Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
062308 CC Reg AgP
CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2008 AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. B. Review Agenda APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, June 9, 2008 (Att. - Minutes) Mayor Lizee Woodruff Turgeon Bailey Wellens B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, June 9, 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 Agendn+ A. Approval of the Verified Claims List (Att.- Claims List) B. Hennepin County Joint Cooperation Agreement for Fiscal Year 2009-201 I CDBG (Att. - Acting Administrator's memorandum, Resolution) C. Accept Storm Water Pollution Protection Program (SWPPP) Report and authorization to submit to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Att. -Engineer's memorandum) MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.) RECESS TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING RECONVENE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. A. Resolution Authorizing EDA to Sell Bonds for the City Hall Building Remodeling Project, Presented by Paul Donna, Northland Securities (Att. Finance D1reCtOr'S memorandum, Proposed Schedule, Finance Plan Summary, Resolution) CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA -JUNE 23, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 2 8. PUBLIC HEARING 9. PARKS -Report by Representative A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held June 10, 2008 (Att.- Draft Minutes) 10. PLANNING -Report by Representative A. Minor Subdivision (Att. -Planning Director's memorandum, Proposed Resolution) Applicant: Ann and Jack Carter Location: 5725 and 5705 Smithtown Way 11. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Investment Policy (Att. -Finance Director's memorandum) B. City Administrator Appointment (Att. -Acting Administrator's memorandum) C. Extending the Appointment of Jeffery Bailey, Ward 3 Councilmember (Att. -Acting Administrator/ City Attorney's memorandum, Resolution) D. Sewer Ordinance Amendment (Att. -Engineer's memorandum, Draft Ordinance) E. Water Conservation Ordinance Amendment (Att. -Engineer's memorandum, Draft Ordinances [2]; Draft Resolution) 12. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Accepting Low Estimate and Awarding Contract to Successftil Low Estimator for the Skate Park Well Abandonment (Att. -Engineer's memorandum, Resolution) 13. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff B. Mayor & City Council 14. ADJOURN 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, 23 June 2008 A 6:00 p.m. Work Session is scheduled this evening. The Regular City Council meeting will be recessed and reconvene after the EDA meeting. Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item #3B: Shorewood has participated in the Hennepin County Consolidated Pool for the federal Community DevelopmentBlock Grant (CDBG) Program for several three- year funding cycles. In order to be eligible for funds, it is necessary to be a participant. Adoption of a resolution is needed to continue participation in the 2009-2011 CDBG program. Agenda Item #3C: 2007 annual report for SWPPP -Staff recommends approval of the annual report for 2007, and direct staff to submit the report before June 30, 2008 as required by the original NPDES permit previously obtained from the MPCA. The new permit application is still pending with MPCA. Agenda Item #SA: The City Council will recess to the Economic Development Authority (EDA) meeting Agenda Item #6A: Following the EDA meeting, the Regular City Council meeting will reconvene. Agenda Item #7A: Mr. Paul Donna, Northland Securities, will be present during the Council Meeting to present information to the City Council regarding the issuance of bonds for the Shorewood City Hall Project. Agenda Item #8A: There are no public hearings this evening. Agenda Item #9A: Park Commissioner Steve Quinlan will report on the June 10, 2008, Park Commission meeting. Agenda Item #10A: Ann and Jack Carter own the properties at 5705 and 5725 Smithtown Way. They propose to combine the two parcels and re-split them in a slightly different configuration that would ultimately allow a third lot to be created. Subject to the :®KO PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Executive Summary -City Council Meeting of 23 June, 2008 Page 2 of 2 conditions set forth in the Planning Director's memorandum, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously to approve the combination and minor subdivision. Agenda Item #11A: Attached is a revised Shorewood Investment Policy that incorporates updated investment objectives and is more restrictive regarding authorized investments. The City Council is requested to approve the revised policy by motion. Agenda Item #11B: It is anticipated that the final agreement for the appointment of the City Administrator will be transmitted under separate cover on Friday, providing the applicant agrees to final revisions and the City Attorney has had adequate opportunity to review and approve the final document. Agenda Item #11C: With the return to at-large elections, Council may consider extending Mr. Bailey's appointment as Ward 3 Councilmember through December 31, 2008 (his appointment was through the canvass of the November 4 Election), or Council may decide to do nothing at this time, and revisit this item at a later date. Should Council decide to extend Mr. Bailey's appointment as Ward 3 Councilmember through December 31, 2008, a resolution making this appointment is in order. Agenda Item #11D: One ordinance is proposed for approval under this item. The amendment to Chapter 900 of the City Code and is an update to the sewer code to mandate connection to the public sewer when available to a property. Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance as well as the resolution authorizing publication of summary of this ordinance. Agenda Item #11E: Two ordinances are proposed for approval under this item. The first would amend Chapter 900 of the City Code and is an update to the water code to include a watering time restriction. The second would amend City Code Chapter 1300 (the fee section) for the fines identified in the watering restriction ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance as well as the resolution authorizing publication of summaries of these two ordinances. Agenda Item # 12A: Staff received an estimate for the abandonment of the Skate Park well. Staff recommends the City Council approve a resolution that accepts the estimate and awards the contract to Keys Well Drilling Company in the amount of $4,420.00. CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, JUNE 9, 2008 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION 5755 COUNTRY CLUB OAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:04 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey (arrived at 6:55 P.M.), Turgeon, Wellens, and Woodruff; Acting Administrator/Director of Public Works Brown; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. DISCUSSION WITH POLICE CHIEF LITSEI' 12EGARDING SLMPD STRATEGIC OPERATIONS PLAN Acting Administrator Brown stated tie meeting paclcet°contained acopy of the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) StrategicAction Plan (the Plan) dated May 14, 2008; the Plan was discussed at a joint meeting of the SLMPD 171ember cities' councils on May 14`". He explained that Councilmembers Wellens and Woodruff had ~ dumber of the questions regarding the Plan and the high- level draft SLMPD Operating Budget for 2009 - 2013. In order for all Councilmembers to have the benefit of hearing the same questions and answers, SLMPD Chief Litsey was invited to this work session to address Council. Chief Litsey stated he had met with Councilmember Woodruff for two hours on June 2"d and Councilmember Wellens for 1.5 - 2 hours on June 5`~' regarding their concerns. He appreciated their taking the time to meet with him. In response to a question from Chief Litsey, Mayor Lizee stated because Councilmember Wellens's issues were a matter of public record she suggested Litsey review each of Wellens's issues and respond to them. Wellens's issues were distributed at a May 27, 2008, City Council meeting and are italicized in the following discussion. Chief Litsey reviewed each of Councilmember Wellens's concerns and then responded to them as follows. 1. Prior City Council and Chiefs did not have a problem with a single officer on duty. Undoubtedly many departments across the nation continue this practice without difficulty. The Claims that this is a problem and there are shortages and gaps; is an opinion and is not shared by all professionals. We have not been provided with evidence showing that SLMPD officers are regularly in danger #Za crTY of sxoREw®oD woxx sESSI®N MEETING MI~ruTEs June 9, 2008 Page 2 of 7 because of coverage. Nor is there evidence that adding 2 (or 10) officers will some how ensure officer safety. Chief Litsey stated prior member cities' councils had recognized the need for additional staffing and had been working toward rectifying the problem. He had been championing the cause of additional staffing since he began his tenure as Chief in 1999. Some progress has been made, but because of the level of the staffing shortage progress is not as far along as he would like. He explained in 2000 the City of Shorewood had its own special policing officer which came about because of former Clinton COPS (i.e., COPS' MORE) grants program. That program allowed organizations to increase their staffing level while phasing in their out-of-pocket costs for the additional officers: When Federal funding for the officer ended, he was a strong proponent of absorbing that officer into the SLMPD's full compliment of officers. In 2001 the SLMPD added apart-time Community Service Officer (CSO) position; that CSO position transitioned into afull-time position in 2002. At that time there was discussion about the need for additional officers, but because the Shorewood officer had been absorbed into the SLMPD a decision was made to wait to hire additional officers. The CSO position was considered a means of lightening the police officer load in the short term by helping with some of the duties which did not require a fully licensed officer; the CSO position was not intended to replace the need for a police officer. During 2003 - 2006 the SLMPD was in a holding pattern while the member cities were trying to resolve their differences with regard to the SLMPD funding formula; the SLMPD was treading water just to stay afloat. Also, during that time emphasis was placed on the construction of the public safety facility because it was a great one-time opportunity to partner ~~rith the Etcelsior Fire District. That was a considerable expense for the member cities, so additional staffing ~~as placed on hold until that was completed. During that same time apart-time office position was left vacant and there were problems with other positions that could not be fully funded. After the arbitration over the funding formula was completed, the SLMPD started to move back toward status-yuo with regard to operations in 2007. During 2007 the Strategic Planning initiative was started; an initiative the member cities' councils wanted to have happen. He noted in each budget he had prepared he addressed the SLMPD's past, present and future; and as far back as 2000 he address~d the need for additional staffing and in particular patrol officers. In 2008 the SLMPD expanded its CSO pt'o~~ram by 40 hours per week to provide animal control services; the cost was similar to the cost the member cities' had been paying for contract control services and the expanded program provides additional services as well. In 2008 the Strategic Planning Group (the Group) was formed to focus on the future of the SLMPD. The Group identified key strategies it would like the member cities' councils to support in order to provide better operations for the officers and better services to the community. It is his strong opinion that the SLMPD has serious staffing shortages; it is a fact and not an opinion. The shortages had been clearly demonstrated through the Strategic Planning process. Current scheduling exhibits were provided, and there were exhibits showing the number of shifts with shortages in different months. When there was only one officer on duty and that officer was tied up, the only coverage available was mutual aid and that was not a reliable source of backup. With regard to risk, policing work is inherently dangerous and risky and it always will be; although the risk cannot be eliminated steps can be taken to mitigate risk. Having an adequate level of staffing does mitigate the risk; as officers are added incrementally the risk factor is decreased, 2. The IACP funding formula might be helpful if there was aone-size-fits-all formula. But we are told there is no such formula. If true, how can one maintain that we are understaffed? We should acknowledge that the IACP exists for the benefit of its chiefs, not our constituents. The IACP does not pay for what they recommend. Chief Litsey stated throughout the Strategic Planning process he continually stated there was no one-size- fits-all formula for determining policing staffing. The Group was provided with several benchmarks to make staffing comparisons. Different sources of data were used to make the comparisons which included population, demand, geography, and schedule. The Group considered the International Association of CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 3 of 7 Chiefs of Police (IACP) demand formula, the per capita formula, gaps and shortages in the patrol officers schedules, and geographical barriers and distances impacting response time and service levels. All pointed to the same thing; under the current officer staffing scenario the SLMPD was not meeting the needs as well as it could and it was falling behind when compared to other police departments. The member cities needed to determine what type of community standard they wanted. Did they want good response time from the SLMPD? Did they want the SLMPD to be able to handle a domestic situation by mediating the dispute or to just clear the situation? It was important to consider how the call was handled, not just how quickly it was cleared. 3. Chief Litsey chose to use the Centennial Lakes police department for comparison with the SLMPD. It protects Circle Pines, Lexington and Centerville. If you check a map, these cities are NOT contiguous! With 3-4 lakes between them, they are roughly 6 miles apart! Clearly this significant geographical separation could justify having two officers on duty. While the Chief says this is an apples-to-apples comparison, we do not agree. Chief Litsey stated he had provided the Group with a comparison of the SLMPD and the Centennial Lakes Police Department (CLPD). The CLPD operated under a Joint Powers Agreement. The geographic area the CLPD serves has some similarities to the area served by the SLMPD; it has lakes, boundaries and distances which impact response. Calls for service were compared. The SLMPD and the CLPD operate very similar, with the exception of the CLPD having moi~c police officers. The CLPD had made a decision to have no fewer than rivo officers on a shift. IIe had discussed with Councilmember Wellens the distances in the area served by the CLPD and ho«~ officers need to go around lakes to get from one spot to another. In some ways it was more difficult for the SLMPD officers to traverse the area because the distances between points can be even furthers the times between distances can be longer because the roads in the area are narrow, and the bays and lakes in t}ic area impact travel When there is more than once officer on duty, the SLMPD tries to have one ~>n the cast side of the coverage area and one on the west side to improve service. The City's islands pres~nt the greatest challenge; if there is only one officer on duty and that officer goes to the islands («hich is distance of approximately 13 miles) it will take the officer a significant amount of time to get to other parts of the coverage area. The SLMPD serves a 12.17 square-mile area and the CLPD: serves a 5.19square-mile area; the population served by the SLMPD is slightly greater than that served by the CLPD. The comparison of the SLMPD to the CLPD is a good comparison. 4. "Staff" created the Strategic Gals, not the mayors, councils or citizens. Staff does not represent out residents, generally don't live here and won't pay for their recommendations. Chief Litsey stated staff made some original recommendations to the Group as a starting point for discussions; management and staff contributed to forming those recommendations. By no means did the Group "rubber stamp" the recommendations. The Group met five times for a total of 8.5 hours. Staff spent a tremendous amount of time gathering and analyzing data and preparing presentations for the work sessions. The information presented was scrutinized and at times challenged. There were requests made to conduct additional research or better define some of the information presented. The staffing shortage issue was clarified when presented with monthly snapshots depicting the days/shifts when the shift was short an officer or two. There was reservation in presenting that information in a public forum because of concern that people could use that information to determine when they may commit crimes. With regard to staff not living in the coverage area, he stated he gets paid the same whether he works 40 hours per week or 80 hours per week; he is known to be a workaholic. He has nothing personal to gain from executing the recommendations included in the Plan; there was a likelihood that he would not be around to see it all come to fruition. Part of why he became a Chief was to be able to influence the future of the Department. He has provided over thirty years of service in public safety, and he has lived in the CITY ®F SH®RE~V®®D dV®RK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 4 of 7 con-imunities. He feels a closeness to the communities and he has a great deal invested in the area. He takes his job very seriously, and people can rest assured that what he is doing is for genuine reasons. 5. The Chief suggests the additional officers would allow for the creation of a canine officer and allow more details [out of the department?J But we have not been presented evidence or argument as to how these activities will benefit our constituents. These desires hardly constitute a crisis. Chief Litsey stated he may not have clearly articulated a canine was a secondary discussion in the process; it was not one of the primary goals. A canine unit could possibly come into play without the goals being implemented. It would make it more difficult to send an officer to canine training with the current staffing level. As a small organization, the SLMPD tries to create opportunities for its officers. The Department competes for the best in a very competitive market. The SLMPD has to have opportunities for officers as one way to attract and retain them. The formation of the Emergency Response Unit (ERU) created career opportunities, and it provided a means to build camaraderie with other departments in the ERU. Establishing a canine unit would also provide career opportunities as well as fill a need. 6. The Chief argues that Mutual Aid agreements should not he abused by regular use. We agree. We have not been. presented any evidence that the SLMPD is .abusing these agreements. Chief Litsey explained that basically every time there is a call to the City's islands the SLMPD relies on mutual aid. That could possibly be considered abusi~rg the situation. When there is only one officer on duty and that officer gets tied up, which is frequently, the "SLMPD relies on mutual aid, It's easy to draw the conclusion that the SLMPD uses a great deal. of mutual aid after looking at the gaps in the officer schedule and the number of short-shifts. The SLMPD tracks how much mutual aid it provides, but it does not track what it receives. Mutual aid should be used in special situations; it's not to supplement what the SLMPD should regularly cover. 7. The SLMPD has operated for decades while little has changed in-our communities. Somehow, however, we are now urr-clerstuffed, have "gaps" in the schedule, have shortages, we are jeopardizing officer safety,tin~ lurve a "critical staffing need" that is "critically important, "There is little to support these asse~~~i~~~~<. Chief Litsey stated the staffing shortage in not new. Although progress has been made in addressing the issue, the issue is not resolved. The Cities of Chanhassen, Chaska and Minnetrista are growing communities; their growth impacts the SLMPD. There have been many procedural changes and will be many more; the officers have to book many more incidences. It's mandated that individuals arrested for DWI be booked; that requires an officer to transport the individual downtown Minneapolis and wait their turn to book the. individual (sometimes it is a relatively short wait and other times it is very long). The officer making the arrest is responsible for the individual arrested. The officers are first responders; when there is a need to use an automatic defibrillator (AED) there is a need for two officers -one to set up the AED and one to do CPR. Seconds count in those situations. An officer does not use a tazer if there is no backup because it is too risky. For example, there recently was a mentally disturbed individual who had a knife and if there had not been a second officer on duty allowing the use of a tazer the individual would have been shot. Action beats reaction almost every time. The SLMPD is trying to crawl out of a staffing hole. Good progress has been made with regard to investigations; the SLMPD has a great clearance rate because of that. From his vantage. point, the Group did an excellent job; the Group's members were thoughtful, respectful, and were open to ideas. There were many opportunities for the members to provide input into the various iterations of the Plan. He appreciated it is a big step with regard to funding at a time when dollars are at a premium. In addition to improving service, the Group thought it important to protect those that protect us. He questioned how many individuals would want to stop a car on CITY OF SHOREWOOID WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 5 of 7 Highway 7 during the middle of the night with no backup and the car was full of intoxicated, loud and combative people. It has been proven that having more than one officer on the scene has a deterrent affect and it increases safety; people are more apt to comply and less apt to resist. Mayor Lizee stated she appreciated Chief Litsey responding to all of the questions. Councilmember Wellens stated he and Chief Litsey were fulfilling their roles during these discussions. Wellens stated a lot of member cities' council members and residents in the communities were probably not aware the SLMPD staffing was in the hole. He stated he had never heard of the shortage issue before, and it should have been expressed before. Chief Litsey stated the budget documents he had prepared addressed the need for additional patrol officer staffing; it was a reoccurring theme of his. During 2003 - 2006 efforts were redirected to resolving the funding formula issue. With regard to the 2009 - 2013 budget forecast Chief Litsey prepared, Councilmember Wellens stated the forecast indicated the total percent increase for the five years was 39.25% yet he calculated the increase to be 45.86%. Litsey explained during the Group discussions Councilmember Turgeon suggested the forecast be prepared using a different method. Litsey explained the forecast was prepared using ayear-by-year comparison which is the way the yearly budgets are presented; the comparison is made against the previous year. In response to two requests, he also prepared an operating budget comparison for 2008 - 2013 and it reflected the percentages along with the yearly-average increases. Although the methodologies used to create the forecasts wci-e diCCcrent, the actual dollars were the same. For the operating budget comparison chart, it was important to understand the comparison was asix-year comparison not afive-year comparison, as was the case ili the budget forecast. Councilmember Woodruff stated it was mathematically incorrect to average~avera~~es, and at times Chief Litsey did that in the charts he prepared. Litsey stated the dollars are the same. Woodruff stated the percentages on the five-year budget forecast were incorrect. Litsey stated he respectfully disagreed with Woodruff; Woodruff could disagree with the methodology used but tlic mathcniatics used were correct. Woodruff disagreed. Litsey stated he did consult with a CPA when he prepared. the charts. He suggested people consider the dollar amounts and not the percents as the dollars arc the same in both methods. Woodruff stated it was easier for people to grasp percentages than dollars. Litsey stated the newspapers had done a good job of presenting the information using: dol Ian>. Councilmember Woodruff commented when he met with Chief Litsey they agreed to disagree on some things. He stated from his vantage point the SLMPD had been operating the same way for 7 - 8 years. He questioned if the community feedback indicated the services provided were lacking; he had not received that type of feedback. He explained he took data out of the various Strategic Planning presentations Litsey had prepared to determine the growth in the Patrol Division's work load. He did not find a significant increase in work load from 2003 to 2006. He also did comparisons to some other jurisdictions. The SLMPD was relatively comparable with regard to Part 1 and Part 2 crimes per officer. He stated he was qualitatively hearing from the people receiving the services that it was good enough; he was struggling with how it needed to be improved and identify what the communities were going to get for the cost. He noted he lived on Enchanted Island, and the Mound Fire Department provides fire services to Enchanted Island and Shady Island. He stated he would agree it was inefficient for a patrol officer to go out to the Islands. He suggested staff research the feasibility of having the Mound Police Department (MPD) provide police services to the Islands and what the cost would be. He thought it would take an officer approximately 20 - 25 minutes to get from the Islands to Excelsior. If the Islands were to be served by the MPD that would provide the SLMPD with a little more availability of officers and the Islands would receive a lot better coverage. Councilmember Turgeon questioned if Minnetrista should also be approached. Woodruff stated the City already had a relationship with Mound, but he was not apposed to Minnetrista although it was further away. . CITY OF SHOREWOOI) WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 6 of 7 Mayor Lizee stated she expressed concern with engaging another police department as it could affect the SLMPD JPA and may not reduce the City's contribution to the SLMPD. Chief Litsey stated the way the JPA was structured it would be unlikely the City would realize a reduction in its contribution if that action was taken. He stated a better strategy would be to have the money go toward adding an officer who could respond from the west district rather than the east district, and the constituents in the area closer to the public safety facility would receive better coverage. Chief Litsey stated ICAP crime data states the SLMPD is not adequately staffed to handle its current call load. The SLMPD data is relatively conservative; the SLMPD does not track inconsequential items just to make its numbers look better. The IACP formula takes into account discretionary time for officers so the officers can do things other than just respond to calls; things such as speed enforcement and filling extra patrol requests. Currently dedicated speed enforcement requires overtime. Just because the SLMPD has operated a certain way, doesn't mean it should continue operating that way; if there was a better way to provide service it should be considered. He related when people hear there are times when there is just one officer on duty they state that is fundamentally wrong; and, if the only officer on duty is tied up the communities have to rely on mutual aid. The SLMPD can't count on mutual aid, and it has no say as to how those officers are trained. Councilmember Turgeon stated 3.9% levy limits have been .pelt ii1 place for 2009 - 2011 since the May 14`~ meeting, She recommended Chief Litsey reconsider the 5.8°/~ proposed budget increase for 2009 and the 5.5% increase proposed for 2010 and 2011 for continuing the game level of service and try and reduce it to 3.9%. Councilmember Turgeon stated cost for the long-term care acid maintenance of the public safety facility is not in the proposed budget; she thought it should be iti order to have a better understanding of the entire budget picture. She then stated the-savings prom thecrossover bond refunding for the public safety facilities belong to the member cities. Chief Litsey stated the levy limits allowed forcxeeeding the levy limit to hire additional police officers. He explained approximately S4°~~ ~~~~ ihe' SLMPD operating budget is personnel related for any given year. The officers don't have a right to strike, but they do have a right to go to binding arbitration. The SLMPD is relatively unique in that it has to fund the building; there is little discretion in utilities. There also is no control over fuel costs. Councilmember Bailey arrived at 6:55 P.M. Chief Litsey stated there was agreement about a need to establish a fund for the long-term care and maintenance of the facility. How that will be done has not been determined. It was understood the savings from the bond refinancing belong to the cities. The Group agreed that preparing the replacement schedule will take some expertise the SLMPD and EFD do not possess. In the meantime the SLMPD and EFD auditors have been asked to recommend arule-of--thumb approach to guestimate the replacement costs. Mayor Lizee stated she would like to remind everyone that the Strategic Planning Group included the Coordinating Committee Members (the mayors of the four member cities); the Alternate Coordinating Committee Members; and the Operating Committee Members. The Strategic Planning process was planning for the future; something any successful business or organization did. The inherent question is what the community standard for policing should be. She thought it is prudent for the SLMPD to be proactive rather than reactive. CITY OF SHOREWOOI9 WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 7 of 7 Mayor Lizee thanked Chief Litsey for attending the work session. Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, recessing the City Council work session to a City Council regular meeting at 6: 58 P.M. Mayor Lizee reconvened the City Council work session at 10:12 P.M. 3. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW FORM Acting Administrator Brown stated at its June 2, 2008, work session Council discussed the draft of the revised City Administrator's performance form. Points of review from the City Administrator's performance review form had been inserted into the form used at the City of Diamond Bar, California. At that work session Council identified items it wanted to delete or move into a different category. The updated draft form had been distributed to Council in the meeting packet. Councilmember Turgeon proposed this topic be continued to a future work session. Councilmember Woodruff stated he had a number of comments to make about the revised draft, and based on the time of night it would be better to discuss them at a future meeting. After discussion, there was consensus to tentatively continue this item to a June 23, 2008, Council work session with the understanding that it may not appear on that agenda based on the number of other items on the agenda. 4. OTHER There was no other business for discussion. 5. ADJOURN Wellens moved, Turgeon secondecL Ad,jourz~ng the City Council Work Session Meeting of June 9, 2008, at 10:15 P.M. Motion passed ~0. ~` RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Lawrence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JUNE 9, 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:07 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey, Turgeon, Wellens, and Woodruff; Attorney Keane; Acting Administrator/Director of Public Works Brown; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; Engineer Landini; and Deputy Clerk Panchyshyn Absent: None B. Review Agenda Councilmember Woodruff requested Item 8.A, Shirley. Rice Funding for the Parks, and Item 1I.A.3, Update on Spring Clean-up, be added to the agenda. Director Nielsen requested Item 8.B be discussedaftcrl~~ri 9.C on the agenda, and he noted there was not a resolution for Item 8.C. Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the. Agenda as Amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MIl\'iiTF S A. City Council Work Ses~iun Minutes, May 27, 2008 Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of May 27, 2008, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, May 27, 2008 Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of May 27, 2008, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. C. City Council Work Session Minutes, June 2, 2008 Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of June 2, 2008, as Amended in Item 6, Page 8, Paragraph 8, Sentence 8, change "The LMCC conveyed" to "The LMCD conveyed". Motion passed 4/0/1 with Lizee abstaining due to her absence at the meeting. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. ~ZB SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 2 of 16 Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Staffing -Part-time, Temporary Office Assistant C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 08-043, "A Resolution Approving a Temporary 3.2 Percent `On-Sale' Malt Liquor License issued to the Excelsior Fire Fighters Relief Association." D. Appeal Notice to Remove Appellant: H.S. Jerome Location: 5220 Shady Island Circle Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening: 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS None. 6. PUBLIC HEARING A. Ward System of EIcctions /Establishing Polling Places Mayor Lizee opened the Public. Hearing ai -:l~l P.M. Attorney Keane summarized a document prepared by Jean Panchyshyn, the Deputy Clerk for the City, and him regarding background on the City's ward election system and the consideration of the elimination of the ward election system. In 1974 the legislature undertook the standardization of cities; the standards were towns, statutory cities, and home ruled charter cities. As part of the standardization, ward representation was abolished as a standard form option for new cities incorporated, or reconfigured by annexation or consolidation; they would operate under at at-large election system. Existing ward cities were allowed to continue. Out of the 855 cities in the State, approximately 20 percent are home rule charter cities and the rest are statutory cities, which is what Shorewood is. In 2000 the Legislature approved Chapter 257 Special Laws providing the authority to the City to adopt a ward election system by ordinance for representation of City councilmembers; this was done in response to an appeal from the City. From 2000 to 2002 the City Council had several meetings and public hearings to discuss the establishment of ward elections. Part of the rationale at that time was Shorewood was geographically diverse, it was narrow and wide. The City Council adopted an ordinance in 2002 to implement the ward system; coincidentally it was done at the same time decennial redistricting took place throughout the State. In 2002, two councilmembers were elected for 2-year terms, at-large, and the other two finished out their 4-year terms. Ward elections were implemented beginning with the 2004 elections, with Wards 1 and 3 elected for 2-year terms, and Wards 2 and 4 for 4-year terms. In subsequent years two councilmembers were elected each year for 4-year terms. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 3 of 16 Attorney Keane stated the City was unique when it sought special legislation providing it the authority to adopt a ward system; it was the only City to request that authority at the time. There was no precedent in common law or case interpretation or statutory guidance on the matter. It is accepted that the ordinance adopted to implement the ward election system also allows the City to return to an at-large election system. He reviewed the sources he and Deputy Clerk Panchyshyn consulted with: the Shorewood Code of Ordinances; Minnesota Statute Chapters 200, 201, 204B, 204D, 205, 206, 209, and 412; the Minnesota Secretary of State; the Hennepin County Auditor and Director of Elections; the League of Minnesota Cities Handbook; and the League of Minnesota Cities Research Services. Attorney Keane explained if Council elects to amend the ordinance to return to an at-large system of representation for the 2008 election year, it must do so at this meeting. There is a June l lt'' deadline for establishing polling locations; polling locations are identified by precinct names. If the ordinance is amended the precinct names will be changed. The precincts will not change geographically, and the polling locations will not change. He stated Council has three options this evening: 1) continue with the ward election system; 2) amend the ordinance to return to the at-large system effective 2010 elections; or, 3) amend the ordinance effective 2008 elections. Councilmember Bailey stated in a letter the City received from former Councilmember Paula Callies, Ms. Callies states Minn. Stat. §204B.14, subd. 4 requires thatany change in the boundary of a election precinct must be adopted by June 1 in any year of the state general election. Under Minn. Stat. §204B.14, subd. 2 each city ward constitutes one election precinct. A precinct i ~ defined by §200.02, subd. 11 as "a geographical area the boundaries of which are established Cor electicxl purposes." Eliminating wards clearly eliminates election boundaries in practice, not just ii? names, because councilmembers would no longer be elected from the particular geographical area of award. Attorney Keane stated if the councilmembers are elected at-large the boundaries are_rrrclcvant; residents will be able to vote for any councilmember candidate on the ballot. Keane contu-nied that precinct boundaries will not change as part of this amendment. Mayor Lizee stated emails, faxes and' hand-wa~itten letters had been received from numerous residents regarding this matter, and noted all the correspondence was on file. Correspondence was received from Anne Leland, Craig Shoemaker, Don Scll, Peter and Kathy Royse, Pamela Evans, Steve Evans, James Alexander, Paula Callies, Steve Fames, David McCuskey, Ron and Dee Johnson, Janet Cohen, David Cross, and Sharon Starks. Mayor Lizee opened the Public Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. Gene Germain 5925 Eureka Road, stated the only reason he heard stated for implementing the ward system was the City's geography. The city had a population of approximately 7,400; therefore, it should not have been difficult for previous Councils to represent the entire City. If councilmembers need to be segmented by ward, why can 3 out of 4 councilmembers affect a ward they do not reside in, noting he does believe councilmembers should be able to affect the entire City. Under the ward system he can only vote for one councilmember seat, yet all councilmembers can affect him; that does not seem fair to him. From his vantage point, voters were not asked if they would be okay with giving up three-fourths of their votes for councilmember seats; he does not think that is okay. Wards appear to be counter productive to governing the City; he could only run for election against the incumbent councilmember representing the ward he lives in. The ward system reduces the available pool of councilmember candidates by 75 percent. If there was equal population in the wards, one-eighth of the voting population could elect a councilmember who would represent the entire population of the City. If the entire Council is going to govern the entire City, then all voters should have the opportunity to elect all councilmembers. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 4 of 16 Bob Gagne, 24850 Amlee Road, stated he was not in favor of the ward system when it was implemented. He noted he had been on the Council for 10 years, and chose not to run for another term to allow others the opportunity. He stated if Council chooses to retain the ward election system, he recommends it establish a limit for the number of terms a person can serve on the Council. He supported returning to an at-large election system. Jerry Brecke 27540 Pine Bend Road, stated when the ward system was discussed the last time he was in favor of implementing a ward system and he is in favor of retaining it. He thought it was difficult for a person on the east or west end of the City to be in contact with their constituents. He thought he had good access to his ward representative, and he expects his representative to know about issues relative to where he lives; he did not expect all representatives to know all of his neighborhood's issues. He expressed concern with the timeline for making a decision. The ward system had been discussed for over two years before a decision was made to implement the system. He questioned the motive for making a change this quickly. Ingrid Schaff 26175 Wild Rose Lane, stated an elected official should know the City's residents and all the issues. A resident should be able to contact any official. When the at-large system was in effect residents would call all councilmembers about issues. It was her opinion that the intent of going to a ward system was to hopefully merge all the South Lake cities some.: day; something she thought would never happen. She stated if wards were important for representation ~~hy was a ward system not used for selecting Park and Planning Commissioners. She commented a Iot c.~f residents do not understand the ward system. Shorewood is a city of neighborhoods," and «~hen the~~c are concerns the neighborhoods come before Council. All voters should have the opportunity to `ote for each councilmember seat. Blair Bury 28160 Boulder Bridge Drive, apolo~~ized l~~r not being active in the public hearings held when the ward system was originally considered. He questioned why other cities did not use the ward system. He stated he would like the opp~rt~inity to vote for each councilmember seat. He was in support of returning to the at-large system, and he did not-think a large study was necessary before making the decision. JoAnn Schaub 5465 Timber Lane; stated she was in support of returning to an at-large election system. She thought an at-large system encouraged councilmembers to know all of the issues. Form her vantage point, councilmembers responded differently to residents in their ward than they did to residents outside of their ward (noting that was neither good nor bad). Currently a resident can call any councilmember, but not all councilmembers respond. John Garfunkel, 5665 Teal Circle, stated abolishing the ward system is about accountability; residents can not hold the entire Council accountable because the only way to do so is with their vote. He did not view the change being considered as a rush decision because he and other residents had come before Council with a petition three years ago to request abolishing the ward system, but Council thought the timing was not correct. He requested Council take ownership of this issue and make a decision to return to an at-large election system. Pat Arnst. 5480 Teal Circle, noted she was part of the group of thirteen residents who came before Council three years ago to request abolishing the ward system. She believes in local control. She stated each public hearing attendee this evening was interested in this topic. She thought there were more than four times as many people responding to this topic today, as a result of conversations during the past weekend, than there were in 2002. From her vantage point, the ward system reduced representation. She gets to vote for only one of the four councilmembers; she wants the opportunity to vote for all councilmember seats. She noted comments made in a newspaper article printed at the time the decision SHOREWOOl) CITE' COUNCIL REGULAR 1VIEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 5 of 16 was made to implement a ward system that stated then Mayor Woody Love had had anecdotal conversations with residents; Mr. Love talked about building neighborhoods; Arnst noted she does not want the government to build her neighborhood. She said Councilmember Turgeon had not supported the change to a ward system because there was no data supporting the wards, while then Councilmember Lizee stated she did not think ward data was necessary to support the change because it had been discussed for a long time. She explained there were three public hearings held on the election system in April 2002. At the first hearing twelve residents either spoke at the public hearing or submitted written communication. A vote was not taken because then Councilmember Zerby did not vote. At the second meeting, Zerby was absent. At the third hearing Zerby chose to vote in favor of the ward system. She requested Council vote to return to an at-large election system this evening. Nancy Williams 26270 Smithtown Road, stated she wanted the opportunity to vote for each councilmember seat. She requested Council vote to return to an at-large system this evening. Tom Kelsey 26175 Wild Rose Lane, stated he had not been in support of a ward system in the past and he requested Council vote to abolish the system this evening. He noted it should not be difficult for an elected official to serve the entire City. With the exception of Enchanted Island, a person can get from one part of the City to the other in 10 minutes. He questioned the following: who brought this issue to the Legislature; was there a public hearing held to consider going t~ the Legislature; and why is Shorewood the only city that sought approval for a ward system. William Ruoff 26365 Noble Road, stated he opposed the ward election system because of lack of representation. He commented residents question why there is a ward system, and how it works. He requested Council consider returning to an at-large system. David Hoo, 23260 Park Street, stated he had. previously been in support of the ward election system but would like to return to an at-large election system because he can only vote for one councilmember seat. Councilmembers would be more accountable to him if he has the opportunity to vote for each of them. Marv Wiersum 27065 Noble Road, stated she opposed the ward systems, and she requested Council vote to abolish the ward system this evening. When the at-large system was in effect she appreciated all candidates coming to her home to introduce themselves; the ward system took that opportunity away from her. Julie Twetan 26300 Smithtown Road, stated she had not been aware that some of her votes for councilmember seats had been taken away by the ward system, and that bothers her. She did not like to be limited to voting for candidates for the ward she lived in. She also wanted each member of the Council to represent her. She requested Council vote this evening to return to an at-large system. Mark Themig 21780 Lilac Lane, stated he did not know which Councilmember was elected in the ward he lived in. He requested the Council vote to return to an at-large election system this evening because of representation. Terry Brossard, 5445 Teal Circle, stated she had not been aware she had lot 75% of her votes when the City implemented a ward system. From her vantage point only one councilmember represents her. She requested Council vote this evening to abolish the ward system. Wa11~Piroyan, 24845 Glen Road, thanked the people who came to his neighborhood to provide their insights on the ward system. He stated the issue for him was accountability, and he was opposed to the ward system. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 6 of 16 Jon Wiersum, 27065 Noble Road, stated he had not been aware of the change to the ward system. He assumed there was positive rationale for making the change. He and the people he has spoken with don't understand why the change was made. He stated he was speaking for himself and his neighbors when he requested Council vote this evening to abolish the ward system. Bill Smith 5770 Grant Lorenz Road, stated he opposed the ward system because the City was too small. Pam Murray 5710 Grant Lorenz Road, stated there was no compelling reason to keep the ward system, and there appeared to be reasons to abolish it based on what she heard this evening. She supported returning to the at-large system. June Skjervold 5660 Grant Lorenz Road, stated the discussion this evening was good, but the word "democracy" was missing in the discussion. It was the democratic way to go. Scott Schmitt 6020 Mill Street, stated he supported abolishing the ward system. He commented he thought many of the Councilmembers were above not listening to a resident because they did not live in the ward they were elected in. He did not think there was fair representation with the system with regard to a resident's ability to vote for each council seat. He would like-the opportunity to exist for him (or any one else) to run against a councilmember that was outside of the ward he resided in; that opportunity does not exist with the ward system. Mayor Lizee closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:14 P.M. Major Lizee stated Council had received a lot o~'goo~_I information from the public. Residents expressed opinions/concerns/questions about representation. how frequently they could vote, accountability, how the legislation was proposed, the belief that. votes ~rerc taken away, and the opportunity to run against more than one candidate. She explainedCotiticil does not "count noses". She clarified the Mayor and the four Councilmembers represent all residents in the City even though the Councilmembers were elected by wards. She commented that it appeared the majority of the public at this public hearing were residents of the western part of the Cit}'. Mayor Lizee asked Attorney Keane to explain why the Legislature had to consider the City's request to implement a ward election system. Attorney Keane stated the issue was initiated by the Council. The Legislature prescribes the framework under which cities conduct their governance. The ward election system model which was advocated in 2000 was not an option under that framework. A phone call was made to the legislation delegation to ask them to support and sponsor the request for special legislation. Lizee stated a process was followed. councilmember Woodruff stated during the last election cycle he encountered residents who did not know the City had wards, or were not aware they could only vote for candidates residing in the ward they lived in. He explained before there were wards, there were two elections with five candidates running for four contested seats. After wards were implemented there were six contested seats and seven candidates. Tn 2004 every candidate ran unopposed, and he thought that was telling. For the 2006 election there was one candidate in Ward 3 and two in Ward 1. In 2000 and 2002 (if it is viewed as a blended number) 90 percent of the eligible voters voted in the council election; in 2004 60 percent voted; and approximately 54 percent voted in 2006. He drew the conclusion that people tuned out; they weren't terribly interested in the process where they could only vote for one of the contested seats. He stated he opposed the ward system and would vote to return to an at-large system. SHOREi~00D CITY COUNCIL. REGULAR 1dIEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 7 of 16 Councilmember Turgeon stated she had run for council under the at-large election system and the ward election system, both times unopposed. She stated discussions about the ward system started in 1999. The first public hearing was held on April 8, 2002. She commented in 2002 she and John Garfunkel were the incumbent Councilmembers whose terms were scheduled to end in 2004; the seats held by Councilmembers Lizee and Zerby were scheduled to end in 2002. She stated the April 8t'' public hearing was continued to an Apri122"d Council meeting. Council had been told it had an April 30, 2002, deadline to take action on the ward system; she recently learned that would only have been true if the ward system was to be implemented for 2002 elections. The special legislation gave Council the opportunity to implement wards whenever it wanted to. She stated there never should have been any issues that were ward specific. From her vantage point the ward system had been on the goals and priority list since 2005, and she thought it was time to resolve the ward system issue. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Attorney Keane explained when the Legislature approved Chapter 257 Special Laws it was very open ended. Council could adopt or eliminate the ward system at any time by ordinance. It was his recollection that the Council discussion in 2002 was to allow incumbents to complete their terms before implementing the ward election system; the council seats whose terms expired in 2002 were on the 2002 election ballet for 2-year terms in order for all four councilmember seats to be up for reelection under the ward system in 2004. In response to another question, Keane stated the special legislation did not contemplate some areas of the City using an at-large system and other areas using a ward system, He clarified there was at-large representation until 2004 elections; it was entirely a ward system for 2004 elections. Councilmember Turgeon stated she was opposed to the ward. syswm for representation. Councilmember Woodruff stated whether or not }ie should ha~~e to run for reelection if the ward system were abolished for 2008 elections should not factor into Council's decision. Councilmember Bailey summarized a document Councilmember Wellens had distributed to Council regarding pros and cons for the two systems. A voter could vote for one council seat under the ward system every four years, and they have four under the at-large system; the same applied to the ability to have Councilmembers replaced. 1'he available pool of candidates was the entire City for the at-large system and a specific ward for the ~~~ard system. There are 2,600 homes in the City and each ward had approximately 700 homes; it was easier to run a more effective campaign under the ward system because there were fewer homes. Under the at-large system a resident could run for one of two councilmember seats every two years; under the ward system there is one seat every four years. There would be less potential fora "my ward first" attitude under the at-large system. The potential for a neighborhood clique dominating the City was less likely with the ward system. Returning to an at-large system could be confusing to the voters; they were confused when the City implemented the ward system. He noted Wellens had pointed out there was not a right or wrong answer. Bailey stated he thought it would be unfair to denigrate the previous Council that implemented the ward system; its intentions were laudable. He noted he had always had strong doubts about the ward system. He explained he viewed himself as a representing the entire City; he would bring forth any resident's issue. He stated an at-large system provided more accountability. He expressed concern that there was no data indicating the ward system improved dialogue. He stated there are tactical issues that should be considered in addition to policy issues; he had concern with holding only one public hearing before making a change. The status-quo of the ward system should only be overturned if there is a compelling case to do so, and he believed there is a compelling case. Councilmember Wellens stated he had run under the at-large and ward systems, and he was going to vote to abolish the ward system. He explained if no one resident from Ward 3 had volunteered to assume SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR 10'IEE'I'INCa MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 8 of 16 former Councilmember Callies Ward 3 seat when she resigned, the seat would have remained vacant until the next election. He viewed that as a weakness in the system. He wanted the ability to not reelect all councilmembers if they were not performing the way he thought they should. He was concerned about the drop in voter participation, as stated by Councilmember Woodruff. Wellens thought the reasons for abolishing the ward system outweighed the reasons for keeping it. Mayor Lizee thanked the attendees for coming this evening, and she appreciated all the emails and conversations she had had with residents over many years. She had been elected under both the ward and at-large systems. She stated she ran on representation when she first ran for council in 1998. She commented there had been instances when candidates ran for election because of one issue. She stated all five members of the Council represent all residents because they hear from the residents. She expressed concern about the timeframe for making a change. She stated when a public hearing is held, there is a premise the item had been studied and public comment had been taken, and the premise was voted up or down. She directed Council to consider making a motion for councilmembers to debate. Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, restoring the voting back to an at-large system effective with the 2008 elections. Councilmember Woodruff recommended the maker of the motion adopt the ordinance and resolution as provided. Both the maker and seconder accepted the frie~ully amendment to the motion to, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 449, "An Ordinance Amending; Cl-apter 106 of the Shorewood City Code Relating to Municipal Elections.", and Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 08-046, "A Resolution Designating Polling Places for the Primary and Gene~-aLElections." Councilmember Bailey questioned if the term for thccurrent Ward 1 seat would expire at the end of 2008 and the election would be for all councilmc~r~ber seals, Attorney Keane stated if the motion is approved the ward system of representation would. be abolished and the offices held would thereby be abolished. Councilmember Woodruff stated he had no issue with the Ward 1 seat be terminated at the end of 2008. He was somewhat concerned with the possibility that all five officers could be replaced, which would result in no institutional knowledge. remaining on the Council. Councilmember Bailey stated it was important that all officers be elected under the at-large system. Motion passed 5/0 with Bailey, Turgeon, Wellens and Woodruff voting in favor, and with Lizee voting in favor with reservations. Deputy Clerk Panchyshyn left the meeting. Mayor Lizee recessed the meeting at 8:44 P.M. Mayor Lizee reconvened the meeting at 8:55 P.M. 7. PARKS A. Shirley Rice Funding for the Parks Director Burton explained the Shirley Rice Memorial Park was established some years ago. Ms. Rice was a long-time City resident and City employee who died in an accident. A donation was made in her behalf SH®REWOOID CITY COUNCIL REGITLAR 1VIEETING MINdJTES June 9, 2008 Page 9 of 16 to the City for an amount of $2,500. Over the years there had been ongoing beautification and maintenance of the Park. The balance in the fund was $718. Councilmember Woodruff stated he had received a call from a resident near the Manor Park area wondering if there were any funds remaining, and if so questioned how the funds be allocated for park improvements. He related Director Burton had explained the Park Commission makes the decision on disbursement of funds. He directed the individual to contact the Park Commission Chair. Mayor Lizee stated Ms. Rice was a member of the South Tonka League of Women Voters, and a very active participant in local and state government. Ms. Rice passed away in an automobile accident. Ms. Rice's family gave the donation to the City in her honor, and wanted it to be used in the Manor Park area because the League of Women Voters maintained the garden there. The family did not specify any conditions for the use of the donation. Using the remaining funds to improve Manor Park would be appropriate. 8. PLANNING Chair Schmitt reported on matters considered and actions .taken at the June 3, 2008, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meetil~g). He noted the Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the City should not allow the use of"golfcarts on City streets. A. House Moving Permit Applicant: Kristi and John'~~far•c~~-:~rdt Location: 5985 Afton Road Director Nielsen stated John and Kristi Marquardt. 5985 Afton Road, requested a house moving permit. The City's Ordinance requires the Plailnin~ Commission review house moving permits; the Commission's responsibility is to review the .proposed route, subject to Staff's recommendations for acceptability, and the ultimate Location of_the house in the City. In this situation the house will be relocated outside of the City; lhei-efore, tlierc was no need for the Commission to review the location. He explained the initial route proposed was t~ go north on Cathcart Drive, then west on Smithtown Road and out of the City; because of some z~oad construction this was not a viable route. The movers, who are licensed and bonded, have proposed an alternative route which is to go north on Cathcart Drive, east on Smithtown Road, and south on County Road 19 and west on Highway 7 out of the City. The South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) recommended the house be moved between midnight and 5:00 A.M. The movers indicated they would move the house as close to midnight as possible; the date for the move has not been determined but would occur sometime during the next 2 - 3 weeks. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the house moving permit. In response to a question from Mayor Lizee, Director Nielsen explained the mover is purchasing the house. Lizee thought reusing a house is wonderful thing to do for the environment. Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, approving a house moving permit for John and Kristi Marquardt, 5985 Afton Road. Motion passed 5/0. B. Minnewashta School Traffic Management Plan This was discussed after Item 9.C on the agenda. SHOREWOOD CIT4' COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 10 of 16 Director Nielsen stated as a condition of the most recent Minnewashta Elementary School conditional use permit (C.U.P.), the School District was asked to submit a parking management plan by the end of May, which it did. The meeting packet contained a memorandum from him regarding Staff's initial comments regarding the plan. Earlier in the day the City was informed that the School District was able to acquire two properties adjacent to the west side of the Minnewashta Elementary School property. The acquisitions will significantly increase the amount of available parking at the School. The District had submitted a new site plan including the two new parcels. He suggested this item be continued to the July 14, 2008, City Council meeting to allow Staff to study the site plan. He noted there would have to be some changes made to the C.U.P.; the parking management plan could be much simpler and it would be for a much shorter duration of time. Mayor Lizee stated she was pleased to hear about the land acquisitions, and the City looked forward to working with the School District and surrounding neighborhood residents to resolve the traffic problems and improve safety around the area. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Director Nielsen stated the School District had submitted a detailed parking plan by the end of May which was a condition of granting the C.U.P. and Staff had made comments on the plan. The drainage plan for the existing and new property has yet to be addressed. An interim plan would probably have to be developed. Mike Condon, the Supervisor for Buildings and Grounds for the Minnetonka School District, stated the School District hoped to close on the two properties oil Jurit 13, 2008, and planned to take possession of the properties on September 1, 2008. On~June 16`'' the School District would start surveying the land and begin working with City ..staff and ihe• Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The goal was to have the parking lots completed inkhe fall of 2008 with at least the first level of bituminous surface down before snow came. Nc noted this was a tentative schedule. Wellens moved, Bailey seconded, eoi~tinuia~g the Minnewashta Elementary School Traffic Management Plan to a July 14,2008, City Council regular meeting. Motion passed 5/0. Discussion moved to Item 10.A o~i t1~~~ a~cnda. C. Use of Golf Carts on City Streets This was discussed after Item 8.A on the agenda. Director Nielsen stated as Chair Schmitt had explained, the Planning Commission was opposed to allowing the use of golf carts or 4-wheelers on City streets, primarily for safety reasons. He stated both the Director of Public Works and the SLMPD Police Chief expressed concern about the use of them on the City's narrow and winding streets. The Chief also expressed concern about the lack of safety equipment on golf carts. Councilmember Turgeon questioned if mobility devices should be allowed on City sidewalks. Councilmember Woodruff questioned if the City would have to take special action to allow the use of mobility devices on sidewalks to which Attorney Keane responded it would not. The issue is the authorized use of public roadways not the pedestrian ways. Mayor Lizee noted golf carts are allowed in the Boulder Bridge Farm because it had a private trail system; they were not allowed on City streets in that area. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 11 of 16 Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, denying the request for the use of golf carts on City streets. Motion passed 5/0. 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Authorize Request for Proposals for Owners Representative for City Hall Renovation and Expansion Project Acting Administrator Brown stated in his memorandum dated June 6, 2008, he outlined the pros and cons of the two main types of methods used for the oversight of a construction project which are a Construction Manager (CM) and an Owners Representative (OR). He explained most of the firms that do that type of work will fulfill either role. Generally, one type is brought into the process during the design phase and the other after construction bids are awarded. He stated because the City was far along in the design process the City would receive the best value for its money by using an OR. A CM contracts directly with the subcontractors and keeps records for the project, and there is some risk with that; the CM also is responsible for the general conditions such as insurance. The OR is working solely for the benefit of the owner and does not bear that risk. Councilmember Woodruff stated the request for proposal for an QR was one of the best he had seen. Councilmember Bailey stated based on Acting Administrator Brown's assessment, he would be hard pressed to find a reason to hire a CM. He questioned what would cause him to hire a CM over an OR. Acting Administrator Brown explained if the City was to have used a CM the CM should have been hired some time ago. A CM examines the plans and ~pecificatio~iis in detail well before the design phase is completed, and provides insight into how to do the best value engineering through the design process. It takes time for a CM to negotiate contracts with the subcontractors which relinquishes the City from the public bid process. He commented the City had already prepared for the public bid process. Councilmember Wellens stated part of the goal was to reduce the Staff's work load with regard to the renovation project, and relinquishing the 1~esponsibility for the bid process would have done that. Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, authorizing the publication of the request for proposal for the solicitation of proposals for an Owners Representative for the City Hall renovation project. Mayor Lizee thanked Staff for clearly identifying the pros and cons for the two methods. Motion passed 5/0. B. Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the City Hall Renovation Project Acting Administrator Brown stated the most recent plans and specifications for the City Hall renovation project had been distributed to Council this evening. He then stated Brian Lubben, with Collaborative Design Group (CDG) was present to discuss them. Mr. Lubben stated architectural stone veneer had been added to the "bump outs" of the exterior along the north face of the building and the west face of the building. Windows had been added to the Council Chambers. His firm continued with value engineering to ensure the total package stays within budget. He stated a lot of progress had been made on the plans and specifications during the last two weeks. He noted the construction period had been reduced to six months from seven months. He explained the SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 12 of 16 specifications include language which asks the contractors to propose a shorter construction period if they feel it appropriate, and that will be a condition when selecting the bid. The only item on the alternative bid schedule is the skylights in the center office area. The backup diesel generator is included in the base bid; he thought the cost to do so would range from $25,000 - $30,000. The fire suppression system is also included in the base bid. Councilmember Woodruff questioned what additional construction time it would take to install the skylights because they would be an integral part of the roof structure and the existing structure would have to be changed. Mr. Lubben stated he did not think the time would increase but the sequencing would be more difficult; the contractor would likely work on that roof structure at the same time truss work was being done on the new portion of the building. The specifications included a number of guidelines for how things may have to be sequenced, and some of it will have to be finalized after a contractor is selected and a detail construction plan is prepared. There will be some level of disruption to staff. He noted the cost to install the skylights will likely be substantial. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Mr. Lubben stated the plans and specifications are complete but there are minor things (such as correcting spelling mistakes) that must be corrected. Woodruff commented that Staff had not had the opportunity to, scrutinize the specifications, and he questioned how changes to the specifications would be haildlcd. Mr. Lubben explained there is an addenda process to allow for corrections and that could eontimie to until June 30"' (the end of the question period). Acting Administrator Brown stated it was not uncommon to have 12 - 15 addendums for a project this size. Woodruff cautioned against a creeping elegance scenario. In response to a question from Councilmember ~cllens, Nlr: Lubben stated the City had until the bid was awarded to determine if it did or did not want to have. skylights installed. Acting Administrator Brown stated the design specifications specify the hold tiii~e between when the bids are opened and the bid is awarded. The faster the Council awardsthc co~ltract the.faster the contractor can finalize its subcontracts. Councilmember Wellens questioned the need for the backup generator. Councilmember Turgeon stated the City had discussed the need t~or a b~ickup generator for years. Acting Administrator Brown stated in the past residents expressed concen~ ~~~ith the fact City Hall was not functional during power outages. Turgeon moved, Bailey seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 08-045, "A Resolution Approving Plans, Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for the Shorewood City Hall Renovation and Expansion, Project, City Project No. 08-06." Mayor Lizee stated she had received questions from residents wondering if the renovated building will be energy efficient, and if the City was being environmentally conscientious. She requested Mr. Lubben respond to those questions. Mr. Lubben stated the building was a fairly efficient structure because of the small windows in it; therefore, most of the walls are insulated. It may not be up to current standards, but it will be better than typical residential construction. With regard to being environmentally conscientious, the City is reusing at least two-thirds of the building. All of the improvements will improve the energy efficiency. Motion passed 5/0. C. Appeal Sanitary Sewer Connection Appellant: Janet Sue Molin Location: 4405 Enchanted Point SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 13 of 16 Engineer Landini stated Janet Molin was sent a Notice to Connect to Sanitary Sewer, a provision of Shorewood's municipal code section 904, for property she owned located at 4405 Enchanted Point. Ms. Molin requested an exception for properties with private sewage disposal systems in existence prior to the construction of the sanitary sewer. Ms. Molin distributed a packet (a copy of which can be found on file) which contained her appeal; an aerial photo of the subject property; a copy of Sections 904.04, 904.05 and 904.06 of the Shorewood City Code; the Notice to Connect to Sanitary Sewer she received from the City; her appeal request letter; another letter from the City; and, another written response from her. Ms. Molin read her appeal statement. Following are the highlights of her appeal. There is a cabin on the property which is used less than 50 days per year, from Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend; it is never used for more than seven consecutive days at a time. The cabin has a toilet and private sewage system which existed prior to the construction of the public sanitary sewer. The private sewage system is functioning as designed. City Code Section 904.05, Subd. 1, which is cited in the Notice to Connect to Sanitary Sewer she received, states "...connection to the public sanitary sewe~° shall be mandatory and required for all houses, buildings or properties used for human occupancy, employment, recreation or other purposes and which abut upo~t the public sewer." Section 904.06 specifically addresses properties with private sewage disposal systems. Section 904.06 Subd. 3.a provides a reasonable exception to connection. It states "T/ie owners of all houses, buildings or properties which abut upon or are served by a public sei-i~~r and ~t~here.cesspools and septic tanks have been in. existence prior to the construction of the sanit~zrv s~tii~er shall c~~~nnect with thepublic sewer when the septic tank and cesspools are in need of major repairs nf• ~~~fastruction." Ms. Moline stated she respectfully appealed the written order from the City Council requiring connection to the public sanitary sewer based on the _grandfathei~ed right provided to property owners in City Code Section 904.06 Subdivision 3.a, and she rcgtiested the use of the existing private sewage disposal system at 4405 Enchanted Point be allowed to continueas provided for in the current City Code. In response to a question from Councilmember Bailey, Acting Administrator Brown explained City Code Section 904.06 Subd. 3.b states ` crs~ a sela~cr Gecomes available to a property served by a private sewage disposal system, as provided in ~ 9~4.O~ of this chapter, a direct connection shall be made to the public sewer". Brown stated there were inconsistencies between Section 904.06 Subd. 3.a and 3.b and he was not sure why the two conflicting statements were included in the Code. Councilmember Bailey stated the Code was ambiguous, and in the absence of some compelling public health issue it was difficult to understand the City's need to force the connection to the public sanitary sewer based on the ambiguity of the Code. Councilmember Woodruff suggested if City Attorney thinks there is ambiguity in the Code, then Council should decide what the Code should state and correct it. If need be, this matter of connecting to public sanitary sewer could be addressed once the Code was clarified. He questioned if there was overriding state or county legislation regarding sanitary sewer and Lakeshore residences. Director Nielsen explained that the Metropolitan Council wants either to have the City force properties to connect to public sanitary sewer where available or to have the City establish an inspection and maintenance program for existing on-site disposal and treatment systems. The City has deferred testing septic systems to Hennepin County in the past. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 14 of 16 Councilmember Wellens asked Ms. Molin if she knew for sure her septic system was functioning as designed. Ms. Molin stated her septic system appears to functioning okay. In response to a question from Wellens, Ms. Molin stated to her knowledge the septic system had not been tested by Hennepin County. Councilmember Turgeon suggested the Planning Commission review the code. In response to a question from Mayor Lizee, Attorney Keane stated there was ambiguity in the Code. He explained Council could continue the appeal until it receives a report from staff. Keane stated Council could make a conditional determination; if the septic system was certified to current Hennepin County standards, Council may consider approving the appeal. Mayor Lizee stated she considered this to be a health issue. She suggested this be continued until there is clarification of the Code and Staff determines if there is any state or country legislation regarding septic systems on lakeshore property. Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, continuing the sanitary sewer connection appeal for 60 days to allow Council time to discuss the ambiguity in the City Code and to allow Staff time to determine if there is any overriding legislation regarding septic. ystems on lakeshore property. Councilmember Bailey stated the Notice to Connect to Sanitary Sewer was based on the City Code and the appeal is based on the Code. Based on the informauun prese~itcd and the Code he would support granting the appeal. The Code was ambiguous. He w~~n ~ ~ i opposed to discussing clarifying the Code or determining if there is other applicable legislation. He cl i d chink Ms. Molin's request should be satisfied this evening. Councilmember Woodruff stated he was notinterested in establishing a precedent either yes or no. Motion passed 4/1 with Bailey dissenting. Discussion returned to Item 8n,R nn the agenda' 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC ~'~' O RKS A. Award Contract for the 2008 Mill and Overlay Project This was discussed after Item 8.B on the agenda. Engineer Landini explained bid tabulation for the 2008 bituminous mill, overlays and appurtenant work for Apple Road, Blue Ridge Lane and Cathcart Drive were opened and tabulated on June 4, 2008. The low bidder was Midwest Asphalt Corporation in the amount of $155,672.30. Based on the other bids received, it appears that the costs for this project are reasonable. Landini stated this project will be funded by the Streets & Roadways Operating Budget which has $300,000 budgeted for street maintenance in 2008. This project puts the total for street projects in 2008 at $328,506.95, or an over-budget situation of $28,506.95. He reviewed different options for consideration. Accept the project as is and authorize expenditures in excess of the budget. Reduce this project by $28,506.95 which is removing an equivalent to Blue Ridge Lane. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 15 of 16 Reduce the sealcoat project by $28,506.95 which is removing an equivalent of all of Boulder Bridge and Eureka North. Landini stated Staff recommends the contract for the 2008 bituminous mill and overlays be awarded to Midwest Asphalt Corporation for an amount not to exceed $155,672.30. Director Burton stated there were ample reserves in the Local Street and Road Fund to cover the overage. Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 08-046, "A Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for the 2008 Bituminous Mill, Overlays and Appurtenant Work for Apple Road, Blue Ridge Land and Cathcart Drive, City Project no. 08-04." Motion passed 5/0. B. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for the Control Portion of the Design Build Contract for Amesbury Well Controls Acting Administrator Brown explained that on October 22, 2007, Council accepted the proposal for professional services by Instrument Control Systems (ICS) for the design build phase of the Amesbury Well Control Project. ICS has completed the design of the project and has competitively bid out the components of the project. The total amount quoted forthc project is $109,123. This project was included as part of a 2005 bond issue for a conglomeration of prof ects. There is $128,378 remaining from that bond issue for this project. After taxes and any costs foc• telephone are factored into the project cost there would still be sufficient funds. Acting Administrator Brown stated Excel ener~v ~:i~rouraged th.e design team to change the power source and transformer outside of the building at ~ ~~~;~ of $8,000 - $12,000. After analysis, the design team decided the existing electrical service should remain and the control equipment will be designed to work with either power source. Turgeon moved, Woodruff secon~ted; _ authorizing the expenditure of funds from the Municipal Water Fund for the control portion of the design build contract for the Amesbury Well Controls. Motion passed 5/0. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff 1. City Hall Remodeling Project Update Acting Administrator Brown stated this had been discussed earlier in the meeting. 2. City Administrator Search Update Acting Administrator Brown stated there was a tour of the City scheduled for 2:30 P.M. on Friday June 13, 2008, for the City Administrator candidates and there was a meet and greet session scheduled after that at the Southshore Center. The City's department heads, Councilmembers, Chairs of the Park and Planning Commissions, Attorney Keane, SLMPD Chief Litsey, EFD Chief Gerber, and Mound Fire Chief Pederson were invited. Interviews will be conducted on Saturday, June 14"', by Council. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 16 of 16 3. Update on Spring Clean-up Acting Administrator Brown stated he did not have the statistics from the spring clean-up with him this evening. He will distribute that information to Councilmembers the next day. Acting Administrator Brown stated there was an EFD joint member cities' councils budget work session scheduled for June 11, 2008, at 6:00 P.M., and there was a park tour schedule for June 12, 2008. B. Mayor & City Council Councilmember Woodruff stated he had received a notice from Metro Cities stating it would begin having meetings regarding various legislative issues. He planned to attend the revenue and taxation meetings again this year. Mayor Lizee thanked Woodruff for participating, and encouraged other Councilmembers to attend informational meetings. Councilmember Bailey thanked Director Burton for preparing a budget variance analysis report as had been discussed in a previous meeting. He requested the report be enhanced to calendarize the report. Burton stated she would attempt to do that. Mayor Lizee stated on her way to the meeting this evening she received a call from Dick Osgood, Executive Director of the Lake Minnetonka Association, regarding t}~e three bay herbicide treatment project. Earlier in the day he and others had toured C~rnlan, Grays and Phelps Bays and noticed a reduction in and dying of Eurasian watermilfoil. The native plant species are doing well. Another check will be done in 4 - 6 weeks. She then stated the art on the i.ake event held June 7"' and June 8"' was very successful and was well attended. 12. ADJOURN Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded,. Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of June 9, 2008, at 10:09 P.M. Motion,passeti S;'0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Lawrence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk PAYABLES APPROVALS For 06/23/2008 Council Meeting j ~~. ~-- ~__ .~ e ~ F, Prepared by: ~ _ Date: s - ~. ~ Michelle T. Ngu en, Sr. Accounting Clerk Reviewed by: ~ _ _ .,~..,., ~~ ~.__ Date: !''~"' Bonnie Burton, Finance Director f~~ Approved by:' ~~~-----~ r,~-~..~-a, ; Date: : ~> , '-Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator t-~3A PAYROLL APPROVALS For 06/23/2008 Council Meeting _. Prepared by: ~~ Reviewed by Michelle T. Nguyen, Sr ,~I ~:3"L( ~..~' ~. Date: Accounting Clerk Bonnie Burton, Finance Director Date: l ~~ ~- Approved b~;..- - - Date: . ~, Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ~ SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ®(952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us a cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator DATE: May 19, 2008 SUBJECT: Hennepin County Joint Cooperation Agreement for Fiscal 2009-2011 CDBG One of the responsibilities of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is to administrate and distribute federal funds, at the state, county and local levels, to address a variety of housing, planning and development needs. One of the ways that funds are distributed is through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Documentation on HUD's web site indicates that CDBG funds may be used for activities which include, but are not limited to: • Acquisition of real property; • Relocation and demolition; • Rehabilitation of residential and non-residential structures; • Construction of public facilities and improvements, such as water and sewer facilities, streets, neighborhood centers, and the conversion of school buildings for eligible purposes; • Public services, within certain limits; • Activities relating to energy conservation and renewable energy resources; and • Provision of assistance to profit-motivated businesses to carry out economic development and job creation/retention activities. After reading the list provided, it is very tempting to conjure up a wide variety of potential local projects that may fit the above activities. However, HUD has recently come under strict scrutiny to focus their primary mission on providing affordable housing, neighborhood blight projects, and serving persons with low and moderate_incomes. Funds for these projects may be applied for on a competitive basis through the CDBG program. Since funds are limited, as compared to the number of needs (or wants) seeking funding, many com- munities have opted to compete as a single group, to increase the chances of receiving funding and in hopes of utilizing a larger pool of funds to achieve a greater impact. ®s ~®p® PRINTED ONRECYCLED PAPER Mayor and City Council Agreement with Hennepin County for CDGB Funds June 19, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Such is the case with many communities within Hennepin County. A majority of the communities have opted in the past to participate as a consortium known as the "Urban Hennepin County Joint Cooperation Program (also referred to as the Consolidated Pool)." Attachment 1 is a map of the consortium. In an effort to better understand the focus of the program, staff researched the current work plan for the current agreement. This has been included as Attachment 2, and provides a better basis of understanding of the programs goals and objectives. Also included as Attachment 3 is a document provided by Hennepin County regarding the consortium that is a "Frequently Asked Questions Guide." Staff inquired if the City of Shorewood had received any benefit from the program. Mr. Jim Ford, Principal Planner for Hennepin County, indicated that the only benefit that has been received by Shorewood indirectly is a minor amount for transportation program for the Southshore Community Center. Having stated that, based on the most recent focus to housing needs, it is very unlikely that such funding of a similar activity would be provided by the CDBG program. The City of Shorewood has opted, in past years, to participate in this group. For the City to continue its participation in this program, it will need to enter into a new agreement. The current agreement expires at the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2008. Hennepin County is requiring that approved and executed agreements be received by June 30. There are no modifications being proposed to the existing agreement except for clarifying the automatic renewal clause in Section III of the proposed agreement (i.e., at the end of the next renewal period on September 30, 2011, the County will notify the participating cities of their right to no longer participate in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program as stipulated in the agreement; if the cities continue their participation, the agreement will automatically be renewed for another three-year term). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution approving the 2009-2011 Joint Cooperation Agreement and authorizing its execution. O C U .N O x +~+ U .Q W 2 a .~..: ~ ~ _ i :; _ ~ I I °' I c m ~. ~ ,--~ - ---- --~- I ~ y ------a ~~ a o __,____- I I o i c_ - ~- -7. --- j ~, l-~ ~ ~ N v I ~ O ~ 2 i j I c o ~ ~ Q j I :. o a - ~ , -- - ----..-__~ I , [ ~ ~ i ~ v x ~ ; i ~ s ~ c ~ ~ n a I ~ I , I Itif? c 1.. ~ .~ a W j )~ ~ I ~ ~ - -- ~ 1 y 1 ~ o « ' Si y ~ ~ ] ! ~ ~: y ~_ ~' I I ~ f t ~ r,.~ w ~ ~ ---~ I ' `' _ 'I ~I ~ ~t { ~ ! r ~•, N ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ° i ~ a j 1~~ i ~ , v ~cq g~ U" v ! A Al ~ ~ I i ~ ~ 3 ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' I j ~ .~r :~ W ~~ ~, ~~ ~~ i 1 ~~ 0 1 ~ Q ~+ OO ~ ~ I~ ,~ .~ ' '~ > '~ ~ O ~R+~ S O $ U f ^~ i O J p-1 1 (~''~ ~ U i /. ~ N ATTACHMENT 1 CONSORTIUM MAP HENNEPIN COUNTY C~L~] ~~~731~~1uJ CONSOLIDATED PLAN FY 2005-2009 `a . y ,, ~ Y ~* _ tea +'.x . ~ ~ F + :~ _ ~ ... - I ~l -,Jill ,, a,a^: '' ` r - - - _ 3 ~, - r ~ - ~~ Y ~ ~ ~,zi _ ,_ _ _ ~~ . Y- _ 5 " ~ .. ~ ~~,, ~ ~ "ar- Consortium Members: Urban Hennepin County Bloomington Plymouth t. ,, Housing, Community Works and Transit ELtUAL HOUSING BPPQRTUHITV ATTACHMENT 2 Consolidated Plan Public Comment Draft Hennepin County Consortium Consolidated Plan 2005-2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Hennepin County Consortium Consolidated Plan 2005-2009 ("the Plan) has been prepared to meet statutory planning and application requirements for the receipt and use of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)'s funding programs in suburban Hennepin County: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Program. This Plan is the third consecutive Five Year Consolidated Plan developed for the Hennepin CountS~ Consortium and it takes effect with fiscal year 2005, in July 1, 2005. HUD prescribed the basic format and content for the Plan. Congress has set forth three basic goals for the entitlement programs: PROVIDE DECENT HOUSING PROVIDE A SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT EXPAND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES The Plan furthers the statutory goals through a collaborative process, whereby the jurisdiction establishes a unified vision for housing and community development actions. The Hennepin County Consortium (the "Consortium") consists of three HUD entitlement jurisdictions: Hennepin County (on behalf of suburban Hennepin County only), the city of Bloomington and the city of Plymouth. The Consortium was formed to receive HOME funds. Hennepin County (the "county") is the entitlement recipient for CDBG funding, in cooperation with 43 suburban Hennepin communities. The cities of Bloomington and Plymouth are entitlement recipients for CDBG funding only. The county is the entitlement jurisdiction for the ESG Program and acts on behalf of the Consortium for I IOME Program. The county, as the lead agency for the Consortium, is responsible for overseeing the development, implementation and evaluation of the Plan. Throughout the document, the term "suburban Hennepin County" is used to describe the geographic area for the Consortium. Hennepin County Consortium Consolidated Plan • FY 2005-2009 iii Executive Summary Public Comment Draft Preparation of the Plan was done through collaboration and coordination of interested individuals and relevant government, for-profit and nonprofit agencies. The Plan uses 2000 Census data to quantify housing needs, as required by HUD. Other available information was also used to more accurately describe current housing needs within suburban Hennepin Count~~. Meetings were held with Consortium cities, housing and service provider organizations, and interested persons to discuss program accomplishments over the last five program years (2000-2004) and needs and priorities for the next five years. In addition, a survey was sent to all cities and over 80 community partners to identify priorit~~ housing and community development needs, as well as barriers and opportunities for addressing needs. ~- The Plan uses the following HUD definitions from the CDBG Program. Examples of jobs in these salary ranges are provided. • "Extremely Low-Income" =households earning up to and including 30 percent of area median income (AMI). In 2004, a single person would earn up to $16,110, while a family of three would earn up to $20,700. Examples of local wages in this category include: Retail sales person ($19,178), Childcare worker ($17,722), and Cashier ($17,763). • "Low-Income" =households earning between 31 percent and up to and including 50 percent of AMI. In 2004, a single person would earn up to $26,850 while a family of three would earn up to $34,500. Examples of local wages in this category include: Administrative Assistant ($28,392) and Assembly Worker ($27,851). • "Moderate-Income"= households earning between 51 percent and up to and including 80 percent of AMI. In 2004, a single person would earn up to $40,250 while a family of three would earn up to $51,750. • "Severely Cost Burdened"= households paying 50 percent or more of its income for housing costs, including utilities. • "Household problems"= households that are paying 30 percent or more of their income for housing and/or are over-crowded, and/or without complete plumbing or kitchen facilities. iv Hennepin County Consortium Consolidated Plan • FY 2005-2009 Executive Summary Public Comment Draft Housing Needs by Income and Population Group Hennepin County had 291,200 total households according to the 2000 Census. Approximately 6.5 percent of these households were extremely low-income, (18,700 households), 8.5 percent were low-income (25,000 households), and 15.5 percent were moderate-income (44,700 households). Exhibits ES.1 and Exhibit ES.2 provide data on the housing needs by income, rental/ownership status, and population group. This data was used in determining the Plan housing and public service goals included in Exhibit ES.4. Exhibit ES.1: Housing Problems by Income Group E_xtrem_el}~ Low-Income Low-Income ~ Moderate-Income Owner & Renter # % of Total # % of Total # % of Total Housin Problems 14,100 75% 16,100 64% 17,400 39% Severe Cost Burden 10,800 57% 10,800 22% 2,800 6% Renter Housin Problems 9,200 76% 9,700 78% 6,500 37 Severe Cost Burden 7,200 60% 2,600 21% 600 3% Owner Housin Problems 5,000 74% 6,300 50% 10,900 40% Severe Cost Burden 3,600 53% 3,000 23% 2,200 8% Source: 2000 Census Exhibit ES.2: Housing Problems b Population Group Extremely Low-Income Low-Income Moderate-Income Rent Own Rcnt Own Rent Own Lar e Famll # % # % # % # % # % # Housing Problems 528 94% 248 94% 556 83% 641 86% 474 67% 1,318 51% Severe Cost Burden 302 54% 188 71% 18 3% 273 37% 10 1% 150 6% Small Famil Housing Problems 2,473 86% 1,042 87% 2,684 76% 2,131 81% 1,515 31% 4,780 54% Severe Cost Burden 1,888 66% 950 80% 372 11% 1,097 42% 54 1% 1,023 12% Other Housing Problems 3,213 77% 1,030 78% 3,720 82% 1,299 74% 2,753 31% 3,113 51% Severe Cost Burden 2,769 66% 842 64% 794 17% 611 35% 115 1% 493 8% Elden 62 and older Housing Problems 2,940 66% 2,648 68% 2,770 76% 2,297 31% 1,797 58% 1,696 18% Severe Cost Burden 2,262 51% 1,553 40% 1,376 38% 953 13% 401 13% 514 5% Source: U.S. Census 2000 Hennepin County Consortium Consolidated Plan • FY 2005-2009 v Executive Summary Public Comment Draft Housing for Homeless Persons The Plan also addresses the needs of our communities' homeless population. The major underlying problem of homelessness continues to be the shortage of affordable rental and supportive housing for very low-income families and single adults and persons with special needs. HUD and Minnesota state agencies, through the State Plan to End Long Term Homelessness, established the elimination of long term and chronic homelessness by 2010 as a high priority. The Consortium Plan goals for this population further this federal and state priority and reflect the Continuum of Care strategic plan. Housing for Persons with Special Needs -Non-Homeless This category includes the frail elderly, chemically dependent, mentally ill, developmentally disabled, physically disabled, and persons with HIV/AIDS. The 2000 Census reported that 86,600 persons in suburban Hennepin County indicated a disability, or 12 percent of the general population. The Plan provides more detail on the specific counts in each special needs group. Housing Supply/Cost Rental: While the metro area, on average, has experienced high rental vacancy rates, the Consortium communities' rents and vacancy rates have varied depending on the community. Vacancy rates decreased between 2003-2004 for 11 of the 15 communities tracked by GVA Marquette Advisors, and ranged from 2.3 percent in Robbinsdale to 8.5 percent in Minnetonka. Rents also varied between community: an average two-bedroom unit's rent in Brooklyn Park was $801 while atwo-bedroom in Edina was $1,168. These rents require incomes between $32,000 and $46,000, which are considerably higher than those extremely low-income households described above. A HousingLink July 2004 survey of the Twin Cities metro found only seven two-bedroom apartments out of 1,334 listings were "affordable"(rent of $517.50 per month) to an extremely low three-person household. Ownership: The average value for single-family homes increased dramatically between 2000 and 2004, as described in Table ES 3 below. The area median income, however, only increased 10 percent during this time period. These values have made it increasingly difficult for moderate and low-income households to purchase homes without financial assistance. Exhibit ES 3: Single Family Property Value Increases 2000 to 2004 Average Average 4 Year Percent Number of 2004 Value 2000 Value Increase Change Properties SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES First Ring $225,313 $137,542 $87,771 64% 69,046 Second Ring $259,603 $160,869 $98,734 61% 90,728 Third Ring $362,948 $197,286 $165,662 84% 31,276 vi Hennepin County Consortium Consolidated Plan • FY 2005-2009 Executive Summary Public Comment Draft The Plan goals and priorities were established based on the data as reported above, input from the citizen participation process, consideration of the priorities already established by HUD and Consortium members, and an assessment of funding resources anticipated to be made available. The specific goals and priorities are included in Exhibit ES.4, and include: • Preserve the existing affordable housing supply as well as assist new, affordable rental housing for low-income households, with priority for extremely low-income households. • Provide supportive housing for persons with special needs. • Provide emergency shelter, transitional housing and supportive housing for persons who are homeless. • Preserve and improve housing owned or rented by low and extremely low-income households and assist with accessibility improvements for low, extremely low and moderate-income households. • Provide increased opportunities for homeownership to moderate and low-income households. • Target ESG funds to prevention activities and housing-related support services for families and youth. The Consortium assumed federal and local funding levels will remain consistent with the prior four years 2000-2003, as reported in the Consortium's Consolidated Plan and Evaluation Reports (CAPER's). The total amount is projected to be $239 million from the following resources: • Affordable rental housing, including special needs non-homeless populations: MHFA resources, CDBG, HOME, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, HUD Section 202 Program for senior housing, HUD 811 for special needs, public and private nonprofits, developer contributions, and other local funding. • Housing rehabilitation and accessibility improvements for physically disabled low- income households: CDBG, HOME, MHFA housing rehabilitation programs, weatherization programs and other local funding. • Homeownership for first-time homebuyers: MHFA mortgage programs and downpayment assistance using CDBG and/or HOME Programs, including the American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) Program. • Housing needs of homeless persons: HUD Continuum of Care resources -Supportive Housing Program, Shelter+Care, Mod Rehab Single Room Occupancy (SRO), Safe Havens, ESGP, Housing for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA), HOME Program and public and private nonprofits. Hennepin County Consortium Consolidated Plan • FY 2005-2009 vii Executive Summary Public Comment Draft Exhibit ES.4 Consolidated Plan 2005-2009 Housing and Community Development Goals Priority 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL Strategy One: Renters 1.1 Small PamIly/Unrelated Individual New units (a) I-Iigh <50% 80 75 75 70 70 370 Preserved units I Iigh <50% 70 70 70 70 70 350 Stabilized traits Medium <50% 15 15 15 15 15 75 165 160 160 155 155 795 1.2 Large Family New units (b) High <50% 15 15 15 10 10 65 Preserved units High <50% 10 10 10 10 10 50 Stabilized units Medium <50% 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 25 20 20 115 7.3 Elderly I-Iigh < 50% 20 20 20 20 20 100 210 205 205 195 195 1010 Strategy Two: Existing Owners 2.1 I Iousing Rehabilitation I-Iigh < 50% 300 300 300 300 300 1500 2.2 Physically Disabled (CI-IS waivers) I-Iigh <80% 50 50 50 50 50 250 Strategy Three: First Time Homebuyers 3.1 Homeownership Assistance (c) I-Iigh < 80% 250 250 250 250 250 1250 3.2 Physically Disabled High < 80% 1 1 1 1 1 5 Strategy Four: Homeless I-Iousing Units (d) I-Iigh < 50% 25 25 25 25 25 126 Strategy Five: Special Needs -Non-Homeless 5.1 Frail F_.lderly Low 10 10 10 10 10 50 5.2 Chemically Dependent Low 10 10 10 10 10 50 5.3 Mentally Ill (e) I-Iigh < 50% 30 30 30 30 30 150 5.4 Developmentally Disabled Low 10 10 10 10 10 50 5.5 Physically Disabled High < 50% 10 10 10 10 10 50 5.6 Persons with HIV/AIDS Low 10 10 10 10 10 50 80 80 80 80 80 300 Strategy Six: Family Services (people served) Child Care Assistance High < 80% 57 57 57 57 57 285 Immigrant and Refitgees I-Iigh < 80% 100 100 100 100 100 500 Emergency Assistance I-Iigh < 80% 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 5000 I Iomeownership Training f filth < 80% 300 300 300 300 300 1500 Mortgage I:oreclosure Prevention I-Iigh < 80% 200 200 200 200 200 1000 Tenant Advocacy I-Iigh < 80% 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 5,000 Homeless Prevention and Housing Services High < 50% 500 500 500 500 500 2500 Strategy Seven: Senior Services (people served) I-Iomc Maintenance and Chores High < 80% 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 5,000 Services at Senior Centers I-Iigh < 80% 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 35000 Financial Assistance High < 80% 35 35 35 35 35 175 viii Hennepin County Consortium Consolidated Plan • FY 2005-2009 Executive Summary Public Comment Draft Priority 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL Strategy Eight: Youth Services (people served) Recreational and Park Programs High < 80% 800 800 800 800 800 4000 Criminal)ustice Intervention I-Iigh < 80% 160 160 160 160 160 800 Outreach homeless /Runaway Youth High < 80% 200 200 200 200 200 1000 Group Counseling to At-risk Youth High < 80% 100 100 100 100 100 500 Strategy. Nine: Neighborhood Revitalization Acquisition for Rehab/Clearance I-Iigh < 80% 3 3 3 3 3 15 Strategy Ten: Transportation Services Rides: Seniors, Disabled, and Low-Income I-Ii h < 80% 900 900 900 900 900 4500 (a) Includes 74 units targeted to homeless which are permanent housing without support services. (b) Includes 12 units targeted to homeless which are permanent housing without support services. (e) Includes MI-IFA bonds, down payment assistance paid from multiple sources. (d) Includes shelters, transitional units and traits with support services. (e) Persons with mental illness often have chemical dependency ("dual diagnosis"). Projects serving this population will meet this goal. The Plan includes data provided by community providers and Hennepin County Human Services Department documenting the continued need for both community development and public services. The input received through the citizen participation process confirmed these needs. Specific goals are included in Exhibit ES.4. Family service needs include childcare assistance, immigrant and refugee services, emergency assistance, domestic abuse intervention, homeownership training, mortgage foreclosure and prevention, and tenant advocacy. Senior service needs include outreach, assistance with housing maintenance and chore services, services available through senior centers, and assistance with transportation needs. Youth service needs include summer and after-school recreational programs, and intervention services responding to personal and/or family crisis issues. Public service strategies focus on prevention and early intervention services for at-risk youth. Neighborhood revitalization addresses a single need or multiple complex needs for redevelopment and public facility improvements. First-ring suburbs and fully developed cities, in particular, often have sites with obsolete residential and commercial buildings. Neighborhood revitalization can improve neighborhood property values by rehabilitating or clearing substandard blighted properties, enhance quality of life for residents by providing new or improved public facilities and provide opportunities for affordable housing. Transportation issues and related service needs for seniors, the disabled and low-income families address the need for available, affordable and accessible transportation to help maintain and/or achieve maximum independence and self-sufficiency. Hennepin County Consortium Consolidated Plan • FY 2005-2009 ix Executive Summary Public Comment Draft Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing In 1995, the county, on behalf of the Consortium, contracted with the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CUBA) to prepare an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, commonly referred to as an "AL" All jurisdictions receiving HUD entitlement funding need to conduct an analysis of impediments and develop an action plan to address identified barriers to fair housing choice. The Consortium AI analyzed housing patterns and trends throughout the county and concluded that minorities live in highly segregated concentrations of poverty in Minneapolis and some inner-ring suburbs. The report suggests that impediments to fair housing choice, both historical and continuing, are a significant factor in explaining current housing segregation. In the five years since the AI was completed, the Consortium has been working cooperatively with local fair housing organizations to fund specific activities to address identified impediments. Each year, as part of the annual Consolidated Plan process, the Consortium allocates approximately 1 percent of CDBG plus other funds to implement these actions. Funds have been awarded for fair housing services, including education and outreach efforts, enforcement, fair housing information clearinghouse, and special projects. During the Plan period, the Consortium will continue to address AI identified impediments, including but not limited to: • Improve access to housing information by Limited English Proficient (LEP) populations. • Facilitate PHA outreach strategies to Native American, Hispanic and Asian households to address under representation of these groups in public housing and Section 8 programs. • Address historically low rates of homeownership among protected class members by supporting pre- and post-purchase counseling programs, especially programs available through agencies with bilingual/bicultural housing counselors. The HUD entitlement resources for CDBG are available through an annual application process administered in the spring by the cities of Bloomington and Plymouth for their respective cities and by the county for the balance of suburban Hennepin County. The HOME Program is available through an annual request for proposal (RFP) administered by the county. These processes are in accordance with the Consortium's Citizen Participation Plan. The Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) is completed during the summer and fall, pursuant to HUD requirements and the Consortium's Citizen Participation Plan. The CAPER evaluates the Consortium's progress in meeting the Plan goals. x Hennepin County Consortium Consolidated Plan • FY 2005-2009 Executive Summary Public Comment Draft Other HUD resources are available through a competitive application process to address the needs of homeless persons, disabled persons, seniors and others through anation-wide "super notice of funding availability" process. Funding to address homelessness occurs through the countywide Continuum of Care for the Homeless application process. Hennepin County Consortium Consolidated Plan • FY 2005-2009 xi Executive Summary Frequently Asked Questions regarding the Joint Cooperation Agreement (JCA). What is a Joint Cooperation Agreement? The JCA is a contract between Hennepin County and each city participating in a HUD defined Urban County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement program. This urban county status allows access to annual CDBG allocations, currently $2.4 million. Not signing a JCA means your city is not eligible for any CDBG funding for the agreement period, e.g., 2009-2011. We have been informed by HUD staff that any city that can participate in an urban county program but decides not to cannot apply for HUD funds through the State CDBG program. The State has their own CDBG allocation which is reserved for cities and counties outside the metropolitan area. Are we currently operating under a JCA? Yes. There is an agreement in place for the period 2006-2008. How long have we had these? This has been a HUD requirement since the beginning of the CDBG program back in the mid-1970s. What is the Consolidated Pool? HUD allocates CDBG funding to states, cities and urban counties based upon a formula which considers an applicants' population, poverty and overcrowded housing, with poverty being double weighted. At HUD's "urging", Hennepin County formed a Consolidated Pool (ConPool) for cities which received aggregate formula percentages of three and one half percent (3.5%) or less of the urban county total. These fiends are allocated on a competitive request for proposal basis. The amount of CDBG funding available to ConPool cities was $495,509 in program year 2008. What does this do for the City and/or its residents? Cities in the ConPool have access to 85% of the funding total (approximately $420,000 in 2008) for "brick and mortar" projects consistent with the CDBG eligibility requirements. Given the competitive nature of the application process, successful applicants are generally proposing housing projects that serve low-income households. Among these are residential rehabilitation through the County operated Rehabilitation of Private Property program. In 2008, $200,000 was allocated to this program. Any resident of the ConPool area can apply directly to this office for rehab assistance through this program. (Contact Jim Graham: 612-348-2235) The county is also operating a rental rehab program. This is currently a pilot program only, but recent success suggests it may be continued. ConPool cities are the only organizations that can apply for these funds, although cities frequently work in cooperation with a nonprofit developer, e.g., Habitat for Humanity, West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust, etc. The remaining 15% of the funds can be used to fund public service programs. Public service providers apply directly for funding of senior programs, emergency services (ICA, IOCP, WeCAN), housing counselling programs, domestic abuse services and youth programs, etc. Residents can access these services regardless of where they live, but the cities' participation in the urban county program provides more funding to the ConPool and more funding for these services. FYI, public service providers have consistently been telling me that the demand for emergency services have been increasing drastically over the last few months because of layoffs, foreclosures, rising food and fuel prices, etc. These clients are area residents that have never applied for assistance in the past and are very reluctant to do so. How are ConPool funds allocated? The ConPool funds are allocated through amulti-step process. A Consolidated Pool Advisory Committee reviews the applications and makes funding recommendations to the County Boards of Commissioners, the official applicant for the urban county funds. The Board then approves the annual application, including the allocation ATTACHMENT 3 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS GUIDE recommendations of the committee. To date the Board has always approved the committees' recommendations. HUD staff then review all projects for eligibility and approves funding sometime in July or August. The Consolidated Pool Advisory Committee is made up of city administrators, city clerks or planning staff from participating ConPool cities. The committee could use additional members for the 2009 application process, so if you might be interested please contact me. Is there any cost to the City? No. The only "cost" results from not participating--not signing the agreement. Should a city not sign the agreement, your residents would no longer be eligible for the rehabilitation program and the total CDBG funds available for public services would be smaller. Even if you do not anticipate any housing projects in the near future, signing the agreement costs nothing, but provides more funding for these other programs/services. Please also note that if the JCA is not signed, your city cannot rejoin the ConPool until the next JCA period; 2012-2014. CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM IN FISCAL YEARS 2009-2011 WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood and the County of Hennepin have currently in effect a Joint Cooperation Agreement for purposes of qualifying as an Urban County under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs; and WHEREAS, the City and County wish to execute a new Joint Cooperation Agreement in order to continue to qualify as an Urban County for purposes of the CDBG and HOME Programs. NOW, THEEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Shorewood that a new Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and County be approved and executed effective October 1, 2008, and that the Mayor and City Administrator be authorized and directed to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 23rd day of June, 2008 Christine Lizee, Mayor Attest: Lawrence A. Brown, City Administrator/Clerk Contract No. A080541 JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT URBAN IIENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," A-2400 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55487, and the cities executing this Master Agreement, each hereinafter respectively referred to as "COOPERATING UNIT," said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59: WITNESSETH: COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree that it is desirable and in the interests of their citizens that COOPERATING UNIT shares its authority to carry out essential community development and housing activities with COUNTY in order to permit COUNTY to secure and administer Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership funds as an Urban County within the provisions of the Act as herein defined and, therefore, inconsideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that by the execution of this Agreement that it understands that it: May not also apply for grants under the State CDBG Program from appropriations for fiscal years during which it is participating in the Urban County Program; and 2. May not participate in a HOME Consortium except through the Urban County. I. DEFINITIONS The definitions contained in 42 USC 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR §570.3 of the Regulations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof, and the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them: A. "Act" means Title I ofthe Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). B. "Activity" means aCDBG-funded activity eligible under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. Example: single family rehab activity. C. "Annual Program" means those combined activities submitted by cooperating units to COUNTY for CDBG funding as part of the Consolidated Plan. D. "Consolidated Plan" means the document bearing that title or similarly required statements or documents submitted to HUD for authorization to expend the annual grant amount and which is developed by the COUNTY in conjunction with COOPERATING UNITS as part of the Community Development Block Grant Program. 1 E. '°Cooperating Unit(s)" means any city or town in Hennepin County that has entered into a cooperation agreement that is identical to this Agreement, as well as Hennepin County, which is a party to each Agreement. F. "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. G. "Metropolitan City" means any city located in whole or in part in Hennepin Caunty which is certified by HUD to have a population of 50,400 or more people. H. "Program" means the HUD Community Development Block Grant Program as defined under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. I. "Program Income" means gross income received by the recipient or a subrecipient directly generated from the use of CDBG. J. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, including but not limited to 24 CFR Part 570. K. "Urban County" means the entitlement jurisdiction within the provisions of the Act and includes the suburban Hennepin County municipalities which are signatories to this Agreement. II. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY and COOPERATING UNIT to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities and authorizes COUNTY to carry out these and other eligible activities for the benefit of eligible recipients who reside within the corporate limits of the COOPERATING UNIT which will be funded from annual Community Development Block Grant and HOME appropriations for the Federal Fiscal Years 2009, 2010 and 2011 and from any program income generated from the expenditure of such funds. III. AGREEMENT The initial term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on October 1, 2008 and terminating no sooner than the end of the program year covered by the Consolidated Plan for the basic grant amount for the Fiscal Year 2011, as authorized by HUD, and for such additional time as may be required for the expenditure of funds granted to the County for such period. Prior to the end of the initial term and the end of each subsequent qualification period, the COUNTY, as the lead agency of the URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, shall provide a written notice to the COOPERATING UNIT of their right not to participate in a subsequent qualification period. The written notice will provide the COOPERATING UNIT a minimum thirty {30) day period to submit a written withdrawal. If the COOPERATING UNIT does not submit to the COUNTY a written withdrawal during the notice period, this Agreement shall be automatically extended for a subsequent three- year qualifying period. This Agreement must be amended by written agreement of ail parties to incorporate any future changes necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in the Urban County Qualification Notice applicable for the year in which the next qualification of the County is scheduled. Failure by either party to adopt such an amendment to the Agreement shall automatically terminate the Agreement following the expenditure of all CDBG and HOME funds allocated for use in the COOPERATING UNIT's jurisdiction. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated at the end of the program period during which HUD withdraws its designation of the COUNTY as an Urban County under the Act. This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY pursuant to authority granted them by their respective governing bodies, and a copy ofthe authorizing resolution and executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the COOPERATING UNIT in the Hennepin County Department of Housing, Community Works and Transit, and in no event shall the Agreement be filed later than June 30, 2008. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the applicant's certifications required by Section 104(b} ofthe Title I ofthe Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;: the Fair Housing Act, Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; and other applicable laws. IV. ACTIVITIES COOPERATING UNIT agrees that awarded grant funds will be used to undertake and carry out, within the terms of this Agreement, certain activities eligible for funding under the Act. The COUNTY agrees and will assist COOPERATING UNIT in the undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services specified in this Agreement. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable requirements of the Act and the Regulations and other relevant Federal and/or Minnesota statutes or regulations in the use of basic grant amounts. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate the COUNTY's responsibility to assume all obligations of an applicant under the Act, including the development of the Consolidated Plan, pursuant to 24 CFR Part 91. COOPERATING UNIT further specifically agrees as follows: A. COOPERATING UNIT will, in accord with aCOUNTY-established schedule, prepare and provide to the COUNTY, in a prescribed farm, requests for the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds consistent with this Agreement, program regulations and the Urban Hennepin County Consolidated Plan. B. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that, pursuant to 24 CFR §570.501 {b), it is subject to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients, including the requirement for a written Subrecipient Agreement set forth in 24 CFR §570.503. The Subrecipient Agreement will cover the implementation requirements for each activity funded pursuant to this Agreement and shall be duly executed with and in a form prescribed by the COUNTY. C. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that it is subject to the same subrecipient requirements stated in paragraph B above in instances where an agency other than itself is undertaking an activity pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. In such instances, a written Third Party Agreement shall be duly executed between the agency and COOPERATING UNIT in a form prescribed by COUNTY. D. COOPERATING UNITS shall expend all funds annually allocated to activities pursuant to this Agreement within eighteen (18) months of the authorization by HUD to expend the basic grant amount. With each annual program COOPERATING UNITS shall submit to the COUNTY activity schedules for the completion and expenditure of funds within eighteen (18) months. COUNTY will institute monitoring measures and provide technical or other assistance to insure activities are proceeding on schedule. 2. Funds for activities not expended within eighteen (18) months may be recaptured at the discretion of the COUNTY and distributed by COUNTY as provided for in D. 4. Limited extensions to the expenditure deadlines in this section may be granted by COUNTY upon written request only where the authorized activity has been initiated and/or is subject to a binding contract which provides for the expenditure to be completed within a time period acceptable to COUNTY. Amendments to an annual program by COOPERATING UNITS may be approved by COUNTY up to fifteen (15) months after initial funding has been approved only when the new activity can be completed and funding expended within six (6) months of the amendment approval. Funds not expended within the six (6) month extension period may be recaptured and distributed by COUNTY as provided for in D.4. 4. All funds recaptured by COUNTY will be transferred to a separate account for reallocation on a competitive request for proposal basis at the discretion of the COUNTY where total of such funds is $100,000 or greater. Amounts less than $100,000 shall be allocated by COUNTY to other existing activities consistent with timeliness requirements and Consolidated Plan goals. E. COUNTY and COOPERATING UNITS shall expend all program income pursuant to this Agreement as provided below: Program income from housing rehabilitation activities administered by the COUNTY will be incorporated into a pool at the discretion of the COUNTY. The pool will be administered by COUNTY and will be used for housing rehabilitation projects located throughout the entire Urban County. When possible, COUNTY will give priority to funding housing rehabilitation projects within the COOPERATING UNIT where the program income was generated. Funds expended in this manner would be secured by a Repayment Agreement/Mortgage running in favor of the COUNTY. Program income generated by certain COOPERATING UNITS that administer their own housing rehabilitation activities may be retained by the COOPERATING UNIT at its discretion; however, such COOPERATING UNITS will be bound by the conditions of D.2., above. Only COOPERATING UNITS that were administering their own activities pursuant to the Joint Cooperation Agreement pertaining to the HUD fiscal years 2006-2008 will be eligible to retain their program income. 2. COUNTY reserves the option to recapture program income generated by non-housing rehabilitation activities if said funds have not been expended within twelve (12) months of being generated. These funds shall be transferred to a separate account for reallocation on a competitive request for proposal basis administered by COUNTY or, where the total of such funds does not exceed $100,000, shall be reallocated by COUNTY to other existing activities consistent with timeliness requirements and Consolidated Plan goals. F. COOPERATING UNITS are encouraged to undertake joint activities involving the sharing of funding when such action furthers the goals of the Consolidated Plan and meets the expenditure goals. G. If COUNTY is notified by HUD that it has not met the performance standard for the timely expenditure of funds at 24 CFR 570.902(a) and the COUNTY entitlement grant is reduced by HUD according to its policy on corrective actions, then the basic grant amount to any COOPERATING UNIT that has not met its expenditure goal shall be reduced accordingly. H. COOPERATING UNIT will take actions necessary to assist in accomplishing the community development program and housing goals, as contained in the Urban Hennepin County Consolidated Plan. I. COOPERATING UNIT shall ensure that all activities funded, in part or in full by grant funds received pursuant to this Agreement, shall be undertaken affirmatively with regard to fair housing, employment and business opportunities for minorities and women. It shall, in implementing all programs and/or activities funded by the basic grant amount, comply with all applicable Federal and Minnesota Laws, statutes, rules and regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative action and equal employment opportunities and Administrative Rule issued by the COUNTY. J. COOPERATING UNIT that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that impedes action by COUNTY to comply with its fair housing certification shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funding for any activities. K. COOPERATING UNIT shall participate in the citizen participation process, as established by COUNTY, in compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. L. COOPERATING UNIT shall reimburse COUNTY for any expenditure determined by HUD or COUNTY to be ineligible. M. COOPERATING UNIT shall prepare, execute, and cause to be filed all documents protecting the interests of the parties hereto or any other party of interest as may be designated by the COUNTY. N. COOPERATING UNIT has adopted and is enforcing: 1. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations; and 2. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction. COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows: A. COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies, on an annual basis, all plans, statements and program documents necessary for receipt of a basic grant amount under the Act. B. COUNTY shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance and coordinating services to COOPERATING UNIT in the preparation and submission of a request for funding. C. COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERATING UNIT to aid COUNTY in fulfilling its responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the community development program and housing goals. D. COUNTY shall, upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to administer local housing rehabilitation activities funded pursuant to the Agreement, provided that COUNTY shall receive Twelve percent (12%) of the allocation by COOPERATING UNIT to the activity as reimbursement for costs associated with the administration of COOPERATING UNIT activity. E. COUNTY may, at its discretion and upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to administer, for a possible fee, other activities funded pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. F. COUNTY may, as necessary for clarification and coordination of program administration, develop and implement Administrative Rules consistent with the Act, Regulations, HUD administrative directives, and administrative requirements of COUNTY. V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under Section 106 of the Act shall be allocated as follows: A. COUNTY shall retain Thirteen percent (13%) of the annual basic grant amount for the administration of the program. Included in this administrative amount is funding for annual county-wide Fair Housing activities. B. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be made available by COUNTY to COOPERATING UNITS in accordance with the formula stated in part C and the procedure stated in part D of this section utilizing data provided by HUD. The allocation is for planning purposes only and is not a guarantee of funding. C. Allocation of funding will be based upon a formula using data supplied by HUD that bears the same ratio to the balance of the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between: The population of COOPERATING UNIT and the population of all COOPERATING UNITS. 2. The extent of poverty in COOPERATING UNIT -and the extent of poverty in all COOPERATING UNITS. 3. The extent of overcrowded housing by units in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of overcrowded housing by units in all COOPERATING UNITS. 4. In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio involving the extent of poverty shall be counted twice. D. Funds will be made available to communities utilizing the formula specified in C of this Section in the following manner: All COOPERATING UNITS with aggregate formula percentages of greater than three and one half percent, (3.5%) of the total using the procedure in part C. of this section will receive funding allocations in accordance with the COUNTY formula allocations. 2. COOPERATING UNITS with aggregate formula percentages of three and one half percent (3.5%) or less of the total using the procedure in part C. of this section will have their funds consolidated into a pool for award in a manner determined by COUNTY on a competitive request for proposal basis. Only the COUNTY and COOPERATING UNITS whose funding has been pooled will be eligible to compete far these funds. E. The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based upon data to be furnished by HUD. The COUNTY assumes no duty to gather such data independently and assumes no liability for any errors in the data furnished by HUD. F. In the event COOPERATING UNIT does not request a funding allocation, or a portion thereof, the amount not requested shall be made available to other participating communities, in a manner determined by COUNTY. VI. METROPOLITAN CITIES Any metropolitan city executing this Agreement shall defer their entitlement status and become part of Urban Hennepin County. This agreement can be voided ifthe COOPERATING UNIT is advised by HUD, prior to the completion of the re-qualification process for fiscal years 2009-2011, that it is eligible to become a metropolitan city and the COOPERATING UNIT elects to take its entitlement status. If the agreement is not voided on the basis of the COOPERATING UNIT's eligibility as a metropolitan city prior to July 8, 2008, the COOPERATING UNIT must remain a part of the COUNTY program for the entire three-year period of the COUNTY qualification. VII. OPINION OF COUNSEL The undersigned, on behalf of the Hennepin County Attorney, having reviewed this Agreement, hereby opines that the terms and provisions of the Agreement are fully authorized under State and local law and that the COOPERATING UNIT has full legal authority to undertake or assist in undertaking essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly-assisted housing. Assistant County Attorney VIII. HENNEPIN COUNTY EXECUTION The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly. approved this Agreement on May 6, 2008, and pursuant to such approval and the proper County official having signed this Agreement, the COUNTY agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant County Attorney Date: APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: Assistant County Attorney rz<, Chair of its County Board And: Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator Attest: Deputy/Clerk of the County Board RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Assistant County Administrator -Public Works Date: Department, Housing, Community Works and Transit Date: Date: IX. COOPERATING UNIT EXECUTION COOPERATING UNIT, having signed this Agreement, and the COOPERATING UNIT'S governing body having duly approved this Agreement on , 2008, and pursuant to such approval and the proper city official having signed this Agreement, COOPERATING UNIT agrees to be bound by the provisions of this Joint Cooperation Agreement, contract A080541. CITY OF SHOREWOOD By: Its Mayor And: Its City Manager ATTEST: CITY MUST CHECK ONE: The City is organized pursuant to: Plan A Plan B Charter May 13, 2008 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 Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator FROM: James Landini, City Engineer DATE: June 18, 2008 RE: 2007 Annual Report Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) As part of the federal Clean Water Act, the City of Shorewood is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The City first received this permit in 2003,. at which time the City completed a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). Due to a legal challenge, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has been required to make changes to the 2003 permit. As you may recall, we submitted our new application permit to MPCA prior to the June 1, 2006 deadline. The MPCA has reviewed the application, public review and comment was completed on February 14, 2007, and we await issuance of the new permit. Until this process is completed and a new permit is issued, the current permit will remain in effect. An annual report for 2007 must be submitted to MPCA as a requirement of the old SWPPP. The deadline for this submittal is June 30, 2007. Attachment 1 is the annual report for 2007, which is a standard form. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the annual report for 2007, and direct staff to submit the report before June 30, 2008 as required by MPCA. w~~_C~.~ v. s®~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPC-R ~.;. ~ inneso~a Pollution on~roi A envy 520 Lafayette Road North ~ St. Paul, MN 551 SS-4194 ~ 651-296-6300 ~ 800-657-3864 ~ 651-282-5332 TTY ~ www.pca.state.mn.us - ~~, n~ t~ ~il n "~ ,}} ~.~,? ~ ~ ~ January 24, 2008 ~ .,, , ~ r~~,~-"` Dear MS4 Stormwater Contact: RE: Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Annual Report for Calendar Year 2007 The Annual Report is a requirement in the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit titled "Authorization to Discharge Storm Water Associated with Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Permit Program (NPDES/SDS)." Annual Reports are to be completed and submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) by June 30 of each year, and the content should reference permit activities for the pervious calendar year. The calendar year 2007 Annual Report is due June 30, 2008. Enclosed with this letter you will find a paper copy of the 2007 Annual Report form; however, the MPCA recommends that the Annual Report be filled out electronically. Please note that there are significant changes to this Annual. Report form compared to previous years. The 2007 version of the form must be used. Each MS4 has a unique Annual Report form; each form contains some automatically filled data based on the most current information available in the MPCA's database. The electronic version of the Annual Report form, customized for each MS4, is available for download from the MPCA web site at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/stormwater/ms4- reports.html. The electronic version of the Annual Report form is designed in such a way that text boxes will automatically expand to accommodate additional information necessary to fully respond to the questions. Some information has been automatically entered into your 2007 Annual Report form. This information is displayed in bold type. Please review this bold type information for accuracy. Update or clarify the given information to reflect current conditions as necessary. All MS4s will have contact information filled in on the first page of the Annual Report form. Only those MS4s who submitted an Annual Report for calendar year 2006 will have pre-filled question fields. This data may be text or a "Y" for Yes or "N" for a No response. If the question was left blank on the 2006 Annual Report, it is recorded as "N." It is not necessary to re-answer the bold answered questions if the information displayed is correct and current. If you are confused by a question or you feel the data inserted needs clarification, please include an explanation or state any assumptions made to respond. The annual report requirement can be found in Part VI.D -Annual Reporting of the MS4 General Permit. This report must contain information about and stormwater actions taken by your MS4 between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2007. Please provide the information requested and return to the MPCA by the due date June 30, 2008. St. Paul ~ Brainerd ~ Detroit Lakes ~ Duluth ~ Mankato ~ Marshall ~ Rochester (Willmar 150 YEARS STATEHOOD 1850] 0 Thank you for your cooperation. If you have questions about the AruZUal Report form or the information requested, pleased contact Joyce Cieluch at 218-846-7387, Scott Fox at 6S 1-296-9433 or Keith Cherryholmes at 6S 1-296-6945. Sincerely, r „} ;'a~ x /'wv~-- Dale B. Thompson Supervisor Stormwater Management Unit Municipal Division DBT:wgp Enclosure USE OF THIS FORM IS MANDATORY By completing this Annual Report form, you are providing the Miimesota Pollution Control Agency (IvIPCA) with a sunmiary of yocu- status of compliance with penuit conditions, inchiding an assessment of the appropriateness of your identified best management practices (BMPs) and progress towards achieving your identified measurable goals for each of the minimum control measures as required by part VI D. of the MS4 Penlut. Submit your annual report by June 30,-2008 to: Mim~esota Pollution Control Agency Municipal Division 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 If you would like to obtain an electronic copy of the MS4 Amnial Report for 2007 form, please visit: www.pca.state.mn. uslwater/stormwater/stoi-~i~water-ms4.htm1 If you have fiuther questions, please contact one of these MPCA staff members (call toll-free 800-657-3864): • Keith Cherryholmes 651-296-6945 • Joyce Cieluch 218-846-7387 • Scott Fox 651-296-9433 Shorewood City MS4 Name of MS4 c-~r~ 1r'~e- v d•I~h~e j~ a,!' v1 i~/1 c; 5 ~ ~ .~,~~ ~'s~ a Name of Contact Person 9524743236 Telephone (including area code) 5755 Country Club Rd Mailing-Address Shorewood MN 55331 City State ZIP code wq-sh-m4-06 Page 1 of 1364 12/07 Minimum Cc~ntroi Measure 1: Public education at~el Outreach [~f.G.~] A. The permit requires each MS4 to implement a public education prob am to distribute educational materials to t11e conmzunity or conduct equivalent outreach activities about the impacts of stoi7nwater discharges on water bodies and the steps that fhe public can take to reduce pollutants in stol7nwater runoff. [Part V.G.l.a] NOTE: Please indicate which of the following distribution methods you used during the 2007 calendar year. Indicate the number distributed in 2007 in the spaces provided (enter "0" if the method was not used or "NA" if the data does not exist): Media type Number of media Number of times published Circulation/Audience E-~-ar~~ple: Brochures: 3 differ•e~~t hroc/~t-~~~es pz~blishe~l S times «Uout 10, 000 Brochures: Newsletter: 6 ~ rT:~\e ~ ~~ ~~t,l~ek~~~n ~7~i~~ Posters: ~ /V~ ~/fa Newspaper articles: ) [ " ° ~ ~-~ Web sites:' ~ ~l~} ,etc c<:~a.,~ e,'' ~1~ Utility bill inserts: ~ ~~ ~/~ Radio ads: (~ /~ N"t~ Television acls: ~ ~'~ 111 A S~ ,n ,':~, ~ Other: ~ ~{ ~ ~ T ~ z.~~e ~ .~ Other: * If you use your website as a tool to distribute stonnwater educational materials, indicate the number of hits to the stoniiwater page during 2007 in the space above and provide the URL reference here: ~,vi/e+,r~ ~-f a g~prewvoc~,,~111~akS~Pky~J ~~wo'~5 / J~~'~~1~° h'Tml B. What stage of development would you assign to each area of your stotmwater education program? (If there are multiple components for a Minimum Control Measure (MCM) providing the average stage of the most significant components -check the one box that most accurately reflects the overall stage. for that MCM). MCM 1: ^ Not started ^ Research ^ Development ^ Implementation [Program filly in place MCM 2: ^ Not started ^ Research ^ Development ^ Implementation Program fully in place MCM 3: ^ Not started ^ Research ~~Development ^ Implementation ^ Program filly in place MCM 4: ^ Not started ^ Research ^ Development ^ Implementation ^ Program fully in place MCM 5: ^ Not started ^ Research ^ Development ^ Implementation Program fitlly in place MCM 6: ^ Not started ^ Research ^ Development ^ Implementation ^ Program fully in place C. Have you developed partnerships with other MS4s, watershed districts, local or state governments, ~ educational institutions, etc. to assist you in fiilfilling the requirements for Minimum Control Measure 1? ..~ti ~'r~a'r~n1 fc~~n9:t k~~~'e2rez~ ~. D. List those entities with which you have a partnership agreement to meet the requirements of this MCM and describe the nature of the agreement(s) (list if level of effort exceeded 10 hours): Minimum Control Measure 2: Public Participation/Involvement [V.G.2] __ A. Did you hold a public meeting for calendar year 2007 and discuss your Stormwater Pollution Yes ^ No Prevention Program (SWPPP}? [Part V.G.l.e] ,~ B. What was the date of the public meeting? ~ _ ~ ~ a ~ ~~ C. Ho~v many citizens attended specifically for stornlwater (excluding board/council members and staff)? D. Was the public meeting a stand-alone meeting for stonnwater or was it combined with some other ^ Stand-alone function such as a City Council meeting? Combined E. If you did not hold a public meeting on your SWPPP in 2007, explain why: ~~ wq-stnn4-06 Page 2 of 1368 12/07 la. Lach MS4 must receive and consider inlntt froth the public. Input must be considered Prior to ^ ~'es ~ No submittal of your annual report. During your public meeting, slid you receive written and/or oral input on your SWPPP? [Part V.G.2.b.1-3]. G. Do you plan to or have you already incorporated any comments into your next SWPPP update? [Part ^ Yes ~No V.G2.c] Ifhes, list items: H. If you answered "Yes'' to part F above but no SWPPP chanves will be made check here: ~I Minimum Control Measure 3: Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination [V.G.3~ -Che permit requires MS4s to develop, implement and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges as defined in 40 CFR 122.26(6)(2) in your SWPPP. You must also select and implement a program of appropriate BMPs and measurable goals for this mininntm control measure. A. Have you completed a storm sewer system map by June 30, 2008 in accordance tivitll the Yes ^No requirements of the permit? If ve.~•, describe how it was completed: ^ Hardcopy only ^ GIS system ~ CAD ^ Other "digital" system: If No to :'l. abo~~e, Please: NOTE: The complete storm sewer system map must be tlnished by ,tune 30, 2008. [Part V.G.3.a] B. Has an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism been adopted to prohibit illicit discharges or other (~j non-stormwater discharges from entering yotu' system? If>>es~, Provide the date the regulatory mechanism was adopted: _. If nv, provide an estimated date of adoption: ~ 2{3~ X2008. ' C. I-Iave you completed the tasks according to the schedule listed in your BMP program for illicit ~ Y discharge detection and elimination? ll. Describe crny cl~un~tges t~n dc~>>elohrr~ent statats or the timelinelimplementation schedule provided in your SWPPP? Minimum Contro! Measure 4: Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control [V.G.4] The permit requires that each MS4 develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in any stonnwater nmoff to your small MS4 from construction activities within your jurisdiction that result in a land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre or less than one acre but is part of a common plan of development that will be one acre or greater. [Part V.G.4.] A. Have you adopted an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism that regulates stornlwater nmoff Y from construction activities that result in a land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre or less than one acre which are a part of a common plan of development or sale that will ultimately disturb one acre or more? NOTE: Your regulatory mechanism must be fully developed and implemented within six months from the extension of Permit coverage. B. The BMPs you listed in 2006 are checked below. Which of the following BMPs and pollution prevention management measures have been incorporated into your regulatory uechanism during 2007? Check all that apply: N -Temporary erosion controls ^ Added in 2007 N -Record keeping for rainfall and inspections ^ Added in 2007 N - Permanent erosion controls ^ Addecl in 2007 N -Waste controls for hazardous waste ^ Added in 2007 N -Waste controls for solid waste ^ Added in 2007 wq-strtn4-06 Page 3 of 1365 12/07 N - Dcwatering and basin draining ^ Added in 2007 N -Regular inspections by site operators ^ Added in 2007 N -Site plan submittal including erosion and sediment control BMPs ^ Added in 2007 N - BMP maintenance ^Adcled in 2007 Y -Site plan review and approval prior to activity on site ^ Added in 2007 N -Permanent stormwater mana~~ement facility approval ^ Added in 2007 N -Other: ^ Added in 2007 C. The regulatory mechanism sanctions included to ensure compliance and enforcement component ^ ~'es ^ No ~~~ are in 2006 are checked below. Which of the following actions does you r MSS use? Also, check all additional sanctions added in 2007: N -verbal warnings ^ Added in 2007 N -Written warnings ^ Added in 2007 N -Stop-work orders ^ Added in 2007 N -Fines ^ Added in 2007 N -Forfeit of security bond money ^Adcled in 2007 Y - Wit1~l~olding of certificate of occupancy ^ Added in 2007 Y -other: Watershed District ^ Addecl in 2007 - - - - - --- Minmum Control Measure 5: Post-construction stormwater Management in New Development and I Redevelopment [V.G.5] The permit requires each MS4 to develop, implement, and enforce a program to address stornwater i2moff from new development and redevelopment projects within your jurisdiction that disturb an area greater than or equal to one acre, including projects less than one acre that are part of a larger eonnnon plan of development or sale that discharge into your small MS4. Your program must ensure that controls are in place~that would prevent or reduce water quality impacts. You must also select and implement a program of appropriate BMPs and measurable goals for this minimum control measure. NOTE: The MS4 permit requirements associated with this Minimum Control Measure must be frilly developed and implemented by 6/30/08. A. Have you developed and implemented strategies which include requirements for a combination of - Y structural and/or non-structural BMPs appropriate for your community? B. Is an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism currently in place to address post-construction Y nuloff from new development and redevelopment projects to the extent allowable under law? If yes, provide the date the regulatory mechanism was adopted: _. If X70, provide an estimated date of adoption: 4/'1/2003. C. Is a plan in place to ensure adequate long-teen operation and maintenance of BMPs installed as a ~ ~ l result of these requirements? ~~~clo~ ~f~ ~~ ~teMc~'~ D. How are you funding the long-tens operation and maintenance of your stormwater management system? ^ Grants stormwater utility fee ^ Taxes ^ Other: 4vq-strm4-06 Page 4 of 1364 12/07 Minimum Control Measure 6: Pollution FreventionlGood Housekeeping for.Municpal ®perations [V.G.B] The permit requires each NIS4 to develop and implement an operation and maintenance program that inchules a training C0111pol1ellt aIld 11aS the tiltlmate goal OI pl'evelltlllg OI- 1'edUCing pOIlUtant 1Lll10If trOlm mulllClpal OperatlonS. Yoln- pl'Ogl'aln must include employee training to prevent and reduce stormwater pollution from activities such as park and open space 111a111tena1lCe., ~lieet and blllldlllg lllalntenallce, Ilew COllstl-Llctloll _ alld 1a21c1 dlStLll'baI1CeS, aIld St01'111watel' SyStenl mallltellallee. A. Is your MS4 cun-ent on development of all the elements listed to the timeline/implementation Y schedule listed in your BMPs 'tor this 1V1CM?? B. Did you complete all the tasks in the SWPPP scheduled for implementation in 2007? Y G Indicate the total number of structural pollution control devices (malrlloles, grit chambers, sumps, tloatable skimmers, etc) within your MS4, how many were inspected, and calculate the percentage: Total Number Number h~spected Percentage Structural Pollution Control Devices: .1 I ~ ,tj~~ D. As a result of your inspections, did you repair, replace, or maintain any structural pollution control ^ Yes ~ Na devices? E For each BMP below, indicate the total number within you2- MS4, how many of each BMP type were inspected, and calculate the percentage: BMP Type Outfatls ~~ Sediment basins/pond; TOT,~11 Total Number Number hlspectecl Percentage 1:3 =i ~ 7 ,2 .. ~'~ r ~, ',~ ~ JJ 1 4i t ~~ ny .~(y eX J 1 ~ SJ * outFalls as defined iu the permit and guidance Impaired Waters Review The permit requires that any MS4 that discharges to a Water of the State which appears on the current U.S. EPA approved list of impaired waters tinder Section 303(4) of the Clean Water Act review whether changes to your SWPPP may be wa27anted to reduce the impact of your discharge [IV.D] A. Have you identified all impaired waters within your jurisdiction, based on the 2006 303(d) listing, Yes ^ No which receive stormwater discharge from your MS4? Check here if yoi~~~~ MS4 has no impaired Ivater-s: ^ B. Do you have a process in place to identify and update your SWPPP based on the list of impaired ~ Yes ^ No waters which receive discharges from your MS4 as new waters are added to the 303(cl) list? C. Have you determined that any stonn~vater discharges from your MS4 are negatively impacting any ^ Yes ~No impaired water(s); for which you have or plan to revise to your SWPPP to address the loading? D. Provide the following information of the individual responsible for conducting the review of discharges to impaired waters and any associated BMP modifications: Name: ~)~ ~I~s L.~.~a[,'„ ,~ Title: ~. a ~~y-Y ~.~~ ;.~ ~~°°' Phone: 2~ ~ `-I ? `1 3 '2 3 ~ Email: ~lcc~~-~~~n~`~ ~., s6~v~~e~~su~~t, .nn; u,5- wq-strm4-06 Pave ~ of 1368 12J07 Addi Tonal SWPPP Issues A. Did you make a change to any identified BMPs or measurable goals thaC were submitted with yocu- ^ Yes No permit application? [Part V.H.] If yes, explain; B. Briefly list the BMPs using their unique SWPPP identification numbers you used in your SWPPP or any measurable goals that will be changed in your updated SWPPP, and why they have changed: ~i (.~lttuch cr seharcrte sheep i~f izecessarv) !~ C, Did you rely on any other entities (MS4s, consultants or contractors) to satisfy any portion of your Y SWPPP? Ifye.s, please identify below the entity and for what activities: COnSU~tant - implementation r-------- _- - _ -- Owner or Operator Certification The person with overall administrative responsibility for SWPPP implementation nnist sign the aiulual report. This person must be duly authorized and should be the person who siglZed the MS4 permit application or a successor. I certify antler penalty of law that this document anti all attaclulients were prepared colder my direction or supervision in accordance with a system desig~zed to assure that qualified persoimel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the infoi~nation, the inforn~ation submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete (Minn. R. 7001.0070). I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, includinC7 the possibility of fine and imprisonment (Minn. R. 7001.0540). X Aui°~~orized Signature (This person must be duly authorized to sign the llate almual report for the MS4} Last Name First Name Title ~ `~ a~7SS L~~z.~.rd. , Giu€~ f2~ Mailing Adch-ess City State ZIP code Telephone (include area code) E-mail Address wq-s[nn4-06 Page 6 of 1368 12107 PLEASE REVIEW AND UPDATE Rev 1-15-2008 Below are t~vo (2) things Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) are asking you to review and update. 1. MS4 contact information 2. Water bodies that are in or nearby your MS4 If there are no additions or changes needed please initial Here .Please retui-~i this sheet with the updates indicated with your 2007 Annual Report. 1. MS4 contact information The first item is the MS4 aclclress and general contact. While the MS4 address is self- explanatory, the general contact is described as: "General Contact (director, department head, MS4 coordinator, consultant or other person with SWPPP implementation responsibility) for all general correspondence about Permit compliance issues between the MPCA and your MS4" If any item is incorrect, please put a line through it (fir--+-ke) and write the correct data next to it. MS4 Name: Mailing Address: Mailing Address City: Mailing Address State: Mailing Address Zip Code General Contact First Name: Middle Initial (Optional): Last Name Mailing Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: E-mail Address Shorewood City MS4 _ 5755 Country Club Rd Shorewood MN 55331 G.u.~r~e~- I`w ~. d r~,.~ ~~ 5755 Country Club Rd Shorewood MN 55331 9524743236 ,~~rnP,~ci.shorewood.mn.us ~~ r, 2. Water bodies that are in or nearby your MS4 Below are two lists of water bodies that have been determined to be in or within a one (1) mile radius of the outside border of this MS4. This is because an MS4 may Have significant discharges to bodies of water that are located outside of their boundaries. Land contours and storm sewer configurations among other considerations actually determine what water bodies an MS4 discharges to. To generate this listing, a variety of operations were performed on published Geographic Information System (GIS) layers from which we derived the data. We thiul< the results are cor'ect but there is no substitute for a local person with direct lalowledge of the area reviewing the list. Note that some water bodies have no_name but they do have an Entity ID. We recognize that in this format you alight not be able to determine whether or not those water bodies (particularly reaches of streams) are in your area. hlfonmation is available from the DNR website about a lake, if you have the ID (given to you in the chart). Unfortunately, there is no such information for streams and rivers. Please go to http'//www dnr state mn.us/lakelindlindex.html for information on lakes. What we are looking for is whether or not these water bodies are in or within one (1) mile of your boundary. • If they are, no action is neeclecl. • If they aren't, please cross them out. • If there are water bodies missing, please write them in with whatever data you have about that water body. • If you can't determine if they are in or within one (1) mile of your MS4 boundary because there is not sufficient information, please just enter "can't determine." FYI: If the "Impaired?" data element is blank, it means that there has not been an official "impairment" determined for that water body. If there is an Acronym in the cell, it means that water body has been determined to have the impairment associated with the Acronym. The impairment is included for your information. Below is the key: Water Quality Impairments Acronym Description q Ammonia g-F Impaired biology (fish) B-FI Impaired biology fish; invertebrates g-I impaired biology (invertebrates) g-P Impaired biology (plants CI Chloride DO Dissolved oxygen depletion FC Feca1 coliform bacteria Hg Mercury in fish or water LCWA Lack of a Coldwater fish community PCB PCBs in fish or water PFOS Fluorinated chemical used in coatings pH pH (below or above acceptable range T Turbidity (Suspended solids in water) Tm Elevated temperature Total Phosphorus Phosphorus r• W a a U u. U m ~- ~_ U O ^O W O ^~ W S.. Q d ~t~^ V/ z o_ a U W S U Q W W Q Z J Q W H h Z W 0 0 M m O N_ c~ Y C I C J C O c c N C6 J o a ~ ti ~_ ~_ N O ~ ~ Y U N J o Y o t~ J to L RS L (0 = U = Y (Lf J U .~ L U_ ~ Y Y N U N ~ N ~ L L U U U ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ (~ c6 c~ C C C C C C ~ ~ ~ ~- C~ d' lf) Cfl (`'~ C'n !~ 1~ (~ LSD I.f) CO CO CO CO (~ CO CO CO O C`~ijV?' O O O N N N N O q' O O O O rQ O O O f~ ~ IC'p- (~ I~ t~ O "!, O O O S M s ~ ~~ ~~ o 0 O J ~ C ~ ~ 0 (D O Y ~ o -~ ~ ~ O 1 CC~ \\~ \\~ G / / J J J ~ ~ Y N U N N N N U U U ~ a -a ~ ~~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ co co ca C C C C C C ~ ~ ~ N c7 d ~ ~ ~ I O O O D CO CO CO ~ O O O V N N N O O O O O O r ti N 4 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 i Z N ~ ~ ~ U ~ cn >., ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ O ti O p~ t.C) 67 ~ i i i ~ CO N N ~ O ~ ~- J N O O ~ ~ ~ N N O O O O O O ;~ Lakes In Your /area Shorewood City MS4 ENTITY ID REAL NAME ALTERNATE NAME FEATURE TYPE IMPAIRED? 7~ - -~J~-@~8~@6=89-- f- +~~~v--~-__._. i ~ng_ ----L-ASE-/-P-BN-B---~--T-eta-I?-lao~p.h.o.ru~ -~~ .- f~lid-9-8=-89&7--98--- L-treq -_.____ _ LAKF~P_-O-AI~- ~!c ~ f'~i~-8=~0©i~=O~~- Har~o - -L-AK€~Ofd~- i~s MN10-0009-00 Minnewashta LAKE/POND s.s MN10-0015-00 Virginia LAKE/POND Total Phosphoru ,, ~. M.PI~-Q-1~-0-1-8 _-L-AK-E---/PBN-D~._r~ /;~~~~MN10-0041-00 Zumbra-Sunny LAKE/POND MN10-0131-00 Unnamed LAKE/POND MN10-0132-00 Unnamed LAKE/POND M N 10-2001-00 MN27-0085-00 Libbs LAKE/POND I ~ G -"" MN27-0095-02 MN27-0109-00 Hadley LAKE/POND MN27-0133-00 Minnetonka LAKE/POND MN27-0133-01 Minnetonka-Halste LAKE/POND MN27-0133-02 Minnetonka-Priests LAKE/POND MN27-0133-03 Minnetonka-Cooks MN27-0133-04 Minnetonka-W Upp MN27-0133-05 Minnetonka-S. Upp MN27-0133-06 Minnetonka-Smitht MN27-0133-07 Minnetonka-Phelps MN27-0133-08 Minnetonka-E. Upp MN27-0133-10 Minnetonka-Spring MN27-0133-14 Minnetonka-Harriso LAKE/POND Total Phosphoru '~~-> MN27-0136-00 Silver LAKE/POND ~{~, MN27-0137-00 Christmas Wolsfeld LAKE/POND ,~ ~, .~ - MN27-0142-00 William LAKE/POND Lakes In Y®ur area Shorewood City MS4 MN27-0144-00 Galpin LAKE/POND MN27-0145-00 Como LAKE/POND MN27-0713-00 Unnamed (Ced~~6lar Manor LAKE/POND MN27-0743-01 Unnamed (East) LAKE/POND MN27-0867-00 Maplewood Pond M N2Z=D.8~-0-8U- -~~ _ ~-A~r~,`~'~O~1~B-- ! , ~ `C .~ , ~ e s MN27-0874-00 Unnamed y "7 .K, ~~~; MN27-0876-00 Hooper LAKE/POND ~ MN27-0877-00 Unnamed LAKE/POND '~ MN27-0895-00 Unnamed (MudJVlud LAKE/POND f MN27-0896-00 Unnamed (Colle~e~lege LAKE/POND v MN27-0898-00 Unnamed LAKE/POND ~~` MN27-0899-00 Mary MN27-0900-00 Unnamed LAKE/POND MN27-0910-00 Unnamed LAKE/POND MN27-0911-00 Unnamed r MN27-0948-00 Unnamed LAKE/POND , ~,,,,~-f~ MN27-0965-00 Unnamed LAKE/POND ;,i l ~ i ''~'~~ ~~ :,:~:. - -- ~ - ~~ MEMORANDUM arvor 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD a SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ©(952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 = www.ci.shorewood.mn.us ^ cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Date: June 18, 2008 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Lawrence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator ~~,~,, From: Bonnie Burton, Finance Director/Treasurer ~ ~~ r Re: Resolutions to Preauthorize Sale of Bonds for City Hall Project The Council, in awork-session format, recently met with the City's bond consultant Paul Donna, Senior Vice President for Northland Securities, Inc. At this work-session, the Council learned about the debt financing options available for City Hall improvements. At that time, the Council directed Mr. Donna to prepare documents to authorize the City and the Shorewood EDA to move forward with the sale of lease revenue bonds by the EDA. Attached for your review is a Resolution Authorizing EDA to Sell Bonds for the City Hall Building Remodeling Project. Also attached is the Proposed Schedule of Events and the Finance Plan Summary prepared by Northland Securities. In terms of process and procedure, there are resolutions to be approved separately by the Shorewood EDA Board and also by the Shorewood City Council. Therefore, the Council will briefly recess the City Council meeting, and convene as the EDA in order to first adopt the Authorization Resolution to Sell Bonds for the City Hall Remodeling Project. After the EDA transacts its business, the EDA meeting will be adjourned and the City Council meeting reconvened. Then the City Council will be asked to approve a similar resolution. The resolutions and the Finance Plan call for anot-to-exceed maximum amount of $1.4 million. The actual amount required will be refined after bids are opened and awarded (tentative date of 3uly 14). Mr. Donna will be present at the June 23, 2008 meeting to answer questions and guide the City Council through this process. Please contact me if you have any questions prior to the meeting. ®~ ~- ~?~~p PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER t ~ ~ L7 CCINOI~~ ~` 3Ir,C ~~, s .. ~ T , ~a ffi ~ ~ A :,.'ROPCT 1~1/N~J~ ~ _ - (1`T ` OF C~R~` ~~ ~ N~O'11° AS ~- ~I~rl' u.~ _ " ~O~I3 ~~' ~'° ~< 1I., Ole ,~TBNTS The followiz-tg checklist of items denotes each milestone activity as well as the members of the finance team who will have the responsibility to complete it. Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Z1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 June 13t'' Northland orders Ci Information for Official Statement Northland June 18t1' Bond Counsel Distributes Trigger Resolutions to Authority and City Bond Counsel, Authority, City, Northland June 23=~ Authority and City adopt Trigger Resolution for Sale of the Bonds Authority and City June 23~a Ci Forwards Official Statement Information to Northland Ci July 9t'' Construction Bids Received City, Authority, Northland Jul 13t'' Final Sizin of the Bonds Northland Jul 14t'~ Draft Official Statement is Sent to Ci for Si Off Northland Jul 15"' Official Statement sent to Ratin A enc Northland July 23~~ Rating Received Northland, Authority, Ci Jul 23~atn Award Resolution sent to Authori and Ci for ackets Bond Counsel Jul 24"' Bond Pricin and Bond Contract Si ied Northland, Authori July 28t''t'' Authority Awards the Bonds Northland, Authority, Ci August 21St Bond Closing, Proceeds Available Northland, Bond Counsel, Authorit Northland Securities Public Finance 5/29/2008 FINANCE PLAN SUMMARY FoR SHOREWOOD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA $1,400,000' PUBLIC PROJECT LEASE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2008A (CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA LEASE OBLIGATION) * not to exceed maximum amount NORTHL~ND~! r SECURITIES 45 South 7ti` Street Suite 2500 Miruleapolis, MN 55402 612-851-5900 500-851-2920 June 23, 2008 .~ Financing; Overview: The Public Project Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A (the "Bonds") will be issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469, as amended, by the Shorewood Economic Development Authority, Mirlesota ("EDA" or the "Authority) and will be an obligation of the City of Shorewood, Mimlesota (the "City") pursuant to Mimlesota Statutes, Section 465.71. Bond proceeds will be used to undertake major renovations to its existing City Hall building, including new additions of approximately 1,300 square feet; site work to remediate drainage and water infiltration; renovation of the building exterior; interior renovation of approximately 5,000 square feet to include new walls, doors, finishes, lighting; and mechanical, electrical and communications renovation. The City and EDA will be the lead organizations with respect to financing the Project. The EDA, as issuer of the bonds and owner of the Project, will lease the addition and improvements to the City. The City will covenant to make the lease payments from any revenues available to the City. The lease payments will be equal to the debt service payments on the Bonds. The City has the right to terminate the lease purchase agreement at the end of any fiscal year during its term. In order to carry out the transaction, several legal documents are required. These documents will be drafted by the City's bond attorney at Kennedy & Graven, Chartered and provided to the City and the EDA prior to the July 28t'' meeting when the final terms of the Bonds will be considered. We have provided a brief summary of each of these documents below. City Bond Resolution -The City will adopt their Resolution which authorizes the execution of the Lease Purchase Agreement (the "Lease"), the Ground Lease (the "Ground Lease"), authorizes the Pricing Committee, authorizes a continuing disclosure undertaking, and allocates small issuer rebate exception to the Authority EDA Bond Resolution -EDA will adopt the Bond Resolution which authorizes the issuance of the Bonds, describes the Bonds, authorizes the President of the Authority anal the Assistant Treasurer as the Pricing Committee to sign the Bond contract and provides all details relating to the Bonds themselves. .~-.. ~. Page 2 * not to exceed maximum amount NORTHLAND =~; SECURI'T'IES Lease Purchase Agreement -This document is between EDA, as Lessor and the City, as Lessee and establishes the terms under which the City will lease the Project and the terms under which the City may purchase the Project. The Rental Payments from the City will be sufficient to pay the principal and interest, when due, on the Bonds. Ground Lease Agreement -This document is between EDA, as Lessor and the City, as Lessee and provides the terms under which the City will lease the Land on which the Project will be located Bond Issue Structure The Bonds are structured with a 20 year repayment schedule beginning on June 1, 2009 with level debt service payments through December 1, 2029 The City will make semi-am~ual Lease payments to the Authority which will be sufficient to pay the principal and interest when due on the Bonds. The estimated debt service schedule assumes an average interest rate of 4.53% and is shown in Exhibit A. The total estimated sources and uses are as follows: Sources & Uses Dated 08/01/2008 ( Delivered 08/01/2008 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $1,400,000.00 Total Sources $1,400,000.00 Uses Of Funds Costs of Issuance including Underwriter Discount 58,300.00_ Deposit to Project Construction Fund _ 1,337,950.00 Rounding Amount 3,750.00 Total Uses Page 3 * not to exceed maximum amount NORTHLAND --; SECURI"PIES Summary of Recommended Terms: 1. Type of Bond Sale 2. Proposed Pricing 3. Council Consideration Negotiated Sale with Northland Securities Thursday, July 24, 2008. Monday, July 28, 2008 @ 7:00 P.M 4. Repayment Term The Bonds will mature annually each December 1, 2009 - 2028. Interest on the Bonds will be payable on June 1, 2009 and semiannually thereafter on each December 1 and June 1. 5. Security Lease payments received from the City will be pledged to the payment of the Bonds. 6. Prepayment Option The Bonds due December 1, 2016 and thereafter will be subject to prepayment on December 1, 2015 or any day thereafter at a price of par. 7. Tax Status Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Mimleapolis, Mimlesota, 8. Credit Rating We believe a credit rating will be cost beneficial. The City's general obligation debt is currently rated Aa3 by Moody's Investors Service. Lease obligations are generally rated one notch lower than the GO rating if the facility being leased is considered an essential purpose. We would expect that these Bonds would be rated one notch lower at a A1. * not to exceed maximum amount Page 4 NORTHLAND -`-; SECURITIES Related Considerations: • Bank Qualified -because total tax-exempt debt issued by the Authority in calendar year 2008 is expected to be less than $10.OM, the bonds will be designated as "bank qualified" obligations pursuant to Federal Tax Law. The impact of this designation may result in slightly lower interest rates since banking institutions will be interested in purchasing the bonds. We have adjusted the estimated interest rates accordingly. • Arbitrage Camplzance - o Project /Construction Fund -All tax exempt issues are subject to federal rebate requirements which require all arbitrage earned to be rebated to the U.S. Treasury. A rebate exemption the Authority expects to qualify for is the "small issuer exemption" because the Authority expects to issue less than $5.OM of tax exempt bonds, including any 501 C 3 conduit financings, in calendar year 2008. o Debt Service Fund -The Authority must maintain a bona fide debt service fund for the bonds or be subject to yield restriction in the debt service fund. A bona fide debt service fund involves an equal matching of revenues to debt service expense with a balance forward permitted equal to the greater of the investment eariungs in the fund during that year or 1/12 of the debt service of that year. The Authority and the City should become familiar with the various Arbitrage Compliance requirements for this bond issue. The Bond Resolution explains the requirements in greater detail. We are also available to assist the Authority and the City in meeting these requirements. • Book Entry -The Bonds will be global book entry with Northland Trust Services designated as the paying agent. As "paperless" bonds, you will avoid the cost of bond printing and annual registrar charges. The Paying Agent will invoice you for the interest semiamlually and on an annual basis for the principal coming due. You will be charged only for paying agent/transfer agent services provided by the Northland Trust Services. The cost of these services, through the call date of December 1, 2015, has been capitalized into the bond issue. • Continuing Disclosure -Because this issue is greater than $1,000,000, and the City's outstanding debt exceeds $10.OM, it is subject to the Securities and Exchange Commissions continuing disclosure requirements. Northland Securities is prepared to assist the City in this capacity. Page 5 * not to exceed maximum amount NORTHLAND =_~ SECURITIES EXHIBIT A Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+1 Fiscal Total 08/01 /2008 - - - - - 06/01/2009 - - 49,937.50 49,937.50 - 12/01/2009 30,000.00 2.850% 29,962.50 59,962.50 109,900.00 06/01/2010 - - 29,535.00 29,535.00 - 12/01/2010 50,000.00 3.000% 29,535.00 79,535.00 109,070.00 06/01/2011 - - 28,785.00 28,785.00 - 12/01/2011 50,000.00 3.200% 28,785.00 78,785.00 107,570.00 06/01/2012 - - 27,985.00 27,985.00 - 12/01/2012 55,000.00 3.400% 27,985.00 82,985.00 110,970.00 06/01/2013 - - 27,050.00 27,050.00 - 12/O1/2013 55,000.00 3.600% 27,050.00 82,050.00 109,100.00 06/01/2014 - - 26,060.00 26,060.00 - 12/01/2014 55,000.00 3.750% 26,060.00 81,060.00 107,120.00 06/01/2015 - - 25,028.75 25,028.75 - 12/01/2015 60,000.00 3.900% 25,028.75 85,028.75 110,057.50 06/01/2016 - - 23,858.75 23,858.75 - 12/01/2016 60,000.00 4.000% 23,858.75 83,858.75 107,717.50 06/01/2017 - - 22,658.75 22,658.75 - 12/01/2017 65,000.00 4.100% 22,658.75 87,658.75 110,317.50 06/01/2018 - - 21,326.25 21,326.25 - 12/01/2018 65,000.00 4.200% 21,326.25 86,326.25 107,652.50 06/01/2019 - - 19,961.25 19,961.25 - 12/01/2019 70,000.00 4.300% 19,961.25 89,961.25 109,922.50 06/01/2020 - - 18,456.25 18,456.25 _ - -- 12/01/2020 70,000.00 4.400% 18,456.25 88,456.25 106,912.50 06/01/2021 - - 16,916.25 16,916.25 - 12/01/2021 75,000.00 4.500% 16,916.25 91,916.25 108,832.50 06/01/2022 - - 15,228.75 15,228.75 - 12/01/2022 80,000.00 4.600% 15,228.75 95,228.75 110,457.50 06/01/2023 - - 13,388.75 13,388.75 - 12/01/2023 85,000.00 4.650% 13,388.75 98,388.75 111,777.50 06/01 /2024 - - 11,412.50 11,412.50 - 12/01/2024 85,000.00 4.700% 11,412.50 96,412.50 107,825.00 06/01 /2025 - - 9,415.00 9,415.00 - 12/01/2025 90,000.00 4.750% 9,415.00 99,415.00 108,830.00 06/01/2026 - - 7,277.50 -- 7,277.50 - - 12/01/2026 95,000.00 4.800% 7,277.50 102,277.50 109,555.00 06/01/2027 - - 4,997.50 4,997.50 - 12/01/2027 100,000.00 4.850% 4,997.50 104,997.50 109,995.00 06/01/2028 - - 2,572.50 2,572.50 - 12/01/2028 105,000.00 4.900% 2,572.50 107,572.50 110,145.00 Total $1,400,000.00 - $783,727.50 $2,183,727.50 - Page 6 * not to exceed maximum amount NOR'T'HLAND -'-; SECURI'I"IES Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the City of Shorewood Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota was duly held in the City Hall of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota on June 23, 2008, commencing at o'clock P.M. The following members were present: and the following were absent: The following written resolution was presented by Council Member ,the reading of which had been dispensed with by unanimous consent, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO A RESOLUTION BY THE SHOREWOOD ECOMOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC PROJECT LEASE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2008A (CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA LEASE OBLIGATION) BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council (the "City Council") of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota (the "City") as follows: 1. It is hereby determined that: (a) the Shorewood Economic Development Authority (the "Authority") is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469 and Section 465.71 (collectively, the "Act") to sell its lease purchase revenue bonds for the purposes enumerated in the Act; (b) the City has requested the Authority to sell lease purchase revenue bonds to finance the renovation of and additions to City Hall (the "hmprovements); and (c) under alease-purchase agreement expected to be entered into between the City and the Authority, the City expects to lease the City hall from the Authority and pay lease payments to the Authority in the amount necessary to pay debt service on such bonds; (d) it is necessary and expedient to the sound financial management of the affairs of the City for the Authority to issue its Public Project Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A (City of Shorewood, Minnesota Lease Obligation), in the approximate amount of $1,400,000 (the "Bonds") pursuant to the Act to provide financing for the Improvements. (e) on the date hereof, the Authority is expected to approve a resolution authorizing its President and Assistant Treasurer to accept a proposal by Northland Securities, Inc. to purchase the Bonds under certain terms and conditions (the "Preliminary Resolution"). 2. The City consents to the Authority's Preliminary Resolution, and authorizes City staff and consultants to do all things necessary to proceed in accordance with the Preliminary Resolution. Approved by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota this 23rd day of June, 2008. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Lawrence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member ,and upon vote being taken thereon the following members voted in favor of the motion: and the following voted against: whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified Acting City Administrator/Clerk of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held on June 23, 2008, with the original minutes on file in my office and the extract is a full, true and correct copy of the minutes. WITNESS My hand as Acting City Administrator/Clerk this day of 2008. Lawrence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator/ Clerk City of Shorewood, Minnesota (SEAL) CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION TOUR 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD CITY HALL & REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. OR IMMEDIATELY TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2008 FOLLOWING PARK TOURS MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING The Park Commission met at the skate Park at 5:45 p.m. to begin their Park Tour. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Davis, Commissioners DeMers, Norman; and Quinlan;. City Engineer Landini. Commissioners Young and Idensley, and Council member Bailey, joined the group at City Hall for the Plegular Meeting at 7:30pm. Public Works Director Brown joined the group at 8:30pm at City Hall. Absent: Commissioner Trent was absent. PARK TOUR 1. SKATE PARK Demers suggested that some of the edging aiid bulges on the surfaces of the skate equipment be screwed down tighter. With some noticeable b affiti remains on one of the surfaces it was suggested that a surveillance camera tie placed on the water tower with signage posted to deter such offenses. Norman pointed out that the equipment seemed to be in fairly good condition considering its exposure to all elements. Chair Davis mentioned that it would be nice to put up a shelter or picnic tables so that there is a place for parents to sit who are watching their kids at the park. Landini explained that Council member Woodruff proposed that the well be capped, as required by law, for environmental and safety reasons referring to the accompanying estimate. Chair Davis stated that she would support the abandonment if the expense was paid for by the City Council, and not the Park Commission budget. 2. MANOR PARK Landini reported that Communications person, Julie Moore, could investigate the Cynthia Craig Grant opportunity for shoreland restoration and water management if the Commission wished to pursue such endeavors. In addition, Landini stated that a resident had requested the 9i Park Commission consider installing a path near the rear north eastern edge of the park. New PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 2 residents in the development to the rear of the park have voiced interest in addING trees on the parks back side as well. Kristi Anderson, of CRR, suggested the City refel• those residents to the donation policy for parks, the vehicle to which other neighbors have volunteered and paid for plantings in the parks if they wish to line the back edge of the park with trees or screening. Norman noticed that the tennis courts were not in as bad shape as he first thought. It was also observed that the overall geese population has been down due to natural predators in the area. The Commissioners accompanied Landini into the warming: house to discuss a new shelter for the site with restrooms and water, as well as, a slightly expanded,picnic area. They urged Landini to put together plans and specs for shelters as well as rink lighting at Manor, Cathcart, and Badger, if economies of scale would play into it. Quinlan also suggested they obtain warranties for the lighting. The Commission took note of a leaning light pole near tlie_shelter to be repaired. 3. SILVERWOOD PARK Chair Davis pointed out where volunteer gardeners- were. hoping to place some landscape rock in order to stabilize the entrance sign garden. She supported giving the one time $100 additional funding to this parkto stabilize the garden and mulch with rock which might match that which is across the street currently.': Commission observations included; - Need to stabilize theslide slope with planting - Using Round-Up on the grass within the tot lot Tilling up the pea gravel in the tot lot and adding additional rock to it - Add. more sand at the. base of the slides -consider an edged area filled with pea gravel or sand so that it does not wash away onto the sidewalk - Rebuild.. retaining wall near bottom of slides - Add decals to the basketball hoop back board - Add lines and. markings to the half court on the ground - Power wash the play equipment -paint -showing some wear - General Sprucing up -trimming of trees -the Ash near parking lot and tree near swings Remove the three `trimmed' bushes and debris within landscaping between parking. lot/tot lot/swings -clearing path or view to swings Design concept plan for small covered shelter with or without slab near grill where trimming and debris to be removed The Commission agreed this park needed some `TLC', as it was looking tired and in need of some upkeep. 4. MINNEWASHTA DOG PARK PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE I0, 2008 PAGE 3 OF 3 Chair Davis gave a brief history explaining how the City of Shorewood got involved in this project for its citizens. Davis stated that, for many years, residents of Shorewood have asked for a dog park. By partnering with Carver Parks, the City matched a $5,000 donation by the Park Foundation to make it possible, with additional funding from Chanhassen and private donors.. She pointed out that the park is comprised of 23 wooded acres which are used by many Shorewood residents or anyone who has a Carver Parks sticker. The Park Tour adjourned to the regular Park Commission Meeting at 7:30 p.m 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING A. Review Agenda Item 7A, Skate Park Well, was added to the Agenda. Young moved, Norman seconded, approving the Agenda as'amended. Motion passed 6J0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission WorkSessioriMeeting Minutesof May 13, 2008 Chair Davis added a comment under Item 5; Disc2ission of Parlc Tours, that she, "Chair Davis requested that staff put together an estimate or bid for rink lighting in all three parks, including Manor. Badger, and Cathcart:" Hensley moved, Chair Davis seconded, approving the Park Commission Minutes of May 13, 2008, as amended. Motion passed 6/0. 2. REPORTS A. Report on City Council'Meeting Council member Bailey stated that there were no items pertaining to Parks on the agenda. He noted thaf tivards were eliminated after much discussion and public comment at the meeting. Commissioner Hensley asked if anyone knew when the Smithtown Road project thru Victoria would be completed. Landini stated that, from his understanding, the project has suffered several delays, and is three months behind, with an expected completion date in August. He stated that they are waiting for Met Council to complete their `big dig' project before the end is in sight. B. Subcommittee Report on Children's Summer Programs Chair Davis was pleased to report that the final two weeks for Fun Free Fridays in Freeman have been booked and include a `pot painting' activity in August and a Hennepin County Master gardener's program in July. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2008 PAGE 4 OF 4 C. Report on Badger Rink Lights Landini passed around a rotted piece of wood from the rink light post that fell last week in a wind storm at Badger Park. He asked whether he should proceed with direction by the Commission to complete the plans and specs for rink lighting at Badger. The Commission urged Landini to move forward. D. Update with City of Chanhassen Representative Regarding Cathcart Park Landini explained that Chanhassen Park Director, Todd Hoffman did not show last week for the meeting. Hoffman indicated that the Chanhassen Park Commission would be visiting Cathcart Park in July for their Park Tours and that he ~,vould get back to Landini with their thoughts at that time. Chair Davis suggested that Landini contact the City of Chanhassen to find out when the tour is scheduled so that several members could meet their Commission at Cathcart Park to have a friendly discussion about the park. 4. MATTERS FROM TIIE FLOOR There were none. 5. 7:45 - DERMCO CANINE PRESENTATION ON TENNIS COURTS Landini explained that he only learned this afternoon that the Dermco representative would not be joining them this evening and would try to attend their July meeting. 6. REVIEW TRAIL OPTIONS AND EXPENSES TO CONTINUE TRAIL IN FREEMAN Landini explained that during the Park Tour in May the Commission visited the drainage Swale trail from Shorewood Oaks to Freeman Park observing the muddy poor conditions of this access. The Commission directed him to provide some options for consideration. Landini stated that the three options include either laying new chip seal rock at a cost of $1700., putting down fabric and new 1/2" rock at an estimated cost of $1500., or using used chip seal rock removed from road projects slated for July at no further expense than staff time. Hensley voiced his concern over the need and aesthetics to run a trail all the way along between the two fields, approximately 272 feet. He suggested the baseball association be contacted to obtain their feedback on this proposal. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2008 PAGESOFS Anderson, of CRR, interjected that this area between the fields has always been an issue, which the City, as well as the association, has tried to address via multiple attempts at planting grass. Norman suggested they consider taking care of the critical area now, the first 50-75 feet or so which is the worst mess. He asked Landini which option he would suggest. Landini stated that, although it would be a bit loose this year until it is worked in, he would suggest using the free used chip seal rock this year and follow-up with another application next year if need be. Chair Davis moved, seconded by Norman, to ask CRR to shaa-e the City's plan for a sidewalk/trail for the area between the fields at Freeman Park from Shorewood Oaks, with the baseball associations. Given their positive feedback, staff is directed to lay the used chip seal rock in the area as proposed. Motion passed 6/0. Hensley interjected his observation of how nice the .prairie grass planting signs posted near the test sites are. 7. REVIEW PRIORITY ITEMS l-Chair Davis stated that it is still a priority to meet with Chanhassen regarding Cathcart Park and reiterated the idea to meet themon their pnrlc tour. 2- Chair Davis urged staff to investigate the opportunity of painting crosswalk stripes and crosswalk signage near Eureka aild Smithtown Roads as there are already stop signs. Hensley stated that it would be nice to understand where cars and bikers are required to stop or yield in crosswalks. Ilc agreed Hennepin County should be contacted about adding stripes as this is a controlled intersection. 3-Chair Davis voiced her support to install rink lighting at all three parks, Manor, Badger, and. Cathcart. DeMers concurred. Quinlan agreed that, as a safety concern, Badger must be done. She urged Landini to use the CD she supplied to the City for planning purposes. Hensley voiced his hesitation to move forward with lighting in all three parks until there are plans or specs for some of the proposed improvement ideas brought up at the last park tour of Cathcart and renovations slated for Badger that could be associated with the City Hall improvements. He asked for a time line. Landini stated that completing light projects for all three parks could be done concurrently and would probably take a month to complete. He noted that if the installation was to be complete for the upcoming winter, plans and specs would likely need to be approved in July with bidding to follow. Chair Davis acknowledged that if the overall rink lighting at Manor is adequate, merely straightening the pole at Manor Park might suffice. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2008 PAGE 6 OF 6 Hensley asked whether the rink lights at Cathcart are of the same vintage as those at Badger and could be a safety concern. He reiterated his hesitation to move forward on all three parks until plans or a vision is laid out of where rinks could go. Landini stated that he would prepare plans for Badger, and complete a rough estimate for Cathcart for their reference. 4- Chair Davis urged the Commissioners to look at the new prairie planting signs, as well as, other signs in surrounding communities for ideas. She asked staff to locate the powerpoint presentation prepared by a previous Commissioner which showed signs throughout Shorewood and beyond to share with the Commission at an upcoming meeting. She asked for Commission volunteers to assist on a sign subcommittee, Quinlan volunteered to take pictures and help with the task. Landini stated that bids can be all over the board, he noted that his bids would accommodate 2X8' molded plastic signs with the E~ords routercd out. 5- Status of Tennis Courts was to be determined at the next meeting. Landini stated that he would confirm with Deimco further in advance to remind them. He pointed out that Dermco had visited the courts and acknowledged that Cathcart was the worst; whereas Badger could withstand another year. Quinlan asked what would need to be dome to Manor courts to improve them. Landini noted that the Manor courts would need to be dug aut and re-laid. Hensley aslced whether. there would be room for expansion at Badger Park for additional courts if the parking lot was rearranged. Landini stated that the sparking lot would not be changing and that no additional grading was proposed. Young urged Landini to ask the Dermco representative to put together a sketch plan that we could examine for Badger,Park containing ideas of how we might improve the tennis facility at Badger and share that with us at the next meeting. 6- With regard to the. Manor Park shelter, Demers felt the Commission should direct staff to get it done. Brown arrived at 8:30p.m. Young agreed that a shelter at Manor Park has been discussed for several years and would be of far more benefit than the warming house presently. Norman agreed that the improved shelter would open up Manor Park to more opportunity for the east side of Shorewood including MCE programming and more. He believed the cosmetic updates, reshingling, as well as, adding water and bathrooms were warranted. Hensley stated he would like to see a drawing to approve before moving forward. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2008 PAGE 7 OF 7 Chair Davis agreed that she was all for the shelter improvements for the east side. Brown interjected a comment urging the Commission to be mindful of the Park Master Plan of this neighborhood park. He questioned whether they felt this fit the park plan currently or whether the plan itself should be reevaluated or updated. Chair Davis stated that she did not see the proposed improvements as a misfit. Hensley agreed that it did not appear to be an intensifying use to make improvements to the structure that is there and is consistent with the plan as he was aware of it. He suggested the master plan be brought to the next meeting for review. Young also urged staff to supply them with plans and specs for a sketch at the next meeting, as well as, the park master plan. 7- Hensley believed item 7 was missing -which would encompass a goal to .obtain concept plans for Cathcart, Manor, and Badger Parks so that the Commission can visualize and make plans based on this new concept plan: In fact, Hensley felt this was a higher priority than many other items since many of these other issues hinged on the concept plans themselves. Chair Davis maintained that she has asked to see plans and overall grading plans for Badger Park and City Hall as well as the other parks for up to three years now and would really like to see those. At the risk of losing ground at Badger by waitilg for new concept plans, Young strongly urged the Commission to move forward on the tennis facilities at Badger now. After years of discussion and ruzu~ing on the seine treadmill aver and over, Young was frustrated by more delays with regard. to thisone item once again. Brown'stated that staff could whip lip a concept plan readily. Chair Davis reiterated that these items make up the Priority List for 2008, as extensive as it is. She reminded staff to sketch up plans for a Silverwood Park shelter as well. The Park Commissionwas in consensus to allow the $100 one time grant to go to the volunteer garden at Silverwood for the purchase of landscape rock. 7A. SKATE PARK WELL Chair Davis moved, Quinlan seconded, to recommend abandonment of the well at the Skate Park and that it be capped off at City expense as opposed to the Park Commission expense. Motion passed 6l0. Brown asked the Commission to give staff rationale for them to take to the City Council of why the expense should not come out of the Park Commission budget. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE I0, 2008 PAGE 8 OF 8 Chair Davis stated that she believed the bid to be very high and without record or history of the well she did not wish to see Park money spent on its abandonment. In addition, the land with the well was MnDOT property prior to becoming park land. Norman stated that the larger issue at hand is that of water quality management which is a City responsibility to protect the underlying aqua for, and therein, is a larger issue than where it resides. 8. DETERMINE LIAISON FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON JUNE 23'~d Quinlan volunteered as liaison. 9. ADJOURN Chair Davis moved, Norman seconded, adjourning the Park Commission Meeting of June 10, 2008, at 8:SSp.m. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson Recorder CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 3 JUNE 2008 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Schmitt; Commissioners Gagne, Geng, Gniffke, and Hutchins; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Woodruff Absent: Commissioners Ruoff and Vilett APPROVAL OF MINUTES 20 May 2008 Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 20 May 2008 as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Schmitt abstaining due to his absence at the meeting. 1. MINOR SUBDIVISION (LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT) Applicants: Anne and Jack Carter Location: 5705/5725 Smithtown Way Director Nielsen stated two years ago, Anne and Jack Carter purchased the properties located at 5725 and 5705 Smithtown Way. At that time the applicants proposed combining the two lots, and ultimately re- subdividing the combined lots into three lots (as explained in a staff report dated 1 June 2006). He reviewed the existing site location map and the proposed site location map. He explained initially they propose to create only two lots (Parcel A and Parcel B/C), allowing them to live in the existing house on the property while they build a new house on the westerly lot (Parcel A). Once the new house is completed, they will demolish the existing house and subdivide the larger lot (Parcel B/C) into two lots (Parcel B and Parcel C). At its 6 June 2006 meeting the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Carter's request subject to Staff recommendations. The Carters withdrew their application before receiving City approval, but now wish to complete the process. Nielsen stated the analysis and recommendations in the 1 June 2006 Staff report remain valid. He provided an update on the recommendations made in that report. 1. The Lots are 100 feet wide. 2. New legal descriptions have been submitted. 3. Legal descriptions for the easements have been provided. The Applicants' attorney must prepare deeds for the drainage and utility easements. 4. The easement vacation was completed in 2006. 5. An up-to-date title opinion or title commitment (within 30 days) must be provided. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 3 June 2008 Page 2 of 6 6. The deeds for the easements should be submitted prior to the Council meeting at which the application will be considered. 7. Park dedication fees will be paid upon the re-subdivision of the easterly parcel. 8. Tree preservation will be addressed with the building permits for the new houses. Nielsen noted the applicants had submitted a site plan illustrating that homes the size of those in that area could be built on Parcel A. He stated Staff recommended the combination/minor division be approved subject to the above conditions. He noted if the City receives the deeds for the drainage and utility easements in time, this item will be placed on a June 23, 2008, City Council meeting agenda for consideration. Nielsen stated Ms. Carter was present this evening to answer any questions the Planning Commission inay have. In response to a question from Commissioner Gagne, Director Nielsen explained because no additional lots would be created for the initial subdivision no additional park dedication or sewer access fees would be required at this time. In effect, the request was actually a reshaping of two lots. Upon re-subdivision of Parcels B and C, the applicants would have to pay the park and sewer charges that would be in effect at that time. Gagne stated he did not agree with that position. In response to another question from Gagne, Ms. Carter stated one of the four black walnut trees on the property will be lost. Geng moved, Gniffke seconded, recommending approval of a combination/minor subdivision for Anne and Jack Carter, 5705 / 5725 Smithtown Way, subject to Staff Recommendations. Motion passed 5/0. 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING GOLF CARTS ON PUBLIC STREETS Director Nielsen stated the City received a request from a resident to use a golf cart on City streets. Council Liaison Woodruff explained the request was from a gentleman who requires the use of an oxygen tank; he wants to use a golf cart to travel around his neighborhood and to his physician's office, which is located on the other side of Highway 7. He stated he knew of other residents that used golf carts on City streets. Director Nielsen explained the operation of golf carts on public roadway is governed under Minnesota State Statue 169.045 Special Vehicle Use on Roadway; the Statute makes reference to four-wheel all terrain vehicles (ATVs). The State Statute stated authorization to operate a motorized golf-cart was by individual permit only. Authorized golf carts would have to display aslow-moving emblem and required to have the appropriate features such as a rear view mirror. The use would have to be governed by a local ordinance, and the City's ordinance could be more restrictive than State Statute. There are a number of conditions that would have to occur if Council were to consider this use. Roadways on which that use was permitted must be designated. He noted the meeting packet included sample ordinances from the cities of White Bear Lake, Princeton, Slayton, and Gaylord; those cities had passed ordinances to allow such use. He did not think any of the four ordinances allowed for the use of ATVs. Nielsen stated Council requested the Planning Commission make a recommendation as to whether or not the City should consider such an ordinance. Commissioner Gagne stated he was opposed to the use of golf carts on City streets. He questioned if allowing the use of ATV's on City streets would that mean any age person could use them. He stated CITY OF SHOREWOOI3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 3 June 2008 Page 3 of 6 crossing Highway 7 could be difficult, and unsafe. Crossing near Old Market Road would require driving on a sidewalk for a while. Crossing on the bridge in Excelsior would also require approval fi om Excelsior. If the resident making the request can't drive an automobile, he questioned what would make it better for the resident to cross Highway 7 in a vehicle which had little protection for the driver. Director Nielsen stated the Director of Public Works had expressed skepticism as to the wisdom of allowing this activity on City streets, particularly since so many are narrow and winding. Police Chief Litsey also expressed concern. Coi-nmissioner Gniffke stated he also opposed the use of golf carts on City streets. He stated Shorewood was not a retirement community. He lives near the area and many times he has seen 18-wheelers having trouble stopping at the Old Market Road crossing. He had also observed adults in his neighborhood riding 4-wheelers very fast in areas where there were children. Commissioner Hutchins questioned if Staff had received any input from the four cities listed above regarding their experiences with golf carts being used on City streets. Director Nielsen stated it had not, and noted some of the streets in White Bear Lake were 24 - 26 feet wide. Council Liaison Woodruff stated he was neither advocating nor opposing the request. He encouraged the Planning Commission to focus on the entire City when considering this request. Chair Schmitt stated he opposed the use of golf carts on City streets. There was a reason there were traffic laws and there were reasons golf carts were not licensable vehicles. From a safety perspective, he was skeptical about a physically challenged person trying to cross Highway 7 in a golf cart. If golf carts were legal by normal code traffic regulations that would be one thing, but he did not want to create any special circumstance through the City that supersedes normal vehicular laws. Geng moved, Gagne seconded, recommending not to consider the use of golf carts on City streets any further. Motion passed 5/0. STUDY SESSION 3. DISCUSS COMMUNITY-WIDE SURVEY Director Nielsen stated he had distributed sample city surveys to the Planning Commissioners at its 15 Apri12008 meeting, and asked them to consider what types of planning related questions they would want to see included in the City-wide survey. The Commission discussed the survey at its 20 May 2008 meeting, and he asked the Commissioners to iden~ify specific questions they vranted to have Council consider including in the survey. Commissioner Gniffke stated it was important to keep the survey short and to ask "high density" questions. Chair Schmitt questioned if the City received process related complaints; if so, questions related to those specific processes could be included in the survey. Director Nielsen stated Staff looked for suggestions for how to get the public involved early on in discussions about an item; the public generally waited to provide input until such time a decision has to be made. He suggested the survey ask the residents what they thought was the most effective way far CITY OF SHOREW®OI) PLANNING C®MMISST®N MEE'T'ING 3 June 2008 Page 4 of 6 them to receive information from the City; was it the City's website, its newsletter, Cable Television, local newspapers, etc. Commissioner Gniffke suggested the survey include a question regarding residents' receptivity to receiving information via the Internet. Commissioner Geng added the City could ask residents to identify if they have Internet access, and if they access the Internet and email regularly. Commissioner Gagne stated at one time the City placed informational signs on a property on which changes were proposed. Chair Schmitt stated the City could consider doing that again, but he did not think there should be a question about that in the survey. Chair Schmitt suggested the survey include a question asking for residents to identify environmental practices that should be considered. For example, should the City have more or less open space or should curbs on streets be eliminated to allow for natural storm water runoff. Commissioner Hutchins suggested an open-ended question be asked about each section of the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Schmitt suggested the survey ask residents if they would like the City to consider allowing high density developments for the aging population. Commissioner Gniffke thought that would be a good question to ask. Schmitt stated if residents indicate they would like that, then the Planning Commission should discuss that. Commissioner Geng suggested the Planning Commission hold public forums to discuss topics such as high-density housing once the updates to the Comprehensive Plan were completed. Commissioner Hutchins questioned if people would attend the forums. Commissioner Gniffke suggested the survey ask residents if they think the City take more action to control invasive species. Commissioner Hutchins suggested residents be asked if the City should be more aggressive with regard to wildlife management. 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Natural Resources Chapter -Revised Draft This was discussed after Item 7 on the agenda. Director Nielsen stated he distributed the first draft of the changes to Natural Resources Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to the Commission at its 27 May 208 meeting. During that meeting he reviewed the proposed changes and asked the Commissioners to review the Chapter and identify any additional changes. Commissioner Gagne stated he had no objections to the proposed changes. In response to a question from Commissioner Gniffke, Director Nielsen stated he would research if the City had a policy establishing a maximum slope of 3:1 for disturbed slopes in new development. Commissioner Gniffke recommended the Policies section include something about eradicating invasive species. CITY OF SIiORE6~'OOI) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 3 June 2Q08 Page 5 of 6 • Land Use Chapter -Revised Draft Director Nielsen stated at the 27 May 2008 Planning Commission meeting he reviewed thoughts he had regarding land uses abutting the County Road 19 corridor through the City. Nielsen again reviewed the items discussed. Land uses for the corridor are fairly well established on the east and north sides of County Road 19; and, on the west side down to and including Gideon G1en..The east end of the corridor has been addressed in the Planning District 6 Area Plan. The commercially zoned properties adjacent to the Smithtown Road/ County Road 19 intersection, particularly the northwest quadrant, were relatively prime for redevelopment. The City has expressed a preference for the uses of a more retail nature rather than service commercial. Because the ultimate redevelopment of several of the sites is inhibited by size and configuration, the City favors coordinated/cohesive redevelopment, particularly for the northwest quadrant, over aproperty-by-property approach; the City cannot force that to happen. Planned unit development, possibly including mixed uses, lends itself well to the coordinated redevelopment of the area, particularly the northwest quadrant. Some possibilities for encouraging coordinated, high quality redevelopment are: tax increment financing which the City Council agreed to "consider" in 2007; a planned unit development which could provide design flexibility; and lessening read yard setbacks abutting Badger Field in exchange for greater front yard setbacks. Nielsen stated he would incorporate his thoughts and the other land use issues and topics previously discussed by the Commission into the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and provide the Commissioners with draft copy of the revised chapter prior to its 17 June 2008 meeting. • Transportation Chapter -Issues This item was continued to a 17 June 2008 Planning Commission study session. • Community Facilities Chapter -Issues This item was continued to a 17 June 2008 Planning Commission study session. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated the 17 June 2008 Planning Commission study session would be would be devoted to continued discussion of the Land Use Chapter, and issues sections of the Transportation Chapter and the Community Facilities Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. 7. REPORTS Liaison to Council This was discussed after Item 3 on the agenda. Council Liaison Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the May 27, 2008, City Council regular meeting and work session, and at the June 2, 2008, work session (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings). CITY OF SHORE~6'®®D PLANNING C®MMISSION MEETING 3 June 2008 Page 6 of 6 Discussion returned to Item 4 on the agenda. This was discussed after Item 4 on the agenda. Council Liaisons were selected as followed: July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 SLUC No report was given. Other Commissioner Geng Commissioner Hutchins Commissioner Vilett Commissioner Ruoff Commissioner Gniffke Commissioner Gagne Director Nielsen stated he had not yet requested a written clarification from the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) regarding its position on the license it had granted the Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company (MPDCo) to allow the MPDCo's driveway to cross the HCRRA LRT trail. Commissioner Gagne explained the Lakeshore Weekly News published an article stating Todd Frostad of Frostad Development had proposed redeveloping 712 and 734 Galpin Lake Road. Mr. Frostad approached the Excelsior City Council about the possibility of the Excelsior annexing a portion of the property from the City of Shorewood. Frostad wanted to combine the two plots of land (which he owns), part of which sits in Excelsior and part of which sits in Shorewood. He would only be interested in the Shorewood property being annexed to Excelsior if Excelsior was interested in rezoning the land for high traffic. Gagne recommended the City keep its property as it would be an ideal location for a commercial entity. Director Nielsen stated a request to detach and annex property would have to come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gagne stated a bank had taken possession of the house under construction located on County Road 19. He suggested the City request the bank to clean up the property and make it less of an eye sore. Nielsen stated he shared Gagne's frustration about the state of the property. 8. ADJOURNMENT Gniffke moved, Gagne seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 3 June 2008 at 8:18 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder 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: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 29 May 2008 RE: ..Carter, Anne and Jack -Minor Subdivision FILE NO. 405(08.08) Two years ago, Anne and Jack Carter purchased the properties at 5725 and 5705 Smithtown Way. As explained in a staff report, dated 1 June 2006 (Attachment I, copied in yellow), the Carters propose to combine the two lots, then resubdivide them into three lots. Initially, they propose to create only two lots, allowing them to live in the existing home on the property while they build a new home on the westerly lot. Once the new house is completed, they will demolish the existing home and split the larger lot in two. The Carters withdrew their application before receiving City approval, but now wish to complete the process. The analysis and recommendations in the June 2006 staff report remain valid. Following is an update on the recommmendations: 1. The lots are 100 feet wide. 2. New legal descriptions have been submitted. 3. Legal descriptions for the easements have been provided. The Applicants' attorney must prepare deeds for the easements. 4. The easement vacation was completed in 2006. 5. An up-to-date title opinion or title commitment (within 30 days) must be provided. 6. The deeds for the easements should be submitted prior to the Council meeting at which the application will be considered. 7. Park dedication fees will be paid upon the resubdivision of the easterly parcel. 8. Tree preservation will be addressed with the building permits for the new homes. Cc: Larry Brown Tim Keane James Landini Anne Carter ®s i®~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF S~-IOREZ~TOOD 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 Celebrating 50 Years • 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 1 June 2006 RE: Carter, Anne and Jack -Minor Subdivision FILE NO.: 405 (06.08) BACKGROUND Anne and Jack Carter have arranged to purchase the properties located at 5705 and 5725 Smithtown Way (see Site Location map -Exhibit A, attached). They propose to combine the two lots (see Exhibit B) and ultimately resubdivide the property into three building sites as shown on Exhibit C. The property is zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential and is occupied by a single- family residence and a detached garage. The three proposed lots contain 20,030 square feet, 21,149 square feet and 20,576 square feet of area, respectively. Although the plans show how the property will be divided into three lots, the applicants' plan is to create Parcel A, leaving Parcels Band C together, with the house and garage while they build a new home. Once the new home is done, they will demolish the existing home and apply for a minor subdivision to create Parcels B and C. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION All three of the proposed lots comply with the requirements of the R-1C zoning district. Exhibit C illustrates the setbacks for the lots and the resulting buildable areas. ~~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ®~ Attachment I ` Memorandum Re: Carter Minor Subdivision 1 Jtule 200b Sanitary sewer is available to the new lots, although new services will have to be constructed at such time as someone applies for a building permit. With that, it is recommended that the minor division be approved subject to the following:. 1. The applicants' surveyor should revise the survey to show that Parcels Band C are at least 100 feet wide at the building line (front setback). 2. The applicants must provide legal descriptions for the proposed lots. One simplified description must be written for Parcels B and C as a single parcel. 3. The applicants must provide legal descriptions and deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet on each side of each lot line. _ 4. The applicants will have to request a vacation of the existing drainage and utility easements on the property. It is likely easiest to simply vacate all current easements and then dedicate the new ones from 2., above. _ 5. The applicants must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion. for review by the City Attorney. 6. Items 1-4 must be submitted prior to the request being scheduled for City Council review, but no later than 30 days. - 7. Since no additional lots are being created at this time, no additional park dedication or sewer access fees are required at this time. Upon resubdivision of Parcels B and C, the applicants will have to pay the park and sewer charges in effect at that time. 8. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits, are applied for. Cc: Craig Dawson Larry Brown Tim Keane Anne and Jack Carter -2- ~•' P~~ .. P`~,P G~~ ~0 ~~v ~ ~ Op ~ ~~. . ~ ~ '+~ '~ NI~331 "1A "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oa vNaana .p "~ -A .~ '~ ~ -~ ~ ~ -+~ -~ oa vNaana ~ ~ ~¢ 5 w 0 rc 0 3 ~~ . ^~^,,C W i~ U Z < . ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 -A z 3 0 s N Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Carter Minor Subdivision That port of Lot 1, E NUMBER i33, Nennepi ~, / ~' / / / / ~~ / ~: S~ g69 / 5 ~ ~/ ~3} I o~ (~N o'~ 0 ZI I 5600 S89 49'S6'6V-••. _ _ 1 Commencing at a po, ~ .;~~ 1 / L_vl ~c_~~n j / ~ ~ (.1 ,[ i ~J.` / ~;i• ~~9~ g1a ~ / `'~ `I ^r r~-~r,lt rl^IfIA! 5 / / r -~.. \ ~ 1 Q $, / / ~ /~ 9 ~ ~ i _eC~ ~ g~ g11 °~ 1 1 /• / / / ~•• J ~::,- xis ' biti inou drive ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~( I ~ ~, . ~~ Z ~ ~ a - 1 ~ ~ , 11 I l/ I TREE ~' exisfin house ~ 1 /~s //; ~ / N 9 ~ , ~ ~ ~ .1 ~ ~ E ~ ~ II ~: / 31 ~ / ~,~ l / ~ ~ ~ .1 1 ~, N e ting ~ ( f o I J N TREE ~ rn o e ~ I .AREA = 41754.56 SF / o ` ~ A ( i m ~ ~ ~" .i i 3 ( ~ \ / ~--- - 978 ~~ ~ ~ ~ o I TREE ~ I ~ 9>> ~_ ~ -~ z w ~ ! ~ ~ ._._- 976 ~ / I , ! TREE I \ ~ gds "'~ ~ ~ I l 1 ~ "'~•::- S8948'43'W 173.9D ~-~:-•. .....~....- ~48'43'W i 0.17-~.~~ . ~•~... TREE .~•~ ~ 9~ 972 ~ •_____ `~ '-~ ..._.. ~ ~ ; ~ I ~ ~ ~ a ~ I Southwest comer of , minutes 04 seconds feet; thence South 8 thence North 0 degre diston# 25 OD feet Sc Northwesterly line of seconds Wesf along ; thence South 47 dey disfant 491.70 feet 1 North from o point c Southwest comer fhe porollet line a distan~ West, a distance of distance of 84.20 fe and parallel with the degrees 54 minutes fhe point of begrnnrr That lies Westerly of Commencing atop; Southwest comer of minutes 04 seconds Exhibit B EXISTING LOTS Te~ai Area = x.42 Acres ~ ~s ` i ~' , ~~~~ i eye ~~, ~ ~~ /: ~ ~: ~, ,~~ gg, / '25.00 ll ~ ~ s ~ % / ;~ 4 r'~ keg ~ roo Q `~ Z ~ i . ~ f / `~~ ~~`r% / ~ 56.00 - ~ ~`~ f ~ .~0 ; ~rr i ~ r, i / ~~ ` ~ / V /' / / / ~ ` ~ . ' ~' ~ 8.3 ~ `"``_ 1~~1 v ~~ / ,test ens I t~ o/ / ~ ~ ro E ing G / -' N Gara 8 / /~ oc / ~ ~' / / / I o~ 28.2 / G`~ ~ s fi ~ 1 _ I ~-i 1 L3 rig' ~ 1'~ 48 m!nu~es continue Sc '' North 0 deb :, with said L! '' . a distance minutes 57 ~ minufes 5i Subject fc: inwardly frc ~ ~- f ~~ !~ ` ~, 50 Drainage and Utility Easement ^fl A1T1 1Tf-lIAln 1 1 I~ I t PARCEL A: that port of NUMBER 933; Commencing Southwest c. minutes D4 feet; thence thence Norfl distant 25.0 Northwester! A; thence S distance of (75.08 feef line of said ~~ i ~ ~ ~~~ r a "" ,~ feet Easter! ,~ ~ ~ e, qr~ ,~~~ -1 , seconds Ea: .~ N L~ 0 0 r °o PARCEL B: That part ~ '' NUMBER 9~ Commencir Southwest j minutes 0~ '! feef; ther,~, Exhibit C PROPOSED LOTS .---•• ,,,.•• _ ~....r...~ ~•• 7 _ ~ ~,, J/ a~ ; ~ ~ r ~~, °;' i g~1 ~~~ ~ ~ e~ o Q~ N !L ~ p~ W to ~ k o N Ol ~ ~ N!17. o NWT' 1 ,yh U N ~° ~' 7S ~~ ry ~ Q ~ '' • %^'' 15.0 ,.., > ~3- UJ "~ (~~ C ` ~~ ~ ~ ~ ° .••~o; 1 (~ ~ C MA ~ \ l °~ •~ 28.2 ~t~~~~+ ~ "~rn ~ ~` .~... J a ~5 ~ i; ~ ti- \ ~a~c, \ i i o c t„ N ~ ( r \ X~ v ~ O1// ~ .. If ICI ~ V ' ~ X~, \ ~ ~ ,o _ 0' •t ~ o 6- °~~ ~~ ~ .~ \ ~' 'boo !Z'~8 M«L 1,11.OON \ ti ~ ~~`~ \~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION AND COMBINATION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR ANNE AND JACK CARTER WHEREAS, Anne and Jack Carter (Applicants) have an interest in certain real properties in the City of Shorewood, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have applied to the City for a subdivision of said real property into two parcels legally described in Exhibits B and C, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have agreed to grant to the City drainage and utility easements as provided in Exhibits D and E, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was reviewed by the City Planner, whose recommendations are included in a memorandum, dated 29 May 2008, a copy of which is on file at the Shorewood City Hall; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on 3 June 2008, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on 23 June 2008, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the Planning Commission's recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the Applicants and from the City staff; and WHEREAS, the subdivision requested by the Applicants complies in all respects with the Shorewood Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. The real property legally described in Exhibit A be divided into two parcels, legally described in Exhibits B and C. 2. The City Clerk shall furnish the Applicants with a certified copy of this resolution for recording purposes. 3. The Applicants record this resolution, together with the Drainage and Utility Easements, illustrated in Exhibits D and E, attached hereto, with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30) days of the date of the certification of this resolution. -1- ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 23'~a day of July 2008. ATTEST: Lawrence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk Christine Lizee, Mayor -2- PARCEL A Legal ©escript~ion That part of Lot 1, Eureka and Lots 99, 700 and 701 of AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota; described as follows; Commencing at a point on the South line of said Lot 7 distant 68.06 feet Easterly of the Southwest corner of said "Lof 7; thence an an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees 70 minutes 04 secands }Pest, parallel with the Wesf tine of said Lot 1, a distance. of 620.13 feet; thence South 89 degrees 49 minutes 56 seconds Wesf a distance of 56.00 feet; thence Norfh 0 degrees 70 minufes 04 seconds West, a distance of 5~ 87 feat to a line distanf 25.00 feet Southerly of'measured at right angles fo, and parallel with the Northwesterly line of said Lot 99, 100 and 701; thence South 48 degrees 54 minutes 34 secands West along sold parallel line, a distance of 95.25 feet to the point of beginning; • thence South 47 degrees 07 minutes 59 seconds East a distance of 17508 feet. to a point 'distant 497.70 feet North of and . on a line, ,parallel with the West tine of said Lat 7 ~ drawn North from a point on the South line of sold Lot 7 distant 68.00 feef Easfer(y of the Southwest corner fhereaf thence South 0 degrees 70 minufes 04 secands East, along sold parallel line o distance of 743.31 feet;' thence South •89 degrees 48 minutes 43 seconds West, a distance of 334.07 feet; thence North D degrees 77 minutes 17 seconds West, a distance of 84.20 feat to a line distant 25,00 feet Southerly of measured at righ# angles to, and parallel with fhe Narthwesteriy line of said Lot 99, 700 and 107; thence North 48 degrees 54 minutes 34 seconds East 'along said parallel fine a distance of 272,87 feet to the point of beginning. That Iles Westerly' of the following described line: Commencing at a point bn, the South line of said Lat 7 distant 68.06 feef Easterly of the Southwest corner of said Lot 7; thence on an assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 70 minutes 0~ seconds West; parallel with the West line of said Lat 7,' o distance of 348.39 feet; thence South 89 degrees 48 minutes 43 seconds Wesf, a distance of 760.17 feet to fhe point of beginning of the line fa be described; thence North 20 degrees 32 minutes 29 secands West a distance of 789.57 feet to a line distant 2~ OD feet Southerly of, measured at right angles to, and parallel with fhe Northwesterly line of sold Lots 99, 700 and 701 and said line there terminating. Exhibit A 1=,~RCEL e . =,-~ Legal Description 77tat part of Lat 7, Eureka and Lots 99, -100 and 101 of AUDlTOR'5 SUBDIVISIQN NUMBER. 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of sold Lot 1 distanf 68.06 feet Easterly of the Southwest corner of sold Lot 1; thence an an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees 10 minutes 04 seconds West, parallel with the Wesf line of said Lot 1, a distance of 620.13 feet; thence. South 89 degrees 49 minutes 58 seconds West a distance of 56.00 feet; thence North 0 degrees 10 minutes 04 seconds West, a distance of 52.87 feet fo a• line distant 25061 feet 5oufherly of measured' at right angles to and parallel with fhe Northwesterly line of said Lot 99, 700 and 101; .thence South 48 degrees 54 minutes 34 seconds West along said parallel line, a distance of 95.25 feet to the paint of beginning; thence South 47 degrees 07 minutes 59 seconds Easf, a distance of 17508 feet to a point distanf 491.70 feef Narfh of and an a line, •paroNet wtfh the West line of said Laf 7 drown North from a point on the South line of said tot 1 distant &8.00 feet Easterly of the Southwest comer thereof thence Sou#h 0 degrees i0 minutes 04 seconds East, along sold parallel line a distance of 743.31 feef; (hence South 89 degrees 48 minutes 43 seconds West, a dis#ance of 334.0? feet; thence North 0 degrees 71 minutes 17 seconds Wesf , a dlsfance of 84.20 feet to a line distant 25.00 feet Southerly of, measured of right ong/es to, and parallel wtfh the Northwesterly line of said Lof 99, ,700 and 101; thence North 48 degrees 54 minutes 34 seconds Easf along said parallel fine o distance of 272.81 feet to the point of beginning. ' That ties Easterly of fhe following described line: Commencing of a poinf on the South line of said Lof 1 distanf 68.0& feet Easterly of fhe Southwest comer of said Lot 1; thence on an assumed bearing of North 00 degrees t0 minutes 04 seconds Wesf, parallel with the West line of said Lot 7, a distance of 348.39. feet; thence South .89 degrees 48 minutes 43 seconds West; a distance of 760.17 feet to the poinf of beginning of the line to be described; thence Norfh 20 degrees 32 minutes 29 seconds West a distance of 189.57 feet to a line distant 25.00 feet Southerly of, measured at right angles ta, and parallel with the Northwesterly line of said Lots 99, 100 and 101 and said line (here terminating. PARCEL A: That port of Lot 1, EUREKA and Lots 99, 100 and 101 of AUDITOR'S SUBD/V1S/ON NUMBER 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing of a point on fhe South line of said Lat 1 distant 68.00 feet Easterly of the Southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence on an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees 10 minufes 04 seconds West, parallel with fhe West line of said Lot 1, a d/stance of 620.13 feet; thence Soufh 89 degrees 49 minutes 56 seconds West a distance of 56.00 feet; (hence North 0 degrees 10 minufes 04 seconds West, a distance of 52.87 fee( to o line distant 25.00 feet Southerly of measured at right angles to and parallel with the Northwesterly line of said Lot 99, 100 and 101 said tine is hereinafter referred to as Line A; thence South 48 degrees 54 minutes 34 seconds West along said parallel line, a distance of 95.25 feet; thence South 47 degrees 07 minutes 59 seconds East, a d/sfonce of 175.08 fee( to a point distant 491.70 fee( North of and on a line, parallel with the West line of said Lot 1 drawn North from a point on the South line of said Lot 1 distant 68.00 feet Easterly of the Soufhwesf comer thereat; thence South 0 degrees f0 minufes 04 seconds East, along said parallel line a distance of 14.3 31 feet; thence South 89 degrees 48 minufes 43 seconds West, a distance of 44.13 feet to the paint of beginning; (hence continue South 89 degrees 48 minutes 43 seconds West, a distance of 289.94 feet; thence North 0 degrees 11 minutes i7 seconds Wesf, a distance of 84.21 feet fo the intersection with said Line A; fhence North 48 degrees 54 minutes 34 seconds Easf along said Line A, a distance of 61.71 feef to the intersection with a line fhof bears North 63 degrees 03 minufes 57 seconds Wesf from the point of beginning; thence South 63 degrees 03 rriinufes 57 seconds East, a distance of 27335 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to pem~anent drainage and utility easements being 10.00 feet in width measured inwardly from the perimeter of said Parcel A. Exhibit B PARCEL B: Tha# part of Lot 1, EUREKA and Lots 99, 100 and 101 of AUDITORS SUBD/V1SlON NUMBER 133, Hennepin County Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of sold Lot 1 distant 600 feet Easterly of the Southwest comer of said tot 1; thence an an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees f0 minutes 04 seconds West, parallel with fhe West line of said Lot i, o distance of 820.13 feet; thence South 89 degrees 49 minutes 56 seconds West, o d/stance of 58.00 feet; thence North 0 degrees 10 minutes 04 seconds West, a distance of 52.87 feet to a /ine distant 25.00 feet Southerly of measured at right angles to and parallel with the Northwesterly line of sold Lot 99, io0 and 101 said /ine is hereinafter referred to as Llne A; thence South 48 degrees 54 minutes 34 seconds West o%ng sold parallel l/ne, o distance of 95.25 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 47 degrees 07 minutes 59 seconds East, o distance of 175.08 feet to a point distant 491.70 feet North of and on a line, parallel with the West line of sold Lot 1 drawn North from a point on the South line of sold Lot 1 distant 600 feet Easterly of the Southwest corner thereof thence South 0 degrees 10 minutes 04 seconds East, along said parallel line, o distance of 14331 feet; thence South t?9 degrises 48 minutes 43 seconds West, a distance of 44.13 feet; thence North 63 degrees 03 minutes 57 seconds West, a distance of 273.35 feet fo the intersection with sold Llne A; thence North 48 degrees 54 minutes 34 seconds East along said Line A, a distance of 21 i.10 feet fo the po/nf of beginn/ng. Sub}ect to permanent dra/nage and utr7ity easements being 10.00 feet in width measured Inward/y from the perimeter of said Parcel B. Exhibit C DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT Date: (State Deed Tax Exempt) For valuable consideration, John T. Carter and Anne C. Carter, husband and wife (collectively referred to herein as "Grantors"), do hereby grant, convey and quit claim to the City of Shorewood, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, its successors and assigns, Grantee, a permanent easement for drainage and general public utility purposes including storm sewer, over, under and across part of certain real property owned by Grantors located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: That part of Lot 1, EUREKA and Lots 99, 100 and 101 of AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Lot 1 distant 68.00 feet Easterly of the Southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence on an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees 10 minutes 04 seconds West, parallel with the West line of said Lot 1, a distance of 620.13 feet; thence South 89 degrees 49 minutes 56 seconds West a distance of 56.00 feet; thence North 0 degrees 10 minutes 04 seconds West, a distance of 52.87 feet to a line distant 25.00 feet Southerly of measured at right angles to and parallel with the Northwesterly line of said Lot 99, 100 and 101 said line is hereinafter referred to as Line A; thence South 48 degrees 54 minutes 34 seconds West along said parallel line, a distance of 95.25 feet; thence South 47 degrees 07 minutes 59 seconds East, a distance of 175.08 feet to a point distant 491.70 feet North of and on a line, parallel with the West line of said Lot 1 drawn North from a point on the South line of said Lot 1 distant 68.00 feet Easterly of the Southwest corner thereof; thence South 0 degrees 10 minutes 04 seconds East, along said parallel line a distance of 143.31 feet; thence South 89 degrees 48 minutes 43 seconds West, a distance of 44.13 feet to the point of beginning; thence continue South 89 degrees 48 minutes 43 seconds West, a distance of 289.94 feet; thence North 0 degrees 11 minutes 17 seconds West, a distance of 84.21 feet to the intersection with said Line A; thence North 48 degrees 54 minutes 34 seconds East along said Line A, a distance of 61.71 feet to the intersection Exhibit D with a line that bears North 63 degrees 03 minutes 57 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence South 63 degrees 03 minutes 57 seconds East, a distance of 273.35 feet to the point of beginning. (the "Property"). Said easement being described as follows: A permanent drainage and utility easement being 10.00 feet in width measured inwardly from the perimeter of the Property This easement includes the right of ingress and egress to said easement and the right of the City of Shorewood and its employees, agents, designees and assigns, to go upon said easement area at any time to construct and install such drainage, utility and storm sewer facilities of such type, size, character and in such manner as it may determine, and to use, improve, maintain and repair such facility and the easement area. This easement also includes the right of the City of Shorewood to use and remove all earth, fill, trees, timber, shrubs, grasses and any other materials or objects within the easement area. Grantee shall, after initial installation of the facilities provided by this easement and after any future maintenance or repair, restore the land subject to the easement to as near its original condition as is reasonably possible. Grantors agree that they will not place objects upon the easement area nor use the easement area for any purpose that will interfere with the public right, use and operation granted by this easement. Grantors covenant that they are the owner of the above-described land and easement area in fee simple and in possession of said land and that they have good and lawful right to convey this easement. This easement shall run with the above-described land and shall be binding upon the Grantors, their heirs, successors and assigns. GRANTEE: CITY OF SHOREWOOD By: Its: By: Its: 2 GRANTORS: John T. Carter Ann C. Carter STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2008, by and the and of the City of Shorewood a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation, Grantee. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF )ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2008, by John T. Carter and Anne C. Cater, husband and wife, Grantors. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Melchert Hubert Sjodin, PLLP (aab) 121 West Main Street, Suite 200 Waconia, MN 55387 (952) 442-7700 L:\Amanda Bloomgreu\Clients\Carter\Drainage and Utility Basement to City Parcel A.doc 3 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT Date: (State Deed Tax Exempt) For valuable consideration, John T. Carter and Anne C. Carter, husband and wife (collectively referred to herein as "Grantors"), do hereby grant, convey and quit claim to the City of Shorewood, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Mimnesota, its successors and assigns, Grantee, a permanent easement for drainage and general public utility purposes including storm sewer, over, under and across part of certain real property owned by Grantors located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: That part of Lot 1, EUREKA and Lots 99, 100 and 101 of AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Lot 1 distant 68.00 feet Easterly of the Southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence on an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees 10 minutes 04 seconds West, parallel with the West line of said Lot 1, a distance of 620.13 feet; thence South 89 degrees 49 minutes 56 seconds West, a distance of 56.00 feet; then North 0 degrees 10 minutes 04 seconds West, a distance of 52.87 feet to a line distant 25.00 feet Southerly of measured at right angles to and parallel with the Northwesterly line of said Lot 99, 100 and 101 said line is hereinafter referred to as Line A; thence South 48 degrees 54 minutes 34 seconds West along said parallel line, a distance of 95.25 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 47 degrees 07 minutes 59 seconds East, a distance of 175.08 feet to a point distant 491.70 feet North of and on a line, parallel with the West line of said Lot 1 drawn North from a point on the South line of said Lot 1 distant 68.00 feet Easterly of the Southwest corner thereof; thence South 0 degrees 10 minutes 04 seconds East, along said parallel line, a distance of 143.31 feet; thence South 89 degrees 48 minutes 43 seconds West, a distance of 44.13 feet; thence North 63 degrees 03 minutes 57 seconds West, a distance of 273.35 feet to the intersection with said Line A; thence North 48 degrees 54 minutes 34 seconds East along said Line A, a distance of 211.10 feet to the point of beginning. Exhibit E (the "Property"}. Said easement being described as follows: A permanent drainage and utility easement being 10.00 feet in width measured inwardly from the perimeter of the Property This easement includes the right of ingress and egress to said easement and the right of the City of Shorewood and its employees, agents, designees and assigns, to go upon said easement area at any time to construct and install such drainage, utility and storm sewer facilities of such type, size, character and in such manner as it may determine, and to use, improve, maintain and repair such facility and the easement area. This easement also includes the right of the City of Shorewood to use and remove all earth, fill, trees, timber, shrubs, grasses and any other materials or objects within the easement area. Grantee shall, after initial installation of the facilities provided by this easement and after any future maintenance or repair, restore the land subject to the easement to as near its original condition as is reasonably possible. Grantors agree that they will not place objects upon the easement area nor use the easement area for any purpose that will interfere with the public right, use and operation granted by this easement. Grantors covenant that they are the owner of the above-described land and easement area in fee simple and in possession of said land and that they have good and lawful right to convey this easement. This easement shall run with the above-described land and shall be binding upon the Grantors, their heirs, successors and assigns. GRANTEE: CITY OF SHOREWOOD By: Its: By: Its: 2 GRANTORS: John T. Carter Ann C. Carter STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2008, by and the and of the City of Shorewood a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation, Grantee. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2008, by John T. Carter and Anne C. Cater, husband and wife, Grantors. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Melchert Hubert Sjodin, PLLP (aab) 121 West Main Street, Suite 200 Waconia, MN 55387 (952) 442-7700 l:\amanda bloomgren\clients\carter\drainage and utility easement to city parcel b.doc 3 ®~ - ~ ~ 5 Ir C ~T 9 _~ E. 5. 5755 COUf`~TRY CLI.iB ROAD ®SI-iC3REWC~OD, MItVi~ES©TA 55331-8927 ~ (952) 474-3236 FAX (952} 474-0128 ®www.ci.shorewood.mn.us ®cityhall@ci.sharewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM Date: June 19, 2008 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Lawrence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator From: Bonnie Burton, Finance Director/Treasurer Re: Investment Policy Introduction Shorewood's investment policy is based on Minnesota State statlrte and was adopted in 1996. It has formed the basis of the City's investment practices these past years. At a recent work-session, the council reviewed the policy, and indicated areas they believed should beupdated. At that time, Council also was able to view examples of recommended policies provided by the League of Minnesota Cities Information. Memo (City Deposits and Investments), and the City of Aitkin. The City Council concurred. that safety of principal was the major investment objective and agreed that the policy should be updated in a format similar to the League of Minnesota Cities template. The Proposed Investment Policy Attached please find the revised City of Shorewood, MN Investment Policy. It generally follows the format provided by the League of Minnesota Cities. Iin addition, policies from the cities of Aitkin, Deephaven and Victoria were studied closely for appropriate content and verbiage. The revised policy is very specific regarding investment objectives, unlike the old policy, which was rather vague. The foremost objective of the City is safety of principal; then liquidity and yield. The revised policy is also more restrictive regarding authorized investments. The list of authorized investments mirrors the City of Aitkin list. Although there are times when top grade commercial paper (AIPl) has been useful in the past, usually to fill a short gap between a maturing investment: and the settlement of a new investment (perhaps a week or two), the council indicated discomfort with commercial paper as an investment. Perhaps the Council would consider allowing commercial paper investments if they were limited to no more than 2-3% of the portfolio. Stceff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt this revised investment policy. ~~ ~~~ PRINTED ON RECYCEEa PAPER -° CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA INVESTMENT POLICY INTRODUCTION This policy covers all monies and cash balances of the City of Shorewood and includes deposits and investments of funds deposited in interest bearing accounts. The policy is intended to be broad enough to allow the Investment Officer to function properly within the parameters of responsibility and authority, yet specific enough to adequately safeguard the investment assets. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to establish specific guidelines the City of Shorewood will use in the investment of City funds. It will be the responsibility of the City Finance Director/Treasurer to invest City funds in order to attain a market rate of return while preserving and protecting the capital of the overall portfolio. Investments will be made, based on statutory constraints, in safe, low risk instruments. SCOPE The City Finance Director/Treasurer is responsible for the investing of all funds in the custody of the City, including, but not necessarily limited to, the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds, Capital Project Funds, Enterprise Funds, and Agency Funds. PRUDENCE The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials shall be the "prudent investor", and shall be applied. in the context of managing the overall portfolio. Investment officers acting in accordance with this policy and with MN Statute 118A, and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes, provided that reasonable action is taken to control adverse developments and unexpected deviations are reported in a timely manner. Page 1 OBJECTIVE There are three main objectives of all investment activities that are prioritized as follows: A. Safe - Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the City. Each investment transaction shall seek to first insure that capital losses are avoided. The objective will be mitigate credit risk and interest rate risk. Credit Rislc is the risk of loss due to failure of the security issuer or backer. Interest Rate Risk is the risk that the market value of securities in the portfolio will fail due to changes in general interest rates. B. Li uidi - The investment portfolio shall remain sufficiently liquid to meet all operating requirements that maybe reasonable anticipated. This is accomplished by structLiring the portfolio so that securities mature concurrent with cash needs to meet anticipated demands. C. Yield - The investment portfolio of the City of Shorewood shall be designed to attain a market-average rate of return through budgetary and economic cycles, taking into consideration the city's investment risk constraints, cash flow characteristics of the portfolio and prudent investment principles. Subject to requirements of the above objectives, it is the policy of the City of Shorewood to offer financial institutions and companies within the City of Shorewood the opportunity to bid on investments; however the City of Shorewood will seek the best investment yields. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY Management responsibility for the investment program is hereby delegated from the City Council to the City Finance Director/Treasurer, and, in the absence of the Finance Director/Treasurer, the City Administrator (the investment officers). The investment officers shall establish procedures for the operation of the investment program, consistent with this investment policy. Such procedures shall include delegation of authority to persons responsible for investment transactions. The City Finance Director/Treasurer shall be responsible for all transactions undertaken and shall establish a system of internal controls designed to prevent losses from fraud and employee error. Page 2 CONFLICT OF INTEREST Any City Official (elected or appointed) involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program or which could impair his/her ability to make impartial investment decisions. AUTHORIZED FINANCIAL INSTITUTE AND DEALER In accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A.005, the responsibility for conducting investment transactions resides with the City Council of the City of Shorewood. Also, the Council shall authorize the City Finance Director/Treasurer to exercise the powers of the Council in designating a depository of the Funds. In selecting depositories, the credit worthiness of the institutions under consideration shall be examined by the City Finance Director/Treasurer. Only approved security broker/dealers selected by creditworthiness shall be utilized (minimum capital requirement of $10 million dollars and at least five years of operation). These may include "primary" dealers or regional dealers that qualify under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c3-1 (uniform net capital nile). BROKER REPRESENTATIONS Municipalities must obtain from their brokers certain representations regarding future investments. Minnesota Statutes, Section 1 ~18A, Subdivision 6, requires municipalities to provide each broker with information regarding the municipalities investment restrictions. Before engaging in investment transactions with the City of Shorewood, the supervising officer at the securities broker/dealer shall submit a certification annually according to MN Statutes 118A.05. The document will state that the officer has reviewed the investment policies and objectives, as well as applicable state law, and agrees to disclose potential conflicts of interest or risk to public funds that nught arise out of business transactions between the firm and the City of Shorewood. All financial institutions shall agree to undertake reasonable efforts to preclude imprudent transactions involving the City's funds. AUTHORIZED AND SUITABLE INVESTMENTS Minnesota Statutes, Section 118A, Subdivision 3, lists all permissible investments for municipalities. This list establishes the maximum investment risk permitted for a Minnesota municipality. Even though MN Statutes 118A provides for more instruments to be used for investing purposes; the following is a listing of investments the City will be authorized to invest in: Government Securities: Instruments such as bonds, notes, bills, mortgages and other securities which are direct obligations of the federal government or its agencies, with the principal fully guaranteed by the U.S. Government or its agencies. Page 3 2. Certificates of Deposit: A negotiable or nonnegotiable instl-ument issued by commercial banks and insured up to $100,000 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). 3. Repurchase Agreement: An investment which consists of two simultaneous transactions, where an investor purchases securities from a bank or dealer. At the same tune, the selling bank or dealer agrees to repurchase the securities at the same price plus interest at some agreed-upon future date. The security purchased is the collateral protecting the investment. 4, Any security which is a general obli ag tion of the State of Minnesota or any of its municipalities. 5. Statewide investment pools, including Minnesota Joint Powers Investment Trust (4M Fund), which invest in authorized instruments according to MN Statutes 118A. 6. Money market mutual funds which invest in authorized instruments according to MN Statutes 118A. 7. Interest-bearing deposits in authorized depositories must be frilly insured or collateralized. COLLATERALIZATION Collateralization will be required on two types of investments. Certificates of Deposit (above the FDIC insurance amount) and Repurchase Agreements. In order to anticipate market changes and provide a level of security for all funds, the Collateralization level will be 110 percent of the market value of principal and accrued interest. When the pledged collateral consists of notes secured by first mortgages, the collateral level will be 140% of the market value of the principal and accrued interest. Collateral shall be deposited in the name of the City of Shorewood, subject to release by the City Finance Director. SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY All invested assets of the City of Shorewood involving the use of public funds custodial agreement shall comply with all rules adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statute 118A. All custodial agreements shall be in writing and shall contain a provision that all custodial services are provided in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. DIVERSIFICATION The City will attempt to diversify its investments according to type and maturity. The portfolio, as much as possible, will contain both short-term and long-term investments. The City will attempt to match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. Extended mahirities maybe utilized to take advantage of higher yields; however, no more than 30% of the total investments should extend beyond five (5) years and in no circumstance should any extend beyond twenty (20) years. No more than 3% of unencumbered funds shall be kept in commercial paper with ratings of A1P1 or better. At least 30% of funds shall be kept in liquid savings accounts (such as the 4M Fund). Page 4 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY The Shorewood City Council hereby authorizes the following city staff to sell, assign and endorse for transfer, certificates of deposit, certificates representing stocks, bonds or other securities that are registered in the name of the City of Shorewood: City Finance Director/Treasurer and City Administrator. INVESTMENT REPORTING The City Finance Director/Treasurer on or before April 1 of each year shall furnish the City Council of the City of Shorewood a detailed report of all investments held as of December 31 of the preceding year, including the cost, date and place of each investment, the maturity date and rate of interest earning on each as of that date. CONCLUSION The intent of this policy is to ensure the safety of all City funds, The main goal of the City will be to achieve a market rate of return while providing liquidity and maintaining the safety of its principal. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 23rd day of June, 2008. Approved: Chris Lizee, Mayor Attest: Lawrence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator Page 5 SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952} 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 ° www.ci.shorewood.mn.us ° cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator & Director of Public Works DATE: June 19, 2008 RE: Appointment of City Administrator This item has been tentatively scheduled for the June 23rd City Council Meeting. However, due to developments late in the day today, this item will not be published with the regular packet. It is anticipated that this item will be transmitted Friday, under separate cover, providing all of the details outstanding can be addressed, revised in the employment contract, and reviewed by the City Attorney, prior to distribution. vs ~ ~ "~J ~®~0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952} 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council *~°~ FROM: Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator ` CC: Tim Keane, City Attorney DATE: June 18, 2008 RE: Resolution Extending the Appointment of Jeffery V. Bailey as Council Member Ward 3 At its meeting on March 10`h, the City Council approved the appointment of Jeffery Bailey to the vacant Council seat for Ward 3. The term of his appointment went through the canvass of the November 4, 2008, election, at which time the newly elected Ward 3 Councilmember would have resumed this office. With the return to at-large elections for 2008, this Ward 3 seat will be vacant after the November 4 Election, through December 31, 2008. Council may consider leaving the Ward 3 Councilmember seat vacant for this period of time (from the canvass of the November 4 Election through December 31, 2008; Council may consider extending Mr. Bailey's appointment at this time as Ward 3 Councilmember through December 31, 2008; or, Council may decide to do nothing at this time, and revisit this item at a later date. Should Council decide to extend Mr. Bailey's appointment as Ward 3 Councilmember through December 31, 2008, a resolution making this appointment is in order. Council Action A resolution is attached for the City Council's consideration, extending Mr. Jeffery V. Bailey's appointment as Ward 3 City Councilmember through December 31, 2008. .. r®~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO.08- A RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE APPOINTMENT OF JEFFERY V. BAILEY, COUNCIL MEMBER WARD 3 WHEREAS, on March 10, 2008, the Shorewood City Council approved Resolution 08-021, appointing Jeffery V. Bailey to fill the vacated Council Member Ward 3 office; WHEREAS, this appointment was made through the canvass of the General Election on November 4, 2008; WHEREAS, on June 9, 2008, the Shorewood City Council approved Ordinance No. 446, which eliminates Ward representation and reinstates the at-large election system effective with the 2008 Election; WHEREAS, with this change in the election system, the appointment of Jeffery V. Bailey may be extended through December 31, 2008; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood that Jeffery V. Bailey is hereby appointed to the office of Council Member Ward 3 to serve through December 31, 2008. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 23rd day of June 2008. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Lawrence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk crrr or SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator FROM: James Landini, City Engineer - ~,. DATE: June 18, 2008 RE: Sewer Ordinance As part of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update for the City of Shorewood, properties not connected to public sewer shall connect if service abuts the property or enact private sewage treatment ordinances and develop a private sewage inspection program. Letters were sent to the properties that abut public sewer that were not connected. One property appealed and stated that the code allowed an existing private system to remain that was in good condition. Since the City does not have the resources to develop an inspection program for one property, an ordinance amendment was suggested. The proposed Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 904.06 Subd. 3.a. is provided as follows: Subd. 3. Connection to public sewer, abandonment of systems. a. The owners of all houses, buildings or properties which abut upon or are served by a public sewer and where cesspools and septic tanks have been in existence prior to the construction of the sanitary sewer shall connect with the public sewer when public sewer becomes available to the property. Shoreland pro e~rty shall be further governed by Minnesota Rule ~ 6120.3400. ±he ~° tip tare ~rd ~ °°a ~' vj. vv.~.~Yvvio uN° ^~' ~'°~^,,.,~..,,^*~^N Any septic tanks and cesspools and private sewage disposal facilities then existing shall be abandoned and filled with suitable material. A Draft Ordinance is provided as Attachment #1 for Council's consideration. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed Ordinance. Staff Recommendation Approval of an Ordinance Amending Title 900, Chapter 904 of Shorewood City Code Relating to Sewers. ~~ of r®~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 904 OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE RELATING TO PRIVATE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 904.06, Subd.3.a. of the Shorewood City Code shall be amended to read as follows: a. The owners of all houses, buildings or properties which abut upon or are served by a public sewer and where cesspools and septic tanks have been in existence prior to the construction of the sanitary sewer shall connect with the public sewer when public sewer becomes available to the property. Shoreland property shall be further governed by Minnesota Rule § 6120.3400. Any septic tanks and cesspools and private sewage disposal facilities then existing shall be abandoned and filled with suitable material. Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect following its passage and publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 23rd day of June, 2008. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Lawrence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk Attachment #1 ~~ MEMORANDUM 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 TO: Mayor and City Council Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator FROM: James Landini, City Engineer '' DATE: June 18, 2008 RE: Water Conservation Ordinance. As part of the 2008 Goals and Priorities for the City of Shorewood, the water conservation plan was scheduled for updates. The water conservation plan was updated and submitted to the DNR for final review. The DNR offered to apply the water conservation plan towards a ten year water appropriation permit. One condition that was strongly encouraged, on the DNR offer, was to enact a watering hour restriction ordinance. The proposed watering restriction ordinance amendment and proposed fee schedule amendment is attached. A Resolution authorizing publication of a summary of the above two Ordinances is provided as Attachment 2. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed Ordinance. Recommendation Staff recommends: Approval of an Ordinance Amending Title 900, Chapter 903 of Shorewood City Code Relating to Water; and Approval of an Ordinance Amending Title 1300, Chapter 1301 of Shorewood City Code Relating to License, Permit, Service Charges and Miscellaneous Fees; and Approval of a Resolution authorizing publication of a summary of each Ordinance. ~: ~ } s®r® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Neighboring Municipality Water Restriction ordinances as requested at the June 2, 2008 work session. Water restriction es/no T e Orono yes Same as existing Shorewood Code plus water emergency (ban, odd /even, hours) Tonka Bay yes Same as existing Shorewood Code Excelsior no Chanhassen yes Odd /even Minnetonka yes Odd /even plus hours Victoria yes Odd /even plus hours Odd /even is odd address may water on odd days and even address may water on even days. Hour restrictions are not watering during the high evaporation times of day. Water emergency is at the discretion of the City Administrator and have several options for use during an emergency. CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 903 OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE RELATING TO WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 903.12 of the Shorewood City Code shall be amended to add the following second paragraph: To conserve water resources, prevent the wasteful and harmful effects of sprinkling during mid-day hours, and allow the city's water system adequate opportunity to replenish the water supply in the city's water storage tanks, certain limitations must be placed on the use of the city's water supply. During the period of May 1 through September 30 of any year, a person may only sprinkle or irrigate lawns, sod, seeded areas, gardens, shrubs, or other vegetation with city water in the city before 11:00 a.m. and after 4:30 p.m. Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect following its passage and publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 23rd day of June, 2008. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Lawrence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TITLED "LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES" THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1301.02 of the Shorewood Code of Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: Schedule A CITY OF SHOREWOOD LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES TYPE OF CITY CODE CHARGE/FEE REFERENCE CHARGE/FEE III. Utility Rates Watering Restriction violation 903.12 $50 first violation $25 increase each succeeding violation Section 2. This ordinance is effective the date following its publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota this 23rd day of June 2008. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO'S AND BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, on June 23, 2008, the City Council of the City of Shorewood adopted Ordinance No. entitled "An Ordinance Amending Title 900, Chapter 903 of the Shorewood City Code Relating to Water"; and Ordinance No. entitled "License, Permit, Service Charges, and Miscellaneous Fees"; WHEREAS, the City staff has prepared a summary of the Ordinance as follows: 1. Ordinance No. revises the Water Code to require properties that are connected to City Water shall not irrigate between 11 am and 4:30 pm. This Ordinance amends the existing Chapter 903 of the Shorewood City Code. 2. Ordinance No. revises the Fees Code to add fines of $50 for the first violation and an additional $25 for each successive violation of the water conservation ordinance. This Ordinance amends the existing Chapter 1301 of the Shorewood City Code. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD: The City Council finds that the above title and summary of Ordinance No. and Ordinance No. clearly informs the public of intent and effect of the Ordinance. ATTEST: 2. The City Clerk is directed to publish this Resolution, in lieu of publication of the entire text of Ordinance No. and Ordinance No. pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.191, subdivision 4. 3. A full copy of Ordinance No. and Ordinance No. is available at Shorewood City Hall and on the City's website. ADOPTED by the Shorewood City Council on this 23rd day of June, 2008. Christine Lizee, Mayor Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk AttaclmZent #2 (;I1'1' Uf' 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 Larry Brown, Director of Public Works, Acting City Administrator FROM: James Landini, City Engineer DATE: June 19, 2008 RE: A Resolution Accepting Low Estimate and Awarding Contract to the Successful Low Estimator Attachment 1 is an estimate for the Skate Park well abandonment. One quote was requested due to the Skate Park well not having any records at the City or State of Minnesota and the contractor was already under contract for the Woodhaven Well abandonment. The estimator is Keys Well Drilling Company in the amount of $4,420.00. This estimate is based on a visual surface investigation. The physical inspection of the well is part of the abandonment process as required by State Law. This project will be funded by the Water Enterprise Budget. This project is necessary to protect the aquifer from potential contamination. This project is not included in the 2008 budget. Recommendation Staff recommends awarding the contract for the Skate Park well. abandonment to Keys Well Drilling Company for $4,420.00. A resolution is attached for your consideration. .s r®r® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Keys Well Drilling Company Water Producers since 1890 1156 Homer St St. Paul, MN 55116 Phone 651-646-7871 Fax 651-641-0216 Name James Landini Company City of Shorewoo Address 5755 country Club Road City, State ZIP Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone 952-474-3236 DATE 6/9/2008 Well Location Shorewood skate park Pump (Jet/Sub) stroke Well Size: 6" Depth: ? W.L.. Description AMOUNT Set Up/Well Access Lump Sum 400.00 Removal of Pump 12 hrs @ $185.00 hr 2,220.00 Grout and Cap Well Lump Sum 600.00 Grout Charge 40 bgs @ $30.00 bg 1,200.00 Well Sealing Report Lump Sum nc Well Sealing Permit Lump Sum nc Pearock/Sand yds @ $125.00 yd Removal of Obstructions/ Drill-out hrs @ $190.00 hr Perforate Casing (If Required} 6 hrs @ $200.00 hr Miscellaneous city to trim trees for access videotape well Total Estimated Cost $4,420.00 Accepted By: Date: Estimator: Date: Douglas L Keys 6/9108 This is only an estimate. Actual cost will be determined on actual units used. State and /or local well abandonment reports will be released and sent upon receipt of payment in full. This estimate is good for 30 days. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AN ESTIMATE AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR WELL ABANDONMENT OF THE SKATE PARK WELL WHEREAS, pursuant to a request for a quote for the abandonment of the Skate Park Well, estimate was received and opened on June 9, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Keys Well Drilling Company is the estimator in compliance with the specifications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract for $4,420.00 with Keys Well Drilling Company, in the name of the City of Shorewood, according to the plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Administrator/Clerk. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 23rd day of June, 2008. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Lawrence Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk