The URL can be used to link to this page

08-28-17 CC Reg Mtg Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY,AUGUST 28,2017 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call Mayor Zerby Johnson Labadie Siakel Sundberg B. Review Agenda Attachments 2. CONSENT AGENDA—Motion to approve items on the Consent Agenda& Adopt Resolutions Therein: A. City Council Work Session Minutes of August 14, 2017 Minutes B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of August 14, 2017 Minutes C. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List D. Approve LMCC budget City Administrator memo Resolution E. Approve State of MN JPA/CDJN Amendment City Clerk memo Resolution Agreements (2) F. Approve Ordinance 545: City Code Supplement S-12 City Clerk memo Ordinance G. LMCIT Liability Waiver form City Administrator memo Resolution H. Regular Appointment of Lead Supervisor for the Public Works Director memo Public Works Department L Accept Public Improvements and Authorize Final Payment Freeman Park, South Parking Lot Paving Improvements City Engineer memo Resolution 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council Action will be taken) 4. PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA—August 28,2017 Page 2 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Fire Chief Scott Gerber 6. PARKS A. Accept donation of Memorial Park Bench Planning Staff Memo Resolution B. Accept Bids and Award Construction Contract Badger Park Phase 2 Improvements, City Project 17-09 City Engineer Memo Resolution 7. PLANNING A. C.U.P. and Variance for a Substandard Lot Planning Staff Memo Applicant: Mark and Karleen Leslie Resolution Location: 28241 Boulder Circle B. C.U.P. for coffee shop with drive-thru service and outdoor seating Planning Staff Memo Applicant: Dave Watson Resolution Location: 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7 8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Approve 2018 Excelsior Fire District Budget City Administrator Memo 10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Monthly Budget Report Interim Finance Director Memo C. Mayor and City Council 11. ADJOURN 2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY,AUGUST 14,2017 6:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Johnson (arrived at 6:07), Labadie, Siakel (arrived at 6:03), and Sundberg; Administrator Leruud; Interim Finance Director Rigdon; Planning Director Darling; Director of Public Works Brown; and, Engineer Hornby Absent: None B. Review Agenda Labadie moved, Sundberg seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 310. 2. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Administrator Lerud explained staff updated the City's street maintenance schedule so it more accurately reflects current cost estimates to do' the maintenance. The estimated costs in the schedule have traditionally been used to update the Street Reconstruction Capital Improvement Program(CIP). He noted the meeting packet contains a copy of a May 20, 2017, street maintenance schedule and a copy of the updated schedule. Director Brown cxplained that?for, every City-owned street staff has created Excel spreadsheets where costs fox each type of maintenance are calculated. He distributed an example of such a spreadsheet for Arbor.Creek Lane. Each spreadsheet' includes some general information about the road. There is a reconstruction section identifying the various tasks included in that reconstruction project and associated costs, plus,;a 10 percent contingency, plus 25% to 30% for soft costs (e.g.; design, legal, inspection). There is a reclamation section showing the estimated cost to do the work plus contingency and soft costs. There is an overlay„section identifying the tasks and associated costs plus contingency and soft costs. There is a sealcoat,section showing the estimated cost to do the work plus contingency and soft costs. The estimated costs in the updated street maintenance schedule came from the spreadsheet data for each individual street and are based on feasibility estimates. The schedule also includes the estimated cost for storm sewer improvements for each street. The schedule reflects 2017 dollars. The plan is to increase the 2017 dollar costs by 2% each year going forward. None of the project costs include the cost for easement acquisition. Mayor Zerby stated earlier in the year Council was told the estimates were off by about 20% and now Council is being told the yearly inflationary adjustment should be about 2%. Director Brown stated 2% is pretty tight. He then stated that is not always going to happen. If contractors are really busy and bid the job high the 2%would be exceeded. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES August 14,2017 Page 2 of 6 Engineer Hornby stated there are two bidding seasons; one is early in the year and the other is later in the year. He noted that based on the feedback he has received bituminous contractors are not that busy now. Mayor Zerby asked that the street maintenance schedules (both the May and August schedules) be modified to include totals. He wanted that for comparison purposes. Administrator Lerud stated when the City receives the bids for this year's reclamation project staff will compare the bids to its forecast model to determine how accurate the forecast estimates are. Councilmember Labadie asked why in the August street maintenance schedules the reconstruction costs appear to have mainly gone up yet the reclamations costs have mainly gone down when compared to the May 20 schedule. In addition she questioned the overly costs where 96mi ewent up and some went down. Director Brown explained in the past staff had been using an approximate $60 per square-yard unit cost for reclamation. After reviewing past bids staff adjusted that dawn to $30 per square-yard unit cost. Director Brown explained staff decided the City cannot afford to do a lot of roadway reconstruction. From a purely technical perspective staff is proposing the City reclaim roadways rather then reconstruct them whenever possible. Unfortunately, reclamation will not solve drainage issues all'of the time. A reclamation project does not necessarily include adding,curb; it coutdbe added for an additional cost. It also does not allow for the extension of watermain. Engineers often use 20 years for the design life of a constructed road. In Shorewood the roads have lasted closer to 40 years; they were built in the 1970s when sanitary sewer was installed. Pavement reclamation should last 12 to 15 years. Mayor Zerby stated the August schedule reclamation,costs,went down by almost 60%. He asked if staff used any cost estimate data from other cities. Engineer Hornby explained WSB and Associates tracks projects over a number of years. The data is tracked by city. WSB has a system that allows him to review average bid prices based on quantities constructed. That allows him to make a reasonable projection of what the units cost would be. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) data is not included in WSB's information because MnDOT's high volume results in a,lbwer cost by about 25%. Administrator,terud explained knowing the City does not have the funding to fund the Street CIP staff prepared a'spreadsheet showing how, much funding the City could collect from franchise fees through Xcel"Energy and CenterPoint Energy from 2018 to 2024. He assumed 20 new residential connections per year for each of those years. If the monthly franchise fee were $4 for each utility the City would collect a little over $2 million over those 7 years. If the fee was $5 the City would collect almost $2.6 million. A year or so ago the then Council decided the City would annually increase the transfer into the Street Reconstruction Fund by $15,44(} each year. The Ehlers rate study assumed a 20% increase in the storm sewer fee in 2018 and 2019 and then a 3% increase per year after that. Some storm sewer money would be set aside for ongoing maintenance. There was a line item showing the balance in the Street Reconstruction CIP for each of those years assuming the 2017 reclamation project comes in on budget. There was a line item for Minnesota State Aid(MSA) monies. There line item for a$4 million bond issue for storm sewer with a 17 year payback period which comes out to an annual debt service payment of $273,000. A $5 million bond issue would require an annual debt service payment of$338,000. There were calculations showing the estimated funds available for street maintenance projects (including storm sewer work) for four scenarios: a $4 franchise fee and $4 million in bonds: a $4 fee and $5 million in bonds: a$5 fee and $4 million in bonds: and, a$5 fee and $5 million in bonds. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES August 14,2017 Page 3 of 6 Lerud clarified that trail funding needs were not factored into any of his projections. The Trail Plan priorities identified in 2011 show there are about $7 million in remaining project needs. Park funding needs were also not factored in. Lerud asked Council how it would like to see revenues and expenditures lined up. Councilmember Sundberg asked if $4 and $5 monthly franchise fees are fairly typical. Administrator Lerud stated some cities have fees as high as $12 and there are some as low as $1. A $4 fee is in the middle. Administrator Lerud stated in Shorewood about 97 % are residential meters for both gas and electric. In response to a question from Councilmember Sundberg, Administrator Lerud stated the City's franchise fee agreement with Xcel Energy ended in 2007. Sundberg then asked about a reverse referendum on franchise fees. Lerud explained the reverse referendum, as proposed by the Legislature, would allow a certain percentage of voters in the last election to petition for a vote to eliminate the franchise fee. He said that is not current law. Administrator Lerud stated he would like staff to first focus on getting'the numbers right for the early years of the CIP. Based on a comment from Councilmember Sundberg, Administrator Lerud stated he thought collecting franchise fees is a good tool to use because the City would capture funds from infrastructure users who do not otherwise pay through property taxes. Councilmember Sundberg noted she was interested in having a higher franchise fee in part because the City has not had one for awhile. Administrator Lerud asked if Council;would be comfortable with a bond issue to fund stormwater management needs. Mayor Zerby asked what the bottom line impact would be for residents. Administrator Lerud stated he does not tk`it would be very,great if the other things including the franchise fee were done. He then stated without a bond issue it would take 6 to 7 years before the City would have accumulated the $3 to $4 million needed to make the needed,stormwater improvements. Councilmember Siakel asked if the bond issue would be specific to stormwater management. Administrator Lerud confirmed that and explained it would be a General Obligation revenue bond to the stormwater utility and the City could pledge franchise fees to help pay for the bonded debt. Siakel asked how storwater management improvement priorities will be merged with roadway improvement priorities. Director Brown explained from staffs perspective 90% of the significant stormwater issues are on the west side of the City. One is in the Strawberry Lane and Cathcart Drive area and another is the ditch along Grant Lorenz Road. Staff discussed installing a drainage pipe in the ditch and the calculations they did indicated a 60-inch pipe would be needed. The impact to that roadway would be significant. Engineer Hornby noted that corridor is already crowded. Brown stated staff has discussed realigning that channel (the ditch) and hardening it(e.g.; installing rip rap). CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES August 14,2017 Page 4 of 6 Brown then explained that over the last five years the focus has been on roadway improvements.Now the stormwater management issues need to be the focus. There are three things that will define what will happen in the public right-of-way (ROW) —stormwater management, road reconstruction and watermain extension. Council will have to decide which stormwater management issues will necessitate reconstruction rather than reclamation of a roadway. The same is true for watermain extension. Engineer Hornby stated he did not think there are any existing easements near the ditch along Grant Lorenz Road to enable doing any work. Mayor Zerby stated he agreed there is a need to bond for stormwater management improvements. He explained the west end of the City was developed many years ago during a time when stormwater management was not as big of a focus. There are many stormwater management issues on the west end that residents would like addressed. Councilmember Siakel stated she thought the City's storm water utility fee is,very reasonable. Some cities have a much higher fee. She suggested consideration be given to increasing that fee. She commented she has friends who live on the east coast who have hefty fees for stormwater management. She stated the fee had been increased not too long ago because the previous fee was minuscule from her perspective. She expressed her support for increasing the fee. Councilmember Sundberg agreed that the City needs to prepare for the financial needs for stormwater management improvements. Engineer Hornby encouraged exercising caution when comparing the City's stormwater management fee to other cities' fees. Some cities use the fee for things, other than stormwater management capital improvements (e.g.; to pay for their MS4 program,to do other environmental work). Councilmember Siakel stated stormwater management along Grant Lorenz Road has been an issue for years. She asked if it would be valuable to hire a contractor to prepare a stormwater management plan and work with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to secure its help with a project for Grant Lorenz Road. She stated the drainage from the Freeman Park area flows down that corridor and into Lake Minnetonka, She noted she would support setting money aside to hire someone to help the City to do that. Engineer Hornby noted the City's,,Comprehensive (Comp) Plan identifies what those capital plans are going to be. So does the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Director Brown stated he thought there would be value in having someone lobby on behalf of the City with the MCWD and prepare all of the supporting materials. From his vantage point engineers are not good marketers.-- Mayor Zerby noted,he,Administrator Lerud and Engineer Hornby had met with MCWD representatives and reviewed the Comp'Plan with them during the first quarter of the year. He explained they did stress the Grant Lorenz Road stormwater management issues to them. They also stressed stormwater management improvements there would have a regional benefit; something the MCWD considers a priority. Unfortunately, they did not have the backup materials needed to help secure the MCWD's support. He stated if it would help to hire someone to assist in preparing the materials needed to strengthen the City's case he would support doing that. Director Brown stated roadway improvements and watermain extension have driven the City's CIP over the last 30 years. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES August 14,2017 Page 5 of 6 Mayor Zerby stated he, along with Council, appreciate the work staff has done to refine the cost estimates for street maintenance and stormwater improvements. He thought there was some interest in bonding for stormwater management improvements and in increasing the storm water utility rate. Administrator Lerud summarized his understanding of Council's direction. He reiterated stormwater management improvements will be the focus with other infrastructure improvements being done in conjunction with them. He noted Riviera Lane and Shorewood Lane street and utility improvements had been scheduled for 2017 and moved out to 2018. Staff will look at advancing some stormwater improvement projects and then determine which street maintenance projects could be done in conjunction. Mayor Zerby stated he still has a desire for a trail along the Country Club Road and Yellowstone Trail corridor route. Director Brown recommended renaming what is frequently called the Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive cut thru corridor route. From his perspective cut thru corridor is a negative connotation. Councilmember Siakel and Councilmember Sundberg agreed. Councilmember Sundberg asked if some of the Traffic Cbmmittee's,reebmmendations are being included in the plans. Engineer Hornby responded yes. He noted the blinker,stop signs are included in the bids for the 2017 pavement reclamation project as are the concrete curbs at intersections to help calm traffic. There are pavement markings for a 20 foot radius and a 25 foot radius for the curbs. Director Brown stated it would be nice to have an aerial shot of those pavement markings for the curbs. Mayor Zerby stated that earlier in the day he stopped at the intersection of Country Club Road and Yellowstone Trail. He stayed there long enough to video record six'vehicles at the intersection taking a right hand turn to go north on to Country Club Road. All of them went between the 20 foot and 25 foot pavement markings. All of the drivers,rolled through the stop sign. Based on what he saw he does not think the 25 foot radihswill not change a driver's behavior; it needs to be 20 feet. Director Brown agreed and explained engineers believe that to slow drivers down the turning area has to be constricted. He stated that when that curbing goes,in it is likely the City will receive complaints from drivers about the tightness of the driving surface. Zerby stated he could deal with that. Zerby stated he thought there is a need to extend the new trail along Country Club Road that was built by the developer for the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) development. It stops across from where Mary Lake Trail intersects with Country Club Road. From his perspective having the trail end where it does now is not; safe. He would like it extended down to Yellowstone Trail. He noted he understood the topography is,challenging in that area. If the trail is to be extended then from his perspective he does not think the curbing at the intersection should be installed now. Councilmember Sundberg noted that Yellowstone Trail'is not pedestrian friendly. She stated she does not think the City should encourage pedestrians to walk along,,it. Mayor Zerby stated completing the trail is the top priority in the Trail Implementation Plan. Councilmember Siakel suggested Council have a work session to discuss the Trail Implementation Plan. She explained the Trail Committee was asked to develop a Plan for the entire City and to prioritize where trails could be built. It was never the intent that the City would build every one of the trails identified. Mayor Zerby stated he thought the trails in the Plan were prioritized to some extent based on where people needed to go. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES August 14,2017 Page 6 of 6 Director Brown asked where the funding would come from to extend the trail along Country Club Road to Yellowstone Trail. Mayor Zerby stated part of Council's job is to decide what kind of city it wants Shorewood to be and then allocate funds to make it that way. In response to comments from Mayor Zerby, Engineer Hornby stated he did not recommend including the extension of trail along Country Club Road in the 2017 pavement reclamation project. Doing so would delay the project until 2018. Zerby stated he wants to either include the trail extension or exclude the curbing in the project. Director Brown stated the cost to make changes to the curbing would not be expensive in future years. Zerby reiterated he wanted the radius at the intersection reduced to 20 feet. Councilmember Siakel asked if the City had any easements along Yellowstone Trail. Director Brown stated along portions of it. 2. 2018 GENERAL FUND BUDGET Administrator Lerud stated the draft preliminary 2018 General Fund Budget reflects a 2.9%levy increase when compared to the adopted 2017 Budget. It also includes the use of $174,097 in General Fund reserves. The 2018 costs for police and fire are factored in as is the addition of another person for Public Works. Lerud suggested the August 28, 2017, budget work`session start at 5:30 P.M. Mayor Zerby stated he agreed that adding the position in Public Works is:a good idea. His understanding is the cost would be partially offset,by the elimination of the cost for a part-time summer position. In response to a question from Zerby; Brown stated it would be a light equipment operator position. 3. ADJOURN Labadie moved, Johnson,seconded,Adjourning the City Council Work Session of August 14, 2017, at 6:58 P.M. Motion passed 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,AUGUST 14,2017 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, Siakel,', ,and Sundberg; Attorney Keane; City Administrator Lerud; City Clerk Thone; Planning Director Darling; Director of Public Works Brown; and, City Engineer flornby Absent: None. B. Review Agenda Sundberg moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 510. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda., Sundberg moved, Johnson seconded,,Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda. A. City Council Work Session Minutes of July 24, 2017 B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2017 C: Approval oftbe Verified Claims List D. Approve Revised Crescent Beach Agreement with Tonka Bay Motion passed 5/t}. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Mike Meehan, Chief of Police, South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Chief Meehan explained that during its July 12, 2017, meeting the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Coordinating Committee unanimously recommended approval of the proposed CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August 14,2017 Page 2 of 9 2018 Operating Budget and asked that it be forwarded to the four SLMPD member cities for approval. The Budget reflects a 4.9 percent increase over the 2017 approved budget. The vast majority of the Budget is for personnel wages and benefits. The wages and benefits are based on negotiated salary increases. Each city's contribution to the overall budget is based on the funding formula established by the arbitration of 2006. The formula is reset every five years. It has been reset twice since 2006. The last time was for 2017. The next time will be for 2022. The Committee has ongoing discussions about the funding formula. The funding for the debt service for the public safety facility is based on�the ad valorem tax capacity for each member city published the previous year. The bonded debt for the facility was refunded in 2016. That bond refunding will save approximately $127,000 over the life of the bond. The final bond payment will be made in 2022. The SLMPD had an Operating Budget surplus at the end of 2016 mainly due to a, staff shortage. The Committee agreed to put the surplus funds toward a body camera program which will also include new cameras for the squad cars. The squad car cameras<and,storage system have surpassed the, end of their useful life. The Department just completed a five-week-long pilot program with one vendor's body camera. Some of the video that was captured was phenomenal, In,a couple of cases it helped the Department resolve some rather significant complaints against some officers; The officers were cleared of any wrong doing. SLMPD staff is in the planning phase for trying; a different vendor's body camera and storage system. Meehan noted it is critical to manage expectations from a body camera program. It is not a magic cure and it is not going to catch everything, but it will be an important tool. Chief Meehan offered to entertain questions. Councilmember Sundberg thanked Chief Meehan and the SLMPD staff for doing a great job. She also thanked Chief Meehan for making the body, camera, program a priority. She stated based on recent incidents in vario'us,communities she asked if SLMPD officers will be provided with enhanced training in order to be better preparedto handle certain incidents. Chief Meehan stated he has been an earlier adopter of CIT (crisis intervention training) in the last two departments he worked for. He has started down that path with the SLMPD. Chief Meehan explained CIT training for officers is an intense 40-hour training program. It is not always easy to fill in for an officer when they are off the street for a week. To date three SLMPD officers have gone through the CIT program; that used up the training budget for that area. He noted the Minnesota Legislature has earmarked a significant amount of money for police training. It is earmarked for CIT and implicit bias training. Councilmember Sundberg asked Chief Meehan how he decides which officers go through the training. Chief Meehan stated it was based on schedules. He clarified he hopes to have all officers go through the 40-hour course by early 2019. Mayor Zerby thanked Chief Meehan for the great job he does. He stated he met a few new officers when he attending a couple of Night to Unite neighborhood events. He was pleased with their attitudes and knowledge. The feedback he received about the Department during those events was very favorable. He CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August 14,2017 Page 3 of 9 thanked the Department for addressing traffic issues in the City. Chief Meehan expressed the Department has made headway with traffic issues. B. Senator David Osmek Mayor Zerby welcomed Minnesota Senator David Osmek District 33 who was present to give an update on legislative activities. Senator Osmek noted the senate moved into the new office building this year and that the political party he is associated with is now in the majority by one. He then noted that he had been appointed Chair of the Energy and Utilities Finance and Policy Committee. He highlighted some of the things he was involved with during the last legislative session. ➢ A bill passed at the end of the session legislation was,passed that reduced the cost to accelerate payers by almost $750,000 over the next 10 years by exiting the biomass mandate. There are three plants that are producing very low amounts of megawatts of electricity at a very high cost. One plant is in Benson and another one is called Laurentian on the Iron Range.The Benson plant was producing energy at a cost of 5140 per megawatt hour.°Every other form of energy is under $40 per megawatt hour. ➢ The amount of money given to the Minnesota Center Climate Change panel from the Legacy Fund was reduced and that reduction was invested into pollinators. He then highlighted his philosophy about some of the bills the City had questions about. ➢ He supported in a modified version a couple of bills that dealt with interim ordinances for housing. He thought it important to have some publication after the fact as well as some form of public review after the fact. ➢ There were a couple of versions of fee regulatory changes. If someone had a petition they could enact a reverse referendum on electricity and utility fees. Yet, if a local government unit's (LU's) budget had included revenue from franchise fees to balance the budget and the petition triggered a reverse referendum after the preliminary budget was set that could result in not having it balance after the fact. He thought residents of the LGU would have had ample opportunity to discuss concerns about the fee structure and the budget before it was set. He thought for a large public works facility project, for example, he thought there should be an opportunity for a reverse referendum. He thought the resident threshold to trigger a reverse referendum needs to be significant(e.g.; 10 to 15 percent). Senator Osmek offered to entertain questions. Councilmember Sundberg asked Senator Osmek to comment on the small cell wireless bill. Senator Osmek explained the small cell initiative was what he termed "an adventure". He worked on that bill as the primary legislator through about the end of March. At that point he thought things were close to a final resolution. The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) was willing to be somewhat neutral on the proposed legislation and the cell phone companies could accept what was being proposed. Then the cell phone companies walked away from the table. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August 14,2017 Page 4 of 9 He thought it was over at the end of March. On Thursday of the last week of the legislative session he stated to receive emails and text messages about the bill. Representative O'Neill took over the charge for bill in the House. He told Representative O'Neill twice that he was not going to take up the charge again during that session noting he was not sure what the language in the bill was. What he took away from discussions was the reason that legislation was so important to people at that time was because of the Super Bowl in January 2018. The telecommunications companies have been going market to market to install the 5G cell phone technology; 5G service offers significantly faster data speeds when compared to 4G service. But, 5G has different requirements. Those boxes (wireless antennas) can be various sizes but they all have to have a line of sight to them. They can be placed on new or existing poles in the public right of way. The antennas would augment existing cell phone towers Ultimately the bill was passed at the very end. But, it is likely that modifications will be needed. Guidelines are included for what should and what should-not not be approved. The permitting for the technology has to go through each city. Senator Osmek stated he did not like the process used to get the legislation passed. He'thought passing things at the dead of night is notoriously bad. Councilmember Sundberg expressed her appreciation for Senator. Osmek's responsiveness to email communications. Mayor Zerby thanked Senator Osmek for coming before Council and for his support in trying to ensure cities maintain the authority they need to effectively manage local government. He stated staff was asked to look up voting records of some local officials and they found,it difficult to find that. Senator Osmek stated it depends how things,get wrapped up into the omnibus bills. He noted his legislative assistant can usually come up with the correct answer. Senator Osmek noted he has been working on getting some Metropolitan Council reform. It had been in the transportation bill. Governor Dayton vetoed it. He stated he failed to get the Excelsior Commons improvements bond issue,and appropriation legislation through the legislature. 6. PARKS A. Report by Nathaniel Gorman on the August 8, 2017,Park Commission Meeting Park Commissioner Gorman reported on matters considered and actions taken during the August 8, 2017, Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). 7. PLANNING A. Report by Sue Davis on the August 1, 2017, Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commissioner Davis reported on matters considered and actions taken during the August 1, 2017,Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Mayor Zerby noted the Animal Control Ordinance was intended to be a unified ordinance for all four cities served by the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD). He encouraged staff to speak with the cities and SLMPD staff about any changes it would like to make to the Ordinance. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August 14,2017 Page 5 of 9 B. Zoning Code Amendment—Home Occupations and Definitions Director Darling explained the Zoning Code text amendments Council was being asked to consider this evening pertain to home occupation regulations and related definitions. The proposed language is intended to clarify the City's intent to minimize the impact home occupations have on surrounding neighborhoods. Staff proposed modifications to strengthen the parking requirements related to operating businesses out of a home and to clarify the number of customers who can come to the residential property without getting a special home occupation permit. During its August 1, 2017, meeting the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments and recommended a few changes to what staff had proposed (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). No one was present to speak during the public testimony portion ofthe hearing. The City did receive one letter from a resident(a copy of which was included in the Council meeting packet),.,,, She provided some background information on home occupations and parking for residential,properties. The City's Ordinance breaks out home occupations,into two categories — limited home occupation and special home occupation. Limited home occupations are designed ,to have limited impact on the neighborhood. Special home occupations have more impact. They require permit which is reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing and then considered by Council for approval. The initial permit is valid for one year. At the end of that one year it can be renewed.again for three-year periods. She reviewed the current parking requirements stipulated in the Ordinance for single-family homes. There can be no parking in the front yard except on the driveway and cannot be more than one truck up to 12,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. Every single-family home must have two parking spaces that meet the front setback which varies from 30 to 50 feet. To ensure those two spaces are reserved for parking for people who live in the home, the two spaces cannot be used for storage of commercial vehicles or equipment or for parking Vehicles belonging to employees,,owners, tenants, or customers of businesses. All additional parking for the residents'or their guests must be at least 15 feet back from the edge of the roadway. Commercial vehicles and trailers,cannot be parked on the street and they must be parked at least 25 feet from the edge of the roadway; The proposed amendments include language to define commercial vehicles and commercial trailers and to prohibit using the two required parking spaces for home occupations vehicles or storage of equipment. The prohibition was already in the parking ordinance, but she thought it would be best to include them in the home occupation ordinance for ease of use. The new regulations` would limit the storage of a commercial vehicle or trailer to one for a limited home occupation. Darling stated staff,proposed adding a limitation restricting clients or pupils to one at a time and a maximum of 5 per day for limited home occupations. For a special home occupation it would limit the number to no more than five at a time and no more than 10 per day unless further limited by the City Council. Mayor Zerby stated if a business owner wants to, for example, host a holiday party he asked if that would be allowed without getting some type of permit (e.g.; party). Director Darling clarified that generally a person can just have a party at their home. Director Brown clarified a person must apply for an event permit if there will be 75 people or more in attendance at a time. Ed Hasek, 24315 Yellowstone Trail, asked if there can only be one commercial vehicle or one commercial trailer on a property at the same time. Director Darling clarified it would be one or the other CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August 14,2017 Page 6 of 9 for a limited home occupation. Mr. Hasek stated if a commercial trailer is hitched up to a commercial vehicle he asked if that would be considered one or two. Director Darling stated because they are defined separately she would consider that to be two. Mr. Hasek suggested clarifying that in the ordinance. Councilmember Labadie stated the not all inclusive list of examples of special home occupations includes pet grooming. There is also a limit on the number of clients/pupils at a time or throughout a day. There is no limit on the number of animals. She recommended adding a restriction on animals. Director Darling suggested removing "... teaching, counseling or sales meeting ..." from Subd. 12.d.(3)(d)(ii) under special home occupation. Labadie stated she just wants to limit the number of animals at one time and per day. Councilmember Siaklel suggested changing "... client/pupil at a time —"to "... client/pupil/animal at a time ..."in Subd. 12.d.(3)(d)(ii). Labadie noted she likes the rest of the proposed amendments. She asked if the City has ever received complaints about the pet boarding business in the City. Director Darling responded not to her knowledge and stated that the one boarding business in Shorewood has a special home occupation permit. Labadie asked the same about pet grooming businesses. Darling again stated'not to her knowledge. Councilmember Johnson stated he thought it made sense-to restrict the number of animals also. Director Darling stated the Planning Commission recommended changing "... Auto repair, whether for consideration or not ..."to "... Auto repair ..."in Subd. 12.d.(4):She recommended keeping "... whether for consideration or not ..."in. Labadie moved, Siakael seconded, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 544, "An Ordinance Amending the Shorewood Zoning Code as it Pertains to Home Occupations for the City of Shorewood" subject to in Subd. 12.d.(3)(d)(ii) changing "... client/pupil..." W'4.. client/pupiUanimal ..."and "... clients/pupils..." to"... cliehtsfpupi/s/animals ..." and in Subd. 12.d.(4) changing "... Auto repair ..."to "...Auto repair, whether for consideration ornot,". Motion passed 510. Zerby moved, Johnson seconded, approving the publication of Ordinance No. 544 by title and summary. Motion passed 510. C. Vacation--Right-of- May of Northgate Circle Director'Darling noted the vacation of the undeveloped portion of Northgate Circle was continued from Council's June 26, 2017, to allow the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) adequate review time as required by State Statute. She explained DNR representatives have concluded their review and waived the remainder of the DNR's time. The DNR had no comments on the vacation and found the request did not merit a full review. The DNR did recommended the City encourage the owners of the adjacent properties to adopt shoreline best management practices in order to protect wetland habitat and improve water quality. Staff provided a link to that information on the DNR's website to the owners of the 26525 and 26575 Edgewood Road properties. Staff identified two issues with the requested vacation. 1) 26745 Edgewood Road would have no direct frontage on a public right-of-way (ROW) without Northgate Circle and that violates the intent of the zoning regulations to require all properties to have direct access to a public street. The lot would also become a nonconforming with regard to lot width. 2) Because of the topography and the large wetland it would be unlikely that any access could be provided to that lot via Northgate Circle. It would also be unlikely that the east side of Edgewood Road could be subdivided for a buildable lot. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August 14,2017 Page 7 of 9 Darling noted staff recommends the approval of the vacation. Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 17-068, "A Resolution Vacating Undeveloped Portion of Northgate Circle."Motion passed 510. 8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Approve 2018 South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Operating and Debt Service Budget Administrator Lerud noted South Lake Minnetonka Police Department`(SLMPD) Chief Meehan came before Council during its work session immediately preceding this meeting,to answer any questions Council may have about the proposed 2018 SLMPD Operating and Debt Service Budget. He clarified that the City's funding contribution for 2018 will increase, by $57,776 when compared to its 2017 contribution. Councilmember Siaklel asked if repairs and maintenance include funding,for the concrete repairs needed at the public safety facility located in Shorewood. Administrator Lerud stated there was a sufficient balance in the Debt Service Fund generated by the 2016 bond ref4fiding. A portion of that will be used to fund the SLMPD's share of the cost for the concrete work. Sundberg moved, Johnson seconded, approving the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department's 2018 Operating Budget and Debt Service Budget as presented.Motion passed 510. B. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Lift Station 18 Landscaping Plan Update Director Darling provided an update on the landscaping plan for Metropolitan Council Environmental Services' (MCES') Lift Station 18 replacement proJect. She explained during its July 10 meeting the City Council accepteld,a petition from a significant number of property owners in that area requesting that the landscaping plan be enhanced. The City has received a copy of the revised plan that the MCES staff put together. She and Engineer Hornby nave reviewed the revised plan and made a few insignificant comments about it. The revised plans include a four-foot berm along 3rd Avenue and planting an additional 17 trees. Darling stated staff will continue to work with MCES representatives on the revised plan. Staff will also let the organizer of the petition know what is going on. Mayor Zerby noted that he, Councilmember Labadie and Administrator Lerud met with representatives from MCES and toured the site. 10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff Engineer Hornby stated the contractor is planning to start the sealcoat project on August 16 weather permitting. He then stated the pavement marking project is complete with the exception of adding in the Freeman Park south parking lot. The lot was just paved. He went on to state the Minnesota Department of CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August 14,2017 Page 8 of 9 Transportation (MnDOT) is going to start on August 21 replacing the signal light at the intersection of Trunk Highway 7 and Vine Hill Road. The project will also include widening the northbound lane on the south side of Highway 7 to accommodate an additional lane. MCES is also going to extend the safety fence from the signal past the High School over to Highway 101. MCES has indicated it should be done by the time school starts. Mayor Zerby stated he has received complaints about significant goose droppings on the roadways on the Minnetonka Country Club property. Engineer Hornby explained he has asked the developer Mattamy Homes and the builder to keep up on sweeping the site as part of erosion control. Technically goose droppings do not fall under the control of erosion control. Mayor Zerby asked Engineer Hornby to provide an update on Chaska Road. Hornby explained the contractor for the watermain extension is in the process of moving equipment out. The utility work is complete. He has asked the prime contractor when the road contractor will begin work but that contractor was not direct with him. He then contacted the subcontractor and they are going to discuss that on August 15. The subcontractor has experienced delays with the road crew because of weather:Zerby then asked if the Road is navigable now. Hornby stated only on the paved side. He noted Xcel Energy is in the area relocating its utilities. There also a lot of deliveries being made for the Oppidan project. B. Mayor and City Council Councilmember Sundberg stated she went on the tour the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) coordinated of the entire District. It Was,well attended. She estimated that about 125 people went on the tour. The tour stopped at the Eden Prairie Eire Station 2 where a reuse system was installed to capture rain water that comes off of a fire station roof. That water is used to wash firetrucks and irrigate landscaping around the station. That was a cooperative effort between the RPBCWD and Metropolitan Council Environmental Services(DICES). She suggested staff monitory the effort to find out if something like that would warrant the City's attention. Mayor Zerby expressed concern'that The Waters of Excelsior Project does not appear to have started. The property is very distressed. Administrator Lerud stated he will contact Excelsior staff and check on the timeline. Zerby stated he thought people,enjoyed the boat cruise appreciation event held on August 4. The weather was,great. He appreciated the opportunity to get to know some of people in attendance a little better. He thanked staff for organizing the event. He noted he attended a couple of Night to Unite neighborhood events in the City. Zerby explained that he and Councilmember Labadie had been introduced to the Metropolitan (Met) Council's leader position for Shorewood along with some of Met Council's staff. They toured Badger Park , City Hall, the Southshore Center, and a number of other areas in Shorewood. Labadie provided an overview of the map of Shorewood. He noted he asked Met Council to start looking at the South Lake area as a community and not at each city in the area individually. 11. ADJOURN Johnson moved, Labadie seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of August 14, 2017, at 8:11 P.M. Motion passed 5.0.. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August 14,2017 Page 9 of 9 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk ® #2C MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood nib Meeting Item Regular Meeting ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Verified Claims Meeting Date: August 28, 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. 63901—63935&ACH 415,390.13 Total Claims $415,390.13 We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending August 20,2017. Financial or Budget Considerations: These expenditures are reasonable and necessary to provide services to our residents and funds are budgeted and available for these purposes. Options: The City Council is may accept the staff recommendation to pay these claims or may reject any expenditure it deems not in the best interest of the city. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the claims list as presented. Next Steps and Timelines: Checks will be distributed following approval. Payroll G/L Distribution Report User: Mnguyen C!Batch: 00002.08.2017-PR-08-21-2017 City Of CITY OF SHOREWOOD Shorewood Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description FUND 101 General Fund 101-00-1010-0000 0.00 54,291.04 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 101-11-4103-0000 1,716.64 0.00 PART-TIME 101-11-4122-0000 131.31 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-13-4101-0000 9,848.06 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-13-4103-0000 332.11 0.00 PART-TIME 101-13-4121-0000 763.50 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-13-4122-0000 776.01 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-13-4131-0000 1,602.92 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-13-4151-0000 72.19 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-15-4101-0000 1,824.50 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-15-4121-0000 136.85 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-15-4122-0000 137.06 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-15-4131-0000 156.00 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-15-4151-0000 11.63 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-18-4101-0000 5,264.40 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-18-4121-0000 394.83 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-18-4122-0000 399.99 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-18-4131-0000 463.50 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-18-4151-0000 30.68 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-24-4101-0000 4,152.76 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-24-4121-0000 311.46 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-24-4122-0000 261.38 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-24-4131-0000 515.00 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-24-4151-0000 26.10 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-32-4101-0000 10,694.39 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-32-4102-0000 46.05 0.00 OVERTIME 101-32-4121-0000 805.52 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-32-4122-0000 766.67 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-32-4131-0000 1,899.66 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-32-4151-0000 487.16 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-33-4101-0000 78.63 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-33-4121-0000 5.90 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-33-4122-0000 5.21 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-33-4151-0000 1.15 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION PR-G/L Distribution Report(08/21/2017- 11:50 AM) Page 1 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description 101-52-4101-0000 6,191.36 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-52-4121-0000 464.35 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-52-4122-0000 468.64 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-52-4131-0000 1,086.61 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-52-4151-0000 194.02 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-53-4101-0000 1,482.07 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-53-4121-0000 111.15 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-53-4122-0000 107.58 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-53-4131-0000 22.28 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-53-4151-0000 43.76 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 54,291.04 54,291.04 FUND 201 Southshore Center 201-00-1010-0000 0.00 1,626.76 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 201-00-4101-0000 871.19 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 201-00-4102-0000 229.32 0.00 OVERTIME 201-00-4103-0000 335.00 0.00 PART-TIME 201-00-4121-0000 65.36 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 201-00-4122-0000 88.03 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 201-00-4151-0000 37.86 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 1,626.76 1,626.76 FUND 601 Water Utility 601-00-1010-0000 0.00 4,677.85 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 601-00-4101-0000 3,301.86 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 601-00-4102-0000 45.44 0.00 OVERTIME 601-00-4105-0000 151.45 0.00 WATER PAGER PAY 601-00-4121-0000 262.39 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 601-00-4122-0000 247.68 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 601-00-4131-0000 588.79 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 601-00-4151-0000 80.24 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 4,677.85 4,677.85 FUND 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 611-00-1010-0000 0.00 4,656.13 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 611-00-4101-0000 3,139.54 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 611-00-4102-0000 182.98 0.00 OVERTIME 611-00-4105-0000 151.45 0.00 SEWER PAGER PAY 611-00-4121-0000 260.56 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 611-00-4122-0000 241.87 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 611-00-4131-0000 588.79 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 611-00-4151-0000 90.94 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION PR-G/L Distribution Report(08/21/2017- 11:50 AM) Page 2 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description FUND Total: 4,656.13 4,656.13 FUND 621 Recycling Utility 621-00-1010-0000 0.00 408.96 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 621-00-4101-0000 292.82 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 621-00-4121-0000 21.96 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 621-00-4122-0000 21.18 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 621-00-4131-0000 71.93 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 621-00-4151-0000 1.07 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 408.96 408.96 FUND 631 Storm Water Utility 631-00-1010-0000 0.00 1,462.71 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 631-00-4101-0000 1,052.07 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 631-00-4102-0000 159.02 0.00 OVERTIME 631-00-4121-0000 90.84 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 631-00-4122-0000 83.00 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 631-00-4131-0000 48.02 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 631-00-4151-0000 29.76 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 1,462.71 1,462.71 FUND 700 Payroll Clearing Fund 700-00-1010-0000 67,123.45 0.00 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 700-00-2170-0000 0.00 33,756.34 GROSS PAYROLL CLEARING 700-00-2171-0000 0.00 6,832.06 HEALTH INSURANCE PAYABLE 700-00-2172-0000 0.00 4,662.52 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700-00-2173-0000 0.00 2,004.92 STATE WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700-00-2174-0000 0.00 7,471.22 FICA/MEDICARE TAX PAYABLE 700-00-2175-0000 0.00 6,896.72 PERA WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700-00-2176-0000 0.00 1,699.52 DEFERRED COMPENSATION 700-00-2177-0000 0.00 1,106.56 WORKERS COMPENSATION 700-00-2181-0000 0.00 1,098.62 DISABILITY INSURANCE 700-00-2183-0000 0.00 735.77 HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT 700-00-2184-0000 0.00 502.20 DENTAL DELTA 700-00-2185-0000 0.00 357.00 DENTAL-UNION FUND Total: 67,123.45 67,123.45 Report Total: 134,246.90 134,246.90 PR-G/L Distribution Report(08/21/2017- 11:50 AM) Page 3 o � � a ct Q 0 w h N h w w w w d o O O O w � o O �,a v f/1 O O O O O O O O O y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O cl� c,5 N vu, vu, vu, cu� vu, U O U M U U U O M M U U U U O U U O u O u O u O U O O O O d� v n U � U � U � U to A N N N N N N N N N y o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 to p N N N N N N N N N o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 O O O O O O O O O a +' 01 01 O O \O \O O O O M \o h O 01 01 O O ^'� O O O N r— O O N h r-: O O 01 c1 N N N O h M 01 01 w z � o o U N o w w � w p O N N w o oc C7 O ; U h ° s Z 'u O ° N U O a O -u ,� u u h z h w � h � � .� .� P N o A to a U a U v U x U U N U U 0 0 U U o Ct PLO N � °O � x s. U oc N O N O Mi Mi M O 01 � � � N � N O 0 o O oo d a ~ U P N M h O 0 C) U o 0 o M o 0 o a1 c,� a1 0 O o o o o M o o o � N o oo �' a1 �' �' o U a 0.1 a � N o 0 0 0 o 11 zzz � � � WW ww 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w F-' ri ri ri w F" w F-' ri ri ri ri ri w x x x 0.1 0.1 0.1 x x x x 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 a a a U¢' U¢' U¢' U¢' a a a a a O N M � O O O O '� O O O '� O '� h '� O '� O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O U O U O O U O O O U O U O U O U O O O O O to CO U V1 U V1 V1 U U O U O U 00 U N p. �—� M M N N O O O O O M O O O O O U O O O 00 O O O O O U O O O O O O O CO O O O O O O O d U U U U o0 U v U U to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c� 00 00 00 00 00 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N to 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O.i 0 0 0 0 0 o O o v v O O O n v o o N v v o 0 o o n v o o O N v v fl) o o N N M M n n n o 0 N N N v o v v a o o v v o N N o 0 m oo M M �o �n �n �o �o M M M M N Nom" v rn rn to CZ ct O W t C7 o U U to U x O O o °�° W N 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 W Z °o O Ca Ca 0 0 0 0 0 °o ct v h O h O ct d O u u u w 1 U Q � U w rx rx rx rx rx A N U U Q U QUU U Q Pti ti 0.1 U Q W U W m U W m U W a a a a a 00 w 0 0 a x U U 'O s. O m FI. O O O to N N N N N to •0 O O O O O vWi O O O x x 00 00 00 M N M h \O 'C O O O O O U G' N L: N M L: L: L: CO G' \O L: ° o M M N Cl) a a a a a O U O M U U pp 00 00 00 x x x r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °O °O °O to o 0 0 w x x x x x x x a u u u u u u u a a a O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O N O O O N o 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O to � o g o o � o g o o 'O o0 'O N N O M O N N O O O O O O O u ,k' O O ,k' ,k' N N ,k' O O O O ,k' O O O O r.. U O U O O U U M M U O O O O U O O O O U O O O U U U U ~ U U O O O N O N = O O O O O to Ca O O O O O O O O O O O O o o O O o c� c� c� c� c� c� N N N N N N N N N N c� o0 oc oc oc oc 0o v v v v v v v v h h p N N N N N N N N N N N N N N o O N to o0 oc oc oc oc oc x x x x x x x x oc oc oc O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O.i +• v �n �n o �n �n o o O o0 00 00 °l v v M M O O O � N o r- M M N v v v o v o O M vi oo M o o ri oo ,� v m M \O N 01 h O h CO \O N N O M O QI Ni N � N U U w O a a z o 0 0 U h U U o 0 0 oo 0 O O O ° to o o u u u u u u u u 0 0 0 c� UUUU UUUU A U w m U CW7 0 o U c°� U C�7 a s U U x P4 P4 P4 P4 U x a a a w 0 0 O O N *O *O U 'OC 00 O oo P4 ;:4 N N h oo \O U 'Z' M to to h vmi O O O y cD -O ^O oo l 4 i.. O i-. i. M i.. CO cD • O O O �i �i O O O � O O O O 7 F7 M F7 � Mi F7 M F7 N M F7 F7 F7 N Ol Ol w w w o o Q Q on U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 oc o N N N w w w N N w w h ri ri w °o °o 0 0 0 °O °O o to 0 0 0 o o o o w 0.1 0.1 0.1 x x x 0.1 0.1 x x x 0.1 0.1 x C4 a a a u u u a a u u u O O O N O N O O O N O O N O N O N O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U O U O O O U O O U O U O U O O U O to O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � 00 00 N C O U O O O u O U O M U U U U U O O u O u O U O O O U U �o �o �o � � � � U to o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c� c� c� c� c� c� c� c� c� c� c� c� y oc oc oc oc oc oc to N N N N N N N N N N oc oc oc oc oc oc O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O.i +' N O O N O O N N O O O O N O N M M O 01 cl N N O O \O 00 O 01 O� O O 00 N N C M \O 01 N 01 01 01 01 01 h '/� 01 M O O O 01 01 It 9 to Q N U o W o 'c� 'ct 'ct y O o c� o o U o o w ° ° E N o w o o N .a o o W o0 No to on o U O Ca � a o U U .l w 0 0 a x U U .L" O U N cD cD cl pp � N � � N 00 N \O � � h U to 4O 4 ' ' ' O s0. O N N N o 00 00 O 0o0 O h o a. U G U O N h h w h h N w w h w U U U U U p U U U U d o 01 O N M \O h N O M O M O M O O M O M O M O M O M O O O O O O O O O O O t,i U O U O U O U O O U O U O U O U O U O y O O O O O O O O O O U p U A U ,--i U 00 O U M U V1 U O U V1 U M O 00 M O O O M c,5 N vu, vu, Z x x oo x r x r r x oo x oo x N x x U U U U U U U U U U d U ° U o U ° U ° ° U U °o U ° U ° U ° to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q c� c� c� c� c� c� c� c� c� y oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo p N N N N N N N N N N oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O.i +' O O h h O O 01 O cl N N M M O O \O \O O O O N N O O N \O 01 01 M M O O 01 01 O h r-: CO CO O O O : 00 00 O O O C CO CO Vl N N N r— O O 00 00 N N h oo QI h h N N N N \O N Z a CO Q� 00 P i O O F to Z U y o r a a4 O = oo o P. o o A U a U U U z z U a U U U N U z z a w 0 0 a x U U .L" ti U h 01 00 p y 00 h N O U i; p i; O i; i; O O M O O M M O 00 O h O O O h \o 'C 01 c, 'C O 01 G' G' G' U O U O U Vl U I'D \O U 0.i U 00 N ,--i N h h P. M ° a a x � � 0 0 0 w w h F" ri F" ri ri h h d o 0 0 U a u u u U a u a a u u 00 01 O N M M O O O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U O O O U O U O O O O O O U O U O O U O U O O to O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O M N vi vi N N 00 00 uz U O O O u O O O O O O O O O O u O u O O to o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c� N N N N N N c� c� c� c� c� c� 00 00 00 00 v v v v v v 00 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N to 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O.i 00 M 00 00 Vl 00 h h h N O O O 00 O M \p h h CO h O \O O O O 01 00 O 01 00 O, �--i �--i Vl \O Vl Vl M 00 M M O 01 01 M M \O N z W M M N o0 00 N 00 w�j N 00 F U o o o 0 o F" Oo UC D o °o ° a a a Q Z x x a x Z CD °o °o EG o 00 00 to A U O C7 C7 C7 U O a U O 0.1 U w v U U :a w 0 0 a U O O � 00 sue. vi vi s. N O O O N N \0 CO O M O O O M M N N N ¢+ M CCD, O O to M 01 \0 _ N N N O •4 CO O N O 0C1 O O O O O O 00 O 00 00 \o \O \o \o \o 7 F7 N M \O F7 F7 M M M M M M F7 F7 F7 F7 ' 00 o a' � � a, a, a, 14 a w w w w w w w d Lei v, �o r- oo cl O o 0 0 0 o 0 0 't o 'r o � O ^ o ^ O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 o O O O o 0 0 0 o 0 0 O o o o o 0 0 to o 0 0 0 o 0 0 O o o o o 0 0 o000 o00 ob o o v o v o u o v v N N N N N N N O O O ,k' O U O M N M N u O u O u O u O O O N U U U U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q N N N N N N N c� o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 p N N N N N N N N N N N N N N o0 x x x o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O.i +• oo v v oo r- v N cl cl O O O O O o0 o0 0 0 0 o O o cl r- O o0 oo v o 0 0 0 0 0 n v v v o 0 0 0 0 0 c r o o v v a v v r r v v a o o a �o M M a1 oo N v N N N M r cl cl v� ,W Q W W O U 0o O o N z o o a z w v r z Z 0.1 a oN O O x on C7 Q' o0 C v v v v v v v z to O aQi O x ai Z o 0 U U U U U U U E� U to Q U 0.1 Pi P! P., P! U P! P! P! U U m U m P-i U U U w 0 0 c a U O O � O O o0 O FO h oc M M O � d p ~O •4 O O O N O O 00 a 0 0 0 O O O W `000 `000 `000 h W h h o fl) fl) fl) o 0 0 0 to Woc oc oc w w w w w x x x x x 01 O \o 01 O O O 00 O h O \o O O O to O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O N N M N O O O O O O N N O N O M M M O O O M O O O O N N N O N N O O O � u U O M u O O U h O O O O O O M O h M O O O O O O O O O d U o 0 o U U v U v U o v v v o o v v v v v v to Ca o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 p N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N to o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O.i +' 01 O O O 00 00 O 00 h M O M O O O O O O O O O O O \O \O 00 N \O M O M N O O O h O O N O O N O N O O 00 00 00 vi h \O M Mi \O \O N _ 00 h N O O O M \O �n : N M O \6 \O M O O M ~ \O O h O h h_ M N 01 \o \o h 00 O \O N 01 CO 00 01 01 01 M M Vl O h \O h N Vl \O 01 O ~ N N O r— O O izz O W a O O � cC oc oc M N O ' N q ti ti id a O ti N ti i U o. n tro ct to to o to U rxrxrxrxrxw C7 O U a m° 0.1wN a w 0 0 a x U cl '7 CO '7 \O \O \O N U O O O O O O O O O O \O 01 01 'n N '7 \O 00 O M 't . h . O M \O N O O N N O N N N N N N M M M fl)fl) U Ol N N N N N N N N N N N N N N •0 N N N O O O M h N O O O O O O 'a M M "O 'a h oo N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (� ' O c, c, c O c, O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r— r— r— cl a N N N N N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p cl cl c " N P. N N N N N P. o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � a U r o o N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c5 0 0 0 0 0 a, o v �o 00 0 o 0 o o N o0 0 '� o0 0o a1 0o a1 a1 a1 0o a1 00 00 Z o 0 0 0 o x a� c5 c5 c5 0 0 0 0 0 0 c5 Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O.i x N o1 O N 00 N N M h N h O O O o1 01 O \o 00 \o h M C \o O O N N al -t� r,1 '1: 00 N N 00 O \o M 00 N \O h N 41 --i N h M M M N 41 Vl h 41 Vl CO h N CO Vl Vl 00 41 M \o N N 'O O � � U U O -C, ON 00 A w v U x x W v o o U >C U a a a 0.01 v m N n v U w 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N U CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO S.' O O O O O 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 M O ' o Vl Vl Vl Vl 01 iz r- r- r- r- r- izi N O CL U ON1 ON1 ON1 ON1 4O #2D MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item REGULAR .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission 2017 Budget Meeting Date: August 28, 2017 Prepared by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator Attachments: LMCC memo, Resolution Attached please find a cover memo from Jim Lundberg, Operations Manager of the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) along with proposed 2018 operating budget and five-year capital plan. This budget and five year plan were approved at the August 101h Commission meeting. Council Action As a member of the LMCC JPA,the City Council is required to annually approve the budget. Staff recommends approval of the budget and five year capital plan as presented. 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. Pagel CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 17 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED 2018 LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION BUDGET WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood("City") is a member of the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission ("LMCC"); and WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Agreement governing the LMCC requires that an annual budget be proposed and that it shall be adopted unless rejected by a majority of members within 45 days; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed 2018 LMCC Budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the 2018 LMCC budget. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 28th day of August, 2017. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Sandie Thone, City Clerk � � � L.AKE MKNNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 4071 SUNSET DRIVE= BOX 385~SPRING PARK, K8W55384-0385°Q52471J125 ° FAX 952,471.91G1m |moc( |mnc-\xorg 8/14/17 To: All LK8CC Member Cities From:Arn Lundberg, Operations Manager osspo*wem Reason: LK4[C's 2018 Budget EmosLm/on Attached, please find e copy of the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission's 2018 Budget and 5 Year Capital Plan.The Budget was approved at our August 101h Commission GREENWOOD meeting. One major highUghtistheLMCCbeQinninQtobudAetforthecontinuationofnurAV Support Program that will start|n 2020,to provide continued investment in both sound and /wosp swoewns video recording quaU yvv quality our member city cound m.| chambers.Additional capital highlights � � include more up to date LAN and staff Computers, back-Up power for our major systems � (Channels and edit bays)and converting our Community Channel 12 to HD. � LONG LAKE Please bring it to your Council for approval.Also, please feel free to call or e-mail me if you have LnReno m any questions. Interested parties can vievvour August 1D Commission meeting from the LK4C['svvebsite atvvvvvv.|mmo-tv.orQ MAPLE PLAIN M/mmsrowxw Sincerely, asaoo aT.eow/pAomm Jim Lundberg Operations Manager soonewouo LK8CC (952)471-7125 x104 SPRING PARK WsuoLxwo i Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission 2017 Budget Detail vs 2018 Budget Final 2017 2017 2018 2018 Quarterly Annualized Quarterly Annualized Updated on 7/25/17 Budget Revenues Franchise fees $ 55,268.03 $ 221,072.11 $ 55,268.03 $ 221,072.11 PEG fees $ 23,832.24 $ 95,328.96 $ 25,000.00 $ 100,000.00 Mound Usage fees $ 11,118.69 $ 44,474.77 $ 10,575.00 $ 42,300.00 Studio Rental/DVD Dubs $ 625.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 625.00 $ 2,500.00 All other(VOD Services) $ 1,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 1,150.00 $ 4,600.00 Total Budgeted revenues $ 91,843.96 $ 367,375.84 $ 92,618.03 $ 370,472.11 Franchise Salaries Franchise $ 110,157.58 $ 112,360.57 PEG Production Salaries PEG $ 77,110.48 $ 80,262.29 Franchise PERA Contributions Franchise $ 8,211.98 $ 8,458.34 PEG Production PERA Contributions PEG $ 5,748.39 $ 5,920.84 Franchise FICA Contributions Franchise $ 8,006.19 $ 8,246.38 PEG Production FICA Contributions PEG $ 5,604.47 $ 5,772.60 Franchise Health Insurance Franchise $ 15,012.69 $ 15,012.69 PEG Production Health Insurance PEG $ 10,508.91 $ 10,508.91 Franchise Worker's Compensation Insurance Franchise $ 882.35 $ 384.50 PEG Prod.Worker's Compensation Insurance PEG $ 617.65 $ 384.50 Total Budget-Personnel Expenses $ 241,860.69 $ 247,311.62 Office Supplies Franchise $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00 Special Events/Meetings Franchise $ 300.00 $ - Repairs&Maintenance Supplies PEG $ 500.00 $ 500.00 Studio Expendables PEG $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 Audit/Accounting Fees Franchise $ 13,000.00 $ 6,000.00 Access Contractors Franchise $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 Legal Fees Franchise $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 Copier Expense Franchise $ 4,150.00 $ 4,150.00 Payroll Services Franchise $ 1,250.00 $ 1,250.00 Janitorial Services Franchise $ 2,900.00 $ 3,200.00 Security Services Franchise $ 300.00 $ 300.00 Telephone/Communications Franchise $ 3,500.00 $ 1,500.00 Postage Franchise $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 Computer Consulting Franchise $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 Training Franchise $ 400.00 $ - Travel Franchise $ - $ - Mileage Franchise $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Printing&Publishing Franchise $ 400.00 $ 400.00 Insurance Franchise $ 4,500.00 $ 2,900.00 Utilities Franchise $ 10,500.00 $ 10,500.00 Refuse&Recycling Franchise $ 1,500.00 $ 700.00 Bank Finance Fees Franchise $ - $ - Contracted Building Repair PEG $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 Maintenance Repair Equipment PEG $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 Equipment Rental PEG $ - $ - Advertising Franchise $ 200.00 $ - Van Operation PEG $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 Web streaming/Broadband Franchise $ 8,800.00 $ 8,800.00 Licenses Franchise $ 1,000.00 $ 500.00 Other Expenses/Contingency Franchise $ 500.00 $ 500.00 Capital Building Improvements PEG $ 2,000.00 $ - Total Budget-Expenses $ 86,300.00 $ 71,800.00 Total Budget-All Expenses $ 328,160.69 $ 319,111.62 Capital equipment expenditures budget PEG $ 27,347.98 $ 35,158.71 Capital Software PEG $ - $ 2,633.43 AV Support Program for Member Cities PEG $ 21,022.00 $ 13,600.00 Funding for 2020 AV Support Program PEG $ - $ 7,000.00 Total 2017 Budget-All expenses plus Capital $ 376,530.67 $ 377,503.76 00 N 00 �t O c-I Rt r-I N Il Rt M 00 00 Rt N 00 M O I�% O O O M Il m N O M r-I m to to N m N Il O N N Rt O ri O O O O ri 6 O O I-� 6 I-� 6 4 Uf l6 00 4 ri N 6 M O N L6 O LA N M M Ol O M O Ln Ln Ol Rt Rt Ol ri 1p I- r- M O in I- O n r- O � N N Ln N Rt F, ri Rt Ln Ol Ln N Ol N lO O Il 00 O 00 Rt N c-I c-I N 00 c-I r- N l 6 O LD R N N Rt r-I M M r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I c-I M N N c-I N c-I c-I O c-I c-I O X H X H M U) I- U) N Tt U) O to N N Tt O 1-I N Tt M O S M N to N I, ri m Ln r-I M M r-I Rt M r- to R S O u 6 I� 1p O to Rt O O M ri N Rt r- ri Ln Rt � � � Ln � XM c-I N z O r-I M r-I ri O c-I N 1p M U Ln Ol Ol Ol O Ol O to N ri Ol Ol O Ol Ln O O O O O O s 0 01 01 01 O Uf O Gl ri UP C l Ol O Ol C l UP O O O s 0 0 U ri Ol Ol Ol O O Ln 1p m ri m m Ln Ol M to Ln Ol O U O O u O O LL m N N to N M m N M 0 to to CF) M CF) O CF) CF) O L M to N N ri N ri Ri 1p ri Ln ri ri N N Ol Ol Ln O O O a- a- Rt N O O O (V U U tMo J Z O Ln (D d 0 0)LL N 00 \ N fC N Z 0 Z LNL Z Z Z DO Ol > m _ Z d L 0o O N � r, , > Ln d L- 3 Lo U ri N Q O Q J cC O I� o_ ° id L Ln i CD m ~ O O CL N u v $ N u O 3 2 O Q Q C: u Lu U U O L O -0 L 1 O 0p N N OL = (�6 N O N Q Q C d `~ CL J LL. O (C6 Q +, O U U E m � v Z a Q. J � (6 0 N U O N C }r �: (6 {n 7 (6 O u C L E > E N E a� o (6 N L a VI 0A " o q0 N N N Q 0 M Q O_ to N C O � (0 u OL C L Q .0 C cc� V C U pp E L L tlO 4 0 � t� D_ 3 C D_ O •L C �` 0 '� � O 0 V"I u m M O Q L O L Q \ N a-•� C 41 L co Q N M m ) M Q O M (6 L L N Q (n 2 O Q v J L S N U N N N (6 Q L Q J N O N C LL U N 00 0 N \ U U S N O > M u > S Z C .0 (E6 N O M O * 0 E — Q nz u u M (n O a +� v E r-4 o L s M o w Q N ? N O•E cn o_ U ri N c-I M M ri 0 ri ri ri ri ri Tt M N N Tt ri N ri ri c-I r-I ai C7 ai C7 O M O M �t N 00 Ln to O M Rt Rt O 00 O to O w O r-I to N M O wt 00 M O ri O 00 O 00 ri I-� Ln I-� ri O N 4 4 6 O1 I- to O M Ln ri o0 Ln I, O 00 Ol Rt O M M O O S O c I N r-I O lD m Ln O M Ln Ln M M = I- O r-I = l c-I O 00 N r-I wt c-I N M N N R r-I r-I ri O r-I 00 00 0 k.0 k.0 O X H X X H O M Ln :i- N m N Rt O s O �o s w �o I- O � s ri o m m Rt o r-I 0 I� w r- Ln w r- Rt ua O r-I X � M X N r-I X M f6 c-I f6 f6 O O O Ol O Ol Ol Ol O O Ol O s O O O s ri O 0l 0l 0l O s O m O U O Ln O U Ln Ol Ol O U Ln C l O w 0 r-I O LL r- Ol c I O L U Ol M O 4- l0 r" O 4- r" Ol O 4- r-I N O 0 M Rt M o M r-I O L/L :F O O N cI O N O N U U U t/} � Z O � O o m Ln 0)N M to X — = Q O ca a 111 d d 00 m m `� ao ao NQ- X X Q- M d d M N N u O X s +' +' +, i g tw g 0A U U � U U g o o ~ N U U p O O d ++ m m ++ v v 3 3 O O a a L Q E E E N L an L (n L L y L �` f6 !n 0.o L 00 +, O Ln L Ln � L O O O U O an O C N !n •L L O N o O O f6 f6 41 O LO s s U L1 m O U m O Q � L Q Q a Ln Ln Q Q E Q u � 0 � to g = _ CL U O Q- w \ p o tin N E N o o E = `n C7 > o U > +- d Q N -a to N Q am. Q O rlj UO C7 M O 0 U U N � 0 M N N O O � U N M M i 00 00 � ri ri ri r c-I R l0 l0 c-I #2E MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Resolution 17-069; 2017 Joint Powers Agreements on Behalf of Prosecuting Attorney Meeting Date: Monday, August 28, 2017 Prepared by: Sandie Thone, City Clerk Reviewed by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator Attachments: Resolution Approving 2017 Joint Powers Agreement on Behalf of Prosecuting Attorney JPA Agreement CDJN Agreement Policy Consideration: Approval of 2017 Joint Powers Agreements on Behalf of Prosecuting Attorney and CDJN Subscriber Agreement: The State of Minnesota Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) and Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment to CDJN Subscriber Agreement will expire soon. The agreement allows access to the criminal justice communication network. The City of Shorewood on behalf of its Prosecuting Attorney desires to enter into Joint Powers Agreements with the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to use systems and tools available over the State’s criminal justice data communications network for which the City is eligible. The Joint Powers Agreements further provide the City with the ability to add, modify and delete connectivity, systems and tools over the five year life of the agreement and obligates the City to pay the costs for the network connection. The City Prosecutor, Kenneth N. Potts, or his or her successor, is designated the Authorized Representative for the Prosecuting Attorney. The Authorized Representative is also authorized to sign any subsequent amendment or agreement that may be required by the State of Minnesota to maintain the City’s connection to the systems and tools offered by the State. Background: Agency Relationship Financial or Budget Considerations: N/A Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff respectfully requests the city council to consider approval of Resolution 17-069 approving the 2017 Joint Powers Agreements on Behalf of Prosecuting Attorney and the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment to CDJN Subscriber Agreement. Motion, Second, Simple Majority required. Connection to Vision /Mission: Consistency in providing the community with quality public services and a healthy environment. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 RESOLUTION 17- 069 RESOLUTION APPROVING STATE OF MINNESOTA JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD ON BEHALF OF ITS PROSECUTING ATTORNEY WHEREAS, the City of SHOREWOOD on behalf of its Prosecuting Attorney desires to enter into Joint Powers Agreements with the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to use systems and tools available over the State’s criminal justice data communications network for which the City is eligible. The Joint Powers Agreements further provide the City with the ability to add, modify and delete connectivity, systems and tools over the five year life of the agreement and obligates the City to pay the costs for the network connection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the State of Minnesota Joint Powers Agreements by and between the State of Minnesota acting through its Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and the City of Shorewood on behalf of its Prosecuting Attorney, are hereby approved. 2. That the City Prosecutor, Kenneth N. Potts, or his or her successor, is designated the Authorized Representative for the Prosecuting Attorney. The Authorized Representative is also authorized to sign any subsequent amendment or agreement that may be required by the State of Minnesota to maintain the City’s connection to the systems and tools offered by the State. 3. That Scott Zerby, the Mayor for the City of Shorewood, and Sandie Thone, the City Clerk, are authorized to sign the State of Minnesota Joint Powers Agreements. Passed and Adopted by the Council on this 28th day of August 2017. CITY OF SHOREWOOD _________________________________ By: Scott Zerby Its Mayor ATTEST:____________________________________ By: Sandie Thone Its City Clerk SWIFT Contract # 128724 MN027301A STATE OF MINNESOTA JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT AUTHORIZED AGENCY This agreement is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension ("BCA") and the City of Shorewood on behalf of its Prosecuting Attorney ("Agency"). Recitals Under Minn. Stat. § 471.59, the BCA and the Agency are empowered to engage in those agreements that are necessary to exercise their powers. Under Minn. Stat. § 299C.46 the BCA must provide a criminal justice data communications network to benefit authorized agencies in Minnesota. The Agency is authorized by law to utilize the criminal justice data communications network pursuant to the terms set out in this agreement. In addition, BCA either maintains repositories of data or has access to repositories of data that benefit authorized agencies in performing their duties. Agency wants to access these data in support of its official duties. The purpose of this Agreement is to create a method by which the Agency has access to those systems and tools for which it has eligibility, and to memorialize the requirements to obtain access and the limitations on the access. Agreement 1 Term of Agreement 1.1: Effective date This Agreement is effective on the date the BCA obtains all required signatures under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subdivision 2. 1.2: Expiration date This Agreement expires five years from the date it is effective. 2 Agreement between the Parties 2.1 General access. BCA agrees to provide Agency with access to the Minnesota Criminal Justice Data Communications Network (CJDN) and those systems and tools which the Agency is authorized by law to access via the CJDN for the purposes outlined in Minn. Stat. § 299C.46. 2.2 Methods of access. The BCA offers three (3) methods of access to its systems and tools. The methods of access are: Direct access A. occurs when individual users at the Agency use Agency’s equipment to access the BCA’s systems and tools. This is generally accomplished by an individual user entering a query into one of BCA’s systems or tools. Indirect access B. occurs when individual users at the Agency go to another Agency to obtain data and information from BCA’s systems and tools. This method of access generally results in the Agency with indirect access obtaining the needed data and information in a physical format like a paper report. Computer-to-computer system interface C. occurs when Agency’s computer exchanges data and information with BCA’s computer systems and tools using an interface. Without limitation, interface types include: state message switch, web services, enterprise service bus and message queuing. For purposes of this Agreement, Agency employees or contractors may use any of these methods to use BCA’s systems and tools as described in this Agreement. Agency will select a method of access and can change the methodology following the process in Clause 2.10. 2.3 Federal systems access. In addition, pursuant to 28 CFR §20.30-38 and Minn. Stat. §299C.58, BCA may provide Agency with access to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) National Crime Information Center. 1 SWIFT Contract # 128724 MN027301A 2.4 Agency policies. Both the BCA and the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Systems (FBI-CJIS) have policies, regulations and laws on access, use, audit, dissemination, hit confirmation, logging, quality assurance, screening (pre- , employment), security, timeliness, training, use of the systemand validation. Agency has created its own policies to ensure that Agency’s employees and contractors comply with all applicable requirements. Agency ensures this compliance through appropriate enforcement. These BCA and FBI-CJIS policies and regulations, as amended and updated from time to time, are incorporated into this Agreement by reference. The policies are available at https://bcanextest.x.state.mn.us/launchpad/. 2.5 Agency resources. To assist Agency in complying with the federal and state requirements on access to and use of the various systems and tools, information is available at https://sps.x.state.mn.us/sites/bcaservicecatalog/default.aspx. Additional information on appropriate use is found in the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Policy on Appropriate Use of Systems and Data available at https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca- divisions/mnjis/Documents/BCA-Policy-on-Appropriate-Use-of-Systems-and-Data.pdf. 2.6 Access granted. A. Agency is granted permission to use all current and future BCA systems and tools for which Agency is eligible. Eligibility is dependent on Agency (i) satisfying all applicable federal or state statutory requirements; (ii) complying with the terms of this Agreement; and (iii) acceptance by BCA of Agency’s written request for use of a specific system or tool. B. To facilitate changes in systems and tools, Agency grants its Authorized Representative authority to make written requests for those systems and tools provided by BCA that the Agency needs to meet its criminal justice obligations and for which Agency is eligible. 2.7 Future access. On written request by Agency, BCA also may provide Agency with access to those systems or tools which may become available after the signing of this Agreement, to the extent that the access is authorized by applicable state and federal law. Agency agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement that when utilizing new systems or tools provided under this Agreement. 2.8 Limitations on access. BCA agrees that it will comply with applicable state and federal laws when making information accessible. Agency agrees that it will comply with applicable state and federal laws when accessing, entering, using, disseminating, and storing data. Each party is responsible for its own compliance with the most current applicable state and federal laws. .9 Supersedes prior agreements. 2 This Agreement supersedes any and all prior agreements between the BCA and the Agency regarding access to and use of systems and tools provided by BCA. 2.10 Requirement to update information. The parties agree that if there is a change to any of the information whether required by law or this Agreement, the party will send the new information to the other party in writing within 30 days of the change. This clause does not apply to changes in systems or tools provided under this Agreement. This requirement to give notice additionally applies to changes in the individual or organization serving a city as its prosecutor. Any change in performance of the prosecutorial function must be provided to the BCA in writing by giving notice to the Service Desk, BCA.ServiceDesk@state.mn.us. 2.11 Transaction record. The BCA creates and maintains a transaction record for each exchange of data utilizing its systems and tools. In order to meet FBI-CJIS requirements and to perform the audits described in Clause 7, there must be a method of identifying which individual users at the Agency conducted a particular transaction. If Agency uses either direct access as described in Clause 2.2A or indirect access as described in Clause 2.2B, BCA’s transaction record meets FBI-CJIS requirements. When Agency’s method of access is a computer to computer interface as described in Clause 2.2C, the Agency must 2 SWIFT Contract # 128724 MN027301A keep a transaction record sufficient to satisfy FBI-CJIS requirements and permit the audits described in Clause 7 to occur. If an Agency accesses data from the Driver and Vehicle Services Division in the Minnesota Department of Public Safety and keeps a copy of the data, Agency must have a transaction record of all subsequent access to the data that are kept by the Agency. The transaction record must include the individual user who requested access, and the date, time and content of the request. The transaction record must also include the date, time and content of the response along with the destination to which the data were sent. The transaction record must be maintained for a minimum of six (6) years from the date the transaction occurred and must be made available to the BCA within one (1) business day of the BCA’s request. 2.12Court information access. Certain BCA systems and tools that include access to and/or submission of Court Records may only be utilized by the Agency if the Agency completes the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment, which upon execution will be incorporated into this Agreement by reference. These BCA systems and tools are identified in the written request made by Agency under Clause 2.6 above. The Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment provides important additional terms, including but not limited to privacy (see Clause 8.2, below), fees (see Clause 3 below), and transaction records or logs, that govern Agency’s access to and/or submission of the Court Records delivered through the BCA systems and tools. 2.13 Vendor personnel screening. The BCA will conduct all vendor personnel screening on behalf of Agency as is required by the FBI CJIS Security Policy. The BCA will maintain records of the federal, fingerprint-based background check on each vendor employee as well as records of the completion of the security awareness training that may be relied on by the Agency. 3 Payment The Agency understands there is a cost for access to the criminal justice data communications network described in Minn. Stat. § 299C.46. At the time this Agreement is signed, BCA understands that a third party will be responsible for the cost of access. Agency will identify the third party and provide the BCA with the contact information and its contact person for billing purposes so that billing can be established. The Agency will provide updated information to BCA’s Authorized Representative within ten business days when this information changes. If Agency chooses to execute the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment referred to in Clause 2.12 in order to access and/or submit Court Records via BCA’s systems, additional fees, if any, are addressed in that amendment. 4 Authorized Representatives The BCA's Authorized Representative is Dana Gotz, Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Minnesota Justice Information Services, 1430 Maryland Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55106, 651-793-1007, or her successor. The Agency's Authorized Representative is Kenneth Potts, City Attorney, 5101 Thimsen Avenue, Minnetonka, MN 55345, (952) 474-4240, or his/her successor. 5Assignment, Amendments, Waiver, and Contract Complete 5.1 Assignment. Neither party may assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this Agreement. 5.2 Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement, except those described in Clauses 2.6 and 2.7 above must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been signed and approved by the same parties who signed and approved the original agreement, their successors in office, or another individual duly authorized. 5.3 Waiver. If either party fails to enforce any provision of this Agreement, that failure does not waive the provision or the right to enforce it. 5.4 Contract Complete. This Agreement contains all negotiations and agreements between the BCA and the Agency. No other understanding regarding this Agreement, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party. 3 SWIFT Contract # 128724 MN027301A 6Liability Each party will be responsible for its own acts and behavior and the results thereof and shall not be responsible or liable for the other party’s actions and consequences of those actions. The Minnesota Torts Claims Act, Minn. Stat. § 3.736 and other applicable laws govern the BCA’s liability. The Minnesota Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 466, governs the Agency’s liability. 7Audits 7.1 Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5, the Agency’s books, records, documents, internal policies and accounting procedures and practices relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by the BCA, the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this Agreement. Under Minn. Stat. § 6.551, the State Auditor may examine the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of BCA. The examination shall be limited to the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices that are relevant to this Agreement. 7.2 Under applicable state and federal law, the Agency’s records are subject to examination by the BCA to ensure compliance with laws, regulations and policies about access, use, and dissemination of data. 7.3 If Agency accesses federal databases, the Agency’s records are subject to examination by the FBI and Agency will cooperate with FBI examiners and make any requested data available for review and audit. 7.4 To facilitate the audits required by state and federal law, Agency is required to have an inventory of the equipment used to access the data covered by this Agreement and the physical location of each. 8Government Data Practices 8.1 BCA and Agency. The Agency and BCA must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data accessible under this Agreement, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Agency under this Agreement. The remedies of Minn. Stat. §§ 13.08 and 13.09 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Agency or the BCA. 8.2 Court Records. If Agency chooses to execute the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment referred to in Clause 2.12 in order to access and/or submit Court Records via BCA’s systems, the following provisions regarding data practices also apply. The Court is not subject to Minn. Stat. Ch. 13 (see section 13.90) but is subject to the Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court. All parties acknowledge and agree that Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subdivision 4(e) requires that the BCA and the Agency comply with the Rules of Public Access for those data received from Court under the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment. All parties also acknowledge and agree that the use of, access to or submission of Court Records, as that term is defined in the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment, may be restricted by rules promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court, applicable state statute or federal law. All parties acknowledge and agree that these applicable restrictions must be followed in the appropriate circumstances. 9 Investigation of alleged violations; sanctions For purposes of this clause, “Individual User” means an employee or contractor of Agency. 9.1Investigation . Agency and BCA agree to cooperate in the investigation and possible prosecution of suspected violations of federal and state law referenced in this Agreement. Agency and BCA agree to cooperate in the investigation of suspected violations of the policies and procedures referenced in this Agreement. When BCA becomes aware that a violation may have occurred, BCA will inform Agency of the suspected violation, subject to any restrictions in applicable law. When Agency becomes aware that a violation has occurred, Agency will inform BCA subject to any restrictions in applicable law. 9.2Sanctions Involving Only BCA Systems and Tools. The following provisions apply to BCA systems and tools not covered by the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment. None of these provisions alter the Agency’s internal discipline processes, including those governed by a 4 SWIFT Contract # 128724 MN027301A collective bargaining agreement. 9.2.1 For BCA systems and tools that are not covered by the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment, Agency must determine if and when an involved Individual User’s access to systems or tools is to be temporarily or permanently eliminated. The decision to suspend or terminate access may be made as soon as alleged violation is discovered, after notice of an alleged violation is received, or after an investigation has occurred. Agency must report the status of the Individual User’s access to BCA without delay. BCA reserves the right to make a different determination concerning an Individual User’s access to systems or tools than that made by Agency and BCA’s determination controls. 9.2.2 If BCA determines that Agency has jeopardized the integrity of the systems or tools covered in this Clause 9.2, BCA may temporarily stop providing some or all the systems or tools under this Agreement until the failure is remedied to the BCA’s satisfaction. If Agency’s failure is continuing or repeated, Clause 11.1 does not apply and BCA may terminate this Agreement immediately. 9.3 Sanctions Involving Only Court Data Services The following provisions apply to those systems and tools covered by the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment, if it has been signed by Agency. As part of the agreement between the Court and the BCA for the delivery of the systems and tools that are covered by the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment, BCA is required to suspend or terminate access to or use of the systems and tools either on its own initiative or when directed by the Court. The decision to suspend or terminate access may be made as soon as an alleged violation is discovered, after notice of an alleged violation is received, or after an investigation has occurred. The decision to suspend or terminate may also be made based on a request from the Authorized Representative of Agency. The agreement further provides that only the Court has the authority to reinstate access and use. 9.3.1 Agency understands that if it has signed the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment and if Agency’s Individual Users violate the provisions of that Amendment, access and use will be suspended by BCA or Court. Agency also understands that reinstatement is only at the direction of the Court. 9.3.2 Agency further agrees that if Agency believes that one or more of its Individual Users have violated the terms of the Amendment, it will notify BCA and Court so that an investigation as described in Clause 9.1 may occur. 10 Venue Venue for all legal proceedings involving this Agreement, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 11 Termination 11.1 Termination. The BCA or the Agency may terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days’ written notice to the other party’s Authorized Representative. 11.2 Termination for Insufficient Funding. Either party may immediately terminate this Agreement if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source; or if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered here. Termination must be by written notice to the other party’s authorized representative. The Agency is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date of termination. However, the BCA will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds are available. Neither party will be assessed any penalty if the agreement is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source, not to appropriate funds. Notice of the lack of funding must be provided within a reasonable time of the affected party receiving that notice. 12 Continuing obligations The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this Agreement: 6. Liability; 7. Audits; 8. Government Data Practices; 9. Investigation of alleged violations; sanctions; and 10.Venue. 5 SWIFT Contract # 128724 MN027301A The parties indicate their agreement and authority to execute this Agreement by signing below. 1. AGENCY 2. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION Name: _____________________________________________ (PRINTED) Name: _____________________________________________ (PRINTED) Signed: ____________________________________________ Signed: ____________________________________________ Title: ______________________________________________ (with delegated authority) Title: ______________________________________________ (with delegated authority) Date: ______________________________________________ Date: ______________________________________________ 3. COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION Name: _____________________________________________ delegated to Materials Management Division (PRINTED) By: ______________________________________________ Signed: ____________________________________________ Date: _____________________________________________ Title: ______________________________________________ (with delegated authority) Date: ______________________________________________ 6 COURT DATA SERVICES SUBSCRIBER AMENDMENT TO CJDN SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT This Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment (“Subscriber Amendment”) is entered into by the State of Minnesota, acting through its Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, (“BCA”) and the City of Shorewood on behalf of its Prosecuting Attorney (“Agency”), and by and for the benefit of the State of Minnesota acting through its State Court Administrator’s Office (“Court”) who shall be entitled to enforce any provisions hereof through any legal action against any party. Recitals This Subscriber Amendment modifies and supplements the Agreement between the BCA and Agency, SWIFT Contract number 128724, of even or prior date, for Agency use of BCA systems and tools (referred to herein as “the CJDN Subscriber Agreement”). Certain BCA systems and tools that include access to and/or submission of Court Records may only be utilized by the Agency if the Agency completes this Subscriber Amendment. The Agency desires to use one or more BCA systems and tools to access and/or submit Court Records to assist the Agency in the efficient performance of its duties as required or authorized by law or court rule. Court desires to permit such access and/or submission. This Subscriber Amendment is intended to add Court as a party to the CJDN Subscriber Agreement and to create obligations by the Agency to the Court that can be enforced by the Court. It is also understood that, pursuant to the Master Joint Powers Agreement for Delivery of Court Data Services to CJDN Subscribers (“Master Authorization Agreement”) between the Court and the BCA, the BCA is authorized to sign this Subscriber Amendment on behalf of Court. Upon execution the Subscriber Amendment will be incorporated into the CJDN Subscriber Agreement by reference. The BCA, the Agency and the Court desire to amend the CJDN Subscriber Agreement as stated below. The CJDN Subscriber Agreement is amended by the addition of the following provisions: TERM; TERMINATION; ONGOING OBLIGATIONS. 1. This Subscriber Amendment shall be effective on the date finally executed by all parties and shall remain in effect until expiration or termination of the CJDN Subscriber Agreement unless terminated earlier as provided in this Subscriber Amendment. Any party may terminate this Subscriber Amendment with or without cause by giving written notice to all other parties. The effective date of the termination shall be thirty days after the other party's receipt of the notice of termination, unless a later date is specified in the notice. The provisions of sections 5 through 9, 12.b., 12.c., and 15 through 24 shall survive any termination of this Subscriber Amendment as shall any other provisions which by their nature are intended or expected to survive such termination. Upon termination, the Subscriber shall perform the responsibilities set forth in paragraph 7(f) hereof. Definitions 2. . Unless otherwise specifically defined, each term used herein shall have the meaning assigned to such term in the CJDN Subscriber Agreement. 1 a.“Authorized Court Data Services” means Court Data Services that have been authorized for delivery to CJDN Subscribers via BCA systems and tools pursuant to an Authorization Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement for Delivery of Court Data Services to CJDN Subscribers (“Master Authorization Agreement”) between the Court and the BCA. b.“Court Data Services” means one or more of the services set forth on the Justice Agency Resource webpage of the Minnesota Judicial Branch website (for which the current address is www.courts.state.mn.us) or other location designated by the Court, as the same may be amended from time to time by the Court. c.Court Records “” means all information in any form made available by the Court to Subscriber through the BCA for the purposes of carrying out this Subscriber Amendment, including: CourtCase Information i.“ ” means any information in the Court Records that conveys information about a particular case or controversy, including without limitation Court Confidential Case Information, as defined herein. Court Confidential Case Information ii.“” means any information in the Court Records that is inaccessible to the public pursuant to the Rules of Public Access and that conveys information about a particular case or controversy. Court Confidential Security and Activation Information” iii.“ means any information in the Court Records that is inaccessible to the public pursuant to the Rules of Public Access and that explains how to use or gain access to Court Data Services, including but not limited to login account names, passwords, TCP/IP addresses, Court Data Services user manuals, Court Data Services Programs, Court Data Services Databases, and other technical information. Court Confidential Information iv.“” means any information in the Court Records that is inaccessible to the public pursuant to the Rules of Public Access, including without limitation both i) Court Confidential Case Information; and ii) Court Confidential Security and Activation Information. d.DCA “” shall mean the district courts of the state of Minnesota and their respective staff. e.Policies & Notices “” means the policies and notices published by the Court in connection with each of its Court Data Services, on a website or other location designated by the Court, as the same may be amended from time to time by the Court. Policies & Notices for each Authorized Court Data Service identified in an approved request form under section 3, below, are hereby made part of this Subscriber Amendment by this reference and provide additional terms and conditions that govern Subscriber’s use of Court Records accessed through such services, including but not limited to provisions on access and use limitations. 2 f.Rules of Public Access “” means the Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court, as the same may be amended from time to time, including without limitation lists or tables published from time to time by the Court entitled Limits on Public Access to Case Records or Limits on Public Access to Administrative Records, all of which by this reference are made a part of this Subscriber Amendment. It is the obligation of Subscriber to check from time to time for updated rules, lists, and tables and be familiar with the contents thereof. It is contemplated that such rules, lists, and tables will be posted on the Minnesota Judicial Branch website, for which the current address is www.courts.state.mn.us. g.Court “” shall mean the State of Minnesota, State Court Administrator's Office. h.“Subscriber” shall mean the Agency. i.Subscriber Records “” means any information in any form made available by the Subscriber to the Court for the purposes of carrying out this Subscriber Amendment. 3.REQUESTS FOR AUTHORIZED COURT DATA SERVICES. Following execution of this Subscriber Amendment by all parties, Subscriber may submit to the BCA one or more separate requests for Authorized Court Data Services. The BCA is authorized in the Master Authorization Agreement to process, credential and approve such requests on behalf of Court and all such requests approved by the BCA are adopted and incorporated herein by this reference the same as if set forth verbatim herein. a.Activation . Activation of the requested Authorized Court Data Service(s) shall occur promptly following approval. b.Rejection . Requests may be rejected for any reason, at the discretion of the BCA and/or the Court. c.Requests for Termination of One or More Authorized Court Data Services . The Subscriber may request the termination of an Authorized Court Data Services previously requested by submitting a notice to Court with a copy to the BCA. Promptly upon receipt of a request for termination of an Authorized Court Data Service, the BCA will deactivate the service requested. The termination of one or more Authorized Court Data Services does not terminate this Subscriber Amendment. Provisions for termination of this Subscriber Amendment are set forth in section 1. Upon termination of Authorized Court Data Services, the Subscriber shall perform the responsibilities set forth in paragraph 7(f) hereof. 4. SCOPE OF ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS LIMITED. Subscriber’s access to and/or submission of the Court Records shall be limited to Authorized Court Data Services identified in an approved request form under section 3, above, and other Court Records necessary for Subscriber to use Authorized Court Data Services. Authorized Court Data Services shall only be used according to the instructions provided in corresponding Policies & Notices or other materials and only as necessary to assist Subscriber in the efficient performance of Subscriber’s duties 3 required or authorized by law or court rule in connection with any civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any Federal, State, or local court or agency or before any self-regulatory body. Subscriber’s access to the Court Records for personal or non-official use is prohibited. Subscriber will not use or attempt to use Authorized Court Data Services in any manner not set forth in this Subscriber Amendment, Policies & Notices, or other Authorized Court Data Services documentation, and upon any such unauthorized use or attempted use the Court may immediately terminate this Subscriber Amendment without prior notice to Subscriber. 5. GUARANTEES OF CONFIDENTIALITY. Subscriber agrees: a. To not disclose Court Confidential Information to any third party except where necessary to carry out the Subscriber’s duties as required or authorized by law or court rule in connection with any civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any Federal, State, or local court or agency or before any self-regulatory body. b. To take all appropriate action, whether by instruction, agreement, or otherwise, to insure the protection, confidentiality and security of Court Confidential Information and to satisfy Subscriber’s obligations under this Subscriber Amendment. c. To limit the use of and access to Court Confidential Information to Subscriber’s bona fide personnel whose use or access is necessary to effect the purposes of this Subscriber Amendment, and to advise each individual who is permitted use of and/or access to any Court Confidential Information of the restrictions upon disclosure and use contained in this Subscriber Amendment, requiring each individual who is permitted use of and/or access to Court Confidential Information to acknowledge in writing that the individual has read and understands such restrictions. Subscriber shall keep such acknowledgements on file for one year following termination of the Subscriber Amendment and/or CJDN Subscriber Agreement, whichever is longer, and shall provide the Court with access to, and copies of, such acknowledgements upon request. For purposes of this Subscriber Amendment, Subscriber’s bona fide personnel shall mean individuals who are employees of Subscriber or provide services to Subscriber either on a voluntary basis or as independent contractors with Subscriber. d. That, without limiting section 1 of this Subscriber Amendment, the obligations of Subscriber and its bona fide personnel with respect to the confidentiality and security of Court Confidential Information shall survive the termination of this Subscriber Amendment and the CJDN Subscriber Agreement and the termination of their relationship with Subscriber. e. That, notwithstanding any federal or state law applicable to the nondisclosure obligations of Subscriber and Subscriber’s bona fide personnel under this Subscriber Amendment, such obligations of Subscriber and Subscriber's bona fide personnel are founded independently on the provisions of this Subscriber Amendment. 6. APPLICABILITY TO PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSED COURT RECORDS. Subscriber acknowledges and agrees that all Authorized Court Data Services and related Court Records disclosed to Subscriber prior to the effective date of this Subscriber Amendment shall be subject to the provisions of this Subscriber Amendment. 4 7. LICENSE AND PROTECTION OF PROPRIETARY RIGHTS. During the term of this Subscriber Amendment, subject to the terms and conditions hereof, the Court hereby grants to Subscriber a nonexclusive, nontransferable, limited license to use Court Data Services Programs and Court Data Services Databases to access or receive the Authorized Court Data Services identified in an approved request form under section 3, above, and related Court Records. Court reserves the right to make modifications to the Authorized Court Data Services, Court Data Services Programs, and Court Data Services Databases, and related materials without notice to Subscriber. These modifications shall be treated in all respects as their previous counterparts. a. Court Data Services Programs. Court is the copyright owner and licensor of the Court Data Services Programs. The combination of ideas, procedures, processes, systems, logic, coherence and methods of operation embodied within the Court Data Services Programs, and all information contained in documentation pertaining to the Court Data Services Programs, including but not limited to manuals, user documentation, and passwords, are trade secret information of Court and its licensors. b. Court Data Services Databases. Court is the copyright owner and licensor of the Court Data Services Databases and of all copyrightable aspects and components thereof. All specifications and information pertaining to the Court Data Services Databases and their structure, sequence and organization, including without limitation data schemas such as the Court XML Schema, are trade secret information of Court and its licensors. c. Marks. Subscriber shall neither have nor claim any right, title, or interest in or use of any trademark used in connection with Authorized Court Data Services, including but not limited to the marks “MNCIS” and “Odyssey.” d. Restrictions on Duplication, Disclosure, and Use. Trade secret information of Court and its licensors will be treated by Subscriber in the same manner as Court Confidential Information. In addition, Subscriber will not copy any part of the Court Data Services Programs or Court Data Services Databases, or reverse engineer or otherwise attempt to discern the source code of the Court Data Services Programs or Court Data Services Databases, or use any trademark of Court or its licensors, in any way or for any purpose not specifically and expressly authorized by this Subscriber Amendment. As used herein, "trade secret information of Court and its licensors" means any information possessed by Court which derives independent economic value from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. "Trade secret information of Court and its licensors" does not, however, include information which was known to Subscriber prior to Subscriber’s receipt thereof, either directly or indirectly, from Court or its licensors, information which is independently developed by Subscriber without reference to or use of information received from Court or its licensors, or information which would not qualify as a trade secret under Minnesota law. It will not be a violation of this section 7, sub-section d, for Subscriber to make up to one copy of training materials and configuration documentation, if any, for each individual authorized to access, use, or configure Authorized Court Data Services, solely for its own use in connection with this Subscriber Amendment. Subscriber will take all steps reasonably necessary to protect the copyright, trade secret, and trademark rights of Court and its licensors and Subscriber will advise its bona fide personnel who are permitted access to any of the Court Data Services Programs and Court Data Services Databases, and trade secret information of Court and its licensors, of the restrictions upon duplication, disclosure and use contained in this Subscriber Amendment. 5 e. Proprietary Notices. Subscriber will not remove any copyright or proprietary notices included in and/or on the Court Data Services Programs or Court Data Services Databases, related documentation, or trade secret information of Court and its licensors, or any part thereof, made available by Court directly or through the BCA, if any, and Subscriber will include in and/or on any copy of the Court Data Services Programs or Court Data Services Databases, or trade secret information of Court and its licensors and any documents pertaining thereto, the same copyright and other proprietary notices as appear on the copies made available to Subscriber by Court directly or through the BCA, except that copyright notices shall be updated and other proprietary notices added as may be appropriate. f. Title; Return. The Court Data Services Programs and Court Data Services Databases, and related documentation, including but not limited to training and configuration material, if any, and logon account information and passwords, if any, made available by the Court to Subscriber directly or through the BCA and all copies, including partial copies, thereof are and remain the property of the respective licensor. Except as expressly provided in section 12.b., within ten days of the effective date of termination of this Subscriber Amendment or the CJDN Subscriber Agreement or within ten days of a request for termination of Authorized Court Data Service as described in section 4, Subscriber shall either: (i) uninstall and return any and all copies of the applicable Court Data Services Programs and Court Data Services Databases, and related documentation, including but not limited to training and configuration materials, if any, and logon account information, if any; or (2) destroy the same and certify in writing to the Court that the same have been destroyed. 8. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF . Subscriber acknowledges that the Court, Court’s licensors, and DCA will be irreparably harmed if Subscriber’s obligations under this Subscriber Amendment are not specifically enforced and that the Court, Court’s licensors, and DCA would not have an adequate remedy at law in the event of an actual or threatened violation by Subscriber of its obligations. Therefore, Subscriber agrees that the Court, Court’s licensors, and DCA shall be entitled to an injunction or any appropriate decree of specific performance for any actual or threatened violations or breaches by Subscriber or its bona fide personnel without the necessity of the Court, Court’s licensors, or DCA showing actual damages or that monetary damages would not afford an adequate remedy. Unless Subscriber is an office, officer, agency, department, division, or bureau of the state of Minnesota, Subscriber shall be liable to the Court, Court’s licensors, and DCA for reasonable attorneys fees incurred by the Court, Court’s licensors, and DCA in obtaining any relief pursuant to this Subscriber Amendment. 9. LIABILITY. Subscriber and the Court agree that, except as otherwise expressly provided herein, each party will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of any others and the results thereof. Liability shall be governed by applicable law. Without limiting the foregoing, liability of the Court and any Subscriber that is an office, officer, agency, department, division, or bureau of the state of Minnesota shall be governed by the provisions of the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, section 3.376, and other applicable law. Without limiting the foregoing, if Subscriber is a political subdivision of the state of Minnesota, liability of the Subscriber shall be governed by the provisions of Minn. Stat. Ch. 466 (Tort Liability, Political Subdivisions) or other applicable law. Subscriber and Court further acknowledge that the liability, if any, of the BCA is governed by a separate agreement between the Court and the BCA dated December 13, 2010 with DPS-M -0958. 6 10. AVAILABILITY. Specific terms of availability shall be established by the Court and communicated to Subscriber by the Court and/or the BCA. The Court reserves the right to terminate this Subscriber Amendment immediately and/or temporarily suspend Subscriber’s Authorized Court Data Services in the event the capacity of any host computer system or legislative appropriation of funds is determined solely by the Court to be insufficient to meet the computer needs of the courts served by the host computer system. 11 . [reserved] 12. ADDITIONAL USER OBLIGATIONS. The obligations of the Subscriber set forth in this section are in addition to the other obligations of the Subscriber set forth elsewhere in this Subscriber Amendment. a.Judicial Policy Statement. Subscriber agrees to comply with all policies identified in Policies & Notices applicable to Court Records accessed by Subscriber using Authorized Court Data Services. Upon failure of the Subscriber to comply with such policies, the Court shall have the option of immediately suspending the Subscriber’s Authorized Court Data Services on a temporary basis and/or immediately terminating this Subscriber Amendment. b.Access and Use; Log. Subscriber shall be responsible for all access to and use of Authorized Court Data Services and Court Records by Subscriber’s bona fide personnel or by means of Subscriber’s equipment or passwords, whether or not Subscriber has knowledge of or authorizes such access and use. Subscriber shall also maintain a log identifying all persons to whom Subscriber has disclosed its Court Confidential Security and Activation Information, such as user ID(s) and password(s), including the date of such disclosure. Subscriber shall maintain such logs for a minimum period of six years from the date of disclosure, and shall provide the Court with access to, and copies of, such logs upon request. The Court may conduct audits of Subscriber’s logs and use of Authorized Court Data Services and Court Records from time to time. Upon Subscriber’s failure to maintain such logs, to maintain accurate logs, or to promptly provide access by the Court to such logs, the Court may terminate this Subscriber Amendment without prior notice to Subscriber. c.Personnel. Subscriber agrees to investigate, at the request of the Court and/or the BCA, allegations of misconduct pertaining to Subscriber’s bona fide personnel having access to or use of Authorized Court Data Services, Court Confidential Information, or trade secret information of the Court and its licensors where such persons are alleged to have violated the provisions of this Subscriber Amendment, Policies & Notices, Judicial Branch policies, or other security requirements or laws regulating access to the Court Records. d.Minnesota Data Practices Act Applicability . If Subscriber is a Minnesota Government entity that is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, Subscriber acknowledges and agrees that: (1) the Court is not subject to Minn. Stat. Ch. 13 (see section 13.90) but is subject to the Rules of Public Access and other rules promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court; (2) Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subdivision 4(e) requires that Subscriber comply with the Rules of Public Access and other rules promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court for access to Court Records provided via the 7 BCA systems and tools under this Subscriber Amendment; (3) the use of and access to Court Records may be restricted by rules promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court, applicable state statute or federal law; and (4) these applicable restrictions must be followed in the appropriate circumstances. 13. FEES; INVOICES. Unless the Subscriber is an office, officer, department, division, agency, or bureau of the state of Minnesota, Subscriber shall pay the fees, if any, set forth in applicable Policies & Notices, together with applicable sales, use or other taxes. Applicable monthly fees commence ten (10) days after notice of approval of the request pursuant to section 3 of this Subscriber Amendment or upon the initial Subscriber transaction as defined in the Policies & Notices, whichever occurs earlier. When fees apply, the Court shall invoice Subscriber on a monthly basis for charges incurred in the preceding month and applicable taxes, if any, and payment of all amounts shall be due upon receipt of invoice. If all amounts are not paid within 30 days of the date of the invoice, the Court may immediately cancel this Subscriber Amendment without notice to Subscriber and pursue all available legal remedies. Subscriber certifies that funds have been appropriated for the payment of charges under this Subscriber Amendment for the current fiscal year, if applicable. 14. MODIFICATION OF FEES. Court may modify the fees by amending the Policies & Notices as provided herein, and the modified fees shall be effective on the date specified in the Policies & Notices, which shall not be less than thirty days from the publication of the Policies & Notices. Subscriber shall have the option of accepting such changes or terminating this Subscriber Amendment as provided in section 1 hereof. 15. WARRANTY DISCLAIMERS. a. WARRANTY EXCLUSIONS. EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY PROVIDED HEREIN, COURT, COURT’S LICENSORS, AND DCA MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR MERCHANTABILITY, NOR ARE ANY WARRANTIES TO BE IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, SERVICES OR COMPUTER PROGRAMS MADE AVAILABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. b. ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF INFORMATION. WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, COURT, COURT’S LICENSORS, AND DCA MAKE NO WARRANTIES AS TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE COURT RECORDS. 16. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES. Subscriber is an independent contractor and shall not be deemed for any purpose to be an employee, partner, agent or franchisee of the Court, Court’s licensors, or DCA. Neither Subscriber nor the Court, Court’s licensors, or DCA shall have the right nor the authority to assume, create or incur any liability or obligation of any kind, express or implied, against or in the name of or on behalf of the other. 17. NOTICE. Except as provided in section 2 regarding notices of or modifications to Authorized Court Data Services and Policies & Notices, any notice to Court or Subscriber 8 hereunder shall be deemed to have been received when personally delivered in writing or seventy- two (72) hours after it has been deposited in the United States mail, first class, proper postage prepaid, addressed to the party to whom it is intended at the address set forth on page one of this Agreement or at such other address of which notice has been given in accordance herewith. 18. NON-WAIVER. The failure by any party at any time to enforce any of the provisions of this Subscriber Amendment or any right or remedy available hereunder or at law or in equity, or to exercise any option herein provided, shall not constitute a waiver of such provision, remedy or option or in any way affect the validity of this Subscriber Amendment. The waiver of any default by either Party shall not be deemed a continuing waiver, but shall apply solely to the instance to which such waiver is directed. 19. FORCE MAJEURE. Neither Subscriber nor Court shall be responsible for failure or delay in the performance of their respective obligations hereunder caused by acts beyond their reasonable control. 20. SEVERABILITY. Every provision of this Subscriber Amendment shall be construed, to the extent possible, so as to be valid and enforceable. If any provision of this Subscriber Amendment so construed is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or otherwise unenforceable, such provision shall be deemed severed from this Subscriber Amendment, and all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 21. ASSIGNMENT AND BINDING EFFECT. Except as otherwise expressly permitted herein, neither Subscriber nor Court may assign, delegate and/or otherwise transfer this Subscriber Amendment or any of its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other. This Subscriber Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, including any other legal entity into, by or with which Subscriber may be merged, acquired or consolidated. 22. GOVERNING LAW. This Subscriber Amendment shall in all respects be governed by and interpreted, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the United States and of the State of Minnesota. 23. VENUE AND JURISDICTION. Any action arising out of or relating to this Subscriber Amendment, its performance, enforcement or breach will be venued in a state or federal court situated within the State of Minnesota. Subscriber hereby irrevocably consents and submits itself to the personal jurisdiction of said courts for that purpose. 24. INTEGRATION . This Subscriber Amendment contains all negotiations and agreements between the parties. No other understanding regarding this Subscriber Amendment, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party, provided that all terms and conditions of the CJDN Subscriber Agreement and all previous amendments remain in full force and effect except as supplemented or modified by this Subscriber Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have, by their duly authorized officers, executed this Subscriber Amendment in duplicate, intending to be bound thereby. 9 1. SUBSCRIBER (AGENCY) 2. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION Subscriber must attach written verification of authority to sign on behalf of and bind the entity, Name: ____________________________________________ such as an opinion of counsel or resolution. (PRINTED) Signed: ___________________________________________ Name: _______________________________________ (PRINTED) Signed: _______________________________________ Title: _____________________________________________ (with delegated authority) Date: _____________________________________________ Title: ________________________________________ (with delegated authority) 3. COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION Date: ________________________________________ delegated to Materials Management Division By: ______________________________________________ Name: _______________________________________ Date: _____________________________________________ (PRINTED) Signed: _______________________________________ 4. COURTS Authority granted to Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Title: ________________________________________ Name: ____________________________________________ (with delegated authority) (PRINTED) Date: ________________________________________ Signed: ___________________________________________ Title: _____________________________________________ (with authorized authority) Date: _____________________________________________ 10 #2F MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Ordinance 545 Codification of Ordinances for 2017 Supplement S-12 Meeting Date: Monday, August 28, 2017 Prepared by: Sandie Thone, City Clerk Reviewed by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator Attachments: Ordinance 545 Codification of Ordinances for 2017 Supplement S-12 Background: On November 22, 2004, Council adopted Ordinance 409 which approved the Municipal Code Book codification provided by American Legal Publishing Corporation and the League of MN Cities. Eleven (11) supplements have been completed since the initial codification. The twelfth supplement (S-12) to the City Code includes ordinances through and including Ordinance 541. This ordinance if so adopted shall take effect upon publication in the city’s official newspaper. Financial or Budget Considerations: Budget Item: Administration Budget: Cost of S-12 Supplement does not exceed budgeted funds. Recommendation/Action Requested: 2 Motions Required as Outlined Below: 1)Motion: Staff respectfully requests the city council to consider adoption of Ordinance 545 Codification of Ordinances for 2017 Supplement S-12 to the Shorewood City Code, provided by American Legal Publishing Corporation. Motion, Second, and Majority required. 2)Motion: Staff respectfully requests the city council to consider approval of the Summary Publication and Content as described in the attached summary publication. Motion, Second and Four-Fifths Vote required. Connection to Vision /Mission: Consistency in providing the community with quality public services. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE 545 AN ORDINANCE ENACTING AND ADOPTING THE 2017 S-12 SUPPLEMENT TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD MINNESOTA WHEREAS American Legal Publishing Corporation of Cincinnati, Ohio, has completed the twelfth Supplement to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shorewood, which supplement contains all ordinances up through and including Ordinance No. 541 of a general and permanent nature enacted since the prior supplement of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shorewood; and WHEREAS , it is the intent of the City of Shorewood to accept these updated sections, as outlined in the attached Exhibit A; NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, ordains: Section 1. That the twelfth supplement to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shorewood as submitted by American Legal Publishing Corporation of Cincinnati, Ohio, is hereby accepted. Section 2. This ordinance adopting the 2017 S-12 Supplement to the Code of Ordinances shall take effect upon publication in the City's official newspaper. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, this 28th day of August 2017. __________________________ Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk #2G MEETING TYPE REGULAR City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Resolution Electing To Not Waive Statutory Tort Limits for Liability Insurance Meeting Date: August 28, 2017 Prepared by: Greg Lerud Attachment: Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City waive the statutory tort limits, waive the limits and purchase excess liability coverage, or waive the limits and not purchase excess liability coverage. Background: The City Council is required to annually pass a resolution indicating if they wish to waive or not waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability insurance established by Minnesota Statute 466.04. The current statutory liability limits are $500,000 per claimant and $1,500,000 per occurrence. Traditionally the city has not waived statutory tort limits, and not purchased additional liability insurance. That is the action taken by most cities, and attached to this form is an informational memo from the LMCIT about liability coverage so the council can be informed about the decision. Financial or Budget Considerations Traditionally the city has not waived liability limits and not purchased additional liability insurance. The proposed 2018 budget has been prepared as if that practice continues. Options: The City Council can do the following: 1. Adopted the attached Resolution and not waive the limits. 2. Waive the statutory limits and do not purchase excess liability insurance coverage. 3. Waive the statutory limits and purchase excess liability insurance coverage. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution as submitted by staff. Next Steps and Timelines: Staff is working through the insurance renewal process for the November 1 renewal date. Connection to Vision/Mission: This process contributes to sound financial management through proper insurance coverage. 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. Pagel CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ELECTING TO NOT WAIVE STATUTORY TORT LIMITS FOR LIABILITY INSURANCE WHEREAS, pursuant to previous action taken, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust has requested the City to make an election with regards to waiving or not waiving its tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04; and WHEREAS, the choices available are to not waive the statutory limit, to waive the limit but to keep insurance coverage at the statutory limit, or to waive the limit and to add insurance to a new level; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD AS FOLLOWS: That the Shorewood City Council does hereby elect to not waive the statutory tort liability limit established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04, and elects not to purchase additional liability insurance. This election is effective until amended by further resolution of the Shorewood City Council. Further, the Shorewood City Council does not ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 28th day of August, 2017. ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk t LErGU F CON NECTING & INNOVATING MINNESOTA SINCE 1913 CITIES RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION LMCIT LIABILITY COVERAGE OPTIONS Liability Limits, Coverage Limits, and Waivers LMCIT gives cities several options for structuring their liability coverage. The city can choose either to waive or not to waive the monetary limits the statutes provide;and the city can select from among several liability coverage limits. This memo discusses these options and identifies some issues to consider in deciding which of the options best meets the city's needs. What are the statutory limits on municipal tort liability? The statutes limit a city's tort liability to a maximum of$500,000 per claimant and $1,500,000 per occurrence. These limits apply whether the claim is against the city, against the individual officer or employee, or against both. What are the coverage limits for LMCIT's basic primary liability coverage? For coverage written or renewed on or after November 15,2014, LMCIT's liability coverage will provide a limit of$2,000,000 per occurrence. Besides the overall coverage limit of$2,000,000 per occurrence, there are also annual aggregate limits(that is, limits on the total amount of coverage for the year regardless of the number of claims), for certain specific risks. Aggregate Iii-nits apply to the following: Products $3,000,000 annually Failure to supply utilities $3,000,000 annually Data security breaches $3,000,000 annually EMF $3,000,000 annually Limited pollution* $3,000,000 annually Mold $3,000,000 annually Employers liability(work comp) $1,500,000 annually Land use/special risk litigation" $1,000,000 annually Activities in outside organizations $100,000 annually , Includes sudden and accidental releases of pollutants; herbicide and pesticide application; sewer ruptures,overflows and backups;and lead and asbestos claims. Dredging or excavation claims are subject to a$250,000 sublimit. These limits apply to both damages and defense costs. **Coverage is provided on a sliding scale percentage basis, which is based on participation in LMC1T's online land use training. Coverage applies to both damages and litigation costs. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 145UNIVIRSITVAVr.MST rtio.vt:(G5I)281•i200 FAx:(65I)281.1298 INSURANCE T ItU ST ST.PAUL.MN 55103-2044 Tvtt fRtt:(800)925-1112 xvto!wtvtivwc-ow Why does LMCIT provide higher coverage limits than the statutory limit? The reason is to give member cities better protection. The statutory liability limit caps the city's liability for many types of claims. But some liability claims, which are listed in the next section, aren't covered by the statutory Iimit, so the city's potential liability is unlimited. The higher limit also protects against a major incident in which many people might be injured. The $2,000,000 per occurrence coverage limit gives the city better protection for these types of claims, and makes it less likely the city could end up with liability exceeding its coverage limit. Another reason to provide higher limits is because it's increasingly more common to see contracts require more than the statutory limit of$1,500,000;a more common figure is a $2,000,000 limit. LMCIT's higher limits will now meet this requirement, but if even higher limits are required,there is the option to carry LMCIT's excess coverage to meet the additional requirements. LMCIT can also issue an endorsement to increase the city's coverage limit only for claims relating to a particular contract. If the statute limits our liability and LMCIT is already providing higher limits than required, why purchase even more limits? There are four good reasons why cities should strongly consider carrying LMCIT's excess coverage,which provides higher limits of liability coverage. Excess coverage is available in $1,000,000 increments, up to a maximum of$5,000,000. 1. The statutory tort limits either do not or may not apply to several types of claims The following are the types of claims the statutory limits do not apply to. LMCIT's higher limit of$2,000,000 will definitely provide better protection against these types of claims, but there could be cases where even that limit might not be enough. • Claims underfederal civil rights laws. These include Section 1983,the Americans with Disabilities Act, etc. • Clainns for tort liability that the city has assumed by contract. This occurs when a city agrees in a contract to defend and indemnify a private party. • Claims for actions in another state. This might occur in border cities that have mutual aid agreements with adjoining states, or when a city official attends a national conference or goes to Washington to lobby, etc. • Clah ns based on liquor sales. This mostly affects cities with municipal liquor stores, but it could also arise in connection with beer sales at a fire relief association fund-raiser, for example. • Claims based on a "taking" theory. Suits challenging land use regulations frequently include an "inverse condemnation" claim, alleging that the regulation amounts to a"taking" of the property. 2. LMCIT's primary liability coverage has annual limits on coverage for a few specific risks The table on page I lists the liability risks to which aggregate coverage limits apply. If the city has a loss or claim in one of these areas, there might not be enough limits remaining to cover the city's fir 11 exposure if there is a second loss of the same sort during the year. 2 Excess liability coverage gives the city additional protection against this risk as well. There are,though, a couple important restrictions on how the excess coverage applies to risks that are subject to aggregate limits: • The excess coverage does not apply to the following types of risks: • Failure to supply utilities. • Mold. • "Limited pollution" claims if either the pollutant release or the damage is below ground or in a body of water. • Auto no-fault claims. • Uninsurcd/underi nsu red motorist claims. • Workers' compensation, disability, or unemployment claims. • Claims under the medical payments coverage. • The excess coverage does not automatically apply to liquor liability unless the city specifically requests it. 3. The city may be required by contract to carry higher coverage limits LMCIT's limit of$2,000,000 will meet most contract requirements, but if even higher limits are required, LMCIT's excess coverage is an option. LMCIT can also issue an endorsement to increase the city's coverage limit only for claims relating to a particular contract. 4. There may be more than one political subdivision covered under the city's coverage An HRA,EDA, or port authority is itself a separate political subdivision. If the city EDA, for example, is named as a covered party on the city's coverage and a claim were made that involved both the city and the EDA,theoretically the claimant might be able to recover up to $1,500,000 from both the city and the EDA, since there are two political subdivisions involved. Excess coverage is one way to provide enough coverage limits to address this situation. Another solution is for the BRA, EDA, or port authority to carry separate liability coverage in its own name. This issue of multiple covered parties can also arise is if the city has agreed by contract to name another entity as a covered party, or to defend and indemnify another entity. Who needs excess liability coverage? If anything, excess liability coverage is even more important to a small city rather than to a large city. If a city ends up with more liability than it has coverage,the city will have to either draw on existing funds or go to its taxpayers to pay that judgment. A large city faced with, say, $1,000,000 of liability over and above what its LMCIT coverage pays might be able to spread that cost over several thousand taxpayers.The small city by contrast might be dividing that same $1,000,000 among only a couple hundred taxpayers. $1,000,000 divided among 5,000 taxpayers is$200 apiece—annoying but probably at least manageable for most taxpayers. $1,000,000 divided among 200 taxpayers is $5,000 apiece—enough to be a real problem for many. What's the effect of waiving the"per claimant"statutory liability limit? For cities that choose to waive the statutory limits,the city is choosing to waive the protection of the statutory limits, up to the amount of coverage the city has. Someone with a claim against a 3 city that has waived the statutory limits would be able to recover up to $2,000,000(of course the individual would have to prove to the court or jury that he or she really does have that amount of damages), rather than the statutory lit-nit of$500,000 per claimant. Because the waiver increases the exposure,the premium i rou hl 3%higher for coverage under the waiver option. For cities that choose not to waive the statutory limits, the city's liability is limited by the statute to no more than$500,000 per claimant and $1,500,000 per occurrence. LMCIT's higher coverage Iimits would only come into play on those types of claims that aren't covered by the statutory liability limit. Why would the city choose to pay more for the waiver-option coverage? The statutory liability limit only comes into play in a case where: • The city is in fact liable. • The injured party's actual proven damages are greater than the statutory limit. Very literally, applying the statutory liability limit means a it injured party won't be fully compensated for his or her actual, proven damages that were caused by city negligence. Some cities, as a matter of public policy, may want to have more assets available to compensate their citizens for injuries caused by the city's negligence. Waiving the statutory liability limits is a way to do that. Other cities may feel that the appropriate policy is to minimize the expenditure of the taxpayers' funds by taking full advantage of every protection the legislature has decided to provide. There's no right or wrong answer on this point. It's a discretionary question of city policy that each city council needs to decide for itself. What's the effect of waiving the statutory limits if the city has excess coverage? If the city has$1,000,000 of excess coverage and chooses to waive the statutory tort limits, the claimants(whether it's one claimant or several) could then potentially recover up to $3,000,000 in damages in a single occurrence. If the city carries higher excess coverage limits, the potential maximum recovery per occurrence is correspondingly higher. Carrying excess coverage under the waiver option is a way to address an issue that some cities find troubling: the case where many people are injured in a single occurrence caused by city negligence. Suppose, for example, that a city vehicle negligently runs into a school bus full of children, causing multiple serious injuries. $1,500,000 divided 50 ways may not go far toward compensating for those injuries. Excess coverage under the waiver option makes more firnds available to compensate the victims in that kind of situation. The cost of the excess liability coves e is about 25% greater if the city waives the statutory tort limits. The cost difference is proportionally greater than the cost difference at the primary level ' `"Fecausc for a city that carries excess coverage,waiving the statutory tort Iirnits increases both the per- claimant exposure and the per-occurrence exposure. Is there an increase in risk if the city waives the statutory tort liability limits? There is no increase in risk for the city to end up with Iiability if LMCIT doesn't cover it. The waiver form specifically says the city is waiving the statutory tort liability limits only to the extent of the city's coverage. 4 r Of course, that's not to say there is no risk the city's liability could exceed its coverage limits. Listed earlier in this memo are a number of ways that could happen to any city, but the waiver doesn't increase that risk. Can the city waive the statutory tort limits for the primary coverage but not for the excess coverage? No. If the city decides to waive the statutory tort limits, that waiver applies to the full extent of the coverage limits the city has. The city cannot partially waive the statutory limits. Is there a simple way to summarize the options? It's not necessarily simple, but the table on the following Your League Resource page is a shorthand summary of what the effect would be Call the Underwriting of the various coverage structure options in different Department at 651.281.1200 circumstances. or 800.925.1122 with any questions. 5 0 0 3 � b 3 � �~ o 0 0 ° 0 Q o 0 4, c c o 0 0 OCd N N M M O 64 64 64 6F3 V] U O En .� U O Q O O O O .y + O 6NF} b4 69 y o 0 o 0 o O o° a o Q o o 0 o ° � ioq C4 roq s o o (C U `8 bA+V3 btJ e � � C) o y > > v °oo CD U o o +� 6 0 0 0 .0 Gn 0 � ® 2H MEETING TYPE Ity of Shorewood nl Meeting l Item Regular Meeting ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Regular Appointment of Brett Baumann to Lead Supervisor Position, Public Works. Meeting Date: August 28, 2017 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Greg Lerud, City Administrator Reviewed by: Attachments None Policy Consideration: None. Background/ Previous Action: On January 17, 2017, the City Council approved the probationary appointment of Mr. Brett Baumann to the newly created position of Lead Supervisor for the Department of Public Works. Upon completion of a six month probationary period, Mr. Baumann was to have a performance review with recommendation being made by his supervisor as to regular appointment to the positon. It has been stated many times that one of the most difficult shifts in position for any employee is to move "From the ranks" to a leadership or managerial position. I am very pleased to announce that Mr. Baumann has done an exemplary job at making that transition. Not only has Brett made that transition seamlessly, but has excelled at earning the respect of the employees. The department has received several compliments on Brett's leadership and performance in the field. For example,just in the last week residents immediately adjacent to and in close proximity to the Amlee Road drainage issue commented on the work and leadership taken to resolve concerns in the initial grading and restoration of the drainage easement. This is just one example of Brett's abilities and commitment to serve in the position. Staff is very pleased with Mr. Baumann's leadership abilities, style of management, and work performance. Financial or Budget Considerations: In accordance with the offer extended to Mr. Baumann at the time of his probationary appointment, the rate of pay would be increased when he successfully obtained his Water Operator's License and completed the APWA Public Works Certificate Program. After that increase, future rate increases would follow the natural schedule of increases in accordance with nonunion employees. 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 Mr. Baumann has successfully obtained his Water Operator's License and APWA Certificate, with a resultant increase in pay. Therefore, the action being considered here does not impact the current rate for the position. Options 1. Make a motion making regular appoint of Mr. Brett Baumann to the position of Lead Supervisor for the Department of Public Works. 2. Take no action. 3. Provide staff alternative direction. Recommendation /Action Requested: Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion making regular appoint of Mr. Brett Baumann to the position of Lead Supervisor for the Department of Public Works. Connection to Vision/ Mission: Providing adequate and quality staff directly impacts the quality of public services. #21 MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Accept Constructed Improvements and Authorizing Final Payment for the Freeman Park South Parking Lot Improvements,City Project 17-12. Meeting Date: August 28, 2017 Prepared by: Paul Hornby, City Engineer Reviewed by: Attachments: Resolution, Final Payment Summary Background: The City Council awarded the construction contract for the Freeman Park South Parking Lot Improvements, City Project 17-12, on May 22, 2017. The Freeman Park South Parking Lot Improvements project consisted of minor grading and bituminous paving of the existing gravel parking lot to alleviate dust concerns during the summer and fall months. Wm Mueller&Sons, Inc. has completed the scheduled work in general conformance with the Contract documents and has requested final payment. The City Engineer has determined that the project is complete and final payment is appropriate. Wm Mueller&Sons, Inc. has submitted the two-year Maintenance Bond, Minnesota Form IC-134 Withholdings Affidavit, lien waivers and the signed request for final payment. A Resolution Accepting Improvements for the Freeman Park South Parking Lot Improvements, City Project 17-12, and Authorizing Final Payment is included for Council consideration of approval. Financial or Budget Considerations: The quote was awarded to Wm Mueller&Sons, Inc. with a total of$63,854.00 and the final project construction amount is$67,107.35. The amount remaining for payment with Payment Request No. 1/Final is$67,107.35. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Accepting Improvements for the Freeman Park South Parking Lot Improvements, City Project 17-12 and Authorizing Final Payment to Wm Mueller&Sons, Inc. in the amount of$67,107.35. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 17 - A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT FOR THE FREEMAN PARK SOUTH PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 17-12 WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood Council awarded the contract for the Freeman Park South Parking Lot Improvement Project, City Project 17-12, on May 22, 2017 to Wm Mueller & Sons, Inc. of Hamburg, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Contractor has completed the project work and has requested City acceptance of the project and final payment for the work performed and documented to date; and, WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made final inspection of the project and recommends acceptance and final payment be made by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: The City hereby accepts the work completed pursuant to said contract and authorizes final payment to the Contractor, and all warranties shall commence as of August 28, 2017. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 28th day of August, 2017. ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk Pay Voucher Page 1 of 4 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8926 WSB Project 02925-39- SHOR- Freeman Park Parking Lot Paving Improvements Final Pay Voucher No. 1 Contractor: Wm. Mueller&Sons, Inc. Contract No. 831 Park Avenue Vendor No. Hamburg, MN 55339 For Period: 7/1/2017 - 8/4/2017 Warrant# Date Contract Amounts Funds Encumbered Original Contract $63,854.00 Original $63,854.00 Contract Changes $0.00 Additional N/A Revised Contract $63,854.00 Total $63,854.00 Work Certified To Date Base Bid Items $67,107.35 Backsheet $0.00 Change Order $0.00 Supplemental Agreement $0.00 Work Order $0.00 Material On Hand $0.00 Total $67,107.35 Work Certified Work Certified Less Amount Less Previous Amount Paid Total Amount This Pay Voucher To Date Retained Payments This Pay Voucher Paid To Date 02925-39 $67,107.35 $67,107.35 $0.00 $0.00 $67,107.35 $67,107.35 Percent Retained: 0% Amount Paid This Final Pay Voucher $67,107.35 1 hereby certify that a Final Examination has been made of the noted Contract, that the Contract has been completed, that the entire amount of Work Shown in this Final Voucher has been performed and the Total Value of the Work Performed in accordance with, and pursuant to, the terms of the Contract is as shown in this Final Voucher. Approved By Approved By Wm. Mueller& Sons, Inc. Project Engineer Contractor Date Date Approved By City of Shorewoodr Date Pay Voucher Page 2 of 4 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8926 Project No. 02925-39 Final Pay Voucher No. 1 02925-39 Payment Summary No. From Date To Date Work Certified Amount Retained Amount Paid Per Pay Voucher Per Pay Voucher Per Pay Voucher 1 07/01/2017 08/04/2017 $67,107.35 $0.00 $67,107.35 Totals: $67,107.35 $0.00 $67,107.35 02925-39 Funding Category Report Funding Work Less Less Amount Paid Total Category Certified Amount Previous This Amount Paid No. To Date Retained Payments Pay Voucher To Date UNF 67,107.35 0.00 0.00 67,107.35 67,107.35 Totals: $67,107.35 $0.00 $0.00 $67,107.35 $67,107.35 02925-39 Funding Source Report Accounting Funding Amount Paid Revised Funds Paid To No. Source This Contract Encumbered Contractor Pay Voucher Amount To Date To Date UNF Unfunded 67,107.35 63,854.00 63,854.00 67,107.35 Totals: $67,107.35 $63,854.00 $63,854.00 $67,107.35 Pay Voucher Page 3 of 4 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8926 Project No. 02925-39 Final Pay Voucher No. 1 02925-39 Project Material Status Quantity Amount Line Item Description Units Unit Contract This This Quantity Amount Price Quantity Pay Pay To Date To Date Voucher Voucher FREEMAN PARK PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS $4,500.00 1 1 $4,500.00 1 $4,500.00 REMOVE 2 2104.503 BITUMINOUS S F $5.00 50 50 $250.00 50 $250.00 WALK REMOVE 3 2104.505 BITUMINOUS S Y $20.00 20 10.3 $206.00 10.3 $206.00 PAVEMENT SAWING 4 2104.513 BITUMINOUS L F $2.00 40 41 $82.00 41 $82.00 PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) 5 2105.601 SITE GRADING LS $2,880.00 1 1 $2,880.00 1 $2,880.00 6 2211.501 AGGREGATE TON $13.60 240 339.53 $4,617.61 339.53 $4,617.61 BASE CLASS 5 BITUMINOUS 7 2357.502 MATERIAL FOR GAL $3.25 180 168 $546.00 168 $546.00 TACK COAT TYPE SP 9.5 8 2360.501 WEARING TON $58.00 400 388.43 $22,528.94 388.43 $22,528.94 COURSE MIX (2,C) TYPE SP 12.5 9 2360.501 WEARING TON $58.00 400 407.4 $23,629.20 407.4 $23,629.20 COURSE MIX (2,C) 10 2360.601 BITUMINOUS EACH $1,875.00 1 1 $1,875.00 1 $1,875.00 SPILLWAY 11 2521.511 3" BITUMINOUS SF $17.00 50 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 WALK 12 2563.601 TRAFFIC LS $350.00 1 1 $350.00 1 $350.00 CONTROL 13 2573.502 SILT FENCE, L F $2.00 500 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 TYPE MS STORM DRAIN 14 2573.530 INLET EACH $100.00 2 1 $100.00 1 $100.00 PROTECTION 15 2574.508 FERTILIZER LB $2.00 20 75 $150.00 75 $150.00 TYPE 3 COMMON 16 2574.525 TOPSOIL C Y $40.00 20 101.74 $4,069.60 101.74 $4,069.60 BORROW 17 2575.501 SEEDING ACRE $4,000.00 0.04 0.13 $520.00 0.13 $520.00 18 2575.502 SEED MIXTURE LB $4.00 10 40 $160.00 40 $160.00 25-151 Pay Voucher Page 4 of 4 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8926 Project No. 02925-39 Final Pay Voucher No. 1 02925-39 Project Material Status Quantity Amount Line Item Description Units Unit Contract This This Quantity Amount Price Quantity Pay Pay To Date To Date HYDROMULCH Voucher Voucher 19 1 2575.605 TYPE 6 1 S Y 1 $1.00 180 643 $643.00 643 $643.00 Totals For FREEMAN PARK PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS: $67,107.35 $67,107.35 Project Totals: $67,107.35 $67,107.35 #6A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Memorial Bench Donation for Freeman Park Meeting Date: August 28, 2018 Prepared by: Marie Darling Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Policy Consideration: Should the City accept a donation for a memorial park bench for Freeman Park? Background: Brady Wasem, on behalf of the Linda Brandt Trust, recently proposed a donation of $1,000 for the installation of a park bench at Freeman Park. The donor has specified only that the words “Together in Spirit” be placed on the bench and that it be located close to the south playground. Financial or Budget Considerations: None. The donations cover the cost of purchase and installation. Options: Accept or reject the donation. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends accepting the donation and sending a thank you note to the trust. Staff would then move forward with installation. Next Steps and Timelines: Depending on other projects in the area, staff anticipates installation this fall. CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A DONATION FOR INSTALLATION OF A MEMORIAL BENCH FOR FREEMAN PARK WHEREAS , Brady Wasem, on behalf of the Linda Brandt Trust submitted a donation of $1,000 for the installation of a memorial bench at Freeman Park in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin; and WHEREAS , the donor has specified that the words “Together in Spirit” be placed on the bench and the bench be located by the south playground. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood hereby accepts the donation of the money towards a memorial park bench. th ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 28 day of August 2017. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Sandie Thone, City Clerk #6B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Accept Bids and Award Construction Contract for Badger Park Phase 2 Improvements, City Project 17-09 Meeting Date: August 28, 2017 Prepared by: Paul Hornby, City Engineer Reviewed by: Marie Darling, Planning Director, Greg Lerud,Administrator Attachments: Bid Summary, Resolution Background: The Badger Park Phase 2 Improvement project was initiated by the City Council in 2017. Phase 1 of the Badger Park Improvements was constructed in 2016, and included the construction of a lacrosse/football field just east of City Hall,within Badger Park. Phase 2 improvements have been budgeted for design and construction in 2017, in accordance with the approved Concept 1.5 layout as revised, and include extension of sewer and water services for a future site building,grading of green space, parking lot expansion, stormwater drainage improvements, landscaping, and sidewalks along the edge of the parking lot between City Hall and the South Shore Community Center. Council approved plans and specifications and authorized advertisement for bidding by resolution on July 10, 2017. The City received seven (7) bids which were, opened and read aloud on August 17, 2017. Bids ranged from $623,778.00 to$917,763.50 with the base bid plus bid alternates. The lowest responsive bid received was from Valley Paving, Inc. and the base and alternate bids break down as follows: Low bid Engineer's Estimate • Base bid (surface, drainage and utilities) $584,814.00 $519,125.85 • Alternate No. 1 (Storm pond cleaning) $ 20,478.00 $ 17,065.00 • Alternate No. 2 (Mill &Overlay parking lot) $ 18,486.00 $ 16,590.00 • Grand Total Bid $623,776.00 $552,780.85 The Bid Tabulation Summary is enclosed for Council information. The project bids are slightly higher than the budget amount in the Park CIP (Increased from $400,000 to$600,000 by Council March 13, 2017), and Council previously discussed utilizing reserve funds to make up the gap between the funding shortfall. The demolition of the warming house and shed by the South Shore Community Center are bid as part of the project. The electrical service for the field lights will need to be relocated under a separate quote and contract. Public Works and Engineering are assessing alternatives for the electrical service. Financial or Budget Considerations: The preliminary project costs were estimated to be $540,000. Final Engineer's opinion of project construction cost for the designed layout is$552,780.85. Funding for the project will come from the Park Fund, Utility Fund (water) and Stormwater Fund (for pond cleaning maintenance). Alternate No. 1 is proposed to be funded through the storm water fund and Alternate No. 2 by reserve or excess street funds from the 2017 budget. A portion of the watermain improvements are to be funded by the Water Utility Fund for abandonment of an old watermain. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 Staff recommendations for funding breaks down as follows: • Park Fund $582,448.00 • Utility Fund (Watermain) $ 2,366.00 • Stormwater Fund $ 20,478.00 • Street/Reserve Funds $ 18,486.00 • Total $623,778.00 Options: Staff recommends Council consider the following actions: 1. Approve the resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding the contract to the lowest bidder for the base bid 2. Approve the resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding the contract to the lowest bidder for the base bid plus bid Alternate No. 1, and/or bid Alternate 2 3. Provide staff with other direction 4. Take no action at this time. Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached resolution "Accepting bids and awarding contract to Valley Paving, Inc.for the Badger Park Phase 2 Improvements, City Project 17-09, and indicating the award of the Base Bid and selected Alternate Bid(s)" AL WS 477 Temperance Street St. Paul, MN 55101 (651)286-8450 August 18, 2017 Honorable Mayor and Council Members City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Badger Park Phase 2 Improvement Project City of Shorewood, MN Project No. 17-09 WSB Project No. 2925-30 Honorable Mayor and Council Members: The City received seven (7) bids which were, opened and read aloud on August 17, 2017. Bids ranged from $623,778.00 to $917,763.50 with the base bid plus bid alternates. The lowest responsive bid received was from Valley Paving, Inc. and the base and alternate bids break down as follows: Low bid Engineer's Estimate Base bid (surface, drainage and utilities) $584,814.00 $519,125.85 Alternate No. 1 (Storm pond cleaning) $ 20,478.00 $ 17,065.00 Alternate No. 2 (Mill & Overlay parking lot) $ 18,486.00 $ 16,590.00 Grand Total Bid $623,776.00 $552,780.85 The Bid Tabulation Summary is enclosed for Council information. The project bids are slightly higher than the budget amount in the Park CIP ($600,000), and Council previously discussed utilizing reserve funds to make up the gap between the funding shortfall. We recommend that the City Council consider these bids and consider award the contract to the lowest responsive bid received from Valley Paving, Inc. of Shakopee, Minnesota in the total amount of $623,776.00. Council will need to specify the award as the "Base Bid Plus Alternate(s) 1 and/or 2 as selected'. Sincerely, WSB &Associates, Inc. Paul Hornby, PE Senior Associate kkp Building a legacy—your legacy. Equal Opportunity Employer I wsbeng.com K:\02925-300\Admin\Construction Admin\Bidding\2925-30 LOR 082317.docx PROJECT: Badger Park Phase 2 Improvement Project City Project No. 17-09 OWNER: City of Shorewood, MN WSB Project No.: 02925-30 Bids Opened: August 17, 2017, 2:00 p.m. local time Contractor Bid Security (5%) Grand Total Bid 1 Valley Paving, Inc. X $623,778.00 2 Peterson Companies X $652,749.85 3 Ram Excavating X $683,346.86 4 Bituminous Roadways, Inc. X $685,000.00 5 New Look Contracting, Inc. X $725,780.0rr0 6 Veit &Company, Inc. X i � r��lllllllllll 7 Midwest Civil Constructors, LLC X $917,763.50 Engineer's Opinion of Cost $552,780.85 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct tabulation of the bids as received on August 17, 2017. Paul Hornby, PE, Sr. Pr �ed`e ct Manager Denotes corrected figure KA02925-300\Admin\Construction Admin\Bidding\2925-30 Bid Summary 081817 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 17 - A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR BADGER PARK PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT 17-09 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for local improvements designated as the Badger Park Phase 2 Improvements, City Project 17-09, bids were received, opened on August 17, 2017, tabulated according to law, and such tabulation is attached hereto and made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Valley Paving, Inc. of Shakopee, Minnesota is the lowest responsible and responsive bidder in compliance with the specifications. 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 Valley Paving, Inc. in the name of the City of Shorewood, Project No. 17-09, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council on file in the office of the City Clerk, (including and/or excluding) Alternate No. 1 Stormwater Pond Cleaning, and (including and/or excluding) Alternate No. 2 Mill and Overlay Parking Lot. 2. The fund allocation of construction costs are allocated as recommended by the City Engineer'. 3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except for the deposits of the successful bidder and the next two lowest bidders, which shall be retained until a contract has been signed. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 28h day of August, 2017. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Sandie Thone, City Clerk #7A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Leslie, Mark and Karleen – Lot Width Variance and Conditional Use Permit to Build on a Substandard Lot Meeting Date: 28 August 2017 Prepared by: Patti Helgesen Reviewed by: Marie Darling Review Deadline: November 8, 2017 Attachments: Staff Memorandum Minutes from the August 1, 2017 Planning Commission meeting (excerpt) Draft Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City grant a lot width variance and conditional use permit to Mark and Karleen Leslie to build a new home at 28241 Boulder Circle? Background: See attached staff memorandum for detailed background on this item. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application at its August 1, 2017 meeting and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the variance and conditional use permit as presented. Financial or Budget Considerations: None. The applicant’s application fees cover the cost of processing the request. Options: Approve, deny, or modify the resolution. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff agrees with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the request. Next Steps and Timelines: If Council is in agreement, a building permit can be issued upon receipt of an application. 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 n�z a o °CD z d y ° CD �. O CD CD ° CD CD W C) O tit O �:l 'C- �3 UP CCDD CD r-L ,-•r. W p `C . O O p' fi4 r� ° y CD 'G '� �! CD i n °� 0 �+ ¢. n C/1 rnJ.. C I A� CAD .-• 000 N CD n. Q" ~ n CD cn CD CD • 0�Q O (� �+ CD QQ O Ai y w b z O C CD (�D 00 N O_ v 0 J N .~i N N .P O 'S n O W y O ►AD! `"r r O e-f rt- pr n � Cr Ow Ow ^� O i.w y all N O J b UQ CD A� rGb i-� h b UQ n O O• n 0 z d c c.n J n O N v� o CA O � O o O � O � O • w CD Uh (� O �. AD y O � d LA (!1 y O O O x 0 0 0 d H uO ' yJ z d y 0 J N .~i N N .P O 'S n O W y O ►AD! `"r r O e-f rt- pr n � Cr Ow Ow ^� O i.w y all N O J b UQ CD A� rGb i-� h b UQ n O O• n 0 z d c c.n J n O N v� o CA O � O o O � O � O • w CD Uh (� O �. AD y O � d LA (!1 y O O O x 0 0 0 d H uO ' yJ N IQ �' O ¢' CD O �+ CD Q � 3. CD N � ° �• O O `� a � � � N � U�Q O �' O ti R A O O �� Nh rte' p' O n `� CD r� CD �h O ro 3 m ��.5 CD CO X O Q Q S C rn CO 3. CD o cn _ w CD CO O CD ;' cn m CD It b a n -, z y 0 m CD j=. ti w ° co� CD IR- `Q r,, M ° o o. rn M `' CCDD p Z ON .fir BCD CD 0 zz CD CD N O A r .. �n co p H, 0 5 it CD h Z3 ro CD m CD m coo o° o ti a a Z. NJ o ro a tiz N n O ^ O o CD 0 CDCCD CD o � CD N• CD CD CD o a. o CD 0g., CD o CD 3 0 as CD U�Q �• C �c 0 CD W Np UpQ j CD — n CD CD O r CD CD CD ~ �*. UQ� CD p� O NO � . CND CD 3' CD CD 0 CDs. 'n CD ^ CD C, p C3 S�. CD CD p 3 CD CD Pt CD CD n CD p CD CD CD CD O CD O CC CAD O �+ t,J CD CAD 9 CD - C CD `�' CAD A CD r+ CD CD CL CD �. ¢ CL ' CD CD C �C CD c� �c ° 1 CCDD CD 0 o n O CD CD cr CD o oCD CD c�D 3 • o a. �c o CD CD by ° o c� a. cD CD b 7a �N N O r rD h A CD C] C-1 b w army a sv H CD n y n + n r� n CD CD IL CD �� ^- � P w z O0 O • n O O cD CD 5 O Ot O t3 O n O ~] O CJ Cc/ CAD `� - � �1 CD v� r + � 5 n �.s n O• NO �. CAD 10 = � `c - � . C D CD N CD CD d� �'� ��h O O CD 0 CD CD Q O Z -. - CD �. N O n `Y O n n n `3' cn n `+ O O CD O = CD fv UQ c U4 R O 6' �. �-. C cn Q N n� �" -- Q- UG cD I n ° y p; CD � n CD ¢ C� n 0 C o `� w n Cn x ~O C r�r NO ° o CAD O c �j' ° '�� • � ,��.+ ,��. ' ° CD A�' ,�.•� CD c�D cam!' 0 CD f"' CD n Q Q cn ~ o n �, CD CL CD C) �n ° 0 Q. � o CD ¢ `C p- CD CD c n n (D o ° [n n C , n CD u�a CD �n `� o ? ° N CD n. 0 rF O O n CD Q+ CD CD ¢ n rr �- -. `� �' C° n o n CD zs n CD ZD n N �' n O n A� Q' 5 0 Q n ZD O O Q- - C O O O CD n r� r CD + n CD Cl, C n ~ n r r UG `, S CD pi �h CD (D p n �' ''C' CD • p CD p tz, �� CD a CD p Z 0 fy O CD UCQ O CD n CD �p O a- n O . a CCDD O O UQ A� CD CD CD O rtz-r Q CAD '-r `•� N n ,'••.2. CAD (D O CD O CD CD N A 0 300 600 1,200 Feet Lake Minnetonka Subject Property 0 0 iS\-and Vie\ CO `U 0 �I\ Woodside Road_ �Kathle c;t ) J�aer 0 m, Y Y S Y Y Boulder_ BrvnmawrLPI Y < Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Maple i -- Y Virginia Cove Y Ridge o La Y Y Y \Marsh-Pt �-"fiz w 62n We are requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the address: 28241 Boulder Circle, Shorewood MN. The current zoning for the subject property is R -1A, single family 40,000 square feet, in the Shoreland Overlay District. Since this is a substandard lot we are requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the lot width, which currently, if measured from the 50' front setback line, is just under the required 84' or greater. We are at 83.6' at this location, which does not meet the 70% requirement. We are conforming to all other setback, height, and hardcover requirements. We are also exceeding the 70% lot width at the lakeside setback, as well as 70% for lot area. We are requesting a Variance for the address: 28241 Boulder Circle, Shorewood MN. The current zoning for the subject property is R -1A, single family 40,000 square feet, in the Shoreland Overlay District. Since this is a substandard lot we are requesting a Variance for the lot width, which currently, if measured from the 50' front setback line, is just under the required 84' or greater. We are at 83.6' at this location, which does not meet the 70% requirement. This request does not impair an adequate supply of light and air to an adjacent property. This request does not increase the congestion in the public street. This request does not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. This request does not unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way to contrary to the intent of this chapter. We believe this variance request should be granted because the lot narrowness is a special condition which is peculiar to the land. This special condition is not the result of any action by the property owner, or previous property owner. Granting this request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied to other properties. We believe this variance should be granted in order to make reasonable use of the land. We are conforming to all other setback, height, and hardcover requirements. We are also exceeding the 70% lot width at the lakeside setback, as well as 70% for lot area. RECEIVED JUL 1 1 2017 CITY OF SHOREWOOD Applicant's Narrative PP}} y x o 9 2 y 0 a�nnS r�A O i m �gms ?5 A A y39 °= a3�o RR o i16OOp` nwoo y_�O�pv > A471mDyy"�00 5°H D�B{O��CA yi� 1-II N ym ti'cp�cp113 H � inAA�t��O� O S - Rd o G m IT > v SU r qa °uP+3 Fir 'v Y g' e$ } II II Y It II < o mm �� _ ny 0 a? =• e$FPVU M � E Aga o = O � o a .n �Sa� ENQ, 0 a� f m N 9,`y�RS SIO,YCC �g D g o a�nnS r�A O i m �gms ?5 A A y39 °= a3�o RR o i16OOp` nwoo y_�O�pv > A471mDyy"�00 5°H D�B{O��CA yi� 1-II N ym ti'cp�cp113 H � inAA�t��O� �ySSS5558� S - Rd C as IT > v SU qa °uP+3 Fir 'v Y g' e$ } II II Y It II < fi,m �� _ ny 0 a? =• e$FPVU � E Aga a .n �Sa� ENQ, a� f m N 9,`y�RS SIO,YCC �g D � ?o-7• $ y.� � 3D Tm ;m a G) Z ^ N C cn e n Z 20 m m ° m �N 00 ®2a9)G* D p � f• o C� yyygy yyam C n; K K 9 K K Z� �"] P ` >g €E�4 H y � tr > h7 Z ��y 0® o o 0"Ej o 00,3 V312 �,roy SJ a 21 o b O �z9$g$� e r g Aga .'Vmm, P� oC A fil Q G � A Z " Z O O r• h� V '�I cn C r m • h D • ICJ, °0 a rii a >i rieviia:�s,� I . - II�'- HIIN4III•'III/I� eeeeeeeeeeo.eeow- : IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIe :n . yep . r eeeeeeeebe \eeeee� N •+tieeeee \ \eeeeeeee�• !" eeeeeeeeeeelYeeeleYlYeYeleelel 't �� Y �' Ikk•Yi: IIIIIIwIIOIIIII 'V � :,� • j `Mee�Aeeeeeeeeeeeeeei V 1 .�eeeYYYYYIeYeY \ \YIeY� �� IeVYYIYYeeee \YeeYYVVt 'YsV -le+, HJ IIIIIIN. NIIIIIIII II i,p \YVYeeY�.YeeeeYY��t +�J�i`IIIIICfIIIIIIII�I, .�� i a! � eVVNeee= eeeeee e� IA I :+f�II, IIII�lIIIIIIA "i� I 'I. ii . � iaaliii •iii viii �I' ' dl., eii. W w �eee4 veeNee ♦ �',�� eeeb :� eevnev�eeeeeet'; a� eeeeY.lYSeeeeeeeew ► . j.'II/I/e� /IOII/IIIIIIIhL ill- .�YeeeeYeYeeeee — t. . � ' (IIIPId I/I/IIIIIIIII'�`^ � ' � 1OeYYY�eeee \eeee \ee \'�• P IIOI/I/IIIIIIOII/II/I� � Aegeel\eeNeeeeN \N!t'�" I:IIIIh IIIIII/I/IIIIIIt3{!I he \eeeeeeel�\e�eeeeeeeee �� VIIIIIIe .4' eh�fl /'.tl, - ►eeeee A� �••�m . ,IYI \I \IYI \I ►eeeNV! D D IIIIIIN, �eeeeel� . y�x''IIII/If e II \I \Ieiyy IIeI \IYII ' ' IYI \I \III � IY/I \I \I \A • 'I• I~I \II 1• • \eNee 7� • �eeeeeelee� �.. - - ' iieieieiei + - eNeV , aeeeY Gelelelele`S � • �Yl:eee \ei �eeee� ' a�eeee, ,e�'reli • �l��eei eoee� eYte... eeeeY will: • NIIII . �ejeeelVlYl i�. \eeee! ►V• �ieieii «` ., iele�eeA �eeeei reIIII. \eeeeeee�� I fJ w.lee� Ne \eee eeeeee� IIIIIII• �� ebeeeY ' \ \eYeeeeeeee� IIIIIINI. • 1 LeeeeY eeee+•!"e + eo ° =�o e_y i n y39 a3�o nwoo n > r Llno 5°H eo ° =�o e_y SBUndory Lln+ z'�,❑ y39 a3�o nwoo n > r Llno 5°H S - v SU qa °uP+3 Fir 'v II II II Y It II < fi,m �� _ ny = a? =• e$FPVU -� Aga .n RPF m o SBUndory Lln+ O a3�o nwoo n y� r Llno S - aA a3�o nwoo c ate. r ffi SU qa °uP+3 E?F 3 o � ?o-7• $ y.� � �QQ n a M +Of p • 9 p n � o Irrrrrrrrrrrrrr.r:> .rrrrrrrrrrr...r - * qwa '. sill vriiai viir.: s��eeew� eeee� eee ,: j Ir..r�rrfrrrrr.�.rri 'i'� 1 eeee4lee�eeeee�Me +fir . �rravr✓rlrriirf {: ��rerw�ere�erererere� I �� i� - 1 IIIIIAIIIIIIII �� eeeee4eeeeeq � IIII/IIIIIIIA �G 1 I eeeeeee9eeeO � IIIIIIIOIIIIII. g .,aeeeeseeeeeeee \c '� a� D D O ti 4-1— -. -.- I — �m gZi6 MD IP I9Sg2 b i 5 cZ m PF F 5 O Q�m ° aN< a�A=NAjOm� °z� -m`o y�o�i °`mom fig, aD�i� io�m3��g� �O�m�>ZOna�4 n��Ay ~ u°i�cpi3m�yg oR M^�o S g ��! MIm o o'�p a �o n� �o � w 3 a ym m f m 9 D yNFRS saO} � m� _ h D O O rp 3 •Dt N a G) 3p z C N � V 7 10 �_ Z ToT _ Z N 9 M m Co 00 D 0 n e* Q 1mT1,' o _ m o X C= rn C O v ®oa ® ®Ndo ®E 'aD•od ^go ®O x N tiR g �4 pis � Y y til z o `pg$ S n F O o ° o ° "a O G CD C C r m O CO Aq 0 �V :....T PR,�AS N o ?D1j 4 Ff yNO31 �� \� 9JB8 iRlP vs a 9$9.4 -pA) � Rqp l ••... FffF \ I5 eSa. i Y G UY\ N /JV Zee Af N \ J D c o\ 1I N / p G N! I • [��?°5�+' // � ,rs�yi. 94.72 z ° 12 - --v20 -�•- g o = _�\ 1 � Imo ° mac` ION =X ° Amu.,), DECK P li. I ` > .0 'm M1I - BJ C u � V ? pN� r d N V� m A r C) / IC Imx /,• I I� 5 28240Pg0U�DERLC RCIE / / o 0 ��Aeeeeeeeeeee=.�_�eV' . li Irrrrrrrrrrrrrr.r:> .rrrrrrrrrrr...r - * qwa '. sill vriiai viir.: s��eeew� eeee� eee ,: j Ir..r�rrfrrrrr.�.rri 'i'� 1 eeee4lee�eeeee�Me +fir . �rravr✓rlrriirf {: ��rerw�ere�erererere� I �� i� - 1 IIIIIAIIIIIIII �� eeeee4eeeeeq � IIII/IIIIIIIA �G 1 I eeeeeee9eeeO � IIIIIIIOIIIIII. g .,aeeeeseeeeeeee \c '� �eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee+ eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee� � o D D � ti 4-1— -. -.- I — ASH gZi6 MD IP I9Sg2 b cZ o ^s [ [ ro ti In r> ' O * qwa '. � 1 I F g w wg ! Fl o ti 4-1— -. -.- I — ASH gZi6 MD IP I9Sg2 b cZ o ^s [ [ ro ti u000 a v J ZSG °CS ��Z p Nye Cb .]30 o 4C6 L 3 6�alis- ��rY (IOD. o >--• > B '- J2�A R z RR m In r> ' O * qwa '. le F �; 0.m w wg ! Fl o ZBountlgry Llna O le Fence w wg Una ti ��• ASH d cZ o ^s ^tea op-yo OClSab o9�pC6 •n F � � �, � II II II II II II II II q �• 3 y S O 0 °a : 0 Sol _ u000 - �.gR aka N aaR o R z RR m ig A> > ry b gad �•O Zi '.1 Nu adq Ir Ng� N aE ki sA n 3 y S O 0 °a : 0 z -21 ; l -2 MEN MON � MEN� MEN � vial MEN �Offil NEE e -2 1 7' -9' 1 u' g4E7f ®. "—' I s S 'mo COPYRIGHT 2011, ALEXANDER DESr44 GROUP, M. T� Fb HR_ �I REAR ELEVATION ELEVATION lri1LE V4'.I' -O' 1)1 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA, SW 55391 Ph— 952.473.8777 PAX:952.473.8222 r 0 J W� N a 3 W u rc LU U 0 U� �og w w� 9385 AYERKf FJBB1 GRODE OE LAP BONG PER ELEV'B 411 DR WRATEG TR11 BDS PER ELEV'8 E FMN BDB. 1 "OM PER ELEVS I CUT BT@E Building Elevations — Front and Rear B' RARDE IAP BIDNG PER ELEVB 4- NOB 1 DR WRATEG TRPI BDB. PER ELEVB "RM PWM BOB. - B.4ONG FER ELM 7' THN M STME 2 FRONT ELEVATION SCALE, V4'•1' -O' s S 'mo COPYRIGHT 2011, ALEXANDER DESr44 GROUP, M. T� Fb HR_ �I REAR ELEVATION ELEVATION lri1LE V4'.I' -O' 1)1 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA, SW 55391 Ph— 952.473.8777 PAX:952.473.8222 r 0 J W� N a 3 W u rc LU U 0 U� �og w w� 9385 AYERKf FJBB1 GRODE OE LAP BONG PER ELEV'B 411 DR WRATEG TR11 BDS PER ELEV'8 E FMN BDB. 1 "OM PER ELEVS I CUT BT@E Building Elevations — Front and Rear 9 FEAT MOOR i0P OF &MR a C io 4335 ri"\ LEFT SIDE ELEVATION 2 WALIE. V4'.r -a COPYRKHT 7011, ALEXANDER DEEM GROUP, INC- ELEVB EVB Building Elevations — Sides r 4 c a ■■ ■■ ■■ !- ME ME ME WEEME ME ME ME ME ME ME EMEN MEME 02 _� �_ �M_ MEME �. ME ME © GAP.4GS FRONT ELEVATION v COPYRIGHT 2011, ALEXANDER DEBICd4 GROUP, INC. WCO'D ROCK MEN ■■ a, , b' SKAD ROOR T i i L��PLy r• TidFg bD. µv� i i METAL SECaV ROCR � �CF NEiiR ROLE J /l 'v m OP HER_ TO- OF 9LAB• OHS__ a b• HARDE LAP SONG PER ELM n REAR GARAGE ELEVATION 4'UM 4 OR MATED TRPI BD& PER ELEYb s HA9M FREE MA t MANDNS PER ELEn 3 V4'-I'-C' v4•.-m• m 7• THN CM STae __9333 - Building Elevations — Attached Garage PmTnDw D_ 5. kARDE LAP SIDM PER ELEV'b 4' OHM 1 DR MWTED TRM OM PER ELEYb HAIDE PRIEIE DD& 1 MOOM PER ELEYb J• THN tlR GTQE a psi GARAGE SIDE ELEVATION S 3 m ecxe. va•.r -o• 9335 T i i L��PLy r• TidFg bD. µv� i i METAL SECaV ROCR � �CF NEiiR ROLE J /l 'v m OP HER_ TO- OF 9LAB• OHS__ a b• HARDE LAP SONG PER ELM n REAR GARAGE ELEVATION 4'UM 4 OR MATED TRPI BD& PER ELEYb s HA9M FREE MA t MANDNS PER ELEn 3 V4'-I'-C' v4•.-m• m 7• THN CM STae __9333 - Building Elevations — Attached Garage CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2017 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Bean, Davis, Riedel and Sylvester; Planning Director Darling; and, Council Liaison Johnson Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Davis moved, Riedel seconded, approving the agenda for August 1, 2017, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  July 18, 2017 Bean moved, Riedel seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 18, 2017, as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Davis abstaining due to her absence at the meeting. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Maddy explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. A. Conditional Use Permit and Lot Width Variance for a Substandard Lot in the Shoreland District Applicant: Mark and Karleen Leslie Location: 28241 Boulder Circle Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 P.M. He explained this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) and lot width variance for the property located at 28241 Boulder Circle. Director Darling explained Mark and Karleen Leslie own the property located at 28241 Boulder Circle just west of the intersection of Boulder Circle and Smithtown Road. The applicants propose to remove the existing single-family home, attached garage, and accessory building (a play house) and construct a new home and attached garage on their property. The adjacent properties are all developed with single family homes. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 1, 2017 Page 2 of 5 The applicants’ property does not conform to the lot area (40,000 square feet) and lot width (120 feet) requirements of the R-1A/S Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district. The existing home does not conform to the required shoreland setbacks. The shoreland section of the Zoning Code requires a C.U.P. for redevelopment of substandard lots that abut the shoreline and are within 70 percent of the requirements of the zoning district. With regard to the analysis about substandard lots of record, Darling explained Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.c.(3) of the Shorewood Zoning Code provides criteria for building on a substandard lot of record. The Code states that a lot is considered to be buildable if it complies with the criteria listed in the ordinance and discussed in the staff report. With regard to the analysis about variances, she explained Section 1201.05 Subd. 2.b of the Shorewood Zoning Code sets forth criteria for the consideration of variance requests. She reviewed how the applicant’s request conforms to the criteria for variances. Darling noted staff recommends granting approval of the applicants’ request for a lot-width variance and a C.U.P. Kristy Raash, with Alexander Design Group, noted she was present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Maddy opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:07 P.M. Commissioner Bean asked if Boulder Circle was platted at the same time as Boulder Bridge. Someone responded it was before that. Bean stated there may be several nonconforming lots in terms of width in that immediate area. He questioned what kind of precedent may be set if this application is approved. Director Darling explained she thought most of the lots may be substandard yet most of them would meet the 70 percent of the lot area and width requirements. She stated a variance precedent is challenging because no two circumstances are exactly equal. Bean noted his question was more about general interest than this particular application. Bean noted he thought what has been proposed would be an improvement over the current situation. Commissioner Sylvester concurred. Bean moved, Sylvester seconded, recommending approval of the lot-width variance and conditional use permit for Mark and Karleen Leslie, 28241 Boulder Circle. Motion passed 5/0. Director Darling noted Council will consider this item during its August 28 meeting. Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M. B. Consider Zoning Code Text Amendments Regarding Home Occupation Regulations and Definitions Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M. He explained this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider Zoning Code text amendments pertaining to home occupation regulations and definitions. Director Darling explained the text amendments the Commission is being asked to consider are intended to clarify the City’s intent to minimize the impact home occupations have on a surrounding CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 17-_______ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A LOT WIDTH VARIANCE TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT TO MARK AND KARLEEN LESLIE AT 28241 BOULDER CIRCLE WHEREAS , Mark and Karleen Leslie (Applicants) are the owners of real property located at 28241 Boulder Circle, City of Shorewood, legally described as: “Tract I, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 0008, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota”; and WHEREAS , the Applicants have an existing single-family dwelling, which dwelling is located only 10 feet from each of the side lot lines; and WHEREAS , the Applicants propose to demolish the existing home and build a new home which would be located 10 feet from the north side lot line and 20 feet from the south side of the subject property; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have requested a conditional use permit to build on a substandard lot, and a variance to the lot width requirements of the R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district; and WHEREAS , the Applicants’ request was reviewed by staff, whose recommendations are included in a memorandum, 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 August 1, 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 August 28, 2017, at which time the staff’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/S, Single-Family Residential/ Shoreland zoning district, which requires a total side yard setback of 30 feet with neither side less than 10 feet. 2.The subject property is substandard in lot width, having only 83.6 feet of width where 120 feet is required. 3. The subject property contains 35,636 square feet of area. 4. The Applicants propose to construct a new home located 10 feet from the north side and 20 feet from the south side of the lot. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Applicants have satisfied the criteria for the grant of variances under the Shorewood City Code and have established “practical difficulty” as defined by Minnesota Statutes. 2. The Applicants’ plans indicate the new home and improvements proposed would be compatible with the neighborhood and would not tend to depreciate the area. 3. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicants a lot width variance, and a conditional use permit to build on a substandard lot. 4. 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. th ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 28 day of August 2017. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Sandie Thone, City Clerk -22 - Item 713 : C. U . P. for Coffee Shop with Drive-Thru Service and Outdoor Seating This item is in process. An electronic copy of Item 7B will be emailed on Friday, Aug. 25, 2017 upon completion . The electronic packet on the website will be updated to include this item at that time as well . A hard copy of Item 76 will be available at the City Council meeting. #7B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Starbucks – Conditional Use Permit –Drive Thru Window Meeting Date: August 28, 2017 Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen, Assistant Planner Review Deadline: Waived by Applicant Attachments: Staff Memos dated March 1, 2017, and April 4, 2017 Minutes from the March 7, April 4, and May 2, 2017 Meetings City Engineer’s Memos dated April 19, 2017 and August 23, 2017 Applicant’s memo dated August 24, 2017 Spack Technical Memorandums dated April 27, 2017, August 8, 2017 and August 22, 2017 Traffic Impact Study (Spack) pp. i-14 (full report available on City of Shorewood website) Correspondence and Petition Received Resolution Denying Request Resolution Approving Request Policy Consideration: Should the City grant approval for Watson Vinehill, LLC. to redevelop 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7 to allow a Starbucks coffee shop with a conditional use permit for a drive-thru window? Background: See attached staff memorandums. Site Context: The site is a combination of two parcels. These two parcels and the surrounding land uses were developed prior to the existence of the current configuration of the frontage road. It was retro- fitted to accommodate increasing traffic on State Highway 7 and on the adjacent side streets and includes problematic curves, narrow rights-of-way on the north side, and challenging intersection geometrics. To help the traffic situation at the intersection of State Highway 7 and Vine Hill Road, MnDOT has begun constructing a right turn lane from northbound Vine Hill Road to eastbound State Highway 7. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 1, April 4 and May 2, 2017 to consider this application. At their May 2, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the request. The Commissioners indicated concerns with approving a use that would: 1) increase trips in the morning peak further deteriorating the existing failing traffic situation; 2) increase nuisance trash blowing from the business; and 3) produce noise from the drive-thru speaker that would impact the adjacent residents. 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. S:\Planning\Planning Files\Applications\2017 CURRENT CASES\Starbucks CUP\CAF for 08 28 17.doc Page 2 At each meeting, individuals raised traffic concerns, and one person testified to concerns regarding increased litter and noise from the development. The applicant’s traffic engineer responded to the traffic concerns by stating that the proposed drive-thru would have a negligible impact on the adjacent traffic. Correspondence and a petition received during the review of the application are attached to the staff report. After the last Planning Commission meeting, the City’s traffic engineer (Chuck Rickart, PE PTOE, with WSB) and the applicant’s traffic engineer have continued discussions on the traffic impacts related to the proposed development. The City’s traffic engineer has determined that the impact of the use as proposed could be mitigated if the developer makes alterations to the frontage road at the site entrance and at the Vine Hill Road/Delton Lane Intersection. The recommended improvements are: 1.Adding a right-turn lane into the site driveway from the eastbound frontage road. This addition allows the traffic entering the site to leave the east-bound queued traffic that is waiting to pass through the intersection at Delton Avenue/Vine Hill Road. 2.Adding a bypass lane on the westbound frontage at the site driveway. This addition allows westbound traffic to pass by car(s) queued to turn left to enter the site. 3.Modifying the northbound segment of the intersection of the Delton Avenue/Vine Hill Road to include a dedicated right turn lane instead of the current wide single lane for all northbound traffic. This modification would accommodate the additional traffic that is expected to exit the subject property on Vine Hill Road before continuing back to Delton Avenue to complete their journey. Staff stresses that these improvements will not correct the existing traffic problem on the frontage road and at the intersection. They are intended to mitigate the impact from the proposed additional traffic associated with the coffee shop/drive-thru service window. Staff also included the following additional conditions in the attached resolution in addition to standard conditions of development. The applicant shall complete the following prior to issuance of a building permit: 1.Revise their plans to include the above changes subject to approval by the City Engineer. 2.Consolidate the properties into a single tax parcel. 3.Acquire any temporary construction easements necessary for either demolition of existing improvements or construction of retaining walls. 4.Pick up stray trash on a daily basis from the site and nearby the site to avoid becoming a nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood. 5.Submit a sound study (or specifications from a speaker vendor) indicating that the sound from the ordering station shall not exceed 50 decibels at the east property line. 6.Limit the hours of operation to 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. and further limit trash service and deliveries to the hours between 9:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. Financial or Budget Considerations: The application fees cover the cost of processing the application. Options: Deny the request, approve the request subject to the recommended conditions; or modify either resolution. The Council may also choose to remand the request back to the Planning Commission Page 3 as the final information from the traffic engineers wasn’t available for the last Planning Commission meeting on this subject. Recommendation / Action Requested: Adoption of the attached resolution for approval of the request. Next Steps and Timelines: If the City Council denies the application, the City Council is not obligated to consider a similar application for six months. If the City Council approves the application, the applicant may submit their request for a building permit as soon as the conditions of approval are met. Connection to Vision / Mission: Sustainable tax base. s t. I f MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: BACKGROUND CITY OF 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.dshorewood.mn.us • cityha11 @ci.shorewood.mn.us Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 1 March 2017 Starbucks Coffee — Conditional Use for Drive -Up Window 405 (17.06) Mr. Dave Watson, representing Watson Vinehill, LLC, has an interest in the properties at 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7 (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). He proposes to redevelop the site as a Starbucks coffee shop with a drive -up window as shown on Exhibit B. The subject properties are currently zoned C -1, General Commercial and contain a total of 36,535 square feet of area (.84 ac.). The proposed drive -up feature necessitates a conditional use permit in the C -1 District. The properties in question are currently occupied by two office buildings (see Exhibit C). Land use and zoning surrounding the site are as follows: West: Vine Hill Road /Highway 7 intersection South: Self- storage facility; zoned C -1, General Commercial East: Restaurant and single - family residential (in Minnetonka); zoned C -1 and residential, respectively North: State Highway 7, then commercial in Deephaven As shown on Exhibit B, the proposed building will be located on the west end of the site, with parking to the east of the building. The existing three access drives on the service road have been consolidated into one at the east end of the property. A secondary access drive will remain on Vine Hill Road. The proposed building measures 35' X 64' and contains 2325 square feet of floor area. It is 18 feet high (single story) with a three -foot parapet at the drive -up window. As can be seen in Exhibits E -H, proposed building materials are brick and decorative block. In addition to inside seating, a patio at the northeast corner of the building provides additional outdoor seating. Memorandum Re: Starbucks CUP 1 March 2017 ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION It should be noted that the plans submitted to date are very preliminary. In fact, the site plan on Exhibit B is labeled "Conceptual Site Plan ". As such, this report is intended to address the concept proposed, with review of more detailed plans to follow. A. Land Use. Coffee houses are listed as permitted uses in the C -1 zoning district. Drive -in facilities are listed as conditional in that district. Conditions for this use are found in Section 1201.22 Subd. 4.b. of the Zoning Code: The appearance of the proposed building (see Exhibits E -H) may be considered to be an improvement over the existing, somewhat dated, buildings it will replace. Stacking space for the drive -in window is considered ample. Site circulation is also improved, particularly with the consolidation of driveways along the frontage road. The access has been moved as far to the east, away from the curve in the road, as possible. 2. The small frontage on Vine Hill Road is across the street from single - family homes. The green space created by required setbacks should be landscaped so as to buffer the homes across the street, keeping in mind required sight triangles for the driveway. 3. The plans do not address site lighting. 4. Parking lot screening from residential — see 2., above. 5. Although as very small scale, the site plan appears to show perimeter curbing around the circulation and parking areas. Curbing is required to be concrete. 6. As mentioned, the consolidation of driveways and keeping the primary access as far from the curve in the service road is considered to be an improvement to the existing site conditions. 7. Again, no information on site lighting. There is no information provided relative to drainage. 9. Presumably, areas not covered by building or pavement will be surfaced with grass and landscaping. No landscape plan has been submitted. 10. The site plan shows the location of a freestanding sign in the northeasterly corner of the property. Aside from that, no details have been provided for signage. B. Building Setbacks. The existing building complies with the requirements of the C -1 District. The Zoning Code requires a 30 -foot front setback, a 30 -foot rear setback, a 30 -foot setback on the side yard abutting the street, and 15 feet on the sides. The existing building is 32 feet back from the -2- Memorandum Re: Starbucks CUP 1 March 2017 property lines that abut the service road, 23 feet from the south property line, and 192 feet from the Vine Hill Road right -of -way. C. Building Height. The C -1 District allows buildings to be three stories or 40 feet in height. As shown on Exhibit D, the proposed building is one story, and 18 feet in height. D. Parking. (Analysis of the proposed parking will be provided under separate cover.) E. Building Construction. The proposed building is consistent with the standards set forth in Section 1201.03 Subd. 7.c. of the Zoning Code. F. Landscaping. The site plan shows faint indications of landscaping along the service road and on the west side of the building. No detailed landscape plan has been provided. G. Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control. Presumably, there will be significant grading, especially on the west end of the site, to accommodate the layout. No grading plan has been provided as of this writing. The applicant should provide a detailed grading plan, along with drainage calculations for the existing and proposed conditions. H. Signage. The applicant has not provided any plans for signage. The property is allowed three signs, one of which may be a freestanding pylon sign. Presumably the allowable area of signage will be spread somewhat equally between the three signs. Signs are subject to a separate permit. In light of the absence of certain plans, staff is reluctant to suggest anything more than a "concept" approval. It is therefore recommended that the application be continued to the April Planning Commission. Prior to that meeting, the applicant should provide the plans referenced herein. Cc: Greg Lerud Paul Hornby Larry Brown Dave Watson -3- t s c s c C C Sir,- D E?cry _ LI y y y y y y y y y r r may YO S LL f u r JN r--O% 300 600 m 1 Sprin Cir 1 2 St AI ans Ba i r LNl� rl ��lII y y 1'.200 Feet Subject r6&tiq t logo y y y y y y y y y y y IL y y I> LL3 z iM TEST FIT SITE PLAN NOTES iuxosuPE artren Pnnowauxc > cox ie�no I PROPO6E➢TRMNENCIOFURE i P' �TROao�e °oio�caTwxcoaaoxunuxianxio ee a wxou:.00 oE�xaot'nObuneAt'r°owowwcpx 000R o. PEOEammu1 pwuwe. anRrtJeavneccssro Twm Exwoame to. alo•ReCK PROPOS[ODIDEWN.K t1 % vOPOEE0TPU19 i0R1AIRYM.lACn110xipK coxnlRHEnwrtx cmE ❑lMIOED,PINO ❑ �rw* or ci EroxEtaEre apIGTLb MJUD1AIWJATpLL CML ORnWINOD v UNE 2 PROPER W y � z cr fUAL SITE PLAN - FOR REFERENCE ONLY o e a r �z W STARBUCKS COFFEE Z COMPANY 2401 UTAH AVENUE SOUTH 0 SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 98134 u- I I o ENGINEER OF RECORD Z En9lnnmin9 Catwibnl W Z � 0 z r J V W = 0 IXcoz ado w> 3 y W�Wo3 a�Oz W to LL~ ?= w w LL -Wz aw0m$W v azUS N= STORE t. 49955 a PROJECT M 743254101 IEEUEOaTE' ]¢]a) C PROORM1tMNA0CR KNE]NDL IG pFDImIEx T� W tl1't ®M. RTURxFAuuIX mow—oE9DNFR' E.INU g16CIhD8V: P. bENV6NUiD V U) a D� o..aPmP SITE PLAN I SD-0 NOW- 7,44 (J to t7l r. NORTH FIS. v 72020175:59:56 PIA P1Re sfau2nYSb,bucksVJICHI6-03T6 -51a� bucks -Hhy 78 Vrt,ehR- 6hore1500- Defrv1011.1W I- 1VIP_A!odelsVAN- Hny78V hN- Shorcxpod_SCHEAIATICSHELLM 0 J SCHEMATIC DESIGN ONLY - NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE I g n'b' A PROJECT NAME: $3 a m �o ET =pg m oa NEW STARBUCKS A$ �` eo g �zi�m. gaetf� a COFFEE STORE ff r _! m ;Z Exhibit D HWY 7 & VINEHILL 5€ yZ g PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN xo m PROJECTADRESS: s ] m A J O 19285 HIGHWAY 7 ° / , HENNEPIN COUNTY °� $ w �8 =�'& � € °�° °ee AMODNId3NN3H 0 a/al o � g - E, W"SNW'OOOM3230HS ® e b w LAVMH0IHSSZ6L "' � n� . u m H E pay gal o m g i o o iz H Nln 8 G AMH °aw° ° G - ggso 4zl ;- w s i; ill 3 o 05k� o��€ �g08$ �Yo�� °`'� � z� � i , � � s; 32101S 333300 -. * � � � s � N 8 s g 4 5 i 'uli ®` S)iOf1821VIS M3N o o °o�4E a 3: °ge 'O� G :3YNN t73road a ° i;o .� �t0q W 3Sfl NOIIOf121ISNOO 2103 03ON3INI ION A"INO NJIS3U OIIVW3HOS Lu zo 2:$w — !%6% Sao = oG Q ° €ease jogs gs J--H p,= 5MEi s33 oG sgg§y $sG =F� ° w B=s'Gg ��H °°o X30 °'ao 4 W b $ 0��8. osa °mao �S< °a Go$J =g g $ M, _ F u a "s9 § P. sole €'� rn° 'ate - YoY' us 27 G 3 E° 067 �s a po S o a $p ° s it ?JEil m < Fig " a w I uz ` H" .., ° . d a - - - of aal °II �j ~ m oa o °k {+ Ekmn"l k{ zz L5 w w J Q fy W Q oo� G fl $ p� 3 8 m ! $ W "g and �bd d S a G G ffi —naHs 0(lWMH0S P-- 4G-M ABL 4144-NM-I -M4 O Q a z 0 w H- Q�Q W D O O Exhibit E BUILDING ELEVATION NE AND SE LL jm o oz's o� Qa` =a % "p. kLNl100 NId3NN3H s 5° o w o g 3 ° °7„ � €�gw :, LOY9INW'000M3210HS w A oYwo„ 5� °,wS°w °:7'� °8EO31y�`g € ib` o s LL.VMH01H58Z6L R� % w U Z�uF w3oGgze'� -G s m Qw?;a e�E a °_�3r�<o 1 _r :ssaaaadioeroad a y r d �1 y U� <ae n "��gw�Yol'm UN O j O �3� = §LL€ ids. G j� € ° � , ® Z ie -nIH3NIn'B L AMH � o = Us - a€ �€g o €gLL € Z 32]O1S 333300 €t a N r� �osg ga€ &hti a a d e SJIOf182iV1S M3N 5 s e a v z G a „° €3 3 3 6 avroN twroad � a 8go�d3 � °cn W ° 3 s n NouonUISNOO MOO a3(3N31Nl ION - AINO NJIS30 3lIVW3H3S UJ ~z3 3a 3itQ ° M4 - ll O_ s» o -�< w E°o DES LLaWO a3 3 G563 pp oo<'o moo° �EaL° W i °°a� G° G e G;G�q :SG ggg gg g jG W �z>R Ann ��8 i�£4�o i�l' H-25H. d o =3 UJI ° W y HE� I< a -= - s E H 5 a3 °J pu YM o Y Y ° : i `i @b N x va �� m w - o�'g� m. mm - - W W J J Q LLJ F Q WINS MMAH08P- NS -LqI -ABL 41+4 -NPP J-Alll bit F BUILDING ELEVATI ®N SW AND NW _ 58x$ e °yo 5g OWN �3 8 -9 gg G G 3 J F WINS MMAH08P- NS -LqI -ABL 41+4 -NPP J-Alll bit F BUILDING ELEVATI ®N SW AND NW o � _= s�os,�ae< A1NnOo NId3NN3H spy B £� °�." /��// o L04SSNW'000M3HOHS e OU � o wE�� Y =lidS LAVMHOIH 9BZ6 °F §F,§g4� !a ; €s �p ec :ss3aoav lo3roaa m oyem� Y I O2ia�gg��¢a §wgoom IIIH3NIn SLAMH $� mvjwg��ggv °r,�j =3 OE ffi ® - _�� Ea' i z _ 32IO1S 333300 W G a LLI E Rua,a €g §��s�r � Zia z' � O S>IOf1ajviS M3N ,s 3 €_ ^a3� gym 4 w e _ :3YNN 1O31bad k� °utl_ °a; 6 wW w 3sn NouonUISNOO 2103 O3ON31N1 lON - AINO NOIS30 OIIVW3HOS WT3HS OUV"3H3S PO—NS -24 -ABLRVH- NMSIOPM4 dIM-I ONVI M� Exhibit G BUILDING PERSPECTIVES NW AND NE E ! y+ +l7p; , p , °< = u mom«m, `! ( » /r\ �` ma m' _am, !! . ar y za_� _a §) \ /!� [> ƒ /I47 -(c ) . , j` « ( (9[ / \§ m§(i 2I� N / /L "H !m \` 1pK 9 ) §4l�R ! G� e, �� ` �! �os� +o ( /#2�• ;Co ,a Z ^ § g §) s G� A »gN �§ ] § ` 2Sn NouonNISNOD Uo:1 03ON31NI ION -AINO Nms3a 3lIVW3HDS Exhibit H BUILDING PERSPECTIVES SE AND SW j f f f f l i r ,: MEMORANDUM CITY OF 5755 Country Club Road ® Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 4 April 2017 RE: Starbucks Coffee — CUP for Drive -up Window FILE NO.: 405 (17.06) An application for a conditional use permit for a drive -up window for a Starbucks Coffee shop was considered at the March Planning Commission meeting. The matter was continued to the April meeting pending submission of certain items requested by staff and the Commission. Most significantly, the Commission asked for a traffic study, addressing concerns raised by local residents at the public hearing. Following is the current status of information requested and provided: Traffic Study. Staff expressed some concern that a traffic study could be completed in time for our consulting engineer's to review and comment on this item. While the applicant's engineers submitted a traffic study, it came in later than was necessary for staff review and comment. Due to its length, the study is forwarded to the Commission under separate cover. 2. A landscape plan, attached, has been submitted. In general, it is considered acceptable, but it fails to provide parking lot screening at the easterly entrance to the site. Site lighting still has not been addressed. 4. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan, attached, has been submitted. It includes a small infiltration pond at the easterly entrance to the site, which is undoubtedly why no landscaping has been provided there. The City Engineer points out that no drainage calculations have been provided. If the applicant's engineers can demonstrate that impervious surface after the redevelopment is the same or less than prior to redevelopment, the calculations may not be necessary. These plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. As a follow -up to continuing the application, the applicant was sent a letter advising him that the application would take more than 60 days and up to 120 days to process. Since important information remains to be analyzed, staff recommends that this matter be continued once more, to the May Planning Commission meeting. Cc: Greg Lerud Tim Keane Paul Hornby Dave Watson zx sT W 0 g Q 1� 20 0 20 40 SCALE IN FEET e 2- 113" aY 18` POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE (40 MIL eE 1 -1/2 WIDE STRAP TYP.) DOUBLE STRAND 14 GA WRE- r F 3' B 120` INTERVAL (TYP.) TREE WRAP TO FIRST BRANCH TURNBUCKLE WITH DOUBLE STRAND 8' STEEL - s3 C14 GAUGE WIRE -3 PER TREE STAKE FINAL GRADE OF PLANT TO EQUAL ew - ORIGINAL GRADE 4' -6" LAYER OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD 18' MIN. 1(II) MULCH IN SAUCER — EXTEND PAST STAKE < < 2 "x2'x30" STAKES SET 120' APART OUTSIDE THE BALL AT MAINTAIN ANGLE -3 PER TREE PEDESTAL OF UNDISTURBED SOIL ACKFlLL PATH PLANTING SOIL NOTES: 1. Two ALTERNATE METHODS OF TREE STAKING ARE SHOWN. 2. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S OPTION TO STAKE TREES; HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING TREES IN A PLUMB POSITION THROUGHOUT THE GUARANTEE PERIOD. 3. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING. 4. CONIFER TO HAVE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8. NO MULCH TO BE IN CONTACT WITH TRUNK. CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL Hakanson Anderson - - -- Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors 3601 Thurston Ave., Anoka, Minnesota 55303 763- 427 -5860 FAX 763 - 427 -0520 www.hakonson- anderson.com al o_ m �I I _ PLANT LIST: Site Plantings �.� , (40 MIL. 1 -1/2" WIDE STRAP TYP.) QTY. KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE /ROOT TREES TURNBUCKLE WITH DOUBLE STRAND /14 GAUGE WIRE -3 PER TREE 7 ABM Acer x freemanii 'Autumn Blaze Autumn Blaze Maple 2-1/2" B &B 5 BHS Picea glauca densata Black Hills Spruce 6' ht B &B 2 PFC Malus 'Prairiefire' Prairiefire Crabapple 1 -1/2" B &B SHRUBS UNDISTURBED SOIL ACKFIU. WITH PLANTING SOIL CENTERING OF SHRUB IN BED TO TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NOTES: 9 GMS Spiraea japonica ' Goldmound' Goldmound Spires 2 Gal. Pot 6 NFS Spiraea japonica 'Neon Flash' Neon Flash Spirea 2 Gal. Pot PERENNIALS & ORNAMENTAL GRASSES SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL STARBUCKS COFFEE STORE LANDSCAPE AND RESOTRATION PLAN 26 KFG Colamagrostis acutiflora Karl Forester Feather Reed Grass 3 Gal. Pot 5 JBD Hemerocallis, sp. Janice Brown Daylily 1 Gal. Pot PLANTING NOTES: Contractor shall provide one year guarantee of all plant materials. The guarantee begins on the date of the Landscape Architect's written acceptance of the initial planting. Replacement plant materials shall also have a one year guarantee commencing upon planting. All plants to be northern -grown and hardy. Plants to be installed as per standard AAN planting practices. Use minimum 12" loam planting soil on trees and 6" on shrubs. Contractor shall verify locations with all utililles prior to Installation of plants. All landscaping, including seeded and sodded areas to be manually watered until established. Staking of trees optional; reposition if not plumb after one year. Wrap all smooth - barked trees - fasten top and bottom. Remove by April 1. Open top of burlap on B &B materials; remove pot on potted plants; split and break apart peat pots. Prune plants as necessary - per standard nursery practice. Owner shall be responsible for maintenance after acceptance of the work by the Owner. Plants shall be Immediately planted upon arrival at site. Properly heel -in materials If necessary. All disturbed areas to be seeded unless otherwise noted. Sod shall be northern grown and hardy. Planting beds for shrubs shall have (4 oz. min.) weed barrier fabric, 3" - 4" of 1 -1/2" washed River Rock mulch and 4" vertical (commercial grade) black steel edging. The edging shall be placed and staked with smooth lines or curves as shown on the plan. Weed barrier shall not around or adjacent to perennials or ornamental grasses. Weed barrier may be omitted if weeds can be managed by using Preen or an equivalent weed pre - emergent and preventative. Double shredded dark brown hardwood mulch 4" deep shall be provided around all new trees. Retaining walls are not the responsibility of the Landscape Architect. Contact the Project Engineer for details, locations, materials, and specifications for all retaining walls. Save all existing trees shown on the plan. Protection fencing shall be used If necessary. Soil testing shall be completed by the Landscape Contractor to ensure that sails are suitable to be used In planting areas. Where proposed green areas are replacing previous pavement or compacted areas, subsurface base shall be removed to a depth of 4 feet minimum and replaced with soils that will sustain proper growing conditions. �i 18' POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE �.� , (40 MIL. 1 -1/2" WIDE STRAP TYP.) DOUBLE STRAND 14 GA. WARE -3' 0 12C INTERVAL (TYP.) TREE WRAP TO FIRST BRANCH TURNBUCKLE WITH DOUBLE STRAND /14 GAUGE WIRE -3 PER TREE 4' -6" LAYER OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD 8' STET? 4 " -6' LAYER OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH IN SAUCER — EXTEND PAST STAKE STAKE MULCH IN SAUCER — EXTEND PAST STAKE FINAL GRADE OF PUNT TO FINAL GRADE OF PLANT TO EQUAL ORIGINAL GRADE EQUAL ORIGINAL GRADE BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL 24" MIN. f l MAINTAIN PEDESTAL OF / 2'>Q'x3O' STAKES SET 120' UNDISTURBED SOIL 18' MIN. APART OUTSIDE THE BALL AT ANGLE-3 PER TREE MAINTAIN PEDESTAL OF UNDISTURBED SOIL ACKFIU. WITH PLANTING SOIL CENTERING OF SHRUB IN BED TO TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NOTES: DIMENSION FROM EDGE 1. TWO ALTERNATE METHODS OF TREE STAKING ARE SHOWN. NOTES: 2. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S OPTION TO STAKE TREES: HOWEVER, 1. HAND LOOSEN ROOTS OF CONTAINERIZED THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING TREES IN A MATERIAL (TYP.). PLUMB POSITION THROUGHOUT THE GUARANTEE PERIOD, 2. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR 3. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING. TO PLANTING. DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL STARBUCKS COFFEE STORE LANDSCAPE AND RESOTRATION PLAN SHEET L1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA SHE8 ETS 4148.01 i n / CONSTRUCTION e GENERAL NOTES: / ENTRANCE �5 i / 1. SEE SHEET 4 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. REFERENCE NOTES: FINAL DESIGN OF THE MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL SHALL BE BY A MINNESOTA LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ZV_ I ENGINEER. P /AN ROCK ENTRANCE I ��' SEE 14 0 / Jd 5 poi B 982.4 / SILT FENCE P 1 \ �' 983.4 / SEE e / 5 MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL (D / 1 1 BW 983.9 I - / I few" �pc( lay / �3 TW 986.2 NM h��l \ 1 ' o q�w c�d� J r gh 11 t FLUM a n SILT FENCE \ al o BW 985.5 SEE 2 \ \ TW 987.1 _ -- I �`� 0° °o - -` -- uae-- s n }d OVE FL01�/ t• r r GC 984/ G� I I 9g��° 0.50 %� 5 °59 4 C'\ �� S• S 14 ��I \ \� o a T, c,l I I��a /�� G\ �$6 8\\` GL 9@ _ G� �\ INFILTRATION POND SEE e !O O� 1 1 >�/ r d I ! � •� I \. - ��jdezu 9cP > -BW '985.1 p� o . / 4V 987 m BW 988.4 -BW -98� 7- a I i 8 TW 986. TW .1 T '992.0 \/ 2- e i/ � TW 993.0 a� \8 MODULAR BLOCKf /j I 11 985 ,/ RETAINING WALL D 0.52% - -- I a 1 2 "-,,-Wood Privacy — ( Fence ( 1 I \ e s• I I \ we fi II I \ \1 � t \ LEGEND 0 INLET PROTECTION SEE/-x"\&/-A'\ 5 5 20 a 20 40 SCALE IN FEET DATE REVISION 1 hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was gism gf; prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I c,t,t -- --� _ - GRADING DRAINAGE AND SHEET am o duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the law, Hakanson Anderson STARBUCKS COFFEE STORE $ of the scat of Min sots. ovunler; -- Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors EROSION' CONTROL PLAN DMS 3601 Thurston Ave., Anoka, Minnesota 55303 OF P.L. DM BY: 763- 427 -5860 FAX 763 - 427 -0520 Date 3/24/1 Lic. No. 23461 CJJ www.hakanson— anderson.com CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 8 SHEETS 4148.01 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2017 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CUP FOR COFFEE SHOP WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE AND OUTDOOR SEATING Applicant: Dave Watson Location: 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7 Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 p.m. Nielsen noted the location of the proposed site slated for redevelopment which will replace two existing office buildings. The properties are currently zoned C-1, General Commercial. The CUP is required because of the drive-thru window. He reviewed an aerial photograph showing the existing conditions. He discussed surrounding uses. He reviewed the proposed building and stated three existing driveways will be consolidated into one. The building is single story with a 3’ parapet at the drive-thru window. He reviewed the floor plan and building elevations. Nielsen stated the plans are preliminary at this point. He discussed problems associated with the request. He discussed the conditions for approval of a drive-thru. The building is an improvement over what currently exists on the site. There is sufficient stacking room for vehicles. Site circulation is also improved. The small frontage road is across the street from single family homes. The plans do not address site lighting. The drawings are small scale but show perimeter curbing. There isn’t any information provided relative to drainage. A landscape plan has not been provided. The site plan shows a sign, but a signage plan has not been provided. The setbacks comply with C-1 zoning requirements. The building height has been met. A parking analysis has not been completed. The building is consistent with design standards required in a C-1 district. Nielsen stated the City Engineer is well aware the intersection has a low rating. He suggests a traffic study be provided by the applicant showing the use will not make traffic worse in the area. It should include trip generation and timing. Staff is recommending this item be continued to the April 4 meeting pending submittal of all missing information. Davis stated they do not need a CUP for a coffee shop but for a drive-thru. The applicant stated all missing information will be provided as well as the requested traffic study. Chair Maddy opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:16 p.m. Kris Thayer, 5345 Shady Hills Circle, Shorewood stated she has canvassed the neighborhood and has collected 88 signatures from households in the area opposing the request. She discussed traffic circulation in other coffee shops in the area. Her major concern was the traffic and showed photographs of traffic situations in the area of the proposed use. She urged the Planning Commission to consider this request seriously. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, March 7, 2017 3 Page 2 of Harry Millen, 5117 Vine Hill Road, Minnetonka stated he stands to be the most affected resident by this use. He was concerned about the increased traffic drawn to this use. He discussed traffic congestion in the morning and evening rush hours. He was also concerned about vehicle collisions, nuisances, drive-thru wait times, and snow removal from the Starbucks lot onto his property. Matt Larson, 5125 Vine Hill Road, Minnetonka discussed surrounding uses and headlight intrusion from current uses. Niko Sari, address not given stated he was concerned about the traffic. Rose DeSanto, 5111 Valley View Road, Minnetonka discussed her concerns about the traffic in the area. She stated problems associated with the new development will just become worse. She discouraged the Planning Commission from considering this. Mary Macanek, 5108 Valley View Road, Minnetonka stated traffic from the high school is very heavy, the road is curved, and it is difficult to see around the corner. She believes MnDOT should have a say on what could be done with Highway 7. She was concerned about the increased traffic that will be short in nature. David Sime, 5363 Ashcroft Road, Minnetonka was concerned about access to roads already. He discussed the length of the traffic cycle on Vine Hill Road at Highway 7. He stated the traffic impact resulting from a Starbucks would take two hours to clear the new traffic. He was also concerned about safety and environmental impacts. John Massart, 5220 Vine Hill Road, Shorewoodstated he will be impacted by the proposed use. He preferred the use be kept away from residential uses. He stated he avoids the intersection during rush hours. Cindy Heimer, 5121 Shady Lane, Shorewood was concerned about traffic and accidents. Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:44 p.m. Davis stated there are many drive-throughs in many locations in the area. Bean asked the Starbucks’ representative for information on customer numbers. Julie Waite, Starbucks, stated it was normal to have 500 in a day at an average store in the Twin Cities. On average 62% of the business is through the drive-thru. Davis asked if she was aware there was a traffic problem in this area. Waite stated she was not aware, but it will be addressed Riedel stated the circumstances of the intersection are already bad. The traffic study should consider the increase of traffic to the intersection. Maddy asked if the City would commission the traffic study. Nielsen stated the applicant would commission the study, which staff would review. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, March 7, 2017 3 Page 3 of Maddy suggested the traffic study look at the congestion already in the area. Bean believed a cut-through problem would be created. Riedel stated this appears to be a long-term problem and asked the residents for their long-term solutions. Bean stated the solution would be to completely realign the Vine Hill Road intersection. Riedel stated the increase in students at the high school will only create additional traffic problems. In response to a question from Bean, Nielsen explained what the traffic study should include. A comparison of a coffee shop with/without a drive-thru should be discussed in the study. Riedel stated there are other issues besides the traffic. Nielsen stated we still need to see plans for lighting, grading, landscaping and signage. Bean asked how much time the applicant will need for the traffic study. Nielsen stated he did not know how long it would take. He stated the item could be continued again if needed. Davis suggested a dedicated right-turn be constructed at Delton Avenue. Riedel moved, Davis seconded to continue the request to the April 4 Planning Commission meeting to allow time for the applicant to provide lighting, grading, landscape and signage plans and a traffic study. Motion carried 5/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2017 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR COFFEE SHOP WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE AND OUTDOOR SEATING (continued from March 7, 2017) Applicant: Dave Watson Location: 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7 Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:01 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He also noted the Hearing was continued from March 7, 2017. He explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for a coffee shop with drive- thru service and outdoor seating for the properties located at 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7; also, known as the Starbucks proposal. Director Nielsen apologized for sending out the report for this item late. The applicant submitted the material later than staff would have liked. The staff report was sent out earlier that morning. He explained the staff report talked about a number of things discussed during the March 7, 2017, public hearing. He reviewed the items discussed in the report. 1. During the March 7 Public Hearing the Planning Commission asked the applicant to have a traffic study done. It was to take into account the intersection, the site, and what affect the proposed use would have on the traffic issues in the area. The applicant submitted the results of the study to the City the previous week, but not in time for the City’s consultant to review it and comment on it. Primarily because of that staff is recommending the Public Hearing again be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting which is scheduled for May 2, 2017. The report is about 100 pages long and he did send it to the Commissioners under separate cover. The report contains an executive summary which summarizes most of the highly technical report. The City will have its Engineer review and comment on the report. 2. A more detailed landscape plan was submitted. Most of what is proposed is decorative landscaping. There is no need to screen the site from Highway 7 or the intersection. The original staff report recommended putting in some landscaping on the easterly entrance to / exit from the site to provide screening of the parking lot from residents on that side of the street. That is not shown on the new plan. Staff continues to believe that something should be done to create a screen between the parking and those residents. A row of maple trees is proposed along the front of the site. There is a backdrop of Black Hills Spruce and various decorative landscaping around the building. 3. Site lighting still has not been addressed. It was mentioned during the March 7 Hearing. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 4, 2017 Page 2 of 5 4. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been submitted. It includes a small infiltration pond at the easterly entrance to the site, which may be why no landscaping has been provided there. The City Engineer has noted that no drainage calculations have been provided. Whether or not additional ponding would be needed on the site would be dependent on whether or not the applicant intends to add additional hardcover to what already exists. The applicant had told him that his engineers have done those calculations and that the amount of hardcover would be less than what is currently there. Therefore, no additional ponding would be needed. Staff needs to review those calculations. The plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. He reiterated that staff recommends this be continued to the May 2 Planning Commission meeting. He noted that as follow-up to continuing the application, the applicant was sent a letter advising him that the application would take more than 60 days and up to 120 days to process. If the City does not take action within 120 days it would automatically be approved if the applicant was not notified of the 120 days. Chair Maddy asked if the infiltration pond site is part of the drainage expansion that could possibly be needed. If the amount of hardcover is not increased could that be replaced with landscaping? Director Nielsen clarified he did not know the answer to that question. Director Nielsen explained that in the past the City has always asked for landscape berms for screening. Because of the desire to keep stormwater on the site to control drainage developers have gone to creating depressions which the water would flow into and then into the ground where soils allow that. He does not know if that is necessary for what is being proposed. It is possible things could be modified so a little of both infiltration and landscaping could be done. The worst case there could end up being a section of fence along there to screen the cars. Commissioner Davis stated that area is not very deep and that she thought it could be nicely landscaped easily. Chair Maddy asked if a copy of the traffic study can be found on the City’s website. Director Nielsen stated the ability to link to the study remotely is down at this time; it has been that way since March 31. The technology consultants are trying to resolve the problem. Director Nielsen stated if anyone wants a copy of the traffic study or any other part of the staff report he asked them to provide the City with their email address on the sign in sheet. Commissioner Riedel stated the study makes the assumption that there would not be an increase in traffic and he questioned that. He did not find there to be any justification for that assumption. Commissioner Davis stated it was also refuted by Starbucks during the March 7 Hearing. Riedel stated the statement that caught his attention was “The overall amount of traffic and the congestion that occurs because of the school is not likely to increase over time.” He thought that statement is questionable. Director Nielsen stated he thought the applicant may believe that they would be drawing from traffic already in the area; that would be somewhat logical. He then stated from his perspective if a driver traveling on Highway 7 decided they would stop at the coffee shop the next morning he does not think they would ever do that again because of the volume of traffic. Commissioner Sylvester asked if the data included in the Study report was aligned with data from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 4, 2017 Page 3 of 5 Director Nielsen stated one of the recommendations included in the executive summary was to create another northbound lane at the intersection. Currently there are north, left and right turn lanes. MnDOT has considered doing that before this proposed project came before the City. Commissioner Bean clarified that currently at that intersection there is a dedicated left turn lane and there is a center-right lane; a driver could go northbound on Vine Hill Road or they could turn right and go eastbound on Highway 7. Bean stated there is only about a three-car queue space in the right turning space. Traffic is already backed up along the curve and past the Public Storage facility long before there is a chance to turn right. Bean noted that he has a number of questions about the study. He asked if there was anyone who could answer his technical questions. Director Nielsen encouraged Bean to ask his questions so the traffic engineer could address them. Bean stated the City has no control over the right-turn lane. Nielsen confirmed that and noted the City cooperates and coordinates with MnDOT. He clarified it is MnDOT’s right-of-way (ROW). He commented he was not sure why the City would object to what MnDOT is proposing. Chair Maddy asked Commissioner Bean if he was asking if approval of this application could be contingent on MnDOT adding a lane. Bean stated possibly contingent on reconfiguring the curve. Director Nielsen stated the City is aware that MnDOT wants to do something and commented that usually it comes down to MnDOT being willing to do what a city wants provided that the city pays for it. Commissioner Bean stated the study report indicates that area of Highway 7 has a posted speed of 50 miles-per-hour (mph). That posted speed has been increased to 55 mph. Bean then stated the report indicates there are 24-hour videos of the intersection. He asked how many cycles there are of them and how many of them were actually viewed. Commissioner Davis asked what days the recordings were done on. Director Nielsen stated staff will get that information. Someone from the audience stated the intersection was video recorded on a Monday and a Tuesday and not during spring break. Bean went on to state the report refers to Vine Hill Road E and Vine Hill Road W yet Vine Hill Road does not run east and west. Someone in the audience clarified that is the Vine Hill intersection and encouraged people to think of them as west of the site and east of the site. Bean noted that he will send his questions to staff and copy the other members of the Commission. Director Nielsen asked that they be sent to him and he will forward them on to the rest of the Commission. Commissioner Riedel stated there is a brief section in the report on non-site traffic forecasting. It pertains to any increase in traffic not related to the Starbucks facility; the assumption was there would not be any. He questioned that assumption. He would like an explanation for that analysis. He has read that traffic at the Minnetonka High School is increasing. Director Nielsen stated it could be based on the size of the School parking lot. However, there are a lot of parents of open enrollment students who drive the students to school. That volume could potentially increase. Commissioner Sylvester stated the Study report states the land-use is expected to produce approximately one-half the morning trips when compared to the alternative development which would be a coffee shop CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 4, 2017 Page 4 of 5 and fast food combination. She asked if that means that if the drive-thru is not approved there is an alternate plan. Dave Watson, the applicant with Watson Vinehill, LLC, stated the probable alternative would be to develop a non-drive-thru coffee shop along with some form of drive-thru fast food or a fast casual restaurant. In response to a comment from Commissioner Sylvester, Mr. Watson stated if the drive-thru portion of the proposal was not approved he would not just have a small coffee shop built. Chair Maddy stated if the applicant did not have a drive-up window he asked if a C.U.P. would not be required. Director Nielsen explained that for this application the drive-up window is what required the Public Hearing. If it was just a permitted use in that C -1, General Commercial district it would still have to go through a site plan review. Chair Maddy re-opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:24 P.M. Rose DeSanto, 5111 Valley View Road, Minnetonka, stated it would take 20 years before newly planted maple and spruce trees look half way decent. They are slow growing trees, particularly spruce. There will also be a great deal of salt spread along the roadways in the winter and she does not think the spruce trees will tolerate the salt. Director Nielsen explained the spruce trees are a backdrop to the building; they are not in front by the road. If spruce trees are taken care of correctly they can grow about one foot a year. The minimum size the applicant is supposed to plant is about six feet. He reiterated that for the most part it is decorative landscaping and not required screening. Near Vine Hill Road those trees should be an effective screen. Six-foot trees start to block out cars effectively. Ms. DeSanto stated six foot spruce trees would block very much. She then stated maple trees won’t have leaves very long. Director Nielsen stated maple trees do not screen anything, noting that is not the intent of the maple trees. Paul Stelmacher, 5210 Shady Lane, Shorewood, stated that MnDOT has already graded that intersection as “F”. He questioned the value of entertaining another traffic study done by a consultant who could be somewhat biased in favor of the firm that hired him. He also questioned why something would be added that would exacerbate the current situation and not make it safer. Until that intersection is improved he cautioned against doing anything that would make the traffic at the intersection worse. Susan Hambor, 5146 Valley View Road, Minnetonka, noted her property is located right across Vine Hill Road south. They also own the property located at 5147 Valley View Road and the log house at the corner of Delton Avenue and Valley View Road. She thought it was senseless that people were considering having a coffee shop there with a drive-thru. She noted there are two times during the day when they cannot get off of Valley View Road. They are at a dead stop at those times. She had to always leave for work one hour early so she could get out of her neighborhood. She anticipates that same thing would happen for the proposed drive-thru. She stated they have a hard time renting their rental units to anyone who has children because of existing traffic to and from the High School. She noted the traffic at the High School did increase because the size of the parking lot was increased last summer and more permits were given outs. People coming from the School “scream” through her neighborhood especially during the afternoon on a beautiful day. The residents in her neighborhood have wanted their road blocked off. She anticipates that if the proposed project moves forward drivers will be stuck in the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 4, 2017 Page 5 of 5 parking lot of the site. She agreed that people would not go to the drive-thru more than once because of traffic. Thomas Millen, 5117 Vine Hill Road, Minnetonka, stated his property is located directly across from the proposed project site and therefore would be greatly impacted. He asked why the application is being considered further because it has already been recognized that traffic in that area is a significant problem. He also questioned the need for a traffic study because it has already proved to be an issue. He suggested locating the proposed drive-thru coffee shop a quarter of a mile to the east where there is an existing shopping center. He thought it was counter intuitive to put it in the proposed location. His children are not allowed to play in their front yard for safety reasons. He noted that drivers frequently use his driveway as a turnaround. He stated that there would still be a traffic issue even if there was not a drive-thru coffee shop. Chair Maddy stated the reason for having another traffic study done is primarily because of the Fourteenth Amendment which requires that all property owners have to be treated the same. The Planning Commission cannot prejudge the application until it goes through the public hearing process even though there is a busy intersection in the area. Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. Riedel moved, Bean seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for a conditional use permit for a coffee shop with drive-thru service and outdoor seating for the properties located at 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7 to the Planning Commission’s May 2, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Maddy continued the Public Hearing at 7:33 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2017 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR COFFEE SHOP WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE AND OUTDOOR SEATING (continued from April 4, 2017) Applicant: Dave Watson Location: 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7 Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He also noted the Hearing was continued from April 4, 2017. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for a coffee shop with drive-thru service and outdoor seating for the properties located at 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7; also, known as the Starbucks proposal. Director Nielsen explained the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing was closed when this item was discussed on April 4. New information has been made available since then. If the Commission wants to reopen the Public Testimony he suggested the comments be limited to comments about the new information. Chair Maddy stated he plans on reopening the Public Testimony. Director Nielsen explained that during the Planning Commission’s March 7 and April 4 the Planning Commission meetings the Commission held a Public Hearing on a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for a coffee shop with drive-thru service and outdoor seating for the properties located at 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7. During the first Hearing the Commission heard public testimony from people. The majority of the comments were about the existing traffic situation and the affect the proposed coffee shop would have on traffic. Issues were raised about the site plan by staff. The applicant has submitted revised plans that address the majority of the issues raised by staff. For example, staff had suggested adding additional landscaping. The revised plans reflect that. The applicant worked through drainage issues with the City Engineer and adjusted the site plan accordingly. What remains is the traffic issue which was the most significant issue raised. The Commission had asked the applicant to do a traffic study. The applicant hired Spack Consulting to conduct the study. The City’s Traffic Engineer, Chuck Rickart with WSB & Associates, reviewed and commented on that study. Spack consultants submitted a technical memorandum which responded to Mr. Rickart’s comments. Nielsen asked the Spack consultants to review their responses. Vern Swing, the Traffic Engineering Manager with Spack Consulting, reviewed their responses to each of Mr. Rickart’s comments. Following is a summary of the questions and responses. The proposed site traffic assumes 89% pass-by trips. What assumptions were used about 1. the direction of the traffic flow for the analysis? CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 2 of 10 Mr. Swing stated Spack took a conservative approach. It assumed traffic passing the area on Trunk Highway 7 would divert to Starbucks and then return back on its path on Highway 7. The proposed Starbucks will be successful if it can draw from those people on the frontage road on their way to the Minnetonka High School in the morning. Or, come back to Starbucks after having dropped their children off at School. There was a question as to whether or not a 10-yeat forecast should be considered. 2. Mr. Swing stated Spack look at the traffic volumes on Highway 7 and the frontage road and the land in the area that is yet to be developed or to be redeveloped. On Highway 7 they assessed the traffic volumes over the last 12 years. There has been no growth. In fact is has been coming down slightly according to the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT’s) counts. It is possible the traffic volume could go up but likely not enough to impact how the proposed site would function. Commissioner Riedel asked Mr. Swing if Spack studied the growth patterns in traffic for the High School. He stated anecdotally it seems there has been an increase in the traffic to the School perhaps due to open enrollment or to more students driving themselves to school. That increase in traffic specifically could be problematic. Mr. Swing explained they did look at that. They also looked at enrollment numbers and class sizes. That ebbs and flows to some extent. The ability to open enroll also ebbs and flows to some extent. He noted the numbers were higher in 2007/2008. Over a span of time the numbers were fairly stagnant. The School has limitations on the number of students there can be in each classroom and caps enrollment off to some extent. As the economy improves and there is more affluence students may have more cars. He does not think a gross change would be very much. The land use is quite set. Commissioner Riedel asked if historical data was looked at. He asked how long there have been problems at the intersection. Mr. Swing stated the Highway 7 and Vine Hill road intersection is problematic and it is due to the two traffic peaks associated with the School. MnDOT does have a project scheduled to be let this fall that would allow for a right turn lane coming up to Highway 7. That will help with traffic there. It would be helpful if the signal timing could be changed for that short peak when traffic is destined to the School or from the School. Unfortunately, it is MnDOT’s route and it prefers mobility. Commissioner Bean asked Mr. Swing if Spack asked the School about its parking situation. Mr. Swing stated they just looked at student numbers. Bean noted the School has regularly been expanding parking for years. There was an expansion this past year. More students are driving to school. Dave Watson, with Watson Development, stated according to the 2016 annual report for the Minnetonka Schools they are at capacity now at 10,460 students. Once the Schools are at capacity open enrollment closes down. If enrollment goes below capacity then open enrollment opens back up. Mr. Swing went on to Mr. Rickart’s next comment. Level of Service (LOS), delays and queue’s should be reported for all intersections. 3. Mr. Swing stated Spack has followed up and provided that information in its response memo. It has been included in the original information in the appendix but it may have been more difficult to sort through. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 3 of 10 Commissioner Riedel stated he found the following letter in the response troubling. “When roadways are over capacity traffic engineering models break down and do not achieve an accurate representation of what is happening in the field.” To him that suggests with all of the specialty in engineering calculations the recommendation may not reflect what reality would be. Mr. Swing stated the models are quite good up to the point when capacity has been exceeded by 10 percent. At that point the models have difficulty in accurately portraying what is going on. At Spack the consultants film everything that they look at. When they look at the existing condition they see the queue that builds up and the parking that occurs on Delton Avenue. They looked specifically at the peak times and do their analysis based on the peak times. If there is a situation that looks as if it is not being portrayed as the way it was observed the consultants will, if necessary, calibrate the model so it reflects what was observed. If they know it is breaking down but only for a short period of time often times there is nothing that can be done about that; at least something that is cost effective. Chair Maddy stated when a road gets to that point he asked if that is synonymous with giving it an “F” LOS. Mr. Swing stated a LOS “F” means the amount of capacity was exceeded that was theoretically available on the road. For intersections it is based on amount of delay the driver has to experience. One the delay has reached 60 – 80 seconds it is in the LOS “F” and if a driver had another way to go they would do that rather than be stuck in traffic. LOS “F” is severe congestion. Mr. Swing went on to Mr. Rickart’s next comment. There was a question about the validity of 104 outbound left turns in the morning creating 4. only a four vehicle queue. Mr. Swing stated that goes back to comment 1 and Spack’s conservative approach of using the worst possible case where everyone would be turning left rather than coming out and taking a right and going on to School, for example. For the analysis the vehicles were all sent up to the frontage road, Delton Avenue rather than Vine Hill Road. In reality, if a driver could not get out on Delton Avenue they would go over to Vine Hill Road and go up that way where there is an all- way stop. He noted that 104 vehicles in one hour is not a lot of traffic. That would amount to slightly more than 8 vehicles per minute. Mr. Richart asked if a right turn lane or a left turn lane on to Broms Boulevard (a frontage 5. road) would be beneficial. Mr. Swing stated that often times for large retail sites that would be quite beneficial. In this situation because the queue extends back and around the corner turn lanes may not be of benefit. He noted Spack shares its information with the national organization the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). There is also a website where it shares all of the information it gathers. He explained that Spack is finding that the queues that typically occur at coffee shops th during peak times are on average 11 vehicles in length. The 85 percentile that the proposed coffee shop would be designed for is 13 vehicles in length. If the assumption was that vehicles were going to stack out into the right turn lane to get onto the site the vehicles that want to pull on to the site and into a parking space would be prevented from doing that because they would be entering from the right turn lane. After pondering that for quite some time it seemed to them that a right turn lane would not be an appropriate use in this case. He thought the left turn volume if it was coming to the site would likely turn at the all-way stop and come in through one of the other CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 4 of 10 driveways. He does not think the drivers would take the turn off of Delton Avenue to come onto the site. Commissioner Bean stated he understood Mr. Swing to be saying that if a driver was traveling east on Delton Avenue, and in lieu of the right turn lane, and if the driver saw that it was congested the driver would go up to the all-way stop and enter the site off of Vine Hill Road. Mr. Swing clarified if a driver was driving eastbound on Delton Avenue he thought they would pull on to the site from Delton Avenue if possible. If a right turn lane was cut in and if it was plugged up with vehicles heading to the drive-thru lane drivers would not be able to get into the parking lot. Commissioner Riedel stated he understands the Spack analysis to be conveying that the expected queue length would be within the capacity of the drive-thru and that waiting time onsite would not be the issue. He then stated his concern, which may be shared by some of the residents, is how traffic on the site would be impacted not people trying to get to Starbucks. Mr. Swing explained on the site itself if the queue exceeds the 85% capacity it may be possible that another car could stack onsite and potentially block another vehicle from getting in if someone was exiting at the same time. If someone was not exiting at the same time it would be possible to get around the vehicle. In their estimation there is sufficient room to choose to get into the queue to get to the drive- up window or to drive up and park and go inside. There is enough room and enough time, at very slow driving speeds, to make that decision and do it in a way that would not be detrimental to pedestrians that are walking out and to other vehicles that are traversing the site. Going out from there once a driver gets on to Delton Avenue the vehicles that are being added (that were included in the report) are vehicles that are currently on Highway 7. That is a very conservative way to consider it. If a person was driving east in the morning and if they wanted to get coffee it would be unlikely they would stop at the proposed Starbucks because of how long it would take to do that. There are a number of other places along Highway 7 to stop and get coffee. The Starbucks would most likely be drawing from the traffic already making that trip. Spack added approximately 62 of the 104 trips taking them out of the through traffic on Highway 7. They made them right turns coming down on to Delton Avenue and then onto the site. They added another 20 vehicles that were headed westbound on Highway 7 and had them come left and do that. They sent all of them back out on that path. Using that assumption in the review of what was going on they projected the overall change in operations and the overall change in queuing that took place would be minimal at best. It was difficult to tell the difference between one and the other. Commissioner Riedel stated there is already congestion during peak hours. He asked if the impact of adding the dynamic of drivers pulling in and out of the proposed site would be negligible. Mr. Swing explained that would make a negligible change because there is the all-way stop there. Drivers are already stopping in that particular spot. The drivers taking a right turn coming onto the site would be traveling at 5 – 10 miles per hour (mph) at most. Riedel stated every vehicle that pulls in and out of the site introduces an additional gap albeit small. It would very slightly exacerbate an already bad situation. Mr. Swing reiterated the impact would be negligible. Commissioner Bean stated if he was trying to leave the proposed site on to Delton Avenue it would necessitate there being a gap for him to get in so he can drive to the stop sign and stop again. Mr. Swing confirmed that. Bean stated Spack must have assumed that he would not have to wait for a few minutes for another driver to be nice. Mr. Swing stated when traffic is congested drivers have a lot more patience for allowing that to occur. Bean indicated he was not sure students would do that. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Swing went on to the Mr. Rickart’s next comment. Mr. Richart asked Spack to comment on the possible addition of a northbound lane at the 6. Highway 7 signal. Mr. Swing explained that MnDOT has a project that will be adding that. That will be beneficial all day long. Commissioner Bean asked if Mr. Swing has details of what that would be like. He stated that essentially there is a right turn lane there now. He then asked if MnDOT is going to materially change the right turn lane and make it longer and take some of the curve into consideration. Engineer Hornby explained that MnDOT is only going to widen the existing pavement so they can get an official lane in there to make that right turn. It will not be longer but it will be a wider dedicated east bound lane. He said he does not understand how that would change northbound Vine Hill Road at all. Mr. Swing stated it would add capacity. From the existing condition vehicles probably do queue up two abreast. He thought there would be an acceleration area with the new lane so vehicles could start to make that turn when the opportunity is there and get moving a little quicker a little faster. Engineer Hornby noted he has the plan back in his office. Mr. Swing stated it would be a small zone and maybe it would address one more vehicle. Mr. Richart commented that the potential for traffic queues of the drive-thru may require 7. the addition of an eastbound right turn lane on to the site. Mr. Richart thought a condition of the C.U.P. should be that a turn lane be added if the condition occurs. Mr. Swing stated this is comment similar to the discussion there has just been about the queuing on site and the benefits or not of having a right turn lane out on the street. Chair Maddy stated he thought Spack’s conclusion was it as unlikely a lot of people would add to a line of 13 vehicles if it exists. Mr. Swing confirmed that and stated if they did and if they blocked the right turn lane they would block people from going on to the site as a parking customer. Chair Maddy asked if the length of the queue would be visible as they were coming on to the site. Mr. Swing stated that would depend on how robust the landscaping is. Commissioner Bean stated the sample data for comment 7 came from Edina, Hopkins, Minneapolis, Roseville, St Louis Park, Minnesota as well as Kansas City, Kansas. Mr. Swing explained that Starbucks asked Spack consultants to go to Kansas City to look at 12 sites they had down there. There was queue statistic for Minnesota and then for Minnesota and Kansas combined. Mr. Swing noted he was not around when the Kansas City sites were evaluated. Commissioner Riedel stated he buys the argument that during the periods when the intersection is severely congested cars puling in and out from the site may not change the situation very much. He asked what about during the shoulder periods when it is transitioning from being severely congested to less severely congested. Then cars pulling in and out can slow traffic down. Mr. Swing stated that can happen and reiterated it would be slightly over one car per minute. That is a very small number when compared to CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 6 of 10 a very large number of high school students arriving. Because drivers are already planning on stopping at the all-way stop there is the advantage of safety when pulling around the corner and going on to the site. Commissioner Bean stated Mr. Swing refers to the all-way stop at Delton Avenue and Vine Hill Road as being some type of mitigator when in fact during the peak timeframe the traffic is queued all of the way back through the intersection and back on the eastbound Highway 7 shoulder. Mr. Swing clarified that Commissioner Riedel was asking about when the peak times were lessening when the queue was no longer on Highway 7 but on Delton Avenue. The queue is not quite as long on Delton Avenue. Adding a vehicle into that or taking a vehicle out of that would have a fairly negligible impact on the overall flow of traffic because it is all stopped already. Commissioner Bean stated he understands Mr. Swing to be saying it is already a mess and adding 10 more vehicles does not make it any more of a mess. Mr. Swing confirmed it is a mess during the half hour period when everyone is arriving. It is slow and congested. Bean asked if Spack’s measurement was of 30 minutes. Mr. Swing confirmed that. Bean stated his measurement is from 7:30 A.M. to 8:15 A.M. Mr. Swing stated based on their recordings and Mr. Watson’s recordings it is just under one half hour. Chair Maddy asked if the traffic study numbers were averages for a five day school week. Mr. Swing stated they were basically averages for the peak period for that period of time. He noted the cameras were put out on Monday and taken down on Friday. Commissioner Bean stated that is not his experience and he goes through there twice a week early morning. At that time he is heading south on Vine Hill Road to try and get to County Road 62. It is a lot th more than 30 minutes based on what he observes. He then stated he can go to the 80 percentile of peak and there is still a mess. Mr. Swing stated the numbers did drop off fairly quickly after school starts. Chair Maddy asked if the data could be interpreted as the peak time is when traffic is backing up all the way back to Highway 7. Mr. Swing stated the peak time includes that time. Peak starts slightly before traffic backs up to Highway 7, then it backs out of Highway 7 and within that peak hour it dissipates from that and the traffic is on Vine Hill Road. Maddy stated he interprets that to mean one half hour of really bad congestion and after that it is just pretty bad. Commissioner Bean concurred. Mr. Richart stated he did review the Spack traffic study report and developed the list of comments/questions that were just reviewed. He noted that he agrees that the area is congested; it is an issue today. He commented that he does not know how much a left turn lane would benefit the site. He thought the right turn lean could possibly be a benefit to the site. He noted whether or not the right turn lane could fit in there is a separate issue. He stated there are some options that could be looked into that may make the circulation work better should there be an issue with drivers baking up on the site. In response to a comment from Chair Maddy, Engineer Hornby stated he does not think there would be enough room to get around vehicles if they were stacking up on Delton Avenue. One of the reasons for the recommendation for a right turn lane as a condition for this C.U.P. was it would also be there for a future use of the site. Commissioner Riedel stated if there is any stacking up of traffic and if traffic is moving faster than a stand still there is a possibility that could be a hazard for drivers coming around the turn. Engineer Hornby stated the point was the City does not want vehicles stacking out. If the right turn lane was a condition of approval it might be able to mitigate that during peak times. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 7 of 10 Commissioner Riedel asked Mr. Richart if he agrees with the assessment that stacking should not be a problem according to the business model. He staffed if stacking is not an issue he asked if Mr. Richart agrees with the assessment (which he finds somewhat surprising) that traffic in and out of the drive-thru would not exacerbate the existing traffic problems significantly. Mr. Richart stated drivers would be able to get into the site. Getting out may be different. He explained the way the plans are laid out vehicles would not block the drive-thru; parking spaces may get blocked. Chair Maddy re-opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:52 P.M. Paul Stelmachers, 5210 Shady Lane, noted he has lived in Shorewood for about 10 years. He stated Commissioner Riedel asked if the coffee shop would make the traffic situation worse. The traffic study indicates it would be adding trips to the area. If new trips are going to be added to the area it is going to be worse; how much worse is the not known. He then stated he called Minnetonka High School to ask about school enrollment. When Mr. Watson said the enrollment was 10,460 he thought he meant for the School District. The current enrollment at the High School is about 3,120 and its capacity is 3,400. The School is actively seeking enrollment because it receives federal dollars. School representatives basically told him they want to reach 3,400 students. The High School has 1,060 parking spaces currently. The School has bought 20 properties in order to add spaces. The School is continuously adding to that. Commissioner Bean stated approximately 30 percent of the student population currently parks at the School. And, 30 percent of the potential 280 more students equates to 84 additional drivers. Mr. Stelmachers stated the properties the School is buying are along Delton Avenue. He noted of the 1,060 parking spots he counted on Google Maps some of them may be used by staff and not students. Mr. Swing noted the High School has a coffee shop in it. Mr. Stelmachers stated the LOS grade “F” for the intersection is the poorest the grade can be. There is no lower grade yet the traffic gets worse. He then stated Mr. Swing stated their estimates may be conservative so the traffic will get worse. Chair Maddy clarified the conservative estimates were on the pessimistic side. He asked if the City has the ability to adjust the timing of the signal light on Highway 7. Engineer Hornby clarified that is a MnDOT function. He stated MnDOT will look at situational opportunities to make adjustments that will help its facility. Mr. Stelmachers noted that he was opposed to what is being proposed. He also noted he spoke with someone who told him the cameras were only there for one day. He stated he thought the Executive Summary showed the data was for a 24 hour period and not a 7 day period. He asked if the complete traffic report from Spack was on the City’s website. Someone from the audience stated the cameras went up on a Monday and they were taken down on a Friday. Wednesday was not counted in the data because it was only a half day of school. David Sime, 5363 Ashcroft Road, Minnetonka, commented he came to the Public Hearing with a list of questions because when he looked at the draft of the initial report he questioned if the report addressed peoples concerns. He was a little unsatisfied. He noted that he is a physicist and he understands the value of formulating the use of standard tables. He is also a neighbor and a human being so he understands the limitations to heavily relying on formalisms to represent what is actually happening. He expressed concern some of the report seems to disappear into that and he thought it left those living in the neighborhood high and dry. During the LOS discussions there was also discussion about delay times and delays of less than 55 seconds being considered okay. He thought what was particularly important about CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 8 of 10 the intersection is that any times greater than 12 seconds are irrelevant ultimately because every operation for people coming south of Highway 7 is quantized into 8 to 12 and sometimes 15 second chunks which occur every 4 minutes. If he faces a 36 second delay that is three sets of 12 second traffic light operations. The traffic light period is approximately 4 minutes. That means a 12 minute delay. Conversations about delays being less than 55 seconds lose their meaning, albeit they are formally correct, for people on the ground unless the quantization introduced by the traffic light is considered. Commissioner Riedel stated if a person is delayed by 55 seconds they will only wait at the light once and not three times. Chair Maddy stated they would have 2 minutes to clear the intersection before the next green light. Mr. Sime stated if he does not get in the first 8 seconds he has to wait another 4 minutes. If he is not in the second 8 seconds he has to wait another 4 minutes. Commissioner Bean stated if a driver is going northbound or southbound on Vine Hill Road and the light turns green it is green for Vine Hill Road for about 15 seconds. Then there is another 4 minute cycle before it turns green again. He explained that at 5:30 P.M. this evening he was going northbound on Vine Hill Road. When he took a left on Delton Avenue the traffic was already queued through the curve past public storage to where the Starbucks would be and it took him three lights (about 12 minutes) to get across Highway 7. Mr. Sime stated there is already a traffic mess at the intersection and it should not be made worse. He expressed concern about the assumptions used in the report. He thought it difficult to believe that traffic is static when there are large developments in the City of Minnetrista taking place. That traffic was not traveling on Highway 7 10 years ago. He then stated in the short term he is less concerned about enrollment in the High School than he is about the change and use of the facility. It has gone from being a high school to being an entertainment complex. There is a dome, a theater, 8 baseball parks, and there is an ice area coming. Those things may all be good for the school community but they compromise the conventional model of an 8 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. school day for the basis of traffic evaluation. He went on to state there is continued discussion about MnDOT ignoring the community through negligence or inaction. He asked what the community can do to get MnDOT’s attention about the intersection. If the City takes the lead he thought the community would follow. Mr. Sime thanked people for their time. nd Stacy Kline, 185 West 62 Street, Chanhassen, stated she did not know this item was going to be on the agenda this evening so she has only heard what has been presented earlier in the meeting. She noted she has been underwhelmed with the graphic because it does not help her visualize a lot of the discussion there has been. The graphic is cut off on the right side where the problematic intersection is. Commissioner Bean apologized for that and noted this is the third time this application has been discussed. Ms. Kline stated because she is a parent she can resonate with the High School having more than a start of school and end of school traffic pattern. She noted she has a daughter that is in Junior High School now and she does not drive. She drives her daughter to activities at the High School. She explained that she avoids the intersection when she drives to the School. She purposely goes past the High School to County Road 101 and comes in the back to the School. She experiences teenage drivers coming to and from the facility. She cautioned against assuming a best case mature mindset at that intersection. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 9 of 10 Rose DeSanto, 5111 Valley View Road, Minnetonka, stated no one has addressed people living in the area being discussed. There will be increased noise and litter from all of the coffee cups. She noted she picks up litter in the neighborhood now. She thought the people who live in the area have been totally neglected with regard to the inconvenience to their lives. Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:09 P.M. Commissioner Riedel stated to him this issue is about more then granting a C.U.P. for drive-up window for a Starbucks coffee shop. The issue is much larger than that. There needs to be a much larger discussion about what can be done about the intersection. Commissioner Bean concurred with Commissioner Riedel. He stated other jurisdictions need to be involved in the discussion; the City of Deephaven to the north, Hennepin County, and MnDOT. He explained during the initial Public Hearing on this application there was discussion about completely realigning the Vine Hill Road intersection to create queuing space. But, that would require the purchase of properties, both commercial and residential, to be able to have a straight cross intersection. The lack of land is the reason there is the convoluted, curved, back queuing situation. He asked if MnDOT should be engaged first in the discussion. Director Nielsen explained MnDOT is aware of the issues with the intersection. MnDOT has a minor improvement scheduled with the right turn lane; that will result in there being three distinct lanes at the intersection on that side. He and Engineer Hornby discussed that at one time there had been a right off on Highway 7; that was eventually closed off. It would be nice to have that back albeit it is very unlikely. MnDOT spent a lot of time and effort closing off little accesses like that. He thought the issue with the intersection is as much of a local issue as anything. It is not MnDOT’s fault that the High School is where it is. Commissioner Bean stated MnDOT would have to take the lead on making material changes to the intersection. Director Nielsen concurred. Commissioner Riedel asked if there could be a discussion with the School to change the flow of traffic to the School by directing all of the traffic to County Road 101. Director Nielsen stated he thought that would be a good starting point. He explained the School has made changes over the years. He thought the number of buses going through the intersection has been reduced. He thought they come around the back way now. He suggested asking the School District why it lets so many students drive to School. In response to a question from Commissioner Riedel, Nielsen stated staff can talk to both MnDOT and the School District. Chair Maddy asked that the conversation return to the proposal at hand. Commissioner Sylvester asked how what is being proposed is good for the City. There is already a traffic problem in at that intersection. She agreed with Mr. Stelmacher that any increase in traffic will only exacerbate the problem regardless of what a traffic study determines. She questioned the appropriateness of making the problem worse. She then asked how it aligns with the City’s Comprehensive (Comp) Plan. She stated per the Plan Shorewood is intended to be a bedroom community, a neighborhood and a happy place to live. A fair number of residents have expressed valid concerns about increased traffic, trash, and noise. No one has mentioned the speaker at drive-thru that residents who live nearby are going to hear. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 10 of 10 She would not want to hear that all the time. She then stated with those two questions in her mind she is not convinced that what is being proposed makes sense. Commissioner Riedel noted he agreed with everything Commissioner Sylvester just said and what the residents have said. But, the property is zoned commercial and the owner of the property is entitled to make use of it. The only reason for this Public Hearing is the C.U.P. application for the drive-thru window. Yet if the impact on traffic would be negligibly small then he thought the owner would have the right to make use of that commercial property. Commissioner Sylvester stated the Comp Plan has the subject properties zoned commercial. But, the added burden of a drive-thru window is not in the Comp Plan and that is why there is a Public Hearing on this. She clarified that she would have no problem with there being a use there that does not add the same degree of burden. She thought a drive-thru would add a different burden then another business would. Commissioner Davis noted the developer has stated that without the drive-thru window the coffee shop itself would not be financially feasible. Commissioner Sylvester stated the last time this was discussed the developer indicated a fast food casual sit down establishment could work. Commissioner Davis noted she would be against anything that would torment the neighborhood further. Commissioner Riedel stated if the drive-thru versus no drive-thru makes the difference that suggests there would additional traffic. Bean moved, Sylvester seconded, recommending denial of a conditional use permit for a coffee shop with drive-thru service and outdoor seating for the properties located at 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 8:19 P.M. 477 Temperance Street | St. Paul, MN 55101 | (651) 286-8450 April 19, 2017 Mr. Brad Nielsen Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN, 55331 Re: City Project No. 17-08 WSB Project No. 02925-350 Dear Mr. Nielsen: We have reviewed the plans and traffic study submitted for the proposed Starbucks Coffee Store, located Plans have been prepared by Hakanson Anderson and we have the following comments and recommendations. General 1. Prior to the start of any construction, the following permits are required (or agency letter indicatin a permit is not required): a. MnDOT (TH 7 Service Road) is within MnDOT right of way b. Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) Stormwater management and erosion control 2. All work performed within the public right of way is to be in accordance with the City 2016 Standard Specifications and detail plates, and amendments thereto. A copy will be provided to the development Engineer. Removals and Existing Conditions Plan 1. and Vine Hill Road for curb removal and replacement for curb construction. This proposed removal results in an undesirable seam along the wheel line of traffic and a continual maintenance issue for Public Works, post development. Plans are to show the saw cut at the face of the existing concrete curb gutter and the new curb is to use the bituminous edge as the roadside form. Grading Drainage and Erosion Control 1. The proposed grading plan provides highpoints and low points in a similar manner to the existing conditions. 2. The proposed site layout eliminates the existing driveways west of the proposed driveway. The runoff from the site will be concentrated at the proposed driveway which results in additional flow e development add two catch basins and storm sewer to collect runoff from the site in the driveway curb line outside of the right of way, and discharge by piped connection to the downstream catch basin. 3. Add a spillway (or move the proposed spillway) to the rain garden in the north access curb line near Vine Hill Road. Building a legacy legacy. your Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com Starbucks Coffee Store Submittal 1 K:\02925-350\Admin\Docs\LTR - PTH_BNielsen-041917-Starbucks site plan review_1.docx Mr. Brad Nielsen April 19, 2017 Page 2 4. Provide additional grade information for the proposed outlet of the rain garden. Where is the water overflowing to? 5. The rain garden detail does not include draintile. Area project work in this area is predominately clay soils that will not infiltrate runoff. Filtration basins are typical proposed unless soil boring information identifies sand in this area is sufficient for infiltration. 6. Boulevard is approaching 10% grade. The approach needs to be reduced to 5% or less to reduce seasonal issues entering and exiting the site. Sanitary Sewer and Watermain 1. The proposed connection of the water service to the watermain is to be located further east to avoid excavation in the roadway. A trench box or shoring may be required during excavation. 2. The water service connection to the watermain is to be by wet-tap connection. 3. DIP watermain is to be poly-wrapped. 4. We recommend the sewer connection utilize the existing site service, but if televised and not usable, this service will need to be abandoned in place at the right of way line. A new sanitary sewer service connection is to be a strapped wye connection, not a cut-in wye. Site Lighting 1. The site photometric plan submitted indicates the site lighting is less than 0.4 foot-candles at the adjacent property lines. 2. The site photometric plan indicates the site lighting adjacent to Vine Hill Road is less than 1.0 foot-candles. Traffic 1. The proposed site traffic assumes 89% pass-by trips. It appears that traffic was redirected from (Frontage Road). Please provide additional documentation on how this traffic was redirected from TH 7 through the Vine Hill Road intersection. 2. Future traffic conditions, 10 or 20 year forecast, should be considered. Not just 2017. 3. 4. It does not seem reasonable that 104 outbound lefts in the AM peak hour would only have a 4 vehicle queue, especially with traffic backing up from Vine Hill Road? This should be confirmed. In the AM peak hour does the right turn volume into the site get delayed? 5. Would development of a right turn lane and/or a left turn lane on (Frontage Road) be beneficial to the overall operation of the roadway? 6. Provide discussion on the addition of a northbound lane at the TH 7 signal. 7. Staff has discussed that the potential for traffic queues of the drive through may require the addition of a eastbound right turn lane into the site. Additional requirements of this potential condition is recommended to be a requirement of the C.U.P. that the turn lane is to be added if this condition occurs. Starbucks Coffee Store Submittal 1 K:\02925-350\Admin\Docs\LTR - PTH_BNielsen-041917-Starbucks site plan review_1.docx Mr. Brad Nielsen April 19, 2017 Page 3 We recommend the plans be revised to meet the requirements and recommendations provided herein prior to construction. We also recommend a Development Agreement is executed, and the financial securities are posted with the City. The developer can schedule a pre-construction meeting, including City, construction, developer and private utility representatives upon site plan approval. Please contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information from engineering staff. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Paul Hornby, P.E. City Engineer (651) 286-8453 phornby@wsbeng.com Copy: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Chuck Rickart, WSB Starbucks Coffee Store Submittal 1 K:\02925-350\Admin\Docs\LTR - PTH_BNielsen-041917-Starbucks site plan review_1.docx From: Lulloff THomas [tjlulloff@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 9:33 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: Hwy 7 & Vine Hill Starbucks Greetings, I hope this email finds you well. I tried to speak at the the “Hwy 7 & Vine Hill Starbucks” Planning Meeting at 7 PM on 3/7/17 but the attendance had overflowed into the hallway. So I thought an email may be easier for all of us. My family and I have lived at 19000 Kingswood Ter. since 1996 which is about 3/4 of a mile south of Hwy 7 just off Vine Hill. We use the Vine Hill & 7 intersection frequently. That short strip of frontage road between where the cars come south from Hwy 7, then head east on Delton Ave is the worst example of \ frequent gridlock on a city street I have ever seen. Now we just try and avoid using it, if possible. I’m sure you heard all the reasons for constant gridlock at the Tue. meeting so I’m just going to ask that you please consider any business that would have less in and out traffic in this location. A much better spot for Starbucks would be a little bit west on Delton Road in the strip mall next to the Holiday gas station. The Starbucks customers could use the Old Market Road on and off Hwy. 7 exit, no High School or Deephaven School traffic there. Hwy 7 & Hwy 101 would also be much better location for a Starbucks location. Anywhere but that short bottle neck currently under consideration. With all the High School drivers(less experienced) and Coffee Drinkers (late for work), I’m sure your Police Dept. will be spending a lot of time at that site trying to sort out car accidents, if approval is granted. I like Starbucks as much as the next guy, but no one will win if you allow a coffee shop at that bottle neck; not even Starbucks. Youe Time Is Most Appreciated, Thomas J. Lulloff CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. _________ A RESOLUTION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF 19245 AND 19285 STATE HIGHWAY 7 FOR A STARBUCKS WITH A DRIVE-THRU SERVICE WINDOW IN THE C-1 ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS , the Watson Vinehill, LLC. (Applicant) is the owner of real property located at 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7 (Subject Property) in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A (attached); and WHEREAS , the Applicant proposes to remove the existing buildings on the properties and construct a coffee house with a drive-thru service window; and WHEREAS , “drive-in facilities or convenience food establishment” are uses allowed only by conditional use permit in the C-1 (General Commercial) zoning district and the Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS , Applicant's request was reviewed by staff and their recommendations were duly set forth in memoranda to the Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council, dated March 7, 2017 and April 4, 2017, on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS , after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meetings on March 7, April 4, and May 2, 2017, the minutes of which meetings are on file at City Hall, and recommended denial of the application; and WHEREAS , Applicant's request for a conditional use permit was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting on August 28, 2017, at which time the staff’s memoranda and the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shorewood finds as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Subject Property is located in the C-1 (General Commercial) zoning district. 2. The Subject Property contains approximately 36,535 square feet (.84 acres) of land area. 3. Section 1201.04 Subd. 4 of the zoning regulations provides that the purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide the City of Shorewood with a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety. 4. Section 1201.04 Subd. 4 of the zoning regulations provides that in making the above determination, the city may consider the nature of the effect upon traffic into and from the premises or on any adjoining roads. 5. Section 1201.04 Subd. 1 (d) of the zoning regulations provides that the Planning Commission may consider possible adverse effects of the conditional use, including (but not limited to): a. The compatibility of the use with the present and future land uses in the area; b. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed; c. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city’s service capacity. 6. The Applicant’s traffic consultants found that the intersections of Vine Hill Road/Delton Avenue and Vine Hill Road/State Highway 7 are currently experiencing delays which causes the traffic to back up and left turning movements to frequently operate with a level of service (LOS) F during the A.M. peak. 7. LOS F indicates delays of more than 55 seconds. Fifty-five seconds are considered the threshold between acceptable and unacceptable traffic signal operations in Minnesota. 8. The Applicant’s traffic consultants found the proposed use would increase the number of A.M. peak trips during the time when the area is functioning with LOS F. 9. The Applicant’s traffic consultants indicate that during the morning peak period, the level of service, delays and queues are excessive for 15-30 minutes of the day. When roadways are over capacity, traffic engineering models break down and do not achieve an accurate representation of what is happening in the field. In these periods, qualitative assessments may be used to put the existing conditions and proposed building conditions in perspective. 10. Additionally, the City’s Traffic Engineer indicates that the traffic waiting to enter into the drive-thru service lane could back-up and block traffic in the public frontage road (Delton Avenue) causing additional back-ups extending west from the site driveway in the A.M. peak. CONCLUSIONS A.Based upon the foregoing, and the record referenced herein, the City Council hereby denies the Applicant's request to redevelop the site with a coffee house with a conditional use permit for a drive-thru service window in the C-1 zoning district. B.The request for the conditional use permit results in the addition of more traffic in an area with already existing unacceptable levels of service. C.The City of Shorewood finds that the drive-thru service window creates traffic conditions that are incompatible with present and future land uses in the area. D.The proposed use would tend to or actually depreciate the traffic conditions due to the overburdened intersections in the A.M. peak traffic period. -2- E.The proposed use cannot be accommodated with the existing public services, primarily the existing street design, and the additional traffic will overburden the nearby intersections during the A.M. peak period. F.The City of Shorewood finds that the proposed drive-thru service window would further degrade the traffic into and from the premises and the adjoining roads in the area in the A.M. peak. G.The Applicant has reasonable use of the Subject Property without the proposed drive-thru service window. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 28th day of August, 2017. ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk -3- Exhibit A Legal Description of 19245 State Highway 7: Legal Description of 19285 State Highway 7: -4- CITY OF SHORE WOOD RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF 19245 AND 19285 STATE HIGHWAY 7 FOR A STARBUCKS WITH A DRIVE-THRU SERVICE WINDOW WHEREAS , the Watson Vinehill, LLC. (Applicant) is the owner of real property located at 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7 (Subject Property) in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A (attached); and WHEREAS , the Applicant proposes to remove the existing buildings on the properties and construct a coffee house with a drive-thru service window; and WHEREAS , “drive-in facilities or convenience food establishment” are uses allowed only by conditional use permit in the C-1 (General Commercial) zoning district and the Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS , Applicant's request was reviewed by staff and their recommendations were duly set forth in memoranda to the Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council, dated March 7, 2017 and April 4, 2017, on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS , after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meetings on March 7, April 4, and May 2, 2017, the minutes of which meetings are on file at City Hall, and recommended denial of the application; and WHEREAS , Applicant's request for a conditional use permit was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting on August 28, 2017, at which time the staff’s memoranda and the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City staff. 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 the C-1 (General Commercial) zoning district. 2. The Subject Property contains approximately 36,535 square feet (.84 acres) of land area. 3. The proposed development includes combining the two properties and redeveloping the site with a coffee shop with a drive-thru service window. 4. The frontage road was re-configured after the subject property was created and the adjacent properties had developed. It has narrow rights-of-way in parts of its extent, problematic curves and challenging intersection geometrics. 5. The site is located in an area with heavy commuter traffic and near Minnetonka High School, which is a heavy traffic generator in the A.M. peak. 6. The adjoining roadways are currently operating at an unacceptable level of service (LOS) F during the A.M. peak and the site driveway on the frontage road is also anticipated to operate at a LOS F in the A.M. CONCLUSIONS A.Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicant's request for a conditional use permit subject to approval of the building permit by the Excelsior Fire District and subject to the following conditions and conformance with city code, zoning regulations and engineering guidelines. Prior to approval of a building permit, the applicant shall: 1)Revise the plans or submit the information as directed in the Engineer’s memorandums dated April 19, 2017 and August 23, 2017, subject to the approval by the City Engineer. 2)Consolidate the properties into a single tax parcel. 3)Acquire any temporary construction easements necessary for either demolition of existing improvements or construction of retaining walls. Retaining walls over four feet in height require a building permit. 4)Revise the site plan to include the proposed impervious surface coverage. The maximum allowed is 66 percent. 5)Pick up stray trash on a daily basis and nearby the site to avoid becoming a nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood. 6)Submit a sound study (or specifications from a speaker vendor) indicating that the sound from the ordering station shall not exceed 50 decibels at the east property line. 7)Limit the hours of operation to 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. and further limit trash service and deliveries to the hours between 9:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. 8)Execute a performance agreement and submit related financial guarantees consistent with the zoning regulations. B. 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. 2 2 -2- ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 28th day of August, 2017. SCOTT ZERBY, MAYOR ATTEST: SANDIE THONE, CITY CLERK 3 3 -3- Exhibit A Legal Description of 19245 State Highway 7: Legal Description of 19285 State Highway 7: 4 4 -4- .MALKERSON GUNN .MARTIN LLP 1900 U.S. BANK PLAZA SOUTH TOWER 220 .SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE 612-344-1 1 1 1 FACSIMILE 612.344- 1 41 4 Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq. Direct Dial No. 612.344.1699 bdnt a mgmllp.coni August 28, 2017 Mayor Scott Zerby and Members of the Shorewood City Council City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 - -8926 RECEIVED AUG 2 0 2017 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RE Application for Conditional Use Permit; Watson Vinehill, LLC; Starbucks Drive Through — to be considered at the Council Meeting on August 28, 2017 Dear Mayor Zerby and Members of the City Council: I. INTRODUCTION. This office represents Watson Vinehill, LLC ( "Watson "), which has an interest in property located at 19245 and 19285 Highway 7 ( "Property ") in the City of Shorewood ( "City "). Watson has submitted an application to develop a Starbucks coffee shop with a drive -up window (the "Project "). The proposed drive - through requires a conditional use permit ( "CUP ") under the City's zoning ordinance, The City Staff has recommended approval. The City Council will consider it at its regular meeting this evening. Watson has submitted a voluminous application packet to the City. This application packet includes materials that describes the proposed project in great detail. We submit this letter as a supplement to the materials submitted in that application packet. For the reasons set forth below, the project proposed by Watson satisfies all applicable criteria for a CUP established by the City's zoning ordinance. We therefore respectfully ask that the City Council vote to approve the application. We apologize for submitting this letter so soon before the Council Meeting. However, we and our clients' consultants received the staff report on Friday afternoon at 4 :00 p.m. and we, our client, and our clients' consultants needed to review it over the weekend. 227577.D0'C Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Shorewood August 28, 2017 Page 3 This provision allows the City to consider "the effect upon traffic into and from the premises or on any adjoining roads" when determining whether to grant or deny an application for a CUP. (1d.). Here, the evidence presented by the applicant demonstrates that the Project will have no adverse "effect upon traffic into and from the premises or on any adjoining roads" for the reasons set forth in detail in memos by Vern Swing to David Watson, dated August 22, 2017 ("Swing Memo") which is in your Council packet. "Adjoining roads" or "adjoining" are not defined terms in the City's zoning ordinance. Therefore, one needs to read and apply these terms as defined in court case law or accepted dictionary. There are no Minnesota court cases which define these terms. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "adjoining" as follows: "To be next to; to be contiguous to." Therefore this adjoining roads are portions of Delton Avenue and Vine Hill Road where they are "next to" or "contiguous to" the site on which the development is proposed. As the project proposed by Watson satisfies all criteria established by the City's zoning ordinance for the approval of CUPS, Watson is entitled to the requested CUP as a matter of right. Watson therefore respectfully asks that the City Council approve its application. 111. COMMUNITY OPPOSITION is NOT A LEGALLY SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR DENYING A CUP APPLICATION. Comments made by members of the public at the public hearings relating to the application have generally been very positive and complementary of the proposed project. Notwithstanding this, some members of the public have voiced concerns about the proposed project. Many of these concerns relate to general concerns concerning traffic. Watson and its consultants have worked diligently with the City's staff members and planning consultants to address these concerns. Nevertheless, we briefly address the subject of possible community opposition to the proposed project. Quite simply, generalized community opposition is not a legally sufficient basis for denying an CUP application. The law in Minnesota is that community opposition to a landowner's desire to use his property for a particular purpose is not a legally sufficient reason for denying a conditional or interim use permit. Scott County Lumber Co. -Inc. v. City of Shakopee, 417 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) and Amoco Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 395 N.W.2d 115 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). Indeed, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a local government entity must base the denial of a conditional or interim use permit on "something more concrete than neighborhood opposition and expression of concern for public safety and welfare." Chanhassen Estates Residence Assoc. v. City of Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335, 340 (1984); see also Scott County Lumber Co. Inc. v. City of Shakopee, 417 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) and Amoco Oil Co, v. City oj'Minneapolis, 395 N.W.2d 115 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). 227577DOC W V% " DE N'F EOP-NUEAN'T To-, Mayor and City Council -, City of Shorewood RECEIVED AUG 2 8 2017 CITY OF SHORE WOOD cc: Greg Lerud, City Administrator; Marie Darling, City Planning Director; Chuck Rickart, City Transportation Engineer; Tim Keane, City Attorney From: David Watson Re: City Staff Report Date: August 28, 2017 A. Introduction. I thought itwou I d be beneficial and save time at tonight's council meeting if I set forth my preliminary response to the City Staff report, etc. I did not receive the City Staff report untill 4, pm. last Friday. I' reviewed concerns we had with our consultants over the weekend and discussed, a few items with Marie Darling and Chuck Rickart,this morning. B. Results of Traffic Study. A traffic study was done to show the impact of the proposed Starbucks Development. The results of the traffic study, including the likely distribution of traffic, have been reviewed and agreed to by the City's traffic engineer (Chuck Rickart - WSB), MnDOT, and an independent engineering firm, HDR. The result of the traffic study shows that during the AM Peak Hour (7-8am on weekdays during the school year) the Starbucks Development does not have a noticeable impact on the existing traffic condition. Delton Avenue access/exit point -level level of service' is a B and remains, a B with the development, in place, 41 Vine Hill Road access/exit point — level of service is an A and remains an A with the development: in place. Intersection of Delton Avenue! /Vine Hill Road —level of service is an F and remains an F with the development in place. The actual delay time is reduced with the development in place, (5 4,73 seconds to 53.03 seconds), because customers entering the site off of Delton Avenue exit the site on Vine Hill Road, therefore distributing some of the traffic from Delton Avenue eastbound onto Vine Hilll Road northbound, The Traffic study also projects only 13 new cars will be added to the existing traffic condition of nearly 900 cars during the AM Peak Hour. W- DINY -4, -11 N NT, D, Reaction to Balance St3ff, report and conditions of Resolution of � | have read the, Resolution ofApproval. Although | believe some of the conditions are not needed, k agree to be bound by all of them as stated but as to roadway changes, the conditions should! read as set forth above, Thus paragraph All under Conclusions of the Resolution of Approval would read as follows (redline shows the changes): ^W Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicant's request for a conditional use permit subject 1m approval of the building permit bvthe Excelsior Fire District and subject to the following conditions, and conformance with city code, zoning, regulations and engineering Qui|de|imea. Prior to approval ofal building 'permit, the applicant shall: 1) Revise the plans or submit the information as directed in the Engineer's memorandums dated April 19, zu4/ and August 23, 2V1/, subject to the approval bV the City Engineer Pavto stripe a turn lane onto the northbound Vin, U � E. and Bruce Malkerson. My traffic expert, Vern Swing, b present this evening. } ask that hebe allowed afew minutes: topresent his findings- ao outlined in detail in his report that you have available, to address any questions youVr staf muyhaYe. Bruce Ma|keraoVisroy legal counset and he |s available tp address any legal, questions you may have. }n order tolimit the time vv8 need to present our position, he has, submitted a letter tp you which summarizes our legal position, F. | ask that after you deliberate concerning th|sapp !cation that |be allowed ' - anVnufetooddressany questions or issues that you think have not adequately been addressed, Finally, ,}ask that ifyou find thatthere i's not a ^^ ' vuteinfavV(ofthereoo|udonvvNntheadditional conditions l discussed, | ask that you add whatever other conditions you Jbelieve must be added inorder to obtain approval, It may also be that if I have not adequately addressed all of your concerns, I ask you to table the vote until the next meeting so that |have achance to address those issues. Thank you. 3 #9A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item REGULAR .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Porposed 2018 EFD budget Meeting Date: August 28, 2017 Prepared by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator Reviewed by: Attachments: Proposed 2018 Excelsior Fire District budget Policy Consideration: Should the City of Shorewood approve the 2018 Excelsior Fire District budget? Background: The 2018 EFD budget is proposed to increase 4.03%from the 2017 budget, or from $1,642,618 to$1,708,762. The City of Shorewood's share is proposed to increase at a slightly less percentage, 3.53%or$21,329 from 2017 to 2018, which makes the city's proposed total for 2018 $625,953. Financial or Budget Considerations: These numbers have been incorporated into the city's budget planning process and is at a level that is acceptable to staff. Options: Chief Gerber will be at the meeting on August 28, but if Council members have any questions, or need additional information you are encouraged to contact the Chief, or city staff prior to the meeting so the information can be provided at the meeting. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the 2018 EFD budget as presented. Next Steps and Timeline: City Staff will continue discussions about the entire 2018 budget through the final budget approval in December. 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. Pagel W cot ow MIMN• 2018 FINAL Recommended CIP and Operating Budget July 27 , 2017 Excelsior Fire District � A Proudly serving the Communities of.• Deephaven Excelsior-Greenwood-Shorewood-Tonka Bay 24100 Smithtown Road AIIM� Shorewood, MN. 55331 FINAL Recommended 2018 Budget Foot Notes June 27 2017 • Requested 2018 Budget Footnotes The following footnotes help to identify significant changes for 2018 as proposed in the budget. o Staffing—stafrmg is a main impact area for budget increases in 2018. Maintain Full-time Staffing as currently operating • Fire Chief • Fire Marshal • Administrative Specialist - Shared Services with the City of Chanhassen ■ Maintain Part-time Staffing as currently operating • Part-time Fire Inspector(Special Events focused) • Paid on Call Staffing • Retain and Recruit to staff at maximum of 50 firefighters • Maintain the utilization of the Duty Officer • Chief Officers, and select firefighters are operate this position on a 24 hour a day basis to cover the Fire District. • Increase the daily coverage rate from $50/day to $75/day in order to help offset the costs of these selected people staying available in the Fire District for this period of time. • Transition Duty Crew to 18 hours per week from 10 hours per week • The Duty Crew staffing model was discussed and recommended by all EFD Chief Officers. • The focus to continue to grow the Duty Crew model vs. other models that were evaluated. • We will continue to evaluate all staffing options moving forward. o Main Budget impacts for 2018 • Increase Worker's Compensation Costs to reflect LMC costs increases ($28,000) • Increase Audit specific line item to correctly reflect and capture all EFD audit costs ($15,025) • Replace 8 portable radios that are at end of life operations ($5,760) • This will be per year for 7 years total • We will need to add another$5,760 next year to replace the remaining 8 radios. This number will also run for 7 years total. • Restore purchasing 5 sets of Turnout Gear replacement ($9,000) • Maintain computer replacement plan at 2 computers ($2,145) • Restore EFD staff numbers to attend FDIC to previous year's numbers ($3,000) • Restore the purchase of one(1) 4 Gas monitor($850) • Restore the purchase of one(1) cold water rescue suit ($700) o Excelsior Fire District will continue to be Tax Exempt in 2018 ■ Still will need at least 1 full year to better determine actual line item impacts. o Building Maintenance Fund • Established specific Fund to allow for adequate funding mechanisms for the building maintenance projects • A $24,000 transfer will be placed in this Fund in 2018. • Building maintenance projects are identified in the building maintenance plan o Capital Equipment Fund • No Change to the $170,000 contribution • Aerial 11 replacement for 2018 in the plan. • Updated replacement time periods for Rescue 12 and Rescue 21 Excelsior Fire District FINAL Recommended-July 27,2017 Budget FY 2018 Comparison with Previous Years Percent 1' j 1 ,tj'7 2018 2018 Change A Actua! Arlb,ll Appro,E-1 Requested Requested From 17 >1�! eu:iyel Ll.,dge: Budget Dollar increase Adopted Fund 230 FIRE OPERATING FUND Dep't 42200 Fire Operations 'ersonal Services 230-42200-101 Employees Regular 144,374 152,571 161,269 214,302 213,141 218,491 5,350 2.51% 230-42200-103 Part-Time Employees 16,321 16,886 22,328 6,614 6,043 5,846 (197) -3.26% 230-42200-106 Firefighter's Salaries 150,720 146,346 182,741 182,640 213,364 245,834 32,470 1522% 230-42200-107 Fire Officers Salaries 33,210 33,976 35,400 34,807 36,806 38,222 1,416 3.85% 230-42200-121 PERA 21,845 24,207 27,323 30,489 31,205 31,687 682 2.19% 230-42200-122 FICA/MC 11,957 17,578 19,711 22,650 25,383 28,159 2,776 10.94% 230-42200-129 State Aid - - - 143,743 - 230-42200-131 Employer Paid Health 23,385 25,538 27,460 41,463 44,607 40,305 (4,302) -9.64% 230-42200-133 Employer Paid Life Insuranc 23 23 12 18 18 18 - 0.00% 230-42200-151 Workers Comp Insurance 25,239 22,276 22,571 25,799 26,500 28,000 11500 5.66% Total Personal Services 427,074 439,401 498,815 702,525 597,067 636,762 39,695 6.65% Pension 230-42200-170 Firefighter Pension ContribL 27,529 - Supplies 230-42200-200 Office Supplies 3,730 4,112 2,832 2,703 3,720 3,800 80 2.15% 230-42200-212 Motor Fuels 14,003 13,758 9,567 9,405 14,000 13,000 (1,000) -7.14% 230-42200-217 Clothing 26,850 24,906 34,090 22,775 25,500 28,750 3,250 12.75% 230-42200-220 Repair/Mainz.Supplies 6,891 7,717 11,864 8,956 6,000 6,120 120 2.00% 230-42200-221 First Aid Supplies 3,160 6,397 2,878 4,363 2,300 2,340 40 174% 230-42200-222 Firefighting Supplies 18,239 19,018 14,852 13,693 10,700 10,900 200 1.87% 230-42200-241 Fire Prevention Tools 4,543 4,141 11,829 7,581 4,200 4,300 100 2,38% Total Supplies 77,416 80,049 87,912 69,476 66,420 69,210 2,790 4.20% ofessional Services - 230-42200-304 Legal - 603 - - 3,000 3,000 - 0.00% 230-42200-307 Fiscal Management Fees 16,000 16,000 16,480 16,975 18,000 18,540 540 3.00% 230-42200-311 Auditing 9,797 10,035 11,785 12,675 12,500 15,025 2,525 20.20% 230-42200-312 Refuse&Recycling Collecti 1,647 955 224 668 1,800 1,800 0.00% 230-42200-313 Janitorial Services 6,038 7,779 7,387 8,578 7,000 7,000 0.00% 230-42200-318 Medical Fees 6,312 6,481 9,158 11,337 7,000 7,000 0.00% 230-42200-319 Professional Services 25,579 22,317 52,510 26,407 30,845 30,845 0.00% Total Professional Services 65,573 64,170 97,544 76,640 80,145 83,210 3,065 3.82% Other Services and Charges - 230-42200-321 Telephone/Communication: 22,066 27,791 25,970 26,657 26,100 26,100 0.00% 230-42200-322 Postage 654 219 301 205 500 500 0.00% 230-42200-323 Radio Units 25,329 31,311 22,333 25,707 28,500 34,260 5,760 20.21% 230-42200-331 Conferences 5,795 5,544 6,126 4,477 4,000 4,850 850 21.25% 230-42200-332 Mileage 74 118 - - 200 200 0.00% 230-42200-333 Meeting Expenses 5,134 3,624 3,845 3,937 4,000 4,000 0.00% 230-42200-334 Training&Schools 27,302 23,765 25,533 20,883 26,800 26,800 0.00% 230-42200-350 Printing&Publishing 1,272 701 1,112 892 1,100 1,100 0.00% 230-42200-360 Insurance 26,702 26,277 23,942 20,872 28,000 25,000 (3,000) -10.71% 230-42200-381 Electric Utilities 34,658 32,097 33,582 33,418 33,400 33,400 0.00% 230-42200-383 Gas Utilities 12,814 15,409 10,604 7,821 13,000 13,000 0.00% 230-42200-386 Water and Sewer Utilities 999 864 1,254 1,038 1,100 1,100 0.00% 230-42200-401 Repairs&Maint.Contractec 35,392 43,161 37,185 30,963 42,625 28,250 (14,375) -33.72% 230-42200-404 Repairs/Maint.MachinerylE 28,032 24,539 20,517 32,765 25,450 25,650 200 079% 230-42200-405 Fire Equipment Maintenanc 6,967 13,689 9,068 12,857 17,105 18,985 1,880 10.99% 230-42200-430 Misc Expenses(Bank) 843 1,186 1,434 1,025 1,220 1,220 - 0.00% 230-42200-433 Dues and Subscriptions 3,251 3,620 3,225 3,119 3,184 3,184 0.00% 230-42200-439 Contingency - - Total Other Services 237,284 253,915 226,031 226,636 256,284 247,599 (8,685) -3.39% Total Operating Budget 834,876 837,535 910,302 1,075,277 999,916 1.036,781 36,865 3.69% Capital Outlay 230-42200-720 Building Fund Transfer - 30,000 230-42200-720 Fire Relief Fund Transfer 30,000 5,000 230-42200-720 Fund Balance/Reserve - Building Imp Fund Transfer 24,000 230-42200-720 Capital Equip Transfer 170,000 175,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 - 0.00% 230-42200-720 Fire Facilities Transfer 554,285 548,460 547,091 549,098 527,250 532,800 5,550 1.05% 724,285 723,460 777,091 724,098 697,250 726,800 29,550 4.24% Totals Fund 230 Fire Operating 1,559,161 1,560,995 1,687,393 1,799,375 1,697,166 1,763,581 66,415 3.91% Operating Revenue 34202 Municipat Contribution 1,532,895 1,568,508 1,560,827 1,635,079 1,642,618 1,708,762 Shared Services Income - - - 31,696 34,048 34,319 36210 Interest Income 1,073 1,124 2,432 1,500 2,000 2,000 36228 Refunds andReimbursemei 22,080 11,132 19,703 12,000 14,000 14,000 36230 Donations/Other Income 4,266 550 - - 39203 Special Events - - - 6,000 4,500 4,500 39203 Fund Transfers 27,529 - - Total Revenue 1,587,843 1,581,314 1,582,962 1,686,275 1,697,166 1,763,581 Balance 28,682 20,319 104,431 113,100 Balance,January 1st 316,769 345,451 365,770 261,339 148,239 148,239 Balance,December 31st 345,451 365,770 261,339 148,239 148,239 148,239 Fund Balance% 41.246 40.181 24.304 14.825 14.298 (2017 vs.2018 Contribution)= 1,642,618 1,708,762 4.03% EXCELSIOR FIRE DISTRICT 2018 FINAL Recommended Operating Budget Jul 27,2017 RY PERSONAL SERVICES Detail Hern Amount Line Item Total Category Total 101 Empl ees R ular Full-lime) 218,491 Fire Chief 111,926 2.00% Fire Marshal 61,200 2.00% AdmiNstreative Specialist 45,365 4.50 Full time Excelsior Fire(Contract to City of Chanhassen for 20 hours per week) 50%cost share I EFD Cost($21,705) 21 BI thr x 40 hours per week 103 Part Time employees PT Fire Ins for("to oraoner) 5,846 5,846 2t 651hr x t0 hours per week 27 weeks 106 Firefi hters Salaries 245.834 Station 1 Ca11 Pa E12.75 x 390 x 15 x 1 hr 74,568 2.00% Station 2 Call Pa $12.75x210x 10x1 hr 26,775 2.00% 'Ali Call Pay '$12.75x50x20x1.5hrs 19,125 2.00% Station 1 Drill Pa $25.50 x 50 x 25 31.875 2L0% Station 2 Drill Pay $25.50x50 x 12 15,300 2.00% ,Duty Officer Pay _ $75 per day x 365 27,3751 5.00% $25.50 per call x 120 3,060 Duty Crew Pa $12.75 x 4 x 18 x 52 47,736 107 Fire Officer's Salaries 38,222 Assistant Chief 6,300 2.00% Battalion Chiefs 1 9,069 2.00% Ca teins 5 14,890 2,00% Apparatus Coordinator 2,203 2.00% Station Mainteance 1,000 Coordinators 6 4,760 2.00 121 PERA i 31,887 Chief 18,132 Fire Marshal 9,914 Administrative Specialist 3A02 Part-time Fire in actor 439 122 FICA 20,787 Firefighters 15,242 PT Fire Inspector 362 Administrative Specia liat 2,813 Fire Officers(10) 2,370 123 Medicare 7,372 Chlef 1,623 Fire Marshal 887 PT Fire Inspector 85 R tars 3.565 Fire Officers 0 0) 554 Administrative Specialist 658 131 Health Insurance 40,305 Chief 17,720 10% Fire Marshal 1 13,256 10% Administrative SpElalist 7,724 10"/ Dental Ins 1,605 Fire Marshal,Admin Specialist 133 Life insurance Chief 1 6 18 Fire Marshal 6 Administrative Special 6 151 Workers Compensation 28,000 TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 636 T62 CATEGORY PENSION Detail Item Amount Line Rom Total Cate Total Firefi hter Pension Contribution Note:None required for 2018 CATEGORY SUPPLIES Detail Item Amount Lane Item Total Cate Total 200 Office Supplies 3,800 212 Motor Fuels 13,000 217 Clothing 28,750 Turnout Gear(5 sets) 9-00 Helmets(6) 1,000 10 for helmets 200 Hoods(10) 1,000 Gloves(10 pairs) Soo Boots(6 paid 1,400 Turnout Gear Cleaning 6,000 Turnout Gear Repair 1,800 Firefighter Un for ms(6} 1_,650 Badges&Uniform Brass 800 Firefighter Work Uniforms(10) 1,600 Fire_InspeclorUniforms _ 400 ,Du Uniforms 500 IFire Chief Uniforms 400 Cold Water Rescue Suits(T 700{ Class A Uniforms 1,800 220 Repair and Maintenance Supplies 6,120 Baneries ; 720 _ liquilligan Water Station 1&2 _ 700 Solar Sall Station 2 700 Small Tools 1,500 Vehicle and Station Su police 2,500 221 First Aid Sup lies 2,340 222 Fire Fighting SuppliesdTools 10.900 Fire Exlin wisher Powder 450 Cartrid a Refills 350 Ox n Refills 2,000 Fire6 htin Foam _ 1,700 Extinguisher Refill 1,700 Small tools Aee1 Tags,Saws,Wr, 2,000 Hazmat Supplies 1,000 Hose 1 1,700 241 Fire Prevention 4,300 Code Books 500 Open House 1,200 Supplies&Handouts 2,000 Sparky Costume Maintenance 200 jLife Safety Video 300 TOTAL SUPPLIES 69,210 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 304 Legal 3,000 i 307 F€sca3 Management 18,540 311 Auditin I 15,025 District Audit($10,500).Northland Securities($1,525),Relief Actuarial-GASS Requirement $3,ODD 312 Refuse 1,800 313 Janitorial 7,000 318 Medical Fees 7,000 319 Professional services 30,845 lRecording Secretary 3,000 Computer Services 26,345 CISD I i 500 LMCC Recording Fees 1,000 TOTAL PROFESSIONAL! 83 210 LArEGORY _OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES Detail Item Amount Line Item Total C Total 321 Communications 26,100 Telephone 15,100 Cell Phones 4,350 Pagers 4 @ 475) 1,900 'Pager Repair 1,700 Internet 1,450 MDC Air Cards 800 IPAD Connectivity 800 322 Postage 500 323 Radio Units 34260 Hennepin County Radio Lease 32,760 Repel=8 Portaww-Lowe P rem Hennepin County Radio R epair 500 MDC Maintenance 1 1,000 331 Conferences 4,850 Mn Fire Dept.Conference Mn Fire Chiefs Conference 1,200 'J Chiefs Conference Fire Department Instr.Conf. 3,000 Emergency Mgnt Cont. 900 Fire Ina ors Conference 250 332 Miles a and Travel 200 333 Meeting Expenses 4,000 334 Training Expenses 26,800 Training Tower Simulator 2,000 EMT 4 1700 6,800 EMT Refresher 5,400 FFI 2,000 {No lcncser fully funded bv MBFTE Funds) FFII 1,200 Haz-Mat O s 1 2,000 Vo-Tech Schools 1 1,500 State Sectional Schools Boat Training 300 BloodbomelRi ht To Itnow _ 100 Trainin Aids 1,000 Support Staff training 300 Fire Chief Training 300 Fire Inspector Trainin 700 Blue Card ICS Trainin 2,700 Trainin E ui merit 50o 350 Printing And Pubtishing 1,100 Call Sheets 425 Film R Developing 100 Stationary 350 Printer cartridges 225 Other Printing 360 Insurance 25,000 381 Elentdc Utilities 33,400 1383 Gas Utilities 13,000 386 Water and Sewer Utilities 1,100 401 Building Repair 28,250 Annual Maintenance 21,100 Sprinkler Alarm Inspection l Testing Contractor Eval) 5,300 Elevator inspection 1 1,850 404 Repair And Maintenance Of Apparatus 25,650 Truck Repair 14,860 %m Test in 1,720 Service 5,500 Major Repairs 2,700 i supplies I 1 850 TEGO� Ry OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES(Cont.) Detail Item Amount Line Rom Total Gat o Total 405 Fire Equipment Maintenance 18,985 Compressor Service 1.500 Air I j 475 Gas Powered E ui ment Soo SCBA Service 4,960 31 acks $1601 per pack Fit TesB SCBA Flow Testing _ SCBA Hydro Testing 2,000 SCBA Maintenance 1,000 LadderTesUng 2,000 Hose Testing 4,900 Air Monitor 850 I Air Monitor Calibration 300 eint.A regiment Fitness ROOM 500 430 Misc Expenses 1.220 Bank Expenses 500 Payroll Direct Deposit Fees 720 433 Dues And Subscriptions 3,184 _ Nat.Volunteer Fire Council 30 IAFCIINT Assoc Of Fire Chiefs 210 Int Assn Of Arson Investigators 50 1 - 40 - Mn State Fire Chiefs Assoc 130 ACFEI - _ 130 MSFDA _ 355 Fire Marshals Assoc Of Mn(2) 70 NFPA —7 ACS Firehouse Solutions 730 _ Hennepin Coun Fire Chiefs 20 Henna in County Fire Chiefs(FIT 500_ United Firefi_4hters Assoc 30 Firehouse Ma azne 30 Smoke Eater 22) 160 Lake Region Mutual Aid_ 75_ Southwesl Mutual Aid 100 Metro Fire Chiefs 100 Fire Chiefs 74 Vol FF Benefit Association 350 439 Conlin nc X440 Fund Balance/Reserve TOTAL OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES 247,599 TOTAL N ET _CAPITAL OUTLAY 560 Fumiture And E ul ment 570 Office E ui ment TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY CAPITAL TRANSFERS E ui ment Transfers 170,000 Building Improvement Fund Transfers 24,000 _ 720 Facilities Transfers 1 532,800 The Bond payment was increased from the 2017 amount of$527,250 to$532,800 in 2018. TOTAL CAPITAL TRANSFERS 725,800 PlTA 7 TOTAL BUDGET AMOUNT 1,761591 OPERATING REVENUE 230-34202 Municipal Contribution 1,708,762 230-34203 Shared Services-City of Chanhassen 34,319 230-36210 Interest income 2,000 230-36228 Refunds and Reimbursements 14,000 230.39203 Fire Relief Fund Transfer - Speciaf Events 4,500 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 1,783,581 2018 Shared Services Administrative Specialist FINAL Recommended Budget July, 2017 a. Job Share with City of Chanhassen b. Administrative Specialist i. Full Time Position with the Excelsior Fire District ii. No Change in Hours for the Excelsior Fire District 1. 20 Hours Per Week for Excelsior Fire iii. Salary and Benefits thru the Excelsior Fire District 1. 50% cost recovery from the City of Chanhassen iv. Shared Services Agreement with the City of Chanhassen v. Job Duties as defined in position description c. Cost Considerations —Full Time i. Salary $ 45,365 ii. Benefits $ 17,172 1. PERA—3402 2. FICA—2813 3. Medicare— 658 4. Insurance a. Health— 9,724 b. Dental — 569 c. Life - 6 iii. Work Comp/ Liability $ 6,100 $ 68,637 TOTAL COST $ 68,637 Excelsior Fire $ 34,318.50 City of Chanhassen $ 34,318.50 ao 0 � O In tn O co cD O co IV co ti cv 0 ti ti O im m cra cq .n t- o co ao r! a 00 N C] N c7 0) Itt 't qr N O c ~ r O 69. 69 6F� 69 69 60it W� N r U! N u N N co T � 4— H o W L r � N N T" tN t ■.r V �� w — D o cn r� N Z i r c7 N 0 p Lo 10 '— E 4cD W of N N N cm N N N VI � T T T T T T T Q. Q o a � Z a a V °' 3 `° V (1) w a w A o U 3 ` L m m c � c� a- d O Q_ a a c c LL co c U I= W r T N Q r N N O O O V O o N " ca — ro W ¢ v v 2018 Operating Budget Future Full Time Staffing Considerations July, 2017 a. Consideration for Full Time Assistant Chief i. Job Duties—Clear Definitions and Expectations 1. Training 2. Fire Inspections ii. Task Impacts 1. Training Coordination 2. Fire Inspections 3. Residential Fire Sprinklers ill. Chief impacts 1. Emergency Management b. Cost Considerations i. Salary $ 80,000 ii. Benefits $ 27,000 $ 101,000 iii. Vehicle $35,500 1. Purchase another command vehicle TOTAL COST $142,500 iv. Cost Savings 1. Elimination of Paid On Call Asst. Chief 1. $6,300 2. Elimination of Paid on Call Training Battalion Chief 1. $4,500 $ 10,800 c. Consideration for Full Time Fire Technicians (4) i. Job Duties—Clear Definitions and Expectations 1. Daytime Fire Duty Crew Coverage 2. Coordinator Functions a. SCBA b. Radio/Pager c. Hazmat/ LSU d. Quartermaster e. Boat and Water f. Apparatus g. Medical h. Boat and Water 3. Assist with Fire Inspections d. Cost Considerations Per Firefighter i. Salary $ 50,000 ii. Benefits $ 18,000 $ 78,000 e. Cost Considerations Overall i. Salary $ 240,000 ii. Benefits $ 72,000 $312,000 f. Cost Savings i. Elimination of Coordinator Positions i. $4,700 TOTAL COST $312,000 2018 Computer Cast projections FINAL Recommended Budget July, 2017 a. Computer Services—The costs included in this area include the following: i. Computers • Virus Protection $400 • Station 2 internet speed $1000 • Exchange filtering $900 • Office 2013 $600 ii. Disaster Recovery Costs $500 iii. Laptop Computers for Trucks • Maintenance of computers (3) $2,000 iv. Computer Replacement (2) $2,145 v. Monitor Replacement(2) $600 vi. Aladtec Scheduling Software $3,000 vii. IPAD Maintenance $1,500 viii. Firehouse Support $1,800 ix. Copiers $2,400 • Ongoing lease for copier at Station 1 in the administrative area. This is the annual cost of a four year lease including the service and supply contract. x. Computer Consultant $8,500 • Monthly technology/networking consulting costs xi. Website Consultant $1,000 • Monthly technology/networking consulting costs Total technology costs for 2018 $269345 2018 Building Annual Maintenance Cost projections FINAL Recommended Budget July, 2017 Maintenance a. Station 1 i. HVAC $ 4,700.00 ii. Boiler $ 500.00 iii. Generator $ 2,700.00 iv. Garage Doors $ 4,350.00 V. Air Compressor Maintenance $ 500.00 vi. Bathroom Fixtures Repair $ 700.00 vii. Elevator Maintenance $ 450.00 Viii. Light Bulb Replacement $ 900.00 ix. Outdoor maintenance $ 800.00 1. mulch, trees, plants, weed control X. Outdoor Sprinkler Maintenance/Repairs $ 900.00 Xi. Data/phone jacks repairs $ 500.00 xii. Fire Sprinklers and Alarms system $ 2,000.00 a. Repairs b. Monitoring fees c. City Permit fees xiii. Elevator Inspection at station#1 $ 1,850.00 xiv. Garage Floor Concrete Floor Maintenance $ 600.00 b. Station 2 i. HVAC $ 800.00 ii. Generator $ 1,500.00 iii. Garage Doors $ 500.00 iv. Air Compressor Maintenance $ 500.00 v. Bathroom Fixtures Repair $ 200.00 vi. Light Bulb Replacement $ 500.00 vii. Outdoor maintenance—mulch, trees, plants, weed control $ 300.00 viii. Outdoor Sprinkler Maintenance/Repairs $ 200.00 ix. Garage Floor Concrete Maintenance $ 400.00 x. Water Softener Maintenance and Repairs $ 400.00 1. Salt xi. Fire Sprinklers/Alarms system $ 1,500.00 1. Repairs 2. Monitoring fees 3. City Permit fees Total $ 28,250.00 Total Annual Building Maintenance costs for 2018 $28,250.00 Building Maintenance 2018 Major Project Summary FINAL Recommended Budget July, 2017 Station 1 Carpet Replacement (Year 1 of 4) $ 8,908 Appliances (Kitchen and Wash Room) $ 5,000 Fitness Equipment $ 3,500 Station 2 Carpet Replacement (Year 1 of 4) $ 3,000 Fitness Equipment $ 1,500 Other Not Identified Future Pro'ects Signage update on County Road 19 side of building • $ 2,800 - EFD sign • $ 2,600 — SLMPD Sign m s P 'O N �D O a• r � P h N b N (O 3 � F OQ E O Q N � w.a Q� � V w •' m � W � O � .U �w U O •V� N1.9 V+ �+9 W 69 L4 � m U h h o oa "c � 44 v a a w O (D a . .. o E o Z O a W V o wd "7 n W ' y r r U a J n o 0 0 o e a G U N 1D O h M �r M. 9 N M a, �p N o a r c c o o is O Nl 'd' O O, N YO F-- U vi x q x V 10 1/t Ql *0 N O x h N r N 10 a = en Goo C l E- M 04 N 0\ .� 00 IO H1 I of V10'i VM1'i N a 3! �+ � d C 69 s4 6A 59 69 69 fn Ir O 1� V'S 00 M N 10 N 3 69 69 69 69 69 en m G e+ h h 1� N oN0 Qc1 T O 00 N 00 fn b bl.) 613 sA 6s EA i k p ti E 0 0 0 M IA 0 0 G CD r r L"J N CA OCAtoM O E CV Lri Gp M -i C - O O O O O O O C7 C7 0 0 0 O r C Oi t77 � C7 �1 V:M 1q cqN r W 'CPrrr1� N 0 r r O Lf C 69 69 69 69 6R H9 O O O O O O O O O a a O 'aOrLo0N r OGOM 110 W M w CIZ C, � p,CO CO r 1(J r GO e00 CO O GG 1l] Nr (ON i% a w to v N N N E 69 64 69 63 69 fA p b 0 e e e e e e m • (0 to n m a opO h r 00 ~ ~ ~ O 9 O O O (O CO Ifi V CD O Co r UC I� cl � C o 0 0 0 0 o C T o co r, Oi Oepr- co to cc tl N i i O mf0000t- N � O N � Q 4cDCAV, 4 � ct) 0 0 0 0 0 0 O (n Q L o0OOO 0 oOOao O SBS � a CL ° rNir' cw0A °� OOOOO m M N N V aO = WnaoonN u> aicociuiv C �- mwrn V) co N f- CV C7 O ti t � ((q R OD t o -0 cm C') N C v C M► Iac� NN ! N O 6+! co Q) Q a} 6H d9 d3 64 C E N (V E ac) OOOOO 0 00000 0 0rcpqt 00 GO ° .3 iY V L C tif 9m G lf 6 t 7 3 O 0 O O C a 8 O O O O m O Q 3 � 1 r 0 c O a cnN Cl) 0Q CO LO M " rn O V� C r R O O M CA M W N CA M I C4 N J O C cltiN co O M O � 000 � Oti Cli Q (4� 0OiNOC�O V) r V' ti00gpco SN+) Z O r M � O O O M N 7 CA LL +L+ N CV � fe9 6r9 E9 to ni CV E9 E9 64 69 � C O �U 69 ffl Ef3 64 69 vI 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N 117 GO Cir 0 m pw G~0 ) r M w err cBN t0 W 000000 0 to OQOpO p fi r C�CA � N r J �VN � N r rMOO1f) O 117rCp1� fQ ti Nr PI V Cy O N 6369 69NOO� 0 � O N m OD N � O 69N9�� 96 M N O N � C 6} p b m tfin' SEA�69 69 69 � c o �a s n 0 In p Q-9 O 52 O 7 0 g CL LL m m o o LL w0 co 3 p� m Y _Cm 4 V atLC7c�nH F�- N m N O O O W W nn dM� p p 8 a N N N •> O1°! O O O O O o W m N M 8 00 N 88 �N NNE �°° Q • •OOT 8 p W S NNM------- m N o Y� O O UO] S O f— Q — CO, M � 0 0 p p ° O CO 0 G0 M• �GO M------------ N O ON n W p L6 m Ohm N ON . M � O O O SO b • �Or«- m m d Q N N N Q M O O N N 8 O S OO • rr dQ ' N N O m O p p Q d G - pp p p N GGN O N m V _ OW Or N N O n m N N Q O O pp N M O S SO � 0 0 O• •o'm N N Ym m Q Q N N � n O C N N N N A v7 S N N O O OtOi� N• .O�°n N m W W N N ON 001 r N N N O ON O N O O 8 O N • •O^1N a N NO �tf 8 cu 0 0 VJ N m�0 �o N SNN M > N W N' � � N� iON NN O N M �_ h N = ' w _ u N u W N N S $� W • SO of 0 K ry m Q p W = N M M th N N O m w E V � N N m< NNE a Q _ c ° Q5� CL a P Z7 g Y m R '� o 0 0 om m •omm um m N N m nC� pm p 8 O N W O� 1°m iO W O YJ q-TT S •Sp y N N N m r W M ,il N 0 0 Oo p pp � aa N N OONONf O h m n M QA NNRN 9 N O w E m ° o'n p y fpepp E r N Cm N S Oln•I ry 1D 1 Wh >> T T S m m N e�f M Q M M O O u u mo o m 22 M �u°p> p o� o vVpro N N �Pml Z Z d DO OS DO N N M O m m tli O Z m r v E £ A 08 �a� Wm N c A? Q7:m � � m�W t N C(� N m F C g £ R m E m mm $ c mNh 3e° £ ➢ cp._'9N C`�N SEE Emc m 1p E. �" m c m m� w ENx�m E p-emu Cam' � E E�E -F-2 m_ m' EYE c£ E LLaw"' 1t.IV °Jw Ecc E� ps m- m c �d� m mm X01 EEE�xA4- mm-amENm' gSia cNwce'v �A?h��pm� ��LLV'.2 c2w� we mW 8 m �u'�2$cmQ CON'a„�oc�m"' a ,�naEae m�@ u.ffim�mmm $�pcpcL�W�~ �'-°-am�ec°mm E°mpycm Z gg OC C T OpCp RUI �¢y2 O CZD¢�g BOA sQ "y¢ryt y k 8 iK�4�USUN�UOVOQ�LLC7 N O.rnKN�R�ULLNUVOQ�LLU'md rlJ F°-KCgOJOT WOVE ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- gory ---------------------------------------------- ------ ------- -- --- ——————————————————————--—— — --------- ----------------- ---------------------------------- —--------- --- 2?t9 ------------------ ------ 7------------- --------------- --- ----------------- --MEE a -------------------- ------------------------------------------------ E —-------------- ---- ---------- -- Fj lL ----- -------- —---- ----------- --- ------------------------- N > 0 ------------------------------- n LU ERE she Tig----------------- --------7--------- 4 9 ---------- ----------- ------ ---- 7--- ME ---------------------- ----- E --------- ---------------- -------------------- --------------------- v8 i-IM0,11mv g ------- ------ ---------- 2, 21 I TNN-E ------------------ -------- %EK to FaL E. - ---- °------ -- -E ------ ---------------- ---------------------- ----- u E E ------------------- ------------ 16; -E--'. 5 Fj sl 9 Pik, -------------------------------- ------------ 11 1 RE-2- ;WA A K 'Bits 10A.1 MEMORANDUM Date: August 22, 2017 To: Mayor Zerby Council Members From: Joe Rigdon, Interim Finance Director Re: July 2017 General Fund Monthly Budget Report The following information describes the unaudited financial results of the City's General Fund as of July 31, 2017. Comparisons between year-to-date amounts through July for revenues and expenditures are included to assist in gauging fund performance. General Fund Revenues: • Property tax revenues for the General Fund were $2,648,984 through July 2017, which represents the first half of 2017 property tax collections, and equates to 51.1% of the total 2017 property tax levy of $5,180,996. The second half property taxes will be received in December 2017. • Licenses and permits amounted to 63.7% of budget, or $152,307 through July of 2017. The majority of the revenue consisted of building permits and plan check fees. As a comparison, licenses and permits revenues through July of 2016 were $131,390. • Intergovernmental revenues were $89,959 through 07/31/17, decreasing from $126,841 recorded in the prior year comparable period. The decrease was due to the receipt of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District funds (Christmas Lake inspections) in the first quarter of 2017. • Charges for services amounted to 103.6% of budget, or $40,074 through July of 2017. This compares to $31,322 recorded revenues through July of 2016. • Fines and forfeitures of $35,290 were recorded through 07/31/17 (58.8% of budget), as compared to $20,151 through 07/31/16. • Miscellaneous revenues totaled $173,657 through 07/31/17. Antenna rent is the largest component, and amounted to $151,390 through July 31, 2017. No investment interest earnings are typically allocated to the General Fund until the fourth quarter. • Budgeted 2017 transfers in from utility funds of$25,000 were recorded in January 2017. These include $12,500 from the Water fund, and $12,500 from the Sewer fund. • Total General Fund revenues (excluding transfers in) amounted to $3,140,271, or 53.9% of budget through 07/31/17. Revenues through July for 2017 were 0.7% higher than prior year revenues through July 2016. Expenditures: • General government expenditures through July 2017 were $844,240 (56.4% of budget), or 0.6%higher than the comparable prior period. • Council expenditures were higher through July in 2017, due to the inclusion of payments to the Christmas Lake Homeowner's Association. • Administration costs were 55.5% of budget and reflect a shift from contracted administrator services in 2016 to wages and benefits in 2017. • Finance department expenditures were at 62.3% of budget through July 2017, resulting from employee separation payments and the use of contracted finance services. • Planning expenditures were at 62.9% of budget and significantly higher through July 2017, as compared to July 2016, largely attributable to employee separation payments. • Public safety expenditures were $1,509,936 through 07/31/17 (69.9% of budget), increasing 10.4% from $1,367,745 through 07/31/16. The increase was largely within police protection costs, but was related to a monthly payment timing difference between years (8 months of service recorded through July 2017, versus 7 months recorded through July 2016). • Public works expenditures totaled $375,515 through 07/31/17 (36.2% of budget), decreasing from $378,908 through 07/31/16. • Parks and recreation expenditures amounted to $145,449 through July 2017, a $10,331 decrease from the comparable prior period. • Transfers out to other funds were $0 through July 2016, as compared to $1,804,913 through July 2017. Budgeted transfers out of $1,104,913 were recorded in January 2017 to reflect the availability of the funds during the year. In 2016, budgeted transfers were not recorded until December 2016. Additionally, $700,000 of 2017 transfers from the General Fund were authorized by Council action and recorded in March 2017. • The General Fund exhibited an overall 5.3% increase in expenditures (not including transfers out) from $2,731,681 through 07/31/16, as compared to $2,875,140 through 07/31/17. Removing the effect of the police costs payment timing difference results in an overall 1.7% increase in General Fund expenditures. Attachment: July Budget Spreadsheet General Fund Revenues and Expenditures vs Budget Through July 31, 2017 %Collected/ One Year Description Budget Period Amt YTD Budget %Expended Prior Actual General Fund Revenues Taxes 5,180,996 2,648,984 3,022,248 51.1% 2,638,052 Licenses&Permits 239,180 152,307 139,522 63.7% 131,390 Intergovernmental 90,751 89,959 52,938 99.1% 126,841 Charges for Service 38,700 40,074 22,575 103.6% 31,322 Fines&Forfeits 60,000 35,290 35,000 58.8% 20,151 Misc Revenues 213,900 173,657 124,775 81.2% 169,800 Total General Fund Revenues 5,823,527 3,140,271 3,397,057 53.9% 3,117,556 Other Financing Sources Transfers In 25,000 25,000 14,583 100.0% 0 Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 5,848,527 3,165,271 3,411,641 54.1% 3,117,556 General Fund Expenditures General Government Council Personal Services 22,600 12,936 13,183 57.2% 12,936 Supplies 2,000 8,721 1,167 436.1% 676 Other Services and Charges 116,500 19,711 67,958 16.9% 75,066 Council 141,100 41,368 82,308 29.3% 88,678 Administraton Personal Services 402,154 224,230 234,590 55.8% 136,822 Supplies 20,900 11,230 12,192 53.7% 8,667 Other Services and Charges 42,550 23,058 24,821 54.2% 82,118 Administraton 465,604 258,518 271,602 55.5% 227,607 Finance Personal Services 142,273 73,045 82,993 51.3% 82,996 Supplies 15,600 7,560 9,100 48.5% 21,737 Other Services and Charges 17,300 28,525 10,092 164.9% 15,838 Finance 175,173 109,130 102,184 62.3% 120,571 Professional Services Other Services and Charges 236,400 133,854 137,900 56.6% 149,540 Professional Services 236,400 133,854 137,900 56.6% 149,540 Planning Personal Services 178,797 148,587 104,298 83.1% 105,121 Supplies 450 449 263 99.8% 407 Other Services and Charges 97,000 24,671 56,583 25.4% 8,158 Planning 276,247 173,707 161,144 62.9% 113,686 Municipal Buildings Supplies 21,300 4,452 12,425 20.9% 4,220 Other Services and Charges 180,000 123,211 105,000 68.5% 124,946 Municipal Buildings 201,300 127,663 117,425 63.4% 129,166 Total General Government 1,495,824 844,240 872,564 56.4% 829,248 1 General Fund Revenues and Expenditures vs Budget Through July 31, 2017 %Collected/ One Year Description Budget Period Amt YTD Budget %Expended Prior Actual Public Safetv Police Protection Supplies 0 0 0 N/A 2,086 Other Services and Charges 1,180,050 787,533 688,363 66.7% 646,630 Capital Outlav 214,000 160,355 124,833 74.9% 160,749 Police Protection 1,394,050 947,888 813,196 68.0% 809,465 Fire Protection Other Services and Charges 372,976 279,705 217,569 75.0% 276,330 Capital Outlav 256,648 192,486 149,711 75.0% 202,965 Fire Protection 629,624 472,191 367,281 75.0% 479,295 Protective Inspections Personal Services 126,299 77,938 73,674 61.7% 75,214 Supplies 200 0 117 0.0% 245 Other Services and Charges 10,550 11,919 6,154 113.0% 3,526 Protective Inspections 137,049 89,857 79,945 65.6% 78,985 Total Public Safetv 2,160,723 1,509,936 1,260,422 69.9% 1,367,745 Citv EnLyineer Other Services and Charges 89,725 31,614 52,340 35.2% 42,878 Citv EnLyineer 89,725 31,614 52,340 35.2% 42,878 Public Works Service Personal Services 516,365 204,279 301,213 39.6% 188,561 Supplies 160,200 36,385 93,450 22.7% 66,353 Other Services and Charges 166,100 62,445 96,892 37.6% 61,222 Public Works Service 842,665 303,109 491,555 36.0% 316,136 Ice&Snow Removal Personal Services 61,465 14,065 35,855 22.9% 15,715 Supplies 44,000 26,727 25,667 60.7% 4,179 Ice&Snow Removal 105,465 40,792 61,521 38.7% 19,894 Total Public Works 1,037,855 375,515 605,415 36.2% 378,908 Parks and Recreation Park Maintenance Personal Services 115,022 86,029 67,096 74.8% 96,921 Supplies 23,300 6,474 13,592 27.8% 12,424 Other Services and Charges 40,500 21,180 23,625 52.3% 14,718 Park Maintenance 178,822 113,683 104,313 63.6% 124,063 Recreation Personal Services 41,575 22,104 24,252 53.2% 23,693 Supplies 7,700 2,725 4,492 35.4% 1,354 Other Services and Charges 13,900 6,937 8,108 49.9% 6,670 Recreation 63,175 31,766 36,852 50.3% 31,717 Total Parks and Recreation 241,997 145,449 141,165 60.1% 155,780 Total General Fund Expenditures 4,936,399 2,875,140 2,879,566 58.2% 2,731,681 2 General Fund Revenues and Expenditures vs Budget Through July 31, 2017 %Collected/ One Year Description Budget Period Amt YTD Budget %Expended Prior Actual Other Financing Uses Transfers Out-Southshore Center 70,000 95,000 40,833 135.7% 0 Transfers Out-EDA Debt City Hall 102,913 102,913 60,033 100.0% 0 Transfers Out-Equipment Replacement 120,000 120,000 70,000 100.0% 0 Transfers Out-Street Improvements 770,000 1,245,000 449,167 161.7% 0 Transfers Out- Park Capital 42,000 242,000 24,500 576.2% 0 Total Other Financing Uses 1,104,913 1,804,913 644,533 163.4% 0 Total Expenditures and Other Financing Uses 6,041,312 4,680,053 3,524,099 77.5% 2,731,681 General Fund,Net (192,785) (1,514,782) (112,458) 785.7% 385,875 3