Loading...
01-22-24 CC Reg Mtg Agenda Packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2024 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___ Callies___ Maddy___ Sanschagrin___ Zerby___ 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 January 8, 2024 Minutes B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 8, 2024 Minutes C. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List D. Approval of Contract with Abdo Financial Services City Administrator Memo E. Authorize Safe Routes to School Grant; Galpin Lake Rd to Oak Street City Engineer Memo Resolution 24-005 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 Council. Anyone wishing to address the Council should raise their hand, or if attending remotely please use the “raise hand” function on your screen and wait to be called on. Please make your comments from the podium and identify yourself by your first and last name and your address for the record. Please limit your comments to three CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Page 2 minutes. No discussion or action will be taken by the Council on this matter. If requested by the Council, City staff will prepare a report for the Council regarding the matter and place it on the next agenda. 4. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 5. PARKS A. Report by Commissioner Wenner on 01-09-24 Park Commission meeting Minutes B. Integrated Pest Management Update Public Works Director Memo 6. PLANNING A. Report by Commissioner Gorham on 01-02-24 Planning Commission meeting Minutes B. Review CUP for T Mobile Antenna Planning Technician Memo Location: 24283 Smithtown Road Resolution 24-006 Applicant: SMJ International LLC. C. Variances to Expand a Nonconforming House Planning Director Memo Location: 5995 Glencoe Road Resolution 24-007 Applicant: Ben and Kelly Vanderheyden 7. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Authorize Preparation of Final Plans for 2024 Mill & Overlay City Engineer Memo And Smithtown Drainage Improvement, City Project 24-01 Resolution 24-008 8. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Approve Park/Recreation Director Recruitment City Clerk/HR Director Memo 9. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS AND DISCUSSION A. Staff 1. Communications/Website Update Communications Coordinator Memo 2. Response to Sand/Salt Question Public Works Director Memo 3. Response to Conflict of Interest Claims City Administrator Memo B. Mayor and City Council CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Page 3 10. ADJOURN 2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JANUARY 8, 2024 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 Labadie, Callies, Maddy, Sanschagrin, and Zerby; City Attorney Shepherd; City Administrator Nevinski; City Clerk/HR Director Thone; Planning Director Darling; Director of Public Works Morreim; and, City Engineer Budde Absent: None B. Review Agenda Zerby moved, Sanschagrin seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. DIRECTOR POSITIONS City Administrator Nevinski explained that Finance Director Rigdon will be taking a leave of absence that staff was recommending working with a consultant to cover his duties. He stated that the Park and Recreation Director has also resigned after spending about a year in that position. He explained that he would like the Council to have a discussion about whether they felt that position was heading in the right direction or if they wanted to prioritize certain duties over others and make some changes in the position. Mayor Labadie explained that she had suggested that this discussion take place at a Work Session because she wanted to ensure that as they move forward and recruit for this position that the message they are giving the candidates matches what the Council envisions for this position. Councilmember Callies asked if there was an exit interview with Ms. Crossfield and if she had given any input on the position and the direction things were moving. City Clerk/HR Director Thone stated that they had not conducted an exit interview. City Administrator Nevinski stated that he had some informal conversations with Ms. Crossfield and thinks that a year in a position was not enough, because it takes that much time to get to know the community and the players. He stated that they were working towards tightening things up and putting policies in place in order to help guide the Park and Recreation programming. He referenced some of the programming partners that Ms. Crossfield had worked with and noted that he felt she was trying to grow that service and market the SCEC so they had renters and income. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8, 2024 Page 2 of 4 Councilmember Zerby asked if they had look at the leadership roles in places like Mound, Wayzata, and Excelsior. City Administrator Nevinski stated that he had not taken a close look at that and tried to make comparisons. He stated that he believes the question, to some extent, is where Shorewood wants to go in this area. Councilmember Zerby stated that there was a lot of discussion in the job description about managing staff and asked how much staff was needed to run the SCEC. He noted that some of the feedback he got was that Ms. Crossfield seemed to be focused on managing staff rather than managing the facility. He stated that in his opinion, he does not think there is the room or need for that much staff to run the SCEC and believes that this position needs to be more of a ‘worker bee’ and less of a top level boss. Councilmember Callies stated that she agreed and noted that it seems as though one of the problems may be the title of ‘Director’, because that implies that you would be the administrative manager, which she did not feel was what the Council was expecting. Mayor Labadie stated that she agreed that the focus became trying to delegate and manage. She noted that the first word in that positions title is ‘Parks’ and she feels that the focus on the City parks was lost. She stated that if the City hires someone in a director role, she thinks that means something different than the actual role is for the City. She stated that she feels the City needs someone that can help manage the parks, the recreation, the facility, but also help prepare the Parks and Recreation budget and the SCEC budget. She stated that she also feels that this person must be in attendance at the Parks meetings including when they have meetings in the parks related to the buckthorn or the pond. She stated that she also felt the Council needed to be cognizant of the fact that Shorewood is the perfect sized city for someone to come and get some experience under their belt and then move on to a larger city. Councilmember Zerby stated that he sees the SCEC as part of the park system and felt that the goal for all of the parks system was for the highest and best use. The Council discussed details in the job description for the Park and Recreation Director position, job title, candidate pool, and potential salary differences between job titles. Councilmember Sanschagrin stated that he would like to get information from the community on this position and not have the Council make the decision on if the position should be changed. Councilmember Zerby noted that he was not sure how the City could get that information from the community. He stated that he has looked at Indeed job listings and the term ‘Coordinator’ and “Manager’ are frequently used. The Council discussed past budgeting duties for this position and other positions within the Parks and Recreation Department. City Administrator Nevinski stated that from the Council discussion he believes he is hearing that making sure that the next position understands the importance of being a ‘worker bee’. He stated that he believes it is important to have someone capable of building relationships with the athletic associations, senior citizens, and members of the community. He stated that he is also thinking that it should be someone that can lead the City through future conversations about the parks and CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8, 2024 Page 3 of 4 facilities and gave the example of doing planning for Southshore Park or the nature area improvements. Mayor Labadie stated that she felt that the City needed to get someone into this position as soon as possible and suggested that they give some feedback to staff so this process can begin. City Administrator Nevinski stated that he felt the job title of ‘Director’ was very important in the park and recreation world, but noted that the City can be very clear on the duties and expectations for the position to get things done. Councilmember Zerby stated that he would like to take a look at ‘Manager’ versus ‘Director’ from a salary standpoint and explained that he felt, in looking through Indeed, that manager seemed more fitting with what the City’s role actually was. He noted that he would not ‘die on a hill’ in a fight over director versus manager, but felt it was worth exploring. Councilmember Sanschagrin suggested that perhaps the position could begin as “Manager’ with the possibility for being promoted to ‘Director’. He noted that he also felt that public relations was an important aspect to this position. Mayor Labadie stated that she really liked the concept of the position potentially moving from Manager to Director because it also may promote some longevity. Councilmember Callies stated that she could support that as long as the tasks are beefed up a bit in the description again so it is clear that the duties involve actually doing the work and not just oversight of the work. The Council discussed details within the job description that they felt could be changed or moved elsewhere to other positions. City Administrator Nevinski stated that if the Council decided to move to a Manager position that could move into a Director position they would need to decide on criteria and some goals and determine how they would know if it had reached that point or not. He stated that staff can wrestle with a that question a bit internally and report back to the Council. Councilmember Maddy stated that he would like there to be more emphasis on the financials of park staff and SCEC staffing so it is clear where the money is coming from and where it is going. Mayor Labadie asked staff to bring this information back to the Council at a future meeting. City Administrator Nevinski explained that he believes that filling this position will end up being about a three month process. Councilmember Callies asked what would be happening with these duties in the interim. Councilmember Zerby stated that he would like to see a revised job description at their next meeting. There was Consensus of the Council to direct staff to bring back a revised job description for the Park and Recreation Director, that includes what was discussed at the Work Session meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8, 2024 Page 4 of 4 Mayor Labadie encouraged the Council to contact City Administrator Nevinski or City Clerk/HR Director Thone if they had any additional input or questions related to this position. 3. ORGANICS COLLECTION City Administrator Nevinski stated that this item was informational for the Council in order to let them know what is going on. He gave an overview of the history of the MPCA ruling, the City drop site, and cost for curbside organics collection. Councilmember Callies suggested that this be put on the regular agenda for discussion and stated that she would also like an overview of what had happened with prior discussions about single hauler services. There was Consensus of the Council to have additional discussion about refuse and organics collection in the City at a future meeting. 4. ADJOURN Zerby moved, Sanschagrin seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of January 8, 2024, at 6:49 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. ATTEST: Jennifer Labadie, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk 2B CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JANUARY 8, 2024 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Labadie called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. and noted that she felt there may be some confusion from those in attendance at tonight’s meeting. She stated that she wanted to clarify that Eureka Road was not on tonight’s agenda and would not be discussed by the Council. She stated that per City Engineer Budde, it is scheduled to be on the agenda for February 26, 2024. City Administrator Nevinski noted that there was a project page within the City’s website and noted that is where residents can sign up to receive e-mail updates on various projects they are interested in. A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call Present. Mayor Labadie; Councilmembers Callies, Maddy, Sanschagrin, and Zerby; City Attorney Shepherd; City Administrator Nevinski; City Clerk/HR Director Thone; Planning Director Darling; Director of Public Works Morreim; and, City Engineer Budde Absent: None C. Review Agenda Zerby moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda, as presented. Motion passed. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Labadie reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked to remove item E. for separate discussion. Councilmember Zerby noted that he had asked staff for additional information related to item C., but explained that he was willing to take action on that item prior to receiving that information. City Clerk/HR Director Thone reminded the Council that at the Work Session they had intended to bring back item H. Mayor Labadie explained that during the Work Session the Council had asked staff to bring back item H with some points of clarity related to recruitment for the Park and Recreation Director position. She stated that the Council would adjust item H. to merely be ‘Accept the Resignation of the Park and Recreation Director’. Maddy moved, Sanschagrin seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein, as revised. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8, 2024 Page 2 of 9 A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of December 11, 2023 B. Approval of the Verified Claims List C. 2024 Mileage Reimbursement Rate D. City Council Out of State Travel Policy Approval E. Master Fee Schedule Updates – SCEC Fees, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 24- 001, “A Resolution Approving the 2024 City Master Fee Schedule Updates.” (moved to item 8.B.) F. Approve Tobacco License – Shorewood Smokes Plus, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 24-002, “A Resolution Approving Retail Tobacco License.” G. Approve Independent Contractor Renewal – Erica Heinrichs, Tai Chi H. Accept Resignation of the Park and Recreation Director I. Approve Public Works Supervisor Reclassification J. Accept Final Improvements for 2022 Mill & Overlay, City Project 21-11, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 24-003, “ A Resolution for Final Acceptance for the 2022 Mill & Overlay Project, City Project 21-11” Motion passed. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Kate Bix, 25545 Orchard Circle, stated that she has lived here for thirty-two years and wanted to talk to the Council about Eureka Road. She explained that she walks Birch Bluff down to Howard’s Point and around and travels into the wetland. She stated that her issue with the City’s plans are related to safety and speed on Eureka. She explained that she refers to this stretch of road as the ‘Eureka 500’ because many people speed on it regardless of the condition of the roadway. She stated she wanted to draw the Council’s attention to this ongoing issue with speeding. Chris Joslin, 25630 Maple View Court, stated that he had been a resident of Shorewood for eighteen years. He explained that on November 30, 2023 after the neighborhood presentation there were a lot of questions and a larger, more organized group was developed by the residents who are concerned about the cost but also the impact of widening the road. He stated that there has been a petition signed following the neighborhood presentation of residents who do not want to see the road widened and would choose Option Two which maintains the footprint. He presented the Council with the petition and stated that it held nearly one-hundred signatures. David Vierthaler, 25755 Maple View Court, stated that he moved to the area about six years ago and chose this site because it was surrounded by marshes. He stated that in June of 2022 he had asked former Public Works Director Brown what was happening to the marshes because when he moved in the marshes were all five or six feet deep, but the water has been disappearing and CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8, 2024 Page 3 of 9 getting very low. He stated that when he looks at the different plans being presented for Eureka Road nothing has been addressed related to the marsh areas. He stated that he believes the City, County, and the watershed district should do some work in the marshes before they begin other work. He read aloud from the response he had gotten from the City in July of 2022. He stated that he felt he needed to bring this forward because he has seen what happened on Strawberry Lane and Birch Bluff in widening the roads and putting in more hard surface. He stated that he understands that there have been a few dry years, but he can point out five springs on his property that are not running which should be coming from the aquifer and not from ground water run off which he believes shows that something else is going on. He explained that he felt the City owes it to the citizens to understand the aquifers and the ground water flow before the start putting in more hard surface or retaining ponds. Mark Harland, 5300 Eureka Road, stated that he has lived here since 1985 and felt that the County was desperately seeking an alternative route through the City to County Road 19. He stated that the traffic at County Road 19/Smithtown Road/Country Club Drive is, in his opinion, untenable. He questioned the wisdom of the City accepting money from the County to widen the road and increase the speed limit. He stated that the traffic volume with these changes will increase and will destroy everything that the residents have expressed concern about. He stated that he also feels that these changes would make it a much more dangerous road for those that live and walk in the area. Andrew Khosravi, 26920 Noble Road, stated that he would not be available at the February meeting where the Council will discuss the Eureka Road project and wanted to take time to share his feelings tonight. He explained that he had lived in the City for about three years and noted that their reasons for choosing Shorewood was: proximity to the lake; excellent school district; and aesthetics of the narrow, tree covered roads that reminded them of living of north or New England. He stated that Shorewood and the cities surrounding the lake enjoy some of the highest property valuations in the Midwest and he thinks it is due to those same three characteristics. He noted that he has fifteen years of experience in the real estate field and stated that in the last three years he has been deeply disappointed in several projects that the Council has approved which he felt have essentially defaced the community. He noted that he understands that there are times that work must be done, but the more he finds out about the proposed projects, the more they appear to have been over engineering, are extravagantly expensive, and unwarranted. He explained that the City’s debt load has ballooned since 2019 and the financial burden that is put on the residents for these projects is significant. He stated that he would support it if there was a strong value add for the residents, but it appears that only a handful of residents receive any material benefit. He stated that improving streets and sidewalks typically improves property valuations, but, in this case, will have a negative impact. He referenced properties on Birch Bluff that he believed saw a loss in value of around $100,000. He stated that taking the stance of widening the street for safety seems odd to him because the consensus among planners has been to reduce street widths. He referenced properties in Minneapolis such as Lowry Avenue, that are in the process of a size reduction as a traffic calming measure. He stated that wide streets are well known for promoting faster speeds. He asked the City to learn from their mistakes and asked the Council to choose Option Two when they vote on the Eureka Road project. Sheila Wyatt, 5335 Eureka Road, explained that she had lived there since 2016 and stated that she would add her support to what the other residents have shared regarding Eureka Road. She stated that she also supported Option Two and noted that she and her husband take daily walks and have experienced seeing the increase in speed on Birch Bluff. She stated that they have seen vehicles exceeding speeds that they had not seen before when it was a more narrow road. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8, 2024 Page 4 of 9 She stated that the City’s information and study may have told them that widening the road would slow people down, but she was witnessing, first hand, that it has only increased the speed. She stated that she would also ask that the City provide follow up communication regarding the change in the ratio of salt to sand for treating the ice and explained that she would like to understand the environmental impact on the salt run off into the City’s waterways. She stated that she would also like to understand what type of salt the City is using. Jerry Bix, 25545 Orchard Circle, asked if the earlier statement by one of the residents was accurate that there is an incentive from the County to widen Eureka Road. Mayor Labadie asked City Engineer Budde if any of the options proposed for Eureka Road rely on County funding. City Engineer Budde stated that none of the options rely on County funding. He stated that this project would be completely locally funded by the City. Councilmember Callies stated that she believed that City Engineer Budde had recommended against taking any County funding because they would have required the extra width and other features that the City does not want. City Engineer Budde stated that was correct. He stated that he thinks what that resident was alluding to was possible money from MnDot or the State rather than the County. He stated that Eureka Road is a municipal State Aid road and if they were to take money from MnDot they would have to meet certain standards which would make the roadway footprint wider than what has been proposed with the largest option. He reiterated that his recommendation was not to pursue any of these outside funds. Lou Harland, 5300 Eureka Road, encouraged her fellow residents to call police when they see people speeding because there was no reason that they should not be in the area giving out traffic tickets. Kristen Kowalski, 25635 Maple View Court, stated that she had lived here for thirteen years. She stated that there was no debate that Eureka Road north of Smithtown is in need of repair and shared personal examples related to damages and injuries. She stated that she also understands that the City needs to anticipate the long-term future needs for the City, however she has significant concerns about the repair options that have been proposed by the City. She clarified that her concerns were related to cost, conflicts of interest, and transparency. She stated that recent projects by the City have resulted in an increase in bonded debt and asked if the proposed two-million dollars for this project was the best use of taxpayer dollars especially when the majority of people in the area are not in favor of this project. She stated that she felt that a conflict of interest existed with the influence of the City Engineer and their employer, Bolton & Menk, which appear to have won construction bids. He stated that the City Engineer is a paid employee of Bolton & Menk as well as a permit approver for the City which she felt represented a significant conflict of interest over engineered projects and has led to added costs and impacts taxpayers. She stated that in relation to transparency, the three options presented do not include adequate details on sewer improvements, power line improvements, environmental impacts, recent traffic studies, comparison or curb types, specific costs for each element of these options, watershed and DNR limitations, and drainage assessment. She explained that the information was very high level and had limited details and noted that a lack of transparency leads to a lack of trust. She noted that she felt a more detail analysis should be done. She stated that because there is an CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8, 2024 Page 5 of 9 immediate need, she feels it would be prudent to move forward with the lowest cost option or allow adequate time for a study to be completed by a firm other than Bolton & Menk. Councilmember Callies stated that the issue of conflict of interest keeps coming up and she would like the Council to address it at a future meeting. She stated that the plans for Eureka Road have been in the works for many years, long before Bolton & Menk, was the City Engineer. She stated that projects of this nature require long-term planning which is why they are looking at it now. She reiterated that these plans, including the possibility of a trail, were putting into the plan by the Parks and Trails Committee many years ago and was not something that Bolton & Menk had come up with, nor do they do all the construction. She reiterated that she thinks the Council needs to provide some clear discussion about what she believes is an artificial conflict of interest issue so people can understand it more clearly. She stated that she did not think it was not fair to Bolton & Menk, City Engineer Budde, or the public, for this misunderstanding regarding a conflict of interest, because it does not exist. Mayor Labadie stated that they can put this item on a future agenda for thorough analysis and report prior to a vote on Eureka Road. Barry Brown, 6050 Burlwood Court, stated that he had spoken with City Administrator Nevinski last week regarding what he felt was a disconnect regarding the chemical treatment in Freeman Park. He referenced the minutes from November 27, 2023 City Council meeting and read aloud a statement made by Councilmember Callies regarding materials from the DNR. He stated that he has not been able to find any such documentation from the DNR that says anything similar to what she had stated at that meeting. He asked that Councilmember Callies provide the specific text that she had referenced and if she cannot provide it, he would request that the records be corrected in order to reflect accurate and truthful information. He stated that by reading the minutes, he feels that there is a communication issue between staff and the Council and referenced a conversation that took place during the meeting. He stated that based on this conversation and the responses from staff, he did not believe that staff was considering a one- time application of the Garlon 4 herbicide. He stated that he feels the most important thing the Council can do is to provide clear direction to staff. He stated that his research shows that it will take five to six years for the City to eradicate the buckthorn. He stated that if the City mowed the entire twenty acres, three or four times per year with a brush mower, it has been proven to exhaust the plants in just two to three years. He stated that he feels this would be a faster solution, more cost effective, and was environmentally sound, because it poses no health risks for humans or pets. 4. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 5. PARKS 6. PLANNING 7. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS 8. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. 2024 Annual Appointments and Designations CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8, 2024 Page 6 of 9 City Clerk/HR Director Thone gave an overview of the annual appointments and positions for Council consideration. The Council discussed the following appointments: Acting Mayor: Councilmember Callies Park Commission Liaison January – June: Councilmember Maddy Park Commission Liaison July – December: Councilmember Callies Planning Commission Liaison January – June: Councilmember Sanschagrin Planning Commission Liaison July – December: Councilmember Zerby Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission: Councilmember Sanschagrin Alternate Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission: Councilmember Maddy South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Coordinating Committee: Mayor Labadie Alternate South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Coordinating Committee: Councilmember Callies Excelsior Fire District Board Member: Councilmember Maddy Alternate Excelsior Fire District Board Member: Councilmember Zerby Mound Fire Department Advisory Committee: Councilmember Maddy and City Administrator Nevinski (Alternate – Councilmember Sanschagrin) Weed Inspector: Mayor Labadie Assistant Weed Inspector: Public Works Director Morreim Electronic Funds Transfer Authority: City Administrator Nevinski and Michelle Nguyen City Attorney: Jared Shepherd, Campbell Knutson City Prosecutor: Campbell Knutson Official Depositories: Alerus Bank, 4M Fund and other depositories, as necessary Official Newspaper: Sun Sailor (or current name, if different) (and Laker Pioneer News, as applicable) Absence of City Clerk, the City Administrator is authorized to sign contracts. Columbus Day now recognized as Indigenous People’s Day Zerby moved, Callies seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 24-004, “A Resolution Designating 2024 Annual Appointments to Certain Offices and Positions within the City of Shorewood.” Motion passed. B. Master Fee Schedule Updates – SCEC Fees, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 24- 001, “A Resolution Approving the 2024 City Master Fee Schedule Updates.” (formerly Consent Agenda Item E.) City Administrator Nevinski outlined the proposed Master Fee Schedule updates for the SCEC and past discussions with former Park and Recreation Director Crossfield as well as the Park Commission. He explained that the updates show slight increases from 2023 to 2024. Councilmember Sanschagrin expressed concern and explained that he felt they were lacking an understanding of the actual costs associated with providing these services. He stated that he wanted to understand them in order to make sure that the fees are, at the very least, covering those costs. He gave the example of fees charged to non-profit organizations and expressed concern that the Shorewood taxpayers may be subsidizing them in a facility that is not covering its own costs. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8, 2024 Page 7 of 9 City Administrator Nevinski noted that the Council could keep the current 2023 fees in place and staff can review the fees and bring additional information back to the Council or they could adopt the proposed fees but still direct staff to bring back more data. He noted that the Council can modify the fees part way through the year if they felt it was necessary. Councilmember Callies stated that she understood the concerns raised by Councilmember Sanschagrin but believes that former Parks and Recreation Director Crossfield had provided some detailed information about the fee increases in the past. Councilmember Zerby clarified that when this was discussed at the Parks Commission, the goal from former Park and Recreation Director Crossfield was to talk about the classifications, but not the specific fees. He stated that there was discussion about simplification of the categories but was not a lot of discussion about the economics of the fees. City Administrator Nevinski reiterated that staff can provide additional research and information but reminded them that there is currently not a Park and Recreation Director and the City will also be without a Finance Director for a period of time which means he was not sure how quickly they would be able to do the analysis and get the information back to the Council. Councilmember Maddy stated that he was comfortable moving forward with the modest increases, as proposed, and once they are able to address the staffing situation, do a deeper dive. He stated that he felt that Councilmember Sanschagrin was correct that it does look like the City is subsidizing non-profits. He suggested that they approve it tonight and then place it on the duties of the next director. Maddy moved, Zerby seconded, Master Fee Schedule Updates – SCEC Fees, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 24-001, “A Resolution Approving the 2024 City Master Fee Schedule Updates.” Motion passed. 9. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Staff 1. 2024 Elections Update City Clerk/HR Director Thone updated the Council on the upcoming four, possibly five, elections in 2024. She noted that they were notified by the county and state that there was an error and the Legal Marijuana Now Party did submit candidates by the deadline which is different than what the staff memo stated from last week’s communication from the county/state. Therefor there will be three parties represented for the Presidential Nomination Primary Election. She outlined communication plans for the public including the City website; newsletter; and newspaper for official notices that must be published. Mayor Labadie expressed appreciation for the work City Clerk/HR Director Thone has done with the elections and working with the S.A.I.L program (Students Achieving Independent Living). 2. Response to Truth in Taxation Questions CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8, 2024 Page 8 of 9 City Administrator Nevinski reviewed the two questions that had come up at the December 12, 2023 Truth in Taxation hearing meeting and noted that the information and response to those questions were included in the staff report. Other Public Works Director Morreim stated that they are looking to make some ice for skating at Cathcart later this week because there should be some colder temperatures over the weekend. He stated that the Department has been working on water meter installations over the last few weeks and will do another round in April/May. He stated that they are planning to work with the contractor and begin buckthorn removal the week of January 22, 2024. He stated that there was vandalism in the parks at Manor, Freeman, and Badger. He stated that Public Works staff has been cleaning up and will begin repairs. He noted that the initial estimates are around $10,000 in damage and explained that the City would be submitting claims to their insurance carrier. He stated that there will be a Parks Commission meeting on January 9, 2024. Mayor Labadie stated that if anyone has information regarding the vandalism she encouraged them to contact the SLMPD. She explained that they have five pictures of five suspects of the vandalism and also encouraged people to share the pictures on social media to help identify these individuals. She stated that $10,000 damage is a lot of taxpayer money and as a result of the vandalism the bathrooms are currently closed in the parks. City Engineer Budde stated that staff has been gathering information for a storm pond cleaning project that has been included in the CIP for 2024. Planning Director Darling gave a recap of the 2023 activity in the Planning Department for number of permits, remodels, additions, and inspections. City Clerk/HR Director Thone stated that the City had issued or renewed the massage therapy licenses in the City, effective January 1, 2024 and noted that there was one new license. She stated that they also sent out the ordinances from 2023 and a few from 2022 for codification. City Administrator Nevinski stated that staff has been scrambling a bit for Arctic Fever and explained that because of the weather they will not be having activities at Freeman Park, but would plan to amp things up on Friday at Badger Park. B. Mayor and City Council Councilmember Maddy congratulated the Mound Fire Department for celebrating their 100 year anniversary. Councilmember Callies stated that she would not be in attendance at the February 26, 2024 City Council meeting and asked if it would be possible to change the Eureka Road discussion to another meeting because she would like to be in attendance for it. Mayor Labadie suggested that staff discuss this and bring information back to the Council. She noted that if the date is changed, it would be very important that information be communicated very clearly to the public. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8, 2024 Page 9 of 9 Mayor Labadie encouraged people to reach out and let the City know if there is something positive that happens or is done by residents. She noted, for example, David Bayer scored the tie goal in the Minnetonka versus Wayzata hockey game. She stated that there were also numerous students that were just sworn into the National Honor Society which she feels is worth noting. She stated that if there is something positive like this she asked them to reach out to her so the City can work to get it out on social media. 10. ADJOURN Maddy moved, Sanschagrin seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of January 8, 2024, at 8:25 P.M. Motion passed. ATTEST: Jennifer Labadie, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk Item 2D City Council Meeting Item Title/Subject: Approve Professional Services Agreement with Abdo FS for Interim Finance Director Services Meeting Date: January 22, 2024 Prepared by: Marc Nevinski, City Administrator Attachments: Professional Services Agreement and Proposal Background Staff has received a proposal from Abdo Financial Services (Abdo FS) to provide interim financial management services to the City due to the leave of absence taken by Finance Director. Abdo FS provides both interim and permanent financial services to Minnesota communities and is a separate entity from Abdo LLC which conducts the City’s annual audit. Many Abdo FS staff members have backgrounds in local government and are experienced in government accounting systems and practices. Services will include the daily management and tracking of cash and investments, preparation of various reports to the Council and other agencies, and preparation of the City’s annual audit. Management decisions or direction will be referred to the City Administrator. It is anticipated that Abdo will generally provide up to ten hours per week of service to the City, although this may vary depending on specific needs and complexity of work. Work will be billed on an hourly basis and the rate structure is included in the proposal. The arrangement with Abdo FS is expected to last from six to eight months but could be extended if needed. Financial Considerations Financial consulting services were not anticipated in the 2024 budget but may be funded from reserves or other funds that become available due to open positions. Action Requested Motion to approve the Professional Services Contract with Abdo Financial Services. A majority vote of the Council is required. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR Interim Finance Director Services THIS AGREEMENT is made this January 22, 2024 (“Effective Date”) by and between Abdo Financial Solutions, a Minnesota limited liability company with its principal office located at 5201 Eden Ave, Suite 250 Edina, MN 55436 (“Contractor”), and the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 (the “City”): RECITALS A. Consultant is engaged in the business of providing professional accounting and finance services. B. The City desires to hire Contractor to provide Interim Finance Director services. C. Contractor represents that it has the professional expertise and capabilities to provide the City with the requested services. D. The City desires to engage Contractor to provide the services described in this Agreement and Contractor is willing to provide such services on the terms and conditions in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions expressed in this Agreement, the City and Contractor agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Services. Contractor agrees to provide the City with the services as described in the attached Exhibit A (the “Services”). Exhibit A shall be incorporated into this Agreement by reference. All Services shall be provided in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by professionals currently providing similar services. 2. Time for Completion. The Services shall be completed on or before March 31, 2022, provided that the parties may extend the stated deadlines upon mutual written agreement. This Agreement shall remain in force and effect commencing from the effective date and continuing until the completion of the project, unless terminated by the City or amended pursuant to the Agreement. 3. Consideration. The City shall pay Contractor for the Services, payable for work performed according to the terms of this agreement and based on the fees indicated on the Value page of Exhibit A. The consideration shall be for both the Services performed by Contractor and any expenses incurred by Contractor in performing the Services. Contractor shall submit statements to the City upon completion of the Services. The City shall pay Contractor within thirty (35) days after Contractor’s statements are submitted. 4. Termination. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof to the contrary, this Agreement may be terminated as follows: A. The parties, by mutual written agreement, may terminate this Agreement at any time; 1 B. Contractor may terminate this Agreement in the event of a breach of the Agreement by the City upon providing thirty (30) days’ written notice to the City; C. The City may terminate this Agreement at any time at its option, for any reason or no reason at all; or D. The City may terminate this Agreement immediately upon Contractor’s failure to have in force any insurance required by this Agreement. In the event of a termination, the City shall pay Contractor for Services performed to the date of termination and for all costs or other expenses incurred prior to the date of termination. 7. Amendments. No amendments may be made to this Agreement except in a writing signed by both parties. 8. Remedies. In the event of a termination of this Agreement by the City because of a breach by Contractor, the City may complete the Services either by itself or by contract with other persons or entities, or any combination thereof. These remedies provided to the City for breach of this Agreement by Consultant shall not be exclusive. The City shall be entitled to exercise any one or more other legal or equitable remedies available because of Contractor’s breach. 9. Records/Inspection. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 16C.05, subd. 5, Contractor agrees that the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of Contractor, that are relevant to the contract or transaction, are subject to examination by the City and the state auditor or legislative auditor for a minimum of six years. Contractor shall maintain such records for a minimum of six years after final payment. The parties agree that this obligation will survive the completion or termination of this Agreement. 10. Insurance Requirements. The Contractor, at its expense, shall procure and maintain in force for the duration of this Agreement the following minimum insurance coverages: A. General Liability. The Contractor agrees to maintain commercial general liability insurance in a minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence; $2,000,000 annual aggregate. The policy shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, products completed operations, personal injury, advertising injury, and contractually assumed liability. The City shall be endorsed as additional insured. B. Automobile Liability. If the Contractor operates a motor vehicle in performing the Services under this Agreement, the Contractor shall maintain commercial automobile liability insurance, including owned, hired, and non-owned automobiles, with a minimum liability limit of $1,000,000 combined single limit. C. Workers’ Compensation. The Contractor agrees to provide workers’ compensation insurance for all its employees in accordance with the statutory requirements of the State of Minnesota. The Contractor shall also carry employers liability coverage with minimum limits are as follows: 2  $500,000 – Bodily Injury by Disease per employee  $500,000 – Bodily Injury by Disease aggregate  $500,000 – Bodily Injury by Accident The Contractor shall, prior to commencing the Services, deliver to the City a Certificate of Insurance as evidence that the above coverages are in full force and effect. The insurance requirements may be met through any combination of primary and umbrella/excess insurance. The Contractor’s policies shall be the primary insurance to any other valid and collectible insurance available to the City with respect to any claim arising out of Contractor’s performance under this Agreement. The Contractor’s policies and Certificate of Insurance shall contain a provision that coverage afforded under the policies shall not be cancelled without at least thirty (30) days advanced written notice to the City. D. Professional (Errors and Omissions) Liability Insurance. \[Only required for professional services provided by accountants, attorneys, engineers, etc.\] The Contractor will maintain professional liability insurance for all claims the Contractor may become legally obligated to pay resulting from any actual or alleged negligent act, error, or omission related to Contractor’s professional services required under this Agreement. The Contractor is required to carry the following minimum limits: $1,000,000 per occurrence; $2,000,000 annual aggregate. The retroactive or prior acts date of such coverage shall not be after the effective date of this Agreement, and the Contractor shall maintain such insurance for a period of at least three (3) years following completion of the Services. If such insurance is discontinued, extended reporting period coverage must be obtained by the Contractor to fulfill this requirement. 11. Independent Contractor. Consultant is an independent contractor. Consultant’s duties shall be performed with the understanding that Consultant has special expertise as to the services which Consultant is to perform and is customarily engaged in the independent performance of the same or similar services for others. Consultant shall provide or contract for all required equipment and personnel. Consultant shall control the manner in which the services are performed; however, the nature of the Services and the results to be achieved shall be specified by the City. The parties agree that this is not a joint venture and the parties are not co-partners. Consultant is not an employee or agent of the City and has no authority to make any binding commitments or obligations on behalf of the City except to the extent expressly provided in this Agreement. All services provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided by Consultant as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the City for any purpose, including but not limited to: income tax withholding, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, FICA taxes, liability for torts and eligibility for employee benefits. 12. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its employees, officials, and agents from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses, and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, arising out of the Contractor’s negligence or the Contractor’s performance or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement. The Contractor’s indemnification obligation shall apply to the Contractor’s subcontractor(s), 3 or anyone directly or indirectly employed or hired by the Contractor, or anyone for whose acts the Contractor may be liable. The Contractor agrees this indemnity obligation shall survive the completion or termination of this Agreement. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the City agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contractor and its employees, officials, and agents from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses, and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, arising out of the City’s negligence or the City’s performance or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement. 13. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall exercise due professional care to comply with applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, ordinances and regulations in effect as of the date Consultant agrees to provide the Services. Consultant’s guests, invitees, members, officers, officials, agents, employees, volunteers, representatives, and subcontractors shall abide by the City’s policies prohibiting sexual harassment and tobacco, drug, and alcohol use as defined on the City’s Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Policy, as well as all other reasonable work rules, safety rules, or policies, and procedures regulating the conduct of persons on City property, at all times while performing duties pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant agrees and understands that a violation of any of these policies, procedures, or rules constitutes a breach of the Agreement and sufficient grounds for immediate termination of the Agreement by the City. 14. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, any attached exhibits, and any addenda signed by the parties shall constitute the entire agreement between the City and Consultant, and supersedes any other written or oral agreements between the City and Consultant. This Agreement may only be modified in a writing signed by the City and Consultant. If there is any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the referenced or attached items, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. 15. Third Party Rights. The parties to this Agreement do not intend to confer any rights under this Agreement on any third party. 16. Choice of Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Minnesota. Any disputes, controversies, or claims arising out of this Agreement shall be heard in the state or federal courts of Hennepin County, Minnesota, and all parties to this Agreement waive any objection to the jurisdiction of these courts, whether based on convenience or otherwise. 17. Conflict of Interest. Consultant shall use reasonable care to avoid conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety in representation of the City. In the event of a conflict of interest, Consultant shall advise the City and, either secure a waiver of the conflict, or advise the City that it will be unable to provide the requested Services. 18. Agreement Not Exclusive. The City retains the right to hire other professional consultant service providers for this or other matters, in the City’s sole discretion. 19. Data Practices Act Compliance. Any and all data provided to Consultant, received from Consultant, created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be administered in accordance with, and is subject to the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Consultant agrees to notify the City within three business days if it receives a data request from a third party. This paragraph does not create a duty on the part of Consultant to provide access to public data to the public if the public data are available from 4 the City, except as required by the terms of this Agreement. These obligations shall survive the termination or completion of this Agreement. 20. No Discrimination. Consultant agrees not to discriminate in providing products and services under this Agreement on the basis of race, color, sex, creed, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, status with regard to public assistance, or religion. Violation of any part of this provision may lead to immediate termination of this Agreement. Consultant agrees to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act as amended (“ADA”), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 363A. Consultant agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorneys’ fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of these laws by Consultant or its guests, invitees, members, officers, officials, agents, employees, volunteers, representatives and subcontractors. Upon request, Consultant shall provide accommodation to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all Services under this Agreement. Consultant agrees to utilize its own auxiliary aid or service in order to comply with ADA requirements for effective communication with individuals with disabilities. 21. Authorized Agents. The City’s authorized agent for purposes of administration of this contract is the City Administrator of the City, or designee. Consultant’s authorized agent for purposes of administration of this contract is Jean McGann, or designee who shall perform or supervise the performance of all Services. 22. Notices. Any notices permitted or required by this Agreement shall be deemed given when personally delivered or upon deposit in the United States mail, postage fully prepaid, certified, return receipt requested, addressed to: Consultant The City Jean McGann Marc Nevinski Abdo Financial Solutions City Administrator 5201 Eden Ave, Suite 250 5755 Country Club Rd Edina, MN 55436 Shorewood, MN 55331 jean.mcgann@abdofs.com mnevinski@ci.shorewood.mn.us 952.715.3059 952-960-7900 or such other contact information as either party may provide to the other by notice given in accordance with this provision. 26. Waiver. No waiver of any provision or of any breach of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any other provisions or any other or further breach, and no such waiver shall be effective unless made in writing and signed by an authorized representative of the party to be charged with such a waiver. 27. Headings. The headings contained in this Agreement have been inserted for convenience of reference only and shall in no way define, limit or affect the scope and intent of this Agreement. 28. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, such provision shall be severed, and the balance of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 5 29. Signatory. Each person executing this Agreement (“Signatory”) represents and warrants that they are duly authorized to sign on behalf of their respective organization. In the event Consultant did not authorize the Signatory to sign on its behalf, the Signatory agrees to assume responsibility for the duties and liability of Consultant, described in this Agreement, personally. 30. Counterparts and Electronic Signatures. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Agreement may be transmitted by electronic mail in portable document format (“pdf”) and signatures appearing on electronic mail instruments shall be treated as original signatures. 31. Client Employment of Contractor’s Employees: The Client acknowledges and agrees that Contractor’s workforce, including employees assigned to staff the engagement provided for under this Agreement, constitutes an important and vital aspect of Contractor’s business. In recognition of the foregoing and the harm that Contractor will suffer in the event of the loss of one or more of its employees, the Client agrees that during the Term of this Agreement and for a period of six (6) months following the termination of this Agreement for any reason (the “Restrictive Time Period”) the Client shall not, directly or indirectly, on behalf of itself or any person, firm, corporation, association or other entity, (a) recruit, solicit, or assist anyone else in the recruitment or solicitation of, any of Contractor’s employees to terminate their employment with Contractor and to become employed by or otherwise engaged with or by the Client in any capacity independent of Contractor; (b) hire or engage any Contractor employee; or (c) otherwise encourage or induce any of Contractor’s employees to terminate their employment with Contractor (collectively the “Contractor Employee Restrictive Covenant”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor may (but shall not be obligated to) consent to the Client’s recruitment, solicitation, employment or other engagement of a Contractor employee otherwise prohibited by this paragraph provided that (a) the Client discloses to Contractor in writing its desire to recruit, solicit, employ or otherwise engage the Contractor employee independent of Contractor before engaging with the Contractor employee regarding any such potential relationship; (b) the Client agrees to pay Contractor a Restrictive Covenant Exception Fee (as hereafter defined) in the event the Contractor employee becomes employed by or otherwise engaged with the Client independent of Contractor; and (c) Contractor provides written consent to the Client to engage with the Contractor employee regarding any such relationship. For purposes of this Agreement, the Restrictive Covenant Exception Fee shall be the greater of: (i) 200% of the annual contracted cost of Contractor’s services under this Agreement in addition to the annual contracted cost paid or due Contractor hereunder; or (ii) 200% of the fees paid or due Contractor for services provided under this Agreement during the twelve (12) month period immediately prior to the termination of this Agreement or, in the event the Agreement has not been terminated, during the twelve (12) month period immediately prior to Contractor’s provision of written consent to the Client to engage in the recruitment, solicitation, employment or other engagement of a Contractor employee otherwise prohibited by this paragraph. In the event Contractor is unwilling to consent to the Client’s recruitment, solicitation, employment, or other engagement of a Contractor employee otherwise prohibited by this paragraph and/or agree on the Client’s payment of a Restrictive Covenant Exception Fee, then the Contractor Employee Restrictive Covenant shall remain in full force and effect. If the Client breaches or threatens to breach the Contractor Employee Restrictive Covenant, Contractor shall be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief from a court of competent jurisdiction restraining the Client’s breach of said covenant in addition 6 to such other remedies as may be available to Contractor in law and equity, as well as the recovery from Client of Contractor’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in any such legal action. The Client also acknowledges, understands, and agrees that although the harm Contractor will suffer as a result of the Client’s breach of the Contractor Employee Restrictive Covenant cannot be or is very difficult to accurately estimate, the sum which is the greater of (i) 200% of the average annual fees paid by the Client to Contractor for services under this Agreement during the three-year period preceding the breach, or (b) 200% of the employee’s average annual compensation during the three-year period preceding the breach represents and constitutes a reasonable estimation of the damages to Contractor caused by Client’s breach (the “Liquidated Damages Amount”). Therefore, at its sole election, Contractor may elect to enforce and compel the Client’s compliance with the Contractor Employee Restrictive Covenant or to seek an award from Client of the Liquidated Damages Amount, together with the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Contractor in connection with any legal action to obtain such relief. 32. Recitals. The City and Consultant agree that the Recitals are true and correct and are fully incorporated into this Agreement. \[Remainder of page left blank intentionally. Signature page follows.\] 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have caused this Professional Services Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives in duplicate on the respective dates indicated below. Abdo Financial Services City of Shorewood: By: _________________________________ By: _________________________________ Jennifer Labadie, Mayor Name: ______________________________ Title: _______________________________ By: _________________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk 8 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES & FEE SCHEDULE 225405v1 City Council Meeting Item Item Title/Subject: Authorize Safe Routes To School Grant Application 2E Meeting Date: January 22, 2024 Prepared by: Andrew Budde – City Engineer Reviewed by: Matt Morreim-Public Works Director Attachments: Overview Map, Resolution Background The City of Shorewood has long been pursuing a pedestrian connection from the Galpin Lake Road at the Chanhassen border to the signalized intersection of Oak Street/CSAH 19 along TH 7 in Excelsior. In 2022 the city was awarded and completed the Planning – Safe Routes to School Grant. MnDOT has completed a Safety Audit of TH 7 and is planning to complete a Corridor Study along TH 7 in 2024. All this research and planning has helped form the backbone of future grant applications for the city to improve safety along the corridor for both vehicles and pedestrians. Staff is seeking authorization to pursue the Safe Routes to School grant that would fund the construction of a sidewalk/trail/boardwalk from the intersection of Galpin Lake Road to Oak Street/CSAH 19. The grant would not include a sidewalk or trail parallel to Galpin Lake Road as it is anticipated that the Corridor Study will explore options of modifying the current vehicle access at TH 7/Galpin Lake Road intersection. Modifying this access could significantly change vehicle routing and likely improve existing pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. The grant application is due February 2 and requires an approving resolution from the city. If awarded, the city would pursue construction in 2025. Financial or Budget Considerations The grant minimum award is $50,000 and the grant max award is $1,000,000 per application and is only applied to construction. The city is responsible for all design, administration, and construction costs above the grant award amount. The city currently has a larger scope of this project programed in the Capital Improvement Plan for 2027. If awarded the grant the city could utilize its Municipal State Aid Funds for all project costs. Currently the city has a MSAS balance of $1.6 million. The grant application for this segment would request $500,000. Action Requested Approve resolution supporting application to the Safe Routes To School Grant. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 24-005 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURSUIT OF THE SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT WHEREAS, $10.9 million in Safe Routes To School (SRTS) funding is available, with a minimum of $50,000 and cap of $1,000,000 for each project; and WHEREAS, The city has adopted subdivision regulations that require Safe Routes to School infrastructure in developments authorized on or after June 1, 2016; and WHEREAS, SRTS funds can be used to reimburse construction costs on SRTS eligible items, and that construction costs above the SRTS award will need to have alternate funding sources; and WHEREAS, The City of Shorewood are pursuing the construction of a sidewalk, trail, or boardwalk between Galpin Lake Road and the signalized intersection of Oak Street/CSAH 19, to provide a safe pedestrian crossing of TH 7 to Excelsior Elementary School; and WHEREAS, The city has completed the SRTS planning grant, MnDOT has completed a Safety Audit of TH 7, and MnDOT is in process of completing a Corridor Study of TH 7 that has and will identified this location as a gap in pedestrian infrastructure; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: 1. The city council supports the construction of the project and agrees to maintain such improvements and that the city council supports submittal of the SRTS application. 2. The city assures that it will pay all costs associated with the project beyond the SRTS infrastructure grant award and that it will follow all of the requirements of the SRTS grant for permitting, project design, project bidding, construction administration, and project close out. Adopted by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota this 22nd day of January 2024. _________________________ Jennifer Labadie, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk 5A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD PARK COMMISSION MEETING SHOREWOOD CITY HALL TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2024 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Hirner convened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Hirner, Commissioners Garske, Wenner, Czerwonka, City Council Liaison Maddy; City Administrator Nevinski; Public Works Director Morreim; Planning Director Darling Absent: Commissioner DiGruttolo B. Review Agenda Chair Hirner added item D. in order to appoint liaisons for the upcoming Council meetings. Garske moved to approve the agenda as amended. Wenner seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of October 24, 2023 Commissioner Czerwonka pointed out a few typographical errors on pages 3 and 4. Commissioner Wenner noted a typographical error on page 5. Garske moved to approve the minutes of the October 24, 2023 meeting, as revised. Czerwonka seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Barry Brown, 6050 Burlwood Court, explained that this property backs up to Freeman Park and stated that he has a number of questions for Public Works Director Morreim related to buckthorn removal. He stated that documents shared at the Council meeting last night and those for tonight state that there will be burning stacks of wood in the winter of 2024-2025 and he was under the impression that the Fire Department was not going to be involved. Public Works Director Morreim stated that this was the hand out from the original neighborhood meeting and explained that he had not changed any of that because it was just for reference. He noted at that time, the burning was part of the plan. Mr. Brown asked if the burning was still being considered. Public Works Director Morreim stated that burning was not being considered. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2024 PAGE 2 OF 6 Mr. Brown asked if the City knew whether Prairie Restorations would be mulching down the trees that are cut or blown down in the park. He asked if they would be bringing a forestry mower through and cut through all the debris on the forest floor that is already there. Public Works Director Morreim stated that as far as he knows they will be mulching, but will avoid larger downed trees. He stated that when they are mulching they will also avoid more desirable trees. Mr. Brown stated that if they would not be taking care of some of the trees that have fallen over, he has a group of volunteers that could come in and pull much of this out and then it could be chipped. Public Works Director Morreim stated that he would need to do some checking and can get back to Mr. Brown on this item. Mr. Brown asked what area of Section 1 the contractor would be doing. Public Works Director Morreim explained that they will start on the east and noted that, in general, they will go as far as they can with the budget that the City as allotted. Mr. Brown stated that he believes that if people had their druthers, they would like a cut off that goes with the paths. Public Works Director Morreim stated that he believes that was also what they were thinking. Mr. Brown stated that when he was reviewing the application and asked if the City was checking the licensing for the chemical applicators and if they would physically be checked so the City would have a record. Public Works Director Morreim confirmed that their licensing would be checked. Mr. Brown noted that there is supposed to be a staging area for any of the invasive species that is a controlled environment so it is not able to spread any place else in the woods. He asked about signage and noted that he believes that blue dye will be used alongside the application of the chemicals and explained that he had been telling people he knows to keep their dogs away from the blue dye spots. He stated that he would like to see signage with this information posted so people he does not know will also be able to keep their dogs safe from the blue dye. Public Works Director Morreim explained that the first round of treatment would only be in area 3 and will be dobbed on the larger trees/stumps. He stated that there will be signage that should be put up next week and noted that there would also be other communication through social media channels. He noted that the signs will have a QR code on them that will bring people to the project page with more information. He clarified that there would not be any treatments to areas 1 and 2 this winter and area 3 would be the only one getting treated at this time. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. IPM Update PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2024 PAGE 3 OF 6 Public Works Director Morreim gave an overview of the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in the City and also reviewed the workplan and goals. He updated the Commission on IPM activities/ treatments as well as future considerations for the athletic fields, Manor Park Pond, Freeman Park Buckthorn removal plans, general weed abatement, and Emerald Ash Borer and answered Commission questions regarding details of the program. B. Tree Replacement – 2024 Public Works Director Morreim highlighted some of the issues the City has been seeing with their trees, especially the ash trees. He explained that because of this, they wanted to make sure that they were looking towards the future and getting new trees established in order to replace the aging and dying trees in City parks. He stated that staff had asked the City Council for $10,000 to be used for new trees in the City’s parks which was approved. He noted that they have been in contact with Davey for recommendations of tree species for these areas. He stated that they were also looking to diversity the tree species to ensure that there is a variety. He stated that he expects that they will get the trees ordered by March and while they wait for their arrive, will work on a placement plan. He explained that they would then plan to plant them in the summer or fall of 2024. He explained that they may try to have a volunteer planting event in order to get the trees planted and noted that the Public Works Department would be responsible for watering and maintaining the trees. Chair Hirner mentioned the big pine trees at Southshore Park and noted that they have started to look a little rough and asked Public Works to take a look at them. He stated that as they plan tree replacement locations, he asked them to consider putting some in now to start getting replacements established. He stated that he feels that once the existing trees go, they will go quickly and all go at the same time, so he would like to see something done before that happens. He stated that in Manor Park there are not a lot of trees around the playground area to help shade the playground equipment and asked them to consider possibly including some trees in the area in order to help provide shade. Public Works Director Morreim noted that they are probably looking at trees that are 6 to 10 feet high and 1-2 inches in diameter. Commissioner Wenner asked when the City’s tree sale would take place and if the City was planning to offer the varieties that were recommended by Davey. Public Works Director Morreim stated that he thinks that orders will be taken in March for the tree sale but noted that there would potentially be different trees available at the tree sale than what the City will purchase for the parks. Commissioner Wenner noted that there was not a lot of keystone plants on the list and, as a Bee Safe City, she would recommend that the City prioritize native trees. She read aloud a description of keystone plants and their importance and offered to send Public Works Director Morreim more information on keystone plants for him to review prior to making decisions on the trees. Mr. Brown stated that he felt that the City was kind of winging it and didn’t seem to have a long term plan for tree placement or replacement. He stated that he feels that is something that should probably be a 3-5 year plan. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2024 PAGE 4 OF 6 Public Works Director Morreim explained that part of what the City is going to be developing is for placement and a plan beyond 2024 but noted that they were not guaranteed to have funds beyond this year. He stated that he didn’t think there was any disagreement that the City needs to plant some trees which was why they wanted to included it in this year’s budget with the plan of having a planting plan that they would develop. He clarified that the City would not receive these trees for a few months and would work on the planning portion in conjunction with that for this year. He stated that he was really focusing on 2024 and getting this process jumpstarted. Chair Hirner stated that the Commission’s input was just to pass along what they have seen in their park tours and things that may be helpful while the City is making a plan. Mr. Brown stated that in his opinion, Davey, is probably the best to do something like what the City is planning because they can go through the entire City’s public spaces and mark every tree and map all the details about it. He suggested that the City have a conversation with them to see about getting a larger plan like this pulled together for the City. Public Works Director Morreim stated that the City already has this type of information that was gathered in 2017 and offered to forward it to Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown asked if the City owned an 18 inch Morbark chipper. Public Works Director Morreim stated that the size sounded correct, but he wasn’t exactly sure if that was the exact version of what the City owned. Mr. Brown stated that he asked because he had been looking at some of the logs in the woods to try to determine what could be handled with the City’s chipper. He stated that he has walked through Freeman Park every day for the last 29 years and has noticed a big difference in how manicured the lawns are and the baseball fields are and commended the Public Works crew for doing a good job to ensure everything looks nice. C. Buckthorn Update Public Works Director Morreim stated that this was approved by the City Council in November of 2023 and the City has been in contact with Prairie Restoration regarding plans to begin the week of January 22, 2024. He noted that he will check with them this week to ensure that was still the plan on their end. He stated that they are planning to start putting out communication to the public sometime next week and noted that there will also be new project signs with a QR code that takes them to a page with all the details. He reiterated that they will be stump treating the buckthorn and nothing will be sprayed. He stated that the area will be marked with signage but noted that he felt the impact in this area will be minimal. Commissioner Wenner asked if there were plans for the City to apply for the same grant next year. Public Works Director Morreim stated that was still to be determined but acknowledged that it was on their radar. Commissioner Wenner asked about plans for oversight of the cleared area to ensure it was not coming back. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2024 PAGE 5 OF 6 Public Works Director Morreim explained that there would be a follow up treatment in the fall and after that, the City may potentially have grant funding to maintain it or it would be done through Public Works staff. Commissioner Wenner asked if the Commission could get a copy of the plan that Prairie Restoration had put together. Public Works Director Morreim noted that he can forward that to the Commission. Commissioner Wenner stated that she does not have an official copy of the Tree Preservation and Replacement Policy or the 2017 plan from Davey and asked if she could get copies of those as well. City Administrator Nevinski explained that the Tree Preservation policy was available on the City website but did not think the Davey tree plan was there. Public Works Director Morreim stated that was correct and stated that he can send that plan to the Commission. He explained that the 2017 plan will say S&S Tree Service which Davey has purchased. Commissioner Wenner stated that she felt it was important for the Parks Commission to understand the City’s policies. She asked if Public Works Director Morreim was familiar with the grant available from AmeriCorps for community foresters. She stated that she believed the application opens in February and gave examples of things that they can done through this grant service. Public Works Director Morreim stated that he will check into that and noted that the City had applied for a DNR grant last fall that they did not receive. D. Liaison to Council Meetings. January – Commissioner Wenner February – Commissioner Garske 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. STAFF AND LIAISON REPORTS / UPDATES A. City Council Councilmember Maddy gave an overview of recent discussions and activities for the City Council including the efforts to replace the Park and Recreation Director position. Commissioner Wenner asked if the Council would like any input from the Commission on this position. Councilmember Maddy stated that he would absolutely be interested but noted that they were on a fairly tight timeline. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2024 PAGE 6 OF 6 City Administrator Nevinski stated that the hope is that there will be an updated job description for this position by January 22, 2024 and that the position will be posted the following day. He encouraged the Commission to give him their comments and feedback on the position and he will relay them to the Council. B. Staff City Administrator Nevinski stated that Arctic Fever events have had to be adjusted due to the weather conditions and noted that they will now take place Friday evening at Badger Park. 1. Freeman Park Trail Update Chair Hirner stated that he took a walk around and was pleasantly surprised with how well this turned out and is happy that it is now a complete loop. He expressed concern that there is no longer anything blocking the soccer field from the pond and believes that anyone kicking in the direction will have the balls just end up in the pond. He stated that he also liked the skinnier path behind Field #2 which he think will prevent people from driving their vehicles in the area, but noted that it may mean that more people will turn around by Field #3. He asked staff to keep an eye on that corner because he thinks people will be backing up into the grass. Public Works Director Morreim thanked him for this information and noted that he also wanted to let the Commission know that they are aware of a drainage issue on the part of the trail near the baseball fields and Shorewood Oaks. He explained that this was not something that they will be able to fix this winter. He cautioned that there may be some icy conditions on this section of the trail, but explained that Public Works will try to maintain it as best as they can. 7. ADJOURN Garske moved to adjourn the Park Commission Meeting of January 9, 2024 at 8:23 p.m. Wenner seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. City Council Meeting Item Title/Subject: 2023 IPM Update Item Meeting Date: January 22, 2024 5B Prepared by: Matt Morreim, PW Director Attachments: 2023 IPM Workplan Background Staff discussed the integrated pest management (IPM) and the draft IPM workplan at the council retreat in February 2023. At that time, council directed staff to obtain resident feedback on IPM activities and proposed workplan. The city hosted an open house on April 19, 2023 where city staff discussed the draft 2023 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Workplan Council approved the workplan in late April, 2023. The 2023 workplan has the long-term goal of providing high-quality, well-maintained parks, fields and amenities in Shorewood that meet community expectations in an environmentally conscious manner. Following approval, public works staff were tasked with implementing and supervising the IPM workplan. Staff’s goals are to maintain public areas with the following guidance by IPM Institute:  Pesticide free or fully organic treatments focusing on improving soil conditions are preferred.  Chemicals labeled by the EPA with signal word DANGER that indicate high toxicity are prohibited.  Chemicals labeled by the EPA with signal word WARNING that indicate moderate toxicity may be used in a targeted manner. Update 1. Athletic field maintenance a. Note: Baseball fields at Freeman Park and Cathcart Park are maintained by Minnetonka Baseball Association. b. Aeration of athletic fields – Freeman and Manor Parks i. Softball fields at Freeman and Manor Parks were aerated in June, 2023. Work was contracted through Minnetonka Baseball Association. ii. Future Considerations: o Include additional park areas with a priority on athletic field areas (i.e. soccer fields at Freeman Park) o Include overseeding when feasible. o Research cost effective methods of aerating larger areas with rental or purchased aeration equipment. c. Utilized contractor for turf treatments on athletic fields at Freeman, Cathcart and Manor Parks. i. Turf treatments began in May and were completed every 4-6 weeks through the growing season. ii. Treatments included: o Broad application fertilizer. 36-0-6 and 20-0-3. Caution level. o Spot spray application of weeds using Turflon. Caution level. o Additional treatments of warning track areas using vinegar/soap mixture. iii. Future considerations: o Review treatments and consider alternatives if necessary. o Include soccer field areas at Freeman Park. 2. Manor Park Pond a. Pond treatments occurred mid-summer and fall with the goal of reducing algae and phosphorus in the pond. b. Treatments included: i. Mizzen algaecide (copper sulfide) for algae removal. Caution level ii. SparKlear for muck elimination. No advisory, natural product. iii. PhosControl (Alum) for reducing algae and phosphorus in the pond. Treatments are typically 2 times per year, spring and fall. 2023 had one treatment in the fall. Danger level. 3. Freeman Park Buckthorn Removal a. City staff solicited quotes from 3 vendors for the buckthorn removal project. b. City staff hosted a resident meeting on October 14, 2023 to discuss the buckthorn removal project and solicit feedback from residents and park users. c. Council approved Prairie Restoration for the buckthorn removal project. It is anticipated nd to begin the week of January 22. Localized and general communication will occur the week prior to work beginning. 4. General Weed Abatement a. General weed abatement are weeds that grow along trails, sidewalks and in park areas that are not athletic fields. b. Public works committed to not treating weeds along sidewalks and trails. Weed removal was done by hand using a weed whip or lawnmower. c. Smaller areas (i.e. Badger Park landscaping areas) with weeds were maintained by hand by public works staff and contractors. d. Larger areas (Minnetonka County Club) with weeds were generally unmaintained outside of the trail area. The city is looking for options to effectively and efficiently maintain weeds and invasive species (Canadian thistle) in these areas in the future. 5. Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) a. City staff met with Davey Resource Group, the city’s forester, to inspect high-priority ash trees located in the city’s parks. b. Staff provided a recommendation to council on September 25, 2023 to inject high- priority on a 3-year cycle to extend the life of a select number of high value trees. Council approved the recommendation to move forward with EAB injections. c. Davey Resource Group injected ash trees in Manor, Silverwood and Cathcart Parks on September 27, 2023. Treatment included: i. Direct injection of TREE-age R10. Warning level. Financial or Budget Considerations None at this time. Action Requested This memorandum is for information only. No action is requested, although Council may wish to discuss the information. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JANUARY 2, 2024 7:00 P.M. DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Gorham called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. He explained that 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. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Gorham; Commissioners Eggenberger, and Huskins; Planning Director Darling; and, Council Liaison Maddy Absent: Commissioners Holker and Johnson 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Huskins moved, Eggenberger seconded, approving the agenda for January 2, 2024, as presented. Motion passed 3/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  December 5, 2023 Eggenberger moved, Huskins seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2023, as presented. Motion passed 3/0. Planning Director Darling stated that while the minutes adequately reflect the discussion, she believes that there was a question directed to her at the December 5, 2023 meeting that she misheard that night and wanted to clarify her answer. She stated that the staff report always reflect the staff’s position on the requests. She stated that even if they refer to the applicant’s narrative, the information and the positions in the staff report are from the staff themselves. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS - A. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – T-MOBILE ANTENNA Applicant: SMJ International, LLC (on behalf of T-Mobile) Location: 24283 Smithtown Road CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 2, 2024 Page 2 of 8 Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the request on behalf of T-Mobile from SMJ International to add a microwave dish and supporting equipment to the existing triangular array on the existing tower. She reviewed the location of the tower and the properties that surround it. She explained that staff recommended approval subject to the five conditions included in the staff report. Commissioner Huskins noted that a portion of the staff report on page two was duplicated. Commissioner Eggenberger asked if this request was for a replacement or a new antenna. He asked if there was a limit on how many can be installed on this tower. Planning Director Darling explained that this request was not for a replacement and will be a new dish. She noted that replacement antennas can be reviewed administratively and would not need to come before the Planning Commission. Chair Gorham asked if this application would require an additional FAA permit. Planning Director Darling stated that would be between the FAA, FCC, and the applicant. She noted that she believes that this tower is far enough away from any airports so they would not need one unless they went taller. Chair Gorham asked about the piping shown on the diagram and if it was new or existing conduit. Planning Director Darling stated that she believes the applicant is proposing to run any cable through the interior of the tower and out using the existing ice bridge. Chair Gorham referenced diagram C-501 and noted that he felt that this drawing made it appear as though it would be new vertical conduit. Andy Bobrytzke, Project Manager, SMJ International, explained that the conduit will run through the tower and use the existing ice bridge to connect to the equipment which means nobody will see the extra wire. He stated that the antenna will be about 12 inches by 12 inches in size. Planning Director Darling referenced the drawing labeled C-201 in the packet that shows the cable going through the inside of the monopole. Commissioner Huskins asked if there would be an interruption in service during the installation process. Mr. Bobrytzke stated that there will not be any disruption in services for the existing antennas and noted that the entire process will most likely only take 1-2 hours. Commissioner Eggenberger asked if Mr. Bobrytzke had looked at the conditions being recommended by staff. Mr. Bobrytzke stated that he had seen them and noted that they all seem fine. He asked about the reference to the need for a third party inspection. Planning Director Darling explained that if he had questions about the third party inspection he would need to discuss that with the Building Department. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 2, 2024 Page 3 of 8 Chair Gorham opened the Public Hearing at 7:17 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. No one appeared to address the Commission and Chair Gorham closed the Public Hearing. Huskins moved, Eggenberger seconded, recommending approval of the request for a CUP for Additional Telecommunication Antennas for SMJ International, LLC (on behalf of T- Mobile) located at 24283 Smithtown Road, subject to the 5 conditions included in the staff report. Motion passed 3/0. 5. OTHER BUSINESS – A. Variance to Expand a Non-Conforming Home Applicants: Ben and Kelly Vanderheyden Location: 5995 Glencoe Road Planning Director Darling reviewed the variance request for property located at 5995 Glencoe Road to expand their existing non-conforming home. She noted that the home was constructed in 1950 which was prior to the City’s incorporation as a city. She explained that the applicant was looking to add a second story onto their home in order to expand their living space and expand the main level to include a two foot cantilever, and add a front porch addition. She explained that staff found that the applicant has met some of the criteria better than others and feels that a reduced request would resolve the practical difficulties. She stated that with the reduced request related to the cantilever and front porch area, staff would recommend approval subject to the conditions included in the staff report. She stated that the City had received two letters of support for the application from James Loffler, Glencoe Road, and Jeffrey Colby, 5985 Glencoe Road. Commissioner Huskins stated that the staff report mentioned that the lot was currently legally non-conforming and noted that he feels the way it was worded implies that something that City may do would make it illegally non-conforming. He asked if he should just ignore the word ‘currently’. Planning Director Darling stated that it is currently legally non-conforming because of the zoning district that it is within because the lot is less than what would not be allowed in the R-1C zoning district. She reiterated that the lot was created legally prior to the City’s incorporation. Commissioner Huskins asked about the commentary regarding the future and potential development of the property to the south and the impact it would have on the road. He asked if the City typically takes into account future activities when making decisions about this type of variance request. Planning Director Darling explained that they can take it into account if the decision that they are making could impact the neighborhood into the future when a change in circumstance with either the road layout or a possible extension occurs. Commissioner Huskins asked if this were to be approved by the Council as it is presented, and the road changes and development occurs what would happen then. He asked if that would create a condition where the resident would have to undo something that had been done. Planning Director Darling stated that they would not have to undo something and explained that if the City makes the decision to approve the variance as proposed, the porch will stay because the legal rights for the porch extend beyond the lives and ownership of the current property CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 2, 2024 Page 4 of 8 owners. She stated that generally, the City, when doing roadway work, tries to work within the existing right-of-way in order to keep the costs down where possible. Commissioner Eggenberger asked for clarification of what was meant by the cantilever portion of the plans. Planning Director Darling reviewed the plans and explained that the cantilever is a 2x11 addition on the north side of the home and as proposed would be 3 feet from the property line. Chair Gorham stated that it appears as though staff is saying the cantilever portion of the plans does not reflect the minimum that could be done but noted that staff had not taken that position for the mudroom and bonus room portion of the addition. Planning Director Darling explained that what the applicant currently has is a 3 season porch, which means from the outside it generally looks like part of the house. She stated that she would say that their proposed plans improve that area of their home. Commissioner Huskins asked if there would be an impact to the setback for this portion of the plans. Planning Director Darling stated that the whole 3 season porch area is also too close to the property line and explained that they would need a variance in order to add the second story above. She clarified that this would not change the setback on this portion of the property. Chair Gorham asked if the addition would extend further east than the 3 season porch does. Planning Director Darling stated that the existing porch is 16 feet and the new area is close to that number. Ben Vanderheyden, 5995 Glencoe Road, confirmed that the 3 season porch is the same size as the proposed addition. He stated that he wanted to comment on the cantilever portion of their plans on the north side of the home because they feel very strongly about it. He stated that they have completely renovated the main level of their home and the existing plans that they submitted of the main level reflect the current space as it is today. He noted that the only exception to that is that on the existing plan the dining table is positioned between the bar and the island. He explained that they had not put the table there because it is extremely tight in that location. He stated that they have always had their dining table in the northeast corner near the windows. He explained that if the cantilever was removed from the plans it is the one thing that would still leave them with a significant pain point because there is not a designated dining area on the main level. He stated that they feel the cantilever is essential to the new design and would dramatically improve the functionality of the home. He stated that the majority of the home on the north side is staying, as is, and their proposal is just for a small 2 x 11 section for a dining nook that they are requesting. He stated that their neighbor to the north was one of the individuals who had submitted a letter of approval for their plans, as proposed. He stated that the new front porch is not that different from what is currently there right now. He stated that the concrete steps already extend 6 feet 4 inches from the house and the step furthest to the west is raised 7 inches off the ground and has a railing on it that is 31 inches high and 8 feet long. He stated that their proposed porch is longer than the existing porch but explained that the front steps get very icy during the winter because they are not covered. He stated that their architect had designed the front porch to extend the roof coverage over this area in order to mitigate those safety issues without pushing the structure of the home any closer to the street. He stated that another advantage to the porch would be an enhanced aesthetic along Glencoe Road. He asked the Commission to consider CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 2, 2024 Page 5 of 8 approval of their requests, as proposed, and noted that he believes their remodeled home would be a great asset to the neighborhood. Commissioner Huskins stated that Mr. Vanderheyden’s letter claimed that they would not be pushing the home any closer to the street with their new design. He stated that confuses him because the information in the staff report made it seem as though it would be pushed closer to the road. Mr. Vanderheyden explained that on the west side of the home, the walls will be going straight up, which was what he was referring to and acknowledged that their plans for the porch does extend it forward a bit. Commissioner Huskins asked about Mr. Vanderheyden’s claims regarding their plans not impacting the ability of the street to be widened in the future and if that referred to the main portion of the home and not the porch. Mr. Vanderheyden stated that in his conversations with Planning Director Darling that was something that had come up and she had indicated that whether this is approved or not will not impact what the City may need to do down the road for future development to the south. Commissioner Eggenberger noted that there appeared to be someone in the audience who wanted to comment on this item. Pamela Honzl, 6065 Glencoe Road, stated that she owns the acreage on the dead end. She stated that she has been here for over 40 years and noted that her husband is deceased and her children have grown and gone. She stated that she is in her 70s so it is conceivable that in the future the road will need to be widened in order to accommodate what will happen to her acreage when she leaves. She stated that she has no problem with their plans but is still confused about the porch and if it will come closer to the road or not. She stated that if their plans for a porch would not impact plans to widen and improve the road in the near future, she would support their plans. She stated that she would not want the City to end up saying that they did not want to widen the street because those homes come too close. She reiterated that she is still confused about the plans for a porch and explained that the Vanderheyden’s have been wonderful neighbors, and she hopes that their plans work out so they can stay in the home. She stated that there is already a concrete porch on the home and asked if their plans were to expand that and bring it closer to the road or it they were just covering what was already there. Planning Director Darling explained that the current right-of-way in this location is 40 feet and the typical measurement is 50 feet. She stated that what the City tries to do with a road project would be balance the right-of-way acquisition, which would mean an additional 5 feet on either side of the road. She stated that she believes the City Engineer has been very careful about trying to stick within the existing rights-of-way, when possible, in order to minimize acquisition costs. She stated that if the road ever had to be widened, and centered within the right-of-way, the concern from staff on this application is that the porch will be even closer to the street in appearance than it is now. She stated that in the future, when Ms. Honzl’s property is developed, they may need to extend the roadway into that property in order to construct more than one or two homes. She stated that the road would not necessarily have to be widened or centered with just the development of that property, but if, in the future, the roadway has to be reconstructed, that may be when the road is centered within the right-of-way. Commissioner Huskins asked if the applicant wished to cover the existing front porch if that would require a variance. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 2, 2024 Page 6 of 8 Planning Director Darling stated that it would still require a variance because it would be considered expanding the non-conformity. Commissioner Huskins stated that he had additional questions for the applicant. He asked what impact Mr. Vanderheyden would see on his project if the design of the porch were to be no closer to the roadway than it currently is. Mr. Vanderheyden stated that as designed, the porch extends six feet from the house and noted that the current porch concrete is six feet-four inches. Commissioner Huskins stated that he was confused because as he read the staff report he thought it was something else. Planning Director Darling explained that it currently is an uncovered concrete porch that does not have a roof. Commissioner Huskins stated that he understands that but thought he had seen in the report that the new design of the porch extends closer to the road. Planning Director Darling explained that it extends the roof structure closer to the road, but not the concrete stoop that is already in place. She stated that, as proposed, the porch will appear closer to the street than the current uncovered porch. Chair Gorham asked how the Commission felt about the practical difficulties in this situation that this is a small lot created before the zoning districts. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that the practical difficulties that exist provide him with empathy to the applicants. He stated that he believes the applicants are trying to make this home a long-term livable place that they can grow into and are doing the best they can with the size of the lot. He stated that he does not have a problem with the cantilever or the porch overhang. Chair Gorham noted that the cantilever will be very close to the property line and their reason for it is to just get more of a breakfast nook, which he questions. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he understands that, but they are just asking for 2 feet. Chair Gorham stated that he feels they need to draw the line somewhere and this is the property that they have purchased and believed that Planning Director Darling has attempted to find a balance. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that ‘his line’ would be the additional 2 feet that they are asking for. Chair Gorham stated that he meant programmatically he questioned where the City would draw the line into what makes a home and whether that included having to have a mud room and a breakfast nook. He stated that this just seems like this is what the applicants want to do and that no regard was given to the existing non-conformity. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he understood Chair Gorham’s position, but he thinks of it from a perspective of designing the home with the thought of living there for a while and believes that anybody would want to design it so it would be as livable as possible. He reiterated that he CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 2, 2024 Page 7 of 8 did not think 2 feet was too big of a request. He stated that he thinks what has been presented is a good plan. Chair Gorham agreed and admitted that he felt it was a smart design but had concerns about the entire plan of the second floor as well as the bump outs. He reiterated that it feels like the applicant has not done the minimum and had just presented what they want to do. He stated that he feels that if the City approves this then every house that was built before 1950 can do whatever they want. Commissioner Eggenberger explained that the difference for him was the non-conforming lot. Chair Gorham stated that the applicants would know it was a non-conforming lot with a small house when they purchased the property. He stated that he would like there to be an acknowledgement of the City’s setbacks and not just come before the City asking to do whatever they want. He stated that it felt a bit like their mindset was ‘the zoning code be damned’. Commissioner Huskins stated that he did not quite see this the same way and believes the owner was being creative about using a non-conforming property to do what he felt was arguably necessary, in order for the family to have space. He stated that he was not at all concerned about the second floor. He stated that he was initially confused and thought that they were asking to come 2 feet closer with all of the structure, but they are not and agrees that the front porch situation is a safety issue. He stated that he feels the biggest issue is the cantilever because they are already 5 feet from the property line and this plan brings a section of their home just 3 feet from the property line, but it is not the entire length of the building and is just a small portion. He stated that the Planning Commission is not in the business of telling residents how to design their homes and noted that his sense is that this proposal is a workable solution for the community and for the family. He stated that he was inclined to vote in favor of recommending approval without all the conditions suggested by staff. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he would agree but would still like to see the downspouts included in the conditions. Commissioner Huskins clarified that his comment was intended to be about the conditions related to the cantilever and the front porch only and would support the condition related to the gutters. Chair Gorham stated that he was struggling with what the ‘minimum’ is in this situation and if they were doing the minimum in order to alleviate the practical difficulties. Commissioner Huskins stated that he did not feel they were doing the minimum. Chair Gorham stated that he thinks they are supposed to be doing the minimum and believes that part of the struggle that Planning Director Darling had was finding what the minimum actually is. He noted that he believes she came up with the minimum being the changes suggested to the front porch and cantilever, but he would add the mudroom and bonus room to that list. He stated that the code says they have to do the minimum. Commissioner Huskins stated that he felt that was subject to interpretation. He stated that he did not see anything within the design that would suggest that they are being greedy about what they are requesting. He stated that he understands that they could find another place to put their table or get a smaller table, but it is not up to him to make those recommendations. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 2, 2024 Page 8 of 8 Chair Gorham stated that he was not suggesting they tell the applicant where to put their dining room table but was saying that what they are proposing was not the minimum. He stated that he feels the proposed design does not take into account any of the City’s constraints, which is what an architect should do. He stated that the applicants just want the cantilever for the breakfast nook and to have a covered front porch. Commissioner Huskins noted that the covered front porch does not bring the structure any closer to the road. Chair Gorham noted that it will give the appearance of being closer because now there is a covered structure in front of the home that was not there before. Commissioner Huskins reiterated that it will be no closer to the road that it currently is and reminded the Commission that this is a legally non-conforming structure already. Chair Gorham stated that he feels their plans are expanding the non-conforming. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that was why they were asking the City for a variance. Eggenberger moved, Huskins seconded, to recommend approval of the variance requests to expand a non-conforming home located at 5995 Glencoe Road, subject to the condition included in the staff report related to adding gutters and downspouts on the north side of the home, that they acquire all necessary permits, but remove the proposed conditions related to elimination of the cantilever and reducing the front porch size. Motion passed 2/1 (Gorham opposed). Chair Gorham stated that this item would come before the City Council on January 22, 2024. 6. REPORTS • Council Meeting Council Liaison Maddy reported on matters considered and actions taken during the Council’s recent meetings and some upcoming staffing changes with the Finance Director and Park and Recreation Director positions. The Commission discussed the recent vandalism that has taken place at three of the park bathroom facilities. • Draft Next Meeting Agenda Planning Director Darling stated there are no private development applications slated for the next meeting, but she was planning on the Commission considering some proposed ordinance amendments. 7. ADJOURNMENT Eggenberger moved, Huskins seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of January 2, 2024, at 8:13 P.M. Motion passed 3/0. Item 6B City Council Meeting Item Title/Subject: CUP for Additional Telecommunication Antennas Meeting Date: January 22, 2024 Prepared by: Jason Carlson, Planning Technician Reviewed by: Marie Darling, Planning Director Attachments: Planning Memorandum from January 2,2024 Resolution Background Location: 24283 Smithtown Road Applicant: SMJ International LLC. (on behalf of T-Mobile) Review Deadline: March 26, 2024 See attached planning memorandum for detailed background on this request. At their January 2, 2024, meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. Summary of Public Notice Notice was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the property at least 10 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing on January 2, 2024, and published in the city’s official newspaper. No one from the public submitted any comments or requested to speak. At their meeting the Planning Commission asked the Applicant to confirm if they will be routing the proposed cable outside of the tower or inside the tower. The Applicant stated they will be routing the cable through the inside of the tower. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the CUP for an additional telecommunication antenna for property located at 24282 Smithtown Road. Financial Considerations The application fees are acceptable to cover the cost of processing the application. Proposed Motion Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving a conditional use permit for SMJ International, LLC. on behalf of T-Mobile to place a telecommunication antenna and related equipment on existing tower located at 24283 Smithtown Road, as recommended by the Planning Commission. A 3/5 majority vote of the Council is required. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 24-006 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ANTENNA INSTALLATION AND RELATED EQUIPMENT ON AN EXISTING MONOPOLE AT 24283 SMITHTOWN ROAD WHEREAS, SMJ International LLC. (on behalf of T-Mobile), (the “Applicant”) proposed to add one microwave dish antenna and various other equipment to the existing tower, WHEREAS, the property is legally described as: Lot 27, Auditor’s Subdivision No. One Hundred Thirty-three (133), Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the southeast corner of Block 1, Senn Addition; thence along the easterly extension of the southerly line of said Block 1 a distance of 85 feet; thence northerly parallel with the east line of said Block 1 to the northerly line of said Lot 27; thence westerly along said northerly line to the east line of said Block 1; thence southerly along said east line to the point of beginning, WHEREAS, the Applicant’s request was reviewed by the planning staff, whose recommendation is included in a memorandum for the January 2, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, a copy of which is on file at City Hall; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 2, 2024 to review the application, the minutes of the meetings are on file at City Hall; and, WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on January 22, 2024, at which time the planning staff memorandum and the Planning Commission’s recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the City Council from the Applicant and staff and. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA FINDS AS FOLLOWS: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property is located in a C -1 General Commercial district, which allows microwave dish antenna’s subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. 2. All telecommunication applications are subject to the specific requirements of 1201.03 subd.21. 3. The applicant’s proposal is identified on plans and material submitted to the City on November 9, 2023. A. The Applicant’s plans have satisfied the criteria of a conditional use permit under the Shorewood City Code, as follows: 1) The Applicant’s plans indicate the placement of the antennas would be compatible with the neighborhood and would not depreciate the area. 2) The application would not overburden the city’s service capacity and existing public services and streets. B. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicant a conditional use permit to place an additional antenna and related equipment on the tower as shown on the plans submitted November 9, 2023, subject to the following: C. The applicant may not proceed with improvements prior to issuance of required permits. D. Prior to issuance of permits, the applicant shall revise the plans as follows, consistent with city code, or provide the following: 1) The antennas and all equipment installed on the tower shall be painted or factory coated to match the existing monopole. 2) The applicant shall not install any of the antennas or related equipment on the tower during osprey nesting season or otherwise disturb the nest. E. Provide a third-party special inspector. F. The applicant shall provide 24-hour emergency contact information and the information shall be kept current and updated as necessary. G. The applicant shall not install any lights on the tower (unless required by the FAA) or on the ground equipment. H. All disturbance to the site shall be restored to preconstruction condition by the end of the growing season. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this resolution with Hennepin County. nd ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA this 22 day of January 2024. __________________________ Jennifer Labadie, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk City Council Meeting Item Item Title/Subject: Variances to Expand a Non-Conforming House 6 C Meeting Date: January 22, 2024 Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director Attachments: Planning Commission Report from January 2, 2024 Resolution Background Location: 5995 Glencoe Road Applicant: Ben and Kelly Vanderheyden Review Deadline: March 20, 2024 See attached planning memorandum for detailed background on this request. At their January 2, 2024 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval (two in favor and one opposed) of the variance request to allow a second story addition, and additions for a front porch at 9.6 feet from the front property line where 35 feet is required and a cantilevered addition into the side setback that would be 3.1 feet where 10 feet is required by the zoning regulations, subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. The Commissioner voting against the motion did so because he felt the request for the increased side and front setback and the request to add a full upper story above the three season porch results in too much of an impact on the area and is not the minimum request to eliminate the difficulty. Originally staff recommended that the applicant eliminate the cantilever on the north side of the home and reduce or eliminate the front porch. The Commissioners discussed this staff request at length and ultimately recommended approval of the request as presented by the application, without reducing the additions proposed. Summary of Public Engagement Notice was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the property prior to the Planning Commission public meeting. The applicant was present at the meeting and spoke in favor of the application. Two letters of support were received and are attached to the Planning Commission memo. One person also requested to speak. Although supportive of the request, she wanted to reiterate that her property would likely be developed in the future and wanted to make sure that nothing was approved that would limit her ability to develop her property. The Planning Commission recommend approval of the variances requested, subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. Financial or Budget Considerations The application fees are adequate to cover the cost of processing the request. Action Requested S:\\City Council\\COUNCIL PACKET Assembly\\01.22.24\\6 Planning DONE\\6C plan com report in laserfiche already\\Council Memo.docx Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving variances to allow an expansion of a non- conforming house for Ben and Kelly Vanderheyden for property located at 5995 Glencoe Road, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Any action on this request would require a majority of all Councilmembers (3/2). Marie Darling From:James Loffler <jcloffler@loffler.com> Sent:Monday, November 20, 2023 9:12 AM To:Marie Darling Subject:Vanderheyden Remodel Hi Marie, I wanted to reach out to inform you that I had a nice conversa?on with Ben Vanderheyden regarding their addi?on at 5995 Glencoe Rd. A?er reviewing the plans, we are in full support of the project. Please feel free to reach out at any ?me with ques?ons. Have a great Thanksgiving! James Loffler | President 3745 Louisiana Ave S, St Louis Park, MN 55426 Phone: +1 (952) 925-6820 | Fax: +1 (952) 925-6801 Subscribe to Our Blog! 1 Marie Darling From:Jeffrey S Colby <rockrolldoctor@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 20, 2023 5:33 AM To:Marie Darling Subject:Ben and Kelly’s project. Good morning. My name is Jeffrey Colby. I live right next door to Ben. I have discussed with him and reviewed the construc?on proposal. I have no concerns over what they want to do. My address is 5985 Glencoe rd. If you have any ques?ons please don’t hesitate to contact me. Sent from my iPhone 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 24-007 A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES TO FRONT AND SIDE-YARD SETBACKS FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5995 GLENCOE ROAD WHEREAS, Ben and Kelly Vanderheyden , (the “Applicant”) proposed to construct an addition to the home that would be 9.6 feet to the front property line where 35 feet is required and a north side setback of 3.1 feet where a minimum of 10 feet is required; and, WHEREAS, the property is legally described as: The south 70 feet of Lot 209, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 135, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant’s request was reviewed by the planning staff, whose recommendation is included in a memorandum for the January 2, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, a copy of which is on file at City Hall; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on January 2, 2024 to review the application, the minutes of the meetings are on file at City Hall; and, WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on January 22, 2024, at which time the planning staff memorandum and the Planning Commission’s recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the City Council from the Applicant, staff and public. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA FINDS AS FOLLOWS: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property is located in the R-1D zoning district, which requires all buildings to be set back 30 feet from the front property line and 10 feet from the side property line. 2. The existing lot was created in 1924 and was further subdivided prior to modern record keeping. 3. The existing home was constructed in 1950, prior to the City of Shorewood’s incorporation and built closer than is currently permitted to the front and side property lines. 4. Section 1201.05 of the zoning regulations provides that the purpose of a variance is to allow a process to deviate from the strict provision of the zoning regulations when there are practical difficulties, and the action is the minimum to alleviate the practical difficulties. 5. Section 1201.05 of the zoning regulations includes criteria for making the above determination. 6. The Applicant’s proposal is identified on the application materials and plans submitted on November 19 and 21, and December 15, 2023 (the “Plans”). CONCLUSIONS A. Based upon the foregoing, and the records referenced herein, the City Council hereby approves the Applicant's request to construct a second-story addition to their home with a covered front porch constructed at 9.6 feet from the front property line where 30 feet is required and a cantilevered addition that would be 3.1 feet to the north side property line where 10 feet is required, as shown on the Plans. B. The City Council finds the variance request for an addition and its resulting construction and use, is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan and in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning regulations. C. The City Council finds that the request specifically demonstrates practical difficulties based on the existing size and shape of the lot. The addition is a reasonable residential use, the difficulties were not created by the homeowner but created by the lots narrower and smaller size and that the addition would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. D. The City Council finds that the improvements proposed are not solely based on economic considerations, but to enhance the livability of the home. E. The City Council finds that the addition would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to an adjacent property, increase the risk of fire or increase the impact on adjacent streets. F. The City Council finds that the deck would not be detrimental to the public welfare nor would it be injurious to other lands or improvements in the neighborhood. G. The variance is the minimum variance necessary to address or alleviate the practical difficulties caused by the original construction. H. Prior to beginning any construction on the Property, the applicant shall acquire all necessary permits and submit a construction management plan including storage of construction materials, parking of contractors and subcontractors, trash management, erosion control, etc. I. Prior to issuance of a permit, the applicants shall revise their plans to show gutters on the north side of the home and downspouts oriented away from the north property line to direct rainwater first into their own property before it ultimately reaches into the adjacent neighbor’s property. J. The variance shall expire one year after approval unless the applicant has completed the project, or an extension has been requested in accordance with Section 1201.05 Subd. 3 of City Code. K. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of this resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. nd ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA this 22 day of January, 2024. __________________________ Jennifer Labadie, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk City Council Meeting Item Item Title/Subject: Authorization to Prepare Final Plans & Specifications for 2024 7A Mill & Overlay and Smithtown Road Drainage, City Project 24-01. Meeting Date: Monday, January 22, 2023 Prepared by: Andrew Budde, City Engineer Reviewed by: Matt Morreim, Director of Public Works Attachments: Overview Maps and Resolution Background The City of Shorewood has identified a 2024 Mill & Overlay and the Smithtown Drainage Improvements project in the CIP to aid in maintaining and extending the longevity of the existing roadway infrastructure throughout the city. The mill & overlay project includes streets that have poor pavement ratings and/or are carryovers from previous projects in which they were cut due to budget. The Smithtown Road Drainage Improvements project is addressing several drainage issues along its length. Throughout the mill and overlay area, the project would include adjusting watermain valves, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer castings to provide for a smoother ride and help eliminate inflow and infiltration to the sanitary sewer. Where existing concrete curb and gutter exists, staff will inspect to see if any replacement is needed. Typically, concrete curb is only replaced with mill & overlay projects if it has significant cracks that are separating vertically or where water sits in the curb and extends onto the bituminous. Staff will also evaluate drainage concerns that have been identified by staff or residents that could reasonably be improved with this project. This could include the addition of curb, bituminous or concrete, in areas where it currently does not exist, addition of mountable curbs across driveways to keep roadway water from draining down driveways, addition of spill ways, flumes or catch basins that can direct storm water to intended locations. The following roadways to be included in the mill & overlay project are:  Boulder Circle  Spruce Hill Court  Church Road  Oak View Court  Murray Street  Maple Street  Murray Court  Chestnut Court  Bracketts Road  Whitney Circle.  Lilac Lane If any streets needed to be cut due to budget concerns after final design or bidding Chestnut Court and Whitney Circle would be delayed to the 2025 mill & overlay project. Areas along Smithtown Road where drainage will be improved are shown on the attached map. Financial or Budget Considerations Costs for this work have been budgeted for in the Capital Improvement Plan and would utilize a combination of Street Reconstruction Fund, Water Fund, and Stormwater Management Fund. The city has budgeted the following for the project: Fund CIP Budget Item Code Amount 404-Street 2024 M&O LR-99-100 $606,375.00 404-Street Pavement Maintenance LR-99-099 $100,000.00 601-Water 2024 M&O LR-99-100 $33,075.00 631-Storm 2024 M&O LR-99-100 $110,250.00 Subtotal: $849,700.00 631-Storm Smithtown Rd Drainage Imp. ST-24-04 $275,625.00 Subtotal: $275,625.00 Overall Budget Total: $1,125,325.00 The budgets contain estimated costs for construction and engineering. It is anticipated that construction costs will be $979,000 and administrative costs including engineering design, permitting, bidding, surveying, and construction inspection will be around $147,000, or approximately 15% of the construction costs. Action Requested Motion to authorize the preparation of the Final Plans & Specifications for the 2024 Mill & Overlay project and Smithtown Drainage Improvements. Motion, second and simple majority required. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 24-008 A RESOLUTION TO PREPARE FINAL PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS FOR 2024 MILL & OVERLAY AND SMITHTOWN ROAD DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT 24-01 WHEREAS, the current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifies a mill & overlay project for 2024 on various streets throughout the city and improvements to Smithtown Road drainage at various locations along its length, City Project 24-01; and WHEREAS, preparing the final plans and specifications will allow for a more detailed evaluation of the repairs necessary by having staff clean and televise culverts, gather topographic survey where need, and complete the permitting process with various agencies; and WHEREAS, the proposed improvements will help to maintain and extend the longevity of the roadway infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the project will be funded through the combination of Street Reconstruction Fund, Water Fund, and the Stormwater Management Fund, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: 1. Hereby authorizes the preparation of Final Plans & Specifications for the 2024 Mill & Overlay and Smithtown Road Drainage project. nd Adopted by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota this 22 day of January 2024. __________________________ Jennifer Labadie, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk Item 8A City Council Meeting Item Title/Subject: Park/Recreation Director Position Description and Recruitment Meeting Date: January 22, 2024 Prepared by: Sandie Thone, City Clerk/Human Resources Director Reviewed by: Marc Nevinski, City Administrator Attachment: 2024 Proposed Park/Recreation Director Position Description 2023 Park/Recreation Director Position Description 2019-2022 SCEC/Park and Recreation Director Position Description Background At the January 8th City Council meeting, the city council accepted the resignation of Park and Recreation Director Janelle Crossfield. At that time, the Council asked staff to bring back the nd recruitment of the position to the January 22 meeting. The City Council asked staff to review and consider changes to the job description, the title of the position, and the recruitment plan. Below is a summary of the considerations and attached is the proposed updated job description for council review. Position Title: Director vs Manager The city council discussed whether the position should be a director level position or a manager level position with a possibility of advancement to the director level. Below are definitions and typical duties of each role: Director: A director is a senior level management professional who oversees an aspect of an organization. Directors often oversee managers and assist them in managing a department, team, or project. Some typical duties of a director include:  Creating business strategies and proposing implementation methods  Communicating with organization’s executive-level staff and board members  Conducting manager performance reviews  Preparing budgets, business plans, and schedules  Providing managers the resources they need  Ensuring managers comply with organizational and legal requirements  Managing relationships with stakeholders  Overseeing a department’s overall performance  Understanding conflicts with teams and providing solutions Manager: A manager is a professional who oversees a specific area within an organization. They may manage a team of employees to ensure a department operates smoothly. Some key responsibilities may include:  Managing staff to support them in completing tasks  Recruiting and training employees  Ensuring compliance with safety and legal standards  Conducting performance reviews of staff  Clarifying department and individual expectations  Coaching, counseling, and disciplining employees  Enforcing organizational policies  Creating department goals  Communicating progress, needs and updates to higher-level staff Director vs. Manager Some of the key differences are: Supervision level: Managers often supervise entry-level or mid-level employees. Directors often oversee teams of managers to help them support their teams and complete projects on time. Planning requirements: Managers are responsible for ensuring their teams can execute tasks efficiently. Directors focus on determining their team’s annual goals, improving daily operations and planning for long-term success. Focus: Managers often focus on the tasks that they and their team need to complete to accomplish goals. Directors focus on the overall goals of the organization and the department. Procedure implementation: Managers follow specific processes and procedures outlined by the Director and offer feedback. Director’s research, establish and communicate procedures for their teams, and provide what is needed for managers to train their teams. Stakeholder relationships: Managers focus on building relationships with their teams and have limited legal responsibilities. Directors may maintain direct relationships with organization stakeholders and are expected to ensure legal compliance and support the success of the organization. Performance Management: Managers and Directors both establish goals for employees on their teams and hold performance reviews, but Directors goals are often more complex and aim to continually improve processes and boost efficiency. Daily responsibilities: Managers may spend their days answering emails, phone calls, reviewing daily metrics, meeting with team members, and completing required tasks. Directors may spend their days attending meetings with executives, stakeholders, managers, working on strategic planning, brainstorming, and communicating policy changes. It should be noted that many larger organizations employ both directors and managers that look much like the structure as described above. In an organization the size of Shorewood, many times the lines are blurred between these two roles. We do not have the resources or the need to support both managers and directors as many larger organizations may find it advantageous. Historically department heads reporting to the City Administrator in Shorewood have held the title of Director and have performed both Director-level and Manager-level responsibilities as described above. Current department heads include the City Clerk/Human Resources Director with four direct reports, the Finance Director with one direct report, the Planning Director with three direct reports, and the Public Works Director with two direct reports and nine additional direct reports with shared responsibility with the PW Supervisor. The Park/Recreation Director position was created in 2019 when former employee Twila Grout was promoted to the dual role of Shorewood Community and Event Center/Park and Recreation Director (please see the attached job description). The Park/Recreation Director position currently manages one regular part time Recreation Specialist, seven Community Center Attendants, and five seasonal Warming House Attendants. Staff would like council to consider and discuss how this role would be delineated and defined from other department head Director roles in the organization if they consider the change to the Manager title versus a Director title and whether the budgeting and strategic planning would be taken out of the job description. All Directors are department heads and manage department and other budgets as follows:  City Clerk/HR Director: 5 Budgets (Administration, Municipal Buildings, Recycling, City Council, Elections)  Finance Director: 1 Budget (Finance)  Park/Recreation Director: 2 Budgets (SCEC, Recreation)  Planning Director: 2 Budgets (Planning, Protective Inspections)  Public Works Director: 7 Budgets (Engineer, PW, Ice & Snow, Park Maintenance, Water, Sewer, Storm) Management of budgets typically falls into a Director level responsibility. All department head Directors at Shorewood are expected to and are currently performing most of the duties in both the Manager and Director lists of typical duties. nd As discussed at the January 22 meeting, in our most recent recruitment for the Park/Recreation Director in October 2022, we had an excellent pool of candidates apply for the position. We heard through the interview process from candidates that they were excited to be considered for a director level position. Many candidates who applied for the position had experience in supervising staff and other managerial duties but were interested in expanding their knowledge in the areas of budgeting, strategic planning, and building those important stakeholder relationships. Staff believes there remains a great opportunity to attract high-level talent with the “Director” title and that any assumptions made about the role can be easily addressed by properly communicating the expectations to the candidates. Job Description nd At the January 22 City Council meeting, there was a discussion regarding the job description for the Park/Recreation Director. The Council asked staff to review and update the job description with the considerations proposed at that meeting. The attached 2024 Position Description is attached for your review. It includes the elements discussed and proposed and has been completely overhauled in its entirety but does contain all the essential duties of the position as presented (and observed in the 2023 version also attached). I solicited Job Descriptions (JD) and Salary Ranges from my HR peers in other cities for P/R Managers and Directors for comparison and to review JD language. It should be noted that there are not many cities our size that have this position (or a community center for that matter). Job descriptions and salary ranges were reviewed for Park/Recreation Managers/Directors from the following cities: Title City Salary Range Park/Recreation Manager Medelia $37k-$62k Park/Recreation Director Lakeville $134k-$167k Director of Parks and Recreation New Hope $121k-$148k Park/Recreation Director Monticello $96k-$120k Park/Recreation Director Otsego $99k-$127k Director of Park/Recreation & Comm Ed Hutchinson $97k-$146k Park/Recreation & Forestry Director Austin $97k-$139k Director of Park/Recreation Champlin $114k-143k As you review the proposed and updated job description, please note the addition of language and responsibilities to better represent the actual nature of the work and the emphasis on relationship building with the community, stakeholders, partners, city staff and elected officials. In addition, the emphasis was taken off the Community Center as the nucleus of the position and placed back into the Parks and Facilities with the SCEC being one of the facilities to manage. The position description removed over detailed tasks, which is not observed or recommended in newer versions of job descriptions. The Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities were updated as was the work environment. Financial Considerations The Park/Recreation Director position was recently reclassified during the 2023 compensation study and adequately represents the current position structure and duties. The compensation is accounted for in the 2024 budget and the pay range for the position is Grade 13 $84,050- $105,062. Action Requested Staff respectfully recommend the city council review the proposed position description and recruitment plan and approve as proposed or make changes as deemed appropriate. Motion, second and simple majority vote required. Item 9A.1 City Council Meeting Item Title/Subject: Communications Update: Website & Social Media Stats Report Meeting Date: Monday, January 22, 2024 Prepared by: Eric Wilson, Communications Coordinator Reviewed by: Sandie Thone, City Clerk/HR Director Attachments: None Background The City of Shorewood Communications Coordinator has prepared a report to highlight the City’s communications efforts in 2023, including: website analytics, email communications, social media, and the Shore Report. 2023 Communications Reach and Engagement by channel Metric Web Email Social Media Shore Report FY23 % % % % FY23 total FY23 total FY23 total FY23 total Total Total Views/Reach Opens, reach, impressions, mailings 45,791 24% 61,715 33% 57,847 31% 24,300 13% 189,653 Engagement Events*, clicks, likes, shares 146,074 77% 4,197 2% 16,007 8% 24,300 13% 190,578 *Event counts: Events are specific interactions on the City’s website, such as page loads or link clicks. Website The City of Shorewood began tracking website analytics on August 1, 2023. Google analytics tracks demographics, user behaviors, page views, and details about the technology that web visitors are using to access our website. The charts below summarize data collected August 1-December 31, 2023. Key takeaways: As we collect more data overtime, we are seeing some changes in data, which should reflect more  accurate information. Tech/Devices: In the previous communications report (2023 Q1 and Q2 presented on September 25,  2023), 52% of users were accessing the City’s website from a mobile device. This percentage has shifted to desktop. The percentage of tablet users remains the same. Web Traffic/User Behavior: The search tool continues to be the top utilized ‘page’ on the City’s  website. Meetings and Agendas has replaced inspections as the second most visited page. Resident services, in general, continue to trend as the pages that are most visited. Website Metrics FY23 Total Users by device # website views 45791 Desktop 52.6% # users 13219 Mobile 45.7% views/user 3 Tablet 1.8% avg engagement time (seconds) 80 2023 Top Ten Web Pages Event Count (e.g. Views Average Engagement Page Views Users downloads, scrolls, per User Time (seconds) clicks) Shorewood (home/search) 2157 1152 2 51 7879 Meetings and Agendas 2069 890 2 56 7211 Trash and Recycling 2042 1481 1 20 6915 Planning and Protective Inspections 2027 1052 2 55 5854 I Want To Contact 1409 1069 1 45 4393 Online Forms and Permits 1111 696 2 56 3853 Utilities (residents) 876 638 1 29 2996 City Code 629 459 1 23 2095 Public Improvement Projects 532 297 2 50 1597 Parks and Recreation 508 299 2 43 1543 Email Communications 2023 Email Metrics 2023 In 2023, City of Shorewood sent a total of 144 emails to 89,928 Sends 89,928 inboxes. 69% of these emails were opened/viewed. There are 21 Opens 61,715 active email lists. Clicks 4197 Open Rate 69% Key takeaways: Click Rate 5%  Emails account for one-third of all City communications. Total # campaigns Open and click rates continue to be above industry  (email messages) 144 averages (open rates: 32% above; click rate: 4% above). * *Open Rate Industry Avg 37% Click Rate Industry Avg 1% Social Media The City of Shorewood is active primarily across 4 social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Nextdoor, Twitter/X). Shorewood maintains a LinkedIn account, but these metrics are not included. In 2023, total reach across these platforms was 57,847. Audience across meta (FB, IG) is predominantly women between the ages of 35-54, who live in Shorewood, Excelsior, Chanhassen, Minnetonka, Minneapolis, and Mound. Key takeaways:  In fall 2023, we saw a small increase in the number of followers for the first time across Meta.  Nextdoor and Facebook continue to have the greatest reach among City of Shorewood users.  Posting more frequently has had a direct correlation with increase in reach. Social Media Channel No. Followers Reach FY22 FY23 % to LY Facebook 1,637 17,943 27,430 35% Instagram 555 1,064 2,943 64% Nextdoor 4,402 13,730 25,999 47% Twitter/X 645 931 1,475 37% Total 7239 33668 57847 42% Shore Report City of Shorewood’s monthly newsletter, the Shore Report, was printed, published, and mailed 9 times in 2023 (April-December). 2700 copies of the newsletter are printed and distributed each month. It is emailed to 988 contacts. Due to the Shore Report being print, it is difficult to track exact engagement numbers. If all printed copies of the Shore Report are read, it would account for roughly 13% of all communications. Key takeaways:  The Shore Report email distribution list has the largest number of sign-ups.  Regarding the printed newsletter, it is extremely difficult to track how many individuals engage with the content. Financial Considerations None at this time. Action Requested: This memorandum is provided for information only. No action is requested. 9A.1 City Council Meeting Item Title/Subject: Website Update Meeting Date: Monday, January 22, 2024 Prepared by: Eric Wilson, Communications Coordinator Reviewed by: Sandie Thone, City Clerk/HR Director Marc Nevinski, City Administrator Attachments: None Background The City of Shorewood is currently in the process of building a new website, expected to launch in March 2024. Since the last presentation to City Council on December 11, 2023, layout and colors have been approved, and content is being prepared for migration into the new site. In the next couple of weeks, an updated website will be available to City staff to begin prepping for the launch. Key dates and milestones are outlined in the below timeline. Website Project Timeline: Key Dates & Deliverables Date(s) Deliverable(s) 12/16/2023 Content Processing Meeting - COMPLETE 12/18/2023 – 1/12/2024 Content Preparation & Updates – COMPLETE/some content in progress; and being tracked 12/22/2023 Layout & Color Approval - COMPLETE 1/18/2024 Design Concept Meeting 2/9/2024 Content Change Tracking Design Concept Approval 2/21/2024 Website Reveal Meeting 2/27/2024-2/29/2024 Training 3/4/2024-3/8/2024 Website Launch Preparation & Confirmation Meeting 3/15/2024 Website Launch with new domain 3/22/2024 Project Closeout Procedures Financial Considerations: None at this time Action Requested: This memorandum is provided for information only. No action is requested. Item 9A.2 City Council Meeting Item Title/Subject: Response to Sand/Salt Question: 1/8/24 Matters from the Floor Meeting Date: January 22, 2024 Prepared by: Matt Morreim, Public Works Director Reviewed by: Marc Nevinski, City Administrator Attachments: n/a Background At the January 8, 2024 city council meeting, a resident asked at Matters from the Floor that the City provide follow up communication regarding the change in the ratio of salt to sand for treating the ice and explained that she would like to understand the environmental impact on the salt run off into the City’s waterways. She stated that she would also like to understand what type of salt the city is using. The city communicated in the January/February 2024 ShoreReport that the it would be changing materials to primarily using only salt to provide safe roadways. In the past, public works used a sand/salt mix where 60% of the material was sand and 40% was salt. As stated in the ShoreReport article, sand has drawbacks including that it negatively impacts storm water drainage and is expensive to dispose of. Public works was applying salt with the sand which is the reason why roads were generally bare pavement throughout past winter seasons. With the change to stop using sand, public works has and will be applying significantly less overall material with a goal of applying less salt to achieve a similar or same level of service. All winter maintenance materials have some negative effects on the environment. Most agencies balance the use of materials (salt, sand, liquids, etc.) with the desired level of service that residents and visitors have. Salt can get into lakes, streams and ground water from winter maintenance activities. The goal is to use the least amount of product to achieve a safe and desirable level of service. To achieve this goal, public works staff have attended training, made equipment changes and enhancements and implemented a liquids program. Lastly, the materials that the city is currently using are as follows:  Regular salt. Same as table salt. o Shorewood began ordering and using regular salt in 2023. Public works staff utilize regular salt when temperatures are more moderate.  Treated salt. Regular salt enhanced with an additive. The additive is a mixture of magnesium chloride and a corrosion inhibitor. o Shorewood has been using only treated salt in the past for the sand/salt mixture.  Salt brine. Regular salt and water. Salt is approximately 23.3% of the mixture by weight.  Enhanced salt brine. Salt brine plus an additive. The additive includes water, calcium chloride, magnesium chloride and a corrosion inhibitor. Typically, liquid brine is used as a proactive measure to inhibit the snow/ice from sticking to pavement making it easier to remove snow. Additionally, brine can be used during frost events in lieu of using regular salt. Both activities reduce the amount of salt needed during winter events. Financial or Budget Considerations None at this time. Action Requested This memorandum is provided for information only. No action is requested. Item 9A.3 City Council Meeting Item Title/Subject: Matters from the Floor Response: Kristen Kowalski 1/8/24 Meeting Date: January 22, 2024 Prepared by: Marc Nevinski, City Administrator Jared Shepherd, City Attorney Attachments: Email from Kristen Kowalski Bolton & Menk Contract Exhibit I Background At the January 8, 2024 Council meeting, Ms. Kristen Kowalski addressed the Council during Matters from the Floor to share a number of statements and ask a series of questions. Ms. Kowalski stated she believed a conflict of interest existed with Bolton & Menk as the City’s engineer. This statement has been made before and Councilmember Callies asked that staff address it and Council agreed. Ms. Kowalski also emailed the Council a copy of her statements th from January 8 and included additional statements and questions in her email. That email is attached and staff has attempted address what we believe to be Ms. Kowalski‘s main points in this memo. Conflict of Interest Assertion City Engineering Services - City engineers are integral to ensuring that necessary public infrastructure projects are planned appropriately according to community needs and the prerogatives of the city council. Furthermore, city engineers are responsible, in part, for ensuring that project plans comply with local, state, and federal laws and regulations and agency funding obligations. It is both common and a best practice that cities employ or contract with an engineer that develops familiarity with the community, its needs, and council goals. Shorewood City Code contemplates that the City will utilize a City Engineer. See, e.g., City Code Chapter 901. Cities commonly use consulting engineers to provide engineering services to the community rather than hiring a staff engineer. Consulting engineers often function as a city’s engineer, representing its interests to other government agencies, private contractors, vendors, developers and residents, just as a staff member would. Services typically include general engineering advising; guidance for infrastructure maintenance; long range capital improvement planning; conducting analyses such as traffic or feasibility studies; reviewing private development projects for compliance with codes; and securing project funding from state or federal agencies. Additionally, consulting engineers provide cities access to a wide range of related resources such as surveying, environmental expertise (such as wetland delineation), or GIS hosting that would otherwise be cost prohibitive. This presents a city a great value by providing cost effective access to a variety of useful and necessary expertise and resources only when they are needed. Even large cities, who directly employ one or more engineers as staff, still need the expertise of consultants to complete many tasks or access resources. In addition to these general engineering services, consulting firms also often have the skill and capacity to design project plans, develop construction specifications, and manage large capital improvement projects, such as the reconstruction of a road. Shorewood uses its consulting engineer to do this type of work as well. Depending on the exact nature of the work performed by the consultant, costs are funded from a variety of sources, including the general fund, enterprise funds, grants, project funding, and private development escrows. In 2019 the City sought requests for proposals for engineering services and choose to hire Bolton & Menk, replacing WSB and as authorized by Minn. Stat. § 412.111. The contract was reviewed on December 12, 2022 (See City website for this Council meeting agenda packet, Item 2J) by the Council and renewed for an additional three-year period starting in 2023. Exhibit I of the contract (attached) details the specific scope of services and role of the City’s consulting engineer. Like any contractor or employee, Bolton & Menk is accountable to the City Council for performing according to the Council’s expectations and the requirements of their role. For some perspective, it is estimated that 455 Minnesota cities, ranging from populations of 50 to 30,000, use a consultant as their city engineer in the same way Shorewood does. Eighty-four Minnesota cities, ranging in populations of 5000 to 400,000, have at least one engineer on staff and hire consultants to provided additional services. Project Planning. Cities annually adopt capital improvement plans (CIPs) which look out five to ten years and identify projects to be completed, along with their estimated costs. CIPs are updated annually as costs and priorities may change. City staff identify projects for inclusion in the CIP based on information from a variety of sources, such as comprehensive plans, government mandates, collaborative projects with other agencies, special studies (e.g. Western Shorewood Stormwater Management Plan) or specific projects or goals the Council has identified. The proposed CIP is then reviewed and approved by the City Council as part of the annual budget process. Project Approval and Oversite. Although inclusion of a project in a CIP is significant, it is only the beginning of a process and does not guarantee a project will be completed. There are many steps taken before a project begins or expenditures are made, and a city council has many points in the process to review, modify or stop a project. These points may include directing the city engineer to complete a feasibility or scoping study to understand project details, costs and impacts more fully. State law requires that city councils approve expenditures and contracts. A council must authorize expenditures for work such as project feasibility or scoping studies, the development of design and construction specifications, or service contracts. Additionally, once satisfied with the plans and scope of a project, the city council authorizes projects to be bid and reviews the bid results before awarding (or rejecting) a construction contract. Approval by a council authorizing the use of funds for a project, such as cash, bonds, grant applications or agreements, or other resources is also a critical step which affects the timing, scope, or even the undertaking of a project. Although Bolton & Menk, as outlined in its professional services contract with the City, designs and manages improvement projects on behalf of the city, the actual construction of the improvements is performed by construction contractors who have reviewed the engineered specifications and bid on the projects. The council then awards the work to the lowest bidder and approves contracts. (The city received bids from seven to ten bidders on the Birch Bluff Road, Strawberry Lane, and Smithtown Ponds projects.) Following the award of a bid, the consulting engineer’s role in such projects is to oversee the work by the contractor to ensure it is completed to specifications and to advocate for the city and its residents during the project. In other words, Bolton & Menk maintains its role as an agent of the city in this process. In summary, Bolton & Menk, and any consultant or staff member, act at the direction of, and are directly accountable to, the City Council. They provide technical expertise and professional advice, but it is the Council that sets policy direction, prioritizes objectives, approves contracts and agreements, and authorizes expenditures. Detailed information About Eureka Road Much of Ms. Kowolski’s inquiry refers to a desire for more detailed information about the impacts and options for a reconstruction of Eureka Road. Much of this information would have been detailed in a scoping study, which the Council ordered in January of 2023. However, based on comments received from residents who expressed a desire to maintain the current character of the roadway, the work necessary to develop more detailed information about Eureka Road (e.g. surveys, tree inventory, wetland delineation, etc…) was postponed. Instead, a high-level analysis of different options for the road, ranging from reclamation to an overlay, were considered and presented this past fall. Once direction as to the scope of the project is given by the City Council, more detailed analysis, appropriate for the scope of the project, will be prepared. While every project is unique, depending on the project scope, review of plans and project permitting is typically required by other government agencies, such as the watershed district, as well as county, state and sometime even federal agencies, to ensure rules and laws to protect natural and cultural resources are followed. Financial Considerations None Action Requested No action is requested. This memorandum is for information only. Brenda Pricco From:Jennifer Labadie Sent:Thursday, January 11, 2024 12:39 AM To:Andrew Budde; Marc Nevinski Subject:Fwd: Eureka Road Project Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: KRISTEN KOWALSKI <kristenanddave@att.net> Date: January 10, 2024 at 7:14:19 PM CST To: Jennifer Labadie <JLabadie@ci.shorewood.mn.us>, Paula Callies <pcallies@ci.shorewood.mn.us>, Guy Sanschagrin <gsanschagrin@ci.shorewood.mn.us>, Dustin Maddy <DMaddy@ci.shorewood.mn.us>, Scott Zerby <szerby@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Subject: Eureka Road Project Mayor Labadie and Council Members – Thank you for the opportunity to speak at the January 8, 2024 City Council Meeting during Matters From the Floor. For reference, I have included at the end of this message the comments I made during my 3- minutes. I also wanted to add a few additional observations:  I was very pleased to hear that council intends to include the Conflict of Interest concern on the January 22, 2024 regular meeting agenda – thank you to Councilperson Callies for making that request. I presume this will be a report out from the staff? Will council have the opportunity to ask staff questions during their report out? Will the public have an opportunity to ask questions in order to formulate a point of view and communicate that to council prior to the path-forward vote at the February 26, 2024 meeting?  My concern about the conflict is not meant to be a personal or professional criticism of Mr. Budde or Bolton & Menk. I appreciate that Eureka Road improvements have been part of a broader Shorewood City project plan for many years and prior to Bolton & Menk’s and the city engineer’s involvement. Regardless, now that the improvements are imminent, it is the current City Engineer and Engineering firm who are aligned to provide detailed project scoping, cost, impacts, etc. What I think the public deserves to understand are the following, and I would expect nd that staff can report out on these items in detail at the January 22 meeting: o What engineering firm was involved and who was the city engineer when the longer- term Master Trail Plan was introduced in 2011? o What engineering firm was involved and who was the city engineer in 2018 when Eureka Road improvements were added to the city capital improvement plan? o When did the city begin working with Bolton & Menk and what is the annual spend with Bolton & Menk for each of those years? What is the spend by project? And, can it be distinguished between true engineering/construction cost vs. consulting/management fees? How much of any consulting/management fee is specifically aligned to the services from the city engineer? o The city engineer is an employee of Bolton and Menk, correct? Are they a paid member of the City Staff as well? 1 o What specifically is the “check and balance” between the city engineer, engineering firm and council? What is the process? Does council or the city engineer make a request of the engineering firm for a project plan/comparisons; and then the city engineer reviews said plan and recommends a path forward to council? o Perhaps provide a comparison of the role/responsibility of the City Engineer vs. the City Attorney and their respective employers (Engineering Firm vs. Law Firm)?  My professional career is in the accounting and professional services arena. Conflict of Interest is at the heart of our business with both professional standards and government requirements in place to prevent conflicts. If the city engineer is evaluating a construction project spending taxpayer dollars, how can they be an employee of the firm profiting from the execution of said project? It would seem we have a person or entity in a position to benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity, the exact definition of conflict of interest.  With regard to transparency, I have looked over all the materials posted on the Shorewood City Website related to the Eureka Road project. I have the following questions/observations, and if I have missed something that is publicly available, please point me in the right direction to find it. o The last traffic study is from 2018. It would seem irresponsible to utilize data that is 6- years old when assessing the Eureka Road project. At that time, the Minnetonka Country Club was still a country club, not a housing development with 200+ residential vehicles. o I do not see any data addressing utility items other than sewer and water. What about power and wifi? Why was this not included? Burying options as well as options to relocate poles so they are not right on top of the road. o I also do not see a current state assessment of the existing sewer and water utility quality. I would think it’s important to understand if lifespan enhancements are on the horizon when making a road improvement decision. o I also do not see any reference to environmental requirements given Eureka Road runs through a wetland with (I think) a conservation easement. o I do not see any reference to water table details. As was mentioned at the January th 8 session, the wetlands around Eureka Road are at historic lows with the only explanation being “drought”. However, there does not appear to be any data to support this claim. o The “Right of Way and Property Impacts” visuals do not appear to be specific to Eureka Road, but rather a general rendering. We should have a more specific rendering for Eureka Road so that residents are clear on specific property line impacts.  About 20% of my property line aligns with Eureka Road. And another 30% aligns to the wetland. I have a very personal, vested interest in understanding the true impact of any construction project touching 50% of my property line. By true-impact, I mean: o Sewar improvements (water and sanitary) – if there is an opportunity to get ahead of anticipated sewer upgrades? o Drainage improvements – erosion has been an issue and how exactly will the proposed solutions limit future erosion issues by better managing water flow? o Power line improvements – are we considering the ability to bury power/wifi/other utility lines to limit future outages and support Shorewood of the Future? o Environmental impacts – in addition to possible tree removal, is there an opportunity to eliminate the buckthorn that has invaded the area? There are many mature trees that it pains me to know will need to be removed, but there are also a lot of damaged trees prime to fall into the road at any moment which we should seek to proactively eliminate. o Traffic impacts – traffic study is dated and what is expected increase in road usage as a thoroughfare? o Curb options – there’s been no documented comparison of soft vs. hard curbs o Cost impacts - specific costs for each element of the options are not outlined. Ideally, we can see cost by element to perhaps identify other options for consideration. 2 o Watershed and DNR limitations/impacts given Eureka Road conservation easement section – what will be the impact to the water level in the surrounding wetland? What chemicals are being used? How will this impact wildlife/insects/ecosystem? o Alignment to other projects - impact of aligning or not aligning to Birch Bluff and other adjacent projects with hard/soft curb connections?  As I said in my comments at the meeting, I am willing to accept short-term consequences for long-term benefit. I’d be disappointed to see trees removed, but if it means reliable power/internet, less flooding and refreshed wetlands, and a safer roadway for pedestrians, I might be willing to accept the short term loss. However, I am struggling to fully understand the long term benefit of the options presented. Therefore, I cannot in good faith support what appears to be an over-engineered project primarily benefitting the engineering firm and spending tax dollars put to better use elsewhere in the community. The data is just not there to highlight the long-term benefits.  In service to our community, your vote should consider data, facts and public opinion to do what is best for the community. Where exactly are the data and facts you would be relying upon to support a $1M-$M spend of taxpayer dollars? And is public option aligned to a $1M - $2M spend? Thank you for serving our community and I welcome any questions/response you have to the above. Regards, Kristen Kowalski kristenanddave@att.net 312-342-7192 3-Minute Council Meeting Comments  My name is Kristen Kowalski. I have been a resident of Shorewood for 13 years and reside at 25635 Maple View Court, on the corner of MVC and Eureka Road.  There is no debate that Eureka Road north of Smithtown Road needs repair. The potholes are a dangerous hazard. I drive on this road just about every day. My vehicle has suffered tire and rim damage at high personal expense, and my child has injured themselves falling off their bicycle which was very frightening. Repair needs to happen in 2024.  I also appreciate that when making significant dollar investments, we should anticipate long-term future needs for Shorewood. Those long-term needs – such as burying power lines - might come with short-term consequences – such as a wider roads and tree loss.  However, I have concerns about the integrity of the repair options proposed by the city for the Eureka Road Project. Specifically, my concerns reside with cost, conflicts of interest and transparency. o COST: Recent projects introduced by the city have resulted in increases in bonded debt. Road Construction bonds were $0 in 2019 and $10M through 12/31/22 (data for 2023 did not yet appear to be publicly available in January 2024). Two of the three options presented by the city come with cost of $1 - $2M. Is this the highest and best use of taxpayer dollars, especially when taxpayer majority is not in favor of said projects? In addition, new debt today will be at historically high interest rates. o CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Conflicts of interest exist with the influence of the City Engineer (Andrew Budde) and his employer, engineering firm Bolton & Menk, which appear to have “won” construction bids in a sole sourcing capacity. With the City Engineer being a paid employee of Bolton & Menk, and also serving as the construction permit approver, this presents a significant conflict of interest. Over-engineered projects aligned to this conflict of interest lead to added cost, impacting taxpayer dollars. o TRANSPARENCY: The three options presented by the city do not include adequate details on: sewar improvements, power line improvements, environmental impacts, recent traffic study 3 (last one was 2018), comparison of soft vs. hard curbs, specific costs for each element of the options, watershed and DNR limitations/impacts given Eureka Road conservation easement section, drainage assessment and impact of aligning or not aligning to Birch Bluff and other adjacent projects. The options are very high level with limited detail.  A lack of transparency leads to lack of trust.  I believe a more detailed analysis needs to be conducted to confirm (1) longevity of proposed improvements; (2) alignment to “Shorewood of the Future” and strategic plan objectives; (3) environmental impacts; (4) safety; and (5) total cost comparison including annual maintenance.  Given the immediate need, at this time it would seem prudent to either (1) move forward with lowest cost range of Option 2 – Mill & Overlay – to allow time for an adequate impact study by an independent engineering firm, or (2) conduct an adequate study – quickly - aligned to Option 3 to assess true cost and impact.  I believe that this analysis should be completed by an independent third party not connected to the city engineer. Perhaps explore pro-bono investment through the Army Core of Engineers or DNR or Minnehaha Watershed District given the significant stretch of Eureka Road aligned to what I understand to be a protected Wetland.  Once a reliable and trustworthy analysis is completed, if there is proven long-term benefit to incur an expense today, I can be willing to accept the short-term consequence. But without the data necessary to make that decision today, I cannot support an over-engineered construction project spending $1- $2M dollars of taxpayer money the city does not have and will need to borrow to fund.  Thank you for your time. 4