Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
01-31-18 CC Retreat Agenda
CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL RETREAT WEDNESDAY JANUARY 31, 2018 AGENDA CONVENE RETREAT Roll Call Review Agenda 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SURVEY RESULTS A. City Planner Memo a. Presentation 2. ROADWAYS AND TRAILS A. Roadway Financing a. City Administrator Memo b. David Drown presentation B. Trails a. City Engineer Memo C. Council Discussion 24100 SMITHTOWN ROAD PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG. EMERGENCY OPS. ROOM 12:00 P.M. Lunch available at 11:45 AM Mayor Zerby Johnson Labadie Siakel Sundberg 3. COMMUNICATIONS A. City Administrator Memo B. Website overhaul — Communications /Recycling Coordinator C. GIS and Permit programs — Public Works Director D. City Hall presentation equipment — City Administrator E. Council Discussion 4. SOLID WASTE A. City Administrator Memo B. City Attorney Presentation on options C. Council Discussion 5. STAFFING AND COMPENSATION A. City Clerk Memo i. Compensation model ii. Strengths Finder B. City Administrator Memo i. Finance Director position C. Council Discussion CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA — JANUARY 31, 2018 Page 2 of 2 6. WATER/STORM WATER A. Water i. Public Works Director Memo 1. System overview, now and in future 2. Water Quality 3. Options to encourage connection B. Storm Water i. City Engineer Memo 1. Project with MCWD C. Council Discussion 7. SOUTHSHORE CENTER A. City Administrator Memo i. Physical Improvements ii. Rebranding v. Renaming iii. Marketing B. Council Discussion 8. ADJOURN � owl City of Shorewood Council Retreat Item Title / Subject: Comprehensive Plan Survey Results Meeting Date: January 31, 2018 Prepared by: Marie Darling #1 MEETING TYPE Retreat Background: As part of the public input on the Comprehensive Plan, staff drafted a short survey based on the questions asked by the City's consultants and answers given by the City Council, Planning Commission and staff. We asked a few questions about the respondents, and five questions about Shorewood policies and priorities. For some we gave examples to choose from and others we left open for whatever residents wanted to suggest. The questions about Shorewood policies and priorities included the following: • Rate the importance of several policy issues: Provision of more housing options /affordable housing Continue tree preservation Encourage homeowners to install solar energy Promote commercial redevelopment (ie Smithtown Road and CR 19 area) Increase shared services with other communities Other Ideas (open) What activities should be financing priorities in Shorewood: Proactive code enforcement Improving stormwater management Street improvements other than maintenance Providing new trails Improvements to South Shore Community Center Park improvements (not including regular maintenance) Expanding city water service to more residents Other ideas (open) • What recreational facilities not provided would they like (open) • What other public facilities or services would you like (open) • Any other comments or concerns? (open) Attached are the graphs and summaries to the first two questions. During my presentation I'll go over the answers to the open questions. 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�COmprehensive Plan�COmp Plan 2019�Public Comments�Survey�Retreat Report. docx Funk the following as Most important, Somewhat important, or Least important: Answered: 202 Skipped: 51 Comments (44) When combining the categories of most or somewhat important, the residents indicated support for the following: • Continuing tree preservation during development /redevelopment: 96.5% • Increasing shared services with other area cities: 84% • Promoting commercial redevelopment in areas such as the Smithtown Road and CR 19: 75% Less Support for: • Encouraging homeowners to install solar energy: 63.5% • Encourage more housing options including multiple family and affordable housing: 45% MOST SOMEWHAT LEAST TOTAL WEIGHTED IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT AVERAGE Encourage more housing 15.35% 29.70% 54.95% options including multiple 31 60 111 202 2.40 family and affordable homes_ Continue encouraging tree 65.35% 31.19% 3.47% preservation during the 132 63 7 202 1.38 develop mentlredevelo pme nt of properties. Encourage homeowners to 18.()0% 45.50% 36.50% install solar energy. 36 91 73 200 2.19 Promote commercial 26.73% 48.51% 24.75% redevelopment in areas 54 98 50 202 1.98 such as the Smithtown Road and County Road 19 area. Increase shared services 28.86% 5522% 15.92% with other area cities. 58 111 32 201 1.87 Comments (44) When combining the categories of most or somewhat important, the residents indicated support for the following: • Continuing tree preservation during development /redevelopment: 96.5% • Increasing shared services with other area cities: 84% • Promoting commercial redevelopment in areas such as the Smithtown Road and CR 19: 75% Less Support for: • Encouraging homeowners to install solar energy: 63.5% • Encourage more housing options including multiple family and affordable housing: 45% What activities do you think should be a financing priority in Shorewood? Answered- 200 Skipped= 53 Providing proactive oo_.. Improving stormwater_- - Street improvements-- - Providing new trails Improvements to Scuthshor_ -- Park improvements-- - Expanding city water servic_ -- other (please specify) 0% 10°/6 20% 30% 40% 50% 40% 70% $0% 90°.6 10D% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Providing proactive code enforcement and requiring maintenance of homes 30 -50°x6 61 Improving stormwater management 45 -50°x6 91 Street improvements (not including regular maintenance) 53.00% 106 Providing new trails 46.50% 93 Improvements to 5outhshare Community Center 13 -00% 26 Park improvements (not including regular maintenance) 37 -00% T4 Expanding city water service to more residents 17 -50°x6 35 Other (please specify) Responses 20.00% 40 Total Respondents: 200 Street improvements, Improving stormwater management, providing new trails and park improvements received the most support. #2A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item RETREAT Title / Subject: Streets and Trails Meeting Date: January 31, 2018 Prepared by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator; Larry Brown, Public Works Director; Alyson Fauske, City Engineer Reviewed by: Joe Rigdon, Finance Director Street Background: The city has a data - driven capital improvement plan for streets that uses observable conditions such as the PASER system and road corings to determine the type of improvement work that is to be done on the roads. This information is the basis of the budget the city sets for the improvement work. A significant limitation to this process is that the method of funding the street and trail CIP is being done on a "cash -in /cash -out" basis. Staff is aware that the city has had a history of objecting to issuing debt, and generally that is a good position to take. David Drown has been invited to come to the retreat to provide the council information about how debt can be an efficient and effective tool to manage large capital projects. The council will undoubtedly have questions or want additional information following the meeting, so the goal of the retreat is to give you information to consider, with the plan on revisiting it this year during a work session. Since David is not back into the office until January 29, there will not be information provided prior to the meeting. Trails Background: Mayor Zerby and Councilmembers Johnson, Labadie and Sundberg were present at the October 9, 2017 work session to discuss capital improvement planning for trails. The conversation stemmed from the October 2011 "City of Shorewood Trail Plan Implementation Report" that prioritized trail construction into four categories: 3 to 5 years, 5 to 10 years, 10 to 15 years, and 15+ years. Staff requested that the Council prioritize trail segments based on the updated needs, the subsequent completion of the Smithtown Road sidewalk, and the lack of cost estimates in the report. A summary of the council's priorities is as follows: Country Club/ Galpin Mill Strawberry Yellowstone /Lake Linden Lake Road Street Lane Mayor Zerby Council member Johnson 2 3 Councilmember Labadie 2 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 Councilmember Sundberg 2 Average Ranking 2 3 #1: Strawberry Lane Council identified this as a priority to provide a trail connection to Minnewashta Elementary. As was discussed at the October 91" work session improvements to the surface water management in this area of Shorewood are necessary and challenging. The City and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will have the opportunity to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to allow staff and consultants for each entity to begin work related to addressing the surface water management concerns in several areas, including Strawberry Lane. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) administers the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program to improve corridors for students to walk or bike to school. The SRTS program includes education and promotional activities as well as funding to install improvements to accomplish the program goals. To participate in SRTS the city would need to partner with the school district to fulfill the education /promotional requirements. Funding applicants with a SRTS travel plan tend to be more successful in procuring grants. #2: Country Club /Yellowstone /Lake Linden In November, 2017 a Local Road Improvement Program grant application was submitted to MNDOT requesting funding for a trail along Country Club Road (current terminus to Yellowstone Trail), Yellowstone Trail (Country Club Road to Lake Linden Drive), and Lake Linden Drive (Yellowstone Trail to Highway 7). MNDOT received numerous applications and will announce the projects selected for funding in the spring. The Country Club Road and Yellowstone Trail segments were included in the Feasibility Report for City Project 17 -04, Updated January 22, 2018. The estimated cost for these trail segments is $1,191,200. It is typically more cost - effective to construct trails in conjunction with a street improvement project, additional future costs during street reconstruction as portions of the trail would likely need to be removed and replaced due alignment changes, and watershed district permitting would be an issue without installing storm water mitigation features within the right of way corridor. #3- Mill Street Due to the low priority ranking pursuing installation of this segment is not proposed at this time. Hennepin County plans to resurface Mill Street during the summer of 2018 and restripe the road to include on- street bike trails on each side of the road, pending the Cities of Excelsior and Shorewood passing a "No On- Street Parking" resolution. The on- street bike lanes will be minimum 6.5 feet wide of pavement plus 1.5 feet of gutter, for a total minimum width of 8 feet. #4: Galoin Lake Road This project entails extending the trail from the existing terminus within Chanhassen to Highway 7 and along Highway 7 to CSAH 19. Bids were received in 2014. The engineer's estimate for the project was $1,174,500, with Shorewood's portion estimated at $689,908.45. The lowest bidder's price for Shorewood's portion was $1,055,152.82 due to the higher than anticipated cost for earthwork, pavement and storm sewer. In the past this project scored relatively high for federal funding however funds were not available to help offset the costs. The City can reapply for federal funding to offset the project cost. The trails are a prime example of why waiting for cash to be "in hand" is not the most effective method to plan for projects. Plans for Mill Street and Galpin Lake trail extensions have been completed, but because there is not cash on hand to do the work, the projects get shelved. And even with the strong public desire to construct trails, once the plan get shelved, it is exceedingly difficult to bring it back. It is important that the city look to have partners to help with the cost of trails, and in my opinion, deciding to do a trail extension and having the funding to do it, makes Shorewood a good partner for these other potential funding partners. The council will undoubtedly have questions or want additional information following the meeting, so the goal of the retreat is to give you information to consider. The council could provide some direction at the retreat on how to proceed regarding these concepts or plan to revisit it early this year during a work session. #2B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Retreat Title / Subject: Trails Meeting Date: January 31, 2018 Prepared by: Alyson Fauske, PE, City Engineer Reviewed by: Larry Brown, PE, Public Works Director Attachments: Trail Map Goal of the Discussion: A. Provide an update on the trail planning and a summary of partnership and funding opportunities for trail projects. A. TRAILS Background: Mayor Zerby and Councilmembers Johnson, Labadie and Sundberg were present at the October 9, 2017 work session to discuss capital improvement planning for trails. The conversation stemmed from the October, 2011 "City of Shorewood Trail Plan Implementation Report" that prioritized trail construction into four categories: 3 to 5 years, 5 to 10 years, 10 to 15 years, and 15+ years. Staff requested that the Council prioritize trail segments based on the updated needs, the subsequent completion of the Smithtown Road sidewalk, and the lack of cost estimates in the report. A summary of the council's priorities is as follows: Country Club/ Galpin Mill Strawberry Yellowstone /Lake Linden Lake Road Street Lane Mayor Zerby Council member Johnson 2 3 1 Councilmember Labadie 2 Councilmember Sundberg 2 1 Average Ranking 2 3 1 #1: Strawberry Lane Council identified this as a priority to provide a trail connection to Minnewashta Elementary. As was discussed at the October 91" work session improvements to the surface water management in this area of Shorewood are necessary and challenging. The City and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will have the opportunity to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to allow staff and consultants for each entity to begin work related to addressing the surface water management concerns in several areas, including Strawberry Lane. 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 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) administers the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program to improve corridors for students to walk or bike to school. The SRTS program includes education and promotional activities as well as funding to install improvements to accomplish the program goals. To participate in SRTS the city would need to partner with the school district to fulfill the education /promotional requirements. Funding applicants with a SRTS travel plan tend to be more successful in procuring grants. #2: Country Club /Yellowstone /Lake Linden In November, 2017 a Local Road Improvement Program grant application was submitted to MNDOT requesting funding for a trail along Country Club Road (current terminus to Yellowstone Trail), Yellowstone Trail (Country Club Road to Lake Linden Drive), and Lake Linden Drive (Yellowstone Trail to Highway 7). MNDOT received numerous applications and will announce the projects selected for funding in the spring. The Country Club Road and Yellowstone Trail segments were included in the Feasibility Report for City Project 17 -04, Updated January 22, 2018. The estimated cost for these trail segments is $1,191,200. It is typically more cost - effective to construct trails in conjunction with a street improvement project, additional future costs during street reconstruction as portions of the trail would likely need to be removed and replaced due alignment changes, and watershed district permitting would be an issue without installing storm water mitigation features within the right of way corridor. #3: Mill Street Due to the low priority ranking pursuing installation of this segment is not proposed at this time. Hennepin County plans to resurface Mill Street during the summer of 2018 and restripe the road to include on- street bike trails on each side of the road, pending the Cities of Excelsior and Shorewood passing a "No On- Street Parking" resolution. The on- street bike lanes will be minimum 6.5 feet wide of pavement plus 1.5 feet of gutter, for a total minimum width of 8 feet. #4: Galpin Lake Road This project entails extending the trail from the existing terminus within Chanhassen to Highway 7 and along Highway 7 to CSAH 19. Bids were received in 2014. The engineer's estimate for the project was $1,174,500, with Shorewood's portion estimated at $689,908.45. The lowest bidder's price for Shorewood's portion was $1,055,152.82 due to the higher than anticipated cost for earthwork, pavement and storm sewer. In the past this project scored relatively high for federal funding however funds were not available to help offset the costs. The City can reapply for federal funding to offset the project cost. Recommendation / Action Requested: Goose Island Spray Shady Island. Island 1 Enchanted Cove llf .. � \andR Island Smithtown Rm'� Vi inia Pte, ve 9e o Bay a ' (Lake Virginia) Victoria Trail Connection N )k MIR 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet Shorewood Planning Department 2/15 Lake Minnetonka Upper Lake CITY OF S OREWOOD E P Park Lane Pond View Dr (Lake Minnewashta) - Existing Trail ..... • Future Trail Parks /Open Space Connecting Points Gideon Bay 1 Frog ad Island rQ Gale 6Island Excelsior Bay Chanhassen Trail Chanhassen Trail Connection Connection � 1 Spri Ig Cir J`q 2 StAlb— a St. Albans e DayLc'r Bay snadv Knsxa :�� 0� Christmas Lake 1tv��ane �\ // •�. v Chanhassen Trail Minnetonka Connection Trail Connection Trail Plan #3A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item RETREAT Title / Subject: City Website and Other Communication Tools Meeting Date: January 31, 2018 Prepared by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator Reviewed by: Julie Moore, Communications /Recycling Coordinator Attachments: Website evaluation form, Council room equipment list Background: One goal for 2018 is to make sure the city is communicating the best it can with residents and other stake holders. To that end, staff would like to discuss the following communication methods and get council input on each. Website Included in the 2018 budget is replacing and upgrading the city's website. The council will see some examples of what potential vendors have done for other cities. Some of the new features staff would like in a new website include: online permit and applicant submittals, traffic notices, enhanced work ticket routing (See /Click /Fix). We will have some live website review at the meeting, but prior to the meeting we encourage you to look at these sites for what you like and don't like about them: www.stpete.or� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . www.auburnhills.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . ............ b lcacrMJngjgn....ggy www.eminnetonka . com w.ww... g.od u y..M.n.:.ggy As a way of keeping track of your likes and dislikes, please use the attached form and bring the notes to the meeting. Other Social Media Included under this category is Twitter, Next Door, and Facebook. Here are the links for each of our social media tools: htt.p.s. / /....ww.:Fa_ce_ca.cr_k �cr_ rn. /CitycrF�S_hcr_rewca.cr_d. /.. hops / /twitter.ccam Shore oodIMIN. hops / /nextdcacar carry/ hggc i2.....address / ?I.: -.. s.Y`. nnrhavxxg _gfgrn_ GIS /Permitting Software Along with an improved website, staff has been investigating software that can help manage GIS information for the streets and utilities, as well as manage right -of -way permitting. Staff is looking to have a GIS system that will allow information about the city's utility systems to be able to be managed and accessed in the field. Staff is also exploring systems for the public to be able to obtain permitted work and project work online. At the work session meeting regarding the right of way ordinance, there was interest expressed in making permitting information available electronically for open access. Staff 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 will present a couple of examples of what other cities are using for their right of way permitting for discussion at the retreat. Council Room Presentation equipment There are limitations to the present presentation equipment in the Council room, and there are times that it affects presentations. Staff will be proposing upgrading the equipment in the council room. Goal of this Retreat item: Staff will explain the limitations of the current website and present information we have received from vendors for a new site. Staff would like city council input on what you want to see in a new website as well as additional methods and avenues of getting information out to residents and others. WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT TO YOU IN A WEBSITE (Rank in importance 1 -7) Overall appearance Organizing so most trafficked pages are easily accessible Ability to submit information or applications electronically Ease in updating Mobile friendly Online payment options Ability to fill out and submit applications and info electronically Other What I like about our current site: What I liked about site: What I liked about site: What I liked about site: Large Monitor 85" Sony LEI] 4k Smart TV Tilt Wall Mount Sanus 37" - 90" Tilt Wall Mount Small Monitor 55" Sony LEA 4k Smart TV Wall Mount Chief 37" - 63" Wall Mount Hall Monitor 48" Sony LEA HID Smart TV Wall Mount Chief 37" - 63" Wall Mount Misc_ Equipment Kramer Rack Mount Kit Kramer 1:4 HMI [Dist_ Amp Kramer Rack Mount Kit Brightsign LS42-3 1/O Player Black Box 31D HMI Extender Includes Cable TV 8t Training Sub Total with Labor [Design and Build E)iscount Tota 1: Optional 1 Year Service Total vv/Optional 1 Yr_ Service #4A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item RETREAT Title / Subject: Organized Solid Waste Collection Meeting Date: January 31, 2018 Prepared by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator Reviewed by: Julie Moore, Communications /Recycling Coordinator; Tim Keane, City Attorney Attachments: League of MN Cities memo Background: Organizing solid waste collection was on the retreat agenda last year, so a portion of the presentation may sound familiar. As you will hear in Marie's presentation of the comprehensive plan survey results, one of the more surprising results were the number of requests or positive comments for organized collection. Organized collection was not a survey question - the comments were received in the open - ended response portion of the survey. Attached to this memo is a League of Minnesota Cities memo regarding organized collection and the process that the city must follow if it intends to proceed with organizing. Tim will lay out the options the Council has in regulating the collection of solid waste, and Julie will present some information from cities who recently went through the process. The City Council has a wide variety of options. The first question to answer is does the council want to move toward organized hauling. If so, there are statutory requirements that must be followed. As a precursor to the statutory process, staff believes it is important that the council identify the priorities it is seeking to accomplish by changing the present system. Following that decision the council has options: Options: 1. Make no changes to current system. There are four haulers in the city. 2. Setting the number of licenses the city will issue or require a certain percentage of market share to have a license. 3. Use the priorities that the city council determines to see if changes in the current hauling could be done without implementing a fully organized system (i.e., require HOAs to select one hauler; require trucks to come in empty, etc.) 4. Move forward with full organized collection with the understanding that could take more than a year to implement. 5. How do organics and recycling fit into the discussion and decision. Goal: If the city council reaches a consensus at the retreat on how to proceed, staff will develop a plan to implement and come back to a future council meeting for review and approval. If there is additional information or questions that need to be answered due to the discussion at the retreat, staff will provide that information and report back to the council for further direction. 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 r �5 0 0 INFORMATION MEMO UAGUE OF City Solid Waste Management CITIES Understand city authority and requirements to regulate the collection and disposal of solid waste and the roles of state and county oversight. Read about city licensing authority and permitted assessments and fees. Learn about open and organized systems of solid waste collection, including their advantages and disadvantages. Includes a flowchart showing the process for adopting organized collection and links to model ordinance and resolution. RELEVANT LINKS: 1. Authority, oversight, and definitions A. Authority to regulate Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. All cities are authorized to provide for or regulate by ordinance the disposal 22 (3). Minn. Stat. § 410.33. Trove v. City Council of City of sewage, garbage, and other refuse. This broad grant of police power of Hastings, 310 Minn. 183, authorizes cities to regulate the collection and disposal of solid waste. 245 N.W.2d 596 (1976). B. Authority to acquire, construct, and operate solid waste facilities —first class cities Any first class city (Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, or Rochester) is authorized: Minn. Stat. § 443.18. Minn. • To acquire by purchase or condemnation lands on which to build plants Stat. § 410.01. for the destruction of garbage and other refuse. • To purchase, build, operate, and maintain such plants for the destruction of garbage and other refuse. • To provide for the collection of all such garbage or refuse and its delivery to destruction plants or other places. • To pay and contract to pay for the same in such annual installments and at such a rate of interest on deferred payments as the city council determines. See Minn. Stat. §§ 443.18- Each of these actions must be authorized by at least a three - fourths vote of 443.35 for more information about first class cities' all members of the city council. First class cities have additional authority authority and restrictions and restrictions regarding solid waste management. regarding solid waste management. C. State oversight See Information Brief, Before the 1970s, open burning and open dumping were the most common Minnesota Solid Waste Mistorv, Minnesota House of forms of solid waste management. Representatives. This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. 145 University Ave. West www.Imc.org 5/22/2017 Saint Paul, MN 55103 -2044 (651) 281 -1200 or (800) 925 -1122 © 2017 All Rights Reserved RELEVANT LINKS: 2016 -2036 League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 2 Beginning in the 1970s, the Minnesota Legislature adopted a variety of waste management regulations, and gave the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regulatory oversight over the management of solid waste and recycling. Minn. Stat. § 115A.46. The MPCA develops and enforces the state's solid waste management MPCA Local Government Assistance unit. regulations. It also is responsible for approving the solid waste plans that counties must adopt. The MPCA has a Local Government Assistance Unit that offers a variety of tools to help counties, cities, and townships develop and support systems that recover resources and manage waste. See Minn. Stat. ch. 115A. The Minnesota Legislature adopted the Waste Management Act in 1980. It establishes the following descending order of priority for waste management: Minn. Stat. § 115A.02. • Waste reduction and reuse. • Waste recycling. • Composting of source - separated compostable materials, including, but not limited to, yard waste and food waste. • Resource recovery through mixed municipal solid waste composting or incineration. • Land disposal that produces no measurable methane gas or that involves the retrieval of methane gas as a fuel for the production of energy to be used on -site or for sale. • Land disposal that produces measurable methane and that does not involve the retrieval of methane gas as a fuel for the production of energy to be used on -site or for sale. D. County oversight Minn. Stat. § 115A.46. Minn. Minnesota counties have primary responsibility for solid waste management, Stat. § 400.16. Minn. Stat. § 473.149. Minn. R. ch. 9215. including recycling. All counties are required to adopt a solid waste plan that The MPCA maintains a must include waste reduction and recycling provisions, as well as provisions database of county contacts for solid waste and recycling. to minimize the amount of waste disposed of in landfills. For more information about recycling in your county, visit Recycle More Minnesota's website. Minn. Stat. § 115A.46 subd. After the MPCA has approved a county's solid waste plan, a city located in s. that county may not enter into a binding agreement governing solid waste management activity or develop, or implement solid waste management activity (other than activity to reduce waste generation or reuse waste materials) that is inconsistent with the county's plan without the county's consent. Minn. Stat. § 473.149. see Metropolitan counties must develop solid waste management plans that are Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan consistent with the most recent "metropolitan long -range policy plan." 2016 -2036 League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 2 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 3 E. Definitions 1. Mixed municipal solid waste Minn. Stat. § 115A.03, subd. Mixed municipal solid waste is defined as "garbage, refuse, and other solid 21. waste from residential, commercial, industrial, and community activities that the generator of the waste aggregates for collection." Mixed municipal solid waste does not include "auto hulks, street sweepings, ash, construction debris, mining waste, sludges, tree and agricultural wastes, tires, lead acid batteries, motor and vehicle fluids and filters, and other materials collected, processed, and disposed of as separate waste streams." 2. Solid waste Minn. Stat. § 115A.03, subd. Solid waste is defined as "garbage, refuse, sludge from a water supply 31. Minn. Stat. § 116.06, subd. 22. treatment plant or air contaminant treatment facility, and other discarded waste materials and sludges, in solid, semisolid, liquid, or contained gaseous form, resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities." Solid waste does not include: • Hazardous waste • Animal waste used as fertilizer • Earthen fill, boulders, rock • Concrete diamond grinding and saw slurry associated with the construction, improvement, or repair of a road when deposited on the road project site in a manner that is in compliance with best management practices and rules of the agency • Sewage sludge • Solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage or other common pollutants in water resources, such as silt, dissolved or suspended solids in industrial wastewater effluents or discharges which are point sources subject to permits under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, dissolved materials in irrigation return flows • Source, special nuclear, or by- product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended Minn. Stat. § 115A.951. State law specifically prohibits certain items from being included in mixed Minn. Stat. § 115A.96. Minn. Stat. § 115A.03, subd. 17a. municipal solid waste or in solid waste, including telephone directories, Minn. Stat. § 115A.9565. major appliances, electronic products containing a cathode -ray tube, yard Minn. Stat. § 115A.931. Minn. Stat. § 115A.935. waste, tires, motor and vehicle fluids and filters, mercury or mercury - Minn. Stat. § 115A.932. containing devices or products from which the mercury has not been Minn. Stat. § 115A.9155. Minn. Stat. § 115A.9157. removed for reuse or recycling, fluorescent tubes, and certain batteries. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 3 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 4 3. Yard waste Minn. Stat. § 115A.03, subd. yard waste is defined as "garden wastes, leaves, lawn cuttings, weeds, shrub 38. and tree waste, and prunings." 4. Recyclable materials Minn. Stat. § II5A.03, subd. Recyclable materials are defined as "materials that are separated from mixed 25a. municipal solid waste for the purpose of recycling or composting, including paper, glass, plastics, metals, automobile oil, batteries, source - separated compostable materials, and sole sourced waste streams that are managed through biodegradative processes." Recyclable materials do not include refuse - derived fuel or other material that is destroyed by incineration. 5. Source - separated recyclable materials Minn. Stat. § II5A.03, subd. Source- separated recyclable materials are defined as "recyclable materials, 32b. including commingled recyclable materials that are separated by the generator." 6. Source - separated compostable materials Source - separated compostable materials are defined as materials that: Minn. Stat. § 115A.03, subd. 32a. Minn. Stat. § 115A.93. • Are separated at the source by waste generators for the purpose of preparing them for use as compost. • Are collected separately from mixed municipal solid waste, and are governed by the licensing provisions of section 115A.93. • Are comprised of food wastes, fish and animal waste, plant materials, diapers, sanitary products, and paper that is not recyclable. • Are delivered to a facility to undergo controlled microbial degradation to yield a humus -like product meeting the MPCA's class I or class II, or equivalent, compost standards, and where process rejects do not exceed 15 percent by weight of the total material delivered to the facility. • May be delivered to a transfer station, mixed municipal solid waste processing facility, or recycling facility only for the purposes of composting or transfer to a composting facility, unless the commissioner determines that no other person is willing to accept the materials. 7. Organized collection Minn. Stat. § 115A.94. See Organized collection is defined as "a system for collecting solid waste in Section IV, Solid waste and recycling collection, for more which a specified collector, or a member of an organization of collectors, is information about organized authorized to collect from a defined geographic service area or areas some or collection. all of the solid waste that is released by generators for collection." League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 4 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 5 8. Open collection Open collection is generally defined as a system for collecting solid waste or recyclable materials where individual residents and businesses are free to contract with any collector licensed to do business in the city. II. City regulation and licensing A. Required regulation There are three situations where cities are required to regulate solid waste collection. 1. County organized collection ordinance Minn. Stat. § 115A.94, subd. Any county can adopt an ordinance requiring cities or towns within its 5. See Section IV, Solid waste and recycling boundaries to organize collection of solid waste. If a city does not comply collection, for more with the county's organized collection ordinance, the county can organize information about organized collection. collection itself. Minn. Stat. § 115A.94, subd. A county's organized collection ordinance in addition to requiring solid s. waste collection —may also require the separation and separate collection of recyclable materials, specify the material to be separated, and require cities to meet any performance standards for source separation contained in the county's solid waste plan. 2. Cities in the metropolitan area Minn. Stat. § 473.811, subd. Cities in the metropolitan area must adopt an ordinance regulating the 5. Minn. Stat. § 473.121. collection of solid waste within its boundaries. The metropolitan area includes the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota (excluding the city of Northfield), Hennepin (excluding the cities of Hanover and Rockford), Ramsey, Scott (excluding the city of New Prague), and Washington. If a city is located in a metropolitan county that has adopted a collection ordinance, the city must adopt either the county ordinance by reference or a stricter ordinance. If a city is located in a metropolitan county that has adopted a recyclable- separation ordinance, the ordinance applies in all cities within the county that have failed to meet the local abatement performance standards stated in the most recent annual county report. 3. Cities with a population of 1,000 or more Minn. Stat. § 115A.941. Any city, regardless of where it is located, with a population of 1,000 or more must ensure that every residential household and business in the city has solid waste collection service. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 5 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 115A.941. See Section IV, Solid waste and recycling collection, for more information about organized collection. Minn. Stat. § 115A.941. Minn. Stat. § 115A.151. Minn. Stat. § 115A.93, subd. 1. Minn. Stat. § 115A.93, subd. 2. Minn. Stat. § 115A.93, subd. 1(a). Troje v. City Council of City of Hastings, 310 Minn. 183, 245 N.W.2d 596 (1976). The MPCA is currently working with Minnesota counties to receive a list of locally licensed collectors. For more information contact Peder Sandhei, Principal Planner, MPCA at 651- 757 -2688 or 800 - 657 -3864. Minn. Stat. § 115A.93, subd. 3. To comply with this requirement, cities are authorized to organize solid waste collection, provide collection by city employees, or require by ordinance that every household and business has a contract for collection services. An ordinance with such a requirement must also provide for enforcement. Cities must follow specific procedural requirements before adopting organized collection of solid waste. A city with a population of 1,000 or more may exempt a residential household or business from the requirement to have solid waste collection service if the household or business ensures that an environmentally sound alternative is used. B. Recycling required at city facilities All statutory and home rule charter cities are required to ensure that facilities under their control, from which mixed municipal solid waste is collected, have containers for at least three recyclable materials, such as, but not limited to, paper, glass, plastic, and metal. Cities also must transfer all recyclable materials collected to a recycler. C. Licensing 1. Solid waste collectors State law prohibits any person from collecting mixed municipal solid waste for hire without a license from the jurisdiction where that waste is collected. Cities are authorized to license solid waste collectors. If a city licenses solid waste collectors, it must submit a list of licensed collectors to the MPCA. County boards are required to adopt by resolution the licensing authority of any city that does not license solid waste collectors. If a city acts as a licensing authority, it may impose requirements that are consistent with the county's solid waste policies. In addition, state law establishes several requirements that must be imposed for any license issued to a solid waste collector. First, a license must require collectors to impose charges for collection of mixed municipal solid waste that increase with the volume or weight of the waste collected. For example, a solid waste collector could charge fees that increase with the increasing volume of solid waste generated by customers. Garbage carts of different sizes, measured by their volume in gallons, could be issued to customers who can decide what size garbage cart best suits their disposal needs. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 6 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 115A.93, subd. The commissioner of the MPCA may exempt a licensing authority from this 3. requirement if the county in which the city is located has an approved solid waste plan that concludes that variable rate pricing is not appropriate for that jurisdiction because it is inconsistent with other incentives and mechanisms implemented that are more effective in attaining the goals of discouraging on -site disposal, littering, and illegal dumping. The commissioner may also exempt a collector from this requirement while revisions are being made to the county's solid waste plan if certain conditions are met. The exemption is only effective until the county solid waste plan is revised. Minn. Stat. § 115A.93, subd. Second, a license that requires a pricing system based on volume instead of 3 (d). on weight shall determine a base unit size for an average small quantity household generator of waste and establish, or require the licensee to establish, a multiple unit pricing system that ensures that amounts of waste generated in excess of the base unit amount are priced higher than the base unit price. Minn. Stat. § 115A.93, subd. Third, a license shall prohibit collectors from imposing a greater charge on 3. residents who recycle than on residents who do not. 2. Recycling collectors Minn. Stat. § 115A.553, Counties can require either county or municipal licenses for the collection of subd. 2. Minn. Stat. § 115A.93, subs. l(b). recyclable materials. A person may not collect recyclable materials for hire unless that person is licensed locally or is registered with the MPCA. Each county must ensure that materials separated for recycling are taken to markets for sale or to recyclable material processing centers. No county may prevent a person that generates or collects solid waste from delivering recyclable materials to a recycling facility of the generator's or collector's choice. Minn. Stat. § 115A.46, subs. If a city acts as a licensing authority, it may impose requirements that are s. consistent with the county's recycling policies. A city can also impose requirements that are in addition to or different from the county's policies if the city's requirements are designed to reduce waste generation or promote the reuse of waste materials. 3. License fees 01-1- v. city of Rochester, 193 State law does not address the amount that cities can charge for licenses for Minn. 371, 258 N.W. 569 (1935). collection of solid waste or recyclable materials. Generally, a license fee must be reasonable. It should not be viewed as a source of revenue and should be in an amount that is close to the direct and indirect costs in issuing the license and in regulating the licensed activity. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 7 RELEVANT LINKS: fVaste Svstems Corp. v. County ofMartin, 985 F.2d 1381 (8th Cir. 1993). C &A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, New York, 511 U.S. 383 (1994). Ben Oehrleins and Sons and Daughter, Inc. v. Hennepin County, 115 F.3d 1372 (8th Cir. 1997). City of Philadelphia v. New Jersev, 437 U.S. 617 (1978). United HaulersAss'n, Inc. v. Oneida - Herkimer Solid fVaste Management Auth., 550 U.S. 330 (2007). Minn. Stat. §§ 115A.83- 115A.86. Minn. Stat. § 115A.83. Minn Stat. § 115A.03, subds. 27 and 28. Minn. Stat. § 115A.94, subd. 3. Minn. Stat. § 115A.86. D. Requiring use of specific waste facility Some municipalities have adopted ordinances that regulate the flow of solid waste, for example, by designating where it must be taken for disposal. This is generally done as a tool to achieve solid waste management goals. Flow control ordinances may raise constitutional issues under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution if they interfere with the flow of interstate commerce. Courts have recognized a distinction under the Commerce Clause that generally allows municipalities more authority to take actions affecting solid waste if they are acting as a "market participant" instead of as a government regulator. When a municipality is providing for or contracting for waste management services, it generally is thought to be acting as a market participant. State law authorizes counties or sanitary districts to adopt a designation ordinance requiring that all solid waste generated within a specific geographic area must be delivered to a specific solid waste facility. A designation ordinance does not apply to the following materials: • Materials separated from solid waste and recovered for reuse in their original form or for use in manufacturing processes. • Materials that are processed at a resource recovery facility at the capacity in operation at the time that the designation plan is approved by the commissioner of the MPCA. • Materials that are separated at a permitted transfer station located within the boundaries of the designating authority for the purpose of recycling the materials if either: (1) the transfer station was in operation on Jan. 1, 1991; or (2) the materials were not being separated for recycling at the designated facility at the time the transfer station began separation of the materials. • Recyclable materials that are being recycled, and residuals from recycling if there is at least an 85 percent volume reduction in the solid waste processed at the recycling facility and the residuals are managed as separate waste streams. If a city organizes collection by contract or as a municipal service, it may include a requirement that all or any portion of the solid waste be delivered to a waste facility identified by the city. This requirement would not apply to recyclable materials and materials that are processed at a resource recovery facility at the capacity in operation at the time the requirement is imposed. In a district or county where a resource recovery facility has been designated by ordinance, organized collection must conform to the designation ordinance's requirements. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 8 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 473.813. Minn. Cities in the metropolitan area have authority to directly negotiate and enter Stat. § 473.121. LMCTT staff can assist in reviewing city into contracts —for a term not to exceed 30 years —for the delivery of solid contracts, especially waste to a waste facility, and the processing of solid waste. Contracts made provisions related to insurance and liability. For by direct negotiations shall be approved by resolution. Before a city in the more information, contact metropolitan area enters into a contract for a period of more than five years, Chris Smith, Risk Management Attorney, at it must submit the proposed contract and a description of the proposed csmith @1mc.org or 651 -281- activities under the contract to the commissioner of the MPCA for review 1269. and approval. E. Customer lists Minn. Stat. § 115A.93, subd. Customer lists that solid waste collectors provide to cities are private data on 5. Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subds. 9, 12. individuals, or nonpublic data with regard to data not on individuals, under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. III. City assessments and fees A. Assessments for unpaid services Minn. Stat. § 443.015. See Any statutory city or city of the fourth class that provides, by contract or Adopting Assessments for Unpaid charges for Garbage otherwise, for garbage collection and disposal may by ordinance require the Collection and Disposal owners of all property served to pay the proportionate cost of the service to Services, LMC Model Resolution, and Providing for their properties. The city council may annually levy an assessment equal to Assessment of Unpaid the unpaid cost as of Sept. 1 of each year against each lot or parcel of land. Charges for Garbage Correction and Disposal The assessment may include a penalty not to exceed 10 percent of the Services, LMC Model unpaid amount, and shall bear interest not exceeding 6 percent per year. Ordinance. Such assessments shall be certified to the county auditor and shall be collected and remitted to the city treasurer in the same manner as assessments for local improvements. Minn. Stat. § 443.29. First class cities (Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, and Rochester) have additional authority to collect unpaid charges for rubbish disposal in a civil action, or to assess them against the property receiving the service and collect them as other taxes are collected. B. City fees 1. Operators of disposal facilities Minn. Stat. § 115A.921, A city may charge a fee that cannot exceed $1 per cubic yard of waste, or its subd. 1. equivalent, on operators of facilities for the disposal of mixed municipal solid waste located in the city. The fees must be credited to the city's general fund. Revenue produced by 25 cents of the fee must be used only for purposes of landfill abatement or for mitigating and compensating for the local risks, costs, and other adverse effects of the facilities. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 9 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 10 Revenue produced by the balance of the fee may be used for any general fund purpose. Minn. Stat. § 115A.921, There is an exemption from this fee for waste residue from recycling subd. 1. facilities at which recyclable materials are separated or processed for the purpose of recycling, or from energy and resource - recovery facilities at which solid waste is processed for the purpose of extracting, reducing, converting to energy, or otherwise separating and preparing solid waste for reuse if there is at least an 85 percent weight reduction in the solid waste processed. Minn. Stat. § 115A.921, A city also may charge a fee not to exceed 50 cents per cubic yard of waste, subd. 2. Minn. Stat. § 115A.03, subd. 7. or its equivalent, on operators of facilities for the disposal of construction debris located within the city. The revenue from the fees must be credited to the city or town general fund. Two - thirds of the revenue must be used only for purposes of landfill abatement or for purposes of mitigating and compensating for the local risks, costs, and other adverse effects resulting from the facilities. Minn. Stat. § 115A.921, There is an exemption from 25 percent of this fee if the facility has subd. 2. implemented a recycling program that the county has approved, and 25 percent if the facility contains a liner and leachate collection system the MPCA has approved. Two - thirds of the revenue from this fee must offset any financial assurances required by the city for a construction debris facility. The maximum revenue that may be collected for this type of fee must be determined by multiplying the total permitted capacity of a facility by 15 cents per cubic yard. Once the maximum revenue has been collected for a facility, the fees in this subdivision may no longer be imposed. 2. Accounting for fees Minn. Stat. § 115A.929. Cities that provide for solid waste management shall account for all revenue collected from waste management fees, together with interest earned on revenue from the fees, separately from other revenue collected by the city. Cities must report revenue collected from the fees and use of the revenue separately from other revenue and use of revenue in any required financial report or audit. Minn. Stat. § 115A.03, subd. A city provides solid waste management and is subject to this requirement 36. for a separate accounting and reporting if a city engages in any activities that are intended to affect or control the generation of waste, or engages in any activities that provide for or control the collection, processing, and disposal of waste. State law defines waste management fees as: Minn. Stat. § 115A.919. • All fees, charges, and surcharges collected under sections 115A.919, Minn. Stat. § 115A.921. 115A.921, and 115A.923 of the Minnesota Statutes. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 10 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 115A.923. • All tipping fees collected at waste management facilities owned or For more information about these fees see section iii. s., operated by the city. City Fees. Minn. Stat. § 115A.929. . All city charges for waste collection and management services. y g g • Any other fees, charges, or surcharges imposed on waste for the purpose of waste management, whether collected directly from generators, indirectly through property taxes, or as part of utility or other charges for city- provided services. Minn. Stat. § 115A.945. Any city that provides or pays for the costs of collection or disposal of solid waste must, through a billing or other system, make the prorated share of those costs for each solid waste generator visible and obvious to the generator. IV. Solid waste and recycling collection A. Types of collection systems —open collection and organized collection Analysis of JVaste collection The two main types of collection systems for solid waste and recycling are Service Arrangements, Minnesota Pollution control commonly referred to as "open collection" and "organized collection." A Agency, June 2009. 2009 study authorized by the MPCA estimated that the number of cities with open solid waste collection was between 65 to 80 percent, and the number of cities with organized solid waste collection was between 20 to 35 percent. The same study indicated that the number of cities with open recycling was estimated to be between 40 to 60 percent, and the number of cities with organized recycling was estimated to be between 50 to 60 percent. Open collection is generally defined as a collection system where individual residents and businesses are free to contract with any collector licensed to do business in the city. Minn. Stat. § 115A.94, subds. Organized collection is defined as a "system for collecting solid waste in 1, 3. See Section IV. D., Procedural requirementsfor which a specified collector, or a member of an organization of collectors, is adopting organized authorized to collect from a defined geographic service area or areas some or collection, for more information. all of the solid waste that is released by generators for collection." A city must comply with certain procedural requirements in the organized collection statute before adopting organized collection of solid waste. Minn. Stat. § 115A.94, subd. A city may organize collection as a municipal service where city employees 3. collect solid waste from a defined geographic service area or areas. In the alternative, cities may organize collection by using one or more private collectors or an organization of collectors. The agreement with the private collectors may be made through an ordinance, franchise, license, negotiated or bidded contract, or by other means. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 11 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 471.345. Minn. The competitive bidding requirements in state law do not apply to contracts Stat. § 412.311. Schwandt Sanitation ofPavne ville v. for solid waste collection because a contract for these services does not meet City ofPa}mesville, 423 the definition of a "contract" that is subject to the Uniform Municipal N.W.2d 59 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). Contracting Law. Minn. Stat. § 115A.94, subd. Organized collection accomplished by contract or as a municipal service 3. Minn. Stat. § 115A.86. may include a requirement that all or any portion of the solid waste except recyclable materials and materials that are processed at a resource - recovery facility at the capacity in operation at the time the requirement is imposed be delivered to a waste facility identified by the city. In a district or county where a resource - recovery facility has been designated by ordinance, organized collection must conform to the ordinance's requirements. Minn. Stat. § 115A.94, subd. Cities are prohibited from establishing or administering organized collection 3. in a way that impairs recycling. Further, cities must exempt recyclable materials from organized collection upon a showing by the person who generates the recyclables or a collector of recyclables that the materials are or will be separated from mixed municipal solid waste by the generator, separately collected, and delivered for reuse in their original form or for use in a manufacturing process. Minn. Stat. § 115A.94, subds. It is not absolutely clear whether a city that decides to enter into an 1, 3. Minn. Stat. § 115A.03, subds. 25a and 31. Minn. agreement for the collection of recyclable materials, including source - Stat. § 116.06, subd. 22. separated compostable materials, with one collector or an organization of collectors is required to comply with the procedural requirements in the organized collection statute. The answer likely depends on whether the definition of "solid waste" referenced in the organized collection statute should be interpreted to include recyclable materials. The MPCA has taken the position (while advising cities that they should consult their city attorneys) that recyclable materials, including source - separated compostable materials, are not subject to the organized collection statute because they are not a part of solid waste or mixed municipal solid waste once they have been separated out for separate collection and recycling. JVaste Recovery Coop. of The Minnesota Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, considered a Minn. v. CntV. of Hennepin, 475 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. Ct. similar issue of whether telephone directories collected for recycling were App. 1991). subject to a county's designation ordinance requiring mixed municipal solid waste to be disposed of at a county- designated facility. The court of appeals concluded that the telephone directories did not meet the definition of mixed municipal solid waste or of solid waste because they were being collected for recycling in a "separate waste stream" and were not being "discarded" as solid waste. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 12 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 115A.94, subd. 6. Minn. Stat. § 115A.03, subd. 4. Minn. Stat. § 115A.94. Analysis of 1Vaste Collection Service Arrangements, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, June 2009. Analysis of 1Vaste Collection Service Arrangements, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, June 2009. If a city is considering entering into an agreement for the collection of recyclable materials with one collector or an organization of collectors, it should consult its city attorney to determine whether it must follow the procedural requirements in the organized collection statute. B. Organized collection is generally optional The organized collection statute provides that the authority to organize the collection of solid waste is optional and is in addition to authority governing solid waste collection granted by other law. The statute also provides that a city may exercise any authority granted by any other law, including a home rule charter, to govern collection of solid waste. A city would only be required to organize collection if the county in which it is located has by ordinance required cities within its jurisdiction to organize collection. The Waste Management Act defines cities as "statutory and home rule charter cities authorized to plan under sections 462.351 to 462.364." Therefore, both statutory and home rule charter cities may adopt organized collection using the procedures outlined in the organized collection statute. C. Open collection versus organized collection: pros and cons 1. Open collection There are several frequently cited advantages of open collection: • Residents have more choice and are free to select a solid waste collector based on their preference. • There is a direct relationship between the solid waste collector and its customers. • There are minimal administrative costs for cities. • Smaller solid waste collectors are better able to enter the market in an open collection system by servicing a portion of city residents. In contrast, there are several frequently cited disadvantages of open collection: Open collection generally results in a more expensive monthly cost for residents. Multiple collectors means more truck traffic and the resulting negative side effects, including the potential for added street maintenance costs, and increased vehicle noise and emissions, fuel consumption, and vehicle accidents. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 13 RELEVANT LINKS: • There may be inconsistent charges for the same level of service in a city. • Cities have reduced ability to manage solid waste collection. 2. Organized collection There are several frequently cited advantages of organized collection: The Benefits of Organized • The price paid by households in an organized collection system is Collection, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, generally lower per month for similar service levels than in an open Feb. 2012. Analysis of Maste collection system due to increased efficiencies from serving every Collection Service Arrangements, Minnesota household or business in the community or on a particular route. Pollution Control Agency, • Limiting he number of solid waste collectors allows cities to decrease June 2009. g the impacts of increased truck traffic, including the potential for added street maintenance costs, vehicle noise and emissions, fuel consumption, and vehicle accidents. • Cities have greater ability to manage solid waste collection and can establish service requirements. • Standardized service makes public education easier. • Cities' ability to seek requests for proposals on a regular basis helps lower costs. Analysis of 1Vaste Collection In contrast, there are several frequently cited disadvantages of organized Service Arrangements, Minnesota Pollution Control collection: Agency, June 2009. • Households and businesses do not get to choose their collector. • Cities have greater administrative involvement and costs. • Small collectors have higher entry costs to get into the market and competitive opportunities are limited to contract openings. • The statutory requirements for switching from open collection to organized collection are time consuming and can be difficult politically. D. Procedural requirements for adopting organized collection Minn. Stat. § 115A.94. 2013 There are several procedural steps a city must take before it is authorized to Minn. Laws ch. 45. See Appendix A, organized adopt organized collection of solid waste. The Minnesota Legislature Collection Flowchart. adopted significant changes to the organized collection statute in 2013 that were designed to simplify the process for adopting organized collection. Any city that has adopted organized collection as of May 1, 2013, is exempt from the new requirements. Minn. Stat. § 115A.03, subs. The Waste Management Act defines cities as "statutory and home rule 4. Minn. Stat. § 115A.94. charter cities authorized to plan under sections 462.351 to 462.364." Therefore, both statutory and home rule charter cities may adopt organized collection using the procedures outlined in the organized collection statute. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 14 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 15 1. Notice to public and to licensed collectors Minn. stat. § 115A.94, subd. A city with more than one licensed collector must first give notice to the 4d. Minn. Stat. § 331A.03. public and to all licensed collectors that it is considering adopting organized collection. State law does not specify how notice should be provided. The League recommends providing both published notice and individual mailed notice to each licensed collector. 2. 60 -day negotiation period with licensed collectors Minn. stat. § 115A.94, subd. After the city provides notice of its intent to consider adopting organized 4d. collection, it must provide a 60 -day negotiation period that is exclusive between the city and all collectors licensed to operate in the city. A city is not required to reach an agreement with the licensed collectors during this period. The purpose of the negotiation period is to allow the licensed collectors an opportunity to develop a proposal in which they, as members of an organization of collectors, will collect solid waste from designated sections of the city. Minn. stat. § 115A.94, subd. The proposal must contain identified city priorities, including issues related 4d. to zone creation, traffic, safety, environmental performance, service provided, and price, and must reflect existing collectors maintaining their respective market share of business as determined by each hauler's average customer count during the six months before the beginning of the 60 -day negotiation period. Minn. stat. § 115A.94, subd. If an existing collector opts to be excluded from the proposal, the city may 4d. allocate its customers proportionally based on market share to the participating collectors who choose to negotiate. Minn. stat. § 115A.94, subd. If an organized collection agreement is established as a result of the 60 -day 4d. Minn. stat. § 115A.94, subd negotiation period, it must be in effect for a period of three to seven years. 4c. Upon execution of an agreement between the participating licensed LMCTT staff can assist in reviewing city contracts, collectors and the city, the city shall establish organized collection through especially provisions related appropriate local controls. The city does not need to establish an organized to insurance and liability. For more information, collections options committee if it reaches an agreement with the licensed contact Chris smith, Risk haulers during the 60 -day negotiation period; however, the city must first Management Attorney, at csmith @1mc.org or 651 -281- provide public notice and a public hearing before officially deciding to 1269. implement organized collection. Organized collection may begin no sooner than six months after the effective date of the city's decision to implement organized collection. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 15 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 16 3. Organized collection options committee Minn. Stat. § 115A.94 subd If a city does not reach an agreement with its licensed collectors during the 4a. Minn. Stat. ch. 13I7. 60 -day negotiation period, it can form by resolution an "organized collection options committee" to study various methods of organized collection and to issue a report. The city council appoints the committee members. The committee is subject to the open meeting law and has several mandatory duties. Minn. Stat. § 115A.94, subd. First, the committee shall determine which methods of organized collection 4U. to examine, which must include at least two methods: (1) a system in which a single collector collects solid waste from all sections of the city; and (2) a system in which multiple collectors, either singly or as members of an organization of collectors, collect solid waste from different sections of the city. Minn. Stat. § 115A.94, subd. Second, the committee shall establish a list of criteria on which the 4U. organized collection methods selected for examination will be evaluated, which may include: costs to residential subscribers, miles driven by collection vehicles on city streets and alleys, initial and operating costs of implementing the organized collection system, providing incentives for waste reduction, impacts on solid waste collectors, and other physical, economic, fiscal, social, environmental, and aesthetic impacts. Minn. Stat. § 115A.94, subd. Third, the committee shall collect information regarding the operation and 4U. efficacy of existing methods of organized collection in other cities and towns. Minn. Stat. § 115A.94, subd. Fourth, the committee shall seek input from, at a minimum: 4U. • The city council • The city official responsible for solid waste issues • Persons currently licensed to operate solid waste collection and recycling services in the city • City residents who currently pay for residential solid waste collection services Minn. Stat. § 115A.94, subd. Finally, the committee must issue a report on its research, findings, and any 4U. recommendations to the city council. 4. Public notice and public hearing Minn. Stat. § 115A.94, subd. A city council shall consider the report and recommendations of the 4e. organized collection options committee. A city must provide public notice and hold at least one public hearing before deciding to implement organized collection. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 16 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 115A.94, subd. 4e. Minn. Stat. § 115A.94, subd. 3. 5. Implementation A city can begin organized collection no sooner than six months after the effective date of the city's decision to implement organized collection. A city may organize collection as a municipal service where city employees collect solid waste from a defined geographic service area or areas. In the alternative, cities may organize collection by using one or more private solid waste collectors or an organization of collectors. An agreement with private collectors may be made through an ordinance, franchise, license, negotiated or bidded contract, or by other means. 6. Anticompetitive conduct A city that organizes collection is authorized to engage in anticompetitive conduct to the extent necessary to plan and implement its chosen organized collection system, and is immune from liability under state laws relating to antitrust, restraint of trade, and unfair practices, and other regulation of trade or commerce. V. Conclusion Cities have broad authority to regulate the collection and disposal of solid waste. Cities exercise this authority subject to state and county oversight. Cities should work closely with their city attorneys when exercising this authority by requiring licenses, imposing fees and assessments, entering into contracts, and adopting ordinances. Cities must comply with procedural requirements in the organized collection statute before they may adopt organized collection of solid waste. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 17 Appendix A: Organized Collection Flowchart City council provides notice of its intent to consider organized collection to the public and to all licensed solid waste collectors. City exclusively negotiates with its licensed collectors for 60 days to see if an agreement for organized collection can be reached. Collectors reach an agreement and provide city council with a proposal for organized collection. City council provides public notice and holds a public hearing on the proposal. 1 1 City council approves proposal and decides to implement organized collection. Any agreement reached must be in effect for three to seven years. City council rejects collectors' proposal. City council implements organized collection according to the agreement. Organized collection may begin no sooner than six months after the effective date of the city council's decision to implement organized collection. Collectors do not reach an agreement. City council decides not to implement organized collection. City council adopts a resolution to establish an organized collection options committee to identify, examine, evaluate, and seek input regarding various methods of organized collection. The committee is subject to the open meeting law. Organized collection options committee studies organized collection and issues a report with its findings and recommendations. City council considers the report. After city council provides public notice and holds apublic hearing, it decides to implement organized collection. Organized collection may begin no sooner than six months after the effective date of the city council's decision to implement organized collection. City council decides not to implement organized collection. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/22/2017 City Solid Waste Management Page 18 OLans" ON , City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Staffing /Compensation Meeting Date: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 Prepared by: Sandie Thone, City Clerk Reviewed by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator Attachments: Staffing Power Point Presentation Discussion: 5Ai MEETING TYPE Council /Staff Retreat Should the City of Shorewood consider adding a Pay- for - Performance component to the current Step Plan Compensation System in place? Please review the attached Staffing /Compensation Power Point Presentation which includes an overview of our current Step Plan system and Performance Pay options other metro area cities have adopted. We look forward to hearing your feedback, would be happy to answer any questions you may have and are hoping for some direction on how you would like us to proceed. Thank you! Connection to Vision /Mission: Consistency in 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. 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 Staffing City of Shorewood Compensation Studies have proven that the effects of compensation on employees have major implications on how well organizations can execute their strategies and achieve their goals. Types of Compensation w Cash or Base Pay w Merit Pay /Performance Pay Increases /Bonuses w COLA w Incentives: Short /Long Term w Benefits: Income Protection w Benefits: Work /Life Balance w Benefits: Allowances w Relational Returns Total Returns for Work This shows the variety of returns people receive from their work. They are categorized as total compensation (transactional) and relational returns (psychological). Total Compensation Total Returns .Benefits Relational Returns Recognitiori & Status Cas,h Compensation hicoine Allowaiices Protection Long-terni Work/Life Base hiceiitives Focus Merit/Cost Short-term of* Liviiig Incentives Darning Opportuirifies Eniployinew Challenging SeCLIrity Work The Pay Model Serves as a framework for examining current pay systems and contains three basic building blocks, 1) the compensation objectives, 2) the policies that form the foundation of the compensation system, and 3) the techniques that make up the compensation system I NI I C� L J� I i- I N"I'l r, R N A 1A I A( ; P41VI �'N ' — , C .', w t i f I '. i R i, "1 SA'RU(' I UIIIU� f II Vfl IN all C'( )NU F BABLYI"C >R'S f1"IW111 A 1,� N41 N I SA 14�,A I"T �N L", nin P, � 11111, 0 Shorewood as a Network of Returns? Sometimes it is useful to think of the organization in this way in order to effectively design the compensation system to help the organization succeed. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 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. Shorewood's current compensation plan is a Step Plan system with annual (COLA) increases (as approved by the City Council). The range structure is based on the following: w The internal hierarchy of positions w Pay for union positions w Pay levels at the time of analysis w Market comparisons of seven local cities compensation levels using the following factors for comparison fit: service levels, population, budget, proximity, and market value. Shorewood's Compensation Plan Structure The Step Plan benefits and maintenance Places new hires into step based on qualifications and recruiting needs The result is after 6 years (steps) the employee will be at max, which is market Look closely at market every three years Simplified budgeting Pay equity requires a pay approach that does not disadvantage female dominated job classifications - test for pay equity in December of each year Step plan is based on service time Step plan provides employees more security about reaching market Plan allows performance reviews not to be focused on pay consequences Plan provides privacy of performance ratings since they are not related to pay increases which are public record Performance failure is dealt with by termination if performance is not remedied Step Plan Deficiencies w Step Plan compensation is not tied to performance which may decrease attraction, retention, and motivation for top performers w Step Plan compensation equity: two or more employees performing the same position /responsibilities with varying levels of competency but being paid the same wage /increases w Plan limits pay once maximum is reached, with the exception of COLA w Studies show poor performers leave when pay is based on individual performance with an inference of the step plan being especially attractive to low performers w Studies show compensation motivates behavior and a well- designed plan linking pay to behavior generally results in better individual and organizational performance Shorewood's Step Plan Model What it covers Internal Fairness and Alignment: describing jobs and determining their worth relative to each other and based on content of the jobs and the organization's objectives w External Competitiveness: Salary study determined competitive pay levels and equitable pay structure by analyzing similar jobs in similar organizations w All of the above are independent of who performs the positions What it lacks Bringing People into the Pay Equation: How do we design a pay system so that individual contributors are rewarded according to their value to the organization? If the range for a customer service rep was grade 10 of $26.59 to $33.23 - should a good CSR be paid more than a poor one? If yes - how should performance be measured and what shall be the differential reward? Pay for Performance Pay for Performance w High ability applicants do select organizations because they provide pay for good performance w Success depends on finding people with ability - the goal of recruiting - once good people are hired, they need to be motivated to behave in ways that help the organization - *hiring motivated people helps w Pay, other rewards, and performance management reinforce desired behaviors w A well designed plan linking pay to behavior generally results in better individual and organizational performance w Experts estimate that every dollar spent on performance -based pay plans yields $2.34 more in organizational earnings w Turnover is much higher for poor performers when pay is based on individual performance (a good outcome!) w Studies prove a strong pay /performance link attracts and retains top performers Pay Performance Models Currently being Used by other Municipalities (obtained by survey of metro area HR directors) * All municipalities provide for annual COLA in addition to the plans delineated below w City Example 1) Broadband Compensation Plan and Performance Pay System w City Example 2) Performance Pay added to Step Plan Model w City Example 3) Merit Pay Plan: Standard Merit and One -Time Merit City Example 4) Accelerated Advancement through Step Plan for Above Average Performance Example: City 1 - Broadband Compensation and Performance Pay System W This city uses a Broadband Compensation Plan and Performance Pay System along with the Classification Plan utilizing an Evaluation System. The wage range is segmented reflecting three stages of employee development within each band: Development Stage (meets minimum criteria), Full Performer Stage (high performance), and Excelled Performer Stage (exceptional performance). At annual performance review, employees progress through the wage band based upon performance, skills, personal commitment, training, and education. *Managers of City enterprises shall not be eligible for a pay increase in the Excelled Performer Stage unless the enterprise's total revenues exceed the total expenditures. The maximum amount of increase for each stage is as follows: Development Stage: Up to 9% Performance Pay increase to the base rate pay W Full Performer Stage: Up to 6% Performance Pay increase to the base rate pay (meets expectations) - All employees are expected to meet the top wage rate of this stage and will then be recognized as highly skilled and talented - the city recognizes this achievement by changing the pay philosophy so that employees reaching this milestone are compensated equitably among their metropolitan peers. W Excelled Performer Stage: Up to 3% Performance Pay increase to the base rate pay (meeting expectations in year 1 and exceeding expectations in year 2 and beyond). This stage was created to recognize employees whose performance is above average and who wish to continue to advance in their field. W Example: an employee in the Development Stage Pay Range has the opportunity to increase their base wage from 0% to 9% based upon the analysis of performance, skills, personal commitment, training, and education. W Market /annual adjustments to the Pay Plan are reviewed annually. When a market analysis for a specific job class indicates the assigned salary range deviates from the market more than 10 %, the job class may be placed at an established salary band that more closely corresponds to the applicable market. Market adjustment may be withheld based upon performance deficiencies. City 1: Example of Broadband Compensation and Performance Pay System Wage Band and Rates — Enip"ee in the Develepment and IFuH �nol Ene�llledy Perdofiner Range are e gble Etv Fe'rfeemanoe pay n 2018. Example City 2: Performance Pay added to Step Plan Model This city uses a performance model that enhances the current step plan to provide for performance evaluation, rating and performance pay increases above the planned step increases w The model is as follows: Annual Performance Review Rating Points Resulting Increase Exceptional Performance Rating: Above Average Performance Rating: Average Performance Rating: Below Average Performance Rating: 9 -10 100% of step increase plus 1% 7 -8 1000 of step increase 4 -6 1000 of step increase 1 -3 500 of step increase* *including mitigation /performance improvement plan of action Example City 3: Merit Pay Plan: Standard Merit and One Time Merit Standard Merit: Employees may be recommended for a merit pay increase consisting of 1 % to 5% of the current step 6 (max) for their position. Merit pay is added to the employee's base wage. Criteria for merit pay is at least one year at step 6 (max), at least two years service with the city, and a consistent rating of exceeds expectations or distinguished performer on most recent performance review. One -Time Merit: One -time merit may be awarded to an employee for projects or situations where the employee rises above and beyond their normal duties or work level in order to accomplish a work assignment or serve the public. This may include a one -time outstanding effort, consistently high - performance, or efforts that result in cost savings to the city. One -time merit is limited to up to 2% of the employee's current annual pay or up to 40 hours added to the employee's annual leave bank, or a combination thereof. One -time merit is not added to the employee's base wage and may be contributed to a deferred compensation plan. Example City 4: Accelerated Advancement through Step Plan for Above Average Performance w This city offers a performance program that allows all above average performers (based on annual performance review rating) to accelerate through the Step Plan by receiving double the annual increase on an annual basis until such time they meet the range's maximum salary. w Average performance receives only the annual increase. w The majority of employees achieve above average performance. w This city is in discussion and considering adding an additional merit pay plan to their current structure later this year to recognize and reward exceptional performance. Designing aPay- for - Performance Plan w Strategy: Support organizational objectives w Structure: different departments to create flexible variations and measurements for meeting pay- for - performance criteria. w Standards: Objectives; specific but flexible, Measures; assessing performance sufficiently, Eligibility; all inclusive or top management, Funding; set standard or dependent on economic conditions. w Equity /Fairness: Fair to all employees w Compliance: Shall comply with all existing laws For Discussion: Should Shorewood consider adding aPay- for - Performance Plan? C lture m-. -- Perforemc vaurio Things to consider Orpurization,al ("uhurc a Opcn, tw(.1-way ctm-tmunicatiori is valued and pursucd, a Trust exists berween crnployocs and supervisors/managp". a Fluman romm,mccs n-jamar ,ctivent (FIRM) systerns such as scIcctiorr, training, and 1->erforniancc cvatuariorl have clear amd consistcrtr obJectives and support I>ay f6r ix-r farm ance. Supervisors a Employee eff'cw,cs support organizational g,oals. 0 Work assignirvent, crvaluation of peram-n-taricc,wand di%tribution o awards are. fair. 0 E)iSCIV6011 and accountability go hand-in-hand. Perf,i)rmancc Exaluation a Assessrivent of employces is fair and -accurare. a Erriployccs rcccivc rimclY, accuratc, and meaningfill fi:cdback, F'unding a Appropriate pay incrciscs and bonuses arc pvcn. a ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16f) IcadcrNhip is NNifling to rnake difficult choicos when alloc,,iring fixtufs and av'rard.s. 1:, atmess to CAiccks amd bafamcs arc in jAacc. a 'I"ransparency is valued and cmured. Training a Training is provitic-d to buth supervisors and crnpf(.nyces. a Training covers, both paysystern philosophY and I'll ccha 11 ics Symcin Evaluation a 'llic orpinization maluares h(.mr the pay for ixt-f6rin-tancc 5y,%rcin is lam. inn achninisretvA and whcthcr the pay fin- jwrfi.,)rrnancc system is accornplishing its gmdsw a E'snployce artirudes are tracked. References Gmach, G. (2016). Salary Administration: City of Shorewood. Mcphie, N. (2006). Designing an Effective Pay for Performance Compensation System. US Merit System Protection Board. Washington, D.C. Newman, J.M., Gerhart, B., Milkovich, G. T., (2017). Compensation. Twelfth Edition. McGraw -Hill Education. New York, NY. Trusight Job Evaluation System. (2011). Plymouth, MN. TUG -HR Municipal Compensation Plan Information. (2017). oLans" ON , City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: StrengthsFinder /Strengths Based Leadership Meeting Date: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 Prepared by: Sandie Thone, City Clerk Reviewed by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator Attachments: StrengthsFinder /Strengths Based Leadership Discussion: 5AH MEETING TYPE Council /Staff Retreat Should the City of Shorewood continue with StrengthsFinder initiatives and continue to develop a Strengths Based Organization? Please review the attached StrengthsFinder and Strengths Based Leadership Power Point Presentation. We look forward to hearing your feedback, would be happy to answer any questions you may have and are hoping for some direction on how you would like us to proceed. Thank you! Connection to Vision /Mission: Consistency in 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. 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 IL IL CITY OF SHOREWOOD �����2 STRENGTHSFINDER 2.0 • In 2017 Shorewood non -union employees, consultants, and city council went through the StrengthsFinder 2.0 Assessment process in order to identify individual strengths and team strengths • StrengthsFinder is based on a landmark 30 -year research project and over 11 million people have taken the StrengthsFinder assessment • Strengths are composed of Skills, Knowledge, and Talents • "Most people think they know what they are good at. They are usually wrong ... yet a person can perform only from strength" Peter Drucker • You can run an organization any way that you like but it will run much better if it is built around strengths ... Duncan Bannatyne THE FOUR, DOMAINS OF STRENGTH: EXECUTING, INFLUENCING, RELATIONSHIP BUILDING, AND STRATEGIC THIRKING • Shorewood's 2017 Assessment Results i� iii mism- mmvj��� 11111 Relationship Bud&g 8 Strategk Theking I'M hfiuendng 0 Ex#.-cutng City Council Strengths all ReV.U—h,p BWW g IU E—Utbng Administration/Finaince Strengths k Re114t--h(P BLIOd-9 - St-t�cz, Th ,k-z E--t-g PW/Engineering/Plainning Strengths uwu R,O,ti,—hip B'ddi,g Wm 5C rs tag %c Thi,ki,g • In 2017, Shorewood began a discussion with employees regarding their assessment results and how they aligned with their current positions and goals • In 2017, managers were asked to integrate employee strengths profiles and goals in to the annual performance review process and base, at least in part, employee development plans based on these conversations and employee strengths • In 2017, employees learned their own individual strengths and how to make them work to their advantage and satisfaction • In 2017 departments began to better understand their team members strengths, winning strength combinations and made plans to utilize and partner for better team results • In 2017 managers learned how to better manage employees with specific strengths and employees began to understand better how their boss' strengths shaped their management style • In 2017 managers and city council learned that the chances of employees being actively disengaged was: 40% if you ignore them 22% if you focus on their weaknesses I % if you focus on their strengths ry STRENGTHS BASED ORGANIZATION AND LEADERSHIP ■ More than 1 million work teams have been studied and over 30,000 interviews in recent years have led to Strengths Based Leadership ■ Strengths Based Leadership has three primary goals: ■ 1) Know your strengths and invest in others strengths ■ 2) Get people with the right strengths on your team ■ 3) Understand the four basic needs of those who look to you for leadership; ■ Trust ■ Compassion ■ Stability ■ Hope * The ultimate goal is to become the most successful strengths based organization we can become while ensuring success for our team members as well III ES SHOREWOOD WANT TO CONTINUE TO �IEVELOP AS A STRENGTHS BASED I I IRGANIZATION • Using Strengths Based Leadership philosophies and concepts to... • Invest in strengths? • Maximize the team? • Extend the 2.0 Assessment process to PW employees? • Understand trust, compassion, stability and hope to build a strong organization where employees trust and eagerly follow leaders? • Lead with our strengths? • Use strengths to meet objectives, goals and mission of the City of Shorewood? kl�) k) • Rath, T. (2007). StrengthsFinder 2.0. Gallup Press. NewYork, NY. • Rath, T. (2008). Strengths Based Leadership. Gallup Press. NewYork, NY. #5B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item RETREAT Title / Subject: Finance Director Position Meeting Date: January 31, 2018 Prepared by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator Attachments: Spreadsheet Background: The City has contracted with KDV for finance director services since last spring. Joe has provided outstanding service so the discussion here is not questioning the quality of what the City is receiving for what it is paying. Rather, I believe that it is a good time to review this arrangement and discuss if the City wants to continue with the present contractual arrangement, or if the City should hire someone to fill the staff position. Joe prepared the attached spread sheet showing the employee versus contract cost. If there is additional information you need prior to the meeting, please advise and we will have it there for the retreat. Goal: The goal of this agenda item is to get direction from the council as to whether the council would like to more fully examine a performance compensation component to annual reviews and to also get direction regarding the finance director position. 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 FINANCE DIRECTOR POSITION COST 2018 (Est. 2.5% increase) Finance Director 49.07 102,058.84 5,676.86 1,327.65 7,654.41 12,960.00 0.54 551.12 130,228.89 FICA /Medicare Wages (Estimated): 91,562.28 91,562.28 BerganKDV Cost: GROSS April 2017 through December 2017 (9 months) 90,375.00 Pro -rated 3 additional months CITY WORKERS' WORKERS' Estimated Annualized Cost 2018 (803.3 hours) * 124,512.65 HOURLY SALARY FICA Medicare PERA BENEFIT COMP COMP TOTAL POSITION RATE (2080 HOURS) 6.20% 1.45% 7.50% CONTRIBUTION RATE (EST) AMOUNT COMPENSATION 2016 Finance Director 46.69 97,115.20 5,403.32 1,263.68 7,283.64 12,000.00 0.54 524.42 123,590.26 FICA /Medicare Wages (Actual): 87,150.30 87,150.30 2017 (original budget) Finance Director 47.87 99,569.60 5,538.40 1,295.27 7,467.72 12,360.00 0.54 537.68 126,768.67 FICA /Medicare Wages (Estimated): 89,329.06 89,329.06 2018 (Est. 2.5% increase) Finance Director 49.07 102,058.84 5,676.86 1,327.65 7,654.41 12,960.00 0.54 551.12 130,228.89 FICA /Medicare Wages (Estimated): 91,562.28 91,562.28 BerganKDV Cost: April 2017 through December 2017 (9 months) 90,375.00 Pro -rated 3 additional months 30,125.00 Estimated Annualized Cost 2017 (803.3 hours) 120,500.00 Estimated Annualized Cost 2018 (803.3 hours) * 124,512.65 * Assumes 2018 contracted hours do not change from 2017, and a 3.3% increase to the hourly rate #6A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Council Retreat Title / Subject: Overview of the Municipal Water System Meeting Date: January 31, 2018 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator, Alyson Fauske, City Engineer Attachments: Map of the Municipal Water System Background: Attached to this memorandum, is a layout of the Shorewood Municipal Water System. WATFR SYSTFMS The City has what amounts to three separate water systems. These are as follows: East System: ➢ Amesbury Well House (two separate wells; one vertical turbine and one submersible pump) ➢ SE Area Well House (one vertical turbine well) ➢ Water Tower located on Old Market Road. ➢ This system also provides water to 40 single family homes in Deephaven. ➢ This system has emergency interconnects, by manually operated valves, with the Cities of Minnetonka and Chanhassen. West System: ➢ Badger Field Well House (one vertical turbine well) ➢ Boulder Bridge Well House (one vertical turbine and one submersible pump) ➢ Water Tower located on Minnewashta School Property ➢ This system has emergency interconnects, by manually operated valves, with the Cities of Victoria and Tonka Bay. Woodhaven System: ➢ In 2007, the City of Shorewood demolished and abandoned the Woodhaven Well which served 39 single family homes, and made a connection to the City of Chanhassen to supply water to these homes, due to the economics of reconstructing a well and well house for these few connections. ➢ Therefore, this system is supplied solely by the City of Chanhassen. SCADA SYSTFMS SCADA stands for "Superior Control and Data Acquisition." The various types of SCADA range from a purely monitoring system to monitoring and remote control. While the municipal industry has become acclimated to remote monitoring, most shy away from remote control for practical and security issues. While Shorewood has had various SCADA versions previously, staff has upgraded all of our wastewater lift stations and the East Water System to a system known as Mission Communications. The West water system is being upgraded as part of the Boulder Bridge Well House Control contract let in December, of 2017. The Mission Communications system is a very reliable and secure cellular /web based solution that provides an online solution for monitoring and notification. Staff will provide a demonstration of the existing SCADA system at the retreat. WATER TREATEMENT With the exception of the SE Area Well located in Silverwood Park, the City does not provide any sort of treatment of the water. Water is pumped directly from the groundwater wells, and with the addition of chlorine and fluoride injected into the water, is pumped directly to the distribution system. The SE Well does have an iron removal plant. This is a 5,000 gallon tank, filled with various sand media where air is injected into the water. The air changes the pH of the water which reacts with the iron that is in solution, and precipitates out the iron particles. The filter strains the particles out of the water, prior to being pumped out to the distribution system. It is noted that none of the processes above provide any sort of softening of the water. Staff often receives requests regarding hard water or iron present in the water. Currently, the City has not made any plans or preparation for water treatment plants. If this is desirable, the City would need to locate and obtain parcels of land for each system, large enough to support a treatment facility. It is very likely that if the City pursued such improvements, bonding would be required to fund such an expenditure. NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS There are two major improvements that staff is recommending the City focus on for the systems. These are increased efforts in cathodic protection and looping of long dead end systems. Cathodic Protection: The City Council has long heard about the issue of "Hot soils" and the resultant damage to watermain fittings and hardware. This has become a common issue for several of the City's watermain breaks. To combat this issue, staff has increased efforts in adding cathodic protection, at every opportunity available, during watermain breaks, or when a watermain is exposed. This involves proper placement and wiring of the watermain to a magnesium filled bag that sacrificially attracts the various electrical charges that occur from hot soils or stray voltages. These voltages are ultimately what corrode and deteriorate the watermains and hardware. Staff is recommending that during all street reconstructions or major activity, that watermain valves be exposed and inspected as part of the contract. If bolts are corroded, they can be replaced at that time. If the valve has deteriorated significantly, the entire valve would be replaced. Under both scenarios cathodic protection would be added at that location. While this adds time and expense to the roadway projects, it minimizes emergency occurrences and inconvenience of watermain breaks and outages. Looping of Dead -end Systems Recently, the City Council has heard a few complaints about stale or discolored water. Many times part of this issue can be attributed to long dead -end systems that are not looped. This results in water sitting in low flow areas for longer periods of time. When water sits idle, it reacts with air present in the watermain, and precipitates out the iron particles which causes discoloration. Looping of the systems aid in eliminating dead water flows. Looping also assists with providing alternate paths of water supply, during watermain breaks. As the Capital Improvement Program is revised, a high value should be attached to opportunities where water systems can be looped. INCENTIVES TO CONNECT The City has long wrestled with how to encourage those residents who have municipal water service available to them, but have yet to connect to the system. Staff is in the process of tallying up the number of connections that this applies to. Staff has debated this issue on several occasions, as well. It has often been suggested that incentives such as a discount in the connection fee (or other measures) be implemented, on a limited time basis, to encourage hook ups. Staff will seek direction from the City Council if they would like to explore any incentive scenarios. 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. R p s \il -------- -------------- m .F trR�/ iI � / i / �Ii � � SUSSEXPIAyEO Ii +� _ F 0 e OQ RO AAO ro E U U` Y C C R A D C O HN O�U y e O G ) � D U OOD ROA.7707" IOOR 0 O p U O 7� C LANE - - _Q O U AMEE RM-\ U G0 < 8�HY OLEWOOp A LOB E R "I LANDVIEW U ROAD Q (I UNNALLANE ` a� ; E�`LG O M U I� R FEIP CIRGLE ' i ,,ER Q PNE BENp O rc w LID ROSE LANE 2 D W I C.- �O Coo � O U O ,J , C • N4� o ?( C O C U O O U O O ' o O A 3p(a ' J O - = - ID3 3R0 AVENUE D O P � p BRYNMAWR PLACE O U O a O f 0 O co D O vy O w) O CO boa > O C Po O O 'Do o ID O EC O r OD , ' 0 O 2'!3 O � .(� O 0 0 tb J 7 0 Fp 2 6 � .0 � A N X� L ANE D + rc S oC U PARK STREE T� rc PU �A o O O 0 1Q PO 1 ' ^- _O K K U G 0 J _\ 0 0 I V �C RO ✓ 0 0 O DR IVE U 3 U w Q TRNL ON EBEVERLY i C Y0 4 C 2 C EO O U Co r sH U 0 O a MURRAY STREET OOH sS/ e O�R � J J Ht � � G v g: ' VIRGINIA COVE 62NDSTREETWEST KAR P TE A TOw "..WAY WILTS EYL E , J Y Qy 7 ------------------ - -_— — - - -- - -_- - . 0------------------------------ - -_-_ -m -- _ - - -- _ -_ -_ -_ _ - -m_ - - - - -- G _ C NE ----------- O O O H C Water Hydrants Water Mains City Boundary L- —_I Watermain Map N A CITY OF Shorewood, MN 0 2,000 WJO � Feet SHOREWOOD 1 inch = 2,000 feet #6B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item RETREAT Title / Subject: Storm Sewer- Western part of the City Meeting Date: January 31, 2018 Prepared by: Alyson Fauske, PE, City Engineer Reviewed by: Larry Brown, PE, Public Works Director Greg Lerud, City Administrator Goal of the Discussion: Provide more information regarding the potential partnership with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and get feedback on the proposed goals of the partnership. Background: In the fall of 2017 representatives from MCWD and city staff discussed partnering on a project. Staff presented the storm drainage issues within the western portion of the city. frcx °nm� R � enmam°d v $�9wpaoae B S t � J n O Y u P e CNrnd°r u '� � Vallayy Lane � 6u� > A^`Iee ROad �� NOae '�I 6� NHSIne6 Glen ROa° Iva 1 �y �SUIn�nWeale Drne Viaw �{{ P6 Wild Rose LeTle F � W000sne °ad 0111 wOFptVN Lane ware n.anw Ys,c. Q. d _ xvrmr con Brynme Plara a ` �D � 9 F smiNw..� lz u - g Htlg R tlO der L , Ir�artt ry F arm lane Z. C rcle t Ile 8 �Rwd 0 Smimtm+^ Rae &� _� c ,Z O 8-a .'circle ola+e d m F 6 �traa 4 eevellyOmre Po Park Vi.gnia COVe .r< Oax Leal 7re1 6 Wpru ;1— a lanaY 62nd Swat West �9e' Ngnway T Freeman Park Area Watershed ' Not to wale IIJB Figure 1: Approximate subwatershed boundaries that encompass drainage issues in the western part of the city. In 2006 a Drainage Study identified drainage problems in the area. In 2017 the Freeman Park Feasibility Study identified five drainage issues in the Freeman Park subwatershed and possible remedies: 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 1. Shorewood Oaks Development. Private property flooding due to surcharge of storm sewer and private draintile connections to City storm sewer. Suggested action is to construct backflow preventers and /or disconnect draintile from the city system. 2. Strawberry Lane. Drainage conveyance issues due to the flat topography. Suggested action is to construct storm sewer to utilize the existing drainage and utility easement located on the Pebble Brook Addition. 3. Channel along Grant Lorenz Road. Water level and erosion issues, driveway and culvert damage. Suggested actions are to construct a low -flow bypass, construct a pond to reduce downstream flow rates, and redirect the flow from the existing pond located in the Strawberry Gardens addition. 4. Alexander Lane Pond. Constant standing water. Suggested action is to allow the pond to drain down by connecting to the proposed Strawberry Lane storm sewer. 5. Church Road Ponding. Water pooling in the street and in backyards. Suggested action is to create an outlet for the water by constructing a ditch to the existing railroad culvert. Figure 2: Drainage issues examined in the Freeman Park Feasibility Study The MCWD permits that would be required to implement the actions items in the Freeman Park Feasibility Study would be challenging due to the high water table and fully - developed condition of the watershed. Staff from the City and MCWD would like to partner so that the drainage concerns of the city could be addressed with the water quality and quantity goals of the watershed in mind. A If -VALL'EYWOOD LA �NNWALE =LAI WILD ROSE LA l . _ GLEN RD / 1 J, �w _ BRYNMAWRPL 4. Elio,. MANN LA �.. .ITNTOWN RD / r \AFfON'RD I BEVERLY DR Muff �,4 •' Owl ryM' 62ND ST W �O� -� I: 62ND IT W � � `UAKLEAF TR �__. ,/ i STATbMNY,N04�� l ' Q v -_ Figure 1: Location Map 0 eo. Figure 2: Drainage issues examined in the Freeman Park Feasibility Study The MCWD permits that would be required to implement the actions items in the Freeman Park Feasibility Study would be challenging due to the high water table and fully - developed condition of the watershed. Staff from the City and MCWD would like to partner so that the drainage concerns of the city could be addressed with the water quality and quantity goals of the watershed in mind. A partnership is a new concept for the city and the MCWD, so staff is currently not able to provide the council with an example of what's been done in the past. At this point the planning process is fluid and the goal is to establish a 5 to 10 -year "roadmap" with city and MCWD milestones identified. By involving MCWD early on in the design process, the city is better able to demonstrate challenges associated with permitting requirements, thus streamlining efforts to relax or vary from MCWD permit requirements. MCWD can offer technical review, assist with implementation, provide grant application assistance, etc. In the interest of providing a guideline to the process, staff envisions the following phased approach: Phase 1- Meetings with city staff, city and MCWD staff, and City Council /MCWD Board to develop 10 -year roadmap Phase 2- Draft City CIP for Years 1 through 5 Phase 3- Align City CIP for Years 1 through 5 with MCWD Phase 4- Begin implementation of CIP for Years 1 through 5 Phase 5- Develop City CIP for Years 6 through 10 Phase 6- Align City CIP for Years 6 through 10 Phase 7- Begin implementation of CIP for Years 6 through 10 Financial or Budget Considerations: Unknown at this time. As planning proceeds staff will develop a storm CIP to determine the recommended city financial resources necessary and the street CIP will be adjusted accordingly. Next Steps: Approve "Memorandum of Understanding" with MCWD- February, 2018 Authorize WSB to proceed with Phase 1- February, 2018 #7A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item RETREAT Title / Subject: Southshore Center — Improvements and Renaming Meeting Date: January 31, 2018 Prepared by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator Reviewed by: Twila Grout, Park and Rec Coordinator /Admin Assistant and Julie Moore, Communications /Recycling Coordinator Attachments: Project spread sheet There are three different parts of this agenda item. Physical Improvements: Since the Council gave approval for staff to develop a plan and schedule for improvements at the Southshore Center, Joe Pazendak developed the attached spread sheet showing projects (or potential projects) and has been meeting with contractors for bids. Some minor work has started — including removing the door between the front office and the library room, as well as the inside vestibule doors. Staff will be brining bids and recommendations to the council as they come in. Renaming or Rebranding: Julie Moore has been visiting with potential vendors to assist in a process to rename or rebrand. After discussion, staff would like to get direction on which process the council would like to engage. Engaging with an outside firm is not a necessity, particularly if the council coalesces around one name. But if the change is to be more extensive, hiring a firm with expertise in this area would be beneficial. Marketing: This item goes hand in hand with the city's new website. Staff believes that we can primarily market through the city's website and Julie will have some examples of what other cities have done. Staff would like to believe that the improvements can fall into place by early summer, but we believe it is more realistic that we shoot for early fall — with a soft, invite -only event in mid - September, and then have the grand reveal at Oktoberfest. Goal: Staff would like to receive feed back on the proposed scope of the project as well as how the council would like to proceed with the renaming or rebranding process. 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 South Shore Community Center: 5735 Country Club Road Prepared by: Joe Pazandak Project Estimate Sheet: Remodeling Date: 12.20.2017 ELEMENT Priority Order Estimate Cost Status NOTES Flooring: Library: Replace carpeting Lobby: Remove CT /Install LVT Vestibule: Remove CT /Install LVT Coat /Office: Replace carpet Reception: Remove CT /Install LVT Banquet: Replace carpet and LVT (6' walkoff by door) Banquet: Repair floor elevation shift 21200.00 Hallway: Remove CT /Install LVT Total flooring, escept crack repair 30,000.00 Cabinets: Library: New door fronts 3,000.00 Library: New counter top /sink /faucet 21700.00 Reception: New reception counter top 5,000.00 Paint: Library: Wall, one Lobby: Walls, ceiling and Banquet doors 700.00 Vestibule /Coat /Reception: Walls Banquet: Walls (Total for walls) (Total for walls) 3,100.00 Walls; accent: Library: Wood ship -lap, 3 walls 41250.00 Lobby: Wood ship -lap, 1 wall Reception: Wood ship -lap, 1 wall Banquet: Stainless steel under food counters Ceiling Tile: Library: Replace ceiling tile Banquet: Replace ceiling tile Coat /Reception /Office: Replace ceiling tile (Total for ceilings) 15,000.00 Electrical: Exterior Entry: Replace lighting Library: Replace ceiling lighting, add AV Lobby: Add AV, remove fan & review up lighting Lobby: Add Chandelier Vestibule /Coat /Office: Replace lighting Banquet: Replace ceiling lighting Banquet: Add outlets for food warmers by kitchen Patio: Add lighting Exterior: Add outlet by sign Total electrical 34,935.00 Patio: Patio area: Install 8,360.00 Landscapping: Install 1,895.00 Trellis and guardrail: Install A/C Condenser: Move Carpentry: Libraray /Office door: Remove 950.00 Reception /Office window: Remove 800.00 Banquet: Repair wall crack Vestibule /Lobby door: Remove 11200.00 Total $ 114,090.00 $ - Notes: