04-11-16 CC Reg Mtg AgendaP CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY,APRIL 11,2016 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 March 28, 2016 Minutes
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 28, 2016 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. Approval of Sanitary Sewer Service Connection to Metropolitan Engineer's memo,
Council Environmental Services (MCES)in West 62"d St. Resolution
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council Action will be taken)
5. PUBLIC HEARING
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Proposal for Freeman Park Tonka Splash Event Email from Bobbie H.
Tonka United Soccer
B. Report by Tim Litfin on Minnetonka Community Education PowerPoint Presentations
and the Tour de Tonka Event
7. PARKS
8. PLANNING
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA—April 11,2016
Page 2
11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Trails Schedule
B. Mayor and City Council
12. ADJOURN
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900
Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
Executive Summary
Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting
Monday, April 11, 2016
7:00 p.m.
Agenda Item #2A: Approval of Minutes from the March 28 City Council Work Session.
Agenda Item #2B: Approval of Minutes from the March 28 City Council Regular Meeting.
Agenda Item #3A: Approval of the verified claims list.
Agenda Item #3B: The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) received a
nd
request from a property owner on West 62 Street for a connection to the interceptor
sewer for a new single family residential parcel. The MCES requires that the City make
formal application for the connection to their system to ensure connections are made
meeting the MCES requirements. A resolution authorizing application for connection to
the MCES facilities is provided for Council’s approval.
Agenda Item #4: Matters from the floor – no council action will be taken.
Agenda Item #5: There are no public hearings scheduled this evening.
Agenda Item #6A: Bobbie Hoebelheinrich, Executive Director of Tonka United, has provided
an update on the plan for the Tonka Splash event at Freeman Park, and is requesting
feedback from the City Council. Ms. Hoebelheinrich will be in attendance at the meeting
to review and answer questions.
Agenda Item #6B: Tim Litfin, Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) Executive Director,
will be providing an update on MCE activities, and the Tour de Tonka Event scheduled
for August 6, 2016.
Agenda Item #7: There are no Park items this evening.
Agenda Item #8: There are no Planning items this evening.
Agenda Item #9: There are no Engineering/Public Works items this evening.
Agenda Item #10: There are no General/New Business items this evening.
Agenda Item #11A: Staff reports are provided in the packet and will be given at the meeting.
#2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2016 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Siakel, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Attorney Keane;
Administrator Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Planning Director Nielsen; and, City
Engineer Hornby
Absent: Councilmember Labadie
B. Review Agenda
Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
2. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISCUSSION WITH SPRINGSTED
Administrator Joynes noted the main purpose of this session is to educate Council on the basics of tax
increment financing (TIF). He stated the City received a request for TIF assistance from Oppidan
Investment Company for a senior living project and it may receive another request over the next two
months. Staff asked Mikaela Huot, with Springsted, to make a presentation on TIF. At the end of her
presentation Ms. Huot will explain how TIF relates to Oppidan’s proposed Shorewood Senior Living
development. She will also review the schedule of events for considering Oppidan’s request for TIF
assistance. The TIF events will be done concurrent with the planning process for the development. As the
City ages it will likely received more requests for TIF assistance. That may necessitate the Shorewood
Economic Development Authority (EDA) becoming more involved.
Following are highlights of Ms. Huot’s PowerPoint presentation about TIF.
TIF is a method of capturing tax base growth generated by new development within a TIF district.
A city captures new local taxes (city, county and school) from a project to pay for public
improvements related to development. There is a fixed term for capturing the local taxes. Once the
project is complete and the project costs have been financed that new development is added to the
tax base.
This is how a typical redevelopment TIF model works. The value of a property declines if no
investment is made to it. At the time a TIF district is established the tax base for that property is
frozen; it remains frozen over the life of the district. The increment local taxes are captured for a
period of about 25 years. Once the TIF district is decertified a city, council and school then receive
the new tax base from the project.
A TIF development district can be the size of a project area or larger. It is the area in which tax
increment can be spent subject to some spending restrictions. A TIF plan has to be approved for
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2016
Page 2 of 7
the TIF district. Some of the plan’s key components are the budget, the geographic boundaries and
the purpose for creating the district. A city must hold a public hearing before creating a district.
After the public hearing the district must be certified to the district to the county, state and
Department of Revenue.
Cities use TIF for a number of reasons. To stimulate development where it would not occur (often
it falls within the “but/for” test). To encourage development of uses that would otherwise not occur
(e.g., low income housing or market rate housing). To enhance the tax base. To facilitate
infrastructure improvements related to a new development or redevelopment. To facilitate
redevelopment in targeted areas. To coordinate new developments with existing plans.
There are restrictions on how TIF dollars can be used. Some of the allowable uses are – public
improvements related to the TIF district, land acquisition, soil correction and site grading, site
preparation/demolition, relocation, cost of qualifying housing, financing fees and capitalized
interest to the district, and administrative costs.
Allowable public improvement costs include streets and roads, utilities, bridges and interchanges,
parking, sidewalks and walkways, and soft costs related to those costs.
There are three general methods cities use to finance costs. General Obligation (G.O.) tax
increment bonds can be issued without a referendum if the tax increment contributes to at least 20
percent of the debt service costs. With that method a city incurs a portion of the cost upfront
through the bond issuance process and captures the tax increment over time to make the debt
service payments. Pay-as-you-go notes are used when the developer finances the project in full up
front and then gets reimbursed over time as tax increments are available. Revenue bonds are often
used if a development is under construction or fully constructed; there is often a high “coverage”
factor.
There are several different types of TIF districts that can be created. The type determines the
timeframe, the uses of TIF and the ongoing requirements. For a redevelopment district it is based
on the existing conditions of the site; certain conditions have to be met. The maximum timeframe
for a redevelopment district is 25 years of collection after receipt of the first increment for a total
of 26 years. A renewal and renovation district is similar to a redevelopment district and is also
based on the existing conditions of the site. The qualifications for it are a little less stringent. It can
go up to 16 years; 15 years after receipt of the first increment. An economic development district is
a job based district for manufacturing, warehouse and distribution. It can have a maximum of a 9
year term based on what would be in the TIF district. A housing district is for low to moderate
priced housing. There are certain restrictions for what can be built in that type of district. The
maximum timeframe for a housing district is 25 years of collection after receipt of the first
increment for a total of 26 years. A soils condition district is based on the current conditions of
poor soils, contamination and hazardous substances within the district. Lastly, there is a hazardous
substance sub-district.
Statutory findings have to be met to approve a TIF district. Council must make the findings prior
to holding the public hearing. The TIF plan would afford maximum opportunity, consistent with
the sound needs of a city as a whole, for development by private enterprise. The TIF plan must
conform to general plans for development of a city as a whole. The project would qualify as a TIF
district; there are specific criteria for each type of district. The proposed development, from a
city’s perspective, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment
within the reasonably foreseeable future – the proposed development would not occur “but/for” the
use of tax increment financing. The increased market value that could reasonably be expected to
occur without the use of TIF would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result
from the proposed redevelopment after subtracting the amount of TIF used.
When considering the use of TIF the first question a city asks is if the project is feasible. Does the
projected increment support the necessary project costs related to the development? A secondary
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2016
Page 3 of 7
question is does the projected increment support a city’s costs related to the development. A city
has to evaluate how TIF dollars would be used.
Some types of TIF districts require the full maximum term. Other types may require a lesser term.
A city has to decide if it wants to maximize the use of TIF to finance all related costs or minimize
the use of TIF and close the district early.
A sampling of public purpose benefits include: increased employment, additional housing units
(e.g.; affordable, market rate, senior), attraction of visitors who would contribute to the local
economy, increased sales volume through increased development, elimination of negative or
blighting influences effecting the surrounding property (Blight Curve), maximization of land use,
and the addition of infrastructure (i.e.; public improvements).
Each time a city is asked to participate in a tax increment or economic development project it must
consider a range of risk factors. The lowest risk is for a city to simply grant the permit and allow
the project to happen; there is no request for TIF assistance. The low risk is when the developer is
reimbursed as benefits are completed with pay-as-you-go notes. The developer bears the entire risk.
The medium risk is when a city is the lender. The higher risk is when a city is the borrower; it
issues bonds to pay for its share of public improvements or other project costs. The highest risk is
for a city to be a developer and take on the full risk for the project. A city may consider a higher
risk level if the rewards warrant that.
There are ways a city can reduce its risk. One way to reduce risk is a value guarantee (or minimum
assessment agreement). That is where the developer agrees to a certain value of the development so
that over the life of the TIF district the developer would not contest a value lower than that. It does
not reduce the risk of law changes or property tax rate changes. A city could enter into shortfall
payments; when the increment collected is less than the debt service the developer pays the
difference. For a larger phased development project, the installation of the improvements and
financing of the costs is done in phases subject to market feasibility of each phase of revenues
available. There could be minimum coverage requirements for certain types of debt or the coverage
could be increased to provide additional cushion to pay debt service. A city could have a debt
service requirement. More than one risk reduction method could be applied.
A but/for needs analysis is done to make the finding that the development as proposed would not
occur but/for TIF assistance. Two questions have to be answered. What is the need for public
assistance? What is the appropriate amount of TIF assistance? A city has to be able to show that
the financing of the public improvement project costs could not be supported by the developer
alone without TIF assistance. The but/for determination analysis begins with the review of the
developer’s pro forma (i.e.; cash flow projections for the project upon completion); one pro forma
with assistance and one without assistance with an understanding of the developer’s potential
return over, for example, 10 years. Using the level of return without assistance is how the
feasibility of the project without assistance is determined. Using the level of return with assistance
is how the level of assistance is determined.
Approving a TIF plan provides a city with the authority to use TIF to assist with financing of
public improvements. It does not obligate a city to use TIF or provide TIF assistance; that would
be in the development agreement. It does not obligate a city to issue bonds.
Ms. Huot highlighted TIF financing request the city received from Oppidan for its proposed senior housing
development.
Oppidan proposes to redevelop three properties: 23075 State Highway 7 and 6020 and 6050
Chaska Road. It has already been determined that the redevelopment project does meet the
qualifications of a redevelopment district. That is, more than 50 percent of the buildings are
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2016
Page 4 of 7
substandard and more than 70 percent of the area of the district is occupied by some type of
structure (e.g.; buildings, streets, sidewalks).
Oppidan proposes to develop them as a senior housing project consisting of independent living (28
units), assisted living (52 units) and memory care living (25 units). A total of 105 units.
The total estimated private investment is $27,150,717.
The TIF assistance request is $1,587,343 for soil correction and $918,000 for the extension of City
watermain for a total of $2,505,443. It would be done on a pay-as-you-go basis with the developer
paying the cost upfront and the City reimbursing for the costs afterward.
The total estimated market value upon completion based on preliminary numbers from the assessor
is $165,000 per unit or a $17,160,000.
The term of the district would be up to 25 years subject to the City withheld amount. The City has
the ability to retain up to 25 percent of the tax increment dollars for other costs related to the
development.
Ms. Huot reviewed the schedule of events for establishing a TIF plan and TIF district. It takes about 45 –
60 days to establish a district.
March 28 – City Council work session to discuss TIF and Oppidan’s request for TIF assistance
March 29 – County Commissioner receives a notification letter (at least 30 days prior to
publication of the public hearing)
Prior to April 8 – County and School District receive impact letters and a draft TIF plan (at least
30 days prior the public hearing)
April 11 – City Council calls for a public hearing to be held on May 9
To be determined – Shorewood Planning Commission reviews draft TIF plan
April 28 (submission deadline April 21) – Publication of notice of the public hearing in the Sun
Sailor (at least 10 – 30 days prior to public hearing)
May 9 – City Council holds public hearing and adopts resolution approving TIF plan and TIF
district
May 9 – City Council approves the development agreement
May 9 – State filing and request for County certification
Mayor Zerby stated if on April 11 Council schedules a public hearing for May 9 he asked why the public
hearing notice would not be published until April 28. Ms. Huot stated Springsted usually does it closer to
the minimum of 10 days in advance. Also, Springsted did not want the County notified until after this work
session. A publication in The Laker could be done sooner because it would not have to be tied to the 30
days prior.
Councilmember Woodruff asked when Council would have the opportunity to review the impact letters and
draft TIF plan. The schedule shows the County and School are to receive them on April 8. Ms. Huot stated
that generally councils do not review the draft TIF plan before it is sent out. Woodruff stated he has never
considered TIF assistance before. Based on the schedule just reviewed the first time Council would see the
TIF plan is when it gets a copy of what is sent to the Planning Commission. He commented he does not
know what he doesn’t know about this process. He stated he does not think it would be a good idea for
Council not to see anything until it is asked to act on it.
Councilmember Siakel thanked Ms. Huot for providing a very good overview of TIF. She noted Council
has not discussed if it wants to provide TIF assistance to Oppidan. This seems premature.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2016
Page 5 of 7
Administrator Joynes explained that this evening staff wanted Ms. Huot to provide an overview of how TIF
works and staff wants to know how things should proceed. The schedule indicates Council will set the May
9 public hearing date on April 11. At that point Council will see a draft TIF plan. What is being proposed
in the schedule is very routine. He noted that the schedule is very aggressive. The schedule provided is the
fastest things can be done. He stated by April 11 there will be a draft TIF plan, the analysis on the but/for
will have been done and the pro forma from the developer will have been received. He then stated this is the
first time this has been done in this format. TIF assistance was provided 25 years ago but this is different.
Councilmember Siakel asked if the City has received a pro forma for either request. Administrator Joynes
stated staff has asked to see that for the potential The Waters of Excelsior project but it has not been given
that yet. Oppidan has provided most of that information to the City but it has not been analyzed yet.
Councilmember Woodruff suggested that for Council’s April 11 meeting there be another agenda item
which would be to discuss the impact letters and the draft TIF plan.
Mayor Zerby stated he is somewhat uncomfortable with sending the impact letters and a draft TIF plan on
behalf of Council without Council’s review. Councilmember Siakel concurred.
Administrator Joynes stated that waiting to send the impact letters and draft TIF plan until after Council
reviews them on April 11 will ultimately extend the schedule out two to three weeks.
Ms. Huot clarified the draft TIF plan is just a draft; it can be changed subject to Council’s review. There
are times when Springsted sends out a draft TIF plan that errors on the high side knowing the numbers can
be backed down. Administrator Joynes stated a draft plan does not indicate Council has approved it. Ms.
Huot stated it only means Council is considering it. If the letter goes out on April 8 the letter would state
that Council intends to consider calling a public hearing on April 11.
Mayor Zerby stated he would prefer that the numbers in the draft TIF plan be closer to what is expected
when it is initially sent out. He expressed he is very uncomfortable about sending out a letter on behalf of
the City indicating this is what Council is thinking when Council has not discussed it yet.
Councilmember Siakel asked if Springsted was here on behalf of the City or Oppidan. Ms. Huot responded
on behalf of the City and noted that Springsted is the City’s financial advisor and represents the City and
its interests. She noted for Springsted she works on the majority of TIF districts for municipalities. It only
represents public sector clients; it does not represent any private sector clients.
Siakel stated her greatest concern is the aggressive timeline yet Council has not discussed this. From her
vantage point it is like there is a conclusion before Council yet Council has not discussed where it wants to
go. She recommended Council have a much more robust conversation before agreeing to the proposed
timeline.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she was the Council Liaison to the Planning Commission when there was
a public hearing on the concept and development plans for Oppidan’s proposed project. There were some
issues with what was proposed. It is not a cut and dried project. She envisions Council having serious
discussions about the proposed project.
Administrator Joynes stated the schedule will be revised to so that the impact letters and draft TIF plan are
not sent to the County and School District until April 12 or later. Other dates will be changed accordingly.
By that time there will have been a determination if the request satisfies the but/for test. There would also
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2016
Page 6 of 7
be an idea of the magnitude of the Oppidan’s request. That would add a couple of weeks to the schedule.
Mayor Zerby stated he thought that is the direction Council wants staff to move forward with.
Ms. Huot asked if Council would be comfortable with the County Commissioner receiving the notification
letter on March 29. Or does Council want that to be held until it has had further discussion.
There was Council consensus to wait on everything.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he was sensitive to how much Council was going to review and approve
before the Planning Commission reviews the information and makes a recommendation. He does not want
to usurp its responsibilities. He then stated that based on the presentation the City is being asked to approve
a request for approximately $2.5 million in TIF assistance. He asked how solid that amount is. Ms. Huot
stated Springsted has almost completed its review of Oppidan’s pro forma. Once it is determined that TIF
assistance would be appropriate then a determination needs to be made about how much assistance is
needed. That needs to be discussed with staff.
Administrator Joynes explained WSB & Associates had been asked to estimate the cost to extend City
watermain. The City is also going to research what needs to be done to the soils. He reminded Council that
Excelsior originally said the project site could be connected its watermain. The project cost estimate at that
time included a cost to do that. Excelsior reversed its position on that. The cost to extend Shorewood
watermain is significantly more. There is a lot of fill on the site that would not support the project that
needs to be addressed. TIF assistance is being asked for to cover that cost.
Councilmember Woodruff asked if there would be any value in again asking Excelsior about extending its
watermain. Administrator Joynes noted that the Excelsior City Manager has told him that Excelsior is not
interested in doing that because it does not have the capacity or time to do so. Councilmember Siakel stated
to extend Shorewood watermain will cost close to $1 million; that is a lot more than to extend Excelsior
watermain.
Shannon Rusk, with Oppidan, explained when Oppidan representatives first met with Excelsior
representatives Oppidan was assured that Excelsior would provide the project site with water. Oppidan
moved forward with project cost estimates with that in mind. Just before Oppidan was going to come
before the Shorewood Planning Commission Oppidan received a call from Excelsior telling Oppidan it had
changed its mind. At that time Oppidan stopped the project. Oppidan met with Engineer Hornby and talked
about extending Shorewood watermain. The TIF assistance amounts are based on the costs it received from
a general contractor. She clarified the approximate $900,000 in TIF assistance being asked for to extend
watermain is the cost to extend Shorewood watermain minus the cost to extend Excelsior watermain. The
soil work number is the incremental cost over what was included in its original project costs.
Mayor Zerby asked Attorney Keane if this would be deserving of having an executive session about. Keane
responded yes. Zerby asked if the other members of Council they wanted to discuss this in an executive
session. Siakel and Sundberg acknowledged they would support doing that.
In response to a comment from Councilmember Woodruff, Ms. Huot explained that typically when
Springsted reviews these types of projects it looks at a 10-year operating pro forma both with and without
TIF assistance and with and without the extra project costs to find out what the rate of return would be.
There are assumptions made for at the end of the ten years (e.g.; the sale of the property even thought that
might not be what actually happens). Oppidan has determined there are some extraordinary costs
associated with its proposed project.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2016
Page 7 of 7
Councilmember Woodruff asked if staff has considered if there is anything else the City would like to do in
conjunction with this project. Administrator Joynes staff anticipates extending the Shorewood watermain to
the 22 properties that currently get their water from Excelsior. Woodruff clarified he was talking about
infrastructure projects such as trails, road changes, intersection modifications and so forth. Joynes stated
staff has not fully discussed that.
Councilmember Sundberg stated traffic is a very big issue in the area around the project site. Administrator
Joynes stated that conversation is part of the normal planning discussion. Sundberg stated Oppidan’s
proposed development is going to drive the timeline.
Mayor Zerby thanked Ms. Huot for coming this evening.
3. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of March 28,
2016, at 6:57 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#2B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2016 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Siakel, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Attorney Keane; City
Administrator Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of
Public Works Brown; and, City Engineer Hornby
Absent: Councilmember Labadie
B. Review Agenda
Sundberg moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Joint Work Session Minutes, March 14, 2016
Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Joint Work Session Minutes of March 14,
2016, as presented. Motion passed 3/0/1 with Woodruff abstaining due to his absence at the meeting.
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2016
Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 14,
2016, as presented. Motion passed 3/0/1 with Woodruff abstaining due to his absence at the meeting.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Siakel moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and
Adopting the Resolution Therein.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
B. Professional Services Agreement for Water Supply Plan
C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 16-020, “A Resolution Approving Plans and
Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids 2016 Crackfill and Seal Coat
Project, City Project 16-01.”
Motion passed 4/0.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2016
Page 2 of 15
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Senator David Osmek Report on Activities
Mayor Zerby welcomed Minnesota Senator David Osmek District 33 who was present to give an update
on legislative activities.
Senator Osmek noted this is his annual visit to the Shorewood Council. He visits each of the Council’s in
District 33 annually. He stated the legislature will be back in session tomorrow at noon.
Senator Osmek explained he has a bill titled a Digital Right to Repair that will be discussed by the Energy
and Environment Committee tomorrow. The bill was brought to him by constituents. There are a lot of
small secondary markets for electronics that fix or refurbish the electronics that are being disposed of.
There is an organization called Ocean Tech located in the City of Eden Prairie. Ocean Tech takes network
servers and many other pieces of electronic equipment from companies and refurbishes them and then
sells them to organizations such as a school district. Some manufacturers are putting proprietary software
and hardware into the servers which in turn makes it difficult or impossible to repurpose the servers.
Repurposing servers keeps them out of landfills. Repurposed electronics provide cost effective
alternatives to school districts and other smaller employers that cannot afford state of the art servers.
There was no tax bill for last year; hopefully, there will be one this legislative session. There was a lights
on transportation bill. Cities with populations less than 5,000 did not get any municipal state aid to help
pay for roadway maintenance. The legislature created a fund for small cities so they could get some state
aid. He was very supportive of that provision in the transportation bill.
Last year he had his first bill on the floor; Colton’s Law. It dealt with a criminal who got out of custody
who was not electronically monitored. The criminal ended up killing a person. The bill requires that a
person cannot be let out of custody unless the electronic monitor is working.
He has two priorities for this session. One is for the section of Highway 12 from the City of Wayzata to
the City of Delano. There have been an inordinate amount of traffic fatalities on that section of roadway.
There are two bills that are dual pathing to deal with that. One bill is to get a general appropriation to deal
with three problems. One is a jersey wall down the Highway 12 bypass which goes through the Cities of
Long Lake and Orono as well as corrections for the intersections Country Road 90 and Highway 12 and
also County Road 92 and Highway 12. The appropriations bill has made its way through the
Transportation Committee. The other path being taken is into the bonding bill. Whichever bill makes it to
the Governor’s desk first wins.
The other bill he is working on is for the bonding money for the Excelsior Commons. If that is not
successful this bonding year and if he gets reelected this year, then in 2017 he will look more into a local
option sales tax. The Commons is used as a regional park but it is not part of the Three Rivers Park
District (TRPD).
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2016
Page 3 of 15
Senator Osmek offered to entertain questions and hear comments from Council.
Councilmember Sundberg thanked Senator Osmek for his service to Shorewood and the District 33
community. She encouraged him to pay attention to Highway 7. There is a lot of development being done
near Highway 7. There are a lot of issues directly on Highway 7 and Highway 41 particularly near the
school. A child was hit by a vehicle last fall. Senator Osmek stated the crossing near the school has been
improved; there is a HAWK system there now. He noted that he is willing to champion additional state
investments if needed. Sundberg stated the population out in this western area continues to increase. The
congestion continues to build.
Councilmember Siakel stated the City is collaborating with the TRPD on an overpass for the Lake
Minnetonka Regional LRT Trail at County Road 19. That Trail feeds activity in Excelsior. The overpass
would improve safety in that area. The City would appreciate anything Senator Osmek could do to help
bring that overpass to fruition. It is important to all communities in the Lake Minnetonka area. Senator
Osmek stated he thought the City of Mound received some bonding money for a trail crossing in Mound.
He noted that he would go to bat for some bonding for the LRT trail overpass crossing. He stated the
Governor has proposed a $1.4 million bonding bill and noted he does not think he could support a bill for
that much money. He could advocate for a capital investment for the overpass at some time.
Siakel then stated the state tax exemption for joint powers organizations is important to the South Lake
community. The two public safety organizations for those cities operate under joint powers agreements
(JPAs). Senator Osmek stated he has spoken with the Chair and Second Chair for taxes about that. Those
two individuals realized they made a mistake by not including JPAs in the bill that exempted
municipalities. That exemption is in the tax bill that came off of the senate floor and it is now in the
conference committee stage.
Mayor Zerby noted that only one of the 14 cities around Lake Minnetonka has a population greater than
10,000; that is the City of Minnetonka. He stated he appreciates Senator Osmek looking at that
community of 14 cities on a more regional level. Senator Osmek stated at the state level legislatures need
to be supportive of cities working together to combine services and working together cooperatively
because that would save the taxpayers money. Zerby stated a little more nudging at the state level would
help. Councilmember Siakel stated that would be very helpful.
Councilmember Woodruff stated it is his understanding that some of the legislation being considered
includes language that would change the effective date for the exemption for JPAs retroactively back to
January 1, 2016. He asked Senator Osmek if that is his understanding. Senator Osmek noted the effective
date for the JPAs got pushed out a year when it should not have been.
Mayor Zerby stated the speed limit is going up to 55 miles per hour (mph) from either 45 or 50 mph on
the stretch in Excelsior and Shorewood. He hopes there will be a concerted effort made to ensure drivers
adhere to the speed limit. Senator Osmek stated if there ends up being a problem with people driving at
excessive speeds then he along with others need to be in contact with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT).
Councilmember Siakel stated the Shorewood Council sees it as a problem but she is not sure others view
it that way. She noted she does not want there to have to be a lot of fatalities on that roadway before any
agency takes action. She stated there are a significant number of houses being built in Woodland Cove in
the City of Minnetrista. There are a number of developments proposed for in Shorewood. With the speed
limit being increased on Highway 7 the traffic issues on that roadway will be exacerbated.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2016
Page 4 of 15
Senator Osmek stated maybe there is a need for another light on Highway 7.
Mayor Zerby thanked Senator Osmek for coming.
7. PARKS
A. Report on the March 22, 2016, Park Commission Meeting
Park Commission Chair Mangold reported on matters considered and actions taken at the March 22,
2016, Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
B. Badger Park Playfield Bid Results
Director Nielsen explained that staff has been working with three vendors to get quality bids for
constructing an artificial turf playfield in Badger Park. The most responsive vendor has been FieldTurf.
Its proposal was far more detailed and realistic than the proposal from AstroTurf. The City never received
a bid from SprintTurf. AstroTruf had been asked to submit a revised bid that included the needed soil
work; the City never received one. During its March 22, 2016, meeting the Park Commission
recommended moving forward with the project for an amount not to exceed $650,000. Since that meeting
the City received a revised bid from FieldTurf (a copy of it was included in the meeting packet) for
$635,160. FieldTurf took out the costs for engineering work the City was doing. The funds pledged for
the project from various sources totaled $525,000. That left a shortfall of $110,160. The Minnetonka
Lacrosse Association made a decision to increase its pledge to $180,000 from $150,000 thereby reducing
the shortfall to $80,160. He recommended adjusting the Park Commissions not to exceed
recommendation to $640,000.
Councilmember Siakel asked if the bid included any other items that duplicate what the City was doing.
Director Nielsen stated he anticipated there would be some fine tuning that would result in minimal
savings. For example, the bid includes netting for all the way across the proposed field. Not much would
be needed on the south side.
Siakel noted that she supports moving forward with this project even though the cost to the City is higher
than was anticipated. She stated the effort on this to date has been a great partnership between City staff,
the Park Commission, the Lacrosse Association, the Football Association, and Hennepin County Youth
Sports Grant Program. The City’s investment in the field would be good. She then stated the proposed
field would be a good first step in giving Badger Park a facelift.
Mayor Zerby noted he had met with staff and representatives from the Lacrosse Association last week. He
expressed appreciation for the Association’s willingness to increase its pledge by $30,000 and that would
primarily cover the extra play field. He clarified that the artificial turf playfield would not be for just
lacrosse.
Zerby asked if staff has contacted the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to find out if a
permit was needed from the MCWD. Director Nielsen responded staff has not. He explained staff was not
sure if FieldTurf would do that of the City would. It has determined the City would do that. Staff hopes
the MCWD will view it as basically a filtration system; the same way staff does. The water will flow
through the turf, down through two feet of sand and then through rock before it goes to the pond.
Engineer Hornby stated he thought all that would be needed is an erosion control permit.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2016
Page 5 of 15
Zerby stated quite a bit of soil would be moved as part of the project. He assumes a permit would be
needed for that as well.
Councilmember Woodruff stated in previous discussions about this project it had been mentioned that
special equipment would be needed to maintain the turf. Director Nielsen noted that equipment is
included in FieldTurf’s bid. He also noted that FieldTurf representatives have indicated they would be
willing to train people on how to use that equipment.
Siakel moved, Sundberg seconded, directing staff to work with FieldTurf on a cooperative purchase
agreement for an artificial turf playfield in Badger Park for an amount not to exceed $640,000.
Motion passed 4/0.
8. PLANNING
A. Report on the March 15, 2016, Planning Commission meeting.
Planning Commission Chair Davis reported on matters considered and actions taken at the March 15,
2016, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
B. Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space Over 1200 Square Feet
Applicant: Bradley Hauser
Location: 5640 Covington Road
Director Nielsen explained Bradley Hauser is building a new home with an attached garage on his
property located at 5640 Covington Road. The floor area of the attached garage for the home, when
combined with an old pump house structure near the lake, exceeds the 1200 square feet in floor area
allowable for accessory space. That requires a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) pursuant to Section
1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) of the Shorewood Zoning Code.
The request complies with all of the criteria in Zoning Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) of the Zoning
Code for granting a C.U.P. for accessory space over 1200 square feet. He reviewed how the applicant’s
plan complies with the criteria.
1. The total area of accessory space (1359 square feet) does not exceed the floor area above grade of
the new home (3422 square feet – main level).
2. The total area of accessory space does not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot size for the R-
1A/S zoning district (.10 x 40,000 = 4000 square feet).
3. The old pump house is nonconforming with respect to its setback from the lake. The location of
the building is mitigated somewhat by the fact that the building is tucked into the hillside. The
applicants would use the building for some storage and for irrigation.
The applicants have cited the provisions of Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4)(e) as justification for
retaining the old pump house. In 2007, the City adopted an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan setting forth its intention to recognize and preserve special structures in Shorewood. This
was followed by an amendment to the zoning regulations, providing for the preservation of
certain nonconforming structures that have historical, architectural, or cultural significance. Mr.
Hauser believes the pump house is consistent with the criteria for keeping such structures.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2016
Page 6 of 15
a. The applicant has submitted an aerial photo dating back to 1956 which shows the pump
house.
b. The pump house is in good condition. Some cosmetic work on the building will be necessary.
It is recommended that, as a condition of approval, the building be maintained in some sort of
earth tone color.
c. Mr. Hauser’s application states: “The pump house is visible in historic pictures. Likely used
to draw water from the lake to supply adjacent homes. Adds a historical character to the
property. Removing the building could be more disruptive through erosion or other as the
pump house is built into the sloping hill”.
4. The issue of architectural compatibility between the accessory and principal structures is
somewhat of a moot point. The attached garage is an integral part of the home. The pump house
is discreetly tucked into the hillside and separated from the house by distance, grade and
vegetation.
Nielsen noted the Planning Commission held a public hearing for this request during its March 15, 2016,
meeting and unanimously recommend approval of the C.U.P.
Councilmember Sundberg asked if any neighbors were in opposition to keeping the pump house. Director
Nielsen stated one neighbor expressed her support for it approving the C.U.P. and indicated the pump
house had been there for many years. That neighbor sees the garage portion and would be most affected.
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 16-021, “A Resolution Granting a
Conditional Use Permit for Additional Accessory Space to Bradley Hauser, 5640 Covington Road.”
Motion passed 4/0.
C. Approve Concept and Development Stage Plan of a Planned Unit Development for
Shorewood Senior Living
Applicant: Oppidan Investment Company
Location: 23075 State Highway 7 and 6020 and 6050 Chaska Road
Director Nielsen explained Oppidan Investment Company, located in the City of Excelsior, has purchased
the properties located at 6020 and 6050 Chaska Road and 23075 State Highway 7. Oppidan proposes to
develop them as a 105-unit senior housing project (Shorewood Senior Living) consisting of independent
living (28 units), assisted living (52 units) and memory care living (25 units). It would be processed as a
planned unit development (PUD) district as required by the City Ordinance (essentially using R-C
standards).
The three parcels of land contain approximately 3.77 acres in total. The Highway 7 parcel is occupied by
the Control House realty building and is zoned R-C, Residential Commercial. The two southerly parcels
along Chaska Road are occupied by single-family homes, zoned R-2A, Single-Family and Two-Family
Residential. Land use and zoning surrounding the site are as follows:
North/Northwest: State Highway 7
South/Southwest: Single-family and two-family residential; zoned R-2A
East: Single-family residential; zoned R-1C; Single-Family Residential
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2016
Page 7 of 15
The property has varying topography, dropping approximately 25 feet from the southeast corner of the
site to the northerly end near the ditch for Highway 7.
Late last year Oppidan requested a zoning text amendment regarding density and parking requirements
for elderly housing. The density was increased from 10 units per acre to 12 units per acre, assisted living
units was as half units for the purpose of calculating density, and the parking requirement for elderly
housing was reduced from two spaces per unit to 1.5 spaces per unit. Memory care had its own formula
for calculating density and parking.
The original application for this senior living housing included a request for a zoning text amendment to
increase density to 15 units per acre because of issues with the soil and the cost to extend City water to
the site. The application calculated density based on units per acre. Shorewood’s Code is based on units
per 40,000 square feet. After recalculating the density it brought the project density to 13.1 units per
40,000 square feet. That is a little higher than 12 units per acre. But, there is a provision in the PUD that
allows a project to go to as much as 10 percent over that. Therefore, a text amendment for density is not
required for this proposed project.
The maximum amount of allowable impervious surface in the R-C district is 66 percent of the total site
area. With special drainage improvements that treat runoff, that amount can go to 75 percent with a
C.U.P. The site plan indicates a total of 52 percent impervious surface.
The required number of parking spaces is 120 (including proof of parking – it would have to show where
an additional one-half space per unit could be located on the site should parking become a problem in the
future). The site plan shows 122 spaces.
The site plan is extremely tight. It makes landscaping and buffering along Chaska Road extremely
challenging. The drainage in the area is handled by a ditch system and it takes up some of the right-of-
way (ROW). That precludes any type of effective berm in front of the property. There is room for
vegetation.
Staff’s initial recommendation in the staff report to the Planning Commission was to continue its public
hearing. Prior to the Commission’s March 15 meeting the applicant submitted a revised landscape plan.
The revised landscape plan was a drastic improvement when compared to the original plan. It addressed a
number of issues staff had with the plan. The applicant now proposes a coniferous hedge (a lot of it would
be juniper) along the entire front of the property that would grow to grow to about 4 – 5 in width and
height. That would help screen the row of parking that would face Chaska Road. A landscape berm of
deciduous and coniferous trees is also being proposed for the open area. It would serve to some extent as
a sound barrier from Highway 7. It would also block Highway 7 for residents along Chaska Road. The
applicant has to protect the trees outside of its property.
The plan shows 2.5-inch caliper replacement trees. The City’s Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy
requires 3-inch caliper replacement trees.
The trees being proposed for along Chaska Road are swamp white oak. They can grow to have a 40 – 50
foot high canopy on them. They could ultimately cause issues with the power lines. Staff recommends the
applicant consider another type of tree. Whatever trees are planted have to respect the power lines in order
to avoid a situation where the power company trims a lot of the growth on one side of the trees.
Staff intends to continue to work with the applicant’s consultants to refine the new landscape plan as part
of the final plans for the project.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2016
Page 8 of 15
Grading, drainage, erosion control and utilities are addressed in the City Engineer’s report dated March 7,
2016. The most significant issue with respect to utilities is the extraordinary expense that would be
incurred to get city water to the subject property. Were it not for the soil conditions on the property and
the extension of watermain the developer would not request tax increment financing (TIF) assistance. An
advantage of doing that is it would provide city water to residents on the south side of Highway 7. The
original plan was to get water from the Excelsior water system immediately north of the property.
Excelsior originally indicated it would do that. It reversed its position due to what it specified as system
constraints.
The proposed building complies with the height limitations for the R-C District – three stories/35 feet.
The small exception to that is the northerly elevation on the end of the project where the underground
parking entrance is. That is a little higher than 35 feet high. That is quite acceptable under a PUD. That
area faces north and to Highway 7 and not toward residential properties. The applicant proposes some
additional landscaping in that area to mitigate that.
Nielsen noted staff recommends approval of the Concept Stage and Development Stage plans subject to
the items raised in the WSB & Associate’s engineering report dated March 7, 2016, being resolved as part
of the final plans and staff continuing to work with the applicant’s consultants to refine the landscape
plan. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a 3/2 vote. Two of the Commissioners were
concerned about the market for this proposed type of housing product. The applicant intends to address
that with Council.
Shannon Rusk, with Oppidan, stated Oppidan is the developer and owner of the property. She noted that
Susan Farr with Ebenezer was present. Ebenezer has about 75 projects throughout Minnesota and
Oppidan is very fortunate to have Ebenezer as its operator for this project. Vicki Vandell with Loucks and
the engineer for this project was also present.
Ms. Rusk stated Oppidan does not take the approach of build it and they will come. It hires a third party
to conduct a market study. In this case it was Viewpoint Consulting Group. It does work all over the
country for this type of project. The Planning Commission raised concern about there being enough
demand for the senior living products currently existing and proposed for this market. She did not have
the market study with her at that time.
Ms. Rusk explained when a market study is done a primary market area is defined which is typically
within a two mile area of the proposed project site. The area outside of the primary area is evaluated to
determine what other senior living projects there are that would compete with what Oppidan is proposing.
The study determined the unmet demand in this particular market area is 260 units. As a conservative
measure Oppidan takes 60 percent of that number which comes to 156 units. When the owner of BeeHive
Homes spoke at the public hearing on this project he said there is an unmet demand for this type of
product in the market area. Oppidan is proposing a 105-unit project; it cannot build a 156-unit project on
the site. Oppidan looked at several sites in Shorewood and there are not any that would accommodate 156
units.
Councilmember Siakel stated she thought BeeHive Homes, the potential The Waters of Excelsior senior
living project and Oppidan’s project would exceed 260 units. Ms. Rusk stated the 260 units contemplates
the BeeHive Homes project and contemplates existing competition today. The 260 does not contemplate
the possible The Waters project. But, Oppidan’s units plus The Waters units would not exceed 260 units.
Siakel stated she thought there are more projects proposed and when those units are added in the total new
units would exceed 260. Siakel noted she has not seen the market study.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2016
Page 9 of 15
Ms. Rusk explained there is section in the market study that contemplates all of the existing products and
upcoming products. Existing products listed BeeHive Homes, the Sunrise senior living facility,
SummerWood of Chanhassen, Lake Minnetonka Shores, the Deephaven Woods facility, Elim Shores,
Beacon Hill and The Glenn. Depending on the distance from the primary area different factors are applied
to the number of units. Factors are also applied to proposed units depending on distance. Sometimes
Oppidan and other developers decide not to move forward with a project because of the results of the
market study. Oppidan and Ebenezer both believe there is a need for the Shorewood Senior Living
facility. Ebenezer is paid based on revenue. She noted that Oppidan has spent a lot of money on this
project to date.
Councilmember Woodruff stated if construction began in June of this year he asked when the first
occupancy would occur. Ms. Rusk stated it takes 14 months to build a facility and noted that spring is the
ideal time to open. She explained that when Oppidan first approached the City the facility would have
opened in the spring of 2017. At that time Excelsior was going allow the facility to connect to its
watermain. Just before coming before Shorewood the City of Excelsior changed its mind.
Councilmember Sundberg asked Ms. Rusk to talk about the amount of traffic that would be generated
because of the facility. Ms. Rusk explained that for each 24 hour period there would be approximately 25
employees who would work various shifts. They would be coming and going throughout that period.
There would be no drivers living in the memory care units. About six trips per week are generated by
those living in independent living. Engineer Hornby stated the engineers used the Trip Generation Manual
and based on the criteria came up with 298 vehicles per day. Ms. Rush noted that is higher than what
Ebenezer sees at facilities it operates. She stated residents living in the proposed facility will require
higher levels of care. There are food deliveries twice a week and those deliveries are made via the
underground parking entrance. Trash removal is also done down there.
Councilmember Sundberg asked about the anticipated number of emergency calls to the facility. Ms. Farr
stated based on information from the Deephaven Woods facility there are an average of two per month
and she noted there is a registered nurse at the facility around the clock.
Ms. Rusk noted there would be a full line of amenities in the facility. There would be a private dining
room for families to dine in. She explained that statistically 65 percent of residents living in its facility
come from the primary market and 35 percent come from outside of it. As those statistics get refined the
35 percent are typically because they have a tie to the community. She stated she hopes people view the
proposed facility as a nice amenity for the baby boomers as they continue to age. She noted Oppidan and
Ebenezer think there is a need for 260 units over time.
Director Nielsen explained that during the public hearing residents expressed concern about the existing
speed of traffic and the volume of traffic on Chaska Road. They also expressed concern about lighting.
The City has an ordinance which regulates places that are open 24 hours a day. If they are open between
10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. there cannot be any off street loading during that time. Service trucks cannot
come during that same time period. The outdoor lighting has to be doused down to what is reasonably
necessary to keep the place open. That would likely be at the entry area and some minimal parking
lighting near the entry area. That would be specified in the Final Plan Stage plan for the PUD.
Mayor Zerby stated that Council receives copies of minutes for Planning Commission meetings. It has
received a letter from one resident. He then stated he would open the floor to residents in the audience if
they would like to comment on issues not already raised and he asked that they keep their comments to
three minutes.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2016
Page 10 of 15
Mike Marr, 6015 Chaska Road, stated he hoped Council reviewed the letter he sent. He explained when
he purchased his property in 1981 there was no office building in the neighborhood. Allowing an office
building required the property to be rezoned and it had to be approved by the then Council. At that time
residents were told the edge of the parking lot was the end of commercial zoning. The rest would stay
residential. Now that is being moved down further. He asked what would stop someone from later saying
they need 260 units there and therefore would like to purchase the next three residential lots. He stated if
this project is approved it would change the neighborhood.
He explained the traffic on Chaska Road is horrendous. The population in the City of Chanhassen has
exploded. Highway 7 was redesigned with a slip lane onto Chaska Road. Drivers do not slow their speed
when they exit on to the roadway. Increasing the speed limit on Highway 7 to 55 miles per hour (mph)
will make that problem worse. There will be senior residents turning on to the roadway which already
carries an enormous amount of traffic. In his letter he suggested closing that exit off of Highway 7 to
Chaska Road.
He suggested leaving the zoning as it is for the two residential properties. He stated he has heard people
say that no one would ever buy those two properties because they are right along Highway 7. He
explained at the other end of Chaska Road four new huge houses were built near Highway 41. He stated
he thought people would build on the two residential properties.
He asked the members of Council how they would feel if someone proposed building such a facility
across from their driveway. There would be lights on all night long and ambulances coming to the site
any time of the day or night.
Mr. Marr asked Council to consider if what is being proposed is appropriate to put in that neighborhood.
He thanked Council for its time.
Sandra Clapp, 6050 Chaska Road, noted she called the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department
(SLMPD) to ask if it had received any complaints about traffic speeds from anyone in the neighborhood.
It had not. She stated living in the triangle between the two roads has not been pleasant. She does not
think it is a very nice place for single-family housing. There had been townhouses built on the lot next to
hers and that project went into some type of bankruptcy. What were built to be $750,000 houses sold for
$300,000. She then stated there is a two year wait for the senior housing apartments in Chanhassen. She
went on to state from her perspective the proposed senior living facility is the best type of housing for that
area. She explained her mother hates her apartment because she looks out to trees. She thought her mother
and other seniors would like to look out at a highway. She stated about 4 – 5 years ago a speed limit sign
was put up along Chaska Road. She noted that no one has requested extra patrolling from the SLMPD.
Sue Hnastchenko, 26375 Peach Circle, noted this topic is very dear to her. She explained that she has two
elderly parents that used to live behind her that needed senior housing. They loved living in Shorewood
and going to the Southshore Center to play cards. Unfortunately, there was nowhere in Shorewood for
them to live. They had to move to Chanhassen; they moved to SummerWood and are happy there. She
would have loved to have something like what is being proposed for them. They could have lived a lot
closer to her. They could have continued to see their friends and go to the Center. She encouraged people
to accept there is an aging population in the area. She stated there are not a lot of options around Lake
Minnetonka for aging seniors. She noted she would like there to be a place for her and her family to go to.
Mayor Zerby stated that based on what he hears from residents almost every day he thought the project is
needed. It is difficult to find that type of housing available at an affordable price point. The price point on
the potential The Waters project is going to be on the higher end. He then stated this Council is very
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2016
Page 11 of 15
dedicated to trying to mitigate traffic issues when it is aware of them. Council needs to assess the traffic
issues independent of whether or not this project moves forward. The project provides the impetus to do
something as soon as possible. He noted he supports what has been proposed and he thanked the
developer for improving the screening around the site and addressing the lighting issues.
Councilmember Sundberg noted she has conflicting thoughts about what is being proposed. She stated
she likes the developer and operator. The plans are beautiful. But, she has concerns about wedging the
facility into a residential neighborhood. The site is so tight there is little room to buffer the facility from
residents in the area with anything other than a hedge. She could be more comfortable with what has been
proposed if there could be more of a buffer around the site. But, increasing the buffer may not be possible
because of the amount of land available. Having the facility there will result in there being an increase in
traffic with a lot of the increase being senior drivers. She noted she agrees there is a need for this type of
senior living housing in the community. But, she stated she needs to hear more about the facility being a
good neighbor to the residents living across from the facility.
In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Director Nielsen stated there is not much grade
change along Chaska Road. The houses on the south end sit a little bit below Chaska Road and those on
the other end sit above it. Woodruff stated it looks to him like the elevation from the roadway up to the
parking lot would be 10 feet. Ms. Rusk confirmed that. Woodruff stated if a person was standing on the
roadway would they be looking up. Nielsen stated that would be true from Highway 7. If looking from
Chaska Road a person would basically be looking at the first floor. Woodruff stated a person would be
looking at a row of parking.
Councilmember Woodruff stated when traveling Highway 7 and north and south on Highway 41 from
Highway 7 during the weekday around 1:00 P.M. there is an incredible amount of commercial large truck
traffic that travels southwest on Chaska Road and then onto south Highway 41. He assumes that
commercial traffic is using Chaska Road as a cut through to avoid the traffic light at Highway 7 and
Highway 41. Chaska Road was not built to carry that heavy traffic. Something needs to be done to stop
that cut through traffic.
Councilmember Siakel noted her greatest concern is the long-term impact on the community. She agreed
that there is a need for senior living housing. She stated she is familiar with Ebenezer and she has no
problem with it being the operator of the facility. It does a quality job. She noted she does not buy into
there being a need for 260 units. The community has a population of about 12,000 residents. She
expressed concern about possibly overbuilding senior housing for the future. Some of the things being
asked of the City may be detrimental in the future. She agrees that there is a traffic issue along Chaska
Road. She asked if a traffic study should be done. She questioned if it would be possible to close the exit
from Highway 7 to Chaska Road. She does not think it would be unreasonable to implement ways to
reduce the cut through traffic on Chaska Road. She expressed concern about the very aggressive timeline
for this proposed project. There needs to be enough time for Council to make good decisions for now and
for the future. She stated she understands that Oppidan has already made a financial investment in this
project. But, that cannot be her concern at this time. Her concern has to be about the wellbeing of the
community.
Mayor Zerby stated there is always residential housing near any commercial property. There are two
shopping centers near Highway 7 and both are surrounded by residential housing. When the CUB Foods
development was done the City implemented some traffic calming things. There is residential housing
near the public safety facility. He clarified The Waters project is not a given project. Excelsior gave in
conditional approval based on annexing the land that is located in Shorewood. The Oppidan project is in
front of Council.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2016
Page 12 of 15
Councilmember Siakel asked if Oppidan would proceed with its project without TIF assistance from the
Shorewood.
Attorney Keane explained Council is being asked to evaluate a land use application on the basis of the
land use compatibility, conformity to regulations, and conformity to the Comprehensive Plan. TIF
assistance with regard to watermain extension and poor soils mitigation is a separate decision that Council
will have to make in the future. That would be more of a business and policy decision; it would be
separate from the land use application. The market for the use proposed should not have any bearing on
the land use application. The market could come into play when making a policy investment decision.
Keane stated from a planner perspective the project would be a good buffer between a major state
highway and the single-family residential area off of the highway. It would be a noise buffer and a visual
buffer. The project would not have a lot of adverse external impacts like a manufacturing facility would
have.
Councilmember Woodruff stated when he was the Planning Commission liaison he had the opportunity to
look at the market study and he thought it was quite comprehensive. He thought it was done with sound
math and science based on who conducted it and therefore he does not argue with the results.
Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 16-022, “A Resolution
Granting Concept and Development Stage Plan Approval for the Shorewood Senior Living
(Oppidan) Planned Unit Development” subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and
engineering report.
Councilmember Sundberg stated the traffic issue is a high priority for Council to address. She then stated
she wants to see a lot more detail in Final Plan Stage plans. She wants to be more comfortable that what is
proposed would accommodate the neighborhood. She noted she thought the concept is beautiful. She also
noted that she cautiously seconded the motion.
Councilmember Siakel stated after hearing Attorney Keane’s comments she would with great hesitancy
vote in favor of this.
Mayor Zerby stated he thought the proposed land use is appropriate. And, there is a need for senior living
housing. The developer has spent on lot of time and money on this project to date and the project shows a
lot of promise. He noted that Council has already decided to have an executive session to discuss TIF
assistance.
Motion passed 4/0.
D. Minnetonka Country Club Grading Permit
Director Nielsen stated it would have been preferable to have the Phase 1 final plat approved for the
Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) planned unit development (PUD) before starting grading; that is not
the case. The applicant has submitted a final grading plan and requested an early grading permit. The
applicant has already complied with of the conditions of approval. It has obtained “no further action”
letters from the Department of Agriculture and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. It has also
received a permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) which is another condition of
approval. It needs approval from the City Engineer. The developer has signed the development
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2016
Page 13 of 15
agreement. The developer will have a $157,000 letter of credit delivered on March 29. That is for site
restoration if something goes awry with Phase 1.
Nielsen noted staff is recommending approval of the early grading permit subject to signing the grading
agreement and providing the letter of credit.
Mayor Zerby stated the grading agreement states the hours of operation shall be limited to those contained
in the adopted City Engineering Manual. He asked what those hours are. Engineer Hornby responded the
hours are 7:00 A.M. – 7:00 P.M. Monday – Friday, 9:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M. on Saturday and no work on
Sunday.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she noticed all of the trees that were taken down; there were a lot more
than she anticipated. Director Nielsen explained the number removed were consistent with the approved
plan. There is tree protection fencing around the trees that were to be saved. A number of the trees taken
out were where the road and utilities are going to go. There were some ash trees on the west that were
borderline that came out as well. He agreed that it was a drastic change to the site. He noted the tree
reforestation plan shows the developer planting over eight trees per acre.
Rick Packer, with Mattamy, stated after a lot of trees are removed the look is a shock to a developer as
well. Mattamy representatives spent days assessing the trees to see if more could be saved. One and one-
half days were spent putting up silt fence and tree protective fencing. More trees were saved than the plan
indicated. He noted that Brian Theis is the project manager for the entire project; he lives in the City of
Chaska and is a member of the Chaska Planning Commission. The MCC project would be his first stop in
the morning and the last in the afternoon. He offered to take any member of Council on a driving tour of
the site. He stated he thought the views of the open spaces from the houses will be fantastic. Once all of
those trees were removed it became apparent how hilly the site is.
Councilmember Woodruff asked if the soil remediation work has completed. Mr. Packer responded yes.
Woodruff asked what the extent of the grading would be. Mr. Packer stated the grading would be on the
Phase 1 portion of the site and the Phase 2 utility extension. In order to balance the dirt, the loop in the
center had to be done.
Mayor Zerby stated he was pleased to read that daily sweeping of the roadway would be required. He
asked if trucks would come to and leave from the site via County Road 19 to Highway 7. Engineer
Hornby reaffirmed they would leave the site on to Smithtown Road to County Road 19 to Highway 7.
Mr. Packer clarified no dirt would be moved during the early grading operation.
In response to a comment from Mayor Zerby, Mr. Packer clarified no wetlands would be filled in in this
phase but the wetland mitigation would be done. He stated wetland mitigation should be near acceptance
by the time the wetland on the northwest corner of the site gets filled in. He noted the MCWD has
approved what is going to be done.
Sundberg moved, Woodruff seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 16-023, “A Resolution
Authorizing City Administrator to Execute an Agreement Regarding Grading and Site Utility Work of
Phase 1 Minnetonka Country Club Planned Unit Development” as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2016
Page 14 of 15
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 stated the current plan is to start the grading of the Smithtown Road west sidewalk
extension the first week of May.
2. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Lift Station Relocation
Engineer Hornby explained the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) is going to replace
its Lift Station L18 located near Christmas Lake Road and Highway 7 just north of Third Avenue. At the
City’s request MCES will take possession of a parcel of land through the eminent domain process. MCES
is going to bid the project in the near future. The outlet pipe for Christmas Lake Road would be replaced
and it will run watermain to Third Avenue. He anticipates Council will consider a cooperative agreement
between the City and MCES sometime during the next month.
3. LRT Trail Crossing at County Road 19
Engineer Hornby stated staff recently received the most recent plan for improvements to the Lake
Minnetonka Regional LRT Trail crossing at County Road 19. He worked with the engineer for the City of
Tonka Bay on the review of it. Both of them have signed the title sheet for the project.
Director Brown stated staff continues to work with representatives from the Three Rivers Park District
(TRPD) and other agencies to try and move an overpass crossing project forward. Hennepin County has
acknowledged that there have been near miss issues at the at-grade crossing. The County understands the
Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon interim improvement must be done as a short-term measure.
