The URL can be used to link to this page

05-23-22 CC Reg Mtg Agenda Packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, MAY 23, 2022 7:00 P.M. For those wishing to listen live to the meeting, please go to ci.shorewood.mn.us/current_meeting for the meeting link. Contact the city at 952.960.7900 during regular business hours with questions. AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call Mayor Labadie___ Siakel___ Johnson___ Callies___ Gorham___ C. Review and Adopt Agenda Attachments 2. CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is a series of actions which are being considered for adoption this evening under a single motion. These items have been reviewed by city council and city staff and there shall be no further discussion by the council tonight on the Consent Agenda items. Any council member or member of city staff may request that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration or discussion. If there are any brief concerns or questions by council, we can answer those now. Motion to approve items on the Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: A. City Council Work Session Minutes of May 9, 2022 Minutes B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2022 Minutes C. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List D. Approval of Proposed Engagement Letter with Interim City Administrator Memo Baker Tilly – City Administrator Search Resolution 22-051 E. Approve 2022 Data Practices Policies and Updates City Clerk/HR Director Memo Resolution 22-052 F. Approve Quote for 2022 Pavement Marking, City City Engineer Memo Project 22-03 Resolution 22-053 G. Accept Quote for Shorewood Community and Event Parks and Rec Director Center Painting CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Page 2 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR This is an opportunity for members of the public to bring an item, which is not on tonight's agenda, to the attention of the mayor and council. When you are recognized, please use the raise your hand feature. Please identify yourself by your first and last name and your address for the record. After this introduction, please limit your comments to three minutes. No action will be taken by the council on this matter, but the mayor or council could request that staff place this matter on a future agenda. (No Council Action will be taken) 4. PUBLIC HEARING 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Executive Director Tiffany King, Excelsior-Lake Minnetonka Chamber of Commerce 6. PARKS A. Report by Commissioner Heinz on May 10, 2022 Park Minutes Commission Meeting 7. PLANNING A. Report by Commissioner Huskins on May 3, 2022 Planning Minutes Commission Meeting 8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Accept Bids and Award Contract for 2022 Mill & Overlay City Engineer Memo Project, City Project 21-11 Resolution 22-054 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS 10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Staff B. Mayor and City Council 11. ADJOURN 2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, MAY 9, 2022 6:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING Mayor Labadie called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Labadie; Councilmembers Johnson, Labadie, Gorham, and Callies, City Attorney Shepherd. Absent: Councilmember Siakel B. Review Agenda Councilmember Johnson stated that he wanted to make it known that he works for a competitor of Baker Tilly. He stated that they do not provide the same services, so he did not see that there would be a conflict of interest, but wanted to make it known. City Attorney Shepherd confirmed that there would not be a conflict of interest in this situation and stated that Councilmember Johnson would be free to vote on the issue. Johnson moved, Gorham seconded, approving the agenda, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. EXECUTIVE SEARCH FIRM INTERVIEWS Baker Tilly: Sharon Klumpp and Patty Heminover Ms. Heminover and Ms. Klumpp introduced themselves and shared their background and experience. They gave a Power Point presentation about Baker Tilly their relevant experience, the executive recruitment team, recruitment tasks and timelines, their various vetting tools, and the interview process. The Council asked questions about timelines, experience, the length of process, the current labor market, and what will make for a successful search to fill this position. Mayor Labadie thanked them for their time and noted that someone from the City would be getting back to them at the conclusion of the interviews for the executive search firm. David Drown: Patrick Melvin and Gary Weiers Mr. Weiers introduced himself and explained that Mr. Melvin was unable to attend tonight’s meeting, because he was in attendance at a current client’s council meeting. He stated that if selected, Mr. Melvin would be the one working with the City. He gave an overview of things that he felt separated their firm and their process from other firms, and shared information and details about their experience with this type of search. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 9, 2022 Page 2 of 2 The Council asked questions about their approach to personalities, examples of where the process had failed in the past, the current market conditions, brochure details, and details about Patrick Melvin and his past experience. Mayor Labadie thanked Mr. Weiers for attending tonight’s meeting and explained that someone from the City would be getting back to him at the conclusion of the Council’s discussion and decision regarding executive search firms. The Council had a discussion of their impressions of both firms; Baker Tilly and David Drown. Mayor Labadie suggested that, due to time constraints, the Council resume their discussion on this topic at the regular City Council meeting. 3. ADJOURN Johnson moved, Callies seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of May 9, 2022, at 6:59 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. ATTEST: Jennifer Labadie, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk 2B CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, MAY 9, 2022 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Labadie called the meeting to order at 7:13 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Labadie; Councilmembers Johnson, Gorham, and Callies; City Attorney Shepherd; Interim City Administrator Shukle; City Clerk/HR Director Thone; Finance Director Rigdon; Planning Director Darling; Director of Public Works Brown; and, City Engineer Budde Absent: Councilmember Siakel B. Review Agenda Mayor Labadie asked that item 2.D. be removed and item 2.G. moved to New Business. Johnson moved, Gorham seconded, approving the agenda, as revised. All in favor, motion passed. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Labadie reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Johnson moved, Callies seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes of April 25, 2022 B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of April 25, 2022 C. Approval of the Verified Claims List D. Authorize Equipment Purchase, One Pickup Truck - REMOVED E. Approval of Amendment to Excelsior Woods Development Agreement Location: 20325 Excelsior Boulevard, Applicant: Red Grant Construction. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 22-044, “A Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Development Agreement for Excelsior Woods Located at 20325 Excelsior Boulevard.” CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 9, 2022 Page 2 of 8 F. Approval of Extension of Approvals for Car Wash Rehab – Location: 24245 Smithtown Road, Applicant: Reprise Design, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 22-045, “A Resolution Approving an Extension for a Conditional Use Permit Variance and Site Plan Amendment Approval for Property at 24245 Smithtown Road.” G. Approve Contract with Interim City Administrator – Moved to New Business H. Approval Advertise for Public Works Lead Supervisor I. Approve Revised Right of Entry Agreement for May Lake Outlet, City Project 19-09, Approving RESOLUTION NO. 22-046, “A Resolution Approving a Revised Agreement for the Mary Lake Outlet Project, City Project 19-09.” All in favor, motion passed. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Joe Lugowksi, 24710 Glen Road, asked why the streets have not yet been swept because there is a lot of sand on the roadways. He expressed his concerns about the condition on various roadways, including Galpin Lake Road, with sand, debris, and pot holes. Public Works Director Brown stated that as he had reported to the Council at the last meeting, that Public Works had begun sweeping, but the sweeper had a massive mechanical failure. He stated that the City immediately had it shipped to McQueen Equipment who is working to get parts and get it put it back together. He stated that the City tried renting a sweeper while it awaits the return of this one, but they have not been able to find one so as soon as they get it back, they will be out finishing up the streets. City Engineer Budde noted that Galpin Lake Road is one of the poorest rated roadways in the City. He explained that it is slated for a mill and overlay tentatively in 2022 but noted that the City is going for State bond funding to try to get additional funds in order to be able to add a sidewalk. He stated that if this is successful, the road will then become reconstructed and will be a more robust project which will delay the project. He stated that even if the City does not get State funding it is possible this project will be delayed and not get completed this year. Public Works Director Brown stated that there are a number of roadways, including Galpin Lake Road, that they were planning on patching on a temporary basis this week, however the rains have delayed those plans a bit. He stated that the official hot patch season has not started yet, but they do have a temporary cold mix that they have been working with. Alan Yelsey, 26335 Peach Circle, expressed his concerns regarding the Council choosing to move forward without accurate information and communication on the agenda item related to the campaign and non-commercial speech signs. He cited items that he felt were errors or flaws that had been included in the packet related to this item and explained that he felt moving forward with this item would be unconstitutional. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 9, 2022 Page 3 of 8 A. Photo Contest City Clerk/HR Director Thone gave an overview of the Ninth Bi-Annual Photo Contest winners. She reviewed the winning photos from: Fall Delights – Fishing on Christmas Lake submitted by Bob Wallace; Winter Wonder – Sunset, submitted by Catherine Turner; People, Pets, and Food – Ice Cream, submitted by Louise Tvedt; and Wildlife – Natural Camouflage, submitted by Al Whitaker. Thone thanked all participants for submitting the beautiful photos that will adorn walls at City Hall, the Community Center, and be used in the newsletter and on the website. 6. PARKS 7. PLANNING A. Zoning Text Amendment - Campaign and Non-Commercial Speech Signs Planning Director Darling explained the proposal, initiated by the City, for a small, targeted amendment to clarify one type of signage allowed under the current ordinance. She stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing at their May 3, 2022 meeting where one person spoke. She noted that staff also received a number of letters prior to the meeting that have been included in the meeting packet. She explained that one letter was resent today with a new paragraph added that has been distributed to the Council. She explained that one of the primary concerns expressed in the letters which are that people will still have the right to put a sign in their yard with their non-commercial message. She stated that staff feels that this right will be more clearly permitted with these amendments than without them. She reviewed the two courses of action available to staff after they have investigated and found a violation. She explained that if these amendments are approved, the City will send out information to each candidate that files for election and will include an article in The Shore Report so residents will also have this information. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed amendments. She stated that staff feels it is clear that a full review of the sign regulations will need to be completed sooner than they had originally identified in their priority list. Mayor Labadie asked City Attorney Shepherd to address some of the issues that have been raised including the recent court cases surrounding this issue. City Attorney Shepherd noted that these are discrete ordinance amendments related to the campaign season and to make sure that the ordinance is consistent with State statute. He stated that the City is planning to take a significant look at the rest of the code to ensure that it is all in line with case law in Minnesota, as well as federal law. He noted that there had been a mention from a resident about a recent Minnesota Court of Appeals case with the City of Buffalo. He stated that case was about the City of Buffalo enforcing their sign code and applying it to a Trump flag that was flying from a commercial vehicle. He stated that they will take a look at that case before enforcing the code and reiterated that they are planning to look at the code holistically to ensure that when it is looked at, as a whole, that it works. He highlighted the proposed addition of the substitution clause and its intended design to make sure that anywhere that commercial speech is allowed, non-commercial speech can be substituted. Councilmember Gorham stated that he believes there is some confusion that the substitution clause is somehow limited to election season and asked if it was limited to that narrow timeframe.. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 9, 2022 Page 4 of 8 City Attorney Shepherd stated that the substitution clause applies to the ordinance, as a whole and does not just apply to election signs. Mayor Labadie stated that she also thinks there is some confusion regarding setback from the street. She noted that the proposed language would actually allow signs to be closer than the current language allows. Planning Director Darling stated that this was correct and gave an overview of the current sign code setback requirements. She noted that this applies to non-commercial speech signs that are installed during the election period. City Attorney Shepherd stated that he believed these proposed changes will allow the City to be ‘good to go’ for campaign season, but reiterated that there is some additional work to be done on other sections of the code following recent decisions, some of which have been cited by residents. He stated that the substitution clause is there to serve as a stop gap measure to ensure that non- commercial speech of all types can be substituted for other types of commercial and non- commercial speech. Councilmember Callies stated that she thinks it is important to address the temporary non- commercial speech signs because the election season is coming up so she feels it is appropriate that the Council is handling this portion now and then will continue on the road to perfection with the remainder of the sign ordinance. Callies moved, Gorham seconded , Adopting ORDINANCE 588 “ An Ordinance Approving an Amendment to Shorewood City Code Chapter 1201 (Zoning Regulations) Related to Signs.” All in favor, motion passed. Callies moved, Johnson seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 22-047, “A Resolution Approving the Publication of Ordinance 588 Regarding City Code Ordinance Amendments Related to Campaign and Non-Commercial Speech Signs.” All in favor, motion passed. 8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Smithtown Pond/Shorewood Oaks Drainage Project, City Projects 20-07, 20-04 City Engineer Budde stated that at the March 14, 2022 Council meeting, staff had presented plans and specifications for the Smithtown Pond and Shorewood Oaks project and Council had authorized to advertise and opens bids. He noted that seven bids were opened on April 26, 2022 with the low bid from Meyer Contracting out of Maple Grove. He explained that with this bid, the Shorewood Oaks portion of the project would be completed by September 1, 2022, the larger ponding work would be completed March 1, 2023, and the trail connection by July 1, 2023. Staff recommends awarding the contract to Meyer Contracting. Councilmember Gorham commended City Engineer Budde for his work on this project. Johnson moved, Gorham seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 22-048, “A Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for the Smithtown Pond/Shorewood Oaks Drainage Project. City Projects 20-07 and 20-04.” All in favor, motion passed. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 9, 2022 Page 5 of 8 B. Strawberry Lane Final Design Direction, City Project 19-05 City Engineer Budde explained that in February of 2022, the Council and staff had a number of discussions about the Strawberry Lane project because staff was seeking final design direction. He stated that Council had directed staff to attempt to negotiate with property owners regarding necessary easements in order to shift the roadway. He stated that he has a signed Memo of Understanding with one of the property owners for an easement. He stated that he has attempted to contact the other property owner in various ways but has not been able to make contact with the property owner. He noted that this property would require an easement regardless of which scenario the Council approves. He explained that staff is recommending that they continue to pursue the western alignment which pushes the roadway closer to the west and was also the preferred alignment by many of the residents and continue to attempt negotiations with the nd property owner at 26420 West 62 Street. He gave an overview of the alternate alignment and what easements were necessary with both scenarios. Councilmember Johnson noted the property that he has able to obtain an MOU on was listed as 6170 in the packet and 6270 within the resolution. Johnson moved, Gorham seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 22-049, “A Resolution Providing the Final Design Direction for Strawberry Lane to Include the Western Alignment with the correction to the address listed to 6170 Strawberry Lane.” All in favor, motion passed. 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Approve City Administrator Search Firm Proposal City Clerk/HR Director Thone explained that the City had solicited Requests for Proposal for an executive search firm to assist in finding a new City Administrator following the resignation of Greg Lerud. The City received two proposals from David Drown and Associates and Baker Tilly who the Council interviewed at their Work Session prior to this meeting. Mayor Labadie gave an overview of the discussion points from the Work Session. Councilmember Callies stated that based on their proposals, she would be more in support of Baker Tilly. Councilmember Gorham stated that he felt that Baker Tilly was communication focused and explained that he was leaning towards supporting their proposal. Councilmember Johnson stated that he was also on board with Baker Tilly. Mayor Labadie agreed that she felt that Baker Tilly stood out based on their proposal. Johnson moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 22-050, “A Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Executive Search Firm Agreement to Assist in Hiring a City Administrator for Baker Tilly” and Authorize the City Attorney to prepare a contract consistent with the terms outlined by the firm in their proposal. All in favor, motion passed. B. Approve Contract with Interim City Administrator (formerly Item 2.G.) CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 9, 2022 Page 6 of 8 Councilmember Callies stated that she wanted to reiterate that she had both a professional and personal relationship with Shirley Schulte, one of the candidates for the Interim City Administrator, so she would abstain from voting on this item. Councilmember Johnson stated that it has come to his attention that he had an unknown connection to the Interim City Administrator. He stated that he learned on the way to tonight’s meeting that Mr. Shukle’s daughter is his daughter’s voice teacher. He asked City Attorney Shepherd if that unknown connection presented any complications. City Attorney Shepherd stated that she did not see that situation as creating a conflict of interest and noted that there are no financial implications that go along with this decision. Councilmember Johnson stated that he just wanted to make sure that he had full transparency in this situation. Gorham moved, Labadie seconded, to Approve the Contract with Interim City Administrator Shukle. Motion passed 3-0-1 (Callies abstained) 10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. First Quarter 2022 General Fund Budget Report Finance Director Rigdon gave a brief overview of the first quarter general fund budget. Councilmember Gorham asked if he was correct that the budget was a forecast and that Finance Director Rigdon was being fairly conservative with his forecasting. Finance Director Rigdon agreed and noted that there are also some ‘seasonalities’ included because it can depend on what is going on during certain times of the year. He stated that the City does budget conservatively and explained that the City has generally made it under budget for the past several years. Public Works Director Brown gave examples of ‘seasonalities’ in his department such as the expense of using de-icing chemicals and also when they are doing roadway patching. Councilmember Gorham asked how staff forecasts for miscellaneous. Finance Director Rigdon stated that the biggest component under miscellaneous is antennae rent, which is easy to predict because there are contracts in place with those entities. Councilmember Johnson commended Finance Director Rigdon for presenting this information in an easy, digestible format. Gorham moved, Johnson seconded, to Accept the First Quarter 2022 General Fund Budget Report. All in favor, motion passed. 2. First Quarter 2022 Investments Report CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 9, 2022 Page 7 of 8 Finance Director Rigdon explained that the investments report is mandated by policy that looks at what the City is invested in, how they are tracking, and what it looks like going forward. He reviewed the general objectives and noted that safety, liquidity and yield are the most important factors. He gave a brief overview of the first quarter 2022 investment report. Councilmember Callies asked who manages the City’s investments. Finance Director Rigdon stated that he is managing the investments because there are so few, so it has not been difficult for him. Gorham moved, Labadie seconded, to Accept the First Quarter 2022 Investments Report. Motion passed 3-0-1 (Johnson abstained). Other Public Works Director Brown stated that the roadway closure on Eureka Road North for the connection of Walnut Grove utilities will need to be extended for a day because the rain has caused some delays. He stated that Public Works is planning to flush watermains on May 16, 2022 and will begin on the west side of the City. He noted that the Consumer Confidence Report issued by the Minnesota Department of Health has come out and the results will be communicated to residents via the City newsletter. Councilmember Gorham asked if there was any new information on the Badger Park vandals. Public Works Director Brown stated that South Lake Minnetonka Police have gotten involved and there is a camera in the area. He stated that the restrooms have been re-opened. Mayor Labadie asked that staff inform the SLPMD, EFD, and First Student Transportation that the closure on Eureka Road North has been extended. She stated that she can personally let Tonka United Soccer know about the road closure. City Engineer Budde noted that the Grant Street drainage project will begin in about two weeks and should be wrapped up by mid-summer. Planning Director Darling updated the Council on an extension for compliance on a property on Hillendale. She stated that there has been significant improvement of the site and many of the largest contributions to code violations have been removed. Interim City Administrator Shukle stated that he is very happy to be with the City and is looking forward to working with the Council in his role as Interim City Administrator. B. Mayor and City Council Councilmember Gorham stated that he attended Burgers and Bingo last weekend which is always a fun event. He stated that in speaking with the volunteers, it was noted that the Fourth of July is right around the corner which got him to thinking that he has not heard anything about donations or fireworks. He stated that there was discussion last year about revising how funds are committed to fireworks and asked if there had been any additional discussion on that topic. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 9, 2022 Page 8 of 8 Mayor Labadie stated that the Excelsior Chamber of Commerce typically sponsors the fireworks and seeks donations from outside agencies, including some of the cities in the area. She noted that the Chamber is under new leadership, with Tiffany King as their Executive Director. She explained that Ms. King is planning to come to the next Council meeting to introduce herself and share details about the direction the Chamber will be going. She noted that it is likely that Ms. King will come to another meeting to seek a donation from the City for the fireworks. She stated that City Attorney Shepherd had drafted a memo relating to donations for this type of event and the Council will thoroughly review of that information prior to this request. Councilmember Johnson gave an update on activities at the Excelsior Fire District. He stated that the Board has authorized the purchase of a new fire boat and explained that the Fire Relief Association is contributing a significant amount of money towards the purchase of the boat, but there will also be fundraising for the fire boat and encouraged residents to either contact him and the Fire Department if they were interested in making a donation. Mayor Labadie stated that at the last Coordinating Committee meeting for the SLMPD, they voted to approve the membership in the fencing consortium. She gave an overview of what is involved and the benefits of being in the fencing consortium. Councilmember Gorham asked about the fence material. Public Works Director Brown stated that he has some photos that he can distribute to the Council that show the fencing but noted that it is an anti-scalable style fence that is twelve feet high. He noted that it is expected that the public works departments in the lake area would train together as a rapid response team and explained that the goal is to have the fence erected within twelve hours of any event. Mayor Labadie noted that she had attended the Regional Council of Mayors meeting earlier today with mayors from around the metro and outlying suburbs. She stated that their topic of discussion today was stormwater management, water management within the cities, and noted that the overall consensus was that cities need to think in advance of a crisis or flooding. 11. ADJOURN Johnson moved, Gorham seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of May 9, 2022, at 8:36 P.M. All in favor, motion passed. ATTEST: Jennifer Labadie, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item 2D Title/Subject: Approval of Proposed Engagement Letter with Baker Tilly – City Administrator Search MEETING Meeting Date: Monday, May 23, 2022 TYPE Regular Prepared by: Ed Shukle, Interim City Administrator Meeting Reviewed by: Jared Shepherd, City Attorney Attachments: Resolution; Proposed Engagement Letter Background: The City Council interviewed 2 executive search firms at the May 9, 2022 Work Session to conduct a professional search process to hire a permanent city administrator. Those firms were Baker Tilly US, LLP and David Drown Associates (DDA). The Council then took action at the May 9 regular meeting to select Baker Tilly US, LLP, and directed that a contract be prepared for consideration and approval at the May 23, 2022 Regular City Council meeting. Baker Tilly prepared a proposed engagement letter (see attached), which has been reviewed by the City Attorney and me. The City Attorney and I recommend approval. In order for Baker Tilly to begin the project as soon as possible, the City Attorney advised that I could sign the Engagement Letter and the City Council could ratify the document at the May 23 meeting. Please be aware that there is a clause in the Engagement Letter regarding the possible payment of travel/lodging expenses for finalist candidates who may be coming from outside of Minnesota or a long distance within the state. Financial Considerations: Sufficient funds are included within the City’s General Fund budget to cover the costs associated with the engagement of Baker Tilly for this project and related expenses. Action Requested: Staff respectfully recommends the city council approve Motion, second approving Resolution 2022 - ?? engaging the professional services of Baker Tilly US, LLP, to conduct the search for a permanent city administrator. Connection to Vision/Mission: Consistency in providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 22-051 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN EXECUTIVE SEARCH FIRM AGREEMENT TO ASSIST IN HIRING A CITY ADMINISTRATOR WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood sent out a Request for Proposals for an Executive Search Firm to assist in the hiring of a new city administrator and interviewed two firms at its Work Session on May 9, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council has selected Baker Tilly USA, LLP, as the firm to conduct a search for a new permanent city administrator; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney was directed to work with the approved search firm to prepare a contract that is consistent with the terms outlined by the Firm in their proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota that: 1. The City Council has approved the hiring of Baker Tilly USA, LLP to assist with the hiring of a new City Administrator. 2. Authorizes the Interim City Administrator to execute the Engagement Letter and enter into the agreement, as proposed, on behalf of the City of Shorewood, and ratifies the same. rd ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 23 day of May, 2022. ___________________________ Jennifer Labadie, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk 2E MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title/Subject: Annual Review and Update of City Data Practices Policies Meeting Date: Monday, May 23, 2022 Prepared by: Sandie Thone, City Clerk/HR Director Reviewed by: Brenda Pricco, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: Resolution 22-052 Policy Consideration: Annual Review and Update of Data Practices Policies as required by MN State Statutes Section §13.025 and Section §13.03 Background: Minnesota State Statutes, sections 13.025, subdivisions 2 and 3, require government entities to prepare written policies that relate to public access to government data, and rights of subjects of data and Minnesota State Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2 requires entities to establish procedures that data requests are complied with appropriately and promptly. Minnesota State Statute §13.025, subdivision 2, specifically requires that the Data Practices Responsible Authority shall prepare a written data access policy and update it no later than August 1 of each year, and at any other time as necessary to reflect changes in personnel, procedures, or other circumstances that impact the public’s ability to access data. The attached policies for the City of Shorewood: Data Practices Policy for Data Subjects and Data Practices Policy for Members of the Public reflect the most current and relevant information. The only change in the policy for 2022 is the replacement of SLMPD Chief Brian Tholen for previous Chief Mike Meehan as a Data Practices Designee. Approval of these policies will satisfy the government entity annual update obligations and requirements for the year 2022 pursuant to MN state law. Financial or Budget Considerations: None Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff respectfully recommends the city council approve the City of Shorewood Data Practices Policy for Data Subjects and Data Practices Policy for Members of the Public satisfying the government entity annual update obligations and requirements on or before August 1 for the year 2022 pursuant to MN state law. Motion, second and simple majority vote required. Connection to Vision/Mission: Consistency in providing quality public services. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 22-052 2022 DATA PRACTICES POLICIES WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statutes, sections 13.025, subdivisions 2 and 3, require government entities to prepare written policies that relate to public access to government data, and rights of subjects of data and Minnesota State Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2 requires entities to establish procedures that data requests are complied with appropriately and promptly; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute §13.025, subdivision 2, specifically requires that the Data Practices Responsible Authority shall prepare a written data access policy and update it no later than August 1 of each year, and at any other time as necessary to reflect changes in personnel, procedures, or other circumstances that impact the public’s ability to access data; and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood and the Responsible Authority have successfully created and updated the following policies: Data Practices Policy for Data Subjects and Data Practices Policy for Members of the Public which reflect the most current and relevant information and have been updated to include the most recent changes in personnel and appointments; and WHEREAS, approval of these policies will satisfy the government entity annual update obligations and requirements for the year 2022 pursuant to MN state law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, the City of Shorewood Data Practices Policy for Data Subjects and Data Practices Policy for Members of the Public are approved. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 23rd day of May 2022. _______________________________ ATTEST: Jennifer Labadie, Mayor _________________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk /źƷǤ ƚŅ {ŷƚƩĻǞƚƚķ IĻƓƓĻƦźƓ /ƚǒƓƷǤͲ aźƓƓĻƭƚƷğ Data Practices Policy for Public 1 Annual Review and Update Dated 5/23/2022 MN 13.025 and 13.03; Sandie Thone Right to access public data The Government Data Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13) presumes that all government data are public unless a state or federal law says the data are not public. Government data is a term that means all recorded information a government entity has, including paper, email, flash drives, CDs, DVDs, photographs, etc. The Government Data Practices Act also provides that this government entity must keep all government data in a way that makes it easy for you, as a member of the public, to access public data. You have the right to look at (inspect), free of charge, all public data that we keep. You also have the right to get copies of public data. The Government Data Practices Act allows us to charge for copies. You have the right to look at data, free of charge, before deciding to request copies. How to make a data request You can look at data, or request copies of data that this government entity keeps. Make your written request for data to the appropriate individual listed in the Data Practices Contacts on page 4. You may make your request via email, fax, mail, or in person using the form on page 6. If you choose not use to use the data request form, your request should include: You are making a request for public data under the Government Data Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13). Whether you would like to inspect the data, have copies of the data, or both. A clear description of the data you would like to inspect or have copied. This government entity cannot require you, as a member of the public, to identify yourself or explain the reason for your data request. However, depending on how you want us to process your request (if, for example, you want us to mail you copies of data), we may need some information about you. If you choose not to give us any identifying information, we will provide you with contact information so you may check on the status of your request. In addition, please keep in mind that if we do not understand your request and have no way to contact you, we will not be able to begin processing your request. How we respond to a data request Upon receiving your request, we will work to process it. If it is not clear what data you are requesting, we will ask you for clarification. If we do not have the data, we will notify you in writing within 10 business days. If we have the data, but the data are not public, we will notify you as soon as reasonably possible and state which specific law says the data are not public. If we have the data, and the data are public, we will respond to your request appropriately and promptly, within a reasonable amount of time by doing one of the following: o Arrange a date, time, and place to inspect data, for free, if your request is to look at the data, or Data Practices Policy for Public 2 Annual Review and Update Dated 5/23/2022 MN 13.025 and 13.03; Sandie Thone o Provide you with copies of the data as soon as reasonably possible. You may choose to pick up your copies, or we will mail or fax them to you. We will provide electronic copies (such as email or CD-ROM) upon request if we keep the data in electronic format. Information about copy charges is on page 5. We will provide notice to you about our requirement to prepay for copies. If you do not understand some of the data (technical terminology, abbreviations, or acronyms), please let us know. We will give you an explanation if you ask. The Government Data Practices Act does not require us to create or collect new data in response to a data request if we do not already have the data, or to provide data in a specific form or arrangement if we do not keep the data in that form or arrangement (for example, if the data you request are on paper only, we are not required to create electronic documents to respond to your request). If we agree to create data in response to your request, we will work with you on the details of your request, including cost and response time. In addition, we are not required under the Government Data Practices Act to respond to questions that are not specific requests for data. Requests for summary data Summary data are statistical records or reports that are prepared by removing all identifiers from private or confidential data on individuals. The preparation of summary data is not a means to gain access to private or confidential data. We will prepare summary data if you make request in writing and pre-pay for the cost of creating the data. Upon receiving your written request you may use the data request form on page 6 we will respond within ten business days with the data or details of when the data will be ready and how much we will charge. Data Practices Policy for Public 3 Annual Review and Update Dated 5/23/2022 MN 13.025 and 13.03; Sandie Thone Data Practices Contacts Responsible Authority Name: Sandie Thone, City Clerk/Human Resources Director Address: City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone number/email address: Phone: 952-960-7900, Email: sthone@ci.shorewood.mn.us Data Practices Compliance Official Name: Sandie Thone, City Clerk/Human Resources Director Address: City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone number/email address: Phone: 952-960-7900, Email: sthone@ci.shorewood.mn.us Data Practices Designee(s) 1) Name: Brian Tholen, Chief of Police, South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Address: SLMPD, 24150 Smithtown Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone number/email address: Phone: 952-474-3261, Email: info@southlakepd.com 2) Name: Laura Holtan, Administrator, South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Address: SLMPD, 24150 Smithtown Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone number/email address: Phone: 952-474-3261, Email: info@southlakepd.com 3) Name: Brenda Pricco, Deputy City Clerk, City of Shorewood Address: City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone number/email address: Phone: 952-960-7901, Email: bpricco@ci.shorewood.mn.us Data Practices Policy for Public 4 Annual Review and Update Dated 5/23/2022 MN 13.025 and 13.03; Sandie Thone Copy Costs Members of the Public This government entity charges for copies of government data. These charges are authorized under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c). For 100 or fewer paper copies 25 cents per page 100 or fewer pages of black and white, letter or legal size paper copies cost 25¢ for a one-sided copy, or 50¢ for a two-sided copy. Most other types of copies actual cost The charge for most other types of copies, when a charge is not set by statute or rule, is the actual cost of searching for and retrieving the data, and making the copies or electronically transmitting the data (e.g. sending the data by email). In determining the actual cost of making copies, we factor in employee time, the cost of the materials onto which we are copying the data (paper, CD, DVD, etc.), and mailing costs (if any). If your request is for copies of data that we cannot reproduce ourselves, such as photographs, we will charge you the actual cost we must pay an outside vendor for the copies. If, because of the subject matter of your request, we find it necessary for a higher-paid employee to search for and retrieve the data, we will calculate the search and retrieval portion of the copy charge at the higher salary/wage. Data Practices Policy for Public 5 Annual Review and Update Dated 5/23/2022 MN 13.025 and 13.03; Sandie Thone 5ğƷğ wĻƨǒĻƭƷ CƚƩƒ aĻƒĬĻƩƭ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ tǒĬƌźĭ Request date: I am requesting access to data in the following way: Inspection Copies Both inspection and copies bƚƷĻʹ LƓƭƦĻĭƷźƚƓ źƭ ŅƩĻĻ We will respond to your request as soon as reasonably possible. Contact information Name: Address/phone number/email address: Note: You do not have to provide any contact information. However, if you want us to mail/email you copies of data, we will need some type of contact information. In addition, if we do not understand your request and need to get clarification from you, without contact information we will not be able to begin processing your request until you contact us. These are the data I am requesting: Describe the data you are requesting as specifically as possible. Data Practices Policy for Public 6 Annual Review and Update Dated 5/23/2022 MN 13.025 and 13.03; Sandie Thone Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025, subdivisions 2 and 3, require government entities to prepare written policies that relate to public access to government data, and rights of subjects of data and Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, requires entities to establish procedures so that data requests are complied with appropriately and promptly. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.073, subd. 6, requires the Commissioner of Administration to prepare model policies and procedures to help government entities comply with those requirements. Entities l policies must notify the Commissioner. Please use the following statement to notify the Commissioner if you choose to adopt the model policies and procedures.* Notice to Commissioner of Administration: Adoption of Model Policies The City of Shorewood Data Subjects. This notice to the Commissioner satisfies obligation under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.073, subdivision 6. Sandie Thone City Clerk and Data Practices Responsible Authority Adoption of Model Policy Notice to Commissioner of Administration Submitted May 8, 2017. *DƚǝĻƩƓƒĻƓƷ ĻƓƷźƷźĻƭ ƒğǤ ƭǒĬƒźƷ Ʒŷźƭ ƓƚƷźŅźĭğƷźƚƓ ĬǤ ƒğźƌ ƚƩ Ļƒğźƌʹ Commissioner of Administration c/o Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) 201 Administration Building 50 Sherburne Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 info.ipad@state.mn.us Data Practices Policy for Public 7 Annual Review and Update Dated 5/23/2022 MN 13.025 and 13.03; Sandie Thone /źƷǤ ƚŅ {ŷƚƩĻǞƚƚķ IĻƓƓĻƦźƓ /ƚǒƓƷǤͲ aźƓƓĻƭƚƷğ Data Practice Policy for Data Subjects 1 Annual Review and Update Dated 5/23/2022 MN 13.025 and 13.03;Sandie Thone Data about you The Government Data Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13) says that data subjects have certain rights related to a government entity collecting, creating, and keeping government data about them. You are the subject of data when you can be identified from the data. Government data is a term that means all recorded information a government entity has, including paper, email, flash drives, CDs, DVDs, photographs, etc. Classification of data about you The Government Data Practices Act presumes that all government data are public unless a state or federal law says that the data are not public. Data about you are classified by state law as public, private, or confidential. See below for some examples. Public data We must give public data to anyone who asks. It does not matter who is asking for the data or why the person wants the data. The following is an example of public data about you: 9ǣğƒƦƌĻʹ WƚŷƓ {ƒźƷŷͲ ЎЉЉЉ {ƒźƷŷ 5ƩͲ {ƒźƷŷƷƚǞƓͲ ab ЎЎЉЉЉͳ \[źĭĻƓƭĻ ğƦƦƌźĭğƓƷ ŅƚƩ hƓΏ{ğƌĻ \[źƨǒƚƩ \[źĭĻƓƭĻ ŅƚƩ {ƒźƷŷƷƚǞƓ \[źƨǒƚƩƭ Private data We cannot give private data to the general public, but you can have access to private data when the data are about you. We can share your private data with you, with someone who has your permission, with our government entity staff who have a work assignment to see the data, and to others as permitted by law or court order. The following is an example of private data about you: 9ǣğƒƦƌĻʹ {ƚĭźğƌ {ĻĭǒƩźƷǤ bǒƒĬĻƩʹ ЍЏБΏББΏ Confidential data Confidential data have the most protection. Neither the public nor you can get access even when the confidential data are about you. We can share confidential data about you with our government entity staff who have a work assignment to see the data, and to others as permitted by law or court order. We cannot give you access to confidential data. The following is an example of confidential data about you: 9ǣğƒƦƌĻʹ WƚŷƓ {ƒźƷŷ ğƭ ƒğƓķğƷĻķ ƩĻƦƚƩƷĻƩ ƚŅ ĭƚƒƦƌğźƓƷ ƩĻŭğƩķźƓŭ ĭŷźƌķ ğĬǒƭĻ Data Practice Policy for Data Subjects 2 Annual Review and Update Dated 5/23/2022 MN 13.025 and 13.03;Sandie Thone Your rights under the Government Data Practices Act The City of Shorewood must keep all government data in a way that makes it easy for you to access data about you. Also, we can collect and keep only those data about you that we need for administering and managing programs that are permitted by law. As a data subject, you have the following rights. Access to your data You have the right to look at (inspect), free of charge, public and private data that we keep about you. You also have the right to get copies of public and private data about you. The Government Data Practices Act allows us to charge for copies. You have the right to look at data, free of charge, before deciding to request copies. Also, if you ask, we will tell you whether we keep data about you and whether the data are public, private, or confidential. As a parent, you have the right to look at and get copies of public and private data about your minor children (under the age of 18). As a legally appointed guardian, you have the right to look at and get copies of public and private data about an individual for whom you are appointed guardian. Minors have the right to ask this government entity not to give data about them to their parent or guardian. If you are a minor, we will tell you that you have this right. We may ask you to put your request in writing and to include the reasons that we should deny your parents access to the data. We will make the final decision about your request based on your best interests. Minors do not have this right if the data in question are educational data maintained by an educational agency or institution. When we collect data from you When we ask you to provide data about yourself that are not public, we must give you a notice. The notice is sometimes called a Tennessen warning. The notice controls what we do with the data that we collect from you. Usually, we can use and release the data only in the ways described in the notice. We will ask for your written permission if we need to use or release private data about you in a different way, or if you ask us to release the data to another person. This permission is called informed consent. LŅ Ǥƚǒ ǞğƓƷ ǒƭ Ʒƚ ƩĻƌĻğƭĻ ķğƷğ Ʒƚ ğƓƚƷŷĻƩ ƦĻƩƭƚƓͲ Ǥƚǒ ƒǒƭƷ ǒƭĻ ƷŷĻ ĭƚƓƭĻƓƷ ŅƚƩƒ ǞĻ ƦƩƚǝźķĻ͵ Protecting your data The Government Data Practices Act requires us to protect your data. We have established appropriate safeguards to ensure that your data are safe. In the unfortunate event that we determine a security breach has occurred and an unauthorized person has gained access to your data, we will notify you as required by law. Data Practice Policy for Data Subjects 3 Annual Review and Update Dated 5/23/2022 MN 13.025 and 13.03;Sandie Thone When your data are inaccurate and/or incomplete You have the right to challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of public and private data about you. You also have the right to appeal our decision. If you are a minor, your parent or guardian has the right to challenge data about you. How to make a request for your data You can look at data, or request copies of data that the City of Shorewood keeps about you, your minor children, or an individual for whom you have been appointed legal guardian. Make your request for data to the appropriate individual listed in the Data Practices Contacts on page 6. We prefer you use the data request from on Page 8 for all data requests. If you choose not to use the data request form, your request should include: You are making a request, under the Government Data Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13), as a data subject, for data about you. Whether you would like to inspect the data, have copies of the data, or both. A clear description of the data you would like to inspect or have copied. I The City of Shorewood requires proof of your identity before we can respond to your request for data. If you are a guardian, you must show legal documentation of your guardianship. Please see the Standards for Verifying Identity located on page 9. How we respond to a data request Once you make your request, we will work to process your request. If it is not clear what data you are requesting, we will ask you for clarification. LŅ ǞĻ ķƚ ƓƚƷ ŷğǝĻ ƷŷĻ ķğƷğͲ ǞĻ Ǟźƌƌ ƓƚƷźŅǤ Ǥƚǒ źƓ ǞƩźƷźƓŭ ǞźƷŷźƓ ЊЉ ĬǒƭźƓĻƭƭ ķğǤƭ͵ If we have the data, but the data are confidential or private data that are not about you, we will notify you within 10 business days and state which specific law says you cannot access the data. If we have the data, and the data are public or private data about you, we will respond to your request within 10 business days, by doing one of the following: o Arrange a date, time, and place to inspect data, for free, if your request is to look at the data, or o Provide you with copies of the data within 10 business days. You may choose to pick up your copies, or we will mail or fax them to you. We will provide electronic copies (such as email or CD-ROM) upon request if we keep the data in electronic format. Information about copy charges is on page 7. Data Practice Policy for Data Subjects 4 Annual Review and Update Dated 5/23/2022 MN 13.025 and 13.03;Sandie Thone Ļ Ǟźƌƌ ƦƩƚǝźķĻ ƓƚƷźĭĻ Ʒƚ Ǥƚǒ ğĬƚǒƷ ƚǒƩ ƩĻƨǒźƩĻƒĻƓƷ Ʒƚ ƦƩĻƦğǤ ŅƚƩ ĭƚƦźĻƭ͵ After we have provided you with access to data about you, we do not have to show you the data again for 6 months unless there is a dispute or we collect or create new data about you. If you do not understand some of the data (technical terminology, abbreviations, or acronyms), please let us know. We will give you an explanation if you ask. The Government Data Practices Act does not require us to create or collect new data in response to a data request if we do not already have the data, or to provide data in a specific form or arrangement if we do not keep the data in that form or arrangement (for example, if the data you request are on paper only, we are not required to create electronic documents to respond to your request). If we agree to create data in response to your request, we will work with you on the details of your request, including cost and response time. In addition, we are not required under the Government Data Practices Act to respond to questions that are not specific requests for data. Data Practice Policy for Data Subjects 5 Annual Review and Update Dated 5/23/2022 MN 13.025 and 13.03;Sandie Thone Data Practices Contacts Responsible Authority Name: Sandie Thone, City Clerk/Human Resources Director Address: City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone number/email address: Phone: 952-960-7900, Email: sthone@ci.shorewood.mn.us Data Practices Compliance Official Name: Sandie Thone, City Clerk/Human Resources Director Address: City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone number/email address: Phone: 952-960-7900, Email: sthone@ci.shorewood.mn.us Data Practices Designee(s) 1) Name: Brian Tholen, Chief of Police, South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Address: SLMPD, 24150 Smithtown Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone number/email address: Phone: 952-474-3261, Email: info@southlakepd.com 2) Name: Laura Holtan, Administrator, South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Address: SLMPD, 24150 Smithtown Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone number/email address: Phone: 952-474-3261, Email: info@southlakepd.com 3) Name: Brenda Pricco, Deputy City Clerk, City of Shorewood Address: City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone number/email address: Phone: 952-960-7901, Email: bpricco@ci.shorewood.mn.us Data Practice Policy for Data Subjects 6 Annual Review and Update Dated 5/23/2022 MN 13.025 and 13.03;Sandie Thone Copy Costs Data Subjects The City of Shorewood charges data subjects for copies of government data. These charges are authorized under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3. ƚǒ ƒǒƭƷ ƦğǤ ŅƚƩ ƷŷĻ ĭƚƦźĻƭ ĬĻŅƚƩĻ ǞĻ Ǟźƌƌ ŭźǝĻ ƷŷĻƒ Ʒƚ Ǥƚǒ͵ Actual cost of making the copies In determining the actual cost of making copies, we factor in employee time, the cost of the materials onto which we are copying the data (paper, flash drive, CD, DVD, etc.), and mailing costs (if any). If your request is for copies of data that we cannot reproduce ourselves, such as photographs, we will charge you the actual cost we must pay an outside vendor for the copies. Data Practice Policy for Data Subjects 7 Annual Review and Update Dated 5/23/2022 MN 13.025 and 13.03;Sandie Thone Data Request Form Data Subjects ƚ ƩĻƨǒĻƭƷ ķğƷğ ğƭ ğ ķğƷğ ƭǒĬƆĻĭƷͲ Ǥƚǒ ƒǒƭƷ ƭŷƚǞ ƌźĭĻƓƭĻͲ ƒźƌźƷğƩǤ L5Ͳ ƚƩ ƦğƭƭƦƚƩƷ ğƭ ƦƩƚƚŅ ƚŅ źķĻƓƷźƷǤ͵ Contact information Data subject name: Parent/Guardian name (if applicable): Address: Phone number/email address: Staff verification Request date: Identification provided: I am requesting access to data in the following way: Inspection Copies Both inspection and copies We will respond to your request within 10 business days. bƚƷĻʹ LƓƭƦĻĭƷźƚƓ źƭ ŅƩĻĻ͵ ŷĻ /źƷǤ ƚŅ {ŷƚƩĻǞƚƚķ ĭŷğƩŭĻƭ Ʒƚ ƦƩźƓƷ ŷğƩķ ĭƚƦźĻƭ ƚŅ ķğƷğ͵ These are the data I am requesting: Describe the data you are requesting as specifically as possible. Data Practice Policy for Data Subjects 8 Annual Review and Update Dated 5/23/2022 MN 13.025 and 13.03;Sandie Thone Standards for Verifying Identity The following constitute proof of identity. An adult individual must provide a valid photo ID, such as o o a military ID o a passport o a Minnesota ID o a Minnesota tribal ID A minor individual must provide a valid photo ID, such as o o a military ID o a passport o a Minnesota ID o a Minnesota Tribal ID o a Minnesota school ID The parent or guardian of a minor must provide a valid photo ID and either o a certified copy o o ip to the child, such as a court order relating to divorce, separation, custody, foster care a foster care contract an affidavit of parentage The legal guardian for an individual must provide a valid photo ID and a certified copy of appropriate documentation of formal or informal appointment as guardian, such as o court order(s) o valid power of attorney Note: Individuals who do not exercise their data practices rights in person must provide either notarized or certified copies of the documents that are required or an affidavit of ID. Data Practice Policy for Data Subjects 9 Annual Review and Update Dated 5/23/2022 MN 13.025 and 13.03;Sandie Thone Notice of Adoption of Model Policies Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025, subdivisions 2 and 3, require government entities to prepare written policies that relate to public access to government data, and rights of subjects of data and Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, requires entities to establish procedures so that data requests are complied with appropriately and promptly. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.073, subd. 6, requires the Commissioner of Administration to prepare model policies and procedures to help government entities comply with those requirements. Entities model policies must notify the Commissioner. Please use the following statement to notify the Commissioner if you choose to adopt the model policies and procedures.* Notice to Commissioner of Administration: Adoption of Model Policies The City of Shorewood del Policy for the Public and Model Policy for Data Subjects. This notice to the Commissioner satisfies the City of Shorewood Minnesota Statutes, section 13.073, subdivision 6. Sandie Thone City Clerk/Human Resources Director and Data Practices Responsible Authority Adoption of Model Policy Notice to Commissioner Submitted May 8, 2017 *DƚǝĻƩƓƒĻƓƷ ĻƓƷźƷźĻƭ ƒğǤ ƭǒĬƒźƷ Ʒŷźƭ ƓƚƷźŅźĭğƷźƚƓ ĬǤ ƒğźƌ ƚƩ Ļƒğźƌʹ Commissioner of Administration c/o Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) 201 Administration Building 50 Sherburne Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 info.ipad@state.mn.us Data Practice Policy for Data Subjects 10 Annual Review and Update Dated 5/23/2022 MN 13.025 and 13.03;Sandie Thone CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 22-053 A RESOLUTION TO AWARD CONTRACT CITY PROJECT 22-03 WHEREAS, pursuant to the request for quotes for the 2022 Pavement Marking Plan, a quote was received on May 16, 2022, opened and tabulated according to law, with the following quotes received: Contractor Total Quote SIR LINES-A-LOT $24,307.87 WHEREAS, Sir Lines-A-Lot is the lowest responsible bidder; and WHEREAS, Sir Lines-A-Lot is a responsible and responsive contractor, that has completed projects of similar size and scope successfully; and NOW THEREFORE, IT RESOLVED: by the City Council of the City of Shorewood hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Sir Lines-A-Lot based on the lowest bid amount in the name of the City of Shorewood for the 2022 Pavement Marking Plan according to the plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Clerk. rd ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 23 day of May, 2022. __________________________ Jennifer Labadie, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title/Subject: Accept Quote for Shorewood Community & Event 2G Center Painting MEETING Meeting Date: May 23, 2022 TYPE Regular Prepared by: Twila Grout – Park & Rec Director Meeting Reviewed by: Sandie Thone – City Clerk/HR Director Attachments: Quote from Superior Painting Quote from JMJ Painters Background: In 2018 a Proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Shorewood Community & Event Center was developed. One of the updates is to paint the exterior of the building. The painting of the exterior building is scheduled in the 2022 CIP. Attached are two quotes from Superior Painting and JMJ Painters. Both contractors have done work for the city. On the Superior Painting quote they included the well building which is excluded in the community center quote. Financial Considerations: Funding for the painting of the exterior building will come out of the CIP. Action Requested: Staff recommends the city council approve the lowest quote from Superior Painting Contractors of $6,160.00. Approving the request requires a simple majority of Council members. Connection to Vision/Mission: Consistency in providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 Proposal Superior 751 Chippewa Circle Painting Contractors Chanhassen, MN 55317 Cell:612.990.8423 daddyo3339@gmail.com www.superior-painting.com Date: 5/12/22 Customer: City of Shorewood Street: 5755 Country Club Rd. Phone: 952-474-0128 City: Shorewood State: MN Zip: 55331 We hereby submit specifications for: City of Shorewood community center exterior bids: The well building: Power wash, scrape, sand, prime and paint two coats. 6 doors + jams, and1/2 round brown cement blocks all four sides. Total price include labor and materials = $1,980.00 Community and event center: Power wash all fascia , soffit and siding. Scrape, sand, prime and paint two coats finish. Front: Front entryway four post and columns, door + trims, wood trim and siding. Left: Doors + trims, wood trim and siding. Right: Doors + trims, wood trim and siding. Back: Wood trim and siding. Total price = $6,160.00 We hereby propose to furnish Labor in complete accordance with above specifications For the sum of See above costs Dollars ($ n/a ) No Material costs are included unless specified Payment to be made as follows ½ down payment, balance on completion. All labor is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner Robert T. Edmondson according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from the above specifications involving Authorized Signature extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner of work site to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance. Note: this proposal may be withdrawn if not accepted within 30 days. Acceptance of Proposal - The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. Signature Payment will be made as outlined above. Date of Acceptance Signature 6A CITY OF SHOREWOOD BADGER PARK PARK COMMISSION MEETING 5745 COUNTRY CLUB RD TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2022 CATHCART PARK ND 26655 WEST 62 STREET FREEMAN PARK EDDY STATION 6000 EUREKA ROAD 6:00 P.M. DRAFT MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Hirner convened the park tour meeting at 6:14 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Hirner, Commissioners Schmid, Cohen; City Planning Director Darling; Public Works Director Brown; Park and Rec Director Grout; Councilmember Callies Absent: Commissioner Gallivan and Heinz Determine Liaison for City Council Meeting on July 25 – Park Commissioner Schmid volunteered to report on the July 12 Park Commission meeting. 2. PARK TOURS Badger Park: Items that were discussed during the tour:  Supplying a bin for people to dispose of the charcoal when they are done using the grill  Planning Director explained that the city will be doing a soil correction and try seeding again  Public Works Director mentioned that they are looking into purchasing a hydro seeder. He also talked about the vandalism that has taken place at the park and that they are securing quotes for a security camera.  Put new signage at the three entrances at the tennis courts regarding no cleats, no lacrosse balls inside of the courts due to the damage to the fences. Staff will also reach out to other communities to see how they handle these types of situations.  Public Works Director mentioned that he will be exploring substituting LED lights in the park. Cathcart Park: Items that were discussed during the tour:  A gaga ball pit was discussed again. Resident Guy Sanschagrin mentioned reaching out to Boy Scout Troop 424 as a Eagle Scout project.  Adding additional chips in the swing set area  Update the postings in the memo boards PARK COMMISSION TOUR MINUTES TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2022 PAGE 2 OF 2 Freeman Park: Items that were discussed during the tour:  Planning Director updated the trailhead update would take place in 2024. That the north playground is on the CIP for 2030.  Public Works Director Brown mentioned that there is 10 miles of trails and that they are looking at rating them to determine replacement/repairing of the trails.  Look at the website to see if the correct acreage is listed for Freeman Park.  Public Works Director Brown explained that they are working with IPM group on organic solutions for weeds in the parks.  Parking lot by field 3 the potholes need to be repaired  Center car here signs are fading and should be replaced  Paint the posts on the volleyball court  Discussed whether parking supply was adequate 3. ADJOURN AT 7:45 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2022 7:00 P.M. DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Riedel called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Vice-Chair Riedel; Commissioners Eggenberger, Huskins and Holker; and Planning Director Darling; Absent: Chair Maddy, Councilmember Siakel 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Eggenberger moved, Huskins seconded, approving the agenda for May 3, 2022, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  April 5, 2022 Huskins moved, Holker seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2022, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - NONE 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS Vice-Chair Riedel explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. A. PUBLIC HEARING – CITY CODE AMENDMENTS FOR CAMPAIGN AND NON- COMMERCIAL SPEECH SIGNS Applicant: City of Shorewood Location: City-wide Planning Director Darling explained that this is a proposal from the City for small, targeted amendments to clarify one type of signage that is allowed under the current ordinance. She reviewed the purposes these amendments are hoped to achieve but noted that staff has determined that a full review of the City’s sign regulations will need to be conducted sooner than anticipated. She stated that staff has received letters on this topic from: Alan Yelsey, 26335 nd Peach Circle; Craig Parson, 26540 West 62 Street; Ashley Benites, 25000 Yellowstone Lane; Carl Wilhelm, 26755 Noble Road; and John and Patricia Arnst, 5480 Teal Circle, which are now part of the public record. She noted that the primary concerns raised in the letters were that CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 3, 2022 Page 2 of 10 people should have the right to put a sign in their yard with non-commercial messages. She stated that staff feels this right will be more clearly permitted with the proposed amendments. She explained that another concern was how this ordinance would be enforced and noted that with each election season sign complaints are common and staff subsequently investigates the complaint and explained the two courses of action available to staff. She noted that if these amendments are approved, the City will send out information to each candidate that files for election so they are clear about the sign rules in the City and stated that there would also be an article in the Shore Report. Vice-Chair Riedel expressed his appreciation to the residents who took the time to submit their concerns to the City and noted that the Planning Commission had read all of the letters. Vice-Chair Riedel opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. Pat Arnst, 5480 Teal Circle, asked if there is a distinction between how signs are treated on a City street versus a County or State roadway and asked if that would be accommodated in the ordinance. Planning Director Darling stated that in general, it would not be accommodated and explained that the right-of-way is just listed as the right-of-way. She stated that the City has relations with both MnDOT and the County, so when there are rule infractions, they usually talk to those jurisdictions about gaining compliance. She stated that this is handled on a case by case basis and explained that there are two different kinds of properties that the City has jurisdiction over; City rights-of-way and public properties, and noted that they are different. Ms. Arnst, referenced the red-lined Section II. under Integral Signs and explained that there was language that that states that non-commercial speech signs shall not be located in violation of 1201.03, Subd. 2H, or closer than five feet from the street. She stated that she finds this language confusing because it could be one or the other. She asked if the Commission understood what the traffic visibility is and what that means. Planning Director Darling stated that those are separate regulations in the Zoning Ordinance for traffic violations. Ms. Arnst asked for clarification on the traffic visibility and expressed concern about the signs that pop up at stop signs where it can already be difficult to see. Vice-Chair Riedel stated that regarding her concern about the ‘or’ in the clause, his understanding is that the language is meant to say that they are not allowed to violate either condition and impair traffic visibility or be located five feet or closer to the street. Ms. Arnst stated that makes more sense to her and explained that her last question is under General Provisions, Section C. She stated that this section says that no signs other than public signs and non-commercial speech signs shall be erected or temporarily placed within any street right-of-way or on public lands or easements. She stated that she sees signs such as ‘Drive Like You Live Here’ or the plastic outlines of the little boys out in the street. She noted that she felt this language would refer to those types of signs and asked for clarification on this point. Planning Director Darling explained that the reason that the term ‘governmental signs’ is coming out is because it is not defined in the ordinance. She noted that ‘public signs’ is the defined term so she was just cleaning up that reference. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 3, 2022 Page 3 of 10 Ms. Arnst asked if a sign like ‘Black Lives Matter’ would fall into the political type of signage. Planning Director Darling stated that those signs would be included in the definition of non- commercial speech signs. Ms. Arnst asked if a campaign sign would be designated as someone who has formally applied for office. Planning Director Darling confirmed that would be considered a campaign sign and explained that was why they were proposing to remove that from the ordinance because the State statute does not so limit those signs and calls them non-commercial speech signs. Commissioner Huskins asked if he was understanding correctly that a sign like ‘Black Lives Matter’ during an election period would fall under the ability to be posted no closer than five feet from the right-of-way and then following the election, the sign would still be permitted to be displayed, but would then need to be moved back onto private property. Planning Director Darling confirmed that this was the correct understanding. Vice-Chair Riedel noted that there are still restrictions for signs on private property and those would still apply and gave a brief overview of the substitution clause. There being no additional public comment, Vice-Chair Riedel closed the Public Hearing at 7:17 P.M. Commissioner Huskins stated that the two issues that came to him based on the letters from the residents had to do with the five feet and an acknowledgement that there are homeowners who have properties that do not permit them to be able to display a sign closer than five feet because of hedges or trees. He asked if there was any remedy for those concerns for a resident who has a home with that configuration that would preclude them from displaying a sign. He stated that in his opinion, if they wanted to display a sign, they could make a choice to remove the obstacles but understands that may not be popular. He asked if there was any other solution that had occurred to staff in this situation. Planning Director Darling stated that she thinks residents who would not be able to display an election sign are a pretty small minority of the residents. She explained that most would have a driveway entrance where the sign could be displayed and reiterated that there are very few instances where they would have absolutely no space to display a sign. She stated that these residents may have made a choice to maximize their privacy on their property which would take away some of their options for displaying signs. Vice-Chair Riedel noted that the proposed changes are actually more lenient and not more strict. Commissioner Huskins stated that the other theme that came through the letters was with regard to enforcement. He stated that his understanding is that enforcement happens via response to a resident complaint. Planning Director Darling explained that Shorewood is a complaint based City which means they do not have permanent, dedicated staff that can go throughout the community looking for Code violations. She stated that the cost to change to this sort of permanent position is fairly steep and noted that if there is a health and safety issue, staff is able to do something about the situation if CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 3, 2022 Page 4 of 10 they see something, but in general, it is complaint based. She noted that since the City has moved towards communicating directly with the candidates, staff have noticed fewer violations. Eggenberger moved, Holker seconded, recommending approval of the Proposed Text Amendments for Campaign Signs and Non-Commercial, as discussed at the April 5, 2022 Planning Commission meeting and the three changes since the last meeting as outlined in the staff report. Motion passed 4/0. Planning Director Darling noted that this item will come before the City Council on May 9, 2022. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Pre-Application Sketch Review Applicant: Lifestyle Communities Location: 24250 Smithtown Road Planning Director Darling explained that this item is for informal comments on a pre-application sketch review of a 56-unit senior cooperative project on two parcels that straddle the City boundary between Tonka Bay and Shorewood. She noted that the applicant has provided some information on the housing concepts as well as some sketch level plans for Commission review. She summarized a few of the discretionary issues staff has noted as well as things that may need more in depth discussion including things like; whether this meets a community need and if the location is a good fit; the need for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; and the likely need for a Planned Unit Development. Vice-Chair Riedel asked how this would fit in with the discussion had in the last year regarding Met Council’s goals for density in the City. Planning Director Darling stated that this is a development that would be providing substantially more than the five units per acre the Met Council is asking for and also asked for a portion of the new units to be provided in a density of eight units or greater which would also be provided because they are looking at about twenty units to the acre, so it would satisfy some of the things the Met Council has asked. Commissioner Holker stated that she had not seen anything regarding cost and asked if there was a ballpark figure on how much it would cost for someone to live in these units. Commissioner Eggenberger asked if both cities would have to approve this plan for it to be able to move forward. Planning Director Darling stated that she believes that if one city turned it down it would negate the project because it would dramatically shrink the size of the developing parcel. She explained that the two cities would need to work together on how this moves forward. Ben Landhauser, Lifestyle Communities, gave a brief presentation about the proposed project and explained that this would be owner occupied housing that has shareholders in a cooperative corporation. He stated that it may be easiest to think of it as an age qualified condominium building that has more amenities so the emphasis ends up as more on the community as a whole. He gave an overview of the various projects that Lifestyle Communities has worked on within the metro area. He noted that this location is attractive to them because they want to be in a somewhat walkable location as well as the availability of some of the things that are located nearby. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 3, 2022 Page 5 of 10 Vice-Chair Riedel asked how taxation would work since this is a corporation. Mr. Landhauser explained that there are statute guidelines for how taxation works and noted that it feels like a hybrid between commercial and a rental model. Commissioner Holker asked if Lifestyle Communities had already spoken with the two property owners for these parcels. Mr. Landhauser stated that both properties are under a purchase agreement with them and gave a little history of the parcels and how they came to be on the market. He stated that if both communities feel that this would be a reasonable consideration, they would plan to do a PUD with a zero lot line at the shared boundary with Tonka Bay. He stated that from a building code perspective, they would essentially be building two structures independent to one another at the property line which means there would be details such as fire walls, which will also make it easier from a taxation standpoint to delineate which units were in which city. Vice-Chair Riedel noted that appears commendable but asked if it would necessary if the cities cooperated on building codes and on taxation. Planning Director Darling stated that she would recommend that the two cities could work together and then decide which city it would be in and come to agreements on revenues and cost sharing but clarified that she could not speak for either City Council. Commissioner Huskins stated that he would try to figure out a way to secure both properties and go through the action of figuring out which City those properties will be in and then move forward with the project as opposed to doing the project and having the layers of complications that Mr. Landhauser had described between the two cities. Mr. Landhauser stated that internally they have had these same kinds of discussions and explained that they have had the properties under contract for about five months. He stated that they have met with staff members from both cities and decided that their best foot forward would be to at least align at concept, but agreed that it would be much more simple for them if they didn’t have to deal with property lines and could treat it as one building. He stated that even if they end up moving forward with the plans he had described with two buildings and zero lot lines, he suspects that most people would not even realize that they would be two separate buildings. Commissioner Huskins asked if there was a contingency agreement with both parcels that the purchase will go forward only if this project moves forward. Mr. Landhauser stated that was correct and noted that he felt that they have put together the best option for these parcels, but noted that even if it is not approved, he would anticipate that some other multi-family developer would come along with a proposal. He stated that he feels that is very likely but reiterated that he felt that their product was the best one for the City because it is age qualified and owner occupied and noted that he believed that use would not create traffic concerns. Vice-Chair Riedel noted that he appreciated that it was an age qualified project and that this may mean less traffic concerns, however they are proposing 56 units. He noted that staff had recommended a traffic study and asked if Mr. Landhauser could talk about traffic directly and asked for his thoughts on visibility and the access points. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 3, 2022 Page 6 of 10 Mr. Landhauser stated that when they talk about daily trips, he asked the Commission to keep in mind that this counts both leaving and coming back. He stated that their product is 182 trips which is just over 3 trips per day/unit as the average. He noted that as a comparison, villa or townhomes would be an average 4-8 trips per day/unit and for a single family household would be somewhere around 8-12 trips per day/unit. He explained that their proposal is to move the owners access point to the shared driveway that goes to the public safety complex because it is further away from the intersection and has better visibility. Vice-Chair Riedel stated that there is currently no stop sign at that intersection for Smithtown Road. He stated that for people making 182 trips a day that are waiting to make a left turn, could cause traffic concerns. He explained that traffic is a perennial concern for residents and is an issue on the arterial roads, which upsets people. Mr. Landhauser noted that this has been clear with the joint meetings they have held with staff from both cities and is clear that a full traffic study would vet out more of the anticipated turning movements and where the trips would really come and go. Commissioner Huskins shared examples from the past clean-up events in the City where that intersection had gotten backed up. Commissioner Holker stated that she foresees another possible traffic point being down at Cub Foods. Mr. Landhauser explained that when they had their traffic study completed they have also given the corollary for anticipating current traffic patterns and include what it would be at the current guidance for medium density. Commissioner Holker stated that she would also want to make sure that they are looking at how things will look when the apartment building is full and not right now when there is only 25-30% occupancy. Mr. Landhauser stated that because they are working with the two cities, they will be able to get some of the anticipated traffic data because he knows that was a huge project before the apartment building moved forward with construction. Vice-Chair Riedel noted that another thing to consider if this goes through is that it will be a major construction project that will take months and perhaps years to complete, so residents may be concerned about the staging of the construction and the impact it will have on traffic. Mr. Landhauser stated that what they have done in the past for tight sites such as this one, they usually work with an existing property owner on where construction traffic ends up going that is in general proximity to the site. He stated that they are expecting a 13-14 month build for this project and explained that they will have it pretty well figured out as to how and where they will get materials on the site. Commissioner Holker reiterated her question about the approximate pricing for the units. Mr. Landhauser noted that in this concept they have everything from about 1,200 square feet, which is a 1 bedroom/den unit up to the equivalent of a 3 bedroom that they market as a 2 bedroom/den unit that is around 1,600 square feet. He stated that the minimum share payment will be around $150,000 up to about $300,000 in equity payment. He stated that they are a limited equity co-op so there are different tiers so people can participate at the minimum which is right CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 3, 2022 Page 7 of 10 around 35% all the way up to 95%. He stated that there is one mortgage for the entire property which is why it is different than a condominium, so the shareholders have a proportionate share of the one mortgage. He stated that the homes will be anywhere from the mid $300,000 range to $600,000 based on size. He gave examples of how this works with their Golden Valley property. Commissioner Huskins asked why they were planning 4 stories with one portion at 3 stories. Mr. Landhauser answered that they had thought about how they could best approach this which was to try to find a reasonable critical mass and because it is one master mortgage, it is a different model than dealing with other types of traditional real estate. He stated that they are also balancing things like overhead and ongoing costs to the owner to pay for the elevator, building manager, and the part time maintenance person. He noted that they are proposing a stepped back fourth floor so it felt more in context than just a true four story building. He stated if they had just done 3 stories that would have meant the removal of more trees. He stated that they would welcome any comments the Commission may have on their proposed scale and mass. Vice-Chair Riedel stated that neighbors in single family homes do generally feel threatened by a big building going up, however, in this case, there are nice buffers around and asked about the closet single family neighborhood. Mr. Landhauser noted that the closest single family homes are at the old golf course location. Vice-Chair Riedel asked about the height of the building. Mr. Landhauser stated that they have 12 foot floors so they will be looking at right around 45 feet for the 4-story portion and 35 feet high for the 3-story portion of the building. Vice-Chair Riedel noted that it looks like a very attractive building, but there is a lot of asphalt in front and not much landscaping. Mr. Landhauser stated that the renderings may show more than the reality will end up being in terms of how visible that is and explained that the objective is to retain as much as possible of the existing buffer with the retaining wall. He stated that the parking lot will end up kind of sitting into the hillside and the stormwater management will take place underneath the parking structure with an island in the middle asphalt, so it should not feel like a sea of asphalt shoved to the forefront and should instead be more the idea of embedding this building into a wooded lot. He stated that the intent will be to make it feel private and secluded for the owners, but still very attractive when the trees they plant have not yet reached full maturity. Commissioner Holker asked about the total elevation as compared to the apartment building so she can get a visual idea of what they expect it to look like. Mr. Landhauser stated that they had actually ran a drone through the area and can include greater detail if this moves further along in the process. He stated that they will try to work in the drone data as to how this building would relate and explained that the heights of the tallest point of the apartment building are very comparable to the top floor of this building. Commissioner Holker asked about the view from County Road 19 as compared to how far away the apartment building is from the roadway. She explained that she was trying to get a sense for how far back on the lot the mass of the building will sit. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 3, 2022 Page 8 of 10 Mr. Landhauser stated that they are about 28 feet from the closest edge to the right-of-way at Smithtown. He noted that they are trying to retain some of the very mature trees at the top of the retaining wall to help create the buffer so there is not a hard edge with units being close to the roadway. He stated that being close to the roadway is useful in a rental market, but with owners, they like the convenience of being off of Smithtown Road, but are probably not as keen on staring out their living room window at the roadway. Vice-Chair Riedel asked about whether there were any green or environmental targets that they had in mind for this project. Mr. Landhauser stated that although they do not go through lead certification, they do go with principals that align with that lead certification standard as a baseline. He stated that means they are sourcing things within 500 feet of the site and use as many locally sourced materials and general subcontractors from the area as they can. He explained that they also do electrical vehicle charging and explained that they do a flex stall so even if you don’t move in having an electric vehicle or a hybrid, you will have access if you end up changing vehicles in the future. He stated that they are working through the details if someone wants it right off of their individual parking stall. He stated that they also typically make the building ‘solar ready’ and shared the example of what has happened at their St. Anthony building. He stated that related to the finishing products, they go through and try to have environmentally sensitive products. Commissioner Holker asked about the Met Council goals for affordable housing and noted that this development will obviously not meet those goals. Planning Director Darling stated that it will not but noted that the City is not required to actually provide affordable housing, but they want the City to at least allow densities that would help. Commissioner Holker asked if there had been a discussion about trying to figure out, more actively, how the City can meet that goal, or if it had pinpointed particular areas where that might make sense. Planning Director Darling stated that the City recently went back through and found a number of sites that had high density established with the new Comprehensive Plan. She reviewed the four primary areas where they have looked more closely for higher density housing. Commissioner Huskins asked if Public Works or Public Safety had weighed in on these proposed plans. Planning Director Darling stated that it is a bit early to bring the Fire Department into this conversation. She stated that she has not released it to Public Safety, but has released it to Public Works but has not gotten any specific comments at this point, other than concern about the shared use of the drive Commissioner Holker asked if Mr. Landhauser had already had preliminary conversations with Tonka Bay. Mr. Landhauser stated that they have not yet and explained that they are on the Tonka Bay City Council agenda for next week. Tim Nichols, CEO, Lifestyle Communities, stated that one thing he wanted to touch on was how impactful cooperative housing is to both the people who move in but also to the people who sell homes in the communities that do not want to leave the area. He stated that virtually 100% of the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 3, 2022 Page 9 of 10 people that come into their buildings are people that didn’t want to leave the area and this product gives them the opportunity to stay and to downsize. He stated that they think they offer a valuable piece of the pie for housing choices available in the City. Vice-Chair Riedel opened this item up for public testimony at 8:18 P.M. There being no public testimony, Vice-Chair Riedel closed that portion of the meeting. He asked the Commission to give their thoughts and opinions on this proposed project. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that at this point he did not see anything that would keep the Commission from recommending it to move forward. He stated that he feels his type of housing is needed and is a great location for it. Commissioner Holker stated that as Planning Director Darling laid out there is a need for this type of housing and noted that she agreed with Commissioner Eggenberger that the location feels like a good idea, but she is sensitive to the potential traffic issue that it may bring. She stated that her one concern is for the large commercial building feel, but otherwise cannot think of any real objectives, subject to the details that still needs to come forward. Commissioner Huskins stated that he is also not seeing anything that would make him want to immediately say that he would not support it. He stated that he does have concern about Public Safety and Public Works and the roadway as well as the potential traffic at this intersection. He stated that he does keep coming back to there being shared cities as part of the project because it will require a lot of work. Vice-Chair Riedel stated that he feels that staff is so professional in both of the cities and so proactive, which means it may be less of an issue than it appears, if both cities agree, in principle. He stated that this will put a large building in place where there was not one before. He explained that he is not necessarily opposed to that, but it is a choice that the City will get to make just once. He stated that he keeps looking for red flags that there have been with other proposals, but he is not seeing any that say this will be hugely problematic other than the possible issue with traffic. He encouraged the developer to put the traffic study front and center and get it out because having answers to those questions, including access will expedite the process with the Commission, the Council, and the residents. Planning Director Darling reminded the Commission that they can give informal feedback or craft a motion with more specific recommendations for the Council. Vice-Chair Riedel stated that he would also like to comment on the appearance that this large, imposing building will make. Commissioner Huskins noted that the comments and questions will be noted in the minutes and made available to the City Council. He stated that he questioned whether, at this stage, that would be sufficient feedback for the Council. Planning Commissioner Darling stated that would satisfy the expectation of the Council to review the proposal and start flushing out any issues. She stated that this item is planned to be on the agenda for the May 23, 2022 City Council meeting. The Commission identified a list of the potential issues that have been identified which would include: traffic; size or scale of the building in view of the neighborhood; shared drive access on the Public Works/Fire Station road; and the two city aspect of the project. They also noted that if approved, it will require a Comprehensive Plan amendment; a possible boundary adjustment CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 3, 2022 Page 10 of 10 between the two cities; rezoning to a PUD to allow multiple family dwelling; PUD application with potential flexibility for lot areas, height, materials; and a surface water plan. Mr. Nichols stated that he was very grateful that the Commission was being so deliberate about their feedback, because it can be a difficult process. He stated that this approach gives them a lot of good feedback from the City and noted that a motion with this information would be well received by their organization. Eggenberger moved, Holker seconded, to recommend to the City Council that the City continue discussion of the Lifestyle Communities proposal at 24250 Smithtown Road in Shorewood and 24320 Smithtown Road in Tonka Bay with the exploration of: traffic; size or scale of the building in view of the neighborhood; shared drive access on the Public Works/Fire Station road; and the two city aspect of the project, as well as the future steps outlined in the staff report. Eggenberger amended the motion, second amended by Holker, to recommend to the City Council that the City continue discussion of the Lifestyle Communities proposal at 24250 Smithtown Road in Shorewood and 24320 Smithtown Road in Tonka Bay and make note that the Commission eagerly awaits further exploration of various aspects of the project, including: traffic; size or scale of the building in view of the neighborhood; shared drive access on the Public Works/Fire Station road; and the two city aspect of the project, as well as the future steps outlined in the staff report. Motion carried 4/0. 6. OLD BUSINESS – NONE 7. REPORTS A. Council Meeting Report Planning Director Darling gave a brief overview of the discussion and actions taken at the last City Council meeting. B. Draft Next Meeting Agenda Planning Director Darling stated that there may be a variance application on the next agenda. C. ADJOURNMENT Huskins moved, Holker seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of May 3, 2022, at 8:40 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 22-054 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE 2022 MILL & OVERLAY PROJECT, CITY PROJECT 21-11 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the 2022 Mill & Over Project, bids were received on May 17, 2022, opened and tabulated according to law, with the following bids received and complying with the advertisement and specifications: Alternate A Alternate B Total Bid Contractor Base Bid (Galpin Lk Rd) (Murray St/Ct) $110,012.00 $171,176.78 $766,743.18 Valley Paving, Inc $485,554.40 $104,013.10 $174,376.46 $764,450.29 Asphalt Surface Technologies $486,060.73 $112,062.00 $196,245.80 $798,491.67 Wm. Mueller & Sons $490,183.87 $113,763.00 $179,890.40 $784,796.05 Bituminous Roadways $491,142.65 $107,895.10 $171,783.22 $779,184.66 GMH Asphalt $499,506.34 $117,125.00 $193,657.90 $831,723.05 S.M. Hentges & Sons $520,940.15 WHEREAS, the low bidder is determined by the Base Bid amount; and WHEREAS, Galpin Lake Road is defined as “Bid Alternate A” according to the approved Plans and Specifications; and WHEREAS, Murray Street and Murray Court are defined as “Bid Alternate B” according to the approved Plans and Specifications; and WHEREAS, Funding constraints dictate that either Alternative A or Alternative B may be included in the improvement, but not both; and WHEREAS, Alternative A, Galpin Lake Road has a substantially higher traffic volume and is in worse condition than Murray Street and Murray Court; and WHEREAS, Valley Paving, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder; and WHEREAS, Valley Paving, Inc. is a responsible and responsive contractor, that has completed projects of similar size and scope successfully; and NOW THEREFORE, IT RESOLVED: by the City Council of the City of Shorewood hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and City Clerk, on behalf of the City of Shorewood, to enter into a contract with Valley Paving, Inc. for the Base Bid plus Alternate A, Galpin Lake Road in the amount of $595,566.40, for the 2022 Mill & Overlay Project according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. rd ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 23 day of May, 2022. __________________________ Jennifer Labadie, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk