Loading...
05-08-2017 Reg Mtg Agenda Packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, MAY 8, 2017 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call Mayor Zerby___ Johnson___ Labadie___ Siakel___ Sundberg___ B. Review Agenda Attachments 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes of April 24, 2017 Minutes B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of April 24, 2017 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. Approve Agreement between SLMPD & City of Excelsior for summer dock City Administrator and park patrol services Memo C. Approve Annual Liquor License Renewals City Clerk Memo Resolution D. Approve Written Data Access Policy Annual Update City Clerk Memo Resolution Written Data Policies (2) 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council Action will be taken) 5. PUBLIC HEARING 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 7. PARKS 8. PLANNING nd A. Grading Permit for Minnetonka Country Club P.U.D. 2 Addition Planning Director’s memo Early Grading Development Agreement Resolution CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – May 8, 2017 Page 2 B. Approve Setback Variance Planning Director’s memo Applicant: Cort and Susan Queen Resolution nd Location: 27180 West 62 Street 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Accept Quotes and Award Contract – Freeman Park South Parking Lot Paving Engineer Memo Resolution B. Approve Contract with Xcel Energy – Chaska Road Overhead Power Burial Engineer Memo (Oppidan Development TIF Improvement) Resolution 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1) Michael Smerdon report from Open Book meeting B. Mayor and City Council 12. ADJOURN #2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND COUNCIL CHAMBERS PARK COMMISSION 6:00 PM MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2017 MINUTES 1. CONVENE WORK SESSION MEETING Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:03 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Johnson, Labadie, and Siakel; Administrator Lerud; Clerk Thone; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Hornby Park Commission Chair Mangold; Park Commissioners Barr, Stelmachers and Vassar Absent: Councilmember Sundberg B. Review Agenda Johnson moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 2. PARK PLANS AND PRIORITIES Director Nielsen stated a few months ago a Councilmember suggested Council and staff meet more than once a year in a joint session to ensure that Council and the Commission are moving forward in the same direction. He noted issues invariably come down to money. Chair Mangold stated the Commission’s hurdle to overcome is Badger Park and the best way to do that is for the Commission to meet with Council to solicit Council’s feedback and to get major decisions made in a timely manner. The Commission has always thought it was best to get the Badger Park Improvements done together. What gets done with Badger Park sets the tone for everything else that gets done with the parks. From his vantage point the Commission has heard multiple times that there are also other priorities in the City that need funding. He thought that what makes the Commission unique is it is a group that has the responsibility to look at the ongoing future of the parks. For example, the pickleball court is more than the Parks annual budget. Director Nielsen stated there is limited money in the Park Improvements Capital Improvement Program (CIP) much of which is slated for improvements to Badger Park. Suggestions for parks come up such as the pickleball court for a bid cost of $50,000. But does that get funded out of money that would have been used for Badger Park? The tendency has been to add projects but not necessarily money to fund them. Mayor Zerby stated that in general, when parks have been discussed, it has been done from the perspective of highest and best use of the property. From a priority standpoint he asked the Commission where the need is for the City’s parks overall. Chair Mangold stated from his perspective it is important to do the Badger Park improvements correctly the first time. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION April 24, 2017 Page 2 of 7 Councilmember Siakel asked the Commission to help frame the issue it thinks needs to be addressed. At the end of 2016 the Council agreed to set aside $200,000 from the General Fund reserves for Badger Park improvements. The final plat for the second phase of the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) development has been submitted so the City should receive about $290,000 in park dedication fees in 2017 and that would go into the Park Improvements Fund. Chair Mangold stated improvements to the City Hall campus parking lot are going to be more costly than planned. There are large items within Badger Park that still have to be worked out; for example, what the building should be. He then stated reconstruction of the tennis courts was not in the original budget for improvements. It has been determined that has to be done. Councilmember Siakel stated she thought the tennis courts were included in the original concept plan for the Park with the assumption that would be done further down the road. Director Nielsen explained the need to reconstruct the tennis courts became a priority much sooner than anticipated. When the contractor last put a surface coat on the courts he informed staff that the next time the courts would have to be reconstructed. Siakel asked how much Council approved for the original Concept Plan. Director Nielsen stated he thought $1.3 million. Director Nielsen explained the Commission recently discussed if it was necessary to purchase two pieces of playground equipment. The consensus was one piece would be sufficient and that would bring costs down. There is no need for the building to be a warming house but there is a desire for it to have restrooms in it. He then explained users of Badger Park, the Southshore Center and City Hall all use the City Hall campus parking lot. Yet, the improvements to the lot are scheduled to be paid out of the Park Improvements Fund. Maybe the improvements could be paid for out of numerous funds. There are also a number of drainage issues that needed to be mitigated as part of the improvements. Mayor Zerby stated if there was a desire to make all of the improvements next year the City would have to bond for that funding. Typically Council has not had a desire to do that unless it was for a very large project. Director Nielsen stated the City could borrow, for example, from the Water Fund to fund the improvements and pay it back over time with interest. Mayor Zerby noted that the 2017 roadway projects are going to cost 20 percent more than those approved in the Street Reconstruction CIP approve late 2016. That is a $200,000 increase. The use of money in the Water Fund needs to be prioritized. Commissioner Rock stated if all of the improvements to Badger Park were done in one year there would not be any funding available for other park needs for 2 – 3 years. He then stated that three of Commissioners are new and they do not understand why some of the projects in the Park Improvements CIP are in there. The Commission does not think there is a better use for park funding than the improvements to Badger Park. He asked if Council wants to finish the improvements to Badger Park now with the understanding there would not be any funding available for the nest 2 – 3 years. He noted that the park dedication fees for the MCC development do not all come in at the same time. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION April 24, 2017 Page 3 of 7 Mayor Zerby stated a new lacrosse field has been constructed in Badger Park. There has been discussion about parking lot improvements and playground equipment needs. There are some things that are in flux. He asked what the Commission wants Council to approve next. Chair Mangold stated the 2019 Park Improvements CIP includes $750,000 in projects with most of it being for Badger Park phase two improvements. The $85,000 for improvements to the parking lot is included in that. Creating a pickleball court for a cost of $50,000 is included in the 2017 CIP. Councilmember Labadie stated if the pickleball court in the Skate Park is not done that Park would be empty. Councilmember Siakel asked why that would be a problem. Councilmember Labadie stated as the liaison to the Park Commission, she senses the Commission is frustrated because it does not know how much funding is available. Also, the cost for various pieces of playground equipment varies significantly. The Commission wants to move forward responsibly and does not want things to stall. The Commission does not want to take $50,000 out of funds planned for Badger Park to pay for the pickleball court. She then stated she thought Council is frustrated because it only hears about general concepts. It is difficult for Council to make financial decisions when all of the necessary funding is not there and when it does not have final numbers. Mayor Zerby stated that Council cannot essentially write a blank check for Badger Park improvements. Council needs to be presented with specifics costs for those improvements. There are a lot of issues in the City that have to be addressed. He explained the City found a partner to help fund the lacrosse field. A decision was made to take out the ice rink in the Park. He does not think Council has stopped the progress with the Park. Over the last couple of years improvements have continued to be made. Chair Mangold stated the Commission believes Council has been supportive. He then stated it is prudent for Council and the Commission to have a similar vision going forward. He clarified that the Commission does not want to push the limit on spending on the Park. Councilmember Siakel noted the Commissioners are volunteers and Council appreciates what they do. She stated she does not think there is a need to be everything to everyone with regard to parks. She stated from her perspective it would not be a problem if the Skate Park sat empty for a while. There is a nice parking lot for the community gardeners over there; the number of gardens had been expanded over there. It is not accurate to say the Skate Park is not used. She noted she would like to make Badger Park a first class park. She asked what the next incremental improvement to Badger Park is and what the cost for it would be. She noted Council has been supportive of improvements to the Park. She questioned the need for a hockey rink in Freeman Park noting there is a rink in Cathcart Park. She does not think there is need for three hockey rinks. She suggested reevaluating the needs for each of the City’s parks. Councilmember Johnson asked what kind of data about usage of each of the parks was considered when preparing the CIP. He stated he lives near Cathcart Park and he has never seen a game of pickup hockey with more than 3 or 4 players. He has never seen it seen a youth hockey organization use it. He questioned the need for spending $150,000 in 2020 on hockey boards. He is not sure if a rink in Freeman Park would be used. He asked what data supports the need for that. He does not view Cathcart Park as being a viable hockey park. Councilmember Labadie clarified the rink is used by youth hockey leagues noting her child’s team used it. She stated that frequently parents of hockey team members have cleared the snow off of the ice. Unfortunately, it takes Public Works extra time to bring the rink into better shape. Johnson reiterated he has not ever seen the rink being used by many people and he drives by it all the time. Commissioner Vassar stated it gets used; she works in the warming house. She explained the usage increased after the rink in Badger Park was eliminated last fall. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION April 24, 2017 Page 4 of 7 Councilmember Labadie stated during the last Commission meeting Commissioner Rock noted that the cost to create a pickleball court will go up for 2018. If a decision is not made about moving forward with that soon it won’t get done in 2017. She thought Council needs to make a decision about that immediately. From her vantage point, that is the number one decision that needs to be made. Commissioner Rock stated he thought the Commissioners want to get things done. He then stated he agreed with Councilmember Siakel that the City cannot please everyone. He suggested people come up with a list of priorities that reflects what items need to be done first so as not to cause things to be redone because they were damaged when other improvements were made. Councilmember Siakel asked if the Commission anticipates using the $200,000 set aside from the General Fund reserves for parking lot improvements. Director Nielsen stated it is in the mix. Chair Mangold stated it is part of the second phase parking lot improvements. Mayor Zerby stated the CIP indicates there is more than $1.3 million in total allocated to Badger Park from 2017 – 2019. Councilmember Siakel stated there is about $500,000 ($200,000 from reserves and the $291,000 from MCC park dedication fees) available in to 2017. She asked what that will be used for. Chair Mangold stated the estimate for Badger Park phase 1 is now $600,000. Siakel asked how the Commission wants to spend $500,000 on Badger Park, noting she does not need to know what the next phase is. She stated she does not know what the issue is for 2017. Director Nielsen stated he thought pickleball is a good idea; some people want it and the Skate Park is half empty. He asked if spending that $50,000 in 2017 on a pickleball court means something for Badger Park would not be funded. Mayor Zerby stated he thought the $50,000 cost for pickleball is a distraction. He asked what is happening with Badger Park. Chair Mangold stated that is being used as an example. Other examples are the expansion of asphalt in Freeman Park parking lot in 2017 and the hockey boards in Cathcart Park in 2020. Councilmember Siakel stated the tennis courts in Freeman Park are used all the time. She then stated she would support focusing on one project, some improvements to Badger Park in 2017. If additional money is needed, Council and staff need to find where it can come from or acknowledge that there is no funding for it. Chair Mangold stated he thought a lot of the smaller items become the squeaky wheel. Mayor Zerby noted that Council can only deal with budgets one year at a time. Councilmember Siakel concurred. Zerby stated the CIP is a long-term planning tool; it is not a guarantee there will be funding for the projects when the time comes. He then stated unplanned needs come up all the time. Councilmember Siakel again asked how the $500,000 for parks would be spent in 2017. That is a significant amount of money in one year. Mayor Zerby stated he thought the warming house in Badger Park is going to be taken down. Chair Mangold stated the plans include constructing a new building in a new location. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION April 24, 2017 Page 5 of 7 Commissioner Vassar asked if Council is looking for Badger Park to be a destination park or a community park. Director Nielsen responded a community park. Councilmember Johnson stated he does not know how Council can answer that question until a decision has been made about what to do with the Southshore Center. The City has a request for information (RFI) out and it is waiting for responses. Hopefully the responses will provide some idea of what to do with the facility. Or if there are no responses, the City has to determine what the value of that facility is. He would prefer to make a decision on Commissioner Vassar’s question until Council hears about the Center. He then stated Freeman Park is more of a destination because of the high sports usage. Johnson noted he was pleased to hear youth hockey leagues use the rink in Cathcart Park. He stated if he was going to take his daughters ice skating he would take them to the rink in the City of Deephaven. There is a nice warming house there and there is a Zamboni there. Johnson stated once there is hockey in Freeman Park he questioned how much the rink in Cathcart Park would be used. They are in close proximity of each other. Director Nielsen stated that is a good question because one half of the market for the use of the Cathcart Park is from Chanhassen. Mayor Zerby stated that he recently learned that Shorewood almost purchased Cathcart Park by mistake. Shorewood did not know the park was in Chanhassen until after it was purchased. He noted that Chanhassen has not been much of a partner since day one. Chanhassen has begrudgingly come along over the years. Director Nielsen noted Eddy Station in Freeman Park was built to be a warming house. Councilmember Johnson stated he would prefer to see pickleball at Cathcart Park except for the fact that pickleball is going in at Roundhouse Park in Chanhassen. Mayor Zerby stated with regard to usage comments have been made that no one ever plays tennis at Badger Park. Director Nielsen stated everyone has concluded that no one uses the Skate Park yet over the last few weeks there has been some activity there. Councilmember Siakel stated the Shorewood parks are about Shorewood residents. There will be crossover from other cities. She does not believe the City has to create parks that draw from other cities in the metro area. She does not think the traffic issue needs to be exacerbated at Badger Park. Badger Park should be an amenity that supports the people living in Shorewood. She then stated there is a hockey rink in Manitou Park in the City of Tonka Bay very near the Shorewood/Tonka Bay border and she questioned the need for another one in Shorewood. She suggested trying to make effective use of the City’s parks. Councilmember Johnson stated he does not think there is a plan to spend much on the passive space in Badger Park. There is something to be said for putting in trails and things that are not about active use. Director Nielsen stated he thought the Park will ultimately have a lot of passive space. There will be the picnic area and the Village Green Space. He noted the Commission has indicated it wants open space in every park; space that is not used for anything specific. Johnson stated there is passive space in Freeman Park; unfortunately, it is overrun with buckthorn. Nielsen stated there is a wide open area in Manor Park. Johnson then stated that he thought constituents who are not sports activists should hear about other things their tax dollars are being used for. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION April 24, 2017 Page 6 of 7 Chair Mangold stated the Commission has had a lot of discussion about how to use the center space in Badger Park. The number one reason the hockey rink in Badger Park had to go was to create more passive space (i.e.; open lawn or green lawn). Councilmember Siakel asked if the City has received any complaints about the removal of the hockey rink in Badger Park. She had not. Chair Mangold stated no one has come before the Commission to complain. Commissioner Vassar stated someone asked her why it was taken out. Commissioner Vassar stated people would go between Badger Park and Manitou Park depending on how busy the ice rinks were. She then stated if a rink goes in at Freeman Park she thought the rink in Cathcart Park would continue to be used. She commented people sometimes say Shorewood is a city of hockey. Councilmember Labadie stated Commissioner Vassar has a unique perspective because she is a rink attendant at a couple of park locations. Director Nielsen stated he considers the rink in Freeman Park to be replacing the rink in Badger Park. He then stated he thought Councilmember Johnson made a good point about there being a rink in Freeman Park and a rink in Cathcart Park. In response to a comment from Councilmember Johnson, Chair Mangold clarified the CIP does not include anything about installing hockey boards around the rink in Freeman Park in 2017. Johnson asked how hockey could be played without hockey boards. Mangold stated the first step at Freeman Park was to create a free skating rink. Commissioner Vassar stated the goal was to have that for this past winter but the ground got too hard before that was created. Chair Mangold stated his goal is to talk about potential CIP projects more than six months in advance. Commissioner Barr stated she thought one of the goals of this meeting was to discuss whether or not a pickleball court at Skate Park should be created in 2017. It had been her understanding that leaving that open was not a palatable option. She noted it would be her preference to focus funding on Badger Park. Mayor Zerby stated that the Commissions are recommending bodies and Council decides whether or not to approve the recommendation. He asked if the Commission had not recommended moving forward with the pickleball court. Commissioner Barr stated it was tabled during the Commission’s last meeting pending this discussion with Council. Director Nielsen clarified that last year the Commission recommended it and that is how it ended up being included in the CIP. Chair Mangold stated the pickleball court was included in the 2017 CIP as an option. Based on the feedback from Council now he thought the Commission should decide if it should push to move forward with the court. Mayor Zerby stated if the Commission decides the pickleball court is not a high priority that is fine with Council. If the Commission thinks it is then Council needs to discuss that. He understands the Commission to be saying that is not the best use of funds at in 2017. Councilmember Siakel stated it was her recollection there was discussion about using one of the tennis courts in Badger Park for both tennis and pickleball. Director Nielsen noted a tennis court in Manor Park is striped for pickleball. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION April 24, 2017 Page 7 of 7 Councilmember Johnson reiterated he wants to see usage data. He asked if the community garden at the Skate Park is sold out. If so, maybe the garden should be expanded to be a better use for the community. Councilmember Siakel suggested refocusing. The discussion should be about what are people going to use, what is truly valued and what is considered to be an amenity. If there is a hockey rink in one park that would be an amenity. She asked if there is something the City is missing. She stated the only place to play tennis in the City is Badger Park. Councilmember Johnson clarified it can be played in Cathcart Park. Mayor Zerby noted in Manor Park also. Siakel expressed her desire to do one thing and to do it right. She also stated Council cannot commit to what can be done two years from now. She clarified this Council believes parks are important. She again asked the Commission what it wants to do with the 2017 funding for park improvements. Commissioner Vassar stated over the last nine months the City received a lot of emails expressing their desire for a pickleball court near the senior housing development. Councilmember Labadie asked if the Commissioners thought Council has provided enough insight to make a recommendation to Council after the Commission’s next meeting. Commissioner Rock stated the Commission has heard different opinions expressed by the Councilmembers. The Commission was trying to look out a few years, and maybe that was not the right focus. Mayor Zerby stated it is helpful to have a long-term vision. Councilmember Labadie stated she understands Council to be asking the Commission to make recommendations for Council to consider. Councilmember Siakel thanked the Commissioners for volunteering their time and for their efforts. 3. ADJOURN Labadie moved, Johnson seconded, Adjourning the Work Session of the City Council and Park Commission of April 24, 2017, at 6:55 P.M. Motion passed 8/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Sandie Thone, City Clerk #2B CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2017 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 Johnson, Labadie, and Siakel; Attorney Keane; City Administrator Lerud; City Clerk Thone; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and, City Engineer Hornby Absent: Councilmember Sundberg B. Review Agenda Labadie moved, Johnson seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council and Staff Retreat Minutes of February 24, 2017 Johnson moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the City Council and Staff Retreat Minutes of February 24, 2017, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. B. City Council Special Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2017 Siakel moved, Labadie seconded Approving the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2017, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of April 24, 2017 Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of April 24, 2017, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Johnson moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 17-032 “ A Resolution Appointing City Clerk Sandie Thone the Responsible Authority And Compliance Official to Administer the Data CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 24, 2017 Page 2 of 17 Practices Requirements Pursuant To Minnesota State Statute, Chapter 13 for the City of Shorewood.” C. Approval of Summer Sailboat Race Series D. Approve Hiring of LEO for Public Works E. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 17-033 “A Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for the 2017 Crack Fill and Seal Coat Project, City Project No. 17-01, to Allied Blacktop Co. with Shorewood's Share (including the EFD and SLMPD parking lots) not to exceed $178, 848.70.” Motion passed 4/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. Riviera Lane and Shorewood Lane Improvements, City Project 17-04 Mayor Zerby opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 P.M. Engineer Hornby explained this Public Hearing is for the Riviera Lane and Shorewood Lane Street and Utility Improvement Project. Shorewood Lane is located north of County Road 19 (Smithtown Road) just east of the public safety facility in Shorewood. Riviera Lane is located south of Yellowstone Trail between Yellowstone Trail and Highway 7. The street and utility improvements would include complete reconstruction of both streets with concrete curb and gutter, the addition of storm sewer to direct the water and control the drainage, and minor sanitary sewer improvements (including inflow and infiltration reduction). The reconstructed streets would be 28 feet wide back-to-back of curb. Consideration is being given to extending 8-inch watermain under the roadways. All the properties along the two roadways are currently served by private wells. New services would be installed to the right-of- way (ROW). The City installs a shutoff at the ROW. The property owners would be responsible for connecting between the house and the ROW. Each new connection requires a permit, meter and accessories. The watermain extension would involve extending 8-inch watermain from Echo Road across County Road 19 to Shorewood Lane and then under Shorewood Lane. For Riviera Lane there are two options. Option 1 is to extend the watermain along Yellowstone Trail from the stub at Club Valley Road east to Riviera Lane and then under Riviera Lane. Option 2 is to extend it from the stub at Lake Linden Court west to Riviera Lane and then under Riviera Lane The total estimated Project cost excluding watermain extension is $1,287,500. Of that $1,012,300 is for street improvements and they would be paid for out of the Street Reconstruction Fund; $27,000 is for sanitary sewer improvements and they would be paid for out of the Sewer Fund; and $248,200 is for drainage improvements and they would be paid for out of the Stormwater Management Fund. Those costs CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 24, 2017 Page 3 of 17 are the same for both options. Option 1 watermain extension is estimated to cost $1,025,000; of that $717,200 would be paid for out of the Water Fund and $307,800 would come from special assessments. The total estimated project cost including watermain Option 1 is $2,312,500. Option 2 watermain extension is estimated to cost $997,300; of that $689,500 would be paid for out of the Water Fund and $307,800 would come from special assessments. The total estimated project cost including watermain Option 2 is $2,284,800. The per-property assessment amount for watermain extension along Shorewood Lane and Riviera Lane would be $11,620 for a single-family unit and $17,430 for a multi-family unit. Those amounts are based on the formula in the City’s Ordinance. There are a total of 23 units. He highlighted the schedule for the proposed project. During this Public Hearing Council can decide if it wants to order the project including which, if any, watermain extension Option after taking public comment. Council would be asked to approve plans and specifications during June. The bid opening would be in July. The construction contract would be awarded in August. If a decision is made to move forward with the watermain extension an assessment hearing would be set in September with the hearing being in October. The final bituminous wear course would be put down in the spring or summer of 2018. Engineer Hornby clarified that no properties along Yellowstone Trail, County Road 19 or Echo Road were included in the watermain portion even though watermain will be extended along them to get to Riviera Lane and Shorewood Lane. The watermain extension along those three roads would be funded out of the Water Fund. Mayor Zerby opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:14 P.M. Elizabeth Reid, 6115 Riviera Lane, asked staff to comment on how the stormwater flow after the improvements. Engineer Hornby explained that for both Shorewood Lane and Riviera Lane it will be directed to essentially where it currently goes. Ms. Reid stated there is a pond near Riviera Lane. Hornby stated water can be directed to the pond and there will be an outlet to keep the pond from overflowing into the street. Ms. Reid then asked what the per-foot cost would be to run a water line from the house to the street noting her house is located about 400 feet from the street. Engineer Hornby stated he has heard from residents estimates were as low as $3,000 and as high as $6,000. There are permit fees which would cover a meter and accessories; that would cost about $350 to $400. Ms. Reid stated if a property owner hooked up to municipal water she asked if they could still use their well water to, for example, water their garden. Engineer Hornby responded yes and explained the City does not require a property owner to abandon the well but the well would have to be disconnected from the house. The well cannot be connected to the municipal water system. Jim McFarland, 6120 Riviera Lane, stated it sounds like the estimated assessment would be close to $12,000 for a single-family property. There are a number of younger families who have moved into his neighborhood and that cost could prove to be a hardship for them. He asked if the City can help ease that burden. Engineer Hornby explained the City extends the assessment over a period of years (e.g.; 10 or 15 years); it is paid back with interest. Mr. McFarland asked what the interest rate would be. Hornby clarified 1 – 2 percent above the municipal bond rate. In response to another question, Hornby explained that would be on a property tax bill as an assessment. In response to another question, Hornby noted the City does not require a property owner to hook up to municipal water when available but they are still assessed for it. Mr. McFarland asked if there is any benefit to connecting to the water system when it is CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 24, 2017 Page 4 of 17 first put in. Hornby stated the property owner would only go through construction once. Hornby cited a project where a number of residents hired a plumber to connect their properties at the same time to try and reduce the cost; that was done before the final wear course was put down. Mr. McFarland asked if there is a way to splice into his existing plumbing noting his basement is finished or would it have to be connected to the main line at the base of the house. Engineer Hornby stated the City has seen both done. Tim McGlennen, owner of the 5615 Shorewood Lane property, asked what the term of the assessment would be. Attorney Keane stated the last one was 10 years and noted that the interest rate has typically been 1.5 percent over the municipal bond rate. Mr. McGlennen asked if the rate would be set during the assessment hearing. Keane confirmed that. In response to a question from Mr. McGlennen, Engineer Hornby explained he thought it would be unlikely that the City would increase the assessment amount from what has been presented this evening while noting Council does have the option to do that. In response to a comment from Mr. McGlennen, Engineer Hornby stated the City has a tiered water rate tied to consumption. Engineer Hornby explained the connection fee is $10,000 less any assessment. The $11,620 assessment for a single-family home would he higher than the fee so there would be no other fees other than the permit and associated costs. Mr. McGlennen stated there is a duplex on his property so the assessment on his property would be close to $17,500. Then there is the cost of about $10,000 for two hookups. That would end up costing about $28,000 to get water to the two units. He does not think there is that much value to what is being proposed being there is already water there and his well there is relatively new. Mr. McGlennen stated his rental units to not have separate sewer services. He asked why he would have to have two water lines to the duplex. Director Nielsen explained the sewer service is not shut off for nonpayment, but water service is. Todd Boynton, 6155 Riviera Lane, noted he and his wife have lived in their home since 1994. He stated he thought the pond referred to earlier has overflowed and water flowed across the road maybe twice. He would like to have the stormwater diverted into the pond and have an outlet there. That would eliminate Mr. McFarland’s problem with pooling. During droughts the pond dries up and looks bad. There are bricks and debris in the bottom of the pond. Most of the time there is 1 – 2 feet of water in it. Allan Vanderlinde, owner of the 5550 Shorewood Lane property, noted he purchased the property in 1983, but he does not currently live at the property. He also noted that he was opposed to the watermain extension. He does not want to spend $25,000 or more to get what he currently has and has had for 34 years. He explained that he currently lives along Star Lane. Two years ago Star Lane was rebuilt. He thought that project was a disaster. There would be 2 – 3 week time periods when there was no construction activity because people were waiting for a different subcontractor to come. During that time the roadway was barely drivable. He does not want his tenants on Shorewood Lane go through the same thing. With the project completion being less than a year old there is some significant puddling in areas on Star Lane. He reiterated that he was opposed to the watermain extension. He stated if he project moves forward he encouraged the City to try and get the roadway reconstruction done faster. Rob Messe, 6185 Riviera Lane, noted he fully supports the Riviera Lane project. He stated he appreciates the other property owners’ comments about the pond. That pond is a nice asset. There is a major drainage CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 24, 2017 Page 5 of 17 problem at the end of the circle on Riviera Lane and he was encouraged to hear that the project could help mitigate that. The stormwater backs up on to his property. He values that fire hydrants would be installed because of municipal water system. Mayor Zerby closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:33 P.M. Councilmember Labadie asked how many multi-family dwelling units there are along the two roadways. Engineer Hornby stated he does not have that breakdown. In response to a question from Councilmember Siakel, Engineer Hornby explained what is being proposed in the Feasibility Report is the City would pay for the cost to extend watermain along Yellowstone Trail from the stub at Club Valley Road east to Riviera Lane or from the stub at Lake Linden Court west to Riviera Lane. It would also pay extending 8-inch watermain from Echo Road across County Road 19 to Shorewood Lane. The benefiting property owners would be assessed for the watermain under Riviera Lane and Shorewood Lane. Siakel questioned why he City would pay a $1 million tab to extend watermain up to Riviera Lane and Shorewood Lane rather than assess for that. Hornby explained that cities often front the cost to extend a trunk water line. The line along Yellowstone Trail would be considered a trunk because it would be larger than an 8-inch lateral line. The City may pick up some users along the route prior to the two roadways. Council can direct staff to consider assessing all of the properties along the new watermain routes. Councilmember Siakel noted she wants property owners to be treated consistently. She questioned why the City would not assess the property owners for the watermain extension up to Riviera Land and Shorewood Lane. Director Brown stated the City has the option of holding the same proceedings for those property owners after the fact. Brown explained that when the project was being considered there was discussion as to whether or not the truck watermain benefited the entire water system. What is being proposed would make the system run better. Something similar was done along Minnetonka Drive to serve CUB Foods. If property owners along the trunk main extension want to connect to municipal water they would have to pay the connection fee of $10,000. Siakel clarified that she is a supporter of expanding municipal water system. But, she wants property owners to be treated the same. If the City is going to extend water along Yellowstone Trail then all of those benefiting property owners should be involved in the discussion about what is being proposed. In response to a question from Councilmember Labadie, Engineer Hornby explained property owners would be assessed for the lateral benefit which by policy is an 8-inch pipe in Shorewood. Anything greater than 8 inches would be paid for out of the Water Fund. Mayor Zerby asked if a portion of Yellowstone Trail would have to be torn up to install watermain. Engineer Hornby confirmed that. Zerby stated there is an opportunity to make improvements to Yellowstone Trail as part of the project to make it somewhat pedestrian friendly. He asked if that has been considered if the roadway is being widened. Hornby clarified the roadway would be restored to the way it is; it would not be widened. Director Brown explained the roadway would be excavated, the watermain would be put in and then the roadway would be restored to a condition similar to the way it was at the start but with newer pavement in that area; there would not be curb and gutter. He clarified it is likely more than one-half of the roadway would be excavated up because of the need to go 8 feet down. Zerby asked if that makes sense. Wouldn’t there be some cost savings to making improvements to the roadway and add pedestrian access at same time? Brown stated that depends on whether or not Council wants to spend the additional money to improve the roadway. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 24, 2017 Page 6 of 17 Director Brown asked if enough planning has gone into addressing improvements such as pedestrian access. Mayor Zerby stated in the past Director Brown has told Council that water systems that are not looped sometimes have issues because of that. Both of what are being proposed is “dead end” water routes. He asked if that would be an issue with what is being proposed. Is staff comfortable with them being stubbed out at the end? Director Brown explained they are sections to help loop the system; they do not complete the loop. Zerby asked if residents can assume that in the future the water lines would be extended and looped to another neighborhood. Brown stated future councils cannot be committed to that. Zerby stated he assumes that would be the goal. Councilmember Siakel asked if watermain could be installed under, for example, Valleywood Road using a tunneling method. Engineer Hornby explained there are trenchless technologies that could be used but doing that would be outside of Shorewood’s standards. That technology has improved over the years. That technology was used on a couple of projects in the City a while ago and they were not as successful. Based on his experience the costs for using trenchless technology by essentially horizontal drilling are similar to those for a cut and patch project with watermain. He stated as part of the design for this project consideration can be given to boring services to the properties along Yellowstone Trail to save one-half of the roadway. But to connect the services would require digging up the road and the watermain. Engineer Hornby stated Item 9B on the agenda includes three resolutions related to project for Council to consider. Mayor Zerby stated from his vantage point the City is missing an opportunity if improvements to/along Yellowstone Trail are not considered as part of this project. To excavate a roadway and the ground underneath up to 8 feet deep and then just restore it to similar to what is was makes no sense to him. Disruption would be minimized by doing the improvements at the same time watermain is extended along Yellowstone Trail. He then stated the Shorewood Lane portion of the project makes sense to him as is. He recommended more thought be given to the Riviera Lane/Yellowstone Trail portion. Councilmember Labadie asked if there is a City Ordinance related to not assessing the properties along the Yellowstone Trail project area because the watermain would be larger than 8-inches in diameter. Engineer Hornby questioned if Council would want to go through the public process that could impact twice as many property owners or more by including assessing those properties in the Yellowstone Trail project area and on a small portion of Echo Road. Council can ask that the feasibility report be revised to include that information. Director Brown added for watermain extension projects the City initiates the Ordinance allows Council the option to decide if it wants the City to asses for the project or not. Mayor Zerby stated the policies are the Council’s decision. Council can make changes to it while exercising caution not to change it too much. He then stated if the property owners along Yellowstone Trail are going to benefit from the project by having municipal water available to them they should share some of the cost burden for it. Councilmember Labadie commented that laws and rules change all the time. Sandy Alstrom, 6085 Riviera Lane, stated she thought if the property owners along Yellowstone Trail were assessed that could potentially reduce the assessment proposed for other property owners in the project area. She then stated she walks to her doctor and to the City of Excelsior a lot and she considers Yellowstone Trail to be dangerous to walk along. She thought that roadway should be made safer to walk along as long as it is going to be torn up. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 24, 2017 Page 7 of 17 Councilmember Labadie stated everything the City does costs money. She noted that redoing all of Yellowstone Trail was not in this year’s road plan. She expressed her agreement that Yellowstone Trail is dangerous and substandard. Unfortunately, many of the roads in Shorewood are narrow, dangerous, and substandard and they have high pedestrian traffic. To expand the scope of this project would require more than just this hearing. It would require an expanded feasibility study and soliciting bids. And then determining if the project expansion is something the City could afford. She noted there are many dangerous spots in the City. Mayor Zerby stated he thought talking about expanding the project to include improvements to Yellowstone Trail is the prudent thing to do. As indicated by staff 80 percent of the roadway will be rebuilt as part of the proposed project. He understood it would cost additional cost. Councilmember Labadie stated if the project is expanded the timeline presented would no longer be valid. Councilmember Siakel stated if Riviera Lane and Shorewood Lane are reconstructed she asked if watermain can be installed underneath and capped without extending watermain down Yellowstone Trail. She thought the proposed project should be done after Yellowstone Trail is reconstructed and watermain extended. She does not think it would be fair to assess properties along Shorewood Lane and Riviera Lane more than $11,000 and later assess those along Yellowstone Trail only $10,000. If all the property owners were assessed $10,000 she asked how much more it would cost the City. She asked if it would be possible to make the improvements to Yellowstone Trail and still get the rest of the project done this year. Mayor Zerby stated the project does not have to be done in 2017. Engineer Hornby stated including the improvements to Yellowstone Trail would likely set the project back to 2018 at a minimum. Councilmember Labadie stated she thought it would make sense to assess improvements to Yellowstone Trail as long as more than half of the road would be torn up. Engineer Hornby stated if Council wants to at least consider improvements to Yellowstone Trail he suggested that be discussed during a work session before working on plans and specification. Director Brown stated if the Yellowstone Trail improvements are included in the project that would be a lengthy process. Mayor Zerby stated he thought the City owes it to the residents to go through that process. Councilmember Siakel stated she thought it prudent to include Country Club Road in the process. Councilmember Labadie asked when Yellowstone Trail was scheduled for some improvements in the Street Reconstruction Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Mayor Zerby stated he sensed there was Council consensus to discuss improvements to Yellowstone Trail in a work session. Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, continuing the discussion about Riviera Lane portion of the Riviera Lane and Shorewood Lane Street and Utility Improvement Project City Project 17-04 to a future Council meeting and prior to that Council meeting discussing the possible inclusion of street improvements to Yellowstone Trail and the possibility of also assessing the owners of properties along the Yellowstone Trail segment in the Project area for watermain extension in a work session. Motion passed 4/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 24, 2017 Page 8 of 17 Tim McGlennen stated the Riviera Lane and Shorewood Lane portions of the project are in different neighborhoods and they do not have any connection to each other. He explained there are 8 parcels along Shorewood Lane and 15 along Riviera Lane. Engineer Hornby explained if they were done separately the cost would be higher; doing them together brings the cost down. Mr. McGlennen stated it seems to him that the owners along Shorewood Lane would be paying more than Shorewood Lane’s proportional share. Mr. McGlennen asked if Shorewood does a benefit analysis for a project like this. Attorney Keane clarified that is done prior to levying assessments. Councilmember Johnson stated if hypothetically Riviera Lane and a long segment of Yellowstone Trail become one large project would it be a large enough project to achieve some cost savings. Engineer Hornby explained that most times when the size of a project is increased there is usually some cost savings when compared to separate smaller projects. Johnson asked if Shorewood Lane could be combined with some other project. Hornby stated he would have to look at the CIP. Siakel moved, Johnson seconded, continuing the discussion about Shorewood Lane portion of the Riviera Lane and Shorewood Lane Street and Utility Improvement Project City Project 17-04 to a future Council meeting and prior to that Council meeting discussing the possible inclusion of street improvements to Yellowstone Trail and the possibility of also assessing the owners of properties along the Yellowstone Trail segment in the Project area for watermain extension in a work session. Motion passed 4/0. Mayor Zerby closed the Public Hearing at 8:07 P.M. 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Report and Presentation by Tim Litfin on Minnetonka Community Education Activities and Tour de Tonka Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) Executive Director Tim Litfin noted the twelfth Tour de Tonka event will be held on August 5, 2017. Mr. Litfin and Jenny Bordurka, the MCE Youth and Adult Programs Coordinator, highlighted the 2016 Tour de Tonka event; a multi-distance bicycle ride through the Lake Minnetonka communities.  There were 16-mile, 28-mile, 40-mile, 48-mile, 57-mile, 67-mile and 100 routes. They are changed each year.  There were 3540 riders in 2016; 447 for the 16-mile route, 629 for the 28-mile route, 236 for the 40-mile route, 606 for the 48-mile route, 451 for the 57-mile route, 324 for the 67-mile route and 847 for the 100-mile route.  The riders were between 5 and 86 years of age. The 86 year old will ride again in 2017.  A University of Minnesota Extension study analyzed the economic impact that biking events, organized rides and tours generate in statewide tourism and recreational spending. In 2015 there was $14.3 in economic activity with an average of $121 per participant.  There were 19 states, 36 Minnesota counties, 166 communities and 2 countries represented.  There were 73 riders from the City of Shorewood; that is a drop of 15 when compared to 2015.  Shorewood ranked 12 in City participation.  Approximately 64 percent of the riders were male and 36 percent were female. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 24, 2017 Page 9 of 17  There were 20 police and fire agencies involved.  There were 527 volunteers in 2016; 23 were from Shorewood.  To date, Tour de Tonka has raised almost $50,000 for the ICA. In 2016 it collected $8,213. The highlights for the 2017 event were as follows.  For 2017 there will be 16-mile, 30-mile, 48-mile, 57-mile, 65-mile, 75-mile and 100-mile routes. The routes go through 23 communities. All but two go through Shorewood.  There will 14 aid stations / rest stops throughout the course.  The 2017 major sponsors are Cub Foods Minnetonka, Tonka Bay Marina, Domino’s, Maple Grove Cycling, Bridgewater Bank, Park Dental, Invicta, Boyer Building Corporation, and Subaru. The Safety Sponsors are Twin Cities Orthopedics and North Memorial Health.  For the first time there will women’s shirts.  The volunteer and riders all get a gift. A few photographs of the 2016 event were displayed. Councilmember Labadie stated her hope is to participate in this year’s event with her three children. She asked which route without gravel is the shortest. Mr. Litfin responded the 57-mile route. He noted all but about 2 miles of the 48-mile route will be paved. Labadie then stated because the cities are ranked for rider participation she suggested registrants be asked where they live. Director Brown noted that there is a small area of construction on Eureka Road North. He is not certain it will be paved by the time of the event. It would be grated out. Mayor Zerby asked what the benefit of the event is to MCE. Mr. Litfin explained when he first visualized the even it was an event of visibility. The registration cost has intentionally been kept low. MCE’s goal is not to make a lot of money off of the event. The purpose is to have a great event for the community. Zerby then asked what the registration fee is. Mr. Litfin stated for 2017 it ranges from about $29 to $50 dollars; the average fee is $45. There is also an early registration fee, a regular registration fee and a late registration fee. The cost goes up for each fee. Mr. Litfin stated the City’s representative to the MCE Advisory Council Tad Shaw represents Shorewood very well. Councilmember Labadie stated her family has taken a lot of Community Ed classes. The MCE office is very receptive to receiving comments and criticism about things as well as suggestions. For example, earlier in the year she spoke with Mr. Litfin about having a bracket for children in the three Lake Series races and to give the children ribbons and trophies. Younger age divisions were added. Mr. Litfin clarified that MCE only runs the Firecracker Race on the Fourth of July. Mayor Zerby noted the Excelsior – South Lake Chamber of Commerce runs the Apple Day and Luck o’ the Lake races. Mr. Litfin stated MCE offers early childhood family education (ECFE) programs, youth programs, and adult programs. For the 2016/2017 year it offered 2,077 programs and 83 percent (or 1731) of the classes offered were held. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 24, 2017 Page 10 of 17 Mr. Litfin introduced Tiffany Grams Farkas who is the Preschool and ECFE (Early Childhood Family Education) Coordinator. Ms. Grams Farkas stated this year Minnetonka Preschool offered 19 different sessions. There are more than 320 preschoolers participating; they range from 2.5 to 5 years of age. For the 2017/2018 year 2 year olds will be added. The enrolment will increase by more than 50. For ECFE there are 276 participants. MCE reaches out to families in a variety of ways – events, classes, marketing, HUG home visits, coffee and play time, and early childhood screening. A child has to be screened before they start kindergarten. About 600 children are screened each year. Ms. Bordurka highlighted MCE achievements and plans.  All staff went through Orange Frog Training.  Minnetonka Schools has a Celebration of Excellence in May when it recognizes partners who have done great work.  They had a summer open house in March.  It revamped its adult programs last year. For this year participation has increased closed to 10 percent.  The Cities of Hopkins, Golden Valley and Minnetonka have brought back the Caring Youth Awards. In March 29 youth (middle school through high school) were recognized.  The Philharmonic Orchestra middle student played at Orchestra Hall after receiving a high distinction award at the regional festival.  There were 561 youth camps last summer and 6,463 registrations.  The Tonka Youth Triathlon is scheduled for May 6.  The Firecracker Race will be on July 4.  The Tonka Mud Run will be on July 22.  The Tour de Tonka event will be on August 5. Ms. Bordurka thanked Council for the opportunity to come before Council and share more about MCE. Mr. Litfin also thanked Council. 7. PARKS A. Report by Commissioner Rock on the April 11, 2017, Park Commission Meeting Park Commissioner Rock reported on matters considered and actions taken during the April 11, 2017, Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). 8. PLANNING A. Report by Commissioner Bean on the April 4, 2017, Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commissioner Bean reported on matters considered and actions taken during the April 4, 2017, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). B. Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space Applicant: Joel and Lori Schuenke Location: 4485 Enchanted Lane CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 24, 2017 Page 11 of 17 Director Nielsen explained that Joel and Lori Schuenke own the property located at 4485 Enchanted Point. They propose to demolish the existing home on the property and build a new home with both attached and detached garages. The floor area of the two proposed garages would exceed 1200 square feet of floor area, requiring a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for accessory space over 1200 square feet. The property is zoned R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential Shoreland and contains approximately 80,841 square feet of area (about two acres). The proposed home will contain 5295 square feet of floor area between two floors. The attached garage will contain 983 square feet and the detached garage will have 991 square feet for a total of 1974 square feet of accessory space. With regard to the analysis of the case, he explained Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the Shorewood Zoning Code contains four specific criteria for granting this type of C.U.P. He reviewed how the applicants’ proposal complies with the Code: a. The total area of accessory space (1974 square feet) does not exceed the total floor area above grade of the principle structure (5295 square feet). b. The total area of accessory space does not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for the R- 1C/S zoning district (.10 x. 20,000 square feet = 2000 square feet). c. The proposed home complies with the setback requirements for the R-1C/S zoning district. The proposed detached garage, however, is 12.7 feet from the easterly side of the lot. In order to maintain a total side yard setback of 30 feet with no one side less than 10 feet, the detached garage must be moved at least 5.8 feet to the west. Proposed impervious surface would be 12.6 percent, about one half of the 25 percent allowed. Given the size of the property and the amount of existing vegetation on the site, drainage and landscaping are not considered to be issues in this request. The applicants’ tree preservation and reforestation plan requires 15 replacement trees. d. The materials and design of the new garage would be consistent with the character of the existing house and garage. Nielsen noted that Planning Commission recommended granting the C.U.P. as proposed. Johnson moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 17-034 “A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for Additional Accessory Space to Joel and Lori Schuenke,4485 Enchanted Lane”subject to moving the detached garage at least 5.8 feet to the west. Motion passed 4/0. The discussion moved to that Item 9.C on the agenda because there were people in the audience wanting to speak that item. 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Approve Professional Services Agreement – 2017 Pavement Reclamation Project This was discussed after Item 9.C on the agenda. Director Brown explained the original 2017 Street Reconstruction Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included Echo Road, Howards Point Road, Kathleen Court, Oak Ridge Circle and Summit Avenue for a CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 24, 2017 Page 12 of 17 mill and overlay. After taking core samples of the pavements it was determined those roadways are no longer recommended for a mill and overlay; they are now recommended for pavement reclamation. Staff solicited a scope of services proposal from WSB & Associates to prepare plans, specifications, bidding and construction engineering and inspection services for the 2017 Pavement Reclamation Project. The proposal replaces WSB’s 2017 Mill and Overlay proposal. The fee for this new proposal is $83,000 just under 10 percent of what the overall improvement costs are. State law prohibits WSB from doing it on a percentage basis. But, it is a good standard and WSB’s fee is well below the industry standards. Brown noted staff is recommending Council accept the proposal from WSB as presented. Mayor Zerby stated the last time Council spoke about a WSB proposal Council expressed interest in having competitive bids. He asked if that can be done going forward. Director Brown explained that could be done. But, the City gets a discounted rate on WSB’s general City engineering services provided WSB has the opportunity to provide other design services. If Council wants to revisit that arrangement, that can be done. Mayor Zerby he has no way of knowing if the proposal is competitive. Councilmember Labadie stated she is going to abstain from voting on this item because she lives along one of the roadways. Mayor Zerby and Attorney Keane both noted that is not necessary. Councilmember Siakel noted she is okay with the proposal as submitted. Johnson moved, Siakel seconded, accepting the Professional Services Proposal from WSB & Associates to prepare plans, specifications, bidding, and construction services for the 2017 Pavement Reclamation Project for an amount not to exceed $83,000. Motion passed 3/0/1 with Labadie abstaining. B. Approve Resolution Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications – Riviera Lane and Shorewood Lane Improvements Project, City Project 17-04 This item was discussed as part of Item 5.A on the agenda. Discussion moved to Item 9.D on the agenda. C. Mill Street Speed Discussion This was discussed after Item 8.B on the agenda. Director Brown explained that during the February 13, 2017, Council meeting Ms. Maureen Furh, 5925 Mill Street, and Mr. Mark Ruof, 5935 Mill Street, appeared to voice their concerns about speeding along Mill Street. Mill Street extends from the City of Excelsior through Shorewood and on into the City of Chanhassen (in Carver County) where it turns into Powers Boulevard. The portion located in Shorewood and Excelsior is County Road 82 and is owned and managed by Hennepin County and the portion in Chanhassen is owned and operated by Carver County. As a motorist travels from Excelsior to Chanhassen the speed limit is 30 miles per hour (mph) in Excelsior and Shorewood and it changes to 50 mph at the Shorewood/Chanhassen border. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 24, 2017 Page 13 of 17 In accordance with the City’s adopted Speed Concern Evaluation Process, the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) put up a radar speed detection device to record traffic volume and speed data going north and south. A copy of the results was included in the meeting packet. Results indicate that th the 85 percentile was 36 mph both northbound and southbound. The City’s guidelines suggest some method of traffic calming should be considered. Before physical improvements could be made to the roadway there would have to be a cooperative agreement with the County or Counties depending on where the improvements would be made. Without an agreement, other options for traffic calming include additional enforcement by the SLMPD in Shorewood and Excelsior and the installation of driver feedback signs. The material cost for two solar powered signs is $6,750 based on the quote the City received. Brown noted staff is seeking direction from Council. Councilmember Labadie expressed concern about where the signs would be located. The location of the signs can make a difference. She questioned if the location of the SLMPD’s radar detection devices were the best. She asked staff to determine where the river feedback signs should be placed. Burt Kottke, 6040 Mill Street, noted he has lived in his house for 40 over years. He explained the petition done by Ms. Fuhr was the second petition. One was done a few years ago about the time the City had a meeting about a possible trail in the area. That petition was submitted to Hennepin County. That was not a pleasant experience. When coming from Chanhassen he thought a driver feedback sign should be located near the Geissinger property. He noted there are a lot of children living in the area now and people are concerned about their safety because of speeding. Elizabeth Reid, 6115 Riviera Lane, noted that she is speaking up about this as a school bus driver. She explained that she has observed drivers tend to slow down when they see a speed display sign but they increase their speed once they pass the sign. She does make multiple bus stops along Mill Street and Powers Boulevard. She does have some students who have to cross the roadway. She is surprised that some of the school children have not been hit by a vehicle. Drivers pass the bus or hit their brakes hard when they see the bus. She hopes something can be done to slow the traffic down. Andrea Lang, 5960 Mill Street, noted she and her family have lived in their home for ten years. She stated she and her husband have three little children. She does not let her children play in their front yard because of safety concerns. The speeding issue impacts their quality of life. She has never met her neighbor that lives across Mill Street from her because of speeding. Her mailbox is located across the street so she does not allow her children to get the mail. She does not let her children bike to Excelsior without her. She has seen school groups from the Catholic Church school walking along Mill Street and that makes her nervous. She asked Shorewood to help push the reduction in speeding. She noted that during the Fourth of July event in Excelsior people park their vehicles in their neighborhood and beyond. Glen Geissinger, 6140 Mill Street, explained his property is the third one north of the Hennepin/Carver County line. He has lived there for 29 years. By the time southbound drivers reach his property they are traveling at speeds of 50 to 60 mph. He noted his daughter and 2.5 year old granddaughter are living with them. His explained their kitchen window faces Mill Street and they see speeding vehicles all of the time. Drivers ignore the speed limit going in both directions. He recommended the new driver feedback signs on the northbound side of the roadway should be located near the county line. When drivers come over the hill going south they are speeding. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 24, 2017 Page 14 of 17 Siakel moved, Johnson seconded, authorizing the expenditure of $6750 out of the Roadway Capital Improvement Program for the purchase of two driver feedback signs and directing staff to determine the best location for the signs. Motion passed 4/0. Mayor Zerby stated continued speed enforcement is another step in reducing speed. He encouraged the residents living along Mill Street to tell the City of Excelsior that they would like a Mil Street tail segment to come to fruition. Someone in the audience thanked the SLMPD for increased enforcement recently. Discussion returned to Item 9.A on the agenda. D. Approve Change Order No. 3 – 2016 Trunk Watermain Improvements City Project 16-04 Engineer Hornby stated staff and the contractor have been discussion the additional work done last fall on the 2016 Trunk Watermain Improvements. The one of the remaining items were tied to the correction of the subgrade late in the year which involved excavation, geotextile fabric and additional stabilizing aggregate. The goal was to get that road paved so Public Works did not have to plow on an aggregate surface. For the work in February, there was a Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) permit approved with the condition that additional concrete jersey barriers and impact actuators be added. The negotiated amount for Change Order 3 is $22,931.11. That increases the contract amount to $1,154,874.60 (including the increases for the two previous Change Orders). The three Change Orders combined increase the contract by approximately 4.7 percent which is within contingency expectations for similar projects. Hornby noted staff recommends Council approve Change Order 3. Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 17-035, “A Resolution Approving Change Order 3 for the 2016 Trunk Watermain Extension Project, City Project 16- 04.” Motion passed 4/0. E. Approve Work Order NO. 4 – Smithtown Road Sidewalk East Extension, City Project 14-10 Engineer Hornby explained in preparation for closing out the Smithtown Road Sidewalk East Extension Project, City Project 14-11, there was some negotiation about the cost of some changes and who was responsible for paying for them. The items submitted for review by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) included the following.  Remobilization for sidewalk construction that was delayed by the utility pole relocation.  Water service repair unrelated to the contractor’s work.  Adding some watertight connections to storm drainage structures due to proximity to watermain (the watermain was closer than the records indicated; there was a bend in the main).  Valley gutter intersection modification at the west entrance to the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) development and a driveway curb modification were added. There were two driveways to one parcel. One of them was curbed through because it appeared to be abandoned but it was not.  Concrete walk construction due to utility pole relocation delays. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 24, 2017 Page 15 of 17 The total negotiated cost for Change Order 4 is $18,133.70. That increases the contract amount to $880,202.28 (including the increases for the three previous Change Orders). The cost for all four Work Orders combined has increased the contract by approximately 14 percent. Hornby noted staff recommends Council approve Work Order 4. The Work Order has been reviewed and approved by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for State funding. Mayor Zerby asked for more information on the valley gutter change for am amount of $6,363.41. Engineer Hornby explained there was some rework done with the MCC project and there was some curb that had to come out and be replaced with a driveway. He thought the resident did not think the valley gutter was put in the correct place. He was not sure that was correct but some modifications were made to accommodate the MCC. The resident concern was related to the driveway. Mayor Zerby if where the funding will come from. Engineer Hornby stated out of the funding for the sidewalk extension. Councilmember Siakel stated after the Change Order is approved she asked if the project will be done. Engineer Hornby stated the next thing that would happen is Council would be asked to authorize the final payment to the contractor. Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 17-036, “A Resolution Approving Work Order 4 for the Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project, City Project 14- 10.” Motion passed 4/0. 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Staff and Volunteer Appreciation Event Administrator Lerud stated all staff prefers to have the staff and volunteer appreciation event on the afternoon of Friday August 4. They also expressed interest in doing the same thing as in 2016. Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, approving the 2017 staff and volunteer appreciation event and setting the date for August 4, 2017. Motion passed 4/0. B. Bond Refunding Administrator Lerud stated on March 20, 2017, the Shorewood Economic Development Authority (EDA) Board adopted a trigger resolution to start the process for refunding the Public Project Lease Revenue Bond, Series 2008A and authorized David Drown to either privately negotiate a sale or do a public sale. The City has an offer for a private sale. He asked Mr. Drown to provide the details on that. Mr. Drown explained there is about $920,000 of that debt outstanding. It carries an interest rate averaging about 4.6 percent; that is a little high by today’s standards. He has worked through a broker who found a single bank in South Carolina who wanted to buy the underlying paper for this transaction. That eliminated the need for a rating and it introduced a lot of flexibility for repayment. It is a couple thousand dollars close to what a full blown transaction would be. The bank proposed an interest rate of 2.7 percent. Over time the transaction means the payments over the remaining 10 years will be reduced by about $94,000. He noted he thought the EDA has approved what was proposed. It does require Council action. If it is approved it will start a clock running and the old debt will be paid off in about 30 days. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 24, 2017 Page 16 of 17 Administrator Lerud clarified the EDA will meet after this meeting. Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 17-037, “A Resolution Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of Amendments to a Ground Lease and Lease-Purchase Agreement, and Approving and Authorizing the Issuance of Public Project Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A (the Bonds) and Related Documents.” Motion passed 3/0/1 with Johnson abstaining. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff Other Director Brown explained the City a resident who lives in the area removed the portion of the Skate Park equipment they wanted. Unfortunately, it was a lot less than what staff thought they were going to take. Public Works will remove the remainder of the equipment in the near future. He noted the contractor had indicated the East Water Tower would be washed on April 19. Due to weather that did not happen. The contractor has made a soft commitment that it will be washed on April 28, but he does not have a lot of confidence that will happen. He explained staff held a pre-construction conference the previous week with EH Renner and Sons for the removal, inspection, repair and reinstallation of the Boulder Bridge Submersible Well. Water Capital Improvement Program (CIP) also includes the replacement of the controls for the Well; they are quite old. Staff is trying to determine if there would be savings by doing the two projects together. He then explained that about 1.5 weeks ago there was a sanitary sewer backup on Edgewood Road, Grant Lorenz Road and a portion of Birch Bluff Road. Three residences were impacted by that; the impact was minor in nature. Public Works crews responded quickly and pulled up the obstruction with a machine. Someone had disposed of a very large mop head down the sewer main. The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) pushed to have that main televised by an independent because of the size of the area. Hydro Clean just completed that work and reported that the pipes were in very good shape and the backup was caused solely by the mop head. Staff continues to work with the LMC on that. Brown went on to explain staff set up a pumping station near Beverly Drive and Cajed Lane to pump out a back yard because of a private clay tile system along Cajed Lane was causing flooding. The City hired a contractor that has a special jet machine that is good for clay tile to try and clear the tile system of whatever obstruction was there. That same contractor had been used to clear the system about 5 years ago. That time tree roots were found to be causing problems. The contractor cleared roots with a root cutter. This time that contractor was able to jet about 400 feet. The contactor found some obstruction but was not sure what it was. Some of the water flows through the tile line and on to a wetland system along Smithtown Road. The rest is backing up impacting properties. The City may be forced to look at some type of improvement to drain the properties. After discussing the issue with Engineer Hornby they came to the conclusion that a special taxing district may have to be created so that the City can assess some type of stormwater management improvement. Engineer Hornby stated the watermain extension project on Chaska Road started on April 21. Watermain started to go in earlier in the day. The contractor plans to be down to the south end with watermain this week and to have the storm sewer finished in another week. The installation of curb and gutter will follow that. A couple of utility poles have to be moved for the storm sewer. Xcel Energy is schedule to move the CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 24, 2017 Page 17 of 17 poles the week of May 1. The weather may cause contractor delays. The contractor wants to complete the project by the end of May. B. Mayor and City Council Councilmember Labadie stated she attended a South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Coordinating Committee meeting in place of Mayor Zerby on April 18. The SLMPD has two open positions; one full time and one part time. 12. ADJOURN Johnson moved, Labadie seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of April 24, 2017, at 9:27 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk #3A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Verified Claims Meeting Date: May 8, 2017 Prepared by: Michelle Nguyen, Senior Accountant Greg Lerud, City Administrator Attachments: Claims lists Policy Consideration: Should the attached claims against the City of Shorewood be paid? Background: Claims for council authorization. 63572 - 63613 & ACH 249,147.91 Total Claims $249,147.91 We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending April 30, 2017. Financial or Budget Considerations: These expenditures are reasonable and necessary to provide services to our residents an budgeted and available for these purposes. Options: The City Council is may accept the staff recommendation to pay these claims or may r expenditure it deems not in the best interest of the city. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the claims list as presented. Next Steps and Timelines: Checks will be distributed following approval. #$% &'' ()*"+,- ,./-,&0"12& -  !"=0>/%0 ?$-@A!BBBBCDBEDFBCG"H"#1HBEBCFBCG 3456"78"9:71;<77+  !"#$ %&'()'&*"#% !"+(',*"#% !")'-(*."*! 8I+"CBC(0 $'"8/0J CBCHBBHCBCBHBBBB"BDBB"KGLCFMDEM3N9:"NI+"4IO;95=;I59 CBCHCPHQCBCHBBBB"CBLKPGDGE"BDBB8**H54=;"1;(*N1 CBCHCPHQCBPHBBBB"PKFDMK"BDBB#N15H54=; CBCHCPHQCFCHBBBB"GRGDME"BDBB#;1N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; CBCHCPHQCFFHBBBB"MEGDBC"BDBB843N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; CBCHCPHQCPCHBBBB"CLFKFDCF"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I91NI3;"H"3456 CBCHCPHQCECHBBBB"RKDCG"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9N547I CBCHCEHQCBCHBBBB"CKLMCMDGG"BDBB8**H54=;"1;(*N1 CBCHCEHQCFCHBBBB"RKCDCE"BDBB#;1N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; CBCHCEHQCFFHBBBB"CLFFMDMF"BDBB843N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; CBCHCEHQCPCHBBBB"CLKBEDQQ"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I91NI3;"H"3456 CBCHCEHQCECHBBBB"MPDGG"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9N547I CBCHCMHQCBCHBBBB"ELRPKDQF"BDBB8**H54=;"1;(*N1 CBCHCMHQCFCHBBBB"CFFDCM"BDBB#;1N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; CBCHCMHQCFFHBBBB"QKGDFG"BDBB843N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; CBCHCMHQCPCHBBBB"RBQDEK"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I91NI3;"H"3456 CBCHCMHQCECHBBBB"QBDBG"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9N547I CBCHFQHQCBCHBBBB"QLCEPDPK"BDBB8**H54=;"1;(*N1 CBCHFQHQCFCHBBBB"FREDBG"BDBB#;1N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; CBCHFQHQCFFHBBBB"FKRDQG"BDBB843N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; CBCHFQHQCPCHBBBB"ECEDBB"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I91NI3;"H"3456 CBCHFQHQCECHBBBB"FQDRP"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9N547I CBCHPFHQCBCHBBBB"RLRQCDMK"BDBB8**H54=;"1;(*N1 CBCHPFHQCBEHBBBB"KGKDFF"BDBB951;;5"#N(;1"#N6 CBCHPFHQCFCHBBBB"GRKDPP"BDBB#;1N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; CBCHPFHQCFFHBBBB"GMGDRG"BDBB843N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; CBCHPFHQCPCHBBBB"CLRCQDEG"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I91NI3;"H"3456 CBCHPFHQCECHBBBB"KCFDFK"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9N547I CBCHPPHQCBCHBBBB"FKDFC"BDBB8**H54=;"1;(*N1 CBCHPPHQCFCHBBBB"CDRG"BDBB#;1N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; CBCHPPHQCFFHBBBB"CDMB"BDBB843N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; CBCHPPHQCECHBBBB"BDPG"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9N547I CBCHEFHQCBCHBBBB"FLEPEDPE"BDBB8**H54=;"1;(*N1 CBCHEFHQCFCHBBBB"CRBDCE"BDBB#;1N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; #1"H"()*"+,- ,./-,&0"12& -"TBE)BC)FBCG"H""P!FG"#=U#$>"C  !"#$ %&'()'&*"#% !"+(',*"#% !")'-(*."*! CBCHEFHQCFFHBBBB"FFEDPK"BDBB843N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; CBCHEFHQCPCHBBBB"MREDQR"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I91NI3;"H"3456 CBCHEFHQCECHBBBB"CCQDBQ"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9N547I CBCHEPHQCBCHBBBB"GRPDQM"BDBB8**H54=;"1;(*N1 CBCHEPHQCFCHBBBB"ERDEB"BDBB#;1N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; CBCHEPHQCFFHBBBB"KFDPE"BDBB843N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; CBCHEPHQCPCHBBBB"FEDMG"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I91NI3;"H"3456 CBCHEPHQCECHBBBB"FGDPR"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9N547I #56789:;<:#56789:;<: /0$)#1"234 8I+"FBC9&/-AA& "30- FBCHBBHCBCBHBBBB"BDBB"FLFREDPP3N9:"NI+"4IO;95=;I59 FBCHBBHQCBCHBBBB"CLPKEDCR"BDBB8**H54=;"1;(*N1 FBCHBBHQCBFHBBBB"CKPDMB"BDBB7O;154=; FBCHBBHQCBPHBBBB"QGFDEB"BDBB#N15H54=; FBCHBBHQCFCHBBBB"CBFDQB"BDBB#;1N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; FBCHBBHQCFFHBBBB"CPGDGF"BDBB843N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; FBCHBBHQCECHBBBB"EPDGF"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9N547I #979=<;>>#979=<;>> /0$)#1"234 8I+"KBC<$- "-,',-% KBCHBBHCBCBHBBBB"BDBB"RLQFGDRC3N9:"NI+"4IO;95=;I59 KBCHBBHQCBCHBBBB"GLBGMDPK"BDBB8**H54=;"1;(*N1 KBCHBBHQCBFHBBBB"FFMDQC"BDBB7O;154=; KBCHBBHQCBEHBBBB"CECDQE"BDBB<N5;1"#N(;1"#N6 KBCHBBHQCFCHBBBB"ECKDQR"BDBB#;1N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; KBCHBBHQCFFHBBBB"ECCDPG"BDBB843N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; KBCHBBHQCPCHBBBB"GREDME"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I91NI3;"H"3456 KBCHBBHQCECHBBBB"CQEDRM"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9N547I #=7?96;=8#=7?96;=8 /0$)#1"234 8I+"KCC9$0,-$ %"9V "-,',-% KCCHBBHCBCBHBBBB"BDBB"GLFFMDGF3N9:"NI+"4IO;95=;I59 KCCHBBHQCBCHBBBB"ELQCFDCR"BDBB8**H54=;"1;(*N1 KCCHBBHQCBEHBBBB"CECDQE"BDBB9;<;1"#N(;1"#N6 KCCHBBHQCFCHBBBB"PGQDPG"BDBB#;1N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; KCCHBBHQCFFHBBBB"PRKDCC"BDBB843N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; KCCHBBHQCPCHBBBB"GREDME"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I91NI3;"H"3456 KCCHBBHQCECHBBBB"RMDGE"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9N547I #6799:;69#6799:;69 /0$)#1"234 #1"H"()*"+,- ,./-,&0"12& -"TBE)BC)FBCG"H""P!FG"#=U#$>"F  !"#$ %&'()'&*"#% !"+(',*"#% !")'-(*."*! 8I+"KFC1@%@',0>"-,',-% KFCHBBHCBCBHBBBB"BDBB"PFGDMR3N9:"NI+"4IO;95=;I59 KFCHBBHQCBCHBBBB"FFBDMR"BDBB8**H54=;"1;(*N1 KFCHBBHQCFCHBBBB"CKDEE"BDBB#;1N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; KFCHBBHQCFFHBBBB"CGDPM"BDBB843N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; KFCHBBHQCPCHBBBB"GCDMC"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I91NI3;"H"3456 KFCHBBHQCECHBBBB"CDFK"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9N547I #>96;:=#>96;:= /0$)#1"234 8I+"KPC9-& W"<$- "-,',-% KPCHBBHCBCBHBBBB"BDBB"QLQPQDCB3N9:"NI+"4IO;95=;I59 KPCHBBHQCBCHBBBB"PLEPEDEM"BDBB8**H54=;"1;(*N1 KPCHBBHQCBFHBBBB"CCPDER"BDBB7O;154=; KPCHBBHQCFCHBBBB"FPBDMF"BDBB#;1N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; KPCHBBHQCFFHBBBB"FEKDRK"BDBB843N"37I514?"H"3456"9:N1; KPCHBBHQCPCHBBBB"FEEDCB"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I91NI3;"H"3456 KPCHBBHQCECHBBBB"QFDBE"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9N547I #?7?>?;8@#?7?>?;8@ /0$)#1"234 8I+"GBB#$% &''"3'$ ,0>"8/0J GBBHBBHCBCBHBBBB"RBLMQFDEP"BDBB3N9:"NI+"4IO;95=;I59 GBBHBBHFCGBHBBBB"BDBB"QMLREPDRF(1799"#N617**"3*;N14I( GBBHBBHFCGCHBBBB"BDBB"RLREFDKR:;N*5:"4I91NI3;"#N6N?*; GBBHBBHFCGFHBBBB"BDBB"ELPMKDQC8;+;1N*"<45::7*+4I("#N6N?*; GBBHBBHFCGPHBBBB"BDBB"FLPPMDFC95N5;"<45::7*+4I("#N6N?*; GBBHBBHFCGQHBBBB"BDBB"CBLQPRDCM843N)=;+43N1;"5NX"#N6N?*; GBBHBBHFCGEHBBBB"BDBB"MLPPQDPG#;1N"<45::7*+4I("#N6N?*; GBBHBBHFCGKHBBBB"BDBB"FLPFRDEF+;8;11;+"37=#;I9N547I GBBHBBHFCGGHBBBB"BDBB"CLPQBDGK<71S;19"37=#;I9N547I GBBHBBHFCMBHBBBB"BDBB"EFKDCK*48;"4I91NI3; GBBHBBHFCMCHBBBB"BDBB"EDPQ+49N?4*456"4I91NI3; GBBHBBHFCMFHBBBB"BDBB"FMBDFBI47I"+;9 GBBHBBHFCMPHBBBB"BDBB"REEDGG:;N*5:"9NO4I(9"N337I5 #=@7:?9;<>#=@7:?9;<> /0$)#1"234 A'.("1"234 #8:875:<;@5#8:875:<;@5 #1"H"()*"+,- ,./-,&0"12& -"TBE)BC)FBCG"H""P!FG"#=U#$>"P  !"#$%&'&()* +,*-$.*"&/) 0#*123!4 '*! %1/!"*526789:896;<$=$$>2??3  !"#$%&' !"()*+%,$-* ./011213"4"5)67,-8"9:;;:)%"<"=': :)">:-"?*%"+ ,$-*" $:?@<96789:896;< A!B C/!*$A"*D$.&"*C/!*$A"*D$.*#1/E"/!C/!*$A"*D$ !" 6789:896;<G*H !5$+,*-:6;=66=96;6=6666$9?;F@@ 6789:896;<G*H !5$+,*-:;;=66=96;6=6666$9<6F;7 6789:896;<G*H !5$+,*-:9;=66=96;6=6666$;9IF:> 6789:896;<G*H !5$+,*-:?;=66=96;6=6666$;;:F@< A!B$$J"&)$$<7:F>@ $:?@<9$J"&)2$<7:F>@ $<7:F>@ ./011213"4"5)67,-8"9:;;:)%"<"=': :)"=,*);@ %=+,*-$.*"&/)$K789:896;<$=$$>2??$3L%&4*$; #3B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item REGULAR Title / Subject: Approve Agreement between SLMPD and City of Excelsior for summer dock and park patrol services Meeting Date: May 8, 2017 Prepared by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator Reviewed by: Attachments: Memo from Chief Meehan & 2017 Park and Dock Patrol Services Proposal Background: Each year, the City of Excelsior enters into an agreement with the SLMPD for dock and park patrol services. The Joint Powers Agreement allows a member community to contract with the SLMPD for additional services as long as these services do not use existing SLMPD staff. All costs are the responsibility of the contracting city and the other member cities must approve the agreement. Financial or Budget Considerations: There are no financial considerations. Options: Approve the agreement between Excelsior and the SLMPD; deny approval; or request additional information. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends Council approve the agreement between Excelsior and the SLMPD for the 2017 summer dock and park patrol services. Next Steps and Timeline: Staff will notify the SLMPD and the City of Excelsior of the approval. 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: Resolution 17-039; Approving City Data Practices Policies Meeting Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 Prepared by: Sandie Thone, City Clerk Reviewed by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator Attachments: Resolution Policy Consideration: Approval of Data Practices Policies as required by MN State Statutes Section §13.025 and Section §13.03 Background: Minnesota State Statutes, sections 13.025, subdivisions 2 and 3, require government entities to prepare written policies that relate to public access to government data, and rights of subjects of data and Minnesota State Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2 requires entities to establish procedures that data requests are complied with appropriately and promptly. Minnesota State Statute §13.025, subdivision 2, specifically requires that the Data Practices Responsible Authority shall prepare a written data access policy and update it no later than August 1 of each year, and at any other time as necessary to reflect changes in personnel, procedures, or other circumstances that impact the public’s ability to access data. The attached policies for the City of Shorewood: Data Practices Policy for Data Subjects and Data Practices Policy for Members of the Public reflect the most current and relevant information and have been updated to include the most recent changes in personnel and appointments. Approval of these policies will satisfy the government entity annual update obligations and requirements for the year 2017 pursuant to MN state law. Financial or Budget Considerations: None Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff respectfully recommends the city council approve the City of Shorewood Data Practices Policy for Data Subjects and Data Practices Policy for Members of the Public satisfying the government entity annual update obligations and requirements on or before August 1 for the year 2017 pursuant to MN state law. Motion, second and simple majority vote required. Connection to Vision / Mission: Consistency in providing quality public service. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 17-039 APPROVING 2017 DATA PRACTICES POLICIES WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statutes, sections 13.025, subdivisions 2 and 3, require government entities to prepare written policies that relate to public access to government data, and rights of subjects of data and Minnesota State Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2 requires entities to establish procedures that data requests are complied with appropriately and promptly; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute §13.025, subdivision 2, specifically requires that the Data Practices Responsible Authority shall prepare a written data access policy and update it no later than August 1 of each year, and at any other time as necessary to reflect changes in personnel, procedures, or other circumstances that impact the public’s ability to access data; and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood and the Responsible Authority have successfully created and updated the following policies: Data Practices Policy for Data Subjects and Data Practices Policy for Members of the Public which reflect the most current and relevant information and have been updated to include the most recent changes in personnel and appointments; and WHEREAS, approval of these policies will satisfy the government entity annual update obligations and requirements for the year 2017 pursuant to MN state law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, the City of Shorewood Data Practices Policy for Data Subjects and Data Practices Policy for Members of the Public are approved. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 8th day of May, 2017. _______________________________ ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor _________________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk Data Practices Policy for Data Subjects City of Shorewood Hennepin County, Minnesota City of Shorewood, Dated 5/8/2017 Policy and procedures required by Minnesota Statutes, 1 sections 13.025 and 13.03 (2016) Data about you The Government Data Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13) says that data subjects have certain rights related to a government entity collecting, creating, and keeping government data about them. You are the subject of data when you can be identified from the data. Government data is a term that means all recorded information a government entity has, including paper, email, flash drives, CDs, DVDs, photographs, etc. Classification of data about you The Government Data Practices Act presumes that all government data are public unless a state or federal law says that the data are not public. Data about you are classified by state law as public, private, or confidential. See below for some examples. Public data We must give public data to anyone who asks. It does not matter who is asking for the data or why the person wants the data. The following is an example of public data about you: Example: John Smith, 5000 Smith Dr, Smithtown, MN 55000; License applicant for On-Sale Liquor License for Smithtown Liquors Private data We cannot give private data to the general public, but you can have access to private data when the data are about you. We can share your private data with you, with someone who has your permission, with our government entity staff who have a work assignment to see the data, and to others as permitted by law or court order. The following is an example of private data about you: Example: John Smith’s Social Security Number: 468-88-XXXX Confidential data Confidential data have the most protection. Neither the public nor you can get access even when the confidential data are about you. We can share confidential data about you with our government entity staff who have a work assignment to see the data, and to others as permitted by law or court order. We cannot give you access to confidential data. The following is an example of confidential data about you: Example: John Smith as mandated reporter of complaint regarding child abuse City of Shorewood, Dated 5/8/2017 Policy and procedures required by Minnesota Statutes, 2 sections 13.025 and 13.03 (2016) Your rights under the Government Data Practices Act The City of Shorewood must keep all government data in a way that makes it easy for you to access data about you. Also, we can collect and keep only those data about you that we need for administering and managing programs that are permitted by law. As a data subject, you have the following rights. Access to your data You have the right to look at (inspect), free of charge, public and private data that we keep about you. You also have the right to get copies of public and private data about you. The Government Data Practices Act allows us to charge for copies. You have the right to look at data, free of charge, before deciding to request copies. Also, if you ask, we will tell you whether we keep data about you and whether the data are public, private, or confidential. As a parent, you have the right to look at and get copies of public and private data about your minor children (under the age of 18). As a legally appointed guardian, you have the right to look at and get copies of public and private data about an individual for whom you are appointed guardian. Minors have the right to ask this government entity not to give data about them to their parent or guardian. If you are a minor, we will tell you that you have this right. We may ask you to put your request in writing and to include the reasons that we should deny your parents access to the data. We will make the final decision about your request based on your best interests. Minors do not have this right if the data in question are educational data maintained by an educational agency or institution. When we collect data from you When we ask you to provide data about yourself that are not public, we must give you a notice. The notice is sometimes called a Tennessen warning. The notice controls what we do with the data that we collect from you. Usually, we can use and release the data only in the ways described in the notice. We will ask for your written permission if we need to use or release private data about you in a different way, or if you ask us to release the data to another person. This permission is called informed consent. If you want us to release data to another person, you must use the consent form we provide. Protecting your data The Government Data Practices Act requires us to protect your data. We have established appropriate safeguards to ensure that your data are safe. In the unfortunate event that we determine a security breach has occurred and an unauthorized person has gained access to your data, we will notify you as required by law. City of Shorewood, Dated 5/8/2017 Policy and procedures required by Minnesota Statutes, 3 sections 13.025 and 13.03 (2016) When your data are inaccurate and/or incomplete You have the right to challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of public and private data about you. You also have the right to appeal our decision. If you are a minor, your parent or guardian has the right to challenge data about you. How to make a request for your data You can look at data, or request copies of data that the City of Shorewood keeps about you, your minor children, or an individual for whom you have been appointed legal guardian. Make your request for data to the appropriate individual listed in the Data Practices Contacts on page 6. We prefer you use the data request from on Page 8 for all data requests. If you choose not to use the data request form, your request should include:  You are making a request, under the Government Data Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13), as a data subject, for data about you.  Whether you would like to inspect the data, have copies of the data, or both.  A clear description of the data you would like to inspect or have copied.  Identifying information that proves you are the data subject, or data subject’s parent/guardian. The City of Shorewood requires proof of your identity before we can respond to your request for data. If you are requesting data about your minor child, you must show proof that you are the minor’s parent. If you are a guardian, you must show legal documentation of your guardianship. Please see the Standards for Verifying Identity located on page 9. How we respond to a data request Once you make your request, we will work to process your request.  If it is not clear what data you are requesting, we will ask you for clarification. If we do not have the data, we will notify you in writing within 10 business days.  If we have the data, but the data are confidential or private data that are not about you, we will notify you within 10 business days and state which specific law says you cannot access the data.  If we have the data, and the data are public or private data about you, we will respond to your request within 10 business days, by doing one of the following: Arrange a date, time, and place to inspect data, for free, if your request is to look at the o data, or Provide you with copies of the data within 10 business days. You may choose to pick up o your copies, or we will mail or fax them to you. We will provide electronic copies (such as email or CD-ROM) upon request if we keep the data in electronic format. Information about copy charges is on page 7. City of Shorewood, Dated 5/8/2017 Policy and procedures required by Minnesota Statutes, 4 sections 13.025 and 13.03 (2016) We will provide notice to you about our requirement to prepay for copies. After we have provided you with access to data about you, we do not have to show you the data again for 6 months unless there is a dispute or we collect or create new data about you. If you do not understand some of the data (technical terminology, abbreviations, or acronyms), please let us know. We will give you an explanation if you ask. The Government Data Practices Act does not require us to create or collect new data in response to a data request if we do not already have the data, or to provide data in a specific form or arrangement if we do not keep the data in that form or arrangement (for example, if the data you request are on paper only, we are not required to create electronic documents to respond to your request). If we agree to create data in response to your request, we will work with you on the details of your request, including cost and response time. In addition, we are not required under the Government Data Practices Act to respond to questions that are not specific requests for data. City of Shorewood, Dated 5/8/2017 Policy and procedures required by Minnesota Statutes, 5 sections 13.025 and 13.03 (2016) Data Practices Contacts Responsible Authority Name: Sandie Thone, City Clerk Address: City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone number/fax number/email address: Phone: 952-960-7900, Fax: 952-474-0128, Email: sthone@ci.shorewood.mn.us Data Practices Compliance Official Name: Sandie Thone, City Clerk Address: City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone number/fax number/email address: Phone: 952-960-7900, Fax: 952-474-0128, Email: sthone@ci.shorewood.mn.us Data Practices Designee(s) 1)Name: Twila Grout, Administrative Assistant Address: City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone number/fax number/email address: Phone: 952-960-7900, Fax: 952-474-0128, Email: tgrout@ci.shorewood.mn.us 2)Name: Brenda Pricco, Administrative Assistant Address: City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone number/fax number/email address: Phone: 952-960-7900, Fax: 952-474-0128, Email: bpricco@ci.shorewood.mn.us City of Shorewood, Dated 5/8/2017 Policy and procedures required by Minnesota Statutes, 6 sections 13.025 and 13.03 (2016) Copy Costs – Data Subjects The City of Shorewood charges data subjects for copies of government data. These charges are authorized under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3. You must pay for the copies before we will give them to you. Actual cost of making the copies In determining the actual cost of making copies, we factor in employee time, the cost of the materials onto which we are copying the data (paper, flash drive, CD, DVD, etc.), and mailing costs (if any). If your request is for copies of data that we cannot reproduce ourselves, such as photographs, we will charge you the actual cost we must pay an outside vendor for the copies. City of Shorewood, Dated 5/8/2017 Policy and procedures required by Minnesota Statutes, 7 sections 13.025 and 13.03 (2016) Data Request Form – Data Subjects To request data as a data subject, you must show a valid state ID, such as a driver’s license, military ID, or passport as proof of identity. Contact information Data subject name: Parent/Guardian name (if applicable): Address: Phone number/email address: Staff verification Request date: Identification provided: I am requesting access to data in the following way:  Inspection  Copies  Both inspection and copies We will respond to your request within 10 business days. Note: Inspection is free. The City of Shorewood charges to print hard copies of data. These are the data I am requesting: Describe the data you are requesting as specifically as possible. City of Shorewood, Dated 5/8/2017 Policy and procedures required by Minnesota Statutes, 8 sections 13.025 and 13.03 (2016) Standards for Verifying Identity The following constitute proof of identity.  An adult individual must provide a valid photo ID, such as a state driver’s license o a military ID o a passport o a Minnesota ID o a Minnesota tribal ID o  A minor individual must provide a valid photo ID, such as a state driver’s license o a military ID o a passport o a Minnesota ID o a Minnesota Tribal ID o a Minnesota school ID o  The parent or guardian of a minor must provide a valid photo ID and either a certified copy of the minor’s birth certificate or o a certified copy of documents that establish the parent or guardian’s relationship to the o child, such as a court order relating to divorce, separation, custody, foster care  a foster care contract  an affidavit of parentage   The legal guardian for an individual must provide a valid photo ID and a certified copy of appropriate documentation of formal or informal appointment as guardian, such as court order(s) o valid power of attorney o Note: Individuals who do not exercise their data practices rights in person must provide either notarized or certified copies of the documents that are required or an affidavit of ID. City of Shorewood, Dated 5/8/2017 Policy and procedures required by Minnesota Statutes, 9 sections 13.025 and 13.03 (2016) Notice of Adoption of Model Policies Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025, subdivisions 2 and 3, require government entities to prepare written policies that relate to public access to government data, and rights of subjects of data and Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, requires entities to establish procedures so that data requests are complied with appropriately and promptly. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.073, subd. 6, requires the Commissioner of Administration to prepare model policies and procedures to help government entities comply with those requirements. Entities that choose to adopt the Commissioner’s model policies must notify the Commissioner. Please use the following statement to notify the Commissioner if you choose to adopt the model policies and procedures.* Notice to Commissioner of Administration: Adoption of Model Policies The City of Shorewood has adopted the Commissioner’s Model Policy for the Public and Model Policy for Data Subjects. This notice to the Commissioner satisfies the City of Shorewood’s obligation under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.073, subdivision 6. Sandie Thone City Clerk and Data Practices Responsible Authority May 8, 2017 *Government entities may submit this notification by mail or email: Commissioner of Administration c/o Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) 201 Administration Building 50 Sherburne Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 info.ipad@state.mn.us City of Shorewood, Dated 5/8/2017 Policy and procedures required by Minnesota Statutes, 10 sections 13.025 and 13.03 (2016) Data Practices Policy for Members of the Public City of Shorewood Hennepin County, Minnesota City of Shorewood, Dated 5/8/2017 Policy and procedures required by Minnesota Statutes, 1 sections 13.025 and 13.03 Right to access public data The Government Data Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13) presumes that all government data are public unless a state or federal law says the data are not public. Government data is a term that means all recorded information a government entity has, including paper, email, flash drives, CDs, DVDs, photographs, etc. The Government Data Practices Act also provides that this government entity must keep all government data in a way that makes it easy for you, as a member of the public, to access public data. You have the right to look at (inspect), free of charge, all public data that we keep. You also have the right to get copies of public data. The Government Data Practices Act allows us to charge for copies. You have the right to look at data, free of charge, before deciding to request copies. How to make a data request You can look at data, or request copies of data that this government entity keeps. Make your written request for data to the appropriate individual listed in the Data Practices Contacts on page 4. You may make your request via email, fax, mail, or in person using the form on page 6. If you choose not use to use the data request form, your request should include:  You are making a request for public data under the Government Data Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13).  Whether you would like to inspect the data, have copies of the data, or both.  A clear description of the data you would like to inspect or have copied. This government entity cannot require you, as a member of the public, to identify yourself or explain the reason for your data request. However, depending on how you want us to process your request (if, for example, you want us to mail you copies of data), we may need some information about you. If you choose not to give us any identifying information, we will provide you with contact information so you may check on the status of your request. In addition, please keep in mind that if we do not understand your request and have no way to contact you, we will not be able to begin processing your request. How we respond to a data request Upon receiving your request, we will work to process it.  If it is not clear what data you are requesting, we will ask you for clarification.  If we do not have the data, we will notify you in writing within 10 business days.  If we have the data, but the data are not public, we will notify you as soon as reasonably possible and state which specific law says the data are not public.  If we have the data, and the data are public, we will respond to your request appropriately and promptly, within a reasonable amount of time by doing one of the following: Arrange a date, time, and place to inspect data, for free, if your request is to look at the o data, or City of Shorewood, Dated 5/8/2017 Policy and procedures required by Minnesota Statutes, 2 sections 13.025 and 13.03 Provide you with copies of the data as soon as reasonably possible. You may choose to o pick up your copies, or we will mail or fax them to you. We will provide electronic copies (such as email or CD-ROM) upon request if we keep the data in electronic format. Information about copy charges is on page 5. We will provide notice to you about our requirement to prepay for copies. If you do not understand some of the data (technical terminology, abbreviations, or acronyms), please let us know. We will give you an explanation if you ask. The Government Data Practices Act does not require us to create or collect new data in response to a data request if we do not already have the data, or to provide data in a specific form or arrangement if we do not keep the data in that form or arrangement (for example, if the data you request are on paper only, we are not required to create electronic documents to respond to your request). If we agree to create data in response to your request, we will work with you on the details of your request, including cost and response time. In addition, we are not required under the Government Data Practices Act to respond to questions that are not specific requests for data. Requests for summary data Summary data are statistical records or reports that are prepared by removing all identifiers from private or confidential data on individuals. The preparation of summary data is not a means to gain access to private or confidential data. We will prepare summary data if you make request in writing and pre-pay for the cost of creating the data. Upon receiving your written request – you may use the data request form on page 6 – we will respond within ten business days with the data or details of when the data will be ready and how much we will charge. City of Shorewood, Dated 5/8/2017 Policy and procedures required by Minnesota Statutes, 3 sections 13.025 and 13.03 Data Practices Contacts Responsible Authority Name: Sandie Thone, City Clerk Address: City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone number/fax number/email address: Phone: 952-960-7900, Fax: 952-474-0128, Email: sthone@ci.shorewood.mn.us Data Practices Compliance Official Name: Sandie Thone, City Clerk Address: City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone number/fax number/email address: Phone: 952-960-7900, Fax: 952-474-0128, Email: sthone@ci.shorewood.mn.us Data Practices Designee(s) 1)Name: Twila Grout, Administrative Assistant Address: City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone number/fax number/email address: Phone: 952-960-7900, Fax: 952-474-0128, Email: tgrout@ci.shorewood.mn.us 2)Name: Brenda Pricco, Administrative Assistant Address: City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone number/fax number/email address: Phone: 952-960-7900, Fax: 952-474-0128, Email: bpricco@ci.shorewood.mn.us City of Shorewood, Dated 5/8/2017 Policy and procedures required by Minnesota Statutes, 4 sections 13.025 and 13.03 Copy Costs – Members of the Public This government entity charges for copies of government data. These charges are authorized under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c). For 100 or fewer paper copies – 25 cents per page 100 or fewer pages of black and white, letter or legal size paper copies cost 25¢ for a one-sided copy, or 50¢ for a two-sided copy. Most other types of copies – actual cost The charge for most other types of copies, when a charge is not set by statute or rule, is the actual cost of searching for and retrieving the data, and making the copies or electronically transmitting the data (e.g. sending the data by email). In determining the actual cost of making copies, we factor in employee time, the cost of the materials onto which we are copying the data (paper, CD, DVD, etc.), and mailing costs (if any). If your request is for copies of data that we cannot reproduce ourselves, such as photographs, we will charge you the actual cost we must pay an outside vendor for the copies. If, because of the subject matter of your request, we find it necessary for a higher-paid employee to search for and retrieve the data, we will calculate the search and retrieval portion of the copy charge at the higher salary/wage. City of Shorewood, Dated 5/8/2017 Policy and procedures required by Minnesota Statutes, 5 sections 13.025 and 13.03 Data Request Form – Members of the Public Request date: I am requesting access to data in the following way:  Inspection  Copies  Both inspection and copies Note: Inspection is free We will respond to your request as soon as reasonably possible. Contact information Name: Address/phone number/email address: Note: You do not have to provide any contact information. However, if you want us to mail/email you copies of data, we will need some type of contact information. In addition, if we do not understand your request and need to get clarification from you, without contact information we will not be able to begin processing your request until you contact us. These are the data I am requesting: Describe the data you are requesting as specifically as possible. City of Shorewood, Dated 5/8/2017 Policy and procedures required by Minnesota Statutes, 6 sections 13.025 and 13.03 Notice of Adoption of Model Policies Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025, subdivisions 2 and 3, require government entities to prepare written policies that relate to public access to government data, and rights of subjects of data and Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, requires entities to establish procedures so that data requests are complied with appropriately and promptly. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.073, subd. 6, requires the Commissioner of Administration to prepare model policies and procedures to help government entities comply with those requirements. Entities that choose to adopt the Commissioner’s model policies must notify the Commissioner. Please use the following statement to notify the Commissioner if you choose to adopt the model policies and procedures.* Notice to Commissioner of Administration: Adoption of Model Policies The City of Shorewood has adopted the Commissioner’s Model Policy for the Public and Model Policy for Data Subjects. This notice to the Commissioner satisfies the City of Shorewood’s obligation under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.073, subdivision 6. Sandie Thone City Clerk and Data Practices Responsible Authority May 8, 2017 *Government entities may submit this notification by mail or email: Commissioner of Administration c/o Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) 201 Administration Building 50 Sherburne Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 info.ipad@state.mn.us City of Shorewood, Dated 5/8/2017 Policy and procedures required by Minnesota Statutes, 7 sections 13.025 and 13.03 #8A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Minnetonka Country Club – Phase 2 Early Grading Agreement Meeting Date: 8 May 2017 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Draft Agreement Draft Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City enter into an agreement authorizing Mattamy Homes to begin work on the grading and underground utilities for Phase 2 prior to approval of the final plat for the project? Background: Mattamy Homes has requested a grading permit that would allow them to begin earthwork on Phase 2 of the MCC project in advance of having a final plat approved. Working with the City Attorney, we have modified the early grading development agreement that was used for Phase 1, whereby the developer is required to provide security sufficient to cover site restoration if it fails to obtain final plat approval per the City’s subdivision regulations. The agreement is attached for your consideration. Conditions of approval include approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and City Engineer’s approval. A resolution authorizing staff to enter into the agreement is attached for your consideration. Financial or Budget Considerations: Based on the City Engineer’s estimate of restoration costs, the developer will be required to submit a letter of credit for $157,000. Options: Approve the agreement; reject the agreement; or modify conditions of approval. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution. Next Steps and Timelines: Seasonal road restrictions have been lifted and the Developer is awaiting the Council’s approval. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA AGREEMENT REGARDING GRADING AND SITE UTILITY WORK OF PHASE TWO MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS , the applicant Mattamy Minneapolis, LLC ("Developer"), a limited liability company under the laws of the State of Delaware, owners of the property described as Minnetonka County Club ("MCC"), has applied for and received concept and development stage planned unit development ("PUD") approval of the above described property for the property designated as MCC; and WHEREAS , on 12 October 2015, the Shorewood City Council approved the concept stage PUD subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on 22 February 2016, the Shorewood City Council approved the development stage and preliminary plat subject to conditions; and WHEREAS , the applicant has requested early grading of specific portions the property within the second phase of the PUD, and the Council has approved certain work on site subject to the Developer executing this Agreement and providing security in an amount established by the City Engineer. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS: 1. Developer will commence limited grading of the site only to the extent approved by the City Engineer and as set forth in the Phase 2 Grading, Development and Erosion Control Plan, dated _______________, prepared by Carlson and McCain and on file at the Shorewood City Offices. No work will be undertaken until Developer has: A. Submitted and has approved by the City Engineer grading and erosion control plans for the site. B. Secured approvals and permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ("MCWD") for all areas where grading will not be permitted pending final resolution of wetland issues. 4823-1784-9903.1 C. Secured no further action letters from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for the contaminated soil remediation that has taken place on the site. D. Resolved drainage and erosion control issues to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. E. Hours of operation shall be limited as to those contained in the adopted City Engineering Manual. F. Haul routes for vehicles used in transport of materials shall be designated by the City Engineer. The City Engineer has discretion to change the designated haul routes in event of unforeseen circumstances. This Agreement may be terminated and all work on the site may be terminated by the City for applicant’s failure to use the designated haul routes. G. Applicant shall provide for daily street sweeping of Smithtown Road, or as deemed necessary by the City Engineer or City Public Works Supervisor. 2. Limitations. Developer will undertake such work with knowledge that not all conditions of final plat approval for Phase 2 have been satisfied. All work undertaken prior to satisfaction of all conditions of final plat approval and full compliance with City ordinances including, but not limited to, execution of Developer’s Agreement and posting of all required security, is solely at the risk of Developer. 3. Indemnification. Developer shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from any and all claims or causes of action of whatever nature related to the grading and preparation of the site as set forth in this Agreement. Said indemnity and agreement to hold the City harmless includes payment of any and all attorney’s fees, engineering fees, witness fees or any other costs and disbursements related to this Agreement, including any City fees or costs expended to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 4. Financial Security. In order to ensure compliance with this Agreement, or to assure completion or restoration of the site, Developer shall post the following securities: (a)An Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit with automatic renewal provision or cash in the amount of $157,000 in favor of the City. The Letter of Credit shall remain in place until all work set forth in this Agreement (Phase 2) as set forth on the plans referenced in 1., above has been completed and approved by the City Engineer. Additional Letters of Credit must be in place prior to any work commencing on additional Grading Phases. The Letter of Credit shall be in a form approved by the City, with an FDIC approved Bank within an office at which the Letter of Credit can be drawn within fifty (50) miles of the City. If the Letter of Credit remains in place at the time of execution of a Developer’s Agreement, the Letter of Credit, 2 4823-1784-9903.1 or a portion thereof, as determined by the City Engineer, may be extended as security for the Developer’s Agreement. (b) The Letter of Credit referenced in (a), above, shall also serve as security for purposes of repair and overlay of City street haul routes (or other roads if improperly used) damaged by vehicles and machinery involved in excavation and transportation of material to and from the subject site. (c) The Letter of Credit referenced in (a), above, shall also serve as security for purposes of reimbursing the City for any street sweeping costs and expenses not timely undertaken by applicant. In the event that applicant does not complete the daily required street sweeping the City public works may undertake the task and shall be reimbursed for their costs and expenses at established City rates. 5. Waiver. The City makes no representations that this Agreement constitutes or implies that conditions of preliminary or final plat approval have been satisfied. Dated: ___ May 2017 CITY OF SHOREWOOD Scott Zerby, Mayor Sandi Thone, City Clerk Dated: ___ 2017 MATTAMY MINNEAPOLIS, LLC By: Its: 3 4823-1784-9903.1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT REGARDING GRADING AND SITE UTILITY WORK OF PHASE 2 MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS , Mattamy Homes of Minnesota LLC has requested permission to begin grading, utility and site work for Phase 2 of the Minnetonka Country Club P.U.D. in advance of Final Plan and Final Plat approval for the project; and WHEREAS, in order to ensure that disturbed areas of the subject property will be restored in the event the final plat is not secured within the time limits imposed by the Shorewood Subdivision Code; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Shorewood City Council hereby approves and authorizes the City Administrator to execute the Agreement Regarding Grading and Site Utility Work of Phase 2 Minnetonka Country Club P.U.D. on behalf of the City. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 8th day of May 2017. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Sandie Thone, City Clerk #8B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Queen, Court and Susan – Setback Variance, Variance to Expand a Nonconforming Structure Meeting Date: 8 May 2017 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum Draft Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City grant a variance to Court and Susan Queen to construct a covered nd entry (portico) on their existing home at 27180 West 62 Street? Background: See attached Planning Director’s memorandum for detailed background on this item. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application at its 2 May meeting, at which time considerable discussion took place regarding how much of a variance should be granted to the applicants. The Commission agreed that an existing provision relative to front entry structures for older homes would allow the applicants to make reasonable use of their property, acknowledging that the Commission had spent considerable time and effort to establish that provision. It also agreed that the four-foot variance was the minimal amount necessary for the applicants to make reasonable use of their property without granting the applicants privilege that is not extended to other property owners. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend granting a variance allowing the existing nonconforming home to extend four feet farther into the front yard setback area. Financial or Budget Considerations: None. The applicant’s application fees cover the cost of processing the request. Options: Approve the variance; deny the variance; or modify the variance. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff agrees with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the request for an additional four-foot extension into the front yard of the subject property. Next Steps and Timelines: If Council is in agreement, a building permit can be issued upon receipt of construction drawings, revised to reflect the four-foot limitation. Connection to Vision / Mission: Sustainable tax base. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF HOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityball &i.shorewood.ran.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 26 April 2017 RE: Queen, Court and Susan - Setback Variance FILE NO.: 405 (17.09) BACKGROUND Court and Susan Queen own the property at 27180 West 62"d Street (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). They propose to construct a new entry portico on the front of the existing home, the location of which is shown on Exhibit B, attached. As can be seen on that exhibit, the home is quite nonconforming with respect to the required front setback for the R -1A, Single - Family Residential, zoning district in which it is located. The applicants have struggled for years with a very substandard entry stoop which, between soil and drainage conditions, has experienced structural deterioration. In addition, the small, round configuration of the existing stoop is considered somewhat hazardous relative to current Building Code standards. The proposed entry portico necessitates a variance to the R -lA, front setback requirement. The property in question contains nearly three acres, of which much of the rear portion of the property appears to be wetland. Despite the.size of the parcel, the home (which was originally built in 1910) is located very near the front property line — approximately 31 feet. The proposed portico would encroach, another six feet into the required 50 -foot front setback, a variance of 25 feet. Plans for the proposed entry are shown in Exhibits D and F. The applicants' request letter is included as Exhibit G. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Several sections of the Zoning Code are pertinent to the applicant's request. Following are highlights of those provisions and how the applicants' request complies: A. Nonconformities. The Zoning Code addresses nonconforming structures, which are defined as follows: "NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. Any structure which, on the effective date of this chapter, does not, even though lawfully established, conform to the applicable conditions if the structure were to be erected under the guidance of this, chapter. Also any structure located on a nonconforming lot." Memorandum Re: Queen Setback Variance 26 April 2017 Section 1201.03 Subd. 1. sets forth provisions regulating nonconformities, the purpose of which is found in Subd. La.: "a. Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to regulate nonconforming structures and uses and to specify those requirements, circumstances and conditions under which nonconforming structures and uses will be operated and maintained. The zoning ordinance establishes separate uses which are permitted in that district. It is necessary and consistent with the establishment of these districts that nonconforming structures and uses not be permitted to continue without restriction. Furthermore, it is the intent of this section that all nonconforming uses shall be eventually brought into conformity." While the Code is quite specific that nonconforming structures should not be extended or expanded, provisions relative to nonconforming single- family residential structures, have been somewhat relaxed to allow improvement of nonconforming homes: Section 1201.03 Subd. Li. states, in part: "i. Lawful nonconforming, single - family residential units may be expanded, provided: (1) That the expansion does not increase the nonconformity and complies with height and setback requirements of the district in which it is located;" The Queen home is situated 31 feet from the front property line —19 feet closer to the street than allowed. Previous additions to the home have been allowed at the rear of the home based on this provision. The proposed addition to the front, however, increases the nonconformity by an additional six feet. The Code was further relaxed a few years ago, providing for the upgrading of older homes: Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.b.(2) provides: " For a "detached, single - family, two - family or townhouse dwelling constructed prior to May 19, 1986: (a) A one- story, enclosed entrance may extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet. The entrance shall not exceed six feet in width. (b) A one - story, open portico may extend into, the front yard setback not more than four feet, provided: (i) The length of the portico shall not exceed 50 % of the width of the silhouette of the building, excluding eaves, as viewed from the street; and -2- Memorandum Re: Queen Setback Variance 26 April 2017 (ii) This area shall not be enclosed nor screened with mesh, glass or other similar material, except for guardrails no higher than 42 inches and at least 60% open." While the applicants' plans extend 25 feet into the required setback rather than four feet, the underlying principle of the provision may be useful in considering their variance request. B. Variance. Consideration of variances must include a determination that the ordinance creates "practical difficulties" (formerly "undue hardship ") that prevent the property owner from using his/her property in a reasonable manner. Practical difficulties includes three factors, all three of which must be met: a) reasonableness; b) circumstances are unique to the property and not caused by the landowner; and c) the variance will not alter the essential character of the area. a. The Zoning Code is reasonable in,requiring minimum setback requirements and in regulating /limiting nonconformities. Having said that, the applicants' desire to have a safe, covered entry to their home can also be considered reasonable. b. The applicant did not create the practical difficulties in this case. Drainage and soil conditions that have deteriorated their current front entry were not created by them. C. Homes on either side of the subject property appear to comply with R -1A setback requirements. It is worth noting that existing vegetation on the applicants' property and property to the east have a screening effect on the subject property, somewhat mitigating the proximity of the structure to the street. The Code goes on to state that "the variance requested shall not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied ....to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district ". In this regard the provision that allows porticos to encroach into front yards provides some guidance. The applicants' plan is consistent with the length limitation. The existing house is 73 feet long and the portico is 20 feet long — 27 percent of the total length. With respect to the depth of the portico, it is recommended that the plan be reduced to the four feet allowed by the Code. RECOMMENDATION Based on the preceding, it is recommended that a variance be considered favorably, subject to reducing the depth of the portico to four feet instead of six. This is consistent with not granting a privilege to the applicant that is not available to others. It is also consistent with the requirement that the variance be minimized to the extent necessary. Cc: Greg Lerud Tim Keane Cort and Susan Queen Mike Sharratt -3- queen variance V FA 0 a 0 00 cc m ,4 O H m `A o ) C5 0 0 0 J 0 +J ., 44 1-1 U U 4) 'p o -:z 0 14 H Cd r 4 m � it RL 14 >-- . 0 Cd ,~ 0 Cd o U 9 d 0 �s0, d .. 4 J O 44 a 0 W H 0 m cis +J W H O a m a $, O [L D•. � m n� H b m a A _ _ m N 6. m �oo►T�o�1 f A POWs a J° 1� SLUI d` s r �I N cLA Aa IJ®Rttk L t►.� �S��Z SQ 44 t 14 a� • v� aq � Q O ((_- WX _Z= '0 ._... ��4i FC. 3ZtT�1l`l� R,Z3 m - ME++� — QLP, v LD �191 _4 �y e .' ? r .F Oe Q [L m � m n� H b m r A 1� SLUI d` s r �I N cLA Aa IJ®Rttk L t►.� �S��Z SQ 44 t 14 a� • v� aq � Q O ((_- WX _Z= '0 ._... ��4i FC. 3ZtT�1l`l� R,Z3 m - ME++� — QLP, v LD �191 _4 �y e .' ? r .F Oe Q 0 0 ti r _ BI►o�►�c�5 Aga. to 3� N BIT, 4, QOUC, NVU x �oo►T�o�1 f A POWs O +3 - ti o0. �4-)� !r m m m 4J OD k C4 F. 10 xcar+� m 0: O 3 x m m O m rl OS O r1 rl N :.z = a r•+v�v�a 1� SLUI d` s r �I N cLA Aa IJ®Rttk L t►.� �S��Z SQ 44 t 14 a� • v� aq � Q O ((_- WX _Z= '0 ._... ��4i FC. 3ZtT�1l`l� R,Z3 m - ME++� — QLP, v LD �191 _4 �y e .' ? r .F Oe Q W OR c� 3 _ BI►o�►�c�5 Aga. to 3� N BIT, 4, QOUC, NVU LU (P �oo►T�o�1 f A POWs 455 a ►,u��aoU.s SuaFacE - O U�ud�t:.s FouNp oeGF. iPO� 01' �Per INIONWAF-ttT Su�J ,r -"o eASr-_VA" (;4 RFeoRD .Irr 'Ptm , (io Q-,� 1~X t�T t�1G �F SC.R,1'PT 10►.� ;• .. . The West 1 /10 of the South 1 /2•of'the Southwest 1 /4.of.the Southwest 1/4 of Section 32, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian; also the East 'I/3 of the West 3/20 of the South. 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section-32, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian. The same being part of Lot 4, Minnewashta Acres, Hennepin County, Minn., except that part, if any, lying within the East 3.34 acres of Lot 4, Minnewashta Acres, Hennepin County, Minn. r � Ali •ili�.j 9 r r a � c a o �u x K: 0 N L u—u LLI O Q UIIII II z LI � o FS I Exhibit B PROPERTYSURVEY 6 2 N D S T R E E T E. WALK PROPERTY LINE QUEEN FRESCENCE -PORCH ADDITION GONG. 6TOOP des ny Al compa . -. 01- 2-1-11 -, Exhibit C SITE PLAN — EXISTING FRONT YARD ui (j) FfROF-05EID NEW FRONT PORCH FLAN �2 SCALE- 1/0" OR 1/4"= I.-011 mmlnm� o 1 2 4 N. WALK f=ROF='EfRT'T' LINE 6 2 N D S T R E E T QUEEN RESDENCE 01-2' Cl 6's'"l FA company 2] Exhibit D SITE PLAN — PROPOSED PORTICO - - - - - -� ------ - - - - -- *EXIST. BASEMENT FDTN. ASSUMED -------------------- - - - - -- -- ------------------------------------ �i EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION A3 SCALE: 1/8" OR 1/4 "= 1' -0" h;mo OUEEN R S I ED NC de�sl -PORCH 4DpITION mp y rr FA . 01-26 -17 Exhibit E EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION *EXIST. BASEi" LENT FDTN. I I STEP FT'G� DOWN TO ASSUMED i i EXISTING FDTN. ----- - - - - -- � - - - -- ---------------- ------ LJ----- - - - - -- --- _------- J- 1 - - - -� - - - - - - - - - - rj--� EXISTING; FRQNT (STREETSIDE) ELEVATION SGALE- 1 18" OR 1/4 " =1 1' -0" sM"Mm I ." 0 1 2 4 1 OUPN RESIDENCE desl F—A4 01-26-11 Exhibit F PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION Request for Variance: Owners Court and Susan Queen 27180 West 62nd Street Shorewood, MN 55331 Applicant Sharratt Design and Co. LLC 4642 nd Street, Suite #100 Excelsior, MN 55331 Location Property located at 27180 West 62nd Street, Shorewood, MN. A single family original farmstead home and lot, which will remain as a single family home site. Legal Description: The West 1/10 of the South % of the Southwest % of the Southwest % of Section 32, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian; also East 1/3 of the West 3/20 of the South % of the Southwest % of the Southwest % of Section 32, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian. The same being part of lot 4, Minnewashta Acres, Hennepin County, MN., except that part, if any, lying within the East 3.34 acres of Lot 4, Minnewashta Acres, Hennepin County, MN. Subjects from Shorewood Zoning Ordinance Section 1201.05 Subdivision 1b This variance proposal respects all zoning and building ordinances with the exception of the 50' front yard setback. This reasonable need for variance is due to circumstances generated by the municipality allowed road improvements simultaneously combined with a new 50' front yard setback requirement for multiple lot subdivision in the past, which immediately made this home 19' non - conforming by definition. Circumstances of Site: The unique site circumstances of this site arise due to the non - conforming nature of the home placement on the lot relative to the establishment of the road placement and an accompanying front yard setback immediately causing the non - conformity to a pre- existing home. These circumstances arose long after the home was already in place. When the homestead area was subdivided and the placement of the city road on the parcel provided for the lots across the Exhibit G APPLICANTS' REQUEST LETTER street from the existing home to be mandated to be in compliance with the 50' setback requirements. However, this caused the existing property to become immediately non- conforming from that point in time. Proposal Implications: This proposal will actually provide the homeowner a functional covered safe entry to their front door with a building code compliant stair /access to the front door by eliminating the existing stoop which has become deteriorated and dysfunctional over many years. In addition, this proposal will improve the overall aesthetic value of the neighborhood as it is in keeping with the traditional design theme of the home while improving the front fagade to enhance the street side visual of the home's exterior to the neighborhood. The neighboring homes, which are generally much newer and larger than the existing property, are in no way adversely affected by this proposed necessary exterior enhancement. This variance would improve the esthetic nature of the neighborhood. This fact is supported by the homeowner's acquisition of signatures of support from the surrounding homeowners. (See attached) Section 1201.05 Subdivision 2a (1) This variance in no way will impair the supply of light and air to adjacent properties, due to the large distances between adjacent homes. (See attached aerial photo) (2) This variance will not increase congestion on the public street, as the property remains a single family home. Nor will it block any vehicular visibility of any kind. (3) This variance will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety, and in fact, improves public safety by constructing a building code compliant usable and protective access to the front door. (4) This variance will not diminish or impair established property values or be contrary to the intent of all zoning and building ordinances or the city comprehensive plan; rather, these improvements will likely improve this home's and other's property value. This variance does meet simple judgments of reasonability, the intent of the zoning ordinances, and will meet or exceed building code requirements. Section 1201.05 Subdivision 2b The special conditions and circumstances of this variance are by no means a result of the actions of the homeowner or previous homeowners. The creation of the existing non - conformity was and is completely out of the control of all previous and present homeowners of this original farmstead home and its location as related to the subsequent land and road improvements. This non - conforming condition makes any improvement to the property for usability and safety in violation. Section 1201.05 Subdivision 2 c Application for variance is justified because the circumstances which arose to cause the setback non - conformity were created long after construction of the original farmstead home and will allow use of the front porch area and is the minimum variance to allow reasonable protected access to the home's front door. Should Staff or Planning Commission or Council members have any further questions or need additional information, we encourage anyone to contact us at your convenience. Court and Susan Queen 27180 West 62nd Street Shorewood, MN 55331 Mike Sharratt Sharratt Design & Co 464 2nd Street, Suite 100 Excelsior, MN 55331 952 - 470 -9750 We, the property owners and neighbors of Court and Susan Queen of 27180 West 62nd Street, Excelsior, MN, have reviewed and support their variance application for a covered front covered porch for their home: Name: k I ` Signature: Address: i qC; inl PC4- 1014 4 � Jr- ; rf; p— Name: Signah Addres Name; ��-- Signature: Address: 61 3-,5-331 Name: Signah Addres Name: Signah: Addres Name: Signatu Addres; Name: SignatL Addres Name: Signah Addres Name: Signatc Addres Name: Signah Addres Name: '/ Signature: r Address: -_s: Name: _ Signature: Address: Name: _ Signature: Address: Name: _ Signature: Address: Name: Signature: _ Address: �rLh�� �-v^ �- 4 4,�q- / "'Y, _533_ From: Adam Cornell <acorne11826 @gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2017 6:38 AM To: Planning Subject: Support of Neighbors variance request Attention Bradley Nielsen - My name is Adam Cornell and I am the adjacent neighbor to the west of the Queen's house. The Queen's have applied for a front -yard setback variance to add a porch to the front of their house (27180 West 62nd Street). Being one of the neighbor's who would be most significantly impacted (my wife and I would be able to see the porch from our lot and we would drive past it multiple times everyday), I felt it important to inform you of my support for the variance. Please share my support as required to the rest of the individuals in the decision making process. I am unable to make a personal appearance on May 2nd, so I appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments. If you have any additional questions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Adam Cornell 27200 West 62nd St. Shorewood, MN 55331 952- 210 -5638 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. _________ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SETBACK VARIANCE TO COURT AND SUSAN QUEEN WHEREAS , Court and Susan Queen (Applicants) are the owners of real property nd located at 27180 West 62 Street, City of Shorewood, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof: and WHEREAS , the Applicants have an existing single-family dwelling, which dwelling is located approximately 31 feet from the front property line; and WHEREAS, the R-1A, Single-Family Residential zoning district in which the property is located requires a 50-foot front yard setback; and WHEREAS , the Applicants have applied for a setback variance to build a covered front entry to the home, which entry would encroach an additional six feet into the front setback area; and WHEREAS , the Applicants’ request was reviewed by the City Planner, whose recommendations are included in a memorandum, dated 26 April 2017, a copy of which is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS , after required notice a public hearing was held and the application reviewed by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on 2 May 2017, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS , the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on 8 May 2017, at which time the Planner’s memorandum and the Planning Commission’s recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the Applicant and from the City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1.The subject property is located in an R-1A, Single-Family Residential zoning district, which requires a 50-foot setback from the front lot line. 2.The existing home on the property is nonconforming, being located 31 feet from the front property line, where 50 feet is required. 3. The Applicants have experience drainage and structural issues associated with the substandard entry stoop on the front of the home. 4. The Applicants propose to construct a covered entry structure measuring 6’ X 20’ that will extend to within 25 feet of the front of the property and expand the nonconformity of the existing home. 5. The Shorewood Zoning Code provides for the construction of a covered entry extending up to four feet into a required front yard setback for older homes. CONCLUSIONS A. The Applicants have satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under the Shorewood City Code and has established practical difficulty as defined by Minnesota Statutes. B. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicants a setback variance to build an open portico, serving as a covered entry on the front of the existing home, subject to the portico extending no more than four feet closer to the front property line than the existing home. C. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of this resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 8th day of May 2017. ____________________________________ SCOTT ZERBY, MAYOR ATTEST: _____________________________________ SANDIE THONE, CITY CLERK -22- Legal Description: The West 1/10 of the South % of the Southwest % of the Southwest % of Section 32, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian; also East 1/3 of the West 3/20 of the South % of the Southwest % of the Southwest % of Section 32, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian. The same being part of lot 4, Minnewashta Acres, Hennepin County, MN., except that part, if any, lying within the East 3.34 acres of Lot 4, Minnewashta Acres, Hennepin County, MN. Exhibit A #9A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Accept Quotes and Award of Construction Contract for the Freeman Park South Parking Lot Improvements, City Project 17-12. Meeting Date: 5/8/2017 Prepared by: Paul Hornby Reviewed by: Attachments: Resolution, Quote Results Summary, Letter of Recommendation Background: The City has received comments from local residents adjacent to the Freeman Park south parking lot regarding the dust generated from the lot during the summer and fall months. After discussions with Staff and the Shorewood City Council, Staff has solicited quotes from local contractors to perform minor grading and bituminous paving of the lot to alleviate the dust concerns when the lot is in use. Quotes were requested from six local contractors. The City received four quotes for the project with the lowest responsive quote received from Wm Mueller & Sons, Inc., with the low quote of $63,854.00, compared to the Engineer’s Opinion of Cost of $71,150.00. Options: Staff has provided the following options for Council to consider for this project. 1.Approve the resolution accepting quotes and awarding the contract to the lowest responsible and responsive quote for the Freeman Park Parking Lot Improvement Project, City Project 17-12. 2.Reject all quotes for the Freeman Park Parking Lot Improvement Project, City Project 17-12. 3.Take no action on this item at this time. 4.Provide staff other direction. Recommendation / Action Requested: City staff recommends approving the Resolution Accepting Quotes and Award of Construction Contract for the Freeman Park Parking Lot Improvement Project, City Project 17-12, to Wm Mueller & Sons, Inc., for their low quote of $63,854.00. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION 17-043 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE FREEMAN PARK SOUTH PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 17-12 WHEREAS , pursuant to an invitation to provide quotes for local improvements designated as the Freeman Park South Parking Lot Improvement Project, City Project 17-12, quotes were received, opened on May 3, 2017, and tabulated according to law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Wm Mueller & Sons, Inc. is the lowest quote in compliance with the quote documents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Wm Mueller & Sons, Inc. in the name of the City of Shorewood, Project No. 17-12, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all contractors providing quotes the deposits made with their quotes, except for the deposits of the successful quote and the next two lowest quotes, which shall be retained until a contract has been signed. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCILOF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 8th day of May, 2017. ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk 477 Temperance Street|St. Paul, MN 55101|(651)286-8450 May 3, 2017 Honorable Mayor and Council Members City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re:Freeman Park Parking Lot Paving Improvements City of ShorewoodProject No. 17-12 WSB Project No.2925-39 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Quoteswere received for the above-referenced project on Wednesday,May 3, 2017, and were opened in the office of the City Engineer.Four quoteswere received.The quoteswere checked for mathematical accuracy.Please find enclosed the summaryindicating the low quoteas submitted by Wm. Mueller & Sons, Inc., Hamburg, MNin the amount of $63,854.00.The Engineer’s Estimate was $71,150.00. We recommend that the City Council consider these quotesand award a contract in the amount of $63,854.00 to Wm. Mueller & Sons, Inc. based on the results of the quotesreceived. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Paul Hornby, PE Associate Enclosures kkp Building a legacy –legacy. your Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com K:\02925-390\Admin\Construction Admin\Bid Info\2925-39 LTR Rec 050317.docx K:\02925-390\Admin\Construction Admin\Bid Info\2925-39 Bid Tab Summary 050317 #9B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Xcel Energy Agreement – Burial of Overhead Power on Chaska Road (Oppidan TIF Improvements) Meeting Date: May 8, 2017 Prepared by: Paul Hornby, City Engineer Reviewed by: Attachments: Xcel Energy Agreement Template Policy Consideration: Should the City enter into an agreement with Xcel Energy to bury the overhead power lines on Chaska Road as part of the Oppidan TIF District Improvements? Background: The City created a Tax Increment Finance (TIF) district to assist with the funding of infrastructure needed to support the Oppidan senior housing project along Chaska Road. The on-site improvements included the installation of storm sewer and the burial of the overhead powerlines adjacent to the site. Council may recall that the construction of the existing storm sewer necessitated the burial of the overhead power lines. The TIF district budget included $150,000 (engineer’s estimate) for the burial of the overhead power lines. Council previously approved payment to Xcel Energy for the preliminary design and budgeting for the burial of the overhead power lines. Xcel Energy has completed their preliminary design and has estimated the cost of their utility burial to be $117,238.52. Xcel Energy has provided a template agreement for informational purposes and will provide the completed agreement prior to the Council meeting. Staff requested the template to provide Council information on terms and conditions of the agreement. Financial or Budget Considerations: The TIF district did provide $150,000 budget for overhead power burial, estimated by Xcel Energy to be $117,238.52. Resolution 16-052 provides the City will finance costs by interfund loan to pay for the improvements and be reimbursed through the district distributions. Options: Council options for consideration of this agreement include (but are not limited to): 1.Approve the agreement and authorize the Mayor and Administrator to execute on behalf of the city. 2.Reject the agreement. 3.Provide staff other direction. 4.Take no action at this time. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends Council approve the agreement and authorize the Mayor and Administrator to execute the agreement in the estimated amount of $117,238.52. 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 RESOLUTION NO. 17 -___ CITY OF SHOREWOOD A RESOLUTION APPROVING XCEL ENERGY AGREEMENT FOR BURIAL OF OVERHEAD POWER UTILITY (OPPIDAN TIF IMPROVEMENTS) CITY PROJECT NO. 16 - 05 WHEREAS , The City of Shorewood has entered into an agreement with Xcel Energy to bury overhead power utility lines as part of the Oppidan Senior Living Development Tax Increment Financing district, on Chaska Road, and WHEREAS , The City desires to bury the existing overhead Xcel Energy power utility lines as part of the infrastructure improvements for the Oppidan Senior Living development at 6000 Chaska Road, and WHEREAS , Xcel Energy has estimated the cost to bury their power utility lines to be $117,238.52, and WHEREAS , The City has budgeted $150,000 for the burial of the overhead power lines as part of the TIF district, and WHEREAS , The City staff has reviewed the draft Agreement and recommends Council approval for the burial of the overhead power utility. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. The Mayor and Council approve the Xcel Energy agreement “Statement of Work Requested”, 2. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Xcel Energy agreement “Statement of Work Requested”, and any amendments to the Agreement. th ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 8 day of May, 2017. _________________________________ ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor ___________________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk STATEMENT OF WORK REQUESTED BY COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR TOWNSHIP FOR PROJECTS WITH ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS OVER $25,000 DATE: WORK REQUESTED BY: ("Municipality") WORK LOCATION: ADDRESS: CONSISTING OF: The following shall constitute the "Work" to be performed by Xcel Energy: [Describe work, e.g. relocation of overhead electric distribution facilities to an underground location with estimated start date and expected duration] Municipality agrees to pay Xcel Energy for Xcel Energy's actual total cost of the Work, subject to the Municipality's right of cost review in accordance with the terms of this Statement of Work ("Statement"). The current estimate for the Work is $ ("Estimate"). The estimate is compromised of the following major components: ComponentSub-estimate [Describe the various components comprising the Work and the estimated cost of each component including loadings] Total: The undersigned herby requests and authorizes Xcel Energy to perform the Work. In consideration thereof and in lieu of a City Requested Facilities Sucharge, the City agrees to pay Xcel Energy on the ("Statement"). The current estimate for the Work is ($) which is fifty (50) percent of the Estimate ("Down Payment"). All Work shall be performed pursuant to good utility practice (as that term is generally understood in the utility industry) utilizing Xcel Energy's commercially reasonable efforts to complete the Work within the Estimate under Xcel Energy's then current design standards, operating procedures, and safety procedures. The facillities installed or removed by Xcel Energy shall be the property of Xcel Energy and any payment by Municipality shall not entitle Municipality to any ownership interest or right therin. Municipality's and Xcel Energy's rights and obligations with respect to the facillities and services provided through the facilities are subject to the terms of this Statement, as well as the additional terms and conditions provided in the Xcel Energy Electric Rate Book, as now exists or may hereafter be changed, on file with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commision. In advance of the Work, Muncipality agrees to inform Xcel Energy of any Municipality-related or other projects that may affect the Work. During the Work, Xcel Energy agrees to provide the Muncipality notice of any proposed change orders increasing the cost of the Work. Municipality acknowledges that change orders that result from request of Municipality with respect to the performance of the Work or the scope of the Work may increase Xcel Energy's acutal cost of the Work. Upon Completion of the Work, Xcel Energy agrees to provide Municipality with final detal of the actual work performed and the actual costs of such work performed. Xcel Energy will identify any information included in such information that is non-public pursuant to Minn. Stat. Ch. 13. Upon request by Muncipality, Xcel Energy shall provide Muncipality the opportunity to review more detailed documentation of the Work performed and related costs. Xcel Energy agrees to keep Municipality reasonably informed with respect to Xcel Energy's performance of the Work, consistent with good utility practice and will, at minimum, apprise Municipality when half of the Estimate has been spent and when ninety percent of the Estimate has been spent. Xcel Energy also agrees to timely nortify the Municipality when the Work is substantially complete. Upon receipt of the invoice for the cost balance, the City shall have the right to require that Xcel Energy provide reasonable cost support documentation, including change orders, for its actual total cost of the Work. The Municipality shall pay the balance of cost not subject to reasonable dispute within the timeframe set forth in the Minnesota Municipal Prompt Payment Act, Minn. Stat. 471-425. Xcel Energy and Municipality shall reasonably try to resolve any disputes with respect to costs incurred in performance of the Work in good faith. In the event Xcel Energy and Municipality are unable to resolve any such disputes, the parties may seek redress in a forum with jurisdiction over the dispute. This Statement of Work is agreed to by Xcel Energy and Muncipality and receipt of the above Down Payment of $ is herby acknowledged on behalf of Xcel Energy. Northern States Power Company[Municipality] a Minnesota corporation ("Xcel Energy") Print Full Name and TitlePrint Full Name and Title (if applicable) SignatureSignature of Authorized Representative Address:Address: Phone:Phone: E-mail:E-mail: Xcel Energy Work Order # Estimated Construction $Estimated Removal $ Estimated Total $ Form 17-7012 #11A1 REGULAR MEETING To: Greg Lerud From: Mike Smerdon, Principal Appraiser Date: 5/2/2017 Re: Shorewood Open Book Meeting Last night was the Open Book meeting for the City of Shorewood. There were 9 attendees. Most people left the meeting satisfied with the explanations they were given as to why the value of their property had changed. There was one review scheduled with a homeowner because of the meeting. Most of the callers this spring have been concerned about the increase in value more than what the value actually was. This was mostly because of their fear of what the tax implications may be next year. Overall the calls were probably a touch higher in volume when compared to previous years; considering the amount of increased values this is not surprising. Mike Smerdon Assessors Office Hennepin County 300 South Sixth Street, A2103 Minneapolis, MN 55487 hennepin.us