Loading...
042798 CC Reg AgP1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD n % ® CITY COUNCIL REGUL EETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1 rR 7:00 P.M. The City Council will convene in Executive Session immediately following the regular portion of the meeting to discuss matters in litigation. AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call Mayor Dahlberg Stover O'Neill Garfunkel McCarty B. Review Agenda C. Presentation of Plaques 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes April 6, 1998 (Att. -#2A Minutes) B . Reconvened Board of Review Minutes April 13, 1998 (Att. -#2B Minutes) C . City Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 13, 1998 (Att. -#2C Minutes) D. City Council Work Session Minutes April 20, 1998 (Att. -#2D Minutes) 3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: A. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit (Att.- #3A Proposed Resolution) Applicant: Minnetonka Country Club Location: 24575 Smithtown Road B . A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Preliminary Plat - Mary Lake Addition (Att. -#3B Proposed Resolution) Applicant: O'Dell Tinnesand Location: Yellowstone Trail C . A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Proposal for Professional Engineering Services for Emergency Vehicle Preemption Equipment (Att.- #3C Proposed Resolution) D. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Liquor License for the American Legion (Att. -#3D Proposed Resolution) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 27, 1998 PAGE 2 OF 3 E. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Accepting Plans and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids - Project No. 97 -6 Lakeside Watermain Extension (Att. - #3E Proposed Resolution) F . A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Abatement of Watermain Assessment (Att. - #3F Letter of Request & Proposed Resolution) 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.) 5. PRESENTATION BY BOB GAGNE OF 1997 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FRIENDS OF THE SOUTHSHORE CENTER (Att.45 Annual Report) 6. PARKS - Report by Representative A. Report on April 14, 1998 Park Commission Meeting (Att.46 Draft Minutes) B . A Motion Accepting Donation of Electrical Extensions for Cathcart Park and Freeman Park Field #1 to the Backstops C . A Motion Authorizing Expenditure of Funds for Netting in Freeman Park, Field #2 to Address Foul Ball Problem (Att.46C Engineer's Memorandum) D. A Motion Approving a Park Shelter Policy (Att.46D Proposed Policy) 7. PLANNING - Report by Representative A. A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare a Findings of Fact Regarding a Requests for a Setback Variance (Att.47A Planner's Memorandum) Applicant: Dave Peck Location: 5575 Sylvan Lane B . A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare a Findings of Fact Regarding a Request for a Conditional Use Permit (Att.47B Planner's Memorandum) Applicant: Nancy Williams Location: 26270 Smithtown Road C . Report on Antenna Discussion at Joint Meeting and Discussion on Communication Consultant 8. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - CHAPTERS 502 NUISANCES; 701 DOGS; AND 902 PUBLIC PARKS & RECREATIONAL AREAS & ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A POLICY (Att. - #8 Proposed Ordinance & Resolution) 9. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL EFFECTIVE MAY 1 (Att. - #9 Proposed Resolution) 10. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION MAKING AN APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION EFFECTIVE MAY 1 (Att. - #10 Proposed Resolution) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -APRIL 27, 1998 PAGE 3 OF 3 11. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION REGARDING ADMINISTRATION OF THE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT (Att. - #11 Proposed Resolution) 12. DISCUSSION WITH CITY ATTORNEY ON ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS (Att. - #12 City Attorney's Documentation) 13. ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS A. Staff Report on Development Monitoring B . Report on Shoreline Messages (Att. - #13B Message Received) C . Report on Upcoming League Conference (Att. -#13C Conference Material) 14. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Review South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department 1997 Audit Report (Att. - #14 Report) 15. ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (Att. - #15) 4. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (612) 474 -3236 FAX (612) 474 -0128 • www.state.net /shorewood • cityhall @shorewood.state.net Executive Sunu nary Shorewood City Council Meeting Monday, April 27,1998 F` . e The City Council will meet at 6:30 p.m. in the Conference Room at City Hall with the City's Prosecuting Attorney to discuss tree ordinance violations and the prosecutions thereof. The regular meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Agenda Item #2C: Councilmember Stover has requested, due to her years of working closely with Councilmember McCarty, that she be given an opportunity to say a few words and present a plaque to Jennifer. Agenda Item #3A: This resolution approves the request by the Minnetonka Country Club for a C.U.P. to expand the main ballroom in the existing clubhouse facility. Consistent with staff recommendations, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the C.U.P. Agenda Item #3B: This resolution approves the preliminary plat for Mary Lake Addition located at the intersection of Minnetonka Drive and Yellowstone Trail. After considerable review by the Planning Commission, O'Dell Tinnesand's engineers had submitted a preliminary plat that complied with the requirements of Shorewood's development regulations. The most significant hurdle involved draining the site across the adjoining property to the north. The applicant resolved his problem by purchasing the adjoining property in order to obtain the necessary easement. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the preliminary plat. Agenda Item #3C: This resolution authorizes engineering services for the installation of emergency vehicle preemption devices at County Road 19 and Old Market Road interesections with Trunk Highway 7. Agenda Item #31): This resolution approves the annual liquor licenses for the American Legion Club. Agenda Item #3E :Last November, the city Council authorized ad for bid for the Lakeside Watermain Project (Mr. Bill Wicka and nieghbors). Shortly thereafter, the petitioners requested major revisions to the plans. Therefore, the advertisement was never published due to the late season. Plans have now been redesigned and are ready to be re- authorized for bidding purposes. This resolution accepts the plans, specs and estimates, and authorizes advertisement for bids to be published. � PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Executive Summary for Council Meeting April 27, 1998 Page 2 of 3 Agenda Item #3F: This resolution is similar to Resolution No. 97 -85. It authorizes a rebate of $5,000 on property that had been assessed but does not have municipal water available to it. Agenda Item #5: Bob Gagne, Chair of the Friends of the Southshore Senior Community Center, attended the last Council meeting to give a report on the finances of the Friends. Because we were unable to get to that item on the agenda until late, Mr. Gagne had to leave and will be present at this meeting to report to the Council. Agenda Item #6B: It is appropriate for the Council by motion to accept a donation from South Tonka Little League for improvements to Cathcart and Freeman Field #1. This includes extending underground electrical cable to the backstop and a conduit behind the mound because the League is now using pitching machines. The work has in fact been completed. Agenda Item #6C: The Park Commission is recommending that approximately $2,500 of park funds be spent on netting along the tree line at Field #2 at Freeman Park. This netting will be strung along four poles being donated by NSP. The motion would be to approve the purchase of this netting. Agenda Item #61): The Park Commission is recommending a policy for the park shelter in Freeman Park and in Manor Park. A copy of the recommended policy is included in the packet. The motion would be to approve the policy. Agenda Item #7A: Dave Peck has requested setback variances to build a second story room addition and an additional garage stall to his property at 5575 Sylvan Lane. The house is nonconforming because it is only 44.5 feet from Wild Rose Lane, instead of the 50 feet required by the R -IA zoning district. The upper level room addition requires a 5.5 -foot variance. The garage stall addition requires a 12.5 -foot variance. The Planning Director's report recommends as much as an eight -foot variance due to the extraordinary right -of -way width of Wild Rose Lane. It is 66 feet wide rather than the 50 feet required by the Subdivision Code. At the public hearing on this matter a motion to deny both variances failed to pass. A motion to approve just the 5.5 -foot variance for the room addition also failed on a 3 -3 tie vote. Finally, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council consider vacating the excess right -of -way on Wild Rose Lane. This would eliminate the need for a variance for the room addition. The Council should direct staff to prepare findings of fact for this request. Approval of any variance requires a four -fifths vote by the Council. Agenda Item #7B: Nancy Williams has requested a special home occupation permit to allow her to operate a cat boarding business at 26270 Smithtown Road. She intends to construct a detached, 24' x 30' accessory building, the size of a three -car garage, in which the cat kennels will be housed. The building will be designed to be converted into a garage in the event the cat boarding business is discontinued. The Planning Commission voted 5 -1 to recommend approval by the City Council. They added the following conditions to those suggested by the Planning Director: • Limit the number of cats boarded at any given time to 16 -20. • Limit hours of drop -off and pick -up to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. - • Compliance with all state and local building, zoning and fire codes • No storage of deceased animals for longer than 24 hours s Executive Summary for Council Meeting April 27, 1998 Page 3 of 3 The Council should direct staff to prepare findings of fact for this item. Approval by the Council requires a four -fifths vote. Agenda Item #8: This is actually two action items. The first is an ordinance amendment changing our City Code in three places requiring the owners of domestic animals to clean up after them. The resolution is intended to clarify City policies and have them all in one location which can be handed out to residents. Agenda Item #9: This resolution, according to the direction given by the City Council at its April 20 work session, appoints Roger Champa to fill the vacancy on the City Council effective May 1. Agenda Item #10: This resolution appoints Neil Anderson and Marty Wellens to serve on the Planning Commission as directed by the City Council at the April 20 work session. Agenda Item #11: This item has been deleted. Agenda Item #12: This is an opportunity for the City Council to talk to the City Attorney about the concept of Administrative Sanctions following discussion with the Prosecuting Attorney at the previous work session regarding prosecution of tree ordinance violations. • f At • CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1998 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Dahlberg called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. A . Roll Call Present: Mayor Dahlberg; Councilmembers Stover (arrived at 7:21 p.m.), O'Neill and Garfunkel; Planning Commissioners Lizee (arrived at 7:15 p.m.) and Champa Park Commissioner Arnst; Administrator Hurm Absent: Councilmember McCarty B . Review Agenda Councilmember O'Neill suggested adding Item 6A to discuss monitoring of development sites. The agenda was approved as amended. 2. REVIEW FIRST QUARTER STATUS REPORT OF 1998 PRIORITIES The Council reviewed the First Quarter Status Report of the 1998 Priorities. Administrator Hurm pointed out the Housing Rental Code is due for renewal and should be scheduled for discussion at a future work session. 3. DISCUSSION ON POLICY QUESTION TOPICS FOR A CITIZEN SURVEY Mayor Dahlberg related the following policy areas which were submitted by Councilmember O'Neill for consideration as topics for a citizen survey: Water Councilmember O'Neill raised the question of whether the water system should be expanded to include all residences. Mayor Dahlberg noted one complication in addressing this issue is the lack of major water quality plants. Councilmember O'Neill pointed out the City of Deephaven may have information relative to this issue. Councilmember O'Neill stated he would like a professional survey relative to the issue of water to obtain legitimate input and also for use by future councils. Councilmember Garfunkel raised a concern relative to how a survey can be completed without the educational aspect. Mayor Dahlberg commented he would like to ascertain the policy attitude that if the water fund is solvent, is there a reason why residents would want the system expanded in an involuntary fashion. He felt the City would also be able to determine whether the residents are of the opinion that the water quality may be dramatically higher than it is from any given well system. Mayor Dahlberg explained the goal of the Council is to find out whether or not people are happy or unhappy with a voluntary water system. Councilmember Garfunkel suggested asking the residents whether they are happy or unhappy with the ordinance which is being proposed. �a� L0� CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES APRIL 6, 1998 - PAGE 2 Housing Density Councilmember O'Neill had raised the question of whether Shorewood should change the current zoning codes to allow for higher density housing, affordable housing, senior housing or general development. Mayor Dahlberg noted his belief the Council is in the process of changing the ordinance in which the Council cannot unilaterally declare any area in excess of three acres can be instantly rezoned for high density housing. Councilmember O'Neill suggested changing this to reflect "higher than currently zoned" as opposed to "rezoning for high density housing." Green Space in Natural Areas Councilmember O'Neill questioned whether the Council would be willing to support a bond issue relative to acquiring green space in natural areas. Snowmobiles Mayor Dahlberg expressed concern with the extent to which the east side of Shorewood is not involved in this issue. City Being Pro Active in Inspiring the Development of Neighborhood Associations (Councilmember Stover arrived at 7:21 p.m.) 4. DISCUSSION ON CITY'S INVOLVEMENT IN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS OR ORGANIZATIONS Mayor Dahlberg felt neighborhood associations, if well organized, could avoid the expense of research such as currently being conducted relative to the trail issue and the potential research which will be conducted relative to various policy issues. He felt the associations could provide a communication channel by which the Council would be made aware of resident opinions. Mayor Dahlberg expressed his appreciation to Administrator Hurm for his research on this issue and the information which he provided to the Council. Mayor Dahlberg reviewed the memorandum of Administrator Hurm relative to neighborhood associations. Mayor Dahlberg explained the process needs to be more formal which will provide the City with a list of every neighborhood association along with a list of its members. The association must document whether or not its members actually endorse the goals, values and plans of the association. Councilmember Garfunkel added the associations will need to ensure new members are representative of their neighborhood. Mayor Dahlberg stated the neighborhood boundaries will need to be established and lists of residents identified. Mayor Dahlberg requested the following two items be added to Hurm's memorandum: (1) Effective neighborhood associations could potentially lower the City's costs relative to research. (2) Neighborhood associations could also represent a permanent fundamental shift of political power away from City Hall to the people. Mayor Dahlberg explained as long as the people are not communicating with each other and as long as they are not.,highly organized, there , is_ some presumption that what City Hall proceeds with is legitimate. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES APRIL 6, 1998 - PAGE 3 Hurm questioned how the Council will determine that an association is representative. Mayor Dahlberg explained the associations would need to provide a membership list as well as documentation which would indicate who signed a particular petition. He recommended the City propose neighborhood association boundaries, however, if the people living in these areas would like to change the boundaries, they could. This will provide a list of the specific residents in a particular neighborhood and would allow the City to compare the neighborhood list with the signatures on the goals and policy statements which are submitted by an association. Councilmember Stover raised concern two adjacent neighborhoods could be in opposition on the same issue. Mayor Dahlberg stated then a compromise would need to be explored. Councilmember Stover pointed out if there is no possible compromise, the City will be in a situation in which it cannot satisfy both neighborhoods. Councilmember Stover felt it could be dangerous to leave the impression the power of the association is more powerful than it actually is. Mayor Dahlberg stated the associations are being asked to state their goals and values as opposed to their demands. He felt it would be beneficial for the City to be aware of the goals and plans each association has for their neighborhood. Councilmember O'Neill did not feel there would be sufficient interest in this plan for it to work, although he was willing to try it since there are more positive aspects than negative. He did not feel there would be people interested in committing the time and energy necessary to maintain a neighborhood association. Mayor Dahlberg noted his interest in defining neighborhood boundaries. If residents are interested, the neighborhood boundaries may be adjusted. He stated he would like to see a commitment to developing a document outlining issues such as how to organize a neighborhood association and this would contain the City's plan in which a list of residents in the area would be included and the obligations of the association outlined. Mayor Dahlberg stated he would like to publish the boundaries in a map which would be included in the newsletter. A tool kit would be provided asking the associations to submit to the City a statement of their values and their goals for their neighborhood. The association would also need to demonstrate to what degree they are representative. Mayor Dahlberg stated his goal is to have proactive rather than reactive involvement on the part of neighborhood associations. In addition, he would like to see documentation of an association's representativeness. At that point, an association could potentially send a delegate to a congress of neighborhood associations. He noted this process would also include minority reports and remarked this type of information is invaluable to the City. Mayor Dahlberg pointed out this is a long term process. Commissioner Champa inquired how this administrative process will be initiated. Mayor Dahlberg noted these are issues which will need to be investigated and discussed. Councilmember O'Neill stated he is willing to support this endeavor. Administrator Hurm noted there are 14 associations which are currently established. He pointed out if staff will be defining neighborhood boundaries, these may not necessarily be the same boundaries. Mayor Dahlberg stated it would be acceptable to establish many associations, some of which may be very small. Hurm pointed out some of the associations may cross over into each other. Mayor Dahlberg stated-_ , he would not want them to cross over at first, however, it would be acceptable if they cross over to a certain extent as long as their representativeness can be documented. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES APRIL 6, 1998 - PAGE 4 Hurm noted some associations may require a membership fee. Mayor Dahlberg felt this would be up to each individual association. Councilmember Garfunkel stated the association will not be representative if the majority of the people in a neighborhood refuse to join because they do not wish to pay a fee. Mayor Dahlberg stated it would be possible for a homeowners association to be a neighborhood association, however, from the viewpoint of the City, they are all neighborhood associations fulfilling the exact same functions. He stated the City would not be concerned with the association's private relationships and contracts relative to such things as mowing the grass and upkeep. Once again it was emphasized that the neighborhood associations must be able to document the extent of its representativeness. There will be a requirement relative to the number of members necessary to establish a neighborhood association. Commissioner Champa suggested utilizing the existing associations as an example of the benefits of an association. Commissioner Champa suggested a message from Mayor Dahlberg on a hotline type number explaining the benefits of a neighborhood association which residents could call if they are 'interested in this concept. Hurm stated there is a possibility several neighborhoods may have strong representation while other neighborhoods do not. Mayor Dahlberg stated as policy makers and managers, the Council will have to decide how much weight is given to the input which is received. Hurm inquired if a sub group of a neighborhood comes forward with a concern, how this would be handled. Mayor Dahlberg explained as policy makers and managers, the Council would have to decide how much weight would be given to a particular issue. The sub group would have to produce documentation of their representativeness. Councilmember Garfunkel felt if the neighborhood association has a healthy representation, the concern of the sub group would come forward through the association. Mayor Dahlberg committed that once the boundaries are defined and a neighborhood association tool kit established, he will visit each of the neighborhoods to encourage their proactive participation with the City. Councilmember Stover expressed concern relative to the degree of government regulation which is required of the associations to document their representativeness. Mayor Dahlberg stated it is not the intent of the City to have regulatory power over any of the associations. He felt this to be leadership as opposed to regulation. is Mayor Dahlberg stated there is no attempt to set up a system of local city government which in any way regulates neighborhood associations. He pointed out the purpose of this particular work session is relative to leadership and prevention rather than cures when it is too late. Mayor Dahlberg felt this encourages proactive participation by neighborhoods rather than reactive participation. He stated this is not an attempt to set up neighborhood entities which are regulated in any way. I Councilmember :.Stover asked. whether the City would prescribe structure as well as bylaws. , Mayor Dahlberg state&the associations would need to address those matters themselves, although he will want to know how representative a neighborhood association is when approaching the City with a particular request. Mayor Dahlberg explained the role of the City will be to encourage neighborhood associations by providing information via the tool kit and defining the neighborhood boundaries. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES APRIL 6, 1998 - PAGE 5 Administrator Hurm inquired what the City's relationship with the neighborhood organizations should be. Mayor Dahlberg stated there is no relationship. The Council, as leaders, will encourage their growth through development and as individual policy makers, the Council has to make a decision to be responsive or not. Councilmember Garfunkel felt the City is attempting to accomplish more direct communication with the residents to understand their position prior to an issue coming to light. Hurm noted it can be difficult to get information out to the neighborhood associations. Mayor Dahlberg stated one of the objectives would be to create an electronic community in which neighborhood associations communicate with the City via e- mail/internet access. He felt any association which is established will be large enough to have digital communication with the City. Mayor Dahlberg stated he would encourage the associations to establish e-mail access with the City. Councilmember Stover noted associations tend to establish and then dissolve. She noted the only long term existing associations have a common goal not created by the City. Councilmember Stover pointed out in her experience associations only stay active as long as they have a common goal or a focus point. When an issue is resolved, the association ceases to exist. Mayor Dahlberg disagreed stating the association ceases to exist when the leadership ceases to exist. Councilmember Stover was uncertain how area designations could be established. 5. DISCUSSION OF PROCEDURE FOR FILLING PLANNING COMMISSION VACANCY A discussion was held relative to filling the vacancy created by the resignation of Planning Commissioner Kolstad. Councilmember O'Neill suggested a change in the ordinance reducing the Commission from seven members to five to make this a more efficient group. He expressed concern, as Council Liaison to the Planning Commission, relative to the amount of time which is spent on a particular issue. Councilmember Garfunkel felt this to be a lack of leadership. Commissioner Champa expressed his disagreement, however he felt there may be too many . members. He noted at the present time, the Commission is reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and is spending considerable time at this point discussing the wording. Mayor Dahlberg stated he is sympathetic to discussing this issue relative to the Planning and Park Commissions, but questioned whether the commissions will still be representative of the City. Councilmember Garfunkel pointed out there are only five councilmembers and Councilmember O'Neill pointed out much larger cities utilize fewer commissioners. Councilmember Stover noted the City was originally divided into seven sections with a representative of each section on the commission and she was in favor of this. Mayor Dahlberg stated if the City were to establish a ward system, there could be four wards and one at large. Hurm pointed out the ordinance strongly suggests there be a representative from the islands. Councilmember Garfunkel pointed out the question at hand is whether to advertise. Mayor Dahlberg suggested choosing a commissioner from the letters which were submitted relative to the vacancy on the Planning Commission at the beginning of this year. Councilmember O'Neill pointed out this particular position expires the end of this year. Councilmember Stover noted there is currently no one on the Commission who represents the islands. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES APRIL 6, 1998 - PAGE 6 Mayor Dahlberg was unsure the issue of island representation should impact whether the Commission is made up of seven or five members. He stated there needs to be communication with the residents of the island and the City needs to be sensitive of their needs. He agrees with the ordinance strongly suggesting there be a representative from that area, but if there is no volunteer, there will have to be other ways to make up the Commission. Mayor Dahlberg suggested Hurm contact the applicants who applied at the beginning of the year. There would be no need to re- interview those applicants since they were interviewed just several months ago. Councilmember Garfunkel did not feel it should matter where a particular Planning Commissioner resides within the community. Councilmember Stover stated in the past, it became the responsibility of the Planning Commissioners to alert members of their neighborhood of a development process or an ordinance change which would affect them. Mayor Dahlberg stated everyone wants the island to have representation and he suggested sending a letter. Councilmember Garfunkel felt if a letter is sent to the residents of the island, then an invitation should be made to the entire city. Hurm will ascertain how many of the prior applicants are still interested. A decision will then be made relative how to proceed with this issue. Councilmember O'Neill stated he will abstain on every vote because he feels the Commission should be reduced to five members. He noted an ordinance change could be completed very quickly. Councilmember O'Neill has received numerous complaints from residents relative to the efficiency of the Planning Commission. Mayor Dahlberg stated he would be willing to move in the direction of an ordinance amendment reducing the size of the Commission, however, there needs to be time to consider this matter. He pointed out a 4/5 vote will be necessary to accomplish this. Mayor Dahlberg felt this issue should be heard at a Council meeting and a vote taken. Councilmember Garfunkel did not feel representation to be an issue. He would like to hear the arguments to be made for a seven member Commission. Councilmember Stover stated the number is probably not as important as the particular personalities involved. Mayor Dahlberg noted his belief there are good people on both commissions, however, if because of the mix of those personalities, a dysfunctional commission results, the Council will need to take action. Councilmember Stover did not feel the Commission to be dysfunctional, however, various personalities will affect the speed with which things are accomplished. Mayor Dahlberg suggested this issue come before the Council for a vote within the next month. Councilmember O'Neill was in agreement. (Councilmember Stover left the meeting at 9:11 p.m.) 6. DISCUSSION ON AD HOC LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Mayor Dahlberg recommended a process of opening this committee to the city to determine who is interested. Dean Riesen will then be asked to review the candidates and make a recommendation to the Council. Councilmember O'Neill pointed out there are some qualified candidates, however, they have not applied. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES APRIL 6, 1998 - PAGE 7 Councilmember Garfunkel noted this has been advertised to the public. Mayor Dahlberg suggested a list be compiled by Monday and an interview session established for Dean Riesen to meet the candidates and make a recommendation to the Council. A. DISCUSSION OF MONITORING OF DEVELOPMENT SITES Councilmember O'Neill commented on Marsh Pointe and the plastic which continues to be in the wetlands. Lundgren Bros. wants to wait so as not to damage the wetlands. This plastic has been there for approximately one month and at this point, there is additional plastic in the wetland area. With respect to Watten Ponds, there is a 50 -foot tree with a 12 -foot diameter tree protection fencing. There is a home being constructed and there are two 50 -foot trees on that lot and one has tree protection fencing approximately four feet from the trunk. In addition, on another lot, tree protection fence was removed and mulch was dumped in this area. Mayor Dahlberg requested the Council be provided with the history of this development from January of 1997 documenting the violations which have been discussed by the Council as well as those addressed by staff which did not come before the Council. Mayor Dahlberg felt perhaps the development needs to be shut down. Councilmember O'Neill stated he would like to meet with Prosecuting Attorney Potts to address the violations. Mayor Dahlberg stated he would like to review the clear, definable violations of the ordinance, the Tree Preservation Policy and the Development Agreement which have continued throughout the process for the past year. He pointed out there are other developers which do not conduct their work in this manner. 7. ADJOURNMENT Dahlberg moved, O'Neill seconded to adjourn the City Council Work Session Meeting at 9:25 p.m. Motion passed 310. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Is Cheryl Wallat, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. ATTEST TOM DAHLBERG, MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF SHOREWOOD BOARD OF REVIEW MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1998 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. y Mayor Dahlberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. A . Roll Call Present: Mayor Dahlberg; Councilmembers Stover, McCarty, O'Neill and Garfunkel; and City Assessor Rolf Erickson B . Review Agenda The agenda was approved as presented for April 13, 1998. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A Motion to Approve the Board of Review Meeting Minutes - April 1, 1998 The Board of Review Meeting Minutes for April 1, 1998, were approved as submitted. 3. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION REGARDING CITY ASSESSOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. Erickson, City Assessor, explained he recommended a change on the Rodney Helling property, 26000 Shorewood Oaks Drive, PID 32- 117 -23 44 0022. He noted upon a review of the site, the property was the closest to Highway 7 in Shorewood Oaks and this factor was not considered at the time of the initial appraisal. Mr. Erickson also explained the nine acre Brandhorst property which is agricultural will possibly is qualify as green acres which would result in a significant decrease in the property taxes. Mr. Brandhorst has made application to Hennepin County, unfortunately this will not apply until next year. Mr. Erickson explained the process which was followed relative to the properties which were reviewed. He noted the purpose of this particular meeting is for the Board of Review to determine whether the properties are at market value or not. If an applicant disagrees with the decision of the Board, they may appeal the matter to Hennepin County Assessor's Office. A more in -depth approach will then be utilized to review the property. Pat McDavitt, 21125 Christmas Lane, PID 35- 117 -23 44 0005, stated he was very impressed several of the Councilmembers stopped by his property to view it. He expressed his appreciation for them taking the time and interest to do this. Mr. McDavitt explained his valuation increased by $80,000 with the land being valued at $460,000. He felt this increase to be too much given the valuations of surrounding properties. Mr. McDavitt proposed a $40,000 increase which would be approximately 8 percent. This would place the value of his property between the values of the surrounding properties. � 1 I RECONVENED BOARD OF REVIEW APRIL 13, 1998 - PAGE 2 Councilmember O'Neill inquired as to the rationale in increasing the value of a property by $80,000. He pointed out for three years there had been no increase in land values in the Christmas Lake area. Mr. Erickson explained given the limited number of sales in the past, the values were based on what was happening at that time. Sales in this particular area greatly increased over the past year. He pointed out he is required by State law to value properties at market value. Mayor Dahlberg asked whether there is a formula which can be referred to by which market value is calculated. Mr. Erickson stated it would be impossible to utilize a formula. Councilmember McCarty stated other homes which are similar are taken into consideration because the market value must be determined. Councilmember O'Neill stated the comparables would not have had to have been based on Christmas Lake and other comparables on other lakes could have been used in past years. Mr. Erickson suggested if the Board does not agree with the values assessed, the Board should make an adjustment. Mayor Dahlberg felt the increase was too severe and Councilmember O'Neill noted his agreement. Is Dahlberg moved, O'Neill seconded recommending an 8 percent increase, resulting in a total assessed value of $555,000. Motion passed 4/1. (Councilmember McCarty was the dissenting vote.) Cliff Brandhorst, 27225 Smithtown Road, PID 31- 117 -23 44 0028, 31- 117 -23 41 0021 and 0022, expressed his appreciation to the Council for their assistance in this matter. He noted he has made application to Hennepin County to qualify his property as green acres. He inquired what this will mean in terms of his tax rate. Mr. Erickson explained green acre properties cannot be special assessed. In addition, instead of valuing the land at $33,000, it will be valued at $1,600 for tax purposes. The taxes would be approximately 1 percent of $1,600. The house and the site are valued at $143,000 and Mr. Brandhorst inquired why the value is set at $230,000 for next year. Mr. Erickson explained the remainder of the property is agricultural and valued at $101,000 and this is the portion which would be reduced by the green acres classification. 0 Mr. Erickson explained the green acres classification, if approved, will be reflected in the 1999 tax year. Mr. Brandhorst pointed out that if for some reason the property does not qualify for the green acres classification, he will not know that until after the opportunities for appeal have passed. Mr. Erickson stated the Hennepin County Board will be closed by approximately June 10, 1998, however, Mr. Brandhorst could file a claim in tax court by March 31, 1999. Ray Barton, 5915 Christmas Lake Road, PID 35- 117 -23 42 0020, stated the value of his house has increased $111,000 over the last four years. He stated he obtained an appraisal from a realtor which he distributed to the Council. Mr. Barton stated the Lakeshore is unusable given the amount of silt in the area. Mr. Barton felt the value of the property should ba between $525,000 and $550,000, noting the assessed value of the property to be $667,000. He provided the Council with a number of comparables which were used to place a value on his home. Mr. Erickson pointed out this is a realtor's opinion relative to value and adjustments were made to the various properties. RECONVENED BOARD OF REVIEW APRIL 13, 1998 - PAGE 3 Councilmember O'Neill noted there to be a 25 percent increase in the land value this year. In the years 1990 through 1992, the value was $150,000 and then increased by 25 percent this year and he disagreed with this. Dahlberg moved, Stover seconded to reduce the value of the property to $530,000. Councilmember McCarty noted this will result in lowering the value by $137,000. Mr. Erickson explained for several years the value stayed the same because the value had been decreased by the Board. Mayor Dahlberg withdrew the motion. Councilmember O'Neill stated he would agree to reduce the value to the 1997/1998 rate of $613,000. He explained Hennepin County will conduct an appraised value versus an appraisal which is conducted by a realtor. He pointed out Mr. Barton could appeal this matter with Hennepin County if he disagrees. O'Neill moved, McCarty seconded to reduce the rate to the 1997/1998 rate of $613,000. Councilmember Garfunkel stated he would defer to Councilmember O'Neill based on his experience in this area. Motion passed 510. Jeff Aschenbeck, 6050 Chestnut Court, PID 36- 117 -23 44 0023, was very surprised when he received a notice there would not be an adjustment made to his assessed property value. Mr. Aschenbeck noted a home similar to his, located on his block, sold for $190,000 last July. Mr. Erickson pointed out a relocation company purchased this home and sold it on the open market. Mr. Aschenbeck felt the assessed value should remain at $187,000 based on a comparison with the $190,000 sale. Councilmember O'Neill did not feel that sale held value since it was not an arms 10 length sale and he explained there would need to be at least three comparables. He further explained if the property were appraised two years ago at $187,000, it would have increased in value over those years. Councilmember McCarty stated cosmetic items can be a factor in the value of a property. Mr. Erickson pointed out the property which Mr. Aschenbeck presented as a comparable sale was valued at $219,000. Councilmember McCarty stated she would not support a reduction. Councilmember O'Neill felt the increase in assessed value to be minimal for a home located in Shorewood. Garfunkel moved, McCarty seconded to accept the $196,000 valuation of the City Assessor. Motion passed 510. Jeff Fox, 5270 Howards Point- -Road, PID 30- 117 -23- 44 0009, distributed a letter to the Council for their review. Mr. Fox stated the 1998 number reflects $13.39 per square foot for the land. He pointed out this is a 30 percent increase. Mr. Fox described several other homes in the area which have sold multiple times over the past several years. One home sold for less than 90 percent of the market value. RECONVENED BOARD OF REVIEW APRIL 13, 1998 - PAGE 4 Mr. Erickson pointed out various lots will have different values. Mayor Dahlberg questioned the assessed value of the land which has increased from $6.34 to $13.39 per square foot and asked what would account for this amount of increase. Mr. Erickson explained when viewing a property, the deeper a lot is relative to the standard depth in the area, the less value that depth will add to the property. This can be applied by an appraiser as a depth factor. Councilmember McCarty questioned whether Mr. Fox feels his value is too high or that the neighboring values are too low. Mr. Fox felt his property value should be based on the comparable sales in the area and felt there needs to be consistency in the area. Mr. Fox noted the land value has increased 30 percent with only a minimal increase on the value of the home. Councilmember O'Neill felt Mr. Fox's home to be very comparable to the adjacent properties. He expressed concern with an $85,000 increase in land value. Dahlberg moved, O'Neill seconded approving an 8 percent increase on the land over the 1997/1998 value which results in a total assessed value for this property of $442,100. Motion passed 510. Bill Wicka, 27930 Smithtown Road, PID 31- 117 -23 34 0001, stated the County assessed his property on June 24, 1997, at $695,000 which was just six months prior to the date it was assessed at $746,000. Mr. Wicka pointed out the assessed value on the land increased from $318,000 to $334,000. The value of the building increased from $377,000 to $412,000. Councilmember Garfunkel pointed out this is slightly more than a 7 percent increase and suggested a 4 percent increase over the $695,000 which was assessed by Hennepin County. This would result in a total assessed value of $722,800. Mr. Wicka stated he would support a $16,000 increase on the land with no increase on the home. Garfunkel moved, McCarty seconded approving a 4 percent increase over the 1997/1998 value of $695,000 resulting in a total assessed value for this property of $722,800. Motion passed 510. Frank Fallon, 1050 Holly Lane, PID 35- 117 -23 44 0007, distributed pictures of his lot and described to the Council what was depicted. He also provided the Council with a summary of the numbers involved. Mr. Fallon explained the value of the land has been increased by 25 percent with a 1.5 percent increase on the building. Mr. Fallon suggested the increase on the land be reduced to 10 percent. Dahlberg moved, O'Neill seconded approving an 8 percent increase over the 1997/1998 valuation rate on the land value and a 1.5 percent increase on the house value resulting in a total assessed value for this property of $492,200. Mr. Erickson reported to the Council the following residents have indicated their intention to file an appeal with the Hennepin County Board. Martin and Cheryl O'Brien, 4790 Lakeway Terrace, 26- 117 -23 -11 -0062 Louis and Linda Tilton, 5620 Covington Road, 36- 117 -23 -24 -0013. RECONVENED BOARD OF REVIEW APRIL 13, 1998 - PAGE 5 A letter was received from Dennis Jabs, 20915 Radisson Road, PID 35- 117 -23 11 0081, requesting a reduction in the assessed value of his property. Mr. Jabs explained he was unable to attend the meeting. Mayor Dahlberg noted the increase on the land value to be 24.89 percent. Dahlberg moved, Garfunkel seconded approving an 8 percent increase on the land valuation from the 1997/1998 value of $114,500. The building will remain with a valuation of $122,000 with a total assessed value for this property of $245,600. Motion passed 510. Stover moved, McCarty seconded accepting the remaining recommendations of the City Assessor. Motion passed 4/0. (Councilmember O'Neill abstained.) 4. ADJOURN TO REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Dahlberg adjourned the Board of Review Meeting to the Regular City Council Meeting at 8:33 p.m. Motion passed 510. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Cheryl Wallat, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. ATTEST TOM DAHLBERG, MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR Is CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1998 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Dahlberg called the meeting to order at 8:40 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. M A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Dahlberg; Councilmembers Stover, McCarty, O'Neill and Garfunkel; Administrator Jim Hurm; City Attorney John Dean; Engineer Larry Brown; Planning Director Brad Nielsen. B . Review Agenda Mayor Dahlberg read the Agenda for April 13, 1998. Councilmember O'Neill suggested moving Items C, D and F off of the Consent Agenda for discussion after Matters from the Floor as Items 5 A, B, and C. Councilmember Stover noted Item E should be deleted. Councilmember O'Neill requested the addition of Item 11A, Discussion Relative to the Assessment Process. Item No. 5 was stricken. Mayor Dahlberg requested the 7:30 Public Hearing be moved to Item No. 2 on the agenda. Dahlberg moved, O'Neill seconded to accept the agenda as amended. Motion passed 510. 2. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 903 - WATER USE AND SERVICE AND A RESOLUTION ON WATER POLICY A . A Motion to Adopt an Ordinance Amending Section 903 of the Municipal Code - Water Use and Service • City Engineer Brown addressed this matter. Mayor Dahlberg opened the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. Ingrid Schaaf, 25605 Smithtown Road, questioned if problems were to occur with the current system and a watermain were to break, how would this be paid for. In addition, she requested an explanation of the fiscal liability to this City if a situation such as this should occur. Mayor Dahlberg explained the water fund is solvent at this time and Hurm explained the water system is fiscally analyzed each year. Projections show projects in the past will be paid for by the current users and problems would be paid for from the water fund. Hurm explained the City has not been setting aside a depreciation. As a watermain is installed there is a bond issue to pay for this work. As the bonds are paid off, the City will want to consider a whether to set aside funds for future replacements. ■ Councilmember Stover recalled in the past when the water fund was deficit it was supported by the general fund. �a� CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 1998 - PAGE 2 Laura Turgeon noted when projections were made on the water fund, they were based on a number of assumptions which indicated a deficit by the year 2003/2004 and asked whether the general fund would be utilized at that time. Hurm recalled there were a number of different projections made, however, the final projection did not reflect a deficit. Ms. Turgeon requested a copy of the analysis projections. Mayor Dahlberg pointed out when this issue was discussed during the work sessions, the Council insisted Finance Director Rolek adopt very conservative premises on which to base the projections. Policies were adopted which made the projections solvent. Hurm noted water rates have not been increased for quite some time and if a time comes when the projections are not sufficient, there may need to be an adjustment in the water rates. Ms. Turgeon noted the ordinance refers to a City Water Inspector and she inquired relative to who fills this position. Engineer Brown explained the City Water Inspector would depend upon the part that is being installed. At this time, Munitech would be considered the inspector for the outside service. Ms. Turgeon inquired relative to the $2,000 performance bond. Engineer Brown explained the performance bond is a bond which is required by any contractor who comes in and receives a street excavation permit. Any time a contractor completes excavation within the right -of -way, the City requires a bond to guarantee a method to correct the work if for some reason it fails. Ms. Turgeon asked for clarification relative to a 35 percent petition in which the Council can initiate the petition with a majority vote. There is then a reference to a 4/5 vote in situations which are not deemed economically feasible. Attorney Dean explained this is a blend of what is contained in the existing ordinance. The 35 percent, 100 percent and Council initiated are all concepts which are included in the existing ordinance. The difference is in the event the improvement is not petitioned by the property owners, either 35 or 100 percent of them, but is Council initiated, the ordinance requires each of the steps along the way require an extraordinary majority vote of the Council in order to move on to the next step. He also pointed out the 4/5 vote on a Council initiated public improvement is also a statutory requirement. Ms. Turgeon expressed concern relative to future water fund revenues since new users are not being added. Mayor Dahlberg pointed out users from new developments are being added. Hearing no further public testimony, Mayor Dahlberg closed the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. Attorney Dean noted any change to the ordinance, once adopted, would require a 4/5 vote of the City Council. Mayor Dahlberg announced the Council will convene in Executive Session upon conclusion of the regular meeting to discuss pending litigation matters. Councilmember Stover referenced Section 903.18, Subd. 2, (b), and inquired relative to the definition of "reasonable discretion" as it relates to the City Council. Attorney Dean explained it would mean the City Council could not act arbitrarily, but would have to have an explanation for the action which another person reviewing the explanation would believe to be an explanation which would motivate a reasonable, fair - minded person to act in a way that the City Council acted. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 1998 - PAGE 3 Councilmember Stover also referenced the preceding paragraph which states, "It will not be deemed to be economically feasibly unless the petitioners have agreed to pay the entire cost, minus any oversize cost and minus the present value of any additional estimated net revenues to the water fund for a continued period." She suggested possibly this paragraph could be reworded to make it easier to understand. Attorney Dean explained the wording was developed by Finance Director Rolek. He was asked to take the formula and convert it into words which would have a meaning in accounting and so that it could be understood. Rolek felt this wording could be converted into the appropriate formula by any other accountant. Mayor Dahlberg explained the Council attempted to make this formula as friendly to a neighborhood petitioning for water as it possibly can be and no unusual financial requirements are being imposed on the project. Councilmember Stover noted her understanding the Council could not amend the policies without a public hearing, however, the Council may or may not pay attention to those attending. Attorney Dean explained the Council can amend the policies without a public hearing, however, the ordinance cannot be amended without a public hearing. Attorney Dean further explained that some of the issues that the Council in its study sessions believed were the most critical policy type views have been incorporated in the ordinance itself rather than in a separate resolution. O'Neill moved, Garfunkel seconded adopting an Ordinance Amending Section 903 of the Municipal Code - Water Use and Service." Motion passed 4/1. (Councilmember McCarty was the dissenting vote.) Councilmember McCarty felt this ordinance amendment to be very short- sighted. B . A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Publication of a Summary Ordinance Garfunkel moved, O'Neill seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 98 -26 "A Resolution Authorizing Publication of a Summary Ordinance." Motion passed 4/1. (Councilmember McCarty was the dissenting vote.) C. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Establishing Water Connection Policies Attorney Dean addressed this issue. Mayor Dahlberg explained the ordinance has been changed and the previous policy will apply and, moving forward, the new ordinance will be in force. Attorney Dean explained the resolution serves as a bridge between the two policies. With respect to Section 5 of the resolution, Councilmember Stover was uncomfortable with the language, "The Council is free to disregard" or "in its discretion determines otherwise," which results in an unknown and inconsistent way of treating things. Mayor Dahlberg explained his position there may be some complexity which the Council has not considered and the Council would want to deal with that flexibly until moving forward into the future of this new policy. With respect to the reference "the Council is free to disregard such guideline," Councilmember Stover felt a guideline to be just that, a guideline rather than a rule. Mayor Dahlberg commented given any unforeseen circumstances, the Council could administer the existing situation in a fashion which would hopefully not result in a hardship which was not predicted as a result. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 1998 - PAGE 4 Mayor Dahlberg felt if the Council were to run into a situation where a severe hardship would be created, the Council could amend the ordinance to fix that situation. Attorney Dean explained in large measure, significant alterations have to be made by ordinance amendment rather than changes to the resolution. Mayor Dahlberg felt the ordinance contains the constraints the Council is looking for. O'Neill moved, Garfunkel seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 98 -27 "A Resolution Establishing Water Connection Policies." Motion passed 4/1. (Councilmember McCarty was the dissenting vote.) 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes March 16, 1998 Hearing no objection, the City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes for March 16, 1998, were approved as submitted. B . City Council Regular Meeting Minutes - March 23, 1998 Hearing no objection, the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes for March 23, 1998, were approved as submitted. C. City Council Work Session Minutes - March 30, 1998 Hearing no objection, the City Council Work Session Minutes for March 30, 1998, were approved as submitted. 4. CONSENT AGENDA O'Neill moved, McCarty seconded approving the Motions contained on the Consent Agenda: A. A Motion Establishing Arbor Day Celebration - Saturday, April 25 at 9:00 a.m. at Manor Park B . A Motion to Establish a Public Information Meeting on Stormwater Management Plan - May 6, 1998 from 5 :00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. C. A Motion to Approve an Agreement with Griffin Company for Authorization to Market Liquor Store Property at Waterford Center (Moved to Item 5A) is 01 D. A Motion Adopting a Resolution Accepting the Proposal for Professional Engineering Services for T.H. Access Closures and Intersection Improvements (Moved to Item 5B) E. A Motion -Adopting -a Resolution Accepting the Proposal "-for Professional Engineering Services for Emergency Vehicle Preemption Equipment (This item was stricken from the agenda.) CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 1998 - PAGE 5 F. A Motion Adopting a Resolution Accepting the Proposal for Professional Engineering Services for County Road 19 /Country Club Road Traffic Signal (Moved to Item 5C) Motion passed 510. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None MATTERS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION A. A Motion to Approve an Agreement with Griffin Company for Authorization to Market Liquor Store Property at Waterford Center O'Neill moved, Garfunkel seconded approving an Agreement with Griffin Company for Authorization to Market Liquor Store Property at Waterford Center. Motion passed 510. B. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Proposal for Professional Engineering Services for T.H. Access Closures and Intersection Improvements Councilmember O'Neill questioned whether the design costs are built into the cost of each intersection. Engineer Brown explained the design costs are built into the cost of each intersection. In addition, WSB has completed some investigative work and the signal at T.H. 41 and Highway 7 is of the age that it is not going to readily accept the emergency vehicle preemption device. MNDOT has stated that although this was not part of the original agreement, this improvement will be funded through their infrastructure program. As a part of that agreement, they will fund the construction, but the City must fund the design portion of that work. O'Neill moved, McCarty seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 98 -28 "A Resolution Accepting the Proposal for Professional Engineering Services for T.H. Access Closures and Intersection Improvements." Motion passed 510. C. A Motion to Adopt A Resolution Accepting the Proposal for Professional Engineering Services for County Road 19 /Country Club Road Traffic Signal Chuck Richardt of WSB was in attendance to address any questions and concerns of the Council. Engineer Brown explained all of the roadways which come into this intersection are designated state aid routes, so the City would apply for the engineering costs to be MSA eligible. O'Neill moved, Stover seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 98 -29 "A Resolution Accepting the Proposal for Professional Engineering Services for County Road 19 /Country Club Road Traffic Signal." Motion passed 510. 6. REVIEW OF 1997 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FRIENDS OF THE SOUTHSHORE CENTER =This matter was stricken from the agenda. (Councilmember McCarty left the meeting at 9:55 p.m.) CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 1998 - PAGE 6 7. CONSIDERATION OF PROJECT NO. 95 -17 - STRAWBERRY LANE RECLAMATION A. Review Comments Received at the Informal Meeting Held from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Councilmember Stover noted the strong concern of residents to be relative to the safety of children in utilizing Strawberry Lane to travel to school, particularly if the school bus does not continue to pick the children up as close as they have. Another significant concern was raised relative to drainage. Concern was also expressed relative to cars parking on the roadway during school events. Councilmember Stover noted several of the residents were not opposed to the roadway being widened with possibly an on -road, striped path which could be used for walking. Mayor Dahlberg noted he did receive a call from one resident who did not want the road reconstructed at all based on the belief the potholes and poor condition of the road actually slows the traffic down. Councilmember Garfunkel felt drainage to be a significant issue and felt the proposed work should alleviate some of this problem. Brown explained the pockets of water on the sides of the roadway will be resolved, but the back and side yard drainage problems will not be resolved, however staff will work with those residents relative to this. Councilmember Garfunkel noted there were comments relative to the additional gravel along the side of the road which is pushed into the yards. Residents questioned whether they would be allow to place some sort of edging to hold it. Brown felt landscape edging could be installed along the roadway. He noted the major concern to be from the standpoint of the drainage getting to the drain system. Brown pointed out the landscape edging would actually impede that flow. He felt it would be best to leave this up to the homeowner to install the edging. Mayor Dahlberg pointed out four comment sheets were received with the primary issue being drainage. Two comment sheets were received relative to drainage and two raised issues relative to whether the construction will affect their driveway and flower gardens. Brown reported one of the residents mentioned two weeks notice would give sufficient time to move plants prior to the work beginning. He noted the majority of the work should be conducted within the confines of the existing pavement. Mayor Dahlberg felt feedback should be obtained from the neighborhood relative to widening the road and striping it. He suggested staff poll the residents relative to this issue. Administrator Hurm raised the issue of Watershed District approval and whether a design change would result in further approval and additional expense. Councilmember Garfunkel noted this project has been discussed extensively and felt the Council should move forward with the plan which has been reached. Councilmember O'NeilI suggested moving forward and noted the Park Commission is studying the possibility of a trail system and possibly it may have to be more of a sidewalk type style. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 1998 - PAGE 7 B . A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving Plans, Specifications and Estimates for Project No. 95 -17 Strawberry Lane and Authorizing Advertisement for Bid O'Neill moved, Garfunkel seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 98 -30 "A Resolution Approving Plans, Specifications and Estimates for Project No. 95 -17 - Strawberry Lane and Authorizing Advertisement for Bid." Motion passed 4/0. 8. DISCUSSION WITH OWNER OF FLOORS PLUS, INC. Mr. Johnson was not in attendance, therefore, this matter was not addressed. 9. REPORT ON APRIL 6, 1998, WORK SESSION DISCUSSION A . A Motion Regarding Park/Trail Survey Questions Administrator Hurm addressed this issue explaining the Council and Park Commission have met jointly on two occasions to address this issue. Councilmember Stover expressed concern relative to Questions 33 and 34. She felt the language to be misleading since both options do not cost the same and a property tax increase would be necessary. Mayor Dahlberg felt those questions to be essential and he explained the objective of the survey methodology is to ask the people how they prefer these objectives, in rank order, with all other things being equal. Councilmember Stover stated she would be in agreement if the term, "other things being equal, how would you rank these things." Councilmember Stover felt the reference to "no property tax increase" should be deleted. Administrator Hurm suggested beginning the sentence with, "hypothetically." Mayor Dahlberg was in agreement with this as was Councilmember Stover. Mayor Dahlberg expressed concern relative to Question No. 53 in that he felt it to be vague and that the question implies there will be an on -street trail. He stated he would prefer to refer this question back to Mr. Morris and Ms. Traxler of Decision Resources to be reworded. Councilmember O'Neill was opposed to the reference of a "trail system" which appears throughout the survey. Hurm suggested "trail system or trail spurs." Mayor Dahlberg suggested referring this issue back to Mr. Morris and Ms. Traxler for their input as well. Mayor Dahlberg expressed concern he is unsure how people can decide if they like or dislike, to whatever degree, a trail plan or the idea of trails without having a concrete product in mind or concrete product alternatives. He noted in product research, concrete alternatives are provided. Mayor Dahlberg stated he is still in favor of proceeding with this survey. Mayor Dahlberg expressed his appreciation to Administrator Hurm for his time and effort in making this an organized and efficient process. Stover moved, Dahlberg seconded referring this survey on to the Park Commission for their consideration. Motion passed 4/0. B . A Motion Regarding the Establishment of Neighborhood Organizations and Direction to Staff. Mayor Dahlberg requested time to prepare a resolution relative to the establishment and growth of neighborhood associations and bring it back to Council for their consideration. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 1998 - PAGE 8 C. Announcement of Planning Commissioner's Resignation and Direction to Staff on Plan to Fill Vacancy Mayor Dahlberg explained Commissioner Kolstad has resigned her position on the Planning Commission. He summarized the discussion which was held at the April 6, 1998 work session relative to ascertaining whether the applicants who expressed an interest in the vacancy in January would be interested in the current vacancy. This will be discussed at the April 20th meeting of the Council. Councilmember O'Neill expressed his concern relative to the amount of time it takes for the Planning Commission to progress through an issue and felt it would be appropriate to reduce the Commission to five members. Councilmember Stover felt the makeup of the group or the difficulty of the subject the group has to work through has more to do with how long it takes to complete an issue. She stated she is opposed to reducing the number of members on the commission. Mayor Dahlberg expressed concern relative to representativeness, however, felt a commission of five members could be representative of the City. 0 Mayor Dahlberg recommended a decision be made at the end of the year as more tenures come up for reappointment. Councilmember Stover felt that would be a better time as well. Councilmember Garfunkel felt the open position needs to be filled until such time as a final decision is made relative to the number of commissioners to serve on this commission. Mayor Dahlberg stated his assumption the Park Commission would be reduced to the same number of members. 10. ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF REPORTS A. Staff Report on Development Monitoring Nielsen explained complaints have been received relative to construction debris in the wetland area of Marsh Point. The developer had been advised to clean this up, however, the developer has indicated he is waiting for the ground to dry to prevent any damage to the wetland area. Staff inspected the site today and the developer has been instructed to clean up the debris by the end of the week, or in the alternative, Public works will address this issue. With respect to Watten Ponds the tree protection fencing needs to be addressed. The fencing is currently down in the area where the sewer is going to be extended to the old house. Councilmember O'Neill would like Council to direct Attorney Dean to address administrative sanctions. He explained he drove through Marsh Pointe a month ago and the plastic was in the wetland area at that time. Councilmember O'Neill noted there are continual problems on the Watten Ponds site relative to the tree protection fence. In addition, there are sign issues at the Waterford Shopping Mall where one of the stores is in violation of the PUD agreement. He felt at this time, administrative sanction should be addressed. Mayor Dahlberg and Councilmember Garfunkel noted their agreement. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 1998 - PAGE 9 B . Administrator's Report on Excelsior Chamber of Commerce Membership Hurm explained Excelsior and Greenwood are the other two cities which are members of the Chamber of Commerce and it was the consensus of the Council not to join the Excelsior Chamber of Commerce. C . Report on Shoreline Messages Received Hurm reported a number of messages were received relative to dog debris. Mayor Dahlberg suggested staff draft an Ordinance given the public support of this issue. Councilmember Stover inquired whether this would become a part of the regular dog ordinance or a separate ordinance. Attorney Dean explained one option would be to add this to a public nuisance ordinance and the park ordinance as well. Councilmember Stover felt an ordinance is worthwhile if it can be enforced and she felt enforcement would be difficult. Mayor Dahlberg felt the ordinance to be a cultural object and the residents would make an extra effort to comply. He suggested Hurm contact other cities relative to sample ordinances. D . Report on Permit for A LaPointe Sign Co. (on behalf of Nail Gallery), Waterford Shopping Center and Ratification of Approval Hurm reported the permit was issued last week. He noted the previous direction from Council was that all of the sign problems need to be resolved prior to issuing a permit. Hurm stated the situation with the signage of the video store could take some time to resolve and, in fairness to the new business, the permit was issued. 11. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS • Report on Police Coordinating Committee Meetings Mayor Dahlberg reported he has attended a number of meetings and the selection process for a new Chief of Police is being addressed. A police selection process has been developed by Mayors Dahlberg and Finch and a job description has been developed. One internal candidate has applied. If need be, the position can be opened up to the public for applications. Chief Young intends to retire shortly after Christmas 1998. Councilmember O'Neill reported the Coordinating Committee and the Union have agreed to a one year extension to the contract. Mayor Dahlberg reported the police department is audited on an annual basis and the Coordinating Committee has voted to accept that report. Copies of the report will be distributed to the Council. Attorney Dean stated he had intended to discuss lawsuits involving remote docks which were not accessory uses on a property that had primary uses. One case is the Cabalka case which is currently pending in court. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 1998 - PAGE 10 There were discussions with the Cabalka attorney which lead to the City's suggestion if the Cabalka's had a proposed settlement offer, it should be provided by noon today so that it could be discussed with the Council at the conclusion of the regular meeting. Such a proposal was not received so there is nothing to discuss. Attorney Dean also reported on a similar case brought against the City by the Vicks and the Catains. Attorney Dean was beginning to prepare a motion for summary judgment. When the Vicks and the Catains were notified of this, they informed Attorney Dean they would like the case dismissed. A dismissal of the action with prejudice has been prepared and Attorney Dean recommended the Council accept that dismissal. It was the consensus of the Council to accept and agree to the dismissal 12. ADJOURNMENT Dahlberg moved, Stover seconded adjourning the meeting at 11:04 p.m. subject to the approval of claims. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED i s Cheryl Wallat, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. ATTEST TOM DAHLBERG, MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR • CITY OF SHOREWOOD CONFERENCE ROOM WORK SESSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD MONDAY, APRIL 20, 1998 6:45 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION DRAFT Mayor Dahlberg alled the meeting g to order at 6:45 p.m. A. Roll Call • • Present: Mayor Dahlberg; Councilmembers Stover, O'Neill and Garfunkel. Administrator Hurm was available to greet applicants Absent: Councilmember McCarty B . Review Agenda The agenda was approved as presented. Councilmembers discussed questions to ask candidates. 2. INTERVIEWS WITH COUNCIL APPLICANTS The following people were interviewed for the vacancies on the Council: 7:00 p.m. Neil Anderson 7:25 p.m. Ed Bergslien 7:40 p.m. Martin Wellens 8:00 P.M. Frederic Bruno via telephone 8:14 p.m. Roger Champa 3. DISCUSSION AND CONSENSUS OF DIRECTION TO STAFF TO PREPARE APPOINTMENT TO CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT AND A RESOLUTION OF After discussion, Council came to consensus that Roger Champa would be asked to fill the vacancy on the City Council, and directed staff to prepare a resolution of appointment with his name for consideration at the April 27 regular meeting. 4. DISCUSSION AND CONSENSUS OF APPOINTMENTS AND DIRECTION TO STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION There was also a consensus that Neil Anderson would be asked to fill the vacancy on the Planning Commission created by the resignation of Virginia Kolstad; and Martin Wellens would be asked to fill the vacancy created by the appointment of Roger Champa to the City Council. Staff was directed to prepare a resolution for the April 27 regular meeting making these appointments. #15p-b CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES APRIL 20, 1998 - PAGE 2 5. ADJOURNMENT Dahlberg moved, O'Neill seconded to adjourn the City Council Work Session Meeting at 9:15 p.m. Motion passed 4/0. ATTEST TOM DAHLBERG, MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR • • CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB WHEREAS, the Minnetonka Country Club Association, Inc. (Applicant) is the owner of the real property located at 24575 Smithtown Road in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A, attached; and WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to construct an addition to the main ballroom of the existing clubhouse building on the subject property; and . WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 120 1. 10 Subd. 4.c. of the Shorewood City Code; and WHEREAS, Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission and City Council, dated 5 March 1998, which memorandum is on file at City Hall, and WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on 10 March 1998, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, Applicant's request for a conditional use permit was considered by the City Council at their regular meeting on 23 March 1998, at which time the Planner's memoranda and the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the Subject Property is located in an R -IA, Single - Family Residential zoning district. 2. That the Applicant's property contains approximately 115 acres. 3. That land uses and zoning surrounding the subject property are as follows: North: Single- family residential and commercial; zoned R -1C and C -3 East: Commercial, City Hall and residential; zoned C -3, R -1 C and R- l A South: Single- family residential; zoned R -1C and R -1A West: Single- family residential; zoned R -1 A IP3A 4. That the existing clubhouse on the property contains approximately 13,500 square feet of floor area on the main level and approximately 11,000 square feet of floor area on the lower level. 5. That the Applicant proposes to build a 14' x 54' addition on to the main ballroom, increasing the area of the main level by approximately 875 square feet. 6. That the country club and golf course are primarily open and outdoor in character. 7. That the total area of buildings and structures on the property is less than five percent of the total area of the site. 8. That the site is very well screened and landscaped from abutting residential areas. 9. That the total land area, as well as building setback well exceed the minimum requirements of the R -lA zoning district. CONCLUSIONS That the applicant has satisfied the specific criteria for golf courses, set forth in Section 120 1. 10 Subd. C., and the general criteria for granting conditional use permits set forth in Section 1201.04 Subd. l.d.(1) of the Shorewood Zoning Code. 2. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicants' request for a conditional use permit. 3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of this Resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of April 1998. Tom Dahlberg Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hum City Administrator /Clerk -2 Legal Description: "All that part of Lot 38 described as beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 38; thence North along East line thereof 335 feet; thence Westerly deflecting left 90 degrees distance 170 feet; thence Northerly deflecting right 90 degrees to Northerly line of said Lot 38; thence Westerly along said Northerly line to northwest corner thereof; thence South along West line to southwest corner thereof; thence East along South line to beginning. ALSO the West 478.5 feet of Lot 40 and all of Lot 41 except North 110 feet of East 198 feet thereof. ALSO all of Lot 47 and South 268.5 feet of Lots 48 and 49. ALSO that part of Lot 37 described as beginning at the Northeast corner of said Lot 37; thence Southwesterly along Northwesterly line thereof distance 240 feet; thence Southeasterly deflecting left 87 degrees 53 minutes distance 92.8 feet; thence Northeasterly deflecting left 90 degrees distance 192.75 feet to the East line of said Lot 37; thence North along said East line to beginning. ALSO the North 50 feet of that part of Lot 50 except that part of most Westerly 14 feet of said Lot 50 lying North of South 47.8 feet thereof all in Auditor's Subdivision No. 133. ALSO that part of Lot 1 Meeker's Outlots to Excelsior lying Northerly of a line running from a point on the East line of said Lot 1 distance 45.6 feet North of Southeast comer thereof to a point on West line of said Lot 1 distance 40 feet North' of Southwest corner thereof. All in Hennepin County, Minnesota." • Exhibit A CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR MARY LAKE ADDITION WHEREAS Odell Tinnesand (Applicant) is the owner of certain land within the City of Shorewood and has applied to the Council for preliminary plat approval of a plat to be known as Mary Lake Addition; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request has been reviewed by the City Planner and his recommendations have been duly set forth in memoranda to the Planning Commission, dated 1 October 1997 and 30 January 1998, which memoranda are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request has been reviewed by the City's consulting engineer and his recommendations have been duly set forth in a letter to the City Engineer, dated 26 November 1997, which letter is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Shorewood Planning Commission on 7 October 1997, for which notice was duly published and all adjacent property owners duly notified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the Applicant's request for preliminary plat approval of Mary Lake Addition is hereby approved. 2. That such approval is subject to the recommendations set forth in the City Planner's memoranda, dated 1 October 1997 and 30 January 1998, the recommendations set forth in the consulting engineer's letter, dated 26 November 1997, and the terms and conditions contained in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of 3 February 1998 on file at City Hall. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of April 1998. Tom Dahlberg, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator /Clerk 3015' 4 1 • • CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 - (612) 474 -3236 FAX (612) 474 -0128 - www.state.net/shorewood - cityhall @shorewood.state.net MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council James Hurm, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: April 24, 1998 RE: Consideration of a Motion to Adopt a Resolution Accepting a Proposal for Professional Engineering Services for the Addition of Emergency Vehicle Preemption Devices to Various Traffic Signal Systems Attachment 1 is the proposal for Professional Engineering Services provided by WSB and Associates, Inc. for the addition of emergency vehicle preemption (EVP) devices to the traffic signals the intersections of County State Aid Highway 19 and Trunk Highway 7 and Old Market Road and Trunk Highway 7. This project is listed as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and is scheduled for 1998 construction. Total project costs are indicated in the CIP as $40,000. The total estimated fee is $6,036 (which includes an estimated amount for construction observation). ` This fee amounts to 15 percent of the construction cost, which is right on target for this size project. Engineering and construction costs of this proposal will be submitted for funding to the Municipal State Aid (MSA) System. Any consultant services not covered by the MSA system will be funded by the roadway fund. It is anticipated that all of the construction costs will be funded by MSA funds. Staff is recommending approval of the attached proposal for Professional Engineering Services for WSB and Associates for the addition of EVP to the intersections of CSAH 19 and Old Market Road with TH 7. A resolution is attached for your consideration. If* PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 3 r. • Apr 22 -98 02:24P A& &Associates, Inc. April 21, 1998 350 Westwood Lake Office 8441 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55426 612 -541 -4800 FAX 541 -1700 Mr. I.arry Brown, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 -8927 Re: Emergency Vehicle Preemption System Design TH 7 at Old Market Road TH 7 at CSAH 19 City of Shorewood WS13 Proposal No. 028.98 Dear Mr. Brown: P.02 B.A. klirtclsteadt, r.r. Brr.r A. Weise, P.E. Peter R. Willenbring, P.E. Uan:dd W. Srerna. P.E. ttunald Ii. Bray. P.E. WSB & Associates, Inc is pleased to submit this proposal for the design and construction of two (2) Emergency Vehicle Preemption Systems (EVP) within the City of Shorewood. The two (2) intersections are located on Trunk Ilighway (TH) 7 at Old Market Road and TH 7 at County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 19. Fach intersection is briefly discussed below 1. TH7at Old Market Road. The Traffic Signal System at this intersection was designed • and constructed in approximately 1993. At that time EVP wiring was installed in the intersection. The design and construction of this EVP System will include addition of hardware on the mast arm poles and cabinet modifications to provide for the EVP equipment. 2 TH 7 at CSAH 19: The Traffic Signal System at this intersection was designed and constructed at a time in which EVP was not being installed on intersections. Therefore, wiring and hardware must be installed forthis intersection. This will require pulling additional wire through the existing condiut system and installing new hardware in the existing cabinet. The design and construction of both EV.P Systems will be coordinated with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT). Our project team will be led by Mr. Chuck Rickart. He will serve as Project Manager and coordinate all activities with the City and MWDOT on these projects. Mr. Don Sterna will provide quality control on the projects and perform a quality review of all final plans. Ms. Becky Hauschild will be the design engineer responsible for the coordination of the EVP design. r: Attachment I Apr -22 -98 02:24P P.03 Mr. Larry Brown, P.E. - Director of Public Works City of Shorewood WSS Proposal No. 028.98 April 21, 1998 Page 2 As you requested, we have developed a Scope of Services, Cost Estimate and Schedule for this project. The Scope of Services is included as Exhibit A and the proposed Schedule and Cost Estimate is include as Exhibit B. Thank you for your consideration of WSB for these professional engineering services. We look forward to working with you on these projects and on other projects in the future. If you have any questions or require any additional information please do not hesitate to give me or Don Sterna a call. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Charles T. Rickart Donald W. Sterna Project Manager Vice President lv 9 F:.%' -'M' ,rRot- OS'AL,OU.9rO42l94.1b Apr--22 -98 02:24P Exhibit A Scone of Services Task I - Preliminary Design P_04 This task will involved the review of the existing signal systems to determine the requirements for the installation of and Emergency Vehicle System. It is assumed that the City will provide base mapping of the existing signal system at TH 7 and Old Market Road in an electronic format. As built plans will be diaiti7ed for the TH 7 at CSAH 19 intersection layout and wiring diagram. A preliminary design plan will then be completed indication additional hardware and wiring requirements. These plans will be reviewed by the City and Mn/DOT State Aid for compliance. Task 2 - Final Design A: Final EVP Design: Following comments form the City and MnlDOT on the preliminary designs, a final designs will be completed incorporating all comments. The design of the EVP Systems will be in conformance With all applicable state and local electrical codes, Federal wid State Manuals on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and Minnesota Department of Transportation (,MnrDOT) State Aid Standards. B. Bid Proposal: WSB will provide a set of EVP special pmvisions (Division SS_ for review by the City of Shorewood and Mn/DOT. Following approval of the special provisions, WSB wi 11 assemble the bid proposal including City furnished Division S. 15 sets of the bid proposal will be prepared. C. Plan Approval: WSB will assist the city in obtaining plan approval from Mn/DOT. Is D. iWeetings/Coordination: Two meetings will be held, one with the City of Shorewood Staff to review the plan and obtain comments on the final designs, the second meeting will be a coordination meeting with Mn/DOT to discuss the project. Task 3 - Construction Services A. Preconstruction Conference: WSB will assist the City in apreconstruction conference with representatives from the successful bidder and utility companies. It is assumed that the City of Shorewood will take the lead and send out the notices for this conference. B. Shop Drawing Review: Al shop drawing from the Contractor- will be submitted through the City and reviewed by WSB to determine their adequacy prior to ordering of equipment. C. Construction Inspection: WSB will assist the City as needed with the day -to -day inspection of the EVP improvements. C4 of.Shorewood Exhibit A - Scope of Services - Plan 2 WSB Proposal No. 028.98 Exhibit B Compensation I Schedule Estimated Cost Based on the scope of services, as outlined in Exhibit A the cost to provide such services will be as follows: Task 1 Preliminary Plans (110urIv - not -to- exceed) .............................. 52,000. Task 2 Final Signal Plans / Specifications (Ilourly - not -to- exceed) ................ $2,700, Task 3 Construction Services (Hourly - 16 Hours at $83.50 1hour) ..... . • • .. • ... • • • • $ T otal Cost .................................................. $6,036. 0 A 1998 Fee Schedule is attached. Schedule WSB will deliver a final set of plans and specifications to the City of Shorewood within the frame required by the City. This time schedule is assuming no unusual ciretunstances are encountered. Notice to proceed ..... .... ......... ............................... April 27, 1998 Meetings with City .. .... ..... Week of May 4, 1998 Preliminary design submittal .......................................... May 18, 1908 Meeting with City to review preliminary design .................... Neck of May 18, 1998 Final design and specification submittal ................... June 1, 1998 Meeting with City to review final design ............... • ... ... Week of June 8, 1998 Mn/DOT Review and Approval ...................... June 15, 1998 through June 26, 1998 City Council Approves Plans ................... ............ • June 29, 1998 Ad forbid ............... ............................... July 5 through July 24, 1998 Open, bids ....... ........................ .... July 28, 1998 Award .......................... ............................... August 10, 1998 Construction .............................. August 15, 1998 through September 15, 1998 City of Shorewood F,xhibit 8 - Compensation /schedule - Plan 2 JVSR Proposal 028.98 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERIVCES AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES FOR THE INSTALLATION OF EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION DEVICES WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has indicated in the 1998 - 2002 Capital Improvement Program that the addition of Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) devices are desirable at the intersections of County State Aid Highway 19 and Old Market Road with State Trunk Highway 7; and WHEREAS, WSB and Associates, Inc has submitted a proposal to provide Professional Engineering Services for said Improvement and found to be acceptable to the City Council of the City of Shorewood; • NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota: That the proposed improvement be referred to WSB Associates, Inc. for preparation of Project Plans, Specifications, and Construction Estimates in accordance with the proposal submitted and attached hereto as "Exhibit A." ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27' day of April, 1998. 0 Tom Dahlberg, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator /Clerk . . Apr -22 -98 02:24P Task 1 - Preliminary Design Scope of Services P -04 This task will involved the review of the existing si.grtal systems to determine the requirements for the installation of and Fmergcncv, Vehicle System. It is assumed that the City will provide base mapping of the existing signal system at TH 7 and Old Market Road in an electronic format. As built plans will be digitized for the TH 7 at CSAH 19 intersection layout and wiring diagram. A preliminary design plan will then be completed indication additional hardware and wiring requirements. These plans will be reviewed by the City and Mn/DOT State Aid for compliance. • Task 2 - Final Design A. Final EVP Design: Following comments form the City and tifnfDOT on the preliminary designs, a final designs will be completed incorporating all comments. The design of the EVP Systems will be in conformance with all applicable state and local electrical codes, Federal and State Manuals on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (=CD) and Minnesota Department of Transportation (.biru`)OT) State slid Standards. B. Bid Proposal: WSB will pro a set of EVP special provisions (Division SS_ for review by the City of Shorewood and Mn/DOT. Following approval of the special provisions, WSB will assemble the bid proposal including City Furnished Division S. 15 sets of the bid proposal will be prepared_ 0 C. Plan Approval: WSB will :assist the city in obtaining plan approval from Mn/DOT. D. iWetings/Coordinarion: Two meetings will be held, one with the City of Shorewood Staff to review the plan and obtain comments on the final designs, the second meeting will be a coordination meeting with Mn/DOT to discuss the project. Task 3 - Construction Services A. Preconstruction Conference: WSB will assist the City inapreconstuctionconfemence with representatives from the successful bidder and utility companies. it is assumed that the City of Shorewood will take the lead and send out the notices for this conference. B. Shop Drawing Review: AJ shop drawing from the Contractor will be submitted through the City and reviewed by WSB to determine their adequacy prior to ordering of equipment C. Construction Inspection: WSB will assist the City as needed with the day -to -day inspection of the EVP improvements. Cary of Shorewood Exkibit A - Scope of Services - Plan 2 WSB Proposal No. 028.98 Exhibit A Compensation /Schedule Estimated Cost Based on the scope of services, as outlined in Exhibit A the cost to provide such services will be as follows. Task 1 Preliminary Plans (!Hourly - not- to- excee4) .............................. 32,000. 000. Tusk 2 Final Signal Plans l Specifications (Ilourly - not- to- e-weed) ................. $z700. Task 3 Construction Services (Hourly - 16 Hours at 333.30 /hour) .......... • . .. S7336. Total Cost .................... ..... ........................$4. • A 1 998 Fec Schedule is attached. Schedule WSB will deliver a final set of plans and specifications to the City of Shorewood within the frame required by the City. This time schedule is assuming no unusual circumstances are encountered. N otice to proceed ................................................... April 27, 1998 Meetings with City ......... ............................... Week of'May 4, 1998 Preliminary design submittal ............. .. ....... May 18, 1998 Meeting with City to review preliminary design ................. Week of May 180998 Final design and specification submittal ... ............................... June 1, 1998 Meeting with City to review final design .............. • • . Week of June 8, 1998 MnlDOT Review and Approval ...................... June 15, 1998 through June 26, 1998 City Council Approves Plans ......... ............................... June 29, 1998 Ad forbid .............. ............................... July 5 through July 24, 1998 Openbids .......................................................... July 28, 1998 Award .......................... ............................... August 10, 1998 Construction .............................. August 15, 1998 through September 15, 1998 City of .Shore vood F.rhibit 8 - Compensation 1.5chedule - Plan 2 WSR Proposal 028.98 k CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION APPROVING INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE SUNDAY & CLUB WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code, Sections 402.02, 403.05, 1300.01 and 1300.02, provides for the licensing of the sale of intoxicating liquor in the City and requires a special license for Sunday sales; and WHEREAS, said Code provides that an applicant shall complete an application, shall fulfill certain requirements concerning insurance coverage, and shall pay a licensing fee and WHEREAS, the following applicant has satisfactorily completed an application, and has fulfilled the requirements for the issuance of a special "Club License" for the "on- sale" of intoxicating liquor and for a special license for "Sunday Sales ". • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: That a special Club License for the "on- sale" of intoxicating liquor and a special Sunday License for sales be issued for a term of one year, from June 1, 1998 to May 31, 1999, consistent with the requirements and provisions of Chapter 400 of the Shorewood City Code, to the following applicant: Applicant Address American Legion Post #259 24450 Smithtown Road Shorewood, MN 55331 ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 27th day of April, 1998, • ATTEST TOM DAHLBERG, MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR ■ o i. t 4r Minnesota Department of Public Safety Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement 444 Cedar St., Suite 100L �"'•� St. Paul. MN 55101 -2156 � Zt 612 -296 -6430 • TTY 612- 282 -6555 • FAX 612 -297 -5259 RENEWAL OF LIQUOR, WINE, OR CLUB LICENSE No license will be approved or released until the $20 Retailer ID Card fee is received by MN Liquor Control Licensee: Please verify your license information contained below. Make corrections if necessary and sign. City Clerk/County Auditor should submit this signed renewal with completed license and licensee liquor liability for the new license period. City Clerk /County Auditor are also required by M.S. 340A.404 S. 3 to report any license cancellation. License Code M 1 nN S License Period Endins 09 /11 / I qq 8 ID # 1 33 i City /County where license approved Shorewood Licensee Name Am Leg 259 Trade Name Clarence Clofer Post • Licensed Location address 24450 Smithtown Rd City, State, Zip Code Shorewood, MN 55331 Business Phone ( 612) 474 -3982 LICENSE FEES: Off Sale $ On Sale $ 250.00 Sunday $ 200.00 By signing this renewal application, applicant certifies that there has been no change in ownership or the above named licensee. For changes in ownership, the licensee named above, or for new licensees, full applications should be used. See back of this application for further information needed to complete this renewal Applicant's signature on this renewal confirms the following: Failure to report any of the following will result in fines 1. Licensee confirms it has no interest whatsoever, directly or indirectly in any other liquor establishments in Minnesota. If so, give details on back of this application. 2. Licensee confirms that it has never had a liquor license rejected by any city /township /county in the state of e Minnesota. If ever rejected, please give details on the back of this renewal, then sign below. 3. Licensee confirms that for the past five years it has not had a liquor license revoked for any liquor law violation (state or local). If a revocation has occurred, please give details on the back of this renewal, then sign below. 4. Licensee confirms that during the past five years it or its employees have not been cited for any civil or criminal liquor law violations. If violations have occurred, please give details on back of this renewal, then sign below. 5. Licensee confirms that during the past license year, a summons has not been issued under the Liquor Liability Law (Dram Shop) MS 340A.802. If yes, attach a copy of the summons, then sign below. 6. Licensee confirms that Workers Compensation insurance is in effect for the full license period. Licensee has attached a liquor liability insurance certificate that corresponds with the license period in city /county where license is issued. $100,000 in cash or securities or $100, 000 surety bond may be submitted in lieu of liquor liability. Licensee S ignature 1 %i riJ� Date (Signature and license has been approved by city /county. City Clerk /County Auditor Signature Date (Signature certifies that renewal of a liquor, wine or club license has been approved by the city /county as stated above. County Attorney Signature Date County Board issued licenses only (Signature certifies licensee is eligible for license). Police /Sheriff Signature Date (Signature certifies licensee or associates have not been cited during the past five years for any state/local liquor law violations (criminal /civil). Report violations on back, then sign here. PS 9093 -96 t � r Indicate below changes of corporate officers partners home addresses or telephone numbers L2 -13- 4. / i7 7� AA y K2 G , S7 c �u�' -c=/44 �aa j S%fc,eC - We C,b 7Y 77 l4 cL y5 �� c—LE/� , sr�f c,2� L�.�bc�D M��, SC3 y�y 90 y Indicate below any interest whatsoever, directly or indirectly in other liquor establishments: Report below details of liquor law violations (civil or criminal) that have occurred within the last five years !Dates offenses fines or other penalties. including Liuuor Control Penalties): Report below details involving any license rejections or revocations: City /County Comments: 4. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 - (612) 474 -3236 FAX (612) 474 -0128 - www.state.net/shorewood - cityha8 @shorewood.state.net MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council James Hurm, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works • DATE: February 19, 1998 RE: Consideration of a Motion to Adopt a Resolution Accepting Plans, Specifications, and Estimate for the Lakeside Watermain Project. On November 24` 1997 the City Council passed resolution 97 -107 approving plans, specifications and estimates and authorization for advertisement for bids fo'r the Lakeside Watermain Extension. Just prior to publication, the petitioners voiced objection to the alignment of the watermain. They requested that the final alignment be revised to avoid impacts to one of the parcels of land owned by a petitioner. Due to the late season, construction was postponed until this spring. Attachment 1 is a copy of the letter sent to the petitioners for this project. Plans have been revised • to reflect the revised alignment for the watermain. The petitioners have indicated a desire to proceed with the continued process for the improvement through the bidding stage of the project. Once bids have been obtained, the petitioners have the option to proceed or forego the project. A resolution accepting the revised plans, specifications, and estimate and re- authorizing advertisement for bids is attached for the City Council's consideration. #M PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 3e )` I CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (612) 474 -3236 FAX (612) 474 -0128 • www.state.net/shorewood • cityhall 0 s h orewood. state. net MEMORANDUM TO: Petitioners for Lakeside Watermain Project FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works'' DATE: April 18, 1998 • RE: Revised Plans And Construction Estimates cc: Mayor and City Council James Hurm, City Administrator Don Sterna, WSB and Associates, Inc Last November, OSM and Associates, Inc had prepared project plans, specifications, and estimates for the Lakeside Watermain Project. Feedback received by the City regarding the plans, was that an alternative alignment was desired to avoid impacts to the existing parcel of land along the alignment. Plans have been revised to reflect the revised alignment, based upon that feedback. The construction estimate has also been revised to reflect this change. The estimated cost for construction of the project has been estimated by our consultant at $35,187.75. In accordance with the policy that the City Council has set forth, the next step would be to have the City Council authorize the advertisement for competitive bidding. Assuming all of the petitioners wish to proceed, based upon the updated information, a tentative schedule would be as follows: City Council Authorizes Ad for Bid: April 27, 1998 Ad Deadline Construction Bulleting April 29, 1998 Published appears Construction Bulletin 14 days minimum May 4 - May 19 Public Bid Opening May 19, 1998 Petitioners Review Costs May 19 - May 21 City Council Considers Award of Contract May 26, 1998 Construction Conference May 28, 1998 Tentative Construction Start June 3, 1998 Finish Construction June 24, 1998 Attachment I • � J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Petitioners, Lakeside Watermain Project April 18, 1998 Page 2 of 2 All petitioners will need to determine if the plan and estimated costs are appropriate. Petitioners should let me know collectively whether the revised plans and estimate are acceptable. At this time, I am planning on placing this on the City Council agenda for advertisement for bid on April 27 , unless I hear otherwise. It should also be noted that although the project costs have been estimated, I would recommend holding off on any decisions to proceed or not to proceed until the real bid prices have been obtained. This is recommended since the bid prices will be the actual prices used to calculate the construction cost of the project. At that rime, petitioners will again have the option to accept or decline the decisions for the project to move forward. • If ou have an questions or need additional information, lease do not hesitate to contact me at Y Y� �p 474 -3236. ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OSM PROJECT NUMBER: 97009.13 PROJECT: SOUTH LINK- LAKESIDE WATERMAIN EXTENSION CITY OF SHOREWOOD PROJ. NO.: CITY PROJECT 97 -03 SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA ORR-SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES DATE: NOVEMBER 11, 1997 BY: Paul T. Hornby, P.E. SCHEDULE A: dASE BID - WATERMAIN & APPURTENANT ITE Estimated Estimated Estimated Item No Spec No Description Quantity Units ----- Unit Price --- ---- - ---- - Item Total -------- -- --- - - ----- 1 ------ -- 2021.501 ------------- -------------- ------- ------ ---- MOBILIZATION - ----- 1 ----- LUMP SUM 1,800.00 1,800.00 2 2101.501 CLEARING .1 ACRE 1,500.00 150.00 3 2101.506 GRUBBING .1 ACRE 1,500.00 150.00 4 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION (PLAN QUANTITY) 125 CU YD 10.00 1,250.00 4 2104.521 SALVAGE FENCE 70 LIN FT 5.00 350.00 5 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 1 100% CRUSHED QUR. 275 TON 12.00 3,300.00 5 0557.603 INSTALL SALVAGE WIRE FENCE 70 LIN FT 20.00 1,400.00 6 2451.511 COARSE FILTER AGGREGATE (LV) 70 CU YD 22.00 1,540.00 7 2571.541 TRANSPLANT 1 TREE 800.00 800 8 2573.502 SILT FENCE,HEAVY DUTY 200 LIN FT 2.55 5100 9 2575.505 SODDING TYPE LAWN 1000 SO YD 3.25 3,250. 10 2611.502 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN 1 EACH 1,200.00 1,200.00 11 2611.502 HYDRANT 1 EACH 1,400.00 1,400.00 12 2611.502 2" CORPORATION STOP 5 EACH 150.00 750.00 13 2611.502 6" GATE VALVE AND BOX 1 EACH 500.00 500.00 14 2611.502 2" CURB STOP & BOX 5 EACH 200.00 1,000.00 15 2611.503 2" TYPE K COPPER PIPE 28 LIN FT 24.00 672.00 16 2611.503 6" WATER MAIN -DUCT IRON CL 52 616 LIN FT 23.00 14,168.00 17 2611.520 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS (C153- fittings, 307 I.S. 3.25 997.75 C110- plugs) TOTAL SCHEDULE A: BASE BID - WATERMAIN & APPURTENANT ITE $35,187.75 SUB -TOTAL $35,187.75 GRAND TOTAL - - -- $35,180 1 OF 1 SOUTH LINK — LAKESIDE s WATERMAIN EXTENSI ®N y Y CITE' PROJECT NO.97 - 03 S HOREWOOD, MINNESOTA y E GREENWOOIf + +a a 44. Ph4rs Bd Y ( r r . 1 (+ r JHO POP 414 Lake Mlnne7 ti $ ,� _ Ho• Upper Lake 't i c ✓ • � M «I _ 2 o WzZ «n. �aJ• �a- U1`"�� �` f � � 1H r. <r. •«r`r•{ w�r Z / r /� z• nwu, f u. F « EXCELSIOR( \ v f W K Gideon �lrro Pov l,• I FI � F � �:' '/. •Mr M ," -� L1 / �� rS 7r — (.«; 1/ ���. !'Yt'i t�.�1 «. [r (( �J � e � � Z r ,Y t i, yur al ix o. r .. • • .6(' 11 . r . . / • ' a , r« !"S �i r r r • ,3;• ) tlO iL� E®tB W - i' P ( . r a �.! Br Nr + y .J, s W r,r , " ...:.."". _..�1� .. r« • ru.rr a w. ��Y '� ".7r w r \ 1 rr t _} 47h 4y� 't i Y % , .St Alb +� . v ^% V ,, .. -•' ?r �M` aa «r +w '��' � i v '� r R .�{.i � ie � ° + ° J �� r ✓:JJ ([pk .e nr = u.a � ti N ♦Y rw.r r•u y «r, •. y � �, I `P � , � h P �� a� !: r '�+' 4 ti �i SC 4 .. �\ 6 y ? � M M �q u r. 4 V �y, � , r d rydddv " - � '� q � �r�''�•�,• • V / a` F «w SHOREWOOD • '4 « Gr i -`, � f` �a ` $.: .'r rr <f 'r. ' _ I f« « r ` _ + ~ frr0 POP Sri? '' V !) � «r l""'q � ; L « + «M " Ci 11 + r v J e • + ` V� 1 } .• f ; ' { t� ,'. /ll� � � / f . ;l «. i r w � j • i� N� f It{ r : ..��•,� P a � • r LaW + p a _ � II ! J : i) � ��I � j /t +. !i �p d� .xEt » +• — , �1Yf"v`e'r n ,,f 7 Ia !' VJ• �� ii}. SaITiVS` i i i L �. ; 2 ' y l i'i i ' Chrl stma/S�'',�J • i i ,� � f d �y3 � ^ {� yM it f r••r��t ` il Y i �R ��� � Z t j! t LOke 1 � r^' f •' rr1(1+ ..d �' �iif (1 s• J « 5f t �ei' -1 �Ir + E FL4n t r a/i f• • +aa , +� .+« / / J ,! '¢ �'u'S A t 'Nr YI +S Wit" f "ter l d .. «•. fr 'i` i`� + r «. s r• 1 �I+ !!1 ! lv/ V4 BN BP[N t" �r �T X1)1 r z ... -. CAR A CO 1 : i `: ,;r .. x: r.4la • r".° r ..- � ,. I �..� .,.. .,.." •�"�`�"�``�'%v' ` ..yam \[t ac' _ orNas E EACA710N CHANHASSEN; ntonECE• ` i = •• . +200 0 R00 2400 : F SC+LE IN FEET v 3 I W ■rte■ SOUTH LINK-LAKESIDE , ! m —mgt r■PAMmEXTEkSi■ ■� . . _ _ __ c �ROJECT NO. 97-03 P. aq |� .| ■ �� ( ■ ■ � | (� � | Val i : }} J | ' | . / ■ � ■ � |� �� � m § 7 � : k � � �| *— | (� � | ' . / ■ \ �� � A .n.a 4ruq 91,A • nq wM, „V tw n, £0-16 'ON 1931'ONd Al I � u•a „n� . uwa•Ia . a »xva,r • u...pa� NOISN31 %3 N1VnH31 /r -out •vvlgoon� 301s3ri1 -1 wr• * �\ !111 minim I 9 uo.tv[vA �� —. . -1.. • • S .. R SC 1 r yy � shS4 � I r ° l i• 1 � W n I lie F trYj t V 4 W .9 m W aa f' < e y k" 1 y S W z s y T , � 1 v 1 1 w pp pfktL , - !. y 7 �� O 1 ¢psaZ U y < 1 Q VV — -- Nn 1 I i I NS \\\ ry _ti a i� J c 1 • ! M • I 1� 1_ on < o.........:.........€...................... ............................... _,.... tn .. .......:.........i......... _....i.........;. ..... ..... ..... ..... • g ° < ...................:........ .......... i......... _. ..._._......... - .___.._ "- -------- --------- - ».._ »..__..t..._........_.. .... ...... .... .. x ..... .... _.. .....i.........1....... : -- ---- ---'-- ------ ...: ..... - W.:........_.....:.__... .....:.......... .. .. __.._...._ -_- ..i ............ m _ .........:...... ....... . _ s - : ......... i........ i ........ �...... .. .. - ... ...... QQ ` .. .. :. .......: g [...� .... ........ ...... ...'... .... i ... W <.... .. .i... .. .. ... NWT ; • ... __ -- - ---- --+ :..... . = t F �i.. .... A QQ fr -Vol ....... g . ........ .........: ...... W _ .........i - - - -- - . .........i ......... :........ .: n .......... - -- - - -..... .........;_... ., :: ......._ y --------------- ---------- .. ;........•i...... • €.. A 8" .........!........i -- . :. .- .. ._..........__L _....- _ -e -__ ______ - . .......... ...................... I ...... i.. .... .: ........--------- a-------- ._--------- a ..... _.. .......i.. .........i .........:......... i. ....... i ......... :. _ ... :.. "__.. .... .......... s......._i.........:. ..;.. + .........:.........:......... ......... t.. ......:... ... ... ......... �.......... ...;. ... 1� ......... .........i........ ......... i.......... f.... i.... 1 .... .........1.........1 7 ­1.77 -777 -+ ....! ::...... .:.. ... ..............:....:.... .... ........ . ........ t......... i .........: ....... .................. r......... [.........i..... .... .... 7. _ _ v �...;.. .... ..... ..... N.........�.......... .. CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS ON CITY PROJECT 97 -3 LAKESIDE WATERMAIN EXTENSION WHEREAS, Resolution 97 -70 adopted by the City Council August 25, 1996, Plans, Specifications and Estimates for the design phase of City Project 97 -3 were prepared. WHEREAS, Resolution 97 -107 adopted by the City Council November 24, 1997, authorized advertisement for bids; and WHEREAS, the petitioners for said improvement subsequently asked for major revisions to said plans, and such revisions have been completed; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota: 1. The revised Plans, Specifications and Estimates prepared by Orr- Schelen- Mayeron & Associates, engineer for such improvement pursuant to Council Resolution 97 -70. Said plans, specifications and estimates are hereby approved and shall be filed with the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for 2 weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be opened and considered by the Council at 10:00 a.m. on May 20, 1998 in the City Hall Council Chambers, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the Clerk for 5 percent of the amount of each bid. � 4 � ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of April, 1998, Tom Dahlberg, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator /Clerk 10 I * 1 Michael B. Steadman D (c I President's Circle Member P I Dozen Award of Excellence i A P R 7 1998 New Construction Specialist 1f i 1 Wayzata Office gy Direct: (612) 476 -5316 1120 East Wayzata Blvd. -� Wayzata, MN 55391 Pager: (612) 621 -2191 Car: (612) 718 -9000 CO ML9 c Wittco, Inc. 1155 Cedar View Drive Minneapolis, MN 55405 April 16, 1998 City Council of the City Of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 -8927 Re: 28030 Woodside Road PIN# 31- 117 -23 24 0005 Dear Gentlemen and Ladies: We were assessed trunk charges for water under the old city policy. However we do not have access to city water nor will we have access in the near future, we therefore request that the charges that were assessed ($5,000.00 per lot) be abated. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely yours, Michael Lazaretti CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 98— A RESOLUTION ABATING REMAINING LEVIED WATER TRUNK CHARGES, AND REFUNDING WATER TRUNK CHARGES PAID TO DATE WHEREAS, a new lot, known as PIN 31- 117 -23 24 0005, was created by a subdivision requested by the owners of such lot, Wittco, Inc.; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the City Council's policy, the new lot was charged a water trunk charge of $5,000.00 each, which charge was assessed against the lot at the request of the property owner; and WHEREAS, the City Council has revised said policy so as to not require water trunk charges be assessed against lots not having water available to them; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned lot does not have water available to it; and WHEREAS, Michael Lazaretti, President of Wittco, Inc., has requested the abatement of the water trunk charges and the refund of amounts paid thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to remain consistent with the application and administration of its policies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1.) That the water trunk charge assessed against the lot identified as PID 31-117-23 24 0005, is hereby abated. 2.) That all amounts paid upon such water trunk charge be refunded to the owner of said property. 3.) It is understood that should water be made available to such lot at a future date, charges and/or assessments will be made upon such lot according to the policies in place at that time. ADOPTED by the City Council of Shorewood this 27th day of April, 1998. ATTEST TOM DAHLBERG, MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR 1 0 1 0 �llC� � Z�LC .�06L�4�fie ,Se�Cl���t�G�opaIYKLIrL� � ' - March 31., 1998 31, Jim Hurm - - - City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Rd Shorewood, Mn 55331 Re: Annual Report from the Friends Dear Jim, Enclosed is the annual Income Statement. & Balance Sheet for the Friends for the year ending 1997. The receivable set up in 1997 for $5,000 represents our expectation to receive lost income from the bonding.. company. Would you please make the other Cities aware of the availability of this report and let me know if there are any questions. Sincerely, Robert Bean Treasurer 5735 Country Club Rd Excelsior, MN 55331 7:� 1 ANUUAL U COME AND EXPENSE REPORT 1/1/97 Through 12/31197 INCOME Donations Corporate. Donations. $L . t2,737.00 Private Donations $ 7,425.00 Total Donations. $ $20,16200 Interest Income $- $ 683.18 Room Rental $ 1,728.66 Graup_2- Gov't $. t8Q.00 Gro 3 S L k C' ' $ 650 00 9 1 up - o. a e ivic $ Group-4 - So-Lake. Residents $_ 60.00 Group 5 - Non -So. Lake $ 75.00 Total Room Rental $ 1 TOTAL INCOME $22,355.18 EXPENSES Operating Expense Acctg_. & Tax Reporting_ 28.00 Garbage $ 163.49 Insurance_ $- 4 " Janitorial $ 1,728.66 Misr. $ 14.71 Rental Advertising $ 816.58 Supplies - $_. - &18,35 Telephone $ 296.26 Utilities $. 1,753,69 Total. Operating Expense_ $10,441.74 INCOME LESS EXPENSES- $tt,"3r.44 0 1 a 571&4d4 4 Elie .S'"ad4ne SeNzM1(4 4wM"ifs &tT Balance Sheet Summary 1/1197 Through 12/31/97 Leasehold Improvement Equipment 1,028.04 Furnishings 5,740.31 Kitchen equipment 352.62 Total- Leasehold pavement $ 7-,1.20.97 Receivables $ 5,000.00 $ 125,811.38 $ 102,186.42 1997 1996 Cash on Hand $ 14,465.55 $ 12,186.42 Investments $- - $- 34000.00 Capital Improvements to Building $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 Furniture $ 39,224.86 $ - Leasehold Improvement Equipment 1,028.04 Furnishings 5,740.31 Kitchen equipment 352.62 Total- Leasehold pavement $ 7-,1.20.97 Receivables $ 5,000.00 $ 125,811.38 $ 102,186.42 t • • CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PARK COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1998 7 :30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Puzak called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. R F T A . ROLL CALL Present: Chair Colopoulos; Commissioners Puzak, Bensman, Dallman, Arnst, Themig and Cochran; Administrator Jim Hurm and Public Works Director Larry Brown Absent: Council Liaison McCarty Also present: Matt Pike, Jake Sawinski, Buddy Kamrath, Excelsior Park and Rec Commissioner, Kathy Livolsi- Schultz; Representing the Little League Association, Gordy Lindstrom and Brian Techy B . REVIEW AGENDA It was agreed to move Item #5 to Matters From the Floor. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Joint meeting with City Council and Park Commission Meeting Minutes of March 2, 1998 Corrections made noted as follows: Page 3, item 2, paragraph 4 - Remove the word "which." Page 3, item 2, paragraph 4 - Add the word "from" after the word "Council." Page 4, paragraph 7 Begin with "Carmel Rehwalt asked whether different terminology should be used. ". Colopoulos moved, Themig seconded, to accept the minutes as amended. The motion passed 7/0. B. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of March 10, 1998 Corrections were made as follows: Page 4, item 10, paragraph 1 - Change the word "liter" to "litter." Page 4, Item 10, paragraph 2 - Add the word "new" before the word "location." Page 4, paragraph 4 - Replace the word "towers" with the words "appropriateness of the towers in a park setting." Bensman moved, Arnst seconded to approve the minutes as amended. Motion passed 7/0. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1998 - PAGE 2 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR It was agreed to move agenda item #5 to this point in the meeting. Shorewood resident Mr. Pike addressed the Park Commission, asking for the City's support in building a safe place for bikers, skateboarders and inline skaters to practice their sport. He cited other sports activities, such as tennis that are provided for by area parks and explained the need for a facility to accommodate skaters and bikers. He would like to see a structure with an area of about 10,000 square feet that would be appropriate for those from beginner to the more difficult levels of ability. He estimated the cost to average around $50,000 and suggested possible revenue sources such as donations, fund raisers, user fees and commercial sponsorships. Other area communities are in support of this idea and Ms. Livolsi - Schultz agreed. Pike named Badger, Freeman, Manitou, Studer and other area parks as possible locations and described potential times of operation and admission costs. Pike recommended that such a facility would be staffed and would include a small building to house a telephone, first aid supplies and possibly concessions. The preferred occupancy limit is up to 100 people. There would be strict behavior expectations and required safety, protective gear such as helmet, kneepads and wrist guards. Chair Puzak asked Mr. Pike to report on developments since he first approached the Park Commission with this idea. Mr. Pike has talked with friends at school and checked on the Internet for information. He described the informational video which addresses costs, design and insurance considerations. Commissioner Themig asked where people currently go for this sport. Because of the need for a hard surface, the only nearby options are parts of downtown Excelsior, the Commons Park and residential areas. He said these all present problems for the skaters/bikers and others involved. There are other skate/bike parks in Burnsville, Minneapolis and Chanhassen. Mr. Pike has not yet addressed other Park Commissions or organizations such as Rotary or Lions Club with his idea. Administrator Hurm asked if the facility can be used by bikers and skaters or skateboarders at the same time. Mr. Pike replied this is not a problem if overcrowding is not allowed. Commissioner Themig asked about admission fees. Pike gave the example of fees at Third Layer, a facility in Minneapolis. The cost is $10 for skaters and boarders and $20 for BMX bikes because of the extra wear on equipment. He pointed out that concrete ramps are more durable than wood, but more likely to cause injury. Mr. Pike prefers a wood surface and described the materials that . work best. He also suggested the idea of seasonal passes along with daily fees. Ms. Livolsi - Schultz reported that Excelsior had a town forum in February which resulted in around 80 responses from the community in which a need for this type of recreational facility was repeatedly expressed. These parks are found all around the country and are growing in numbers. After seeing the response from parents and kids, Ms. Livolsi- Schultz feels that a skate/bike facility would fill a great debit. Chair Puzak asked Ms. Livolsi - Schultz if there is an organized group of adults to begin the process. She explained that there is a core group with plans to assemble in the near future, but that nothing is officially formulated. Chair Puzak summarized that it is back to the question of past months. There is support of the idea, but not a focus to move from there. He asked for suggestions as to the next step and the role of the Park Commission at this point. Discussion followed about the scope of such a project and the business aspect which goes beyond the City's realm of involvement. The suggestion was made that because this could involve a large range of communities, perhaps it is appropriate to include Community Services. Chair Puzak stated that the idea needs an organizational stricture around it from a chartered organization with legal and financial longevity. Mr. Sawinski suggested contacting large corporations who sell skateboards and inline skates for sponsorship. Chair Puzak S PARK COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1998 - PAGE 3 commended Mr. Pike, Mr. Sawinski and Mr. Kamrath for the manner in which they have taken action on their idea. Ms. Livolsi - Schultz will approach Community Services with the idea. Administrator Hurm will bring this information to the other City managers. Commissioner Themig moved that the Park Commission, through Administrator Hurm, initiate a resolution to City Council supporting further investigation of a skate park. Administrator Hurm made a technical suggestion to move that the Park Commission would prepare a resolution for the City Council to take initiative. Commissioner Themig moved, Commissioner Bensman seconded, amending the motion to prepare a resolution to Council that the Park Commission initiate a partnership with surrounding communities to further investigate a skate park. The motion passed 7/4. . Chair Puzak clarified for the three boys that a process has begun, but will take time. They were asked to present their information to Park Commissions for Tonka Bay and Excelsior. Ms. Livolsi- Schultz offered to assist them. 4. REPORTS A. Engineer Brown Report on Legal/Liability of Street Crossings at LRT Engineer Brown reviewed reasons for study of this topic and results of his inquiries. In calling the County and other City offices, he was given several explanations for absences of signage at crosswalk areas. Some of those are: not every state law is posted, signs may give pedestrians a false sense of security, and typically pedestrians have had a pattern of yielding to traffic. At this time Engineer Brown is not recommending signage for all crosswalks. Each location needs to be looked at individually to make sure there are appropriate site distances, etc. There was discussion about the presence of small stop signs at intersections for LRT trail users, which will remain in place for the summer season. Engineer Brown added that the purpose of striping is to bring attention to special situations and it is recommended that it not be overused. One of the troubling spots being looked at for striping is at Eureka and Smithtown. Commissioner Amst recommended three crossings to be looked at closely: Wedgewood, Strawberry and Cathcart. She asked if at least there could be some trimming of vegetation which currently restricts visibility at these intersections. Engineer Brown noted that this could require gaining easements or permission of the property owners. The point was made that the railroad bed was pre- existing and the trail was therefore not designed with pedestrian or bike traffic to be crossing streets as they are. This is a problem all along the LRT. It was suggested that letters could be sent to adjacent homeowners to ask that they keep sitelines as clear as possible. Commissioner Colopoulos asked if this is in the jurisdiction of the Park Commission or is it a traffic safety matter? Engineer Brown will review and analyze each crossing, check again with the League of Minnesota Cities and report back to the Commission after discussion with staff. B . Arbor Day Plans Administrator Hurm reported that the formula established by the Park Commission for declaring a day of observance has been followed and Council has chosen to celebrate Arbor Day on Saturday, April 25, 1998. A tree will be planted at Manor Park at a 9:00 a.m. ceremony. Engineer Brown explained that resident Mary Babcock has offered to donate a large tree, but that it comes with PARK COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1998 - PAGE 4 many conditions about the exact scheduling of care and feeding of the tree which the Public Works crew may not be able to honor. Commissioners asked about the hardiness and origin of tree being considered and whether there is some way to create a partnership with neighbors to assist. Engineer Brown stated that in his opinion, it seemed there is quite a bit of attention needed for this tree and he has a problem with such a dead set commitment to its survival. After further discussion it was decided that Engineer Brown would revisit the idea with Ms. Babcock, suggesting that the City would do its best to ensure the trees survival and replace the tree if it dies. 5. SKATE PARK (See Item #3, Matters from the Floor) 6. REVIEW OF A REVISED PARK CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - CIP Administrator Hurm explained the differences from the previously presented CIP, saying that this one is starting from scratch with new balances. The fast item discussed was the work to be done on the soccer fields at Freeman Park and the $56,000 allocated over the next three years. Administrator Hurm explained that the donation from the soccer association is traditionally $3,000 annually and the status of a possible grant for soccer improvements is still unknown. Commissioner Dallman asked if the projected costs will be a final solution to the poor field conditions. Engineer Brown said the renovation work covered by the $56,000 should resolve the major problems and that fields will require only maintenance level of attention after that. He added that the ongoing compacting that will always reoccur can be minimiz by a lighter play schedule and not using fields during a rain. Mr. Lindstrom noted that the problem is mostly with the initial construction and design. This would be resolved with reconstruction of fields, which would include better drainage. Commissioner Colopoulos pointed out that the project was being considered with the anticipation of grant money in mind and now the possibility of increased fees will need to be addressed. Chair Puzak noted that the money offered by the City was based on a match of grant funds and if the grant money is reduced by half, then the City's contribution should be cut by half. Administrator Hurm said that some athletic clubs take care of the ongoing expense of field maintenance and some do not. This is also true of the cost of original development of fields. The City built the softball and soccer areas, but the Little League paid for their own fields and concession stand. They, however do not pay a yearly contribution to the City. The soccer association did pay for a portion of a playground structure and provided manpower to install it. • Commissioner Arnst asked if there was a formal agreement for users of the City parks and asked how other cities address this issue. Commissioner Themig stated that there should be a consistent policy. Commissioner Bensman explained that the topic of user fees has been discussed and agreements been informal until now. Perhaps it is time for a policy to be developed. There were questions about who is responsible for the handling of ongoing maintenance costs and paying for potential damage to park property. Commissioner Arnst agreed that it makes good business sense to have a policy in place for dealing with park costs. Chair Puzak suggested the idea of charging a fee (perhaps $5 to $10) per registered participant to be collected by each of the sports organizations to cover field and facility repair and maintenance. Commissioner Themig was in favor of saying that the City would provide a certain level of service and needs but beyond that point it would be the responsibility of the sports organization. There was discussion about pros and cons to each approach and it was suggested that policy decisions will be saved for another meeting. The handling of soccer field repair will be determined after the outcome of grant money allocation is known. This may result in the soccer association being asked to contribute more to the field reconstruction or to delay the project. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1998 - PAGE 5 Two representatives of the Little League Association were present to ask if electricity could be brought to the ball field for hooking up a pitching machine at both Freeman and Cathcart Parks. Mr. Lindstrom described the process for safe installation and added that the $3,500 donation from the Little League will cover the cost. Puzak moved, Colopoulos seconded, to authorize the addition of electrical outlets and conduit to support a pitching machine at Freeman Field #1 and at Cathcart. Motion passed 7/0. Engineer Brown continued itemizing the CIP. Commissioner Dallman explained that the Park Foundation has long discussed the construction of a park building at Freeman and the idea of developing a plan to raise $60,000 was recently considered, with the thought that the City would match that amount for a total building cost of $120,000. He asked if the Commission is still behind the plan to build a structure in light of the difficulty of finding a concessionaire. Chair Puzak directed the topic back to the CIP and said that the line item of $60,000 does not indicate a commitment to build the structure. Such a decision would need to be made at another time. Engineer Brown finished the list of projects and allocations for Freeman Park. The overlay of • tennis courts at Badger and Cathcart would be done with the same process used at Manor Park. He concluded by saying that the $31,000 designated for a warming house at Silverwood is a rough estimate for 2002 and that the lighting project at Manor Park is a reduction from $8,000 to $6,000. As there were no further questions, Engineer Brown went on to explain the Funding Source Summary, noting a correction for the heading of the second column to read "1999" rather than the printed 1998. Also the $3,500 from Little League has now been earmarked for the electrical work as described above. It was pointed out that by the year 2002, the fund balance would be very lean ($496) if the soccer restoration project is handled as forecast. Chair Puzak stated that this indicates a need for an increase in user -based funding as the community develops. Administrator Hurm reminded the Commission that there is nothing in this plan to cover potential plans for tennis courts at Freeman, or contribution toward expenses of a skateboard/bike park or play equipment at Minnewashta Elementary. With questions remaining about the funds that may or may not be provided by the soccer association to help with the repairs at Freeman, and the future of policies regarding user fees, it is not yet possible to approve or adjust the budget as presented. Nor is it yet possible to earmark money for any additional projects. At this point, Engineer Brown would need to begin the process of obtaining survey and design information so the work on the soccer fields can be done before it's too late in the season. There was discussion about how to work around an assumption of grant money or matching funds. Administrator Hurm will meet with the soccer association representatives to address the money issue and clarify the outcome of grant money. B. Engineer Brown Report On Design And Cost Of Netting And Pole Construction For Foul Ball Problem At Freeman Field #2 After considering the options and talking with fence companies, Engineer Brown recommended the installation of power poles and netting. The vendors have listed several cities that have successfully utilized this approach. NSP has offered to donate and install the four poles at no cost. The netting is 1 1/4" x 1 1/4" square mesh and would be placed high enough to prevent vandalism and low enough to address the problem. The estimated cost is about $2,500 (after the NSP donation). Commissioner Colopoulos has checked with owners of adjacent properties and they look forward to this plan. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1998 - PAGE 6 Colopoulos moved, Themig seconded, to recommend to Council that they authorize the City to spend $2500 to install poles and netting to solve the foul ball problem at Freeman Field #2. Motioned passed 7/0. There was a question from the floor about exploring the possibility of relocating the ball field and whether this action would prevent that possibility. The response was that the foul ball problem needs immediate attention and the netting and poles could be removed and reinstalled if needed. Chair Puzak verified that the outcome of a recent subcommittee meeting on possible field reconfiguration would not disagree with the decision to go ahead with the pole and netting installation. (There will be a report at the next Park Commission meeting about the results of that committees discussion.) Brown will update the neighbors who are waiting to hear the results of this decision. A. Report On Available Resources To Help Minnewashta Elementary School With Playground Equipment Chair Puzak called for a recommendation on this item. Bensman moved, Themig seconded, to table this item until the budget issue is straightened out. 0 Chair Puzak directed Administrator Hurm to approach the soccer association to see about financial assistance with field reconstruction and put this topic back on the agenda for the next meeting. Commissioner Arnst asked Administrator Hurm to give a status report to the people at Minnewashta School who are waiting for a response to their request. He will let them know that the Park Commission is still exploring the matter. The motion passed 7/0. Administrator Hurm asked if there were parts of the revised Park Capital Improvement Program that could be followed up on before the next Park Commission meeting. Commissioner Dallman asked if there could still be adjustments made to the budget on those items later on. Chair Puzak asked Administrator Hurm to specify which projects he would like to accomplish before the next meeting. Administrator Hurm replied the electricity to the park shelter ($1,500), the drinking fountains and grills ($3,000), the landscaping ($4,000), grills and pads ($1,000), foul ball problem #2 ($2,500), parking lot relocation ($5,000) and benches at Cathcart ($1,000). Chair Puzak clarified that the big question that remains is the soccer field projects at $20,000, $18,000 and $18,000, which Administrator Hurm will have further input on for the next meeting. 7. REVIEW PARK SHELTER POLICIES It was noted that this policy has been reviewed and is ready to adopt. Themig moved, Arnst seconded, that the Park Commission adopt the proposed Park Reservation Shelter Policy as is. The motion passed 7/0. 8. REVIEW THE PARKS DOG ORDINANCE Chair Puzak started out by saying that the overwhelming opinion expressed through the Shoreline voice mail was a positive, "Do it." Commissioner Arnst asked how this ordinance would be enforced. Commissioner Themig suggested that the requirement be stated that a person who has a dog in their custody must be in possession of a device to handle dog feces. The Park Commission would not be able to pass any ordinance, but could make a recommendation to Council. It was PARK COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1998 - PAGE 7 noted that according to the municipal code, the Park Commission may only deal with what relates to parks as they do not have an official role in the area of trails. Administrator Hurm made the point that the Council would still be interested in the Commission's recommendations regarding trails. Commissioner Arnst asked who would enforce the new ordinance being considered. This would be the responsibility of the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department The point was also made that with a change in policy, some people may alter their actions. Commissioner Bensman stated that education would need to be a part of this, such as signage and, communication through the Citizen Informer. There was discussion about the value of "mutt mitts" and the responsibility of the dog owners. Chair Puzak noted that an ordinance that does not exist cannot be enforced or communicated and he recommended that the draft of an ordinance be passed on to Council for consideration and further development. Themig moved, Cochran seconded, that the Park Commission recommend to City Council that they include in our current nuisance ordinance the following wording "Animals in Park and Recreation Areas: No person in a City park or recreation area shall: Subd 7. Have custody or control of any pet in a park without possessing and using an appropriate device for cleaning up pet feces and • disposing of the feces in a sanitary manner. It was again noted that this would need to be accompanied by an education plan. Chair Puzak suggested that it would not be a problem to do this through the City newsletter, local newspaper or letters to owners of licensed dogs. It may also include adding some signage in parks and on trails. Themig amended the motion to include the wording "plus public land plus an educational and communication component if the ordinance is passed that would go along with that. There was no further discussion. Motion passed 7/0. 9. TRAIL PLAN UPDATE - REVIEW FINAL SURVEY DOCUMENT Chair Puzak pointed out that there has been consensus on the nature and purpose of this draft and that the discussion at this point is to clarify the wording if needed and not to change the purpose of the question. Administrator Hurm reported that the City Council has some recommendations after their review at last night's meeting. Their suggestions were in areas of questions 33 and 34. Wording of the paragraph after #32. There was concern that the statements were unrealistic scenarios, which is okay if the word "hypothetically" is inserted as a first word in the second sentence. The sentence would then say: "I would like to read you a list of six types of recreational developments. Hypothetically, if each would cost approximately the same amount ... " The second item is that there is frequent reference to the trail system and the Council suggested that words trail or trail spur should also be used. Commissioner Bensman suggested that just the word trail should be used throughout the survey. The other members of the Commission agreed. Administrator Hurm noted another area to clarify. Question #53 implies a picture of an on -street trail. The Council asked for wording that °does not lead to that assumption. Commissioner Bensman suggested using the words "if the trail were next to your property" rather than "if the trail were running along your side of the street." The Commission directed staff to check with the consultant about that idea. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1998 - PAGE 8 Administrator Hurm asked about changing the words "preservation" and "preserved in questions #34 and #38. Commissioner Themig brought up a question about the phrase "If the City were to acquire land" because it could be a distracting or misleading thought. He suggested using the phrase "If there was undeveloped land would you prefer it to remain undeveloped or used as recreational areas. Commissioner Bensman asked again about questions #33 and #34, wondering if the word "hypothetically" solved the concern. She suggested the phrase "Setting aside concerns about cost or tax increases for a moment .. " as the introduction. Themig suggested leaving out that sentence and just saying "I would like to read you a short list of six types of recreational developments. Which one if any would you choose as your top priority." It was concluded that Administrator Hurm will take this list of suggestions along with the comments from City Council to the consultant for creating a final document. Commissioner Amst asked about the status of selecting a Citizens Review Committee. Administrator Hurm said that it is temporarily on hold. Commissioner Amst then asked about the outcome of discussions about a trail along Strawberry Lane. Administrator Hurm explained that the City Council is not willing at this point to go to the Watershed District about widening Strawberry Lane beyond the current 22 feet allowed. Therefore, there is no plan for a trail along Strawberry at the present time. . 10. REVIEW TOURNAMENT POLICY Chair Puzak asked if the policy is ready for approval or if the Commission needs further discussion time for approval. Because of the late hour, it was decided to table this item. 11. PARK COMMISSION ROLE WITH LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING Chair Puzak reported that when the ad hoc committee was formed to look at stormwater management. He and another commissioner felt that the Park Commission was taking a back seat. After discussing their concern with Administrator Hurm, it became understood that this committee will simply outline tools for the community. Once developed there may be a process, at which time the Park Commission would become involved and have a voice. He pointed out that there is a video available with additional information. Administrator Hurm added that the City Council didn't want to set up another committee and have hired a professional to study this issue. The Council has asked that there be a representative from both Commissions as well as the Council to act as liaison during this process. Commissioner Dallman volunteered to be liaison from the Park Commission. There was discussion about the interest and role of the Park Commission with stormwater management. Chair Puzak noted that the Park Commission has an interest in trails, but not an official role according to the municipal code. Council has asked the Commissions about trails and that is what involves them at this time. The Park Commission may want to suggest a change in the Charter, defining the Park Commissions official role in trails. 12. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 13. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Bensman has composed a letter to the Editor to publicly thank Jennifer McCarty on behalf of the Park Commission. Members of the Park Commission expressed agreement with the PARK COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1998 - PAGE 9 wording and sentiment of the letter, adding that Jennifer's contribution to the City is appreciated and that she will be missed. Bensman moved, Puzak seconded, that the Park Commission agree to sign the letter and send it on to the local paper for publication. The motion passed 7/0. Chair Puzak thanked Commissioner Bensman for taking a leadership role on behalf of the Park Commission. Commissioner Amst asked if some thank you letters should be sent to the recently departed members of the Commission, also acknowledging their service. She asked if the policies for dealing with the sports organizations will be on the next agenda. Chair Puzak said it will go on a future agenda, but there are few items that need to be focused on at the next meeting. Administrator Hurm reminded the Commissioners that the park tours are scheduled for the next two meetings with Call to Order planned for 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Arnst added a few housekeeping items: a large tree house has been constructed at the edge of Freeman Park, the Mutt Mitt dispenser is empty, and there is are some posts and timbers laying at the entrance from the LRT to Freeman that could be dangers. There was discussion about adding a second Cominission meeting to the month of April. It was agreed to have a special meeting on April 28 from 7:30 to 9:30 to address the items that were tabled at this meeting, including the skatepark update, soccer field report, trail survey and sports organization and tournament policy. 14. ADJOURNMENT Arnst moved, Colopoulos seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:44 p.m. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Connie Bastyr Recording Secretary CITY OF SHOREWOOD PICNIC SHELTER POLICIES • • PARK SHELTER RESERVATIONS The picnic shelters are available to reserve from Memorial Day through Labor Day. Picnic shelters are on a first come, first served basis, unless reserved. Reservations will be taken no more than six months or less than two (2) days from proposed date of rental. Reservations are made through the City of Shorewood (474- 3236). Telephone requests will betaken to hold a picnic shelter for seven (7) working days. Upon receipt of the application and fee, a permit will be issued confirming the time and date of reservation. Applicant must be 18 years or older to reserve the picnic shelter. HOURS Hours of availability are from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. FEE SCHEDULE Reservations fees must be paid to City Hall prior to issuing the permit. No refunds are given due to weather conditions or cancellations. Residents $25.00 Non - Residents $50.00 PARK SHELTER RULES • Glass containers, alcohol, and fireworks are prohibited in the parks. • No alterations to the shelter will be made. • Hot coals should be left in the grill. • No amplified music or P.A. Systems. • Pets are not allowed in picnic /shelter areas. • Applicant is responsible for cleaning up the facilities, including depositing all trash in the appropriate containers. • Applicant is responsible for any damage to the facility. • Parking is allowed in designated areas only. 4/M8 #76 � I CITY OF SHOREWOOD PICNIC SHELTER PERMIT APPLICATION APPLICANT PERSON MAILING ADDRESS CITY ZIP HOME PHONE BUSINESS PHONE LOCATION OF SHELTER TYPE OF EVENT DAY AND DATE OF USE ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE SET -UP TIME COMPLETION TIME DESCRIBE ANY SPECIAL ACTIVITIES PLANNED is LIABILITY: The Permit Applicant, by signing and accepting this Permit, agrees to compensate the City of Shorewood for any damages to the City property by any participant involved and agrees to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the City for and against all liability for injury or death of any participant or public involved. Any damages to facilities or equipment must be reported. 1 hereby certify that I am the above named Applicant and am authorized to accept the responsibility for observance of the rules and regulations of the City of Shorewood Parks and Recreation Division. X (Signature) --------------- - - -- OFFICE USE ONLY Date • Date Received Fee Charge $ Approved Conditions Disapproved Reason Why By: (Signamm) (Tide) Date Issued 4/6/98 f CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, APRIL 14,1998 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Borkon; Commissioners Champa, Lizee, Kolstad, Bailey, Callies and Collins; Planning Director Nielsen; Mayor Dahlberg; Councilmember Garfunkel; Council Liaison O'Neill. Absent: Councilmembers Stover and McCarty Chair Borkon suggested addressing Agenda Item No. 2 prior to Item No. 1 since there were guests in attendance relative to this matter and the length of time which would need to be allotted to Item No. 1. Lizee moved, Bailey seconded changing the order of the agenda to address Item No. 2 prior to Item No. 1. Motion passed 7/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Commission Minutes - March 10, 1998 Bailey moved, Lizee seconded approving the Planning Commission Minutes of March 10, 1998, as submitted. Motion passed 7/0. Planning Commission Minutes - March 17,1998 Bailey moved, Callies seconded approving the Planning Commission Minutes of March 17, 1998, as submitted. Motion passed 7/0. JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES Jim Strommen, City Attorney's Office, was in attendance to discuss this matter. Peter Beck, AT &T Wireless was also in attendance along with Dawn Burroughs. Planning Director Nielsen explained the history surrounding the issue of telecommunications facilities in Shorewood. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14,1998 - PAGE 2 Mayor Dahlberg suggested staff outline criteria for potential sites and then rank the sites. Nielsen explained the Commission has concentrated on the types of areas in which telecommunications facilities might be suitable rather than selecting specific sites. Councilmember O'Neill asked how many locations would have to be supplied in a six square mile area. Attorney Strommen stated this would be based on demand and the need which can be demonstrated by an applicant. Each application would be evaluated on its own merits. He explained need is based on the provider's ability to serve the public pursuant to their license which was purchased from the FCC. Councilmember O'Neill inquired whether an applicant could be referred to an adjacent city to obtain a location for their facility. Attorney Strommen stated this could be done and noted in the past one applicant did select a site in another city, however, the City could potentially be challenged in court on this issue. He suggested the City may need some technical assistance relative to whether an applicant is able to locate elsewhere. Commissioner Collins felt the Commission to be working backwards on this issue. He stated it was earlier determined sites would need to be provided and at this point acceptable locations would be determined. He felt the sites should be located in the commercially zoned areas with criteria established. Chair Borkon felt prior to proceeding on this matter there are specific questions which need to be addressed relative to the criteria which needs to be met legally. Mayor Dahlberg inquired whether all applications would have to be approved. Attorney Strommen stated each application would have to be evaluated based on their showing of need. There is no limit relative to the number of applications the City would have to approved. Attorney Strommen stated it may not be sufficient at some point to limit the sites to commercial areas since the majority of Shorewood is residential. Mr. Beck explained this is a system which is developed as you go. Cell providers and PCS providers are the two types of providers. He explained a provider adds sites because a particular site can handle only a specified number of calls at a given time. Each cell site must be able to see its coverage area. In selecting a site, the provider must look for both coverage and capacity. Mr. Beck stated ATT will need to add capacity and this makes it necessary to obtain a new site in the western section of Shorewood. • • Chair Borkon questioned whether the City could wait until there is better development of criteria by the government relative to the way in which a provider demonstrates need. Commissioner Bailey noted if the City were to prohibit the development of sites in residential areas, that would effectively cut off the western part of the City. If the applicant where to then win in federal court, would the City then have the opportunity to go back and select and define a site at that time. Attorney Strommen stated in cases of denial where the applicant is requesting a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14,1998 - PAGE 3 particular site and is able to prove need to the Court, the Court will order the particular site in question be granted. Mr. Beck stated there is no incentive for any of the telecommunications companies to request sites for which there is not a need given the expense involved. He also pointed out the companies go to great lengths to work with the cities to develop a site which is acceptable to both the provider and the city. Mayor Dahlberg questioned whether one company would find a site undesirable given the presence of another company. Mr. Beck explained when attempting to locate a site, if another company occupies a particular search area, the two providers would make arrangements to colocate on the site. Mr. Beck felt it would be beneficial for the City to encourage colocation of sites when formulating an ordinance. Commissioner Callies felt there to be a lack of criteria and input from a neutral consultant. She stated when obtaining advice from a company such as AT &T, it has an overtone of an advocate. Attorney Strommen pointed out there is an issue relative to whether a city is obligated to provide a site based on an argument of capacity, Commissioner Collins pointed out if the need for capacity increases, this would be due to increased use by Shorewood residents. Mayor Dahlberg questioned how the Planning Commission and the City Council will be able to discern whether a company is gaining a marketing advantage versus what is technically required. Commissioner Kolstad pointed out that similar to telephone and power poles, these telecommunication facilities are becoming a form of communication which is becoming more and more integrated in everyday life. The telecommunications facilities are necessary to make that happen. She expressed her appreciation to Mr. Beck for the input he has provided to the Commission, however, she felt there to be a need for neutral technical advice relative to effective placement on a site as well as what is needed from a technical standpoint to service the needs of the community. Councilmember O'Neill did not feel this to be an aesthetics issue, but a concern by residents relative to health issues surrounding telecommunications facilities. Chair Borkon questioned who the City could consult relative to a technical advisor. Attorney Strommen suggested Garrett Liziak who has a consulting firm and works on both sides of the issue. Mayor Dahlberg commented he would like to define the management control the City has over the process and he felt an advisor would be helpful in determining whether a request is valid. Attorney Strommen felt an advisor would be helpful at this point, however, an advisor would be more useful in reviewing individual applications as they come in. At this point, the City is dealing with policy issues and priorities. He felt as long as there is opportunity within those PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14,1998 - PAGE 4 priorities to locate a site and the City, in an evenhanded way administers it, this would be sufficient. With respect to the west side of Shorewood, Mr. Beck explained AT &T is looking for an existing structure, if there is one. They would generally be looking for larger industrial sites such as golf courses, parks, churches and schools. Cemeteries would also be considered. Mayor Dahlberg pointed out sites such as are suggested by Mr. Beck do not exist on the west side of the City. Mr. Beck stated AT &T had been considering the water tower, however, they were unaware of the controversy surrounding this site. Once AT &T has some guidelines from the City, they will search for an alternative site. Mr. Beck stated they would also look at power line corridors. Commissioner Champa did not feel the City should limit itself to the commercial sites on the west end of Shorewood if, in fact, the water tower and the park are not going to be used as sites. Mayor Dahlberg felt expert opinion should be obtained relative to how the west side of the City can be serviced with as little presence as possible. The Council was in agreement with obtaining a technical expert opinion relative to this issue. Mayor Dahlberg stated he is of the opinion it would be better to construct a freestanding tower rather than utilizing the water tower site. Councilmember Garfunkel stated his preference would be to determine whether the west side can be adequately serviced. Councilmember O'Neill noted there will be companies requesting location on the water tower site. He noted sites which would accommodate a freestanding pole are limited. Commissioner Lizee felt applications should be considered as they come in on an individual basis. She suggested attempting a cooperative effort with possibly Chanhassen and/or Victoria. Mayor Dahlberg noted his agreement with this suggestion. Commissioner Lizee felt a more regional approach would be appropriate and pointed out this represents an additional revenue for growing cities. Nielsen questioned whether any of the providers have attempted to secure public rights -of -way from the state. Mr. Beck commented most city ordinances have been prohibiting location in rights -of -way. MNDOT is open to this idea if it complies with local zoning. Mr. Strommen felt the cooperative effort with other cities to be a good idea and stated he will contact the League of Minnesota Cities to determine whether this has been attempted. The Council directed staff to contact the mayors of the other cities to request a meeting to determine whether there is an interest in a joint powers type agreement. Councilmember O'Neill asked whether placing the antennas on the City Hall property would be sufficient. Mr. Beck stated this would not fit the needs of AT &T at this time. He noted a search area is approximately one - quarter mile. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14,1998 - PAGE 5 The Council gave direction to (1) obtain an independent consultant; (2) obtain feedback from Ms. Burroughs relative to the search area; (3) request the City Attorney investigate the possibility of a regional approach; (4) consult MNDOT relative to the use of rights -of -way. Mayor Dahlberg suggested staff develop a negotiation team of approximately three people to work on the telecommunications issue. He stated he will participate on this negotiation team. Commissioner Bailey pointed out that at some point there must be some criteria established relative to locating sites. Nielsen noted this will be discussed further at the May 19, 1998 study session. Chair Borkon recessed the meeting at 8:38 p.m. and reconvened at 8:45 p.m. 2. DISCUSS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - LAND USE Nielsen asked for direction from the Council as to whether the revisions to the land use chapter are consistent with discussions the Council had at previous work sessions. Nielsen felt it would be beneficial for the Planning Commission to focus on the changes which were made and to then go back to discuss areas which were not changed at a later time. Commissioner Callies noted her agreement and felt the role of the Planning Commission should be to address the bigger picture rather than analyzing the Comprehensive Plan on a line by line basis. Commissioner Bailey noted his agreement. Commissioner Champa felt the Commission should review the comments Commissioner Kolstad prepared relative to the Comprehensive Plan rather than going through them one by one. Commissioner Kolstad commented the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan must support where the City is attempting to go from a vision standpoint. She noted there are a number of inconsistencies in the Plan at this point. Commissioner Bailey inquired how the Council sees the Planning Commission's role relative to the review of the Comprehensive Plan. He asked if the Planning Commission is to accept the policy and ensure the document is consistent with that policy. Councilmember Garfunkel noted his agreement. Commissioner Kolstad questioned who will review the details of the Plan if they are not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Callies felt to some extent the Commission must rely on staff since it is not practical for everyone on the Planning Commission to make editorial comments throughout the Plan. Councilmember O'Neill pointed out Nielsen has spent considerable time with the Council relative to this matter and is very familiar with the direction the Council is pursuing. . a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14,1998 - PAGE 6 Mayor Dahlberg recommended the Commission read through the changes and deletions which were made to the Comprehensive Plan and then return to the Council with documented concerns which are prioritized in the Commission's capacity as a recommending body. Chair Borkon felt a line by line review of the Plan to be very important, but stated she would not be opposed to first looking at the broader issue. She felt at some point the line by line review must be done by the Commission and did not feel this would be the responsibility of staff. Commissioner Champa expressed his belief the process needs to move at a faster pace. He suggested when there is a critical point which needs to be reviewed because it is inconsistent, that point can be referred back to the Council to address. The various opinions and interpretations should be documented for the Council to review. Commissioner Kolstad pointed out the Comprehensive Plan is the Planning Commission's guide on how to make planning decisions and the Commission must be familiar with it. Commissioner Champa noted the Council has ultimate responsibility for this Plan, however, when it is completed, the Planning Commission will have to understand it. 0 Mayor Dahlberg noted the Council defends a low density model in the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested the Commission read through the plan and determine whether it is coherent. Where the Plan is incoherent, the Commission should provide suggestions to the Council on how to make those areas coherent. Commissioner Bailey suggested flagging paragraphs without discussing them and then reviewing the paragraphs which are of concern. Commissioner Bailey felt the majority of the Comprehensive Plan to be coherent. Commissioner Callies noted her agreement. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 0 4. REPORTS FAREWELL RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER VIRGINIA KOLSTAD WHEREAS, Commissioner Champa said, "Well." WHEREAS, Commissioner Lizee resolved that, "We may convince others by our arguments, but we can only persuade them by their own. Ginny, we will remember you as an advocate for discussion and we thank you for your time." WHEREAS, Brad wrote, "Things have been good in Shorewood, but the place to be is Parsippany for family, business and fun. I drove around for an hour trying to find a postcard to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14,1998 - PAGE 7 send you. No luck, so I had to make my own. I think someone is missing the market for Parsippany postcards. Our loss is their gain. We will miss you. Keep in touch." WHEREAS, Council Liaison O'Neill asked, "Will you ever give me one of the pictures you drew of me ?" WHEREAS, Chair Borkon resolved that, "Ginny has donated significant blocks of time through snowmobile co- chairmanship, which she adored, and was the point of many Planning Commission discussions; and WHEREAS, Ginny endlessly brings forth discussion and devil's advocate which has been priceless for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, Ginny infinitely cared and lets us know where she stands on all issues, brave enough to communicate whether or not anyone agreed with her. You will be sorely missed. Thank you for all of your time." WHEREAS, Commissioner Champa suggested, "You need to leave all of your notes behind on the land use issues. You spent many, many hours of dedication and time on this and we need that." WHEREAS, Commissioner Bailey stated, "Ginny, I have been on the Commission for three months and I appreciate your knowledge and insights which have been quite impressive. I've enjoyed it." WHEREAS, let it be resolved, Commissioner Collins stated, "Ginny taught me very many things in a very short time, but she taught me a word I never knew existed. Thank you for `impervious surfaces'." Commissioner Kolstad commented she has enjoyed the three or four years which she spent on the Planning Commission and the Snowmobile Task Force. 5. ADJOURNMENT Champa moved, Lizee seconded adjourning the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Cheryl Wallat Recording Secretary Timesaver Off- Site Secretarial, Inc. I CITY OF SHOREW001.) 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 - (612) 474 -3236 FAX (612) 474 -0128 - www.state.net /shorewood - cityhali @shorewood_state.net MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: • Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 16 April 1998 Peck Dave - Setback Variance 405 (98.02) BACKGROUND Sawhorse Designers and Builders, on behalf of Dave Peck and Diane Rankin have requested setback variances in order to add on to the Peck/Rankin home at 5575 Sylvan Lane (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). The property is located in the R -1A, Single - Family Residential zoning district. They propose to build a second story addition over the existing two - car garage, then add a third garage stall on to the south end of the existing garage. As can be seen on Exhibit B the property is nonconforming with respect to the 50 -foot setback from Wild Rose Lane. The existing house extends approximately 5.5 feet into the required setback and an existing tennis court is located only 20 feet from the public right -of -way. A 20- foot high hill exists on the north half of the property, held back by a retaining wall system. Mature trees are scattered throughout the site. The proposed additions are shown on Exhibit C. The second story, master bedroom addition requires a 5.5 -foot variance, while the proposed garage expansion requires a variance of approximately 12.5 feet. The applicant describes the owner's request in a letter, dated 3 February 1998 (Exhibit D, attached). ��� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER zf�74� Memorandum Re: Peck Setback Variance 16 April 1998 Page two ISSUES AND ANALYSIS The R -lA zoning district requires the following setbacks from property lines: front - 50'; rear - 50'; side - 10'; and side yard abutting a street- 50'. Section 1201.5 Subd. 2.b.of the Shorewood Zoning Code sets forth the criteria for granting variances. Following is how the applicant's request addresses the criteria: 1. The applicant cites topography as preventing additional garage space from being built within the buildable area of the lot on the north side of the house. There is, however, room in that location for some sort of accessory building, if storage is an issue. What limits the site more than topography is the location of the tennis court, which keeps the • applicant from being able to expand the home to the east. While the current owner did not build the tennis court the previous owners' actions impact his plans. While the topography argument is viewed as weak there is one site characteristic that suggests that some sort of exception may be in order in this case. Wild Rose Lane, where it abuts the subject property, has an extraordinary right -of -way width. Whereas Shorewood's standard for local streets is 50 feet, Wild Rose Lane is 66 feet wide. This suggests that an eight -foot variance may be appropriate. 2. The applicant does not suggest that the owners' hardship is economic in nature. 3. The applicant suggests that the character of the area includes three -car garages: While it is true that most ofthe new homes being built today include triple garages, many homes in Shorewood have double garages. More to the point in terms of neighborhood character is the setbacks of existing buildings in the R- IA district and the neighborhood itself. Only Io three homes in the vicinity, one of which is the subject property, appear to have less than 50 -foot setbacks. 4. The ordinance discusses "rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district ". The applicant states that the two other homes in the neighborhood with setbacks less than 50 feet establish a precedent. Given the existing setbacks of the home and tennis court on the subject property, the owners already enjoy rights not commonly enjoyed by other properties. 5. The applicant states that the garage has been designed to minimize the amount of variance necessary for the owners to make reasonable use of their property. Other design solutions could further reduce the amount of variance. For example, additional storage could be achieved with a detached accessory building. Or, if the previously mentioned eight -foot variance were granted, the garage could be expanded by four feet. Finally, the garage could be pushed back further to the east so as to comply with an eight -foot variance. Memorandum Re: Peck Setback Variance 16 April 1998 Page three RECOMMENDATION Although the wide right -of -way for Wild Rose Lane supports the second story addition, it is recommended that any variance in this case be limited to eight feet. While Shorewood has established an unwritten policy that the inability to have a two -car garage in Minnesota constitutes a hardship, this does not extend to three -car garages. It is therefore recommended that the applicant either reduce the garage expansion or redesign the garage to fit within an eight -foot variance. Cc: Jim Hurm John Dean • Fred Bruning Dave Peck -- - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- __ tp0 TATE t ; r- L 30 = (24) ' se, at' t90 l.st r �t 6Il ' d' �• J�� .. st O � ( - P,� as OAK zq, f.: ss1 - (32) ��- 1 9 (20) (31) 3 (28) Q'' : O �• Subject propert .� Irl PAPt z~ iAAdf OF l ... OUfl QT A N R ( 36) 1 1 ,n 7f9.?e ♦ROES go QL LOT 1 f -- 1 4 R ( • 1 , (40) z m. s ( 14 ) (23) r • a • C24) ff NORTH 1 - 1B® . _.• _ � _ � (32 ^.. * ens 1 ~• 1 ( 28) '� (5) tA tY� o Y .� `.... 200 ~; �t22.S / i3� ^� t� � r � • 1 _ _ (8) Exhibit A SITE LOCATION 1 ___- - - ---- -- - -- (33) +T _ N o � a9 0 0 fri•, - /��• tiss ` Existing 5� Afaple; ' `dos • '� o Bldg. 5555 1` 1' / r. Al P/lap! v // pi A a 0� Muplr eso CM v , 970 !.".. �,,�,1�' : f • =��-_- _ ! i ��yy aingge & Ut ilit�l as.er�oQt I �- ✓_> Ai pry � Wog11 -$lit. Walls �" *.o � �„ rr' r • err,, �," - ay ° _ jr t ,w � Jr � � Or Wood, Ret. Wpll "0 � plt Pli" Mu {'!t 7 1.0 M +} ►� y Well - t •., ryD� 2- "Story t� \ :�� �;� `.• Frame ' 5575 Bituminous / .�q ''•� eta ','` "=, � 9,� \ f QC � "Tenn! Yurt 30 *(. vaar x)" J PP 1 ,, 0 "+•+a�, - ° Brick Surface f shed ►' \ �. °"al ' 1,0 `a�u, Proposed '!" �{' a 2nd Story Addition s`r ~~ � vropw.d Addition a,- �'��- i Existing 'fr✓ \ ! ,' Alupl� o Bidg. 00 � f A \ • • —� - O . ^� V r 1 1 \ 24 !p sf power ERTIFIOATE ' OF SURVE) �d tTJ r* �] true and correct representation of a survey of File No. '-� 4scribed land and of the locotlon of all buildings, 9865 C/I encroochmants, If onyx from or on sold fond, day of Morch 1998. Book —Pogo l� ;366/23 DAVID f.= C)?OOK ,Stole y. 'No: ' `'22414 ",` �, 1 "•-= 30' ERTIFIOATE ' OF SURVE) Licensed, Bonded, Insured • Guaranteed Completion Expert Project Management Schedule • Unique Designs Showroom to Select x" S awhorse Your Products • 1000+ Reference! Room Additions • Parches • Decks • Kitchens • Baths - -- - -- Z 7ZIT l_�rpgra� e� ({ — 0 A, F M"MZ044WP it 31 04 7 � I VA 4— ------ 4 PROPOSED -2nd FLOOR PLAN 43 L 4 '4/ PROPOM 1st FLOOR PLAN .kni ed Warranty ;jcf Plice 4 Name 004e4t fC Z=)\ k (c Da,,-F:!!-b 3 1'1 Address 561;; 1!YLN.&O L. t Phone `' R of4.F- W OW Project # N M= IWI— lo Exhibit C BUILDING ELEVATIONS/FLOOR PLAN 474 1 0 42nd Ave N • Robbinsdale, Minnesota 55422 • (612) 533-0352 FAX (612)533-2668 Ile 6125332668 • Unique Designs • 1000+ References • 10year Limited Warranty • Guaranteed Price • Financing • MN License 2382 SAWHORSE DESIGNERS F -713 T -937 P -002 FEB 03 1 98 16:23 • Licensed, Bonded, Insured • Expert Project Management W-4 Sawhorse • Sho� t o Your Frvduc ts Room Additfons • Porches • Detks • K=&-m • Baths • Guaranteed Comptetion Lowest Price for Best Value Schedule February 3, 1998 • City of Shorewood Petition for varia;tlice Re: Peck/Rankiri-Residence 5575 Sylvan Lane To whom it may concern, The above residential Property, its on the p20 ;*e earner of Sylvan and Wild Rose Limes. The required setback on:both streets is 50 feet. The existing home is currently setback 49.3' from Sylvan Lane and 44.6' from Wild Rose Lane. Owner's are concerned that the size of a proposed Master Bedroom expansion warmos a garage stall which is typical for surly sized homes in the am, this would require a variance. Owner's property is one of 5 lots affected by a 15 ft exception on Wild Rose, 2 lots in addition to the owner's lot are on the north side of the street. One of these lots, (lot 3, block 1), already has a 3-m garage, the other {lot 2, blockl), is substmtially closer to Wild Rose (approx. 25' from property lime) with a single story garage. We are requesting a variance of 12.2' feet to the allowed setback of 50' from Wild Rose Lane for a third stall garage, and a 5.4' variance for the Faster Bedroom addition to be built above the tmsting non-conforming garage. The following conditions, are offered for review. 1) Topographical issues: The feasibility to build another garage to the north side of property would be implairsible because of retaining wall and mature tree removal& that would be - necessary. 2) Character of neighborhood: Three of four neighbors on Sylvan Lane have 3 car attached garages. Newer developments to west typically have three stall garages which appear closer than 50'. 3) Precedence (literal intcgnt tion): Lot 7, block 1, living and garage structures are closer than 50'. Lot 2, block 1 single story garage is approximately 25' setback again less than the required 50'. q 1W 9U= Rve iN • rNOUC 133. ue, tv►rrUj[MULa - NVA4I �JJ`-- __ - - -- Exhibit APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER Dated 3 February 1998 6125332668 • Unique Designs • 1000+ References • 10 -year Limited Warranty • Guaranteed Price • Financing • MN License 2382 SAWHORSE DESIGNERS F -713 T -937 P -003 FEB 03 '98 16:23 ® • Licensed, Bonded, Insured a Saw horse Expert Project Management . • Your Pr o to Select Your Products .Room Additi= • porches • Uedis • Kitts • Ba tr • Guaranteed Completion Lowest Price for Best Value Schedule Page 2 • The proposed garage is designed recessed back 4' from the existing garage and is also as narrow (10 as reasonable, thus we are ;requesting as mi� a varisnce as practical. TJn addition, allowing our hoMeowners -to maivataiU their "non complyi%Y" 44.6' setbacks would allow construction of a much needed second story master bc&OO ua addition, that architecturally W?ould blend with e�dsting structures. Finally, the current owners are not the original owners of the property. The location of the existing Dome was not the result of then' actions The proposed additions would seems to exemplify reasonable use of the property after c onsiderng several options and would appear' to be in character to similar properties in the nei jb0rhood• Sincerer+, Fred, Bruning 0 4740 42nd Ave N • Robbinmale, Minnesota 55422 • (612) 533 -0352 FAX (612)533 - LM6 or t , ECE V 'IO APR 17 1999 8y Lt, A G �� VL E1�tG � �s - cis �• �:�- ����� `- v i ter April 15, 1998 Bradley J. Nielsen Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood MN 55331 RE: Conditional Use Permit for Nancy Williams Planning Commission Meeting 4/21MS *Via Fax 474-0128* Dear Mr. Nielsen- I am responding to Nancy Williams' request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the use of an accessory binding in a home occupation of a cat boarding facility located at 26270 Smithtown Road. I commend Ms. Williams initiative for trying to start this business, and I did receive a letter from her. Hcwevor, 1 am totally opposed to the construction of a separaie facility fOr cst bearding in my neighborhood. Ms. Williams' fetter to the neighbors on Grant Lorenz Road does not state she is attempting to construct a separate facility. She refers to her business as "in home' and the boarding of 3-4 cats. A separate facility seems to indicate more than 0 3-4" cats. My home on Grant Lorenz Road is about 5 homes away, but I spoke with the owners of the home next to 26270 Smithtown who live on Grant Lorenz, and they are also opposed to the boarding of cats. Hopefully they will submit their own letter or attend the Planning Commission meeting. Of very special concern with this request is the noise, smell, insects, and roaming catstdogs to add to the problem. Although this home is located on more than one acre, the acre is not very conducive to adding .� another garage. I do not believe the City of Shorewood has anything specific on `boarding of cat'V and until the Planning Commission sets some rules, or perhaps checks with neighboring communities for their rules, the request should be denied at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Z00 'd Sincerely, C� Linda Sutherlin 5705 Grant Lorenz Road Shorewood MN 55331 Home Phone 474 -0459 Work Phone 935 -2500 Fax 935-0500 0090 S£6 ZI9 :131 8£ :£I (( IN6 ,91 'M . • • MEMORANDUM CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (612) 474 -3236 FAX (612) 474 -0128 • www.state.net /shorewood • cityhali@shorewood.state.net TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 13 April 1998 RE: Williams, Nancy — Conditional Use Permit for a special Home Occupation FILE NO.: 405 (405 (98.03) BACKGROUND Ms. Nancy Williams is considering purchasing the home at 26270 Smithtown Road (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). Her purchase of the property depends, in part, on her ability to obtain a special Home Occupation Permit to operate a cat boarding business on the premises. Ms. Williams intends to build a detached 24' x 30' accessory building to contain between one and sixteen cats. The building will be located to the north and east of the existing home (see Exhibit B). A proposed floor plan and building elevations are shown on Exhibits C and D. Ms. Williams explains her request in her letter, dated 18 March 1998 (see Exhibit E). Additional information is provided in the Home Occupation Questionnaire, attached hereto as Exhibit F. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Shorewood's zoning regulations provide for home based businesses through two processes. A limited home occupation permit is intended for very low key businesses, conducted entirely within the principal dwelling by residents of the property and restricted to one client at a time. A special home occupation permit allows the business to be conducted within an accessory building, may allow more than one client at a time, and may allow up to one nonresident employee to work on the premises. While the limited home occupation permit can be issued administratively, the potentially higher intensity of a special home occupation permit requires a conditional use permit. ♦ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 9 �� ✓ t n U • Re: Williams, Nancy C.U.P. for Special Home Occupation 13 April 1998 Specific requirements for home occupation permits are found in Section 1201.03 Subd. 12 of the Shorewood Zoning Code. General provisions relative to conditional use permits are set forth in Section 1201.04. The Planning Commission and Council are urged to review these sections of the Code in the evaluation of this request. The applicant's letter and her responses to the home occupation questionnaire address the provisions found in the Zoning Code. Based upon the zoning regulations and comments /inquiries from nearby residents the primary issues raised by this application appear to be as follows: A. Architectural Compatibility. The proposed building is one story in height and measures 24' x 30' (720 square feet). As can be seen on Exhibits C and D, the structure has been designed to look like, and can be converted into, a three -car garage. The subject property presently contains an attached, single -car garage and a small utility shed. The total area of accessory space on the property will be approximately 1084 square feet, which is within the 1200 square feet allowed in the R -lA zoning district. B. Traffic. The applicant has suggested that the business would generate less traffic than a typical residential day care business. It should be noted that day care operations are mandated by the State as permitted uses in residential districts. The applicant points out that the driveway serving the site is located on a collector street. She also proposes to construct a "T" type turnaround on the west side of the existing driveway so that cars do not have to back out onto Smithtown Road. To mitigate potential parking and congestion problems, the applicant proposes to stagger appointments for drop -off and pick -up. While this might be difficult to monitor and enforce, it should be made a condition of any approval of this request. C. Sanitation. The applicant indicates that waste will be stored in sealed garbage bags, inside trash containers within the building. It seems reasonable to assume that the cleanliness of the facility has an impact on her clientele as much as her neighbors. Inside storage of waste should be a condition of approval. D. Noise. If the applicant were proposing a commercial dog kennel in a residential location, approval would not be recommended. Since a cat kennel is somewhat unique, it is not clear whether noise will be a factor. Do cats howl in the presence of other cats? Staff is researching other communities to see if they have had any experience with similar facilities. We may also talk to local veterinarians for additional advice in the regard. E. Cats on the Lamb. If cats were to escape, they can be difficult to catch. The risk of this occurrin g presumably resumabl Yquite minimal if the operation is confined to the inside of the building. The questions is — are cats brought outside for exercise? The applicant should be prepared to discuss this at the public hearing scheduled for next Tuesday. 2 I - L 0 Re: Williams, Nancy C.U.P. for Special Home Occupation 13 April 1998 F. Effect of Permit. Section 1201.03 Subd. 12.c.(4) limits any initial approval to one year. Subsequent approvals are good for three years at a time. While this presents some risk to the applicant, it allows for periodic review of the home occupation to monitor resident complaints. The applicant's risk is mitigated by the fact that the proposed building can fairly easily be converted into a standard three -car garage. It is suggested that she consider framing the building so as to easily accommodate overhead doors in the fixture. RECOMMENDATION Given the uniqueness of this request, additional issues may be raised, other than those herein, by City officials or residents. Although the applicant has addressed most of the issues, noise and escaped cats remain as concerns. Staff will attempt to have more information at the public hearing. If the conditional use permit is granted the following conditions are recommended, in addition to the provisions set forth in the Zoning Code: 1. Consider framing the proposed building for future conversion to garage space (i.e. install headers for future overhead doors). 2. The driveway turnaround should be completed prior to occupancy of the building. 3. Appointments for drop -off and pick -up should be staggered, as proposed by the applicant, to minimize congestion and parking demand. 4. All sanitary ste must be stored in sealed ba inside trash containers, inside the �' g s building. 5. Noise complaints from neighboring residents should be monitored and taken into consideration in future renewals of the C.U.P. 6. The applicant should address the issue of feline escape. 7. The application should be reviewed in one year after the business opens to review any complaints received by the City. Cc: Jim Hurm John Dean Nancy Williams - 3 — ..-- - - - - -- ry - - 17 F ;..... ..... ..2;'J..._... F ' (2) (3) ( (40) _ 0 , t3 ; 47 ?. 33 --- -- : -- - -- ---- �a Roos 47Z. 33 ( e c LaT a6 (2d) ' l � 07 55 4R 4R NORTH - - - - -- = ' N 1.1 ; •--- - - - --- _ — s 2 200 _ c6) c Mvwwe Sub'e ro p e r y I'MT OF LOT 110 j .. r _ e _ _ rr R al YA4 {:nl ,R R � �• ` C nn' �.. ' ;� _ 9. �� — .. -- r{ � � r : o - •c { 31 ry - � � t POT OF 247 1 (X TM 0 .a /A ! R I r.2 a LaT MY 4 0 1 40 o., (27) ! — (8) — (12) � a 2 160 l.aa•Wf 2 (.g) (I7) L/ o ' :oz a EAST 'b 4 �+. 23 100 � t • t+ '31'9 PAS - t � .: I44. o1 — g �) 5 �. a3 ., ee .. 589 255.'•3 25 — - t . 10 Exhibit A (24) SITE LOCATION ; 5 `� Williams — Special Home Occupation Permit la N 24' w iMAPiE p N ui ' O I 2Q" OAK �'. 0 �I 'o t5• SPRUCE - 15 SPRUCE 15 CE ! W _38.94 I � I 40.9 I .I 10' SPRUCE � S .1 VI 1 + e.ao } O Q H� N dLa` 3 �- - - - ------ - - - - -- - - - 00 - - -- - - -�_ - - Q � I 200. 00.. p � S 1 I I 26.2 � 6. \ w 24' OAK DETAIL ONE j8 I P p S � DETAIL ONE ,e. N \ $1 ---------- 200.00 r - - - - -- 199.00 ------------f--- y I n 17.74 m i i � N is 2e.24 30.21 I In Gpa I p b I 0 � I I I I N 0'00' E I- u; 199.00 N la N 24' w iMAPiE p N ui ' O I 2Q" OAK �'. 0 �I 'o t5• SPRUCE - 15 SPRUCE 15 CE ! W _38.94 I � I 40.9 I .I 10' SPRUCE � S .1 VI 1 + e.ao } O Q H� N dLa` 3 O I an I Gp� 498.50 N90'00'00"E i INQ 18" MAPII Q � f 18" CEDAR p � S in WWFz I n w 24' OAK DETAIL ONE j8 I P p S � DETAIL ONE 24* OAK O I an I Gp� 498.50 N90'00'00"E 1.00 N90'00'00"E / y \ NOT TO SCALE 1 ` r" I J ` i W W 64. G � N D �'000, 7 — > 24 OAK 40.26 > z C 1w SPRUCE t O 22 ( / f 1 -{ 12' OAK { i tE MAPLE 9' SPRUCE 1R" MAPLE NI • • I a ♦ Y rj 0 m� 24" OAK ( - ` 1 ',,V� � y / w`\► \!\� e'OT. I Sousa LINE OF Lo r ee 9' SPRUCE W — _ -PER AUO. SUB. 1 133 2t" OAK f .0 :10 ' SPRUCE 1 r , — L�J is 4 390' 0' 0" E w ►a>• �e RUCE i12' SPRUCE —1 a ___ -k — T -86.2 49 .f!/ 0 S 1 V �,1 - �JA�O'DO "E -SOUTH LIN 76.16 , 31"'30" i ,,,• Exhibit B PROPERTY SURVEY � I WWFz I 0 DETAIL ONE j8 I DETAIL ONE 1.00 N90'00'00"E / y \ NOT TO SCALE 1 ` r" I J ` i W W 64. G � N D �'000, 7 — > 24 OAK 40.26 > z C 1w SPRUCE t O 22 ( / f 1 -{ 12' OAK { i tE MAPLE 9' SPRUCE 1R" MAPLE NI • • I a ♦ Y rj 0 m� 24" OAK ( - ` 1 ',,V� � y / w`\► \!\� e'OT. I Sousa LINE OF Lo r ee 9' SPRUCE W — _ -PER AUO. SUB. 1 133 2t" OAK f .0 :10 ' SPRUCE 1 r , — L�J is 4 390' 0' 0" E w ►a>• �e RUCE i12' SPRUCE —1 a ___ -k — T -86.2 49 .f!/ 0 S 1 V �,1 - �JA�O'DO "E -SOUTH LIN 76.16 , 31"'30" i ,,,• Exhibit B PROPERTY SURVEY 0 • S�ar"'t N�1 TAP Exhibit C FLOOR PLAN AND BUILDING SECTION 114"-- I . y vE7Z r Y 14" C17 a A 6 0 TV--,LMT - M3AC.Y-1 ELF -YMIbm UV-MU- END V MN A totally unique boarding experience for Your cat March 18, 1998 City of Shorewood Planning and Protective Inspections 5755 Country Club Road (612) 474 -3236 To Whom it May Concern, I am applying for a conditional use permit to operate a cat boarding facility on a property in Shorewood. Currently, lam in the - process f)7hasing a home at 26270 Smithtown Road. It has 1615 finished square feet with a tcic'un er garage on 1.6 acres of land. In order to operate this business, building an accessory building would be required. My plans are for a 30'x24'(720 sq. ft.) structure at the end of the driveway by the house. This would house an office, individual cages, small utility space, reception area, and a restroom for personal use only. This is intended to be a unique, well maintained boarding facility for one to sixteen cats. My experience with cat care is extensive. Currently I own and operate a pet sitting business in San Diego called "House Calls ". I provide professional, caring pet sitting for cats and dogs in their homes. For personal reasons, I wish to return to the Twin Cities where I was born and raised and spent much of my adult life. I wish to continue my chosen occupation of caring for cats and feel that a central boarding facility allows me to provide more complete care. This will be a beneficial service to the residents of Shorewood and surrounding area as the only facilities are mixed boarding or veterinarians. Being a homeowner for the last 18 years, my home and it's upkeep and maintenance has always been important t o me. That, combined with my passion for animals, will insure a friendly, well maintained professional business that will have no negative impact on the neighborhood enviornment. Enclosed you will find letters of recommendations from current clients. The Home Occupation Questionnaire includes specifics regarding the building and Exhibit E APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER Dated 18 March 1998 business operation. I have included photos that maybe of interest to you. My plans are to attend the Planning meeting on April 21st and the City Council meeting on April 26th to answer any questions you may have. In the meantime, I may be reached at (619)- 569 -8404 or (619) -569 -6165 Thank -you for your consideration. Sincerely, Nancy %V ams 7049 -90 Park Mesa Way San Diego, California 92111 :7 83/19/1998 16:22 6194679299 BLTGIi FMS PAGE 18 SMM IoL 4M Worth lAkh M1 *A= CMW, L 80811.1281 TiIOWN311882OW2 Fix 312 644 4889 hrpJAMww.d�ux.aq/ SHAR9 • .o Aeo,,, OrOe y01. 11 13 IOL � � .. ....wr . •�.. « � . , .u�.... _tr • .wow. _. .F t � . • l + ' _ _ � F yam.`,, 1 1 d t AL t 1 gel ►a 2 . .r a•s.� - � y1 _r r• IV /r'r' /ter i �T 1 ,. • 5 •' ♦, , •• • �• �•1, '� �• 1.• "' �• ;'"e:�} �. ' 9 f C•', r' i .p L1 i. ,� 1.. ��M� ;�l'r.. .. S ., •.' ', •• s7 .. i"IoZew 1, iwt Le 1 4 / �[�c_ _ r,f" ..t.�.lc.�rri' cc. �•�.r�c.C.- f�-.,f �••,,t.'e��• t� �.�'c.�,.e.G.G1�+� ,; �� � _'+'eC. ' ��.� � fi r; .e'.I'�•. � • �.� —•-� �.. , ; : •C. �C� • . �// /� ,F' r *� • w �' , � ? - <:' A • . �. �'II�,� { fir y� ` ��'72.�/(/f/ Ib�V7�"��•'^• �'S'. f.Y+: "i"'r ",. �:•rt w � l q`a''J • :'.. r MO .�•� • +„ � ��rw� • " ~ j �i1'. •r••' 1 • 1 ' 1 r � '` /tom,_/ • •� � • • 1 ' / r' ' ••' r . • r � v .l J , _ � �' ,f ry .t.' �y`�,.+ .��.a�"p ti.w �• f y �I t7 t l ' i �'. .. - - 1 �Nprvr� r" r Ire 4! 'J 6 `{. .i.r � r .. s,� � • d �� Y,� • k ' t tir -4 vie :A._' is S6 jj All fry "All At ' 0 7 ................. All fry "All OJ/ 17/ 1770 1 O: LL 0174017L77 Du I %On rya r•Pe. 0 0 54�- •,s l.ar dd sRl�' �-�t„- cif LpK call st wc Ur-c- tiS�J�".� J �'Y BUTCH FRERES PAGE Lee J. Wlegand 14955 Avenida Venusto, 0103 San Diego, CA 92128 (619) 451 July 19. 1995 Us. Macy CALLS 40 HOUSE 7049 Park Mesa Way San Diego, CA 92111 Dear Nancy; What a pleasure to arrive home snd find m T�s cake of Six active cats could be a dawn end the house in Such great shape. The baslc care you provided fe ' but Y handled it lik the pro you are. having you around). But even nnor �• MW Utter P erson rheas with atftcttoA. The y� p°�t is that �exceaded � � SAW (they'll W their beha ' Y ere not the least �prived of love — indeed, Y absence lavished they knew there'd been any change. � Couldn't even tell from I can't tell you whet a relief it is For me someone 1 can tarLM to be hero someone who thinks of my pets as my family, to find pro that,atious iees. Someone .. ugh Sleet and snow'; someone I know will solve Any cien care o#'the mall l,smala the way I do, and someons who takes such worry a gai n about the 1'• and the like. Now that I'vr found You I'll never oved ones Y Leave behh4 Thank you so very mom, and please feel free m use m y Warne a e , asked. weer you Sincerely, 64x-O Lee Wiegand @3!19/1998 16:22 6194679299 BUTCH FARES PAGE 83 01 September 1997 To Whom This May Concern; It is our pleasure to write this letter of recomraendation on behalf of Nancy Williams and her pat sitting service, Howie Calls. We hired Nancy one year ago on the rewauneadation of our previous pet sitter with whom we'd been affiliated for two years in the Rancho Bernardo area. Nutty came to us with high praise and we have found her to be completely devoted to the animals that • she cares for. ,Addidonally, she is reliable and trustworthy as well as ftieudly. conscientious and honest. Part of the service that she has provided (in addition to taking care of our doggy has boon to bring m the mail, take out the garbage and bring in the garbage cans. And we have never asked her to provide that to us. She is always very aware of changes in our home environment and keeps abreast of same always making certain that she knows what may change and what, if anything, she should be alert to. We have always placW complete Mh in Nancy when dealing with our dog, who is an integral and loving part of our &m fly. And we would not trust just anyone with our pet! We have found that Nancy if flexible, too, always able to work around our varying schedules. And, whenever she has taken a well - deserved vacation, she has always made it IL practice to Wroduee us to her associate pet - sitters with whom she wodm. If you are c midering bhW House Calls and Nancy William to look after your pet and/or your home, we would tell you don't hcadtate! We love Nancy - as does our dog - and believe that you will, as wen. � s ' Nv3Q--,/ �� Lion a Jay MCD H San Diego, CA 92124 03`/19/1998 16:22 6194679299 BUTCH FRERES P AGE 02 August 1 a, 1997 To Whom It May CiMWSM, I have employed the servicea of Nancy W iliams on frequent occaslon for Hearty two years. She No cared for my five cats wWi great care and concern. She has been oonslstsntty reliable Ond thorough. My guys are very fond of her and she exhibits a great effecOan for them. I have no fear of leaving my beloved companions In her cars. If you wish to disams NwWs pertormanca, pies" feel free to call me at Z M -4417. 81nc�rety, D. L. Deacon, CDR, USN • M VAIfW n sr-�� % lhlor EMat OW10% bw A OTI Company March 9, 1998 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: SM Business Park Am Son DIW, CA 92131 -1642 TEL 019.537 2500 FAX 818.537.2525 This letter is in reference to Nancy T ]i=4 mmer of HowcCalls, Etc. Nancy has been pat and houso-sitting for my and my two oats shnce 1995. She displays the utmost professionalism for visits, whether they ire scheduled or on short modes, and Rtwe the same care and affection to my animals as I do. I trust her implicitly with scats to niy home as she always informs tine of the sots* of her visits with a vMtten no&*. Nancy's love of mbnals is very apparent as she cares deeply for their wall be4 Her thowu0nas to assure they are happy and heaft in their own enmrormam is phcnorwnaL It it without hcsitatim that I her r000ttiumend Nancy WiWam to a rune who wishes than pots and homes to be wd cared for in their absence. If you haw any Bother questions, please contact me at by home (619) 565 -8934 or work (619) 531 -2940. Sincerely, Pengy Letwin Dimotor, Hunan Raw=cs !p1 S WW . >> i »o to: tX;9 bl`14b79299 • TM PERSONAL WEIGHT MANAGEMENT BUTCH FRERES PAGE 82 113S� 3 N..T � Road P.O. %x 397910 tam CA M3W49 (619) 61Z-70M Ext. 2240 (619) a12.1799 Pox WiiliM X M Vice pmwent August 14, 1997 To Whom It May Concom: • I write in rec0mm9ndAd0n of Nancy Wlllianns and her pet sitting service, House Calla. Nancy had provided pet sitting services for us for the past year and has done sun outstanding job. As many pet Owners, we highly parapet our Kerry Blue Terrier, 'Bob," and require that any pet sitter treat him similarly. Nancy exceeds those expectations. Nancy is. prompt, courteous, and always willing to meet a change in our schedule and help us out when needed. Our dog is growing old and has some medical conditions of which Nancy is aware and she is able to accommodate his special needs. In short, I highly and without qualification recommend Nancy Williams and her pet sittint 4 *Mce to yon. If you Have W;3 ques'icm. please can me. Sincerely. is William K. DiK Virg President aj General Counsel WE ��� �, � 1 � Q.�1 � � � `. :,I�/� ry � '. 1� % 1 ` �'.. �� I �� � � i �`' i� I ice\ / vj 0 .0. 0 �:, ffr� l Pet Sitters Associati n �t €t %rt `� 0 of San Diem Ce nfta te o Membei Is hereby granted to W Nbdu Irsd of 1 "if i t 4"1. /q8 ft Pamela meU ftgeal ]Expiration We Dfrft & Foun&r Fet s1twre Alsoctafloft San Diejp Cmuty §0, .......... 7) L\ L ...... .. ........... VOT FA -I 1j, Y.; 1 A '0. 0 �w ' o �w am A :�Y.Yl r1 u m :ti L -,tq ns /i511�ytt lb: 'LL bl�4bly'Ly! HUTCH FRERES PAGE 11 CITY OF SAN DIEGO CER71FICATE OF PAYMENT r _w OF BUSINESS TAX s • City Tmamw a office, 8usinwe m a leadoe NOT 1 41 T � rz Q � PO. Hox 12153& 3w Dtgo, CA 92112.4165 1232 lei Ave., San vieva G 96 02101 (619) 26175 ('8 n 7071 t,te>! . (NO REU)7TANCE' REOuIRED, Poor IN CONsple us PLACE OR KEEP ON P C>ERIlPICA78 NO.O CtlRRLNT 6APBCT1V1i DAT$ 13X.P1Q=om DTM 95009146 /01'/97 02/30/98 iii' s�5sviii�f 'Yw' t: ; 1L' +.Li0CA77d11 ::t�it� yaS S;�•f3r 7049'PARK MESA WY 90 SAN DIEGO CA 92113 susipi Tyre OT pLfiSONAL SERVICE MAIL TO eue1NMMANY- HOUSE CALLS ETC AWNPRNAM%s WILLIA NANCY L • AYf1SN'rlt1N, ' 7049 PARK MESA WY 90 ! CITY OF SAN DIEGO gpr a,' CERTIFICATE•OF PAYMENT OF BUSINESS TAX ' uIPo+T4or. • chy Z1 www, Otiles, mainsw?�t Sadao I{ �`� �� • , 11 . 4 P.0, Dot 121136: Sal Dlop, CA 9211141 U • r. `-1 • 1= lee Ave. $&A Dbp CA 91101 (619) 23"173 a N M EtEAE91 1 (NO REM17TANCEAWMAM POSTINACONSPICUOUS PLACE OR k1:EP ONPEASM CSRMCATS NO A CURNM E1RtiG' M DATB EXPIRATION DAM 95009146 10/01/96 09/30/97 7049 PARK MESA WY SAN DIEGO CA 92111 Wism +s TYm I OTHER PERSONAL Sf RVICE MAM •IVY HOU39 CALLS ETC WILLIAMS NANCY L 7 NANCY L WILLIAMS 1249 PARK CAS92111190 • r CITY of SAN DIEGO CERTIFICATE OR PAYMENT OF BUSINESS TAX CR ?fauvw % 005w Bu lnew T" &0e108 RA IN 1115'96 Sse DNO. CA 91119 AIM t 2131 iM Aw., dan JXW CA RIO) (619) 2M4173 , (MO REM177AMGERWwmm PwrlAtA CONSP g PLACEOR la°FP iy C C[FICA18N0,0 C R '�'BC'RVEDAU '` 9 9 46 09 05 11 7049 t"ARK MESA WY SAN DIEGO• CA 97111 1NAIL l� WI��IAms L NANC P�RK 90 SAN DIEGO CA 92111• 89/19/1998 16:22 6194679299 is .l PAGE 12 MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE SERVICES 1375 Delumhi LAna Suits #207 - Reno. NV 99502 (702) 826 -2511 (800) 262 -5252 PAX (102) 826 -2571 BOND EXECU'T'ION REPORT • PPMUCERI 1100 BRa 1 MADOWDROOK INSVRANC9 SERVICES 1675 DELUCCHI LANG# SUITE 207 RENO, NV 59502 -0000 PRINCIPALi ROUSE CALLS ETC. 7049 PARK X288. WAY 090 SAN 01990, CA 92111 OHLIGEYo 6102 NOT APPLICARLE 00000 0 TYPI Or BOND 30 — 4 — 3635 — 1 H BUSINESS SERVICE9 /JAN1T'011ZJM 1 -5 ZMPLOYS The original Notice of Reinatatement was mailad to the Obligee. BOND NUDL$ERa SA2238034 E ED BY 3/13/97 ShAren M. Young BOND AMT. $ 5,000.00 CONTRACT ANT, 5 ACTIVITY] Renewal TERM ZROM: 3/1S/97 TOs 3/15/98 CHARGER STV. "dWIUM2 S 50.00 anRCHARCE= s S PAYMENT CUSTOMER COPY ww i. -p/ &440 J60. AA vA z4a /7L 3:2 BUTCH PAGE 13 INDIVIDUAL MEMBER. CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE CERTIFICATE NUMBER 34965.0049 This Certificate of Insurance is attached to and forms part of Master Certificate Number 34983 issued to Individual Members of the National Association of Professional Pet Sitters. EFFECTED WITH ST. PAUL REINSURANCE COMPANY, LTD — Contract ISP922 in accordance with authorization granted Burns & Wilcox Ltd. by THE COMPANIES (hereinafter called the •underwriters) listed above under -the contract Numbers shown, the Underwriters do hereby bind themselves in favour of INDIVIDUAL MEMBER/INSURED: * Nanct L W,71lams * Howe CUBS Eta. * 7049 Park Man Way #190 * San Dleeo, CA 92111 TERM: ONE YEAR FROM: 04/01/% TO: 04/01/97 1211 AM STANDARD TIME RM DATO COVERAGE: COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY AMOUNT: 51,000,000 $1,000,000 INCLUDED 51,000,000 $50,000 EXCLUDED EACH OCCURRENCE LIMIT GENERAL AGGREGATE LIMIT PRODUCTS /COMPLETED OPERATIONS LIMIT PERSONAL & AbVERTIS1NG INJURY LIMIT 'FIRE DAMAGE LIMIT MEDICAL PAYMENTS PROPERTY DAMAGE EXTENSION LIMITS APPLICABLE TO THIS MEMBER EACH OCCURRENCE LIMIT 55.040 AGGREGATE LIMIT S2510 INDIVIDUAL, PREMIUM: PRBNCUM5 -ao TAXSS.O,R FEE SSQ,pQ TOTAL ❑ ADDITIONAL INSURED — INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS Endorsement Is Applicable if W, CONDITIONS: 25% MINIMUM EARNED PREMIUM . $250 BODILY INJURY/PROPORTY DAMAGE pEDUCTIBLE PER CLAIM INCLUDING LOSS ADJUSTMENT EXPENSE CLAUSES: REFER TO MASTER POLICY DATED: Azdl 23j996 r 1. 2. 3. HOME OCCUPATION QUESTIONNAIRE What amount of light glare, noise, odor or vibration might the produce ? /7 C /pz What, if any, type of equipment will be used in the home occupation? 14 < 4/,4 t n / f �. _ f - your house 6Vill be used for the home occupation? 4. Will any internal or external alteration or constru tion of the house be required as a result of the home occupation ? 5. Where will equipment or materials used in the home occupation be stored? D -, A . I± ) 6. Is there any signage planned for the home ion /10 7. What are the hours of operation? _ / �- ? in n i X_ J A C, _f 8. Where will parking of vehicles in conjunction with the home occupation be provided for on the premises? (attached copy of site plan or survey) - &Y1 _ —4 64, UJ 14,71 (162re efi A .4 ) 9. How many outside employees will there be on the premises? 10. Will the home occupation require the use of any accessory buildings on the premises? i� 11. How many clientele will there be on the premises at any given time? Exhibit F HOME OCCUPATION QUESTIONNAIRE or HOME OCCUPATION QUESTIONNAIRE 1) A basic exterior floodlight on the front is all that's required for safety and security. Insulation, air - conditioning, and forced air heating will meet code. Since all cats are housed indoors there will be no noise. Waste will be contained in sealed garbage bags within regulation trash containers inside the building. Sewer and water usage is necessary for wiping out cages, cleaning bedding, dishes and a personal rest I anticipate it to be minimal. 2) I will have no equipment that will create electrical interference to surrounding 0 properties. 8) The pick -up and drop -off of cats will be scheduled at 15 minute intervals so at any given moment there would be only one car. I will also offer a pick -up and delivery service which will further minimize parking. Smithtown Road is a moderatel busy road and therefore any traffic generated by my business will go unnoticed. 10) The plans for the accessory building indicate a 30'x24' structure at the end of the existing driveway. The building will have the same exterior, color, material, and roof pitch as the existing house (see enclosed survey and drawings). It's compatibility to the existing house will be estheticall pleasing and allow for future home owners to convert it to a 3 car garage. t 1� To: Mayor and City Council James C. Hurm, City Administrator From: Teri Naab, Executive Secretary / Deputy Clerk Date: April 23, 1998 Re: Ordinance Amendment • Based upon public support, a draft ordinance has been prepared amending three sections of the municipal code which provide for the following: a. Feces left by any domestic pet on public property or property of another is considered a nuisance. b . Making it unlawful to allow a dog to defecate on public property or the property of another without cleaning it up immediately. c . Making it unlawful for the owner or person in custody of any domestic pet to allow them to defecate on public property without immediately cleaning it up. Common courtesy should minimize enforcement efforts of the effect of this ordinance amendment. During discussions with other cities who have similar ordinances, we found they all were happy to have the tools to first warn violators, and then ticket if necessary. A policy resolution has also been drafted for your consideration which outlines the changes and the procedure and rules that shall be followed based upon the amendments made to the three sections of the municipal code. The Park Commission had suggested that an extensive educational / communication plan be prepared to make citizens aware of these changes. Staff suggests the following and welcomes additional input from Council: Local law enforcement and animal control agencies will be education with regard to the effect of the ordinance amendment. Press releases will be sent to the local newspapers outlining the changes. => An announcement will be on the Voice Mail system, Extension 311 - Public Service Announcements describing Council action on this item. => Publication of the policy resolution in upcoming newsletters and on the web site. =* Individual mailing to all licensed dog owners in the city describing the effect of the new rules. W N CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 502 - NUISANCES; 701 - DOGS; AND 902 - PUBLIC PARKS & RECREATION AREAS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 2. Section 502.02 of the Shorewood Code of Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: 502.02: PUBLIC NUISANCES AFFECTING HEALTH: The following are hereby declared to be nuisances affecting health: Subd. 1. All decayed or unwholesome food offered for sale to the public. Subd. 2. All diseased animals running at large. Subd. 3. All ponds or pools of stagnant water. Subd. 4. Carcasses of animals not buried or destroyed within twenty four (24) hours after death. Subd. 5. Accumulations of manure or rubbish. Subd. 6. Privy vaults and garbage cans which are not flytight. Subd. 7. The pollution of any public well or cistern, stream, lake, canal or body of water by sewage, creamery or industrial wastes or other substances. Subd. 8. All noxious weeds and other rank growths upon public or private property. Subd. 9. All public exposure of persons having a contagious disease. Subd. 10. The emission of dense smoke, gas and soot, dust or cinders, and other noxious and offensive fumes, in such quantities as to render the occupancy of property uncomfortable to a person of ordinary sensibilities. 3uou. i i. reces ieii oy any aomesnc pec on puolic property or me proper1v or • another. The owner or person having the custody or control of the animal shall be responsible for immediately cleaning up any feces of the animal and disposing of such feces in a sanitary manner. Subd. 12. All other acts, omissions of acts, occupations and uses of property which are deemed by the Health Officer of the City to be a menace to the health of the inhabitants of the City or any considerable number thereof. Section 2. Section 701.06 of the Shorewood Code of Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: 701.06: DOG NUISANCES: It shall be unlawful for any owner to fail to exercise proper care and control of his animals to prevent them from becoming a public nuisance. It shall be considered a nuisance for any animal to bark excessively, continuously or untimely, to frequent school grounds, parks, or public beaches, to chase vehicles, to molest, annoy or bite any person if such person is not on the property of the owner or custodian of such animal, of to molest, defile or destroy any property, public or private or to defecate in or upon public property or the property of another without being cleaned up immediately by the person in charge of the animal Failure on the part of the owner or custodian to prevent his animals from committing an act of nuisance shall subject the owner or custodian to the penalty hereinafter provided. Ordinance No. Page 2 of 2 The phrase "to bark excessively, continuously or untimely" includes, but is not limited to, the creation of any noise by any dog which can be heard by any person, including a law enforcement officer or animal control officer, from a location outside of the building or premises where the dog is being kept and which noise occurs repeatedly over at least a five (5) minute period of time with one minute or less lapse of time between each animal noise during the five (5) minute period. Section 3. Section 902.03 of the Shorewood Code of Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: 902.03: ANIMALS IN PARK AND RECREATION AREAS: No person in a City park or recreation area shall: Subd. 1. Kill, trap, hunt,' pursue or in any manner disturb or cause to be disturbed any wildlife. Subd. 2. Bring any dog, cat or other animal unless caged, kept on a leash not more than six feet (6) in length or under control of its owner. • Subd. 3. Permit any animal to disturb, harass or interfere with or endanger any visitor or visitor's property, or tether any creature to a tree, plant, building or park equipment. Subd. 4. Permit any animal to enter unauthorized areas. Unauthorized areas are active play areas, picnic areas and park buildings. Subd. 5. Release any insect, fish, animal or other wildlife, or introduce any plant, chemical or other agent potentially harmful to the vegetation, water supply or wildlife of the area. Subd. 6. Ride a horse, except with prior approval from the City. Subd. 7. Permit responsible for immediately cleaning up any feces of the animal and disposing of such feces in a sanitary manner. Section 4 . This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA this 27th day of April, 1998. ATTEST TOM DAHLBERG, MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CITY POLICY REGARDING TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY OR THE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER WHEREAS, the aesthetics and healthy environment of our public lands are degraded when domestic animal waste is not appropriately disposed of; and WHEREAS, the proximity of the City limits with surrounding public waters makes it even more important that animal waste be properly disposed of; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it important to provide for the care and maintenance of all public property within city limits, and to clarify city code requirements that owners or persons having custody of domestic animals immediately clean up their animal feces on public property or the property of others. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. Scone This resolution shall apply to the proper care of the disposal of waste from domestic pets • on public property or the property of another. 2. Effect of Policy The owner of any domestic animal or any person having control or custody of any animal shall be responsible for cleaning up any feces of the animal and disposing of such feces in a sanitary manner. 3. Enforcement Common courtesy in a civil community should minimize active enforcement requirements. Enforcement of this policy shall be at the sole discretion of the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department and the Shorewood Animal Control Department. Specific patrol of public properties will not be scheduled, but officers will respond if they witness a violation or upon receipt of a complaint. 4. Consequences of Violations It shall be the policy of the enforcing agent to provide first time offenders of this policy, a verbal warning. Repeat violators or blatant offenses may constitute the issuance of a citation, associated fine to be determined by the court. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 27th day of April, 1998. • ATTEST TOM DAHLBERG, MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 98— A RESOLUTION MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE VACATED CITY COUNCIL POSITION FOR CITY OF SHOREWOOD FOR THE BALANCE OF THE YEAR 1998 WHEREAS, a City Council position is vacant as a result of the resignation of Councilmember Jennifer McCarty, and WHEREAS, the vacancy has been advertised and interviews of all applicants conducted by the City Council, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 412, as follows: i 1. That Roger Champa is hereby appointed to the office of Councilmember to serve through December 31, 1998. 2. That such appointment shall take effect beginning May 1, 1998 and upon the Oath of Office being administered. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of April, 1998. ATTEST TOM DAHLBERG, MAYOR 0 JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 98— A RESOLUTION MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE VACATED PLANNING COMMISSION POSITIONS FOR CITY OF SHOREWOOD WHEREAS, two Planning Commission positions are vacant as a result of the resignation of Commissioner Virginia Kolstad and the appointment of Commissioner Roger Champa to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the vacancy has been advertised and interviews of all applicants conducted by the City Council in December of 1997. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 412, as follows: 40 1. That Neil Anderson is hereby appointed to serve on the Planning Commission through December 31, 1998. date. • 2. That Martin Wellens is hereby appointed to serve on the Planning Commission through December 31, 1999. 3. Such appointments shall take effect immediately upon the official resignation PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of April, 1998. ATTEST TOM DAHLBERG, MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR E' � L ge (3 e9: 341 Kr `- CDY & P.3 FOR I04.04 ,.3 7 & Pi t7STRATiV L 0 r� ScS #ClV CN2.Y Subd. 1. Definitions arimini SL'3tive or?c•..se is a violation of ^y Sc --; On of zhiis code waea one pe:-t=ns an act proiuDitee, or ihi?s to ac: when ssc riiire is thereby an and is subject to the charges set forth in Chapter 1301 of this code. Any person vi olating a section of this code shall be sab m the scheduled penalty Subd. ?. N otiO . Any person employed by the City with anchor :y to enforce this code shall, anon A d eterrn i m i ng that there has bewu a violarioa, :to031 the violator, or person responsible for the violation, or in the case of a vehicular violation by attac: fag to said vehicle notice of the violattion, said notice sexing forth the ramre dare, ti=e of the vi the name of the orncal iss *ire noti= and the amount of the scheduuled initial Deaalty, and where anolicable, any charge., relating . dhe —to. Subd. -. Psvmeat Once such notice is given, the arson responsible for the violation shall within seven (7) days of the time of issuance of the notice, pay sup satzraeuon of *tee sated violation schedule to the City Treasures. 'line penaif may tie ?aid ;n Person or by and P27meat shall be admizs+ of the violatoon. A late charge siz`ll be unposed for each seven (7) days the penalty mains =paid at= the frsr sever: (7) day period. i Subd. 4. Rearing Ofncer T' Adminis�ator, or designer, s at�ori=d m hear or tie- ce.mine a cause or controve:sr under this soon. Tae hearing officer is not a judicial omc.^r but is a public ofic= as de fined by _Lfnnesora Statute 609.415 and is subject to lTinnesotz S 'an�ces relating to public ofc-mm Subd. 5. Her. ^:n . Any person aggrieved by this chaff may rcquest within seven (7) days of the time of issuanc of the notice to be he=rd by the herring omcc who shall near and -*mtne the grievance: T"ae hearing ofi:e- shall have the authority to Ciism ss the violation for cease, r -duc- or waive the oenalry upon such teams and conditions as can be agreed upon by the Darties, houcver, reasons for ssch dispositions shall be stared in wdring by said hearing O=j=r. If ttie Yioladon is sustained by the he aring officer, the violator shall pay satisfaction of the charge or shall sign an agreer -E to pay t oo such te:ss and em conditions as set forth by the he aring oiyc-:. im 1 =59x2 W, JL OS ?.d s ,< -pF3ar i FOR Subd. 6. Failure tQ Pav, arSC1JSSJON ONLY i if a violaror fails to gay the cha imposed by this soon, or as agreed upon foIIowin>; herring before the be aring of�, the faire to pav the charge or the underlying 4olarion, or both may be proc =e as a code violation or as a debt owed, or both throw the judicai system_ Subd.7. Charges AR charges collected shall be paid over to the Tr- surer for deposit in the Gere:al Fund of the City. Subd. S. Scheduled penalties i Cbarges shalt be imposed for violation of the scbzduled administrati offenses according to a schedule duly established and adopted, tom time to time, by the City Council and contained in Ch=ter ISol of the code. i I i I i I 34S e5'i_^3D —_ f Date: 4 -22 -98 Message from the Shoreline regarding Strawberry Lane. Robin Dotson of 26540 W. 62nd St. I was not able to make the informational meeting. I would love to see the road wider, whether its an improved shoulder or the actual asphalt surface. But with kids riding bikes, walkers and kids walking to school I would like to see a little bit safer surface like I say whether its the road or better shoulder along side the road. You don't need to respond to me personally with any answer, I just wanted to make sure my opinion got expressed. Thanks • -1:;t/3B Date: 4 -24 -98 Message from Shoreline: Gale Ross Phone: 470 -7977 Address: 5508 Tiffany Lane I'm calling because of my concern with the lack of City Ordinance with requiring posting of pesticides /insecticides by Lauren Companies. I had a horrendous experience over the weekend with a dog getting violently ill from exposure to the pesticides. I had the State come out here and they had done an investigation. They suggested that its up to each City to require or have an ordinance pertaining to posting of signs. I talked to Patti in the Planning Department and she said she was not aware of any such ordinance and that I should propose it through the Shoreline or City Council. So that is what I'm doing. I can give you some references both with the state and elsewhere if you like. I would appreciate a call back. Thanks so much. I hope you can do something about this because I see this as a really serious problem. LMC 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103 -2044 League of Minnesota Cities - - ---- -- Phone: (612) 281 -1200 • (800) 925 -1122 Cities promoting excefi¢nce Fax: (612) 281 -1299 • TDD (612) 281 -1290 March 27, 1998 Dear Clerk, Administrator or Manager: As President of the League of Minnesota Cities, I would like to invite,you and the elected and appointed officials in your city to attend the 1998 Annual Conference, June 16 -19, in Duluth. Enclosed with this letter is some information about the conference, together with a conference registration form and a housing registration form. Information and the registration form for the family program is also enclosed. Similar information was in the March issue of Minnesota Cities and will be contained in the April issue as well. If those from your city who are planning on attending have not registered, please encourage them to register now. And, if no one from your city is planning on attending, I hope my letter will highlight enough of the important events which are being planned so that officials in your city will consider attending. Please put the topic of attending the League's annual conference on the agenda of your next council meeting, if your city has not already discussed attending this event. There are three purposes for the annual conference: to learn by attending the general sessions and workshops, to learn by interaction with other city officials, and to inspire and re- energize city officials. f As you review the enclosed preliminary program, I think you will agree with me that the conference planning committee again did an outstanding job in designing many learning opportunities on important topics. Many of these sessions apply to cities of all sizes, but, in addition to sessions especially focused on the needs of Small Cities, there will be sessions designed for Metro Cities and Greater Minnesota Cities as well. No matter what the size of your city or where it is located, there will be several sessions during which your city officials can learn how to better perform many of their responsibilities. In the exhibit hall, called "Cities Marketplace" about one hundred and fifty providers of goods and services to cities will display what they have to offer. This is a great place to learn about the newest innovations in providing services to citizens and in improving city government. The Leadership Institute for Elected City Officials will continue, with sessions on Conflict Resolution and The Basics for Elected Officials. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRl1AMTE ACTION EMPLOYER Letter to Clerks, Administrators or Managers Page Two Several sessions are planned where city officials can interact on an informal basis. The Tuesday Evening Kickoff will be at Spirit Mountain and will include Native American Dancers and stories of the ghosts of Spirit Mountain. On Wednesday evening for City Night, there will be strolling musicians and a spaghetti dinner in Cities Marketplace, followed by an ice cream social in Canal Park and free Omninex Theater admissions. General session highlights will include a Gubernatorial Forum on City Issues, a presentation by Mark Yudof, President of the University of Minnesota, on the topic of "Partnerships for Building Strong Communities, and, for the Grand Finale, the great marathon runner Dick Beardsley will give an inspirational presentation on "Facing Life's Challenges and Going the Distance. ".. And there's more, too much more to outline here. See the enclosed preliminary program and family program for more details, and, I'll See You In Duluth! Sincerely, Bob Long, President League of Minnesota Cities PRELIMINARY PRUGRItNk SCHEDULE 1998 LMC 85th Annual Conference Minnesota Cities: Going the Distance Tuesday, June 16, 1998 Thursday, June 18, 1998 Tuesday Evening Kickoff at Spirit Mountain with BBQ Dinner. Continental Breakfast Native American Dancers, and a telling of the Stories of the Ghosts 7:30 - 9 a. m. of Spirit Mountain 6 p.m. RegistrationiComputer Labi "Cities Marketplace' 7:30 -11 am. Wednesday, June 17, 1998 Registration/ "Cities Marketplace "/Tech City/Computer Lab 7:30 a.m. - 8 p.m. Continental Breakfast 730 - 8:45 a.m. Welcome /Opening Session 8:45 - 10:15 a.m. MARK YUDOF, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Tour "Cities Marketplace" 10:15 - 10:45 a.m. Concurrent Sessions III (choose one) 9 -10am. • Annexation (GMC) • Specialized Hiring (Police & Fire) (SC) • Met Council Forum (11C) • Leadership Institute: Conflict Resolution (until noon) • Customer Service: Dealing Directly With Citizens • Money Down The Drain • Special Interest Sesssion— Especially for Cities Trying to Implement Sustainable Development • Special Interest Session — Especially for Cities. With Higher Education Institutions Nominating Committee Meeting 10:45 am. - 4 p.m. Concurrent Sessions I (choose one) 10:45 - 11:45 a.m. How to Handle Hot Topics Improving Relationships Between Cities, School Districts and Counties • Avoiding Expensive Mistakes in Eminent Domain • How to Recruit, Sustain, Recognize & Utilize the Services of Volunteers Elected Officials Responsibility in Emergencies • Investing in the Intemet Wbat You Can Learn from Other Cities Special Interest Session — Especially for Cities With Airports Exhibitors' Luncheon in "Cities Marketplace" 11:45 a.m. - 1:15 p.m. General Session 1:15 - 3:00 p.m. is GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATES FORUM ON CITY ISSUES Tour "Cities Marketplace" 3 3:30 p.m. Concurrent Sessions II (choose one) 3:30 - 4:30 p.m. Educating Citizens About Local Government Affordable Housing That Works • Employee Recognition Programs New Collaborative Approaches to Recreation • Alternative Revenue Sources (plus Setting Fees & Rates to Raise Money) Improving Community Life for Youth • Special Interest Session — Especially for Cities With Railroads City Night 4:30 - 8:00 p.m. With Spaghetti Dinner and Strolling Musicians in "Cities Marketplace" followed by an ice cream social and games in Canal Park's Grand Slam, and Free Omninex Theater admissions. Note: On Thursday, certain sessions are specifically designed for Metropolitan Area Cities (MC), Greater Minnesota Cities (GMC), and Small Cities (SC). Tour "Cities Marketplace" 10 -11 a.m. Concurrent Sessions IV (choose one) 11 - 12 noon • Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission (GMC) Alternative Waste Treatment Systems (SC) Greenways (MC) • Visioning for Your City Leadership Institute: Conflict Resolution (continued) Getting Citizens Involved in Relevant, Beneficial Ways • Special Interest Session — Especially for Cities With Armories Mayors Association/Mini- Conference Luncheon/LMC Annual Meeting 12 noon - 2:15 p.m. Concurrent Sessions V (choose one) 2:30 - 3:30 p.m. Comprehensive Planning (GMQ Collaboration (Intergovernmental & Between Cities) (SC) The Comp Plan. A Tool For Decisionmaking (Part The Issues) (MC) Leadership Institute: The Basics for Elected Officials (until 4:45 p.m.) • Electric Deregulation • Capital Improvements— Infrastructure Special Interest Session— Especially for Cities With Municipal Liquor Stores Concurrent Sessions VI (choose one) 3:45- 4:45pm. • Waste Water Treatment Regulations (GMC) • Roundtables on Topics of Interest to Small Cities (SC) • The Comp Plan (Part II— Possibilities for Growth Management, Redevelopment, Implementation) (MC) • Leadership Institute: The Basics for Elected Officials (continued) • Partnership 2000: Improving City/State Relations LMC Reception and Banquet 6 -9p.rr Recognition Celebration 9 p.m. - midnight Friday, June 19, 1998 Continental Breakfast 8 -9am. General Session 9 -10:45 am. DICK BEARDSLEY SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT • EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA FINANCIAL REPORT YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 CONTENTS Page INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT 1 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS EXHIBIT A - Combined Balance Sheet- All Funds and Account Groups - December 31, 1997 2 EXHIBIT B - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - General Fund - For the Year Ended December 31, 1997 3 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 4 -13 A r • STUART J. BONNIWELL Certified Public Accountant 7101 York Avenue South - Suite 50 Minneapolis, MN 55435 so the CPA. Never u„ de,eslimale The Value:' INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT To The Coordinating Committee South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department Excelsior, Minnesota Office: (612) 921 -3325 Fax: (612) 921-3331 I have audited the accompanying combined balance sheet of South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department as of December 31 1997, and the related statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balance of the General Fund for the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department management. My responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on my audit. I conducted my audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that I plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstate- ment. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by man- agement, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. I believe that my audit provides a reasonable basis for my opinion. In my opinion, the financial statements referred all material respects, the financial position of Safety Department as of December 31, 1997 and the the year then ended in conformity with generally Stuart J. onniwell Certified Public Accountant Minneapolis, Minnesota March 30, 1998 to above present fairly, in South Lake Minnetonka Public results of its operations for accepted accounting principles. -1- SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT A COMBINED BALANCE SHEET - ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS DECEMBER 31, 1997 Totals General (Memorandum Only) General Agency Fixed --------------- - - - - -- ASSETS Fund Fund Assets 1997 1996 Cash and Investments $303,607 $303,607 $295,402 Accounts Receivable - Members 18,192 18,192 12,373 Other Receivables 4,213 4,213 8,839 Investments Held by Trustee - Deferred Compensation Plan $262,433 262,433 205,318 General Fixed Assets ---- - - - - -- $350,967 350,967 332,961 ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- Totals $326,012 $262,433 $350,967 $939,412 $854,893 LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY Liabilities Accounts Payable $17,795 $17,795 $28,201 Accrued Payroll and Taxes 5,164 5,164 2,563 Accrued Compensated Absences 122,145 122,145 121,217 Deferred Revenue Deferred Compensation 12,408 Benefits Payable ---- - - - - -- $262,433 ---- 262,433 205,318 Total Liabilities 145,104 - - - - -- 262,433 ---- -' - - -- 407,537 ---- -� - - -- - 369,707 Fund Equity Fund Balance - Unreserved Designated Special Accounts 136,575 136,575 86,218 Operating Reserve Undesignated - __44 333- 44,333��•--- 20,000 €. 46,007- Total Fund Balance Investment in General 180,908 --- 180,908 152,225 Fixed Assets ---- - - - - -- $350,967 350,967 332,961 Total Fund Equity 180,908 ---------- 350,967 ---- - - - - -- 531,875 ---- - - - - -- 485,186 Totals $326,012 $262,433 $350,967 $939,412 $854,893 See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements. -2- SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GENERAL FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 1997 Revenues Member Assessments Member Reimbursements Grants and Other Aids Charges for Services Investment Income Sale of Equipment Insurance Dividends /Reimbursements • Other Revenues Total Revenues Expenditures Salaries Payroll Taxes Pension Contributions Group Insurance Benefits Professional Services Communications Printing and Publishing Maintenance and Repairs Motor Fuels Uniforms • Office Supplies General Supplies Conferences, Schools and Training General Insurance Building and Other Rent Utilities Cleaning and Waste Removal Memberships, Subscriptions and Other Special Projects Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures ------------------------------ Variance - Favorable 1996 Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Actual $997,016 $997,016 55,150 59,210 99,660 116,719 6,800 9,709 11,000 11,526 10,000 6,356 18,500 32,925 3,600 13,612 4,060 17,059 2,909 526 (3,644) 32,925 10,012 $976,423 31,867 125,390 10,476 10,093 15,668 12,215 7,120 1,183,226 1,247,073 799,876 812,066 7,150 7,798 84,950 86,925 50,000 50,236 3,000 4,367 6,000 5,907 4,500 4,546 18,500 16,682 16,000 15,243 5,900 7,214 3,750 3,591 11,400 11,986 8,500 10,852 43,000 40,621 41,400 43,247 14,600 14,328 6,400 5,941 800 2,548 9,500 9,477 68,000 64,815 1,203,226 1,218,390 ($20,000) 28,683 63,847 (12,190) (648) (1,975) (236) (1,367) 93 (46) 1,818 757 (1,314) 159 (586) (2,352) 2,379 (1,847) 272 459 (1,748) 23 3,185 (15,164) $48,683 Fund Balance Beginning of Year 152,225 Fund Balance End of Year $180,908 See accompanying Notes to Financial Statements. -3- 1,189,252 769,152 7,135 80,775 49,681 4,346 5,731 3,181 12,011 16,154 4,931 3,602 12,462 7,981 41,059 42,785 14,101 5,008 2,036 9,451 85,512 1,177,094 12,158 140,067 $152,225 SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1997 Note 1. Significant Accounting Policies South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department was established by a joint and coop- erative agreement between the Cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay. The Department is organized to provide law enforcement services to the four communities. The financial statements of the Department have been prepared in con- formity with generally accepted accounting principles as applied to governmental units. The Governmental Accounting standards Board is the accepted standard set- ting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting prin- ciples. The more significant accounting policies are described below. A. Reporting Entity In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the financial state- ments of the Department are required to include all funds, account groups, commis- • sions and other organizations over which the Department exercises oversight respon- sibility. It was determined that there are no such organizations subject to the Department's oversight responsibility which would require inclusion in the accom- panying financial statements. B. Fund Accounting The Department uses funds and account groups to report on its financial position and the results of its operations. Fund accounting is designed to demonstrate legal compliance and to aid financial management by segregating transactions related to certain government functions or activities. A Fund is a separate accounting entity with a self - balancing set of accounts com- prising its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenditures. Financial resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds based upon the pur- poses for which they are to be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled. An account group, is a financial reporting device designed to provide accountability for certain assets and liabilities that are not recorded in funds because they do not directly affect net expendable available financial resources. The Department's funds and account group consist of the following: General Fund - The General Fund is the primary operating fund and accounts for all activities of the Department not accounted for in another fund. Agency Fund - The Agency Fund accounts for assets maintained by the Depart- ment on behalf of others as an agent. The fund is custodial in nature and does not involve the measurement of the results of operations. General Fixed Assets - Property and equipment owned by the Department are recorded as assets in the General Fixed Assets Account Group. This account group is concerned with the measurement of financial position and is not involved with the measurement of the results of operations. -4- SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1997 Note 1. Significant Accounting Policies, continued C. Measurement Focus The accounting and financial reporting treatment applied to a fund is determined by its measurement focus. The General Fund is accounted for on a current financial resources measurement focus. With this measurement focus, only current assets and current liabilities are generally included on the balance sheet of the General Fund. Reported fund balance is considered a measure of "available spendable resources." The operating statement of the General Fund presents increases (revenues and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in net current assets. Accordingly, this statement presents a summary of sources and uses of available spendable resources. Fixed assets acquired and used by the General Fund are accounted for in the General Fixed Assets Account Group, rather than in the General Fund. D. Basis of Accounting Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures are recognized and reported in the financial statements regardless of the measurement focus. The modified accrual basis of accounting is used by all funds of the Department. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized when they become measurable and available as net current assets. Measurable means the amount of the transaction can be determined and available means collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. Expen- ditures are generally recorded under the modified accrual basis of accounting when the related fund liability is incurred. E. Budgets and Budgetary Accounting i A plan of financial operation for the Department is established in the budget adopted by the Coordinating Committee. The budget outlines proposed expenditures and the means of financing them. The budget of the General Fund is adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. Budgeted amounts shown in the statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balance are as originally adopted or as amended. Budgeted expenditure appropriations lapse at year end. In addition, outstanding encumbrances expire at year end. F. Cash and Investments Cash includes demand deposits and short -term investments with a maturity date less than three months from acquisition date. Investment earnings are recognized as earned; realized gains or losses from investments are recorded in the period in which they occur. Investments are stated at cost, except for investments of the deferred compensa- tion plan which are stated at market value. -5- SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1997 Note 1. Significant Accounting Policies, continued G. Property and Equipment Property and equipment owned by the Department are recorded as assets in the General Fixed Assets Account Group. General fixed asset additions are recorded as expendi- tures in the General Fund and capitalized in the General Fixed Assets Account Group. These assets are recorded at cost where historical records are available and at estimated historical cost when such records do not exist. Donated fixed assets are valued at their estimated fair market value at the date received. Depreciation is not provided for on general fixed assets. H. Accrued Compensated Absences Department employees are entitled to vacation pay based upon length of employment. In addition, the Department has established a severance pay policy for its non- union employees. This policy provides for severance payments upon termination of employment based on accumulated sick leave accrued, subject to certain regulations. Severance pay policy for union members is governed by individual union contracts. Employees are also allowed to accrue compensatory time, which is payable upon termination of employment. Vested or accumulated compensated absences are reported as a liability of the General Fund since the liability is expected to be liquidated with current expend- able available financial resources of the General Fund. I. Fund Equity Designated fund balances represent tentative plans for future use of current finan- cial resources. Portions of the fund balance has been designated for a self - insurance program, acquisition of equipment and other purposes. J. Total Column on Combined Balance Sheet The total column on the combined balance sheet statement is captioned "memorandum only" to indicate that it is presented only to facilitate financial analysis. Data in these columns do not present financial position, results of operations or changes in financial position in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Neither is such data comparable to a consolidation. Interfund transactions have not been eliminated in the aggregation of this data. K. Comparative Data • Y Comparative totals for the prior year have been presented in the accompanying finan- cial statements in order to provide an understanding of changes in the financial position and operations. zZ SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1997 Note 2. Cash and Investments The Department maintains deposits at those depository banks authorized by the Coordinating Committee. Cash and investments of $303,607 as of December 31, 1997, include bank demand deposits of $161,267 and money market fund shares valued at $142,315. Bank balances (before reconciling items) of bank deposits amounted to $192,210 and was covered by federal depository insurance. Money market fund shares are carried at cost, which approximates market value, and was invested in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes. Investments of $262,433, managed by the trustee of the deferred compensation plan, are carried at market value as of December 31, 1997. 0 Note 3. Property and Equipment Changes in general fixed assets for the year ended December 31, 1997 are as follows: Building Improvements Automotive Equipment Furniture and Other Equipment Note 4. Fund Equity Balance Balance Balance January 1, Additions - - -- Deletions ----- - - - - -- December 31, ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- $4,451 ----- - - Insurance Reserve $4,451 165,704 $45,537 $18,150 193,091 162,806 13,717 - - -- 23,098 ----- - - - - -- 153,425 ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- $332,961 ----- - - $59,254 $41,248 $350,967 Designated Fund Balances - Designated amounts represent tentative plans for future uses of current resources. Changes in designated accounts for the year ended Decem- ber 31, 1997 are as follows: Undesignated Fund Balance - This amount is available to finance current and future operations. Investment in General Fixed Assets - The equity of the Department in its general fixed assets is reflected in this amount. -7- Balance Balance January 1, Additions -- Deletions ----- - - - - -- December 31, ----- - - - - -- Insurance Reserve ----- - - - - -- $71,720 ----- - - - - $75,062 $45,490 $101,292 Vehicle Acquisition 2,285 57,500 46,917 12,868 Equipment Acquisition 10,000 10,000 20,000 Other 2,213 2,045 - - - - -- 1,843 ----- - - - - -- 2,415 ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- $86,218 ----- $144,607 $94,250 $136,575 Undesignated Fund Balance - This amount is available to finance current and future operations. Investment in General Fixed Assets - The equity of the Department in its general fixed assets is reflected in this amount. -7- SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1997 Note 5. Lease Commitments The Department leases its office facilities from the City of Excelsior. Terms of the lease agreement require a base rent of $38,400 per annum payable in monthly installments of $3,200. Rental payments shall continue until the amount expended by the City of Excelsior, together with interest at 7.00% per annum, is fully amor- tized, approximately another fourteen years. The lease continues in perpetuity unless terminated as provided in the lease. In addition, the Department leases equipment on varying terms and conditions. Total rental expense of the Department for the year ended December 31, 1997 for building and equipment leases amounted to $49,155. Note 6. Joint Powers Agreement South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department entered into a joint powers agree- ment with other law enforcement agencies to form the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force. The agreement is for one year, subject to annual renewal by its members. The Department contributed $8,400 to the Task Force during the year ended Decem- ber 31, 1997. The Department has renewed its participation in the Task Force and a similar contribution will be made in 1998. No other financial commitment is anticipated in 1998. Note 7. Deferred Compensation Plan • The Department offers its employees a deferred compensation plan created in accor- dance with Internal Revenue Code Section 457. The plan, available to all Depart- ment employees, permits them to defer a portion of their salary until future years. Participation in the plan is optional. The deferred compensation is not available . to employees until termination, retirement, death or unforeseeable emergency. All amounts of compensation deferred under the plan, all property and rights purchased with those amounts, and all income attributable to those amounts, property or rights are (until paid or made available to the employee or other beneficiary) solely the property and rights of the Department subject only to the claims of the general creditors of the Department. Participants' rights under the plan are equal to those of general creditors of the Department in an amount equal to the fair market value of the deferred account for each participant. It is the opinion of the Department's legal counsel that the Department has no 3 liability for losses under the plan but, does have the duty of due care that would be required of an ordinary prudent investor. The Department believes that it is unlikely that it will use the assets to satisfy the claims of general 'creditors in the future. Investments are managed by the plan's trustee and reported at market value. The choice of the investment option(s) is made by the participants. SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1997 Note 8. Defined Benefit Pension Plans - Statewide A. Plan Description All full -time and certain part -time employees of the Department are covered by defined benefit pension plans administered by the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). PERA administers the Public Employees Retirement Fund (PERF) and the Public Employees Police and Fire Fund ( PEPFF), which are cost - sharing multiple - employer retirement plans. These plans are established and ad- ministered in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 353 and 356. PERF members belong to either the Coordinated Plan or the Basic Plan. Coordinated Plan members are covered by Social Security and Basic Plan members are not. All new members must participate in the Coordinated Plan. All police officers, fire- . fighters and peace officers who qualify for membership by statute are covered by the PEPFF. The Department's payroll for employees covered by PERF and PEPFF for the year ended December 31, 1997 was $68,902 and $736,620, respectively; the Department's total payroll was $810,024. PERA provides retirement benefits as well as disability benefits to members, and benefits to survivors upon death of eligible members. Benefits are established by State Statute, and vest after three years of credited service. The defined retire- ment benefits are based on a member's highest average salary for any five successive years of allowable service, age, and years of credit at termination of service. Two methods are used to compute benefits for Coordinated and Basic Plan members. The retiring member receives the higher of a step -rate benefit accrual formula (Method 1) or a level accrual formula (Method 2). Under Method 1, the annuity accrual rate for a Basic Plan member who retires before July 1, 1997 is 2% of average salary for each of the first ten years of service and 2.5% for each remaining year. The annuity accrual rate for Basic members who retire on or after July 1, 1997 is 2.2% of average salary for each of the first ten years of service and 2.7% for each remaining year. For a Coordinated Plan member who retires before July 1, 1997, the annuity accrual rate is 1% of average salary for each of the first ten years and 1.5% for each re- maining year. For a Coordinated Plan member who retires on or after July 1, 1997, the annuity accrual rates increase by 0.2% to 1.2% of average salary for each of the first ten years and 1.7% for each remaining year. Under Method 2, the annuity ac- crual rate is 2.5% of average salary for Basic Plan members and 1.5% for Coordi- nated Plan members who retire before July 1, 1997. Annuity accrual rates increase 0.2% for members who retire on or after July 1, 1997. For PEPFF members, the annuity accrual rate is 2.65% for each year of service for members retiring before July 1, 1997. Effective July 1, 1997, the annual accrual rate is increased to 3.0 %. For PERF members whose annuity is calculated using Method 1 and for all PEPFF members, a full annuity is available when age plus years of service equal 90. A reduced retirement annuity is also available to eligible members seeking early_ retirement. There are different types of annuities available to members upon retirement. A normal annuity is a lifetime annuity that ceases upon the death of the retiree. No survivor annuity is payable. There are also various types of joint and survivor annuity options available which will reduce the monthly normal annuity amount, be- cause the annuity is payable over joint lives. -9- SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1997 Note 8. Defined Benefit Pension Plans - Statewide, continued A. Plan Description, continued Members may also leave their contributions in the fund upon termination of public service, in order to qualify for a deferred annuity at retirement age. Refunds of contributions are available at any time to members who leave public service, but before retirement benefits begin. The benefit provisions stated in the previous paragraphs of this section are cur- rent provisions and apply to active plan members. Vested, terminated employees who are entitled to benefits but are not receiving them yet, are bound by the provi- sions in effect at the time they last terminated their public service. B. Contributions Required and Contributions Made Minnesota Statutes Chapter 353 sets the rates for employer and employee contribu- tions. The Department makes annual contributions to the pension plans equal to the amount required by state statutes. According to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 356.215, the date of full funding required for the PERF and the PEPFF is July 1, 2020. As part of the annual actuarial valuation, PERA's actuary determines the sufficiency of the statutory contribution rates towards meeting the required full funding deadline. The actuary compares the actual contribution rate to a "required" contribution rate. The required contribution rate consists of (a) normal costs based on entry age nor- mal cost methods, (b) a supplemental contribution for amortizing any unfunded actu- arial accrued liability by the date of full funding, and (c) an allowance for admin- istrative expenses. Current combined statutory contribution rates and actuarially required contribution rates for the plans are as follows: Statutory Rates Required Public Employees Retirement Fund Employees Employer Rates (A blended rate for both the (Basic and Coordinated Plans) 4.30% 4.60% 8.90% Public Employees Police and Fire Fund 7.60% 11.40% 19.00% Contributions made by the Department during the year ended December 31, 1997 were: • • y: The Department's contributions for the year ended June 30, 1997 to the PERF and PEPFF were less than 1% of the total contributions required of all participating entities. -10- Percentage of Amounts Covered Payroll Employees Employer Employees Employer Public Employees Retirement Fund $2,915 $3,087 4.23% 4.48% Public Employees Police and Fire Fund 55,850 83,766 7.60% 11.40% - $58,765 $86,853 The Department's contributions for the year ended June 30, 1997 to the PERF and PEPFF were less than 1% of the total contributions required of all participating entities. -10- SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1997 rI • Note 8. Defined Benefit Pension Plans - Statewide, continued C. Funding Status and Progress 1. Pension Benefit Obligation The "pension benefit obligation" is a standardized disclosure measure of the present value of pension benefits, adjusted for the effects of projected salary increases and step -rate benefits, estimated to be payable in the future as a result of employee ser- vice to date. The measure is the actuarial present value of credited projected benefit and is intended to help users assess PERA's funding status on a going- concern basis, assess progress made in accumulating sufficient assets to pay benefits when due, and make comparisons among Public Employees Retirement Systems and participating employers. This measure is independent of the actuarial funding method used to determine required contributions, which is discussed in part B. PERA does not make separate measurements of assets and pension benefit obligations for individual participating employers. The pension benefit obligation (in millions) as of June 30, 1997 are reported below: PERF Total Pension Benefit Obligation Net Assets Available for Benefits, at Cost Unfunded (Assets in Excess of) Pension Benefit Obligation Net Assets Available for Benefits, at Market $7,330.0 6,552.2 PEPFF $1,491.3 1,924.4 $777.8 ($433.1) $6,870.8 $2,075.2 The pension benefit obligation was determined as part of an actuarial valuation at July 1, 1997. For both the PERF and PEPFF, significant actuarial assumptions used in the calcula- tion of the pension benefit obligation include; a) a rate of return on the investment of present and future assets of 8.5% per year, compounded annually, prior to retirement, and 6% per year, com- pounded annually, following retirement; b) projected salary increases taken from an age related table which incorpo- rates a 5% base inflation assumption; c) payroll growth of 6% per year, consisting of 5% for inflation and 1% due to due to growth in group size; d) post - retirement benefit increases that are accounted for by the 6% rate of return assumption following retirement; and e) mortality rates based on the 1983 Group Annuity Mortality Table (set forward one year for PERF retired members and set back five years for all active members. -11- SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1997 Note 8. Defined Benefit Pension Plans - Statewide, continued C. Funding Status and Progress, continued 2. Changes in Plan Provisions and Actuarial Assumptions Since the July 1, 1996 actuarial valuation, there were no changes in actuarial as- sumptions of the PERF which impacted funding costs. There were, however, several acturial assumptions changes made to the PEPFF. An experience study based on the four -year period ending June 30, 1994, disclosed that; (a) retirees are living longer; (b) the expected active member death rate is decli- ning; (c) the trend toward earlier retirement continues; and (d) the pattern of salary increases varies substanially by age, with a strong merit and seniority com- ponent evident at the younger ages. Because of these findings, several actuarial assumptions were changed and are effective with the July 1, 1997 actuarial valuation. The salary increase assumption has been changed from 6.5% to 5.0% plus a merit increase based on age. The payroll growth assumption has been changed from 6.5% to 6.09. The retirement age assumption has changed from age 60 to an age related table using different retirement rates at various ages. The mortality table has, also been revised from the 1971 GAM to the 1983 GAM with a five year setback for active members. These assumption changes added approximately $32.4 million to the acturial accrued liability for the PEPFF. 3. Changes in Benefit Provisions Legislation enacted in 1997 improved initial benefits for PERA members without a material effect on the acturial accrued liability in the PERF or PEPFF. The annuity accrual rates were increased for members who retire on or after July 1, 1997. In _ order to pay increased initial benefit, the assumed earnings rate of the Minnesota Post Retirement Investment Fund was increased from 5% to 6% and the cap on the inflation based portion of an annuitant's annual benefit increase was lowered from 3.59 to 2.59. Because present retirees will receive lower future benefit increases, their benefits were increased by an offsetting amount on July 1, 1997. D. Ten -Year Historical Trend Information �• Ten year historical trend information is presented in PERA's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1997. This information is useful in assessing the pension plan's accumulation of sufficient assets to pay pension benefits as they become due. E. Related Party Transactions As of June 30, 1997, and for the fiscal year then ended, PERA held no securities issued by the Department, its member cities or other related parties. -12- SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1997 Note 9. Contingent Liabilities The Department participates in two grants; COPS FAST (Community Oriented Policing Services), a federal program, and COPS (Community Oriented Policing Grants), a state program. These grants are subject to audit by the granting agency. No pro- vision for any possible adjustments has been provided for in the financial state- ments since management has determined the amounts, if any, would not be material. Note 10. Other Matters The current joint and cooperative agreement forming the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department expired December 31, 1997. A new agreement was reached during 1997; the new agreement is effective January 1, 1998 and shall continue through December 31, 2007 or thereafter for five additional years if approved by the members. • -13- I CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR APRIL 27, 1998 COUNCIL MEETING CHECKS ISSUED SINCE APRIL 9, 1998 CK NO TO WHOM ISSUED PURPOSE AMOUNT 22829 CARVER CO LICENSE CENTER LICENSE (2)'98 FORD TRUCKS $2,379.80 22830 GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSO DIST. BUDGET AWARD FEE 150.00 22831 PERA PERA 2,805.27 22832 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457 DEFERREDCOMP 1,173.07 22833 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 929.00 22834 ANOKA CO SUPPORT /COLLECT CHILD SUPPORT -C. SCHMID 156.50 22835 AFSCME COUNCIL 14 APRIL UNION DUES 139.80 22836 MN DEPT OF REVENUE STATE TAX WITHHELD 1,263.50 22837 BROWNING FERRIS IND. TB LIQ APRIL RECYCLING 33.66 22838 KATHLEEN HEBERT SEC 125 REIMB 192.30 22839 JOSEPH PAZANDAK MILEAGE/FILM 48.61 • 22840 PEPSI COLA CO POP PURCHASE 49.75 22841 ALAN ROLEK SEC 125 REIMB 100.00 22842 WAYZATA MOTOR VEHICLES REGISTER FORF. VEHICLE 9.00 22843 MONA MULDER REIMB LICENSE FEE -TB RESIDENT 10.00 22844 MIDWEST COCA -COLA MISC PURCHASE 764.80 22845 MARK VII BEER/MISCPURCHASE 2,416.65 22846 MARLIN'S TRUCKING FREIGHT 175.20 22847 NORTH STAR ICE MISC PURCHASE 99.00 22848 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS LIQUORNVINE PURCHASE 98.12 22849 US BANKCORP INVESTMENTS ACCRUED INTEREST ON INVEST. 33.89 22850 JAMES HURM MILEAGE(EXPENSES 97.20 22851 AT &TWIRELESS AIRTIME 105.49 22852 THERESA NAAB SEC 125 /MILEAGE/TUITION/SOM 755.91 22853 NORTHERN STATES POWER UTILITIES 4,906.37 22854 JEFF BAILEY MILEAGE 48.75 22855 BELLBOY CORP. LIQUOR PURCHASE 3,536.62 22856 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY MISC/SUPPLY PURCHASE 378.94 22857 DAHLHEIMERDIST. BEER PURCHASE 683.05 22858 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO. LIQUOR/WINEYMISC PURCHASE 4,838.68 22859 JOHNSON BROS. LIQUOR CO LIQUORNVINE PURCHASE 7,696.11 22860 LAKE REGION VENDING MISC PURCHASE 1,445.24 22861 MARLIN'S TRUCKING FREIGHT 330.40 22862 PAUSTIS WINE CO. WINEBEER PURCHASE 176.00 22863 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS LIQUORNVINE PURCHASE 4,030.20 22864 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS LIQUORNVINE PURCHASE 2,057.32 TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED Page 1 Page 2 1) f i i, j i N. j fj ' l Ij i" U i't j J 1 'j 'V f 29 lu I I 'JI Irl FJ N iP 4 tq t ", U �S iti: "'. 2 lu t'� CJ t 2 8 4 i i ` . ._ i'i f ,- r i' : JH z. I ji - U 'D 'i f so J 1 p ipo'i E ir-i E i'll N IJ U J L: 2 el F"; U F C) 1 Fa IU 1"Al I j kj ' Page 2 U IJ ill JN ! V j Ij ill, if i T U1 1 I T i 1 1 — I U !J 1 , I_ ! "`' ;: r l ,.. y f Z L's i'!!' J j - y ",i i t 111 Ilii 2 v H L c T I J . j- pf 4 R 0 ;:i;' C Ul i I C-) i'll 2 f ia-J - r c .. V 'Y 11 Dril ;.'D i I A 1,j L I U L. C t j Fe C (U VKA T Z.i ( —i 1-< ? ?l {. I T i,,J 1 i i oljk v Z� ea Vi Co f 'I i C'.1 1 U ill' U U!" c "I" Ul f QLinp T H D E. Page IJ M TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST 218,395.57 • • 11 • COMPUTER CHECKS MANUAL CHECKS NOTICES OF DEPOSIT ****TOTALS**** 20365.02 00 00 20365.02 Page 5 CHECK REGISTER CHECK CHECK EMPLOYEE NAME CHECK CHECK TYPE DATE NUMBER NUMBER AMOUNT C 0 N, 4 14 98 115 LAWRENCE A. BROWN 212858 1521.0 com 4 14 98 160 PATRICE A. BLECHTA 212859 38.79 COM 4 14 98 170 RYAN C. BLECHTA 212860 5. 1s cum 4 14 98 525 ANGELA M. COLE 212861 300 .is cum i 14 98 •00 CHARLES S. DAVIS 21 2862 746.6"; COM 14 98 775 JAMES C. EAKINS 212865 740.95 com 4 14 98 1160 TWILA R. GROU 212864 531.013 com 4 14 98 1190 KATHLEEN A. HEBERT 212865 679.0,5 COM 4 14 98 1400 PATRICIA R. HELGESEN 212866 523.61 COM 4 14 9• 1410 PAMELA J. HELLING 212367 535.46 cum 4 14 98 1430 KELLY M. •ENTGES 212868 224.2. Cl. m 4 14 98 1550 JAMES C. HURN 212869 1721.90 C 0 M 4 14 98 l5 i5 TROY M. IVES 212570 171.84 com 4 14 98 1601 BRIAN D. jAKEL 212871 109 , 8.. CON .1- 14 98 1675 UROS jELICIC 212BY2 COM 4 14 98 1700 JEFFREY A. JENSEN 212873 902.0� COM 4 14 98 1800 DENNIS 0. JOHNSON 212874 B96.32 COM 4 14 98 2100 WILLIAM F. JOSEPHSON 212875 629. 1 ! Com 4 14 98 2495 MOLLY D. LATTERNER 212876 7 S. 38 COM el 1 4 98 2500 SUSAN M. Imo, TTERNER 212377 6.6 4. 1 -'5 COM 4 14 98 2550 PETER W. LENZEN 212878 45.63 COM 4 14 98 2800 JOSEPH P. LUGOWSKI 212379 B61 ...1.'v' COM 4 14 98 2805 JASON R. LUND 212880 296.0,i ,-, OM 4 i4 98 2900 RUSSELL. Ff. MARRON .....+..._•S. B1 32.35 C Of il- 4 14 9✓ 3000 THERESA L. NAAB 212882 633.22 com 4 14 98 3100 LAWRENCE A. NICCUM 212883 1151.34 cum 4 14 98 3400 BRADLEY j, NIELSEN 212884 904.91-D cum 4 14 98 3455 ANDREW C. OTTEN 212885 2 5. 9 -:3� 0 M" 14 98 3500 JOSEPH E. •AZA•DAK 212886 1116. y *Z ,.. , ',..M .1.4 98 3580 CHRISTOPHER j. POUNDER 212887 906.16 cum 4 14 98 3600 DANIEL J. RANDALL 212888 911.34 i, , 1 M 4 14 98 3800 ALAN J. ROLEK 212889 1150.66 Cron 4 14 98 5815 MICHAEL j. RUFFENACH 212890 151.06 cum 4 14 98 3850 TANYA M. SCH!ERMAN 21.891 21I. Y3 COM 4 14 98 3900 CHRISTOPHER E. SCHMID 212392 462. COM 4 14 98 3910 R CONRAD SCHMID 212893 ill - 0-5 cum 4 14 98 4050 BERNARD j. SCHNURR 212894 141.23 cum 4 14 98 4200 BRENDA L. SMITH 212895 92.%j COMPUTER CHECKS MANUAL CHECKS NOTICES OF DEPOSIT ****TOTALS**** 20365.02 00 00 20365.02 Page 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Municipal Attorneys FROM: Jim Thomson DATE: April 27, 1998 RE: Administrative Offense Ordinances On March 20, 1998, I attended the conference of chief judges at which the administrative offense ordinance issue was discussed. I am enclosing a copy of my March 23, 1998, letter to Colleen Paulus at. the City of Brooklyn Park summarizing some of the items that were discussed at the meeting. It was obvious from the comments made by the judges that they do not believe the process should be used to enforce moving traffic violations. Desyl Peterson and Roger Jensen, the city attorney for White Bear Lake, made presentations to the conference. Mike Johnson, the staff attorney, also made a presentation regarding what he perceived to be the legal issues. Mr. Johnson did not come to any conclusion regarding the cities' authority; rather, he merely raised the legal issues that he saw as being relevant. The issues he raised were: i . Minn. Stat. § 169.022 states that Chapter 169 governing the operation of vehicles shall be uniform throughout the state and no local authorities shall enact any rule or regulation in conflict with it. 2. Minn. Stat. § 462.362 allows a municipality to provide for the enforcement of ordinances or regulations adopted under the Municipal Planning Act and to provide penalties for those violations. 3. Minn. Stat. § 412.861 provides that violations of ordinances shall be brought in the name of the city upon complaint and warrant as in other criminal cases. 4. Due process issues. During his discussion on this subject, Mr. Johnson referred to two federal court decisions, one of which was from the Seventh Circuit. Apparently, both courts concluded that a city's use of an administrative process for parking tickets was not a violation of due process. JJT140284 BR270 -24 t 5. Minn. Stat. § 609.27 makes it a crime to threaten criminal charges. This statute contains an exception that a warning of the consequences of a future violation of law given in good faith by a peace officer or prosecuting attorney is not a violation. 6. Waiver of rights. Mr. Johnson was concerned about the voluntariness of the process if the person charged with the administrative violation did not voluntarily agree to waive the rights that the person would otherwise have under a criminal prosecution. 7. Separation of powers. Mr. Johnson's discussion on this topic was somewhat confusing. He seemed to be indicating that if the city was exercising quasi-judicial powers, there might be some problem. I think he missed the point on this one. Cities exercise quasi - judicial powers all the time. I know we have had discussions internally on a municipality's authority to adopt an administrative hearing process. For what it is worth, here is my conclusion on the topic. 1. Charter cities have the authority to adopt an administrative hearing process to enforce city ordinances. Whether statutory cities have the same authority is unclear. (If the administrative hearing process is voluntary, perhaps even statutory cities have the authority to use it). 2. Cities that use an administrative enforcement process should not use city employees as the hearing officers to avoid any hint of a due process violation. 3. The administrative hearing process should not be used for traffic violations and other violations of state law. 4. Failure by an individual to respond to an "administrative citation" issued by a city should not be a misdemeanor violation. If a city adopts a mandatory hearing process and an individual fails to respond, the matter should just be referred to the prosecutor for handling of the underlying offense, not the failure to respond to the administrative citation. Judge Lawrence Cohen, the chief judge of Ramsey County District Court, was the person who had the biggest problem with the administrative hearing process. He stated, however, that he did not object to such a process if used solely to enforce city code violations. I should also point out that the issue of loss of revenue by the District Courts was discussed. This is not an issue in Hennepin County, because in Hennepin County all fine revenues go to the cities. In other counties, the fine revenue is allocated between the cities and the county. JJT140284 BR270 -24 2 A eton.Ica. r l : f 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55345 612- 939 -8266 Fax 612 - 939 -8248 February 24, 1998 Mike Johnson Staff Attorney State Court Administrator's Office City Attorney's Office Providing prosecution services for the cities of Minnetonka, Minnetrista and St. Bonifacius Desyl L. Peterson Direct Dial. 612 -939 -8262 e -mail. dlpeterson@ci.minnetonka.mn.us 120 Judicial Center 25 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 RE: Minnetonka City Court Dear Mr. Johnson: You have asked for information regarding the Minnetonka City Court, which I will attempt to provide below. 1. What were the reasons for creating City Court and what is its focus? Minnetonka staff believed that Hennepin County District Court was not well suited for certain ordinance violations. Judges are not familiar with the myriad of different ordinances in each city, and calendars are overflowing with more typical state law violations which the judges are accustomed to handling. Delay is inevitable. Further, citizens do not like being labeled as "criminals" for most ordinance violations, and the District Court system requires them to take time off from work and wait during lengthy calendars. The hope was to create a system that would be more customer - friendly by offering hearings in the evening as well as during the day, with short calendars. The citizens would still be given the opportunity to tell their stories to an independent person, which is often all that they want. Resolution could be achieved swiftly. The system was not instituted as a means of getting greater revenue. In Hennepin County, all District Court fine revenues go to the cities, so there is no financial gain by using the city's own enforcement system. The focus of the system has been on enforcement of "code" violations. I have enclosed a summary of the cases to date, which shows a concentration on violations of the zoning code, health code, building code, nuisance ordinance, and animal control ordinance. 1 Mike Johnson ., February 24, 1998 Pa -ge 2 2. What is the legal authority for creating City Court? Minnetonka is a charter city. A charter may grant all powers to the city that the Legislature could grant, as long as those powers have not been prohibited by Legislature. The Minnetonka Charter was amended to specifically provide for an administrative enforcement process. Enclosed are copies of those charter provisions. Statutory cities are in a different situation. Enclosed is a memo prepared by an attorney for the League of Minnesota Cities addressing the question of whether statutory cities may institute their own administrative enforcement programs. 3. Does City Court provide adequate due process? Under our system, each alleged offender is given notice of the alleged violation and an opportunity to request a hearing before an impartial third party. The Charter Commission selected 13 lawyers from over 127 who applied to be hearing officers. All 13 have experience as mediators, arbitrators, or conciliation court referees. In addition, the Charter Commission insisted that none of the hearing officers could either live or work in the city of Minnetonka. The ordinance provides guidance to the hearing officers on what factors they can use in making a decision and what remedies/fines they can impose. They cannot exceed the amount of the fine established in the City Council's fine schedule. Each hearing is tape- recorded, and the decision must be in writing. The offender has a right of appeal to the City Council only for matters related to a license or permit granted by the City Council. All other matters can be appealed in accordance with state law. I was not certain that we could by ordinance create a right of appeal to the courts, so I left the language purposefully ambiguous. Based on Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency, 551 N.W.2d 235 (Minn.App. 1996), which was decided after we started our program, I believe a person would have the right of appeal by writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. I have a concern about due process in only one section of our ordinance. The ordinance makes it mandatory for a person to participate in our City Court. Failure to respond to an administrative citation is a misdemeanor, and the person is deemed to have admitted the facts constituting the violation. Because I have concerns about whether this affords adequate due process, we are not enforcing that section. Rather, we regard the system as voluntary. If a person fails to respond, we simply initiate an action in District Court. This in effect gives the person the choice of proceeding in court rather than in our system. If they choose to submit to the City Court process, however, then the ordinance makes it a misdemeanor to subsequently fail to pay any fine. We felt that if people take advantage of the system, they should be bound by it. Mike Johnson February 24, 1998 Page 3 I hope that this adequately responds to your inquiry. If you would like further information, please let me know. Sincerely, 4 DeOPeterson Minnetonka City Attorney f MEMORANDUM TO: DESYL PETERSON, CITY ATTORNEY THROUGH: BETTY NORTON, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER FROM: KATHY MCCULLUM, ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 1998 SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE CITY COURT PROGRAM CITATIONS ISSUED Listed below are the City Court citations issued from September, 1995 to the present. A total of eight City Court hearings have been held since the program was established. v�o;ation _axeyorr Number ssued Animal 11 Building, Plumbing, Electrical 14 Health 18 Nuisance g Zoning 10 Miscellaneous 3 TOTAL: 65 COSTS /FINES COLLECTED OF THE PROGRAM The City has incurred a total of $1765.13 in expenses for the program` Hearing Officer fees: $ 900.00 Printing of Forms: $ 865.13 TOTAL: $1765.13 The City has received $6420.00 in fines since the program began. 4zV MINNETONKA CHARTER PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING CITY COURT PROCEDURES 12.12. Fines and Penalties. The council may establish by ordinance that a violation of a city ordinance is either a misdemeanor or a petty misdemeanor, punishable in accordance with state law. In addition, the council may establish by ordinance a procedure for imposing a civil penalty not exceeding $2000 for each violation of a city ordinance. This procedure must provide an opportunity for the accused to be heard by a neutral party, which may be the city council. 8.03. Assessments for Fees and Civil Penalties. The council may provide by ordinance that fees and civil penalties imposed by the city, including late payment penalties, may be assessed against property which was the subject matter, or related to the subject matter, of the fees and penalties, or property which was the location of an activity, proposed use, delivery of city service, or other circumstances which resulted in the fees and penalties. The ordinance shall provide that the city must first attempt to obtain voluntary payment of the fees and penalties. The ordinance shall further require the city to give notice and an opportunity to be heard to the property owner listed on the official tax records before the assessments are imposed. The assessments shall be collected like special assessments. Administrative Penalties in Minnesota ACBA, Government Section Administrative Penalties in Minnesota by Kent Sulem, LMC Codification Attorney November 14,19% I. Definition: For the purpose of this paper, "Administrative Penalties" shall mean a system of citations and fines imposed and administered by a city for the violation of local ordinances. An opportunity for a hearing before a designated city hearing officer shall be given before any such penalty is imposed. II. Purpose: The general purpose of administrative penalties is to offer amore effective and efficient altemative to formal court proceedings (i.e. misdemeanor prosecutions) for certain types of offenses. On an increasing basis, city prosecutors are finding judges unwilling to hear a trial over what are perceived to be minor problems, or if a trial is conducted, only nominal penalties are imposed, often not enough to justify the expense of the prosecution. Further, court proceedings are intimidating to the accused, and in some circumstances, even just the threat of jail time may be to severe a penalty for certain types of offenses, even if the prosecutor knows it will never be imposed, thus discouraging enforcement of the ordinance. III. Advantages: - Less Costly - Less intimidating - Fosters better relations - Better compliance rates - City maintains control IV. Authority: There is no express authority for administrative penalties. It is generally accepted, however, that the power to adopt ordinances inherently implies the power to enforce them. (For a general discussion on the scope of authority for imposing penalties for ordinance violations, see 5 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 17 and 56 Am. Jur. 2d Municipal Corporations § 343427.) Statutory cities are authorized to impose up to a misdemeanor violation for ordinance offenses (Minn. Stat. § 412.231). A general legal principal is 1 of 1 Administrative Penalties in Minnesota ACBA, Government Section November 14,1996 that the authority to do the greater implies the authority to do the lesser. Under Minnesota law, a misdemeanor carries a maximum penalty of up to $700 and/or 90 days in jail, plus the cost of prosecution. Thus, as long as the administrative penalty sought is less, there is implied authority to impose it. The real question becomes, what level of penalty can be imposed and still be less than a misdemeanor. A straight fine of no more than $700 would satisfy the test, but the answer is less clear when fines exceed $700. Because jail time is possible, misdemeanor prosecutions are considered criminal in nature. Thus arguably as jail time is not involved and the offense would not be viewed as criminal in nature, any administrative fine could be considered less than a misdemeanor. in a case, however, the fine would have to be reasonable and proportionate to the nature of the offense. Excessive penalties can invalidate an ordinance. Home rule charter cities are not bound to the statutory cap of Minn. Stat. § 412.231 and thus appear to have even stronger arguments in favor of authorizing administrative penalties. Such authorization, however, would have to be contained in the city's charter, and thus a charter amendment may be required. V. Common Concerns: Because there is no express authority for administrative penalties, and because there have not yet been any test cases on this matter some city attorneys are reluctant to advise their cities to adopt such penalties. While the League of Minnesota Cities encourages caution, the consensus of League attorneys who have looked at this issue, as well that of a random survey of city attorneys who have dealt with it, is that there are strong enough arguments in favor of the authority to impose such penalties. Further, the risk of damages being awarded against a city from the use of such penalties appears to be nominal. The Minnesota Attorney General has also indicated his support for the use of administrative penalties. Nonetheless, these concerns need to be considered so that each city attorney can determine his or her comfort level in advising their individual city councils. The following are some of the most common concerns and the best argument a city could make in defense of administrative penalties: 2 of 2 Administrative Penalties in Minnesota ACBA, Government Section November 14,1996 Concern City Argument Lack of Authority See section N above Infringes on Courts exclusive realm of Cities act in quasi-judicial roles in many adjudication in violation of the Separation of situations such as zoning, license revocation, Powers of both the State and Federal etc. In addition, administrative fines have Constitutions. been issued by other entities such as OSHA and DOER for many years without successful challenge. Specific authority exists for fines for liquor violations and limited other local offenses. (Minn. Stat. 340A.304) Equal Protection Challenge by indigent This is more an "issue of implementation than unable to pay fine (particularly if violator has a per se constitutionality risk. Cities option to demand court process). imposing administrative penalties would need to make reasonable accommodations for those unable to afford the fine. Such accommodations could include al lowing monthly installment payments. As long as the city is reasonable, there should be no problem of equal protection. (see Smith v. State 301 Minn 455, 223 N.W.2d 775 (1974)) VI. Key Elements: VII. Enforcement: - Designate a hearing officer or panel - Provide for notice requirement in the citation issued - Make hearing process clear - Avoid excessive fines (consider fine schedule) - Provide for right of appeal - Specify Exceptions - (Opt -out provision) - Provide hearing officers with clear guidelines and instruct on the importance of good findings of facts - Conciliation Court - Debt Collection Service - Penalty for late payment - Separate offense for failure to pay fine 3 of 3 Administrative Penalties in Minnesota r� i November 14,19% ACBA, Government Section - Misdemeanor prosecution of original offense - Suspension or no renewal of related business license - (Assessment) VIII. Legislative Action: -1995 Legislative consideration - 1997 NEAC proposal J 4 of 4 RECEIVED NO 2 61996 MEMORANDUM 2 NM RONMENTAL MGM'V & ENFORCEMENT SVCS TO CHARTER COMMISSION FROM BETTY NORTON, CITY CLERK KATHY MCCULLUM, ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR DATE - OCTOBER 14, 1996 SUBJECT UPDATE ON THE CITY COURT PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The Minnetonka City Court was created by the City as an alternative ordinance and or enf City ordinances. The City Court is authorized by the City a method of enforcement intended to be more informal and less intimidating to alleged violators. HISTORY In January, 1993, the Council held a Work Session with the Charter Commission to discuss the potential of a Charter amendment and implementing ordinance creating a • . _t --- •,-- Code. On July 26, 1993, the Council procedure to admiroistrat' a' �.,�.�� % ,.. adopted an ordinance amendment to the City Charter authorizing the Administrative Enforcement Program. Preliminary a_ ^nroval of an ordinanc f AdministhatvemCitations, Enforcement Program and setting the parameters fo Administrative Hearings, and Administrative Review ofc e g City Co violations Qv pt d on within the City was given on November 22, 1 This _ _ a December 13, 1993. On April 24, 1995, the Council adopted resolutions establishing the schedule of fines for administrative violations and the establishment of fees for Hearing Officers. Also at that time, the Council granted preliminary approval of an ordinance amending t Code to make it a crime for failing to appear for a herring or pay a fine. Final app of this ordinance was given by the Council on May 8, 1995. From May through August, 1995 staff created the necessary forms and procedures to implement the program and trained enforcement personnel. Staff began using the City Court Program in September, 1995. MIA a DI -9 r4l it DESCRIPTION `DISTRICT COURT ADN UNISTRATIVE PENALTY Citations Many citations are referred to the city Penalty imposed prosecutor Impact on the citizen Misdemeanor No criminal charge Criminal charge No jail time Threat ofjail time No record Record for three years Formal Complaint Created if citation not paid None Mandatory Court Appearance If condition warrants mandatory court If condition warrants mandatory appearance court appearance Time heard in court 7 days to pay or schedule a court 7 days to pay or schedule a appearance 1 -2 months hearing - 2 weeks 1. City responds to city code violation on a property- -5 bags of garbage along side of a house. 2. Inspector verifies violation and sends a correction notice to the property owner. Owner has 7- 10_days to correct violations. 3. Inspector re- inspects property notes bags of garbage still there, sends a final notice to correct violation. Owner is extended another 7 -10 days to correct violation. 4. Inspector re- inspects property notes violation remains. Inspector issues citation. 5. Citation is part of administrative penalty or district court process. 2 r• r, city of` m�nn k , z z:. a` BENCHBOOK C 1TY co u A � HEARING OFFICERS r, r z z:. a` BENCHBOOK FOR HEARING OFFICERS t i 7 x City Clerk's Office 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 (612) 939 -8200 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Intent. The Minnetonka City Court was created by the City of Minnetonka as an alternative forum for enforcing City ordinances. The City previously used the criminal justice system for enforcement of its ordinances but found that system to be somewhat unsatisfactory: a. The delay in that system did not ensure prompt resolution b. Citizens resented being labeled as criminals for violations of administrative regulations. C. The higher burden of proof and potential of incarceration did not appear appropriate for most administrative violations. d. The criminal system did not always regard City ordinance violations as important. e. The criminal system required citizens to take time off from work to appear at court. The City Court is intended to avoid these disadvantages and to provide a forum which is more informal and less threatening to alleged violators. 1.2 Authority- The Minnetonka City Charter authorizes the City Council to establish by ordinance a procedure for imposing a civil penalty not exceeding $2000 for each violation of a city ordinance. This procedure must provide an opportunity for the accused to be heard by a neutral party. The City Council adopted City Code Sections 1300.02 through 1300.10 to govern administrative enforcement of the ordinances, including imposition of civil penalties. Pursuant to these sections, enforcement is commenced by the issuance of an administrative citation. The recipient may pay a fine established by City Council resolution or may request a hearing. If a hearing is requested, the procedures in this handbook are followed. 1 2. PRE - HEARING PROCEDURE 2.1 Selection of Hearing Officers The City Clerk's office will randomly select a hearing officer from the list of lawyers approved by the City Council. The Clerk will contact the selected lawyer and indicate the types of cases and the names of the people involved. 2.2 Self - Disqualification. Upon being assigned to a case, you must decide if there are grounds for self disqualification. Grounds for such disqualification include: A. Personal interest in the action. B. Financial interest in the action. C. Relationship to any party. D. Former counsel for party. If any member of your firm would be disqualified under this provision, your are also disqualified. E. Bias or prejudice. If grounds for self - disqualification exist, they may be disclosed to the parties in writing and expressly waived by the parties in writing. Otherwise, you must notify the City Clerk's office of the disqualification, and another hearing officer will be selected. 2.3 Disqualification by Party. No later than five days before the date of the hearing, any party may file a written request with the City Clerk's office to remove the assigned hearing officer. The first such request by an accused will automatically be granted. Any subsequent request by an accused for the same matter and any request by the City will be referred to the assigned hearing officer, who will decide whether he or she cannot fairly and objectively hear the case. You must issue a written decision by the date of the hearing. If you grant the request, you should file the decision with the City Clerk as quickly as possible to allow for assignment of another hearing officer. If the request is not granted, you may either (a) file the decision with the City Clerk who will mail it to the requesting party or (b) serve it upon the requesting party at the scheduled hearing. 2.4 Hearing Time and Date The City Clerk must schedule a hearing to occur within 30 days after receiving the accused's request for a hearing. The City Clerk's office will contact you for an available date and schedule the time and place for the hearing. You will generally be 2 expected to be available for one -half of a day or an evening. More than one matter may be scheduled for hearing during that time. 2.5 Notice of Hearin-g. At least 10 days before the scheduled date, the City Clerk's office will send a notice of the hearing date, time, and location to you and all parties, unless a shorter time is accepted by all parties. The notice will contain the names of the parties and the type of violation alleged. 2.6 Continuances. A continuance of the hearing may be granted only by the City Clerk's office for good cause shown. Generally, continuances should be for no more than 10 days. 2.7 Pre Except for a subpoena request (see below), there must be no ex parte communication between you and the parties or parties' representatives. All scheduling and continuances will be handled by the City Clerk's office. 2.8 Subpoenas. Upon your own initiative or upon written request of a party who demonstrates the need, you may authorize issuance of a subpoena for the attendance of a witness or the production of documents which are material to the matter being heard. if you authorize a subpoena, notify the City Clerk's office who will obtain the necessary subpoena from the Hennepin County District Court (which will issue the subpoena based on authority of the Minnetonka City Charter). The party requesting the subpoena is responsible for serving it in the same manner as civil actions and paying fees and expenses of the witness. A person served with a subpoena may file an objection with you before time for compliance. You may cancel or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable or oppressive. You must notify the City Clerk's office if someone fails to comply with a subpoena. Failure to comply with a subpoena is a misdemeanor and constitutes contempt of court. 3 3. HEARING PROCEDURE 3.1 Reporting. You are requested to report to the City Clerk's office at least 15 minutes before the scheduled hearing. This will allow for any administrative tasks and last- minute changes. You may also review the files at this time. 3.2 Failure to Appear. The failure of an accused to appear constitutes an admission of the violation. You may proceed to impose a penalty. If the City representatives fail to appear, the charge must be dismissed. If the absent person contacts you or the City Clerk's office within a reasonable time after the scheduled hearing, you will be asked to rule on whether there was good cause for the absence. Examples of good cause are: death or incapacitating illness of the accused; a court order requiring the person to appear for another hearing at the same time; and lack of proper service of the citation or notice of the hearing. Good cause does not include: forgetfulness and intentional delay. 3.3 Hearing Introduction You should begin the hearing by introducing yourself and emphasizing your neutrality. You should also explain your role and how the hearing will proceed. You may also explain at this time the right to appeal. 3.4 Hearing Procedure The City Clerk's office will provide a tape recorder and tapes, and the hearing must be recorded. A representative from the City Clerk's office may be present to assist you. The procedure should be informal, without strict rules of evidence. You should make such rulings and take such action as deemed necessary to conduct a dignified and orderly hearing. You will determine whether to allow opening and/or closing statements. The parties have the right to present testimony and cross - examine each other's witnesses. The City bears the burden of proving a violation and should proceed first. You must administer an oath or affirmation to each witness. You will receive testimony and exhibits and give weight to evidence, including hearsay- evidence, which possesses probative value commonly accepted by reasonable and prudent people in the conduct of their affairs. Because this is a civil matter, you must find a violation only if the greater weight of the evidence supports such a finding. 4 3.5 Decision. You have the authority to determine that a violation occurred, to dismiss a charge, to impose the fine established in the City Council- approved schedule, and to reduce, stay, or waive the established amount of the fine either unconditionally or upon compliance with appropriate conditions. When a violation is found, you may consider any or all of the following factors in imposing a penalty: A. the duration of the violation, B. the frequency of reoccurrence of the violation, C. the seriousness of the violation, D. the history of the violation, E. the violator's conduct after issuance of the notice of hearing, F. the good faith effort by the violator to comply, G. the economic impact of the penalty on the violator, H. the impact of the violation upon the community, and I. any other factors appropriate to a just result. You may not impose a fine greater than the established fine but may impose a penalty for each day of a continuing violation if (a) the violation caused a serious threat of harm to the public health, safety, or welfare or (b) the accused intentionally and unreasonably refused to comply with the city code requirement. 3.6 Filing the Decision. You should try to announce your decision at the end of the hearing. If you feel uncomfortable in doing so, because of the desire for time to review evidence and reflect or because of an emotional party, you may announce that you are taking the matter under advisement. You must place your decision in writing with a brief description of your basis for the decision. A form will be provided for your convenience. If you make your decision at the end of the hearing, the City Clerk's representative will make copies for the parties. If a clerk is not present, call the City Clerk's office at ext. 214. If you take additional time to make a decision, you must provide a written decision to the City Clerk's office within ten days. That office will mail a copy to the parties. 5 4. POST - HEARING PROCEDURES 4.1 Appeal. In most cases, your decision will be final without the right to make an administrative appeal. The aggrieved party may, however, appeal your decision to district court. A decision in the following matters may be appealed to the City Council: A. An alleged failure to obtain a permit, license, or other approval from the City Council, B. An alleged violation of a permit, license, other approval, or the conditions attached, which was granted by the City Council, and C. An alleged violation of regulations governing a person who has received a license from the City Council To exercise an appeal to the City Council, the person must submit a request in writing to the City Clerk within ten days after the hearing officer's decision. 4.2 Time to Pay. The violator may have 30 days within which to pay the fine. A late payment fee of 10% of the fine will be imposed for each 30 -day period, or part thereof, after that time. 4.3 Consequences of Failure to Pay. If the person does not pay the fine, the City may: A. Assess the penalty against real property in the City which was the subject of the violation if the owner was responsible for the violation. B. Obtain a judgment and begin collection procedures. C. Suspend or revoke a City- issued license that is associated with the violation. D. Commence a criminal proceeding in District Court for failing to pay. 0 5. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 5.1 Hearing Officer' Fees The hearing officer must submit to the City Clerk a signed application for fees on the form provided. No fees will be paid if any of the officer's decisions have not been timely filed, without good cause, at the Clerk's office. The fee will be $ 100 per half -day or evening for hearings and $10 each for your action on a request for disqualification, for a subpoena, for quashing a subpoena, or for a finding of good cause for a non - appearance. 5.2 Custody of File You should give to the Clerk's office all exhibits submitted at the hearing and the tape recording. If a party wishes to withdraw an exhibit, the Clerk will make a copy to keep with the Clerk's file. You are not expected to retain your notes regarding the matter. Ii STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN City of Minnetonka, a municipal ) corporation, ) 1 V. ) HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION Alleged Violator ) CHARGES: 1. 2. 3. 4. f -I- CITY OF MINNETONKA CITY COURT ORDINANCE NO: The undersigned hearing officer received testimony regarding this matter at a hearing held on at Minnetonka City Hall, 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345. Based on this testimony and all of the evidence presented, the hearing officer determines the following: 1 MINNETONKA CITY ORDINANCE CREATING THE CITY COURT Section 1300.02. Administrative Citations and Civil Penalties. Sections 1300.02 through 1300.10 shall govern administrative citations and civil penalties for violations of the City Code. Section 1300.03. Purpose. The City Council finds that there is a need for alternative methods of enforcing the City Code. While criminal fines and penalties have been the most frequent enforcement mechanism, there are certain negative consequences for both the City and the accused. The delay inherent in that system does not ensure prompt resolution. Citizens resent being labeled as criminals for violations of administrative regulations. The higher burden of proof and the potential of incarceration do not appear appropriate for most administrative violations. The criminal process does not always regard City Code violations as being important. Accordingly, the City Council finds that the use of administrative citations and the imposition of civil penalties is a legitimate and necessary alternative method of enforcement. This method of enforcement shall be in addition to any other legal remedy which may be pursued for City Code violations. Section 1300.04. General Provisions. 1. A violation of any provision of the City Code or the acts prohibited in Section 1300.00 is an administrative offense, which may be subject to an administrative citation and civil penalties pursuant to Sections 1300.02 through 1300.09. Each day a violation exists constitutes a separate offense. 2. An administrative offense may be subject to a civil penalty not exceeding $ 2000.00. 3. The City Council must adopt by resolution a schedule of fines for offenses initiated by administration citation. The City Council is not bound by that schedule when a matter is appealed to it for administrative review. The City Council may adopt a schedule of fees to be paid to administrative hearing officers. 4. The City Manager must adopt procedures for administering the administrative citation program. Minnetonka City Court Ordinance Page 2 Section 1300.05. Administrative Citation. 1. Any person authorized to enforce provisions of the City Code may issue an administrative citation upon belief that a Code violation has occurred. The citation must be issued in person or by mail to the person responsible for the violation or attached to the motor vehicle in the case of a vehicular offense. The citation must state the date, time, and nature of the offense, the name of the issuing officer, the amount of the scheduled fine, and the manner for paying the fine or appealing the citation. 2. The person responsible for the violation must either pay the scheduled fine or request a hearing within seven days after issuance. Payment of the fine constitutes admission of the violation. A late payment fee of 10% of the scheduled fine amount shall be imposed in accordance with Section 1300.09. Section 1300.06. Administrative Hearing. 1. The City Council shall periodically approve a list of lawyers, from which the City Manager will randomly select a hearing officer to hear and determine a matter for which a hearing is requested. The accused shall have the right to request no later than five days before the date of the hearing that the assigned hearing officer be removed from the case. One such request for each case will be granted automatically by the City Manager. A subsequent request must be directed to the assigned hearing officer who will decide whether he or she cannot fairly and objectively review the case. The City enforcement officer may remove a hearing officer only by requesting that the assigned hearing officer find that he or she cannot fairly and objectively review the case. If such a finding is made, the officer shall remove himself or herself from the case, and the City Manager shall assign another hearing officer. The hearing officer is not a judicial officer but is a public officer as defined by Minnesota Statute §609.415. The hearing officer must not be a City employee. The City Manager shall establish a procedure for evaluating the competency of the hearing officers, including comments from accused violators and City staff. These reports shall be provided to the City Council 2. Upon the hearing officer's own initiative or upon written request of an interested party demonstrating the need, the officer may issue a subpoena for the attendance of a witness or the production of books, papers, records or other documents that are material to the matter being heard. The party requesting the subpoena shall be responsible for serving the subpoena in the Minnetonka City Court Ordinance Page 3 manner provided for civil actions and for paying the fees and expenses of any witness. A person served with a subpoena may file an objection with the hearing officer promptly but no later than the time specified in the subpoena for compliance. The officer may cancel or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable or oppressive. Any person who, without just cause, fails or refuses to attend and testify or to produce the required documents in obedience to a subpoena shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Alternatively, the party requesting the subpoena may seek an order from district court directing compliance. 3. Notice of the hearing must be served in person or by mail on the person responsible for the violation at least ten days in advance, unless a shorter time is accepted by all parties. At the hearing, the parties will have the opportunity to present testimony and question any witnesses, but strict rules of evidence shall not apply. The hearing officer shall tape record the hearing and receive testimony and exhibits. The officer shall receive and give weight to evidence, including hearsay evidence, which possesses probative value commonly accepted by reasonable and prudent people in the conduct of their affairs. 4. The hearing officer has the authority to determine that a violation occurred, to dismiss a citation, to impose the scheduled fine, and to reduce, stay, or waive a scheduled fine either unconditionally or upon compliance with appropriate conditions. When imposing a penalty for a violation, the hearing officer may consider any or all of the following factors: a. The duration of the violation, b. The frequency or reoccurrence of the violation, C. The seriousness of the violation, d. The history of the violation, e. The violator's conduct after issuance of the notice of hearing, f. The good faith effort by the violator to comply, g. The economic impact of the penalty on the violator, h. The impact of the violation upon the community, and Minnetonka City Court Ordinance Page 4 Any other factors appropriate to a just result. The hearing officer may exercise discretion to impose a fine for more than one day of a continuing violation, but only upon a finding that (1) the violation caused a serious threat of harm to the public health, safety, or welfare or that (2) the accused intentionally and unreasonably refused to comply with the code requirement. The hearing officer's decision and supporting reasons must be in writing. 5. Except for matters subject to administrative review under Section 1300.07, the decision of the hearing officer is final without any further right of administrative appeal. In a matter subject to administrative review under Section 1300.07, the hearing officer's decision may be appealed to the City Council by submitting a request in writing to the City clerk within ten days after the hearing officer's decision. 6. The failure to pay the fine or request an appeal within 30 days after the citation or the failure to attend the hearing constitutes a waiver of the violator's rights to an administrative hearing and an admission of the violation. A hearing officer may waive this result upon good cause shown. Examples of "good cause" are: death or incapacitating illness of the accused; a court order requiring the accused to appear for another hearing at the same time; and lack of proper service of the citation or notice of the hearing. "Good cause" shall not include: forgetfulness and intentional delay. 1300.07. Administrative Review. 1. The hearing officer's decision in any of the following matters may be appealed by any party to the City Council for administrative review: a. An alleged failure to obtain a permit, license, or other approval from the City Council as required by an ordinance, b. An alleged violation of a permit, license, other approval, or the conditions attached to the permit, license, or approval, which was granted by the City Council, and C. An alleged violation of regulations governing a person or entity who has received a license granted by the City Council. Minnetonka City Court Ordinance Page 5 2. The appeal shall be heard by the City Council after notice served in person or by registered mail at least ten days in advance. The parties to the hearing shall have an opportunity to present oral or written arguments regarding the hearing officer's decision. 3. The City Council shall consider the record, the hearing officer's decision, and any additional arguments before making a determination. The Council is not bound by the hearing officer's decision, but may adopt all or part of the officer's decision. The Council's decision must be in writing. 4. If the Council makes a finding of a violation, it may impose a civil penalty not exceeding $2000.00 per day per violation, and may consider any or all of the factors contained in Section 1300.06 (4). The Council may also reduce, stay, or waive a fine unconditionally or based on reasonable and appropriate conditions. 5. In addition to imposing a civil penalty, the Council may suspend or revoke any City - issued license, permit, or other approval associated with the violation, if the procedure in City Code Section 800.20 has been followed. The hearing required in that section shall be satisfied by the hearing before the hearing officer with the right of appeal to the City Council. 1300.08. Judicial Review. An aggrieved party may obtain judicial review of the decision of the hearing officer or the city council in accordance with state law. 1300.09. Recovery of Civil Penalties. 1. If a civil penalty is not paid within the time specified, it shall constitute: a. a lien upon the real property upon which the violation occurred if the property or improvements on the property was the subject of the violation and the property owner was found responsible for that violation, or b. a personal obligation of the violator in all other situations. 2. A lien may be assessed against the property and collected in the same manner as taxes. It Minnetonka City Court Ordinance Page 6 3. A personal obligation may be collected by any appropriate legal means. 4. A late payment fee of 10% of the fine shall be assessed for each thirty - day period, or part thereof, that the fine remains unpaid after the due date. 5. During the time that a civil penalty remains unpaid, the provisions of City Code Section 117 shall apply to any license, permit, or other City approval sought by the violator or for property under the violator's ownership or control. 6. Failure to pay a fine is grounds for suspending or revoking a license associated with the violation. Section 1300.10. Criminal Penalties. The following are misdemeanors, punishable in accordance with state law: 1. Failure, without good cause, to pay a fine or request a hearing within thity days after issuance of an administrative citation. 2. Failure, without good cause, to appear at a hearing which was scheduled under Section 1300.06. 3. Failure to pay a fine imposed by a hearing officer within 30 days after it was imposed, or such other time as may be established by the hearing officer, unless the matter is appealed under Section 1300.07. 4. Failure to pay a fine imposed by the City Council within 30 days after it was imposed, or such other time as may be established by the City Council. 7 } 1 , MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Thomson FROM: Scott Riggs DATE: March 17, 1998 RE: Administrative Penalties Jim: Per your request, please find following the Administrative Offenses (702.02) section of the Mounds View City Code. In addition, please find following the code and charter provisions referenced within Sec. 702.02: Code Sec. 104.01 and Charter Sec. 6.03. In addition, as the clerk-administrator is responsible for the administration of the administrative penalties set forth in Sec. 702.02, I have a call in to Chuck Whiting regarding this matter. I also met yesterday concerning this matter with Kent Sulem of LMC and Floyd Olson.' Kent had discussed this matter with someone at the court administrator's office and it was noted that the judges were interested in revenue losses because of such city courts, but were also interested in "livable communities" issues including local ordinance enforcement issues. Kent has also been asked to be present on Friday. I pointed out to Kent the apparent requirements of Art. 6, Sec. 1 of the Minnesota Constitution (attached for your reference) and the concerns that this provision appears to raise as to questions of authority for city administrative "courts ". While LMC through Stan Peskar and Kent Sulem had been tacitly stating that there was implied authority for statutory cities to have administrative courts, I noted that pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 412.861, statutory cities appear to be somewhat constrained by the procedural requirements for enforcement of ordinances set forth therein (i.e., enforce ordinance violations as other criminal offenses). During our meeting it was agreed that the "authority" question would best be solidified through legislative action. We also discussed the matter with Desyl Peterson, who noted that she had only looked at this matter from the standpoint of a charter amendment and the inherent authority granted therein to 'I also discussed with Kent the problems apparently created by the recent tobacco legislative edicts and the interplay such ordinances have with administrative penalties and "city courts ". SJR140030 MU210 -4 March 17, 1998 Page 2 charter cities (matters of "local concern "). We also briefly discussed the constitutional requirements of Art. 6, Sec. 1, which Desyl said she may review before Friday. In addition, Desyl noted that draft language as to "city court" authority was contained in the proposed NEAC legislation, but neither she nor Kent knew the status of the language. [Kent will be checking further into the NEAC legislation]. Desyl's also provided some responsive comments to Mike Johnson of the court administrator's office, which are enclosed for your review. Please let me know if you need anything further regarding this matter. Scott SJR140030 MU210 -4 txxll CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA er -in -chief of the military and naval forces and may call them out to execute the laws. sup- press insurrection and repel invasion. He may require the opinion in writing of the principal ile officer in each of the executive departments Upon any su ect relating other officers p With ted advice and consent of the senate he may appoint by law. He may appoint commissioners to take the acknowledgment of deeds or other instru- ments in writing to be used in the state. He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He shall fill any vacancy that may occur in the. offices of secretary of state. treasurer, auditor. attorney general and the other state and district offices hereafter created h} law until the end of the term for which the person who had vacated the o ffice was elected or the first ltunday' in January following the next general election, whichever is sooner, and until a successor is chosen and qualified. Sec. 4. Terms and salaries of executive officers. The term of office of the secretary of state, treasurer, attorney general and state auditor is four years and until a successor is chosen and qualified. The duties and salaries of the executive officers shall be prescribed by law. Sec. 5. Succession to offices of governor and lieutenant governor. in case a vacancy occurs from any cause whatever in the office of governor, the lieutenant governor shall governor during such vacancy. The compensation of the lieutenant governor shall be pre- scribed by law. The last elected presiding officer of the senate shall become lieutenant gover- nor in case a vacancy occurs in that office. In case the governor is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the same devolves on the lieutenant governor. The legislature may provide by law for the case of the removal, death, resignation, or inability both of the governor and lieutenant governor to discharge the duties of governor and may provide by law t in periods of emergency resulting from disasters caused by en- for continuity of governmen emy attack in this state, including but not limited to, succession to the powers and duties of public office and change of the seat of government. Sec. 6. Oath of office of state officers. Each officer created by this article before enter- ing upon his duties shall take an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of this state and to discharge faithfully the duties of his office to the best of his judgment and ability. Sec. 7. Board of pardons. The governor, the attorney general and the chief justice of the supreme court constitute a board of pardons. Its powers and duties shall be defined and regulated by law. The governor in conjunction with the board of pardons has Power to grant reprieves and pardons after conviction for an offense against the state except in cases of inr peachment. ARTICLE V I JUDICIARY Section 1. Judicial power. The judicial power of the state is vested in a supreme court, a court of appeals, if established by the legislature, a district court and such other courts, judi- cial officers and commissioners with jurisdiction inferior to the district court as the legisla- ture may establish. [Amended, November 2, 19821 Sec. 2. Supreme court. The supreme court consists of one chief judge and not less than six nor more than eight associate judges as the legislature may establish. It shall have original jurisdiction in such remedial cases as are prescribed by law, and appellate jurisdiction in all cases, but there shall be no trial by jury in the supreme court. The legislature may establish a court of appeals and provide by law for the number of its judges, who shall not be judges of any other court. and its organization and for the review of its decisions by the supreme court. The court of appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction over all courts, except the supreme court, and other appellate jurisdiction as prescribed by law. As provided by law judges of the court of appeals or of the district court may be assigned temporarily to act as judges of the supreme court upon its request and judges of the strict court may be assigned temporarily by the supreme court to act as judges of the court of ap- peals. librarian and court necessary employees. [Amended November e mbe.r 2 1982 reporter, a state law 5 Nx81 I` Sec. civil and Sec . tricts sha not be ah Each jud his selec Sec peals an and jud, scribed Novenal Sep district serve cr under th elective vember Sc until ill they are Se appoint is elect electio+ S( retiree for reti legislar is disal S , decide S tration ings, i- of tax, by laa assum coup serve age o in the The press or pe ment persa of hi Ixxiii CONs'ri Ut "I'tlr STATE OF MINNFSOTA Sec. 3. ,Jurisdiction of district court. The district court has original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases and shall have appellate jurisdiction as prescribed by law. Sec. 4. Judicial districts; district judges. The number and boundaries of judicial dis- tricts shall be established in the manner provided by law but the office of a district judge shall not be abolished during his term. There shall be two or more district judges in each district. Each judge of the district court in any district shall be a resident of that district at the tittle of his selection and during his continuance in office. Sec. 5. Qualifications compensation. Judges of the suprenle court, the court of ap- peals and the district court shall be learned in the law. The qualifications Of' ll other judges and judicial officers shall be prescribed by law. The cum pensatiOn of all judges shall be pre scribed by the legislature and shall not be diminished during their term of office. [Amended, November 2, 1982] Sec. 6. Holding other office. A judge of the supreme court, the court of appeals or the district court shall not hold any office under the United States except a commission in a re- serve component of the military forces of the United States and shall not hold any other office under this state. His term of office shall terminate at the time he files as a candidate for an elective office of the United States or for a nonjudicial office of this state. [Amended, No- vember 2, 19821 Sec. 7. Term of office; election. The term of office of all judges shall be six years and until their successors are qualified. They shall be elected by the voters from the area which they are to serve in the manner provided by law. Sec. 8. Vacancy. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of judge the governor shall appoint in the manner provided by law a qualified person to fill the vacancy until a successor is elected and qualified. The successor shall be elected for a six year term at the next general election occurring more than one year after the appointment. Sec. 9. Retirement, removal and discipline. The legislature may provide by law for retirement of all judges and for the extension of the term of any judge who becomes eligible for retirement within three years after expiration of the term for which he is selected. The legislature may also provide for the retirement, removal or other discipline of any judge who is disabled, incompetent or guilty of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Sec. 10. Retired judges. As provided by law a retired judge may be assigned to hear and decide an cause aver which the court to which he is assigned has jurisdiction. Sec. 11. Probate jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction in law and equity for the adminis- tration of the estates of deceased persons and all guardianship and incompetency proceed- ings, including jurisdiction over the administration of trust estates and for the determination of taxes contingent upon death, shall be provided by law. Sec. 12. Abolition of probate court; status of judges. if the probate court is abolished by law. judges of that court who are learned in the law shall become judges of the court that assumes jurisdiction of matters described in section 1 I . Sec. 13. District court clerks. There shall be in each county one clerk of the district court whose qualifications, duties and compensation shall be prescribed by law. He shall serve at the pleasure of a majority of the judges of the district court in each district. ARTICLE VIi ELECTIVE FRANCHISE Section 1. Eligibility; place of voting; ineligible persons. Every person 18 years of age or more who has been it citizen of the United States for three months and who has resided in the precinct for 30 days next preceding an election shall be entitled to vote in that precinct. The place of voting by one otherwise qualified who has changed his residence within 30 days preceding the election shall be prescribed by law. The folluwino persons shall not be entitled or permitted to vote at any election in this state: A person not meeting the shove require- ments; a person who has been convicted of treason or felony. unless restored to civil rights. a person under guardianship, or it person who is insane or nut mentally competent. Sec. 2. Residence. For the purpose ul' votinL no person loses residence solely by reason of his absence while employed in the service of the United States: nor while engaged upon i 473 sTmuroRY crrlFS 412.861 nances and other platters as are required by law to be so published and such other matters as the council may deem it advisable and in the public interest to have published in this manner. History: 1949 c 119 s 100; 1973 c 123 art 2 s I subd 2 412.841 [Repealed, 1976 c 44 s 70] 412.851 VACATION OF STREETS. The council may by resolution vacate tiny street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof. on its own motion or on petition of a majority of the owners of land abutting on the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or part thereof to be vacated. When there has been no petition, the resolution may he adopted only by a vote of four — fifths of all members of the council. No such vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so after a hearing preceded by two weeks' published and posted notice. The council shalt cause written notice of the hearing to be mailed to each property owner affected by the pro - posed vacation at least ten days before the hearing. The notice must contain, at minimum, a Copy of the petition or proposed resolution as well as the time, place, and date of the hearing. In addition, if the street. alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof terminates at or abuts upon any public water, no vacation shall be made unless written notice of the petition or proposed resolution is served by certified mail upon the commissioner of natural resources at least 30 clays before the hearing on the matter. The notice to the commissioner of natural re- sources is for notification purposes only and does not create it right of intervention by the commissioner. After a resolution of vacation is adopted, the clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of the proceedings which shall contain the name of the city, an identification of the vacation, a statement of the time of completion thereof and a description of the real estate and lands affected thereby. The notice shall be presented to the county auditor who shall enter the same in the transfer records and note upon tile instrument, over official signature, the words "entered in the transfer record." Tile notice shall then be tiled with the county record- er. Any failure to file the notice shall not invalidate any such vacation proceedings. Historv: 1949 c• 119 s 102; 19.53 c 735 s 12; 1957 c• 383s /: 1967 c 289s 15; 1969 c• 9 s 85: 1973 c 123 art 2 s I subd 2; 1973 c 494 s 11; 1976 c 181 s 2; 1986 c 444; 1989 c 183s4: 1990c433s2 412.861 PROSECUTIONS, VIOI ATI.ONS: OF ORDINANCES. Subdivision 1. Complaint. Ail prosecutions for violation of ordinances shall be brought in the name of the city upon complaint and warrant as in other criminal cases. if the accused be arrested without it warrant, it written complaint shall thereafter be made, to which the accused shall be required to plead, and a warrant shall issue thereon. The warrant and all other process in such cases shall be directed for service to any police uflicer. marshal, process officer, court officer, or constable of any town or city in the county, to the sheriff of the county, or all of them. Subd. 2. Form and contents of complaint. It shall be a sufficient pleading of the ordi- nances or resolutions of the city to refer to them by section and number or chapter. They shall have the effect of general laws within the city and need not be given in evidence upon the trial of civil or criminal actions. Judgment shall be given, if for the plaintiff, for the amount of fine. penalty, or forfeiture imposed, with costs; and the judgment shall direct that, in default of payment, the defendant be committed to the county jail for such tittle, not exceeding 90 days, as the court shall see fit. The commitment shall state the amount of judgment. the costs. and the period of conlmitnlent. Every person so committed shall be received by the keeper of the jail and kept, at the expense of the county, until lawfully discharged. The committing court may release the defendant at any time upon payment of the fine and costs. Subd. 3. Appeal to court of appeals. Appeals may be taken to the court of appeals in the planner prescribed by court rule, On appealing, the defendant shall give bond to the city. to be approved by the court, conditioned that, if the judgment be affirmed in wholr or in pan, the defendant will pay the judgment. and all costs and damages ,t\\ , ardcd against the defendant on the appeal. In case of affirmance, execution may issue against both defendant and the defen- dant's sureties. Upon perfection of the appeal, defendant shall be discharged from custody. Historv: 1949 c• 119 s 103; 1953 c 735 s 1.3: 1955 c• 867 s 7: 1973 c 34s 5: 1973 c• 123 art2s1 subd 2 :1976c2s132; 1983 c359s66 :1984c387s2; 1986c444 i'i JAMES J. THOMSON Attomey at Law Direct Dial (612) 337 -9209 email: jthomson@kennedy- graven.com April 27, 1998 Ms. Colleen Paulus Deputy Director Community Development Department City of Brooklyn Park 5200 85th Avenue North Brooklyn Park MN 55443 -4300 RE: Administrative Penalties Ordinance Dear Colleen: This is a follow -up to my April 9, 1998 letter and our voice mail messages concerning the amendments to the administrative penalties ordinance. Because the administrative penalties ordinance will be used to process City Code parking regulations, I recommend that the second sentence in Section 903.50, Subd. 1 be amended to read: "The citation must be issued in person by first class mail or to the person responsible for the violation or attached to the motor vehicle in the case of a non - moving vehicular code violation It is my understanding that you and Wade are comfortable with the other changes I suggested in my April 9, 1998 letter. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, James J. Thomson JJT:lh cc: Police Chief Wade Setter JITT141596 BR270 -24 JAMES J. THomsoN Attomey at Law Direct Dial (612) 337 -9209 email: jthomson@kennedy- graven.com April 27, 1998 Ms. Colleen Paulus Deputy Director Community Development Department City of Brooklyn Park 5200 85th Avenue North Brooklyn Park MN 55443 -4300 RE: Administrative Penalties Ordinance Dear Colleen: This is a follow -up to my March 23, 1998 letter concerning the concerns raised by the chief judges to the administrative penalties ordinance in White Bear Lake and Minnetonka. As I indicated in my previous letter, the primary issues that the judges were concerned about were the use of the administrative procedure process to address violations of state statute and due process requirements. I have reviewed the ordinance in light of the concerns raised by the chief judges and I have the following comments: 1. Section 903.50, subdivision l states that an administrative citation must be issued in person or by first -class mail or "attached to the motor vehicle in the case of a vehicular offense." I am assuming that the quoted provision is there to cover the junk vehicle type violations and not because the City intends to use the administrative penalties ordinance to enforce parking tickets or moving traffic violations. If my assumption is correct, we could probably delete that phrase in Section 903.50, because citations for junk vehicles can always be delivered to the owner of the property on which the vehicles are located. I also recommend that the period to either pay the fine or request a hearing be changed from seven to ten days. 2. Section 903.60, subdivision 5.A states that the failure to pay a fine, to request a hearing, or to attend the hearing constitutes a waiver of the violator's right to an administrative hearing and is an admission of the violation. I have discussed this JJT141251 BR270 -24 Ms. Colleen Paulus April 27, 1998 Page 2 particular provision with Desyl Peterson, the City Attorney for Minnetonka, to see what their experience has been. I am concerned about the due process issue associated with that provision. Desyl indicated that Minnetonka has not been enforcing this provision. Instead, if a person fails to respond to an administrative citation, the City simply initiates a misdemeanor action in district court for the underlying violation for which the administrative citation has been issued. Based on the concerns raised by the chief judges, I am skeptical that a court would uphold the provision as it is currently written. My suggestion is that we delete subdivision 5.A and move the text in subdivision 5.13 into the main paragraph in subdivision 5. 3. Section 903.100 states that the failure to pay the fine or to request a hearing after the issuance of an administrative citation and the failure to appear at the hearing are misdemeanors. For the reasons set forth above, I doubt that a court would uphold a misdemeanor violation against a person for merely failing to take part in the administrative penalty process. I therefore suggest that we delete those two paragraphs and renumber C and D to subdivision 1 and subdivision 2 respectively. I suggest that the City not use the phrase "City Court" in the materials that will be prepared after the ordinance is adopted. We should come up with a new term, such as "Administrative Hearing" or "Administrative Penalty ". As I indicated in my voice mail message, it would probably be best if you, Wade Setter, and I have a telephone conference to discuss my suggested changes and how they might impact the day -to -day operation of the ordinance. Sincerely, James J. Thomson JJT:lh cc: Police Chief Wade Setter JJT141251 BR270 -24 . e i C H A R T E R E D 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337 -9300 telephone (612) 337 -9310 fax e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com JAMES J. TTHOMSON Attorney at law Direct Dial (612) 337 -9209 email: jthomson@kennedy- graven.com March 23, 1998 Ms. Colleen Paulus Deputy Director Community Development Department City of Brooklyn Park 5200 85th Avenue North Brooklyn Park MN 55443 -4300 RE: Administrative Penalties Ordinance Dear Colleen: As you may know, the issue of the "city court" process has received some publicity lately arising out of the City of White Bear Lake's use of the procedure to process traffic citations. I am enclosing an article from the March 19, 1998 St. Paul Pioneer Press and a copy of a March 20, 1998 article from the Minneapolis Star Tribune relating to that issue. On March 20, 1998, I attended the conference of chief judges at which this issue was discussed. The primary issues that the judges were concerned about were the use of the administrative procedure to address violations of state statutes and due process requirements. The chief judges took no action on the matter at their meeting. I do not know whether they intend to do so in the future. However, the judges definitely expressed significant concerns with cities using the process to enforce traffic violations. Judge Dan Mabley, the Chief Judge of Hennepin County District Court, attended the meeting. He does not have a problem with using the administrative process to review violations of local ordinances. The question that he is concerned about is that the process not be used to enforce state law matters. (Some issues are in the gray area, such as violations of the state building code.) JJT140G67 BR270 -24 THURSDAY, MARCH 19 1998 year arising from road rage, the case Cnticism_ halts plan to issuelocal was • a call to tackle residents No. 1 complaint: vehicles speeding past homes in the city of 25,000 people. 'The staff and council decided we have to slow people down," said Mayor Paul Auger. "On a quiet residential street where there's no sidewalks, kids are playing in the yards and somebody's fly - ing by at 35 miles an hour, there's no reason the police shouldn't give them a ticket." So on Jan. 30, White Bear Lake be- came the first city in Minnesota where • • ; olice issued low -fine local traffic tickets traffic tickets r m White Bear officials . look to judges for help ANN BAKER VAR WRrtEs A case of road rage last summer left 19- year -old Ryan Williams with a $1,092 hospital bill and White Bear Lake authorities determined to do something `about :'cars' speeding through- -residential neighborhoods. Six weeks 'ago, the city tackled the problem,.by issuing its own local traffic. tickets. Then, stung by criticism from FYI attorneys and ques- The Conference tions from judges of Chief Judges around Minnesota, meets at 9 a.m. the city suspended m ea t s a the the ticketing, await- . - Minnesota Judi ing the 'results of_a Mi Center, di s statewide judges' Constitution meeting this Friday. Ave St. Paul. The White Bear Lake City Council expressed_ shock last summer after Williams told the mayor and five mem- 'hers how an angry man accused him of recklessly driving his truck through a . neighborhood on June 13 and then assaulted him. "He hit me in the chest and kicked me in the groin, which put me on the ground, ", Williams told the council. "He proceeded to kick me 20 times or more, telling me if he caught me again on his street, I wouldn't get up . the next,time." For his alleged assailant, the case resulted in a plea -of disorderly conduct and finger - wagging from a Ramsey County District judge: Don't do that again. For White. Bear . Lake officials, who say they handle seven or eight; assaults a a imed at speeders who clock 3 to 9 mph over the limit. The police handed out 30 tickets that week, most charging a fee of $30. Police Chief Todd Miller said most were for offenses that otherwise would have re- ceived a arning instead of a citation. On Friday, the monthly Conference of Chief Judges of Minnesota will examine White Bear Lake's traffic ticketing as well as a growing trend among cities to impose municipal fines for all sorts of city code violations ranging from barking dogs to piled -up trash. Municipal authorities say the trend grows from a desire to return to local -lo- cal government and offers a way to cre- ate a distinct community that reflects residents' values, standards and goals. Most say the driving force is that state district courts are jammed with major cases and can't -- or won't -- sweat the small stuff. White Bear Lake City Manager Mark Sather tells a story of a judge who, one. morning several years ago, snorted at a case about horses grazing on a city lawn: "I have to hear a double homicide at one o'clock," the judge declared. That's one reason Minnetonka set up its "city court" in 1995, according to Minnetonka city attorney Desyl Peterson. "The judges aren't familiar with our local ordinances, the courts already have heavy calendars, and if it goes through district court the defendant is labeled a criminal; we felt that was harsh," she said. Kent Sulem, codification attorney with the Minnesota League of Cities agrees. A small, quickly imposed penalty, he said, can be more effective than a larger one, which may not be issued until after a delayed, adversarial proceeding. "An administrative solution is geared at making the system work," Sulem said. "We'd rather you fix the problem than to be extremely punitive, and then have nothing happen to the problem." • But some judicial officials wonder if .,White Bear' Lake may have pushed the :trend too fat'by',e�ttendirig it to .traffic;, Chlef:Ramsey.District Judge Larry, CO- . hen said, "It raises ` a( - b Hof questions as to its legality and to uniformity in one county let alone through the state and the state patrol. There's a whole lot of con- cerns here." One of those concerns is that White Bear Lake's traffic tickets don't automat- ically result in a moving - violation of- fense on a driving record. "It's laudable the police chief and city are trying • to solve a local problem," Cohen added. "But every time you come up with a solution, there's another prob- lem." The judges' meeting on Friday is just-,R discussion. It won't result in a judgment.: But White Bear • Lake officials* hope At will give them a sense of what the judges ' think about their traffic ticketing. "I certainly don't want to do it if Ws , not accepted -by the courts," said police Lt. Jan Pitman, who heads White Bear . Lake's :traffic patrol "Part of the reason we - -- did' this was to matte it easier for , e , courts." h :If the judge§ givelocal traffic�#ck a { Sather said, lie green light, City Manager won't start up the practice,agairi rnle$s the City Council formally amends its 1996 municipal :fine ordinance ?to ;. ad speeding to. already listed violations. a }, White Bear Lake's local traffic fine;-is $30 for exceeding the speed limit-by 1-to 5 mph, $35 for 6 to 10 mph over the limit, $40 for 10 to 15 mph over the limit and $50 for more. The statewide fines established by the Conference of Chief Judges of Minnesota range from $60 for less than 10 mph over the limit .to $131 for 30 mph over the limit. Sather also said the police department jumped the gun by launching the ticket- ing before a non -city employee was ap- pointed as hearing examiner to:: handle contested cases. Pitman, who has served as hearing ii- aminer for other offenses covered by the ordinance, had planned to handle the. traffic cases, too. But Sather said. he al =. ways intended to appoint someone who: doesn't work for the city. Sather added that he's not trying ;to. bring back the municipal court that was In the White Bear Lake City Hall until 12 years ago, when the Minnesota Legisla- ture consolidated municipal courts into - district courts. As for Ryan Williams, a manager and' machinist at Big A Auto Parts in White Bear Lake, he doesn't think much of whAt he calls "the mile -over -the limit tickets." He also insists he wasn't speeding in his Ford Bronco 4 -by -4, at least not very much, on the day he got beat up last summer.'' "With my truck it would be iinpossl ble," he said this week. "I'd just stopped = eight. houses, away.` h: could have made it to 35. I know °I -couldn't have done more: I've never been arrested for speeding! t � MEMORANDUM TO: Municipal Attorneys FROM: Jim Thomson DATE: April 27, 1998 RE: Administrative Offense Ordinances On March 20, 1998, I attended the conference of chief judges at which the administrative offense ordinance issue was discussed. I am enclosing a copy of my March 23, 1998, letter to Colleen Paulus at. the City of Brooklyn Park summarizing some of the items that were discussed at the meeting. It was obvious from the comments made by the judges that they do not believe the process should be used to enforce moving traffic violations. Desyl Peterson and Roger Jensen, the city attorney for White Bear Lake, made presentations to the conference. Mike Johnson, the staff attorney, also made a presentation regarding what he perceived to be the legal issues. Mr. Johnson did not come to any conclusion regarding the cities' authority; rather, he merely raised the legal issues that he saw as being relevant. The issues he raised were: 1. Minn. Stat. § 169.022 states that Chapter 169 governing the operation of vehicles shall be uniform throughout the state and no local authorities shall enact any rule or regulation in conflict with it. 2. Minn. Stat. § 462.362 allows a municipality to provide for the enforcement of ordinances or regulations adopted under the Municipal Planning Act and to provide penalties for those violations. 3. Minn. Stat. § 412.861 provides that violations of ordinances shall be brought in the name of the city upon complaint and warrant as in other criminal cases. 4. Due process issues. During his discussion on this subject, Mr. Johnson referred to two federal court decisions, one of which was from the Seventh Circuit. Apparently, both courts concluded that a city's use of an administrative process for parking tickets was not a violation of due process. JJT140284 BR270 -24 k 5. Minn. Stat. § 609.27 makes it a crime to threaten criminal charges. This statute contains an exception that a warning of the consequences of a future violation of law given in good faith by a peace officer or prosecuting attorney is not a violation. 6. Waiver of rights. Mr. Johnson was concerned about the voluntariness of the process if the person charged with the administrative violation did not voluntarily agree to waive the rights that the person would otherwise have under a criminal prosecution. 7. Separation of powers. Mr. Johnson's discussion on this topic was somewhat confusing. He seemed to be indicating that if the city was exercising quasi-judicial powers, there might be some problem. I think he missed the point on this one. Cities exercise quasi - judicial powers all the time. I know we have had discussions internally on a municipality's authority to adopt an administrative hearing process. For what it is worth, here is my conclusion on the topic. 1. Charter cities have the authority to adopt an administrative hearing process to enforce city ordinances. Whether statutory cities have the same authority is unclear. (If the administrative hearing process is voluntary, perhaps even statutory cities have the authority to use it). 2. Cities that use an administrative enforcement process should not use city employees as the hearing officers to avoid any hint of a due process violation. 3. The administrative hearing process should not be used for traffic violations and other violations of state law. 4. Failure by an individual to respond to an "administrative citation" issued by a city should not be a misdemeanor violation. If a city adopts a mandatory hearing process and an individual fails to respond, the matter should just be referred to the prosecutor for handling of the underlying offense, not the failure to respond to the administrative citation. Judge Lawrence Cohen, the chief judge of Ramsey County District Court, was the person who had the biggest problem with the administrative hearing process. He stated, however, that he did not object to such a process if used solely to enforce city code violations. I should also point out that the issue of loss of revenue by the District Courts was discussed. This is not an issue in Hennepin County, because in Hennepin County all fine revenues go to the cities. In other counties, the fine revenue is allocated between the cities and the county. JJT140284 BR270 -24 W V . eton�a. 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55345 612 - 939 -8266 Fax 612 - 939 -8248 February 24, 1998 Mike Johnson Staff Attorney State Court Administrator's Office City Attorney's Office Providing prosecution services for the cities of Minnetonka, Minnetrista and St. Bonifacius Desyl L. Peterson Direct Dial. 612 - 939 -8262 e -mail. &peIeqon@ci.minnetonka.mn.us 120 Judicial Center 25 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 RE: Minnetonka City Court Dear Mr. Johnson: You have asked for information regarding the Minnetonka City Court, which I will attempt to provide below. 1. What were the reasons for creating City Court and what is its focus? Minnetonka staff believed that Hennepin County District Court was not well suited for certain ordinance violations. Judges are not familiar with the myriad of different ordinances in each city, and calendars are overflowing with more typical state law violations which the judges are accustomed to handling. Delay is inevitable. Further, citizens do not like being labeled as "criminals" for most ordinance violations, and the District Court system requires them to take time off from work and wait during lengthy calendars. The hope was to create a system that would be more customer - friendly by offering hearings in the evening as well as during the day, with short calendars. The citizens would still be given the opportunity to tell their stories to an independent person, which is often all that they want. Resolution could be achieved swiftly. The system was not instituted as a means of getting greater revenue. In Hennepin County, all District Court fine revenues go to the cities, so there is no financial gain by using the city's own enforcement system. The focus of the system has been on enforcement of "code" violations. I have enclosed a summary of the cases to date, which shows a concentration on violations of the zoning code, health code, building code, nuisance ordinance, and animal control ordinance. Mike Johnson February 24, 1998 Page 2 2. What is the legal authority for creating City Court? Minnetonka is a charter city. A charter may grant all powers to the city that the Legislature could grant, as long as those powers have not been prohibited by Legislature. The Minnetonka Charter was amended to specifically provide for an administrative enforcement process. Enclosed are copies of those charter provisions. Statutory cities are in a different situation. Enclosed is a memo prepared by an attorney for the League of Minnesota Cities addressing the question of whether statutory cities may institute their own administrative enforcement programs. 3. Does City Court provide adequate due process? Under our system, each alleged offender is given notice of the alleged violation and an opportunity to request a hearing before an impartial third party. The Charter Commission selected 13 lawyers from over 127 who applied to be hearing officers. All 13 have experience as mediators, arbitrators, or conciliation court referees. In addition, the Charter Commission insisted that none of the hearing officers could either live or work in the city of Minnetonka. The ordinance provides guidance to the hearing officers on what factors they can use in making a decision and what remedies/fines they can impose. They cannot exceed the amount of the fine established in the City Council's fine schedule. Each hearing is tape- recorded, and the decision must be in writing. The offender has a right of appeal to the City Council only for matters related to a license or permit granted by the City Council. All other matters can be appealed in accordance with state law. I was not certain that we could by ordinance create a right of appeal to the courts, so I left the language purposefully ambiguous. Based on Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency, 551 N.W.2d 235 (Minn.App. 1996), which was decided after we started our program, I believe a person would have the right of appeal by writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. I have a concern about due process in only one section of our ordinance. The ordinance makes it mandatory for a person to participate in our City Court. Failure to respond to an administrative citation is a misdemeanor, and the person is deemed to have admitted the facts constituting the violation. Because I have concerns about whether this affords adequate due process, we are not enforcing that section. Rather, we regard the system as voluntary. If a person fails to respond, we simply initiate an action in District Court. This in effect gives the person the choice of proceeding in court rather than in our system. If they choose to submit to the City Court process, however, then the ordinance makes it a misdemeanor to subsequently fail to pay any fine. We felt that if people take advantage of the system, they should be bound by it. Mike Johnson February 24, 1998 Page 3 I hope that this adequately responds to your inquiry. If you would like further information, please let me know. Sincerely, 4 De*Peterson Minnetonka City Attorney MEMORANDUM TO: DESYL PETERSON, CITY ATTORNEY THROUGH: BETTY NORTON, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER FROM: KATHY MCCULLUM, ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 1998 SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE CITY COURT PROGRAM CITATIONS ISSUED Listed below are the City Court citations issued from September, 1995 to the present. A total of eight City Court hearings have been held since the program was established. viotazion Category I °Number:Issued Animal 11 Building, Plumbing, Electrical 14 Health 18 Nuisance 9 Zoning 10 Miscellaneous 3 TOTAL: 65 COSTS /FINES COLLECTED OF THE PROGRAM The City has incurred a total of $1765.13 in expenses for the program: Hearing Officer Fees: $ 900.00 Printing of Forms: $ 865.13 TOTAL: $1765.13 The City has received $6420.00 in fines since the program began. MINNETONKA CHARTER PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING CITY COURT PROCEDURES 12.12. Fines and Penalties. The council may establish by ordinance that a violation of a city ordinance is either a misdemeanor or a petty misdemeanor, punishable in accordance with state law. In addition, the council may establish by ordinance a procedure for imposing a civil penalty not exceeding $2000 for each violation of a city ordinance. This procedure must provide an opportunity for the accused to be heard by a neutral party, which may be the city council. 8.03. Assessments for Fees and Civil Penalties. The council may provide by ordinance that fees and civil penalties imposed by the city, including late payment penalties, may be assessed against property which was the subject matter, or related to the subject matter, of the fees and penalties, or property which was the location of an activity, proposed use, delivery of city service, or other circumstances which resulted in the fees and penalties. The ordinance shall provide that the city must first attempt to obtain voluntary payment of the fees and penalties. The ordinance shall further require the city to give notice and an opportunity to be heard to the property owner listed on the official tax records before the assessments are imposed. The assessments shall be collected like special assessments. Administrative Penalties in Minnesota ACBA, Government Section Administrative Penalties in Minnesota by Kent Salem, LMC Codification Attorney November 14,19% I. Definition: For the purpose of this paper, "Administrative Penalties" shall mean a System of citations and fines imposed and administered by a city for the violation of local ordinances. An opportunity for a hearing before a designated city hearing officer shall be given before any such penalty is imposed. II. Purpose: The general purpose of administrative penalties is to offer a more effective and efficient alternative to formal court proceedings (i.e. misdemeanor prosecutions) for certain types of offenses. On an increasing basis, city prosecutors are finding judges unwilling to hear a trial over what are perceived to be minor problems, or if a trial is conducted, only nominal penalties are imposed, often not enough to justify the expense of the prosecution. Further, court proceedings are intimidating to the accused, and in some circumstances, even just the threat of jail time may be to severe a penalty for certain types of offenses, even if the prosecutor knows it will never be imposed, thus discouraging enforcement of the ordinance. III. Advantages: - Less Costly - Less intimidating - Fosters better relations - Better compliance rates - City maintains control IV. Authority: There is no express authority for administrative penalties. It is generally accepted, however, that the power to adopt ordinances inherently implies the power to enforce them. (For a general discussion on the scope of authority for imposing penalties for ordinance violations, see 5 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 17 and 56 Am. Jur. 2d Municipal Corporations § 343 -427.) Statutory cities are authorized to impose up to a misdemeanor violation for ordinance offenses (Minn. Stat. § 412.231). A general legal principal is 1 of 1 Administrative Penalties in Minnesota ACBA, Government Section November 14, 1996 that the authority to do the greater implies the authority to do the lesser. Under Minnesota law, a misdemeanor carries a maximum penalty of up to $700 and/or 90 days in jail, plus the cost of prosecution. Thus, as long as r the administrative penalty sought is less, there is implied authority to impose it. The real question becomes, what level of penalty can be imposed and still be less than a misdemeanor. A straight fine of no more than $700 would satisfy the test, but the answer is less clear when fines exceed $700. Because jail time is possible, misdemeanor prosecutions are considered criminal in nature. Thus arguably as jail time is not involved and the offense would not be viewed as criminal in nature, any administrative fine could be considered less than a misdemeanor. In any case, however, the fine would have to be reasonable and proportionate to the nature of the offense. Excessive penalties can invalidate an ordinance. Home rule charter cities are not bound to the statutory cap of Minn. Stat. t 412.231 and thus appear to have even stronger arguments in favor of authorizing administrative penalties. Such authorization, however, would have to be contained in the city's charter, and thus a charter amendment may be required. V. Common Concerns: Because there is no express authority for administrative penalties, and because there have not yet been any test cases on this matter some city attorneys are reluctant to advise their cities to adopt such penalties. While the League of Minnesota Cities encourages caution, the consensus of League attorneys who have looked at this issue, as well that of a random survey of city attorneys who have dealt with it, is that there are strong enough arguments in favor of the authority to impose such penalties. Further, the risk of damages being awarded against a city from the use of such penalties appears to be nominal. The Minnesota Attorney General has also indicated his support for the use of administrative penalties. Nonetheless, these concerns need to be considered so that each city attorney can determine his or her comfort level in advising their individual city councils. The following are some of the most common concerns and the best argument a city could make in defense of administrative penalties: 2 of 2 Administrative Penalties in Minnesota ACBA, Government Section November 14, 1996 Concern City Argument Lack of Authority See section IV above Infringes on Courts exclusive realm of Cities act in quasi-judicial roles in many adjudication in violation of the Separation of situations such as zoning, license revocation, Powers of both the State and Federal etc. In addition, administrative fines have Constitutions. been issued by other entities such as OSHA and DOER for many years without successful challenge. Specific authority exists for fines for liquor violations and limited other local offenses. (Minn. Stat. 340A.304) Equal Protection Challenge by indigent This is more an'issue of implementation than unable to pay fine (particularly if violator has a per se constitutionality risk. Cities option to demand court process). imposing administrative penalties would need to make reasonable accommodations for those unable to afford the fine. Such accommodations could include allowing monthly installment payments. As long as the city is reasonable, there should be no problem of equal protection. (see Smith v. State 301 Minn 455, 223 N.W.2d 775 (1974)) VI. Key Elements: VII. Enforcement: - Designate a hearing officer or panel - Provide for notice requirement in the citation issued - Make hearing process clear - Avoid excessive fines (consider fine schedule) - Provide for right of appeal - Specify Exceptions - (Opt -out provision) - Provide hearing officers with clear guidelines and instruct on the importance of good findings of facts - Conciliation Court - Debt Collection Service - Penalty for late payment - Separate offense for failure to pay fine 3 of 3 Administrative Penalties in Minnesota November 14,19%: , ACBA, Government Section - Misdemeanor prosecution of original offense - Suspension or no renewal of related business license - (Assessment) VIII. Legislative Action: - 1995 Legislative consideration - 1997 NEAC proposal 4 of 4 RECEIVED NOV 2 61996 MEMORANDUM - !WIRONMENT MGMI & ENFORCEMENT SVCS TO CHARTER COMMISSION FROM BETTY NORTON, CITY CLERK KATHY MCCULLUM, ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR DATE OCTOBER 14, 1996 SUBJECT UPDATE ON THE CITY COURT PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The Minnetonka City Court was created by the City as an alternative forum for enforcing City ordinances. The City Court is authorized and by City ordinance a!l d is a method of enforcement intended to be more informal violators. HISTORY In January, 1993, the Council held a Work Session with the Charter Commission to discuss the potential of a Charter amendment and implementing ordinance creating a t - - -- ^'• —,,y y Code. On July 26, 1993, the Council �� � procedure to admisti ate ZI r - - � adopted an ordinance amendment to the City Charter authorizing the Administrative Enforcement Program. Preliminary a ^nroval of an ordinance creating the Administrative Enforcement Program and setting the parameters for Administrative Citations, Administrative Hearings, and Administrative Review of certain City Code violations within the City was given on November 22, 1993. This ordinance was --dopted on December 13, 1993. On April 24, 1995, the Council adopted resolutions establishing the schedule of fines for administrative violations and the establishment of fees for Hearing Officers. Also at that time, the Council granted preliminary approval of an ordinance amending the Code to make it a crime for failing to appear for a herring or pay a fine. Final approval of this ordinance was given by the Council on May 8, 1995. res From May through August, 1995 staff crea n ecessary using u the to implement the program and trained enforcement P ersonnel. Staff began City Court Program in September, 1995. COMPARISON OF DISTRICT COURT & ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY DESCRIPTION DISTRICT COURT ADNHNISTRATIVE PENALTY Citations Many citations are referred to the city Penalty imposed prosecutor Impact on the citizen Misdemeanor No criminal charge Criminal charge No jail time Threat of jail time No record Record for three years Formal Complaint Created if citation not paid None Mandatory Court Appearance If condition warrants mandatory court If condition warrants mandatory appearance court appearance Time heard in court 7 days to pay or schedule a court 7 days to pay or schedule a appearance 1 -2 months hearing - 2 weeks EXAMPLE OF RESOLUTION OF A VIOLATION 1. City responds to city code violation on a property - -5 bags of garbage along side of a house. 2. Inspector verifies violation and sends a correction notice to the property owner. Owner has 7- 10_days to correct violations. 3. Inspector re- inspects property notes bags of garbage still there, sends a final notice to correct violation. Owner is extended another 7 -10 days to correct violation. 4. Inspector re- inspects property notes violation remains. Inspector issues citation. 5. Citation is part of administrative penalty or district court process. 2 city of minn ka CO V.RT` C xh��5 Y { FOR HEARING OFFICERS � 4 f N F 4 - 5 - ✓ it City Clerk's Office 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 (612) 939 -8200 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Intent. The Minnetonka City Court was created by the City of Minnetonka as an alternative forum for enforcing City ordinances. The City previously used the criminal justice system for enforcement of its ordinances but found that system to be somewhat unsatisfactory: a. The delay in that system did not ensure prompt resolution b. Citizens resented being labeled as criminals for violations of administrative regulations. C. The higher burden of proof and potential of incarceration did not appear appropriate for most administrative violations. d. The criminal system did not always regard City ordinance violations as important. e. The criminal system required citizens to take time off from work to appear at court. The City Court is intended to avoid these disadvantages and to provide a forum which is more informal and less threatening to alleged violators. 1.2 Authority- The Minnetonka City Charter authorizes the City Council to establish by ordinance a procedure for imposing a civil penalty not exceeding $2000 for each violation of a city ordinance. This procedure must provide an opportunity for the accused to be heard by a neutral party. The City Council adopted City Code Sections 1300.02 through 1300.10 to govern administrative enforcement of the ordinances, including imposition of civil penalties. Pursuant to these sections, enforcement is commenced by the issuance of an administrative citation. The recipient may pay a fine established by City Council resolution or may request a hearing. If a hearing is requested, the procedures in this handbook are followed. 1 2. PRE - HEARING PROCEDURE 2.1 Selection of Hearing Officers The City Clerk's office will randomly select a hearing officer from the list of lawyers approved by the City Council. The Clerk will contact the selected lawyer and indicate the types of cases and the names of the people involved. 2.2 Self- Disqualification. Upon being assigned to a case, you must decide if there are grounds for self - disqualification. Grounds for such disqualification include: A. Personal interest in the action. B. Financial interest in the action. C. Relationship to any party. D. Former counsel for party. If any member of your firm would be disqualified under this provision, your are also disqualified. E. Bias or prejudice. If grounds for self - disqualification exist, they may be disclosed to the parties in writing and expressly waived by the parties in writing. Otherwise, you must notify the City Clerk's office of the disqualification, and another hearing officer will be selected. 2.3 Disqualification by Party. No later than five days before the date of the hearing, any party may file a written request with the City Clerk's office to remove the assigned hearing officer. The first such request by an accused will automatically be granted. Any subsequent request by an accused for the same matter and any request by the City will be referred to the assigned hearing officer, who will decide whether he or she cannot fairly and objectively hear the case. You must issue a written decision by the date of the hearing. If you grant the request, you should file the decision with the City Clerk as quickly as possible to allow for assignment of another hearing officer. If the request is not granted, you may either (a) file the decision with the City Clerk who will mail it to the requesting party or (b) serve it upon the requesting party at the scheduled hearing. 2.4 Hearing Time and Date. The City Clerk must schedule a hearing to occur within 30 days after receiving the accused's request for a hearing. The City Clerk's office will contact you for an available date and schedule the time and place for the hearing. You will generally be Pa expected to be available for one -half of a day or an evening. More than one matter may be scheduled for hearing during that time. 2.5 Notice of Hearing At least 10 days before the scheduled date, the City Clerk's office will send a notice of the hearing date, time, and location to you and all parties, unless a shorter time is accepted by all parties. The notice will contain the names of the parties and the type of violation alleged. 2.6 Continuances. A continuance of the hearing may be granted only by the City Clerk's office for good cause shown. Generally, continuances should be for no more than 10 days. 2.7 Pre - Hearing Communications Except for a subpoena request (see below), there must be no ex parte communication between you and the parties or parties' representatives. All scheduling and continuances will be handled by the City Clerk's office. 2.8 Subpoenas. Upon your own initiative or upon written request of a party who demonstrates the need, you may authorize issuance of a subpoena for the attendance of a witness or the production of documents which are material to the matter being heard. If you authorize a subpoena, notify the City Clerk's office who will obtain the necessary subpoena from the Hennepin County District Court (which will issue the subpoena based on authority of the Minnetonka City Charter). The party requesting the subpoena is responsible for serving it in the same manner as civil actions and paying fees and expenses of the witness. A person served with a subpoena may file an objection with you before time for compliance. You may cancel or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable or oppressive. You must notify the City Clerk's office if someone fails to comply with a subpoena. Failure to comply with a subpoena is a misdemeanor and constitutes contempt of court. �1 3. HEARING PROCEDURE 3.1 Reporting. You are requested to report to the City Clerk's office at least 15 minutes before the scheduled hearing. This will allow for any administrative tasks and last- minute changes. You may also review the files at this time. 3.2 Failure to Appear. The failure of an accused to appear constitutes an admission of the violation. You may proceed to impose a penalty. If the City representatives fail to appear, the charge must be dismissed. If the absent person contacts you or the City Clerk's office within a reasonable time after the scheduled hearing, you will be asked to rule on whether there was good cause for the absence. Examples of good cause are: death or incapacitating illness of the accused; a court order requiring the person to appear for another hearing at the same time; and lack of proper service of the citation or notice of the hearing. Good cause does not include: forgetfulness and intentional delay. 3.3 Hearing Introduction You should begin the hearing by introducing yourself and emphasizing your neutrality. You should also explain your role and how the hearing will proceed. You may also explain at this time the right to appeal. 3.4 Hearing Procedure The City Clerk's office will provide a tape recorder and tapes, and the hearing must be recorded. A representative from the City Clerk's office may be present to assist you. The procedure should be informal, without strict rules of evidence. You should make such rulings and take such action as deemed necessary to conduct a dignified and orderly hearing. You will determine whether to allow opening and /or closing statements. The parties have the right to present testimony and cross - examine each other's witnesses. The City bears the burden of proving a violation and should proceed first. You must administer an oath or affirmation to each witness. You will receive testimony and exhibits and give weight to evidence, including hearsay- evidence, which possesses probative value commonly accepted by reasonable and prudent people in the conduct of their affairs. Because this is a civil matter, you must find a violation only if the greater weight of the evidence supports such a finding. 4 3.5 Decision. You have the authority to determine that a violation occurred, to dismiss a charge, to impose the fine established in the City Council- approved schedule, and to reduce, stay, or waive the established amount of the fine either unconditionally or upon compliance with appropriate conditions. When a violation is found, you may consider any or all of the following factors in imposing a penalty: A. the duration of the violation, B. the frequency of reoccurrence of the violation, C. the seriousness of the violation, D. the history of the violation, E. the violator's conduct after issuance of the notice of hearing, F. the good faith effort by the violator to comply, G. the economic impact of the penalty on the violator, H. the impact of the violation upon the community, and I. any other factors appropriate to a just result. You may not impose a fine greater than the established fine but may impose a penalty for each day of a continuing violation if (a) the violation caused a serious threat of harm to the public health, safety, or welfare or (b) the accused intentionally and unreasonably refused to comply with the city code requirement. 3.6 Filing the Decision. You should try to announce your decision at the end of the hearing. If you feel uncomfortable in doing so, because of the desire for time to review evidence and reflect or because of an emotional party, you may announce that you are taking the matter under advisement. You must place your decision in writing with a brief description of your basis for the decision. A form will be provided for your convenience. If you make your decision at the end of the hearing, the City Clerk's representative will make copies for the parties. If a clerk is not present, call the City Clerk's office at ext. 214. If you take additional time to make a decision, you must provide a written decision to the City Clerk's office within ten days. That office will mail a copy to the parties. 5 4. POST - HEARING PROCEDURES 4.1 Appeal. In most cases, your decision will be final without the right to make an administrative appeal. The aggrieved party may, however, appeal your decision to district court. A decision in the following matters may be appealed to the City Council: A. An alleged failure to obtain a permit, license, or other approval from the City Council, B. An alleged violation of a permit, license, other approval, or the conditions attached, which was granted by the City Council, and C. An alleged violation of regulations governing a person who has received a license from the City Council. To exercise an appeal to the City Council, the person must submit a request in writing to the City Clerk within ten days after the hearing officer's decision. 4.2 Time to Pay The violator may have 30 days within which to pay the fine. A late payment fee of 10% of the fine will be imposed for each 30 -day period, or part thereof, after that time. 4.3 Consequences of Failure to Pay. If the person does not pay the fine, the City may: A. Assess the penalty against real property in the City which was the subject of the violation if the owner was responsible for the violation. B. Obtain a judgment and begin collection procedures. C. Suspend or revoke a City- issued license that is associated with the violation. D. Commence a criminal proceeding in District Court for failing to pay. G 5. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 5.1 Hearing Officer's Fees The hearing officer must submit to the City Clerk a signed application for fees on the form provided. No fees will be paid if any of the officer's decisions have not been timely filed, without good cause, at the Clerk's office. The fee will be $ 100 per half -day or evening for hearings and $10 each for your action on a request for disqualification, for a subpoena, for quashing a subpoena, or for a finding of good cause for a non - appearance. 5.2 Custody of File You should give to the Clerk's office all exhibits submitted at the hearing and the tape recording. If a party wishes to withdraw an exhibit, the Clerk will make a copy to keep with the Clerk's file. You are not expected to retain your notes regarding the matter. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN City of Minnetonka, a municipal corporation, V. Alleged Violator CHARGES: 1. 2. 3. 4. P The undersigned hearing officer received testimony regarding this matter at a hearing held on at Minnetonka City Hall, 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345. Based on this testimony and all of the evidence presented, the hearing officer determines the following: CITY OF MINNETONKA CITY COURT ) HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION ORDINANCE NO: 1 MINNETONKA CITY ORDINANCE CREATING THE CITY COURT Section 1300.02. Administrative Citations and Civil Penalties. Sections 1300.02 through 1300.10 shall govern administrative citations and civil penalties for violations of the City Code. Section 1300.03. Purpose. The City Council finds that there is a need for alternative methods of enforcing the City Code. While criminal fines and penalties have been the most frequent enforcement mechanism, there are certain negative consequences for both the City and the accused. The delay inherent in that system does not ensure prompt resolution. Citizens resent being labeled as criminals for violations of administrative regulations. The higher burden of proof and the potential of incarceration do not appear appropriate for most administrative violations. The criminal process does not always regard City Code violations as being important. Accordingly, the City Council finds that the use of administrative citations and the imposition of civil penalties is a legitimate and necessary alternative method of enforcement. This method of enforcement shall be in addition to any other legal remedy which may be pursued for City Code violations. Section 1300.04. General Provisions. 1. A violation of any provision of the City Code or the acts prohibited in Section 1300.00 is an administrative offense, which may be subject to an administrative citation and civil penalties pursuant to Sections 1300.02 through 1300.09. Each day a violation exists constitutes a separate offense. 2. An administrative offense may be subject to a civil penalty not exceeding $ 2000.00. 3. The City Council must adopt by resolution a schedule of fines for offenses initiated by administration citation. The City Council is not bound by that schedule when a matter is appealed to it for administrative review. The City Council may adopt a schedule of fees to be paid to administrative hearing officers. 4. The City Manager must adopt procedures for administering the administrative citation program. Minnetonka City Court Ordinance Page 2 Section 1300.05. Administrative Citation. 1. Any person authorized to enforce provisions of the City Code may issue an administrative citation upon belief that a Code violation has occurred. The citation must be issued in person or by mail to the person responsible for the violation or attached to the motor vehicle in the case of a vehicular offense. The citation must state the date, time, and nature of the offense, the name of the issuing officer, the amount of the scheduled fine, and the manner for paying the fine or appealing the citation. 2. The person responsible for the violation must either pay the scheduled fine or request a hearing within seven days after issuance. Payment of the fine constitutes admission of the violation. A late payment fee of 10% of the scheduled fine amount shall be imposed in accordance with Section 1300.09. Section 1300.06. Administrative Hearing. 1. The City Council shall periodically approve a list of lawyers, from which the City Manager will randomly select a hearing officer to hear and determine a matter for which a hearing is requested. The accused shall have the right to request no later than five days before the date of the hearing that the assigned hearing officer be removed from the case. One such request for each case will be granted automatically by the City Manager. A subsequent request must be directed to the assigned hearing officer who will decide whether he or she cannot fairly and objectively review the case. The City enforcement officer may remove a hearing officer only by requesting that the assigned hearing officer find that he or she cannot fairly and objectively review the case. if such a finding is made, the officer shall remove himself or herself from the case, and the City Manager shall assign another hearing officer. The hearing officer is not a judicial officer but is a public officer as defined by Minnesota Statute §609.415. The hearing officer must not be a City employee. The City Manager shall establish a procedure for evaluating the competency of the hearing officers, including comments from accused violators and City staff. These reports shall be provided to the City Council. 2. Upon the hearing officer's own initiative or upon written request of an interested party demonstrating the need, the officer may issue a subpoena for the attendance of a witness or the production of books, papers, records or other documents that are material to the matter being heard. The party requesting the subpoena shall be responsible for serving the subpoena in the Minnetonka City Court Ordinance Page 3 manner provided for civil actions and for paying the fees and expenses of any witness. A person served with a subpoena may file an objection with the hearing officer promptly but no later than the time specified in the subpoena for compliance. The officer may cancel or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable or oppressive. Any person who, without just cause, fails or refuses to attend and testify or to produce the required documents in obedience to a subpoena shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Alternatively, the party requesting the subpoena may seek an order from district court directing compliance. 3. Notice of the hearing must be served in person or by mail on the person responsible for the violation at least ten days in advance, unless a shorter time is accepted by all parties. At the hearing, the parties will have the opportunity to present testimony and question any witnesses, but strict rules of evidence shall not apply. The hearing officer shall tape record the hearing and receive testimony and exhibits. The officer shall receive and give weight to evidence, including hearsay evidence, which possesses probative value commonly accepted by reasonable and prudent people in the conduct of their affairs. 4. The hearing officer has the authority to determine that a violation occurred, to dismiss a citation, to impose the scheduled fine, and to reduce, stay, or waive a scheduled fine either unconditionally or upon compliance with appropriate conditions. When imposing a penalty for a violation, the hearing officer may consider any or all of the following factors: a. The duration of the violation, b. The frequency or reoccurrence of the violation, C. The seriousness of the violation, d. The history of the violation, e. The violator's conduct after issuance of the notice of hearing, f. The good faith effort by the violator to comply, g. The economic impact of the penalty on the violator, h. The impact of the violation upon the community, and Minnetonka City Court Ordinance Page 4 L Any other factors appropriate to a just result. The hearing officer may exercise discretion to impose a fine for more than one day of a continuing violation, but only upon a finding that (1) the violation caused a serious threat of harm to the public health, safety, or welfare or that (2) the accused intentionally and unreasonably refused to comply with the code requirement. The hearing officer's decision and supporting reasons must be in writing. 5. Except for matters subject to administrative review under Section 1300.07, the decision of the hearing officer is final without any further right of administrative appeal. In a matter subject to administrative review under Section 1300.07, the hearing officer's decision may be appealed to the City Council by submitting a request in writing to the City clerk within ten days after the hearing officer's decision. 6. The failure to pay the fine or request an appeal within 30 days after the citation or the failure to attend the hearing constitutes a waiver of the violator's rights to an administrative hearing and an admission of the violation. A hearing officer may waive this result upon good cause shown. Examples of "good cause" are: death or incapacitating illness of the accused; a court order requiring the accused to appear for another hearing at the same time; and lack of proper service of the citation or notice of the hearing. "Good cause" shall not include: forgetfulness and intentional delay. 1300.07. Administrative Review. 1. The hearing officer's decision in any of the following matters may be appealed by any party to the City Council for administrative review: a. An alleged failure to obtain a permit, license, or other approval from the City Council as required by an ordinance, b. An alleged violation of a permit, license, other approval, or the conditions attached to the permit, license, or approval, which was granted by the City Council, and C. An alleged violation of regulations governing a person or entity who has received a license granted by the City Council. Minnetonka City Court Ordinance Page 5 2. The appeal shall be heard by the City Council after notice served in person or by registered mail at least ten days in advance. The parties to the hearing shall have an opportunity to present oral or written arguments regarding the hearing officer's decision. 3. The City Council shall consider the record, the hearing officer's decision, and any additional arguments before making a determination. The Council is not bound by the hearing officer's decision, but may adopt all or part of the officer's decision. The Council's decision must be in writing. 4. If the Council makes a finding of a violation, it may impose a civil penalty not exceeding $2000.00 per day per violation, and may consider any or all of the factors contained in Section 1300.06 (4). The Council may also reduce, stay, or waive a fine unconditionally or based on reasonable and appropriate conditions. 5. In addition to imposing a civil penalty, the Council may suspend or revoke any City- issued license, permit, or other approval associated with the violation, if the procedure in City Code Section 800.20 has been followed. The hearing required in that section shall be satisfied by the hearing before the hearing officer with the right of appeal to the City Council. 1300.08. Judicial Review An aggrieved party may obtain judicial review of the decision of the hearing officer or the city council in accordance with state law. 1300.09. Recovery of Civil Penalties. 1. If a civil penalty is not paid within the time specified, it shall constitute: a. a lien upon the real property upon which the violation occurred if the property or improvements on the property was the subject of the violation and the property owner was found responsible for that violation, or b. a personal obligation of the violator in all other situations. 2. A lien may be assessed against the property and collected in the same manner as taxes. I*. Minnetonka City Court Ordinance Page 6 3. A personal obligation may be collected by any appropriate legal means. 4. A late payment fee of 10% of the fine shall be assessed for each thirty - day period, or part thereof, that the fine remains unpaid after the due date. 5. During the time that a civil penalty remains unpaid, the provisions of City Code Section 117 shall apply to any license, permit, or other City approval sought by the violator or for property under the violator's ownership or control. 6. Failure to pay a fine is grounds for suspending or revoking a license associated with the violation. Section 1300.10. Criminal Penalties. The following are misdemeanors, punishable in accordance with state law: 1. Failure, without good cause, to pay a fine or request a hearing within thity days after issuance of an administrative citation. 2. Failure, without good cause, to appear at a hearing which was scheduled under Section 1300.06. 3. Failure to pay a fine imposed by a hearing officer within 30 days after it was imposed, or such other time as may be established by the hearing officer, unless the matter is appealed under Section 1300.07. 4. Failure to pay a fine imposed by the City Council within 30 days after it was imposed, or such other time as may be established by the City Council. MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Thomson FROM: Scott Riggs DATE: March 17, 1998 RE: Administrative Penalties Jim: Per your request, please find following the Administrative Offenses (702.02) section of the Mounds View City Code. In addition, please find following the code and charter provisions referenced within Sec. 702.02: Code Sec. 104.01 and Charter Sec. 6.03. In addition, as the clerk-administrator is responsible for the administration of the administrative penalties set forth in Sec. 702.02, I have a call in to Chuck Whiting regarding this matter. I also met yesterday concerning this matter with Kent Sulem of LMC and Floyd Olson.' Kent had discussed this matter with someone at the court administrator's office and it was noted that the judges were interested in revenue losses because of such city courts, but were also interested in "livable communities" issues including local ordinance enforcement issues. Kent has also been asked to be present on Friday. I pointed out to Kent the apparent requirements of Art. 6, Sec. 1 of the Minnesota Constitution (attached for your reference) and the concerns that this provision appears to raise as to questions of authority for city administrative "courts ". While LMC through Stan Peskar and Kent Sulem had been tacitly stating that there was implied authority for statutory cities to have administrative courts, I noted that pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 412.861, statutory cities appear to be somewhat constrained by the procedural requirements for enforcement of ordinances set forth therein (i.e., enforce ordinance violations as other criminal offenses). During our meeting it was agreed that the "authority" question would best be solidified through legislative action. We also discussed the matter with Desyl Peterson, who noted that she had only looked at this matter from the standpoint of a charter amendment and the inherent authority granted therein to 'I also discussed with Kent the problems apparently created by the recent tobacco legislative edicts and the interplay such ordinances have with administrative penalties and "city courts ". SJR140030 MU210 -4 March 17, 1998 Page 2 charter cities (matters of "local concern "). We also briefly discussed the constitutional requirements of Art. 6, Sec. 1, which Desyl said she may review before Friday. In addition, Desyl noted that draft language as to "city court" authority was contained in the proposed NEAC legislation, but neither she nor Kent knew the status of the language. [Kent will be checking further into the NEAC legislation]. Desyl's also provided some responsive comments to Mike Johnson of the court administrator's office, which are enclosed for your review. Please let me know if you need anything further regarding this matter. Scott SJR140030 MU210 -4 Ixxii CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MINNF,SOTA er —in —chief of the military and naval forces and may call them out to execute the laws. sup- press insurrection and repel invasion. He may require the opinion in writing of the principal officer in each of the executive departments upon any subject relating to his duties. With the advice and consent of the senate he may appoint notaries public and other officers provided by law. He may appoint commissioners to take the acknowledgment of deeds or other instru- ments in writing to be used in the state. He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He shall fill any vacancy that may occur in the offices of secretary of state. treasurer, auditor, attorney general and the other state and district offices hereafter created by law' until the end of the term for which the person who had vacated the office was elected Ol the first Monday in January following the next general election, whichever is sooner, and until a successor is chosen and qualified. Sec. 4. Ternts and salaries of executive officers. The term of office of the secretary of state, treasurer, attorney general and state auditor is four years and until a successor is chosen and qualified. The duties and salaries of the executive officers shall be prescribed by law Sec. 5. Succession to offices of governor and lieutenant governor. in case a vacancy occurs from any cause whatever in the office of governor, the lieutenant governor shall - governor during such vacancy. The compensation of the lieutenant governor shall be pre- scribed by law. The last elected presiding officer of the senate shall become lieutenant gover- nor in case a vacancy occurs in that office. In case the governor is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the same devolves on the lieutenant governor. The legislature may provide by law for the case of the removal, death, resignation, or inability both of the governor and lieutenant governor to discharge the duties of rn goveor and may provide by law for continuity of government in periods of emergency resulting from disasters caused by en- emy attack in this state, including but not limited to, succession to the powers and duties of public office and change of the seat of government. Sec. 6. Oath of office of state officers. Each officer created by this article before enter ing upon his duties shall take an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of this state and to discharge faithfully the duties of his office to the best of his judgment and ability. Sec. ?. Board of pardons. The governor, the attorney general and the chief justice of the supreme court constitute a board of pardons. its powers and dirties shall be defined and regulated by law. The governor in conjunction with the board of pardons has power to grant reprieves and pardons after conviction for an offense against the state except in rases of inr peachment. ARTICLE V I JUDICIARY Section 1. judicial power. Tile judicial power of the state is vested in a supreme court, a court of appeals, if established by the legislature, a district court and such other courts, judi- cial officers and commissioners with jurisdiction inferior to the district court as the legisla ture may establish. [Amended, November 2, 19821 Sec. 2. Supreme court. The supreme court consists of one chief judge and not less than six nor more than eight associate judges as the legislature may establish. it shall have original jurisdiction in such remedial cases as are prescribed by law, and appellate jurisdiction in all cases, but there shall be no trial by jury in the supreme court. The legislature may establish a court of appeals and provide by law for the number of its judges, who shall not be Judges of any other court. and its organization and for the review of its decisions by the supreme court. The court of appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction over all courts, except the supreme court, and other appellate jurisdiction as prescribed by law. As provided by law judges of the court of appeals or of the district court may be assigned temporarily to act n J i empO ar ly b ytile supreme u court to acte as a ju juc gesof the court court may be assignee temporarily ) peals. The supreme court shall appoint to serve at its pleasure a clerk, a reporter, a state law librarian and other necessary employees. [Amended, November 2, 19821 Ixxiii Sec. civil and Sec . tricts sha not be ah Each jud his selec Sec peals any and judi scribed Novenl Sep district t serve co under th elective vember Se until ill, they an Se appoint is elcct� electioi St retirem for reti legislat is distil S decide tration ings, i. of tax( S by law assum S court serve age o in the The I prece or pe merit pers< of hi P' Ixxiii CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Sec. 3. Jurisdiction ot'district court. The district court has original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases and shall have appellate jurisdiction as prescribed by law. Sec. 4. Judicial districts; district judges. The number and boundaries of judicial dis- tricts shall be established in the manner provided by law but the office of a district judge shall not be abolished during his term. There shall be two or more district judges in each district. Each judge of the district court in any district shall be a resident of that district at the time of his selection and during his continuance in office. Sec. a. Qualifications; compensation. Judges of the suptrnle court, the court of ap- peals and the district court shall be learned in the law. The qualifications ()fall other judges and judicial officers shall be prescribed by law. The compensation of all judges shall be pre- scribed by the legislature and shall not be diminished during their term of office. [Amended, November 2, 1982] Sec. 6. Holding other office. A judge of the supreme court. the court of appeals or the district court shall not hold any office under the United States except a com ill isstoll in a re- serve component of the military forces of the United States and shall not hold any other office under this state. His term of office shall terminate at the time he files as a candidate for an elective office of the United States or for a notijudicial office of this state. [Amended, No- vember 2. 1982] Sec. 7. Term of office; election. The term of office of all judges shall be six years and until their successors are qualified. They shall be elected by the voters from the area which they are to serve in the manner provided by law. Sec. S. Vacancy, Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of judge the governor shall appoint in the manner provided by law a qualified person to fill the vacancy until a successor is elected and qualified. The successor shall be elected for it six year term at the next general election occurring more than one year after the appointment. Sec. 9. Retirement, removal and discipline. The legislature may provide by law for retirement of all judges and for the extension of the term of any judoe who becomes eligible for retirement within three years after expiration of the term for which he is selected. The legislature may also provide for the retirement, removal or other discipline of any judge who is disabled, incompetent or guilty of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Sec. 10. Retired judges. As provided by law a retired judge may be assigned to hear and decide anv cause over which the court to which he is assigned has jurisdiction. Sec. 11. Probate jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction in law and equity for the adminis- tration of the estates of deceased persons and all guardianship and incompetency proceed - ings, including jurisdiction over the administration of trust estates and for the determination of taxes contingent upon death, shall be provided by law. Sec. 12. Abolition of probate court; status of judges. If the probate court is abolished by law, judges of that court who are learned in the law shall become judges of the court that assumes jurisdiction of matters described in section I I . Sec. 13. District court clerks. There shall be in each county one clerk of the district court whose qualifications, duties and compensation shall be prescribed by law. He shall serve at the pleasure of a majority of the judges of the district court in each district. ARTICLE VII ELECTIVE FRANCHISE d Section 1. Eligibilit place of voting; ineligible persons. Every person 18 years of age or more who haN been a citizen of the United States for three months and who has resided in the precinct for 30 days next preceding an election shall be entitled to vote in that precinct. g n by one otherwise qualified who has changed his residence within 30 days The place of votin preceding the electio shall be prescribed by law. The follo� king persons shall not be entitled or permitted to vote at any election in this state: A person not meeting the above require- ments, a person n who has bee convicted of treason or felony, unless restored to civil rights; a person under guardianship, or a person who is insane or not mentally competent. Sec. 2. Residence. For the purpose of voting no person loses residence solely by reason of his absence while employed in the service of the United States; nor while wed upon e en .�tl 473 STATU cr 412.861 nances and other matters as are required by law to be so published and such other matters as the council may deem it advisable and in the public interest to have published in this manner. History: 1949 c 119 s 100; 1973 c 123 an 2 s J subd 2 412.841 [Repealed, 1976 c 44 s 701 412.851 VACATION OF STREETS. The council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof, on its own motion or on petition of a majority of the owners of land abutting on the street. alley, public grounds, public way, or part thereof to be vacated. When there has been no petition, the resolution may be adopted only by a vote of four — fifths of all members Of the council. No such vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so after a hearing preceded by two weeks' published and posted notice. The council shall cause written notice of the hearing to be mailed to each property owner affected by the pro- posed vacation at least ten days before the hearing. The notice must contain, at minimum, a copy of the petition or proposed resolution as well as the time, place, and elate of the hearing. In addition, if the street, alley. public grounds, public way, or any part thereof terminates at or abuts upon any public water, no vacation shall be made unless written notice of the petition or proposed resolution is served by certified mail upon the commissioner of natural resources at least 30 clays before the hearing on the matter. The notice to the commissioner of natural re- sources is for notification purposes only and does not create a right of intervention by the commissioner. After if resolution of vacation is adopted, the clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of the proceedings which shall contain the name of the city, an identification of the vacation. a statement of the time of completion thereof and a description of the real estate and lands affected thereby. The notice shall be presented to the county auditor who shall enter the same in the transfer records and note upon the instrument, over official signature, the words "entered in the transfer record.' The notice shall then be filed with the county record- er. Any failure to file the notice shall not invalidate any such vacation proceedings. Historv: 1949 c 1/9s 102; 1953 c 735 12; /9,57 c 383 s 1: 1967 c 289 15; 1969 c 9 s 85; 1973 c 123 art 2 s I subd 2; 1973 c 494 s H; 1976 c 181 s 2; 1986 c 444; 1989 c 183 s 4; 1990 c 433 s 2 412.861 i'ROSECUTIONS, VIOLATIONS OF ORDINANCES. Subdivision 1. Complaint. All prosecutions for violation of ordinances shall be brought in the name of the city upon complaint and warrant as in other criminal cases. If the accused be arrested without if warrant, if written complaint shall thereafter be made. to which the accused shall be required to plead, and it warrant shall issue thereon. The warrant and all other process in such cases shall be directed for service to any police officer, marshal, process officer, court officer, or constable of any town or city in the county, to the sheriff of the county. or all of them. Subd. 2. Form and contents of complaint. It shall be a sufficient pleading of the ordi- nances or resolutions of the city to refer to them by section and number or chapter. They shall have the effect of general laws within the city and need not be given in evidence upon the trial of civil or criminal actions. Judgment shall be given, if for the plaintiff, for the amount of fine. penalty, or forfeiture imposed, with costs; and the judgment shall direct that, in default of payment, the defendant be committed to the county for such time. not exceeding 90 days, as the court shall see fit. The commitment shall state the amount of judgment. the costs, and the period of commitment. Every person so committed shall be received by the keeper of the jail and kept, at the expense of the county, until lawfully discharged. The committing court may release the defendant at any time upon payment of the fine and costs. Subd. 3. Appeal to court of appeals. Appeals may be taken to the court of appeals in the manner prescribed by court rule. On appealing, the defendant shall give bond to the city, to be approved by the court, conditioned that, if the judgment be affirmed to whole or in part, the defendant \k ill pay the judgment, and all costs and damages awarded against the defendant on the appeal. In case of affirmance, execution may issue against both defendant and the defen- dant's sureties. Upon perfection of the appeal, defendant shall be discharged from custody. History: l 949 c 119s 103; 1953 c 735 s 13: 1955 c 867 s 7; l 973 c 34 s 5; 1973 c 123 crrt 2 s l subd 2; 1970 c 2 s 132; / 983 c 359 s 66: / 984 c 387s 2; 1986 c 444 ( k ( ifP i if E t:4� JAMES J. THOMSON Attomey at Law Direct Dial (612) 337 -9209 email: jthomson @kennedy - graven.com April 27, 1998 Ms. Colleen Paulus Deputy Director Community Development Department City of Brooklyn Park 5200 85th Avenue North Brooklyn Park MN 55443 -4300 RE: Administrative Penalties Ordinance Dear Colleen: This is a follow -up to my April 9, 1998 letter and our voice mail messages concerning the amendments to the administrative penalties ordinance. Because the administrative penalties ordinance will be used to process City Code parking regulations, I recommend that the second sentence in Section 903.50, Subd. 1 be amended to read: "The citation must be issued in person by first class mail or to the person responsible for the violation or attached to the motor vehicle in the case of a non- moviniz vehicular code violation It is my understanding that you and Wade are comfortable with the other changes I suggested in my April 9, 1998 letter. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, James J. Thomson JJT:lh cc: Police Chief Wade Setter JJT141596 BR270 -24 i. JAMES J. THOMSON Attomey at Law Direct Dial (612) 337 -9209 email: jthomson@kennedy- graven.com April 27, 1998 Ms. Colleen Paulus Deputy Director Community Development Department City of Brooklyn Park 5200 85th Avenue North Brooklyn Park MN 55443 -4300 RE: Administrative Penalties Ordinance Dear Colleen: This is a follow -up to my March 23, 1998 letter concerning the concerns raised by the chief judges to the administrative penalties ordinance in White Bear Lake and Minnetonka. As I indicated in my previous letter, the primary issues that the judges were concerned about were the use of the administrative procedure process to address violations of state statute and due process requirements. I have reviewed the ordinance in light of the concerns raised by the chief judges and I have the following comments: 1. Section 903.50, subdivision 1 states that an administrative citation must be issued in person or by first -class mail or "attached to the motor vehicle in the case of a vehicular offense." I am assuming that the quoted provision is there to cover the junk vehicle type violations and not because the City intends to use the administrative penalties ordinance to enforce parking tickets or moving traffic violations. If my assumption is correct, we could probably delete that phrase in Section 903.50, because citations for junk vehicles can always be delivered to the owner of the property on which the vehicles are located. I also recommend that the period to either pay the fine or request a hearing be changed from seven to ten days. 2. Section 903.60, subdivision 5.A states that the failure to pay a fine, to request a hearing, or to attend the hearing constitutes a waiver of the violator's right to an administrative hearing and is an admission of the violation. I have discussed this JJT141251 BR270 -24 J R Ms. Colleen Paulus April 27, 1998 Page 2 particular provision with Desyl Peterson, the City Attorney for Minnetonka, to see what their experience has been. I am concerned about the due process issue associated with that provision. Desyl indicated that Minnetonka has not been enforcing this provision. Instead, if a person fails to respond to an administrative citation, the City simply initiates a misdemeanor action in district court for the underlying violation for which the administrative citation has been issued. Based on the concerns raised by the chief judges, I am skeptical that a court would uphold the provision as it is currently written. My suggestion is that we delete subdivision 5.A and move the text in subdivision 5.13 into the main paragraph in subdivision 5. 3. Section 903.100 states that the failure to pay the fine or to request a hearing after the issuance of an administrative citation and the failure to appear at the hearing are misdemeanors. For the reasons set forth above, I doubt that a court would uphold a misdemeanor violation against a person for merely failing to take part in the administrative penalty process. I therefore suggest that we delete those two paragraphs and renumber C and D to subdivision 1 and subdivision 2 respectively. I suggest that the City not use the phrase "City Court" in the materials that will be prepared after the ordinance is adopted. We should come up with a new term, such as "Administrative Hearing" or "Administrative Penalty ". As I indicated in my voice mail message, it would probably be best if you, Wade Setter, and I have a telephone conference to discuss my suggested changes and how they might impact the day -to -day operation of the ordinance. Sincerely, James J. Thomson JJT:lh cc: Police Chief Wade Setter JJT141251 BR270 -24