Loading...
11-28-16 CC Reg Mtg Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 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. Executive Session Minutes of November 4, 2016 Minutes B. Canvassing Board Minutes of November 14, 2016 Minutes C. City Council Work Session Minutes of November 14, 2016 Minutes D. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of November 14, 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. Accepting a Donation for Arctic Fever Finance Director’s memo C. Retirement Recognition for Dan Randall Administrator’s memo D. Accept Improvements and Authorize Final Payment for the Engineer’s memo 2016 Mill and Overlay Project Resolution 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council Action will be taken) 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. Ratify Floodplain Ordinance Planning Director’s memo 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 7. PARKS A. Report by Ed Rock on the November 22 Park Commission meeting Minutes CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – November 28, 2016 Page 2 8. PLANNING Minutes A. Zoning Code Amendment-Short Term Rentals Planning Director’s memo Draft Ordinance B. Annexation Agreement and Comprehensive Plan Amendment City Administrator/ For the Waters Senior Living project Planning Director’s memo Location: 22920 Highway 7 & 723 Water Street C. Minor Subdivision Planning Director’s memo Applicant: William Everett, Jr. Resolution Location: 5615 Covington Road 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Approve Professional Services Agreement for Director of Public Works’ memo 2017 Mill and Overlay Project 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Public Works Snow Removal Equipment 2. Freeman Park Ice Skating Rink Update B. Mayor and City Council 12. ADJOURN #2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2016 2:00 PM MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 2:03 PM A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Siakel (arrived at 2:12 P.M.), Sundberg and Woodruff; Attorney Keane; City Administrator Joynes, and, City Administrator Lerud Absent: Councilmember Labadie B. Review Agenda Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 3/0. 2. DISCUSSION OF LEGAL ISSUES RELATING TO THE SOUTHSHORE CENTER The purpose of the executive session was to discuss legal issues relating to the Southshore Center. The session was closed pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13D.05. Subd. 3. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Siakel, Sundberg and Woodruff; Attorney Keane; Administrator Joynes, and Administrator Lerud were in attendance. 3. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, Adjourning the City Council Executive Session of November 4, 2016, at 2:55 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 CANVASSING BOARD MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2016 5:45 P.M. MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Zerby called the meeting to order at 5:51 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Zerby; Canvassing Boardmembers Sundberg and Woodruff; City Administrator Lerud; and, Clerk Panchyshyn Absent: Boardmember Labadie and Siakel B. Review Agenda Chair Zerby noted a Canvassing Board meeting occurs after each election. He reviewed the Agenda. Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 3/0. 2. CANVASS OF LOCAL ELECTION RESULTS Administrator Lerud explained that after every election the Council is required to certify the results. He highlighted the results of the November 8, 2016, City of Shorewood election. The mayor position and two council positions were open. Scott Zerby was elected mayor getting 3,638 votes out of the 5001 votes. Patrick Johnson, 2554 votes, and Kristine Sundberg, 2853 votes, were elected council members. There were 95 write in votes for mayor and 68 for council member. There were 5,348 registered voters at 7:00 A.M. on Election Day and 317 voters registered that day (included absentee voters). The percentage of voters who voted was 88.28 percent. Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 16-085 “A Resolution Accepting Local Results of the 2016 General Election”. Motion passed 3/0. 3. ADJOURNMENT Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, Adjourning the Canvassing Board meeting for the 2016 General Election at 5:53 P.M., November 14, 2016. Motion passed 3/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #2C CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2016 6:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Administrator Lerud; City Clerk Panchyshyn; and, Finance Director DeJong Absent: Councilmember Siakel B. Review Agenda Sundberg moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. COMPENSATION STUDY Administrator Lerud stated the compensation study started before he joined the City. The City engaged George Gmach to conduct a classification analysis and to evaluate the various staff positions. Mayor Zerby introduced Mr. Gmach. Mr. Gmach explained former City Administrator Bill Joynes had contacted him last spring regarding his concern about the lack of a formal pay program for non-union City staff. Because a number of tenured personnel planned on retiring in the next year or so, Joynes had concerns about the hiring process. Joynes also had concerns about the pay equity which is a compliance issue. If the City has a pay program it is much easier to comply with pay equity and to deal with hiring issues. In the spring Joynes was not as concerned about the Public Works employees represented by AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) Local 224. When he and Joynes discussed those employees at a later date he explained to Joynes that it was necessary to create points for those union positions as well. If they were not included in the study it would still be necessary to create points for them because the same system needed to be used for all positions within the system. As part of the study the points were applied. He clarified that the negotiations with that bargaining unit is a separate issue. He provided an overview of what the process entailed. The current staff job descriptions were reviewed. They were used in the evaluation process.  The jobs were rated using a point factor job evaluation system based on the following.   Qualifications  Decisions the jobs makes  Problem solving  Relationships – inside and outside of the work group with the public  Effort – both physical mental (mental effort is dealing with deadlines and details; the pressures that might be presented for certain jobs for accuracy, for speed and for timeliness)  Working environment – the conditions employees might experience on the job (e.g.; working outside in very cold or very warm weather conditions or dealing with disagreeable people who might aggressively challenge the employee) CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 2 of 7  Work hazards – things that are unavoidable (i.e..; things that in spite of an employee’s best effort to follow all of the work safety rules are naturally inherent with the job) Market jurisdictions were selected for salary benchmarks. The jurisdictions were selected based on  geographic locations and similarity in size and financial measures. They included the Cities of Medina, Minnetrista, Mound, Orono, Victoria, Waconia and Wayzata. Because he had recently finished updating Minnetrista’s plan there was current data available for the study for Shorewood study. Also, the mix of cities for Minnetrista was similar to what would be used for Shorewood. Consideration was given to pay levels and service time, including the AFSCME contract  Consideration was also give to the financial impact of the formal plan  He explained that when he did a comparison he assessed them individually rather than averaging them together. When only a few jurisdictions are compared doing that individually provides better comparison results. For each comparison of Shorewood’s information against another jurisdiction’s, a regression line was developed. On it the Shorewood points are the X axis and the Shorewood hourly rates are the Y axis. The upper and lower control limits (the upper and lower lines) on the charts are the recommended range points for the Shorewood jobs. Each job was given a number of points. On the charts the smaller lower dots are the recommended minimum hourly rates and the upper dots are the recommended maximum for Shorewood. The larger dots are the other jurisdictions’ data; the larger red dots are the minimum and the larger green dots are the maximum. Each large dot represents a job match (not an employee match). The object is to determine if the job matches are in the ball park of where the structure will be set; what is the pattern. The analysis drilled down to the job on hand. For example, if a job requires a high school education and no previous experience it would get a certain number of points. As the education and experience requirements increase a job is assigned more points. That same thing applies to the nature of decisions a person in a job has to make and the impact of those decisions on the City. Therefore, jobs in management will get more points on decision making. For problem solving, the technical skills and knowledge are considered. Sometimes in those cases for positions reporting upward those individuals may be almost as technical as the job supervising them. Relationships deal with who the person has to work with. For example, the person who would normally score the highest on relationships would be the city administrator because they deal with elected officials, other jurisdictions, the public as a whole and in the event of an issue the media. For a water treatment position or public works position, most of their contacts would be with a homeowner of a residential property. Mayor Zerby asked how the points were set. Mr. Gmach responded by the consultant and explained they were based on the consultant’s assessment of what the content of the job is. Mr. Gmach stated there is a tendency for the points for benchmark jobs (e.g.; public works jobs) from one jurisdiction to the next to be somewhat similar. But, others might be different. He explained that a good example might be the Shorewood Director of Public Works position which has a PE (professional engineer) requirement. That is a higher qualification requirement than for a public works director in some other cities which do not require the PE. Mayor Zerby asked how the points were set for the Shorewood Director of Public Works job, for example. Mr. Gmach explained the points for the Shorewood jobs were set based on current requirements. He set the classifications and discussed them with former Administrator Joynes. Later he and Joynes reviewed them with Administrator Lerud. In response to a question from Mayor Zerby, he noted that Joynes agreed with the classifications Gmach presented. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 3 of 7 Mr. Gmach stated that during this process there is an opportunity to take a second look at the classifications. He noted the classifications are dynamic; there are not set in stone. Mayor Zerby asked Mr. Gmach how many times he has done a points assessment for staff positions for various jurisdictions. Mr. Gmach stated he has done that for approximately 15 percent of the counties in Minnesota and for quite a number of cities. Locally, for example, he has done it for the Cities of Edina and Eden Prairie and for the executive team at the City of Minneapolis. He has also done it for many of smaller cities. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Mr. Gmach noted that in the group of cites for the Shorewood study he has only done a similar study for Minnetrista; Minnetrista has had this system for more than 10 years. Mayor Zerby stated he read that Mr. Gmach had been a member of the Corcoran City Council for a number of years. Mr. Gmach confirmed that and noted that he still provides pro bono support for Corcoran’s job evaluations. He noted that he retired in 2012 from that Council after serving for 20 years. Mr. Gmach provided a synopsis of his background. After being in the service and after college he started out working at Federal Cartridge and did so for 11 years while working his way up through management and employee training. He then went to work for Stanton. Stanton used to do the survey for the metropolitan area. For about 10 years he was the manager in charge of conducting the metro survey. After he left Stanton that process was moved to an online system with a different vendor. He consulted for over 30 years. He is currently semi-retired; he still provides services for existing clients. He is not seeking more business. This opportunity with Shorewood came about because he worked with former Administrator Joynes about 25 years ago. He displayed the comparison charts for each of the seven cities. He made the following comments. Waconia is located in Carver County, it has a larger population and it is further away of the metro area to the west. It is in a slightly different market than Shorewood. The Minnetrista pattern is relatively close. Minnetrista has a lot of build out to do yet. Medina is a little smaller and typically the positions are a little lower paid especially for the top management positions. It is pretty strong at the lower end. The data for Orono is a little older than some of the other data used. The Wayzata pattern is relatively close. He explained the chart titled Current Pay Compared to Plan Design. He pointed to the dots representing the four AFSCME positions. When reviewing the overall level of pay it was important to make sure that there would be some linearity between that group and the other staff. He paid a lot of attention to the first level of Public Works position which is the light equipment operator (LEO) position. Some of the higher level Public Works positions have a minimum, a maximum and steps as well as some provisions for extra premium pay for getting certain licensure. The proposed system should be able to accommodate that. But, it may require that the maximum be set a little lower than what is shown on the chart in order to accommodate the premium pay while keeping everything linear for pay equity purposes. That extra premium pay is going to be counted when pay equity is reported. The objective of these types of systems is to keep them as linear as possible in order to provide the best chance of having compliance with pay equity. He suggested there be discussion with AFSCME personnel about whether or not licensure should become a requirement. For a number of cities he has worked with licensure is a requirement. It is not always a requirement at the time of hire but may be required within one or two years on the job. At Shorewood licensure is more of an incentive. The lighter green dots represent current actual pay. Shorewood has some senior staff; some of them might be leaving within the next year or so. For some of those positions the new maximum might be lower than their current rate of pay. In those instances the City CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 4 of 7 may want to continue to give them normal cost-of-living-adjustments (COLA) but when the new person is hired they should comply with the new program. One of the purposes for having a system like the one proposed is to put some controls on the upper level pay. With the system the only way for a person to earn more than the maximum for their position would be to increase the responsibilities for the position; they would need to get a promotional increase and an increase in the points for the new responsibilities. Councilmember Labadie stated if an employee went back to school or got additional training she asked if doing that would affect the position’s points. Mr. Gmach noted that would depend on whether or not the City needs that level of skill. He explained if the employee added to their skill sets and that qualifies them to work in a higher level position the City has available the points would increase because of a promotion. But, an individual is not typically paid more because they have more education or skills than are required for the job. If the degree is unrelated it does not count. Mr. Gmach explained the chart titled Plan Structure. There were grade numbers of the left chart. There are 20 grades with one being the lowest. The highest grade filled at Shorewood is grade 19. There is an extra one (grade 20) just in case something happens in the future. A couple of the lower grades are focused mostly on part-time positions. Ordinarily part-time staff would not be reported on pay equity unless they work they requisite number of hours. Whether that would be 14 hours a week (or about 60+ days a year); for students it would be 100 days in a year. If a person works over that they need to be reported. For the lower level positions that would be occupied by part-time people the range spread was changed to 50 percent. For grades 4 – 13 the range spread is 25 percent and for grades 14 – 20 the spread is 20 percent. The 50 percent for grades 1 – 3 means that the maximum was divided by 1.5 to get the minimum. The wider the spread the lower that minimum will be. The higher grades, those near the top of the structure, most of those positions will be higher level professionals or department heads. It would be very rare to hire those positions at the low end of the market rate. For that reason it does not make sense to have a wide spread because the bottom of that structure would not be used. For the grade 19 position, the maximum hourly rate is $59.96, the maximum spread is 20 percent and the minimum hourly rate is $49.96. The max spread column reflects the max spread between that grade and the next higher grade. It is 8 percent through grade 11. It is 7 percent for grades 12 – 16 and 6 percent for grades 17 – 20. There are opportunities in the future to adjust those percentages. Minnetrista has done that a couple of times over the last 10 years. The City of Vadnais Heights also did that. Columns B – F on the Plan Structure chart represent steps. It is not necessary that an employee land on those steps. In the implementation process there is an option to move people into the structure based on what they are currently paid. If an employee’s pay is between the minimum and the maximum hourly rate their pay may not equal one of those steps. For new hires an attempt should be made to have their starting pay be equal to one of the steps. Each of the steps for one grade is of equal value. The step value starting with grade 5 is larger than the previous grade’s step. Councilmember Woodruff stated if the Plan Structure is competitive with the market he asked where those competitive market numbers came from. Mr. Gmach explained they came by assessing how the other jurisdictions individually fit in the relationship as well as factoring in the bargaining rates for the union employees and the current rates of pay. Mr. Gmach stated it is up to Council to decide if the proposed Plan Structure is correct or if it should be slightly lower or slightly higher. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 5 of 7 Councilmember Woodruff explained that the last time the compensation structure was evaluated was five or six years ago and that was done based on data from the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC). The first challenge was in trying to find relatively equivalent jobs in the LMC’s data. For each position the high and the low rates were taken out of the evaluation. Upper and lower limits were set up for pay. He thought that is what Mr. Gmach did using a different process. Mr. Gmach noted he provided Administrator Lerud and former Administrator Joynes with analysis on the individual jobs as well. He explained that in terms of setting up a structure it is sometimes best to get past the individual jobs. Councilmember Woodruff stated that ultimately the proposed pay structure has to make Shorewood competitive in the labor market. Mr. Gmach stated that any time there is turnover in a job it is prudent to assess if the qualifications for and responsibilities of the job reflect what the City currently needs and wants and to decide what the pay grade should be for the job. That is up to the city administrator and possibly a few others on staff to determine. It should be done before the position is advertised for hire. He noted Shorewood’s qualifications for the building inspector position are quite light. Mayor Zerby stated that once this Plan Structure is implemented he asked if there is a way for the City to determine a point structure for a new position. Mr. Gmach noted that he had provided Administrator Lerud with a copy of the evaluation system. He stated City staff can always call him and noted there are other people qualified in the use of the system who can consult on it. He noted the City has control over the system. Zerby noted that there are a number of websites that offer similar assessments. He asked Mr. Gmach if his system was similar. Mr. Gmach explained that when he designed the system he uses in about 1998 he researched websites in almost every English speaking country. He assembled everything that he could find on job evaluations. The classic one was the Hay System which has been around for a number of years. There are also a number of other systems. He has implemented a number of other legacy systems in other jurisdictions. His system recognized all of the key components but did not overlap. He noted there is nothing in his system for supervision because supervision is built in to things such as qualifications, decision making, problem solving, relationships and so forth. Adding another factor for supervision would double it up. He reviewed the implementation steps which are as follows. Negotiate with AFSCME for public works jobs including the issue of licenses. One option is to  leave those positions in their own structure. The other is to try and roll them into the same structure as the other employees. Either would probably be successful with pay equity. Consider whether to place current employees on a step or use step values. The cost implementation  would be higher if they had to be put on a step. Place new hires on a step based on qualifications and recruiting need.  Generally, each year provide a step increase. If starting at a minimum rate use a six moth step  increase as in the AFSCME contract. The annual increased would be given after that for five years. The rationale for the five years is that is where the current contract is at for those employees represented by AFSCME. One of the questions asked on pay equity is how long does it take to reach the maximum rate of pay which is considered to be market. Adjust the Plan Structure at the beginning of each year to keep up with the marketplace. Typically  that results in the employees getting a market rate increase plus their step increase. For the first six CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 6 of 7 years of a person’s employment they would receive nice increases. After their pay reaches the maximum (i.e.; market) then they are limited to the market adjustment. Market data for other cities is usually available to use. He also likes to use the federal employment cost index because it provides another way of looking at pay increase trends. Do a more in-depth market evaluation every three years or so. That depends on the volatility of the  market. If the City pays attention to the LMC survey each year doing that in-depth evaluation every three years may not be necessary. Before doing the recent update to the Minnetrista structure its last update of the entire structure was done before the recession. Doing the in-depth evaluation could be limited to doing that when there is employee turnover. Test for pay equity each December prior to the reporting year.  Mr. Gmach encouraged Council to decide if it thinks the structure he proposed is correct for the City. That could be done now or during a future meeting. He stated it would be helpful for Administrator Lerud to know if Council likes the concept in general without getting specific about the details so he can have specific discussions with the bargaining unit. Councilmember Sundberg asked Administrator Lerud if he likes the concept of what is being proposed. Lerud stated there was a similar structure at his previous employer. Lerud explained what has been proposed is consistent from top to bottom and from side to side. He thought the valuation of the jobs was quite comprehensive. Councilmember Woodruff stated for 10 years the City’s policy has been to pay for performance. But, that was never properly implemented. The proposed structure abandons pay for performance. He noted one item in the step plan considerations slide states the performance reviews would be focused on personal growth rather than pay. There is no direct connection between performance and pay other than a binary one. He then stated if the maximum rate in the structure is considered to be the market rate then an employee would never be paid above the market rate. That is a policy decision Council has to make. He thought the system would be relatively straight forward to administrator (it may not be straight forward to update) and would be easy for employees to understand. Mayor Zerby questioned if it would be easy for employees to understand. Will they be able to understand how the points for their job were determined? An employee may believe their job’s challenges and responsibilities are different than what the person determining the points did. Mr. Gmach stated that if an employee thinks their job points are too low they can discuss that with their supervisor or the City Administrator and ask them to review the points rating. Ultimately the points rating is a management decision. The employee has an argument if the understanding management has of the employee’s job is not accurate. That might mean that the employee’s job description does not accurately reflect what they do. For union employees their rate of pay is negotiated. For non-union employees their rate of pay is determined by the policy Council adopts. Councilmember Sundberg noted one item in the step plan considerations slide states performance failure is dealt with by termination if the performance is not remedied. Mr. Gmach explained after working in this business for 30 years and working with the private sector companies that had merit systems in place he has found that what often happens in pay for performance systems is the documentation about an employee’s performance might not allow the employer to make enough differentiation to really make a difference in an employee’s performance. In other words, if all there is to work with is the difference between 2 percent and 4 percent there is not a lot of motivation in that differentiation. The more psychological motivation comes from the feedback they receive about how they are doing in their job. That counseling activity associated with the review is still valuable. Documentation CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 7 of 7 is required when there is an employee who is not going to perform up to expectation and they need to be terminated. Employees do not generally change their behaviors very much based on whether they get a 2 percent or 4 percent pay increase. But, performance reviews could. Councilmember Sundberg stated she thought the City needs to do a better job with performance reviews. Councilmember Woodruff stated the City’s Employee Policy Manual needs to be significantly revised to reflect the new pay system. Councilmember Sundberg stated there are fresh perspectives that need to be taken into consideration. She stated that she would like to ensure that the expectation of quality performance is not diminished in any way. She noted there needs to be a way to deal with poor performance. Mr. Gmach stated there has been a lot of discussion in the private sector about performance reviews. He explained General Electric, one of the companies that was most famous for performance reviews, has changed its approach entirely. It realized that a performance meeting once a year was not getting the results it was looking for. Employee performance should be discussed on a regular basis. If there is an issue that should be discussed when it happens. Performance feedback is a process and not an event. He stated that for a private sector company if there is, for example, an engineer who is developing patents and the company is trying to keep from losing that employee to another company the employers is going to give that engineer a significant increase to keep them rather than adhering to the pay policy. Councilmember Sundberg stated she preferred to have pay and performance separated. But, performance must be evaluated. She noted that performance reviews can be a disincentive. Mr. Gmach stated sometimes performance reviews can discourage an employee more than motivate them. Mayor Zerby stated that what Mr. Gmach has presented provides a great foundation. Councilmember Sundberg asked about the Personnel Committee. Mayor Zerby stated that typically those appointments are made at the beginning of the year. 3. ADJOURN Sundberg moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of November 14, 2016, at 6:58 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #2D CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14. 2016 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Attorney Keane; City Administrator Lerud; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and, Acting City Engineer Koscielak Absent: Councilmember Siakel B. Review Agenda Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. Mayor Zerby suggested Excelsior Fire District Chief Gerber address Council during matters from the floor regarding Item 10.D on the agenda. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes of October 24, 2016 Labadie moved, Sundberg seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of October 24, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 24, 2016 Labadie moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 24, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolution Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. 2017 Concession Operations Agreement C. City Hall Holiday Schedule and Office Hours CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 2 of 20 D. Authorizing Advertisement for Planning Director Position E. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 16-086, “A Resolution Directing Delinquent Charges be Placed on the 2016 Property Tax Rolls.” Motion passed 4/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Chief Gerber noted that he wanted to make some comments about Item 10.D on the agenda which is the financing of the new aerial / ladder truck for the EFD. He thanked Administrator Lerud and Director DeJong for their efforts in preparing the lease-purchase agreement for Council’s consideration. He also thanked Shorewood for its willingness to be a partner with the EFD again. He stated that the process is in the final stages of finalizing the agreement with the vendor. He noted that his commitment to all five EFD member cities and the EFD Board is that he will not ask to increase the EFD’s budget in order to purchase the truck. He explained that after the purchase agreement is signed he anticipates that further on in the process there will be some change orders to the agreement. Unfortunately, he does not know how costly the change orders will be. After the first payment is made up front, any change orders after that will be paid for at the end and they will be paid for with funds out of the EFD’s capital fund. Councilmember Labadie asked where people can view the video showing the operation of three trucks with different ladder lengths. Chief Gerber stated that can be found on YouTube under Excelsior Fire District aerial. Councilmember Woodruff suggested Council discuss Item 10.D on the agenda while Chief Gerber was present. Discussion moved to Item 10.D on the agenda. Discussion returned to this Item. There were no other matters from the floor this evening. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 7. PARKS A. Report by Stephany Vassar on the October 25, 2016, Park Commission Meeting Park Commissioner Vassar reported on matters considered and actions taken during the October 25, 2016, Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Councilmember Sundberg asked if there is any trend information on the use of the old hockey rink in Badger Park. Director Nielsen noted the Park and Recreation Coordinator does have some records on use. He stated the most used rink was the one in Badger Park and the second most used skating rink is the one in Cathcart Park. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 3 of 20 Councilmember Woodruff stated there are two types of uses; recreational use and organized team use. He asked if there has been any team use of the former rink in Badger Park over the last few years. Director Nielsen responded no. Director Nielsen explained that organized hockey league representatives had been asked what the needs were for rink space. The representatives indicated leagues did not use the rink in Badger Park. It concentrates its use in the City of Chanhassen in part because Shorewood charges a $10 per player annual fee and Chanhassen does not charge a fee. It uses Shorewood’s rinks on an informal basis but the ice is not reserved. The representatives indicated that it is valuable to have a place for the younger hockey players to play. The Park Commission has been discussing the use of a portable board system and a reduced rink size. Younger players play half ice. The Commission is discussing locating that at Freeman Park. Councilmember Labadie asked Commissioner Vassar to have the Park Commissioner find out what the height of the portable boards would be and if there would be thick plexiglass on top of the boards. She expressed concern about having free skating around a hockey rink. She stated ten year old players are strong. A group of 20 high school players, boys or girls, playing could create a dangerous situation for free skaters. Commissioner Vassar explained that for the 2016/2017 skating season the Commission was considering a trial rink and possibly renting boards until it knows how much use a smaller hockey rink would get in Freeman Park. At one point the Commission had discussed making one City rink just for free skating. Leagues don’t rent the ice for hockey any more but people still play hockey on the rinks every night of the week. The Commission was not working toward the free skate track for this season. B. Freeman Park Ice Skating Rink Director Nielsen explained that the Park Commission has recommended that the ice skating be established at Freeman Park replacing the hockey and free skating rink that used to be in Badger Park. The Commission discussed a couple of options for the location of the rink. The Commission thought it would be best to use the north end of the parking lot at Freeman Park. That end would be leveled off. It would be restored to parking when it is not used for skating. Portable boards would be put up for hockey in the fall and taken down in the spring. Those boards are plastic. Staff has been told it would take about two hours to put the boards up and to take them down. The Commission has not discussed what the height of the boards should be. For the 2016/2017 skating season the Commission wants to establish, at a minimum, free skating at Freeman Park and make use of the warming house which is what Eddy Station was designed as. The Commission would like to get people accustomed to coming to Freeman Park to skate. Based on estimates provided by staff the Commission recommended to Council that no more than $40,000 be spent to get free skating in for this season. The lights from Badger Park would be used. The bid for installing the lights is reasonable. The quote for grading that end of the parking lot is slightly over twice the estimate of $9,000; the one quote is for $18,950. The quote for the soil tests is $3,300; the estimate was $2,000. Staff and the Planning Commission are asking Council to authorize moving forward with the Commission’s recommendation if the grading can be done for under $10,000. He thought one of the reasons for the high quote for the grading is because contractors had already started to lay off their workers. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 4 of 20 Councilmember Labadie stated she thought the proposed location was great. Unfortunately, that lot is used a lot in the spring when baseball, softball and soccer use the fields in Freeman Park. When the ice melts, she asked if that would compromise the parking lot to the extent that spring sports will be compromised and permanently cause damage to the parking lot which in turn would require more regrading. Director Brown stated that would likely be the case. Brown explained it would take ongoing maintenance in the spring. There will a timing issue especially when the winter season lasts longer and overlaps into the spring season. Getting the lot to thaw in time and be repaired could present challenges. Mayor Zerby stated he assumes Public Works does not have the equipment to do the grading. Director Brown clarified the City does have the equipment but Public Works is currently down one person and personnel are still sweeping roadways and there are watermains to flush. It is a timing issue with staff now. Councilmember Woodruff stated in the spring Public Works personnel will likely have to put barriers around the area of the parking lot where the ice was until it is dry enough to park on. The ice rink will take some time to melt because it will be thick. Director Brown stated the ice will have to be quite thick for it to be usable for skating because it will be over an aggregate base. Mayor Zerby asked if there is any type of textile that could be put over the aggregate before the ice is created to minimize the impact. Director Brown noted that most of the textiles are black in color and that is a problem for ice. Councilmember Labadie asked if there would be a drainage path for the ice melt to flow off of the lot. Director Brown stated it is a novel idea to consider putting an ice rink on the north end of the parking lot but it comes with some challenges. Councilmember Sundberg stated she thought the rink in Cathcart Park was open for about one month last season. Director Brown explained that during a typical winter the rinks have usable ice on them around the Christmas break. The latest the City has had usable ice has been around mid-February. That length of time has been less and less the last few years; there has only been skatable ice for 4 – 6 weeks. Councilmember Labadie noted that as soon as the ball fields are dry the sports organizations start using them. The condition of the fields is more important to the organizations than the condition of the parking lot. But, there has to be some place to park vehicles. Mayor Zerby asked staff if it has researched the cost of artificial ice. Director Nielsen responded no. Director Nielsen noted that the cost of the portable boards would be about $50,000. Mayor Zerby stated artificial ice could extend the skating season. Councilmember Sundberg stated the cost of artificial ice should at least be researched. Director Nielsen clarified that the grading of the lot and putting up the lighting would not preclude having artificial ice. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 5 of 20 Councilmember Woodruff stated he supports having an ice rink for the upcoming season. He then stated if the City is going to have a skating facility on the north end of the Freeman Park parking lot then the lighting and grading has to be done. Councilmember Sundberg asked if the north end of the parking lot is the only viable location. Director Nielsen noted there is a ball field to the north of the lot. The original master plan for Freeman Park did not include that ballfield. That area was to be for other uses. Putting an ice rink where that ballfield is was given some consideration. But, the Commission did not want to lose a ballfield. The Commission wants all of the parks to have a common green area for use. Another area near the lot was considered but there were utilities there. Putting ice over them would not be a good idea. Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, approving a not-to-exceed amount of $40,000 to prepare the north end of the parking lot in Freeman Park for a free ice skating area which involves grading and leveling the surface, doing soil testing and relocating / installing of lights. Councilmember Sundberg stated she would support this, noting that she has concerns about the location and use. She also noted that she values having skating available. Councilmember Labadie stated the City took out the rink at Badger Park. She thought the children need a place to skate in the community; a place that is free to use. There is a warming house there. She supported giving it a try. Mayor Zerby stated he thought this is worth exploring. He noted that he was on the Council when Eddy Station was built. There was the idea of having an ice skating facility back then. He thanked the Park Commission and Director Nielsen for the time they have spent on this. He asked that staff research alternative surfaces for future years to give the City more control over the skating season. Motion passed 4/0. 8. PLANNING A. Report by Patrick Johnson on the November 1, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commissioner Johnson reported on matters considered and actions taken at the November 1, 2016, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Accept Quotes and Award Contract for Public Works Ravine Restoration and Smithtown Road Sewer Extension Acting Engineer Koscielak noted that the meeting packet contains a copy of a resolution that if adopted would accept the quotes and award the contract for the Public Works Ravine Restoration Project and the Smithtown Road Storm Sewer Extension Project. She also noted that at the dais this evening Council found a copy of a revised letter of recommendation which also included a tabulation of the quotes the City received. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 6 of 20 She explained the City received four quotes for the project. The lowest quote was received from Kusske Construction Company L.L.C. Staff is asking that Council consider four options. Option 1 was to award the contract to Kusske for the Smithtown Road ditch improvements in the amount of $27,285.50. Option 2 was to award the contract to Kusske for the Public Works ravine improvements only in the amount of $71,582.50. Option 3 was to award the total quote package to Kusske in the amount of $98,848.00. Option 4 was to reject all quotes. Acting Engineer Koscielak noted that she and Engineer Hornby recommend Council reject the quotes because they thought the quotes came in higher than anticipated and to rebid the projects in the spring. Mayor Zerby asked if the project was in the budget and if so what was the amount budgeted, Director DeJong stated he does not have that information with him. Councilmember Woodruff stated Engineer Hornby had told him earlier in the day that the Smithtown Road ditch improvements were not budgeted for. It had not been planned to be a project. When Star Lane and Star Circle improvements were done and when the sidewalk was constructed across the street the drainage was changed. The ditch situation needs to be remediated. He noted that he had not asked about the ravine improvements. Director Brown explained when the Public Works facility was designed the major outlet for the site was out the north end of the parcel and then down to a drainage pond. Over the years there has been a substantial amount of erosion. In some spots the ravine is 12 or more feet deep. When the site was developed erosion was not given a lot of attention. Over the years Public Works has attempted to stabilize things with the equipment that was available. Staff is attempting to stabilize the area for good. He then explained street sweepings really amount to sand. Currently there are 1,400 cubic yards of combined street sweepings and clay material from watermain breaks on the Public Works site. Unless some of that is hauled away there will not be room for any more next spring. The sweepings have been tested and they were labeled as satisfactory for use as general fill material. If the City does not use that material for the ravine improvements the City will have to pay to have the material hauled away. He noted that the last time the City had material hauled away it cost about $25,000 – $26,000 and there was about one-third as much material as there currently is. He explained that staff thought that rather than pay to have the material hauled away the City could use it to stabilize the erosion issue. Mayor Zerby asked if the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) could use that material. Director Brown noted that staff had asked the developer about that and at that time they did not want to do that. Zerby asked if the project has been in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and if Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is aware of the ravine issue. Maybe the MCWD would be willing to discuss grant opportunities. Director Brown stated it has floated in and out of the CIP as the problem has vacillated back and forth after stabilization attempts. Zerby stated he has had conversations with MCWD representatives about the MCC development and the stormwater flow from the site and then down the ravine. Councilmember Woodruff stated that during his conversation with Engineer Hornby earlier in the day Hornby stated the bids are much higher than he thought they should be. He then stated that he supports bidding the project next spring. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 7 of 20 Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, rejecting the quotes for the Public Works ravine restoration improvements and the Smithtown Road storm sewer extension, directing staff to find out if there may be any grant funding opportunities from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for the improvements and directing staff to rebid the improvements in the spring of 2017. Motion passed 4/0. B. Accept Bids and Award Contract for Freeman Park Ice Skating Rink Acting Engineer Koscielak noted that the City received only one quote for the grading and leveling of the north end of the parking lot in Freeman Park to accommodate an ice skating rink. The quote amount was $18,950.00 which is substantially higher than anticipated. Staff recommends rebidding the project to try and get a bid for $10,000 or less. Sundberg moved, Woodruff seconded, rejecting the quotes for the grading and leveling of the north end of the parking lot in Freeman Park to accommodate an ice skating rink and directing staff to rebid the project. Motion passed 4/0. C. Accept Proposal for Professional Services for Geotechnical Exploration and Evaluation for Freeman Park Skate Rink Light Poles Acting Engineer Koscielak noted the City received a bid from American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) to provide professional services for geotechnical exploration and evaluation for the lights poles for the Freeman Park skate rink. The scope of the work included a not-to-exceed amount of $3,300. Staff recommends Council accept the proposal from AET as presented. Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, accepting the proposal from American Engineering Testing, Inc.American Engineering Testing, Inc. for professional services for geotechnical exploration and evaluation for Freeman Park skate rink light poles for an amount not to exceed $3,300. Motion passed 4/0. D. Approve Change Order No. 1 for Trunk Watermain Improvements Acting Engineer Koscielak explained that during the progression of the 2016 Trunk Watermain Extension Project a number of unforeseen circumstances were encountered. One of them was there were traces of geotextile material between the existing layers of bituminous pavement. Therefore, the material is considered to be contaminated and it requires additional trucking to dispose of the material appropriately. The City is being asked to cover those additional trucking costs. Another was there was a tree the City originally wanted to save but has later determined that it has to be removed due to the location of other utilities. The contractor, Widmer Construction, has submitted a change order detailing the additional work items. Staff has reviewed the change order and recommends approval. The total cost of the change order is $21,293.25 and it would increase the contract amount to $1,124,149.38 (about 1.9 percent). Sundberg moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 16-087, “A Resolution Approving Change Order 1 for the 2016 Trunk Watermain Extension Project, City Project 16-04.” Motion passed 4/0. Councilmember Woodruff stated earlier during this meeting Council authorized payment of close to $440,000 to Widmer Construction. He viewed this as “in for a penny in for a pound” situation. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 8 of 20 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Appeal of Administrative Hearing Officer’s Decision Appellant: Quentin and Rebecca Irey Location: 26040 Wild Rose Lane Attorney Keane explained Quentin and Rebecca Irey own the property located at 26040 Wild Rose Lane. The Ireys appealed the City’s issuance of zoning violations and a citation for their property. The appeal was then considered by the Administrative Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer heard the matter over two full days of hearings. Council had been provided with a copy of the findings of fact, conclusions and decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer. The Ireys and their representatives then appealed the Hearing Officer’s decision. The appeal of that decision is what is being considered during this meeting. The appellants’ representative will make an oral appeal to Council. Council will then be asked affirm the decision of the Hearing Officer or to reach a different conclusion with Council’s own findings. Attorney William F. Mohrman noted he is an attorney at law in Minnesota and his business address is 150 South Fifth Street Suite 3100, Minneapolis. Attorney Mohrman stated he was sure Councilmembers are well aware, because of the political complaints made to the Council, that the Ireys have been renting their property in Shorewood for a little over one year on a short-term rental basis. Shorewood City staff found a violation of the Shorewood Code saying that the rental of the Ireys property was a commercial use of their property. His law firm prepared an appeal which was signed by Quentin Irey detailing reasons why that result was absurd. He explained that in this nation when a person violates a law the law must be on the books, it has to be in writing and it has to be clear. That is provided by the due process clause. The current Council recently passed a new law prohibiting short-term rentals. There is a common code, a statutory construction, that if you pass a new law which was meant to address something that was not covered in the past that meant the old code did not address it. It is clear under the Shorewood Code that there was no prohibition on short- term rentals of private property in Shorewood; unequivocally clear. What is also unequivocally clear in the event that this has to be litigated in District Court, noting he hoped that would not have to be done, is that the only thing that happened regarding that property is a number of Council’s constituents complained to Council about the Ireys use of their property. He noted he understands that is a political matter. This is a nation of laws. Unless Shorewood’s Ordinances specifically prohibited the Ireys from renting their property on a short-term basis Shorewood cannot do anything about it unless the Shorewood Code is amended which Council has done. There was a two-day hearing. In a sense he thought it was unnecessary. Time and again new arguments were being made; arguments he had to keep knocking down. He stated he thought Director Nielsen was a wonderful gentleman. Nielsen was very polite to him and to the Ireys and he was breathtakingly honest. He explained as a lawyer he tries to prepare questions that would elicit responses that would be favorable to his client’s case. That is not illegitimate. That is why there is a system of laws and why there is an adversarial process. He explained that during the hearing he asked Director Nielsen if there was any provision in the Shorewood Code that prohibits someone from renting property in an R-1 zone for a year. Nielsen told him no. He then asked if there was something that prohibits renting for a month. Nielsen told him no. He CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 9 of 20 asked if there was something that prohibits renting for a week. Nielsen told him no. He asked if there was something that prohibits renting for a day. Nielsen told him no. He asked if there was something that prohibits renting for an hour. Nielsen told him no. Prior to the issuance of the citation to the Ireys there was nothing in the Shorewood Code that prohibited anyone from renting their property for whatever time period they wanted to. During City Attorney Keane’s presentation to the Hearing Officer Keane made “great hay” about the amount of money the Ireys made off of renting their property. This is America; a person can make as much money as they want to off of their property. During the hearing he asked Director Nielsen if there was anything in the Shorewood Code that would restrict the amount of money that a person could charge for rental of their property. Nielsen told him no. Shorewood can enforce its ordinances and laws but they have to be in writing and people have to have notice of what they are. There was no prohibition on a person renting a property for any period of time and there was nothing detailing the amount of rent that could be charged. The “excuse” the Hearing Officer used in his decision was that the Ireys were using their property for a commercial use. The problem with that was the Shorewood Code has a specific definition of what a commercial use is. The Code defines it as “the principal use of land or buildings for the sale, lease, rental or trade of products, goods and services”. He got the Hearing Officer to admit during the hearing that the Ireys were not dealing with products or goods; that was clearly not happening on the property. He argued to the Hearing Officer “how are the Ireys renting a service”. He thought that provision deals with is if someone was using their home to operate, for example, a dry cleaning business. That would not be a trade of products or goods. Dry cleaning someone’s clothes is providing a service. All that the Ireys were doing was renting their house to someone who was going to occupy it for a period of time as residents. He stated that one of the things he loves about going to District Court is it is a place where you cannot engage in real ridiculous arguments. He cannot understand how the City can argue that Ireys’ rental of their property to individuals to use as a residence constitutes a commercial use. From his perspective it just does not fit. He explained he submitted an appeal to Council in writing. He asked Council to read it and decide what they think of it. Does Council think any of it fits into the City Code? The first argument in the appeal papers was the City cannot enforce its own code provise; it can only enforce the laws against people if they violate the laws that are in writing. None of the definitions in the Code apply here. It was clear the Ireys were not using it as a lodging house because a lodging house has to be rented to more than one group of people. The Ireys only had one tenant. The issue was raised that the tenants had guests over. Director Nielsen testified there was nothing in the Shorewood Code that prohibits people from having people come over to their house for a party or to come and sleep over. There is a limitation in the Code that there cannot be more than 75 people at the party or sleepover. The testimony was clear from the appellants’ side and there was no evidence countering that there were ever 75 people at the property. He noted that Mr. Irey wanted him to emphasize another piece of testimony. He explained there were police complaints made at the property. The fact that the cops were called to go over to the property does not make it a commercial use. It may mean that the people that were at the property were violating City law. The police have a right to enforce City laws. The police never did. The police were called out to the property twice for noise problems or something else. But, the police did not issue a citation. Nothing CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 10 of 20 happened. A person would think that if there were problems going on at the property that some police citation would have been made against the property. He explained that during the hearing there was testimony about parking on the property. It was his recollection was that Director Nielsen basically acknowledged during his cross examination of him that he could not really testify that there had been illegal parking going on at the property. He thought the City Ordinance prohibits parking on grass, but Nielsen could not testify that the area people were parking on the Ireys’ property (which has a large front area) was a grass area. If that was happening, it does not have anything to do with commercial use. He stated if this gets litigated things are going to get a little bit interesting. From a political standpoint he thought the Shorewood residents may not like short-term rental except for one weekend and that was when the Ryder Cup was going on. It was his understanding that there were a lot of houses in Shorewood that were rented on a short-term basis. Some people made a lot of money off that. He found it to be very coincidental that he received the decision that was issued on this case at 5:00 P.M. the weekend of the Ryder Cup. From his perspective, if the decision had been entered by the Hearing Officer earlier than that it would have caused a problem for the other residents (he noted people were requested to get their papers in the beginning of September). The delay in issuing that decision alleviated that problem. He noted that he would bring that argument up in a District Court proceeding. He thought the timing of issuing the decision that weekend to be beyond coincidence. By issuing it on that Friday it took care of all of the other residents’ problems with doing short-term rentals. Now, to be consistent in the application of the law to the owners of properties located in Shorewood anyone who would be engaged in short-term rentals on any kind of lengthy basis would be conducting a commercial use of their property. With regard to the rental license, he explained that Mr. Irey, through his agent Mr. Owens, provided testimony that he paid the application fee for the license and was under the understanding that the rental license was issued upon payment of the fee for the license. That was inaccurate. That is not what the Shorewood Code provides; it was his client’s understanding. Since that time the Shorewood Building Official has refused to issue a rental license to the Ireys because of problems with the property. This has been going on for close to a year. Every time the Ireys address a concern on the property new issues crop up. He finds that a little troubling. Usually what happens is an inspector inspects the whole property at once, creates a list of issues, people address the items on the list and then the rental license gets issued. What has happened in this situation is the Inspector came to the property and gave his client a list of issues. Then the Inspector came back and left them with a new list. From his vantage point, he does not think this is a situation where the laws have been applied in a fair and reasonable manner. Attorney Mohrman asked Council to overturn the Hearing Officer’s decision, rescind the citation including the $300 fine to the Ireys, and allow the Ireys to rent their house consistent with the new ordinance, assuming the new ordinance is constitutional and properly drafted. He expressed hope that the rental license would be issued in the near future because all of the issues have been taken care of. He offered to entertain questions from Council. In response to a question from Mayor Zerby, Attorney Keane noted Council can ask questions of the presenter. Councilmember Labadie stated it was her understanding that a rental license has never been obtained by Attorney Mohrman’s clients. Attorney Morhman confirmed that. Labadie explained that is in direct violation of the Shorewood City Code Section 1004.03 Subd.1. To rent a residence requires a license. Attorney Mohrman’s clients did not have a license and therefore they were fined $300. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 11 of 20 Labadie noted that she really takes offense to the tone Attorney Mohrman was using, to his insinuating that there is corruption and some sort of grand scheme. She reiterated his clients have been fined $300. That amount is the same amount that anyone in the Chambers would have been fined if they had rented their home without a license per the Shorewood Code. His clients are in violation of the Shorewood Code. Attorney Mohrman noted he did not think there was anything wrong with his tone. He stated the initial citation issued to his clients said that they would never be issued a rental license by the City because they were putting their property to a commercial use. He and his clients do not believe it is a commercial use. He does not think the City can legally refuse to issue anyone a rental license in Shorewood for any reason not specified in the City Code. If the rental license is issued then it would be up to Ireys to determine how they want to rent their property in the future. If the rental of their property is consistent with the City Code then there is nothing the City can do about that. Councilmember Woodruff noted he found Attorney Mohrman’s tone and body language to be offense at the beginning of his presentation. He found that repugnant from an attorney who should be representing his clients and not threatening the people who brought the complaint which is now the City of Shorewood. He also noted that he had reviewed the 100 plus pages of material provided to Council in addition to what was included in the meeting packet. He stated there is no question that a rental license was not issued. The Ireys house was rented, regardless of the use, in violation of the Shorewood Code because there is no rental license. All of the discussion about whether the City has properly processed the application for a license and whether the inspections had been done correctly or incorrectly as well as the discussion about whether or not it was a commercial use was a sidebar. He agreed with Councilmember Labadie that the $300 fine is proper and he agrees with the Hearing Officer’s decision on that. Councilmember Sundberg noted that she thought Councilmembers Labadie and Woodruff articulated what the concern is quite well. She clarified that this is not a political issue; it is an enforcement issue. She told Attorney Mohrman that for him to accuse Council of being political right at the beginning was insulting. Mayor Zerby clarified that this has not been a political issue for him. He noted that he has not received any calls from residents about this. He has only heard about this through staff and it was always discussed as an enforcement issue. He stated this seems quite clear to him. Shorewood’s Code is a law and it must be adhered to. He explained the Building Official was to the property three times checking to see if issues had been corrected during the rental period. He stated the $300 fine is a fair penalty and he thought it should be upheld. . Attorney Keane explained the Hearing Officer identified 19 conclusions. Conclusions 1 – 8 establish the foundation and the jurisdiction in the Hearing Officer’s conclusion. Conclusions 9 – 12 relate to the failure to obtain a rental housing license. Conclusions 13 – 19 relate to the conclusion that the use per se as cited in the violation is commercial use. He asked Council to consider making a determination regarding the rental housing license violation as submitted by the Hearing Officer as one conclusion. Council can then consider the determination regarding the commercial use as a second conclusion. He thought it has been presented very clearly by the appellant in their appellant arguments that they intend to litigate the issue of whether or not their use was a commercial use. He did not think Council needs to act on the commercial use conclusion. The lack of a rental housing license was not disputed. It is sufficient that Council reach a determination on that issue. Keane stated that he has been tracking this matter as handled by staff from the beginning. The check list of requirements as set forth by the Building Official for the issuance of a rental housing license has not CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 12 of 20 been cumulatively growing. The Building Official made his determination and put those requirements in writing. There are conditions that still have not been satisfied for the issuance of a rental housing license. Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, denying the appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer’s decision and affirming that the property located at 26040 Wild Rose Lane and owned by Quentin and Rebecca Irey had been operated as a rental dwelling without first having obtained a license to do so in violation of Shorewood City Code Section 1004.03 Subd 1. Motion passed 4/0. The following comments were made after Item 10.B on the agenda. Bruce Johnson, 26060 Wild Rose Lane, noted his property is located right next to the Irey property. He thanked Council for agreeing with the findings from the hearing. He noted that he was cross examined by Attorney Mohrman for 45 minutes during the hearing. He asked what happens with the Irey property going forward. He explained that property had been rented out up until today. There were new renters there just about every weekend. The owners know that what they are doing is wrong yet they continue to do it. He asked how much longer the residents in the area have to put up with what is going on at the Irey property. Attorney Keane stated the question Mr. Johnson raised presents a policy question for Council. He explained that if there were any ambiguities in the Shorewood Ordinance the amendments were adopted made clear what the specific provisions of the Ordinance require. He noted the City does not have an escalated fine schedule. He suggested Council give consideration to that policy question. He stated the rental of the house on the Ireys’ property is being continuously advertised on Airbnb and other similar sites. He explained the City can continue to issue citations and he thought the fine for each violation is $300. Director Nielsen clarified the fine amount goes up for each additional citation and he thought it goes up by 25 percent each time. Director Nielsen stated there had been an instance on a different type of matter where the violator was issued four citations and then the City threatened to take them to court. He then stated the fine schedule in the Code could be amended so that for each additional day of the violation the violator is fined. Judges do not appreciate doing that excessively. He noted that once the violator has appealed, which the Ireys did, the City stops any further action on it. The violator is not cited while the appeal is under process. He stated there may be a benefit in reconsidering that policy to stop issuing citations when an appeal is in process, especially when the violator is dragging the appeal process out. He noted that Council adopted an amendment to City Code Chapter 1004 (Rental Housing) regarding short-term rental during its September 26, 2016, meeting and it will consider minor amendments to the Zoning Code during its November 28 meeting which mainly makes the definitions in Chapter 1004 and the Zoning Code consistent. Councilmember Woodruff stated the Ireys do not have a rental license and that is a violation under the old City Code and the amended City Code. Therefore, any rental is in violation regardless of the duration of the violation. There needs to be a way to stop that. He commented that Attorney Mohrman as much as said the property was being rented without the Ireys having a rental license. Attorney Keane noted the Ireys are not disputing that yet the property is still being advertised for rental. Woodruff asked if the occupancy permit for the house could be revoked. Director Nielsen stated staff has discussed getting a restraining order should it come to that. Attorney Keane noted that he read in the Wall Street Journal that the City of New York has a fine for every daily violation of $7,500. He then stated this issue is about enforcement. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 13 of 20 Councilmember Labadie explained that the record indicates the property has been rented to 31 groups for a total of 114 days. The Ireys have admitted that. That is a blatant disregard of Shorewood’s laws. The laws need to be enforced. The violation cannot just be ignored. Attorney Keane stated experiences and testimony Mr. Johnson offered during the hearing conveyed that the residents in what had been a quiet residential neighborhood are not being able to enjoy the quietness they are entitled to because of those renting the Irey property. That quietness should be protected in a Shorewood residential neighborhood. Sometimes the parties on the Irey property get excessively loud and there is a lot of traffic coming to and going from the property. Councilmember Sundberg stated the Ireys are flagrantly disregarding Shorewood regulations. She suggested staff and Council figure out a very powerful enforcement mechanism. Scott Owens, 5869 Idlewood Road, Mound, stated he and his wife Jennifer have rented property to people for close to 20 years, including Section 8 rentals. He noted that City Attorney Keane had indicated that there had been no change on the list of items from the Building Official that needed to be addressed. He stated he thought there was a change in emphasis on certain items on the list. For example, he asked those present when the last time was that they had to come up with inspection approval for a water heater that is probably 18 years old. Or, when was the last time an inspector told you they wanted you to dig up the line for an outdoor natural gas grill even though there are bushes planted near the line. Councilmember Woodruff stated it seems that Mr. Owens has an agenda that he is not aware of. He noted that Mr. Owens is not a party to this and he is not a Shorewood resident. Mr. Owens clarified that he rents the Ireys’ house and he is a legal resident of Shorewood. Councilmember Woodruff asked Mr. Owens if he is the Ireys’ agent for the rental property. Mr. Owens stated the attorney is the agent and that he was just offering some additional information. Woodruff stated there is a rental agent referred to in the documentation. The Ireys’ agent rents the house for them and takes care of daily management types of activities. He asked Mr. Owens if he is that person. Mr. Owen stated he is listed and he testified at the hearing and now he was just trying to clarify some things. Mr. Owens noted that he and his wife own properties in other cities. He stated there were 29 items on the list of things from the Building Official that needed to be addressed. Usually they get two or three items to address. They get the license and then they address the requirements. With regard to the quiet factor, for their other properties they rent when someone calls them about noise on a rental site they go over to the site. They respond to any call they get. The individual that just spoke to Council has his phone number. Yet, he never called them. Yet they will give people who work there their phone number. B. Assessing for Sewer Service Charges Director DeJong explained the owners of the property located at 5440 Wedgewood Drive have asked the City if the cost of replacing their sanitary sewer service line from the house to the sewer main could be assessed over a period of years. There is either a break in the service line or it has collapsed. The property owners have had to have it cleaned out several times because of backups inside of their house. The only permanent fix to the problem is to replace the line. The property owners are retired and on a fixed income. The approximate $2,000 cost to replace the line would be a hardship to their budget. The City has not previously assessed for the replacement of service lines. The City has assessed new installations of sewer lines. Many times those are part of a single project that gets assessed to property CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 14 of 20 owners when new service is put in. The staff he has spoken with at a number of cities indicated those cities do allow assessing for replacement lines and certifying the cost of the replacement lines on to the property taxes. After discussing this with Administrator Lerud they thought it would be appropriate to bring this before Council from a policy perspective. In 2013 the then Council discussed assessing watermain installations and water service line installations. A Council did agree to do that in a couple of instances. If Council decides to allow this, the property owners would have to petition the City for the service to be replaced and to waive their right to contest the assessment. DeJong noted staff is asking if there is Council consensus to assess for sanitary sewer service line replacement when it is petitioned for by a property owner. That would be done by approval on an individual basis. He also noted that if Council agrees to doing this then staff recommends that a policy be set at 2 percent over the current T-Bill rate for a period of up to 10 years. Mayor Zerby asked if the property owners were present. Director DeJong explained staff did not ask them to be present. Staff will let them know what the outcome of this discussion is. Councilmember Woodruff stated some cities have a program that gives low income people some relief for things like necessary maintenance on their homes. Those cities have set aside funds to provide for that. The City has not done that and noted it could if Council wanted to. He explained that he does not recollect the City ever allowing a property owner to put the service line to their home on an assessment. It is possible that was done when the municipal sanitary sewer system was installed in Shorewood in the 1970s. He expressed concern about setting a precedent by granting the property owners’ request. He asked what constitutes financial hardship. He then asked if the City would do the same for a water service line. He clarified that he thought doing that would be okay in principle but he was struggling with how to keep the City out of trouble going forward with other similar requests. He asked what would stop someone from asking the City to assess for their roof replacement. He commented that he suspected there are probably other ways the property owners could finance the replacement of the sewer service line. In response to a question from Councilmember Sundberg, Attorney Keane explained that assessments must be paid off when a property is sold. Councilmember Labadie asked Director Brown how long he has worked for the City. Brown responded 21 years. Labadie then asked Brown how many times he can recollect there being a similar situation. Is there one every year or one every 10 years? Brown stated there are probably 2 – 3 a year. Labadie also asked if the replacement cost is about $2,000 to $3,000. Brown stated they probably range from $2,000 to $5,000. Councilmember Sundberg stated she would like to find a way to address situations like this where people are on a low fixed income without opening up the City to abuse in the future. Councilmember Labadie asked if there is any type of county program that could assist those property owners. Director DeJong responded he was not familiar with any. Director Brown noted that the assessment policy that is in place for the City does have a provision for a low income. He also noted that a dwelling unit must have a satisfactory sanitary service. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 15 of 20 Mayor Zerby stated he thought Councilmember Woodruff’s question is somewhat addressed in Director DeJong’s memorandum. It states that some cities are “… open to allowing repairs to be assessed since the original service installation was assessed at the time of installation.” Councilmember Woodruff questioned that statement in the memo. He explained for a newly constructed house the sewer service is paid for by the builder which ultimately is factored into the cost for the house. The only situation he can think of where the sanitary sewer service line to the house would have been assessed was if there had never been any service in the area and a sanitary sewer system was put in by a municipality and the municipality elected to have the cost for the sewer service line from the street to the house included in the assessment for the sewer service. He stated the low income provision in the assessment policy is for things the City has an assessment policy for. If the City establishes a policy for assessing for sewer service line replacement then it could include a low income provision. Woodruff then stated if the City wants to provide assistance to low fixed income property owners he suggested the City put aside a pool of money and make borrowing from it be on a first come first served basis until the pool of money is used up. As money is paid back it would go back into the pool. Doing it that would help manage the City’s financial exposure. He provided the example that if 1,000 of the owners of properties served by a private well wanted to connect to municipal water at a cost of about $15,000 that would cost about $1.5 million dollars. Mayor Zerby stated in the staff memo it states staff has identified three options to consider, noting Council can always add more. One of the three options is to establish a policy that allows staff to proceed with these assessments based on policy. He understands Council to be going in that direction. Councilmember Labadie noted that she has no interest in creating a pool of money for hardship situations because anyone can make an argument that it would be a financial hardship to have to spend money. She stated she agrees with allowing staff to proceed with establishing a policy. She noted that for those property owners it is a different type of hardship. She suggested the City help those homeowners to find a program that could help them. Councilmember Sundberg asked if the City could have a policy that allows the assessment for low income situations, noting low income has to be defined. Councilmember Woodruff suggested staff provide Council with the provision for low income the City currently has in its assessment policy. Mayor Zerby stated staff has recommended setting a policy at 2 percent over the current T-Bill rate for a period of up to 10 years. That is better than what the City is able to earn on investments. To have the assessment policy for replacements apply to something that had previously been assessed seems appropriate. Councilmember Woodruff asked if Mayor Zerby was saying if a property owner needs to replace a water or sanitary sewer service line from their house to the municipal system and if they are low income then they could petition for assessment. Zerby stated he was not sure the low income provision was necessary. Administrator Lerud stated the program would largely be voluntary. It would be set up so the average person takes care of themselves. The assessment would be a final backstop. He explained if there is a water leak between the curb stop and the house the City is not metering that water loss and if the property CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 16 of 20 owner does not fix the leak the City has the authority to fix it and assess the repair. By doing an assessment agreement the City would work with the property owner on terms. If the City has to do an emergency repair and assess it would be for one year at whatever percent the City sets; the property owner has no say in it. He noted that allowing for the type of assessment the property owners are asking for is somewhat of a public relations thing. Councilmember Woodruff stated if the City becomes aware of a faulty sewer service line can the City basically revoke the occupancy permit until it is fixed. Director Brown confirmed that and explained that every house has to have adequate sanitary facilities. Woodruff stated Council and staff have to determine the rules for assessing for repairs to connections to city water and sanitary sewer. Mayor Zerby noted those are the utilities the City provides in addition to stormwater management. Director DeJong stated there a limited number of things that a property can be assessed for; essentially utility and direct City service costs. An example of a service cost would be if the grass on a property is not mowed and if the City mows it the City can assess for doing that. The replacement of a private well is not the City’s responsibility. Mayor Zerby stated based on this discussion it is his interpretation that Council would like staff to draft a policy and bring it back to Council for discussion. He asked staff if Council has provided enough guidance. Director DeJong responded yes. Councilmember Woodruff asked if there is an option to put the cost for the sewer line replacements on a time payment plan on their utility bill from the City. Director DeJong stated that could be done but it would be difficult to try and introduce an interest rate into that repayment schedule. He noted there is much better security for the City with the assessment process. Mayor Zerby asked the residents still present if they had something to say to Council. Discussion moved back to Item 10.A on the agenda. C. Council Consensus to Accept League of Minnesota Cities Policies Councilmember Woodruff stated that he will attend the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) and the Association of Metropolitan Cities (AMC) joint meeting on November 30. The AMC does its policy adoption during that meeting. Shorewood has an opportunity to vote on the policies. He has served as the City’s representative to both groups. He intends to vote in favor of the policies. He has not received any negative feedback from members of Council on any of the policies. Councilmember Sundberg asked what is different about this one versus last year. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought there was a document that showed the differences. Mayor Zerby confirmed that. Councilmember Woodruff explained AMC has five different policy areas. He is quite familiar with the revenue and taxation area because he and Director DeJong are on that committee. He did not think that any of the changes are controversial or detrimental to Shorewood. There may be some things that a member of Council might think could be done another way but they really do not apply to Shorewood. Councilmember Sundberg commented that it would be helpful not to have to search for the changes. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 17 of 20 Councilmember Woodruff stated Council had been given a month to review the draft policies that will be considered. Mayor Zerby stated he reviewed the short document highlighting the changes and noted that he supports adopting them. He then stated he appreciates the guidance toward expanding the types of investments that cities would be able to invest in. Councilmember Woodruff clarified if that comes up in a legislative session the LMC and AMC would note that they were amenable to doing that. The relaxation would not open up the door wide. That was done because the City of Minneapolis wanted to have more latitude. There was Council consensus to have Councilmember Woodruff vote in favor of adopting the draft policies. Discussion moved to Item 11.A.1 on the agenda. D. Excelsior Fire District Ladder Truck Financing Agreement This was discussed after Item 4 on the agenda. Director DeJong explained that there has been discussion with Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Chief Gerber about financing the lease-purchase of a new EFD aerial / ladder truck. During Council’s October 24, 2016, meeting Council agreed that the City should finance the purchase of the truck at a rate of 2 percent. The financing agreement included in the meeting packet reflects the cost of the truck to be $770,000 and that would be the amount of the loan. The financing structure is similar to a previous lease-purchase agreement which City Attorney Keane had approved. The structure has worked well for two other purchases when Shorewood served as the financing institution. DeJong noted that staff recommends Council accept the terms of the Lease-Purchase Agreement and authorize staff to execute the Agreement with the EFD. Mayor Zerby stated Chief Gerber has been very diligent in preparing EFD budgets. Gerber has put forth a not-to-exceed budget amount. He noted that on October 24 he supporting a financing rate of 2 percent for the lease-purchase. He explained that by increasing the rate to 2 percent from 1.75 percent (the rate used for the financing of a different truck) there may have to be adjustments to other equipment needs for the truck. Therefore, he was reconsidering the 2 percent rate and preferred to go back to the 1.75 percent rate. The new aerial / ladder truck would benefit Shorewood and the rest of the EFD community. The difference between the two rates on a purchase that large has ramifications for other equipment related to the new truck and that could be somewhat shortsighted. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought the EFD would be getting a bargain with a 2 percent rate. If the District got financing from a third party he thought the financing rate would be between 4 percent and 6 percent especially because the lease has a funding out clause. The funding out clause means the leasing company could be stuck with the truck. He clarified he did not expect that would happen. He stated the market is moving up rapidly and noted the 10-year bond is currently at approximately 2.2 percent and the 5-year bond is at about 1.63 percent. He then stated from the standpoint of being good stewards for the Shorewood taxpayers’ money he thought a 2 percent rate is appropriate. He went on to state that he found it difficult to believe that the EFD (with Shorewood being one of the five member cities) cannot find a way to cover an additional 0.25 percent in the budget going forward. Mayor Zerby stated it is his understanding that the additional 0.25 percent challenge has been solved. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 18 of 20 Councilmember Sundberg noted she supports a 2 percent financing rate. She stated that she thought it would be appropriate for Shorewood to receive a reasonable amount of money for providing financing at a rate that benefits the other four member cities as well. She noted she was very supportive of acquiring of the truck. Councilmember Labadie noted she also supports a 2 percent financing rate. Chief Gerber stated the agreement reflects an amount of $770,000. He explained the purchase agreement has not been finalized and he anticipates the purchase price could go up a few thousand dollars. Possibly up to $774,000 or $775,000. He asked Council if Shorewood would provide more than $770,000 in financing. Councilmember Woodruff stated if the $770,000 is approved then Chief Gerber would have to come back and ask for an amendment to the Agreement for an additional few thousand dollars. Chief Gerber clarified that EFD would not ask for an amendment; it would take the funds out of its capital fund. SG noted that his commitment has been to stay within the EFD’s overall budget. Director DeJong stated he thought Chief Gerber was asking if the $770,000 is a hard dollar figure. He then stated in the motion approving the terms of the Agreement Council could authorize an amount up to $780,000, for example. Mayor Zerby stated when the other member cities approved the purchase of the truck he asked if they approved some amount. Chief Gerber noted the total budget for the truck is $862,225 and he is not going above that. That includes the truck, associated equipment and financing costs. Gerber stated that whatever is ever is increased in truck costs has to be reduced in equipment costs. Councilmember Woodruff stated if Chief Gerber wants an amount different than $770,000 he asked Gerber to tell Council what amount he wants or Council can delay approving the Agreement until Gerber comes back with a different amount. He noted that he does not want to approve a range. Chief Gerber suggested the amount to be increased to $755,000. Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, accepting the terms of the 5-year Lease-Purchase Agreement between the City of Shorewood and the Excelsior Fire District for a new aerial/ladder truck for an amount of $775,000 at a financing rate of 2 percent and authorizing staff to execute the agreement. Councilmember Woodruff noted the Agreement states the loan would come out of the Water Fund and the interest earned would be put into the General Fund. Mayor Zerby noted that he strongly supports the purchase of the truck and Shorewood providing the loan. Motion passed 4/0. Discussion returned to Item 4. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 19 of 20 1. Property Valuation and Tax Review Director DeJong explained that he and Administrator Lerud recently met with the Hennepin County Assessor and learned a little about what might be happening with property valuations for 2017. The Assessor has to set values on January 2, 2017. Valuation notices are mailed to property owners in the March – April timeframe. The City scheduled its open book meeting for May 2, 2017. There are 2441 residential properties in Shorewood. For properties where the house has not been modified or remodeled in any significant way the Assessor told them the following with regard to the property owner’s total property tax bill (not just the Shorewood portion of the tax). The total tax bill includes taxes for Shorewood, the School District, Hennepin County, and the other taxing jurisdictions. Almost 79 percent of them will have a property tax bill increase of less than 5 percent. About 78 percent will have an increase of $300 or less. Almost 57 percent will have no increase or a decrease. DeJong noted the Truth-in-Taxation hearing is scheduled for December 5, 2016. Councilmember Woodruff clarified that is not the time to discuss a property value; it is the time to comment on the tax Shorewood is going to levy. Other Director Brown explained there was an issue with one of the speed awareness displays along Country Club Road. The issue is a known warranty issue. The display has been sent to the vendor to be repaired. If the same thing were to happen to the other display it would be covered under warranty even if the warranty period has expired. Mayor Zerby stated he a number of residents have expressed concern to him about the corner at Glencoe Road and Yellowstone Trail. They have concerns about curbing that has been put in place making the roadway surface much more restrictive than it was in the past. Google Earth maps do not seem to match the plan that he was given. He asked if there is more investigation being done about the curbing. Acting Engineer Koscielak stated she has spoken with Engineer Hornby about that because he is the one that has been included on the emails. She explained that now that the blacktop is down it looks a lot bigger. She understood why residents had concerns when they could not drive near the curb. Now that it is a paved it is a foot wider than it was before. The intent of the curb was to keep drivers from cutting the corners on to private property. If Council wants the curb removed that could not be done until spring. Zerby stated he received another email today expressing grave concern about that corner. He asked staff to give the residents a little more reassurance. Director Brown stated he was aware that Engineer Hornby had referenced the Boulder Cove subdivision where there was a similar situation where curbs were installed and they made the roadway look different. He recommends Council leave the curb in place throughout the winter and revisit this in the spring. He reiterated the roadway surface is wider than it had been. If the curb is still really an issue in the spring Council can ask to have it removed then. Mayor Zerby stated Hornby told him that there is some rework that has to be done so removing the curb would not require a Council to consider a change order. He asked staff to send let residents know what the plan is. Director DeJong stated the insurance consultants made a presentation to staff about health insurance changes for City employees. He prepared a report that he shared with Administrator Lerud. It appears the average increase would be about 5.4 percent in 2017. That is good news for the City. The increase is much lower than in the past few years. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 20 of 20 Director Nielsen stated that to date 16 deer have been harvested as part of this year’s Deer Management Program. There will be at least one more weekend of harvesting. Councilmember Woodruff asked if the Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) resources are going to harvest out on the Islands. Nielsen stated he would talk to the MBRB hunt coordinator about that. Mayor Zerby stated he had heard that during the last Planning Commission meeting Director Nielsen stated he was going to retire around the end of February 2017. Nielsen responded something like that. Zerby then stated the City had done a good job about notifying nearby residents about various projects impacting roadway travel. But, he has not received any alerts about Yellowstone Trail. Acting Engineer Koscielak stated she would add Yellowstone Trail to the traffic email alert. B. Mayor and City Council Councilmember Labadie asked residents to help make Shorewood be a strong community and she encouraged residents to reach out and introduce themselves to others they do not know. 12. ADJOURN Sundberg moved, Labadie seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of November 14, 2016, at 9:16 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 nib Meeting Item Regular Meeting ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Verified Claims Meeting Date: November 28, 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. 63140-63142 &ACH 43,888.85 63143-63156 &ACH 342,753.94 Total Claims $386,642.79 We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending November 13,2016. Financial or Budget Considerations: These expenditures are reasonable and necessary to provide services to our residents and funds are budgeted and available for these purposes. Options: The City Council is may accept the staff recommendation to pay these claims or may reject any expenditure it deems not in the best interest of the city. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the claims list as presented. Next Steps and Timelines: Checks will be distributed following approval. Payroll G/L Distribution Report User: Mnguyen C!Batch: 00002.11.2016-PR-11142016 City Of CITY OF SHOREWOOD Shorewood Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description FUND 101 General Fund 101-00-1010-0000 0.00 54,653.55 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 101-11-4103-0000 1,716.64 0.00 PART-TIME 101-11-4122-0000 131.31 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-13-4101-0000 12,113.66 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-13-4103-0000 411.00 0.00 PART-TIME 101-13-4121-0000 908.50 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-13-4122-0000 943.62 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-13-4131-0000 1,853.49 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-13-4151-0000 116.96 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-15-4101-0000 4,394.34 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-15-4121-0000 329.58 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-15-4122-0000 310.35 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-15-4131-0000 500.88 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-15-4151-0000 23.53 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-18-4101-0000 5,240.20 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-18-4121-0000 393.02 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-18-4122-0000 385.43 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-18-4131-0000 855.80 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-18-4151-0000 27.57 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-24-4101-0000 3,854.70 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-24-4121-0000 289.11 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-24-4122-0000 241.67 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-24-4131-0000 500.00 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-24-4151-0000 21.81 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-32-4101-0000 8,324.70 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-32-4121-0000 624.35 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-32-4122-0000 612.79 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-32-4131-0000 1,812.10 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-32-4151-0000 329.75 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-52-4101-0000 4,506.49 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-52-4121-0000 338.00 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-52-4122-0000 319.21 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-52-4131-0000 898.48 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-52-4151-0000 147.66 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION PR-G/L Distribution Report(11/14/2016- 2:15 PM) Page 1 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description 101-53-4101-0000 978.38 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-53-4121-0000 73.38 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-53-4122-0000 73.41 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-53-4131-0000 21.68 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-53-4151-0000 30.00 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 54,653.55 54,653.55 FUND 201 Southshore Center 201-00-1010-0000 0.00 592.40 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 201-00-4101-0000 213.00 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 201-00-4102-0000 95.85 0.00 OVERTIME 201-00-4103-0000 222.50 0.00 PART-TIME 201-00-4121-0000 15.97 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 201-00-4122-0000 32.66 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 201-00-4151-0000 12.42 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 592.40 592.40 FUND 601 Water Utility 601-00-1010-0000 0.00 5,627.97 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 601-00-4101-0000 4,104.73 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 601-00-4121-0000 307.84 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 601-00-4122-0000 292.87 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 601-00-4131-0000 871.55 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 601-00-4151-0000 50.98 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 5,627.97 5,627.97 FUND 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 611-00-1010-0000 0.00 8,721.87 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 611-00-4101-0000 6,791.22 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 611-00-4121-0000 509.33 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 611-00-4122-0000 457.80 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 611-00-4131-0000 871.55 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 611-00-4151-0000 91.97 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 8,721.87 8,721.87 FUND 621 Recycling Utility 621-00-1010-0000 0.00 376.16 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 621-00-4101-0000 265.93 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 621-00-4121-0000 19.95 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 621-00-4122-0000 20.19 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 621-00-4131-0000 68.48 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY PR-G/L Distribution Report(11/14/2016- 2:15 PM) Page 2 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description 621-00-4151-0000 1.61 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 376.16 376.16 FUND 631 Storm Water Utility 631-00-1010-0000 0.00 1,164.60 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 631-00-4101-0000 925.75 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 631-00-4121-0000 69.44 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 631-00-4122-0000 66.00 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 631-00-4131-0000 96.56 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 631-00-4151-0000 6.85 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 1,164.60 1,164.60 FUND 700 Payroll Clearing Fund 700-00-1010-0000 71,136.55 0.00 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 700-00-2170-0000 0.00 34,487.83 GROSS PAYROLL CLEARING 700-00-2171-0000 0.00 8,365.36 HEALTH INSURANCE PAYABLE 700-00-2172-0000 0.00 4,786.12 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700-00-2173-0000 0.00 2,032.71 STATE WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700-00-2174-0000 0.00 7,774.62 FICA/MEDICARE TAX PAYABLE 700-00-2175-0000 0.00 7,239.84 PERA WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700-00-2176-0000 0.00 2,355.00 DEFERRED COMPENSATION 700-00-2177-0000 0.00 861.11 WORKERS COMPENSATION 700-00-2181-0000 0.00 1,074.60 DISABILITY INSURANCE 700-00-2183-0000 0.00 1,207.61 HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT 700-00-2184-0000 0.00 543.75 DENTAL DELTA 700-00-2185-0000 0.00 408.00 DENTAL-UNION FUND Total: 71,136.55 71,136.55 Report Total: 142,273.10 142,273.10 PR-G/L Distribution Report(11/14/2016- 2:15 PM) Page 3 Accounts Payable b � Check Detail User: Mnguyen Printed: 11/14/2016- 3:40PM w city of Shorewood Check Number Check Date Amount 4-AFSCMF CO 5 MEMBER HEALTH FUND Line Item Account 0 11/14/2016 Inv November-2016 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 11/14/2016 PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Dental-Union 700-00-2185-0000 408.00 Inv November-2016 Total 408.00 0 Total: 408.00 4-AFSCME CO 5 MEMBER HEALTH FUND Total: 408.00 3-DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA Line Item Account 0 11/14/2016 Inv November-2016 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 11/14/2016 PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Dental-Non Union 700-00-2184-0000 543.75 Inv November-2016 Total 543.75 0 Total: 543.75 3-DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA Total: 543.75 5-EFTPS-FEDERAL W/H Line Item Account 0 11/14/2016 Inv 11142016 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 11/14/2016 PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Federal Income Tax 700-00-2172-0000 4,786.12 11/14/2016 PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employee Portion 700-00-2174-0000 3,150.50 11/14/2016 PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employer Portion 700-00-2174-0000 3,150.50 11/14/2016 PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employee Portion 700-00-2174-0000 736.81 11/14/2016 PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employer Portion 700-00-2174-0000 736.81 Inv 11142016 Total 12,560.74 0 Total: 12,560.74 5-EFTPS-FEDERAL W/H Total: 12,560.74 AP-Check Detail(11/14/2016- 3:40 PM) Page 1 Check Number Check Date Amount 6-HEALTH PARTNERS-GROUP Line Item Account 63140 11/14/2016 Inv November-2016 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 11/01/2016 PR Batch 00001.11.2016 Health Ins-CoPay 700-00-2171-0000 2,036.08 11/01/2016 PR Batch 00001.11.2016 Health Insurance-HSA 700-00-2171-0000 5,681.24 11/14/2016 PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Health Ins-CoPay 700-00-2171-0000 2,036.08 11/14/2016 PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Health Insurance-HSA 700-00-2171-0000 6,329.28 Inv November-2016 Total 16,082.68 63140 Total: 16,082.68 6-HEALTH PARTNERS-GROUP Total: 16,082.68 2-ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 Line Item Account 63141 11/14/2016 Inv 11142016 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 11/14/2016 PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Deferred Comp Flat Amount 700-00-2176-0000 2,355.00 Inv 11142016 Total 2,355.00 63141 Total: 2,355.00 2-ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 Total: 2,355.00 686-KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Line Item Account 0 11/14/2016 Inv 20323-Nov-2016 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 11/14/2016 PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Long Term Disability 700-00-2181-0000 492.94 11/14/2016 PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Short Term Disability 700-00-2181-0000 581.66 Inv 20323-Nov-2016 Total 1,074.60 0 Total: 1,074.60 686-KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Total: 1,074.60 11-MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Line Item Account 0 11/14/2016 Inv 11142016 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 11/14/2016 PR Batch 00002.11.2016 State Income Tax 700-00-2173-0000 2,032.71 Inv 11142016 Total 2,032.71 AP-Check Detail(11/14/2016- 3:40 PM) Page 2 Check Number Check Date Amount 0 Total: 2,032.71 11-MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Total: 2,032.71 665-OPIUM BANK Line Item Account 0 11/14/2016 Inv 11142016 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 11/14/2016 PR Batch 00002.11.2016 HSA-OPTUM BANK 700-00-2183-0000 1,207.61 Inv 11142016 Total 1,207.61 0 Total: 1,207.61 665-OPIUM BANK Total: 1,207.61 9-PFRA Line Item Account 0 11/14/2016 Inv 11142016 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 11/14/2016 PR Batch 00002.11.2016 MN-PERA Deduction 700-00-2175-0000 3,361.37 11/14/2016 PR Batch 00002.11.2016 MN PBRA Benefit Employer 700-00-2175-0000 3,878.47 Inv 11142016 Total 7,239.84 0 Total: 7,239.84 9-PFRA Total: 7,239.84 347-SAM'S CLUB Line Item Account 63142 11/14/2016 Inv 11-03-2016 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 11/03/2016 General Expenses 101-13-4245-0000 38.53 11/03/2016 C.H.Expenses 101-19-4245-0000 184.35 11/03/2016 P.W.Expenses 101-32-4245-0000 161.04 Inv 11-03-2016 Total 383.92 63142 Total: 383.92 347-SAM'S CLUB Total: 383.92 AP-Check Detail(11/14/2016- 3:40 PM) Page 3 Check Number Check Date Amount Total: 43,888.85 AP-Check Detail(11/14/2016- 3:40 PM) Page 4 a w h w h h h w d Lei O O O w � o O �,a v f/1 v� cl� cul� v vu, vu, CO CO O O ,k' U U U U U U U U d U ° U U ° U °v °v U ° U ° U ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A N N N N N N N N N y o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 p N N N N N N N N N a �o �o n c v O O r- oo v o 0 0 o O o o N c N O O oo v o 0 0 o O 00 °° o �o � � M cl M r Ni M \p x U W z 1 x 12 z o o h w ct o '" U o a ob .a a ai ai Z o0 oc W � N ,� W � ,� ,� c� p O A U U w w w U w H U w a a U x U U w U a ct M O O 4 U cl O d U O O ON h O O n � O O oc O M O O U U O N U O C oo C 01 O O O O N N C O C O C O G' O o0 c, G' O N N O O U v v �o ° ° 14 N N bA a N � N � w U ice. yr". � N � h w h o 0 o w w w w 0 0 0 d U U U O O O U U U U oo O O °1 O O O O O '� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U O O U O O O O O U O O O U O U O U O U O to O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N U O O O O O N O O O O oo U U \O U M M M U U U U oo O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r••, oo oo x x x x x oo oo oo oo oo oo oo O O.i O N h h O \O O O 01 01 O O O O O O O 01 't M r- 't O O N O N O O O O oo vi oo M M N oo N N CO h CO Ol O 41 V1 h M M CO M O N oo M M N N \O N CO � U N N G a O Z to W l U o W U o U to �o P! Q o m U O M � u ° x x w to „ x x 3 x oo o ai w ai W� ai ° ai ai -c A U Z Z U O 0.1 U Z o 0 o U O a U w' 0.1 U U W U w 0 0 a oo c) N O O 0 0 0 Q N o O N O O M h l\ M O' O O O O M cl to p p U to N Z O O O i.. i-. i. i. •4 oo M O � � O Q Q Q O h Q Q Q So ° cl N M U bA a O O O O O O O O N N N N N O O O O N O O O O W W W W W oc oc oc W oc oc oc U �" oc oc oc 41 d �d U U U U U U U U U U U U U �n \O h CO al O O O O '� O '� O '� O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U O O O O O O O O U O O O O O U O U O U O O O O U O O O O N vi vi O vi M M vi O O O O O O O N o0 N O O O O 01 u N N N N oc oc oc 01 6' M M M M 6' M M M M cu �uc vu, cu� cu� O O CO x, O al N N U O O O O O O O O O O O O O U U U U O u O U O M O O O O O v �o A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N �, o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 x x oc oc x x x x x x x x p N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a +• cl cl cl cl cl oo cl cl O O O O o0 oc 0 0 x �o �o O o x O n v cl cl cl cl cl cl v c O �o M �o �o N N cy v M M M r- oc M O M C oo r a; vi o 0 0o W vi r vi ri a1 0 0 o r o0 o r oo r v N a1 0o N a1 M ~ O N N N U U O cD N C N W V] CO CO 0 N U � o0 j lu a •'4.' W U a U to o ai h > 3 U x ap ai W x ai ai 3 3 W M x A h 0.1 v h a x a U Z a Ca U W U w 0 0 a x U U c, cl cl c oc N O �_ oc O O O y, O M M h oc N M `p oc oc oc Vl N O O O U M M M r- cl O O O d 01 M O •O N i-. i. O O O O \o 01 O M M \o h x O M O O O \O \O \O N O ^C M M M M M M M M W cl cl cl cl / ) \ \ \ \ \ } § z \ \ \ \ } \ \ ) § § § § § § — £ } ~ \ 10 ^ / § \ \ f \ \ \ / § k » / - \ \ to \ \ \ \ CD CD CD CD CD CD / j j 2 ( \ a #3B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Accepting a Donation for Arctic Fever Meeting Date: November 28, 2016 Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Policy Consideration: All donations to the City of Shorewood must be accepted by the City Council. Background: Randy’s Sanitation has given a $50 donation for the Arctic Fever event. The contribution is voluntary in nature. Financial or Budget Considerations: This donation will help to cover expenses of the 2017 Arctic Fever event being held January 12-15, 2017 Options:  Accept the Donation, or  Reject the Donation Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends that the donation be accepted, and a thank you note will be mailed to Randy’s Sanitation. 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 #3C MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Retirement of Public Works Employee Dan Randall Meeting Date: November 28, 2016 Prepared by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator and Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Background: After nearly 44 years of service, Public Works employee Dan Randall is retiring from the City in December, 2016. Staff discussed having a retirement recognition for Dan similar to what was held for the last two public works employees who retired. This includes a luncheon from approximately 12:00-1:30 with invitations going to City Council, staff, Dan’s immediate family members, and the public works departments of Tonka Bay and Excelsior, the two cities that most closely work with Shorewood. It also includes an additional invitation list for afternoon cake and coffee to be held from approximately 1:30–2:30 p.m., following the luncheon. This would consist of the Deephaven public works department, as well as past Council members, the SLMPD, and EFD. Staff supports providing a similar retirement award to include a plaque, approximately $75, and a monetary award in the amount equal to that of the last years of service award the employee received. In Dan’s case, an award in the amount of $200 would be in line with the established service awards. Staff also discussed options for a similar luncheon menu, which included pulled pork sandwiches, chips, coleslaw, beans, cake and refreshments. The estimated number of people in attendance for the luncheon is 45. Another 15-20 people may join in for the cake and coffee. All together, the estimated cost for the luncheon and cake and coffee is approximately $400. The date for a January recognition is yet to be finalized, but it will be held at the Southshore Center. Recommendation / Action Requested: A motion approving a retirement recognition for Dan Randall at the Southshore Center from approximately 12:00 noon. – 2:30 p.m., with costs of approximately $400 for food, $75 for a plaque, and $200 for the retirement award, for a total of $675. If approved, funding for this would originate from the operating budget. 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 #3D MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Accept Constructed Improvements and Authorizing Final Payment for the 2016 Mill and Overlay Improvement Project,City Project 16-03 Meeting Date: November 28, 2016 Prepared by: Paul Hornby Reviewed by: Attachments: Resolution, Final Payment Summary Background:The City Council awarded the construction contract 2016 Mill and Overlay Improvement Project, City Project 16-03, on April 25, 2016. The 2016 Mill and Overlay Improvement Project included the following roadways: • Garden Road from Minnetonka Boulevard to the southeast terminus • Gillette Curve from Minnetonka Drive to east terminus • McKinley Place N from Near Mountain Boulevard to the north terminus • McKinley Place S from Near Mountain Boulevard to the south terminus • Shady Hills Circle from Shady Hills Road to Shady Hills Road The project also included narrowing the intersection of Grant Lorenz Road and Edgewood Road to provide traffic calming. This modification included the addition of concrete curb and gutter installed at the radii to keep motorists within the traveled lane. Additional drainage improvements were also included along the south side of Edgewood Drive between 26375 Edgewood Road and 26305 Edgewood Road and on the east side of the intersection of Minnetonka Boulevard and Garden Road. GMH Asphalt Corporation. has completed the scheduled work in general conformance with the Contract documents and has requested final payment. The City Engineer has determined that the project is complete and final payment is appropriate. GMH Asphalt Corporation has submitted the two-year Maintenance Bond, Minnesota Form IC-134 Withholdings Affidavit, lien waivers and the signed request for final payment. A Resolution Accepting Improvements for the 2016 Mill and Overlay Improvement Project, City Project 16-03, and Authorizing Final Payment is included for Council consideration of approval. Financial or Budget Considerations: The 2016 Capital Improvement Plan budget includes$200,000 in the Street Reconstruction Fund for road maintenance and bituminous mill and overlays. The bid awarded to GMH Asphalt Corporation with a total of$217,971.50 and the final project construction amount is$204,593.68. The amount remaining for payment with Payment Request No. 2/Final is$10,229.68. 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 Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Accepting Improvements for the contract 2016 Mill and Overlay Improvement Project, City Project 16-03 and Authorizing Final Payment to GMH Asphalt Corporation in the amount of$10,229.68. CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 16 - A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT FOR THE 2016 MILL AND OVERLAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 16-03 WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood Council awarded the contract for the 2016 Mill and Overlay Improvement Project, City Project 16-03, on April 25, 2016 to GMH Asphalt Corporation of Chaska, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Contractor has completed the project work and has requested City acceptance of the project and final payment for the work performed and documented to date; and, WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made final inspection of the project and recommends acceptance and final payment be made by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: The City hereby accepts the work completed pursuant to said contract and authorizes final payment to the Contractor, and all warranties shall commence as of November 14, 2016. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 28th day of November, 2016. ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Pay Voucher Pagel of 3 Owner: City of Shorewood Date: 10/11/2016 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8926 For Period: 8/31/2016 to 10/11/2016 Request No.: 2& FINAL WSB Contractor: GMH Asphalt Corporation 9180 Laketown Road Chaska, MN 55318 ANNNOMM Pay Voucher SHOR-2016 Mill and Overlay Improvement Project Client Contract No.: Project No.: 02925-09 Client Project No.: Protect Summary 1 Original Contract Amount $217,971.50 2 Contract Changes-Addition $0.00 3 Contract Changes-Deduction $0.00 4 Revised Contract Amount $217,971.50 5 Value Completed to Date $204,593.68 6 Material on Hand $0.00 7 Amount Earned $204,593.68 8 Less Retainage $0.00 9 Subtotal $204,593.68 10 Less Amount Paid Previously $194,364.00 11 Liquidated Damages $0.00 12 AMOUNT DUE THIS PAY VOUCHER NO. 2 &FINAL $10,229.68 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A FINAL EXAMINATION HAS BEEN MADE OF THE ABOVE NOTED CONTRACT, THAT THE CONTRACT HAS BEEN COMPLETED, THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF WORK SHOWN IN THE FINAL VOUCHER HAS BEEN PERFORMED AND THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE WORK PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, AND PURSUANT TO, THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT IS AS SHOWN IN THIS FINAL VOUCHER. Recommended for Approval by: Construction Observer: WSB&Associates, Inc. Approved by Contractor: Approved by Owner: GMH Asphalt Corporation City of Shorewood Specified Contract Completion Date: Date: 8/15/2016 Comment: http://wsb 10/RtAEC/Reports/rpt_PayRequest.asp?WorkOrderld=11474 10/11/2016 Pay Voucher Page 2 of 3 Project Material Status Item Item Description Units Unit Price Contract I Quantity lCurrent Amount to No. Quantity Ito Date lQuantity Date SCHEDULE A. -SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS $6,100.00 1 1 0 $6,100.00 2 2104.501 REMOVE BITUMINOUS CURB L F $1.50 120 118 0 $177.00 3 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S Y $12.00 10 0 0 $0.00 4 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S Y $4.00 80 147.1 0 $588.40 5 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y $4.00 70 116.6 0 $466.40 6 2104.509 REMOVE CASTING EACH $200.00 2 0 0 $0.00 7 2104.511 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT(FULL DEPTH) L F $5.00 20 0 0 $0.00 8 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT(FULL DEPTH) L F $2.50 200 1527 0 $3,817.50 9 2104.601 REMOVE & REPLACE CONCRETE CURB&GUTTER L F $28.45 910 1005 0 $28,592.25 10 2104.602 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL MAIL BOX EACH $120.00 10 0 0 $0.00 11 2105.523 COMMON BORROW(LV) C Y $20.00 10 20 0 $400.00 12 2105.603 MINOR GRADING S Y $3.00 70 0 0 $0.00 13 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) HOUR $1.00 10 11 0 $11.00 14 2231.501 BITUMINOUS PATCHING MIXTURE TON $100.00 10 55.84 0 $5,584.00 15 2232.501 MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE S Y $1.10 9000 7909 0 $8,699.90 16 2331.501 JOINT ADHESIVE- MASTIC L F $0.60 9100 3140 0 $1,884.00 17 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL $2.80 1310 850 0 $2,380.00 18 2360.501 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX(2,B) TON $61.05 2030 1742.79 0 $106,397.33 19 2360.503 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX(2,B)3.0"THICK S Y $35.00 80 147.1 0 $5,148.50 20 2360.601 BITUMINOUS SPILLWAY EACH $250.00 1 3 0 $750.00 21 2503.602 CHIMNEY SEALS (EXTERNAL) EACH $165.00 24 30 0 $4,950.00 22 2504.602 ADJUST GATE VALVE EACH $270.00 5 6 0 $1,620.00 23 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH $700.00 2 0 0 $0.00 24 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING EACH $500.00 12 18 0 $9,000.00 25 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING(STORM) EACH $315.00 8 8 0 $2,520.00 26 2506.602 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING(SPECIAL) EACH $475.00 12 6 0 $2,850.00 27 2511.501 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS II C Y $180.00 0.5 1.4 0 $252.00 28 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB&GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F $19.95 140 154 0 $3,072.30 29 2531.507 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S Y $75.95 10 0 0 $0.00 30 2535.501 BITUMINOUS CURB L F $6.50 120 151 0 $981.50 31 2557.602 REPAIR DOG FENCE EACH $90.00 5 8 0 $720.00 32 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS $2,500.00 1 1 0 $2,500.00 33 2573.530 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH $150.00 9 9 0 $1,350.00 34 2575.505 SODDING TYPE LAWN ISY $11.60 500 326 0 $3,781.60 Totals For SCHEDULE A. -SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS: $204,593.68 Project Totals: $204,593.68 http://wsb 10/RtAEC/Reports/rpt_PayRequest.asp?WorkOrderld=11474 10/11/2016 Pay Voucher Page 3 of 3 Project Payment Status Owner: City of Shorewood Client Project No.: Client Contract No.: Project No.: 02925-09 Contractor: GMH Asphalt Corporation Contract Changes No. Type Date Description JAmount Change Order Totals: $0.00 Payment Summary No. From To Date Payment Total Retainage Per Total Total Payment Work Certified Total Work Date Payment Payment Retainage + Retainage Per Payment Certified 1 4/25/2016 8/30/2016 $194,364.00 $194,364.00 $10,229.68 $10,229.68 $204,593.68 $204,593.68 $204,593.68 2 & 8/31/2016 10/11/2016 $10,229.68 $204,593.68 ($10,229.68) $0.00 $204,593.68 $0.00 $204,593.68 FINAL Payment Totals: $204,593.68 $0.00 $204,593.68 $204,593.68 Protect Summary Material On Hand: $0.00 Total Payment to Date: $204,593.68 Original Contract: $217,971.50 Total Retainage: $0.00 Contract Changes: $0.00 Total Amount Earned: $204,593.68 Revised Contract: $217,971.50 http://wsb 10/RtAEC/Reports/rpt_PayRequest.asp?WorkOrderld=11474 10/11/2016 #5A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: City Code Amendment – Revised Floodplain Management Regulations Meeting Date: 28 November 2016 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Policy Consideration: Should the City Code be amended to adopt revised Floodplain Management Regulations, in order for Shorewood to remain part of the National Flood Insurance Program? Background: At its October meeting, the City Council approved a code amendment adopting revised floodplain regulations and a revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). We have been advised by the Department of Natural Resources that the amendment should have been subject to a public hearing. In response, we have scheduled a hearing for next Monday night, at which time staff is recommending that the previously adopted amendment be ratified and forwarded back to the DNR. Financial or Budget Considerations: The cost of publishing the legal notice for the public hearing was less than $100. Options: Adopt the ordinance amendment as approved; modify the amendment; or do nothing. Recommendation / Action Requested: Assuming no drastic revisions come out of the public hearing, staff recommends ratification of the previously adopted amendment. Next Steps and Timelines: Assuming approval, staff will forward a certification of publication to the DNR. 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 #7A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD PARK COMMISSION MEETING SHOREWOOD CITY HALL TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2016 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Mangold convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. A. Roll Call ; Present: Chair Mangold, Commissioners Vassar, Rock, and BarrCity Council Liaison Woodruff; City Planner Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Kobs B. Review Agenda Rock moved to approve the agenda as written. Vassar seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2016 Barr moved to approve the minutes of the October 25, 2016 meeting as amended: change “suggested lighting” to “preferred permanent lighting, but temporary lighting options would be alright”. Mangold seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 4. FREEMAN PARK ICE RINK DESIGN Nielsen stated the City Council authorized staff to move forward with the ice rink proposal for Freeman Park as recommended at the last Park meeting. He reviewed the proposed design for the winter. Lighting will be installed the week of November 28, and the soil test will also be done. Mangold asked if we would stay within budget with the split in the work. Nielsen stated we should still be under the $40,000, and electrical work will be under budget. Rock asked if disposal fees would be involved. Nielsen stated nothing will be removed from the site; however, materials may have to be brought to the site. Vassar asked how large the rink will be. Nielsen reviewed the oblong-shaped triangle proposed which would still be okay for skating. The plan is to construct a rink people will want to use. Mangold suggested a tie-in with Arctic Fever. Nielsen stated there will be free skating for sure in February if the weather holds. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2016 3 PAGE 2 OF Nielsen stated the future plan for a free skate track was discussed with the City Council, and they raised the issue of having Plexiglas to keep hockey pucks away from the track. Mangold recalled there would be netting on each end of the rink. Nielsen agreed. Nielsen noted the location of the light fixtures. Woodward stated Council had a question about the transition in the spring from a rink back to the parking lot and the timing for field usage. They were concerned about stabilization of the ground and possible ruts. The Council wanted to make sure the parking lot was available soon after the rink season was over. Nielsen stated the plan could be to barricade the rink area until the ground stabilizes. Commissioners and staff discussed board removal and parking lot usage. Mangold asked if there is anything scheduled in April. Nielsen stated he was unaware when the first practice would be scheduled. He believed April was a little early for that. Mangold asked what the next phase should be. Nielsen stated we could start looking at boards, board heights, etc. Mangold suggested going back to the manufacturer to see what options are and where to go from there. 5. REVIEW ATHLETIC FIELD RESERVATION FORM FEES Commissioners reviewed athletic field reservation form fees and changes to be made for Badger Field. Nielsen stated we were advised by the lacrosse league that our fees were very low. They suggested $50/hour would be a good deal. We reviewed several other cities, and Plymouth has artificial turf. They charge $50/hour or $210/day. Nielsen suggested the lighting fees remain the same at $30/hour. He stated some cities differentiate between residents and non-residents. Staff recommended $50/hour or $210/day for artificial turf. He stated we might want to look at the use of ballfields at some point. Mangold moved, Barr seconded to recommend approval of the $50/hour or $210/day charge for artificial turf. 6. NEW BUSINESS None 7. STAFF AND LIAISON REPORTS/UPDATES A. City Council Woodward reported on recent City Council actions. B. Staff Nielsen reported on broken ties on the goal nets. He stated vandalism in the parks is an ongoing battle. He discussed motion lighting or a streetlight near the new field which would be turned on nights when no one is playing there. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2016 3 PAGE 3 OF Commissioners and staff discussed park vandalism. Vassar asked the status on the skate park. Nielsen stated he would check out the status. 8. ADJOURN Vassar moved, Barr seconded, to adjourn the Park Commission Meeting of November 22, 2016 at 7:35 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Clare T. Link Recorder CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2016 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Acting Chair Maddy; Commissioners Bean, Johnson and Riedel; Planning Director Nielsen; and, Council Liaison Siakel Absent: Chair Davis APPROVAL OF AGENDA Bean moved, Riedel seconded, approving the agenda for November 1, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  October 18, 2016 Riedel moved, Bean seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 3/0/1 with Johnson abstaining due to his absence at the meeting. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – REZONE PROPERTIES FROM R-1A, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO R-1C, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Applicant: City of Shorewood Location: 24725 through 25015 Smithtown Road and 5765 through 5830 Club Lane Acting Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 P.M. He explained the Planning Commission is composed of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a request from the City of Shorewood to rezone properties from R-1A, Single-Family Residential to R-1C, Single-Family Residential. The properties are located at 24725 through 25015 Smithtown Road and 5765 through 5830 Club Lane. Director Nielsen noted the procedures used in a Public Hearing. Director Nielsen explained that during its October 4, 2016, meeting the Planning Commission considered a request from Bryan Pike to rezone the properties located at 24845 Smithtown Road and 5810 Club Lane CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2016 Page 2 of 10 from R-1A, Single-Family Residential to R-1C, Single-Family Residential. Mr. Pike owns the Smithtown Road property and his parents own the Club Lane property. Staff had informed the Commission that rezoning only those two parcels would be considered spot zoning and advised the Commission that should not be done. The arguments that favored the rezoning of those two lots would also apply to the other ten lots in that area. The surrounding zoning, mainly that across Smithtown Road, is all R-1C. The Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) redevelopment is being developed to R-1C standards. The lots in the development are less than 20,000 square feet but overall the density comes out to about 1.2 units per acre. Rezoning the 12 properties to R-1C would allow lots sizes of 20,000 square feet as opposed to 40,000 square feet. The lots could also be 100 feet wide; the current requirement is 120 feet. Some setbacks would be reduced as well. The R-1A zoning district requires a 50 foot front setback, a 50 foot rear yard setback and 10 foot side yard setbacks. The R-1C zoning district allows a 35 foot front yard setback, a 40 foot rear yard setback, and 10 foot side yard setbacks. Seven of the 12 lots the City is now recommending for rezoning do not conform to the R-1A standards. Some have less area than 40,000 square feet and some have less width than 120 feet. Because the City was going to consider rezoning all 12 lots a new public hearing notice had to be published. That is what is being considered this evening. During the October 4 meeting when the rezoning of the Pike lots was discussed there was discussion about what the area would look like if the properties along Club Lane are rezoned to R-1C. Currently that roadway is quite substandard in terms of its width; it is about 30 feet wide including an eight-foot-wide strip. The meeting packets contained a drawing of what an upgraded Club Lane might look like. If the Pike lots are redeveloped at some point the roadway would have to be widened and to have a cul-de-sac constructed. Mr. Pike was hoping that by combining the two lots and subdividing it into multiple lots that he could end up with five lots. Because of some unknowns it was left at a minimum of four lots. If Mr. Pike moves forward with his plan the City would be able to get enough land to make Club Lane a standard City street and to construct a standard cul-de-sac turnaround. During the October 4 meeting residents living along Club Lane indicated that drivers drive down Club Lane in error and end up turning around in the residents’ driveways. He explained that Mr. Pike expressed concern about having to give the City 20 feet to widen Club Lane. From staff’s perspective that is the only option. The lots on the east side of the roadway do not have the capability to be divided unless some lots are combined and then subdivided in some fashion. He clarified the widening of the roadway does not come about when the properties are rezoned. The widening would happen if Mr. Pike develops the lots or sells them to someone who would develop them. Nielson noted that staff recommends rezoning the 12 parcels to R-1C to be consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Bean stated on the drawing for what an upgraded Club Lane might look like there is a narrow sliver of land that comes down on the east side of the cul-de-sac. Director Nielsen explained that is an 8.5 foot strip that runs the entire length of Club Lane. Bean asked if that would be vacated if the cul- de-sac was constructed. Nielsen stated that could be done but he did not think that would be a necessity. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2016 Page 3 of 10 Commissioner Johnson stated he assumed that the area for the cul-de-sac would come from one of the Pike properties. Director Nielsen confirmed that. Johnson stated when the cul-de-sac was discussed the last time it is his recollection that the discussion was about it going into the MCC site. Nielsen explained there is no right-of-way (ROW) to get the cul-de-sac down below the Club Lane properties on the south end. Commissioner Bean asked if the cul-de-sac would accommodate emergency vehicles. Director Nielsen responded yes and explained it would be the same size as the cul-de-sacs on roadways that intersect with Smithtown Road on the north. Acting Chair Maddy opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:13 P.M. Mary Beth Knopik, 24930 Smithtown Road, stated her property is on the north side of Smithtown Road, across from properties that would be rezoned. She noted she was in favor of the rezoning. She stated she thought the quadrant on both the north and south side of the street is a unique futuristic property. She explained there are developers who want to develop lots on the south side of the roadway. There is a vast amount of property available on the north side of the roadway. She noted that her property is bordered by a duplex. She asked if that is multiple housing. She asked how to address questions about the zoning if she decides to sell her property. Ms. Knopik stated a group met with staff a few weeks ago to discuss subdividing properties. That was the impetus for her bringing questions before the Planning Commission. She then stated she would like a futuristic plan that would allow for affordable housing; something similar to the project that was done near Eureka Road and Highway 7 with duplex type combinations. She asked that be given some consideration when the area is developed in the future. Aaron Hatz, 5765 Club Lane, noted that his property is east of Club Lane across from the Pike properties (24845 Smithtown Road and 5810 Club Lane). He stated that combining the Pike properties and then subdividing them into four parcels makes sense to him. But, subdividing it into five parcels does not. He asked when he would have an opportunity to voice his concerns about the five. Director Nielsen reiterated that the rezoning of the lots does not divide the properties. He explained a combination/subdivision would be considered as a separate item with a separate public hearing. All property owners within 500 feet of the properties would be notified that it was going to be considered. He clarified that residents do not get a vote on planning items. The public hearing is to allow residents to provide public comment. Mr. Hatz stated it was his understanding that Mr. Pike was trying to get the properties rezoned so a builder would buy them. In response to a comment from Mr. Hatz, Director Nielsen explained the City considers Club Lane to stop at its widest point. Mr. Hatz stated that Mr. Pike has indicated he did not want all of the land needed to widen Club Lane to come from his properties. He asked who would decide that. Director Nielsen explained there would be a public hearing for combining/subdividing the Pike properties. The Planning Commission would discuss the proposal and make a recommendation to Council. Acting Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:18 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2016 Page 4 of 10 Commissioner Johnson asked if the Planning Commission is also being asked to make a recommendation on the roadway and cul-de-sac this evening. Director Nielsen stated no and noted that the roadway upgrade diagram was for illustration purposes only. Commissioner Riedel asked what the immediate impact would be of rezoning the properties. Director Nielsen reiterated the front and rear yard setbacks would be less than they currently are. Bean moved, Riedel seconded, recommending approval of the rezoning of the twelve properties located at 24725 through 25015 Smithtown Road and 5765 through 5830 Club Lane from R-1A, Single-Family Residential to R-1C, Single-Family Residential. Motion passed 4/0. Director Nielsen noted Council will consider this item during its November 28 meeting. Acting Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 7:23 2. PUBLIC HEARING – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN SHOREWOOD AND EXCELSIOR Applicant: The Waters Senior Living Location: 22920 Highway 7 and 723 Water Street Acting Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:23 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the previous item. He stated during this Public Hearing the Planning Commission is going to consider an amendment to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan that would modify the boundary between Shorewood and Excelsior at 22920 State Highway 7 and 723 Water Street for The Waters Senior Living. Director Nielsen explained that Jay Jenson, representing The Waters Senior Living, has arranged to purchase the properties at 22920 State Highway 7 and 723 Water Street for the purpose of redeveloping the sites as part of a senior housing project at those addresses. It would straddle the current boundary between Shorewood and Excelsior. Just over two-thirds of the property is located in Shorewood and the rest is located in Excelsior. The plan is to demolish the existing buildings on those properties. The Waters Senior Living would construct a senior living facility on the site called The Waters of Excelsior. Both parcels located in Shorewood are zoned C-1, General Commercial. The northerly parcel is occupied by the garage structure for the apartment building. The southerly parcel is occupied by a vacant restaurant building, perhaps best known as the Hilltop. The Excelsior parcel is zoned R-3, Multiple Family Residential and is occupied by an apartment building. According to Hennepin County tax records, the Excelsior parcel contains 23,058 square feet of area. The two Shorewood parcels contain 58,039 square feet. The total site area would be 81,097 square feet. He displayed a copy of the proposed site plan. He noted that it is his understanding the Excelsior Council has granted Concept Stage approval of a planned unit development (PUD) and he assumes that is subject to working out the land arrangements. He stated the properties relate better, geographically, to Excelsior than they do to Shorewood. Also, Excelsior serves the properties with utilities (both sewer and water). He noted that discussions relative to this project have been going on for quite some time. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2016 Page 5 of 10 He explained that when Shorewood was initially approached by the developer Shorewood suggested three possible alternatives for addressing the boundary line issue: 1. Excelsior could annex the Shorewood portion of the project. 2. Shorewood could annex the Excelsior portion of the project. 3. The project could be developed across municipal boundaries. Excelsior was given the choice of the three and it chose to annex the Shorewood properties. The two properties located in Shorewood currently generate some tax revenue and they were capable of generating considerably more. If Shorewood would have chosen to annex the Excelsior property and Excelsior agreed to that. Shorewood offered to pay Excelsior a proportionate share of future tax income, in perpetuity. When Excelsior chose to annex the properties it originally balked somewhat about giving Shorewood a proportionate share of future tax income in perpetuity. It is his understanding that an agreement has been reached, at least in principle, whereby Shorewood would receive its fair share of future taxes. The project is to be developed through tax increment financing (TIF). The increased taxes from the project do not start to be realized for about 25 years. Shorewood would continue to receive its current base tax over the TIF period. The attorneys for the two Cities are in the process of preparing an annexation agreement. The agreement would set forth the conditions of the detachment and annexation of land. He noted that staff recommends approval of the amendment to the Shorewood Comprehensive (Comp) Plan that takes land out of Shorewood and adjusts the Shorewood boundary subject to the execution of the annexation agreement. Nielsen then noted Mr. Jenson was present. Acting Chair Maddy asked if the decision has been made about how the taxes will be split between the two Cities. Director Nielsen explained the original suggestion was a 60/40 split with Shorewood getting 60 percent. Based on the amount of land in Shorewood staff has advised Council that the split should look more like 70/30. Staff has not heard back from Excelsior about that. Director Nielsen stated he thought there is a meeting the week of November 7 to discuss the annexation agreement. Acting Chair Maddy asked why the TIF would be in place for 25 years. Director Nielsen explained it is his understanding that is what it would take to make that project work. The land costs are higher than what the developer had anticipated. Nielsen stated he does not think the 25-year TIF term has been finalized. Commissioner Bean clarified the Planning Commission is not commenting on the development of the project. It is commenting on the amendment to the Comp Plan to reflect the detachment of the two parcels of land. Director Nielsen explained that even when there was discussion about the development straddling both cities there had been an informal agreement that Excelsior would control the planning aspects of the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2016 Page 6 of 10 project, processing it and permitting and permit review for it. The project relates more to Excelsior in part because of surrounding land. Commissioner Bean stated after the Comp Plan is amended and the land detached and annexed The Waters of Excelsior project could collapse. Director Nielsen stated Shorewood would still collect taxes on that land. Bean asked if the owners of the Hilltop parcel have paid all of the taxes due. Nielsen did not know. Acting Chair Maddy asked if there is any way to get Excelsior to take the sliver of land near that project site which would result in straightening out the border a little. Director Nielsen stated staff could suggest that and noted that is not part of this Comp Plan amendment. He explained that property has a little pond on it; therefore, it is not really developable. Commissioner Bean asked if the annexation agreement would define the 70/30 split. Director Nielsen confirmed that. Acting Chair Maddy opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:36 P.M. Jay Jenson, representing The Waters Senior Living, thanked the Planning Commission for considering this. He also thanked Director Nielsen and former City Administrator Bill Joynes for the work they have done on this for the last one and one-half years. Mr. Jenson stated The Waters Senior Living has provided its full financial pro forma to Springsted. Springsted is the financial advisor to both Cities. Springsted is analyzing whether or not his company’s return is appropriate for a tax increment “but for test” within the tax increment district statute in Minnesota. A redevelopment tax increment district has a potential term of 25 years. The Waters hopes to get the term down to 15 – 18 years. He noted that the split between 70/30 and 60/40 may sound big but it is not. The Cities’ share of the taxes after term of the TIF would be about $50,000 a year. For a 60/40 split it would be a $30,000/$20,000 split and for a 70/30 split it would be $35,000/$15,000. He stated the Excelsior Council will have a work session on November 14 before its regular Council meeting to discuss the 70/30 split idea. Acting Chair Maddy asked Mr. Jenson if the intent is to combine all three parcels into one parcel. Mr. Jenson responded yes. In response to a question from Commissioner Riedel, Director Nielsen stated the proposed zoning for the development site (the three parcels combined) would be PUD. In response to a comment from Director Nielsen, Mr. Jenson clarified the Excelsior Council will consider the final plans during its first meeting in December. Acting Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:39 P.M. Johnson moved, Riedel seconded, recommending approval of the amendment to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan to reflect the change in the Shorewood boundary for the 22920 State Highway 7 and the south portion of 723 Water Street properties subject to the execution of the annexation agreement between the Cities of Shorewood and Excelsior. Motion passed 4/0. Director Nielsen noted Council will consider this item during its November 28, meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2016 Page 7 of 10 Acting Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 7:43 P.M. 3. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING SHORT- TERM RENTAL OF PROPERTY Acting Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:43 P.M. Director Nielsen explained that during its September 20, 2016, meeting the Planning Commission discussed and recommended approval of an amendment to the City Code Chapter 1004 (Rental Housing) regarding short-term rental. It basically prohibits rentals for less than 30 days. The Zoning Code text amendment being considered this evening is a follow-up to that amendment. It makes the definitions between the City Code and Zoning Code consistent. The definitions are also consistent with State Statute. He noted that he views this as a housekeeping amendment. Acting Chair Maddy asked if there would be a benefit to list short-term rental as a prohibited use in all of the residential zoning districts. Director Nielsen clarified that the rental housing code does that specifically. There is a provision in the Code that states if something is not specifically allowed then it is specifically prohibited. That issue is specific to the Rental Housing Code and it is specifically stated there. A conscious decision was made not to include it in the Zoning Code. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Acting Chair Maddy opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. Bean moved, Riedel seconded, recommending approval of the text amendment to the Shorewood Zoning Code regarding short-term rentals as presented by staff. Motion passed 4/0. Acting Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 7:46 P.M. 4. MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicant: William Everett, Jr. Location: 5615 Covington Road Director Nielsen explained William Everett owns the property located at 5615 Covington Road. He has purchased Outlot E, Waterford, immediately east of his property with the intent of combining the two parcels and re-subdividing them into two building sites. The 5615 property is zoned R-1A/S, Single- Family Residential/Shoreland. The property lies between Covington Road to the west and Old Market Road to the east. The land drops in elevation from 1009 on the west end to 960 at the southeast corner of the site. Outlot E is zoned planned unit development (PUD). The lot size requirements for the R-1A zoning district is a minimum of 40,000 square feet and a minimum of 120 feet of width. The proposed westerly lot with the home on it will contain 72,114 square feet of area. The easterly lot will have 43,823 square feet. Both of the proposed lots would meet or exceed the requirements of the R-1A/S zoning district. He explained that although the new lot drops off as much as 20 feet toward Old Market Road, the grade at the northeast corner of the site affords a relatively gentle slope for the location of a driveway to serve that lot. The buildable area of the new lot is very level and open. He noted staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision subject to the following conditions. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2016 Page 8 of 10 1. The applicant must provide deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around each lot. 2. The applicant must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. That was turned in prior to the meeting. 3. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicant must pay one park dedication fee ($6500) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200). Credit is allowed for the previous home on the site. 4. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits are applied for. Nielsen then noted Mr. Everett was present. Commissioner Riedel asked if the new properties would both be zoned R-1A. Director Nielsen clarified the Outlot zoned PUD is located in the 50-foot setback so it cannot be built upon. Nielsen noted it could be rezoned at some time but it is not necessary in order to build on that lot. In response to a comment from Commissioner Bean, Director Nielsen explained the main impact of the PUD zoning is the Waterford Homeowners Association (WHA) would have architectural control over whatever gets built there. Because nothing can be built there it does not have any impact at all. Bean stated the homes on the abutting lots to the north and south that are along Old Market Road are part of the PUD. Director Nielsen confirmed that and noted those lots have a lesser setback requirement (35 feet) than the new lot will have (50 feet). Bean asked if there would be different setbacks between the front of the lot and back of the lot. Director Nielsen explained that when the applicant combines Outlot E with a portion of the Covington Road parcel the R-1A standards will apply to the entire parcel. William Everett, 5615 Covington Road, explained that when he purchased Outlot E the WHA told him that the current Outlot E zoned PUD would remain under its covenants. Because that would be in the 50 foot setback it would not be buildable. Once his request is approved he intends on talking with the WHA about releasing that sliver of land so everything could be zoned R-1A. Mr. Everett asked Director Nielsen if there is any other option for zoning the parcels other than R-1A/S for setback reasons. Director Nielsen stated he did not think so but it may be worth looking at the setbacks for the Waterford development because the setbacks are less restrictive for that development. Acting Chair Maddy asked if parcel 2 could be zoned Waterford PUD. Director Nielsen clarified that the parcel could not be forced into the Waterford PUD. If the WHA was willing to take it that PUD could be amended. Commissioner Johnson asked if that parcel would then be subject to the covenants of the WHA. Nielsen responded yes. Mr. Everett stated he would prefer to keep that parcel out of the PUD. Commissioner Bean stated he thought the WHA covered things like monuments and general landscaping around some of the intersections. It does not address the homes. Commissioner Riedel stated if the WHA thought the easterly parcel should be part of the PUD because it would be along Old Market Road perhaps it would be pertinent to discuss if that was appropriate. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2016 Page 9 of 10 Acting Chair Maddy explained the City has the authority to zone the parcel PUD but it does not have any authority to say who would be in the WHA. Director Nielsen concurred. Nielsen clarified zoning it PUD would require amending the Waterford PUD and that would require approval from the WHA. Commissioner Johnson stated if there is a change in the WHA management in the future he asked if that could impact Mr. Everett. Bean moved, Riedel seconded, recommending approval of a combination / minor subdivision for William Everett, Jr. for his property located 5615 Covington Road and Outlot E, Waterford, subject to the recommendations made by staff in its report dated October 26, 2016. Motion passed 4/0 Mr. Everett thanked the Planning Commission. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Johnson stated if there is going to be a change to a developer agreement he asked if that should go before the Planning Commission. Director Nielsen stated he thought so. 7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated as of today there are no zoning applications for consideration during the December 6, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. That meeting will likely be a study session on some topic. 8. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Siakel reported on the items considered and actions taken during Council’s October 24, 2016, work session and regular meeting (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings). Siakel asked how many deer have been harvested as part of this year’s Deer Management Program. Director Nielsen stated during the first two weekends nine have been harvested. Siakel noted the new City Administrator started the previous day. His name is Greg Lerud. Acting Chair Maddy asked Director Nielsen when he is going to retire. Nielsen stated around the end of February 2017. • SLUC Director Nielsen stated he would email the notice for the upcoming Sensible Land Use Coalition session. • Other CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2016 Page 10 of 10 9. ADJOURNMENT Bean moved, Riedel seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of November 1, 2016, at 8:10 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder � #sa MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Zoning Code—Proposed Amendment—Short-term Rentals Meeting Date: 28 November 2016 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Planning Director's Memorandum Draft Code Amendment Policy Consideration: Should the City amend its Zoning Code to make it consistent with recent amendments to the Rental Housing Code and state regulations? Background: See attached Planning Director's memorandum for detailed background. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed code amendment and voted unanimously to recommend adoption. Financial or Budget Considerations: The proposed amendment is intended to prevent the costly monitoring, regulation and enforcement associated with the short-term rental of property in residential zoning districts. Options: Adopt the attached code amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission; modify the amendment; or reject the amendment. Recommendation/Action Requested: Adoption of the code amendment as drafted is recommended. Next Steps and Timelines: The amendment will go into effect upon publication in the official newspaper. 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 l � r MEMORANDUM CITY OF 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.d.shorewood.mn.us • cityha11 @ci.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 27 October 2016 RE: Zoning Code Text Amendment — Short -term Rentals FILE NO. Chapter 1200 (Zoning) Last month the City Council adopted regulations addressing short-term rentals in Shorewood. The Housing Code chapter of the City Code was amended to preclude property rentals of less than 30 days. At that time staff indicated that certain changes to the Zoning Code would also be useful, and a public hearing has been scheduled for 1 November to consider the changes. The attached code amendment consists of definitions intended to clarify the code and make the Zoning Chapter consistent with the Housing Chapter. Cc: Greg Lerude Tim Keane Patti Helgesen - D- R- A -F -T- CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SHOREWOOD ZONING CODE AS IT PERTAINS TO SHORT -TERM RENTALS Section 1. City Code Section 1201.02 is hereby amended to add the following definitions: "HOTEL." An establishment, including a motel, resort, boarding house, lodging house, bed and breakfast, furnished apartment house, short-term rental unit not in a residential district, or other building, which is kept, used or advertised as, or held out to the public to be, a place where sleeping and /or housekeeping accommodations are supplied for pay to guests for transient occupancy." "SHORT -TERM RENTAL UNIT. Any structure, any portion of any structure, rental dwelling or rental dwelling unit that is rented to a transient for less than thirty (30) consecutive days in a residential district or residential planned unit development district." "TRANSIENT. Any person who, at their own expense or at the expense of another, exercises occupancy or possession, or is entitled to occupancy or possession, by reason of any rental agreement, concession, permit, right of access, option to purchase, license, time sharing arrangement, or any other type of agreement for a period of less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days." Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publication 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 8B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: The Waters Senior Housing Project—Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Annexation Agreement Meeting Date: November 28, 2016 Prepared by: Greg Lerud and Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Property map Draft Annexation Agreement Letter from Excelsior City Manager Planning Director's Memorandum Policy Consideration: Two components of this agenda item. First is consideration of the draft Annexation-Detachment Agreement, and if approved, consideration of the comp plan amendment. Approval of the comp plan amendment is contingent on approval of the agreement. Background: The Cities of Shorewood and Excelsior have been working on an agreement to detach two parcels from the City of Shorewood and annex it into Excelsior for the purpose of constructing a senior living community known as The Waters of Excelsior. The remaining item to be negotiated is the split of tax proceeds once Excelsior's tax increment district expires. Shorewood staff has the position that the split should be 70-30 and be based on the percentage of land contributed by each city to the project. The Excelsior city council considered the matter at their November 21 council meeting and they propose a split based on the County Assessor's determination. That determination should be available in the next week, but it is believed it will be an approximately 40(Excelsior)—60 (Shorewood) split. You will recall that the concept of splitting the site by value was rejected early in our discussions. The example was made that if the bulk of the new building was situated on the Excelsior parcel of the project area and the parking lot was on the Shorewood portion, the resulting tax split would be disproportionate. Viewing the development as a single project, the land area split is most logical. The assessor's value would ultimately be split that way. Excelsior staff continues to factor in the value of the existing buildings in their calculations. Our staff reminds them that those values are meaningless—the existing buildings will not be there. Financial or Budget Considerations: Shorewood staff has held that square footage of each city's land contribution is the most equitable way to distribute tax revenue. Each square foot of land has equal value because it is all needed to complete this project. Further, Shorewood's land value is only about 19 percent of the total initial land value for the development—increasing the value of tax increment. Options: The council can take three actions: 1. Reject the proposal from the Excelsior city council. 2. Accept the proposal. 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 3. Reject the proposal and reaffirm the 70-30 split or make a counter offer of whatever percentage the council believes is proper. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff believes that the 70-30 split is in the best interests of the City of Shorewood. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, subject to an acceptable annexation agreement. Once an equitable agreement is in place, the Comprehensive Plan will be forwarded to the Met Council for their review. Staff anticipates that this will be considered as a "minor amendment." Next Steps and Timelines: Excelsior would like to move forward with the project as soon as possible and would like to be able to reach an agreement by the December 5 meeting. Unless our Council agrees with settling for something less than the 70/30 split, the matter should be tabled to the December 12 agenda. Hennepin County Property Map Date: 11/22/2016 . M1. - + 4 a • AAy s � i t /Pat r I-IAKI ' I for - � • � y � A 1 inch = 100 feet No results Comments: The Waters of Excelsior This data(i)is furnished'AS IS'with no representation as to completeness or accuracy;(ii)is furnished with no warranty of any kind;and(iii)is notsuitable for legal,engineering or surveying purposes- Hen nepin County shall not be liable forany damage,injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT©HENNEPIN COUNTY 2016 ANNEXATION- DETACHMENT AGREEMENT This Annexation - Detachment Agreement ( "Agreement ") is entered into this _ day of , 2016 between the City of Excelsior ( "Excelsior ") and the City of Shorewood ( "Shorewood ") WHEREAS, Excelsior has given PUD General Plan approval to a development (the "Development ") proposed for a parcel of property located at 723 Water Street in Excelsior, PID #34- 117 -23 -42 -0045 (the "Excelsior Parcel ") and parcels of property located at 22920 Trunk Highway 7 in Shorewood, PID #s 34- 117 -23 -42 -0053 and 34- 117 -23 -42 -0067 (the "Shorewood Parcels ") (collectively the "Development Parcels "); and WHEREAS, the PUD General Plan approval of among other things, annexation of the Shorewood P< WHEREAS, Excelsior and Shorewood are en detachment of the Shorewood Parcels from Shorev Parcels into Excelsior. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration o and Shorewood agree as follows: 1. Property Description. Parcels is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Agreement to De the Shorewood Parcel ,frbrn S1 Detachment "). Te'facilitatethl execute the resolution attache execute-1h Resolution attache t was conditioned on, ior; and his'Agr ement to facilitate nexati'6h,,of ,the Shorewood promises made herein, Excelsior of, "#d­ legal description for the Shorewood -iex. Excelsior,,tid Shorewood agree to detach d annekthem into Excelsior (the "Annexation- tion- Detachment, Excelsior agrees to approve and aslibit B) and Shorewood agrees to approve and as Exhibit C. Agreement and the attached resolutions prior to Excelsior's consideration of the Development's PUD Final Plan application but shall not submit an application for concurrent Annexation - Detachment until the Development's PUD Final Plan application has been approved by the Excelsior City Council. Upon such approval, Excelsior shall submit the executed versions of the resolutions attached hereto as Exhibits B and C and application for concurrent Annexation - Detachment to the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings ( "OAH "). Shorewood agrees to support said application and cooperate in Excelsior's efforts to obtain approval of the same by the OAH. B. Future Real Estate Tax Revenues. After the Shorewood Parcels are annexed into Excelsior, Excelsior shall share city tax revenues generated by the Development Parcels with Shorewood as follows: Prior to Redevelopment. Excelsior shall pay Shorewood 19.68% of the city share of the real estate taxes paid by the Development Parcels beginning in 2017. This percentage is based upon the current assessed values of the Development Parcels (the Shorewood Parcels are currently assessed at $489,000 and the Excelsior Parcel is assessed at $1,996,000). All payments Excelsior is obligated to make under this aph 3.13 shall be made within 20 days after Excelsior �s real estate tax payments from Hennepin County. C. Other Payments to Shorewood. In addition to the payments provided for in paragraph 3.13. above, Shorewood shall receive: Park Dedication Fees. Excelsior agrees to pay Shorewood $18,850 to compensate for the park dedication fees it would have received from the Developer in conjunction with approval of the Development. Excelsior shall make such payment within thirty (30) days of receiving park dedication fees from the Developer. 2 C IN I9 ii. Administrative Fees. Excelsior agrees that Shorewood may have up to $10,000 in administrative expenses (including attorneys fees) reimbursed by the Developer. Such reimbursement shall be limited to expenses actually incurred as a result of activities related to the Development and shall be documented by invoices submitted by Shorewood to Excelsior. Excelsior shall include a requirement in its Tax Increment Financing Development Agreement that such properly documented costs shall be reimbursed by the Developer. No Other Future Obligations. The payment obligations in paragraph 3.13. and 3.C. above constitute the complete obligation of Excelsior to Shorewood in conjunction with the Arlrlexatioo= Detachment of the Shorewood Parcels. Inspection. Excelsior shall be sojely approvals, permitting, and eval atio including consideration and approve application, Final Plat Applzcatiorj T applications. nsible fir 411 regulatory I t tie proposes Jevetopment I ofth VUD Final Plan F Appli vation, and any future Fees, Assessments, Chores. Except as; royi,ed above, any fees, assessments, qt c,'­ of any kind generated from the Development Parcels (indu -ding applicatioA fees, park dedication fees, special assessments-, ter Access Charges, Sewer Access Charges, etc.), wh0fhet in conjunction with the Development or in the future, shall be retained by the", 0ty of Excelsior. G. Adjustment to Public Safety Funding Formulas. Beginning the calendar year,,, er Excelsior issues a Certificate of Occupancy for the Development and Shorewood agree that 70% of the population, tax,capacity, and ICR's from the Development shall be attributed to"Shorewood for purposes of calculating the funding formula for the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department and the Excelsio> Fire District provided, however, that in the event Excelsior approves the request for TIF referenced in paragraph 3.B.iii. above, only 19.68% of population, tax capacity, and ICR's from the Development shall be allocated to Shorewood until the TIF District expires or is terminated. H. Completion of Project. The parties to this Agreement intend for it to only be effective in the event the Development is actually completed. Accordingly, the Annexation - Detachment agreed to herein shall only become effective upon issuance by Excelsior of a certificate of occupancy for the Development. In the event that a certificate of 3 occupancy is not issued by December 31, 2018, this Agreement and any Annexation - Detachment approved by OAH shall be null and void. 4. Remedy for Default. In the event of a default by either party of any of the items of this Agreement, the non - defaulting party shall provide notice of such alleged default to the other party pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 5 below. Said notice shall describe the events that have created the default and provide the allegedly defaulting party with thirty (30) calendar days to cure the default. If said default is not cured within that time period (or within a longer cure period agreed to by the parties to this Agreement), the non - defaulting party shall be entitled to enforce the terms of this Agreement in the Hennepin County District Court. 5. Notices. Whenever in this Agreement notice or demand be given or served by either party party, such notice or demand shall be delivered per certified mail (return receipt requested) to the addr( demand shall be deemed timely given when delivere mail in accordance with the above. Notice to City of Excelsior City of Excelsior Attn: City Manager 339 Third Street Excelsior, MN 55331 6. Amendment. herein, may only be amended in i 7. Waiver. Failure of provision of t1ii Agreement shall any time thereafter and the waiv( not be taken or held fa be a waiv€ effectiveness of suchtjrbuision equired or permitted that wement to or on the other tamed by United States rth below,. Such notice or ly or when depgs ted in the Notice to'CitV, of Shored ee went,, and the provisions and terms contained iting signed by Excelsior and Shorewood. r party at anytime to require performance of any affect its right to require full performance thereof at either party of a breach of any such provision shall any subsequent breach thereof or as nullifying the 8. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall pertain only to such section and shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision of this Agreement. 9. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 10. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original and shall constitute one and the same Agreement. 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Excelsior and Shorewood have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first above written. IC CITY OF EXCELSIOR Mark Gaylord, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN C Kristi Lu The foregoing instrument was acknowledged by Mark Gaylord and Kristi Luger, Mayor and City:M Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrutnie Notary Public 5 r, City Manager 2016, t txceisior, a behalf of the City. CITY OF SHOREWOOD - By: _ Scott Zerby, Mayor Greg Lerud, City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. This instrument was acknowledged before me th Scott Zerby and Greg Lerud, Mayor and City Admi on behalf of said City. Notary Public 2016 by 0 CITY OF EXCELSIOR 339 THIRD STREET EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 TEL: 952-474-5233 FAX: 952-474-6300 www.ci.excelsior.mn.us November 22, 2016 Greg Lerud City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8927 Dear Mr. Lerud: At its November 21St Work Session, the Excelsior City Council discussed the latest version of the Annexation-Detachment Agreement. The Council asked me to provide the following feedback on some key terms: • Basic Allocation. The Excelsior City Council understands that efforts remain underway to obtain an allocation from the Hennepin County Assessor's Office. The Council prefers to wait for the Assessor's evaluation (which it expects to be issued later this week) before making a determination about the appropriate allocation between the cities. • Additional Fees for the City of Shorewood. The latest version of the Annexation-Detachment Agreement includes a $18,850 payment to the City of Shorewood in park dedication fees (which would be paid out of the total park dedication fees paid to the City of Excelsior by the developer) and up to $10,000 in legal and administrative costs (which would be passed through to the developer along with administrative and legal fees incurred by the City of Excelsior). The Excelsior City Council has no objection to including such payments in the Agreement. • Public Safety Formula Allocation. The latest draft of the Agreement assigns public safety funding formula allocations to mirror the flow of tax revenues — with 19.68% of the factors (tax capacity for the Fire District and population, ICR's and tax capacity for the SLMPD) being allocated to the City of Shorewood before the redevelopment is complete and the Basic Allocation figure being used to allocate the factors after the redevelopment is complete. It also provides that the pre-redevelopment allocation shall be used during the term of any Tax Increment Financing (TIF) period. November 22, 2016 Letter Page 2 • Public Safety Formula Allocation - (continued) The Excelsior City Council has expressed some reservations about the fairness of allocating only 19.68% of the factors to the City of Shorewood during the TIF period since the use of TIF funds (to make the development possible and to finance public improvements at the Water Street/County Road 19 intersection) will benefit both cities. The Excelsior City staff has been asked to study the financial implications of this proposed allocation. • Completion Date. The Agreement includes a provision making the annexation- detachment effective only upon issuance of a certificate of completion and nullifying the annexation-detachment if such a certificate is not issued by December 31, 2018. The developer has expressed concerns about whether such an arrangement will prevent financing. In addition, some on your staff have expressed concern about the consequences of a partially completed project straddling the boundary between the two cities. While the Excelsior City Council shares the boundary-straddling concerns, it is willing to live with this provision if the developer can make it work for his financing. • Shorewood Review of TIF Financials. The Excelsior City Council understands that the City of Shorewood's staff would like to review the financial data related to the TIF application submitted by the developer. A copy of the appraisal commissioned by the developer has already been forwarded to you. In addition, we have received the letter from Mr. Keane reciting the data practices classification of the data that you seek to review and committing to treat the data accordingly. We have forwarded that letter to Mr. Jensen and suggested that he work directly with you to get you the information you need for your review. We await further word from the Hennepin County Assessor's Office and will let you know when we receive that. In the meantime, please feel free to call with any questions. Sincerely, Kristi Luger City Manager 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 28 October 2016 RE: The Waters Senior Living – Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment FILE NO.: 405(16.24) BACKGROUND Mr. Jay Jenson, representing The Waters Senior Living, has arranged to purchase the properties at 22920 State Highway 7 and 723 Water Street (see Site Location map – Exhibit A, attached) for the purpose of redeveloping the sites as part of a senior housing project. The project would extend northward to include a parcel in Excelsior. Mr. Jenson has requested a friendly detachment and annexation procedure that would result in all of the real estate being in Excelsior. This necessitates an amendment to Shorewood’s municipal boundary and to its Comprehensive Plan. According to Hennepin County tax records, the Excelsior parcel contains 23,058 square feet of area. The two Shorewood parcels contain 58,039 square feet, for a total site area of 81,097 square feet. The Excelsior parcel is zoned R-3, Multiple Family Residential and is occupied by an apartment building. Both Shorewood parcels are zoned C-1, General Commercial. The northerly parcel is occupied by the garage structure for the apartment building. The southerly parcel is occupied by a vacant restaurant building, perhaps best known as the Hilltop. Assuming a successful detachment and annexation proceeding, the developer proposes to redevelop the site as a 115-unit senior housing project by means of Planned Unit Development as described in Exhibit B, attached. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Geography. Although we do not have the history explaining why the subject parcels were ever included in Shorewood (or why they were excluded from Excelsior), it is reasonable to assume it had something to do with the way old Highway 7 came through the area. Nonetheless, it is obvious that the subject parcels relate better, geographically, to Excelsior than to Shorewood. Further, the properties and the project are served by Excelsior utilities. Memorandum Re: The Waters Comprehensive Plan Amendment 27 October 2016 It is worth noting that discussions relative to this project have been going on for quite some time. When Shorewood was initially approached by the developer, the City suggested three possible alternatives for addressing the boundary line issue: 1. Excelsior could annex the Shorewood portion of the project. 2. Shorewood could annex the Excelsior portion of the project. 3. The project could be developed across municipal boundaries. Excelsior was given the choice of these alternatives and chose to annex the Shorewood properties, a logical choice since the sites are bounded on three sides by Excelsior and Highway 7 separates the sites from the rest of Shorewood. This alternative gives Excelsior complete control over the planning and permitting of the new development. From a land use perspective, the proposed housing development is entirely compatible with nearby Shorewood development. In fact, the Oppidan Senior Living project in Shorewood lies immediately southwest, across Highway 7, of the proposed site. Finance. While land use and utilities are of relatively minor concern, both cities have concerns over tax implications of the annexation. Simply put, Shorewood is giving up tax base. To complicate matters, the developer is requesting tax increment financing. In the three alternatives described above, Shorewood had offered to pay Excelsior a proportionate share of future tax income, in perpetuity. Although Excelsior balked somewhat about the “forever” aspect of the reverse alternative, it now appears that an agreement has been reached, at least in principle, whereby Shorewood would receive its fair share of future taxes. All conditions of the detachment and annexation will be addressed in an annexation agreement between the cities, which is currently being drafted by the City Attorneys. The agreement will be drafted in parallel with the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Approval of the amendment is recommended subject to the execution of the annexation agreement. Cc: Greg Lerud Bill Joynes Tim Keane Paul Hornby Larry Brown Bruce DeJong Jay Jenson Todd Frostad -2- illette CD y �1U ¢ � t7' > � n I O 4z CD CD CD q R O w > U co Object 'roperty CHANHASSEN /CARVER CO BORDER N A 250 500 c 0 Gal September 29, 2016 Mayor Zirby City of Shorewood Shorewood, MN Subject: Comp Plan modification for The Waters of Excelsior Dear Mayor Zirby. Thank you for the opportunity to apply for a Comp Plan Modification, the proverbial `missing piece of the puzzle', in our efforts to build a new senior housing community. Our project, to be built in Shorewood and Excelsior, will replace blighted, abandoned structures, and allow seniors to remain living in their community. The following is the required information for the Comp Plan modification. 1. The Waters of Excelsior senior housing is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of both Shorewood and Excelsior. Both cities recognize the need to provide their citizens a range of housing options for all ages groups, particularly as the overall population ages. In addition, both cities recognize the need to remove blighted structures as well as the need to create new jobs. 2. a. Todd Frostad represents the current owners of both parcels of land. b. The Waters Senior Living is the applicant. c. The professional consultants are as follows: • Civil Engineer: Alliant Engineering from Minneapolis, MN • Architect: Perkins Eastman from Pittsburgh Pennsylvania • General Contractor: Frana & Companies from Hopkins • Attorney: Gallager Ervilious & Jones from Baltimore Maryland d. Attached are the purchase agreements for each parcel. 3. Property addresses and PIN # s • 22920 Highway7 34- 117 -23 -42 -0067 • 723 Water Street 34- 117 -23 -42 -0053 Exhibit B -1 APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER 1600 Hopkins Crossroad, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55305 I ( The existing zoning classification is G 1. The property is currently an abandoned, blighted restaurant and a blighted parking garage belonging to the adjacent apartment building. Adjacent property to the east is primarily commercial uses. To the north is College Lake with single family homes beyond. To the south and west is Highway 7 with single family homes beyond. The attached civil engineering report shows the property lines, easements, utilities and other information. 4. The site conditions are all described in the attached civil engineering report. 5. Attached are renderings of the proposed building. The site plan and landscape plans are included in the civil engineering report. 6. The Waters of Excelsior will consist of 115 units of which 16 will be in a memory care neighborhood. The remaining 99 units will be full apartments for seniors who can live independently or use a variety of assisted living services to live independently. Of special note, twenty percent of the units will be occupied by seniors with incomes below 60% of the area median income thereby, per Minnesota State Law, this Com Plan modification only requires a majority vote not a super majority. Thank you for your consideration of this Comp Plan modification as well as the other agreements which are necessary for The Waters of Excelsior to become a reality. I dQ I■ �� ■■ ■■ ■■ ! 4p I am U � 9 44 lie Aw SR < -"0 WA TORY DIPi c F- UJI ~ ' / LLI w Lij N8753 E, I _ / fc --_7---\ / \ \ / \ / / / / / / / / / / ' / Exhibit _ �` � ' EXISTING CONDITIONS � / � ° m @° T I / MATf,N EXISTING CURB do / GUTTER S CURB RAMP WITH TRUNCATED DOMES / CONCRETE . SIDEWALK / / CURB / RAMP / PAINTED CEDAR UTILITY FENCE ENCLOSURE / / ENCLOSURE � — — — — — — _ / N79'OS�w EKISTING y 20234 TREES TO LIGHT FIXTURE AGATE,. = _ REE =AIN� CONCRETE J J Q I GARAGE PAVEMENT ENTRY ORNAMENTAL -s. •t FENCE RETAIN G • / •. S+ .: y .� °' m/ W LL o / CURB EDGE CONCRETE 1 SIDEWALK n WANDERING p / v GARDEN LANDSCAPE o AREA j "m E UF,HT il(TY,; / J CURB ENTRY // EDGE OF P EDGE BITUMINOUS 22 ¢' SIDEWALK / PAVEMENT RR 7'51. Q CURB ,W [i(D /A,G . I'14.• ,'� RAMP Np 9 RETAIN I WALL Wi1H u 18• a J BITUMINOUS / ORNAM TAL FENCE !! 'PAVEMENT I •.: .• f 64.1' SEE AR _ DETAIL PROPOSED E t4R y�.' ' ! `• ( 4 -STORY Sly D ?M,c 'HAL�PS' LANDSCAPE BITUMINOUS, ACCESSIBLE 9UILDINO ' 1(Iq P4 / _ - -_ PAVEMENT PARKING AREA / CONCRETE (TYP) SERVICE COURT 6' n COMB RAMP CONCRETE PAVEMENT LANDSCAPE If AREA F / F'•' GARAGE ENTRY' W R ENTRY TERRACE Q N GARDEN J / RETAINING WALL Y� / cc A• 3' CONCRETE Lu a I SIDEWALK ?„ I 6' PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACK / i TWO FLAG POLES N 0 15 30 60 / SCALE IN FEET / i i / / / Exhibit D / PROPOSED SITE PLAN It Oal E9 ED ED EJ ro c� cD ED cD ED E� eD ED ED ED cD c� af ITTRE ®��► ��, � i cD cD c� E� CD CD ED C3 CD ED GD CD ED f Ei ;gnE �D GD C3 CD Ev 4D GD E3 E9 6G �� E3 ED m X $ 6RI`sIi'nL ° a qE �i�r°no4s 1 pi Z 1 D _ Z �rn v L_ CO O C r 0 m m O c n O Z m D r m �o'°vvv f Ei ;gnE �D GD C3 CD Ev 4D GD E3 E9 6G �� E3 ED m X $ 6RI`sIi'nL ° a AO ° pp, qE �i�r°no4s 1 pi Z 1 D _ Z �rn v L_ CO O C r 0 m m O c n O Z m D r m �o'°vvv f Ei ;gnE Mr nf8 f m X $ 6RI`sIi'nL ° a AO ° pp, �5 3 gg� m y$mm2��C2m E a � a en � mf 1 1 N� a � s mm fA°moxG N�x� @mA gM F S y s yyy qE �i�r°no4s 1 pi Z 1 D _ Z �rn v L_ CO O C r 0 m m O c n O Z m D r m ®O i 2� O i n' i �o'°vvv CD Ei ;gnE Mr nf8 f m ° AO ° m en b a � mm fA°moxG N�x� @mA gM S y s yyy X4 888 K %� ®O i 2� O i n' i �o'°vvv CD Ei ;gnE Mr nf8 m ° AO ° en s m a y s yyy x � r sa�PSS r Zap�P �Kn�c�uu° -1 rn N 0 33} "as Z3 �q °p� TMG SN 1 8 a SsC i'a m NsF G s O e c m 1 1mn jF e m c S S I� Yi Z 0 D .D m z O m cn 1 C3 1 p O o64 -�7 Jkv. ytt 10[ i g O m D r r z 0 n D -o m z O Z 0 C7 D m -D Z r A CD m AO m en s m � #sc MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Everett, Bill—Minor Subdivision Meeting Date: 28 November 2016 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Planning Director's Memorandum, dated 26 October 2016 Draft Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City Council approve a minor subdivision for Bill Everett? Background: See attached Planning Director's memorandum. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed subdivision, subject to the recommendations in the Planning Director's memorandum. Financial or Budget Considerations: The applicant's application fees cover the administrative costs incurred by the City. In addition,the division will generate$6500 for the park fund and $1200 for the sewer fund. Options: Approve the subdivision as recommended by staff and the Planning Commission; approve the subdivision with different conditions; or deny the subdivision request. Recommendation/Action Requested: Approve the subdivision subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Next Steps and Timelines: The applicant will have thirty days from the date they receive the resolution to pay the required fees and record the resolution with Hennepin County. Connection to Vision/Mission: Quality public services and a sustainable tax base. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF 5755 Country Club Road ® Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952 -474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 26 October 2016 RE: Everett, William - Minor Subdivision FILE NO.: 405 (16.25) BACKGROUND William Everett is the owner of property located at 5615 Covington Road (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). He has purchased Outlot E, Waterford, immediately east of his property with the intent of combining the two parcels and re- subdividing them into two building sites as shown on Exhibit B. The property contains a total of 115,917 square feet of area and is occupied by the applicants' home, which is situated in the approximate center of the property. The property lies between Covington Road to the west and Old Market Road to the east. The land drops in elevation from 1009 on the west end to 960 at the southeast corner of the site. The property is zoned R -IA/S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland. The proposed westerly lot with the home on it will contain 72,114 square feet of area, while the easterly lot will have 43,823 square feet. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Both of the proposed lots meet or exceed the requirements of the R -lA/S zoning district. Although the new lot drops off as much as 20 feet toward Old Market Road, the grade at the northeast corner of the site affords a relatively gentle slope for the location of a driveway to serve that lot. The buildable area of the new lot is very level and open. It is recommended that the minor division be approved subject to the following: 1. The applicant must provide deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around each lot. 2. The applicant must provide an up -to -date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. Memorandum Re: Everett Minor Subdivision 26 October 2016 3. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicant must pay one park dedication fee ($6500) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200). Credit is allowed for the previous home on the site. 4. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits are applied for. Cc: Greg Lerud Paul Hornby Larry Brown Tim Keane William Everett -2- JI y y y y y y �{ y y y y y � y t7l �r t7j CD O � y Wiz° o� 9 y i y N 0 300 600 1,200 FM Feet Christmas Lake Nag Resurrection Cemetery Subject I r y y y y y y y y y y y wer/y y� ake y y y y \ _ y ,► i�ei i y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y H m 0 N c 0 �T�>QL �B�rom,7xg m��sgn cm iL , .glimn Hia. 4H F$mg5yoc mo mNG1 A�mW N� �$go�Nl W ..a S4S S ° 3 i 5 3 Q`5�a aNC H ,a? F N m >y�eRS St% °r�Cac 0 D 0 88 M s n O N K 63 P Y, ?p N'^ VJ m V % 10 z b c 5°•C G - 9V � ens T v _ ?7 _F P6 G. 4f� s °� R yi jai FBI �' Ri cm -w AS > ? S' R > - FS a- ga °dv o 86 �aF;gS 4 5 C Q3 QQzn sZ Qng z�ppF 5- ��o gr iZ °£ 9 7�%ZC3 �� gm's x g = Ygz••= ° $my �a �� RPy 5�4M14 Fps v,`y -•.,5 .�`�C °s 565. LS 4 ©u^ d00t,0D00 d��ooOO w cn�w w s c�� Y,e `F.— " SL 7 / 8 / to / I � Ix Ln Ln �_ \\ DO Tl 10 rr DD a c `m o \ L c �1 / pp T m DO/ 4 $ $ Q _ \ H L ee'w,� g tK'; oa I Rio I $SOO °31'48 "W W 510 \\\ l CNI \ IW6.1 t� rQOg. \ \ \ SrOR Brr�;yll \ '\... 1a.2 1 \ l a s.r r.4s aaos rVEWgr NODS — —' 110 -..•I— it =r I rro = i S A RE 3. g GF rapist r I•i- ® O m ppZ p J0 R co NCr ssa.e n r ✓ o ` > i i n R. \ \ \ \ l \ \1aa•p m AD - p ly; I O^ \5 rpp DEC ° _ _ J 10 Zi CONCgeT ` .\1 - ^-� / SaOO \(r \ \ \ \ 1°q s\ -% ? u8° / /I /s S00 V48 "W o � O E3 C— o ®gym © ©© \ \ \ \ \ \ / I I -G/ / -- - 3 t0 \ , "< - - 8? °? �za� mncsfia� ml 1 1 N 1 S es �'05ED �A+NAGE AND 0. \ uTlurr EASEM Z 00 DO "PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND \ N / LC� m g rr' i \ I I I.I T\ , EASEMENT / o / 1 s� v. mNJe� oJA N� (ra>_/ nr / lab Oa o ( T�J 1 { g rl m m I�N a !I it 3 a ' -v g 8 ° =P13 � �s5 z a e €? rye - A c S. J °- 5 g Pr 831 BE 1:2 _1 $i� Rv�m� Felt, �111 HmTsG_r0.r Scw�= - % s �E f;L HUN !M? R, cg s all >G S�� m,{• ENay a a N i /u \\ 210�y1 11 ��i' \t • \ 37, o ���\ ' \.I'l•,m � V6.24• \�.` n7�t'� °1i� — '•- � -._..� �. 0'99 S,c d,JY+'�V �3. Y! �\ c� / .SQO °I4'i3 "E966s s � 566 13 L6 6 ,�.. ° \ �i,'S96 ;96 £ i.� �' ' c( S� J is'Rcw sT.s. z, tv olt =�02 �e v T'�-: S� ; o> 9 2 a r r z� qG�gg•� Y5 =n $IM CS3 °5 °5 RR_•g gg �.E•a'W - �w a 3e°r:s '�_ -^ °Ci o � i � %G'.1 % = e, >�f %n� x;;54 "Y .'38x.. ? £ 8 q Eq f ` ° C, P2. � � 2 > z B R E.a i5f Z o EN y RIB 5 .., i. Yg > Osf 33 3 L r'3`y5E ^- �K �rao FF c'•�g5 "� � ° � y33rd 3.�� »c R5Q � 9.'�5 5Z ��5 Fpiq 3, =�"%a � g IFS �?, 55 '�O �•?pE� �•%:'m5 5�0 jr z b c 5°•C G - 9V � ens T v _ ?7 _F P6 G. 4f� s °� R yi jai FBI �' Ri cm -w AS > ? S' R > - FS a- ga °dv o 86 �aF;gS 4 5 C Q3 QQzn sZ Qng z�ppF 5- ��o gr iZ °£ 9 7�%ZC3 �� gm's x g = Ygz••= ° $my �a �� RPy 5�4M14 Fps v,`y -•.,5 .�`�C °s 565. LS 4 ©u^ d00t,0D00 d��ooOO w cn�w w s c�� Y,e `F.— " SL 7 / 8 / to / I � Ix Ln Ln �_ \\ DO Tl 10 rr DD a c `m o \ L c �1 / pp T m DO/ 4 $ $ Q _ \ H L ee'w,� g tK'; oa I Rio I $SOO °31'48 "W W 510 \\\ l CNI \ IW6.1 t� rQOg. \ \ \ SrOR Brr�;yll \ '\... 1a.2 1 \ l a s.r r.4s aaos rVEWgr NODS — —' 110 -..•I— it =r I rro = i S A RE 3. g GF rapist r I•i- ® O m ppZ p J0 R co NCr ssa.e n r ✓ o ` > i i n R. \ \ \ \ l \ \1aa•p m AD - p ly; I O^ \5 rpp DEC ° _ _ J 10 Zi CONCgeT ` .\1 - ^-� / SaOO \(r \ \ \ \ 1°q s\ -% ? u8° / /I /s S00 V48 "W o � O E3 C— o ®gym © ©© \ \ \ \ \ \ / I I -G/ / -- - 3 t0 \ , "< - - 8? °? �za� mncsfia� ml 1 1 N 1 S es �'05ED �A+NAGE AND 0. \ uTlurr EASEM Z 00 DO "PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND \ N / LC� m g rr' i \ I I I.I T\ , EASEMENT / o / 1 s� v. mNJe� oJA N� (ra>_/ nr / lab Oa o ( T�J 1 { g rl m m I�N a !I it 3 a ' -v g 8 ° =P13 � �s5 z a e €? rye - A c S. J °- 5 g Pr 831 BE 1:2 _1 $i� Rv�m� Felt, �111 HmTsG_r0.r Scw�= - % s �E f;L HUN !M? R, cg s all >G S�� m,{• ENay a a N i /u \\ 210�y1 11 ��i' \t • \ 37, o ���\ ' \.I'l•,m � V6.24• \�.` n7�t'� °1i� — '•- � -._..� �. 0'99 S,c d,JY+'�V �3. Y! �\ c� / .SQO °I4'i3 "E966s s � 566 13 L6 6 ,�.. ° \ �i,'S96 ;96 £ i.� �' ' c( S� J is'Rcw sT.s. z, tv olt a H i � w � z b c 5°•C G - 9V � ens T v _ ?7 _F P6 G. 4f� s °� R yi jai FBI �' Ri cm -w AS > ? S' R > - FS a- ga °dv o 86 �aF;gS 4 5 C Q3 QQzn sZ Qng z�ppF 5- ��o gr iZ °£ 9 7�%ZC3 �� gm's x g = Ygz••= ° $my �a �� RPy 5�4M14 Fps v,`y -•.,5 .�`�C °s 565. LS 4 ©u^ d00t,0D00 d��ooOO w cn�w w s c�� Y,e `F.— " SL 7 / 8 / to / I � Ix Ln Ln �_ \\ DO Tl 10 rr DD a c `m o \ L c �1 / pp T m DO/ 4 $ $ Q _ \ H L ee'w,� g tK'; oa I Rio I $SOO °31'48 "W W 510 \\\ l CNI \ IW6.1 t� rQOg. \ \ \ SrOR Brr�;yll \ '\... 1a.2 1 \ l a s.r r.4s aaos rVEWgr NODS — —' 110 -..•I— it =r I rro = i S A RE 3. g GF rapist r I•i- ® O m ppZ p J0 R co NCr ssa.e n r ✓ o ` > i i n R. \ \ \ \ l \ \1aa•p m AD - p ly; I O^ \5 rpp DEC ° _ _ J 10 Zi CONCgeT ` .\1 - ^-� / SaOO \(r \ \ \ \ 1°q s\ -% ? u8° / /I /s S00 V48 "W o � O E3 C— o ®gym © ©© \ \ \ \ \ \ / I I -G/ / -- - 3 t0 \ , "< - - 8? °? �za� mncsfia� ml 1 1 N 1 S es �'05ED �A+NAGE AND 0. \ uTlurr EASEM Z 00 DO "PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND \ N / LC� m g rr' i \ I I I.I T\ , EASEMENT / o / 1 s� v. mNJe� oJA N� (ra>_/ nr / lab Oa o ( T�J 1 { g rl m m I�N a !I it 3 a ' -v g 8 ° =P13 � �s5 z a e €? rye - A c S. J °- 5 g Pr 831 BE 1:2 _1 $i� Rv�m� Felt, �111 HmTsG_r0.r Scw�= - % s �E f;L HUN !M? R, cg s all >G S�� m,{• ENay a a N i /u \\ 210�y1 11 ��i' \t • \ 37, o ���\ ' \.I'l•,m � V6.24• \�.` n7�t'� °1i� — '•- � -._..� �. 0'99 S,c d,JY+'�V �3. Y! �\ c� / .SQO °I4'i3 "E966s s � 566 13 L6 6 ,�.. ° \ �i,'S96 ;96 £ i.� �' ' c( S� J is'Rcw sT.s. z, tv olt A g D Z D D Z y Om ' ' m D wowa.n p = 0 ^ � A 2 3 o�oorssw.... PpmTCm n Om c DO0 m 17, m(n0 mF= fn- DD�03Z y�0 �0 G) 0 Z-U A► W g N m p N Z m m�9_ �► e 'y ig x mr Z m OZm'< �. �cn ig l < {� Cl) Cl) T Ng X X= -re m�< mD -n r a x Z < Z m ~ A Ow m €€t � t:F `oAmi m m D m m mm,- v i j>oT Z I l l l l l o m i B �1 �m �E€ -OiD,? �z <o Fed ,F'• $, 1 1 1 1 1 1 � Orn D rO Oe^Om m Ox 0 e at momN�y� 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 n n i :•, }'.. ? £ra c �3 k xy� �� i Cl) mp n Z y <' OZy() mr C. om 1� It cg OF DCC� m'n— rmy NpvAm �i m N x i•j my v m 2 Cm m= 0 G 5 Q m r Z m rt�1 a L) 111111 Q r R Z 5 m m m m D�� zo 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 y m = O 7 n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m S 3 3 N.B 111111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111111 Noo boS m E my m mM;u= T O Z D . J A g D Z D D Z y Om ' ' m D wowa.n p = 0 ^ � A 2 3 o�oorssw.... PpmTCm n Om c DO0 AS REGMEO o A� y m(n0 mF= fn- DD�03Z y�0 �0 G) 0 Z-U A► W g N r C� y C 0 m�9_ mmmmpmy09 C y W Z 2' e 'y ig x mr Z m OZm'< �. �cn ig l gm q -3 Qopmn NNCmON Cl) Cl) 6 iii Ng X X= -re m�< mD -n r a x Z < Z m ~ A Ow oNffi1. n C -n< t:F `oAmi m m D m m mm,- v i j>oT Z $ 4 mOmDr� �1 �m �z -OiD,? �z <o O DD m � Orn D rO Oe^Om m Ox 0 e G� momN�y� m o>< <N n 0o -m�o< �m O to O rZ Zp 2 Cl) mp n Z y <' OZy() mr C. om 1� n m OF DCC� m'n— rmy NpvAm �i m N x i•j my v m 2 Cm m= 0 G 5 Q m r Z m rt�1 a L) �R� Q r R Z 5 m m m m D�� zo z O C < y m = O 7 n 3 N.B Noo _ Dmm j my m mM;u= T O Z D ► fir g Z m 2 ,, I". Z O A n 0 Y a O M MM M 1 < D0m0 D0 ° '-w Z p mm� "0 ZX6 n m�D AND. A p Z Z e A O N y x Q F m my �\53a FNC h m2 F w � m m 9,`N�RS SyCfacC � B S o VI D 2 m 63 m X 0 C z if 2 0 m M ;o o0 o O ny� z� cn (m o D 02 Z tT A a m y a �x ' ' m D -0,m z- Om c DO0 AS REGMEO r I m(n0 mF= fn- F Z-U :N ;C <n mod PROPERTY lWE e 'y x D0 �cn mm I =D IF Cl) Cl) �m pF9 X X= -re m�< mD -n r a x mm Ow z_ m -n< t:F Nozm Ax v i j>oT Z �bmaystTl �i �1 �m z= O z O DD m � A x�ApmO Orn D rO l � S ��mmm�rn O m o>< <N n X� �m O to O �p Cl) mp D0 v 1� n p ppy p �mA ---------- r -- _._ STREET fy, NpvAm �i m a'p�v w CO M v m QOF .imp° z �R� aF s y zo `chi Bi A. .pm n N.B x PROPERTY LINE fir g a O W N 7 S00 °31'48 "W 50.00 - - Nv `� 9e , c "4r' ro 5F o 0/\�\ 6 ' ° J 10 .,.�� r % \ r�• �. ��.. e��rtc rf �� ��` _ � f r 50.00 = � S00 °31'48 "W - PNDaas ED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT =�� 4S ° `S05°40 —I / 100.00 -o / / i o - 8 m ��F� 00 VI w - t0 • I I I I�I� �� °PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UI'IL�lEASEMEN7 °�� _(q \ ✓. I 1 m ��� `�•f mn 1 1 ILOf ! AT ym� t- •- n ��i0 -r� /-� I � z�t4• P� ti� I _ i �$ � � 1 rl�' uv, 2$9.91- 4 -: 1 n 0o' , \ ,�` } . 36.24 ' „'g9 91 I£—V S00 °14' DA .� WM /stir .�% `� H as M. -47- I � =--=- J S o N lL �_ _ ( _ u / =on A� �� ' ' m D -0,m z- Om c DO0 c, DD mm m(n0 mF= fn- 0mm Z-U ��7 D� ;C <n mod �t z �c D0 �cn mm OC =D IF Cl) Cl) �m X X= om [1) co mD -n r mm O D mm Ow z_ m -n< mz -2 m ycn m �1 �m z= O z O DD m A--< Orn D rO ;O � m< o m X� �m O to O �p Cl) mp D0 v 1� mK o 0 O D m < CO M v m _ � m z 7 S00 °31'48 "W 50.00 - - Nv `� 9e , c "4r' ro 5F o 0/\�\ 6 ' ° J 10 .,.�� r % \ r�• �. ��.. e��rtc rf �� ��` _ � f r 50.00 = � S00 °31'48 "W - PNDaas ED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT =�� 4S ° `S05°40 —I / 100.00 -o / / i o - 8 m ��F� 00 VI w - t0 • I I I I�I� �� °PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UI'IL�lEASEMEN7 °�� _(q \ ✓. I 1 m ��� `�•f mn 1 1 ILOf ! AT ym� t- •- n ��i0 -r� /-� I � z�t4• P� ti� I _ i �$ � � 1 rl�' uv, 2$9.91- 4 -: 1 n 0o' , \ ,�` } . 36.24 ' „'g9 91 I£—V S00 °14' DA .� WM /stir .�% `� H as M. -47- I � =--=- J S o N lL �_ _ ( _ u / =on A� �� CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR WILLIAM EVERETT JR. WHEREAS, William Everett Jr. (Applicant) is the owner of certain real property in the City of Shorewood, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City for a subdivision of said real property into two parcels legally described in Exhibits B and C, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, the Applicant has agreed to grant to the City drainage and utility easements legally described in Exhibits D and E, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, the subdivision requested by the Applicant complies in all respects with the Shorewood Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. The real property legally described in Exhibit A be divided into two parcels, as legally described in Exhibits B and C. 2. This approval is subject to the Applicant recording this resolution, together with the drainage and utility easements legally described in Exhibits D and E, with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30) days of the date of the certification of this resolution. 3. The City Clerk will furnish the Applicants with a certified copy of this resolution for recording purposes. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 28th day of November 2016. SCOTT ZERBY, MAYOR ATTEST: JEAN PANCHYSITYN, CITY CLERK -1- EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION Exhibit A -2- PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION—PARCEL 1 Those portions of Section 36, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows: The South 50 feet of the West 100 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 36 And That part of Government Lot 4, described as beginning at the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 117, Range 23; thence Easterly along the North line of said Government Lot 4 a distance of 308.5 feet; thence Southerly at right angles a distance of 259.91 feet to the point of beginning of a line hereinafter referred to as Line "A"; thence Northwesterly, deflecting to the right at an angle of 107 degrees 32 minutes 21 seconds a distance of 474.18 feet and said Line "A" there terminating; thence Westerly, deflecting to the left at an angle of 26 degrees 28 minutes 21 seconds to the Northeasterly right of way line of Covington Road, as dedicated in the plat of WATERFORD; thence Northwesterly along said Northeasterly right of way line to said North line of Government Lot 4; thence Easterly along said North line to the point of beginning. Which lies westerly of a line described as commencing at the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 117, Range 23; thence Easterly along the North line of said Government Lot 4 a distance of 187.17 feet to the point of beginning; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 95 degrees 28 minutes 11 seconds a distance of 100.00 feet; thence deflecting to the right and an angle of 16 degrees 19 minutes 49 seconds a distance of 114.09 feet to said Line"A" and there terminating. Together with a nonexclusive easement for sewer purposes as created in County Recorded Document No. 4050875 over that part of said Government Lot 4, lying within a strip 10 feet in width, the centerline of said strip being described as commencing at said point of beginning of Line "A"; thence Northwesterly along said Line "A" a distance of 279.18 feet to the actual point of beginning of said centerline to be described; thence Southwesterly, deflecting to the left at an angle of 66 degrees 20 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 49 feet; thence Southwesterly deflecting to the left 32 degrees 04 minutes 00 seconds to said Northeasterly right of way line of Covington Road and said centerline there terminating, the sidelines of said strip are prolonged or shortened to terminate at said Line "A" and at said Northeasterly right of way line of Covington Road. Exhibit B -3- PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION—PARCEL 2 Those portions of Section 36, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows: That part of Government Lot 4, described as beginning at the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 117, Range 23; thence Easterly along the North line of said Government Lot 4 a distance of 308.5 feet; thence Southerly at right angles a distance of 259.91 feet to the point of beginning of a line hereinafter referred to as Line "A"; thence Northwesterly, deflecting to the right at an angle of 107 degrees 32 minutes 21 seconds a distance of 474.18 feet and said Line "A" there terminating; thence Westerly, deflecting to the left at an angle of 26 degrees 28 minutes 21 seconds to the Northeasterly right of way line of Covington Road, as dedicated in the plat of WATERFORD; thence Northwesterly along said Northeasterly right of way line to said North line of Government Lot 4; thence Easterly along said North line to the point of beginning. Which lies easterly of a line described as commencing at the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 117, Range 23; thence Easterly along the North line of said Government Lot 4 a distance of 187.17 feet to the point of beginning; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 95 degrees 28 minutes 11 seconds a distance of 100.00 feet; thence deflecting to the right and an angle of 16 degrees 19 minutes 49 seconds a distance of 114.09 feet to said Line"A" and there terminating. Exhibit C -4- PROPOSED DESCRIPTION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT - PARCEL 1: A drainage and utility easement over, under and across the westerly, northerly and easterly 10.00 feet of the South 50 feet of the West 100 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 36. together with a drainage and utility easement over, under and across a 10.00 foot strip of land around the perimeter of the following described parcel: That part of Government Lot 4, described as beginning at the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 117, Range 23; thence Easterly along the North line of said Government Lot 4 a distance of 308.5 feet; thence Southerly at right angles a distance of 259.91 feet to the point of beginning of a line hereinafter referred to as Line "A"; thence Northwesterly, deflecting to the right at an angle of 107 degrees 32 minutes 21 seconds a distance of 474.18 feet and said Line "A" and there terminating; thence Westerly, deflecting to the left at an angle of 26 degrees 28 minutes 21 seconds to the Northeasterly right of way line of Covington Road, as dedicated in the plat of WATERFORD; thence Northwesterly along said Northeasterly right of way line to said North line of Government Lot 4; thence Easterly along said North line to the point of beginning. Which lies westerly of a line described as commencing at the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 117, Range 23; thence Easterly along the North line of said Government Lot 4 a distance of 187.17 feet to the point of beginning; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 95 degrees 28 minutes 11 seconds a distance of 100.00 feet; thence deflecting to the right and an angle of 16 degrees 19 minutes 49 seconds a distance of 114.09 feet to said Line"A" and there terminating. EXCEPTING from said drainage and utility easement over last described parcel that part which abuts the South 50 feet of the West 100 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 36 which lies west of the southerly extension of said easterly 10.00 feet and east of the southerly extension of said westerly 10.00 feet as described above. Exhibit D -5- PROPOSED DESCRIPTION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT - PARCEL 2: A drainage and utility easement over, under and across the northerly, westerly and southerly 10.00 feet of the following described parcel; That part of Government Lot 4, described as beginning at the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 117, Range 23; thence Easterly along the North line of said Government Lot 4 a distance of 308.5 feet; thence Southerly at right angles a distance of 259.91 feet to the point of beginning of a line hereinafter referred to as Line "A"; thence Northwesterly, deflecting to the right at an angle of 107 degrees 32 minutes 21 seconds a distance of 474.18 feet and said Line "A" there terminating; thence Westerly, deflecting to the left at an angle of 26 degrees 28 minutes 21 seconds to the Northeasterly right of way line of Covington Road, as dedicated in the plat of WATERFORD; thence Northwesterly along said Northeasterly right of way line to said North line of Government Lot 4; thence Easterly along said North line to the point of beginning. Which lies easterly of a line described as commencing at the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 117, Range 23; thence Easterly along the North line of said Government Lot 4 a distance of 187.17 feet to the point of beginning; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 95 degrees 28 minutes 11 seconds a distance of 100.00 feet; thence deflecting to the right and an angle of 16 degrees 19 minutes 49 seconds a distance of 114.09 feet to said Line"A" and there terminating. Together with a drainage and utility easement over, under and across the southerly 10.00 feet of Outlot E, WATERFORD, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Exhibit E -6- #9A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Proposal for Professional Services for the 2017 Mill and Overlay Improvement Project, City Project 17-03 Meeting Date: November 28, 2016 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Attachments: Professional Services Proposal—WSB, Project Location Map Policy Consideration: Should the City Council enter into a contract with WSB &Associates, Inc. to prepare construction documents for the 2017 Mill and Overlay Project? Background: Every year the City performs maintenance improvements as part of the City Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The roadways identified in the CIP for the 2017 Mill and Overlay Project are indicated below: • Summit Avenue from Murray Hill Road to Hummingbird Road • Howard Point Road from Smithtown Road to north terminus • Echo Road from County Road 19 to County Club Road • Kathleen Court from Woodside to Cul-de-sac • Oak Ridge Circle from Grant Lorenz Road to Cul-de-sac The mill and overlay project is a routine maintenance program, in an effort to stay current with roadway conditions for the City's pavement management strategy. Therefore, staff has solicited a proposal from WSB &Associates, Inc. to prepare the construction documents for bidding and construction services. Total Estimated Engineering Fee: The cost to provide the scope of services outlined in this proposal is estimated to be$27,393. Time Schedule: Based on the current project schedule,WSB &Associates, Inc. proposes to commence immediately with the project in time for late spring bidding season. Financial Considerations: Fees for professional engineering services have been included in the budgeted amount of the 2017 CIP, and appear to be in order. Options: 1. Accept the proposal, as presented. 2. Reject the proposal and provide staff with alternative direction. Recommendation: Staff is recommending that a motion accepting the proposal for professional services for the 2017 Mill and Overlay Project, City Project 17-03, be approved. 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 WSB AlIMMEMEM 477 Temperance Street I St. Paul,MN 55101 1 (651)286-8450 November 28, 2016 Honorable Mayor and Council Members City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Proposal for Professional Services 2017 Mill and Overlay Improvement Project City of Shorewood Project No. 17-03 WSB Project No. 02925-25 Honorable Mayor and Council Members: WSB &Associates, Inc. is pleased to provide you with our proposal for the preparation of plans, specifications, bidding, and construction services for the 2017 Mill and Overlay Improvement Project. The proposed improvements include pavement milling and bituminous overlay improvements along the following roadways, in accordance with the Capital Improvement Plan and Pavement Management Plan: • Summit Avenue from Murray Hill Road to Hummingbird Road • Howard Point Road from Smithtown Road to north terminus • Echo Road from County Road 19 to County Club Road • Kathleen Court from Woodside to Cul-de-sac • Oak Ridge Circle from Grant Lorenz Road to Cul-de-sac Project Understanding The streets proposed for the 2017 Mill and Overlay Improvement Project are part of the City of Shorewood's Street Improvement Program and have been budgeted within the City's Capital Improvement Plan for 2017. Roadways proposed to be milled and overlaid in 2017 have been identified as showing pavement distresses and the improvements are to address these distresses in accordance with the City's Pavement Management Plan. Proposed improvements include bituminous pavement mill and overlay, spot curb and gutter replacement, and adjustment of all gate valve, storm drain, and manhole castings as needed. Building a legacy—your legacy. Equal Opportunity Employer I wsbeng.com C:\Users\phornbMpp Data\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\KQQCF4CX\SHOR-2017 Mill and Overlay Proposal.docx 2017 Mill and Overlay Project— Professional Services Proposal November 28, 2016 Page 2 Proposed Services • Project management and coordination/meetings with City staff and the City Council. • Coordinate construction of the proposed project with private utility companies located in the improvement corridor. This coordination will include providing plan drawings to known affected utility companies. • Prepare final project and construction schedule. • Preparation of estimated quantities and detailed engineer's opinion of probable construction cost as it relates to the work outlined in our scope of services. • Prepare final plans, project specific specifications, contract documents, and bidding forms. Specifications will be in accordance with the City of Shorewood standards and Mn/DOT standard specifications. • Coordinate project advertisement. We will distribute plans and specifications to the contractors, as well as any required addenda. We will also attend the bid opening at City Hall and prepare a tabulation of bids and bid results letter for City Council consideration of award. • WSB will provide construction administration and observation including project management (construction meetings, utility coordination, contractor coordination, project close-out); construction observation; and compliance review. We are proposing to complete the work on a cost-reimbursable basis in accordance with our 2017 fee schedule. Estimated fees for Preparation of Bid Documents (plans and Specifications), Bidding Services, and Construction Services are proposed in the amount of$27,393. Thank you for this opportunity to provide professional consulting services to the City of Shorewood. If this proposal is acceptable, please execute the signature block below and return as our authorization to proceed. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (651)286-8453 if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, WSB&Associates, Inc. Paul Hornby, P.E. City Engineer C:\Users\phornbMpp Data\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\KQQCF4CX\SHOR-2017 Mill and Overlay Proposal.docx 2017 Mill and Overlay Project— Professional Services Proposal November 28, 2016 Page 3 PROPOSALFOR: Final Design/Bidding Services and Construction Services —2017 Mill and Overlay Improvement Project, City Project 17-03 ACCEPTED BY: City of Shorewood, MN Name Title Date C:\Users\phornbMpp Data\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\KQQCF4CX\SHOR-2017 Mill and Overlay Proposal.docx - • ••� M► •��� - .,,,. �� .� 111:�: NINE ►- ,�� yam�/�1�, •,� , ° • � - �p`►� �w'l�,`�'���� �irl� ICI - =SIN 1111 ►���: M Sol MEN Alk MOM 7 1 °�:'• r�llll� r