07-11-16 CC Reg Mtg Agenda
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, JULY 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 Executive Session Minutes of June 27, 2016 Minutes
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of June 27, 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. Crescent Beach Agreement Administrator’s memo
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council Action will be taken)
5. PUBLIC HEARING
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
7. PARKS
A. Report by Park Commissioner Stephany Vassar on the June 28
Park Commission meeting
8. PLANNING
Minutes
A. Continuation of Appeal of Administrative Determination of Number of Boats City Attorney’s
Allowed at Nonconforming Dock memo
Appellant: Radisson Road Easement Holders
Location: 5540 Shore Road (Lot 11)
B. Zoning Code Text Amendment Regarding Alternative Energy Regulations Planning Director’s
memo, Draft Ordinance,
Resolution
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – July 11, 2016
Page 2
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Council Action on John Benjamin Proposal Administrator’s memo
11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Trails Schedule Trail Schedule
2. County Road 19 Mill and Overlay Project
3. Council Information Item: New Health Care LMC Law Information;
“Drop Home” dwelling law Star Tribune article
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, July 11, 2016
7:00 p.m.
5:30 PM – City Council Work Session
Agenda Item #2A: Approval of Minutes from the June 27 City Council Executive Session
Agenda Item #2B: Approval of Minutes from the June 27 City Council Regular meeting
Agenda Item #3A: Approval of the verified claims list.
Agenda Item #3B: Staff recommends Council approve a motion approving the revised
Agreement from Tonka Bay for Crescent Beach maintenance.
Agenda Item #4: Matters from the floor – no council action will be taken.
Agenda Item #5: There are no public hearings this evening.
Agenda Item #6: There are no reports or presentations this evening.
Agenda Item #7A: A report on the June 28 Park Commission meeting will be provided by
Commissioner Stephany Vassar.
Agenda Item #8A: At the last Council meeting, consideration of the Lot 11 zoning appeal was
continued in order to obtain another legal opinion from the City Attorney as to the City’s
ability to adopt the standards in the LMCD Code for all lakes in Shorewood. The
Attorney indicates that various standards are routinely adopted by reference in order not
to rewrite them into the Zoning Code. We are within our authority to do so.
Agenda Item #8B: The Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the
Shorewood Zoning Code that reduces barriers to the use of solar energy equipment. This
is consistent with the recommendation of Great Plains Energy Consultants and with the
provisions that were incorporated into the MCC PUD agreement.
Agenda Item #9: There are no Engineering/Public Works items this evening.
Agenda Item #10A: At the direction of Council, staff has brought forth language for a motion
relating to the proposal for development of Badger Park and surrounding properties by
John Benjamin and his associates.
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 EXECUTIVE SESSION LARGE CONVERENCE ROOM
MONDAY, JUNE 27, 2016 6:30 PM
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:31 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel, and Woodruff; Attorney Keane;
City Administrator Joynes; and, Planning Director Nielsen
Absent: Councilmember Sundberg
B. Review Agenda
Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
The purpose of the executive session was to discuss a request for a memorandum of understanding relating
to the Smithtown Crossing and other property development. The session was closed pursuant to Minn.
Stat. 13D.05. Subd. 3. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel, Sundberg and Woodruff; Attorney
Keane; Administrator Joynes; and, Planning Director Nielsen were in attendance.
2. DISCUSSION OF REQUEST FOR MEMOANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO
SMITHTOWN CROSSING AND OTHER PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
3. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Adjourning the City Council Executive Session of June 27, 2016,
at 6:40 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, JUNE 27, 2016 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Attorney
Keane; City Administrator Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong;
Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and, City Engineer Hornby
Absent: None.
B. Review Agenda
Labadie moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of June 13, 2016
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of June
13, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and
Adopting the Resolution Therein.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
B. Appointment of Two Seasonal Employees in Public Works
C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 16-046, “A Resolution Adopting Performance
Measures.”
Motion passed 4/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
Discussion moved to Item 6.A on the agenda.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 2 of 20
5. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Vacate Right-of-Way
Applicant: Mike and Elizabeth Cannon
Location: 28170 Woodside Road
This was discussed after Item 6.A on the agenda.
Mayor Zerby opened the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained Mike and Elizabeth Cannon own the property located at 28170 Woodside
Road. When they rearranged the property line between their lot and the one to the south of it in 2015, they
were required to dedicate 17 feet of right-of-way (ROW) to make Woodside Road 50 feet wide at that
location. Woodside Road was originally platted 66 feet wide down to the point where it came to the
southerly lot where it narrowed to 33 feet. The Cannons would like to square off their property with the
southerly lot. They have requested a partial vacation of 1231 square feet of ROW. In doing so the
resulting ROW would be 50 feet wide adjoining their property. The paved surface of Woodside Road is
situated on the easterly side of the ROW. Even after the vacation, the paved surface will be 17 feet from
the new ROW line. The additional property also increases the conformity of the Cannon property with
respect to lot area.
Nielsen noted that staff recommends approval of the vacation. The applicant has provided a legal
description of the parcel to be vacated. He stated the vacation would be legally combined with the
applicant’s parcel.
Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Mayor Zerby opened and closed the Public Testimony
portion of the Public Hearing at 7:27 P.M.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the way he sees the map all of the properties to the north of the Cannon
property along Woodside Road are faced with the same existing easement. Director Nielsen confirmed
that. Woodruff stated if Council approves this request he asked if there is any reason the other property
owners would not make a similar request. Nielsen explained the only facts that might be different is if the
paved surface of the roadway were to veer over to that side; then the City may not want to vacate 17 feet.
Woodruff stated he assumes that requests would be reviewed on a case by case basis. Nielsen concurred
and noted the property owners could get together to make a request.
Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 16-047, “A Resolution
Vacating a Portion of Woodside Road.” Motion passed 4/0.
Mayor Zerby closed the Public Hearing at 7:29 P.M.
Discussion moved to Item 8.A on the agenda.
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. 2015 Audit Report by Abdo, Eick and Meyers
This was discussed after Item 4 on the agenda.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 3 of 20
Director DeJong noted Andy Berg, with the independent CPA firm of Abdo, Eick & Meyers, LLP, is
present to provide an overview of the City of Shorewood’s 2015 financial audit.
Mr. Berg noted the firm he works for issued a clean (unmodified) opinion on the City’s financial
statements. The firm also issued a separate report on Minnesota League of Compliance; there were seven
different categories that are tested by the Office of the State Auditor. That also received a clean opinion.
There were not any compliance issues with Minnesota Statutes.
He explained there were two 2015 internal control findings. The first was material audit adjustments and
auditing capital assets. There were a number of different entries mainly related to accrual entries and
getting the correct classification between funds. Because that was a material dollar amount it was reported
as a finding. That is corrected within the financial statements. The second was timely bank
reconciliations. During the audit it was noted that the bank reconciliations were not completed timely.
The 2015 statement reconciliations were finally completed in May 2016. The recommendation is that the
bank reconciliations be completed within 15 days of month end. He noted that for 2014 there was an
internal control finding relating to signers on an investment account. That was taken care of. He also
noted the City implemented Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statements No 68 and
71 for 2015. GASB 68 was related to public pensions. He explained the City participates in the Public
Employee Retirement Association (PERA) pension plan. PERA is a multi-employer plan. The plan has a
total pension liability which all employer participants in that plan have to recognize their proportionate
share of that net pension liability. The City’s share is calculated based on its contributions to the plan. The
amount recognized in the City’s 2015 financial statements as a liability was about $1,088,000.
He provided a financial overview of the City’s General Fund expenditures and revenues. He displayed a
five-year trend graph of the City’s General Fund balance and how it relates to the next year’s expense
budget. He explained the City’s General Fund balance was about 77 percent of 2016 budgeted
expenditures at the end of 2015. The balance at the end of 2015 was $4,502,167 and the 2016 budgeted
expenditures are $5,857,087. The balance increased $416,696 in 2015. That has increased as a dollar
amount and percentage over the last five years. The City’s General Fund Balance Policy requires a fund
balance of 55 – 60 percent of the next year’s expenditures.
He highlighted the summary of the 2015 operations. The summary showed final budgeted amounts, actual
amounts and variances from the final budgets. Revenues were $255,527 over budget. That was primarily
because Licenses and Permits were $127,797 higher than budgeted. Miscellaneous revenues additional
refunds and reimbursements were $68,349 higher than budgeted. Expenses were about $303,347 under
budget. That was mainly in the Public Works and General Government areas. There was a net increase of
revenues over expenditures of $558,874. Transfers out to other City funds equaled $1,018,513; that was
the budgeted amount as well.
He displayed a graph comparing five sources of revenues excluding property taxes and transfers in for
2011 – 2015. He explained that property taxes made up about 86.0 percent of the revenues in 2015 at
$4,949,126. Property tax revenues were $4,787,195 in 2011. In 2013 there was a spike in Other revenues
and that was because of the approximate $317,000 from the sale of capital assets. Licenses and permits
revenues have increased over the last five years.
He displayed a graph comparing five sources of expenditures and transfers out for 2011 – 2015. He
explained the majority of the City’s expenditures are in public safety and general government with them
being 29.6 percent and 23.4 percent respectively of the total expenditures and transfers out. There has
been a trend of a slight increase in public safety expenditures over the last five years.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 4 of 20
He explained that at the end of 2015 the bonds outstanding totaled about $7.4 million and the total interest
remaining for the life of the bonds is about $1.425million. He displayed a graph of the principal and
interest scheduled payments for 2016 – 2028. In 2023 the bonded debt for the public safety facilities will
be paid off. There will only be the 2008 lease revenue bonded debt remaining; at the end of 2015 there
was just $980,000 in principal remaining.
He noted the City has only one special revenue fund; the Southshore Community Center (SSCC) Fund.
The SSCC operations ended 2015 with an operating loss of $60,365. There was a $70,000 transfer in to
cover the operating loss and improve the Fund balance. The Fund balance at the end of the year was
$53,379.
He explained the City has six capital project funds. The six funds totaled approximately $3.251 million at
the end of 2015. That reflects an approximate decrease of about $44,600 when compared to 2014. The
Street Reconstruction Fund decreased close to $83,600; the year-end balance was about $1.453 million.
Transfers in were over $813,900 and capital outlay expenditures were about $907,900. The Park Capital
Improvement Fund increased about $5,600. The Equipment Replacement Fund increased about $251,100;
there were $261,197 in transfers in. The Trail Construction Fund decreased about $162,600; revenues in
were about $63,300 and expenditures were $231,850. The Community Infrastructure Fund decreased
about $54,700; revenues were $120,446 and expenditures were $175,171.
Mr. Berg highlighted the Enterprise Funds (water, sewer, recycling, and storm water management). For
each fund he displayed a cash flow graph and a cash balance graph for 2012 – 2015.
He explained the cash balance in the Water Fund has decreased each of the last three years. The 2015
year-end balance was $3,058,372. The decrease in 2015 was mainly related to about $660,000 in capital
expenditures during the year. Also, operating receipts did not fully cover operating disbursements and
debt service payments during the year. The remaining bonded debt on the G.O. Water Revenue Bonds at
the end of 2015 was $1.9 million.
The cash balance in the Sewer Fund at the end of the year was about $2.566 million. It was about $3.2
million at the end of 2014. The major cause of the decrease was a $500,000 transfer to the Stormwater
Management Fund. The cash flow graph indicates the cash receipts from operations basically covered
operating cash disbursements. The cash balance is significant in relation to the minimum target balance of
four months of operating disbursements; it was a breakeven cash flow.
The Stormwater Management Utility Fund cash flow graph reflects the $500,000 transfer in from the
Sewer Fund. The 2015 year-end balance in the Fund was about $497,800. The 2014 year-end balance was
about $119,000.
The Recycling Fund is basically a break-even fund. There are never any big capital projects it has to fund.
Receipts were higher than disbursements in 2015. The cash balance was $122,701 at the end of 2015; it
was $69,716 at the end of 2014. The increase was mainly due to a decrease in operating disbursements
during 2015.
Mr. Berg reviewed the ratio analysis over a four year period comparing some of the City’s financial ratios
to peer group ratios for cities of similar size. The City’s 2015 debt-to-assets ratio (for the City’s assets this
measures how much is owed for them) was 27 percent; the 2014 peer group’s was 32 percent. The City’s
debt-service-coverage ratio (the ability of the Water Fund to pay back its debt service) was 1 percent. The
cash flow from operations has decreased each of the last four years. It was 144 percent in 2012. The debt-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 5 of 20
per-capita ratio (the total outstanding debt broken down by resident) was $1,253; the 2014 peer group’s
was $2,506. It has been decreasing over the last four years as the bonded debt is being paid down. The
City’s taxes-per-capita ratio was $664; the 2014 peer group’s was $484. It has been consistent over the
four-year period with a slight increase in 2015. The City’s current-expenditures-per-capita ratio was $525;
the 2014 peer group’s was $674. It has been consistent over the four-year period. The City’s capital-
expenditures-per-capita ratio was $254; the 2014 peer group’s was $320. The City’s capital assets percent
left to depreciate – Governmental ratio was 26 percent; the 2014 peer group’s was 63 percent. The City’s
capital assets percent left to depreciate – business-type ratio was 43 percent; the 2014 peer group’s was 61
percent.
Councilmember Woodruff asked if there is an extraordinary item that is driving the City’s debt-service-
coverage ratio (the ability of the Water Fund to pay back its debt service) of 1 percent. He stated he does
not recollect anything about the operating costs causing the City not to have the cash it needs to cover the
debt. Mr. Berg explained in 2012 the operating receipts were greater than the operating costs and the debt
payments combined. In 2015 the operating receipts were not sufficient to cover the operating costs and
debt payment combined. The City may want to reassess its water rates.
Director DeJong explained that water rates were last changed in 2009. At that time the City implemented
conservation rates which meant that the more water a person consumed in the summer months the higher
the rates. Consumers have responded to that by consuming less water. There have also been a couple of
years when the need to water lawns and landscaping was not as great. The highest revenue period used to
be during the summer when people were using a lot of water for outdoor things; water above their base
consumption. Because of the reduction in consumption during the summer months the revenue stream has
dropped considerably.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he understands there have been instances when water revenue did not
cover operating expenses. But, the City has had an extremely large cash balance in the Water Fund (about
$3 million) and the City has not had any particular use for that.
Councilmember Siakel stated it is her understanding that the surplus in the Recycling Fund is due to
changes in the recycling program. That allows the City the opportunity to expand services. Some things
discussed were fall cleanup and yard waste. She suggested Council discuss either expanding the services
or reevaluate the rates.
Councilmember Woodruff noted in a couple of prior years there had been a finding about untimely bank
reconciliations. He encouraged Administrator Joynes and Director DeJong to take the steps necessary to
ensure the bank statements are reconciled in a timely manner every month. If there is a reason that cannot
be done he asked that Council be informed of that so Council can help.
Director DeJong explained he has been working with Joe Rigdon, with BerganKDV and recommended by
Abdo, Eick & Meyers, to try and work through the reconciliations. The two of them have spent at least
four full days working on it. There is something in either the process or how things are being handled
internally in the financial software system that causes things not to balance on a monthly basis. The
adjusting journal entries were posted in May. He has been balancing and getting close on a monthly basis
but it had not balanced all year long. Even with Mr. Rigdon’s help they could not get there to be a
consistent variance from month to month. He is in the process of rebuilding the system starting in 2016.
He has another meeting scheduled with Mr. Rigdon in mid-July.
Mayor Zerby noted that the year is about half over. He asked if the 15-day reconciliation recommendation
is being met. Director DeJong stated he has entered all of the adjusting journal entries but he has not
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 6 of 20
posted them into the system. He explained the system allows for journal entries to be entered and use
them as uncommitted so that reports are accurate. He reiterated they have not been posted and finalized
into the system. That will be done after he and Mr. Rigdon get them balanced.
Zerby asked if that means the 2016 bank statements have not been reconciled yet. DeJong stated they
have not been reconciled to the penny but they have been reconciled within a small margin of error.
In response to a question from Councilmember Labadie, Director DeJong explained the Stormwater
Management Fund received a $500,000 transfer in from the Sewer Fund in 2015. That was authorized by
Council.
Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, accepting the draft 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report (CAFR) as presented and asking that it be filed. Motion passed 4/0.
Mayor Zerby thanked Mr. Berg for his efforts and for coming this evening.
Discussion returned to Item 5.A on the agenda.
7. PARKS
8. PLANNING
A. Report by Bean on the June 21, 2016, Planning Commission meeting.
This was discussed after Item 5.A on the agenda.
Planning Commissioner Bean reported on matters considered and actions taken at the June 21, 2016,
Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Councilmember Siakel thanked Commissioner Bean for recapping the meeting. She stated the points he
made are “right on the money”. She explained when Council first talked about the project and tax
increment financing (TIF) she had some concerns. After working through the process she came to agree
that TIF makes sense. She noted that Council has heard from residents about their desire to have some
senior living options in the City. She noted the point about risks was heard.
Commissioner Bean stated the City will end up with an amenity that some residents think is a high
priority. The TIF District would also generate some funding options to deal with traffic issues along
Chaska Road. He thought the project and TIF would become a win/win for the City, local residents and
the community at large in terms of the service that would be available.
In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Administrator Joynes clarified that Council
will be asked to approve the final TIF Plan and TIF District during its July 14 special meeting and the
Shorewood Economic Development Authority meeting on July 14.
Mayor Zerby noted that the Excelsior City Council voted against The Waters in Excelsior senior housing
project proposal. He questioned if the option for extending Excelsior watermain to the Oppidan site could
be open for discussion again. Administrator Joynes stated there had been a discussion between staff and
Oppidan representatives. It is his understanding that a conversation has occurred between Oppidan
representatives and Excelsior staff and that the extension of Excelsior watermain is still not an option.
Excelsior has stated it is because of capacity reasons.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 7 of 20
B. Conditional Use Permit for Removal of Over 400 Cubic Yards of Soil and
Depositing Over 100 Cubic Yard of Fill
Applicant: Tom Wartman
Location: 27135 and 26985 Edgewood Road
Director Nielsen explained Tom Wartman has requested a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for fill in
excess of 100 cubic yards for his property located at 26985 Edgewood Road. (During its May 9, 2016,
meeting Council approved a subdivision of that property into two lots.) He is proposing to bring in about
3000 cubic yards of fill to improve the buildability of the property. There is a new house being built on
the property located at 27135 Edgewood Road and that necessitates the removal of 1200 yards of fill
away from that site. That fill will be brought to the Wartman property. Removal of more than 400 cubic
yards of fill also requires a C.U.P. Both C.U.P.s are being handled as one matter.
Mr. Wartman has worked with Engineer Hornby for a number of months to come up with a grading plan
that satisfies all of the City’s requirements. The yellow outer ring contour on the grading plan indicates
where water is currently stored on the site. Some fill would be placed over a portion of that area on the
easterly lot. The proposed grading plan would store the same amount of water as the site currently stores.
The proposed plan provides for positive drainage from the site without adversely affecting other
properties.
Nielsen noted the meeting packet contains a copy of a resolution that if adopted would grant the C.U.P.
that approves both removing fill and bringing fill in.
Mayor Zerby asked if what is being proposed would trigger a review by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District (MCWD). Engineer Hornby clarified for the MCWD it would be an erosion control permit and
that would be required at the time the building permit is pulled or when the grading work is done.
Councilmember Siakel asked Engineer Hornby to clarify what erosion means. Hornby explained if there
is a rain fall event during development of eh site and if there is soil with no vegetation the soil could be
washed down hill. The developer would need to put up barriers such as a silt fence or fire retention logs to
prevent the soil from going on to other properties.
Mayor Zerby asked what amount triggers a review by the MCWD. Engineer Hornby stated for this one it
would be if it is over one acre so it might be too small. He explained the redevelopment of the site is what
triggers the erosion control permit.
In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Director Nielsen explained the new house on
the 27135 property will fill the hole where the fill is taken from.
Woodruff stated based on the information provided he understands it to be that there will not be any
increase in runoff from the Wartman property after the 3,000 cubic yards of fill is brought onto the site.
Engineer Hornby confirmed that. Hornby explained the site contains an area where a great deal of water
can be stored. It handles water from the site itself and from Edgewood Road. The proposed grading plan
shows it would continue to take water from Edgewood Road. Any area impacted from fill has to be
mitigated on site. The plan indicates that would happen.
Woodruff stated to him it seems that the situation with the clay drain pipe on the property on the north
side of the redevelopment site is under the control of the owners of that property. Engineer Hornby stated
it is a private pipe.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 8 of 20
Councilmember Labadie stated she has observed that there have been times when water significantly
pools on the site. She asked if bringing in the fill would alleviate an existing problem. Engineer Hornby
explained that when grading plans are reviewed the intent is to ensure that drainage issues are not
exacerbated. If there are opportunities for improvement then an attempt would be made to do that. In this
particular case he does not think there is any downstream issue. The developer has been required to
provide the same amount of volume on site to store water as existing conditions allow. The developer has
been told the site can continue to use drain on the easterly lot but it would have to be relocated because of
the site of the proposed building pad.
Councilmember Woodruff stated that it is his recollection that one or two years ago there was discussion
about some change a property owner made to a lot that caused water to pool on Edgewood Road in
approximately the area of the project site. Engineer Hornby clarified that was for the redevelopment of a
property on the north side of Edgewood Road and slightly to the west of the project site.
Councilmember Siakel asked if the City has done its own assessment of the drainage situation on and
around the site and not just relied on the developer. Engineer Hornby explained the biggest issue
discussed during the public hearing for the C.U.P. was the clay pipe. That pipe used to run down to the
lake. When a driveway was relocated to a parcel on the north and when a retaining wall was put in that
pipe was interrupted. That pipe currently sticks out of a retaining wall. When water in the Wartman parcel
is high enough to flow into the drain water will flow out of the exposed pipe. The property owner on the
north interrupted the pipe and daylighted it instead of rerouting it down to the lake.
Councilmember Labadie stated in concept it is a good plan. She again expressed concern about drainage
and noted that the reports have helped alleviate that concern.
Mayor Zerby asked if the drain is below the 100 year water mark. Engineer Hornby explained for this
project staff assessed the volume that would be impacted. The developer would have to replace the
volume plus the additional impervious surface to cover 25 percent of the lot. The developer was not
required to make a hydraulic model for the site. The developer just had to replace volume. He noted he
does not know what 100 year mark Zerby was referring to. He explained if the lot does overflow it would
go to the north over Edgewood Road. He thought the water has to pond up to about four feet high to flow
into the drain. Based on comments he heard during the public hearing there is likely a layer of sand there
that the water infiltrates through. The MCWD had indicated there is not a wetland there.
Labadie moved, Woodruff seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO 16-048, “A Resolution Granting
a Conditional Use Permit to Place Fill in Excess of 100 Cubic Yards for Tom Wartman, 26985
Edgewood Road.” Motion passed 4/0.
C. Appeal of Administrative Determination of Number of Boats Allowed at
Nonconforming Dock
Applicant: Radisson Rod Easement Holders
Location: 5540 Shore Road (Lot 11)
Director Nielsen explained that during January 2016 Paula Callies asked staff to provide a formal
determination as to how many boats could be kept at 5540 Shore Road (Lot 11). Lot 11 was a common lot
that was set aside as part of the Radisson Inn Addition for the use of several lots within the Addition.
Staff advised Ms. Callies that in recent history two docks have been kept at the dock on that lot. Any
number beyond two would be an expansion of a nonconforming use. The City Ordinance stipulates there
must be a house on a lot to have a dock and the residents living on that property can use that dock. There
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 9 of 20
is no house on Lot 11. The dock that has been there for long time has been grandfathered in. The
Shorewood Code applies the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Code to all of the lakes
within Shorewood. The LMCD Code stipulates one dock per 50 feet of shoreline. Lot 11 has a little over
100 feet of shoreline and therefore would allow two boats. Two boats should not be expanded because it
is a nonconforming use.
There are some easement holders over part of Lot 11 that have a right to use parts of Lot 11. The courts
determined that a number of years ago. A day or two before the Planning Commission was scheduled to
hold public hearing for the appeal the City received information from Ms. Callies questioning the City’s
authority to regulate docks and the mooring of boats on Christmas Lake. That public hearing was opened
and continued for about one month to provide the City Attorney time to review the information and
provide an opinion on Ms. Callies' position. The City also received material from the attorney for the
owners of Lot 11 supporting staff’s determination. The City Attorney supported staff’s determination that
allowing more than two boats at the dock would be an expansion of a nonconforming use.
He noted the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the appeal. He also noted
that because of the time it took to review the information the appellant was sent 60 day notice. He
explained the City has to act on land use items within 60 days unless the appellant, in this case, is notified
that it would take longer than 60 days. In this case the City was then allowed to take up to 120 days. The
120 days would be up around August 10.
He stated Council has been provided with the determination from him as the Zoning Administrator that
two boats are the maximum allowed for that nonconforming dock. Ii also received documentation from
the City Attorney and from another attorney supporting the determination.
Nielsen noted that the Planning Commission did take public comment during the public hearing for the
appeal. He stated staff suggests that if Council decides to take public comment then that should be
published as a public hearing and the topic should be continued until interested parties could be notified
that Council would take additional comments.
Mayor Zerby noted that he was in the audience during the public hearing when public comment was
taken. He also noted Ms. Callies serves as the city attorney for another municipality and she is a former
member of the Shorewood Council. He stated the letter from Ms. Callies dated June 27 notes that the
Boating Law Administrator and Water Recreation Manger with the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) indicated to her that Shorewood has no authority to adopt LMCD regulations and apply
them to Christmas Lake. He expressed concern that there is no answer to that at this time.
Attorney Keane stated the issue presented in the letter from Ms. Callies (the appellant) had not been
brought to his attention before today. He had not been made aware that Ms. Callies had been in contact
with the DNR official.
Councilmember Siakel stated from her vantage point the City needs to obey the law.
Attorney Keane stated this assertion does go to Shorewood’s implementation of LMCD standards for
water bodies within Shorewood. He then stated he had communicated with the Assistant General Counsel
for the DNR to verify his conclusion that the City was within its exercise of authority to regulate docks,
dock standards and boat storage units. The question Ms. Callies presented earlier in the day is new. He
went on to state if Council gives weight to the new information he can report back to Council on his
findings and conclusion during Council’s next meeting.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 10 of 20
Mayor Zerby stated he thought it would be worthwhile for Attorney Keane to research the new
information.
Councilmember Siakel stated the City has enforced LMCD guidelines in the past. Regulations requiring a
house on a property if there is to be a dock and allowing one boat per 50 feet of shoreline to be kept at the
dock. She does not think it would be right for the City to make an exception. The City needs to be
consistent with its regulation. However, if there is truly a legal question the City has to follow the law
first. She asked what direction Council wants to take.
Councilmember Labadie stated she thought Council should direct Attorney Keane to research this.
Attorney Keane clarified that the City has the authority to regulate docks and establish standards and to
do so by ordinance. Based on information Ms. Callies received from a DNR official Ms. Callies stated the
City does not have the authority to adopt LMCD regulations and standards by reference. The City has
implemented and applied them for decades.
Mayor Zerby stated he thought it prudent to defer Council taking action during this meeting. Attorney
Keane stated because of all of the debate and lawyering and legal arguments he thought it prudent to get
the response correct.
Councilmember Woodruff questioned the idea that the City cannot adopt LMCD regulations by reference.
He supports having Attorney Keane research the validity of that. He stated if that is true there are other
areas in the City Ordinance that could be problematic. The City could write out the LMCD’s regulations
in the City Ordinance but he questioned the benefit of doing that.
Councilmember Labadie stated the lakeshore, the lake property, docks and so forth are a very important
issue Shorewood. She noted Council received an electronic copy of the letter from Ms. Callies via email
at 5:00 P.M. that day. She stated it is prudent for Council to have a clear understanding of the validity of
the issue before it can take action.
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, continuing the appeal of the administrative determination of the
number of boats allowed at nonconforming dock at 5540 Shore Road (Lot 11) to Council’s July 11,
2016, meeting pending legal research by Attorney Keane. Motion passed 5/0.
Mayor Zerby asked Councilmembers if they thought there is a need for another public hearing.
Councilmember Woodruff stated from his perspective if there is something that has been left out of all of
the comments and documentation he suggested they be submit in writing.
There was Council consensus not to hold another public hearing on the matter.
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for Trail Clearing Equipment
Director Brown explained the 2015 Equipment Replacement Capital Equipment Program (CIP) included
the anticipated purchase of what is known as a “trackless” machine for the clearing of ice and snow from
trails for an amount of $150,000. Trackless machines have been the machine of choice for many
communities, due to their maneuverability and narrow width. After much discussion Public Works
personnel found it difficult to recommend spending that much money on a piece of equipment that would
only be used four months out of the year.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 11 of 20
Last fall staff tried other equipment for the Trackless unit such as a mower or flail attachment with the
hope that the setup could replace the agricultural tractor and flail mower that is slated for replacement.
That demo mowing equipment failed miserably. Therefore, staff did not recommend the purchase of the
Trackless unit last fall.
After research staff found another machine called a “MultiOne Loader” that appears to accomplish the
same thing. It would cost significantly less than $150,000. The mower would cost $54,927.28 off of the
Minnesota State Contract. The proposed attachments include a dirt bucket, a broom and a snow blower
for an attachment cost of $10,132. The total cost of the mower and attachments is $65,059.28. The
machine and attachments would fit all of the implements Public Works uses on a regular skid steer.
Therefore, it could be used year round. There are approximately 180 attachments for the machine making
it a very versatile machine. If purchased, it could be used to aerate the new artificial turf playfield.
He noted that at the dais this evening Council found a ledger of the Equipment Replacement Fund. It
shows the balance in the Fund is $264,324.84. He also noted that staff recommends the purchase of a
MultiOne Loader and the three attachments.
Mayor Zerby stated he appreciated Director Brown’s due diligence on this.
Zerby moved, authorizing the expenditure of funds from the Equipment Replacement Fund in the
amount of $65,059.28 for the purchase of a MultiOne Loader with cab and attachments.
Siakel asked if the proposed machine will be big enough to do everything the City will need to have done.
Director Brown responded yes. He stated Public Works currently tries to make use of the skid steer and
lawn mowers that get converted to blower equipment. That takes a toll on the lawn equipment.
Siakel seconded. Motion passed 4/0.
B. Receive Feasibility Report, Order Improvements, and Authorize Preparation of
Plans and Specifications – 2016 Watermain Extension, City Project 16-04 (Oppidan)
Engineer Hornby explained the proposed 2016 Trunk Watermain Extension Project was requested by
Oppidan Investment Company to serve its proposed Shorewood Living Facility that would be located at
6000 Chaska Road just south of Highway 7. As proposed, the roadway would be restored along with the
watermain improvements.
Following is a summary of his PowerPoint presentation related to the proposed improvements.
The watermain will be extended from the intersection of Yellowstone Trail and Minnetonka
Drive to the east along Yellowstone Trail, south along Glencoe Road, east along Park Street to
Pleasant Street. It would the cross Highway 7 to Pleasant Street on to Chaska Road and extend
along Chaska Road to the south side. It would then cross over the Oppidan development site
south of the north property line and then down Chaska Road to the end of the plat for the
development.
It will both 12 inch and 16 inch pipe.
In addition to the watermain extension serving the Oppidan development there would be an
opportunity to extend new watermain to a previously unserved area; the area south of Highway 7.
There are some Shorewood properties along the route and east along Mill Street that are currently
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 12 of 20
served by the Excelsior water system that could be switched to the Shorewood system. There are
also a number of properties along the route that are served by private wells.
One of the things that could occur is some or all of the Shorewood properties that area currently
served by the Excelsior system that are along the route just north of Highway 7 may have to
convert to the Shorewood system because that watermain may have to be replaced. Or, it may be
possible to put in a parallel watermain. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of right-of-way (ROW)
between the corporate boundary of Excelsior and the ROW line. He has received calls from some
residents expressing concern about connecting to the Shorewood system because Excelsior
softens its water.
The project would install services in the ROW along the route. A number of properties would
then be able to be connected to the Shorewood water system if the property owners wanted to. A
water connection fee would have to be paid by owners of properties currently not served by
municipal water if they decided to connect. They would also have to pay to install pipe from the
curb box at the ROW line to their home. It would be the property owner’s responsibility to
disconnect their well and abandon it in accordance with State Statutes if the well would no longer
to be used as an irrigation well.
The intent is to keep the watermain extension on one side of the roadway but it may go back and
forth to avoid impacting large numbers of trees and to satisfy the Department of Health’s
requirements for separation of the water utility and the sanitary sewer utility.
A jacket casing would have to be put under Highway 7 to make the crossing. That is a little
different than directional boring. Highway 7 will not be interrupted. A permit will be required
from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to cross its ROW.
The roadway improvements would not be a street reconstruction project. Consideration is being
given to possibly putting curb and gutter along the Oppidan side of Chaska Road as well as a
boulevard. Storm sewer would be installed to carry stormwater out of the area.
The total estimated project cost is $1,512,200. The watermain improvements portion is $798,800.
The street restoration portion is $620,200. The storm sewer improvements potion is $93,200.
Funding will come from the Water Fund ($1,112,200) and Oppidan ($400,000).
The preliminary project schedule is:
Present Feasibility Report to Council/Order Project June 27, 2016
Approve Plans/Authorize Bids July 2016
Open Bids August 2016
Award Construction Contract August 2016
Construction September – November 2016
Final Completion Spring/Summer 2017
The project entails installing about 3,500 feet of trunk watermain plus the restoration of the street.
Councilmember Siakel asked if the City had ever asked the City of Chanhassen about extending its water
system to areas within Shorewood. Engineer Hornby stated Chanhassen would have required other
conditions before doing that at the site of the Summit Woods development. Chanhassen was not asked
about that for the Oppidan project. Director Nielsen explained that when a previous developer was
considering the same site for a similar use for 90 units that developer set up a meeting with Shorewood
staff and Chanhassen staff. Chanhassen staff expressed concern about the density of that proposed project.
Chanhassen staff indicated that if it were to consider extending its water system it would want Shorewood
to improve the intersection at Chaska Road and Highway 41 noting that was not in Shorewood. Nielsen
then explained that for the Summit Woods development Chanhassen would have extended watermain to
four lots if Shorewood would have looped the watermain down Mayflower Road to Murray Hill Road.
Four lots could not support Shorewood doing that.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 13 of 20
Siakel stated if Chanhassen were to ask for improvements if it extended watermain to the Oppidan site
she questioned if that might cost less than extending Shorewood watermain across Highway 7.
Director Nielsen noted the original Shorewood municipal water plan intended for that area to be served by
the Chanhassen water system.
Engineer Hornby noted the meeting packet contains a copy of a resolution that if adopted would receive
the Feasibility Report, order the project and authorize the plans and specifications for the 2016 Trunk
Watermain Extension Project. He also noted the engineering staff would have to be working on this
continually to make the schedule work. He explained a topographic survey has been scheduled for the
work. The work done to date for this project has been off aerial photographs.
Councilmember Siakel asked if doing this project on an expedited schedule would put other City projects
behind. Engineer Hornby clarified there is room in the schedule for this project and noted that he has told
WSB & Associates staff to keep working on it.
Engineer Hornby explained that developer would like to have water to the site for construction purposes
this fall and have the roads restored.
Mayor Zerby asked how many of the houses that could potentially be served by the extension are
currently served by private wells. Engineer Hornby stated he thought it was 60 – 70 houses. Hornby noted
that 22 Shorewood properties are served by Excelsior water.
Zerby stated he did not think the requirement to abandon wells after a house is connected to municipal
water reflects Shorewood’s current policy. Engineer Hornby stated residents can either abandon their well
or convert it to irrigation. If it would be used for irrigation it would have to be disconnected from the
municipal water source. Zerby stated it is his understanding that residents could use the well water in their
homes but it had to be a separate system from the municipal water system. The two water systems could
not be interconnected. Zerby suggested the word irrigation be deleted in the Feasibility Report on page 6
to match Shorewood’s policy.
Zerby then stated he assumes the topic of the exit off Highway 7 on to Chaska Road is not part of the
Feasibility Report. Engineer Hornby stated the Report is just about the watermain extension.
Zerby stated he would like to add the word “advance” to the Item 4.6 on Page 7 which talks about
notifying residents about activities that may affect access. Engineer Hornby stated that was the intent.
Councilmember Woodruff asked if the intent is to switch those 22 properties currently connect to
Excelsior watermain to Shorewood watermain after it is extended. Is that decision being made tonight or
is that undetermined at this time? Engineer Hornby stated the City has the ability to do that with the
project but that decision does not have to be made this evening. Hornby then stated he thought if there is
going to be a public information meeting about the project he thought there would be a number of those
property owners who would come and say they want to remain on Excelsior watermain.
Woodruff stated if a property is connected to a different municipal water service and the City requires
them to instead connect to Shorewood’s water service when it becomes available he asked who would pay
for that new connection. Engineer Hornby stated that change would be made at the street level. There
would not be any charge to the property owner.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 14 of 20
Woodruff then stated the Feasibility Report does not mention anything about assessing the properties not
connected to the Excelsior watermain for the watermain extension. Engineer Hornby stated there are no
assessments proposed in this feasibility report. Woodruff suggested the Feasibility Report say that
because that is different from the City’s policy. Currently if watermain is installed property owners are
assessed for at least some of that cost. Hornby stated this project is different because it is paid for by a
development and the Water Fund and possibly through another financing method. If there were any
proposed assessments they would be identified in the Report. Director Brown explained the City’s Water
Policy allows the City to order infrastructure improvements which would help with the overall
infrastructure without assessing property owners. That was done with the CUB Foods watermain
extension. That was also done for the southeast area Amsbury water system interconnect. Because the
Report does not include an assessment schedule when Council approves the Report it is basically saying
the extension will not be assessed. Woodruff again suggested the Report state the extension would not be
assessed to property owners.
Councilmember Siakel asked what happens to the Excelsior Watermain that is in the ground. Engineer
Hornby explained that one option would be to cut in valves to change the water supply route near the
corporate boundary. He noted that in some of the border areas there are some Excelsior and some
Shorewood properties served by the same watermain. There are some Shorewood properties that cannot
be taken off of the Excelsior water system unless a parallel watermain in installed.
Engineer Hornby noted there is one block that would have to be on temporary water during construction
because that watermain will have to be physically removed in order to install the new watermain.
Mayor Zerby asked if the City has prescriptive rights to cut another city’s pipe and put the City’s in its
place. Engineer Hornby stated that detail of who owns that pipe still needs to be worked out. Attorney
Keane stated he is not sure what the understanding was at the time the facility was constructed and who
retained ownership of the public improvement upon abandonment. That requires research. Director
Brown stated that typically if a utility is in Shorewood’s ROW Shorewood would be the owning agency.
However, Shorewood could have allowed another city to put a utility in is ROW. Brown noted that
watermain was probably put in in the 1960s so the records could be minimal or nonexistent.
Councilmember Woodruff stated it sounds like a number of nuances will have to be worked out as the
project progresses. He then stated that he was convinced that there is no alternative to moving forward
with this project. He noted that the City has not yet committed to Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for the
Oppidan project. He asked if Oppidan is irrevocably committed to doing its proposed Shorewood Senior
Living project. Administrator Joynes explained that Council will consider the TIF Plan during its special
July 14 meeting. That would be the date that the City and Oppidan agree to go forward with the TIF Plan
and the Oppidan project. At that time Oppidan would give the City the $400,000.
