The URL can be used to link to this page

110507 CC Reg AgPCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2007 AGENDA 1. 2. 3. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call B. Review Agenda APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mayor Lizee Woodruff Turgeon Callies Wellens A. Joint City Council /Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, October 16, 2007 (Att. - Minutes) B. City Council Public Forum Minutes, October 22, 2007 (Att, -Minutes) C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, October 22, 2007 (Att.- Minutes) D. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, October 29, 2007 (Att. -Minutes) E. City Council Work Session Minutes, October 29, 2007 (Att. -Minutes) CONSENT AGENDA -Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: NOTE: Give the public an opportunity to request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda. Cona~nents can be taken or questions asked following removal from Consent Agenda. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List (Att.- Claims List) B. Staffing - No action required C. Accepting Low Quote and Awarding Contract for 2007 Sanitary Sewer Main Line Televising (Att. -Engineer's memorandum, Resolution) D. C-1 Zoning Text Amendment (Att. -Planning Director's memorandum, Draft Ordinance) E. Shorewood Village Shopping Center Conditional Use Permit for Signage (Att. - Resolution) 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. F. Terminating Am1ee Road, Manitou Lane, Glen Road Street Reconstruction Project, City Project 07-O1 (Att. -Engineer's memorandum, Resolution) CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA -November 5, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 2 G. Resolution Proclaiming November 10-17, 2007 to be Housing Awareness Week (Att. - Administrator's memorandum, Resolution) 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.) 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Representative, Tom Skramstad Report on LMCD Activities (Att. -Report) 6. PUBLIC HEARING 7. PARKS 8. PLANNING 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Proposal for Additional CSO Services by SLMPD for 2008 Budget (Att. -City Administrator's memorandum) B. Amendment to Title 400, Liquor Regulations and Title 1300, Municipal Fees, of the Shorewood City Code (Att. -Staff memorandum, Draft Ordinances (2), Resolution) C. Selection of Architect for City Hall Project (Att. -Administrator's memorandum) 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff B. Mayor & City Council 12. RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION A. Litigation regarding Ascending Praise Church B. Labor Agreement Negotiations / AFSCME 13. RECONVENE TO REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 14. 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, 5 November 2007 A 6:00 p.m. Work Session is scheduled this evening No food will be provided. Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item #3B: Staffing - no action is required this evening. Agenda Item #3C: Staff received one quote for the Sanitary Sewer Jet Vacuum Cleaning, Main Line Televising, Structure Inspection, Later Inspection and Internal Chemical Grouting project. Eight firms were sent invitations to quote. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolution that accepts the quote for the project and awards the contract to Infratech not to exceed $50,000. Agenda Item #3D: When the City revamped its commercial zoning regulations last year, the provisions relative to setbacks, lot size and building height was inadvertently left out of the amendment. Staff has prepared an amendment that replaces these. provisions. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item and recommended adoption of the amendment. Agenda Item#3E: At its last meeting, the City Council considered a request by representatives of the Shorewood Village Center for a revised conditional use permit for their multiple signs plan. Council directed staff to prepare a resolution addressing the new plan. Approval of the resolution is subject to two changes: 1)on page 6 of their plan the allowable window sign area is limited to four square feet instead of 10; and 2)on page 9 temporary signs are now allowed to be displayed for 10 days instead of seven. Agenda Item #3F: At the direction of City Council on October 22, 200'7, a resolution terminating the Amlee Rd., Manitou Ln. and Glen Rd. street reconstruction project is provided for Council approval. Agenda Item #3G: Intercongregation Cormnunities Association (ICA) has requested the City consider a resolution proclaiming November 10-17 as Housing Awareness Week 2007. This is a statewide campaign for safe and affordable housing for all people. A resolution is attached for Council approval. Agenda Item #SA: Tom Skramstad, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Representative, will report on LMCD activities. ®s ~e rA PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Executive Summary -City Council Meeting of OS November 2007 Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item #9A: This summer, the SLMPD presented a proposal for expanded CSO services for 2008. The four city councils approved the 2008 SLMPD budget in August, but all decided to revisit this proposal this fall after the SLMPD could provide additional information requested. This matter is before the city councils again, as a timely decision should be made to current animal control service providers if their services will not be continued into 2008. SLMPD has estimated that of the additiona140 hours/week of CSO service that would be available, it would be likely that approximately 15 percent would be spent in animal control. The remaining hours would be spent on other law enforcement activities. The 2008 cost for Shorewood to continue animal control service as at present, or to have the expanded CSO services, is nearly identical. The SLMPD Coordinating Committee and staff are recommending that the Council approve the expanded CSO services, and that it become a basic service in SLMPD operations. Agenda Item #9B: This item approves an Ordinance that provides for the abolishment of Municipal Liquor Stores (two currently in existence) and allows for the off-sale of alcoholic beverages by license (no more than two licenses permitted through January 1, 2013). The proposed ordinance streamlines and puts the City's regulations regarding liquor in a more logical order. Existing Chapters 401, 402, 403, and 404 of the Shorewood City Code would be repealed, and replaced with Chapter 401-Liquor Regulations; and Chapter 402-Consumption Purchase and Possession of Alcohol by Persons under the Age of 21 Years. This item also approves an Ordinance that revises the liquor license fee schedule to add an off-sale liquor license application fee of $310 (maximum per statute), a new liquor license investigation fee of $500, and a renewal with a change in managers/owners liquor license investigation fee of $250. The final action requested with this item is approval of a Resolution approving publication of these two ordinances by title and summary. A copy of each Ordinance will be available at City Ha11 and on the City's Web site. Agenda Item #9C: Two architectural firms presented and interviewed with two council members and three staff members for the City Hall project. The consensus of the City's team was to select Collaborative Design Group (CDG) to perform these services. It is recommended that the Council authorize the services of Collaborative Design Group, as well as execution of an agreement for services subject to approval by the City Attorney. Agenda Item #12: CLOSED SESSION MATTERS Council will meet in closed session on these items. The Council will need to report action on these items after it reconvenes into regular session. A. Litigation regarding Ascending Praise Church/Livingwaters Church B. Proposed Labor Agreement with AFSCME (public works union) State statute requires that this discussion be audio-taped and be made available for two years after the agreement is made. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 6:00 PM TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2007 MINUTES 1. CONVENE JOINT COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Callies, Turgeon, Wellcns, and'Woodruff; Administrator Dawson; and Planning Director Nielsen Planning Commission Chair Schmitt; .Planning Commissioners Gagne, Geng, Gniffke, Hutchins, and Meyer k . Absent: Commissioner Ruoff B. Review Agenda Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the agenda as Presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIVITIES Mayor Lizee welcomed the Commissioners. She then asked Director Nielsen to provide an overview of Planning Commission Activities. Director Nielsen stated .this had been a slower year for Planning Commission activities; in part because he was unavailable during the tirst part.. of the year and that affected the Commission's meeting schedule, and also because there were few development requests at the beginning of the year. The current objective was to'complete the study of PlanningDistrict 6, which would include preparation of a proposed amendment tc~.the City's Comprehensive Plan. Although the intent had been to begin working on the update to the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission would not begin that effort until next year. Staff had begun that effo~•t. The City had committed to the Metropolitan Council to having the updated Plan submitted by mid-2008. The Commission had dealt with two fairly controversial issues this year -the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Chrb and the Shorewood Yacht Club. Chair Schmitt stated front his vantage point a significant accomplishment this year was completing the study regarding the preservation of certain nonconforming accessory structures, provided it could be demonstrated that the structures were of historic, architectural or cultural value. The Commission considered a request regarding classifying the "pagoda boathouse" as such this year. Mayor Lizee questioned if there would be any significant changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Director Nielsen stated because the Plan was relatively fresh, the changes would consist of minor modifications. Nielsen explained the Metropolitan Council was asking for more information. Also, information would be removed that was no longer relevant provided it was not needed for historical reasons. #2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 16, 2007 Page 2 of 4 Director Nielsen stated he thought density would have been an issue with the Comprehensive Plan when it was submitted because the City's densities were lower than what the Metropolitan Council would prefer; but it had not been a problem. The Metropolitan Council's preference was to have a minimum of three units per developable acre. That would not happen in the City because it did not have that much land left, and what was left was "in-fill" land. Councilmember Turgeon questioned how the City planned to address redevelopment. Director Nielsen stated redevelopment would leave to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code. Redevelopment could result in additional units if the redeveloped lot sizes were significant. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Director Nielsen explained there was no size restriction for a lot to have a private well. Director Nielsen stated the gas tanks had been removed at the Tonka Bayt site, and the ground had been filled in. There was discussion about different things people had heard regarding the future redevelopment of the area where the American Legion, bait shop, and carpet store were located. Councilmember Callies questioned if the City should address. the building of McMansions in the City. Director Nielsen explained that a few years ago changes were made to the City's subdivision ordinance; it was changed to restrict how much land could be recombined. Nielsen stated that from his vantage point the City was as restrictive as it could be. Councilmember Turgeon stated she thought the change to the subdivision ordinance applied to the R-1D Districtonly; and she questioned if that was the case should the restriction be expanded to more Districts. Councilmember Woodruff commented the City did have a building height restriction. Commissioner Gniffke stated Grecn«~ood was considering a volume restriction. Mayor Lizee stated there ~-vere new Polhrtion Control Agency and storm water management standards, and she questioned if there were there changes the City needed to make to its standards to comply. She also questioned if there were. sustainable building and landscaping standards which should be considered. She stated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) had funds available for "green" landscapinn ittcivic and'privatc projects. Director Nielsen stated the majorit}~ of the time permeable pavers were anti-green; people often used them as a way to increase the amount of man-made surface on a lot. Nielsen stated the DNR encouraged the use of permeable pavers, but it did not recommend that it be substituted for green space. He commented a request for hardcover variance was approved earlier this year; the applicant on that request drastically reduced the amount of impervious surface and replaced a portion of it with permeable pavers. Councilmember Turgeon stated she thought various types of pavers worked differently. Nielsen explained for permeable. pavers their use must be highly engineered, their installation must be highly monitored, and they must be highly maintained. Councilmember Woodruff questioned if the removal of vegetation on private property during the course of normal ownership should be regulated. Director Nielsen stated removal from Lakeshore was. Woodruff questioned if the Planning Commission should consider possibly requiring Buckthorn (or similar invasive growth) be removed from a to-be-developed property. Councilmember Wellens stated aerial photographs from 50 - 80 years ago showed the City was all clear cut; the City was much greener now. Woodruff stated 50 years before that there were many trees. Councilmember Callies stated the question was how much the City should regulate private property. Councilmember Turgeon stated if she removed invasive CITY OF SHOREWOOD JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 16, 2007 Page 3 of 4 growth similar to that from her property, it was likely someone would be upset because they thought she had clear-cut her property. Nielsen cited the Gideon Glen wetland area where for the most part Buckthorn and other/ invasive species were removed and residents were upset; the area will look fine once the plantings had grown. Mayor Lizee stated Minnetonka was considering a change that would require, for example, one 20-inch tree be replaced by ten 2-inch trees. She stated the Planning Commission had discussed something similar as part of the tree reforestation policy when she was on the Commission, but some lots do not allow for that much planting. Director Nielsen stated the City had adopted. a .policy which stated if a property owner could not replant the required number of trees on their property, they could be planted on City property or a donation could be made to a tree fund. Nielsen commented that to-date no one had donated trees because of that requirement. He stated an inch-for-inch replacement policy was quite stringent. Mayor Lizee suggested the City encourage sustainable building and landscaping. Director Nielsen stated the developer of the Southlake Office Building had considered a green roof when he was planning the building to get more building space. Chair Schmitt stated from a commercial building perspective it was nat cost effective to put a green roof on a small building. There were economies of scale with larger projects. He then stated maybe there could be mitigating circumstances where the City could "bend a rule" if a developer would consider more sustainable building. Councilmember Callies stated the City, as a leader, should supporf sustainable building and if enough cities did so maybe the cost foi- things such as a green roof would become more affordable. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeorn, Director Nielsen explained the only item remaining of the County Road 19 corridor study was the connection of the trail on the Tonka Bay side with the LRT trail. I le stated although he had. ~~escrvatious initially, the safe island installed at the trail crossing at County Road 19 appeared to be doing what it was intended to do. Councilmember Turgeon stated the Gideon Glen townhome owners still wanted a turn lane near the Xcel Energy site. She also stated there still were issues regarding cars stopping at the trail crossing at County Road 19. Regarding the trail crossing at County Road 19, Director Nielsen stated he did not think most people understood the difference between a trail crossing and a pedestrian crossing. In response to a question from Commissioner Gagne, Director Nielsen stated the Park Commission was going to discuss park dedication fees in November. He stated the last adjustment to the fees was long ago; at that time the City's fees were on the high end, and now they were on the low end. Regarding items that would be addressed by the Planning Commission in 2008, Director Nielsen stated the Commission would study the City's platted rights-of--way which had not been developed as City streets, and it would update tl~e Comprehensive Plan. CITY OF SHOREWOOD JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 16, 2007 Page 4 of 4 Councilmember Woodruff questioned if the Comprehensive Plan should address a possible future redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Club site. Director Nielsen stated the City had met with the Club's owner a few years ago, and it tried to convince the owner to grant some type of conservation easement from which he would. receive a tax advantage, but that was to no avail. The City had concluded that it could not afford to compete with private developers; the City determined the land would be worth substantially more if it were to be split into lots and developed than it would be worth as a golf course. The property could be considered for a planned unit development. Chair Schmitt stated at Chaska's bio tech campus (which was 220 acres in size), Chaska was concentrating some areas for wetland and other areas were going to be developed with very high density. The City could consider ahigh-density development with a large amount of open space for the Minnetonka County Club property. Nielsen stated the City could try and convince a developer to keep part of the property for anine-hole golf course. Woodruff suggested the Comprehensive Plan include some vision for that property. Councilmember Callies questioned why the City would encourage a golf course versus green space. With regard to Howards Point Marina, Director Nielsen 'stated it was anon-conforming use. It had dropped its application to rezone the property Lakeshore Recreational when its request for.. expansion was denied. He commented the owners had done of number of things the City had asked for. He stated during the most recent discussions the City had with the owners they indicated they may want to redevelop the land across from the Marina. He commented that developers had unrealistic expectations of how the property could be developed; that property had limited development potential. He also commented that the DNR had considered the Marina property for a public access, but it would be more interested in the SYC property although the price was too high. 3. OTHER BUSINESS None. 4. ADJOURN Gagne moved,. Schmitt seconded, Ac~,journi-tg the Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting of,October 16, 2007, at 6:46 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESYIaJCTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder -- Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD PUBLIC FORUM OCTOBER 22, 2007 MINUTES 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. 1. CONVENE PUBLIC FORUM ON POSSIBLE DISCONTINUATION OF CITY LIQUOR OPERATIONS Mayor Lizee opened the public forum at 6:02 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Callies, Turgeon, Wcllens, and `Voodruff; Administrator Dawson; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Without objection from the Council, Mayor'~,izee proceeded with the Agenda for the public forum. 2. OVERVIEW Mayor Lizee stated the reason for this public forum wasto discuss the possible sale of the City's off-sale liquor operations which the. City had since 1961. She explained that after many discussions, Council had agreed to hold a public forum to take public comment on and answer questions about the sale. She explained Administrator Da~~~son would provide an .overview, and then Council would take public comment. Administrator Da1~~sun stated hehad prepared ad~cument available to the public which summarized the performance of the liquor gperations since 200, and presented various investment rates of return on different amounts of fundsthat may beavailable from sales,proceeds. Dawson bi~hlighted the document he had prepared for the public. Through 2002, Shorewood had athree-store system as it operated and managed the City of Tonka Bay's off-sale store. From September 2002 through October 2003, the Shorewood Village Shopping Center did not have a grocery store open, and the City relocated and upgraded its store within that Center. Atwo- store operation, with the major grocery store tenant in the Shorewood Village Shopping Center, had been constant since the start of 2004. The combined liquor operations sales in 2004 were approximately $2.2 million with a net income of approximately $54,500; in 2005 the sales were approximately $2,035,000 with a net income of slightly more than $42,000; and in 2006 the sales were slightly less than $2 million with a net loss of slightly less than $16,000. The year-end Liquor Fund cash balance had been declining for the last few years. There had also been a transfer from the Liquor Fund to the General Fund since 2004. The transfers as a percent of the tax levy were: 0.90 percent in 2004; 1.33 percent in 2005; and 1.19 percent in 2006 and 0.92 percent in 2007. #ZB CITY OF SHOREWOOD PUBLIC FORUM October 22, 2007 Page 2 of 6 In April 2007, the City reduced operating costs by eliminating one full-time liquor operations position. With revised budget projections made in May 2007, the estimated net income from both stores was slightly less than $4,000 for 2007 and slightly more than $10,500 for 2008. In May 2007, the City engaged the services of a business valuation consultant in order to give Council a preliminary indication of the range of prices the City might reasonably receive if the City sold its liquor operations. In August 2007, the Council agreed to the terms of extending the lease of the Waterford Store to October 31, 2008. With that action, the leases of both stores would expire on October 31, 2008. In August 2007, the Council directed staff to begin the process to engage a broker to sell the liquor operations, and in September 2007 it selected a broker to perform these services. The City had since received proposals from potential purchasers, which had been preliminarily re~~iewed by the Liquor Committee. Minnesota Statutes required the City Council to hold a public hearing regarding continuation of municipal liquor operations if, in any two of three consecutive years, the liquor operations showed net losses. This was not the case at present, and the City was not required to hold a public hearing for that reason. The Statutes did not require that a public hearing be held prior to making a decision to discontinue municipal operations which was currently being evaluated by the Council. Council chose to hold this public forum voluntarily to provide the residents with an opportunity to make comments for the Council to consider in its decision-making process. Minnesota Statutes prescribe municipal off-sale operations as an all-or-nothing proposition. Liquor stores may only be municipal oroilly be private operations -City and private liquor stores may not be in business in the same city at the same time. Administrator Dawson commented the City had received several emails on this topic, and Council had been provided copies of those emails. 3. PUBLIC COMIVIIJNT John Gal~Funkel, 5665 Grant Lorenz Road, questioned why the investment examples did not include what the potential proceeds from a sale could be. Director Burton .explained at this time there were only vague estimates of what the potential proceeds could be. She stated' the Liquor Fund cash balance was $350,000. Councilmember Callies stated the market study estimated what. the possible ranges would be. Burton stated the market study indicated a collective value of $500,000- $600,000. Mr. Garfunkel thanked the Council for Administrator Dawson's document which contained valuable information. He stated over the years the City had invested in upgrading the Shorewood Plaza store, and it had right-sized the Waterford Store. From his vantage point, those efforts had made the liquor operations much more valuable; he thought the City would have had a difficult time selling the operations for a reasonable amount of money prior to those efforts. He believed that eventually the State Legislature would allow the sale of wine in grocery stores; when that happened the Shorewood Plaza store would be negatively impacted. He did not think that all true costs (e.g., City staff's time, Council's time, etc.) were captured in the operating costs. He thought running a retail business was not one of a city's core competencies. He also thought selling the liquor operations would be the best utilization of CITY OF SHOREWOOD PUBLIC FORUM October 22, 2007 Page 3 of 6 the capital the City had invested in the liquor operations. He stated he had no recommendation of what should be done with the proceeds from the sale. Lauralee Chellen 26710 Smithtown Road, stated she had been reading information about the potential sale of the liquor operations in the local papers. She stated her core concern was how the City would make up for lost revenue from liquor operations should they be sold. She had spoken with Director Burton and Burton had explained it was anticipated that the proceeds from the sale would be invested and the rate of return on the investment would offset the lost revenue. Chellen stated that once the proceeds were spent and there was no longer investment income the taxpayers would have to offset the revenues. Ms. Chellen questioned how the liquor operations performed over the last five years and what the projected performance was for the next three years. She also questioned what percent of the proceeds would come from the sale of the inventory, and what percent from things such as the name and location of the liquor operations. Administrator Dawson stated that information could ilot be shared, but the estimated market value stated in the study of $500,000 - $600,000 would include the sale of the inventory. Dawson explained sharing specifics could affect the negotiation of the sale. Ms. Chellen then asked the following questions regarding the performance and future profit potential of the liquor operations. Which stores had strong profits and which did not? How did the different product categories perform at each store? Was the product assortment and shelf space optimized for each store? What affect did the location of each store have on sales? What are the unique competitive pressures each store faced, and what has been done from a marketing perspective to affect those competitive pressures? Was the City Staff and Council confident the liquor operations were being optimally managed? Ms. Chellen questioned if the necessary hard busij~ess questions been asked and answered, and was there a sound understanding of the revenue potential for the City. She stated other cities were doing very well with their liquor operations while facing equally challenging competitive environments. Director Burton stated the City's Liquor Committee (which was .comprised of two Councilmembers, the City Administrator, the Finance Director, and the Liquor Operations Manager) had considered the financial data in great detail. Burton thenstated theLiquor Operations Manager was very aggressive in trying to ensure there was;the correct product mix and competitive pricing. Burton stated it was her understanding that some of the Councilmembers wanted to sell the operations for philosophical reasons as well as financial ones. AdministratorDawson explained the potential sale of the operations had been discussed at several «ork sessions during which the hard business questions were addressed. Councilmember Wellens stated one of the reasons for the possible sale of the liquor operations was the Councilmembers were not experts in running a retail business. He noted the Liquor Operations Manger was paid a flat salary: a~~d it was his job to ask the correct business questions. Ms. Chellen clarified that she did not expect the Council to have an answer to all of her questions regarding business operations; she had wondered if the questions had been asked of the Manager. She noted that Eden Prairie municipal off-sale liquor operations appeared to be operating successfully, and she questioned if the City could not be in that same position. Ms. Chellen stated there were two reasons to decide to sell the liquor operations -one was for philosophical reasons, and the other was for purely business reasons. Having municipal liquor operations was acceptable, with many surrounding communities using municipal off-sale liquor operations as a revenue generator. She then stated she hoped Council had considered all the factors and was confident there could not be a future revenue stream from the liquor operations. She commented that once they were sold they were gone for good, and that revenue stream potential was lost. CITY OF SAOREWOOD PUBLIC FORUM October 22, 2007 Page 4 of 6 Ms. Chellen thanked the Council for the opportunity. Mayor Lizee stated the City had hired a professional liquor operations manager when it hired Don Swandby, and she thought he had done a good job. She commented Minnesota Statutes allowed for the City to be in the liquor operations business. She stated it was not appropriate to compare Shorewood to Eden Prairie and Edina -geographically Shorewood was a mile wide and six miles long, and Eden Prairie was similar to a square in shape. In Eden Prairie the residents shopped at the municipal stores; in Shorewood there were many surrounding liquor stores. Administrator Dawson stated Eden Prairie had a resident and employment population which exceeded 100,000; Shorewood had a population of 7,400 plus the immediate trade area. Councilmember Callies stated that with regard to Councilmember Wellcns`s statement that none of the Councilmembers were in the liquor operations business, the Councilmembers were also not in other City businesses such as the water business, the utilities business, etc, It was Council's job to ask the necessary questions of City Staff and to rely on their expertise. Councilmember Callies asked Director Burton to explainthe amount of funds transferredfroru~the Liquor Fund to the General Fund. Burton stated when ~thcGeneral Purid budget was pi`epai•ed the City anticipated revenues from different sources. In the past the City had been able to count on a transfer of funds from the Liquor Fund to do special projects. It was anticipated during the budget process that there would be sufficient revenues from liquor operations to fund the transfer. Mike Murrell, 27020 Noble Road, questioned. why' a public forum was bei~tg held if the value of the liquor operations could not be discussed because of upcoming negotiations. Mayor Lizee stated the Liquor Committee met a week ago because the City had received a fey-v offers and additional offers were anticipated, and Council had not met to discuss the ofi=ers yet. Me. Murrell stated with regard to the City being involved in businesses which Councilmembers were not iu the business of, he considered the Council to be similar to a board of directors of a company. He thought the liquor operations had been very successful and there was a knowledgeable liquor operations staff. He questioned if the liquor operations were not broke why was. the Council trying to fix it. It was his understanding that once the City sold the enterprise it could not rehn•n to it. Councilmember Callies explained as long as the City did not grow to a population greater than 10,000 it was possible to again enter into the business of liquor operations, although that would be highly unlikely. With regard to the timing of the forum, she stated she had thought a public meeting should have been held a long time ago (before the City hid put the stores up for sale). The majority of the Council made the decision to put the stores up for sale before holding a public meeting. The forum was finally being held even though die decision actually to sell the operations likely would be made by Council very soon. Councilmember Wellens stated the private sector can run liquor operations, and he thought there was a difference between liquor operations and the other City enterprises. The private sector can't run the law enforcement agencies, quid it can't assess people for fire services. Maybe the liquor operations were as successful as they could be; yet the sales and net income were declining. The City's net profit as a percentage of sales was less than one-third of the average of the other liquor operations in the metro area. The Waterford Store needed to be remodeled and eventually wine may be sold in grocery stores; the firture of the liquor operations business was a risky enterprise to remain involved in as well as it being risky to get out of. Mr. Murrell stated he thought it was possible for the Liquor Committee or the Liquor Operations Manager to resolve some of the issues and turn the operations around. He agreed that were differences CITY OF SHOREWOOD PUBLIC FORUM October 22, 2007 Page 5 of 6 between running a liquor business and rumiing the law enforcement and fire services businesses, but there were regulatory and legal differences. Ron Johnson, 5355 Shadyhill Circle, stated he supported Councilmember Wellens's assessment of the liquor operations situation. He commented that he had read the various Council meetings and he understood the rationale for the possible sale. Linda Murrell, 27020 Noble Road, stated she was not in support of selling the liquor operations. She questioned if the operations were sold, what the proceeds would be used far, and was there a plan for funding projects with the proceeds. Councilmember Callies stated there was tia specific project identified that would be funded with the proceeds and interest earnings from the proceeds. Ms. Murrell then questioned would the funding for things such as concerts in the parks no longer be funded because of the loss of revenues. Mayor Lizee stated a plan had not been prepared for how the proceeds and existing Liquor Fund cash balance ($350,000) would be used. Council would have to determine if the funds should be placed in long-term investments (the City was restricted as to what: it could invest in), if the interest eased should be used for long-term revenue planning, or if the proceedsplus existing cash balance should be placed in a fund for use as a one-time investment in a project. Ms. Murrell stated as a taxpayer she considered herself a shareh~lc}er in the City's assets; as shareholders the City's taxpayers should be given the opportunity to provide input ..into how the proceeds and cash balance would be used, and that should be done at a public hearing. She then stated a net income loss for one year was not sufficient to justify exiting the business. She asked Council to consider keeping the liquor operations through the end of the leases (October. 31, 2008) and allow the operations a chance to improve profitability. She commented that it was '.possible many residents did not know the City owned the liquor operations, and mlybe he residents should be ea~couraged to support the City-owned businesses. Councilmember Wellens stated the City had a lot of long-term data. He had net income data dating back to 1995, although some of the data were distorted because the City's management of the Tonka Bay liquor store.vasinclude~d in the data. Councilmember Callies stated one of the things that was new this year was one of the leases was renegotiated to a lower rate, and that was not taken into consideration with profitability projections. She thought other.. th ings should be consideread to determine if the profitability could be improved. Councilmember Turgeon stated she was surprised that Ms. Murrell thought there were residents that did not know the City owned the liquor operations because the City had been in the business since 1961. She then stated the estimated net income for both stores for 2007 was $3,760 and slightly more than $10,500 for 2008. She went on to state there was no plan for how the proceeds and balance would be used, but there were many projects that needed funding. Mayor Lizee thanked the public for coming and for their comments. She stated if the public had additional comments or questions please let the Staff or Council know. She stated Council would continue to meet on the topic and the public would be kept informed of the situation. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PUBLIC FORUM October 22, 2007 Page 6 of 6 ADJOURN Mayor Lizee closed the public forum at 6:47 P.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2007 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Callies, Turgeon. Wellens and Woodruff; Associate Attorney Mayeron; Administrator Dawson; Finance Director Burton: Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Wellens moved, Callies seconded, Approving tlic _lgenda as presc~ttcd. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, September 24, 2007 Woodruff moved, Wellcn~ ,cconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of September 24, 2007, as prc,cnted. Motion passed 5/0. - B. City Gounril ~~'ork Seti~iun Minutes, October 8, 2007 Turgeon moved, Woodruft'secon~lccl, Approving the City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes of October 4.2007, as presented. i'VIotion passed 5/0. C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, October 8, 2007 Turgeon moved, Callies seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 8, 2007, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. CONSENT ALLNDA Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Staffing -Liquor Store Part-time Clerk #2C SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 2 of 13 C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-065, "A Resolution Approving Licenses to Retailers to Sell Tobacco Products for CUB Foods Shorewood, Holiday Station Store #12, and Oasis Market." D. Authorization to Dispose of Public Works Equipment (This was moved to Item 9.D under General/ New Business.) E. Authorize Expenditure of Funds from the Equipment Replacement Fund for a Toro Groundsmaster (This was moved to Item 9.C under General/ i~~ew Business.) F. Accepting Proposal for Professional Design-Build Services for Amesbury Well Controls G. Community Rec. Resources 2007 First and Second Quarter Report Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Jim Hoban, 5525 Manitou Lane, stated he had three items that v c a .disturbing him that he wanted to bring Council's attention. He expressed concern ~~bout safety witi~regarc~ to Mr. Herkal's property (located on the south side of Glen Road just west of Manitou Lanel. He explained that last fall the house on the property was demolished and clearing of the property tiva ~ >1 ~~ ~ ! ~ dwhich resulted in four large piles of brush being created. A hole remained where the old house was located and there was no protective fence around the hole, and the hole had approximately three feet of water in it. The weeds on the property were close to chest high aild the grass was almost three feet tall. There had been afive-gallon plastic gas can located on one of thepiles; a weekago a child found the gas can and ended up at Hennepin County Medical Center. 1-ic then expressed concern about a property located on County Road 19 near Wood Duch La11c: he stated he had not seen any one on the property since last May and he would like the growth nn the propG~rt_ cut. Hi, I,i~t concern was with regard to the Nelson property on Glen Road. Ile understood the property-o~~~ner ran an auto mechanic's business there and the man had a large family to support; but, iherc hadbeen some type of shed on a flatbed trailer with a pickup hooked up to it since June. There was a constant flow of cars on the property, and he thought the property owner should be ab]e +~ keep some of the cars inside the six-car garage on the property. Mayor Lizee staie~l ~~~ytime a resident had a concern about a property they should call City Hall, and a member of the staff would address the problem and respond back to the resident. Councilmember Turgeon Mated she had spoken to Director Nielsen about Herkal and County Road 19 properties. Mayor Lizee stated often problems such as those discussed by Mr. Hoban were routed to specific staff members to address and then Council was apprised of the situation later or when Council must take action. Assistant Weed Inspector, Joe Lugowski was in the audience, and he reviewed the types of obnoxious weeds the City was concerned with. Administrator Dawson explained for any complaints filed with the City the complainant's name would remain confidential under the Minnesota Data Privacy Act. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 3 of 13 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS None. 6. PUBLIC HEARING A. Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, Glen Road Street Reconstruction Project, City Project 07-O1 Mayor Lizee opened the Public Hearing at 7:16 P.M. Councilmember Turgeon stated she would recuse herself from this discussion because she owned property in the proposed project area. Administrator Dawson reviewed the procedures utilized for a Public Hearing. He explained hecause an assessment was being contemplated for the improvcn~entproject thc_City had to holda Public Hearing before the Council could act on a resolution to order the improvement. The assessable portion of the project (the installation of City water) had been initiated by t11eC,it~. .end at least afour-fifths vote by the Council was necessary to approve ordering. the Project. The proj~ci .u ea was Amlee Road, Manitou Lane and Glen Road and it included the public iinpi~ovements that would n~~rmally be done as part of a street reconstruction project. Engineer Landini stated at its September 10, 200, meeting Council accepted the Feasibility Report for the project. He then reviewed the improvements listed in the heasibility Report; installation of water main for Amlee Road, Manitou Lane. and Glen Road; sanitary sewer improvements for Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, and GlcnRoad; siorni sewer improvements for Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, and Glen Road; the reconstruction of nmleeRoad to have a24-foot driving surface with edge control; the reconstruction of Manitou Lalie to havea 22-foot drivinb surface with edge control; the reconstruction of Glen Road to hai~c a 20-I~ootdriving surface. with. edge control; and, the construction of a storm water management pond ~n City ~~r~~E,ert~ located east ~~f Glen Road and north of the Hennepin Country Regional Rail Authorityti~ail. Engineer Landini then stated~tlle heasibility Report also contained an Opinion of Probable Cost for the Project. The water main costs_ ti~-ere estimated to be $425,000. The estimated assessment for water improvements for c~ch of the ~}7 benefiting property owners in the proposed project area was assessed $9,042.55, and theremaining costs of the project would be covered by City funds. Mayor Lizee stated a jx~blic information meeting was held on July 18, 2007, to present the proposed project to the neighborhood, and to answer questions regarding the project and the possible assessment. There had also been numerous neighborhood meetings and Council discussions. She thanked those members of the audience for coming this evening. Mayor Lizee opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M. Joe Lugowski, 24710 Glen Road, stated he had come to realize that after attending four neighborhood meetings and one public meeting that no matter how much information there was at City Hall about the project there were still many uninformed property owners. He was disappointed and frustrated by the amount of misinformation that was being shared between the property owners. He then noted some SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 4 of 13 examples of the misinformation. There had been discussions regarding catch basins with release valves and he had never seen one nor did he think he ever would. There were overlay estimates for Glen Road from County Road 19 to Manitou Lane for the amount of $15,000; fifteen driveways could not been done for that cost. There was inadequate storm drain pipe which would include 27-inch pipe to the new pond, and he found it hard to believe that was inadequate. There would be 75 - 125 trees that would be cut down; milling the road would not necessarily kill the trees. He then stated he had signed a survey which did not allow him to correctly communicate his wants. The survey asked if he wanted City water. He stated he would want City water if the entire project was done and if the entire project was not done he did not want City water, but there was no way to make that clarification. He did not want to see all of the trees cut down. He stated the project would benefit everyone in the project area: He had worked for the City for nineteen years and he had never seen property owners work s~ hard to kill a project. If the project did not move forward, he would still like to see the drainage i>~~~,es on his property resolved. He stated people had questioned why City water was not installed when City sewei`was installed thirty years ago. He wondered what property owners would think ten years from now about City water main not being installed and drainage issues not being resolved for a cost of $9,000. He related his wife had stated she did not want to pay for flood insurance anymore. Wally Piroyan, 24845 Glen Road, stated he appreciated Mr:Lugowski's comments; thenumbers in the survey had been taken from paper work the City had sent the property owners and which had been presented at the meetings. He noted he had forwarded a copy of a neighborhood survey which had been done over the course of the last four weeks to Council. He explained that Engineer Landini had attended a meeting at the church on Glen Road two weeks ago, and he understood Landini to say there would be 4 - 5 houses that would be affected by the reconstruction project. Piroyan stated 4 - 5 houses that were in a low area and had always been in a low area. He I:ound it hard to believe43 other property owners would be taxed for a project that would benefit 5 property. owl~crs. He statedthe City Code contained a Chapter titled Tree Preservation. I Ie then c}uoted a portion of_City Code Section 1103.01 He stated the City had a very defined standard for «~hat a sl~milicant tree was.~ile then stated on Mayor Lizee's web site the City's Tree Preservation and~Restoration Policy was listed as one ,of the City's accomplishments. He asked the City to adhere to its o~~~n policy. Clint Bucher; 5490Manitou L~~ne;statcd he had attended various meetings where project planning had been discussed, and he supported thcplanning process. He then stated he no longer supported the project; therefore;-.there would noIc~i-iger be more than 50 percent of the property owners on Manitou Lane who supported the project. Also, them: were riot more than 50 percent of the property owners on Amlee Road and Glen Road who supported tlic project. He commented that he understood the City had the authority to override the majority of the property owners' desires. He stated the City could consider a referendum, and if 60 percenC of the peop I c, were for the project he could live with that. But, based on what he heard the majority of the property owners did not want the project to move forward. He stated it was unfortunate that 4 - 5 properrty owners had significant drainage issues because they were in a flood zone. Ro eg r Rogney, 25135 Glen Road, stated his property was one of the lowest properties on Glen Road. He commented over the last 10 - 15 years the property owners with significant drainage issues had learned how to deal with the problems. He stated with the development immediately south of his property, some steps had been taken to mitigate storm water flow and drainage, and for the last three years he had not experienced any drainage problems. He commented he thought the arbor of trees on Glen Road was beautiful; it would be a shame to remove the trees. He had been told the end of Glen Road did not go straight and there had been discussion regarding straightening the road; if that were to happen he would not be able to keep the fountain in the middle of his front yard. He stated after the survey stakes were put SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 5 of 13 in and the trees that would be removed were marked, the negative impact of the project became very apparent. Mr. Piroyan reviewed the neighborhood survey results. The results of the respondents were: 67 percent were not interested in City water; 20 percent were interested in City water; 59 percent were opposed to granting the City a construction easement; on both Glen Road and Manitou Lane 75 percent were unwilling to grant special easements; and, 75 percent were opposed to the destruction of trees and property even if it meant canceling the project. Jim Hoban 5525 Manitou Lane, stated his wife had lived at their property since-.1968 and he had lived there since January 1974. He had been a resident of Shorewood sincc_ 195, with the exception of four years when he was away at school. When he was eight years old ]ie~ ~~~~uld spend all day in the woods near his home by Galpin Lake, and he could see 50 - 100 different deer at~atime. Times had changed __ since then. He stated his opposition to City water by analogy..la~e Council was hisfinancial broker who suggested he make a $10,000 investment on which he may liar-e to pay interest and pay_for the hookup. In addition Council's brokerage fee would be sent to him on ~i monthly or quarterly basis turever. He asked his broker what the $10,000 was for - it was for City water, but he already had water: He asked his broker if he had City water would the broker guarantee hin~ th.~.~ i~. would be better for hnl to have City water; he knew it would be more expensive. He went on to asI< if the neighborhood drainage issues would be permanently resolved. He understood the road was too narro«rand it was in need of repairs, but in 37 years the road had never failed to allow hiin to get from his house to County Road 19. He commented there were roads in Cottagewood that were equally as narrow and the garages on properties there were larger than his house. The City was asking the neighborhood to invest more than $500,000 (the cost of the project which was $425,000 plus the monthly or c~ilarte-ly.fccs).He stated there were too many unanswered questions. The City _~would get the permanent return on liis investment. If the City were his broker, he would say "no deal'' because the risks wccctoo high an~lthe guarantees were too few. Mr. Hoban then stated in July 2007 three options were_presented regarding the project: 1) do the project as defined (road constructionand «~atern~ain installation); 2) leave things as they were; or, 3) do a 2-inch overlay. He had not. heard any discussion regarding option 3 since that time. He stated he was not against doing road reconstruction and water nr;in installation; it would be foolish to reconstruct the road and not install watcrmain. He gtiesti~i~ed where she 10-foot-wide temporary access road would be located. Mr. Hobanthen stated the issue was no longer about asphalt, drainage issues, loss of trees, or loss of property; the issue was "what is_true and what is the right thing to do". He asked Council to vote their conscience. John Miller, 24925 Gl~n_Road; stated placing the survey stakes in the ground and marking the trees that would be removed created a wonderful visual, and he recommended that be done at the very beginning of any neighborhood project As a result of the stakes and markings, the property owners realized the extent of the tree damage that would occur and the serious incursions into some of the properties. He explained he had a career in construction, and based on his experiences he knew there most frequently were many ways to do things and there were often compromises that had to be made. He stated he had had a wonderful discussion with Engineer Landini, and Landini had a number of good ideas. He suggested Council give Landini the opportunity to further explore some of his ideas. He then suggested Council delay taking any action. He also suggested Council should form a committee (consisting of some property owners, members of the City staff, and members of the Council) to discuss options to save some of the trees and to resolve some of the drainage issues (which he had heard at this meeting were not as severe as he previously understood them to be). SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 6 of 13 Janice Leafer Lake Fellowship Unitarian Universalist Church, stated she was a member of the Church's Board and the Church was on a large piece of property on Glen Road. She stated the Board voted against granting a construction easement because it was concerned about the cost for such a small congregation, and because the Church had put in a new well two years ago. The Board was concerned about the loss of trees. She commented the Church had allowed the property owners to meet at its location to discuss their concerns about the project. She stated she did not think Council would want the property owners to be very upset if the project were approved. Mayor Lizee closed the Public Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:5 5 P.M. Mayor Lizee asked Staff to address some of the issues and questions that wire raised this evening. She commented three of the Councilmembers were on the P1amling Commission when the City's Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy was developed. She stated-with, many road reconstruction projects there was a loss of trees, but there was also a plan to replace lost trees. Engineer Landini stated if the project were to be approved the City would likely work with. Cook Forestry to prepare the tree preservation plan in accordance with the Policy, unless the Couneildecided the City would not have to adhere to the Policy. Councilmember Callies asked Staff to re~'iew the alternatives that Irad been considered as part of the planning process. Director Brown stated the original draft of the I ~ ~~~, ibility Report the scope of the project was a pavement reclamation project for ~Aii11e~ Road and Nlaniiou Lane. Council then directed Staff to include Glen Road as part of the project. The City engaged the services of a soil consultant to conduct an in-depth analysis of the subsurface soils. rafter the soil brings were taken and analyzed it was determined that the foundation materials would not supportdoing a pavement reclamation; doing a reclamation would be a poor investment of tax dollars. The project then evolved to a road reconstruction project. The City could consider p~itchillg the roads asa short-term solution. Councilmember Callies asked Director-Brown to review'the various road layouts that were considered. Director Brown explained the City had standards for roi~dway width. Brown commented that the recently modified State Fire Code included a~road-width s~andard of 26 feet and a eul-de-sac standard of 96 feet in diameter. He stated there had been a rr~ at deal of discussion between Council and Staff regarding the City's 24-foot road-width standard. l lie PrgjeGt Plan was eventually revised to reconstruct Manitou Lane to have a 22-foot driving surface and reconstruct Glen Road to have a 20-foot driving surface. He explained that there was a baseline impact on trees which would occur regardless of the road width; the tree loss did nit increase proportionately with each extra foot of width. Councilmember Callies questioned what were the other staff ideas referred to by Mr. Miller. Landini stated he and Mr. Miller had discussed not centering Glen Road in the right-of--way; to do that might require the City obtain ribhts to the land on the north side where the road would be shifted to. Callies commented the impact on the properties on the north side of Glen Road would be increased to reduce the impact on the properties on the south side of Glen Road. Councilmember Wellens stated if the proposed project was not done he assumed the roads would be candidates for overlay improvements. Engineer Landini explained three of the five drill holes performed supported there was not enough of a foundation to support an overlay. Landini then stated Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, and Glen Road were ali rated as being in poor condition in the City's street inventory. Wellens stated he assumed the individual drainage issues in the project area could be resolved by doing a separate small project. Landini explained the scope of the fixes would be very limited and would likely SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 7 of 13 be cost prohibitive. Mayor Lizee commented that Council was considering the project as presented, not a different project. Councilmember Woodruff stated the property owners' survey indicated many property owners refused to grant easements. He asked Engineer Landini's perspective on the easement situation. Landini stated based on phone calls and verbal responses he had received, it would be difficult to do the project due to lack of easements. In response to a question from Councilmember Callies, Landini explained the easements would be needed for hydrants for watermain to be installed, the storm sewer improvements would require easements to install the pipe, and temporary construction easy inents would be required for the reconstruction of the roads. Director Brown stated when this project was last discussed at a Counci I ~.~ ork session it was stated verbal agreement had been obtained for approximately one-third of the easements, but the agreements had not been made in written form. Therefore, it would be unlikely the project would continue unless the City entered into the process of acquiring the necessary easements though eminent domain.. He stated there were limited roadway improvement funds; therefore,. he did not recommend the City enter into the eminent domain process because of the cost. There «~ere many other road improvements projects that could be done and there were not enough funds to do them al I. Councilmember Wellens questioned if the new State Fire Code road-width standard applied to new roads only. Director Brown stated Staff would have to ~~etermine what the in~}~act of the standard would be on existing roads. -- Councilmember Woodruff commented that the Ci~~. h~i~1 ~p~ nt a great deal of time and money (he guessed approximately $80,000) doing ..due diligence oz the project. FIc then stated from his vantage point Council and Staff had learned ~i lot about how not to do a project. He suggested Council have discussions about how future projects should-be conducted and what should be done to ensure there was an acceptable solution tothc Ci',~.~ and property owners for a project before the City spent significant funds on the project. Wellens moved, Woodruff' ~cconded, ~lirccti--g Staff to prepare a resolution to terminate the Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, Glem Road Street Reconstruction Project, City Project 07-O1. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Turgeon recusing. Mayor Lizee recessed the meeting at 8:08 P.M. Mayor Lizee recorlvellcd the meeting at 8:18 P.M. 7. PARKS - Report b~' Representative A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held October 9, 2007 Commissioner Quinlan reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 9, 2007, Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Councilmember Woodruff stated at a previous meeting he had suggested the $3,000 in funding for the 2008 Arctic Fever event be paid out of the 2007 General Fund budget if possible. He questioned if Staff had determined if that would be possible. Director Burton stated it would be. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 8 of 13 Councilmember Woodruff questioned if the City had received any feedback on the new lighting at Badger Field. Director Brown stated the City had received a great deal of positive feedback from coaches and players about the lighting, and it received positive feedback on the field itself. PLANNING -Report by Representative Commissioner Geng reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 16, 2007, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Commissioner ~ ~e_ld explained the Planning Commission had agreed to recommend that the Shorewood Yacht Club he ,u Lowed to rent 35 of its slips, all located on pier 4, for powerboat use. Those slips were in addition fo thefour slips already allowed for SYC powerboats. A. Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space Uver 1200 Sq. >H't. Applicants: Jon and Nancy Tellor Location: 20050 Exce~sioi~ Boulevard Director Nielsen stated Nancy and Jon Tellor owned the propci-ties at 20030 and 20050 Excelsior Boulevard. Water Street Homes, LLC - on behalf of the TelIc~rs -had applied for a conditional use permit (C.U,P.) to construct a new guest House.. with atuck-under garage and a swimming pool at the 20050 property. The existing buildings on the property would be demolished: The property was zoned R- lA, Single-Family Residential and contained approximately 39.399 squai~efcet of area. Nielsen explained the proposed. house contained approxima~t I ~ 1950 square feet of floor area. The garage beneath the main level had the same floor ~il~ea with the bai-age door on the northeast side of the building. The lot wouldbc accessed by a driveway that already served the applicants' primary residence at 20030 Excelsior Boulevard. Nielsen reviewed how the Telloi-s'. r~~~.~~~~t complied ~~~ith the four criteria specified in Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4)ot'the City's toning Code Tor granting a C,U.P. for accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet: 1: The total area or accessory space (1980 square feet) did not exceed the total floor area .hove grade o1~ iHe principal structure (1980 square feet). 2. The total area oC accessory space did not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for the R-1A zoning district (.10 x. 40,000 square feet = 4000 square feet). The proE~used home and swimming pool complied with the setback requirements of the R-lA zoning district. The easement on the lot must be extinguished prior to issuance of any building permit, and evidence that the easement on the property had been eliminated would need to be provided. 4. Since the garage was an integral part of the proposed dwelling, materials and design of the building were not considered to be an issue. The new building would compliment the Tenors' house at 20030 Excelsior Boulevard. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 9 of 13 Nielsen noted the City had received a letter the City had received expressing concerns about parking for construction vehicles and construction traffic. At the public hearing, Rick Carlson, with Water Street Homes, LLC and representing the applicant, explained there was adequate parking on the subject property. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the C.U.P. subject to the following Staff recommendations. The applicant must provide evidence (prior to issuance of any building permit) showing that the easement on the property had been extinguished. 2. The applicant must provide (prior to release of the resolution approving the C.U.P.) a driveway easement and maintenance agreement; suitable: for recording against the properties. 3. The applicant must record the resolution and driveway agreement « i Thin 30 days of receipt of the resolution approving trc i~equcst. Turgeon moved, Callies seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-066, "A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space in Excess of 1201) Square Feet to Jon and Nancy Tenor, 20050 Excelsior Boulevard." Motion passed 5/0. B. Amendment to Conditional Use Pcrmif for Multiple Sibz.~ge Applicant: Shorewood VillageSltopping Center Locations 23600+ State Highwa;~ 7 Director Nielsen stated Patrick Ualy; representing of the Shorewood Village Center, had submitted an application to revised the Center's existing conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for multiple signage. The City's Zoning Code all~~.~~ed each coniii~crcial property upto three signs -one freestanding and two wall signs; properties With ~,~~~iltiple tenantsmay, b_y C.iJ.P,;have more signs based upon an overall sign plan approved by the. C;i ~~~. Nielsen. explained the applicant madeits overall sign plan more generic; rather than listing specific businesses, the signage was allocated to categories of space. That change should result in fewer amendments to she C.U.P. in the future when occupancy in the Center changed. Nielsen then explained the City'ssign regulations provided that the total area of all signs on the property not exceed 10 percenf of the building silhouette as viewed from the street. The applicant's current application included a revised calculation for the silhouette which included the view from Lake Linden Drive; that area had not: been included in the previous application. The revised calculations amount to 277 square feet more sign area and the total area had been allocated to various tenants within the Center. The applicant had not included all of the space it was allowed in the silhouette area; Staff suggested the applicant provide a revised calculation and reallocate the sign area accordingly. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the C.U.P. subject to review and approval of the updated silhouette area calculations. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 10 of 13 Nielsen then stated he had not yet prepared the resolution, and it would be available for Council to act on at its next meeting. He suggested Council direct Staff to prepare the resolution for the next Council meeting. Nielsen stated that Mr. Daly was present this evening to answer any questions Council may have. Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, directing Staff to prepare a resolution for a modification to a conditional use permit for multiple signage for Shorewood Village Center. Motion passed 5/0. C. Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club Findings of Fact Director Nielsen explained at its September 24, 2007, meeting Council ~di~•ected Staff to prepare a draft resolution with findings of fact clarifying Resolution No. 30-78-which granted the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club's conditional use permit, and patterned after the 1969. approval, limiting the use of the facility to 30 sailboats and two powerboats for the use of the Club. Staff had provided Council with a resolution. He stated the resolution needed to be corrected - in. Item B under Conclusions and Order the word "sail" should be changed to "said". Councilmember Woodruff stated he would recuse himself 1i ~~nitliis discussion; although he was not a member of the UMYC, he did sail on a member's boat and he thought that could be a perceived conflict of interest. Councilmember Callies stated Item 17 under h n~~. in ~s~of pact should be ch~;~.~ged - "Shorewood Planning Commission and City Council at its meetings ol -~~,,~ust 7~ Septernher 4; and September 24, respectively, and" should be changed to "Shorewood Plannin~~ ~_oninlission ricctings of August 7 and September 4 and the City Council meeting of Sept~~,nber 24, and". Callies moved, TuC~;eu~t scconde~l, ,adopting RESOLTtTION NO. 07-067, "A Resolution in the Matter of Upper Minnetonka Yacht Cl~ih ConriitionalUse Permit" subject to the revisions agreed upon. Councilmember Well.;n; ;t:~t~~1 I~~~still perceived this action as changing a C.U.P. unilaterally and revoking ilsage of private property Cor which the property owner had not been offered any compensation. The City had claimed it made a mistake in preparing the resolution. He did not think the City should impose the cyst of that mistake ou the property owner. He asked Associate Attorney Mayeron if there was an error in his view point. Mayeron stated the City had been given extensive advice on this item, and it was his understanding the C.U,P. was just being clarified. Motion passed 3/1/1 with ~Vellens dissenting and Woodruff recusing. 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Certification of Delinquent Utility Charges Director Burton stated the City Code provided for annual certification of delinquent utility charges to the property tax rolls. She explained each property owner was given an opportunity to object to that proposed certification of delinquent accounts; and as part of the appeal process, they could request a hearing in front of the Council. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 11 of 13 Burton then stated the City had received one written request for a hearing. The request was from Ron Johnson, 5355 Shady Hills Circle. Ron Johnson 5355 Shady Hills Circle, stated he had submitted a written document to Staff objecting to the proposed certification of delinquent utility charges against his property tax and he had assumed that Council had been provided a copy of the document. He had asked Administrator Dawson to provide Council with a copy of City Ordinace 268 which established the City's Storm Water Management Utility. Mr. Johnson stated from his vantage point the City used his property as a City storm sewer, and he was forced to maintain public storm sewers on his property while at the same time he was billed for storm sewer maintenance fees. He explained in 2006 he had hired the limn of McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc, to assess the storm sewer, and the firm wrote a reI?~~n ~~hiah stated there was a problem with the City's storm sewer system. The City had been provided with a copy of that report. He cited section 905.02 of the Ordinance which stated "the city establishes a storm t~atcr drainage utility and authorizes the imposition of just and equitable charges for the' use and availability of storm sewer facilities". He stated he did not think the charge was just or equitable. He commciitcd that the City's Ordinance said just and reasonable and the State Stahlte said iust andcquitable. Councilmember Wellens stated it was his understanding that Mr. Johnson had one appeal outstanding relating to a lawsuit he had filed against the City. He stated he"assumed if Mr. Johnson were to win his appeal, claiming the penalties would be partof his request for compcn~ation. Mr. Johnson stated that was not how the Civil Rights Statute worked. He then stated the Constitution was the law for Government and anytime the Government violated the Constitution the Civil Rights Stat~itccould take effect. Mr. Johnson stated he had two pending actions with the City. Mr. Johnson stated that over-200 mature trees on lis property h<<d drowned because of the City, and he had never been compensated for that Ions. Callies moved, Turgeon secouded,_.-adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-068, "A Resolution Directing Delinquent Sewer .Charges, Storm Water Utility Charges, Water Charges, Recycling Charges, City Clean-Up Charges, Dry. hydrant Charges, and Sump Pump Charges, be Placed on the 2008 Property_'J'aa Rolls." M.~tion passed 5/0. Mayor Lizec recessed the mectin~~ ~~.t 8:55. l'.l~I. Mayor Lizee rcc~nvened the meeting at 9:08 P.M. B. Selection. Process for Architect on City Hall Project Administrator Dawson st,~ied at its August 13, 2007, meeting Council directed Staff to begin and follow the process to engage the services of an architect for the remodel/renovation of City Hall. Staff had developed a Request For Proposal (RFP) which was sent to smaller firms known to have experience with municipalities and in remodel/renovation projects, and to firms which requested the RFP. Staff had narrowed the number of firms down to two that Staff believed were well-suited to the Projects - Collaborative Design Group and Oertel Architects. Staff suggested the two firms be invited in for a second interview in which one or two Councilmembers would participate. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 12 of 13 Mayor Lizee suggested that she and Councilmember Turgeon participate in the interview process. Councilmember Callies stated she thought that was a good idea. Councilmember Turgeon stated she would be willing to participate in the process. C. Authorize Expenditure of Funds from the Equipment Replacement Fund for a Toro Groundsmaster This item was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Woodruff's request. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought the purchase of the Gmund~r~iastcF~ was a good idea. His question was regarding how much had been budgeted for the purchase. Director Brown stated he thought the Capital Improvement Program (C1P) had planned for $22,000 for the unit itself and a cab. He explained there was a State Contract for a rotary ii-oom and the City had been having trouble with its rotary broom. Staff was asking-Council authorization to replace the broom; Staff believed there were sufficient funds to cover the unbudgeted $5,000 for the egtii}~ir.ent because of the approximately $95,000 in savings from the budgeted alilount for the new water tanker. Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, authorizing the exlae~iditure of funds in the amount of $26,319.64 for the purchase of a Toro Groundsmaster, a caGand rollover protection system, and a rotary broom. Motion passed 5/0. D. Authorization to Dispose of Public Works. Equipment This item was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Wellens's request. Councilmember Wellens ~t~~ted auctioning off usedequipment was a terrible way to sell it; he did not think the City received 7nucb money with that approach, He suggested the Staff could consider a policy to post items for disposal onsomethintr~uch as EBay; bethought the City could sell the equipment for a higher price by doing so. l~ircetor 13r~~~~~i ;tested that approach would take more Staff time. Councilmember Callics~state~i tl~~r~ ~~erc some restrictions regarding the method the City could use to dispose ofproperty. She suggested thcCity Attorney be consulted on this. She then stated that Staff time spent to dispose of equipment iliui way should be taken into consideration when determining how much money the City actually made. C;or~ncilmember Wellens stated he thought that approach would be worth it. Engineer Landini stated the Metropolitan Council disposed of equipment on EBay. Councilmember Wur~~iru il~ ~tu~c~l he would support using EBay. Wellens moved, Wood-~uff seconded, authorizing the disposal of Public Works equipment on a public website. Mayor Lizee suggested that the City Attorney and Staff research this future and the website approach could be considered for future disposal of equipment. She thought there was reason to use Fahey Auction as recommended by Staff in this instance. Motion passed 4/1 with Lizee dissenting. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 22, 2007 Page 13 of 13 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS Director Brown stated the City had experienced two water main breaks in the last ten days, and the breaks were the result of rocks being around the water main pipes. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff Administrator Dawson stated there was a Enterprise Budget work session .chtduled for October 29, 2007, at 6:00 P.M.; the new network server was installed and it was functional; conversion to the new financial system had begun; and the City had received a fully executed co~ay of the agreement between the five cities and the Rriends regarding interim funding for the--=Southshore Center. He stated he had heard indications that discussions regarding responsibiliticsof the Friends and the cities for the Southshore Center would resume sometime in the next 2 - 3 ~~~ccks. B. Mayor & City Council In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Assucia!c ~~torney Mayeron stated the City and the Church were close to reaching a resolution on the issue regard i i~ ~~ ~ he City-owned house. Mayor Lizee stated she held another coffe~:~~~iththemayor sessi~~n ~n l~ctober 13, 2007; she had attended the dedication of Gideon Glen which ~tia~as also attended by ~ uuncilmember Wellens; and she attended the very successful and well attended E~:cclsiorI~~ii-e District open house which was held on October 11, 2007. 12. ADJOURN Turgeon moved, Woodn-ff seconded; Adjourning theCity Council Regular Meeting of October 22, 2007, at 9:22 P.M. Motion passed S/0. RESPECTFULLY S[J13MITT1~:1). Christi~~e Freeman, Recorder: Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, Cite ~.dministrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2007 6:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Couneilmembers Callies, Turgeon, Wcilens and Woodruff; Administrator Dawson; Attorney Keane; and Finance Director Burton Also Present: Jerry Vlaminck, Hospitality Services Corporation Absent: None B. Review Agenda Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASE OFFF,RS ON THE CITY'S LIQUOR STORES The meeting discussion was closed as it related to consideration of offers to purchase the City's liquor stores, as provided by Statute and under Attorney-Client privilege. Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, accepting offers and entering into binding purchase agreements for each of the City's liquor stores. Motion passed 4/1 with Lizee dissenting. Council also directed Sta(~f to prepare a plan for a partial refund to holders of wine club memberships. 3. ADJOURN Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Adjourning the City Council Special Meeting of October 29, 2007, at 6:32 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY S[TBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk #zD CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2007 MINUTES I. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE 6:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:40 P,M. `~ A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Callies, Turgcon, Wellens, and Woodruff; Administrator Dawson; Finance Director Burton; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving t11e Agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. 2008 ENTERPRISE BUDGETS Director Burton commented that a preliminary Liquor Budget had been prepared. The budget could be updated and finalized as needed, depending on the sales of the liquor operations. Couneilmember Callies asked for clarification on the action"that was taken at the Council special meeting held prior to this meeting. She stated it was her understanding that during the special meeting Council authorized entering info binding purchase aln-cements. Couneilmember Woodruff stated he heard Attorney Keane say to enter into binding negotiations to sell the liquor operations. Callies stated that was not what she heard, although both thoughts were essentially the same. Woodruff stated in the minutes from the August 6, 2007, Council special meeting it was very clear that Council authorized Staff to locate a broker for selling the stores. Couneilmember Wellens stated the next thing Council had to do was amend the City's Ordinance to authorize the licensing of off-sale liquor operations. Woodruff stated the August 6, 2007, vote. enabled the process, and at the special meeting held prior to this meeting, the vote accepted the offers. Director Burton stated the Liquor Committee had considered four offers at its October 25, 2007, meeting and two of those were the offers Council had considered at its special meeting. Dawson stated the action taken was to enter into binding agreements with the closings scheduled for November 27, 2007; the Ordinance must be amended and no public hearing is necessary regarding the Ordinance or potential licenses. The following noteworthy clarifications and comments were made regarding Water Debt Service. - The "paper" transfer between Water Operations and Water Debt Service was made consistent. The following noteworthy clarifications and comments were made regarding Water Operations. #2E SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 29, 2007 Page 2 of 6 - 2007 Actual Revenue would increase in October because water was billed quarterly. - A water rate increase was not planned for 2008. A restructuring of rates may be considered based on Councilmember Wellens's proposal. That proposal would reward conservation, and it appeared to be revenue stable. - The 2008 Staffing budget amount was approximately $109,700 and the projected annualized actual Staffing for 2007 was approximately $85,000. Staffing included benefit costs, and a 3 percent salary increase. Staffing expenses and headcount allocations were updated (based on an audit of year-to-date) to more realistically reflect how staff would be utilized in 2008, with the most significant change being an increase in the Public Works Director's time. There were increasing demands on staff's time as the result of the increased number of mandates. After taking the salary increase into consideration, Councilmember Woodruff stated he Thought the increase between the 2008 budget amount and the 2007 annualized amount eras too significant, but he would accept it as presented. - The 2008 Supplies and Materials budget amount was approximately $77,700 and a projected annualized actual amount for 2007 was approximately `648,000. The 2007 budget of $62,525 was approximately $9,000 more than 2006 actual and $4,000 more than 2005 actual. The expenses included some maintenance of the water system, and things such as chlorine and fluoride. The 2008 budget rgflected an anticipated $11,000 water purchase from Chanhassen which did not occur in 2007; and, there was an increase of $2,000 for equipment maintenance. Equipment maintenance was done less frequently during summer months than the rest of the year. The amount for equipment maintenance varied significantly from year to year (the actual was $22,000 in 2005 and $9,600 in 2006). The level of maintenance for all of the City's building structures, including water, need to be increased. If the budget funds were not needed, the funds would remain in Water Operations reserves because it was au Enterprise Fund. Staff provided its best estimate of what u~as likely to occur. The budget for Supplies and Materials would remain as presented. - Misc_~llancous Revenue included cellular antenna space rental income was from 5-year leases that could be renewed 5 times. "1'he 2008 budget reflected $85,000 for cellular antenna rental income. - Capital Outlay had been changed to reflect an accounting misclassification, ~ Charges for services in the current draft budget were $25,000 less than the last draft discussed. The previous draft budget included water connection fees and they were removed from Water Operations because they were also included in Water Debt Service. The following noteworthy clarifications and comments were made regarding Sanitary Sewer. - The transfer-in amount would be changed to $55,000 to reflect a repayment from the General Fund to the Sewer Fund for the City-owned property. - The proposed ending cash balance for 2008 was approximately 3 times the amount of the 2008 budgeted expenses and more than 5 times the amount of the 2006 actual expenses. - The budget reflected 15 percent of the Public Work Director's time. - $55,000 for engineering fees for Infill & Inflow was taken out of Support Services and Charges because it was also included in Capital Outlay. - The 2007 budget included $236,000 for the Christmas Lake Point lift station project but the project had been delayed. There were pay estimates that had to be paid in 2007 for equipment that had been delivered to the project contractor. There was question as to whether the 2008 budget should be revised to reflect costs for that project that were not incurred in 2007. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 29, 2007 Page 3 of 6 The following noteworthy clarifications and comments were made regarding Recycling. - There was very little time spent by staff on recycling related activities. A small portion of time was spent responding to residents' calls, and filing reports to Hennepin County. The Senior Accounting Clerk devoted little time on utility billing. The following noteworthy clarifications and comments were made regarding Storm Water. - The proposed ending cash balance for 2008 was approximately 3 times the amount of the 2008 budgeted expenses; yet, there was a $25,000 transfer- from the General Fund proposed (such as had been done in previous years). "fhc transfers had been done to increase the Storm Water cash balance to fund smaller drainage projects. It was questioned if the transfer was appropriate because Enterprise. funds were supposed to be self-funded and there were sufficient reserves. If the transfer were removed it was prudent to ensure that the storm water rates ~~-crc sufficient to fund future projects. - The Amlee Road, Manitou Lane and Glen Road project had been canceled. There was a suggestion that one of the projects planned for 2009 be advanced to 2008; which one could be determined later. Some of the pl~oposcd projects were to be done in concert with road projects. - Staffing increased significantly because of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. That explanation would be included in the budget narrative. - Miscellaneous Revenue reflected X23,000 from cellular ante~ha space rental revenue; in the past this revenue had been used to supplement the Storm Water Fund repay internal loans for the Gideon Glen property. The payments are received late in the year. - There was a question as to whether or not adequate staff resources were budgeted to perform the necessary Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) compliance tasks. - The $25,000 transfer-in from the General Fund would be removed and $100,000 would be transferred in from Capital Improvement for a to be-determined project. Director Burton stated Staff was hoping to make the changes just discussed to the Enterprise Budgets and they would be the final changes prior to the "Truth-In-Taxation public hearing. The General Fund Budget would be presented to Council for further review on November 5, 2007. The final draft budgets would then. be presented at the Truth-In-"Taxation public hearing on December 3, 2007, and the budgets would need to be adopted on December 10, 2007. STORM ~~'ATER POhI,UTION PREVENTION PROGRAM (SWPPP) Engineer Landini explained that as part of the federal Clean Water Act, the City was required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The City first received this permit in 2003, at which time the City completed a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). He noted the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) had been granted the permitting authority from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the MPCA was responsible for reviewing the permit the City had submitted. Due to a legal challenge, the MPCA had been required to make changes to the 2003 permit, hence the need for a new permit in 2007. Director Brown explained for construction site storm water permits the City conducted the permit review, the MPCA authorized the permits, and the City was responsible for enforcement and status updates. If a contractor failed to maintain erosion control requirements, the City and contractor would receive a citation from the MPCA and the City would be responsible to resolve the issue with the contractor. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 29, 2007 Page 4 of 6 Engineer Landini reviewed the tasks that must be done by 2011 for the City to be in full compliance. The 2007 goals were: to implement documentation and tracking procedures for inspections of outfalls, structural pollution control devices, sediment basins, and ponds. The 2008 goals were: to develop an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism for illicit discharge and detection; and implement documentation and tracking procedures for the inspections. The 2009 goals were: to review planning and zoning policies and update them as needed to comply with the Post Construction Stormwater Management Minimum Control Measure (MCM); and implement the long-term operation and maintenance of best management practices (BMPs). The 2010 goals were: to perform a City audit of the program to ensure all the requirements were met for the 2011 deadline. Mayor Lizee asked Engineer Landini if there were partnerships that the City could form to help the City fulfill some of its requirements (e.g. public education). Landini stated he had contacted Julie Westerlund, with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), for assistance with education but her workload did not permit that. He noted that the City and MCWD had applied for a grant to conduct 2 - 3 classes in 2008. Engineer Landini stated one purpose this evening was to introduce Council to a model lllicit Discharge and Connection Storm Water Ordinance. Councilmember Callics stated almost every municipality would be required to adopt a similar ordinance. Landini suggested the ordinance be developed on a section-by- sectionbasis. Administrator Dawson stated Staff had wanted to provide Council with more°~information regarding what the City had to do by 2011. Director Brown explained the City had 1,2901ocatcd strr~ctures that would have to be inspected annually. Public Works personnel already inspect the known trouble areas after a storm. The City would now be required to provide the MPCA with supporting documentation for each inspection; and, an inspection of each structure was required each time there was aone-inch Qr better rainfall. Councilmember Woodruff questioned if the budget reflected adequate staff resources to perform the required tasks that must be done in 200. Director F3rown stated resources were light, but close, to what would be needed; that amount was expected to increase over the next few years. Director Brown stated with regard to the 2007 goals, documentation for all of the City's storm water structures had been created. The documentation included an identification number and location for each structure. He then stated Engineer Landini had refined the inspection form to simplify it. Brown stated the documentation and tracking procedures would be implemented yet this year. 4. RIGHT-OF-WAY ORDINANCE Engineer Landini explained one of the 2007 Goals and Priorities for the City of Shorewood was to update the City's Right-of--Way (ROW) Ordinance. The purpose was to attain better records of infrastructure in the right-of--way and to provide a better use of the City's right-of--way resources. The updates to the ordinance were a first draft and were intended to initiate discussion. Director Brown stated the impetus for that effort was the Redwood Falls versus Qwest Communications Minnesota Supreme Court Case. The case resulted in the Supreme Court granting communications companies some rights over public right-of--ways. After that ruling cities then started to identify what controls they needed to manage their public right-of--ways. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 29, 2007 Page 5 of 6 Brown explained the City's ROW Ordinance would be modified to identify: what authority the City had to permit companies; how the City could recoup its costs for processing the permit; how the restoration of City streets would be paid for; the insurance requirements; and, to establish a requirement for utility companies to annually register their locations in right-of--ways with the City. Brown stated there were a few companies that had on-line permitting databases which would allow someone to find out what company had been issued a permit to be working in aright-of--way. An annual subscription would be required. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Administrator Dawsoxi stated there had been little change since 2000 other than the Federal Communications Law had tal~:en away much of the City's right to control for these utilities in its rights-of--way. Director Brown stated the League of Minnesota Cities, the Public Utilities Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission had all established controls which would allow the City's ROW Ordinance to be a smaller- document. Councilmember Callies questioned if the Ordinance would include a provision that would allow the City to enter into a franchise agreement. Director Brown stated there was. Councilmember Callies stated although it was important for the Ordinance to identify the City's insurance liability requirements, she suggested the ROW Ordinance refer the Statutory requirements rather than restate the insurance limits. 5. OTHER Councilmember Woodruff stated he would like Council to be provided an update on the 2007 Goals and Priorities. Administrator Dawson stated that would be scheduled for November 5, 2007. Councilmember Woodruff stated he had received comments about the City publicizing the coffee with the mayor sessions that Mayor Lircc. There was question as to whether the meetings were City meetings or private meetings. He suggested Council discuss what the policy was on things of that nature, if there was one. Administrator Dawson stated that would be discussed on November 5, 2007. Councilmember Callies stated she understood the question to be were the sessions for political or public purposes (e.g. Governor Pawlenty's radio show). Councilmember Woodruff questioned when the AFSCME contract would be discussed. Administrator Dawson stated that would be discussedaon November 5, 2007. Councilmember Turgeon suggested it be in closed session. Councilmember Wellens suggested the City put a water meter at one of its parks and then water usage for the other parks could be estimated based on the use at that park. Mayor Lizee and Councilmember Callies stated water usage was different at different parks. Director Brown stated Freeman Park was the only park with an irrigation system; therefore, water was not being used at the other parks. Councilmember Woodruff questioned when there would be a discussion regarding administration of salary increases. Administrator Dawson stated that would be discussed with review of the budget on November 5, 2007. In response to a comment from Councilmember Woodruff, Mayor Lizee stated the Friends of the Southshore Center had achieved the $25,000 fund raising goal. The funds were net expenses. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 29, 2007 Page 6 of 6 Councilmember Woodruff stated the City had received a letter from the State Auditor's office in response to an anonymous inquiry regarding the City's appreciation event; the letter stated that would be a violation. Administrator Dawson stated that would be discussed on November 5, 2007. 6. ADJOURN Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of October 29, 2007, at 8:08 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk PAYABLES APPROVALS For 11/05/2007 Council Meeting t ,~ s Prepared by: ~ =~ Date: Michelle T Ngu en, Sr. Accounting Clerk € ft Reviewed by: s ~' Date: ~`~` Bonnie Burton, Finance Director ~_ Approved by: : -- - .~~ Date: ~~ ~. Craig ~'~awson, City Administrator ,h PAYROLL APPROVALS For 11/05/2007 Council Meeting u Prepared by: _ ~ ~ _ Date: s~ °' Michelle T. Nguyen. fir. Accounting Clerk i Reviewed by: 1 ~ ~ Date: ~ ~ Bonnie Burton, F~ance Director Approved by: i~~ '; ~ Date: ~ ~ ~ ~ 1. Craig awson, City Administrator CITY ®F 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 FROM: James Landini, City Engineer - '~.- DATE: November 1, 2007 RE: A Resolution Accepting Low Quote and Awarding Contract to Successful Low Quoter Attachment 1 is the Quote Tabulation for the 2007 Sanitary Sewer Jet Vacuum Cleaning, Main Line Televising, Structure Inspection, Lateral Inspection and Internal Chemical Grouting Project which were opened and tabulated on October 31, 2007. In 2007 we propose to televise 13,800 linear feet of sanitary sewer main, inspect 63 structures and 140 service laterals. Attachment 2 demonstrates the locations of work. The specifications were sent to eight firms, inviting them to quote the project. The low quoter and the only quoter is InfraTech in the amount of $100,619.00. This amount is over the statutory quote limit. We have the authority to reduce the quantities of the proposal to meet the $50,000 quote limit. The contractor has agreed to the change of quantities in Alternate A to meet our statutory limit. This project will be funded by the Sewer Enterprise Budget. Recommendation Staff recommends the contract for the 2007 Sanitary Sewer Jet Vacuum Cleaning, Main Line Televising, Structure Inspection, Lateral Inspection and Internal Chemical Grouting be awarded to Infratech not to exceed $50,000. A resolution is attached for your consideration. e. Se «A PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 07- A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR 2007 SANITARY SEWER JET VACUUM CLEANING, MAIN LINE TELEVISING, STRUCTURE INSPECTION, LATERAL INSPECTION AND INTERNAL CHEMICAL GROUTING PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to a request for quotes for local improvements designated as 2007 Sanitary Sewer Jet Vacuum Cleaning, Main Line Televising, Structure Inspection, Lateral Inspection and Internal Chemical Grouting Project, City Project Nos. 07-10, quotes were received and opened on October 31, 2007; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Infratech is the lowest quoter in compliance with the specifications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract not to exceed $50,000 with Infratech, in the name of the City of Shorewood, Project Nos. 07-10 according to the plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Administrator/Clerk. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 5th day of November, 2007. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk City of Shorewood Quote Tabulation Sanitary Jet Cleaning, Main Line Televising, Structure Inspection Project City Project No. 07-10 Quotes Opened: October 31, 2007, 10:00 A.M. City of Shorewood Engineer: James Landini No Quoter Quote 1 I nfratech ~ ~~ ~ i `~ ~ 0~ 2 Midwest Trenchless Technologies 3 Lametti & Sons 4 Michels Pipe Service 5 Hydrovac Inc. 6 Veit 7 Goliath Hydro Vac Inc. 8 Visu sewer 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Attachment #1 a G-11 EDGEWOOD ROAD D-4,5 GRANT LORENZ ROAD D-F fi LEE CIRCLE D-8 MEAOOWVIEW ROAD E-7 PINE BEND E3 ACADEMY AVENUE F-12 CHARLSTON CIRCLE E-19 ELBERT POINT F-20 GRANT STREET F12 SHOREWOOD LANE E-10 SUMMIT AVENUE G-12 WEOGEWOOD DRNE DIE 8 PLEASANT AVENUE G-9 RIVE 5 ~ SHOREWOOD DAKS D G-6 AFTON ROAD F'4 CHARTINELL HILL LILAC LANE G-15 MERRY LANE E-tfi MILL STREET G-15,16 (PONDVIEW DRIVE G-7 SUNNYVALE LAN E-7 EE ROAD 0.9 G-12 ELDER TURN Fii HARDING AVENUE E-8 LINWOOD ROAD A-17 1 SIERRA CIRCLE G-19 WEST 62ND BTREET G-4,5 CHASKA ROAD LANE 8 AML B-17,1 ELMRIDGE CIRCLE D-5 WEST LAKE STREET E-12 ANTHONY TERRACE C-19 CHESTNUT COURT G-2D HARDING LANE E-8 MALLARD LANE D-8 MINNETONKA BLVD AIB 16, 17 RADISSON ENTRANCE E-i7 SILVER LAKE TRAIL G-19,20 SUNSET (SUSSEX PLACE] 8.18 ENCHANTED COVE C-1 (HIGH POINTS RD) G-72 ENCHAMED DRIVE C-1 MANITOU UNE D-0 MINNEi ONKA DRIVE EIF fl RADISSON ROAD E i6-iB SMITHTOWN CIRCLE E-fi WEST LANE 8-17 APPLE ROAD G-15 CHESTNUT TERRACE G-20 SWEETWATER CIRCLE FIG 20 WHITNEY CIRCLE G-20 79 D C URT 4 • O RAMPART G-ID SMITHTOWN IANE F-6 ENCHAMED LANE C10 1,2 HILLENOALE ROAD FIG 15 MANITOU RDICR, 19 DIE 10 MUIRFIELO CIRCLE ARBORCREEK LANE E-6 (CHRISTMAS LAKE POINT) EfF 17 SWEETWATER COURT G-19 ~5 WILD ROSE LANE E-8,7 (BARRINGTON WAYJ 0-17,18 CHRISTMAS LAKE ROAD F-G i6 D-1 HOLLY LANE G-i6 MANN LANE F-7,8 MURRAY COURT G-13 (REGEMS WALK) 8-18 SMITH70WN RDI CR I9 E-10,11 ENCHANTED POINT SWEEPNATER CURVE FIG-19,20 BAYSWATER ROAD A-tA CHRISTMAS LANE G-i6 EUREKA ROAD F-G 18 HOWARD'S POINT ROAD 0-F 3 MANOR ROAD BIC 18 MURRAY HILL ROAD G-72 (RIDGE POINT CIRCLE) F-10 SMITHTOWN ROAD E-G 2 -9 SYLVAN LANE E-6 WILTSEY LANE G-9 MAPLE AVENUE G 5 OWN WAY 10 G 18 G - SMITHT - EIF 7 TEAL CIRCLE D-8 W000 DRIVE MURRAY STREET G-5 (RIDGE RDAD) E- BEVERLY DRIVE G-4 CHRISTOPHER ROAD E-9 EUREKA WAY F-7 IOLEWILD PATH B-17 ) C-2 MAPLE IANE(UNDEVEL TRAIL G 10 CLE 1 , - W000 DUCK CIR E-1 NEAR MOUNTAIN BLVD G-20 RIVIERA LANE G-10 (SPENCER LN) A-17 TEE BIRCH BLUFF ROAD D-6,7 CHURCH ROAD G-5 EXCELSIOR BLVD C-G 17 -20 (ISLAND VIEW ROADJ E-3 MAPLE LEAF CIRCLE G-6 WAY 8.17 SPRAY ISLAND B-3,4 THIRD AVENUE E-16 WOODEND PLACE 8.17 E-7 FAIRWAY DRIVE E-0 ~ e RUSTIC NELSINE DRNE IVY LANE g-q BLUE RIDGE LANE G-3 CLARA AVE (UNDEVEL.j D-6,7 CLOVER LANE E-ii FATIMA PLACE A-17 KATHLEEN COURT p.p MAPLE RIDGE LANE G-3 NOBLE ROAD DIE 5,6 (RAMS WAY) G9 (SPRING CIRCLE) C-19 THIRD ST(UNDEVEL.) D-6 WOODSIDE LANE E-2 9 ~ ~ G 6 ? BOULDER BRIDGE DRIVE F-2,3 CLUB LANE F-9 FERNCROFT DRIVE a-18 KELSEY DRIVE F7 MAPLE VIEW COURT D-7 NORTHGATE CIRCLE D-5 SEAMANS DRIVE FIG 8 SPRUCE HILL COURT G-8 (TIFFANY IANE) E-17 WOODSIDE ROAD EIF 2,3 ~ BOULDER BRIDGE LANE F-3 ) D-7 (ST, ALBANS BAY CIRCLE) D-19 TIMBER LANE E-11 YELLOWSTONE TRAIL FIG 0 -11 CLUB VALLEY ROAD G-9 FOREST DRIVE 8-16,17 KENSINGTON GATE) 8-18 MAPLE STREET G-11 OAK LEAF TRAIL G-6 UNDEVEL Y ~ 8 ( . SECOND 5TI BOULDER CIRCLE G-2 'MARSH POINTS CIRCLE E-5 78 VALLEYWOOD CIRCLE D-6 GALPIN LAKE ROAD FIG 13 ALBANS BAY RD CID 17 T , . OAK RIDGE CIRCLE D-6 SHADY HILLS CIRCLE D-20 S KNIGHTSBRIDGE ROAD BIC 18 (BOWMAN COURT) 8-19 COUNTY CLUB ROAD EIF 10 GALPIN LANE) G-13 MARBH POINTS COURT E-4 STAR CIRCLE E~0 VALLEYWOOD LANE E- 6 7 T G-12 ( , SHADY HILLS ROAD D-z9 BRACKETTS ROAD G-14,15 COVINGTON COURT F-20 LAFAYETTE AVENUE 0-72 MARSH POINTS DRIVE E-5 OAKVIEW COUR G-i6 COVINGTON ROAD D-F 19,20 GARDEN ROAD A-17,10 (LAGOON DRIVE) C-2 OLO MARKET RDAD DIE 19 SHADY ISLAND CIRCLE 0.2 STAR LANE E-8 VINE HILL ROAD C - G 20 [ 8 BRAND CIRCLE BRENTRIDGE DRNE EIF 3,4 DEER RIDGE G-14 GARDENDALE (UNDEVEL.) C-18 MARY LAKE TRAIL F-10 STATE HWY N0.7 C-G 7 - 20 LAKE LINDEN COURT G-ii ORCHARD CIRCLE D-7 SHADY ISLAND POINT &2 VINE RIDGE ROAD EIF 20 13 D G 12 O J ~ ~ ~ ~ 8, - , A ORCHARD LANE B-17 SHADY ISLAND ROAD C-2 STPATFORD PLACE G-14,15 20 DELLWOOD LANE C-1 (GIDEON'S LANE) OIE 9 Lp,KE LINDEN DRIVE G-ii MAYFLOWER R VINE BTREET 8.19 CID 19 , OROMS BOULEVARD (DEVONSHIRE CIRCLE) 8-18 GILLETTE CURVE E-it LAKE VIRGINA COVE G-20 MCKINLEY CIRCLE G-20 pgRK LANE G-7 BHADY ISLAND TRAIL g.p (STRAWBERRY CIRCLE) G-5 WATERFORD CIRCLE E-20 BRYNMAWR PLACE EIF 3 BURLWOOD COURT G-fi ONISION STREET F-15 GLEN ROAD E-8,9 LAKE VIRGINA DRIVE G-3 MCKINLEY COURT G-20 pARK STREET F-12 SHADY LANE C.pp STRAWBERRY COURT FS WATERFORD COURT D-19 CAJEO LANE G-4 ECHO ROAD EIF 10 GLENCOE ROAD G-12 LAKEWAY TERRACE AIB 77 MCKINLEY PLACE FIG 20 PARKVIEW LANE C-17 SHORE ROAD g-tg STRAWBERRY LANE FIG 5 WATERFORD PLACE E-19,20 CARDNAL DRIVE G•13, 14 LAWTONKA DRIVE E-11 MCLAIN RDAD F-it PEACH CIRCLE F-6 SUBURBAN DRIVE BIC 17 ~ R (CARRIE IANEJ D-10 o~ ~"~ CATHCART DRIVE FIG 5 ~~ cAiES MAP UPDATE JAN. 2007 ~ (Designates Private Road) f ~ coxes New :i(i ~~~ ~~ tg [ ` ~~sa _~, Q ~ ' e ~ ~ LsHADVISUNDPT ~ ~ LAKE 4 ~p ~ ~ 2SHADY ISLAND TR n 'U rsAaoo ~E, 3.sHADrISLANDCIR srw,v MINNETONKA l ~ ~ gib ~ S ~"wi -;~ v $ \ 4. MAPLELA ~uND CITY OF : ~ ~~ u ~ s. snnDV IsuND RD ~ SHOREWOOD °~_~ ~ ~ u3 `~° ~~ ~ ~~ , Q ~ PHELPS BAY 1. P, ~ y ~ fit B w O Lf , g / ~~ °SN m 3D 4, LAKEMINNETONKA ~ ~ ~P~4, •* ~ a ~cB~ uAnn ~' 6 ~ 5. ~ " a ) ~ Z W Z z k ~ ~~'"~, 3 q s SHADY IsuND ~ PROJECT AREA GIDEON'S BAY ` ~ 0 ~ ~ S aw I `a ~ ~aPnnw ~, nwle w ~~ "'c~eiaAxsa,r~sew ~VOT ~ w' ~ s ENCHANTED ISU ~ ~ a 0 u $ w SSP~E epoN~' ~ ~ nnU no 4 ? ~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ / U"" Ew o Duck Faec EXCELSIOR ST ALBANS BAY `Q+aq ~eP~ PipF'~D ""°' J~ 6 ~ ~ ~ C ~~ Ni ~ Q BAY 3 'y 5~ w ~ g O u I Isvuo ~/ Ewe a ~ ~c~ ~ ~ ~ t~ a ~ a~NO ,. QO~O I t e ,,~~ p~ ~o~ I NY' 4 ~ vu~Ew2m - 3 g eF 12gR r~ ~ 00 O Ae•P # 9 mS cw ~ D~ a N c ~ e N E ~ 3 ~ e ~ N p ~ ~ i - D W Z Q O ~ _ W F- W ~ (A Q _U O \ /~- ~ ~ ll' (n ~ -) Q ~ V/ y' e}"E j n lu a 9 z ~ su e c~ _ ~ x[n xn an~ssax ~ LAKE @ wAflOJm~, g 5 g ~g ~ S a,,~ r 5 4 0~~0 ~ ~~~ g ~ ~~ ,k,~~``~ y V ~ c~ en oscAeN "'~ s sc ' ~ ~ s 8 ~ s D _ ~o ec,e ~¢ _ ~,T "~ ~ ~ 4 E ~ csM+ ~ TaTEx° ~ s, 0 n~ g v ~ . ~N ~ & ~ s no MINNETONKA eow~ wsioE so t 3 Q u ~ e cMA~~ NAP ~ j LL ~cA - sMrtwaavi++ 2 t~ ~ is ~ ~ 4 R snrooo ~ ~ B Q c / / srerr aoAO wLL ~ cw p~" ~ ~ ass a ReAA - ~ ~ ° o u =V „x„,o„„ a ~ a, MOWN 5 N „~ § Q s~'" ~P- s ~n ~co.xomu ~m (~ m c yqe S O g o =~owN No ~ ~NO ~~ ~ - 5 F swa>E ~ w~~EPo~M ~ d° m c4 ' H e ~ 1 ' ~ o p o c G Q . A ~ m . 5 a : CHRISTMAS ~ ~ ain~ GALPIN w 3. W x o U r j ~y ~Ty D. ~ cr P' p ~ pREEw1nN PAPoC ~y.6~ ~ ~~ a^~ ~ 1 q LAKE ~0 ~ kf P, ~ w+x i tieAA' ~ ¢ LAI(E g p °P f vna , / LL Q ~ z 3 6 w o 8 WS ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M'mtcWH ~ a lcrwx u) earcxErts ko ~po'hl~ ak L ' `A ewwm 5 fi ~ Wn ~ ~ ~ ~ n 5, xt 2 B ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 wsa u, w rt cw s \ ~s ~ `1~ ~ ~ " m ¢ ~ s i"' a a < 1 ~ vELLO .~ ecveuv z o ~ 9 ^~ 6 51 r1 ~ 'T ni xA 4 P Q `^'4' '8 5 a ° Mw ,n,o ~ n ~ r - V F R ~ ~ s e - f ~ OP ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s~" ~ 8 ~ "'s~w,~ ~ sxn~,wasu ~ co °0.~' ~ ~ > J 7 ° ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ @ 6 8 ~ cr / wnrser u ~~~~ e N07 ~ ~ ~~ ~ a~ P~ " 6. 7. i P STATE NWi cov< nxosfw nX sv~oST STRTE HWV NOi j nM~V lA 3 1, CHESTNUT TER. e LANE 2. WHITNEY CIR Q. vIRCINIA 3. ELBERT PT. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ~ 19 (20 4 ~HE~STN Prr 2007 STREET MAP Attachment#2 2007 Sanitary Sewer Cleaning ,Televising , Lateral Inspection and Chemical Grouting sHEEr ~ oP ? sHEETs CITE' F 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: 1 November 2007 RE: Draft Amendment - C-l, General Commercial Zoning District FILE NO. Zoning (Section 1201.22) Last year the City completed a revamp of its commercial zoning districts, paring the number of districts down from. five to three. The focus of the work was on allowable uses and the elimination of two zoning districts. In the process of drafting the amendments, we inadvertently left out the lot requirements, setbacks and building regulations (Subd. 5 and 6). Oops! The attached code amendment re-establishes Subd. 5. and 6. just as they existed prior to last years changes. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider this "housekeeping" measure and voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the revised section. Staff has taken the liberty of placing this item on the consent agenda for Monday night. Since I will not be at that meeting, please try to contact me before Monday to discuss any questions you may have. My cell phone number would be best. If there are questions that I am unable to respond to, I ask that the matter be continued to the 26 November meeting. Cc: Craig Dawson Tim Keane Patti I-Ielgesen Pamela Helling ~~ ,m Za«' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER cITY of sxoREwooD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SHOREWOOD ZONING CODE TO RE- ESTABLISH LOT REQUIREMENTS, SETBACKS AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS IN THE C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT Section 1. Section 1201.22 of the Shorewood City Code is hereby amended to include: "Subd. 5. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a C-1 District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: a. Lot area: None; b. Lot width: None; c. Lot depth: None; d. Setbacks: (1) Front yard: Not less than 30 feet; (2) Rear yard: Not less than 30 feet; (3) Side yard: Not less than 15 feet on each side nor less than 30 feet on a side yard abutting a street; (4) Setback from R District boundary: Not less than 50 feet (Additional setback not required when adjacent to a nonresidential use in an R-C District). Subd. 6. Building requirements. Height: no structure shall exceed three stories, or 40 feet, whichever is least." Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publishing in the Official Newspaper of the City of Shorewood. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 5th. day of November 2007. CHRISTINE LIZEE, MAYOR ATTEST: CRAIG DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTIPLE SIGNS TO SHOREWOOD VILLAGE CENTER WHEREAS, Shorewood Village Center, Inc. (Applicant) has an interest in the real property located at 23680 State Highway 7 in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota; legally described as: "Lot 2, Block 1, Shorewood Village Addition" WHEREAS, the Applicant has prepared a new signage plan for the shopping center located on the above-referenced property; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 1201.03 Subd. II.e.(3)(c) of the Shorewood City Code, to install multiple signs on the above- referenced property; and WHEREAS, Applicants' request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission and City Council, dated 2 October 2007, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on 2 October 2007, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, Applicant's request for conditional use permit was considered by the City Council at their regular meeting on 22 October 2007, at which time the Planner's memoranda and the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT The Subject Property is located in a C-1, General Commercial zoning district. 2. The City Zoning Code allows multiple signage for shopping centers subject to an overall signage plan approved as part of a conditional use permit, and not to exceed ten percent of the area of the building silhouette, as viewed from the street. 3. The shopping center and the attached grocery store are subject to one overall sign plan. The signage for the grocery store, plus the freestanding sign for the site total 862 square feet of area, leaving 787 square feet of sign area for the center. 4. The Applicant proposes to divide its allowable signage up into two categories of signs as follows: a. Major tenants: 293 square feet b. In-line or interior mall tenants: 494 square feet , _~ 5. The Applicant proposes to limit the use of window signs on exterior windows of the shopping center. 