9/25/11
The insider has learned that an email from Deb Kind, Mayor of Greenwood, to the Chief of the Southlake PD announces Greenwood's plan to look at alternatives to the SLMPD for police services. The email states that the reason for this is to see if there are alternatives that offer significant cost savings, not because there is dissatisfaction with the police service. The email acknowledges that Greenwood would have to keep paying its share of the bond debt for the public safety building through about 2023.
Interestingly, at a recent Shorewood council meeting, the Mayor announced that the SLMPD Coordinating Committee had decided to look for another city to join the SLMPD JPA. This was before the email from Mayor Kind was written.
Greenwood's obvious alternatives would be the Hennepin County Sheriff and the Deephaven PD. Deephaven already provides service for Woodland and the Sheriff covers lots of smaller communities. Minnetonka is also a possibility.
Adding a new city to the JPA seems problematic. Deephaven has always said it wants to stay with its own police and not be in a JPA with SLMPD. Victoria is in another county and uses the Carver County Sheriff as does Chanhassen. Minnetrista and Mound already are working on a plan to join forces and Minnstrista's only border shared with the SLMPD cities is on Enchanted Island. Navarre (next to Tonka Bay) is really a neighborhood of Orono which has its own PD. Minnetonka seems unlikely to want to join SLMPD as it has a large PD of its own. Spring Park and Minnetonka Beach seem happy using Orono PD as their police provider.
It's entirely possible that in 2014, the year that Greenwood could be gone, Shorewood, Excelsior and Tonka Bay could be stuck sharing the entire cost of the SLMPD. This, in 2012 budget dollars, would add more than $85,000 to Shorewood's annual budget for police or up to a 3% increase in the tax levy.
Stay tuned for more. It'll be interesting to watch the mayors of Shorewood, Tonka Bay and Excelsior work with Deb Kind (all four comprise the SLMPD Coordinating Committee) to try to keep Greenwood in the SLMPD fold. Will they put the financial squeeze on Chief Litsey? Their track record has been just the opposite. Of course, all this is happening in an an election year (2012 has all the mayors up for re-election) so no telling what kinds of games will get played.
Happy Reading!
The Insider
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Thursday, September 15, 2011
House Purchase - Why?
9/14/11
Blog reader Anonymous has asked for background on the recent purchase of the house on Smithtown Rd.
Development of the "Smithtown Crossing" corner (the intersection of Smithtown, Country Club Rd and County 19) has been a discussion topic in the Planning Commission for a number of years. It's an item in the City's Comprehensive Plan and was the topic of a joint Council Planning Commission meeting this year.
A key to getting an overall development done rather than each lot getting developed separately is to have reasonable assurance that a potential developer could acquire the individual properties. There was a Planning Commission meeting last year in which some of the lot owners indicated willingness to cooperate with a developer.
The actual boundary of the development could extend as far as Christopher Rd along Smithtown. However, there are several private residences at this far end. One of these, near the end of the row, had been on the market for about two years, with the offering price being reduced several times. The Planning Commission indicated to Council that they supported an attempt to purchase this property to nail down the west end of the potential development area.
Details of the Council's discussions leading to the purchase are not available. These discussions were held in executive sessions and minutes, except for the attendees and what the meeting subject was, are not published.
What is known is that the City purchased a house and lot for $131,000, plus closing costs and intends to tear the house down. The lot will be left empty pending some future use. From what the Insider knows of the house, tearing it down is the only reasonable action due to its poor condition. So, the City bought a lot for something less than $150,000, all-in. Will this help future development? Nobody knows, but it won't hurt. Could the City afford it? Yes, the money was in the Infrastructure Fund ($1.8 million in this fund based on the recent budget meeting info). Was it a good deal? Probably, for such a large lot in Shorewood.
Is there any one place to find more? No. There have been numerous meetings over several years finally resulting in the City's decision to purchase.
Happy Reading!
The Insider
Blog reader Anonymous has asked for background on the recent purchase of the house on Smithtown Rd.
Development of the "Smithtown Crossing" corner (the intersection of Smithtown, Country Club Rd and County 19) has been a discussion topic in the Planning Commission for a number of years. It's an item in the City's Comprehensive Plan and was the topic of a joint Council Planning Commission meeting this year.
A key to getting an overall development done rather than each lot getting developed separately is to have reasonable assurance that a potential developer could acquire the individual properties. There was a Planning Commission meeting last year in which some of the lot owners indicated willingness to cooperate with a developer.
The actual boundary of the development could extend as far as Christopher Rd along Smithtown. However, there are several private residences at this far end. One of these, near the end of the row, had been on the market for about two years, with the offering price being reduced several times. The Planning Commission indicated to Council that they supported an attempt to purchase this property to nail down the west end of the potential development area.
Details of the Council's discussions leading to the purchase are not available. These discussions were held in executive sessions and minutes, except for the attendees and what the meeting subject was, are not published.
What is known is that the City purchased a house and lot for $131,000, plus closing costs and intends to tear the house down. The lot will be left empty pending some future use. From what the Insider knows of the house, tearing it down is the only reasonable action due to its poor condition. So, the City bought a lot for something less than $150,000, all-in. Will this help future development? Nobody knows, but it won't hurt. Could the City afford it? Yes, the money was in the Infrastructure Fund ($1.8 million in this fund based on the recent budget meeting info). Was it a good deal? Probably, for such a large lot in Shorewood.
Is there any one place to find more? No. There have been numerous meetings over several years finally resulting in the City's decision to purchase.
Happy Reading!
The Insider
AIS, Christmas Lake, New JPA?
9/14/11
During Monday's council meeting (see: http://windowsmedia.alphameetings.com/LMCCShorewood/091211shorewood.wmv at the 19:45 point) the Mayor introduced the "need" for a new Joint Powers Agreement covering AIS and Christmas Lake. Such an agreement had never been discussed by the council yet, the City Attorney had prepared a draft of its contents and it was clear that the Mayor had the votes to ram it through council.
The Insider notes that no council members other than Woodruff had any questions about the draft or its purpose. See: http://weblink.ci.shorewood.mn.us/weblink8/0/doc/155573/Page1.aspx and page 45 for the first page of the draft.
Woodruff asked about the purpose, questioned if a simple contract between the Watershed, DNR and Shorewood would suffice, asked for explanations as to meaning of some of the contents and questioned if the MCWD could actually enter into such an agreement since they do not have AIS management in their 509 Plan and need to do a plan amendment to get it added.
Readers of this blog really need to watch the responses from the City Attorney who, by the way, has a history of crafting JPA's for the City that, years later, come back to bite the City in the posterior.
It's also fascinating to listen to Zerby respond to questions about the meaning of the draft, defending ambiguous language and the Attorney's work, the fuzzy logic and mentioning that the "emergency legislation" gives the MCWD authority over AIS. The Insider has checked and there is no legislation or 509 plan amendment for the MCWD. Maybe Zerby meant the State legislation which was passed this spring that gave the DNR additional tools to manage AIS? If so, this legislation does nothing for the MCWD. Seems this is another of Zerby's obfuscations.
The conclusion was to have the Attorney complete drafting the agreement and to send it to the MCWD and DNR for their review (and approval?) by the end of this week. No direction to send it to council members, no direction to bring the completed draft back for a council review before sending it to the other groups. The Insider assumes that the Mayor feels council approval of the agreement is not necessary prior to sending it to the other groups. She probably already knows she has the votes to get it approved so is not bothering with the formality of actually having a vote.
Oh, by the way, the Christmas Lake Association which was supposed to be a party to the boat ramp gate system and its ongoing management isn't even a party to the agreement. Wonder why?
Happy reading!
The Insider
During Monday's council meeting (see: http://windowsmedia.alphameetings.com/LMCCShorewood/091211shorewood.wmv at the 19:45 point) the Mayor introduced the "need" for a new Joint Powers Agreement covering AIS and Christmas Lake. Such an agreement had never been discussed by the council yet, the City Attorney had prepared a draft of its contents and it was clear that the Mayor had the votes to ram it through council.
The Insider notes that no council members other than Woodruff had any questions about the draft or its purpose. See: http://weblink.ci.shorewood.mn.us/weblink8/0/doc/155573/Page1.aspx and page 45 for the first page of the draft.
Woodruff asked about the purpose, questioned if a simple contract between the Watershed, DNR and Shorewood would suffice, asked for explanations as to meaning of some of the contents and questioned if the MCWD could actually enter into such an agreement since they do not have AIS management in their 509 Plan and need to do a plan amendment to get it added.
Readers of this blog really need to watch the responses from the City Attorney who, by the way, has a history of crafting JPA's for the City that, years later, come back to bite the City in the posterior.
It's also fascinating to listen to Zerby respond to questions about the meaning of the draft, defending ambiguous language and the Attorney's work, the fuzzy logic and mentioning that the "emergency legislation" gives the MCWD authority over AIS. The Insider has checked and there is no legislation or 509 plan amendment for the MCWD. Maybe Zerby meant the State legislation which was passed this spring that gave the DNR additional tools to manage AIS? If so, this legislation does nothing for the MCWD. Seems this is another of Zerby's obfuscations.
The conclusion was to have the Attorney complete drafting the agreement and to send it to the MCWD and DNR for their review (and approval?) by the end of this week. No direction to send it to council members, no direction to bring the completed draft back for a council review before sending it to the other groups. The Insider assumes that the Mayor feels council approval of the agreement is not necessary prior to sending it to the other groups. She probably already knows she has the votes to get it approved so is not bothering with the formality of actually having a vote.
Oh, by the way, the Christmas Lake Association which was supposed to be a party to the boat ramp gate system and its ongoing management isn't even a party to the agreement. Wonder why?
Happy reading!
The Insider
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Not Doing The Job - Part 2
9/10/11
The story behind the MPCA audit of Shorewood's storm water plan compliance continues.
The Insider learned that the City Administrator sent an email to council members this week alerting them that the audit had happened in the spring and that the City had responded to the MPCA's findings in August. According to the email, the response satisfied the MPCA's major concerns.
So, the Insider wonders why in August the City could provide the documentation showing the City had been compliant for the past years when a few months before, during the audit, it could not. Also, why wasn't Council notified of the audit, its results and the response by the City until just this week?
Happy Reading!
The Insider
The story behind the MPCA audit of Shorewood's storm water plan compliance continues.
The Insider learned that the City Administrator sent an email to council members this week alerting them that the audit had happened in the spring and that the City had responded to the MPCA's findings in August. According to the email, the response satisfied the MPCA's major concerns.
So, the Insider wonders why in August the City could provide the documentation showing the City had been compliant for the past years when a few months before, during the audit, it could not. Also, why wasn't Council notified of the audit, its results and the response by the City until just this week?
Happy Reading!
The Insider
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Not doing the job?
9/3/11
The Insider just learned that Shorewood was audited by the MPCA for compliance to its storm water permit and plan. The audit took place several months ago, but the MPCA just released the report.
Among the findings were that the City had no evidence of any system to track compliance with the permit and plan and nothing that showed inspections and maintenance as required in them had been done for the past years. The requirement is that all ponds, etc. be inspected at once in a five-year period (20% per year is acceptable) and that any maintenance warranted by the inspection findings be done by the City.
The report does not sanction the City, but does state requirements and recommendations which the City must respond to.
It'll be really interesting to monitor how Larry Brown, Public Works Director and James Landini, City Engineer try to distance themselves from the findings as they are the ones supposed to be making sure the work was done and properly documented. Of course, Brian Heck, City Administrator and the manager responsible for overall City operations is ultimately responsible.
It's especially troubling that the report from the outside consultant that accompanied the storm water plan some five years ago stated that it appeared the City did not have adequate resources to carry out the plan requirements. Subsequently, in several annual budget discussions, Larry Brown was asked if he was getting the work done and if he needed more resources and his responses were the 20% per year was basically getting done and he didn't need more help. It appears this was not the case.
Happy Reading!
The Insider
The Insider just learned that Shorewood was audited by the MPCA for compliance to its storm water permit and plan. The audit took place several months ago, but the MPCA just released the report.
Among the findings were that the City had no evidence of any system to track compliance with the permit and plan and nothing that showed inspections and maintenance as required in them had been done for the past years. The requirement is that all ponds, etc. be inspected at once in a five-year period (20% per year is acceptable) and that any maintenance warranted by the inspection findings be done by the City.
The report does not sanction the City, but does state requirements and recommendations which the City must respond to.
It'll be really interesting to monitor how Larry Brown, Public Works Director and James Landini, City Engineer try to distance themselves from the findings as they are the ones supposed to be making sure the work was done and properly documented. Of course, Brian Heck, City Administrator and the manager responsible for overall City operations is ultimately responsible.
It's especially troubling that the report from the outside consultant that accompanied the storm water plan some five years ago stated that it appeared the City did not have adequate resources to carry out the plan requirements. Subsequently, in several annual budget discussions, Larry Brown was asked if he was getting the work done and if he needed more resources and his responses were the 20% per year was basically getting done and he didn't need more help. It appears this was not the case.
Happy Reading!
The Insider
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)