Councilmember Woodruff asked if the area from the at-grade crossing on the west side of Country Road
19 to Manitou Park in Tonka Bay will be striped. Engineer Hornby stated he would check into that.
Other
Director Brown stated 7 beavers have been harvested from the Enchanted Lane area. Councilmember
Woodruff had expressed concern to staff that a limit has not been set about how many is enough. Staff
will draft a recommendation for Council’s consideration. The beaver harvester will now concentrate his
efforts on the Silver Lake area.
Brown then stated the seasonal weight restrictions are governed by the State. The State’s and Hennepin
County’s restrictions dovetail. If the State restrictions go off any earlier than May 1 staff will publish that
on the City’s website. In response to a comment from Mayor Zerby, Engineer Hornby stated most of the
heavy equipment for the grading portion of the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) project is on that site.
Mayor Zerby stated there had been discussion about creating a project page on the City’s website so
residents can go to a specific project and read what is going on with a project. Such a page could answer
questions residents might have so they do not have to ask members of Council. He would like the action
taken tonight on the MCC project to be put as an update. Councilmember Woodruff suggested that it
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 28, 2016
Page 15 of 15
include a comment that the number of trees removed was less than expected. Zerby suggested including a
copy of a simplified plan so residents know what to expect.
Administrator Joynes stated he, Attorney Keane and Director Nielsen met with the Excelsior City
Manager and City Attorney close to two weeks ago about The Waters in Excelsior Project and
negotiations about it. He expects to hear back from them soon. He will put that topic on the executive
session Council will have in the next few weeks.
Councilmember Woodruff asked how much time remains for the judge to decide on the summary
judgement for the Southshore Center case. Attorney Keane responded there are about 30 days left.
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Woodruff stated Metro Cities will hold its annual business meeting on April 21, 2016.
He will attend. The guest speaker will be Hamline University Professor David Schultz. He then stated the
League of Minnesota Cities annual conference is scheduled for June 14 – 17 and it will be held at the
Saint Paul RiverCentre. The cost to attend is $600. He personally does not think it is worth it to spend that
money to go. But, other members of Council may want to attend.
Councilmember Siakel explained she attended the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Board meeting on March
23. The 2015 audit findings were presented and the audit report was accepted. The Board approved a
$150 increase in the firefighters’ per-year-of-service pension benefit effective August 1, 2016. Chief
Gerber presented a 2015 Year in Review report. Mayor Zerby asked if there will be a discussion about the
replacement of a ladder truck this year. Administrator Joynes responded it will be discussed this year
during the 2017 budget process but it has no budget impact this year. Siakel stated the next thing the
Board will discuss is service delivery and staffing models. Chief Gerber is working on scheduling a work
session in May to discuss that.
Attorney Keane noted this year’s legislative session is very short. If Council has issues it would like to
convey to the City’s representatives now is the time to do so.
Councilmember Sundberg stated the Star Tribune Newspaper published an article recently regarding
municipalities hiring lobbyists and spending government money to do so. She thought the article was
“total poppycock”.
12. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of March 28,
2016, at 8:54 P.M. Motion passed P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Scott Zerby, Mayor
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
® #3A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood nib Meeting Item Regular Meeting
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Title/Subject: Verified Claims
Meeting Date: April 11, 2016
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.
62438-62405 &ACH 24,159.92
Pending 62441-62469 &ACH 393,993.58
Total Claims $418,153.50
We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending April 3,2016.
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.
Payroll
G/L Distribution Report
User: Mnguyen C!Batch: 00001.04.2016-PR-04042016 City Of
CITY OF SHOREWOOD Shorewood
Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description
FUND 101 General Fund
101-00-1010-0000 0.00 43,903.43 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
101-13-4101-0000 6,267.39 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-13-4103-0000 384.00 0.00 PART-TIME
101-13-4121-0000 470.08 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-13-4122-0000 461.85 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-13-4131-0000 1,088.00 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
101-13-4151-0000 59.29 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
101-15-4101-0000 4,394.33 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-15-4121-0000 329.57 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-15-4122-0000 318.57 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-15-4131-0000 500.88 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
101-15-4151-0000 18.86 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
101-18-4101-0000 5,184.00 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-18-4121-0000 388.79 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-18-4122-0000 397.93 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-18-4131-0000 855.80 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
101-18-4151-0000 33.45 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
101-24-4101-0000 4,006.29 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-24-4121-0000 300.48 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-24-4122-0000 258.72 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-24-4131-0000 500.00 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
101-24-4151-0000 25.73 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
101-32-4101-0000 6,858.30 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-32-4102-0000 44.33 0.00 OVERTIME
101-32-4105-0000 57.98 0.00 STREET PAGER PAY
101-32-4121-0000 522.04 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-32-4122-0000 549.11 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-32-4131-0000 1,812.10 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
101-32-4151-0000 309.38 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
101-33-4101-0000 22.73 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-33-4121-0000 1.70 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-33-4122-0000 1.55 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-33-4151-0000 0.25 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
101-52-4101-0000 4,633.74 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
PR-G/L Distribution Report(04/04/2016- 1:31 PM) Page 1
Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description
101-52-4121-0000 347.53 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-52-4122-0000 345.02 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-52-4131-0000 898.48 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
101-52-4151-0000 166.38 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
101-53-4101-0000 903.12 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-53-4121-0000 67.73 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-53-4122-0000 70.42 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-53-4131-0000 21.68 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
101-53-4151-0000 25.85 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total: 43,903.43 43,903.43
FUND 201 Southshore Center
201-00-1010-0000 0.00 1,641.86 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
201-00-4101-0000 781.00 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
201-00-4102-0000 223.65 0.00 OVERTIME
201-00-4103-0000 450.00 0.00 PART-TIME
201-00-4121-0000 58.57 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
201-00-4122-0000 93.84 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
201-00-4151-0000 34.80 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total: 1,641.86 1,641.86
FUND 601 Water Utility
601-00-1010-0000 0.00 7,242.57 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
601-00-4101-0000 5,283.59 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
601-00-4105-0000 173.94 0.00 WATER PAGER PAY
601-00-4121-0000 409.32 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
601-00-4122-0000 379.44 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
601-00-4131-0000 871.55 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
601-00-4151-0000 124.73 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total: 7,242.57 7,242.57
FUND 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility
611-00-1010-0000 0.00 7,915.04 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
611-00-4101-0000 5,687.06 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
611-00-4102-0000 151.45 0.00 OVERTIME
611-00-4105-0000 173.94 0.00 SEWER PAGER PAY
611-00-4121-0000 450.90 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
611-00-4122-0000 416.61 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
611-00-4131-0000 871.55 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
611-00-4151-0000 163.53 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
PR-G/L Distribution Report(04/04/2016- 1:31 PM) Page 2
Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description
FUND Total: 7,915.04 7,915.04
FUND 621 Recycling Utility
621-00-1010-0000 0.00 283.09 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
621-00-4101-0000 194.10 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
621-00-4121-0000 14.56 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
621-00-4122-0000 5.37 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
621-00-4131-0000 68.48 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
621-00-4151-0000 0.58 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total: 283.09 283.09
FUND 631 Storm Water Utility
631-00-1010-0000 0.00 1,394.12 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
631-00-4101-0000 1,120.29 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
631-00-4121-0000 84.04 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
631-00-4122-0000 80.09 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
631-00-4131-0000 96.56 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
631-00-4151-0000 13.14 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total: 1,394.12 1,394.12
FUND 700 Payroll Clearing Fund
700-00-1010-0000 62,380.11 0.00 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
700-00-2170-0000 0.00 29,526.90 GROSS PAYROLL CLEARING
700-00-2171-0000 0.00 7,717.32 HEALTH INSURANCE PAYABLE
700-00-2172-0000 0.00 4,055.77 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700-00-2173-0000 0.00 1,752.65 STATE WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700-00-2174-0000 0.00 6,757.04 FICA/MEDICARE TAX PAYABLE
700-00-2175-0000 0.00 6,431.27 PERA WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700-00-2176-0000 0.00 2,305.00 DEFERRED COMPENSATION
700-00-2177-0000 0.00 975.97 WORKERS COMPENSATION
700-00-2180-0000 0.00 441.87 LIFE INSURANCE
700-00-2182-0000 0.00 366.40 UNION DUES
700-00-2183-0000 0.00 2,049.92 HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT
FUND Total: 62,380.11 62,380.11
Report Total: 124,760.22 124,760.22
PR-G/L Distribution Report(04/04/2016- 1:31 PM) Page 3
Accounts Payable
b �
Check Detail
User: Mnguyen
Printed: 04/04/2016- 2:18PM
w city of
Shorewood
Check Number Check Date Amount
12-AFSCMF COUNCIL 5-UNION DUES Line Item Account
0 04/04/2016
Inv April-2016
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
04/04/2016 PR Batch 00001.04.2016 Union Dues 700-00-2182-0000 366.40
Inv April-2016 Total 366.40
0 Total: 366.40
12-AFSCME COUNCIL 5-UNION DUES Total: 366.40
5-EFTPS-FEDERAL W/H Line Item Account
0 04/04/2016
Inv 04042016
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
04/04/2016 PR Batch 00001.04.2016 Federal Income Tax 700-00-2172-0000 4,055.77
04/04/2016 PR Batch 00001.04.2016 FICA Employee Portion 700-00-2174-0000 2,738.13
04/04/2016 PR Batch 00001.04.2016 FICA Employer Portion 700-00-2174-0000 2,738.13
04/04/2016 PR Batch 00001.04.2016 Medicare Employee Portion 700-00-2174-0000 640.39
04/04/2016 PR Batch 00001.04.2016 Medicare Employer Portion 700-00-2174-0000 640.39
Inv 04042016 Total 10,812.81
0 Total: 10,812.81
5-EFTPS-FEDERAL W/H Total: 10,812.81
2-ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 Line Item Account
62439 04/04/2016
Inv 04042016
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
04/04/2016 PR Batch 00001.04.2016 Deferred Comp Flat Amount 700-00-2176-0000 2,305.00
Inv 04042016 Total 2,305.00
62439 Total: 2,305.00
2-ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 Total: 2,305.00
AP-Check Detail(4/4/2016- 2:18 PM) Page 1
Check Number Check Date Amount
11-MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Line Item Account
0 04/04/2016
Inv 04042016
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
04/04/2016 PR Batch 0000 1.04.2016 State Income Tax 700-00-2173-0000 1,752.65
Inv 04042016 Total 1,752.65
0 Total: 1,752.65
11-MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Total: 1,752.65
7-MINNESOTA LIFE Line Item Account
0 04/04/2016
Inv April-2016
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
04/04/2016 PR Batch 00001.04.2016 Life Insurance 700-00-2180-0000 425.87
Inv April-2016 Total 425.87
0 Total: 425.87
7-MINNESOTA LIFE Total: 425.87
10-NCPERS MINNESOTA Line Item Account
62440 04/04/2016
Inv April-2016
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
04/04/2016 PR Batch 00001.04.2016 PBRA Life 700-00-2180-0000 16.00
Inv April-2016 Total 16.00
62440 Total: 16.00
10-NCPERS MINNESOTA Total: 16.00
9-PERA Line Item Account
0 04/04/2016
Inv 04042016
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
04/04/2016 PR Batch 00001.04.2016 MN-PBRA Deduction 700-00-2175-0000 2,985.96
04/04/2016 PR Batch 00001.04.2016 MN PBRA Benefit Employer 700-00-2175-0000 3,445.31
Inv 04042016 Total 6,431.27
0 Total: 6,431.27
AP-Check Detail(4/4/2016- 2:18 PM) Page 2
Check Number Check Date Amount
9-PFRA Total: 6,431.27
1-WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Line Item Account
0 04/04/2016
Inv 04042016
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
04/04/2016 PR Batch 00001.04.2016 Health Savings Account 700-00-2183-0000 2,049.92
Inv 04042016 Total 2,049.92
0 Total: 2,049.92
1-WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Total: 2,049.92
Total: 24,159.92
AP-Check Detail(4/4/2016- 2:18 PM) Page 3
Accounts Payable
b �
Check Detail
User: Mnguyen
Printed: 04/06/2016- 1:12PM
w city of
Shorewood
Check Number Check Date Amount
136-CENTERPOINT ENERGY Line Item Account
62441 04/11/2016
Inv 03302016
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/30/2016 5755 Country Club Rd-02/19/16-03/21/16 101-19-4380-0000 190.63
03/30/2016 24200 Smithtown Rd- 02/19/16-03/21/16 101-32-4380-0000 292.63
03/30/2016 5745 Ctry Club&25200 Hwy 7-02/19/16-03/21/16 101-52-4380-0000 181.86
03/30/2016 20405 Knighsbridge Rd- 02/19/16-03/21/16 601-00-4394-0000 64.78
03/30/2016 28125 Boulder Bridge- 02/19/16-03/21/16 601-00-4396-0000 159.77
Inv 03302016 Total 889.67
Inv 79456885-032316
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/23/2016 5735 Country Club Rd-02/19/16-03/21/16 201-00-4380-0000 352.99
Inv 794568 85-0323 16 Total 352.99
Inv 86501806-032316
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/23/2016 20630 Manor Rd-02/19/16-03/21/16 101-52-4380-0000 98.80
Inv 865 01 806-0323 16 Total 98.80
62441 Total: 1,341.46
136-CENTERPOINT ENERGY Total: 1,341.46
137-CENTURY LINK Line Item Account
62442 04/11/2016
Inv 9524702294-MR16
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/25/2016 952-470-2294-PW 101-32-4321-0000 58.59
Inv 9524702294-MR16 Total 58.59
Inv 9524706340-MR16
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/25/2016 952-474-6340-CH 101-19-4321-0000 120.06
Inv 9524706340-MR16 Total 120.06
AP-Check Detail(4/6/2016- 1:12 PM) Page 1
Check Number Check Date Amount
Inv 9524707819-MR16
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/25/2016 952-470-7819-SSCC 201-00-4321-0000 258.03
Inv 95 247078 1 9-MR16 Total 258.03
Inv 9524709605-MR16
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/25/2016 952-474-9605-Amesbury 601-00-4394-0000 73.41
Inv 9524709605-MR16 Total 73.41
Inv 9524709606-MR16
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/25/2016 952-474-9606-Amesbury 601-00-4394-0000 73.41
Inv 9524709606-MR16 Total 73.41
62442 Total: 583.50
137-CENTURY LINK Total: 583.50
146-CITY OF MINNETONKA Line Item Account
62443 04/11/2016
Inv 1 st Qtr-2016-WA
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/31/2016 5350 Vine Hill Rd- 1st Qtr 601-00-4262-0000 47.95
03/31/2016 5366 Vine Hill Rd- 1st Qtr 601-00-4262-0000 22.91
03/31/2016 5490 Vine Hill Rd- 1st Qtr 601-00-4262-0000 55.78
Inv 1st Qtr-2016-WA Total 126.64
62443 Total: 126.64
146-CITY OF MINNETONKA Total: 126.64
147-CITY OF MOUND Line Item Account
0 04/11/2016
Inv 2nd Qtr-2016
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
04/06/2016 Quarterly Fire Payment-2nd Qtr 101-22-4400-0000 5,877.50
Inv 2nd Qtr-2016 Total 5,877.50
0 Total: 5,877.50
147-CITY OF MOUND Total: 5,877.50
AP-Check Detail(4/6/2016- 1:12 PM) Page 2
Check Number Check Date Amount
159-CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER(SHWD)Line Item Account
62444 04/11/2016
Inv 114X58336708
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/31/2016 Drinking Water-March 101-19-4245-0000 95.35
Inv 114X58336708 Total 95.35
62444 Total: 95.35
159-CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER(SHWD)Total: 95.35
167-ECM PUBLISHERS INC Line Item Account
0 04/11/2016
Inv 327606
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/24/2016 Ord.No.-526 101-13-4351-0000 46.00
Inv 327606 Total 46.00
Inv 327607
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/24/2016 Ord.No.-527 101-13-4351-0000 86.25
Inv 327607 Total 86.25
Inv 327954
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/26/2016 Ord.No.-526 101-13-4351-0000 30.84
Inv 327954 Total 30.84
Inv 327955
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/26/2016 Ord.No.-527 101-13-4351-0000 57.83
Inv 327955 Total 57.83
Inv 331275
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/31/2016 2016 Mill&Overlay Improvement Bids 404-00-4620-0005 261.00
Inv 331275 Total 261.00
0 Total: 481.92
167-ECM PUBLISHERS INC Total: 481.92
AP-Check Detail(4/6/2016- 1:12 PM) Page 3
Check Number Check Date Amount
219-FLLY PIFPFR Line Item Account
62445 04/11/2016
Inv 03-22-2016
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/22/2016 Tablecloths-03-22-16 201-00-4400-0000 48.00
Inv 03-22-2016 Total 48.00
62445 Total: 48.00
219-FLLY PIFPFR Total: 48.00
179-EXCELSIOR FIRE DISTRICT Line Item Account
62446 04/11/2016
Inv 2nd Qtr-2016
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
04/06/2016 Operations-2nd Qtr 101-22-4400-0000 86,178.44
04/06/2016 Building-2nd Qtr 101-22-4620-0000 67,655.05
Inv 2nd Qtr-2016 Total 153,833.49
62446 Total: 153,833.49
179-EXCELSIOR FIRE DISTRICT Total: 153,833.49
180-EXCELSIOR FLORIST Line Item Account
62447 04/11/2016
Inv Allen-2016
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
01/28/2016 Allen-Plants 101-11-4245-0000 75.56
Inv Allen-2016 Total 75.56
Inv Geng-2016
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
02/04/2016 Geng-Plants 101-11-4245-0000 75.56
Inv Geng-2016 Total 75.56
Inv Haugen-2016
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/19/2016 Haugen-Plants 101-11-4245-0000 75.56
Inv Haugen-2016 Total 75.56
62447 Total: 226.68
AP-Check Detail(4/6/2016- 1:12 PM) Page 4
Check Number Check Date Amount
180-EXCELSIOR FLORIST Total: 226.68
187-FINANCE AND CONIMERCF Line Item Account
62448 04/11/2016
Inv 742678992
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/30/2016 2016 Mill&Overlay Improvement Ads 404-00-4620-0005 224.53
Inv 742678992 Total 224.53
62448 Total: 224.53
187-FINANCF AND CONIMERCF Total: 224.53
200-GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Line Item Account
0 04/11/2016
Inv 6030704
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/31/2016 Monthly Rental 601-00-4400-0000 66.70
03/31/2016 Monthly Rental 611-00-4400-0000 66.70
03/31/2016 Monthly Rental 631-00-4400-0000 66.70
Inv 6030704 Total 200.10
0 Total: 200.10
200-GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Total: 200.10
436-HODGES,MARK Line Item Account
62449 04/11/2016
Inv 03-28-2016
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/28/2016 Video Tape Service-03/28/16 101-11-4400-0000 70.00
Inv 03-28-2016 Total 70.00
62449 Total: 70.00
436-HODGES,MARK Total: 70.00
226-INTEGRATED FIRE&SECURITY Line Item Account
62450 04/11/2016
Inv 65248
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/29/2016 New Phonelines Installed 201-00-4400-0000 401.90
Inv 65248 Total 401.90
AP-Check Detail(4/6/2016- 1:12 PM) Page 5
Check Number Check Date Amount
62450 Total: 401.90
226-INTEGRATED FIRE&SECURITY Total: 401.90
690-J.BECHER &ASSOCIATION,INC.Line Item Account
62451 04/11/2016
Inv AM324
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/21/2016 Reset Keri System 101-19-4223-0000 294.00
Inv AM324 Total 294.00
62451 Total: 294.00
690-J.BECHER &ASSOCIATION,INC.Total: 294.00
495-JOYNES,WILLIAM Line Item Account
0 04/11/2016
Inv Feb-2016-Credit
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
02/29/2016 Admin Monthly Services-Feb Credit 101-13-4400-0000 -5,925.00
Inv Feb-2016-Credit Total -5,925.00
Inv March-2016
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/31/2016 Admin Monthly Services 101-13-4400-0000 11,575.00
Inv March-2016 Total 11,575.00
0 Total: 5,650.00
495-JOYNES,WILLIAM Total: 5,650.00
674-KAYE,AUTUMN Line Item Account
62452 04/11/2016
Inv Yoga-04052016
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
04/05/2016 Yoga 201-00-4248-0000 34.00
Inv Yoga-04052016 Total 34.00
62452 Total: 34.00
674-KAYE,AUTUMN Total: 34.00
AP-Check Detail(4/6/2016- 1:12 PM) Page 6
Check Number Check Date Amount
531-LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES Line Item Account
62453 04/11/2016
Inv 234363
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/28/2016 2016 Safety&Loss Control Workshop-Twila Grout 101-13-4331-0000 20.00
Inv 234363 Total 20.00
62453 Total: 20.00
531-LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES Total: 20.00
620-MANGOLD HORTICULTURE Line Item Account
62454 04/11/2016
Inv 1661
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/31/2016 Spring Cleanup&Landscape Maint. 601-00-4221-0000 3,080.00
Inv 1661 Total 3,080.00
Inv 1662
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/31/2016 Monthly City Landscape Maint. 201-00-4400-0000 190.00
Inv 1662 Total 190.00
62454 Total: 3,270.00
620-MANGOLD HORTICULTURE Total: 3,270.00
279-METROPOLITAN COUNCIL (WASTEWATER)Line Item Account
0 04/11/2016
Inv 1053040
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
04/06/2016 Monthly Waste Water Svc 611-00-4385-0000 49,053.02
Inv 1053040 Total 49,053.02
0 Total: 49,053.02
279-METROPOLITAN COUNCIL (WASTEWATER)Total: 49,053.02
325-ON SITE SANITATION-TWIN CITIES Line Item Account
62455 04/11/2016
Inv 226884
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
AP-Check Detail(4/6/2016- 1:12 PM) Page 7
Check Number Check Date Amount
03/26/2016 Badger Pk-5745 Country Club Rd 101-52-4410-0000 53.00
Inv 226884 Total 53.00
Inv 226885
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/26/2016 Cathcart Park-26655 W-62nd ST 101-52-4410-0000 53.00
Inv 226885 Total 53.00
Inv 226886
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/26/2016 Freeman Park-6000 Eureka Rd 101-52-4410-0000 159.00
Inv 226886 Total 159.00
Inv 226887
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/26/2016 Silverwood Pk-5755 Covington Rd 101-52-4410-0000 53.00
Inv 226887 Total 53.00
Inv 226888
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/26/2016 SS Skate-5355 St Albans Bay Rd 101-52-4410-0000 53.00
Inv 226888 Total 53.00
Inv 226889
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/26/2016 Christmas Lk Rd-5625 Merry Ln 101-52-4410-0000 233.20
Inv 226889 Total 233.20
62455 Total: 604.20
325-ON SITE SANITATION-TWIN CITIES Total: 604.20
240-POTTS, PA,KENNETH Line Item Account
0 04/11/2016
Inv March-2016
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/31/2016 Prosectution Monthly Services 101-16-4304-0000 2,500.00
Inv March-2016 Total 2,500.00
0 Total: 2,500.00
240-POTTS, PA,KENNETH Total: 2,500.00
AP-Check Detail(4/6/2016- 1:12 PM) Page 8
Check Number Check Date Amount
714-PREMIER ELECTRICAL CORPORATION Line Item Account
62456 04/11/2016
Inv 64103
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/29/2016 Repair West Water Tower Electrical Meter 601-00-4221-0000 1,216.00
Inv 64103 Total 1,216.00
62456 Total: 1,216.00
714-PREMIER ELECTRICAL CORPORATION Total: 1,216.00
108-REPUBLIC SERVICES No.894 Line Item Account
62457 04/11/2016
Inv 0894-004052761
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
04/05/2016 Monthly Recycling Svc 621-00-4400-0000 9,716.00
Inv 0894-004052761 Total 9,716.00
62457 Total: 9,716.00
108-REPUBLIC SERVICES No.894 Total: 9,716.00
347-SAM'S CLUB Line Item Account
62458 04/11/2016
Inv 03-17-2016
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/17/2016 C.H.Expenses 101-19-4245-0000 120.27
03/17/2016 P.W.Expenses 101-32-4245-0000 120.28
Inv 03-17-2016 Total 240.55
62458 Total: 240.55
347-SAM'S CLUB Total: 240.55
354-SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE Line Item Account
62459 04/11/2016
Inv 127642
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
01/14/2016 General Part Supplies 101-32-4245-0000 46.77
Inv 127642 Total 46.77
AP-Check Detail(4/6/2016- 1:12 PM) Page 9
Check Number Check Date Amount
Inv 128436
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/24/2016 General Part Supplies 101-32-4245-0000 15.51
Inv 128436 Total 15.51
Inv 128491
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/29/2016 Roundup 101-32-4245-0000 18.99
Inv 128491 Total 18.99
Inv 128594
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
04/05/2016 General Part Supplies 101-32-4245-0000 39.28
Inv 128594 Total 39.28
62459 Total: 120.55
354-SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE Total: 120.55
360-SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT Line Item Account
62460 04/11/2016
Inv 2nd Qtr-2016-LP
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
04/01/2016 Quarterly-Lease Payment 101-21-4620-0000 53,583.00
Inv 2nd Qtr-2016-LP Total 53,583.00
Inv April-2016-OBE
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
04/01/2016 Monthly-Operating Budget Exp 101-21-4400-0000 91,972.08
Inv April-2016-OBE Total 91,972.08
62460 Total: 145,555.08
360-SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT Total: 145,555.08
511-TURNER,CATHERINE Line Item Account
62461 04/11/2016
Inv 2016-Garden
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/31/2016 Adop-A-Garden Planters 101-53-4245-0000 103.90
Inv 2016-Garden Total 103.90
AP-Check Detail(4/6/2016- 1:12 PM) Page 10
Check Number Check Date Amount
62461 Total: 103.90
511-TURNER,CATHERINE Total: 103.90
386-TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC Line Item Account
62462 04/11/2016
Inv 7624
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/24/2016 19685 Near Mountain Blvd-Bacteria 601-00-4400-0000 75.00
Inv 7624 Total 75.00
62462 Total: 75.00
386-TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC Total: 75.00
421-VERIZON WIRELESS Line Item Account
62463 04/11/2016
Inv 9762543818
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/21/2016 Lift Stations-Acct985338397-02/22/16-03/21/16 611-00-4321-0000 191.42
Inv 9762543818 Total 191.42
62463 Total: 191.42
421-VERIZON WIRELESS Total: 191.42
395-VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER Line Item Account
62464 04/11/2016
Inv SP009542
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
04/01/2016 Water Flow Alarm&Dry System Tripped&Filled System 201-00-4223-0000 1,595.00
Inv SP009542 Total 1,595.00
62464 Total: 1,595.00
395-VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER Total: 1,595.00
398-VOYAGER FLEET SYSTEMS INC Line Item Account
0 04/11/2016
Inv 869293803613
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/24/2016 Closing Date on 03/24/16 101-32-4212-0000 1,391.12
AP-Check Detail(4/6/2016- 1:12 PM) Page 11
Check Number Check Date Amount
Inv 869293803613 Total 1,391.12
0 Total: 1,391.12
398-VOYAGER FLEET SYSTEMS INC Total: 1,391.12
415-WARNER CONNECT Line Item Account
0 04/11/2016
Inv April-2016
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
04/01/2016 Monthly Network Maint Services 101-19-4321-0000 2,591.80
Inv April-2016 Total 2,591.80
0 Total: 2,591.80
415-WARNER CONNECT Total: 2,591.80
401-WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN Line Item Account
62465 04/11/2016
Inv 6902951-1593-3
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
04/01/2016 5735 Ctry Club Rd-Monthly Svc 201-00-4400-0000 187.34
Inv 6902951-1593-3 Total 187.34
Inv 6902952-1593-1
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
04/01/2016 24200 Smithtown Rd-Monthly Svc 101-32-4400-0000 472.73
Inv 6902952-1593-1 Total 472.73
62465 Total: 660.07
401-WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN Total: 660.07
327-WINDSTREAM Line Item Account
62466 04/11/2016
Inv 59289716
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/29/2016 City Hall 101-19-4321-0000 117.39
03/29/2016 Public Work 101-32-4321-0000 53.00
03/29/2016 Badger-Manor-Cathcart Park 101-52-4321-0000 164.18
03/29/2016 West Tower-City of Shorewood 601-00-4321-0000 55.59
03/29/2016 Badger Well-City of Shorewood 601-00-4395-0000 110.71
03/29/2016 Boulder Bridge Well 601-00-4396-0000 55.59
Inv 59289716 Total 556.46
AP-Check Detail(4/6/2016- 1:12 PM) Page 12
Check Number Check Date Amount
62466 Total: 556.46
327-WINDSTREAM Total: 556.46
411-XCEL ENERGY,INC.Line Item Account
62467 04/11/2016
Inv Stmt#495083179
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/25/2016 24253 Smithtown Rd-02124/16-03/24/16 601-00-4395-0000 1,184.17
Inv Stmt#495083179 Total 1,184.17
Inv Stmt#495101528
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/25/2016 5735 Country Club Rd- 02/24/16-03/24/16 201-00-4380-0000 684.11
Inv Stmt#495101528 Total 684.11
Inv Stmt#495637840
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/30/2016 5700 County Rd 19-02129/16-03/29/16 101-32-4399-0000 40.74
03/30/2016 5700 County Rd 19-Unit Light-02/29/16-03/29/16 101-32-4399-0000 196.12
Inv Stmt#495637840 Total 236.86
62467 Total: 2,105.14
411-XCEL ENERGY,INC.Total: 2,105.14
412-ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC Line Item Account
62468 04/11/2016
Inv 0159088-IN
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/17/2016 Sweeper Broom 101-32-4250-0000 1,472.00
Inv 0159088-IN Total 1,472.00
62468 Total: 1,472.00
412-ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC Total: 1,472.00
Total: 392,526.38
AP-Check Detail(4/6/2016- 1:12 PM) Page 13
Accounts Payable
b �
Check Detail
User: Mnguyen
Printed: 04/06/2016- 3:02PM
w city of
Shorewood
Check Number Check Date Amount
683-GREAT PLAINS INSTITUTE Line Item Account
62469 04/11/2016
Inv 1884
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
03/31/2016 Renewable Energy Project 450-00-4400-0000 1,467.20
Inv 1884 Total 1,467.20
62469 Total: 1,467.20
683-GREAT PLAINS INSTITUTE Total: 1,467.20
Total: 1,467.20
AP-Check Detail(4/6/2016- 3:02 PM) Page 1
#3B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Title/Subject: Sanitary Sewer Service Connection to MCES Facility in West 62nd Street
Meeting Date: April 11, 2016
Prepared by: Paul Hornby, City Engineer
Reviewed by:
Attachments: MCES connection application, Resolution Authorizing Application for Connection
Policy Consideration:
Background:The sanitary sewer collection system within the City of Shorewood includes segments of
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) interceptor sewers. The MCES interceptor sewers
generally convey wastewater flows through the City, but in Shorewood are also used as local or City
laterals sewers where direct service connections can be made to the interceptor system.
The MCES received a request from a property owner on West 62nd Street for a connection to the
interceptor sewer for a new single family residential parcel. The MCES requires that the City make
formal application for the connection to their system to ensure connections are made meeting the
MCES requirements. The application (copy enclosed) includes indemnification, and correction
assurances that the City accepts in executing the application. This is a long standing process of the
MCES and the City has processed connections to the MCES system for previous applicants.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The Applicant will be responsible for all costs of making the
connection and has retained a contractor experienced in this type of utility work. City staff will perform
observation of the sewer service connection during construction.
Options:
1. Approve the Resolution Authorizing Application for Connection to the MCES Facilities
2. Take no Action at this time
Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Authorizing
Application for Connection to the MCES Facilities, and Authorizing submittal of the application to the
MCES.
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
METROPOLITAN
Q o u N c E L
Environmental Services
Direct Connection Application Form
Applicant Information
Contact Person: ���'►'� ��f? �vt
Organization Name: C h �Ces Cv�c�
Address: P70i10 Z�� e Af Mx( �j�iff�f 7
Phone Number:
Fax Number: 2,—&b �3+
E-mail Address: `iml e c-k�,v�esCv Cc,,,
Description of Project 1
Ste'�[ll c� "Val 4 vnatae,
Location ki W 62
Hurewc d M
Requested Date of Connection: y
Permit to connect expires 60 days from requested date of connection. Contact Dan Chouinard for extension.
Briefly Describe any Unusual Circumstances
Please Include:
• Direct Connection Application Form with original signature from City Representative (P.W. Dir., Eng.,
Manager/Clerk).
• Copy of plan sheets depicting connection location and associated details.
• Application fee of$1,000, of which $450 is non-refundable.
Signature: ayk
I - ,c Date: &qbk
Printed Name;
Rev.September 2014
Page.1 of 6
METROPOLITAN
Environmental Services
Basis for Fee
The connection permit application fee recovers administrative costs for time spent by MCES staff on a connection
permit request(reviewing, modifying, permitting, drawing, and inspecting). Since about half of MCES staff time is
spent administering a connection request before the actual connection is made, half of the fee is not refundable
regardless of whether or not the connection request is approved.
Please refer to MCES Waste Discharge Rules 301.1 A-F, pages 21 and 22:
http://www.metrocouncil.org/environment/IndustrialWaste/WasteDischargeRules.pdf.
Important BIKES Direct Connection Permit Process Information:
1. No connection work shall occur until a permit has been issued by MCES. Before completing any forms and
paying the fee, communicate with Dan Chouinard to obtain additional interceptor information, instructions and
MCES standard connection details.
Phone: 651-602-4564 Email: daniel.chouinardCo).metc.state.mn.us
2. Mail the completed Connection Permit Application Form (pages 1-6) to:
Dan Chouinard
Metropolitan Council
3565 Kennebec Dr.
Eagan, MN 55122
A copy of the Direct Connection Application Form should be accompanied by engineering plans/drawings and a
$1,000 check made out to Metropolitan Council. Completion of the application form and payment of the fee
does not guarantee approval for connection.
3. MCES normally requires approximately 15 days of processing for a connection application. If approved, a fully
executed Connection Agreement must be in place prior to any excavation. Additional cost recovery fees may be
added if any unauthorized connection is made that requires additional staff time.
4. It required that the contractor contacts Jennifer Adams at 651-602-8327, cell 651-755-3479, between 7:30 am
and 3:30 pm at least 48 hours in advance to make arrangements to have an inspector on site at the time the
connection is being made. Backup contacts are as follows: Adam Winiarczyk at 651-602-8930, cell 651-325-
6381 and Jim Sailer 651-602-8914, cell 651-325-6377. If the MCES inspector is not notified prior to installation
of the connection, the applicant will be required to pay all costs associated with re-excavation, inspection, and
restorative work. Please make reference to the assigned connection permit number when requesting an
inspection.
For Internal Use Only:
Amount Received:.::;
®ate Application Received Date Payment Received:
Rev.September 2014
Page 2 of 6
METROPOLIFTAN
C O U N C I L
Environmental Services
PERMIT NO.: INTERCEPTOR: 7017
APPLICATION FOR CONNECTION TO OR USE OF
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FACILITIES
This form and plans/drawings must be submitted to:
Dan Chouinard
Metropolitan Council
3565 Kennebec Drive
Eagan, MN 55122
The City of Shorewood hereby applies for a permit for connection to, or use of, Metropolitan Council Environmental
Services (MCES) facilities. By execution of this Application, the Applicant agrees to:
1. Provide such additional information as is requested by MCES in order to make a determination on
permit issuance.
2. Abide by the permit terms and conditions set forth below and all applicable state and local laws,
ordinances, rules and regulations.
3. Pay all applicable permit fees (i.e., Service Availability Charge and Industrial Strength Charge) in
accordance with MCES rules and regulations.
4. Reimburse MCES for any damages resulting to MCES facilities as a result of the connection to or
use of its facilities.
5. Indemnify and hold harmless MCES, its employees, agents, and contractors from and against all
claims, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fees, arising out of or
resulting from the connection to, or use of, MCES facilities, provided that any such claim, damage,
loss or expense (1) is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death or to injury to or
destruction of tangible property, including the loss of use resulting therefrom, and (2) is caused in
whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of the Applicant, its contractors, subcontractors, or
anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them, regardless of whether or not it is caused in
part by MCES.
6. Construct the connection in accordance with applicable MCES standards.
7. At Applicant's own expense, Applicant will promptly make any repairs necessitated by the failure or
malfunction of the connection. MCES will inform Applicant of the necessity of such repair in writing.
Applicant will notify MCES at least 48 hours prior to making said repairs. Applicant further agrees
that if Applicant fails to make such repair within sixty (60) days of date of written notice by MCES to
Applicant of the necessity of such repair, MCES shall make such repair and bill Applicant for the full
cost of such repair. Applicant hereby agrees to promptly reimburse MCES for the full cost of any
repair made by MCES to remedy a failed or malfunctioning connection.
8. Applicant operates and maintains the connection.
9. Pertinent details of the connection are as follows (see next page):
Rev.September 2014
Page 3 of 6
Connection Deils: Please attach showing location(s).
Exact Location of Connection (i.e., with reference to street intersections, nearest maintenance access structures,
etc.): Residential service connection approximately 800 feet west of the Lake Minnetonka Regional Trail (Railroad)
intersection. at MH 11-9 (MT) shown on the enclosed record plan.
Work to be done by: Metro General Services Co. for Charles Cudd Co. Phone No.: 612-889-4894
Type of Connection: Core-drill connection to MH 11-19 (MT), MCES Watertight Pipe Connection Detail Type B
(Detail attached) Depth: 15 feet
If connection includes installation of a new on-line M.H., or adjustment to existing M.H. elevation, please complete page 5.
Approx. Date of Connection: May 13, 2016.
Size of Connection Sewer: 4-inch Pipe Material: PVC SDR 26 or Sch. 40
(i.e., PVC, DIP, etc.)
Invert Elevation of Connection: 968.90
Invert Elevation of Existing Sewer: 966.71
Area Served in Acres: Residential 1 unit Commercial Industrial
Predicted Flow in Gallons Per Day: Initial 275 Design 275
Characteristics of Discharge: Residential X Commercial Industrial
Unusual Characteristics of Above (Strength, Oils, Chemicals, Temperature, etc.)
None.
This Application is hereby made this 12th day of April , 2016
CITY OF Shorewood
BY:
(Signature of City Official)
PRINT AIM : Paul Hornby, P.E.
TITLE: City Engineer
ADDRESS: 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331
Shorewood MN 55331
PHONE: 952-960-791 FAX: -474-012
Rev.September 2014
Page 4 of 6
Manhole Modification tails® Please attach map showing location(s).
Interceptor: Construction Year:
Address of Manhole/Feature:
Distance to Next Upstream Manhole/Feature: Downstream:
Please complete applicable information.
Ex. Surface El.: Pro. Surface El.: Ex. Rim El.: Pro. Rim El.:
Adjustment to existing M.H. casting elevation: Raise Lower
Flow: Invert up: Invert down:
Surface Type: Blacktop ❑ Concrete ❑ Ground ❑ Wtr/Swmp ❑ Unknown ❑
Cover Type: Non-vented ❑ Vented ❑ 1 Center pick❑ 2-4 Holes ❑ 5 Holes ❑ 6 or More❑ Seal tight❑
Manufacturer& Model No.:
Cover: Diameter Thickness MH Type: PC ❑ PP ❑ BB ❑ PIP ❑ MH Size:
Adjustable Rings: 2" ❑ 4" ❑ 6" ❑ risers Number of Rings:
M.H. Steps: Poly/Steel: Aluminum: Cast Iron: NONE:
Inlet Sewer
Size: Shape: Circular❑ Arch ❑ Egg ❑ Elliptical ❑ Rectangular❑ Horseshoe ❑
Type: Asbestos ❑ Brick/Block❑ Brick/Sdstone❑ Brick/Stone ❑ CIP ❑ CIPP❑ Conc./Unreinf. ❑
CMP ❑ DIP ❑ HDPE ❑ HDPE/DRLP ❑ HDPE/PB [_1 HDPE/SL [_1 PCCP [_1 PIP/Reinf. ❑ PIP/
Unreinf❑ PVC ❑ PVC/CP ❑ PVC/CP/SL ❑ PVC/SL❑ RCP ❑ RCP/Brick❑ RCP/RSJOINT ❑
RPMP [_1 RTRP ❑ SJP ❑ Steel ❑ Stone ❑ Stone/Conc./Brkinv F-1 VCP ❑ VCT❑
Outlet Sewer
Size: Shape: Circular❑ Arch ❑ Egg ❑ Elliptical ❑ Rectangular❑ Horseshoe ❑
Type: Asbestos ❑ Brick/Block❑ Brick/Sdstone ❑ Brick/Stone F-1 CIP ❑ CIPP❑ Conc./Unreinf. ❑
CMP ❑ DIP ❑ HDPE ❑ HDPE/DRLP ❑ HDPE/PB ❑ HDPE/SL [-] PCCP ❑ PIP/Reinf. ❑ PIP/
Unreinf❑ PVC F-1 PVC/CP F-1 PVC/CP/SL ❑ PVC/SL ❑ RCP ❑ RCP/Brick❑ RCP/RSJOINT ❑
RPMP ❑ RTRP ❑ SJP F-1 Steel ❑ Stone ❑ Stone/Conc./Brkinv ❑ VCP ❑ VCT❑
General Comments:
Service/Lateral Information
Size:— Type:_ Depth: Flow: Orientation to North:
Rev.September 2014
Page 5 of 6
PERMIT .®
PERMIT
FOR CONNECTION TO OR USE OF
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FACILITIES
It has been determined that Applicant has adopted a comprehensive sewer plan, has submitted it to MCES as
required by law, and that the proposed connection to, or use of, MCES facilities conforms to the adopted
comprehensive plan or adopted revisions thereof.
Permission is hereby granted to Applicant for connection to, or use of, MCES facilities in accordance with the
description provided by Applicant. This permit is issued under the following terms and conditions:
1. The provisions of the Waste Discharge Rules for the Metropolitan Disposal System, Minn. Rules,
Chapter 5900, apply to activity carried out under this permit.
2. This permit does not replace permits required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or the
necessity of securing other permits and fulfilling requirements of other governmental units.
3. MCES issuance of this permit does not constitute a certification that the project design and
construction proposed by Applicant meet engineering standards or local codes. Applicant remains
responsible for design and construction, including safety, for the project. Applicant's attention is
specifically directed to the confined space rules adopted by the Minnesota Department of Labor and
Industry, OSHA Regulations, Parts 5202.100 through 5205.1040 and 5207.0300.
4. The connection shall be constructed in accordance with MCES standards attached hereto
[PL(s) ].
5. This permit shall be null and void if the connection proposed by Applicant is not made within 90
days from the date of issuance, unless an extension is granted by MCES.
6. This permit is subject to modification or revocation and may be suspended at any time for failure to
comply with its terms.
7. Record Drawing information provided by MCES is not guaranteed accurate but is included as
information available to, and in use by, MCES.
8. Contractor shall take measurements before beginning construction to ensure that service
connections shall not cut into maintenance access structure joints or pipe barrel joints. Cutting into
joints will not be allowed.
9. Applicant is required to contact MCES 48 hours in advance of the initiation of the connection at
telephone number 651-602-8930. Failure to do so will require applicant to pay for all costs
associated with re-excavation, inspection, and restorative work.
This permit is hereby approved and issued this day of 20
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
BY:
Business Unit Manager, Interceptor Services
Rev.September 2014
Page 6 of 6
LL
W
Q
Wy
R t1 Z
N
C.?
to
a° INTEGRALLY CAST
SLEEVE BBEAL - O
(LOCK JOINT OR EQUALS ' cv
STAINLESS STEEL.EXTERNAL,
TYPE A CLAMP WITH DRAW 13OLTS '
AND NUTS
an
Q:a
POSITIVE MECHANICAL SEAL
(Koff-N-SEAL OR EQ1lAl) I
STAINLESS STEEL EXTERNAL
TYPE B CLAMP WITH DRAW BOLTS '
AND NUTS p
INTEGRALLY CAST GASKET i g
(A-LOK OR EQUAL)
TYPE C � q
�s 0
mfi
LiJ to
a
8 m+ Z 0 Ld
0< 0
0 J 0 Q
LL. Ld m Q (f)
= W Z
w0 z �� O
co
x H� LL Oz Z
O
W L
m x }> O W
z Qw W � aF=-
m W
_ Q W
p I()
�.............. m m Z g 0
O Z
W = �Q
D
mZ ON Z� F H(n
p>NOm LjrY }-Lj
o IL O W
Q W LL.
z Q >~ Ii 0
�a
—mss - -off Z�0 J W 0-1 >Z r
SB S I xW s amo OmQ W
Ss
m�-SB xm i Ira ~pp W� W W OW
�c rn ��:, 0 m 0` I N x o 5 a-L 0~ 0 w O (n
m mN
WW(.7 ~ OJUp
z r p z p Ld LL,2i 0 w m Q Z
rl
UJ a o
Q �W �U (nmW H
O
_ m 'a'zN a m m m N I Z Z Df
Ld
> ~ 0 LLJ
o'sz LL
x Y 0
j5 f
w U �5.00 N
m m (n W I (n (n Q (1) `.
a a m�
:o m �^ onx BSo 3
m< n<I o
x f m mm ��
vi
m g Ti 44
m
n m N h m -
__--------- 06
m
x r` •*
�' aozz
J I NN I
086
m v
x ys 186
sN WI
o
m<� I
p g,�g. n 9'086 rn
n Cb m o
N � 6?
n x
x m Z
'� m
x ` I " �
.....,981 __.........__.....__....__
ro� W
z m J
0 lij 0
z Z Q Z
O ♦LJ O z W <LLJ
LL- CO0 Qoa< � w
H f- ~ W W > < 0 (n tY O
z z Q �' U W j W O
(n D � J W J W J 0 (W f) = W z p
O z Z W 0 W O 0 W z LL CD N 0 W Z
UW) 0 0 0 w 0 UW) O O 0 J w 0
Q a � z � � F- � � I- U Q W - _ F- V :2
Z i7 of 00X > XI- of X � wF- Q [If X 0 ~
Ic i W8� af w 0 W 0 d w 0 :2 (f) W U m
W (n cn (n (n (n (n 0 (n M (n cn (n (n (n (n (n U)
F w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
, CO OC) 0 000 000 00000000 00
W rnrnur W Z ZZZ Zzz Z Z Z Z Z ZZZ z
I• W LJ W W W W W w w w W W W W W W W
WII II 0 0 0 0 Ono 0 00 0 0 moo 0 p
O Y II r N
E� Q OU
� 0'm0 F • 0o x � o
II O Q F Y x x
o �" a0 0
X
E ?i 0rE -i
v
a
c
I
II� _ Ili
� _
w- t-
yg i -_
u!o
kl o
.... w
'III
8
d
4
,3Atl 3ldr\W` ki'W). r1 I e s � 1W7 Nf �I
.W,
I OM'H o
4 9_I�iNw
'a NO-LnCH
1W
i H,W
6 o'' J
C1w1'M1" n'i� q III
3 i m W I
w o I
e II W
m W7
= I
m o All m _
�I
E
Q 11 ) I I
NMOl
W
m
s
J
„ n
.noin n n Z
I.rill
- -
m I-IM m ICI
e
°
.� N m I �•5 mw I '�
O1.
a - ,
U
c „
l RO s
W
Av
3 � `roam
� I
�S
�
-
I -
N „.i lV O„f•R, a
Q
m „
ti
I P
m \
I v (n a N
e
N f' „ „a
„ 1w7
.� 0 •�
3 o =r
I ie °1_
W
m
Z y l ly „L o
W -
1 1 >
_x I
3Atl
a r
' I
ffi l a /
\ w �
NOl00H I .,
Pill8�
° \
�• a — I
N
'
-N I
W
I
I
II I I
t`-
o o
a
o I o'I
ml
I m m
03.0�
II
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 16 -
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR CONNECTION TO
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FACILITIES
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood (City) has been petitioned to apply for connection to
the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) facilities for a single family residential
sanitary sewer service; and
WHEREAS, the MCES requires the City to apply for connection to their facilities for
sanitary sewer service connection to their wastewater collection system; and
WHEREAS, the application is an agreement with terms to reimburse MCES for damages,
indemnify and hold harmless the MCES, construct the connection in accordance with applicable
MCES standards, and make repairs necessitated by the connection; and
WHEREAS, the application fees will be paid by the petitioner directly to the MCES upon
application for the connection to their facilities; and
WHEREAS, the petitioner will cause to be constructed the sanitary sewer connection at
his/her own expense, under the requirements of the City and the MCES; and
WHEREAS, the petition is made by Charles Cudd Company for property identified as
P.I.D. 3211723330031 located on West 62nd Street, City of Shorewood, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Shorewood City Council
hereby authorizes the City Engineer to execute the Application for Connection to the
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Facilities on behalf of the City.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 1 lth day of April, 2016.
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
Jean Panchyshyn
Importance:Low
From: admin@tonkaunited.org
To: jenniferlabadieesq@hotmail.com; lbrown@shorewoodpw.com
Subject: Freeman and Splash
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:10:04 -0500
Jennifer & Larry,
Hope all is well with you! We have been working on the Splash and locations. We also received quotes for
shuttles. Here is where we are at now and would like your feedback on what the City’s appetite is.
We have secured another location this year (Hopkins Jr. High West) that will handle more of our 9’s-12’s. We
have also secured Holy Family High School and the current plan is to use it as a U13-14 locations but they are
able to make smaller fields as well if we need them.
We have obtained permission from Minnetonka Schools to use Minnewashta as a shuttle stop. We also will be
adding a field to that location as well. (2 fields this year and not just 1)
We have obtained quotes from 2 companies to shuttle families and are looking at a $4000 cost. That cost
along with the $3200 paid to South Lake PD really makes using Freeman an expensive location. ($7k) The cost
withstanding, the pressure on the relationship with the City and families who have trouble parking or have to
take out even more time in their day to shuttle has us concerned that it may not be worth the trouble.
I have worked it out so that we could run the Splash with only 5-6 fields at Freeman. We will move games
from Freeman to Minnewashta, MMW and Hopkins Jr High West. Last year we ran 8 fields & the year prior 8-
9. 5-6 fields are less than we use during a regular weeknight during our summer season. By reducing our
footprint, we reduce cars. At least 50-75 of them per hour. During the week it can get busy when we have all
7 fields in use but no cars spill out on to the city streets and neighborhoods. We would only be using 5 most of
the duration with 6 at peak times during the Splash.
Benefits of this plan:
1.Reduce traffic and pressure on neighbors. (even with shuttles there will be a lot of traffic back and forth with
the buses)
2.Reduce wear and tear on fields
3.Reduce need for OT for South Lake PD. (we would still want to hire 1 officer to direct traffic out of Freeman
for safety purposes)
4.Allow Tonka United to still make money on the event. (we need it to keep fees down)
5.The City still will receive the benefits of attendance and concession income
6.Families attending the event will have a better experience than looking for parking or taking out more time
from their busy lives to shuttle.
What do you think?
1
Bobbi Hoebelheinrich
Executive Director
Tonka United
www.tonkaunited.org
952-475-9178
2
#1IA.l
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952-960-7900
Fax:952-474-0128•www.ci.shorewood.mmus•cityhall @ci.shorewood.mmus
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
0 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year
0 Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report
0 Survey (30 days) —May
0 Feasibility Report (30 days) —June
0 Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk—July
0 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report
0 Council approves Feasibility Report
0 Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House)
0 Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans and Specifications
0 Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90 days)
■ 95% Complete submittal to MnDOT 7/01/14
■ MnDOT Review Complete 7/31/14
■ CC Authorization to Advertise for bids 6/23/14
■ Open Bids 8/19/14
■ CC consideration of Award 8/25/14
0 Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid-way through plans and specs)
• Land Acquisition process not required due to design modifications
• Individual temporary easements or rights of entry may be required
• Reduces project schedule
0 Neighborhood post-bid meeting 10/30/14
❑ City possession of easements/letter of compliance N/A
❑ 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
Trail Schedule Update Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road(East) Page 2
Smithtown Road East(LRT Trail to Country Club Road) Walkway Schedule
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year 6/03/14
Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report 6/23/14
0 Survey (30 days) — (In Process) 7/14/14 —9/10/14
0 Feasibility Report (30 days) — 8/18/14-10/10/14
0 Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk 10/21/14
0 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report 10/21/14
Council approves Feasibility Report 10/27/14
Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House) 10/30/14
0 Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans 12/08/14
and Specifications
0 Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90-120 days) (99% complete) 12/11/14 -
5131115
0 Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid-way through plans and specs) 2/1/15 -
8/31/15
• Complete parcel descriptions and legal descriptions
• Review proposed easements with staff/attorney
• Letters to property owners regarding survey staking
• Field stake proposed easements for Appraiser/RW Agent
• Easement viewing—parcel owner and RW Agent on-site
• Appraisal information
• Appraisal review
• Council considers resolution to authorize staff to make offers and eminent domain schedule
• Prepare and deliver offers to parcel owners
0 Begin eminent domain action 3/23/15
0 Neighborhood informational meeting (Open House) 6/03/15
0 Council approves Plans and Specifications and authorizes ad for Bids 7/13/15
0 Receive bids for construction 8/21/15
0 City possession of easements/letter of compliance 8/24/15
0 Council awards Construction Contract 8/24/15
0 Neighborhood preconstruction meeting 9/09/15
0 Groundbreaking Ceremony 9/14/15
❑ Begin Construction 5/02/16
■ Contractor completed tree removal 2/24/16
❑ Construction substantially complete 6/30/16
❑ Ribbon Cutting Ceremony 6/30/16
❑ Restoration complete 6/30/16