03-14-11 CC Reg Agenda Packet C. B. A.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2011 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
Attachments
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Roll Call Mayor Lizée ___
Hotvet ___
Siakel ___
Woodruff ___
Zerby ___
B. Review Agenda
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Multi-City Work Session Minutes, February 24, 2011 Minutes
B. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, February 28, 2011 Minutes
C. City Council Work Session Minutes, February 28, 2011 Minutes
D. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, February 28, 2011 Minutes
3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt
Resolutions Therein:
NOTE: Give the public an opportunity to request an item be removed from the
Consent Agenda. Comments can be taken or questions asked following removal
from Consent Agenda
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List
B. 2011 Concession Operations Agreement Park Adm Asst CAF
C. Personnel Action – Finance Director Appointment City Administrator’s
CAF
D. Ball field pitching rubbers Park Adm Asst and
CRR CAF
E. 2011 Smithtown Way Storm Maintenance Project Engineer’s CAF
F. Picnic Tables for parks Park Adm Asst and
CRR CAF
G. Donations for the SSCC sign Director of Finance
CAF, Resolution
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – March 14, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Attachments
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council action will be taken)
5. PUBLIC HEARING
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
7. PARKS - Report by Representative
8. PLANNING - Report by Representative
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. 2011 Gravel Road Maintenance Experiment Engineer’s CAF
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Deer Management Report Planning Director’s
CAF
B. Stop Sign Placement Policy Administrator’s CAF
C. Franchise Fee Administrator’s CAF
11. OLD BUSINESS
A. Measurable Management Administrator’s CAF
B. County Road 19 Trail Administrator’s CAF
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
B. Mayor and City Council
13. ADJOURN
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900
Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
Executive Summary
Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting
Monday, 14 March, 2011
7:00 p.m.
A 6:00 P.M. Council Work Session is scheduled this evening.
Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval.
Agenda Item #3B: The park commission reviewed the 2011 Freeman Park Eddy Station
concession services agreement from Russ Withum and recommends it be approved. Mr.
Withum has provided concession services since 2005. The contractor has agreed to pay
the city $394 for the 2011 season.
Agenda Item #3C: Motion to extend regular status to Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Agenda Item #3D: Kris Ichimura, on behalf of the Freeman ball field user organizations,
requested they be allowed to install, under the supervision of Public Works, new pitching
rubbers for Freeman fields 4 – 5 – 6. He indicated that they would purchase the
‘Hollywood’ brand pitching rubbers and donate them to the City, and that the
organizations sign the donor policy. The Park Commission recommends the council
support the purchase and installation of the pitching rubbers, and the signing of the donor
policy.
Agenda Item #3E: Consider directing staff to work with AET for the Smithtown Way storm
maintenance project for soil investigation not to exceed $2600.
Agenda Item #3F: Authorize the purchase of 11 Xccent 6’ picnic tables for the parks, in the
amount of $6998.18. The 2011 CIP allocates $7000 for this purchase.
Agenda Item #3G: Approval of a resolution accepting monetary donations to the Southshore
Community Center, and that those donations be used for the Southshore Community
Center sign.
Agenda Item #5A: There are no public hearings this evening.
Agenda Item #6A: There are no scheduled reports and presentations this evening.
Agenda Item #7: Park Commissioner Bob Edmondson will report on recent park
Commission activities
Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of March 10, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Agenda Item #8A: A planning commission representative will report on recent planning
commission activities.
Agenda Item #9A: Consider directing staff to proceed with an experimental gravel road
stabilization project on Enchanted Point road.
Agenda Item #10A: It is that time of year again, when you decide whether or not to continue
with the Deer Management Program. The aerial survey for this year indicates an increase
in the deer population, although there may be extenuating circumstances this year (i.e.
exceptional snow cover) that possibly made for a more accurate count than prior years.
Staff is recommending continuance of the program and expansion of the number of sites
for the removal effort.
Agenda Item #10B: Review the stop sign placement resolution adopted in 1992 and determine
if there needs to be a change or update to the process. Direct staff to incorporate in the
policy revision process.
Agenda Item #10C: Discuss the imposition of a franchise fee on gas and electric services in the
City.
Agenda Item #11A: Discuss and decide if the City should proceed with the Measureable
Management program offered by Fritz Partners.
Agenda Item #11B: Review and act on the request by Tonka Bay for reconsideration of the
County Road 19 trail concept plan.
#2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2011 6:30 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Shorewood Mayor Lizée called the Shorewood Work Session to order at 6:34 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Shorewood:
Present. Mayor Christine Lizée; Councilmembers Laura Hotvet, Debbie Siakel, and
Scott Zerby; Administrator Brian Heck; Finance Director Bruce DeJong; Planning
Director Brad Nielsen; Director of Public Works Larry Brown; and Building Inspector Joe
Pazandak
Excelsior:
Also Present: Councilmember Greg Miller; City Manager Kristi Luger; Finance Director
Joan Carlson; and Public Works Superintendent Dave Wisdorf
Tonka Bay:
City Administrator Joe Kohlmann
Fritz Partners:
Rebecca Heiderpriem
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Shorewood Mayor Lizée noted Excelsior Mayor Nick Ruehl is not able to be here this evening because of
medical reasons. She also noted that Tonka Bay Mayor Bill LaBelle was not able to be in attendance
because of family medical reasons.
Shorewood Mayor Lizée stated this is the second visioning meeting for the Cities of Excelsior, Shorewood
and Tonka Bay (the Cities).
Shorewood Mayor Lizée turned control of the work session over to Ms. Heiderpriem.
Ms. Heiderpriem encouraged the participants to have open and honest dialogue this evening. She then
reviewed the agenda for the evening.
2. ESTABLISH EXPECTATIONS
Ms. Heiderpriem asked the attendees to identify what they expect to accomplish during this session. The
expectations were as follows.
For the participants to feel safe and excited about sharing ideas relative to the big picture.
To explore what is feasible.
To identify and get buy in on specific projects the three Cities can move forward with.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
February 24, 2011
Page 2 of 7
To identify one area to work on collaboratively as a South Lake community.
To ensure an investment in each other and keep the conversations going when things
become more difficult in the conversation.
To build on the great things the three Cities have already done together.
To gain an understanding of the different perspectives from the three Cities.
To establish common ground to build off of.
To gain an understanding of what occurred during the January 31, 2011, meeting.
To establish stepping stones for the leadership group.
To make progress during this session for furthering the visioning mission.
To gain an understanding of what future collaborative projects are out there.
To have a cohesive, collaborative, communicative and conjunctional group; a key to this
effort.
3. REVIEW OF JANUARY 31, 2011, VISIONING MEETING
Ms. Heiderpriem reviewed the ideas identified during the visioning session held on January 31, 2011 (the
details of which can be found in the minutes for that meeting). The ideas which had been grouped into
categories were displayed around the room. The categories are: more efficient processes; combined
services; fewer staff; improved attitudes; financial implications; new branding; and, the lake.
4. CURRENT STATE ASSESSMENT
Ms. Heiderpriem asked the group to identify the great things the three Cities are already doing
collaboratively. The following things were identified.
They are members of joint powers organizations for public safety services; one joint
organization has four member cities and the other five.
They share equipment.
They share in the ownership of the Southshore Community Center along with two other
cities.
They bid out seal coating together.
They do beach maintenance together.
They share public works staff sometimes.
They safety train their public works staffs together.
They train election judges together.
They are members of a fourteen-member-city joint powers organization that provides
public access television services.
They share some utilities.
They share retail and sports complexes.
They work on community events together (e.g., the Fourth of July Celebration, Art on the
Lake, Apple Day, Arctic Fever, etc.).
Ms. Heiderpriem asked the participants how the above collaboration efforts came about. The responses
included through great leadership and great staff, and some was out of the necessity to provide services in a
cost effective manor (e.g., police and fire safety services). Ms. Heiderpriem commented those three
elements continue to be present today. She stated the Cities have already done a lot of good work; they just
need to continue to keep building on those past efforts. She congratulated the Cities for the good work they
have already done.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
February 24, 2011
Page 3 of 7
Ms. Heiderpriem commented that when she served as Cabinet Secretary for Information Technology for the
State of Wisconsin she was charged with the goal of getting departments within state government to
collaborate and share information technology resources.
Ms. Heiderpriem stated during the last visioning meeting the resource of Lake Minnetonka (the Lake) was
mentioned but not discussed. She asked the participants if there are ways to share services for preserving
and protecting the Lake. She then asked Shorewood Councilmember Siakel to respond to her question.
Siakel responded the Lake is the one big thing that binds the cities surrounding the Lake together. Siakel
stated the recent discussions about the Lake have centered on protecting it going forward and creating a
common community view of what that means.
Excelsior Councilmember Miller explained that the fourteen Lake area communities are members of an
organization called the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD). He noted the branding aspect of
the Lake is extremely important for the City of Excelsior. He stated the Cities of Excelsior and Tonka Bay
lease dock slips to their residents. He commented that the Commons in Excelsior is in effect a regional
park. Excelsior City Manager Luger noted the Commons would not be anywhere near as successful if it
weren’t abutting the Lake.
Shorewood Mayor Lizée stated the Lake is a highly recognized and regarded amenity that the five South
Lake cities share and want to protect, noting it does have financial implications to all properties located
within the five cities independent of whether or not the properties front the Lake. She then stated all five
South Lake cities are concerned about the health and sustainability of the Lake and how the Lake is
managed. The health and sustainability of the Lake depends on healthy partnerships between the Lake
cities, the LMCD, the Minnehaha Watershed District (MCWD), the Lake Minnetonka Association and the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR).
Ms. Heiderpriem asked who governs the Lake and is primarily responsible for it. Excelsior Councilmember
Miller responded at the state level it’s the MnDNR. Then there are the MCWD, the LMCD, Hennepin
County and the individual cities. Shorewood Mayor Lizée stated the various agencies have different
responsibilities and they often overlap. Ms. Heiderpriem then asked if the Cities are leading the changes
with regard to the Lake or if they are at the table with the agencies. Shorewood Councilmember Siakel
stated the Cities are already at the table with the agencies. Siakel explained that with regard to aquatic
invasive species (AIS) there are more efforts expended to monitor boats that leave the Lake than there are
on those that enter the Lake. Siakel stated she thought attitudes on how those things should be managed
differ. Miller stated he thought the Cities have common goals. Miller then stated the Lake cities have less
influence with the MnDNR than it does with the LMCD.
5. DISCUSS FUTURE IDEAS
Ms. Heiderpriem stated during the last visioning session the participants were asked to finish the statement
“We will know we have reached the desired end state of collaborating as three cities when …”. The ideas
identified were classified into seven categories. She asked the participants to identify which of the ideas are
controllable and which were uncontrollable. She explained controllable ideas are things the participants and
others in the three Cities can do something about. Uncontrollable ideas should be communicated to the
appropriate individuals but the cities won’t spend time on them. She then asked the participants to identify
the ideas as short-term or long-term goals. There was group consensus to consider a project that takes 0 –
18 months or less as short-term. Work on longer term projects could begin in the next 0 – 18 months but
won’t be completed within 18 months She also asked the participants to determine priorities within
categories by weighted voting with each participant having two votes in each category.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
February 24, 2011
Page 4 of 7
The results of these exercises and associated discussion are as follows.
More Efficient Processes
Idea Controllable/ Short-Term/
Uncontrollable Long-Term
1. C ST
hold quarterly structured meetings of city
administrators, city managers, public works
personnel and planning personnel
2. C ST
coordinated capital improvement programs /
development activities
3. C LT
have unified zoning & city planning outside the box
of city borders
4. C LT
have common utility reading/billing systems
5. C LT
establish great partnerships with state agencies (e.g.;
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources)
U
combine election functions
U
one comprehensive plan for all
Combined Services
Idea Controllable/ Short-Term/
Uncontrollable Long-Term
1. share salt storage C ST
2. Ash Borer tree investigation C ST
3. share software and information technology services C ST
(tied with 4)
4. combine refuse and recycling services C ST
5. County Road 19, a corridor for all C LT
6. improve the parks and recreation band shell C LT
7. ensure consistency with rental housing ordinances C LT
(tied with 8)
8. safe walking/biking access to all city parks and C LT
connections between cities
C LT
converge to one building
C LT
unified water system - already have unified sewer
C LT
larger police department
C LT
create proper road crossings through the three cities
for the Three Rivers Park trail
U
five South Lake cities working together, not just
three
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
February 24, 2011
Page 5 of 7
Financial Implications and Fewer Staff (these were combined for voted weighting)
Idea Controllable/ Short-Term/
Uncontrollable Long-Term
1. review opportunities for seasonal people / C ST
equipment – formulate rotating crews
2. succession planning C ST
3. cities have increased service deliverables at reduced C ST
cost
outsourcing C ST
shared city management (part time managers / C LT
administrators / planners)
consolidate city staff (eliminate specialties, contract C LT
out, on call, etc)
an end to funding formulas - who pays how much C LT
U
tax base is level between all three cities
U
everything is exactly the same as it is now, but costs
less
U
a way to tax visitors who use our cities e.g., a local
sales tax
Branding
Idea Controllable/ Short-Term/
Uncontrollable Long-Term
U
when residents say they live in the South Lake area
rather than being from a particular city - broader
community identity
U
one larger city title with municipalities or burroughs
Improved Attitudes
Idea Controllable/ Short-Term/
Uncontrollable Long-Term
1. make the services we provide the best we can C ST
provide; top quality services, not more services
2. end to the “mine/your” attitude C ST
3. formally recognize Excelsior as the downtown of C ST
the South Lake area
4. when you notice no difference in community C LT
infrastructure and services between the cities
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
February 24, 2011
Page 6 of 7
U
change values, change expectations
U
eliminate parochialism
U
residents recognize and support value of city
services
U
resident perception of local government is very
positive – taxpayers have complete confidence that
the city is being run as effectively and efficiently as
possible
U
when residents believe that the services they receive
are well worth their tax dollars and that they are
getting a good value
Ms. Heiderpriem reviewed the list of priority projects in the order of number of votes received.
share salt storage (ST)
Ash Borer tree investigation (ST)
share software and information technology services (ST)
combine refuse and recycling services (ST)
review opportunities for seasonal people/equipment; formulate rotating crews (ST)
succession planning (ST)
cities have increased service deliverables at reduced cost (ST)
hold quarterly structured meetings of city administrators, city managers, public works
personnel and planning personnel (ST)
coordinated capital improvement programs / development activities (ST)
have unified zoning and city planning outside the box of city borders (LT)
have common utility reading/billing systems (LT)
In response to a question from Ms. Heiderpriem, Shorewood Mayor Lizée stated she thought the projects
on the list were doable.
Shorewood Councilmember Siakel expressed some concern on how the above list of combined priorities
was developed. She explained she would have voted for more than two projects in one category and only
one or none in other categories. She stated she did not think the list was totally indicative of what she
thought were the most important priorities.
Ms. Heiderpriem asked if there were any suggestions about how the group wanted to deal with the Lake
category.
Shorewood Administrator Heck stated from his vantage point most of the things the Cities’ residents are
concerned about with regard to the Lake the Cities have minimal control over. The Cities’ Councils can
allocate funds to organizations to deal with issues such as aquatic invasive species. He commented there
are a number of agencies that have responsibility for various matters related to the Lake and some of their
efforts overlap.
Shorewood Mayor Lizée stated the Lake is important to all residents, either directly or indirectly, in the
Lake area community. It’s imperative for the Cities’ Councils and staffs to stay abreast of the issues and
adequately communicate to their residents what the issues are and what steps should be taken to address the
issues.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
February 24, 2011
Page 7 of 7
Shorewood Councilmember Hotvet stated as a non-lakeshore property owner she thinks public access to the
Lake is extremely important. This includes the Commons and the public beaches around the Lake.
Communications about those amenities are important as well. She suggested a Lake group be formed to
stay abreast of Lake issues, to make sure they are communicated to the residents and to work with the
various agencies.
6. MEETING WRAP-UP
Ms. Heiderpriem reviewed the expectations for the session the group identified early on in the meeting. Per
group feedback all but one expectation was satisfied. The group thought the expectation “To gain an
understanding of the different perspectives from the three Cities.” will not be satisfied until work on
projects begins to happen.
Ms. Heiderpriem asked the group to provide feedback about this session. The feedback was as follows.
Positive things mentioned about the session
the session was worth peoples time
new ideas were presented
some issues were defined better
some possible action plans were defined
identified specific things which could benefit the Cities’ residents
Opportunities
All the Cities were not fully represented. Therefore, there is concern that the
Cities’ councils may not fully support the list of priorities identified this evening.
7. ADJOURN
Shorewood Mayor Lizée adjourned the Shorewood City Council Work Session of February 24, 2011,
at 8:25 P.M. for all but Excelsior City Manager Luger and Shorewood and Tonka Bay City
Administrators Heck and Kohlmann and the Recorder.
Excelsior City Manager Luger and Shorewood and Tonka Bay City Administrators Heck and Kohlmann
stayed on to begin discussing how they would like to move forward with some of the opportunities
identified during the first visioning meeting and prioritized during this meeting. The three have agreed to
meet on March 4, 2011, to continue that discussion.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#2B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING CONFERENCE ROOM
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2011 5:15 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 5:15 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizée; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; and City
Administrator Heck
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. PARK COMMISSION INTERVIEWS
The following candidates were interviewed for the consideration of appointment to the Park Commission.
A. Mark Kjolhaug, 26105 Wild Rose Lane 5:15 p.m.
B. Lynda Gooch Hartmann, 22845 Murray Street 5:30 p.m.
C. Steve Quinlan, 5795 Brentridge Drive 5:45 p.m.
D. Jeremy Norman, 23690 Gillette Curve 6:00 p.m.
E. Bill Haines, 25775 Birch Bluff Road 6:15 p.m.
3. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Adjourning the City Council Special Meeting of February 28, 2011, at
6:28 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Christine Lizée, Mayor
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#2C
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2011 6:30 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 6:35 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizée; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Keane:
Administrator Heck; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of
Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. EMINENT DOMAIN
Mayor Lizée turned control of the discussion about eminent domain over to Engineer Landini and Attorney
Keane.
Engineer Landini stated the purpose of this session is to educate Council on the various processes used for
acquiring land for public purpose. He explained Minnesota State Statute §465 give cities the right to
acquire land. Minnesota Statute Chapter 117 governs the procedure for acquiring land through an eminent
domain process. A city can acquire land within 90 days through a quick take procedure. The eminent
domain process takes a minimum of 140 days. An appraisal is required to move forward with eminent
domain proceedings.
Landini then explained the City has some stormwater management projects, which have required the City to
ask property owners to grant the City easements. The property owners either denied the City the easements
or refuse to talk to the City. Acquisition through the eminent domain process is one of the tools that would
allow the City to move forward with those specific projects.
Administrator Heck explained the City has encountered instances where projects have been cancelled
because the City couldn’t get the necessary voluntary easements. There may be times when it would be
better for the City to consider acquiring land through the eminent domain process rather than cancel a
project. He stated Staff thought it prudent to provide Council with information about the process so
Council could eventually consider developing a policy that outlines circumstances for which the City may
want to consider using eminent domain to acquire the land needed to move a project forward. There is a
project in the not too distant future when it would be beneficial to acquire a larger piece of land to
implement a better solution and in those instances the property owner may want to be financially
compensated for granting use of a larger piece of property.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
February 28, 2011
Page 2 of 4
Attorney Keane stated the preferred approach for acquiring an easement or right-of-way (ROW) is through
the negotiation process. He explained he prefers to use City staff to conduct the negotiations. The City
could also contract with one of a couple of companies that provide ROW and easement acquisition
assistance or use a consulting engineer.
Keane explained he prefers staff first because there is a relationship with staff, there is an established
ongoing dialogue, and there wouldn’t be a great deal of additional out-of-pocket costs. Staff can be more
responsive and flexible than a ROW agent. With regard to the easement near Silver Lake, he stated he
thought staff could package some flexibility with the property owner that a ROW agent might not have at
their disposal. He explained that during the negotiation, phase staff can characterize the voluntary sale as a
sale in lieu of eminent domain and that does provide tax advantages to the property owner. The City can
avoid or delay the taxable event of that. The property owner can take the proceeds from the sale, put them
into other comparable real estate within three years, and not have a taxable event.
Keane stated if the City is unable to negotiate a land acquisition with a property owner and therefore enters
into the process of acquiring the land through eminent domain it gives the City the certainty of acquiring the
easement within 130 – 140 days.
Keane reviewed the risks of the eminent domain process. The City is locked into the process and the
process cost money. The City is starting a law suit and it has to go to court to petition to acquire the land
interest. The City has to get a formal appraisal prepared. If the City has to go to hearings there is a cost
associated with that. The City would have to pay commissioners to assist with determining the damages.
Keane noted that the basic premise in the eminent domain process is the property owner’s rights are
protected by the federal and state constitution. He stated Malkerson Gunn Martin LLC, the firm he works
for, collectively has more eminent domain experience on its legal staff than any other firm in town. He
noted the document included in the meeting packet explaining the eminent domain process is extremely
comprehensive.
Keane explained the first step in the eminent domain process is a determination by the Council, as the
governing body, that the City needs the property. This would be in the form of a adopting a resolution
declaring a public purpose. The City would notice the property owner(s) and establish a date for the court
to adopt the finding of public purpose. Once the court sets a hearing date and issues an order to transfer the
title of the property the property owner is entitled to the proceeds.
Keane then explained the court appoints three commissioners who are charged with reporting back to the
court their determination of damages within 180 days. Hennepin County requires the commissioners be
comprised of an appraiser, a licensed real estate professional and an attorney all of whom have experience
with property values.
Keane went on to explain that in 2006 the State Legislature made significant changes to the eminent
domain process. The requisites remained pretty much the same. But a 20/40 rule was implemented in
addition to some other nuances. Under the 20/40 rule if the condemning authority makes a certified offer
and the final award is 20 percent over the certified offer, the property owner can ask for recovery of all of
their fees and costs. If the final award is 40 percent over, the condemning authority must reimburse all of
the property owner’s fees and costs. The intent of the 20/40 rule is to force the condemning authority to
make a more realistic offer in first instance.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
February 28, 2011
Page 3 of 4
He explained the property owner has three bites at the apple – the negotiation phase, the hearings before the
commissioners, and if the property owner is not satisfied with the commissioners’ determination of
damages, they can appeal to a jury trial of six lay people.
Keane then stated a lot of care has to go into making the certified offer especially on partial land takes. If
the acquisition of part of a lot creates a situation where a lot that could have legally been subdivided can no
longer can be subdivided after part of the lot is acquired the property owner is entitled to the damages for
the part actually acquired as well as any damages to the remainder of the property that wasn’t acquired. It’s
imperative for the condemning authority to assess the consequences thoroughly, particularly from the
vantage point of the property owner.
Keane went on to state the power of eminent domain should be used sparingly. But there are times where
the land is absolutely needed for public purpose and good. There is no other place for a pipe to go, for
stormwater to flow, or for a roadway turn lane to go. He commented he thought the principals of the
eminent domain process are fair and equitable, but they are burdensome on the public. He explained he
personally goes to every extent possible to negotiate the acquisition of the easement or ROW.
Keane noted the document include in the meeting packet explains the eminent domain process in mostly
chronological order and it’s easy to understand. He encouraged the members of the Council to review the
information at their convenience.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the document did not include any examples for applying the process to
drainage easements. Attorney Keane explained the process applies to the acquisition of any public interest
in private property.
Councilmember Woodruff then stated some past councils decided they did not want to acquire land through
the eminent domain process. He recommended Council make a policy decision about what staff should do
and in what order. He stated that in the past Director Brown has indicated the City has had a policy not to
purchase easements.
Director Brown explained the goal has been to negotiate easements through added value. Brown noted the
City has acquired land through eminent domain in the past. It was used against seven parcels for the
reconstruction of the Trunk Highway 7 and Highway 41 intersection. It was used against 22 parcels for the
County Road 19 and Smithtown Road intersection project. Brown noted some past councils thought the
amount of emotion attached to the eminent domain / condemnation process was too great and therefore
chose not to use the process.
Councilmember Woodruff stated when the Glen Road reconstruction project was being considered a
significant number of residents refused to grant easements to the City that were necessary to move the
project forward. He explained that from his vantage point the amount of pain and cost that would have
resulted from the acquisition of the number of easements needed through eminent domain was not worth it.
He again stated the City needs to have a policy that would identify the various steps to go through to
acquire land and how to decide the negotiating position the staff should carry out. He noted he was not sure
if it could be boiler plate or if it should be talked about on a case by case basis.
Administrator Heck noted staff can’t negotiate the acquisition of land for a price unless it’s been pre-
approved by Council through a resolution.
Mayor Lizée stated it seems clear to staff that eminent domain is one of the tools in the tool box, but not
one of the first ones that should be used.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
February 28, 2011
Page 4 of 4
In response to a comment from Councilmember Woodruff, Attorney Keane explained the City can acquire
ownership rights through eminent domain as well as the right to use the property through that process.
Keane noted the City can also get a temporary easement.
Director Brown stated if Council moves towards creating a policy or procedure for acquiring land through
the eminent domain process the first thing that has to be answered is if the public good is worth acquiring
land through that process.
3. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of February 28, 2011,
at 7:02 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
#2D
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2011 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Lizée called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizée; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Keane;
City Administrator Heck; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director
of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Administrator Heck requested item 10.D be removed from the agenda because staff forgot to include the
current policy in the meeting packet. This item will be placed on the March 14, 2011, Council meeting
agenda.
Councilmember Woodruff requested Item 10.F Liaison Appointments to the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District (RPBCWD) and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). He stated there is a
resident who is interested in the liaison position to the RPBCWD. He stated the MCWD is hosting a
series of meetings about the aquatic invasive species initiative the MCWD wants to undertake and the
comments and he thought it appropriate for Council to have a brief discussion about that. Mayor Lizée
stated she intends on mentioning the meetings under Item 12.B on the agenda.
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, approving the agenda as amended. Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, February 14, 2011
Woodruff moved, Hotvet seconded, Approving the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of
February 14, 2011, as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Lizée abstaining due to her absence at
the meeting.
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, February 14, 2011
Zerby moved, Hotvet seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February
14, 2011, as presented. Motion passed Motion passed 4/0/1 with Lizée abstaining due to her absence
at the meeting.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Lizée reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 28, 2011
Page 2 of 16
Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the Motion Contained on the Consent Agenda.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
Motion passed 5/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
None.
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. 2010 Recycling Program Update by Rich Hirstein, Allied Waste
Mayor Lizée stated Rich Hirstein with Allied Waste is present to provide Council with a report on the
2010 recycling program.
Mr. Hirstein stated prior to 2010 the City’s recycling program was a dual-sort, small-bin program. During
2009, 61 percent of the households in the City used the recycling program at least once a month. Some of
the reasons people cited for not recycling more is they thoughts it’s too much of a hassle to have to sort
recyclable materials, the small bins were to heavy to carry to the curb and it was difficult to determine
what materials were recyclable.
Mr. Hirstein explained the City converted to Allied Waste’s single-sort recycling program and the
RecycleBank recycling incentive rewards program effective January 1, 2010. One of Allied Waste’s and
the City’s goals was to increase household participation in the program during 2010. During 2010
380,000 pounds (about 191 tons) more of recyclable materials were collected than in 2009. That equates
to about 160 pounds more per household per year. During 2010 85 – 90 percent of the households
participated in the recycling program. During the last six months City residents ordered 1,635 rewards
from the RecycleBank program. Each participating household that recycles gets about $20 in value each
month.
Mr. Hirstein stated the City’s residents are doing a great job of recycling. He then stated the drivers for
Allied Waste recently put notices in a household’s recyclable container when they noticed the
household’s container was consistently overflowing with materials to let the residents know they can
request a larger container at no cost to them. A couple dozen households recently upgraded to the larger
containers. He noted that staff has done a great job of communicating with Allied Waste so issues can be
resolved quickly.
Mayor Lizée stated the City’s current recycling program is a wonderful program and that the City has
always tried to stay ahead of the curve when thinking about the environment.
Councilmember Woodruff asked Mr. Hirstein to explain how successful Allied Waste is in keeping the
recyclable materials it collects out of the waste stream.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 28, 2011
Page 3 of 16
Mr. Hirstein explained that Allied Waste is the second largest recycler in the world. The company has two
large material recovery facilities in the Twin Cities. Allied Waste takes the recyclable materials collected
in the City to its recovery facility located in North Minneapolis. The material is separated and sorted
through an automated process, noting glass and plastic material can be sorted optically. About 3 percent
of the materials collected ends up being garbage. The sorted material is put into bales and shipped out to
about 220 different places it’s sold to throughout North America. The recycling facility in North
Minneapolis is the fifth largest in North America.
Councilmember Siakel noted Allied Waste was very responsive when one pickup was missed at her
house.
Councilmember Hotvet expressed her excitement about the program. She asked Mr. Hirstein what the
future holds for plastics numbered 1 – 5. Mr. Hirstein stated before Allied Waste can start collecting
plastics numbered 3 – 5 and things such as milk cartons, it has to find a vendor that will take the products
that Allied Waste believes will remain in business for a long time. Allied Waste doesn’t want to start
collecting those types of materials and then have to stop doing so.
Hotvet stated she would like to see more recycling done in the City’s commercial district and she looks
forward to City working with Allied Waste on that project. Mr. Hirstein stated Allied Waste is working
with the City of Excelsior on that same thing.
Councilmember Zerby stated he is pleased to see the progress the recycling program has made. He asked
if the RecycleBank rewards program contributed to the increase in recycling. Mr. Hirstein responded he
can’t quantify it contributed to the increase, but he does think people are more aware of and pay attention
to a recycling program when there are reward incentives. Mr. Hirstein noted some people will never take
advantage of the rewards program even if they recycle materials.
Councilmember Woodruff expressed concern that during the last six months residents only ordered 1,635
rewards, noting he accounted for 12 of the orders and they were all for CUB Foods. He noted a household
can pay for its monthly recycling bill by using the CUB Foods award. Mr. Hirstein clarified that pays for
more than the cost of the recycling program. Woodruff stated he would like to encourage the City’s
residents to take greater advantage of the rewards program. Mayor Lizée suggested that be done through
the City’s newsletter.
Mr. Hirstein thanked the Council for wanting the City to partner with Allied Waste for recycling services.
7. PARKS
No report was given because there had not been a Park Commission meeting since the last City Council
regular meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for March 8, 2011.
A. Park Entry Signs
Administrator Heck explained that in 2009 the Park Commission worked with a consulting firm to update
the City’s Park Master Plan. During that effort the Commission discussed its desire to have new entry
signs installed in the City’s parks as part of the effort to have a unified look. The Council agreed to
allocating funds for the signs in the 2010 budget. Unfortunately, the company the Commission worked
with on a design for the signs went out of business so the project was rescheduled to 2011. Park
Coordinator Kristi Anderson found another company to work on the design and she obtained quotes from
a couple of companies for installing the masonry mounts for the signs. He displayed a mockup of what
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 28, 2011
Page 4 of 16
the proposed entry signs will look like. The signs the Commission recommends resemble the stonework
and feel of City Hall. The signs will be aluminum with lettering on them.
Heck went on to explain the Park Commission recommends signs be installed in Cathcart Park, Freeman
Park, Manor Park, and Silverwood Park. A sign for Badger Park has not been discussed because there had
been discussion about a sign at City Hall that would identify City Hall, the Southshore Community
Center, and Badger Park. The quote for the four signs is $11,207 and the quote for the masonry bases is
$11,780 for a total amount of $22,987. The 2011 Capital Improvement Program allocates $30,000 for
park signage. Because the total quotes for the signage is less than what is budgeted, the Commission
recommends purchasing and installing a small directional trail sign and base for Freeman Park and one
for the South Shore Community Park (the Skate Park). The quote for the two additional signs is $4,000
and $3,200 for the two additional bases. The total for the six signs and six bases would be $29,187. The
Commission recommends the purchase of the six signs and associated sign bases.
Councilmember Woodruff asked if there is an issue with having a sole source bidder. Administrator Heck
responded its okay under statutory requirements and its well under the formal bid threshold.
Councilmember Hotvet stated the Park Commission had a lot of thoughtful discussion about this proposal
for signage, noting she was the liaison from the Council at the Commission’s meeting when this was
discussed.
Hotvet moved, Zerby seconded, approving the purchase of signage and sign bases for Cathcart
Park, Freeman Park, Manor Park, Silverwood Park, South Shore Community Park, and a small
directional trail sign and base for Freeman Park for an amount not to exceed $29,187. Motion
passed 5/0.
8. PLANNING
Planning Commission Chair Geng reported on matters considered and actions taken at the February 15,
2011, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Geng noted the
Commission will begin discussing sustainability during its March 1, 2011, meeting and that topic will be
discussed during most of the remaining 2011 meetings for the Commission. He related that Director
Nielsen has recommended to the Commission the possibility of having a joint meeting with Council to
discuss sustainability. Geng expressed his support for Nielsen’s recommendation. Mayor Lizée stated she
thought that would be a good idea; sustainability has been the magic word. Councilmember Woodruff
suggested the Park Commission also be included in that discussion.
Mayor Lizée stated she looks forward to hearing about the Planning Commission’s recommendations for
any future redevelopment of the Smithtown Crossing area.
A. Zoning Code Amendment – Side yard Setbacks Abutting Fire Lanes
Director Nielsen explained there are 10 fire lanes located in the City. Fire lanes are old platted street
rights-of-way that were never developed as any kind of street. Many years ago the City conducted a study
of what to do with the fire lanes. There was discussion about whether to vacate the fire lanes, turn them
over to the adjoining property owners, or keep them for some public purpose. The study resulted in a
decision to keep the lanes and to classify them according to their then current use.
Nielsen then explained that in 2010 Staff had been meeting with realtors and prospective buyers of the
property located at 26100 Birch Bluff Road. That property is a very substandard lot in terms of zoning,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 28, 2011
Page 5 of 16
size, width and so forth. The property’s nonconformance is compounded by its location next to the Third
Street Fire Lane. If the property were abutting a regular lot the side yard setbacks would be a maximum of
20 feet with a minimum of 10 feet. The setback for a property abutting a fire lane is 35 feet all by itself.
The fire lane setback uses up a good portion of the adjoining lots in terms of setbacks.
Nielsen also explained if the 35-foot setback from the Third Street Fire Lane were required for the 26100
Birch Bluff Road property the property would have only five feet of width for a buildable area. The
existing building on the property is nonconforming. If the fire lane were treated as any other lot the side
yard setback would be twenty feet on the side of the property abutting the Fire Lane and a good share of
the house would be within the buildable area of the lot and it would allow the structure to be added on to.
He noted in the past the City granted a variance in a similar situation because it created a hardship on the
property. At the time the variance was granted there was a decision to consider amending the City
Ordinance should another one of these situations come up.
Nielsen went on to explain the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment
to the City Ordinance that would change the side yard setback requirement for lots abutting fire lanes; fire
lanes would be treated as if they were another interior lot. The amendment would make the 26100 Birch
Bluff Road property buildable although restrictive. It would allow for some reinvestment in the property.
Nielsen noted the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the amendment.
Mike Kozel, 26170 Birch Bluff Road, stated he is familiar with the Third Street Fire Lane. He noted he is
the listing agent for the 26100 Birch Bluff Road property. He distributed a picture of the property and Fire
Lane. He stated from his perspective it’s a non-use fire lane. No one uses it. It’s the low point on the street
and serves as the wash for stormwater. He explained if the fire lane side yard setback requirement is
enforced the lot 26100 Birch Bluff Road property is a non-buildable lot. The house on the property is 55
years old and the garage is almost on the street. The prospective buyer is willing to do nice job with the
house and move the garage. The lot is currently assessed at $650,000. He questioned what it’s worth if the
lot is not buildable.
Councilmember Siakel noted she was the liaison for the Council at the Planning Commission meeting
when the public hearing was held. She stated staff did a good job of presenting information about all the
fire lanes located in the City. The Commission had good discussion about the proposed amendment. She
expressed her support for the amendment.
Councilmember Zerby asked if surrounding communities had similar side yard setback requirements for
properties abutting fire lanes. Director Nielsen responded he was not sure, but he thought they had
different policies for handling fire lanes.
Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 474, “An Ordinance Amending the
Shorewood Zoning Code as it Pertains to Side Yard Setbacks Abutting Fire Lanes”. Motion passed
5/0.
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Silver Lake Outlet Land Acquisition Negotiations
Engineer Landini stated the meeting packet contains a copy of a draft resolution authorizing staff to
negotiate the acquisition of land located at 5750 Covington Road near Silver Lake. He explained there is a
storm sewer outlet on the property. The City has a 20-foot-wide easement that goes down to the outlet.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 28, 2011
Page 6 of 16
The residents in that area and Council have expressed interest in making improvements to the stormwater
system there in order to remove/reduce the amount of sediment that is being deposited in Silver Lake. In
order to improve the site for maintenance access Staff recommends the City purchase additional land.
In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Engineer Landini explained the City had been
granted a 20-foot-wide easement in the past. Landini then explained there are two other easements on the
5750 Covington Road property. One of them is granted to the Metropolitan (Met) Council and it is 35 feet
wide. The other is a 20-foot-wide trail easement near the area that is granted to the City. In response to
another question from Woodruff, Landini explained the City’s stormwater easement shares a side
boundary with the Met Council’s easement. Landini noted there is some separation between the City’s
stormwater and trail easements. Woodruff stated if the City acquires more land from the property owner
there will be some restrictions on his land. In response to another question from Woodruff, Landini stated
he did not think the City would want to use some of the Met Council’s easement because the Met Council
has infrastructure in their easement that has to be maintained. Landini noted the City would want to go
south toward the trail easement.
Councilmember Woodruff asked if there is an opportunity to obtain an easement on the property adjacent
to the 5750 Covington Road property instead that would satisfy the City’s need. Engineer Landini
explained the adjacent property is too far away.
Woodruff expressed his reluctance to approve the negotiation for buying property when he doesn’t know
what the requirement is. He stated the City doesn’t have to buy property in order to get an easement.
Engineer Landini stated the initial discussions with the owner of the 5750 Covington Road property have
been about purchase fee title. He noted the project has not been designed yet because the amount of land
that will be available for the project is not known. He explained the intent is for the City to buy a strip of
land.
Administrator Heck explained the area is where the City has a stormwater structure and the City just had
it cleaned out. The owner of the 5750 Covington Road property and other property owners in the area
have expressed concern about the continued overflow in the area. Also, the City has discussed with the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency the possibility of designing things so that stormwater structure
doesn’t discharge directly into Silver Lake. He explained Staff felt to give the City the most options for
addressing the problem properly purchasing additional land would be best. He noted Staff needs Council
authorization to even discuss the purchase of land.
In response to a question from Councilmember Hotvet, Engineer Landini stated he can’t imagine the City
needing more land than it is requesting.
Mayor Lizée stated this problem has been around for a while. She explained Staff has spoken with
residents in the area and with representatives from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District to
help identify the best options for the City.
Councilmember Siakel asked how much additional land the City wants. Engineer Landini explained the
City wants an additional 18,000 square feet and that would still leave the property owner with a
conforming lot.
Councilmember Zerby stated he thought the City needs to take the next step in the project.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 28, 2011
Page 7 of 16
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 11-006, “A Resolution
Authorizing Staff to Negotiate Land Acquisition”. Motion passed 5/0.
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Park Commission Appointments
Mayor Lizée stated earlier this evening Council interviewed five applicants for three open Park
Commission seats. She thanked the applicants for taking the time to be interviewed, and she noted all of
them were good candidates. She explained two of the seats are for three-year terms and the other is to fill
out the remaining two years of a term.
Councilmember Zerby stated he thought Council interviewed good candidates.
Zerby moved, Hotvet seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO 11-007, “A Resolution Making the
Appointments of Mark Kjolhaug (3-year term), Steve Quinlan (3-year term) and Lynda Gooch
Hartmann (2-year term) to the City of Shorewood Park Commission effective March 1, 2011.”
Motion passed 4/1 with Woodruff dissenting.
B. Southshore Community Center Boulevard Sign
Administrator Heck explained in 2010 the Oversight Committee for the Southshore Community Center
(SSCC) and Kristi Anderson, the contracted manager for the SSCC, discussed Mr. Anderson’s desire to
replace the existing sign for the SSCC located along County Road 19 with a monument sign with a digital
message display. The sign would have a similar look to the signs discussed earlier this evening for the
parks. The existing sign provides space for messages, but it’s difficult to change the messages during the
winter months because of the snow. Ms. Anderson believes an electronic sign would enhance the
visibility of the SSCC as well as the programs and events held there. There has been a campaign in
progress to raise funds for the purchase and installation of such a sign for over seven months. To date
about $6,900 has been raised. Of that the City of Deephaven contributed $3,000 and the City of
Greenwood contributed $1,200. The total cost to purchase and install the stone base for the sign is about
$21,600.
Heck stated the project is not budgeted for in the 2011 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Therefore,
Staff suggests the sign be budgeted for in the 2012 CIP. He noted the location for the new sign has to be
agreed upon. There is some interest in locating the new sign where the existing sign is. Staff suggests the
sign be located in a spot that is best for the SSCC and the City.
In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Administrator Heck explained the existing sign
is not located in a Hennepin County right-of-way.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought this is a good idea. He expressed concern about the Cities of
Excelsior and Tonka Bay not having made any contribution for this and they are two of the larger users of
the SSCC. He suggested Staff speak with those cities about contributing funds.
Woodruff explained the City Sign Ordinance states “no sign shall be illuminated with any flashing or
intermittent lights, nor shall it be animated, except for time and temperature information”. Yet the
documentation about the proposed sign talks about messages on the sign changing. He stated the City has
to adhere to the same standards as others are held to. Administrator Heck explained Staff realizes the
Ordinance does not allow for changing messages across the sign. But, that restriction could potentially be
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 28, 2011
Page 8 of 16
eliminated in the future and if so the new sign would have the capability to change messages. That
capability would not be used unless the Ordinance was amended.
Director Nielsen explained he has spoken with Ms. Anderson who indicated she would probably change
the sign once a day at maximum. Nielsen noted as part of the Planning Commission’s work program it
will discuss signs that change intermittently because they are becoming more popular. Businesses want to
have signs that can be changed electronically rather than by hand and cities are looking into ordinance
changes to allow that. Nielsen stated he did not think changing the sign once a day counts as intermittent.
Mayor Lizée stated just because the City doesn’t allow signs that display moving information now
doesn’t mean it won’t allow it in the future. She then stated the Cities of Chanhassen, Excelsior and
Minnetonka allow electronic signs that change. Councilmember Woodruff stated Minnetonka has them
now because the court forced it to do that. Lizée clarified court actions were about billboard signs along
the highway. Lizée explained she was talking about the monument sign in front of Minnetonka City Hall,
which is similar to the sign proposed for the SSCC, and the sign in front of Minnetonka High School.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she thought the sign will help communications efforts in the community
and she thought it’s a great idea. She then stated she thought it demonstrates that the South Lake cities
want to work together with regard to the SSCC.
Councilmember Siakel asked if Excelsior and Tonka Bay have been asked to make contributions toward
the purchase and installation of the sign. Administrator Heck explained those two cities are aware of the
desire to have a new sign. But, they have not specifically been asked to contribute nor have they
volunteered a contribution. Deephaven voluntarily contributed money for the sign early on. The City has
kept the other four cities that also have an ownership interest in the SSCC aware of how the management
and operations of SSCC are doing.
Mayor Lizée explained that when the City took over interim responsibility for managing the SSCC the
City indicted it would appreciate donations from the other four cities for operation of the SSCC. They
were not specifically asked to make donations at that time. She asked if the donations from Deephaven
and Greenwood were made specifically for the sign. Ms. Anderson responded they were specifically for
the sign project. Lizée noted other entities have made donations for the sign.
Councilmember Zerby asked if a 2010 year end report for SSCC operations has been written and provided
to the other four cities. If not, this message could be included in the report. The report could be reviewed
with the other cities and at the same time funding could be solicited. Administrator Heck responded the
annual report is being written.
Mayor Lizée stated she agrees that the SSCC needs better identification, noting that has been known since
it was built. She explained there is no access road to the SSCC directly from Country Road 19. She stated
that once people have been to the SSCC they will remember how to get to the wonderful facility. Efforts
are in progress to get directional signage at the intersection of Country Road 19 and Smithtown Road as
well as Country Club Road to direct people to the SSCC.
Lizée questioned if a new sign at the current location on County Road 19 is the best use of the funds. She
stated there is a lot of visual and physical traffic on Country Road 19. There are roads off of Country
Road 19 to the City’s Public Works facilities and to the public safety facilities and there are many other
exits off of Country Road 19 in that general area.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 28, 2011
Page 9 of 16
Lizée stated the existing sign for the SSCC is the only marker for the SSCC on Country Road 19. She
asked if it would be better to locate the new sign on the City Hall, Badger Park, SSCC campus. The sign
could direct people to the various facilities and at the same time display a message. She stated there are
tall snow banks off of Country Road 19 from November through March/April. She questioned how
visible the sign is now. She asked if the new sign would be located higher up so drivers, bikers and
pedestrians would be able to see it. She stated it’s important to identify buildings. She noted the SSCC is
not identified on the back of the building. She suggested considering having a gently lit or neon sign on
the back side of it to help people locate the SSCC.
Lizée clarified she supports the idea of the sign and wants it to happen. She wants to help people get to
the SSCC. She again expressed concern about the proposed location for the new sign.
Director Nielsen stated he has spoken with Ms. Anderson about the proposed location for the new sign.
He expressed his agreement with there being a need for directional signage to City Hall, Badger Park and
the SSCC. He stated the sign being proposed is more informational and it would get a lot more exposure
if it were located off of Country Road 19 rather than on the campus. There are about 13,000 trips a day on
County Road 19 versus 3,000 – 4,000 on Country Club Road. It would also help identify the SSCC in the
back. He explained there had been discussion about having a kiosk type sign at the corner that directs
people to the various facilities on the campus when the County Road 19 Corridor Study was being done.
He thought the informational sign would be of greatest value off of County Road 19.
Councilmember Zerby suggested the location of the sign be a project for the Planning Commission. He
recommended any signage for the SSCC include the word community on it. Saying just Southshore
Center doesn’t convey what the building is.
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, authorizing the allocation of funds for a new sign and sign base
for the Southshore Community Center in the 2012 Capital Improvement Program and directing the
Planning Commission to make a recommendation for the location of the sign for Council discussion
and consideration.
Mary Ann Miller, 4198 North Shore Drive, Orono, stated she makes a living doing interactive events for
corporations. She noted she is 100 percent for profit and that she uses many event centers. She explained
that all of the centers she uses have signs with the exception of the SSCC. She stated the SSCC is her
favorite place to hold events. But, the lack of signage is a problem as is the fact that it is hard to get to.
She noted that she spends a lot of time making sure her clients can find the SSCC; much more time than
she wants to. She explained having to send clients such detailed explanations of how to get to the SSCC
doesn’t legitimize her business strategy. Also, it doesn’t convey that the South Lake cities have a
wonderful facility to offer. She stated because the SSCC is so difficult to get to she doesn’t get overly
excited about the thought of bringing her top clients to the SSCC if the clients are hard pressed on
logistics. A lot of her clients are international and are not familiar with the South Lake area. That makes it
even harder to explain how to get to the SSCC. She expressed she thought the SSCC is an excellent
facility to hold events in. She commented the hardest thing to get new people coming to the SSCC to do is
turn onto Country Club Road right after they have turned onto Smithtown Road. She noted she is
coordinating an event for General Mills at the SSCC tomorrow and General Mills staff had to do a test
run out there last week and rework the directions for getting there.
Councilmember Siakel stated she agrees there is a need for signage and she agrees there is a need a one
on Country Road 19. She also agrees installing directional signage to City Hall, Badger Park and the
SSCC is essential. She recommended the signage needs be addressed in its entirety and that it be done
right. She suggested the Cities of Excelsior and Tonka Bay be asked to participate. She stated having the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 28, 2011
Page 10 of 16
Planning Commission become involved with this is a great start. She suggested the Planning Commission
not wait until 2012 to start discussing this.
Administrator Heck stated Council doesn’t have to wait until 2012 to authorize a project and move it
forward. Allocating funds for the project in 2012 allows Council the opportunity to prioritize this project
along with other potential 2012 projects. He noted Council can authorize spending funds for this sign in
2011 if it wants.
Councilmember Siakel stated she would like to have more conversation about the proposed sign before
2012.
Administrator Heck noted Council has already authorized directional signage.
Mayor Lizée stated the discussion this evening confirms the need to identify the SSCC. But, there is also
a need to identify the campus and what it is and what it does. Hopefully, there will be continued
discussion about signage needs for the campus.
Jeanne Straus who works with Minnetonka Community Education (MCE), stated MCE holds events at
the SSCC. She noted that MCE used to offer more things at the SSCC, but because of the difficulty in
explaining to people how to get to the SSCC, MCE had cut back. She explained that many of the people
that attended MCE events weren’t from the area. She noted that for one class MCE held at the SSCC 4
out of the 16 registered people never found the SSCC even though there were people on the corner trying
to direct them. She explained the MCE has prepared an 8.5” by 11” sheet of directions to give to event
attendees. She expressed she thought the SSCC is a treasure. She stated she thought there is a need for a
sign off of Country Road 19 and another sign at the intersection of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road.
She then stated MCE will offer more programs at the SSCC if there is better signage.
Motion passed 5/0.
C. Carver County Open Fiber Initiative
Administrator Heck explained that Excelsior City Manager Luger had informed him that Carver Country
is going to build an infrastructure (a fiber ring) for high speed broadband internet services. The project is
called the Carver County Open Fiber Initiative (CCOFI). Carver County had offered Excelsior the
opportunity to participate in the program and Luger wondered what the City was going to do.
Unfortunately, he was not aware of the program so he contacted Carver County to get more information.
Carver County will own the fiber ring but it will not provide services for utilizing it. The fiber ring will be
over 89 miles long and it will connect all of the cities in Carver County as well as most of the school
districts and some other facilities. There will be fiber spurs off of the ring that will allow for other entities
to connect to the network. Carver County received a $6 million grant from the Federal Government and
the County will commit about $1.5 million of its own money toward the project. The County thinks the
breakeven point on the project will be reached in about 3 – 4 years. A lot of the savings will come from
eliminating the need for T1 lines around the County for a savings of about $200,000 per year.
Heck then explained if the City wants to consider connecting to the fiber infrastructure the City would
have to pay the cost of installing fiber from some location in the City to one of the connection points in
the fiber ring. He noted he doesn’t know how this would interact with the Lake Minnetonka
Communications Commission’s (LMCC) potential fiber to the home initiative. That project involves
ownership of the fiber as well as the programming and services that go over the fiber.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 28, 2011
Page 11 of 16
Heck stated Staff is seeking Council direction about if it wants Staff to research this opportunity further,
noting he thought this is an interesting opportunity.
Director DeJong stated he thought that having a broadband connection with higher speeds than the
existing T1 line is something that will be needed at City Hall. He then stated there are other possibilities
that should also be researched. He explained the Minnetonka School District has all of their schools
linked so there has to be a fiber line installed which runs from the Excelsior Elementary School to the
Minnewashta Elementary School that the City could potentially connect to.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the LMCC has been working on a fiber to the home initiative and
continues to explore it. He explained the CCOFI is a governmental network. Carver County is installing
the network to all the government related agencies and entities located within the County. The County has
contracted with a private company to build the infrastructure. The County has indicated to the private
company and other companies that if they so choose can lay additional fiber in the same trench as the
CCOFI infrastructure is as it is being installed in order to accommodate commercial and residential uses.
The County’s network as it is funded has no commercial or residential components with the exception of
Ridgeview Medical Center located in Waconia. The County will not provide any equipment at the end of
the pipe or any services. He noted Carver County was able to apply for the grant because it’s classified
rural by the Federal Government (Hennepin County is classified urban). He expressed his support for
researching this opportunity further.
Councilmember Zerby stated that based on the project map the fiber will come along State Highway 7
between State Highway 41 and the fire station in Chanhassen. He expressed his support for researching
this opportunity further. He stated the City should also talk with the public safety organizations about this
because he thinks there is a conduit that runs under Country Road 19 to the public safety facility in
Shorewood.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she thought this is a great opportunity for the City to be proactive and that
she supports Staff researching this further. She also thought it beneficial to find out more about partnering
with the public safety organizations, the commercial district and also potentially with the Minnetonka
School District.
Councilmember Siakel asked what the advantage is of working with Carver Country. She stated it’s her
understanding that the LMCC has funded a sizeable project to look into the viability of installing fiber in
the LMCC community. She then stated Carver County not only received grant money from the Federal
Government it also assessed its residents for part of the CCOFI costs. She asked what the value would be
to the City’s residents of doing these projects. She also asked if the City would realize cost savings by
connecting to a fiber network and how long it would take to reach a break even point.
Administrator Heck explained that the City of Roseville recently ran a fiber line from Roseville City Hall
to the North St. Paul and that cost about $100,000. He stated the cost to run a fiber line is about $100,000
per mile.
Councilmember Siakel asked if Staff is asking Council for authorization to research this opportunity
further or authorization to let Carver County know the City is definitely interested in pursuing this.
Administrator Heck responded either would be fine. Heck stated the City needs to let Carver County
know if it wants to discuss this more. He then stated if it’s viable for the City to do it may not happen for
a while. He expressed he thought it prudent to wait and see how/if the LMCC broadband initiative
advances. He also thought it prudent to find out if the City of Excelsior is going to take advantage of the
opportunity to connect into the fiber ring.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 28, 2011
Page 12 of 16
Hotvet moved, Woodruff seconded, directing Staff to research the Carver County Open Fiber
Initiative opportunity and other similar options further. Motion passed 5/0.
D. Stop Sign Placement Policy
This item was tabled to the March 14, 2011, Council meeting agenda.
E. Southshore Community Center Seating
Administrator Heck explained a couple of corporate clients that utilize the Southshore Community Center
(SSCC) have expressed there displeasure about the chairs in the conference room. As a result, chairs from
City Hall are hauled over to the SSCC for those organizations to use. He expressed concern that hauling
the chairs back and forth is going to result in people getting injured and/or chairs being damaged. He
explained the SSCC Oversight Committee directed SSCC Manager Anderson to obtain quotes on chairs.
He stated the meeting packet contains information from Ms. Anderson on chair style and costs. Staff
recommends purchasing the chairs per Ms. Anderson’s recommendation.
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, approving the purchase of fifteen chairs for the conference
room located in the Southshore Community Center for an amount not to exceed $2,057.30. Motion
passed 5/0.
F. Liaison Appointments to the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District
(RPBCWD) and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD
Councilmember Woodruff explained that historically Council has had Council liaisons be a representative
to the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) and Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District (MCWD). Early in 2011 Council decided it would like to have residents who are not elected
officials serve as the liaisons. To date the liaisons have not been appointed to either of the two
organizations. He related that Jeff Arnold, 5760 Covington Road, has expressed interest about serving as
the liaison to the RPBCWD.
Woodruff moved, appointing Jeff Arnold as the liaison for the Council to the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff
Creek Watershed District.
Mayor Lizée noted she has spoken to Mr. Arnold about his interest in serving in that capacity.
Councilmember Siakel asked if Mr. Arnold has contacted Staff to let them know of his interest.
Councilmember Woodruff responded it’s his understanding that he has. Siakel clarified her question was
regarding process.
Administrator Heck noted that Mr. Arnold is a member of the Citizen Advisory Committee to the
RPBCWD and it makes sense for him to serve as the liaison for Council as well.
Siakel seconded. Motion passed 5/0.
Mayor Lizée explained Shorewood resident Jeff Casale has been appointed by the Hennepin County
Board of Commissioners to the Minnehaha Creed Watershed District Board of Managers. Mr. Casale and
Mr. Eric Evenson, the MCWD District Administrator, have agreed to provide quarterly updates to
Council on MCWD activities.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 28, 2011
Page 13 of 16
Administrator Heck explained the schedule is for Council to receive quarterly updates on MCWD and
RPBCWD activities and semi-annual updates on Minnetonka Community Education activities.
Councilmember Woodruff recommended Mr. Casale’s appointment be formalized through a motion.
Mayor Lizée stated Mr. Casale is already formally appointed to the MCWD Board of Managers and has
offered to update Council on a quarterly basis. She did not think a formal appointment is necessary.
Woodruff stated the appointment has been open since January 3, 2011, and it will remain open until
someone is officially appointed, noting it can be left open. Councilmember Zerby stated he has no
problem with not formalizing the liaison appointment because the representative does not vote on the
City’s behalf. Zerby noted the City Engineer has attended meetings on behalf of the City when more
substantive things were discussed. Zerby stated if this doesn’t work out satisfactorily for Council it can be
reconsidered.
11. OLD BUSINESS
A. Curbside Pickup
Administrator Heck explained that during its January 24, 2011, meeting Council directed Staff to gather
information about possibly bringing back the curbside pickup component of the City’s spring clean-up
program. Council wanted per household cost estimates and a list of items that would be collected at the
curb. The meeting packet contains the information gathered. The cost is $25 - $30 per household for the
same types of things that are collected as part of a household’s regular refuse pickup. Some haulers will
pick up things such as scrap metal. No recyclables are separated out of the materials collected at curbside
with the exception of scrap metal.
Heck then explained that some cities and haulers do collect appliances at the curbside and in most cases
the household is charged for that. The cost ranges from $75 – $200 depending on the appliance collected.
The City of New Hope provides appliance collection services and its residents are billed for that over a
two-year period; that service is provided every other year. Every household pays for that cost even if they
don’t take advantage of the service. The City’s residents can drop off appliances at the City’s drop-off
collection site for a lower fee and there are private companies that will pick up appliances. He noted the
2011 budget does not include funds for curbside pickup. He also noted the last time the curbside pickup
service was provided to households the cost was $18 per household with all households paying that
amount.
Councilmember Siakel asked if the City has been paying for the cost of operating the spring clean-up
drop-off collection program. Administrator Heck explained the City pays for the staff time and the
contractors, but it charges for some of the services. Director DeJong explained the program is run through
the recycling program. In the past the City has charged a fee for the disposal of equipment/appliances.
The City covers the staff time associated with that and it costs the City $3,000 – $5,000 per year to do
that. In response to another question from Siakel, Heck explained the $25 – $30 per household charge is
independent of whether or not the household puts anything out for curbside pickup. DeJong noted the
curbside pickup cost is for doing a special refuse pickup throughout the City and the cost for that is over
$55,000.
Mayor Lizée thanked staff for the research it did on this. She stated some residents have told her they
would like to have the curbside pickup. She noted some of the City’s sister cities provide such a service.
She commented that when there was curbside pickup people would take stuff households put out before
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 28, 2011
Page 14 of 16
the hauler could come and get it. She suggested the City survey its residents in 2011 about whether or not
they would like to have and to pay for a curbside pickup program in 2012.
Councilmember Siakel stated she would like to be provided with data about curbside pickup participation
and about the number of complaint calls the City received from residents having to pay for a service they
didn’t use. Administrator Heck stated it’s his understanding from staff that the City received several
hundred complaint calls. Heck noted the City does receive calls from residents who want the City to
participate in organics recycling. Siakel asked when the drop-off program was discontinued. Director
Brown noted the City dropped the curbside pickup program about five years ago.
B. Public Safety Facility Financing Surplus
Administrator Heck stated during its January 20, 2011, the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department
(SLMPD) Coordinating Committee discussed how the unspent bond proceeds in the construction funds
for the public safety facilities were handled. The Shorewood Economic Development Authority (EDA)
reduced the 2011 debt service payment amounts for the SLMPD and the Excelsior Fire District by their
respective surplus amounts in the construction fund. This will create a surplus in each of the
organization’s debt service fund for 2011 unless some other action is taken. After discussion the
Coordinating Committee endorsed moving the SLMPD’s 2011 surplus in its debt service fund to its
building fund. The Committee Members were also to bring the endorsement to their respective City
Council for discussion. He noted he incorrectly stated that the Tonka Bay Council favored returning the
surplus funds to the member cities. That is not the case. That Council favors putting the surplus funds into
the SLMPD’s and the EFD’s building fund for future maintenance of the public safety facilities. He
explained this topic was discussed briefly during the EFD Board meeting on January 26, 2011. The EFD
Board made no recommendation, but it’s his understanding that the representatives from the Cities of
Deephaven and Greenwood indicated they were more interested in having the surplus funds returned to
the member cities.
Heck stated Staff recommends the public safety organizations keep the surplus funds for reserves or use it
for a one-time project, but not to fund operational expenses.
Councilmember Siakel stated she supports putting the surplus funds into capital improvement funds.
There will eventually be a need for maintenance on the two facilities and it will be more difficult to get
funds from the member cities when they are needed.
Mayor Lizée stated the SLMPD Coordinating Committee has talked about the need for a building fund
for maintenance of and improvements to the police public safety facility over the last few years. She then
stated to be good stewards of the facilities funds for the long-term care and maintenance of the facilities
should be set aside.
Councilmember Hotvet asked if the joint powers agreements (JPA) for the EFD and SLMPD designate
anything for this. Administrator Heck responded they do not. Heck stated it’s up to the EFD and the
SLMPD governing bodies to determine what they are going to do with the surplus at the end of 2011.
Mayor Lizée recessed the meeting at 9:01 P.M.
Mayor Lizée reconvened the meeting at 9:05 P.M.
Mayor Lizée asked Attorney Keane to explain the role of the SLMPD Coordinating Committee, the role
of the EFD Governing Board and the role of the member cities as agreed to in the JPAs.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 28, 2011
Page 15 of 16
Attorney Keane explained the JPA for each organization is the policy document for each organization.
The JPAs set forth the rights and duties and responsibilities of the respective members. Their respective
JPA also locked in the funding formulas for the organizations. At the operating level decisions are made
by the SLMPD Coordinating Committee Members and by the EFD Governing Board Members. Each
member city’s representative has an equal participating vote.
Administrator Heck stated that former Attorney Tietjen prepared a document describing the joint power
arrangement and how they work. He will try and locate the document and if he finds it he will distribute it
to the members of the Council.
Councilmember Woodruff asked if there is a restriction on how the remaining funds in the construction
fund could be spent.
Director DeJong explained the surplus proceeds that were in the construction fund were from bonds
issued in 2003. In December 2010 the Council authorized the transfer of the unspent bond proceeds in the
construction fund to the debt service fund. Earlier this year the Shorewood EDA billed the EFD and
SLMPD for an amount that will cover each organization’s debt service payment. The amount billed was
less than the amount the organizations collected from their member cities in 2010 to cover payments. The
EFD and SLMPD have possession of the surplus funds in their debt service funds. Council is discussing
what recommendation it wants to make to the SLMPD Coordinating Committee and the EFD Governing
Board regarding how the surplus funds should be used. The question is should the funds be remitted back
to the member cities or should they be used for some capital purpose.
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, recommending the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department
Coordinating Committee and the Excelsior Fire District Governing Board use the surplus funds in
their respective debt service funds for capital purposes and that the surplus funds be transferred
into a reserve account. Motion passed 5/0.
Mayor Lizée stated she will bring Council’s recommendation back to the SLMPD Coordinating
Committee. Councilmember Zerby stated he will do the same for the EFD Governing Board.
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
Administrator Heck stated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is hosting three meetings
over the next few weeks to talk about aquatic invasive species (AIS). One of the meetings will be held at
the Southshore Community Center (SSCC). Mayor Lizée explained the MCWD sent an email to the
mayors of the cities in the MCWD. The MCWD wants to have open discussions with the mayors about
the impacts of AIS, how to work together to protect the waters in the MCWD, and how to mitigate AIS.
th
Lizée noted that she plans on attending the meeting on March 10 at 7:30 A.M. at the SSCC. Lizée
explained the meetings are being held in three different locations because of the number of cities in the
MCWD.
th
Heck then stated during its meeting on March 9 meeting the LMCD Board will hold a public hearing to
discuss an application from the Shorewood Yacht Club to reconfigure its docks.
Heck went on to state the MCWD developed draft revisions to its Stormwater Management and
Administrative Rules. A 45-day public comment period for the proposed rule changes is open until March
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 28, 2011
Page 16 of 16
31, 2011. After Staff reviews the rule changes it will present Council with its perspective on how the
proposed changes may impact the City. He noted single family properties are not included in the rule.
th
Heck also stated he distributed the summary of the community visioning meeting held on February 24
which was prepared by Rebecca Heidepriem with Fritz Partners. He noted Excelsior City Manager Luger,
th
Tonka Bay City Administrator Kohlmann and he plan to meet on March 4 to continue discussions about
potential collaborative efforts. He stated he will work with the City’s website developer to put some
explanation about the visioning efforts on the website.
Director Brown stated the excavation of the stormwater structure near Silver Lake has been completed.
Staff has asked the contractor to take their sign down at the area. He then stated the Metropolitan Council
has undertaken a manhole sealing and grouting project for its line that goes through Silver Lake.
Brown explained Shorewood and Excelsior Public Works staffs having been working with area residents
about the problem at Division Street. After the rainstorm in January 2011 some of the outlet structures
froze up when the weather turned extremely cold and a significant amount of the water from the wetland
backed up on to Division Street. He noted Shorewood and Excelsior share Division Street. He explained
up to eight inches of ice formed on the roadway. The staffs have been monitoring the roadway since that
happened. The staffs have been trying to clear the ice and water off the roadway during the melting
season.
1. December 2010 Budget Report
The meeting packet contained a copy of the December 2010 Monthly Budget Report.
B. Mayor and City Council
Mayor Lizée thanked Staff and Councilmembers for participating in the retreat they attended on the
rdth
mornings of February 23 and 24. She stated she thought there was a successful outcome to the meeting.
She also thanked Staff for sharing their comments freely with Council.
th
Lizée then stated she thought the second visioning meeting held on February 24 between the Cities of
Excelsior, Shorewood and Tonka Bay was successful.
Lizée noted she received aerial maps of potential flooding areas in the MCWD and she will turn them
over to staff.
13. ADJOURN
Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of February 28, 2011,
at 9:24 P.M. Motion passed P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Christine Lizée, Mayor
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
Department Council Meeting Item Number
Finance March 14, 2011 3A
Item Description: Verified Claims
From: Michelle Nguyen
Bruce DeJong
Background / Previous Action
Claims for council authorization. The attached claims list includes checks numbered 51404 through
51498 totaling $247,172.64.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the claims list.
3/10/2011 12:35 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 2
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 3/01/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
00051 EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H D 3/01/2011 000000 13,525.01
00092 MN DEPT OF REVENUE D 3/01/2011 000000 2,489.93
20005 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVC D 3/01/2011 000000 1,188.54
00086 AFSCME COUNCIL 5 R 3/01/2011 051413 267.68
00053 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-4 R 3/01/2011 051414 1,407.89
16625 MINN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS R 3/01/2011 051415 32.00
00052 PERA R 3/01/2011 051416 7,800.96
06650 MN DNR WATERS R 3/03/2011 051418 1,910.20
15885 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC R 3/04/2011 051419 866.35
01000 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL, INC R 3/14/2011 051420 68.10
29306 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #894 R 3/14/2011 051421 13,840.20
16275 AMERICAN MESSAGING R 3/14/2011 051422 17.99
29379 ANDERBERG, WAYNE R 3/14/2011 051423 160.00
01977 ANDERSON, KRISTI B. R 3/14/2011 051424 220.00
29382 ARC R 3/14/2011 051425 117.97
02860 BARNES DISTRIBUTION R 3/14/2011 051426 261.09
03325 BOYER TRUCK PARTS DISTRIBUTION R 3/14/2011 051427 265.50
04081 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS R 3/14/2011 051428 309.26
17300 CENTERPOINT ENERGY R 3/14/2011 051429 2,688.48
05330 CONSOLIDATED CONTAINER CO. LLC R 3/14/2011 051430 350.34
29282 CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIPMENT R 3/14/2011 051431 14.11
05885 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER R 3/14/2011 051432 32.59
3/10/2011 12:35 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 3
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 3/01/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
1 DAN CALRSON R 3/14/2011 051433 500.00
06560 DELEGARD TOOL CO R 3/14/2011 051434 520.19
26110 DEX ONE R 3/14/2011 051435 9.85
29271 DREW KRIESEL R 3/14/2011 051436 606.00
02000 EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC. R 3/14/2011 051437 432.63
07377 ELECTRIC PUMP R 3/14/2011 051438 52,430.74
07480 EXCELSIOR ENGRAVING R 3/14/2011 051439 42.87
08500 FRONTIER PRECISION, INC. R 3/14/2011 051440 35.00
08712 G & K SERVICES R 3/14/2011 051441 1,020.50
27195 GRAINGER, INC R 3/14/2011 051442 182.01
29264 H & L MESABI R 3/14/2011 051443 768.13
07900 HAWKINS, INC. R 3/14/2011 051444 80.00
29232 HECK, BRIAN R 3/14/2011 051445 245.99
29151 HENN CTY ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE R 3/14/2011 051446 210.00
06654 HENN CTY HUMAN SVC DEPT PUBLIC R 3/14/2011 051447 102.50
10506 HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT R 3/14/2011 051448 64.00
10760 HYDRA POWER HYDRAULICS R 3/14/2011 051449 333.04
29378 IDROVO'S CLEANERS R 3/14/2011 051450 120.00
81115 LAKESHORE WEEKLY NEWS R 3/14/2011 051451 150.00
13100 LANO EQUIPMENT, INC. R 3/14/2011 051452 405.00
13320 LEE PEST CONTROL INC R 3/14/2011 051453 70.00
22300 LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. R 3/14/2011 051454 689.25
3/10/2011 12:35 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 4
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 3/01/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
29259 MALKERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP R 3/14/2011 051455 925.00
14475 MANN MADE PRODUCTS R 3/14/2011 051456 41.00
29380 MARTINIZING DRY CLEANING R 3/14/2011 051457 47.95
15176 MENARDS R 3/14/2011 051458 96.86
15875 MIDWEST CRANE CORP. R 3/14/2011 051459 480.17
00085 MINNESOTA LIFE R 3/14/2011 051460 433.91
15395 MN CITY/CTY MGMT ASSN R 3/14/2011 051461 95.00
18093 MORTON SALT, INC. R 3/14/2011 051462 3,097.14
18595 MUNICI-PALS R 3/14/2011 051463 180.00
19750 NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIP CO R 3/14/2011 051464 82.52
15900 OFFICE DEPOT R 3/14/2011 051465 84.97
15000 PAETEC R 3/14/2011 051466 527.31
20268 PANCHYSHYN, JEAN R 3/14/2011 051467 120.00
20280 PARROTT CONTRACTING INC R 3/14/2011 051468 25,510.50
20950 POTTS, KENNETH N. R 3/14/2011 051469 2,291.66
29385 PREMIER FLEET SERVICES R 3/14/2011 051470 8,295.50
1350 PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE R 3/14/2011 051471 1,490.69
21400 PURCHASE POWER R 3/14/2011 051472 1,219.99
26100 QWEST R 3/14/2011 051473 863.15
22347 RUMPCA CO INC R 3/14/2011 051474 45.00
22950 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE R 3/14/2011 051475 266.07
22980 SIGN LLC R 3/14/2011 051478 192.38
3/10/2011 12:35 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 5
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 3/01/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
22600 SLUC (SENSIBLE LAND USE COALIT R 3/14/2011 051479 38.00
23725 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC R 3/14/2011 051480 4,253.97
29384 TNC INDUSTRIES, INC. R 3/14/2011 051481 240.47
24450 TOLL GAS & WELDING R 3/14/2011 051482 75.91
25000 TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES R 3/14/2011 051483 873.80
25452 TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC R 3/14/2011 051484 100.00
29154 UNIQUE PAVING MATERIALS CORP. R 3/14/2011 051485 1,056.73
25540 UNITED LABORATORIES R 3/14/2011 051486 131.21
29135 VALLEY-RICH CO., INC. R 3/14/2011 051487 4,603.15
70200 VERIZON WIRELESS R 3/14/2011 051488 259.61
83900 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN R 3/14/2011 051489 504.47
29383 WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE, IN R 3/14/2011 051490 225.50
29376 WENDY FRITZ CONSULTING, LLC R 3/14/2011 051491 1,062.10
18500 WM. MUELLER & SONS, INC. R 3/14/2011 051492 2,288.39
28451 WSB AND ASSOCIATES R 3/14/2011 051493 1,536.00
19800 XCEL ENERGY R 3/14/2011 051494 11,300.31
28900 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE R 3/14/2011 051496 206.80
29000 ZEP SALES & SERVICE R 3/14/2011 051497 80.76
29100 ZIEGLER, INC. R 3/14/2011 051498 1,091.03
05305 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES E 3/15/2011 999999 2,387.50
06572 DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA D 3/01/2011 999999 681.23
09400 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL E 3/15/2011 999999 242.80
3/10/2011 12:35 PM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 6
VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood
BANK: 1 BEACON BANK
DATE RANGE: 3/01/2011 THRU 99/99/9999
CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK
VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT
13070 LANDINI, JAMES E 3/15/2011 999999 40.00
19445 NGUYEN, MICHELLE E 3/15/2011 999999 72.00
19500 NIELSEN, BRADLEY E 3/15/2011 999999 354.78
27590 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE E 3/15/2011 999999 684.47
* * T O T A L S * * NO CHECK AMOUNT DISCOUNTS TOTAL APPLIED
REGULAR CHECKS: 82 165,963.39 0.00 165,963.39
HAND CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
DRAFTS: 4 17,884.71 0.00 17,884.71
EFT: 6 3,781.55 0.00 3,781.55
NON CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
VOID CHECKS: 0 VOID DEBITS 0.00
VOID CREDITS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL ERRORS: 0
VENDOR SET: 01 BANK: 1 TOTALS: 92 187,629.65 0.00 187,629.65
BANK: 1 TOTALS: 92 187,629.65 0.00 187,629.65
REPORT TOTALS: 96 187,629.65 0.00 187,629.65
03-10-2011 12:33 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MARCH 14, 2011 PAGE: 1
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
ADAM'S PEST CONTROL, INC 3/14/11 1ST QTR SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 68.10_
TOTAL: 68.10
AFSCME COUNCIL 5 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS - UNION DUES General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 267.68_
TOTAL: 267.68
ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #894 3/14/11 MAR RECYCLING Recycling Utility Recycling 13,840.20_
TOTAL: 13,840.20
AMERICAN MESSAGING 3/14/11 MAR PAGER General Fund Public Works 8.99
3/14/11 MAR PAGER Water Utility Water 4.50
3/14/11 MAR PAGER Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 4.50_
TOTAL: 17.99
ANDERBERG, WAYNE 3/14/11 SNOW SHOVEL-02/14-03/07 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 160.00_
TOTAL: 160.00
ANDERSON, KRISTI B. 3/14/11 PARK COMM MTG-03/08/11 General Fund Parks & Recreation 220.00_
TOTAL: 220.00
ARC 3/14/11 COLOR BOND General Fund Planning 60.26
3/14/11 COLOR BOND General Fund Planning 57.71_
TOTAL: 117.97
BARNES DISTRIBUTION 3/14/11 NUTS & BOLTS HARDWARE General Fund Public Works 261.09_
TOTAL: 261.09
BOYER TRUCK PARTS DISTRIBUTION CTR. 3/14/11 SLACK ADJUSTOR BRAKE SYS. General Fund Public Works 265.50_
TOTAL: 265.50
CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 3/14/11 BATTERIES LOADER General Fund Public Works 265.18
3/14/11 WIPERS PLOWS General Fund Public Works 18.76
3/14/11 TRUCK BELT General Fund Public Works 25.32_
TOTAL: 309.26
CENTERPOINT ENERGY 3/14/11 GAS-01/20-02/28 General Fund Municipal Buildings 306.11
3/14/11 GAS-01/20-02/28 General Fund Public Works 1,206.32
3/14/11 GAS-01/20-02/28 General Fund Parks & Recreation 366.60
3/14/11 MANOR WARMING HOUSE General Fund Parks & Recreation 67.66
3/14/11 SSCC 06/17-07/22 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 364.28
3/14/11 GAS-01/20-02/28 Water Utility Water 139.05
3/14/11 GAS-01/20-02/28 Water Utility Water 238.46_
TOTAL: 2,688.48
COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 3/15/11 PCS-02/28-03/11 General Fund Parks & Recreation 2,160.00
3/15/11 ASSCC ASSISTANT-02/28-03/0 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 227.50_
TOTAL: 2,387.50
CONSOLIDATED CONTAINER CO. LLC 3/14/11 GARBAGE CANS General Fund Parks & Recreation 350.34_
TOTAL: 350.34
CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIPMENT 3/14/11 HYDRAULIC SWIVELS General Fund Public Works 14.11_
TOTAL: 14.11
CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 3/14/11 DRINKING WATER SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 32.59_
TOTAL: 32.59
03-10-2011 12:33 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MARCH 14, 2011 PAGE: 2
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
DELEGARD TOOL CO 3/14/11 TOOLS-TAP & DIE SET General Fund Public Works 478.16
3/14/11 SCREWDRIVERS & TORCH SET General Fund Public Works 42.03_
TOTAL: 520.19
DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA 3/01/11 MAR-DENTIST PREM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 681.23_
TOTAL: 681.23
DEX ONE 3/14/11 FEB ADS Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 9.85_
TOTAL: 9.85
DREW KRIESEL 3/14/11 FEB SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 537.00
3/14/11 FEB SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 29.00
3/14/11 FEB Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 40.00_
TOTAL: 606.00
EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC. 3/14/11 SEASONAL W LIMIT SIGN General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 432.63_
TOTAL: 432.63
EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/01/11 FEDERAL W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 5,882.80
3/01/11 FICA W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,413.32
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 833.19
3/01/11 FICA W/H General Fund Administration 260.48
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Administration 60.92
3/01/11 FICA W/H General Fund General Government 479.77
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund General Government 112.21
3/01/11 FICA W/H General Fund Elections 4.54
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Elections 1.06
3/01/11 FICA W/H General Fund Finance 322.53
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Finance 75.43
3/01/11 FICA W/H General Fund Planning 284.84
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Planning 66.62
3/01/11 FICA W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 199.53
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 46.66
3/01/11 FICA W/H General Fund City Engineer 190.69
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund City Engineer 44.60
3/01/11 FICA W/H General Fund Public Works 635.14
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Public Works 148.55
3/01/11 FICA W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 129.02
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Streets & Roadways 30.17
3/01/11 FICA W/H General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 282.36
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 66.06
3/01/11 FICA W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 3.04
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Tree Maintenance 0.71
3/01/11 FICA W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 324.82
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Parks & Recreation 75.98
3/01/11 FICA W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 33.01
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 7.71
3/01/11 FICA W/H Water Utility Water 221.59
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H Water Utility Water 51.81
3/01/11 FICA W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 136.31
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 31.87
3/01/11 FICA W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 4.02
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 0.95
3/01/11 FICA W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 50.82
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 11.88_
TOTAL: 13,525.01
03-10-2011 12:33 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MARCH 14, 2011 PAGE: 3
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
ELECTRIC PUMP 3/14/11 L.S.#15/17 REHAB Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 31,590.11
3/14/11 SCADA-SANITARY SW-CIP Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 20,840.63_
TOTAL: 52,430.74
EXCELSIOR ENGRAVING 3/14/11 NAME PLATES General Fund Council 42.87_
TOTAL: 42.87
FRONTIER PRECISION, INC. 3/14/11 2011 MGIS USER FORUM General Fund City Engineer 35.00_
TOTAL: 35.00
G & K SERVICES 3/14/11 CH SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 122.42
3/14/11 PW SVC General Fund Public Works 850.84
3/14/11 SSCC SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 47.24_
TOTAL: 1,020.50
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 3/15/11 LOCATE SYSTEM Water Utility Water 50.00
3/15/11 LOCATE SYSTEM Water Utility Water 30.65
3/15/11 FEB SVC Water Utility Water 40.75
3/15/11 LOCATE SYSTEM Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 50.00
3/15/11 LOCATE SYSTEM Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 30.65
3/15/11 FEB SVC Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 40.75_
TOTAL: 242.80
GRAINGER, INC 3/14/11 COVER LIGHT General Fund Parks & Recreation 8.26
3/14/11 SLEEVE LIGHT General Fund Parks & Recreation 1.65
3/14/11 HEATER MOTOR Water Utility Water 172.10_
TOTAL: 182.01
H & L MESABI 3/14/11 BLIZZARD BLADE General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 768.13_
TOTAL: 768.13
HAWKINS, INC. 3/14/11 CHLORINE Water Utility Water 80.00_
TOTAL: 80.00
HECK, BRIAN 3/14/11 CELL General Fund Administration 79.99
3/14/11 MILEAGE General Fund Administration 126.00
3/14/11 WELLNESS General Fund Administration 40.00_
TOTAL: 245.99
HENN CTY ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE 3/14/11 2011 HAZARDOUS WASTE LIC General Fund Public Works 210.00_
TOTAL: 210.00
HENN CTY HUMAN SVC DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH 3/14/11 SSCC 2011 LICENSE Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 102.50_
TOTAL: 102.50
HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT 3/14/11 JAN-800MHZ General Fund Public Works 64.00_
TOTAL: 64.00
HYDRA POWER HYDRAULICS 3/14/11 REBUILD-DUMP TRUCK General Fund Public Works 333.04_
TOTAL: 333.04
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,025.00
3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 382.89_
TOTAL: 1,407.89
IDROVO'S CLEANERS 3/14/11 KITCHEN CLEANING SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 120.00
03-10-2011 12:33 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MARCH 14, 2011 PAGE: 4
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
_______________
TOTAL: 120.00
LAKESHORE WEEKLY NEWS 3/14/11 SSCC- ADS Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 150.00_
TOTAL: 150.00
LANDINI, JAMES 3/15/11 MAR WELLNESS General Fund City Engineer 40.00_
TOTAL: 40.00
LANO EQUIPMENT, INC. 3/14/11 IDLER PULLY & ASSEMBLY General Fund Public Works 405.00_
TOTAL: 405.00
LEE PEST CONTROL INC 3/14/11 SSCC-PEST SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 70.00_
TOTAL: 70.00
LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 3/14/11 OILD-FUEL-LUBE General Fund Public Works 689.25_
TOTAL: 689.25
MALKERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP 3/14/11 JAN-GEN MATTERS General Fund Professional Svcs 925.00_
TOTAL: 925.00
MANN MADE PRODUCTS 3/14/11 METAL STOCK & LABOR General Fund Public Works 41.00_
TOTAL: 41.00
MARTINIZING DRY CLEANING 3/14/11 CLEANER Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 47.95_
TOTAL: 47.95
MENARDS 3/14/11 MAILBOX SUPPLIES General Fund Public Works 11.94
3/14/11 TOOLS General Fund Parks & Recreation 43.95
3/14/11 WELL BLDG FIRE INSPECT Water Utility Water 40.97_
TOTAL: 96.86
MIDWEST CRANE CORP. 3/14/11 ANNUAL INSPECTION General Fund Public Works 480.17_
TOTAL: 480.17
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC 3/04/11 PARK-POSTAGE General Fund Parks & Recreation 509.41
3/04/11 PARK-SVC General Fund Parks & Recreation 356.94_
TOTAL: 866.35
MINNESOTA LIFE 3/14/11 MAR LIFE PREM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 433.91_
TOTAL: 433.91
MISC. VENDOR DAN CALRSON 3/14/11 DAN CALRSON: CARLSON TENNI General Fund Parks & Recreation 500.00_
TOTAL: 500.00
MN CITY/CTY MGMT ASSN 3/14/11 CITY/CTY MGMT ASSN. RENEW General Fund Administration 95.00_
TOTAL: 95.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE 3/01/11 STATE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,489.93_
TOTAL: 2,489.93
MN DNR WATERS 3/03/11 2010 DNR-WATER REPORT Water Utility Water 1,910.20_
TOTAL: 1,910.20
MINN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 3/01/11 MONTHLY- ELECT LIFE INS General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 32.00_
TOTAL: 32.00
03-10-2011 12:33 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MARCH 14, 2011 PAGE: 5
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
MORTON SALT, INC. 3/14/11 SALT General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 3,097.14_
TOTAL: 3,097.14
MUNICI-PALS 3/14/11 PAT FASCHING General Fund General Government 60.00
3/14/11 TWILA GROUT General Fund General Government 60.00
3/14/11 MICHELLE NGUYEN General Fund Finance 60.00_
TOTAL: 180.00
NGUYEN, MICHELLE 3/15/11 FEB MILEAGE General Fund Finance 72.00_
TOTAL: 72.00
NIELSEN, BRADLEY 3/15/11 FEB-EXP REIM General Fund Planning 40.00
3/15/11 APA CONF-AIR General Fund Planning 297.80
3/15/11 CELL BATTERY General Fund Planning 16.98_
TOTAL: 354.78
NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIP CO 3/14/11 LED SIDE MARKERS General Fund Public Works 73.96
3/14/11 HARDWARE General Fund Public Works 8.56_
TOTAL: 82.52
OFFICE DEPOT 3/14/11 W-2 FORM General Fund Finance 15.86
3/14/11 W-2 FORMS General Fund Finance 14.80
3/14/11 SSCC-INK Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 54.31_
TOTAL: 84.97
PAETEC 3/14/11 02/26-03/25 SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 135.86
3/14/11 02/26-03/25 SVC General Fund Public Works 46.90
3/14/11 02/26-03/25 SVC General Fund Parks & Recreation 145.60
3/14/11 02/26-03/25 SVC Water Utility Water 98.70
3/14/11 02/26-03/25 SVC Water Utility Water 100.25_
TOTAL: 527.31
PANCHYSHYN, JEAN 3/14/11 JAN-MAR WELLNESS General Fund General Government 120.00_
TOTAL: 120.00
PARROTT CONTRACTING INC 3/14/11 SILVER LK DREDGE SPOILS Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 25,510.50_
TOTAL: 25,510.50
PERA 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,611.56
3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Administration 312.68
3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund General Government 556.83
3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Elections 5.34
3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Finance 386.10
3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Planning 364.09
3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Protective Inspections 259.30
3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund City Engineer 223.71
3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Public Works 760.86
3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Streets & Roadways 153.53
3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 348.56
3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Tree Maintenance 3.78
3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Parks & Recreation 275.40
3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 38.59
3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Water Utility Water 269.50
3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 165.39
3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Recycling Utility Recycling 4.71
3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 61.03
03-10-2011 12:33 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MARCH 14, 2011 PAGE: 6
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
_______________
TOTAL: 7,800.96
POTTS, KENNETH N. 3/14/11 FEB PROSECUTIONS General Fund Professional Svcs 2,291.66_
TOTAL: 2,291.66
PREMIER FLEET SERVICES 3/14/11 BODY REPAIR-DUMP TRUCK Equipment Replacem Equipment Replacement 8,295.50_
TOTAL: 8,295.50
PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE 3/14/11 FEB-LIFE INS General Fund Unallocated Expenses 709.43
3/14/11 MAR-LIFE INS General Fund Unallocated Expenses 781.26_
TOTAL: 1,490.69
PURCHASE POWER 3/14/11 POSTAGE REFILLED 02/10/11 General Fund General Government 1,219.99_
TOTAL: 1,219.99
QWEST 3/14/11 SVC 2/25-3/24 General Fund Municipal Buildings 120.76
3/14/11 SVC 2/25-3/24 General Fund Public Works 57.03
3/14/11 MAR SVC Water Utility Water 315.23
3/14/11 MAR SVC Water Utility Water 236.43
3/14/11 SVC 2/25-3/24 Water Utility Water 66.85
3/14/11 SVC 2/25-3/24 Water Utility Water 66.85_
TOTAL: 863.15
RUMPCA CO INC 3/14/11 BRUSH DISPOSAL General Fund Tree Maintenance 45.00_
TOTAL: 45.00
SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 3/14/11 HARDWARE General Fund Public Works 14.21
3/14/11 HARDWARE General Fund Public Works 6.41
3/14/11 PART General Fund Public Works 5.28
3/14/11 NUMBER-BLDG General Fund Public Works 16.38
3/14/11 HADRWARE General Fund Public Works 3.33
3/14/11 HARDWARE General Fund Public Works 9.97
3/14/11 PAINT General Fund Public Works 8.75
3/14/11 HARDWARE General Fund Public Works 7.05
3/14/11 WP LOW PROFILE HEATER General Fund Parks & Recreation 64.11
3/14/11 LIGHTS Water Utility Water 18.14
3/14/11 SUPPLIES-WELL HOUSE Water Utility Water 66.21
3/14/11 TOOLS-WATER Water Utility Water 33.12
3/14/11 SUPPLIES-WELL HOUSE Water Utility Water 13.11_
TOTAL: 266.07
SIGN LLC 3/14/11 LOGO'S TRUCK General Fund Public Works 192.38_
TOTAL: 192.38
SLUC (SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION) 3/14/11 ENRICHING HEALTH-COMM & EN General Fund Planning 38.00_
TOTAL: 38.00
SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC 3/14/11 GAS General Fund Public Works 4,253.97_
TOTAL: 4,253.97
TNC INDUSTRIES, INC. 3/14/11 HEAT GRILLEES & REG-BADGER General Fund Parks & Recreation 240.47_
TOTAL: 240.47
TOLL GAS & WELDING 3/14/11 WELD SUPPLIES General Fund Public Works 75.91_
TOTAL: 75.91
03-10-2011 12:33 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MARCH 14, 2011 PAGE: 7
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES 3/14/11 PARK ACT. NEWSLETTER SVC General Fund Parks & Recreation 873.80_
TOTAL: 873.80
TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC 3/14/11 AUG BACTERIA ANALYSIS Water Utility Water 100.00_
TOTAL: 100.00
UNIQUE PAVING MATERIALS CORP. 3/14/11 COLD PATCH General Fund Streets & Roadways 346.01
3/14/11 COLD PATCH General Fund Streets & Roadways 444.87
3/14/11 COLD PATCH General Fund Streets & Roadways 265.85_
TOTAL: 1,056.73
UNITED LABORATORIES 3/14/11 PARKS-SUPPLIES General Fund Parks & Recreation 131.21_
TOTAL: 131.21
VALLEY-RICH CO., INC. 3/14/11 WATERMAIN BREAK @ CHESTNUT Water Utility Water 4,603.15_
TOTAL: 4,603.15
VERIZON WIRELESS 3/14/11 SVC 01/22-02/21 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 259.61_
TOTAL: 259.61
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN 3/14/11 MAR SVC General Fund Public Works 354.03
3/14/11 SSCC-AUG SVC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 150.44_
TOTAL: 504.47
WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE, INC. 3/14/11 WATER LEAK @ CHESTNUT & MN Water Utility Water 225.50_
TOTAL: 225.50
WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 900.09
3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund General Government 288.45_
TOTAL: 1,188.54
WENDY FRITZ CONSULTING, LLC 3/14/11 RETREAT 02/24/11 General Fund Council 1,062.10_
TOTAL: 1,062.10
WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 3/15/11 TIRES-FORDF250-2004 General Fund Public Works 684.47_
TOTAL: 684.47
WM. MUELLER & SONS, INC. 3/14/11 SAND FOR SNOW General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 2,288.39_
TOTAL: 2,288.39
WSB AND ASSOCIATES 3/14/11 JAN-LS #15 & 17 INSPECTION Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 1,536.00_
TOTAL: 1,536.00
XCEL ENERGY 3/14/11 STMT#272058569- General Fund Municipal Buildings 597.66
3/14/11 STMT#272058569- General Fund Police Protection 3.60
3/14/11 STMT#272058569- General Fund Public Works 519.28
3/14/11 STMT#272058569- General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 24.28
3/14/11 STMT#272058569- General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 3,334.66
3/14/11 5700 CTY RD 19 General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 30.90
3/14/11 5700 CTY RD 19 UNIT LIGHTS General Fund Traffic Control/Str Li 197.88
3/14/11 STMT#272058569- General Fund Parks & Recreation 1,003.36
3/14/11 SSCC- 06/22-07/24 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 807.21
3/14/11 24253 SMTWN RD- 01/24-02/ Water Utility Water 794.80
3/14/11 24253 SMTWN RD-SVC INTERRU Water Utility Water 200.00-
3/14/11 STMT#272058569- Water Utility Water 424.49
3/14/11 STMT#272058569- Water Utility Water 792.21
03-10-2011 12:33 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MARCH 14, 2011 PAGE: 8
VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_
3/14/11 STMT#272058569- Water Utility Water 2,375.50
3/14/11 STMT#272058569- Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 594.48_
TOTAL: 11,300.31
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 3/14/11 FIRST AIDS General Fund Public Works 206.80_
TOTAL: 206.80
ZEP SALES & SERVICE 3/14/11 SOAPS & CLEANERS General Fund Public Works 80.76_
TOTAL: 80.76
ZIEGLER, INC. 3/14/11 PLOW CUTTING EDGES General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 1,091.03_
TOTAL: 1,091.03
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 2/28/2011 - 99/99/9999 General Fund Administration 4,312.84
General Fund General Government 7,754.65
General Fund Elections 73.74
General Fund Finance 5,325.58
General Fund Planning 5,022.03
General Fund Protective Inspections 3,576.49
General Fund City Engineer 3,085.60
General Fund Public Works 10,494.62
General Fund Streets & Roadways 2,117.65
General Fund Ice & Snow Removal 4,807.79
General Fund Tree Maintenance 52.10
General Fund Parks & Recreation 5,482.53
Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 532.31
Water Utility Water 3,717.38
Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 2,281.25
Recycling Utility Recycling 64.80
Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 841.63_
TOTAL: 59,542.99
=============== FUND TOTALS ================
101 General Fund 120,298.65
403 Equipment Replacement 8,295.50
490 Southshore Community Ctr. 3,528.90
601 Water Utility 17,097.50
611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 57,561.55
621 Recycling Utility 13,914.68
631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 26,475.86
--------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL: 247,172.64
--------------------------------------------
TOTAL PAGES: 8
03-10-2011 12:31 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT - MARCH 14, 2011 PAGE: 1
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
NON-DEPARTMENTAL General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/01/11 FEDERAL W/H 5,882.80
3/01/11 FICA W/H 2,413.32
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H 833.19
PERA 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 3,611.56
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM 1,025.00
3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM 382.89
AFSCME COUNCIL 5 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS - UNION DUES 267.68
MN DEPT OF REVENUE 3/01/11 STATE W/H 2,489.93
MINN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 3/01/11 MONTHLY- ELECT LIFE INS 32.00
WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA 900.09_
TOTAL: 17,838.46
Council General Fund EXCELSIOR ENGRAVING 3/14/11 NAME PLATES 42.87
WENDY FRITZ CONSULTING, LLC 3/14/11 RETREAT 02/24/11 1,062.10_
TOTAL: 1,104.97
Administration General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/01/11 FICA W/H 260.48
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H 60.92
PERA 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 312.68
MN CITY/CTY MGMT ASSN 3/14/11 CITY/CTY MGMT ASSN. RENEW 95.00
HECK, BRIAN 3/14/11 CELL 79.99
3/14/11 MILEAGE 126.00
3/14/11 WELLNESS 40.00
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 2/28/2011 - 99/99/9999 4,312.84_
TOTAL: 5,287.91
General Government General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/01/11 FICA W/H 479.77
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H 112.21
PERA 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 556.83
MUNICI-PALS 3/14/11 PAT FASCHING 60.00
3/14/11 TWILA GROUT 60.00
WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA 288.45
PANCHYSHYN, JEAN 3/14/11 JAN-MAR WELLNESS 120.00
PURCHASE POWER 3/14/11 POSTAGE REFILLED 02/10/11 1,219.99
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 2/28/2011 - 99/99/9999 7,754.65_
TOTAL: 10,651.90
Elections General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/01/11 FICA W/H 4.54
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H 1.06
PERA 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 5.34
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 2/28/2011 - 99/99/9999 73.74_
TOTAL: 84.68
Finance General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/01/11 FICA W/H 322.53
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H 75.43
PERA 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 386.10
OFFICE DEPOT 3/14/11 W-2 FORM 15.86
3/14/11 W-2 FORMS 14.80
MUNICI-PALS 3/14/11 MICHELLE NGUYEN 60.00
NGUYEN, MICHELLE 3/15/11 FEB MILEAGE 72.00
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 2/28/2011 - 99/99/9999 5,325.58_
TOTAL: 6,272.30
Professional Svcs General Fund POTTS, KENNETH N. 3/14/11 FEB PROSECUTIONS 2,291.66
MALKERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP 3/14/11 JAN-GEN MATTERS 925.00_
TOTAL: 3,216.66
03-10-2011 12:31 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT - MARCH 14, 2011 PAGE: 2
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
Planning General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/01/11 FICA W/H 284.84
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H 66.62
PERA 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 364.09
NIELSEN, BRADLEY 3/15/11 FEB-EXP REIM 40.00
3/15/11 APA CONF-AIR 297.80
3/15/11 CELL BATTERY 16.98
SLUC (SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION) 3/14/11 ENRICHING HEALTH-COMM & EN 38.00
ARC 3/14/11 COLOR BOND 60.26
3/14/11 COLOR BOND 57.71
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 2/28/2011 - 99/99/9999 5,022.03_
TOTAL: 6,248.33
Municipal Buildings General Fund ADAM'S PEST CONTROL, INC 3/14/11 1ST QTR SVC 68.10
CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 3/14/11 DRINKING WATER SVC 32.59
G & K SERVICES 3/14/11 CH SVC 122.42
PAETEC 3/14/11 02/26-03/25 SVC 135.86
CENTERPOINT ENERGY 3/14/11 GAS-01/20-02/28 306.11
XCEL ENERGY 3/14/11 STMT#272058569- 597.66
QWEST 3/14/11 SVC 2/25-3/24 120.76_
TOTAL: 1,383.50
Police Protection General Fund XCEL ENERGY 3/14/11 STMT#272058569- 3.60_
TOTAL: 3.60
Protective Inspections General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/01/11 FICA W/H 199.53
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H 46.66
PERA 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 259.30
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 2/28/2011 - 99/99/9999 3,576.49_
TOTAL: 4,081.98
City Engineer General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/01/11 FICA W/H 190.69
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H 44.60
PERA 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 223.71
FRONTIER PRECISION, INC. 3/14/11 2011 MGIS USER FORUM 35.00
LANDINI, JAMES 3/15/11 MAR WELLNESS 40.00
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 2/28/2011 - 99/99/9999 3,085.60_
TOTAL: 3,619.60
Public Works General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/01/11 FICA W/H 635.14
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H 148.55
PERA 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 760.86
BARNES DISTRIBUTION 3/14/11 NUTS & BOLTS HARDWARE 261.09
BOYER TRUCK PARTS DISTRIBUTION CTR. 3/14/11 SLACK ADJUSTOR BRAKE SYS. 265.50
CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 3/14/11 BATTERIES LOADER 265.18
3/14/11 WIPERS PLOWS 18.76
3/14/11 TRUCK BELT 25.32
DELEGARD TOOL CO 3/14/11 TOOLS-TAP & DIE SET 478.16
3/14/11 SCREWDRIVERS & TORCH SET 42.03
G & K SERVICES 3/14/11 PW SVC 850.84
HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT 3/14/11 JAN-800MHZ 64.00
HYDRA POWER HYDRAULICS 3/14/11 REBUILD-DUMP TRUCK 333.04
LANO EQUIPMENT, INC. 3/14/11 IDLER PULLY & ASSEMBLY 405.00
MANN MADE PRODUCTS 3/14/11 METAL STOCK & LABOR 41.00
PAETEC 3/14/11 02/26-03/25 SVC 46.90
MENARDS 3/14/11 MAILBOX SUPPLIES 11.94
MIDWEST CRANE CORP. 3/14/11 ANNUAL INSPECTION 480.17
03-10-2011 12:31 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT - MARCH 14, 2011 PAGE: 3
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
AMERICAN MESSAGING 3/14/11 MAR PAGER 8.99
CENTERPOINT ENERGY 3/14/11 GAS-01/20-02/28 1,206.32
NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIP CO 3/14/11 LED SIDE MARKERS 73.96
3/14/11 HARDWARE 8.56
XCEL ENERGY 3/14/11 STMT#272058569- 519.28
LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 3/14/11 OILD-FUEL-LUBE 689.25
SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 3/14/11 HARDWARE 14.21
3/14/11 HARDWARE 6.41
3/14/11 PART 5.28
3/14/11 NUMBER-BLDG 16.38
3/14/11 HADRWARE 3.33
3/14/11 HARDWARE 9.97
3/14/11 PAINT 8.75
3/14/11 HARDWARE 7.05
SIGN LLC 3/14/11 LOGO'S TRUCK 192.38
SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC 3/14/11 GAS 4,253.97
TOLL GAS & WELDING 3/14/11 WELD SUPPLIES 75.91
QWEST 3/14/11 SVC 2/25-3/24 57.03
WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 3/15/11 TIRES-FORDF250-2004 684.47
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 3/14/11 FIRST AIDS 206.80
ZEP SALES & SERVICE 3/14/11 SOAPS & CLEANERS 80.76
HENN CTY ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE 3/14/11 2011 HAZARDOUS WASTE LIC 210.00
CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIPMENT 3/14/11 HYDRAULIC SWIVELS 14.11
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN 3/14/11 MAR SVC 354.03
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 2/28/2011 - 99/99/9999 10,494.62_
TOTAL: 24,335.30
Streets & Roadways General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/01/11 FICA W/H 129.02
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H 30.17
PERA 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 153.53
UNIQUE PAVING MATERIALS CORP. 3/14/11 COLD PATCH 346.01
3/14/11 COLD PATCH 444.87
3/14/11 COLD PATCH 265.85
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 2/28/2011 - 99/99/9999 2,117.65_
TOTAL: 3,487.10
Ice & Snow Removal General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/01/11 FICA W/H 282.36
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H 66.06
PERA 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 348.56
MORTON SALT, INC. 3/14/11 SALT 3,097.14
WM. MUELLER & SONS, INC. 3/14/11 SAND FOR SNOW 2,288.39
ZIEGLER, INC. 3/14/11 PLOW CUTTING EDGES 1,091.03
H & L MESABI 3/14/11 BLIZZARD BLADE 768.13
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 2/28/2011 - 99/99/9999 4,807.79_
TOTAL: 12,749.46
Traffic Control/Str Li General Fund EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC. 3/14/11 SEASONAL W LIMIT SIGN 432.63
XCEL ENERGY 3/14/11 STMT#272058569- 24.28
3/14/11 STMT#272058569- 3,334.66
3/14/11 5700 CTY RD 19 30.90
3/14/11 5700 CTY RD 19 UNIT LIGHTS 197.88_
TOTAL: 4,020.35
Tree Maintenance General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/01/11 FICA W/H 3.04
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H 0.71
PERA 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 3.78
03-10-2011 12:31 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT - MARCH 14, 2011 PAGE: 4
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
RUMPCA CO INC 3/14/11 BRUSH DISPOSAL 45.00
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 2/28/2011 - 99/99/9999 52.10_
TOTAL: 104.63
Parks & Recreation General Fund EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/01/11 FICA W/H 324.82
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H 75.98
PERA 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 275.40
ANDERSON, KRISTI B. 3/14/11 PARK COMM MTG-03/08/11 220.00
COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 3/15/11 PCS-02/28-03/11 2,160.00
CONSOLIDATED CONTAINER CO. LLC 3/14/11 GARBAGE CANS 350.34
MISC. VENDOR DAN CALRSON 3/14/11 DAN CALRSON: CARLSON TENNI 500.00
PAETEC 3/14/11 02/26-03/25 SVC 145.60
MENARDS 3/14/11 TOOLS 43.95
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC 3/04/11 PARK-POSTAGE 509.41
3/04/11 PARK-SVC 356.94
CENTERPOINT ENERGY 3/14/11 GAS-01/20-02/28 366.60
3/14/11 MANOR WARMING HOUSE 67.66
XCEL ENERGY 3/14/11 STMT#272058569- 1,003.36
SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 3/14/11 WP LOW PROFILE HEATER 64.11
TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES 3/14/11 PARK ACT. NEWSLETTER SVC 873.80
UNITED LABORATORIES 3/14/11 PARKS-SUPPLIES 131.21
GRAINGER, INC 3/14/11 COVER LIGHT 8.26
3/14/11 SLEEVE LIGHT 1.65
TNC INDUSTRIES, INC. 3/14/11 HEAT GRILLEES & REG-BADGER 240.47
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 2/28/2011 - 99/99/9999 5,482.53_
TOTAL: 13,202.09
Unallocated Expenses General Fund MINNESOTA LIFE 3/14/11 MAR LIFE PREM 433.91
DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA 3/01/11 MAR-DENTIST PREM 681.23
PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE 3/14/11 FEB-LIFE INS 709.43
3/14/11 MAR-LIFE INS 781.26_
TOTAL: 2,605.83
Equipment Replacement Equipment Replacem PREMIER FLEET SERVICES 3/14/11 BODY REPAIR-DUMP TRUCK 8,295.50_
TOTAL: 8,295.50
Senior Community Cente Southshore Communi EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/01/11 FICA W/H 33.01
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H 7.71
PERA 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 38.59
COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 3/15/11 ASSCC ASSISTANT-02/28-03/0 227.50
HENN CTY HUMAN SVC DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH 3/14/11 SSCC 2011 LICENSE 102.50
G & K SERVICES 3/14/11 SSCC SVC 47.24
LEE PEST CONTROL INC 3/14/11 SSCC-PEST SVC 70.00
OFFICE DEPOT 3/14/11 SSCC-INK 54.31
CENTERPOINT ENERGY 3/14/11 SSCC 06/17-07/22 364.28
XCEL ENERGY 3/14/11 SSCC- 06/22-07/24 807.21
DEX ONE 3/14/11 FEB ADS 9.85
DREW KRIESEL 3/14/11 FEB SVC 537.00
3/14/11 FEB SVC 29.00
3/14/11 FEB 40.00
IDROVO'S CLEANERS 3/14/11 KITCHEN CLEANING SVC 120.00
ANDERBERG, WAYNE 3/14/11 SNOW SHOVEL-02/14-03/07 160.00
MARTINIZING DRY CLEANING 3/14/11 CLEANER 47.95
LAKESHORE WEEKLY NEWS 3/14/11 SSCC- ADS 150.00
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN 3/14/11 SSCC-AUG SVC 150.44
03-10-2011 12:31 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT - MARCH 14, 2011 PAGE: 5
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 2/28/2011 - 99/99/9999 532.31_
TOTAL: 3,528.90
Water Water Utility EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/01/11 FICA W/H 221.59
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H 51.81
PERA 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 269.50
MN DNR WATERS 3/03/11 2010 DNR-WATER REPORT 1,910.20
HAWKINS, INC. 3/14/11 CHLORINE 80.00
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 3/15/11 LOCATE SYSTEM 50.00
3/15/11 LOCATE SYSTEM 30.65
3/15/11 FEB SVC 40.75
PAETEC 3/14/11 02/26-03/25 SVC 98.70
3/14/11 02/26-03/25 SVC 100.25
MENARDS 3/14/11 WELL BLDG FIRE INSPECT 40.97
AMERICAN MESSAGING 3/14/11 MAR PAGER 4.50
CENTERPOINT ENERGY 3/14/11 GAS-01/20-02/28 139.05
3/14/11 GAS-01/20-02/28 238.46
XCEL ENERGY 3/14/11 24253 SMTWN RD- 01/24-02/ 794.80
3/14/11 24253 SMTWN RD-SVC INTERRU 200.00-
3/14/11 STMT#272058569- 424.49
3/14/11 STMT#272058569- 792.21
3/14/11 STMT#272058569- 2,375.50
SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 3/14/11 LIGHTS 18.14
3/14/11 SUPPLIES-WELL HOUSE 66.21
3/14/11 TOOLS-WATER 33.12
3/14/11 SUPPLIES-WELL HOUSE 13.11
TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC 3/14/11 AUG BACTERIA ANALYSIS 100.00
QWEST 3/14/11 MAR SVC 315.23
3/14/11 MAR SVC 236.43
3/14/11 SVC 2/25-3/24 66.85
3/14/11 SVC 2/25-3/24 66.85
GRAINGER, INC 3/14/11 HEATER MOTOR 172.10
VALLEY-RICH CO., INC. 3/14/11 WATERMAIN BREAK @ CHESTNUT 4,603.15
WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE, INC. 3/14/11 WATER LEAK @ CHESTNUT & MN 225.50
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 2/28/2011 - 99/99/9999 3,717.38_
TOTAL: 17,097.50
Sewer Sanitary Sewer Uti EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/01/11 FICA W/H 136.31
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H 31.87
PERA 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 165.39
ELECTRIC PUMP 3/14/11 L.S.#15/17 REHAB 31,590.11
3/14/11 SCADA-SANITARY SW-CIP 20,840.63
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 3/15/11 LOCATE SYSTEM 50.00
3/15/11 LOCATE SYSTEM 30.65
3/15/11 FEB SVC 40.75
AMERICAN MESSAGING 3/14/11 MAR PAGER 4.50
XCEL ENERGY 3/14/11 STMT#272058569- 594.48
WSB AND ASSOCIATES 3/14/11 JAN-LS #15 & 17 INSPECTION 1,536.00
VERIZON WIRELESS 3/14/11 SVC 01/22-02/21 259.61
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 2/28/2011 - 99/99/9999 2,281.25_
TOTAL: 57,561.55
Recycling Recycling Utility EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/01/11 FICA W/H 4.02
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H 0.95
PERA 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 4.71
ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #894 3/14/11 MAR RECYCLING 13,840.20
03-10-2011 12:31 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY DEPARTMENT - MARCH 14, 2011 PAGE: 6
DEPARTMENT FUND VENDOR NAME DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT_
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 2/28/2011 - 99/99/9999 64.80_
TOTAL: 13,914.68
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Stormwater Managem EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 3/01/11 FICA W/H 50.82
3/01/11 MEDICARE W/H 11.88
PERA 3/01/11 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA 61.03
PARROTT CONTRACTING INC 3/14/11 SILVER LK DREDGE SPOILS 25,510.50
**PAYROLL EXPENSES 2/28/2011 - 99/99/9999 841.63_
TOTAL: 26,475.86
=============== FUND TOTALS ================
101 General Fund 120,298.65
403 Equipment Replacement 8,295.50
490 Southshore Community Ctr. 3,528.90
601 Water Utility 17,097.50
611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 57,561.55
621 Recycling Utility 13,914.68
631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 26,475.86
--------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL: 247,172.64
--------------------------------------------
TOTAL PAGES: 6
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
Department Parks Council Meeting March 14, 2011 Item Number 3B
From: Twila Grout, Admin Asst. Date: March 10, 2011
Item Description: Concession Operation Agreement
Background / Previous Action
The Park Commission at its March 8, 2011 meeting agreed to have Russ Withum provide concession
services at Freeman Park, Eddy Station in 2011. Services will be provided Monday through Sunday,
from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. on or about May 1 and continue through August 1 or when the sports
organizations have concluded their events.
Mr. Withum has provided concession services since 2005. He has done a very good job with the
concession services over the years, and has always been willing to open up for other events.
The contractor has agreed to pay the city $394 for the 2011 season. Payment will be due September 30,
2011. A copy of the agreement is attached.
Recommendation
The Park Commission recommends the City Council approve formalizing the Concession Agreement
for 2011 with Russ Withum.
Council Action:
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
Department Council Meeting Item Number
Administration March 14, 2011 3-C
From: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Item – Personnel Action
Policy Question: confirm regular status for Bruce DeJong, Finance Director.
Background – Discussion: Bruce started with the City in the capacity of Finance Director on September
1, 2010. I met with Bruce after the first three months to assess his satisfaction with the position, to
discuss any issues regarding the position, and to provide my feedback as to how he was performing in
the position. Bruce received high marks specifically regarding his leadership on revising the 20 year road
program.
I have continued to meet with Bruce on a weekly basis to review and discuss projects he is leading. In
reviewing the budget and financial information, he discovered an excess in the public safety building
fund that resulted in approximately $70,000 savings to police and fire. He was also key in putting
together the lease purchase deal with the fire district for the purchase of SCBA equipment. This project
benefits the other member cities and Shorewood.
Bruce meets all the base requirements of the position for which he was hired and in some areas exceeds
these requirements.
Financial Impact: there is no fiscal impact for this item.
Recommendation: Staff recommends council approve the satisfactory completion of the probationary
period for Bruce DeJong and that he achieve status as a regular employee.
Council Action:
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
Department Date Council Meeting Item Number
#3D
Parks 3/10/11 3/14/11
From: Kristi Anderson-CRR
Twila Grout-Park Adm. Asst.
Item Description
: Ball Field Pitching Rubbers
Background / Previous Action:
Kris Ichimura, of the Rebels fastpitch team and on behalf of the Freeman ball field user organizations,
came before the Park Commission and requested they recommend to the City Council they be allowed
to install new pitching rubbers for Freeman fields 4 – 5 – 6 during their spring clean-up weekend in
April.
Kris described and shared estimates for the pitching rubbers indicating that he and the user groups
could perform the installation, under the supervision of Public Works. He also indicated that they would
purchase the ‘Hollywood’ brand pitching rubbers and donate them to the City.
The Park Commission made a motion recommending the City Council support the purchase and
installation of the pitching rubbers by the sports organizations under supervision of Public Works staff,
and that the organizations sign the donor policy donating the pitching rubbers to the City of Shorewood,
waiving any maintenance requirements on their behalf.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Park Commission’s recommendation.
Council Action:
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
3E
Department Engineering Council Meeting 3/14/11 Item Number:
From: James Landini, P.E.
Item Description: 2011 Smithtown Way Storm Maintenance Project
Background / Previous Action
In 2011 staff will be maintaining the storm sewer pipe under Smithtown Way. The storm pipe is
heaving toward the surface, creating a longitudinal speed hump and longitudinal crack down
the roadway. The pipe will be removed, the problematic soils corrected and the pipe replaced.
During the maintenance two water service stubs and two sanitary sewer stubs will be installed.
To estimate how much soil needs to be corrected soil borings need to be performed and
analyzed. AET provided a quote to perform the soil borings, analyze the soil and provide a
report for a not to exceed $2600 with an optional two shallow borings on Enchanted Point Road
for an additional $900 on the same trip. The Enchanted Point Road soil borings are needed to
design the gravel road maintenance project and will be considered later in this agenda packet.
Options
1.Direct staff to contract with AET for this investigation work.
2.Do nothing.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends Council direct staff to work with AET for the Smithtown Way storm
maintenance project for a not to exceed $2600.
Council Action:
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
Department Parks Council Meeting March 14, 2011 Item Number 3F
From: Kristi Anderson, CRR Date: March 10, 2011
Twila Grout, Admin Asst.
Item Description: Picnic Tables
Background / Previous Action
In 2010 the Park Commission directed staff to collect quotes for the purchase of up to 15 picnic tables to
replace/supplement the current aging inventory of tables in the parks each year over the next several
years.
Within the 2011 CIP, the Commission allocated $7,000 to purchase additional tables.
The Park Commission moved to recommend the City Council purchase 11 Xccent 6’ picnic tables not to
exceed $7,000 from Midwest Playscapes.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council award the purchase of 11 Xccent 6’ picnic tables from Midwest
Playscapes in the amount of $6998.18
Council Action:
# 3G
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Accept Donations for the South Shore Community Center Sign
Meeting Date: March 14, 2011
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong
Reviewed by: Brian Heck
Attachments: Resolution and List of Donors
Policy Consideration:
All donations to the City of Shorewood must be accepted by the City Council in accordance with the
terms prescribed by the donor according to MN Statute 465.03.
Background:
The South Shore Community Center has been accepting donations during the past year for use toward
replacing the current monument sign with an electronic sign. In order to properly accept these
donations with the restriction that they be used for sign replacement, staff is asking the City Council to
formally accept the gifts received to date.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
These funds will reduce the amount of city expenditure required when the sign is replaced.
Options:
The City Council can choose to:
1.Adopt the attached resolution and accept the donations with restriction, or
2.Reject and return the donations.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends that the donations be accepted with the restriction that they be used for sign
replacement.
Next Steps and Timelines:
The timeline for replacing the sign has not been decided.
Connection to Vision / Mission:
Replacement of the sign will be an attractive amenity that improves communication with residents
about city and South Lake area activities.
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.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATIONS TO THE
SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER SIGN REPLACEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS,
The City of Shorewood is authorized to accept donations of real and personal
property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 465.03 , and is specifically authorized to accept
gifts for the benefit of recreational services pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 471.17; and
WHEREAS,
The following persons and entities have offered to contribute the cash amounts set
forth below to the city:
Name of Donor Amount
Gayle Luke $50
American Legion Post 259 $501
Deb Siakel $100
VFW Post 5919 $520
Beverly Weber $50
June Seamans $50
Theresa Zerby $60
Yaeger $50
Roeser Agency $150
Naughton $100
Bean’s Greenwood Marine $101
Young $100
Linda Freeman $101
Nick/Kathy Ruehl $251
Glenn Froberg $50
Bob Newman $100
Woody Love $501
Howards Point Marine $50
Superior Painting Company $105
Keeler, William & Marlene $25
Laura Turgeon $100
Robert & Ann Winegar $10
Ellen Bragg.P Lucking $150
Happy Feet $10
Catherine Turner $40
Twila Grout $65
Chris Lizee $50
Cheri/Jim Daughton $100
Bob Newman $40
City of Deephaven $3,000
City of Greenwood $1,500
TOTAL DONATIONS: $8,080
WHEREAS,
All such donations have been contributed to assist the city in the establishment and
operation of recreational facilities and programs either alone or in cooperation with others, as
allowed by law; and
WHEREAS,
The City Council finds that it is appropriate to accept the donations offered.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHOREWOOD,
MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
The donations described above are accepted and shall be used to purchase a sign for
the South Shore Community Center either alone or in cooperation with other entities,
as allowed by law.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 14th day of
March, 2011.
________________________
Christine Lizée, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
9A
Department Engineering Council Meeting 3/14/11 Item Number:
From: James Landini, P.E.
Item Description: 2011 Gravel Road Maintenance Experiment
Background / Previous Action
Enchanted Point Road is a gravel road that residents and Council have indicated is in need of sustainable
maintenance. In generalities gravel roads lose 1” of gravel per year, are susceptible to rutting,
corrugating, and dusty conditions. Basic maintenance consists of grading and adding rock at a frequency
of six trips per year. The estimated cost of maintaining this road is $3,000 per year.
I have conducted some research on sustainable surface maintenance and offer four options for Council
to choose from;
1.Otta seal: similar to our sealcoat times two, using a larger size of aggregate (rock). Road would
become eligible for patching and sealcoat maintenance and the procedure could use millings
from a mill and overlay project as the rock. Used worldwide since the 1960’s, not much U.S.
th
information. MN has six County roads, Stillwater Township has one road near 13636 90 St. N.
and MNDOT has many shoulders in use for over 10 yrs. Rough estimate of $12,000 and $2,500
every 5 yrs to sealcoat. May resemble a 40 yr old blacktop road in appearance until sealcoated.
2.Stabilized gravel with flyash or bentonite: reclaim existing aggregate (rock) while mixing flyash
or bentonite to bind the rock together. Not much information is available for long term life cycle
cost information. Rough estimate of $9,000. Will still appear to be a dirt/gravel road and have
potential environmental issues.
3.Stabilized gravel with chloride: reclaim existing aggregate (rock) while mixing chloride to
suppress fines. Requires annual spray treatments of chloride to maintain. Chloride is a pollutant
that has environmental restrictions in other suburbs and is a major ingredient in winter deicing
operations. Rough estimate of $7,000 first year & $1,000 per year thereafter plus annual
reshaping with the grader. Will appear to still be a dirt/gravel road.
4.Stabilized gravel with bituminous oil: reclaim the existing aggregate (rock) while mixing
bituminous oil similar to the sealcoat. Performed in Aitkin County in 2009. Rough estimate of
$20,000. No data available to share except that it was tried.
I did not see this project in the 2011 Capital Improvement Plan making this an unbudgeted project for
2011 or it could be considered maintenance under the annual road financial transfer.
If Council wishes to proceed, the next step is then to order the optional two shallow soil borings on the
AET proposal for $900 to see how much base material is present. If there is not sufficient base the
project will need to change to address the foundation.
2
Options
1.Direct staff to proceed with this project utilizing option 1 and obtain quotes for future Council
consideration.
2.Direct staff to budget for this project in 2012.
3.Do nothing.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Otta seal option, it has history in MN and may provide the perception
of a paved street.Staff also recommends Council direct staff to exercise the optional two
shallow soil borings with AET for an additional not to exceed $900.
Council Action:
#10A
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Deer Management Program 2011
Meeting Date: 3/14/2011
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Aerial Survey Map
Policy Consideration: Should the Deer Management Program be continued for 2011?
Background: The aerial deer survey for 2011 has been completed by Three Rivers Park District (see
attached map). As you can see, the numbers have increased somewhat dramatically, despite
Shorewood having conducted a removal program last fall. In 2010 the count revealed 106 deer on the
date of the flyover. This year the number has increased to 145. I spoke with Steven Hogg, Wildlife
Specialist for Three Rivers to see if this was the case throughout the region and what might account for
the increase. His comments are:
Counts are up throughout the region
Due to “exceptional snow cover”, counting was easier this year – probably close to actual
numbers
Also probably due to the amount of snow, the deer are herding up more than usual, forcing
them to stay on well-formed trails leading to food sources and protected areas and restricting
them from areas of deep snow
He claims to have a very good pilot this year, with a very good eye for deer
With respect to the deer removal effort last fall, the first weekend was quite successful, with 11 deer
taken. After that, weather conspired against the program. The second weekend was unseasonably
warm and the deer apparently hunkered down in the heat. While weather was not a factor on the third
weekend, the fourth weekend was disrupted by an ice storm. MBRB actually pulled in their archers for
safety reasons. More detail of where and how many deer were removed will be presented at Monday
night’s meeting.
Phone calls relative to the management program were overwhelmingly in favor of continuing. Only one
caller expressed concern about removing deer. As always we advised her to write to the Council. We
did not receive any written correspondence. The vast majority of calls were from people requesting that
we hunt their area or property. In this regard, we will have several more sites to research this spring if
the Council agrees to continue the program.
Finally, the Planning Commission, following up on their work program from last year has asked staff to
prepare an ordinance banning the supplemental feeding of deer. Their intent is to survey 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. Page 1
residents via a question distributed on utility bills and hold an open house meeting to discuss the issue
with interested residents before recommending enactment of the ordinance.
Financial or Budget Considerations: This program has been relatively low-cost. The insurance
certificate required from MBRB is $50 and the annual aerial survey was $800. Although staff
involvement has increased somewhat over the few years that the program has been in existence, it has
not detracted from normal duties.
Options: The Council can continue the program for 2011, discontinue the program, or direct staff
to explore alternatives to what we are currently doing.
Recommendation / Action Requested: It is recommended that the program be continued for 2011,
expanding it based on additional suitable sites being made available. Staff has also discussed with hunt
coordinators the possibility of having archers on the golf course property more than just the four
weekends. We will explore this further and bring back a recommendation later this summer.
Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will review new sites, talk to property owners and hopefully
expand the number of sites available for deer removal for next season.
Connection to Vision / Mission: This program is considered to contribute to a healthy environment
with a variety of attractive amenities.
-2-
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
Department Council Meeting Item Number
Administration March 14, 2011 10 - B
From: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Item – Stop sign placement policy
Policy Question: the Council is asked to review the current policy regarding the placement of stop signs.
Options:
The council can:
1)Reaffirm the current policy in the current form;
2)Reaffirm the current policy with changes;
3)Direct staff to bring back a revised policy based on discussion;
Background – Discussion: Residents in the area of the Yellowstone Trail and Glencoe Road asked Council
member Woodruff about installing stop signs on Yellowstone Trail. There are stop signs on Glencoe at
this intersection. It is staffs understanding the residents have safety and speed concerns.
When I received the request from Councilmember Woodruff, I spoke to James about the process the
city has to petition a stop sign. James indicated that we needed to develop a policy and provided me
with some suggested language. Then, as I was going through the binder on policies, I found a resolution
and policy related to stop sign requests the city council passed in 1992. We are proceeding with the
evaluation of the stop sign request in accordance with the policy.
However, since this policy was adopted 19 years ago, we felt it prudent to bring it up to council for
review and discussion.
Financial Impact: there is no immediate financial impact. There may be costs associated with requests in
the future for staff time to evaluate the request and, if warranted, purchase and install a sign.
Recommendation: staff recommends council reaffirm the current policy.
Rational: staff makes this recommendation as the current process follows specific objective criteria for
placing of stop signs that neighborhoods request.
Council Action:
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
Department Council Meeting Item Number
Administration March 14, 2011 10-C
From: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Item –Franchise Fee
Policy Question: Should the city include a franchise fee in the proposed franchise agreement or provide
language allowing the city to adopt a franchise fee at some point in the future?
Options:
1)Include a franchise fee as part of the agreement;
2)Include language allowing the application of a franchise fee at some future date;
3)Leave out language regarding a franchise fee;
4)Choose not to have a franchise with Xcel or CenterPoint Energy
Background – Discussion:
Staff has been working with both CenterPoint and Xcel over the past year and a half on adequate
language for these two agreements. The Xcel agreement underwent review by Tim Keane and Kennedy
and Graven. The CenterPoint agreement is based on the model agreement developed for the League of
Minnesota Cities by Jim Strommend of Kennedy and Graven. He is one of the top utility law attorneys in
the state.
These agreements provide the right of the utility to use the city’s right of way to locate their facilities
and exempts them from certain permit requirements that others working in the ROW are required to
meet such as the permit fees. We still maintain control over the use and work in the ROW and the
companies are still required to provide notice to the city when they need to access the ROW to
complete work. They are also not required to post a performance bond for each project; however, we
are asking the companies to post a blanket bond to ensure their subcontractors restore the ROW to our
standards – this is one issue outstanding with Xcel.
The City has the authority to impose a franchise fee on the gross receipts of the company. The funds
generated can then be used for any general fund purpose. If the city chooses to impose such a fee, it
appears on the bill as a separate item and is generally passed on to the consumer. The franchise fee can
be characterized as a “rental” payment for the use of the city’s public right of way.
At present, the draft agreements provide language allowing the city to impose a franchise fee during the
term of the agreement, which is 20 years, but do not include specific amounts the city plans to charge if
a decision is made in the future. This is another point of disagreement with Xcel. They want to lock the
city in to a rate, whereas the CenterPoint language is flexible.
Financial Impact: there is no fiscal impact for this item unless the council chooses to direct staff to
prepare the agreements with a franchise fee.
Council Action:
2
Recommendation: staff recommends the agreements be drafted with the flexibility of imposing a
franchise fee at sometime during the life of the agreement and not including the fee at this time. Staff
does not believe now is the right time to add more costs to the residents without having some identified
use or purpose for the funds that may be generated. Should financial conditions not improve and / or
the state continues to restrict the ability of cities to generate the necessary revenue to provide needed
services, that is a better time to review and consider imposing a franchise fee.
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
Department Council Meeting Item Number
Administration March 14, 2011 11-A
From: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Item – Measureable Management
Policy Question: Should the Council approve engaging with Fritz Partners to conduct Measureable
Management Training for some Shorewood staff?
Options:
1)Approve going through the Measureable Management Program;
2)Choose not to participate in the Measureable Management Program
Background – Discussion: During the past year and a half, I have been meeting and working with Molly
Sue McDonald and Rebecca Heideprim as well as Excelsior and Tonka Bay on using Measureable
Management as a means to find and implement more collaborative programs and services. In
September of 2010, Molly presented information to the Council on the program and provided examples
of the success achieved by the City of Waconia. Molly returned in early January to walk the new council
through the program. In short, the program provides a frame work for staff to learn how to work better
together, develops leadership, provides tools for implementation of improvements, provides a method
to measure results, and begins to create an environment based on continuous improvement.
One of the comments made during the presentations is if we need this type of program to find and
implement efficiencies. At first blush, my response is no. However, in looking at the larger picture, I feel
in order meet the future demands of the community, bringing this program in will greatly improve our
chances for success in achieving the goals and objectives outlined during the staff / council retreat.
What we need to do is start to change the current culture, which seems to be one of “safety” - which is
doing one’s job and not making waves - to one focused on innovation, creativity, and openness. One of
the core values staff and council rated highly was leadership and our mission statement states we will
use “visionary leadership” in accomplishing our mission.
Finally, this is an entirely risk free venture. The program is guaranteed to produce results and deliver
savings to the city in amount equal to or above the cost of training. If savings are not achieved, the city
will receive a check from the consultants for the difference in what was paid and savings achieved.
As an added benefit, we can invite a couple people to “audit” the program. They participate in the
training but are not required to do the homework or participate in identifying a project and then
delivering. I suggest that we invite the Chief Bryan Litsey and Chief Gerber to audit the program if the
council elects to move forward with the program.
Financial Impact: the council set aside approximately $36,000 in the 2011 budget for strategic planning,
visioning, and staff/council retreat. We hosted two community visioning sessions and held a retreat with
Council Action:
2
staff and council. The cost for these programs was approximately $5,000 leaving about $31,000 for
other strategic issues.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the council contract with Fritz Partner’s to provide measureable
management training to up to 9 city staff and extend an offer to the SLMPD and EFD to have one of their
employees audit the program. Staff does not recommend at this time including Excelsior or Tonka Bay in
the training as they do not have budget authority to participate. Shorewood staff will, as part of the
program, look for projects that include the other communities.
Rational: the rational for this recommendation is based on the need to develop a method focused on
continuous improvement; is proactive rather than reactive; and provides a way to measure meaningful
results.
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
Department Council Meeting Item Number
Administration March 14, 2011 11-C
From: Brian Heck, City Administrator
Item – County Road 19 Trail
Policy Question: Should the Council reconsider a resolution supporting the County Road 19 trail plan
from the Hennepin County LRT in Tonka Bay to the Dakota Trail in Orono?
Options:
1)Reconsider the resolution supporting the concept;
2)Do not reconsider support of the concept;
3)Request additional information.
Background – Discussion: last fall, Hennepin County representatives presented a list of concept options
to the City Council and requested a resolution of support for improving County Road 19 from the Tonka
Bay / Shorewood boarder to the Dakota Trail in Orono.
The concept plans were developed over a year or so long process that involved representatives from
Orono, Tonka Bay, and Shorewood. The representatives were elected officials, appointed officials, and
residents from each community along with Hennepin County officials and Three Rivers Park District
officials. The goal of the study and concept development was to provide a safe way to get between the
two regional trails. The current configuration of an on street shoulder does not provide the proper level
of safety to novice bikers and walkers.
Attached to this document is a formal request from the City of Tonka Bay for the City of Shorewood to
reconsider its position on the issue and adopt a resolution in support of the concept – that is to have
some type of safe passage way along County Road 19.
Financial Impact: staff is unaware of a financial impact at this time and it appears that adoption of a
resolution of support does not bind or obligate the City of Shorewood financially to any future project.
Recommendation: staff is comfortable recommending adopting a resolution in support of the concept
for a connection between the two regional trails as long as the adoption of the resolution does not
financially obligate the city in any way.
Rational: there is a renewed interest in safe connection to other trails, parks, and destinations to
promote alternative modes of transportation and this fits with that goal. The caution on the financial
obligation is the segment in Shorewood is quite small and may be completed long before this concept
comes to fruition.
Council Action: