Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/26/2012LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2012 LAUDERDALE CITY HALL, 1891 WALNUT STREET The City Council is meeting as a legislative body to conduct the business of the City according to Robert's Rules of Order and the Standing Rules of Order and Business of the City Council. Unless so ordered by the Mayor, citizen participation is limited to the times indicated and always within the prescribed rules of conduct for public input at meetings. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVALS a. Agenda b. Minutes of the June 12, 2012, City Council Meeting c. Claims Totaling $23,794.55 4. CONSENT a. Contractor Safety Policy b. May Finances 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS/RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS a. Recognition of Girl Scout Gold Award Recipient — Kallie Nelson 6. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATIONS / REPORTS a. Presentation by MWMO Staff 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public hearings are conducted so that the public affected by a proposal may have input into the decision. During hearings all affected residents will be given an opportunity to speak pursuant to the Robert's Rules of Order and the standing rules of order and business of the City Council. DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS a. Proclamation Policy b. Reconsider Date of August 14 Council Meeting (Primary Election Day) c. No Fault Sewer Backup Insurance Options d. Liability and Workers Compensation Insurance Renewal e. Community Use of City Property 9. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 10. ADDITIONAL ITEMS 11. SET AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING a. City Logo Design Discussion 12. WORK SESSION a. Opportunity for the Public to Address the City Council Any member of the public may speak at this time on any item not on the agenda. In consideration for the public attending the meeting for specific items on the agenda, this portion of the meeting will be limited to fifteen (15) minutes. Individuals are requested to limit their comments to four (4) minutes or less. If the majority of the Council determines that additional time on a specific issue is warranted, then discussion on that issue shall be continued at the end of the agenda. Before addressing the City Council, members of the public are asked to step up to the microphone, give their name, address, and state the subject to be discussed. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a whole and not to any member thereof. No person other than members of the Council and the person having the floor shall be permitted to enter any discussion without permission of the presiding officer. Your participation, as prescribed by the Robert's Rules of Order and the standing rules of order and business of the City Council, is welcomed and your cooperation is greatly appreciated. b. Police Contract: 2014 and Beyond c. Resident Concerns: Storm Water Drainage at 1786 Walnut, Previous Alley Improvements at 1843 Malvern Street, and Siting of Playground Equipment 13. ADJOURNMENT LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 1 of 4 June 12, 2012 Mayor Dains called the City Council meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Councilors present: Mary Gaasch, Roxanne Grove, Denise Hawkinson, Lara Mac Lean, and Mayor Jeff Dains. Staff present: Heather Butkowski, City Administrator; Jim Bownik, Assistant to the City Administrator; and Kevin Kelly, Deputy City Clerk. Mayor Dains asked for changes to the meeting agenda. The Council offered no changes to the agenda. Mayor Dains added an item to the work session regarding city proclamations. Councilor Gaasch moved to approve the agenda as amended. Councilor Hawkinson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Councilor Gaasch moved to approve the May 22, 2012, City Council meeting minutes. Councilor Hawkinson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Councilor Hawkinson moved approval of the claims totaling $109,976.93. Councilor Gaasch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The Council removed the PCIC Minutes and Music under the Trees from the consent agenda. Councilor Mac Lean moved the remaining consent agenda items approving 2012 business licenses and park use applications. Councilor Gaasch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Cor Wilson, Executive Director of the North Suburban Cable Commission (NSCC), addressed the Council with information regarding CTV and the cable franchise renewal with Comcast. The NSCC had a technical audit of Comcast's equipment since Wilson's last appearance before the Council. The technical audit found 300 electrical code violations that Comcast must fix within 45 days. The Cable Commission continues to work towards an October 2013 cable franchise renewal. Jerry Hromatka, President of Northwest Youth and Family Services (NYFS), addressed the Council. Hromatka said Lauderdale was one of NYFS's founding communities over 30 years ago. NYFS continues to provide services to residents of Lauderdale and served 13 households in 2010 and 17 households in 2011. Services are assured for residents in the communities which are part of the collaborative. The Council said they would reconsider the city's sponsorship of NYFS during the 2013 budget discussion. LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 2 of 4 The Council took a break at 8:26 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:37 p.m. Discussion Items: Butkowski stated the tables and chairs, which are available to residents at no charge, are beginning to wear out. She suggested a fee be charged in order to begin replacing damaged tables and chairs. The Council agreed there is a need for a fee for renting social room items along with a damage deposit. Staff will research a fee amount which is reasonable and will provide funds to begin equipment replacement. Butkowski asked the Council to address policy questions for the rental housing ordinance update. First, the rental housing ordinance allows for three incidents at rental properties in a three month span before revocation of a license can begin. The Council discussed that this is too lenient and suggested changing the ordinance to three incidents within a license year to allow the City to respond in a more efficient manner to properties with problem tenants. Butkowski added that Brandychase Condominiums board members discussed whether they should be included in the city's rental licensing program. Initially, some owners asked to be excluded. The Council agreed this is a good idea as it will bring consistency to rental properties throughout the City. The August 14 council meeting corresponds with the 2012 Primary Election. The Council tentatively agreed to change the date to August 15 at 7:30 p.m. The date change of this meeting will be finalized at the June 26 meeting. Items removed from the Consent Agenda: Bownik presented on the two music events this summer at Community Park. They are scheduled for Monday June 25 and Monday July 23 at 7:30 p.m. Bownik stated the performers won't play copywrited music as the City has not paid for music performance licenses. Bownik also stated that Hamline Auto Body sponsored the music again this year. Schwan's will also be present at the event selling their products as well as offering treats to the park goers. If Schwan's sells $750.00 or more of their products at the park, 10% of the proceeds will be donated to the Community Events Fund. Councilor Hawkinson moved to approve the Music Under the Trees agenda item. Councilor Mac Lean seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 3 of 4 The Council addressed the Park and Community Involvement Committee (PLIC) meeting minutes from June 4. Hawkinson was concerned about the number of committee members currently attending the meetings. Further discussion was in regard to the City pursuing ways to encourage residents to volunteer. Bownik made an example of the City of Winsted. Winsted received a grant to send residents to a leadership academy. Some of those individuals identified community needs and initiated community building events without city staff or resources. Councilors liked this idea and suggested other ways to find volunteers. Councilor Hawkinson moved to acknowledge the PCIC meeting minutes from June 4. Councilor Grove seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Agenda items for the June 24 council meeting include a discussion with Chief Ohl regarding future police contracts and a presentation by the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization. Mayor Dains explained the Council was moving into the work session. Work sessions are a continuation of the meeting but not aired on community television. The Mayor asked if anyone present wished to address the Council. Natalie Micheal of 1786 Walnut Street addressed the Council. She has owned her home for twc years and said rain water is getting into her basement. She believes the alley drainage pattern is contributing to her water problems. She discussed adding a berm along the alley to divert water with her driveway contractor. Mayor Dains stated any work by the City on the alley could be considered a public improvement and homeowners in the area would be assessed for the work. The Council directed staff to contact the city engineer for guidance on options. Butkowski explained that each spring growth into alleys becomes a problem. Public works staff have trimmed problem areas and residents have come to expect the City will do this work. Last year the City received a complaint by someone whose plants were trimmed. Butkowski brought it to the council's attention as the City is only legally allowed to trim growth which grows over city property (the paved portion of the alley). Mayor Dains suggested sending letters to the property owners with overgrown plants and give them two weeks to trim the growth. If the home owner didn't take care of the growth, city staff can trim the portion hanging over the alley. Mayor Dains said he was asked to prepare a proclamation for an event this weekend. Mayor Dains said the City hasn't issued proclamations in the past but wanted Council input. Gaasch suggested the City study other cities' policies and practices in this area. LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 4 of 4 There being no further business on the council agenda, Councilor Hawkinson moved to adjourn the meeting. Councilor Gaasch seconded the motion and it carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Kel y Deputy City Clerk CITY OF LAUDERDALE CLAIMS FOR APPROVAL June 26, 2012 City Council Meeting Payroll 06/22/12 Payroll: Direct Deposit # 501391-501400 06/22/12 Payroll: Payroll Liabilities, e -payments #676E -679E Vendor Claims 06/26/12 Claims: Check #'s 21266-21281 $8,280.93 $7,013.80 SUBTOTAL $23,794.551 Total Claims for Approval $23,794.55 CITY OF LAUDERDALE 06/22/12 9:47 AM Page 1 *Claim Register© 62212pyroll JUNE 2012 Claim Type Direct Claim# 2720 NORTH STAR BANK, CHECKING S Ck# 000676E 6/22/2012 Cash Payment G 101-21703 FICA WITHHOLDING. 06/22/2012 Payroll $1,757.59 Invoice Cash Payment G 101-21701 FEDERAL TAXES 06/22/2012 Payroll $1,130.06 Invoice Transaction Date 6/22/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $2,887.65 Claim# 2721 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- 457 Ck# 000677E 6/22/2012 Cash Payment G 101-21705 ICMA RETIREMENT 06/22/2012 Payroll $1,474.18 Invoice Transaction Date 6/22/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $1,474.18 Claim# 2722 PERA Ck# 000678E6/22/2012KK��������.,�.s.����� Cash Payment G 101-21704 PERA 06/22/2012 Payroll $1,553.36 Invoice Transaction Date 6/22/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $1,553.36 Claim# 2723 MN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Ck# 000679E 6/22/2012 Cash Payment G 101-21702 STATE WITHHOLDING 06/22/2012 Payroll $1,098.61 Invoice Transaction Date 6/22/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $1,098.61 Claim Type Direct Tota $7,013.80 Pre -Written Check $7,013.80 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $0.00 Total $7,013.80 CITY OF LAUDERDALE 06/22/12 1:39 PM Page 1 *Claim Register© 062612cl JUNE 2012 Claim Type Direct Claim# 2724 XCEL ENERGY, STREET LIGHTING Ck# 021281 6/26/2012 Cash Payment E 101-43000-380 STREET LIGHT UTILITY 5/12 Street Lights $501.82 Invoice Transaction Date 6/22/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $501.82 Claim# 2725 XCEL ENERGY, PARK & GARAGE Ck# 021280 6/26/2012 Cash Payment E 101-43000-383 GAS UTILITIES 6/12 PW and Warming House $28.98 Invoice Cash Payment E 101-45200-383 GAS UTILITIES 6/12 PW and Warming House $28.98 Invoice Cash Payment E 101-43000-381 ELECTRIC 6/12 PW and Warming House $11.06 Invoice Cash Payment E 101-45200-381 ELECTRIC 6/12 PW and Warming House $11.07 Invoice Transaction Date 6/22/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $80.09 Claim# 2726 G & K SERVICES Ck# 021270 6/26/2012 , Cash Payment E 601-49000-425 CLOTHING 5/12/ PW Clothing $52.34 Invoice Cash Payment E 602-49100-425 CLOTHING 5/12/ PW Clothing $52.34 Invoice Transaction Date 6/22/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $104.68 Claim#.2727 SPRI�v.�� NT PCS Ck# 021277 6/26/2012 Cash Payment E 101-43000-391 TELEPHONE/PAGERS 5/12 PW Cell Phones $36.49 Invoice Cash Payment E 601-49000-391 TELEPHONE/PAGERS 5/12 PW Cell Phones $18.25 Invoice Cash Payment E 602-49100-391 TELEPHONE/PAGERS 5/12 PW Cell Phones $18.25 Invoice Transaction Date 6/22/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $72.99 Claim# 2728 METRO GARAGE DOOR CO. Ck# 021272 6/26/2012 Cash Payment E 101-43000-228 MISC REPAIRS MAINT S PW Garage Door Repair $936.87 Invoice Transaction Date 6/22/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $936.87 Claim# 2729 PREMIUM WATERS, INC Ck# 021274 6/26/2012 ..4� Cash Payment E 101-41200-208 WATER DELIVERY 5/12 Water Delivery $60.47 Invoice Transaction Date 6/22/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $60.47 Claim# 2730 RAPIT PRINTING Ck# 021276 6/26/2012�� Cash Payment G 101-21710 SALES & USE TAX 2 boxes of City Envelopes $5.60 Invoice Cash Payment E 101-41200-201 GENERAL SUPPLIES 2 boxes of City Envelopes $78.50 Invoice Transaction Date 6/22/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $84.10 Claim# 2731 � APM � � POFMN 7 6/26/2012 Ck#02126. Cash Payment E 101-41200-438 DUES & SUBSCRIPTION 2012 Membership -JB $30.00 Invoice Transaction Date 6/22/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $30.00 CITY OF LAUDERDALE 06/22/12 1:39 PM Page 2 'Claim Register© 062612cl JUNE 2012 Claim# 2732 ON SITE SANITATION Ck# 021273 6/26/2012 Cash Payment E 101-45200-427 PORTA POTTY RENTAL 2 Extra Portable Restrooms for Event $117.56 Invoice Transaction Date 6/22/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $117.56 Claim# 2733 275 6/26/2012 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES INS PROGRA Ck# 021 6/2 Cash Payment G 101-21706 HEALTH INSURANCE 7/12 Health Benefits $2,357.02 Invoice Transaction Date 6/22/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $2,357.02 Claim# 2734 CROIX OIL Ck# 021268 6/26/2012 Cash Payment E 101-43000-212 MOTOR FUELS 5/12 Motor Fuels $427.12 Invoice Cash Payment E 601-49000-212 MOTOR FUELS 5/12 Motor Fuels $91.52 Invoice Cash Payment E 602-49100-212 MOTOR FUELS 5/12 Motor Fuels $91.52 Invoice Transaction Date 6/22/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $610.16 Claim# 2735 INTEGRA Ck# 021271 6/26/2012�� Cash Payment E 101-41200-391 TELEPHONE/PAGERS 5/12 Fax Line $45.07 Invoice Transaction Date 6/22/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $45.07 Claim# 2736 STANTEC Ck# 021278 6/26/2012 Cash Payment E 601-49000-304 ENGINEERING Sanitary Sewer Mapping $937.50 Invoice Cash Payment E 101-48100-306 CONSULTING FEES Muni Liquor Consulting $288.00 Invoice Cash Payment E 602-49100-304 ENGINEERING Review MS4 Annual Report $45.50 Invoice Transaction Date 6/22/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $1,271.00 Claim# � 2737 EUREKA RECYCLING Ck# 021269 6/26/2012m���� Cash Payment E 203-50000-389 RECYCLING CONTRACT 6/12 Recycling Contract $2,059.00 Invoice Transaction Date 6/22/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $2,059.00 Claim# 2738 SUBURBAN ACE HARDWARE Ck# 021279 6/26/2012 Cash Payment E 101-43000-228 MISC REPAIRS MAINT S Power Equipment Parts & Paint Supplies $59.81 Invoice Transaction Date 6/22/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $59.81 Claim# 2739 AFSCME Ck# 021266 6/26/2012 Cash Payment G 101-21709 UNION DUES 6/12 Union Dues $109.18 Invoice Transaction Date 6/22/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $109.18 Claim Type Direct Tota $8,499.82 CITY OF LAUDERDALE 06/22/12 1:39 PM Page 3 *Claim Register© 062612cl JUNE 2012 Pre -Written Check $8,499.82 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $0.00 Total $8,499.82 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion X Action X Resolution Work Session Meeting Date June 26, 2012 ITEM NUMBER JContractor Safety Policye STAFF INITIAL h -3 APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: Every year staff meet with folks from Berkeley Risk. They work with cities (on behalf of the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust) to identify ways to minimize insurance risks. One of their recommendations is for the City to adopt a contractors' safety policy. Staff drafted one based on their template for Council consideration. OPTIONS: Amend or adopt the following policy. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to adopt the Contractor Safety Policy as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY OF LAUDERDALE Contractor Safety Policy Section 1: Definitions A. Contract: A legally binding agreement between the City of Lauderdale and a contractor to provide goods or perform services. B. Contractor: A contractor is any person or entity hired to perform work on a contract basis. Contractors are not City of Lauderdale employees, are not directly supervised by City of Lauderdale employees, and are paid according to terms of a contract. Also referred to as an Independent Contractor. C. On-call Contractor: A contractor who is used on an on-going basis for the City of Lauderdale to perform work as needed. D. Sub -contractor: Any entity or person hired by the contractor to complete parts of the proj ect. Section 2: Program Requirements A. Contractor safety records 1. The City of Lauderdale will make efforts to hire contractors with good safety records. Bid specifications for contract work exceeding $100,000 will, when possible, include a requirement that the contractor have a workers' compensation modifier of 1.1 or lower. Alternatively, bid specifications will include language that weighs workers' compensation modifiers when determining who will be awarded the contract. 2. Before a contractor may be awarded a contract, the contractor must provide the City of Lauderdale with proof of workers' compensation and liability insurance. The coverage must be adequate to provide proper protection to the City of Lauderdale. B. Insurance requirements 1. When a new contract is awarded, the contractor must name the city on all relevant policies as an "Additional Insured". 2. On-call contractors must provide updated coverage information annually as well as when their coverage changes and when their policies are renewed. 3. Prior to beginning work, the contractor must provide the City of Lauderdale with the appropriate certificates of insurance. C. Indemnification 1. The contractor should agree to defend and indemnify the City of Lauderdale for any claim against the City of Lauderdale or City of Lauderdale employees, officers or agents arising from the contractor's acts or omissions. D. Unsafe acts 1. If a City of Lauderdale employee witnesses a contractor or sub -contractor performing an unsafe act, the employee should report the act to the Public Works Coordinator immediately. If action is necessary after evaluating the report, the Public Works Coordinator or his designee shall stop the act, or communicate with the contractor or sub -contractor to stop the act. 2. If a citizen or other non-employee reports an unsafe act, the City of Lauderdale employee who receives the report should provide the report to the Public Works Coordinator. It is the responsibility of the Public Works Coordinator or his designee to investigate the report, and if necessary, stop the unsafe act in accordance with subsection (C)(1) above. 3. Employees who are working in conjunction with a contractor or sub -contractor may refuse any work that they perceive as dangerous to life or health. E. Written safety programs and training 1. Bid specifications for projects over $100,000 should include a requirement that the contractor provide any pertinent written safety programs to the City of Lauderdale prior to being awarded the contract. Pertinent written safety programs are any written safety programs that would normally be required by OSHA or other regulatory bodies to perform the work in question. 2. Bid specifications for projects exceeding $100,000 will normally include a requirement that the contractor provide records of any pertinent safety training to the City of Lauderdale prior to being awarded the contract. Pertinent safety training is any training that would normally be required by OSHA or other regulatory bodies to perform the work in question. Examples of this training may be: permit - required confined space entry, employee right -to -know, etc. 3. Any City of Lauderdale employees who are affected by the contract work must be provided with, read, and understand the contractors and sub -contractors pertinent written safety programs. 4. The primary contractor on any project will determine which safety program(s) to follow for the contractor's employees and for sub -contractors. F. Sub -contractors 1. Sub -contractors are bound by the same obligations as contractors for the purposes of this program. All sub -contractors must provide certificates of insurance, and name the City of Lauderdale as an "Additional Insured" on their policies. 2. Supervision of sub -contractors is the responsibility of the primary contractor who hired the sub -contractor. 3. The primary contractor is responsible for ensuring that sub -contractors, if any, perform their work in a safe and healthful manner. 4. Sub -contractors must provide a copy of any pertinent written safety programs and records of pertinent safety training to the City of Lauderdale and to the primary contractor prior to beginning any work. G. Supervision 1. The City of Lauderdale will designate the Public Works Coordinator or his designee to act as a liaison to the contractor. 2. The designated representative of the City of Lauderdale has the authority to immediately halt any acts performed by the contractor and sub -contractors. 3. Contractors are responsible for supervision of their personnel and sub -contractors at all times. 4. All problems must be communicated promptly. H. Large projects 1. Details of fire safety and site security for a large project should be determined prior to awarding a contract, and should be written into the bid specifications and the contract. If these details change while the project is in progress, the contract should be amended. 2. If the City of Lauderdale provides employees for fire watch, security, etc., those employees are to be supervised by the Public Works Supervisor or his designee. 3. City of Lauderdale employees who participate with the contractor or any sub- contractor as fire watch, security, etc. should receive training on any non -routine work they are performing. 1. Use of equipment 1. Every effort should be made for contractors and sub -contractors to use their own equipment, and for City of Lauderdale employees to use City of Lauderdale equipment. If equipment is shared, there should be a written agreement between the parties on how to handle liability and property damage. 2. In an emergency, a contractor or sub -contractor may use City of Lauderdale equipment (e.g. using a City of Lauderdale fire extinguisher to put out a fire). Approved by the Lauderdale City Council on June 26, 2012. Signed: Signed: Mayor City Administrator -Clerk Date: Date: LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent X Public Hearing Discussion Action Resolution Work Session Meeting Date June 26, 2012 ITEM NUMBER May Finances Pf STAFF INITIAL C APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: Every month I provide the Council with an updated copy of the city's finances. Following are the numbers for May 2012. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: By approving the consent agenda, the Council acknowledges the city's finances for May 2012. COUNCIL ACTION: GENERAL FUND REVENUE 2009 2010 Actual Actual 2011 2012 2012 Actual As of May 31 Adopted CITY LEVIED TAXES 31010 Current Ad Valorem 425,397 411,088 430,496 (0) 496,993 31020 Delinquent Ad Valorem 3,534 1,841 10,700 (36) - 31040 Fiscal Disparities 101,843 109,600 110,695 (0) 101,159 SUB TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 530,775 522,528 551,891 (37) 598,152 STATE AIDE 33401 Local Government Aide 557,218 516,153 516,153 - 516,153 33405 PERA Rate Increase Aide 1,198 1,198 1,198 - 1,198 33406 Market Value Home Credit 28,839 101 64 - - TOTAL STATE AIDE 587,255 517,452 517,415 - 517,351 LICENSES AND FEES 32110 3.2 Alcohol License 150 150 150 - 150 32120 Cigarette License 200 600 400 - 400 32130 Garbage Hauler Licenses 1,170 1,275 1,125 1,350 1,000 32140 HVAC Licenses 890 1,453 1,250 350 600 32150 Tree Company License 140 700 300 300 300 32180 Rental License Fee 3,366 4,091 3,534 515 3,000 32240 Animal Licenses 290 390 380 90 250 34101 City Hall/Park Rental 3,945 4,955 7,080 3,205 4,000 43103 Administrative Fee 83 - 25 25 - 34105 Sale of Publications - - - - - 34109 Copies 61 51 64 8 50 34114 Advertising sales - 50 75 - - 34115 Miscellaneous Revenue - - - - - TOTAL LICENSES AND FEES 10,295 13,715 14,383 5,843 9,750 REVENUE OTHER 36100 Special Assessments 9,677 20,918 46,258 (0) - 36101 Principal - - - - 36102 Penalties and Interest 2,182 1,485 5,066 36 - 36103 Tree Removal - - - - 36200 Miscellaneous Revenue - - - - - 36211 Investment Interest 11,018 6,492 3,283 1,189 6,000 36230 Donations 3,000 1,500 - - 36231 Dog Park Donations 50 10 25 - - 36240 State Surcharge - Construction Permits 539 336 444 294 300 36250 Refunds and Reimbursements 3,511 1,140 - - - 36252 LMCIT Insurance Dividend 2,905 3,015 3,783 2,334 - 36255 Miscellaneous - - 23 17 - 39101 Sales Fixed Assets 1 - - - - TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 29,882 36,396 60,382 3,870 6,300 PUBLIC SAFETY 40,547 41,330 53,202 18,860 38,500 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS 20,487 13,674 13,894 9,706 8,200 TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS - - - - - TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 1,219,241 1,145,095 1,211,167 38,242 1,178,253 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND REVENUE 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted Legislative 22,634 24,481 25,587 6,814 27,563 Administrative 168,728 144,697 142,528 65,187 163,030 Audit, Elections, and Legal Services 6,234 46,958 41,923 21,198 52,873 Public Safety Police 582,567 585,398 599,966 252,429 613,695 Fire 35,529 29,232 32,782 23,206 35,500 Prosecution 11,545 - - - - Public Works 92,877 86,632 91,649 30,726 101,724 Planning & Inspections 22,568 46,241 42,676 17,500 52,620 Parks and Recreation 71,716 63,978 63,487 24,078 65,248 Development 1,235 1,648 5,882 3,383 26,000 EXPENDITURES BEFORE TRANSFERS 1,015,633 1,029,264 1,046,480 444,521 1,138,253 Contingency - - 20,000 - 20,000 Transfers Out 31,000 112,594 - - 20,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 1,046,633 1,141,858 1,066,480 444,521 1,178,253 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 LEGISLATIVE (41100) Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted EXPENDITURES Personnel 103 Part-time employees 13,200 13,200 13,200 5,500 13,200 122 FICA 1,010 1,010 1,010 421 1,010 151 Workers Comp 59 118 98 - 103 Subtotal Personnel 14,269 14,328 14,308 5,921 14,313 General Operations 201 General Supplies - 39 100 - - 202 Permanent Supplies - - - - - 203 Postage 84 - - - - 305 Legal Fees - 500 - - - 308 Training and Conferences - 930 1,634 220 3,000 331 Travel 24 72 337 6 500 352 Public Notices 292 391 792 114 700 361 General Liability 5,228 5,331 5,556 - 6,000 438 Dues and Subscriptions 2,671 2,695 2,756 525 2,800 439 Special Events - - - - - 440 Meeting Expenses 66 196 104 28 250 442 Miscellaneous Expenses - - - - - Subtotal General Operations 8,365 10,153 11,279 893 13,250 Capital Equipment 530 Furniture and Equipment - - - - - 538 Computer software and Equipment - - - - - Subtotal Capital Equipment - - - - - TOTAL LEGISLATIVE EXPENSE! 22,634 24,481 25,587 6,814 27,563 ADMINISTRATION 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 & FINANCE (41200) Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted EXPENDITURES Personnel 101 Full-time employees 102,536 90,954 89,552 39,468 99,551 104 Temp. employees - - - - 121 PERA 6,836 6,470 6,405 2,861 7,217 122 FICA 8,004 7,297 7,074 3,122 7,616 131 Benefits (health, dental, etc) 9,272 10,116 10,624 5,009 12,150 142 Unemployment Benefits - 55 110 - - 151 Workers Compensation 559 965 712 - 796 Subtotal Personnel 127,206 115,857 114,477 50,460 127,330 General Operations 201 General Supplies 1,731 1,899 596 799 1,500 202 Permanent Supplies 14 203 Postage 1,817 2,626 2,120 1,110 3,500 208 Water cooler water 303 277 314 86 400 301 Auditing 12,904 - - - - 305 Legal contract - Civil 3,567 - - - - 306 Consulting fees (IT Support) 5,440 5,440 5,440 1,994 6,000 307 Computer Services (Banyon) 1,560 1,561 1,561 1,561 1,600 308 Training and conferences 1,004 772 1,315 1,091 2,000 309 Newspaper - Roseville Review - - - - 327 Other Services - - 108 114 400 331 Travel Expenses 929 765 711 197 1,000 352 Public information and notices 726 662 689 - 1,000 353 Newletter Printing 2,469 2,438 2,508 1,258 3,000 354 Phonebook Printing - - - - - 355 Miscellaneous printing & process 285 1,000 270 125 500 361 General liability 4,652 4,955 5,113 - 5,500 391 Telephones/Fax (City Hall) 1,769 1,666 1,784 662 2,000 401 Copier 379 1,349 2,852 1,126 3,000 404 Computer Repair/Maintenance - - - - - 409 Other equipment repair - - - - - 438 Dues and Subscriptions 1,474 2,491 1,476 2,225 2,600 440 Meeting Expenses 85 159 53 - 200 442 Miscellaneous expenses 78 779 141 158 500 Subtotal General Operations 41,172 28,840 27,051 12,520 34,700 Capital Expenditures 530 Furniture and equipment - - - - - 531 Office equipment - - - - - 534 Office furniture - - - - - 538 Computers and technology 351 - 1,000 2,207 1,000 Subtotal Capital 351 - 1,000 2,207 1,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 168,728 144,697 142,528 65,187 163,030 2011 2012 2012 Actual As of May 31 Adopted 10,967 AUDITING, ELECTIONS, 2009 2010 3,404 AND LEGAL SERVICES (41500) Actual Actual 535 EXPENDITURES 223 565 1,370 Personnel 900 57 - 101 Full-time employees 3,724 12,440 104 Temp. employees 968 2,242 121 PERA 239 869 122 FICA 296 974 131 Benefits (health, dental, etc) 198 1,486 151 Workers Compensation 35 105 Subtotal Personnel 5,461 18,116 General Operations 201 General Supplies - 512 300 Legal Services - Prosecution - 10,032 301 Auditing - 12,880 305 Legal Services - Civil - 4,581 327 Other Services 586 432 331 Travel Expenses - - 352 Public information & Notices 96 - 355 Miscellaneous Fees - 406 409 Other equipment and repair - - 440 Meeting expenses 91 - 442 Miscellaneous expenses - - Subtotal General Operations 774 28,842 Capital Expenditures 530 Furniture and equipment - - 531 Office equipment - - 534 Office furniture - - 538 Computers and technology - - Subtotal Capital - - TOTAL EXPENSES 6,234 46,958 2011 2012 2012 Actual As of May 31 Adopted 10,967 2,915 9,899 - 3,404 2,500 760 211 535 847 223 565 1,370 371 900 57 - 74 14,001 3,720 14,473 300 10,200 3,408 12,000 13,576 12,680 14,000 3,404 1,337 10,000 426 - 700 - - 500 316 53 700 - - 200 27,922 17,478 38,400 41,923 21,198 52,873 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 PUBLIC SAFETY (42100) Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted REVENUE 34202 False Fire Alarm 424 - 223 223 500 34203 Fire Inspection Fee - - 1,000 - 1,000 34205 Fire Call Reimbursement 1,252 - - - - 35101 Court Fines (including traffic tickets) 38,872 41,330 51,979 18,637 37,000 TOTAL REVENUE 40,547 41,330 53,202 18,860 38,500 EXPENDITURES General Operations 305 Legal Fees - Prosecution 10,152 - - - - 355 Miscellaneous fees - Printing 1,392 - - - Subtotal Prosecution 11,545 - - - - 318 911 Dispatch - - 9,620 4,042 12,126 319 Police Contract 578,250 578,595 590,167 248,362 596,069 360 General Liability - - - - 5,000 391 Telephone/Pager - - - 442 Miscellaneous Exp. 4,317 6,803 179 25 500 Subtotal Police 582,567 585,398 599,966 252,429 613,695 320 Fire Contract 18,630 17,826 17,685 16,484 18,000 321 Fire Calls 16,475 11,186 14,874 6,481 16,000 322 False Fire Alarms 424 219 223 241 500 323 Fire Inspections - - - - 1,000 Subtotal Fire 35,529 29,232 32,782 23,206 35,500 TOTAL EXPENSES 629,641 614,630 632,748 275,635 649,195 Capital Expenditures 530 Furniture and equipment 538 Land - Subtotal Capital - TOTAL EXPENSES 92,877 86,632 91,649 2010 2011 2012 2012 Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted 31,244 31,449 2009 28,066 PUBLIC WORKS (43000) Actual EXPENDITURES 3,000 Personnel 2,453 990 101 Full-time employees 44,294 102 Overtime/On-Call 2,191 121 PERA 3,004 122 FICA 3,516 131 Benefits (health, dental, etc) 4,702 151 Workers Compensation 2,097 676 Subtotal Personnel 59,804 General Operations 3,463 202 Permanent Supplies - 212 Motor Fuels 1,587 213 Lubricants and other fluids - 225 Landscaping Materials 15 226 Signs - 227 Tools and Equipment - 228 Miscellaneous Repairs & Supplies 1,008 304 Engineering Contract - 308 Training and conferences 165 313 Snow and Ice Removal Contact 5,207 314 Street Sweeping Contract 5,062 317 Tree Service 3,214 324 Alley Repair - 327 Other Services/ Floor Maintenance 356 328 Street Repair - 380 Electricity - Street Lighting 6,168 381 Electricity 2,457 382 Water 69 383 Gas Utilities 3,075 384 Refuse Disposal 1,189 391 Telephone/Pagers 534 402 Truck repair and Maintenance 2,968 426 Machinery rental - 442 Miscellaneous - - Subtotal General Operations 33,073 Capital Expenditures 530 Furniture and equipment 538 Land - Subtotal Capital - TOTAL EXPENSES 92,877 86,632 91,649 2010 2011 2012 2012 Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted 31,244 31,449 12,299 28,066 3,030 2,451 1,355 3,000 2,573 2,453 990 2,252 2,920 2,720 1,098 2,377 4,162 4,505 1,830 4,500 3,549 2,487 - 1,429 47,477 46,065 17,572 41,624 305 676 625 500 2,500 3,463 780 3,000 - 46 - - - 21 55 - 457 2,469 364 2,000 337 - - 1,000 165 165 - 400 11,268 11,442 3,631 15,000 5,026 4,762 1,064 6,000 3,642 3,441 - 10,000 - - - 1,000 328 1,364 1,079 1,500 5,896 6,745 2,309 6,400 3,067 3,172 977 3,200 63 68 16 100 2,674 2,720 1,086 3,500 1,481 1,967 927 3,000 488 398 209 500 1,363 2,653 32 3,000 96 12 - - 39,154 45,584 13,154 60,100 30,726 101,724 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS (43400) Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted REVENUE Other 32210 Building Permits 11,688 9,163 8,967 5,756 5,000 32211 Zoning Permit Applications 1,210 700 850 400 500 32225 Plan Review 4,692 1,488 1,559 2,449 1,000 32230 Plumbing Permits 1,236 1,248 768 496 700 32270 HVAC Permits 1,410 975 1,650 455 1,000 32280 Street Excavation 100 100 100 - - 34110 Variance Fee 150 - - 150 - 34112 Conditional Use Permit - - - - - 34113 Zoning Amendment - - - - - TOTAL REVENUE 20,487 13,674 13,894 9,706 8,200 EXPENDITURES Personnel 101 Full-time employees 14,686 27,923 25,898 12,988 32,444 121 PERA 963 1,966 1,843 942 2,352 122 FICA 1,169 2,330 2,183 1,080 2,482 131 Benefits (health, dental, etc) 1,110 3,409 3,604 1,828 4,725 151 Workers Compensation 207 1,224 1,319 - 1,317 Subtotal Personnel 18,136 36,852 34,847 16,838 43,320 General Operations 201 General Supplies - - - - - 202 Permanent Supplies - - - - - 203 Postage 173 219 360 175 300 306 Consulting Fees 452 8,015 5,948 - 5,300 308 Training and conferences 450 450 500 175 500 312 Building Inspector 2,408 35 - 2,000 327 Other Services - - - - - 331 Travel Expenses - - - - - 355 Miscellaneous Printing - - - 33 - 386 Gopher State One Call 531 422 486 190 600 442 Miscellaneous expenses - 10 175 - 200 443 Surcharge Report 419 239 360 89 400 Subtotal General Operations 4,432 9,389 7,829 662 9,300 Capital Expenditures 530 Furniture and equipment - - - - - 531 Office equipment - - - - - 534 Office furniture - - - - - 538 Computers and technology - - - - - Subtotal Capital - - - - - TOTAL EXPENSES 22,568 46,241 42,676 17,500 52,620 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 PARKS AND RECREATION (45200) Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted EXPENDITURES Personnel 101 Full-time employees 51,253 41,317 41,006 15,604 38,932 104 Temp. employees 3,555 4,403 4,199 2,691 6,000 121 PERA 3,431 2,960 2,964 1,131 2,823 122 FICA 4,322 3,747 3,633 1,470 3,437 131 Benefits (health, dental, etc) 5,102 4,946 5,471 2,303 6,300 151 Workers Compensation 260 1,309 1,147 - 1,256 Subtotal Personnel 67,923 58,682 58,420 23,199 58,748 General Operations 201 General Supplies 127 45 263 28 300 202 Permanent Supplies 89 32 107 - 200 225 Landscaping Materials - - - - 100 228 Miscellaneous Repairs & Maintenance. 191 144 58 162 250 317 Tree Service - - - - - 370 Park and Rec Expenses 700 700 700 - 700 371 Non -Resident Reimbursment 429 1,137 1,790 - 1,300 381 Electric 439 477 477 217 500 382 Water 172 173 241 16 200 383 Gas Utility 801 617 732 280 1,000 384 Refuse - - - - - 391 Telephones and Pagers - 20 21 - 50 403 Mower repair - 1,275 - - 1,000 412 Warming House Repair - 33 - - 100 427 Porta Potty Rental 767 630 363 176 500 442 Miscellaneous 78 13 315 - 300 Subtotal General Operations 3,793 5,296 5,067 879 6,500 Capital Expenditures 550 Other Improvements - - - - - Subtotal Capital - - - - - TOTAL EXPENSES 71,716 63,978 63,487 24,078 65,248 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 DEVELOPMENT (48100) Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted REVENUE Other - - - - - TOTAL REVENUE - - - - - EXPENDITURES General Operations 306 Consulting Fees 1,235 1,648 5,882 3,383 26,000 442 Miscellaneous expenses - - - - - Subtotal General Operations 1,235 1,648 5,882 3,383 26,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 1,235 1,648 5,882 3,383 26,000 , 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 CONTINGENCY (45300) Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted REVENUE Other - - - - - TOTAL REVENUE - - - - - EXPENDITURES General Operations 444 CONTINGENCY FUNDS - - 20,000 - 20,000 710 OPERATING TRANSFERS - - - - - Subtotal General Operations - - 20,000 - 20,000 TOTAL EXPENSES - - 20,000 - 20,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 TRANSFERS OUT (45400) Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted REVENUE Other - - - - - TOTAL REVENUE - - - - - EXPENDITURES 732 Transfers to 302 31,000 - - - - 733 Transfers to 303 - - - - - 734 Transfers to 304 - - - - - 741 Transfers to 401 - 56,297 67,991 - - 742 Transfers to 402 - - - - 20,000 743 Transfers to 403 - - - - - 744 Transfers to 404 - 56,297 67,991 - - 745 Transfers to 405 - - - - - Total Transfers 31,000 112,594 135,982 - 20,000 2012 LAUDERDALE BUDGET SUMMARY OF FUNDS 201 - 602 Scnplusl(defrcit) (129,025) (306,860) (202,220) (377,056) (121,472) 70,061 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 Actual Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted Total Revenues 201 Community Events Fund 3,642 4,874 4,830 3,719 1,098 2,850 202 Communications Fund 22,431 22,837 20,942 19,915 4,954 20,300 203 Recycling Fund 41,362 41,967 41,061 40,772 279 40,800 302 2000 Imp Debt Fund 48,013 20,524 - - - - 303 2002 Imp Debt Fund 41,424 35,459 31,652 - - - 304 2003 Imp Debt Fund 64,834 59,143 50,924 43,723 2,533 43,907 401 Street Improvement Fund 14,760 10,331 5,421 3,053 1,547 4,500 402 General Capital Impr. Fund 4,320 2,184 1,143 544 170 1,000 403 Storm Water Impr. Fund 6,048 4,473 2,346 1,100 529 1,800 404 Park Improvement Fund 108,725 3,946 118,570 33,530 2,877 1,200 405 TIF Project Fund 162,370 165,052 180,089 171,158 926 163,000 407 Sewer Improvement Fund 11,277 81,628 5,660 2,653 1,275 4,000 601 Sewer Utility Fund 229,104 234,715 242,590 270,962 88,633 244,300 602 Storm Water Utility Fund 69,192 49,142 54,092 60,948 24,656 55,500 Revenue Before Transfers 827,502 736,274 759,320 652,077 129,477 583,157 Transfers 291,329 612,594 - 68,381 20,000 Total Revenues 827,502 1,027,604 1,371,914 652,077 197,858 603,157 Total Expenditures 201 Community Events Fund 4,329 3,616 3,616 3,391 40 3,450 202 Communications Fund 15,374 29,277 29,277 21,605 14,152 30,715 203 Recycling Fund 23,391 32,079 32,079 26,133 11,433 34,431 302 2000 Impr. Debt Fund 122,080 455,481 455,481 - - - 303 2002 Impr. Debt Fund 150,256 145,798 145,798 526,950 - - 304 2003 Impr. Debt Fund 118,608 116,350 116,350 116,429 107,384 113,130 401 Street Improvement Fund 69,213 12,189 12,189 - - - 402 General Capital Impr. Fund 90,000 - - 29,714 - 35,000 403 Storm Water Impr. Fund 32,316 - - - - - 404 Park Improvement Fund 81,110 6,735 6,735 30,945 11,999 20,000 405 TIF Project Fund 738 747 747 1,095 98 1,000 407 Sewer Improvement Fund - - - - - - 601 Sewer Utility Fund 212,687 228,570 228,570 227,944 90,025 226,612 602 Storm Water Utility Fund 36,424 43,293 43,293 44,927 15,818 68,758 Expenditures Before Transfers 956,526 1,074,134 1,074,134 1,029,133 250,949 533,096 Tranfers 260,329 500,000 - 68,381 Total Expenditures 956,526 1,334,463 1,574,134 1,029,133 319,330 533,096 Scnplusl(defrcit) (129,025) (306,860) (202,220) (377,056) (121,472) 70,061 Community Events Fund 201 Fund Balance Gain/Loss (686) 1,258 1,580 328 1,058 (600) 39200 Transfers In - - - - - 710 Transfers Out - - - - - Ending Fund Balance 2,800 4,058 5,638 5,966 6,696 5,366 DEPT. 45600 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 Actual Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted BEGINNING BALANCE 3,486 2,800 4,058 5,638 5,638 5,966 REVENUES: 34785 Fun Run / Walk - - - - - - 34786 Winter Event 609 396 33 31 - - 34787 Garage Sale - 50 - - 75 50 34788 Day in the Park 1,683 1,904 3,219 2,046 400 1,500 34789 Music under the trees - 448 434 469 400 400 34790 Other Events - March Dance - - - - - 34791 Pop Sales - - - - - 34792 T -Shirt Sales 150 330 97 147 96 100 34795 Halloween Donations 779 825 854 844 - 600 36211 Investment Interest 129 121 69 34 19 100 36230 Donations 30 - - - 36255 Misc. 293 769 124 148 108 100 Total Revenues 3,642 4,874 4,830 3,719 1,098 2,850 EXPENDITURES: 201 General Supplies - 5 - - 17 - 202 Permanent Supplies 43 100 - 40 - 100 368 Fun Run / Walk - - 100 446 - 500 369 Music Under the Trees 535 200 600 400 - 400 370 Other Events - March Dance - - - - - - 373 T -Shirts 353 - - - - - 375 Winter Event 1,011 192 250 150 - 250 376 Garage Sale 34 - - - - - 377 Day in the Park 1,500 1,800 1,400 1,294 - 1,300 378 Night Out 103 119 150 119 - 150 379 Halloween Event 496 518 450 692 - 550 437 Sales Tax - - - - - - 430 Misc. - 491 - - - - 440 Meeting Expenses 254 191 300 250 23 200 Total Expenditures 4,329 3,616 3,250 3,391 40 3,450 Fund Balance Gain/Loss (686) 1,258 1,580 328 1,058 (600) 39200 Transfers In - - - - - 710 Transfers Out - - - - - Ending Fund Balance 2,800 4,058 5,638 5,966 6,696 5,366 Communications Fund 202 201 DEPT. 49500 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 131 Group Insurance Actual Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted 526 BEGINNING BALANCE 36,667 43,724 37,284 33,712 33,712 32,022 - REVENUES: 86 124 - 128 7,913 7,846 36253 Franchise Fees 21,278 21,632 20,576 19,747 4,887 20,000 36250 Refunds & Reimbursements 444 262 - - - - 36211 Investment Interest 1,153 942 366 168 67 300 33600 Grants 4,636 - - - - - - Total Revenues 22,431 22,837 20,942 19,915 4,954 20,300 201 EXPENDITURES: 101 Reg. Full Time Employees 121 PERA Contributions 122 FICA Contributions 131 Group Insurance 151 Workers Comp 593 Personnel costs 201 General Supplies 202 Permanent Supplies 307 Web Hosting 327 Other Service 329 Cable Franchise Fee 530 Furniture and Equipment 593 Operating Costs 6,230 6,307 10,678 10,333 6,378 16,046 473 426 752 741 462 1,163 593 510 869 843 526 1,228 618 576 1,191 1,302 934 2,250 - 27 86 124 - 128 7,913 7,846 13,576 13,343 8,300 20,815 - 5 85 37 - - 444 444 444 500 500 600 1,993 3,501 2,837 2,837 716 3,000 5,023 5,069 5,214 4,888 4,636 5,300 - 12,411 2,358 - - 1,000 7,460 21,430 10,938 8,262 5,852 9,900 Total Expenditures 15,374 29,277 24,514 21,605 14,152 30,715 Fund Balance Gain/Loss 7,057 (6,440) (3,572) (1,690) (9,198) (10,415) 39200 Transfers In - - - - - - 710 Transfers Out - - - - - - Ending Fund Balance 43,724 37,284 33,712 32,022 24,514 21,607 Recycling Fund 203 Fund Balance Gain/Loss 17,971 9,889 10,218 14,639 (11,154) 6,369 39200 Transfers In - - - - - - 710 Transfers Out - - - - - - Ending Fund Balance 78,000 87,889 98,106 112,745 86,952 119,114 DEPT. 50000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 Actual Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted BEGINNING BALANCE 60,029 78,000 87,889 98,106 98,106 112,745 REVENUES: 36100 Recycling Fee 34,698 35,215 35,113 35,414 - 35,000 36102 Penalties & Interest 71 62 35 94 - - 33622 SCORE Grant 4,758 4,866 4,926 4,750 - 5,000 36211 Investment Interest 1,811 1,824 987 502 279 800 36255 Other 24 - - 12 - - Total Revenues 41,362 41,967 41,061 40,772 279 40,800 EXPENDITURES: 101 Reg. FT Employees 3,545 2,949 5,687 5,605 2,309 5,774 121 PERA Contributions 283 201 400 407 167 419 122 FICA Contributions 356 244 478 479 202 442 131 Group Insurance 362 256 625 750 375 900 151 Workers Comp - 8 42 49 - 46 Personnel costs 4,546 3,658 7,232 7,290 3,053 7,581 202 Permanent Supplies - - 95 - - - 327 Other Service 339 339 332 332 - 350 389 Recycling Contract 18,506 28,082 23,185 18,511 8,380 26,500 Operating Costs 18,845 28,421 23,611 18,843 8,380 26,850 Total Expenditures 23,391 32,079 30,843 26,133 11,433 34,431 Fund Balance Gain/Loss 17,971 9,889 10,218 14,639 (11,154) 6,369 39200 Transfers In - - - - - - 710 Transfers Out - - - - - - Ending Fund Balance 78,000 87,889 98,106 112,745 86,952 119,114 2003 Improvements Debt Service Fund 304 DEPT. 47400 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 Actual Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted BEGINNING BALANCE 478,218 424,444 367,236 404,217 404,217 331,511 REVENUES: 36102 Penalties & interest 12,852 10,458 4,535 7,091 1 6,907 36211 Investment Interest 12,784 8,690 4,484 1,749 664 3,000 36100 Special Assessments 39,197 39,995 41,906 34,883 1,868 34,000 Total Revenues 64,834 59,143 50,924 43,723 2,533 43,907 EXPENDITURES: 601 Bond Principal 95,000 95,000 95,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 611 Bond Interest 22,961 20,705 18,211 15,405 6,953 12,330 621 File Maintenance Charges 647 645 733 1,024 431 800 Total Expenditures 118,608 116,350 113,944 116,429 107,384 113,130 Fund Balance Gain/Loss (53,775) (57,207) (63,019) (72,706) (104,851) (69,223) 39200 Transfers In - - 100,000 - - - 710 Transfers Out - - - - - - Ending Fund Balance 424,444 367,236 404,217 331,511 299,366 262,288 Street Improvement Fund 401 DEPT. 48401 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 Actual Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted BEGINNING BALANCE 454,662 400,208 398,350 460,068 460,068 531,112 REVENUES: 36211 Investment Interest 14,243 10,232 5,326 2,598 1,547 4,500 36200 Miscellaneous Revenue 517 99 95 78 - - 36102 Penalties & Interest - - - - - - 36100 Special Assessments - - - 377 - - Total Revenue 14,760 10,331 5,421 3,053 1,547 4,500 EXPENDITURES: 328 Street Repair 49,712 4,320 - - - - Street Reconstruction - - - - - - Streetscaping - - - - - 304 Engineering 19,502 7,869 - - - - Trees - - - - - - Total Expenditures 69,213 12,189 - - - - Fund Balance Gain/Loss (54,454) (1,858) 5,421 3,053 1,547 4,500 39200 Transfers In - - 56,297 67,991 - - 710 Transfers Out - - - - - - Ending Fund Balance 400,208 398,350 460,068 531,112 461,615 535,612 General Capital Improvement Fund 402 DEPT. 48000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 Actual Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted BEGINNING BALANCE 168,981 83,301 85,485 86,628 86,628 57,458 REVENUES: 36211 Investment Interest 4,320 2,184 1,143 544 170 1,000 Depreciation - - - - - - 39999 Other - - - - - - Total Revenue 4,320 2,184 1,143 544 170 1,000 EXPENDITURES: 510 Land - - - - - - 520 Buildings - - - - - - 521 City Garage - - - - - - 523 Warming House - - - - - - 530 Furniture & Equipment - - - - - - 531 Office Equipment - - - - - - 532 Copier - - - - - - 535 HVAC - - - - - - 538 Computers - - - - - - 540 Machinery & Equipment - - - - - - 543 Tractor - - - 29,714 - - 550 Other Improvements - - - - - - 560 Vehicle - - - - - - 562 Truck - - - - - 35,000 Total Expenditures - - - 29,714 - 35,000 Fund Balance Gain/Loss 4,320 2,184 1,143 (29,170) 170 (34,000) 39200 Transfers In - - - - - 20,000 710 Transfers Out 90,000 - - - - - Ending Fund Balance 83,301 85,485 86,628 57,458 86,798 43,458 Storm Sewer Improvement Fund 403 DEPT. 48403 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 Actual Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted BEGINNING BALANCE 197,249 170,981 175,454 177,800 177,800 178,900 REVENUES: 37300 Storm Sewer Fee - - - - - - 36211 Investment Interest 6,048 4,473 2,346 1,100 529 1,800 39999 Other - - - - Total Revenues 6,048 4,473 2,346 1,100 529 1,800 EXPENDITURES: 101 Reg. FT Employees - - - - - - 102 On -Call Pay - - - - - - 121 PERA Contributions - - - - - - 122 FICA Contributions - - - - - - 131 Group Insurance - - - - - - 151 Workers Compensation - - - - - - Personnel Costs - - - - - - 304 Engineering 11,816 - - - - - 327 Other Services - - - - - - 442 Misc 500 - - - - - 444 Contingency Funds - - - - - - 554 Storm System Repairs - - - - - - Operating Costs 12,316 - - - - - Total Expenditures 12,316 - - - - - Fund Balance Gain/Loss (6,268) 4,473 2,346 1,100 529 1,800 39200 Transfers In - - - - - - 710 Transfers Out 20,000 - - - - - Ending Fund Balance 170,981 175,454 177,800 178,900 178,329 180,700 Park Improvement Fund 404 DEPT. 48404 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 Actual Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted BEGINNING BALANCE 123,844 151,458 148,669 187,295 187,295 257,871 REVENUES: 33130 Grants - - 60,000 22,995 - - 36230 Donations - - - 9,750 - - 36255 Misc 2151 36211 Investment Interest 4,065 3,946 2,273 785 726 1,200 Total Revenues 4,065 3,946 62,273 33,530 2,877 1,200 EXPENDITURES: 304 Engineering 17,718 382 - - - - 510 Land - - - - - - 524 Picnic Shelter - - - - 816 - 525 Playground - - 79,945 21,495 10,696 - 526 Park Path - - - - - - 527 Gen. Park Improvements 63,392 6,353 - 9,450 487 20,000 528 Court Improvements - - - - - Total Expenditures 81,110 6,735 79,945 30,945 11,999 20,000 Fund Balance Gain/Loss (77,046) (2,789) (17,672) 2,585 (9,122) (18,800) 39200 Transfers In 104,660 - 56,297 67,991 - - 710 Transfers Out - - - - - - Ending Fund Balance 151,458 148,669 187,295 257,871 178,173 239,071 TIF Project Fund 405 EXPENDITURES: 101 FT Employees - - - - - - 121 PERA Contribution - - - - - - 122 FICA Contribution - - - - - - 131 Group Insurance - - - - - - 133 Life Insurance - - - - - - Total Personnel Costs - - - - - - 304 Engineering - - 305 Legal Fees - - - - - - 327 Other Services 738 747 2,210 1,095 98 1,000 325 Other Imp. (Larpenteur) - - - - - - General Operating Costs 738 747 2,210 1,095 98 1,000 Total Expenditures 738 747 2,210 1,095 98 1,000 Fund Balance Gain/Loss 161,632 164,305 177,878 170,063 828 162,000 39200 Transfers In - - - - - 710 Transfers Out - 260,329 500,000 68,381 - - Ending Fund Balance 629,840 533,815 211,694 313,376 212,522 475,376 DEPT. 48500 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 Actual Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted BEGINNING BALANCE 468,208 629,840 533,815 211,694 211,694 313,376 REVENUES: 36211 Investment Interest 17,471 15,800 5,074 805 926 2,000 31050 Tax increment 137,953 141,815 167,422 162,194 - 161,000 31051 Delinquent Tax increment 1,959 1,879 1,781 1,815 - - 33406 TIF Mrkt Value Homestead Crdt 4,987 5,558 5,812 6,344 - - Total Revenues 162,370 165,052 180,089 171,158 926 163,000 EXPENDITURES: 101 FT Employees - - - - - - 121 PERA Contribution - - - - - - 122 FICA Contribution - - - - - - 131 Group Insurance - - - - - - 133 Life Insurance - - - - - - Total Personnel Costs - - - - - - 304 Engineering - - 305 Legal Fees - - - - - - 327 Other Services 738 747 2,210 1,095 98 1,000 325 Other Imp. (Larpenteur) - - - - - - General Operating Costs 738 747 2,210 1,095 98 1,000 Total Expenditures 738 747 2,210 1,095 98 1,000 Fund Balance Gain/Loss 161,632 164,305 177,878 170,063 828 162,000 39200 Transfers In - - - - - 710 Transfers Out - 260,329 500,000 68,381 - - Ending Fund Balance 629,840 533,815 211,694 313,376 212,522 475,376 Sewer Improvement Fund 407 DEPT. 48407 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 Actual Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted BEGINNING BALANCE 330,380 341,657 423,285 428,944 428,944 431,597 REVENUES: 36211 Investment Interest 11,277 9,128 5,660 2,653 1,275 4,000 36100 Special Assessments - - - - - - 37240 Sewer Connections - 72,500 - - - - Total Revenues 11,277 81,628 5,660 2,653 1,275 4,000 EXPENDITURES: 304 Engineering - - - - - - 544 Other - - - - - - Total Expenditures - - - - - - Fund Balance Gain/Loss 11,277 81,628 5,660 2,653 1,275 4,000 39200 Transfers In - - - - - - 710 Transfers Out - - - - - - Ending Fund Balance 341,657 423,285 428,944 431,597 430,219 435,597 I Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund 601 201 General Supplies 212 DEPT. 49000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 227 Tools & Equipment Actual Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted 228 BEGINNING BALANCE 201,790 218,207 224,352 233,066 233,066 276,084 301 REVENUES: 1,350 1,613 1,610 1,697 1,585 1,700 37210 Sewer Charges 224,682 226,671 240,056 269,701 87,714 242,000 36211 Investment Interest 4,422 4,369 2,534 1,261 919 2,300 36250 Refunds/Reimbursements - - - - - - 37230 Penalties - - - - - - 36255 Miscellaneous - - - - - - 37240 Sewer Connections - 3,675 - - - - 39101 Sale of Assets - - - - - - 382 Total Revenues 229,104 234,715 242,590 270,962 88,633 244,300 387 EXPENDITURES: 115,587 128,590 132,610 134,611 58,593 120,000 101 Reg. FT Employees 17,451 22,169 22,825 23,733 5,544 27,742 102 On -Call Pay 11,822 13,193 10,884 10,689 3,951 12,000 121 PERA Contributions 1,981 2,286 2,409 2,457 1,094 2,881 122 FICA Contributions 2,469 2,683 2,724 2,706 1,203 3,040 131 Group Insurance 2,536 3,577 3,946 4,281 1,983 4,185 151 Worker's Comp. 858 1,932 1,798 921 - 2,764 540 Personnel Costs 37,117 45,840 44,586 44,787 13,775 52,612 201 General Supplies 212 Motor Fuels 394 369 536 742 167 700 227 Tools & Equipment 289 - - 285 - 300 228 Misc. Repairs/Maint/Supply - - 244 - - 400 301 Auditing 1,350 1,613 1,610 1,697 1,585 1,700 304 Engineering 2,997 3,211 481 - 1,707 3,000 308 Training/Conferences 560 300 - 300 600 500 315 Sewer Jetting 1,444 - 1,050 - - 1,500 316 Sewer Televising 11,018 - 2,083 1,470 - 1,500 327 Other Services 6,040 11,408 13,312 6,667 13,141 7,000 331 Travel Expenses - 119 - - - 100 361 General Liability 1,520 1,539 1,666 1,736 - 1,800 382 Water 66 69 63 68 16 100 387 Met Council Sewer Charges 115,587 128,590 132,610 134,611 58,593 120,000 391 Telephones/Pagers 228 263 244 252 105 300 402 City Truck Repair/Maint. - 333 160 270 - 100 425 Clothing 786 933 942 768 296 1,000 442 Misc. - 23 - - 40 - 444 Contingency Funds - - - - - - 501 Depreciation 33,291 33,959 34,291 34,291 - 34,000 540 Machinery & Equipment - - - - - - 554 System Repairs (I/I) - - - - - - Operating Costs 175,570 182,730 189,290 183,157 76,250 174,000 Total Expenses 212,687 228,570 233,876 227,944 90,025 226,612 Fund Balance Gain/Loss 16,417 6,145 8,714 43,018 (1,392) 17,688 39200 Transfers In - - - - 710 Transfers Out - - - - Ending Fund Balance 218,207 224,352 233,066 276,084 231,674 293,772 Storm Sewer Enterprise Fund 602 201 General Supplies 212 DEPT. 49100 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 227 Tools & Equipment Actual Actual Actual Actual As of May 31 Adopted 228 BEGINNING BALANCE (9,196) 23,572 29,421 34,434 34,434 50,455 301 REVENUES: 1,350 1,613 1,610 1,697 1,585 1,700 37300 Storm Sewer Fee 48,763 48,351 53,621 60,725 24,486 55,000 36211 Investment Interest 429 791 471 223 170 500 39999 Other - - - - - - 327 Total Revenues 49,192 49,142 54,092 60,948 24,656 55,500 352 EXPENDITURES: 80 84 41 38 100 101 Reg. FT Employees 16,112 19,898 23,459 24,139 6,762 31,835 102 On -Call Pay 3,792 2,768 4,186 4,111 1,646 5,000 121 PERA Contributions 1,318 1,431 1,941 1,981 1,045 2,671 122 FICA Contributions 1,644 1,693 2,203 2,192 1,145 2,818 131 Group Insurance 1,737 2,220 3,203 3,484 1,853 4,590 151 Workers Compensation 858 1,045 1,157 767 - 2,244 444 Personnel Costs 25,461 29,054 36,149 36,674 12,451 49,158 201 General Supplies 212 Motor Fuels 394 340 536 742 167 700 227 Tools & Equipment 51 - - 50 - - 228 Misc. Repairs/Maint/Supply - 26 - - - - 301 Auditing 1,350 1,613 1,610 1,697 1,585 1,700 304 Engineering - 7,281 - 645 331 9,000 308 Train ing/Conferences - - 70 - - 100 314 Street Sweeping - - - - - - 327 Other Services 5,759 1,454 6,127 1,177 345 2,500 352 Public Information Notice 80 84 41 38 100 361 General Liability 1,520 1,539 1,666 1,736 - 1,700 391 Telephones/Pagers 228 263 244 252 105 300 402 City Truck Repair/Maint. - 333 160 270 - 500 425 Clothing 786 933 942 768 296 1,000 438 Dues & Subscriptions (Permits) 875 375 875 875 500 1,000 442 Misc. (Public Education) - - 617 - - 1,000 444 Contingency Funds - - - - - - 501 Depreciation - - - - - - 540 Machinery & Equipment - - - - - - 554 Storm System Repairs - - - - - - Operating Costs 10,963 14,238 12,930 8,253 3,367 19,600 Total Expenditures 36,424 43,293 49,080 44,927 15,818 68,758 Fund Balance Gain/Loss 12,768 5,849 5,013 16,021 8,838 (13,258) 39200 Transfers In 20,000 - - - - - 710 Transfers Out - - - - - - Ending Fund Balance 23,572 29,421 34,434 50,455 43,272 37,197 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion Action Resolution Work Session Meeting Date June 26, 2012 ITEM NUMBER Girl Scout Gold Award STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: Two years ago, Samantha and Danielle Nelson received their Girl Scout Gold Award. This year their sister Kallie did. She will be at the meeting to describe her project and what she learned from it. Kevin prepared a certificate of recognition that the Council can give to her. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recognize Kallie for her accomplishment; hand out certificate. COUNCIL ACTION: LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion X Action X Resolution Work Session Meeting Date June 26, 2012 ITEM NUMBER Proclamation Policy STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: At the last meeting, the Council discussed establishing a proclamation policy. I asked other city administrators/managers to share their policies with me. Burnsville recently adopted a detailed policy explaining when they would or would not issue a proclamation. For exam- ple, they will recognize Burnsville businesses over 50 years old but not take a stand on mat- ters of political controversy or religious belief. Eagan on the other hand has a simple one- page policy that states their council won't adopt proclamations that aren't related to city ser- vices. The Eagan example seemed more in line with the Council's discussion. Following is an updated version of Eagan's policy. OPTIONS: Amend, adopt, or table the Proclamation Policy. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to adopt the Proclamation Policy as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY OF LAUDERDALE Proclamations Policy I. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE POLICY It is the view of the Lauderdale City Council that the City must be consistent in its practice of considering proclamations. II. POLICY It is the policy of the City of Lauderdale that the City Council will only consider proclamations or resolutions that pertain specifically to City of Lauderdale local government service delivery. Consideration of proclamations will take place at regularly scheduled City Council meetings and will be included on the City Council meeting agenda. III. RESPONSIBILITY The Mayor and City Administrator will review requests for proclamations to determine if there is a direct correlation to local government service delivery. If the resolution does pertain to City of Lauderdale local government service delivery, the City Administrator shall include the proclamation or resolution on a regular City Council agenda. The final decision on whether to consider or approve a proclamation ultimately lies with the City Council. IV. AUTHORITY Signed: Signed: This Proclamation Policy was authorized by the City Council at the June 26, 2012 City Council meeting. Mayor City Administrator -Clerk Date: Date: LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Meeting Date June 26, 2012 ITEM NUMBER August 14 Council Meeting Public Hearing Discussion X STAFF INITIAL Action X Resolution APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR Work Session i DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: The Council discussed rescheduling the August 14 council meeting at the last meeting. The tentative date set was August 15 at 7:30 p.m. Does that work for all of the council mem- bers? OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to reschedule the August 14 city council meeting for COUNCIL ACTION: LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion X Action X Resolution Work Session Meeting Date June 26, 2012 ITEM NUMBER No Fault Insurance STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR. DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: Starting in 2000, cities had the option of purchasing "no fault" sewer back up insurance through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. I haven't found any records that this was previously discussed by the city council. As the insurance policy is up for renewal in August, I thought it was an appropriate time to discuss. In brief, the City can purchase insurance to cover sewer back up claims in which the city was not negligent (subject to the city's $500 deductible and capped at $250,000). The specifics are in the following packet. The cost is based on the deductible selected but approximately $650/year for $10,000 in coverage; $770/year for $25,000 in coverage; and $960/year for $40,000 in coverage. In essence, all sewer users pay a little each year for the benefit of some coverage in the event of a back up. The sewer back up insurance is secondary to homeowners' policies. OPTIONS: Discuss whether this is something the Council would like to consider. If so, I will let LMCIT know to add it to the City's policy renewal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: COUNCIL ACTION: 2OF CONNECTING & INNOVATING MINNESOTA SINCE 1913 CITIES RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION OPTIONAL "NO-FAULT" SEWER BACKUP COVERAGE The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) offers property/casualty member cities "no-fault" sewer backup coverage. This optional coverage will reimburse a property owner for clean-up costs and damages resulting from a city sewer backup or from a city water main break, irrespective of whether the backup was caused by city negligence. The "no-fault" sewer backup coverage option is intended to: • Reduce health hazards by encouraging property owners to clean-up backups as quickly as possible. • Reduce the frequency and severity of sewer backup lawsuits (i.e. property owners may be less inclined to sue if they receive conciliatory treatment at the time of the backup). • Give cities a way to address the sticky political problems that can arise when a property owner learns the city and LMCIT won't reimburse for sewer backup damages because the city wasn't negligent and therefore not legally liable. Many cities and their citizens may find this coverage option to be a helpful tool. However, it's also important to realize it's not a complete solution to sewer backup problems, and not every possible backup will be covered. Which sewer backups are covered? The "no-fault" coverage would reimburse the property owner for sewer backup damages or water main breaks, regardless of whether the city was legally liable, if the following conditions are met: • The backup must have resulted from a condition in the city's sewer system or lines. A backup caused by a clog or other problem in the property owner's own line would not be covered. • It's not a situation that is specifically excluded in the coverage. • The coverage limit has not been exceeded. Which situations are excluded? The "no-fault" coverage will not apply in several "catastrophic" type situations. Specifically, these are: This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 145UNIVERSITYAVE. WEST PHONE: (651) 281-1200 FAX: (651) 281-1298 INSURANCE TRUST ST. PAUL, MN 55103-2044 TOLL FREE: (800) 92S-1122 WETS: WWWLMC.ORG Sewer Toolkit Other Resources - 14 Any event, weather-related or otherwise, for which FEMA assistance is available; Any interruption in the electric power supply to the city's sewer system or to any city sewer lift station which continues for more than 72 hours; or Rainfall or precipitation that exceeds the amount determined by the National Weather Service to constitute a 100 -year storm event. What costs would be covered? The coverage would reimburse the property owner for the cost of cleaning up the backup, and for any damage to the property, up to the coverage limit. For purposes of the city's deductibles, claims under the no-fault coverage are treated as liability claims, so the same per -occurrence and/or annual deductibles will apply. However, there are certain costs that would not be reimbursed under the no-fault coverage: • Any costs which have been or are eligible to be covered under the property owner's own homeowner's or other property insurance; and • Any costs that would be eligible to be reimbursed under an NFIP flood insurance policy, whether or not the property owner actually has NFIP coverage. What is the coverage limit? The basic limit is $10,000 per building per year. The city also has options to purchase additional limits of $25,000 or $40,000 per building. For purposes of the limit, a structure or group of structures that is served by a single connection to the city's sewer system will be considered a single building. Only true "no-fault" claims are counted toward the limit. Claims for damages caused by city negligence, for which the city would be legally liable in any case, are not charged against that limit. What does it cost? The premium charge is a percentage of the city's municipal liability premium: • 8.5% for the $10,000 limit; • 10.0% for the $25,000 limit; or • 12.5% for the $40,000 limit. Because the LMCIT Board's intent is that this coverage be self-supporting, charges will be continually monitored and, if necessary, adjusted in the future. Is every city automatically eligible? No. To be eligible, the city must meet these underwriting criteria: Sewer Toolkit Other Resources - 15 • The city must have a policy and practice of inspecting and cleaning its sewer lines on a reasonable schedule. • If there are any existing problems in the city's system which have caused backups in the past or are likely to cause backups, the city must have and be implementing a plan to address those problems. • The city must have a system and the ability to respond promptly to backups or other sewer problems at any time of the day or week. • The city must have in place an appropriate program to minimize stormwater inflow and infiltration. • The city must have in place a system to maintain records of routine sewer cleaning and maintenance, and of any reported problems and responses. When establishing these criteria, the goal of LMCIT was to focus on reasonableness rather than on creating specific standards. The intent isn't to set an arbitrary requirement that sewers be inspected and cleaned every six months, every three years, every five years, etc. What makes sense in one city with some older and sometimes sagging clay lines probably wouldn't make sense in a city with newer plastic lines, and vice versa. From the underwriting standpoint, the real concern is that the city has considered its own situation and developed policies, practices, and schedules that make sense for its own situation. please see the Sewer Toolkit. How would the "no-fault" coverage work if a sewer backup was caused by city negligence, and where the city was legally liable for the resulting damages? If the situation isn't one where the "no-fault" coverage applies, the city's LMCIT liability coverage would respond just as it does now. That is, LMCIT would investigate and if necessary defend the claim on the city's behalf, and would pay the resulting damages if in fact the city is legally liable for those damages. The same would be true for damages that exceed the $10,000 no-fault limit, or for a subrogation claim against the city by the homeowner's insurance company. The city's existing LMCIT liability would respond just as it does now. What's the legal basis for this coverage? Wouldn't it be a gift of public funds to pay for damages the city isn't legally liable for? First, as noted earlier, one goal is to help reduce health hazards by encouraging prompt clean-ups. That's clearly a public purpose and in the public interest. Second, the law and facts surrounding most sewer backup claims are rarely so clear that the liability issue is entirely black and white. There's virtually always a way that a claimant's attorney can make some type of argument for city liability. Having this coverage in place should help eliminate the need to spend public funds on litigation costs in many of these cases. Sewer Toolkit Other Resources - 16 Finally, part of the process for putting the coverage in place is for the city council to pass a formal resolution that makes this no-fault sewer backup protection part of the agreement between the city and the sewer customer. The idea is that by paying their sewer bill, the sewer user is purchasing not just sewer services but also the right to be reimbursed for certain specified sewer backup costs and damages. In other words, the basis for the no-fault payments to the property owner would be the contract between the city and the sewer user. How do we put coverage in place? Contact your LMCIT underwriter for an application. If the city qualifies for coverage, we'll send the city a formal quote, along with a model resolution. To put coverage in place, the city council must formally pass that resolution, and send a copy to LMCIT. If the city decides to add this coverage, it will also be im octant to make sure citizens know about it LMCIT can Your League Resource Contact your LMCIT underwriter at 651-281-1200 or 800-925-1122 for more information about the "no- fault" sewer backup coverage. p also provide models for a press release, newsletter article, utility bill insert, etc. What if we decide to discontinue the coverage sometime in the future? Make sure your agent notifies your LMCIT underwriter. In addition, it's important to let your citizens know if and when the coverage is discontinued. The council should formally rescind the resolution that made the no-fault sewer backup protection part of the agreement between the city and the sewer customer. Pete Tritz 07/11 Sewer Toolkit Other Resources - 17 COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL COVERAGE No -Fault Sewer Back-up and Water Main Break Coverage Endorsement ($10,000 Limit) Section I, Coverage A, Municipal Liability Coverage, is amended to include no-fault sewer back-up and water main break coverage as outlined below. 1. No-fault sewer back-up coverage a. If all of the following four conditions are met, LMCIT will pay for claims presented by the city for sewer back-up damage to property of others which was not caused by city negligence: (1) The sewer back-up resulted from a condition in the city's sewer system; (2) The sewer back-up was not the result of an obstruction or other condition in sewer pipes or lines which are not part of the city's sewer system or which are not owned or maintained by the city; and (3) The sewer back-up was not caused by or related to a catastrophic incident. (4) The date of the occurrence giving rise to the claim for damages must be on or after the retroactive date shown on this endorsement. b. However, LMCIT will not pay for any damages or expenses: (1) Which are or would be covered under a National Flood Insurance Program flood insurance policy, whether or not such insurance is in effect; or (2) For which the property owner has been reimbursed or is eligible to be reimbursed by any homeowners' or other property insurance. 2. No-fault water main break coverage. LMCIT will pay for claims presented by the city for water main break damage to property of others which was not caused by city negligence. But LMCIT will not pay for any damages or expenses for which the property owner has been or is eligible to be reimbursed by any homeowners' or other property insurance. 3. Definitions For purposes of this endorsement, the following definitions apply. a. Catastrophic incident means any of the following: (1) Any weather-related or other event for which FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Administration) assistance is available; Sewer Toolkit Other Resources - 18 (2) Any interruption in the electric power supply to the city's sewer system or to any city sewer lift station which continues for more than 72 hours; or (3) Rainfall of precipitation which exceeds the amount determined by the National Weather Service to constitute a 100 -year storm event. b. Sewer back-up damage means damage to property, including removal and clean-up costs, resulting from a sewer back-up. c. Water main break damage means damage to property, including removal and clean-up costs, resulting from the rupture of a city water main, line, or pipe. 4. Limits a. LMCIT will not pay more than $10,000 for sewer back-up damage to any building under this endorsement, regardless of the number of occurrences or the number of claimants. For purposes of this limit (1) A structure or group of structures served by a single connection to the city's sewer system is considered a single building. (2) If a single structure is served by more than one connection to the city's sewer system, the portion of the structure served by each respective connection is considered a separate building. b. LMCIT will not pay more than $10,000 for water main break damage to any claimant, regardless of the number of occurrences or the number of properties affected. c. LMCIT will not pay more than $250,000 for water main break damage resulting from any single occurrence. All water main break damage which occurs during any period of 72 consecutive hours is deemed to result from a single occurrence. If the total water main break damage for all claimants in a single occurrence exceeds $250,000, the reimbursement to each claimant will be calculated as follows: (1) A preliminary reimbursement figure is established for each claimant, equal to the lesser of the claimant's actual damages or $10,000. (2) The sum of the preliminary reimbursement figures for all claimants will be calculated. (3) Each claimant will be paid a percentage of his or her preliminary reimbursement figure, equal to the percentage calculated by dividing $250,000 by the sum of all claimants' preliminary reimbursement figures. 5. Deductibles The amount LMCIT pays for sewer back-up damages or water main break damage under this endorsement is subject to the Municipal Liability Deductible shown in the Municipal Liability Declarations or the General Annual Aggregate Deductible if any shown in the Common Coverage Declarations. Sewer Toolkit Other Resources - 19 For purposes of the Municipal Liability Deductible, all claims for sewer- back-up damages which are covered under this endorsement, which occur within a 72 hour period, and which result from or are related to the same condition or conditions in the city's sewer system are deemed to be a single occurrence•, and water main break damage which is covered under this endorsement and which occurs during any period of 72 consecutive hours is deemed to be a single occurrence. 6. Retroactive Date The retroactive date for this endorsement is All other terns and conditions remain unchanged. Sewer Toolkit Other Resources - 20 COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL COVERAGE No -Fault Sewer Back-up and Water Main Break Coverage Endorsement ($25,000 Limit) Section I, Coverage A, Municipal Liability Coverage, is amended to include no-fault sewer back-up and water main break coverage as outlined below. 1. No-fault sewer back-up coverage a. If all of the following four conditions are met, LMC1T will pay for claims presented by the city for sewer back-up damage to property of others which was not caused by city negligence: (1) The sewer back-up resulted from a condition in the city's sewer system; (2) The sewer back-up was not the result of an obstruction or other condition in sewer pipes or lines which are not part of the city's sewer system or which are not owned or maintained by the city; and (3) The sewer back-up was not caused by or related to a catastrophic incident. (4) The date of the occurrence giving rise to the claim for damages must be on or after the retroactive date shown on this endorsement. b. However, LMCIT will not pay for any damages or expenses: (1) Which are or would be covered under a National Flood Insurance Program flood insurance policy, whether or not such insurance is in effect; or (2) For which the property owner has been reimbursed or is eligible to be reimbursed by any homeowners' or other property insurance. 2. No-fault water main break coverage. LMC1T will pay for claims presented by the city for water main break damage to property of others which was not caused by city negligence. But LMCIT will not pay for any damages or expenses for which the property owner has been or is eligible to be reimbursed by any homeowners' or other property insurance. 3. Definitions For purposes of this endorsement, the following definitions apply. a. Catastrophic incident means any of the following: (1) Any weather-related or other event for which FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Administration) assistance is available; Sewer Toolkit Other Resources - 21 (2) Any interruption in the electric power supply to the city's sewer system or to any city sewer lift station which continues for more than 72 hours; or (3) Rainfall of precipitation which exceeds the amount determined by the National Weather Service to constitute a 100 -year storm event. b. Sewer back-up dantage means damage to property, including removal and clean-up costs, resulting from a sewer back-up. Vater main break dantage means damage to property, including removal and clean-up costs, resulting from the rupture of a city water main, line, or pipe. 4. Limits a. LMCIT will not pay more than $25,000. for sewer back-up damage to any building under this endorsement, regardless of the number of occurrences or the number of claimants. For purposes of this limit (1) A structure or group of structures served by a single connection to the city's sewer system is considered a single building. (2) If a single structure is served by more than one connection to the city's sewer system, the portion of the structure served by each respective connection is considered a separate building. b. LMCIT will not pay more than $25,000 for water main break damage to any claimant, regardless of the number of occurrences or the number of properties affected. c. LMCIT will not pay more than $250,000 for water main break damage resulting from any single occurrence. All water main break damage which occurs during any period of 72 consecutive hours is deemed to result from a single occurrence. If the total water main break damage for all claimants in a single occurrence exceeds $250,000, the reimbursement to each claimant will be calculated as follows: (1) A preliminary reimbursement figure is established for each claimant, equal to the lesser of the claimant's actual damages or $25,000. (2) The sum of the preliminary reimbursement figures for all claimants will be calculated. (3) Each claimant will be paid a percentage of his or her preliminary reimbursement figure, equal to the percentage calculated by dividing $250,000 by the sum of all claimants' preliminary reimbursement figures. 5. Deductibles The amount LMCIT pays for sewer back-up damages or water main break damage under this endorsement is subject to the Municipal Liability Deductible shown in the Municipal Liability Declarations or the General Annual Aggregate Deductible if any shown in the Common Coverage Declarations. Sewer Toolkit Other Resources - 22 For purposes of the Municipal Liability Deductible, all claims for seii er back-up damages which are covered under this endorsement, which occur within a 72 hour period, and which result from or are related to the same condition or conditions in the city's sewer system are deemed to be a single occurrence; and water main break damage which is covered under this endorsement and which occurs during any period of 72 consecutive hours is deemed to be a single occurrence. 6. Retroactive Date The retroactive date for this endorsement is All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. Sewer Toolkit Other Resources - 23 COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL COVERAGE No -Fault Sewer Back-up and Water Main Break Coverage Endorsement ($40,000 Limit) Section I, Coverage A, Municipal Liability Coverage, is amended to include no-fault sewer back-up and water main break coverage as outlined below. 1. No-fault sewer back-up coverage a. If all of the following four conditions are met, LMCIT will pay for claims presented by the city for sewer back-up damage to property of others which was not caused by city negligence: (1) The sewer back-up resulted from a condition in the city's sewer system; (2) The sewer back-up was not the result of an obstruction or other condition in sewer pipes or lines which are not part of the city's sewer system or which are not owned or maintained by the city; and (3) The sewer back-up was not caused by or related to a catastrophic incident. (4) The date of the occurrence giving rise to the claim for damages must be on or after the retroactive date shown on this endorsement. b. However, LMCIT will not pay for any damages or expenses: (1) Which are or would be covered under a National Flood Insurance Program flood insurance policy, whether or not such insurance is in effect; or (2) For which the property owner has been reimbursed or is eligible to be reimbursed by any homeowners' or other property insurance. 2. No-fault water main break coverage. LMCIT will pay for claims presented by the city for water main break damage to property of others which was not caused by city negligence. But LMCIT will not pay for any damages or expenses for which the property owner has been or is eligible to be reimbursed by any homeowners' or other property insurance. 3. Definitions For purposes of this endorsement, the following definitions apply. a. Catastrophic incident means any of the following: (1) Any weather-related or other event for which FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Administration) assistance is available; Sewer Toolkit Other Resources - 24 (2) Any interruption in the electric power supply to the city's sewer system or to any cite sewer lift station which continues for more than 72 hours; or (3) Rainfall of precipitation which exceeds the amount determined by the National Weather Service to constitute a 100 -year storm event. b. Server back-up damage means damage to property, including removal and clean-up costs, resulting from a sewer back-up. Water main break damage means damage to property, including removal and clean-up costs, resulting from the rupture of a city water main, line, or pipe. 4. Limits a. LMCIT will not pay more than $40,000. for sewer back-up damage to any building under this endorsement, regardless of the number of occurrences or the number of claimants. For purposes of this limit (1) A structure or group of structures served by a single connection to the city's sewer system is considered a single building. (2) If a single structure is served by more than one connection to the cio,'s sewer system, the portion of the structure served by each respective connection is considered a separate building. b. LMCIT will not pay more than $40,000 for water main break damage to any claimant, regardless of the number of occurrences or the number of properties affected. c. LMCIT will not pay more than $250,000 for water main break damage resulting from any single occurrence. All water main break damage which occurs during any period of 72 consecutive hours is deemed to result from a single occurrence. If the total water main break damage for all claimants in a single occurrence exceeds $250,000, the reimbursement to each claimant will be calculated as follows: (1) A preliminary reimbursement figure is established for each claimant, equal to the lesser of the claimant's actual damages or $40,000. (2) The sum of the preliminary reimbursement figures for all claimants will be calculated. (3) Each claimant will be paid a percentage of his or her preliminary reimbursement figure, equal to the percentage calculated by dividing $250,000 by the sum of all claimants' preliminary reimbursement figures. 5. Deductibles The amount LMCIT pays for sewer back-up damages or water main break damage under this endorsement is subject to the Municipal Liability Deductible shown in the Municipal Liability Declarations or the General Annual Aggregate Deductible if any shown in the Common Coverage Declarations. Sewer Toolkit Other Resources - 25 For purposes of the Municipal Liability Deductible, all claims for sewer back-up damages which are covered under this endorsement, which occur within a 72 hour period, and which result from or are related to the same condition or conditions in the city's sewer system are deemed to be a single occurrence; and water main break damage which is covered under this endorsement and which occurs during any period of 72 consecutive hours is deemed to be a single occurrence. 6. Retroactive Date The retroactive date for this endorsement is All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. Sewer Toolkit Other Resources - 26 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion X Action X Resolution Work Session Meeting Date June 26, 2012 ITEM NUMBER Insurance Renewal STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: The City's insurance policy runs from August to August. Annually, the city council must determine whether or not to waive the municipal tort liability limits established by statute. The city has not waived them in the past as it opens the city to greater financial liability and would require the purchase of additional insurance. I attached a League memo that offers more guidance. Also attached is the quote for workers compensation insurance for the upcoming year. For many years, the City has selected a $2,500 deductible. The second page has the Deductible Premium Options available to the City. Unless the Council would like to make any changes, I suggest the following motion. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. A motion not to waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by MS 466.04 and purchase workers' compensation insurance from the League of MN Cities Insurance Trust per the attached quote based on a deductible. COUNCIL ACTION: SECTION I: LIABILITY COVERAGE WAIVER FORM Cities obtaining liability coverage from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust must decide whether or not to waive the statutory tort liability limits to the extent of the coverage purchased. The decision to waive or not to waive the statutory limits has the following effects: If the city does not waive the statutory tort limits, an individual claimant would be able to recover no more than $500,000. on any claim to which the statutory tort limits apply. The total which all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would be limited to $1,500,000. These statutory tort limits would apply regardless of whether or not the city purchases the optional excess liability coverage. If the city waives the statutory tort limits and does not purchase excess liability coverage, a single claimant could potentially recover up to $1,500,000. on a single occurrence. The total which all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to $1,500,000., regardless of the number of claimants. If the city waives the statutory tort limits and purchases excess liability coverage, a single claimant could potentially recover an amount up to the limit of the coverage purchased. The total which all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to the amount of coverage purchased, regardless of the number of claimants. Claims to which the statutory municipal tort limits do not apply are not affected by this decision. This decision must be made by the city council. Cities purchasing coverage must complete and return this form to LMCIT before the effective date of the coverage. For further information, contact LMCIT. You may also wish to discuss these issues with your city attorney. jaccepts liability coverage limits of $0Q . ? from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). Check one: [� The city DOES NOT WAIVE the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04. ❑ The city WAIVES the monetary limits on tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04, to the extent of the limits of the liability coverage obtained from LMCIT. Date of city council meeting 0 -- Lo- — I k Signature& ` ' L l k 4. Position Return this completed form to LMCIT, 145 University Ave. W., St. Paul, MN. 55103-2044 League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust Group Self -Insured Workers' Compensation Plan 145 University Avenue West St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Phone (651)215-4173 Notice of Premium Options for Standard Premiums up to $25,000 LAUDERDALE, CITY OF Agreement No.: 0200047427 1891 WALNUT STREET Agreement Period: From: 8/01/2012 LAUDERDALE MN 55113-5137 To: 8/01/2013 Enclosed is a quotation for workers' compensation deposit premium. PAYROLL DESCRIPTION OPTIONS ESTIMATED DEPOSIT CODE RATE PAYROLL PREMIUM SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE FOR DETAILS Manual Premium 9565. Experience Modification .92 Standard Premium 8800. Deductible Credit 0% Premium Discount 361. Net Deposit Premium 8439. Please indicate below the premium option you wish to select. You may choose only one option and you cannot change options during the agreement period. 1. Regular Premium Option NET DEPOSIT PREMIUM 8439. LM4514 (3/02)(Rev.01/10) 2. ® Deductible Premium Option Deductible options are available in return for a premium credit applied to your estimated standard premium of $ 8800. The deductible will apply per occurrence to paid medical costs only. There is no aggregate limit. Deductible Premium Credit Net Deposit per Occurrence Credit Amount Premium $250 1.50% 132. 8307. $500 2.50% 220. 8219. $1,000 4.00% 352. 8087. $2,500 7.00% 616. 7823. $5,000 10.50% 924. 7515. $10,000 14.50% 1276. 7163. $25,000 22.00% 1936. 6503. $50,000 28.00% 2464. 5975. This quotation is for a deposit premium based on your estimate of payroll and selected options. Your final actual premium will be computed after an audit of payroll subsequent to the close of your agreement year and will be subject to revisions in rates, payrolls and experience modification. While you are a member of the LMCIT workers' Compensation Plan, you will be eligible to participate in dividend distributions from the Trust based upon claims experience and earnings of the Trust. If you desire the coverage offered above, please return this signed document for the option you have selected. This quotation should be signed by an authorized representative of the city requesting coverage. Signature Title Date LM4513 (3/02)(Rev.01/12) p0� j,EAGUEN of jVI N E SO TA CITIES CONNECTING & INNOVATING SINCE 1913 RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION LMCIT LIABILITY COVERAGE OPTIONS Liability Limits, Coverage Limits, and Waivers LMCIT gives cities several options for structuring their liability coverage. The city can choose either to waive or not to waive the monetary limits the statutes provide; and the city can select from among several liability coverage limits. This memo discusses these options and identifies some issues to consider in deciding which of the options best meets the city's needs. Statutory Limits on Municipal Tort Liability The statutes limit a city's tort liability to a maximum of $500,000 per claimant and $1,500,000 per occurrence. These limits apply whether the claim is against the city, against the individual officer or employee, or against both. Coverage Limits for LMCIT's Basic Primary Liability Coverage LMCIT's liability coverage provides a limit of $1,500,000 per occurrence, matching the per - occurrence part of the statutory municipal tort liability limit. Beside the overall coverage limit of $1,500,000 per occurrence, there are also annual aggregate limits (that is, limits on the total amount of coverage for the year regardless of the number of claims), for certain specific risks. Aggregate limits apply to the following: Products $2,000,000 annually Failure to supply utilities $2,000,000 annually Data security breaches $2,000,000 annually EMF $2,000,000 annually Limited pollution* $2,000,000 annually Mold $2,000,000 annually Land use litigation** $1,000,000 annually Employers liability (work comp) $1,500,000 annually * Includes sudden and accidental releases of pollutants; herbicide and pesticide application; sewer ruptures, overflows and backups; and lead and asbestos claims. Dredging or excavation claims are subject to a $250,000 sublirnit. These limits apply to both damages and defense costs. ** Coverage is provided on a sliding scale percentage basis, which is based on participation in LMCIT's online land use training. Coverage applies to both damages and litigation costs. More Information For more information about land use litigation coverage, please see the memo LMCIT Coverage for Litigation Relating to Land Use. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST PHONE: (651) 281-1200 FAX: (651) 281-1298 INSURANCE TRUST ST. PAUL, MN 55103-2044 TOLL FREE: (800) 925-1122 WEB: WWW.LMC.ORG If the Statute Limits our Liability, Why Purchase Higher Coverage Limits? There are several different reasons why cities should strongly consider carrying higher limits of liability coverage. The Statutory Tort Limits Either Do Not or May Not Apply to Several Types of Claims Some examples include: • Claims under federal civil rights laws. These include Section 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, etc. • Claims for tort liability that the city has assumed by contract. This occurs when a city agrees in a contract to defend and indemnify a private party. • Claims for actions in another state. This might occur in border cities that have mutual aid agreements with adjoining states, or when a city official attends a national conference or goes to Washington to lobby, etc. • Claims based on liquor sales. This mostly affects cities with municipal liquor stores, but it could also arise in connection with beer sales at a fire relief association fund-raiser, for example. • Claims based on a "taking" theory. Suits challenging land use regulations frequently include an "inverse condemnation" claim, alleging that the regulation amounts to a "taking" of the property. LMCIT's Primary Liability Coverage has Annual Limits on Coverage for a few Specific Risks The table on page one lists the liability risks to which aggregate coverage limits apply. If the city has a loss or claim in one of these areas, there might not be enough limits remaining to cover the city's full exposure if there is a second loss of the same sort during the year. Excess liability coverage gives the city additional protection against this risk as well. However, there are a couple important restrictions on how the excess coverage applies to risks that are subject to aggregate limits: The excess coverage does not apply to three risks: failure to supply utilities; mold; and `limited pollution" claims if either the pollutant release or the damage is below ground or in a body of water; and • The excess coverage does not automatically apply to liquor liability unless the city specifically requests it. The City may be Required by Contract to Carry Higher Coverage Limits Occasionally, a contract might include a requirement the city carry more than $1,500,000 of coverage limits. Carrying excess coverage is a way to meet these requirements. (There's also another option 2 for cities in this situation. LMCIT can issue an endorsement to increase the city's coverage limit only for claims relating to that particular contract. There's a small charge for these "laser" endorsements.) There may be more than One Political Subdivision Covered Under the City's Coverage An HRA, EDA, or port authority is itself a separate political subdivision. If the city EDA, for example, is named as a covered party on the city's coverage and a claim were made that involved both the city and the EDA, theoretically the claimant might be able to recover up to $1,500,000 from both the city and the EDA, since there are two political subdivisions involved. Excess coverage is one way to provide enough coverage limits to address this situation. Another solution is for the HRA, EDA, or port authority to carry separate liability coverage in its own name. This issue of multiple covered parties can also arise is if the city has agreed by contract to name another entity as a covered party, or to defend and indemnify another entity. Cities Sometimes Carry Higher Coverage Limits Because of a Concern the Courts Might Overturn the Statutory Liability Limits However, those limits have now been tested and upheld several times in Minnesota. While it's always possible that a future court might decide to throw out the statutory limits, this is now less of a concern. Available Excess Liability Coverage Limits Excess coverage is available in $1 million increments, up to a maximum of $5 million. Does the Optional Excess Coverage Apply to All Types of Claims? No. The excess liability coverage does not apply to the following types of claims: certain limited pollution claims; mold claims; claims for failure to supply utilities; auto no-fault claims; uninsured / underinsured motorist claims; workers' compensation, disability, or unemployment claims; or claims under the medical payments coverage. Who Needs Excess Liability Coverage? If anything, excess liability coverage is even more important to a small city rather than to a large city. If a city ends up with more liability than it has coverage, the city will have to either draw on existing funds or go to its taxpayers to pay that judgment. A large city faced with, say, a million dollars of liability over and above what its LMCIT coverage pays might be able to spread that $1 million cost over several thousand taxpayers. The small city by contrast might be dividing that same $1 million cost among only a couple hundred taxpayers. $1 million divided among 5,000 taxpayers is $200 apiece — annoying but probably at least manageable for most taxpayers. $1 million divided among 200 taxpayers is $5,000 apiece — enough to be a real problem for many. What's the Effect of Waiving the Per Claimant Statutory Liability Limit? If the city chooses the "waiver" option, the city and LMCIT no longer can use the statutory limit of $500,000 per claimant as a defense. Because the waiver increases the exposure, the premium is roughly 3% higher for coverage under the waiver option. If the city waives the statutory limit, an individual claimant could therefore recover up to $1,500,000 in damages on a claim. Of course, the individual would still have to prove to the court or jury that s/he really does have that amount of damages. Also, the statutory limit of $1,500,000 per occurrence would still apply; that would limit the individual's recovery to a lesser amount if there were multiple claimants. Why Would the City Choose to Pay More to Get Waiver -Option Coverage? The statutory liability limit only comes into play in a case where • The city is in fact liable. • The injured party's actual proven damages are greater than the statutory limit. Very literally, applying the statutory liability limit means A b fll tdf h; /k Highlight The waiver option coverage does not give the city better protection. The benefit is to the injured party. an mjure party won t e u y compensa e or rs er actual, proven damages that were caused by city negligence. Some cities as a matter of public policy may want to have more assets available to compensate their citizens for injuries caused by the city's negligence. Waiving the statutory liability limits is a way to do that. Other cities may feel that the appropriate policy is to minimize the expenditure of the taxpayers' funds by taking full advantage of every protection the legislature has decided to provide. There's no right or wrong answer on this point. It's a discretionary question of city policy that each city council needs to decide for itself. For claims the statutory tort liability limits don't apply to, it doesn't affect how the city's coverage or risk on those claims. Waiving the statutory tort limits has no effect on claims the statutory limits don't apply to. Effects of Waiving the Statutory Limits if there is Excess Coverage If the city has $1 million of excess coverage and chooses to waive the statutory tort limits, the claimants (whether it's one claimant or several) could then potentially recover up to $2.5 million in damages in a single occurrence. If the city carries higher excess coverage limits, the potential maximum recovery per occurrence is correspondingly higher. Carrying excess coverage under the waiver option is a way to address an issue that some cities find troubling: the case where many people are injured in a single occurrence caused by city negligence. Suppose, for example, that a city vehicle negligently runs into a school bus full of kids, causing multiple serious injuries. $1,500,000 divided 50 ways may not go far toward compensating for those In injuries. Excess coverage under the waiver option makes more funds available to compensate the victims in that kind of situation. The cost of the excess liability coverage is about 25% greater if the city waives the statutory tort limits. The cost difference is proportionally greater than the cost difference at the primary level because for a city that carries excess coverage, waiving the statutory tort limits increases both the per - claimant exposure and the per -occurrence exposure. Waiving Statutory Tort Liability Limits: Increase in Risk? There is no increase in risk for the city to end up with liability if LMCIT doesn't cover it. The waiver form specifically says the city is waiving the statutory tort liability limits only to the extent of the city's coverage. Of course, that's not to say there is no risk the city's liability could exceed its coverage limits. We listed earlier a number of ways that could happen to any city. But the waiver doesn't increase that risk. Can we Waive the Statutory Tort Limits for the Primary Coverage but not for the Excess Coverage? No. If the city decides to waive the statutory tort limits, that waiver applies to the full extent of the coverage limits the city has. The city cannot partially waive the statutory limits. Is there a Simple way to Summarize the Options? It's not necessarily simple, but the table on the following page is a shorthand summary of what the effect would be of the various coverage structure options in different circumstances. Pete Tritz 2/12 Your League Resource Feel free to call the Underwriting Department at 651-281-1200 or 800-925-1122 with any questions. z Q 0 z z V _z w z O C) C14 N � �; o 'D!n Z O J O 7� 0 0 En U � � O U U 0 3 b U O O O O � N ^" c'"'' = O O O O O y�' O c0 U 4. E U O U N N N Y � N 13 o U U N Q UO C) O 0 O 0 O 0 o kn kr) kr) knct O ? 69 69 C4 69 .CIS U y O V O p O p O O C) O O mU U b9 "" N � O n bC N a ca (z V '.� 0 > > V) O U C8 O E v 4-4 o> o� o� C:> -a0 V r� o� ©� > �r- � �> 03 0Q 03 xQ x 3 C) C14 N � �; o 'D!n Z O J O LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion X Action X Resolution Work Session Meeting Date June 26, 2012 ITEM NUMBER SR Tables and Chairs STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: Since the last meeting, staff researched further the going rate for table and chair rentals. Rental companies charge $8—$9 for a banquet table and $1.25—$2.00 for a folding chair. Attached is a simple chart showing what the rental costs would be at a couple of price points. There isn't a right or wrong price, simply what the Council thinks is reasonable. As this is a subsidized service, staff will make it clear on the application that only Lauderdale residents and businesses can use the items. The rentals primarily happen for weekend use so they are picked up on Friday and returned on Monday. Staff proposes that tables and chairs not returned by the end of the day Monday be charged for each additional day they are kept. (Others using the social room need them so we need an incentive so folks bring them back on time.) OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to charge resident that reserve city property $ per table and $ per chair in addition to the damage deposit. COUNCIL ACTION: Community Use of City Property Social Room Tables and Chairs , Typical Commercial rental costs: $8.25-$9.00 per banquet table $1.25-$2.00 per folding chair $Table/$Chair 2 Tables/16 Chairs Rental Cost 4 Tables/32 Chairs Rental Cost 8 Tables/64 Chairs Rental Cost 15 Tables /140 Chairs Rental Cost $3.00/$0.50 $14.00 $28.00 $56.00 $115.00 $4.00/$0.75 $20.00 $40.00 $80.00 $165.00 $5.00/$1.00 $26.00 $52.00 $104.00 $215.00 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion Action Resolution Work Session X Meeting Date June 26, 2012 ITEM NUMBER Police Contract STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: In April, the Council directed staff to invite Chief Ohl to a work session to discuss the future of police contracts with St. Anthony. The purpose is to discuss what ways, if any, the con- tract can be changed to garner cost savings if state aid is cut or continues to be unpredicta- ble. The Council has been as strategic as possible in trying to prepare for the worst case sce- nario. This conversation is a part of that planning process. Attached is a copy of the most recent contract. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: COUNCIL ACTION: CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR POLICE SERVICES This Agreement is made and entered into as of '2012 between the CITY OF ST. ANTHONY, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota ("St. Anthony") and the CITY OF LAUDERDALE, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota ("Lauderdale"). The services to be performed under this Agreement will commence January 1, 2013. I. PURPOSE St. Anthony and Lauderdale have the power within their respective cities to provide for the prevention of crime and for police protection. Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, the cities may, by agreement, provide for the exercise of the police power by one city on behalf of the other city. This Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions under which St. Anthony will provide police services for Lauderdale. St. Anthony will have full authority and responsibility to provide services in accordance with all enabling legislation under the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of Lauderdale. St. Anthony will provide feedback to the Lauderdale City Administrator and City Council on a regular and timely basis, and will actively support the creation of a Joint Advisory Committee pursuant to Section IX of this Agreement, whose members come from both cities, and whose purpose is to review, monitor, and ensure a successful relationship between the two cities under this Agreement. II. INTERPRETATION This Agreement is entered following the preparation by Lauderdale of a Request for Proposal for Police Services and the submission of a responsive Proposal by St. Anthony (the "Proposal"). To the extent that any of the provisions of this Agreement are inconsistent with the provisions of the Proposal, the provisions of this Agreement will control. If any provision of this Agreement is ambiguous, the parties agree that the Proposal may be looked to as evidence of the parties' intent. III. SERVICES St. Anthony will provide Lauderdale with 24 hour police service, and will physically place a certified officer within the boundaries of Lauderdale 24 hours each day, except in those instances when the officer makes an arrest and transports a prisoner, during mutual aid situations, when providing a backup for another officer, or when called away for a court appearance, booking or similar police matter. Subject to these exceptions and in normal circumstances, St. Anthony will provide 24 hours of police protection and police presence each day within the City of Lauderdale. In those instances stated above when an officer is not physically present in Lauderdale, St. Anthony will respond to emergency police calls with other officers. IV. LEVEL OF SERVICES During the term of this Agreement, St. Anthony will provide to Lauderdale the same police service extended to persons and property within St. Anthony, which will include, but not be limited to, the following: A. Patrol services, with random patrolling of all residential, business and public property areas during all shifts; B. Police presence within the boundaries of Lauderdale 24 hours each day, subject only to the exceptions noted above; C. Animal control services as provided within the City of St. Anthony by the animal control service employed by St. Anthony; Contract Agreement for Police Services Page 2 D. Dispatching services are to be paid directly by the municipality served by Ramsey County Dispatch. E. Enforcement of all ordinances of Lauderdale which are intended to be enforced by police officers, with special attention being given to parking, winter and nuisance ordinances; F. Ticketing for traffic violations will be done routinely during normal shifts; G. Crime prevention programs that encourage community involvement and investment in the City of Lauderdale. H. Criminal investigations. L Reports on police services and activities, including weekly, monthly and annual police reports; J. Responses to medical emergencies, fires and other emergencies; responses shall include, where appropriate, securing the scene for fire/ rescue personnel, accompanying fire/ rescue personnel to the hospital upon request of such personnel; and providing follow-up information to fire/rescue personnel upon request of such personnel; K. Officers will be available at Lauderdale City Hall to answer questions from, and provide information regarding police activities to, Lauderdale residents, business owners and staff on an as -needed basis; L. License inspections, background investigations and license enforcement services as called for under applicable state law or city ordinances; M. Review and comment, upon request, of proposed Lauderdale ordinances affecting police services or enforcement; N. Follow-up on reported crimes with the person(s) who reported the crime, including routine notification by telephone or mail as to the status of the investigation; and O. Special event traffic patrol services. V. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES This Agreement will be effective January 1, 2013, and will continue until . December 31, 2013. In consideration of the services to be provided under this Agreement, Lauderdale will pay St. Anthony an annual fee of $602,030 for the year 2013, for police service under this Agreement. VI. METHOD OF PAYMENT St. Anthony will bill Lauderdale monthly for 1/12 of the annual fee, and Lauderdale will promptly remit payments to St. Anthony within 30 days after receiving each billing from St. Anthony. VII. LIABILITY St. Anthony will be responsible for all liability incurred as a result of the actions of St. Anthony police officers under this Agreement, and will hold Lauderdale, its officers and employees harmless for any Contract Agreement for Police Services Page 3 liability resulting from actions of a St. Anthony employee and shall defend Lauderdale, its officers and employees, against any claim for damages arising out of St. Anthony's performance of this Agreement; provided, however, that if the claim, action or liability is one which is insured by St. Anthony's liability insurer, Lauderdale will bear the first $5,000.00 of expense for any such claim, action or liability, or expenses relation thereto, including attorneys' fees, to the extent not covered by the insurer because of a deductible amount under the policy (which deductible amount is currently $10,000.00). VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY The law enforcement and police services rendered to Lauderdale will be under the sole direction of St. Anthony. The standards of performance, the hiring and discipline of officers assigned, and other matters relating to regulations and policies related to.police employment, services and activities, will be within the exclusive control of St. Anthony. The parties hereto expressly affirm the importance of work force diversity and.St. Anthony agrees to use reasonable efforts, within applicable departmental budgetary limits, to recruit qualified female and minority police officers. IX. JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Both cities will appoint members to a Joint Advisory Committee. The committee will meet at least once a year to ensure that this Agreement and the services performed pursuant to this Agreement are meeting the expectations of both cities. Any recommendations of the committee will be strictly advisory. X. COMMUNICATIONS, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES St. Anthony will furnish all communication equipment and any necessary supplies required to perform the services, which are to be rendered under this Agreement. XI. COOPERATION AND ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS Lauderdale will be included in all Cooperative Agreements entered into by the St. Anthony Police Department with other police services units. XII. HEADQUARTERS Headquarters for services rendered to Lauderdale under this Agreement will be located at offices owned or leased by St. Anthony. The citizens of Lauderdale may notify headquarters or Ramsey County radio dispatch for police services requested either in person or by some other means of communication. St. Anthony officers may take routine telephone calls and complete routine reports for Lauderdale at the Lauderdale City Hall, and Lauderdale will have facilities available to the officers at Lauderdale City Hall for this purpose. The facilities will include a desk, telephone, fax and copier. XIII. EMPLOYEES OF ST. ANTHONY Officers assigned to duty in Lauderdale will at all times be employees of St. Anthony. All obligations with regard to workers compensation, PERA, withholding tax, insurance and similar personnel and employment matters will be the obligation of St. Anthony. Lauderdale will not be required to furnish any fringe benefits or assume any other liability of employment to any officer assigned to duty within Lauderdale. XIV. ENFORCEMENT POLICIES Enforcement policies of St. Anthony will prevail as the enforcement policies within Lauderdale. A written statement of the current enforcement policies of St. Anthony will be provided in writing to Lauderdale. Contract Agreement for Police Services Page 5 XXI. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT Either St. Anthony or Lauderdale may terminate the Agreement by submitting a written notification to terminate to the City Administrator of Lauderdale and the City Manager of St. Anthony by June 15, 2012. Termination of this Agreement shall be effective on December 3151 at 11:59 p.m. of the year that either Lauderdale or St. Anthony terminates the Agreement. XXII. REVIEW OF AGREEMENT From time to time the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be reviewed and revised, as St. Anthony and Lauderdale deem necessary. XXIII. ASSIGNMENT The rights and obligations of the parties under this Agreement will not be assigned, and St. Anthony will not subcontract for any services to be furnished to Lauderdale (except as otherwise provided in this Agreement), without the prior written consent of the other party. The parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above stated. CITY OF LAUDERDALE By. G/Xzo By: 1111aWVjLzi'L' Administrator Date: L / y— el C;Mayor Y O NTH NYV B J� By: KN , City Manager Date: & 19M" l LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion Action Resolution Work Session. X Meeting Date June 26, 2012 ITEM NUMBER Resident Concerns STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: The last couple of weeks the Council has received a couple of requests by residents. Staff summarized them and provided information to help the Council decide how to proceed. Ralph Mikel, 1843 Malvern Street: At the May 22 council meeting, Mr. Mikel claimed that his garage has deteriorated because a concrete wall was not constructed during the alley improvement project in 2003 to protect the structure. He asked the Council for $1,620 to install a 6 x 45' concrete section between his garage and the alley. Staff met with the city engineer (Darren Amundsen) last week to look at Mikel's garage. Amundsen felt the slope was within typical road/alley side limits. Staff noted the top of the slope adjacent to the garage remained the same elevation as prior to the project as evidenced by the same pre -alley project plantings. Given the site observations and pre -project infor- mation from the city staff, he failed to see the link between the garage and driveway condi- tions and the alley paving project. Michael and Natalie Micheal, 1786 Walnut Street: Staff also met with the city engineer to look at the Walnut Street alley near the Micheal's home. Based on storm sewer elevations and conditions observed in the alley, Amundson said a drainage pipe could not be installed to reliably alleviate the drainage issue. He felt the company that paved the Micheal's driveway could have created more slope to help with drainage, but since they didn't, he suggested they create a berm along their driveway. As the neighbors are at a higher elevation, he didn't think the addition of a berm would nega- tively impact the neighbors. He also suggested the Micheal's work with their neighbor to the south to create a swale between their homes to drain water to the front of the property. He also suggested they cover their egress window and direct their gutters to the front yard (they currently drain to the back yard adding to the amount of water back there). Attached . is my correspondence with Natalie for your reference. If the city engineer felt the addition of a storm sewer manhole was feasible, the city would refer to its assessment policy to determine how costs for the improvement would be shared (the section regarding Initiation of Improvements is attached). As the number of benefitting homeowners is limited, the city would follow option 2—with the benefiting homeowners covering 100% of the improvement. DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: Playground Equipment: Sara Nelson suggested switching around some of the playground equipment as she felt the swing sets posed a hazard for children running between the large and small play structures. Attached is a memo Jim prepared after talking with the play- ground company. OPTIONS: During the work session, staff will be able to provide more information or answer questions so the Council can decide how it would like to proceed with these requests. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: COUNCIL ACTION: t5io Numoer ®ate -FAL-P14 Name: Painter from University e Dads place Address: 1843 Malvern Street City, State, Zip: St. Paul, MN 55113 j �f Home Number: Cell Number: Work Site: same as above Work Detail 3/21/2012 `x 46 ft concrete apron (side of garage on alley,) $1,620.00 x 22 ft concrete driveway $3,036.00 Pour concrete slab inside garage by doors. (2 fit x 22 ft) $350.00 Tear out existing driveway and remove $700.00 TOTAL $5,706.00 moi ► I 1 "� -� — .� cuYi,. ,�. !/-� / �U O'f ?.ao ✓ c✓c, c_k Heather Butkowski From: Natalie.Micheal <Natalie.Micheal@target.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 8:51 AM To: *LAUCouncil Subject: 1786 Walnut St Hello Again, I wanted to thank you all for taking the time out of you meeting last night for me to tell my story. It was great to know that you are willing to look into the issue and see if anything can be done. I really appreciate it. I have a two minute video that I hope you will take the time to watch- this shows some of the water flow from the alley. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPbw-mNpnx8&feature=g-upi Thank you again, Natalie Micheal Natalie Micheal I Sr Product Safety & Quality Assurance Analyst 101 arget 1 7000 Target Parkway North I Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 1763-405-1525 From: Natalie.Micheal Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 3:19 PM To: 'council@ci.lauderdale.mn.us' Subject: 1786 Walnut St Hi City Council Members - I will be attending tonight's Council meeting and I wanted to address a few things in response to Heather's email before tonight. I spoke with the previous owner of the house. He stated the water coming from the alley into our backyard was an issue before we moved in which is why he installed the drain tile and sump pump. The drain tile does extend the entire perimeter of the house including a drain in the window well. The sump pump is only three years old and is in working condition. The issue is that it is running every 23-46 seconds for 5-6 hours when it is raining. This means 5 gallons of water is filling the drain tile and trying to push out of the house every 23-46 seconds. This is not the intention of a sump pump. The water from the Sump Pump is coming out the other side of the house (5 gallons at a high frequency) which is causing flooding on that side of the house as well. Installing a higher capacity sump pump is not an option if there is nowhere for the water to go. We had the VP of Asphalt driveway out again a few weeks ago. They can install a berm across our driveway which will divert some of the water coming into the backyard. They stated they would be concerned that this may divert water into someone else's backyard unless the berm was installed all the way down the alley to the storm drain. I know the City of Lauderdale has an ordinance that states I cannot divert water onto someone else's property. If we did install the berm on our driveway, would we be in violation of this ordinance if the water diverted two house down? Additionally, we had an Engineering Contractor out at our house and he advised there was nothing we could do in our backyard to help with the flooding including: adding a rain barrel or rain garden, re -sloping back yard, adding French drain or trench. He advised the water was coming in from the alley and the berm would be our best bet to try and divert some water but not all. I realize when we made an upgrade to our house last summer by installing a driveway this intensified an already problematic water problem. I do not think we could have predicted that all of the alley water would divert into our backyard/basement nor do I think we should be penalized by making improvements to our house based on a poorly designed alley. We have lost half of the square footage of our house because we can no longer use our finished basement (which included my son's bedroom). I am asking for your help to figure out a solution, This does not need to be a new storm drain (although every time it rains there is a foot of standing water in front of the drain that did not make it all the way there). There are other options such as re -sloping the alley with a top layer of asphalt, installing a berm all the way down the alley to the drain, or allowing us to install a berm on our driveway without violating city ordinance if water diverts to someone else's yard. I look forward to speaking with you further at tonight's meeting. Thank you, Natalie Micheal Natalie Micheal I Product Safety & Quality Assurance Sr. Analyst 101 arget 1 7000 Target Parkway North I Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 1763-405-1525 From: Heather Butkowski [mailto: heather. butkowski@ci.lauderdale.mn. us] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 12:32 PM To: Natalie.Micheal Subject: RE: 1786 Walnut St Hi Natalie, The meetings in June are on the 12th and the 26th starting at 7:30 p.m. You are welcome to address the Council at either meeting during the open forum. I provided the Council a copy of our correspondence already so they will be familiar with the issue. Take care, Heather From: Natalie.Micheal [mailto: Natalie. Micheal@target.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 12:08 PM To: Heather Butkowski Subject: RE: 1786 Walnut St Hi Heather - Thank you for your below email. I spoke with our neighbor Phyllis about the below and we would like to be added to the City council meeting in June. Can you advise date/time? Thank you, Natalie Natalie Micheal I Sr Product Safety & Quality Assurance Analyst I OTarget 1 7000 Target Parkway North I Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 1763-405-1525 From: Heather Butkowski jmailto: heather. butkowski@ci.lauderdale.mn.usl Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:06 PM To: Natalie.Micheal Subject: RE: 1786 Walnut St Dear Natalie, Thank you for the email. Since Michael and I have traded voicemail messages, I thought it might be easier to reply to your email. I just wanted to provide some perspective on the road projects from 10 years ago so you can understand the drainage system in your alley. Up until 10 years ago, the alleys were unpaved (gravel). When the streets and sewer system were rehabilitated between 2000 and 2003, the alleys were paved. The contractor paving the alleys was directed to maintained the same location and grade in so far as practical to tie into the existing driveways and garages. The City did not install storm sewers to provide drainage for homes along the alleys. There are only two alleys that had storm sewers installed, the one you live on and one on Carl Street. The storm sewers in those areas were installed to meet specific needs. You mentioned in your email that a contractor told you the storm sewer drain wasn't installed in the correct place but your contractor wouldn't have known this context. During the rain earlier this week, I saw that the majority of the water from Phyllis' property flowed south to the storm drain one house down. The water near your home comes from the north. From talking with staff and your neighbor Phyllis, it is my understanding that that is how the water has always drained as she said it largely pooled on her property previously. I understand there have been a number of improvements in the area, like your paved driveway and her garage that result in less space for rainwater to infiltrate and a change in grade. These appear to be the factors contributing to your recent water problems as the historical drainage of the alley hasn't changed. To add another storm sewer manhole to provide drainage for your property is something the City Council would have to approve. You are welcome to address them at a City Council meeting during the public forum. They meet the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 7:30 p.m. I will also relay your concerns to them in this week's Friday Report. Alternately, staff and the city's building official provided me a list of things you may want to check on or consider: • Verify that drain tile extends around the entire perimeter of the home • Add drain tile to the window well • Confirm the sump pump is working correctly • Install a higher capacity sump pump • Add rain gardens or rain barrels • Add a burm along the alley to divert water Give me a call if you would like to discuss further. Take care, Heather 651.792.7657 From: Natalie.Micheal[mailto:Natalie. MicheaKOtarget.coml Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 3:56 PM To: Heather Butkowski Subject: 1786 Walnut St Hi Heather - My husband and I live at 1786 Walnut St and would like to file a complaint to the city regarding the alley behind our house. The grading of the alley and the placement of the sewer drain is causing excess water to flow into our backyard and that of our neighbor at 1796. Due to this we are constantly getting water in our basements. Last Summer we had a driveway installed and the great people at Asphalt Driveway Co informed us that the alley was not installed properly, the grading was off and the drain should be closer to our house and there was nothing we could do to prevent all the water from coming into our yard. On Sunday (5/6/12) morning at Sam we had 3-4 inches of standing water along our fence line and a foot of water in our egress window which caused major flooding and damage to our newly finished basement. Our sump pump was working overtime but could not keep up with all of the water flowing from the alley into our yard. Our neighbor had similar water damage in her basement as well. This is not the first time this has occurred and we cannot continue to have flooding each time it rains due to improper grading of the alley. Is there a process we must follow to file a formal complaint to the city? Thank you, Natalie Micheal 1786 Walnut St 651-353-8207 Natalie Micheal I Sr Product Safety & Quality Assurance Analyst 101 arget 1 7000 Target Parkway North I Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 ( 763-405-1525 B. INITIATION OF IMPROVEMENTS The initiation of public improvement projects may occur in one of three ways: Petition of not less than 35% of property owners. An improvement project can begin with a signed petition by the owners of not less than 35% of the frontage of the real property abutting the proposed improvements. This improvement can only be ordered after a public hearing. 2. Petition of 100% of property owners. An improvement project can begin with a signed petition by the owners of 100% of the frontage of the real property abutting the proposed improvements. This improvement does not require a public hearing, and may be ordered by the City Council by a simple majority vote if the petitioning property owners agree to pay 100% of the costs of the improvements. 3. City Council Initiation. No petition is needed. This improvement can only be ordered after a public hearing. The resolution ordering the improvement must be adopted by four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. A complete outline of the public improvement process is provided in Section 9. ACTION REQUESTED Consent LAUDERDALE COUNCIL MEETING DATE May 8, 2012 Special Public Hearing ITEM NUMBER Playground Report Discussion/Action STAFF INITIAL Jim Resolution Work session -x- APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: At the last council meeting, Sara Nelson expressed the following concerns with the playground: • Smaller children will run from the 2-5 year old play structure at the northeast part of the playground to the large play structure at the south end. • In the middle is a swing set that they will have to navigate around while avoiding moving swings when in use, causing potential injury. She suggested the following changes to the playground: Switching the location of the 2-5 year old structure with the tire swing. The council took the suggestion under consideration and asked staff to research the issue and bring the information back to a future meeting. I asked Harlan from the playground company to provide me with a ballpark estimate of the cost. He estimated the cost to be $1500-2000. He also said the equipment is likely to get dinged and scratched in the process. They can touch it up, but it won't be like new. He also failed to see the benefit of the suggestion. Here some pros and cons of making these changes: Pros: • The 2-5 year old play structure would be right next to the large play structure, thus avoiding the need for young children to navigate around the swing set in the middle when going from the 2-5 year old structure to the large play structure, thus avoiding potential injury. Cons: • Navigating around the middle swings is still necessary anytime someone goes from the north side of the playground to the south side, or vice versa. • The extra cost and likely damage to new playground equipment. • Possible use zone infractions. • The playground was designed to separate the age groups. Displacing the 2-5 year old structure from the spring toys and tot swings undermines the original design. OPTIONS: 1) Direct staff to work with consultant to switch around equipment in playground, as long as no use zone infractions are created. 2) Do nothing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels it is best not to make changes to the playground as the current design maximized the amount of equipment that could be installed and met the use zone requirements for safety. COUNCIL ACTION: