The URL can be used to link to this page

051997 CC WS AgP To: Mayor and City Council ~ From: James C. Hurm, City Administrator Date: May 15, 1997 Re: Jerry O'Neil's Comprehensive Plan List Jerry reviewed his Comprehensive Plan list and reorganized the items under several headings. There is only one Council policy discussion point at this time. The others can be brought up with the Planning Commission by Jerry or in work session. The remainder are rewording questions or inquiries into implementation status. Please bring this to Monday's work session. City Council Discussion: CF-19 through CF-20 (change) Water System l.. Planning Commission Discussion Issues: LU-6 Lake Access (work on) fire lanes LU-35 #s 1-3 (work on) LU-35 #s 4 & 5 (change) Cluster and PUD LU-36 #s 7-16 (work on) ~ :' Planning "- LU-9 LU-9 LU-9 LU-28 TR-9 Commission Discussion Issues for 1998: #9 (change) Land Cost #11 (work on) Density and Lot Size #13 (change) Cluster and PUDS #s 1-15 (work on) #2 & 5 Parking & 1-8 Mass Transit (work on/review) For Rewording: L U -17 Design Concept/PUDS (change) Cluster LU-21 Low to Medium (change) Development Cost LU-27 (see note) What about LU-9 #18? TR-7 #2 (what does this mean?) TR-7 #3 (what does this mean?) TR-8 #14 (change) Cluster and PUD CF-3 #5 (change) Water System CF-5 "Update - Water System" (change) CF-39 #1 & #8 (change) Water System CF -39 #s 6 & 7 (what has been done?) Water Policies and Capacity CF-40 #9 (change) Water System CF-40 #19 (work on) Garbage Districts CF-40 #20 (work on) Underground Wiring Inquiry on Implementation: LU-7 #2 (?)(work on) LU-31 Subdivision Regulations Update (work on) I' I' L U _ 3 2 Inventory of Housing Plan (work on) LU-34 3rd Paragraph (work on) Lake Access TR-8 #15 (what has been done?) Garbage Trucks TR-17 #3 (look at/work on) CF -6 Stormwater Mgrnt & Solid Waste (trucks) & last paragraph - Overhead Wires (work on) CF-12 #15 (what has been done?) Recreation Program Study CF-13 #s 1-4 (what has been done?) Public Utilities CF-14 #s 1-3 (what has been done?) Energy CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION CITY OF SHOREWOOD MONDA Y, MAY 19, 1997 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AGENDA . 7:00 pm 1. CONVENE WORK SESSION ~" A. Roll Call ~: .:;. f 1 ... B. Review Agenda I ~.~ '. , ~ 2. INTERVIEW APPLICANTS FOR VACANCY ON PARK , COMMISSION (in conference room) :..~. f 6:45 - 6:55 p.m. Roxanne Martin !ii"j ...~ jr 6:55 - 7:05 p.m. Peter Hajjar li:. .' ~.. 11' ;. 7:05 - 7:15 p.m. Ann Packard , 7: 15 - 7:25 p.m. Chuck Cochran it',; 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW (in Council Chambers) 7:30 pm Transportation Highway 7 Intersection Closings Strawberry Lane 8:15 pm Senior Housing 4. ADJOURN Bring your Comprehensive Plan to the meeting. . . ./" / / \,---//'/ ROXANNE M. MARTIN 5750 Christmas LIe. Rd Shorewood, MN. 55331 Ph. 612-470-9585 Fax: 612-470-9585 May 6, 1997 ._- i:\ Ii;; '0 Ie .:::J nl IID,[f;(~,cU i'~lnL ;~ [viA' 6 1997 ~I By City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Rd. Shorewood,~. 55331 Re: Park Commissioner opening Dear City Council Members, I recently completed a 3 yr. term (1994-1996), with the park commission of Shorewood. It was a rewarding experience being involved with the improvements of our parks, for the enjoyment of our community's residents. It also was exciting and interesting to learn more about the City in which I live, being a part of the team making our community a better place to live. I resigned, to head-up a few neighborhood issues and family demands, with hopes of rejoining the park commission, when I felt I could fully recommit my time and energies. I am now happy to say, I would like to re-apply for the opening. I can be contacted during the day/evening at: 470-9585 I look forward to hearing from you. JI/)~ . . Peter D. Hailar 25380 Smithtown Roa&- _.... . Shorewood, MN 5533~~~ Ie' I '\# ~ R ! I~ M A, 7 1997 ~I May 7, 1997 ~y I To: The City of Shorewood Park Commissioner: I would like to announce my application for the open seat on the City Of Shorewood Park Commission. If there is anything further I need to do, or if you have any questions, please call me at 470-8755. I look forward to hearing from you. ~2:' H:--2- ..e.. //~// Peter D. Hajjar . . ANN N. PACKARD 5735 Brentridge Drive Shorewood. MN 55331 474-1874 May 4. 1997 _....-..;~~o\ -.-<" . \ ,\\'\\ -. .-----.-:::......-:.... \-c;. \\ \;J I\.~.. ~3\\ -.r';" (( "t:::- \}. \~~ -\ \? "Y; '/. _. \, \\ :.- ..'.'\ I';:::::' .. .,~<j f \ \\\J\ \" '.j ry ~~ - ) \' "';\ ~.~ ,", ' ,~ City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood. MN 55331 Dear Members of the Council: I am requesting that you consider this letter and the enclosed resume as my application for appointment to fIll the vacant position on the Shorewood Park Commission. I have been a resident of Shorewood since 1980. have a high-level. active interest in the community and am a strong. level-headed husiness WOman with a high level of integrity. I believe I can bring a balanced. unbiased perspective to the Park Commission and I am willillg to work hard to help make Shorewood's parks among the best in the area. I can be reached at 707-7010. during business hours or at 474-1874 in the evenings. I look forward to hearing from you soon for the purpose of setting up an interview. Sincerely. ~~ Ann N. Packard OBJECTWE: SUMMARY: ANN N. PACKARD 5735 Brentridge Drive Excelsior. MN 55331 (612) 474-1874 A challenging upper management position in sales. marketing. or client services that requires a broad range of business decisions. supervision of people and management of related activities. Over 25 years of successful diversifIed management experience in consumer and business-to-business organizations. Highly skilled planner. sales executive and manager of customer service. consumer affairs and client relationships. BUSINESS EXPERIENCE: ASSET MARKETING SERVICES, INC. Oct. 1995- Presen t Feb. 1994 March 1995 1980-1993 March 1992- Dec. 1993 July 1991- March 1992 Burnsville. Minnesota . Director, Client Services Have brought professional management systems and approaches to a rapidly growing company. Asset Marketing provides inbound and outbound telemarketing for collectible coins and sports memorabilia. Responsibilities include the management and growth of existing clients' customer name bases. as well as new business development. WBX DIRECT Minneapolis. Minnesota (Formerly More Marketing & Sales Force Productivity) Director, Client Services Managed client's strategic planning. database/list management. telemarketing. creative development and execution. inquiry fulfIllment. back-end analysis. and reporting. Developed strong relationships with client base. GAGE MARKETING GROUP, INC. Plymouth. Minnesota (Formerly a division of Carlson Marketing Group. Inc.) Vice President Sales Responsible for sales and sales development for the Eastern Region. and later. the Western Region. Included management of six account executives in each area. as well as their support staff. with total sales in excess of fIve million per region. Managed on- going business relationships and new business development in a team atmosphere, in a highly competitive service environment. National Account Manager Directed the successful launch of the Reader's Digest accountu- one of the largest clients at $2 million plus in annual sales. This start-up client required strong leadership and team-building skills. . BUSINESS EXPERIENCE: (continued) July 1989 - July 1991 June 1985 - July 1989 .gust 1981 - May 1985 Dec.1980- July, 1981 May 1980- Nov. 1980 . 1970-1980 EDUCATION: PERSONAL: " GAGE MARKETING GROUP, INC. (continued) (Formerly a division of Carlson Marketing Group, Inc.) Director, Sales Administration and Client Services Successfully managed client support services in Minneapolis and E1 Paso,Texas, along with a variety of sales administration functions. Account Executive Responsibility for some of the largest accounts in the U.S. Exceeded budgeted sales goals to achieve Goalmaker status and special sales achievement awards for two successive years. Director, Information Processing Managed the processing of all consumer orders. processing, data entry and quality. In less revitalized the Information Processing Center. included management of nearly 300 people. Included order than one year, Responsibilities Manager, Customer Service Along with Consumer Service, was responsible for ten Account Coordinators. Successfully revised the position and responsibilities of the Coordinators, strengthening their effectiveness in this critical service area. Manager, Consumer Service Manageq 25 employees handling over one million consumer related issues per year. After several years of declining efficiencies, shortened turn-around time from several weeks to four days, while improving relationships with all interfacing areas. PARKER BROTHERS Salem, Massachusetts Held various administrative position& within the Marketing Department, including the successful development of regional, national and world Monopoly tournaments and the establishment of Parker Brother's first Consumer Response Department Bachelor of Arts Degree in Business Management Enjoy traveling, sailing, cross-country skiing, and reading. Mentor in Minnesota 100 Program. . . To: Shorewood City Council Attn: Mr. Jim Hurm May 7, 1997 From: Chuck Cochran 591 5 Strawberry Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 (612)470-9281 Re: Park Commission Vacancy Dear Shorewood City Council, I am interested in being considered for the available Shorewood Park Commissioner opening. As a nine year resident of Shorewood, I've watched with interest the many changes that have taken place in this town. My wife, Carrie, and I enjoy raising our three children here and attempt to stay informed in local politics. My interest in this position stems from a desire to help keep Shorewood a highly desirable place to live. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, -----.----- ....-.--..":....1:=....\).':; it ii ~.VJ./I~!\.rJ'\. W' \. '--,\ !.',~, 7 :QO,! I, ii U U "I - . '~"J. b By . . . . To: From: Date: Re: Mayor and City Council James C. Rurm, City Administrator May 12, 1997 Assessing for Street Reconstruction May 19 Work Session Packet !rJ J Attached please find material which explains the history of consideration of a street reconstruction assessment ordinance. It includes the Report of the Street Reconstruction Task Force and explains how estimates of "needs" were arrived at. It includes a draft of the proposed ordinance itself and a November 20, 1995 memo which explains why it was never adopted. This should be revisited before reconstruction of Strawberry Lane is considered. t' .. RESOLUTION NO. 54 -92 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A STREET RECONSTRUCTION FINANCING TASK FORCE WHEREAS, many Shorewood City streets were restored in the early 1970's following sanitary sewer installation; and WHEREAS, a typical street cross section is neither urban nor rural design but rather a rural design with little or no ditch to handle water runoff; and WHEREAS, many city streets will soon need reconstruction with corrective base and drainage work to extend its normal life span.; and WHEREAS, City policy has been: . . At the time a new street is built the owner or developer has the responsibility to pay for the improvements; and . Maintenance during the normal life of a street, including simple overlays, is the responsibility of the city as a whole; and WHEREAS, the City Council desired to establish a Task Force to analyze financing options to address coming reconstruction needs and to recommend a financing policy to the City council within two months of the first Task Force meeting; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City council of the city of Shorewood that a temporary street Reconstruction Financing Task Force is created to operate within the following parameters: . PURPOSE The Task Force is created to investigate, make recommendations on and prepare a draft policy and ordinance to present to the City council, regarding fair and equitable financing of street reconstruction including sources from state aid funds, general revenue and special assessments. OBJECTIVES: The Task Force shall address a full range of issues in their report to the City council relating to street reconstruction financing: . Define a "reconstructed street" . Review street reconstruction needs and review funding options . Develop a program to match projected revenues with projected needs . Propose a fair and equitable method and procedure of financing the reconstruction of streets l\- .. TASK FORCE MAKE UP: The Task Force shall be made up of three Shorewood residents who shall be voting members. A City Councilmember and a Planning Commission member shall be non-voting liaison. The Finance Director and City Engineer shall be non-voting members and provide staff support. The City Council shall appoint the member and designate the chairperon by separate resolution. EXPENDITURE OF FUND: Expenditure of funds in the form of engineering staff support shall be authorized in advance by the City Council. Normal City policies and procedures shall be followed. PROCEDURE: Meetings shall be called by the Chair by requesting the City. Administrator to send a notice of the time and place of the meeting and an agenda to the committee members. Notice will be posted at regular locations and mailed to the press at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. SUNSET: The mission of the Task Force shall be completed and the Task Force shall cease to exist fOllowing final report to the City Council, within two (2) months of its first meeting, unless the Ci ty Council, by resolution, expands the mission of the Task Force and it~ duration. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 26th day of May 1992. . ATTEST: f1,V\j4 C ~ James C. Hurm, City Administrator ~ - "" MAYOR Barb Brancei COUNCl L Kristi Stover Bob Gagne ROb DaughertY Dai'liel Lewis CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD e SHOREWOOO, MINNESOTA 55331 e(612) 474-3236 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Street Reconstruction Financing Task Force Members: Robert McDougal, James Finstuen, and Robert Shaw Kristi Stover, Council Liaison Robert Bean, Planning Commission Liaison James C. Hurm, City Administrator Joel Dresel, City Engineer ~ Al Rolek, Finance Director DATE: August 18, 1992 RE: Final Report This report is the result of the charge assigned the Street Reconstruction Financing Task Force in the "Purpose" and "Objectives'" portion of Resolution No. 54-92 dated June 8, 1992. The Task Force met on June 24th and 30th; July 11th and 28th; and August 11th. The Task Forces conclusions are as follows: Obiective 1 - Define a reconstructed street. The Task Force defines maintenance as patching, seal-coating, and overlay. Reconstruction is defined as any street improvement over and 4Irove these maintenance functions. When the City determines that a street should be reconstructed it would be rebuilt to its current width. Current width could be adjusted by the City Council upon request of the property owners or by the Council fOllowing public hearing if traffic counts or safety considerations suggest wider street is warranted. . I ~ The Task Force broke the streets down into four categories: 1) MSAjCollector 28'+ Curb & Gutter 2) Standard Local 24'+ Curb & Gutter where necessary 3) Substandard Local 20-24' curb & Gutter where necessary 4) Other Less than 20' CUrb & Gutter where necessary A Residential Community on L:;ke Mlnneronka's South Shore .-." -....."" '> 't ") Obiective 2 - Review street reconstruction needs and review funding options. The Task Force determined that the only two feasible funding sources are from the ci ty' s general fund and from special assessments to abutting property owners. projections show that replacing streets on a forty year cycle would be a tremendous drain on the City's general fund. Obiective 3 - Develop a program to match projected revenues with projected needs. It is very difficult to project when a street is going to break up. Perhaps a pavement management system could be utilized to attempt to make better proj ections of street needs. The Task Force however believes that it is likely that the needs in the foreseeable future will be greater than our current revenues will handle. ~ Obiective 4 - Propose a fair and equitable method and procedure of financing reconstruction of streets. The Task Force recommends that an assessment procedure be established for the reconstruction of streets. We found in our analysis that utilizing only general funds results in high valued properties paying a disproportionately high portion of street improvement costs throughout the City. Some form of special assessments to pay for street improvements is very standard in municipalities throughout the state of Minnesota. A special assessment procedure would require a public hearing. This gives the property owner a formal way to offer input into the reconstruction of the street. In addition there is a fairness argument to consider. Should a resident who just paid for a new street be required, through the general property taxes, to pay for street improvements throughout the City for the next forty years? - Perhaps those residents who abut a street which is being approved - should be required to pay a percentage of that improvement. The Task Force recommends that the special assessment rate be established at 33 percent of the costs of a standard 24 foot street width a rural cross-section (no curb and gutter). Each resident, no matter which of the four categories they would fall, would be required to pay this same rate established annually by the City council after study and recommendation by the City Engineer. That means that in any one year any street of the City which is being reconstructed whether it be a 28 foot MSA road with curb and gutter, or a 20 foot local road with no curb and gutter would pay the same rate. Again it is worth Doting that any changes to the current width or street standard would #have to be made by the City Council only after public hearing. 