The URL can be used to link to this page

062606 CC Reg AgP CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2006 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call Mayor Love _ Lizee Turgeon _ Callies Wellens B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, June 12,2006 (Att.- Minutes) B. City Council Work Session Minutes, June 12,2006 (Att. - Minutes) 3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: NOTE: Give the public an opportunity to request an item be removedfrom 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 - Liquor Staffing Recommendation (Att. Finance Director's memorandum) C. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Annual Report (Att. - Engineer's memorandum) D. Appeal Notice to Remove (Att. Planning Director's memorandum) Appellant: Dennis Kronberg Location: 5760 Eureka Road E. Appeal Notice to Remove (Att. Planning Director's memorandum) Appellant: John McMasters Location: 4530 Enchanted Point F. Change Order for Sanitary Sewer Lift Stations No.8 and No. 18 (Att. - Director of Public Works' memorandum) G. Approval ofMCWD Declaration Regarding Wedgewood, Mallard, Teal Project (Att.- Engineer's memorandum) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 26, 2006 PAGE 2 OF 2 H. Accept Proposal for Professional Services - KLM Engineering - Antenna Installation SE Area Water Tower (Att. - Director of Public Works' memorandum) I. Accept Proposal for Services - Safe Assure (Att. - Director of Public Works' memorandum) J. Authorization for Expenditure of Funds for a Network Server (Att. - Staff memorandum) 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken) 5. REPORTS AND PRESENT A TIONS A. Patrick Hodapp, LMCC Representative, report on Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Activities 6. PUBLIC HEARING 7. PARKS - Report by Representative A. Report on Park Commission Meetings and Park Tours Held June 13,2006 (Att. - Draft Minutes) 8. PLANNING - Report by Representative 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of SLMPD Arbitration (Att. - Administrator's memorandum) B. Approval of Compensation Plan (Att. - Administrator's memorandum) 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff B. Mayor & City Council 12. ADJOURN 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 Celebrating 50 Years · 1956 - 2006 Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, 26 June 2006 5:45 p.m. - Joint Meeting with the Park Commission will be held this evening Food will be available by 5:30 A Work Session will immediately follow the Regular City Council meeting. Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item #3B: Staffing - Staff recommends the hiring of Mr. Matthew P. Sinnen and Ms. Sarah M. Master for the position of 'Part-Time Liquor Clerk' at a rate of $8.50 per hour, effective immediately. Agenda Item #3C: 2005 annual report for SWPPP - Staff recommends approval of the annual report for 2005, and direct staff to submit the report before June 30, 2006 as required by the original NPDES permit previously obtained from the MPCA. The new permit application is still pending with MPCA. Agenda Item #3D: Dennis Kronberg has requested additional time to comply with a Notice to Remove certain violations of the City's nuisance code. He cites problems with a building contractor that have delayed the construction of his new garage. Ordinarily, the Council grants 30-day extensions for such cases, where the appellant demonstrates a good faith effort to comply. In this case, staff is recommending 60 days, in which time the appellant should easily be able to close in the new garage under construction. Any of the items remaining after the extension deadline should be referred to the City's prosecuting attorney for further legal action. Agenda Item #3E: John McMasters has asked for additional time to comply with a Notice to Remove, which cites several violations of the City's nuisance regulations. Given the appellant's cooperation to-date, staff recommends that he be given 30 days in which to correct all of the noted violations. Agenda Item #3F: On August 9, 2004, the City of Shorewood awarded the contract to Jay Bros, Inc., for the Shady Island Lift Station (No. 18), and the Birch Bluff Road Lift Station (No.8) Rehabilitation Project. This project has now been completed. ,..,.. t' . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ..,., Executive Summary - City Council Meeting of 26 June 2006 Page 2 of2 This project has been party to several delays, necessary design changes, and weather. As such, the period of construction was extended from nine months to approximately eighteen months. As such, the contractor is requesting a change in the contract amount (Change Order 1). Staff is recommending approval of Change Order 1, acceptance of the project, and authorization for final payment. Agenda Item #3G: MCWD Declaration - Staff recommends approval of a Declaration that Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is requiring as a condition of permit 06-088 issued for the Wedgewood Drive, Mallard Lane, and Teal Circle Road Reclamation and Watermain Improvement Project. It is not anticipated that the requirements of declaration will interfere with current maintenance activities. Agenda Item #3H: Cingular Wireless is proposing changes to the antenna installation located on the Se Are Water Tower. Staff has requested that KLM Engineering provide the technical inspections and welding certifications for this installation. Under the lease agreement executed with Cingular Wireless, the City shall be compensated for any and all costs that are directly attributable to the Lessee's improvements. Staff is recommending approval of the proposal by KLM Engineering, Inc. Agenda Item #31: Staff is recommending approval of the proposal provided by Safe Assure for safety training and inspections, as mandated by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. Agenda Item #3J: Staff requests Council authorization (approximately $2,300) for purchase of an additional proposed by the City's computer consultant. for expenditure of funds server for the Weblink use, as Agenda Item #5A: Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) Representative Patrick Hodapp will provide a report on LMCC activities. Agenda Item #7 A: A representative will be present to report on the June 13,2006, Park Commission meeting. Agenda Item #9A: The Arbitration Panel for the allocation for operations of the SLMPD issued its clarification of its Order on June 15. According to the Fourth Amendment to the JP A, any member city has 60 days from this date to serve notice of withdrawal effective December 31, 2007. The arbitration is binding, and the only avenue to "unbind" is to withdraw from the JP A. The Council may wish to comment on the Arbitration Order, and to discuss what process, if any, it wishes to follow to consider further action. Inaction by the Council will be deemed approval of the Order. Agenda Item #9B: The City Council has held two work sessions on the Classification and Compensation Study and its implementation. The Final Report has been prepared based on Council consensus at the May 22 work session to phase in market adjustments on July 1, 2006, and January 1, 2007. Council put new Plan into effect with a motion to approve it. CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDA Y, JUNE 12,2006 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Love; Councilmembers Callies, Lizee, Turgeon, and Wellens; Administrator Dawson; Attorney Keane; Finance Director Burton; Director of Public Works Brown; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: None B. Review Agenda Lizee moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, May 22, 2006 Wellens moved, Callies seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of May 22, 2006, as presented. M()tion passed 4/0/1 with Lizee abstaining due to her absence at the meeting. City Coul1cilWork Session Minutes, May 22, 2006 Wellens move(l, Callies secol1<l~d, Approving the City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes of May 22, 2006, as presented. Motion passed 3/0/2 with Lizee and Turgeon abstaining due to their absence at the 1l1~(lting. 3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: Mayor Love reviewed the Items on the Consent Agenda. Callies moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein: A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Staffing request: Part-time Office Assistants 2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 12,2006 Page 2 of 13 C. Accept Proposal for Professional Engineering Services from WSB and Associates, Inc., for the Design of Wood haven Well Motion passed 5/0. 4. MA TTERS FROM THE FLOOR Gene German, 5925 Eureka Road, stated he was before Council to ask for its support for public use of the SLMPD firing range. He noted he had spoken to the Mayor and others previously regarding this request. He stated there was an increasing demand for access to firing ranges as a result of more individuals obtaining permits to carry firearms. Mr. German stated he was Minnesota Department of Public Safety celiified firearms instructor. He explained there were only two spots available for him to use to conduct this firearms training- one in Robbinsdale and one in Burnsville. He stated not only would it be more convenient to have a local spot to teach, but it would utilize a public building built with taxpayer dollars. Mr. German went on to state using the SLMPD firing range for public uses could proVide an additional source of revenue for the SLMPD. Mr. German stated he was one of approximately 20 individuals the Metropolitan area that had been certified by the American Association of Certified Firearms InstruQtors. He estimated approximately 15,000 - 20,000 firearms permit holders resided in the Metropolitan area. In addition, approximately 1,000 individuals attended firearms training each month. Mr. German asked Council tqs,ltpport Mayor Love, who was thrCity's representative to the SLMPD Coordinating Committee,in. bringing this item forward to the SLMPD Coordinating Committee for review and consideration to approve his request. Mayor Love explained it was the SLMPD Coordinating Committee's current policy to rent the firing range to other law enforcement agencies, but not to individuals or organizations. He stated he would ask this item be placed on iln SLMPD Coordinating Committee agenda. He then asked the Councilmembers if they would like the topicto.be placed on a City Council Work Session agenda for discussion. In response to a question frOlTI. Councilmember Turgeon, Mayor Love stated the decision was the responsibility of the SLMPDCoordinating Committee. He then stated he was very respectful of the "will" of the Council, but noted only the Coordinating Committee could take a formal vote of action regarding this matter. He also stated issues may be identified during a Council Work Session that would be wOlih discussion. Councilmember Turgeon stated it was her understanding the Coordinating Committee had voted against allowing the SLMPD firing range to be used by individuals and organizations, and that she had requested a copy of the minutes of the Coordinating Committee meeting when the vote had taken place to provide her insight into the decision. It had been her understanding there had been a plan to open the firing range for public use. Mayor Love stated the Coordinating Committee, at the beginning of the building process, had discussed renting the firing range to the public, but had never agreed to it. He went on to the state the SLMPD building was not designed to suppOli public access to the firing range, nor had the City of Shorewood's zoning requirements been considered with regard to public use of the firing range. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 12, 2006 Page 3 of 13 Councilmember Turgeon stated she had recollected there had been discussion in 200] of creating something like a "gun club". Therefore, she would prefer Council discuss this item at a City Council Work Session. In response to a question from Mayor Love, Administrator Dawson stated the item could be placed on a July] 0,2006, City Council Work Session agenda. Councilmember Callies questioned if it would be more expeditious for the Council to address it at a City Council Regular meeting, once the necessary background on this topic had been provided. Love stated the Work Session may be better suited for the Council to gain a finer understanding of the issues and concerns associated with the item. Callies supported the item being discussed at a City Council Work Session. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENT A TIONS A. Recognition of Service of Park Commissioner Todd Wagner On behalf of the Council and the residents of Shorewood, Mayor Love thanked former Park Commissioner Todd Wagner for his service as a Park Commissioner and provided him with a plaque of appreciation and recognition. Mr. Wagner thanked the Council and the City for the opportunity. He stated he had learned and great deal as a result of the experience, and he was hopeful he had made a contribution to the City. B. South Lake-Excelsior Chamber of Commerce request for funds for Lake Minnetonka 4th of July Celebration Linda Murrell, Executive Director of the South Lake -. Excelsior Chamber of Commerce, provided an overview of the activities plall1:\ecifor its 2006 Fourth of July celebration. The activities would start with the 30th annual 10k race arid >end with a fireworks display; and there were activities for various age groups scheduled throughout the day. She noted Robert Robinson would sing with the orchestra in the evenll1g. Ms. Murrell asked th~ City of Shorewood for itscpntinued support in funding the celebration. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Ms. Murrell stated Deephaven, Greenwood, and Excelsior had already committed to supporting the funding effort, and she was addressing the Tonka Bay City Council on June] 3,2006. She also confirmed the contributions from those three cities remained the same as in 2005. Callies moved, Lizee seconded, Approving the Budgeted Contribution Amount of $2,200 for Funding of the 2006 Fpqrtl1.of July Celebration. Councilmember Turgeon stated she would prefer the City contribute an amount equal to what the other cities had contributed. Ms. Murrell stated the amounts the other cities had contributed were relative to the population of the city. Counci Imember Lizee stated she would prefer to contribute the budgeted amount of $2,200. Councilmember Turgeon stated she had requested the 2005 contribution be given directed to South Lake Minnetonka Police Department for its services, and that council had not agreed to do so. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 12,2006 Page 4 of 13 Motion passed 4/1, with Turgeon dissenting. Ms. Murrell explained there was a current fundraising campaign, called the Stars and Stripes. Mayor Love commented this was the last remaining Fourth of July celebration on Lake Minnetonka, and maintaining it required public contributions. C. 2005 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) by Steve McDonald, CPA, and Andrew Berg, CPA Administrator Dawson explained the City of Shorewood's 2005 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) had been reviewed by Steve McDonald of Abdo, Eick & Meyers, and Mr. McDonald would highlight the findings this evening. Mr. McDonald stated there was a "clean" Opll110n on the financial statements and there was one reportable condition identified during the audit. The condition related to segregation of duties handling money transactions: because of the limited size of the. office staff, the City had limited segregation of duties. He explained the reportable condition was not believed to be a material weakness. He commented if a third party were to be involved in some of those duties the condition would be eliminated. He noted there were no instances of non-compliance with Minnesota statutes. He then stated there had been no audit adjustments or corrections of the City's decisions; there had been no major accounting changes; and there had been a minor GASB Statement change that was implemented. Mr. McDonald provided a financial overview of the City's expenditures and revenues. He noted during 2005, the General Fund revenues had exceeded expenditures by $560,958 which resulted in an increased fund balance of slightly under $3.0 million, or 63% of 2006 budgeted expenditures. In addition, the Enterprise Funds (sewer, water, storm water management, recycling and liquor) generally performed positively. The Liquor Funds operating income was approximately $29,445, but the margins were minimal because of operaJirigexpense;;. With regard to tlw .Water FlInd,he explained it was important to maintain the reserve balance of approximat~ly$3.1111il1i()n because approximate $2.8 million in bonds outstanding. With regard to the Sewer Fund. balance, he explained because the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MqES) could impose additional surcharges it would be beneficial for the City to conduct a rate study to ensure. its rates would support the additional operating expenses while maintaining cash reserves. With regard to Debt Service Funds, he stated the 1993 Improvement and Refunding Bonds had been paid in full, and recommended Council approve a transfer of remaining funds in 2006 to close the fund. He noted the Waterford III Tax Increment Bonds had also been paid in full. He commented the City's debt per capita, which was under $1,000 per person, was relatively low compared to other cities his company audits. With regard to Capital Projects Funds, he explained the MSA Construction balance deficit would be eliminated by 2006 year-end; and the 2005 year-end Street Reconstruction Fund balance of approximately $2.2 million was a significant balance relative to the fund balances of the other capital projects. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June ]2,2006 Page 5 of]3 Mr. McDonald reviewed the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement changes for 2006. He explained all cities were required to implement GASB Statements No. 43 and No. 45, and he noted it should be a relatively simple change for the City. He stated GASB Statement No. 44 would need to be implemented in 2007. Mr. McDonald congratulated the City on receiving the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting awarded by the Government Finance Officers Association for its CAFR for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004. In response to a question from Councilmember Callies, Mr. McDonald explained General Fund reserves for working capital should be between 40 - 50%. He had experiences where cities whose reserves above that range would transfer some of the reserves to a permanent capital fund associated with a capital budget for s specific purpose. It was not recommended to spend down reserves. Administrator Dawson stated during the capital budgeting process Council could consider the transfer of General Fund reserves to the Capital Funds. Director Burton stated Staff was in the process of preparing a fund balance reserve policy. It would address tax reduction strategies and transfer of funds. With regard to the Water Fund, Councilmember Callies questiol1~d what the statement "the cash balance is significant as compared to operating expenses" in the report meant. Mr. McDonald stated it was relative to what the City planned to use the fund for over the next 4 - 5 years. For example, if the City had plans for significant projects the cash balance WOlild assist in buying down the cost of the bonds. Wellens moved, Callies seconded, Accepting the 20Q5 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and Recommending theCAFR be sent to the State Auditor for review. Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Love thanked City Staff and Mr. McDonald for all efforts utilized in bringing this repOli to fruition. 6. PUBLIC HEARING A. 7:00 P.M...,.., Public Hearing on Proposed Improvements for Watermain Installation as part of(h~ Wedgewo()d Drive, Mallard Lane, Teal Circle Road Reclamation Project This item was discussed after ItemS.B. Mayor Love opened tl1epubIic;l1earing at 7:22 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a public hearing. Administrator Dawson explained this improvement project was being followed under Minnesota Statute Chapter 429 because special assessment was one way Council wished to consider funding watermain installation improvements. The process of the public hearing provided the property owners the opportunity to provide Council with their perspectives on the improvement project prior to Council taking action on ordering the improvement project and determining what the scope of the project would be. Director Brown stated Kevin Kalewski, a project manager with WSB and Associates, was present this evening to review the three watermain improvement options under consideration as pari of the Wedgewood Drive, Mallard Lane, and Teal Circle road reclamation project. He explained Mr. Kalewski had assisted the City with numerous past projects. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 12,2006 Page 6 of 13 Mr. Kalewski reviewed the three watermain improvement options under consideration. He noted the construction costs included a 10% contingency for construction costs, plus 30% of total construction cost for indirect costs (e.g. administrative costs, advertising costs, assessment, etc.) ONion 1: Option I consisted of extending City water throughout the entire road reclamation project corridor, on Wedgewood Drive, Mallard Lane, and Teal Circle. Nineteen of the 37 properties (approximately 51 %) adjacent to the project had expressed interest in connecting to City water. The estimated total project cost of $315,350 represented a cost of approximately $8,523 per property, based on 37 properties. He noted City Staff was recommending Option 1. Option 2: Option 2 consisted of extending City water to just east of Mallard Lane. Nineteen of the 29 properties adjacent to the project limits (approximately 66%) had expressed interest in connecting to City Water. The estimated total project cost of $234,640 represented a cost of approximately $8,091 per property, based on 29 properties. Option 3: Option 3 consisted of extending City water on a portion of Wedgewood Drive. Seven of the nine properties (approximately 78%) of the properties fronting on Wedgewood Drive, between Smithtown Road and the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) Trail, had expressed an interest in connecting to City water. The estimated total project cost of $80,080 represented a cost of approximately $8,898 per property based on 9 properties. Mr. Kalewski explained stubs from the trunk main ""quid be extendedtq the property line. He also explained that under all three of the options, when thepr()p~.rty owner decided to connect to City water they would pay the difference between the actual assessl11etjt:~m.ount and the current connection fee (which is $10,000 for a singl~residential property, $15,000 fora duplex property, and $20,000 for fourplex property). He also noted there had been an informational meeting with the property owners. Mayor Love opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. He asked each property owner to keep their remarks to\ess than three minutes. Administrator Dawson stated Sharon Starks, 5420 Wedgewood Drive, had submitted her support for Option 2 via emaiI. Councilmember Wellens clarified Steve Gurney, Acting City Engineer, recommended Option 1 not Option 3 as written in Mr. Gurney's repoli under Item] O.A. Pam Evans, 5460 Wedgewood Drive, stated she did not think affected propeliy owners understood the importance of this PoJb~~9.HYl:lring, because there were 5 property owners that favored the watermain improvement project that ""Fre unable to attend because of conflicts. She then stated she was in support of Option I, rather than doing additional watermain improvement projects for the same area at a future date. Michael Pressman, 5670 Wedgewood Drive, thanked the Council for its deliberation in considering the watermain improvement project. He asked Council to consider a 20-year assessment to lessen the financial burden on the property owners. Marilyn Swanson, 5455 Mallard Lane, stated the majority of duplex owners on Mallard Lane were not in support of the watermain improvement project. Mayor Love closed the Public Testimony pOliion of the Public Hearing at 7:37 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 12,2006 Page 7 of 13 In response to a question from Councilmember Callies, Director Brown explained Option I included in Options 2 and 3, and Option 1 was recommended by Staff. Brown noted Option 3 was the option that reached the 67% property owner petition level. He also noted a four-fifths vote by the Council was required to extend water, even in the absence of a petition. Director Brown stated the petition percentages included the property located at 5640 Harding Lane, because the property owner had expressed interest in City water. Councilmember Turgeon explained one of the properties on Wedgewood Drive had not been occupied in two years as a result of the property owner's death, and another property had not been occupied since March 2006. She suggested the property that had been vacant for two yel:lrs.should not be included in the percentage. Director Brown explained both of those properties had been appropriately counted as a non- response. Councilmember Lizee stated the property owners had been provided numerous opportunities to respond. Brown explained the property must be considered under the Minnesota Statute 429 process. In response to a question from Councilmember Lizee, Administrator Dawson explained the length of the assessment would be determined by Council at the end of the project; the length of assessments had typically been 15 years. Mayor Love closed the Public Hearing at 7:42 P.M. Without objection from the Council, Mayor Love asked that Item I O.A. be considered next. 7. PARKS None. 8. PLANNING CommissionerG<wley reported<H1tnattersconsiPKred and actions taken at the June 6, 2006, Planning Commissionmeetihg{~$petailedintl1e minutes ofthat meeting). A. Conditional Use Permit -Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet Applicant: David Brenke Location: 5980 Cajed Lane Director Nielsen stated David Brenke, who owned the property at 5980 Cajed Lane, had applied for a conditional use permitto construct an attached garage and room addition on his property. The floor area of the new garage would be in excess of 1200 square feet, necessitating a conditional use permit. The property was zoned R-IA, Single-Family Residential and contained 40,983 square feet of area. He then stated the existing house plus the new addition would contain approximately 1462 square feet of floor area on one floor, and the proposed garage would contain an additional 1408 square feet. He noted the new garage would be attached to the south side of the house. Nielsen then reviewed how the applicants proposal complied with the four specific criteria for granting this type of conditional use permit, as specified in Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d(4) of the Shorewood Zoning Code. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 12,2006 Page 8 of 13 1. The total area of accessory space (1408 square feet) did not exceed the total floor area above grade ofthe principal structure (1462 square feet). 2. The total area of accessory space did not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for the R-] A zoning district (.10 x. 40,000 square feet = 4000 square feet). 3. The proposed garage complied with the setback requirements of the R] -A zoning district. Removal of the existing garage would eliminate a nonconforming structure. Hardcover on the property would only amount to 13.7 percent. 4. The new garage would be integrated into the architecture of the existing home. As such the roof lines, materials and architectural character of the garage would be consistent with the principle dwelling. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit as requested. Callies moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving RESOLUTION NO. 06-042, "A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for Additional Accessory Spa.ce to David Brenke, 5980 Cajed Lane." Motion passed 5/0. B. Minor Subdivision Applicant: Location: Anne and Jack Carter 5705/5725 Smithtown Way Director Nielsen stated Anne and Jack Carter had arranged to purchase the properties located at 5705 Smithtown Way and 5725 Smithtown Way. They proposed combining the two lots, and then re- subdividing the combined lot into two lots. He stated the propelty was zoned R-I C, Single-Family Residential, and was currently occupied by a single-family residence and a detached garage. The two proposed lots would contain 20,030 ~quare feet (Parcel A) and 41,725 square feet (Parcels Band C combined). Niels.en noted the CaRers ultimately want to subdivide the 4],725 square-foot lot into two lots, a 2],] square~fQ()l lot (Parcel B) and a 20,576 square-foot lot (Parcel C) and demolish the old house anc/garage, once a new house had been built on the Parcel A. Nielsen thell stated all three of tIle proposed lots would comply with R-l C zoning district requirements. Sanitary sewefwas available to the new lots, noting new services would have to be constructed at such time as someone applied for a building permit. He stated Staff recommended the combination/minor division be approvedsllbject to ~he following: I. The applicants' surveyor should revise the survey to show that Parcels Band C would be at least 100 feet wide at the building line (front setback). 2. The applicants must provide legal descriptions for the proposed lots. One simplified description must be written for Parcels Band C as a single parcel. 3. The applicants must provide legal descriptions and deeds for drainage and utility easements, ]0 feet on each side of each lot line. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 12,2006 Page 9 of 13 4. The applicants would have to request a vacation of the existing drainage and utility easements on the property. It would probably be easiest to simply vacate all the current easements and then dedicate the new ones as specified above. 5. The applicants must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. 6. Items 1-4 must be submitted prior to the request being scheduled for City Council review, but no later than 30 days. 7. Since no additional lots would be created at this time, no additional park dedication or sewer access fees would be required at this time. Upon re-subdivision of Parcels Band C, the applicants would have to pay the park and sewer charges that would be in effect at that time. 8. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits were applied for. Director Brown stated when the sewer service for Parcel A was installed, a second service should be put in at the same time to avoid cutting into the street twice. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the combination/minor subdivision subject to Staff recommendations. Lizee moved, Wellens seconded, Directing Staff to Prepar~ a Resolution Approving a Combination / Minor Subdivision for Anne and Jack Carter, 5705/5725 Smithtown Way, Subject to Staff Recommendations. In response to a question from Counc.ilmember Turgeon, Director Nielsen explained the Carters would have to have ownership bfthe properly before they could file the resolution. He noted the resolution would come before Council ata July 10,2006, City Council meeting. Motion passed 5/0. c. Minor Subdivision Applicant: Location: Ann Meldahl 6180 Cathcart Drive Director Nielsen sta~ed Ann MeJdahl, who owned the property at 6180 Cathcart Drive, had changed her mind regarding theprbposed subdivision of her property (per her letter, dated 15 May 2006). He explained the new proposal was the same application she made in October 2005 and, with the exception of the issues related to a conditional use permit, Staffs recommendations remain the same as stated in the 27 October 2005 Staff report. Nielsen then stated the proposed configuration would establish a building site that would front on Cathcart Drive rather than West 62nd Street, and would result in a building pad location with a higher elevation and the drainage pattern being maintained. He noted the subdivision would comply with the requirements of the R-l A, Single-Family Residential zoning district. Nielsen went on to state Staff suggested all the current easements be vacated and then dedicate the new ones as specified for the new configuration of the lots. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 12,2006 Page 10 of 13 Nielsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approving the minor subdivision subject to Staff recommendations 2 6 that were identified in the 27 October 2005 Staff report, noting Staff recommendation 1 had been satisfied. Lizee moved, Wellens seconded, Directing Staff to Prepare a Resolution Approving a Minor Subdivision for Ann Meldahl, 6180 Cathcart Drive, Subject to Staff Recommendations. In response to a question from Councilmember Lizee, Director Nielsen explained the placement of a "sight or scenic" easement over the portion of the northerly lot that would affect any view was a private matter between the Meldahls and the individuals to whom they sold the newptbperty. Motion passed 5/0. 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Hazardous Building Removal Order to Repair or Remove Location: 20965 Forest Drive Director Nielsen stated the City had received a number of complaints relative to the property located at 20965 Forest Drive. Since the time of the first complaint, ownership of the property had changed. The property owner had been sent Notices to Remove for violations of City Code. The Building Official had become increasingly concerned with the physical integrity of the building. When the concerns were brought to the attention of the current owner of the property, he had indicated the building would be demolished in conjunction with the construction of a new house,once the road restrictions were lifted. Todate, nothing had been done.. Nielsen stated Staff nowtecommelld~~the building be condemned, based upon inspections made by the Building Official and the Fire Department. He then reviewed the reasons the building was deemed hazardous. Mayor Love thariked Director Nielsen and Staff for their efforts on the matter. Councilmember Lizee expressed concern with the fact the hazardous building could remain unsecured for ten days following the approval of the order to secure the building for reasons of safety. Director Nielsen stated the gas and power supplies to the building were shut off. Councilmember Wellens stated he had observed the building and it was definitely hazardous. Wellens moved, Lizee seconded, Approving the Order to Secure the Hazardous Building Located at 20965 Forest Drive. Motion passed 5/0. Wellens moved, Lizee seconded, Approving the Order for Removal or Repair of the Hazardous Building Located at 20965 Forest Drive. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Director Nielsen explained the City was required to provide the property owner the option to repair the building. Motion passed 5/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 12,2006 Page II of 13 B. Appeal Notice to Remove and Zoning Violation Notice Appellant: Mary Echols Location: 4960 Suburban Drive Director Nielsen stated Mary Echols, who owned the property located at 4960 Suburban Drive, had received a Notice to Remove dated May 12, 2006. He then stated Ms. Echols had requested a two-week extension to remove the items in violation of the City Code. Nielsen noted the property had been inspected on June 12, 2006, and reported the propeliy had been cleaned up substantially. He went on to state Ms. Echols also requested an additional 60 days in which she would use the building materials stored on the property. Nielsen stated Ms. Echols questioned the zoning violations, stating that one of the structures was a fish house and should be counted as recreational equipment, and she requested a height variance for one of the sheds. He explained the City Code required a conditional use permit to exceed two accessory buildings, and the detached structures were limited to one story and 15 feet height. He stated Ms. Echols expressed a desire for a variance to the 15-foot height r~quirement, and he noted she would have to adhere to the variance procedure to achieve that. Staff recommended Ms. Echols apply for a conditional use permit and a variance as soon as possible, acknowledging it would take time for survey work to be completed before the applications could be started. Mary Echols, 4960 Suburban Drive, questioned the need for a survey. Director Nielsen explained both a conditional use permit and a variance require survey work to determine the location of the buildings on the property. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Director Nielsen stated Ms. Echols should make an effort to meet the July 5, 2006, date for applying for the C.U.P. and variance. He then stated if the survey work could not be completed by that date, then the applications must be completed no later than August I, 2006. Mayor Love clarified thateither the property had to be brought into compliance or the applications for a C.U.P. and variance mustb~filed no later than August 1,2006. Ms. Echols questioned why a car port was considered a detached structure. In response toaqu~stion fromCouncilmember Callies, Director Nielsen stated Council did not need to take action with reg~(rcl to cleanup of the property as much of the cleanup had been completed. Callies moved, Wellens seconded, Approving an Extension to August 1,2006, for Either the Filing of Applications for a CU.P. to Exceed Two Detached Structures and a Height Variance for a Detached Structure, or the Property to Become Compliant with the Zoning Code, for Mary Echols, 4960 Suburban Drive. Motion passed 5/0. 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Approval of Plans and Specifications, and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Watermain Installation as Part of Wedgewood Road, Mallard Lane, Teal Circle Road Rehabilitation Project CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 12, 2006 Page 12 of 13 (This item 1 a.A. was discussed after Item 6.A.) Councilmember Wellens stated from his perspective the absence of a response should be considered as opposition; therefore, he would support Option 2 because of its greater percentage of supporting propelty owners and the lower cost to the property owners. Councilmember Callies stated she supported Option I (which she thought was the most responsible option), because it was the Council's responsibility to make decisions based on current and future propeliy owners; and, watermain extensions should be completed in the most cost-effective way possible. Councilmember Turgeon stated she could support either Option I or Option 2, noting she did have some empathy for the duplex propelty owners on Mallard Lane who were not in favor of the watermain extension. She went on to state she would be more comfOliable with supporting Option 2. Councilmember Lizee stated she sUPPolied Option I. She explained it was more efficient to implement the watermain extension in conjunction with the road reclamation, storm water management, drain tiles, etc. project. She suggested if Option 2 or Option 3 were implemented, the road reclamation project should end where the watermain installation ended. Director Brown clarified the Staffs recommendation for the road reclamation project would encompass the entireco.rridor as planned. Mayor Love commented the percent of property owners in suppol"t of the watermain extension was to provide guidance to Council, not to restrictc.::ouncil's decisionstegarding water. He stated it was impOliant to extend the watermainthroughout the road reclamation project corridor. Councilmember Callies stated she thought the four-fifths vote was a requirement of Statute 429, and all the Councilmembers were in favor of some type of assessment. Administrator Dawson clarified the four- fifths vote was also necessqrytodetennine the scope of the project. Callies moved, Lizee seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 06-043, "A Resolution Ordering Improvement, Approving Plans, Specifications and Estimates and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Watermain Installation as Part of Wedgewood Road, Mallard Lane, Teal Circle Road Rehabilitation Project for the Entire Project Corridor (Option 1)." In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Councilmember Wellens stated he would not suppOli Option I because 49% of the property owners were not in support of the watermain extension, again noting he counted the absence of a response as not in support ofthe extension. Councilmember Turgeon com~ented the number of supportive responses in the Mallard Lane area was significant; and she respected Councilmember Lizee's comments with regard to road reclamation. Mayor Love stated Council had a responsibility to consider extending water throughout the entire road reclamation project corridor. He then stated Council also needed to make decisions based on the future of the City. Therefore, he would support Option 1. In response to a question from Councilmember Wellens about the possibility of looping watermain in Wedgewood Drive to another watermain, Director Brown stated cost was the factor in determining not to connect Wedgewood Drive and County Road 19 at this time. The City could initiate looping the watermain at a future date, and most likely at city expense. This route would be most lifely for looping. Motion passed 4/1, with Wellens dissenting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING June 12,2006 Page 13 of 13 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff Administrator Dawson stated there was continued progress with the EFD Fire Chief selection process. He stated initial candidate interviews would be conducted on June 13 - 14, 2006. The goal was to complete the process by July 31,2006, and to have the new fire chief working by late August. B. Mayor & City Council At the request of Mayor Love, Attorney Keane explained all four SLMPD member cities had a question of interpretation of the intent of the SLMPD Funding Arbitration Order. Therefore, the member Cities prepared a letter dated June 9, 2006, to the Arbitration Panel requesting clarification of the order. Administrator Dawson stated he would distribute a copy of the letter to Council. Mayor Love stated he briefly attended the City of Greenwood's 50-year celebration, and he informally congratulated Greenwood Councilmembers on behalf of the City Council. 12. ADJOURN Lizee moved, Wellens seconded, Adjourning the Regular City Council Meeting of June 12,2006, at 8:37 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Woody Love, Mayor ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, JUNE 12,2006 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CONFERENCE ROOM 7:30 PM, or Immediately following the Regular City Council meeting MINUTES With Pond control also Howards Point He noted Staff had the project. 1. CONVENE WORK SESSION MEETING Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 8:55 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Love, Councilmembers Dawson; Attorney Keane; and Planning Director Nielson Administrator Burton; Absent: None B. Review Agenda Without objection from Council, Mayor the meeting. 2. LAKE MARY Director Brown of 2006 - Boulder basins that frequently prepared draft feasibility those areas that required additional attention in spring Mary Lake. Both of the areas were landlocked melt heavy rains. He then stated Staff had for reducing the potential for flooding in explained the recommended option to reduce flooding at the near the pond, and then installing a storm sewer line from the Road to an existing storm sewer located on Smithtown Road. He require removal and replacement of a lOOO-foot hedge adjacent to of the hedge had not been included in March 2005 estimates. of the Boulder Bridge Homeowners Association to discuss Brown stated the revised estimated cost for the project was $190,000. The preliminary assessment roll would be approximately $9,235 per acre, based on a 50-50 cost split between the City and the properties with area tributary to the pond. Discussion ensued with regard to who should be responsible for replacing the hedge which was located within a utility easement. ~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING June 12, 2006 Page 2 of 4 With regard to the Mary Lake watershed, Brown stated the water levels on Mary Lake had risen close to three houses that were adjacent to the Lake, and one had a building opening that was approximately the same elevation as the overflow elevation of Mary Lake. He explained the recommended option to was to install a new storm sewer system line east down Clover Lane, south on Minnetonka Drive, and southeast down McLain Road. The existing drain tile in the area would be connected to the new storm sewer system; and roadway edge control would also be installed. Brown stated the estimated cost for the project was $445,000. The approximately $4,670 per acre, based on a 50-50 cost split between area. Based on that rate one of the properties would be assessed property would be assessed approximately $14,100. assessment roll would be and the properties in the $20,600 and another would Brown stated the issue at hand was how to fund the projects. could be used based on a 50-50 cost split, noting the test He stated a Chapter 429 assessment process would be determine the exact benefit to the property, noting not exceed the special benefit test (i.e. increase in tax district process "just and equitable". would difficult to amount shall Storm Water Fund which water utility fee was less than the current storm water utility fees to $10 per quarter, revenues $15 per quarter (the same as the Brown went on to state the 10.5 years based on years if the fee were increased to Brown stated Staff would recommend the projects be would require a storm water utility fee neighboring cities'. He stated the City generated approximately $62,000 in would increase to approximately $110,000. City of Minnetonka), revenues would combined cost of $643,000 two the current fee, in 5.5 $15. Brown stated this Water Utility Fund to to fund the projects, noting use of the Storm from his perspective. Mayor the of a to fund storm water drainage projects over there were a number of sizable on-going storm water drainage stated the two projects discussed that evening were the most of residential structures, and because of the recurring He then stated the various rate increase alternatives the number of drainage projects that could be funded. have the combined costs for the higher priority drainage projects a fee increase would have to be to fund the projects. he wanted to "sunset" the fee increase. Councilmember Callies stated it was her understanding the question in front of Council was whether the drainage projects should be funded by a City-wide storm water utility fee increase or if the individual properties would be charged for 50%, or even 100%, ofthe project costs. Mayor Love stated Council had previously had discussions with regard to specific property owners being assessed for road improvements. He then stated he did not philosophically oppose increasing the storm water utility rate for the entire City. He did have concerns that during wet seasons there may be an influx of property owners wanting drainage issues resolved. He also wanted to ensure there was a mechanism in CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING June 12, 2006 Page 3 of 4 place to reduce/eliminate the fee increase if it appeared unnecessary reserves were being built; yet it was important there were significant reserves available twenty years from now. He noted the change would be a change in policy. Director Brown stated for the City to fund the projects or pay 50% of the project costs would set precedent. Director Nielsen stated Administrator Dawson going to be was asking for the project 50% of the cost. Councilmember Wellens stated the Boulder Bridge Homeowners to be done; therefore, he thought it was appropriate for the property Director Nielsen explained the City's Comprehensive Plan stated ta projects such as the two being discussed. The plan suggested properties, 20% of the cost would be funded out of the funded from the General Fund under the Chapter 444 . cts could be used to pay for be assessed to the affected and 10% would be Councilmember Lizee stated she would prefer a projects rather than use a fee increase or Chapter to fund the Councilmember Callies questioned if a Chapter 444 Attorney Keane stated he thought it Councilmember Callies stated she owners for project costs. in assessing property was extremely difficult. 444 process to be used if the properties were recommend a Chapter 444 process over a the drainage issues be considered on perspective, if the storm water utility rate were political boundaries. If a process of having taxing districts were and would equally benefit, noting the 50-50 cost sharing Attorney Council needed to address was the timeframe for completing the higher projects. Once that was determined there were three alternatives for funding the storm water utility fund; 2) Council could establish a policy to split the cost 50-50 and special Chapter 429 assessments to the property owners; or 3) create a special sub-utility special improvement projects. He went on to question if the Boulder Bridge development had been undersized, noting the development was not that old. He also stated 14 property owners were being asked to fund a project that largely benefited only 4 property owners. Councilmember Wellens stated he would prefer the property owners be charged for part of the improvement costs (either 50% of the costs or in accordance with the comprehensive plan), but he did not support a rate increase to fund the projects. Councilmember Callies stated she would prefer an assessment approach to fund the projects; but a rate increase may also be in order to cover the cost of services provided. She then stated there may be projects where the City should absorb more of the costs because the improvements benefited the City in general. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING June 12, 2006 Page 4 of 4 Councilmember Turgeon agreed with considering a rate increase. There needed to the necessary funds for drainage projects that were not residential in nature. Mayor Love stated the purpose of the discussion was to develop some direction regarding how to fund the drainage projects. He also would support a rate increase. Staff would also prepare a be assessed. Director Brown stated Staff would conduct a storm water utility rate recommendation for Council regarding what portion of the projects costs 3. OTHER None. 4. ADJOURN Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, Adjourning 2006,9:22 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. of June 12, RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, PAYABLESAPPROVALS For 06/26/06 Council Meeting C Prepared by: Michelle T. Nguyen, Date: Ac ounting Clerk Date: Approved by: Date: Craiw wson, City Administrator "R PAYROLL APPROVALS For 06/26/06 Council Meeting c~- Prepared by: Michelle T. Nguyen, S Date: ounting Clerk Reviewed by: Bonnie Burton, Fin Approved by: Craig Date: Date: 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 Celebrating 50 Years. 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM Date: June 22, 2006 #' To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Bonnie Bnrton, Finance Direclor/Treasnrer ~ From: Re: Liquor Staffing Recommendation cc: Craig Dawson, City Administrator The following staffing item is presented for the City Council's review and approval: Liquor Store Staffing Liquor Operations Manager Don Swandby recommends the hiring of Mr. Matthew P. Sinnen and Ms. Sarah M. Master for the positions of 'Part-Time Liquor Clerk' at a rate of $8.50 per hour, effective immediately. Staff Recommendation The City Council is requested to approve the staffing recommendation as outlined above. ,..,.. t' t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ..,. 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 Celebrating 50 Years. 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator Larry Brown, Public Works Director FROM: Steve Gurney, City Engineer DATE: June 26, 2006 RE: 2005 Annual Report Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) As part of the federal Clean Water Act, the City of Shore wood is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The City first received this permit in 2003, at which time the City completed a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). Due to a legal challenge, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has been required to make changes to the 2003 permit. As you may recall, we submitted our new application pennit to MPCA prior to the June 1, 2006 deadline. The MPCA will then review the application, notice each individual plan for public review and comment, and then issue the new permit. Until this process is completed and a new permit is issued, the current permit will remain in effect. An annual report for 2005 must be submitted to MPCA as a requirement ofthe old SWPPP. The deadline for this submittal is June 30, 2006. Attachment 1 is the annual report for 2005, which is a standard form. Recommendation Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the annual report for 2005, and direct staff to submit the report before June 30, 2006 as required by MPCA. ",.. .. . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ..." Use of this form is mandatory. By completing this Annual Report form, you are "providing the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) with a summary of your status of compliance with permit conditions, including an assessment of the appropriateness of your identified best management practices and progress towards achieving your identified measurable goals for each of the minimum control measures" as required by the MS4 Permit. Submit your annual report by June 30, 2006 to: MS4 Stormwater Program Municipal Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 If you have questions about the MS4 Annual Report for 2005 form, please visit the MPCA's MS4 Web site, www.pca.state.mn.us/water/stormwater/storn1water-ms4.htmlor call the MPCA's Keith Cherryholmes (651) 296-6945, or Scott Fox (651) 296-9433. Contact the MPCA toll free at (800) 657-3864. City of Shorewood Name ofMS4 Steve Gurney Name of Contact Person 952474-3236 Telephone (include area code) 5755 Country Club Road Mailing Address Shorewood City MN State 55331-8926 ZIP code A. Did you hold a public meeting for calendar year 2005 and discuss your Stormwater Pollution I:8J Yes D No Prevention Program (SWPPP)? [Part V.G.1.e] B. If you did not comply with this requirement, explain why. Please attach a separate sheet labeled 'MCM-lc. ' C. How many individuals attended for stormwater? Q D. What was the date of the public meeting? March 13,2006 E. On what date was it published? February 9,2006 F. Summarize your plan to increase attendance at your public meeting: The city will continue to announce the annual meeting in the newspaper as required by the permit, as well as in the city newsletter and on the city's web site. G. In what newspaper or publication of general interest did you publish the public notice of your meeting? [Part V.G.1.e.2] Please retain a copy of the public notice in your records. The Sun-Sailor and The Laker wq-strm4-06 Page 1 of6 3/06 H. You must implement a public education program to distribute educational materials to the community or conduct equivalent outreach activities about the impacts of stormwater discharges on water bodies and the steps that the public can take to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff. [Part V.G.l.a.] Please list the accomplishment under this permit requirement for the past year (January 2005 - December 2005): The city continues its efforts in public education. Elements of education are published to each residence via the City of Shorewood's montly newsletter, "The ShoREport" in addition to publication on the city's web page. This web address is www.ci.shorewood.mn.us. Brochures also been published and distributed on specific issues. January Gideon Glen Project Underway March Storm Water Pollution Prevention Storm Water Pollution Program April Spring Gardening for Water Quality Yard Waste Disposal May Shoreline Management for Water Quality Lawn Care Affects Water Quality Shorewood is Phosphorous-free June Natural Park Resources July Get the Lead Out of the Tackle Box Do You Have Lead in Your Water? I. You must specifically implement an education program that individually addresses each Minimum Control Measure [Part V.G. l.b.]: 1. Public education and outreach; 2. Public participation; 3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination; 4. Construction site stormwater runoff control; 5. Post-construction stormwater management in new development and redevelopment; and 6. Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations. Please provide a status update concerning your efforts to implement this education program for each of the Minimum Control Measures. Provide your response below or provide a separate sheet labeled 'MCM-l h ' The city has included at least one Minimum Control Measure for each one of the six areaas indicated as part of the SWPPP. A. During your public meeting, did you receive written and/or oral input on your SWPPP? [Part V.G.2.b.1-3] Input must be considered prior to submittal of your annual report. B. Did you create a record of comments and your response to comments/record of decision (ROD)? C. Have you kept the ROD in accordance with the permit? [Part V.G.2.b] D. Do you plan to incorporate any comments into your next SWPPP update? [Part V.G.2.c] List items: DYes [g] No [g] Yes 0 No [g] Yes 0 No [g] Yes 0 No wq-strm4-06 Page 2 of6 3/06 You must develop, implement and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges as defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b )(2) into your SWPPP. You must also select and implement a program of appropriate BMPs and measurable goals for this minimum control measure. A. You must develop, if not already completed, a storm sewer system map showing the location of [Part V.G. 3.a.]: 1. Ponds, streams, lakes and wetlands that are part of your system; 2. Structural pollution control devices (grit chambers, separators, etc.) that are part of your system; 3. All pipes and conveyances in your system, as a goal-but at minimum-those pipes that are 24 inches in diameter and over; 4. Outfalls, including discharges from your system to other MS4s, or waters and wetlands that are not part of your system (where you do not have operational control); structures that discharge stormwater directly into groundwater; overland discharge points and all other points of discharge from your system that are outlets, not diffuse flow areas. Please explain here or on a separate sheet labeled MCM-3a, what your MS4 accomplished in developing this map during 2005: The city completed a draft of the storm sewer base map in 2005. It is anticipated that the map will be verified in 2006. B. You must, to the extent allowable under law, effectively prohibit, through ordinance or other regulatory mechanism, non-stormwater discharges from entering into your storm sewer [Part V.G.3.b.]; C. You must develop and implement a program to detect and address non-stormwater discharges, including illegal dumping, to your system; D. You must inform employees, businesses, and the general public in your MS4 area of hazards associated with illegal discharges and improper disposal of waste; E. You must address the following categories of non-storm water discharges or flows (i.e., illicit discharges), onlv if you identify them as significant contributors of pollutants to your small MS4: Water line flushing, landscape irrigation, diverted stream flows, rising ground waters, uncontaminated ground water infiltration (as defined at 40 CFR 35.2005(20)), uncontaminated pumped ground water, discharges from potable water sources, foundation drains, air conditioning condensation, irrigation water, springs, water from crawl space pumps, footing drains, lawn watering, truck and car washing, flows from riparian habitats and wetlands, dechlorinated swimming pool discharges, and street wash water, discharges or flows from firefighting activities. Please explain here or on a separate sheet labeled 'MCM-3b' what accomplishments your MS4 has made in 2005 regarding an illicit discharge ordinance, detection and elimination: The City of Shorewood has designated Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Waterhsed District as the Responsible Government Units for review of drainge, land develpoments, erosion controls. and the implementation of Best Managemetn Practices. Currently, these organizations review and adminstrate paIn and site reviews, as it relates to stormwater/non- stormwater discharges, and applying the necessary ordinances regulating BMP's and SWPPP's. Therefore, the City believes that it has met the obligations above, by implementing said relationships with Watershed Districts as the RGU. wq-strm4-06 Page 3 of6 3/06 You must develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in any stormwater runoff to your small MS4 from construction activities within your jurisdiction that result in a land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre or is less than one acre but is part of a common plan of development that will be one acre or greater. You must also select and implement a program of appropriate BMPs and measurable goals for this minimum control measure, at minimum: [Part V.GA.] A. An ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to require erosion and sediment controls, as well as sanctions to ensure compliance, to the extent allowable under law. B. Requirements for construction site operators to implement appropriate erosion and sediment control best management practices; C. Requirements for construction site operators to control waste, such as discarded building materials, concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste at the construction site that may cause adverse impacts to water quality; D. Procedures for site plan review which incorporate consideration of potential water quality impacts; E. Procedures for receipt and consideration of reports of non compliance or other information on construction related issues submitted by the public, and F. Procedures for site inspection and enforcement of control measures. Please provide a status/update here or on a separate sheet labeled 'MCM-4, ' concerning your efforts to meet this permit condition (be sure to indicate the citation for ordinance): The City requires, as part of the zoning and subdivision ordinances, that waste materials be contained on site. Water Qaulity review is addressed by the RGU. You must develop, implement, and enforce a program to address stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment projects within your jurisdiction that disturb greater than or equal to one acre, including projects less than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale that discharge into your small MS4. Your program must ensure that controls are in place that would prevent or reduce water quality impacts. You must also select and implement a program of appropriate BMPs and measurable goals for this minimum control measure. At minimum: A. Develop and implement strategies which include a combination of structural and/or non-structural BMP appropriate for your community; B. Use an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to address post-construction runoff from new development and redevelopment projects to the extent allowable under law; and C. Ensure adequate long-term operation and maintenance ofBMP installed as a result of these requirements. D. Do you feel your long-term operation and maintenance of your BMP is adequately funded? Please provide a status/update concerning your efforts to meet this permit condition. Please provide your response below or provide a separate sheet labeled 'MCM-5:' The City requires a SWPPP for each proposed development, redevelopment, or public works project. Field representatives, trained and certified in Best Management Practices, are on site and providing the documetnation required for each project. A. You must develop and implement an operation and maintenance program that includes a training component and has the ultimate goal of preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from municipal operations. Training materials that are available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, state and regional agencies, or other organizations may be used as appropriate or modified for your community. Your program must include employee training to prevent and reduce stormwater pollution from activities such as park and open space maintenance, fleet and building maintenance, new construction and land disturbances, and stormwater system maintenance. Please provide a status/update about your efforts in developing a Pollution Prevention Plan: The City has performed training activities for BMP's for Municipal presonnel. This is wq-strm4-06 Page 4 of6 3/06 documentated as a Minimum Control Measure as part of the SWPPP. B. Did you identify and inspect all of your structural pollution control devices such as trap manholes, C8J Yes 0 No grit chambers, sumps, floatable skimmers and separators, etc.? [Part V.G.6.b.2] C. How many structural pollution control devices do you have in your MS4 system? 10 D. How many structural pollution control devices did you inspect? lQ E. Calculate the percentage: 100 Jf less than 100 % were inspected, please explain why below or on a separate sheet labeled 'MCM-6e:' F. Did you repair, replace, or maintain any structural pollution control devices? 0 Yes C8J No G. Briefly, summarize any significant unscheduled (not routine) maintenance or improvement activities stemming from inspections of your structural pollution control devices. What changes have been made to your SWPPP as a result? Please explain below or attach a separate sheet labeled 'MCM-6g' H. Did you identify and inspect at least 20% of outfalls and stormwater ponds? [Part V.G.6.b.3] C8J Yes 0 No 1. How many of each of the following do you have in your MS4? a. Outfalls (see definition in Permit): 71 b. Stormwater Ponds: 72 2. Indicate if these facilities have all been located, or have only been estimated: located 3. How many of each did you inspect? a. Outfalls: 36 b. Stormwater Ponds: 36 4. What is the percentage inspected for each? a. Percentage of Outfalls: n b. Percentage of Stormwater Ponds: 50 5. If less than 20% of each type (outfalls and stormwater ponds) was inspected, please explain why: Attach a separate sheet, if necessary, labeled 'MCM-6h-5' 6. Briefly, summarize the dates of completion of major additional protection measures triggered by your inspections: [Part V.G.6.bA] Attach a separate sheet, ifnecessary, labeled 'MCM-6h-6' No major protection measures were required in 2005. A. Did you make a change to any identified best management practices or measurable goals that were 0 Yes C8J No submitted with your permit application? [Part V.G.6.b.l] Jfyou responded yes, explain under part B. B. Briefly list the best management practices using their unique identification numbers you used in your SWPPP or any measurable goals that will be changed in your updated SWPPP, and why they have changed: Attach a separate sheet ifnecessary labeled '7b.' C. Did you rely on any other entities (MS4s, consultants or contractors) to satisfy any portion of your C8J Yes 0 No SWPPP? Jfyes, please identify below the entity andfor what activities: The City7 has identified and formally designated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District as the RGU's. Therefore, the City is utilizing the services of the Watershed District for policing, ordinance and enforcement issues. D. Do you discharge to waters with a restricted discharge? See Appendix C Part B; you may view the 0 Yes C8J No applicable rules at www.pca.state.mn.us/water/water mnrules.htu11. Jfyou need assistance with this determination, contact Keith Cherryholmes, MPCA, (651) 296-6945. wq-strm4-06 Page 5 of6 3/06 If you answered "no" to question "D," above, skip ahead to the Owner or Operator Certification section of this application. No response is needed here unless there was a change in listing or where your dischargers) is/are located since 2004. a) A map of the watersheds where your MS4 discharges to the waters with restricted discharge. Use a USGS map or equivalent b) A narrative estimate of the impervious surfaces where your MS4 discharges to the waters with restricted discharge (estimated total impervious from land use and zoning or existing data can be used if available). c) A narrative estimate of the future / projected impervious surfaces where your MS4 discharges to the waters with restricted discharge (using available zoning or planning information that may affect your future discharges). d) A narrative estimate of how your SWPPP can be altered to eliminate new or expanded discharges to the waters with restricted discharge. This consists of your preliminary plan to avoid, divert, or eliminate discharges to restricted waters, whenever possible. The person with overall administrative responsibility for SWPPP implementation must sign the annual report. This person must be duly authorized and should be the person who signed the MS4 permit application or a successor. I certifY under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete (Minn. R. 7001.0070). I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment (Minn. R. 7001.0540). x Authorized Signature (This person must be d authorized to sign the annual report for the MS4) Gurney Last Name 5755 Country Club Road Mailing Address Shorewood City 952474-3236 Telephone (include area code) Steve First Name City Engineer Title MN 55331-8926 State ZIP code sgurney@ci.shorewood.mn.us E-mail Address Submit your annual report by June 30, 2006 to: MS4 Stormwater Program Municipal Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 If you have questions about the MS4 Annual Report for 2005 form, please visit the MPCA's MS4 Web site, www.pca.state.nm.us/water/stormwater/stormwater-ms4.htmlor call the MPCA's Keith Cherryholmes (651) 296-6945 or Scott Fox (651) 296-9433. Contact the MPCA toll free at (800) 657-3864. wq-strm4-06 Page 6 of6 3/06 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 Celebrating 50 Years. 1956 - 2006 MEl\10RANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen - DATE: 22 June 2006 RE: Appeal Notice to Remove- Demus Kronberg FILE NO. Property (5760 Eureka Road) In response to a Notice to Remove (see Exhibit A) that was sent to the owner of the above-refereIlced property, Dennis ,Kronberg has asked for "a additional time to correct items in violation of City Code (see Exhibit B). He indicates that many of the offending items will be put back into a garage \yhich is currently under construction. Several of the items will be corrected sooner. In light of the circumstances with Ius previous contractor, staff recommends that he be given 60 days to remove all items in violation, or put them in the new garage. Sixty days is quite adequate for the completion of the garage. 1 ( It is suggested that the propeliy_be reinspected on 28 August 2006, after wluch the matter will be tumed over to the prosecuting attomey if the appellant has failed to comply. cc: Ci-aig Dawson Tim Keane Joe Pazandak Dennis Kronberg ,..,.. .. ,-- _o- f , PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER .... I: #3.D. Jun, 9, 2006 12:03PM Nistevo Corporat ion No, 1756 P. 5 CITY OF SHOREWOOD ( 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55.'331-8927" (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128' www.ci,shorewood.mn.us . cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us CelebraUng 50 Years. 1956 - 2006 , DATE: June 7, 2006 TO: Demlis J. Kronberg 5760 Eureka Road Shorewood,11N 55331 PROPERTY LOCATION: 5760 Eureka Road PKUPbKTY W.bNTll{lCATlUN NU.: 33-117-23-23-UU29 NOTICE TO REMOVE Public Nuisances NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there exists a condition on the above referenced property which is in violation of Chapter 501, Section 501.05, Subd. 9 ofthe Shorewood City Code, a copy of which Section is enclosed. The nuisance to be removed from the property includes, but is not limited to the following: UNIJCENSED AND/OR INOPERABLE VEHICl,ES OR EQUIPMENT:' . GMC Van, Lic# YU 62409 (F'04) - expired . Ford Bronco, Lic# HGB 637 (Oct'03) - expired . Car - IU) licellse . OTHER; . LP tanks and heaters; foam panel; sink; pails; pallets; skid steer sweeper; timbers; well tank; tires; window/wood frame; pipes; bal's; shovel part; wood; c.ounter;similar . miscellaneous. Yon are hereby required to remove the above-described matter and any other nuisance matter ldcated on the property and 'ill violation of Chapter 501~ Section 501.05 within ten (10) days from the date hereof. In the altemative, you may tile a written notice of appeal at the Shorewood City Hall within ten (1 0) days~ in which case your appeal will be set for hearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City CounciL If you do not respond to this Notice within ten (10) days, the City shall take whatever legal action as may be necessary to have the offensive lD.atter removed. The costs incurred by the City for such removal shall be charged to the property ovVIl.er' ahd become a lien against the propelty. *** PLEASE GIVE THIS MATTER YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION *** BY ORDER OF THE SHORE\VOOD CITY COUNCIL 'no ';.J PRINT~D ON A.CYO~ED PAP"R Exhibit A Jun, 9, 2006 12:02PM Nistevo Corpo~at ion I~o, 1756 p, 2 9 hme 2006 City of Shorewood 5755 COlllitry Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8927 Dennis Kronberg 5760 EurekaRd ShorewQod, MN 55331 RE: Notice to Remove Public Nuisances Dear Sirs, Thank you for your notice dated June ih, 2006 indicating my violations pertaining to Chapter 501, Section 501.05, Subd. 9 of the Shorewood City code. The purpose of this letter is to address each item listed in the complaint. As some of you on the council mayor may not know, I have been mired in a construction nightmare begimling in June, 2005 and continuing to this day. The contractor I had originally hired for my project caused many delays to the project planning and engineering and subsequently took off to Florida with my $35,000 without intent to retum. and finish the job. The project was supposed to be completed by the fall of2005. As a result, all of the contents from rny fonner garage have been stored in my house, detached garage, a storage vehicle and yard since it's demolition. It couldn't just disappear with my garage. Connnurucation with the DepartnAent of Labor and Industry as well as the Minnesota atton-xey general has started a process to resolve the issue with tills contractor. I have since hired a new contractor to complete the project. Any correspondence the council needs on this matter will happily be supplied as needed. The items in dispute aJ:e as follows: . GMC Van Lic# YU 62409. This is the storage vehicle I m.entioned which contains my garage doors, tracks, mounting hardware, and many m.iscellaneous garage tools and accessories. The registration was not renewed, as the vehicle physically cannot move because ofthe excavated soil from the construction. The only way to get it out would be to drive it over a neighbor's property and I would rather not tear up their yard as a result. I would like to ask that it remain until the contents can be removed and put in the new garage. I can an.d will get ClUTent registration on the vehicle as defined by city code. Exhibit B Jun. 9. 2006 12:02PM Nislevo Corporal ion No. 1756 P. 3 . Ford Bronco Lic# HGB637. This vehicle has been rernoved and is no longer an issue. . Car-No License. This is a modified specialty vehicle used for parades and similar activities. It has always been stored in the fanner garage and was only supposed to be outside for a short time while the new garage was to be constructed. It has no roof so it cannot be outside but I was forced to do so and cover it with a tarp. In had a garage for it right now, it would be in it. I ask the cOUJJcil to allow it to retnain outside for no longer than 90 days} the tin:t.e allotted for completion o[1he garage. III LP Tanks aDd heaters. I assume by "heaters" it is meant the large bumers used for outdoor coohing for special events. These items were stored in the fonner garage and a place will be found for them within the storage VfUl III Foam Panel. Left by the previous contractor when he brought some construction materials last summer. I asslillled it to be part of the insulating fOffilS to be used in construction but after consulting the new contractor, I realize he waS just dumping garbage on my property. It will be disposed of. III Sink. This was a utility tub used in the fonner garage that I save for re-use. I will try to find a spot for it within the storage van otherwise it will be disposed of and I'll just have to buy a new one. . Pails. I'm not sme which pails are being referred to unless they are the ones within the aforementioned sink. Whatever pails I discover shall be disposed of. . Pallets. Construction materials can:t.e in on these. I thought they were considered part of the construction debris and allowed while holding a valid pennit. They will be removed upon completion o[1he project as they are needed for reuse. . Skid Steer Sweeper. This is one of the pieces of equipment left on my property frmn the previous contractor. As the issue Wit11 this contractor has yet to be resolved, I have been instructed by the Department of Labor and IJ:J,dustry to secure the unit until such time as it is decided by COUli order or other mutually agreed solution that it has been abandoned to rn,y care_ It should not be removed from the property pending the outcmne of any litigation. I have moved the unit to be as out of sight as possible. . Timbers. Conshllction debris related to demolition of original structure. They will be reused as possible and anything left over will be disposed of. . Well tank. Definitely junk. It will be disposed of. . Tires. These new tires were awaiting mounting on my motor home. That has since been completed. III Window/wood frame. I'm assuming this is referring to a homemade sandblaster unit that was in the former garage. The unit was too big to fit in the house, detached garage or storage van. I ask the council to allow it to stay outside until completion of the new garage. I will try to find a spot for it more out of sight and cover it. . Pipes. I'm assuming this is refen'ing to parts of the support structure needed to suppOli the IeF walls that will be erected in the new construction. These are also part of what the original contractor left on my property for construction of the new garage. They will be gone upon com.pletion of the project. 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 \ Celebrating 50 Years · 1956 - 2006\ DATE: June 1, 2006 TO: John M. and Dolores J. McMasters . 4530 Enchanted Point Shorewood,MN 55364 PROPERTY LOCATION: 4530 Enchanted Point PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO.: 30':117-23-33-0022 \ \ NOTICE TO REMOVE Public Nuisances NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there exists a condition on the above referenced property which is in violation of Chapter 501, Section 501.05, Subd. 9 of the Shorewood City Code, a copy of which Section is enclosed. The nuisance to be removed from the property includes, but is not limited to the following: UNLICENSED AND/OR INOPERABLE VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT: .. Boat, Lic# MN 3091BQ on Boat trailer, Lic# CTS6610 (C-87), expired . Boat, Lic# MN 9022EF ('97) on Boat trailer, Lic# S31498 (Feb'99), expired . Snowmobile trailer, no license; ? operable OTHER: . Pallets; barrel; tarps; wood; lumber; construction material; wire wreath frames; garage doors; fence parts; met:llbars; pail; plywood; logs; brush; tree debris; similar miscellaneous. . You are hereby required to remove the above-described matter and any other nuisance matter located on the propelty and in violation of Chapter 501, Section 501.05 within ten (10) days from the date hereof. In the altemative, you may file a written notice of appeal at the Shorewood City Hall within ten (10) days, in which case your appeal will be set for hearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council. If you do not respond to this Notice within ten (10) days, the City shall take whatever legal action as may be necessary to have the offensive matter removed. The costs incurred by the City for such removal shall be charged to the property owner and become a lien against the property. *** PLEASE GIVE THIS MATTER YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION *** BY ORDER OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL q'!> l" ~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER "'~ 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 Celebrating 50 Years. 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 22 June 2006 RE: Appeal Notice to Remove John McMasters FILE NO. Property (4530 Encnanted Point) In response to a Notice to Remove (see Exhibit A) that was sent to the owner of the above-referenced property, John McMasters has asked for a additional time to correct items in violation of City Code (see Exhibit B). He indicates that the trailers in question have been licensed and that he is working evenings to clean up the remaining items. The City Council rcmtinely grants 30-day extensions where the property owner has demonstrated a good faith effOli to correct the violations. . Staff recommends that Mr. McMasters be given 30 days to remove all items in violation. It is suggested that the pi-operty be r\';inspected on 26 July 2006, after which the matter will be turned over to the prosecuting attorney if the appellant has failed to comply. cc: Craig Dawson Tim Keane Joe Pazandak John McMasters ,..,.. t . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER .... #3.[ Jun, 9, 2006 12:03PM Nistevo Corporat ion No,1756 p, 4 . Bars. Again, assuming this refers to more ofthe support structme needed for the reF construction. . Shovel part. This r.llust be the head that needs a handle. It will be disposed of. . Wood. All the wood remaining on my property, excluding the pallets, are from the demolition of the original structure and have been being used in the fanning of new footings, etc. It will be removed by the end of construction as constmction debris. . Counter. r have to aSSUlTl.e this refers to the stand-up bar/railing on the north side afmy house. This is part ofthe railing structure that is going to be incorporated into the new garage deck. It cannot be installed until the garage is completed at which point, it will be. . Similar Miscellaneous. Honestly, I have no clue what this is supposed to entail. It's a catchall phrase that I find being used haphazardly. I would need to know specifically what the miscellalJeous items are ifI atll to remove them and not get in trouble. Thank you again for allowing nle the avenue to explain my cunent situation. As you can hnagine, I arn not happy with how this project has progressed and am looking forward to having a yard to uSe as a yard again. Please let me lmow if there is anything more I need to do and what further steps need to be taken. Dennis Kronberg 5760 Eureka Rd. 612~987-5444 CJ 6 r-O t vCp Thank you, ~7/; 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 Celebrating 50 Years. 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM FROM: Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator Larry Brown, Director o[Public Worles J& June 22, 2006 TO: DATE: RE: Lift Station 8 and 18 Rehabilitation Project Adopt Change Order 1, Accept Final Project and Authorize Final Payment City Project No. 04-03 On August 9,2004, the City of Shorewood awarded the contract to Jay Bros, Inc., for the Shady Island Lift Station (No. 18), and the Birch Bluff Road Lift Station (No.8) Rehabilitation Project. This project has now been completed. This project has been party to several delays, necessary design changes, and weather. As such, the period of construction was extended from nine months to approximately eighteen months. Many unknowns and issues had to be addressed, that was cause for major revisions to the design documents and construction. Other delays in accepting this project has been the perpetual and ongoing negotiations between City Staff and the General Contractor regarding changes to the contract, and what the contractor perceived as delays and added costs to the project. Initial change order requests by the contractor were in the range of $30,000 +/- in addition to the original contract amount of $215,306.00. Staff has spent a considerable time with the change order request, and has negotiated the total change order for the project, to an amount of $17,877.60 (refer to Attachment 1). This represents an 8.3 percent change to the contract. This is less than the 10 percent contingency programmed for the project. Therefore, Staff is recommending that Change Order 1 be accepted, and final payment for the project be issued, pending receipt of tax and withholding documents. Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of the attached resolution, which accepts Change Order 1, Accepts the project, and authorizes final payment for the Shady Island and Birch Bluff Road Lift Station Project. ,..,.. t' . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ..,., A resolution for this item will be provided at the City Council meeting. ... WSB Infrastructure _ Engineering _ Planning _ Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite #300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763541-4800 Fax: 763541-1700 & As.\'ociafes, Inc. June 21, 2006 Mr. Larry Brown, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Change Order No.1 Construction Pay Voucher No.4 and Final Lift Station # 18 Lift Station #8 Rehabilitation and Appurtenant Work City of Shorewood, MN WSB Project No. 1074-70 Dear Mr. Brown: Enclosed please find enclosed Change Order No.1 (in triplicate) for the above-referenced project, in the amount of$17,877.60. This Change Order has been reviewed and agreed upon with the Contractor, and we hereby recommend approval of Change Order No.1. Also enclosed are the pay requests from Jay Brothers for a total of$10,793.25 ($6,293.00 for Lift Station No.8 and $4,500.25 for Lift Station 18). The quantities completed to date have been reviewed and agreed upon by the contractor, and we hereby recommend that the City of Shorewood approve Construction Pay Voucher 4 Final for Jay Brothers., Inc. in the amount of $28,670.85 (pay requests totaling $10,793.25 plus Change Order 1 for $17,877.60.) If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. ~6~ for Kevin B. Kawlewski, P.E. Senior Project Manager Enclosures cc: Mark Jay, Jay Bros., Inc. Phil Tipka, WSB & Associates, Inc. sm F:'WPWIN: 1074. 70\L TR VO 4 CTY.062106,doc ATT^CH~d--fj ) LIFT STATION #8 REHABILITATION AND LIFT STATION #18 REHABILITATION AND APPURTENANT WORK CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MN WSB PROJECT NO. 1074-70 6/21/2006 OWNER: CONTRACTOR: JAY BROS., INC. P.O. BOX 700 9218 LAKE DRIVE NE FOREST LAKE, MN 55025 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 YOU ARE DIRECTED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: CONTRACT QUANTITIES ARE MODIFIED AS SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED DETAIL. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS CHANGE ORDER INCLUDES ALL ADDITIONAL COSTS AND TIME EXTENSIONS WHICH ARE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM ASSOCIATED WITH THE WORK ELEMENTS DESCRIBED ABOVE. CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME: ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE: PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS: N/A CONTRACT PRICE PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER: NET INCREASE OF THIS CHANGE ORDER: CONTRACT PRICE WITH ALL APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS: $215,306.00 ORIGINAL CONTRACT TIME: AS SPECIFIED $0.00 NET CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS: NONE $215,306.00 CONTRACT TIME PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER: AS SPECIFIED $17,877.60 NET INCREASE WITH CHANGE ORDER: NONE $233,183.60 CONTRACT TIME WITH APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS AS SPECIFIED RECOMMENDED BY: APPROVED BY: " ~~ CONf CTO. GNATURE WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEER JAY BROS., INC. CONTRACTOR APPROVED BY: CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY ENGINEER DATE DATE Page 1 of 2 F:\WPWlN\1074-70IExceI\1074-70 Change Order 1.xlsCO-1 LIFT STATION #8 REHABILITATION AND 6/21/2006 LIFT STATION #18 REHABILITATION AND APPURTENANT WORK CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MN WSB PROJECT NO. 1074-70 ADDED ITEMS Item No. Mat. No. Description Qty Unit Price Extended Amount REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 144.4 SY $10.50 $1,516.20 2 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 120 IF $4.48 $537.60 3 SUBGRADE PREPARATION lS $2,266.00 $2,266.00 4 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 95 TONS $20.00 $1,900.00 5 12" PVC PIPE 65 IF $45.00 $2,925.00 6 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH $1,500.00 $1,500.00 7 CASTING EACH $410.71 $410.71 8 4" STREET VENT PIPE 20 IF $17.90 $358.00 9 ADDITIONAL VALVE VAULT lUMP SUM $6,464.09 $6,464.09 TOTAL ADDED ITEMS CHANGE ORDER NO.1 $17,877.60 DELETED ITEMS Item No. Mat. No. Description Qty Unit Price Extended Amount TOTAL DELETED ITEMS CHANGE ORDER NO.1 $0.00 TOTAL ADJUSTMENT TO ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $17,877 .60 Page 2 of 2 F:IWPW/N\1074-70IExcel\1074-70 Change Order 1.x/sC01 Detail Owner: City of Shorewood Date: June 21, 2006 For Period: 8/11/2005 to 9/22/2005 Request No: 4 & Final Contractor: Jay Bros., Inc. A. WSB - PAY VOUCHER LIFT STATION #8 REHABILITATION AND LIFT STATION #18 REHABILITATION AND APPURTENANT WORK CITY OF SHOREWOOD WSB PROJECT NO. 1074-70 SUMMARY 1 TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT 2 Change Order - Addition 3 Change Order - Deduction 4 Revised Contract Amount 5 TOTAL VALUE COMPLETED TO DATE $ 215,306.00 $ 17,877.60 $ 0.00 $ 233,183.60 $ 233,722.60 $ 0.00 $ 233,722.60 0% $ 0.00 $ 233,722.60 $ 205,051.75 $ 28,670.85 6 Material on Hand 7 Amount Earned (Lift Station #8 + Lift Station #18) 8 TOTAL RETAINAGE 9 Subtotal 10 LESS TOTAL AMOUNT PAID PREVIOUSLY 11 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE THIS PAY VOUCHER NO. 4 & Final Recommended for Approval by: WSB & Associates, Inc. ~ a. t ~ ~lewsI:: ~ P;,~"ag;E"g,"e:1 Construction Observer Approved by Contractor: JAY BROS., INC. ~fi Approved by Owner: CITY OF SHOREWOOD Specified Contract Completion Date: Date: 10f1 F:IWPWIM1074-70IExcenvo 4' FINAL.xls (/) LU C9 ~ o S I- lJ... o LU Z o LU C9 ~ ~ f-< 0 Uf-< wU ~ t: <r; B w 'T' ~ g Z U z .- ~ ~ 0 iOBD ~ 25 "'" C"I c:::, t'-.. \.J ~ ~ ::::l \.) () Q :s ~ .,;- o z z o ~ U >-< ....:l 0... ~ ~ I- 2 W :iE ~ 0.. rx: o LL 2 o i= <( () - LL i= rx: w () C 2 <( 2 o i= <c ~ ..J 0.. 0.. <c '"00 o o ~ '!to ~ ~ 0 o .<:: '.g r/J +"' '+-< W 0 4:: .0 ::i U ,:.; U r::; o ~ 0... 00 \0 o o N ---- <") o o f-< Q o ;;;: W 0... o \0 o ..... U <") .,;- E .s ~ ~ a z 1ij .<::0 ;:;E "g "5 .~ ~c55o <r; <u g. Cd g 1:l c:o <u ~ ~~~ ,:.; '5 ~ ::: t: 0 ::r: l'-- U ~ <r; ;; --g ~ 0<")0 ~ <") f-< '"0 ..0 I/') U o .a I/') ~ ~ ~~~f-< U w 6'5-06.58 zt'558uuil'-- ~'cJu~::E2~ o.o;8]~~6 f-<UI/')W"",--,o... o +"' -< ;:l ~~<r; ~ w c:o ::E ;:J Z f- .- 2i ,.c; r;;'~.s ..><:t:l,.c;i:l~ -~~~;~ g ~ ~ i:l ~ b ..... 8 ~,.c; ~tS-rorn 8c;tao...t:l o d I-< Q) o '+:j ;9 t:: Q) ._ 0 Q) ;9;98u~ B,St)[g..g .., 'tl '" .~ 'tl ;9t~~El a'j ;> 0 Q; '" t+=:8u~&1 .- 0 a !'i t::"6;9:E~ 80;9:::0 ..... ~.- ..... 0 Bo:::<B;9 g~8"6S c;<uSoo o;:::.o~<l:1 UlSa.....'tl 'tl'tla<B~ ~ El g a .8 .- !::.S t) Q} t .9 ~ ~ ~ @ ~ ~8 ~ o<BSo~ ~ .S 8 ;9 a "6 o ~ ~ ~ :J ~;:;o 0.. ,g R 0.. 0 <C ~,,5 (I)~~ D:: ~8 o o..~ I- ~:;;: () .g 'of <call rx: .:!l ~ I- s.g z.tiJ 15 O .~.s t5..1:l O~8 <:::> 0 <:::> 0 o <=> 0 0 v)Ot(")tfi '<t '<to 00 000 '<to '<to 0 ~ ~O\ V3-~~~ o .s ;,; .., Q vi o ..... c:o ?;;' ...., ~ o E- U ~ E- (S U ~ "I l-o o '" t) "'o""l:l ;;;90J:: ;9'088 'tl~:Oo EllS .S ;9 ell 6,) (J') "t1 .~ ;9 ~ El d B ~ ~" t.., ~ i:l ~;96h8 ..0 003 ~ i:l a g O:~~i@Q r.r O.J:: Q LLsll~l:l WS'C;i$Sci 1S~Q)UW ~JJ.s~ti: ..0 ._ ~ ....... E- ",1l;:::;9~ t:l a lS ::: r.I.l Q)O"'OI1)U ~.~al~~ g-Us'O;:J e ~.tiJ 80 goc;a:2 b;9 t:: '" :..:: c; C;o ;>. B ~ .~ g .~ ~ o or:: ..- Cd ';::l g!3':sg..g .s 8 ~ .s .~ ;h c:o .:!l .) liJ W :'l: ~I~ ("""' 8 '@~~ () ~ ~~~ I ~ ~!. '9.!:l :g~~~ 'tl'.. 0 El ] 'gj 'tl .n .~ ~,g~~ ~ ~ ~8 tti..o..... >. U5aZ~ <c 00 o C> .0 lr) o C> o 0\ on III 0 <--MO igo on III In" ..; 00 o 0 o 0 o 0 fA fA fA fA fA fA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Q ~ fJ:1 0'8 '"' v r.x..1.;::: v ~ V)'- ~ ~ r.I.l 1l Q ~ ~ ~ U ;:J fl b:i ~ S2 .~ ~ d Ci~o~a-'~ .....V)E-E-SQ OV)on~oE-:rf~ r.I.l..,r.I.l<l:1ZV)'D ...,~ .....l S U r.I.l ~ 0 Q ~ V) ~ :2 ~ .S r.I.l;:J"':;;r.x.......l '0 ~ ~ 0 .:::l ~ 0 gJ U .....l~>CO"'E-2 .S '<t E- E- r.I.l <<1 'Elr.I.lO~ZZUO o~jo...~~~:3 E-E-'-'V):><~.....l'-' o i2 ;:J<l; E- .....lOSuc:o c::i' -jj 0 -E- o Q a .S r.I.l ~ -i'::i ..0 .....lp:;<<1 0 ta on :2 '-' 0 ~ ~ ~ '5 + ;:Jl':l~E-O 'tl<<1'" O:l V)'tl~V)c; ~~:2 ~ tJ 0 Q o(j~ 0..0'tl;:;)0 ~ 0 Q s c; 0 0 .s r:~~~J 8~~G~ zO::J.....lO 'O+'OsiiP o ;>. V) ~ 8 .. :? Q :? r.x.. .m ~i~8 ~:I~:I~~ ZEl~ r.I.l:6 - ....... ~,.c;E-~E-=< 8 80 S2 a Z E- ~ E- '-' '-'E- ~;)ooQr.I.l.; .0 OZUE- ~ .....:NM~ to \.Ci ~ 000\ fA ,;:,~ ~<S :;: - C> ~ " " " - "- :;: ~5 ~ ~ ~ " -oJ::: .~ ...... -~ ~ ...... ;it ] ~ - C> ~~ ~ 8 ~ ~ C>~ l: " ~ ~ '" ~ ~1i ~ ~ ~- ~~ ~- ~~ 1lr;;s ~6 "- '- " - " ~ ~ .E: ;:! - C> :;: ~8 bl! :;: - C> :;: '_ C> ~~ .. ~ ~ E- ~6~ t:U:t:E-< oJ::: ~- " ,~::r: ~~U ~~~ C\ r.I.l Ii: f:: ~ r.I.l U E- 13 o ~ o ;9t:l B~ €'~ 00 08 {j ~ . Qj ~~u ~ ~~b Q .- 0.. 15 Q'+- g.~ Ul:l'O >. .~ d .~ c:o ~8 a V) (S f:: U ;:J Q r.I.l Q V) Z 0 f:: c; ~ :>< ~ ~ ~ ;:J !J 0 V) 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ r.I.l "'00 ,.c; @ 0 ~s ~ U 0 S ~ a.s :s V) g.c; '0 r.I.l ~ ~ s ~ 0 00 ~ El 5 ~ V) U ..d ._ .....l ::r: a ;> ~ U 0 'El .. S- E- E- ~ .s 0 0 r.I.l E- E- Z fA N 0> N "' J:, o o o N g Z o f- e> z I UJ ~ ;;: z w > <( " no o ,.. s: w z "' '" ~ ui f- a w f- I () no <( u.. o W f- :J f- f= UJ :;; Z () iX' w :;; <( W I f- N 0> ~ @ ~ ;;: z o f= is w N 0> ~ f- Z W :;; ,.. i!: no o u.. z o f= () Ii: f= no w a o z <( z o f= () ::; a.. a.. <( N o r- e> f- z w :;; :J () o o <( ;;: (f) w (9 ii ....l <0 <0 0[-- '" <(001'-0") ~ZOO..t1 "'u..~~I'-'" w .(")(")00 ~ "<t 0 0 (L "" <::::;) t'-... \.J ~ ~ ~ c.J a Q ~ ~ I- W W :t: en Z o - I- <C ::) z - I- Z o o OJ) J::: '2 '8 i:: o u 1'-<" (ij ~ >< -< Po. p::: o "" z o t=: -< u ...... r= i;2 ~ u A -d ~ .g 5 ~ ~ ::;;: .;!l u .~ ~ 1\1 Po. u Po. t;:: -< '-2 N <l) o u r- "8 o .~ ~ (/) ~ -~ o t) A co -< E ~ 8 ;:.. -a fa- ~ s S .~ ~ ] ::g M 1;; r.8 <l) <l) ~ ~ ~ "m .s 11 .8 <l) "0 1i ~ '!a ~ ;;. ~ ~ ~ ~ o t) ~ !l :i g o U Q) J::: .D 0 g s o.g S ;:; '0 ~~ ,E ~ IJ:.lIJ:.l eJ,..l w <~iii' r-l _ 25 Pl r- '* <<< r-:>P<: gz~ U) H 1J:.l:r: U"'~ z-eJ :r:<25, ,..l>c.u <o~ 1l4r- G ~ + 2- 000000000000000000000000000000 00~~~~~~0~00~0~00~00~~0~00~000 000000000000000000000000000000 0000000 O~O~OO~ 0000000 o 0" - 0000000000 ~~~o~ooooo ooooooooo:g N 0\ 000 000 000 o \0 0000000000 oo~oo~o~oo 0000000000 o o ."f ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 000000000000000000000000000000 00 0 0 00000000 0 ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ filfil 8 ~ 8 -:J~:3~iZo 0 0 ;=;p:;r-Ciit 8 ~ ~::E~o~or)O\ ozr-~ (Y) u< 0000000000 oo~oo~o~oo 0000000000 o 0" tn 0000000 ~O~~OO~ 0000000 o (Y) 0000 ~~o~ 1'--001'-- O\OOtn "<ttntnO\ c--f -" ."f or) - "':>0 0 ;t!~o25iii'~ >c.~H~gzr-p<: 0 r-"'OOO <gz[;;60 ::E~ o o Pl lJ:.lo~ 1J:.l", ~5'l ,..lr- -~ o~z UOo ~>E=:iii' o~gz(j+ ;.>~-o ~p:;~ o~ p<:< >c. o ~~ UO,..l ~;; ~ ~ o ~ >c. o 1l4~ r- ~ Pl U '" IJ:.l o ~ . <~~ 00 00 00 tnO I'-- tn 0000 0000 ~oo"": 00 c'"' V) ~ -..e:::t.... ci N' - o~oob z-<f-<ZZ ZoOf-<f-< 8z~~~ -<9i:iloO U I'--dl.. t:r: t:r: eJ --< P-<P-< .....1U CIl- ~:::5 ~~ -<P-< U P-< i:il -< f-< 53 U t:r: -< 00000000000000000000000000000 000~0000~0000~~0~00~00~00~000 00000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000 00~00~0~~0~~0~00~00~00~0~~0~~~ 000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000 o~~ooooo~o~oo 0000000000000 0\0 0 0" 0\ 0" tn 0\" tn (Y) 0000000 ~ooo~o~ 0000000 o (Y) 0000 0000 ~oo~ O\OOtn "<ttntnO\ N' -' ..,; or) - 00130 ~~t<j~ 001::0 8 ~'8 ~ .,)0\:.= ",,(Y)i:il ~ 1313013131313130 ~<<i~ttStti1ata1a~ .5 .5 8 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 0 S80SS8SS8, "_ 0- "'"_._ 0_ ._ ._ __1""""'1_____\1) i:ili:il""i:ili:ili:ili:ili:il"" 00 00 00 "" "" I:: o oia :E = ~ Il< "E -~ ..c::U(1.)l1l (1.) (1.) t:r: S ..c:: '" I::t:r:- <1)(,) c<!a(1.) ol::~~t<jgpl1l(1.)~ '.g 0 - P-:>6u~"<t(Y)U- :cCll ~ ~ S ~!5b(1.) 8..~-<t:r: .g~<1)<1)(1.)c<!OJ)S:::>'c<!~N ~:lt:r:t:r:P:::CIl-<f-<f-<f-<-- ~OO ;:l'tt: 0.. tl I:: S ;:l 0 ~ b3 .~ -5 ~ "~ CIl ~ s::Ci:3::;8 ~~~~ .t:: sg ~ ~ a 000 CIlUUU 13013 t<j~t<j I:: 0 I:: "s ~'s .- 0\'- @",,@ 00 o~ 00 00 (Y) \0 "" "" 000000 00~00~ ~Oo~oo o\OOtntnO "<ttntnO\l'--tn N" .-:' "<t" tn" "" "" ~""""- ~ 000 o~o 00"": o c'"' - "<t, 000 o~o oo~ tnOO I'-- tn tn 0' N" - 0000 OO~O ~oo"": 000 c'"' tn-o"<t ci N" "<t' .-:' ~~(17~ "" .~ .... tl <1) 0 @ N <1) u:i ~ ~ o].,d ~'i>~E I::ot:r:t<jc<! 'a ..c:: ..0::;8 ::c: co a .- S U ~ "'" a ~ ;:l > (,) ~ .... 0 I:: .... (1.) 0 CIl .- Il< 0 :> g.- S o""<<l~g..2 -~>f-<::C:-< _N(Y)"<ttn\OI'--OOO\O_N(Y)"<ttn\OI'--OOO\O-N(Y)"<ttn\OI'--OOO\O 1""""'I~~~1""""'I1""""'I1""""'I1""""'I~1""""'INNNNNNNNNN~ ~ ..c:: CIl ~]g <1) 0.. (1.) I:: ~ J:.T... o Cd ~ ri5~oo <1) 1:: 000(1.) -136 'tt: c<! - <1) a ::;8 o(l .... - (1.) .... .a "1<j :> <1) (,) ..... _ I:: ;:l CIl c<!"- .t:l ~>.....1C1l bJ)'- Cl) ~ ::::i I:: .....1 :> 0 <1) :a?Ao..c::~ "t:l'a S a <1) r55t:r:~::;8~ N CI> CI> .... ..:, o "'" Cl o ~ o ~ o o o "<t 00 "<t - ~ o ~ tn o o ci 0\ "" o o o "" o o o "" o ~ tn o o ci 0\ ~ '" '"' '" '" 8 o o '" o ci Z o I- ",(9 mZ m- ~I @:Q @3: '" ' <3: z Z _ oW E~ OW w> "'< m", ~OC o "'>- :23: (9w OCZ 0'" LL'"' 1-::: w _ W(f) II- (f)O 6~ _I 1-0 <OC :::J< :;;';LL 1-0 5::-' O:::J ~~ r--(f) (9:;;'; I-z z< ~Q :::JOC OW 0:;; 0< <W _I <I- o ~ tn "<t 00 ."f o - "" U) ....I ~ o .... e z ~ C) CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 0 SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128' www.cLshorewood.mn.us . cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years. 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator Larry Brown, Public Works Director FROM: Steve Gurney, City Engineer DATE: June 26, 2006 RE: Approval of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Declaration for Wetland Buffers and Street Sweeping Associated with Wedgewood Drive, Mallard Lane, and Teal Circle Road Reclamation and Watermain Improvement Project Attachment 1 is a Declaration document that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is requiring as a condition of the permit for the Wedgewood Drive, Mallard Lane, and Teal Circle Road Reclamation and Watermain Improvement Project. Basically, they are requiring sweeping twice a year on said streets and then no mowing for the "buffer" adjacent to the ditch that runs through the project. While they would like to require a buffer along the entire ditch, they can't require this on private property. However, they do want the areas under City control, in this case the area within City right-of-way to be maintained as a buffer. This area is almost entirely trees, so it is not anticipated that this will cause any problems with the City's normal operations. In the past, the MCWD required that Declarations be recorded with the County, but that is no longer the case. We will be working with the MCWD to develop a "Blanket" agreement that we can use for similar projects in the future. Recommendation Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the attached Declaration and submit it to MCWD as required as a condition of the pending permit for the Wedgewood Drive, Mallard Lane, and Teal Circle Road Reclamation and Watermain Improvement Project. ,..,.. ~ . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER .... DECLARATION THIS DECLARATION ("Declaration") is made this _day of_, 2006, by the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, ("Declarant"). RECITALS WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of real property within the City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota, platted and legally described as: Wedgewood Drive Right of Way (Northwest quadrant of Section 28, Township 117, Range 23) within the City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (the "Property") and no one other than Declarant, has any right, title or interest in the Property; and WHEREAS, the Property constitutes the entirety of the public right of way to which Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Permit # 06-088 applies; and WHEREAS, Declarant desires to subject the Property to certain conditions and restrictions imposed by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as a condition to issuance of their Permit # 06-088 for the mutual benefit of the owners of the Property. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant makes this Declaration and hereby declares that this Declaration shall constitute convenants to run with the Property in perpetuity, and further declares that the Property shall be owned, used, occupied, and conveyed subject to the convenants, restrictions, easements, charges and liens set forth in this Declaration, all of which shall be binding on all persons owning or acquiring any right, title or interest in the Property, and their heirs, successors, personal representatives, and assigns. 1. Wetland Buffer. The wetland buffer, measuring 1445.00 square feet in surface area surrounding the wetlands as delineated on the site plan for the Property attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment A-I, shall be maintained by Declarant in perpetuity free from mowing or other vegetative disturbance, fertilizer application, yard or other waste disposal, the placement of structures or any other alteration that impedes the function of the buffer in protecting the quality of water in the wetland or buffering flows into the wetland. 2. Street Sweeping. All streets and public ways within the Property as illustrated herein as Attachment A-2, shall be swept at least twice each year, in the spring following snowmelt and in the fall after leaf fall. 3. The recitals set forth above are expressly incorporated herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this instrument the day and year first set forth. DECLARANT: By: STATE OF MINNESOTA) )88. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of ,200_, by Notary Public This Instrument Was Drafted By: 2 iI Attchement A-2: Street Sweeping '"~:~V:;;uu ,<:;horewood MN lIt" o I Feet ~ 250 ~ ~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 0 SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-89270 (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128' www.cLshorewood.mn.us . cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years. 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator t FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: June 22, 2006 RE: Accept Proposal for Professional Services; Construction Engineering by KLM Engineering On March 1, 1990, the City of Shorewood entered into a water tower antenna site construction agreement with ACC/McCA W Cellular of Minneapolis, for the installation of antennas on the SE Area Water Tower located at 5500 Old Market Road. Attachment 1 is a picture of the SE Area Water Tower depicting the installation. As the ownership of cellular sites has been dynamic, this cellular site is no exception. The current tenant operating the approved facility is Cingular Wireless. The agreement that governs this installation allows the tenant to make certain modifications to the site and to swap out the antennas, on an as needed basis. Certainly, they must meet the conditions of the original Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Cingular Wireless, has proposed changes to the interior cable runs inside the water tower, and minor changes to the antennas at the top of the tower that are consistent with the original CUP. Staff has requested that KLM Engineering provide the technical inspections and welding certifications for this installation. Under the lease agreement executed with Cingular Wireless, the City shall be compensated for any and all costs that are directly attributable to the Lessee's improvements. KLM's proposal has been included as Attachment 2 to this memorandum. As a secondary note to this item, current standards for water towers and the mounting of antennas on top of water towers, dictate that a higher railing with three horizontal guardrails be installed on the top of the tower. Careful examination of Attachment 1 depicts the current railing which only has two rows of horizontal railings. ,..,.. t' . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ..,., Mayor and City Council Accept KLM Proposal June 22, 2006 Page 2 of 2 After meeting with the representatives of Cingular Wireless, staff proposed that the contractors for Cingular Wireless change the railing to meet current standards. Costs for the change out would be split evenly between the City and Cingular Wireless. It is worth noting that the City would have incurred 100 percent of the costs, if the tower were being rehabilitated. Having stated this, the item under consideration for this memorandum is the proposal provided by KLM, Engineering. The tenant will reimburse all costs incurred by the City. Recommendation Staff is recommending that the attached proposal submitted by KLM Engineering be accepted. KLM ENGINEERING; INC. P.O. Box 897 . 3394 Lake May 31, 2006 Mr. Larry Brown Public Works Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8926 RE: Proposal for the Antenna Review and Installation Inspection (Cingular) on the East Tower Located in Shorewood, Minnesota. Dear Mr. Brown; This letter is to confirm the above referenced project with estimated costs as follows: Antenna Review Fixed Fee $1,200.00 Inspection Services Fixed Fee $4,500.00 (includes 7 trips: shop - 3 within 60 miles, weld - 2 and field inspection - 2) Please forward the drawings and any coating information regarding this tower. Please sign, date and check Accept Yes or No and fax this letter back to KLM Engineering Inc. If you have any questions please call me at 651-773-5111. ACCEPTED YES NO City of Shorewood Date Sincerely, KLM Engineering Inc. 7/t Kellyt. Mulhern Project Supervisor KCM/ls C:\ls\Proposals\Shorewood Cingular East Tower OS-31-06.doc A TT ACHMENT 2 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 Celebrating 50 Years. 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM FROM: Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator Larry Brown, Director of Public Works (f/ June 22, 2006 TO: DATE: RE: Authorization to Enter Into a Contract With Safe Assure Consultants The Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) mandates safety training for all employees. Each year public works employees must be certified in the following items. . A W AIR (A Workplace Accident and Injury Reduction Program) . Employee Right to Know/Hazard Communication . Lock Out / Tag Out (Control of Hazardous Energy) . Recording and Reporting Occupational Injhuries and Illness . Emergency Action Plan . Respiratory Protection . Blood Borne Pathogens . Cranes-Chains-Slings . Hearing Conservation . Personal Protective Equipment . Confined Space Entry/Rescue . Trenching and Excavation . Equipment Lockout/Tagout . Earth Moving Equipment . Powered Industrial Trucks/forklifts . Chainsaw Operations Safe Assure Inc. has provided these services, in the past, as a joint project with eleven other lake area communities. The ability to train with other municipalities provides the opportunity to train at a cost of approximately one tenth the cost of other programs. Attachment 1 is the proposal provided by Safe Assure for the 2006-2007 year. ,..,.. t' . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ..,., Mayor and City Council Proposal Safe Assure Consultants June 22, 2006 Page 2 of 2 Safe Assure also includes, as part of the proposed fee, an automated Material Data Safety Sheet program. OSHA mandates that every material that an employee comes in contact with must have a Material Data Safety Sheet (MSDS) that outlines health risks, protective equipment to be utilized, and chemical reaction data. Attachment 2 is a sample of an MSDS sheet. This mandate, not only applies to chemicals, but to everyday items such as bolts, wood, and asphalt. The job of keeping MSDS sheets current for every product that is received is an ominous task, at best. Thus, the costs of the safety services on addition to the MSDS service is of great value. Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of the proposal provided by Safe Assure Consultants for safety services in the amount of $2,470.00. CITY OF SBOBEWOOD ~m '~m~~/~~~!m~~! ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSAL BY SAFE ASSURE 1 The United States Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Minnesota Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration require employers to have documented proof of employee training and written procedures for certain specific standards. The attached addendum and training schedule clarifies written and training requirements. The required standards that apply to The City of Shorewood are listed below: A. W .A.I.R. MN Statute 182.653 flAn employer covered by this section must establish a written Work-place Accident & Injury program that promotes safe & healthful working conditions fl. EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN 29 CFR 1910.35 THRU .38 "The emergency action plan shall be in writinf? and shall cover the designated actions employers & employees must take to insure employee safety from fire & other emergencies ". CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS ENERGY 29 CFR 1910.147 & MN Statute 5207.0600 "Procedures shall be developed, documented & utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees are engaged in the activities covered by this section ". HAZARD COMMUNICATIONS 29 CFR 1910.1200 & MN Statute 5206.0100 thru 5206.1200 "Evaluating the potential hazards of chemicals, and communicating information concerning hazards and appropriate protective measures to employees may include, but is not limited to, provisionfor: development & maintaining a written hazard communication programfor the work-place... " RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES 29 CFR 1904 "Each employer shall maintain in each establishment a log and summary of all occupational injuries and illnesses for that establishment.. . . . . . . . . .. " 2 CONFINED SPACE 29 CFR 1910.146 If the employer decides that its employees will enter permit spaces, the employer shall develop and implement a written permit space program. . . . . . . . RESPIRATORY PROTECTION 29 CFR 1910.134 Written standard operating procedures governing the selection and use of respirators shall be established. OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE 29 CFR 1910.95 The employer shall institute a training program for all employees who are exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time weighted average of 85 decibels, and shall ensure employee participation in such a program. BLOODBORNE PATHOGENS 29 CFR 1910.1030 Each employer having an employee(s) with occupational exposure as defined by paragraph (b) of this section shall establish a written Exposure Control Plan designed to eliminate or minimize employee exposure. POWERED INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS 29 CFR 1910.178 "Only trained and authorized operators shall be permitted to operate a powered industrial truck. Methods shall be devised to train operators in the safe operation of Powered Industrial Trucks". GENERAL DUTY CLAUSE PL91-596 "Hazardous conditions or practices not covered in an O.S.H.A. Standard may be covered under section 5(a)(J) of the act, which states: Each employer shall furnish to each of {their} employees employment and a place of employment which is free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to {their} employees. " LOGGING OPERATIONS 1910.266 (i)(l) The employer shall provide training for each employee, including supervisors, at no cost to the employee. 3 OPERATION OF MOBILE EARTH-MOVING EQIDPMENT. Training programs shall be developed and instructed by competent individuals who have knowledge, training, experience, and the demonstrated ability to identify existing and predictable hazards related to the subject matter. EXCAVATIONS/TRENCHING 1926.651 (k)(l) Daily inspections of excavations, the adjacent areas, and protective systems shall be made by a competent person for evidence of a situation that could result in possible cave-ins, indications of failure of protective systems, hazardous atmospheres, or other hazardous conditions. PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQIDPMENT 1926.95 a) "Application. " Protective equipment, including personal protective equipment for eyes, face, head, and extremities, protective clothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers, shall be provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition wherever it is necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment, chemical hazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical irritants encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any part of the body through absorption, inhalation or physical contact. OVERHEAD CRANES 1910.179(j)(3) Periodic inspection. Complete inspections of the crane shall be performed at intervals as generally defined in paragraph (j)(l)(ii)(b) of this section, depending upon its activity.................... . ERGONOMICS 29 CFR PART 1910.900 THRU 1910.944 "Training required for each employee and their supervisors must address signs and symptoms of MSD's, MSD hazards and controls used to address MSD hazards. " 4 In the interest of Quality Safety Management, it is recommended that written procedures and documented employee training also be provided for the following Subparts. (Subparts represent multiple standards) 1910 Subparts Subpart D - Walking - Working Surfaces Subpart E - Means of Egress Subpart F - Powered Platforms, Man-lifts, and Vehicle-Mounted Work Platforms Subpart G - Occupational Health and Environmental Control Subpart H - Hazardous Materials Subpart I - Personal Protective Equipment Subpart J - General Environmental Controls Subpart K - Medical and First Aid Subpart L - Fire Protection Subpart M - Compressed Gas and Compressed Air Equipment Subpart N - Materials Handling and Storage Subpart 0 - Machinery and Machine Guarding Subpart P - Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held Equipment. Subpart Q - Welding, Cutting, and Brazing. Subpart S - Electrical Subpart Z - Toxic and Hazardous Substances 1926 Subparts Subpart C - General Safety and Health Provisions Subpart D - Occupational Health and Environmental Controls Subpart E - Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment Subpart F - Fire Protection and Prevention Subpart G - Signs, Signals, and Barricades Subpart H - Materials Handling, Storage, Use, and Disposal Subpart I - Tools - Hand and Power Subpart J - Welding and Cutting Subpart K - Electrical Subpart L - Scaffolds Subpart M - Fall Protection Subpart N - Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Elevators, and Conveyors Subpart 0 - Motor Vehicles, Mechanized Equipment, and Marine Operations Subpart P - Excavations Subpart V - Power Transmission and Distribution Subpart W - Rollover Protective Structures; Overhead Protection Subpart X - Stairways and Ladders Subpart Z - Toxic and Hazardous Substances Applicable MN OSHA 5205 Rules Applicable MN OSHA 5207 Rules Applicable MN OSHA 5206 Rules (Employee Right to Know) 5 All training on the programs written by SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. will meet or exceed State and/or Federal OSHA requirements. These programs/policies and procedures listed on the addendum do not include the cost of hardware such as labels, signs, etc. and will be the responsibility of The City of Shorewood to obtain as required to comply with OSHA standards. Our contract year will begin on the signing of this proposal! contract. Classroom training will be accomplished at a time convenient to most employees/management and so selected as to disrupt the workday as little as possible. All documents and classroom trainin~ produced by SafeAssure Consultants for The City of Shorewood are for the sole and express use by The City of Shorewood and its employees and not to be shared, copied, or used by any division, department, subsidiary, or parent organization or any entity whatsoever, without prior written approval of SafeAssure Consultants. It is always the practice of SafeAssure Consultants to make modifications and/or additions to your program when necessary to comply with changing OSHA standards/statutes. These changes or additions, when made during a contract year, will be made at no additional cost to The City of Shorewood All written programs/services that are produced by SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. are guaranteed to meet the requirements set forth by MNOSHA/OSHA. SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. will reimburse the City of Shorewood should MNOSHA/OSHA assess a fine for a deficient or inadequate written program that was produced by SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. does not take responsibility for financial loss due to MNOSHA/OSHA fines that are unrelated to written programs mentioned above. 6 ADDENDUM SAFETY PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS The City of Shorewood Written Programs & Training A.W.A.I.R. (A Workplace Accident and Injury Reduction Act) . maintain site specific program . documented training of all personnel . accident investigation . simulated OSHA inspection . safety committee advisor Employee Right to Know/Hazard Communication . maintain site specific program . documented training of all personnel (general and specific training) . various labeling requirements . assist in maintaining MSDS . Lock Out/Tag Out (Control of Hazardous Energy) . maintain site specific program . documented training of all personnel Emergency Action Plan . maintain site specific program . documented training of all personnel Respiratory Protection . maintain site specific program . documented training of all personnel . required fit tests 7 Bloodborne Pathogens . maintain site specific program . documented training of all personnel Cranes-Chains-Slings . maintain site specific program . documented training of all personnel (inspections) Hearing Conservation (Occupational Noise Exposure) . maintain site specific program . documented training of all personnel . decibel testing and documentation Personal Protective Equipment . maintain site specific program . documented training of all personnel Confined Space . maintain site specific program . documented training of all personal Trenching & Excavation (competent person training in second year) . maintain site specific program . documented training of all personnel Earth Moving Equipment/Motor Vehicles . maintain site specific program . documented training of all personnel Powered Industrial Trucks/Forklifts . maintain site specific program . documented training of all personnel . testing and licensing 8 Ergonomics . maintain/write site specific program . documented training of all personnel o job hazards-recognition o control steps o reporting o management leadership requirements o employee participation requirements General Safety Requirements . maintain site specific program . documented training of all personnel Miscellaneous . Workplace Hazard Assessment . training manual maintenance . safety manual maintenance . documented decibel tesing . documented air quality readings . documented foot-candle readings . OSHA recordkeeping . General Duty Clause . assistance during an actual OSHA inspection . general safety recommendations . "ALERT" data base . unlimited consulting services 9 In consideration ofthis signed monetary agreement/contract, for the period of twelve months from the signing date, SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. will act as a consultant to, and/or perform the function of "Safety Manager" for The City of Shorewood. SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. will provide unlimited consulting services, conduct classroom-training sessions ("see Tentative Training Schedule"), write and/or maintain mandatory OSHA programs. ANNUAL TOTAL IF PAID ON SIGNING $ 2,470.00 The City of Shorewood Date The City of Shorewood Date ~nts ~, 3-3-t}b Date ~ ~ r.? , SafeAssure Consultants ,5 -3-tJl::, Date (SEAL) This contract is for the period of May 2006 thru April 2007. /I We 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 Celebrating 50 Years. 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM Date: June 22, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Bonnie Burton, Finance Directorrrreasurer~ Larry Brown, Director of Public Works ~fJf Jean Panchyshyn, Executive Secretary/Deputy City Clerk From: Re: Authorization to Purchase a Server for the Weblink Program cc: Craig Dawson, City Administrator The City continues to move forward with technology advancements and is working toward providing documents to the public via the City's website. In order to provide this convenience, the City uses the document imaging program implemented last year, and a software program called Weblink. After much discussion with the City's computer consultant (Techies Outsourced IT), staff has concluded that it is desirable to provide this information via a separate, additional computer server. The reason for not using the City's primary computer server for web accessible purposes are concerns about security breaches, hackers, and general mayhem, any of which have the potential of crippling our operations. To that end, Techies has provided a quote for the additional server in the amount of approximately $2,300 (including tax and shipping). The server installation date is scheduled for July 12 and the software provider and computer consultant are available then, provided the hardware is received. The server specifications are compatible with the City's current standards. Funds are available for this purchase in the Public Facilities/Office Equipment Fund. Action Requested Staff requests Council authorization for expenditure of funds in the amount of approximately $2,300 for purchase of an additional server for the Weblink use, as proposed by the City's computer consultant. ,..,.. t' . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ..,., Company: Customer: SHOREWOOD lVIINNESOTA.IJSA http:;;\yvvw.ci.shore\yood.mn.us Techies OutsourcedlT 1660 South Hwy 100 STE 102 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Account Mgr : Matthew Jeske 952.351.9409 Fax: 952.653.1610 Billing Address: City of Shorewood / Cust # - 37829 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 952.4 7 4.3236 x213 Proposal #: 060619-CS Date: 6/19/2006 Labor Cost Description Estimated Labor Services . Server Setup - Initial Server Setup/Install . Server App Install - Web Services Qty Price Ea. Total Cost 1 ~- ~ Total Labor Cost Estimate - Not including sales tax Product Cost Description Qty Price Ea. Total Cost DELL PowerEdge 850 - Web Server . Intel Dual-Core Pentium D 930 (3.0GHz) . Windows 2003 Server - Web Edition . 2GB of DDR2-RAM (2x1GB DIMMs) . 2 x 160GB Serial ATA Hard Drive in a RAID-1 . CERC Internal RAID Controller 1 $2,103.80 $2,103.80 . 8x DVD-ROM Drive . DELL Keyboard and Optical Mouse . Broadcom 10/100/1000 Network Adapter . Rack-mount Chassis with Rapid Rails . 3 Year Basic M-F Next Business Day Onsite Warranty * The total product price listed below does not include the shipping or handling that may apply. Total Product Cost - Not including sales tax $2,103.80 The undersigned individual/company agent agrees to purchase the following service from Techies OutsourcedlT. By signing this agreement the purchaser Is authorizing Techies OutsourcedlT to proceed In providing the service and hardware at the stated amount. .:fechies-fJuts9urcedIT-requires- ~oouet-e65Me1H'ooess-the-6r~eHViJf-be-extendeff-at-Net-:l*terms. Customer: City of Shorewood ----1 ----1 Date Authorized Signature Check# and Amount CiTY UF SHUl{EWOOD PARK COMMISSION TOUR & REGULAR MEETING TUESDA Y, JUNE 13,2006 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD CITY HALL 7:30 P.M. OR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PARK TOURS MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING ~ ~~J~ ,. ~' ,'3 .:~ Ii!i~. L~~ rl The Park Commission met at City Hall at 5:45 p.m. to depart for their Park Tour. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Davis, Commissioners Young and Westerlund; City Engineer Brown, later met by Commissioners Moonen and Norman. Absent: Commissioner Hensley and City Council liaison. PARK TOUR 1. EUREKA ROAD & SMITHTOWN ROAD TRAIL The Commissions was met by Three Rivers Park District Planning Manager, Jonathon Vlaming, who explained the impending trail kiosk program proposed along all trails. Identified as the Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail, Vlaming stated that the trail would be marked every 2 miles by an informational kiosk containing two panels. One of the panels would contain an aerial photo map showing trails and directional signs, while the other panel would provide a trail system map, safety tips, and contain points of interest. In addition to the kiosks, Vlaming noted that 10' tall directional street signs would be posted every mile designating points of interest. Vlaming indicated that the kiosk panels would be made of aluminum sheeting with a vinyl application and photos that could be easily replaced as updated. Young asked about bike safety and passing. Vlaming stated that the park district hopes to start a bike safety education campaign by the end of the summer. Brown pointed out that the police department has requested that signs be posted at Smithtown and County Road 19 informing pedestrians that the cross traffic does not stop, as this is not an official designated crosswalk. He asked Vlaming if there was an opportunity for the District to participate in a link from the LRT in Tonka Bay to the shopping center at Smithtown and County Road 19. Vlaming stated that the connector trails are the responsibility of the local municipalities, though funding is sometimes available through the county. Moonen arrived at 6:20 p.m. Vlaming noted that the kiosks should be completed by August 1st and that the anti-graffiti surfaces should help deter maintenance issues. In addition, daily patrols monitoring the trails should alleviate some vandalism issues. .1ft 71} PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDA Y, JUNE 13,2006 PAGE 5 OF 5 2. SKATE PARK Brown pointed out that the public works staff was replacing the old sheeting now and that the sides would be replaced with an all black covering as well. Since the quality between the two manufacturers is so significant, Brown stated that the City may ask the new contractor if they would replace the older wood rails with the metal ones they provide. He noted that the average life span of the equipment is typically 5 years. Brown asked the Commissioners whether they had any additional visions for the park. Nonnan an-ived at 6:30 p.m. Westerlund stated that it would be nice to have an interpretive kiosk placed at the site to explain the history of the location. In addition, a water fountain would be appropriate. NOlman suggested additional seating for parents to watch their children other than in their vehicles. Young asked why the water fountain, mentioned in the past, has not been possible. Brown stated that, while vandalism is always an issue, there was never water available for the site until the recent water extension. With the recent extension, Brown pointed out that the City does have the ability to provide a fountain at this location. He indicated that he would investigate where the $1,000 annual donation from the American Legion has been going and see if it could be used to install a fountain. Westerlund suggested the City consider installing a fence along the Highway as a safety precaution. 3. MANOR PARK Brown reported that the public works staff had been trying to keep a buffer oflong grass near the shoreline of the pond to deter geese, until the most recent mowing in which they mowed to close to the shore. With regard to the tennis courts, Brown reported that the quotes to repair them have come in at roughly $30,000. He indicated that he would continue to determine which method to pursue, repair, rip up, or overlay. The Commission admired the recent garden planted around the maple tree and reviewed the proposed tree donation locations for the park. Adjustments to the tree locations were made slightly so as not to interfere with the activities of the park. eRR Consultant Anderson gave a brief overview of the sports use at Manor Park. Anderson pointed out that the ball field and lacrosse fields almost overlap, but noted both organizations have been sensitive to the others needs. She explained that if the athletes using the ball field were any older, there would be additional safety issues to consider. Anderson pointed out that due to the requirement that Badger Park rest this year and the ongoing conditions of that field, lacrosse was unable to use the facility this year. She suggested that the Commission make considerations to Badger this year so as to avoid a PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDA Y, JUNE 13,2006 PAGE SOFS similar situation next year. She commented that it is unfortunate that a beautiful and sizable field should be sitting empty while users compete for space elsewhere. Chair Davis suggested the Commission should not deny a request and donation opportunity to reforest its parks and asked about the pond planting project. Westerlund suggested the City recognize the Babcock's for their donation. Brown indicated that WSB was drawing up an RFP for the pond planting project, as staff has not had the ability to do so. He agreed that the City should recognize the donation and noted that the policy does not address this. 4. SIL VERWOOD Brown reported that staff had found a web product that can be staked down to aid in erosion control around the slide. He stated that WSB is looking into it for the City for installation in the fall. Brown stated that they chose to keep the grass on the sliding hill longer to deter erosion there as well. Young noted that the tennis practice board had been painted and asked about the surface. Brown stated that, while the board had been painted, the practice surface had not been seal coated last year and that it would be this year. Westerlund questioned the hard sand surface at the base of the slide. Brown stated that the sand is dug out 2 - 3 times a year with the addition of sand as needed. 5. BADGER PARK Brown stated that lights and drainage continue to be major problems at the parle He indicated that new lighting and the installation of tile lines under the field soil would help tremendously with field conditions. He pointed out the addition of a small parking area. Westerlund strongly recommended the City make those things happen. She stated that she would support getting it done for sure as soon as possible. Young asked when the field could be reintegrated into use. Brown pointed out that the field would be used for football this fall and with new tile the field could be used again in the spring. Again, he pointed out that the current light system is inadequate at best, and dangerous at the least, since the light mounts themselves are unsafe. He indicated that 1-2 new banks of lights for the area should be adequate, but they are expensive. He indicated that they were putting together a study to detennine what lighting contracting should be done. Westerlund asked if the City could get the lighting issue resolved by the fall. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDA Y, JUNE 13, 2006 PAGE50F5 t:., Brown stated that 'yes' the lights could be done by fall. Neighbor and Park user interjected that the lights are oftentimes on at odd times. Brown stated that the City sets the lights to go on at 4:30 pm before he leaves for the day to ensure that they come on at all, as they are unreliable. He stated that while the city has put money into a timing system and electrical controls, the lights themselves continue to be the Issue. Young asked when the Commission could make the call to get this completed. Chair Davis stated that she would like to see this parks needs move to the top of the list. The Park Tour adjourned to the regular Park Commission Meeting at 7:45 p.m. 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Review Agenda Item 6B, New Business, a Watershed update was added to the agenda. Moonen moved, Westerlund seconded, approving the Agenda as amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2006 Young moved, Norman seconded, approving the Minutes of the May 9, 2006, Park Commission Meeting as submitted. Motion passed 5/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 4. REPORTS A. Report on City Council Meeting of June 12, 2006 Brown reported that the City Council focused on the public hearing on the Wedgewood watermain topic and voted 4/1 to approve the watermain extension the entire length. In addition, Brown stated that the homesite across from the Three River Trail area will be subdivided into three parcels. Chair Davis stated that this old homestead is truly a treasure and that was sorry to see it go. , I, PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDA Y, JUNE 13,2006 PAGE 50FS 5. DISCUSS PARK TOURS The Commission agreed that the immediate needs included lighting and tile options for Badger. Chair Davis urged staff to create a laundry list of other priorities that the Commission could discuss and make recommendations for at its next meeting. 6. CONSIDERATION OF SHELTER AT FREEMAN PARK FOR SOUTH TONKA LITTLE LEAGUE Brown explained that a new larger shed to store equipment in has been donated to the STLL and they wish to replace the existing shed with this and are locating a spot which meets setbacks. He suggested the Commission make a recommendation to help staff with the placement of the shed. Westerlund moved, Moonen seconded, to recommend approval of the request for the auxiliary equipment shed, subject to staff recommendations and removal of the existing shed. Motion passed 5/0. B. WATERSHED NEW BUSINESS UPDATE As an infonnational update, Westerlund stated that an RFP has been sent out for interpretive signs to be posted throughout the watershed. This would include three signs within Gideon Glen, one Wetland Sign, a Big Woods designation sign, and Nurp Pond sign. She indicated that at some point, the Commission may be asked to review the proposed signs prior to installation. 7. LIAISON FOR JUNE 26 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Since the Commission would be meeting earlier with the Council, the Commissioners could stay if necessary. 8. ADJOURN Young moved, Westerlund seconded, adjourning the Park Commission Meeting of June 13,2006, to Work Session at 8:15 p.m. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson Recorder CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 . www.ci.shorewood.mn.us . cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years. 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council P Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator Ai June 22, 2006 V Decision on Arbitration To Fund SLMPD Operations On June 15,2006, the Arbitration Panel for funding operations of the SLMPD issued the clarification of its Order. The 60-day clock for any member city to serve notice of withdrawal from the joint powers agreement (JPA) at the end of2007 began on that date. Consequently, any member city needs to serve such notice by August 15. The panel clarified its order that the allocation for operations only beginning with the SLMPD's 2007 budget is as follows: Excelsior 27% Greenwood 8% Shorewood 50% Tonka Bay 15% This allocation would remain in place through 2011. Beginning 2012, the allocation would be tweaked every five years based on the change within relationships for each the equally-weighted formula factors: tax capacity, population, and ICRs (incident complaint reports) per city. The impact on Shorewood of this decision going forward starts at approximately $62,000. In the Fourth Amendment to the JP A, the cities agreed that the base figure changes in their 2007 contributions was the amount that had been recommended by the Coordinating Committee for 2006: $1,556,100. The City is not subject to levy limits in 2007. City Council Action: The City Council may wish to comment on the Order. It should discuss this matter and identify what process, if any, it wishes to follow in consideration of approval of the Order or of serving notice of withdrawal from the JP A. As the arbitration is binding, the only avenue not to accept it is to withdraw. If the Council took no action, it would be deemed as approval of the Order. ,..,.. '-J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER c8J?lbert Mediation Center, Ltd. 12700 ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344-7652 TELEPHONE (952) 767-0167 FACSIMILE (952) 767-0171 WWW.MEDIATIONNEIWORKMN.cOM JAMES H. GIIBERI WENDEll. R. ANDERSON ROBERT H. SCHUMACHER JOHN C. LINDSTROM PEIER J. LINDBERG GARY J. MEYER FRANKLIN J KNOl-L SUSAN M. ELFSTROM E-mail address: ihgilbert@lawgilbert.com June 1, 2006 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Kevin Staunton, Esq. 5277 Lochloy Drive Edina, MN 55436 James G. Penberthy, Esq. (Via Fax) 264 Water Street Excelsior, MN 55331-1825 Mark W. Kelly, Esq. 351 Second Street Excelsior, MN 55331-1805 Timothy J. Keane, Esq. Leonard, Street and Deinard 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: Findings of Fact and Order Dated June 1,2006 In the Matter of The Arbitration of the Allocation of Operating Costs of Providing Police Services to the Member Cities of the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Dear City Attorneys: I am enclosing the June 1, 2006 Arbitration Findings of Fact and Order with regard to the above-referenced matter. A duplicate original will be sent to each of you by regular mail today. Sincerely, GILBERT MEDIATION CENTER, LTD. Ja~::~ Enclosure cc: Marianne D. Short, Esq. Hon. Peter J. Lindberg In the Matter of The Arbitration of the Allocation of Operating Costs of Providing Police Services to the Member Cities of the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER Pursuant to the Revised-Binding Arbitration Proposal of the Member Cities, dated December 5, 2005, the above-captioned matter was submitted to binding arbitration before "a mutually-acceptable panel of three arbitrators who are retired judges or justices."] The City of Excelsior was represented by Kevin P. Staunton; the City of Greenwood was represented by Mark W. Kelly; the City of Shorewood was represented by Timothy K. Keane; the City of Tonka Bay was represented by James G. Penberthy. The Arbitration hearing was held on May 4, 2006, at the Minnetonka City Hall. Based on the arguments, briefs, stipulated record and other submissions,2 the Panel makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Member Cities (Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay) of the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department are located on the south shore of Lake Minnetonka in Western Hennepin County as illustrated by the map found at Exhibit 19 of the Stipulated Record (all references to exhibits are to the parties' Stipulated Record). The unanimously agreed upon Arbitration Panel consists of: retired Minnesota Supreme Court Justice James H. Gilbert, retired Minnesota Court of Appeals Judge Marianne D. Short and retired Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter J. Lindberg. 2 The parties stipulated to a record consisting of a Statement of Stipulated Facts and Exhibits 1-19 (185 pages of text, graphs and charts), 10 video tapes of "Issues Group" meetings which occurred from March 2 through May 26, 2005. In addition, counsel for each Member City submitted approximately 20- page briefs and 5-page reply briefs with proposed findings of fact 2. Relevant comparable data for the Member Cities, taken from Exhibits 3, 5, 6 and 7, is listed below. Year Data Excelsior Greenwood Shorewood Tonka Bay (2004) Net Population 2,400 residents 800 residents 7,625 residents 1,600 residents (2005) Total Initial 2049 369 3,308 702 Complaint 31.9% 5.7% 51.5% 10.9% Repolt (IRe) and percentage (2006) Net land 396 acres 199.8 acres 3,337 acres 557 acres (2006) Net tax levy $1,003,770 $525,010 $4,190,395 $771,572 (2006) Net tax capacity $3,334,776 $2,447,073 $14,477,835 $4,609,014 and percentage 14% 10.1% 57.3% 18.5% (2006) Share of SLMPD budget as % of General Fund 24% 20..6% 15.3% 24.6% 3. The Member Cities are signatories to a joint powers agreement ("JP A") authorized by Minn. Stat. ~ 471.59. The JPA recognizes the cities as independent government units, and provides efficiency and financial savings to the Member Cities who could not afford individually to operate a fourteen member police officer department. The original JP A was executed in 1973. The JP A, dated January 1, 1998, has been amended four times (Exhibit 2). The Fourth Amendment, approved by each of the Member Cities in 2006, has not been executed yet. 4. Under the JP A, the Member Cities have created ajoint police force called the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD). The Member Cities agree that: (1) the SLMPD provides high quality professional police service that benefit each Member City and the citizens they serve; (2) the JP A provides each Member City with efficiency and financial savings while recognizing that the cities are independent 2 governmental units; and (3) the JP A specifically acknowledges each Member City's autonomy, uniqueness and requirements for local control. 5. The SLMPD currently employs 14 authorized full time police officers, who serve the SLMPD population of 12,425 citizens (Exhibit 10 at page 51). These facts equate to approximately one officer per 880 residents, or a 1.13 rate of officers per thousand residents (Exhibit 10 at page 51). In the Twin Cities metropolitan area, police staffing averages 1.1 to 1.4 officers per every thousand of population (Exhibit 11 at page 54). This information provides police departments with a standardized method for determining staffing levels (Exhibit 1 at page 5, paragraph 10). 6. The JP A also provides, among other things, a mechanism for allotting each Member City's share of the operating costs for the joint police force. For example, in 1973, costs of operating the department were allocated based on property value and each city paid the same share of the department's operating costs as its respective share of the total property value in the four-city area. That formula, in 1973, resulted in Excelsior paying 34.17% of the operating costs, Greenwood 8.17%, Shorewood 42.84%, and Tonka Bay 14.82% (Exhibit 13 at page 67). 7. Since 1973, each Member City has grown and developed. The total SLMPD operating budget has increased from $289,000 (Exhibit 14 at page 74) to $1,961,259 (Exhibit 12 at page 60) which includes the police facility debt service. Population and demand also have changed over time (Exhibit 5). The parties have amended the JP A to reflect these changes. 8. In 1978, the Member Cities modified the property value approach to cost allocation to include factors designed to measure demand. Under this formula, 60% of 3 the operating costs continued to be allocated based on assessed property value and 40% were based on demand. The demand portion of the formula was made up of population (20%), road miles (10%), and density components (10%). Density was defined as population divided by number of land acres. The demand portion of the new formula did not include calls. 9. In 1983, the Member Cities adopted a fixed percentages approach which resulted in these allocations: Excelsior 28%; Greenwood 9%; Shorewood 45%; and Tonka Bay 18% (Exhibit 13 at page 67). From 1988 to 1991, a formula plus demand was utilized (Exhibit 13 at page 67). 10. In 1992, the formula was modified to reflect call demand, rather than population, road miles, and density. "Call Demand" referred to the number of hours spent by officers while on duty in an individual city, or on matters originating out of an individual city (Exhibit 13 at page 67). In 1995, the formula allocated costs entirely based on Call Demand, and resulted in these percentages: Excelsior 31.40%; Greenwood 8.10%; Shorewood 43.90%; and Tonka Bay 16.60% (Exhibit 13 at page 67). 11. In 2000, the Member Cities repealed the use of demand in allocating costs of operating the department and adopted a fixed formula that required the cities to pay these percentages: Excelsior 29.5%; Greenwood 8.5%; Shorewood 46%; and Tonka Bay 16% (Exhibit 1 at page 2; cf. Exhibit 13 at page 67). 12. In 2002, in conjunction with an agreement by the Member Cities to finance and construct a new facility to house the police department, the JP A termination date was extended from 2007 to the date (expected to be 2023) on which the construction 4 debt is retired. The SLMPD facility was constructed in January 2004, the department moved to the new facility located in Shorewood (Exhibit 1 at page 3). 13. The debt service payments on the police facility are shared by the Member Cities. The 2006 debt service was $444,208,00 and debt service percentages for each Member City are as follows: Excelsior 14%; Greenwood 10.01 %; Shorewood 57.3%; and Tonka Bay 18.5% (Exhibit 12 at page 60). The existence of this building contributes to the long term viability of the jointly operated police department and the continuing relationship among the Member Cities. 14. On February 13,2002, the Member Cities agreed that the planning, financing and construction of the new SLMPD Police Station would be paid annually on an ad valorum basis. Each member approved the terms of the leasing arrangement, the construction contract and financing (Exhibit 2 at page 22). As set out by the parties in the Fourth Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement (Exhibit 2, but separately submitted) paragraph: 1. SECTION 1. Section 8, subdivision 1 of the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with thefollowing: A. Term of Agreement and Withdrawal. This Agreement shall take effect January I, 1998 and continue through December 31,2023. ii. WITHDRA WL d. Any withdrawing Party shall continue paying the same portion of the ongoing payment the SLMP D makes to retire the debt incurred in 2002 to finance construction of the police building as required by theformula in effect at the time of written notice ofwithdrawal. A withdrawing Party shall have an ownership 5 interest in the building commensurate with the percentage its debt retirement payments (both before and after withdrawal) are of the total debt retirement payments made by the SLMPD. The ownership interest shall not include a right of use or occupation but shall entitle the Party to its pro rata share of any revenue generated through the lease, sale or other conveyance of the building. A withdrawing Party's payments on the debt shall end upon retirement of the debt or upon addition ofa new Party to this Agreement. 15. In 2005, the Member Cities disagreed on the allocation of annual dollar contribution to the operating budget of the SLMPD, thus the Member Cities entered into a Binding Arbitration Proposal which included the following provision: Binding Arbitration. The Member Cities agree to submit the issue of the allocation of the operating costs of providing police services to a mutually acceptable panel of three arbitrators who are retiredjudges orjustices. In the event that the Member Cities cannot agree on an arbitration panel by January 15, 2006, Excelsior shall select one arbitrator, the other cities shall select another and the two selected arbitrators shall select a third. The panel shall have the authority to use any criteria it sees fit to determine an equitable allocation of costs among the four member cities provided that the ultimate cost allocation decided upon by the panel may not be based entirely upon tax capacity (ad valorum) or demand. The panel's cost allocation shall assume that each member city shall receive full and completed police service and that all police services delivered within the SLMP Djurisdiction shall be included with the total cost of providing police services The panel shall be selected by February 1, 2006 and it shall issue its award by July 1, 2006. The Member Cities shall share the cost of the arbitration process in the same manner as described in the dispute resolution provision above. The funding allocation in the arbitration award shall be implemented beginning on January 1, 2007. 16. Each Member City receives full and complete police services, delivered within the SLMPD jurisdiction, which are included within the total cost of providing police services (Revised-Binding Arbitration Proposal at page 4). These services include 6 policing and patrolling parking meters, charter boat docks and the 20 acre Commons Park area located within the City of Excelsior. Excelsior contracts separately with the SLMPD for park patrol of these areas and the services associated with those activities are included within the ICRs (Exhibit 1 at page 4). Excelsior also retains approximately $15,000 generated annually from parking meter fines and $33,580 from charter boat dock and operating licenses (Exhibit 3 at page 30). 17. The governing body of the SLMPD consists of one committee member from each of the cities with an equal voice in the affairs of the committee. Under the IP A, the Police Chief has been designated with full and complete authority over all personnel matters and employees of the department, including sworn and un-sworn officers and employees (Exhibit 2 at page 14). Although there are differences in population among the Member Cities, each of the individual cities has received substantial benefits from belonging to the SLMPD which have provided their citizens appropriate availability, depth and quality coverage that has assured each Member City and their citizens full and complete police services. 18. The 2006 SLMPD total budget is $1,961,259. This total includes operating budget contributions of $1,517,051 and police facility debt service of $444,208 (Exhibit 12 at page 60). 19. This Arbitration involves reviewing a number of complex legal, economic, administrative and public safety issues that this panel has taken into account along with all of the criteria and data submitted. 7 NOW, THEREFORE, based on the findings herein, and the Member Cities' arguments, briefs, stipulated record, and other submissions, the Panel issues the following: ORDER 1. The Allocation for funding the SLMPD, other than for Excelsior's separately contracted services for park patrol of its Commons area and for dockmaster services associated with its public docks, shall be set taking into consideration the Member Cities' tax capacity, demand,3 population,4 and other equitable allocations of costs. Use of those criteria result in allocations as follows: Excelsior 27%; Greenwood 8%; Shorewood 50%; Tonka Bay 15%. 2. The funding percentages shall be reviewed and adjusted, if necessary, in five year increments from the date of this Order, due to changes in the five year average of tax capacity, ICRs or population of the Member Cities. The first adjustment to each Member Cities' dollar allocation toward the payment of law enforcement costs shall be based on a comparison of20ll data with the Member Cities' 2005 ICRs, Tax Capacity and 2004 Population contained in the Stipulated Record (Exhibit 3 at page 28, Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 7 at page 42). Thereafter, the comparison of the tax capacity, ICRs and population will be made for each subsequent five year period with the data from the Demand refers to ICRs which generally indicate any occasion when there is a complaint or request for service (Exhibit 1 at paragraph 7). 4 As determined by Metropolitan Council Website - "Population by Community" Research & Statistics or agreed upon equivalent (Exhibit 5 at page 34). 8 immediately preceding five year period. Each factor shall be assigned a weight of 33Y:J% and the net difference, if any, shall be utilized to adjust the continuing payment allocations in paragraph 1 above. 3. Each Member City shall fund the SLMPD the full amount of the allocation pursuant to the terms of the JPA and this Order. Dated: fR(L( D0 BY THE PANEL: J~l~ ~em~. ~....:...~.S~- Man nne D. Short 9 June 9, 2006 Hon. James H. Gilbert 12700 Anderson Lakes Parkway Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Hon. Peter J. Lindberg 16401 Grenwich Terrace Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Hon. Marianne D. Short Dorsey & Whitney 50 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Re: The Arbitration of the Allocation of Operating Costs of Providing Police Services to the Member Cities of the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Dear Ms. Short and Messrs. Gilbert and Lindberg: I am writing on behalf of the SLMPD Member City Attorneys to seek clarification of the June 1,2006 Findings of Fact and Order issued in the above-referenced matter. We seek clarification of two portions of the Order. First, do the percentage figures in paragraph 1 apply to what were referred to in paragraph 18 of the Findings as the SLMPD "operating budget contributions" (which do not include the police facility debt service), or the SLMPD "total budget"? Second, do the funding formula adjustments in paragraph 2 result in a shift, beginning in 2012, to a formula based purely on the tax capacity, population, and ICR statistics, or are the 2011 tax capacity, population, and ICR statistics merely used to adjust the formula set out in paragraph 1 of the Order to the extent they differ from the 2005 tax capacity and ICR statistics and the 2004 population statistics? The clarification of this issue might be helped by an example that calculates the change in each city's share of the budget based on a hypothetical set of statistics. Bon. James H. Gilbert Hon. Marianne D. Short Hon. Peter J. Lindberg June 9, 2006 Page 2 We appreciate your efforts in issuing the Order well in advance of the June 30 deadline. Any efforts you could apply to similarly expedite this clarification request would be greatly appreciated. The Member Cities are anxious to bring this matter to a conclusion. Sincerely, Kevin P. Staunton Excelsior City Attorney cc: Mr. Timothy Keane (via e-mail) Mr. Mark Kelly (via e-mail) Mr. James Penberthy (via Fax) JAMES H. GILBERT LAW GROUP P.L.L.C. 12700 ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344-7652 TElEPHONE (952) 767-0167 FACSIMIlE (952) 767-0171 WWW"lAWGIIBERLCOM E-mail address: jhgilbert@lawgilbert.com June l, 2006 VIAE-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Kevin Staunton, Esq. 5277 Lochloy Drive Edina, MN 55436 James G. Penberthy, Esq. (Via Fax) 264 Water Street Excelsior, MN 55331-1825 Mark W. Kelly, Esq. 351 Second Street Excelsior, MN 55331-1805 Timothy J. Keane, Esq. Leonard, Street and Deinard 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: Supplemental Order Dated June 15 2006 In the Matter of The Arbitration o/the Allocation o/Operating Costs of Providing Police Services to the Member Cities o/the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Dear City Attorneys: I am enclosing to you bye-mail and fax transmission a Supplemental Binding Arbitration Order dated June 15,2006. A duplicate original will be forwarded to you by regular mail. Each of the Arbitrators wishes to thank you for utilizing our alternative dispute resolution services on this very important matter. None of the Arbitrators will be submitting any further bills for the final services performed on this Supplemental Order. Sincerely, GILBERT MEDIA TrON CENTER, LTD. Ja~ ~~if Enclosure 06/15/2006 10:34 FAX 6123402807 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP In the Matter of The Arbitration of the Allocation of Operating Costs of Pro 'Vi ding Police Services to the Member Cities of the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department SUPPLEMENTAL BINDING ARBlTRA TION ORDER The appointed Arbitrators have reconvened in response to a letter dated June 9, 2006, seeking clarification of the June 1, 2006 Findings of Fact and Order, sent to the Arbitrators on behalf of the attorneys for each of1he Member Cities. In response to that inquiry, we enter-the following Order: 1. TIle percentage allocation for funding of the SLMPD in Paragraph 1 of the J1ll1e 1,2006 Arbitration Order refers exclusively to the SL11PD's operating costs budget contributions of Member Cities, commencing January 1, 2007. These figures do not include police facility debt service, which are addressed in prior agreements between the parties in the Third Amendment offue Joint and Powers Agreement, dated February 13, 2002, and related lease and financing documents. 2. That the funding formula adjustments, which are referenced in Paragraph 2 of the June I, 2006 Arbitration Order shall, if necessary, be applied begllming January 1, 2012. There shall be an adjustment every five years based on the net differences, if any, between the data established at the commencement of each five year period and the immediately subsequent five year averages of the Member Cities' tax capacity, population and ICR statistics. In 2011, these three factors shall be compared to the 2005 tax capacity and ICRs of Member Cities and the 2004 population statistics with equal weight to each factor. 1 [4]002 06/15/2006 10:35 FAX 6123402807 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP These adjustments do not result in a shift to a formula based purely on ta,"'( capacity, population and ICR statistics but are only used to adjust incrementally the formula set out in paragraph 1 of the June 1,2006 Order, to the extent the three factors differ from the previously established data. 111 Date: June r(, 2006 BY THE PANEL: ~~~~ 2 141003 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 Celebrating 50 Years. 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/li\ June 22, 2006 (L!) Approval of Compensation Plan The City contracted with Labor Relations Associates, Inc., to prepare a compensation and classification study, with the goals of: . Updating position descriptions, to provide a uniform base for any changes; . Developing information and recommendations for any revisions to the City's levels of pay (external labor market) and pay structure (internal relationships for compliance with the Minnesota Pay Equity); and . Changing the City's rigid tenure-based step system for salaries with a system that is designed to reward performance and provide flexibility for salaries at time of hire. This process has been lengthy in coming before the City Council, as it has had extensive involvement and multiple reviews by employees and supervisors. Council reviewed the draft of the report at work sessions on April 24 and May 22, and at the latter work session indicated a preference to implement the new compensation plan with one or two adjustments (July 1,2006, and January 1,2007, as identified in Appendix D of the final report,) to bring all position incumbents with at least five years' experience to the market wage. In the future, adjustments may be made to exceed the market wage (to a maximum of 10 percent) based on meritorious performance documented in performance reviews presented to and approved by the City Administrator. The Compensation Schedule encompasses the City's non-union employees. Compensation for the City's public works maintenance employees, who are organized and represented by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), is set through a labor agreement. The salary structure for the non-union employees takes into account the wages for union employees for purposes of the Pay Equity Act. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Classification and Compensation Plan dated May 31, 2006. ,..,.. '.oJ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION STUDY FINAL REPORT May 31, 2006 LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATES, INC. 18955 Maple Lane Deephaven, Minnesota 55331 952/401-9007 Email: laborrelationsas@qwest.net May 31, 2006 Mr. Craig Dawson City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Dawson Following this letter is the Compensation Study conducted by Labor Relations Associates, Inc. This presents an overview of the study, including the methodology used to develop new job descriptions, a classification system, a compensation plan and the implementation plan for a new compensation program. Also contained are the job descriptions developed as part of this Study. This Study represents a thorough and comprehensive review of all aspects of the City's classification and compensation system. The recommendations offered in this Study will increase the market competitiveness of the City's compensation program and provide increased internal equity among City positions. Implementation of these recommendations will help the City attract new employees and assist in retaining current employees needed to meet the City's service demands. Labor Relations Associates, Inc. expresses it's thanks to the City staff who completed Position Description Questionnaires. We also express our gratitude to you and the City's Management team for providing direction and feedback through the closing phases of the Study. Labor Relations Associates, Inc. appreciates the privilege of serving the City of Shorewood and hope that we may be of assistance to you in the future. Respectfully submitted, }lnn }lntonsen Ann Antonsen Consultant 1. Introduction The City of Shorewood, Minnesota, retained Labor Relations Associates, Inc. to conduct a Compensation Study in late 2004. The City's existing classification and compensation program was established many years ago. As a general rule, most organizations conduct new classification and compensation studies every five to seven years ensuring their ability to hire and retain qualified employees and that internal pay relationships are equitable. The City identified several objectives for this study, which included: . Evaluating the existing classification and compensation system . Developing a classification and compensation system that addresses internal equity and external market competitiveness . Developing administrative guidelines for implementation and ongoing maintenance . to provide a pay-for-performance structure to replace the current rigid tenure-based step system . to ensure that any changes in the compensation system would comply with the Minnesota Pay Equity Act This final report represents the culmination of the Compensation Study. It reflects significant City staff involvement, including their participation and attendance at orientation meetings, completion and submission of Position Description Questionnaires, and review of the job descriptions developed by Labor Relations Associates, Inc. by employees, department heads and City administration staff. New job descriptions include a brief description of the position, the essential functions performed, education and experience requirements, language and mathematical abilities, other knowledge, skills, and abilities, required licenses, certificates and registrations, and physical demands and working conditions in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Upon completion of the updated job descriptions each position was evaluated utilizing the HAY job evaluation system. The HAY system was developed approximately 40 years ago and is a system that is utilized world wide both in the public and private sectors. The HAY system is also the system used by the State of Minnesota. A comprehensive salary survey was also conducted as part of this Study. All City positions were included in the survey. Survey participants were selected based on geographic location, organizational structure, socio- economic conditions, and other relevant characteristics such as those organizations with which you compete for employees. Fifteen municipalities, listed below, were asked to participate in the survey: . City of Little Canada . City of Arden Hills . City of Mound . City of Waconia . City of Hugo . City of St. Anthony Village . City of Orono . City of Lake Elmo . City of Spring Lake Park . City of Rogers . City of Victoria . City ofWayzata . City of Deephaven . City of Watertown Only the cities of Rogers and Watertown did not participate in the survey; providing an excellent response rate of thirteen of the fifteen identified communities. Survey respondents were asked to provide information on only those City of Shorewood positions which they considered to be comparable to positions in their organizations. Therefore, survey respondents did not provide data for every position surveyed. During the course of the study, other communities were added for certain positions in order to collect more comprehensive data. For the position of Director of Public Works, the communities of White Bear Lake, Chanhassen, Columbia Heights and Hopkins were added. The cities of Chanhassen and Hopkins were included in the survey for the position of Finance Director. For the position of City Engineer the cities of Hopkins, Prior Lake and Savage were included. 2. Methodology Labor Relations Associates, Inc. used the following methodology to develop a compensation system for the City of Shorewood: 1. Meetings were held with the City Administrator to a establish a working relationship, review of current policies and practices relating to the City's existing pay practices, and obtaining available data on the programs and materials currently in use. These meetings also provided an opportunity to discuss the City's goals in adopting a compensation system for City employees. 2. An employee orientation meeting was conducted explaining the study process and to answer questions from employees. This meeting also provided an opportunity for employees to voice concerns and have input into the study. 3. All employees received Position Description Questionnaires (PDQ's) and instructions. All employees were encouraged to participate in the study by using the PDQ to describe their job duties and responsibilities. Each employee's supervisor reviewed the completed form for accuracy and completeness and provided any additional information they felt was relevant to the position. City employees were requested to complete the entire form ensuring information was available to develop new and updated job descriptions which would also meet the federal requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 4. Each PDQ was reviewed and preliminary job descriptions were prepared. The preliminary job descriptions were submitted to the City for review and comment. Finalized job descriptions were then prepared incorporating any requested changes, additions and deletions. 5. Upon completion of the job descriptions, positions were then evaluated utilizing the HA Y Management Consultants job evaluation system. Factors that Hay utilizes in evaluating positions are: Know How, Problem Solving (Mental Effort) Accountability and Working Conditions. A more comprehensive description is attached as Appendix A. 6. Salary data for each position was collected. Survey recipients were asked to provide the minimum, maximum and actual salaries for each position. Information was also gathered on years to maximum, number of steps if utilized, information regarding longevity, merit or performance pay, FLSA status, and any additional compensation. 7. Using the salary data supplied by comparable government organizations and the results of the HA Y job evaluation system, a new wage schedule was created for each non-union position. 8. Guidelines for implementation and ongoing administration of the compensation program were developed. These guidelines provide for annual adjustments to the salary schedule ensuring that the City's pay scale stays current with changing economic and market conditions. The guidelines also provide for annual salary adjustments based on employee performance that meets or exceeds job expectations. 3. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Developing a classification system and compensation program involves the analysis of substantial quantities of data collected from employees, supervisors, comparable employers and the City. We have evaluated the City's existing compensation program based on our analysis of the study data and the survey results. Using this information, we have developed a compensation program for the City of Shorewood which is described below. a. Evaluation of the Current Compensation Program Discussions with City personnel and a review of current compensation data indicates that employees of the City of Shorewood are under-compensated in relation to other comparable organizations. Other findings indicate a wage problem demonstrated by: . Concerns about the potential for employee turnover because employees choose to leave the City to take higher paying jobs with other employers . City departments experiencing difficulty hiring new personnel . City job classes with comparable responsibilities requiring comparable education and experience that are assigned to different pay ranges b. Pay Philosophy A pay philosophy guides the design of a compensation system and answers key questions regarding pay strategy. It generally takes a comprehensive, long term focus and explains the compensation program's goals and how the program supports the employer's long-range strategic goals. Without a pay philosophy, compensation decisions tend to be viewed from a short-term tactical standpoint apart from the organization's overall goals. Market competitiveness and internal equity are among the most important areas addressed in a pay philosophy. An organization's desired market position involves defining the market and identifYing where the organization wants to be positioned within that market. Market position should balance what it takes to attract new employees and to retain skilled employees (in other words, eliminating higher pay as the reason employees leave the organization) with the organization's financial resources. Internal equity expresses an organization's desire to provide comparable pay to job classes with comparable duties and responsibilities. In consultation with the City's Management Team, a pay philosophy was developed that establishes a compensation program based on individual employee performance as a key feature of this pay philosophy. Therefore, we have emphasized references to performance in the pay philosophy discussion. As part of this Study, it is recommended that the City consider these concepts in the adoption of a formal pay philosophy: . Providing fair and equitable rates of pay to employees . Defining the City's market area . Developing a system that establishes a "market rate" for each position and states the minimum wage and maximum rates that the City will pay individuals within a job class . Establishing rates of pay that allow the City to compete successfully for new employees within its market area . develop a system that can reward continuously above-average performance by paying employees above market-rate wages . Establishing a market position that is fiscally responsible with public resources . Ensuring that pay rates for existing employees are based on individual performance that meets or exceeds expectations and reflects changing economic conditions . Developing a pay system that allows employees to progress through the pay range as long as their performance consistently meets expectations . Developing pay administration policies and procedures that ensure their consistent application between departments . Ensuring that the compensation program is understandable to employees, managers, the City Council, and the public c. Defining and Evaluating Positions City employees completed individual Position Description Questionnaires (PDQ's). Supervisors reviewed the PDQ's and provided infonnation for each position. Employees and supervisors both responded to questions regarding working conditions and the physical requirements of each job in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Based on this data, new job descriptions were developed for each position. Job descriptions were distributed to City employees and their supervisors for review and comment. With the completion of the job descriptions, we utilized the HAY Management Consultants job evaluation system, to review and rate each City position. The factors considered in determining the relative value of classifications are: Know- How . Problem Solving (Mental Effort) . Accountability Working Conditions A listing of the job evaluation points can be found in Appendix B. d. Developing A Salary Schedule The process of developing a salary schedule draws substantially from market data. This data is obtained by conducting a survey of other comparable employers within the City's defined market. Respondents are asked to provide information about the structure oftheir pay plans, the minimum, maximum and actual salary rates of positions, years to maximum, number of steps, and information on additional compensation if relevant. Survey Results. The salary survey included a series of questions designed to obtain information on a variety of pay practices. All respondents provided information on their pay plans. A salary survey was conducted using data from comparable employers in the region. The survey included all positions in the City. A general summary of survey results appears in Appendix C. For some positions we did not receive a sufficient number of responses to use the data in the Study or those received were inconsistent with other information provided. A review of the survey information indicates that the majority of City positions, 13 out of 20 surveyed, are paid significantly below comparable organizations. Designing the Salary Schedule. The recommended pay plan was designed by establishing a compensation schedule with a minimum, a market rate and a maximum salary rate. The minimum wage rate is 76% of the market rate and the maximum is 110% of the market rate. The market rate of each pay grade generally corresponds with the market rate identified by the salary survey. Because the pay plan was developed using 2005 data, the proposed minimum, market and maximum rates were increased by 3 percent consistent with metropolitan area market increases. The recommended 2006 compensation plan for City of Shorewood non- union employees can be found in Appendix D of this report. This recommended compensation plan is in compliance with the Minnesota Local Government Pay Equity Act. Based on knowledge of the City's operations, it is recommended that an open range plan be maintained. Maintaining an open range salary schedule that consists of minimum, market and maximum pay rates provides the City with the flexibility to compensate employees based on their individual performance. This pay plan will also serve as an important tool for aligning individual performance with organizational goals adopted by the City Council. Therefore, an established performance evaluation system is generally considered a prerequisite for successful implementation of an open range pay system. The City of Shorewood currently has in place a comprehensive performance evaluation system. An established performance evaluation includes ongoing training of the system ensuring that supervisors in all departments consistently apply performance standards. When compensation is based on performance, employees look for assurance that managers will honestly evaluate performance and not inflate ratings in order to obtain a higher salary for particular employees. Generally, such systems provide for a review by the City Administrator's Office to provide a mechanism that helps managers apply performance standards consistently for all employees. When pay is based on performance, the evaluation system often provides for reviews at six or 12 month intervals, so employees know how supervisors view their performance and have the opportunity to improve performance and their prospect for a pay increase. Employees who have satisfactory or better performance evaluations should expect annual wage increases above the normal economic of cost of living adjustment. 4. Implementing the Recommended Salary Plan a. Implementation To estimate implementation costs, we used employee salaries which became effective on July 1, 2005 supplied by the City for all departments, and making the following assumptions: . Recommended compensation program will be effective for the City's non-union employees January 1, 2006. . Implementation will begin to address both internal equity and marketability with other employers. There are several positions which are currently compensated significantly below comparable positions, some by as much as 29%. These positions will require a more substantial wage increase to address their comparability with other employers. In order to address these inequities it is recommended that the City make market wage adjustments for employees who have been in their positions for 5 years or longer. These market adjustments will be done in two phases, with 50% of the adjustment taking place on July 1,2006 and 50% of the adjustment on January 1,2007. The cost of this two phase adjustment is shown in Appendix D b. Ongoing Administration After initial implementation is achieved, the City will need to develop administration procedures that provide for annual salary adjustments based on market and economic conditions and adjustments that recognize individual performance. Employee Adjustments. Employees will move through the wage schedule based on performance factors. An employee hired at the minimum wage rate who maintains satisfactory performance will move from the minimum to the market wage rate in approximately 5 years. Those with above satisfactory performance will move through the wage schedule in a shorter time frame. Employees who maintain above satisfactory performance will move beyond the market rate in the wage schedule. Base adjustments. In 2007 and subsequent years it will be necessary for the City to adjust the salary schedules and grades based on cost of living and other factors such as recruitment. The City can establish a guideline for determining annual base adjustments. For example, the City could base it's adjustment on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The City could also contact comparable jurisdictions to find out what percentage adjustment they are making to their pay scales as a second level of verification ofthe pay range adjustment. This would also ensure that the City maintains marketability among comparable regional organizations. If the CPI for example, is 2.5, a 2.5 percent increase would be applied to the wage rates of each pay grade. In addition, all employees with performance that meets or exceeds job expectations would receive the 2.5 percent increase applied to their base salary. By making this base adjustment to all employee salaries, the City ensures that employees will not fall behind the market. Performance adjustments. All non-union employee's progression through the pay grade is based on individual performance. Supervisors can recognize an employee's contribution to department and organizational goals through performance adjustments. With the ability to recommend performance adjustments, supervisors will have an important role in linking pay and performance. Performance adjustments will be determined based on the employee's annual performance review. The increase will be applied to the employee's base salary effective on the anniversary of his or appointment date to the current position. Appendix A COMPONENTS OF JOB EV ALUA TION In measuring the "size" of jobs, job evaluation assumes fully acceptable performance by jobholders. Job content information, as documented in job descriptions is evaluated in terms of four factors. These factors are: Know-How: The sum total of every kind of skill, however acquired, necessary for acceptable job performance. This includes: . The depth and breadth of work procedures and vocational/technical/professional knowledge and skills required of the job. . The managerial breadth of skills that are required for integrating and harmonizing different organizational units or functions. . The human relations skills required to directly interact on a person-to-person basis with others in order to produce the desired results. Problem Solving: The original "self-starting" thinking required by the job for analyzing, evaluating, creating, reasoning, arriving at and making conclusions. This includes: . The organizational and procedural parameters that guide or circumscribe the focus of thinking and freedom to think on the job. . The variety, uniqueness, and complexity of problems faced by the job. Accountability: The responsibility for action and for the consequences thereof; the measured effect of the job on end results. This includes: . The autonomy or discretion that ajob has in taking action and the personal or procedural controls that ajob follows. . The magnitude or impact that the job has on the organization; what the job works with (or on) and its overall cost/benefits to the organization. . The role the job has on impacting end results; whether the job has primary or shared responsibility for committing the organization to action or a contributory or ancillary role in supporting such action. Working Conditions: The conditions under which work must be done. This includes: . Physical Effort: Work requiring physical exertion. . Environment: Exposure to objectionable or noxious conditions. . Hazards: Exposure to factors involving risks of accident, personal injury, or personal health. The following are not considered in evaluation jobs: . The quality of your job performance . Your length of service . Your formal education or degree (unless ajob requirement) . How the job was evaluated in the past . The current rate of pay for the job . Marketability with other employers Appendix 8 CITY OF SHOREWOOD HAY JOB EVALUATION POINTS Job Classification City Administrator Director of Public Works Finance Director Planning Director City Engineer Director of Liquor Operations Deputy Clerk/Administrative Assistant Building Official Engineering Technician Assistant Planner Light Equipment Operator-Utilities-Lead Senior Accountant Assistant Liquor Store Manager Light Equipment Operator-Shop Technician Receptionist/Admin. Asst. - Public Works Receptionist/Admin. Asst. - Parks Light Equipment Operator - Utilities Light Equipment Operator Communication Tech Accounting Clerk Web Developer Office Assistant Liquor Store Clerk Liquor Store Clerk - Part time Points 1040 732 677 542 511 437 375 362 323 314 245 238 233 208 194 194 192 183 183 177 177 144 141 120 Appendix C SHOREWOOD COMPENSATION STUDY SUMMARY SHEET Maximum Maximum Survey Difference Difference Monthly Wage Average from Including Wage Including Maximum Market Stability Position 7/1/05 Stability Pay Monthlv Wage Average Pay City Administrator $6,891.00 $7,205.00 $7,430.00 -$539.00 -$225.00 Director of Public Works $6,698.00 $7,004.00 $7,177.00 -$479.00 -$173.00 Finance Director $6,656.00 $6,960.00 $6,502.00 $154.00 $458.00 Planninq Director $6,237.00 $6,237.00 $6,306.00 -$69.00 -$69.00 Dir. Of Liquor Operations $4,919.00 $5,143.00 $6,114.00 -$1,195.00 -$971.00 Deputv Clerk/Admin. Asst. $4,814.00 $5,034.00 $4,815.00 -$1.00 $219.00 Buildina Official $4,887.00 $5,111.00 $5,210.00 -$323.00 -$99.00 Enqineer Technician $4,849.00 $5,070.00 $4,775.00 $74.00 $295.00 Assistant Planner $4,312.00 $4,509.00 $4,433.00 -$121.00 $76.00 LEO-Utilities-Lead $4,252.00 $4,189.00 $4,377.00 -$125.00 -$188.00 Sr. Accountant $3,862.00 $4,038.00 $3,963.00 -$101.00 $75.00 Asst. Liquor Store Manaaer $3,267.00 $3,416.00 $3,797.00 -$530.00 -$381.00 LEO-Shop Technician $3,952.00 $3,896.00 $3,727.00 $225.00 $169.00 Receptionist/Admin. Asst.-PW $3,401.00 $3,557.00 $3,453.00 -$52.00 $104.00 Receptionist/Admin. Asst.-Park $3,140.00 $3,283.00 $3,207.00 -$67.00 $76.00 LEO-Utilities $3,952.00 $3,896.00 $3,670.00 $282.00 $226.00 Liaht Eauipment Operator $3,779.00 $3,723.00 $3,664.00 $115.00 $59.00 Communications Tech. $3,267.00 $3,417.00 Accountinq Clerk $2,949.00 $3,084.00 $3,356.00 -$407.00 -$272.00 Liauor Store Clerk $2,307.00 $2,413.00 $2,685.00 -$378.00 -$272.00 Liauor Store Clerk-PT $1,950.00 $2,039.00 $1,902.00 $48.00 $137.00 Appendix D CITY OF SHOREWOOD 2006 MONTHLY WAGE RECOMMENDATIONS FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES CURRENT MONTHLY MONTHLY PERCENTAGE JOB CLASSIFICATION WAGE 1/1/2006 COST 7/1/2006 COST INCREASE City Administrator $6,891.00 $7,028.82 $137.82 $7,169.40 $140.58 4.04 Director of Public Works $6,698.00 $6,831.96 $133.96 $6,968.60 $136.64 4.04 Finance Director $6,656.00 $6,789.12 $133.12 $6,924.90 $135.78 4.04 Planning Director $6,237.00 $6,361.74 $124.74 $6,488.97 $127.23 4.04 City Engineer Vacant Dir. of Liquor Operations $4,919.00 $5,017.38 $98.38 $5,117.73 $100.35 4.04 Deputy Clerk/Admin. Asst. $4,814.00 $4,910.28 $96.28 $5,008.49 $98.21 4.04 Buildinq Official $4,887.00 $4,984.74 $97.74 $5,084.43 $99.69 4.04 Enqineer Technician $4,708.00 $4,802.16 $94.16 $4,898.20 $96.04 4.04 Assistant Planner $4,312.00 $4,398.24 $86.24 $4,486.20 $87.96 4.04 Assistant Planner $4,312.00 $4,398.24 $86.24 $4,486.20 $87.96 4.04 Senior Accountant $3,315.00 $3,381.30 $66.30 $3,448.93 $67.63 4.04 Asst. Liquor Store Manager $3,169.00 $3,232.38 $63.38 $3,297.03 $64.65 4.04 RcptlAdmin Asst - PubWks $3,169.00 $3,232.38 $63.38 $3,297.03 $64.65 4.04 RcptlAdmin Asst - Parks $3,401.00 $3,469.02 $68.02 $3,538.40 $69.38 4.04 Communications Tech $3,410.00 $3,4 78.20 $68.20 $3,547.76 $69.56 4.04 Accounting Clerk $3,267.00 $3,332.34 $65.34 $3,398.99 $66.65 4.04 Liquor Clerk $2,345.00 $2,391.90 $46.90 $2,439.74 $47.84 4.04 MONTHL Y COST $1,530.20 $1,560.80 MONTHLY PAYROLL $76,510.00 $79,601.00 AVERAGE PERCENTAGE INCREASE 4.04 TOTAL ANNUAL COST $37,092.00 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 2006 MONTHLY WAGE RECOMMENDATIONS FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES CURRENT MONTHL Y MONTHL Y PERCENTAGE JOB CLASSIFICATION WAGE 1/1/2006 COST 7/1/2006 COST INCREASE City Administrator $6,891.00 $7,028.82 $137.82 $7,169.40 $140.58 4.04 Director of Public Works $6,698.00 $6,831.96 $133.96 $6,968.60 $136.64 4.04 Finance Director $6,656.00 $6,789.12 $133.12 $6,924.90 $135.78 4.04 Plannina Director $6,237.00 $6,361.74 $124.74 $6,488.97 $127.23 4.04 City EnQineer Vacant Dir. of Liauor Operations $4,919.00 $5,017.38 $98.38 $5,117.73 $100.35 4.04 Deputy Clerk/Admin. Asst. $4,814.00 $4,910.28 $96.28 $5,008.49 $98.21 4.04 Buildina Official $4,887.00 $4,984.74 $97.74 $5,084.43 $99.69 4.04 Enaineer Technician $4,708.00 $4,802.16 $94.16 $4,898.20 $96.04 4.04 Assistant Planner $4,312.00 $4,398.24 $86.24 $4,486.20 $87.96 4.04 Assistant Planner $4,312.00 $4,398.24 $86.24 $4,486.20 $87.96 4.04 Senior Accountant $3,315.00 $3,381.30 $66.30 $3,448.93 $67.63 4.04 Asst. Liauor Store Manaaer $3,169.00 $3,232.38 $63.38 $3,297.03 $64.65 4.04 Administrative Asst. $3,169.00 $3,232.38 $63.38 $3,297.03 $64.65 4.04 ReceptionisUPark Secretary $3,401.00 $3,469.02 $68.02 $3,538.40 $69.38 4.04 Communications Tech $3,410.00 $3,478.20 $68.20 $3,547.76 $69.56 4.04 Accounting Clerk $3,267.00 $3,332.34 $65.34 $3,398.99 $66.65 4.04 Liquor Clerk $2,345.00 $2,391.90 $46.90 $2,439.74 $47.84 4.04 MONTHLY COST $1,530.20 $1,560.80 MONTHLY PAYROLL $76,510.00 $79,601.00 AVERAGE PERCENTAGE INCREASE 4.04 TOTAL ANNUAL COST $37,092.00 en z o I- <( o Z w :E :E o t) w...... 0:::0 o WN G ft <(or- ~~ >-<( ..J::J J:Z 1-<( Z.., 0>- :Em tOz 0_ Ow Nen 0<( OJ: 00. ~ W 0::: o J: en LL o >- !::: t) en W W >- o ..J a. :E W W :E i= I ..J ..J ::J LL ~ >- 0 0 0 0 .,- (j) 0 0 0 0 0 .,- .,- 0 0 0 N ....J UJ 0 0 (j) 0 0 (j) 0 0 N N ~ 0 0 0 0 0 M I ei ei '<I' u) u) oj ei u) oj oj I'- ei ei ei ei u) c:i I- (9 l!) (j) N I'- (j) (j) 0 (j) (j) (j) (l) l!) N N 0 (l) II) z ~ (l) C") (j) l!) N l!) -q- (j) 0:> 0:> (l) N 0 0 0:> I'- ..... 0 " I'- <6 <6 <6 u) u) .,f .,f .,f C")" .,f .,f .,f C")" N M 2: EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- co EA- I- 0 -q- l!) 0 0 (j) (j) 0 N C") N N Z C") (l) I'- l!) l!) -q- '<l: 0:> .,- (l) N -q- I'- I- UJ ei a:i u) ill ill ill .,- ei ill N iO ....: 0 UJ 2: -q- 0:> (j) 0 0 I'- (l) -q- N (l) 0 en 0 ~ N l!) N N N -q- C") N .,- .,- en N ~ I- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- N M 0::: CI) :!: <( :) EA- EA- .,- 2: ...., 0 <( ~ 0 0 0 0 I'- -q- 0 0 0 0 0 N N 0 0:> I'- 0 UJ I'- 0 (j) 0 C") N 0 0 I'- I'- 0 l!) l!) N 0:> C") ..... I oj ei '<I' u) ill '<I' ei u) N N r--: c0 a:i oj c0 N iO I- (9 0 (j) N I'- 0 0 0 (j) (j) (j) (l) I'- l!) I'- I'- 0 -q- z ~ -q- C") (j) l!) I'- C") -q- (j) (l) (l) (l) I'- (l) I'- (l) (l) N 0 " " (l)" <6 u) u) u) .,f .,f .,f c0" c0" c0" c0" c0" N 0- 2: EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- co EA- I- 0 0 C") -q- l!) I'- 0 0 0 (j) (j) 0 N C") N 0 Z C") '<l: 0 (l) I'- l!) 0:> l!:! l!) -q- '<l: 0:> .,- ~ 0 ~ (l) I- UJ ei .,- ill a:i u) u) ill (l) ill ill .,- ei ill N iO ..... 0 UJ 2: -q- N 0:> 0:> (j) .,- (j) 0 0 I'- (l) -q- N (l) N '<I' 0 ~ N -q- EA- l!) N C") EA- N N -q- C") N .,- .,- co M ~ I- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- M ..; 0::: CI) .,- <( :) EA- EA- -. I'- 2: ...., 0 <( UJ UJ -;R -;R -;R -;R -;R -;R -;R -;R -;R -;R -;R -;R -;R -;R -;R -;R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (9 0 0:> 0 0 .,- 0 (l) -q- -q- -q- -q- (l) N 0:> 0:> -q- (l) ~ N I'- 0 C") I'- l!) 0:> (j) -q- -q- (l) -q- (j) ~ (l) f'-.; z ill u) .,- .,- a:i ei u) .,- a:i a:i ill N I'- .,- ill .,- z UJ I I I .,- .,- I I I I .,- N .,- .,- I .,- UJ 0::: I I , I , I I UJ 0 u.. 0::: u.. UJ is a.. UJ r:::' 0 5' S ~ r:::- 5' s 5' 5' r:::' ~ S ~ CD z 0 C0 N .,- I'- >- UJ ~ '<l: (j) 0 r--: l!:! l!) 0:> cq 0:> 0 (j) (j) ~ N N ~ 0::: 0 .,- a:i ill I'- .,- l!) (l) C") c0 c0 N N .,- N u) UJ 0:> N (l) 0:> .,- (j) .,- (j) .,- .,- C") l!) N 0:> l!) N u.. -q- -q- EA- ~ l!) C") ~ -q- -q- I'- (j) I'- -q- N C") ~ ~ .,- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u.. ~ 0 I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UJ UJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ I- ei ei ill u) u) u) ei ei u) ei ei ei ei ei ei ei ei u) 0::: C2 l!) (j) l!) I'- N (j) 0 0 (j) 0 0 0 l!) N N 0 -q- (l) <( (l)" C") 0:> l!) l!) N (l) -q-" (j) (j) (j) -q- N 0 0 0:> I'- 1'-" 2: I'- I'- <6 <6 (l) <6 u) l!) .,f .,f -q-" -q-" .,f .,f .,f c0" c0" N EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- 0 0 0 I'- C") (j) C") 0 0 0 0 C") C") 0 (l) -q- co (l) -q- (l) (j) ~ f'-.; -q- -q- N N C'! 0 ~ ~ -q- I'- I'- 0 0 UJ oj a:i '<I' 0:> I'- ro '<I' ro ill (l) I'- I'- I'- ro r--: oj c:i 0 (9 (l) (l) N 0:> .,- 0 0:> (j) 0:> 0:> (l) (j) (j) C") -q- C") N ~ ~ .,- (j) (j) -q- .,- 0 0 0:> -q- -q- (l) N N l!) l!) -q- '<I' .,- I'- <6 <6 <6 u) u) u) -q-" .,f .,f c0" c0" c0" C") C")- N tSJ- ;::: EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- EA- I'- EA- CI) UJ - 0 c c O:::u.. 5> .,- C") CIl I'- C") 0 (l) l!) CIl I'- ~o l!) .,- (l) N () I'- (l) .,- l!) N .,- .,- l!) (j) () .,- 0::: CIl CIl >- UJ > > CI) w en <( z w 0 If) 0:: -;R ~ u Cl i= S Cii ~ II) <( If) a.. a.. M 0 c ~ W ..... 0 u; I I C> u: ~ u; ..... I us If) If) CIl If) <( <( ~ OJ <( c If) If) ..c ..J I- 0:: CI) ~ 0.. CIl <( <( () ..J Z W ::s c c 2: ()) 0 0 CIl c .!:: w a.. (; 'E :Q c ~ 'E l- I- 0:: U 0 .~ (; (; OJ OJ E ~ 0 I- '0 CIl If) OJ en >- 0:: ro :0 0 ts ,Q ro c c c C 0 '0 '0 c 0 Z ro l- ts <( ..c c c U5 <( ~ 0 <( w <( 0 ::J ~ OJ 32 '<:5 () ::J U U ll. ll. en ~ CIl CIl ::;::, fa ...., a.. ....J OJ ti= ()) 0:: 0:: 0 (; ,~ If) g ~ <( :s:; '+- (5 (5 ()) '+- I- () 'c () OJ >- >- w 0 c 0 U 0 - () ,Q c 'c ..J ..J C> t) E OJ '~ 0: OJ C c <( 0 0 '-E u I I ii: (; ()) c (; -5 'E. ~ ::J <( '0 () c .!:: ()) CIl CIl (; ....J E (; l- I- 0:: <( ts 'c UJ ts c en en ::J I c :g u; ()) ()) 0 z z ~ ~ CIl c ~ ~ g 'g 'en 'en 'c () () E () ::J 0 0 W l- E CIl '5 c If) If) ()) If) ()) ()) 0 () CT > 3E 0 (5 u.. 0:: 0 (5 0 ro UJ <( <( CI) <( 0::: 0::: 0 <( ::J :E :E <( Appendix E :: '" :: 90% ... .:.d ... '" ~ .... o ... l>J) '" ... ~ 80% ... ... ... Employee Movement Through Pay Range 105% 100% 95% 75% 70% 65% o 2 3 4 5 Years of Service