081108 CC Reg AgPCITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 2008
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Roll Cali
B. Review Agenda
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mayor Lizee
Woodruff
Turgeon
Bailey
Wellens
A. City Council Work Session Minutes, July 28, 2008 (Att. -Minutes)
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, July 28, 2008 (Att.- Minutes)
C. City Council Work Session Minutes, August 4, 2008 (Att. -Minutes)
3. CONSENT AGENDA -Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions
Therein:
NOTE: Give the public an opportunity to request an item be removed from the
Consent Agenda. Comments can be taken or questions asked following removal from
Consent Agenda.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List (Att.- Claims List)
B. Approve Agency Review of the Final Draft Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan (Att.- Engineer's memorandum)
C. Adopting the Water Supply Plan, formerly known as the Water Emergency and
Conservation Plan (Att. -Engineer's memorandum)
D. Deer Management (Att. -Planning Director's memorandum)
E. Authorizing Submittal of the Tllree Rivers Park District Regional Trail System 2008-
2009 Winter Use Permit (Att. -Acting Administrator's memorandum)
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council-action will be taken.)
5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
6. PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA -August 11, 2008
PAGE 2 OF 2
7. PARKS
A. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for Badger Park Rink Light Wiring (Engineer's
memorandum)
8. PLANNING -Report by Representative
9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Accept Proposal for Owner's Representative for City Hall Building Project (Att. -
Acting Administrator's memorandum)
B. Approval of the Proposed 2009 Budget for the South Lake Minnetonka Police
Department (Att. -Police Chief's memorandum)
C. Draft RFP for General Legal Counsel (Att. -Acting Administrator's memorandum, draft
RFP)
D. Draft RFP for Professional Auditing Services (Att. - Finance Director's memorandum,
draft RFP)
E. Appeal Sanitary Sewer Connection (Att. -Engineer's memorandum)
Appellant: Janet Sue Molin
Location: 4405 Enchanted Point
10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator & Staff
B. Mayor & City Council
12. ADJOURN
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ®(952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
Executive Summary
Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting
Monday,ll August, 2008
A 6:00 p.m. Work Session is scheduled this evening.
Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval.
Agenda Item #3B: The Final Draft Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan is
complete and ready for review and approval by appropriate stakeholders. Staff
recommends approval of a motion accepting the Final Draft Plan and authorizing
distribution for review and approval.
Agenda Item #3C: The City of Shorewood has received approval of the Water Supply Plan
(Water Emergency and Conservation Plan) from the DNR. Staff recommends approval of
a motion that adopts the plan and direct staff to process the certification forms.
Agenda Item #3D: Attached is this years contract for Deer Management services.
Agenda Item #3E: Three Rivers Park District allows the City to use the Southwest LRT trail
in winter months subject to a Winter Trail Activities Permit. Staff has prepared the permit
application; the activities listed on the 2008-2009 permit are unchanged from last winter.
Agenda Item #7A: Badger Rink Lights have been ordered and need to be wired. Staff
recommends that the City Council approve a motion that accepts the proposal from Electrical
Installation & Maintenance Co. in the amount of $6,500.00 to wire the rink replacement
lights at Badger Park.
Agenda Item #9A: Staff is recommending approval of a motion that authorizes the Mayor
and Acting City Administrator to enter into an agreement with Constructive Ideas, Inc., to
provide Owners Representative Services, for an amount not to exceed $44,500.
Agenda Item #9B: The Proposed 2009 South Lake Minnetonka Police Department budget is
provided for Council's consideration.
Agenda Item #9C: The City Council has directed staff to prepare a Request for Proposals
(RFP) for professional services for general legal counsel. In accordance with that
direction, an RFP in draft form has been compiled and is included for the City Council's
review.
ss
r®«® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Executive Summary -City Council Meeting of 11 August, 2008
Page 2 of 2
Agenda Item #9D: The City Council has directed staff to prepare an RFP (Request for
Proposal) for Professional Auditing Services. In accordance with that direction, an RFP
in draft form is attached for the City Council's review.
Agenda Item #9E: Ms. Janet Sue Molin was sent a "Notice to connect to Sanitary Sewer" to
connect her property at 4405 Enchanted Point to the public sanitary sewer and has asked
for an exception for properties with private sewage disposal systems in existence prior to the
construction of the sanitary sewer. Staff recommends denial of this request.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MONDAY, JULY 28, 2008
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:00 P.M.
Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey (arrived at 6:11 P.M.), Turgeon, Wellens and
Woodruff; Attorney Keane; Acting Administrator/Director of Public Works Brown;
Planning Director Nielsen; and Engineer Landini
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Agenda as pa•csented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. PET POLICIES
A. Mr. Wintheiser Dog Issue
Acting Administrator Brown stated William Wintheiser, 850 Third Avenue, has voiced numerous
concerns regarding the City's kennel licensing regulations. Mr. Wintheiser has filed several complaints
and concerns with the Police regarding the .property located at 5730 Christmas Lake Road; that property
has been licensed for a kennel operation: Three dogs are kenneled at that property, and feedback received
from Mr. Wintheiser and the nilimal Control Officers definitely suggests that there is prevalent barking
by the animals kenneled at this property. It has not resulted in a violation because the five minute time
period of repeated barking has not been exceeded. Mr. Wintheiser had indicated that while a citation has
not been issued, he does not have the ability to enjoy his property (in particular the rear of his property)
because almost anytime he is outside the dogs are barking at him. City Code does specify the kennel
structure must be located within prescribed setback requirements; it does not have a provision for proper
screening of such operations.
Mr. Wintheiser stated if he is in his backyard for any reason, when the dogs are outside they bark at him.
The barking lasts for 20 seconds to 2 minutes. If he calls Animal Control Services, respondents cannot
get to his property within five minutes. There is nothing they can do if they do not witness the five
minutes of repeated barking. This has been occurring since 1992. The situation has gotten to the point
where he wears ear plugs when he is doing anything in his yard. He perceives his neighbors let the dogs
outside when they see he is out there. He gets startled by the dogs if he was not aware they were outside
and they start to bark. He gets tense when he gets out of his car or goes outside because he's waiting for
the dogs to bark. He perceives the dogs think his property is theirs to protect so they bark. He stated the
City ordinance does not address this problem. The fence around the kennel area (there is no structure) is
roughly the size of the Chamber area and is attached to his fence. He thinks attaching the wire fence to
his fence is a violation. He stated the barking is a serious nuisance for him and creates a great deal of
stress for him. He commented that he and the neighbors had exchanged strong words. He suggested some
type of setback regulation be established, and also after a certain number of complaints have been filed,
then the property owner should have to come before Council.
#2A
CITX OF SHOREW®OD WORK SESSION 1VIEETING ld[INUTES
July 28, 2008
Page 2 of 6
Councilmember Bailey arrived at 6:11 P.M.
Mr. Wintheiser asked if owning dogs is a right or a privilege. He believes his civil rights have been
violated. He minimizes using his backyard because of the barking dogs.
Mayor Lizee clarified there are certain provisions in the City Code for where kennels can be placed.
Councilmember Wellens stated it appeared the City was only focusing on City Code Section 701.01
Subd. 3 and not Subd. 1 and Subd. 2. If these other two subdivisions were being violated that should also
be considered.
Acting Administrator Brown stated a 10-foot setback is basically irrelevant because a dog can see beyond
that. It is difficult to define nuisance from a legal perspective.
Mr. Wintheiser stated he believes that the wire fenced in area for the dogs could be relocated to another
area of his neighbor's property. He stated to put up a solid wall becomes somewhat problematic with City
Code restrictions. From his vantage point, the neighbors could relocate the fenced in area for the dog but
chose not to because it would not be as convenient for them.
Mayor Lizee stated the "kenneling" part of the City Code is at~out the number of dogs. She stated what
the City is dealing with is the nuisance component of the barking dogs. She suggested maybe the
nuisance element of barking dogs should be addressed.
Councilmember Turgeon stated she did not think screening would make any difference. She noted the fee
for a citation for a barking dog is $180.
Mr. Wintheiser stated the dogs have never barked formore than five minutes. The dog owners bring them
inside shortly after they bark. He commented his neighbors don't apologize for the barking. During the
time of strong words his neighbor stated hc_(Mr. Wintheiser) makes noise in the yard therefore his dogs
should be able to make noise.
Director Nielsen questioned if any other neighbors were disturbed by the barking. Mr. Wintheiser stated
the neighbor on the other side has two dogs and when those dogs come outside the subject neighbor's
dogs bark for slightly under five minutes before they are taken inside. Nielsen suggested maybe this
problem could be considered under the City's nuisance ordinance which has a provision for disturbing
the peace.
Mr. Wintheiser stated he has installed a video camera to record the situations. He questioned if his video
documentation of the situations would be sufficient to have a citation issued.
Councilmember Woodruff stated from his vantage point the City's ordinance does not define what a
kennel is which, from his perspective, in an enclosed structure. He suggested maybe there was a way to
amend the ordinance to address the number of times within a certain time period that barking could
occur.
Councilmember Bailey asked Attorney Keane if disturbing the peace was a fact and circumstance issue.
Keane stated it was a judgment call in every instance. The record about the frequency and the specifics of
the frequency make a difference. There are no objective measures for nuisance complaints.
Director Nielsen stated the proposed administrative code enforcement process could be useful in dealing
with these types of situations.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
July 28, 2008
Page 3 of 6
Councilmember Bailey stated the solution is not in the dog nuisance language; it's a disturbing the peace
issue.
Mr. Wintheiser stated the Animal Control Officers will not enforce disturbing the peace without
observing it.
In response to a comment by Councilmember Woodruff, Director Nielsen explained the attachment of the
wire fence to Mr. Wintheiser's fence is a private matter. Director Nielsen suggested the section in the
City Code about disturbing the peace should be expanded.
Mr. Wintheiser questioned if the City could send something to the neighbors (or any other person in that
situation) informing them they had received numerous complaints.
Director Nielsen stated it would help if other neighbors would also complain.
There was consensus to strengthen the disturbing the peace section of the nuisance ordinance.
B. Ms. Lindy Martin request for consideration of "no pet limit"
Acting Administrator Brown stated that Lindy Martin, 6065 Lake Linden Drive, had submitted an email
requesting that the four-dog limit per household in the City Code be removed or increased.
Ms. Martin stated she did not think the City was very welcoming to dogs and there were no commercial
dog boarding kennels in the City. When her work da_y was done she focused her attention on her dogs.
She would like to see fewer restrictions on the number of dogs an individual can have.
Mayor Lizee stated the City had not had a request for boarding kennels for dogs that she could recall.
Director Nielsen stated the ordinance doesn't allo~~~ them in residential districts.
Councilmember Woodruff stated from the standpoint of having a breeding facility the City Code is clear
that it applies to dogs over the age of six mouths. Because the City is a residential community the City
tightly regulates individuals running businesses out of their homes. He does not believe there is a reason
to remove the limit; he could consider changing the limit if it was justified.
Director Nielsen stated he did not think the City's Ordinance was unusual with its restrictions.
Mayor Lizee stated the rescue organizations she was aware of allowed foster families take in one dog
rescue at a time.
Ms. Martin explained she had a renter who had two dogs, but only one of her dogs could be
accommodated. The other dog, which has challenges, had to be taken care of by someone else. The dog
was difficult for other people to care for because of its challenges. She commented the City was under a
lot of pressure from people who did not like dogs, and questioned why the limit was put in place.
Mayor Lizee clarified the City was not under pressure from people who did not like dogs. She stated the
four-dog limit was not an arbitrary number. She understands why there are limitations on pets in rental
situations.
Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, recessing the work session at 6:56 P.M.
The work session was reconvened at 10: 15 P.M.
CI'T'Y OF SHOREWOOI) WORK SESSI®N MEETING 1VIINtTTES
July 28, 2008
Page 4 of 6
3. DISCUSSION OF DRAFT 2009 MOUND FIRE BUDGET
Acting Administrator Brown stated shortly before the meeting packet was distributed Staff received the
first draft of the 2009 Mound Fire Department Budget. Staff thought it prudent to include it in the packet
even though it did not have time to review it in detail. The City's portion of the proposed 2009 budget is
$25,1.93 compared to $25,257 in 2008. Spring Park suggested the formula for allocating facilities costs be
considered for changes.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the Mound Fire Department has done a fine job of providing service to
Enchanted and Shady Islands. He was pleased to see that early indications the City would not have an
increase in its portion of the 2009 budget over the 2008 budget.
4. PHASE II WATER METER RADIO READ PROJECT
Engineer Landini explained to date 691 out of 1,366 water meters have been replaced. Staff had budgeted
$75,000 to continue with the replacement effort. It's projected that 287 additional meters can be replaced
based on the budgeted amount; inflation has been factored into the costs. Staff is looking for direction
from Council to continue with the project.
Mayor Lizee stated the replacements have been occurring according to plan and funds are budgeted to
continue with the project. She recommends it continue.
Acting Administrator Brown explained the simplest way to mwe forward would be to approve a change
order to the existing contract, which would also have to address additional material costs. Staff will make
sure the bid would be competitive. He noted the City is locked°nto the current radio read system.
Councilmember Woodruff requested Staff provide Council with an update about the radio read system
and benefits received from the system during t~udgct discussions.
5. DEER MANAGEMENT
Director Nielsen stated the 2007 Dear Management Program went very well in large part due to Bob
Whiting, President of Metro Bowhuntc;rs Resource, Inc. There were no accidents or incidences. A
reasonab]e number of deer were harvested. There appears to be Council consensus to conduct the
program again in 2008. Staff has some recommendations that might increase the number of deer
harvested: they are based on comments and suggestions from Mr. Whiting.
Nielsen reviewed the recommendations which are as follows.
- The program would begin with the beginning of deer bow hunting season. The first
weekend for the program in 2008 would be September 20`'' and 215`
- Three to four weekends would be scheduled for harvesting with approximately three to
four weeks separating the efforts.
- To improve the success rate, the harvesters would be allowed to take either gender deer.
Antlerless deer were not allowed in 2007.
- Property owners with one-acre lots who requested and were selected to have their
property harvested would be advised to ask their neighbors on each side to agree to the
harvesting. This is to try and avoid a situation where a wounded deer goes on to
someone's property who does not want it there.
- Notification of surrounding property owners would be done with more advance
notification of the harvesting than was done in 2007.
CITY OF SHOREWOOI) WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
July 28, 2008
Page 5 of 6
Nielsen stated if Council agrees with the recommendations Staff will provide the entire Deer
Management Program packet at the August 11t1i Council meeting.
There was Council consensus to move forward with the Program.
6. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT DISCUSSION
Director Nielsen stated at the June 23, 2008, Council work session Staff initiated a discussion regarding
administrative code enforcement. Council identified a number of issues and asked Staff to research them.
The issues that were identified are as follows.
- How are the attorneys that serve as hearing officers selected?
- What is the cost of conducting a "local court" (e.g. hearing officer, recording secretary,
etc.)?
- To what types of code violations might administrative enforcement apply?
- Are there examples of cases where administrative enforcement did not work?
- Concern of Rights of Violators (Due Process?)
- What is the City's legal exposure?
Nielsen explained Staff interviewed three individuals involved with administrative code enforcement in
three other cities to gain insight into these issues. The individuals were the Community Development
Director for City of Minnetonka, an Associate City Attorney For the City of Bloomington, and a planning
consultant who handles code enforcement for the City of Otsego. He commented the more Staff
researches the administrative code enforcement process, the more it's convinced that this is a reasonable,
cost effective and expeditious way to handle City Code violations. Nielsen then reviewed the findings
from the interviews.
Selection of Hearing Officers -Minnetonka maintains a pool of lawyers from which hearing officers are
randomly drawn. Otsego uses one lawyer outside of its office. Bloomington maintains arrangements with
two lawyers outside of its office (despite having an in-house legal department), with most of the work
being done by one of them.
Cost of Local Court - It is anticipated that the Hearing Officer and any recording secretary time would
be reimbursed through a system of fines imposed for violations. In Bloomington's case, they pay $75-100
per hour for the Hearing Officer, with an average case (including preparation time) costing
approximately $400.
Application to Various Code Sections -Otsego has not gone to District Court over nuisance or zoning
violations in several years. Minnetonka issued approximately 200 citations last year; many of them had to
do with long grass and property maintenance issues. Bloomington issued 22 citations last year, even
though it has a broad range of code provisions to which the enforcement process applies. Staff thinks
most, if not all, violations of City Code Chapter 501 (Unhealthy Substances/Nuisances) could start with
administrative enforcement. Many zoning violations could also be subject to administrative
enforcement/citations, not the least of which would be sign violations.
Nielsen explained there had been three instances since the June 23`d work session involving landlords
who had failed to obtain the required license for their rental units. The only recourse the City has at this
time for either failure to obtain a license or failure to comply with a correction order is to advise the
owner that the unit can not be rented. Unfortunately this either results in the eviction of the tenant or
pursuing the violator through the District Court system. Staff expects an administrative citation would
trigger a quicker, and likely a more acceptable, response since it would be more cost-effective to apply
for a license and correct deficiencies than to pay a series of fines.
CITY OF SHORE6d®OI) WORK SESSION iVIEE'i'ING IYIINUTES
July 28, 2008
Page 6 of 6
Where Administrative Enforcement Has Not Worked -The individuals Staff interviewed were satisfied
with the outcomes of administrative enforcement. The Otsego consultant mentioned there had been only
one instance where that process had not been successful. In that situation a landowner had allowed his
property to achieve "dump" status and continuously failed to comply, despite fines levied by the City.
Otsego is currently exploring further legal action or possibly initiating its own cleanup, with costs being
assessed to the violator. Out of the 22 cases cited in Bloomington last year, only two ended up in District
Court. One of these was a very. chronic violator who is being sentenced this week. Bloomington adds an
additional $250 fine for a chronic violator. The Bloomington Associate City Attorney had commented
she perceives the District Court to be much more cooperative with cities that have taken the trouble to go
through an administrative process, and she also perceives judges appreciate this process rather than
resent it as they did in the earlier years of this process being used.
Rights of the Violator -This was addressed at the June 23`d work session. A violator has options within
and beyond the administrative enforcement process. The violator has a right to appear before the City
Council. The Hearing Officer, while appointed and hired by the City, will not be an employee of the City.
If the violator is not satisfied with the local process, the violator can choose to go through the District
Court system.
City's Legal Risk -Attorney Keane stated if the City were to implement an administrative code
enforcement process, the City would provide all of the essential steps (notices, due process, an
opportunity to be heard, fairness and corrective measures) of the County District Court system internally.
He supports the process. He explained there would be eYtensivc up-front work to define the process.
There are a number of different models that can be considered and tailored to the City's specific needs.
There will be a number of policy issues that must be addressed. Once the process is defined it can be
refined at a future date; it doesn't have to be perfect the first time around. He commented the League of
Minnesota Cities has been promoting this approach for about 10 years. He noted street and highway
enforcement issues cannot be addressed «•ith this process.
In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Attorney Keane explained the City would
deputize who (in addition to the Soilth Lake Minnetonka Police Department officers) can issue a citation.
There was consensus to move fo~tivard with defining the process.
7. ADJOURN
Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of July 28,
2008, at 10:50 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
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, JULY 28, 2008 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey, Turgeon, Wellens and Woodruff; Attorney
Keane; Acting Administrator/Director of Public Works Brown; Planning Director
Nielsen; and Engineer Landini
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Acting Administrator Brown noted SLMPD Chief Litsey was scheduled to arrive at 8:00 P.M. to discuss
Item 11.A, Approval of the SLMPD Budget. He also noted Item 12.A, Change Order I for the 2008
Sealcoat Project, was no longer needed as Blair Bury rescinded the request from the Boulder Bridge
Homeowners Association to delay seal coating of Boulder Bridge Drive, Boulder Bridge Lane and
Boulder Circle; there was not consensus among themembers of the HOA. Sealcoating of those streets
will occur as scheduled.
Mayor Lizee requested Item 7.C, Report by the Dick Osgood from the Lake Minnetonka Association, be
added to the agenda.
Councilmember Turgeon requested item '11.B, Request for Proposals, be added to the agenda.
Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as amended. Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Minutes, July 14, 2008
Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of July
14, 2008, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, July 14, 2008
Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of
July 14, 2008, as Amended in Item 7.A, Page 2, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 change "Chair Dahlberg"
to "Chair Dallman" and in Sentence 3 change "The Park Commission raised donations totaling
$5,000" to "A donation of $5,000 was made from the Park CIP", and in Item 9.E, Page 9,
Paragraph 6, Sentence 1 change "Excelsior Fire District Fire District Budget" to "Excelsior Fire
District Operating Budget". Motion passed 5/0.
#2B
SIIOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
July 28, 2008
Page 2 of 18
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda
and Adopting the Resolutions Therein.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
B. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 08-056, "A Resolution Appointing 2008 Primary and
General Election Judges."
Motion passed 5/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. RECESS TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
Mayor Lizee recessed the meeting to an Economic De~~elopment Authority Meeting at 7:10 P.M.
6. RECONVENE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Mayor Lizee reconvened the City Council regular meeting at 7: 30 P.M.
7. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Approval of Leasc Doctunents between the Shorewood Economic Development
Authority and theCity of Shorewood
Acting Administrator Brown stated at its meeting just before this topic, the Shorewood Economic
Development Authority (EDA) approved the Ground Lease between the City of Shorewood and the
Shorewood EDA, and the Lease-Purchase Agreement between the Shorewood EDA and the City of
Shorewood. It also adopted a resolution awarding the sale of $1,310,000 public project lease revenue
bonds.
Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the Ground Lease between the City of Shorewood,
Minnesota, and the Shorewood Economic Development Authority dated August 1, 2008, and the
Lease-Purchase Agreement between the Shorewood Economic Development Authority and the
City of Shorewood, Minnesota, dated August 1, 2008. Motion passed 5/0.
B. Award the Sale of Public Project Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A
Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 08-057, "A Resolution
Awarding the Sale of $1,310,000 Public Project Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A (City of
Shorewood, Minnesota Lease Obligation); Fixing Their Form and Specifications; Directing Their
Execution and Delivery; and Providing for Their Payment." Motion passed 5/0.
SHOREW®OD CITY C®(JI+ICIL REGULAR MEETING MIN[1'1'ES
July 28, 2008
Page 3 of 18
C. Report by the Dick Osgood with the Lake Minnetonka Association
Dick Osgood, Executive Director of the Lake Minnetonka Association, stated in the most recent
publication of the Lakeline magazine [the flagship publication of the North American Lake Management
Society (HALMS)] there was an article about climate change which had a graphic depicting ice on/ice
off records of lakes in the northern tier of the United States. The graphic shows the average ice out date
for Lake Minnetonka (which was April 15t~') is changing; the average ice out has been earlier in the year.
The length of time the lake is ice free is longer and the water temperature of the lake is higher; therefore,
aquatic invasive species (AIS) are becoming more aggressive and native species are less able to fend
them off. The HALMS president's message in the same issue states lake management philosophies must
become less conservative to ensure lakes are fully and effectively protected, and protective actions need
to be more intensive, aggressive and comprehensive. AIS is an issue throughout North America.
Mr. Osgood then stated he would like to review the LMA's Milfoil-Free Lake Minnetonka campaign,
provide an update of the three-bay milfoil treatment project and discuss the possibility of adding Gideons
Bay to the project.
Mr. Osgood explained the preliminary report on the three-ba} pa-oject is based on his observations and
well as the DNR's observations. The treatments of Grays<Bay have been the most effective; there is little
milfoil left and there is no matting on the Bay. He ila~i observcd people swimming along the Highway
101 causeway and that was impossible last year. The treatments of Carmans Bay appear to be the least
effective; about three-fourths of the treatment area has quite a bit of milfoil in it. He has not yet received
a credible explanation of what he observed. Phelps Bay. is in pretty good shape. As of last week there was
no milfoil matting on the water's surface; typically. itwould be wall-to-wall milfoil at this time of the
year. There was an area in the Enchanted Island cove area of the bay which wasn't as effective and that
area was retreated just over one week ago. He stated he and others have been working with the
manufacturers, applicators and others to refine the treatments and formulations and to pursue trying to
get a guarantee for future year's treatments.
Councilmember Woodruff questioned if the residents in the Phelps Bay retreated area were notified of
the effort. Mr. Osgood stated he notif-ied Woodruffs neighbor and another resident; those individuals
stated they had made calls and sent emails to the residents (at least those who had contributed to the
project) that there would be a re-treatment and reminding them of the water-use restrictions. Osgood
stated all of the properties adjacent to the retreated area were supposed to have been posted. Woodruff
stated his property was not posted, and he was astounded by the method used to inform people of the re-
treatment. Osgood stated to his knowledge all of the properties that received the re-treatment were
notified in advance and posted. Woodruff stated at a meeting held in January 2008 the DNR explained
the "drift" from the spring 2008 treatments would be approximately 500 feet; therefore, those residents,
e.g., like himself, who had not participated in the treatment effort should have been notified. Osgood
explained had the re-treatment been the same as the original treatment they should have been notified;
but, the re-treatment was a granular formulation which does not drift. Mayor Lizee noted the LMA
contracted with an applicator firm to do the treatment.
Mr. Osgood provided an overview of the LMA's Milfoil-Free Lake Minnetonka campaign. The
highlights are as follows.
- It's a campaign to rid Lake Minnetonka of milfoil and keep new AIS from entering the
Lake.
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL IZEGiJLAR MEETING 1VIINU'I'ES
July 28, 2008
Page 4 of 18
- Eurasian Watermilfoil (EWM) remains the number one concern of the LMA's members
and the users of the Lake.
- EWM can be managed lake-wide. It started in 2005 with the Milfoil Forum; there was
the partial treatment of three bays in 2006; and there was the total treatment of the same
three bays in 2008. The hope is to expand the treatment to other bays.
- Other AIS which threaten the Lake include zebra mussels (the most imminent), spiny
waterflea, hydrilla (which is more aggressive than EWM), and brazillian elodea, rusty
crayfish, viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS). There is no way to control these species.
- There needs to be a vision, leadership and investment to address the problem.
- Milfoil-Free Minnetonka is the LMA's vision and plan about ridding Lake Minnetonka
of EWM and preventing new AIS from gaining a foothold in the lake.
- The funding needed to adequately protect and manage Lake Minnetonka for AIS
concerns is about 10- to 20-times what is now being spent. Lake Manitou, Ind., spends
about $500,000 per year for its hydrilla control program; that lake is 20-times smaller
and approximately five times as much is spent controlling the problem there.
- Lake Minnetonka is the collection of small interconnected lakes.
- The risks of AIS are not additive. For example, if VHS were to invade Lake Minnetonka,
large mouth bass fishing would disappear.
- Hydrilla was found in Wisconsin in 2007.
- The six elements to the plan are: expand the milfoil treatments; monitoring and
surveillance; prevention; early detection and rapid response; research; and education.
- The investment to protect and manage Lake Minnetonka can come from Lakeshore
owners and businesses, lakeshore communities, regional and state organizations, and
lake users. For the three-bay treatment in 2008, lakeshore owners contributed over 70
percent of the cost; that funding approac}~~`is not sustainable. The Watershed District's
funding formula which identifies what each community pays is set by State Statute. The
LMA had recommended .user fees. for boats and trailers (similar to a park entrance fee); it
is done in other states and would likely be controversial.
Mr. Osgood stated residents along Gideons Bay have requested a plant inventory of the Bay be done this
year so the Bay can be treated in 2009, The cost for the plant inventory is approximately $6,600. A
Tonka Bay resident and his family are fundraising for this effort and have committed to raise funds to
cover those costs. He stated he had committed to asking the cities of Excelsior, Shorewood, and Tonka
Bay to help offset the costs. He asked if the City would be willing to contribute $1,000.
In response to a question from Mayor Lizee, Mr. Osgood explained Carsons, Gideons, Libbs and St.
Albans Bays had been identified as having milfoil concerns and they would be good candidates for
treatment. Property owners on Gideons Bay had approached the LMA about treating the Bay. The LMA
would coordinate and administer the treatments, but the funds must be raised by the lakeshore owners.
Before Gideons Bay could be considered for treatment in 2009 a plant inventory has to be completed this
year, and the Lake Vegetation Management Plan has to be amended and approved by the DNR.
Approximately 20 percent of the shoreline on Gideons Bay is in Shorewood.
Mayor Lizee stated partnerships have to be built before AIS can be stopped and controlled. Those
partnerships are between the lakeshore owners, the Lake Minnetonka communities, and regional and
state organizations. Mr. Osgood stated the Watershed District has a provision which may allow for
regional taxing around Lake Minnetonka. The State Legislature increased the surcharge for boat licenses
in 2007. He stated arguments could be made that a larger portion of DNR funding from boat licenses
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
July 28, 2008
Page 5 of 18
should go to Lake Minnetonka; the number of boats on the lake versus the total number of licenses issued
is a significant portion.
Mayor Lizee stated 20 percent of the $6,600 cost for the plant inventory is $1,300 and the City was being
asked to contribute $1,000.
Councilmember Bailey stated he was uncomfortable with doling out funds using this ad-hoc approach; it
was not a good way to budget. The appropriation for Phelps Bay earlier in 2008 had a very compelling
and imminent deadline; that did not mean the City would contribute additional funds to control milfoil.
He stated he would. not support the contribution at this time; that initiative should have to compete
against other proposed initiatives for City funds during the budget process. If during the budget process
it's determined the City could make a sustainable contribution to the LMA for the management and
control of AIS, that would not be unreasonable. He expressed discomfort with this grass roots approach.
If there is no follow through at the regional or state level to help with t11is effort, then the lake
communities would have wasted their funds.
Mr. Osgood stated in addition to the financial impact of the contribution, it would also convey to other
regional and state organizations that there is support to move this~iiitiative forward. Mayor Lizee stated
the leadership has started with Lake Minnetonka communities. The LMCD, Watershed District, the
DNR, and the State have to be encouraged to invest in this initiative.
Mr. Osgood stated even if there is no funding by the three cities, the residents have committed to paying
for the plant inventory.
8. PUBLIC HEARING
None.
9. PARKS
Acting Administrator Brown stated there had not been a Park Commission meeting since the last City
Council regular meeting.
10. PLANNING
Commissioner Geng stated there had not been a Planning Commission meeting since the last City
Council regular meeting.
11. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of the SLMPD 2009 Budget
This was discussed after Item 11.B on the agenda.
Acting Administrator Brown stated the meeting packet contained a 2009 Operating Budget Proposal for
the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department which the SLMPD Coordinating Committee endorsed at
its June 25, 2008, special meeting and recommended that it be forwarded to the member cities' councils
for their review and approval. The packet also contained a memorandum from him highlighting a few
items in the budget. He noted that on May 14, 2008, the SLMPD Coordinating Committee hosted a joint
sxoxEwoo~ c1T~ couNC1L 1~E~uL~1~ 1V1EETING N11N~T~s
July z8, zoos
Page 6 of 18
meeting of the SLMPD member cities' councils to present the SLMPD Strategic Action Plan and afive-
year operating budget forecast which included the cost of implementing the strategic goals identified in
the Plan. He then stated SLMPD Chief Litsey was present this evening to address the Council.
Chief Litsey noted the "Minnesota night to unite" events will be held on August 5, 2008. This event
replaces what had previously been called "national night out". To date there were six Shorewood
residential neighborhoods signed up. If any of the Council members want to know which neighborhoods
have signed up they should contact SLMPD Community Service Supervisor Dave Hohertz.
Chief Litsey explained each member city has a yearly obligation to fund the long-term debt service for
the public safety facility; no vote is necessary to approve the obligation. The amount of each member
cities' obligation varies based on tax capacity (ad valorem). Bonds were issued for the facility in 2002
and 2003. In December 2006, the Shorewood Economic Development Authority (EDA) initiated
refinancing of the bonds and the savings that will be derived from the refinancing begins to be realized in
2009. The City's obligation is going down in 2009 (by $11,063) due to the savings and also due to the
change in the City's tax capacity. The member cities make the payments on their obligations to the
SLMPD; the SLMPD holds the payments in trust until the bond payments are due and all interest earned
remains in that trust. He noted he had received a request from one member city to estimate the potential
savings from the bond refinancing, and he had accommodated that request in the material included in the
meeting packet. He noted during the SLMPD Strategic Planning initiative the need to address funding the
long-term care and maintenance of the facility was identified as a strategic goal.
Litsey stated he thought it would be worthwhile to recap the SLMPD Strategic Planning process; the
outcome of that process is incorporated into the proposed A2-009 operating budget. He explained the
strategic planning initiative was kicked off at the January 17, 2007, Coordinating Committee meeting.
That process was initiated after several years' of uncertainty over funding for SLMPD operations. During
that time the SLMPD tried to maintain status quo operations while the issue of the funding formula was
resolved. In 2006 the arbitrators made a decision on the formula which went into effect in 2007.
Litsey then stated after the issue of funding was resolved, the SLMPD and member cities councils were
able begin to focusing on defining strategic goals. After the kickoff session in 2007 he met with each of
the member cities' councils (with the exception of the Excelsior council which he met with in October
2006) to solicit feedback on what the councils hoped would be accomplished from the process and what
the councils would like to have included. There was general consensus that the SLMPD was running
well, and it was prudent to go through a strategic planning process. At its October 30, 2007, meeting the
Coordinating Committee agreed to establish a Strategic Planning Group (the Group) comprised of
Coordinating Committee Members (the mayor of each member city), Coordinating Committee Alternates
(a designated councilmember from each city), Operating Committee Members (the
administrator/manager or staff designee from each city) and SLMPD Police Chief and Deputy Chief. The
composition of the Group allowed for each member city to have 40 percent of its council participate.
Litsey explained the Group met five times from January 27, 2008, through April 22, 2008, for a total of
8.5 hours. There were three phases of the initiative: Phase I -Information Gathering; Phase 2 -Define
Key Issues; and, Phase 3 -Develop the Plan. Staff spent a tremendous amount of time gathering and
analyzing data and preparing presentations for the work sessions. Minutes were kept for each work
session. The Group extensively reviewed the following types of information and data -staffing;
demographics; crime statistics; city specific issues; law enforcement trends on the federal, state and local
level; an internal analysis of the SLMPD organization and what personnel think the future needs are;
service levels; activity; recruitment of personnel; career development; equipment; facilities; and
SHOREWOOD CITE' C®IJNCIL REGi1LAIt MEETING IVIINLJ'I'ES
July 28, 2008
Page 7 of 18
technology. Members of the Group were very committed to the process. They were thoughtful,
respectful, and were open to ideas. There were many opportunities for the members to provide input into
the various iterations of the Strategic Action Plan. There was considerable discussion about what it
would take to fund implementing the strategic goals identified. The Group favored four strategic goals
after a considerable amount of discussion and review of materials provided; these priorities were
identified as critically important to the future of the SLMPD. The goals are as follows.
- Establish a timetable for phasing in additional police officers earmarked for the patrol
division.
- Increase the overtime budget so that manpower issues due to training, illness, injured on
duty, time off request, etc., can be more readily accommodated in the work schedule.
- Maintain pace with changing technology. Ensure there is a sufficient fund balance
available to update, replace, and add new technologies.
- Establish a capital fund for the long-term care and maintenance for the public safety
facility.
Litsey read an email he sent to the members of the Group on May 3=0, 2008. The email was as follows.
I want to thank each of you for serving on the Strategic Planning Group. The group met five
times between January and April 2008 to complete their initial mission. These work sessions
collectively totaled more than 8% hours. This does Trot inc/ude the countless hours of prep time
spent on research, data collection and putting together three PowerPoint presentations totaling
223 slides. The Strategic Action Plan is a czilmi~~cztion of this exhaustive effort in which all
members of the group had an opportunity to tiveigh in on the plan. It was there finalized after all
suggestions were taken into accozrnt and incorporated into the document. This unified effort was
then presented for consideration by the Coordinating Committee at their meeting on April 30,
2008. It was accepted as pre,~ei~ted arul forwarded to the Joint Meeting of City Councils held on
May 14, 2008. The one.. excepti6tt is that Group Member Laura Turgeon did suggest an
alternative method of presenting the .budget forecast, which was then incorporated into my
presentation before the City Coinc~ils.
I am pleased to say this was ct very inclusive process thanks to each of you participating in the
group. Each member city was afforded up to three representatives to be part of this group, two of
which were elected officials (forty percent of each city council) and the other being an
administrative staff member. The SLMPD was represented by its command staff. All the work
sessions were open meetings, so any city council member not part of the group was welcomed to
attend as was the public and the media. Additionally, the information presented at these work
sessions was and still is available for the asking.
This is now before your respective City Councils for consideration as part of the 2009 budget
process. Your input will be extremely important being you were part of the group and helped
advance the Strategic Action Plan. Thanks once again for participating in such a meaningful and
important process.
Litsey stated the Coordinating Committee hosted a joint meeting of the member cities' councils on May
14, 2008, so all the council members could have the opportunity to hear the same presentation on the
strategic planning process and the Strategic Action Plan, and they could hear responses given to
questions asked by the various council members and to items clarified. If additional clarification was
needed he got that to the appropriate individuals. He also had afollow-up meeting with Councilmember
SHOREWOOI) CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
July 28, 2008
Page 8 of 18
Woodruff on June 2°a to address concerns he had. He had a follow-up meeting with Councilmember
Wellens on June St'' to address eight issues Wellens had expressed to him via email; he received a copy of
Wellens email on May 27"' and he promptly responded to his issues. On June 9t'' he met with the City
Council during a work session to share his responses to Councilmembers Wellens and Woodruffs issues
(as documented in the minutes of that meeting). He noted a digital recording was made of that meeting,
and he encouraged other city councils to view the recording if they had questions about the process. He
also noted that Councilmember Bailey was not in attendance at the June 9`h meeting; he made himself
available to Bailey at his convenience, but Bailey did not contact him.
Litsey then highlighted the 2009 operating budget process.
Litsey explained the key strategic goals identified for 2009 were phasing in an additional patrol officer
starting July 1, 2009, and adding additional funding for technology. The proposed 2009 operating budget
was presented to the SLMPD Operating Committee on June 24, 2008. He paraphrased the Operating
Committee's sentiments which were the budget was a lean budget yet sufficient enough to maintain
current operations and incorporate the strategic action plan. He explained the Operating Committee
(comprised of the member cities' administrators/managers) is the..}advisory group to the SLMPD; it was
created through policy by the Coordinating Committee in 2004, It is not officially part of the Joint Power
Agreement. Its purpose is to help facilitate good communication between the SLMPD and the member
cities.
Litsey then explained at its June 25th special meeting, the Coordinating Committee considered the
proposed 2009 operating budget. The Committee considered the perspective of the Operating Committee.
The Committee also thought the budget stayed true to the st~al:egic action plan recommendations and it
sustained current operations, and the Committee made some suggestions of areas to keep in the forefront
for future budget considerations. The action taken was: Newman moved, Ruehl seconded, endorsing the
proposed South Lake Minnetonka Police Departmetat Operating Budget for 2009 and recommending that
it be forwarded to the member cities' councils fbr their review and approval. Motion passed 4/0. The
Committee decided it was prudent for the Committee to prepare a position statement; a unified statement
in support of the strategic planning process, the strategic action plan and the implementation of the first
part of the plan in 2009. The action taken regarding the position statement was: Ruehl moved, Newman
seconded, accepting the Coordinating Committee's Position Statement as amended, and approving it be
included in the 2009 operating budget packet that will be distributed to the member cities' councils.
Motion passed 3/0. Committee Member LaBelle had to leave the meeting before this action was taken for
family reasons. At the close of the meeting Committee Member Ruehl thanked Chief Litsey for all of his
efforts which were instrumental in making the strategic planning process a success, and for his
preparation of the draft 2009 operating budget. He also thanked all of the police officers for their
wonderful work.
Litsey stated the member cities' were being asked to consider the 2009 strategic action goals as part of
the proposed 2009 operating budget. The councils would consider implementing future goals during
future budget discussions.
Litsey then stated at its July 1, 2008, meeting (which he did not attend) the Greenwood Council
unanimously approved the proposed 2009 operating budget, noting Greenwood Councilmember Hill was
not in attendance at the meeting. The Excelsior Council unanimously approved the budget at its July 21,
2008, meeting. There was considerable discussion about the budget at this meeting.
SHOREl~VOOI~ CITY COUNCIL, ItEGULAIt MEETING MINUTES
3uly 28, 2008
Page 9 of 18
Litsey read the following statements printed in the Sun-Sailor newspaper about the budget after the
Excelsior meeting.
- Although the conclusion of the strategic plan group was that four additional offices
would be the best to meet the patrol division's needs, the group determined that adding
two officers was the best scenario to meet the department's needs while being mindful of
the financial burden it would place on the cities, Litsey said.
- Councilmember Greg Miller participated in the strategic planning group. He said there's
a strong case to be made for increasing the department's patrol division by four officers.
"I think it was a good compromise," he said.
Litsey read the following statements printed in the Lakeshore Weekly News about the budget after the
Excelsior meeting.
- The need is there," said Excelsior Mayor Nick Ruehl. "We're not covered in all areas as
we should be."
- Council Member Greg Miller also supported the kadditional officer, saying the coverage
area could potentially use up to four more officers on the street.
- "Even .... by adding two officers, we're still on the low quadrant of 1,000 residents per
officer, compared to our neighbors," said Miller.
Litsey stated at its July 22, 2008, meeting the Tonka Bay Council decisively approved the budget with a
three to one vote, noting Councilmember Ken Folley was absent.
Litsey read the following statements printed in the Sun-Sailor newspaper about the budget after the
Tonka Bay meeting.
- Mayor Bill LaBelle= said' the eye-opener for his was learning that, at times, the
department has just one officer patrolling the cities. Calling that unconscionable, LaBelle
said he looked at ho~~~ the department could get around adding staff, but endorsed the
plan to increase the patrol staff.
- Although the plan calls for adding a second officer in the latter half of 2011, LaBelle
noted that the cities aren't committed to doing so. If city officials find that the addition of
one officer has a significant impact upon the department, "maybe [additional] officer two
never comes on board," he said.
Litsey read the following statements printed in the Lakeshore Weekly News about the budget after the
Tonka Bay meeting.
- Litsey discussed that it's not uncommon for the department's staffing levels to drop to
one patrol officer on duty.
- "There is something fundamentally wrong to have one officer on when we cover four
cities," said Litsey.
- For the month of April, there was one officer on for nearly 180 hours of a possible 720
hours. That meant going anywhere from three hours to 15.5 hours in a day with one
patrol officer on duty during that month.
- "It's unconscionable that that's what occurs," said Tonka Bay Mayor Bill LaBelle.
SHOREWOOD CITY C®UNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
July 28, 2008
Page 10 of 18
Litsey noted that to date the collective vote total was twelve in favor of the 2009 operating budget and
one opposed.
Litsey stated this evenings meeting packet included a memorandum from Acting Administrator Brown
highlighting the proposed budget, and in an email to the Council Brown encouraged the members to
contact Litsey if they had any questions or concerns prior to the meeting. Litsey's work and cellular
phone numbers were provided to Council. Litsey then stated on July 25`x' he followed up with an email to
the City Council encouraging the members to contact him directly prior to the meeting if they had any
questions or concerns, and his work and cellular phone numbers were again provided. He offered to make
himself available most any time over the weekend to meet. In his email he pointed out that the City's debt
service payment for 2009 went down. He noted he was at work on both Saturday, July 26`x', and Sunday,
July 27t'', and he received no phone calls and/or emails from the Councilmembers.
Litsey commented that he downsized his budget proposal narrative for the proposed 2009 operating
budget. He noted as appendixes in the proposal he included an organization chart for the SLMPD, a copy
of the Strategic Action Plan provided to the member cities' councils for the May 14`~ joint meeting,
copies of the guest editorial comments he wrote for the two local papers, and the Coordinating
Committee's position statement. He also noted the operating budget narrative addresses each budget line
item. He then highlighted the budget proposal narrative providcd. Highlights are was follows.
- The preliminary budget proposal represents a prudent, responsible and straightforward
approach for meeting the operational requirements of the SLMPD.
- The budget proposal maintains current operations while incorporating the key goals
identified for 2009 as part of the strategic planning process.
- Both the long-term debt service oblig~ition and the annual operating budget are included
in the member cities' financial obligations to the SLMPD.
- Aside from the strategic goals, there. are a number of significant factors behind the 2009
increases that extend beyond economic and/or inflationary considerations. They are
pensions, health insurance, au~munition and gasoline.
- Pension - The increase reflects the impact of a previous decision by the Minnesota
Legislature which mandated greater contributions from the employer and the employee
to ensure adequate fund balances for both the Coordinated Plan and the Police & Fire
Plan (the majority of the SLMPD personnel are covered under this plan). The
contribution to the Police & Fire Plan will increase nearly 52 percent between 2006 and
2009; the increase for 2009 alone is 9.3 percent.
- Health Insurance -The SLMPD is part of the LOGIS Health Care Group; a consortium
of local governmental agencies that collectively negotiate with providers. 2008 was the
first year of a three-year contract negotiated with HealthPartners. The increase is capped
at 16 percent for 2009 and 2010, and the budget takes into account this anticipated
increase. There was only a modest increase in costs in 2008.
- Ammunition -This budgeted amount for ammunition increased over 150 percent over
2008. The cost for ammunition has escalated significantly because of the war in Iraq
(which pushed up demand) and growing industrial powers bidding up the cost of needed
raw materials used in the manufacturing process. Adding the Emergency Response Unit
has increased the amount of ammunition needed for training purposes. To try and help
mitigate the cost the Department went to a quarterly POST (Peace Officer Standards and
Training) approval process to limit the number of large rounds an officer has to shoot.
- Gasoline -Gasoline prices are rising by historic proportions with no downturn in sight.
Every 10 cent increase in the price of gasoline sustained over the course of the year costs
SHOREWO®D CITE' COUNCIL REGULAR li%IEE'i'I1~G 1!'IIIOTUTES
July 28, 2008
Page 11 of 18
the SLMPD an additional $1,250 (assuming an annual fleet consumption rate of 1.2,500
gallons). The SLMPD has implemented a number of proactive strategies in recent years
to mitigate the volatility in gasoline prices, but streets still need to be patrolled and calls
still need to be answered. The strategies included switching primarily to Chevy Impalas
for squad cars which have a V6 versus V8 engine and use less fuel; the newer cars also
have an active fuel management system which cut out cylinders when the vehicle is not
being driven aggressively, and the Department gets a fleet rate on gas. The SLMPD
cannot do more with less.
- Nearly 83 percent of the 2009 operational expenses are attributed to salaries, payroll
taxes, pensions, health insurance benefits, uniforms and training. The majority of the
SLMPD personnel are designated by Minnesota Statute 179A.03 as essential public
employees. That designation entitles them to binding arbitration to settle contract
impasses in place of the right to strike. They would likely be awarded an increase based
on the statistical norm among other comparable law enforcement agencies.
- The budget is required to support other numerous operational expenses which are unique
to a JPA organization. Some of the expenses included the public safety facility;
replacing, maintaining and fueling a fleet of vehicles; insurance for liability, property
and employee injuries; professional services; and managing, supporting and upgrading a
variety of technologies. Minnesota has a Tort Cap limit on insurance claims, but there is
no cap on Federal actions. Therefore, pec~~le are pursuing use-of--force cases through the
federal system where there is no cap. n'nd where they can collect attorney fees. The cost
to carry an additional $2 million in standardized insurance coverage (above the $1
million it already carries) is approximately $5,000 per year.
- The proposed 2009 operating budget which was endorsed by the Coordinating
Committee represents a 9.5 percent increaseover 2008. It included the strategic goals for
2009. The increase is e~tre~nely close to the 9.25 percent increase in the 2009 budget
forecast prepared for illustration purposes. The endorsed budget is a lean budget.
Litsey stated the strategic planning process was dne of the most extensive processes he had been involved
in. It was for a good reason - to move the organization forward.
Litsey then stated he had been asked numerous times what had changed to warrant the need for additional
patrol officers now. He noted 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. He noted in each budget he had prepared
he addressed the SLMPD's past, present and future; and as far back as 2000 he addressed the need for
additional staffing and in particular patrol officers. He stated 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 the 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
SHOREWOOl) CITE' C®UNCll, ItEG1JI,AR MEETING MINUTES
July 28, 2008
Page 12 of 18
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 with the Excelsior Fire
District. That was a considerable expense for the member cities, so additional staffing was placed on hold
until that was completed. After the arbitration over the funding formula was completed, the SLMPD
started to move back toward status-quo with regard to operations in 2007. During 2007 the Strategic
Planning initiative was started. In 2008 the SLMPD expanded its CSO program 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.
Litsey went on to state in 2008 the Strategic Planning Group (the Group) was formed to focus on the
future of the SLMPD. The Group developed an acute awareness of the staffing shortage problem. It was
a real eye-opener when members of the group realized how frequently the SLMPD had only one officer
on duty. The shortages can be from three hours to more than one-half of a day. Feedback he had received
was it was fundamentally wrong to have only one officer on duty in a four-city consortium of cities
providing policing services.
~~:
Mayor Lizee recessed the meeting at 9:01 P.M.
Mayor Lizee reconvened the meeting at 9:08 P.M.
Chief Litsey explained that for a typical 24-hour period theic are typically five shifts usually having
between one to three officers scheduled for duty: normally two,are scheduled during the day hours and
three during the evening hours and those three continue tlu~oug~bar closing time. He had been hesitant to
reveal coverage information publicly for fear it would bc`sed by to take advantage of the system. He
reviewed exhibits for depicting staffing shortages for February, May, August and December of 2007. The
exhibits were provided during the strategic planning process and clearly demonstrate the seriousness of
the staffing shortage. February's and May's shortages were because of vacation time earned, sick time
and training and during May there was a vacantjiosition. August's shortages were mainly due to vacation
time earned. The December shortages were `extensive; there was at least one staffing shortage nearly
every day in December.
Litsey then explained the SLMPD had geographical challenges. During the strategic planning process he
had provided the Group with a comparison of the SLMPD and the Centennial Lakes Police Department
(CLPD). The SLMPD and the CLPD operate very similar, with the exception of the CLPD having more
police officers. The CLPD had made a decision to have no fewer than two officers on a shift. 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. The SLMPD's challenges are actually more grievous
than the CLPD's in terms of the time it takes to get from point A to point B because the distances
between points can be even further, the times between distances can be longer because the roads in the
area are narrow, and the bays and lakes in the area impact travel.
Litsey went on to review other things that had changed. The growth in surrounding communities (e.g.,
Chanhassen and Victoria) place additional demand on the SLMPD. Mandatory booking for DUIs placed
additional strain on the police officer staffing. SLMPD patrol officers are first responders to medical
calls; while they set up the defibrillators a second person is required to start CPR. An officer can not use
a tazer if there is only one officer on duty for safety reasons.
Chief Litsey stated he would entertain questions from the Council.
SHOREWOOD CI'I'i' COUI~tCIi, REGIJI.AR 10'IEETING 1VI1NLITES
July 28, 2008
Page 13 of 18
Mayor Lizee stated the Council and City appreciates Chief Litsey's dedication to the strategic planning
process and the budget process. She commented that Councilmember Turgeon had served as the City's
alternate on the Strategic Planning Group. She noted Litsey had met with the Council and various
Councilmembers in addition to all of the strategic planning work sessions and the joint council meeting.
She stated the Coordinating Committee thinks it is necessary to add one patrol officer in July 2009 while
being responsible to the taxpayers and the patrol officers.
Councilmember Turgeon noted that Shorewood was the only one of the four member cities under the
levy limit. She commented that she had never looked at the SLMPD contract for its union employees and
she was not aware of what their salary increases were. She questioned what salary increases were
anticipated for 2009 after the contract was renegotiated in 2008. Chief Litsey explained the Coordinating
Committee was responsible for looking at the details of the budget. The SLMPD had a negotiating team
of two of the member cities' administrators or managers; the participation rotates between the cities. The
budget shows the line items for salaries and benefits. The forecast for salary increases includes economic
adjustments, market rate adjustments. and step adjustments. When an officer is hired there is an
aggressive salary increase that occurs during the first three yearsa of employment. Per the request of the
member cities, he prepared afive-year budget forecast for maintaining operations and then for including
the strategic goals. The forecast was discussed numerous times during the strategic planning initiative
and adjusted based on those discussions. This budget, just as in past" operating budgets he has prepared,
provided a realistic assessment of what the costs to run the Department will be. The 2007 adopted budget
came within a few thousand dollars of the salary projcctions.~The SLMPD's contracts are competitive;
non-union adjustments are competitive as well. The SLMPD tries to pay average or slightly above. The
increase he received this year included an economic adjustment as well as a market rate adjustment; the
market rate adjustment brought his salary to the average category for this group.
Chief Litsey explained the 2008 adopted budget includes 15 officers for one half of the year, and that is
what is included in the 2009 proposed budget. "1'he 2008 budget included reimbursement for the
SLMPD's participation in the Minnesota Financial Crimes Task Force (MFCTF); that grant supported
that additional officer who left the Department earlier than planned. The revenues were offset by
increased payroll costs associated with the SLMPD's participation in the MFCTF. The revenues from
that grant are not in the 2009 budget, nor are the expenses for that officer. He projected what the salary
increases would be for 2009 based on what the trends are. The union economic adjustment for 2008 was
2 percent every six months; which averages to about 3 percent.
Councilmember Wellens stated the presentations provided to the Strategic Planning Group didn't appear
to contain a lot of crime related summary data and statistics. Chief Litsey stated the presentation for the
January 30`l' meeting contained a great deal of information about that. The data was discussed at great
length, as were the pros and cons of using certain types of summary data for comparisons. Departments
track crime data differently. The one fairly constant piece of data is the Part 1 and Part 2 offenses tracked
by the State; he could easily increase the SLMPD's incidents by tracking many menial calls. The
Department handles many calls for service that are not crime related; it's just trying to get up to par for
staffing for the level of calls it handles. To provide adequate coverage, the SLMPD should have two
patrol officers and two power shifts. Although it is not the most opportune time to add officers, he
thought it imperative that officer safety be addressed. It was clearly articulated by one member of the
Group when that person stated "we have to protect those who protect us".
Mayor Lizee stated she would entertain a motion in support of the proposed 2009 SLMPD operating
budget.
SHORE6V®OD Cl'1'~' COi11lTCIL ItEGITLAR MEETING 1V11NU'1'ES
July 28, 2008
Page 14 of 18
Councilmember Turgeon stated she would not support a 9.5 percent increase over 2008. She would
entertain another number. The increase for the City would be approximately $85,000. The City would
pay approximately $1.2 million for its portion of the debt service payment and the operating budget. The
proposed increase would cause the City to reduce other items in its budget to stay within the levy limit.
Councilmember Bailey expressed concern about the size of the increase. He explained the City has an
approximate $5.3 million budget and a 3.9 percent increase (the levy limit) would be a little over
$206,000. The City's portion of the proposed increase would consume a significant portion of what the
City's allowable increase could be. He commented levy limits will be in place until 2011. He stated the
economy appeared to be entering a recession, and Council had directed Staff to prepare its first draft of
the City's operating budget with a zero percent increase. It will take a major contribution by the member
cities just to maintain current operations. He stated he appreciated all of the work that the Group put into
the process, but he questioned if it was the appropriate time to approve such an increase. The EFD
member cities had already approved a 4.7 percent budget increase for the EFD (this includes the
operating budget and the CIP) and he could entertain something more than that for the SLMPD. A 6
percent SLMPD budget increase would consume approximatelyr, one-third of the City allowable levy
increase, and he would entertain an increase in that ballpark.
Chief Litsey explained the State Legislature created special levies that could be incorporated; they are for
all costs attributed to police and fire wages and benetits and that represents well over 50 percent of the
budget. Taking a simplistic point of view (not including the City's commercial taxing capacity), if you
take the additional amount the City was being asked to coiit~-ibnte in 2009 and divide that by the number
of households the amount would be approximately 9~ cents' a month per household. The proposed
addition of one officer will not eliminate an officer's risk as the job is inherently risky; it will help
mitigate the risk. It is incumbent on the communities to help mitigate the risk and not leave the officers
vulnerable to the extent they are ctiri-ently. "That is fundamentally not right. He requested Council
consider officer safety and show its appreciation by helping mitigate the risk. To put officers in a
situation where they are in a reactive mode 1=or anywhere from 3 - 15 hours a day is the Council's choice
from a policy perspective. He noted that the City had two elected officials as representatives on the
Strategic Planning Group; they kne~a~ full well that it would be a significant increase and they had
numerous opportunities to provide inpltt.
Councilmember Turgeon stated from her vantage point the Strategic Planning Group had the task to
identify the strategic goals. The Group received a budget amount and increase for 2009 (of 5.8 percent)
for maintaining current operations but it did not receive the supporting budget detail. The rest of the 2009
operating budget was not provided to the Group to review the entire picture. The Coordinating
Committee had all the detail. There were no votes taken by the Group. Once she saw the entire operating
budget projection she understood the total budget impact. Chief Litsey stated with all due respect, the
budget was part of the process. The Group had struggled for several meetings with the budget. There was
an exercise with the Group where the total impact on the 2009 budget was discussed at a high level. The
Group struggled with that exercise and asked him to work it through, and bring it back to the group
which he did. The Group discussed the fire-year budget forecast. The first scenario included maintaining
current operations only. Different scenarios were then forecast based on adding the strategic goals in a
staged manner. The scenario he prepared provided ayear-to-year comparison, and Turgeon had requested
a cumulative forecast be prepared (which was done). That method was also presented at the joint meeting
of the member cities' councils. The Group members understood what the cost would be to maintain
current operations and fund the strategic goals. Turgeon stated she did remember going through the
budget during the planning process. Litsey stated he was quite pleased that the proposed budget was only
SHOREW®019 C1T~' C®IINCIL 12EGiJLAit 1VIEE'TII~TG 1Y11~T1J'TES
July 28, 2008
Page 15 of 18
0.25 percent higher than the budget forecast prepared for illustration purposes. The entire Group had
input about the budget.
Councilmember Wellens stated because the City could have a levy increase of up to 3.9 percent did not
mean that he was committed to doing that. He commented the City had already approved a 4.7 percent
combined operating budget and CIP increase for the EFD. He stated from his vantage point there was no
evidence that the SLMPD had abused mutual aid services, an issue he had brought up before. Chief
Litsey stated the software had not tracked that, but an adjustment was made to be able to track that in the
future. Wellens stated because the communities served by the SLMPD were in a wealthier area he
assumed there is less crime. Therefore, he questioned why the SLMPD should have as many officers per
capita as other departments. Litsey stated from the beginning he stated there is no one-size-fits-all
comparison. The Group was provided alternative comparisons (per capita, demand comparisons,
geographical barriers, and scheduling) all of which indicated there is a staffing shortage. He commented
one weekend alone the SLMPD had 7 DUI arrests.
Chief Litsey stated Shorewood had to decide if it wants a reactive department (one that responds and
retreats) or a proactive department (one that spends an extra five minutes at a family crisis). He cited a
recent situation where an officer responded to an open door at the-plaza and he had to enter the building
alone. Fortunately nothing happened. The Group considered the possibility of reallocating resources, and
it didn't exist He stated as a professional the SLMPD st~fifing does not satisfy its needs. The other
member cities' councils considered the proposed budget at length; they did not want the increase but
thought it was imperative to mitigate officer risk to some degree.
In response to a question from Councilmember Wcl(ens, Chief Litsey explained the Deephaven Police
Department does not have the issue of bars and the number of people imbibing at those establishments.
The DPD doesn't serve multiple communities. Dcephaven's demographics are different. It doesn't have
the geographical challenges. Therefore, the two schedules cannot be compared. Litsey stated he had
nothing personal to gain out of implementing the strategic goals. Because he was approaching retirement
age, it would be easier for him to ride out his remaining years and put in a minimum amount of time.
Instead he is a workaholic He took on the strategic planning initiative at the direction of the
Coordinating Committee. He hoped the Council would consider his professional judgment when making
their decision.
Councilmember Wellens stated there are many departments around the country that have single officer
coverage, and it's not a problem for them. Chief Litsey questioned what Wellens basis was for making
the comment. Litsey explained that officer kill summary data is as high if not higher in rural areas where
there tends to be single officer coverage; it's because they don't have backup coverage. Wellens didn't
think there is a problem with single officer coverage.
Chief Litsey stated it was up to the Council to make a policy decision and weigh serving the public and
providing officer safety against the City's financial means.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he would take Chief Litsey at his word for the need for additional
officers. He would not support a 9.5 percent operating budget increase over 2008. He would support a
smaller increase and Litsey could spend that however he chose. He commented that he did not want to
micromanage the SLMPD budget line item by line item. The SLMPD 2008 adopted operating budget
reflected an 8.5 percent increase over the 2007 adopted budget. Chief Litsey clarified the 2008 adopted
budget reflected a 5.5 percent increase over the 2007 adopted budget; animal control services were added
after the budget was adopted in 2008. The SLMPD had been averaging increases in the 4 - 5 percent
SHORIIW®®Ll CITY C~IJI®'C1I,12>iG1JLAlS IVIEETIIVG iVIINUTES
July 28, 2008
Page 16 of 18
range. He was not willing to support the addition of an officer at the expense of the rest of the operation;
that was not prudent. The Department has been doing more with less; it's to the point where less will be
done with less. He explained if the budget is not approved by all member cities it will go to the default
provision in the JPA.
Councilmember Turgeon asked Chief Litsey if he would be willing to live with a lower percent increase;
she stated she threw 6 percent out because it had been referred to previously during the meeting. She
didn't want to go to the default provision. Litsey explained that is not his decision, but he would take that
to the Coordinating Committee for discussion at its meeting tomorrow. The budget would have to be
around 6 percent to maintain current operations.
Mayor Lizee stated the strategic planning process has been a long process, and there has been a
tremendous amount of involvement by member cities representatives. The December 2007 staffing
shortage exhibit depicts there was a staffing shortage nearly every day of the month. The residents in the
communities expect there to be a minimum of two officers per shift. She did not understand how this
Council could not support that. The SLMPD has a number of fixed costs that have been discussed. The
proposed budget was considering the entire community. She stated earlier in the meeting the Council
approved bond financing for the City Hall renovation which will cost the taxpayers slightly over
$100,000 in 2009 alone, and it is roughly the same through 202$. The City's portion of the increase for
the proposed 2009 SLMPD operating budget is approximately $85,000. She expressed her
disappointment.
Mayor Lizee stated it did not appear Council would approve the budget; therefore, she will bring that
decision back to the Coordinating Committee.
Mayor Lizee thanked Chief Litsey for his time and efforts.
Discussion moved to Item 12.A ork the agenda
B. Request for P-•oposals
This was discussed after Item 10 on the agenda.
Councilmember Turgeon stated her request to add this item was to discuss requests for proposals for
audit services and legal counsel services for 2009. She stated these RFPs were to be done by the end of
July.
Acting Administrator Brown stated staff has been working on updating the goals and priorities and staff
thought the RFPs had to be completed at a later date. Staff questioned if this activity should wait for the
new City Administrator Brian Heck to be on board so he could be involved.
Councilmember Turgeon stated she thought the process could be started and RFPs requested. Mr. Heck
could be part of the selection process. It would be worthwhile to know the cost for audit services for
budget purposes. It was her understanding Director Burton was to prepare the RFP and to have it done by
the end of July. She also thought the legal counsel RFP was to be done by the same time.
Acting Administrator Brown stated Staff can start that process. Staff has been quite busy with other
priority activities.
SHOREW®OD CITE' COITNCII. ItEGiJI.AR idIEE'1'ING MINUTES
July 28, 2008
Page 17 of 18
Councilmember Wellens suggested that the legal counsel RFP ask for two bids; one would include legal
counsel being present at regular Council meetings and the other would be for providing phone or email
support for things that come up at the meetings. He thought the second option could result in savings, and
he commented he did not think the City Attorney was needed at many of the meetings.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the City should take every opportunity it has to do things differently.
He expressed disappointment that the RFP for audit services had not been completed and publicized. He
had requested it be done by the end of July. He was disappointed that Staff did not inform Council it
would not be done by then.
Mayor Lizee stated this could be an opportune time to revisit the goals and priorities. She explained
when the decision was made to not hire an external acting city administrator, there was Council
consensus that some of the tasks may not be done as fast as had been planned. She stated Staff had been
asked to do things that were not on the goals and priorities list and others items took more time
consuming or complex than originally expected. From her vantage point she wondered if it was prudent
to select a new legal counsel when it was possible that none of the current Councilmembers would be
part of the 2009 Council. Also, the new City Administrator did not start his employment until August 18"'
,~
Mayor Lizee questioned why the City should send out RFPs for audit services based on the quality of the
services that had been provided. Councilmember Woodruff stated from his vantage point it was a good
business practice for Council to find out what the services the City maybe able to get for less for similar
costs than it is currently paying. The costs should be factored into the budget process. He stated the
City's bond rating was wonderful, and the items that contributed to that rating were wonderful. It is his
desire to get the RFPs this year and hopefully in time to it~orporate the cost findings into the 2009
budget.
Discussion returned to Item 1 l.A on the agcnda.
12. ENGINEERING/PUL'L1C WORKS
A. Approving Change Urder No. 1 for the 2008 Sealcoat Project
This item was removed from the agenda as there was no longer a need for the change order.
13. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator & Staff
This was discussed after Item 1 l.A on the agenda.
Acting Administrator Brown stated he had emailed Council earlier in the day about Xcel Energy's need
to change out the transformer at the signal at intersection of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road; the
signal will not be functioning from 9:00 A.M. - 11:00 A.M. on July 29`x'. There was a proposed meeting
of the Southshore Center working group proposed for July 30, 2008, at 4:00 P.M. There was an SLMPD
Coordinating Committee meeting scheduled for July 29, 2008, at 5:30 P.M. The City had received a
number of comments for the Tour-de-Tonka event scheduled for August 2"d. The event organizers had
not filed for an event permit. The City will sweep the roads to be traveled by the event participants which
have recently been sealcoated prior to the event. There is a budget work session scheduled for August 4`l';
it replaces the meeting scheduled for July 218` that was cancelled. The revised City Administrator
sxoREw®oD C1TY C®UNC1L REGULAR MEETING ~11NUTEs
July 28, 2008
Page 18 of 18
performance review form will be distributed to Council. Staff had distributed revised RFPs with revised
insurance requirements for the owner's representative position to the three companies that had submitted
RFPs; to date two of the three original responders had submitted revised RFPs.
In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Attorney Keane stated a motion for summary
judgment had been heard regarding the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club situation over 60 days ago. A
ruling has not been issued.
Director Nielsen stated the 90-day court order compliance period for Mr. Phillippi to remove the
shipping container is approaching. Mr. Phillippi had requested an extension from Staff and was denied.
Councilmember Wellens questioned if Staff understood there was Council consensus to have the RFPs
for audit services and legal counsel services completed by the next Council meeting, and that his request
to have an option in the legal counsel RFP where attendance for City Council meetings should be bid
separately. Acting Administrator Brown stated Staff would attempt to get them done, but they do take
time to prepare. Attorney Keane suggested Staff check with the City's risk specialist with the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust on that suggestion. Councilmember Bailey stated he was not sure it was
prudent to rush preparation of the RFPs to the August 11`'' meetinfg; quality should not be sacrificed for
time. There was consensus to try and have them done by the August 25`'' Council meeting.
Councilmember Woodruff stated because of his involvement with the ,MCC he was selected to attend
the National Association of Television Owners conference. at no cost to the City; there are three other
LMCC members attending. His specific interest~is broadband.. He is attending the Metro Cities Revenue
and Taxation Policy meetings. The Metro Cites group is very pro the administrative enforcement policy
with the exception of traffic.
B. Mayor & City Council
14. ADJOURN
Bailey moved, Turgeon seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting Session Meeting
of July 28, 2008, at 10:08 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Christine Lizee, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lawrence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:00 P.M.
Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present: Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey, Turgeon, Wellens and Woodruff; Acting
Administrator/Director of Public Works Brown; Finance Director Burton; Planning
Director Nielsen; and Engineer Landini
Also Present: Deputy Clerk Panchyshyn and soon-to-be City Administrator Heck
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Councilmember Bailey requested Item 2 be discussed after Item 3.
Councilmember Wellens requested Bayswater Road be added to the agenda after Item 4.
Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as amended. Motion passed 510.
2. SLMPD 2009 BUDGET
This was discussed after Item 3 onthe agci~da.
Mayor Lizee stated SLMPD Chief Litsey had provided Council with two alternatives for a revised 2009
SLMPD Operating Budget and a cover memorandum. She explained at its July 29`x' meeting, each
Coordinating Committee member highlighted the discussions that occurred and actions taken at their
respective city council meetings when the SLMPD budget was discussed. Because the Shorewood
Council took no specific action and provided no formal direction and because it seemed the focus of its
concern was on the additional officer (there was little discussion about the baseline budget increase or
the additional funding for technology), the Committee directed Chief Litsey to prepare two alternative
budget revisions. Alternative 1 includes a baseline budget plus an additional $10,000 in technology
funding. The technology is needed. for the new record management system. Alternative 2 (the baseline
budget) removes the additional technology funding. The Committee continues to solidly support the
original proposed budget as directed. Because the majority of the Council was in opposition to the costs
associated with hiring an additional officer, the Committee advocates Alternative 1.
Lizee then explained that in Alternative I the budget increase is lowered to 6.7 percent and the City's
contribution to annual operations would be reduced by $25,500 from the original proposed budget; this
decrease is the result of removing all costs associated with hiring an additional patrol officer. In
Alternative 2 the budget increase is lowered to 6.1 percent and the City's contribution to annual
operations would be reduced by $30,500 from the original proposed budget; this decrease is the result of
#Zc
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
August 4, 2008
Page 2 of 9
removing all costs associated with hiring an additional patrol officer and the additional $10,000 in
funding for technology.
Lizee stated if the Council cannot support either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2, it is likely the budget
would revert to the default provisions specified in the SLMPD Joint Powers Agreement.
There was ensuing discussion about the default provisions in the JPA.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he would not support an increase over 6 percent.
Councilmember Wellens stated he would support the default which was 3.9 percent or the CPI.
Mayor Lizee clarified Council was not taking a vote this evening, but it did need to provide direction to
Chief Litsey. She stated the budget is lean. She did not think it was realistic to expect a 3.9 percent
increase when there are there are increases to items outside of anyone's control (e.g., contract wages,
insurance, pension, motor fuel, and ammunition). The alternative budgets presented have increases of
either 6.7 or 6.1 percent. If neither is acceptable then it would likely revert to the default provisions in the
JPA.
Councilmember Turgeon stated Chief Litsey has the option to reduce the budget to 6 percent. She then
stated she had said a 6 percent increase when the budget «as last considered and she hasn't changed. She
then stated from her vantage point she has received different amounts for what the additional patrol
officer would cost; and that the reason the budget has increased so much was because the SLMPD lost
$50,000 in State aid [a grant from the Minnesota Financial Crimes Task Force for its participation in the
MFCTF]. Mayor Lizee clarified the state aid ~~~as reimbursement for the salary of investigator
participating who has retired. Turgeon stated she understood the cost of an additional officer to be
$80,000.
Councilmember Turgeon stated she wouldnot support an increase in excess of 6 percent.
Acting Administrator Brown stated in order to clarify the provisions in the JPA he will read an email
response he sent to Councilmember Wellens on July 27, 2008, regarding budget provisions in the JPA,
which Wellens forwarded to Councilmember Bailey. The email was as follows.
Marty. Attached is a PDF of the JPA and all the amendments that have been filed. The
"Original Agreement" Page 5 first paragraph states:
"The maximum annual budget shall be set by each city determining the number of dollars it
proposes to pay for police protection. This figure shall be converted to percentage of budget
contribution and the lowest total budget so computed shall thereupon be the established budget
for the calendar year. If no determination is reached on budget matters by September 1 S` of each
year then the total budget amount shall continue at the previous year's level.
HOWEVER, this has been revised by the agreement that set the fixed percentages, passed in
1996. While somewhat complicated the amendment states (page 29 of the document).
"Effective January 1, 2007, the annual dollar contribution of each of the Parties toward the
Approved Annual Operating Budget shall be determined by applying the allocation resulting
from the 2006 Cost Allocation Arbitration Proceeding.
CITY OF SHOREW®®D WOiti~ SESSION MEETING MINUTES
August 4, 2008
Page 3 of 9
The Approved Annual Operating Budget for each year shall be determined in advance by
unanimous agreement of the Parties. If the Parties do not unanimously agree on the Approved
Annual Operating Budget by September IS` of each year, the amount of the previous year
Approved Annual Operating Budget will be increased by the lesser of the following to arrive at
the Approved Annual Operating Budget
a. The increase in the July Minneapolis/ St. Paul Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers CUPI over the previous 12 month period or
b. The percentage increase in the most restrictive statutory levy limit applicable to the budget
year placed on any of the Parties over the levy limit for that Party for the prior year
c. In the event that a or b decreases the operating budget shall remain the same
The above formula applies only to operating expenses not governed by wage or benefit increases
required by any union contracts. All Parties must pay wage or benefit increases as required by
union contracts other expenses can have ceilings applied per the above formula. For purposes of
determining the 2007 Approved Annual Operating Budget the previous year Approved Annual
Operating Budget referenced above shall be $1, 510, ~ 06. Adoption of an Approved Annual
Operating Budget pursuant to this subdivision shall entitle each Party to full andcomplete
SLMPD services funded by the SLMPD annual operati~t~= budget and preclude delivery of
multiple tiers or levels of services to Parties. Parties inay contract with the SLMPD for the
delivery of supplemental services delivered by selrcn•ately dedicated personnel outside of the
approved budget as mutually agreed by all Parties. Agreement to provide such supplemental
services shall not be unreasonably withheld
Not withstanding the foregoing all expenses related to the planning financing and construction
of a new police station facility f'or the SLMPD shall be paid annually on an ad valorem basis.
Facility expenses shall include but not be limited to architectural expenses land acquisition
expenses site preparation eahenses construction expenses and expenses related to procurement
and installation of furniture equiJ»rrent and fixtures for the new facility
Councilmember Woodruff stated it is his understanding he and Councilmember Turgeon would support a
maximum of a 6 percent increase, and Councilmember Wellens would support an increase of the default
plus the union contract increase.
Councilmember Bailey stated his position was the same as at the July 28, 2008, Council meeting; a 6
percent increase was his upper limit.
Councilmember Woodruff stated from his vantage point in the alternative SLMPD budgets there were
lots and lots of places where there is discretionary spending.
Mayor Lizee stated there were numerous meetings where the budget was discussed and Councilmember
Turgeon participated in them. The baseline budget is the recommendation of the SLMPD Coordinating
Committee and Operating Committee. The original proposed budget was passed by three member cities'
councils, and the Shorewood Council did not provide any formal direction. It appears that a 6.1 or 6.7
percent increase was not acceptable to the other four Councilmembers. She will convey their sentiments
to Chief Litsey. She noted there was no Coordinating Committee scheduled before the September ls`
budget approval deadline.
CITY OF SHOREVV®®D WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
August 4, 2008
Page 4 of 9
Councilmember Woodruff stated it would be a shame to revert to the budget default provisions in the
JPA without having the member cities' councils have an opportunity to vote on budget with a lower
percent increase. Reverting to the default leaves the cities in an unknown situation. He requested Mayor
Lizee inform Chief Litsey and the Coordinating Committee that three of the five Shorewood
Councilmembers are against reverting to the default provisions. Mayor Lizee stated all of the other
Councilmembers are against any increase over 6 percent (the baseline increase is 6.1 percent).
Discussion moved to Item 4 on the agenda.
3. GENERAL FUND DRAFT 2009 BUDGET
This was discussed after Item 1 on the agenda.
Director Burton stated at its June 23, 2008, work session Council directed Staff to prepare the first draft
of the 2009 General Fund Operating Budget with a zero percent tax levy increase over the adopted 2008
budget. The first draft of the budget, which is in very rough form, and a budget overview document had
been distributed to Council. Staff believes the budget is on target to achieve the objectives specified by
the Council. She explained Council needed to adopt anot-to-exceed property tax levy by September 15,
2008; the last Council meeting prior to that deadline was September 8, 2008. She commented the
enterprise budgets will be prepared and discussed in the fall.
Burton noted the Legislature imposed local levy limits on cities with populations over 2,500 for 2009 -
20ll.The Pay2009 levy limit allows for up to a 3.9% inflationary increase in the base levy over the 2008
base levy. The levy limit law allows for "special Levies" (s~ich as debt service on bonds) which are added
to the base levy. She stated preliminary information fi~om .Hennepin County on the City's estimated
market values indicates an increase in the range of ~~o for Pay2009; the City has not received
information regarding the change intax capacity or taxable value.
Director Burton reviewed the 2009 budget revenue highlights.
- The budget contemplates a base tax levy of $4,056,917. It reflects a 0% increase from the
2008 base tax levy. The special tax levy (for debt service for the public safety buildings
and the bonds for the City Hall renovation) is $635,670, compared to $555,078 in 2008.
The total proposed 2009 tax levy is $4,692,587; a 1.75% increase over the Pay2008.
- Transfers out to Capital Improvement Funds are programmed at $860,000. This amount
is reduced from 2008 budgeted transfers of $945,000, but greater than transfers of
$670,000 for 2007.
- The budget includes using about $1.51,000 (4%) of General Fund reserves, in keeping
with the General Fund Reserve Policy. This use of reserves should result in an
anticipated General Fund balance of $3.5 million.
- Other City revenue sources are expected to remain generally unchanged, including
building permit revenue, license and permit revenue, and miscellaneous revenue (which
includes interest income). Fine revenue was reduced by $10,000. No transfers into the
General Fund from the Liquor Fund are budgeted.
Director Burton reviewed 2009 budget expense highlights.
- No staffing changes are anticipated. Budgeted salaries reflect a 3% economic
adjustment. There is no budget allocation in this budget draft for merit increases; the
2008 adopted budget included $20,000. The AFSCME contract (which expires
December 31, 2009) calls for 2% increases each in January and July. Total insurance
CITY OF SHOREWO®D WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
August 4, 2008
Page 5 of 9
premiums are estimated to increase 10%; the City's payment of up to $756 per month of
a regular full-time employee's insurance costs is proposed to be increased to $800 per
month. This may change when renewals are completed in the fall.
- Fuel prices are expected to continue to be high.
- There are reductions in elections because 2009 is not an election year.
- The budget draft uses an estimated total police expenditure amount of $1.,2].1.,908, which
is a 9% increase over the 2008 budgeted amount. This amount will be adjusted once the
SLMPD 2009 Operating Budget has been approved. The expenditure for Mound fire
service will be reduced by approximately $3,000 based on recent information.
- Assessing services from Hennepin County were increased $3,000.
- The budget does not include funding for replacement computers for four employees
scheduled for replacement next year. The estimated cost for those replacements is
$10,000.
The following clarifications and comments were made with regard to revenues.
- The City is going to remind landlords and tenants of the need to have a rental permit for
rental property.
- Tobacco licenses are issued in October of each year. There are four licensed
establishments in the City and the license fee Ior each is $250.
- The revenue from alcoholic beverage licenses is fairly accurate. The Minnetonka
Country Club's license alone is $7,SQ0. "hhere are three other licenses issued as well. The
City had to pay for a license for the two liquor operations it owned.
- The amount budgeted for Charges fir Scrvicc'Recreation revenue is conservative. There
has been a reduction in tournament activity. Tlie little income there is from concessions
is included in the amount.
- Staff will review Miscellaneo~FS Revenue in more detail.
- The greatest revenue risk. in the revenue forecast is with building permits. The City is
95% built. New development is very slow, although there is some redevelopment
occurring and planned.
The following clarifications, comments and requests were made with regard to expenditures.
- This headcount allocations used in this first budget are the same as those used in the final
2008 budget. The allocations will be reviewed and refined as needed going forward in
the budget process.
- Fire protection reflects a reduction in the City's total contribution to the EFD and the
Mound Fire Department.
- After discussion, there was consensus to leave the $5,000 budgeted for the appreciation
event in the budget.
- If funds were to be appropriated for treatment and control of aquatic invasive species
they would be included in the Mayor and Council budget.
- Staff will determine what the total non-union salaries are for 2008. Staff will also
determine what portion of the $20,000 budgeted for merit increases in 2008 was used.
- The staffing cost, including his year-end increase, is budgeted for the new city
administrator as is a 3% economic adjustment.
- After ensuing discussion, technology related items (such as digital cameras, computers,
etc.) will remain in the individual department budgets.
- Items such as digital cameras will not be included in capital outlay; they will be included
in supplies and materials. There was Council consensus to have the City Administrator
be responsible for approving the purchase of those types of items.
CITY OF' SHOREWOOD W®RI{ SESSION MEETING MINUTES
August 4, 2008
Page 6 of 9
- Capital Outlay will only include capital items.
- General Government/Supplies & Materials -the increase is mainly due to the video
recording of Council work sessions. That was not budgeted in 2008.
- Staff will provide additional detail about the amount budgeted for Finance/Support
Services.
- Finance/Capital Outlay is for a laser printer dedicated to Finance, and a comment about
that will be added.
- Professional Services/Support Services 2008 year-to-date includes $51,000 for
miscellaneous services which includes architectural services for the City Hall renovation
project. Those fees will be transferred to the capital expenses for the project at year end.
Legal and. audit service costs are the same as the 2008 budgeted amount. Staff will
research what expenses have been incurred in this line item through July 2008, and
verify the 2009 budgeted amount is sufficient.
- Staff will determine where the costs for the executive search firm for the city
administrator have been charged.
- Planning & Zoning needs a digital camera to improve work efficiencies. It's very
inefficient to try and coordinate the use of one camera between two individuals who use
a camera frequently. The costs to purchase anotlter camera will remain in the budget.
The staffing increase is mainly due to salary increases and insurance cost increases.
- Staff will prepare a pro forma for a couple of the departments.
- Municipal Building/Support Services includes property liability insurance costs which
are estimated at $110,000. Insurances a1~c renewed in November. Capital Outlay includes
$30,000 for principal and $79,900 for interest for the debt service for City Hall. Some of
the transfers are to the pay for the. internal lo~1n for the City-owned house. The residential
maintenance comment is for the City-owned house. No rental income is budgeted for
2009.
- The Police budget includes funding for the SLMPD Designated Reserve Officer Fund.
The proceeds are used to fund the annual appreciation banquet for reserve officers, and
to help fund equipment and training for them. Support services includes $4,000 for
prisoner expense, court officer expense and booking fees.
- Staff has not °approached Mound about providing police services to Shady and Enchanted
Islands. Staff will reviewthe SLMPD JPA to determine what, if any, restrictions there
are. Councilmembe~~ Woodruff suggested the Council consider incremental funding for
police services from Mound for the Islands allowing SLMPD officers more time to serve
the rest of the City.
- Protective Inspection/Staffing includes costs for the building inspector and some support
staff time. Staff will review the 2009 budget amount to determine if it is sufficient based
on the run rate through June 2008 or if it is too high being there is less building
construction occurring.
- Staff will research what the engineering technician is spending his time on.
- City Engineer/Support Services includes $5,000 for consulting engineering services
(outside of projects which are funded); $6,000 for travel, conference, school,
communication, etc.; $2,000 for printing and publishing; plus funding for subscriptions,
licenses, etc. Travel, conferences and schools increased approximately $2,000 over 2008.
The engineering conference has not yet occurred in 2008. The 2009 budget includes the
same line items as in 2008.
- Staff will provide supporting detail for the Public Works budgeted amounts for
Supplies/Materials and Support Services. Based on the run rate through June 2008, the
2009 budgeted amounts may not be adequate.
- There was ensuing discussion about street and roadway maintenance. The City has a goal
to sealcoat its roadways once every five years; it has not achieved that goal for a number
CITY OF SHORE6V®OD W®RK SESSI®1~1 E~TII~1G MINiJTES
August 4, 2008
Page 7 of 9
of years. Mill and overlay and sealcoating are funded out of the local roadway fund. Staff
will prepare estimates for what it would cost to sealcoat one-fifth of the roadways. Staff
will also present estimates for the roadways that should be milled and overlaid by August
11, 2008.
- Staff will provide additional detail and historical metrics to support the budget for Snow
& Ice/Supplies & Materials. The budget was based on purchasing 375 tons per year of
salt at the current price of $53.75 per ton and 1,125 tons of sand per year at the current
price of $11.56 per ton. In 2007 the City used 440.78 tons of sand and 153 tons of salt.
Supplies and Materials also include costs for cutting edges for plows, deicing chemicals,
etc.
- Traffic Control and Street Lighting includes costs for re-lamping for traffic signals and
electricity for street lighting. A comment will be added explaining that.
- Sanitation/Waste Removal/Weeds includes costs for patrolling every City street and
spraying most of the boulevards and roadways.
- The budget for Southshore Center funding is the same as 2008, $12,500.
- In Parks & Recreation the entire budget with the exception of the $15,000 transfer
(which goes to Park CIP) is for the City to maintain the parks and facility. The Park
capital Fund has approximately $280,000 in it. TheyCity recently authorized spending for
approximately $50,000 for Badger Field lighting.
- There was ensuing discussion about the cost to resurface (basically fill cracks) and
replace tennis courts. Acting Administrator Brown stated he had been challenged in the
past about his cost estimates of $80,000 - $ 100,000 to replace the courts, which is a
realistic number based on this discussion. The City has four tennis courts.
- Until the Council has the opportunity to review the Park Commission's master plan
Parks & Recreation funding will remain as is.
There was consensus to make the following changes to the budget.
- The descriptions, staffing tables, comments and metrics in the department budgets will
be reviewed for' accur~rcyand updated as needed.
- Tobacco license revenue will be reduced to $1,000.
- Building permit revenues will be reduced by $20,000.
- A $40,000 transfer to the General Fund from the Liquor Fund will be budgeted for 2009.
It is not a commitment to do that in future years as there was commitment to get public
input on how the principal balance in the liquor fund should be used.
- Mayor and Council -Support Services will be increased to reflect the approved budget
amount for the LMCD, and an Aquatic Invasive Species Treatment $1 place holder line
item will be added.
- Administration - a $30,000 placeholder will be added for merit increases. The amount
will be adjusted depending on what the actual total is for salaries for employees outside
of the bargaining unit for 2008.
- General Government/City Clerk/Elections -Staffing costs will be reallocated to more
accurately reflect the Deputy Clerk's time.
- Elections -Staffing will be adjusted down to reflect 5% of the Deputy Clerk's time.
- Municipal Building -the capital outlay will be adjusted to reflect the actual debt service
payment schedule for the City Hall renovation.
- Fire protection -will be reduced by $3,000 to reflect the reduction in fees for Mound fire
service for 2009.
- Animal Control -expenses will be reduced to zero.
- Public Works/Supplies & Materials -this will be increased by $10,000.
- Streets and Roadways -the transfers in amount will be set at $645,000.
CITY OF SHOREWOOI) WORK SESSION MEETING 1VIINUTES
August 4, 2008
Page 8 of 9
- Snow and Ice Removal -Supplies & Materials will be decreased by $5,000.
- Parks & Recreation -funding for the Southshore Center and the Friends will be reduced
to zero with the understanding it could be added back.
- Staff requested $10,000 be added to replace the four computers scheduled for
replacement.
Councilmember Bailey stated there was a need for a calendarized budget to make budget tracking and
comparisons easier.
Councilmember Bailey summarized the budget changes that he thought were recommended.
- Add a $40,000 transfer to the General Fund from the Liquor Fund.
- Reduce building permit revenues by $20,000.
- Reduce animal control by $25,000.
- Add $30,000 for merit increases.
- Reduce City Hali renovation debt service by $10,000.
- Clarify Public Works supplies needs.
- Increase street and roadways by $85,000.
- Decrease snow and ice by $5,000.
- Decrease Southshore Center and Friends funding by $21,000.
Bailey stated the net change, not including the additional $10,000 requested to replace four computers, is
about $44,000. The levy limit, based on a 3.9% levy limit, is $158,000. He did not want staff to
personally purchase a computer for City use. He thought it was imperative to know what the funding
needs were for street and roadway maintenance and reconstruction, which he thought was a top priority.
Mayor Lizee stated there was a plan for the streets and roadways and for technology replacement. If the
plans are not adhered to future councils will be at a disadvantage.
Director Burton stated the City's Genea~al Fund policy should be reduced by three points per year in
accordance with the General Fund Reserve policy if it is in excess of 60%. That amount would be about
$160,000 and the budget includes a $1 ~ 1,000 transfer. That would bring the reserves down to 57%. She
noted the City's bond rating was just upgraded based on the General Fund Reserve policy.
There was Council consensus to review the revised budget draft with changes noted at the August 11
work session.
Discussion returned to Item 2 on the agenda.
4. SOUTHSHORE CENTER FUNDING
This was discussed after Item 2 on the agenda.
Mayor Lizee stated the Southshore Center Funding Committee will consider a funding proposal prepared
by the Friends sometime during the week of August 18t~'.
5. BAYSWATER ROAD
Councilmember Wellens stated he was contacted by a resident on Bayswater Road stating the road was in
terrible condition. He asked Acting Administrator Brown to tell Council when the road was scheduled to
be repaired.
CITY OF SHOREWO®D WORK SESSION MEE'T'ING MINUTES
August 4, 2008
Page 9 of 9
Acting Administrator Brown explained the resident on Bayswater Road has called him a number of times
about the condition of Bayswater Road. Each time he reassures the resident that the road will be patched,
and the resident doesn't like the answer he gets for when it will be done. The first patching done by the
Public Works staff does in the spring/summer is for problems that could potentially cause damage to
vehicles. Staff then identifies roadways that will be sealcoated during the year and those that are
scheduled for striping. He stated there was so much patching that had to be done this year that Public
Works barely completed the patching before the sealcoating began. He noted he had received
approximately 20 requests from residents wanting asphalt curbing to control stormwater runoff. He
commented the City does not allow concrete curbing.
There was ensuing discussion about the process that should be followed to handle this type of complaint.
There was agreement that those types of complaints should be referred to the Director of Public Works
for him to follow up on, and to provide an update to a Councilmetnber if they had forwarded the
complaint.
6. ADJOURN
Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of August
4, 2008, at 8:45 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Christine Lizee, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lawrence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk
PAYABLES APPROVALS
For 08/11/2008 Council Meeting
rry Brown, Acting City Administrator
~3F~
PAYROLL APPROVALS
For 08/11/2008 Council Meeting
_..
Prepared by?
Reviewed by
,~~
y,.
,...
,~~k
Date: g
Michelle T. Nguyen, fir. Accounting Clerk
~'~ ~-
r~,,~e..-~ Date: ~-~,~-~
Bonnie Burton, Finance Director
Approved b Date: ~ ~ ~ ~
Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator
I
SHOREWOO
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 Administrator
FROM: James Landini, City Engineer -
DATE: August 7, 2008
RE: Final Draft Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan
This Water Resource Management Plan update is required by the Minnesota State Statute 103B.235.
The City of Shorewood's Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan update is due September
1, 2008.
On January 28, 2008, March 10, 2008 and July 28, 2008 the City Council reviewed sections of the
Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan during work sessions. The Draft Comprehensive
Water Resource Management Plan has incorporated review comments and the Final Draft Plan is ready
to be forwarded to the appropriate agencies that will review and/or approve the plan. The appropriate
agencies are expected to use the entire 60 day period for review.
The Final draft of our plan is available at City Hall for your review. If you have a book and want the
updated pages, please bring the book in to City Hall so I can update the book for your use.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of a motion that accepts the Final Draft Comprehensive Water
Resource Management Plan and authorizes distribution of the Final Draft Plan to appropriate
agencies for review and/or approval.
®f
r®a® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CIT'Y' OF
~ sxoxr,wooD
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 Administrator
FROM: James Landini, City Engineer ,
DATE: August 7, 2008
RE: Adopt Water Supply Plan (Water Emergency and Conservation Plan)
The Water Supply Plan (Water Emergency and Conservation Plan) has been approved by the MN
DNR, see the attached letter. The next step is for the City Council to adopt the Water Supply Plan, fill
out the attached certification form and submit the form to the DNR.
On October 09, 2006 and June-02, 2008 the City Council reviewed sections of the Water Emergency
and Conservation Plan during a Council meeting and work session. The Council then considered and
approved a water conservation ordinance during meetings in June and July 2008 to complete the Water
Emergency and Conservation Plan.
The approved plan is available at City Hall for yourreview or at
http://weblink. ci. shorewood.mn.us:8080/weblink7/docview. aspx?id=975 71.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of a motion that adopts the Water Supply Plan (Water Emergency
and Conservation Plan) and authorizes transmittal of the Certification of Adoption form to the
DNR.
®a
r®«® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Minnesota eartrrle~ o natural esourCs Minnesota
DNR Waters, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 V ;
Telephone: (651} 259-5845 Fax: (651) 772-7977
DEPAATMENTOF
July 24, 2008 NATURAL RESOURCES
City of Shorewood
Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
5755 Country Club Road ~ ~ e_
Shorewood, MN 55331
'E~~- ~~~~,-, ,
u - ~,'lr
RE: Water Supply Plan Approval, Amendment of Permit 1974-5226 and Termination of Permits 1982-607?;
1984-6106, and 1989-6370, City of Shorewood, Hennepin County
Dear Mr. Brown:
Our office has completed the review of your Water Supply Plan (formerly called Water Emergency and Conservation
Plan) for public water supply authorized under DNR Water Appropriation Permits 1974-5226, 1982-6074, 1484-6106,
and 1989-6370. I am pleased to advise you that in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.291, subd. 3, and
on behalf of the Commissioner of Natural Resources, I hereby approve your Plan. This approval is effective upon the
Department's receipt of a completed copy of the attached "Certification of Adoption" form. Please return the form to
my office as soon as the City officially adopts the Plan.
In conjunction with Water Supply Plan approval, Water Appropriation Permit #1974-5226 is amended authorizing an
increase in volume to 206 million gallons per year, which should satisfy the City's needs for the next 10 years. As was
previously agreed, this permit has also been amended to combine the City's four permits into one permit because the City
is planning for a single distribution system. Permits 1982-6074, 1984-6106, and 1989-6370 are hereby ternunated.
Please note that Condition 13 requires monitoring and reporting of the water level for each production well.
We appreciate that the City has recently implemented water conservation measures such as time of day water restrictions
to reduce residential demand. The DNR and Metropolitan Council encourage the City to continue to implement prograrns
and potentially develop others targeted at lowering residential demand. Future amendments to the City's DNR water
appropriations permit for new wells and additional volume authorizations may be contingent on implementation of
additional conservation measures such as described in the memo (attached) from former DNR Area Hydrologist Julie
Ekman, addressed to you and Mr. Steve Gurney, dated April 11, 2007.
Thank you for your efforts in planning for the future of the City of Shorewood's water supply and for conserving the
water resources of the State of Minnesota. If you have any questions or need additional assistance with your water
appropriation permit, please contact Area Hydrologist Jack Gleason at 651-259-5754.
Sincerel ,
~/
Dale E. Homuth
Regional Hydrologist
Enclosures (3)
• Amended Permit #1974-5276
• Certificate of Adoption form
• Copy of memo from DNR Waters dated April 11, 2007
c: James Landini, City of Shorewood Eric Evenson, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Chris Elvrum, Metropolitan Council Mark Enochs, Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District
Stacey Lijewski, Hennepin Conservation District Jack Gleason, Area Hydrologist
Joel Settles, Hennepin County Laurel Reeves, Water Appropriation Program
Central Office Permits and SWUDS
www.dnr.state.mn.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
~~a PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CONTAINING A MINIMUM OF 10% POST-CONSUMER WASTE
Minnesota ~
Department of
Natural Resources
AIYI~I~i
ATE APPFi~PRIATIN
PERN(I1'
PERMIT ~lU(V1B~R
'~ 74~~2~
CouNTv
Hennepin (27)
THIS AMENDED PERMIT SUPERSEDES THE ORIGINAL PERMIT AND ALL PREVIOUS AMENDMENTS
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR APPROPRIATION OF WATERS OF THE STATE, PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO:
PERMITTEE Authorized Agent
City of Shorewood Larry Brown, Public Works Director
Address
5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Phone: (952) 401-1637
To appropriate from: Six wells as follows:
Well Diam. Depth A uifer GPM Unique No. UTMX UTMY Point of Taking
1 16" 528' OPCJ 750 232331 457463 4973489 SE'/4 NW'/4, Section 25, T117N-R23W
3 16" 359' OPCJ 750 161414 453656 4972056 SE'/4 I~TE'/4, Section 33, Tl 17N-R23W
4 12" 640' CFIG 500 171020 449923 4971594 NW'/4 SE'/4, Section 31, T117N-R23W
5 12" 640' CFIG 500 171023 450067 4971625 NW'/4 SE'/4, Section 31, T117N-R23W
6 8" 280' OPDC 100 122298 457463 4973489 SE'/4 NW '/4 Section 25, T117N-R23W
7 24" 415' OPCJ 1000 416160 458084 4971978 SW'/4 NE'/4 Section 36, T117N-R23W
Purpose:
Public Water Supply
i
Use Code (211) I
I
Property described as: j
Well l: Amesbury A, 20405 Knights Bridge Rd, SE'/4 NW'/4, Section 25, T117N-R23W, Hennepin County
We113: Badger Field, 24253 Smithtown Rd, SE'/4 NE'/4, Section 33, T117N-R23W, Hermepin County
Well 4: Boulder Bridge A, 28125 Boulder Bridge Dr., NW'/4 SE'/4, Section 31, T117N-R23W, Hemlepin County ~
We115: Boulder Bridge B, 28035 Boulder Bridge Dr., NW'/4 SE'/4, Section 31, Tl 17N-R23W, Hennepin County j
We116: Amesbury B, 20405 Knights Bridge Rd., SE'/4 NW '/4 Section 25, T117N-R23W, Hennepin County
We117: Waterford, 5500 Old Market Rd., SW'/4 NE '/4 Section 36, T117N-R23W, Hennepin County
I
I
Mississippi River -Metro (20)
Authorized Signature Title Date
~/ ~ct~~~~o~C>
Dale E. Homuth Regional Hydrologist ~
This permit is granted subject to the following CONDITIONS:
1. QUANTITY:
The Permittee is authorized to appropriate water at a rate not to exceed 36~~ gallons per minute. The total amount of water appropriated shall
not exceed 2~6 million gallons per year.
2. LIMITATIONS:
(a) Any violation of the terms and provisions of this permit and any appropriation of the waters of the state in excess of that authorized hereon
shall constitute a violation of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103.
(b) This permit shall not be construed as establishing any priority of appropriation of waters of the state.
(c) This permit is permissive only. No liability shall be imposed upon or incurred by the State of Minnesota or any of its employees, on account of
the granting hereof or on account of any damage to any person or property resulting from any act or omission of the Permittee relating to any
matter hereunder. This permit shall not be construed as estopping or limiting any legal claims or right of action of any person other than the state
against the Permittee, for any damage or injury resulting from any such act or omission, or as estopping or limiting any legal claim or right of action
(over, please)
of the state against the Permittee, for violation of or failure to comply with fhe provisions of the permit or applicable provisions of taw.
(d) In all cases where the doing by the Pemlittee of anything authorized by this permit shall involve the taking, using, or damaging of any property,
rights or interests of any other person or persons, or of any publicly owned lands or improvements thereon or interests therein, the Permittee,
before proceeding therewith, shall obtain the written consent of all persons, agencies, or authorities concerned, and shall acquire all property,
rights, and interests necessary therefore.
(e) This permit shall not release the Permittee from any other permit requirements or liability or obligation imposed by Minnesota Statutes, Federal
Law, or local ordinances relating thereto and shall remain in force subject to all conditions and limitations now or hereafter imposed by law.
{f) Unless explicitly specified, this permit does not authorize any alterations of the beds or banks of any public (protected) waters or wetlands. A
separate permit must be obtained from the Department of Natural Resources prior to any such alteration.
3. PERMITTEE'S RESPONSIB{LITIES:
(a) FLOW METER.
The Permittee shall equip each installation for appropriating or using water with a flow meter, unless another method of measuring the quantity of
water appropriated to within ten (10) percent of actual amount withdrawn is approved by the Department.
(b) REPORTS.
Monthly records of the amount of water appropriated or used shall be recorded for each installation. Such readings and the total amount of water
appropriated or used shall be reported annually to the Director of DNR Waters, on or before February 15 of the following year, upon forms supplied
by the Division. Any processing fee required by law or rule shall be submitted with the records whether or not any water was appropriated during
the year. Failure to report shall be sufficient cause for terminating the permit 30 days following written notice.
(c) TRANSFER OR ASSIGNMENT.
Any transferor assignment of rights, or sale of property involved hereunder shall be reported within 90 days thereafter to the Director of DNR
Waters. Such notice shall be made by the transferee (i.e., new owner) and shall state the intention to continue the appropriation as stated in the
permit. This permit shall not be transferred or assigned except with the written consent of the Commissioner.
(d) MODIFICATION.
The Permittee must notify the Commissioner in writing of any proposed changes to the existing permit. "i his permit shall not be modified without
first obtaining the written permission from the Commissioner.
4. COMMISSIONER'S AUTHORITY:
{a) The Commissioner may inspect any installation utilized for the appropriation or use of water. The Permittee shall grant access to the site at all
reasonable times and shall supply such information concerning such installation as the Commissioner may require.
(b) The Commissioner may, as he/she deems necessary, require the Permittee to install gages and/or observation wells to monitor the impact of
the Permittee's appropriation on the water resource and require the Permittee to pay necessary costs of installation and maintenance.
(c) The Commissioner may restrict, suspend, amend, or cancel this permit in accordance with applicable laws and rules for any cause for the
protection of public interests, or for violation of the provisions of this permit.
5. PUBLIC RECORD:
All data, facts, plans, maps, applications, annual water use reports, and any additional information submitted as part of this permit, and this permit
itself are part of the public record and are available for public inspection at the offices of DNR Waters. The information contained therein may be
used by the Division as it deems necessary. The submission of false data, statements, reports, or any such additional information, at any time
shalt be deemed as just grounds for revocation of this permit.
6. WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT:
Where the work authorized by this permit involves the draining or filling of wetlands not subject to DNR regulations, the permittee shall not initiate
any appropriation under this permit until the permittee has obtained official approval from the responsible governmental unit as required by the
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act.
7. WELL SEALING:
The permittee shall notify the Minnesota Department of Health prior to sealing, abandoning, removing, covering, plugging or filling the well(s) from
which the authorized appropriation was made. The well(s) must be sealed by a licensed well driller and in accordance with the procedures
required under Minnesota Statutes 1031 and Minnesota Rules 4725 as administered by the Minnesota Department of Health.
8. INTERFERENCE:
If notified by the Department that well interference is suspected and probable from your appropriation, based on confirmation of a formal well
interference complaint, all appropriation authorized by this permit must cease immediately until the interference is resolved. The permittee may be
required to obtain domestic well information within a radius of one and one half miles of the production well should well interference problems
develop.
9. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES:
The permittee shall, whenever practical and feasible, employ water conservation methods and practices that promote sound water management.
including but not limited to reuse and recycling of water, conservation rate structures, water saving devices, water scheduling, and public
education.
10. WATER SUPPLY PLANS:
Public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 people must have a water supply plan approved by the Department. Plans must address supply
and demand reduction measures and allocation priorities and identify alternative sources of water for use in an emergency. Plans must be
updated and submitted to the Department for approval every ten years.
11. DEMAND REDUCTION:
Public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 people must employ water use demand reduction measures before requesting approval from the
Minnesota Department of Health to construct new public water supply wells, or requesting an increase in the authorized appropriation volume from
the Department of Natural Resources, Demand reduction measures must include evaluation of conservation rate structures and a public education
program that may include a toilet and showerhead retrofit program.
12. WATER USE RECORDS:
Public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 people must maintain records of the number of service connections, the volume of use by customer
category, and the volume of unaccounted for water and submit this information with the annual water use report.
13. GROUND WATER MONITORING:
All new wells must have an access port that allows measuring of water levels. The permittee must measure the static water levels in all production
wells at least once each month, where feasible. Records of monthly water level measurements must be submitted in electronic format to the
Observation Well Program Manager at DNR Waters, 500 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, MN 55155-4032, with the annual report of water use or upon
request by the Department.
James Landini, City of Shorewood Eric Everson, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Chris Elvrum, Metropolitan Council Mark Enochs, Riley Purgatory BIuff Creek Watershed District
Stacey Lijewski, Hennepin Conservation District Jack Gleason, Area Hydrologist
Joel Settles, Hennepin County Laurel Reeves, Water Appropriation Program
Central Office Permits and SWUDS
CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION
WATER EMERGENCY AND CONSERVATION PLAN
City or Water System Name:
Name of Person Authorized to Sign
Certification on Behalf of the System:
Title:
Address:
Telephone: Fax:
E-mail:
I certify that the Water Emergency and Conservation Plan approved by the Department
of Natural Resources has been adopted by the city council or utility board that has
authority over water supply services.
Signed:
Date:
Fax (651/772-7977) or mail this certification to: DNR Waters
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
Central Region Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793
Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977
April 11, 2007
Steve Gurney, PE
City Engineer
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331-8927
Larry Brown, PE
Director of Public Works
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331.-8927
RE: City of Shorewood's Public Water Supply Permits Amendments and City Water Emergency and Conservation
Plan Review
Dear Mr. Gumey and Mr. Brown:
The Department of Natural Resources- has completed its review of the City of Shorewood's Emergency and
Conservation Plan. Attached is a checklist used in the review of the Plan. Please review the checklist thoroughly
particularly those items noted in bold print as these need to be addressed and incorporated into the plan.
In conjunction with review of your Plan, I am also reviewing the city's request to amend its public water supply
permits numbers 1979-6161, 1982-6074, and 1989-6370. Permit number 1984-6106 serves the same system as
permit number 1982-6074 and these two permits will be combined. No amendment to permit number 1974-5226
has been requested. ff these permits were amended as requested, the total permitted volume for the city would be
248.5 MGY (or 242 MGY after removal of the Woodhaven well) which exceeds the 197.7 MGY projected demand
for 2015 as stated in your Plan (Table 5, page 5). The current total permitted volume for the city is 197 MGY which
is close to the projected need through 2015. I have enclosed a spreadsheet summarizing information for each permit
and the total for the city. Please review this and provide the information needed (listed in the last column); also let
me know how the volume differences shown in the Plan and the permit amendment requests can be reconciled to
meet the water supply needs of Shorewood.
It is possible that the city's Plan could be utilized as a permit that would incorporate increased water volumes that
are proposed over the ten-year duration of the Plan. In order for us to approve your Plan as a permit, we require an
extra commitment related to water conservation efforts, especially if the city doesn't meet the water conservation
benchmarks mentioned in the Plan template. The following list indicates the trigger levels that have been exceeded
and the conservation measures or programs that could be implemented to help the city meet these benchmarks.
The city's residential per capita demand over the past 5 years was calculated at 109 gallons/day, which is
significantly higher than the 2002 metropolitan average of 75 gpcd. We are pleased that the city has plans to
reduce this demand and that this demand has been decreasing. We have some additional suggestions for your
consideration:
- Analyze residential customer use to determine reasons for high per capita use.
- Plan to contact customers with high volumes and large volume increases and offer home audits and
conservation tips.
- Propose incentive programs to reduce per capita use, such as distributing showerheads, aerators, leak
detection kits, or soil moisture meters, rebates for washing machines, or ULF toilets rebate programs.
Steve Gurney and Larry Brown
City of Shorewood
Page 2
® The city's average maximum day to average day ratio for the last five years was 3.4 which is higher than the
metropolitan average of 2.6. In addition to the measures stated in the Plan, consider the following:
- Develop ordinances for lawn watering including time of day, scheduling (along with information on how
often to water) and water wasting (runoff) with adequate enforcement and penalties for non-compliance.
- Add criteria to development approvals that would minimize large. open turf areas, require organic soil
augmentation for new turf areas on sandy soils, and require one or more trees for new construction.
If you will address the issues identified above, the bold face items in the checklist, and correlate the city's permit
amendment requests with the projected need stated in the Plan, then return a revised plan with this information to
me and incl;~de a letter noting that you are proposing to adopt it. `i~Je will than finalize our review and apprcvai of
the Plan and your permit. If you need further discussion on any of these issues please contact me at 651-772-7923.
Thank you for your efforts in completing the 2006 Water Emergency and Conservation Plan and your commitment
to water conservation.
Sincerely,
Julie C. Ekman
Area Hydrologist
ENCLOSURES
c: Dale Homuth, Central Region Waters
Kate Drewry, Area Hydrologist
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 7 August 2008
RE: Deer Management Program - 08 Contract with MBRB
FILE NO. 405 (Deer Mgmt 08)
Attached is this year's contract for the Deer Management Program. It is the same as last
year's, except that we cleaned up the General Conditions (e.g. there was no need to
include a provision for HVAC).
We continue to work on prospective sites. I have been informed that the MBRB has...
picked up a few new members from Shorewood who hope to participate in this year's
hunt.
We will keep you posted of upcoming matters.
Cc: Brian Heck
Larry Brown
Tim Keaneh
Bryan Litsey
v:
~®~' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CONTRACT FOR GOODS/SERVICES
City of Shorewood (City), a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, is in need of services and/or goods
(hereinafter "services") and Metro Bowhunters Resource Base, Inc., 30405 Ridgewood Ave, Shafer, MN 55074
(Contractor) desires to provide such services.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements contained herein the parties enter into this
Contract and agree as follows:
TERM. The term of this Contract is from the date of execution by all parties through December 31, 2007, or until
all work under this Contract is completed and payments made, which ever occurs first, unless earlier terminated
by law or according to the provisions of this Contract.
SCOPE OF SERVICES. The City requests and the Contractor agrees to provide the services
® that are attached and incorporated as Exhibit A. If there is a conflict between this Contract and Exhibit A, this
Contract shall govern. Services provided under this Agreement will be conducted in a manner consistent with
that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the Contractor's occupation performing
services under similar conditions.
OR
^ that are described as follows: Provide hunt management services and in return the City waives the $
fee for their members. MBRB will provide administrative services, but do not guarantee the number of
member-hunters.
^ (check if applicable) and more fully described in the attached and incorporated Exhibit 1 Scope of
Services dated September 10, 2007.
If there is a conflict between this Contract and Exhibit 1, this Contract shall govern. Services
provided under this Agreement will be conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and
skill ordinarily exercised by members of the Contractor's occupation performing services under
similar conditions.
3. PAYMENT. The City agrees to pay for the services, including expenses in an amount not to exceed $- 0 -
(Contract Maximum), ^ (check if applicable) and in accordance with payment rates or schedule set forth in the
Exhibit(s). The City will reimburse MBRB for the cost to list the City as an additional insured party on its
insurance policy for these services.
4. CITY LIAISON. Contractor shall work closely with the City's liaison, Bradley Nielsen, 952-474-3236.
5. GENERAL CONDITIONS. The General Conditions of this Contract are attached and incorporated as Exhibit B.
6. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Contract is the final expression of the agreement of the parties and the complete
and exclusive statement of the terms agreed upon.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Contract on the date(s) indicated below.
FOR CITY OF SHOREWOOD
(I represent and warrant that I am authorized to
execute this contract on behalf of the City of
Shorewood)
By:
Lawrence A. Brown,
Acting City Administrator/Clerk
Date of signature:
FOR THE CONTRACTOR
(I represent and warrant that I am authorized by
law to execute this contract and legally bind the
Contractor).
By:
Print Name:
Title:
Telephone No.
Date of signature:
Scope of Services for 2008 Shorewood Deer Management Project
11 August 2008
Provide hunt management services. MBRB will provide administrative services, but do not guarantee the
number ofinember-hunters.
MBRB Activities Target Date
• Send mailing list of MBRB hunt participants to City ........................................................Sept. 18
• Assist City staff at Hunt Orientation Check-in and Meeting presentation .................................Sept. 18
• Shorewood Hunt ........................ ..................Sept. 20,21, Oct. 11, 12, 25, 26, Nov. 15, 16
• Staff the Hunt Base from 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. (sometimes until noon)
• Issue and reclaim backtags from participants each day
• Gather hunt data from each participant each day
• Administer hunt in accordance with hunt rules and other procedures necessary for a safe and orderly hunt
event
• Report rule infractions and other pertinent incidents (such as unauthorized park visitors)
• Assist in tracking and recovery of deer that are reported hit by participants
• Assist in locating participants who do not return to Hunt Base on time
• Send final summary report of hunt data to City staff
Exhibit A
EXHIBIT B: GENERAL CONDITIONS -GOODS/SERVICES
NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST. None of contractor's owners, directors, officers or principals is or is closely
related to any City employee who has or may appear to have any control over the award, management or
evaluation of the contract. If there is a question as to whether there maybe an appearance of such a conflict, the
contract shall be presented to the City Council.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Contractor is an independent contractor and nothing in this Contract shall
be construed to create the relationship of agents, partners, joint venturers, associates, or employer and employee
between the City and the Contractor.
COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS/STANDA.RDS. Contractor shall abide by all Federal, State or local laws,
statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to this Contract and this Contract shall be construed in
accordance with the substantive and procedural laws of the State of Minnesota. All proceedings related to this
Contract shall be venued in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota.
LICENSES. At its own expense, Contractor shall procure all licenses, permits or other rights required for the
provision of services contemplated by this Contract. Contractor shall inform the City of any changes in the
above within five (5) days of occurrence.
INDEMNIFICATION. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor agrees to indemnify the City, its
officers, employees, agents and others acting on its behalf and to hold them harmless and defend and protect
them from and against any and all loss, damage, liability, cost or expense, specifically including attorneys' fees
and other costs and expenses of defense, which result from or otherwise arise in connection with, any actions,
claims or proceedings of any sort to the extent caused by any negligent or otherwise wrongful act or omission,
including breach of a specific contractual duty, of Contractor, its officers, employees or agents, or any other
person(s) or entity(ies) for whose acts or omissions Contractor is legally responsible, whether or not also caused
in part by a party indemnified hereunder.
ASSIGNMENT/SUBCONTRACTING. The Contractor shall not assign or subcontract this Contract without
prior written consent of the City, in which case Contractor is responsible for the performance of its
subcontractors or assignees and follow the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 471.425 (payments to subcontractors).
INSURANCE TERMS. Contractor shall provide to the City, prior to or concurrent with the execution of this
Contract, certificate(s) of insurance naming the City of Shorewood as certificate holder or certified copies of
such existing policies of insurance demonstrating:
X General liability coverage of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate
(check if applicable) ®and naming the City of Shorewood as an additional insured;
X Automobile liability coverage of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate
(check if applicable) ®and naming the City of Shorewood as an additional insured;
X Worker's compensation coverage or certification of excluded employment from worker's
compensation requirements.
Contractor shall pay all retentions and deductibles under such policies of insurance. If Contractor does not have
existing coverages) or has coverages) in limits less than that set out above, Contractor must obtain from the
City, prior to or concurrent with the execution of this Contract, a waiver of the coverages) or agreement to
lower coverage limits from the City.
Exhibit B
s/os
MODIFICATIONS. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of the provisions of this Contract
shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing and signed by the authorized representatives of the
parties.
TERMINATION. Either party upon thirty days written notice to the other party may terminate this Contract,
with or without cause. Notice of termination shall be made by certified mail or personal delivery to the person
signing this Contract on behalf of the other party. Termination of this Contract shall not discharge any liability,
responsibility or right of any party, which arises from the performance of or failure to adequately perform the
terms of the Contract prior to the effective date of termination.
TERMINATION BY CITY -LACK OF FUNDING. Notwithstanding any provision of this Contract to the
contrary, the City may immediately terminate this Contract if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota
Legislature, Minnesota Agencies or other funding source, or if its funding cannot be continued at a level
sufficient to allow payment of the amounts due under this Contract. Written notice of termination sent by the
City to Contractor by facsimile is sufficient notice under the terms of this Contract. The City is not obligated to
pay for any services that are provided after written notice of termination for lack of funding. The City will not
be assessed any penalty or damages if the Contract is terminated due to lack of funding.
RECORDS/AUDITS. Contractor's bonds, records, documents, papers, accounting procedures and practices,
and other evidences relevant to this Contract are subject to the examination, duplication, transcription and audit
by the City and either the Legislature or State Auditor, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5. Such
evidences are also subject to review by the Comptroller General of the United States, or a duly authorized
representative, if federal funds are used for any work under this Contract. The Contractor agrees to maintain
such evidences for a period of six (6) years from the date services or payment were last provided or made or
longer if any audit in progress requires a longer retention period.
DATA PRIVACY. For purposes of this Contract all data on individuals collected, created, received,
maintained or disseminated shall be administered consistent with the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, and the Minnesota Rules implementing the Act now in force or hereafter
adopted as well as Federal laws on data privacy, and Contractor must comply with those requirements as if it
were a governmental entity. The Contractor will strictly comply with these statutes and rules. All subcontracts
shall contain the same or similar data practices compliance requirements.
NON-DISCRIMINATION. Contractor agrees that, in the hiring of all labor for the performance of any work
under this Contract, it will not, by reason of race, creed, color, sex, national origin, disability, sexual orientation,
age, marital status or public assistance status, discriminate against any person who is a citizen of the United
States and who qualifies and is available to perform the work to which such employment relates. Contractor
agrees to comply with all Federal, State, and local non-discrimination laws and ordinances, in particular the
applicable provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act
of 1972. When required by law or requested by the City, Contractor shall furnish a written affirmative action
plan.
CONTRACTOR DEBARMENT SUSPENSION AND RESPONSIBILITY CERTIFICATION. By signing
this Contract the Contractor is certifying that the federal government or the Minnesota Commissioner of
Administration has not suspended or debarred the Contractor or its Principals and Employees, based upon
Federal Regulation 45 CFR 92.35 and Minn. Stat. § 16C.03, subd. 2 respectively. Contractors maybe
suspended or debarred when it is determined, through a duly authorized hearing process, that they have abused
the public trust in a serious manner.
8/08 2
CITI' Ul
SHOREWOC
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 6, 2008
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator
RE: The Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail (formerly the Southwest LRT
Regional Trail) Winter Use Permit
Three Rivers Park District manages the Regional Trail Corridor. The Lake Minnetonka LRT
Regional Trail (formerly named the Southwest LRT Regional Trail) runs through the Shorewood
community. The Three Rivers Park District requires that cities maintain the Trail during the
winter (November 15 through March 31) for specific activities listed on their Winter Use Permit.
Other South Lake Minnetonka cities that have a permit include Deephaven, Excelsior,
Greenwood and Tonka Bay.
Staff has prepared the 2008-2009 Winter Use Permit application with the following activities
being identified as allowable during the winter within the Shorewood portion of the Regional
Trail: hiking, biking, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, pet walking, and horseback-riding.
These activities remain unchanged from last year.
Three Rivers Park District is named on the City's general liability insurance certificate.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the submission of the Winter Use Permit
for 2008-2009 to Three Rivers Park District.
-~ `.'J C r
.'
~®a® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT
REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM
2008-2009 WINTER USE PERMIT
Name of City Shorewood City Mall Phone 952-474-3236
Contact Person Brian Heck Phone 952-474-3236
Regional Trail F through the city of Shorewood .
Authorized 2008-2009 Winter Activities hiking, biking snowshoeing, cross-country
skiing, pet walking, and horseback riding.
Regional Trail From tO
Authorized 2008-2009 Winter Activities
Regional Trail Frorn
Authorized 2008-2009 Winter Activ
Regional Trail From
Authorized 2008-2009 Winter Activities
Authorization is hereby requested from the Park District Board of Commissioners to use
portions of the Regional Trail Corridor for winter use activities between November 15, 2008
and March 31, 2009, as determined by each municipality within guidelines set forth herein on
District property located within individual City boundaries.
It is understood and agreed that approval from the Park District Board of Commissioners is
contingent upon the following conditions:
1. The City agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Park District, its
officials, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees from any liability, claims,
causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs or expenses, including
reasonable attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of
the City, its respective contractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by the,
and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable for related to the
winter use of the Regional Trail Corridor. If City maintains general liability insurance
at the time this permit is issued, City shall provide the Park District with a Certificate
of Insurance, naming Three Rivers Park District as an additional named insured.
2. The City agrees to maintain the trail, including, but not limited to, any plowing,
sweeping, sanding, packing, trash pick-up, and sign replacement, between November
15, 2008 -March 31, 2009. For ice control on aggregate trails, Cities agree to use buff
colored, 3/8" clear limestone chips from Edward Kramer and Sons, Burnsville, MN.
Edward Kramer and Sons is the only aggregate pit that supplies the buff colored
limestone that has been specified for use on these trails. Paved trails can be treated
with asalt/sand mixture or other approved chemical treatments. The City further
agrees to immediately address all safety issues on or adjacent to trails.
3. The City will provide signage at locations approved by the Park District, notifying the
public of authorized winter activities within its city limits; activities may include, but
to
to
are not limited to, hiking, biking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, or pet walking.
Winter use .signs must be installed by the City at designated locations prior to
November 15, 2008 and removed by the City no later than April 15, 2009. These
signs are totally the responsibility of each municipality.
4. snowmobiling is not allowed on Park District regional trails. Permitted use for
snowmobiles will be limited to direct crossings only. The Hennepin County Regional
Railroad Authority (HCRRA) does not allow snowmobiling or other motorized use within
its corridors. The Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail and the Minnesota River Bluffs
LRT Regional Trail are located on HCRRA corridor property and permission for a
snowmobiling crossing of either corridor must be obtained from the HCRRA prior to
requesting permission from the Park District for a snowmobile crossing of the regional
trail within the corridor. If a snowmobile crossing is permitted, cities must take steps
to keep snowmobiles from damaging paved trails, bridges and other property.
5. The City agrees to enforce rules and regulations established by the municipality as
part of its request for a Winter Use Permit.
6. The City agrees to repair all trail surface damage that occurs as a result of winter trail
activities and/or maintenance, including, but not limited to, bituminous/concrete
repair, bridge deck repair, grading or adding aggregate pursuant to guidelines
established by the Park District.
7. The City agrees that winter trail use will be available to all persons, regardless of
residence.
Each City is required to submit its annual permit requests, including proposed rules and
regulations, by September 22, 2008, after which the Park District may take up to 45 business
days to process. Each permit request must be submitted as a result of formal City Council
action, with accompanying verification, agreeing to the terms and conditions outlined by the
Park District's Winter Use Permit. It should be further understood that no winter activity will
be allowed on segments of the Regional Trail Corridor where municipalities do not request and
receive permits.
The Park District reserves the right to terminate a permit at any time, if the conditions set
forth herein are not followed.
Signed:
Title:
(Authorized Representative of the City)
_~
MEMORANDUM
(ITY Ut'
S~OREWOO
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, P.E., Director of Public Works, Acting City Administrator
FROM: James Landini, P.E., City Engineer - ~-
DATE: Aug. 7, 2008
RE: Authorize Funds Expenditure- Badger Park Rink Light Wiring
Attached is the proposal from Electrical Installation & Maintenance Co. for wiring the
new rink lights at Badger Park. Staff requested quotes from two firms and one chose to
quote the job.
The proposal is to supply electrical wiring to future new light poles and install new
control components in the existing cabinets.
The cost for the wiring and component installation is $6,500.00 and combined with the
new light poles would bring the entire project to $44,992.00.
The Park Capital Fund has an unencumbered balance of $247,508.00 to fund this portion
of the project.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of a motion that accepts the proposal provided by
Electrical Installation & Maintenance Co. for the wiring of the new Badger Rink
Lighting of $6,500.00.
®s
S®~' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
,1u1.3a. 2008 7:07AM
Electrical Insta.Llation ~. Ivlaintenance Co.
1480 County Road 90
maple 'lain, MN S53a9
763-479-3744 phone
753-479-3745 fay
NAME / ADGF~ESS
czTx o:~ sz~.G.~~woo
,t~TTN: JAMES LANDINI
^ESCRf PTION
BADGER PARK
SUPPLY ELECTRICAL TO ,L~OCI*EY LI.G.HT PALES
CATHCARTPARK
SUPPLY ELECTRICAL TO'I~.OC.T~'EX LIGHT POLES AND ANEW 200 AMP SERVICE
MANOR PARK
EXCAVATE AROUND xN' PLACE" C4NCRE',I'E BASE, STRAIGHTEN CONCRETE BASE &
CO.I~IPACT
***NOTES***
PROppSAL INCLUDES NO RESTORATION OF DISTURBED SURFACES
ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL..MARTY @ 612-759-0206
WE LQO~ FORWARD Tp DOING BUSINESS WITH YOU
~o, aa28 P. 1/1
GA'L'E ESTIMA"Cf= t~lO.
7!3012008 i 5961
TQTAL
6,500.00
10,600.00
I,2p0.00
T~JTAL
$I8,300.Op
I
SYOREWOOD
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: August 7, 2008
RE: Accept Professional Services for Owners Representative for the Shorewood City
Ha11 Project, City Project 08-06
On July 14t", 2008, the City Council considered proposals submitted by three firms for professional
services for Owner's Representative for the Shorewood City Hall Project. Attachment 1 is the staff
memorandum which includes the initial responses to the Request for Proposals (RFP). Attachment
2 is the excerpted minutes for this item, from the July 14t" meeting.
Table 1 is a summary of the initial responses to the RFP received.
Firm
Proposed Fee
Table 1
During that City Council meeting, questions were raised with regard to the insurance coverage, in
addition to an alternate proposal provided by Constructive Ideas.
Insurance Coverage
Based upon the discussion at the July 14ti' meeting, discussions with the candidates, and with the
League of Minnesota Cities, staff returned to each of the proposers with clarifications and
reductions to the insurance requirements. Based upon the decreased requirements, each candidate
firm was asked to submit a deduction for the proposals provided previously. Table 2 is a summary
of the deductions and resultant revised totals.
if ~ ~ -~ ~
r.«~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1 ~ f
Mayor and City Council
Owner's Representative, City Hall Project
August 7, 2008
Page 2 of 3
Firm
Yanik Companies
Constructive Ideas
3
~_ _. ~ CPMI .. d... _.
Original Proposed Deduction for
Fee ' Revised Insurance
$70,000
$59,550
$52,550
(*) Insurance based on flat fee.
New Proposed
Based upon the base fee structure listed in the RFP, Constructive Ideas provided the low proposal.
Alternative Proposal -Constructive Ideas
Within the materials submitted by Constructive Ideas, Inc., Mr. Bill Wolters provided an alternative
to the base proposal. This suggested alternate is shown on page 4 of the submittal for Constructive
Ideas.
This alternative is based upon services on a "Lump Sum Billing Basis" for the project. The amount
listed for the alternative proposal was $47,500 (versus $59,550 in Table I). Mr. Wolters has
indicated that with reduced insurance requirements, Constructive Ideas is willing to perform the
project on a flat monthly billing fee of $4,868.75 per month, for a not to exceed number of $38,950.
This proposal is interesting. Staff has considered the alternative provided, and offers the following
considerations:
1. The difference between the two proposals provided by Constructive Ideas is $5,550.
Certainly, this represents a significant savings.
2. Under this scenario, the Owners Representative is paid a flat fee of $4,868.75, each month,
for an eight month period. This time frame is reasonable, based upon what is anticipated for
project close out that occurs after substantial completion of the building.
3. Concerns were raised with the concept of a flat fee, regardless of the amount of time spent
(or not expended) on the project.
4. References for Constructive Ideas returned very favorable responses, with Mr. Wolters
performing several additional projects for past clientele.
Mayor and City Council
Owner's Representative, City Hall Project
August 7, 2008
Page 3 of 3
Staff agreed that either of the scenarios provided by Constructive Ideas is plausible. However, staff
felt more comfortable with paying for time spent on the project actually expended, versus trying to
obtain a "bargain rate." Under this type of scenario, one of the two parties of the contract have a
probability of losing, and will end up back at the bargaining table. Thus, it was believed that paying
a fair price for the time expended was the most predictable method of obtaining the services desired.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending approval of a motion that authorizes the Mayor and Acting City
Administrator to enter into an agreement with Constructive Ideas, Inc., to provide Owners
Representative Services, for an amount not to exceed 44,500, as shown in Table 2 of this report.
( 77'Y OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
Celebrating 50 Years • 1956 - 2006
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator
DATE: July 12, 2008
RE: Accept Professional Services for Owners Representative for the Shorewood City
Hall Project, City Project 08-06
On July 9ti', 2008, the City received proposals, in response to a request for proposals published, for
firms interested in serving as an Owner's Representative for the construction of the Shorewood City
Hall.
Of the six firms contacted, three of the firms submitted proposals. The proposals have been
included in the City Council packet, for review.
All three of the firms appear to be qualified to perform the work requested. Table 1 is a summary of
the fees requested for such services.
Firm Proposed Fee
Yanik Companies $ 70,000
Constructive Ideas $ 59,550
CPMI $ 52,550
Table 1
When compared to the current bid amount of $930,000, CPMI's proposed fee of $52,550 equates to
5.65 percent of the total construction cost.
As mentioned previously, all of the firms appear to have the credentials and experience for serving
as an Owner's Representative, for this type of project. Staff has checked the references of each firm
and is recommending that CPMI be awarded the contract to serve as the Owner's Representative for
the Shorewood City Hall Project.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending approval of a motion that accepts the proposal for Owner's Represtnative
from CPMI. o~ Attachment #1
~®~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
i
~°
Z (,
~ ~ ~
i
i ~ r ` r
~~
~,
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"C,° if ~Y~ ~"~'1~`l°5
~d~~~~tic~.~. ~~ Fr ? -~.~ ~'e~l(c~v~i~~~~
cc~n~~~l~i~7~ s~r~~i
C~I~irr~
F>I<~r~i ~~vi~~~
~xper~ 4+~I~cn~~~s
,..
.wC~Rc .. ~ f'itf~td
C:P,~II l~r~ts ps'c>vic~ec! CG~n~ers I~~.presentative o!~
CMa se~rkes fr~r' over. 1.25 puk3(sc projects in tl~~e
past ~O years alone= ~~.ar current project
baclcft~g iz~clascies facijities ranging in cost fr{ern
lass tt}ate $I.Cv1 to over ~25af~1.
b11e feel th{~ (olia4~Jir~g select list of projects
pra~~ldes in~,ight~: into r~tsr ~ualificatir.~n5 ancJ
capabilities.
~~~a Cie. ~ (~!k~i~e~ae
3~c~4i~~j~~~r~~~ ~r~g~
C~~,~net; City oaf` Sakr~t Paul R~glanal t~~later
ServicE~s
pour-trt Street: East, Et.e. 4aa
Saint Pa~,l l~1~! `~`~1a1
C~erar,~i Strauss f£~5~; 266-626f3
David UVr,cinr>r (631} 2t~6-623
Project ~.ost: ~1:t,aaa,aaa
Square Feet: 72,a27
Lai=rY ale«s~nr Principal in Charge:
Pater ~;aadvvir~, Chief Cost Manager
~a~: ~aii i~er~~~v~te~ a~s~1 ~p~i~3c~~,
c~lrr~~~r: City of I-fan~ Laf{e
155°4 Central ~ivenue N.E.
I-fanl Lal~;~, MN 55304
Doris Nivala, City manager ('~63J 434-555
Clary f<irkeide, mayar' {763) 434-9762
Project Cost: ~r,~aa,aaa
Larry Gfeasan, Principal ire C:harc~e
Peter ~aociwin; Chief Cost I`lanaget'
Jahn 5telten, Ser~it,r Project Manager
~,,5" C"` "'i'ii 35.1_is~:5~%~.3~Jp~?,`t'iC7~`a ~ E~A~':~iSl~1~'
Page 3
"r
r,t ~r-~ ~~t~~~tc~t'it~'
1 ~ ~~ ~ti. ~'~.~~~r fit:.
1 1.p i~~
~Ivv~t";, C. i`7`c~~ C~=;~~>~ ~~1~3r1%~c~ei
~..~
~~ E-
~, ~. ~ , L ~~if~..~~.
(6~
~ 1 " "t
t~
~~r, 4 G r- ~~ ~Iifi~~ t~s t~t~d~rt~k~ tE°r~c~
w.~~
~r~c.~ with :;iii~~~
ic:~....~..., ... ...
Vt ~ . : ;~~ ~~~ciuf~~ fc~ ~` ~~~E~~~~nt
(ir~~itE~t:[ ch,~~r
~~'~ h~sv~ r~ ~~€~t~j~~t~ 4~~~ah z
c~~~e; ~tic~F , ' . , ~ ~ Wir~~c~ in the ~eh~ ~~!'~.
~. ~~~ili tilcar ~r ~~~r~a .-":~ ar~d
f'~t~1'tl#~~~ f~? ~€'4~~C~! ~°ta-Ex ~ ,rE~l''.il`1E~C1tS.
4;~,~~ ~rr~~rst:~3~c1 th~z in~~_- ~ ~ru =~ ra€
~,Ct~~ar;t~~iiit~/ ire ~a~~t~lic ..
z =.
`-
'~
~'. .
s
~~:. ~~~3s.i~, ~~iU
c~Fn~~tr~~e ~.
rc~~ €~~vc~rC`~~n t~~~~t~~r~
~t~. ~t 1,
~WC~t~S~trts~ ~ ~; ~~ Eli
~..~.~,, E3lc~ck ~ `? ' ~rs~~
.`_'~~~.. i ~r
t z~s ~~< t ~rtt
'~f C~t -;', E'~t
j
tE
',;
~ ~rt
t~t~t
k
5 { (~
g
,?...~ f' Itx..
.
R yy
t.,.t i f~~ I t ~.
iii;?'!" ~':~~
~Y". "11°
~~CI ~ `, ,~c,r
~~~+
', ~cv~~iart
-, ~~
~1€~
~~;i
"tk. cr~a1 ' Cd
rvef~rC:.c=:r€tre ~t~d ~~~.in~~ R~rt~c~
. 46J3 t~l~i lk4`, 't u }r
8 E'~~GV rte, ~ li~Y'c3t"}~
~5+~?CI~' ~'~'~1CC-S~'(I~z3~1VE?
6
~, -
t'Fc~arfi~'~cr~i ~ ~ ! r,
i~91 ~;
~<~r. i~~~s c}~~~
~~~: n ~~Ji~i~
~ ~ 'rVlt;~S
'~_ i~~ ~,
~~~ck~tt~; ~~r- itt~= S ~i{ _~ ~~l~rna~z~r.
~~~_
L~r' , is ~~Is~, ~~~<~r°Ex~c~er ~.:, ~; "> T (:iti~.~ c~~i~.
~CkP;S~ft~C'~IL7l,'~r C4 ~~1~lli ~ t11~~fc"it~Gr(i3€.1'iC
_ _ _. ._
P<
t.1 .. '.
E-..- ~
~~~
~,
~ ~~ {
t:,C9s1 ~ r~c}i1c~cJt'j~r1~?r~ ~r~i
Jc~i~ i s~cn~ €C~1e ~'~?r ~1c~~~sr~~'3~nt r~~:viev~as
~~~f~~ ~~ ~ =e"'~r~ ~~t~.,jse n7ar~ag~r~~5~~ri~
r~t'~
d
1(
(~~~;:a_ ~~t7 ~ ~
s ,~,~d~t~c - ': ~~~a
~. f. ..
x~ !~
~ ~e~ - g
~: !
fir" ~1;V, L1rIL~r C)ti ` ' t :7 t)1' E x(:'~!'!c^f~i`P irl
~c :~i~7 ~r~d c~~;~~ytrt!cai~r~ rr~!~;n~c~rer~~~r~t
r~s~<;• 'iY.lrainc~ ~i~l~tl's ~e~r'~~.
CIS ' .',,(i ,,arti~~€~.~~~~"~ it rr!as~:~r' rci~c~tl~~l~:,
t:.~i ~ _ - ;~ .~ ~~ .-.r : > ~r~c~ rte{ ~t', ,, L ; ~:~°s. H~
. ~'4s ~ !_'~ t~~:~i~titar
~a tic _ =~w.~ in
r', ( i ~,~~ ~ i~er~en~ue ~?s
~~-r7Clent ~~ ~ cc~rr~rrt~r°cial
l~~i! ~ r 'sc~ wt~rk~^ci v~r~t~~ severs
r~~~~E~~u,rt~<.sl ~ ~t~rs.
~i7~ci is ct.~° J;~ assistir7g John ~tcvltE'i~ c~r~ ~5~)
~'~r~~jc,CS, N ~ ' :~ ir7v~~lvetl fn the 7nv,sr i-it(Is
Cmc~r'€7r,,~.ir,if, .__ ~ r~~er iailcil ~rc,tir~~tr~.
is )c
t
-r
--y
1,
3
sJl
it 7 fl~ ~~ie;._ ~ i ''l~~"1 ~ 1i ~ r
1l t~(?1t~r ~{fI j EY1c~Ctc1C~~1'Yl~r}~. c~r1t~
~;3E JI1:~L~~~ C ~_s~ r q_
~F~~I~.;, !I' Ic.E', ck:a :3 t~~E`f~'c'C.t L.("lt}Illf'E'.i` till"
c`3 111. ,L71 ~ l~ "("~"?e?!1~' ~'3t1 ° i~i'°„'~;~
~~<~; r:t ~ J rr~t~rl~c~°tir~~~:l1t
c:~J~ J fir-~~lT Mr~ C~~~~~v°vJr;"~ l~r~c
'~1` i E'!'1 (t~a~-~~`llJlicr41r1~j, i~J`c'C; ..:;f.~ 1
;;~~~~ ti..:,: ~rJ~~ ~I~c~t~t~~i, ~(~~ CC~t"15;:1i~ti_?1
~~1~1 .' iirtg ita v,~ry ~~lv~~rs~,
~ ~ s
f
~~ ~
~`,
L _
s
";
;: E
~~
~S
9
I~t
f
b
F ,..
~_:1 ~ .. i
.. ~ - ~ ~
! .. .,~
t
_~
~._._... ,......, , ...., ._. ...„ 4
b
~~..._...._ _ ...~.u ............._.m.W....._
i
a
~~
~~
t:,`„°;
i
t
~~3
~te~
~n
k~3
G o
~ .~ f
w .O r
u, ntJ. u . j _
y' ~ - e_~
Z
- U r J
_ _ y ~,
O
iJ u ~ ~ ~ _
w v
nn r ,
L F' ~ ~ .5 .. cn
~ .,- > _
H , ~ J j r _ ~~_ _
LL ~ ~ ti ~ r+~
'w ^J ~., a C U ~.
V f --r y
V J U L ~ 7, /
r ' U r- F_
z w _ N .° `'
! r ~ J U L r,
~ J ~ o _ L
~ u
^ ~ ~ y - ~.~
U n ~i Ll
U Cv 5A ~ ..
U b O v ~'
" U
O U O E
'-
J
U
1.
U u
V
~
V u
r
a
+
~;
l
C U
.. _~
v u U r U. U U y ~
+ ^r- u
r
U U_ YJ T
r -
C
..+.
L
n
~
~
~ .G J L _
"
~ U OL _ v F
v
'G oL .J `^'
= =
'
"
a - ~ U G ~ -
r ~ ~
o "' ,) y j v ~n ,,, m c" F' v
u
U ~ r ~ a :, ,- T ,~ ~.
v
'~ U '~ > J ~ G ~ ~' N V
v
~ ~ `~ m '" W ~ -~ -j
G u
~
,- -
~
O
= ~
o ~
c ~ o~~
N
~
.~ v~
U
j
u - r u -~
u
G u ~ ~ o or ai r -ti ti r G
~ ~ " p "~
U O ~ aC U O
' - M U 'G ~ .
- J
~ U
v 3 'G v s O
_
f' r
~'
'O
en
'U .
J
G
C U
~ 6
U
U
U
V
_
_C
~ u
i.
C
r_ ~ T
1
.
.
~ °° C r C
v ~ U p ~. nc a r v i. v;
~
~U Y J ctl oUn r . l v'~i ~ ~ O `~ ~ .• n V
'
U ~ _ .. J yu ~ U C.. u U U •
V
v-. y r .1. U ~ _.. .. G r r ..... .. v u w ti J a r"= v
,.. _
Q V rf ... T J ~
co
~° ca ~~ v ~ O -v r _
~ o_ z v L o z ~ v z
J G
U
~ ~ V
„r_ .
T
~ L .. ~ y .~ G L ~ ^
O ~~ r G d ~
J v
,~/ r _
~ J
o ~ °i y,
a -.:-..
.e. ,j .._. v on ~ of y
v ~ G v G ., >
J `G u
F
~ r _G m -y r C
> ~ ~
r ~
~ C
___ c0 G a bL u 'L1 ,.C .^ U ~ Z v
~ y ~ p ~ U ?.~'
v
_. ~.__z ~ Q 4+ ~ y v ~ ~ f"' ._ y -.. u ~ ~ ~ tom, L .~ ~
f~
i ~ ~~
rrj`
5,- r r
t R~, ,
L
~
_ ~ V~._
~{
~ `~
_. 1 }t
~ 3 Y.£„
.i
1
X ;
}~~~ ;
ei },*~i
4.;2.
:~ Stn
°
r.
?c a
rr ,~: .
4 y.
'
C y'
-0_ ~h/
~
#
o
{
W,
}
~ h"+
J 1
-~•'
_. .~ ~i P:..'.
t '1..
~r
,i J.
~
t `~
_ .
1 ~. :d
'
T (. ~~ Y
~t_~.
r ~ ~~
~~~~
e
~~~~ ~ T '' a L
~ N1LL
u ~
C
ro ~ N ~ ti
... av
m > r
°' °' ~ x v ~
v o C
' ~ C .. a
L
~
o
~ O G
u
G
.
, y
^~' d ~ C
r G U O
N
y ~ ~
p u :J cC
a N [
U
~ ~ ~ ~
L
~
7 U
X
N v
P. C ~ V
~ ..
L
~ `~ L
ca u u
J U
v `a a ~ ~ U
o G m v
a o a ~ 5 0,
N o ~ v ~ ~ ~
u
~ ~ ~ C ~
v ~ [~ Q .' N
r
o ci
u v ~ ~ v ~
t u
~ ~
O ~ u
ro V C ~ w __
bL
~
U O
~ _ W ^
o v
J ~ y ~
m C
~,i~ u n
r ..
Y' ~
Y ~ '-' v O
,
p o v °f C v v U
> ~ : c
~ o °
~~ C ~ .C .~
~ .
E ~ v 7=
." T
~' ..L u .^
y 'r~J ~
~ _r C
u
~ U v ~ v
V
U
4~A j..
~ ~ (6
r o
., v
r a
~
m w O v u
'b
~ O
~~
ash
Av3 N -•
.~ -..
.
W ~ V "~ T
L
O cc C~
W U r1
~ T
v ro C
w
~ GL tG
•~--.
,.~
~' ~~
~L;
[~ r
k
nE'
a
h
~p
s
'(•
~~
I .i%
oC ~ ~..
eti F- ~=
_
= ~
?.~
®
~
~ OC
®
~
~
~ O ,~
`~
~ `_
~=
-'~
s
~
_ O
V
W
N ~G
~
"9' ~= ~1
~, ~:
•,~ C~
,~ ~,
~
to ~
~°- ~ ca
~y c'
Vi !'
`~
gA
~t~~ L:. 1~~~~ a ,~rl~
1 `' t7Lt%i1:
E..~'V ~3 , . ~ ~,1. ~ :; i :
tlc~, ~._ ; ... `".._ ~ . ~.. ~ ~,_ .~ ~~, ~t~~ 1~iuilcfu~~.
~~II:~~~i ..,ti ~i!C a 2ii~i ~ ~t,' is ti_I; :al :'': i ':' i~ ~,t:iaLtt't#~~~~eltyl~l~:y i1T1C~IT7Llllt~lSll
~tl~~ i E
~)~rx '-... .11th;: ~5 ~.?f.,i
t~
~~~ ~i~~ ~a ; ~ _. _ ~ -s;. t, ;~,_ ~vi~ yt71~ il~~n~l..i' Utz 1~~' a1~~1 il~~a~slc~n~~l~t t~ }ar€~i~; ,. c~n~~ar~~trn~caticlt7 a~~~l
t~t<zrx:: ~~x~~. ~,f :,ta` ~ t~; ~~,a ~, s~ e1~:,~11-c a ~' ~~rt~Qj~ N.t tc~~-yrca~~~ ~~~~~ t~~~ ~rr~,~; ~<~~rt~,
I I~c~~a~ .:,.. ~~r~ , . ;,(('i ` `~:; ,; .l~` ~,~, y~c. .~ : t ~~~<~~~- ~~11~~t~ic~~~s ' , t~~ i~~ ~c~~,l s~l~°i~t pis ~~ y~~
`iit~t~, :aly~.
s
~ f .,..,.
1~e~1
t?()t ~~>!?j;c. ~. I a ;i'..~ z-~~j~faxtfrtili~%5-~"--1i
i IE ... t .. .. I
_.
~. C)I1S1I
_ t°(l~€:# ~ ~;L~iT~:.": E'. ' l it : ~. ' y
tc,}7E ,.
. ~ ~`-
fist` it~
..
~ ,t, Ci2
Cat` t.m . _ ~ --- ~_.~ ~ `€~ .~.
"'Fig;.
~ ~
1
~,~'~ ~~
<~~~~ _ f'"i ~- t3 I- r
tt~c1 _ ~r° ~t
x t•t ~
~ ± t~~ 4~,?~6 ~ _~. _. i. _ Y 1~J ~F*G}CFA4~ i~.? YY ~~Y~.yi #¢.;~
y . ~ :i:Si`3tE GR 1.C.1T f ~lA~}
~~t. `it. i~~5
~>tty ~1~11.
°~iL;~% r
~> 1 ~ ~ ~.
f -
~.
~>
~),
~~CS <i' . ~1~~ tl. ~ ,. { ,~
,. .
. ~ ~ -_ _ ~ 31~a', lit„ i ~ :, 46F.d ,t ~l kYE,tt ...
~n .. '}
~ ~
E f ,. .. _,..a.
!1
c1
i ~;~ . , ,.
;.
~-•
xr,~x ;
_. e
r ,i ~-,
,.,
~.
w ' ~~~ix-~ r~.~t~ ~c~a°
! E~ ~1~
s ..`l. [~.:i~ ~~ ~~ ~.V~JF
17.
. i '; _ _.. ___...
( ,
......
1
.. ~
.
(E ._ ......_.
su....~v.....,...,..
_ ..SrE W jai e~a
I i ~_~,
's
_ , ~ t-rig ~ ;c c: ,
~. ~~1£a~, rw ~ [r::q[n'~c~~.~t.~~r~cr~s z N tt~~~n~satzstt,rr'~ncrr,~sac~
_..... .. _ ~,~.>.~, ~ _._. _ _ ,.m ___ _ ~,._.m...x,. ~~,. .~...
~~.,
eta , '~;; ~ ,_: ~~ -, ~,.~ .; hi ~~ ., ~.~ ~~~~ : ~c_a; ~ ;'~l~re~.f~~tic~~~~ ~[°t~~~~ ~~i~~t~i~e ~~
~taTlSt~]' ;f .~? ",. _ ,. . " `~':~.° . =1 ICS ,~~ ,, PU ".~' _ , ~~a ~t~~4'~ ~~'1~.1f'
~X.. T' ,!'' ~ ~~S~CIICL! ` ::.':: i':'„ ff"'.1('S 6<} ~JJ' T W Y' "~t%IIC^I~,, <IIG~IItE'.C.1;+,
IuYG ..~ i ::~;. .#t)Ils~ea,~ S, ~ '-1 .. `~ _~ ._ ' C`t 5~%1 ~t ~.~: Cw
~ ~ _ r~, ~ ~~r~ar~:~ `.~ .. , . ~~ ~n=Y, ~~rc~jec,t
r
~~t'';, e€ ~+~tl~. ~!4€t~;, ~3:f'lf~ C%CiizS~ ¢ :i~ iii0~r«is
~ ~
Page 1 of 1
Larry Brown
From: WWolters@aol.com
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 2:23 PM
To: Lbrown@shorewoodpw.com
Subject: Shorewood City Hall -Revised Quotation
Mr. Brown:
Please consider this as my revised quotation for Owner's Representative Services for the Shorewood City Hall
Project.
Insurance limits included in this proposal will meet or exceed those stipulated in your e-mail of July 24, 2008.
Option 1:
If the project is to be billed on an hourly basis with a "Not To Exceed" total the following rates, will apply:
Project Principal -William A. Wolters $150.00/hr
Administrative Support -Lynn Ion $ 75.00/hr
The "Not To Exceed" price under this option would be Forty-four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($44,500.00)
Option 2:
If the project can be contracted on a "Lump Sum" basis and billed monthly at a rate of $4,868.75 the "Not To
Exceed" total for the project would be Thirty-eight Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Dollars ($38,950.00).
All other information supplied in my original response dated July 9. 2008 remains as previously stated.
Please acknowledge the receipt of this e-mail.
William A. Wolters
Constructive Ideas, Inc.
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign__up for_FanHouse Fa_n_tasy Football_today.
8/5/2008
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
July 14, 2008
Page 9 of 13
Mayor Lizee stated it is prudent for Council to respect the a•ecommendations of the EFD Board. She
thought the recommended budget addressed the concerns expressed by the member cities' councils at the
joint meeting of the councils.
Councilmember Wellens stated a number of items were cut from the proposed 2009 budget (including the
voluntary contribution to the Excelsior Firefighters Relief Association pension fund). He thought
additional reductions to the budget would create problems for the EFD.
Councilmember Bailey explained the City's portion of the total member cities' contribution is
approximately 38.8%. The City's 2009 contribution reflects a $22,232 decrease over 2008. The total debt
service payment iu 2009 reflects a $33,473 decrease over the 2008 payment. Foi• purposes of discussion,
if 38.8% was used to determine the City's portion of the savings the City's portion would be $12,988. If
that savings of $12,988 were backed out of the $22,232 reduction in contribution the City would still
have a contribution reduction of approximately $9,244 in 2009. He questioned if the some
Councilmembers were opposed to the proposed budget based on principal.
Councilmember Woodruff questioned what action other member cities' councils had taken with regard to
the budget. Chief Gerber stated if that question was relevant to the Council, it was his understanding the
Deephaven and Tonka Bay councils had unanimously approved both the operating budget and CIP, the
Excelsior council will consider them at its meeting next week, and the Greenwood council will consider
them at its August meeting.
Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, approving the recommended 2009 - 2029 Excelsior Fire
District Capital Improvement Program dated June 27, 2008. Motion passed 510.
Wellens moved, Bailey seconded, approving the recommended 2009 Excelsior Fire District
Operating Budget dated June 27, 2008. Motion passed 3/2, with Turgeon and Woodruff dissenting.
Mayor Lizee thanked Chief Gerber for attending the meeting.
Discussion returned to Item 9.C on the agenda.
F. Accept Proposal for Owners Representative for City Hall Building
This was discussed after Item 9.D on the agenda.
Acting Administrator Brown stated on July 9, 2008, the City received proposals in response to a request
for proposals published for firms interested in serving as an Owner's Representative for the City Hall
Renovation Project. Of the six firms contacted, three submitted proposals. The firms and their proposed
fees are as follows: CPMI ($52,550); Constructive Ideas ($59,550) and Yanik Companies ($70,000). All
three firms appear to be qualified to perform the work requested, and staff has checked the references
provided by each firm. He explained when compared to the current bid amount of $930,000 for the
renovation CPMI's proposed fee equates to 5.65% of the total construction cost.
Brown then stated Staff recommends CMPI be awarded the contract to serve as the Owner's
Representative for the City Hall Renovation Project.
Brown explained the proposal from Constructive Ideas contained a lump sum billing option (a fixed bid)
with a guaranteed not to exceed amount of $47,500 plus expenses (which are estimated to be less than
Attachment #2
sxox>Jwool~ cITY c®urrczL RECIJLaI$ mEETINC ~zINUTEs
July 14, 2008
Page 10 of 13
$5,000). There would be an initial billing of $7,500 to pay for the cost of additional insurance to provide
insurance limits in the amounts required. The remaining amount would be billed monthly at a rate of
$4,705.88. Its hourly billing option with anot-to-exceed fee is $59,550 plus expenses. The proposal
states the costs are based on project time averaging 12 hours per week, and the hourly billing rates are
$150 for the project principal and $75 per hour for the administrative support person.
Brown then explained the CPMI proposal indicates there would be five different personnel resources
involved with the project. The hourly rates are $] 10 for the principal in charge, $90 for the senior
owner's representative, $65 for the assistant owner's representative, $1 I O for the chief cost manager and
$50 for clerical/accounting support staff. The majority of the time spent on the project will be spent by
the assistant owne-•'s representative (600 hours are budgeted for this position). The City would get a
significantly more involvement from CPMI personnel (a minimum of 20 hours per week for key
personnel) than it would from Constructive Ideas personnel.
Brown stated that although both CPMI and Constructive Ideas had strong references, he recommended
CMPI be awarded the contract based on its experiences and the involvement of its personnel.
Mayor Lizee stated she was impressed with the CPMI proposal. Slie stated the $5,000 reimbursable
expenses for Constructive Ideas would increase its fixed cost to approximately that of CMPI.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the City had received proposals from three good firms. He explained he
had called the President of Constructive Ideas to get clarification on the pricing in that firms proposal. He
stated the RFP specified insurance requirements that were not customary for this type of effort. The fixed
bid of $47,500 includes the cost for additional insurance in an amount of $7,500. If the company's
insurance is adequate (which he thinks it is), the fixed cost for the project will be reduced to $40,000. He
was also told the expenses would likely be around $2,400. He stated it was prudent for Council to weigh
a fixed cost of $40,000 plus expenses against CPMI's bid of $52,500 (including expenses) which is not
fixed.
Mayor Lizee expressed concern with Councilmember Woodruff calling Constructive Ideas about the bid
received and having the company President explain they could do the job for less. She stated Council was
considering the bids submitted; it was not considering after the fact discussions about price. She stated
this item could be deferred to a future meeting.
Councilmember Woodruff requested staff ask CPMI for anot-to-exceed cost and clarify what the City's
actual insurance requirements are (i.e., were the requirements specified in the bid necessary). He stated
the two firms should be asked to clarify their bids based on those two questions.
Councilmember Wellens stated in order for Constructive Ideas to make money on their fixed bid they
will not want to spend any more time on the project than absolutely necessary.
Councilmember Woodruff stated lie checked three of Constructive Ideas references and he received
extremely good references.
In response to a question from Councilmember Bailey, Acting Administrator Brown explained the fixed
fee implies there are a fixed number of hours that will be devoted to the project. CPMI's proposal
indicates there will be substantially more resources devoted to the project than Constructive Ideas based
on an hours-to-hours comparison. If Constructive Ideas uses up the hours allocated to the project before
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
July 14, 2008
Page I1 of 13
it's done, the company would very likely come back to the City and tell the City the scope changed. Each
firm's proposal states the proposals are based on the project scope they bid on.
Councilmember Woodruff stated if the project takes longer than specified all three firms would request
more money from the City. He then stated from his vantage point the City did not have all the necessary
facts from the firms. He believed there was a question about whether Constructive Ideas budgeted
enough hours for the job.
Acting Administrator Brown stated he did not thi~lk an average of twelve hours per week (including
administrative support services) was sufficient to get the job done. CPMI would have substantially more
personnel and hours allocated to the project. He explained the original RFP did contain language about
insurance requirements for a construction manager versus an owner's representative, but an official
addendum was issued to the RFP clarifying that, and Constructive Ideas did not respond to that
addendum. CPMI did not have an issue with the insurance requirements.
Councilmember Wellens clarified all three firms would have to be given a second opportunity to respond
to the }ZFP.
G. Investment Policy
Director Burton stated at its June 23, 2008, regular meeting Council suggested certain comments and
changes be made to the City's revised investment policy, The revision distributed in the meeting packet
included those items. She reviewed the changes that were made. The highlights are as follows:
commercial paper was added to the list of authorized and suitable investments; the list of authorized and
suitable investments was modified and clarified; the reference to long-term investments was revised
regarding length of maturity; and investment reporting requirements were changed to quarterly. She
explained Council had been provided another revision this evening depicting two additional changes
recommended. The changes were: in item 4 under authorized and suitable investments, the words "or
local government" were deleted; and under diversification, the words "with rating of AIPI or better"
were deleted.
Councilmember Bailey stated he had spoken with Director Burton and recommended she work with staff
to prepare an expenditure forecast for the various funds in five year increments to help in managing long-
term investments. He stated he would support approving the revised investment policy this evening.
Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, adopting the City of Shorewood's revised investment policy.
Motion passed 5l0.
H. 2008 Election Judge Salary
This item was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Woodruff's request.
Councilmember Woodruff questioned if the proposed wage of $5.50 for the student judge satisfied
minimum wage requirements. Acting Administrator Brown stated Staff was researching that.
Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 08-053, "A Resolution
Approving Election Judge.. Compensation Rates" subject to confirmation that the student judge
$5.50 hourly rate satisfies minimum wage requirements. Motion passed 5/0.
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 & f
l
Director of Public Works
DATE: August 8, 2008
RE: Approval of the 2009 Operating Budget for the South Lake Minnetonka Police
Department.
On July 28th, 2008, Police Chief Bryan Litsey presented the proposed 2009 Operating Budget for
the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department.
The City Council failed to pass a motion approving the proposed budget. While a motion to
approve the budget was not passed, there was some indication that a revised proposal for 6.0
percent would be considered. Attachment 1 is a memorandum from Bryan Litsey, dated August 8th,
2008, for a revised budget of 6.0 percent.
If the revised proposal dated August 8th, 2008 is found acceptable to the City Council, a motion that
approves the budget would be in order.
If approved, this would be forwarded back to the Police Coordinating Committee for their re-
consideration.
s.
r®a® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
*r ~I f.~
~4 _A~ ~
SEPT.
a s. Sa. ti. s S . ®s pe
24150 S(VifTNTOU7N ROAD
SNOREWOOD, tJiN 55331-8598
BRYAN T. U(SEY
Chief of Police
Office (952) 474-3261
Fax (952) 474-4477
l~'1 ® ~ Cl ~ V M
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Shorewood City Council Members
Bryan Litsey, Chief of Police
August 8, 2008 -Friday
2009 Operating Budget Alternatives
I have been briefed by Shorewood Mayor Chris Lizee and Acting City Administrator
Larry Brown regarding the SLMPD operating budget discussion that took place at the
Shorewood City Council Work Session on Monday, August 4, 2008. This
correspondence is predicated on my understanding of what took place at that work
session.
The majority of the Shorewood City Council was apparently not receptive to either
Alternative Budget Scenario A or B included with my memorandum to the entire council
dated August 1, 2008. These scenarios resulted from the discussion and direction I was
given by the Coordinating Committee at their meeting on Tuesday, July 29, 2008.
The majority of the Shorewood City Council has apparently indicated a willingness to
support a SLMPD operating budget increase to the member cities of 6 percent, but not the
6.1 percent increase proposed under Scenario B. This difference of one tenth of one
percent represents a reduction of approximately $2,100 collectively between the member
cities and $1,050 to Shorewood. In order to reconcile the difference, I have reduced the
line item for fuel by the aforementioned amount with the hope that gasoline prices
stabilize. This lowers the baseline budget increase to 6 percent for the member cities as
reflected in the attached spreadsheets.
To date, the Shorewood City Council has not officially acted on a tentative counter
proposal of 6 percent. Until doing so, I have nothing to bring back to the Coordinating
Committee for their consideration. It is my understanding this will be an agenda item at
your council meeting on Monday, August 11, 2008.
Serving the South Lake Minnetonka Communities of Excelsior, greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay
hem®~°andu t® Sh®~°ew®®d City ~®uncil I~e~nbe~°s
Friday, August ~, 200
Page 2 ®f 2
Time is of the essence with the September lst deadline rapidly approaching. Even if a
Shorewood counter proposal of 6 percent were to be accepted by the Coordinating
Committee, it may still need to be revisited by the Excelsior, Greenwood and Tonka Bay
City Councils since it differs from the budget proposal they have already approved. At
this point, Excelsior and Tonka Bay would presumably have one remaining council
meeting in August. Greenwood has no more scheduled meetings in August.
~ :. _
'"
r ®-
~~ .. :pL
rare y ®®i~~~ Chef ~ Lits
Tee~tative Shorewood ~ropasal
August 8, 2008
® ~ .~
.. ~ g
r , -::.
® ~ ~~
m
® ~ e
T9 T
rjt n aYr
l°~~taiv hr'ew® ~ I
ITEM CATEGORY AMOUNT
50100 Salaries -Full-Time $1,177,000
50200 Salaries -Overtime $64,200
50300 Salaries -Part-Time $94,500
50500 Social Security & Medicare $27,000
50600 PERA Pensions $172,500
50700 Insurance Benefits $190,000
51000 Contracted Services $11,800
52100 Equipment Leases $30,100
52200 Repairs & Maintenance $43,500
52300 Utilities $72,500
52400 Janitorial & Cleaning $12,400
52500 Printing & Publishing $4,600
52800 Care of Persons $100
53000 Supplies $69,900
54000 Uniforms & Gear $13,600
54500 Training & Conferences $10,100
56000 Insurance $54,000
56100 Subscriptions & Memberships $2,900
57000 Special Projects $12,200
58000 Capital Outlay $50,000
TOTAL PROJECTED EXPENSES $2,112,900
1° L I E1' LI 1' E T
OPE TING BUDGET PROPOS~-L
r®jecte evelnueS -Year 2009
Does Not Include Contributions from Member Cities
ITEM CATEGORY AMOUNT
40110 Court Overtime $5,000
40120 Excelsior Park and Dock Patrol Services $22,000
42100 State Peace Officer Aid $137,000
42200 State Training Reimbursement $7,000
43100 Minnetonka School District $7,000
43200 Administrative Requests $1,000
43400 Security Details $25,000
44000 Investment Income $20,000
46400 Forfeitures $1,000
46500 Miscellaneous State Reimbursement $8,500
46600 Other Reimbursement $1,500
TOTAL PROJECTED REVENUES $235,000
Expenses in Excess of Revenues $1,877,900
~ ~ PROJECTED COST TO MEMBER CITIES ~ $1,877,900 ~
L,
TI l! E1' PR
Tentative Shorewood Proposal
nt~°i ution~ fro a er Cities -Year
MEMBER CITY TOTAL AMOUNT % SHARE $ SHARE ~ INCREASE
OVER 2008
-Excelsior $1,877,900 27.0% $507,D33 $28.,620
Greenwood $1,877,900 8.0% $150,232 $8,480
Shorewood $1,877,900 50.0% $938,950 $53,000
Tonka Bay $1,877,900 15.0% $281,685 $15,900
2009 Total Contributions from Member Cities $1,877,900
2008 Total Contributions from Member Cities $1,771,900
The Fourth Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA), which
was ratified by the member cities in 2006, contains a provision whereby
each city's annual contribution toward the operating budget was
determined by arbitration. The percentages in the chart above reflect
the ruling of the arbitration panel, which were first implemented in 2007.
Dollar Increase Over 2008 $106,000
Percentage Increase Over 2008 6.0%
Contributions from Member Cities -Year 2008
MEMBER CITY TOTAL AMOUNT % SHARE $ SHARE $ INCREASE
OVER 2007
Excelsior $1,771,900 27.0% $478,413 $37,901
Greenwood $1,771,900 8.0% $141,752 $11,230
Shorewood $1,771,900 50.0% $885,950 $70,188
Tonka Bay $1,771,900 15.0% $265,785 $21,056
Totals $1,771,900 $140,375
MEMORANDUM
I
SHORL,WOOD
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
FROM: Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator &
Director of Public Works
DATE: August 7, 2008
RE: Draft Request for Proposals General Legal Counsel
The City Council has directed staff to prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) for professional
services for general legal counsel. In accordance with that direction, an RFP in draft form has been
compiled and is attached for the City Council's review.
As part of the discussion that has taken place previously, staff was directed to explore potential cost
saving techniques. Specifically, items that have been used in the past or discussed recently include:
1. Having the City Attorney attend only those staff meetings where there are significant legal
issues on the City Council agenda.
Staff is currently operating under this scenario. Many items are taken care of by email or
telephone, thereby avoiding the need for the City Attorney to needlessly attend staff
meetings. -
2. The City Council has also directed staff to explore having the City Attorney present at only
a portion of the City Council meetings. For example, one meeting per month, versus the
two meetings conducted.
Staff is still receiving input into this subject and is in the process of researching this with
other municipalities and the League of Minnesota Cities (LMNC). Currently, this has not
been included in the draft, but can be added if it appears prudent to proceed in this direction,
once the data has been considered. Staff will provide an update to the City Council
regarding feedback received on this issue at Monday's City Council meeting.
Recommendation
Staff is seeking further input and direction from the City Council. Staff will take comments on this
and bring the final form back to the City Council for action on August 25ti', 2008.
v.
~®~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR GENERAL LEGAL SERVICES
I. PURPOSE
The City Council of the City of Shorewood is seeking a contract Attorney or legal firm to
serve as general legal counsel for the City. The City invites interested law firms and
individuals with a minimum of seven (7) years of municipal law experience representing
general law cities to submit a written proposal to provide City Attorney services.
II. BACKGROUND
The Shorewood City Council is composed of a Mayor and four Councilmembers. The
Mayor and City Council are elected at large.
As City Attorney, the selected law firm or individual will be expected to provide a wide
range of legal services to the City. The City Attorney is selected by the City Council and
works closely with the City Administrator and other staff. The City Attorney serves as a
key member of the city's management team. The City Attorney's primary role is to
provide expert legal advice to the City Council, City Administrator and Department
Directors. The City Attorney is expected to establish, develop and maintain a close and
trusted relationship with the City Administrator. The City Council believes this is critical
to the success of the City.
The City Council typically meets on the second and fourth Mondays of each month at
7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 5755 Country Club Road. Due to
holidays and other such occurrences, the Council meetings are occasionally changed to
different days. Work sessions of the Council often occur before or after the regular
business meeting.
III. PROCESS
The City will use the following process for selecting Legal Service Providers:
A. The City Council will review all proposals and shall conduct interviews of
selected candidate firms. The City Council will then select the firm or firms it
believes would best meet the City's needs.
B. Pending a mutually agreeable contract arrangement, the City Council will appoint
the firm or firms selected to provide the services indicated.
IV. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
A. Responses must provide complete information as described in this request. Ten
(10) copies shall be submitted no later than 3:00 PM on October 1, 2008. Please
forward proposals to:
Mr. Brian Heck
City Administrator
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
B. Written questions about this RFP may be sent by e-mail to
Bheck@ci.shorewood.mn.us prior to the submission deadline. Responses will be
shared with all interested responders to the RFP.
C. The City will not reimburse any expenses incurred by the firm submitting a
response including, but not limited to, expenses associated with the preparation
and submission of the response and/or attendance at interviews.
D. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to request additional
information from any and all Proposers, and to suggest modifications to the terms
and conditions of an agreement from that offered by a Proposer.
V. REQUIRED CONTENTS OF RESPONSE
A. Firm Background
1. Brief history of firm including nature of the firm's practice.
2. Number of attorneys, including number of partners and associates and areas
of specialty.
3. Provide the overall capabilities, qualifications, training, and areas of
expertise for each of the principals, partners, and associates of the law firm
including the length of employment for each person and his/her area of
specialization.
4. Support personnel including number and expertise.
5. Office organization and support capabilities.
6. Office locations(s).
7. Current use of technology, especially capability for computerized legal
research and for sharing and editing documents electronically.
8. Statements of any malpractice claims and/or ethics complaints taken against
your firm or firm's attorney(s) over the last five years and the status or
outcomes of such action. Indicate whether any action is pending or is
currently under review by the State Ethics Board.
9. Statement of 2007 billings for municipal work as a percentage of tota12007
billings.
10. Describe malpractice insurance coverage: carrier, limits, and exemptions.
11. Statement of compliance with federal and state laws respecting civil rights.
2
B. Attorney Qualifications
1. Identify the specific attorney who will serve as the lead attorney for each of
the legal services you have expressed interest in providing, and indicate the
following:
a. Academic training and degrees
b. Year admitted to the Minnesota Bar Association and License Number
c. Description of background and experience
d. Description of prior municipal experience including cities served in a
similar capacity
e. List of litigation in communities where designated attorney served as
lead attorney and outcomes of litigation
£ Professional affiliations
2. Identify attorney who will serve in the lead attorney's absence, and provide
information as requested in No. 1 above.
3. Identify other attorneys and support staff who will supply services for which
the City will be charged.
4. Indicate current responsibilities of person designated to serve as lead
attorney.
C. List cities you currently represent and the type of service provided.
D. List cities you began representing in the last three years and cities you stopped
representing in the last three years.
E. Names, telephone numbers, and contact person of at least five (5) client
references, at least two (2) of which shall be cities.
F. Describe the firm's view of their responsibilities to the City in the providing of
legal services.
G. Copy of Malpractice/liability Insurance Certificate in a minimum amount of
$1,250,000.
H. Conflict of Interest
1. Indicate whether designated lead attorneys or the law firm represent, or have
represented, any client whose representation may conflict with your ability
to provide legal services to the City.
2. Indicate whether designated lead attorneys or the law firm currently
represent any real estate developers. If so, please identify those companies
or persons in detail and provide a percentage breakdown of how much this
work represents of your firm's total billings.
3. Identify what procedures your firm utilizes to identify and resolve conflicts
of interest.
City/City Attorney Relationship
1. Describe how you would structure the working relationship between the
City Attorney and the City Council, City Administrator, Department
Directors, and other staff members.
2. Define the standard time frames for response by the City Attorney to
direction and/or inquiry from the City Council or City Administrator.
3. Describe the systems or mechanisms that would be established for monthly
reporting of the status of projects, requests, and litigation.
J. Fees:
1. City Attorney-firms desiring to be considered for City Attorney services
may indicate a monthly retainer amount (if appropriate) and describe
specific services to be included within the retainer and any services that
would be outside the retainer (refer to the list of services in Section VI.) For
services outside the retainer, indicate the hourly rate for City Attorney and
other attorneys and support staff that may be working on City business.
Alternatively, firms may propose hourly rates for all services.
2. The City is open to exploring alternative fee arrangements other than the
retainer or hourly rate. Indicate any alternate billing arrangements you
would be willing to consider and under what circumstances they would be
most appropriate.
3. Firms shall indicate all other costs and reimbursable expenses including
travel (per mile), telephone, printing, photocopying, etc.
4. Firms shall indicate the minimum increment of time billed for each service
including phone calls, correspondence, and personal conferences.
5. The City of Shorewood requests monthly billing statements which:
a. Itemize the date of services
b. Identify the personnel providing the services
c. List the time spent
d. Provide a detailed description of the services performed
e. State the fees for those services
f. Organize billing on the basis of activity and City contact. For activities
that span multiple billing periods, aproject-to-date summary is
requested
g. Summarize monthly and annual costs by type of activity
VI. LEGAL SERVICES REQUIREMENTS
Following are the primary responsibilities for general legal services. While this list is an
attempt to identify the major areas of representation, it is not intended to be an all
encompassing list.
A. Attend City Council meetings and other City Commission or Committee meetings
as requested by the City Council or City Administrator.
B. Draft and/or review ordinances, resolutions, and correspondence, as requested.
Review City Council agendas and meeting minutes as requested.
C. Advise and/or prepare legal opinions to the Mayor and Council members as
requested or directed by the City Council and/or City Administrator.
D. Prepare and/or review municipal contracts, such as contracts for public
improvements, joint powers of agreements, construction, and purchase of
equipment.
E. Represent City in matters related to the enforcement of City building and zoning
codes.
4
F. Provide legal briefings as requested to City Council and/or City Administrator
regarding new or proposed legislation or judicial decisions affecting municipal
operations and activities.
G. Provide advice on open meeting law, data practice, records retention and privacy
issues.
H. Defend City in litigation (except in those cases where insurance companies are
required to provide defense) including, but not limited to, 1) human rights claims;
2) condemnation; 3) permits and administrative actions; and 4) labor and
employment matters.
I. Defend City in uninsured claims and other insurance matters.
J. In coordination with Bond Counsel, review of financing, special assessments,
bonds and insurance requirements required by or for City contracts or activities.
K. Represent City in the acquisition of properties for public improvements,
easements, and parks.
L. Represent City in condemnation proceedings for public improvement projects.
M. Initiate litigation on behalf of City as directed by the City Council.
N. Interpret and advise regarding State land use statutes and City Code.
O. Interpret and advise regarding impact fees and legal uses.
P. Advise and represent the City on environmental matters.
Q. Prepare and/or review the following:
1. Conditional Use Permits and Documentation
2. Vacation of Rights-of--Way
3. Special Assessments
4. Planned Unit Developments
5. Development Agreements
6. Subdivision and Zoning Requests
7. Subdivision and Zoning Code Violations
R. The firm shall not subcontract out or assign any interest in the contract and shall
not transfer any interest in the same without prior written consent of the City.
VII. ANTICIPATED TIMELINE
Following is the anticipated schedule the City Council expects to utilize for the review
and selection of a City Attorney. This is a tentative schedule and is subject to change.
A. Starting August 26, 2008, Distribute RFP
B. October 1, 2008 (3:00 p.m.), Deadline for receipts of RFP
C. October 3 -October 10, 2008, Review proposals and schedule interviews.
D. October 13 - 20, 2008, Interviews
E. October 27, 2008, Recommendation to City Council for appointment
5
1 J V ~ ~~:
~ 44
_ ~Fj
~;~ ~ ~...~~ x~'
- ~.~
,~ _ ~ ,~ ,_
~~~ r
~,
~~~..~
MEM®RANDUIVI
Date:
To:
-From:
Re:
CI`T~ ®~
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
August 7, 2008
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members __
Lawrence A. Brown, Acting'City Administrator _ n ~
t,
Bonnie Burton, Finance Director/Treasurer
-Draft RFP for Professional Auditing Services
The City Council has directed staff to prepare an RFP (Request for Proposal) for Professional
Auditing Services. In accordance with that direction, an RFP in draft form is attached for the City --
Council's review.
A few highlights of the draft RFP include:
1. Request for quotes for athree-year contract, with an option to renew for an additional three year
period.
2. Screening of the proposals by athree-member Audit Selection Committee comprised of the City
Administrator, the City Finance Director/Treasurer, and one council member. The Audit Selection
Committee would then make a recommendation to the .City Council.
3. The RFP would be posted on the League's website in addition to soliciting proposals from
selected firms.
Recommendation
Staff is seeking further input and direction from the City Council. Staff will take comments on this
and bring the final form back to the City Council for action on August 25"', 2008.
~®~® PRINTED ON RECYClEO PAPER ~~~~ ~ i
Il~t`I']f~®I)iJCTI®I~t
A. General Information
The City of Shorewood is requesting proposals from qualified firms of certified public accountants to
audit its financial statements for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2008, 2009, 2010. This audit
is to be performed in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAP). These
are the standards set forth for financial audits in the General Accounting Office's (GAO) Government
Auditing Standards (2007), the provisions of the Federal Single Audit Act as amended, and U.S.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of States Local Govez-nments
and Non-profit Organizations.
To insure a fair review and selection process firms submitting proposals are specifically requested
not to make other contacts to the City staff or a council member re~ardin~ these proposals.
There is no expressed or implied obligation for the City of Shorewood to reimburse responding firms
for any expenses incurred in preparing proposals in response to this request.
~. Instructions
To be considered, five (5) copies of a proposal must be received by Bonnie Burton,- Finance
Director/Treasurer, at 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 by 4.00 Pa•'I. on
September 30, 2008. The City of Shorewood reserves the right to reject any or all proposals
submitted.
The proposal must include the standard forms provided as Attachments A and B herein. Supporting
material may be submitted; however, the decision in selecting the most responsive proposer will be
based on the standard proposal forms provided.
All information submitted shall be treated as proprietary information.
Requests for clarification or additional information should be made in writing to the City's Finance
Director/Treasurer at the above stated address, no later than August 30, 2008. Requests received
after said date will not be answered. Written responses to questions will be mailed to all proposers
by September 12, 2008.
Proposals submitted will be evaluated by the Audit Selection Committee, which may consist of the
City Administrator, the Finance Director/Treasurer, a City Council Member, and industry experts.
During the evaluation process the City reserves the right, where it may serve the City's best interest,
to request additional information or clarifications from responding firms, or to allow corrections of
errors or omissions. At the discretion of the City, firms submitting proposals may be requested to
make oral presentations as part of the evaluation process.
The City reserves the right to retain all proposals submitted and to use any ideas in a proposal
regardless of whether that proposal is selected. Submission of a proposal indicates acceptance by the
fine of the conditions contained in this request for proposals, unless clearly and specifically noted in
the proposal submitted and confirnZed in the engagement letter between the City of Shoretivood and
the firm selected.
It is anticipated that the selection of a firm will be completed by ®ctober 27, 2008. Following the
notification of the selected firm, it is expected a Letter of Engagement will be executed by Gctober
31, 2008.
C. 'T'erm of Engagement
An initial 3-year contract is contemplated subject to annual review ofprice and performance, along
with an option to renew for an additional 3-year period. The 3-year renewal option will be at the sole
discretion of the City, with scope of services and pricing to be negotiated.
II. Subcontracting
Following the award of the audit contract, no subcontracting will be allowed without the express
prior written consent of the City of Shorewood.
II. IvA~`UIZE ®F SEISVICES IgEQUII~EI~
A. General
The City of Shorewood is soliciting the services of qualified firms of certified public accountants to
audit its financial statements for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010. This
audit is to be performed in accordance with the provisions contained in this request for proposals.
B. Scope of Work to be Performed
The City of Shorewood desires the auditor to express an opinion on the fair presentation of its basic
financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The auditor shall
also be responsible for performing certain limited procedures involving required supplementary
information required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board as mandated by generally
accepted auditing standards. The auditor is not required to audit the statistical section of the report.
The auditor is required to prepare the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, and perform an
annual review to determine necessary steps so that the City may apply to receive a Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting during this engagement. The City has been the
~~
~°
SI ~'V~
F®r Fiscal Years Ending
2008, 2009, 2010
August, 2008
TABLE OE COI®1TEl®TTS
I.
II.
III.
INTRODUCTIOl~
A. General Information
B. Instnlctions
C. Tenn of Engagement
D. Subcontracting
MATURE OF SERVICES REQUIRED
A. General
B. Scope of Work to be Performed
C. Auditing Standards to be Followed
D. Reports to be Issued
E. Reporting to the Finance Committee
F. Special Considerations
G. Working Paper Retention az~.d Access to Working Papers
I)ESCRII'TIOIoT OF TIIE GOVERNMEl~iT
A. Name and Telephone Number of Contact Person
B. Background Information
C. Fund Stnzcture
D. Budgetary Basis of Accounting
E. Federal and State Financial Assistance
F. Pension Plans
G. Component Units
H. Magnitude of Finance Operations
IV. TIME REQUIREMENTS
A. Proposal Calendar
B. Notification and Contract Dates
C. Schedule for the 2008 Fiscal Year Audit
1. Interim Work
2. Detailed Audit Plan and Programs
3. Fieldwork
4. Draft Reports
D. Date Final Report is Due
V
VI.
ASSISTAI®1CE T® BE PI2®VIDED TCI TIIE AiJDIT®It AND I2EP®IZT
PREPARATI®N
A. Finance Department and Clerical Assistance
B. Work Area, Telephone, Photocopying and FAX Machines
C. Report Preparation
PIS®P®SAI, I2EQLTII~IVIENTS
A. General Requirements
1. Submission of Notification of Interest
2. Inquiries
3. Submission of Proposals
B. Proposal
1. General Requirements
2. Independence
3. License to Practice in Minnesota
4. Firm Qualifications and Experience
5. Partner, Supervisory and Staff Qualifications and Experience
6. Similar Engagements with Other Government Entities
7. Specific Audit Approach
8. Identification of Anticipated Potential Audit Problems
9. Report Format
C. Dollar Cost Bid
1. Total All-Inclusive Maximum Price
2. Rates by Partner, Specialist, Supervisory and Staff Level Times
Hours Anticipated for Each
3. Out-of-pocket Expenses in the Total All-inclusive Maximum Price
and Reimbursement Rates
4. Rates for Additional Professional Services
5. Manner of Payment
VII. EVA.I,I.1A.'I'I®l~ PR®CEI~I.TRES
A. Audit Selection Committee
B. Evaluation Criteria
1. Mandatory Elements
2. Technical Qualifications
3. Price
C. Oral Presentations
D. Final Selection
E. Right to Reject Proposals
F. Current Audit & Accounting Service Hours
r~T'TACHIVIENTS
A. Proposer Warranties
B. Schedule of Proposed Fees for City of Shorewood Audit
recipient of the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the past
consecutive 1 S years.
C. Auditing Standards to Be Followed
To meet the requirements of this request for proposals, the audit shalt be performed in accordance
Wlth:
® The auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the
standards applicable to financial audits contained in Governcrleiat Aacditirzg
Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.
® The provisions of the Single Audit Act of 1984 (as amended in 1996).
® The provisions of U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133.
® The provisions of the Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Local
Government.
I). Reports to be Issued
Following the completion of the audit of the fiscal year's financial statements, the auditor shall issue:
1. A report on the fair presentation of the financial statements in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.
2. A report on the compliance and internal control over financial reporting based
on an audit of the financial statements.
3. A report on compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
In the required report(s) on internal controls, the auditor shall communicate any reportable conditions
found during the audit. A reportable condition shall be defined as a significant deficiency in the
design or operation of the internal control stricture, which could adversely affect the organization's
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data consistent with the assertions of
management in the financial statements.
Reportable conditions that are also material weakliesses shall be identified as such in the report.
Non-reportable conditions discovered by the auditors shall be reported in a separate letter to
management, which shall be referred to in the report on internal controls.
The reports on compliance shall include all instances of noncompliance.
Irregularities and illegal acts. Auuditors shall be required to make an immediate, written report of all
3
iz~regularities and illegal acts or indications of illegal acts of which they become aware to the
following parties:
The City Council and the City Administrator
E. Reporting to the Shorewood City Council
Auditors shall assure themselves that the City of Shorewood's City Council is infornled of each of
the following:
1. The auditor's responsibility under generally accepted auditing standards
2. Significant accounting policies
3. Management judgments and accounting estimates
4. Significant audit adjustments
5. Other information in documents containing audited financial statements
6. Disagreements with management
7. Management consultation with other accountants
8. Major issues discussed with management prior to retention
9. Difficulties encountered in performing the audit
F'. Special Considerations
1. The City of Shorewood will send its comprehensive annual financial report to
the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and
Canada for review in their Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in
Financial Reporting program.
G. Working Paper Retention and Access to Working Papers
A11 working papers and reports must be retained, at the auditor's expense, for a minimum of three (3)
years, unless the firm is notified in writing by the City of Shorewood of the need to extend the
retention period. The auditor will be required to make working papers available, upon request, to the
following parties or their designees:
4
® City of Shorewood
® MN State Auditor
® U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)
Parties designated by the federal or state governments or by the City of
Shorewood as part of an audit quality review process
® Auditors of entities of which the City of Shorewood is asub-recipient of grant
funds
In addition, the firm shall respond to the reasonable inquiries of successor auditors and allow
successor auditors to review working papers relating to matters of continuing accounting
significance.
I>lI. I~ESCI2IPTI®N ®F 'I'>E~E GOVElZN1VIE1lTT'
~i. Major Contact Person
The auditor's principal contact with the City will be Bomlie Burton, Finance
Director/Treasurer, or a designated representative, who will coordinate the assistance to be
provided by the City of Shorewood to the auditor.
B, ~ackgrounrllnforrr~ataon
® The City of Shorewood is located in Hennepin County and serves an area of 6
square miles with an estimated population of 7,500.
® The.City of Shorewood's fiscal year begins on January 1 and ends on December
31.
® The City is a statutory City with aMayor-Council form of government.
® The City provides services to its citizens which include police and fire services
(police services contracted with South Lake Minnetonka Police Department; fire
services contracted with the Excelsior Fire Department), parks, street
construction and maintenance, land-use planning, and code enforcement. The
City also provides water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer management services.
® More detailed information on the government and its finances maybe found in
the 2008 General Fund Budget and 2007 CAFI~, which are available on the
city's website at ~~.-•\~!\y.CI,Sl10ri'.l~'OOd.111n.1IS.
5
C. Budgetary Basis of Accounting
The City prepares its budgets on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles.
I?. State Financial Assistance
During the fiscal year to be audited, the City does not expect to have received in excess of $500,000
of State assistance from various programs. The specific programs and information will be available
prior to the interim work.
E. Pension Plates
All full time and certain part-time employees of the City are covered by defined benefit pension
plans administered by the Public Employees Retirement Association of Mimlesota (PERA). The
association administers the Public Employees Retirement Fund and the Public Employees Fire Fund
which are cost sharing, multiple employer retirement plans.
F. Magnitude of Finance Operations
The finance department is headed by Bonnie Burton, Finance Director/Treasurer, and consists of 2
employees. The principal functions performed, and the number of employees assigned to each area,
are as follows:
Function
Finance Director
Senior Accountant
Number of Employees
1
I~. TIME REQIJIIZEME1~tTS
A. Proposal Calendar
Request for proposal issued
Due date for proposals
August 25, 2008
September 30, 2008
B. Notification and Contract Dates
Selected firm notified
Engagement Letter executed
October 28, 2008
October 31, 200$
6
C. Schedule for 200$ Fiscal Year Audit
The City will have all records ready for audit and all management personnel available to meet with
the firnz's personnel at a date that is mutually convenient. Each of the following should be completed
by the auditor no later than the dates indicated.
I~Zterim Work
The auditor shall complete interim work by January 31, 2009.
2. Detailed Audit Plan
The auditor shall provide by January 31, 2009, to the City both a detailed
audit plan and a list of all schedules to be prepared by the City.
3. Fieldwork
The auditor shall complete all fieldwork by April 15, 2009.
4. Draft Reports
The auditor shall have reviewed drafts of the audit report(s) and completed
auditor's reports for the CAFR by May 15, 2009.
D. Date Final Report is Due
The auditor shall prepare draft financial statements, notes, required supplementary schedules and
statistical data by May 15; 2009. The auditor shall provide all recommendations, revisions, and
suggestions for improvement to the City by May 15, 2009.
Tl1e final auditor reports and twenty signed copies should be delivered to the Finance Director/
Treasurer by May 25, 2009.
The auditor shall present the audit report to the City Council at its last meeting in May, 2009.
Y. ASSISTANCE TO BE PROVIDED TO THE AUDITOR & REPORT PREPARATION
A. Finance Department and Clerical Assistance
The finance department staff and responsible management personnel will be available during the
audit to assist the firm by providing information, documentation, and explanations. The preparation
7
of confirn~ations will be the responsibility of the City.
B. Work Area, Telephones, Photocopying and FA.X 1Vlachines
The City will provide the auditor with reasonable work space, desks, and chairs. The auditor will
also be provided with access to telephone lines, photocopying facilities and FAX machines.
C. Report Preparation {CAFIZ)
Report preparation, editing, and printing shall be the responsibility of the Auditor.
VI. PROP®SAI. REQUIIZFll~IEI~tTS
A. General l~egnirerr~ents
Time will be made available to Audit Firn~s for an on-site visit should one be
desired.
2. Inquiries
Inquiries concerning the request for proposals and the subject of the request
for proposals must be made to:
Bonnie Burton, Finance Director/Treasurer
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
952/474-3236
bburton cr ci.shorewood.mn.us
Submission of Proposals
The following material is required to be received by September 30, 2008 for a
proposing firm to be considered:
a. A master copy {so marked) of a Technical Proposal and four copies to
include the following:
i. Title Page
Title page showing the request for proposals subject; the
firm's name; the name, address, and telephone number of the
8
contact person; and the date of the proposal.
ii. Table of Contents
iii. Transmittal Letter
A signed letter of transmittal briefly stating the proposer's
understanding of the work to be done, the commitment to
perform the work within the time period, a statement why the
firnl believes it to be best qualified to perfoml the engagement
and a statement that the proposal is a fine and iz-revocable
offer for 90 days.
iv. Detailed Proposal
The detailed proposal should follow the order set forth in
Section VI B of this request for proposals.
b. Proposers should send the completed proposal to the following
address:
Bonnie Burton; Finance Director/Treasurer
5755 Countzy Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
952/474-3236
bburton@ci.shorewood.mn.us
~. Proposal
1. General Requirements
The purpose of the Proposal is to demonstrate the qualifications, competence
and capacity of the firms seeking to undertake an independent audit of the
City of Shorewood in conformity with the requirements of this request for
proposals. As such, the substance of proposals will carry more weight than
their form or manner of presentation. The Technical Proposal should
demonstrate the qualifications of the firm and of the particular staff to be
assigned to this engagement. It should also specify an audit approach that
will meet the request for proposals requirements.
The Proposal should address all the points outlined in the request for
proposals. The Proposal should be prepared simply and economically,
providing a straightforward, concise description of the proposer's capabilities
to satisfy the requirements of the request for proposals. While additional data
9
may be presented, the following subjects, items No. 2 through 10, must be
included. They represent the criteria against which the proposal will. be
evaluated.
Independence
The fine should provide an affirmative statement that is independent of the
City as defined by generally accepted auditing standards/the U.S. General
Accounting Office's Government Auditing Standards (2007).
The firms should also list and describe the firm's professional relationship
involving the City or any of its agencies for the past five (5) years, together
with a statement explaining why such relationships do not constitute a
conflict of interest relative to perforn~ing the proposed audit.
lii addition, the firm shall give the City written notice of any professional
relationships entered into during the period of this agreement.
License to Practice in Minnsesota
An affirnative statement should be included that the firm and all assigned
key professional staff are properly registered and licensed to practice in
Minnesota.
4. Firn1 Qualifications and Experience
The proposer should state the size of the firm, the size of the firnz's
governmental audit staff, the location of the office from which the work on
this engagement is to be performed and the number and nature of the
professional staff to be employed in this engagement on a frill-time basis and
the number and nature of the staff to be so employed on a part-time basis.
If the proposer is a j Dint venture or consortium, the qualifications of each firm
comprising the joint venture or consortium should be separately identified
and the fine that is to serve as the principal auditor should be noted, if
applicable.
The firm is also required to submit a copy of the report on its most recent
external quality control review, with a statement whether that quality control
review included a review of specific government engagements.
The firm shall also provide information on the results of any federal or state
desk reviews or field reviews of its audits during the past three (3) years. In
addition, the firm shall provide information on the circumstances and status
10
of any disciplinary action taken or pending against the firm during the past
three (3) years with state regulatory bodies or professional organizations.
5. Paz-tner,'Supervisory and Staff Qualifications and Experience
Identify the principal supervisory and management staff, including
engagement partners, managers, other supervisors and specialists, who would
be assigned to the engagement. Indicate whether each such person is
registered or licensed to practice as a certified public accountant in
Minnesota. Provide information on the govenmlent auditing experience of
each person, including information on relevant continuing professional
education for the past three (3) years and membership in professional
organizations relevant to the performance of this audit.
Provide as much information as possible regarding the number,
qualifications, experience and training, including relevant continuing
professional education, of the specific staffto be assigned to this engagement.
Indicate how the quality of staff over the term of the agreement will be
assured.
Engagement partners, managers, other assigned staff may be changed if those
personnel leave the firm, are promoted, or are assigned to another office;
provided that the replacements have substantially the same or better
qualifications or experience. The City retains the right to approve or reject
replacements.
6. Similar Engagements with Other Govenzment Entities
For the firm's office that will be assigned responsibility for the audit, list the
most significant engagements performed in the last five years that are similar
to the engagement described in this request for proposal. These engagements
should be ranked on the basis of total staff hours. Indicate the scope of work,
date, engagement partners, total hours, and the name and telephone number
of the principal client contact.
7. Specific Audit Approach
The proposal should set forth a work plan, including an explanation of the
audit methodology to be followed, to perform the services required in Section
II of this request for proposal. In developing the work plan, reference should
be made to such sources of information as the City's budget and related
materials, organizational charts, mamials and programs, and financial and
other management information systems.
11
Proposers will be required to provide the following information on their audit
approach:
a. Proposed segmentation of the engagement
b. Level of staff and number of hours to be assiglzed to each proposed
segment of the engagement
c. Sample size and the extent to which statistical sampling is to be used
in the engagement
Identification of Anticipated Potential Audit Problems
The proposal should identify and describe any anticipated potential audit
problems, the firm's approach to resolving these problems and any special
assistance that will be requested from the City.
9.. Report Format
The proposal should include sample forniats for required reports.
C. I)®ilar Cost did
Total All-Inclusive Maximum Price
The dollar cost bid should contain all pricing information relative to
performing the audit engagement as described in this request for proposal.
The total all-inclusive maximum price to be bid is to contain all direct and
indirect costs including all out-of-pocket expenses.
The City will not be responsible for expenses incurred in preparing and
submitting the proposal. Such costs should not be included in the proposal.
2. Indicate rates by partner, manager, supervisory and staff level times and hours
anticipated for each.
The dollar-cost bid should include a schedule of professional fees and
expenses, presented in the format provided in Attachment B, that supports the
total all-inclusive maximum price.
3. A11 estimated out-of-pocket expenses to be reimbursed should be presented in
the format provided in Attachment B. All expense reimbursements will be
charged against the total all-inclusive maximum price submitted by the firm.
12
4. Rates for Additional Professional Services
If it should become necessary for the City to request the auditor to render any
additional services to either supplement the services requested in this RFP or
to perform additional work as a result of the specific recomi~zZendations
included in any report issued on this engagement, then such additional work
shall be performed only if set forth in an addendum to the contract between
the City and the fine. Any such additional work agreed to between the City
and the firnl shall be performed at the same rates set forth in the schedule of
fees and expenses included in the dollar cost bid.
5. Mamler of Payment
Progress payments will be made on the basis of hours of work completed
during the course of the engagement and out-of-pocket expenses incurred in
accordance with the firnl's dollar cost bid proposal. ITlterim billing shall
cover a period of not less than a calendar month.
VII. EVAI,IIA.TI®l~T PIZ®CEI)ITI2ES
A. Audit Selection Cornanittee
Proposals submitted maybe evaluated by the Audit Selection Committee, and subsequently by the
Shorewood City Council.
The City of Shorewood reserves the right to retain all proposals submitted and use any idea in a
proposal regardless of whether that proposal is selected.
~. Evaluation Criteria
Proposals will be evaluated using three sets of criteria. Firms meeting the mandatory criteria will
have their proposals evaluated and scored for both technical qualifications and price. The following
represent the principal selection criteria which will be considered during the evah~ation process.
1. Mandatory Elements
a. The audit firm is independent and licensed to practice in Minnesota.
b. The firm has no conflict of interest with regard to any other work
performed by the firm for the City.
c. The firm adheres to the instnlctioris in this request for proposal on
13
preparing and submitting the proposal.
d. The firm submits a copy of its last external quality control review
report and the firm has a record of quality audit work.
2. Technical Qualifications
a. Expertise and Experience
1. The firm's past experience and performance on comparable
goverrunent engagements.
2. The quality of the firm's professional personnel to be assigned
to the engagement and the quality of the firm's management
support personnel to be available for technical consultation.
b. Audit Approach
1. Adequacy of a proposed staffing plan for various segments of
the engagement.
2. Adequacy of sampling techniques.
3. Adequacy of analytical procedures.
3. Price
Please complete Attachment B.
C. ®ral Presentations
During the evaluation process the City may, at its discretion, request any one or all firms to make
oral presentations. Such presentations will provide firms with an opportunity to answer any
questions the City may have on a firm's proposal.
I). Final Selection
The Audit Selection Committee will recommend to the City Council the appointment of an
independent CPA firm judged to be the most responsive and responsible proposer, for the auditing
services requested. The final decision with respect to the appointment will be made by the City
Council.
14
E. Right to Reject Proposals
Submission of a proposal indicates acceptance by the firnl of the conditions contained in this request
for proposal unless clearly and specifically noted in the proposal submitted and confirmed in the
engagement letter between the City and the fine selected. The City of Shorewood reserves the right
without prejudice to reject any or all proposals.
15
~'I'7['r~CI31i~IEI~iT A
PAZ®P®SER VVA.RRA.1~I'I'IE5
A. Proposer warrants that it is willing and able to comply with State of Minnesota laws with
respect to foreign (non-state) corporations.
B. Proposer warrants that it is willing and able to obtain an errors and omissions insurance
policy providing a pnldent amount of coverage for the willful or negligent acts, or omissions
of any officers, employees or agents thereof.
C. Proposer warrants that it will not delegate or subcontract its responsibilities under an
agreement without the prior written permission of the City.
D. Proposer warrants that all information provided by it in comiection with this proposal is tnie
and accurate.
Signature of Official:
Name (typed):
Title:
Finn:
Date:
A
ATTACIIMEIl~T $
SCIIEI)t1LE ®~' PIZOFESSI®I~AIJ FEES AI~iI) EXPENSES F®R
TPIE AIJI)IT ®F THE 2005 FII®IANCIAI., STATEIVIEI~TS
STANDARD QUOTED
HOURLY HOURLY
HOURS RATES RATES TOTAL
PARTNERS
MANAGERS
SUPERVISORY STAFF
STAFF
OTHER (SPECIFY)
SUBTOTAL
OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES (SPECIFY)
TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED COST FOR THE 2005 AUDIT
B
SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES AND EXPENSES FOR
TIIE AUDIT OF THE 2009 FINANCIAL S'I'A'I'EM[ENTS
STANDARD QUOTED
HOURLY HOURLY
. HOURS RATES RATES
PARTNERS
MANAGERS
SUPERVISORY STAFF
STAFF
OTHER (SPECIFY)
SUBTOTAL
OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES (SPECIFY)
TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED COST FOR THE 2009 AUDIT
TOTAL
B
SCIIEI)IJLE ®F I'ROFESSI®I~tAL FEES ANI) EXPENSES F®Ia
TIIE AZJDIT ®F TIIE 2010 FII~tANCIAL STATEMEI~tTS
STANDARD QUOTED
HOURLY HOURLY
HOURS RATES RATES TOTAL
PARTNERS
MANAGERS
SUPERVISORY STAFF
STAFF
OTHER (SPECIFY)
SUBTOTAL
OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES (SPECIFY)
TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED COST FOR THE 2010 AUDIT
B
su~~~~.x scx~~u~.,~
YEAR
2008
2009
2010
NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT
GRAND TOTAL
B
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 P.E., Director of Public Works
FROM: James Landini, City Engineer - ~--
DATE: August 7, 2008
RE: Janet Sue Molin -Appeal for Exception on Notice to Connect to
Sanitary Sewer
FILE NO. Property (4405 Enchanted Point)
Ms. Molin was sent a Notice to Connect to Sanitary Sewer, together with provision of
Shorewood's municipal code section 904 (see attached Notice -Exhibit A). The property
owner requested an exception for properties with private sewage disposal systems in
existence prior to the construction of the sanitary sewer (see Exhibit B).
Ms. Molin references 904.06 subd. 3A in her appeal. This section addresses connecting to
the public sewer instead of making repairs to the private system.
MN Rules 6120.3400 Subd. 3. states: "that any premises used for human occupancy must
be provided with an adequate method of sewage treatment." The first option listed in the
rule states a publicly owned sewer systems must be used where available.
The intention of the City Code and State Rules is to protect the local private drinking
wells and Lake Minnetonka. 4405 Enchanted Point is a lake lot that is adjacent to private
drinking wells. 4405 Enchanted Point does abut a Publicly Owned Sanitary Sewer and the
service length would be approximately 175'.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the exception appeal.
vs
r®~® PRINTED ONflECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
May 15, 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
Janet Sue Molin
Re: 4405 Enchanted Point (Service Address)
1950 Westwood Cir
Roseville, MN 55113
Re: City Code 904- Sanitary Sewer Connections
Dear Ms. Molin:
City Code 904.05 requires all homes, buildings or properties used for human occupancy within
the City and abutting a public sanitary sewer to connect to the public sanitary sewer at the
property owner's expense. This connection needs to be completed within 90 days of this written
official notice. As part of City Code 904.06 the septic system will need to be abandoned after
connection to the public sanitary sewer.
Our records indicate that you have public sanitary sewer abutting your property and you have not
connected. This letter serves as the written official notice to connect.
You have the right to appeal this notification and request a hearing before the City Council to
explain why you should not be required to connect. The City must receive a written appeal within
ten (10) days of this notice. City Staff will schedule the appeal for the next City Council meeting.
The City Council meets the second and fourth Monday of each month at 7 pm.
Your first step to comply with City Code is to hire a Registered Master Plumber contractor to
make the connection and abandon the septic system. In addition, there will be fees the City
charges for service, connections and permits:
Sewer Access Charge $1,200 one time fee Sanitary Sewer Service $70 per quarter
Sewer Connection permit $150 permit fee
If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to call James Landini, City
Engineer, at 952-474-3236.
On behalf of the Shorewood City Council
r
~~
Christine Lizee, Mayor ii:~•}ii'uit;1
Cc: Tim Keane Larry Brown Brad Nielsen Bonnie Burton
.~
:~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
May 21, 2008
Christine Lizee, Mayor
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331-8927
Re: 4405 Enchanted Point
Dear Mayor Lizee:
~I!.
tai ;~ - ~ -
This is in regards to your notification letter dated May 15, 2008, regarding City Code 904
-Sanitary Sewer Connections. Thank you for notifying me of this issue.
As the owner of the subject property I wish to appeal this notification and request a
hearing before the city council on this matter.
Please provide adequate notification as to the meeting date at which this item will appear
on the council agenda.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Janet Sue Molin
Property Owner 4405 Enchanted Point
1950 Westwood Circle
Roseville, MN 55113
Cc: Tim Keane
Larry Brown
Brad Nielsen
$onnie Burton
•''James Landini
Exhibit B
May 30, 2008
James Landini
City of Shorewood
S7SS Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN SS331-8927
Re: 4405 Enchanted Point
Dear Mr. Landini:
This is in regard to your letter dated May 22, 2008, regarding City Code 904 -Sanitary
Sewer Connections.
I will attend the City Council meeting on June 9, 2008 and state my appeal.
My appeal is based on the exception provided in Shorewood City Code, Section 904.04
Subd. 3 and Section 904.06 Subd. 3, a., for properties with private sewage disposal
systems in existence prior to the construction of the sanitary sewer.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
1
9 <-
Janet Sue Molin
Property Owner 4405 Enchanted Point
1950 Westwood Circle
Roseville, MN S S 113
Cc: Christine Lizee, Mayor
Tim Keane
Lamy Brown
Brad Nielsen
Bonnie Burton
_ ~~ ~,
...... _ 't ~. ._ _ .~ _ , y
a L~
TC
E gy ~-oq
l _8 .6-~ ~~ d ~~fl ~ _.~~i_ ~ ~~.~5 r ~
1` .~' f ~~ ~~'. 1 ~ ~:i ~~ C ~ GCB C;~~-_~ ~ JT a -
~~ tC9 ~E ri .-,~ ~~ ~Ct~C~~
.
gg
gg
'~' ~ _ _ ~. _ X31 ~ ~
}~~
~~.~~ ~o` ^q
~ ~, ~~a~. ~>. ~~ ~. ~~ .Jai. ~~
~ e~3 1,IS~ ~1 q
,~ ~ ~i __ ?f)S~i 5dl~t~ ,
~ ~
,.? 3.
gg~
g
%
i
Y
a
., i. ~ d9~J
A
4
/
V b6
8
i
tri
d
&
~° ~r~Y 1 _.
6i~y
b
%
%
LEj
E2
Y
/~
~~
»»
dd
~~nn
n/yy
F
6
.
i
r 41 ~
~
9 e
~
'ey
^{
sp
~p
gd
rg
s~,
O^~
~¢g~-y
y~kg
°
~
p
g
4
~.
§,r68 cJkt.
~tY~
1346 ..,J •• / 6J
ktLE.
J
>
'-
[g
{[
~ µ }@,q
~
q
g+
%. 8F.1 V~'la 1.4 i~- ~~'w f g'
~y
~~} {. ~^g ('gg@~$ g'~ e-~p
~c
~a
p
~
~
~'
W
S~
+
~~ea~
,T
{..~~ ~ ~t.E.~
2
8,..
6
9
€d
~1
"
L
9
`°f'
o
S
P
~ £5~2
¢¢99 //''~~
r ~Q /Ld6J f
~ytpg/~p
¢
e~
`
j
~q
g
-~
e
~
+
~s p
~p,~q
g
g
~
+,
p
q
8
~
y
i
:
~
J
1
L
kTC
A
x
A
~
Y4
l
_
W
.
'.....
B6
J
V
.
9
9
.rA
i
F
JiS
76
l
~
.
&
y
~ _) L~
~
_ r^a'
ap
43
s~
ap {
pg ~`@
¢
.¢
}/
-~P ¢
g
(
~
~a
~
r
y
yg
~s
q ~
g
p
y
g
~
q
P
n
Tp
t
~
y
g
B
~o@
&
S
w
L
~AC
4s3
i
aw i.l
~
E
4
t
E
d
.•
...
~
~6
6
9
8
A
/
f
}
°
P.t.f ~
t
r
~
d d
A
i L'1JP
2
4s Pdk
9
~q-
~
_
Cip a
~
§r
3
>
~
C ~
>
r
r
1
^
1
ye
gt
gs
®d
4@
¢
y
~
p
y9
yy
yq yryg
y
s~
g
)
~
a
yq
~
e
p
@p
~a
(
~a
~t
y
E
~
~
i br t'
2
1'
3
lBd6F
~
Y
~
6~
4
1
b
e
A
d
A
@
s
.~&
sP
6
A
il
b
i+) T
m A
~
y
A BC&
6
b
¢gp
}' !-~p~g
~
s
~n
g
p
~
+py
16 i
Y
&14
r
@
d
L
B
~
y
i
i
t
r
&.
1
6 @
(
gq^ ry/
~/
yg
gg
y{
~p
~g
(a
g{g
rgge~.y
g
¢
'{q
y (
~
ya
y
~
y9
(S p
/
q
a
{
{
a
~§
y
[~
y
;
y
8
L
~41
.
/
~
~
t
9
0.J L8 t94A. ~ Y LtP
6fldM1/ 4
4i
/i3S
8
6d e
ffi
d
b
~,+~ Atblo
t
3
i
il
~
~
//
~g
ggpp
nn{{
prt
3 ~q§"~
g
~
~3
~~g
{
+
~
g
y
g
~
3
~
~
~./
P
4
J
'
V
~
I
l
~G
S.I
.J
6Ae
J ~ B. A
®se
eg
~~e5
¢
s~
u®
¢
¢
6 ~§g
gp+~r
y ~
g
n
¢~ap
g y
~
a4gtY
r
g
~
g
y
~
9F
P6s LY ~
S
d l
9 t
2
~4.+
/
~
Lk
: s.
C
~
3' / .
4..~
CtsA lX & a_ _ ~ ,%d
§.
44
`vE6.iA34
9
4{~
kpg
¢
~
p
,
y t
~
s
g
~
a (,
~
~
q
y
ry
YF78 %d 6.•d@. 6/%4-~Gdti9 &dd6L~ SL~_ _ _ Sys
$
^q $
q
^
~
yz
{
u
p
y
j
~^
`
t
•
Y
!~
(
E L~&b 6.~~6J`dd L.~ l9 ~ ~'i. ~.1 @-p~J. J bsl ~. a S.mwo'.t~tlb6e.
T~g ~ ... °
~ y
&i
C
~
~
~
.
~
l~ -"3$".
i
~~~~ -. _ ~ ';~~; ~tt~c~~. [~~r ~ sti cav4 [~~- r
gg
¢y
tp
pgq g~
a/~¢.y
y
p
~
~
P
6+dR2b t6as W3.&24JS 4+b 48 8/~ y~
)
rb ~ ~4t H
" ~iy ~x~~t ~~~ ~: rt.z ~' ~' ~ ~r~ y ~l ~~ i . ' a Y
~.t~r~ ~It c ~c~r~~~~_~~ tZ~ ~zs~ cif ~~ ~~~t~ ~~~~~ ~~_.
~~~~~t cats ~ ~~.~ ~~ty ~~z~_~ ~~ . ~a)ri~~~ ti
~~~C~~LI~~~T~
~~ ~~; ~ 1
~ ~_,
~mr~ Et~c,~tieA~t ~~Cai~I~