Councilmember Siakel asked why Council needs to approve this tonight and not after the TIF Plan is
approved. Mayor Zerby stated Council is being asked to receive the Feasibility Report tonight. Engineer
Hornby reiterated Council is being asked to receive the Feasibility Report, order the project and authorize
the plans and specifications for the 2016 Trunk Watermain Extension Project. He noted if that is not done
tonight the Project will not happen this fall.
Councilmember Siakel stated she thought the City should be on its timetable; not a developer’s. She then
stated it is up to Council to do tis due diligence to ensure things are in place. From her vantage point
Council would be approving this at risk should something fall through between now and when it
considers approving the TIF Plan. She asked why there is a need to rush this; July 14 is not that far away.
She expressed her discomfort with approving what Council is being asked to approve tonight.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 15 of 20
Engineer Hornby explained the City will have the developer pay a financial security to cover the cost of
the final design if the developer chooses to go forward. The cost of moving forward with the plans is the
developer’s cost. If for some reason the TIF District does not get approved and the project is dropped
there is no cost to the City. The burden would be on the developer to fund the project going forward. The
developer wants municipal water at its project site this fall. The developer provided financial security to
prepare the Feasibility Report and to do a portion of the water model to make sure the watermain was
sized appropriately to serve the Oppidan site and parts of the City beyond there.
Councilmember Woodruff stated Council will have another opportunity to decide if it wants to move
forward with the watermain extension after the bids come in.
Engineer Hornby stated staff will put together an escrow agreement with the developer similar to what
was done for the Feasibility Report. The developer would have to put up the funding for preparing the
plans and specifications. If the City decides it does not want to finance any of the watermain extension
and improvements that would means the developer would have to finance it. If that were to happen it
most likely means the project would not happen. There would be no expense to the City for preparing the
plans and specifications.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he is comfortable with the timing. He reiterated if the City decides it
does not want to move forward with the watermain extension Council would not award the contract.
Engineer Hornby stated that up to that point the plans and specifications are paid for by the developer. It
is a 100 percent bill back to the developer for engineering time.
\Mayor Zerby asked if the cost of preparing the Feasibility Report, part of the water model and the plans
and specifications is above the $400,000 Oppidan will pay for the watermain extension. Engineer Hornby
clarified that those costs are included in the project costs and the $400,000 from Oppidan is to help pay
for the total project.
Labadie moved, Woodruff seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 16-049, “A Resolution
Receiving Feasibility Report, Ordering the Project, and Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and
Specifications for the 2016 Trunk Watermain Extension Project, City Project 16-04 (Oppidan).”
Motion passed 4/0.
Mayor Zerby recessed the meeting at 8:35 P.M.
Mayor Zerby reconvened the meeting at 8:38 P.M.
C. Enchanted Lane Improvements Discussion
Engineer Hornby explained that the Cities of Shorewood and Minnetrista experienced flooding in June
2014 on Enchanted Lane due to high water in Lake Minnetonka because of heavy rains. Both cities
constructed temporary elevated roadways to provide a driving surface above the water line. Both cities
worked with FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) to be reimbursed to restore the roadways
after the water receded.
Minnetrista is currently working on the preliminary design and feasibility report to improve Enchanted
Lane with a pavement reclamation or mill and overlay project. Reclamation involves bringing in a large
machine that picks up and grinds the pavement then mixes it in with the aggregate base below and lays it
back down. That results in there being a new base to put pavement on. Minnetrista is preparing the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 16 of 20
feasibility report because their residents are assessed for a portion of roadway improvement projects.
Prior to holding a public hearing Minnetrista would hold a public information meeting about the project.
There had been a public information meeting about one year ago during which a number of property
owners expressed they were not in favor of the improvements. The Minnetrista Council did think the
improvements were needed and authorized the preparation of the feasibility report.
During discussions with the Council previously and with the Mayor Zerby recently some interest has been
expressed in doing a cooperative project with Minnetrista that would include a pavement improvement of
Enchanted Lane in Shorewood.
Shorewood’s Pavement Management Plan (PMP) currently includes a Mill and Overlay of Enchanted
Lane, Enchanted Cove, Enchanted Drive, and Dellwood Lane in 2024 and the same for Shady Island
Road, Shady Island Point, and Shady Island Circle in 2023. Shady Island Trail is scheduled for
reconstruction in 2023.
If the Minnetrista project comes to fruition it would be included in its 2017 Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP). The feasibility report is the first step in that process.
Shorewood’s project would be more of a bituminous leveling and overlay project. Minnetrista’s project
would be more extensive because a level of Enchanted Lane is quite a bit lower. There are some areas that
flood seasonally due to snow melt in Minnetrista. Minnetrista is looking to reduce the seasonal flooding.
It does not intend to bring the roadway surface above the 100-year flood plain.
Hornby noted that Mayor Zerby had asked that he bring this before Council as a discussion item to find
out if Shorewood would be interested in pursuing this in 2017 as a capital improvement project.
Mayor Zerby stated he has been having discussions with Engineer Hornby about this since the 2014
flooding. He thought it would make a lot of sense to coordinate the improvements with Minnetrista being
portions of Enchanted Lane are located in both cities. He has spoken with a number of Shorewood
residents who live on Enchanted Island and they have indicated they would be interested in moving
forward with the improvements in Shorewood.
Councilmember Woodruff stated based on his assessment most roadways out on the islands qualify for
rework. In 4 – 6 years the roadways would be in very poor condition. He thought Public Works spends
about one full week patching the roadways each year. He thought it would be worthwhile to make a
necessary improvement earlier than scheduled in the CIP to take advantage of some cost savings that
would be gained by doing the project at the same time as Minnetrista. He also thought the Shorewood
residents on Enchanted Island would prefer to disrupt the roadway once rather than twice. He noted he
would support making the improvements to Enchanted Lane in Shorewood at the same time as
Minnetrista makes improvements to Enchanted Lane.
Councilmember Siakel stated she would like to have a better understanding of the condition of Enchanted
Lane. She noted the City has already committed to making improvements to Strawberry Lane and a
number of other streets that probably impact more people every day; doing them would consume a lot of
the City’s financial resources. She asked where making improvements to Enchanted Lane fits in to the
greater scheme of roadway improvements. The staff memorandum indicates the 2023 budgetary cost of
roadway improvements for Shady Island to be $250,000 and $270,000 for Enchanted Island roadways in
2024. She asked what the cost benefit would be if the improvements were made at the same time
Minnetrista made its improvements to Enchanted Lane. She noted she understands the disruption
component.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 17 of 20
Engineer Hornby explained there would be economies of scale by combining the projects. And, there is
the avoidance of multiple disruptions to residents. In the 1990s a bridge was reconstructed on the Islands.
At that time there was discussion about reconstructing a bridge near Minnetrista. Minnetrista did not do
that until a number of years later. He stated doing the improvements in both Cities at the same time
provides an opportunity for cost savings for both Cities.
Councilmember Siakel asked how many Shorewood households are on Enchanted Island. Engineer
Hornby stated between 90 and 100.
Director Brown explained the goal is to keep the PASER (Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating)
rating for roadways at 4 or higher. In 2015 most roadways on Enchanted and Shady Islands were rated 3 –
5 with most being a 4. Those roadways are deteriorating at a faster rate than was hoped for. When a
roadway is rated below 3 then more consideration would be given to reconstructing those roadways than
to restoring them with, for example, an overlay or sealcoat. He thought the life of those roadways could
be extended until they are slated for more significant improvements in the CIP. But, it would take
substantially more Public Works personnel time.
Councilmember Labadie asked if the improvements would involve a complete redo of the bridge between
Enchanted Island and Shady Island. Engineer Hornby clarified no work would be done to the bridge.
Mayor Zerby stated he thought it would be beneficial to have further discussion about this during the CIP
budget discussions. He then stated he thought it would make sense to have a cooperative project because
there is an equipment mobilization cost that could be reduced and there would be less disruption for the
residents.
Councilmember Labadie stated for the next discussion about this she asked that staff provide labor costs
for patching the roadways on the Islands each year.
Councilmember Siakel asked when the last time was when any major roadway repairs were done on the
Islands. Director Brown stated there has not been any reconstruction short of on Enchanted Point where a
gravel roadway treatment was done. For paved roadways improvements have included overlays of those
areas where they were raised due to flooding and that was done in conjunctions with FEMA. That section
of roadway was about 450 feet long. Other than that during his about 28-year tenure there has only been
patching and sealcoating.
Administrator Joynes asked Engineer Hornby when a decision needs to be made about this in order to
coordinate with Minnetrista assuming Minnetrista moves forward with its project. Hornby responded after
the Minnetrista Council has considered its feasibility report; he thought that would happen in the later part
of July or early part of August. Joynes stated based on that Council and staff could discuss this during its
CIP discussion before making any commitment to moving forward.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he hopes that Engineer Hornby continues to work with Minnetrista on
the possibility Shorewood might move forward with the project based on the discussion this evening and
that Hornby would bring Council more information as it becomes available.
Engineer Hornby explained that the areas where there is seasonal flooding will likely require some
mitigation of filling the flood plain. He ran a preliminary number for Minnetrista and the early estimate is
that it would need to mitigate about 500 cubic yards of flood plain fill. Minnetrista had an agreement with
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) where there was a land swap. For Shorewood an
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 18 of 20
assessment would have to be made about what would have to be done for flood plain mitigation. He can
speak with MCWD representatives because the MCWD is the one doing the mitigation project.
D. Smithtown Road East Trail Extension Work Order No. 1
Engineer Hornby explained that on August 24, 2015, the City Council accepted bids and awarded the
Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project to S. M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. There is some work that
came in that was out of scope. Different storm sewer pipe materials were required due to the actual
location of the watermain with proximity to the storm sewer. That required additional material and
construction work necessary to construct the drainage system. That is identified in Work Order 1. The
amount of Work Order 1 is $3,366. The project construction contract as bid was awarded by the Council
in the amount of $769,873.00. Work Order 1 will increase the contract amount to $773,239.00
(approximately 0.43 percent).
Hornby noted staff recommends Council adopt the resolution approving Work Order 1.
Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 16-050, “A Resolution Approving
Work Order 1 for the Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project, City Project 14-10, in the
amount of $3,366.” Motion passed 4/0.
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
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 explained that since June 23 staff has been working the contractor on the Smithtown
Road East Sidewalk Extension project about timing of activities. The contractor wanted to pour curb on
June 28. The contractor intended to do grading work on June 23 and 24. That did not happen. The
contractor then wanted to pour curb on June 29. If the curb had been poured on June 29 it would have
kept residents along that route without direct access to their driveways through the Fourth of July holiday.
Staff did not think that would have been a good idea. Staff therefore told the contractor to schedule the
pouring of the concrete curb after July 4. The contractor was not sure he could have a crew he week of
July 4 but did think he could do that the following week. Once the curb is poured the contractor will start
processing the backfilling and creating the base for the sidewalk. Then the sidewalk will be poured. From
the time the curb is poured for a three week period residents will have to park outside of their driveways
for two weeks. Mayor Zerby asked if there are designated spots for them to park. Hornby stated they
would have to park on the side roads or in the driveways of residents across the street; that is the same
thing residents had to do for the west side of the sidewalk. They cannot park on Smithtown Road.
In response to a question from Mayor Zerby, Engineer Hornby explained that a newsletter was sent out to
residents preparing them for this week. A newsletter is being prepared to inform residents that the work
would not be this week and it would be done sometime after July 4. Door hangers had also been put out.
Zerby asked if there is any news about the utility poles. Hornby explained Xcel Energy has contracted the
owner of the fiber optic and that is the next thing that has to be moved to the new poles. After that cable
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 19 of 20
television and cable will be moved but he does not know the schedule of those moves. Hornby noted that
he invites utility representatives to a weekly meeting he has. Zerby asked if the plan is to move forward
regardless of that schedule. Hornby confirmed that.
Zerby stated there had been some grading done the previous week and now there is a significant drop in
the edge in some spots. Hornby stated that will have to be backfilled. Zerby then sked if that would be an
additional cost to the City to have that done. Hornby stated the contractor may want to charge for that
additional fill and noted it is the contractor’s responsibility to provide a safe access at that edge. The
contractor will have to do that this week if it is still that way.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the trail schedule included in the meeting packet indicates the sidewalk
would be substantially complete by June 30. He asked what the new date is. Engineer Hornby stated
because of delays because of things like relocating utilities the contractor will be compensated with more
time. He anticipates that the date for the restoration to be complete would be July 31.
Councilmember Labadie asked what the causes for the delay were. Engineer Hornby explained the
relocation of the utilities caused most of the delay. The contractor was also asked to delay some work
when work was being done along Country Club Road and Yellowstone Trail; that cost the contractor
about one and one half weeks. The City also asked the contractor to delay pouring the curb. He noted the
contractor is going to do the grading before pouring the curb.
2. Monthly Budget Report
Mayor Zerby noted the meeting packet contains a copy of the May 2016 Monthly Budget Report.
Other
Director DeJong stated he has been busy with the audit and is getting ready to start working on the
budget.
Director Nielsen stated the first of the two park tours for the Park Commission is scheduled for June 28.
Director Brown stated the parks included in that tour are Freeman Park, Cathcart park, Crescent Beach,
Badger Park and Gideon Glen.
Administrator Joynes stated staff will be working on the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Plan for the
Oppidan project with Springsted this week. He then stated he will speak with representatives from the
City of Tonka Bay about Crescent Beach maintenance this week.
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Siakel reminded Council that the Council liaisons to the Park and Planning Commission
change beginning July.
Mayor Zerby stated the City received a response from the Greenwood Council on the proposed joint
powers agreement changes. Administrator Joynes noted that is the only response he has seen. He is
waiting for a response from the Deephaven and Tonka Bay Councils.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 20 of 20
12. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of June 27, 2016,
at 9:03 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Scott Zerby, Mayor
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#3A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Verified Claims
Meeting Date: July 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.
62673 - 62675 & ACH 25,825.02
62676 - 62697 & ACH 487,516.21
Total Claims $513,341.23
We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending June 26, 2016.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
These expenditures are reasonable and necessary to provide services to our residents an
budgeted and available for these purposes.
Options:
The City Council is may accept the staff recommendation to pay these claims or may r
expenditure it deems not in the best interest of the city.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends approval of the claims list as presented.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Checks will be distributed following approval.
#$% &''
()*"+, - ,./-,&0"1 2& -
!"=0>/% 0
?$-@A!BBBBCDBEDCBFE"G"#1GBECHCBFE
3456"78"9:71;<77+
!"#$ %&'()'&*"# % !"+(',*"# % !")'- (*."* !
8 I+"FBF( 0 $'"8/0J
FBFGBBGFBFBGBBBB"BDBB"KHLMHNDOM3P9:"PI+"4IQ;95=;I59
FBFGFMGKFBFGBBBB"ELKRFDMB"BDBB8 **G54=;"1;( *P1
FBFGFMGKFBMGBBBB"MRHDBB"BDBB#P15G54=;
FBFGFMGKFCFGBBBB"KREDBH"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
FBFGFMGKFCCGBBBB"OKBDBH"BDBB843P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
FBFGFMGKFMFGBBBB"FLBRRDBB"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"G"3456
FBFGFMGKFOFGBBBB"RBDBE"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
FBFGFOGKFBFGBBBB"KLMNKDMK"BDBB8 **G54=;"1;( *P1
FBFGFOGKFCFGBBBB"MCNDOR"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
FBFGFOGKFCCGBBBB"MFRDOR"BDBB843P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
FBFGFOGKFMFGBBBB"OBBDRR"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"G"3456
FBFGFOGKFOFGBBBB"CRDFR"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
FBFGFRGKFBFGBBBB"OLCBHDHK"BDBB8 **G54=;"1;( *P1
FBFGFRGKFCFGBBBB"MNBDOR"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
FBFGFRGKFCCGBBBB"MNNDOM"BDBB843P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
FBFGFRGKFMFGBBBB"ROODRB"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"G"3456
FBFGFRGKFOFGBBBB"MMDMM"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
FBFGCKGKFBFGBBBB"KLBEBDEB"BDBB8 **G54=;"1;( *P1
FBFGCKGKFCFGBBBB"MBKDON"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
FBFGCKGKFCCGBBBB"CEMDBK"BDBB843P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
FBFGCKGKFMFGBBBB"OBBDBB"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"G"3456
FBFGCKGKFOFGBBBB"CEDEO"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
FBFGMCGKFBFGBBBB"NLFBODRB"BDBB8 **G54=;"1;( *P1
FBFGMCGKFBCGBBBB"FHHDMB"BDBB7Q;154=;
FBFGMCGKFBOGBBBB"MCBDKB"BDBB951;;5"#P(;1"#P6
FBFGMCGKFCFGBBBB"HCBDCK"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
FBFGMCGKFCCGBBBB"HBODRF"BDBB843P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
FBFGMCGKFMFGBBBB"FLRFCDFB"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"G"3456
FBFGMCGKFOFGBBBB"OFCDEH"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
FBFGMMGKFBFGBBBB"FCBDHB"BDBB8 **G54=;"1;( *P1
FBFGMMGKFCFGBBBB"NDBE"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
FBFGMMGKFCCGBBBB"RDCN"BDBB843P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
FBFGMMGKFOFGBBBB"CDBE"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
FBFGOCGKFBFGBBBB"MLNREDEO"BDBB8 **G54=;"1;( *P1
#1"G"()*"+, - ,./-,&0"1 2& -"TBE)CH)CBFE"G"FF!OE"P=U#$> "F
!"#$ %&'()'&*"# % !"+(',*"# % !")'- (*."* !
FBFGOCGKFBMGBBBB"KFRDBB"BDBB#P15G54=;
FBFGOCGKFCFGBBBB"MBODEB"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
FBFGOCGKFCCGBBBB"MMHDMF"BDBB843P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
FBFGOCGKFMFGBBBB"RNRDKR"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"G"3456
FBFGOCGKFOFGBBBB"FNODFM"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
FBFGOMGKFBFGBBBB"RRKDEE"BDBB8 **G54=;"1;( *P1
FBFGOMGKFCFGBBBB"EEDMK"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
FBFGOMGKFCCGBBBB"ENDBF"BDBB843P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
FBFGOMGKFMFGBBBB"CFDER"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"G"3456
FBFGOMGKFOFGBBBB"CEDMC"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
#567869:;8#567869:;8
/0$)#1 "234
8 I+"CBF9&/-A A& "3 0-
CBFGBBGFBFBGBBBB"BDBB"FLKECDNF3P9:"PI+"4IQ;95=;I59
CBFGBBGKFBFGBBBB"ERFDEB"BDBB8 **G54=;"1;( *P1
CBFGBBGKFBCGBBBB"CEEDCO"BDBB7Q;154=;
CBFGBBGKFBMGBBBB"MOCDOB"BDBB#P15G54=;
CBFGBBGKFCFGBBBB"OFDFF"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
CBFGBBGKFCCGBBBB"HRDRH"BDBB843P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
CBFGBBGKFOFGBBBB"MCDOR"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
#<75=>:9<#<75=>:9<
/0$)#1 "234
8 I+"EBF<$- " -,',-%
EBFGBBGFBFBGBBBB"BDBB"NLNNBDFH3P9:"PI+"4IQ;95=;I59
EBFGBBGKFBFGBBBB"HLMFEDHH"BDBB8 **G54=;"1;( *P1
EBFGBBGKFBCGBBBB"FHODEC"BDBB7Q;154=;
EBFGBBGKFBOGBBBB"CNCDHB"BDBB<P5;1"#P(;1"#P6
EBFGBBGKFCFGBBBB"ORMDNF"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
EBFGBBGKFCCGBBBB"OCODEO"BDBB843P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
EBFGBBGKFMFGBBBB"RHFDOO"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"G"3456
EBFGBBGKFOFGBBBB"CCMDNH"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
#9799?:<6#9799?:<6
/0$)#1 "234
8 I+"EFF9$0,-$ %"9 V " -,',-%
EFFGBBGFBFBGBBBB"BDBB"OLOBNDHN3P9:"PI+"4IQ;95=;I59
EFFGBBGKFBFGBBBB"MLEKEDKF"BDBB8 **G54=;"1;( *P1
EFFGBBGKFBOGBBBB"CNCDHB"BDBB9;<;1"#P(;1"#P6
EFFGBBGKFCFGBBBB"CNODKB"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
EFFGBBGKFCCGBBBB"CRNDEB"BDBB843P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
EFFGBBGKFMFGBBBB"RHFDOO"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"G"3456
EFFGBBGKFOFGBBBB"FFKDFM"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
#1"G"()*"+, - ,./-,&0"1 2& -"TBE)CH)CBFE"G"FF!OE"P=U#$> "C
!"#$ %&'()'&*"# % !"+(',*"# % !")'- (*."* !
#;7;?9:69#;7;?9:69
/0$)#1 "234
8 I+"ECF1 @%@',0>" -,',-%
ECFGBBGFBFBGBBBB"BDBB"MKODFK3P9:"PI+"4IQ;95=;I59
ECFGBBGKFBFGBBBB"CMRDHK"BDBB8 **G54=;"1;( *P1
ECFGBBGKFCFGBBBB"FHDNF"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
ECFGBBGKFCCGBBBB"FRDKF"BDBB843P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
ECFGBBGKFMFGBBBB"ERDKR"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"G"3456
ECFGBBGKFOFGBBBB"FDEB"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
#85;:<5#85;:<5
/0$)#1 "234
8 I+"EMF9-& W"<$- " -,',-%
EMFGBBGFBFBGBBBB"BDBB"NNMDRE3P9:"PI+"4IQ;95=;I59
EMFGBBGKFBFGBBBB"HHKDFC"BDBB8 **G54=;"1;( *P1
EMFGBBGKFCFGBBBB"ORDBR"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
EMFGBBGKFCCGBBBB"OEDNE"BDBB843P"37I514?"G"3456"9:P1;
EMFGBBGKFMFGBBBB"NEDOE"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"G"3456
EMFGBBGKFOFGBBBB"RDFK"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
#998:@=#998:@=
/0$)#1 "234
8 I+"HBB#$% &''"3' $ ,0>"8/0J
HBBGBBGFBFBGBBBB"EOLMHHDON"BDBB3P9:"PI+"4IQ;95=;I59
HBBGBBGCFHBGBBBB"BDBB"MFLKKMDBR(1799"#P617**"3*;P14I(
HBBGBBGCFHFGBBBB"BDBB"HLHFHDMC:;P*5:"4I9 1PI3;"#P6P?*;
HBBGBBGCFHCGBBBB"BDBB"KLMORDKB8;+;1P*"<45::7*+4I("#P6P?*;
HBBGBBGCFHMGBBBB"BDBB"FLRRBDFN95P5;"<45::7*+4I("#P6P?*;
HBBGBBGCFHKGBBBB"BDBB"HLCCCDCE843P)=;+43P1;"5PX"#P6P?*;
HBBGBBGCFHOGBBBB"BDBB"ELHOKDKR#;1P"<45::7*+4I("#P6P?*;
HBBGBBGCFHEGBBBB"BDBB"CLMOODBB+;8;11;+"37=#;I9P547I
HBBGBBGCFHHGBBBB"BDBB"FLCRKDRC<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
HBBGBBGCFRBGBBBB"BDBB"KKFDRH*48;"4I9 1PI3;
HBBGBBGCFRCGBBBB"BDBB"MEEDKB I47I"+ ;9
HBBGBBGCFRMGBBBB"BDBB"FLOOMDHH:;P*5:"9PQ4I(9"P337 I5
#=;7866:;9#=;7866:;9
/0$)#1 "234
A'. ("1 "234
#<8<7?;@:99#<8<7?;@:99
#1"G"()*"+, - ,./-,&0"1 2& -"TBE)CH)CBFE"G"FF!OE"P=U#$> "M
!"#$%&'&()*
+,* -$.*"&/)
0#*123!4 '*!
%1/!"*526789:896;7$<$$92=;%3
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
./"0"+12 34"3#" 56# 78"9"0"6#75#"(642"8:- "7* %"+ ,$-*"
$66789:896;7
>!?@ )'<96;7
A/!*$>"*B$.&"*A/!*$>"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$>"*B$ !"
6:86;896;7%H$I&" ,$66669E67E96;7$0!/ !$. *#:66<66<9;G9<6666$D77EF6
>!?$@ )'<96;7$J "&)$$D77EF6
$6$J "&)2$D77EF6
$D77EF6
./"0"+12 34"3#" 56# 78"9"0"6#75#"(642";,*)<=
.9>"0" 6?"155(2"0"2@5A4B55("8:- "7* %"+ ,$-*"
$797:D6789:896;7
>!?96;7<+)*&! C
A/!*$>"*B$.&"*A/!*$>"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$>"*B$ !"
6=89;896;7% 1 ,&#*5$ !$6=89;8;779;<66<D:D9<6666$D6EGK
>!?$96;7<+)*&! C$J "&)$$D6EGK
$797:D$J "&)2$D6EGK
.9>"0" 6?"155(2"0"2@5A4B55(";,*)<=$D6EGK
9"0"41;C2"0"14(4A+8"BD@"8:- "7* %"+ ,$-*"
$66789:896;7
>!?679:96;7
A/!*$>"*B$.&"*A/!*$>"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$>"*B$ !"
6789:896;7%H$I&" ,$66669E67E96;7$M*5*1&)$>! B*$J&N:66<66<9;:9<6666$FLD=GEF6
6789:896;7%H$I&" ,$66669E67E96;7$M>+ $OBC) '**$% 1"/ !:66<66<9;:F<6666$9LK97E7F
6789:896;7%H$I&" ,$66669E67E96;7$M>+ $OBC) '*1$% 1"/ !:66<66<9;:F<6666$9LK97E7F
6789:896;7%H$I&" ,$66669E67E96;7$3*5/ &1*$OBC) '**$% 1"/ !:66<66<9;:F<6666$7GFEFK
6789:896;7%H$I&" ,$66669E67E96;7$3*5/ &1*$OBC) '*1$% 1"/ !:66<66<9;:F<6666$7GFEFK
>!?$679:96;7$J "&)$$;;L=G6E77
$6$J "&)2$;;L=G6E77
$;;L=G6E77
9"0"41;C2"0"14(4A+8"BD@";,*)<=
%<+,* -$.*"&/)$P789:896;7$<$$92=;$%3Q%&4*$;
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
/"0"7 3+"A4;7A434#;";A62;0EF/.E.0G9H"8:- "7* %"+ ,$-*"
$797:F6789:896;7
>!?679:96;7
A/!*$>"*B$.&"*A/!*$>"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$>"*B$ !"
6789:896;7%H$I&" ,$66669E67E96;7$.*R*11*5$+ BC$M)&"$ B !":66<66<9;:7<6666$9LD==E66
>!?$679:96;7$J "&)$$9LD==E66
$797:F$J "&)2$9LD==E66
$9LD==E66
/"0"7 3+"A4;7A434#;";A62;0EF/.E.0G9H";,*)<=
/>I"0"37(B42;"3+787#J"2K2;432"7# "8:- "7* %"+ ,$-*"
$66789:896;7
>!?:==D7
A/!*$>"*B$.&"*A/!*$>"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$>"*B$ !"
6:86;896;7S*T#)*""*1$% #"&4*#<@ )';6;<;D<F96G<6666$FDGED9
6:86;896;7S*T#)*""*1$U? <@ )';6;<;D<FF66<6666$F9DEFF
>!?$:==D7$J "&)$$G7;E:7
$6$J "&)2$G7;E:7
$G7;E:7
/>I"0"37(B42;"3+787#J"2K2;432"7# ";,*)<=
.."0"37##425;+"(4C+A;34#;""51"A4L4#64"8:- "7* %"+ ,$-*"
$66789:896;7
>!?679:96;7
A/!*$>"*B$.&"*A/!*$>"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$>"*B$ !"
6789:896;7%H$I&" ,$66669E67E96;7$U"&"*$>! B*$J&N:66<66<9;:D<6666$;LGG6E;K
>!?$679:96;7$J "&)$$;LGG6E;K
$6$J "&)2$;LGG6E;K
$;LGG6E;K
.."0"37##425;+"(4C+A;34#;""51"A4L4#64";,*)<=
H"0"37##425;+"8714"8:- "7* %"+ ,$-*"
$66789:896;7
>!?@ )'<96;7
A/!*$>"*B$.&"*A/!*$>"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$>"*B$ !"
6:86;896;7%H$I&" ,$66669E67E96;7$A/R*$>!# 1&! *:66<66<9;G6<6666$F9=EG:
>!?$@ )'<96;7$J "&)$$F9=EG:
$6$J "&)2$F9=EG:
%<+,* -$.*"&/)$P789:896;7$<$$92=;$%3Q%&4*$9
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
H"0"37##425;+"8714";,*)<=$F9=EG:
.F"0"# C4A2"37##425;+"8:- "7* %"+ ,$-*"
$797:=6789:896;7
>!?@ )'<96;7
A/!*$>"*B$.&"*A/!*$>"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$>"*B$ !"
6:86;896;7%H$I&" ,$66669E67E96;7$%OH $A/R*:66<66<9;G6<6666$;7E66
>!?$@ )'<96;7$J "&)$$;7E66
$797:=$J "&)2$;7E66
.F"0"# C4A2"37##425;+";,*)<=$;7E66
M"0"C4A+"8:- "7* %"+ ,$-*"
$66789:896;7
>!?679:96;7
A/!*$>"*B$.&"*A/!*$>"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$>"*B$ !"
6789:896;7%H$I&" ,$66669E67E96;7$3S<%OH $.*5 "/ !:66<66<9;:=<6666$DL;D7E6;
6789:896;7%H$I&" ,$66669E67E96;7$3S$%OH $I*!*R/"$OBC) '*1:66<66<9;:=<6666$DL7;GEF:
>!?$679:96;7$J "&)$$7L:=FEFG
$6$J "&)2$7L:=FEFG
$7L:=FEFG
M"0"C4A+";,*)<=
."0"B4882"1+AJ5"@4+8;@"?4#417;"2L 2"8:- "7* %"+ ,$-*"
$66789:896;7
>!?679:96;7
A/!*$>"*B$.&"*A/!*$>"*B$.*# 1/C"/ !A/!*$>"*B$ !"
6789:896;7%H$I&" ,$66669E67E96;7$V*&)",$U&?/!4#$ !":66<66<9;GD<6666$;L==DE::
>!?$679:96;7$J "&)$$;L==DE::
$6$J "&)2$;L==DE::
$;L==DE::
."0"B4882"1+AJ5"@4+8;@"?4#417;"2L 2";,*)<=
J "&)2$9=LG9=E69
%<+,* -$.*"&/)$P789:896;7$<$$92=;$%3Q%&4*$D
#3B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Crescent Beach Agreement
Meeting Date: July 11, 2016
Prepared by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator
Attachments: Agreement
Please find attached a revised proposal from Tonka Bay concerning the shared responsibility for
maintenance and capital improvements to Crescent Beach. In section 2 language has been added at our
request to require joint approval of any capital expenses that exceed $5,000 for any given year. The
prior draft gave sole discretion to the City of Tonka Bay. This change conforms to Council direction from
the June 13, 2016 Council Meeting.
Council Action
A motion approving the Agreement Regarding the Maintenance and Improvement of Crescent Beach
with the City of Tonka Bay.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2016 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Davis; Commissioners Bean, Johnson, Maddy and Riedel; Planning Director
Nielsen; Council Liaison Sundberg; and, Finance Director DeJong
Also present:
Absent: None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Bean moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for June 21, 2016, as presented. Motion
passed 5/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
SPECIAL MEETING
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) DISTRICT FOR
OPPIDAN’S SHOREWOOD SENIOR HOUSING
Director Nielsen turned this item over to Director DeJong who has been working with Administrator
Joynes and Springsted Incorporated (the City’s financial consultant).
Director DeJong noted he has been working with Administrator Joynes and Springsted Incorporated (the
City’s financial consultant) on a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Plan proposed for Oppidan Investment
Company’s proposed Shorewood Senior Living planned unit development (PUD).
DeJong provided a high level summary of the TIF Plan.
TIF is a financing tool used to help pay for extraordinary costs incurred by development.
Oppidan’s proposed Shorewood Senior Living PUD qualifies for a TIF redevelopment district.
The TIF District for this PUD would be the project site which is a combination of three lots (6020
and 6050 Chaska Road and 23075 State Highway 7).
The Tax Increment Project Area will be designated as the entire City.
A TIF District can last up to 25 years. For this project the District will be in place for about 19
years.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 21, 2016
Page 2 of 7
The intent of TIF is to capture the taxes generated by the increase in the TIF District’s value.
The current value of the three parcels for tax purposes is $985,000 and the value after the project
is complete is projected to be $17,194,320. The current tax collected for all of the jurisdictions on
the existing three parcels is $21,955 and the amount after the project is complete is projected to
be $214,929.
The taxes collected on value of the property before development would continue to go the taxing
jurisdictions during the existence of the District. No jurisdiction would lose tax revenue because
of the TIF District.
During the time of the existence of the TIF District the City would capture the increase in taxes
and use them to make improvements to support the project as well as public improvements
Council deems appropriate.
The City can spend up to 25 percent of taxes generated by the project outside of the District but
the remainder must be spent on improvements within the TIF District project area (e.g.; dealing
with the exit off of Highway 7 onto Chaska Road).
For this project there would be almost $1.9 million in costs related to the site itself and there
would be about $1.3 million in costs to extend Shorewood municipal water from where it stops at
Yellowstone Trail and Minnetonka Drive to the project site.
In nineteen years the tax revenue received by Shorewood from those three parcels will increase
from $4,383 to approximately $83,315. In nineteen years the tax revenue received by the School
District will increase from $3,218 to approximately $63,084. In nineteen years the tax revenue
received by Hennepin County will increase from $6,578 to approximately $125,016. That
increase in tax revenue could not happen without TIF because it would not be financially feasible
for Oppidan to develop the site without it.
The City’s portion of the project would be financed internally with an inter fund loan.
The City would issue a TIF Note to the developer that says the City would repay the developer as
the TIF comes in.
The actual water costs directly are a little more than $800,000.
The extension of Shorewood watermain is quite costly. Council gave preliminary approval to
finance the extension though cost sharing. Oppidan will contribute $400,000; $300,000 will be
used from the Water Fund; and, water hookups should occur along the new line and bring in
approximately $300,000. Oppidan originally proposed contributing $200,000 because at that time
Excelsior municipal water was going to be extended to the site and that was going to cost about
$200,000.
TIF project benefits to the City include things like installing a stormwater pipe to replace the
stormwater ditch. Curb and gutter and stormwater along Chaska Road would be put in. The ditch
allows power lines to be buried. As a result the landscaping setbacks could be increased and the
height limitations for new trees would be eliminated. There will be funding available for some
local traffic improvements which are yet to be determined. Watermain would also be extended to
the south side of Highway.
Commissioner Maddy asked how many additional properties would then have access to City water
because of the watermain extension. Director DeJong explained there are 22 properties that are currently
hooked up to the Excelsior water system that could move over to the Shorewood water system once it has
been extended. Once Shorewood watermain is south of Highway 7 watermain could potentially be
extended to other Shorewood properties in the future; for example, to near Galpin Lake Road. Maddy
then asked if the watermain would be a dead end on the other side of Highway 7 or would it be looped.
DeJong explained it would be a dead end with a lot of water moving through it. The proposal is to have
about 105 living units in the facility so there should not be any issue of water being stagnant too long. He
noted the pipe would be oversized so it could serve the rest of the area down there. There would be
enough capacity to serve fire suppression and future connections.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 21, 2016
Page 3 of 7
Commissioner Riedel stated with TIF the City would essentially be foregoing the additional tax revenue
during the existence of the TIF District. Based on his calculations the City would forego about $3 million
in taxes over the 25 year period in exchange for an increase in property value estimated at $18 million. He
asked if that is correct. Director DeJong explained the value will go up over time and the TIF calculations
have factored in an inflation factor of 1 percent. Hennepin County has told staff that its best guess right
now is the taxable value would be about $165,000 per unit. Taxes on those units will not be collected
until starting in 2019. There is a lag of about one year from the time the project is complete until the start
of collecting full taxes. DeJong noted he would not call it foregoing taxes. He clarified that Oppidan is
going to pay the taxes on the new value. The incremental tax that will be generated from the increased
value will be used to pay the extraordinary costs associated with the development; costs above and
beyond what it would be for a greenfield site.
Riedel stated his understanding is that the basic premise of a TIF is that it should be considered if there
are extraordinary costs but specifically for blighted land (specific conditions). Although it is not the case
here, the use of TIF has been criticized elsewhere as being a mechanism that is overused by municipalities
to develop perfectly good farmland. He stated from his perspective because of the cost for extensive soil
correction and because of the cost to extend municipal water this is an appropriate use of TIF. Director
DeJong noted that in addition to the need for extensive soil correction there are some hazardous materials
in some of the buildings on the project site. That causes the TIF to meet the statutory requirements for
blight. He clarified that there could be a perfectly serviceable building and still meet the blight conditions
under the statutory language.
Director DeJong reiterated the City would not be able to have the less than four acres in size site
extensively developed without TIF.
Commissioner Riedel asked if the premise of TIF is that the financing should only be provided for a
project that otherwise could not or would not be done without TIF. There is no other project that could
increase the value of the property for tax purposes by the same amount. He stated from his perspective if
there were other projects then he does not think TIF would be appropriate. Director DeJong confirmed
that and stated it may be possible to develop the site with four houses.
Commissioner Bean stated if Oppidan were to move forward with its proposed project he asked what the
tax rolls would be without TIF. Would Oppidan not do the project without TIF? Director DeJong noted if
Oppidan does not get TIF it would not move forward with its proposed project.
Bean asked what would happen to the tax stream if the City did not approve TIF yet Oppidan moved
forward with the project anyway. Director DeJong stated there would be an increase in tax revenue for the
City.
Director DeJong explained there is a statutory requirement called the but-for test. That means that it has to
be validated that the proposed project would not be viable for the developer without TIF assistance
because the return would be too low or negative. Council needs to come up with that finding. There is a
meeting with Springsted to review the but-for test and to verify the returns with and without TIF in the
developer’s proforma.
Bean asked how the projected value of the development was determined. DeJong explained Hennepin
County has a standard value for new senior living projects. That is what was used to determine the value.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 21, 2016
Page 4 of 7
Bean then asked what assumptions were used to come up with the projected $300,000 in revenues from
water hookups. DeJong explained the assumption is the City will get 30 hookups with a $10,000 water
connection charge for each hookup over the course of the next 20 years. Bean asked what the expected
adoption rate would be. What percentage of the property owners would hookup? DeJong stated because
of issues with ground water availability and quality staff expects that at some point there will be a
mandate for property owners to hook up to municipal water. Bean noted that he thought that is an
optimistic forecast. He stated it took about 20 years to get to 1972 before there was water clarity in Lake
Minnetonka of about 18 inches on a good day; that came after sanitary sewer hookup mandate was put in
place.
Bean asked what the adoption rate has been connecting to City water for the watermain that has been
extended over the last 10 years. DeJong stated that over the last five years the only place watermain has
been extended was along Star Lane and about half of the property owners have hooked up. That project
was completed in 2015.
Bean then asked if he should assume that there would have to be 60 properties that would have new
access to watermain in order to achieve a 50 percent hookup rate. DeJong stated that is possible. Bean
asked DeJong to give him more confidence that additional homework had been done to come up with the
$300,000 projection for hookups. DeJong stated staff does not have much experience with that. He noted
that people are starting to experience more issues with having arsenic in their well water. He also noted
the $300,000 is a ballpark figure. He explained the City Ordinance does have a requirement that if a
property owner’s well goes out and if access to City water is available then the property owner is required
to hook up to City water. Bean commented that those ordinances got him thrown off the City Council 20
years ago.
Bean went on to ask what the backup plan is if the City does not get anywhere near the $300,000.
DeJong explained if everything works out the way the proposed financing plan is laid out all of the costs
for the watermain extension and the street improvements and costs the other things associated with the
proposed project will be covered by the TIF. The City is not relying on the water hookups to fund things.
The financing proposal is what was originally presented to Council when staff was trying to estimate the
costs. The City’s costs in total are about $1.4 million; that includes the costs for watermain extension and
other improvements such as traffic improvements. Of that, Oppidan is contributing $400,000 toward that.
If the City finances Oppidan for just under $1.9 million as it requested then the City should be able to
cover the $1 million for the watermain extension and other City improvements and pay itself a modest
amount of interest. Bean asked if that can be done without funding from the Water Fund or the hookups.
DeJong clarified upfront financing needs to come from the Water Fund to cover to $1 million; there is
about $3 million in the Water Fund so there would be more than adequate funds to maintain the water
system. The Water Fund will be paid back over time as the developer gets paid back.
Bean asked if staff is comfortable with the numbers. DeJong noted he is very confident that the TIF can
cover the City’s costs.
Bean stated 13 years from now the City’s demographics may be different. What would happen if
Oppidan’s project is not successful and it abandons the facility? DeJong explained staff has spoken with
the City Attorney about having a minimum assessment agreement between the City and Oppidan in place
so that the value does not fall below the original projection. It would provide protection for both the City
and Oppidan if the project was not successful. That would provide sufficient tax increment over the
existence of the TIF District. That assessment is absent any increase from inflation. He stated it is
possible that Oppidan could develop the site and lease the facility and then sell the project to an investor;
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 21, 2016
Page 5 of 7
that is what some developers do. Bean noted that Oppidan stated it would not do that during the public
hearing on the PUD. Oppidan intends to own and develop the site and hire Ebenezer to run the facility.
Bean asked what would happen if Oppidan bails. DeJong stated he would have to rely on the City
Attorney’s expertise. Bean then asked what the collateral would be for the assessment agreement. DeJong
stated that is a legal question he is not prepared to answer. Bean noted that is a concern for him. The City
is going to spend a couple million dollars on infrastructure on the premise that the City is going to get
paid back plus some over the next 19 years. Director Nielsen noted the assessment agreement goes with
the property. Bean stated if Oppidan bails the project fails; it would no longer be a PUD and the tax value
plummets. DeJong stated he does not know why the tax value would plummet.
Bean stated the City should enter into this arrangement with a clear understanding of what the risks could
be for the City if things went poorly with the project or with Oppidan. He then stated the area could
become over saturated with senior housing which the market cannot support resulting in some senior
housing development not making it. He commented one plan B could be the City may have to eventually
bond for the some of the cost.
Director DeJong stated there is additional coverage for this TIF District because it is not going to be in
existence for the full 25 years. If something drastic happens 10 – 15 years into the existence of the District
then it would just take longer to pay the money back. But, it would not go down to zero. Commissioner
Bean concurred and stated it could go back to being residential property where the tax appears to be $0.10
on the dollar when compared to the proposed use based on the current chart versus future taxes. Director
Nielsen stated the bank that would end up owning the building would likely demolish the facility and put
up twin homes in its place. Bean stated the bank would not hang on to the property; it would get it off its
balance sheet.
Commissioner Maddy asked what amount of TIF would be dedicated to this project. Director DeJong
stated the developer would have an investment of about $1.87 million in the proposed project. The City
will issue the developer a note for that to be repaid over the course of 25 years at 5.5 percent interest.
Maddy stated it appears to him that it would be a 10-year TIF deal. He asked if people are expecting it to
be fully repaid in about 10 – 13 years. DeJong stated there is about $1 million in City costs that also has
to be repaid and noted the payback period is about 19 years. Maddy asked if people have estimated the
increase in demand on City services because of the higher use over the 19-year period. DeJong stated that
would be minimal. There may be some modest increase in calls for public safety services. Senior living
places generate a few calls a month. The City is already plowing the roadway and there would not be any
additional property to maintain.
Director DeJong noted that the resolution included in the meeting packet states “… the proposed
Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of
the City as a whole and the Planning Commission recommends the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan to
the City Council of the City of Shorewood for its approval.”
Commissioner Bean asked if other taxing authorities like Hennepin County and the Minnetonka School
district have to approve the TIF Plan. Director DeJong noted a copy of the draft Redevelopment Plan and
the TIF Plan have been sent to the County and School District but they have no decision making
authority.
Commissioner Maddy asked if the developer has shared with the City how much they paid for the three
parcels. He stated he has been aware of developers asking for TIF because they overpaid for properties.
He then stated the three properties have poor soils and lack access to municipal water. That should have
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 21, 2016
Page 6 of 7
been factored into the purchase price for the properties. Director DeJong stated he thought the total price
for the three parcels was about $1.4 million; it was about 40 percent over the assessed value. He explained
the structure over the assessed value is that there should be a 95 percent confidence level that the property
is going to sell for more than the assessed value. There is a time lag on the assessed value. What was
considered was the assessed value of those parcels in January 2015. That value was based on sales from
October 2013 through September 2014. He thought the developer did a good job negotiating the purchase
prices; the total was not unreasonable. Maddy concurred.
Commissioner Riedel asked Director DeJong to talk about the process of negotiating the TIF. Was the
detail about the amount the City would provide an active negotiation with Oppidan? Director DeJong
explained WSB & Associates analyzed Oppidan’s proforma to determine what costs would be considered
extraordinary and what costs would be considered normal development. There was some back and forth
negotiation of that. There was also negotiation about how much Oppidan would contribute towards the
cost of extending watermain. He reiterated that Oppidan originally proposed contributing $200,000
because at that time Excelsior municipal water was going to be extended to the site and that was going to
cost about $200,000. Excelsior decided not to extend its watermain to the development site because
Excelsior staff did not think the Excelsior water system had the capacity to support the Oppidan
development and future anticipated development in Excelsior. Oppidan doubled its contribution to
$400,000.
Director DeJong noted staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the resolution included in the
meeting packet.
Davis moved, Maddy seconded, Adopting “A Resolution of the Planning Commission Finding the
Establishment of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment District No. 2 and the Tax Increment
Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District No. 2 Conform to the City
Plans for Development or Redevelopment of the City as a Whole.” Motion passed 4/1 with Bean
Dissenting.
Director DeJong explained that there is a special Council meeting and Shorewood Economic
Development Authority meeting scheduled for July 14, 2016, to approve the final TIF Plan.
Commissioner Bean encouraged staff to have more concrete facts and figures on what makes up each of
the numbers. For example, what has been the adoption rate for which property owners hooked up to City
water after it was made available to them. Having that would provide Council with a better understanding
of what the risk would be before it considers the approval of the TIF Plan. Also, provide insight on the
probability of there eventually being a state mandate for property owners to hookup to municipal water.
Director DeJong stated that currently there are about 1,700 properties where there is municipal water
available and about 1,400 are hooked up. That adoption rate is 82.3 percent. That is probably the long-
term adoption rate.
Commissioner Maddy stated from his perspective it is about a $1.9 million TIF deal because the rest of it
is the City’s pipe and money. It amounts to about a 10-year deal which does not seem as risky.
Commissioner Bean stated then it should be stated that the worst case scenario is the City is in for $2
million and it can afford that. The project is an objective the City wants for a number of reasons. Even if
the project failed the City would have to have spent some of the money. He asked that be explained to
Council. He clarified that he was not saying the project is so risky that it would be unsafe.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 21, 2016
Page 7 of 7
Commissioner Riedel stated from his perspective the risk of the project’s value going to zero dollars is
low.
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
3. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
None.
4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated this topic was discussed during the Planning Commission’s June 7, 2016, meeting.
Chair Davis asked when the Commission is going to discuss short-term rentals. Director Nielsen noted
that will be on the July 19 meeting agenda.
Davis stated she gathered all the documents for short-term rentals in the City of Duluth. She tried to pull
the permit documents and learned there is a one-year moratorium on short-term rentals in Duluth and that
was up June 15.
Director Nielsen noted that the agenda for the July 19 meeting is quite full.
Commissioner Riedel stated Michael Jordan looked at a house on Ridge Road that he contemplated
renting while the Ryder Cup event was going on. Chair Davis asked if that house was listed on an online
site.
Chair Davis stated there are a minimum number of things people have to do to their homes before they
rent them. She suggested putting a list of them on the City’s website.
5. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
• SLUC
Chair Davis stated Arctic Fever is being nominated for a Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) best place.
SLUC has an event category.
• Other
6. ADJOURNMENT
Davis moved, Maddy seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of June 21, 2016, at
7:52 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
#8A
MEMORANDUM
Brad Nielsen, Planning Director
TO:
FROM: Tim Keane, City Attorney
DATE: July 7, 2016
RE: Lot 11, Radisson Inn Addition
This memorandum is in response to the letter of Paula Callies dated June 27, 2016, wherein
Steve Lindell of the DNR questioned the authority of Shorewood to incorporate by
reference certain provisions of the LMCD Code.
Discussion
City of Shorewood Code of Ordinances Section 1201.03 subd. 14.g. provides:
g. Unless specified otherwise in the city zoning code, all docks and all
lakes shall comply with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Code of Ordinances.
The City of Shorewood zoning code incorporates by reference the LMCD Code relating to
all docks on all lakes within the City of Shorewood. The Shorewood code does not
incorporate the LMCD Code in its entirety but only those standards relating to docks on all
lakes within the City of Shorewood.
Minnesota Statutes Section 412.221 sets forth express enumerated powers of the council of
municipal corporations. Subdivision 12 of that statute provides:
Harbors, docks. The council shall have power to establish harbor and
dock limits and by ordinance regulate the location, construction and use
of piers, docks, wharves, and boat houses on navigable waters and fixed
rates of wharfage. The council may construct and maintain public docks
and warehouses and by ordinance regulate their use.
Nowhere in this legislative grant of powers is there a restriction or limitation on the exercise
of adoption of regulations by reference. To the contrary, cities routinely adopt regulations
by reference in the areas of building codes, environmental regulations, municipal election
laws, the state plumbing code, and many other parallel references to other regulations.
Conclusion
Based upon my review of the record, Minnesota Statutes, League of Minnesota Cities
source materials, the Shorewood City Code, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Code and correspondence in this matter, Shorewood has the clear authority to incorporate
LMCD dock regulations by reference.
4849-8156-9585.1
#8B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Draft Zoning Code Amendment – Alternative Energy
Meeting Date: 11 July 2016
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Attachments: Draft Ordinance ; Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City consider adopting zoning regulations to encourage the use of
alternative energy systems, particularly solar systems?
Background: The Alternative Energy Study prepared by Great Plains consultants recommended a
number of items that could be incorporated into our current Zoning Code to encourage the use of
alternative energy systems, particularly solar. You will recall that these measures were reviewed in
conjunction with the MCC redevelopment and incorporated into the PUD Agreement for that project.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on 3 May to consider the attached draft Zoning Code
amendment and recommended that the City Council adopt the amendment with some minor changes,
which have been included in the draft. This amendment focuses on solar energy systems. Wind energy
was cited by Great Plains (and other consultants) as being far less feasible as an energy source for
Shorewood. In fact, future study will likely address potential nuisance aspects of wind energy. No one
seemed too interested in discussing nuclear power.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The attached amendment includes zoning provisions intended to
promote the use of solar energy. Property owners will have to determine how much financial benefit
they would gain by the use of solar. The amendment does not address the possibility of the City
investing in solar systems, either within or outside of the city.
Options: Adopt the attach draft amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission; revise the
amendment; or deny the amendment.
Recommendation / Action Requested: The proposed amendment is considered reasonable and
removes some potential barriers to the use of solar energy. Adoption of the amendment is
recommended, as well as approval of a resolution authorizing summary publication of the ordinance.
Next Steps and Timelines: The proposed amendment will go into effect upon publication in the local
newspapers.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Healthy environment.
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
-D-R-A-F-T-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SHOREWOOD ZONING CODE AS IT PERTAINS
TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS - SOLAR
Section 1
. City Code Section 1201.02 is hereby amended to include:
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEM.
“ A solar energy system, wind energy system, or ground
source heat pump.”
BUILDING-INTEGRATED SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM
“. A solar energy system that is an
integral part of a principal or accessory building, rather than a separate mechanical device,
replacing or substituting for an architectural or structural component of the building including,
but not limited to, photovoltaic or hot water solar systems contained within roofing materials,
windows, skylights and awnings.”
FLUSH-MOUNTED SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM
“. A roof-mounted system mounted directly
abutting the roof. The pitch of the solar collector may exceed the pitch of the roof up to 5% but
shall not be higher than 10 inches above the roof.”
PASSIVE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM
“. A system that captures solar light or heat without
transforming it to another form of energy or transferring the energy via a heat exchanger.”
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM
“. A solar energy system that converts solar energy directly into
electricity.”
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM
“. A device or structural design feature, a substantial purpose of
which is to provide daylight for interior lighting or provide for the collection, storage and
distribution of solar energy for space heating or cooling, electricity generation or water heating.”
Section 2
. City Code Section 1201.03 is hereby amended to include:
“Subd. 23. Alternative Energy.
a. Purpose. It is the intent of the City Council, consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, to provide a sustainable quality of life for the city’s
residents, making careful and effective use of available natural, human and
economic resources and ensuring that resources exist to maintain and
enhance the quality of life for future residents. In accordance with that
intent, the City finds that it is in the public interest to encourage alternative
energy systems that have a positive impact on energy production and
conservation while not having an adverse impact on the community.
Therefore, the purposes of this ordinance include:
(1) To promote rather than restrict development of alternative energy
sources by removing regulatory barriers and creating a clear
regulatory path for approving alternative energy systems.
(2) To create a livable community where development incorporates
sustainable design elements such as resource and energy
conservation and use of renewable energy.
(3) To protect and enhance air quality, limit the effects of climate
change and decrease use of fossil fuels.
(4) To encourage alternative energy development in locations where
the technology is viable and environmental, economic and social
impacts can be mitigated.
b. Solar Energy Systems.
(1) Zoning districts. Solar energy systems in accordance with the
standards in this section are allowed as a permitted accessory use in
all zoning districts.
(2) Standards.
(a) Height. Roof-mounted solar energy systems shall comply
with the maximum height requirements in the applicable
zoning district. Ground-mounted solar energy systems
shall not exceed 20 feet in height.
(b) Location. In residential zoning districts, ground-mounted
solar energy systems are limited to the rear yard. In non-
residential zoning districts, ground-mounted solar energy
systems may be permitted in the front yard of any lot or the
side yards on corner lots, subject to applicable building
setback requirements.
(c) Setbacks. Ground-mounted solar energy systems
including any appurtenant equipment shall be set back a
minimum of 20 feet from all property lines. Roof-mounted
systems shall comply with all building setbacks in the
applicable zoning district and shall not extend beyond the
exterior perimeter of the building on which the system is
mounted.
(d) Roof mounting. Roof-mounted solar collectors shall be
flush mounted on pitched roofs. Solar collectors may be
bracket mounted on flat roofs.
-2-
(e) Easements. Solar energy systems shall not encroach on
public drainage, utility roadway or trail easements.
(f) Screening. Ground-mounted solar energy systems shall be
screened from view to the extent possible without reducing
their efficiency. Screening may include walls, fences or
landscaping.
(g) Maximum Area. In residential zoning districts, ground-
mounted solar energy systems shall be limited to a
maximum area of 120 square feet. In other zoning
districts, ground-mounted solar energy systems shall be
limited to a maximum area consistent with the accessory
structure limitations or no more than 25 percent of the rear
yard, whichever is less.
(h) Aesthetics. Reflection angles from ground-mounted
collector surfaces shall be oriented away from neighboring
windows. Where necessary, screening may be required to
address glare.
(i) Feeder lines. The electrical collection system shall be
placed underground within the interior of each parcel.
(3) Safety.
(a) Standards – Electrical.
(i)
All utilities shall be installed underground.
(ii) An exterior utility disconnect switch shall be
installed at the electric meter serving the property.
(iii) Solar energy systems shall be grounded to protect
against natural lightning strikes in conformance
with the national electrical code as adopted by the
City.
(iv) No solar energy system shall be interconnected with
a local electrical utility company until the utility
company has reviewed and commented upon it.
The interconnection of the solar energy system with
the utility company shall adhere to the national
electrical code as adopted by the City.
-3-
(b) Certification. The solar energy system shall be certified by
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., and comply to the
requirements of the international building code.
(c)
Abandonment. Any solar energy system which is
inoperable for twelve (12) successive months shall be
deemed to be abandoned and shall be deemed a public
nuisance. The owner shall remove the abandoned system at
their expense after obtaining a demolition permit.
(4) Permits. Building-integrated solar energy systems shall require a
building permit prior to installation. Ground-mounted solar energy
systems shall require a zoning permit, pursuant to Section 1201.07
of this Code prior to installation.
c. Wind Energy Systems. (Reserved for Future Use)
d. Ground Source Heat Pump Systems. (Reserved for Future Use)”
Section 3
. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publishing in the Official
Newspaper of the City of Shorewood.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this _____ day
of ______________ 2016.
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
-4-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 16-_____
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLICATION OF
ORDINANCE NO. _____ BY TITLE ANDSUMMARY
WHEREAS
, on 11 July, 2016, the City Council of the City of Shorewood adopted
Ordinance No. _____ entitled “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SHOREWOOD ZONING
”
CODE AS IT PERTAINS TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS - SOLAR;
WHEREAS,
the City staff has prepared a summary of Ordinance No. _____ as follows:
1.The purpose of this ordinance is to provide a sustainable quality of life for the
city’s residents, making careful and effective use of available natural, human and
economic resources and ensuring that resources exist to maintain and enhance the quality
of life for future residents. In accordance with that intent, the City finds that it is in the
public interest to encourage alternative energy systems that have a positive impact on
energy production and conservation while not having an adverse impact on the
community.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD:
1. The City Council finds that the above title and summary of Ordinance No. ____
clearly informs the public of intent and effect of the Ordinance.
2. The City Clerk is directed to publish Ordinance No. ____ by title and summary,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.191, subdivision 4.
3.A full copy of the Ordinance is available at Shorewood City Hall and online in the
city’s Document Library.
ADOPTED
by the Shorewood City Council on this 11th day of July 2016.
ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor
________________________________
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#10A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Council Action on John Benjamin Proposal
Meeting Date: July 11, 2016
Prepared by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator
At the City Council Executive session on June 27, 2016, the Council directed staff to bring forth language
for a motion relating to the proposal for development of Badger Park and surrounding properties by
John Benjamin and his associates.
The motion recommended is as follows:
1)Council directs staff to inform Mr. Benjamin that they are not interested in pursuing any
development proposal that involves the sale or conveyance of any portions of Badger Park, City
Hall or the Southshore Community Center properties.
2)It is the further direction of Council to its staff to cease any further expenditure of staff time and
resources on proposals and amendments to existing proposals concerning the above mentioned
properties.
It is not the intent of Council to limit Mr. Benjamin’s opportunity to propose other projects on adjacent
parcels of land to the above cited properties.
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
#11A. 1
12 CITY OF
1: SHOREWOOD
UM2 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 maybe 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
1 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
21 Groundbreaking Ceremony 9/14/15
21 Begin Construction 4/21/16
■ Contractor completed tree removal 2/24/16
❑ Construction substantially complete 6/30/16
❑ Ribbon Cutting Ceremony 6/30/16
❑ Restoration complete 6/30/16
LMC Offers Sample Ordinance to Opt Out
of New Health Care Dwelling Law
Cities will need to decide quickly on how to approach dealing with the new law.
(Published May 31, 2016)
A new law allows landowners to place mobile residential dwellings on their property to serve as
a temporary family health care dwelling. Gov. Dayton signed this legislation into law on May 12.
(Read related article.)
Community desire for transitional housing for those with mental and physical disabilities, and
the increased need for short-term care for aging family members served as the catalyst behind
this initiative. The resulting law, Chapter 111, allows for a family to more easily care for these
individuals by using a temporary dwelling on the property.
Cities are allowed to opt out
Given the Sept. 1, 2016, effective date of the new permit system, cities will need to start
planning quickly on how to approach dealing with the temporary health care dwelling issue. The
new law allows cities to avoid being subject to the new permit system and its requirements if
they either pass an opt-out ordinance or if these structures are a permitted use in the city.
In response to member requests, the League has developed a model ordinance in the event that a
city chooses to opt out.
Attached is the sample ordinance to opt out of the temporary family health care dwelling
law (doc)
Further information
The June 13 issue of Cities Bulletin will include a “Focus on New Laws” article providing a
more thorough explanation of the requirements of this new statute. The League is also
developing FAQs based on the comments and questions staff have been receiving.
For more information, contact LMC Staff Attorney Pamela Whitmore at pwhitmore@lmc.org or
LMC General Counsel Tom Grundhoefer at tgrundho@lmc.org.
ORDINANCE NO.____________
CITY OF ____________________
AN ORDINANCE OPTING-OUT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS OF
MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 462.3593
WHEREAS
, on May 12, 2016, Governor Dayton signed into law the creation and regulation of
temporary family health care dwellings, codified at Minn. Stat. § 462.3593, which permit and
regulate temporary family health care dwellings;
WHEREAS
, subdivision 9 of Minn. Stat. §462.3593 allows cities to “opt out” of those
regulations;
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF __________________, ORDAINS as follows:
Section _____. City Code, Section __________ is amended as follows:
OPT-OUT OF MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 462.3593:
SECTION ___________
. Pursuant to authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section
462.3593, subdivision 9, the City of __________ opts-out of the requirements of Minn. Stat.
§462.3593, which defines and regulates Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings.
SECTION__________.
This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication.
ADOPTED
this _______day of _______________________, 2016, by the City Council
of the City of ____________.
CITY OF _____________________________
By: _____________________________________
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Twin Cities suburbs opt to go their own way on tiny'drop homes'- S..
LOCAL
http: / /www.startribune.com /suburbs- opt- to -go- their- own - way- on- stat...
Suburbs opt to go their own way on
state's 'drop home'law
Facing a new state requirement to allow tiny trailers on residential
lots, many cities are saying no.
By Erin Adler ( http:// www. startribune .com /erin- adier/195633361/) and Emma Nelson
( http : / /www.startribune.com /emma- nelson /261800211/) Star Tribune staff writers
JULY 5, 2016 — 8:41AM
Metro suburbs are bypassing a new state law that would require them to allow tiny,
portable houses on residential properties, saying the state mandate doesn't work for
them.
The statute is intended to provide access to temporary "drop homes" for people —
mostly older adults — with health care needs that require them to be close to a
caregiver.
But worries about resident complaints, conflicts with local zoning ordinances and
timing concerns have spurred cities to opt out of the law. Some say they already have
the resources they need to meet the needs of aging residents, while others want to pass
their own laws allowing temporary structures tailored to their city.
The League of Minnesota Cities fought for an opt -out provision in the statute so local
governments could still have control over their own zoning.
Bill sponsor Rep. Roz Peterson, R- Lakeville, struggled to find a place for her elderly
father to live when he got sick two years ago. It's disappointing that cities are opting out,
she said, but she acknowledged that the law isn't one - size - fits -all.
"It's always difficult to accept change and innovation," Peterson said. "This won't solve
everybody's problem — this is one tool in the toolbox, so to speak."
Drop homes, sometimes called granny pods, are trailers under 300 square feet that are
billed as an affordable and temporary alternative to sending sick, injured or elderly
family members to a nursing home.
The new law was based on similar, but less restrictive, laws in North Carolina and
Virginia.
In Minnesota, the law allows homeowners to have a drop home on their property for six
months by paying for a $100 permit, unless their city has a specific ordinance against the
homes.
The Burnsville City Council voted unanimously on June 21 to opt out. Drop homes don't
meet city codes, said Mayor Elizabeth Kautz, and the city already has temporary
housing options.
Those options include spare bedrooms, apartments, assisted living facilities, short -term
(http: / /stmedia.sta
/146768412208,
John Louiselle, I,
of young New Bi
have started Ne.
that produces ti
handicapped -ac
more like trailer:
recovering from
The two helped
laws so the hou:
1 of 3 7/6/2016 11:23 AM
'Twin Cities suburbs opt to go their own way on tiny 'drop homes'- S... http: / /www.startribune.com /suburbs- opt- to -go- their -own- way -on- stat...
health care facilities, hotels and group homes, according to a meeting agenda report. places, regardle:
week.
"It's not that we don't have it," Kautz said. "We want control of what happens here in
Burnsville."
Some cities want to allow accessory dwelling units but are choosing to do so on their
own terms.
The Crystal City Council will likely vote to opt out at its next meeting, said Council
Member Jeff Kolb. The decision stems largely from the nature of residential properties in
Crystal, many of which may be too small to qualify for drop homes under the statute, he
said.
The City Council will try to pass an ordinance in the future that allows for accessory
units that are better tailored to the city, Kolb said.
"There was a concern that it would be perceived that by opting out, we were saying we
don't want this kind of thing around here, that it was kind of a cold - hearted decision," he
said. "The reality is it's not that at all."
In Lakeville, the City Council agreed to opt out last week but also sent the issue to city
staff for further review.
There were multiple concerns, said Mayor Matt Little, including aesthetics, property
values and the difficulty city staff would face in having to make judgments about
residents' illnesses.
"Every single city in this country is going to need to figure out a way to start taking care
of our seniors," Little said. "There's just a lot of issues we need to... make fair and clear."
Meanwhile, city staff in Woodbury are recommending that city officials vote to opt out
in order to have more time to figure out what local needs are, said Jason Egerstrom,
Woodbury's spokesman.
Under the statute, cities have until Sept. 1 to opt out.
John Louiselle, co -owner of NextDoor Housing, a New Brighton -based drop home
company that helped craft the law, said he doesn't mind if cities choose a different
direction. "What's worrisome to us is when we see cities opting out and offering no
alternative solution," he said.
Peterson said she would like to see cities try out the statute and see how it works. The
biggest challenge, she said, is that people aren't familiar with the drop home idea.
"This is new — nobody's really done this before," she said. "Let's have a conversation
with the community before we just choose to abandon the idea."
Erin Adler • 612 - 673 -1781
Erin.Adler @startribune.com 612- 673-1781
emma.nelson @startribune.com 612- 673 -4509 emmamarienelson
2 of 3 7/6/2016 11:23 AM