091007 CC Reg AgP
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10,2007
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Ro II Call
Mayor Lizee _
Woodruff
Turgeon _
Callies
Wellens
B. Review Agenda
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Minutes, August 20, 2007 (Art. - Minutes)
B. City Council Work Session Minutes, August 27,2007 (Art.- Minutes)
C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, August 27,2007 (Art. - Minutes)
D. City Council/Park Commission Joint Meeting Minutes, August 28,2007 (Art.-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 (Art.- Claims List)
B. Staffing - Liquor Operations (Art.- Staff memorandum)
C. Fee Schedule Amendment (Art. - Administrator's memorandum, Ordinance)
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.)
5. REPORTS AND PRESENT A TIONS
6. PUBLIC HEARING
7. PARKS
8. PLANNING - Report by Representative
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - September 10,2007
PAGE20F2
9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of Amendments to LMCC Joint Powers Agreement (Att. Administrator's
memorandum)
B. Approval of the 2008 LMCC Budget (Art. - Administrator's memorandum)
C. Approval of the 2008 Proposed Budget and Tax Levy (Art.- Finance Director's
memorandum, Resolution)
D. Serting the Truth-in-Taxation Public Hearing Dates (Art.- Finance Director's
memorandum, Resolution)
E. General Fund Balance Policy (Art. - Staff memorandum)
F. Selection of Business Broker for Sale of Liquor Operations (Art. - Staff memorandum)
G. Approval of a Deer Management Contract (Art. - Staff memorandum)
10. ENGINEERINGIPUBLIC WORKS
A. Accept Proposal for Cleaning of the Minnewashta Water Tower (Art. - Director of
Public Works' memorandum)
B. Approve Feasibility Report and set Public Hearing Date for Amlee Road, Manitou Lane,
Glen Road Street Reconstruction Project, City Project 07-01 (Art. - Engineer's
memorandum, Resolution)
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.ci.shorewood.mn.us . cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
Executive Summary
Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting
Monday, 10 September 2007
6:00 P.M. - Work Session is scheduled this evening
Agenda Item #3A:
Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval.
Agenda Item #3B: There continues to be a shortage of part-time employees to fill available hours
at the municipal liquor stores. Therefore, staff is recommending approval to hire a Part-Time
Liquor Clerk.
Agenda Item #3C: Fees that residents pay to the City for licenses, permits, service charges
and miscellaneous fees are determined from time to time by the Shorewood City Council.
Staff is in the process of conducting a full analysis of water meter fees, given our radio-
read meter installation project. However, the fee schedule must be modified at this time
to reflect current interim pricing. Any further price changes will be presented for
consideration at a future council meeting. An Ordinance amending the fee schedule is
provided.
Agenda Item #9A: Sally Koenecke, executive director of the LMCC, and Patrick Hodapp,
one of Shore wood's two representatives to the LMCC Board, plan to be present for items
9A and 9B.
The LMCC has proposed amendments to the joint powers agreement (JP A). One is a
technical change on what constitutes a quorum, as the number of member cities has
increased over the years. The other relates to the budget approval process, which would
result in the proposed budget being deemed approved if a majority of the member cities
take action not to approve it within 45 days of receiving it. Approval of the amendments
can be made by motion.
Agenda Item #9B: The LMCC has forwarded the Board's proposed 2008 budget. As in all
prior years, all revenues derive from fees and investment income. It is recommended that
the Council approve the proposed 2008 budget of the LMCC.
Agenda Item #9C: By statute, the Council must approve a proposed budget and a proposed
(not-to-exceed) tax levy by September 15. The proposed budget and proposed tax levy
are presented this evening and are consistent with the conclusion of the Council's budget
....
f: t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
...
Executive Summary - City Council Meeting of 10 September 2007
Page 2 of3
work sessions on August 27. Both the budget and the levy may change prior to adoption
of the final budget and levy in December. Staff recommends adoption of the resolution
approving the proposed 2008 budget and the proposed tax levy payable in 2008.
Agenda Item #9D: The City is required to hold a truth-in-taxation hearing this year. The date
selected must not conflict with other jurisdictions' truth-in-taxation hearings, and cities
are the last in line to select dates. Additionally, the truth-in-taxation hearing must be the
only item of business conducted by the Council (i.e., it may not be held during a regular
meeting). If the hearing is continued, it may be held during a regular Council meeting.
Staff recommends adoption of the resolution setting December 3, 2007, as date for the
truth-in-taxation hearing, and December 10, 2007, as the date to continue the hearing if
necessary.
Agenda Item #9E: Council reviewed a draft of a General Fund Balance Policy on the August
6, 2007, work session, and indicated general agreement with the draft as written. Since
then, the State Auditor has recommended that cities develop policies for undesignated
balances in their general fund, and it followed the policy prepared by staff. The policy is
presented for formal adoption by the Council, and may be approved by motion.
Agenda Item #9F: Staff received proposals from five brokers for services related to the sale
of the City's liquor stores, and interviewed each. We believe that any of the brokers
could do a satisfactory job on behalf of the City, and recommend that Hospitality
Services, Corp., be retained as the exclusive listing agent for six months.
Agenda Item #9G: At the August 27 work session, Council directed that a contract be
prepared for deer management services with the Minnesota Bowhunters Resource Base
(MBRB). The proposed agreement has been adapted freely from the agreement between
the Dakota County and MBRB. The rules that MBRB will follow in Shorewood are
identical to those required by the City of Oakdale. The City Attorney has reviewed the
proposed agreement. Staff recommends that Council approve the agreement for services
with MBRB for 2007.
Agenda Item #10A: Staffhas solicited quotes for the services of cleaning the exterior of the
tower located on the Minnewashta School Property. Water Tower Clean and Coat
provided the lowest responsible bid in the amount of$5,900.00. In addition, Water
Tower Clean and Coat also proposed performing a few additional upgrades to the tank
that are outside of the quote requested. These items are new standards by the health
department and office of Homeland Security. Pricing for the furnishing and installation
of these items was quoted at and additional $800.00. Staff has reviewed the proposal and
agrees that the suggested upgrades should be completed and that the pricing provided is
very reasonable. Therefore, Staff is recommending approval of the proposal in the total
amount of$6,700.
Agenda Item #10B: WSB & Associates has prepared the feasibility report for the
Amlee/ManitoulGlen Road improvement project, in which the roadways would conform
to the City Council's August 10th driving lane dimensions and in which City water would
be installed throughout the project area. Council will have discussed the revised
feasibility report in the work session earlier this evening, and should indicate whether
Executive Summary - City Council Meeting of 10 September 2007
Page 3 of3
changes in the scope of the project should be made at this time. (It can be scaled back at
any time, but it may not be enlarged.) As it is proposed that special assessments be used
as a source of revenue for the installation of City water, a public hearing must be held
prior to ordering the improvement project.
It is recommended that the Council adopt the resolution approving the feasibility report
and setting the public hearing for ordering the improvement project on October 8, 2007.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MONDAY, AUGUST 20, 2007
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M.
A.
Roll Call
at its August 6, 2007,
the tax levy decreased to
decreased to 1.58 percent from
with a budget revisions document
asked.
Present.
Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Callies, Turgeon,
Finance Director Burton; and Direct of Public
Absent:
Councilmember Wellens
B.
Review Agenda
Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the
2. 2008 DRAFT BUDGET
Administrator Dawson stated Staff made the
work session to the 2008 Draft Operating
4.5 percent from 5.2 percent, and the overall Ge
ap~roximate.ly 1.9 percen:llfll~l"f" a Council
whIch explamed the chan&!1~s and a. red the ques
,dlmil;1 1111
It was noted that Couhcil;M.~"!~lso b provided with aiflayroll allocation analysis, a document related to
finance staffing, and a docuiti~~'ladd!~~lf~;IRJ.lplic WorKs Snow and Ice Removal budget items.
;i!!lr!III.. IIIIIIIIIIIII:[!"I...;II'
Director BN~~nlr~~mIHH~I\~e p~yJ~tlmllOC'~~li"~~;I~g~I'YSiS was based on a payroll audit done for 2006 and
the ~rs!lfill*, months of 20QQIIWl~e stafijft~I~!.I~sations in the draft 2008 b.ud~et wer~ adjusted to reflect t~e
aUdl~fl!J!tf.~'6.;.....!.~.or Bro~n state~!11.:f.l.le federQ-e.J.:.11~l!fd state ma~dates had a slgl1lficant Impact on how Publtc
Works sta!fftl~ere bemg used a~<lI!~ould bnve to be used m the future.
~t~:,f~:~~.':', l:i:I.~'.j ,,~.
councilmem~ilYl~Rodruff dis~H.~uted a staffing budget analysis (of the staffing headcount) he had
prepared. He wa~ll~; erned tb~t the analysis indicated that there was in effect no change between the
2008 budget and th~" ~b>>~gh, yet there were salary increases planned. He stated Director Burton had
explained that some 0 :WIi1'[yroll allocation was found in the Enterprise Budgets, which made it difficult
to track year-over-year~tUtfing costs because the Enterprise Fund budgets would be done at a later date.
Woodruff stated another approach would be to allocate all of payroll to the General Fund and then
transfer the funds to the appropriate Enterprise Fund at year-end.
Councilmember Callies stated she was not sure of the value Councilmember Woodruffs approach would
have to her. She commented there were different budget methods that could be used and the one currently
used had proven to be effective in past years.
I #2A I
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING
August 20, 2007
Page 2 of7
Director Burton stated to change the system used today to determine payroll allocation would be quite
extensive.
There was ensuing discussion with regard to payroll allocation.
Councilmember Woodruff stated it was possible the City would have to raise its sewer and water rates to
fund the payroll costs for staff allocated to work in those areas.
Director Burton stated the pay rate difference between being
hour.
Uhf
_~ i :; }' ( t }
At Councilmember Woodruff's request, Director Burto\1iI~'fated she would add
(for 2006 and 2007) in the Enterprise Fund budget~lln[Woodruff's spreadsheet
complete staffing allocation on one document. ,!mtllllllll!I");;II~; ii",
Councilmember Turgeon stated she wanted to clarify her und&~~fririding of the proposed salary increases
for 2008. All employees would get a sel}1k~nnual market-ratel~R~estment of 2 percent (which was
approximately the equivalent of one 3 perc~>>~I~d~e,stment). Some'lelij~l~yeeswould also receive a pay-
for-performance adjustment. Administrator Et~W$"nll~Mted the pay-!f~~thRffbrmance adjustment could
range from .5 percent to 2 percent. Director l~urtonn~~~~ftthe draft *>>Hget reflected the market-rate
adjustments only; additional money would ne' 0 bxijaHUM~ lH1budget for pay-for-performance
''', ",I j,'
adjustments. Burton stated ~, an ,pHt of$ D be added to the budget for a
performance-adjustment p' ximately 1 percent of the gross salary budget of
$1.5 million). Dawson 1 on a nine-point scale; employees that are rated at
5.75 points or higherl!~ adjustment by the department
director and the recommen
Chris Pounder and his
after he had taken the
There was a diversion from the budget discussion to the discussion of
rate of pay. The topic of Mr. Pounder's rate of pay was continued to
sewer licensure exam.
Director Bu,u~"Ufl ,ted a prepared which explained the current level of
staffing il.flihance'!~1l1ail, 'Imember Wellens suggested a full-time and not a half-time 2007
budg~!8~ 'os~tion in FinaH~flkfi eli tWm the 2008 budget. ~urton ex?lained Fina~ce had ~~d two
full-tdnal Ivalents (FTEs')lfimce at I '1988. In 2002 CouncIl authonzed a half-tlme posltlon to
primarily. .'l~,n utility billia~1I1rat po~i ion was .fi.lled. Whel: one of the FTEs resigned in ~uly of2??5,
the half-tIme ~mRtoyee was ap:~~~nted to the posltlon of Sel1lor Accountant and the half-ttme pOSItIOn
was not filled;'ltl1~htwo full-tim~ employees assumed those responsibilities. There were times when
'Wpt r1'
addit~~nal temporatUUlfi!p w~jl)~eq~i.red ~o .complete tasks that could not be done by the two FTEs. The
t:ansl~lOn to the new P~~'RW~nd utlhty bIl~1I1g system.s would consume a tremendous amount oft~le FTEs
tlme 111 2008, as would i\pe sales tax audIt of the CIty. Also, there needed to be someone avatlable to
perform certain finance d!asks in the absence of someone else. A comparison of finance staffing levels for
eleven smaller metropolitan cities had been distributed; all had at least a minimum of two full-time
employees.
Councilmember Callies stated the City's audit report recommended the City maintain a segregation of
financial duties, which would require two staff members.
Councilmember Turgeon suggested that other City employees be cross-trained to do the simpler tasks in
Finance should both Finance employees be gone at the same time.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING
August 20, 2007
Page 3 of7
Councilmember Woodruff stated a lot of good analysis had been done regarding staffing allocation. He
suggested that be reviewed again after the new payroll system and utility billing software had been
implemented; the upcoming automation of tasks should result in a reduction in some amount of staff time
or a redeployment of some time. Councilmember Callies stated there may be an improvement in what
was done rather than a reduction in staff. Woodruff stated the justification for the radio read meter
project included savings in staff time and an increase in water revenues; some of the cost for the project
needed to be recovered. Callies stated there were times when things had to be replaced for a cost without
there being any savings. Woodruff stated every time the City considered making a significant investment
in the purchase of something new the return on investment should be Director Brown stated
he could calculate the ROI for the radio read meter project.
ijItt
With regard to snow and ice removal, Director Brown te~IWml::\IJ1orandum what the
cost-per-ton for sand and deicing chemical was in 2004, 200 ,,~<<~,< 2007 projected, and 2008 budgeted.
The increase in costs was largely the resul~~?f.the rising cost of~~!1)~lso, contract law stated suppliers
were allowed to apply a fuel surcharge w~i"mn~re were signifi;<Yqnt changes in the cost of fuel not
antic~pated i~ the contract pricing. He statedlm~HtI~ffill~ssen weatheH ~he Climatological Office
had ll1formatton on snow falls that would beli\TIore"QI~ related to CIty'S snowfall events. He
explained insurance companies required the Citylt~ ha~Yl l~i~!';t\ygi~)11 stated the order in which streets
were plowed and the frequenc blic Works coJtp~~Ve p'll~~J~pideice a street even though the snow
fall was not significant; a . the numberl~ftraffic acci~mnts related to the roadway conditions
would dictate that. He; last few yea/iji the number of snow fall events had decreased;
therefore, the supplie;slk Idget for 2008 ~h1l1~lemain at the 2007 budget level. The amount
of sand/salt mixture that i,~the City's st~Hige bin was approximately 400 tons, and that
amount would handle 2~1~'!ffi~Wl!~I!rlltlht bin at the send of a snow season.
,.,:J'i
The were made in addition to those made in the budget revisions
services ifthere was not a
at a future Council
There was ensuing discussion with regard to asking for proposals
serious intent to change from the current provided. The topic
meeting.
There was ensuing discussion regarding how major
bonds, tax levy).
was a forced number - the figure was what was required
~ from the City-owned house was reflected in the budget summary
for Service ($16,000) and the associated expenses were
General Government/Municipal Building ($5,000). In the detail budget,
were included in Municipal Building/Support Services.
~ It was to take the remaining funds in a debt service account (the funds
remaining after the debt had been paid in full) to pay another debt service obligation.
~ Under funds transferred out of the General Fund, the $5,000 that had been transferred to
the Land & Open Space Fund in previous years would be transferred to the Park Capital
Improvement Fund instead starting in 2008 per previous Council direction.
~ The $100,000 expense under Expenditures and Other Uses in the budget summary was a
transfer to the Street Reconstruction Fund per previous Council direction.
~ Government mandates were projected to require the Public Works Director to spend
more of his time on water, sewer, and stormwater related activities.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING
August 20, 2007
Page 4 of7
~ General Government/Staffing was adjusted to reflect 55 percent of the Deputy Clerk's
time.
~ Professional Services/Support Services increased $7,000 from the August 20th draft
budget to reflect an increase for audit services if the City were to engage a different firm,
and the likelihood that the cost audit services from a new firm would be more due to its
unfamiliarity with the City's finances (Council member Woodruff had recommended the
City request proposals for audit services).
~ Various parts of a major road reconstruction projects were funded out of the appropriate
fund (i.e., water main installation, storm water roadway improvements,
and sanitary sewer improvements would all be funded different fund). The
Streets and Roadways budget was for maintenance.
~ For bonds issued in 2008, the first debt service occur in 2009.
~ The Polymerized Emulsion Asphalt Pavement technology should help
extend the life of some of the City's streets. ology proved to be as
effective as the information on it said it efforts would
be replaced with "slurry" coating.
~ The cost for sealcoating was $1.75 was $4.00
per square yard for roadway.
~
Illlllllllllt
There was agreement to pay o!lj'{ttli~~~ due in 2008 for the
Southshore Center with funds!lf~rnMij fH and Refunding
Bonds (which had been paid irlllfull).,,;, HI when the 2008 General Fund
Operating B t was appro~~g,diW Dec, 2007. Staff would prepare a
recomme~l, Ihouncil regardlqg the use oft remaining funds.
The $31f~~0 in th j~~ budget for t",~ above debt service payment would be retained in
the ~l!iIlrl~'~~! Faci\itt~t Department b~~~~t/or possible City Hall maintenance.
The Trail' Iq;K~it~1 ~mRm~~men~ FUndll<l-Ua the Land & Open Space Fund would be
collapsed un1:I~ll!th~ HHal1lWH~ftfln~I'llwprovement Fund. The Tratl Fund could be re-
if t11li~, as amiijoriij~ytf.Future trail improvements would be funded out of
It ' .ement Fund.
be a ;t~hto;IAdministration/Staffing for potential pay-for-performance
ff wOll\l<l1lllprovide Council with an explanation of the process for
nds inl~ovember or December.
lent/Supplies would be reduced by $5,000.
h percent of the Senior Accountant's time would be allocated to liquor
'008. None of the Finance Director's time would be allocated to Liquor
The following noteworthy changes or clarifications to the
Council.
~
~
~
!.~llllll;
Jl!t to Street and Roadways would be increased from $445,000 to $645,000 to
be used br "slurry" coating or sealcoating and overlays.
Snow and Ice Removal/Supplies for 2008 would be reduced to be the same as the 2007
budget ($44,500). Staff will provide Council with the 200712008 event statistics for the
2009 budget process.
The funds for contract services for tree and brush disposal under Tree Maintenance will
be moved from Staffing to Support Services.
~
~
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING
August 20, 2007
Page 5 of7
3. CITY HALL - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Administrator Dawson stated there were funds
to pay for the detailed design services for the "bridge" concept in the Municipal Buildings Public
Facilities Capital Fund.
Councilmember Woodruff suggested the City hire an organization to provide owner's representative
services for the City Hall project; the firm could coordinate the request for proposal process to select an
architectural firm as well as the construction process. He stated he had f,itpeived a proposal from a
company to provide those services. Mayor Lizee stated the City's norm~~lt~quitst-for-proposal process
should be followed if the City were to do that..dIIl!Fl
-, ' ".}.~-,
~'j'1:n:H)
" ,~ t ! ' " :1 ;, J }: )
Councilmember Callies stated she still thought it was appropriatel~Wll1aveftitH discussion on the future
of City Hall before anything else was decided upon. She stateq C~4ncil wasl ,e than willing to have
continued discussions on the Amlee Road/Manitou Lane/Sf~~kli&.p~\:I Street,,: uction Project; she
thought the future of City Hall warranted further di~ffj1ssion. Councilmember druff stated he
disagreed with Callies' suggestion; a decision was m~g~ho do a pl\oject and the cu 1~!~Russion was
regarding how to do it. Callies questioned the seh~~\II~Nhvrgenc~!ltR move forwar ;;:Jthout further
discussion. Woodruff stated the Council had not made a'dll*!:l~~,ioQjI~tith~ future of Ci Hall for three
l'l!!j}i:li'
years. 'mOl,
11'1, .., "lllllll:
Mayor Lizee stated a proposal for design sertjt<<!~iw,as in the proceSMijhl~l~ing prepared by Staff.
'I! Ill!! II 1111Ui', . Ii: 1111111111
In response to a question from Councilmembe~l;rurge:o'lll!4\fllrinistratOlill>>awson stated the process that
was followed for the Public Safety Facility p*pject .~~~I~~l!f!WI).~~.rPt was first retained and later a
construction manager (ownerl'j resentative) W~~!~r~J~ht 0~;~0ilWa\?~ge ~he project. He explained that
was the only way that proc~$g\ ave been don~lpased on th~IProJect tlmeframe. Dawson then stated
another process that co be follo . would be to Ihire an owner's representative at the front end of a
1: " -; ~. '
project; that individ"al~ RU!d wor 'ith Staff on p~tcP,~rj.ng the RFP for design services and do the
evaluation process. Dawso~l.h\~ted,;;w\.,tor the Publi~I~'afety Facility project a full-time person was
n~e~~d for the ~~~j,~~t; the co~ijllH~tiOttlm~~'RI111;t;~~ipesponsible for obtaining the best bid for each bid
dIVISIOn (t1;~l~lm+"+ln~llm"~:.lli~q>IIQ~"i;1 ."jlllllll"
Counc' mber Turgeon'lij~t~\ioned'l~I~~ml~istrator Dawson would view an owner's representative as
an as ~taff. Adminl~lvrtor Da\\f~<111 stated for a r~latively small project. such as the "bridge"
concept, ltect should b~l~ple to bandle the constructIOn phase. A constructIon manager would be
able to devo l;~re time to o~~~~ee the project; with this approach a decision would have to be made
with reg~rd tollOPII;"ould ta~fllthe lead on selecting the architect for the project - the City or the
constructIOn manag~lj.lli, ,Ill
'-11' I: I] i 1 \, , .... " ~'] I
Councilmember wood:UfflMi~ted the City could hire an owner's representative and have them prepare the
RFP for design serviG~s and the Council would select the architectural firm (after receiving a
recommendation from that individual); or Staff could prepare the RFP for design services and hire the
owner's representative for the construction phase.
Administrator Dawson stated historically Staff had worked with an architectural firm; that would be
Staffs preference for this project also. If the City had hired an owner's representative prior to the
selection of a firm, that individual could work with Staff on the RFP process. Dawson explained for the
Mound Public Safety Facility project, Mound chose an architect and a separately chose a construction
manager.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING
August 20, 2007
Page 6 of7
Administrator Dawson stated there were some funds available for design services, and there was a
likelihood that some debt would be issued for the project. No additional funds would be added to the
2008 budget.
Council member Callies stated she wanted to return to a suggestion Councilmember Turgeon had made at
an August 13, 2007, Council meeting which was to replace the HV AC, siding, windows, and carpet;
paint the interior; fix the drainage issues; and do the necessary landscaping. She asked that Council
consider that option instead of the "bridge" option. She stated there were uncertainties regarding the
Southshore Center.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he had
discussion of the RFP until Councilmember
approved to do the "bridge"
wanted to move forward
were to provide
future discussion
Wellens wanted to
option, but
Councilmember Turgeon stated it was her idea, but a vote was taken
concept. She was not willing to ask Council to consider that idea
with doing something, and a decision had been made on an
information that indicated the "bridge" concept was not a
would be warranted. She commented that in previous
consider something other than the proposed
there was not consensus to do so.
Administrator Dawson stated he had distributed to
allow for creativity; the proposal was to work within the exist
services to
He would prefer to delay
prepared by Staff and sent out
the RFP.
Mayor Lizee stated
Dawson stated the RFP would
Administrator Dawson his comments; the comments
4.
Councilmember
operations businesses.
what the status was of finding a broker to sell the City's liquor
Administrator Dawson stated he had received two recommendations and another broker sent 111
information. Staff would have a recommendation to Council at its September 10,2007, meeting.
Councilmember Callies questioned what was for sale. Administrator Dawson stated the inventory,
fixtures, equipment, and goodwill.
Director Burton related that the City Artorney had recommended the City register the trade name
Shorewood Liquors, which was being evaluated.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING
August 20, 2007
Page 7 of 7
5. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of
August 20, 2007, at 8:24 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
ATTEST:
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
AUGUST 27, 2007
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Administrator Dawson
present this evening to
management
the Public Works
this meeting, Staff
meeting.
A. Roll Call
Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M.
Present.
Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Callies, Tur
Dawson; Finance Director Burton;
Brown; and Engineer Landini
Administrator
of Public Works
Absent:
None
B.
Review Agenda
Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded,
Motion passed 5/0.
2. DEER MANAGEMENT
Resource Base (MBRB), was
may have a proposed plan for a deer
d Mr. Whiting; the plan also included input from
if Council were to approve the concept plan at
,to consider at its September 10, 2007, regular
of the deer management program was to limit the effort to
four property owners (one was the Minnetonka Country Club
included in the program; some of those properties were
City would coordinate any requests from private property owners. The
owners would be forwarded to the MBRB.
Mr. Whiting made
clarifications and comments:
)> The minimum property size the MBRB would prefer to conduct a removal effort was two
acres.
)> The MBRB had experienced three accidents during its thirteen-year tenure of
participating in removal efforts; those accidents were a result of archers falling out of
their stands.
)> The archers did not shoot unless they had a perfect shot; they would be shooting down
from their stands. The archers had the proficiency to place six of seven arrows in a four-
inch circle at 20 yards.
)> The removal efforts would be limited to MBRB members who had a sharpshooter rating.
1#2B I
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING
August 27, 2007
Page 2 of7
The deer stands that would be used were portable and unobtrusive.
Oakdale was most similar type urban area to the City's proposed locations that the
MBRB had conducted a removal program in.
If a deer that had been shot went on to resident's property, the police would contact that
resident requesting the MBRB access the property to remove the deer.
The majority of the complaints that MBRB was aware of in previous efforts were from
residents that were not aware of the removal effort.
The deceased deer would be removed from the propertie~ on a cart that was pulled
manually. dlll!h
During an eight-person removal effort in Oakdale, thiMrnil!tieer were shot the first year
and ten the second year.c'!I!!!!!;
The MB~B would like the City to .identify a 107MiR~iwij~~f,the removed deer could be
dressed; It was not an absolute reqUIrement. 1111111' '!lllll;:
The deer would be removed during the h~nting seaJ~~~htherefore all removed
"tt.~ rt R
deer would be tagged.'lllllhh.
The MBRB required a thirty-day lead it could conduct alt~m?val effort.
Deer stands would be put .in Friday aft1{~00n pre~ediJgl~lm~oval effort.
The archers would be on sIte from it1111g to mId-day; tli.ijywould leave
the area and return early Saturday time. The same schedule would be
followed on Sunday. The stands would be on Sunday.
Based on past experienc~&llth~!k,ity should 0 receive numerous phone calls from
residents ,;h? would like t~I~~~~tR6te in the re effort. It ,:as too late to apply for
membershIp 111 the MBRB f~tlfhlS y'e th apply 111 future years.
If firearm deer hunting was iit~~ed 111 . to the areas selected for
the removal ~~nf~n~il~he archef~lmoulifl.m orange. If not, blaze orange
was not req~bhlttllHHmh, lll"
tll;llllllli' 'illlll.I!,I;1
Director Nielsen ma~llfn~!following n I~trorthy cI
t.!: .~. ~ ~.} )_ .. f ;
~ i,<~::i -~'.:_:_ I~.
The I:~~~i~~~(l!~~l
ll~ivers' . District had pos tl signs advising users of its parks of the dates and
times:\l~w~~l e woul? be conducted; .it found it too difficult to close parks .during
those tlme~U~~af II.~ It was not practlcal to close Freeman Park down durmg the
removal effQrbh Illl.
t ll: -~,: ) ~. I_ ,. .", '
The City-owti*Hlproperties selected for the removal efforts would more likely be located
'ph,
n the west h~Ullof the City. The Minnetonka Country Club would also be a removal
il.~l j:
. !1'Uh
t~pe~d"'er near Christmas Lake was interested i~ a removal. effort. on ~er
f~~t ~'lllU~I~:ei~~~~~~;~~~l~~e~~sr:~~~e~:~~~e:s~;~~ro~ ~~~t~~~~:I~o:::~se :t:~
available1for a removal effort.
The objective of the removal efforts was to remove as many deer as possible.
The removal efforts would occur during October, November, and possibly December
(not necessarily each weekend).
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
.14leer.
, an Park be considered for a removal program.
~
~
~
There was ensuing discussion regarding notifying residents of the removal efforts. In addition to a brief
notification in the September Shore Report, there was consensus to provide information about locations
and dates in the October Shore Report, on the City's web site, and in a mailing to the private and
property owners whose properties were adjacent to the removal areas.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING
August 27, 2007
Page 3 of7
There was ensuing discussion regarding inclusion of private properties in the removal efforts, and if they
were what the minimum size of the properties must be.
Mayor Lizee suggested that the removal efforts be limited to the City-owned properties and private
properties suggested by Staff and Mr. Whiting.
Councilmember Woodruff suggested the City be added to the MBRB insurance policy. Mr. Whiting
stated he would check on the cost.
Administrator Dawson stated prior to the August working
group all five cities' councils had approved the
cities and the Friends of the Southshore Center. He
Friends an amount totaling $17,600 city's
construction of the building). The cities
raised by the Friends. The total
high as $21,300. The Friends must use
building reserve fund.
Dawson noted that althou&lil~~JIIJlW funding arrangements, the
release of any funds~~llmp~~i\n fundI upon changes to the "Shorewood Option".
Dawson summarizedi~t'll~rovision~li 1996 Cooperative Agreement: a) Shorewood
woul~ have the right orm"Ul~efu,~~lln cities back t~e.ir initial c??tribution to the
buildm~ (a f $300;Q8QtUI~~' the faclltty, ~he cltles w~ul~ share
proportlO roceeltbl~~ the sale; Shorewood took possessIon of the bUlldmg and
subse...9.,.I..... sold itUm...I.o.i...t.....h..........e. ~11IlIt'Y.,.I...!...;.'......w.. ithin ten years, the other cities share proportionatel~ in the
proc~Pi'h fthe sale. He cQrnm~ntea'I~'f~,"a" above was often referred to as the "Shorewood OptIOn".
L '..1..... h,......'....'..'.... .,ll.l.l.h
! 11\,. ""I' WW
Dawson t~"~lreviewed the ch~hhrs Deep'1\laven had proposed to Section 6 of the Cooperative Agreement;
the ch~ngeslll e specified illlllfle draft agreement ~or interi.m. funding. prepare~ by Deephaven. !he
followmg ch h~ould re~lnf"' ~tems .a; b, and c m the ongmal SectIon 6 whIch were summanzed
above: "a) AnY,Ultge P~lql~,patmg Cltles may purchase the Center by repayment to each of the
remaining Cities ariiqH1p4rtll~qual to their original capital contribution plus a rate of return of 5.0% per
year on their original cNm~l~l' contribution dating from July 1, 1996; and b) In the event the Center is sold
to any entity other than one of the participating Cities, the proceeds of the sale shall be allocated and paid
to each City proportionate to its original capital contribution".
a deer removal program.
in Oakdale.
Council directed Staff to identify a location where the deer could be dr~~
:,-!.}I}I
There was Council consensus to give concept approval to the pr<~H~4~MII
There was also consensus to follow the same special archery deeHn+moval'
3. SOUTHSHORE CENTER PROPOSAL
Dawson stated the cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, and Tonka Bay had not expressed any concerns with
the other conditions stipulated in the draft interim funding agreement. Those cities were awaiting
Shorewood's reaction to the proposed changes to the "Shorewood Option".
Dawson noted a commitment to an interim funding agreement must be reached by all five cities prior to a
Senior Community Services (SCS) Board meeting scheduled for September 10,2007, for the SCS Board
to continue its staffing/programming services through November and December 2007. Administrator
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING
August 27, 2007
Page 4 of7
Dawson commented that there had not been discussions regarding what would happen if any of the cities
did not commit to the interim funding proposal.
Councilmember Woodruff expressed concern that the 5 percent per year valuation increase specified in
the proposed changes did not specify a maximum amount; therefore, it could be possible that the amount
the purchasing city would have to pay the other cities would be greater than the value of their combined
proportional amount of the appraised value of the building. He suggested it be changed to 5 percent per
year or the appraised value of the building, whichever was less. He expressed concern that the
proposed changes did not give the City credit for the land it donated to Center on; the changes
should be modified such that the City could recoup the value of land should there be a
change in ownership of the building.
Councilmember Callies questioned if it would be possible to
value of the land if the Center were to be sold. She stated
percent per year at the time of sale.
Administrator Dawson clarified based on the disolljl~ Center
working group meeting, there was general understartH g,the chang;
likely have been "The City of Shorewood may retain t ~lm~pt
Cities at closing an amount equal to their Rriginal capital'l~ij"t
the building, exclusive of the value of th~lt" 5 perceHt
the land had not been discussed; those cH~ included
prepared by Deephaven.
h,
Councilmember Callies ques' ~a!~hy chan8lW t were required as part of
the interim funding agree lejl~ ed the fUll" to and the uncertainty of
"\" ':-, ,
the Center did not w a need, the pro~; a condition of the interim funding
agreement. She alsol~ it would lore appr t~te to change the Cooperative Agreement at such
time that the on-goinM pping for th l1ter change . H~pe then stated that from her vantage point it was
oppo~~nistic. to r.equire~I~~~ INftijHlfiI919get~~~ve Agreement a~ree~ to by ~he five cities as a
condItIOn o~.,lllfundm~'1I d s'nels~:t{~T~~g the proposal for mtenm fundmg; changes to the
Coopera!I~nl; :;"flli~,ould IH?sidered at anotHer time.
IIUI'I"IIII!HI..... Im.'l
cou~dll'~~ber Welle~~ll~t d h~!I~>>~r~? C~uncilm~mber Callies's perspective. H.e. stat~d fro~ his
vanta~ql nt Deephaven s, ured tfultllwtenm fundmg agreement such that the clttes (m partIcular
Shorew' lwould either agr the cnlahges in the Cooperative Agreement or there would not be any
interim funtllqOlir.?008 for the thshore Center; it was almost as if the City was being "blackmailed".
'Him,
Mayor Lizee stat~~1 and was interim funding; changes to the Cooperative Agreement were
not relative to that ii
of the building and the
may not amount to 5
Councilmember stated she did not think the discussion about changes to the "Shorewood
Option" by the Southshore Center discussion group had been contentious. From her vantage point, it was
a benefit to the City to have the stipulation regarding proceeds from future gain removed as part of the
proposed changes. Councilmember Wellens stated he did not think the removal of that stipulation had
any value to the City as he did not envision the City selling the property to a private company. Turgeon
then stated she did not have any concern with the absence of a stipulation stating the City would receive
credit for the land it donated. She thought the changes proposed by Deephaven were fair and equitable; it
was not fair to ask the cities to continue to invest in the building without a return on that investment.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING
August 27, 2007
Page 5 of7
Mayor Lizee stated the five cities invested in the community when the Southshore Center was built. The
topic at hand was interim funding for 2008; that would allow the cities time to discuss how the space
could best be utilized to serve the community.
Councilmember Turgeon stated from her vantage point SCS was the only group holding anyone at threat.
Councilmember Woodruff stated it was his understanding that if the five cities would commit to interim
funding for 2008 then SCS would continue to provide services in Novembyr and December 2007 at its
expense. If four of the five cities agreed to the interim funding proposal, tJlHUlthat proportionate level of
funding could be provided. He questioned if SCS would still provi<:!~I~Ji.~vservices in November and
December if all five cities did not agree to the interim funding. tllllllm:'
:. [~II ~ II f'} t ~ II ~ Ii! ~
Administrator Dawson stated Councilmember Woodruff's ,ud~tv~tandiH~ll~t SCS's commitment to
provide services through the end of the year and the cond.tI~rsof that corlilf!jffflent was correct. SCS
would also provide services in 2008, and it would be pailtH~ Friends for prdUtft~qg those services. He
stated to-date there had not been discussions es if less than five citih~mtRvided funding.
"{lUlhL
at its cost b~M~hd the end of
currently committed to provide
it did not have the resources to
on a commitment by the cities for
commitment by SCS
Education to do the
Councilmember Turgeon stated SCS was not
September at this time. Administrator Dawson
services through the end of October He related
provide services in November and that was
2008 interim funding.
Councilmember Call' of the proposed changes to the Cooperative
Agreement at this tim . then the interim funding agreement which stated if
the Friends incurred a .ing h use the existing reserves of the Friends for
covering the.,~hR. 11 (thJI~tii building maintenance). Administrator Dawson
c1arifiedl~>>~1 v~~I,wouI;" of services provided to match what it could fund.
Calli~ lioned i 'tm:f~lf[~em8hR:~priate if ther~ were mor~ than adequate Friends reserve funds.
Co~~' mber VI. oodruffl~tft d t~el"~lWIS had. comml~ed to fundll1g the mall1tenance and support of the
faclh hd the Fnends hadf4; mlttedl~~I.~\lndll1g servIces.
111111,.1 'lvi'
Councilmemijfirh,wellens sta 1f the City chose not to approve any changes to the Cooperative
Agreement, Deq1\1\~yen could" nsider its position once it understood its demands were prohibiting the
commitment of aUlflHRcitieplti. terim funding.
'H)'h dllll,
'1111*',1111.111.
Councilmember TurgJij~l~kla.ted Deephaven's condition for changes to the "Shorewood Option" should
not be a "deal breaker,,;vshe did not believe Deephaven was being unreasonable. She also stated the
proposed changes were not significant.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought the interim funding agreement (which specified changes to
the Cooperative Agreement) was fair; but he could either support or reject the condition regarding the
Shorewood option.
There was consensus to add this item to the Regular Council meeting agenda that evening to take action
on it the item. Councilmember Turgeon stated being each Councilmember had stated their position on
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING
August 27, 2007
Page 6 of7
this item it was appropriate to take action on the item at the regular meeting; so that the City's official
position could be conveyed.
Mayor Lizee recessed the work session to a City Council Regular meeting at 6:57 P.M.
Mayor Lizee reconvened the work session at 8:23 P.M.
4. 2008 BUDGET SUMMARY
,111111,
Administrator Dawson stated Council had been provided a docu~~~~II~Ummarizing the changes it
recommended at its August 20, 2007, work session. As a resul~U<ilifJithose changes, the tax levy
. ~, :f t I it " [ ~. _~ Ii,
contemplated for 2008 would be a 9.34 percent. ll1crease over t1WI~"ppt~fll~907 budget. He commented
that the 2008 proposed tax levy must be certIfied by Septem~~p'15, 20~r!;h!herefore, he hoped any
additional concerns Council had about the proposed budget tJe resolvedl~~Mli\\S meeting.
{kUilh"
" ~.l:- ;\:'
the EnterpW~pll~~nd. b~dgets to
document twas, dlstnbuted to
q~:~;<
more clos~.Win upcoming
Director Burton stated she had added the staffin
Councilmember Woodruff's staffing spreadsheet
Council. She stated the Enterprise staffing allocatt
months. Woodruff thanked Burton for her efforts.
Councilmember Woodruff stated at the had been in error when he thought
2008 was the first time staff was allocate He later realized that been done in
previous years. He did think the analysis sted the $20,000 added to the
Administrator's budget for potential staff pe l~ance also be added to the analysis.
He explained once that amo~mlffi~~lftactored i~~fal ~. . IT~ . percent over 2007 budget and
that was not .much of a ir~>>pg~.iI~~ ted thatltRlmt .5 pO,sitl IIBudgeted for Finance in ~007 was
removed the mcrease Iflll4i"be shg more. HelfJ:en explall1ed the total salary and benefit ll1creases
over 2006 actual wast roximately 1. rcent; thathhhreas.e included market rate salary adjustments. He
stated he was reasona B~)lnfortabl~! the staffinlglj:1~st ll1creases for 2008.
1111 tl!IIU '11111,
Woodruff :~Y~l!A~~\T~ he'11ftUtilUi \!$~OO,OOO increase to the transfer. to Street &
ROa~WaY.~jlW. "I~$lItOllf1t4np.!t.!:h...e.. tUtl.I...,I.,.e......v.. el of coatll1g as could have been done wIth $445,000
prevIOI~IC>~dgeted .rotl~tn...!..~I...I.oattn~I~.f!.d.l. overlays.
} ltl]%;: "qHlh~
Coun ber Woodruff4~ ioned'lJq*m,Jhe proposed budget increase could result in a tax levy of9.34
percent, sidents would ,less fot1the City portion of their property tax (based on the tax impact
chart distn to Council). 'Fctor Burton stated the chart was based on a few assumptions: there
would be no e in the pr~ l' values; the chart was based on the City portion of the property tax
which was appro tely 2~lflf~tent; and the very preliminary information from Hennepin County on the
total.estimate mark It'~nRIWHy wide and ~hat the City's total estimat~d .net tax capacity had it~creased
(the ll1crease was a resum~1f new constructIOn, the tear down and rebmldll1g of houses, and the ll1crease
valuation of existing properties). She emphasized the figures used were very preliminary. She then stated
based on those numbers it was estimated that the City portion of the property tax would result in a
slightly lower tax rate for 2008; that rate was used to prepare the chart distributed. Administrator Dawson
commented if a property value increased 6.15 percent for 2008 there would be no increase in the City
portion of the property tax in 2008 for properties valued at less than $500,000.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he had asked Director Burton what amount of General Fund Reserves
would have to be used to reduced the tax levy increase to 5 percent; it was purely a question of what
possibilities existed to reduce the proposed tax levy. He stated he would support certifying the proposed
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING
August 27, 2007
Page 7 of7
budget with the understanding that there would continue to be on-going discussions regarding the 2008
General Fund budget and the Enterprise budgets.
Director Burton stated the draft policy regarding the General Fund balance (which was discussed at the
August 6,2007, work session) suggested the City maintain a balance of 55% - 60%, the reserves would
be able to handle unexpected expenditures or emergencies. She explained if the 2008 funding for the
Public Works addition were to be funded out of General Fund reserves for an amount of $170,000 and
with the budgeted transfer of $100,000 from the reserves to the Streets and Roadways budget, the
proposed tax levy would be approximately 5.47 percent increase over>>~7; the undesignated fund
balance would be reduced to approximately 55 percent. To bring thf1~' down to 5 percent would
increase the $170,000 transfer to $190,000. The transfers of $1 OO,Q~~1 d $190,000 from the General
f f* I :~ :' ~.
Fund reserves would reduce the undesignated fund to 53 - 54 per'i~!1t!pf1 General Fund proposed
budget, and that would be the low end of what was recommend~~!Hh th She stated she did not
think it would be prudent to reduce the balance to less 1 should be used for
one-time purposes.
Director Burton comme
the remaining funds
the remaining debt
would occur when the 2
55%, then
Administrator Dawson stated the policy also stated
that balance should be restored by budgeting no
level was attained. The City could increase future tax
balance to a minimum of 55 percent.
Councilmember Callies questioned
levy increase of approximately no more
to increases of 7 - 13 percent. Callies
would not increase, she saw to use
reason was for maintaining a tax
the residents reacted negatively
portion of their property tax
the tax levy.
recommendation for Council regarding the use of
Bonds after funds were used to payoff
the Southshore Center. That recommendation
was approved in December 2007.
addition requested for ergonomic and convenience reasons;
cost on the investment.
5.
6.
Wellens moved,
27,2007, at 8:44 P.M.
Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of August
passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Christine Lizee, Mayor
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2007
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
City
Administrator
Nielsen; Director
Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present.
Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Callies,
Dawson; Attorney Keane; Finance
of Public Works Brown; and Engineer
Absent:
None
B.
Review Agenda
Administrator Dawson stated at an earlier
Interim Funding for South shore Center, be
that Item 9.B, 2008
Wellens moved, Woodruff,
passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL
A.
6,2007
Woodruff ~al1'~ijlfL'fl'es .
6, 2007, a~lpresenteuH9n
A/If .1111,
111d~lllh City counJU'~becial Minutes, August 6, 2007
lllUhl1c. '!Iml
Wellens m~UijUi} ,Woodruff se~~mded, Approving the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of
August 6, 2007~1~~~lr~sented. i~btion passed 5/0.
Ci~lrn~Un~if.I~~gUlar Meeting Minutes, August 13,2007
-, llllll it-~
Woodruff moved, Callies seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of
August 13, 2007, as amended in Item to.A, Page 10, Paragraph 8, Sentence 1, change
"Councilmember Wellens noted he was not in support of water main installation along Glen Road."
to "Councilmember Wellens noted he was not in support of watermain installation along Glen
Road based on the survey results.", and in Item 10.A, Page 11, Paragraph 3, Sentence 1, change
"Walt Knutson. 24820 Glen Road, stated if Council was discussing widening Glen Road to a
maximum" to "Walt Knutson. 24820 Glen Road, stated if Council was discussing widening Glen
Road west to a maximum". Motion passed 5/0.
City Council Work Session Minutes of August
c.
[#2C I
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
August 27, 2007
Page 2 of 11
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Woodruff moved, Callies seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and
Adopting the Resolutions Therein.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
Engineer
utility
lot. The
different shaped
B. Staffing - No action required
C.
Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-054, "A
Permit for Additional Accessory Space to
Woodside Road."
a Conditional Use
Scott, 28100
Motion passed 5/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor
5. REPORTS AND
None.
6.
A.
required a Public Hearing be held.
6105 Church Road, had requested to vacate the drainage and
1, in exchange for another drainage and utility easement on the same
enlarge the buildable area of the lot and allow construction of a
planned.
Seeing no one present to comment on this case, Mayor Lizee opened and closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:09 P.M.
Landini stated Staff recommended the request be approved subject to Mr. Pastuck submitting as-built
record drawings, a deed, and either a title opinion or a title insurance commitment.
In response to a question, Engineer Landini suggested the resolution include Mr. Pastuck submitting the
information within thirty days ofthe adopting ofthe resolution or the resolution would be void.
SHORE WOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
August 27, 2007
Page 3 of 11
Callies moved, Wellens seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. NO. 07-055, "A Resolution
Approving Easement Vacation at Lot 1, Block 1, John Pastuck Addition", subject to Mr. Pastuck
submitting as-built record drawings, a deed, and either a title opinion or a title insurance
commitment within thirty days. Motion passed 5/0.
7. PARKS - Report by Representative
A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held August 14,2007
A.
an August 14, 2007,
Park Commissioner Norman reported on matters considered and
Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that
Councilmember Wellens stated based on the success of the
maybe the Park Commission could consider spending less
repeated in 2008.
featuring Big Walter,
when it was
8. PLANNING - Report by Representative
Planning Commissioner Hutchins stated there had not
last City Council regular meeting.
-, t Iii -~ [ ) ~
Conditional Use Permits f~"I!ft#I~lltlouses on One
1200 S F lhli!iIlUllh;,
quare eet ,Ii ";;1&+'11"
p, ''ljjHHII
Applicant: John an1~;Krist~l~i\fl~~nf;1Ill!
Locatiol"'l 5985 Afton Rdad ' 1?11.jlli'
Illlllnlllllllllll. '11WI IPI'
Directo.r Nielsen state~!~ ;'n and Ktl~lh.Marquard.t o,*~W? the. property at ~985 Afton Road. He explained
the subject property W3:sl,d R- 1 A{I~Il1gle-famlly Reh\~ypttal and contamed 40,204 square feet of area.
The Marquardts wanted to:~dn t~~~~lfW.;i,~~ing house,QWthe property while their new home was being
constr~ct~d. ~NI1FI~~r,;~ew h6~~tln1~~lb?ftlfllt~t~nfa"ldl'd ho.use would be demolished. The City's Zon~ng
Code hml~~lill~lIe!lt~~m,rl!~!: smgt~th~flllly dwelItngs on a sIte to one; therefore, the Marquardts apphed
for a...c......o.. ..n......fI........1....'..t.'.1 0 nal use pe~full'.I....I...I......... .... "I!lll'I..'.
,;' m....;l !I,lL,
II 'I"" "'1'.'.."
.. ..W.ll'~.. 'llIW' .. II'
. ,j111,1.1. . 111 I. . . 'lid . . .
Nlels~~ e~~tt.w.ed. the propos~...!.I...b.I.........u....lldmg,j,l~nS mcluded attached garage space that, when comhmcd With
the utthty S11!~"IR.'... 11.......t..he north Sl' .~...!.,.I.I..~...'.... f the I'~t: exceeded 120.0 square feet of total accessory space. For thIS
the Marquardtsijn"I~lso request~" a condItIOnal use permIt.
'!II:f.t I_I ~, i III
Nielsen reviewed ho#lRne. . 'llardts' request complied with Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.c.( 4) of the City's
Zoning Code which Iilnt1tDI e number of single-family dwellings on a site to one.
Il'
(p'
Keeping an existing house should not result in a less desirable location for the new
house. The existing home was nonconforming with respect to R-l A setback
requirements. The new home would be situated in the center portion of the lot and it
would conform with all R-1A setback requirements.
Space in Excess of
1.
Although some trees would be lost to construction, the proposed home would be situated
to minimize removal of existing trees on the property. The applicants' landscape architect
had modified the original grading plan and the amount of fill they would use to try and
protect two trees located at the northeast corner of the new home. Tree replacement
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
August 27, 2007
Page 4 of 11
would consist primarily of nine evergreen trees along the Afton Road side of the property
and three sugar maples - two on the east side of the lot and one in the southwest corner
of the property.
2. There must be some assurance that the existing house would be removed upon
completion of the new one. The applicant would be required to provide the City with a
cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 150 percent of a bid to guarantee removal
of the older house and restoration of the site. Should they chose to move the house off
the lot instead, they must obtain a moving permit which be subject to Planning
Commission review and Council comment.
Nielsen then reviewed how the Marquardts' reque~tl!
1201.03 Subd. 2.4.(4) of the City's Zoning Code for gr
space in excess of 1200 square feet.
3.
The approval must have a time limit. The
complete the new home. It would be likely
extension; therefore, the Planning
to nine months.
builder six months to
have to request an
limit be extended
in Section
for accessory
1. The total area of accessory
above grade of the principal
2.
The total area of accessory
for the R-IA district (.10
of the minimum lot area
4000 square feet).
3.
would comply with the setback requirements
landscaping would be adequate to
part of the house, materials and design were not
fact, the garage would be split into two elevations, facing east
recommended approval of the request subject to the following
1. landscape architect must submit recommendations relative to the two
the northeast corner of the new home.
2. The applicants must provide a copy of their contractor's bid for demolishing the older
house and restoring the site.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicants must provide the City with a cash
escrow or letter of credit, for 150 percent of the bid amount, to guarantee that the house
will be removed and the site restored.
4. The existing house and outbuilding must be removed within nine months of the applicant
receiving a building permit for the new house.
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
August 27, 2007
Page 5 of II
Wellens moved, Callies seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-056, "A Resolution Granting a
Conditional Use Permit for Two Dwellings on One Lot for John and Kristi Marquardt, 5985 Afton
Road" subject to Staff recommendations, and Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory
Space Over 1200 Square Feet. Motion passed 5/0.
B. Setback VarianceNariance to Expand a Nonconforming Structure
Applicant: Craig and Sandra Erickson
Location: 4715 Lakeway Terrace
Director Nielsen explained Craig and Sandra Erickson, 4715 Lakeway T requested a rear-yard
variance to build a larger deck at the rear of their house. The prope~ll: located in the R-1 D/S, Single
Family ResidentiallShoreland zoning district and contained ove;I!'!~(O I~~~are feet of area. Nielsen
reviewed a property survey showing the location of the existingho~e inclu(H'1~1~.rear room addition and
an existing deck and a site plan showing the applicants' proPQJ?~d,deds.locatiodJHHh,
,!IIIWn'1\\ . '1111!1I11..
Nielsen noted that this property was the subject of a P; 'uS variaf\~e in 1990. He tIY~*IMpl~\ned in that
case the previous owner of the property had a 20-fo,(j)1l foot declR,that encroachediqt~.IUie rear yard
". ...J[:1:',. :':;:'
setback. That owner was granted a variance to construct Rih?ot}fli20!"f90t porch ovet;rvil.rt of the deck,
leaving a 12-foot x 20-foot deck on the north side of the de'C~lIhlllie Ericksons now proposed replacing
the existing deck with a lower level deck thij. would be 30 feet lo>>~Il}Vith one end that is 24 feet wide and
the other end 15 feet wide. A landing appro' )y 5 feet x 1 0 fe~tl uld connect the porch area to the
dec~. The pr~posed d~ck would be 20 feetlt"~lffi~r lot line in hlR~tthe 35 feet required by the
Zonlllg Code; It would lllcrease the nonconfor L oralll"\J~~dy non con ,!)litilllg structure.
N. I d I h d d' 'b d C '1 dill, "d.IIIlI!lbIIlUnliUlfbl' l' h I' . I h
Ie sen sta~e le a Istn..NIW!lUl~ oun~1 ~ @hmllent.su ml'nl-'." y t e app Icants statlllg lOW. t ey
thought theIr request cOlTlJO~:t€'di1WI'~~ltre cntena fo~l~rantmg ofvanances. He stated many of the Items
stated in the document,~~l~~ed to wI1~~I~,e would classify self-imposed hardships.
",lIiiIUIIL. 11111 'Ill.,!'
Nielsen t~en stated. th~ plhij"jn~ ~~mWl\.i~\~? review9~lt~e reque~t and thought the request it did. not
comply WIth tl~l~'11~I~rrta for gllij.n, &!1'~~nijnRn1nMnJrxplallled Sectlon 1201 :03 Subd. I.k: of t~e CI~'S
zomng, C.,..,..O....dftl$Iate~jli!~~~t...,......su...c.......I.1 e' '.s.......I....O...I.l doe. s tr0t'mcrease the nonconformIty and comphes WIth heIght
~:~;~1~~~i~i:~~Uo~~~iii~~it ~~{I"I;:~~c~ is located" The Commission thought there would
Nielsen s~~fkijl~ne Planning C~~~issionl~~animously recommended denial of the request.
'llllllh; Iml
Director Nielseril~inlfl~ Mr. EI,I~kson was present this evening to answer any questions Council may
have. i'lllllllllllllW
In response to a questi~lil'lfrom Councilmember Woodruff, Director Nielsen stated the same rules would
apply to a deck or a patfo.
Councilmember Wellens questioned if the statement in the applicants document "The 20-foot variance
that we are requesting is in line with the 20-foot variance granted to neighboring properties directly to
our north and their immediate neighbor to the north." was accurate and if it had any relevance. Director
Nielsen stated the property to the north had a 20-foot setback; he was not sure about the property to the
north of that one. Mr. Erickson stated he was requesting a setback that was the same or similar to his
adjoining neighbors.
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
August 27, 2007
Page 6 of 11
Mr. Erickson stated when the variance was granted in 1990 the house was located 53 feet from the street
to maintain continuity in the neighborhood. He explained that the Planning Commission thought there
were other locations for the deck that would not require a variance; the corner to the south was larger but
was heavily wooded and steep. He stated he was trying to put in a discrete patio that was similar to his
two adjoining neighbors.
Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-057, "A Resolution
Denying a Setback Variance to Craig and Sandra Erickson, 4715 Lakeway Terrace." Motion
passed 5/0.
C.
Setback Variances
Applicant:
Location:
Thomas and Patricia
5080 Shady Island
:; '_: if t 1 ! ~
Director Nielsen explained earlier in the year the City had.r~~ei~ed;a. complaint
Patricia Scherber, 5080 Shady Island Trail, had added1ffJfand pavf.:ld their
,':t'" ~. _~ - _ " ~,
line onto an adjoining residential lot (which was oWl\eal~~hfl.e Shadyllf\land Home .lA.'ssociation).
The complaint also cited a small utility bui~ding and varidt\~lhf~st;I~~Hljh\p1aterials that. d accumulated
on the property over the years. The complamt was found to bel~~Rl1tate. The owners of the property were
sent a zoning violation notice.!!;;,,,
~~:i'; '", 'Illmh,
Nielsen went on to explain that the Scherbers~;jaM1i y subsequentlY':~RR~(lJled to the City Council for
additional time. The City Council granted the Bt~p' ~~p.ers 30 days 6fl daditional time, in which they
were to either file claim for adverse possessionl~t appl);a(H>>~H4~;\ty f9r'~ variance. They did apply for a
variance that would allow them,t have their driv~1Yl}N extend'yl~l~MI1iI~e property line instead of the five-
foot setback requirement. }'pij91~ for a five~'oot setback~ariance to place their 8-foot x 12-foot
shed five feet from thxdtl>.~operty in the soutll#~sterly corner of their lot instead of the ten-foot
f f d H~}; "~,
setback reqUiremenLtljillilll!!!llh. II ':IIiI'll
Nielsen then eXRl~ined that tHe !lfr~n ,1)1' reviewed the request case at its August 7, 2007,
meeting. ~srf~~l!ehlWr;; prese~~I~t ,that me . 'At that meeting Ms. Scherber stated they would be
willing t Iltemove the; f thel,HUr;rway that was not in compliance with the five-foot setback
requirRm t. The Plannin missW~,"t#ljnot think the applicants satisfied the ~ardship criteria for
grantmg' Rack variance,e shed; 11h\erefore, Mr. Scherber stated they would eIther move the shed
or build a nl~mt~,Shed to bri nt into &llnpliance with the setback requirement.
Nielsen stated th~lml>>: receive,tl letter from the Scherbers last week which stated they were willing to
comply with the setfj<<~nlr;e~Hit~ments, and they asked that their d~adline correct the zoning violation be
extended to October 15~iRnw7. Because of the Scherbers' cooperatIOn, Staff recommended the Scherbers'
be granted the extensiol),JII'
Callies moved, Woodruff seconded, granting Thomas and Patricia Scherber until October 15,
2007, to correct their code violations. Motion passed 5/0.
D.
Extension of Time
Appellant:
Location:
John McMasters
4530 Enchanted Point
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
August 27, 2007
Page 7 of 11
Director Nielsen stated John McMasters, 4530 Enchanted Point, had been granted a deadline extension to
correct code violations. Mr. McMasters called recently to advise the City that he was not going to make
the new August 22, 2007, deadline and requested an extension; Mr. McMasters had stated the hot
temperatures and lack of help from his family members were the reasons he was not done yet. Nielsen
stated he was not able to inspect the property that day to see if progress had been made on correcting the
violations.
Nielsen then stated he would check on the progress to date the next day. If noticeable progress had been
made on correcting the violations Staff recommended granting an September 4, 2007, at
which time the matter would be turned over to the City Attorney.
A. Authorize Expenditure of Funds -
Point, an extension
having been
Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, granting John
to September 4, 2007, to correct his code violations
made as of August 28, 2007. Motion passed 5/0.
9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
Administrator Dawson .stated th~ City's miji~ network s~rver
~;: ;~;::~~:~~~::t: l;os:~~=~:~=;~;~~~~~Wlm~~~:~~~~~
ill. ''lI!H!ll!llil''
Councilmember Woodruff stated that from his ~~",tage H~HHlt"' be more powerful than the
City probably needed, but th~mi}t\Wtld not be a sig~'~fl~nt diffe'l cost to downsize it.
jlI11lmlil"'llti 'II['
In response to a numberl~~'questioNslm,m Woodruff,IW,irector Burton made the following clarifications:
IlllllllUhl' '1I111111.\ld'
The cost fdH~l;llhar(lil!Wi~\ from the contJ.iltant would be approximately the same cost if it
'ii'iYij~I~~;jchas~aI<<lt~~tfYlfIU~lmfl~'I~Rfl1puter. . . .
~,jllIUlmH~!'f~f~~\. woulqllrH~ MlcrosoWi'Small Busll1ess Server 2003, whIch ll1c1uded the
,dill, operatm.gl~l~\~m, antIl City would be licensed for up to twenty users.
dllmi" Licenses f~~1 \ Micr a~ffice Suite for individual workstations were not included in
,\ "lllllh the proposal; ~orkst Ions already had that software and it would be compatible.
~ 'illllllit:he proposal/or a tfot-to.-e~ceed amount.
~ liffln power sup f for the eXlstll1g server had recently been replaced and would be used
dRI new
Inte
later d
for replacement this year.
a memo from Staff as well
~
~
of email was not part of this proposal, but it would allow for that at a
Councilmember Turgeon questioned who would be responsible for executing the server backups.
Director Burton stated that had not been determined yet. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought the
Symantec Backup application could be setup to execute automatically and someone would only have to
remember to load a tape.
Director Burton stated the server would be installed in September 2007. The new financial system would
be installed in October 2007 and should be operational in November or December 2007.
Director Brown clarified the rack-mounted monitor currently in place would be used on the new server.
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
August 27, 2007
Page 8 of 11
Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, authorizing the purchase and installation of computer
network equipment as proposed. Motion passed 5/0.
B. 2008 Interim Funding Proposal for Southshore Center
Administrator Dawson commented that at a Council work session preceding this meeting, Council
discussed the 2008 Interim Funding Proposal for the Southshore Center.
Dawson explained that the Southshore ~enter working group had forward~ftdRlfre five citi~s' councils a
concept proposal for 2008-only fundmg arrangements between the,~t1Ies ahd the Fnends of the
Southshore Center. In the concept proposal the five cities would ~,~~111~~ Friends an amount totaling
$17,600 (each city's portion would be based on its share of cost fo~.!~~!b' coli' lction of the building); and
the cities would also proportionally match up to $25,000 in n~w!<<tt fund t~i~d by the Friends. If all
five cities approved a proposal for the concept funding by e~R~~i!ri~pt~mber, Sen.f~~iFommunity Services
(SCS) would continue to provide services through the,\iJlier' of 2007, and therell~'<Plllld also be funds
available from 1he Friends for SCS to continue to provi~~liservices iq 2008. llllllhh
,,1I!Um il:}.. iqmlll
Dawson stated that all of the city councils had approved! r~R#hbii~he concept p~<j)'P()sal prior to a
meeting of the Southshore Center working on August 13,20 IIWexplained at that meeting Deephaven
reported that a condition of its approval amendmen lU!llliiection 6 in the 1996 Cooperative
; ~. ~. : ~. ~' *:
Agreement. Deephaven's release any funds contingent oniaJll~wendment.
,~ ~. ~.II, I i-l \: .' ; i '
'fll~U~.~.2~
~6 Coopera;tjiive Agreement: a) Shorewood
1~~1\~1~' b~y~j their initial contribution to the
a~~ijm>>~ facility, the cities would share
ShorewO{;i~ftook possession of the building and
the other cities share proportionately in the
referred to as the "Shorewood Option".
Dawson summarized the provisions of
would have the right of first refusal and would
building (a total of $300,OQQt~H,l?) if a third
proportionately in the prog~&"Ylij~ sale; and
subsequently sold it t~!I~~other pi Iwithin ten
proceeds of the sale. JtI~I~+>>rmented : "a" above
; -I ~-It ill !l~:,::;-<
Dawson then revjy,,Wyd the ch,&~~~~!lf) to Section 6 of the Cooperative Agreement;
the change~il~b~Mlijflt"~(i\)l? intttH for interim funding prepared by Deephaven. The
followinlphanges wonlj~'t~Rlace < . ~j~' b, and c in the original Section 6 which were summarized
abov~1[ , ~?y of the pit~t . ating <rn'l,~:!~ay pur~hase th~ C~nter by repayment to each of the
remaml lall~~ ~n amo~nt e I.to t~ef~jor~gmal capItal contnbutlOn plus a rate of return of 5.0.% per
year on 1hettlR mal capItal c IbutlOn da1mg from July I, 1996; and b) In the event the Center IS sold
to any entity d one of participating Cities, the proceeds of the sale shall be allocated and paid
10 each City pro to iginal capital contribution".
Dawson stated with of the changes to the "Shorewood Option" the five cities were in
general agreemen1; the had had not expressed any concerns with the other conditions stipulated in
the draft interim funding agreement prepared by Deephaven.
Mayor Lizee stated the requested changes to the "Shorewood Option" had been discussed by Council for
the first time at the preceding work session.
Councilmember Callies stated she was not in support of having the approval of the 2008-only interim
funding for the Southshore Center being contingent upon changes to the 1996 Cooperative Agreement;
they were two separate issues. The City had previously agreed to the interim funding. The funds that
were being committed to and the uncertainty of the Center did not justify re-negotiating the Agreement.
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
August 27, 2007
Page 9 of 11
She also stated it would be more appropriate to change the Cooperative Agreement at such time that the
on-going funding for the Center changed. At the time the 1996 Cooperative Agreement was entered in to,
it was contemplated that the Agreement would be in existence for 25 years. At that time it was also
known the building would increase in value over that time period. She then stated that from her vantage
point it was opportunistic to require a change to the 1996 Cooperative Agreement agreed to by the five
cities as a condition of interim funding.
Councilmember Wellens stated he agreed with Councilmember Callies. He then stated he was a little
dismayed by the way the requirement was brought to the Council' s ~m~on. All five cities had
previously approved the interim funding, and for Deephaven to link the 's "c1apitulation" to a change
in the contract to Deephaven's approval of the funding was from hisV;~>> I~t. point "unfriendly". Wellens
stated he was open to discussing changes to the Cooperative Agrenw~nt l~i~l~eparate issue, but not as a
condition of the interim funding. He stated he was not in favor oflcnanges to!UiI;l,Cooperative Agreement
'1. 'II '1[111'
at this time. ........ .... .,dllll "I, 'llll!lj',I...
,fhp:C''tqy 'it: >l,11
q:Fq. ,::,".1.1.'.1..
:~i{ ".t:Il,t_,
Councilmember Turgeon stated she disagreed with C9HRfilmemberls Callies and wUllijn~.~,\le clarified
that the five cities had agreed to the concept proposal,f0ij~lfil interim'fN!~ding. She gave 'tt"~Ildlaven credit
for effort and reading the fine print in the Cooperative Agt~; ntmltllful:ding it didn'tjjtiake sense. She
stated she did not think Deephaven's position was a threat, 1~1O she think the City was being taken
advantage of. HUt:\:,
i'HHt-
ii,.'lllm1i
Turgeon then stated she would change it to 1~1l~~nt per year valh~~i~hldihcrease to principal plus 5
percent, or the appraised value, whichever wa ~~;IYH"nq~lfity shouldl~l!6'eive some compensation for
~he I~nd it do~ated to build the Southshore Cen She,~~Ug"Uf,nR~'~li~ellls could be added into the draft
ll1tenm fundll1g a?reementdijffi~~~ed. by Deeph .~~n,jf'She Sta.t,"llreasona~le people could ~ome to
reasonable conclUSIons. ~~'ltlltl;H~tl~hll1k that stattn~that Deepha~en resolutIon should be consIdered as
threatening interim fuqQjl~g was b~\WM<furate. She wA~very respectful of Deephaven's conclusions. She
believed the cities hadlH~+nltkrough ~H~ugh turmoil wiih,~\her agreements, and Deephaven's request was
t "d I b k "'111)1\ HII'IH
no a ea rea er . 'H\l!k AHllll;HH'W'
'11lUlhllP llltll! !IIIIIIIIUIU! I !llll' i
Turgeon w [the ailiij"fll(lent to' ifrell4100perative Agreement specified in the draft interim
funding, ..... ,n sma11'kttll!i~ a v~ry long list; s~e wanted to "get this off the lis: and move
forw~l1(eephaven's reql ..lfor cha~~~~ltb the CooperatIve Agreement was not threatenmg and the
chang ~'I~ymove a ~ery i~~ant ite~!8ut of the agreement; that being if City purcha~~d the building
and then solq, the CIty wou qlnave to' pay a percentage of the proceeds to the other CItIes. She stated
the point had edly been rrt~<lle that the Southshore Center was an asset and everyone should protect
that asset; all the had agr,HCl to move forward with the concept proposal to maintain the asset. From
her vantage point t' 1~~hpU1d not be expected to continue to invest in the building without recouping
some oftheir investme lUI~he stated she would approve the draft interim funding agreement (i.e., which
included changes to thed,'ooperative Agreement) as presented with minor modifications to the 5 per cent
per year valuation increase (it would be changed to principal plus 5 percent or the appraised value
whichever was less) and to include the City receiving compensation for the land it donated.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he agreed with Councilmember Turgeon's comment that there should
be a "cap" on the 5 percent per year valuation increase not to exceed the appraised value and the City
should receive compensation for the land it donated. He then stated from a business perspective,
Deephaven had a chance to renegotiate a deal that it apparently thought was not a good one in hindsight
and it took the opportunity to do that. One should take those opportunities when they appear. He then
stated he could support the draft interim funding agreement with the changes he just mentioned, with the
SHORE WOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
August 27, 2007
Page 10 of 11
knowledge that the issue of the Cooperative Agreement would have to be addressed in the future anyway.
He commented that this issue was not much different than the issue with the South Lake Minnetonka
Police Department discussion (i.e., regarding the Joint Powers Agreement) that went on for a couple of
years. He stated the issue was not going to go away and the City would have to reach an accommodation
of some sort. He then stated he agreed with Councilmember Turgeon's support of the draft interim
funding agreement subject to the changes discussed.
Council member Wellens stated what should be in the contract (e.g., the compensation for land) was not
in there. Councilmember Turgeon stated the interim funding agreement be modified; it did not
have to be accepted for face value. She also stated the interim funding be approved with
conditions.
Callies moved, Wellens seconded, not to
Cooperative Agreement. Motion passed 3/2,
10. ENGINEER1N~rwll.ll~1
A. Propd~k~~ur. Bridg'
t r.r: pt ~. "
'1IIIllI, j
'"_H:lft. ,d
Engineer Landi~jijl~tftte,d the ~1?dfl~1~i from WSB and Associates for inspection of the
Shady Isla~ tllt~hdWnnl~rldgeli~ftl en continue to be inspected annually. He explained the
~;~~;;:~I~f :~~:~::~~~~rry ~ eetion. ~;~~ ;~~~~~~~~:~~~o~eO~r~;o~~~eOa~c~:'~:: and
Mayor Li~>>Jlu~wmented thati~~~ridge the only one in the City.
or ~:~..r: [I "fl i J
till@ i..I', ~ ~ ~t.~
\jyh. '1:,,1
Director Brown \s~~~qRthe bria~b was six years old, and the last inspection indicated the bridge was
structurally sound. H~lft't~ll,~lnpCl that because of vibrations due to plowing it wa.s common for plates and
anchors to come loose; 'tU~1j~\fore, staff re-torqued and check torqued the bolts tWIce each year.
t}f"
fiT
Mayor Lizee stated the topic at hand was the proposal for
Friends, and the Southshore Center working group; funding
2008. After the interim funding was agreed to by the
needs of the communities and building ownership. She
much each city would receive if ownership of the
interim funding would be diminished.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the
not be used for staffing and programming.
the Southshore Center; it could
upon changes to the 1996
dissenting.
Director Brown explained that MnDOT required special certification for bridge inspectors.
Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, accepting the proposal for professional engineering services
for inspection of the Shady Island Bridge with WSB and Associates as submitted. Motion passed
5/0.
11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator & Staff
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
August 27, 2007
Page 11 of 11
Administrator Dawson stated all the necessary documents had been filed with the Minnesota Appellate
Court regarding the suit filed by Ron Johnson against the City.
Administrator Dawson stated he and Associate Attorney MayerOll had met with Pastor Nyambu last week
regarding the damages to the City-owned house. He expected the City would receive a proposal from
Pastor Nyambu in the next few weeks.
Director Brown stated the light for Park Lane had been ordered, but Xcel Energy was not able to install it
as of yet due to its commitments to solve problems resulting from recent
Administrator Dawson explained that the
the County Road 19 project. It was
identified before the project was closed in order
the City.
for Lake Linden Drive. He
had recently been
out as soon as school
be conducted in the
He stated traffic
'Ili~n.c'
1llIIWY
He anticj~tited the cost to
em ail Council the repair and
Director Brown stated a traffic study had been order for Park
explained the City had ordered traffic counters for those
calibrated (which took longer than expected) and the
resumed (to get a more accurate count). He commented
spring at Park Lake to assess the traffic flow when the
counts would also be conducted around the City to
Director Brown stated one pump was failing at the
repair or replace the pump would be $6,000 - $7,000. He
replacement comparison costs.
awaiting the closeout of
assigned to Tonka Bay be
Hennepin County rather than
design of the median installed at the LRT and
of the shoulder. He stated he thought
the upcoming snow plow season had ended.
clear signage stating traffic did not stop for
meeting of the LMCC which he recently attended.
12.
Wellens moved,
2007, at 8:22 P.M.
Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of August 27,
passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Christine Lizee, Mayor
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
PARK COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2007
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:00 PM
MINUTES
Mayor Lizee stated
commitment to future needs
Commission;~.
'1111
Ill'
Park C mission Chair e,past couple of years the Park Commission had focused on
progll8' activities. It .Iget residents to support park renovations and maintenance
issues. In st year the Co cided to scale back Music in the Park to one main activity (Big
Walter) and ressivelyad 'ise for that event. The Commission also focused on a few activities for
children that dl .. require f".. ing from the City. The Commission had requested a proposal from
Minnetonka Comt~1)y) Educ4pion (MCE) for activities for 2008 at Freeman Park and Manor Park. The
City. had received a p~~~t....R~fifrom ~rd Lair to coordinate a two-day skateboard camp for October 2007
and It would conduct an~~ier camp m 2008.
-r? ~
A.
Roll Call
1. CONVENE JOINT COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION
Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
Present:
Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers
Dawson; and Director of Public
Absent:
Commissioners Alegi,
B.
Review Agenda
Motion passed 5/0.
2.
and she appreciated the Commission's
Park Commission Chair Davis to review Park
Chair Davis then stated the Commission distributed a questionnaire to the neighboring residents of
Manor Park and Silverwood Park (those within 500 feet of the parks) asking the residents what types of
programs and repairs they would like to have at those parks. The Commission was pleased with the
number of responses it received.
Commissioner Norman stated MCE had planned for one T-ball group and a second was added because of
high demand. The attendance at the 3rd Lair skate board camp exceeded expectations, especially when
one considered the participants paid $160 to attend the camp.
1#2D I
CITY OF SHOREWOOD JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION MEETING
August 28, 2007
Page 2 of 4
Chair Davis stated the MCE representative would share the attendees' evaluations of the past summer
MCE activities with the Commission. Director Brown stated 3rd Lair had been asked for participant
feedback on the camp as well. Commissioner Trent commented the Commission also wanted
demographic information from 3rd Lair.
Commissioner Norman stated the Commission wanted to propose a skateboard camp for intermediate
skateboarders to entice the 2007 participants to take part in the camp. He explained that the Commission
paid an up-front deposit for the 3rd Lair camp; the entire deposit, plus a little more, was recouped
because of the attendance level. Norman stated the skateboard equipment JiI~~ICity had was entry level;
i%C"""f!:
the Commission would have to be sensitive to the impact on the resid ~s}if tli~ equipment were to be
expanded. Director Brown stated the City had a mixture of three- and ;tll ot equipment, and the oldest
,;: !: :" ''', ~.
equipment would probably have to be replaced in two years. Bro~nl~o' <<\~d that the second group of
equipment was much better than the original equipment. He als9dt#mente j\.t~~~lthanhassen replaced its
equipment every five years. Commissioner Trent commente,~I~M~II~llir thoughtl~~ijl~ity's equipment was
more than adequate to conduct a quality skateboard Cam~if!Cliair Davis stated the!~: had a relatively
high teacher-to-student ratio, and the camp was primarijMIWarketed q!l 3rd Lair's weB
J~.~.~.1Iiil!l.~'.11:._ .t~.I~.
Director Brown stated tennis courts and parking w~re i~!ij~~!~t I;\~J~~h1ark. Tennis were very
costly to reconstruct and maintain. Although those tennis couti,lkiWe used more heavily than other courts
in the City, the Commission was trying to Q~t~~mine if those col1Htl~1 re used enough to warrant the cost
to reconstruct them. He commented that the\l~iml ad made a recent ificant investment in lighting for
the Badger Park football field. He also cotiUW e City had ~i}jy,q1j' a request to research the
"''',: .i":":,:.,,:"
feasibility of installing a walking path arounllll, ihlr,. stated th:~lltommission was considering
retaining the services of an outside firm to assesSli{ B .~~~.t4, ~iJverwood Park were being utilized
effectively and t? their full,~n"!tfit~. Chair Davi~I'fl ~ecall~ !ihe pr?ximity of Badger Park, City
Hall and the Clty-owne~II}ifOtl'S~~!llq~t area couldl!! e vIewed s the CIty'S campus; therefore, the
Commission thought ,~fi"~er Par~q~nRuld be consiqfred as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmembe~ Callit!~\jstijfh~,she th~Hght it was poss'~~\lll~o have cost-effective parks and buildings that
could be esthetIcally pleaSll'Filnnd refl~G1~y,Q\~hat the CI1!YFwas about.
'. t II~.~. I ~'.::: 1 f ~Tl! 1:11f~!j:!!l~.~. ~~. t i~,... ,'_: ,. " __:_.f ,;_\J
Mayor LiZ~~II~t~tU~m';~e~dIIJ~I~ils ';~~~!~Uml~~Pconsider each of the City's parks individually to
determill dfthey wer~gllltilizeH.IWft\ectively and to their full capacity, and to identify what the future
needs.!l~tl! ch park were. 1i~~.'.lh.'p..ampu~t1~.'!>>~falso be addressed to ensure it created the image the City
r,>.f~h{djkLUi~Ji
wanted t 'i ray. '1lllhHll
1,11. III!!. f'
i~:~!~'. . 1!i_~ n
Director BrowHIH~~ Chair Dav~ti~oth stated the Lacrosse Association was cooperative and easy to work
with. Brown statij<< e Asso~i~tion was denied its request for permanent fencing. He then stated
participation in Lac\i~~fllgrowing rapidly, and the City would not have enough space to satisfy the
growing demand. 'III!!'
if
Brown commented that Community Rec Resources did an outstanding job resolving issues with the
various athletic associations that used the City's facilities. He also commented that the City had a Park
Priority Policy that allowed for new organizations to compete for the use of City park space.
Chair Davis stated that Tonka Bay would be involved in the 2008 Arctic Fever event staff and funding.
She commented rescue dog, sleigh ride, and musher events were some of the events that had already been
committed to for Freeman Park. She stated that Carver County Parks would put information about the
event on its website.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION MEETING
August 28, 2007
Page 3 of 4
Director Brown explained based on a situation that occurred with the Twin City Curling Association, the
Commission became convinced it was important to have up-front signed agreements between the event
participants and the City. He questioned if Council was willing to expose the City to the possibility of
liability issues that could result from accidents that could happen at the event; not all event participants
have liability insurance. Councilmember Callies commented there was liability associated with any
event.
Mayor Lizee asked the Commission to draft a budget for the Arctic Fe~~Jt.!~yent and present that to
~'>''"'''l
Council. Chair Davis stated Commissioner Norman had prepared a drafitl!Hudge~ which reflected some
doll'
funds for advertising for each sponsor. Davis stated an advertising ~~~qlknd also been prepared for the
event. Norman stated without including the cost for fireworks, the~~f~limi'F1l~~l~udget reflected a $4,000 -
$5,000 cost for operational expenses, some advertising, securinglijyent pJ~qJ nts, for Freeman Park
activities. Davis stated they had not determined what fund~ll\~lffi~~ltl) be requ~l ,from the City as all
planning had not been done. Davis explained the Coml11WSion was considering ,;iIl~sport Artie Fund
event to raise funds. Director Brown stated the Citjll~+~d $135 tor the 2007 Arb~~~I~t~7r event, in
additi~n to the time donated by office staff. ?~rect<i>~IRl~ftllW,statedI1fltas important 't~~l!H'contractual
comm.ltment b~ m~de to secure the event partIcIpants. CO~~Hlfm-~m~el"~ell~n~ stated ~J~ wou~d support
the CIty contnbutmg $2,000 - $3,000 for the 2008 Arctlc E~"111r Mayor Llzee stated the CIty should
support. the event; and she. hoped Green~m~,d would also StiP~~nll~he event as they City had been
supportIve of other commul1lty events. '1IIIlIII'Il ..'illlllk
'I!\'!illll!l!l;'; ..,. 11I!lllll,!,1
Director Brown stated the Commission had aS~lf?'jSt~IfiUf~I~Rnduct a s~tP~~ to determine what the park
dedication fees were for cities of similar size to t~~Ci~;'lild1~~~ ~omment that that Deephaven's fee
was 10 percent of the 10t.~aSouncilmembe~II~~llens su. a the fee be abolished, and parks
funding be included in thFl~~d, d Budget; H~~did not thin it would be fair to charge owners of
newly developed proB~~H~s signifi: t1y more tha1~; previous developers had paid. Councilmember
Callies stated parks,",~~ejlithameni' f the City andiIR~~~ dedications fees were a funding source the
Legislature allowed. Commi"~i~re ~.~tated th)IWommission viewed the park dedication fees as
funds to hel~.~itRI~R~~~,~truciOl~tlll;. . :~~U ft1f~e. there was little land remaining to be developed,
another fU~RltlglsiJJijn't~m8rded tal) dentlfied. hUl1lstrator Dawson commented that the current park
de~ica...ti~{l...lree had beeTfl~ui'.I.;.~.j.? fi..or lot since 2001. Councilmember Woodruff stated the fees could
be 1l1,1nf~~lG,to $3,000, andlt~ntf coul rest.
'lUllL IVI
Director Brtl:;' stated the Cit)\-; user i pact fee was $10 per player per season, and that rate had not
changed for a . The fee w controversial and at times difficult to collect. The City was one of the
few cities that c that ty of fee. There were times that sports organizations increased their fees,
and explained it wa Wfl e City increasing its user impact fee (which was not true). Administrator
Dawson commented tme cities charge a team or league fee. Mayor Lizee stated the City was very
forthright when it firstl arted to charge the user impact fee; there was resistance at first, but once
individuals understood the need the resistance lessened. Brown stated he would research the funds raised
from the fees, and identify the costs to maintain the athletic facilities.
Director Brown stated the City had partnered with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD),
the Metropolitan Council, and the Department of Natural Resources on the Gideon Glen wetland
restoration / water quality demonstration project. A maintenance program had been implemented to
assess how the plantings in the wetland area were responding. Brown stated at some time the topic of
long-term maintenance for the area must be addressed. Administrator Dawson stated educational signage
CITY OF SHOREWOOD JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PARK COMMISSION MEETING
August 28, 2007
Page 4 of 4
for the area would be installed in the near future; and the MCWD would conduct an opening later in the
fall. Mayor Lizee stated the MCWD had reviewed the types of things that had been planted with Council
in October 2006. Councilmember Woodruff suggested the City publish something in the Shore Report
about Gideon Glen.
Director Brown stated the Park Commission had asked Staff to estimate the maintenance costs for the
parks and recreational facilities for the next 10 years; the costs were astronomical. He commented the
Badger Park hockey field lighting would need to be replaced. Administrator Dawson there was a
continued revenue stream into the Park Improvement Fund in addition to fees.
Turgeon moved,
Meeting of August
a commitment to obtaining
She suggested the City
goals and priorities
if the City's
with survey
Mayor Lizee stated that what she heard at this meeting was
residents' feedback regarding the potential uses and needs of
conduct a City-wide survey to obtain that feedback; the
and it was important for government to get that feedback.
website allowed for comments from the residents; and
efforts. Administrator Dawson commented that some
Mayor Lizee thanked the Councilmembers and
meeting was beneficial.
3. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
4. ADJOURN
Joint City Council and Park Commission
5/0.
Christine Lizee, Mayor
PAYABLESAPPROVALS
For 09/10/2007 Council Meeting
preparedbH~kC/--f~~ Date: 9/6;;7
Michelle T. Nguy:en, Sr. Accounting Clerk
Reviewed by: ~~ Date: gtj ~b/a
w r
Bonnie Bur
Approved by:
Crai
Date:
wson, City Administrator
A
PAYROLL APPROVALS
For 09/10/2007 Council Meeting
Lt2~C ~ . till/n
Prepared by:7v/ ../...t.! / /~le/q1~ Date: ~{I I
Michelle T. Nguye " S~Accounting Clerk
4u~~JL- Date: OC;~t7/o7
Approved by:
Crai
Date:
wson, City Administrator
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128' www.ci.shorewood.mn.us . cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
Date:
September 6,2007
To:
Mayor and City Council Members
Don Swandby, Liquor Operations Director ~~J./
Bonnie Burton, Finance Director/Treasurer '
From:
Re:
Liquor Staffing Recommendation
cc:
Craig Dawson, City Administrator
There continues to be a shortage of part-time employees to fill available hours at the municipal
liquor stores. Therefore, 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. John McMahon
for the position 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.
....
f: t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
....
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128' www.ci.shorewood.mn.us . cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CC:
September 6,2007
Mayor and City Council Members
Craig Dawson, City Administrator If'"
Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk V Y
Bonnie Burton, Finance Director
Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
Fee Schedule Amendments
RE:
Fees that residents pay to the City for licenses, permits, service charges and miscellaneous fees
are determined from time to time by the Shorewood City Council. The attached Ordinance sets
the fees noted below.
Staff is in the process of conducting a full analysis of water meter fees, given our radio-read
meter installation project. However, the fee schedule must be modified at this time to reflect
current interim pricing. Any further price changes will be presented for consideration at a future
council meeting.
TYPE OF CITY CODE CURRENT NEW
CHARGE/FEE REFERENCE FEE FEE
III. UTILITY RA TES - Water
Water meter
5/8" x 3/4" meter (with touch pad) 903.03.1 b(2) $105 $250
3/4" copperhorn for 5/8" meter $40 $55
Touch pad only $15 $15
1 " meter $180 $360
1" copperhorn and connections $55 $100
1" pressure-reducing valve $55 $55
1 1 /2" meter (with flanges) 903.03.1b(2) Cost plus 10% Cost plus 10%
2" meter (with flanges) 903.03.1 b(2) Cost plus 10% Cost plus 10%
1 1/2" pressure-reducing valve Cost plus 10% Cost plus 10%
2" pressure-reducing valve Cost plus 10% Cost plus 10%
Late meter reading fee 903.08.6 $5 $5
Meter test 903.08.4 $80 $80
Council Action
Approval of an Ordinance setting License, Permit, Service Charges and Miscellaneous Fees
....
f: t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
...
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TITLED
"LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES"
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 1301.02 of the Shorewood Code of Ordinances is hereby amended as
follows:
Schedule A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES
AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES
TYPE OF
CHARGEIFEE
CITY CODE
REFERENCE
CHARGEIFEE
III. UTILITY RATES
Water
Water meter
5/8" x 3/4" meter (with touch 903.03.1 b(2) $250
pad)
3/4" copperhorn for 5/8"
meter $55
Touch pad only $15
1 " meter $360
1" copperhorn and connections $100
1" pressure-reducing valve $55
1 1/2" meter (with flanges) 903.03.1 b(2) Cost plus 10%
2" meter (with flanges) 903.03.1 b(2) Cost plus 10%
1 1/2" pressure-reducing valve Cost plus 10%
2" pressure-reducing valve Cost plus 10%
Late meter reading fee 903.08.6 $5
Meter test 903.08.4 $80
Section 2. This ordinance is effective the date following its publication.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota
this 10th day of September, 2007.
ATTEST:
Christine Lizee, Mayor
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128' www.ci.shorewood.mn.us . cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator
DATE: September 6, 2007
SUBJECT: #9A - Approval of Amendments to LMCC Joint Powers Agreement
#9B - Approval of2008 LMCC Budget
Sally Koenecke, Executive Director of the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC),
and Patrick Hodapp, one of Shore wood's two representatives on the LMCC Board, will be present for
the Council meeting to present these items.
9A Amendments to the Joint Powers Agreement. The Board is proposing two amendments to the
JP A. One redefines the quorum, as the number of member cities has grown since the adoption of the
JP A. The other relates to what constitutes approval of the proposed budget. Currently, a majority of
the cities must approve the budget within 30 days of receiving it. The proposed change would have
the budget deemed approved unless a majority of the member cities rejected it within 45 days of
receipt of the proposed budget.
9B 2008 Proposed Budget. As in past years, revenue for the LMCC budget is derived on franchise
fees and PEG (public, educational, and governmental) access fees, and interest on investments. No
revenues are received from member cities. Operating expenses for 2008 are projected to be
$511,106, or 8.8 percent greater than the $469,737 approved for 2007. Most of the increase results in
personnel costs, particularly for access studio production. The proposed budget also proposes
$57,190 in the capital budget, with the major areas being an upgrade of the LAN (local area
network); upgrades in the control room, primarily to complete the conversion from VHS to DVD;
and miscellaneous items. Additionally, the budget shows a 10 percent contingency for the operating
and capital budgets in the LMCC fund balance for purposes of projecting a year-end 2008 balance of
$308,651.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
It is recommended that the Council approve (A) the proposed amendments to the LMCC joint
powers agreement; and (B) the proposed 2008 LMCC Budget.
....
f: t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
...
# 9A
#- i
iL
LAKE MINNETONI<A
DEEPHAVEN
EXCELSIOR
GREENWOOD
INDEPENDENCE
LONG LAI<E
LORETTO
MAPLE PLAIN
MEDINA
MINNETONI<A
BEACH
MINNETRISTA
ORONO
ST. BONIFACIUS
SHOREWOOD
SPRING PARI<
TONI<A BAY
VICTORIA
WOODLAND
4071 SUNSET DRIVE. PO. BOX 385 II SPRING PARK, MN 55384-0385 · 952.471-7125 · FAX 952. 4?J
August 23, 2007
Mayor and City Council Members
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Approval of LMCC Budget and Joint Powers Agreement Amendments
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
The LMCC has enclosed some amendments to the Joint Powers Agreement that it needs
city member approval of to put into effect. The LMCC would ask that your city review
and consider for approval these amendments at the same meeting the LMCC 2008
Budget is considered. The Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC)
passed the enclosed budget for 2008, at its last full LMCC meeting on August 21,2007.
This budget is not funded with tax dollars, but rather a cable company franchise fee paid
annually to the LMCC. We are also receiving a PEG (public, educational,
governmental) access fee for community use ofthe production studio.
I am submitting the budget to all city members of the LMCC for review and approval
according to our Joint Powers Agreement. Either a Commission member or I would
like to attend your council meeting in September or October and answer any questions
you may have regarding the budget.
If you would like me to attend your council meeting to answer any questions please let
me know the date and time of the meeting or the time I would be on the agenda. If not
please let the LMCC know the results of your actions. The LMCC needs approval of
the majority of the cities to proceed with the proposed budget.
Sincerely,
LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
/1
/dtt{~1
Sally Ko'enecke
Executive Director
u?
Enclosure
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS - LMCC
Red signifies current language
Italicized and underlined phrases are the proposed changes.
p. 4 VII. Section 5. Voting Quorum
No business shall be performed unless a majority of the votes of the directors present and voting at
a Commission meeting vote in the affirmative, or unless a majority of the Executive Committee
vote in the affirmative at a meeting. The presence of seveB: (7) mcmbcfs .. . commissioners from a
maiority of member cities shall constitute a quorum of the Commission and a majority of those
appointed shall constitute a quorum for a meeting of the Executive Committee, but a smaller
number may adjourn from time to time.
p. 7 IX. Section 3. Annual Budget Process
A proposed budget the ensuing calendar year shall be formulated by the Commission on or before
August 15.. .August 31 of each year and the [mal adoption of a budget for the ensuing calendar year
shall be made by the Commission at its ar...nual mceting in September... by September 30.
Within fifteen (15) days after final adoption, the Commission Secretary shall send the budget to
each member for review and approval. That budget shall be effective 6iilrifitpprovedbya
majority of tne members withiH{30) days after its receipt ~... unless reiected by a maiority of
the members within 45 days after its receipt by them.
Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission
Year 2008 Budget
The Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission is not funded by tax dollars and its operating
budget is derived from cable franchise fees and PEG fees to cable subscribers.
The Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission maintains a fund balance as a reserve to
maintain operations if unforeseeable funding losses should occur. These could include lowered
franchise revenue, legislation resulting in reduced funding, or other revenue losses. The LMCC has
some financial obligations, such as a building rental contract, that would have to be accounted for
even if the legislature eliminated franchise funding. The LMCC studio and offices are located at
4071 Sunset Drive in Spring Park.
The following is a summary of the budget considerations made by the 2008 Budget
Committee:
The 2008 Budget Committee is maintaining staff and service budget considerations made in 2006
and 2007 due to the favorable reception to video streaming and improvement of our programming
efforts. The LMCC has maintained its budgeted balance fOf the first seven months of 2007. The
LMCC continues to provide excellent service to area residents with its programming and streaming
services. The streaming service, begun in 2006, continues to exhibit growth in the numbers of
residents accessing the "on demand" city council meetings. The LMCC raised the PEG fee this
year from $.50 to $.85 for the ftrst time since 1983. The LMCC staff produced a promotional video
about the LMCC's PEG services to educate the community on the value oflocal public, educational
and governmental programming. This promotional video can be viewed on our website, was aired
on Channel 12 and was recognized with an NFLCP government programming award. The LMCC
earned three national awards this year for excellence in community programming. Other
programming for and with the cities includes public safety programming, city events and festivals,
state of the city addresses, Tonka Report with city administrators, candidate forums, community
development programs, school district and non-profit organizational programming. The LMCC
continues to resolve cable subscriber complaints and monitors the franchise agreement with
Mediacom.
The budget is proportioned into three categories, Franchise, Studio and Capital:
Franchise Administration Fund
This fund is supported entirely by franchise fees and interest on investments. Activities accounted
for in this fund are related to the oversight responsibility of the Commission representing the
member cities' interest in the cable operators compliance with the franchise agreement. This fund
also supports the complaint process and resolution of subscriber complaints reported to the LMCC.
The LMCC also represents its member cities by monitoring and participating in the legislative
activities at the state and federal levels.
Studio! Access Production Fund
This fund is to account for all government, educational and public access programming activities.
Expenses cover staff time and all operating costs of assisting residents and institutions in producing
video presentations to be played back over the local public access channels 8, 12,20 and 21. It also
covers the cost of streaming city council meetings and developing the LMCC interactive website.
Revenues for this fund are derived from interest on investments, PEG fees from our cable
subscribers, a portion of the franchise fees, and additional charges to entities outside of our
franchise area (Mound) who have a need to access the public access channels. The Wayzata
Schools are providing the programming function for Channel 19 and have included all the school
districts in the LMCC service area in their programming.
Capital Improvement Fund
The Capital Improvement Fund supports the acquisition of new equipment and the need for
replacement of equipment and leasehold improvements presently existing. A listing of proposed
equipment is included. The equipment list is projected, as pricing may have changed prior to the
time of purchase. Purchases are subject to approval by the commission and may change if
technology dictates better options. This year capital purchases reflect the need to replace
equipment in the production control rooms due to obsolescence of videotape technology. The new
format is digital and the LMCC currently has analogue equipment in its control rooms. There is
also a five-year plan attached to the 2008 Proposed Budget.
Submitted by: Sally Koenecke, LMCC Executive Director
Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission
2008 Proposed. Budget
Franchise Studio Total
Administration Production All Funds
Revenues
Franchise Fees 145,000 238,715 383,715
PEG Fees 108,804 108,804
Mound Usage Fees 43,260 43,260
Studio Rental Dub Fees 4,000 4,000
Interest 10,380 10,380
Insurance Refund 1,000 1,000
Proiected. Total Revenue 145,000 406,159 551,159
ProiectecJ Total Ooeratin2 Exoenses 144,681 366,425 511,106
Capital Bud2et
Unspent Capital Funds from 2006/2007 17,141
Revenues minus expenses 2008 ~
57,194
Proposed 2008 Capital Budget ~
0
Projected 2008 Beginning Fund Balance 363,766
Projected 2008 Revenues 551,159
914,925
Projected 2008 Operating Expenses 511,106
Fund Balance Before Capital 403,819
Capital Proposal minus 2006/2007 Funds 40,053
Projected 2008 Ending Fund Balance 363,766
10% Percentage Contingency 55.115
Fund Balance After Contingency 308,651
Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission
2008 Proposed Budget
Franchise Administration
Expenses
2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2008
Adopted Actual Proposed 6 Mo. Act. Projected Proposed
Personal Services
10 1 Salaried Full-time 37,440 39,313 39,330 21,042 42,084 42,084
103 Salaried Part-time 19,090 17,920 18,750 9,918 19,836 20,629
121 Pera Cont. 3,392 4,544 3,630 2,115 4,230 4,300
122 FICA Cont 4,325 5,244 4,445 2,828 5,656 6,136
131 Health Insurance 11,700 13,978 11,602 4,613 9,226 10,707
151 Workers Compo Insurance 370 489 500 483 483 500
Total Personal Services 76,317 81,488 78.257 40,999 81,515 84,356
~
200 Office Supplies 1,780 1,445 1,000 407 1,450 1,250
210 Special EventslMeetings 575 1,116 450 256 500 480
220 Repair & Maint Supplies 730 852 500 0 0 400
Total Supplies j,085 3,413 1,950 663 1950 2130
Professional Serviees
301 Accounting/Audit Fees 3,650 1,643 3,750 1,550 10,274 5,868
304 Legal Fees 2,500 2,158 2,250 1,011 2,250 2,250
314 Payroll Services 980 935 610 299 610 646
318 Janitorial Services 2,600 1,395 1,293 557 1.293 1,300
319 Security Services 550 440 450 231 450 470
325 Computer/Consulting 1,050 0 1,800 449 1,200 1,800
326 Training 0 500 185 500 500
Total Professional Services 11,330 6,571 10,65~ 4,282 16,5n 12,833
Other Services and Cbal'1!es
309 Copier Expense 2,366 2,870 1,373 2,870 2,900
321 Telephone/Communications 2,340 3,608 892 358 892 1,050
322 Postage 1,350 1,141 1,200 662 1.200 1,300
331 Travel School & Conference 9,000 9,918 9,000 446 9,000 9,000
332 Mileage 1,250 877 1,000 164 600 600
350 Printing and Publishing 2,200 1,114 2,040 215 2,040 2,040
360 Insurance 3,200 3,494 1,890 2,219 2,219 2,250
380 Utilities 3,900 3,969 5,030 1,877 4,500 4,275
384 Refuse & Recycling Collection 320 300 350 96 250 300
401 Contracted Building Repair 1,000 1,103 1,500 365 1,000 1,500
404 Maim. Repair Equip. 1,000 3,784 1,000 113 1,000 750
412 Building Rent 10,458 10,548 10,752 5,352 10,752 10,755
413 Equipment Rental 5,000 531 750 20 300 500
433 Dues & Subscriptions 3,000 3,051 1,905 1,805 1,805 1,900
438 Property Taxes 2,200 2,098 2,193 1,278 2,556 2,442
439 Contingency 1,500 419 1,225 1,162 1,225 2,300
440 Advertising 0 0 300 0 109 300
395 Bank Fmllllce fee 0 III 0 0 0 0
443 Licenses 0 0 0 191 191 200
Total Other Charges 47,718 48,432 43,897 17,696 42,509 44,362
Caoltal Outlav
599 Leasehold Improvements 300 0 500 2,098 2.098 1,000
Total EXPenditures 138,750 139,904 135,257 65,738 144,649 144,681
Franebise Comoliance Enforcement
49855 Cable Operator Audit
o
o
o
o
o
Lake Minnetonka Communiaations Commission
2008 Proposed Budget
Access Studio Productioq
Expenses
2006 2006 2,007 2007 2007 2008
Adopted Actual Proposed 6 Mo. Act. Projected Proposed
PersomU Services
101 Salaried Full-time 111,000 140,532 146,920 75,690 151,380 161,2&4
103 Hourly Part-time 22,113 15,292 11,440 9,530 16,000 23,400
121 Pern Cont. 7,986 8,677 9,897 4,936 9,897 10,391
122 FICA Cont. 10,183 11,235 12,114 6,060 12,114 13,657
131 Health Insurance 9,800 12,331 19,773 7,854 15,708 18,232
151 Workers Compo Insurance 500 635 600 628 628 650
Total Personal SlllVices 161,582 188,702 200,744 104,698 205,727 227,594
S1l\>tllies
200 Office Supplies 350 269 1,000 407 900 1,100
210 Special EventsIMeetings 700 2,605 1,050 597 1,050 1,100
220 Repair & Maint. Supplies 900 1,383 500 0 250 400
225 Studio Expendables 4,000 2,996 4,000 1,537 3,500 3,500
Total Supplies 5,950 7,253 6,550 2,541 5,700 6,100
ProfessiomU SlllVices
301 Acet. Fees 3,800 1,592 3,750 1,550 3,750 5,868
302 Access Contractors 21,500 21,506 22,575 11,756 23,500 23,750
304 Legal Fees 2,400 971 2,250 455 1,750 1,750
314 Payroll SlllVices 990 934 1,425 755 1,425 1,500
318 Janitorial SlllVices 2,300 1,224 3,017 1,299 2,750 3,000
319 Security SlllVices 550 314 450 231 450 470
325 Consulting-computer 2,700 7,522 4,200 1,047 3,000 4,200
310 Training 1,000 185 300 1,000
Total ProfessiomU Services 34,240 34,063 38,667 17,278 36,925 41,538
Other Services and Charges
309 Copier Expense 2,630 2,870 1,373 2,870 2,900
321 Telephone/Communicat 2,000 3,054 2,082 1,337 2,600 2,450
322 Postage 1,400 1,141 1,200 662 1,200 1,300
331 Travel School & Conference 3,300 3,790 4,500 1,801 4,500 4,500
332 Mileage 500 968 1,000 236 1,000 900
350 Printing and Publishing 5,000 2,678 2,040 215 2,040 2,040
360 Insurance 3,200 3,305 4,419 5,177 5,177 5,250
380 Utilities 7,000 7,938 11,730 4,380 9,500 9,975
384 Refuse & Recycling Collection 270 301 350 96 300 300
401 Contracted Building Repair 750 1,103 1,500 365 1,250 1,500
404 Maint. Repair Equip. 3,000 6,012 4,000 1,991 4,000 4,100
412 Building Rent 30,986 31,480 32,255 15,845 31,690 32,267
413 Equipment Rental 1,500 713 750 143 500 500
433 Dues & Subscriptions 550 460 1,905 1,806 1,805 1,800
438 Property Taxes 6,650 6,776 6,579 3,835 7,670 7,326
439 Contingency 1,000 487 1,225 1,162 1,225 1,300
440 Advertising 311 300 530 530 300
441 Van Operation 400 1,687 1,500 256 1,250 1,300
442 WebstrelUllinglBroadband 7,414 5,565 7,414 10,585
443 Licenses 900 192 400 600
Total Other Charges 67,506 74,834 88,519 46,966 86,921 91,193
Total Expenditures 269,278 304,852 334,480 173,581 335,273 366,425
Leasebold Imorovemeot8 $2,098 $2,098
-
Q)
OJ
1:l
::J
co
o
-
'0..
CI1
()
CO
o
o
C\J
()
()
:2:
-l
1:l
Q)
(J)
o
0..
o
L-
0..
Ui
o
o
Ci3
"0
I-
~
I-
01.01.001.0
LO,,!,,!LO'<!'
C\i,.-,.-cx:icx:i
<OC')C')COC')
<OC') C') 0,.-
C\J"" T-" ~ C1'i
01.01.001.0
LO,,!,,!LO'<!'
C\i,.-,.-cx:icx:i
<0 COCO CO
~~~~~
~
o
o
00000
00000
c:ic:ic:ic:ic:i
OLOLOOC')
LOC\!C\!O'l,.-
C\I~ -r-~ ~ C\I""
~
1:: ".
ell ".
Q...
-:Q'::Q'
.o<!:l<!:l
<!:l00
g~~:c
~I-I-<!:l
'Coog
"",------01.
~IDm-
't5 s: s: (J)
ell 0 0 Q...
o::I-I-X
::::> c: 'c
~~
c:
.2
10
~Q)"i5Q)
000
L:
~
:::l
t5
ell
~;;
c: 1.0
ellC\!
~~
05
2: z
Q) Q) c: ::5
Q){J):::lQ)(J)
c:-g~{J)~~.2
.2 0, '5 0 .2 0 ....Q)
.....o.o.'+-~....
.g-::::> E 05 05 .2 ~
iJl 0>8'5 '5 0.0::
Q).!: 0. 0..8 (J)
o .:: c: E E 0. (J)
5000ellQ)
Eoo....J~
~ 5
o
.i-,.-
o
'3
f
C')O'<!'C\!OC\!LO
CO<O'<tO'l'<t(l')(l')
05..,fcrjcrjcrjC\ic:i
,.-O'l,.-(l')CO <OO'l
<0 co <O,.-(l') 1.0,.-
~~~~~~r-:
1.0
~
(l')0'<tt'--0C\!-'-"
co <O'<t,.-'<!'C') ell
r--:..,fr--:cx:icrj..,f"O
(l')LO(l')~c\!(l')1-
~~~ ~~
0001.000
ooot'--oo
C\ic:icciLcic:icx:i
co'<tt'--C\!<OC\!
LOCOLO,.-(l')LO
~~~~~~
<!:l
<(
co
Oco
~~~~
6~~~
~ ~
~
....J
X
05
'5
o
0::
Z
en
(f)
Q)
Q)~
05
z
o
o
~
a:
5
Q) Q) Q)
> > >
'w .... 'w 'w
E c: Q) c: c:
o~g>~~
Ui ~ 'ffi ~ ~
80.....0.0.
E <!:l E E
8 88
(J) (f) (f)
Q) Q) Q)
:OQ):O:O
c3[3c3c3
o:::r: 0:: a:
....JUi....J....J
X:::lXX
o ell 0 0
.....,~............
5w 0:: a:
x - ....J....J
b~~~
o cr5K1
01.0
LOC\!
I I
lLlL
....J....J
xx
~~
....J....J
xx
I"-
Q
CO
,....
--..
l"-
e
o
1:l
Q)
1U
Q)
o
C\!'<t
,.-c\!
c:
ctl
-
a..
CD
o
C')
o
CO
o
><- '~'fj~~:;; (f)
o ,;0 (j)
R "9. cD
.0 to LD
~ ~Ki LD_
,. -~,,~ C\I
SS~f6 CD
{;I7;Yt DJ
..c
u
Cll
W
:t-
ea
Q)
>
Lt')
CO
o
o
C\I
t.:
OJ
l-
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128' www.ci.shorewood.mn.us . cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Craig Dawson, City Administrator ~
Bonnie Burton, Finance Director/Treasurer
TO:
DATE:
September 1, 2007
SUBJECT:
2008 Proposed General Fund Operating Budget
INTRODUCTION
We pleased to present the 2008 Proposed General Fund Operating Budget for your review and
approval. The proposed budget and levy for Pay2008 must be certified to Hennepin County by
September 15, 2007.
This budget is the result of Council and staff work-sessions on June 25th, August 6th, 20th, and
27th, 2007. During the work-sessions, Council and Staff reviewed closely all aspects of the
preliminary 2008 General Fund Budget. Council also discussed implementing a General Fund
Reserve Policy in conjunction with using some General Fund reserves for capital improvements.
2008 GENERAL FUND BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS
. Levy Limits: There are no levy limit restrictions in place for 2008.
. 2008 Tax Levy: The 2008 draft budget contemplates a tax levy of $4,806,995. This is an
increase of 9.34% from the 2007 tax levy of $4,396,308.
....
f: t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
...
2008 Proposed General Fund Operating Budget
Page 2
. License & Permit Revenue: Other revenues (fees, licenses, permits) are generally
expected to remain stable. Building permit revenue is expected to decrease due to the
City being substantially developed and a quiet housing market, currently.
. Use of Reserves: The draft budget also proposes the use of $100,000 in General Fund
reserves, in addition to tax revenue and fee revenue. This use of reserves should result
in an anticipated General Fund balance of $3.18 million, or approximately 57% of 2008
expenditures and transfers. This percentage is on target with the proposed General
Fund Balance Policy discussed by the City Council.
. Transfers to Capital Funds: Transfers to Capital improvements funds are programmed
at $970,000 for 2008, an increase of $300,000 from 2007. The increase is to the Street
Reconstruction fund to provide for sealcoating and street' slurry' projects. These
transfers are important to provide funding for projects and purchases that will enhance
productivity and effectiveness.
Equipment Replacement
Street Reconstruction
Park Capital Improvement
Public Facilities
Land & Open Space
Sewer Fund
Stormwater Management
2007
175,000
345,000
10,000
50,000
5,000
60,000
25,000
$670,000
2008
175,000
645,000
15,000
50,000
o
60,000
25,000
$970,000
. Key 2008 General Fund Expenditures: Total 2008 expenditures, not including capital
transfers, are programmed at $4,544,145, or approximately 1.8% more than 2007
expenditures of $4A60,958. Key expenditures are:
· Public Works building addition, the remaining estimated construction costs
($170,000).
. Salary and insurance adjustments reviewed by the Councit including $20,000 for
employee merit increases;
· Interim funding for Friends of the South Shore Center ($21,300).
. Staffing Levels: No staffing additions are contemplated; a Y2-time position in the
Finance department has been removed from the 2008 budget.
2008 Proposed General Fund Operating Budget
Page 3
. Shorewood Tax Base: We received some preliminary information from Hennepin
County on the estimated market values and tax capacity. It indicates that the City's tax
base would increase approximately 9 percent for Pay2008 taxes.
. Public Safety: Police and fire services are major components of the budget, and total
approximately $1.734 million in 2008.
For police, the City Council has approved the level of funding for 2008 recommended by
the SLMPD Coordinating Committee for operations ($863,450). Shorewood's share of
the Police Building component is $244,000 for 2008. The City of Orono will continue to
provide animal control services in 2008.
Shorewood's share of fire services from the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) will increase
$25,000 from 2007 to 2008, even though Shorewood's share of the EFD budget will
decline a percentage point, from 41.27% to 40.61%. The services to Shorewood's Islands
from the Mound Fire Department constitute a small portion of the fire program budget;
the 2008 budget is based on a new (2007) formula for MFD services. The result is an
increase of $2,000 or 8.6%, but would be at the same cost as in 2006.
TRUTH-IN-TAXA nON
The Truth-in- Taxation process to be followed this year is as usual, using the timetable and
procedures set in place these past few years. The legislature has designated Monday, December
3,2007 as the suggested date the Truth-In-Taxation public hearing be held. If necessary, a
continuation hearing would be held the following Monday, December 10, 2007. The City
Council would approve and adopt the final budget on December 10, 2007.
Therefore, the entire process includes City Council approval of a Pay2008 Proposed Tax Levy to
be certified no later than September 15, 2007; final preparation of all City budgets, including
enterprise and utility budgets in the fall; advertising and conducting public hearings on the
proposed budget and tax levy on December 3, and if needed, December 10, 2007; and adoption,
certification, and summary publication of the final budget and levy prior to year end.
CONCLUSION
The 2008 Proposed General Fund Operating Budget and levy were prepared according to the
priorities and direction from the City Council, and continue the same level and array of services
as provided in 2007. Staff believes the proposed 2008 budget provides a responsible plan to
2008 Proposed General Fund Operating Budget
Page 4
balance the City's service delivery needs, infrastructure needs, and financial position, while
continuing to provide quality services to the residents of Shorewood.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution: "Setting the 2008
Proposed General Fund Budget and the Proposed 2007 Property Tax Levy, Collectible in 2008".
Staff will then certify this budget and levy as required before the September 15 deadline. The
final 2008 tax levy and budget adoption will be scheduled for December 2007.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 07-
A RESOLUTION SETTING THE 2008 PROPOSED GENERAL
FUND BUDGET AND APPROVING THE PROPOSED 2007
PROPERTY TAX LEVY, COLLECTIBLE IN 2008
WHEREAS, the City staff has presented to the City Council the proposed 2008 General Fund
Budget and the 2007 property tax levy collectible in 2008; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has met to review the proposed budget and property tax levy; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council must approve and certify its proposed 2008 budget and
preliminary property tax levy for the current year, collectible in 2008, to the County Auditor by
September 15 of each year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood that:
1. The 2008 Proposed General Fund budget is hereby set at $5,514,145.
2. The following sums be levied for the current year, collectible in 2008, upon taxable
property in the City of Shorewood, for the following purposes:
General Fund Levy
Special Levy
$4,251,917
555.078
Total 2007 Levy, Collectible 2008:
$4.806.995
3. That the City Clerk-Administrator is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of
this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 10th day of September, 2007.
ATTEST:
Christine Lizee, Mayor
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 . www.ci.shorewood.mn.us . cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
CITY OF SHOREWOOD,
MINNESOT A
2008 PROPOSED ANNUAL
GENERAL FUND OPERATING BUDGET
10 SEPTEMBER 2007
....
t t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
...
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
2008 PROPOSED GENERAL FUND BUDGET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Preparation Calendar for 2008 Budget
1
Summary of Proposed 2008 General Fund Budget
2-3
General Fund
Departmental Budgets
41110 - Mayor and Council
41300 - Administration
41400 - City Clerk
41450 - Elections
41500 - Finance
41600 - Professional Services
41910 - Planning and Zoning
41940 - Municipal Building - City Hall
42100 - Police
42200 - Fire Protection
42400 - Protective Inspection
42700 - Animal Control
43010 - City Engineer
43050 - Public Works Service
43100 - Streets and Roadways
43125 - Snow and Ice Removal
43160 - Traffic Control/Street Lighting
43200 - Sanitation/Waste Removal/Weeds
43250 - Tree Maintenance
45200 - Parks and Recreation
4-5
6-7
8-9
10-11
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-19
20-21
22-23
24-25
26-27
28-29
30-31
32-33
34-35
36-37
38-39
40-41
42-43
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Year 2008 Budget Schedule
Date Description
06/25/07 ClP Budget Work-session; Operating budget philosophy discussion
06/29/07 Bu~get worksheets distributed to staff and department heads.
07/16/07 Completed budget worksheets due back to Finance from staff.
08/06/07 Work-session: General Fund Operating Budget draft (Council and Staff)
08/20/07 Work-session: Additional General Fund session (Council and Staff)
08/27/07 Work-session: Additional General Fund session (Council and Staff)
09/10/07 Regular Council meeting. Council adopts 2008 proposed budget and levy.
09/15/07 Proposed budget and levy must be adopted and certified to County Auditor
by this date. State form Payable 2008 PT Form 280 also to be submitted.
10/22/07 Work-session: Enterprise Budget session (Council and staff)
11/05/07 Work-session: Enterprise Budget session (Council and staff)
11/13/07 Work-session: Additional Enterprise session, if needed (Council and Staff)
11/20-11/24 Counties to mail Notice of Proposed Property Tax by this date.
11/29/07 Budget hearing advertisement published in the official newspaper.
12/03/07 Truth-In-Taxation Budget Public Hearing.
12/10/07 Regular Council meeting. If needed, the continuation truth-in-taxation hearing to be held on
this date. Final 2008 budgets and levy to be adopted.
12/28/07 Final levy and budgets must be certified to the County Auditor by this date. State forms
Payable 2008 Property Tax Levy Report and PT Form TNT2008 also due.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
GENERAL FUND REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
2008 PROPOSED BUDGET
Actual Actual Budget YTD June Requested Proposed Adopted $$ %
2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 Change Change
Revenues and Other Sources
Property Ta"o(es 3,750,633 4,141,539 4,396,308 1,521,200 4,806,995 4,806,995 410,687 9.34%
Licenses and Permits 334,720 382,408 256,650 135,080 216,150 216,150 (40,500) -15.78%
lntergovemmental 64,480 4,925 65,000 0 65,000 65,000 0 0.00%
Fines and Forfeitures 90,149 79,040 80,000 43,912 80,000 80,000 0 0.00%
Charges for Service 50,750 45,450 43,000 65,074 56,000 56,000 13,000 30.23%
Miscellaneous Revenue 204,636 195,090 150,000 75,027 150,000 150,000 0 0.00%
Total Revenues 4,495,368 4,848,452 4,990,958 1,840,293 5,374,145 5,374,145 0 383,187 7.68%
Expenditures
General Government
Mayor and Council 59,706 60,960 72,893 29,676 70,093 70,093 (2,800) -3.84%
Administration 132,686 125,505 159,389 75,328 178,621 178,621 19,232 12.07%
General Government 222,437 195,099 239,574 112,119 242,183 242,183 2,609 1.09%
Elections 407 30,018 11,630 2,479 37,642 37,642 26,012 223.66%
Finance 167,597 159,336 214,412 75,072 190,581 190,581 (23,831) -11.11 %
Professional Services 162,271 164,864 187,600 122,093 217,000 217,000 29,400 15.67%
Planning and Zoning 166,103 194,305 192,320 84,011 206,390 206,390 14,070 7.32%
Municipal Building 507,659 207,400 225,744 73,368 226,314 226,314 570 0.25%
Total General Government 1,418,867 1,137,485 1,303,562 574,146 1,368,824 1,368,824 0 65,262 5.010/,
Public Safety
Police 987,130 1,036,609 1,069,063 732,382 1,111,503 1,111,503 42,440 3.9701<
Fire Protection 492,774 563,850 595,947 446,960 622,935 622,935 26,988 4.530;'
Protective Inspection 110,126 139,580 132,510 60,815 128,134 128,134 (4,376) -3.30~',
Animal Control 24,673 21,845 24,330 10,999 25,060 25,060 730 3.000..:
Total Public Safety 1,614,703 1,761,884 1,821,850 1,251,156 1,887,632 1,887,632 0 65,782 3.6101
Public Works
City Engineer 152,899 195,435 176,568 67,812 157,436 157,436 (19,132) -10.84';
Public Works Services 300,431 363,218 554,915 196,807 563,088 563,088 8,173 1.47~
Streets and Roadways 161,189 164,708 196,258 48,045 183,272 183,272 (12,986) -6.62~
Snow and lee Removal 45,339 27,330 81,235 46,448 85,566 85,566 4,331 5.33'
Traffic Control/Street Lights 36,119 41,701 43,700 16,483 43,800 43,800 100 O.23(
Sanitation/Waste Removal 4,088 6,003 6,757 2,752 5,641 5,641 (1,116) -16.52'
Tree Maintenance 23,258 30,556 33,733 12,977 30,278 30,278 (3,455) -10.24'
Total Public Works 723,323 828,952 1,093,166 391,324 1,069,081 1,069,081 0 (24,085) -2.20
Culture and Recreation
Parks and Recreation 177,508 169,411 242,380 93,775 218,608 218,608 (23,772) -9.81
Total Culture and Recreation 177,508 169,411 242,380 93,775 218,608 218,608 0 (23,772) -9.:3!
Total Expenditures 3,934.400 3,897,732 4,460,958 2,310,401 4,544,145 4,544,145 0 83,187 1.8l:
Total Revenues Over (Under)
Expenditures 560,968 950,720 530,000 (470,108) 830,000 830.000 u
2
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
GENERAL FUND REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
2008 PROPOSED BUDGET
Actual Actual Budget YTD June Requested Proposed Adopted $$ %
2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 Change Change
Fund Transfers In
Liquor Fund 50,000 50,000 40,000 0 40,000 40,000 0 0
Street Reconstr Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Trail Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sewer Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Water Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Transfers In 50,000 50,000 40,000 0 40,000 40,000 0 0 0.00%
Fund Transfers Out
Equip Replacemt Fund (PW) 116,000 175,000 175,000 0 175,000 175,000 0 0
Street Reconstr Fund 311,000 345,000 345,000 0 645,000 645,000 0 300,000
Park Capital Imp Fund 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 15,000 15,000 0 5,000
Trail Capital Imprvment Fnd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Public Facilities Fund 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 50,000 50,000 0 0
Land & Open Space Fund 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 (5,000)
Sewer Fund 60,000 60,000 0 60,000 60,000 0 0
Stormwater Mgmt Fund 7,000 25,000 25,000 0 25,000 25,000 0 0
Total Fund Transfers Out 559,000 610,000 670,000 0 970,000 970,000 0 300,000 44.78O,{
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues and
Other Financing Sources Over
Expenditures and Other Uses 51,968 390,720 (100,000) (470,108) (100,000) (100,000) 0
Amounts to be Provided from
General Fund Balance 0 (390,720) 100,000 470,108 100,000 100,000 0
General Fund Balance January 1 2,941,223 2,993,181 3,383,901 3,383,901 3,283,901 3,283,901 3,283,901
General Fund Balance December 31 2,993,181 3,383,901 3,283,901 2,913,793 3,183,901 3,183,901 3,283,901
3
DEPT NO:
41110
DEP ARTMENT MISSION:
The Mayor and City Council set policy for the City
and provide general direction to the Administrator in
policy implementation. The department budget
supports council development, information efforts and
special City associations and programs.
FUND:
101 General
DEP ARTMENT: Mayor and Council
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY:
The City Council meets twice montly and in periodic special worksessions to consider
and adopt legislative and administrative policies that pertain to the services
provided to residents, The City Council also sits as the Shorewood Economic Development Authority (EDA).
OBlECTIVES / ESTIMATED SERVICE INDICA TORS
_ Establish annual work program of goals and priorities for the City
_ Meet at least annually with advisory commissions.
_ Strategic planning and direction
_ Seminars, Conferences & Schools Attended
- No. of Council Mtgs./EDA
- No. of Workshops/Special
- Agenda Items
_ Ordinances & Resolutions Adopted
5
24
24
400
120
HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS:
Staffing:
City Council Salaries
Supplies/Materials:
Awards and misc. supplies
Support Services:
Conferences and Seminars
Appreciation Function for City Volunteers/Staff
Special Brochures
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD)
Assn of Metro Municipalities
League of MN Cities
Excelsior Chamber of Commerce July 4th Celebration
Charges, Fees & Other:
4
FUND: 101
DEP ARTMENT: Mayor and Council
DEPT 41110
BUDGET
ITEM
Actual
2005
Actual Adopted YTD June Requested Proposed
2006 2007 2007 2008 2008
Adopted
2008
Staffing 16,794 16,794 16,793 8,397 16,793 16,793 0
Supplies/Materials 1,411 1,127 1,000 599 1,200 1,200 0
Support Services 41,407 43,039 55,100 20,680 52,100 52,100 0
Charges, Fees & Other 95 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 59,706 60,960 72,893 29,676 70,093 70,093 0
STAFFING:
Part time:
Mayor
Councilmembers
1.00
4.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
4.00
5
DEPT NO:
41300
DEPARTMENT MISSION:
To implement policy established by the City Council; offer
staff support to the City Council in its policy making role;
and manage day-to-day operations of the City in a manner
consistent with established City values to effectively and
efficiently meet set goals & objectives.
FUND:
101 General
DEP ARTMENT: Administration
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY:
The City Administrator directs City departmental operations to ensure compliance with policies established by the
City Council and with state and federal laws. The department supports the City Council by managing Council
agendas, directing the flow of information and requests for action to the Council.
OBTECTIVES / ESTIMATED SERVICE INDICATORS
_ Take a leadership role in intergovernmental cooperative efforts in the Lake Minnetonka area
_ Participate actively in joint powers organizations
_ Participate actively in legislative and policy activities of municipal associations
_ Actively monitor legislation and communicate with legislators
- Council Mtgs/Work Sessions
- Council Agenda Items
- Public Safety Board Meetings
- Public Safety Staff Meetings
- Staff Meetings
36
400
22
24
52
HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS:
Staffing:
Includes an allocation for staff merit increases
Supplies/Materials:
Miscellaneous books & supplies
Support Services:
Conference, mileage, meetings & seminars
Memberships to ICMA, MCMA, MAMA
6
FUND: 101 DEP ARTMENT: Administration DEPT 41300
BUDGET Actual Achlal Adopted YTD June Requested Proposed Adopted
ITEM 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008
Staffing 120,964 120,341 148,689 68,892 169,971 169,971 0
Supplies/Materials 262 148 400 0 400 400 0
Support Services 9,808 5,015 10,300 3,065 8,250 8,250 0
Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital Outlay 1,652 0 0 0 0 0 0
Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 132,686 125,503 159,389 71,957 178,621 178,621 0
STAFFING:
Full Time:
Admistrator/Clk
Exec SeclDep Clk
1.00
.33
1.00
.20
1.00
.33
1.00
.25
1.00
.25
1.00
.25
est.
7
DEPT NO:
41400
DEP ARTMENT MISSION:
Provide staff support for the City Council including
preparation of agendas and meeting packets.
Responsible for City Clerk functions including
records retention, notices and licenses.
FUND:
101 General
DEPARTMENT:
General Government/City Clerk
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY:
This department provides for reception and clerical duties in the City offices, and the recording secretary for
City Council meetings. This department is the official recordkeeper of minutes, contracts, and permanent records;
and is also responsible for all licensing functions and City communication tools.
OBTECTIVES / ESTIMATED SERVICE INDICATORS
_ Continue to improve web site, to include information for residents and tools for communication with City Hall
_ Produce monthly City newsletter to include articles & photos, council & commission articles, & project updates
_ Provide information for general requests from residents and contractors
_ Prepare orientation package for new council members, commission members and staff
_ Maintain updates to Employee Handbook and City Code
- No. of Ordinances
- No. of Resolutions
- Newsletters Published
- Dog licenses issued
- Other licenses issued
- Council/WS/EDA/Spec Agendas
2006 Actual
14
106
12
357
60
54
2007 Est.
10
92
12
362
60
55
2008 Est.
10
100
12
360
60
55
HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS:
Staffing:
Deputy Clerk; Admin Asst-Parks; Admin Asst-PW
Part-time communications tech; and part-time Web Developer
Part-time, temporary, general office support
Supplies/Materials:
General Office Supplies and postage
Software upgrades/Misc. Publications
Support Services:
Travel, Conferences and Education
Publication of legal notices for all General Fund Depts
Council Recording Secretary and Council Packet Delivery
Newsletter Printing and Mail Service
City Code Book Updates/Web Hosting
Document Destruction Service
Membership Dues
Capital Outlay:
Digital Camera
8
FUND: 101 DEP ARTMENT: General Government/City Clerk DEPT 41400
BUDGET Actual Actual Adopted YTD June Requested Proposed Adopted
ITEM 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008
Staffing 139,868 136,706 168,444 89,409 180,938 180,938 0
Supplies/Materials 20,330 19,965 29,300 9,057 24,910 24,910 0
Support Services 16,394 29,454 39,880 13,653 35,835 35,835 0
Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital Outlay 45,845 8,974 1,950 0 500 500 0
Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 222,437 195,099 239,574 112,119 242,183 242,183 0
STAFFING:
Full time:
Exec Sec/Dep Clk .67 .61 .57 .75 .55 .55
Parks Secretary .70 .60 .70 .58 .65 .65
Secretary jReceptionist 0.25 .55 .25 .78 .60 .60
Accounting Clerk I 0.25
est.
Part time:
Communications Tech. 0.66 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57
Website Maint. 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Temporary Receptionist
9
FUND:
101 General
DEP ARTMENT MISSION:
Responsible for Election functions.
DEPARTMENT: Elections
DEPT NO:
41410
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY:
This department provides for the preparation for and supervision of State/Federal Primary
City General and Special elections by the Deputy City Clerk.
OBTECTIVES / ESTIMATED SERVICE INDICATORS
_ Increase youth awareness of local government issues through active involvement with school officials
and instructors through programs such as student election judges and kids voting
- No. of Elections held (in election years)
- No. of Absentee Ballot Requests
- No. of Elections held (in election years)
- Total Number of Voters
2004 *
2
706
569
5,315
2006
2
442
381
4,830
2008*
2
725
575
5,400
* Presidential Election
HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS:
Staffing:
.20 Exec Sec/Deputy Clerk
Election Judges
Supplies/Materials:
Mise. Office Supplies
Postage
Equipment Maintenance
General Supplies
Support Services:
Legal Notices
Travel- Mileage Reimb.
Printing (ballots, envelopes)
Capital Outlay:
V oting booths (4)
Vate here signs for Ward 4
10
FUND: 101 DEP ARTMENT: Elections DEPT 41410
BUDGET Actual Actual Adopted YTDJune Requested Proposed Adopted
ITEM 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008
Staffing 0 24,348 8,780 323 31,117 31,117 0
Supplies/Materials 249 1,688 2,700 2,141 3,025 3,025 0
Support Services 158 2,051 150 16 2,200 2,200 0
Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital Outlay 0 1,931 0 0 1,300 1,300 0
Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 407 30,018 11,630 2,479 37,642 37,642 0
STAFFING:
Full time:
Exec Sec/Dep Clk
0.18
0.10
0.01
0.20
0.20
Part time:
Election Judges
o
35
o
o
75
75
11
DEPT NO:
41500
DEPARTMENT MISSION:
To administer financial policies of the City; perform
accounting functions for all fund types; invest
available funds in accordance with State Statutes;
oversee City insurance policies; and provide for
timely reporting of financial matters to City Council
staff and the public.
FUND:
101 General
DEPARTMENT: Finance
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY:
Finance is responsible for processing all financial transactions of the City in accordance with
Federal, State and Locallaws1 and in compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
Transactions include accounts payable, accounts receivable, payroll, investments, utility billing,
special assessmentsl risk management, personnel benefits and financial reporting. The
Finance Director is responsible for the preparation and administration of the City budget.
OBTECTIVES / ESTIMATED SERVICE INDICATORS
- Prepare annual budget document
- Coordinate the annual City audit
_ Prepare CAFR documents for submittal to GFOA Certificate of Achievement Program
_ Review debt issues and make recommendations on debt structure
_ Review1 update, and maintain financial policies and procedures
_ Coordinate and make recommendations on employee benefits
_ Manage the City's investment portfolio within the Investment Policy guidelines
- No. Accounts Payable Checks Issued
- Utility Bills Sent
- No. of Payroll Checks Issued
2,600
12,000
1,200
Supplies/Materials:
Computer checks & budget supplies
Finance software support and maintenance
Miscellaneous supplies
Support Services:
Conferences, Mileage, Meetings, Education & Seminars
Publication of Financial Statements & Budgets
Memberships to GFOA & MGFOA
Subscription to GFOA periodicals
Submittal fee - GFOA Certificate of Excellence Program
Bank & Broker service charges
Capital Outlay:
12
FUND: 101
DEP ARTMENT: Finance
DEPT 41500
BUDGET Actual Actual Adopted YTD June Requested Proposed Adopted
ITEM 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008
Staffing 153,459 144,311 189,212 68,180 168,881 168,881 0
Supplies;Materials 5,056 5,018 7,500 4,424 7,500 7,500 0
Support Services 8,496 9,368 13,200 1,829 12,700 12,700 0
Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital Outlay 586 639 4,500 639 1,500 1,500 0
Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 167,597 159,336 214,412 75,072 190,581 190,581 0
STAFFING:
Finance Dir
Sr Acctg Clerk
Acctg. Clerk
1.00
.75
.5
est.
1.00
.62
.5
1.00
.85
.5
1.00
.58
.0
1.00
.75
.0
1.00
.75
.0
13
FUND:
101 General
DEPARTMENT MISSION:
Provide contracted professional services
including general leg at prosecution, financial
audit and property assessment.
DEPARTMENT: Professional Services
DEPT NO:
41600
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY:
This department provides for contracted legal, assessing and auditing services for the City. Legal
services include general counsel to the City Council, litigation and prosecution of criminal
misdemeanors. Assessing services provide property valuation information for tax purposes.
Audit services provide for the annual financial audit required by Minnesota State Statutes.
OBTECTIVES / ESTIMATED SERVICE INDICATORS
_ Contain costs on contracted professional services
- No. of taxable parcels
- No. of litigations
2007 -
2007 -
3,036
5
HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS:
Supplies/Materials:
Support Services:
Includes general legal fees and prosecutions, mediation services, assessing contract, annual audit services.
Charges and Fees:
14
FUND: 101 DEP ARTMENT: Professional Services DEPT 41600
BUDGET Actual Budget Adopted YTD June Requested Proposed Adopted
ITEM 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008
Staffing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Supplies/Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Support Services 162,271 164,867 187,600 122,093 217,000 217,000 0
Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 162,271 164,867 187,600 122,093 217,000 217,000 0
ST AFFING:
15
FUND:
101 General
DEP ARTMENT MISSION:
Guide and control the physical development of
the community. Coordinate and implement long
range city-wide and area planning activities.
DEP ARTMENT: Planning & Zoning
DEPT NO:
41910
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY:
This department is responsible for the review of development proposals, preparing and updating the City's
Comprehensive Plan, and other long range planning activities. It provides for administration and enforcement
of the City's zoning codes, and preparation and upkeep of zoning, subdivision, floodplain, and other
planning and zoning related ordinances.
OBTECTIVES / ESTIMATED SERVICE INDICATORS
_ Establish an action plan to implement Comprehensive Plan
_ Complete GIS parcel data base
- Update/enhance City maps
_ Update/enhance procedure handouts
- No. of zoning apps.
- No. of zoning complaints
- No. of scheduled office appts
- Planning Comm. Meetings
- Planning Comm. Work Sessions
24
30
220
12
12
HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS:
Staffing:
Supplies/Materials:
Maintenance contracts for computer & office equipment
Miscellaneous supplies
Support Services:
Recording Secretary for Planning Commission Meetings
Air time for cellular phone
Conferences, mileage, meetings & seminars
Memberships to AP A MN AP A, Sensible Land Use Coalition
Subscriptions to AP A Journal & Zoning News
Charges & Fees:
Capital Outlay:
16
FUND: 101 DEPARTMENT: Planning & Zoning DEPT 41910
BUDGET Actual Actual Adopted YTD June Requested Proposed Adopted
ITEM 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008
Staffing 154,669 180,556 175,405 79,290 190,830 190,830 0
Su pplies/Ma terials 707 789 1,225 592 210 210 0
Support Services 7,914 10,125 15,540 4,129 12,900 12,900 0
Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital Outlay 2,813 2,834 150 0 2,450 2,450 0
Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 166,103 194,305 192,320 84,011 206,390 206,390 0
ST AFFING:
Full time:
Planning Dir
Planning Asst.
.95
1.00
.97
1.00
.95
1.00
.97
1.00
.97
1.00
.97
1.00
est
Part Time:
Clerical
17
DEPT NO:
41940
DEP ARTMENT MISSION:
Provide for the physical operation of City Hall:
utilities; maintenance of office equipment and the
building structure; and provide for the City's genera
liability, property, auto and workers' comp insuranc
FUND:
101 General
DEP ARTMENT: Municipal Bldg - City Hall
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY:
The Municipal Building department provides for maintenance of all equipment located in the City Hall, and for
janitorial services to furnish a clean environment in which to conduct City business. General Liability, Property and
Casualty insurance coverages are also provided under this department.
OBTECTIVES / ESTIMATED SERVICE INDICATORS
- Identify facility maintenance needs
_ Identify options for maximum utilization of office space
_ Maintain existing facilities at current level or better utilizing staff to reduce maintenance costs
_ Maintenance of all office equipment
_ Continue to promote community programs to enhance public facilities, such as "Adopt a Garden."
HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS:
Supplies/Materials:
Maintenance /lease contracts for copiers, telephones and office equipment
Maintenance to city hall building
City Hall maintenance, cleaning, and paper supplies
Support Services:
City Hall janitorial, rug services, & pest control
Utilities and phone service for City Hall
Insurance coverage for all City departments except enterprise funds
Rental of postage meter
City Hall refurb/maint expense: $47,544 (assumes prepaymt of 2008 Sr. Or debt)
Residential maintenance costs $5,000
Charges & Fees:
Capital Outlay:
Debt Service on Internal Loan to Sewer Fund for purchase of 5795 Country Club Rd.
Transfers:
Public Facilities Fund
18
FUND: 101 DEP ARTMENT: Municipal Building - City Hall DEPT 41940
BUDGET Actual Actual Adopted YTD June Requested Proposed Adopted
ITEM 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008
Staffing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Supplies/Materials 16,471 22,390 29,500 20,948 76,314 76,314 0
Support Services 139,915 130,974 141,700 10,732 149,000 149,000 0
Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital Outlay 351,272 54,036 54,544 41,959 1,000 1,000 0
Transfers 110,000 50,000 110,000 0 110,000 110,000 0
TOTAL 617,659 257,400 335,744 73,639 336,314 336,314 0
STAFFING:
19
FUND:
101 General
DEPARTMENT MISSION:
To provide a modern, flexible, full-service criminal
justice agency which is responsive to community needs.
DEPARTMENT: Police
DEPT NO:
42100
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY:
The South Lake Minnetonka Police Department is a cooperative joint venture between the cities of Excelsior,
Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay. Through this venue, the department provides for the protection of the safety
and well-being of citizens in the community, the prevention and detection of crime, and the enforcement of all locaL
state and federal laws in a cost-efficient manner. Costs and staff are allocated to each of the participating cities on a
set percentage basis. In 2006, Shorewood's share was 46.0%. Shorewood's share for the period 2007-2011 is 50%.
A separate obligation is required to finance the new SLMPD station. The cost is apportioned on an ad valorum basis
among four cities. Shorewood's pro-rata share of the 2008 payment is $244,003.
OBTECTIVES / ESTIMATED SERVICE INDICATORS
- Initial complaint reports
- Part I (serious) & Part II (other)
- Citations issued
- Police vehicles
- Shorewood ICR's
6,600
1,250
4,600
9
2,300
HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS:
Supplies/Materials:
Support Services:
Police services contract for 2008
Prisoner expense, court officer expense, & booking fees
Annual Police Reserve Dinner
20
FUND: 101 DEP ARTMENT: Police DEPT 42100
BUDGET Actual Actual Adopted YID Tune Requested Proposed Adopted
ITEM 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008
Staffing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Su p p lies/Materials 0 184 0 0 0 0 0
Support Services 727,726 781,829 819,563 545,134 867,500 867,500 0
Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital Outlay 259,404 254,596 249,500 187,131 244,003 244,003 0
Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 987,130 1,036,609 1,069,063 732,265 1,111,503 1,111,503 0
STAFFING:
Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputv Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sergeant 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Investigator ... 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Patrol Officer 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00
Office Administrator 1.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
Office Specialist (part time) ...... 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Communitv Service Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
... 1 Tuvenile Specialist
21
DEP ARTMENT: Fire Protection
DEPARTMENT MISSION:
Provide the highest possible quality of fire
suppression, prevention and eduction services,
and First Responder emergency medical services.
FUND: 101 General
DEPT NO:
42200
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY:
Fire services are contracted by the City through the Excelsior Fire District and the City of Mound. This department
provides for the protection of life and property of the residents of Shorewood through fire prevention and suppression,
fire inspection, building inspection, fire code enforement and emergency medical services.
A separate obligation is made toward financing the new facilities for the Excelsior Fire District. The cost is apportioned
on the same allocation for the operating budget.
A separate obligation is made toward financing the new (2003) fire station for the Mound Fire Dept. This cost is
apportioned on the same allocation for the operating budget. Shorewood's share for 2008 debt service is $7,551.
OBTECTIVES / ESTIMATED SERVICE INDICATORS
- EFD Fire & Rescue Calls
- Mound Fire & Rescue Calls
2006 -
2006 -
297
14
HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS:
Support Services:
Fire contracts with Mound and Excelsior Fire District
22
FUND: 101 DEP ARTMENT: Fire Protection DEPT 42200
BUDGET Actual Actual Adopted YTD June Requested Proposed Adopted
ITEM 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008
Staffing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Supplies/Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Support Services 263,107 314,647 284,312 218,526 311,860 311,860 0
Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital Outlay 229,667 249,203 311,635 228,434 311,075 311,075 0
Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 492,774 563,850 595,947 446,960 622,935 622,935 0
EFD STAFFING:
Chief (FfT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Asst. Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Dist. Chief 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Captain 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Coordinators 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 8.00 8.00
Fire Marshal (Frr) 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Inspector (prr) 0.75 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
Training Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Firefighters 41.00 41.00 41.00 34.00 34.00 34.00
Admin Support (prr) .25 .25 .25 .25 .5 .5
23
DEP ARTMENT: Protective Inspection
DEPARTMENT MISSION:
Enforce construction safety and related building
codes through plan review and inspections.
FUND: 101 General
DEPT NO:
42400
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY:
This department provides for the issuance building and construction permits, review of construction plans and specificati,
enforcement of all building codes under the Uniform Building Code, inspection of rental housing units and zoning violatil
OBTECTIVES / ESTIMATED SERVICE INDICATORS
_ Increase and enhance public information through the development of handouts relative to building codes
- Enhance environmental inspections
- No. of permits issued
New Homes
Additions/Other
- A vg inspections/permit
New Homes
Additions/Other
15 - 17
600
9 -12
2-9
HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS:
Supplies/Materials:
Maintenance contracts on computer and office equipment
Miscellaneous supplies
Support Services:
Contractual inspections during vacations, sick leave
Conferences, mileage, meetings & seminars
Printing of application forms
Membership to ICBO
Charges & Fees:
Remittances to state of permit surcharges collected
Capital Outlay:
24
FUND: 101 DEP ARTMENT: Protective Inspection DEPT 42400
BUDGET Actual Actual Adopted YTD June Requested Proposed Adopted
ITEM 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008
Staffing 101,925 124,767 110,740 57,277 116,634 116,634 0
Supplies/Materials 162 38 550 176 400 400 0
Support Services 7,028 14,689 11,220 3,362 11,100 11,100 0
Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital Outlay 1,012 87 10,000 0 0 0 0
Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 110,126 139,580 132,510 60,815 128,134 128,134 0
STAFFING:
Full time:
Building Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Planning Dir .05 .03 .03 .05 .03 .03
Planning Asst .30 .20 .20 .20 .20 .20
Secretary jRecept .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10
Parks Secretary .05 .04 .05 .05
est.
25
FUND:
101 General
DEP ARTMENT MISSION:
Enforce animal control ordinances.
DEP ARTMENT: Animal Control
DEPT NO: 42700
--.
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY:
The department provides for contractual animal control, which includes patrol, detention, and disposition of stray
domestic animals.
OBJECTIVES IESTIMA TED SERVICE INDICATORS:
_ To provide appropriate care for dogs found at-large within the City limits.
- No. of Animal Complaints
HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS:
Staffing:
Supplies/Materials:
Support Services:
Animal control contracts with City of Orono and Auntie Ruth's.
Charges & Fees:
Capital Outlay:
26
FUND: 101 DEPARTMENT: Animal Control DEPT 42700
BUDGET Actual Actual Adopted YTD June Requested Proposed Adopted
ITEM 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008
Staffing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Supplies/Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Support Services 24,673 21,845 24,330 10,999 25,060 25,060 0
Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capita! Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Transfers. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 24,673 21,845 24,330 10,999 25,060 25,060 0
STAFFING:
Full time:
27
FUND:
101 General
DEPARTMENT MISSION:
DEPARTMENT: City Engineer
Provide engineering and construction
management services for the City.
DEPT NO:
43010
DESRIPTION OF ACTIVITY:
This department is responsible for general engineering services in the City, as well as preparation of feasibility
studies, plans and specifications, and on-site inspection of City projects. The City Engineer also reviews all
development proposals and plans.
OBTECTIVES / ESTIMATED SERVICE INDICATORS
_ Assist the City in determining right-of-way needs
_ Keep construction project files up-to-date and accurate
_ Communicate in written form to affected residents at least two
(2) times during a construction project
_ Provide in-house engineering where feasible
_ Provide good public relations with property owners adjacent to construction projects
- Resolve construction issues promptly.
_ Engineer Hours on City projects 1,248
_ Engineer Hours on private development 600
HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS:
Staffing:
1.00 City Engineer
.50 F rr Engineer Technician
.05 Dir of Pub Wks
.25 F rr Clerical
Supplies/Materials:
Computer maintainance/Upgrade
Books, Materials and Software
Support Services:
Cellular phone Airtime & Pager
Conferences and mileage
Subscriptions and Memberships
Charges & Fees:
Capital Outlay:
GPS; Software (AutoCAD, KYPIPE, HydroCAD, ArcView); Computer (Engineering Tech)
28
FUND: 101
DEP ARTMENT: City Engineer
DEPT 43010
BUDGET
ITEM
Actual
2005
Actual
2006
Adopted
2007
YTD June
2007
Requested
2008
Proposed
2008
Adopted
2008
Staffing 111,604 111,465 148,868 59,401 122,126 122,126 0
Su pp lies/Materials 906 579 1,950 664 875 875 0
Support Services 39,886 83,389 22,150 5,222 16,435 16,435 0
Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital Outlay 503 0 3,600 2,526 18,000 18,000 0
Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 152,899 195,433 176,568 67,812 157,436 157,436 0
STAFFING:
Full time:
City Engineer 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.92 0.95 0.95
Eng Technician 0.25 0.71 0.50 0.32 0.25 0.25
Clerical 0.25 0.10 0.25 0.01 0.10 0.10
Dir of Pub Wks 0.65 0.50 0.25 0.02 0.Q2
est.
Part time:
Clerical
29
FUND: 101 General
DEPARTMENT MISSION:
DEPT NO: 43050
Provide supervision and support for all public
works functions; provides for public works utilities,
shop and equipment maintenance and fuels
DEP ARTMENT: Public Works Service
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY:
The Public Works Service department is responsible for all general public works duties, maintenance of all public
works equipment, and maintenance of the public works facility.
OBTECTIVES:
_ Perform preventative maintenance on all equipment within 100 miles or 10 hours of scheduled service
_ Perform various City building repairs and preventative maintenance using City personnel
HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS:
Staffing:
Supplies/Materials:
Includes motor fuel, maintenance of equipment and buildings, and inventory supply items
Support Services:
Uniforms for crew
Janitorial Services
Utilities and telephone service for public works building
Conference, mileage, meetings & seminars
Miscellaneous - damage to private property (mailboxes, etc)
Hazardous Waste Licenses
Miscellaneous equipment rentals
Memberships
Charges & Fees:
Capital Outlay:
Public Works Building Addition -1/2 cost $170,000 (2007); and 1/2 cost $170,000 (2008)
Replacement Radios; computers, tire machine
Transfers:
Transfer to Equipment Replacement Fund ($175,000 - 2008)
Transfer to Stormwater Management Fund ($25,000 - 2008)
30
FUND: 101
DEPARTMENT: Public Works Service
DEPT 43050
BUDGET
ITEM
Actual
2005
Actual
2006
Adopted
2007
YTD June
2007
Requested
2008
Proposed
2008
Adopted
2008
Staffing 219,118 266,420 261,640 147,142 276,798 276,798 0
Supplies/Materials 51,558 53,501 61,750 26,757 65,050 65,050 0
Support Services 29,406 35,829 44,175 22,270 43,640 43,640 0
Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital Outlay 350 7,468 187,350 639 177,600 177,600 0
Transfers 123,000 200,000 200,000 0 200,000 200,000 0
TOTAL 423,431 563,218 754,915 196,807 763,088 763,088 0
STAFFING:
Full time:
Pub Wks Dir 0.10 0.49 0.75 0.71 0.50 0.50
Lt Equip Oper 2.50 1.93 1.50 1.78 1.95 1.95
Clerical 0.05 .08 .05 .00 .05 .05
Utility Maint. Operators .00 .77 .67 .65 .67 .67
Utility Lead .44 .25 .61 .50 .50
est.
31
FUND: 101 General
DEP ARTMENT MISSION:
DEPTNO: 43100
To maintain and upgrade City streets, parking area:
and storm water control systems in an efficient and
economical manner
DEP ARTMENT: Streets & Roadways
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY:
Includes ongoing maintenance consisting of street patching, street sweeping, roadside mowing, painting of lane
markings, and minor storm sewer repair.
OBJECTIVES / ESTIMATED SERVICE INDICATORS
_ Maintain the pavement management system to aid in scheduling of street projects
_ Paint lane markings on all designated streets
- Sweep each City street at least once annually
_ Mow roadsides at least twice annually
_ Visually inspect storm drainage grates annually and repair as needed
- Miles of street
State
County
City - MSA
City - Local
- Miles Sealcoated
- Tons of patch material
3
2
9
50
5
1,400
HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS:
Staffing:
1.15 LEO
0.2 Util. Lead
Supplies/Materials:
Rock, gravel & bituminous for street & road repair
Support Services:
Safety training
Contracted road striping
Transfers:
Transfer to Local Street Reconstruction Fund $645,000 (2008)
32
FUND: 101
DEPARTMENT: Streets & Roadways
DEPT 43100
BUDGET
ITEM
Actual
2005
Actual
2006
Adopted
2007
YTD June
2007
Requested
2008
Proposed
2008
Adopted
2008
Staffing 87,338 87,376 109,108 36,591 89,272 89,272 0
Supplies/Materials 59,856 65,953 63,650 9,910 62,000 62,000 0
Support Services 13,995 11,379 23,500 1,544 32,000 32,000 0
Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Transfers 311,000 345,000 345,000 0 645,000 645,000 0
TOTAL 472, 189 509,708 541,258 48,045 828,272 828,272 0
ST AFFING:
Full time:
Lt Equip Operators
Util. Lead
2.20
1.03
.25
2.00
.33
0.97
.03
1.15
.2
1.15
.2
est.
33
FUND:
101 General
DEP ARTMENT MISSION:
DEPT NO:
43125
Provide snow and ice control for public streets and
City owned parking lots to ensure the safe and
efficient movement of traffic
DEPARTMENT: Snow & Ice Removal
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY:
This department is reponsible for the plowing and removal of snow after a 2-inch or greater snowfall has
occured. Street sanding with a salt/sand mixture is used as a measure of ice control, and is performed
as needed.
OBTECTIVES / ESTIMATED SERVICE INDICATORS:
_ Remove snow and ice and complete salt/sand operations within 14 hours after the end of a snow event
_ Complete widening and clean up functions within 48 hours of a snow event
- Miles of street plowed 50
- Tons of salt used 250
- Tons of sand used 1,200
_ Manhours spent 1,000
- No. of cul-de-sacs plowed 94
HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS:
Staffing:
.4 LEO
.05 Util Maint
.05 Util Lead
Supplies;Materials:
Sand and salt for ice control
34
FUND: 101
DEP ARTMENT: Snow & Ice Removal
DEPT 43125
BUDGET
ITEM
Actual
2005
Actual
2006
Adopted
2007
YTD June
2007
Requested
2008
Proposed
2008
Adopted
2008
Staffing 24,475 14,468 34,435 20,916 39,166 39,166 0
Supplies/Materials 20,864 12,862 44,500 25,532 44,500 44,500 0
Support Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital Outlay 0 0 2,300 0 1,900 1,900 0
Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 45,339 27,330 81,235 46,448 85,566 85,566 0
STAFFING:
Full time:
.50
.14
.04
.04
.50
.42
.09
.10
.40
.05
.05
.40
.05
.05
Lt Equip Oper (LEO)
Util Maint
Util Lead
est.
35
DEPT NO:
43160
DEP ARTMENT MISSION:
Provide for street lighting and traffic signals at
intersections and other locations throughout the
City for the safety of pedestrians and vehicular
traffic
FUND:
101 General
DEP ARTMENT: Traffic Control/St Lights
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY:
Includes maintenence of semaphores and traffic control devices, and maintenance/replacement
of regulatory and informational road signs. Provides for electricity for street lights and traffic control
devices.
OBTECTIVES / ESTIMATED SERVICE INDICATORS:
- Number of street lights
- Number of traffic signals
195
6
HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS:
Supplies/Materials:
Maintenance to semaphores and Hwy 7 & Vine Hill Road, Christmas Lake Road,
County Road 19, Hwy 41, Old Market Road; County Road 19 and Smithtown Road.
Street signs & posts
Support Services:
36
FUND: 101
DEP ARTMENT: Traffic Control/Street Lighting
DEPT 43160
BUDGET
ITEM
Actual
2005
Actual
2006
Adopted YTD June
2007 2007
Requested
2008
Proposed
2008
Adopted
2008
Staffing 0 0 0 356 0 0 0
Supplies;Materials 4,662 1,415 500 776 1,500 1,500 0
Support Services 31,457 40,286 43,200 15,351 42,300 42,300 0
Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 36,119 41,701 43,700 16,483 43,800 43,800 0
STAFFING:
37
FUND:
101 General
DEPARTMENT MISSION:
DEPT NO:
43200
Provide for the general sanitation and cleanliness
of the City and provide for the treatment of noxious
weeds on City properties.
DEP ARTMENT: Sanitation/W eed Control
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY:
Activities include spraying of boulevards and roadways for weed control, and clean-up
of properties in violation of City zoning and sanitation codes, as necessary.
OBJECTIVES / ESTIMATED SERVICE INDICATORS
- Resolve 100% of weed complaints
- No of weed complaints
- No of notices served
- No of parcels sprayed
- Miles/roadside sprayed
5
5
o
50
HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS:
Staffing:
Miscellaneous staff time for property clean-ups
Support Services:
Miscellaneous property dean-ups
Contracted weed spraying services
38
FUND: 101
DEPARTMENT: Sanitation/W aste Removal/W eeds
DEPT 43200
BUDGET
ITEM
Actual
2005
Actual
2006
Adopted
2007
YTD June
2007
Requested
2008
Proposed
2008
Adopted
2008
Staffing 586 608 757 2,505 641 641 0
Supplies/Materials 0 0 500 0 500 500 0
Support Services 3,502 5,395 5,500 247 4,500 4,500 0
Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 4,088 6,003 6,757 2,752 5,641 5,641 0
STAFFING:
39
DEFT NO:
43250
DEPARTMENT MISSION:
To provide diseased tree inspection services to
residents; to remove diseased trees located on City
property; and to maintain and trim trees located on
City rights-of-way and other property
FUND:
101 General
DEPARTMENT: Tree Maintenance
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY:
This department is responsible for detection and removal of diseased and unsafe trees on City
rights-of-way and other properties, and pruning of trees on city property. Tree inspection
services are provided to residents on an on-call basis.
OBJECTIVES /ESTIMATED SERVICE INDICATORS:
_ Remove 100% of diseased trees on public property
_ Respond to all property owner requests to identify diseased trees
_ Maintain and trim trees on City property which present a hazard to public
- No of trees removed
- Yards of brush hauled
40
700
HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS:
Staffing:
.15 LEO
Supplies/Materials:
Small Tools
Paint for tree marking
Support Services:
Contracted tree and brush removal
Tree inspection certification
40
FUND: 101
DEP ARTMENT: Tree Maintenance
DEPT 43250
BUDGET
ITEM
Actual
2005
Actual
2006
Adopted
2007
YTD June
2007
Requested
2008
Proposed
2008
Adopted
2008
Staffing 15,011 22,122 15,233 8,714 16,128 16,128 0
Su pp lies/Ma terials 479 1,323 2,950 382 3,150 3,150 0
Support Services 7,768 7,110 15,550 3,881 11,000 11,000 0
Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 23,258 30,555 33,733 12,977 30,278 30,278 0
STAFFING:
Lt Equip Operator (LEO)
.20
est.
.27
.25
.25
.25
.25
41
FUND:
101 General
DEP ARTMENT:
Parks & Recreation
DEPT NO:
45200
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY
DEPARTMENT MISSION:
Maintain City parks, trails & beaches to ensure safe
and enjoyable recreational amenities, and coordinate
recreational opportunities for City residents of all
ages and physical abilities
The department is responsible for the maintenance of all City parks, including playgrounds, ballfields, trails, ice rinks,
buildings and other play areas. Winter ice skaing and summer rec programs are coordinated by this department.
OBTECTIVES:
_ Continue promoting the benefits of investing in Shorewood parks and park improvements.
Acres of maint park
Cost of maint per acre
No. of ballfields
Softball
Baseball
No. of Tennis Courts
No. of hockey rinks
No. of skating rinks
No. of times rinks are cleaned/resurfaced
No. of shelters
No. of picnic tables
Miles of Trails
HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS:
99.70
1600
3
5
4
2
3
80
4
47
3.50
Staffing:
Part time includes Park Commission Secretarial
Seasonal includes Summer employees and Winter Rink Attendants
Supplies/Materials:
Maintenance to park equipment and buildings
Rock, black dirt, graveL sand, fertilizers, seed for parks
Support Services:
Park Coordinating Svcs ($20,000); Crescent Beach Lifeguard Svcs ($6,000); Contributions to 'Music In The Parks' ($2,500).
Friends of Center ($8,800); Friends Fund-raising Match ($12,500); Buckthorn Removal Prog ($1,600); Portable toilets ($9,000).
Charges & Fees:
Capital Outlay:
Transfers:
Transfer to Park Capital Improvement Fund 515,000
42
FUND: 101 DEPARTMENT: Parks & Recreation DEFT 45200
BUDGET Actual Actual Adopted YTD T1.1TIe Requested Proposed Adopted
ITEM 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008
Staffing 109,305 112,753 140,530 61,454 131,408 131,408 0
Supplies/Materials 10,026 6,861 15,400 5,240 12,400 12,400 0
Support Services 48,189 49,797 81,450 27,081 74,800 74,800 0
Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital Outlav 9,989 0 5,000 0 0 0 0
Transfers 15.000 15,000 15,000 0 15,000 15,000 0
TOTAL 192 !'i08 184.411 2!'i7.380 93.77.<; 233 608 233.608 0
STAFFING:
Full time:
Dir of Public Wks .07 .03 .03 .03
Lt Equip Oper 1.50 1.51 1.50 1.14 1.25 1.25
Clerical .25 .30 .33 .36 .35 .35
Part time:
Clerical
Seasonal:
Summer 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Winter (rinks) 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
est.
43
44
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128' www.ci.shorewood.mn.us . cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Craig Dawson, City Administrator
Bonnie Burton, Finance Director/Treasurer
DATE:
September 5,2007
SUBJECT:
Setting a Date for the Truth-In-Taxation Hearings
The Truth-in- Taxation process requires local governments to schedule and hold public hearings
to discuss the proposed budget and tax levy for their jurisdiction. The process to be followed
this year is as usual, using the timetable and procedures set in place these past few years.
The legislature has set aside Monday, December 3,2007 as the suggested Truth-In-Taxation
public hearing date for cities. If necessary, a continuation hearing would be held the following
Monday, December 10, 2007 and the City Council would approved and adopt the final budget
on December 10, 2007. Cities CANNOT use dates designated for Hennepin County, the local
school districts, or Metro Special Taxing Districts, as described on the attached letter.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution "Setting Truth-In-Taxation Public
Hearing Dates" .
....
f: t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
...
Hennepin County Taxpayer Services
A-600 Government Center
Minneapolis MN 55487-0060
www.hennepin.us
August 10, 2007
Dear Bonnie Burton:
Bonnie Burton, Finance Director
City of Shore wood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
As required by the Truth in Taxation legislation, we are notifying you of the public hearing dates
set for the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, Metro Special Taxing Districts and the
school districts to discuss their proposed budget and property tax levy for 2008:
Taxing District Oriqinal Hearinq Reconvened Hearinq
Hennepin County December 6, 2007 December 18, 2007
Metro Special Taxing Districts December 5, 2007 December 12, 2007
School District 276 December 11 , 2007 December 20, 2007
School District 277 December 4, 2007 December 17, 2007
\ The legislature has set aside December 3rd for the Initial Hearing and December 10th for the'!
( Continuation Hearing for the use by cities. You can use those dates or select other dates; 5
however, the dates shown above CANNOT be used. Although we will only be printing the
initial hearing dates on the notice, the continuation date also needs to be set at this time. The
earliest hearing date is November 29,2007 and the last date is December 20,2007. Also a
reminder that the reconvened date must be at least 5 business days but no more than 14
business days after the initial public hearing.
Since the public hearings and the mailing address for the comments often remains the same, we
are showing the previous data and asking you to confirm or update that information. As required
by Minnesota Statute, please return the form no later than September 15. 2007.
As in the past, the expense of preparing and mailing the Truth in Taxation notices is to be
divided in thirds among the county, school, and city. Each city's portion of the third will be
determined by the number of parcels in your city. You will be billed in December after the mailing
costs have been determined.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 612-348-5100.
]it~
Scott Loomer, Manager
Property Tax Division
Enclosure
.An Equof Opportunity Employer
Recycled Pope
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 07-
A RESOLUTION SETTING TRUTH-IN- TAXA TION PUBLIC HEARINGS ON
THE PROPOSED 2008 BUDGETS AND THE 2008 PROPERTY TAX LEVY
WHEREAS, Minnesota State Law requires local governments to hold public
hearings on their proposed budgets and property tax levies, and to publish notice of said
public hearing to achieve truth in taxation, and,
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Revenue has issued guidelines for
local governments to follow in implementing truth in taxation requirements, and,
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council to comply with such
guidelines,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood that a public hearing on the proposed 2008 Municipal Budgets and the
property tax levy for 2007, collectible in 2008, be held on Monday, December 3,2007, at
7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, and a continuation hearing, if necessary be
held on Monday, December 10, 2007, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, at
the City Hall, and that notice of such public hearing shall be published in accordance with
Minnesota State Law and guidelines set forth by the Minnesota Department of Revenue.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 10th day of
September, 2007.
ATTEST:
Christine Lizee, Mayor
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128' www.ci.shorewood.mn.us . cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
City Council
Craig W. Dawson, City Administratow...aD~.. 1 n 11/
Bonnie Burton, Director of Finance ~~
September 6, 2007
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
General Fund Balance Policy
On August 6, the City Council reviewed a discussion and draft of a policy regarding undesignated
balances in the City's General Fund (see attached memorandum). The Council generally indicated
agreement with the draft of the policy, and used it as a guide since during its deliberations on the
proposed 2008 budget. At this time, it is appropriate for the City Council to consider adoption of a
formal policy.
The policy is proposed as follows:
The undesignated balance in the General Fund should be in the range of 55 to 60 percent of
the next year's budget. When the balance is greater than 60 percent, then the balance should
be reduced to 60 percent by using those funds for specific projects, acquisitions, or transfers
to capital funds. They may also be used to provide limited property tax relief; for example, to
maintain the property tax rate. The amount of those funds in the undesignated balance should
be reduced to 60 percent, but should not be more than three percentage points of the amount
above 60 percent in anyone year.
If the undesignated balance in the General Fund falls between 55 to 60 percent of the next
year's budget, then none of the funds should be used purposes other than cash flow and
contingencies.
If the undesignated balance in the General Fund falls below 55 percent, then the undesignated
balance should be restored by budgeting no more than two percentage points annually until
the 55 percent level is attained.
City Council Action:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt this policy regarding the un designated balance
in the General Fund.
....
f: t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
...
#9E
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MN
GENERAL FUND BALANCE
POLICY
September 5, 2007
1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
GENERAL FUND BALANCE
POLICY
The City of Shorewood seeks to have a good balance its General Fund in order to have
sufficient reserves for cash flow purposes, for projects, and for unexpected sh0l1falls or
emergencies. The City acknowledges the State Auditor's recommendation that local
governments establish a formal policy on the level of fund balance that should be
maintained in the General Fund. In addition, establishing a General Fund Balance Policy
to assure adequate reserves indicates fiscal prudence and may confer higher ratings with
bond-rating agencies, which prefer to see very strong and healthy balances.
Goal
The goal of the City Council in establishing a General Fund Balance Policy is to ensure
the long-term economic stability of the organization by providing sufficient funds for
cash flow purposes, to accumulate savings for projects, and to have reserves for
unexpected shortfalls or emergencies, while providing a specific plan for increasing or
decreasing the level of fund balance as needed.
Objective
The objective of the City Council in meeting this goal is to ensure that the General Fund
Balance should be monitored annually to remain within a specifically defined percentage
range of 55-60% of next year's budget, and that methods are identified by this policy to
increase or decrease the fund balance to achieve this objective.
Procedures
1. General Fund Balance in excess of 60%
When the balance is greater than 60 percent, then the balance should be reduced
to 60 percent by using excess funds for specific one-time projects, acquisitions, or
transfers to capital funds. They may also be used to provide limited property tax
relief; for example, to maintain the property tax rate. The amount of those funds
in the undesignated balance should be reduced to 60 percent, but should not be
more than three percentage points of the amount above 60 percent in anyone
year.
2
2. General Fund Balance between 55 % and 60 %
If the undesignated balance in the General Fund falls between 55 to 60 percent of
the next year's budget, then none of the funds should be used for purposes other
than cash flow and contingencies.
3. General Fund Balance less than 55 %
If the undesignated balance in the General Fund falls below 55 percent, then the
undesignated balance should be restored by budgeting no more than two
percentage points annually until the 55 percent level is attained.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 10th day of September,
2007.
Approved:
Chris Lizee, Mayor
Attest:
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator
3
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128' www.ci.shorewood.mn.us . cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
City Council
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator I1'b ,~
Bonnie Burton, Director of Finance ~
TO:
DATE:
August 2, 2007
SUBJECT:
Draft of Policy regarding General Fund Balance
The City needs to have a good balance in the General Fund in order to have sufficient funds for cash
flow purposes, to accumulate savings for projects, and have reserves for unexpected shortfalls or
emergencIes.
Several guidelines or opinions have been made about what proper levels of fund balances should be.
The City's auditors have placed a minimum level of 40 to 50 percent of annual expenditures,
primarily for cash flow needs; a higher level would be good also. A few years ago, the State Auditor
gave some opinions about what levels are low (20-35%), acceptable (35-50%), moderately high (50-
65%), or high (65-100%). The latest position of the State Auditor, which is currently under revision,
is that the undesignated General Fund balance should be between 35 and SO percent of operating
revenues or no less than five months of operating expenditures. Bond-rating agencies prefer to see
very strong and healthy balances, as they indicate fiscal prudence and an ability to weather revenue
volatility (including such things as tax levy limits). And they confer higher credit ratings, which
result in lower interest costs. Shorewood has an Aa3 rating, which is very good for an entity of our
Size.
The State Auditor notes that "cities that rely heavily on property taxes and state aid for the majority
of their revenue will need relatively large balances to meet their cash flow needs from January 1
through June 1 of every calendar year." The City receives tax revenues in June and December, and
property taxes account for 88 percent of the revenue to the General Fund in the 2007 budget. The
year-end fund balance is a snapshot taken just after the City has received the last half of its taxes.
The City's undesignated balance in the General Fund has steadily increased over the past several
years, from 57 percent ofthe next year's budget in 2002 to 66 percent of the next year's budget at the
end of2006. This is the result from a combination of careful spending within amounts authorized
and unanticipated fee revenue. The current level has called into question what an appropriate upper
end of the range might be established.
#.
t..J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Policy regarding General Fund Balance
August 2, 2007
Page 2
One goal would be to maintain an undesignated balance in the General Fund of 55 to 60 percent of
the next year's budget. This would maintain reserves at a healthy level to handle unexpected
expenditures or emergencies, particularly if the practice is continued to use the balance rather than to
budget for contingencies.
The next part ofthe policy, then, would be to identify ways to move toward the 55 to 60 percent
level. It is important to view surpluses (i.e., funds above the 55 to 60 percent level) as one-time
revenues. Relying on surpluses to subsidize on-going operations develops dependence on a variable
source of revenue. One-time revenues should be spent on one-time activities or projects. Transfers
to such capital funds as the Local Street Reconstruction Fund or the Public Facilities Fund would also
be a prudent use of funds in the balance.
The funds in excess of 60 percent could be used immediately for capital projects or transfers, or could
be reduced in a phased manner. In the latter approach, the fund balance could be monitored yearly to
ensure that the 60 percent level would more likely be maintained.
The undesignated balance in the General Fund should be in the range of 55 to 60 percent of
the next year's budget. When the balance is greater than 60 percent, then the balance should
be reduced to 60 percent by using those funds for specific projects, acquisitions, or transfers
to capital funds. They may also be used to provide limited property tax relief; for example, to
maintain the property tax rate. The amount of those funds in the undesignated balance should
be reduced to 60 percent, but should not be more than three percentage points of the amount
above 60 percent in anyone year.
The other parts of the policy would relate to what happens when the undesignated balance falls
within or below the 55 to 60 percent level.
If the undesignated balance in the General Fund falls between 55 to 60 percent of the next
year's budget, then none of the funds should be used purposes other than cash flow and
contingencies.
If the undesignated balance in the General Fund falls below 55 percent, then the undesignated
balance should be restored by budgeting no more than two percentage points annually until
the 55 percent level is attained.
Following Council discussion on the suggested policy as drafted above, staff will revise and refine it
accordingly.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
REBECCA OTTO
STATE AUDITOR
SUITE 500
525 PARK STREET
SAINT PAUL, MN 55103-2139
(651) 296-2551 (Voice)
(651) 296-4755 (Fax)
state.auditor((vstate.mu.us (E-mail)
1-800-627-3529 (Relay Service)
Statement of Position
Fund Balances for Local Governments
Background
In governmental funds 1 , a local government should identify fund balance separately
between reserved and unreserved fund balance. The local government may assign and
report some or all of the unreserved fund balance as designated and undesignated. This
statement of position is based on generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for
government as established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Future
changes in GAAP may result in a change in the position of the Office of the State
Auditor.
Reserved Fund Balance
The function of reserved fund balance is to separate the portion of fund balance that is
not appropriable for expenditure or is legally segregated for specific future uses, so that
the unreserved fund balance can serve as a measure of current available financial
resources.
Under GAAP, the portion of fund balance that meets the following criteria should be
classified as reserved:
. Resources not available for spending. Some of the assets reported in
governmental funds are not available for spending in the subsequent year's
budget. For example, a long-term loan receivable, such as an advance to another
fund, is not available for current spending. Likewise, local governments that
report supplies, inventories, and prepaid items in governmental funds typically
would report a corresponding amount of reserved fund balance to indicate that
these amounts are not actually available for spending.
. Legal restrictions on spending. Fund balance also is reserved to indicate situations
where a portion of fund balance is not available for new spending because of legal
I Governmental fund reporting focuses primarily on the sources, uses, and balances of current financial
resources and often has a budgetary orientation. The governmental fund category includes the general fund,
special revenue funds, capital projects funds, debt service funds, and permanent funds. (Codification of
Governmental Accounting and Financial Reporting Standards S 1300.1 02).
Reviewed: August 2007
Revised: NA
2007-1022
restrictions involving parties outside the financial reporting entity. One common
example is amounts reserved for encumbrances, which represent contracts for
goods or services with outside parties still outstanding at the end of the year.
Reservations also are commonly used to report legal restrictions arising from state
statutes or grant requirements placed on the use of specific resources.
Unreserved Fund Balance
The part of fund balance not identified as reserved is the unreservedfund balance. The
unreserved fund balance may, in turn, be subdivided into designated and undesignated
portions.
Designated Fund Balance
Whereas GAAP dictates the criteria for reserved fund balance, fund balance designations
represent management's intended use of resources. Fund balance designations may be
established to indicate management's tentative plans for financial resource utilization in a
future period, such as for general contingencies or for equipment replacement. Such
designations reflect tentative managerial plans or intent and should be clearly
distinguished from that which is reserved. Designations should be supported by actual
plans approved by either the governing body or an appropriate officer. Such plans or
intent are subject to change and may never be legally authorized or result in expenditures.
Expressed another way, designations are a government's self-imposed limitations on the
use of available current financial resources
Unreserved fund balance is designated for a local government's intended use of current
available financial resources. The focus on current financial resources is unique to
governmental funds. Accordingly, designations are reported on the face of the balance
sheet only in connection with governmental funds. Designations should be reported as
part of the unreserved fund balance designated for. . . , or disclosed parenthetically or in
the notes to the financial statements.2 GAAP does not allow for any equivalent equity
designation to be used for government-wide financial reporting or for proprietary fund
and fiduciary fund financial reporting.
Undesignated Fund Balance
The unreserved undesignated fund balance consists of current resources available for
which there are no government self-imposed limitations or set spending plan. Although
there is generally no set spending plan for the undesignated portion, there is a need to
maintain a certain funding level. Undesignated fund balance is commonly used for
emergency expenditures not previously considered. In addition, the resources classified
as undesignated can be used to cover expenditures for revenues not yet received.
2 Codification of Govemmental Accounting and Financial Reporting Standards 91800.144.
Reviewed: August 2007 2
Revised: NA 2007-1022
The basic financial statements should provide information on the nature and purpose of
each major component of reserved fund balance and unreserved fund balance. The notes
to the financial statements should disclose this information when it is not discernible on
the face of the financial statements.
Recommendations
Adoption of Fund Balance Policy
The Office of the State Auditor recommends that each local government establish a
formal policy on the level of unreserved fund balance that should be maintained in the
general fund and special revenue funds The policy should be set by the governing body
and should provide both a time frame and a specific plan for increasing or decreasing the
level of unreserved fund balance. If the fund balance does not match the policy, a plan
should be developed by the governing body that will allow for compliance with the
policy.
The Office of the State Auditor recommends each local government adopt a policy
specifying the types of future expenditures to be designated, how the amounts for such
designations are arrived at, and whether the governing body will set the designations
annually or will set up a designation process and appoint someone to make the
determination based on the guidelines established by the governing body.
The local government's revenue streams should be kept in mind when drafting such a
policy. For example, funds that rely heavily on property taxes must maintain sufficient
financial resources to provide adequate resources until the next tax revenue collection
cycle. Funds that rely on state appropriations and grants should consider the timing of
those payments. Also, local governments need to maintain a prudent level of financial
resources to protect against a forced service level reduction or having to raise taxes and
fees because of temporary revenue shortfalls or unpredicted one-time expenditures.
Other considerations include the predictability of revenues and the volatility of
expenditures--higher levels of unreserved fund balance may be needed if significant
revenue sources are subject to unpredictable fluctuations or if operating expenditures are
highly volatile. The availability of resources in other funds as well as the potential drain
on the general fund resources from other funds could affect the level of unreserved fund
balance needed. The availability of resources in other funds may reduce the amount of
unreserved fund balance needed in the general fund, just as deficits in other funds may
require that a higher level of unreserved fund balance be maintained in the general fund.
In some cases, the unreserved fund balance in special revenue funds may not be available
for use for general operations of the local government, for example a park dedication
special revenue fund in a city or a ditch special revenue fund in a county. In these
situations, it is important for the local government's fund balance policy to document that
these type of funds are not available for future appropriation to the general operations of
the local government.
Reviewed: August 2007
Revised: NA
3
2007 -1022
Appropriate Fund Balance Levels
The Office of the State Auditor recommends that at year-end local governments maintain
an unreserved fund balance in their general fund and special revenue funds of
approximately 35 to 50 percent of fund operating revenues or no less than five months of
operating expenditures, which should provide the local government with adequate funds
until the next property tax revenue collection cycle. The adequacy of unreserved fund
balance should be assessed based on an individual local government's own
circumstances. If the local government's unreserved fund balance is less than or greater
than the 35 to 50 percent recommended above the local government should be able to
explain the reason for the difference.
Local governments should also consider taking a position on the level of unreserved fund
balance in other funds that have unrestricted revenues. In setting an appropriate level, the
local government should consider any long-term forecasting/planning issues, to avoid the
risk of placing too much emphasis on the level of unreserved fund balance at anyone
time.
Reviewed: August 2007
Revised: NA
4
2007 -1022
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128' www.ci.shorewood.mn.us . cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator
Bonnie Burton, Director of Finance
DATE: September 6,2007
SUBJECT: Selection of Business Broker for Sale of Liquor Operations
On August 6, the Council directed staff to begin the process to sell the City's liquor operations. Staff
prepared a request for proposals (RFP) for business brokerage services, and sent them to firms which
were recommended or had requested to receive the RFP. Five brokers responded:
Abarim Realty
Darrell Ansel
Hospitality Services, Corp.
Opportunities in Business
Sunbelt Business Brokers
All of the firms had significant experience in liquor store transactions or with the liquor industry.
Each one indicated that there would be significant interest in Shorewood' s stores (and staff can
confirm that, given the number of inquiries during the past several weeks). Each firm would be paid
a commission that would be a percentage of the sales prices, and would receive no compensation
until the sales were closed. All of the firms expected to be the exclusive agent for the City for
anywhere from six to twelve months.
A key component of the sales is the relatively short term remaining in the leases for the stores. The
City should realize higher prices if the leases can be extended. Consequently, the broker selected
would also be expected to negotiate new leases as part of its services.
Each firm had its own method of establishing prices for the stores; however, they were similar. The
proposer would be expected to meet with Council and staff prior to setting the sales prices.
Staff reviewed the proposals and met with representatives of each proposer. The best proposals and
interviews were made by Darrell Ansel; Hospitality Services, Corp.; and Sunbelt Business Brokers.
We believe that Hospitality Services, Corp., provides the best combination of experience, knowledge
ofliquor store transactions and the unique logistics for the separate sales of the City's stores, and
compensation arrangement. This firm would be able to begin its work immediately.
....
f: t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
...
:ttOJr:
Broker Services for Sale of Liquor Operations
September 10,2007, City Council Meeting
Page Two
While it is in the interests of both the City and the broker to achieve the highest price possible for the
stores as quickly as possible, it is equally important that the stores be sold to well-qualified
individuals or firms. The City does not want to see either of the sales fall through: the sale of the
other store could be jeopardized, with the possibility that the City would have to take responsibility
for the remainder of a lease, or that only one store would be sold as there would be little time left on
the lease to make a sale.
Given the complexities and relatively short timeframe for the sale of the stores, the broker would
have greater expertise (in business sales transactions and lease negotiations,) and the ability to devote
the time necessary to assure that the City receives high-quality offers for them.
Alternative Process: An alternative to using the full services of a broker is an auction process under
the auspices of the City. The City could establish the required qualifications for bidders, and set the
minimum bid prices for each store. There could also be more than one round of sealed bids. This
process may provide an opportunity for more parties to bid on the stores, may achieve higher prices
for them by encouraging competition among the bidders, and remove all or some of a broker's
commission. This process would place more of the effort on staff s shoulders. As there is still
complexity in these transactions, it would be helpful to have the services of a broker to evaluate the
bids and bidders. The services ofthe City Attorney should be similar under the fully-brokered or the
auction process.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council authorize execution of a six-month exclusive listing
agreement with Hospitality Services, Corp., for the sale of the City's off-sale liquor stores.
.oUi'~ Vl
0 ~O ..<::
Vl -0 1;; - Vl
.:t:: Vl II ~ 0 /;::< I:: ..<::
0 -
<l.l <l.l * * M * I::
..0 ~ * * * * ~ 0 E ;c- O
~ .U) * <l.l * _5
* ;c- * * 0 OJ) 00 * E
;:l ;:l * .* i5. 'D - <l.l *
Vl 0:1 0 ?! ~ I:: N
<l.l '<:t ......
0.. 0 C .~ I
<n 0
N u
Vl
~
-
o
.....
Vl
-
o
=
0"
~
'e
o
o
~
~
-
o
-=
Vl
.....
o
~
';
Vl
-
oS
Vl
~
c:.>
'E
~
rn
-
~
o
-
~
-
oS
Vl
';
Vl
O'D
0..0
00
looN
~ .
.....'D
o .....
,,15
eo: E
8 2
8 fr
=rn
rn
Vl 'Q) Ol
.o~ -
Vl Vl .8
.~ Vl <l.l .- -0 0 Vl
..... Vl Uo -
'2 <l.l i5. Vl ~
.5 * * * 0 * ~ rl") ~-o ;c-
;:l Vl * * * <l.l * 'cf? .5 -*
t: ;:l * * * 0.. * -0 0 *
&0:1 * * * 'D - 0 00
0 U ......
0.. .5 ...... it oj 'D I
0 C d 0
00 0 'D
u 's o<l
.01
]U
._ Vl
o..<l.l
Vl U
o .-
X I::
<l.l
Vl
'5 ~ ~
..0 t '€
:i:~&
0..92
~ .... 0..
;>, 2 <l.l
:a~].
u ....., .::::
-a ~;:l
.0 ~ E
<l.l
i5.
o
<l.l
0..
M
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
~ 'Q)!
t: Vl
oj ~
Q<r:
<l.l
i5.
o
<l.l
0..
<n
.o~
.- -0
UO
~M
'cf? .5
'<:t g
it 1:
l'-- 0
u
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
.s ~
aca
..0 <l.l
<r:O:::
<l.l
i5.
o
<l.l
0..
'<:t
.o~
0-0
~g
'cf? .5
'<:t t)
it~
'D 8
u
*
*
;c-
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
<l.l
U
~
.~
.....
<l.l
0..
X
W
Ol
.....
<l.l
~
<l.l
o
<l.l
U
~
<l.l
.;::
<l.l
0..
X
W
Vl
Vl
<l.l
~
.u)
;:l
0:1
.....
o
::l
0"
:::5
I::
o
.U)
Vl
's
E
o
U
OJ)
.5
-
<l.l
~
~
'+-<
o
..<::
-
-0
oj
<l.l
.....
0:1
OJ)
~
'(3
.;::
~
~
o
.~
::l
Ol
>
1:::
oj
-
Vl
'+-<
o
-=
-
-0
oj
<l.l
.....
0:1
Vl
..<::
C
O'Q)
E Vl
M 0
-
.8
N
Vl
..<::
-
~
o <l.l
E5j
'D .....
I <l.l
<l.l~
Vl
o
o
~
:.a
-
.~ Vl
~
'R-o
00
_0\
Ol
o
o
OJ)
~
.U)
o
o
',p
<l.l
E
E=
*
*
*
Vl
..<::
-
~
o
E
'D
*
*
Vl
..<::
-
I::
o
E
N
*
*
Vl
~
o
.~
-,p
o
OJ)
<l.l
Z
<l.l
Vl
o:l
<l.l
.....l
-
~
<l.l
E
<l.l
<l.l
.....
OJ)
<r:
OJ)
.5
-
Vl
:::5
1
City of Shorewood
Attn: Craig Dawson, City Administrator
5755 Country Club Rd
Shorewood, MN 55331-8927
August 20, 2007
RE: Proposal for Business Brokerage Services, for sale of 2 Off-Sale Liquor Stores.
Craig Dawson, City Administrator:
Hospitality Services Corp is a Business Brokerage firm that specializes in the sale of Hospitality
related businesses including, but not limited to; liquor stores, restaurants, bars, convenient stores,
resorts and hotel/motels.
My name is Jerry Vlaminck and I am the broker/principal of the company with over 20 years of
operations experience and five years brokerage experience. Sales of businesses have had volumes
from $150,000.00 to over $2.5 million. Prices have varied from $50,000.00 to $3 million. Our office is
located in Delano and we have agents in the following communities: Jodi Kloempkin in Hopkins,
Steve Swenson in New Hope and Monte Carrico in the Baxter/Brainerd area. We have over 300
liquor store buyers currently in our data base and are presently in the offer process of a liquor store
we just listed on July 29th, near Duluth.
Hospitality Services Corp normally charges 10% for the marketing and sale of business only
properties, we would be willing to adjust that fee for multiple properties listed.
Description of business sales plan.
The marketing plan utilizes a multiple level approach to bring several offers to most businesses. It
involves the use of 7 websites, newspaper advertising, data bases of several hospitality groups that
we are members of and our own databases of thousands of buyers that have inquired about
purchasing a business.
After qualified buyer(s) are acquired we also assist in the following:
. Negotiate the price.
. Lease negotiation.
. Due diligence of buyer(s) or business
. Closing documentation.
. Actual closing of the sale.
The time frame can vary greatly by type of business and terms of business. Off Sale Liquor Stores
generally receive a lot of interest and can be a quick sale, anywhere from two to three months.
Most sellers utilize brokers so they don't have to be involved with all aspects of the sale. They
generally don't have the time to devote to the sale and lack expertise in business sales and
negotiations. Research has also shown sellers that utilize brokerage firms receive and average of
17% more for their business, than sellers who try to sell their own business.
What documentation we would require from the city.
1.) Last 3 years tax returns and P & L's
2.) Current year P & L Statement.
3.) Equipment list
4.) Product Inventory list
5.) Vendors
6.) Employee information, by position and salary.
7.) Lease information on properties.
I am looking forward to meeting with you to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Jerry Vlaminck, Broker
Hospitality Services Corp.
763-972-9077 Office
612-363-7456 (cell)
email: hospitalityserv@frontiernet.net
our
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 . (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128' www.ci.shorewood.mn.us . cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
6 September 2007
RE:
Deer Management Program
FILE NO.
405 (Deer Management)
Staff presented a proposed deer management program to the Council at a work
session on 27 August. Since then, we have adapted the materials presented to fit
Shorewood. Attached are the following:
. Exhibit A Draft newsletter/website article
. Exhibit B Rules of the Shorewood Archery Hunt
. Exhibit C Notice to residents adjacent to hunt areas
. Exhibit D Draft contract with MBRB*
* As of this writing the contract has not been reviewed or edited by the City
Attorney. Also, the general conditions need to be modified for Shorewood. Any
approval should be subject to the City Attorney's recommendations regarding the
contract.
Since I will be actively participating in the Idaho Elk Management Program for the
next two weeks I will not be at the 10 September meeting. If you have any questions
relative to the attached materials, please contact me by Saturday afternoon.
Cc: Craig Dawson
Tim Keane
Larry Brown
Bob Whiting
....
t t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
...
(Draft Newsletter/Website Article)
Shorewood Contracts for Deer Management Services
The deer population has been growing steadily, and the City Council has responded to
requests from residents throughout Shorewood to manage the number of deer. This fall,
the City of Shorewood is contracting with Metro Bowhunters Resource Board (MBRB)
for deer management services during October and November. Archers certified as
"sharpshooters" will remove deer from specified public and private properties that have
been approved by the City. Archers will take be in Shorewood the second and third
weekends in October and November. It is important to note that Shorewood is not
opening a deer season or authorizing hunting within City limits. Hunting in
Shorewood without City authorization is illegal.
Residents with questions or concerns may contact City Hall at 952.474.3236 during
regular business hours, or the SLMPD at 9-1-1 outside of regular business hours. MBRB
will select archers from its current members for the 2007 program in Shorewood.
Residents interested in participating in future deer removal activities should contact the
MBRB at www.strictlvbowhunting.com.
9/07
Exhibit A
City of Shorewood
Special Archery Deer Hunt Rules
1. Deer hunt locations are limited to the areas identified on the attached map.
2. Hunts are conducted using sharpshooter status archers and are held during the 2nd
and 3rd weekends in October and November.
3. Hunters are selected through the Metro Bowhunters Resource Board (MBRB).
4. Hunters must follow all MNDNR laws and MBRB special rules.
5. The October hunt periods are antlerless only and the November hunt periods are
either sex.
6. Hunters can not enter the woods/field earlier than 1h hour before sunrise on first
day.
7. Hunters must carry hunt authorization letter at all times during hunt.
8. All archers must hunt from elevated stands.
9. Only buckthorn can be cut for shooting lanes.
10. Stands can only be up during the hunt.
11. Archers are to obey hunt boundaries shown on the map.
12. Archers must park in designated areas only and must display Shorewood parking
permit.
13. Only deer may be taken during special hunts.
14. Archers cannot track deer outside of hunt boundaries without contacting the hunt
coordinator, or the police contact officer.
15. Additional restrictions may be added at the required orientation meeting.
16. Failure to follow rules will lead to removal from the hunt.
9/07
Exhibit B
rIJ
-= e
QJ ~
"0 lo.
';j ~
QJ C
~,
"0......
C =
C QJ
~ e
QJ QJ
lo. ~
C ~
..= =
IJJ ~
S~
QJ lo.
eJ QJ
.... QJ
e~
z
1:i
Q)
"0
.......
(/)
Q)
p::
~
Q)
Q
(/)
J:J~~
4-< Q) ~
(/) 0 ~ Q)
I-< Q) Q) ..s:::
Q)(/)..s:::.......
~ 0 ....... ~
~ fr 4-<....... ~
......;:l0Q)Q)
~ 0.. ~ ..0 ..0
o Q)............ 8
o::l..s:::o;'::::Q)
0E-<.8~>
~~~~Z
"::::'uu..s:::"O
~....... ro u ~
Q) I:;;.a' ~ ro
.;3 ~ ro "0 [)
..s:::........(/)Q)..o
.~ ro....... t+::: 0
> > >>....... .......
?' 0 t:: t:: u
"08Q)80
Q) 0.. 4-<
t)~8~0
rol-<",p:::(/)
.;:J Q) ..... o::l "0
@~g~~
U 1-<>> ~
(/) ~ . Q)
ro ....... c:a Q)
..s::: $~ > ~
"Op:::.......o"o
g o::l 5 ~.~
~~ >>1-<.;3
~'-'~[)]
o "0....... Q) ro
..s::: I-< > "0
C/) ro"9 1-<"0
o w 0 ~
'oo::lo~O
....... "0 U
>>Q)(/)Q)Q)
.~ 8....... t+::: (/)
U ;:l Q)....... ~
ou.............
Q) (/)....... ~ .......
..s:::Q)o~~
E-< p:: ~....... 0
~] ~
8:;'3
;:l 0 OJ.)
o ~ Q)
>>\0 I-<
M4-<
~ N 0
8 M Q)
ro..J."O
5h r- .......
o"'~
I-< , ;:l
o..N 0
(/)lrl_
:EO'I,
.......1ii""-;<
OJ.) (/)0'1
.S ~ 1ii
"0 0
~ ..s::: 1:i
OJ.) (/) Q)
~ ~ .s
(/) ~ I-<
a....... ro
Q) ;g fr
g~Q
o ro Q)
U '3 .~
I-< OJ.)""""
o Q) 0
(/) I-< ~
~ OJ.) ro
.S ~ ~
........c ~
(/) ;:l 0
~ "0 'Q)
0":::: @
>> ro....... (/)
g::q~ ~
Q).,QQ)0
>....... ~..s:::
roUro(/)
..s:::.......,....:j(/)
;:l ~..s::: ~
o ....... ;:; .......
>>~o;g
~8C/)..o
"0
o
o
~
Q)
I-<
;:l 0
o..s:::
>>C/)
4-<
~~
..s::: .~
E-<U
Exhibit C
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128' www.ci.shorewood.mn.us . cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
11 September 2007
Metro Bowhunters Resource Base, Inc.
30405 Ridgewood Ave
Shafer, MN 55074
Re: Contract with the City of Shorewood
Attached is your contract with the City of Shorewood ready for signature by the authorized agent
of your organization.
As you review and sign this document, please note the following:
1. INSURANCE.
. Fax (or mail) a Certificate ofInsurance (Page 2 - General Conditions) to (952) 474-
0128 prior to commencement of any work.
. Please have the City of Shorewood listed as an additional insured. Shorewood
agrees to pay for the additional insured coverage.
2. REMITTANCE INSTRUCTIONS:
· Sign and send the orh!inal documents(s) to:
Bradley J. Nielsen, Planning Director
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
3. EXECUTED CONTRACT. A copy of the executed contract will be sent back to you
for your records when required signatures have been obtained.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the signature process or insurance, you may
contact Bradley Nielsen at (952) 474-3236, or Craig Dawson at that same number.
Thank you.
Bradley J. Nielsen
Planning Director
Exhibit D
enc.
,.
f: t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
...
CONTRACT FOR GOODS/SERVICES
City of Shorewood (City), a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, is in need of services and/or goods
(hereinafter "services") and Metro Bowhunters Resource Base, Inc., 30405 Ridgewood Ave, Shafer, MN 55074
(Contractor) desires to provide such services.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements contained herein the parties enter into this
Contract and agree as follows:
1. TERM. The term of this Contract is from the date of execution by all parties through , or
until all work under this Contract is completed and payments made, which ever occurs first, unless earlier
terminated by law or according to the provisions of this Contract.
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES. The City requests and the Contractor agrees to provide the services
that are attached and incorporated as Exhibit 1. If there is a conflict between this Contract and Exhibit 1, this
Contract shall govern. Services provided under this Agreement will be conducted in a manner consistent with
that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the Contractor's occupation performing
services under similar conditions.
OR
o that are described as follows: Provide hunt management services and in return the City waives the $
fee for their members. MBRB will provide administrative services, but do not guarantee the number of
member-hunters.
o (check if applicable) and more fully described in the attached and incorporated Exhibit 1 Scope of
Services dated
If there is a conflict between this Contract and Exhibit 1, this Contract shall govern. Services
provided under this Agreement will be conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and
skill ordinarily exercised by members of the Contractor's occupation performing services under
similar conditions.
3 . PAYMENT. The City agrees to pay for the services, including expenses in an amount not to exceed $- 0 -
(Contract Maximum), 0 (check if applicable) and in accordance with payment rates or schedule set forth in the
Exhibit(s).
4. CITY LIAISON. Contractor shall work closely with the City's liaison, Bradley Nielsen, 952-474-3236.
5. GENERAL CONDITIONS. The General Conditions of this Contract are attached and incorporated as Exhibit A.
6. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Contract is the final expression of the agreement of the parties and the complete
and exclusive statement of the terms agreed upon.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Contract on the date(s) indicated below.
FOR CITY OF SHOREWOOD
(I represent and warrant that I am authorized to
execute this contract on behalf of the City of
Shorewood)
FOR THE CONTRACTOR
(I represent and warrant that I am authorized by
law to execute this contract and legally bind the
Contractor).
By:
By:
Craig W. Dawson,
Administrator/City Clerk
Print Name:
Title:
Telephone No.
Date of signature:
Date of signature:
Scope of Services for 2007 Shorewood Deer Management Project
September _, 2007
Provide hunt management services. MBRB will provide administrative services, but do not guarantee the
number of member-hunters.
MBRB Activities Target Date
· Send mailing list ofMBRB hunt participants to City.......................... ............. ..... ...
· Assist City staff at Hunt Orientation Check-in and Meeting presentation....... ......... ........
· Shorewood Hunt......... ............ ......... ...... ............ ..........
· Staff the Hunt Base from 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. (sometimes until noon)
· Issue and reclaim backtags from participants each day
· Gather hunt data from each participant each day
· Administer hunt in accordance with hunt rules and other procedures necessary for a safe and orderly hunt
event
· Report rule infractions and other pertinent incidents (such as unauthorized park visitors)
· Assist in tracking and recovery of deer that are reported hit by participants
· Assist in locating participants who do not return to Hunt Base on time
· Send final summary report of hunt data to City staff
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT A: GENERAL CONDITIONS - GOODS/SERVICES
NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST. None of contractor's owners, directors, officers or principals is or is closely related to any County employee
who has or may appear to have any control over the award, management or evaluation of the contract. If there is a question as to whether
there may be an appearance of such a conflict, the contract shall be presented to the county board for approval, regardless of the amount of
the contract, in accordance with Resolution 01-767.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Contractor is an independent contractor and nothing in this Contract shall be construed to create the
relationship of agents, partners, joint venturers, associates, or employer and employee between the County and Contractor.
COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS/STANDARDS. Contractor shall abide by all Federal, State or local laws; statutes, ordinances, rules and
regulations pertaining to this Contract and this Contract shall be construed in accordance with the substantive and procedural laws of
the State of Minnesota. All proceedings related to this Contract shall be venued in the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota.
LICENSES. At its own expense, Contractor shall procure all licenses, permits or other rights required for the provision of services
contemplated by this Contract. Contractor shall inform the County of any changes in the above within five (5) days of occurrence.
INDEMNIFICATION. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor agrees to indemnify the County, its officers, employees, agents
and others acting on its behalf and to hold them harmless and defend and protect them from and against any and all loss, damage,
liability, cost or expense, specifically including attorneys' fees and other costs and expenses of defense, which result from, or otherwise
arise in connection with, any actions, claims or proceedings of any sort to the extent caused by any negligent or otherwise wrongful act
or omission, including breach of a specific contractual duty, of Contractor, its officers, employees or agents, or any other person(s) or
entity(ies) for whose acts or omissions Contractor is legally responsible, whether or not also caused in part by a party indemnified
hereunder.
ASSIGNMENT/SUBCONTRACTING. The Contractor shall not assign or subcontract this Contract without prior written consent of the
County, in which case Contractor is responsible for the performance of its subcontractors or assignees and follow the requirements of
Minn. Stat. S 471.425 (payments to subcontractors). .
INSURANCE TERMS. Contractor shall provide to the County, prior to or concurrent with the execution of this Contract, certificate(s) of
insurance naming Dakota County as certificate holder or certified copies of such existing policies of insurance, demonstrating:
l GeneralliabiJity coverage of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate
(check if applicable) [8l and naming Dakota County as an additional insure,d;
L Automobile liability coverage of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate
(check if applicable) [8l and naming Dakota County as an additional insured,
L Workers' compensation coverage or certification of excluded employment from workers' compensation requirements.
Contractor shall pay all retentions and deductibles under such policies of insurance.. If Contractor does not have existing coverage(s) or
has coverage(s) in limits less than that set out above, Contractor must obtain from the County, prior to or concurrent with the execution
of this Contract, a waiver of the coverage(s) or agreement to lower coverage limits from the County.
MODIFICATIONS. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of the provisions of this Contract shall only be valid when they
have been reduced to writing and signed by the authorized representatives of the parties.
TERMINATION. Either party upon thirty days written notice to the other party may terminate this Contract, with or without cause.
Notice of termination shall be made by certified mail or personal delivery to the person signing this Contract on behalf of the other party.
Termination of this Contract shall not discharge any liability, responsibility or right of any party, which arises from the performance of or
failure to adequately perform the terms of the Contract prior to the effective date of termination.
TERMINATION BY COUNTY - LACK OF FUNDING. Notwithstanding any provision of this Contract to the contrary, the County may
immediately terminate this Contract if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature, Minnesota Agencies or other funding
source, or if its funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow payment of the amounts due under this Contract. Written notice
of termination sent by the County to Contractor by facsimile is sufficient notice under the terms of this Contract. The County is not
obligated to pay for any services that are provided after written notice of termination for lack of funding. The County will not be assessed
any penalty or damages if the Contract is terminated due to lack of funding.
BOND FOR G/HVACR CONTRACTORS. In accordance with Minn. Stat. ~ 326.992, if Contractor will be performing any work having to do
with gas, heating, ventilation, cooling, air conditioning, fuel burning or refrigeration, the Contractor must give bond in the amount of $25,000
to the State of Minnesota for the benefit of persons suffering financial loss by reason of Contractor's failure to comply with the requirements
of the State Mechanical Code.
RECORDS/AUDITS. Contractor's bonds, records, documents, papers, accounting procedures and practices, and other evidences
relevant to this Contract are subject to the examination, duplication, transcription and audit by the County and either the Legislative or
State Auditor, pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 16C.05, subd. 5. Such evidences are also subject to review by the Comptroller General of the
United States, or a duly authorized representative, if federal funds are used for any work under this Contract. The Contractor agrees to
maintain such evidences for a period of six (6) years from the date services or payment were last provided or made or longer if any
audit in progress requires a longer retention period.
DATA PRIVACY. For purposes of this Contract all data on individuals collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated shall be
administered consistent with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, and the Minnesota Rules
implementing the Act now in force or hereafter adopted as well as Federal laws on data privacy, and Contractor must comply with those
requirements as if it were a governmental entity. The Contractor will strictly comply with these statutes and rules. All subcontracts shall
contain the same or similar data practices compliance requirements.
NON-DISCRIMINATION. Contractor agrees that, in the hiring'of all labor for the performance of any work under this Contract, it will not.
by reason of race, creed, color, sex; national origin, disability, sexual orientation, age, marital status or public assistance status, .
discriminate againsla:n'rperson who is a. citizeriofthe United States and who qualifies and is available to perform the work to which
such employment relates. Cqn,tractpr agrees to cQri]p!y with all Federal, State, and local non-discrimination laws and ordinances, in
particular the applicable provisiQns 't;Jf ,the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportullity Act of 1972.
When required by law or requested by the County, Contractor shall furnish a written affirmative action plan.
CONTRACTOR DEBARMENT. SUSPENSION:AND RESPONSIBILITY CERTIFICATION. By signing this Contract the Contractor is
certifying that the federal government or the'Minnesota Commissioner of Administration has not suspended or debarred the Contractor
or its Principals and Employees, based upon Federal Regulation 45 CFR 92.35 and Minn. Stat. S16C.03, subd. 2 respectively.
Contractors may be suspended or debarred when it is determined, through a duly authorized hearing process, that they have abused
the public trust in a serious manner.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 . www.ci.shorewood.mn.us . cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
Craig Dawson, City Administrator
James Landini, City Engineer
FROM:
Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
DATE:
September 6,2007
RE:
Acceptance of the Proposal for Cleaning the Exterior of the Minnewashta Water
Tower
The City of Shorewood owns and maintains a 500,000 gallon water tower located within an
easement area of the Minnewashta School Property. This parcel is addressed as 26350 Smithtown
Road. Attachment 1 is a site location map for your reference.
During budget work sessions conducted over the past few months, the City Council provided
direction to seek quotations for power washing of the Minnewashta Water Tower in 2007. Staffhas
solicited quotes for the services of cleaning the exterior of the tower.
Staff also asked the contractors, as part of the bid, to quote pricing for painting the "bottom cone
structure" of the tower. Vandals have tagged the bottom cone portion of the pedestal and painted
the overflow vent pipe. Attachments 2 and 3 are recent photos taken of the tower.
Table 1 indicates the results of the base bid.
Firm Amount of Bid
Water Tower Clean & Coat $5,900.00
TMI Coatings $9,900.00
Table 1
....
f: t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
...
11= I D It
Mayor and City Council
Accept Proposal Minnewashta Water Tower
September 6, 2007
Page 2 of2
Water Tower Clean and Coat provided the lowest responsible bid. The pricing between the two
firms is significant. The difference in pricing is due the difference in methodologies being
proposed between the two firms. Water Tower Clean and Coat utilizes a power wash rack that
hangs off the tower. Attachment 4 is a photo of this type of operation. This methodology, as
compared to the older technology of personnel repelling down the side of the tower with power
wash equipment, utilizes less personnel and time on the job site. Consequently, the quote from
Water Tower Clean and Coat is significantly lower than TMI Coatings.
Therefore, Staff is recommending that the base bid, provided by Water Tower Clean and Coat for
cleaning of the exterior tank and repainting of the bottom cone structure, be accepted in the amount
of $5,900.00.
In addition, Water Tower Clean and Coat also proposed performing a few additional upgrades to the
tank that are outside of the quote requested. These upgrades are to install a stainless steel check
valve on the overflow pipe (for security) and a heavy duty screen and flange at the end of the
overflow pipe. These items are new standards by the health department and office of Homeland
Security that are being recommended for all elevated storage facilities. Pricing for the furnishing
and installation of these items was quoted at an additional $800.00.
Staffhas reviewed the proposal and agrees that the suggested upgrades should be completed and
that the pricing provided is very reasonable. Therefore, Staff is recommending that this work be
included in the acceptance of the proposal.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending acceptance of the proposal, by motion, provided by Water Tower Clean and
Coat, Inc. for exterior washing of the Minnewashta Water Tower and security upgrades for a total
contract amount of$6,700.00.
..' ---l--~r----'
,/"\ \ >--
>.. / \ \ 1./'\,
. ';71 I, \ 1 L 1/ ----"\
/ or )" ~ _---_L~ -- ---- I
~/ -1116 r ,/
j
j':l '.ITHlOWN R]JJ1=l
~ I ,r-,~
e"".., / ". ~
o -- ....,...- / / ~
;Ill ", --'S ' " ..:
-i /-(/1 ,.., Jt8€RR/1rcr ~!ZI~__,--_J\ /'/
I I r'\:~ ";>_~<"
LN ::--
"'I
~-. ~
._-'(\-'1'-- 8' f /',
)0 0 .,..'" /~
/\;--H~~:"~~~'(---'
,.,-,- '--r 1l' \, -.'
r" l r
/ " \ \ .
.c~:1 I [\ ,/ _~4..
" R.ITHl.")"'. err ~'
......,....,,,. \ I I I .,/,/
''''....J 1 I v/
'-.:"\.....~ 1/"/
'""',.>....~',/
//
.~./.
/
~../
/
MINNEWAHSTA SITE
LOCATION
......~.../...'
.../""
A TT ACHMENT 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
A TT ACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
POWER WASH RACK
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128' www.ci.shorewood.mn.us' cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
Craig Dawson, City Administrator
Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
J ames Landini, City Engineer!>> rI--
September 6, 2007
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Approval of Feasibility Report on Road Reconstruction and Water Main Improvements
as Part of Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, Glen Road Project
Attachment 1 is the Revised Feasibility report for Road Reconstruction and Water Main Improvements
under Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, Glen Road as part of the road reconstruction project. The report
presents four parts for consideration. The four parts are street reconstruction, stormwater
improvements, watermain improvements and sanitary sewer improvements.
The revised Feasibility report includes:
20-foot-wide Glen Road with edge control outside of driving surface.
22-foot-wide Manitou Lane with edge control outside of driving surface.
24-foot-wide Amlee Road with edge control outside of driving surface.
Stormwater improvements consisting of pipes, catch basins, wetlands and a retention pond.
Installation ofwatermain consisting of 8" main, hydrants, and service stubs to adjoining
properties.
Sanitary Sewer improvements consisting of potential pipe repair, infiltration sealing and inflow
sealing.
The project as described in the report is necessary, feasible and a cost-effective solution for these
proposed improvements. The watermain improvements are proposed to be assessed on adjoining
properties. Consequently, a public hearing must be held prior to ordering the improvement project. As
the adjoining property owners did not petition to be assessed for the City water improvements,
approval by a four-fifths majority ofthe Council will be required to order the water improvements with
assessments.
1
....
f' t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
...
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution approving the Feasibility Report for
the Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, and Glen Road improvements. As special assessments are
proposed for watermain improvements a public hearing will need to be held per Chapter 429
of Minnesota Statutes. The resolution would set October 8, 2007 for the public hearing.
Alternatively, the Council may direct further revisions to be addressed in the feasibility
report; this effort would entail addition cost.
Amlee Road,/Glell.~oad,andMa~itOl1.uane
Road Reco nstructionand.~ater/Mainlmprovem ent~
WSBProject .No.107 4,,63
Prepared. for:
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
Attachment # 1
Prepared by:
WSB
701 X~niaAvenue. South, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN55416/ (763) 541-4800
& Associates fnc.
FEASIBILITY REPORT
GLEN ROAD, MANITOU LANE, AND AMLEE ROAD
STREET, UTILITIES, AND APPURTENANT IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 01-11
FOR THE
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
May 14, 2007
Updated September 10, 2007
Prepared By:
WSB & Associates, Inc.
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
763-541-4800
763-541-1700 (Fax)
Feasibility Report
Glell Road} Mallitou Lane, and Amlee Road
Street, Utilities, afld Appurtenaflt Improvements
City of SllOrewood Project No. 01-11
WSB Project No.1 074-63/1459-25
...
WSB
&Associafi!s./nc;
Infrastructure _ Engineering _ Planning _ Construction
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763541-4800
Fax: 763541-1700
September 10,2007
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Feasibility Report
Glen Road, Manitou Lane, and Amlee Road
Street, Utilities, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Shorewood Project No. 01-11
WSB Project No. 1074-63/1459-25
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Transmitted herein is the updated feasibility report for the proposed Glen Road, Manitou Lane, and Amlee Road
Street and Utility Improvements. The project as prepared herein includes reconstruction of existing streets, sand
sub grade construction, concrete edge control, water main construction, minor sanitary sewer repairs, and the
installation of storm sewer to improve drainage conditions in the project area.
The Opinion of Probable Cost has been updated to reflect revised road widths on Glen Road and Manitou Lane.
In addition, the newest information on tree removal, based on a survey done in July, is incorporated into the
revised costs.
The report contained herein presents costs for the project as well as proposed funding including assessments,
which are based on the assessment policy used by the City Council in 2006.
We are available at your convenience to discuss this report. Please feel free to contact me at 763-541-4800 if
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
~
David E. Hutton, PE
Project Manager
Enclosure
cc: Larry Brown, City of Shorewood
James Landini, City of Shorewood
Steve Gurney, WSB & Associates, Inc.
Ih
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
~6L
0-
Steve G. Gurney, PE
Date: September 10,2007
Lic. No. 40497
Quality Control Review by:
~
David E. Hutton, PE
Date: September 10,2007
Lic. No. 19133
Feasibility Report
Glell Road, Mallitou Lalle, alld Amlee Road
Street, Utilities, alld Appurtellallt Improvemellts
City of Shore wood Project No. 01-11
WSB Project No. 1074-63/1459-25
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE SHEET
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
CERTIFICATION SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1
2. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Authorization...............................................................................................................3
2.2 Project Overview.........................................................................................................3
2.3 Scope............................................................................................................................3
3. EXISTIN G CO ND ITI ON S ....................... ....................................................... ................. 4
4. PRO POSED IMPROVEMENTS . ................................... ...... ........................................... 6
4.1 Street Improvements .................. ................ ............. ...... .......... .......... ...........................6
4.2 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Improvements ..........................................................6
4.3 Storm Sewer Improvements......................................................................................... 7
4.4 Easements.................................................................................................................... 7
4.5 Surface Improvements................................................................................................. 7
4.6 Access During Construction........................................................................................ 7
4. 7 Permits/Approvals........................................................................................................ 8
5. FINANCING....................................................................................................................... 9
5.1 Opinion of Cost............................................................................................................9
5.2 Funding........................................................................................................................9
6. PROJECT SCHEDULE .................................................................................................. 11
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 12
Appendix A
Figures
Appendix B
Opinion of Probable Cost
Preliminary Assessment Roll
Feasibility Report
Glell Road, Mallitou Lalle, alld Amlee Road
Street, Utilities, alld Appurtellallt /mproveme/lts
City of Shore wood Project No. O/-II
WSB Project No. /074-63/1459-25
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Glen Road, Manitou Lane, and Amlee Road Street, Utilities, and Appurtenant Improvements
is a City Council initiated project. The project includes the reconstruction of the following
streets:
. 2,400 feet on Glen Road from County Road 19 to west end.
. 400 feet on Manitou Lane from Glen Road to Amlee Road.
. 800 feet on Amlee Road from Manitou Lane to east end.
The purpose of the project is the reconstruction of the streets, the addition of storm sewer
facilities to improve drainage, and the construction of 8-inch water main and services to serve the
existing houses in the area.
The project as presented herein includes the reconstruction of the existing bituminous streets by
reconstructing the existing bituminous and gravel base and constructing a 24-inch select granular
borrow sub grade section placed on a geotextile fabric with an 8-inch class 5 aggregate base
course layer. The bituminous section will consist of a 2-inch bituminous base course and 2-inch
bituminous wearing course.
The edge control in the project area consists of mountable-style concrete edge.
The street improvements will allow for the installation of additional catch basins and storm
sewer to collect the water from the roadway and convey it to various discharge points within the
limits of the project. The piping for the collection and conveyance systems will consist of
reinforced concrete pipe ranging in diameter from 12 inches to 30 inches. The pipe design will
provide additional inlet capacity to accommodate the runoff generated from a 10-year rainfall
event. Where the project connects to existing systems, this may not be possible. Where this
occurs, the project will minimize impacts to downstream systems.
An existing 9-inch PVC sanitary sewer line constructed in 1972 serves the area. We recommend
that the City televise the existing sanitary sewer lines to determine if any repairs are necessary.
The contractor will install external sealing protection systems (Infi.-Shields) and new castings for
the sanitary manholes when replacing the street section. When excavating for the water main
services, they will also install new sanitary services at the location of future lot splits.
The contractor will construct the improvements in two phases. Amlee Road and Manitou Lane
would be constructed under one phase and Glen Road would be constructed under a second
phase. The contractor will be required to maintain access to the existing houses at all times
during construction.
The proposed schedule for the project allows for constructing the utilities, concrete edge control,
aggregate base, and bituminous base course improvements in 2008. The bituminous wear course
and final project restoration is anticipated to be completed during the spring of2009.
Feasibility Report
Glell Road, Mallitou Lalle, alld Amlee Road
Street, Utilities, alld Appurtellallt Improvemellts
City ofSllOrewood Project No. 2001-11
WSB Project No. 1074-63/1459-25
Page 1
Z a:lEd
S,-6Sfrl / f9-frLOI 'oN P<J{OJJ llSM
ll-TOO, 'oN P<J{OJJ POO(\t;)JOI/S!O N!J
s/u<Jw<J(\oJdw/ /lIvlI<J/mddy pllV 's<J!1!1!1fl '/<J<JJ/S
pvol:] <J<Jlwy pllV '<JIIV7 n01!"vjf 'PVOI:] ''''ID
pod<J1:] N!1!Q!SV<J.'!
'p~SOdOld SB SlU~ill~A01dill~ ~ql1~p10 Ol ~U~lB~q ;)Hqnd ~ql
lOJ UB;) lpuno:) Al~:) ~qllBql ';)UI 'S~lB~;)OSSV 7<fl as.M.Jo UO~lBPU~UIlUO;)~l ~ql s~ H 'lU~odpUBlS
~u~.m~u~~u~ UB illO.y ~A~P~JJ~-lSO;) pUB '~{q~SB~J 'A.IBSS~;)~U S~ U~~l~q p~q!l;)S~P SB P~fOld ~ql
'lOll~d SS"lvO'6$ s~ SlU~ill~A01dill~ U~Bill1~lBM
10J lunoillB p~SS~SSB p~lBillnS~ ~ql 'SlU~ill~A01dill~ U~Bill1~lBM 10J SlU~illSS~SSB pUB 'punJ AlH!lfl
l~lB.M. UUOlS pUB pUl1J l~~.Ij.S Al~:) ~pn{::>u~ lHM P~f01d ~qllOJ ~U~PUl1J p~SOd01d .OOE'SSE'Z$ S~
U~~l~q p~SOd01d SB SlU~ill~A01dill~ AlH!ln pUB l~~.IlS ~ql10J lSO;) P~fOld IBlOl ~ql10J ~lBillnS~ ~ql
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Authorization
The feasibility report was authorized by the City Council of Shorewood at its April 23, 2007
meeting. The project has been designated as City Project 01-11.
2.2 Project Overview
Figure 1 in Appendix A illustrates the proposed project area. The proposed project consists of
improvements to Glen Road, Manitou Lane, and Amlee Road.
2.3 Scope
The scope of the feasibility report includes the street reconstruction, storm sewer, and water main
improvements on the following streets:
· Glen Road from County Road 19 to the west.
· Manitou Lane from Glen Road to Amlee Road.
· Amlee Road from Manitou Lane to the east end.
The proposed reconstruction includes bituminous pavement reclamation, subgrade correction,
and the placement of a geotextile fabric.
Feasibility Report
Glen Road, Manitou Lane, and Amlee Road
Street, Utilities, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Shore wood Project No. 2001-11
WSB Project No. 1074-63/1459-25
Page 3
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Glen Road is an existing bituminous street that is approximately 20 feet wide. The pavement is
in poor condition with patches, cracking, and an uneven surface. The existing street currently
does not contain a concrete edge control. West of Manitou Lane, the road width narrows to
approximately 15 feet.
Glen Road connects to Manitou Road or Hennepin County Road 19 on the east end. Glen Road
extends to the west 2,400 feet to a dead end that currently does not contain a cul-de-sac.
The lots along the south side of Glen Road were platted with the Manitou Glen addition. The
Gideon's Woods townhouse development is located on the north side of Glen Road in the
northwest corner of Glen Road and County Road 19. The Amlee Acres and Casey Addition
contain lots along the north side of Glen Road west of the townhouse development.
The platted right-of-way for Glen Road is 40 feet. An existing 9-inch PVC sanitary sewer line
serves the lots on Glen Road. The road surface meanders throughout the corridor to avoid
encroachment on steep slopes on the south side of the street.
Amlee Acres and Casey Addition are the two plats that dedicate the lots along Manitou Lane and
Amlee Road. The platted right-of-way for Manitou Lane and Amlee Road is 50 feet.
Manitou Lane is an existing roadway that connects Glen Road and Amlee Road. Manitou Lane
is about 22 feet wide and approximately 400 feet long. The pavement is in poor condition with
patches, cracking, and an uneven surface. The existing road sheet drains to the north. Some
storm water ponds in the southeast corner of Amlee Road before it overtops to the north.
There is an existing underground sanitary sewer line in Manitou Lane and Amlee Road. There
are overhead lines for electric, cable TV, and telephone. Conflicts with underground utilities
will require temporary service disruptions during installation of the new improvements.
Amlee Road is an existing cul-de-sac west of County Road 19. It is connected to Glen Road to
the south via Manitou Lane. Glen Road is the only access to these roads. Amlee Road is
approximately 24 feet wide and approximately 800 feet in length, including the cul-de-sac bulb.
The pavement is in fair to poor condition with patches, cracking, and an uneven surface.
The drainage pattern on Amlee Road is divided into two areas. The western 250 feet of the road
drains to the west. The water runs off to the north side of the road via a small swale. The south
side until it overflows to the north. The eastern portion of the road drains to the east towards the
cul-de-sac. An existing 12-inch corrugated metal pipe culvert conveys runoff under the road,
discharging into an existing swale that drains north. There is evidence of erosion in the
downstream swale. An existing wetland is present in the back yards of several homes on the
north side of Amlee Road. The outlet for this wetland is an old brick railroad culvert that
appears to be partially blocked by sediment. The downstream channel also has evidence of
sediment.
Feasibility Report
Glen Road, Manitou Lane, and Al1llee Road
Street, Utilities, and Appurtenant 111lprovel1lellts
City of Shore wood Project No. 200I-II
WSB Project No. 1074-63/1459-25
Page 4
Runoff from Manitou Lane will also pond in the southeast corner of Manitou Lane and Amlee
Road.
Glen Road drainage is divided into four distinct areas. Runoff from the western 200 feet of the
road sheets off the road and is conveyed to the HCRRA corridor at the end of Glen Road.
Runoff from the second portion, west of Manitou Lane, currently discharges to the HCRR trail
through a culvert and swale between 25080 and 25060 Glen Road. The culvert is partially
plugged with sediment. Runoff from the third portion of Glen Road, immediately east of
Manitou Lane, is conveyed to yards where it pools in various low points. The only known outlet
for this portion is a 9-inch drain tile that does not appear to be functioning adequately. The
fourth segment, the easterly 300 feet of Glen Road, currently conveys runoff directly to the
wetland at the southwest corner of Glen Road and County Road 19. The outlet for this wetland
is a 12-inch PVC pipe that conveys runoff under County Road 19 and then on the HCRRA
corridor.
Feasibility Report
Glell Road, Mallitou Lalle, alld Amlee Road
Street, Utilities, alld Appurtellallt Improvemellts
City ofSllOrewood Project No. 200l-II
WSB Project No. 1074-63/1459-25
Page 5
4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
4.1 Street Improvements
The proposed improvements will consist of full depth milling of the existing pavement surface
and thoroughly mixing it with the existing aggregate base. This material will be temporarily
removed and stockpiled at a site nearby such as the Badger park. After construction of water
main and storm sewer improvements, sub grade excavation will remove approximately 2 feet of
soil to prepare the street for the new material.
As shown on the City's Standard typical section on Figure 2, a geotextile fabric provides
separation between the subgrade and the roadbed aggregates. Then 24 inches of select granular
borrow would be placed in the street. The recycled or reclaimed class 5 aggregate base would be
placed over the select granular borrow. Next, the concrete edge control would be constructed on
both sides of the street. The total street width, from back of curb to back of curb, will be as
follows:
Road Total Width (ft.)
Amlee Road 28.67
Manitou Lane 26.67
Glen Road 24.67
The final lift of bituminous paving would be placed one year after the bituminous base is
constructed.
Access for emergency and service vehicles, as well as for residents, will need to be
accommodated during construction and will be incorporated into the project specifications. The
contractor must maintain at least one lane of vehicular access at all times while constructing the
improvements.
4.2 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Improvements
External sealing protection systems (Infi-Shields) are proposed to be constructed on all sanitary
manhole structures. The seals will be installed when the street is upgraded. The Infi-Shield is
placed on the outside of the adjusting rings on the sanitary sewer manhole structures to prevent
rainwater from infiltrating into the sanitary sewer system.
Additional sanitary sewer improvements such as repair and/or replacement may be added to the
scope of the project once the completed televising tapes are received and reviewed. A 4-inch
sewer service is proposed to be added to oversized lots that could allow an additional house to be
added on the oversized lots in the future.
Figure 3 identifies the proposed water main improvements. The water main extensions would
include constructing an 8-inch DIP water line from an existing 12-inch water line in County
Road 19 to the west 2,400 feet to the west end of Glen Road. In addition, an 8-inch DIP water
main is proposed to be constructed on Manitou Lane and Amlee Road.
Feasibility Report
Glell Road, Mallitou Lalle, alld Amlee Road
Street, Utilities, alld Appurtellallt Improvemellts
City of S/lOrewood Project No. 2001-11
WSB Project No. 1074-63/1459-25
Page 6
Each lot will receive a I-inch copper water service. Oversized lots will be provided with an
additional water service to allow for future platting that could possibly add additional houses.
4.3 Storm Sewer Improvements
Figure 4 identifies the proposed storm sewer improvements. The proposed improvements are
intended to reduce the possibility of flooding on several locations. Among these are the
backyard of25735 Glen Road (identified as area #31 in the City's Drainage Area Report) and the
backyards of the properties between the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority corridor and
Amlee Road.
In order to provide peak flow rate control as required by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District, additional storm water storage is required. In addition, mitigation of the wetland impact
must be addressed. To meet these requirements, the excavation of a new pond on City-owned
property is proposed.
4.4 Easements
The City needs to acquire a drainage and utility easement for the storm sewer improvements that
are shown outside of the proposed streets. All other work as proposed in this report is contained
within the existing right-of-way.
4.5 Surface Improvements
In exchange for easements to construct storm sewer through the back yards of the homes along
Amlee Road, the residents have requested grading work to restore that area be included as part of
the project. The opinion of probable cost for this work is included in Schedule I.
4.6 Access During Construction
In order to maintain access during construction, several methods of construction will be utilized.
Through the narrow Glen Road corridor between County Road 19 and Manitou Lane, the new
water main will be installed by directional boring methods that will minimize the need for trench
excavation. There will still be interruptions when the services are installed, but the duration will
be shorter. In other areas, a 10- foot temporary access road is anticipated, and costs for this road
were included in the estimates. The contractor will ultimately be responsible for maintenance of
this road and maintaining access. The phasing discussed earlier will also allow us to maintain
better access through the corridor.
Feasibility Report
Glen Road, Manitou Lane, and Amlee Road
Street, Utilities, and Appurtenant Improvements
City ofSllOrewood Project No. 2001-11
WSB Project No. 1074-63/1459-25
Page 7
4.7 Permits/Approvals
Permits required as part of the proposed improvements are anticipated as follows:
Minnesota Pollution Control (MPCA)
· NPDES Construction Activity Permit
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH)
· Water Main
Hennepin County
· Work within County Right-of-Way
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
· Watershed District Permit
· Wetland Conservation Act
Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority
· Work within Trail Corridor
Feasibility Report
Glen Road, Manitou Lane, and Amlee Road
Street, Utilities, and Appurtenant Improvements
City of Shorewood Project No. 2001-11
WSB Project No. 1074-63/1459-25
Page 8
5. FINANCING
5.1 Opinion of Cost
A detailed Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost for the proposed improvements can be found in
Appendix B of this report. These opinions of probable cost incorporate 2007 construction costs
and include a 10% construction contingency and 25% indirect costs. The indirect costs include
legal, engineering, administrative, and financing items. A summary of the project costs is shown
below:
Schedule A - Glen Road Street Improvements $855,300.00
.
Schedule B - Glen Road Water Main Improvements $305,300.00
Schedule C - Glen Road Sanitary Sewer Improvements $14,000.00
Schedule D - Glen Road Storm Sewer Improvements $172,400.00
Schedule E - Manitou Lane/ Amlee Road Street Improvements $491,900.00
Schedule F - Manitou Lane/Amlee Water Main Improvements $119,700.00
Schedule G - Manitou Lane/ Amlee Road Sanitary Sewer Improvements $6,000.00
Schedule H Manitou Lane/ Amlee Road Storm Sewer ~ $380,700.00
'J:'
Schedule I - Manitou Lane/ Amlee Road Surface Improvements $10,000.00
~TIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST I $2,355,300.00
5.2 Funding
The proposed funding for the project will be by assessment for the cost of the water main
improvements. The total cost of the water main improvements will be assessed equally to each
property owner. The City's Street fund will be used to cover 100% of the street and sanitary
sewer improvement costs. The storm sewer improvement costs will be covered 100% by the
City's Storm Water Utility fund. The amount for each fund is summarized in the following
table.
STREET FUND $1,347,200.00
SANITARY SEWER FUND $20,000.00
STORM WATER UTILITY FUND $563,100
WATER MAIN (TO BE $425,000.00
ASSESSED)
Feasibility Report
Glell Road, Mallitou Lalle, alld Amlee Road
Street, Utilities, alld Appurtellallt Improvemellts
City of Shore wood Project No. 2001-11
WSB Project No. 1074-63/1459-25
Page 9
Based on this funding scenario, each of the 47 benefiting property owners in the proposed project
area would be assessed $9,042.55. The remaining costs will be covered by City funds.
Glen Road Water Main Improvement Cost $305,300.00
Manitou Lane and Amlee Road Water Main Improvement Cost $119,700.00
Total Water Main Improvement Costs $425,000.00
Number of Lots 47 Lots
Water Main Assessment per Lot $9,042.55 per lot
Feasibility Report
Glell Road, Mallitou Lalle, alld Amlee Road
Street, Utilities, alld Appurtellallt Improvemellts
City of Shorewood Project No. 2001-11
WSB Project No. 1074-63/1459-25
Page 10
6. PROJECT SCHEDULE
The permits for this project have not yet been obtained due to the uncertainties of the project
scope. In addition, the City must still secure easements before construction can begin. In order
to begin construction in May 2008, it is important to define the scope of the project so that
permits can be secured and construction documents finalized. The revised schedule is presented
below.
The proposed schedule for this improvement is as follows:
Order Feasibility Report ...................................................................................... April 23, 2007
Accept Feasibility Report and Order Plans and Specifications ................. September 10, 2007
Hold Neighborhood Meeting on Final Design.......................................................October 2007
Submit WCA / MCWD permit application ...................................................November 1, 2007
Submit HCRRA permit application ..............................................................November 1,2007
Receive permits....................................................... ............................. January - February 2008
Approve Plans and Specifications, and
Authorize Advertisement for Bids ........................................................... February 11,2008
Receive Bids...................................................................................................... March 19, 2008
Approve Three Resolutions on Improvement Hearing and
Special Assessments ................................................................................... March 24, 2008
Hold Public Hearing for Project and assessments, award bid and
call for bond sales ................................................................................................ April 14, 2008
Award Sale of Bonds ........................................................................................... April 14, 2008
Begin Construction ................ ........................ ................... ............ ... .......... ................. May 2008
Substantial Completion of Construction................................................................ October 2008
Certify Assessments to a County Auditor..........................................................November 2008
Completion of Construction... ... ............ ....................... .... ............. ................. ............. June 2009
Feasibility Report
Glel/ Road, Mal/itou Lal/e, al/d Amlee Road
Street, Utilities, al/d Appurtel/al/t Improvemel/ts
City ofS/lOrewood Project No. 2001-11
WSB Project No. 1074-63/1459-25
Page 11
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the preceding discussions, we offer the following conclusions:
1. The streets have deteriorated to a point where complete reconstruction is warranted.
2. An 8-inch water main with I-inch copper water services is proposed to be added to
Glen Road, Manitou Lane, and Amlee Road.
3. The existing storm sewer system does not have adequate inlet capacity for a 10-year
storm event resulting in localized flooding in some areas of the project. Extension of
the system as proposed will provide the needed inlet capacity, which should minimize
any localized flooding.
4. Access to the residents will need to be provided during construction.
5. The sanitary sewer in the project should be televised prior to the completion of any
final plans. Tapes will need to be reviewed to determine what, if any, repairs should
be completed as part of the project.
6. The addition of external sealing protection systems when added to all manholes
located within the project area will minimize rainwater (inflow) from entering the
sanitary system.
7. The addition of a perforated drain tile behind the concrete edge control will minimize
the potential for frost heave by removing water from the roadway sub-grade. It will
also provide sump pump outlets for the adjacent houses.
8. The project is necessary to improve upon the existing street and utility conditions,
feasible to construct the proposed improvements, and cost-effective through resident
assessment and City funds from an engineering standpoint.
Based on the preceding discussion, we offer the following recommendations:
1. It is the recommendation ofWSB & Associates and City staff to construct
improvements as proposed herein.
2. The City Council accept this feasibility report and call for the public hearing. This is
necessary to order the improvements consistent with Minnesota State Statute No. 429
governing public improvements.
3. The water main improvements should be funded by assessments to the benefiting
property owners.
Feasibility Report
Glen Road, Manitou Lane, and Amlee Road
Street, Utilities, and Appurtenant Improvemellts
City of Sit ore wood Project No. 200l-II
WSB Project No. 1074-63/ 1459-25
Page 12
APPENDIX A
Figures
Feasibility Report
Glell Road, Mallitou Lalle, alld Amlee Road
Street, Utilities, alld Appurtellallt Improvemellts
City ofS/lOrewood Project No. 2001-11
WSB Project No. 1074-63/1459-25
;(
Ii t
~ I
OFT 300 600
PROJECT
SITE
SMI1Hro~ ROAD
j
...
WSB
_Plm
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
Minneapoiis, MN 55416
www.wsbeng.com
STREET AND
UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
LOCATION MAP
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
WSB Proj.No.01074-63
May 3. 2007
& Associates, Inc.
Figure
1
nil" 763-5414800. Fax 763-541.1700
INFRASTRUCTURE 10 ENGINEERING f1 PLANNING % CONSTRUCTION
M:I01 074-63ICadIExhibitsIFIGURE1.dwg, Layout1
o
Z
UJ
C!l
UJ
--'
I
I
!
..
~~~:
a:::
UJ
~Z
UJ-
ZC/J<(
- :z
<(~a:::
:Z<(UJ
ffi!:::~
I-z~
~<(Cl
>C/JUJ
C!lC!lC/J
ZZO
i=t3g;
C/J-a:::
~G)CL
~f
cr:
z
w
-'
o
<(
eno
'zo::
W Wz
::'i:::J_ Cl
W::'i:<( 0
6 <e.~ ~
2: wo::: UJ
ZUJ
~~I- a:::
~ 6:;; ~
:::!f-> C/J
~ ~o LL
O::'i:UJ 0
Z "(j) >-1-
<( 00
t:i C3 a.. C3
wo::o
~ mo:::
en <5 a..
fgl'l H.'
M~ ~ii ..
;bl~ ~~ .
~ i ~
~ j
~ ~
~~
0::
W
:;:
W
en
:2
0::
~~ ~
8 W
_ en
o
0..
t ~
0..
f- en
W 0
W 0 Z~
~~ ~ ~~
OW Ww
WaJ fiJq:;:~
~> en~(9--l
0..0 Ocn~~
00:: ~..f-
o::~ o::gsa5
0.._ o..ZGS~
,..,
i
o
~
~
~
l!!
::l
mC'?
u::
Mfl~i}
!,..~" .
~ ........
C.~;;'i
l?d)
(f)
I-
Z
W
~
W
6
00:::
Ul(31l..
!z a::~
W w-
:2 WI-
~~w 0
o",w 0
a:: '0::: 0
o.~1- :;:
~:)(f) W
~::)o 0::
::; Oz ~
'3 ~ <( (j)
o "'0::: LL
2:2W 0
;::i~ ~
WOW
[j! a::(f) 0
....2
Ul W~
a 0:::
o
I-
(f)
o
W
(f)
o
Il..
o
0:::
Il..
H~ ~~ .'
~~~ ~~ ..
~ ii ...~ .
~ t ~
is ~
j
t
:;j
!5
"
~
J<
~
iJ
i
~
SOD WITH MI
4" TOPSOIL
(TYPICAL)
6" MIN.
AGG j
BASE
1.0' LC
DRAI
TILE
2.0' M~
2.~
<l
I
ROAD WIDTHS
AMLEE ROAD 28.67'
MANITOU LANE 26.67'
GLEN ROAD 24.67'
EDGE CONTROL CONCRETE
6" PERFORATED P.
PIPE WITH FABRIC
(SEE DETAIL ON SHEET x)
2" TYPE LV 4 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (LVWE45035B)
2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT
2" TYPE LV 3 NON-WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (LVNW35030B)
8" AGGREGATE BASE (RECLAIMED MATERIAL THAT MEETS CLASS 7
SPECIFICATIONS) SUPPLEMENT WITH AGGREGATE BASE. CLASS 5
AS REQUIRED (100% CRUSHED LIMESTONE). Mn/DOT SPEC. 2211
24" SELECT GRANULAR MATERIAL. Mn/DOT SPEC. 2105
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC (TYPE V)
TYPICAL URBAN SECTION - GLEN ROAD, MANITOU LANE & AMLEE ROAD
NO SCALE
~
WSB
_~:nF
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
www.wsbeng.com
STREET AND
UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
TYPICAL SECTION
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
WSB Proj.No.01074 63
May 3, 2007
& Associates, Inc.
Figure
4
'.m' 76~14800.Fax763.541.1700
INFRASTRUCTURE 11 ENGINEERING il PLANNING M CONSTRUCTION
M:\01074-63\Cad\Exhibits\FlGURE4.dwg, 9/5/2007 6:32:17 AM
~~~:
o
z LO
w co
<.9 ....
W N
....l
~
(j)
(j)
W
!y
o
~
~
W
c..
o
!y
c..
<l:
w
~
I-
Z
Ow
W:2
(j)(j)
O(j)
c..w
O(j)
!y(j)
c..<l:
0
CO
CO
....
N
0
~
r-
....
N
0
I!) .... 0
.... r- <{
r- ....
~ N 0
a:
0 z
I!) CO
~ r- r- w
r- ~ -'
r;: ~
0
I 0
l- I!)
:::J N
< N CO
CO ....
0:: .... N
0:: N
0
:2 I!) I!)
0 .... CO
I!) <{ CO ....
CO .... N
.... N
N
I!) 0
0 CO
CO CO
CO CO ....
CO .... N
~ N
0
I!)
m
....
N
0
CO
0
I!)
N
0
CO
W 0
> l{)
C2 N
0
0 ~
0 LO
0 N
0 0
5: ;!
w
<::> l{)
0 N
W
5:
ri
~
o
"
::l
I
..
t;
(;
,;
>;
l
~
~
5,L()
u::
l{)
r-
l{)
....
N
l{)
....
CO
....
N
l{)
Cl'l
CO
....
N
l{)
'"
r-
....
N
l{)
r-
r-
~
Cl
<(
~O
zO::
Ww
::;: ~ 0
W::;:<x: 0
6 <C.UJ ~
O::wo:: >
a. Z<x: w
~::il- !y
~ =>z ~
;! ~UJ (j)
':; z<(~ LL.
Cl::;:CI) 0
Z .CI) >-
<( Cl UJ l-
I- <( CI) (3
tlJ ~CI)
~ ffi<X:
CIl-l
(.9
l{)
....
CO
....
N
l{)
CO
CO
....
N
l{)
N
Cl'l
....
N
l{)
l{)
m
~
l{)
m
m
....
N
l{)
N
LO
N
l{)
'"
LO
N
l{)
....
LO
N
0
<{ l{)
0 CO
0:: LO
N
Z
W
-'
C)
~g~ ~~ .'
l~ ~ ~. ,
:i:aJz gg
I i "~ .
~ "
APPENDIX B
Opinion of Probable Cost
Preliminary Assessment Roll
Feasibility Report
Glell Road, Mallitou Lalle, alld Amlee Road
Street, Utilities, alld Appurtellallt Improvemellts
City ofShorelVood Project No. 2001-11
WSB Project No. 1074-63/1459-25
Opinion of Probable Cost
WSB Project: Glen Road. Manitou Lane, and Amlee Road Street Reconstruction Design By: JAK
Project Location: Shorewood Checked By: JPW
City Project No.: Ol-ll REVISED
WSB Proiect No: 1074-63 i 1459-25 Date: 9i10i2007
Item MN/DOT Estimated Estimated Estimated
No. Specification Description Unit Total Unit Price Total Cost
No. Quantity
GLEN ROAD
A. STREET IMPROVEMENTS
1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $ 19,100.00 $ 19.100.00
2 2101.502 CLEARING TREE 60 $ 200.00 $ 12,000.00
3 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE 60 $ 175.00 $ 10,500.00
4 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQYD 160 $ 22.50 $ 3,600.00
5 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQYD 160 $ 5.00 $ 800.00
6 2104.511 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH\ L1N FT 210 5.00 $ 1,050.00
7 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT FULL DEPTH) L1N FT 240 $ 3.50 $ 840.00
8 2104.523 SALVAGE & REINSTALL SIGN EACH 2 $ 150.00 $ 300.00
9 2104.523 SALVAGE MAIL BOX EACH 26 $ 125.00 $ 3,250.00
10 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION IP CUYD 10675 $ 12.50 $ 133,437.50
11 2105.515 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION EV) CUYD 200 $ 15.00 $ 3,000.00
12 2105.522 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW LV CUYD 6400 $ 13.00 $ 83,200.00
13 2105.525 TOPSOIL BORROW LV CUYD 50 $ 25.00 $ 1.250.00
14 2105.601 TEMPORARY ROAD L1N FT 2350 $ 40.00 $ 94,000.00
15 2105.604 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SQYD 9600 $ 1.25 $ 12,000.00
16 2112.501 SUBGRADE PREPARATION ROAD STA 23.8 $ 300.00 $ 7,140.00
17 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 1100% CRUSHED LIMESTONE TON 2000 $ 17.50 $ 35,000.00
18 2211.607 AGGREGATE BASE PLACED CUYD 1000 $ 5.00 $ 5,000.00
19 2331.604 BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT RECLAMATION SQYD 7425 $ 4.00 $ 29,700.00
20 2350.501 TYPE LV 4 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE B TON 650 $ 55.00 $ 35,750.00
21 2350.502 TYPE LV 3 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE B\ TON 650 $ 53.00 $ 34,450.00
22 2350.503 TYPE LV WEARING COURSE MIXTURE FOR DRIVEWAYS SQYD 160 $ 35.00 $ 5,600.00
23 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GALLON 300 $ 3.00 $ 900.00
24 2411.618 MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL SQFT 200 $ 25.00 $ 5,000.00
25 2531.501 CONCRETE EDGE CONTROL L1N FT 4700 $ 10.50 $ 49,350.00
26 2531.507 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQYD 160 $ 50.00 $ 8.000.00
27 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 $ 5.000.00 $ 5.000.00
28 2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE HEAVY DUTY ORANGE L1N FT 3000 $ 4.00 $ 12,000.00
29 2573.53 INLET PROTECTION EACH 11 $ 300.00 $ 3,300.00
30 2575.505 SODDING TYPE LAWN INCL. TOPSOIL & FERT. \ SQYD 2130 $ 3.50 $ 7,455.00
Construction Cost Subtotal $ 622,000.00
10% Contingency $ 62,200.00
Subtotal $ 684,200.00
25% Indirect Costs $ 171,100.00
Total $ 855,300.00
B. WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS
31 2105.602 POT HOLE UTILITIES EACH 9 $ 225.00 $ 2,025.00
32 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EACH 1 $ 2.000.00 $ 2,000.00
33 2504.602 HYDRANT ASSEMBLY EACH 6 $ 2,500.00 $ 15,000.00
34 2504.602 1" CORPORATION STOP EACH 31 $ 100.00 $ 3,100.00
35 2504.602 1.5" CORPORATION STOP EACH 1 $ 150.00 $ 150.00
36 2504.602 1" CURB STOP & BOX EACH 31 $ 125.00 $ 3,875.00
37 2504.602 1.5" CURB STOP & BOX EACH 1 $ 175.00 $ 175.00
38 2504.602 6" GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 6 $ 800.00 $ 4,800.00
39 2504.602 8" GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 1 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00
40 2504.602 8"X6" WET TAP EACH 4 $ 2,200.00 $ 8.800.00
41 2504.603 8" WATER MAIN HDPE DIRECTIONALL Y DRILLED L1N FT 1520 $ 75.00 $ 114,000.00
42 2504.603 6" WATER MAIN-DUCT IRON CL 52 L1N FT 60 $ 23.00 $ 1,380.00
43 2504.603 8" WATER MAIN-DUCT IRON CL 52 L1N FT 830 $ 30.00 $ 24,900.00
44 2504.603 1" TYPE K COPPER PIPE L1N FT 745 $ 50.00 $ 37.250.00
45 2504.603 1.5" TYPE K COPPER PIPE L1N FT 20 $ 75.00 $ 1,500.00
46 2504.608 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS POUNDS 600 $ 3.00 $ 1,800.00
Construction Cost Subtotal $ 222.000.00
10% Contingency $ 22,200.00
Subtotal $ 244,200.00
25% Indirect Costs $ 61,100.00
Total $ 305,300.00
WSB Proj. No. 1074-63
Sheet 1
K:\01459-25\Admin\FeasibilityIFeasibility Opinion of Cost (091 007).xls
Opinion of Probable Cost
WSB Project: Glen Road. Manitou Lane, and Amlee Road Street Reconstruction Design By: JAK
Prqject Location: Shorewood Checked By: JPW
City Project No.: 01-11 REVISED
WSB Praiect No: 1074-63/1459-25 Date: 9/1 0/2007
Item MN/DOT Estimated Estimated Estimated
No. Specification Description Unit Total Unit Price Total Cost
No. Quantity
C. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
47 2503.602 REMOVE CASTING EACH 8 $ 200.00 $ 1,600.00
48 2501.501 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 8 $ 450.00 $ 3,600.00
49 2501.602 4" PVC PIPE SEWER -SCH 40 L1NFT 125 $ 20.00 $ 2,500.00
50 2503.541 9" x 4" PVC WYE EACH 5 $ 150.00 $ 750.00
51 2503.602 CHIMNEY SEALS EACH 8 $ 200.00 $ 1,600.00
Construction Cost Subtotal $ 10,100.00
10% Contingencv $ 1,100.00
Subtotal $ 11,200.00
25% Indirect Costs $ 2.800.00
Total $ 14,000.00
D. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
52 2503.602 CONSTRUCT MANHOLE OVER EXISTING STORM PIPE EACH 1 $ 2.000.00 $ 2,000.00
53 2501.501 15" RC PIPE APRON EACH 2 $ 450.00 $ 900.00
54 2501.602 TRASH GUARD FOR 15" PIPE APRON EACH 2 $ 300.00 $ 600.00
55 2502.541 6" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN L1N FT 4700 $ 7.00 $ 32,900.00
56 2502.601 6" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 47 $ 150.00 $ 7.050.00
57 2503.541 12" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL V L1N FT 535 $ 32.00 $ 17,120.00
58 2503.541 15" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL V L1N FT 295 $ 35.00 $ 10,325.00
59 2503.603 HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE HOPE) PIPE (DIRECTIONAL BORED) L1N FT 345 $ 90.00 $ 31,050.00
60 2506.501 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 48-4020 L1N FT 12 $ 280.00 $ 3,360.00
61 2506.501 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 54-4020 L1N FT 6 $ 330.00 $ 1,980.00
62 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES SPECIAL 12'X3' CB EACH 8 $ 1,500.00 $ 12,000.00
63 2506.602 CASTING ASSEMBLY CATCHBASIN EACH 11 $ 500.00 $ 5,500.00
64 2511.501 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III CUYD 6 $ 75.00 $ 450.00
65 2511.515 GEOTEXTILE FILTER TYPE IV SQYD 9 $ 4.00 $ 36.00
Construction Cost Subtotal $ 125,300.00
10% Contingency $ 12,600.00
Subtotal $ 137,900.00
25% Indirect Costs $ 34,500.00
Total $ 172,400.00
GLEN ROAD IMPROVMENTS
SCHEDULE A - STREET IMPROVEMENTS $ 855,300.00
SCHEDULE B - WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS $ 305,300.00
SCHEDULE C - SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS $ 14,000.00
SCHEDULE D - STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS $ 172,400.00
TOTAL GLEN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS $ 1,347.000.00
WSB Proj. No. 1074-63
Sheet 1
K:\01459-25\Admin\Feasibility\Feasibility Opinion of Cost (091 007).xls
Opinion of Probable Cost
WSB Project: Glen Road. Manitou Lane, and Amlee Road Street Reconstruction Design By: JAK
Project Location: Shorewood Checked By: JPW
City Project No.: 01-11 REVISED
WSB Prolect No: 1074-63/1459-25 Date: 9/1 0/2007
Item MNIDOT Estimated Estimated Estimated
No. Specification Description Unit Total Unit Price Total Cost
No. Quantity
MANITOU LANE and AMLEE ROAD
E. STREET IMPROVEMENTS
66 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $ 13.700.00 $ 13,700.00
67 2101.502 CLEARING TREE 10 $ 200.00 $ 2,000.00
68 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE 10 $ 175.00 $ 1,750.00
69 2104.501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE STORM L1N FT 49 $ 10.00 $ 490.00
70 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQYD 102 $ 22.50 $ 2,295.00
71 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQYD 345 $ 5.00 $ 1,725.00
72 2104.509 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH 1 $ 550.00 $ 550.00
73 2104.511 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT FULL DEPTH L1N FT 62 $ 5.00 $ 310.00
74 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT FULL DEPTH L1N FT 237 $ 3.50 $ 829.50
75 2104.523 SALVAGE & REINSTALL SIGN EACH 2 $ 150.00 $ 300.00
76 2104.523 SALVAGE MAIL BOX EACH 20 $ 125.00 $ 2,500.00
77 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION PI CUYD 5385 $ 12.50 $ 67,312.50
78 2105.515 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION EV CUYD 200 $ 15.00 $ 3,000.00
79 2105.522 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW LVI CUYD 3235 $ 13.00 $ 42,055.00
80 2105.525 TOPSOIL BORROW LV CUYD 50 $ 25.00 $ 1,250.00
81 2105.601 TEMPORARY ROAD L1N FT 1220 $ 40.00 $ 48,800.00
82 2105.604 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SQYD 4850 $ 1.25 $ 6,062.50
83 2112.501 SUBGRADE PREPARATION ROAD ST A 11.5 $ 300.00 $ 3,450.00
84 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 100% CRUSHED LIMESTONE TON 1000 $ 17.50 $ 17,500.00
85 2211.607 AGGREGATE BASE PLACED CUYD 500 $ 5.00 $ 2,500.00
86 2331.604 BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT RECLAMATION SQYD 7415 $ 4.00 $ 29,660.00
87 2350.501 TYPE LV 4 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE IB TON 375 $ 55.00 $ 20.625.00
88 2350.502 TYPE LV 3 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE B TON 375 $ 53.00 $ 19,875.00
89 2350.503 TYPE LV WEARING COURSE MIXTURE FOR DRIVEWAYS SQYD 343 $ 35.00 $ 12,005.00
90 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GALLON 160 $ 3.00 $ 480.00
91 2506.602 CASTING ASSEMBLY SANITARY EACH 5 $ 450.00 $ 2,250.00
92 2531.501 CONCRETE EDGE CONTROL L1N FT 2420 $ 10.50 $ 25,410.00
93 2531.507 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQYD 102 $ 50.00 $ 5,100.00
94 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00
95 2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE HEAVY DUTY ORANGE L1N FT 1000 $ 4.00 $ 4,000.00
96 2573.503 INLET PROTECTION EACH 17 $ 300.00 $ 5,100.00
97 2575.505 SODDING TYPE LAWN IINCL. TOPSOIL & FERT. SQYD 3500 $ 3.50 $ 12,250.00
Construction Cost Subtotal $ 357.700.00
10% Continaency $ 35,800.00
Subtotal $ 393,500.00
25% Indirect Costs $ 98,400.00
Total $ 491,900.00
F. WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS
98 2504.602 HYDRANT ASSEMBLY EACH 5 $ 2,500.00 $ 12.500.00
99 2504.602 1" CORPORATION STOP EACH 20 $ 100.00 $ 2,000.00
100 2504.602 1" CURB STOP & BOX EACH 20 $ 125.00 $ 2,500.00
101 2504.602 1.5" CURB STOP & BOX EACH 1 $ 175.00 $ 175.00
102 2504.602 6" GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 5 $ 800.00 $ 4,000.00
103 2504.602 8" GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 1 $ 1.200.00 $ 1,200.00
104 2504.603 8" WATER MAIN-DUCT IRON CL 52 L1N FT 1220 $ 30.00 $ 36,600.00
105 2504.603 6" WATER MAIN-DUCT IRON CL 52 L1N FT 50 $ 23.00 $ 1,150.00
106 2504.603 1" TYPE K COPPER PIPE L1N FT 500 $ 50.00 $ 25,000.00
107 2504.608 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS POUNDS 600 $ 3.00 $ 1,800.00
Construction Cost Subtotal $ 87,000.00
10% Continaency $ 8,700.00
Subtotal $ 95,700.00
25% Indirect Costs $ 24,000.00
Total $ 119,700.00
WSB Proj. No. 1074-63
Sheet 1
K:I01459-25\AdminIFeasibilityIFeasibility Opinion of Cost (091 007).xls
Opinion of Probable Cost
WSB Project: Glen Road, Maniton Lane, and Am]ee Road Street Reconstruction Design By: JAK
Project Location: Shorewood Checked By: JPW
City Project No.: 0]-11 REVISED
WSB Proiect No: 1074-63/1459-25 Date: 9/10/2007
MN/DOT Estimated Estimated Estimated
Item Specification Description Unit Total
No. No. Quantity Unit Price Total Cost
G. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
108 2503.602 REMOVE CASTING EACH 5 $ 200.00 $ 1,000.00
109 2501.501 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 5 $ 450.00 $ 2,250.00
110 2501.602 4" PVC PIPE SEWER -SCH 40 UN FT 25 $ 20.00 $ 500.00
111 2503.541 9" x 4" PVC WYE EACH 1 $ 150.00 $ 150.00
112 2503.602 CHIMNEY SEALS EACH 5 $ 75.00 $ 375.00
Construction Cost Subtotal $ 4,300.00
10% Contingency $ 500.00
Subtotal $ 4,800.00
25% Indirect Costs $ 1,200.00
Total $ 6,000.00
H. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
113 2105.601 DEWATERING LUMP SUM 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00
114 2101.502 CLEARING TREE 108 $ 175.00 $ 18,900.00
115 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE 108 $ 150.00 $ 16.200.00
116 2503.541 12" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL V UN FT 385 $ 32.00 $ 12,320.00
117 2503.541 15" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL V UN FT 420 $ 35.00 $ 14,700.00
118 2503.541 18" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL III UN FT 225 $ 38.00 $ 8,550.00
119 2503.541 24" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL III UN FT 350 $ 45.00 $ 15,750.00
120 2504.802 36" SPAN RC PIPE-ARCH SEWER CL IIA UN FT 485 $ 110.00 $ 53,350.00
121 2501.525 36" SPAN RC PIPE-ARCH APRON WITH T.G. AND SHEET PILED END EACH 1 $ 4,500.00 $4,500.00
SECTION
122 2501.501 24" RC PIPE APRON EACH 2 $ 450.00 $ 900.00
123 2501.602 TRASH GUARD FOR 24" PIPE APRON EACH 2 $ 300.00 $ 600.00
124 2502.541 6" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN UN FT 2420 $ 7.00 $ 16,940.00
125 2502.601 6" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 24 $ 150.00 $ 3,800.00
126 2506.501 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 48-4020 UN FT 48 $ 280.00 $ 13,440.00
127 2506.501 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 54-4020 UN FT 4 $ 330.00 $ 1,320.00
128 2506.501 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 66-4020 UN FT 8 $ 500.00 $ 4,000.00
129 2506.501 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 78-4020 UN FT 4 $ 650.00 $ 2,600.00
130 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES SPECIAL 2'X3' CB EACH 4 $ 1,500.00 $ 6,000.00
131 2506.602 CASTING ASSEMBLY (CA TCHBASINl EACH 17 $ 500.00 $ 8,500.00
132 2506.602 CASTING ASSEMBLY (MANHOLE) EACH 3 $ 450.00 $ 1,350.00
133 2511.501 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III CUYD 32 $ 75.00 $ 2,400.00
134 2511.515 GEOTEXTILE FILTER TYPE IV SQYD 48 $ 4.00 $ 192.00
135 2105.607 POND EXCAVATION CUYD 5000 $ 10.00 $ 50,000.00
136 2575.608 BWSR SEED MIXTURE NO. W4 wi FERT. & MULCH ACRE 1.3 $ 3,200.00 $ 4,160.00
137 2511.515 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 SQYD 1000 $ 1.50 $ 1 500.00
Construction Cost Subtotal $ 276,800.00
10% Contingency $ 27,700.00
Subtotal $ 304,500.00
25% Indirect Costs $ 76,200.00
Total $ 380,700.00
1. SURF ACE IMPROVEMENTS
138 BACKYARD GRADING - AMLEE ROAD WETLAND LUMP SUM 1 $ 7 200.00 I $ 7 200.00
Construction Cost Subtotal $ 7,200.00
10% Contingency $ 800.00
Subtotal $ 8,000.00
25% Indirect Costs $ 2,000.00
Total $ 10,000.00
MANITOU LANE AND AMLEE ROAD IMPROVMENTS
SCHEDULE E - STREET IMPROVEMENTS $ 491,900.00
SCHEDULE F - WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS $ 119,700.00
SCHEDULE G - SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS $ 6,000.00
SCHEDULE H - STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS $ 380,700.00
SCHEDULEI-SURFACEIMPROVEMENTS $ 10,000.00
TOTAL MANITOU LANE AND AMLEE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS $ 1,008,300.00
WSB Proj. NO.1 074-63
Sheet 1
K:I01459-25\AdminIFea5ibility\Feasibility Opinion of Cost (091 007).xI5
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FEASIBILITY REPORT
ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE
CITY PROJECT 07-01
AMLEE ROAD, MANITOU LANE, GLEN ROAD
ROAD RECLAMATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Council authorized preparation of a Feasibility Report for
the Amlee Road, Glen Road and Manitou Lane Road Reconstruction and Water Main
Improvements; and
WHEREAS WSB & Associates, Inc., prepared this report, which was recieved by
the Council on September 10,2007, and
WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed
project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ofthe City of
Shorewood, Minnesota,
1. Accepts the Feasibility Report for City Project 07-01; and
2. Sets the Public Hearing for these improvements on October 8,
2007, as special assessments are proposed.
ADOPTED BY WE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 10th day of September, 2007.
Christine Lizee, Mayor
Attest:
Craig Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
City of Shorewood
(Official Publication)
NOTICE OF
October 8, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING
ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 07-01
INSTALLATION OF W ATERMAIN AS PART OF
AMLEE ROAD, MANITOU LANE, GLEN ROAD
ROAD RECONSTUCTION PROJECT
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Shorewood will meet in the Council Chambers of
City Hall, 5755 Country Club Road, at 7 PM on October 8, 2007 to consider the making of an
improvement to install watermain as part of the Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, and Glen Road Road
Improvement Proj ect, pursuant to Minn. Stat. 99 429.011 to 429.111. The area proposed to be
assessed for such improvement is Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, and Glen Road. The estimated cost
of the improvement is $425,000.00. A reasonable estimate of the impact of the assessment will be
available at the hearing. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed
improvement will be heard at this meeting.
Craig W. Dawson
City Administrator/Clerk
Published in the Sun-Sailor on October 4,2007 and September 27,2007