6. That the Applicant, as opposed to individual tenants of the shopping center, will make any applications for temporary signs, pursuant to Section 1201.03 Subd. 1 l.c.(4) of the Shorewood City Code, as maybe amended. Anew tenant may apply for a temporary business sign in conjunction with requests for its permanent sign. CONCLUSIONS 1. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicant's request for a conditional use permit subject to the following: a. A11 signs on the property shall comply with the Applicant's application, set forth iri Exhibit A, attached, and with the requirements of Shorewood' s Zoning Code, as maybe amended. b. All future sign permits for the subject property will be evaluated based upon consistency with this conditional use permit. c. The Applicant may erect "directional" entrance and exit signs and other traffic control signs as approved by the Shorewood Zoning Administrator. d. The Applicant proposes to prohibit the use of window signs on exterior windows of the shopping center, except that each "in-line" tenant may have one window sign stating the name of the business and "open closed". No such window signs shall be allowed on the common mall area windows or doors. Such window signs shall not exceed three square feet in area, which area shall be included in the tenant's allowable sign area. e. Any temporary sign permits shall be consistent with the Shorewood City Code, and will be controlled and applied for by the Applicant, as opposed to individual tenants of the shopping center. Anew tenant may apply for a temporary business sign in conjunction with its request for a permanent sign. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of this Resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 5th day of November 2007. CHRISTINE LIZEE, MAYOR ATTEST: CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK -2- August 30, 2007 S~IDREWOOD VILLAGE CENTER SIGN CRITERIA AMENDEMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Calculation of Allowable Square Footage 10% of Project Silhouette Available for Signage 787 square feet of Signage available for Non-Cub Foods portion of the pro~ectm Exhibit A Shorewood Sign Criteria Page 1 Introduction We are pleased to present the modified sign criteria for Shorewood Village Center. Although some individual variation will be allowed, the new tenant signage will preserve the crucial uniformity of the center. This sign criteria has been redeveloped to insure that the signage mutual benefits the Tenant and Landlord. The initial CUP calculation of allowable sign square footage was inaccurate in that it did not including any of the fascia on the west facing elevation. The original sign square footage allowable at the center (not including Cub Foods portion) was 560 square feet which included 160 square feet for tenants over 5000 square feet or multiple exposures and 400 square feet for all other inline tenants. The proposed CUP is being amended to allow for the additional sign square footage on the portion of the west fascia which previously was not accounted for in the initial sign criteria. With the addition of the west facing elevation we have added 277 square feet to the total sign square feet allowable at the center. The additional square footage is being spread between the inline tenant's portion and major tenants. The inline tenant's portion would increase to 494 square feet and the major tenant's portion to 293 square feet bringing the maximum signage for the center to a total of 787 square feet. In addition, with the recent addition of our newest tenant at the center who occupies over 5000 square feet we are requesting to amend the CUP to allow for one (1) additional tenant to be defined as a Major Tenant. In doing so we would adjust the total allowable square feet for Major Tenants portion to a of maximum of 293 square feet of signage to be allocated between four (4) tenants at the discretion of landlord. In conclusion, we feel that by amending the CUP to allow for the correct sign square footage the City of Shorewood will be supporting the local businesses at the center by maximizing their exposure and therefore ensuring their stability and longevity in the community. Shorewood Sign Criteria Page 2 GENERAL GUIDELINES 1. Exterior tenant signage shall consist of store identification only, per specifications attached. Copy shall be restricted to the Tenant's proper name and product or service. 2. Corporate logos, emblems, shields and similar identifying devices shall be permitted only if approved by the Landlord. Fluorescent illuminated light boxes ace prohibited. 3. Each Tenant is limited to one exterior building sign, with the exception of those Tenants that have two or more elevations or exposures. 4. Letter styles are to be selected by the tenant. The landlord encourages creative and distinctive use of letter styles subject to landlord approval. 5. Moving, rotating, flashing, blinking, message-changing, noise-making or odor- producing signs shall not be allowed. 6. Cloth, wood, paper or cardboard signs, stickers, vinyl or decal signs or any identification painted on the window surface are not allowed. 7. The names, stamps or decals of manufacturers or installers shall not be visible except for technical data reduired by governing authorities. 8. Letter material, color and. size reduirements, as per attached specifications, must be followed. 9. All lines of lettering shall run horizontally. 10. Signs shall be constructed, mounted and located as determined by this Criteria and the Landlord. 11. The installation of signage and the costs incurred shall be responsibility of the tenant, unless otherwise stipulated in the Tenant's contract. 12. No roof signs allowed. 13. 1/xposed ballast boxes or transformers are prohibited. Shorewood Sign Criteria Page 3 IN-LINE AND INTERIOR MALL TENANTS (Less Than 5,000 Square Feet) There is a maximum of 20 in-line and interior mall Tenants with one exposure (1 sign per Tenant will be allowed) Maximum allowance square footage as designed per building elevation attached to these criteria. Total of 494 square feet of signage for all in-line and interior mall Tenants TOTAL: 494 square feet 1. All inline and interior mall Tenants with single southern or western exposure will be allowed exterior fascia mount signs of size no greater than 10% of tenant wall fascia. Upper and lower margins shall be at least six inches (6"). The location of interior mall tenant signage on the sign band shall be determined by Landlord. 2. Sign will consist of individual illuminated letters. Illuminated Logos will be allowed with Landlord approval. Illuminated letters will be internally illuminated by LED or neon only (no incandescent or fluorescent will be permitted) 3. All letters will be set on the designated sign fascia; color for letter faces must be chosen from the following translucent colors list or approved by the Landlord. Red 2283 (Rolun & Haas or equal) Blue 2214 (Rohm & Haas or equal) Green 2030 (Rohm & Haas or equal) Yellow 2037 (Rohm & Haas or equal) All Letter returns must be painted to match Dark Bronze. One color per tenant sign is permitted. 4. Letter faces to be of 3/16" thick Plexiglas. All letter faces to be edged in edgebrite or equal. All back and sides shall be constructed of aluminum and be attached to fascia of the building with non- corrosive fasteners. 5. All Illuminated letters shah_ be powered by remote transformers or internal transformers. No raceways are permitted. 6. All illuminated sign fabrication and installation must comply with and display UL label. Shorewood Sign Criteria Page 4 MAJOR TENANTS (Multiple Exposures or greater than 5,000 square feet) There are four exterior Tenants will multiple exposures or more than 5, 000 square feet (Tenant A) (Tenant C) (Tenant B) (Tenant D) Maximum of 293 square feet of signage to be allocated between Four Tenants at the discretion of Landlord. (Maximum of 2 exterior signs will be allowed per Tenant) Allocation (may be chanced at a later date: Tenant A 55 square feet (One Sign) Tenant B 63 square feet (One Signs) Tenant C 13 5 square feet (Two Signs) Tenant D 40 square feet (Two Signs) West exposure 1 Elevation on west South exposure 1 Elevation on South West exposure 2 Elevations on West West &South exposure 2 elevations on West TOTAL 293 square feet All Major Mall Tenants will be allowed one exterior fascia mount signs per elevation or exposure with a maximum of three signs. All signs will be set back of two feet (2'-0"j from both the left and right tenant property lines. The sign must be centered on the lease space where practical, upper and lower margins shall be at least six inches (6") 2. Sign will consist of individual ilhmunated letters. Illuminated Logos will be allowed with Landlord approval. Illuminated letters will be internally illuminated by LED or Neon only (no incandescent or fluorescent will be permittedj. 3. All letters will be set on the designated sign fascia; color for letters faces must be chosen from the following translucent colors list or approved by Landlord: Shorewood Sign Criteria Page 5 Red 2283 (Rohm & Haas or Equal) Green 2030 (Rohm & Haas or Equal) Yellow 2037 (Rohm & Haas or Equal} Ali Letter returns must be painted to match Dark Bronze One color per tenant sign is pernitted. 4. Letter faces to be of 3/16" thick Plexiglas. All letter faces to be edged in edgebrite or equal. All back and sides shall be constnicted of aluminum and be attached to fascia of the building with non-corrosive fasteners. All illuminated letters shall be powered by remote transformer or internal transformers. No raceways are permitted. 6. All illuminated sign letter fabrication and installation must comply with and display UL Label. Shorewood Sign Criteria Page 6 TENANT AITXILIARY SIGNAGE Tenant to supply rear door signage. 2. Proper names and address numbers are allowed. All numbers and letters to be 3" in height and copy to be a maximum 14" in width. All copy to be white vinyl, upper case Helvetica, medium typestyle. Address numbers shall be on the top line with tenant name below. Spacing between lines shall be 1-1/2". 4. Signs will be installed 4'-6' from bottom of door to bottom of Tenant name. All copy to be left justified 6" from latch side of door jam. 5. Tenant will be allowed to install an interior window sign will require Landlord approval. This sign shall consist of business identification and open/closed information only. Sign will be limited to ten square feet. Shorewood Sign Criteria Page 7 TEMPORARY SIGNAGE Landlord may from time to time allow the installation of temporary signs on a short-term basis. Landlord may accept or reject a reques~or temporary signs basis upon its sole and absolute discretion. The City will allow a maximum of two temporary signs in a twelve month period for given days at a time for existing tenants and the city will allow new tenants one temporary sign for a maximum of one two week period while new signage is being constructed and installed. Temporary sign to be removed immediately upon installation of new sign no later than two weeks after temporary sign application. Shorewood Sign Criteria Page 8 APPROVAL PROCEDURE Prior to awarding a contract for fabrication and installation of signage, Tenant shall drawings and specifications in triplicate for all proposed building facade signage. The drawings shall clearly show location of sign and indicate graphics, color, materials, and construction and attachment details. 2. Tenant shall be responsible for complying with the regulations and ordinances governing the installation and maintenance of sings of governmental authorities having jurisdiction of the Leased Premises, Application for necessary permits and the payment of fees shall be directed to the appropriate govermnental authorities by sign contractor and charged to the Tenant. Note that one (1) set of drawings bearing written approval by the Landlord must accompany the sign permit application. 3. Tenant is required by landlord to have signs in place within 30 days of project completion. 4. Landlord approval is required by the City of Shorewood prior to issuing city permits. 3925' x 23.68' = 929.44 x 10% = 92.94 5Q. F 80.106' x 13,5' =1081.4 x 10% =108.14 5Q. FT. + 21.34• =129.48 6Q. Ft. e ~~ ~ Q ~. /.~ ~_~ ', 1/16"=1'-0" ~°~ p ~® ~ ° ® A CUSTOMER DRAWL BY SHOREWOOD DARKEN VILLAGE CENTER CITY STATE SALES REP. SNO~EwooD MN RICK ~. HAS STARTED WILL RESUL • FILE ~JAME SCALE R~4173-08-01-07 1116"-1'-0° CUSTOMER APPROVAL DATE OR6G. DATE 08/01/07 REV. DATE 08!28!07 WITH APPROVAL OF THIS DRAWING I HEREi3Y GIVE SCHAD TRACY SIGNS PERM15510N TO DEGIN PRODUCTION OF THE 51GNAGE ILLUSTRATED IN TN15 DOCUMENT. I AGREE THAT ALL THE SPECIFICATION5, SPELLING, COLORS AND ELEVATIONS LISTED IN THIS DRAWING ARE CORRECT AND APPROVED ANY CHANGES TO THIS DRAWING AFTER PRODUCTION T IN ADDITIONAL CHARGES THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF 325 MINNESOTAAVE, N. 1610 E. CLIFF RD. P.O. BOX 357 ' ' BUItNSVILLE, MN 55337 ORONOCO, MN X5960 PHONE (952'8942421 PHONE l 507367.2631 FAX (952~894~2748 FAX / 507~367~2633 TheSgn ofQuall-; REVISI®N 1~ FONTS USED: IMPORTED IMAGO 114'x21.5'=301x10%=305Q.FT, I 120,75' x 13,5' =1630.125 x 10°/ =163 5Q. FT, TENANT D ~~^~~~r, ~ '~ /~ 1116"=1'•0" CUSTOMER DRAWN RY SHOREWOOD DARKEN VILLAGE CENTER CITY STATE SALES REP, SNOR~WOOD MN RICK B, FILE NAME SCALE Ri34173-08-01-07 1/16"-1'-0" W(TH APPROVAL OF THIS DRAWING I HEREi3Y GIVE SCHAD TRACY SIGNS PERMISSION TO DEGIN PRODUCTION OF THE SIGNAGE ILLUSTRATED IN THIS DOCUMENT, I AGREE THAT ALL THE SPECIFICATIONS, SPELLING, COLORS AND ELEVATIONS LISTED IN THIS DRAWING ~~, ARE CORRECT AND APPROVED. ANY CHANGES TO THIS DRAWING AFTER PRODUCTION ~~, HAS STARTED WILL RESULT IN ADDITIONAL CHARGES. ~~ CUSTOMER APPROVAL DATE ~I ORIG. DATE 08101/07 REV. DATE 08/28107 REVISION 1 F®NTS USED: IMPORTED IMAGE I ~ ~ ~ 9 P ~ ~ _ r .~ ~~.,,.. _a.....,_ ~ ~+' Tl16"=1'-~ OUSTOMEit SHOKEWOOD DRAi'VN BY DA1;~EN VILLAGE CENTER CITY STATE SHO~EWOOD MN SALES REP. ~IGK [3, FILE NAME ~P4173-08-01-07 SCALE 1/16"-1'-0" ORIG. DATE 08/01!07 RE!! DATE 08/28/07 REi'ISiON 1~ FONTS USE®: IMp0~TED IMAGE 1 LEA ~ LlNES 58.75" !, '.... ~I 9 __~_.. ~~SP ---_6- ~_ 1~„ LEASE L(NE5 -.P T. - 49,511 ~ _. .; IG~~ '... 1YPIGAI. SIGN BAN UGUBLE I.IN~ LET1'E~ HEIGHT MAX AT 36" _____. ___ ~..__._.6~~_ __-_r __..__ t 36" ..._____.... v_. ~ii LEASE L,~NES i s_ ~_.__! , _ ® 49.5„ y 9 12" TYPICAL L,E.D. FLUSH M®UNT CHANNEL LETTER SECTION DETAIL CHANNEL LETTER TRIM CAP - ..b.®®..I ! -----TRANSFORMER BOX COVER " L.E,D. UNITS - -~, ," ~. _TRANSFORMER BOX WIRE CONNECTOR ~ - ~ -TRANSFORMER .. -129VOlTSERVICE GROMMET -.. ~~ -- -MOUNTING SCREWS PENETRAT€ONS SEALED _ ; '~ - r -- LOW VOLTAGE WORE WITH SILICONE --CONNECTOR ACRYLIC FACE - 1 SLEEVE TO RUNTHROUGNWALL .940 ALUMINUM RETURN - -° .959 ALUMINUM BACK ~.. TYPICAL FLUSH MOUNT CHANNEL LETTER SECTION DETAIL CHANNEL LETTER -------- _._. SILICONE TRIM CAP-- I--, GTO WIRE ELECTRO BtT CAP I ~ ----JUNCTION BOX NEON TUBING - ~--. NEON STANDOFF --- - ~, ELECTRO BIT SLEEVE TO --FLEX CONDUIT RUN THROUGH WALL - RIGID TO FLEX CONNECTOR PENETRATIONS SEALED __- _ wlrw SILICaNE ~l„ ACRYLIC FACE - -----EMTIFLEX CONNECTOR TRANSfORMER80XCOVER ELECTRO BIT CAP -- - ~ !-129 VOLT SERVICE .940 ALUMINUM RETURN - ~~ -TRANSFORMER .959 ALUMINUM BACK -- ~ TRANSFORPER BOX St4" EPdT -- - MDUNTING SCREWS LUST®MER [DRAWN BY aHar;EwooB aA~~EN VILLAGE CENTER CITY STATE SALES REP, SHO~EWOaD MN SICK 13, FILE NAME SCALE R 64175-08-01-07 3l8"-1°-a" 12" WITM APPR©VAL OF TH15 D~.AWING I HE~E13Y GIVE OCHAD T~AGY OiGN~ ~EFMIOi~ION "C~0 BEGIN pFODUC,TION OF THE gal<iNAGE ILLUSTF'ATED IN THIS C1000MENT. I AC>~EF THAT ALL THE 51'ECIFICATIOidO, CPELLING, COLO~C AND ELEVATI01~10 LILTED IN THIC DF.AWING AFC GOF~ECT AND Apf'~OVED. ANY CHANGED TO THIa DRAWING AFTER PFODUC"(ION NA5 51"AR~1`ED WILL RE~ULT~ IN ADDITIONAL CNARGEC, CUSTOMER APPROVAL ___ ®ATE __ THIS DRAWING 15 THE PR®PERTY OF 325 MINNESOTAAVE. N. 1610 E. CI<IFF I'eD. j PO. BOX 351 BU(2NSVILLE, MN 55337 I, ORONOCO, MN 55960 PHONE (952$94.2421 PHONE (507 3b7 ~2G31 FAX 1952~894r274$ ~' FAX / 5Q7.3b7~2633 the 515n oE~ Q ;.ally ORIG. DATE 0101/07 REV, DATE 08/08107 ( REVISION 0 ~ FQNTS USE®:1MF'OI;TED IMAGE CITE' ~ 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 FROM: James Landini, City Engineer DATE: November 1, 2007 RE: Terminate Improvements as Part of Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, Glen Road Project At the October 22, 2007 City Council meeting, a Public Hearing was opened to collect written and oral statements regarding the Amlee Rd., Manitou Ln and Glen Rd. reconstruction project. A majority of the statements were in opposition to the project. A few of the adjacent property owners opposed granting the City of Shorewood necessary temporary and permanent easements to construct the improvements. This action would have forced the City of Shorewood to begin condemnation proceedings. The City Council directed staff to prepare a resolution terminating the Amlee Rd., Manitou Ln and Glen Rd. reconstruction project. That resolution is attached for your consideration. Recommendation Staff recommends the approval of a resolution terminating the Amlee Rd., Manitou Ln and Glen Rd. reconstruction project. ~. sa ~' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION TERMINATING THE AMLEE ROAD, GLEN ROAD AND MANITOU LANE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT WHEREAS, the 2005-2009 Capital Improvement Program identifies the need to reconstruct Amlee Road, Glen Road and Manitou Lane; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing in regard to the proposed reconstruction project; and WHEREAS, at such hearing the City Council received written and oral statements, and heard petitioners for or against the proposed improvement; and WHEREAS, a majority of the written and oral statements opposed the improvement project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota: That the proposed Amlee Road, Glen Road, And Manitou Lane Reconstruction Project be terminated. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 5th day of November, 2007. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk MEMORANDUM c~rv or 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 DATE: October 31, 2007 TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk RE: A Resolution Proclaiming November 10-17 as Housing Awareness Week 2007 Intercongregation Communities Association (ICA) has requested the City consider a resolution proclaiming November 10-17 as Housing Awareness Week 2007. This is a statewide campaign for safe and affordable housing for all people. In 2006, ICA provided 112 emergency housing assists, and so far in 2007, they provided 265 emergency housing assists. A Resolution proclaiming November 10-17 as Housing Awareness Week 2007 is enclosed for Council approval. ~' os ~a «0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO.07- A RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING NOVEMBER 10-17, 2007 TO BE HOUSING AWARENESS WEEK 2007 WHEREAS, the lack of safe, decent, and affordable housing destabilizes the lives of families and individuals, negatively impacts the health and school performance of children and the health of elderly, and contributes to hornlessness; and WHEREAS, the Intercongregation Communities Association (ICA) provided approximately 112 emergency housing assists in 2006, and 265 in 2007, to prevent homelessness; and WHEREAS, Housing Awareness Week 2007 is a community initiative to raise awareness about local housing issues, to raise money to address housing needs, and to promote community involvement and volunteerism. Congregations, service organizations, youth groups, community residents, businesses, schools and civic organizations are participating in Housing Awareness Week 2007; and WHEREAS, public, private, and non-profit partnerships play an essential role in the development and preservation of affordable housing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Shorewood City Council does hereby proclaim November 10-17, 2007, to be Housing Awareness Week 2007, and encourages all residents to participate in activities associated with Housing Awareness Week 2007. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, this 5th day of November, 2007. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk To: City of Shorewood City Council From: Tom Skramstad, LMCD Representative Date: November 5, 2007 Here is my "periodic" report of LMCD activities. Zebra Mussels: The LMCD has been concerned about the introduction of zebra mussels into the Lake for more than ten years. Zebra mussels have infested the St. Croix River, the Mississippi River, Lake Superior, Lake Ossawinamakee, and Lake Milacs and are spreading quickly. The LMCD has worked with the DNR on a boat inspection program for the last seven years, and this inspection program was conducted again in 2007, with over 1700 hours allocated. During the last State legislative session the LMCD worked with State legislators to create appropriate "aquatic invasive species" legislation, This resulted in appropriate language making its way into the "omnibus bill" which never reached the Governor's desk for signature. The current plan is for the legislature to take this up immediately upon convening in February 2008. There is optimism that the bill will pass, which will put this issue on the ballot in November, 2008, and allow the voters determine the outcome, The bill calls for the DNR to be the governing agency and sets aside $500,000 for zebra mussels over the two year budget period, The LMCD will continue to provide leadership on this important issue. Lake Vegetation Management Plan(LVMP): The LMCD is partnering with the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) the Army Corps of Engineers, the DNR, and Three Rivers Park District to develop an LVMP for portions of Gray's, Carman's and Phelps Bays. The LVMP is a DNR plan for management, control, and protection of lake plants. The goals of this program are to: gather both the public's perspective and the various agency's perspectives regarding vegetation problems, and to see if any reasonable and affordable remedial action plans result. Attacking these goals will be accomplished in a series of meetings with the public and the various stakeholders in the summer and fall of 2007. 3. LMCD Newsletter: One of the LMCD's main initiatives in recent years has been to improve the public's knowledge of the agency's role and the rules that govern the use of the Lake, Towards this end, the LMCD started publishing a bi-annual newsletter in the Spring of 2006. The second newsletter for 2007 (and the fourth overall) will be out this November. 4. Milfoil Harvesting: The 19th year of milfoil harvesting program has been completed. The objective of this initiative is to keep main boating traffic lanes clear of milfoil. A copy of the final harvesting "report" is now available from the LMCD office, if you are interested. This program is funded by the 14 member cities and the DNR. The LMCD appreciates the continued support from the City of Shorewood, 5. Milfoil Demonstration Project: The LMCD, in conjunction with the DNR, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Lake Minnetonka Association, conducted a "demonstration project" in 2006. In this program, three areas of the Lake (portions of Cayman's Bay, Phelps Bay and Gray's Bay) were treated with known and approved chemicals to see if there might be a more effective way to treat this exotic. The "final report" is now available from the LMCD office, so please contact the office if you would like a copy. If there is an interest in continuing or expanding this type of treatment, money to do this will have to be arranged. 6. ILIDS: The term "ILIDS" is an acronym for Internet Landing Installed Device Sensor. It as a unique device that uses the capabilities of computers, cameras and the internet to take videos of boats entering the Lake to see whether they have exotic species visibly present. (The transport of exotic species on public roads is against State law.) In 2006 the LMCD provided partial funding for this project and one unit was installed at a public landing. The program was deemed to be successful and was expanded this year to four sites. The goals of this project are: to reduce the risk of the introduction of exotic species by changing boaters' behaviors, and to improve the education of the public by notifying potential violators in writing of their potential violation. This project has been concluded for the year and a final report will be presented at the November 14th Board meeting. 7. Solar Lights: This program was started in 2002 and involves attaching solar lights to the top of navigational buoys in high traffic areas so that boaters can more easily find their way at night. The program has received much positive feedback and it was continued in 2007. 8. Regulation enforcement: Two years ago the LMCD made a commitment, largely based on public comments, to do a more effective job of enforcing its existing boat storage and docking regulations. In 2006 the LMCD took its shoreline inventory (done every two years), which tallies the numbers and types of boats stored around the Lake. In this latest inventory, data on several additional items was collected: docks that exceed the legal size, docks that have too many boats (more than four boats but no multiple dock license on file), and docks that appear to have boats that are not registered to the homeowner (a potentially illegal boat slip rental situation,) Prior to the boating season this year, letters were sent to 81 owners of docks that have too many boats, and to 58 owners of docks that have 3 or more larger watercraft (potential rental situations). The purpose of the letter writing campaign is to educate the recipients about the LMCD's regulations and to ask them to come into compliance voluntarily. Additional inspections will be done next year to monitor progress towards compliance. In addition, the DNR is evaluating whether to enforce their dock dimension regulation (a dock can be more than eight feet wide in only one dimension.) The LMCD will work closely with the DNR on the dock dimension issue. As stated before, the LMCD will look forward to working with the Cities on these enforcement projects. Licenses and Permits: In August the LMCD sent out renewal applications for existing deicing situations, of which there are three in Shorewood (Howard's Point Marina, Rossberg, and Tradewell). The renewals were due back in the LMCD office on October 15th and are currently being processed. A copy of the approved license is always forwarded to the City. Applications for 2008 multiple dock licenses, district mooring facilities, charter boats and liquor licenses will be sent out soon. 10. Board of Director appointments. The LMCD Board appointment process for 2008 has started. Shorewood's representative should be selected and the name communicated to the LMCD by the end of December. I suggest that you consider a three year term for your representative since the State regulation that formed the LMCD in 1967 asks (actually requires) that cities select Board members for a three year term. Shorewood has been appointing its representative for only one year. 11. Web Page: The LMCD's Website is: http:/~www.lmca.org. Page -- 2 - crrY or ~ 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: November 1, 2007 SUBJECT: Consideration of Expanded CSO Services for 2008 SLMPD Budget At its meeting on October 30, 2007, the Coordinating Committee of the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) recommended that its member city councils approve the proposal for expanded services through community services officers (CSOs). They would become basic SLMPD services and their costs apportioned by the fixed-percentage amounts for the cities. The four city councils reviewed this proposal this past summer, but none took action to include it in its 2008 budget at that time. They requested further information and agreed to consider the proposal again this fall, for possible inclusion with the final adoption in their 2008 budgets. Back rg ound: The proposal for expanded CSO services was first made in 2006 for the 2007 budget. CSOs can provide many services in a more cost-effective manner than having them performed by a sworn police officer. The focus of discussion was on the animal control function, however, rather than the wider array of services that could be provided by additional CSOs (of which animal control would be a small but important part). For essentially the same money that the four cities were paying.: for animal control services only, they could gain a wider array of services and availability of staff from SLMPD. As unanimous approval by the city councils did not occur in 2006 (Excelsior. declined), further action was delayed to this year. Benefits from Expanded CSO Services: Chief Litsey has prepared memoranda (attached) describing advantages to be gained having expanded CSO services. CSOs are able to perform many activities that do not require licensed peace officers, and thus do so at a lower cost. As the proposed CSO positions also are part-time, they would not be benefit-earning positions. By having CSOs available to do many activities now done by sworn officers, the sworn officers would be able to spend more time on activities that require a license to perform, and the community would have these more- expensive resources available more often. The CSOs could also assist the member cities directly in such matters as nuisance violations. Animal Control -Current vs. Proposed: The City's proposed 2008 budget currently includes $25,060 for animal control services: hard costs of $21,925 for services from Orono and $1,200 for impound services (total of $23,125), plus soft costs of $1,935 for unrecovered impound charges and the like. Orono provides an average of 14 hours of service per week (or 728 hours per year) to Shorewood for animal control only. If i „£ ~-«~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER - i Expanded CSO Services for 2008 SLMPD Budget November 5, 2007, City Council Meeting Page 2 Under the proposal for expanded CSO services, Shorewood's 50 percent share of the cost would be $22,500. According to information provided by SLMPD, there were 562 calls of all kinds regarding animals. Of that, SLMPD responded to 334, and 228 were assigned to Orono. Of the 354 calls within Shorewood, SLMPD responded to 213 and 141 were assigned to Orono. If one-half hour on average were spent responding to an animal call, the total number of hours on 562 calls would be approximately 15 percent of the 2,080 hours available annually in expanded CSO coverage. SLMPD could respond to animal calls more quickly and provide coverage on nights and weekends that is difficult for Orono to do under the current arrangement. The CSOs could respond to more of the calls that are now taken by sworn officers (354 in 2006), thus freeing up time to be spent in activities requiring sworn officers. As related earlier, the primary activities of the additional CSOs will not be in the area of animal control. In terms of the outlays the cities are making only for animal control services, however, there is greater value to the cities by having more hours of service and a wider range of services to be provided with the expanded CSO proposal for essentially the same money. For Shorewood, the cost would be almost identical (actually, slightly less). Other Cities' Actions: In October, the Tonka Bay City Council approved the expanded CSO coverage proposal, provided that all of the other cities did likewise. The Excelsior and Greenwood city councils will act on the proposal at their meetings on November 5 and 8, respectively. RECOMMENDATION: The SLMPD Coordinating Committee has recommended, and staff concurs, that the City Council approve the proposal for expanded Community Service Officer coverage, and that it be included as a basic service to be provided by the SLMPD. ®UTH LAKE ~/IIIVNET®IVKA POLICE DEPAPTiVIENT 24150 SMITHTOWN ROAD SHOREWOOD, MN 55331-8598 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Shorewood City Council Members Bryan Litsey, Chief of Police November 1, 2007 -Thursday BRYAN T. LITSEY Chief of Police Office (952) 474-3261 Fax (952) 474-4477 1ZE: 2008 Budget Option -Expanded Community .Service Officer Coverage This matter went before the Coordinating Committee for further consideration at its quarterly meeting held on October 30, 2007. It is my understanding that the packet materials relative to this agenda item have been. provided to the members of the Shorewood City Council The Coordinating Committee unanimously endorsed this budget option for expanded community service officer coverage and recommended approval by their respective City Councils. All were in agreement this represents a good overall value when balancing cost with service. It was noted that the member City Councils need to act quickly so if approved, the SLMPD has enough time to gear up for this added service by the start of 2008. The one exception is the City of Tonka Bay, being their City Council has already approved this proposal contingent upon approval of the other cities. The value in this proposal is that the SLMPD can provide so much mare than just animal control service. Additionally, it is a step in the right direction when it comes to addressing the staffing deficiencies that have been identified as part of SLMPD operations. All this has been articulated in the several documents that have been prepared both as part of the budget process and for the last Coordinating Committee Meeting. One sidebar is that community service officers would be available under this option to assist city staff with a variety of nuisance type violations. This extension of city staff would be of great benefit in dealing with these time consuming and rather difficult neighborhood grievances. Another highlight to this proposal is that community service officers would be able to perform those duties that do not necessarily require the response of a police officer. This has been outlined in other documents, but the key point is the amount of Serving the South Lake Minnetonka Communities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay Shorewood City Council Members 2008 Budget Option -Expanded Community Service Officer Coverage Page 2 of 2 time this frees up for police officers to concentrate on other activities. It also helps keep them in the service area by having community service officers assume such tasks as transporting cooperative offenders to the Hennepin County Jail in Minneapolis. These are just a few of the many reasons why this budget option makes so much sense for all the member cities to approve. I strongly advocate moving ahead with this proposal both from an operational and service standpoint. I look forward to discussing this in more detail at the upcoming Shorewood City Council Meeting on Monday, November ~, 2007. l1TN LAKE ~lRINETIUKA POLICE EPO~RTNiEtUT 24150 SMITHTOWN ROAD SHOREWOOD, MN 55331-8598 MEMOlIZANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: SLMPD Coordinating Committee Members Bryan Litsey, Chief of Police October 26, 2007 -Friday BRYAN T, LITSEY Chief of Police Office (952) 474-3261 Fax (952) 474-4477 2008 Budget Option -Expanded Community Service Officer Coverage The 2008 operating budget proposal for the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) contained an option for expanded community service officer coverage. A copy of this section of the budget proposal. has been included for ease of reference. At the Coordinating Committee Meeting on July 18, 2007, the operating budget was accepted as proposed and forwarded to the member cities with a recommendation for approval. The Coordinating Committee also passed along to the member cities for consideration the option for expanded community service officer coverage. Although generally viewed favorably, the Coordinating Committee did not make a recommendation for approval. The 2008 operating budget was presented to the member City Councils in August 2007 and received unanimous approval among the voting members. The option for expanded community service officer coverage was addressed as a separate item. Although well received, it was deferred pending further staff level deliberations and direction from the Coordinating Committee. It was generally agreed that as long as the operating budget was approved by the September lst deadline, the option for expanded community service officer coverage could be added later. One alternative that surfaced has to do with seeking a proposal from 4 PAWS for providing animal control service to all four member cities in 2008. The City of Excelsior was the only city to sever its ties with the City of Orono for animal control service in 2007. It opted instead to contract with 4 PAWS for animal control service. In doing so, it achieved significant savings with seemingly better service and coverage. The notion was raised that if the other three cities could achieve similar reductions, it might make sense to Serving the South Lake Minnetonka Communities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay 200 Budget ®ption Expanded Coffimunity Service Officer Coverage Page 2 of 4 have 4 PAWS do their animal control as well. The savings could then be used to fund additional community service officer coverage through the SLMPD. Although this would not fund as many hours as originally proposed, it would presumably free up community service officers for other things by not having to deal with animal control issues. Representatives from the cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay met with 4 PAWS on August 9, 2007 to explore the aforementioned scenario. What transpired at that meeting along with the proposed cost to each city is detailed in the attachment provided by Tonka Bay City Administrator Jessica Loftus. The Operating Committee took up this matter at their meeting held on October 17, 2007. Present at that meeting were Deputy Chief John Nieling and myself along with Acting Excelsior City Manager Cheri Johnson, Greenwood City Administrator Roberta Whipple, Shorewood City Administrator Craig Dawson and Tonka Bay City Administrator Jessica Loftus. It was generally agreed that the expanded community service officer coverage through the SLMPD was still the best option. The blend of using 4 PAWS for animal control and the SLMPD for limited community service officer coverage was not as appealing. It was felt there was more overall value by having the SLMPD handle the total package, including animal control. With this added infrastructure in place, it affords the opportunity for any of the member cities to purchase additional community service officer coverage exclusive to their city. The Operating Committee felt it might be beneficial to do a statistical analysis of animal calls within the SLMPD service area. Although useful, it is somewhat problematic using data obtained through Hennepin County Dispatch because it does not distinguish if SLMPD, 4 PAWS and/or Orono responded to the animal call. To make this distinction, internal records maintained by the SLMPD can be used. This data normally reflects only those animal calls handled by SLMPD personnel. The following data for 2006 should prove helpful in drawing some comparisons and conclusions. It should be noted this is also the last year in which all four cities used Orono for animal control service. ANIMAL CALLS -Year 2006 Data Run -Hennepin County Dispatch Excelsior 101 Shorewood 354 Greenwood 44 Tonka Bay 63 TOTAL 562 2008 Budget ®ption Expanded Coananunity Service ®fficer Coverage Page 3 of 4 ANIMAL CALLS -Year 2006 Data Run - SLMPD Excelsior 59 Shorewood 213 Greenwood 25 Tonka Bay 37 TOTAL 334 Presumably animal calls assigned to SLMPD personnel were not also assigned to Orono personnel, although some overlap could have occurred. Based on this assumption, the aforementioned tables reflect 334 animal calls were assigned to SLMPD personnel and 228 animal calls were assigned to Orono community service officers in 2006. This is noteworthy because the SLMPD handled more animal calls than Orono. This illustrates even more the value in having expanded community service officer coverage through the SLMPD. It would redirect the majority of these animal calls from having to be handled by SLMPD police officers. This makes good sense both operationally and fmancially. The aforementioned table can also be used to estimate the amount of time animal calls consume. The existing and expanded community service officer coverage through the SLMPD would normally provide a total of 80 hours of service each week. Based on 52 weeks in a year, this translates into 4,160 hours per year. Assuming each animal complaint takes 30 minutes, then 562 animal calls would take approximately 281 hours. This leaves a balance of 3,879 hours (93 percent) available for other duties and responsibilities. This helps validate that even with handling animal calls in all four cities the majority of community service officer time will be devoted to other things. Action taken at the Tonka Bay City Council Meeting on October 23, 2007 could provide the momentum needed to move this budget option forward. Of the members present, the City Council unanimously approved the 2008 budget option for expanded community service officer coverage contingent upon being approved by the other three member cities. As I have stated before, this option allows the SLMPD to strengthen its personnel resources while providing the member cities with enhanced services. In turn, it allows the member cities to stay within the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to receive these additional services. This is preferable for a number of reasons. Staying within the JPA means a more reliable, uniform and coordinated delivery of service throughout the entire South Lake area. Each member city has the chance to offer input through equal 2005 budget Dptflo® ~~panded Coan~nunity Servece ®ff cer Coverage Page 4 of 4 representation on the SLMPD Coordinating Committee. Tt takes away some of the burden from city staff to handle the administrative duties associated with animal control by shifting these responsibilities to the SLMPD. Probably the greatest benefit, however, is that the SLMPD community service officers would not be restricted to just animal control as is currently the case through the City of Orono and 4 PAWS. They would be available to assist with a variety of other activities not necessarily requiring the attention of a police officer. This would also help address current staffmg deficiencies within the SLMPD. To: Police Chief Bryan Litsey and Coordinating Committee From: Jessica Loftus, Tonka Bay City Administrator Date: October 24, 2007 Re: 4 Paws Animal Control City representatives of Excelsior, Shorewood, Greenwood and Tonka Bay met with the owners of 4 Paws on August 9th to discuss their animal control service and to receive a cost estimate. General Background 4 Paws was established in 1991 and the new owner is Scott Hutnik. They have provided animal control services for Excelsior since the beginning of 2007 and the City of Excelsior reported being generally pleased with their performance. Service 4 Paws indicated they would be interested in providing animal control services with a two year contract to the four communities. In addition to the proposal features listed at the bottom of the attached cost proposal, below are general points regarding their service levels: - Response time is 15-25 minutes. They are coming from Chaska and Shakopee. - Excelsior averages 5 animal control calls a month with the average length of dispatch being 45 minutes. - Animals are boarded in Shakopee. Residents would need to drive to the facility to pick up their animal. - They will take care of wild animals if they are a safety concern. - Dead animal pickup in provided, except on the county road. - They will issue citations for barking and animals at large. Cost estimate The cost estimate is attached and is based on population. However, the estimate needs to add 6.65% sales tax to reflect accurate costs. Also noteworthy, 4 Paws has the ability to eliminate the extra charge for boarding costs by retaining the fees .collected when an animal is picked up by an owner. 4 PAWS Animal Control Proposal for animal control services for various Hennepin County cities- Excelsior Area 952-894-9065 CITI( 2006 Estimated Population Monthly Charge Yearly Charge Yearly- Cost per person Excelsior 2,395 $550.00 $6,600.00 2.75 Shorewood 7,499 $1,406.00 $16,872.00 2.25 Deephaven 3,767 $785.00 $9,420.00 2.50 Tonka Bay 1,547 $354.50 $4,254.00 2.75 Greenwood 814 $186.50 $2,238.00 2.75 Minnetonka Beach 595 $136.50 $1,638.00 2.75 Proposal featares: 24 hour coverage- 365 days per year Fall service: -dogs/cats and all domestfe animals running loose -bite reports and investigations -barking dogs and other animal noises -impound facility -fees collected for cities at their request -adoption services for unclaimed animals -citations written -dead animals picked up Pickup fees, board charges, vet and disposal fees collected from owners paid directly to 4 PAWS No additional charges to cities except sales tag Proudly Serving the Cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood & Tonka Bay R_ Prepared by -Police Chief Bryan ~itsey 2008 Budget Option Expanded Community Service Officer Coverage Prepared by -Police Chief Bryan Litsey July 2007 BACKGROUND The 2007 operating budget proposal contained an option whereby the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) would assume animal control responsibilities. The proposal called for adding part-time community service officers to provide 40 hours per week of mostly weekend and evening coverage. These part-time positions were intended to supplement the full-time community service officer position providing mostly weekday coverage. In summary, this arrangement would have provided 80 hours of weekly coverage other than when scheduling was impacted by training, sickness, time-off requests or a vacancy. Although the focus of this proposal was animal control, in actuality it offered much more both operationally as well as increasing services to the community. The proposal was advocated by the SLMPD Operating Committee, which is comprised of the administrator or manager from each member city serving in an advisory capacity to the Chief of Police and SLMPD Coordinating Committee. It was also viewed favorably by the SLMPD Coordinating Committee before being forwarded to the member City Councils for consideration as part of the 2007 operating budget proposal. It was supported by the City Councils in Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay, but fell just shy of being approved by the Excelsior City Council. This vote by the Excelsior City Council was not a reflection on the proposal itself, but rather, a preference at the time to look at other alternatives more specific to their city. Since the proposal was an all or nothing option, it was tabled for 2007. 2008 PROPOSAL Overview of SLMPD Option A variation of the above-mentioned 2007 proposal is back on the table as an option for 2008. This can be attributed to the strong support it received last year, coupled with the desire that has been expressed through the current strategic planning initiative and budget 2008 Budget Option Expanded Community Service Officer Coverage Page 2 of 4 process to put it back on the table for consideration. The emphasis this time around is less on animal control and more on the many other benefits it will add to SLMPD operations. Expanded community service officer coverage would help alleviate some of the workload on the current staff. The SLMPD is on the lean side when it comes to personnel and this would provide acost-effective way to start addressing this concern. A case in point is that the SLMPD is one of the busiest police departments in the Lake Minnetonka area, yet has the least number of full-time police officers per capita. This is not to suggest that increasing the number of community service officers is the equivalent of adding more police officers. What it does do is allow police officers to concentrate more on police work by having community service officers handle more of the routine and mundane matters. Similarly, the front office is minimally staffed and having the availability of additional community service officers to provide assistance helps with the continuity of day-to-day operations. As previously indicated, the SLMPD currently has afull-time community service officer/crime prevention specialist (CSO/CPS). David Hohertz has been the only person in this position since its inception in April of 2002. He is the perfect fit and is the "go-to guy" in the organization when some task needs to be accomplished. In many ways his role is similar to that of a utility fielder in baseball. Attached is a partial list of his duties and responsibilities, many of which could also be performed by the part-time community service officers if the SLMPD option were to be approved. In such an event, CSO/CPS Hohertz would be responsible for administering these part-time positions. The part-time community service officer positions would complement the services already being provided by CSO/CPS Hohertz. His full-time position, however, has additional duties and responsibilities beyond what would be required of the part-time positions. Nevertheless, adding these part-time positions would extend coverage to evenings and weekends thereby making it feasible for the SLMPD to provide animal control as part of normal operations. Some of the primary job functions of the part-time community service officers are attached to this document. These are by no means the entire list of duties and responsibilities, but it provides a good illustration of how invaluable these utility positions can be for a police department. This also highlights what the member cities are not receiving by continuing to contract independent of the SLMPD for animal control service. Moving forward with the SLMPD option yields a far better return on the investment than what is currently in place. 2008 Budget Option Expanded Community Service Officer Coverage Page 3 of 4 Animal Control As previously mentioned, animal control is included in the SLMPD option. In actuality, this is just a small portion of what would be provided under this proposal as summarized in the attached description of duties and responsibilities. Nevertheless, including animal control as part of this proposal makes sense and will eliminate the member cities from having to secure this service individually. There are some administrative details that will need to be worked out both internally and with the member cities if the SLMPD option is accepted. These include boarding fees, veterinarian fees, impound releases, issuance of dog licenses, etc. The SLMPD facility has two indoor kennels that will continue to be used for the short-term housing of stray dogs. Unlike in the past, however, a boarding fee will be charged. The Mound Police Department has previously agreed to house dogs at their kennel facility that need to be quarantined or remain unclaimed for a longer period of time. The quoted fees were quite reasonable and the SLMPD would have 24/7 access to the Mound facility. The Mound Police Department will be approached once again about providing this service if the SLMPD option is approved. Cost Analysis The attached spreadsheet shows the projected operating costs for implementing the SLMPD option. This includes the additional capital outlay that is needed to account for the increased vehicle usage. For purposes of evaluating this option, these costs are being shown separately from the remainder of the 2008 operating budget proposal. If the SLMPD option were to be approved, these costs will be inserted into the appropriate categories within the operating budget. Also reflected on the spreadsheet are the animal control arrangements currently in place for each member city along with the corresponding cost. The cities of Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay contract for this service through the City of Orono. The City of Excelsior, which has also used Orono in the past, now contracts for this service through 4 PAWS. Excelsior realized a considerable cost savings by making this change. It seems likely, therefore, that the other member cities will follow suit if the SLMPD option is not approved. It is important to keep in mind that although the SLMPD option is more costly overall, it represents a tremendous value in terms of the services provided beyond just animal control. Even if all the member cities reduce their animal control costs next year through 4 PAWS, this still only provides animal control services and nothing else. 2008 Budget Option Expanded Community Service Officer Coverage Page 4 of 4 Approving the SLMPD Option Makes Sense This option allows the SLMPD to strengthen its personnel resources while providing the member cities with enhanced services. In turn, it allows the member cities to stay within the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to receive these additional services. This is preferable for a number of reasons. Staying within the JPA means a more reliable, uniform and coordinated delivery of service throughout the entire South Lake area. Each member city has the chance to offer input through equal representation on the SLMPD Coordinating Committee. It takes away some of the burden from city staff to handle the administrative duties associated with animal control by shifting these responsibilities to the SLMPD. Probably the greatest benefit, however, is that the SLMPD community service officers would not be restricted to just animal control as is currently the case through the City of Orono and 4 PAWS. As previously mentioned, the SLMPD community service officers would be available to assist with a variety of other activities not necessarily requiring the attention of a police officer. This would also help address current staffing deficiencies within the SLMPD. The SLMPD option represents a tremendous value in terms of what it provides both operationally and for the member cities. I strongly encourage this option be approved in conjunction with the proposed 2008 operating budget. SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE ®EPARTI1tIENT Proposal for Expanded Community Service Officer (CSO) Coverage (Animal Control Service Included) Budget Worksheet and Comparison -Year 2008 Projected Operating Costs Operating Budget Expenses Amount Community Service Officers -Part-Time Positions $34,000 Uniforms, Gear and Equipment $3,000 Vehicle Operating Expenses -Fuel, Maintenance and Repairs $4,000 Sub-Total $41,000 Projected Capital Outlay Capital Fund Contribution Amount Increased Annual Contribution to Vehicle Fund $4,000 Notation: The Chevy Tahoe is being replaced in 2007 as the primary special services vehicle in the fleet. A pickup truck with a topper (Chevy Silverado) will take its place. This allows added versatility whether or not this proposal is adopted. The Chevy Tahoe is being retained as a reserve vehicle and for seasonal use when additional vehicles are needed for special policing details. Surplus revenues were recently transferred into the vehicle fund to help bolster the fund balance. Therefore, no capital outlay is needed to implement this proposal. It would be prudent, however, to increase proportionally the annual contribution from the operating budget to the vehicle fund. This will help compensate financially for the eventual replacement of the Chevy Silverado, which will be subject to additional usage under this proposal. TOTAL $45,000 SLMPD Cost Analysis Member City Provider Cost Estimate JPA Percentages Excelsior SLMPD $12,150 27% Greenwood SLMPD $3,600 8% Shorewood SLMPD $22,500 50% Tonka Bay SLMPD $6,750 15% Total $45,000 100% Current Animal Control Arrangements in Place for 2007 Member City Provider Arrangement Projected Amount Excelsior 4 PAWS Two-Year Agreement $6,600 Greenwood City of Orono Hourly Rate $3,500 Shorewood City of Orono Annual Agreement $21,327 Tonka Bay City of Orono Annual Agreement $6,411 Total $37,838 Total -Showing 4% Increase for 2008 $39,353 Notation: The above figures do not include boarding~mpound fees which are usually passed along to the dog owner. The same would be true of the SLMPD proposal. Prepared by Chief Bryan Litsey -Data Refreshed as of June 18, 2007 South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Proudly Serving the South Lake Minnetonka Communities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay Community Service Officer -Part-Time Position Primary Duties and Responsibilities - Subject to Change - (July 2007) Summary Statement The position of part-time community service officer has specific duties in addition to providing support services for all divisions within the organization. The following list gives some examples of what this includes. Animal Control Enforce animal control ordinances through proactive patrol and responding to complaints. Take appropriate action ranging from verbal and written warnings to citations. Impound at-large, abandoned or vicious dogs when warranted. Transport to appropriate kennel facility. Oversee quarantine process for dog bites and vicious dogs. Respond to complaints regarding wild animals and coordinate response with appropriate agencies. Patrol and Enforcement Perform duties in a marked SLMPD vehicle thereby increasing visibility in the community as a deterrent to illegal and/or undesirable behavior. Routinely patrol residential and business areas prone to problems. Patrol hiking and biking trails along with city parks for ordinance violations and to deter vandalism and other criminal conduct. Encourage the safe and lawful use of these recreational areas and be available to answer questions and provide information to users. Enforce parking regulations with a specific emphasis on the downtown district in Excelsior. This includes monitoring and enforcing posted time limits along with posted handicap and fire lane spaces. -1- Administrative Tasks • Provide coverage in the front office when short staffed. Greet and assist people at the lobby window, answer and direct phone calls, handle routine requests for information and do light clerical work. • Help maintain updated resource manual for the Lake Minnetonka Regional Emergency Management Plan. • Help maintain current emergency contact list for local businesses. • Accommodate fingerprint requests from individuals needing this level of identification for employment, adoption, travel, certification, etc. • Enter alarm calls into alarm manager database. Notify alarm users in violation of the false alarm ordinance and provide assistance in correcting the problem. • Deliver meeting packets for Coordinating Committee and City Council Meetings. Make other deliveries as requested. Equipment and Supplies Assist with scheduling and shuttling vehicles for repairs. Routinely check patrol vehicles to insure they are property stocked with supplies. Organize and keep clean indoor parking garage and sallyport. Transport radio equipment in need of repair or replacement to the Hennepin County Communication Center in Golden Valley. Community Relations Assist full-time Community Service Officer/Crime Prevention Specialist with a variety of crime prevention programs. This includes, but is not limited to, Business and Residential Security Surveys, Neighborhood Watch, Business Watch, Operation Identification, Vacation House Watch and National Night Out. Assist Patrol Division Respond to various calls for service that do not require the response of a police officer. These include motorist assists, citizen inquiries, vehicle lockouts, stolen or abandoned property, and debris in the roadway. Respond to medical emergencies and lesser medical issues. Provide assistance and render first aid as needed. Respond to vehicle crashes and assist with traffic control, rendering first aid, arranging for vehicles to be towed, transporting stranded motorists involved in the crash and assisting police officers on the scene with gathering information from witnesses, etc. -2- Monitor detainees at the SLMPD facility. Transport intoxicated individuals to detox center or hospital and non-violent offenders to the Hennepin County Detention Facility in Minneapolis. Assist Investigative Division • Help with the collection and categorizing of evidence. Transport evidence to the county and state crime labs. Retrieve evidence from these facilities once analyzed. • Copy reports, audio tapes, video tapes and DVDs for prosecutors and defense attorneys. • Transport victims and witnesses to the police station to be interviewed and to give formal statements. • Prepare crime alert flyers. Distribute in person to heighten awareness and solicit information that might be helpful to the investigation. -3- South Lake Minnetonka Police Department COMMUNITY SERVICE/CRIME PREVENTION OFFICER David E. Hohertz P~imaNy Duties and Responsibilities ASSIST PATROL OFFICERS • Respond to medical emergencies and personal injury accidents. • Perform traffic control at special events, motor vehicle crashes, or other emergency situations. • Transport arrested individuals to appropriate detention or treatment facility as requested by patrol officer or Sergeant. • Prepare duplicate squad car video tapes or audio tapes in preparation for court trials. ASSIST INVESTIGATORS • Assist with case preparation. • Transport evidence to BCA or crime lab, maintaining currently accepted chain-of- custody practices. • Catalog evidence, maintaining currently accepted chain-of-custody practices. • Conduct public notification of local crime concerns by canvassing neighborhoods and/or preparing information for city newsletters or local media. • Disseminate or solicit crime alert or missing person information utilizing the Minnesota Crime Alert Network. • Prepare duplicate audio or video tapes of witness and/or suspect interviews. • Transport film to be processed. SPECIALIZED PATROL/ENFORCEMENT • Patrol the West LRT biking/hiking trail and all city parks to deter vandalism and other criminal conduct, enforce pet ordinances, encourage safe and lawful use of parks and trails, respond to medical emergencies, and provide information to park and trail users. • Patrol Shady and Enchanted Islands within the City of Shorewood's jurisdiction. • Perform special parking enforcement functions in the Excelsior business district, including, but not limited to, monitoring and enforcing posted time limits in the east and west municipal parking lots and on Water Street, Second Street, and Lake Street. • Perform specialized parking enforcement functions as requested by individual cities. COMMUNITY SER VICE • Assist citizens with vehicle lockouts. • Fingerprint persons for employment/certification purposes. • Inspect child car safety seats and educate child care givers in proper vehicle child- restraint installation and usage. • Teach CPR to community members. COMMUNITY RELATIONS • Develop and maintain effective and positive working relationships with all levels of police department and city staff, residents, business owners, schools, community organizations, and other law enforcement agencies. • Create, maintain, and staff a police department display to be exhibited at community events. BIKE PATROL PROGRAM • Coordinate the department Bike Patrol program. Provide training and skills evaluation for department members participating in Bike Patrol activities. Responsible for maintenance of department bikes and for procuring parts, equipment, and specialized bicycle apparel. SEASONAL POSITIONS • Oversee seasonal Park Patrol and Dockmaster program, including work schedule coordinating and ordering of uniforms and equipment. EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES MAINTENANCE • Manage patrol vehicle fleet maintenance. Schedule repairs and routine service. Transport vehicles to appropriate repair facility as needed. • Transport radio equipment to Hennepin County Sheriff's Communications facility for repair or replacement as needed. • Monitor and maintain inventory of emergency medical supplies. ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS • Apprise Chief, Deputy Chief, and Patrol Sergeants of significant matters and developments concerning crime trends, neighborhood problems, or other community issues. • Maintain a current emergency contact list for area businesses. Submit updates to Hennepin County Sheriff's Radio to be entered into CAD (Computer-Aided Dispatch) system. Work with CAD technicians at Sheriff's Radio to remedy incorrect or incomplete address and/or location information. • Deliver citations, reports, search warrant applications, completed search warrants, bail money, and other documents as needed to Division 3 Court at Ridgedale. • Perform Office Specialist duties on an as-needed basis, enabling the office to remain open during business hours to meet the needs of the public and city staffs. • Prepare crime statistics for Chief's Quarterly Report. • Assist Chief with Emergency Management duties. • Enter intrusion alarm information into Alarm Manager database to track false alarms. Notify alarm users who are in violation of false alarm ordinances. Assist these users in taking remedial action to correct the problem. • Serve as Webmaster for the department's web site. • Perform other administrative and police support duties as required or assigned. CRIME PREVENTION • Build and maintain a specialized knowledge of current professional crime prevention practices that work in this and similar communities. Educate department personnel, homeowners, and business owners in programs designed to reduce risk while providing the optimum level of protection for dollars spent. • Supervise and carry out a comprehensive, proactive Crime Prevention program that includes, but is not limited to: Business and Residential Security Surveys, Neighborhood Watch, Business Watch, Operation Identification, and Vacation House Checks. • Promote and coordinate the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) Minnesota Crime Alert Network for local businesses. • Plan, promote, and coordinate the annual National Night Out event. • Review patrol officers' reports on a daily basis to identify crime problems. Work with residents and/or business owners to address those problems, and monitor results. • Prepare crime prevention articles and beneficial public information for city newsletters and local newspapers. • Represent police department in neighborhood watch groups. RESERVE UNIT • Assist Reserve Coordinators with activities, meetings, and training for Reserve Officers. Recruit reserve officers for special events. Prepare and distribute Reserve Unit Newsletter. Provide CPR training and refresher for reserve officers. David E. Hohertz -CERTIFICATIONS MAINTAINED • Licensed Peace Officer -Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training • Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) -State of Minnesota EMS Regulatory Board • Certified Crime Prevention Specialist -Minnesota Crime Prevention Association • CPR Instructor -American Heart Association • SKYWARN Severe Weather Spotter -National Weather Service • Certified Child Passenger Safety Technician -National Highway Traffic Safety Administration • Minnesota Crime Alert Network Certified User - MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension • CJIS Full Access Terminal Operator - MN Bureau of Criminal CITY OF 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 Date: November 1, 2007 To: Mayor and City Councilmembers From: Craig Dawson, City Administrator Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk Re: Shorewood Liquor Ordinance and Liquor License Fees As Council has decided to sell the Shorewood Liquor Stores, the Liquor Ordinance needs to be updated to abolish Municipal Liquor Stores and allow for the off-sale of alcoholic beverages by license. Also, an off-sale liquor license application fee and investigation fees need to be established. Liquor regulations are currently organized in four chapters in Title 400 of the Code. The proposed Ordinance would reorganize Title 400 by reducing the number of chapters and provide a more logical presentation of code provisions. The proposed Ordinance removes Chapter 401-Municipal Liquor Stores. Chapter 402, 3.2% Malt Liquor, and Chapter 403, Intoxicating Liquor, have been combined into one new Chapter 401. Chapter 404, Consumption by Persons Under Age 21, will remain without any changes required, but will be renamed Chapter 402. Attachment 1 outlines highlights of the edits to the Liquor Ordinance. Attachment 2 is the proposed Ordinance. In addition, an Ordinance updating the Liquor License Fees is needed. The off-sale liquor license fee can be no greater than $310 (per State Statute). The investigation fee for a new liquor license is recommended to be $500. The investigation fee for a renewal license with a change of manager / owner is recommended to be $250. The investigation fees are consistent with the fees charged by the City of Excelsior. The remaining fees remain unchanged; only the Code Reference has changed. Attachment 3 is the Ordinance setting Liquor License fees. A Resolution authorizing publication of a summary of the above two Ordinances is provided as Attachment 4. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed Ordinance and may make comments at the meeting. Cou~zcil Action Approval of an Ordinance Amending Title 400, Chapters 401 Through 404 of the Shorewood City Code Relating to Liquor; and Approval of an Ordinance Titled "License, Permit, Service Charges and Miscellaneous Fees" amending Liquor fees. and Approval of a Resolution authorizing publication of a summary of each Ordinance. ®o ~®r® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~{ iG Highlights of Edits to the Liquor Ordinance Chapter Number Chapter Title 401.01 Municipal Liquor Stores abolished. Abolishes the off-sale of intoxicating liquor by the City. 401.02 State statutes adopted Was listed in Chapter 403, but not 402 (Modeled after the LMC Model Ord. and Watertown Ord.) 401.03 Definitions From Chapter 402 (added additional terms from State Statute) 401.04 License Required From Chapter 402 and 403 (using more general term "alcoholic beverage") 401.05 Classification of Licenses Was in 402.05 and 403.05 Combined and added Subd. 7. Temporary on-sale 3.2 percent Malt Liquor and Subd. 9. Off-sale intoxicating liquor 401.06 License and Investigation Fees License fees were in 402.06 and 403.06 -combined and added reference to Investigation fees. 401.07 Off-Sale Licenses, Number of New section added. 401.08 Persons Ineligible for Licenses From 402.04 and 403.04, and expanded per Statute 401.09 Application for a License From 402.03 and 403.03 -more details on what is required have been added. 401.10 Licensing Procedures The investigation part of this was referenced in 402.08 and 403.08; (Subd. 1 Investigation is from Excelsior Ord.; Subds. 2-4 from Watertown) 401.11 Renewal Applications New section (from LMC Model Ordinance) 60 days should be sufficient. (LMC Model Ord references 90 days; Watertown Ord references 60 days) 401.12 Transfer of License Was referenced in 402.08 and 403.08. This text taken from LMC Model Ordinance 401.13 Restrictions on License From LMC Model Ord. 401.14 Term of License From 402.09 and 403.09 401.15 Bond and Insurance Requirements From 402.07 and 403.07 401.16 Conditions of License From 402.10 and 403.10 (Subd. 4 Minors on the Premises taken from LMC Model Ord -this Subd. could be pulled and put in a separate Section) 401.17 Hours of Operation Was part of 402.10 and 403.10; added Subd. 3 Intoxicating Liquor off-sale (from State Statute) 401.18 Prohibited Acts and Conditions From 403.11 Attachment 1 RE: Shorewood Liquor Ordinance and Liquor Fees November 1, 2007 Page 2 Chapter Number Chapter Title 401.19 Suspension or Revocation of License From 402.13 and 403.12 401.20 Enforcement From 401.08 401.21 Violation From 402.14 and 403.13 401.22 License violation administrative penalties From 402.15 and 403.14 cITY of sxoREwooD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 400, CHAPTERS 401 THROUGH 404 OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE RELATING TO LIQUOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Title 400, Chapters 401, 402, 403 and 404 of the Shorewood City Code are hereby repealed and replaced with the following: TITLE 400 LIQUOR REGULATIONS Subject Liazior Regulations Consumption, Purchase and Possession of Alcohol by Persons t7uder the Age of 21 Ycars CHAPTER 401 LIQUOR REGULATIONS Section 401.01 Municipal Liquor Store abolished 401.02 State statutes adopted 401.03 Definitions 401.04 License Required 401.05 Classification of Licenses 401.06 License and Investigation Fees 401.07 Off-Sale Licenses, Number of 401.08 Persons Ineligible for Licenses 401.09 Application for a License 401.10 Licensing Procedures 401.11 Renewal Applications 401.12 Transfer of License 401.13 Restrictions on License 401.14 Term of License 401.15 Bond and Insurance Requirements 401.16 Conditions of License 401.17 Hours of Operation Chapter 401 402 - 1 - Attachment 2 401.18 Prohibited Acts and Conditions 401.19 Suspension or Revocation of License 401.20 Enforcement 401.21 Violation 401.22 License violation administrative penalties 401.01 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE ABOLISHED. The City has determined to abolish the operation of municipal liquor stores for the off- sale of intoxicating liquor, effective on the date of the issuance of one or more private off-sale intoxicating beverage licenses. Liquor maybe sold elsewhere in the City as provided by this Chapter. 401.02 STATE STATUTES ADOPTED. The provisions of M.S. Ch. § 340A, as they maybe amended from time to time, with reference to the definition of terms, conditions of operation, restrictions on consumption, provisions relating to sales, hours of sale, and all other matters pertaining to the retail sale, distribution, and consumption of intoxicating liquor and 3.2 percent malt liquor are hereby adopted by reference and are made a part of this Chapter as if set out in full. It is the intention of the City Council that all future amendments to M.S. Ch. § 340A are hereby adopted by reference or referenced as if they had been in existence at the time this Chapter is adopted. 401.03 DEFINITIONS. In addition to or as a supplement to the definitions contained in M.S.A. § 340A.101, as it maybe amended from time to time, the following terms are defined for the purpose of this chapter. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE, means any beverage containing more than one-half of one percent alcohol by volume and includes the term "liquor" as used in this chapter. CLUB, means an incorporated organization organized under the laws of the state for civic, fraternal, social, or business purposes, for intellectual improvement, or for the promotion of sports, or a congressionally chartered veterans' organization, which: (1) Has more than 30 members; (2) Has owned or rented a building or space in a building for more than one year that is suitable and adequate for the accommodation of its members; and (3) Is directed by a board of directors, executive committee, or other similar body chosen by the members at a meeting held for that purpose. No member, officer, agent, or employee shall receive any profit from the distribution or sale of beverages to the members of the club, or their guests, beyond a reasonable salary or wages fixed and voted each year by the governing body. DISTILLED SPIRITS, is ethyl alcohol, hydrated oxide of ethyl, spirits of wine, whiskey, rum, brandy, gin, and other distilled spirits, including all dilutions and mixtures thereof, for nonindustrial use. -2- EXCLUSIVE LIQUOR STORE, is an establishment used exclusively for the sale of those items authorized by State law (M.S. 340A.412, Subd. 14). INTOXICATING LIQUOR, means ethyl alcohol, distilled, fermented, spirituous, vinous, and malt beverages containing more than 3.2 percent of alcohol by weight. MALT LIQUOR, means any beer, ale, or other beverage made from malt by fermentation and containing not less that one-half of one percent alcohol by volume. MINOR, is any person under 21 years of age. OFF-SALE, means the sale of alcoholic beverages in original packages for consumption off the licensed premises only. ON-SALE, means the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the licensed premises only. PACKAGE, is a sealed or corked container of alcoholic beverages. RESTAURANT, means an establishment, other than a hotel, under the control of a single proprietor or manager, where meals are regularly prepared on the premises and served at tables to the general public, and having a minimum seating capacity for guests as prescribed by the appropriate license issuing authority. 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR, means malt liquor containing not less than one-half of one percent alcohol by volume nor more than 3.2 percent alcohol by weight. WINE, the product made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of grapes, including still wine, sparkling and carbonated wine, wine made from condensed grape must, wine made from other agricultural products than sound, ripe grapes, imitation wine, compounds sold as wine, vermouth, cider, perry and sake, in each instance containing not less than one- half ofone percent nor more than 24 percent alcohol by volume for nonindustrial use. Wine does not include distilled spirits as defined by State statute. 401.04 LICENSE REQUIRED. Except as provided in this chapter, no person may directly or indirectly, on any pretense or by any device, sell, barter, keep for sale, charge for possession, or otherwise dispose of alcoholic beverages as part of a commercial transaction without having obtained the required license or permit. 401.05 CLASSIFICATION OF LICENSES. Licenses shall be of the following kinds: Subd. 1. On-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor. These licenses may only be issued to restaurants, hotels, clubs, golf courses, and establishments used exclusively for the sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor for consumption on the premises only. Subd. 2. On-sale intoxicating liquor licenses. These licenses maybe issued only to hotels, clubs and restaurants and shall permit "on-sale" of liquor only. -3- Subd. 3. On-sale intoxicating malt liquor/wine licenses. These licenses shall be issued only to restaurants with a seating capacity for not fewer than 25 guests and whose gross receipts are at least 60% attributable to the sale of food, meeting the qualifications of M.S. § 340A.404, Subd. 5 and shall permit the sale of wine not exceeding 14% alcohol by volume, and the sale of intoxicating malt liquor, for consumption on the licensed premises only, in conjunction with the sale of food. Intoxicating malt liquor is any malt beverage with an alcohol content of more than 3.2% of alcohol by weight. Subd. 4. On-sale wine licenses. These licenses shall be issued only to restaurants with a seating capacity for not fewer than 25 guests meeting the qualifications of M.S. § 340A.404, Subd. 5, and shall permit only the sale of wine not exceeding 14% alcohol by volume, for consumption on the licensed premises only, in conjunction with the sale of food. Subd. 5. Special club license. These licenses shall be issued only to incorporated clubs which have been in existence for 20 years or more or to congressionally chartered veterans' organizations which have been in existence for ten years or more. Subd. 6. Special license for Sunday sales. Licenses authorizing sales on Sunday between the hours of 10:00 a.m. Sunday and 1:00 a.m. Monday in conjunction with the serving of food maybe issued to any hotel, restaurant or club which has facilities for serving at least 30 guests at one time and which has an "on-sale" intoxicating liquor license. Subd. 7. Temporary on-sale 3.2 percent Malt Liquor. These licenses maybe issued only to clubs, charitable, religious or nonprofit organizations. Subd. 8. Off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor. These licenses shall permit the sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor at retail in the original package for consumption off the premises only. Subd. 9. Off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses. These licenses maybe issued only to exclusive liquor stores. 401.06 LICENSE AND INVESTIGATION FEES. Subd. 1. Fees established. The investigation fees and annual fees for liquor shall be as provided in § 1301.02 of this code. Subd. 2. Payment of fees, disposition. Each application for a license shall be accompanied by a receipt for payment in full of the required fees. All fees shall be paid into the General Fund. Subd. 3. Refunds. a. If an application for a license is rejected, the City shall refund the amount paid for the license fee. The investigation fee is not refundable. -4- b. No refund of all or any part of a license fee shall be made except as authorized by statute. 401.07 OFF-SALE LICENSES, NUMBER OF. Subd. 1. The City Council is authorized to issue the following "off-sale" licenses: a. Off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses, which maybe issued only to exclusive liquor stores. The number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses shall be limited to two (2) until January 1, 2013. 401.08 PERSONS INELIGIBLE FOR LICENSES. Subd. 1. No license shall be granted to any person made ineligible for a license by State law. No license maybe issued to: a. a person under 21 years of age; b. a person who has had an intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor license revoked within five years of the license application, or to any person who at the time of the violation owns any interest, whether as a holder of more than five percent of the capital stock of a corporation licensee, as a partner or otherwise, in the premises or in the business conducted thereon, or to a corporation, partnership, association, enterprise, business, or firm in which any such person is in any manner interested; c. a person not of good moral character and repute; d. a person who has a direct or indirect interest in a manufacturer, brewer, or wholesaler. In addition, no new retail license maybe issued to, and the City Council may refuse to renew the license of, a person who, within five years of the license application, has been convicted of a felony or a willful violation of a federal or state law or local ordinance governing the manufacture, sale, distribution, or possession for sale or distribution of an alcoholic beverage. The City or appropriate State Agency may require that fingerprints be taken and forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for purposes of a criminal history check. 401.09 APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE. Subd. 1. In addition to the information required by the state Liquor Control Commission and state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the initial application shall also contain the further information required in this section, as well as other information that the Council may from time to time require. Every application for a license to sell alcoholic beverages shall be made on a form supplied by the City and shall state the following: a. Applicant's name and address; -5- b. Applicant's age; c. Representations as to applicant's character with such references as the Council may require; d. Applicant's citizenship; e. The type of license the applicant is seeking; £ The business in connection with which the proposed license will operate and its location; g. Whether applicant is an individual, partnership, corporation or other form of organization; h. If the applicant is an individual, the requested personal information about the applicant and his/her background; i. If the applicant is a partnership, the names and addresses of all partners and the requested personal information about each partner and his/her background. The financial interest of each partner shall be disclosed, and a managing partner shall be designated. A true copy of the partnership agreement shall be submitted with the original application form; If the applicant is a corporation or other organization, the names and addresses of all officers and the proposed manager, and the requested personal information about each and his/her background. The names, addresses and financial interest shall be disclosed for all corporate shareowners who, together with direct relatives, have a controlling interest of the assets of said corporation, and the requested personal information shall be furnished about each such person and his/her background. True copies of the articles of incorporation and corporate bylaws shall be submitted with the original application form; k. The amount of assets which the applicant has in the business premises, fixtures, stock and operating capital shall be disclosed, together with proof of the source of such assets; The names and addresses of all persons, other than those listed above, who have any financial interest in the business, premises, fixtures, stock or operating capital, together with the amount and nature of such interest and the terms for payment or other reimbursement thereof. This shall include but not be limited to all lessors, mortgagors, lenders, lien holders, trustors and persons who have co- signed notes or otherwise loaned, pledged or extended security to the applicant for any indebtedness; m. The address and legal description of the premise to be licensed and plans of the site and all buildings thereon, showing all appropriate dimensions; -6- n. If the applicant is an individual, the application form shall be executed by that person. If the applicant is a partnership, the application form shall be executed by the managing partner, and if the applicant is a corporation or other organization the application form shall be executed by a corporate or organization officer; o. How long applicant has been in that business; p. How long applicant has been in that business at that place; and q. Such other information as the Council may require from time to time. Subd. 2. Every application for any license to sell alcoholic beverages shall also include a copy of each summons received by the applicant under M.S.A. § 340A.802 during the preceding year. Subd. 3. In addition to containing the information prescribed in this section, the application for any license to sell alcoholic beverages shall also include the form prescribed by the state Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division and shall be verified and filed with the City Administrator/Clerk. Subd. 4. It shall be unlawful to make any false statement in any application. 401.10 LICENSING PROCEDURES. Subd. 1. Investigation a. Initial applications. At the time of each original application for a license, the applicant shall also pay in full an investigation fee. The City shall investigate all facts set out in the application. All initial applications for a license shall be referred to the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department for verification and investigation of the facts set forth in the application. The Police Department shall make a written recommendation and report to the City Council. Such report shall include, but shall not be limited to, a list of all violations of federal, state, or city law committed by the applicant, officers, and directors, if the applicant is a corporation, and managers as disclosed in the application. Upon an initial application the Police Department shall also conduct a preliminary background and financial investigation of the applicant. b. Renewal applications. All renewal applications shall be referred to the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department for verification and investigation of the matters set forth in the renewal application and determined by the City Administrator/Clerk to require further investigation. b. Investigation results. Without limiting the discretion of the City Council to deny a license application for other reasons, no license shall be issued if the results of the investigation show, to the satisfaction of the City Council, that issuance would not be in the public interest. -7- Subd. 2. The issuance of any license hereunder is and shall remain at the sole and absolute discretion of the City Council. Subd. 3. All licenses shall be and are issued subject to conformance with all provisions of this chapter and all other applicable regulations, ordinances, laws and statutes. Subd. 4. Each license issued hereunder shall be issued to the applicant only. Each such license shall be issued only for the premises described in the application and shall not be effective beyond the compact and contiguous space described therein. 401.11 RENEWAL APPLICATIONS. Subd. 1. At least 60 days before a license issued under this chapter is to be renewed, an application for renewal shall be filed with the City. The decision whether or not to renew a license rests within the sole discretion of the Council. No licensee has a right to have the license renewed. 401.12 TRANSFER OF LICENSE. Subd. 1. No license issued under this chapter maybe transferred without the approval of the City Council. Any transfer of stock of a corporate licensee is deemed to be a transfer of the license, and a transfer of stock without prior Council approval is a ground for revocation of the license. An application to transfer a license shall be treated the same as an application for a new license, and all of the provisions of this code applying to applications for a license shall apply. 401.13 RESTRICTIONS ON LICENSE. The following provisions shall govern the initial issuance of a license and the continued validity of a license issued pursuant to this chapter: Subd. 1. Each license shall be issued only to the applicant and for the premises described in the application. Subd. 2. Not more than one license shall be directly or indirectly issued within the City to any one person. Subd. 3. No license shall be granted or renewed for operation on any premises on which taxes, assessments, utility charges, service charges or other financial claims of the City are delinquent and unpaid. Subd. 4. No license shall be issued for any place or any business ineligible for a license under state law. Subd. 5. No license shall be granted within 200 feet of any school or any church. -8- 401.14 TERM OF LICENSE. All licenses shall expire on the last day of May in each year. Each license shall be issued for a period of one year; except, that if a portion of the license year has elapsed when the application is made, a license maybe issued for the remainder of the year for a pro rata fee. In computing the fee, any unexpired fraction of a month shall be counted as one month. 401.15 BOND AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Subd. 1. Bond, insurance or cash required. Any person or corporation licensed to sell alcoholic beverages at on-sale or off-sale shall demonstrate proof of financial responsibility with regard to liability imposed by M.S. § 340A.801 to the Commissioner of Public Safety as a condition of the continuance, issuance or renewal of his or her license. Proof of financial responsibility maybe given by filing: a. A certificate that there is in effect an insurance policy or pool providing for the following minimum coverages: (1) $50,000 because of bodily injury to any one person in any one occurrence and subject to the limit of one person; in the amount of $100,000 because of bodily injury to two or more persons in any one occurrence; in the amount of $10,000 because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one occurrence; (2) $50,000 for loss of means of support of any one person in any one occurrence and subject to the limit of one person; $100,000 for loss of means of support of two or more persons in any one occurrence; or b. A bond of a surety company with minimum coverages as provided in subdivision l.a. above; or c. A certificate of the commissioner of finance that the licensee has deposited with him or her $100,000 in cash or securities which may legally be purchased by savings banks or for the trust funds having a market value of $100,000. Subd. 2. Approval of security. The security offered under subdivision 1 above shall be approved by the City Council, and in the case of applicants for "on-sale wine" or "intoxicating malt liquor/wine" licenses by the State Liquor Control Director. Surety bonds and liability insurance policies shall be approved as to form by the city. Subd. 3. Failure to obtain insurance. A licensed business operating without having the liability insurance required on file at all times with the City Administrator/Clerk, shall immediately and without prior notice to the licensee and without action of the City Council have any license granted by the City prior thereto revoked, and the license may not be reissued until proof of compliance with the financial responsibility requirements is presented to the City Administrator/Clerk and upon review and approval of the same by the City Council. -9- 401.16 CONDITIONS OF LICENSE. Every license is subject to the conditions in the following subdivisions and all other provisions of this chapter and of any other applicable ordinance, state law or regulation. Subd. 1. Conduct of business. Every licensee is responsible for conduct of his or her place of business and the conditions of sobriety and order in it. The act of any employee on the licensed premises authorized to sell intoxicating liquor therein is deemed the act of the licensee as well, and the licensee shall be liable to all penalties provided by this chapter and the law equally with the employee. Subd. 2. License to be posted. All licensed premises shall have the license posted in a conspicuous place at all tunes. Subd. 3. Sales to certain persons restricted. No alcoholic beverage shall be sold or served to any intoxicated person or to any person under 21 years of age. Subd. 4. Minors on the premises. a. No person under the age of 18 years shall be employed in any rooms constituting the place in which intoxicating liquors or 3.2 percent malt liquor are sold at retail on-sale, except that persons under the age of 18 may be employed as musicians or to perform the duties of a bus person or dishwashing services in places defined as a restaurant, hotel, motel or other multipurpose building serving food in rooms in which intoxicating liquors or 3.2 percent malt liquor are sold at retail on-sale. b. No person under the age of 21 years may enter a licensed establishment except to work, consume meals on premises that qualify as a restaurant, or attend social functions that are held in a portion of the premises where liquor is not sold. Subd. 5. Gambling or gambling devices. No gambling or any gambling device shall be permitted on any 3.2 percent licensed premises. Subd. 6. Display during prohibited hours. No "on-sale" establishment shall display liquor to the public during hours when the sale of liquor is prohibited. Subd. 7. Inspections. Every licensee shall allow any peace officer, health officer or properly designated officer or employee of the city to enter, inspect and search the premises of the licensee during business hours without a search and seizure warrant and may seize all intoxicating liquors found on the licensed premises. 401.17 HOURS OF OPERATION. Subd. 1. 3.2 percent Malt Liquor. No sale of 3.2% malt liquor shall be made on any Sunday between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon. No sale shall be made between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. of any other day. -10- Subd. 2. Intoxicating liquor; on-sale. No sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the licensed premises maybe made: a. Between 1:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on the days of Tuesday through Saturday; b. Between 12:00 midnight and 8:00 a.m. on Mondays; c. After 1:00 a.m. on Sundays, except as provided by a special license for Sunday sales as provided by § 401.05 subd. 7; d. Between 8:00 p.m. on December 24 and 8:00 a.m. on December 25, except as provided by a Special Club License as provided by § 401.05, subd. 6. Subd. 3. Intoxicating liquor; off-sale. No sale of intoxicating liquor maybe made by an off- sale licensee: a. on Sundays; b. before 8:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m. on Monday through Thursday; c. before 8:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday; d. on Thanksgiving Day; e. after 8:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve, December 24; f. on Christmas Day, December 25. 401.18 PROHIBITED ACTS AND CONDITIONS. Subd. 1. Liquor in unlicensed places. No person shall mix or prepare liquor for consumption in any public place or place of business unless it has a license to sell liquor "on- sale" or a permit from the Liquor Control Director under M.S. §§ 340A.414 and 340A.504, and no person shall consume liquor in any place. Subd. 2. Consumption in public places. No person shall consume liquor on a public highway, public park or other public place. This provision does not apply to consumption at the Community Center with the prior approval of the City Council. 401.19 SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE. Subd. 1. The violation of any provision or condition of this chapter by a liquor licensee or his or her agent shall be grounds for revocation or suspension of the license. Subd. 2. The Council may either suspend, for not to exceed 60 days, or revoke any liquor license upon finding that the licensee has failed to comply with any applicable statute, regulation or ordinance relating to intoxicating liquor. No suspension or revocation shall take effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing. -11- Subd. 3. A license granted under this chapter maybe revoked or suspended by the Council after written notice to the licensee and a public hearing. The notice shall give at least eight days notice of the time and place of the hearing and shall state the nature of the charges against the licensee. The Council may suspend any license pending a hearing on revocation or suspension. 401.20 ENFORCEMENT. It shall be the duty of ali law enforcement officers of the city to enforce the provisions of this chapter, to search premises and seize evidence of law violation and preserve the same as evidence against any person alleged to be violating this chapter, and to prepare the necessary processes and papers therefore. 401.21. VIOLATION. Any person violating any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, unless a different penalty is specified by state statute. 401.22 LICENSE VIOLATION ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES. Any licensee found to have violated this chapter, or whose employee shall have violated this chapter, shall be charged an administrative fine as provided in § 1301.02 of this code. CHAPTER 402 CONSUMPTION, PURCHASE AND POSSESSION OF ALCOHOL BY PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 21 YEARS Section 402.01 Consumption of alcohol by persons under the age of 21 years 402.02 Furnishing alcoholic beverages to persons under 21 years of age 404.03 Misdemeanors 402.01 CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL BY PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 21 YEARS. It is unlawful for any person under the age of 21 years to consume any alcoholic beverages or to be present within the city having consumed alcohol. The presence of alcohol as indicated by physical symptoms shall constitute prima facie evidence of unlawful consumption of an alcoholic beverage by persons under the age of 21 years. If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it is an affirmative defense to a violation of this clause that the defendant consumed the alcoholic beverage in the household of the defendant's parent or guardian and with the consent of the parent or guardian. -12- 402.02 FURNISHING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES TO PERSONS UNDER 21 YEARS OF AGE. It is unlawful for any person: Subd. 1. To sell, barter, furnish or give alcoholic beverages to a person under 21 years of age. It shall constitute prima facie evidence of a violation of this subdivision for any adult resident to knowingly allow unlawful consumption or possession of an alcoholic beverage by persons under 21 years of age within the dwelling unit of an adult resident or within any yard area related to the dwelling unit and within the control of an adult resident. It shall constitute prima facie evidence of a violation of this subdivision if consumption or possession of an alcoholic beverage by persons under 21 years of age is in plain view of an adult resident or openly displayed. If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to a violation of this subdivision that the defendant is the parent or guardian of the person under 21 years of age and that the defendant gave or furnished the alcoholic beverage to that person solely for consumption in the defendant's household; or Subd. 2. Under the age of 21 years to purchase or attempt to purchase any alcoholic beverage; or Subd. 3. To induce a person under the age of 21 years to purchase or procure any alcoholic beverage, or to lend or knowingly permit the use of the person's driver's license, permit, Minnesota identification card or other form of identification by a person under the age of 21 years for the purpose of purchasing or attempting to purchase an alcoholic beverage. 402.03 MISDEMEANORS. A violation of any provision of this chapter is a misdemeanor. Section 2. This ordinance is effective the date of its publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 5th day of November, 2007. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk -13- 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, Section "II. Liquor" of the Shorewood Code of Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: Il. Liquor Intoxicating liquor license, on-sale 401.06.1 $7,500 Wine license - on-sale 401.06.1 $1,000 Intoxication malt liquor/wine license - on-sale 401.06.1 $2,000 Intoxicating Liquor, off sale 401.06.1 S310 Liquor special club license 401.06.1 $250 Special Sunday license 401.06.1 $200 3.2% malt Liquor license - on-sale 401.06.2 $300 3.2% malt liquor Liquor license - ofl=sale 401.06.2 $50 3.2`% malt liquor Temporary license 401.06.2 $25 Liquor License Investigation Fce - 401.06.1 $500 New License Liquor License Im~estigation Fee - 401.06.1 $250 Renewal with Change in Managers / Owner /etc. Liquor licensees in violation 401.06.2 $500/first offense $1,000/second offense in 24-month period $1,500/third offense in 24-month period $2,000/fourth offense in 24-month period Section 2. This ordinance is effective the date of its publication. Attachment 3 ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota this 5th day of November, 2007. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 07- A RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. AND ORDINANCE NO. BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, on November 5, 2007, the City Council of the City of Shorewood adopted Ordinance No. entitled "An Ordinance Amending Title 400, Chapters 401 through 404 of the Shorewood City Code Relating to Liquor"; and Ordinance No. _ ,entitled "License, Permit, Service Charges, and Miscellaneous Fees"; WHEREAS, the City staff has prepared a summary of these Ordinances as follows: 1. Ordinance No. provides for the abolishment of Municipal :Liquor Stores (two currently in existence) and allows for the oCf--sale of alcoholic beverages by license (up to two licenses permitted until January 1, 2013). This Ordinance repeals existing Chapters 401, 402, 403, and 404 of the Shorewood City Code, and replaces them with Chapter 401-Liquor Regulations; and Chapter 402-Consumption Purchase and Possession of Alcohol by Persons Under the Age of 21 Years. 2. Ordinance No. revises the liquor license fees in Chapter 1301 to add an off- sale liquor license application fee oI' $310, a new liquor license investigation fee of $500, and a renewal with a change in managers/owners liquor license investigation fee of $250. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHORE~~'OOD: L The City Council finds that the above title and summary of Ordinance No. and Ordinance No. clearly informs the public of intent and effect of the Ordinance. 2. The City Clerk is directed to publish this Resolution, in lieu of publication of the entire text of Ordinance No. and Ordinance No. pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.191, subdivision 4. A full copy of Ordinance No. and Ordinance No. is available at Shorewood City Hall and on the City's website. ADOPTED by the Shorewood City Council on this 5th day of November, 2007. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk Attaclnnent 4 CITY OC ~ 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 p DATE: November 1, 2007 SUBJECT: Selection of Architect for City Hall Project In August 2007, the City Council decided to pursue a concept that would remodel/renovate City Hall, and likely would move Council Room activities to an off-site location. As part of its decision, the Council also directed to start the process to retain architectural services for this project. Three firms that responded to the City's Request for Proposals (RFP) were interviewed by staff in mid-October, and two were requested for a final presentation/interview on October 29. Collaborative Design Group and Oertel Architects presented to Mayor Chris Lizee, Councilmember Laura Turgeon, Director of Public Works Larry Brown, Director of Planning Brad Nielsen, and me. After reviewing the proposals and participating in the interviews, the City's team reached quick consensus to recommend that the City Council authorize the services of Collaborative Design Group (CDG). The team believed that CDG was most responsive to the project described in the RFP, and best understood the intent to reuse City Hall and the City's expectation of cost for the project. Other elements of CDG's approach that impressed us were: • The size and capabilities that exist within the firm • The "Existing Buildings Group" within the firm, which assesses current building conditions and looks for ways to reuse buildings • The importance of interior design and design solutions in this project, and having those capabilities within the firm • "Green" and sustainable approaches to the building and building systems • Emphasis on phasing construction, in order to continue operations during construction • Experience in working with municipalities, and availability of project principals The firm's proposed fee is 9.0 percent of construction costs, plus reimbursable expenses. The City has not yet decided on whether to engage the services of a construction manager; CDG has experience with and is willing to work under this arrangement if the Council chooses to do so. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council authorize the services of Collaborative Design Group, Inc., for the City Hall project per its proposal of October 2007, and authorize the execution of an agreement for services subject to the approval of the City Attorney. ~'«0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER s '~ t M1 y Thank you for your interest, com y ndance at neighborhood meetings over the past months. As you know, the city council voted to not move forward with the current proposal for drainage, water and street improvements for our neighborhood in response to the many concerns raised by residents. Thus without any other action on our part, including suggestions, no further improvements of any type are on the docket. Personally, I hate to see this opportunity slip away without our neighborhood taking the responsibility of looking into the possibility that there may be acceptable alternatives to the city plan. tl~- / 10!31 /2007 m nts surve work, an atte Dear Neighbor, To that end, I would like to suggest that our neighborhood follow-upon Roger and Janis Fischbach's idea of forming a committee to look into otherlalternate plans which would address the concerns that have been raised over the past months and ultimately led to the demise of the city plan. I have talked with the mayor and Mr. Landini about developing alternatives through a committee approach and both have indicated that this would be of interest to them. Several neighbors have added suggestions for the committee which I've included below. Committee Make-up • Eight persons (keeping the committee small for ease of communication} n One representative from each road including: Glen East, Glen West, Manitou, & Amlee o James Landini & one additional city administration person o Two representatives from the city council (possibly the mayor) • Residents, Administration & City Council would become a team seeking to find solutions, each bringing to the table their unique insights. Committee Goals: • Seek to discover alternatives (solutions) to the existing city plan which would be acceptable to the neighborhood, administration and council. The committee would use the data from our neighborhood meetings, surveys etc. to address the areas of greatest concern in the city plan. • Ideally provide a modified plan for city council action for improvements within three months. i' ~c~r)cl~~~~ ~ ~ Committee Responsibilities: o Meet regularly -roughly every two weeks for no more than 60 to 90 minutes per time. The committee would be responsible to find an acceptable time/place for meetings. • Provide monthly progress reports to the neighborhood, city, & administration. (email communications might be a good cost effective and easy way for the committee to make certain everyone gets the same data at the same time) T_he Plan far Developing the Committee Representation: • Think about whether you have interest in being on such acommittee - regardless of your position on the issues -would you be willing to represent your neighbors on an impartial basis? Would your schedule allow for these committee meetings? !3 yes... ~'enr/ b<~ck the atfaehecf respvr7se note car heffer yet, ernait rrae yorar res}~oras€;. o In a follow-up letter 1 will compile a list of all of the neighbors who have indicated willingness to serve on the committee. We will then have the opportunity via mail/email to choose whom we weuld like to see as the representative. The persons with the top number of votes would be our road representative on the committee. I look forward to your response regarding this approach as well as your willingness to serve on the committee. Please return the response sheet no later than November 8~h Sign Up Sheet for A LEE, IViQ- IT®U GLEN EIGHORH®®® C®ITTEE Please return this sheet via regular mail (or email] prior to November Stn Email: john.m.miller(c~dearthlink.net Regular mail: John miller, 24925 Glen Road, Shorewood 55331 I am willing to serve on the committee. I understand my name will be listed with other names in a subsequent mailing to be voted upon. The person receiving the top vote from each road shall form the neighborhood portion of the committee. NAME: MY ROAD: MY EMAIL: Comments: