021108 CC Reg AgPCITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2008
AGENDA
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Roll Call
B. Review Agenda
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mayor Lizee
Woodruff
Turgeon
Vacant (W3)
Wellens
A. City Council Work Session Minutes, January 28, 2008 (Att. -Minutes)
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, January 28, 2008 (Att.- Minutes)
C. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, February 1, 2008 (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. Comments can be taken or questions asked following removal from
Consent Agenda.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List (Att.- Claims List)
B. Staffing - No action required
C. Intent to Extend Agreement with Hennepin County for Assessment Services (Att. -
Administrator's memorandum)
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.)
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
6. PUBLIC HEARING
7. PARKS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
8. PLANNING -Report by Representative
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA -February 11, 2008
PAGE 2 OF 2
9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Making the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Board Representative
Appointment (Att.- Administrator's memorandum, Draft Resolution)
B. Park Commission Appointments (Att. -Administrator's memorandum, Draft Resolution)
C. Policy for Public Purpose Expenditures for Employee Recognition, etc. (Att. -
Administrator's memorandum)
10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Approving Change Orders No.'s 1 and 2 for the Chanhassen/Woodhaven Interconnection
Project, City Project OS-11 (Att. -Engineer's memorandum, Resolution)
B. Accepting Final Improvements and Authorizing Final Payment for the Chanhassen/
Woodhaven Interconnection Project, City Project OS-1 I (Att. -Engineer's memorandum,
Resolution)
C. Accepting Proposal for Professional Services for the Abandonment of Woodhaven Well
and Appurtenant Structure (Att. -Engineer's memorandum)
11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator & Staff
B. Mayor & City Council
12. ADJOURN
°T
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, 11 February 2008
A Special Meeting is scheduled for 5:45 P.M. to conduct interviews for the
Park Commission and LMCD Board Representative
Agenda item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval.
Agenda Item #3B: Staffing - no action required.
Agenda Item #3C: The City has contracted with Hennepin County to provide property
assessment services since the 2000 assessment year. The current contract terminates on
July 31, 2008. Approval of this item would indicate an intent to extend the Assessment
Services Agreement with Hennepin County at this time.
Agenda Item #9A: The City has advertised the LMCD volunteer board opportunity to
residents. One individual, Mr. Richard Saikal of 25680 Birch Bluff Road, has expressed
an interest in serving on the LMCD Board. Council interviewed Mr. Saikal earlier this
evening. Council may consider adopting the Resolution appointing Mr. Saikal to the
LMCD Board.
Agenda Item #9B: Earlier this evening, Council interviewed four candidates for the Park
Commission. There are currently two Park Commission openings to be filled for athree-year
term beginning March 1, 2008 - February 28, 2011; and one opening to fill the seat vacated by
Mr. Paul Alegi, for the term ending February 28, 2010.
One topic that is to be discussed at the Park Commission meeting on February 12th is the
viability of aseven-member commission, and whether afive-member commission would be
sufficient to fulfill the purpose of the Park Commission. The Council could consider the Park
Commission's recommendation at its February 25, 2008, meeting, and postpone the Park
Commission appointments until February 25. If Council decides to make appointments this
evening, a resolution making the Park Commission appointments is provided for Council's
consideration.
as
~®~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Executive Summary -City Council Meeting of 11 February, 2008
Page 2 of 2
Agenda Item #9C: At the January 28 work session, Council reviewed a draft of policies for
expenditures on employee recognition and other public purposes. Council requested that
two items be added, and they have been placed in the draft for your consideration. Staff
recommends that Council approve the Policy regarding Employee Recognition and
Public Purpose Expenditures.
Agenda Item #10A: On February 13, 2007, the City Council entered into a contract with G. L.
Contracting, Inc. to interconnect the Chanhassen Water system and the Woodhaven
system. During construction a hydrant was relocated and a house service was changed
resulting in two change orders. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions that
approve Change Order No. 1 and Change Order No. 2 for the Chanhassen / Woodhaven
Interconnection Project, in the amount of $12,822.08.
Agenda Item #IOB: The Chanhassen / Woodhaven Interconnection Project has been
completed. As the normal path of the project, the contractor, and the City, all have to
verify construction records and tally ali costs involved. This has been completed, and the
project is ready to be accepted and final payment is to be issued to G. L. Contracting, Inc.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution that accepts the Chanhassen / Woodhaven
Interconnection Project, and Authorizes final payment.
Agenda Item #1 OC: The interconnection ofthe Woodhaven water system and the Chanhassen
water system are complete. The Woodhaven Well and appurtenant equipment are no longer
needed. The abandonment of the Woodhaven Weil and appurtenant structure is a goal for
completion in 2008.
WSB and Associates, Inc. has provided a proposal for Abandonment of Woodhaven Well
and Appurtenant Structure. Staff recommends a motion accepting the proposal.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2008
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:00 P.M.
Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M.
Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Turgeon, Wellens and Woodruff; Administrator Dawson;
Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown;
and Engineer Landini
Absent: None
A. Review Agenda
Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
2. COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCES MANAUCMENT PLAN UPDATE
Mayor Lizee noted that Steve Gurney, with WSB & Associates, ~~~as pT•esent this evening.
Administrator Dawson stated that Mr. Gurney had done the majority of the work on updating the City's
Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (the Plan); the Plan was required by State Statute.
Mr. Gurney had been assisted by Engineer Landini in the effort. He commented Mr. Gurney had updated
a number of other cities' plans. He then statcd that Mr. Gurney would explain why the plan had to be
updated, and what was updated.
Mr. Gurney stated the Plan was intended to satisfy the requirements for a local watershed management
plan required by the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act and to be in conformance the Board
of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) Rules Chapter 8410. He explained the Plan was being updated to
reflect changes in requirements from the Metropolitan (Met) Council, Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District(MCWD), and the Ri(ey-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD). Because all of
new requirements had not been .identified yet, WSB had made an attempt to anticipate what the new
requirements would be for the MCWD with the understanding some minor modifications may have to be
made when the re~luirements were finalized. WSB also used input from other cities' plans, in particular
Excelsior's plan.
Mr. Gurney stated the discussion this evening would focus on Section IV and Section V of the Plan.
Section IV discussed the water resources related concerns within the City and identified possible
corrective actions to address those issues. Among the list of problems were the flood problem areas that
were studied after the autumn storm events of 2005. Section V outlined the suggested goals and policies
for the City. Many of those goals were carryovers from the previous plan. There were several new
policies that were already included in the City's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Other
goals and policies were recommended based on input WSB had received from review agencies on other
cities' plans.
#2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
January 28, 2008
Page 2 of 8
Mr. Gurney then stated if the Plan was acceptable, the Plan would be submitted to the MCWD, the
RPBCWD, and the Met Council for their comments. It was anticipated they would use their full 60-day
comment period to provide input. Once their comments were received, the Plan would be finalized and it
would be re-submitted for approval. He explained that during the time the Plan was being reviewed by
the agencies, WSB (with assistance by Staff) would be updating the following items for the City: the
hydrologic and hydraulic analysis; the water quality analysis (which was a modeling exercise using a
water quality model prepared by the MCWD); the GIS utility mapping and database; and, the financial
analysis. The water quality analysis/modeling effort would incorporate steps the City had taken since
2000 as part of the requirement to achieve an annual reduction of phosphorus loading of 50 pounds per
year as specified by the MCWD; for example, the City would received credit for the installation of the
Gideon Glen wetland pond, a pond in the Parkview area located in the. northeast part of the City, a pond
in Lake Virginia Woods area, and a pond in the Arbor Creek area,
Mr. Gurney stated the purpose this evening was to review the policies in the plan and explain the reason
for the policies. He then addressed questions Council had.
The following clarifications and comments were made by Mr. Gurney and Staff.
- The City had land in the Lake Minnetonka and Christmas Lake watersheds, and in the
Lake Virginia/Lake Minnewashta watershed.
- The MCWD was developing its equivalent of 7~ota1 Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
requirements; technically TMDLs were established by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (PCA).
- The National Pollutant Discharge L,limination System (NPDES) regulations included
requirements .for the City to periodically check the sediment level of the stormwater
ponds (and to clean them out if necessary), and to ntonitor that information. There was a
plan to check the ponds in 2008; the 2008 budget included funds for the purchase of a
sonar device to help with that task.
- Section V I would outline implementation priorities and develop an implementation
program. It .contained a prioritizedlisting of the studies, programs, and capital
improvements that had been identified as necessary to respond to the water resource
needs within theCity.
Section IV, Item A.4 -There would be some level of improvements done to Manor Park
Pond (itwould probably be dredged at some time); and, it would be unlikely that the
Pond would ever be completely clear because of the nature of the Pond (e.g., the Pond
would always have some level of algae). If the item was left in the Plan there would be a
possibility to receive some level of grant funding for the improvement effort. A phrase
would be added to the item to refer to cooperation with other agencies.
- Section IV, Item B.1 -The list of drainage problems listed came from the "Analysis of
Drain~~ge Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood" report which was reviewed with
Council in .January 2006.
- Section IV, Item B.2 -Footprint Lake was a large pond. The list was from the most
recent version of the Plan.
- Section IV, Item E.1 -The City had an erosion control ordinance for new construction.
- Section IV, Item E.3 -This came from a fact sheet listing concerns from the MCWD.
- Section IV, Item F.1 -Selected areas of the City would be clarified to refer to new
developments within the City.
- Section IV, Item G.1 -The Best Management Practices were practices identified by the
PCA; that would be clarified.
- Section IV, Item I.1 -With regard to the corrective action, WSB would do the modeling
after it received data from the MCWD.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
January 28, 2008
Page 3 of 8
- Section V, Item B.3 -The reporting of construction erosion control concerns and waste
disposal problems was addressed in Section V, Item B.9.
- Section V, Item C.11 -This item was clarified to state "allowing for no increase
compared to existing (runoff) rates" was specific to ail storms (the 1-year, 10-year, and
100-year events). Currently the rates must not exceed the pre-development rates. The
MCWD had established that the TMDL volume requirements would eventually be those
in existing in 1988.
- Section V, Item C.30 (pg. 9) -The PCA website identified Low Impact Development
Techniques; a reference to the website would be added to the item.
- Section V, Item C.32 (pg. 9) -The City had a map designating the area with general
depression, low points, etc.
- Section V, Item C.43 -The new MCWD rules would either he adopted or to referred to
in the City's erosion and sedimentation control ordinance.
- Section V, Item D.49 -The City did not have ~ specific discharge ordinance; stormwater
discharge requirements were referred to iii multiple places in the City Code. It was
necessary to develop a storm water management ordinance in 2008. as specified in the
City's SWPPP.
- Section V, Item D.58 -This would be changed to say the City would implement the
recommendations identified in the TMDL studies.
The following comments and suggestions were made by Mayor Lizee:
- Section V, Item A -She suggested 'the. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD)
and the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) be added to the list of organizations for
which the City would conformwith their rules. Councilmembers Turgeon, Wellens, and
Woodruff stated they did not agree with the addition of the LMA as it was not a
legislativebody. Lizee stated the LMA had done a tremendous amount of research
regarding water resource needs. Thea~e was agreement to add the LMCD to the list, as all
ofthc organizations on the list were agencies.
- Section V; Item C.35 (pg. 9) ~- She puestioned what the costs and time would be for the
City to manage wetlands in conformance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420 as
developed by the 13WSR. She also questioned if it was legal for the PRBCWD to require
the City. to do that (the City would become the Local Governmental Unit for areas of the
City within the RPBCW.D). After ensuing discussion, it was agreed this was a topic for
discussion at another meeting.
The following comments and suggestions were made by Councilmember Wellens:
- Section IV„.Item E.3 -The MCWD requested that shoreline conditions on Christmas
Lake (specifically the eastern shore) be monitored and maintained; shoreline restoration
practices needed to be implemented to prevent erosion. He stated that was private
property; he suggested the property owners should be made aware of that request. Lizee
stated property owners could be educated about improving the quality of stormwater run-
off from residential properties at an environmental education program the City would
offer during 2008.
- Section V, Strategies, Cooperation with other agencies - He expressed concern with the
statement the City "will cooperate and coordinate with these agencies as necessary". He
questioned what organization determined what was necessary. There was agreement to
change the statement to say "will cooperate and coordinate with these agencies as
deemed necessary by the City".
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
January 28, 2008
Page 4 of 8
The following comments and suggestions were made by Councilmember Woodruff:
- He had heard there was phosphorus reduction requirement for Lake Virginia and that
would apply to the City.
- Section IV, Item D.1 - He suggested it be changed to the City consider implementing a
water quality monitoring program. The MCWD already had that type of data and was
accumulating additional data. Mayor Lizee suggested the program be expanded to
included partnerships with other agencies, such as the MCWD.
- He requested agreement be reached regarding who would do the work, how would the
task be accomplished and. when would it be accomplished tor: Section IV, Items E.3 and
L2; Section V, Items C.40 (pg. 10), C.41 (pg. 10), C.35 (p~;. 11), C.37 (pg., 11), C.38 (pg.
11), C.39 (pg.l1), C.43 (pg. 12), D.45 (pg. 12), h.46 (pg. l2), D.49 (pg. 13), D.51 (pg.
13), D.52 (pg. 13), D.54 (pg. 13), D.55 (pg. 13). D.56 (pg. l3), D.58 (pg. 13), D.60 (pg.
14), D.62 (pg. 14), D.64 (pg. 14), and D.65 (pg, 1 ~).
Mr. Gurney stated he thought it would be prudent to bring the revised updated Planback before Council
for discussion. Couneihnember Woodruff commented he did not need.to discuss Sectio~~s IV and V after
the changes discussed were made. He did want to discuss the changes that would be made to the other
sections in the Plan. Gurney noted the Plan must be finalized by September 1, 2008.
There was agreement to review the updatesto the other sectic~i~s of the Plan during a March 2008 work
session.
3. GOALS AND PRIORITIES
This was discussed after Item: 5 on the. agenda
Administrator Dawson stated Council had received avery rough draft of items that could be considered
for next year's list of Goals and Priorities, The intent ~-vas to discuss the list of items at this meeting, and
to delete and add items as the. Council deemed appropriate. He would update the list with the
recommended changes, and distribute the updated list to Council for them to prioritize.
Administrator Dawson clariCed the items on the list were mainly items that were not part of day-to-day
responsibilities.
The following clarifications were made by Staff:
- 2007 Medium priority Item 2 -Two-thirds of the property files had been scanned for use
on the Laserla fiche system. Engineering files would be scanned next.
- The Plant~ia~g District 6 item did not include the landscape design entry activities for
County Read 19; it was part of the corridor activities.
- 2007 Medium priority Item 1 -Changes to Planning District 6 would be implemented as
part of the update to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
- 2007 Medium priority Item 3 -Hennepin County had committed to a meeting to discuss
how it planned to complete the administrative activities regarding the Shorewood/Tonka
Bay corporate boundary change in the County Road 19/Smithtown Road intersection
area.
- Item c -This would be addressed after the 2007 audit was completed.
- Item i -the engineering plans and specifications had been developed. An area of concern
was the Southeast water tower would have to be taken off-line for the work to be done.
The City's well capacity may not satisfy the instantaneous demand for City water.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
January 28, 2008
Page 5 of 8
Contingency planning was being addressed. It was likely the project would be delayed
until the fall of 2008 for contingency purposes.
- Item g -Council had added $300,000 to the roadway improvement system for 2008.
Council needed to decide if that level of funding should be continued into future years,
and if so how would that level of funding be sustained. Councilmember Wellens stated
he thought it was aone-time increase. Councilmember Woodruff agreed a plan needed to
be developed for addressing the backlog of roadway improvement needs.
- Item iii -the road reconstruction of Star Lane/Star Circle had been on the project list for
many years. The priority list was an evolving list -there were times when a road
survived the winter elements better than expected and that road would shift down in the
project list. However, it was incorrect to list Star Lace/ Star Circle as the road
reconstruction project for 2008.
Mayor Lizee suggested Item ee be added - Conduct a community survey during May 2008.
Councilmember Turgeon made the following suggestions:
- Add Item cc -Revamp the City Administrator's performance evaluationform with a
scheduled completion date of March 2008.
- Add Item dd -Resolve who was responsible for'the maintenance of the Boulder Bridge
pond.
- She suggested Staff first prioritization of the items on the list because Staff probably had
a better understanding of what items had to be done. and when; Council could then
review the prioritized items and adjust the priorities as it deemed appropriate.
- 2007 Lower priority Item ~ - She stated she dial not see the need for this item.
Administrator Dawson suggested the item be removed from the list. Councilmember
Wellens agreed. "That item would be removed from the list.
Councilmember Wellens stated that the- LaserFiche Webfine module was hard to use. He questioned why
Staff should continue to add documents to the. system if it was difficult to use. He suggested Staff
develop instructions on how to uscthc svstcm. He suggested this be a low priority.
Councilmember Woodruff made thefollowing suggestions:
- He suggested a plan be developed for 2007 medium priority Item 2 and for Item s. He
suggested medium priority 2 be combined with Items s and z; and, that a priority list for
scanning documents be included in the plan..
- Item y - He stated it was completed at the January 28, 2008, Council meeting.
- Item j - He suggested Item j include the development of measures to assess the economic
benefits of installing the radio-read meters.
- Item o - He suggested the item be completed by June 2008. Councilmember Wellens
suggested this item be expanded to include the cost savings or added benefits of hiring a
full-time City Engineer, and this be completed by May -June 2008.
- Item bb - He requested this item be completed by seasons end. Mayor Lizee suggested
November 2008 as a completion date.
- He suggested adding Item ff - Develop a long-term plan for future road reconstruction
and improvement projects.
Administrator Dawson stated he would update the list with the recommended changes.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
January 28, 2008
Page 6 of 8
4. DRAFT POLICY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE EXPENDITURES
Administrator Dawson stated Council had received a draft of policies regarding expenditures for
employee recognition and other public purposes. The policies had been adapted from Minnetonka's
policy; the City's practices had been very consistent with Minnetonka's written policy.
Mayor Lizee requested the following be added to Item 1.A Permitted Expenditures -coffee and purified
water for employees and visitors to City Hall.
Councilmember Woodruff stated from his vantage point the policy could be too restrictive; he suggested
the policy be adapted to be more flexible.
Mayor Lizee noted the policy addressed the requests of some Councilmembers.
Councilmember Woodruff suggested the following be added. t~~ ltem 2.A Other Permitted Expenditures -
those promoting wellness and safety of the public or staffwhile using City facilities (e.g., filtered or
bottled water, centralized coffee/tea/hot water service, etc.). He thought it was a public as well as
employee benefit. He stated individual coffee pots were asafety hazard.
Mayor Lizee stated it was not important where coffee and water' were added in the policy; she just
wanted it to be included.
Councilmember Wellens stated the auditor's letter stated coffee andwater went outside of basic supplies
and it generally recommended employees cover the costs for those items. Mayor Lizee noted the
Auditor's letter was a recommendation only.
Councilmember Turgeon stated from her vantage }zoint the draft policy should be much shorter.
Councilmember Woodruff questioned. if the donation to the Excelsior July 4t1i Fireworks display would
be prohibited by the policy. Mayor Lizee clarified the City made a donation to the event and not
specifically for the Creworl<s: Administrator Dawson. stated that would still be a permitted expense for
public funds. Councilmember Turgeon stated the City could not donate funds to the Excelsior Chamber
of Commerce, but it could donate fiords to the Chamber for an event.
Councilmember Wellens stated Item 1.A. bullet 2 could be interpreted to mean a meal could be provided
at every Council meeting because it could be decided it was adjacent to a meal hour. Administrator
Dawson clarified it stated you'may, not you shall. Wellens stated he did not want to authorize that.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he agreed with Dawson -the Council could decide what to do.
Woodruff stated he did not wait to specifically state the City could not do something. Councilmember
Turgeon stated the Council could specify what time the meetings would have to start for meals to be
provided.
5. REQUEST RE: BOULDER BRIDGE SEALCOATING
This item was discussed before Item 3 on the agenda.
Director Brown stated the City had planed to sealcoat the streets in the Boulder Bridge subdivision in
2008; and, representatives of the Boulder Bridge Farm Homeowners Association had approached the
City about the possibility of placing a bituminous (aka asphalt) overlay on the street instead of sealcoat,
and the Association would pay the difference in cost between the overlay and the sealcoat. He then stated
the Association could take a position that the City would benefit from the overlay approach (which Staff
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
January 28, 2008
Page 7 of 8
thought it would). Administrator Dawson stated if the City were to fiend part of the overlay process it
would utilize funds that would impact other roadway projects. Dawson recommended if the overlay
process were to be done the Association should pay the additional cost.
In response to a question from Mayor Lizee, Director Brown explained the Infrastructure Improvement
Matrix rated the structure of various roadways; in the past the City had attempted to keep all the
roadways at a structural rating of three or higher but that was not possible because of asphalt costs and
oil costs. He then explained sealcoating did not address structural issues; a sealcoat should last five years
(that had not been the City's experience as of late). An overlay did impro~~e the structure of a roadway
somewhat; it could add up to ten years to the life of the roadway.
Councilmember Turgeon stated she would not support this if it impacted the existing priorities for
roadway improvements. Director Brown clarified the City would only pay the amount it would have cost
to sealcoat the streets in Boulder Bridge; those costs were planned for in the .budget. He explained the
City had implemented a block program for sealcoating roadways as it was more efi icient (i.e., roadways
that were located in the same geographical area were sealcoated in the same year). 1 f a roadway was
scheduled to be reconstructed in 1 - 2 years, that roads-vay would not be sealcoated.
Councilmember Woodruff stated if the City were to pay the amount of the cost of sealcoating and the
Association paid the remaining amount of the cost to overlay the streets, the City would in effect have
received more for its money. Director Bro~~m clarified if the Association (as a group) agreed to waive its
right to appeal the City would not have to be concerned with assessments. Woodruff stated he could
support the request provided the Association pay the entire cost i-o7~ the overlay (minus what the cost
would have been to sealcoat) up-front; the City ~a~ou(d place those tends in an escrow account and it
would serve as the contracting agency.
Director Burton stated the City could assess the individual property owners. Administrator Dawson
stated it would be betterto have the Association pay the incremental difference up-front.
Turgeon moved, Wellensseconded,recessing the meeting to a City Council regular meeting at 7:02
P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
Mayor. Lize~ reconvened the work session at 8:15 P.M.
There was continued ensuing discussion about the request.
Administrator Dawson stated the next step in the process would be to convey the City's conditions to the
Boulder Bridge 1-[omeowners Association.
In response to a question fi~tim Councilmember Turgeon, Director Brown stated the company owned by a
member of the Association performed overlay work; it did not perform sealcoat work. In response to
another question, Brown explained if the City were the letting agency the project would go out for bids.
The discussion returned to Item 3 on the agenda.
6. OTHER
There was no other business for discussion.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
January 28, 2008
Page 8 of 8
7. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of
January 28, 2008, at 8:58 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Christine Lizee, Mayor
ATTEST:
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2008 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
I. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:08 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Turgeon, Wellens and Woodruff; Attorney Keane;
Administrator Dawson; Finance Director Burton; Pl~~nning Director Nielsen; Director of
Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Appro~~ing the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council. Work Session Minutes, January 14, 2008
Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of
January 14, 2008, as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
B. City Council Kegular Meeting Minutes, January 14, 2008
Wellens-noved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of
Janua-•y 14, 2008, as Amended in Section 10.A, Page 5, Paragraph 5, Sentence 3, change "There
was Council consensus to have a presentation on the matter." to "There was Council consensus to
authorize the LMCC to pursue gathering information and to have a presentation on this matter."
Motion passed ~l0.
3. CONSENT A(TENDA
Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda
and Adopting the Resolutions Therein.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
B. Staffing - No action required
C. City Clerks License List
#ZB
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
January 28, 2008
Page 2 of 9
D. Establishing May 17, 2008, as Spring Clean-up Day (This was moved to Item 10.B
under Engineering/Public Works.)
E. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 08-006, "A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 04-
031."
F. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 08-007, "A Resolution Approving Change Order No.
1 for Lift Station No. 12, City Project 06-01."
G. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for GPS and AutoCAD
H. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for Planning Department Computer Purchase
Councilmember Woodruff asked that Staff include what the budget amotimt was for items that were
presented to Council for consideration (in this instance he «~as referring to Items 3.F and 3.G).,=
Motion passed 4/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this e~~cning.
5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
None.
6. PUBLIC HEARING
None.
7. PARKS
No report ~-i~as given because there had not been a Park Commission meeting since the last City Council
Regular meeting.
8. PLANNING
Commissioner Gniffke 'reported on matters considered and actions taken at the January I5, 2008,
Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
A. Park Dedication Fee
Director Nielsen stated Council had directed Staff to propose a park dedication fee which would be
included in the City's Municipal Fee Schedule. He explained the City collected park dedication fees at
the time land was subdivided for development. The current fee of $2,000 per residential lot was
established in 2002 and it had not been adjusted since.
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
January 28, 2008
Page 3 of 9
Nielsen then explained State Statutes allowed for park dedication to be required in two ways: 1) the City
could require that a certain amount of land be set aside in the development projects for use as future
parks; or 2) the City could require fees in lieu of land. The City's policy for the last several years had
been to require cash in lieu of land. Although not stated in the Statute it had been a well accepted and
defended practice that the maximum amount collectable appeared to be 10 percent of the raw value of the
land. In order for a city to require park dedication through development, the Statutes required a city to
have a comprehensive plan and a capital improvements budget for parks (of which the City had both).
The Statutes only allowed park dedication fees to be used for the acquisition of land or the development
of park properly; maintenance and operations had to be funded in other ways.
Nielsen went on to explain that after reviewing the current State Statutes the first thing Staff did in
formulating a recommendation was to research what other cities were charging relative to their park
dedication fees. Staff researched a survey prepared by the Association of Metro Municipalities, several
Lake Minnetonka communities that did not participate in the survey, and certain cities with relatively
contemporary development regulations that the City routinel}~ reviewed. The fees ranged from $1,000 to
as much as $25,000 per lot in Minnetrista.
Nielsen stated past park improvements had been largely fiuuled through land development (i.e., the
collection of park dedication fees). Although the City was ~ipproximately 95 percent developed, the
City's park system still had needs. The 2008 General Fund budget included a transfer of $10,000 for park
system related projects; that amount would not be sufficient to fiend the projects identified.
Nielsen explained he presented the research findings to the Parl< Commission and suggested the
Commission consider fees in the range of $4,000 - $6,000. After a fair amount of discussion, the Park
Commission recommended a fee of $5,000. He also c~:plaincd at its January 15, 2008, meeting the
Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter. After discussion the Commission decided to
unanimously recommend the park dedication fee for new residential lots be increased to $5,000.
Couneilmember Wellens stated from. his vantage point he did not think the City was following the intent
of the legislation any longer; the intent of the legislation to allow a park dedication fee was for a very
large developii~ei~t where a new park would be developed and land would be required to do so. The
Statues stated the park dedication fee could not be used for maintenance of parks. He then stated he did
not dispute there would always be a need for funds for the City's parks. He also stated the issue was
whether it was right to gouge just a few property owners and make them pay way out of proportion to
their usage of facilities. He went on to state his preference would be to abolish the park dedication fee
because the City ~~~as almost completely developed.
Couneilmember Tlugeon stated she did not totally disagree with Couneilmember Wellens, and owners of
new lots would pay a higher fee than owners paid in previous years. But, the residents of the new
properties would use the darks paid for by park dedication fees which others had paid. She was not sure
she would agree that it was illegal to increase the fee because State Statutes allowed for cities to collect
the fee. She then stated she had always struggled with the fee because it was another fee the developer
had to pay. She could either support the increased fee or abandoning the fee. If the fee were to be
abandoned, she would like Staff to provide Council with data reflecting what the impact would be if a
percentage of the General Fund budget were allocated to the Park Fund each year rather than just fixed
amount as was currently done. If the percent allocation scenario were to be considered the Park
Commission would have to prepare a very specific budget for how the funds would be used.
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
January 28, 2008
Page 4 of 9
Director Nielsen stated the reason the State allowed a fee to be charged at the time of a subdivision was
any new lot created additional demand on the park system; for example, when a developer developed
new property he paid for new roads because there would be a demand for that system. The park
dedication fee was a means to collect for the additional demand on the parks. He explained that other
cities and states had tried other fees that were found to be unconstitutional; the park dedication fee had
been upheld. He commented that today Freeman Park was currently valued at approximately $900,000
and that was assuming the land was worth $26,000 (the amount the City had paid for the land); the Park
was worth far more than that based on today's land value. Past individuals who subdivided property had
already made the investment into the park system; and, taxpayers had bolstered that investment.
Councilmember Wellens clarified that he did not say anything was illegal; he stated he did not think the
City was following the intent of the legislation. He stated he thought the fee was way out of proportion to
the additional demand. He then stated the property owners of very large lots had paid taxes on those lots
even if they were empty lots.
Attorney Keane stated the rate of the fee was ultimately a policy question. With regard to the legality of
the fee, there was a 1976 Supreme Court case which addressed the constitutional issues of the fee.
Mayor Lizee thanked the Park Commission and Plamiing Commission for their efforts related to this
topic.
Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving ORDINANCI? NO. 4~6, "An Ordinance Titled
`License, Permit, Service Charges and Miscellaneous. Fees." Motion passed 3/1 with Wellens
dissenting.
9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
Administrator Dawson stated it had been past practice for Council to make its appointments to the
Minnetonka Community Education (MCF,) Advisory Council, the Lake Minnetonka Communications
Commission (LMCC), and the Lakc Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) during the month of
January. He then stated the applicant for the LMCD had not yet had the opportwlity to meet with Council
prior to this meeting; therefore, action on that appointment would be taken at a future meeting. The only
applicants .for the MCE and LMCC positions were those already serving in those capacities.
Mayor Lizee stated the two app[icants had served t11e City well in the past.
A. 1Vlaking the Minnetonka Community Education Board Representative
Appointment
Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving RESOLUTION NO. 08-008, "A Resolution
Making an Appointment of Tad Shaw to the Minnetonka Community Education Advisory
Council" and RESOLUTION NO. 08-009, "A Resolution Making an Appointment of Patrick
Hodapp to the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission". Motion passed 4/0.
B. Making the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Board Representative
Appointment
This was discussed as part of Item 9.A.
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
January 28, 2008
Page 5 of 9
C. Cablecasting City Council Work Sessions
Administrator Dawson stated at the January 14, 2008, City Council regular meeting there was interest
expressed in reconsidering cablecasting of Council work sessions. He noted at its June 11, 2007, Council
meeting a motion to cablecast the work sessions did -not carry. He stated at the January 14`-' meeting
Council raised a question about how Robert's Rules of Order applied to something the Council. acted
upon in 2007; in summary, the Council could consider this matter with a new motion to do so.
Administrator Dawson then stated the cost for cablecasting of work sessions could be absorbed in the
Operating Budget; the City would have to make arrangements for someone io be the camera operator for
the meeting as the LMCC was not obligated to provide that service. He noted the concerns that had been
discussed, regarding the cablecasting of work sessions had been documented in a memorandum he
provided to Council in 2007.
Councilmember Woodruff stated at the January 14th meeting he had asked that the cablecasting of work
sessions be revisited. He clarified he wanted the work sessions available for video-on-dcmartd and live-
streaming. He stated he had received a number of requests 1-rom people who use the video-on-demand
service from the LMCC.
Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the Cablecasting. of Council Work Sessions.
Coumcilmember Wellens stated he had voted against the cablecasting of wotk sessions at the June 11,
2007, meeting. He had recently changed his mind because of an article published in the Sun Sailor which
stated the LMCC had exceeded its transmission capacity for video-on-demand and the LMCC would be
required to purchase additional bandwidth to accommodate increased viewership.
Councilmember Turgeon suggested some member of the staff take training on~ how to operate the camera
so they could perform that function if need be. She then stated based on her experience she often
observed lullson public-access Channel 8_(whieh was ~~~here the City's regular meetings were broadcast);
she questioned why the LMCC would state there was no available capacity for broadcasting the work
sessions and therefore the work sessions ~-vould be broadcast on Channel 12 or 21. She would like an
explanation lrom the LMCC on thatmatter.
Mayor Lizee stated she was always in support of getting more information out to the public; but, in eight
years as a Councilmember and during her tenure as Mayor she had never received a request for
cablecasting ofwork sessions. She then stated she would prefer to find out what the additional costs
(beside the cost or the camera operator) were before the policy was considered; costs such as expanded
bandwidth (the cost ~~~ould increase from $3,000 to $6,000), additional storage costs for the video, costs
to prepare the recorded meeting for live-streaming and television viewing, and indexing meetings by
agenda topics (which would require an upgrade). She would like the LMCC to identify what all the costs
for providing cable television and video-on-demand access to work session would be. She was not
uncomfortable with cablecasting the work sessions, but she wanted to know all the costs before taking
action on the item. She commented the increased LMCC costs for video-on-demand would be funded by
cable users; they would not be funded by Internet users that did not have cable.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the costs for additional video-on-demand streaming of meetings would
be minimal portion of the additional block of bandwidth the LMCC purchased. He then stated indexing
by agenda was something the LMCC was considering and no decision had been made to do so as of yet.
If the technology were to be purchased the City would have to pay additional costs to have its meetings
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
January 28, 2008
Page 6 of 9
indexed; someone would be trained to do that for the regular Council meetings so there would not be
additional training required for work sessions.
Motion passed 3/l, with Lizee dissenting.
D. Councilmember Resignation /Appointment Process
Administrator Dawson stated that former Ward 3 Councilmember Paula Callies had submitted her
resignation from the City Council effective January 18, 2008. Ms. Callies vas appointed to serve as the
City Attorney for the City of Dundas; her responsibilities included lttendance at Dundas' council
meetings which were held on the same evenings as the Shorewood City Council meetings. He explained
Council must approve a resolution accepting Ms. Callie's resignation and declaring a vacancy existed.
Administrator Dawson then reviewed two proposed schedule/advertising optiohs for filling the Council
vacancy: Option 1) this option relied media releases and the Citv's website; and, Option 2) this option
relied on the use of media releases, the City's website, and advertisement. Option 1 could be: completed
faster than Option 2. He explained that the Ward 3 Council vacancy must filled from a resident in Ward
3. Because more than one-half of the term was remaining for that office; a special election would have to
be held November 2008. The person elected in November would i°~11 the remainder of the term; as soon as
the election was canvassed the person could be seated on the Council. He clarified the interim
appointment of a Councilmember would remain in effect until the ca~ivassing was completed.
Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Adopting Ri~~SOLUTION NO. 08-010. "A Resolution Accepting
the Resignation ofWard 3 Council MemberPaula Callies and Declaring a Vacancy on the City
Council." Motion passed 4/0.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he would not be able to participate in person in the interviews on March
3, 2008, but he could participate by pho~~e.
In response to a question from Councilmember. Wellens, Attorney Keane explained if there was no one
interested in the Ward 3 seat it would remain open until the special election.
Councilmember Woodruff requested that a specific date be set for appoinhnent of the elected
Councilmember. Attorney Keane stated Council could, by ordinance, specify the elected Councilmember
would be a~~ointed at the first regular Council meeting after the election. Woodruff stated he could
support that being the official start date.
Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, approving the schedule for appointing an interim Ward 3
Councilmember which was as follows: January 30 -February 21, 2008 -advertise on the City's
website and publish press releases; February 21, 2008, 12:00 P.M. -close the acceptance of letters
of interest and distribute the letter to Councilmembers as soon as possible; March 3, 2008 -
interview the applicants; and March 10, 2008 -make the appointment of the interim Ward 3
Councilmember. Motion passed 4/0.
E. Replacement Appointments to Certain Offices and Positions within the City
Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 08-Oll. "A Resolution
Amending Appointments to Certain Offices and Positions within the City of Shorewood for the
Year 2008, subject to the following amendments: Park Commission Liaison for January -June
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
January 28, 2008
Page 7 of 9
2008 would be Martin Wellens; Metro Cities (Association of Metro Municipalities) would be
Martin Wellens, with Craig Dawson as alternate; Excelsior Fire District Board Member would be
Martin Wellens; and Alternate Excelsior Fire District Board Member would be Richard
Woodruff." Motion passed 4/0.
Mayor Lizee thanked Ms. Callies for her many years of service to the City; and, stated she hoped the City
could do something to recognize them. She stated Ms. Callies had served as a Councilmember and in that
capacity she was a good representative for residents in her Ward as well as for all the residents in
Shorewood; she also served the residents well when she served as a member of the Planning
Commission. Ms. Callies currently served as a member of the Parks .Foundation Board and would
continue to serve in that capacity. Lizee wished her well in her new endeavors and stated she would be
greatly missed.
F. Amendment to City Code Regarding Sump Pump Connections
Administrator Dawson explained in a recent federal court case, a provision in the City of Little Canada's
Code regarding administrative searches for connections of sump pump discharges into the. sanitary sewer
system was found to be unconstitutional. He stated he and the. C ity Attorney had reviewed the provisions
in Shorewood's Code regarding the matter and they recommended an amendment to the City's "sump
pump ordinance" that would be in keeping with the federal district court findings.
In response to a series of questions from Councilmember Woodruff; the following clarifications were
made:
- For properties not. in compliance, they were char~eci a sump-pump surcharge of $300 per
quarter. The City .could determine how long it would like to wait before securing an
administrative search warrant for inspection for noncompliance.
- If a property chose to hire a plumber to conduct the inspection, the property owner would
pay for the cost ~f that inspection.
- if the City conducted the it~spectio~r the City would pay the cost for the ~inspeetion.
Couneilme~nber Wellens'c~larified the City could secure the administrative search warrant. Attorney
Keane clarified the search warrant would have to be approved and authorized by the court.
Wellens mo~~ed, Woodruff seconded, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 447, "An Ordinance
Amending Chapter 904 of the Shorewood City Code Relating to Prohibited Discharges into the
Sanitary Sewer System." Motion passed 4/0.
10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for Civil Defense Sirens
Director Brown stated a need identified in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) was the replacement
of two civil defense sirens within the City. He explained Bryan Litsey, Emergency Management Director,
had advised all South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) member cities that all of the sirens
currently in operation had numerous problems and were in need of replacement. He commented
Greenwood and Tonka Bay had already secured contracts for the installation of their systems. He stated
the City had solicited quotes and received quotes from Ready Watt Electric, Inc., and Federal Warning
Systems, Inc. The low quote was submitted by Ready Watt Electric for an amount of $40,304; that
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
January 28, 2008
Page 8 of 9
amount was within the budget amount of $50,000. Staff recommended accepting the quote from Ready
Watt Electric for the replacement of the Civil Defense Sirens.
In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Director Brown stated the contractor would
commence with the work immediately provided the weather was not severely cold. Brown anticipated the
new sirens would be functional before the 2008 storm season. Woodruff stated he was provided with the
detailed information on what would actually be purchased.
Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, authorizing the expenditure ~f funds from the Public
Facilities Fund for the amount of $40,304 for the purchase of replacement Civil Defense Sirens
from Ready Watt Electric. Motion passed 4/0.
B. Establishing May 17, 2008, as Spring Clean-up Day Sirens
This item was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Turgeon's request.
Councilmember Turgeon stated she was not opposed fo setting the date for the City's :spring clean-up
day. She questioned if the City should consider participating in a multi-community drop-off hazardous
waste recycling effort in conjunction with Hennepin County to reach the vohtme necessary for residents
to be able to drop off their hazardous waste free of charge. She would hope that the five South Lake cities
would participate in a joint effort. If a joint effort would not happen, then she suggested that the City
should tell its residents to drop off their hazardous waste at Minnetouka's drop-off site (which was what
Deephaven was telling its residents to do). She commented that Minnctonka's spring clean-up days were
scheduled for May 17 - 19, 2008.
Director Brown stated typically Staff had directedresidents to the Minnetonka drop-off site when they
came to the Public Worksfacility with hazardous waste on spring clean-up day. He then stated the City
had tried to do collect hazardous waste, but the Citv did not generate enough volume to make it
worthwhile for the recyeler the County used. He stated he would contact the other Lake area
communities to see if they had interesi in conducting a joint effort.
Mayor I,izee stated if the City did a cooperative effort, she recommended the location for the drop-off be
one with easy access to and from the site, She did not think the Public Works site would be conducive to
a mUili-city effort.
Councilmembcr'hurgeon commended that Deephaven had already scheduled its spring clean-up day for
May 5, 2008.
In response to a question frc~tn Councilmember Woodruff, Administrator Dawson stated the City usually
published the date for the spring clean-up effort in the April newsletter.
Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, establishing May 17, 2008, as Spring Clean-up Day for the City
of Shorewood. Motion passed 4/0.
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
January 28, 2008
Page 9 of 9
STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator & Staff
Administrator Dawson stated a meeting of the cities' members of the Southshore Center working group
was scheduled for January 29, 2008; there was a SLMPD Coordinating Committee scheduled for January
30, 2008, at 4:00 P.M. and that meeting would be followed by a SLMPD Strategic Planning meeting at
5:30 P.M. He then stated a flyer had been routed to Council regarding the National Incident Management
System training course for elected officials scheduled for February 27, 2008; he commented that a similar
course had been conducted two years ago. Councilmember Woodruff stated he would not be able to
attend the course, but would like to attend awake-up session if one was conducted. Dawson stated there
was another meeting scheduled for January 29, 2008, with Collaborative Design Group.
Director Brown stated the turnout for the Arctic Fever event «~as good,
Councilmember Wellens stated a copy of his report on the EFD Board meeting held. January 23, 2008,
was included in the meeting packet.
B. Mayor & City Council
Mayor Lizee recessed the meeting at 8:08 P.M. to the work session. which would be followed by an
Executive Session.
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION -CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S PClti~ ORMANCE REVIEW
Mayor Lizee convened the executive session at 9:00 p.m.
The purpose of the executive session was to discuss the City Administrator's performance review. All
Councilmembers and Administrator Dawson were prese~i~.
Mayor Lizee reconvened the regular meeting at 9:50 P.M.
12. ADJOURN
A motion w~is .made and seconded, adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of January 28,
2008, at 9:50 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Christine Lizee, Mayor
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2008 5:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 5:00 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Turgeon, Wellens aa~d Woodruff
Others Present: Attorney Keane, Beth Papacek
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, recessing the meeting to an Executive Session at 5:05 P.M.
Motion passed 4/0.
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION -PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS
The purpose of the c~ecutive session was to discuss the performance evaluation for the City
Administrator. All Council members were present.
The City Council reconvened in special session at 5:45 P.M.
3. ti DJOURN
Wellens moved, Woodruff. seconded, Adjourning the City Council Special Meeting of February 1,
2008, at 5:46 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
Christine Lizee, Mayor
ATTEST:
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
#2c
PAYABLES APPROVALS
For 02/11/2008 Council Meeting
,,~ - ,
E
,, ~ '
~-
Prepared by: L , ; ~ ~~`,~ ~ ~ Date:~,~ _. ~
Michelle T. Nguy , ' r. Accounting Clerk l
a ~ ~
Rcvicwcd tiy: .~ `_ Date: - ~~ `~ s
Bonnie Burton. I ~ i n <<» ce Director
~ r
Approved by: ° ''}
Crai [~awson, City
Administrator
Date:
<r .> s ~~
PAYROLL APPROVALS
For 02/11/2008 Council Meeting
a
I ~
.? l~
Prepared by: / ~ ~ ~ ~ Date: ~~~ `~
Michelle T. Nguy~ri,r. Accounting Clerk
~~ ~
Reviewed by: = ; ` ;~~- Date: ~ f ~; °~ ~~~; ~d-
Bonnie Burt~>», Finance Director
. ~_
Approved by: p ,~- Date: _ , ~ `J
Crai ; [~awson, City Administrator
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:
SUBJECT:
February 7, 2008
Intent to Extend Agreement with Hennepin County for Assessment Services
The City has contracted with Hennepin County to provide property assessment services since the
2000 assessment year. The original agreement provided an extension after four years, and in 2004
the City renewed the service agreement for another four years. The cost for services stated in the
2004 agreement was $75,000 (for an August 1 -July 31 year), and has increased gradually per the
terms of the agreement to $87,000 for the current service year. The estimate of cost for the first year
of an extended agreement is $90,500, based on the level of new (including significant remodeling)
construction. (In the current service year, there are 223 parcels with "new" construction.)
Section 11 of the agreement provides for afour-year extension initiated by either party providing a
written notice of intent to do so at least 150 days prior to the termination of the agreement (i.e., by
March 3). Hennepin County has provided its written notice. If the City wishes not to extend the
agreement, it must give written notice within 110 days of the termination date (i.e., starting April 12),
and the agreement will terminate on July 31, 2008. The County is requesting that the City provide a
written notice of intent to extend the agreement in order to be able to plan for the 2009 assessment
year.
As a practical matter, there are very few private firms or individuals that offer these services.
Hennepin County has more resources to ensure that the statutorily-required assessment (at least 20%
of parcels plus new construction annually) is performed. It also provides greater consistency in
property valuations across the many jurisdictions in Hennepin County that it serves. Additionally,
starting in 2006 the City Council discontinued its role as the Board of Review and transferred that.
authority for three years to the County's "open-book meeting", at which property owners may seek
adjustment of the new estimated market values calculated by the assessor. The City must retain the
County's assessing services in order to continue the open-book meeting process conducted by the
County.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize that written notice be sent to Hennepin
County stating the City's intent to extend the Assessment Services Agreement for four years.
a' ~. -
l-®«' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~ `-.~ --»'
~nn~ in ®un asses®r epartrner@t
- - . _ _ __
A-2103 Government Center www.co.hennepin.mn.us
300 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55487-0213
January 23, 2008
Craig Dawson
Shorewood City Administrator
5755 Country Club Rd.
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Craig:
Re: Assessment Agreement A031910
This Assessment Agreement between the County of Hennepin and the City of Shorewood
expires July 31, 2008. Section 11 of this agreement provides that this agreement maybe
extended for a term of four (4) years by either party giving the other written notice to its
intent to so extend no less than 150 days prior to the termination of this agreement.
We would appreciate a written notice of your intent at your earliest convenience so we
may start planning for the 2009 assessment.
We truly appreciate our professional association with the City of Shorewood and look
forward to performing assessment services for the City. If you have any questions or
concerns, feel free to call me at (612) 348-3388.
Very truly yours,
~.
William G. Effertz ~
Assistant County Assessor
Cc: Rob Wings
Tamara Doolittle
din Cgttaf Qp~~ortunity tn~~foyet~
Contract No. A031910
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as
the "COUNTY", and the CITY OF SHOREWOOD, a political subdivision of the State of
Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "CITY";
WHEREAS, said CITY lies wholly within the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN and
constitutes a separate assessment district; and
WHEREAS, under such circumstances, the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 273.072 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 permit the County Assessor
to provide for the assessment of property; and
WHEREAS, said CITY desires the COUNTY to perform certain assessments
on behalf of said CITY; and
WHEREAS, the GOUNTY is willing to cooperate with said CITY by completing
the assessment in a proper manner;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained
herein, it is agreed as follows:
1. The COUNTY shall perform the 2005, 2000, 2007, and 2003 property
assessment for the CITY OF SHOREWOOD in accordance with property assessment
procedures and practices established and observed by the COUNTY, the validity and
reasonableness of which are hereby acknowledged and approved by the CITY. Any
such practices and procedures may be changed from time to time, by the COUNTY in
its sole judgment, when good and efficient assessment procedures so reguire. The
property assessment by the COUNTY shall be composed of those assessment services
which are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this
reference, provided that the time frames set forth therein shall be considered to be
approximate only.
2. All information, records, data, reports, etc. necessary to allow the
COUNTY to carry out its herein responsibilities shall be furnished to the COUNTY
without charge by the CITY, and the CITY agrees to cooperate in good faith with the
COUNTY in carrying out the work under this Agreement.
3. The CITY agrees to furnish, without charge, office space needed by the
COUNTY at appropriate places in the CITY's offices. The keys thereto shall be
provided to the COUNTY. The CITY assures that such areas shall not be unattended,
during or after work of any kind by or on behalf of the CITY, in any area occupied by
the COUNTY as provided herein, or if unattended, the CITY shall make certain that
such areas are locked and secured. Such office space shall be sufficient in size to
accommodate reasonably two (2) appraisers and any furniture placed therein. The
office space shall be available for the COUNTY°s use at any and all times during the
CBTY's business hours, and during all such hours the COUNTY shall be provided with
levels of heat, air conditioning and ventilation as are appropriate for the seasons.
4. The CITY also agrees to provide appropriate desk and office furniture as
necessary, clerical and secretarial support necessary and reasonable for the carrying
out of the work herein, necessary office supplies and equipment, c®pying machines and
fax machines and their respective supplies, and telephone service to the COUNTY, all
without charge to the COUNTY.
i~3
5. It shall be the responsibility of the CITY to have available at the CITY's
offices each CITY working day a person who has the knowledge and skill to be able to
answer routine questions pertaining to homesteads and property assessment matters
and to receive, evaluate and organize homestead applications. It shall also be the
responsibility of the CITY to promptly refer any homestead application which needs
investigation to the COUNTY.
6. In accordance with Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the
County Commissioners' policies against discrimination, no person shall be excluded
from full employment rights or participation in or the benefits of any program, service or
activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status,
sexual orientation, public assistance status, ex-offender status or national origin; and
no person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws, rules and regulations
against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination.
7. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be
construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of joint venturers
or co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the CITY as the agent,
representative or employee of the C®UNTY for any purpose or in any manner
whatsoever. Any and all personnel of CITY_or other persons, while engaged in the
perFormance of any activity under this Agreement, shall have no contractual
relationship with the C®UNTY and shall not be considered employees of the C®UNTY
and any and all claims that may or might arise under the VVorkers° Compensation Act of
the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged,
and any an~1 all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or persdnnel arising
~~)
out of employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of
discrimination against the CITY, its officers, agents, CITY or employees shall in no way
be the responsibility of the COUNTY, and CITY shall defend, indemnify and hold the
COUNTY, its officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers
harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent
tribunal, agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall
not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind
whatsoever from the COUNTY, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and
hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers° Compensation, Re-employment
Compensation, disability, severance pay and retirement benefits.
8. CITY agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold the COUNTY, its
elected officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers harmless
from any and all liability (statutory or othe~ise) claims, suits, damages, judgments,
interest, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees and
disbursements incurred in the defense thereof) resulting form or caused by any act or
omission of the CITY, its officers, agents, contractors, employees or duly authorized
volunteers in the performance of the responsibilities provided by this Agreement.
~_ The COUNTY shall endeavor to perform all services called for herein in
~~T~
10. Neither party hereto shall be deemed to be in default of any provision of
this Agreement, or for delay or failure in performance, resulting from causes beyond the
reasonable control of such party, which causes shall include, but are not limited to, acts
of God, labor disputes, acts of civil or military authority, fire, civil disturbance, changes
in laws, ordinances or regulations which materially affect the provisions hereof, or any
other causes beyond the parties' reasonable control.
11. This Agreement shall commence on August 1, 2004, and shall terminate
on July 31, 2008. Either party may initiate an extension of this Agreement for a term of
four (4) years by giving the other written notice of its intent to so extend no less
than 150 days prior to the termination of this Agreement. If the party who receives said
notice of intent to extend gives written notice to the other party of its desire not to
extend within 110 days prior to termination of this Agreement, this Agreement shall
terminate on July 31, 2008.
Nothing herein shall preclude the parties, prior to the end of this Agreement, from
agreeing to extend this contract for a term of four (4) years. Any extended term hereof shall
be on the same terms and conditions set forth herein and shall commence on August 1, 2008.
Either party may terminate this Agreement for "just cause`° as determined by the
Commissioner of Revenue after hearing for such a determination is held by the Commissioner
of Revenue and which has been attended by representatives of C®UNTY and CITY or which
said representatives had a reasonable opportunity to attend, provided that after such
determination, any party desiring to cancel this Agreement may do so by giving the other party
no less than 120 days° written notice. If the CITY should cancel this Agreement, as above
provided, before the completion of the then currant property assessment by the C®~96~TY, the
i5)
CITY agrees to defend and hold the COUNTY, its officials, officers, agents, employees and
duly authorized volunteers harmless from any liability that might ensue as a result of the non-
completion of a property tax assessment.
For the purpose of this Agreement, the term "just cause" shall mean the failure of
any party hereto reasonably to perform a material responsibility arising hereunder.
12.A. In consideration of said assessment services, the CITY agrees to pay the
COUNTY the sum of Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($75,000) for each assessment,
provided that any payment for the current year's assessment may be increased or
decreased by that amount which exceeds or is less than the COUNTY's estimated cost
of appraising new construction and new parcels for the current year's assessment. The
amount of any increase or decrease shall be specified in the billing for the current
year's assessment.
12.B. Regarding each assessment, in addition to being subject to adjustment
in the above manner, said assessment cost of $75,000.00 may also be increased by
the COUNTY if:
(1) The COUNTY determines that any cost to the COUNTY in carrying
out any aspect of this Agreement has increased, including but not
limited to the following types of costs: new construction and new
parcel appraisals, gasoline, postage, supplies, labor (including
fringe benefits) and other types of costs, whether similar or
dissimilar; and/or
2) The COUNTY reasonably determines that other costs should be
included in the costs of assessment work.
If the COUNTY desires to increase the assessment cost pursuant to this
paragraph 12(B), it shall give written notice thereof by June 15 of any year and such
increase shall apply to the assessment for the calendar year next following the current
(5)
calendar year. Any such notification shall specifically set forth the amount of any new
construction and new parcel appraisal charges. Notwithstanding any provisions herein to
the contrary, if any such increase, exclusive of any charge for the estimated costs of new
construction and new parcel appraisals, exceeds ten (10%) percent of the amount charged
for the assessment for the then current calendar year, exclusive of any charge for the
estimated costs of new construction and new parcel appraisals, the CITY may cancel this
Agreement by giving to the COUNTY written notice thereof, provided that said cancellation
notice must be received by the COUNTY not later than July 24 of the then current calendar
year and said cancellation shall be effective no earlier than five (5) days after the receipt of
said notice by the COUNTY and not later than July 31 of said current calendar year.
Supportive records of the cost increase will be open to inspection by the CITY at such times
as are mutually agreed upon by the COUNTY and CITY.
Failure of the COUNTY to give the CITY aprice-change notice by June 15
shall not preclude the COUNTY from giving CITY such notice after said date but prior
to September 1 of any year, provided that if such price increase exceeds said ten
(1®%) -all as above set forth -the CITY may cancel this Agreement if the COUNTY
receives notice thereof not later than thirty-nine (39) days from the date of receipt by
the CITY of any said late price-change notice, provided further that any such
cancellation shall be effective not earlier than five (5) days after COUNTY°s receipt of
said cancellation notice and not later than forty-six (4C) days after the CITY°s receipt of
any said price-increase notice.
Payment for each assessment shall be made in the following manner:
Approximately one-half (1/2) of the cost of an assessment (the amount payable being
~')
set forth in a bill sent by the COUNTY to the CITY) shall be paid by the CITY no later
than the fifteenth (15th) day of the December which precedes the pertinent assessment
year; and the remaining portion of said cost (the amount payable being set forth in a bill
sent by the COUNTY to the CITY} shall be paid by the CITY no later than July 15 of the
pertinent year.
The COUNTY may bill the CITY after the aforesaid dates and in each such case,
the CITY shall pay such bill within fifteen (15) days after receipt thereof. In the event
the CITY receives a bill less than fifteen (15) days before said December 15 or said
July 15, such bill shall be paid not more than fifteen (15) days after its receipt.
13. Any notice or demand, which may or must be given or made by a party
hereto, under the terms of this Agreement or any statute or ordinance, shall be in
writing and shall be sent registered or certified mail to the other party addressed as
follows:
TO CITY: Mayor, City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
TO COUNTY: Hennepin County Administrator
2300A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
copies to: County Assessor
Hennepin County
2103A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
Assistant County Assessor
Hennepin County
2103A Government Center
Minneapolis, M~9 55487
Any party may designate a different addressee or address at any time by giving
(8)
written notice thereof as above provided. Any notice, if mailed, properly addressed,
postage prepaid, registered or certified mail, shall be deemed dispatched on the
registered date or that stamped on the certified mail receipt and shall be deemed
received within the second business day thereafter or when it is actually received,
whichever is sooner. Any notice delivered by hand shall be deemed received upon
actual delivery.
14. It is expressly understood that the obligations of the CITY under
Paragraphs 7, 8, 11, and 12 hereof and the obligations of the CITY which, by their
sense and context, are intended to survive the performance thereof by the CITY, shall
so survive the completion of performance, termination or cancellation of this
Agreement.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]
t~~
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed by its duly authorized officers and delivered on its behalf, this ~ day of
~ ~. , 2004.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OFI.A~~NNESOTA-~--~~__,
~?~
~il C*g •-~..I r"~.,~:ygrREft;~~3J^ ~.~;K(tr Fs ' ~y'~."3
By: - _ _ _ - - - .
Chair of the County Board y p~f
~/~
And: ~~~~~ ~~- Gf ,;,
A istant/Deputy/Count ministrator
ATTEST: lit.
Deputy lark of the County Board
CITY OF S~iO E OOD
By: _ ._
Its
And:
Its ~° ~~ ~~
City organized under:
Statutory Option A Option B Charter
i~ ~e
i~ ~
Contract No. A031910
EXHIBIT A
CITY ®F SHOREVVOO®
During the contract term, the County shall:
1. Physically inspect and revalue 20% of the real property, as required by
law.
2. Physically inspect and value all new construction, additions and
renovation.
3. Conduct valuation reviews prior to Board of Review -approximate dates:
March through May 15.
4. Attend Board of Review. Per Board request, make all necessary review
appraisals. Approximate dates: April 1 -May 31 .
5. Keep updated field card file -current values, homestead and classification
data.
6. Print, mail and post valuation notices and homestead cards.
7. Respond to taxpayers regarding assessment or appraisal problems or
inquirees periodically.
B. Make divisions and combinations periodically.
9. Administer the abatement process pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 375.192 (2000)
10. Make appraisals, defend and/or negotiate all Tax Court cases.
11. Post values from appraisal cards to assessment rolls.
12. Adjust estimated market values on those properties not physically
inspected as needed as per sales analysis.
n r
( 1 4
II`I'
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 7, 2008
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
RE: Appointments to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD)
The City has advertised the LMCD volunteer board opportunity to residents. One individual, Mr.
Richard Saikal of 25680 Birch Bluff Road, has expressed an interest in serving on the LMCD
Board. Council interviewed Mr. Saikal earlier this evening.
Council may consider adopting the Resolution appointing Mr. Saikal to the LMCD Board.
A draft resolution is attached.
Council Action
A motion to adopt a Resolution making an appointment to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation
District Board.
j®p® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 08-
A RESOLUTION MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE LAKE
MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood appoints a resident to represent the City on
the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District; and
WHEREAS, the City advertised this volunteer board opportunity for appointment
to said Board;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood to hereby appoint Richard Saikal to represent the City of Shorewood on the
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District effective February 11, 200.8 through January 31,
2009.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 1 lth day of February, 2008.
ATTEST:
Christine Lizee, Mayor
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
CITY
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD > SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 ^ www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 7, 2008
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
RE: Park Commission Appointments
Earlier this evening, Council interviewed four candidates for the Park Commission. There are currently
two Park Commission openings to be filled for athree-year term beginning March 1, 2008 - February
28, 2011; and one opening to fill the seat vacated by Mr. Paul Alegi, for the term ending February 28,
2010. Appointments to these terms would complete the seven-member Park Commission.
One topic that is to be discussed at the Park Commission meeting on February 12th is the viability of
aseven-member commission, and whether afive-member commission would be sufficient to fulfill
the purpose of the Park Commission. This is being considered as there seems to be a consistent
amount of turnover on the Park Commission, with members not able to fulfill their entire term. Also,
inconsistent attendance has been an issue which has impacted there being a quorum.
It is suggested that if the Park Commission were to be down-sized to afive-member commission, this
would be phased in as members' terms expire. Chapter 202 of the City Code does state that the Park
Commission shall consist of up to seven members.
As the Park Commission plans to discuss and make a recommendation on the number of members at
its February 12 meeting, the Council could consider this recommendation at its February 25, 2008,
meeting, and postpone the Park Commission appointments until February 25. If Council decides to
make appointments this evening, a resolution making the Park Commission appointments is provided
for Council's consideration.
Council Action
Should appointments be made at tonight's meeting, a motion to adopt a Resolution making Park
Commission appointments is in order. Alternatively, the Council may move to continue this
item to its February 25, 2008, meeting.
.. ~,.r; _
t • PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER - ~` ~`~
®p
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO.08-
A RESOLUTION MAKING PARK COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has advertised for Shorewood residents to apply to
serve on the Park Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Shorewood hereby makes the following appointments to the Park Commission effective February
11, 2008, with the term expiration as indicated:
Park Commission:
Member Term Expiring
1, February 28, 2011
2. February 28, 2011
3. February 28, 2010
Said appointments complete the seven member Park Commission which consists of the
following additional members:
Member Term Expiring
4. Howard Young February 28, 2009
5. Robert Hensley
6. Sue Davis
7. Josh Trent
February 28, 2009
February 28, 2010
February 28, 2010
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 1 lth
day of February, 2008.
ATTEST:
Christine Lizee, Mayor
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 ° www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator
DATE: January 29, 2008
SUBJECT: Policy for Public Purpose Expenditures for Employee Recognition, Etc.
At the January 28 work session, City Council reviewed a draft of policies for employee recognition
and other public purposes. It had bee freely adapted from policies of the City of Minnetonka. During
its discussion in the work session, Council asked that two items be added for permitted expenditures.
These items now appear as follows:
lA, fourth bullet from bottom of list:
Refreshments (e.g., coffee or water services) made available for City employees and
guests, visitors, and others conducting business with the City for productivity and
hospitality.
2A, last bullet on page 2:
Enhancing or ensuring the safety of the public and City employees while using public
facilties (e.g., centralized hot water for coffee, tea).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council approve the Policy regarding Employee Recognition and
Public Purpose Expenditures.
., ~- ..
~®~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Purpose regarding Employee Recognition:
By an Act of the Legislature in 2007, cities are expressly granted the authority to establish and make
expenditures for activities recognizing their employees. As codified in Minnesota Statute § 15.46,
"... A county or a statutory or home rule charter city may establish and operate a program of
preventive health and employee recognition services for its employees and may provide
necessary staff, equipment, and facilities and may expend funds as necessary to achieve the
objectives of the program."
The following is intended to provide guidelines regarding which personnel expenditures are for
public purposes. Examples are not meant to be all-inclusive. These permitted expenditures are
intended to serve the public purpose of recruitment and retention of the City's largest asset, its
personnel. These practices are meant to ensure high employee productivity and morale and reduce
expenses from low productivity and high turnover (e.g., recruitment, training, inexperience, and lack
of knowledge). Personnel is meant to have a broad definition, and to include members of the City
Council, staff, members of advisory boards and commissions and committees, and volunteers.
1. EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION -MEALS AND REFRESHMENTS
A. Permitted Expenditures:
Use of City funds in reasonable amounts for meals and/or refreshments for elected and appointed
City officials and employees are permitted in the following circumstances:
• City-sponsored events of a community-wide interest where staff are required to be present.
• City Council, boards and commissions and committees meetings held during or adjacent to a
meal hour.
• Professional association meetings.
• Meetings related to City business in which the ..attendees are predominantly non-city
representatives (e.g., city/school district meetings, Chamber of Commerce meetings).
• Meetings, training or conferences held outside the seven-county metropolitan area.
• Conferences and training when meals are included as part of the registration or program fee,
or when meals are not included but a necessary expense due to travel.
.s
~®p0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
2
• Annual employee recognition events to which all employees are invited (e.g., City Council's
annual appreciation event, which also applies to guests).
• Annual recognition events for non-benefited employees (e.g., City Council's annual
appreciation event, which applies to members of board and commissions and committees, and
their guests; SLMPD Reserve Officer appreciation event).
• City-sponsored training or work-related meetings where employees are required to participate
or be available during break periods.
• Work activities requiring continuous service when it is not possible to break for meals (e.g.,
election days, watermain breaks).
Refreshments (e.g., coffee or water services) made available for City employees and guests,
visitors, and others conducting business with the City for productivity and hospitality.
• Events recognizing participants in aCity-sponsored wellness program).
• Retirement or leaving-employment recognition (light refreshments only).
Events recognizing completion of a significant work-related project.
B. Prohibited Expenditures:
Use of City funds for meals and/or refreshments for elected and appointed City officials and
employees are prohibited in the following circumstances:
• Purchase of alcoholic beverages for City-sponsored events.
• Purchase of alcoholic beverages as part of an otherwise authorized meal expense.
• Employee-sponsored fundraising events (e.g., charitable giving campaign)
• Employee functions or celebrations that are solely social in nature (e.g., birthdays, holiday
luncheon)
• Fundraisers for non-City related events.
• Meetings, training or conferences held inside the seven-county metropolitan area.
Conferences and training when meals are not included as part of the registration or program
fee, unless meals are a necessary expense due to travel.
• Meetings between staff members not in accordance with "l.A. Permitted Expenditures for
Meals and Refreshments" (above).
2. EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION -OTHER EXPENDITURES
A. Other Permitted Expenditures:
Use of City funds in reasonable amounts are permitted in the following circumstances:
• For a funeral flower arrangement upon death of an employee or elected official, or one of
their immediate family members.
• Prizes of moderate value awarded randomly at employee recognition events.
• Awards of limited value to all attendees at employee recognition events..
• Awards of limited value for participants in aCity-sponsored wellness program.
• Meals, refreshments, or other items of limited value for people who volunteer for the City.
• Enhancing or ensuring the safety of the public and City employees while using public
facilities (e.g., centralized hot water for coffee, tea).
B. Other Prohibited Expenditures:
Use of City funds are prohibited in the following circumstance(s):
• Participation in recreational activities unless included as part of an overall conference
registration fee.
3. OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSE EXPENDITURES
Purpose: This section is intended to provide guidelines regarding some miscellaneous- expenditures
that are for public purposes. Examples are not meant to be all-inclusive. These expenditures are
intended to serve the public purpose of fostering community relations, cooperative associations, and
positive relationships with residents and the business and nonprofit communities.
A. Permitted Expenditures:
Use of City funds in reasonable amounts are permitted in the following circumstances:
• Memberships and dues in organizations when the primary purpose of the membership is for
public benefit and not personal interest or gain.
• Refreshments or items of limited value available to attendees at City-sponsored events to
which members of the public have been invited (e.g., City cultural events, neighborhood
information meetings).
• Meals or refreshments for afee-for-service of volunteer consultant attending aCity-sponsored
meeting in which employees qualify under Section l .A. (above), and when that individual
plays a major role in the meeting (e.g., a trainer/instructor, manager of a City project).
B. Prohibited Expenditures:
Use of City funds are prohibited in the following. circumstances:
Gifts to private individuals or organizations.
Donations to non-City related events.
January 2008
[11'Y nF
sxoxEwooD
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, Public Works Director
FROM:. James Landini, City Engineer ~ ~..
DATE: February 7, 2008
RE: Chanhassen / Woodhaven hnterconnection Project Change Order 1 & 2, City Project
#OS-11.
On February 13, 2007 the City of Shorewood entered into a contract with G. L. Contracting, h1c. to
interconnect the Chanhassen Water system and the Woodhaven system. The project was completed
during the 2007 construction season.
The original contract was for $137,739.70. The project had two change orders, listed below, which
totaled $12,822.08. This amends the contract to $150,561.78. The 2007 Adopted Annual Operating
Budget lists a budget of $185,000.00 for this project.
- Change Order No. 1 was for an increased depth at a hydrant lead and to recomlect the water service
to 6100 Apple Rd. This change order is in the amount of $10,791.93. A resolution is attached for
your consideration.
- Change Order No. 2 was for bituminous repairs at the water service comlection. This change order
is in the amount of $2,030.15. A resolution is attached for your consideration..
The hydrant was relocated to avoid a gas utility conflict. The new hydrant location was deeper and
required an extension to comlect to the water main. The water service to 6100 Apple Rd. was
disconnected and relocated to provide an additional service for a potential lot split. During the
relocation of the service, the road was excavated, requiring bituminous repairs.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the resolution that accepts the two change orders for the
Chanhassen / Woodhaven Interconnection Project. Resolutions are attached for your
consideration.
of
s®~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 08-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER 1
FOR THE CHANHASSEN / WOODHAVEN INTERCONNECTION PROJECT,
CITY PROJECT NO. OS-11
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2007, the City of Shorewood entered into a contract
for construction with G. L. Contracting, h1c. for the Chanhassen / Woodhaven
Intercornlection Project, City Project No. OS-ll; and
WHEREAS, WSB and Associates has prepared Change Order 1 attached hereto
as Exhibit A, for additional work oirtside of the original contract; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has reviewed said Change Order and
found it to be cost effective for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Shorewood to approve
Change Order Number 1 with G. L. Contracting, Inc., that incorporates services outlined
in Change Order 1, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 1 lth day of
February, 2008.
ATTEST:
Christine Lizee, Mayor
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
CITY OI: 5H(~REWCIaD, MN
was i*RQ~IEGT Nt~.'1a74d9
OWNfEZ; CGINTRACTaR: .
r.ll, CONTRACTING, INC.
C3TY OF sHC~R~w~G . 43a0 WIk.Lt~W faRivi:
INEUiNA, NIN 5534U-9741
YOU ARE DIRECTEp fi{~ MAKE TH>= FC1l.l.OYiIING GRANGES !N THI; CON7i'iAGT DC~CUNiENT QECCR1P11C5N:
INCFZFASRD pEt=Y'FI t=C1R HYCi~tAM' i.~ACf. ~t1xCQNNECT WATRR SEftVICB FOR 61 dp AF'FL.E RQAD.
CONTRACT QUANTITIES ftflE MQRIFiED AS SHOWN UN ThIE ATTACHE>a D~'fAll.. °
IY IS UNpi"RS~TOt~q THAT THIS ~liANGE OROI~R INCLUDES Al,(, At3t}ITlpNAI. G05T5 ANp TIME EXTi=NSit?N5 WHICH ARE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, QR
Pf~RM ASSOCWTED WITH THE WORK 1=l.EMENTS Oir$CRIl3ED A80N~.
CHANGE IN CtIN CY PRICi+: GRANGiR IN CONTRACT TIME:
QRlGiNAL CONTftAC7 PRIDE: 513t,73g.7o gRlGINAL CONTRACT TIME: 8116/2W7
PRE1ltgUS GHANG>w gRDERS: NfA ~D.00 NET CHANGiw FRAM PREVIOUS CHANGE t71#DERS_ NONE
CONTRACT ItiRIC>w PRII'~R TO THIS CHANGE ORDER: $'t37,739.T0 CONTRACT TIME PE7tgR TO Tf11S CI•tANatr C1fipER: Et15r2ao7
NET INCIiEA5E OF THIS ~CHAN{aE ORI7&R; $iD,797,83 NET INCRFAS$ Wti'Ft ORANGE ORI3ER: NONE
CONTRACT PR1GE WtTli A[.I_ APPAgvECS CHANGE gRDER3: 514$,53'f.t33 CdNi'RACT TIME WITR AF~PRC3vEO CHANGE QRDl:RS sJ751~007
I~EC#~MMENpErD BY'
EV~~1.>~<.Gk! . ICE, PRpdECT MANAGE
APPRCIVED BY:
C RACTOR SIGNATURI=
WSF3 r'~ A5SOClf1TES, IND. C.L. Ct1NT1iACTiNG, IrtG.
ENGWEER Ct7NT13ACTOR
APPFiC+VED I3Y:
CITY ENCyIN~R CITY AOMINISTRATt3R
t]ATE OA'(Tr
ExlribitA
t
ADDED 1TEM~
Itam No, Mat. Nt~. I~escripti~n Q Unit price E=xtended Amount
35 21C4,{y43 HYG-FiANr i=3CTEh1SIi~N ~ 1 EAG#i SZ~J.95 S2~ff.9a
~& 3ExEU.saz REE;ONWECTwATi:RSERVICE 1 EACH $10,551.69 ~1t),551.~8
TOTAL, AaDED ITEMS GRANDE 1~RDER NC1. ~
DELETED tTE{VIS
$'I p~ 171.73
lt;sm No. Mat.1~o. L>eactiption City Unit RtiG+r Eartandad Anlaunt
'T'OTAL DELETED 171rM5 CHANOI: ORDER NU. 7 $0.0~
TOTAL. Ati~IUSTMENT T+C1 QRIC.~INAl. CUNTRACT AIVIOUNT $1078'1.93
F:SWAWiNIiOTE.C9lCr.n+:rnr~r;nn er+m r~+ao.r ~/ •,~r~--~•^~~ "^^b•'-' ^"`-- ,.._._u
TQTRL P. ~t3
i;i{ANMASSENIWCIOaHAVEN iNELL pRDdECT
Ci`iY i3F SHt]R>MWC7CJEy, NiN
W5E P"~kC>JECTND.'i57+4.49
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. OS-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER 2
FOR THE CHANHASSEN / WOODHAVEN INTERCONNECTION PROJECT,
CITY PROJECT NO. OS-11
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2007, the City of Shorewood entered into a contract
for construction with G. L. Contracting, hlc. for the Chanhassen / Woodhaven
Interconnection Project, City Project No. OS-1 l; and
WHEREAS, WSB and Associates has prepared Change Order 2 attached hereto
as Exhibit A, for additional work outside of the original contract; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has reviewed said Change Order and
found it to be cost effective for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Shorewood to approve
Change Order Number 2 with G. L. Contracting, Inc., that incorporates services outlined
in Change Order 2, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 1 lth day of
February, 2008.
ATTEST:
Christine Lizee, Mayor
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
CHANGE:ORDER-N~O. 2
CHANHASSEN/WOODHAVEN WELL PROJECT 9/20/2007
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MN
WSB PROJECT NO. 1074-49
OWNER: CONTRACTOR:
G.L. CONTRACTING, INC.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 4300, WILLOW DRIVE
MEDINA, MN 55340-9701
YOU ARE DIRECTED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION:
BITUMINOUS REPAIRS AT WATER SERVICE CONNECTION
CONTRACT QUANTITIES ARE MODIFIED AS SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED DETAIL.
IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS CHANGE ORDER INCLUDES ALL ADDITIONAL COSTS AND TIME EXTENSIONS WHICH ARE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR
FORM ASSOCIATED WITH THE WORK ELEMENTS DESCRIBED ABOVE.
CHANGE iN CONTRACT PRICE: CHANGE !N CONTRACT TIME:
ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE: $137,739.70 ORIGINAL CONTRACT TIME: 6115!2007
PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS: N/A $10,791.93 NET CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS: NONE
CONTRACT PRICE PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER: $148,531.63 CONTRACT TIME PRIOR 70 THIS CHANGE ORDER: 6/15/2007
NET INCREASE OF THIS CHANGE ORDER: $2,030.15 NET INCREASE WITH CHANGE ORDER: NONE
CONTRACT PRICE WITH ALL APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS: $150,561.78 CONTRACT TIME WITH APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS 6/15/2007
RECOMMENDED BY:
I
~ ~.. .
<^~ EVEN G. GURNEY, PE, PROJECT MANAGER
APPROVED BY:
CONTRACTOR SI NATURE
WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENGINEER
G.L. CONTRACTING, INC.
CONTRACTOR
APPROVED BY:
CITY ENGINEER
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE DATE
Exhibit B
F:IWPWINN074-491Consiruction AdminlPay Voucherlt074-49 Change Order 2.x1sC0.2
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 DETAIL
CHANHASSEN/WOODHAVEN WELL PROJECT 9120/2007
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MN
WSt3 PROJECT NO. 1074-49
ADDED ITEMS
Item No. Mat. No. Description Qty Unit Price Extended Amount
37 2231.602 BITUMINOUS REPAIRS AT WATER SERVICE 1 EACH $2,030.15 $2,030,15
CONNECTION
TOTAL ADDED ITEMS CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 $2,030.15
DELETED ITEMS
Item No. Mat. No. Description Qty Unit Price Extended Amount
TOTAL DELETED ITEMS CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 $0.00
TOTAL ADJUSTMENT 70 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT
$2,030.15
f:IWPWINt70i4-d9lConsfiut(ion Admin lPay Vouclterl'107=(-45 Change Otdci 1.x fsCO: Detail
(I'lY nF
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, Public Works Director
FROM: James Landini, City Engineer ~.
DATE: Febniary 7, 2008
RE: Acceptance of Improvements and Authorize Final Payment for the Chanhassen /
Woodhaven Interconnection Project, City Project #OS-11.
On February 13, 2007 the City of Shorewood entered into a contract with G. L. Contracting, Inc. to
interconnect the Chanhassen Water system and the Woodhaven system. The project was completed
during the 2007 construction season. WSB has verified the constntctioil records and all the costs have
been tallied.
The original contract was for $137,739.70. The project had two change orders, listed below, which
totaled $12,822.08. This amended the contract to $150,561.78.
- Change Order No. 1 was for an increased depth at a hydrant lead and to recomiect the water service
to 6100 Apple Rd. This change order is in the amount of $10,791.93.
- Change Order No. 2 was for bituminous repairs at the water service connection. This change order
is in the amount of $2,030.15.
Less trees, sod, watermain, bituminous removal, and additional silt fence, ductile iron fittings,
watermain pipe water service pipe are some of the examples of field quantity changes that overall
decreased the project cost by $7,095.88 from the amended contract of $150,561.78 to $143,465.90.
The 2007 Adopted Annual Operating Budget lists a budget of $185,000.00 for this project.
Acceptance of the Construction Project and Authorize Final Payment.
This portion accepts the final project and authorizes final payment to G. L. Contracting, Inc. The final
project cost is $143,465.90.
~-®MB PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER f€ ({) /7
" 1(M°`J~
Mayor and City Council
Accept Southeast Area Well / Amesbury
Well Interconnection Project
February 7, 2008
Page 2 of 2
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the resolution that accepts the final project and authorizes
final payment for the Chanhassen / Woodhaven Interconnection Project. A resolution is
attached for your consideration.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FINAL IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING
FINAL PAYMENT FOR THE CHANHASSEN / WOODHAVEN
INTERCONNECTION PROJECT; CITY PROJECT #OS-11
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2007 the City of Shorewood entered into a contract
for construction with G. L. Contracting, Inc. for the Chanhassen / Woodhaven
Interconnection Project, City Project #OS-11; and,
WHEREAS, the Contractor has petitioned for final acceptance of the project and
final payment based on work performed to date; and,
WHEREAS, the Project Manager has made a final inspection of the project and
recommends acceptance and final payment be made by the City.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
The City hereby does accept the work completed pursuant to said contract and
authorizes final payment to the Contractor, and the two-year guarantee shall
commence as of November 8, 2007:
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this l lth day of
February, 2008.
ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-$927 • (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: February 6, 2008
RE: Authorization Accepting Proposal for the Abandomnent of Woodhaven Well and
Appurtenant Structure
The Woodhaven Well and appurtenant equipment were designed in 1979 for approximately 26 homes.
The well and building are located at 6140 Apple Rd. During an inspection in 2000, significant repairs
were identified. A feasibility study was ordered in 2000 and updated in 2004. The report displayed the
most cost effective solution was to connect the system with an adjacent municipality instead of
rebuilding the well and building.
The interconnection of the water system with the City of Chanhassen is complete and the Woodhaven
well and equipment are no longer needed. The City has identified the abandomnent of the well and
building as a goal for 2008. The project is forecasted to be complete in June 2008.
Attachment 1 is the proposal provided by WSB for plans and specifications for abandoning the well
and appurtenant equipment. Staff received the proposed contract for an amount of $5,200. If
approved, this will be funded by the Water Fund which has $8,000 budgeted for yearly Engineering
and $18,000 budgeted for the abandonment project in the 2008 Adopted Annual Operating Budget.
Recommendation
1
Staff recommends approval of a motion that accepts the proposal provided by WSB and
Associates, Inc. for abandonment of the Woodhaven Well and Appurtenant Structure.
.a ...
r~p® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
~~
~ Infrastructure ~ Engineering ~ Planning ~ Construction
January 31, 2008
Mr. James Landini, PE
City Engineer
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331-8926
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763 541-4800
Fax: 763 541-1700
Re: Proposal to Provide Engineering Services and Construction Observation for
Abandonment of Woodhaven Well and Appurtenant Structures
City of Shorewood, MN
Dear Mr. Landini:
WSB & Associates, Inc. (WSB) is pleased to provide you with the following proposal for engineering
services to assist the City of Shorewood (City) with the abandonment of the Woodhaven Well and well
house. These services will include obtaining quotes for the work, observation of the demolition work, and
construction administration of this project. Our understanding of this project is outlined below.
The City of Shorewood intends to abandon the existing Woodhaven Well and well house. In order to
accomplish this work, it is recommended that the project be split into two parts: well abandonment and
building demolition /site restoration,
The well must be abandoned in accordance with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725. This can most likely be
done by any licensed well driller.
Once the well is abandoned, the demolition contractor can begin work. It is recorrnnended that prior to
demolishing the building the City salvage any items they wish to retain. A complete list of these items will
be included in the documentation sent to prospective demolition contractors for the purposes of obtaining
quotes. The contractor will be responsible for disposing of all waste materials in the appropriate landfill
locations. This work will also include turf establishment for the site in the spring.
Proposed Base Fee
We propose to perform the defined tasks as they relate to abandoning Woodhaven well on an hourly basis for
an estimated fee of $5,200.00. The proposed base fee is based on our 2008 hourly billing rates (see
attached). The estimated fee is broken down as follows:
Prepare documentation necessary to obtain quotes $ 3,300.00
Bidding and Contract Award Phase $ 1,100.00
Construction Phase $ 800.00
Total Estimated Base Fee $ 5,200.00
Schedule
We anticipate a schedule that allows the demolition to be completed by June 15, 2008, provided
authorization to proceed is given from the City of Shorewood by February 15, 2008.
WISGGIproposallLTR PROP Woo~lhm~en -0 /3108.~1oc
Mr. James Landini, PB
City of Shorewood
January 31, 2008
Page 2
If you are in agreement with the scope of services, please have the City block of this letter signed and return
a copy to WSB. Our receipt of an executed copy will be WSB's authorization to proceed. Monthly project
invoices and reimbursements are due within 30 days after receipt of WSB's invoice.
We look forward to working with the City on this project. If you have any questions, please call me at (763)
287-7164.
Sincerely,
WSB c~c Associates, It7c.
Steven G. Gurney, PE
Project Manager
ACCEPTED:
City of Shorewood
By:
Date:
N'ISGGIproRosallLTR PROP P['oodhm~en - 0/3108.doc
~,.
Principal
Associate
Sr. Project Manager/Sr. Project Engineer
Project Manager II/Project Engineer III
Project Manager/Project Engineer II/Engineering Specialist III
Project Engineer/Registered Land Surveyor/Engineering Specialist II
Graduate Engineer II/Engineering Specialist I/Sr. Construction Observer
Graduate Engineer/Engineering Technician V/Construction Observer
Engineering Technician IV/Scientist III
Engineering Technician III/Scientist II
E~~=_;ineeri~zg Technician II/Scientist I
Engineering Techni~~ian I
Office Technician II
Office Technician I
Survey (TthTo-Person Crew/GPS Crew)
S~~rvey (Three-Person Crew/Expanded GPS Crew)
Billing
Rafe/Hour
$134,00
$126.00
$121.00
$112.00
$105.00
$96.00
$86.00
$76.00
$68.00
$62.00
$5f~.00
$49.00
$62.00
$33.00
~.'~:£
4i
!._".
~~~
/~'a.
-/
Cy~i.'
~~
~ J
~ _7 1
%~
F'~
r~1.
C=7
t"-
-1
$140.00
$167.00
Costs associated with word processing, vehicle mileage, cell phones, reproduction of conunon
correspondence and mailing are inchidecl in the above hourly rates.
Reimbursable expenses include costs associated ~Nith plan, specification and report reproduction,
permit fee, delivery cost, etc.
Rate Schedule is adjusted annually.
2~,
_, .,,