The URL can be used to link to this page

080805 CC Reg AgP .. .. . . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ~O~AY,AlJGlJST8,2005 5755 COUNTRY CLlJB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AGE~A 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call Mayor Love _ Lizee Turgeon _ Callies Wellens B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINlJTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, July 25, 2005 (Att.- Minutes) 3. CONSENT AGE~A - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: NOTE: Give the public an opportunity to request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda. Comments can be taken or questions asked following removal from Consent Agenda. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List (Att.- Claims List) B. Staffing - No action required C. Sign Permit Request (Att. - Planning Director's memorandum) Applicant: Location: College Nannies & Tutors Learning Center 23570 Highway 7 (Shorewood Village Shopping Center) D. Authorizing Submittal of the 2005-2006 Winter Trail Activities Permit (Att. - City Administrator's memorandum) E. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for Public Works Equipment - 2 Snowplows (Att. - Public Works Director's memorandum) F. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for a Generator (Att. - Public Works Director's memorandum) 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.) .. . . . . . CITY COUNCIL AGE~A - AlJGlJST 8, 2005 PAGE20F2 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Request for Support for the Southshore Senior/Community Center (Att.- Senior Community Services memorandum) 6. PlJBLIC HEARING 7. PARKS 8. PLANNING - Report by Representative A. ParkYiew Final Plat (Att. - WSB memorandum; draft Resolution; draft Development Agreement) 9. GENERAL/NEW BlJSINESS A. Excelsior Fire District 2006 Proposed Budget (Att. - City Administrator's memorandum) B. Mound Fire Department 2006 Proposed Budget (Att. - City Administrator's memorandum) C. South Lake Minnetonka Police Department 2006 Proposed Budget (Att. - City Administrator's memorandum) 10. ENGINEERING/PlJBLIC WORKS 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff 1. County Road 19 Intersection B. Mayor & City Council 12. ADJOlJRN . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, 8 August 2005 The record time for concluding a City Council meeting is 7:26 p.m. . Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item #3B: Staffing - no action required. . Agenda Item #3C: Attracta Signs, on behalf of College Nannies and Tutors, has requested a sign permit for its new location in the Shorewood Village Shopping Center. The sign is consistent with the conditional use permit for the Center and staff recommends approval. The request includes the temporary display of a window sign until the permanent wall sign can be completed. Agenda Item #3D: Three Rivers Park District allows the City to use the Southwest LRT trail in winter months subject to a Winter Trail Activities Permit. Staff has prepared the permit application; the. activities listed on the 2005-2006 permit are unchanged from last winter. . Agenda Item #3E: Staff is recommending approval of the expenditure of funds from the equipment replacement fund for two pickup plows and appurtenances. Agenda Item #3F: Staff is recommending approval of the expenditure of funds from the equipment replacement fund for a standby generator. Agenda Item #5A: Senior Community Services is requesting support for the Southshore Senior/Community Center for 2006. A written request is included in the agenda packet. Ms. Joyce Flury will be present this evening to answer any questions. Agenda Item #8A: Bridgeland Development has submitted its final plat, plans, and . specifications for its Parkview residential subdivision on Suburban Drive. The Planning Commission had asked to review the final landscape/reforestation plan prior to Council approval. Last Tuesday, it recommended approval ofthe landscape plan. Although the issue of City water remains unresolved as of this writing, staff recommends approval of . the final plat and the development agreement attached to the resolution. #. ~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Executive Summary - City Council Meeting of August 8, 2005 Page 2 of2 Agenda Item #9A: The Excelsior Fire District Board reviewed the comments by the member cities' youncils on its preliminary 2006 budget. It made a minor adjustment (i.e., adding $2000 to motor fuels), and recommended the city councils approve the 2006 proposed budget. Approval of a simple majority of the five member city councils is sufficient for budget approval and binding upon all city councils. The cities of Deep haven, Excelsior, and Greenwood have approved the 2006 proposed budget. Fire Chief Mark DuCharme will be present at the Council meeting to address questions already raised by the Shorewood City Council, as well as others that may be posed at the meeting. Staff recommends approval of the 2006 proposed budget of the Excelsior Fire District. Agenda Item #9B: The Islands receive fire and rescue services from the City of Mound fire department. In the current three-year agreement for services, cities contracting with Mound do not get to approve the budget or their share of the costs, but they may make comments to the Mound City Council before it makes its final decision on the fire budget in December. Any comments that the Council may make would be forwarded by staff to Mound. Staff recommends that the Council accept the 2006 proposed budget for the Mound Fire Department. Agenda Item #9C: The four city councils in the SLMPD must decide what payments they will approve for the 2006 operating budget by September 1. The 2006 proposed budget of SLMPD is 3.7 percent greater than the amount requested for 2005. For Shorewood, the recommended payment is $715,806. While there are several proposals under consideration for funding allocations in 2006, the provisions of the joint powers agreement (JP A) are the only ones currently in effect. Consequently, the Council needs to act within that framework. The "required" (or "baseline") payment may be reduced if one of the member cities approves an amount less than recommended by the Coordinating Committee. The Council may provide contingencies for additional SLMPD services or payments in its 2006 budgeting process, but it should not authorize an amount greater than the one recommended by the Coordinating Committee at this time. Staff recommends that the Council approve the 2006 proposed budget of the SLMPD and the Coordinating Committee's recommended payment of $715,806 for police operations. . . . . . '; . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, JULY 25, 2005 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING {) ~[\f1 Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Love, Counci1members Callies, Lizee, Turgeon, and Wellens; Administrator Dawson; Attorney Keane, Engineer Brown, Finance Director Burton, and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: None B. Review Agenda Mayor Love reviewed the Agenda for the meeting. Administrator Dawson stated Item 3G had been deleted from the agenda for this meeting, and he requested Items lOB, "Authorize Supplemental Agreement #3 for the County Road 19 Improvement Project" and laC, "Authorize Supplemental Agreement #4 for the County Road 19 Improvement Project" be added to the Agenda for the evening. . Lizee moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the Agenda as amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES . . A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, July 11, 2005 Wellens moved, Lizee seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2005, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. B. City Council Work Session Minutes, July 18, 2005 Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes of July 18, 2005, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein: A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Staffing - No action required C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 05-064, "A Resolution Approving a Temporary Gambling License for the Lake MinnetonkalExcelsior Rotary Club." D. Adopting ORDINANCE NO. 416, "An Ordinance Setting License, Permit and Miscellaneous Fees." it: dA CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 25, 2005 Page 2 of 10 E. Sign Permit Request for Caribou Coffee, 23520 Highway 7 (Shorewood Village Shopping Center) F. Approval of Revised Education Reimbursement Policy G. Authorize Change Order for County Road 19 Project (This item was deleted from the Agenda.) H. Temporary Sign Permit Request for Dry Cleaning Station, Shorewood Village Shopping Center Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Report by Tom Skramstad, LMCD Representative Tom Skramstad, Shorewood's representative and Chair of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD), stated he was present this evening to provide a report of recent LMCD activities. He reviewed several items including issues associated with deicing permits, milfoil harvesting, zebra mussel prevention programming, formation of a boat density committee, an "outreach initiative", solar buoy lighting, the Water Patrol Deputy project, boat density and user attitude surveys, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and LMCD budget. He also noted the LMCD, in cooperation with Crystal-Pierz Marine, would be holding a special event, titled "The Future of the Lake ", on August 13 at the Excelsior Commons. Since the LMCD believed the future of the lake was in the hands of youth, the event included many youth activities, as well as exhibits on boating safety, exotic species, fishing, and much more. The Power Squadron and Water Patrol would also be present, as well as a charter boat available to take visitors on rides. Mayor Love questioned whether any thought had been given to volunteer licensing of boat drivers as part of the boat density issues of study. Mr. Skramstad stated this concept was still early in its design, but certainly could be taken into consideration. Councilmember Turgeon stated it would be helpful to provide an incentive for this type of licensing for boat owners. Mayor Love explained many insurance companies allowed a discount for completion of a boating class offered by the Power Squadron, and sometimes a gas discount as well. He went on to state he appreciated the efforts undertaken by the LMCD in this area, and with the exception of licensing fishing boat owners, he would support statewide boating licenses. 6. PUBLIC HEARING A. Easement Vacation Applicant: Dave Raisbeck Location: 26640 Edgewood Road Administrator Dawson explained the applicant had recently received approval from the City Council regarding a minor subdivision/combination and a conditional use permit. As part of those approvals, an ," . . . . . t CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 25, 2005 Page 3 of 10 . easement vacation was necessary, and as a result of those actions, the planning process necessitated a public hearing. Mayor Love opened the Public Hearing at 7:18 P.M. Director Nielsen explained that a condition of the minor division was that the applicants would grant drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the newly created parcel, per Shorewood Code requirements. The applicants also requested that existing easements on the small parcel to be purchased from Karen Zubert be vacated as well. Director Nielsen stated approval of the request was recommended by Staff and also should be contingent upon the Raisbeck's recording an Easement Agreement along with the vacation. He noted the Easement Agreement was a document that provided for the new drainage and utility easements. Furthermore, Director Nielsen stated the applicants' attorney had made revisions to the easement agreement and Director Nielsen requested a condition of approval include a contingency that the request would be approved subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. . Jeffrey Watson, attorney representing the applicants from the firm of Moss & Barnett, stated he believed this stipulation for attorney review was redundant as this condition was already present in the proposed resolution approving the matter, thus, he wished to expedite the matter and requested this condition be removed from the approval by Council. Mayor Love closed the Public Testimony portion ofthe Public Hearing at 7:21 P.M. . Clarifications were made by Council regarding the request. Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 05-065, "A Resolution Vacating Certain Drainage and Utility Easements, for Dave Raisbeck, 25540 Edgewood Road, with execution of Easement Agreement subject to approval by the City Attorney." Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Love closed the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M. . 7. PARKS A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held July 12, 2005 Commissioner Famiok reported on matters considered and actions taken at the July 12, 2005, Park Commission Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Councilmember Turgeon stated it was great to see all the projects in the City's parks recently, including the new skateboard equipment being installed at the Skate Park. 8. PLANNING Commissioner Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the July 19, 2005, Planning Commission Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). A. Preliminary Plat - Lake Virginia Shores Applicant: Virginia Shores Development, LLC Location: 27975 Smithtown Road . Director Nielsen explained this item had originally been submitted with several issues requmng resolution. Since that time, the developer had submitted a revised plat addressing those issues. Director CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 25, 2005 Page 4 of 10 Nielsen noted the most significant change in the plat was the developer had agreed to work with the property owner to the north by combining the two parcels and eliminating the need for a street extension and a future cul-de-sac to serve the northerly parcel. He explained this revision resulted in vastly improved lots from the original plat, as it resolved at least one of the issues raised by the City's engineering consultant (the retaining wall), and lot configuration issues raised by the Planning Department. Director Nielsen went on to state all of the proposed lots exceeded the minimum size requirements for the R-IA1S zoning district, ranging in area from 41,216 to 63,202 square feet. The building pads shown on the revised grading plan appeared quite ample for the size of homes that would be built in this development. Although the grading plan had been revised to show larger building pads, it still lacked the detail required by the City Engineer. The pads were shown as being "custom graded", which was somewhat common for large custom homes. The City, however, required the grading plan to show low floor and garage floor elevations on the grading plan. This grading plan should be submitted as part of the final plat. He also noted that, with the possible exception of Lots 1 and 2, none of the lots required significant site alteration beyond what was necessary to build the homes. With regard to the common driveway for Lots 1 and 2, he stated the plan demonstrated the driveway at 14 feet in width. Anything less than a fire access road (20 feet wide with adequate emergency vehicle turn-around) required that the house on Lot 2 be sprinklered. It was also recommended the driveway be at least 16 feet in order to accommodate two cars passing one another. Further recommendations included the final plat must include an easement/maintenance agreement between Lots 1 and 2 as well as a conservation easement over the wetlands and the wetland buffer areas. Director Nielsen stated that prior to the release of the final plat, the developer would be responsible for providing payment of fees for the local sanitary sewer access charges, park dedication fees, and municipal water connection charges. Director Nielsen made one additional recommendation that the trees around the ponding area and along the southerly portion of the property include replacement trees focused in those areas. In conclusion, Director Nielsen stated the revised plat was vastly improved by virtue of combining the two properties. It was therefore recommended that preliminary plat approval be granted subject to all Staff recommendations, including those of the City's engineering consultant. Director Nielsen also thanked the developer for working with the adjacent landowners to enhance the lots proposed for this project. Terry Pernsteiner, representative of Virginia Shores, LLC, stated his company had a developing interest in this property for quite some time, and had taken a sensitive methodical approach to the property and lake as an amenity for the proposed home sites and trees in the area. He also acknowledged the proposal's thirteen houses maximized the use of the natural peninsula. He stated he believed the project was consistent with the City's vision to create a legacy through prudent planning. Council had no additional questions regarding this project at this time. Callies moved, Wellens seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 05-066, "A Resolution Granting Preliminary Plat Approval for Lake Virginia Woods, subject to Staff Recommendations for Virginia Shores Development, LLC, 27975 Smithtown Road." Councilmember Lizee requested lighting plans for the project be reviewed by Council as part of the final plat review, and she requested the wetland markers be clearly placed on the property. Motion passed 5/0. t . . . . . . . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 25, 2005 Page 5 oft 0 B. C.U.P. for Accessory Building Applicant: Minnewashta Elementary School Location: 26350 Smithtown Road Director Nielsen stated the Minnetonka School District proposed building a small accessory structure on the site of the Minnewashta Elementary School located at 26350 Smithtown Road. The structure would be located to the rear of the existing school building, adjacent to the playground area. He noted the school was located in the R-lI A, Single-Family Residential zoning district and the Shorewood Zoning Code required school buildings be processed by Conditional Use Permit. He then characterized the proposed structure as being one story in height, measuring 20' x 30' and containing 600 square feet of floor area. The building would be constructed of wood, with an asphalt shingle roof and a concrete. slab for the floor. He also noted the structure was very similar in character to the picnic pavilion in Freeman Park. With regard to compliance with the City Code on this case, Director Nielsen stated due to the setback requirement for the zoning district, the proposed building would be 50 feet from the east side lot line of the school site. Staff recommended the landscaping that was done for the most recent addition. to the school be extended to the north by three additional trees. The proposed building would not affect existing parking or necessitate additional parking, nor did the proposed structure affect existing loading or service areas. In conclusion, Director Nielsen stated the proposed structure was consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and compatible with residential development, thus, Staff recommended the conditional use permit be approved so that construction of the building could take place this construction season. Paul V ogstrom, representative for the Minnetonka School District, was present to answer any questions from the Council. Wellens moved, Lizee seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 05-067, "A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for the Construction of an Accessory Building at the Minnewashta Elementary School., subject to Staff Recommendations." Motion passed 5/0. C. c.u.P. for Fill in Excess of 100 cubic yards Applicant: Ann Meldahl Location: 6180 Cathcart Drive Director Nielsen explained the applicants were the owners of the property at 6180 Cathcart Drive. Last fall, as the result of a neighborhood complaint, the City cited the applicants for placing fill and grading on the site without necessary permits. The property owners were directed to either remove the fill and restore the site, or apply for a conditional use permit. Due to concerns over drainage, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) issued a similar order, directing the applicants to submit an erosion control plan and to apply for a fill permit. He went on to explain City Staff subsequently met with the owners to discuss issues associated with the fill and grading work, and to review the process of obtaining a conditional use permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards. Since then, they had commissioned a landscape architect to prepare grading and landscaping plans. As explained by the applicants, they proposed regrading the site, by creating a series of shallow berms, with a swale to restore the previous flow of drainage through the site. Director Nielsen also went on to state the property was zoned R-IA, Single-Family Residential, and was presently occupied by the applicant's home, an attached garage and a detached garage. Director Nielsen then explained that Shorewood's Zoning Code required a conditional use permit whenever more than 100 cubic yards of material was brought onto a site. This equated to approximately CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 25, 2005 Page 6 of 10 10 dump truck loads of dirt. The subject fill on the site has been spread out, making it difficult to . determine how much material had been placed, but it was estimated that it amounted to several hundred yards. He the reviewed the proposed grading plan for the property, noting the main issues appeared to be the effects of the grading on the site and adjacent properties. He explained drainage on this site would run from north to south, and the City's concern was that improper placement of fill could back up storm water runoff upstream or force the natural drainage onto adjacent properties. Director Nielsen stated the applicants advised the City that the Watershed District had approved their grading plan and they had received a fill permit from the District to be presented to the City this evening. Director Nielsen then explained that an old culvert located at the south end of the applicant's property aggravated the drainage issue. After investigation earlier in the day, he explained this culvert was not functional and appeared to have been filled in on the south side of West 62nd Street. As a result, the City would be working with the City of Victoria to restore the flow that once existed in that area. Director Nielsen stated any approval of the conditional use permit should be subject to the recommendations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed and the City Engineer. The grading work and site restoration should be required to be completed no later than September 15,2005. Finally, the grading plan must be signed by a registered engineer or landscape architect. . Ann Meldahl, applicant, stated the dirt had inadvertently been placed on her property due to an error by her contractor in November of last year. She stated the City should be very proud of its inspector as he arrived on the scene within one hour of the fill being placed, and allowed the project to continue no further. She stated there was no one more concerned about drainage on and around her property more than she and her husband. She further stated the project would have been completed by now if they had been allowed to continue, and she hoped the matter could finally be resolved this evening. . Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 05-068, "A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit to Place Fill in Excess of 100 Cubic Yards for Ann and John Meldahl." In response to Councilmember Wellens' question, Director Nielsen anticipated the blocked culvert should be open this construction season. Motion passed 5/0. . 9. GENERALINEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Statement re: SLMPD Issues Group Administrator Dawson explained, at the request of the Greenwood City Council, all South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) member cities were asked to make concise written statements of their positions regarding the tentative agreements recommended and matters unresolved by the SLMPD Issues Group. Such a statement had been prepared, and he briefly reviewed the statement with the Council. Wellens moved, Lizee seconded, Approving the Statement of Position on SLMPD Issues Group matters, and Authorizing Execution by the Mayor, on behalf of the City Council. Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Love thanked Administrator Dawson for an excellent job of explaining and capsulizing events associated with the work of the SLMPD Issues Group in the position statement. . . . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 25, 2005 Page 7 of 10 10. ENGINEERINGIPUBLIC WORKS A. Order Preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates for Wedgewood Drive, Mallard Lane and Teal Circle Reconstruction (Att. - Public Works Director's memorandum) Engineer Brown explained that on June 9, 2005, staff conducted the last of the public information meetings for the Wedgewood Drive, Mallard Lane and Teal Circle reconstruction project. At that meeting, Staff presented the various alternatives for the roadway, along with the considerations for the installation of city water service. He also noted the meeting was well attended and staff offered comment sheets, e-mail addresses, and contact information for residents to provide feedback on the project. He then presented a summary of each of the main design alternatives for the project and provided a brief summary related to ditches or concrete edges/aprons, roadway sections, municipal water service, and drainage issues. Engineer Brown explained construction of the new roadway needed to incorporate a ditch or an edge control with storm sewer to facilitate drainage in that area. Residents indicated preference for concrete edge control rather than ditches as part of this project. Engineer Brown went on to explain, with regard to roadway sections, all roadways included in the project would be constructed to a 24-foot width with concrete edge control and other appurtenances constructed outside of this area. With regard to municipal water service, Engineer Brown briefly reviewed the process for requesting municipal water service through a petition process. He stated the petitions received did not meet the necessary percentages supporting municipal water installation as described by City ordinance. He went on to explain the most significant factor of the project was the drainage associated with it. He stated the City would be working with the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) to improve the ditch near that trail as part of this project. He also stated a drainage survey would be submitted to each property owner and all efforts would be made to work with each property owner to bring resolution to as many issues as possible associated with this project. Michael Pressman, Wedgewood Drive, stated he had submitted his comments via email on June 26, 2005, as he was not able to attend the Public Information Meeting on this matter. He stated he believed there was not enough information provided at the information meetings to adequately determine if the cost of installing curb and gutter was actually more cost effective in the long term than the other options presented. He stated since he did not believe an adequate case had been presented for curb and gutter in this area, he believed it should remain as it currently was, with only additional width added to the street for safety reasons. He did not, however, support any "No Parking" signs in that area. With regard to municipal water, he stated he did not sign the petition regarding municipal water only because it stated certain rights to appeal needed to be waived as part of the process. He believed the City could potentially gather the support necessary for installation of City water should certain legal stipulations be removed from the petition process. He asked that the petition format be reconsidered and then the public asked again or the costs paid by the homeowners be reduced in this case. Greg Sochko, 5600 Wedgewood Drive, stated he did not sign the petition for municipal water for the same reason as Mr. Pressman. He questioned the road design and associated timeline for the design process. Engineer Brown explained the road design process would take place over the winter months this year and residents would have an opportunity to review the design features. Ken Harrington, 5480 Wedgewood Drive, stated he was concerned with the prohibition of parking on the street, as there were few times when additional parking was needed on the street. However, in those CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 25, 2005 Page 8 oflO times, it was quite necessary to allow street parking in additional to the residential driveways. He stated . he was affected the most by the drainage in that area, as often his yard was under two feet of ice in the winter months. He stated the drainage area near his house had not been touched in eight years and required a significant amount of maintenance and cleanup that he hoped would be associated with this project. He suggested directing the stormwaterrunoff in that area to an underground pipe with a holding pond on or near his property. Pam Evans, 5460 Wedgewood Drive, stated her four and five-foot pine trees were underwater as a result of the drainage in this area. She stated she agreed with Mr. Pressman's comments on this issue. Sharon Starks, 5420 Wedgewood Drive, stated she learned of the project through an article in the newsletter, and she had sent emails to the City requesting consideration of other options for this project. She was not aware of any other options being presented in this project, and stated she also supported Mr. Pressman's comments, including those comments relating to municipal water installation. Tammy Corder, 5680 Wedgewood Drive, stated she resided at the corner lot on Wedgewood and Harding Avenue, where the natural drainage pattern allowed for water two feet deep in the wooded area behind her house. She also knew there was a daycare in the neighborhood and she requested the project be revised to include a narrower roadway in order to force slower speeds on the roadway to enhance safety in that area. Mayor Love stated he believed the Council had examined the possibilities of curb and gutter in the area with an emphasis on water quality improvements as well. He stated he liked the ponding idea proposed by residents this evening, but had several questions related to the wording on the petition for municipal water service. Engineer Brown stated the format utilized for the petition included standardized wording required for this process. Attorney Keane stated a petition could be granted for a feasibility study without petitioning for an entire project, thereby allowing residents to waive the right to appeal once a project was deemed feasible. Engineer Brown also stated the petition process had not been revisited in recent years and required some updating. Councilmember Turgeon stated she believed the petition process hindered the representation of residents desiring municipal water in that area, and requested Council consider its policy on the process for petitioning matters such as this one. Further she stated she thought it would be prudent for the City to examine possibilities associated with installation of municipal water at the same time roadway improvements were taking place in city neighborhoods. Administrator Dawson stated it had been City practice for property owners to pay for a feasibility study for a project without consideration of the fmaloutcome of the study. He stated the Council might want to consider working with the City Attorney to draft language that would allow for an amendment in the petitioning process regarding installation of municipal water service in this case. In response to Councilmember Turgeon's question, Engineer Brown explained it would be prudent to explore the installation of municipal water service as part of the design for the project with a more detailed cost estimate for water service. Once designed and estimated, this design would be presented to residents for additional consideration. Steve Reed, 5455 Mallard Lane, stated there were several duplexes in the project area with several vacancies. He stated duplex owners were sensitive to the cost associated with the project and installation of municipal water service since the installation was cost-prohibitive without incentive to duplex owners. . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 25, 2005 Page 9 of 10 . Ms. Evans agreed, noting more education needed to be done for multiple-family housing owners to demonstrate how a project such as this one could show positive resale incentives to area residents and owners. Mayor Love stated, while water was always a controversial issues for residents, he believed there was a process in place for consideration of this issue, albeit not as simple as originally thought. He stated he believed better determination of the residents with regard to municipal water service installation was warranted. Councilmember Callies agreed, noting she believes it's worthy to revisit the policy for petitioning residents and she, too, thought it was confusing regarding the petitioning process and not enough information had been presented to make a determination of cost savings with regard to the options presented. . After a brief discussion of creative options possible for the project, Councilmember Turgeon stated she would like to revisit the municipal water service petitioning process at a later date in a Work Session meeting format. Mayor Love indicated support; however, he advocated that it was the responsibility the City to examine the possibility of the City paying for the feasibility study in an amount, not to exceed $6000, as part of examination of the City's infrastructure. . Councilmember Wellens stated he would support review of the policy and presentation of the revised policy and subsequent issues affecting the project being submitted to residents for additional review at a later time. He stated the Council could move forward with this project and allow the water to be added in a later portion of the project, while continuing to study and revise the City petitioning policy. A brief discussion ensued regarding the ramifications associated with Councilmember Wellens' suggestions on how to proceed with these matters. Engineer Brown confirmed Council's consensus for the roadway width associated with the proposed project. . Wellens moved, Callies seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 05-069, "A Resolution Ordering Preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimate for the Wedgewood Drive, Mallard Lane, and Teal Circle Reconstruction Project, including the addition of Item 4 to the resolution directing Staff to prepare a feasibility study including street reconstruction, drainage, and municipal water service. Motion passed 5/0. B. Authorize Supplemental Agreement #3 for the County Road 19 Improvement Project Mayor Love recessed the meeting at 8:50 and reconvened the meeting at 9:03 P.M. C. Authorize Supplemental Agreement #4 for the County Road 19 Improvement Project . Engineer Brown stated Item lOB and 10C would be discussed at this time. He then briefly reviewed the supplemental agreements for the project, and noted Staff recommended approval of them. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 25, 2005 Page 10 of 10 Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 05-070, "A Resolution . Approving Supplemental Agreement #3 for the County Road 19 Intersection Reconstruction Project, S.A.P. 216-101-02; S.A.P. 27-619-18" and RESOLUTION NO. 05-071, "A Resolution Approving Supplemental Agreement #4 for the County Road 19 Intersection Improvement Project, S.A.P. 216-101-02; S.A.P. 27-619-18." Motion passed 5/0. Engineer Brown also requested two volunteers from the eouncil to serve on a committee for the County Road 19 project. Councilmembers Callies and Lizee volunteered their time and efforts for this committee. With thanks, Mayor Love appointed them as volunteers to this committee. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff 1. County Road 19 Intersection Engineer Brown reported there would be a shift in the traffic pattern along County Road 19 in the next . several days as the project moved forward in its construction phase. He stated the project continued to progress nicely despite the recent wet weather issues. B. Mayor & City Council Mayor Love noted several upconung meetings for VarIOUS Councilmembers and invited all Councilmembers to attend. . 12. ADJOURN Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded, Adjourning the July 25, 2005, Regular City Council Meeting at 9:10 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Sally Keefe, Recording Secretary . Woody Love, Mayor ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk . . . . . . . PAYABLESAPPROVALS For8/8/0S Council Meeting Prepared by: ~i 7~-Pate: Michelle'1T. Nguye A co nting Clerk ~ Date:~~f/~ Date: ()#.II!tt? son, City Administrator ,;. ,- L /i.5iT . CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD; MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 . www.cLshorewood.mn.us . cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM . TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: .. Brad Nielsen DATE: 3 August 2005 RE: Sign Permit - College Nannies & Tutors (ShorewoodVillage Shopping Center) . FILE NO. 405 (Sigil Permits) ,\ ~- Attracta Sign, on beh~lfof College Nannies & Tutors, has requested a sign permit for their location within the Shorewood Village SQ.opping Center located at 23570 Highway 7. Consistent with the most recently approved overall signage planf()rthe center, the sign will be located within the signageband on the front of the building as illustrated in . Exhibit A,. attached. . It should be noted that in-line tenants are allowed one window sign limited to the business name and open/closed information only. Furth~rmore, window signage area, up to a maximum of three square feet, is to be included in the total allowable sign area (20 square feet per tenant). Since the wall sign measures 19.59 square feet,nowindow signage will be available unless itis less than .5 square foot or the wall sign is reduced. The plan is consistent with previous approvals and it is recommended that the permit be granted. If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate tocontact my office. cc: Craig Dawson Attracta Sign College Nannies & Tutors . ft '-.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER #3. C. I. T' I 1 ! I i I i I I ;~.\ , :i"'I I I . I I I j ! ~ i I i ! I I I I 1 I 1- . -I; "---- ~__ '-'_ . nlloo .il i ~ ..,;~ .K~ I r- ,'9Z_.! ':'. >= ; > "liii! , I' J:.... '.... "" ~1l'~ ,. it "', '5 ;..'1~'1.. .~ .:. ~ a ;~ ~i Ii ;.~, ~e~1 ~ ....IM~ I...." tI , ~J ."". Ir~ =.,.~ F "'~,'" .0; ,'l$i ~ I ,~ ..... . ,;,..,,"'. ~ .:: Vj'!: :~ ~. I '" ~~~ :~. "i '.l: .';,;) W :~ w ., .~ l' ~ ~:; ,~~ ;~ ~l ~ ., ~ ;~ Exhibit A . CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD- SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 - (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM DATE: August 4, 2005 . FROM: Mayor and City Council Members Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator (}b Southwest LRT Regional Trail Winter Use Permit TO: RE: . Three Rivers Park District manages the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (BCRRA's) Southwest LRT Regional Trail. It requires that cities maintain the Trail during the winter (November 15 through March 31) for specific activities listed in their Winter Use Permit. . Staff has prepared the 2005-2006 permit application with the following activities being identified: hiking, biking, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, pet walking, and horseback-riding. These activities remain unchanged from last year. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the submission of the Winter Use Permit for 2005-2006 to Three Rivers Park District. . :#,3D n 'o.J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM 2005-2006 WINTER USE PERMIT Name of City Shorewood City Hall Phone 952-474-3236 Contact Person Craig W. Dawson 952-474-3236 Phone Regional Trail From through the City of Shorewood to Authorized 2005-2006 Winter Activities hiking. buiking. snow shoein~, cross country skiing, pet walking, and horseback riding Regional Trail From Authorized 2005-2006 Winter Activities to Regional Trail From Authorized 2005-2006 Winter Activities to Regional Trail From Authorized 2005-2006 Winter Activities to Authorization is hereby requested from the Park District Board of Commissioners to use portions ofthe Regional Trail Corridor for winter use activities b~etween November 15, 2005 and March 31, 2006, as determined by each municipality within guidelines set forth herein on District property located within individual City boundaries. It is understood and agreed that approval from the Park District Board of Commissioners is contingent upon the following conditions: . The City agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Park District, its officials, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees from any liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the City, its respective contractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by the, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable for related to the winter use of the Regional Trail Corridor. If City maintains general liability insurance at the time this permit is issued, City shall provide the Park District with a Certificate of Insurance, naming Three Rivers Park District as an additional named insured. . The City agrees to maintain the trail, including, but not limited to, any plowing, sweeping, sanding, packing, trash pick-up, and sign replacement, between November 15, 2005-March 31, 2006. The City further agrees to immediately address all safety issues on or adjacent to trails. . . . . . ,I " . . . . . . The City will provide signage at locations approved by the Park District, notifying the public of authorized winter activities within its city limits; activities may include, but are not limited to, hiking, biking, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, or pet walking. Winter use signs must be installed by the City at designated locations prior to November 15, 2005 and removed by the City no later than April 15, 2006. These signs are totally the responsibility of each municipality. · Snowmobiling is not allowed on asphalt trails. Permitted use for snowmobiles will be limited to direct crossing and/or in areas where the snowmobile trail is kept from running on paved trails and bridges. If snowmobiling is permitted, cities must take steps to keep snowmobiles from damaging paved trails, bridges and other property. · The City agrees to enforce rules and regulations established by the municipality as part of its request for a Winter Use Permit. · The City agrees to repair all trail surface damage that occurs as a result of winter trail activities and/or maintenance, including, but not limited to, bituminous/concrete repair, bridge deck repair, grading or adding aggregate pursuant to guidelines established by the Park District. · The City agrees that winter trail use will be available to all persons, regardless of residence. Each City is required to submit its annual permit requests, including proposed rules and regulations, by September 30, 2005, after which the Park District may take up to 45 business days to process. Each permit request must be submitted as a result of formal City Council action, with accompanying verification, agreeing to the terms and conditions outlined by the Park District's Winter Use Permit. It should be further understood that no winter activity will be allowed on segments ofthe Regional Trail Corridor where municipalities do not request and receive permits. The Park District reserves the right to terminate a permit at any time, if the conditions set forth herein are not followed. Signed: Date: Title: (Authorized Representative of the City) . CITY OF SHOREWOOD . 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 . www.cLshorewood.mn.us . cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works . DATE: August 4, 2005 RE: Authorization for Expenditure of Funds for Two Pickup Plows and Appurtenances . The Department of Public Works has taken delivery of the two pickup trucks authorized as part of the 2005 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). City logos, radio equipment and safety equipment have been installed. The last remaining expenditure for these vehicles is installation of snow plows. Attachment 1 is the state contract for plows for pickup trucks. It should be noted that the authorization being requested is for both trucks, versus the quantity of one shown in the proposal. . The City of Shorewood is a member of the cooperative purchasing venture through the State of Minnesota. This allows the City to take advantage of the competitive public bidding process that has already been performed by the State. In addition, the city can take advantage of the lower bid prices that the State receives, due to economies of scale. The expenditure for the plows was budgeted as part of the equipment replacement fund - pickup purchases. Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of the expenditure of funds from the equipment replacement fund for two pickup plows and appurtenances, as outlined in attachment 1. . 4f ,3 r; n ~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER l . 612-861-5047 Proposal. 10084 TO: City of Shorewood 24200 Smithtown Road Shorewood. MM. 55331 Attn~ Lorry Brown VEHICLE MAKE: ford eQUIPMeNT+INO 6022 Pillsbury Avenue South Minneapolis. MN 55419 800-905-2265 MODEL: F2501 F350 YEAR: 2006 DATE: 8.4.05 PHONE: 952.474.6191 FAX: 952.474.6191*2 DELIVERYIINSTALL: In Stock FOB: Minneapo11s QlY PRODUCT DESCRIPTION PRICE AMOUNT .. ..-.... -.--. .....,--.... ---.. .. -..........- _~!O~L~.!...__.__. , _. -.- 2 ~1 ~.z~~~~_!~W~~ !~! _~2~~~..:.~~~.!.,!~~.Ys!i ck $ 4,817.00 $ 9.634.00 . .. ._-~- --.... "--..-..........-----. . ---- 2 }~.~!~~~.!.~~~ :h~ .~bov~ .P].~w..:.:~~p..!:~e___._ $ 350.00 $ 700.00 .a.._..._ -.-- -- ---... ----. ..----.- " ..... w 'dPTiOits:'" ~. ----.. ...-....... .a_.I.. ......--...--- - ~ -- 2 B~IZZARD Snow Deflector. Insta"ed $ 170.00 $ 340.00 I--._~"''''' .. ... - .....- ..~... --------- "- ----. --.- .--.... -. ----. .- ~.Md..t_~~. ~_ap.~.~le. ** "-' - -- ...-...... 1--- .....---.- . .' ..... N~"~.. T~_!~.!,~,~)~es reflect o~~ proposal turned into the . . . "'" _. .~~~! MH. for the upcoming truck equipment contrac . __. S_e.!..~~1~h~'p.Y of our ma~ricin9 sheet submitted. .. ..._...- ... -..- -'. .,-,..-.---- -....- ~... - .. .......-.....-- ...--.- .. .~.. -...-. _._- --. '". .-.- .-...... 1_........ . .. ..." ....-......-. TERMS: Net 10 Days FINANCING: N/A SUB TOTAL Thls produClIa wamnIIed from lhe m8llufaclu18r for a period Df ...L year(.). INSTALLATION warranty covel1. 6 IabDr perfotmad only at Slonebrooke Equipment, Inc. TAX Quotation valid for 80 dOYI from above dele, a hDraby aOreD to lhD Quollllon abm and wlll hDld reDPonslbll1ty 'Dr GRANO TOTAL see above . . . paymanl upon delivery or lnetallal10n 01 Ilia product atalOd herein. CUSTOMER SIGNATURE DATE Attachment 1 State Contract Pricing . . . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn,us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: August 4, 2005 RE: Authorization for expenditure of Funds - Generator the Wastewater Systems The 2005 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) has a budgeted item for the purchase of a ba~kup trailer mounted generator for the wastewater systems. Currently, the City owns one portable generator for both the water and wastewater systems. Often times, department personnel are forced to weigh out whether the water or sanitary sewer lift stations are supplied with emergency power. Therefore, the purchase of a second generator was included as part of the 2005 CIP. Staff has solicited quotes for a 65 kilowatt standby generator. Table one summarizes the quotes received. Warranty Pricing Vendor Generator Options Provided Offered as Base Type Quote Powerhouse Baldor 115v Power Outlet 3 years $ 26,650.00 Systems TS80T Station; Cold Weather Start Package, Delivery, Startup and Training Northern Magnum 115v Power Outlet 2 Years , $ 26,266.00 Dewatering, MMG80 Station; Digital controls, Inc. - Cold Weather Start Package, Delivery, Startup and Training Table 1 It is noteworthy, the vendor of Powerhouse Systems included a 3 year warranty as part of the base bid. Warranties for generators are very critical. Therefore, since the pricing is so close, staff is recommending that the proposal provided by Powerhouse systems be accepted. ft '.: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER -#,3f Mayor and City Council Authorization of Expenditure of Funds Wastewater Generator August 4, 2005 Page 2 of2 . As part of the authorization, staff will be purchasing 100 amp cables, hardware and auxiliary lighting that will be used for the lift stations. Therefore, the total amount requested is $27,650. This is well under the amount budget in the 2005 CIP. Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of an authorization for the expenditure of funds from the Equipment Replacement Fund for one generator (as outlined in the proposal by Power House Systems) and appurtenances, in the amount of $27,650.00 . . . . . . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Senior Community Services, Request for 2006 Funding Senior Community Services (SCS) is the provider of programming at the Southshore Community Senior Center. For the past several years, SCS has requested funding from the five South Lake Minnetonka cities to be used for its programming activities. Formerly, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds through Hennepin County were available to fulfill the services provided by SCS. Around 2000 or so, federal cutbacks to the CDBG funds resulted in fewer dollars available to Hennepin County to continue its level of funding for the services provided by SCS. At that time, SCS approached the five South Lake Minnetonka cities for funding to fill the gap, so that participants at the Southshore Center would be able to maintain the activities that had been available for many years. SCS is requesting that the Council consider including $6,500 in the 2006to continue funding for its services at the Southshore Center. This amount is the same as what Council approved for 2005. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council direct that $6,500 be included in the 2006 proposed budget for Senior Community Services at the Southshore Community Senior Center. ':A=-,SA #'1- '-~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ///// BOARD OF DIRECTORS John A. Lawson President David F. Fisher 1 st Vice President John Gray 2nd Vice President Phil Kem Treasurer Laurie Lafontaine Secretary Gordon Hughes Past President Gloria Johnson Member-at-Large Marvin Johnson Member-at-Large Sharon Burnham Cheryl. Fischer Marty Guritz Francis Hagen Sandy Hewitt Aiko Higuchi Rep. Ann Lenczewski Dr. Chinyere (Ike) Njaka Dotty O'Brien Senator Gen Olson Curtis A. Pearson Tom Ticen Benjamin F. Withhart Executive Director & C.E.O. PROGRAMS . Supporting Positive Aging - Transportation - Community Senior Centers · Caregiver Support Services - Senior Outreach · Frail Elder Support Services . - H.O.M.E. - Senior Outreach A Founding Member of Eldercare Partners . A United Way Agency SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 10709 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 111, Minnetonka, MN 55305-1529 Phone: (952) 541-1019 FAX: (952) 541-0841 E-mail: scs@seniorcommunity.org Website: www.seniorcommunio/.org . June 16, 2005 JUN 2 1 ?cn'i Mayor Woody Love and City Council Members City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mayor Love and Council Members: On behalf of the local seniors who utilize the Southshore Senior/Community Center, our. sincere thanks for your past support. Last year the Center served 1 ,835 local area seniors. The Center offers a wide variety of programs assisting residents of your community to remain as independent and active as possible. Most Center participants are over 75. For many the Center serves as the principal point of access to needed services and information. Activities include health screenings, physical exercise classes, counseling groups, daily noon meals, tax and energy assistance, recreational groups, a wide range of cultural and educational activities and transportation. The transportation service allows those people who no longer drive to continue to grocery shop on their own and to do personal errands without having to depend on others. . . We are requesting $6,500 from the City of Shorewood for budget year 2006. The City will agree the Center Programisa valuable asset to the citizens of our community and deserving of your continued support. We would be very willing to meet with the City Council (workshop or regular meeting) to discuss our request. The contact person for our request is our Center Director, Joyce Flury (474-7977). . ~rJ;4kj ~min F. Withhart . Executive Director . cc: Craig Dawson, City Administrator . . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2005 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Gagne called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. ROLLCALL Present: Acting Chair Gagne; Commissioners Conley, Meyer, White and Woodruff; Council Liaison Wellens and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Chair Bailey (arrived at 7: 11 P.M.); Commissioner Gniffke APPROVAL OF MINUTES · July 5, 2005 Conley moved, White seconded, Approving the July 5, 2005, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended to include Commissioner Woodruff as present in the Roll Call. Motion passed 4/0/1, with Gagne abstaining due to absence at that meeting. 1. DISCUSS SIGN ORDINANCE Director Nielsen explained this item had been postponed until a date in the future. 2. DISCUSS REDEVELOPMENT ISSUES OF PLANNING DISTRICT NO.6 Director Nielsen stated he had received several inquiries recently regarding the commercial properties in Planning District 6 that could potentially be slated for redevelopment. Based on these requests, Director Nielsen stated it was prudent to begin to discuss possible issues associated with redevelopment of this district. He then reviewed the physical characteristics of the district as well as the surrounding land use and zoning for the properties discussed. Next, he reviewed the issues associated with the commercial properties located in the district. Chair Bailey arrived at 7:11 P.M. and Acting Chair Gagne gave control of the meeting to Chair Bailey. Director Nielsen stated he had explained to interested developers that the current properties' use was the use established in the current Comprehensive Plan for the City and to make changes to those uses would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment by the City. Commissioner Conley stated he was quite excited to see such a proactive approach being taken by the City for this district. He stated it was a "gateway" entrance for the City, on the easterly side of this district, with a strong commercial presence in that area. He stated this district also was near the service district associated with the Public Safety Facility and consideration should be given to blending the needs of those two districts. In addition, he thought it important to preserve green space in any redevelopment of the district, and he noted the lake views would allow for image and as an amenity in this district. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 19, 2005 Page 2 of2 Commissioner Gagne stated he would be opposed to allowing this district to be rezoned to residential only due to concerns about increased density and the associated traffic ramifications with accessing County Road 19 in that area. . Commissioner Woodruff stated he thought the district might lend itself to a Planned Unit Development as a compromise to the residential zoning issue. Discussion ensued by the Commission regarding the ramifications associated with changing the Comprehensive Plan and the process for doing so. Council Liaison Wellens stated he had several questions related to potential redevelopment of this district. He suggested working with various agencies including the Hennepin County Railroad Authority, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the City of Excelsior and the Shorewood Yacht Club for any future plans for this district. Discussion ensued regarding meeting with the Council in a Joint Work Session Meeting format for this district. All agreed this meeting would be beneficial. Discussion also ensued regarding further . consideration of these redevelopment issues at a future meeting of the Planning Commission. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA . Director Nielsen stated there was a public hearing for a variance to build on a substandard lot, and a review of the landscape plan for a preliminary plat for the Parkview project on Suburban Drive slated for the August 2,2005, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. 5. REPORTS · Liaison to Council . Commissioner Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the July 1 I, 2005, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). · SLUC Director Nielsen announced the topic for the next meeting of the Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUe) would be "Bloomington Central Station: The Third Urban Center. " Interested Commissioners were encouraged to submit registration forms promptly. · Other There was no other business presented this evening. 6. ADJOURNMENT Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of July 19, 2005, at 8:25 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. . RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Sally Keefe, Recording Secretary - .. WSB il\ \'. '~,) & Associates. Inc. Infrastructure I Engineering I Planning I constructi~on ~~.. . Memorandum ~, J\J\.. " "\ \ To: Brad Nielsen, City of Sltorewood \.. O~ S'f\l . .A~ From: Steve Gurney, WSB & Associates, Inc.r---- .J'.~......oJ' \. 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 JMinneapOlis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 .' )00 ax: 763-541-1700 cc: Larry Brown, City of Sltorewood Matt Pavek, Terra Engineering, Inc. Dave Hutton, WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: July 26, 2005 Re: Parkview Subdivision City of Sltorewood, MN WSB Project No. 1459-03 . We have reviewed the items submitted by Terra Engineering, Inc. related to the Parkview development. Items reviewed as part of this review include the construction plans and the final drainage report dated July 11,2005. Based on this review, we offer the following comments: · · The proposed low building opening for Lots 7,8, and 9 does not provide the required 3 foot of free board between the finished floor elevation and the pond laO-year high water level. The grading plan must be revised. . · The sanitary sewer alignment must be modified so that the sanitary manholes.fall within the centerline of the road and not the wheel paths as currently configured. · Note #2 of the utility notes on Sheet 3 should reference SDR-35 pipe, as shown on the profile. · No wetland mitigation plan has been submitted. It is requested that the WCA application be provided for review. · The emergency overflow adjacent to the low point in the street is approximately 1 foct above the low point. This may create a safety hazard if the stonn sewer pipe to the proposed pond becomes clogged. · The outlet of the proposed pond must be constructed so that it provides skimming of floatables during stonn events smaller than a 2-year stonn even. . · It is anticipated that the impacts of the proposed development will have minimal impacts on the existing pond in Manor Park. The lOa-year high water level (HWL) for the Minneapolis I St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer K: 101 o/59-0JlAdmiIlIDocs\ME ~8.A. '. . . . . . Brad Nielsen July 26, 2005 Page 2 existing pond (SAB 2) within Manor Park under the existing conditions is 987.9, not 987.4 as shown on Sheet 1. This HWL is based on a revised analysis which included revising SCS Curve Numbers for the subwatershed tributary to the pond and also revising the stage storage data associated with the pond in Manor Park. A similar analysis was then completed for the proposed conditions. The HWL under proposed conditions is raised to 988.1, an increase of 0.2 feet. The existing 9-inch outlet restricts the flow out of this pond to 1.6 cfs, which is a 0.1 cfs increase in lOa-year peak runoff rate. This concludes our review of the Parkview development. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 763-287-7164. tsh K:\Olo/59-0Jl~dmill\Docs\MEMO - hllielsell - 072505."oc . . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF PARKVIEW WHEREAS, the final plat of Parkview has been submitted in the manner required for the platting ofland under the Shorewood City Code and under Chapter 462 of Minnesota Statutes, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; and WHEREAS, said plat is consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of the City of Shorewood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. The plat of Parkview is hereby approved. 2. The approval is specifically conditioned upon the Developer recording the Development Agreement attached hereto and made a part hereof as Attachment I. 3. The Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk are authorized to execute the Certificate of Approval for the plat on behalf of the City Council. 4. The final plat, together with this resolution, and the Development Agreement shown as Attachment I shall be recorded within thirty (30) days of the date of certification of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the execution of the Certificate upon said plat by the Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk shall be conclusive, showing a proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality, all in compliance with Minnesota Statutes and the Shorewood City Code. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 8th day of August 2005. WOODY LOVE, MAYOR ATTEST: CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK -D-R-A-F-T- . CITY OF SHOREWOOD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PARKVIEW THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of 2005, by and between the CITY OF SHOREWOOD, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and BRIDGELAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., a Minnesota Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "Developer". WHEREAS, the Developer has an interest in certain lands legally as: . "Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, Block 2, Minnetonka Manor, according to the recorded plat thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota"; which lands are hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"; and . WHEREAS, Developer proposes to develop the Subject Property into nine (9) single- family residential lots; and WHEREAS, the Developer has made application for a preliminary plat for the property with the Zoning Administrator, which preliminary plat was considered by the Planning Commission at their meeting held on 7 June 2005, and at a meeting of the City Council on 13 June 2005; and . WHEREAS upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council did consider and grant preliminary plat approval as set forth in Resolution No. 05-059; and WHEREAS, the Developer has filed with the City the Final Plat for "Parkview", a copy of which plat is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A' , NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and guarantees contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: . 1) Conditions of Approval - The Developer shall comply with the conditions of approval as adopted by the City Council and set forth in Resolution No. 05-059, incorporated herein as Exhibit B. In addition, development of the property is subject to the requirements of the R-IC, Single-Family Residential zoning district. (01) Minimum setbacks (for all structures) shall be as follows: 1 Attachment I . (a) Front: (b) Rear: (c) Side: (d) Side yard abutting a street: ( e) Wetland buffer/Setback: 35 feet 40 feet 10 feet 35 feet 35/15 feet (02) Maximum building height, as defined by the Shorewood Zoning Code, shall be two and one-half stories or 35 feet, whichever is less. (03) The Developer shall comply with the requirements of Shorewood's wetland code (Chapter 1102) and the Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991 [Minn. Stat. 103 G.221 et. seq. (hereinafter referred to as the WCA)]. It is the intent of this agreement that areas adjacent to wetlands be maintained in their natural state. . (a) A minimum 35-foot buffer strip shall be maintained adjacent to all wetlands. The Developer shall provide a conservation easement, in favor of the City, over the wetland buffer area. (b) Natural vegetation shall be maintained in wetland buffer strips. Where disturbed by site development, wetland buffer strips shall be restored with natural vegetation. (c) Wetland buffer strips shall be identified within each lot by permanent monumentation approved by the City and by planting of woody wetland shrubs as illustrated on the approved Final Landscape Plan, prepared by Terra Engineering, Inc., dated 19 July 2005, attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit C. (d) A monument is required at each lot line where it crosses a wetland buffer strip and as necessary to establish required setbacks from the wetland buffer strip. Monuments shall be placed within 60 days of completion of site grading or prior to issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first. (e) The Developer shall record with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles, a notice of the wetland buffer requirement against the title of each lot with a required wetland buffer strip. (f) No structures, including, but not limited to, decks, patios, and play equipment may be located in the wetland buffer strip or the required wetland setback area, except that fences shall be allowed within the wetland setback area. . . 2.) Improvements Installed by Developer - Developer agrees at its expense to construct, install and perform all work and furnish all materials and equipment in connection with the installation of the following improvements: . (01) Public street grading, graveling and stabilizing, including constructing and sodding of berms, swales, and boulevards; 2 . (02) Public street surfacing, including surmountable curbs, gutters and driveway approaches; (03) Storm sewers, when determined to be necessary by the City, including all necessary catch basins, ditches, inlets, retention areas and other appurtenances; (04) Sanitary sewer laterals or extensions, including all necessary building services and other appurtenances; (05) Water main laterals or extensions, including all necessary building services, hydrants, valves and other appurtenances; (06) Required tree preservation, reforestation and landscaping (n. . (07) Street name signs and traffic control signs; consistent with the plans and specifications prepared by Terra Engineering, Inc., dated 11 July 2005, and received and approved by the City Engineer. . It is understood that underground utility lines, including gas, electric, telephone, and television cable shall be installed by the respective private utility companies pursuant to separate agreements with the Developer. . 3.) Final Plat. Grading. Drainage and Utility Plan. Building Plan - The Developer has filed with the City Clerk the final plat titled Parkview for the development of the Subject Property. Said plat is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A. Said final plat, together with the grading, drainage, and utility plans, referenced in paragraph 2 above and this Development Agreement, is herewith adopted and approved by the City. 4.) Pre~construction Meeting - Prior to the commencement of construction, Developer or its engineer shall arrange for a pre-construction meeting to be held at Shorewood City Hall. Such meeting shall be coordinated with the City Engineer and shall include all appropriate parties specified by the City Engineer. 5.) Standards of Construction - Developer agrees that all of the improvements set forth in paragraph 2 above shall be constructed and installed in accordance with engineering plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer and the requirements of applicable City ordinances and standards, and that all of said work shall be subject to final inspection and approval by the City Engineer. . 6.) Materials and Labor - All of the materials to be employed in the making of said improvements and all of the work performed in connection therewith shall be of uniformly good and workmanlike quality, shall equal or exceed the quantities and qualities required by the approved plans and specifications, and shall be subject to inspection and approval of the City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld 3 . . . . . if the materials and work are consistent with the plans and specifications and the standards set forth herein. In case any materials or labor supplied shall be rejected by the City as defective or unsuitable, then such rejected materials shall be removed and replaced with approved materials, and rejected labor shall be done anew to the reasonable satisfaction and approval of the City at the cost and expense of Developer. 7.) Schedule of Work - The Developer shall submit a written schedule in the form of a bar chart indicating the proposed progress schedule and order of completion of work covered by this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the work set forth in paragraph 2, except the final lift of asphalt, shall be performed to be completed by 1 November 2005. The final lift of asphalt shall be completed by 1 July 2006. Upon receipt of written notice from the Developer of the existence of causes over which the Developer has no control, which will delay the completion of the work, the City, at its discretion, may extend the dates specified for completion. 8.) As~Built Plan ~ Within sixty (60) days after the completion of construction of the Improvements, Developer shall cause its engineer to prepare and file with the City a full set of "as-built" plans, including a mylar original and two (2) black line prints, showing the installation of the Improvements within the plat. Failure to file said "as-built" plans within said sixty (60) day period shall suspend the issuance of building permits and certificates of occupancy for any further construction within the plat until the documents called for herein are filed. 9.) Easements - Developer, at its expense, shall acquire all easements from abutting property owners necessary to the installation of the sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and surface water drainage facilities within the plat, if and to the extent required by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and thereafter promptly assign said easements to the City. 10.) Pre-existing Drain Tile - All pre-existing drain tile disturbed by Developer during construction shall be restored by Developer. 11.) Staking. Surveying and Inspection - It is agreed that the Developer, through its engineer, shall provide for all staking and surveying for the above-described improvements and delineation of the wetland buffer areas. In order to ensure that the completed improvements conform to the approved plans and specifications, the City will provide for resident inspection as determined necessary by the City Engineer. 12.) Grading. Drainage. and Erosion Control- Developer, at its expense, shall provide grading, drainage and erosion control plans to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Said plans shall provide for temporary dams, earthwork or such other devices and practices, including seeding of graded areas, as reasonably necessary, to prevent the washing, flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands and streets within and outside the plat during all phases of construction. Developer shall keep all streets within, and adjacent to, the plat free of all dirt and debris resulting from construction therein by the Developer, its agents or assignees. 4 . . . . . 13.) Street Signs - Developer, at its expense, shall provide standard city street identification signs and traffic control signs in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, as directed by the City Engineer. 14.) Access to Residences - Developer shall provide reasonable access, including temporary grading and graveling, to all residences affected by construction until the streets are accepted by the City. 15.) Occupancy Permits - The City shall not issue a certificate of occupancy until all Improvements set forth in paragraph 2, except the final lift of asphalt, are completed and approved by the City Engineer. 16.) Final Inspection - At the written request of the Developer, and upon completion of the Improvements set forth in paragraph 2 above, the City Engineer, the contractor, and the Developer's engineer will make a final inspection of the work. When the City Engineer is satisfied that all work is completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, and the Developer's engineer has submitted a written statement attesting to same, the City Engineer shall recommend that the improvements be accepted by the City. 17.) Convevance of Improvements - Upon completion of the installation by Developer and approval by the City Engineer of the improvements set forth in paragraph 2 above, the Developer shall convey said improvements to the City free of all liens and encumbrances and with warranty of title, which shall include copies of all lien waivers. Should the Developer fail to so convey said improvements, the same shall become the property of the City without further notice or action on the part of either party hereto, other than acceptance by the City. 18.) Replacement - All work and materials performed and furnished hereunder by the Developer, its agents and subcontractors, found by the City to be defective within one year after acceptance by the City, shall be replaced by Developer at Developer's sole expense. Within a period of thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the said one-year period, Developer shall perform a televised inspection of all sanitary sewer lines within the plat and provide the City with a VHS videotape thereof. 19.) Restoration of Streets. Public Facilities and Private Properties - The Developer shall restore all City streets and other public facilities and any private properties disturbed or damaged as a result of Developer's construction activities, including sod with necessary black dirt, bituminous replacement, curb replacement, and all other items disturbed during constrUction. 20.) Reimbursement of Costs - The Developer shall reimburse the City for all costs, including reasonable engineering, legal, planning and administrative expenses incurred by the City in connection with all matters relating to the administration and enforcement of the within Agreement and the performance thereof by the Developer. Such reimbursement of costs shall be made within thirty (30) days ofthe date of mailing of the City's notice of costs to the address set forth in paragraph 29 below. 5 . 21.) Claims for Work - The Developer or its contractor shall do no work or furnish no materials not covered by the plans and specifications and special conditions of this Agreement, for which reimbursement is expected from the City, unless such work is first ordered in writing by the City Engineer as provided in the specifications. Any such work or materials which may be done or furnished by the contractor without such written order first being obtained shall be at its own risk, cost and expense. . 22.) Surety for Improvements - Deposit or Letter of Credit - For the purpose of assuring and guaranteeing to the City that the improvements to be constructed, installed and furnished by the Developer as set forth in paragraph 2 above, shall be constructed, installed and furnished according to the terms of this Agreement, and to ensure that the Developer submit to the City as-built plans as required in paragraph 8 and that the Developer pay all claims for work done and materials and supplies furnished for the performance of this Agreement, the Developer agrees to furnish to the City either a cash deposit or an irrevocable letter of credit approved by the City in an amount equal to 150% of the total cost of said Improvements estimated by the Developer's engineer and approved by the City Engineer. Said deposit or letter of credit shall remain in effect for a period of one year following the completion of the required improvements. The deposit or letter of credit may be reduced in amount at the discretion of the City upon approval by the City of the partially completed Improvements, but in no event shall the deposit or letter of credit be reduced to an amount less than 125% of the cost of the remaining Improvements. At such time as the Improvements have been approved by the City, such deposit or letter of credit may be replaced by a maintenance bond. . . 23.) fusurance - The Developer shall take out and maintain public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of the Developer's work or the work of their subcontractors, or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. This insurance policy shall be a single limit public liability insurance policy in the amount of $1,000,000.00 and shall remain in effect until the improvements set forth in paragraph 2 have been accepted by the City. The City shall be named as additional insured on said policy and the Developer shall file a copy of the insurance coverage with the City. Prior to commencement of construction of the Improvements described in paragraph 2 above, the Developer shall file with the City a certificate of such insurance as will protect the Developer, his contractors and subcontractors from claims arising under the workers' compensation laws of the State of Minnesota. The insurance coverage required hereby may be supplied by the Developer's contractors and subcontractors, thereby satisfying the requirements of this section. . 24.) Laws. Ordinances. Regulations and Permits - Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations of all regulatory bodies having jurisdiction of the Subject Property and shall secure all permits that may be required by the City of Shorewood, the State of Minnesota, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Districts, and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission before commencing development of the plat. 6 . 25.) Local Sanitary Sewer Access Charges (LSSAC) - Developer shall, prior to release of the final plat by the City, make a cash payment to the City in the sum of $6000 ($1200 for five of the lots) as local sanitary sewer access charges. Credit has been given for the four lots with existing homes on them. 26.) Municipal Water Charges - Pursuant to Shorewood City Code a $10,000 municipal water connection charge is required to be paid for each unit, prior to the release of the final plat. The Developer's costs for getting municipal water to the property will be refunded to the Developer, but shall not exceed the amount of the connection charges. 27.) Park Fund Payment - Developer shall, prior to release of the final plat by the City, make a cash payment to the City in the sum of$18,000 ($2000 for each lot) for the Park Fund. . 28.) Tree Preservation Measures - The City has adopted a Tree Preservation Policy ("Policy") which has been incorporated into the City Code. In addition to the Policy, the Developer has prepared and the City has reviewed a detailed tree preservation plan prepared by Terra Engineering, Inc. , dated 19 Julv, 2005 ("Plan"). . The Developer agrees that the tree preservation measures provided for in the Policy and in the Plan are the responsibility ofthe Developer, and that the Developer shall also be responsible for any acts of its subcontractors or agents which are in violation of either the Policy or the Plan. . As partial security for its obligation under this paragraph 28, the Developer agrees that prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Developer or its assigns will provide for two thousand dollars ($2000) in cash or letter of credit per lot to be deposited with the City as security for such obligation. 29.) Notices - All notices, certificates and other communications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, with proper address as indicated below. The City and the Developer by written notice given by one to the other, may designate any address or addresses to which notices, certificates or other communications to them shall be sent when required as contemplated by this Agreement. Unless otherwise provided by the respective parties, all notices, certificates and communications to each of them shall be addressed as follows: To the City: Zoning Administrator CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 . 7 . With a Copy to: Shorewood City Attorney c/o Leonard Street & Dienard 150 South 5th Street, Suite 2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 To the Developer: Steven Nelson c/o Bridgeland Development Company, Inc. 10657 165th Street West Lakeville, MN 55404 . 30.) Proof of Title - Developer shall furnish a title opinion or title insurance commitment addressed to the City guaranteeing that Developer is the fee owner or has a legal right to become fee owner ofthe Subject Property upon exercise of certain rights and to enter upon the same for the purpose of developing the property. Developer agrees that in the event Developer's ownership in the property should change in any fashion, except for the normal process of marketing lots, prior to the completion of the project and the fulfillment of the requirements of this Agreement, Developer shall forthwith notify the City of such change in ownership. Developer further agrees that all dedicated streets and utility easements provided to City shall be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. . 31.) Indemnification - The Developer shall hold the City harmless from and indemnify the City against any and all liability, damage, loss, and expenses, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from or out of the Developer's performance and observance of any obligations, agreements, or covenants under this Agreement. It is further understood and agreed that the City, the City Council, and the agents and employees of the City shall not be personally liable or responsible in any manner to the Developer, the Developer's contractors or subcontractors, materialmen, laborers, or any other person, firm or corporation whomsoever, for any debt, claim, demand, damages, actions or causes of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this Agreement or the performance and completion of the work and Improvements hereunder. . 32.) Declaration of Covenants. Conditions and Restrictions - Developer shall provide a copy of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, which Declaration shall include the City as a signatory thereto, for review and approval by the City prior to recording. 33.) Remedies Upon Default- . (01) Assessments. In the event the Developer shall default in the performance of any of the covenants and agreements herein contained and such default shall not have been cured within thirty (30) days after receipt by the Developer of written notice thereof, the City may cause any of the improvements described in paragraph 2 above to be constructed and installed or may take action to cure such other default and may cause the entire cost thereof, including all reasonable 8 . engineering, legal and administrative expense incurred by the City to be recovered as a special assessment under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, in which case the Developer agrees to pay the entire amount of such assessment within thirty (30) days after its adoption. Developer further agrees that in the event of its failure to pay in full any such special assessment within the time prescribed herein, the City shall have a specific lien on all of Developer's real property within the Subject Property for any amount so unpaid, and the City shall have the right to foreclose said lien in the manner prescribed for the foreclosure of mechanic's liens under the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event of an emergency, as determined by the City Engineer, the notice requirements to the Developer prescribed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 shall be and hereby are waived in their entirety, and the Developer shall reimburse the City for any expense reasonably incurred by the City in remedying the conditions creating the emergency. . (02) Performance Guaranty. In addition to the foregoing, after notice and failure to cure, the City may also institute legal action against the Developer or utilize any cash deposit made or letter of credit delivered hereunder, to collect, pay, or reimburse the City for: (a) The cost of completing the construction of the improvements described in paragraph 2 above. . (b) The cost of curing any other default by the Developer in the performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained herein. (c) The cost of reasonable engineering, legal and administrative expenses incurred by the City in enforcing and administering this Agreement. . (03) Additional Remedies. Notwithstanding any other remedy available to the City under this Agreement, the City may elect to proceed under this paragraph to remedy a violation of Developer's obligations under paragraph 28 hereof. (a) Upon discovery of an apparent violation of the Plan or Policy, the City will notify the Developer in writing of the violation. The notice will contain a description of the circumstances constituting the violation, the provision of the Policy or Plan which is apparently violated, the steps which must be taken to correct the violation and the date by which the compliance must occur. (b) If compliance has not occurred within such time, or if the violation, by virtue of its repeated nature, seriousness or other factors are such that a penalty may be appropriate, the matter will be scheduled for a hearing by the City Council at a meeting not . 9 . sooner than ten (10) days following the date on which written notice is mailed to the Developer. (c) Following the hearing, the Council shall render its decision in writing. If the Council determines that the Plan or Policy has been violated, (whether or not the violation has been corrected) it may take some or all ofthe following actions: (i) impose a monetary penalty of not more than $1000 for each violation. . (ii) order that the Developer stop work on all construction for which building permits have been issued; and withhold the issuance of additional building permits until it has received assurances satisfactory to the City that no future violations of the Plan or Policy are likely to occur. (iii) take any other actions or enforce any other remedies available to it under this Agreement, the Policy or the City Code. . (03) Legal Proceedings. ill addition to the foregoing, the City may institute any proper action or proceeding at law or at equity to abate violations of this Agreement, or to prevent use or occupancy of the proposed dwellings. 34.) Headings - Headings at the beginning of paragraphs hereof are for convenience of reference, shall not be considered a part of the text of this Agreement, and shall not influence its construction. . 35.) Severability - In the event any provisions of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof, and the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 36.) Execution of Counterparts - This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. 37.) Construction - This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 38.) Successors and Assigns - It is agreed by and between the parties hereto that the Agreement herein contained shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of their respective legal representatives, successors, and assigns. . 10 . . . . . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed on the day and year first above written. DEVELOPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD By: Its: By: Its: Mayor ATTEST: City Administrator/Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of ,2005, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared Woody Love and Craig W. Dawson to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk of the municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its City Council, and said Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2000, by Kurtis L. Manley, the Vice President of Manley Brothers Construction, Inc., a Minnesota corporation. Notary Public 11 . . f...... THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Shorewood Planning Department EDITED BY: Leonard Street & Dienard 150 South 5th Street, Suite 2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (TJK) dd ZZ <3<3 00 00 ~o:: o:::u ~ LLI ... > ~ (t <( D. / ,( , , \" / (l v / " , -' , ,.., v, , , '~ ,( , <?, , \/ , r_ <J -J , ""~ , ~s. ~-t~~'t' ~~() .;l ~(f ~~ ... ~~ nCV '?- , ~ ~" 'v' d 9.'t,~~~ ,,/ I' r\."~~ . ~""""J : ..1 !c; '_.J.../: o , \ , :,' ~-... . , I ~ z <( ~ ul ~- zGj ~~ zOl i;1O ~ . ffit'l ll..~ CO c::i ..... ::!:. ~ CO ~ t<') S'l "'i- ll;) Z ()!; ".(- L:'~.-o "I ... -6'", .9~ ....~ "') r~ .9",/> "'~.., ~I~ COlli! B::.:'.:.------ .. \ 0) \ : . ~. \.\~~\.... o. 001J. M.6~Lr.OON t. IU>JVr18r1C: IVV....Oll II...... ............- "SV3YV U'O!;9 (WNVrI V>lN013NNIrI H3d &!;9) 3,^, ltl 0 Q '" \I n ("1 l.I ^ , I V u V IAI , , u V \ I ,>/ .. !i l; .. .0 i :S .2 r::: .1;; .2 .. .~ 0 2- 1 ~ .. " .. o! 5 0 ~ .; :t ~ ~ 0.. "'U ~ .1;; -Il .. .0" ~ .. Ili'O .. " .. D :S 0;J ~ .2 6ti " ~~ 1,)":'; 'r;; ..'ii .. .:i .2 'j; 0.. .. " " " ,,-<: " " gj.2 " 0- u ..... " " ~ c.i " " 0 ",,, .s 'So ~ .0 .c: ~.. ~i " '" .. :S "0 .~ " " " ~ii ,8- .5; :!i e c.i~ .... 0 IE .5..... Cl. .go ~ ~ 0 .., '" ~ ..,~ !:~ li5 ....ii 0" .2~ 0..- ~~ o E E'" u ~ m~ ~~ 8.st .. I::~ " i~ -~ :S 0" .1;; ii " ~2 ~ E~ .2 '" " >::- ~ "" ...." c.i -.... .1;; s;.., <; jlO ~ ~15 .!; ]~ ~~ u ~& '" -,jj " u Ii ..,,, 15~ 0 .." 0.. ...... ~. o-s ~ EO 0.. " I ~~ 5 "2~ U ~ ::::.. -.... oE co.s ~ -a.~ ,,0 .. 0 E~ .0 a"2 "" b" " " 0.." I .. i!:- 0 55 0 .g- o ;; j I .2 " b"l:i .. ~"ii; .1;; .. "'i :::; fe 0 0 ~~ " ~ ~~ <>i ... .. " ~:S ~~ " a:~ ti .8~ ",,- .. 0 ~l; 0 blb ili 10 ...." ~ .2~ :~ ii .~ ~~ " '00 ~~E e .., q ..... ~;J ...... 0ll;2 0 Ill" 15.f:! II " ,,~ tJz';j e- It) 0 lb'~ ~ ... 0 G1,~ -;J -<:- ..0.. ~~.!; U _.0 "i~ ~:t0l .. :::;10 "," " 0 ..,0.. ~....,I;; :S ..,::::. -~ ::... t~ .... 0 g, .... :q!~ ::f~ ::JoE o~ ~ 0 >::" " .s" .... u u ~zoE 0:S .." 19~ '- .. 11 -" 10 " ~5" ii ~'O ~a :Z:&. I:'~ ~ -.. ",ui!: .0 II .. -; ~ .!2~ ~ " ~ ~ q;.. " .., '5 0", -,," ~ "" I;] ::J.S " ".0 -<:-<:- "" :513 ou"tJ ~ Iri' ~~ ~i ~li~ :s '" oo.Qo 1:::-" .2~]a. 8~~ ~ f;1 ~'ii C ~.s~ ~ "Eu ~_.. 0 ,~ E ~ oj s:~:; u :::; 3 ~.~ lKo..o :::: -gii~:g a:.... ~:5:5 ~~ ~~! 5 'ti ,,'" ~ ili.,g ~ "lio" ,.. ... . " :So Ol~ .... .. ~~~8 Q ~ '.. 6- 0 " b" % .!, -.... Q..~ ~ 'ij " .. l} '0 ...s.... ",~o{: "" " .!! 0I"lJ ..,,, =o-gtS~ :s ~ii " "ti'~ r::: UCIJ.Q u~ C.O ~ ~" ~Ctt i:l-a~~ ~eoo z- .Q.!!! tJ 8-.c: 5 "llb- 0 "E ..u~!2. ~= a.E ~"":EE :9bOO ~.~ .. ~ll '-- ~ n ~ &:t S ~~~u ~~QI~ ..,::e ~~ ~~~ti " ~ ~~.c: E ~ ..o~ -?5.S~ ~ " b..... ..- ID 80 ~ g,.!!" " oE e't1lb Q., " !i. - Cl.::::-g 0 .0 li .~.2- &l bOQ.t:: " U - u :5t;~~ " o .2" 15 "S1';o .go 'g I~':: '" .. .... ~ o f,}ij t: ;,! :::!.;~ ~ 0 b Ii:s.~ ~ -a~uS " ~ ~'j;.~ ::, 1\ 8 "tJ ~ fib " ~t;'Q"2~ fi~~S ~ g.SL..fI)~ ~ 1::: jI'g ",,~ l:i II) 1::_.. " " I'~...." ~"o" '8 k .;;g~ -<:- i:.~.t! -a. !'i: is E-<:O -" 1; I:: Ie,,"" jI.2 .. .. o ~.~ fj "li~:S u Q,It) ki~ ~2&:5 ." ~ ~ s S ~~ D ~Eb ~~ ~-= 0 .c:....::: lb oll;n. tJ ~~~.gu) --015 ~~ Gl ~ ~ i€:ItJ~~ ~o.... r: ~ ~iil'~llo ~ ~ o.~ ~:z: Oltil L. o:S II) ....15~,Otn ~ 0 ...~ :::;15.5; b ~ ","0'" ll.. &c: ~:S ~'b.2 "@ .~ ~ ~ o~ ~.3 oo.etlo ~Z"""l:i ~ 'ii:E E ... ;J ~]~~ ;!5 t) ~ ~ .~:: 3 ~.~ _ Q.Q U ",ui!:z i!:E~:S~ >:, ~ ~ ;J .!, l} " u.~ :':::IIJ ~.~ ~~ o u ~~ . . . ----::1 CJ ^ , , V ~ .. i3 !:, .Q ... ~ ~ . ,.., '(, '6 u n l.I , ..L !:, .0 .5; .. .... :0 ~ ~ ~,,8- ~Q= fbt~ or:::- Vl~ti'o tl ",:S ~ s;;:~" m 6~ I ~~; I ~ 5l-lb ~ i1.!! i:SJ:_:S o I/') ~ .... ~ ~ ~,.., ::e8 .... ~~ G:J ~~ ~d ~ :::;0 0<1: is&l zm I- ~ ::em -z w ...; :!:tl ~ ~ i5~ ~:::; g;f5 Ill~ ...; o~ J:1ll ~ ~ ~~ ~ a;", ~ ~~ ~~ <( t'J -;!! -:::; 0 !II:::; ~~ Ul a; I!:!<::> ll:: 0"'; ~ ~~ C51;j III o~ 011) . 0 ~ o o ~ o I/') o Iii ::;) i:!: ~ a Vi ~ ~ ~ III L5 :>- .... ~ ::::. ~ 'l; tl ~ ~ CI Oqj' IU'S IU II)IU~ 'i.o ,2 ... ~ i5 iii :S 6'~ ~ o IU:'::: II) oj.!Q '" II) IU ~ 0 u..!!~~~ 5.....~o ,20 .co, CI)~' ~ o.lI) t:h :!? ,S QJ't: ~.S 1: .!:;~"',~ -.. 0 .r:....~ Q) ~ =b.~ ~ 6 '3: -g o - ~..!:: -g th2 q; 0 '~.8~ CO'bo ,s- ---- ---- ---- ---- r\{~ , '~...... ,<, ,...... c"") c{~ \'~ ,-t j.' ""<-. ,.... ""<-. ~ -7 ...~ ~ -7 ...~ 1..:" L9'/:91 lil ., _::i ^ I ^, , V I V / lA, , , , " .. o Cl :!i 0.. ~ Ii " .. ~ .. {: " ~ ... oE ~ Q. ~ " .Q .... .... " 0 ~ ~ '" b ~ .... .., " .g " " 0 ~ :i} ~ ~ 0 Cl 0 " .!! .~ :S :S .!! " .. u u :S !:: '" '" " 0 ~ '!! .!! e :S :S Q. .1;; ,S; & .., " Ii " .. " ~ il; .0 .. I:., .. .. ~ " " .Q 10 !:, -<: !:, ~ is .0 0 .0 I:: I:: Ii. 2 8 .!!! <( ...; :S :!:: '!l: ~ 0.' ~ \It co ~ ~ '6 Ol ... .:::. ~ ~ ...; " 11. ...; It) ,.. .... .... ~ co ... 0 0 It) Gl .; ~ Pi ~ :!i::i i'=' :E::i ~ III 0.. Cl. " 'I .... i " .5; 0 .1;; .1;; u 0 -<: -<: & .E~ u a~ ~ Ii a~ ~ .1;; _l'u ~ _l:u " 0 0 0 o 0 ~ ~~ 2- ::~.:u '!! :~.:n " c"":-' 0 iil' ,,-0 .: ~'" Ii ~.s;_ I ll:: .s,..... :z: J:::!~.g ~" 0 z~~ ...... f5 >;:S " I:: ",- ..... ~ ~ " ~;:~ ~~~ 1s;:~1 r::: e :;):e: G 0",,,,, 0 ~~.2 0'" 1..l8li III Il:;U II I I :to ~.s: r: :to ll:: u 0.: ~.~~o t ,I;; ,., ti "" ~~" , E q; &il . ,\1 ~ ~ t Iri' 0 .:: !5 i ~g ,,, 'Ii !ic~~ ~ ~ ~~.c=8 o fi.s:: 0 lil:Z:a.", a::z:_", ~ U:Z:_'" jI " -<: ~ " !I, ... .g 0.. " 'I~ . <( ...... ....-4 .D .- ..c:: ><: ~ ii:~ -(/) z:: <( C) 1.1.1 ~ ---- (').... '" .Q ~ i " ll:: ~ " " ~ :::: '" " G ;t: q; " 'li :i . . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 05-059 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR PARKVIEW WHEREAS, Bridgeland Development Company (Applicant) has an interest in certain lands within the City of Shorewood and has applied to the Council for preliminary plat approval of a plat to be known as Parkview; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request has been reviewed by the City Planner and his recommendations have been duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission, dated 31 May 2005, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request has been reviewed by the City's Engineering Consultant and his recommendations have been duly set forth in a memorandum to the City Planner, dated 1 June 2005, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Shorewood Planning Commission on 7 June 2005, for which notice was duly published and all adjacent property owners duly notified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. approved. That the Applicant's request for preliminary plat approval of Parkview is hereby 2. That such approval is subject to the recommendations set forth in the City Planner's memorandum, dated 31 May 2005, the recommendations set forth in the City Engineering Consultant's memorandum, dated 1 June 2005, and the terms and conditions contained in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of7 June 2005 on file at City Hall. ",.-.. . ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SH~ W. 00.. D this 27th day of June, 2005.'-' j flMJ- Woody Love, Mayor ATTEST: awson, City Administrator/Clerk Exhibit B . . . . . Nnw. ;Ir'~~~W ~Tco1TRAWOR~~11ON~ ~~~ ~ HO-. E CONTRACltlR II.....TAlNIN01REES IN A PWlMI POSmON 1I1ROUGHClUT / lHE WARRAIIlY PERlOO. / / / / / / / ~ / . I;~/ . / ~ / / / ~ / / / / / / / / / / ^ / / /' < / //'~ / / / / /0 25V 50' 1oo~" jI,/ ';- ~.::....:.; '1< . / // ~~, I ~ / / / / SCALE: 'i:';" ~ _ORTH ---1 I v I '" J........." I , -------- ---- ---- ~-------- --j : (12) "~~ -,-i------------ ~------~---l- 'I f' _' .~t"lm3.~~~~a7 JrC~~- " I r . .1 ..r /' ""6l ........ ....."-~, :r.:;: ---1 i i~'" ,,/;;~ ,-.-J i~,0~ I II ~.~. 2/'~(' 1}',1T~i~~i ~'~11- f--~ [' ~~.t.43I.~' '. ~ .~. ~ Iii . .~~ /J '. ~ ~....-,~.....~ / I I '~ 'Ii '\...... W~ I I i ~ i (~ ~ ~ MH4l ~ \~ ~ ~ i ~ (:1.....~ "."-',,- ~ . I ~ ~' , It-~~. ! (_7:) ~ ',,;:... ~.~" t~~:~ "ItJ I ~ I I ~ "-. "-. .,.. J .L~ I ~'1"3-}.~ .~~~~~' : ~ I! ~~ "-. "- n/ / -'-- --'\-.li t ~" ~ ~ \ ~ 1 "-.'~ / ~ -- __ 1 ....~ f--~ ~ f ~"r, ~ ~~ · !.r-\~ " -1011 (h.\!-40.-. ..../..../j II 1 , 1 j:'- ~.... ...-/.. ,," , /1 i > \ MH K- - - ~ . I ......- I \~/ ~....-"\ . ',', // J........- I ii...~.~.0l\~~ \i/\ "v(/ ./l.~ t I ~~,~ \ \ ~\. ". ''v'''''''- I I:r;; . \. \ \. .~ > I i 'v . \ \ '\ \....;;.:i:-::;>,. -' I I I ( ~ \ 8 . ............ ..... ....., ,. I ...~ I ' L...... _' ;:;~:""'. .':";,lI.....,. ~# I ' ,. __"".. '. . . . " .:.....':";:;""';.;~ .-:"........~. C!i'lo~ tG" \ 1 ~...:i..:.-. r:~~~.f~.~~~;: ..~..G ,,~ ~,. I ' ~1 _---.:-..:l';;::., '~}~. \, ..:::~"!'..... I I I ....~\.A.tolD3 '\ '~:""',.~.""-l \\f. I 'I ?' '340:~ ( Rl~':':::. a' I i 9 \ "'^''\'IN-01I&'f.1 "\ \ I I I ! , I I BP 1 '-. \ \ I ....- ___-'\ ...- '\ \ \ - -i I r, \ \\ \ I I,' , ) ~ \. I l-, \ ~ -:::. ....1.... '\\ I I l.-~-...-4 . I L. .... ...- ::::;: -=\ ----, \ I I r(' , ' \ I ,I, \ y' ). - - --l I I \ J- ...- -:::. -::. ..... . I I \................-............. / 1 I I L.-:::,;'~ /;' I l-'--/. ;' . I I............ "_ . / 1 "1> . . - .. ---- .. -- I J. II EX. POND ....... I \ CITY POl-D Ii SAB2 I . ~=V:IfM,.ea7A 3) I j' ~~OIfM,>IIS8.1 (7 ) I : I ~:'~SWACROSS I >II Cl'!Y LIMIT \ I PONO Ol/TLET'IO 8E (61 --------- I - \r-- \ \ (45)\(44) 1\1 "- "- "- "- "- '\. "- "- "- "- "- , - ~ ~~ ~~ ~<F ~~ ~ \ 5 ;:: s 4f , , " PLANTING DETAILS: Ilm:. AI 1/'1/ ~1"~~~fltu~'lED: ~~ ~~ :T~E~~ ~~TO ,~~ '\ A~~~ ~FY aomtol AIlO sa,OES 01' ~ ~~~ '7"t.< HOLE PRIOR TO Pl.ANllNG _.... ~ r rtroeJ~N~~i.s'll1l'f;.) 3' ""'" 10' POI. 'lPROPYI.DlE OR s:: j Y ~~~E (<40 MIL. 1-1/2' WIDE 1REE _ TO FIRST PANCH F1.ACCIHG - ONE PER 'MAE ROOlBALL TO SIT ON IIOUHOEO SUBCRAOE. REIIOIIE TOP 1/3 01' 1IURLAP FR<lM RoolBALL. _IC IoIVI.CIl - 4' DEE!' - SEE SPEC Pl.AHllNG SOIl - SEE SPEC. TOPSOIL SUBORADE 2' x 2' x 24" WOOD STAKf: SET AT ANGLE EDGE CONDlllON VARIES - SEE Pl.AN <ro ~"..O' STEel. STAKE .. 18" .A-. .... ! ~.y x"'..,...... W ~:, :~ 'x" x 2- if!1 DRAIN SYSlEM AS REQUIRED- PER SPEC: 4' DI"- PERF. PVC PIPE WITH $OCl<- PLACED IN 42" IIIN. DEPTH AUCERED HOLE f1LI..EI) 'MTH 3/'" D1AMEll!R DRAIN ROCK. LOCA'li: AT EIlCE 01' ROOT BALL AS _ 11'\ DECIDUOUS iREE PLANTING DETAIL ~ SCII!: 1/'r. 1'-4 . ...-- ~~0'lED . NO IoIVLCH TO BE IN THTRVNI<. 11.~~~~~~ :\,&,LE~D..~~AI.S"f,,;:) 3' 16" PCL 'IPROI"II.ENE OR POL'/t1I!'I!EIC (40 IIIL. 1-1/2' WIDE STRAP TYP.) ~-O' STEEL STAKE FLAGGIHO - ONE PER 'MRE ROOT BALL TO SIT ON IIOUNOEO S1JBGRADE. .~ BURLAP ~:FROII TOP 1I~..!! ROOT BALL NUl.Ol - 4 DEEP - SEE SPEC Pl.ANTlHG SOIL - SEE SPEC. TOPSOIL S1JlIGR.IDE 2' X 2' X 24' WOOD STAKE SET AT ANGLE SOD H o / . ~I . .... . z ,'.- ".'.Y X ~.- ,.... ,. ~ -;"~~.;~. ~--, I ,;~.:i:~'" I N 'X'x2 :. __ ~. or r 2 \ CONIFEROUS TRF'F' PLANTING DETAIL '\Y!....) 5C.IIE: It%' . ,'-4 ~~~ /oS REClUIRED- 4' DIAIIETeR AUGEIlEO HOLE. 42' IIIN. DEPTH. FILLED WL 3/4" OIAAtETER llRAIN ROO<. COVER wI 6' FlL'IER FASRlC. Canv.... TrteDw9 <3 SIZE ROOT ~ 3"CAL. IIIdI c) z I 3"CAL. IIIdI ~ 3"CAL. IJJ IIIdI IJJ ~ I 3"CAL. IIIdI ~ ~~ (.!)'" 3' CAL. B!IS Z l~ I IJJ .Ii ..... SIZE ROOT HIt S' HT. WI ~ ....~ 6' HT. WI ~ ~~ ~ SIZE ROOT i 3' CAl. B!IS 6' HT. IIIdI ~j\ SIZE ROOT ~Q 15 COIIT It. 15 .. COIIT I <I 15 CONT I~ IS ~ !5'-; .. r -.... ML - ........ ........ I'JU. PLANT SCHEDULE: DECIDUOUS SHADE lREES: SYMBOL QTY COMMON NAME 2 8 SUR ON( BOTANICAL NAME 011..... mocroc<<pa ,..., . 4 AU1IJIIN BLAZE IIAPlE ~ 1 GIlEEIlSPIIlE I.INDEH 3 SKYl.lNE HCH:tLOCUST 5 SWAMP WHIlE OAK .,. x . J.If........r 1lIIG cordata .Gmnsplre. Gloclllolo lricanthoo Inormls 'Sk)CoI.' Ouorcu. blcGlGr CONIFEROUS TREES: SYMBOL QTY COMMON NAME o 10 BLACK 1IlJ.S SPRUCE o B AUS11lIAH PM: ORNAMENTAL lREES: SYMBOL ~TY COMMON NAME o 3 REO SPI!NlOR CIlA8APPI.E @ 7 JAPANESE 1REE ULAC ORNAMENTAL SHRUBS: SYMBOL QTY COMMON NAME ~ 23 STAGHOIlH S1JNAC ~ 17 WINGED EUOH'/MUS ~ 10 CItRlltIAL DOGWOOD BOTANICAL NAME PI..a vlauca 'donoata' PNo nlgro BOTANICAL NAME Malu. x 'Rod Spltnd." S)Iinga mIcuIata 'Ivory SIlk' BOTANICAL NAME Rhuo t)1lh1na Euon)ft1U1 .elus Comu. .or1coa 'Cardnol' EXISTlNG TREES (SAVED): SYMBOL ~ DENO'li:S DEctOUOUS lREE ~.. OENO'li:S CONIFEROUS lREE PLANTING NOTES: 1. LandlIcape eantract... ohall visit tho aIte prill" to oubm'"I.. bld to bee.mo Iomlla' with site condItion.. 2. ~ I. tho ",.panslblllly III tho c.nt_tar to identify all unclergraund ca_. condulls. wires. ole.. on tho prape~. 3. Na planting will be lnotalled untH all 11""11.. and _ has been ..mplned In Immedtalll area. 4. W thoro Is a dl.....pancy _ \hi numb.' af planto .hawn on tho plan and tho number of plantlI ohewn In tne p1.nt I1st. tho nuMbe, .f pl.nlll ohown an tho plan will tol<. precedence. 5. ~~::'III'::' be": =:''U.:''~ ::la:'n~~al:.:~. ~=:.. ~:t",~.:.c-r:~o, a d1ofl9llrlng knall. .unocakl IlljUrfeo. __ at tho bark, plant dltl...... Inoect IIIIJ1. _. and 011 f...... of in'..lolIanI. All planlll .hall be nunary llrown. 6. Ropalr all dam<llJe to property from pknt1ng operation. at no ..ot to OW"",. 7. :::. L::.n~~w:.or ,::'~~ :.. nom:'Ir.' :.: t;"hn:-=~ g~=-ow':.:.'~1 planlll ohall be alfvo and In normal lOlI,f~ growlll9 condition at tho .nd of tho g..,antH period. B. Th..e Inch <IMp ohroddod harcIwoad barf< mulch will b. lnotan... under all tnIu and shrub. that are 1801_ I",m ground ....... ....... and 91""",1 loundaUon plantingo. 9. A throe Inch la)Ior of 1.s" dla. ....ohed rI_ _ ..,., landocapo weed banlor _ III lnOtollod In all ohrub foundation areao u_ othorwlso n.ted on plan <_ faundaUon landocape pion.). 10. T.... 9U)'!ng In aU a.... ....,1 III .ptlonaI. Tho Iandocape _ ohall be roeponalblo for m.lntalnlnll t..... In a e\rallJllt uprllJht candlUan f.' a period 01 _ month! fallowlnlJ lnotaUaUan. 11. All peronnlal/annual p1antlnve ohall be mulch... wIth a 2" Iayor of oh~ded bark with n. landocape _barrio,. 12. Tho conllnuou. clJ1ttl of nat... oluub. around woUand perfmetonl canltitutO tho wattand buffo, zono. MAX TOTAl. NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES IS 8 TREES/ACRE MAX. NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REPLACED: 5.90 AC )( MAX. 8 TREES/ACRE = 47 TREES MIN. 3" CALIBER DECIDUOUS lREES NIN. 6' HIGH CONIFEROUS TREES NUMBER OF PROPOSED TREES SHOWN = 47 TREE SPECIES SELECTION HAS BEEN APPROVED BY CITY STAFF WARNING THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT ALL PUBLIC LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES. CABLE MANHOLE. V/JJ...VES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTUI THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE . DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST 11111 J l t..' ~ i;Utj ~ f~~~ ~d hGii Ii hli1; ! i ~ ~ @ ~ ~ If ~ ::I ~ Q' 0 ~ ~~ S ~~ -J ~ ~o ~ ~~ ~ I i ..".. 4/29/05 Exh ibit C /"'" \- -- - < ' ~~~~l\ LAND' CESION . CONSTRUCTION June 21, 2005 Mayor Love and Members of the Shorewood City Council c/o Brad Nielsen City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood,~ 55331 . RE: Bridgeland Development Co. 9 lot subdivision on Suburban Drive Dear Mayor Love and Members of the Shorewood City Council: . I am writing you to express my concerns about the above referenced development currently being considered by the City of Shorewood. I understand the proposal has received initial approvals from the Planning Commission and City Council, subject to working out the development issues. Now is the time to focus on the details of the project to ensure the concerns of the City and neighborhood are properly considered. My firm owns the two lots adjacent to and south of the proposed subdivision on Suburban Drive. We have one new home nearing completion at 5125 Suburban Drive and we plan on submitting plans for a second new home at 5105 Suburban Drive in the next 20 days. . My concern relates to the handling of the storm water from the proposed development. The site now drains 1) to the east towards the Amesbury pond, and 2) to the wetland on the South-west comer of the site adjacent to my property. The plan as submitted by Bridgeland shows a new retaining pond along the park and a new storm sewer connection to Manor Pond along Suburban Drive. I believe a better route would be through the western edge of Manor Park. The reasons for my belief are utilities and trees. Utilities . To install the sewer along Suburban will potentially disrupt sanitary sewer, gas, electric, phone and cable service. In addition to the utilities that serve the neighborhood, my property is served via underground from the west side of Suburban. I do not believe a park route has any such utility issues. SMITH PARmERS INCORPORATED LICENSE: #20460784 3701 SHORELlNEDRIVE,SUITE 102 I WAYZATA.MINNEsOTA55391 I PH (952l471-9220 I FAX(952l471-9204 I WWW.sMITHPARTNERs.NET . Mayor Woody Love June 21, 2005 Page 2 Trees The front yards or parkways of my two lots contain 8 substantial trees as listed below. All of these trees were diligently protected during my recent construction as required by the Shorewood Tree Preservation and Replacement Policy. . Size 42" 13" 79" 13" 9" 11" 23" 40" Species Aspen Aspen Aspen Aspen Siberian Elm Siberian Elm Siberian Elm Silver Maple . The proposed route for the new storm sewer to serve the Bridgeland development could kill these 8 significant trees. The Bridgeland proposal indicates the destruction of over 100 significant trees within their proposed development. Let's not add 8 more significant trees shading neighbor's property to the list, especially when a route through the park could be configured to avoid all trees. I appreciate you taking the time to consider my point of view and am free to discuss any of the issues with you or City staff. Sincerely, . ~/-6. Phillip J. Smith, President Smith Partners Incorporated Cc: Larry Brown, City of Shorewood . . . . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council Cb Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator August 4, 2005 Excelsior Fire District, 2006 Proposed Budget At its July 27 meeting, the Excelsior Fire District Board revised its preliminary 2006 budget by adding a small additional increase for motor fuels. The Board then authorized submission of the EFD's 2006 proposed budget to the member city councils for approval. The Councils must act on the proposed budget by September 1. According to the EFD' s joint powers agreement, approval of the budget by a majority ofthe five city councils is binding on all member cities. The EFD's 2006 proposed budget is $1,279,515. This amount is $81,300, or 6.79 percent, greater than the 2005 budget. The major increase in the budget is a $50,000 greater amount to be placed in the capital equipment fund. Absent this increase, the operating budget would rise $31,300, or 2.61 percent, over 2005. 2006 is the sixth year in the ten-year transition to fund the EFD wholly on a tax-capacity (or ad valorem) basis. For 2006, the cities' payment formula is based 60 percent on tax capacity and 40 percent on the other four factors (estimated market value; population; number of tax parcels; and three-year call data). For Shorewood, data related to The Islands are excluded, as they are served by the City of Mound fire department. The comparison of 2005 and 2006 funding for Shorewood is as follows: %of Budget Facilities Total Operations 2005 43.00% 2006 42.07 $ 259,682 289,075 $ 255,523 249,203 $ 515,025 538,278 Shorewood's payment would increase $23,253, or 4.5 percent, in 2006. Issues Raised bv City Council: At its July 18 work session, the City Council asked for further information on several items in the preliminary budget. These questions included the following: ft '..1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1F 9ft EFD 2006 Proposed Budget August 8, 2005, City Council Meeting Page Two . . Orono Expense and Revenue: 2006 will be the final year of a three-year agreement to provide services to the Navarre area of the City of Orono. Thereafter, service will be provided by the City of Long Lake fire department. The Board did not forward a line-item budget for services to Orono, nor present a Station 3 (Navarre) budget. It will charge direct expenses against the Orono revenue, and then use the remainder for purposes consistent with Board policy. I have asked Chief DuCharme to provide an illustration of likely costs, and he plans to present them at the Council meeting. No revenues or expenses related to the Orono contract are included in the EFD budget. In this manner, there is no revenue subsidy to the operations of the EFD that will recur after the Orono contract expires. The figures are the proper baseline for future budgets. . PERA Contribution: The 2005 contributions to PERA-Police & Fire pension included the . Chief and full-time Fire Marshal position. After the resignation of the Fire Marshal earlier this year, those duties were assigned to three new part-time fire inspectors. These positions are not eligible to participate in PERA-P&F, so the employer contribution will be only for the Chief. The amount in the 2006 budget includes the increase in the employer's percentage-of- salary contribution enacted by the Legislature in the recently-concluded special session. . Janitorial Services: The EFD contracts with Choice, Inc., for contract services, and is pleased . with them. The 2006 budget reflects the cost to continue this relationship. . Motor Fuels: An additional $2,000 was added to the amount in the preliminary budget. . Other Professional Services: The higher amount paid in 2004 reflected unanticipated services from the District's attorney. The 2006 budget includes an adjustment in the use of legal services as well as services needed for the new fire stations. . . Budget Presentation: The Board and the Operating Committee believe that the proposed budget as presented are in the proper format for consistent reporting and comparison of future budgets. Status of Action by Other EFD Cities: The following actions have been taken by the other EFD city councils on the 2006 proposed budget: . Deephaven approved on August 1. . Excelsior approved on August 1. . Greenwood approved on August 2. . Shorewood scheduled for consideration on August 8. . Tonka Bay scheduled for consideration on August 9. RECOMMENDATION: . It is recommended that the City Council approved the 2006 Proposed Budget of the Excelsior Fire District. . . . . . EXCELSIOR FIRE mSTRICT Proposed Budget 2006 Allocation by City using Joint Powers Agreement funding formula for 2006 Proposed 2006 Budget $ 1,279,515 Tax Capacity 2004 Pay 2005 Estimated Market Value Est. Population* Tax Parcels (Inc. Personal Property) 3 Year Call DataSum ofaD Factors Per JP A Cities' Calculated Share of Cost Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Populatior Percent Parcels Percent Calls Percent Operations Facilities Total Deephaven $8,648,257 28.83% $844,793,100 28.23% 3,885 24.37% 1,585 23.89% 312 15.23% 26.47% $181,892 $156,804 $338,697 Excelsior $3,005,699 10.02% $288,038,900 9.63% 2,400 15.05% 895 13.49% 561 27.38% 12.57% $86,354 $74,444 $160,798 Greenwood $2,079,710 6.93% $221,351,400 7.40% 790 4.95% 368 5.55% 121 5.91% 6.54% $44,943 $38,744 $83,686 Shorewood** $12,323,239 41.08% $1,235,413,344 41.28% 7,291 45.73% 2,947 44.42% 876 42.75% 42.07% $289,075 $249,203 $538,278 Tonka Bay $3,938,449 13.13% $402,811,000 13.46% 1,579 9.90% 839 12.65% 179 8.74% 12.35% $84,882 $73,174 $158,056 $29.995.354 ~ 3)2.992.407.744 ~ 15.945 ~ 6.634 ~ 2.049 ~ 100.00% $687.146 $592.369 $1.279.515 (Using 2004 Hennepin County Assessors' valuations as of June 20, 2005 and current 3 year call data less calls to 255 Mill Street, Excelsior) * Population estimates are Metropolitan Council's as of 4/0l/03 based on the 2000 Census. (Most Current) ** Total 2004 Tax Capacity, Market Value, Population and Parcel Count less reduction for The Islands served by the Mound FD. Excelsior Fire District proposed Budget FY 2006 Comparison with Previous Years . July 28.2005 2003 2004 2004 2005 2006 Actual Approved Actual Amount Proposed Per Cent Account Code Object Description Amount Budget Amount Budget Budget Change Fund 230 FIRE OPERATING FUND Dep't 42200 Fire Operations Personal Services 230-42200.101 Employees Regular 109,644 111,018 114,787 114,555 115,100 0.48% 230-42200.103 Part-Time Employees 4,834 5,200 5,295 5,350 6,000 12.15% 230-42200.106 Firelighters Salaries 121,666 103,515 113,263 74,288 96,187 29.48% 230-42200.106 Fighters Training Pay (est. 2004) 27,900 29,325 29,970 2.20% 230-42200-107 Fire Officers Salaries 17,785 12,680 18,193 21,655 21,905 1.15% 230-42200.121 PERA 10,147 10,325 10,580 10,654 6,658 -37.50% 230-42200.122 FICA/MC 17,645 18,842 18,586 19,637 16,667 -15.12% 230-42200.131 Employer Paid Health 9,626 14,000 7,499 14,000 7,500 -46.43% 230-42200.133 Employer Paid Life Insurance 47 625 47 625 625 0.00% 230-42200.151 Workers Comp Insurance Premiu 11,155 12,500 10,977 12,500 14,000 12.00% 230-42200.170 Firelighter Pension Contribution 15.000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 0.00% Total Personal Services 317,548 303.705 342 127 317,589 329,612 ~ Suoolies 230-42200.200 Office Supplies 1,879 2,500 3,680 2,500 3,800 52.00% 230-42200.212 Motor Fuels 6,815 7,000 8,050 7,350 10,000 36.05% 230-42200.217 Clothing 12,514 11,110 9,785 13,510 13,590 0.59% 230-42200.220 RepairlMaint. Supplies 6,711 6,495 12,387 6,700 7,120 6.27% . 230-42200.221 First Aid Supplies 2,822 2,750 1,437 2,850 2,850 0.00% 230-42200.222 Firellghting Supplies 2,639 2,800 1,323 2,900 3,000 3.45% 230-42200.240 Smell Tools and Minor Equipment 1,993 2,000 3,682 2,065 2,100 1.69% 230-42200.241 Fire Prevention Tools 2,673 4,375 1,986 4,375 3,375 -22.86% Total Supplies 38,046 ~ 42.330 42,250 45,835 8.49% Professional Services 230-42200.307 Fiscal Management Fees 15,000 15,000 15,750 15,000 15,000 0.00% 230-42200.311 Auditing 3,555 3,800 4,100 4,200 4,100 -2.38% 230-42200.312 Refuse & Recycling Collection 0 500 1,067 900 1,100 22.22% 230-42200.313 Janitorial Services 4,361 1,600 6,973 5,000 6,600 32.00% 230-42200.318 Medical Fees 1,734 5,500 4,923 5,500 5,500 0.00% 230-42200.319 Other Professional Services 1.936 2,500 6,560 2,500 6,500 160.00% . Total Professional Services 26,586 28,900 39,373 33,100 38 ,800 17.22% Other Services and Charaes 230-42200-321 Telephone/Communications 18,002 27,350 21,805 28,500 31,375 10.09% 230-42200.322 postage 834 900 576 900 850 -5.56% 230-42200.331 Travel, School & Conferences 23,379 20,684 34,655 21,934 19,034 -13.22% 230.42200.332 Mileage 1,928 4,000 607 4,000 2,250 -43.75% 230-42200.350 Printing & Publishing 2,705 2,895 1,883 3,000 3,035 1.17% 230-42200.360 Insurance 16,220 15,000 19,950 15,488 21,000 35.59% 230-42200.381 Electric Utilities 2,087 13,000 21,537 16,000 22,000 37.50% 230-42200.383 Gas Utilities 3,098 12,000 15,905 17,000 18,000 5.88% 230-4220().4Q 1 Repairs & Maint. Contracted Bldg. 918 3,500 360 3,500 3,500 0.00% 230-42200-404 RepalrslMaint. Machinery/Equip. 7,031 16,100 18,341 16,100 18,350 13.98% . 230-4220().4Q5 Other Maintenance 2,277 6,295 2,695 6,295 5,100 -18.98% 230-42200-412 Building Rentals 22,857 230-42200-433 Dues and Subscriptions 1,440 1,785 1,541 1,785 1,905 6.72% 230-42200-439 Contingency 2,260 1,500 2,758 1,500 1,500 0.00% 230-42200-444 WAF.T.A. 0 Total Other Services 105,038 125,009 142,613 136,002 147,899 8.75% Total Operating Budget 487,218 496,644 566,443 528,940 562,146 6.28% Caoital OuUav 230-42200.560 Furniture and Fixtures 230-42200-570 Office Equip. and Fumlshings 230-42200.720 Operating Transfers (Equipment) 95,000 50,000 25,000 75,000 125,000 66.67% Operating Transfers (Building) 350,000 594,269 594,269 594,269 592,369 -0.32% 445,000 644,269 619,269 669,269 717,369 7.19% Totals Fund 230 Fire Operating $932,218 1,140,913 1,185,712 1,198,209 1,279,515 6.79% 2004 Acutal vs. Budget 3.78% . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.ci.shorewood.mn.us. cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council " ~ Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator l)1...) AugustA, 2005 Proposed 2006 Budget for Mound Fire Services . Background: The City provides fIre and rescue services to Enchanted, Shady, and Spray Islands through a contract with the City of Mound. The current three-year contract expires at the end of 2006. Under the terms of the contract, cities contracting with Mound (Shorewood, Minnetrista, Spring Park, and Minnetonka Beach) are notifIed of the estimated cost for services by September 1. The contract cities do not approve the budget or their payments for service for the following year, but maymake comments on the budget and forward them to the Mound City Council for its consideration before adopting its budget in December. . The City of Mound has established an advisory Mound Fire Commission as a forum for contract cities to review and discuss MFD matters. I serve as the City's representative to the Fire Commission, which generally meets quarterly. . Funding formula: The formula for calls is based 50 percent on tax capacity and 50 percent on the average of personnel hours responding to fIre, rescue, and mutual aid calls over the previous three years. Proposed Budget: The memorandum from Mound's city manager provides highlights of the 2006 budget proposal. The 2006 budget as proposed is 3.46 percent greater than 2005 for MFD operations. Major areas of greater expense fall in the equipment schedule and in fIrefIghter relief association (i.e., pension) contributions. Otherwise, the MFD budget would continue services at current levels. Shorewood Costs: Shorewood's costs would rise from $22,749 in 2005 to $26,421 in 2006, a 16.1 percent increase. This level of increase is formula-driven. The formula wi1llikely be revisited next year when developing the next multi-year contract for services. Of the $26,421 cost for 2006,$8,530 is related to the lease of the new building, and would be considered a special levy for Shorewood, and not included as part of the levy base should the Legislature re-impose levy limits. RECOMMENDATION: . Staff recommends that the Council accept the 2006 proposed budget for fire and rescue services from the City of Mound. Staffwill forward any comments to Mound as directed by ('1'\11"1"11 n 'e~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER #18 ~ 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com MEMORANDUM August 1, 2005 ALL FIRE CONTRACT CITIES KANDIS M. HANSON, CITY MANAG~~ . SUBJECT: 2006 FIRE CONTRACT BUDGET PROPOSAL TO: FROM: Enclosed is the 2006 Fire Contract Budget Proposal. It follows the same format and approach as used since 1982, with the exception that we are now using market value instead of assessed value. Capital outlay for 2006 consists of a two MSA self contained breathing units with masks, an extraction blower fan - gasoline powered, and a lap top computer for the fIrst response vehicle. Although we are not proposing the purchase of a new vehicle in 2006, we are continuing to set aside monies ($42,000), in the Fire Truck Repair Account as we have since 1991. Keeping this amount in the budget will assist in planning for future purchases of major fIrefIghting equipment. As in past years, we have reviewed the annual increase for the Fire Relief Association. As you may recall, from 1982 until 1992, we have been collecting a 10% annual increase for this purpose. In the 1991 budget, we reduced the alIDual increase to 4%. In the 1992 budget, we again included a 4% increase. For 1993, a 7% increase for the fire pension contribution was approved. For 1994, a 4% increase in the contlibution was approved. For 1995, we had a 4% increase in the contribution and an additional 2% in the contlibution to address the unfunded liability issue that had been discussed within the actuarial report that the Fire Department had prepared as of 12/31/94. The Department requested a pension benefIt increase in 1995 but we asked for an actuarial as of 12/31/95. That was completed in the spring of 1996 which indicated that an increase of$3 5 or a monthly benefit of$460 would be affordable without any increases in contributions from the cities in the fire district. The Department's request was approved by the Mound City Council effective July 1, 1996. Additional actuarial were performed as of 12/31/97 and as of 12/31/99 which indicate that current investments are doing very well and that the unfunded liability issue is still a concern as we look at @printed on recycled paper . . . . . . . . . . the future of the fund and that based upon those actuarial, the unfunded liability amount should be "zeroed out" by December 31, 2009. On August 25, 1998 the Mound City Council passed a resolution approving an increase in monthly pension benefit for the Fire Relief Association to $510 effective September 1, 1998. For 2001, the contribution from the cities towards the Fire Relief Association was set at a 4% increase over the 2000 contribution. Firefighter's hourly wages, which are paid on call, have been disbursed at $7.00 . per hour for 2001, an increase of 50 cents fl.'om Plior years. Effective January 1, 2001, the Mound City Council approved the Fire Depaliment Relief Association's request to an increase in pension benefits to $585.00 per month. For 2002,2003, and 2004 the contributions from the cities towards the Fire Relief Association was set at a 3 % increase over the 2001, 2002, and 2003 contributions. For the year 2005 an additional 2.5% increase in pension contribution was approved. After receiving recommendations from the MFD Fire Commission on July 20,2005, we feel that an additional 3.0% increase in pension contlibution for the year 2006 is ajustifIable validation of the skills which these volunteers bring to the service of the Fire Department. The extended leadership of a fire chief and the fire inspection needs are being addressed through a full time fire chief position and a full time secretary. We have budgeted $107,220 for these positions in 2006. The Fire Department Volunteers are very proud of their equipment and of the service which they provide. The Cities of Mound, Minnetrista, Spring Park, Minnetonka Beach, and Shorewood are proud of having such a dedicated group of individuals who volunteer their time for the safety of all the citizens in the fire service area. Firefighting continues to be complicated and more sophisticated in many respects. More and more time is required of firefighters now than ever before. Being able to provide excellent equipment, training opportunities and financial incentives to attract and keep firefighters around for 20+ years is critically important to the futureofthe Mound Fire Department. The Depmtment is at a full complement of 40 firefighters who take their frrefighting job very seriously. They do receive the full support of the entire fire district and we are very proud of what they do to protect the residents from fire and other safety related hazards. Please review this infom1ation and the proposed budget and contact Greg Pederson, Fire Chief, at 952-472-5533 or myself at 952-472-0609, if you have any questions. cc: Greg Pederson, Fire Chief Gino Businaro, Finance Director A - MARKET VALUE 2005 2005 2004 2004 VALUE PERCENTAGE VALUE PERCENTAGE . MINNETONKA BEACH 255,514,200 228,258,600 11.46% 11.27% MINNETRIST A 562,767,900 24.83% 481,736,700 24.19% SHOREWOOD 71,593,000 3.16% 63,142,700 3.17% SPRING PARK 202,642,000 8.94% 168,409,600 8.46% MOUND . 1.173.800.900 51.79% 1 ,049.951.100 52.72% 2,266.318.000 100.00% 1.991.498.700 100.00% . C - COMBINATION OF MARKET VALUE AND FIRE CALL HOURS MARKET 3 YEAR VALUE AVERAGE FINAL PERCENTAGE FIRE CALLS PERCENTAGE MINNETONKA BEACH 11.27% 5.39% 8.33% MINNETRIST A 24.83% 21.66% 23.24% SHOREWOOD 3.16% 2.52% 2.84% SPRING PARK 8.94% 11.07% 10.01 % MOUND 51.79% 59.36% 55.57% . 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% .. 2006 BUDGET RECAP . OPERATING COSTS CAPITAL OUTLAY (FIRE TRUCK REPAIR) FIREMAN'S RELIEF PENSION CREDIT FROM YR. 2005 BUDGET SAVINGS TOTAL 2006 FIRE COSTS 766,290 42,000 122,160 Q 930.450 2005 COST BREAKDOWN FOR EACH CONTRACTING CITY . . 07/20/2005 2006 BUDGET BREAKDOWN RELIEF FIRE DEPT ASSN TRUCK 2006 2005 . BUDGET CONT REPAIR COST COST MINNETONKA BEACH 63,864 10,181 3,500 77,545 71,194 MINNETRIST A 178,114 28,394 9,762 216,271 214,099 ORONO SHOREWOOD 21,760 3,469 1,193 26,421 22,749 SPRING PARK 76,692 12,226 4,203 93,121 82,702 MOUND 425.861 67 .890 23.341 517.092 508.565 766.290 122.160 42.000 930.450 899.310 . . . . 07/20/2005 ", " AREA FIRE SERVICE FUND RECAP OF COSTS BY CITY . 2006 2005 2004 2003 MINNETONKA BEACH 77,545 71 ,194 61,558 45.403 MINNETRIST A 216,271 214,099 191,945 114,312 ORONO 0 0 0 133,872 SHOREWOOD 26,421 22,749 17,513 10,374 SPRING PARK 93,121 82,702 69,707 48,236 MOUND 517.092 508.565 449.117 310.553 930.450 899.310 789.840 662.750 . . . . 07/20/2005 AREA FIRE SERVICE FUND BALANCE BALANCE JANUARY 1, 2005 (Audit) 123,819 . ESTIMATED 2005 REVENUES 780,710 ESTIMATED 2005 EXPENDITURES (735.710) ESTIMATED 2005 FUND BALANCE 168,819 ADD 2006 ESTIMATED REVENUE 808,290 LESS 2006 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES (766.290) PROJECTED BALANCE DECEMBER 31,2006 210.819 . . . . 07/20/2005 . 07/20/2005 FIRE DEPARTMENT 222-42260 i 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 CODE ACTUAL ACTUAL APPROVED REQUESTED PROPOSED 308 BUILDING/FIRE INSPECTIONS 0 0 0 2,700 2,700. 321 TELEPHONE 5,528 5,079 3,000 3,800 3,800 322 POSTAGE 647 784 720 760 760 325 PAGERS - FIRE DEPT. 4,105 4,845 3,900 4,500 4,500 331 USE OF PERSONAL AUTO 263 0 300 1,200 1,200 350 PRINTING 456 2 660 720 720 361 GEN. LIABILITY INS. 14,543 15,867 16,720 17,450 17,450 381 ELECTRICITY 508 11 ,522 7,800 10,800 10,800 383 GAS 3,045 7,376 12,600 11,400 11 ,400 384 GARBAGE 991 472 1,260 1,300 1,30. 390 GENERAL MAINTENANCE 0 0 0 0 0 401 BUILDING REPAIR 222 62 600 900 900 409 OTHER EQUIP. REPAIR 20,864 28,177 17,400 17,800 17,800 412 BUILDING RENTAL 90,530 222,975 301,410 300,360 300,360. 418 RENTALS/RADIO 16,963 12,609 9,600 13,020 13,020 430 MISCELLANEOUS 3,523 4,421 1,500 3,300 3,300 431 MEETING EXPENSES 133 60 360 360 360 433 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 2.160 4,123 2,400 3,600 3,600 434 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 23,547 23,138 20,000 20,000 20,00. 460 JANITORIAL SERVICES 0 9,080 6.000 4,000 4,000 500 CAPITAL OUTLAY 120,016 630 11 ,200 10,880 10,880 580 FIRE TRUCK REPAIR Q Q 45.000 42.000 42.000 TOTAL 650.504 675.792 780.710 808.290 808.290 . 07/28/2005 ~ . . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (952) 474-3236 FAX (952)474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us.cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator(1~ August 4, 2005 \LD South Lake Minnetonka Police Department, 2006 Proposed Budget On July 29, the Coordinating Committee of the SLMPD recommended the 2006 Proposed Budget for consideration by the four member city councils. The overall budget is proposed to increase 3.8 percent, from $1,625,700 in 2005 to $1,687,100 in 2006. The municipal payments for the 2006 budget total $1,556,100. This is a 3.7 percent increase above the recommended level of $1,500,200 for municipal payments in 2005. Based on actions by the Excelsior City Council, the required level of municipal payments in 2004 and 2005 was $1,355,932. According to the SLMPD joint powers agreement, city councils must act on any increase to their funding of the SLMPD by September 1. The amount required from each city is what results from the least percentage increase approved by anyone of the member city councils. A lack of action by any city by September 1 results in no increase in the required municipal payments. Programmatic Changes: The 2006 proposed budget is essentially a continuation of the scope and level of services the SLMPD has wanted to provide under "full funding" for the past few years. Within the budget: . Wages reflect the second year of a two-year labor agreement. PERA-Police&Fire employer contributions reflect newly-enacted increases from the special session of the Legislature. Health insurance premiums are expected to increase 12 percent. . The migration to the 800-megaHertz radio communications system will be complete, and the radios are being leased from Hennepin County. The transition to mobile data computers in each squad car will continue to occur during 2006. . Use of utilities is much better known after 18 months in the new police station. Adjustments have been made for 2006 based on experience and estimates of changes in 2006 utility costs. The cost of motor fuels (shown under "Supplies") also estimates changes in 2006 gasoline pnces. . . Transfers to the desilIDated vehicle fund are partially restored in 2006. Historically, the Departmenthas annually budgeted for replacement of 1.5 vehicles. In 2004, this transfer was reduced to 1.0 vehicle. Transition to fully restore funding would be completed in 2007. . Special Projects includes $8,700 for the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force and $1,100 for ComerHouse, "a highly regarded sexual abuse evaluation center... [providing service] for children and families of alleged sexual abuse and violence." #'" '..1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 'if 9c SLMPD 2006 Proposed Budget August 8, 2005, City Council Meeting Page Two ~ . If the Cities' Payments Are "Flat-lined": At the July 14 Coordinating Committee meeting, the SLMPD Operating Committee (city manager/administrators) recommended that it work with the Police Chief to identify the impact on the Department and the services it delivers if any city were to approve no increase its required payment for 2006. The gap between the 2006 recommended payments and the 2005 required payments is $200,000. Chief Litsey's discussion begins on page 9 of his opening memorandum. SLMPD has 14 sworn officers, including the Chief and Deputy Chief. Chief Litsey notes that 82 percent ofthe SLMPD operating budget is related to personnel costs. The only way to make any . headway into reducing the $200,000 gap would be a reduction in police staff. If there were no increase in the required payments, the SLMPD staff likely would be reduced by two sworn officers, and all or part of the very cost-effective community service/crime prevention officer (CSO, a non- sworn position). Additionally, one of the department's two investigators would be assigned to patrol instead. Chief Litsey discusses the general impact on the availability of officers, services that would be curtailed, and the safety of officers. . Tiers of Service: The SLMPD proposed budget has never proposed any tiers of service, and 2006 is no exception. In the past two years, the Coordinating Committee has found out after September 1 what municipal funds would be available for the following year, and then determined what services would be provided with that level of funding. In 2004 and 2005, the cities of Shorewood, Greenwood, and Tonka Bay made additional funds available and arranged for additional services from the Coordinating Committee. Consequently, the "required" funding determined Tier I service; the additional funds from the three cities resulted in Tier II service. . The "flat-lined" contribution identifies what would be Tier I service for 2006. Other cities may choose to arrange for and fund additional services. Fundin~ from Shorewood: The municipal payment recommended for 2006 from Shorewood is $715.806, or 46.0 percent of the $1,556,100 from all of the SLMPD cities. This amount is about . $27,700 more than what was recommended for 2005, and less than the $717,861 that Shorewood is paying for Tier II service in 2005. For 2004, Excelsior approved a 0 percent increase in its payment to SLMPD. This action resulted in a shortfall of approximately $85,000 in overall revenue. Shorewood paid its recommended $663,000, and joined with Greenwood and Tonka Bay, who also approved their recommended payments, in arranging for Tier II service. In 2004, then, there was a $25,000 shortfall in the overall revenue to the Department. For 2005, Excelsior again approved a 0 percent increase in its payment to SLMPD. This action resulted in a shortfall of approximately $144,000 in overall revenue. Shorewood, Greenwood, and Tonka Bay arranged for Tier II services by approving their recommended payments and shared in providing the $42,500 that Excelsior had been requested to pay. Shorewood's share of this additional revenue was $27,800. Thus, the Department would receive all of the municipal revenue that it had . recommended for 2005 operations. . SLMPD 2006 Proposed Budget August 8, 2005, City Council Meeting Page Three The following table shows costs that have been or might be presented for Shorewood to consider. 2004 Recommended Payment $662,952 2004 Required Payment 623,729 2004 Tier II Payment 662,952 Difference = $39,223 2005 Recommended Payment $690,092 2005 Required Payment 623,729 2005 Tier II Payment 717,861 Tier II Service: $66,363 add'l for recomm. payment + 27.769 add'l for Excelsior shortfall . $94,132 add'l payment for Tier II 2006 Recommended Payment $715,806 (@ 46.0% of municipal payments) 2006 Payment per Issues Group 762,489 (@ 49.0% of municipal payments) Difference = $46,683 . In one scenario for 2006, Excelsior might decide again to approve a 0 percent increase in municipal payments. The SLMPD would then face a $200,000 shortfall in required revenue, of which Excelsior's share would be $59,050. If the non-Excelsior cities chose to arrange for additional services, the following figures could result: 2006 Required Payment 2006 Recommended Payment 2006 Payment for Exc. $59,050 $623,729 715,806 754,239 Difference = $92,077 Add'l Difference = $38,433 . City Council Action: At this time, the Council needs to act only on the SLMPD budget and, more specifically, what payment is willing to approve for the 2006. What funds the Council may wish to make available in its budget for SLMPD will be part of the City's budget-making process. The SLMPD Coordinating Committee has recommended that the $1,687,100 budget for 2006, supported with municipal payments of$1,556,100, be approved. Staff recommends that the City Council approve $715,806 in revenue from Shorewood for the 2006 Proposed Budget of the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department. . CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 8, 2005 PUBLIC SIGN-IN SHEET For the record, please print your name and address below. Thank you. Name Address 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. .. t South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Proudly Serving the Cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood & Tonka Bay 2006 Operating Budget Proposal Budget Considerations Prepared by . Police Chief Bryan Litsey Coordinating Committee July - 2005 Il [ [ [ [ I ~ 2006 OPERATING BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS CHIEF'S NARRATIVE Prepared by Police Chief Bryan Litsey PRELUDE I . The South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) is unique in that it is one of only a handful of municipal law enforcement agencies in the state that operates as a joint powers organization. It was created in 1973 to serve the policing needs of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay. There are many benefits to this cooperative policing arrangement that have stood the test of time. It is an economical way to increase the availability of police personnel and resources over what each city could realistically support on its own. It also allows each city to maintain a measure of control through equal representation on the governing body that oversees the organization (Le., Coordinating Committee). The attached organizational profile provides a more detailed explanation of SLMPD operations. See Appendix A. The financial considerations of the SLMPD consist of the annual operating budget and the long-term debt service obligation for the public safety facility. These two components are addressed independently in the current Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). The police portion of the public safety facility is a long-term debt obligation to each member city based upon ad valorem (tax capacity). This is subject to annual adjustments due to changing property values. I have prepared a separate document for the debt service obligation to each member city in 2006. This proposal concerns police operations for 2006. Each member city's share of the operating budget is currently based upon fixed percentages that took effect in 2002. They are as follows: Excelsior - 29.5 percent; Greenwood - 8.5 percent; Shorewood - 46 percent and Tonka Bay - 16 percent. The aforementioned percentages were locked in for twenty years when financing for the new public safety facility was secured later that same year. These changes required amendments to the IPA which were ratified by all four member City Councils. II [ [ [ [ [ . l ~ [ [ [ [ [ r ~ l l t. l. l t 2006 Operating Budget Considerations Prepared by Police Chief Bryan Litsey Page 2 FACTORS INFLUENCING BUDGET PROCESS Difficulties over the funding of SLMPD operations have existed since the 2003 budget process. This was when the Excelsior City Council first broke rank with its partners to the JP A by reducing its recommended contribution to the operating budget. As a stop gap measure for that year the SLMPD Coordinating Committee authorized using up to $31,368 from reserve funds to balance the budget and maintain the same level of police service for all member cities. This funding disparity intensified more in 2004 and 2005 with the Excelsior City Council opting to freeze its contribution to the operating budget both those years. The net effect of this action under the JP A was to also freeze what the other three member cities were obligated to contribute, which left a cumulative revenue shortfall of$85,268 in 2004 and $144,268 in 2005. Use of existing reserves to make up this difference was not a viable alternative since the balance had been drawn down to cover the aforementioned shortfall in 2003. The City Councils for the other three member cities, not wanting to inherit the unavoidable reduction in service caused by this expanding deficit, opted to maintain police service for their respective cities by making additional voluntary contributions beyond the obligatory amounts. This pooling of additional contributions between the cities of Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay was $60,114 in 2004 and the full $144,268 in 2005. Not only has this helped maintain the level of policing in these cities status quo, but it has also kept the infrastructure of the SLMPD intact to the benefit of all parties to the JP A. In addition, it has given organizational stability to the SLMPD during what has been a period of uncertainty. The dilemma just described in the preceding paragraph has fallen upon the SLMPD Coordinating Committee to resolve as the appropriate authority under the JP A for establishing the standards of policing for all parties to the agreement. The compromise worked out through the SLMPD Coordinating Committee starting in 2004 was to establish two levels of policing initially deemed basic and enhanced service. This terminology has since been changed to Tier 1 and Tier 2 service respectively. Tier 1 .service respects the right of one or more partners to the JP A to exercise their veto power under the agreement to reduce or freeze at the previous year's level what all the member cities are obligated to contribute to the operating budget. Under this scenario the service provided is predicated on what these baseline contributions can collectively support. Tier 2 service respects the right of one or more member cities to make additional voluntary contributions to the operating budget beyond the obligatory amount. Under this scenario the service provided is predicated on what these additional contributions can collectively support. l 2006 Operating Budget Considerations Prepared by Police Chief Bryan Litsey Page 3 SLMPD ISSUES GROUP A process evolved out of the 2005 budget deliberations to address the JP A issues raised by members of the Excelsior City Council so that normalcy could be restored to SLMPD operations. This effort was channeled through the Coordinating Committee, which initially advocated that the Excelsior City Council follow the direction of the other parties to the JP A by supporting the recommended operating budget for the SLMPD before talks commenced. This was also the position taken by the City Councils in Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay. It was felt the spirit of cooperation would be enhanced if all partners to the JP A were fully funding the organization and receiving the same level of service. The Excelsior City Council resisted contributing more and so this pre-condition was dropped in order to jump start what became known as the SLMPD Issues Group. This advisory group was sanctioned by all four member cities and included a joint financial commitment to share in the expense of hiring a facilitator. The SLMPD absorbed the other incidental expenses associated with the process and was responsible for setting up and recording the meetings. A neutral facilitator by the name of Bill Joynes was selected to guide the process in which all four member cities were equally represented. He was well versed in governmental affairs and had the expertise to serve as both facilitator and mediator if the need should arise. The group representation consisted of two elected officials from each member city with one of those being the mayor and the other being a council appointment. This body of eight representatives utilized support staff from their respective cities as well as the SLMPD to compile data and information deemed relevant to the topics being discussed. The decision was made early on in the process that in order to reach a tentative agreement it would require at least six of the eight representatives to concur. It was further decided that the group was to complete their mission no later than May 31,2005. A series of meetings were held in March, April and May of 2005 which set the ground rules, identified and prioritized the issues, allowed for the collection of data and information, provided an overview of SLMPD operations and worked toward a package of tentative agreements that could be advanced to the City Councils for consideration. The three principal categories addressed were governance, JP A procedural matters and financial considerations including the funding formula. Some of the tentative agreements ratified through this process were reached by a six vote majority with dissenting opinions from the Excelsior representatives. The final package derived through this process, which bundled together all the tentative agreements, was passed along to all four member City Councils for an up or down vote by midnight on June 30, 2005. See Appendix B. The 2006 Operating Budget Considerations Prepared by Police Chief Bryan Litsey Page 4 City Councils in Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay all approved the final package by the deadline. The Excelsior City Council did not act on the final package before the deadline and instead encouraged the other three member cities to continue discussions. This lack of action on the final package defeated the offer on the table since it required all four member cities to agree by the deadline. FUNDING OF SLMPD OPERATIONS [ [ l ! [ [ l l: l r:, l One of the many difficult issues tackled by the SLMPD Issues Group was the funding of police operations. As previously mentioned, each member city's required contribution to the operating budget is currently based upon the following fixed percentages: Excelsior- 29.5 percent; Greenwood - 8.5 percent; Shorewood - 46 percent and Tonka Bay - 16 percent. Excelsior representatives sought to adjust these percentages, understanding that all the member cities had agreed to the JP A amendments under which the current percentages had been established and subsequently locked in for twenty years when financing for the new public safety facility was secured in 2002. The tentative agreements advanced by the SLMPD Issues Group to the member cities extended this consideration to the City of Excelsior as the sole beneficiary of a favorable adjustment. This had historical significance given the sizeable reduction extended all at once to only one member city. Excelsior's contribution under the proposal was reduced by 4 percent with the difference being made up by the other three member cities. Shorewood assumed the largest percentage increase at 3 percent with Greenwood and Tonka Bay dividing between them an additional 1 percent. It also returned all four cities to the same level of service. Applying these changes to the current 2005 operating budget would have reduced Excelsior's recommended contribution from $442,559 to $382,551. The reduction would have gone from $459,050 to $396,806 if applied to the proposed operating budget for 2006. The attached spreadsheet illustrates how this shift would have impacted all the member cities both in terms of the operating budget and when combined with the debt service owed on the building. See Appendix C. BUDGET PROCESS TO DATE This is my seventh year of preparing an annual operating budget in my capacity as police chief for the SLMPD. The last several years have been challenging to say the least and this time around is shaping up to be no different. Preliminary work on the 2006 operating budget was sidetracked by the SLMPD Issues Group deliberations. Not only was a considerable amount of administrative resources diverted toward this effort, but the 2006 Operating Budget Considerations Prepared by Police Chief Bryan Litsey Page 5 uncertainty of the outcome made it difficult to incorporate strategic planning as part of the budgetary process. This was one of the principal reasons why the SLMPD Issues Group wanted to complete their mission by the end of May and advance a package of tentative agreements to the member City Councils for action as soon thereafter as possible. Although this objective was achieved, the package of tentative agreements on the table expired due to lack of action by the Excelsior City Council before the midnight deadline of June 30, 2005. This regrettably signaled a continuation of the current difficulties surrounding the funding of SLMPD operations and put in limbo what might take place for 2006. Irrespective of what transpired with the SLMPD Issues Group, the process for adopting an operating budget for 2006 continues. The initial proposal I prepared was presented to the SLMPD Operating Committee on July 8, 2005 followed by some additional dialogue on July 11,2005. It was their collective opinion that the proposal seemed reasonable and should be sent along to the SLMPD Coordinating Committee for consideration. See Appendix D. This first occurred at their quarterly meeting held on July 14,2005. I have attached copies of the media coverage of this meeting. See Appendix E. The proposal was well received with its modest increase of 3.7 percent between what the member cities are collectively contributing toward the operating budget in 2005 and what they are being asked to collectively contribute in 2006. This represents a continuing downward trend in annual increases to the operating budget. The approach taken for 2006 is no different than the previous two years in that the initial proposal is predicated on the assumption that all member cities will fully support their recommended contributions thus returning to one level of service. Over the past several years of budget woes this has come to be known as the "making the budget whole scenario." At the Coordinating Committee Meeting on July 14,2005 this was seen as optimistic given the lack of resolve through the SLMPD Issues Group process. Of immediate concern to members of the Coordinating Committee was what position the Excelsior City Council might take this time around in terms of its funding contribution. It was recognized that the consequences of Excelsior reducing or freezing its contribution for a fourth consecutive year with the other member cities making up the difference had dire implications with the ever increasing funding disparity associated with this practice. It was the consensus of the SLMPD Coordinating Committee that the Excelsior City Council make its intentions known as soon as possible so that alternatives could be examined before the funding approval deadline of September 1,2005. r I · [ [ [ . [ [ l t : [ [ . [ . [ [ [ . L l- [ l d l__ 2006 Operating Budget Considerations Prepared by Police Chief Bryan Litsey Page 6 Also discussed at the SLMPD Coordinating Committee Meeting on July 14,2005 were the implications of a budget scenario predicated on none of the member cities contributing beyond their obligatory amounts frozen since 2003. This translates into a revenue shortfall of$200,168, which is the collective difference between what each city is obligated to pay and what is being proposed for 2006. It was recognized that although this scenario would be undesirable, going through the exercise would be helpful for future deliberations. Contained as part of this proposal, therefore, is an illustration of what such a scenario would likely entail. BUDGET SUMMARY AS PROPOSED The operating budget being proposed is lean, yet workable in terms of funding police operations in 2006. See attached budget section. It provides quality policing in a cost- effective manner, which is something the communities served by the SLMPD have come to appreciate and expect. It is based on each member city making its recommended contribution to the operating budget thus doing away with tiered policing and returning to one level of service. As previously stated, the proposal has a modest increase of 3.7 percent between what the member cities are collectively contributing toward the operating budget in 2005 and what they are being asked to collectively contribute in 2006. Some of the principal factors behind the increases are personnel related expenses, communication upgrades, spiraling gasoline costs, restoring the vehicle replacement schedule and utility and maintenance costs associated with the public safety facility. The influence of these factors on the proposed operating budget are highlighted in the ensuing paragraphs. This is by no means all-inclusive and is not a substitute for reviewing the attached data and corresponding text. See attached budget section. Personnel Our police department is not unlike most service organizations in that most of the expenses are personnel related. Employee salaries and benefits alone account for over 82 percent of the projected operating expenses in 2006. The majority of our personnel are classified as "essential employees" with a binding arbitration provision in place of the right to strike. This means their baseline compensation will be close to the prevailing rate for employees in comparable law enforcement agencies. The benchmark normally used for making such comparisons is known as the Stanton Survey. This leave little room for negotiation on something that makes up such a large percentage of operating costs. This is not to discount the fact that in order to recruit and retain quality personnel it is important to compensate them fairly. A concerted effort has been made to do just that in 2006 Operating Budget Considerations Prepared by Police Chief Bryan Litsey Page 7 recent years, even though it was pointed out through the SLMPD Issues Group process that our officers still fall short of the midpoint when it comes to compensation. This was used to illustrate how our personnel costs are on the lean side when it comes to the budget. Compensation for the majority of our staffhas already been settled for 2006 making it easier to calculate for budgetary purposes the actual cost barring any personnel changes. The one exception is a re-opener in the officers union contract for health insurance benefits. Calculations for estimating this increase in the budget are based upon our insurance provider having a cap of 12 percent on premium increases for 2006. It is important to note that in order to mitigate the ever increasing cost of providing health care benefits for employees our organization is part of a consortium of local governmental agencies that negotiate with providers through the LOGIS Health Care Group. The state legislature in the recently completed special session passed a pension bill that increases both the employer and employee contributions to the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) starting in 2006. This was done to address the growing funding deficiencies in both the coordinated and police/fire plans. To help ease the impact, these mandated increases are being phased in over the next several years for both the employer and employee contributions. This will have an escalating effect on the operating budget in the coming years even with the offset from State Peace Officer Aid. No additional personnel are being requested for 2006 even though our current staffing levels continue to be marginal at best. This staffing deficiency was talked about and independently validated through the SLMPD Issues Group process. Some headway has been made in 2005 with a much needed part-time clerical position being partially restored at a reduced number of hours. This does not address, however, the continued concern when it comes to our per capita ratio of full-time police officers. The SLMPD ratio of full-time police officers per thousand residents remains the lowest of any law enforcement agency in the Lake Minnetonka area even though the demands placed on our organization are high. See Appendix F. Communications Hennepin County provides the infrastructure for our communication needs. This is not unlike many law enforcement agencies in the county that subscribe to the Hennepin County system, since doing so independently would be considerably more costly and inefficient. Although there is currently no cost for being dispatched through the county, [ t \. l I [ [ ! [ 2006 Operating Budget Considerations Prepared by Police Chief Bryan Litsey Page 8 there is a considerable expense for the equipment needed to be part of the system. This increased significantly in 2002 with the implementation of the new 800 MHz radio system. Weare now in the midst of absorbing another significant expense with the need to install new mobile data computers in the squads in order to be compatible with the current upgrades being done to the county system. The impact to the operating budget has been mitigated by having established in advance a capital fund (Le., Designated Radio Fund) for this purpose, preserving capital by leasing equipment through the county and obtaining grants to partially offset costs. Vehicle Fleet Operating our fleet of vehicles has obviously been impacted by the spiraling cost of gasoline. This is one of the more difficult expenses to manage with the pricing uncertainty of this commodity on the world market. A number of strategies have been implemented to mitigate this volatility while realizing streets still need to be patrolled and calls still need to be answered regardless of the price of fuel. Examples of this would be converting the majority of our fleet to police cruisers with better gas mileage and negotiating a reduced price per gallon through a local retailer. The purchase, set up and equipping of vehicles is managed through our Designated Vehicle Fund, which receives an annual appropriation from the operating budget. In the past, this capital fund has allowed for a uniform replacement schedule for our fleet of vehicles. The contribution from the operating budget was cut drastically in 2004 as a temporary cost savings measure to help get through our budget woes. This is obviously not a good long-term strategy since it dramatically impacts future budget years. The operating budget adopted for 2005 wisely contained a partial restoration of this designated fund with the remainder to be made up the next budget year to help spread out the impact. The proposed operating budget for 2006 continues the restoration of this designated fund, but not in its entirety as initially planned. Prudent strategies have allowed full restoration of this designated fund to be extended into 2007. Utilities [ - Having occupied our new public safety building for well over a year has allowed us to better realize what it takes to operate and maintain the facility on an ongoing basis. The SLMPD took the lead in setting up maintenance agreements for such things as the heating/cooling system, emergency generator, etc. to make sure these critical components were adequately maintained. We now also have an experience factor to use as a baseline r L. l. 2006 Operating Budget Considerations Prepared by Police Chief Bryan Litsey Page 9 in calculating utility costs which are projected to be more costly next year due to supply issues. All these things have been taken into account in preparing this budget proposal for 2006. Moving Ahead Our organization is committed to providing professional law enforcement services as reasonably achievable through the funding contributions of the member cities and other revenue sources. This recommended budget proposed for 2006, although lean, sustains operational integrity, allows for the return to one level of policing and helps position our organization for the future. It represents an exceptional value for all the partners to the IP A and provides the member cities with a quality of service that could not be achieved separately outside the IP A. This has been shown repeatedly over the last several months both through the SLMPD Issues Group and the independent analysis that has been commissioned by the City of Excelsior. I encourage the member cities to ratify their recommended contributions for 2006. CONTINUATION OF CURRENT BUDGET SCENARIO This would be a continuation of the approach ultimately taken with the 2005 operating budget. See attached budget section. Assumed under this scenario for 2006 is that the City of Excelsior once again freezes its contribution and the cities of Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay agree to increase their contributions as proposed as well as make up Excelsior's anticipated shortage. This voluntary pooling of additional funds collectively increases the contributions of these three member cities from $144,268 in 2005 to $200,168 for 2006. This escalating funding disparity prolongs two tiers of policing with Excelsior remaining under Tier 1 service and Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay remaining under Tier 2 service. Tier I service would need to be redefined by the SLMPD Coordinating Committee since service could not be sustained at the 2005 level under a budget freeze. The expense side of the budget would not need to be changed as long as it continues to be supported on the revenue side by the additional voluntary contributions from Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay. BUDGET REDUCTION SCENARIO This scenario was requested by the SLMPD Operating Committee and subsequently the SLMPD Coordinating Committee to illustrate the impact on an operating budget in which the cities of Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay follow the direction of Excelsior in 2006 Operating Budget Considerations Prepared by Police Chief Bryan Litsey Page 10 making their minimum required contributions for 2006. As previously indicated, the 2003 budget process was when the Excelsior City Council first broke rank with its partners to the IP A by reducing its recommended contribution to the operating budget. This funding disparity intensified even more in 2004 and 2005 with the Excelsior City Council opting to freeze its contribution to the operating budget both those years. The net effect of this action under the IP A was to also freeze what the other three member cities were required to contribute, even though they have since opted to make additional contributions to maintain their level of service and support the infrastructure of the organization. Since this is voluntary, however, it does not prohibit anyone of them from discontinuing this practice and making only the required base level contribution frozen at the 2003 level. If all three member cities currently making additional contributions no longer did so for 2006 this would create a revenue shortfall of $200, 168. With the operating expenses already being so lean, and personnel related costs accounting for the majority of these expenses, this would mean unavoidable staff reductions affecting core operations in order to balance expenses with revenues. As the chief administrative officer for the SLMPD, I strongly discourage this approach both from an organizational standpoint and for the broader community. It would have far reaching ramifications in terms of the services provided, officer safety issues and the morale of personnel. Furthermore, it would be more difficult to recruit quality personnel and undoubtedly lead to becoming a "revolving door" in terms of employee retention. With the SLMPD already understaffed, trying to do more with less and still maintain the same quality service would no longer be achievable. It would truly cut to the heart of the organization. Meeting the objective for purposes of this exercise means projected expenses would have to be reduced by nearly 12 percent in order to meet the target amount of $200,168. This would signal the start of a systematic dismantling of our organization from its current structure. With operating expenses already being so lean, and many of the non-personnel related expenses still needing to be met, this would leave no alternative but to terminate personnel at a time when the organization is already understaffed. As already mentioned, 82 percent of expenses in the proposed operating budget are personnel related and such a drastic budget reduction would come at a high price in terms of staffing. I have done a preliminary analysis of what would be affected, but it is conceptual at this point and would have to be fine-tuned considerably more if this possibility moves closer to reality. In order to balance expenses with revenues under this scenario there would likely need to I l . 2006 Operating Budget Considerations Prepared by Police Chief Bryan Litsey Page 11 be a reduction of two full-time licensed police officers reducing our authorized strength from 14 to 12. This reduction of approximately 15 percent would impact even more our undesirable ratio of full-time police officers per one thousand residents. The current ratio would decline to .97 police officers per thousand residents. See Appendix G. This worsens the current situation of the SLMPD as being the most understaffed police department in the Lake Minnetonka area even though in comparison the demand for service is high on our organization. This means that the highly effective manner in which SLMPD has been operating would be altered significantly and a restructuring of personnel would have to take place. If this were to occur, the ability to provide effective and responsive investigative services would diminish. Patrol availability and coverage would also decline with increased periods of time in which only one patrol officer would be on duty for all four cities. If this lone patrol officer becomes tied up for some reason, which is a common occurrence, this leaves no one available to respond to calls for service. This places a greater reliance on mutual aid, which is not an appropriate substitute for inadequate staffing levels. It also raises officer safety issues along with less than desirable working conditions leading to the previously referenced "revolving door" syndrome. This compounds the problem with staffing levels declining even more during the hiring process and subsequent training period for replacement officers. Along with this are additional expenses and liability concerns, but more importantly, the value of having experienced police officers working in the community is undermined. It is also quite likely that under this scenario the full-time position of Community Service Officer (CSO) would be eliminated. This non-sworn position was implemented several years ago as a less costly alternative to addressing our staffing deficiencies than adding a full-time police officer position. The timing was also right because the ideal person to fill the position was available. The CSO absorbs much of the workload that does not require the attention of police officers, thereby allowing them to concentrate on their primary responsibilities. It has proven to be an invaluable position and the responsibilities have steadily grown to the point where they can be overwhelming at times. The duties are many and include handling calls for service that do not require the response of a police officer; responding to medical emergencies including vehicle crashes; traffic control and parking enforcement; vehicle and equipment maintenance as well as inventory control; assisting as needed patrol officers, investigators, front office staff and administrative personnel; helping to oversee the volunteer reserve officer unit and seasonal positions of park patrol and dockmaster for the City of Excelsior, managing the SLMPD web site; recording SLMPD public meetings for airing on cable television; and countless crime prevention and public relation campaigns. There is no doubt that our ability to service the 2006 Operating Budget Considerations Prepared by Police Chief Bryan Litsey Page 12 community would be greatly diminished without this position. It would also add a considerable burden on the remaining personnel at a time when other staff reductions are being made. I have not taken the next step of preparing a detailed operating budget around these personnel reductions. It is my hope that this course of action will not be pursued once the realization sets in as to what the consequences would be under such a scenario. Not only would the delivery of services be severely disrupted, but the personal toll also needs to be considered. Our organization is fortunate to have such a dedicated and professional group of individuals that work so well together. It is a unique situation that is many times taken for granted. Trying to rebuild what has taken years to accomplish would be costly and difficult at best to overcome. I once again strongly discourage moving forward with this scenario. CONCLUDING REMARKS One of the positive things that came out of the SLMPD Issues Group deliberations was a recognition that the SLMPD is a lean and efficient organization with professional personnel. This was supported by the information presented, which established that the SLMPD is below the midpoint of comparable law enforcement agencies when it comes to staffing and salaries. At the same time, the information presented established that the SLMPD makes the most out of its available resources as well as recruits and maintains dedicated and professional personnel. There was also a general consensus that the SLMPD is the most cost-effective way to deliver quality law enforcement services to all the member cities. Over the past year this has been validated on two separate occasions through an independent consultant retained by the City of Excelsior to analyze police service options (Le., Consultant Mance! Mitchell). The inference from this is that the JP A represents a good value for all the parties to the agreement and in principle is deserving of adequate funding from all the member cities to support both the infrastructure and daily operations of the organization. All the member cities supporting the proposed operating budget for 2006 would achieve this objective and eliminate the need to continue with two tiers of service. [' r- I I l r - r~ I [ -- [ , [ . i - Chief's Narrative 2006 Operating Budget Considerations r I . [ Appendix A [ [ > l I . r [ l r' r ORGANIZA llONAL PROFILE Prepared by Police Chief Bryan Litsey July of 2005 INTRODUCTION The South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) functions as a joint powers organization pursuant to the statutory authority that authorizes cities to create such partnerships in the delivery of services. The charter under which the SLMPD has operated for more than three decades is a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the member cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay. The JPA can only be modified if there is unanimous agreement between the member cities. Unique to this quasi form of local government is that the SLMPD has no independent taxing authority. This means the primary source of funding for operations and capital projects comes from the member cities. The funding of operations is established annually and is proportioned between the member cities using fixed percentages principally based on historical data. The long-term debt obligation for the new public safety facility is proportioned between the member cities using percentages based solely on ad valorem (tax capacity). The governance of the SLMPD is through the Coordinating Committee under which the Chief of Police serves as the chief executive officer of the organization. GOVERNANCE Coordinating Committee The JPA affords each member city equal representation on the Coordinating Committee through its respective Mayor. This is irrespective of the funding percentages each city contributes to sustain SLMPD operations and capital projects. The Coordinating Committee is a policymaking board consisting of elected officials responsible for establishing the standards of policing for the member cities based upon the available funding. It is also charged with providing political oversight of the organization much like that of a city council. Meetings within a calendar year are normally held on a quarterly basis unless there is a need for additional special meetings. These are open to the public with the quarterly meetings broadcast on local cable television. Operating Committee In April of 2004, the Coordinating Committee established by policy an administrative subcommittee (Le., Operating Committee) for the purpose of providing an additional forum in which to facilitate communication at the staff level between the SLMPD and member cities. This was part of a broader initiative to increase SLMPD exposure through such mediums as the ~ ;;:: o ... Q. CU c: o :;::; CU .~ c: CUlt) ~o o~ C-N Q.OCD :!:~OJ ..J::sCU en-,Q. ...... o ..c o ro Q)Q)0> .0 E.~ roo- o ..... ro ......c roou 0_..... o ro 0 -.....0 CooO 0'- m .~ "U o>Ec c"Uro :;::;roQ) Q) -- 0 Q) ......- E Q) 0 ~Q. Q)C...... Q)roO ~EQ; E >-:.c E:t::O o 0 OQ)Q) 0>:5 :5 c...... 0 :;::;0- roo>>- cc:t:: U'- 0 ..... 00 ro 0'- a. omro 050 0>02:- C - 0 .- Q) m 00 2 'S; ~:t::"U "UEro ro E C o 0 ro B o.~ "U 0> m C C Q) ro:;::; C: Q)~Q) :t::Q)m mo.- .oom Q) .- 3:~13 ro I- ..... ...... Q)a) oc.oQ) coE::::: 0'- Q)'- .- rn E E 1ii 'S; E Q)Q)Q)0 52:50 ..J <C z o j:::: ~ W Q. o .... c CD E CD .... ns .... en c .2 II) .!! :E "U C ro 'i~ g> m.- m"U Q) C ......:l e...... Q) 0>:5 .~ ..c "uo> 'S; :lo o ..... 0..:5 o Q) ;.om Q) ro Q) ->~ :t::Q).... E:.co E 0 m oroQ) O>-:l m.oc .- ro Q) cc~ Q) 0 ..... E ~ ..... -Q)Q) ............c [mo Q)ro"U Omc Q)~ro 0.- rn =C:Q) o .- Q.m13 ~cQ> cQ).o o E E QiQ)Q) c 0 E c ..... .-.E Q) :2c..c Q)- Q):>...... ..x::;;>o ~rom :51> .Q :l'- - o~E Cf) O'C Q)mc ~~8 .... c CD E CD OJ ns c ns :E CD (,) :.:::: tf .... o .... CD ~ Q) Q) ..c > ..... - :;::;.- Q) Q) .....ro~ ~ :5:5 .E......ooQ)-oQ) m ..... o'c..c m m..c .9 ro Q) Q) '- - ro ro - c 0> .~ 0 E :5 0> Q) C 0 C :t:: ..... "U .- C ..... 0 m'- 0- ro 3:.- ro .....'ro C: Q)roQ)"uC:Q)Q)=Q) >c.....Q)Q).....'O m :;::;.2 O"U m Q) E ~"U ~ :l:t::E:l"u~Q)_cQ) ~~>-oc Emro...... x.....-cro. ro"Uro Q)-.o-mo.o> c ...... Q) ~ . Q) :l.~ g>:l Q) Q) ..c Q) m:;::; 0 0 '- LL E .- - "U C '0 In C: ro ..c c.- Q) '-' > Q) c c oromEQ).....mromo ..c c .- 0 Q)_oQ).omm -c- :5 Q) 0.: E ~ ro ~ Q) 00 m >..c:l Q)"U 0>..... >:l ro 'w :t:: 0' E Q) C 0 ~ '---' Q) C 3: ~ Q) ro'2: LL Q. ~ 2 [ C o>..c a. Q) ~ Q) Q> =""'xoc-Q)mroE E Q) ~:e 0 C: !e I- 'cE E EQ)NO...... w 0 ......- a. ..... >-..c 0> 0 00cQ)0002roo OEro.....t5c:lO..x:: 0>_ Q) C ...... O>Q).....ro~o>mooo c..... 0 0.-..... c.....-..... :;::; ro m:;::;O Q) o-Q) Q) Q) ro ......- E'- c ~ CCQ)O- :t:::2c...... u.2 3: a. ~ W ~ _;,;;:: E .....:t:: 0 m E ro o.mO::::: ro omo.ro ..x:: Q)Q)..c oO__Q)cQ)3:..x::O o o..~ Q) ~.9:5..c ro ..... Q) Q) 0 3: C Q) 0 ::; -' .2 ..c ..c . ---. ro C _ o..c m -;::: ro m:2.~ Q) Cf) - Q) oOo>ro ""=:l :lo - C m >-0::::: 0' Q) 0 x m ~.- Q) 0 Q)'- ..c Cf) W 1::CQ):;::;C..x::C-Q)I o Q).o := Q) ro :l ..... ..c Q) a. E '0 :9 e>-' ~ .E - ~ ~Q)Q)mQ)Q)cQ)o-' Q).: .... C E ..c Q) Q)...... ,.. :l-'Ow-E-m...... .~ 0':;; a. C :t::.....::; oQ)>mo>oa,Eoo Q. ..... >- ~ .~ Q) 'w E t5 Cf) ......Q)'O-Q)>moQ)Q) o ..c ...... .~ .0:;::; ro 0 .: ..c ......I-Q)omro_ 0- Q) .:.c C.- c ro Q)...... 0 .- 0 0 ro C Q) C .;::: 0 - O..cn comO::; C ......Q)ij:::;::;Q):;::;o'Eo Q) :2 .~ "U 'w 0.. U Q) ro m ~ ~ 8. ~ 8. ~ ~ ~ a3 :~ .... CD ~ ~ ~ 2- Q C o m ~ ......~5"U o "U Q) 0'S: ._ C ro Q) ..c i:... 1ii ro "U"U-~Q)NO> C C Q) m.- C ro Q) 0> 0 _ C .- x.~ ro C ro .~ Q) Q) Q)...... Q) O>ro ..... Q)-E.......... :lcmro 0_ t5roQ>c~Q)O> :l ..... > ._ ..... ..c C ~.E 0 Q).E;::: '00>- Q)rnco ro~>:eQ)mco C--Q):>"U orooo.;;>.......c .-:t:: > X ro ro - 1ii o.~ Q);;: "U .~ .~ ["U Q) 0 ~ "U C ro C.o 2:-- Q) roororoQ)mo. O>cQ).....>- ......- > Q)._ ro :l o ......-"U Q) C 0 Q) 0 ~ 'w "U.2 0 :5Q)Q)cQ)m(j) .o-o>mc .~ ro ~ 0 :;::; ~ C ..c= mOoo :t:: ro Q) Q) Q) .....0. m :>>................ ..... ;;> ro ro .- ID Q) Q) "UCc5- ..co. C:loQ)"U_>- ro >-:;::; ..... ~ o>:t:: E ='w m C ro E ro 0 :.c c'c :l o ..... 0.1- Q) .- 0' O 0 Q) '- ro...... a. 0- C E..c . ij:: .~ 0 .- - c...... ro C "U Q).......2 Q) E 0 c-o_Q) :;::; ocmgJ..cmc o Q) - .- -.- Q) Q)..ccc.....c- m:>Q)rooo~ ;;> E 0>.......- mQ) .....Q):t::"U roo~o"U~c m 'o'S Q) 'S; a. ro Q) Q. 0':5 e m C ~...... ~ '0 o.:.c Q) m~Q) o;:::E ......Q)..cm-o:t:: Q) .- I- C m :l .- ..c 0 C 1:: ..... BOa) ~.2 [ ~ >. >-~ E :u ~ m ~:= ::;_:;::; 0.Q) ro..c.o a............. 0 0."U- ro Q)oO-OQ)..cc O~"U ~ Q)"U O>:l ro 0 ..... 0 :l :l 0 Q) ..c 'C Q) = - 0 0 ..c Q)Q)-O 0..... 0 I- .0 o..~ a. -=:5 ro ..J o 0::: ~ Q. ~ c:: ns CD ~ CD CI) - e ..... ns Q.. ..c L..~ . (j) 3: ..co> -c ..... 0 Q)- "Uro 5 3: _0 Q)- C Q) c.o 0"U m Q) .....- Q) ro o..~ _"U o C Q)'- ..... m "uQ) 0:;::; _:l >-"U - ..... 'C Q) o 0 ..clf: ::;0 ro- "Ue Q)- _ro 'E a. .- Q) -..c ..c - :t::m 3: Q) - m ro ..... ..... o 0 mo. .- ..... C: 0 Q) 0 o.C :l'~ m 0 Q).- c:t:: .- m "UO .- a. E Q) Q)..c rol- m . _"U C C ro ro Q) E e>E Q) 0 (/)0 r l . SLMPD Organizational Profile July of 2005 Page 3 supervisory responsibilities. Sergeants are included as part of the patrol schedule and provide the same amount of shift coverage as a patrol officer. There is no additional time blocked out for administrative functions. Additional responsibilities included overseeing the volunteer reserve officer program, use of force/firearms training, professional development of personnel, performance evaluations, etc. Patrol Officers Patrol officers represent the greatest percentage of the paid workforce and along with the patrol sergeants provide the "first line of defense" in the protection of life and property. This includes a 24-7 response to initial incidents and the investigation of crimes, traffic control and enforcement, accident investigation, community policing and specialized operations. Patrol officers are given the latitude to take on additional assignments to enhance their career development while at the same time benefitting the organization and community. Reserve Officers - Volunteers Reserve officers are true volunteers in the sense of the word and receive no financial compensation for performing their duties. The unit has an authorized strength of twenty (20) volunteers which normally includes a combination of individuals seeking a career in law enforcement and/or those desiring to give back to the community in an interesting way. They are an integral part of the organization and provide assistance to all divisions within the organization (management, patrol, investigations and support services). INVESTIGATIONS Investigators Investigators are responsible for following up on reported crimes as well as taking proactive strategies to detect and deter crime through computerized tracking capabilities, crime analysis, surveillance and networking with colleagues just to name a few. The position requires considerable expertise with investigating crimes along with exceptional communication skills. It is an important element of providing full service policing that is responsive to individuals that fall victim to crimes. SUPPORT SERVICES Office Administrator This position is considerably more expansive than the traditional role of an office manager within a police department by virtue of being a joint powers organization. Included among the many responsibilities are tending to the daily fiscal matters of the organization (payroll, bookkeeping, accounts payable, requisitions, etc.), along with the maintenance of records and computerized files. It also requires managing and supervising the workload of the front office staff and being able to assist with their duties as needed. SLMPD Organizational Profile July of 2005 Page 4 Office Specialists - (Part- Time) There is a distinction between the office specialist positions in the front office depending on the experience, training and responsibilities. Office Specialist 1 is a higher skilled clerical position with cross training in a number of critical functions normally performed by the Office Administrator. Office Specialist II is a lesser skilled clerical position that with additional experience and training can become an Office Specialist I position. Both classifications include assisting and directing public inquiries by phone and in-person, processing and routing paperwork, data entry, filing, transcription and special projects just to name a few. Community Service Officer/Crime Prevention Specialist The combined position of Community Service Officer/Crime Prevention Specialist (CSO/CPS) was implemented as a less costly alternative to addressing the staffing deficiency in the number of licensed police officers employed by the SLMPD. The position alleviates some of the workload when it comes to patrol, investigative and administrative duties that does not require the response of a licensed police officer. This position also allows the SLMPD to undertake a number of proactive strategies in the areas of crime prevention and community education. SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT Organizational Chart Prepared by Police Chief Bryan Litsey - July of 2005 INVESTIGATIONS Investigators r' r- , r' r' r' [' r Chief's Narrative L 2006 Operating Budget Considerations Appendix B I . r r r r [ MEMORANIUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: SLMPD Member City Councils Staff for SLMPD Issues Group May 31,2005 Recommendations from SLMPD Issues Group The SLMPD Issues Group began its meetings during the first week of March 2005. The Issues Group worked through the process agreed upon by all member cities' councils to be completed by May 31. Over the course of eight meetings, the Group finished its work on May 26. The Issues Group agreed to several ground rules at the beginning of its process. Key among them were: 1) The Group would produce a package of recommendations to the members' city councils. The entire package, and not individual issues, would be considered by the city councils. City councils would either approve or reject the entire package. 2) At least six ofthe Group's eight members needed to agree on a matter before it became a tentative agreement, and thus appear in its recommendation. The tentative agreements could be revisited before making a final vote on the recommended package. a. Dissenting opinions on individual matters could be attached to Group's fmal report, but it would be the dissenters' responsibility to prepare their written statements. The Group's discussion focused on what changes it wished to make regarding the SLMPD joint powers agreement or the SLMPD's operations and communications. It did not spend much time on precise wording. The Group expected the technical writing on these matters would be performed by attorneys and staff following action by the city councils. Deadlines: At the conclusion of their meeting on May 26, the members of the Issues Group agreed that their city councils must act on the recommended package by June 30, 2005. The following dates are the regular city council meetings in June: Excelsior: Greenwood: Shorewood: Tonka Bay: June 6 and 20 June 7 June 13 and 27 June 14 and 28 The attached document represents the recommended package of the SLMPD Issues Group. Tentative A2:reements Throu2:h 5/26/05 A. Governance Issues 1. Coordinating Committee, term and size (4.20.05) Turgeon moved, LaBelle seconded, that each City Council appoint a single representative from each City Council, serving at the pleasure ofthat Council, to a one-year renewable term on the Coordinating Committee, with the appointment defaulting to the Mayor if the City Council fails to act. Motion passed 7/1, with Miller dissenting. Miller's dissenting opinion: Two representatives on the Coordinating Committee, such as the Mayor and one council person, would represent each city better than one, provide a greater diversity of opinion on issues and may even increase the efficiency of the Coordinating Committee (Mr. Joynes noted that studies suggest the most efficient group size is seven members). In addition, it could ensure that the Mayor would always be represented on the Coordinating Committee whereas in the tentative agreement the Mayor may be removed from the Coordinating Committee. However, Miller acknowledges that the tentative agreement is an improvement in representation over the current JP A. 2. City Councils, Appropriate involvement Deferred -- need to complete. 3. Police Chief, reporting relationship, accountability (5.10.05) Love moved, Ruehl seconded, the Coordinating Committee shall act as a "Clearing House" and intermediary in the accountability and information flow chain from citizens to City Councils to the Committee to Chief or reverse. The Foundation list of Regular Interval Reports is attached hereto. The Committee may request other ad hoc reports and information as deemed appropriate by the Committee. Requests for information may originate at any point in the chain but must follow the flow chart. Motion passed 7/0. (Hill absent) B. JP A Process Issues 1. Process for handling disputes for minor grievances to major structural and funding disputes (5.10.05) Newman moved, Keller seconded, the JPA should be amended to include a dispute resolution process. The process would be initiated by the filing of a written statement of grievance by any member city. Member cities would be allowed to "grieve" alleged misinterpretations or violations of the JP A but not disagreements regarding proposed changes to the JP A. Once a grievance is filed, the Coordinating Committee would be required to meet within 30 days to consider the grievance and would have up to 90 days from that initial meeting to resolve the grievance. The 90-day timeline could be extended by mutual agreement of all member cities. Motion passed 7/0. (Hill absent) Tentative Agreements Thru May 26, 2005 Page 2 of3 (5.10.05) Newman moved, Turgeon seconded, if a grievance under the dispute resolution process is not resolved by the Coordinating Committee pursuant to the above process, it shall be referred to mediation. The mediator shall be selected by the Coordinating Committee from a panel of at least 3 qualified mediators. The selection of a mediator shall be by a simple majority vote of the Coordinating Committee members. Motion passed 7/0. (Hill absent) (5.10.05) Ruehl moved, Love seconded, mediation shall be completed within 90 days of the date on which the Coordinating Committee determines that it cannot resolve the grievance. If the Coordinating Committee fails to make a determination regarding the grievance, the 90-day mediation period shall commence when the 90-day period for Coordinating Committee resolution of the grievance expires. Motion passed 7/0. (Hill absent) (5.10.05) Arbitration -- Deferred -- need to complete. (5.26.05) Arbitration -- Newman moved, LaBelle seconded, binding arbitration is the last step for disputes and JP A grievances. Motion passed 6/2 with Miller and Ruehl dissenting. 2. Dissolution and Opt-out procedures, vote requirements (5.10.05) Withdrawal. Turgeon moved, Newman seconded, the JPA should be amended to allow a party to withdraw provided that any withdrawing party is required to continue to pay its share of the debt service on the existing police facility until that debt is retired. The withdrawing party should retain an equity interest in the existing police facility which may only be redeemed in the event that the JP A is dissolved. Motion passed 6/2, with Miller and Ruehl dissenting. (5.17.05) Withdrawal notification process. Hill moved, Love seconded, a twenty two month withdrawal notification process beginning in an even numbered year, with formal notification of withdrawal by March 1, with an obligation to remain in the JP A until December 31 of the next odd numbered year. The city withdrawing from the JP A would lose its vote on the SLMPD Operating Budget, but would continue to pay operating costs, and received the same level of service as the other member cities. Motion passed as a tentative agreement, 6/2, with Miller and Ruehl dissenting. (5.17.05) Penalty of withdrawal- Deferred-need to complete. 3. Formalized process to change document Need to fmalize draft. C. Financial and Service Issues. Includinl!: Fundinl!: Formula 1. Funding factors (5.26.05) Motion by Newman, seconded by LaBelle to change the operating budget funding formula to the following fixed percentages -- Shorewood 49%, Excelsior 25.5%, Tonka Bay Tentative Agreements Thru May 26, 2005 Page 3 of3 16%, and Greenwood 8.5% with Tonka Bay and Greenwood sharing an additional as yet unallocated 1 % between them. This formula is conditioned upon the binding arbitration identified in item B.!. above and requirements that (1) the annual operating budget shall be approved by a simple majority of the member city councils; and (2) the addition of any personnel to the police department will require unanimous approval of the coordinating committee. Motion passed 6/2 with Miller and Ruehl dissenting. 2. Definitions of "fair" and "equitable" 3. Level of service decisions, policing philosophy 4. Provide ability to determine budget contribution with Uniform Service Level for each city Chief's Narrative 2006 Operating Budget Considerations Appendix C 2005 SLMPD Funding -- Operations and Building Lease (per Coordinating Committee Recommended Contributions from Each Member City) Onerations Buildin" Lease Total Excelsior 442,559 63,796 506,355 26.00% 29.50% 14.26% Greenwood 127,517 43,133 170,650 8.76% 8.50% 9.64% Shorewood 690,092 259,404 949,496 48.75% 46.00% 57.97% Tonka Bav 240,032 81,115 321,147 16.49% 16.00% 18.13% Totals 1,500,200 447,488 1,947,688 100.00% 2005 SLMPD Funding -- Operations and Building Lease (per Coordinating Committee Recommended Contributions from Each Member City) WITH 4.0% DECREASE TO EXCELSIOR, and 3.0% INCREASE TO SHOREWOOD, and 0.5% INCREASES TO GREENWOOD & TONKA BAY Ooerations Buildinl! Lease Total Chanl!e in Cost $ Chanl!e % Chanl!e Excelsior 382,551 (60,008) -13.56% 63,796 446,347 (60,008) -11.85% 25.50% 14.26% 22.92% -3.08% Greenwood 135,018 7,501 5.88% 43,133 178,151 7,501 4.40% 9.00% 9.64% 9.15% 0.39% Shorewood 735,098 45,006 6.52% 259,404 994,502 45,006 4.74% 49.00% 57.97% 51.06% 2.31% Tonka Bay 247,533 7,501 3.13% 81,115 328,648 7,501 2.34% 16.50% 18.13% 16.87% 0.39% Totals 1,500,200 447,488 1,947,688 100.00% Prepared by SllOrewood City Administrator Craig Dawson I~ [" r- [~ [' , [' [ [ . Chief's Narrative 2006 Operating Budget Considerations Appendix D MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: SLMPD Coordinating Committee SLMPD Operating Committee Wednesday, July 13,2005 2006 Operating Budget Proposal The operating committee has met with Chief Litsey and Deputy ChiefNieling to discuss budget options on July 8th and again on July 11th. Our preliminary review of the proposed budget looked reasonable; however, this budget was drafted on the assumption that the budget would be made "whole" for 2006. Because of the uncertainty of the amount the four cities will actually contribute to the 2006 budget, the operating committee requested that Chief Litsey prepare a budget at the level of the least contribution required (2003 level). We also requested that Chief Litsey and Deputy ChiefNieling show what services would be provided at that level of contribution. We intend to meet again with Chief Litsey and Deputy ChiefNieling to review this requested information. We ask that the Coordinating Committee hold a special meeting at the end of July to consider this as a budget option. Chief's Narrative 2006 Operating Budget Considerations Appendix E r . l [ [ [ [ [ [ r l MNSUN - News oe\'lospapers Select a Town: Select a Town GO Local News Ii- Local News Community Education Calendar QQinion Pl,lpJiG$c;lf~ty S~Dlor$ Obituaries Leg~~ Graduation News Local Sports Sports Ne.W~ Sgorts Briefs EvenJ~l$Qores [ MNSun Home Page Archive Classifieds Candidates 2004 Finance Calc Nutrition Calc WeaJber Contact Us How to Advertise Jobs At Sun Special Sections Bride's Guide Forms Art & Education In Memory Of Let It Be Known Pri'{ate paffi'A-tiForm ~ort Shots Stork Report ~[illffi] ~~ffij~!lfSrID[IDfID~[ffS 41 local community newspapers Online II ],--O.c~LEQ[eJ&st Tuesday Jul. 26 2005 .f'.;.....~...~. " .t} . ,<',:,':"" 'Ii.,';".: ~.,. Page 1 of3 EXCELSIOR SUN~SAILOR Local News SLMPD begins latest journey down operating budget road By Mike Hanks Sun Newspapers (Created 7/25/20059:04:23 AM) From a simple economic standpoint, the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) is looking for a 3.7-percent increase in funding from its member cities for its 2006 operations. But increases for the SLMPD's operating budget have been anything but simple in recent years. Despite unresolved conflict among the SLMPD member cities, the task of budgeting for 2006 operations is underway. The early indication is that the process - following on the heels of a failed attempt to resolve ongoing disputes between the cities - will be as contentious, if not more so, than ever. The 2006 operating budget proposal was reviewed by the SLMPD's Coordinating Committee at its July 14 meeting. The committee, composed of the mayors of the four member cities, gave its preliminary approval to the proposal. The 2006 budget calls for a 3.7-percent increase over the 2005 contributions proposed for the member cities. That 2005 proposal, however, found the SLMPD reworking its budget and operations for the third consecutive year, as a result of Excelsior's budget decision. The SLMPD budget process requires all four member cities - Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay - to approve the budget proposal for the forthcoming year. If any city rejects the proposal, its obligatory contribution remains at the same level as the current year. Beginning with the 2003 budget, Excelsior's budget actions have resulted in annual contributions of $400,000, despite increases in the annual operating costs of the SLMPD. While the 2006 proposal would increase Excelsior's share of the budget by about $16,500 over the 2005 proposal, in reality the city would have to provide an additional $59,000 in 2006. A 3.7-percent Excelsior&stor 161476 ,6tUIWattt1. .'8$t,s_ie: ~~~~ 7/26/2005 [ . [ [ l r MNSUN - News Search The Web Powered by: :~oOr. Sea rch Page 2 of3 budget increase for 2006 would raise the SLMPD's operating budget by about $S6,000 next year, to about $1,S6 million. Excelsior representatives have cited economic constraints and overbearing budget increases as reasons for the city's denial of the past two budget proposals. Its 2004 budget rejection resulted in the establishment of a two-tier service system that has been in place for more than 18 months, a system that provides Excelsior with fewer services than the other cities. Attempts to resolve the conflict between the cities and restore a uniform service level to all four cities have failed. Most recently a panel of representatives from the cities recommended changes to the SLMPD's joint powers agreement aimed at resolving the budget dispute and other issues that have been raised in recent years. Despite recommendations by the panel, the Excelsior City Council opted to neither accept nor reject the recommendations by the June 30 deadline, effectively killing the deal the panel drafted. For 200S, Excelsior's rejection of the budget proposal left the SLMPD about $42,SOO short, an amount the other cities funded in an effort to maintain the department's infrastructure and continue receiving services that were being reduced or eliminated in Excelsior. In funding the shortfall, the cities also funded their share of the 4.1- percent increase the 200S budget called for. The SLMPD joint powers agreement only requires cities to contribute increases comparable to that of the lowest increase approved by anyone city, meaning Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay needed only to match their 2004 contribution for 200S, based upon Excelsior's O-percent increase. Had those cities not funded any increase for 200S, the SLMPD operating budget would have faced a revenue deficit of $144,000. Without an increased contribution from anyone city for 2006, the operating budget could face a $200,000 deficit. Police Chief Bryan Litsey gave an overview of the 2006 budget proposal at the Coordinating Committee's meeting. The largest portion of the department's projected $1.69 million in expenses is for full-time salaries, which will total slightly more than $1 million. For 2006 the proposed increase for full-time salaries, many of which are negotiated through union contracts, is 2.6 percent. Litsey outlined several increases the department will face in 2006 and noted ways it has offset some of them through cost saving measures. The 3.7 -percent increase proposed for the 2006 contributions of the member cities represents the continuance ofa downward trend in annual increases, he noted. The budget proposal called for a 6.S-percent increase in 2003 and a 6.3-percent increase in 2004. The budget proposal drew little scrutiny from the committee, but the discussion that followed its preliminary approval seemed to rub wounds that show no signs of healing. Greenwood Mayor Bob Newman, the Coordinating Committee's chairman, said that following the failure of the group discussions to amend the joint powers agreement, cities are all looking to determine their best course of action for the future. He suggested Excelsior has three options: resign from the organization, accept the group recommendations for amending the joint powers agreement, if the other cities are willing to htt ://www.mnsun.com/sto.as ?ci =Excelsior&stor =161476 7/26/2005 MNSUN - News Page 3 of3 put the offer back on the table, or agree that holding the line on its 2006 budget contribution will result in the layoff of department officers. If the city resigns as a joint powers partner, Newman recommended the city hire a consultant to determine what its requirements should be for future policing, should it be interested in contracting the service from the SLMPD. Without an increased contribution by Excelsior, "police officers will need to be cut," Newman said, suggesting the department could lose two full- time officers in 2006. If that happens, it will be up to each city to contract additional police service to its own benefit, he said. Newman requested that Excelsior officials indicate their budget plans within a couple of weeks to help the department with budget planning for 2006. Determining the SLMPD's 2006 budget needs to be done "without the turmoil of uncertainty complicating it," Newman said. Tonka Bay Mayor Doug Keller spoke in favor of pursuing a three-city department, and said it may be up to the cities to pursue the change if Excelsior representatives don't step forward. "We don't want to wait three years to figure out what we're going to do," Keller said. Shorewood Mayor Woody Love, whose council recently directed its city attorney to look at dissolution options for the department, supported Keller's idea. "I do favor looking into a three-city option," he said, explaining that without Excelsior, budgeting for the SLMPD would be more predictable and less controversial. "The idea of exploring options is a great idea," Excelsior Mayor Nick Ruehl said, saying it was a prudent step for all cities to take, and calling it "a sobering experience." Ruehl began to explain Excelsior's position regarding the recommended changes to the joint powers agreement, but was cut short by Love, who said the discussion was not about each city's position regarding the joint powers agreement. Although Love's motion for adjournment failed by a 2- 2 vote, the committee adjourned the meeting shortly thereafter. Another meeting for final review of the budget, prior to its presentation to the cities in August, is expected. Cities have until the end of August to act upon the budget proposal. This site and its contents @2000 - 2003. Sun Newspapers - Main Office: 952-829-0797 webinfo@mnsun.com - Created and maintained by Quantum Digital Interactive jcorbo@quantumsite.com htt ://www.mnsun.com/sto.as ?cit =Excelsior&stor =161476 7/26/2005 Lakeshore Weekly News I Minnetonka, MN I Cities tackle SLMPD's 2006 budget Page 1 of2 PRINT a 0- CWSI: akeshore _ _Weekly ''':p..;.",.~ J;;<i ews c.:oxedng.J]le Gtl'atf't .14Jke.Mit1~ett\Uk~. A~ ~"!,,lIil~lIl~ . ,iI~,iI ,'~ ~ . ,~ Monday, July 18, 2005 Cities tackle SLMPD's 2006 budget By Brett Stursa Staff Reporter Monday, July 18,2005 Shorewood, Tonka Bay, Greenwood talk of three-city police department Without resolution of the ongoing South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) funding disputes, officials began discussions about the 2006 budget. Police Chjef Bryan Litsey is requesting a 3.7 percent increase from the 2005 operating budget. When mayors from Shorewood, Greenwood, Tonka Bay and Excelsior met July 14, none of them voiced objections to the budget request. "As I look through this, I think this is generally in line," said Excelsior Mayor Nick Ruehl. However, it is unlikely each city will agree to fund the department at requested levels. What each is obligated to pay the police department budget has not increased since 2003. Since then, the Excelsior City Council has been f1atlining the budget. Recently, Ruehl and council members stated that the funding formula is unfair and subsidizes the city of Shorewood. "As much as you all believe you're subsidizing Excelsior, I don't believe that to be the case," said Ruehl. While Excelsior has held its contribution at $400,000 since 2003, the other cities agreed to pay more to maintain the service levels. This has created two tiers of service levels, with Excelsior receiving less service than the other cities in the department. "No one knows what Excelsior will do in 2006," said Greenwood Mayor Bob Newman. Newman, along with the mayors of Tonka Bay and Shorewood, expressed discomfort in waiting for Excelsior to decide what it will do. "Maybe we have to make up their mind for them," said Tonka Bay Mayor Doug Keller. "We don't want to wait three more years." http://www.weeklynews.com/print.asp? ArticleID= 1115&SectionID= 1 O&SubSectionID= 10 7/26/2005 Lakeshore Weekly News I Minnetonka, MN I Cities tackle SLMPD's 2006 budget Page 2 of2 He suggested talks begin with the police chief about creating a three-city police department. The Shorewood City Council has already asked city staff to research options for dissolving the SLMPD. Shorewood Mayor Woody Love said a three-city department could bring better police service to those communities and would be less controversial. Ruehl encouraged the other cities to research other policing options. "It's a sobering experience," said Ruehl. In attempting to ease some of the uncertainty about the 2006 budget, Newman outlined three positions the Excelsior City Council could take. They included resigning from the department, accepting the recent recommendations made to reconfigure the funding formula or agreeing to fund the department at 2003 levels. If Excelsior decides to continue to flatline the budget, Newman warned that layoffs of officers and staff will be required. He said the department would go from having 14 officers to 12 officers. He asked the city of Excelsior to tell the Coordinating Committee which option it will choose by the next meeting. "If Excelsior remains silent, we will need to further consider other options," said Newman. A special meeting is expected of the Coordinating Committee, which is made up of the cities' mayors, to officially endorse a budget. It will then go to each city council for approval. Levies are required to be certified to the county by Sept. 15. Related Links Content @ 2005 Lakeshore Weekly News Software@ 1998-2005 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved htt :/ /www.weeklynews.com/print.asp? ArticleID= 1115&SectionID= 1 O&SubSectionID= 10 7/26/2005 Printer version: Decision time nears on police department Page 1 of 1 startribune.com Close window Last update: July 18, 2005 at 5:29 PM Decision time nears on police department Published July 20, 2005 A 2006 BUDGET: The cities that run South Lake Minnetonka Police Department are getting ready to consider a 2006 budget. But the mayors of the four member cities -- Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay -- agreed that before they can make any decisions, Excelsior must make known its intentions. That is, the city must decide whether it plans to limit its contribution for 2006, as it has for the past three years, or whether it might find another way to get police service. EXCELSIOR'S OPTIONS: The department's coordinating committee, made up of the mayors, put off consideration of a budget proposed by Chief Bryan Litsey last week, but agreed to meet again within two weeks. By then, the other cities want to know which of three options Excelsior will choose for the future: resigning from the jointly operated department and contracting separately for its police services; accepting a proposed new funding formula which the Excelsior City Council rejected last month; or remaining part ofthe jointly operated department but continuing to pay the same amount it has since 2003, or $400,000 -- a move that would force the department to cut two of its 14 officers. If that happens, the other cities want an understanding with Excelsior that they can contract separately with the department to hire those officers to work only for them. EXCELSIOR'S NEXT MOVE: Excelsior Mayor Nick Ruehl said Excelsior is exploring options and hopes to have answers to those questions this week. HOW MUCH IS INVOLVED: Litsey's proposed budget for 2006 totals $1,687,100, up 3.8 percent from 2005. After revenues generated by the department and funding from other sources, the cities' share of the 2006 budget would total $1,555,100 -- 3.7 percent more than the $1,500,200 they provided in 2005. THE FUTURE: If Excelsior were to accept the other cities' proposed funding formula, under which it would pay 25.5 percent of the department's operating expenses each year, its share of the proposed 2006 budget would total $396,551 --less than the $400,000 it has provided in the past three years. But Excelsior officials have said they are concerned about being able to continue to fund the department at that level over the long term. Sam Barnes ~ Copyright 2005 Star Tribune. All rights reserved. 7/26/2005 Printer version: South Lake police stalemate starting to test cities' patience Page 1 of2 startribune.com Close window Last update: July 18, 2005 at 10:54 AM South Lake police stalemate starting to test cities' patience Published July 20, 2005 There was a tense, awkward moment toward the end of the meeting last week of the mayors whose cities run the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department. Each city's mayor had had his say, and, in a variety of ways, the mayors of Shorewood, Greenwood and Tonka Bay had all delivered the same message to the city of Excelsior: That it's time to face reality and either come up with its share of the money to fund the South Lake department or look elsewhere for police services. Then Excelsior Mayor Nick Ruehl took the floor and began repeating the same themes that Excelsior has been preaching for the last six months -- that the formula is not "fair." He used the word twice in describing how next-door neighbors separated by a city line between Excelsior and Shorewood can pay markedly different amounts for police services. "Is that fair?" Ruehl said. "I don't think that's fair." And, he added, "As much as you believe that you are subsidizing Excelsior, I don't believe that's the case ..." Suddenly, it seemed, Shorewood Mayor Woody Love could not take any more. He interrupted Ruehl's speech with a motion to adjourn the meeting on the spot. "We're not here for position statements," Love said. He called for a vote on his motion; parliamentary procedure didn't require a second. The mayors of Greenwood and Tonka Bay, with him every step of the way up to that point, voted down Love's motion so Ruehl could proceed. But Ruehl had gotten the message. His argument, so often repeated, had worn out its welcome. He cut short his remarks and the meeting ended. The mayors joked about inconsequential matters, Ruehl and Love included. But in the casual discussions among council members afterward, the subtext was clear: that Excelsior has gotten the best offer it's going to get from the other cities, and their patience is running out. Here's what the other mayors had to say on the subject during the session: Greenwood's Bob Newman: "Things are very much in limbo, and I find that uncomfortable... No one knows what Excelsior will do for 2006... http://www.startribune.com/dynamic/story.php?template=print a&story=55I 0985 7/26/2005 Printer version: South Lake police stalemate starting to test cities' patience Page 2 of2 "It's at a point where I don't think we can depend on Excelsior to lead on this." He called on Excelsior to decide whether it willI) quit the department, or 2) continue to pay a flat $400,000 per year, as it has since 2003, while receiving declining services, or 3) accept the fmal proposal the other cities offered last month -- under which it would pay 25.5 percent of the operating expenses of the department. "One of these three courses of action should be forthcoming from Excelsior at the earliest possible opportunity," he said. And based on that response, "The other three cities may need to pick up the ball and do what we need to do." "If Excelsior remains silent, we will have to further consider our options ... We are not comfortable waiting through more indecision from Excelsior." Tonka Bay's Douglas Keller: "We don't want to wait another three years." He said Police Chief Bryan Litsey should begin planning a budget for a three-city operation without Excelsior, and if Excelsior remains noncommittal, "maybe we ought to make up their mind for them." "I think that Excelsior should make up their mind within a couple of weeks." And in the meantime, "We should at least get prepared to keep this great force going." Shorewood's Love: "I do favor looking at a three-city option." It could mean "certainly a more predictable and less controversial future." Ruehl, a self-professed optimist, seemed to fInd a glimmer of hope even in those declarations from his fellow mayors. "The idea of exploring options is a great idea," he said. Excelsior has been exploring options, "and it's a sobering experience." "I think it will be sobering for everybody." Within a couple of weeks, it seems, something's going to have to give. Contact the writer at 612-673-7840 or sbarneS@Startribune.com. @ Copyright 2005 Star Tribune. All rights reserved. http://www.startribune.com/dynamic/story .php?template=print a&story=5510985 7/26/2005 Chief's Narrative 2006 Operating Budget Considerations Appendix F .....---,--- I FULL-TIME (SWORN) POLICE OFFICERS POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN LAKE MINNETONKA AREA Prepared by Chief Bryan Litsey - South lake Minnetonka Police Department (Updated July of 2005) Deephaven Police Department 7 4,388 627 1.60 Also Serving Woodland Medina Police Department 9 5272 586 1.71 Also Serving Loretto Minnetrista Public Safety Department 11 7,540 685 1.46 Also Serving Sf. Bonifacius Mound Police Department 13 9,740 749 1.33 Orono Police Department 20 11,809 590 1.69 Also Serving Long Lake, Minnetonka Beach & Spring Park South Lake Minnetonka Police Department 14 12,425 888 1.13 Serving Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood & Tonka Bay Wayzata Police Department 9 4,070 452 2.21 West Hennepin Public Safety Department 9 5,675 631 1.59 Serving Independence and Maple Plain Officer Data Provided by Police Departments Listed Population Data Based on Metropolitan Council Estimates - April 2004 Chief's Narrative 2006 Operating Budget Considerations Appendix G FULL-TIME (SWORN) POLICE OFFICERS POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN LAKE MINNETONKA AREA Prepared by Chief Bryan Litsey - South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (Updated July of 2005) Deephaven Police Department 7 4,388 627 1.60 Also Serving Woodland Medina Police Department 9 5272 586 1.71 Also Serving Loretta Minnetrista Public Safety Department 11 7,540 685 1.46 Also Serving St. Bonifacius Mound Police Department 13 9,740 749 1.33 Orono Police Department 20 11,809 590 1.69 Also Serving Long Lake, Minnetonka Beach & Spring Park South Lake Minnetonka Police Department 12 12,425 1,035 0.97 Serving Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood & Tanka Bay Wayzata Police Department 9 4,070 452 2.21 West Hennepin Public Safety Department 9 5,675 631 1.59 Serving Independence and Maple Plain Officer Data Provided by Police Departments Listed Population Data Based on Metropolitan Council Estimates - April 2004 South lake Minnetonka Police Department Proudly Serving the Cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood & Tonka Bay 2006 Operating Budget Prepared by - Police Chief Bryan Litsey Recommended Budget Proposal Continuation of Current Budget Scenario Coordinating Committee July - 2005 SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT 2006 OPERATING BUDGET RECOMMENDED PROPOSAL I I . SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT PROJECTED 2006 OPERATING BUDGET EXPENSES RECOMMENDED PROPOSAL MAKING THE BUDGET WHOLE SCENARIO ,.. I I i 50100 Salaries Full-time $1,030,000 50200 Salaries Overtime $52,000 50300 Salaries Part-time $38,500 50500 FICA/Medicare $17,500 50600 PERA Pension $108,500 50700 Insurance Benefits $145,000 51000 Contract Services $9,700 52100 Equipment Leases $24,000 52200 Repairs & Maintenance $34,000 52300 Utilities $56,000 52400 Janitorial & Cleaning $11,500 52500 Printing & Publishing $4,700 52800 Care of Persons $100 53000 Supplies $38,000 54000 Uniforms & Gear $9,500 54500 Travel, Conferences & Schools $9,000 56000 Insurance $50,000 56100 Subscriptions, Memberships & Police License Fees $2,800 57000 Special Projects $9,800 58000 Capital Outlay $36,500 For consideration at SLMPD Coordinating Committee Meeting - July 29, 2005 Prepared by Chief Bryan Litsey r l [ [ lm t . [ l. t SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT PROJECTED 2006 OPERATING BUDGET REVENUES RECOMMENDED PROPOSAL MAKING THE BUDGET WHOLE SCENARIO (Does Not Include Obligatory Contributions From Each Member City) 40110 Court Overtime $5,000 40120 Excelsior Park Patrol - Dockmaster - (Pending for 2006) $0 42100 State Peace Officer Aid $86,000 42200 State Training Reimbursement $6,000 43100 Minnetonka School District $7,000 43200 Copies of Documents, Photos and Tapes - Fingerprint Requests $3,000 43400 Security Details $5,000 44000 Investment Income $9,000 46400 Forfeitures $1,000 46500 Misc. State Reimbursement $9,000 For consideration at SLMPD Coordinating Committee Meeting - July 29, 2005 Prepared by Chief Bryan Litsey [ I . SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED PROPOSAL MAKING THE BUDGET WHOLE SCENARIO PROPOSED 2006 OPERATING BUDGET CONTRIBUTIONS FROM MEMBER CITIES REFLECTS FUNDING FORMULA CHANGE IMPLEMENTED IN 2002 $1,556,100 $459,050 $16,491 $1,556,100 8.5% $132,269 $4,751 3.7% $1,556,100 46.0% $715,806 $25,714 3.7% $1,556,100 16.0% $248,976 $8,944 3.7% RECOMMENDED OPERATING BUDGET CONTRIBUTIONS FOR 2005 MAKING THE BUDGET WHOLE SCENARIO VETOED BY EXCELSIOR -ILLUSTRATION ONLY $1,500,200 $442,559 $17,405 $1,500,200 8.5% $127,517 $5,015 4.1% $1,500,200 46.0% $690,092 $27,140 4.1% $1,500,200 16.0% $240,032 $9,440 4.1% For consideration at SLMPD Coordinating Committee Meeting - July 29, 2005 Prepared by Chief Bryan Litsey r I . SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT 2005 Operating Budget and Projected 2006 Operating Budget 50100 Salaries Full-time 50200 Salaries Overtime 50300 Salaries Part-time ('05 Restored Part- Time Clerical Position) 50500 FICAlMedicare 50600 PERA Pension 50700 Insurance Benefits 51000 Contract Services 52100 Equipment Leases 52200 Repairs & Maintenance 52300 Utilities 52400 Janitorial & Cleaning 52500 Printing & Publishing 52800 Care of Persons 53000 Supplies 54000 Uniforms & Gear 54500 Travel, Conferences & Schools 56000 Insurance 56100 Subscriptions, Memberships & Police License Fees 57000 Special Projects ('05 Restored Fundingfor Drug Task Force) 58000 Capital Outlay ('05 Partially Restored Fundingfor Vehicles) $1,004,000 $51,000 $37,200 $16,000 $97,000 $139,500 $8,500 $23,600 $32,000 $52,800 $11,000 $4,500 $100 $36,500 $9,500 $9,000 $50,000 $2,300 $9,700 $31,500 $1,030,000 $52,000 $38,500 $17,500 $108,500 $145,000 $9,700 $24,000 $34,000 $56,000 $11,500 $4,700 $100 $38,000 $9,500 $9,000 $50,000 $2,800 $9,800 $36,500 II 2.6% 2.0% 3.5% 9.4% 11.9% 3.9% 14.1% 1.7% 6.3% 6.1% 4.5% 4.4% 0.0% 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21. 7% 1.0% 15.9% 40110 Court Overtime $5,000 $5,000 0.0% 40120 Excelsior Park PatrollDockmaster (Pending for '06) $0 $0 42100 State Peace Officer Aid $86,000 $86,000 0.0% 42200 State Training Reimbursement $5,000 $6,000 20.0% 43100 Minnetonka School District $7,000 $7,000 0.0% 43200 Copies of Docs, Photos and Tapes - Fingerprint Requests $3,000 $3,000 0.0% 43400 Security Details $5,000 $5,000 0.0% 44000 Investment Income $5,000 $9,000 80.0% 46400 Forfeitures $1,000 $1,000 0.0% 46500 Misc. State Reimbursement $8,500 $9,000 5.9% For consideration at SLMPD Coordinating Committee Meeting - July 29, 2005 Modified by Chief Bryan Litsey SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT 2006 OPERATING BUDGET CONTINUATION OF CURRENT BUDGET SCENARIO r I . SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT PROJECTED 2006 OPERATING BUDGET EXPENSES CONTINUATION OF CURRENT BUDGET SCENARIO NO ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTION FROM EXCELSIOR 50100 Salaries Full-time $1,030,000 50200 Salaries Overtime $52,000 50300 Salaries Part-time $38,500 50500 FICA/Medicare $17,500 50600 PERA Pension $108,500 50700 Insurance Benefits $145,000 51000 Contract Services $9,700 52100 Equipment Leases $24,000 52200 Repairs & Maintenance $34,000 52300 Utilities $56,000 52400 Janitorial & Cleaning $11,500 52500 Printing & Publishing $4,700 52800 Care of Persons $100 53000 Supplies $38,000 54000 Uniforms & Gear $9,500 54500 Travel, Conferences & Schools $9,000 56000 Insurance $50,000 56100 Subscriptions, Memberships & Police License Fees $2,800 57000 Special Projects $9,800 58000 Capital Outlay $36,500 For consideration at SLMPD Coordinating Committee Meeting - July 29, 2005 Prepared by Chief Bryan Litsey SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT PROJECTED 2006 OPERATING BUDGET REVENUES CONTINUATION OF CURRENT BUDGET SCENARIO NO ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTION FROM EXCELSIOR (Does Not Include Obligatory Contributions From Each Member City) 40110 40120 40150 Court Overtime Excelsior Park Patrol - Dockmaster - (Pending for 2006) Tier 1 Service - City of Excelsior (No Additional Contribution) $5,000 $0 $0 42100 State Peace Officer Aid $86,000 42200 State Training Reimbursement $6,000 43100 Minnetonka School District $7,000 43200 Copies of Documents, Photos and Tapes - Fingerprint Requests $3,000 43400 Security Details $5,000 44000 Investment Income $9,000 46400 Forfeitures $1,000 46500 Misc. State Reimbursement $9,000 For consideration at SLMPD Coordinating Committee Meeting - July 29, 2005 Prepared by Chief Bryan Litsey SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT CONTINUATION OF CURRENT BUDGET SCENARIO NO ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTION FROM EXCELSIOR 2006 OBLIGATORY CONTRIBUTIONS FROM MEMBER CITIES REFLECTS FUNDING FORMULA CHANGE IMPLEMENTED IN 2002 [ [ . $1,355,932 $1,355,932 $1,355,932 $1,355,932 8.5% 46.0% 16.0% $400,000 $115,254 $623,729 $216,949 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2005 OBLIGATORY CONTRIBUTIONS FROM MEMBER CITIES $1,355,932 $400,000 $1,355,932 8.5% $115,254 0.0% $1,355,932 46.0% $623,729 0.0% $1,355,932 16.0% $216,949 0.0% r For consideration at SLMPD Coordinating Committee Meeting - July 29, 2005 Prepared by Chief Bryan Litsey SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT Budget Tracking Spreadsheet - Years 2003-2006 Difference $409,254 $400,000 $9,254 $117,921 $115,254 $2,667 $638,158 $623,729 $14,429 $221,968 $216,949 $5,019 $31,368 $1,387,300 6.5% $1,355,932 4.1 % Difference Made Up With Reserve Funds Recommended Contributions Reduction - Excelsior Action Recommended Contributions $425,154 $122,502 $662,952 $230,592 $1,441,200 6.3% No Increase - Excelsior Action $400,000 $115,254 $623,729 $216,949 $1,355,932 0.0% Difference $25,154 $7,248 $39,223 $13,643 $85,268 Additional Voluntary Contributions $0 $7,248 $39,223 $13,643 $60,114 Total Contributions $400,000 $122,502 $662,952 $230,592 $1,416,046 4.4% Recommended Contributions $442,559 $127,517 $690,092 $240,032 $1,500,200 4.1% No Increase - Excelsior Action $400,000 $115,254 $623,729 $216,949 $1,355,932 0.0% Difference $42,559 $12,263 $66,363 $23,083 $144,268 Additional Voluntary Contributions $0 $17,394 $94,132 $32,742 $144,268 Total Contributions $400,000 $132,648 $717,861 $249,691 $1,500,200 4.1% Prepared by Chief Bryan Litsey - For consideration at SLMPD Coordinating Committee Meeting - July 29, 2005 Budget Tracking Spreadsheet - Years 2003-2006 Continued - Page 2 Recommended Contributions $459,050 $132,269 $715,806 $248,976 $1,556,100 3.7% No Increase - 2005 Scenario $400,000 $115,254 $623,729 $216,949 $1,355,932 0.0% Difference $59,050 $17,015 $92,077 $32,027 $200,168 Additional Voluntary Contributions $0 $24,220 $130,510 $45,438 $200,168 Total Contributions $400,000 $139,474 $754,239 $262,387 $1,556,100 3.7% * Rounding used in reflecting some of the numbers and percentages Prepared by Chief Bryan Litsey - For consideration at SLMPD Coordinating Committee Meeting - July 29, 2005 I l~ Recommended 2006 Operating Budget Supporting Documentation r' I I D\l1'HL4,t' C:) MINNETONKA I: @~-~" ~ ~ ---, "..... '",. >~ , ."',,.'.".4 . ',.. "-,', .,. ,oOllC~ SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT r . I LINE ITEM NARRATIVE 2006 OPERATING BUDGET PROPOSAL PROJECTED EXPENSES 50100 - SALARIES - FULL-TIME - $1,030,000 [ l This line item includes full-time wages for union and non-union personnel. The labor agreement with the officers union has been settled for 2006 with the exception of a re- opener for medical insurance benefits. In addition, wages for non-union personnel other than management positions have been settled for 2006. This means that the majority of the costs reflected under this category are known rather than having to rely on estimates when salaries have not yet been agreed upon for the coming year. Factors influencing payroll costs include economic adjustments, step increases, incentive pay and staying competitive in order to recruit and retain the best personnel. There are no additional full-time positions being requested for 2006. r l l 50200 - SALARIES - OVERTIME - $52,000 l l [ ~ [ L [ , l L This line item includes projected overtime costs paid to personnel as part oftheir normal course of duties as well as on holidays. There are also reimbursable overtime costs that are reflected under anticipated revenues for scheduled court appearances, school programs and security details. This category previously included special policing details for the City of Shorewood, but funding was discontinued in 2004. In addition, the airport security contract administered and staffed through our organization was discontinued in 2003. 50300 - SALARIES - PART -TIME - $38,500 This line item includes already settled wages for two part-time clerical positions in 2006. One of the two positions under this category was left unfilled for over a year until being partially restored in 2005 at a reduced number of hours. There is no increase in hours being requested for 2006. Also included under this section, when applicable, are the seasonal part~time positions of park patrol and dockmaster. This is an additional service provided to the City of Excelsior with reimbursement reflected as a revenue item. It has Projected Expenses - 2006 Budget Proposal Page 2 not been included at this preliminary stage of budgeting since it is unknown at this time if the City of Excelsior will obtain this service through our organization in 2006. 50500 - SOCIAL SECURITYIMEDICARE - $17,500 This line item includes the required employer contribution for those personnel covered under the federally mandated social security and medicare programs. Personnel changes account for the increase under this category. 50600 - PERA PENSIONS - $108,500 This line item includes the required employer contribution for those personnel covered under the state mandated Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA). The state legislature in the recently completed special session passed a pension bill that increases both the employer and employee contributions to PERA starting in 2006. This is intended to address the current funding deficiencies in both the coordinated and police/fire plans. This expens-e category will see a series of significant increases as these additional contributions are phased in over the next several years. There is an offset to the employer contribution made on behalf of licensed police officers that is shown as revenue under State Peace Officer Aid. In addition, the employer contribution is recouped when providing contract policing for security details, traffic control, special events, etc. 50700 - INSURANCE BENEFITS - $145,000 This line item includes the employer contribution toward health, life and supplemental insurance for eligible personnel. To help mitigate the ever increasing cost of providing these benefits for employees our organization is part of a consortium of local governmental agencies that collectively negotiate with providers through the LOGIS Health Care Group. The employer contribution toward health insurance accounts for the bulk of the expense under this category with a cap of 12 percent on premium increases in 2006. The current labor agreement with the officers union contains a provision in the contract which re-opens negotiations on the employer contribution toward health insurance benefits in 2006. This has been taken into account when calculating the overall increase in this category. 51000 - CONTRACT SERVICES - $9,700 This line item includes a number of professional services for such things as preparation of Projected Expenses - 2006 Budget Proposal Page 3 an annual financial statement (Le., audit); legal counsel for departmental affairs; availability of interpreters to communicate with non-English speaking suspects, victims and witnesses; and pre-employment medical and psychological examinations. This is a particularly volatile category given the difficulty in trying to anticipate what legal resources might be needed in any given year. In addition, the recent conversion in accounting practices to GASB-34 has added to the expense of preparing our annual financial statement. These factors account for the increase in this category. 52100 - EQUIPMENT LEASES - $24,000 This line item includes lease/maintenance agreements for such things as connecting to the state criminal justice information system (CJIS), pagers, copier/fax machine and postage meter. The most significant expense under this category is the annual transfer made to the Designated Radio Fund to handle the required communication upgrades as subscribers to the Hennepin County system. It was initially set up in anticipation of the conversion that took place in 2002 to a new 800 MHz radio system. This capital fund, helped by a grant, has lessened the impact on the operating budget for the considerable costs associated with acquiring and maintaining the equipment needed to operate on the new radio system. It is also currently being used in conjunction with another grant to lessen the impact on the operating budget for new mobile data computers in the squads as part of a further upgrade to the system. There is an increased amount that will be transferred to the Designated Radio Fund for 2006 in accordance with the previously adopted amortization schedule. 52200 - REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE - $34,000 This line item covers such things as the repair of vehicles, repair and replacement of office equipment and furniture and ongoing building and computer maintenance. Increased costs in this category can be attributed primarily to entering into a number of maintenance agreements to prevent breakdowns in critical building infrastructure such as the heating/cooling system, communications, emergency generator, etc. This is necessary not only to prevent the disruption of emergency services, but also to extend the useful life of equipment. The same is true when it comes to vehicle maintenance, which is the most significant expense under this category. It is important that our fleet of vehicles be kept in top-notch condition given the reliance placed on them for emergency response. Also included in this category are such things as the calibration of truck scales and speed measuring devices along with the minor repair and replacement of furniture and equipment. Projected Expenses - 2006 Budget Proposal Page 4 52300 - UTILITIES - $56,000 This line item includes phones, electricity, natural gas, water and sewer, waste removal and alarm service. Moving into a new public safety facility in 2004 increased these costs considerably. Having occupied the building for well over a year has helped in calculating what it takes to operate and maintain the facility on an ongoing basis. Adjustments have been made for the anticipated jump in energy costs for 2006. 52400 - JANITORIAL & CARPET CLEANING - $11,500 This line item includes janitorial and carpet cleaning services. These expenses increased significantly in 2004 as a result of our moving into a new facility with considerably more square footage. Some adjustments have been made since that time to fully realize these costs and for this reason there is a modest increase for 2006. 52500 - PRINTING & PUBLISHING - $4,700 This line item includes stationary, forms, professional publications, direct deposit and internet banking fees and advertising for personnel vacancies. Increases in this category can be attributed to the continual need to update paperwork along with additional banking servIces. 52800 - CARE OF PERSONS - $100 This line items includes caring for detainees while in custody at the SLMPD. This is a minimal expense since most detainees are either booked and released from our police station or transported to the Hennepin County Jail. This category is also used to track booking fees which are offset through reimbursement from the member cities. 53000 - SUPPLIES - $38,000 This comprehensive line item includes gasoline for our fleet of vehicles, diesel fuel for the emergency generator at the public safety facility, vehicle supplies, educational materials, ammunition, first aid supplies, batteries, recording supplies, film, drug testing kits, hardware, office supplies and other miscellaneous items required for department operations. The most significant increase in this category is attributed to spiraling gasoline prices. There is an offset under projected revenues for the educational materials used in the schools as part of our CounterAct Program. l Projected Expenses - 2006 Budget Proposal Page 5 54000 - UNIFORMS - $9,500 This line item includes uniforms and gear for department personnel along with applicable clothing and equipment allowances. It was expanded in recent years to include uniforms for the office staff and the community service officer position. This category also absorbs the considerable expense of outfitting new officer(s). State and federal reimbursement is available when purchasing body armor for licensed police officers. There is no requested increase in this category. [ l [ [ l l l [ [ : r l [ . [ - 54500 - TRAINING AND CONFERENCES -$9,000 This line item includes sending personnel to mandated and elective training as well as law enforcement conferences. The number of recently hired personnel can add to this cost since they usually require more training the first several years. The state also continues to require more and more mandated training in response to directives from the legislature without reimbursement. One of many recurring expenses under this category that has increased considerably in recent years is maintaining all our police officers as certified emergency medical technicians. The importance of providing quality training, however, cannot be overestimated in terms of enhancing the skill level and professionalism of personnel as well as reducing injuries and the risk of litigation. Although training costs are significant, this pales in comparison to the implications associated with failing to adequately train personnel. There is no requested increase in this category. 56000 - INSURANCE - $50,000 The amount allocated to this line item is transferred to the Designated Insurance Fund established as a hedge against fluctuating insurance costs. Premiums are paid out of this fund for liability, property and workers' compensation coverage through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). The most significant increases in recent years can be attributed to insuring the new public safety facility and upping liability coverage to protect against federal actions which are not subject to the same tort limitations as state actions. There is no increase in the amount being transferred for 2006. 56100 - SUBSCRIPTIONS & MEMBERSHIPS - $2,800 This line item includes subscriptions to journals as well as organizational memberships. Added to this category several years ago was the expense of maintaining the professional licensor of our police officers. Licensing is done on a three-year cycle depending on the Projected Expenses - 2006 Budget Proposal Page 6 last name ofthe officer. In 2006, the bulk of our police officers are up for renewal thus attributing to the increase under this category. 57000 - SPECIAL PROJECTS - $9,800 This line item includes membership in the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force and subscribing to the services provided by ComerHouse. The Southwest Metro Drug Task Force is funded through contributions from member law enforcement agencies supplemented by grant money and forfeiture proceedings. There is no expected increase to members for 2006. ComerHouse is a highly regarded sexual abuse evaluation center with the goal of reducing trauma, eliciting uncontaminated statements and achieving more positive outcomes for children and families of alleged sexual abuse and violence. There is a nominal increase in the subscriber fee for 2006. 58000 - CAPITAL OUTLAY - $36,500 The amount allocated to this line item is transferred to the Designated Vehicle and Equipment Funds. Most is transferred to the Designated Vehicle Fund, which is used for purchasing vehicles in accordance with our replacement schedule. It also covers the costs associated with tearing down the equipment in old police vehicles and setting up the equipment in new police vehicles along with any needed replacement of equipment. Proceeds from vehicle sales and insurance settlements are also transferred into this fund. There was a significant reduction in the amount transferred to this fund in 2004 to help offset a budget shortfall. This was partially restored as part of the 2005 budget and this restoration continues as part of the proposed 2006 budget. This category also supplements the Designated Equipment Fund. This is used for capital projects associated with keeping our technology current as well as various equipment needs. Transfers into this fund from the operating budget have been negligible in recent years due to budgetary constraints and the same is true for 2006. Grants and donations have provided some supplemental funding, but cannot be counted on as a continual revenue source. [ . [ [ [ [ [ l [ [ l QUTH LAke- S MINNETONKA ~. (..,~:; ,.J ,llOL\Cl(. SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT LINE ITEM NARRATIVE 2006 OPERATING BUDGET PROPOSAL PROJECTED REVENUES (Excluding Required Contributions from Member Cities) 40110 - COURT OVERTIME - $5,000 Each member city is responsible for the cost of overtime associated with an officer making a court appearance for an incident that occurs in its respective city. This varies from year-to-year and thus the above figure is only an estimate based upon historical averages. 40120 - EXCELSIOR PARK PATROL & DOCKMASTER -$0 Pending for 2006. 42100 - STATE PEACE OFFICER AID - $86,000 This reimbursement through the Minnesota Department of Revenue lags one year behind and is tied to the employer contribution made to the police pension fund administrated through the Public Employment Retirement Association (PERA). Only full-time licensed police officers employed for the required period of time are counted for purposes of this reimbursement. It is uncertain if the increased employer contribution recently passed by the legislature will be included in subsequent years. The actual amount received in 2006 may vary depending on a multitude of factors. 42200 - STATE TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT - $6,000 The State of Minnesota provides partial reimbursement for the continuing education of full-time licensed police officers, which was reduced in past years due to the state budget crisis. It is anticipated that our reimbursement will increase in 2006 due to additional funding recently being approved by the legislature. The above figure represents what our organization should receive based on 14 full-time officers. Projected Revenues - 2006 Operating Budget Proposal Page 2 43100 - MINNETONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT - $7,000 The Minnetonka School District provides funding for police liaison activities and educational programs in the schools. The majority ofthis money is used to fund our CounterAct Program in the elementary schools. 43200 - COPIES OF DOCUMENTS, PHOTOS & TAPES - $3,000 This is the anticipated revenue from public data requests for copies of documents as well as audio, video and digital recordings. This category also includes revenue from fmgerprint requests for employment purposes and other non-criminal matters. 43400 - SECURITY DETAILS - $5,000 This category includes requests for security details over and above our normal level of service. These requests are administered by our police department at a set fee and officers working these details are paid on an overtime basis. The number of requests vary from year-to-year, but have been on the increase. The amount in this category is subject to fluctuation, but there is no adverse effect on the budget since costs are reimbursed. 44000 - INVESTMENT INCOME - $9,000 The anticipated revenue under this category is an estimate based upon historical trends and anticipated future earnings. This reflects a considerable increase over what was budgeted in 2005 due to a climb in interest rates since that time. The SLMPD maintains a portfolio of prudent investments through local banks and the 4M fund managed through the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC). 46400 - FORFEITURES - $1,000 This includes unanticipated income, including forfeitures. This is subject to extreme fluctuations from year-to-year. 46500 - MISCELLANEOUS STATE REIMBURSEMENT - $9,000 This category includes reimbursement from the State of Minnesota for such things as the employer cost of providing health insurance for law enforcement officers disabled through work, body armor purchases, miscellaneous grants, etc. In recent years the state SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT DETAILED BUDGET HISTORY 2005 - 2003 LINE ITEM EXPENSES Approved Budget 2004 50100 Salaries Full-time $1,004,000 $969,000 $968,008 $943,886 $928,000 Airport security detail for a 50200 Salaries Overtime $51,000 $50,000 $41,501 $55,000 portion of the year $59,294 Fill vacant part-time Vacant part-time clerical Community Service Officer Part-time clerical position left 50300 Salaries Part-time clerical position position left unfilled $24,324 position no longer part-time vacant for part of the year $37,200 $24,500 $60,000 $44,408 50500 FICA/Medicare $16,000 $15,500 $16,972 $18,000 $14,435 50600 PERA Pension $97,000 $94,300 $90,908 $91,000 $90,573 50700 Insurance Benefits $139,500 $128,000 $126,586 $114,000 $111,504 51000 Contract Services $8,500 $8,000 $12,472 $8,950 $10,186 Additional 800 MHz Additional 800 MHz Conversion to 52100 Equipment Leases radio expenses radio expenses $18,928 800 MHz radio system $18,731 $23,600 $21,400 $19,400 52200 Repairs & Maintenance $32,000 $29,500 $29,893 $27,700 $31,023 52300 Utilities New public safety facility New public safety facility $51,733 $19,298 $52,800 $43,500 $21,100 52400 Janitorial & Cleaning New public safety facility New public safety facility $9,746 $5,700 $4,250 11 000 $9 000 52500 Printing & Publishing $4,500 $4,600 $4,150 $5,200 $5,052 52800 Care of Persons $100 $100 $0 $100 $0 53000 Supplies $36,500 $36,500 $39,655 $36,900 $41,026 54000 Uniforms & Gear $9,500 $9,500 $6,274 $11,000 $8,805 54500 Travel, Conferences & Schools $9,000 $9,000 $7,635 $10,500 $6,962 One month only. Move to new 55000 Building Rent N/A Dubllc safetY facllltv $3,200 $38,400 $38,400 $3,200 56000 Insurance New public safety facility New public safety facility $50,000 $40,000 $40,000 $50 000 $50 000 56100 Subscriptions & Memberships $2,300 $1,600 $1,597 $2,600 $3,046 Restore funding for SW Metro Withdrawal from SW Metro 57000 Special Projects Drug Task Force Drug Task Force $1,260 $9,750 $9,623 $9,700 $1,300 Partially restore funding for Reduced contribution to vehicle 58000 Capital Outlay vehicle replacement schedule fund - None to equipment fund $18,000 $48,000 $48,000 $18,000 . Designated Pl'lmarlly for utility Applied to Utilities. costs at new DubllC safety N/A N/A $Q,Q46 Line Item 52300 $1,535,546 $1,522,842 SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT DETAILED BUDGET HISTORY 2002 - 2000 LINE ITEM EXPENSES Approved Budget Approved Budget 2002 2000 Phase In of full-time Salary Increases After Phase In of additional 50100 Salaries Full-time Communltv Service Officer $881,691 Budllet Set $799,725 full-time officer $718,961 $861,300 $793,000 $760,454 50200 Salaries Overtime $60,500 Airport Security Detail $57,500 $36,590 $77 ,000 $94,631 $71,106 Transition from part-time to full- Addition of part-time 50300 Salaries Part-time time Community Service Officer $50,877 Community Service Officer $46,905 $57,596 $46,748 $63,000 $69,000 50500 FICA/Medicare $16,500 $14,493 $13,000 $11,147 $10,500 $10,160 50600 PERA Pension $85,300 $88,632 $80,000 $74,947 $75,500 $73,620 50700 Insurance Benefits $102,000 $97,312 $80,000 $80,063 $68,000 $68,159 51000 Contract Services $8,450 $6,637 $8,400 $9,747 $7,500 $9,435 52100 Equipment Leases $16,900 $17,674 $16,700 $14,827 $14,550 $15,327 52200 Repairs & Maintenance $27,700 $25,291 $27,500 $21,394 $26,000 $25,421 52300 Utilities $21,100 $18,015 $19,500 $19,433 $18,750 $16,824 52400 Janitorial & Cleaning $5,700 $5,205 $5,700 $5,516 $5,580 $5,304 52500 Printing & Publishing $5,200 $4,040 $5,200 $5,371 $4,500 $2,233 52800 Care of Persons $100 $0 $100 $0 $100 $0 53000 Supplies $36,900 $37,304 $34,500 $36,759 $33,750 $33,377 54000 Uniforms & Gear $11,000 $7,814 $9,000 $12,409 $8,500 $9,672 54500 Travel, Conferences & Schools $10,500 $8,988 $10,000 $10,734 $10,000 $7,835 55000 Building Rent $38,400 $38,400 $38,400 $38,400 $38,400 $38,400 56000 Insurance $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $43,000 $43,000 56100 Subscriptions & Memberships $3,850 $3,062 $3,900 $2,318 $2,000 $2,670 57000 Special Projects $9,650 $9,588 $9,650 $7,588 $9,650 $10,047 58000 Capital Outlay $52,000 $52,000 $51,300 $51,300 $48,700 $48,700 $1,476,050 $1,501,654 $1,320,030 $1,256,999 Note - The chart of accounts were revised in 2000 to accommodate the changeover from a manual to a computerized bookkeeping system. While the overall budget remained the same, some of the categories were adjusted during the course of the year. CPA Stuart Bonniwell was involved in this process. SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT DETAILED BUDGET HISTORY 2005 - 2003 LINE ITEM REVENUES Approved Budget 2004 2004 40110 Court Overtime $5,000 $5,000 $4,281 Funding Discontinued Funding Discontinued 40120 Excelsior Park Patrol - Dockmaster $0 $0 $0 Shorewood Special Details Funding Discontinued Funding Discontinued $0 40130 42100 State Peace Officer Aid $86,000 $80,000 $84,466 42200 State Training Reimbursement $5,000 $5,000 $5,014 Emergency Preparedness Grant Funding Discontinued Funding Discontinued $0 42300 $0 $0 43100 Minnetonka School District $7,000 $7,000 $6,838 43200 Copies of Documents, Photos & Tapes $3,000 $3,000 $1,927 Security Details - Other Services Airport Detail Discontinued Airport Detail Discontinued 43400 $5,000 $5,000 $9,035 44000 Investment Income $5,000 $5,000 $3,697 Reallocated Reallocated 46100 Sale of Vehicles $0 $0 $0 46400 Forfeitures $1,000 $1,000 $2,018 46500 Misc. State Reimbursement $8,500 $8,500 $9,510 $179,614 $186,900 N/A Carryover of Existing Fund Balance - Undesignated (Reserve) Funds to cover projected revenue shortfall from the member cities in 2003. $5,000 $4,003 $19,000 $14,406 Funding Reduced $276 $7,500 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $80,000 $82,987 $6,000 $5,935 Funding Discontinued $0.00 $0 $7,000 $6,838 $3,000 $2,642 $5,000 Airport Detail Included $48,533 $10,000 $3,179 $12,000 $0 $1,000 $3,760 $8,500 $6,531 Enhanced Service - Two tiers of police service (basic and enhanced) were established in 2004 based on funding considerations from the member cities. ~ SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT DETAILED BUDGET HISTORY 2002 - 2000 LINE ITEM REVENUES Approved Budget 2002 40110 Court Overtime $5,000 $3,317 $5,000 $2,693 $7,800 $3,885 40120 Excelsior Park Patrol - Dockmaster $19,000 $15,174 $19,000 $11,635 $19,000 $10,429 40130 Shorewood Special Details $15,000 $3,551 $15,000 $1,514 $30,981 $13,893 42100 State Peace Officer Aid $81,500 $71,134 $80,000 $70,063 $80,000 $77,326 42200 State Training Reimbursement $5,500 $5,939 $4,400 $5,806 $4,400 $5,068 42300 Emergency Preparedness Grant $0 $0 $4,400 $3,394 $4,000 $4,297 43100 Minnetonka School District $7,000 $6,838 $6,800 $6,838 $6,800 $6,838 43200 Copies of Documents, Photos & Tapes $2,500 $2,554 $3,000 $2,044 $2,200 $2,013 Airport Security Detail 43400 Security Details $5,000 $79,873 $4,000 $5,350 N/A $7,716 44000 Investment Income $13,000 $5,063 $12,500 $12,618 $11,500 $16,232 46100 Sale of Vehicles $12,000 $9,090 $10,000 $12,685 $10,000 $6,250 46400 Forfeitures $1,000 $1,339 $1,000 $1,983 N/A $280 46500 Misc. State Reimbursement $7,500 $1,995 $4,500 $8,993 $2,000 $12,705 $174,000 $205,867 $178,681 $166,932 Note - The chart of accounts were revised in 2000 to accommodate the changeover from a manual to a computerized bookkeeping system. While the overall budget remained the same, some of the categories were adjusted during the course of the year. CPA Stuart Bonniwell was involved in this process. \. # SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT AUDITED FUND BALANCES (As of December 31, 2004) Undesignated-Reserve Fund - (See Notation Below) Notation: The Undesignated-Reserve Fund balance increased as a result of favorable operations during 2004. This still remains approximately $11,500 below the preferred ratio of reserves to expenses for 2005. * SEE ATTACHED NARRATIVE EXPLAINING EACH CATEGORY * ~ [ ~ r [ r t r l OU1'H L.4/(~ c:; MINNETONKA ~~" ~ '.'_....~ ~~!1 ~;&~).~ ,00 LlCCC:. EXPLANATION OF FUNDS Prepared by Chief RIYall Litsey INTRODUCTION It is important to understand that as a joint powers organization our police department operates as a separate unit of government as allowed for by state statute. This means we need to be more financially self-reliant by maintaining funds in support of the operating budget. This is atypical of what would normally be the case for a police department operating under the structure of city government. We maintain a number of funds as a hedge against uncertainties that might otherwise lead to spikes in the operating budget from year-to-year. I have summarized each ofthese funds below and have also included a spreadsheet showing the balances at the end of fiscal year 2004. Many of these funds are subject to variances throughout the year depending on when transfers are made. DESIGNATED FUNDS Insurance Fund - This fund is used as a hedge against fluctuating insurance costs. Premiums are paid out of this fund for liability, property and workers' compensation coverage through the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC). Maintaining this fund helps guard against the volatility in the insurance industry as well as providing a method for self-insuring against smaller claims in order to maintain a larger deductible. The annual contribution to this fund from the operating budget has not always kept pace with expenses. In recent years the balance in this fund has been drawn down due to increased workers' compensation premiums, insuring the new public safety facility and upping liability coverage to protect against federal actions which are not subject to the same tort limitations as state actions. Vehicle Fund - This fund is utilized to purchase, equip and set-up vehicles. It provides for a uniform replacement schedule for our fleet of vehicles. The sale of vehicles was previously reported as a revenue item as part of the operating budget, but was changed in 2004 so the proceeds go directly into the fund to even out the variance in revenue generated from the sale of vehicles. The vehicles in the patrol fleet are replaced more often than the other vehicles used by the support staff. This occurs for obvious reasons given the high and rigorous number of miles put on patrol vehicles and their need to be in good condition for safety and reliability. The contribution from the annual operating "'<i . ~ PAGE 2 - EXPLANATION OF SLMPD FUNDS budget to this fund was drastically reduced in 2004 as a temporary cost savings measure to help get us through some budget woes. It was recognized this was not a good long- term strategy and the annual contribution from the 2005 operating budget partially restores this fund. The annual contribution from the 2006 operating budget continues this restoration with the goal of full restoration being achieved in 2007. To help mitigate the impact on this fund the majority of our police cruisers have been converted from the Ford Crown Victoria to the Chevrolet Impala. The Chevrolet Impala is less expensive, has better fuel economy and seems to be more durable. Equipment Fund - In recent years this fund has primarily been used for technology enhancements that are quickly becoming the backbone of any effective crime fighting strategy. It is crucial for a law enforcement agency to keep pace with technology in order to better serve the public. We have been able to make some significant inroads with upgrading our technology due to some favorable revenues in previous budgets, technology grants and contributions from private sources such as the South Lake Minnetonka Crime Prevention Fund (a nonprofit community-based organization). Nevertheless, this fund is not adequately being replenished from the operating budget and we cannot rely on the availability of supplemental funding to fill in the gap. There is only a minimal contribution from the annual operating budget for 2006 Radio Fund - This account was established a number of years ago in anticipation of the changeover in the Hennepin County Radio System to 800 MHz. The switch-over for our organization occurred in the fall of 2002 and this fund is currently being used to help ease the impact on our operating budget. A schedule has been set up to absorb this cost in the operating budget over a number of years. We are also in the midst of absorbing another significant expense through this fund with the need to install new mobile data computers in the squads in order to be compatible with the current upgrades being done to the county system. The impact on this fund is being mitigated by the leasing of equipment through the county in order to preserve capital and by securing grants to partially offset costs. Building Fund - This fund was initially established during my tenure as police chief to assist with capital expenses to maintain our aging police station and to provide some fmancial support for exploring the option of a new public safety facility. It has since been re-designated to serve as an escrow account to cover capital maintenance costs for the new public safety facility. It has also been used for some of the costs associated with moving into our new facility. The fund balance was established through some past operating budget surpluses, but will need an annual infusion in future budget years to maintain an adequate escrow amount. To date, there has been no annual contribution from the operating budget to build up this escrow account. Although this is once again .. . r t [ [ [ " [ [ " , PAGE 3 - EXPLANATION OF SLMPD FUNDS the case for 2006, this needs to be addressed in future budget years. Reserve Officer Fund - This fund has traditionally been used to provide an annual appreciation banquet for volunteer reserve officers. The authorized use of this fund has been expanded during my tenure as police chief to provide volunteer reserve officers with equipment, training, etc. This fund receives no contribution from the operating budget, but rather, receives revenues generated from our police auctions along with annual contributions directly from each member city. It is important to note reserve officers are true volunteers and receive no financial incentives such as those afforded firefighters with the Excelsior Fire District. Expanding the use of this fund as stated has been a nice gesture to the volunteer reserve officers who in the past have personally incurred equipment and training costs in addition to donating their time. DWI Forfeiture Fund - The money realized from the sale of vehicles pursuant to the DWI forfeiture law must be distributed in accordance with state statute. The portion that goes to our police department must be maintained in a special fund. The authorized expenditures from this special fund are also restricted by state statute to DWI-related uses, such as the purchase of equipment that can aid in the detection, apprehension and prosecution of people who are driving while impaired. This is a supplement to the operating budget and not a revenue offset. OTHER FUNDS Accrued Liabilities Fund - Our police department keeps enough funds on hand to cover our accrued compensated absences, which are owed to personnel upon their departure from our organization. These include their accumulated vacation and compensatory time as well as severance pay based on a percentage of their accumulated sick leave. We have a long-standing practice of making sure our organization can handle this liability internally without passing it along to the member cities. As a joint powers organization, we run a greater risk of being dissolved than a municipality. It is important, therefore, for this liability to be fully funded. Undesignated-Reserve Fund - This provides a cushion to the operating budget for unanticipated expenses. It is now being recommended by our financial consultant that we maintain a reserve balance equal to approximately 4 percent of operating budget expenditures. The reason a larger reserve fund balance is not required is that unlike a city, which must maintain its cash flow between tax collections, our joint powers organization receives monthly payments from the member cities which accounts for the majority of our revenue. This fund was drawn down in 2003 to make up an anticipated