Loading...
022309 CC Reg Min5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SOUTIIS ORE CENTER 7:00 P.M. Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey, Turgeon, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Tietjen; City Administrator Heck; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Turgeon moved, Bailey seconded, approving the agenda amended. Motion passed 5/0 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2009 Bailey moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2009, as presented. Motion passed 510. B. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, February 9, 2009 Zerby moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2009, as presented. Motion passed 510. C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, February 9, 2009 Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2009, as presented. Motion passed 510. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Appeal Notice of Zoning Violation Applicant: James and Nancy Stubbe Location: 5750 Covington Road Motion passed 5/0. SHORE WOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 23, 2009 Page 2 at 16 MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. Mayor Lizee noted there were a few students in the audience this evening to observe a Council meeting as part of a school project. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Recognition of Service On behalf of the Council and the residents of Shorewood, Mayor Lizee thanked former Planning Commissioner Bruce Gniffke for his almost five years of service as a Planning Commissioner and provided him with a plaque of appreciation and recognition. Mr. Gniffke thanked Council for the opportunity, and stated he has been a resident of the City since 1952. On behalf of the Council and the residents of Shorewood, Mayor Lizee thanked former Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Boardmember Richard Siakel (who was not present this evening) for his year of service as an LMCD Boardmember; noting he was chosen as the LMCD's Representative of the Year at its 2009 Save-the-Lake banquet. She stated he will be sent a plaque of appreciation and recognition. On behalf of the Council and the residents of Shorewood, Mayor Lizee thanked former Park Commissioner Howard Young (who was not present this evening) for his nine years of service as a Park Commissioner. She noted Mr. Young remains very involved with the community. She stated he will be sent a plaque of appreciation and recognition. On behalf of the Council and the residents of Shorewood, Mayor Lizee thanked former Park Commissioner Robert Hensley (who was not present this evening) for his over three years of service as a Park Commissioner. She noted Mr. Hensley and his wife are very involved with the community. She stated he will be sent a plaque of appreciation and recognition. B. Report on Council's Role on a Joint Powers Agreement Mayor Lizee stated Attorney Tietjen will highlight her memorandum which provides a brief summary of the legal authority and powers of a joint powers entity; a copy of the memorandum was included in the meeting packet for this meeting. Attorney Tietjen highlighted the main points of her memorandum. She explained Minnesota Statutes provides two or more government entities the authority to enter into intergovernmental agreement to combine resources and efforts to accomplish things the entities could not do alone. The establishment of a true joint powers organization creates a separate legal entity run by a governing board that has certain distinct powers and obligations governed by a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the parties. The joint entity may jointly or cooperatively exercise its powers pursuant to terms outlined in the JPA. The joint entity has the power to own property, receive and expend funds, enter into contracts, hire employees, and sue or be sued. The governing board acts as an independent governing body, which consists of representatives from the individual members, and it has decision making power for the joint entity consistent with the terms of the JPA. Tietjen then explained there are unique rules related to liability issues and insurance coverage for joint powers entities. Minnesota Statutes was amended such that the joint powers entity is liable for the acts or SHORE O D CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 23, 2009 Page 3 of 16 omissions of another participating governmental unit only if it agreed to that in writing. It was also amended such that the individual members and the joint powers entity are considered a single government unit for purposes of determining liability for damages. A single member can not be held liable to the limit under State Statutes. Typically joint powers entities have their own liability insurance coverage. Tietjen explained the cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay entered into a JPA for the provision of police services in 1998. The South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) JPA establishes a Coordinating Committee as the SLMPD governing body, and the Committee consists of the mayors of the member cities. There are certain obligations the Committee must fulfill and it has other discretionary powers. The individual member cities also have certain rights and obligations under the JPA. These obligations, powers and rights are listed in the memorandum. Tietjen went on to explain there have been four amendments to the SLMPD JPA. Amendments two, three and four deal with how budgeting for police services is handled. The fourth amendment, which is the most recent, was agreed to in 2006 pursuant to a binding arbitration order that was issued to resolve a dispute between the member cities regarding budget issues. This fourth amendment changed the JPA in three ways: 1) it changed the term of the JPA through December 31, 2023, and established specific terms for withdrawal from the JPA; 2) it added a section requiring the parties to follow a certain process for dispute resolution; and, 3) it replaced the budgeting process provisions with a new process for determining the member cities' contributions and for approving the budget. Effective January 1, 2007, the annual operating budget must be approved by all four member cities. If that does not occur by September 1 of each year, the JPA specifies a process that must be followed to determine the budget. Shorewood's annual contribution was set to 50 percent of the approved operating budget. Mayor Liz6e stated the review of how the joint powers organizations operate was very timely. She noted the City is also a member of the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) joint powers organization which consists of the four SLMPD member cities plus the City of Deephaven. She also noted the EFD was a paid-on-call fire department. She stated there was a recent article written by Lori Sturdevant and published in the Star Tribune which discussed the need to streamline state, county and local governments. It also discussed the importance of local governments researching what types of services could be provided through cooperative efforts. In response to a comment from Councihnember Turgeon, Attorney Tietjen clarified tile SLMPD Coordinating Committee is the governing body for the SLMPD pursuant to the terms of the SLMPD JPA, and it has the decision making authority for the SLMPD. Administrator Heck stated the same applies to EFD joint powers organizations and the EFD Governing Board. 6. PUBLIC HEARING None. 7. PARKS Commissioner Quinlan reported on matters considered and actions taken at the February 10, 2009, Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). He elaborated on the Commission's consideration of South Tonka Little League's request for amendments to the City's Zoning Code that would allow advertising signs at the ball field in Freeman Park. He noted the Commission unanimously recommends that request be denied, and that there is a public hearing slated for the March 3, 2009, Planning Commission meeting. He stated Commissioner Norman was selected as Chair of the Commission and Commissioner Davis was selected as Vice-Chair. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 23, 2009 Page 4 of 16 In response to a question from Councilmember Bailey, Commissioner Quinlan explained the Park Commission did not believe the League's reasons justified a change and the City Code strongly discourages bill-board type signage. Quinlan also stated aesthetics were also a concern. He explained that approximately one half of the neighboring communities allow some types of signage in their city parks and the other half does not. He commented the Planning Commission wanted the Park Commission to discuss this request. Mayor Liz6e clarified the Park Commission discussed this item and only made a recommendation. Councilmember Woodruff stated on Thursday morning there is a tour of the City's parks which is the official kick-off of the project to update the City's Park Master Plan. He then stated he attended a recent Park Foundation meeting during which he encouraged the Foundation to have representatives come before Council to discuss Foundation activities and to meet with the Park Commission. A. Accept Quote for Eddy Station Facility Maintenance Mayor Liz6e stated the Park Commission recommends Council approve a contract with Koehnen Painting in the amount of $5,560 for services to perform maintenance on the exterior of Eddy Station located in Freeman Park. The facility's exterior is in need of maintenance. The Commission recommends moving this project from the 2010 Park Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to the 2009 CIP. The CIP has $3,000 budgeted for this effort. The additional amount of $2,560 can be funded out of Park reserves. Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, accepting the proposal provided by Koehnen Painting for $5,560 for the Eddy Station Facility Maintenance. Motion passed 510. 8. PLANNING. Director Nielsen reported on matters considered and actions taken at the February 17, 2009, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Seeking Statutory Authority to Implement a Street Improvement District Engineer Landini explained the meeting packet for this meeting contained a draft resolution seeking statutory authority to implement a street improvement district as well as a letter to the City's elected legislators requesting them to author the bill to obtain this authority. A street improvement district would allow the city to spread the cost of projects over more properties and over a longer period of time. This financial tool is transparent in that fees collected within a street improvement district would be collected and used for municipal street maintenance, reconstruction and facility upgrades. This tool would also allow the city to perform street maintenance and reconstruction on schedule. Timely maintenance is essential to preserving streets and thereby protecting taxpayer investments. Given the current economy, this preservation is more important than ever. If the City were granted the authority, it would have to hold a public hearing before establishing a district. Landini stated Staff recommends Council approve of the resolution and direct Staff to submit the letter and resolution to Shorewood's elected Legislators. Councilmember Zerby stated currently the City has two options for finding roadway improvements. The property owners along the roadway can be assessed some amount of the cost, or funds from the General Fund can be used for this purpose noting all property owners contribute to the General Fund. The street SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 23, 2009 Page 5 of 16 improvement district would create a smaller subset in the City that would be taxed to pay for improvements. Engineer Landini stated a City-wide district could be established as well. Landini stated the funds could be used for street signage, mill and overlay or seal coating of roadways, and roadway reconstruction. Director Brown stated if the State Legislature granted the City the authority to set up a street improvement district it does not bind the City to do so. In response to a question from Councilmember Bailey, Administrator Heck stated he did not anticipate the City would incur any cost to make this request other than the possibility that he may have to testify during a committee hearing to consider the request and he considers activities like that part of his job. In response to another question from Bailey, Heck stated the League of Minnesota Cities and Metro Cities would lobby on behalf of cities making this request. Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 09-012, "°A Resolution Requesting Authority to Establish a Municipal Street Improvement District", and directing Staff to submit the resolution and request letter to Shorewood's elected Legislators. In response to a question from Councilmember Bailey, Administrator Heck stated because Minnesota cities are losing state aid and the Minnesota Department of Transportation budget constraints this request may have a better chance of getting approved. Councilmember Woodruff commented the Metro Cities Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee has discussed street improvement districts for the last two years. Motion passed 510. B. Authorize to Advertise a Request for Qualifications for Engineering Services Director Brown stated Staff would like to establish a pool of qualified engineering services consultants to draw upon for implementation of various Capital Improvement Program projects. Staff has provided Council with a brief statement of qualifications which will be modified to include a fee schedule. Council has also been provided with a timetable for soliciting the statements of qualifications from firms and selecting the pool of firms. Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, directing Staff to collect Statements of Qualifications to use in creating a pool of Engineering Service Consultants. Councilmember Woodruff stated he whole heartedly supported the idea. He questioned if an engineering firm would have to be on the list to be considered for projects, to which Director Brown stated yes. Woodruff stated that should be clarified in the statement of qualifications. Motion passed 510. C. Survey Result from the Smithtown Lane/Harding Lane Public Information Meeting Engineer Landini stated Staff conducted a public information meeting on January 27, 2009, to discuss the potential reconstruction of Harding Lane and Smithtown Lane. At the information meeting Staff distributed a survey to use in gathering input about the residents support for reconstructing the roadways and installing municipal water as part of the projects. Out of the 26 property owners adjacent to these roadways, 15 completed the survey. Eighty percent of the property owners who completed and submitted the surveys do not want the roadways reconstructed and 60 percent do not want municipal water service SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 23, 2009 Page 6 of 16 installed. Many of the residents expressed concern about assessments for° water main in the present economic climate. Landini explained the next step in this process would be for Council to direct Staff to obtain the right-of- way required for the Smithtown Lane cul-de-sac, procure a survey for the right-of-way and initiate a feasibility study. He stated if Council did not want to move forward with this next phase in the process Council could chose to hold a public information meeting on the possible reconstruction of Meadowview Road and Nelsine Drive. Those two roadways are next in priority. Landini stated Staff requests direction from Council about how to proceed. Director Brown stated Councilmembers Bailey and Zerby attended the information meeting, and he had asked them to comment on the meeting. One of their critiques was Staff needed to clearly understand and convey that its ultimately Council's decision; not the residents. Yet, it is important for Staff to accurately communicate the residents' comments and make sure they are part of the public record. He commented the Cities of Minnetonka and Plymouth are foregoing a number of projects this year because of their impact on the property owners adjacent to the roadways. Mayor Liz6e asked how many property owners attended the information meeting, to which Engineer Landini responded there were eight and noted seven other property owners also completed the survey. Liz6e stated based on the results 12 out of 26 property owners indicated they did not want the roadways reconstructed and 9 did not want municipal water installed. She was not sure that was sufficient justification to conclude the majority did not want the projects done. She expressed concern about the lack of response. Councilmember Bailey stated he was not surprised with the results. Although Engineer Landini and Director Brown did a great job making the presentation at the meeting, the issue of funding was a concern for the property owners. Tile property owners want to know if they are going to be assessed for the improvements. Unless the finding issue is resolved he thought this is the type of response the City would continue to receive. He recommended Council quickly determine how to find these types of projects. Councilmember Zerby stated the two roadways are different. He commented he had asked one property owner if the project did not cost him anything would he want it and the individual said no because of the inconvenience during construction. He then stated Smithtown Lane was more of a rustic style road, and the anticipated location of the reconstructed road could be different than the current location and result in loss of trees. Harding Lane would be reconstructed in its current footprint, but residents had concern about access and parking during construction. Mayor Liz6e stated it was difficult to know many details about a project until a feasibility study has been done. Councilmember Woodruff stated funds were allocated in the General Fund for the reconstruction of these two roadways in 2009. From his vantage point, these two projects can be started while Council determines how to fund fixture projects. He requested Staff break out the survey responses by roadway for both reconstruction and installation of water, and that the property owners be identified. He stated that although Council has to be cautious to not be too heavy handed, there are a great number of roadways that are substandard. It is Council's responsibility to make the tough decisions before the City's roadways become a catastrophe. Mayor Liz6e expressed concern that the majority of the residents did not provide the City with feedback. She thought it would be a mistake to reconstruct roadways without considering the utility infrastructure at SI- OREWOOD CITE' COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 23, 2003 Page 7 of 16 the same time; it's prudent for Council to consider the broader picture when considering projects. She thought it would be beneficial to have a break out of the survey respondents by roadway and water installation. Director Brown stated based on experience, the issue of roadway width always surfaces with roadway reconstruction projects. He explained that in the past the City has used the process of pavement reclamation instead of reconstruction in certain situations, although not frequently. The reclamation approach is not as cost effective over the long term; the cost for reclamation is approximately 55 - 60 percent of the cost to reconstruct. He noted the reclamation approached was used on Strawberry Lane about fourteen years ago and it has performed well. Councilmember Turgeon commented there are approximately 12 properties on both Smithtown Lane and Harding Lane and both have cul-de-sacs. She questioned if it would not be better to invest roadway improvement dollars to first improve roadways with higher traffic. Director Brown stated he had discussed this with Turgeon prior to the meeting; the rating for roadways could be adjusted to reflect higher traffic volumes if Council desires. He commented higher-traffic roadways deteriorate faster; therefore, the impact of traffic is indirectly factored into the rating. Councilmember Woodruff stated Council discussed the 20-year Pavement Management Plan (PMP) in depth for 2009 and 2010 roadway improvements. He expressed concern that if Council wanted to revisit the City would lose the opportunity for any roadway reconstruction in 2009. He stated he was not as concerned about the money because he thought the 2009 revenue and expense budgets were sound, and these two projects have been budgeted for. He stated to not do these types of projects because of the economy would be wrong because that would put more people out of work. The City has a healthy budget and financial situation to do projects that are needed. Councilmember Turgeon questioned how much impact the residents' input should have in making a decision. Engineer Landini stated going on memory he thought five property owners on Smithtown Lane responded to the survey and of those only one was in favor of reconstructing this road. That would leave ten Harding Lane property owners responding and eight of them were against the reconstruction. He noted he had since received an email from another Harding Lane property owner who was against the reconstruction. In response to a comment from Councilmember Bailey, Director Brown explained asphalt reclamation involves removing asphalt, grinding it up and reapplying. Brown stated Staff recommends the roadways be reconstructed because it is a better investment for the City. Brown explained asphalt reclamation has an approximate 20 year life, while a reconstructed road has an approximate 30 - 35 year life. Also, the reclamation approach does not allow the City the opportunity to correct drainage issues because edge control would not be installed, and safety issues tend not to be corrected. He noted there are a number of drainage issues along Harding Lane. He explained the cost comparison of 55 - 60 percent for reclamation versus reconstruction may be low because reconstruction costs include edge control. He stated that although the reclamation effort for Strawberry Lane has performed well, after 14 years it is starting to show wear and tear. In response to a request from Councilmember Woodruff, Engineer Landini explained Harding Lane has 50 feet of right-of-way, and the proposed generic alignment and cul-de-sac fit within the existing paved surface. Smithtown Lane has 66 feet of right-of-way, but the proposed cul-de-sac for Smithtown Lane will require land procurement. Director Brown noted that a few property owners who attended the public information meeting indicated the right-of-way boundaries displayed for Smithtown Lane were not where they thought they should be. He stated one individual stated he had a survey that was contrary to that. SHOREWOOD CITE' COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 23, 2009 Page 8 of 16 Staff is concerned that although Hennepin County map shows a 66-foot-wide right-of-way for Smithtown Lane, it may actually be a statutory right-of-way; the City would not have the rights to that right-of-way. The right-of-way on Harding Lane is a platted right-of-way and it appears the City has the necessary right-of-way, noting there could be extra right-of-way needed to resolve drainage issues. This will not be known until further assessment has been done. Councilmember Woodruff recommended the Harding Lane project move forward from an engineering perspective because the City knows that it has the necessary easement to at least reconstruct the roadway. He would like to move forward with Harding Lane because it does not have easement issues like Smithtown Lane does. Councilmember Zerby stated he thought the property owners spoke "loud and clear" that they did not want the road reconstructed, and there are other improvement projects within the City that the budgeted funds could be used for. Because the City has limited funds, he did not think it was appropriate to do a project residents did not want done. Councilmember Bailey questioned if these projects were not done would they drop to the bottom of the priority list. He did not think it is appropriate for the City to revisit them year after year. Councilmember Zerby stated maybe they could be reconsidered in 2010. Bailey stated there is a finite amount of dollars for roadway reconstruction, and he suggested the roadways that residents do not want reconstructed drop to the bottom of the list. Bailey thought it prudent to explain to the residents there are budgeted finds to reconstruct these roadways. Mayor Liz6e stated Council has to determine the City's responsibility and the property owners' responsibility. A major issue with a proposed project in 2008 was the City could not acquire the necessary right-of-way. The City cannot delay projects forever. She recollects seeing photographs of serious drainage issues in properties adjacent to Harding Lane during the spring snow melt. She suggested the City move forward with projects where it has the necessary right-of-way. She stated engineering work would identify what other improvements should be considered and determine if additional easements are needed to do the improvements. Because the City has the necessary right-of-way to reconstruct Harding Lane, she recommends the City move forward with the next phase of this project. Administrator Heck commented that there are two Council work sessions scheduled in March to discuss roadway improvement projects, including financing of projects. In response to a question from Mayor Liz6e, Engineer Landini stated if Council wanted to consider the next phase of either reconstruction project Staff should be directed to solicit quotes for the construction. Councilmember Woodruff stated the major issue for the reconstruction of Smithtown Lane is the right-of- way for the cul-de-sac. Woodruff moved, Bailey seconded, directing Staff to obtain the right-of-way for the Smithtown Lane cul-de-sac, to procure surveys, and begin the feasibility studies for Harding Lane and Smithtown Lane. Councilmember Woodruff noted the motion was not an authorization to do the project. Councilmember Turgeon stated she wanted to separate the two projects as she did not think the Smithtown Lane project would be done during the summer of 2009. Administrator Heck stated at its February 2, 2009, work session Council discussed the goals for 2009. During the meeting Council requested some changes be made to the projects' descriptions. During that work session Council directed Staff to prioritize the projects and Council would review them and revise them if necessary at a subsequent meeting. The meeting packet for this meeting contains the revised descriptions as well a prioritized timeline chart. He asked Council for feedback on the priorities. Councilmember Woodruff requested Staff prepare a cross reference system between the project descriptions and the timeline chart. He stated he had difficulty matching up the iterns on the timeline chart and the projects' descriptions. Administrator Heck stated the projects' descriptions and the timeline chart are organized by department. Councilmember Woodruff suggested the Vine Hill Road and Highway 7 study project be a higher priority than the Sign Inventory Project under Public Works. Administrator Heck clarified the projects and timeline actually are more of a work program. This is not how he would like to have the goals and priorities for 2010 developed. Councilmember Woodruff stated he wanted Staff to get started on the projects. Councilmember Zerby stated he did not disagree with any of the projects or the timeline. He thought they were great. B. Recycling Program Discussion Administrator Heck stated Councilmember Zerby expressed interest in having the City's recycling program reviewed to determine how to increase the amount of recyclable material collected and improve the recycling process. He then stated Zerby had indicated he was very impressed with Eden Prairie's single-sort system. Heck explained the meeting packet for this evening contained the City's contract with the current recycling services provider (Veolia), a memorandum outlining the details of the City's current recycling program, some information about organics recycling, and an executive summary of the City of Roseville's recycling pilot program conducted in 2004. The current contract with Veolia contains an option to extend the contract for 24 months and if the City chooses to do so it must notify Veolia of that decision by June 30, 2009. Veolia then has one month to determine if it wants to agree to the extension. If it does, the City and Veolia have until September 1, 2009, to finalize the agreement. He asked Zerby to comment on this topic. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 23, 2009 Page 10 of 16 Councilmember Zerby stated the information he had been provided in early January 2009 about the City's recycling program and how the current recycling service provider was selected was from 2006. During its January 12, 2009 meeting, Council requested Staff assemble more current information about recycling options for Council discussion. The information from Roseville's pilot program was even older than the information for the City. He questioned if the Planning Commission or possibly the Park Commission should be involved in this effort. He stated Council has to decide if it wants to have a single-sort or dual- sort recycling system and the frequency of collections (weekly or bi-weekly). Although he had no specific supporting data to back this, he thought it may be possible to move to a bi-weekly single-sort system for approximately the same cost as the current weekly dual-sort system. He asked Council how it would like to proceed with this. Should it move forward at a committee level? Should a request for proposal (RFP) process be initiated based on simple cost structure? He stated based on his own experience and discussions with residents he strongly thought the current recycling program could be improved. Mayor Lizee stated there are a number of companies that provide recycling services. Based on articles she has read in various newspaper publications there are number of variations that can be considered. One of the criterions that should be considered is what volume of recycled material collected is actually recycled. There are some companies that offer rewards programs for residents based on the volume they recycle. Hennepin County has a great program with an expansive list of opportunities. She suggested Council have a County representative present information about the County's program, and that a concerted effort be made to solicit public input about recycling. Councilmember Turgeon stated the recycling system selected comes down to cost. There may be some issues if the frequency of recycling changes to be different than waste pickup, noting the City does not have just one City-wide refuse hauler. She suggested organics recycling discussions be done separately. Administrator Heck stated in order to be able to get financial numbers for various options an RFP process should be completed. If that is what Council wants, it should direct Staff to do so. Councilmember Woodruff thought it is prudent to go through an RFP process. He commented that for the last recycling services RFP process a matrix of various options was prepared. He suggested that be done again. He requested Staff review the City's current contract with Veolia and assess where Veolia has or has not satisfied the requirements of the contract. Councilmember Zerby stated that based on the minutes of a January 27, 2007, Council work session there appeared to have been a lot of worthwhile information researched and provided. There had been a group of cities that had collectively evaluated various recycling options and determined it was not feasible for all of them to use the same provider. Administrator Heck stated he has located the study and recommendations of that group. There was consensus to have Staff prepare an RFP. Councilmember Zerby stated the contract specifies Veolia provide the City with monthly reports on recycling volumes, noting he has never seen those reports. Mayor Lizee stated she wants Hennepin County to make a presentation to Council. C. Technology Committee Report and Recommendations Administrator Heck stated the Technology Committee held its first meeting on February 5, 2009, during which it reviewed and discussed the three proposals for telephone and data services. The Committee SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 23, 2009 Page 11 of 16 recommends the City work with Warner Connect to provide a telephone infrastructure for City Hall and Public Works (the phone system will be hosted at Warner Connect), to provide off-site data storage and disaster recovery for the City's data systems, host the City's website, and provide internet service. Over time it may be possible to migrate the City's network servers off-site to a hosted system at Warner Connect. Warner Connect will develop a communications system using internet protocol telephones (VOIP). The system will interconnect City Hall and Public Works by using one T-I line to City Hall and another to Public Works. Staff will have direct dial lines, voice mail, unified messaging, and other features. He commented Warner Connect worked with the City of Plymouth to revamp its entire telephone and data infrastructure, and Plymouth city staff spoke very highly of the work Warner Connect performed. Administrator Heck explained the cost for implementation is approximated at $17,000. Monthly fees are estimated to be $2,800; current fees for phones, internet, and data support are approximately $2,000 per month. Councihnember Zerby, a member of the Technology Committee, stated he was very impressed with Warner Connect representatives. He thought it would reduce some demand on Staff for things such as data backups and administering phones in the event of problems. He explained Warner Connect will be able to solve problems remotely because much of the technology will be located off-site at Warner Connect. Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the City work with Warner Connect to provide the telephone infrastructure for City Hall and Public Works in accordance with its proposal, and to provide off-site data storage and disaster recovery for the City's data systems. Motion passed 510. Administrator Heck stated the City currently has some employees that have mobile communications devices which are either paid for or reimbursed by the City. The Technology Committee thought it was prudent for the City to have a mobile communications policy so it drafted such a policy for Council's consideration. The Committee recommends approval of the policy. The policy states that for those individuals who are identified as needing to have a mobile communications device, the City will either provide the device or reimburse the employee for using their personal device for business purposes. In response to a question from Councilmember Bailey, Administrator Heck stated lie would be responsible for determining which employees need such a device. Bailey moved, Liz& seconded, adopting the City of Shorewood Mobile Communications Policy. Motion passed 510. D. Southshore Center Update Administrator Heck requested this item, which was originally scheduled to be discussed as Item 11.A.2 under Staff and Council reports, be discussed under General/New Business because it warranted more discussion than just an update. Administrator Heck explained the Friends of the Southshore Community Center have dissolved and will not be managing the operations of the Center effective March 1, 2009. Therefore there is no need to continue to work on an amended lease agreement with the Friends, or to continue down the current path of amendments to the Cooperative Agreement between the five member cities. He stated the Southshore Center funding group met on February 20`x' to discuss what some of the immediate needs for keeping the Center operational are, while the five member cities determine the long-term future of the Center. He commented Councilmember Turgeon attended the meeting. SHOREW OD CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 23, 2009 Page 12 of 16 Heck stated Council has been provided with a copy of a letter dated February 11 " from Tom Anderson, President of the Friends Board, informing the Cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay of the dissolution of the Friends and outlining the situation. Council has also been provided with a copy of a memorandum he wrote to the other member cities' Managers or Administrators outlining the concerns that need to be addressed in order to keep the Center operational for the short term. There is a need for: a fiscal agent, a day-to-day contact person, and a rental agent; contact to be made with existing renters and users of the Center as well as future renters; contact to be made with Minnetonka Community Education (MCE); and, identifying the cost to operate the Center and funding for the operations. There are questions about the legality of existing rental agreements for use of the Center. Heck then stated during the February 20"' meeting of the Southshore Center Funding Group there appeared to be general consensus that Shorewood could serve as the fiscal agent in the interim. There is approximately $1150 in Friends prepaid rent that must be transferred, and there are checks to deposit and bills to pay. Councilmember Turgeon stated during the Southshore Center Funding Group meeting, Excelsior and Greenwood representatives indicated they wanted the costs for the long-term care and maintenance of the facility to be split on an ad-valorem basis, not the proposed equal sharing by all member cities. There was disappointment expressed about the Friends decision to dissolve as some perceived the member cities had been working hard to reach agreement on lease and Cooperative Agreement amendments. All member cities must consider how much money they want to invest in keeping the Center operational and in maintaining the facility. During the meeting someone asked whether or not the member cities would be willing to sell the facility if a buyer came forward, and the consensus around the table was yes. Mayor Lizee stated she was not able to attend the February 20`x' meeting, but she has attended other meetings of the group and the topic of selling the facility was never discussed. The Center is a community facility. Turgeon clarified the question asked was whether or not the cities would be willing to sell the facility; there was not any direct expressed interest in pursuing the sale of it. Councilmember Woodruff stated he was confused. The letter from Mr. Anderson is dated February I I"'. Based on his understanding of the Friend's lease agreement there is a 30-day termination notice clause. Therefore, he concluded the Friends were in default. He questioned if the member cities should send the Friends a letter stating they are in default. He stated he thought there is a 10-day cure period in the lease. Councilmember Turgeon stated during the February 20"' meeting, the group indicated the Friends should be sent a letter accepting the Friends termination of the lease. Attorney Tietjen explained the lease agreement states the lease agreement may be terminated upon the occurrence of one of two events; one is the insolvency or dissolution of the tenant (the Friends) and the other is the decision to terminate agreed to by two-thirds of the member cities. The lease stipulates written notice shall be provided to each of the cities and to the tenant 30 days in advance of effective date of termination. Councilmember Woodruff stated he wanted a default letter sent to the Friends to establish the rights of the cities. He then stated he was disturbed that Mr. Anderson's letter was written on February l lt" and delivered on February 12tt', yet the Southshore Center Funding Group did not meet until February 20t". He was astounded by the lack of responsiveness. He questioned where the funding for operations will come from, and who will be responsible for what. Mayor Lizee noted income is received for the use of the Center; the Friends had projected there would be enough income to operate the Center in 2010. Woodruff stated he had not been provided with an income statement from the Friends or a business plan for the Center. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 23, 2009 Page 13 of 16 Councilmember Turgeon stated all of the rental agreements the Friends entered into are now void, including the rental agreement with the newly established South Shore Senior Partners (SSSP). Mayor Liz& stated it is incumbent on the five cities who own the facility to step up and do something. She faults the cities for taking such a long time to reach agreement on the amendment to the lease agreement with the Friends, and for the controversy over the amendment to the Cooperative Agreement which resulted in delaying approval of the lease amendment. She stated all parties resulted in the delay of getting the amendments approved. She stated the cities need to get together and determine what actions must be taken to keep the Center operational until the cities make a decision about the long-term future of the Center. Councilmember Woodruff stated that when Mr. Anderson came before Council in December 2008 regarding the proposed lease amendment, lie asked Mr. Anderson why there was a sense of urgency with the amendment as there was a lease in effect. It was his understanding that as a result of the amendment the cities would be made responsible for some of the Center's maintenance expenses, and those expenses for 2009 would have been funded by a $15,000 donation from the Friends. He asked Mr. Anderson if there was money needed from the five cities for operating the Center in 2009, to which Mr. Anderson responded no. Woodruff stated at that time he did not understand what the sense of urgency was if the only issue was who would write the checks for facility maintenance between then and when the lease amendment was approved. He stated the situation has changed and the $15,000 contribution from the Friends will not be made. Councilmember Woodruff requested the cities be provided with a business plan, the costs to the cities, pro forma budgets, a revenue plan, and recommendations for who is responsible for doing what in the short term. He questioned why the Friends couldn't financially make it if there is sufficient revenue from Center rentals to operate the Center. He stated he did not object to keeping the Center operational for a month while some of these things are resolved, but he wanted to know who will fund the expenses. He then stated it is his understanding that the Friends wrote a rental agreement for the facility with the SSSP for eight hours a day five days a week for some amount of money. He expressed concern the agreement is not valid as the Friends don't exist, yet SSSP is under the impression it will take occupancy on March 1st Councilmember Bailey stated he agreed with Councilmember Woodruff, and he thought this has turned into a financial fiasco. The five cities do not have a business partner to rely on for funding the Center's operations. It appears that responsibility will become the cities; lie does not think this should be the default position. If the cities are to become responsible for budgeting for operational expenses, then the cities should be explicitly discussing this. He questioned SSSP's ability to be a reliable operation. He recommended the cities quickly initiate discussion with SSSP, and if an agreement cannot be reached between the cities and SSSP then the cities may have to consider the possibility of shuttering the facility until some acceptable financial alternatives are presented to the cities. He suggested two parallel paths be pursued: one to find an acceptable tenant that is a financially viable organization and the other is consideration of putting the facility up for sale if a tenant cannot be found. Councilmember Turgeon stated the rent from the Center's anchor tenants is not great. The Historical Society pays $250 a month in rent, the Church pays $600 a month in rent (this rental agreement is through March 2009 only) for use every Sunday, and it is her understanding the rent for SSSP is $600 per month for its use of the facility from 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M. Monday - Friday. The revenues from the anchor tenants will not cover the Center's expenses. Councilmember Zerby stated he had an issue with how the facility and property were being addressed when he was first seated on Council. From his vantage point it appeared the Center was being treated as if it was a shopping center and people were trying to find tenants to fill it. The City is not in the rental SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 23, 2009 Page 14 of 16 business. It's in the people business; it has to represent its residents and provide them with amenities they pay taxes for. The facility is located in a horrible location for a retail tenant. He stated the facility was specifically built to allow the cities to provide services to their seniors and residents. He was not surprised by the Friends actions based on the confrontational approach the Council had taken with the Friends. This situation was on a path of destruction in January 2009 when Council would not approve the lease amendment. He thought it was shameful the way Council treats the City's residents and seniors. In response to a question from Mayor Lizee, Administrator Heck stated lie did not think the Southshore Center funding group had scheduled its next meeting. Heck explained during the group's last meeting it was decided that the City would set up a separate bank account for Center related activities and the City would serve as the fiscal agent for at least the interim. The group has to determine the monthly operating costs for the Center and discuss MCE's plans for the use of the Center, as well as consider future rental commitments the Friends made. Attorney Tietjen stated the lease agreement stipulates any subleasing on the part of the Friends requires prior written consent of the landlord. With respect to the recent rental agreement with SSSP, unless there was written consent from the cities the agreement would not be in compliance with the terms of the lease. Prior sublease agreements entered into that have been in effect for some time and with which there has been no objection have some credibility; they have already been performed and payment has been received. She suggested Council remain aware of this stipulation with the most recent agreement with SSSP and fixture rental agreements. Councilmember Woodruff stated he was not that concerned about the costs to operate the Center during March 2009. He wanted to know the City's liability for the long-term (one year) operating costs. He wants a business plan to be prepared in the next 30 days. He doesn't want the City to entirely pay operating expenses long-term; he can accept it for one month if need be. He commented the City does not have any partners in keeping the Center open for March. Mayor Lizee suggested Administrator Heck contact the other members of the Southshore Center finding group and schedule another meeting, and Mr. Anderson and some former members of the Friends should also be invited. Councilmember Turgeon suggested Mr. Anderson and former Friends members should not be invited to attend this meeting; this meeting would be for the cities' managers and administrators. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Attorney Tietjen stated if Council agrees with her assessment that the documents did not comply with the lease stipulation that subleasing requires the written consent of the landlord, then SSSP should be put on notice of that. Woodruff stated he was not suggesting the cities should lock the door on SSSP as the terms of an agreement have been identified. Shorewood cannot act on this alone; the other cities must also take action. Tietjen agreed the other cities must be involved; she was only suggesting that SSSP be put on notice that the City does not think the rental agreement is binding. In response to a comment from Mayor Lizee, Tietjen stated she would work with Administrator Heck and the other cities' administrators on preparing a letter. Tietjen suggested she be involved in the discussions with the managers and administrators. There was ensuing discussion about insurance responsibilities for the structure and liability insurance. There was consensus to have Administrator Heck have a letter to SSSP saying the City did not think the rental agreement is valid, and to pursue drafting a one month rental agreement for the other member cities to review. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 23, 2009 Page 15 of 16 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. City Hall Construction Update Administrator Heck provided an update on the City Hall renovation project. The project is moving along well. The interior is being painted. After discussion Xcel agreed the electrical box can be placed inside of the building. The project appears to be ten days ahead of schedule and under budget. 2. Southshore Center Update This was discussed as item I O.D. Other Staff Reports Director Brown stated there was a water main break at Chestnut Terrace the previous week, and the water tower at Old Market Road is in operation. Antennas will be installed on the tower shortly. B. Mayor and City Council In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Administrator Heck stated he was working on finding a broker to sell the City-owned house. Councilmember Woodruff stated at its March 11, 2009, meeting the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District is going to consider a request from Bayside Grille Catering for a law change that would allow Bayside Grille Catering to sell on sale alcoholic beverages on the ice; its valid on sale license for its facility is not valid for sale off of its property. He asked if Council wanted to provide him with input about this request. Councilmember Zerby stated lie could support the request as long as there is a stipulation of a maximum distance from land. Councilmember Woodruff suggested Council consider giving Administrator Heck direction to prepare a list of projects that could possibly be funded with Federal stimulus money. Mayor Lizee cautioned that when lists are presented based on Council input that it should be very clear it's the Council's recommendation and not the Mayor's recommendation. Woodruff stated the list could possibly the Capital Improvement Program. Councilmember Zerby suggested one be a nice place for senior citizens. Councilmember Bailey stated the Investment Committee held its first meeting on February 18, 2009. The conclusion was the City's investments were solid. There was agreement to develop an enhanced asset report, research the various fees the City is paying for management of various investments, and to prepare a request for proposal for banking services. He noted the City is not disappointed with the services it receives from Beacon Bank. Administrator Heck stated there was a special South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Coordinating Committee meeting held on February 18, 2009, to ratify the contract agreement reached with the SLMPD labor union. A three percent salary increase was approved for union personnel, and the employer's contribution to health insurance was increase to $885 (the increase was a little more than the negotiating committee wanted but much less than what the union wanted). A three percent salary increase was also approved for non-union personnel. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 23, 2009 Page 16 of 16 12. ADJOURN Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of February 23, 2009, at 9:38 P.M. Motion passed 510. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Christine Liz6e, Mayor Br3an Heck;,Ci y Administrator/Clerk