explained the City can dictate how it would be built and graded based on direction from a wetland banking expert. The developer would be okay with that. Mayor Zerby clarified the developer still needs to get a permit from the MCWD. Mr. Shardlow stated the MCWD has indicated it would be excited about restoring the wetland. Director Nielsen noted the wetland would not have to be restored because it existed before current regulations; it is called a non-regulatory wetland. Director Brown stated people get excited when there is discussion about restoring wetlands. He noted that stormwater management is the overriding issue. He explained that at the time the Boulder Bridge Pond was built it met a standard. Council and staff have been discussing how to remedy things to address a different standard. He stated a developer may clearly state that their stormwater pond will be able to handle a 100-year rainfall; they will have met the standard. It does not necessarily mean there will be the positive outlet needed for the stormwater facility. Brown reiterated the existing pipe is in poor condition. He questioned how much authority the City has to encourage the developer to improve the pipe if it is currently not their intent to do so. He recommended the City take advantage of that even if it means the City become a partner in that to address other drainage issues. Mr. Shardlow noted it is his understanding that the developer intends to improve the pipe. Director Nielsen noted the developer has mentioned that to the MCWD and received a favorable reaction. Councilmember Woodruff asked how much of the pipe is under the control of the developer, how much is the City’s responsibility, and how much is Carver County’s responsibility and so on. Director Nielsen stated based on the investigation to date the pipe comes out of the MCC property and goes under Yellowstone Trail and under Pleasant Avenue. That is where it is in poor shape. The pipe south of Highway 7 is in very good condition. He noted the MCWD has indicated the pipe can be restored to its current capacity; a larger pipe cannot be installed. He thought it was a 24-inch-diameter pipe. City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 10 of 22 Mr. Shardlow stated there are many technical issues that have to be addressed before a drainage solution can be agreed upon. He then stated from an existing condition perspective a very substantial percentage of the southern part of the site is soils that do not drain well. A lot of those soils will have to be removed from the site and after that is done the basin will be able to hold more water. Councilmember Labadie asked what the distinction is between a wetland and a stormwater pond. Director Brown explained that public ROWs along roadways and storm sewers will empty into a stormwater facility before it would enter a wetland. The intent is not to have roadway ROWs drain directly into wetlands. Director Brown explained stormwater from some of County Road 19 flows through a couple of treatment areas before it flows into the Gideon Glen wetland. Mr. Shardlow stated there would be a buffer of native plants around the wetland; plants with deep roots if possible. They would be a conduit for the water to go deep into the ground and phosphorous and so forth would be removed. Things like the types of plants and width of the buffer are some of the design considerations. He commented that a larger wetland would be easier to maintain. Councilmember Woodruff stated the restored wetland could be something similar to Silver Lake which is a combination of stormwater retention and wetland. Director Brown stated a larger wetland body is far more effective and of greater benefit. Maintenance of a larger wetland is more complicated and costly. It is likely that would not have to be done over the next 20 years. Councilmember Woodruff stated one of the problems with small NURP (Nationwide Urban Runoff Program) ponds is they will be in someone’s back yard. They end up being a convenient place to dump yard clippings. The larger wetland would be less convenient to dump clippings into. Mr. Shardlow clarified that the size of the large wetland and the size of the buffer are yet to be determined. Councilmember Siakel stated it would be helpful to her if someone could provide her with some idea of the maintenance requirements. Mayor Zerby stated it sounds like maintenance of the stormwater retention ponds or wetlands is the major issue with drainage. Administrator Joynes stated he understands Council to be in support of restoring the larger wetland. He noted there will be issues that are technical in nature that will be part of the negotiations with the developer. He stated trails will be an integral part of a larger pond. Public trails will require the City to have ownership and future maintenance of that property. Councilmember Woodruff commented that wetlands are often not very wet. He asked that on the graphic depicting the larger wetland that the wetland be a color other than blue because people could interpret that to mean a lake. Councilmember Sundberg noted that her property backs up to a wetland and that there are times where she can walk a long way out onto the wetland. C. Density – Housing Types, Costs Mayor Zerby stated that early on in discussions about the proposed redevelopment of the MCC property Director Nielsen spoke about one-third acre lots with houses quite close to each other. The lots would City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 11 of 22 have large back yards. The topic of amenities (e.g.; swimming pools or large backyard patios) came up. He asked how those amenities could be accommodated with the type of lots proposed. Director Nielsen noted the R-C District does not accommodate 18,000 square foot lots. That has to be negotiated. He stated the developer provided the PAC a sketch of how a $1 million house could fit on the size lots proposed. There is the question about what happens, for example, three years from now when owners of the new properties want to add a deck or pool or patio but regulations don’t allow that without a variance. That will be established during the PUD process. The covenants will stipulate what can and cannot be done on the lots. Mr. Shardlow stated that is part of the purchase documents the future owner reviews and part of the covenants they sign off on. That gives the City the authority to enforce the PUD. Mayor Zerby stated with the increase in the size of the wetland and the smaller lots he asked if the developer will be able to adhere to the City’s Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy. Director Nielsen stated a lot of the trees there were not natural. They were planted. He noted that many of the trees are ash trees so there is question as to whether or not they should be preserved because of the Emerald Ash Borer problem. Councilmember Siakel stated that makes reforestation more important. Zerby stated the property was a dairy farm before it was a golf course and country club property. In response to a comment from Councilmember Siakel, Director Nielsen stated the indication has been the density will be higher than 120 houses. Nielsen explained the original plan showed 121. The developer has indicated there will be more units now because of the age-targeted units that will be built. Siakel stated Council has discussed residents’ desires to remain in the community as they age in a place they can afford. There has also been discussion about having age-targeted housing in the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (SCRS) Area and where Badger Park is. She questioned how much need there is for that type of housing and if it is needed as part of the MCC redevelopment project. She asked what age-targeted housing means. Director Nielsen clarified that age-targeted housing in not senior housing. He explained the PAC discussed having senior housing where Badger Park is and relocating some of the Park’s amenities to the MCC redeveloped site. The PAC recommended keeping the Park amenities together. The SCRS Report recommends senior housing in the SCRS Area on the northwest quadrant as well as some commercial. That housing would be different than what the developer is proposing for the MCC site. The developer has indicated the age- targeted housing would be single-family, detached, primarily single level housing at a little lower price point. He noted the City does not give any breaks for age-targeted housing; it is considered single-family housing. It is a housing style. He explained if it was age-restricted the developer would get a break on, for example, park dedication fees and utility fees. The units would be counted as one half. Mr. Shardlow clarified a property owner has rights and the City has limited tools for telling a developer what they can and cannot do to the property. The City has authority through its Zoning Code. He explained the MCC property has always been privately owned and the City was not given an opportunity to purchase it. It was offered to a select group of developers through a private transaction. Mattamy won the rights to develop the property. Mattamy now has control of the property and it has the same rights as any private property owner would. The City has no authority to tell Mattamy what the price points for the housing should be. As long as Mattamy satisfies the zoning requirements the price point of the proposed housing is irrelevant. He clarified that does not mean the PAC should not have raised housing types and costs as an issue. He noted the PAC discussed that Shorewood is an aging in place community from a demographics standpoint. He stated after the developer heard PAC discussions it came back with an additional housing style it could build; its age-targeted units. City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 12 of 22 Mattamy has indicated that most of the buyers of its properties are 55 years of age or older. Most of those buyers in the Shorewood community would be people who would be interested in going to a warmer climate during the winter. This housing type would be protected by an association and they could know their homes were protected when they were gone. He expressed the age-targeted units will sell well not withstanding price point. He stated if the City truly wants to offer workforce housing that requires a $200,000 subsidy per unit. He noted that Mattamy paid over $15 million dollars for the property; it will need to sell 84 or 85 houses before it sees black ink. He stated the reason Mattamy stated it would develop some age-targeted housing was because its CEO in Canada looked at the MindMixer site and saw there was a desire for housing diversity he proposed offering age-targeted housing. He noted that he thought it would be a mistake not to offer some diversity of housing types as part of the project. Councilmember Labadie stated Mattamy has proposed two areas of age-targeted housing but no senior housing. She questioned why one area would not be senior housing. Director Nielsen clarified that Mattamy does not build multi-story, multi-family units. He stated that a developer approached Mattamy about buying a corner of the site and building a three or four story cooperative there. Mattamy did not want that at the entrance to its development. Administrator Joynes stated he thought the price point was $400,000 – $600,000 for the age-targeted units. Councilmember Labadie asked if the developer has given any indication of its construction timetable. Director Nielsen responded four to five years. Labadie then asked if the age-targeted units will be constructed at the end. Nielsen stated he does not know and explained the concept plan will have to indicate the phasing of the project. Mr. Shardlow stated he thought the developer would phase from east to west because most of the time a developer wants to show most of its offerings to the market place. Mayor Zerby stated if the age-targeted housing started to increase in height for a multi-unit structure he would have concerns about height. Councilmember Sundberg stated she likes the idea of age-targeted units on the site. She then stated from her perspective it was somewhat reassuring to hear that Mattamy turned down another developer’s request for the corner of the property in order to build a higher structure. She takes that to mean Mattamy will not do anything to diminish the value of its core investment. Administrator Joynes summarized the density issues. He heard Council say through the PUD process details of the lots and the use of the lots will be solidified for the MCC property and that it favors some age-targeted units on the site. The developer believes the market supports that. Council understands the age-targeted classification does not imply age-restricted. Councilmember Woodruff suggested that when the age-targeted housing is discussed it should be noted that housing will be single-family detached. A break was taken from 10:15 – 10:31 A.M. D. Trails Mr. Shardlow explained from the very beginning Council was committed to trails and trails showed up in the issues PAC members raised. Having open space accessible to the public on the redeveloped MCC site was something that was flagged from the very beginning. Tax Abatement resources produced from the MCC project may be used to pay for links of key trails. The developer went into the project with the understanding that there would not be public trails going through property owners’ back yards. Yet, the City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 13 of 22 developer recognized the need for a network of trails that provided public access to the entire property (e.g.; the Smithtown Road sidewalk east extension). Mr. Shardlow stated there may be an opportunity to make pedestrian improvements to CCR and Smithtown Road and County Road 19 intersection with the extended sidewalk. There is also an opportunity to do some streetscaping and put in some traffic calming. When that intersection was redesigned in the 1990s the intent was to have traffic going to Highway 7 stay on County Road 19. Because of the limited right-of-way (ROW) and the irregularly shaped ROW along CRR the idea of having a trail segment along CCR on the MCC property was presented. There would be trees and/or some type of brush that would separate the pedestrians and bicyclist from the roadway. Mayor Zerby asked if there has been a decision about how wide the proposed trail along CCR would be or what type it would be. Director Nielsen stated that has to be decided. Nielsen explained that the recently constructed trails do not qualify as a trail with Hennepin County or the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) because they are only six feet wide. If the intent is for pedestrians and bicyclists to use the new trail then the trail needs to be a minimum of eight feet wide. Zerby noted he has spoken with representatives from Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) and they have indicated they have been looking at the intersection and possibly creating an alternate route from the trail along Smithtown Road down to Timber Lane and through the public safety / public works area. Councilmember Siakel asked if that is in response to the TRPD not supporting a pedestrian bridge over Country Road 19 for the LRT Trail. Zerby noted the TRPD is looking at ways to enhance that crossing including some traffic calming device. Director Nielsen noted the Trail Plan includes a proposed trail from the County Road 19 intersection down 19 connecting with Excelsior. Zerby noted Excelsior extended its sidewalk to the community gardens on the south side of the roadway. Councilmember Sundberg questioned the value of making the trail eight feet wide to accommodate bicyclists because of the short length of the trail along CCR. Mr. Shardlow stated Mattamy’s market research has indicted trails are at the top of amenities that people want. The question is if they will be public or private. Administrator Joynes stated who maintains public trails will be part of the negotiations for the PUD. Director Nielsen noted that if trails go through there they will be constructed before houses are constructed. Councilmember Siakel stated she has assumes the trails would be around the development and not through it. Director Nielsen stated at a minimum the PAC recommended a trail along CCR on the MCC property. If Council has interest in there being a perimeter trail then Council has to provide that direction. Siakel noted that she would like there to be a perimeter trail. Councilmember Sundberg concurred. Administrator Joynes stated many times perimeter trails are built around wetlands. Nielsen stated the developer’s first plan showed perimeter trails. Joynes stated the perimeter trail was along the edge of the MCC property; not around the wetland. Director Brown stated if the City ends up owning the wetland a sidewalk around the wetland would provide the City with a way to access the wetland for maintenance. He then stated when there are people moving around the wetland there needs to be some type of protection to keep people from throwing things into the wetland. Mr. Shardlow stated there may be some parts of the area down in the open space where the developer may want to propose woodchips and a walkout to a bird viewing location, for example. Mr. Shardlow noted when there is asphalt there is impervious surface and that is on the negative side when trying to do wetland restoration. He stated it will be a balance of access, mobility and natural preservation. He clarified he wanted to forewarn Council that the developer may want to have some trails in the open space that are not asphalt. City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 14 of 22 Councilmember Sundberg stated if the trails will encourage more bicyclists to use them there is the issue of safety. The bicyclists will be accessing other roadways. Director Nielsen stated a six-foot-wide trail is theoretically for pedestrians. But, bicyclists (neighborhood children) will still use it. Bicyclists traveling at a higher speed don’t typically use that size of trail. Sundberg clarified her concern is getting to the trail from neighborhood roadways. Mr. Shardlow stated the direction for trail planning is separation of pedestrians and bicyclists from vehicles. Mayor Zerby noted that he thought having a trail along side of CRR is a good idea. If there is a way to get pedestrians and/or bicyclist to Excelsior safely, that is a good idea. He stated there will be a grocery store people can bike to and that would reduce carbon emissions. He then stated if there were to be a public trail around the wetland there are issues about accessing it. Mr. Shardlow stated he would never recommend that configuration. Councilmember Siakel stated having a perimeter trail does not necessitate a trail around the wetland. Councilmember Sundberg recommended consideration be given to accommodate bicyclists more safely when upgrading City roadways. Councilmember Siakel stated where County Road 19 and Smithtown Road and CRR come together she suggested safe trail crossings be put in place. Director Nielsen stated there is a concept for that from the County Road Corridor Study which is adopted in the Comp Plan. Mayor Zerby stated there has been discussion about hopefully having senior housing on the northwest quadrant of the SCRS Area. That needs to be kept in mind with any trail connection there. Councilmember Woodruff asked if trails open to the public would be maintained by the City. Administrator Joynes stated that is generally the outcome of negotiations. Councilmember Labadie stated there needs to be a way to get residents out of the proposed development and on to the Smithtown Road sidewalk east extension safely. Once children get there they can go to the elementary school safely; something that cannot be done today. Director Nielsen stated that is why a second access onto Smithtown Road is important. Administrator Joynes summarized the discussion on trails. He stated he understands Council to want a perimeter trail. There is concurrence that the trail along CCR should be located on the MCC property with some green space between the roadway and the trail. That trail will be public and therefore maintained by the City. He commented there may be a need to make decisions about internal trails depending on what the developer proposes. Mr. Shardlow stated it is his understanding that the developer thinks it can spade move a fair number of evergreen trees currently growing on the MCC property. They could possibly replace the buckthorn between the perimeter trail and CCR. E. Public Access to Open Space Mr. Shardlow stated he thought the topic of public access to open space has already been discussed. He explained that from the very beginning the developer has been talking about a clustered development and having 55 – 60 acres of permanently provided open space. There is an outstanding question about whether City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 15 of 22 or not the developer gets park dedication credit for that. The developer has stated that the development would not be a gated community. Mayor Zerby stated a lot of the open space is combined into a wetland and therefore he does not know how much access there will be to that. Administrator Joynes stated on the MindMixer website a number of comments have been posted about there being some type of golf course on the redeveloped site. The PAC discussed that quite extensively. There would be major issues associated with doing that. For example, it would eliminate the wetland possibility and likely the trail possibilities. The PAC was provided information about the economics of having a golf course and the difficulty in maintaining it. He noted that he has been involved with public golf courses in the past and they are generally not operationally viable without major subsidies from cities. Mr. Shardlow noted the developer is not proposing a golf course. Mayor Zerby stated the City of Orono’s golf course is not profitable and it requires subsidies. He does not think residents would want to do that. F. Chance to do Something Cool – Mini Town Center Mr. Shardlow stated from the very beginning and more strongly at the end the PAC discussed that this is the opportunity for the City to do something significant around the Smithtown Road and County Road 19 intersection. He explained that when he asked PAC members for examples sometimes the responses were the Excelsior and Grand area or places like that. He told members that the area around Excelsior and Grand has density of 100 units per acre. Shorewood has prided itself on being relatively low density. He then stated if the City wanted to relocate the Badger Park ballfield to the MCC property there would be a tradeoff. There would no longer be an opportunity for wetland restoration. The PAC did strongly support redeveloping the northwest quadrant of the SCRS Area and around the intersection. It was basically a mandate from the PAC that this is the time to be thinking about all of that coming together. But, it was outside of the PAC’s purview. From his vantage point, there is a real traffic intensive use on the Lucky Station site. If the City were to convert that to a less traffic intensive use (e.g.; senior housing) the curb cuts in the intersection could be eliminated. It would provide an opportunity to do a lot of streetscape landscaping around the SCRS Area. It could eventually become a regional trail location. Mr. Shardlow noted that there are developers waiting in the wings to discuss a variety of senior housing types and styles. He encouraged them to let the PAC process come to an end and let the developer submit the application for the MCC property. After that it would be the appropriate time to talk about it. He noted that there were different discussions about the residential area along Smithtown Road and the commercial areas in the northwest quadrant and the southwest quadrant of the SCRS Area. Councilmember Sundberg stated parking needs have to be considered early on in any discussions about redevelopment. Mr. Shardlow stated from his perspective the City has been “dealt a really good hand”. The proposal being offered is $100 – $150 million of new investment into the community and it represents a tremendous amount of total economic benefit. There will be a lot of spending power that comes along with the new housing. Mayor Zerby stated it would be nice to memorialize that the MCC property because it had a golf course on it for 100 years. He then stated it would be nice to make the Smithtown Road and County Road 19 intersection standout for Shorewood and be something people could identify with. City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 16 of 22 Councilmember Sundberg stated it is her understanding that Mattamy is not purchasing the residential property on a corner next to the MCC property. At one time that property was a stage coach stop. Councilmember Siakel stated she does not envision Shorewood ever having a so called downtown area. But, having something like a trail stop in the SCRS Area could give the Area some identity. Councilmember Sundberg agreed that there would not be downtown area in Shorewood. Mr. Shardlow stated Shorewood has Badger Park and plans to improve the Park and there is the Southshore Center. The City has the opportunity to do new development in the SCRS Area. Director Nielsen stated what is being discussed is all included in the SCRS Report and noted that it was an intentional decision not to share that Report with the PAC. He then stated the Country Road 19 Corridor Study talks about landscape treatment all along that Area. Administrator Joynes stated if/when the Mattamy project is approved there will be more interest from developers in redeveloping the SCRS Area. Any developer will likely want some type of subsidy for building certain types of housing. Council will have to decide how much it wants the City to be a financially active player in that. Councilmember Sundberg asked if there would be any interest in eliminating Badger Park entirely or expanding some other City-owned park if a developer wanted that parcel of land. Director Nielsen stated the PAC advised keeping Badger Park in place. The Park Commission has not wanted to eliminate Badger Park. Mayor Zerby stated he thought Badger Park will become more important to the Community because of the MCC project. Councilmember Siakel stated she can support keeping a park where Badger Park is. It should tie into the Southshore Center. She then stated it is her understanding that there is a developer who has expressed some interest in the Lucky’s corner of the SCRS Area. That may change the use of Badger Park. She went on to state that she would like to gain a better understanding of how all of the City’s parks are being used and specifically Freeman Park and the revenues earned from sports teams using the Parks. Maybe a lacrosse field could be created in Freeman Park instead of Badger Park. And, maybe the Tonka United Soccer Association has outgrown Freeman Park. She commented she could envision Badger Park being more of a playground with a common area for families. Councilmember Labadie stated she does not know how Badger Park could support the type of parking needs a lacrosse association is going to generate. She thought locating it in Freeman Park would be a better alternative. Councilmember Sundberg stated there may be a better use for a portion of the Badger Park land. G. Other Councilmember Sundberg stated the Alternative Energy Study consultants have provided the City with recommended Zoning Code amendments relative to private sector solar development. They also provided language that could be added to the PUD ordinance. She asked if it would be appropriate for Council to look at the recommendations and decide which amendments it may want to consider. She stated she thought it prudent to do that soon before the MCC PUD negotiation process is too far along. Mayor Zerby stated he likes solar energy but he does not want to cut trees down in order to be able to put up solar panels. He does agree the recommended ordinance amendments be discussed soon. City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 17 of 22 Councilmember Woodruff stated the City is involved with the GreenStep Cities Program. As part of that Program there are guidelines for what to do with new development. He has not heard staff indicate that it has reviewed the guidelines to determine if what Mattamy is proposing for the MCC property in any way fits with those guidelines. Director Nielsen noted that the consultants doing the Alternative Energy Study wrote a good share of the GreenStep Cities guidelines. Woodruff clarified he was talking about more than just solar guidelines (e.g.; landscaping, trees, sidewalks, etc.). Councilmember Sundberg concurred with doing that and clarified she is not only concerned about solar energy. She is thinking about the broader scope of a green community. Administrator Joynes mentioned there had been a previous recommendation to ensure the homes are broadband ready. Mayor Zerby clarified broad fiber ready. Councilmember Siakel suggested burying the electrical power lines. Mayor Zerby stated a member of the PAC asked that the site be pollinator friendly but he is not sure how the City can make that happen. Director Nielsen stated because 60 percent of the site will be open space that will help make it pollinator friendly. Attorney Keane explained that being Mattamy submitted an application to the City on July 6, 2015, the 60-day clock has started to run unless staff says the application is incomplete. The luxury of the leisurely community input pace for the last five months has to change to an overdrive pace now. Going forward, Council and staff have to be very mindful of the schedule. People have to be prepared for meetings and prepared to make decisions. As soon as the application was filed the formal record started and that record stays open until there is final action by Council. He reminded Council that the consideration of the applications is something that takes place on the record. He stated if residents have comments and concerns about the project they should bring them to Planning Commission meetings or to Council meetings or submit them in writing to the City for distribution to Councilmembers and Commissioners. He noted off the record communication is discouraged. Attorney Keane then explained there are still ongoing struggles within the Witrak family. Ms. Bonnie Witrak, who had been/is a minority shareholder of the MCC property, has been actively involved in court proceedings. Administrator Joynes explained that staff has had three or four meetings with Ms. Witrak and her associates which included developers, public relations people, and local architects. He noted if Ms. Witrak gains control of the property the PUD process would be quite lengthy; maybe a year or two. Administrator Joynes reiterated that Council and staff have to be very cognizant of time requirements and being prepared for meetings and being prepared to make decisions. There are a number of related decisions and tangential projects that have to be coordinated with the MCC project. He stated he thought that could be accomplished but there is the possibility that something could get sidetracked. 5. Decision Process Timeline Director Nielsen explained that during Council’s June 22, 2015, he walked through a graphic timeline illustrating the various steps in City’s development review process for the Comp Plan amendment process and the planned unit development (PUD) process for MCC project. (A copy of that same graphic was included in the packet.) The first scenario shows the shortest amount of time in which the process could be completed; it goes by the 60-day rule. The second scenario is the longest amount of time in which the process could be completed; it shows using the 120 days allowed. He thought reality will be somewhere in between. He clarified that once the Concept Stage plans (the formal Comprehensive Plan amendment and PUD) is approved there is no way to know how long it will take the developer to submit plans for the Development Stage. That same thing applies for between approval of the Development Stage plans and preliminary plat and the submittal of Final Plan Stage. An application is submitted for each of the stages City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 18 of 22 in the PUD process – the Concept Stage, the Development Stage and the Final Plan Stage. The Planning Commission holds a public hearing for the Concept Stage of the PUD process and the Development Stage of the PUD process (this stage is essentially the review of the preliminary plat). The Final Plan Stage of the PUD process involves finalizing the details approved during the Concept and Development Stages in legal documents (e.g.; the final plat and the development agreement). Nielsen noted that during this discussion so far staff has received very good direction and prioritization from Council related to the MCC project. Mayor Zerby stated he hoped Council would have a public hearing as well as part of its PUD review process. Director Nielsen asked Zerby if he wanted that for the Concept Stage or the Development Stage. Zerby stated he wanted it for both the Concept Stage and the Development Stage. Councilmember Siakel asked if there was a need for two hearings for those two Stages. Zerby stated based on his experience there are always residents who do not weigh in during the Commission’s public hearings and want to be heard during Council meetings. Therefore, he wants to provide them with an opportunity to be heard. Siakel stated she could support a Council public hearing for the Concept Stage but she did not favor that for the Development Stage because the Planning Commission is fairly far along in the process by then. Siakel noted that she does think it is important for the public to have opportunities to comment. Councilmember Woodruff stated during the Council discussion for the Summit Woods development Concept Stage there were a lot of questions from residents that were left unanswered because the details were not known at that time. The public was demanding answers that could not be answered until after the plans for the Development Stage were submitted. He then stated if Council is to hold a public hearing as well it should be held for the Development Stage. Attorney Keane noted there is a mandatory public hearing in front of the Planning Commission. Mayor Zerby stated he understands Council holding a public hearing is optional and he thought Council should take advantage of that because of the size of the project. Councilmember Woodruff asked Director Nielsen if Council held public hearings for the CUB Foods project. Director Nielsen explained for the CUB project there was an extraordinary mailing list and that will be done for the MCC project. Nielsen stated it is his recollection that only the required public hearings were held. Yet, there were still a lot of public comments heard along the way. Mr. Shardlow stated there is a need for the public to be informed and to be able to share their opinions. And, there is also the public hearing. He thought there could be value in having a public informational meeting about the redevelopment of the MCC property. That meeting could be co-hosted by the PAC, the developer and staff. That is a more effective way of providing residents with information. Many times people come to a public hearing with a prepared statement without having heard all of the facts. Public hearings are difficult forums for people to become informed and gain an understanding. Councilmember Siakel and Councilmember Sundberg both stated they liked that idea. Councilmember Woodruff stated that is similar with what is being done for trails by having open houses. Mr. Shardlow stated it could be an extended neighborhood meeting; because of all of the information already generated there is a lot more to share with people. Mr. Shardlow clarified that the PAC meetings were not neighborhood meetings. Those meetings were focused on those 23 members. The public was not excluded from those meetings, but they were not intended to be a forum for the public. There were some others that came and were frustrated because they could not participate exactly the same way the PAC members could. People were told that the PAC City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 19 of 22 process would not take away from the normal public input process. That PAC was somewhat like a community focus group. Mayor Zerby stated he thought the open house format for an informational meeting is a good idea if it is done right. But, there is still no reason for Council not to have a public hearing. Councilmember Sundberg again stated she supports having an informational meeting for the public provided it is well done. And, the information needs to be presented in a PowerPoint format at a minimum. Councilmember Siakel stated the open houses for trails have been very well received and very well organized. Councilmember Sundberg asked who will orchestrate the informational meeting. Siakel and Mayor Zerby responded staff. Sundberg stated staff already has a full workload. Sundberg asked if staff thought it can put on a well prepared informational session. Administrator Joynes responded it could. Councilmember Siakel noted she does not support holding a public hearing at the Council level. She stated from her perspective residents will have had more than enough opportunities to have been heard and to have gotten information through the MindMixer website, the City newsletter and website, a public informational meeting and two Planning Commission public hearings. Councilmember Labadie noted she agrees with Siakel’s comments. She stated she thought that for the Summit Woods project a group of citizens was very well organized and spoken. Yet, it was the same people coming before the Planning Commission and Council each time the project was being discussed expressing the same concerns. She thought that people had more than enough opportunity to express their concerns during the Planning Commission hearings. Councilmember Woodruff stated role of the Planning Commission is defined by State Statute for this process. He cautioned against circumventing that process by offering the public a forum to go directly to Council rather than to the Commission. He stated to some extent that was done with the Summit Woods project. Council allowed itself to become, to some degree, a way to bypass the Planning Commission process. He encouraged Council not to do that for the MCC project. He stated there is great legal peril if Council allows that. He commented the Commission can decide to continue a public hearing to another meeting for cause. He reminded Council the Commission can meet more than once a month. Director Nielsen noted the Commissioners had been asked to reserve the third Tuesday of the month in case there is a need for a second meeting. Mayor Zerby respectfully excused himself from the work session at 11:45 A.M. because he had another meeting to go to. Acting Mayor Siakel assumed control of the meeting. Administrator Joynes stated four members of Council supported Council not having a public hearing. Mr. Shardlow stated from his perspective one of the things that would be helpful for the public to hear about the issues framed, the recommendations from the PAC and those things Council concurs with. The fact that the developer has agreed to comply with the issues should be reassuring to people. If they don’t have any of that information they will come at this project wondering why there is not going to be a nine- hole golf course. Administrator Joynes clarified that in order for staff to handle the open house informational meeting there will be a need for some help from Mr. Shardlow and from engineering to put the documentation together. He stated because the contract with Stantec ended after Mr. Shardlow’s presentation to Council during its June 22 meeting he intends to bring forward a change order to that contract based on an hourly rate for Council’s consideration during its July 13 meeting for items like this. Councilmember Sundberg stated City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 20 of 22 that Mr. Shardlow is perfect for that. Sundberg commented that having done similar things being well prepared for an open house style informational meeting takes a lot of work. Director DeJong clarified the City has to pay for that; the developer’s responsibility for that involvement ended after the June 22 presentation. Attorney Keane stated that the developer is paying for everything. Attorney Keane explained the developer was presented with a pre-application development agreement that obligates the developer to reimburse the City for all expenses incurred by the City in processing this application. But not for the developer, the City would not be incurring the expenses. That has been clearly explained to the developer and they are contractually obligated to make those reimbursements. Mr. Shardlow stated there is a point when broader traffic considerations would not be the developer’s financial responsibility. Redevelopment work around the intersection not related to the MCC redevelopment is also a different story. Councilmember Woodruff asked if the agreement with the developer is structured such that in the remote possibility that Ms. Witrak prevails in her legal pursuit the City would have had the right to be reimbursed. Attorney Keane stated absolutely. Administrator Joynes stated the developer has been billed for Stantec’s time through the June 22 presentation. 6. Abatement Process Timeline Administrator Joynes explained the meeting packet contains a copy of a Tax Abatement timeline that staff and Springsted representatives put together. The timeline shows that by mid-July the City needs to have had a discussion with representatives from the Minnetonka School District to try and get some indication as to whether or not the District wants to participate in the Abatement. In the past Council and staff have talked about Mayor Zerby and Councilmember Labadie putting together a strategy for approaching the District based on the connections they each have. Springsted, Zerby, Labadie and staff need to meet soon to discuss how things should be phrased during discussions with District representatives. If the City participates in the Abatement on its own, that would result in there being about $1 million that can be used for other projects. If the District decides to also participate to the full extent, that would result in about another $2 million. The District does not need to be convinced that all of that is appropriate, but it does need to be convinced that doing some of the projects would benefit the Minnewashta Elementary School. The City will have to make formal presentations to the School Board. The timeline shows a lot of notification and publication requirements to establish the Abatement districts. All of the activities on the timeline culminate on October 12 when Council holds the public hearing on Tax Abatement and adopts a resolution establishing the Abatement area. The public hearing is required by law. During the hearing the City will present what it is doing and why it is doing it. Joynes noted that because there are other decisions makers involved in the Abatement process the timeline may have to be adjusted. Councilmember Labadie asked Administrator Joynes if he anticipates that she, Mayor Zerby and staff would go before the School Board on August 13. Joynes responded no. Administrator Joynes recommended that staff, Mayor Zerby and Councilmember Labadie first meet with Minnewashta Elementary School representatives to try and get support for Abatement participation at the City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 21 of 22 School level before going before the Board. Labadie stated it would be important to get the Superintendent of the Elementary School on board and have her participate in a presentation to the Board. Councilmember Woodruff suggested staff tell Council what decisions it needs to make about projects and how to fund them in the short term with the understanding that eventually the project will be paid for with Tax Abatement resources if the MCC redevelopment project continues to move forward. Administrator Joynes stated staff is working on that and noted that a document depicting some of that was provided to Council for the April 9, 2015, Council and staff retreat and it was included in the meeting packet for this work session. Administrator Joynes explained money from Tax Abatement does not come all at once; taxes come in over the course of years. But, there are bonding mechanisms that can be used in anticipation of Tax Abatement resources to get the money to the City upfront in order to do projects. The bonds would be paid back with the Abatements. That is something that Springsted and Director DeJong will have to work out. Director DeJong noted the duration of the Abatement gets shortened if the City, School District and Hennepin County all participate in the Abatement. The length can be up to 20 years if only two participate and 12 – 15 years if all three do. The Abatement amounts provided to Council are the maximum ball park figures. The amounts will be lower if all three participate. Councilmember Woodruff asked if the dollars flow out of the taxing area or is net of cost and interest and so forth. Director Nielsen responded that is dollars that flow out of the taxing area. Woodruff stated the amounts presented will have to be reduced by the amount to service the debt. Acting Mayor Siakel asked if the Abatement area is just the MCC property or could it extend down to Strawberry Lane. Director Nielsen stated that what staff and Springsted have looked at is just the MCC area. Administrator Joynes explained that is where the money is taken out of but it can be used for tangentially related projects. 7. Future Proposals Administrator Joynes stated the City has been approached about future development interests that have come about because of the MCC redevelopment project. The SCRS Area and Badger Park have already been mentioned. There had been at least one and possibly two qualified developers that have come and talked about the SCRS Area. Another had talked about one area of Badger Park and another talked about all of Badger Park. Those projects would require City participation through the Shorewood Economic Development Authority (EDA). He noted the EDA has the authority to levy a tax. He stated it is likely that during this budget cycle staff will propose allocating some money to the EDA to become operational. Joynes pointed to an area on a graphic that will likely become more desirable for developers to possibly construct a different housing style. He pointed to another area that is located in Shorewood and Excelsior (an old restaurant site near Highway 7 and Country Road 19) where a developer wants to build 100 units of senior housing with the structure being four stories high. He explained that because that property crosses Shorewood/Excelsior city boundaries there will a set of complications that would need to be addressed. That developer intends on asking for tax increment financing (TIF) and a TIF district would be a complication. He noted that type of thing has been done in other places. That project would require a level of cooperation with Excelsior which the City has not experienced for a few years. Even though most of the units that would be built would be in Shorewood, Excelsior has indicated that will place a burden on Excelsior because the residents in those units will walk over to Kowalski’s for groceries. Excelsior has concern about safety at the intersection. Excelsior will be asking for some support because it perceives there will be a burden placed on it because of the housing that will be built in Shorewood. City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 22 of 22 Acting Mayor Siakel stated that because Excelsior Elementary School is located in Excelsior at the intersection of County Road 19 and Highway 7 that places a greater burden on Shorewood because of people crossing Highway 7 and the trail to Galpin Lake Road. Councilmember Sundberg concurred. Administrator Joynes stated there are complications with the property being located in both Shorewood and Excelsior. He clarified he does think that development can be accomplished because there are ways to work things out. He noted that it is likely Council will see that proposal this summer. Acting Mayor Siakel asked at what point the market becomes over saturated with senior housing and age- targeted housing. She suggested the City exercise caution about allowing too many units to be built. Director Nielsen stated a developer will have to demonstrate what the market for that type of housing is. Staff has been told the market is very strong at this time in this area. Mr. Shardlow stated the baby boom generation has affected real estate from the very beginning. It is now affecting senior housing. There is a very good chance that it will be overbuilt. When senior housing is discussed there is discussion about it being built with flexibility so it can be used for another type of housing when the demand for it lessens. Administrator Joynes stated there will be some pressure on a developer to be the first in with senior housing. By the time the fourth developer comes along there is some discomfort as to whether or not the need is there. Acting Mayor Siakel asked if the developer for the old restaurant site or the developer for the site of Lucky’s Station is further ahead than the other. Administrator Joynes stated the one for the restaurant site is way ahead. 8. Adjourn Sundberg moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council July 7, 2015, Work Session at 12:10 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #2B CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JULY 27, 2015 6:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel, Sundberg, and Woodruff; 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 Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND 2016 GENERAL FUND BUDGET DISCUSSION Administrator Joynes explained that during Council’s July 13 work session staff presented the 2016 General Fund Budget in broad terms and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). During that meeting staff was directed to eliminate all deficits in all CIP funds through 2017. Staff accomplished that with the use of General Fund reserves, fund transfers and proposed tax abatement and special assessment bonds. He summarized the needs of the CIP. He explained the Water and Sewer Funds have exceptional reserves; far in excess of what is needed to maintain operations. The stability of those funds is due in large part to rate increases recommended by Ehlers and implemented about 1.5 years ago. The Equipment Replacement Fund is reasonably stable. The Park Improvements Fund, the Street Reconstruction Fund, the Trails Fund and the Stormwater Management Fund go into a deficit states in 2018. It is difficult to know the funding needs for Stormwater Management Fund because there is no way to know what the mandates will be or what they will cost. The Park Improvements CIP now includes $910,000 in park dedication fees ($300,000 in 2016 and $610,000 in 2017) from the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) redevelopment project; that is for $6,250 for each of the now proposed 140 lots. Those funds plus the funds already in the Park Improvements Fund should fund the proposed improvements to Badger Park. The $910,000 could go up or down depending on the outcome of the negotiations for the MCC planned unit development (PUD). During the July 13 Council work session there was some discussion about issuing equipment certificates which some cities do. After additional review of the Equipment Replacement Fund’s needs, staff has determined if $70,000 were transferred into that Fund from the General Fund in 2016 and with the normal yearly transfers into that fund there would not be a need to issue certificates. The Fund goes into a deficit state in 2018. There are fairly significant expenditures planned for 2015 and 2016. Director DeJong explained there had been discussion about leveling out swings in spending in the Equipment Replacement Fund. There is a challenge in 2023 when a front-end loader is scheduled for CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES July 27, 2015 Page 2 of 6 replacement for an estimated cost of $250,000. Staff attempted to determine what level of funding is needed over the long haul to mitigate going into a deficit state and to make sure funds are available when the need to replace equipment arises. Administrator Joynes explained the Street Reconstruction Fund is more difficult to deal with. Roadways are scheduled to be maintained and replaced based on the PASER (Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating) System rating to a great extent. The fund now assumes $1,250,000 in special assessment bonding in 2017. The Minnesota courts have established assessing 20 – 25 percent of the cost to property owners can be validated and justified. The courts have agreed that 20 percent is the value the newly reconstructed roadway accrues to the property. The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) is trying to obtain the ability for cities to create a street reconstruction utility that can be distributed across the community. The Fund assumes 20 percent assessment and the remaining amount spread out over the City. Assessments can be determined by linear foot, by developable lot or by unit (parcel). The reconstruction of Amlee Road and Manitou Lane has been moved to 2021 to be reconstructed at the same time as Glen Road to smooth out funding needs. By doing those various things there will not be any deficits in this Fund until 2018. The tax impact to the City of the bond repayments will be about $140,000 per year starting in 2018. Assessing and bonding for roadway reconstruction is new to Shorewood. Assessments will be controversial with residents and residents will ask why improvements were not assessed in previous years. There may be arguments about the amount or the method used for determining the assessment. He is aware of cities that determine the per-unit cost for roadway reconstruction and all properties in the city are assessed for the average cost on a unit basis. Once assessments and bonding have been implemented it ceases to be an issue. But, initially it will be. The City can do nothing and wait until the roadways deteriorate to the point where the residents demand the City reconstruct them and then the property owners pay for that. Some cities do that even though it is contentious. If a decision is made to do that then the City has to at some point quit maintaining the roadways when it will not do much good. He clarified he is not recommending Council do that. He noted Council needs to decide what it wants to do about funding roadway reconstruction. Director DeJong clarified the $140,000 in bond repayment is for the 80 percent the City will pay. The property owners will pay the other 20 percent of the bond issue. He explained the City would issue assessment bonds over a 10-year period. When a city issues General Obligation (GO) Bonds because the tax rate is better the State requires them to levy 105 percent of the debt service amount because not all of the assessments come in each year. DeJong stated the City has a criterion so that roadways are scheduled for reconstruction when their PASER rating is less than 4 (the rating rages from 1 to 10). Director Brown clarified they do not necessarily get reconstructed but maintenance action is taken. DeJong then stated that Amlee Road, Manitou Lane and Glen Road all have a rating of 2 or 3. For the sake of fiscal considerations the City has somewhat abandoned the rating criteria. Administrator Joynes suggested Council consider lowering the rating trigger for reconstruction/maintenance action. He stated if residents do not think their roadways need to be reconstructed when they have a PASER rating of less than 4 then it would be prudent to have that discussion. He explained the Trail Fund now includes $1 million in abatement bonding in 2015 and $852,000 in 2017. Abatement bonds to some extent are anticipation bonds and sold based on what the City anticipates the tax abatement to be from the MCC project over time. The developer has indicated the buildout will be over 4 – 5 years. The abatement bonding assumes participation of the Minnetonka School District. He, Mayor CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES July 27, 2015 Page 3 of 6 Zerby and Councilmember Labadie are meeting with Minnewashta Elementary School representatives on July 29 to talk about the mutual benefits from a number of projects (e.g., the Smithtown Road sidewalk east extension, the Strawberry Lane trail segment and possibly some/all of the Galpin Lake Road trail segment). Director DeJong noted that the construction of Galpin Lake Road trail segment was pushed out to 2018 in the Trails CIP. There would be a deficit in 2018 after the trail is constructed. No solution has been identified for that. He then noted that all other projects in the Trail Implementation Plan are in the 2024 Trails CIP. Administrator Joynes stated the Trails CIP assumes the use of Minnesota State Aid (MSA) funds to construct the trail portion of roadway improvements. Director DeJong stated the MSA Road Reconstruction Fund now slates funding for reconstruction of the Vine Hill Road and Highway 7 intersection. The intersection does not function very well primarily on the south side of Highway 7 because of school events. Shorewood is responsible for one-fourth of the project’s costs, Deephaven is responsible for one-fourth and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is responsible for one-half. Staff estimates Shorewood’s share to be between $150,000 and $200,000. Administrator Joynes explained the Water Fund is very healthy. It could be used as a resource to fund other things. Mayor Zerby cautioned against using too much of the Fund balance for other things because there is a reasonable possibility that the City may have to construct a water treatment plant. He then explained the Sewer Fund is also healthy. It assumes a transfer of $1,010,000 in 2016 and $190,000 in 2017 to the Stormwater Management Fund. Because everyone in the City uses the sewer system it makes sense to use it as a funding source for stormwater improvements because everyone pays a storm sewer fee. Even after the transfers the Sewer Fund will still have a sufficient balance for basic operations. The City will have a rate study done once it has a better understanding of what the Metropolitan Council’s rates will be. The City will also have a rate study done for the storm water rates to determine how much to raise the rates to keep up with new mandates from the state and federal government. He reviewed the major components for the 2016 budget. There is a 2 percent tax levy increase to maintain the General Fund reserve. There are no State imposed levy limits for 2016. A salary reserve of 2.5 percent is recommended for 2016 to give Council some leeway. For the past few years Council has chosen to balance the budget with the use of reserves. The budget still assumes a forester/water resources position for $40,000; that was also included in the 2015 budget. Major revenue changes included: a $7,390 decrease in liquor license revenue because of the closing of the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC); a $20,000 increase in building permits revenue; and, a $10,000 increase in plan check fees. He reviewed the major changes in the 2016 Operating Budget when compared to the adopted 2015 Budget; increases or decreases of $5,000 or more. Major expense changes include: a $50,000 increase in the Council budget for succession planning; a $29,850 decrease in the Council budget contingency line item; a $163,001 increase in the Administrative personal services line item for a new full-time city administrator (it includes salary of $110,000 plus benefits of $27,000); a $105,000 decrease in the Administrative contractual line item for his contract services (his contract ends in December 2015); a $7,000 increase in the assessor’s contract; a $66,349 CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES July 27, 2015 Page 4 of 6 increase (or 6.2 percent) for police services (part of that is for additional patrol officer in 2016); a $9,000 decrease in Public Works contractual services (for building maintenance work that needs to be done in 2015 and not in 2016); and, a $30,000 increase for Public Works transfers. The succession planning expense includes, for example, funding for a compensation study because of the turnover of about one-half of the non-union work face over the next 18 months, the benefit load for the new administrator and additional training. For 2015 there was a contingency for salary increases because the settlement with Public Works AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) Local 224 for 2015 had not been settled. The settlement was for two years which meant the increase for 2016 is known. The South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Coordinating Committee asked the Police Chief to consider using reserves in 2016 to help fund the extra patrol officer position and the budget he saw on July 24 was down to about a 3 percent increase. He noted does not favor the use of SLMPD operating fund reserves because it will leave little in the reserves. The increase in Public Works transfers is for a $15,000 increase into the Equipment Replacement Fund and a $15,000 increase into Street Reconstruction Fund. General Fund reserves are estimated to be $3,981,000 at the end of 2015. The City’s General Fund Balance Policy stipulates a reserve level of 55 – 60 percent of the next year’s operating expenditures. Sixty percent of the year-end balance would be $3,386,000. That leaves $595,000 available for use (the difference between the two amounts). For 2015 the budget anticipates the use of $142,000 in reserves. There will be a $70,000 transfer from reserves to the Equipment Replacement Fund. That leaves an undesignated balance of $383,000 above the 60 percent that could be available for use. For a General Fund levy of 2 percent for 2016, $267,000 of reserves could be used to fund the levy. That leaves $116,000 above the 60 percent policy for use. If, for comparison purposes, the 2016 levy were to be 4.5 percent the City would only use $143,000 in reserves to help offset the levy. Joynes explained that during a Shorewood Economic Development (EDA) Board meeting following Council’s regular meeting this evening staff will be recommending an additional 1 percent (about $50,000) levy to fund EDA operations because of increased activities. The City could levy up to $250,000 for the EDA under State Statutes. The levy for the EDA would be outside of a levy limit if there had been one. Once the levy is made the first time people tend not to pay as much attention because it is already included in the budget. He stated on August 10 Council will see request from a developer for a senior housing project and the developer will be asking for assistance from the City. It is likely there will be two more proposals in the next year. He thought most of the costs of the EDA activities could be reimbursed. Joynes stated Council may want to certify to Hennepin County in September a maximum 3 percent levy; 2 percent for the general levy and 1 percent for the special EDA levy. If Council wants to give itself additional room to consider other ways to address CIP funding, it may want to certify a higher levy in September. The final levy can always be reduced. Councilmember Woodruff stated he cannot find the additional $70,000 transfer out of the General Fund into the Equipment Fund that is noted in the staff memorandum (memo) in the budget detail. Director DeJong stated it is not in the General Fund Budget. It will be a 2015 or 2016 transfer. Woodruff noted that he thought the transfer is a good idea. Mayor Zerby stated it is a good idea only if the proposed equipment purchase is a good idea. Woodruff explained the staff memo talks about bonding for street reconstruction in 2017. Administrator Joynes spoke about the payoff of the bonds will cost $140,000 yet the memo states it will cost $170,000. Director DeJong explained the full annual cost of the bonds is $170,000. Of that $140,000 will be paid CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES July 27, 2015 Page 5 of 6 back through property tax revenue and $30,000 through property assessments. Woodruff noted that is not reflected in the detail budget sheets. DeJong explained that is not in the General Fund Budget because the payback will not start until 2018. Councilmember Siakel stated she is not ready to start assessing for streets in 2016. There needs to be a lot more discussion about that and analysis of that. She explained that only 50 percent of the residential properties are connected to City water. If water is extended when roadways are reconstructed property owners will be assessed twice; for water and for streets. That will be financially difficult for a lot of people. Mayor Zerby concurred. Director DeJong noted there are not many properties along Amlee Road, Manitou Lane and Glen Road so reconstruction assessments could be quite substantial. Councilmember Woodruff stated that is the same for Riviera Lane. Mayor Zerby asked staff to clarify the $40,000 for hockey boards for Cathcart Park in the Park Improvements CIP. Director Nielsen stated that is a place holder and noted the Park Commission has not discussed that. Nielsen explained that consideration is being considered for portable boards for Freeman Park. He noted that he is not ready to include the boards for Cathcart Park in the CIP for 2016. He stated there is hope that there will be a meeting between the Shorewood and Chanhassen Park Commissions to talk about sharing costs for Cathcart Park. Councilmember Sundberg stated there is $9,500 slated in 2015 for tennis courts in Badger Park. Director DeJong stated that routine maintenance has been completed. Sundberg noted that same amount is slated for 2018 and 2021. Director Brown explained that is for resurfacing the courts. The City has found a contractor that will keep doing that maintenance to keep the courts playable. Sundberg then stated because of all of the flux with the MCC redevelopment project and the impact it will have on the surrounding areas she recommends putting the major improvements to Badger Park to the side. Councilmember Woodruff noted that he is not ready to approve a Badger Park expenditure for 2016 but he can support leaving the $577,000 for phase 1 improvements as a placeholder. Sundberg stated she would be more comfortable if it were a 2017 placeholder. Woodruff stated the 2016 and 2017 dollars for the Park could each be moved out one year but that means the potential artificial turf for the ballfield in the Park as proposed by the Minnetonka Lacrosse Association would be moved out to 2017. Sundberg clarified as placeholder amounts. Councilmember Siakel stated she thought there should be something in the 2016 budget for Park maintenance. Councilmember Labadie stated she viewed the discussion with the Lacrosse Association as informational only. There was no discussion about the Association’s financial contribution to that turf. Administrator Joynes stated it would be appropriate to move the Badger Park improvements out one year and noted the City will still receive the park dedication fees for the MCC property. Sundberg stated that Badger Park could change dramatically and Council should not hold itself to a plan that was agreed to before Council was aware of the MCC project. Siakel asked if Council has decided if it wants to move forward with a per parcel park dedication fee of $6,500 or the 8 percent of the raw value of the land. Director DeJong stated if the fee was based on the raw value of the land the rough estimate would be about $1.1 million based on a $14 million dollar purchase price of the property. It would be $910,000 if it was based on 140 developable lots. Councilmember Woodruff suggested removing the purchase of the tool to deal with the artificial turf from the Equipment Replacement CIP in 2016 because Badger Park improvements are being moved out. Mayor Zerby reiterated comments he made during Council’s July 13 work session about the purchase of the boom truck and chipper. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES July 27, 2015 Page 6 of 6 Zerby stated a boom truck is slated for purchase in 2016 for a cost of $84,000. He has suggested staff look for support from neighboring cities for sharing in that purchase. Director Brown noted that Excelsior city staff has verbally committed to going in on the purchase of a used boom truck. Zerby asked if he expected the budgeted amount to go down. Brown responded no; the City’s share of that cost would be $80,000 – $88,000. Zerby then stated there has been discussion with a firm about providing arborist services and possibly providing wood chipper services. Therefore, he is not ready to commit to the purchase of a $45,000 chipper. Director Brown stated many of the City’s roadways are being overtaken by tree growth. The City has not put enough resources into dealing with diseased trees and tree trimming to ensure adequate and safe right-of-ways. Zerby stated in addition to the cost to purchase equipment there are associated maintenance and operating costs. He thought it prudent to at least consider renting equipment or using a service if possible. He suggested having a cost/benefit discussion. Brown stated rental availability of equipment needs to be considered when making that decision. Councilmember Woodruff stated the City has not needed a boom truck and chipper in the past. He asked why the City needs them now and who would operate them. He then asked what the justification is for the wash bay, the LED lighting upgrade and building permit software. They are slated for purchase in the 2016 Equipment Replacement CIP. Director Brown explained the wash bay is a replacement item. Woodruff commented the building permit software could possibly be shared with someone else. He stated he thought the software would be needed to help with the load for the MCC project and expressed concern that in six years it may not be needed. Councilmember Sundberg stated she would like to learn what the payback period for LED lighting upgrade would be. 3. ADJOURN Sundberg moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of July 27, 2015, at 7:02 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. 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, JULY 27, 2015 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Attorney Keane; City Administrator Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and City Engineer Hornby Absent: None. B. Review Agenda Director Nielsen explained a public hearing had been noticed for tonight for a partial vacation of a drainage and utility easement but he forgot to have it put on the agenda. Rather than publish another notice for the public hearing Director Nielsen asked that Item 5.A Partial Vacation of a Drainage and Utility Easement be added to the agenda. He would like Mayor Zerby to open the public hearing for that item and then have Council continue the hearing to the August 10, 2015, Council meeting. He noted the applicant submitted their material in time. Sundberg moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Executive Session Minutes, July 13, 2015 Labadie moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Executive Session Minutes of July 13, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. B. City Council Work Session Minutes, July 13, 2015 Labadie moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of July 13, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, July 13, 2015 Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 27, 2015 Page 2 of 10 Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Approval of Video Taping Services Agreement Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. Partial Vacation of a Drainage and Utility Easement Applicant: Christopher Hamdorf Location: 26425 Arbor Creek Lane Mayor Zerby opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 P.M. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Mayor Zerby opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:08 P.M. Mayor Zerby explained that this public hearing had been noticed for tonight but staff forgot to put it on the agenda. It will be continued to Council’s August 10 meeting. Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for a Partial Vacation of a Drainage and Utility Easement for Christopher Hamdorf to City Council’s August 10, 2015, meeting. Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Zerby continued the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M. 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 7. PARKS A. Report on the July 14, 2015, Park Commission Meeting Director Nielsen reported on matters considered and actions taken at the July 14, 2015, Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Councilmember Siakel stated as the Council Liaison that evening she went on the tour of some of the City’s parks and she thought the parks looked very good. She thanked Director Brown and the rest of the Public Works staff for their efforts. She then stated there was standing water in Manor Park and she suggested installing drain tile to try and mitigate that situation. That is not included in the Park Improvements Capital Improvement Program (CIP). She asked if it should be added to the CIP. Director Nielsen noted that is on the project list from 2014 and stated that has been an ongoing problem. Nielsen explained he has spoken with Engineer Hornby about possible solutions for that. A rain garden solution had been discussed but there is not enough depth near the pond for that to work. A drain tile solution is being discussed. The cost for that will have to be added to the CIP. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 27, 2015 Page 3 of 10 8. PLANNING A. Zoning Text Amendment – Signs in the R-C, Residential Commercial Zoning District Applicant: Todd Frostad Director Nielsen explained Todd Frostad owns the South Lake Office Building located at 23505 County Road 19. The building is quite large. The property is zoned R-C, Residential/Commercial. Mr. Frostad has requested an amendment to the sign regulations for properties located in R-C Districts so they are treated similar, in concept, to the C-1, General Commercial District. The C-1 District provides for signage in scale with the size of the property and the building the signage would be located on. In the C-1 District properties are allowed to have signage totaling in area 10 percent of the building silhouette as viewed from the street. That can be divided among three signs one of which can be a pylon sign. Currently, the R-C District allows properties to have two signs, one of which can be a freestanding sign, no larger than 20 square feet. The other sign must be a wall sign. Total signage must not exceed 36 square feet in total. These requirements apply to any property in the R-C District, regardless of the size of the property or the size of the structure on the property. Mr. Frostad’s building is the largest building in all of the R-C Districts. Yet, he is not allowed to have any more signage than the smallest buildings in the Districts can. Mr. Frostad is not asking for the same amount of signage as is allowed in the C-1 District. He has proposed a signage standard of 5 percent of the building silhouette, with a maximum of 40 square feet for the freestanding sign (one half of what is allowed in the C-1 District). He also proposed the current height limitation for freestanding signs of five feet high be increased to eight feet. Lastly, the applicant proposed that the location requirement for an illuminated freestanding sign be reduced from 200 feet to 100 feet from a residential district boundary. If the distance is less than 100 feet, the sign would have to be screened from view of residential properties. The applicant has a very dense hedge of vegetation along the west side of his property that screens his property from the twin homes to the west of his property. There are other properties in the R-C Districts that are subject to the setback requirements. If they could not meet the screening requirements they would not be allowed the reduced setback. He noted the provision that prohibits a sign from being lit between the hours of 9:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. remains as is. He stated the meeting packet contains a graphic of what the proposed allowable signage could look like for the applicant’s property. Nielsen noted that Mr. Frostad was present. Todd Frostad, owner of the South Lake Office Building located at 23505 County Road 19, thanked Council for considering his request. He noted that he worked with Director Nielsen off and on for a year to ensure what he has proposed is reasonable and appropriate because it would affect all of the properties in the R-C Districts in the City. He explained that the requirements for protective screening and turning off the lights, for example, were preserved in the amendment. His current freestanding sign is located a long distance from the driveway entrance onto the property and he would like to move the sign closer to the entrance. The sing’s current location has caused a few accidents because drivers pass the entrance and then slam on their breaks. That is why he proposed the reduction to 100 feet from the residential district boundary. His tenants often ignore the need for permits when putting out temporary signs. Therefore, he intends to construct a sign that allows for inserted promotional panels on the monument sign to eliminate that problem. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 27, 2015 Page 4 of 10 Mayor Zerby noted that he appreciates the time Mr. Frostad and Director Nielsen have put into this request. He stated the changes seem to be appropriate. Councilmember Woodruff noted that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the amendment. Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving Ordinance No. 520, “An Ordinance Amending Section 1201.19 Subd. 8.d. of the Shorewood Zoning Code.” Motion passed 5/0. B. Proposed Zoning Amendment - Setbacks for Mechanical equipment in the R-C District Director Nielsen noted this is a housekeeping item. Director Nielsen explained that residents in general prefer to put their air conditioning condensing units on the side of their house. That is not an allowable encroachment in a setback at this time. For non- lakeshore lots the setback is 10 feet. In Shoreland Districts the lots are required to have greater side yard setbacks than non-lakeshore lots. The Code requires that those lots must have a total side yard setback of 30 feet, with no one side less than 10 feet. The 10-foot requirement is not a problem. The problem arises when the property is set up with side yards constituting some other combination of 30 feet (e.g., 15 and 15). Since the equipment must comply with side setbacks, that property must keep its equipment 15 feet from the property line. That does not seem fair. The proposed housekeeping text amendment would allow mechanical equipment on residential shoreline lots to be an “allowable encroachment” in required side yards, except for those abutting a street, and no closer than 10 feet from the side lot line. The amendment would also prohibit mechanical equipment from being located within drainage and utility easements. Following is how a proposed amendment would read after having made corrections recommended by the Planning Commission: Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c. (4) would be amended to read: (4) Laundry drying and recreational equipment, arbors, trellises, in rear yards to a point no closer than five feet from any lot line. Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c. would be amended to include: (10) Air conditioning and heating equipment shall not be located within drainage and utility easements. Air conditioning and heating equipment on residential shoreline lots may encroach into required side yards, but no closer than 10 feet from the side lot line.” Nielsen noted that staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment. Councilmember Woodruff noted that the agenda states this is for the R-C District but this is not just for the R-C District. He also noted the title on the staff report says the same thing. Director Nielsen clarified it is for the Shoreland District. Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, Approving Ordinance No. 521, “An Ordinance Amending Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c of the Shorewood Zoning Code.” CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 27, 2015 Page 5 of 10 Mayor Zerby asked if there were any comments from the public during the public hearing. Director Nielsen responded no. Motion passed 5/0. 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Receive Bids and Award Contract for the 2015 Sealcoat Project, City Project 15-03 Engineer Hornby noted the meeting packet contained a memorandum from him about the 2015 Sealcoat Project and at the dais this evening there was a copy of the bid results. He explained this is a joint project of the Cities of Shorewood, Excelsior, Minnetrista and Victoria. The Engineer’s estimate for the total project was $572,560. The bids for the project were opened on July 23. The low bid for the entire project was $504,089.00. The bid for Shorewood portion of the project was $250,148.50. That is approximately $25,000 higher than the amount slated in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Director DeJong had indicated there should be sufficient dollars to do this project in 2015. He noted the quantity estimates for the project were somewhat conservative; therefore, he thought the price would come down. He also noted the low bid received was from Allied Blacktop Company. Hornby stated staff recommends Council adopt the resolution awarding the contract. Siakel moved, Woodruff seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-052, “A Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for the 2015 Seal Coat Project, City Project No. 15-03, to Allied Blacktop Company for an Amount Not To Exceed $250,148.50.”Motion passed 5/0. B. Receive and Approve Petition for Water for 23350 Park Street Engineer Hornby explained Karen King and Kenneth Potts have petitioned the extension of municipal water to a new house under construction. Their property is located at 23350 Park Street and is located in Shorewood. The water would be serviced by the City of Excelsior. The meeting packet contains a copy of a resolution permitting the property owners to connect to the Excelsior municipal water system and a copy of water connection agreement between Shorewood and the property owners. He is working with representatives from Excelsior to determine the costs for the watermain extension and the connection to the service. Those costs will be presented to the owners and they will be asked to provide in writing direction to move forward with that. Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-053, “A Resolution Permitting a Shorewood Property Owner to Connect to the Excelsior Municipal Water System” and Authorizing the City of Shorewood to Enter into a Water Connection Agreement with Karen King and Kenneth Potts, the Owners of the Property Located at 23350 Park Street. Motion passed 5/0. 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Traffic Committee Recommendations Administrator Joynes stated that during Council’s June 22, 2015, meeting Council directed staff to come back with a proposal for conducting a traffic study on the Country Club Road to Yellowstone Trail to Lake Linden Drive collector route and the impact of the redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) property on the roadway system. Council also recommended a broader assessment of traffic be CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 27, 2015 Page 6 of 10 considered. Staff discussed the topic for a couple of hours and recommends taking a two-pronged approach to studying traffic. He explained the first prong would be to study the impact of MCC redevelopment on traffic and the existing traffic conditions along the collector route and some adjacent roadways (e.g.; Echo Road, Ridge Point Circle, Minnetonka Drive). That is the most immediate need. The committee members should be people affected by the redevelopment. Staff has no recommendation on how large the committee should be or on how committee members are selected. Staff recommends the committee should be looking at safety issues, traffic speeds, traffic volumes and traffic calming techniques. The City should provide the committee with engineering consulting services help. Staff has asked WSB & Associates to provide a quote for providing that assistance. The traffic engineers would analyze the already existing traffic data and make recommendations on what else needs to be done. Staff recommends the committee seek input about issues related to the corridor route from the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Chief and the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Police Chief. That should be done immediately. The second prong would be to study city-wide traffic issues. Staff had a difficult time defining what the scope of that effort should be. Staff has learned that a number of cities have gone through similar discussions. The effort could be about implementing a city-wide policy for speed. Some cities established a process for assessing residents’ requests for changes to various related items (e.g.; sight lines, street signs). He thought it would be worthwhile to more thoroughly research what other cities have done before moving forward with this study. Staff recommends having a work session sometime this fall, after budget deliberations, to discuss all of the information staff has gathered and define the mission of the group that will take on this effort. The membership of this group would be different than that of group studying the above corridor. Joynes reiterated staff recommends moving forward with the corridor study as soon as possible and it will provide Council with quotes for engineering services to assist with that effort. He recommended Council consider having the City advertise for residents who would be interested in participating in that effort. Mayor Zerby stated the committee that would study the corridor would be akin to a beta committee. There is a need for that committee to be established quickly so it can discuss the issues. Maybe some of the lessons learned and the solutions the group proposes could be used on a broader scale. He then stated some cities have a complete streets program that covers how streets should be designed and be shared with moving vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. He questioned the need to restrict the committee membership to residents who live in specific areas of the City. He expressed confidence that residents who live in the vicinity of the corridor will come forward to participate quickly. He stated the charter of the committee should be to study the corridor “pain point”. Councilmember Sundberg asked Administrator Joynes if he envisions WSB staff managing the process and facilitating the committee meetings as well as providing the technical expertise. Joynes clarified that staff does not envision WSB staff managing the process. The technical support would come from them. Joynes stated staff did discuss who that should be. It should be a source the City provides and pays for. The City should take credit for the information and stand for its validity. There are previous studies that may be relevant to this study. Staffing the committee in terms of minutes and logistics are not known at this time. He noted that staff is already having difficulty with workloads. Sundberg noted that she thought a third-party approach would be better; use someone with experience in facilitating this type of effort. Joynes there is a senior member with WSB that staff is trying to get for this. Mayor Zerby noted that in the past the City has used TKDA, as well as other firms, for studies like this. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 27, 2015 Page 7 of 10 Councilmember Labadie asked what the committee members’ time commitment would be. When residents were considering applying for consideration on the MCC Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) they wanted to know how much time they were committing to and the days they would meet. Administrator Joynes stated the PAC determined its meeting schedule. Administrator Joynes stated he won’t know the scope of the effort until the City receives a proposal from WSB. He explained there will be an education component to the study. Traffic calming options will have to be discussed. The corridor needs to be studied to determine what options are feasible. The options that have already been mentioned need to be discussed with public safety. He clarified that it was going to involve much more than just one or two meetings. Staff envisions it taking about six months and maybe longer. Councilmember Siakel stated she agrees it is about educating people first and then getting into details. She suggested residents living along Eureka Road, Smithtown Road and Strawberry Lane should also be allowed to participate. Mayor Zerby stated the roadways included could be identified as traffic zone 1. Councilmember Siakel suggested writing a mission statement describing what the committee’s objective is for the corridor study. Administrator Joynes stated staff will solicit residents to offer to participate and Council can make the selection. Ken Huskins, 24075 Mary Lake Trail, noted he has corresponded with Mayor Zerby and one other member of Council via email earlier this week after having read the memorandum from Administrator Joynes. He applauded Joynes for including additional roadways (not just the three roadways that are part of the collector route from County Road 19 to Highway 7) in the study. He asked Council to reconsider taking a two-pronged approach to studying traffic. He stated there have been traffic issues in the City for a long time. There are issues outside of the corridor that will be impacted by the MCC redevelopment. From his vantage point having one committee study traffic in its entirety has advantages. It would emphasize the importance of the issue being city-wide as opposed to it being just a regional concern. It would also allow everyone an opportunity to participate in coming up with a unified solution as opposed to a nonintegrated solution. He thanked Council for the opportunity to speak. Henry Miles, 24035 Mary Lake Trail, stated it is his understanding that because of the Mattamy redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Club property improvements to Country Club Road have been talked about (e.g., widening the roadway, putting in traffic calming measures such as a parkway). The improvement could be done in conjunction with redevelopment. Thinking about things in a chunk is progressive and needed. Mr. Miles recommended the traffic committee address traffic myths that he is not sure are true. One of the myths is that one way to address traffic issues is with police enforcement. He stated that SLMPD Interim Police Chief Siitari, an accomplished individual, has told him that enforcement options along the cut thru are limited or nonexistent because the cut thru is so poorly designed. Part of the poor design is because there is no place for the police to park. Also, there are limited police resources because most of the police resources are being sucked into Excelsior to deal with DWI incidents. That enforcement myth needs to be dispelled. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 27, 2015 Page 8 of 10 A second myth is related to emergency response. He spent time talking to EFD Chief Gerber who gave him an in-depth tutorial about how the Fire Department calculates response times. He then stated he has unusual sleep patterns which most often cause him to be up from midnight to 2:00 A.M. During that time he watches the view across Mary Lake while he works. During the 17 years he has lived in his home and watched that view during those hours he has never seen emergency lights come off of Minnetonka Drive. They always go west on Yellowstone Trail; not east. He asked Chief Gerber, who is a very competent person, if his observation was correct. He conveyed that Chief Gerber indicated it was correct. Chief Gerber told him that at times the Fire Department does go down Country Club Road and then east on Yellowstone trail and on to Lake Linden Drive. The Department often goes west off of Minnetonka Drive onto Yellowstone Trail to get to Lake Linden Drive. He asked Chief Gerber if he would think he was crazy if he said there may be a solution by making Minnetonka Drive a one-way roadway that goes south and Country Club Road a one-way roadway that goes north without impacting emergency response. He related that Chief Gerber told him he would not think he was crazy. From his perspective there are myths about one-way traffic and emergency response that that have become sacred cows in this community. The myths need to be addressed if solutions are to be found. Mr. Miles then stated that during the budget work session immediately preceding this meeting he heard that there are limited funds for roadway reconstruction without special assessment. He also heard funds will not be reallocated from Badger Park improvements or some other area to roadway improvements. He asked if people are just “howling at the moon”. If people are “howling at the moon” he recommended not moving forward with this. The committee needs to move forward with the understanding that the City will find the funds to do what the committee recommends, which may mean dispelling some myths in the process, to move this along. Mr. Miles noted that Director Nielsen is on record saying that the cut thru is substandard and that the intersection at Lake Linden Drive/Highway 41 and Highway 7 is “severely congested” (Nielsen’s words). He stated that in the context of the proposed development which is now 140 houses the traffic issues need to be taken seriously and they should be addressed. Administrator Joynes reiterated staff will solicit people for the traffic committee and will bring that information back to Council for its next meeting. Mayor Zerby stated along with a recommendation for outside services to help with the traffic study. 11. 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 that the trail schedule is up to date. The owners’ of properties where the City needs easements have all agreed to the easements. The plans for the Smithtown Road sidewalk east extension have been submitted to the agencies for review. Staff will respond to comments from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Mayor Zerby asked if staff has responded to the Minnetonka Creek Watershed District’s (MCWD) request for additional information. Hornby staff has been doing that as well. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 27, 2015 Page 9 of 10 2. Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment Open House July 28, 2015 Director Nielsen stated that during January staff asked Council if it wanted the mailing list for Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) redevelopment open houses and public meetings to be expanded from the normal 300 feet. Council decided that should be done. Therefore, a notice for the July 28 open house was mailed to about 750 residents about 1.5 weeks ago. The area extended to the LRT Trail on the west end and the north end, the Shorewood/Excelsior border on the east end and Highway 7 on the south end. The open house will be held at the Southshore Center from 5:00 – 7:00 P.M. The first public hearing for the MCC project is scheduled for August 4. Other Engineer Hornby stated the reconstruction of Star Lane is in process. The storm sewer is close to being complete. Watermain has been installed and all of the services are in. He has not received a report on the testing yet. The property owners are already asking when they can connect to City water. Mayor Zerby stated it did not look very nice in that area after the recent heavy rains because the asphalt had been removed. Hornby stated the area is very wet and it gets a lot of water from the surrounding area as well. The redesign should improve the drainage situation quite a bit. He noted that from his perspective he thought it was in relatively good condition considering all of the rain. He stated it appears residents are able to get to and from their properties. Mayor Zerby asked if staff has received any comments from residents about construction vehicles for the Boulder Cove development in Chanhassen. Engineer Hornby stated he has not received any complaints for quite a while. Zerby then asked Hornby if he has looked into the size of the mouth of the roadway at the entrance into the development. Hornby stated someone from his office will look into that as part of the mill and overlay project. Director Nielsen explained he attended a session put on by the Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) related to deer management. The focus was about baiting and shooting deer with firearms. A number of cities have used that management option including the City of Edina. The cities that used it were pleased with the results. They had much bigger deer management budgets than Shorewood has. TRPD representatives indicated that option should only be used when there are a lot of deer at one location. It is not the best option if a city is just trying to maintain the deer population which is what he thought Shorewood was doing. The Department of Agriculture has a squad that does deer removal. Cites are charged for the squad’s time and effort. The squad costs about one-half of the cost of private firms that do the same thing. Private firms charge about $300 per deer. He commented that he was surprised at the type of weapons the squad uses. He noted staff will continue to look into that option. Administrator Joynes stated the finalists for the SLMPD police chief position will be interviewed on August 12 by the SLMPD Coordinating Committee. He then stated that on behalf of City staff he thanked Council for hosting the appreciation event on July 24. It appeared that everyone had a good time on the boat cruise. B. Mayor and City Council Councilmember Siakel stated she attended the July 22 Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Board meeting. The EFD’s call volume for July was up significantly primarily related to the storms that came through the area. Many calls were because of downed trees causing downed power lines. She noted fire fighters cannot respond to calls for downed power lines until Xcel Energy has determined a line is not hot. She then stated the Board unanimously recommended a 2016 Operating Budget and Capital Improvement CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 27, 2015 Page 10 of 10 Program for approval to the EFD member cities. Shorewood Council will consider the budget during its August 10 meeting. Shorewood’s contribution will increase just over $1,000j for 2016 when compared to 2015. Shorewood pays about 38 percent of EFD budget. She noted that EFD Chief Gerber did a very good job preparing a very good budget. Chief Gerber does a very good job for the member cities; he is a great asset for the community. Mayor Zerby stated the Excelsior Firefighters Relief Association (EFRA) held its annual fund raising dance on July 17. Zerby asked Administrator Joynes to forward EFD budget documents to all of Council. Administrator Joynes stated he would do that. Zerby also asked that emails about significant incidents in Shorewood also be forwarded to all of Council. Zerby apologized for not being at the appreciation event. He has heard that people thought it was a wonderful outing. He explained he received a scholarship from the Urban Land institute to attend a summit titled Building One America held in Washington DC. Some of the things he heard about included affordable housing, integrated housing and transportation issues. While there he had the opportunity to get to know the Mayors of Brooklyn Center and Richfield. Zerby stated the SLMPD Coordinating Committee will discuss the draft 2016 SLMPD budget on July 29. 12. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of July 27, 2015, at 8:00 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. 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: August 10, 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. 61735 - 61737 & ACH 47,315.40 Pending 61738 -61772 & ACH 194,733 80 Total Claims $242,049.20 We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending July 26, 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. Accounts Payable y Computer Check Register User: mnguyen Printed: 07/27/2015 - 4:17PM City Of Batch: 00028.07.2015 - PR- 07272015 Shorewood Bank Account: CHECKING Check Vendor No Vendor Name Date Invoice No amount 61735 2 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUS' 7/27/2015 Check 61735 Total: Report Total: 07272015 2,655.00 2,655.00 2,655.00 AP- Computer Check Register (07/27/2015 - 4:17 PM) Page 1 Accounts Payable Computer Check Register User: mnguyen Printed: 07/29/2015 - 12:15PM City of Shorewood Batch: 00029.07.2015 - CC- 0730215- CarverCty Bank Account: CHECKING Check Vendor No Vendor Name Date Invoice No amount 61736 630 CARVER COUNTY 7/30/2015 Check 61736 Total: 2014- TruckLic 9,234.08 9,234.08 Report Total: 9,234.08 AP- Computer Check Register (07/29/2015 - 12:15 PM) Page 1 Accounts Payable Computer Check Register User: Mnguyen Printed: 08/0512015 - 1:49PM City of Shorewood 00001.08.2015 - CC- 08102015- 7oynes Sh ®r @WOO Bank Account: CHECKING Check Vendor No Vendor Name Date Invoice No amount 61737 631 CLIMB THEATRE INC., 8/10/2015 47731 -2015 340.00 Check 61737 Total: 340.00 Report Total: 340.00 AP- Computer Check Register (08/05/2015 - 1:49 PM) Page I Payroll G/L Distribution Report User: mnguyen Batch: 00027.07.2015 - PAYROLL- 07272015 CITY OF SHOREWOOD Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description FUND 101 General Fund 101 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 43,468.61 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 101 -13- 4101 -0000 7,024.25 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -13- 4103 -0000 390.50 0.00 PART -TIME 101 -13 -4121 -0000 526.82 0,00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -13 -4122 -0000 547.91 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -13- 4151 -0000 22.37 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -15- 4101 -0000 4,308.67 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -15- 4121 -0000 323.16 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -15- 4122 -0000 324.22 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -15- 4151 -0000 17.03 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -18- 4101 -0000 5,109.32 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -18- 4121 -0000 383.19 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -18- 4122 -0000 381.45 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -18- 4151 -0000 25.72 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -24- 4101 -0000 3,871.99 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -24- 4121 -0000 290.41 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -24- 4122 -0000 276.09 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -24 -4151 -0000 13.59 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -32- 4101 -0000 10,773.63 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -32- 4102 -0000 447.70 0.00 OVERTIME 101 -32- 4105 -0000 289.70 0.00 STREET PAGER PAY 101 -32- 4121 -0000 863.32 0.00 PERA CONT'RIB - CITY SHARE 101 -32- 4122 -0000 855.69 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -32- 4151 -0000 631.82 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -33- 4102 -0000 183.00 0.00 OVERTIME 101 -33- 4151 -0000 9.20 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -52- 4101 -0000 3,108.77 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -52- 4103 -0000 597.00 0.00 PART -TIME 101 -52 -4121 -0000 233.17 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -52- 4122 -0000 279.92 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -52- 4151 -0000 135.80 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -53- 4101 -0000 1,061.46 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -53 -4121 -0000 79.61 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -53- 4122 -0000 81.19 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE PR - G/L Distribution Report (07/27/2015 - 1:03 PM) Page 1 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description 101 -53- 4151 -0000 0.94 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 43,468.61 43,468.61 FUND 201 Southshore Center 201 -00 -1010 -0000 0.00 1,310.41 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 201 -00- 4101 -0000 640.56 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 201 -00- 4102 -0000 125.34 0.00 OVERTIME 201 -00- 4103 -0000 415.00 0.00 PART -TIME 201 -00- 4121 -0000 48.06 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 201 -00- 4122 -0000 80.78 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 201 -00- 4151 -0000 0.67 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 1,310.41 1,310.41 FUND 601 Water Utility 601 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 6,337.00 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 601 -00- 4101 -0000 5,210.77 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 601 -00- 4102 - 0000 86.92 0.00 OVERTIME 601 -00 -4105 -0000 144.85 0.00 WATER PAGER PAY 601 -00- 4121 -0000 408.19 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 601 -00- 4122 -0000 402.29 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 601 -00- 4151 -0000 83.98 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 6,337.00 6,337.00 FUND 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 611 -00 -1010 -0000 0.00 6,575.15 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 611 -00- 4101 -0000 4,738.57 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 611 -00- 4102 -0000 760.47 0.00 OVERTIME 611 -00- 4105 -0000 144.85 0.00 SEWER PAGER PAY 611 -00- 4121 -0000 423.28 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 611 -00- 4122 -0000 415.57 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 611 -00- 4151 -0000 92.41 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 6,575.15 6,575.15 FUND 621 Recycling Utility 621 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 262.31 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 621 -00- 4101 -0000 230.31 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 621 -00- 4121 -0000 17.25 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 621 -00- 4122 -0000 14.75 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE FUND Total: 262.31 262.31 PR - G/L Distribution Report (07/27/2015 - 1:03 PM) Page 2 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description FUND 631 Stornl Walser Utility 631 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 1,175.98 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 631 -00- 4101 -0000 1,014.69 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 631 -00- 4121 -0000 76.10 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 631 -00- 4122 -0000 76.94 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 631 -00- 4151 -0000 8.25 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 1,175.98 1,175.98 FUND 700 Payroll Clearing Fund 700 -00- 1010 -0000 59,053.28 0.00 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 700 -00- 2170 -0000 0.00 33,202.24 GROSS PAYROLL CLEARING 700 -00- 2172 -0000 0.00 4,393.21 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700 -00- 2173 -0000 0.00 1,909.08 STATE WITI-11-IOLDING PAYABLE 700 -00- 2174 -0000 0.00 7,473.60 FICA /MEDICARE TAX PAYABLE 700 -00- 2175 -0000 0.00 6,855.45 PERA WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700 -00- 2176 -0000 0.00 2,655.00 DEFERRED COMPENSATION 700 -00- 2177 -0000 0.00 1,041.78 WORKERS COMPENSATION 700 -00 -2179 -0000 0.00 192.00 SEC 125 DEP CARE REIMB PAYABLE 700 -00- 2183 -0000 0.00 1,330.92 HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT FUND Total: 59,053.28 59,053.28 Report Total: 118,182.74 118,182.74 PR - G/L Distribution Report (07/27/2015 - 1:03 PM) Page 3 Accounts Payable Check Detail User: mnguyen Printed: 07/27/2015 - 4:25PM Check Number Check Date Amount 5 - EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H Line Item Account 0 07/27/2015 Inv 07272015 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 07/27/2015 PR Batch 00027.07.2015 Federal Income Tax 700 -00- 2172 -0000 4,393.21 07/27/2015 PR Batch 00027.07.2015 FICA Employee Portion 700 -00- 2174 -0000 3,028.50 07/27/2015 PR Batch 00027.07.2015 FICA Employer Portion 700 -00- 2174 -0000 3,028.50 07/27/2015 PR Batch 00027.07.2015 Medicare Employee Portion 700 -00- 2174 -0000 708.30 07/27/2015 PR Batch 00027.07.2015 Medicare Employer Portion 700 -00- 2174 -0000 708.30 Inv 07272015 Total 11,866.81 0 Total: 11,866.81 5 - EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H Total: 11,866.81 2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -457 Line Item Account 61735 07/27/2015 Inv 07272015 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 07/27/2015 PR Batch 00027.07.2015 Deferred Comp Flat Amount 700 -00 -2176 -0000 - — 2,655.00 Inv 07272015 Total 2,655.00 61735 Total: 2,655.00 2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- 302131 -457 'Total: 2,655.00 286 - MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC Line Item Account 0 07/27/2015 Inv 74699 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 08/01/2015 Newsletter Postage- August 101 -13 -4208 -0000 459.35 08/01/2015 Newsletter Service - August 101 -13- 4400 -0000 413.56 Inv 74699 Total 872.91 Inv 74700 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 07/22/2015 Blue Postcards - Minnetonka Country Club 450 -00- 4302 -0016 381.15 AP-Check Detail (7 /27/2015 - 4:25 PM) Pagel Check Number Check Date Inv 74700 Total 0 Total: 286 - MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC Total: 11 - MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Line Item Account 0 07/27/2015 Inv 07272015 Line Item Date Line Item Description 07/27/2015 PR Batch 00027.07.2015 State Income Tax Inv 07272015 Total 0 Total: 11- MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Total: 9 - PERA Line Item Account 0 07/27/2015 Inv 07272015 Line Item Date Line Item Description 07/27/2015 PR Batch 00027.07.2015 MN -PERA Deduction 07/27/2015 PR Batch 00027.07.2015 MN PERA Benefit Employer Inv 07272015 Total 0 Total: 9 - PERA Total: 1 - WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Line Item Account 0 07/27/2015 Inv 07272015 Line Item Date Line Item Description 07/27/201.5 PR Batch 00027.07.2015 Health Savings Account Inv 07272015 Total 0 Total: I - WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Total: Line Item Account 700 -00- 2173 -0000 Line Item Account 700 -00- 2175 -0000 700 -00- 2175 -0000 Line Item Account 700 -00- 2183 -0000 Amount 381.15 1,254.06 1,254.06 1,909.08 1,909.08 1,909.08 1,909.08 3,182.89 3,672.56 6,855.45 6,855.45 6,855.45 1,330.92 1,330.92 1,330.92 1,330.92 AP -Check Detail (7/27/2015 - 4:25 PM) Page 2 Check Number Check Date Total: Amount 25,871.32 AP -Check Detail (7/27/2015 - 4:25 PM) Page 3 Accounts Payable Pub Works General Computer Check Proof List by Vendor Non -Dept Water Non -Dept User: Mnguyen City of Printed: 08/06/2015 - 12:07PM Shorewood Batch: 00002.08.2015 - CC -08102015 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Vendor 633 A- AARON'S Check 4639 -90070 Contracted Boom Truck -Tree Removal 168.00 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4400 -00( Check Total: 168.00 Vendor 104 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC Check 2231307 Building Inspection- 2nd Qtr 67.29 08/10/2015 101 -19- 4400 -00( Check Total: 67.29 Vendor 105 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS Check INV78954 Monthly Maint - Konica Minolta 77.00 08/10/2015 101 -13- 4221 -00( Check Total: 77.00 Vendor 129 LAWRENCE BROWN Check Allied- 072215 Programable L,ogie Relay -SE Well 447.44 08/10/2015 601 -00- 4221 -00( Amazon- 072215 Wasp I -live Duster 249.95 08/10/2015 101 -52- 4245 -00( Amazon- 072215 Wasp Powder 64.79 08/10/2015 101 -52- 4245 -00( Check Total: 762.18 Vendor 134 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS Check 6974 - 252978 Refrigrnt 31.96 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4221 -00( 6974 - 253117 Refrigrnt 47.80 08/10/2015101 -32- 4221 -00( 6974 - 253906 Oil Filter 26.14 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4221 -00( 6974- 253941 Cleaner 7.72 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4221 -00( Check Total: 1 13.62 Vendor 136 CENTERPOINT ENERGY Check 79456885 -07271 5735 Country Club Rd -06/24 -07/23 33.74 08/10/2015 201 -00- 4380 -00( 86501806 -07271 20630 Manor Rd- 06/24 -07/23 15.00 08/10/2015 101 -52- 4380 -00( Check Total: 48.74 Vendor 137 CENTURY LINK Check 9524702294 -JLI 952- 470 - 2294 -PW 58.34 08/10/2015 101 -324321 -00( 9524706340 -JLI 952- 474 - 6340 -CH 118.82 08/10/2015 101 -19- 4321 -00( 9524709605 -JL1 952- 474 - 9605- Amesbury 73.78 08/10/2015 601 -00- 4394 -00( 9524709606411 952- 474 - 9606 - Amesbury 73.78 08/10/2015 601 -00- 4394 -00( Check Total: 324.72 Vendor 143 CITY OF CI-IANHASSEN Check 07312015 018505- 000 -Shwd Interconnect 95.76 08/10/2015 601 -00- 4263 -00( 07312015 018505- 001- Shwd2Interconnect 2,295.76 08/10/2015 601 -00- 4263 -00( Check Total: 2.391.52 Vendor 167 ECM PUBLISHERS INC Check 240720 PHN -26425 Arbor Creek Lane 68.68 08/10/2015 101 -18- 4351 -00( 240721 Mattamy Homes -Mtka Ctry Club 50.27 08/10/2015 450 -00- 4302 -001 240903 PHN -26425 Arbor Creek Lane 53.12 08/10/2015 101 -18- 4351 -00( 240904 Mattamy Homes -Mtka Ctry Club 30.84 08/10/2015 450 -00- 4302 -001 242792 Smithtown Road Sidewalk -Bids 214.63 08/10/2015 406 -00- 4620 -00( Check Total: 417.54 Vendor 219 ELLY PIEPER Check 07242015 Tablecloths 36.00 08/10/2015 201 -00- 4400 -00( Check Total: 36.00 Fund Dept General Pub Works General Mun Bldg General Admin Water Non -Dept General Park Maint General Park Maint General Pub Works General Pub Works General Pub Works General Pub Works SSC Non -Dept General Park Maint General Pub Works General Man Bldg Water Non -Dept Water Non -Dept Water Non -Dept Water Non -Dept General Planning Comm Infr Non -Dept General Planning Comm Infr Non -Dept Trail Non -Dept SSC Non -Dept Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acet Number Fund Dept Vendor 187 FINANCE AND COMMERCE Check 742304105 Smithtown Rd Sidewalk Extension & Appi 220.16 08/10/2015 406 -00- 4620 -00( Trail Non -Dept Check Total: 220.16 Vendor 192 G & K SERVICES Check July -2015 P.W. 1,124.69 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4400 -00( General Pub Works July -20I5 C.H. 120.32 08/10/2015 101 -19- 4400 -00( General Mun Bldg July -2015 SSCC 43.32 08/10/2015 201 -00- 4400 -00( SSC Non -Dept Check Total: 1,288.33 Vendor 200 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Check 139694 Monthly Rental 151.00 08/10/2015 601 -00- 4400 -00( Water Non -Dept 139694 Monthly Rental 151.00 08/10/2015 611 -00- 4400 -00( Sewer Non -Dept 139694 Monthly Rental 151.00 08/10/2015 631 -00- 4400 -00( Storm Water Non -Dept Check Total: 453.00 Vendor 206 TWILA GROUT Check TVCart- 072415 TV Cart 367.18 08/10/2015 201 -00- 4245 -00( SSC Non -Dept Check Total: 367.18 Vendor 208 HACH COMPANY Check 9433122 Water Chemical 161.52 08/10/2015 601 -00- 4245 -00( Water Non -Dept 9433122 Water Chemical -Parts 485.67 08/10/2015 601 -00- 4240 -00( Water Non -Dept Check Total: 647.19 Vendor 211 IIAWKINS INC Check 3756902 -RI Chlorine 85.00 08/10/2015 601 -00- 4245 -00( Water Non -Dept Check Total: 85.00 Vendor 214 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTL Check 09112015 -MIP Moive in the Park Event at Badger Park on 49.00 08/10/2015 101 -53- 4437 -00( General Recreation Check Total: 49.00 Vendor 436 MARK HODGES Check 07272015 Video Tape Service - 07/27/15 70.00 08/10/2015 101 -11- 4400 -00( General Council Check Total: 70.00 Vendor 239 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED Check 126754 Ron Johnson Litigation - June 979.77 08/10/2015 101 -16- 4304 -00( General Prof Svcs Check Total: 974.77 Vendor 247 DREW KRIESEL Check July -2015 Building Maint. Services -July 360.00 08/10/2015 201 -00- 4400 -00( SSC Non -Dept July -2015 Building General Supplies Exp -Sam's Clut 114.62 08/10/2015 201 -00- 4245 -00( SSC Non -Dept July -2015 Events Program /Class Services -July 365.00 08/10/2015 201 -00- 4248 -00( SSC Non -Dept Check Total: 839.62 Vendor 482 KUTAK ROCK LLP Check 2077131 Professional Legal Services Rendered -June 111.00 08/10/2015 101 -16- 4304 -00( General Prof Svcs Check Total: 111.00 Vendor 260 LOCATORS & SUPPLIES, INC. Check 0237444 -IN Marking Paints 90.50 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4245 -00( General Pub Works Check Total: 90.50 Vendor 263 JOSEPH LUGOWSKI Check Gas - 072315 Gas at Luckys Station- 07/23/15 74.16 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4212 -00( General Pub Works Check Total: 74.16 Vendor 264 M /AASSOCIATES INC Check 8788 Can Liner Black 450.62 08/10/2015 101 -52- 4245 -00( General Park Maint Check Total: 450.62 Vendor 620 MANGOLD HORTICULTURE Check 1193 Monthly City Landscape Maint, 245.00 08/10/2015 101 -19- 4400 -00( General Mun Bldg 11.93 Gideon Glen Landscaping 8,600.00 08/10/2015 402 -00- 4620 -00( Park Cap Non -Dept 1203 Monthly City Landscape Maint. 190.00 08/10/2015 201 -00- 4400 -00( SSC Non -Dept Check Total: 9,035.00 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Fund Dept Vendor 279 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL (WASTE' Check 0001046203 Monthly Waste Water Svc 50,765.00 08/10/2015 611 -00- 4385 -00( Sewer Non -Dept Check Total: 50.765.00 Vendor 293 MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION OF GOV] Check 15AWSHW April Workshop -Julie Moore 10.00 08/10/2015 101 -13- 4331 -00( General Admin Check Total: 10.00 Vendor 456 MINNESOTA PIPE, & EQUIP Check 0340174 Water Parts 17.41 08/10/2015 601 -00- 4221 -00( Water Non -Dept Check Total: 17.41 Vendor 313 MICH111 -1,E THAO NGUYEN Check July -2015 Mileage - July 104.65 08/10/2015 101 -15- 4331 -00( General Fin Check Total: 104.65 Vendor 319 NORTH STAR PUMP SERVICE Check 4655 Burned VFD at Lift Station 1,143.53 08/10/2015 601 -00- 4400 -00( Water Non -Dept Check Total: 1.143.53 Vendor 240 KENNETH POTTS, PA Check July -2015 Prosectution Monthly Services 2,500.00 08/10/2015 101 -16- 4304 -00( General Prof Svcs Check Total: 2.500.00 Vendor 337 PYRAMID HOME SPECIALTIES Check 1033 Road - Weed Spray 3,640.00 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4400 -00( General Pub Works Check Total: 3.640.00 Vendor 108 REPUBLIC SERVICES No.894 Check 0894 - 003869726 Monthly Recycling Svc 9,577.20 08/10/2015 621 -00- 4400 -00( Recycling Non -Dept Check Total: 9.577.20 Vendor 503 SCHMIDT'S 4 SEASON SERVICE, INC. Check 4704 Contract Boom -Tree Remove -24725 Smitl 1,500.00 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4400 -00( General Pub Works Check Total: 1.500.00 Vendor 632 SEWER SERVICES, INC. Check 3120 Pump Waste Trap 385.00 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4400 -00( General Pub Works Check Total: 385.00 Vendor 354 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE Check 125686 Mark Paint 5.49 08/10/2015 611 -00- 4245 -00( Sewer Non -Dept 125698 Plumbing 12.06 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4223 -00( General Pub Works 125719 Vinyl Numbers 10.32 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4245 -00( General Pub Works Check Total: 27.87 Vendor 360 SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE Check August- 2015 -0E Monthly - Operating Budget Exp 89,178.75 08/10/2015101 -21- 4400 -00( General Police Check Total: 89.178.75 Vendor 590 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, I1 Check 935555 Minnetonka Country Club Project -July IOt 1,929.50 08/10/2015 450 -00- 4302 -001 Comm Infr Non -Dept Check Total: 1,929.50 Invoice No Vendor 384 10533 10533 10533 10534 10534 Vendor 386 6783 Vendor 421 9748895342 9749415144 Vendor 396 3282 Vendor 398 869293803530 Vendor 415 29924579 Vendor 401 593- 0010959 -15' 6816437- 1593 -8 Vendor 402 6078 Vendor 327 58625809 58625809 58625809 58625809 58625809 58625809 Vendor 408 202310 203598 205106 205701 Vendor 411 Stmt#465593284 Stmt #465613122 Stmt#465904691 Stmt #465904691 Vendor 413 54056446 Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES General Check Newsletters - August 677.65 08/10/2015 101 -13- 4400 -00( SSCC Insert - August 245.30 08/10/2015 201 -00- 4351 -00( Safety Camp Insert - August 136.60 08/10/2015 101 -53- 3478 -00( Envelopes 275.00 08/10/2015 611 -00- 4200 -00( Envelopes 275.00 08/10/2015 601 -00- 4200 -00( Check Total: 1.609.55 TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC Monthly Bacteria Svc 100.00 Check Total: 100.00 SSC VERIZON WIRELESS General Recreation Brad's Cell - 612 -865- 3582- 06/13 -07/12 Non -Dept 60.91 L.S. Phones - Acet985338397- 06/22 -07/21 195.82 Check Total: 256.73 VIKING LAND TREE CARE INC Public Tree Removal at 19745 Sweetwater 400.00 Check Total: 400.00 VOYAGER FLEET SYSTEMS INC Closing Date 07/24/15 3,400.44 Check Total: 3,400.44 WARNER CONNECT Monthly Network Maint Services 2,577.40 Check Total: 2,577.40 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI -MN 24200 Smithtown Rd- Monthly Svc 442.22 5735 Ctry Club Rd- Monthly Svc 190.65 Check Total: 632.87 WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE Water Leak at 19585 Muirfield Circle 267.25 Check Total: 267.25 WINDSTREAM City Hall 108.03 Public Work 52.43 Boulder Bridge Well 55.12 Badger Well -City of Shorewood 111.94 Badger- Manor - Cathcart Park 162.67 West Tower -City of Shorewood 55.12 Check 'Total: 545.31 WM MUELLER & SONS INC Road Maint 464.00 Road Maint 926.84 Road Maint 174.00 Road Maint 1,392.00 Check Total: 1956.84 XCEL ENERGY, INC. 24253 Smithtown Rd - 06/23 -07/25 854.56 5735 Country Club Rd - 06/23 -07/25 930.04 5700 County Rd 19 - 06/28 -07/28 35.81 5700 County Rd 19 - Unit Light- 06/28 -07/: 170.0E Check Total: 1990.41 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE First Aids Kit 50.95 Check Total: 50.95 Total for Check Run: 194,733.80 Total of Number of 50 Check 08/10/2015 601 -00- 4400 -00( Check 08/10/2015 101 -18- 4321 -00( 08/10/2015 611 -00- 4321 -00( Check 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4400 -00( Check 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4212 -00( Check 08/10/2015 101 -19- 4221 -00( Check 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4400 -00( 08/10/2015 201 -00- 4400 -00( Check 08/10/2015 601 -00- 4400 -00( Check 08/10/2015 101 -19- 4321 -00( 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4321 -00( 08/10/2015 601 -00- 4396 -00( 08/10/2015 601 -00- 4395 -00( 08/10/2015 101 -52- 4321 -00( 08/10/2015 601 -00- 4321 -00( Check 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4250 -00( 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4250 -00( 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4250 -00( 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4250 -00( Check 08/10/2015 601 -00- 4395 -00( 08/10/2015 201 -00- 4380 -00( 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4399 -00( 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4399 -00( Check 08/10/2015 101 -32- 4245 -00( Fund Dept General Admin SSC Non -Dept General Recreation Sewer Non -Dept Water Non -Dept Water Non -Dept General Planning Sewer Non -Dept General Pub Works General Pub Works General Mun Bldg General Pub Works SSC Non -Dept Water Non -Dept General Mun Bldg General Pub Works Water Non -Dept Water Non -Dept General Park Maint Water Non -Dept General Pub Works General Pub Works General Pub Works General Pub Works Water Non -Dept SSC Non -Dept General Pub Works General Pub Works General Pub Works #3B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Adopting a Reimbursement Resolution for the Smithtown Road Sidewalk Project Meeting Date: August 10, 2015 Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Attachments: Resolution Policy Consideration: Does the City Council want to allow Shorewood to potentially pay for project costs from a bond issue to be sold in the future? Background: Staff has previously discussed with the City Council the probability that the Stormwater Management Fund will run out of cash at some point in the next couple of years. The reason for the potential deficit is that many new and replacement projects are scheduled in the Capital Improvement Plan. The CIP shows almost $1,900,000 over the course of the next five years (see attachment). Staff intends to discuss the financial condition and funding options for the Stormwater Fund during the budgeting process. In order to preserve the ability to bond for some or all of the project costs, a reimbursement resolution needs to be adopted in a reasonable time frame to the project. This is generally within 60 days of the first expenditure for hard costs – in other words actual construction amounts. The IRS has issued regulations to limit what can be bonded on a tax exempt basis. In order to prevent City Councils from bonding for every project back to the date of incorporation, the IRS adopted rules that limit how long you can go back or forward from a bond issue for a project. Financial or Budget Considerations: The adoption of this resolution does not commit the City Council to issuing bonds for the project, but preserves the option to do so. Options: 1.Decline to adopt a reimbursement resolution for this project; 2.Adopt a resolution showing intent to reimburse project costs. Recommendation / Action Requested: Adopt the resolution as presented. Next Steps and Timelines: This resolution will go into effect immediately upon adoption. Bonds would not be issued until sometime later in 2015 or early 2016. Connection to Vision / Mission: This item is connected to the City’s mission of fully funding city services. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 15-___ RESOLUTION DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY WHEREAS , the Internal Revenue Service has issued Treas. Reg. § 1.150-2 (the “Reimbursement Regulations”) providing that proceeds of tax-exempt bonds used to reimburse prior expenditures will not be deemed spent unless certain requirements are met; and WHEREAS , the City expects to incur certain expenditures that may be financed temporarily from sources other than bonds, and reimbursed from the proceeds of a tax-exempt bond; and WHEREAS , the City has determined to make this declaration of official intent (“Declaration”) to reimburse certain costs from proceeds of bonds in accordance with the Reimbursement Regulations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. The City proposes to undertake the following project (the “Project”): Construction of sidewalk improvements on Smithtown Road. 2. The City reasonably expects to reimburse the expenditures made for certain costs of the Project from the proceeds of bonds in an estimated maximum principal amount of $1,400,000. All reimbursed expenditures will be capital expenditures, costs of issuance of the bonds, or other expenditures eligible for reimbursement under Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the Reimbursement Regulations. 3. This Declaration has been made not later than 60 days after payment of any original expenditure to be subject to a reimbursement allocation with respect to the proceeds of bonds, except for the following expenditures: (a) costs of issuance of bonds; (b) costs in an amount not in excess of $100,000 or 5 percent of the proceeds of an issue; or (c) “preliminary expenditures” up to an amount not in excess of 20 percent of the aggregate issue price of the issue or issues that finance or are reasonably expected by the City to finance the project for which the preliminary expenditures were incurred. The term “preliminary expenditures” includes architectural, engineering, surveying, bond issuance, and similar costs that are incurred prior to commencement of acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of a project, other than land acquisition, site preparation, and similar costs incident to commencement of construction. 4. This Declaration is an expression of the reasonable expectations of the City based on the facts and circumstances known to the City as of the date hereof. The anticipated original expenditures for the Project and the principal amount of the bonds described in paragraph 2 are consistent with the City’s budgetary and financial circumstances. No sources other than proceeds of bonds to be issued by the City are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside pursuant to the City's budget or financial policies to pay such Project expenditures. 5. This Declaration is intended to constitute a declaration of official intent for purposes of the Reimbursement Regulations. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 10th day of July, 2015. ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #3C MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Amendment to Residential Recycling Grant Agreement with Hennepin County Meeting Date: August 10, 2015 Prepared by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator Reviewed by: Julie Moore, Recycling Coordinator Attachments: Resolution, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement A120136 Background: The attached Amendment to Hennepin County Residential Recycling Grant Agreement, Contract No. A120136, extends our contract through December 31, 2016 and incorporates the new state requirements to expend additional Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment (SCORE) funds on organics recycling. Financial or Budget Considerations: Recycling grant funds will be distributed as they have been in the past, and the city will submit an application for organics funds by the Sept. 1 due date. Recommendation / Action Requested: Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Amendment No. 1 to the Residential Recycling Grant Agreement A120136 with Hennepin County. Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will promptly submit the Agreement to Hennepin County for processing. Connection to Vision / Mission: Providing residents quality public services and sound financial management. 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 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT A120136 This Agreement is between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, A -2300 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 ( "COUNTY "), on behalf of the Hennepin County Environment and Energy Department, 701 Fourth Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 -1600 ( "DEPARTMENT ") and the CITY OF SHOREWOOD, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 -8827 ( "CITY "). WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITY entered into a four -year Residential Recycling Grant Agreement, Contract No. A120136 ( "Agreement "), for a residential recycling grant commencing on January 1, 2012; and WHEREAS, the County Board, by Resolution. No. 15 -0216 adopted on June 16, 2015, amended the Hennepin County Residential Recycling Funding Policy to incorporate requirements to expend additional SCORE funds on organics recycling, extended the period from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016, and authorized grant funding for municipal recycling programs consistent with said policy; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to extend the term and incorporate other changes; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree that Agreement A120136 is amended as follows: 1. Paragraph a. of Section 1, TERM AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT, shall be amended to read as follows: This Agreement shall commence upon execution and terminate on December 31, 2016. 2. Section 2, SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED, shall be amended to read as follows: The CITY shall operate its recycling program in accordance with the requirements described in the County's Residential Recycling Funding Policy ( "Policy "), attached as Attachment A and incorporated by this reference, and fulfill the responsibilities of the Policy. 3. Section 3, METHOD OF PAYMENT, shall be amended to read as follows: The COUNTY will distribute SCORE funds as described in the Policy. The CITY shall follow the requirements for use of funds described in the Policy. Except as amended, the terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Reviewed by the County Attorney's COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Office STATE OF MINNESOTA Assistant County Attorney Date Recommended for Approval By: Director, Environment and Energy Department Date: LOW Chair of Its County Board ATTEST: Deputy /Clerk of County Board Date: By: David Hough, County Administrator Date: By: Assistant County Administrator, Public Works Date: MUNICIPALITY CITY warrants that the person who executed this Agreement is authorized to do so on behalf of CITY as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions or ordinances.* Printed Name: Signed: Title: Date: *CONTRACTOR shall submit applicable documentation (articles, bylaws, resolutions or ordinances) that confirms the signatory's delegation of authority. This documentation shall be submitted at the time CONTRACTOR returns the Agreement to the COUNTY. Documentation is not required for a sole proprietorship. CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 15-054 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY WHEREAS , pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 115A.552, Counties shall ensure that residents have an opportunity to recycle; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County Ordinance 13 requires that each city implement and maintain a recycling program; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Board adopted a resolution to amend the Hennepin County Residential Recycling Funding policy to incorporate requirements to expend additional SCORE funds on organics recycling, and extend the contract period of the Residential Recycling Funding Policy from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016; and WHEREAS, in order to receive grant funds, the City must sign the agreement; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to receive these grant funds each year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood that the City Council accepts the agreement as proposed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the Mayor, City Administrator or his designee to execute such Residential Recycling Grant Agreement with the County. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCILOF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 10th day of August, 2015. ____________________________ Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk • Hennepin County 0 M t MIO� I am= am= FuInding Policy 1: I I - 11 • 1: Hennepin Public Environment and Energy Departmenl Adopted November 29, 2011, Revised June 16, 2015 The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners determined that curbside collection of recyclables from Hennepin County residents is an effective strategy to reduce reliance on landfills, prevent pollution, reduce the toxicity of waste, conserve natural resources and energy, improve public health, support the economy, and reduce greenhouse gases. Therefore, the county adopted the goals established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in its Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan and developed a Residential Recycling Funding Policy to help reach a 75% recycling rate by 2030. The county will distribute all Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment (SCORE) funds received from the state to cities for curbside collection of residential recyclables, including organics. If cities form a joints powers organization responsible for managing a comprehensive recycling and waste education system for the residents of those cities, the county will distribute a recycling grant to that organization. Cities are expected to fulfill the conditions of the policy. Length of Residential Recycling Funding Policy Hennepin County is committed to implement this policy and continue distributing all SCORE funds received from the state for the purpose of funding curbside residential recycling programs from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2016. The county may revise this policy if it determines changes are needed to assure compliance with state law and MPCA goals established for metropolitan counties. In the event that SCORE funds are eliminated from the state budget or significantly reduced, the county will consult with cities to develop a subsequent recommendation for the county board that will continue this policy and fund curbside recycling programs. Fund Distribution The county will distribute to the cities one hundred percent (100 %) of SCORE funds that the county receives from the state. SCORE funds are based on revenue collected by the State of Minnesota from the solid waste management (SWM) tax on garbage services. SCORE funds are subject to change based on actual SWM revenue and the funds allocated by the State Legislature. Funds distributed to cities for the current calendar year will be based on SCORE funds received by the county in the state's corresponding fiscal year. In 2014 the State Legislature allocated additional funds to SCORE in 2015 and 2016. Beginning in fiscal year 2015 and continuing thereafter, of any money distributed that exceeds the amount the county received in fiscal year 2014, 50 percent must be expended on organics recycling. II. Recycling Allocation of Funds The following formula will be utilized to determine each city's recycling SCORE grant each year. # of households with curbside recycling in city X Total SCORE funds = Recycling grant amount __ _____ _____ ____ _____ ____ __ _ _ ____ available for available to the city Total # of households with recycling curbside recycling in county Eligible households are defined as single family through eight -plex residential buildings or other residential buildings where each housing unit sets out refuse and recycling containers for curbside collection. The cities will determine the number of eligible households by counting the number of households with curbside recycling service on January 1 of each funding year. The number will be reported in the application for funding. The total SCORE grant available for recycling will equal the 2014 base year amount plus 50 percent of additional SCORE funds. If the total SCORE funds are less than the 2014 base year, 100 percent of those funds will be available for recycling. The grant can be used for recycling program expenses including capital and operating costs. Expenses associated with residential collection of organics are eligible recycling program expenses. However, yard waste expenses are ineligible. If organics and yard waste are commingled, the organics expenses must be tracked separately. Responsibilities of Cites A. Grant Agreement Each city seeking funding under the terms of the Residential Recycling Funding Policy must enter into a Residential Recycling Grant Agreement with the county for a term concurrent with the expiration of this policy, December 31, 2016. The grant agreement must be accompanied by a resolution authorizing the city to enter into such an agreement. S. Application for Funding Each city must complete an annual application by February 15 to receive funding for that year. The application consists of the Re -TRAC web -based report and a planning document submitted to the county describing the programs or activities the applicant will implement to increase recycling and make progress toward recycling goals. C. Minimum Program Performance Requirements 2 1. Collection of Recyclables. Cities that contract for curbside recycling services will require a breakout of the following expenses when renewing or soliciting bids for new recycling services: a) containers — if provided by the hauler b) collection service c) processing cost per ton d) revenue sharing 2. Materials to be Collected. At a minimum, the following materials must be collected curbside: a) Newspaper and inserts; b) Cardboard boxes; c) Glass food and beverage containers; d) Metal food and beverage cans; e) All plastic containers and lids, #I — Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET, PETE), #2 High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), #3 — Vinyl Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), #4 — Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) and #5 — Polypropylene (PP) plastic bottles, except those that previously contained hazardous materials or motor oil; f) Magazines and catalogs; g) Cereal, cracker, pasta, cake mix, shoe, gift, and electronics boxes; h) Boxes from toothpaste, medications and other toiletries; i) Aseptic and gable - topped containers; and j) Mail, office and school papers. The county may add materials to this list and require cities to begin collection within one year of receiving notification from the county. Cities will notify the county if materials not found on this list will be collected. 3. Collection Methods. Cities must use one of the following systems to collect materials at the curb: a) single sort system - all materials combined in one container; or b) dual sort system - glass, metal and plastic together with paper separate If one of these two systems is not in place, the city must submit a plan with its application for converting to a single or dual sort system by December 31, 2016. If the municipality is unable to meet this deadline, an alternative implementation schedule must be negotiated with the county. 4. Education and Outreach. a) County Responsibilities 3 1) Coordinate meetings of the communications committee, which will be composed of county, cities, and other stakeholders. 2) Produce education material templates and print the template materials for cities. Materials will also be available online to download. 3) Provide a minimum of eight promotional resources that will include a newsletter article, a web story, social media posts, and printed promotional materials for municipalities on a variety of waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and proper disposal messages. 4) Develop an annual priority message campaign. The campaign will be one main message to promote throughout the year; for example "recycle magazines." The message and the materials will be developed with the communications committee. The county will provide templates and be responsible for primary distribution of the campaign through direct mail, advertising, or public relations. The cities will be required to support the campaign through their communication channels. b) City Requirements 1) Use county terminology when describing recycling guidelines (i.e. description of materials accepted and not accepted, preparation guidelines, etc.). 2) Use images provided by the county or the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board, if using images of recyclables. 3) Use the county's terminology, preparation guidelines and images on the city's website. 4) Mail a recycling guide once a year to residents using a template developed by the communications committee and produced and printed by the county at the county's expense. If a municipality does not want to use the template produced by the county, the municipality may develop its own guide at the municipality's expense, with prior approval by the county. If the city relies on its hauler to provide the recycling guide, this guide would also require approval by the county. 5) Complete two additional education activities from a menu of options developed by the communications committee to support the priority message campaign. Any print material that communicates residential recycling guidelines that were not provided by the county template will require county approval. This does not apply to waste reduction and reuse, articles on recycling that do not include guidelines, and social media posts. The county will respond within five business days to any communication piece submitted. El 5. Use of Funds. a) The city must use all grant funds for waste reduction and recycling capital and operating expenses in the year granted. Cities will not be reimbursed any funds in excess of actual expenses. b) The city may not charge its residents through property tax, utility fees or any other method for that portion of the costs of its recycling program funded by county grant funds. c) The city must establish a separate accounting mechanism, such as a project number, activity number, or fund that will separate recycling revenues and expenditures from other municipal activities, including solid waste and yard waste activities. d) Recycling and waste reduction activities, revenues, and expenditures are subject to audit. e) Cites that do not contract for curbside recycling services will receive grant funds provided that at least ninety percent (90 %) of the grant funds are credited back to residents and the city meets all minimum program requirements. The additional ten percent (10 %) may be used for administrative and promotional expenses. 6. Reporting Requirements. a) Each city must submit an annual recycling report to the county electronically using the Re -TRAC web -based reporting system by February 15 of each year. If a city is unable to access Re -TRAC, the county must be contacted by February 1 to make arrangements for alternative filing of the report. b) Each city must calculate its participation rate in the curbside recycling program during the month of October. The participation rate will be reported in Re -TRAC. The methodology for measuring participation must be provided to the county upon request. c) Each city must submit an annual planning document to the county describing the programs or activities the applicant will implement to increase recycling and make progress toward county goals. 7. Recycling Performance. On an annual basis, each city must demonstrate a reasonable effort to maintain and increase the average amount of recyclables collected from its residential recycling program to at least 725 pounds per household or a minimum recovery rate of 80 %, by December 31, 2015. The goal remains the same for December 31, 2016. An alternative performance option for cities with organized waste collection is to validate at least a 35% recycling rate. To ensure the accuracy of data for these metrics, cities will be required, upon request, to provide documentation on the methodology used to calculate performance. To the extent practicable, the results should rely on actual data rather than estimates. Failure by a city to demonstrate measureable progress toward goals will result in the city being required to submit a recycling improvement plan within 90 days of being notified by the county. The recycling improvement plan must be negotiated with the county and specify the efforts that will be undertaken to yield the results necessary to achieve the goals. The plan shall focus on the following areas: type of container, sort method, materials collected, 5 frequency of collection, education and outreach, performance measurement, and incentives. Funding will be withheld until the city's recycling improvement plan is approved by the county. In cooperation with the county, the city may be required to participate in waste and recycling sorts to identify recovery levels of various recyclables in their communities. Based on the results of the study, the county and city will collaborate to increase the recovery of select recyclable materials being discarded in significant quantities. D. Partnership The partnership between the county and cities has been highly effective in educating and motivating behavior of residents resulting in significant amounts of waste being reduced and recycled. In order to continue this partnership and increase these efforts, program activities of cities must be coordinated with county and regional efforts. Cites are responsible for cooperating with the county in an effort to reach the county's goals for recycling and organics recovery. Quarterly recycling coordinator meetings are an opportunity to share resources and facilitate the coordination of efforts. Responsibilities of Hennepin County A. Application Form The county will provide an application form by December that each city will use to report on its recycling program and request grant funding for the next year. B. Payments The county will make grant payments to each city in two equal payments. One payment will be made after the county receives the application, which will consist of the Re -TRAC report and the planning document. A second payment will be made after the report has been approved, measurable progress toward the goals has been confirmed, and, if necessary, a recycling improvement plan has been approved by the county. If the city meets the county requirements, both payments will be made during the same calendar year. Allocation of Funds The following formula will be used to determine a city's organics grant each year. Number of households with curbside organics in city Total SCORE funds Organics grant __ _______________________________ x available for = amount available to Total number of households with organics the city curbside organics in county The total SCORE funds available for organics recycling will equal 50 percent of the additional SCORE revenue allocated by the State Legislature. If the total SCORE funding is less than the 2014 base year, no funds will be available for organics recycling. Application for Funds To apply for funds, a city must submit the number of eligible households that signed up for organics to the county by September 1 of each funding year. Use of Funds The grant funds may be used for organics program expenses, including the following: • Contract cost of service (to the city or its residents) • Discount to new customers • Carts • Compostable bags • Kitchen containers • Education and outreach Program administration is an ineligible expense. Yard waste expenses are ineligible expenses. If organics and yard waste are collected together, the organics expenses must be tracked separately. If the city passes funds through to a hauler, 100% of those funds must be credited to households' bills. In addition, the following requirements apply: • All grant funds must be used during the term of the agreement. Funds not spent must be returned to the county. • Funds must be expended on eligible activities per Minnesota State Statute 115A.557. • A city may not charge its residents through property tax, utility fees or any other method for that portion of the costs of its organics program funded by county grant funds. • Cities must able to account for organics expenditures separately upon request by the county. Expenditures are subject to audit. 7 Education and Outreach The partnership between the county and cities has been highly effective in educating and motivating the behavior of residents, resulting in significant amounts of waste being reduced and recycled. In order to continue this partnership with organics recycling, the county encourages cities to coordinate program activities with county and regional efforts. The county will work with cities to provide assistance with the following: • Standard terminology and images • Organics recycling guide (yes -no list) • Promotional resources to increase participation Reporting A report on the city's organics program must be submitted electronically to the county by February 15 following each funding year. The report must include, but is not limited to, the following: Basic Program Information: • Hauler • Collection method • Where organics are delivered to and processed at • Is service opt -in or opt -out • Cost of service to residents and contract cost to the city • How the service is billed • Item's included in service: curbside collection, cart, compostable bags, etc. Results • Tons • Number of households signed up • Average pounds per household per year • Participation (set -out rate on pickup day) • How funds were used #5A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Hamdorf, Chris — Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements Meeting Date: 10 August 2015 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: ExhibitA —Site Location Map Exhibit B — Proposed Easement Vacation Exhibit C — Proposed Site /Grading Plan Exhibit D — Draft Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City vacate part of an existing drainage and utility easement on property owned by Chris Hamdorf at 26425 Arbor Creek Lane (see Exhibit A) in order to accommodate a proposed sport court in the rear yard? Background: Mr. Hamdorf proposes to construct a sport court in his rear yard. Upon applying for the permit, he was told that he cannot build within the existing drainage and utility easement on the property. Staff noted that the easement dedicated from the original Arbor Creek plat was rather extraordinary in size. The applicant was advised that any reduction /vacation of the easement would necessitate a revised grading plan showing how the revision works with the overall grading of the entire plat. Mr. Hamdorf's consultants have prepared the necessary plans per the City Engineer's direction. Exhibit B illustrates the proposed easement area to be vacated. The required grading plan as shown on Exhibit C is consistent with what the City Engineer recommended. State law requires that notice of the proposed vacation of drainage and utility easements be published - twice in the official newspaper (which has been done) and that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider the request. As you recall, staff asked the City Council to open the public hearing at its last meeting and then continue it to 10 August, prior to which time a formal report would be available. A resolution addressing this item is attached as Exhibit C. Financial or Budget Considerations: Expenses associated with Mr. Hamdorf's request are covered by his application fees. Options: Approve the request, modify the request or deny the request. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the requested partial drainage and utility easement vacation. Next Steps and Timelines: Upon approval of the resolution, the applicant must record it with Hennepin County. Connection to Vision / Mission: Allowing the applicant to make better use of what is otherwise a very buildable lot contributes to a sustainable tax base. t �sm9 0 0 J n ory moo. ro/ / w. UWlat b I yg1 a Noose / y � /3 G. 137.27 _ _• _ _. :( s �i `•,o��o. JD � N61 b5 / 39SV1 ° 35•{y / o t '1�-- 15.0 I jt _o PROPOSED — h1 ,-, SHED ---- --' 76.5 - DDENOTES PROPOSED EASEMENT VACATION (5,671 SQ. FT.) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EASEMENT VACATION: a IP 22414 / That part of the Drainage and Utility Easement as dedicated on Lot 1, Block 1, ARBOR CREEK, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence North 13 degrees 38 minutes 08 seconds East (assumed bearing) along the westerly line of said Lot 1 a distance of 84.98 feet; thence North 86 degrees 24 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 10.47 feet to the point of beginning of the vacation area to be described; thence continuing North 86 degrees 24 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 126.80 feet; thence North 15 degrees 09 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 121.64 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 19.27 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 40.76 feet; thence South 51 degrees 44 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 20.20 feet; thence South 31 degrees 04 minutes 43 seconds West a distance of 16.11 feet; thence South 21 degrees 34 minutes 05 seconds West a distance of 44.38 feet; thence South 49 degrees 20 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 13.94 feet; thence South 54 degrees 44 minutes 25 seconds West a distance of 50.32 feet; thence South 68 degrees 35 minutes 45 second West a distance of 39.34 feet; thence North 81 degrees 05 minutes 35 seconds West a distance of 56.00 feet; thence North 13 degrees 38 minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 27.55 feet to the point of beginning.' AND The West 15.00 feet of the East 76.50 feet of the North 15.00 feet of the South 25.00 feet of the Drainage and Utility Easement as dedicated on Lot 1, Block 1, ARBOR CREEK, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lot 1, Block 1, ARBOR CREEK, Hennepin County, Minnesota. REV. 7 -01 -15 EASEMENT JEN REV. 6 -22 -15 EASEMENT JEN Scale 1 40' q Denotes Iron Monument I Bearing Datum: Assumed jJob No. 15352ED lDrwg By BAB I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by me 1 -4"r n nun — nnun wa nl or under my, direct supervision and that I am a duly i Exhibit B Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. E. G. RUD & SONS, INC. PROPOSED EASEMENT VACATION By July Dated this 1st day of Jul 2015. Mi eso L URADING PLAN for— SOUTHVIEW DESIGN PROPERTY ADDRESS: 26425 ARBOR CREEK LN. SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 NORTH ARBOR CREEK LADE 953.37 a o 95046 N N D Be 1/2' IP BC1.15 R19 22414 • '''.. �j'�j% 6C R1S 22414 / 9620.5 26.56; \ 963.26 RC..8.. � cP ♦ 51 .............964•......... i —,'•., pA'c '•. j•\ :i 70 / • `•� -�'.: WALL$�D••l� i (TEFL '14\ 10 s us e '' A .� 52. 1;54 ' I 9•� 9 a j•. :O �) �X \SQUS yy r :5•� // __ i 9 PROP6 � : 1 96 - ''• / 5E0,1YN1S , •'� �$ � 66p0 ` �i rn • 950.67 / ...... . 959.05 Q) ' / OG'P O >•• / �''9� ''•. rn 10 h �,,d pro FM P4 �:• ,\ � .........: =' l• �G�6 , 9X,7,4'` /• • a :.9� �SWPa' D PE�A£PSEMENj� /958�� �...: — ••..� . 9x6.96 ty ; ss7. QRpypsE 00 PF -0101 SWALE 'mac::: :Ip POSED LANDSCAPE FAD01 (T�.) I..I N N• ......2 D03£0' X 56.55 ' 95&60 SW.9CRRPlt � _ten....... ;• .. 959.75 218. /Z ....................N9.0'2B N Re roei n J Q rbl r NOTES LEGEND — Proposed improvements provided by Southview Design. 1011.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. �/ DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE. Existing contours shown per LIDAR topography and DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS. supplemented by E.G. Rud Topo shots gathered in � "'� " " "" 2008. ti DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS. s DENOTES PROPOSED SILT FENCE L.i ne, Lot 1, Block 1, ARBOR CREEK, Hennepin County, Minnesota. REV. 7 -1 -15 Contour JEN Scale 1 "= 40' • Denotes Iron Monument I Bearing Datum: Assumed lJob No. 15352ED lDrwg By BAB I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by me ! P Dim n enue iun or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licens Exhibit C Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. E. G. RUD & SONS, INC. PROPOSED SITE /GRADING PLAN 1st day By Dated this y of July 2015. Mi eso License CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION VACATING CERTAIN DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS WHEREAS, Notice of Public Hearing on the proposed vacation of a certain drainage and utility easement in the City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was published in the Excelsior /Shorewood edition of the SUN•SAILOR NEWSPAPER on the 16th and 23rd days of July 2015 and in the LAKER NEWSPAPER on the 18th and 25th days of July 2015; and WHEREAS, said Notice of Public Hearing was posted in three (3) locations in the City of Shorewood; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Shorewood heard all interested parties on the question of vacation at a Public Hearing on the 27th day of July 2015, in the Council Chambers at the City Hall. NOW,_ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, that the partial drainage and utility easement described in Exhibit A, attached, be and hereby are vacated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Applicant shall record this resolution with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30) days of the date of the certification of this resolution. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 10th day of July 2015. ATTEST: JEAN PANCHYSITYN, CITY CLERK SCOTT ZERBY, MAYOR Exhibit D SKETCH & DESCRIPTION �of- PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION -for- SOUTHVIEW DESIGN PROPERTY ADDRESS: 26425 ARBOR CREEK LN. SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 ARBOR CREBC LAW NORtH y� s IP 11Y 1P PL6 22414 EAST 118.80 RLS 22414 / 26.56 1 /------ - - - -moo [I ^W /Q�p o ^ 1 10 A • Ngi / 148624�00`E m m _ - <: o 4 ` 137.27 �r j ----------------------- _______ __— _ 1 ._< _ �r��� 128.80 %� inl �1C > b y cgi?lo /gry y\ r i7r. 10 15.0 PROPOSED LOT 1 /Y RLS 12'2P414 — N89.09 28 ".9 218.12 DDENOTES PROPOSED EASEMENT VACATION (5,671 SQ. FT.) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EASEMENT VACATION: That part of the Drainage and Utility Easement as dedicated on Lot 1, Block 1, ARBOR CREEK, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence North 13 degrees 38 minutes 08 seconds East (assumed bearing) along the westerly line of sold Lot 1 a distance of 84.98 feet; thence North 86 degrees 24 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 10.47 feet to the point of beginning of the vacation area to be described; thence continuing North 86 degrees 24 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 126.80 feet; thence North 15 degrees 09 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 121.64 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 19.27 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 40.76 feet; thence South 51 degrees 44 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 20.20 feet; thence South 31 degrees 04 minutes 43 seconds West a distance of 16.11 feet; thence South 21 degrees 34 minutes 05 seconds West a distance of 44.38 feet; thence South 49 degrees 20 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 13.94 feet; thence South 54 degrees 44 minutes 25 seconds West a distance of 50.32 feet; thence South 68 degrees 35 minutes 45 second West a distance of 39.34 feet; thence North 81 degrees 05 minutes 35 seconds West a distance of 56.00 feet; thence North 13 degrees 38 minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 27.55 feet to the point of beginning. AND The West 15.00 feet of the East 76.50 feet of the North 15.00 feet of the South 25.00 feet of the Drainage and Utility Easement as dedicated on Lot 1, Block 1, ARBOR CREEK, Hennepin County, Minnesota, Lot 1, Block 1, ARBOR CREEK, Hennepin County, Minnesota, REV. 7 -01 -15 EASEMENT JEN REV. 6 -22 -15 EASEMENT JEN Scale 1 °= 40' 10 Denotes Iron Monument I Bearinci Datum: Assumed Job No. 15352ED IDrWa By BAB I I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by me �f1�1� or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land 1!!us Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. PROFESSIONAL LAND SUR\ 6776 LAKE DRIVE NE, SUITE E. G. RUD & SONS, INC. LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA gy TEL. (651) 361.8200 Dated this �_ _day of Jul2015. Mi eso License No.41578 www.egrua.com FAX(651)361 -8701 hibit A #9A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Reject all bids for the Radisson Road – Lift Station 11 Rehabilitation Project. City Project No. 13-03 Meeting Date: August 10, 2015 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Attachments Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City reject all bids for the Radisson Road, Lift Station 11 Rehabilitation Project? Background / Previous Action: On June 22, 2015, the Shorewood City Council approved the Plans and Specifications and authorized advertisement of bids for the Radisson Road, Lift Station 11 Rehabilitation Project. Bids were received and publically opened on July 22, 2015. The “Apparent low bidder” was Dave Perkins Contracting, in the amount of $152,725.00. Table 1 below is a summary of the bid results. Bidder Bid Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc. $152,725.00 Pember Companies, Inc. $179,275.80 Meyer Contracting, Inc. $183,623.40 G. F. Jedlicki, Inc. $207,705.00 GM Contracting, Inc. $227,776.79 Northdale Construction Co. Inc. $238,629.04 Minger Construction, Inc. $244,366.75 R&R Excavating, Inc. $244,978.65 Widmer Construction, LLC $273,963.50 Engineers Estimate $245,730.00 Mean $217,004.88 Table 1 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 Staff is recommending that all of the bids be rejected and re-bid in the spring of 2016. Staff Recommendation: Staff is recommending that all of the bids be rejected and that the bid bonds be returned to all prospective bidders. Financial or Budget Considerations: Costs for rejecting bids and potentially re-bidding the project are minimal in nature. Options: 1.Approve the Resolution which rejects all bids. 2.Direct staff to prepare a resolution awarding the bid to the lowest bidder. 3.Provide Staff with alternative direction. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff is recommending Option 1 that approves the resolution that rejects all bids be approved. Connection to Vision / Mission: Maintaining key infrastructure is vital to providing quality services to our residents. CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 15 -___ A RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS FOR THE RADDISSON ROAD, LIFT STATION 11 REHABILITATION PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 13-03 WHEREAS , pursuant to an advertisement for bids for local improvements designated as the Radisson Road, Lift Station 11 Rehabilitation Project, City Project No. 13-03, bids were received, opened on June 22, 2015, tabulated according to law, and such tabulation is attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the City Council has opted to postpone said Improvement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby directed to reject all bids received for this project. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids. th ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCILOF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 10 day of July, 2015. ____________________________ Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk The exhibit for this resolution is identical as Attachment 2 and has not been included here, for brevity. #10B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Professional Services Proposal for Traffic Committee Facilitation and Technical Support Meeting Date: August 10, 2015 Prepared by: Paul Hornby, City Engineer Reviewed by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator Attachments: Professional Services Proposal prepared by WSB Background: The City Council has requested staff assist in the creation of a Traffic Committee for the purpose of advising the City Council on traffic issues. The City has had recent development proposals that have had public input and the Council would like to establish the committee to review Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive at this time. The Traffic Committee is proposed to have members that live near or along these streets for this committee task. As requested, WSB & Associates, Inc. has provided a scope of services for professional services to facilitate the Traffic Committee and provide technical assistance and guidance on traffic issues. The scope of services includes: Project Management  Committee Meeting attendance and participation (one meeting per month)  Technical Support, Analysis and Review  No formal traffic studies are included in this scope of services o Traffic studies that are authorized by the Council would be a separate project o City Council Meeting Attendance – Support the Traffic Committee in presenting issues to the  Council WSB is proposing Chuck Rickart, PTOE, as the Traffic Engineer to facilitate the committee meetings. Chuck has led a number of traffic studies and traffic issues in the City for several years and is highly respected in the traffic engineering field. Chuck will also have a team of engineers and technical experts available to assist him as needed. Financial or Budget Considerations: WSB has provided a proposal on an hourly basis, with an estimated fee of $6,174, based upon monthly meetings with the committee over a six month period. The proposal and scope of services is attached for Council review and consideration of approval. Staff recommends budgeting up to $10,000 for this process to account for any issues that may extend consultan time beyond the estimated hours in the scope of services. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 Options: 1.Take no action at this time 2.Authorize staff to execute the scope of services for professional services for the Traffic Committee facilitation and support. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the proposal for professional services with WSB to facilitate and support the Traffic Committee. Next Steps and Timelines: Council and staff will need to work on forming the Traffic Committee. City of Shorewood Traffic Committee Engineering Services SCOPE OF WORK Understanding The City of Shorewood is initiating a Traffic Committee to review traffic issues and concerns and make recommendations to the Shorewood City Council. The area of primary interest is along Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive to TH 7. The City is looking for an experienced Traffic Engineer to facilitate the committee, guiding them through the issues, priorities and processes. WSB is proposing Charles Rickart PE, PTOE as the Traffic Engineer to facilitate and provide support to the committee. He is a Senior Project Manager and Principal at WSB with more than 32 years of experience in transportation and traffic engineering. He is a registered Professional Engineer as well as a registered Professional Traffic Operations Engineer. Mr. Rickarts exceptional depth of engineering knowledge reassures clients that they get the right answer to their issues. His experience has included numerous support municipal clients with; traffic impact studies, parking analysis and design, traffic forecasting, signing and pavement marking plans, traffic control plans, traffic signal design, preparation of SJRs and ICE reports, development plan reviews, traffic signal construction, traffic signal timing plans, pedestrian studies, lighting plans, and neighborhood traffic calming studies. His involvement in projects has included everything from preliminary studies, design and construction to project management and administration. Mr. Rickart will have a team of engineers and technical experts to assist him as needed in researching and providing direction on issues identified by the Traffic Committee. Based on this understanding and assuming a 6 month process the following tasks would be anticipated: Task 1 Project Management This task includes planning and coordination of all work tasks, establishing and monitoring of the budget, and periodic communication with City staff on the project status. Estimated Cost : 6 hours at $153/hr = $918 Task 2 Committee Meetings Monthly meetings will be held by the committee to review traffic issues and concerns and provide recommendations to the City Council. Each meeting would last approximately two hours. It is assumed for the purpose of this proposal that 6 meeting (six months) would be held. Estimated Cost: 12 hours at $153/hr = $1,836 (each additional meeting would be $306) Proposal Traffic Committee Engineering Services Page 1 City of Shorewood Task 3 Technical Support, Analysis and Review WSB will provide technical expertise and support to the committee. This may include discussion and guidance on issues such as traffic calming, geometric requirements, complete streets, traffic control, etc. We will provide background documentation and research as requested or needed. It is assumed that no formal traffic studies will be completed. Estimated Cost: 18 hours at $105/hr = $1,890 6 hours at $153/hr = $918 Task 4 City Council Meetings Two City Council meetings would be attended with representatives from the Traffic Committee to present findings and recommendations. Estimated Cost: 4 hours at $153/hr = $612 ESTIMATED COST SUMMARY Principal Project Total Tasks Cost / Project Engineer Hours Manager Task 1 Project Management 6 6 $918 Task 2 Committee Meetings 12 12 $1,836 Task 3 Technical Support 6 18 24 $2,808 Task 4 City Council Meetings 4 4 $612 Total Hours 28 18 46 Hourly Rate $153.00 $105.00 Total Labor Cost $6,174.00 WSB & Associates, Inc. would bill the City for only the actual hours worked at each employee classification times the current WSB hourly rates for that employee classification. Proposal Traffic Committee Engineering Services Page 2 City of Shorewood #10C MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: South Lake Minnetonka Police Department 2016 Budget Meeting Date: August 10, 2015 Prepared by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator Background: The South Lake Minnetonka Police Department 2016 Budget is submitted for Council consideration. The proposed budget includes funding for an additional police officer and a 3.1% increase from 2015. The 2016 SLMPD Budget is provided in the August 10 Work Session meeting packet. Recommended Council Action: A motion approving the proposed 2016 South Lake Minnetonka Police Dept. Budget as submitted. 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 SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT M-E-M-O-R-A-N-D-U-M TO: SLMPD Coordinating Committee FROM: Mike Siitari, Chief of Police DATE: July 13, 2015 RE: Revised Budget th As directed at the July 8 Coordinating Committee meeting, I have revised the 2016 budget proposal to make the additional officer scenario more viable. There was discussion about using budget reserves but I look at this as a short time fix that will negatively impact the budget process in 2017 and beyond. I focused on the annual budget surplus, which has generally been in the 2-2.5% range. I used some budget assumptions that may not prove true but there are contingency funds to cover unexpected scenarios. The budget reductions are as follows: Full-time salaries (50100) - $23,800 Social Security/PERA (50500/600) $4,300 Undesignated allocation (5900) - $13,821 Insurance account (56000) - $10,000 Insurance benefits (50700) - $8,400 Supplies (53000) - $8,750 Printing/Publishing (52500) - $500 TOTAL $69,071 The majority of the annual surplus has been in salaries and benefits. A senior officer has expressed his intent to retire early in 2016. The salary reduction and benefit costs are the difference between top patrol officer and a new hire. I reduced the Undesignated Allocation by using a COLA figure for 2016 of 1% instead of 2%. Neighboring departments that have settled their 2016 contract are in the 2% range, but the lakes area salary survey shows SLMPD holds the top position for all ranks. 1% will narrow the gap and provide a small increase for the staff. We will not get the actual insurance (liability & works comp) costs from the League of Minnesota Cities until mid-August so it is a bit of a moving target. There should be a surplus in the insurance account for 2015 that allows the proposed 2016 line item to be reduced. The initial proposal was an increase of $47,600, a significant number. With a $10,000 reduction the fund should still be able to cover the actual 2016 costs. The Insurance Benefits line item includes an additional officer on disability, in which the department must cover health insurance costs. We are in the process of appealing the disability with a strong chance of a settlement this year. I removed the health insurance costs for the officer on the assumption that this will not be a cost in 2016. I initially used the 2015 budget assumption of $3.55/gallon for fuel. Prices have dropped and the forecast is for relatively stable fuel prices for 2016. I used the price assumption that Shorewood Public Works provided, $2.75/gal. plus .10/gal, for the revised budget. With the revised approach I did add $5,000 to the Training and Conference line. This is a neglected area that I was going to leave for the next chief to address but with the reduction or elimination of a budget surplus for 2016 I want to make sure the future training needs can be addressed. I can offer additional information on this line item if desired. I realize that one or more of these budget assumptions may not hold true in 2016. The contingency funds that could be used to cover unexpected increases are the 2014 and 2015 budget surplus. At this point there is $32,000 remaining from the 2014 surplus and we are $30,000 below 2105 budget expenditures as of 6/30/15. This should cover a worst case scenario. I must point out that reducing or eliminating the budget surplus in 2016 will remove the funding source that has been used to fund capital purchases recently. A funded capital plan remains a long term need. I did not revise the budget scenario with no additional officer. The Coordinating Committee voiced support for the additional officer scenario and I have made cuts that do carry limited risk for future budgets. Making the cuts and not adding an officer would carry the same risks with no tangible benefit other than cost savings. Service and staffing level issues would not be addressed. 50200 - General Overtime 4.6% $ 1,298,700.00 $ 1,358,300.00 Page 1 of 1 $ 37,900.00 $ 36,000.00 South Lake Minnetonka Police Department July 14, 2015 2016 Proposed Budget With Additional Officer Variable % 2016 Budget2015 Budget Income 3.1% 40101 · Excelsior $ 638,527.00 $ 619,134.00 3.1% 40102 · Greenwood $ 192,895.00 $ 187,037.00 3.1% 40103 · Shorewood $ 1,103,665.00$ 1,070,145.00 3.1% 40104 · Tonka Bay $ 341,042.00 $ 330,684.00 60.0% 40110 · Court Overtime $ 8,000.00 $ 5,000.00 0.0% 40120 · Excelsior Park and Dock Patrol $ 21,500.00 $ 21,500.00 8.3% 42100 · State Police Officer Aid $ 104,000.00 $ 96,000.00 0.0% 42200 · State Training Reimbursement $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500.00 0.0% 43100 · Minnetonka School District $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 25.0% 43200 · Administrative Requests $ 5,000.00 $ 4,000.00 -38.8% 43400 · Special Policing Details $ 29,600.00 $ 48,400.00 0.0% 44000 · Investment Income $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 0.0% 46400 · Forfeitures $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 32.0% 46500 · Grant Reimbursements $ 33,000.00 $ 25,000.00 -50.0% 46600 · Other Reimbursements $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 2.8% $ 2,497,229.00$ 2,428,400.00 Total Income Expense 4.6% 50100 - Full-Time Salaries $ 1,358,300.00$ 1,298,700.00 -5.0% 50200 - General Overtime-5.0% $ 36,000.00 $ 37,900.00 -22.9% 50230 - Reimbursed Overtime $ 45,900.00 $ 59,500.00 -40.2% 50300 - Part-Time Salaries $ 59,300.00 $ 99,100.00 50500 · Social Security & Medicare 4.8% $ 32,700.00 $ 31,200.00 0.4% 50600 · PERA Pensions $ 222,600.00 $ 221,800.00 -1.2% 50700 · Insurance Benefits $ 240,600.00 $ 243,500.00 10.5% 51000 · Contracted Services $ 25,300.00 $ 22,900.00 7.9% 52100 · Equipment Leases $ 37,000.00 $ 34,300.00 -5.6% 52200 · Repairs and Maintenance $ 47,000.00 $ 49,800.00 -1.6% 52300 · Utilities $ 63,400.00 $ 64,400.00 -7.1% 52400 · Janitorial & Cleaning $ 10,500.00 $ 11,300.00 -37.5% 52500 · Printing & Publishing $ 2,000.00 $ 3,200.00 -11.3% 53000 · Supplies $ 68,450.00 $ 77,200.00 0.0% 54000 · Uniforms & Gear $ 14,800.00 $ 14,800.00 33.3% 54500 · Training & Conferences $ 20,000.00 $ 15,000.00 67.1% 56000 · Insurance $ 93,600.00 $ 56,000.00 -6.3% 56100 · Subscriptions & Memberships $ 3,000.00 $ 3,200.00 -37.3% 57000 · Special Projects $ 7,900.00 $ 12,600.00 0.0% 58000 · Capital Outlay $ 72,000.00 $ 72,000.00 100.0% 59000 - Undesignated Allocation $ 36,879.00 $ - 2.8% $ 2,497,229.00$ 2,428,400.00 Total Expense Page 1 of 1 #10D MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Excelsior Fire District 2016 Budget and CIP Meeting Date: August 10, 2015 Prepared by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator Background: The Excelsior Fire District 2016 Operating Budget and CIP is submitted for Council consideration. The proposed budget is a 0.30% increase over 2015. The 2016 SLMPD Budget is provided in the August 10 Work Session meeting packet. Recommended Council Action: A motion approving the proposed 2016 Excelsior Fire District Operating Budget and CIP as submitted. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD  5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900  Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us 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) (99% complete) 5/31/15 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 3/23/15 Begin eminent domain action  /03/15 Neighborhood informational meeting (Open House) 6 Council approves Plans and Specifications and authorizes ad for Bids 7/13/15  8/21/15 Receive bids for construction 8/24/15 City possession of easements/letter of compliance Council awards Construction Contract 8/24/15  8/27/15 Neighborhood preconstruction meeting Groundbreaking Ceremony 8/27/15  9/07/15 Begin Construction 6/30/16 Construction substantially complete Ribbon Cutting Ceremony 6/30/16  6/30/16 Restoration complete Date: August 10, 2015 To: Mayor Zerby Council Members From: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Re: June, 2015 General Fund Monthly Budget Report The 2015 General Fund is tracking about where we would expect. Revenues are a little over 2014 and expenditures are a below 2014. There are no items that are of concern at this point in the year. Licenses & Permits is below the 2014 level by $16,000 but all indications are that we will meet or exceed budget for the year. • Council — This is the only budget that varies significantly from the prior year. The difference is primarily the transfer that was made in 2014 for the house sale proceeds to the Park Improvement fund. • Planning — This budget is over in Other Services & Charges primarily due to some expenditures related to the Minnetonka Country Club redevelopment process. • Park Maintenance — this budget is over primarily due to coding of time since less was posted to Ice & Snow Removal compared to last year. Please contact me or Mr. Joynes if you have any questions. Attachment: June Budget Spreadsheet General Ledger Revenue and Expense vs Budget Through June 30, 2015 Description % Collected Budget Period Amt General Fund Revenues Prior Actual 2,465,732.00 35.79% Taxes $ 4,931,464.00 $ 1,765,200.00 $ Licenses & Permits $ 147,770.00 $ 108,851.02 $ Intergovernmental $ 87,251.00 $ 54,261.69 $ Charges for Service $ 42,200.00 $ 29,360.30 $ Fines & Forfeits $ 57,000.00 $ 24,968.41 $ Misc Revenues $ 210,400.00 $ 139,845.72 $ Utility Charges $ - $ - $ Other Financing Sources $ 25,000.00 $ - $ General Fund $ 5,501,085.00 $ 2,122,487.14 $ General Fund Expenditures Council Personal Services % Collected One Year YTD Budget % Expended Prior Actual 2,465,732.00 35.79% $ 1,742,400.00 73,885.00 73.66% $ 124,800.26 43,625.50 62.19% $ 85,526.72 22,850.00 69.57% $ 17,088.98 28,500.00 43.80% $ 22,468.02 106,950.00 66.47% $ 83,136.27 - $ $ 2,000.00 12,500.00 0.00% $ - 2,754,042.50 38.58% $ 2,077,420.25 Personal Services $ 22,600.00 $ 11,087.70 $ 11,300.00 49.06% $ 8,396.82 Supplies $ 2,000.00 $ 797.61 $ 1,000.00 39.88% $ 141.69 Other Services and Charges $ 110,350.00 $ 28,743.95 $ 55,175.00 26.05% $ 26,215.42 Other Financing Use $ 70,000.00 $ - $ 35,000.00 0.00% $ 283,414.00 Council $ 204,950.00 $" 40,629.26 $ 102,475.00 19.82% $ 318,167.93 ' Administraton Personal Services $ 251,153.00 $ 124,940.30 $ 125,576.50 49.75% $ 120,139.04 Supplies $ 20,900.00 $ 6,895.80 $ 10,450.00 32.99% $ 8,210.67 Other Services and Charges $ 145,500.00 $ 57,542.76 $ 72,750.00 39.55% $ 54,424.74 Administraton $ 417,553.00 $ 1.89,378.86 $ 208,776.50 45.35% $ 182,774.45 Finance Personal Services $ 134,758.00 $ 72,274.27 $ 67,379.00 53.63% $ 69,199.82 Supplies $ 10,050.00 $ 8,118.27 $ 5,025.00 80.78% $ 7,171.57 Other Services and Charges $ 16,000.00 $ 6,481.73 $ 8,000.00 40.51% $ 9,486.76 Finance $ 160,808.00 $ 86,874.27 $ 80,404.00 54.02% $ 85,858.15 Professional Services Other Services and Charges $ 215,060.00 $ 81,375.83 $ 107,530.00 37.84% $ 81,660.10 Professional Services $ 215,060.00 $ 81,375.83 $ 107,530.00 37.84% $ 81,660.10 Planning Personal Services $ 173,157.00 $ 92,313.86 $ 86,578.50 53.31% $ 91,934.97 Supplies $ 300.00 $ 400.00 $ 150.00 133.33% $ Other Services and Charges $ 11,000.00 $ 15,297.76 $ 5,500.00 139.07% $ 3,478.33 Planning $ 184,457.00 $ 108,011.62 $ 92,228.50 58.56% $ 95,413.30 Protective Inspections Personal Services $ 121,323.00 $ 62,383.23 $ % Collected One Year Description Supplies Budget Period Amt $ YTD Budget % Expended Prior Actual Municipal Buildings $ - Other Services and Charges $ 7,700.00 $ 2,957.48 $ Supplies $ 23,400.00 $ 27,790.72 $ 11,700.00 118.76% $ 24,154.16 Other Services and Charges $ 170,800.00 $ 97,754.66 $ 85,400.00 57.23% $ 77,779.89 Other Financing Use $ 101,513.00 $ - $ 50,756.50 0.00% $ - Municipal Buildings $ 295,713.00 $ 125,545.38 $ 147,856.50 42.46% $ 101,934.05 Police Protection $ 20,273.25 $ 43,950.00 23.06% $ 15,719.25 City Engineer Supplies $ - $ - $ - 0.00% $ - Other Services and Charges $ 1,072,645.00 $ 538,193.10 $ 536,322.50 50.17% $ 608,927.76 Capital Outlay $ 225,181.00 $ 112,590.00 $ 112,590.50 50.00% $ 172,323.00 Police Protection $ 1,297,826.00 $ 650,783.10 $ 648,913.00 50.14% $ 781,250.76 Fire Protection 17.74% $ 44,985.77 Other Services and Charges $ 142,600.00 $ 41,266.53 Other Services and Charges $ 361,315.00 $ 180,281.48 $ 180,657.50 49.90% $ 261,591.45 Capital Outlay $ 276,156.00 $ 138,078.04 $ 138,078.00 50.00% $ 208,816.98 Fire Protection $ 637,471.00 $ 318,359.52 $ 318,735.50 4994% $ 470,408.43 Protective Inspections Personal Services $ 121,323.00 $ 62,383.23 $ 60,661.50 51.42% $ 59,780.80 Supplies $ 200.00 $ 72.95 $ 100.00 36.48% $ - Other Services and Charges $ 7,700.00 $ 2,957.48 $ 3,850.00 ' " 38.41% $ 1,342.10 Protective Inspections $ 129,223.00 $ 65,413.66 $ 64,611.50 50.62% $ 61,122.90 City Engineer Supplies $ - $ - $ - 0.00% $ 36.75 Other Services and Charges $ 87,900.00 $ 20,273.25 $ 43,950.00 23.06% $ 15,719.25 City Engineer $ 87,900.00 $ 20,273.25 $ 43,950.00 23.06% $ 15,756.00 Public Works Service Personal Services $ 494,547.00 $ 182,961.98 $ 247,273.50 37.00% $ 153,953.32 Supplies $ 167,700.00 $ 29,749.1.9 $ 83,850.00 17.74% $ 44,985.77 Other Services and Charges $ 142,600.00 $ 41,266.53 $ 71,300.00 28.94% $ 43,913.56 Other Financing Use $ 830,000.00 $ - $ 415,000.00 0.00% $ - Public Works Service $ 1,634,847.00 $ 253,977.70 $ 817,423.50 15.54% $ 242,852.65 Ice & Snow Removal Personal Services $ 58,339.00 $ 15,742.81 $ 29,169.50 26.99% $ 45,392.12 Supplies $ 45,000.00 $ 15,589.91 $ 22,500.00 34.64% $ 25,591.20 lee & Snow Removal $ 103,339.00 $ 31,332.72 $ 51,669.50 30.32% $ 70,983.32 Park Maintenance Personal Services $ 109,473.00 $ 74,133.47 $ 54,736.50 67.72% $ 59,121.32 Supplies $ 23,300.00 $ 4,220.40 $ 11,650.00 18.11% $ 3,865.83 Other Services and Charges $ 38,000.00 $ 22,904.58 $ 19,000.00 60.28% $ 13,464.16 Park Maintenance $ 170,773.00 $ 101,258.45 $ 85,386.50 59.29% $ 76,451.31 Description Recreation Personal Services Supplies Other Services and Charges Other Financing Use Recreation General fund Expenditures Revenue Total Expensc Total General Fund % Collected One Year Budget Period Amt YTD Budget % Expended Prior Actual $ 36,743.00 $ 27,631.69 $ 18,371.50 75.20% $ 26,565.32 $ 5,800.00 $ 3,578.00 $ 2,900.00 61.69% $ 3,307.50 $ 18,800.00 $ 315.60 $ 5,900.00 2.67% $ 4,116.26 $ 42,000.00 $ - $ 21,000.00 0.00% $ - $ 103,343.00 $ 31,525.29 $ 48,171.50 32.72% $ 33,989.08 $ 5,643,263.00 $ 2,104,738.91 $ 2,818,131.50 36.37% $ 2,618,622.43 $ 5,501,085.00 $ 2,122,487.14 $ 2,754,042.50 38.58% $ 2,077,420.25 $ (5,643,263.00) $ (2,104,738.91) $ (2,818,131.50) 36.00% $ (2,618,622.43) $ (142,1.78.00) $ 17,748.23 $ (64,089.00) 36.37% $ (541,202.18) Date: August 10, 2015 To: Mayor Zerby Council Members From: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Re: June, 2015 Quarterly Investment Report The City's cash reserves have been invested in both cash flow type of investments to meet ongoing expenditure needs and longer -term securities with higher returns than money market funds. It is important to remember our investment priorities in order of concern: 1. Safety — preserving principal; 2. Liquidity — having funds available when needed to pay expenses; 3. Yield — earning market returns for the amount of risk we are willing to accept. With the investments that the City currently in the portfolio, and with our philosophy of holding investments to maturity, we are exposed to minimal risk of principal loss. The only expected change is when investments are marked to market and gains or losses are recognized at year end. Most older bonds available in the secondary market are priced at a "premium" because they make interest payments based on higher rates than current bond issues. That differential is why we were able to refund our water revenue bonds last year. These secondary bond issues often come with a higher return to likely call or maturity than newly issued bonds. When that differential is significant, staff has purchased some of these bonds. While the financial statements show an unrealized loss against the purchase price, that is just an amortization of the premium that the bonds were purchased at. The overall interest return on these investments is higher than the interest available in other investments at the time they were purchased. The net interest over the life of the bond is higher than newly issued bonds, certificates of deposit, or money market returns. In general, the city has only had three months where cash flow is positive — June, July, and December. Those months are when we receive tax settlements which are just prior to scheduled bond payments. The rest of the months need about $500,000 on average to cover operating costs. This means that the City should have a mix of callable and non - callable investments with both short-term cash flow needs being met and longer maturities targeting major cash needs over the five year maximum investment horizon. We are more frequently finding investments in the three year and over time frame with interest rates in excess of 1.0 %. Several high coupon bonds and Certificates of Deposit that are returning over 2% to maturity have been purchased. These securities may have premiums amortized over the next year. I have purchased Certificates of Deposit to specific months for cash flow needs. We have held a significant amount of money market funds to cover construction costs for major projects. If the Council decides to bond for some of these projects a higher percentage of our available cash can be invested. With wire transfer fees, the cost to move money may be higher than the interest we can earn in the short term. The most significant risk in this environment is getting stuck with long -term investments at a very low rate when interest rates start to increase. Staff will invest these funds to increase the portfolio returns, while maintain flexibility to cover expenditures. Please contact me or Mr. Joynes if you have any questions. Attachment: June, 2015 Investment Summary 00oo � N Ln 0 O 0 o N O �-i r, r, O 0 m J 0000to O m .-1 m v O N O O o O O m d- O O Lo O S � N O N O n .-I m m O M O m Ct N m O G) ci m O m m m LD m m LD Y O m 1* M to LD t0 m D ci m O O m zi' m N m N m � M m O d m -i m 4 m ci n L4 N N r ct M N N O U m U N oo m N m ' dt Ln m o m m Y � `D O D LD n D LD O n 00 LD d' N r, 0 ca 70 > O m O V' m O d• m O Ili I'D 0 r 0 c O O O O O m m U N Ln Ln m O m O m M ct Lq ct O ra O N m � N > IR O m m M r, L� r- m Y \ m m 1l m O N N N N N N 00oo o Lo Ln 0 O 0 o 0 0o00 �-i r, r, O 0 O N 0000to O m .-1 m m M N O O o O m N d- O O Lo O n L, N O N O n .-I m m M N M O h m Ct N m O N ci O ci m N m m tD M O m 1* M to LD m ci m o m m zi' m N m N to M � m O m N -i m m N ci n m N ct M N N O U m U N oo N N O ' dt d' m O m N m O H M m n � n 00 LD d' N N O O O O ci O r O Ili 0 0 0 0 O O O O O m m U o Ln Ln O O m M O Lq OOmd O U m m O N tD O m O M m L� m m ' N m Ln 1l m O m O N oo N N Ct m m N Lo LD Ln r 1-i M �o d DO000m0OLnLoH m m m N M Ln i` Ci' m m O m -i lD m n m 't m Ln O O M It O Ln 1-1 0 ' N n i- oo H M m m m m o m to ' LD O Ln m �t m <t 0 Ln O M 00 N m Lo m N M m (11 M .--i lD N IH Ln O H O) H d' N O H 6) N M n N M O lz N -t M m m n H m r` M O o m N n 0 0 0 m N O ct O OM C o c o O m n m U Ln O Ln no1� m O d' O O O m0�o O M 0Lnrlo00�0 Ln lD O m O. i n n r-I N d• d' ct N m N 4 1-� m n O N N N m M w O M oo h M d' m .-I r 1\ Ln rl M 0 n N Ln d' m O to m O N O M U t-i N r- w m m m N m m m r14 1-1 1 Ln M M O O Lfl m ri M M m m C}' o -i rH ct n Ln oo O Ln m d' n 4 O Ln -. O 'm N m [L O m m m N m H to m In .-{ H O N Ln N O -i m N to H LD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O m O U Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 m .-i m U LD w o d, O O lh O r ci IH O O O n r N ct N m O m ci Ln m m N ci m Ih r- M . i M M LD m M O O m m m -I m ct H m O Lfl W lz M r" n m N m m m N m m ci O ri m Ln Ln oo Ln w m -i o m O U O m Ln Ln H O m m 'ch r d' n d' H O m N tD H N m Ln N o m M m N m r-I W W N N m d' N O ci m N N O N r 0 o Lo Ln 0 0 0 to 0 0 �-i r, r, O O O N O O m .-1 U 00 m m O o o Ln m t m w w Lo ,-I n L, o m M O LD m m W lD 1`� M N M i-i O h m .-i Ct N O d' ci N v N m m h � om000mootom<r n ri N O O U m U N m m N lD ' dt d' m O m N m O H M m n m n 00 LD d' N w LD m lD N ci r m Ili ` O m m M M m Ln m OOmd m0<t-ttw N m N m d' N N N N N m m �o DO000m0OLnLoH 1, 0 1-I L!) O O Ln 't 0 v n m cn O O m r N Ln It Lo O 00 m m o n m 00 m Lo n m O Ln N ci N a-1 .-I Ln �-I n N M O lz N -t M m m n H m r` M O o m N n M N 000 N 'c}' ct N OM of N N m m lD d' w O O O O M O Ln lD O m O. i m O O m d• ct Il m N Ln lD m n N Ln �t LD 00 M m d' w i\ m V' m .-I m m Ln rl w � n N m m m � N N N ci Ct w .-i m n rl' m n m 00 M N O H m Ct m N m m C}' Ct N m dt N m [L m W O m m Ln 1, m LD n n r m LD i\ r LD 1` m Ln Ln tD LD LD P r 00 m m m ri i-i e-1 a-f r-1 0 O O O O V O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N T O ID LD 00 \ m m 1-1 li \1-4 1-1 N O \ \i \\ N \\ N \ 1N -1 \ N 1-1 \\ rN -i \\ N -i r m \i 1-1 \ m \\ 0 m M M N N \ N N N \ M M 1-1 N r4 (Y) 4 m n 1-1 m \ .-i H 1-1 1-4 1-i \ m m m m m C o c o 0 0" m m m M O m m m O m 0 0 m m O O m m O m m 0 0 C m LO m 0 l0 n ct m m 0 .-1 m N m N O M O M 't .-i m O m O O O m ri ri ° O m m N e-i m m d' M m d' ri M M d' M d' d' ci O .-i V m O U rH 11 IH N N 1z s m v° a L m Ci E V Q v V 4 m ro N +r .� O o v s L ro v N to °-2 X MX N X U t- @ to O m m @ t' m @ > U h Q O_ 47 X t- t- � , H -° c m °t� °A ° to CO vn M.00 Q v 0 m x O m E a a) f° 7,c u... 4- Q to Y m C7 s V LU N v -c o LWi) m m m M� o w m >' Z X .� a V m > S E ._ m x z o J J J= t" M M m— c Y t4 Lnn ,� c c -zr o m ® ~ n u a 0 v n m H -0 v c c c 0 ° Q 0° U ° m m m O 0 z •,_ •° o Z 0 3 L%) v) 0 v Z 0 0 0 �= U� O� Z c ro 0 :° m a= m v ®o aT °' Q m m v E m o o ="> s E E E 3 c T m Q U L m o W T L Ln o o v N 0 0 v° t e c 3 C .v °� @• °- v Z w v ° c a B m u v O '1 0 O z U U 2> o Y 0 0_- d O m 0 0 0 m E ° O m v .� N "I o C= m O °~ on U W W LL. Li O U Lu S S_— Z Z K LY LY w H S? m O t z 1) S T (o V) pV ® w in U m w m o O CA 6L fYi C N m t0 N m r Ln lD M m CO N e-I 0 1p m m CF) to rl N N CF m rl ct m M <i c v E w m F°- r, m V N � n N 00 O B chi Q. #11A.4 MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Paper Shred Event – Fall 2015 Meeting Date: August 10, 2015 Prepared by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator Cc: Julie Moore, Recycling Coordinator Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Background: As part of Spring Clean-up this past May 16th, a paper shred event was conducted in the city hall parking lot from 9:00 – 12:00 (offered free to residents). The event was so popular/successful, it had to close early as the paper shredding truck was full (9,364 pounds of paper was shred). Those residents who were not able to shred documents asked if another event would take place. Staff has also received phone calls from residents asking if another paper shredding event will be scheduled. Staff is suggesting a fall paper shredding event on a Saturday in September or October from 9:00 AM – 12:00 PM. Staff is also suggesting two trucks be available for this event. Financial: The contracted rate for a Community Shred for one truck up to three hours with Shred-N-Go, Inc., the shredding company the city contracts with, is $400. In addition, about $250 is needed for the rental of cones for the parking lot. We would also need to hire 3-4 part-time helpers at a cost of about $150. The total cost would be about $1200 for two shredding trucks. Recommended Council Action: A motion to approve a paper shredding event for a Saturday in Sept. or Oct. 2015, from 9:00AM – 12:00PM at a cost of approximately $1200 for two trucks. 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