2 " . .' . ') The last question considered by the Task Force was "Method of Assessment". In establishing a policy for this it is recommended that the guiding principle should be: Special assessments may be levied only upon property receiving a special benefit from the improvement. In Minnesota, the Constitution and courts apply this general rule by placing the following limitations upon the power to levy special assessments: 1) the rate must be uniform and equal upon all property receiving special benefit: 2) the assessment must be confined to property specially benefited; and 3) the amount of the assessment must not exceed the special benefit. A survey of methods used by municipalities similar in nature to . Shorewood indicated that some have chosen to determine the "Method of Assessment" on a project basis in view of the fact ~at the "Front Footage" method may be most equitable in some cases and the "Unit" method in others. Following in depth discussion the Task Force recommends that the City of Shorewood and its citizens and property owners would be best served by choosing this course. In doing so, it would be necessary to develop policies for applying both methods. It is the opinion of the Task Force that its assignment as defined in Resolution No. 54-92, has been satisfied in his report. . at/taskforce.st 3 . . . TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: ; James C. ,Hurm, City Administrator DATE: January 20, 1994 RE: special Assessment - Work Session This memo is intended to put into perspective what we estimate our street needs to be and the dollars we have actually set aside. Joel is preparing graphs which will show what a lesser special assessment for collector "MSA" streets would mean our general taxing effort. This will be presented at the work session. projected Levied "Tax Dollar" (Averacre Year) Actual for 3.994 & Planned in CIP Patching $35,500 $30,000 in 1994 operating budget Seal coating (3 x in 40-45 Yrs) 35,000* in 1994 operating budget 26,500 Overlay (2 x in 40-45 yrs) Rebuilding: (every 45 Yrs) 83,000 80,000 C!P set aside for 1994 thru 1998 no sp. assess. 10% assessed 20% assessed 33% assessed 50% assessed $568,000 490,000 413,000 309,000 179,000 $150,000 CIP set aside 1994 170,000 CIP set aside 1995 190,000 CIP set aside 1996 210,000 CIP set aside 1997 230,000 CIP set aside 1998 * Because seal coating had not been done for a number of years, more was set aside for seal coating. " JHjtln 12094.3 / /::? (70 ...' MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Kristi Stover Bob Gagne Rob DaughertY Daniel Lewis CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236 September 8, 1992 ~ MEMO TO: Mayor and city council FROM: James C. Hurm, City Administrator . SUBJECT: This is an attempt to give the City council a feel for the cost involved in building an maintaining a street over a 45 year period. LIFE OF A TYPICAL STREET - A typical street maintenance cycle might be: Year Activity 0 new street 5 to 8 sealcoat 15 overlay 20 to 23 sealcoat 30 overlay 35 to 38 seal coat . COSTS (SEE CHART I) - The following is based on one-third of the cost of a rural 24' street being assessed as recommended by the Street Reconstruction Financing Task Force. MSA Street - A minimal MSA street design is estimated to cost $712,000 per'mile. Our MSA allocation is only about $250,000 per year. At. this rate we could do .39 miles of street-each year ($250,000 MSA and $28,000 special assessments). $51,000 in special Assessment Funds would go into an assessment pool to help pay for local streets. Cost = $ 0 ,. Local Street - A typical 24' local street design is estimated to cost $606,000 per mile. If we did .833 miles per year as the schedule calls for the cost would be $503,000. $167,000 would be assessed and $51,000 could come from the MSA "pool". That leaves a General Fund cost of $285,000. Cost = $285,000 A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Overlay - If each street is overlaid in years 15 and 30,2.08 miles need to be overlaid each year. The estimated cost is $40,000 per , mile or each year. Estimated Annual Major Maintenance Cost= $ 83.000 Total Cost = $368,000 Sealcoatinq and Patchinq are more routine maintenance functions. The estimated cost is $62,000/year. Our 1992 budget is for $62,000. It seems this effort should be maintained. Cost = $ 62,000 CHART :r: - :r:r:HANCDlG A TYP:r:CAL STREET Eng est. Activity cost/mi X Miles/Yr' = cost/Yr - Spec Assmt - MSA Pool - MSA = City cost/Yr MSA $712,800 .39 = 278,000 79,000 <51,000> 250,000 = o Local Street $606,000 .833 = 503,000 167,000 51,000 o = 285,(XX) Overlay $ 40,000 2.08 = 83,000 o o o _ 83 a - ,dWI' Tota1 Reconstruction and OVerlay 368,000 Seal- coat $8,500 X 3.12 = 26,500 o o o 26,500 .ching 35.:ro Total Sealcoating and patching 62, (XX) CHART :r::r: - CALCULAT:r:HG "X:r:LES/YEAR"Z Activity Miles X Times in 45 Year .. Yrs to Complete Cycle / ,...:,. = }..~es/Y1t MSA 9.3 1 l' 03 = .39- Local Street 37.5 X 1 l' 45 = .833 Overlay 46.8 X 2 l' 45 = 2.08 Sealcoat 46.8 X 3 l' 45 = 3.12 1 see Chart II 2 miles of streets in Shorewood have been increasing as follows: 1985 - 38.5 miles; 1989 - 44.6 miles; 1990 - 45.9 miles; 1991 - 46.8 miles 3 based on projected Municipal State Aid amount of $250,000 In addition to this list sections of St. Alban's Bay Road may need striping or widening due to traffic increases which have resulted from closure of slip ramps on Highway 7. Murray Street may need reconstruction following subdivision construction in 1994 and 1995. Additionally, the following streets have been identified as the next priority: Noble Road wild Rose Garden Road Wiltsey (100% assessed 770' 2,360' 540' 490' currently gravel) $100,000 236,000 75,000 70,000 Streets and conditions need to be re-evaluated each year so that more specific plans can be established. Only the first year of this plan is considered "authorized". . Fundin~ Source Summarv: The following funding source summary illustrates where dollars will come from to fund the project schedule. STREET RECONSTRUCTION FUND -------------------------- 1994 1995 1996 1997 1995 --------------------------------------------------- Balance, January 1 464,000 656,370 834,227 459,742 406,207 General Fund Contribution 230,000 250,000 270,000 290,000 310,000 MNDOT Reimbsmt - Seasons 37,000 Tfr - 5% to Trail Fund (7,500) (S,500) (9,500) (10,500) (11,500 ) Overlay Projects (80,000) (80,000) (80,000) (SO,OOO) (80,000) . Projects/Expenditures (491,000) (261,000) (393,000) MSA Project Funding (73,000 ) (54,000) Interest Income @ 4% 12,870 16,357 9 ,015 7,965 3,554 --------------------------------------------------- Balance, December 31 656,370 834,227 459,742 406,207 181,261 The City budgets funds for the overlaying and recons7ruction ~f local city streets. The Street Reconstruction Fund ~s establ~shed as a reservoir. for these funds. ReVenues are budgeted transfers from the General Fund and expenditures are as shown in the Streets & HLghways schedule for local streets. Fund balances are allocated to future local street improvements. 12 <~~V Iv{ 1 rj 0 L7 'hi S'DV v It should be noted that for several reasons this full amount may not be needed. . Not all streets are likely to be maintained at schedule. Patching, sealcoating, overlaying rebuilding should be done when needed, not "scheduled". this and when . These are very broad estimates. Hopefully costs can be brought in under estimate. . Estimates are based on 24' wide street. Most streets are narrower than 24'. Therefore at this point in time the Council might be comfortable with levying $250,000 to $300,000 for overlaying and rebuilding. JCH.al . ..~ . . .~~J I DEPARTMENT MISSION: FUND: DEPARTMENT: DEPT NO: General Streets & Roadways 63 To maintain and upgrade City streets, parking areas arid storm water control systems in an efficient and economical manner OBJECTIVES: - Develop a pavement management system to aid in scheduling of street projects - Paint lane markings on all designated streets Sweep each City street at least once annually - Mow roadsides at least twice annually Mow boulevards at least 6 times annually Visually inspect storm drainage grates annually and repair as needed - Increase satisfaction rating on condition of streets (my street 55%; streets in general 60%) - Maintain or improve satisfaction level on cleanliness of streets (75%) .4IIt - Increase citizen excellent/good service rating on street maintenance (59%) HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Staffing: Includes step increases Supplies/Materials: Rock, gravel & bituminous for street & road repair support Services: . Operators and equipment for Safety training Contracted road striping contracted street & road repair Transfers: Transfer to Street Replacement Fund ~ -34- ~..~ [ ~ Ii q. I u << i u i B o R B R a a I I ~ U R FUND: #10 DEPARTMENT: Streets & Roadways DEPT # &3 . ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------~------------- BUDGET ITEM Actual 1991 Actual 1992 Budget Jan-Sept 1993 1993 Annual Proposed Adopted Est-93 1994 1994 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Staffing 67,984 76,708 88;639 65,987 80,446 88,586 Supplies/Materials 16,540 60,198 30,000 27,378 30,000 30,000 ~1 Support Services 2,030 2,248 37,100 2,446 35,844 37,600 ., ~- ~'U V1J.Jt Charges & Fees capital Outlay 6,980 24,005 Transfers 220,000 220,000 230,000 ======================================================================================= TOTAL 93,534 163,159 375,739 95,811 366,290 386,186 o --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SERVICE INDICATORS: Miles of street State 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 County 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 . City - MSA 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 City - Local 37.5 37.5 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 Miles Seal coated 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Tons of. patch material 653 1,120 1,200 1,460 1,500 1,500 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COST INDICATORS: Expenditures 93,534 163,159 375,739 95,811 366,290 386,186 Program Revenues MSA Maintenance 13,875 13,755 13,750 6,878 13,750 Budgeted Reserve 15,000 15,000 15,000 28,000 Levy Dollars 79,659 149,404 346,989 73,933 337,540 358,186 Other Dollars o . o --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAFFING: Full time: Lt Equip OperjForeman I 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 I I ~ -35- . . PLEASE MAKE SUGGESTIONS DRAFT I SHOREWOOD CONSIDERS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO FINANCE RECONSTRUCTION OF CITY STREETS A well constructed and maintained city street should normally last 40 to 45 years before it needs to be rebuilt. Much of Shorewood has soils (soft and wet) which are very poor for road construction. This can reduce this "life expectancy.'. Many of Shorewood' s streets are quite old. They were torn up in the early 1970's when sani tary sewer was installed city-wide. The streets were put back in generally the same condition as they were prior to the sewer installation. General maintenance done during the life of a street is considered to be seal coating, patching .and overlaying (putting a layer on top of the current street). Beyond maintenance, streets are reconstructed or rebuilt when they structurally falter or break up to the point that "patching" is not cost effective, to the point where public safety becomes a concern, or to the point where another layer of asphalt will raise the street level causing water runoff problems. The City Council is concerned about paying future street reconstruction. As streets begin to break up at a faster pace, many will need to be rebuilt with a better road base. City policy is for new streets to be installed at the expense of the developer or land owner. Maintenance functions have · been completed at the expense of all city property tax payers. Now the question arises, how should the reconstruction of existing streets be paid for? In May, 1992 the Shorewood City Council appointed a Task Force of city residents to: review street reconstruction needs and funding options develop a method to match projected revenues with projected needs and propose a fair and equitable .method of financing the reconstruction of streets. .. FOllowing intensive study the citizen Task Force concluded that ". . . replacing streets on a 40 year cycle would be a tremendous drain on the City'S General Fund". Their final conclusion and recommendation was "...that an assessment procedure be established for the reconstruction of streets," and that " . . . the special assessment rate be established at 33% of the cost of a standard 24 foot street with a rural cross section (no curb and gutter)". The special assessment rate would be the same no matter the width or design of the street and it would be adjusted each year to accurately reflect costs. This recommendation was based on a number of factors: . utilizing only general property tax dollars results in high valued properties paying a disproportionately high portion of street improvement costs. . Some form of special assessments to pay for street improvements is very standard among Minnesota municipalities . A public hearing is required to levy special assessments. This gives the property owner a formal way to offer input into the reconstruction of the street. There is a fairness argument. Should a resident who just paid for a new street and pays for all city street maintenance be required to fully pay for all street reconstruction projects through general property taxes as well? The end result of the proposal is that the property owners adjacent to and benefitting from a street reconstruction project will pay for one-third the cost of a typical 24 ' street project when their street is reconstructed. This cost will be spread over a number of years on the property tax bill. This approach will provide funds to reconstruct streets as their "life" ends without significant increases in city-wide property taxes to pay for them. . . *** The City Council is interested in your thoughts on the Task Force recommendations which are before the Council in the form of a Special Assessment Ordinance. The proposed ordinance is available for public inspection at City Hall. The City council will hold a... public information meetinq at 8:00 p.m. Monday, July 26, 1993 in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 5755 Country Club Road...Your input is important! APPENDIX B-2 .L 50' R/W J I I" 24' ~" TOPSOIL -= \ t . Drawn By: P.S.H. Date: ?-4-0- 2j. . 1 I I -I . , QS~orr _ Sehelen . ~.yerQn ;c - A1ISOe1at.es. Inc. -E::ic11ie:er:s-. A'fcl11t~ . 1"1.41...'" . $lIrnyon ~oo Pan: Pl.... C.o{e-r . ~m Y.Y'M~ IMM"'" .. - . lZ.~.~m ~".. TOPSOIL. I . = ~- '- '. - ..... 27. SUB-DRAIN 'Yzlt BITUMINOUS WEPR COURSE 311 BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE 611 CLASS 5/GRAVEL (1001. CRUSHED> BASE COURSE l' SUBCUT W / SELECT GRANULAR GEOTEXTILE FAERie NO SCALE Drawing Title TYPICAL SECTION FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ALTERNATE WI SUB-DRAIN I I I I . - I 8ACK~iLL I I Comm. No. I I I Sheet no. ! (22) \ " , S'tll~tllf.ll 1 1 ( II) IJ~3 (i4-1') jt 3,'" Lli 7 ') .s 3,' " ( 141-) $3,' I' N8S.~' ..~" .' R ,: :: 62....35 1 (2) ...,..,... " -. -----. ---- -- ..;.---~-:---- ..- . (Iic/ ) - ..... ('39) ~ ~ ,. ~ Ci (2&) 211 14.: II>' 1 ~. 1 (.c :: ~! ~ eo. Of 1'3 ' (53) tIU.' 101. >> I~ Itli? -"'-- V" -i'::>~~ ~ I 534. " ...... i 51. as .:..... JIM."'.?!" _ I , ....... I~ '.l. I . . . . . . _._~-:-I47'- . . . . : (24) . . . . . . . I I I . . . . . I ( 18) 1 3 (19): ll: (20) l' ... .. .. .. ~.l (22) 161.CilI ) 3 (49) 1 .- Cl..l r ,. F & - ( III -- - -- -.~-----. :SMQ~ ::?,. . 05) go "" " ASSESSTR.XLS ASSESSMENT RATE VS. MILES CONSTRUCTED TOTAL FUNDING TO REBUILD 40 YEAR CYCLE CITY OF SHOREWOOD JANUARY 25,1994 ASSESSMENT RATE OF 33% OF THE COST OF LOCAL ROAD MSA ROUTES YEAR STATE ($) CITY ($) PROJECT ($) MILES ASSESSMENT ($) ASSESS. POOL (1) (2) (3) (4) (4) - (2) 1993 $250,000 $27,799 $277,992 0.39 $78.936 $51.137 1994 $250,000 $27,799 $277. 992 0.39 $78,936 $51.137 1995 $250,000 $27,799 $277. 992 0.39 $78,936 $51,137 1996 $250,000 $27,799 $277.992 0.39 $78,936 $51,137 1997 $250,000 $27,799 $277,992 0.39 $78,936 $51.137 FIVE YEAR TOTAL ASSESSMENT RATE OF 50% OF THE COST OF LOCAL ROAD YEAR MSA ROUTES STATE ($) CITY ($) PROJECT ($) MILES ASSESSMENT ($) ASSESS. POOL (1) (2) (3) (4) (4) - (2) $250,000 $27,799 $277. 992 0.39 $118,404 $90,605 $250,000 $27,799 $277,992 0.39 $118,404 $90,605 $250,000 $27,799 $277. 992 0.39 $118,404 $90,605 $250,000 $27,799 $277.992 0.39 $118,404 $90,605 $250,000 $27,799 $277.992 0.39 $118,404 $90.605 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 FIVE YEAR TOTAL NOTES: (1) CURRENT STATE AID FUNDING AVAILABLE (2) LOCAL FUNDS NEEDED TO FINANCE 10% OF PROJECT (3) MILES THAT COULD BE BUILT@ $135/FOOT (4) ASSESSMENTS GENERATED @ RATE SHOWN (5) GENERAL FUND AMOUNT REQUIRED FOR 40 YEAR CYCLE (6) LOCAL ASSESSMENTS GENERATED Page 2 of 3 (7) MILES THAT COULD BE BUILT @$115/FOOT . ASSESSTR,XLS . > ASSESSMENT RATE VS. MILES CONSTRUCTED TOTAL FUNDING TO REBUILD 40 YEAR CYCLE CITY OF SHOREWOOD JANUARY 25,1994 WITH NO ASSESSMENT ON MSA ROUTES, 33% ASSESSMENT ON LOCAL ROUTES MSA ROUTES YEAR STATE ($) CITY ($) PROJECT ($) (1 ) (2) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $27,799 $27,799 $27.799 $27,799 $27.799 $277.992 $277.992 $277.992 $277.992 $277.992 I f aO% ASSESSMENT ON MSA ROUTES, 33% ASSESSMENT ON LOCAL ROUTES MSA ROUTES CITY ($) PROJECT ($) (2) FIVE YEAR TOTAL , YEAR STATE ($) (1 ) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 $250,000 $250,000 , $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $27,799 $27,799 $27,799 $27.799 $27,799 $277. 992 $277.992 $277.992 $277.992 $277. 992 FIVE YEAR TOTAL NOTES: (1) CURRENT STATE AID FUNDING AVAILABLE (2) LOCAL FUNDS NEEDED TO FINANCE 10% OF PROJECT (3) MILES THAT COULD BE BUllT@$135/FOOT . i ~ Page 3 of 3 .. LOCAL ROUTES TOTAL % OF CITY MILES ASSESSMENT ($) ASSESS. POOL CITY ($) ASSESSMENTS ($) PROJECT ($) MILES MILES TOTAL MILES (3) (4) (4) - (2) (5) (6) (7) 0.39 $0 ($27.799) $388,071 $180.136 $540,408 0.89 1.28 2.51% 0.39 $0 ($27,799) $388.071 $180.136 $540,408 0.89 1.28 2.51% 0.39 $0 ($27,799) $388,071 $180,136 $540.408 0.89 1.28 2.51% 0.39 $0 ($27,799) $388,071 $180,136 $540,408 0.89 1.28 ... 2.51% 0.39 $0 ($27.799) $388,071 $180,136 $540.408 0.89 1.28 2.51%' 6.40 12.53% LOCAL ROUTES TOTAL % OF CITY MILES ASSESSMENT ($) ASSESS. POOL CITY ($) ASSESSMENTS ($) PROJECT ($) MILES MILES TOTAL MILES (3) (4) (4) - (2) (5) (6) (7) 0.39 $47,362 $19,562 $340,710 $180,136 $540.408 0.89 1.28 2.51% 0.39 $47,362 $19,562 $340,710 $180,136 $540.408 0.89 1.28 2.51% 0.39 $47,362 $19,562 $340,710 $180,136 $540.408 0.89 1.28 2.51% 0.39 $47,362 $19,562 $340,710 $180,136 $540,408 0.89 1.28 2.51% 0.39 $47,362 $19,562 $340,710 $180,136 $540,408 0.89 1.28 2.51% 6.40 12.53% (4) ASSESSMENTS GENERATED @ RATE SHOWN (5) GENERAL FUND AMOUNT REQUIRED FOR 40 YEAR CYCLE (6) LOCAL ASSESSMENTS GENERATED (7) MILES THAT COULD BE BUILT @$115/FOOT ASSESSTR.XLS " ORDINANCE NO. -93 AN. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 901 OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE ADOPTING AN ASSESSMENT POLICY FOR STREET RECONSTRUCTION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 901.04 is renumbered as Section 901.05. Section 2. Chapter 901 of the Shorewood City Code is hereby amended by adding the following: SECTION 901.04 - STREET ASSESSMENT POLICY Subd. 1 - SCOPE AND PURPOSE . This policy is intended to provide a fair, equitable, and consistent means of allocating the cost of street reconstruction improvements to existing streets. This policy does not apply to new construction nor to maintenance functions which are defined as patching, seal coating and overlay. Street reconstruction is considered to be any street improvement over and above these maintenance functions. Subd. 2 - DEFINITIONS b. a. Adjusted Front Footage: A method for determining the average front footage for odd-shaped lots which would be equivalent to the footage of a rectangular shaped lot of the same area and depth. Building Site: An area of land on which a building exists or an area of land meeting city code requirements on which a building could be constructed. . c. Construction Cost: Amount paid to contractors for constructing the improvements. d. Construction Interest: Cost of financing the improvements from the time the project is initiated until the assessment roll is approved by the City Council, less any interest earned on invested funds. The interest rate will be at the expected assessment rate. e. Equivalent Residential Units: Equivalent residential units are the number of assessment units into which a large or unplatted parcel of land, which. abuts a City functionally classified collector or arterial street, is divided in order to determine an assessment rate. The number of equivalent residential units is determined by dividing the adjusted front footage of the parcel by the average street footage of the project. f. Front Footage: The shortest dimensions of existing or potential sites abutting the streets. g. Lot: Land occupied or to be occupied by a building and its accessory buildings, together with such open spaces as are required under the provisions of this zoning regulation having not less than the minimum area required by this Zoning Ordinance for a building site in the district in which such lot is situated and having its principal frontage on a street, or a proposed street approved by the Council. h. Lot: Corner: A lot situated at the junction of and abutting on two (2) or more intersecting streets; or a lot at the point of deflection in alignment of a single street, the interior angle of which is one hundred thirty-five degrees (1350) or less. Project Cost (Total Cost of Improvements): All construction costs, plus costs for administration, engineering, legal, fiscal, easement acquisition assessing, and any project related work previously done but not assessed. i. j. Residential Unit: A residential unit is a platted single family residential lot which, in accordance with the City of Shorewood's zoning and subdivision regulation, cannot be further subdivided. k. Side footaqe: The longest dimension of existing or potential corner building sites abutting the street. a. Subd. 3 - SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Benefit Principle Special assessments, as authorized by Minnesota State Law, Chapter 429, may be levied only upon property receiving a special benefit from the improvement. In Minnesota, the Constitution and courts apply this general rule by placing the following limitations upon the power to levy special assessments: 1) the rate must be uniform and consistent upon all property receiving special benefit; 2) the assessment must be confined to property specially benefitted; and 3) the amount of the assessment must not exceed the special benefit. The special assessment is a financial tool employed by the City of Shorewood as a means of allocating the costs of specific improvement projects to the benefitted properties and spreading those costs over a number of years as specified by the City Council. 2. . . . . Special assessments are billed to the property owner along with real estate taxes. There is, however, a distinct difference between taxes and special assessments. Real estate taxes are a function of the real estate value as determined by the municipal assessor, while special assessments are a direct function of the enhancement of value or the benefit which a specific improvement gives to the property. b. Consistent & Equitable Once an improvement project is initiated and it is determined that the improvements are necessary and desirable, the special assessment procedure is intended to equitably and consistently allocate and levy the cost of specific improvements to the benefitted properties. . The City must recover the appropriate portion of the expense of installing public improvements, if undertaken, while ensuring that each parcel pays its fair share of the project cost in accordance with these assessment guidelines. This policy sets forth the general assessment methods and policies to be utilized by the City Administrator and City Engineer when preparing assessment rolls for approval by the City Council so as to assure uniform and consistent treatment to the various properties from year to year. The following policy is general in nature, and that certain circumstances may justify deviations from stated policy as determined by the City Council. Subd. 4 - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE . A flow chart on the Shorewood Public Improvement Process for Special Assessment projects giving a detailed explanation of the process is shown on the next page. a. Initiating the Proceedinqs Improvement proceedings may be initiated in anyone (1) of the following three (3) ways: 1. By a petition signed by the owners of not less than thirty-five percent (35%) of the frontage of the real property abutting on the streets named as the location of the improvement; 2. By a petition signed by 100% of the owners of real property abutting any street named as the location of the improvement. Upon receipt of a petition of 100% of the abutting property owners, the City Council must determine that it has been signed by 100% of the owners of the affected property. After 3 . making this determination, a feasibility report shall be undertaken and the project may be ordered without a public hearing; or 3. By the initiative of the City Council. petitions for improvement shall be referred for Administrative report and estimated budget. A simple majority vote of the City Council is needed to start the proceedings. Whether initiating the proceedings or accepting a petition requesting such proceedings, the City Council may simultaneously order a feasibility report on the proposed improvement. Feasibility reports shall be paid for by the City in the case of street reconstruction projects and recouped once the project is completed under the terms of this policy. b. Preparing the Feasibility Study An improvement project which is initiated by action of . the City Councilor by a 35% petition may be ordered only after a public hearing. Prior to adopting a resolution calling a public hearing on an improvement, the Council must secure from the City Engineer a report advising it in a preliminary way as to: 1. Whether the proposed improvement is feasible; 2. Whether the proposed improvement is consistent with Capital Improvement Planning; 3. Whether the improvement should be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement; 4. The estimated cost of the improvement; . 5. A proposed project schedule; and 6. Any other information thought pertinent and necessary for complete Council consideration. c. Holding a Public Hearing on the Improvement Improvement projects which are initiated by a 100% petition may be ordered by the City Council without a public hearing if the City Council determines the project may be undertaken without unreasonable changes to the Capital Improvement Finance Plan or the petitioning property owners agree to pay 100% of the cost of the improvements. In the case of a Council-initiated project or petition of less than 100% of abutting property owners, the Council must adopt a resolution calling a public hearing 4. ~ ~ on the improvement project for which mailed and published notices of the hearing must be given. The notice of public hearing must include the following information: 1) The time and place of hearing; 2) The general nature of the improvements; 3) The estimated cost; and 4) The area proposed to be assessed. Not less than ten (10) days before the hearing, the notice of hearing must be mailed to the owner of each parcel in the area proposed to be assessed. The notice of public hearing must be published in the City's legal newspaper at least twice, each publication being at least one week apart, with the last publication at least three (3) days prior to the hearing. At the public hearing, the contents of the feasibility study will be presented and discussed with the intent of giving all interested parties an opportunity to be heard and their views expressed. d. Ordering the Improvement and Ordering preparation of Plans & Specifications Following a public hearing a resolution ordering the improvement may be adopted at any time within six (6) months after the date of the hearing by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council, unless the petition was initiated by a 35% petition in which event it may be adopted by a majority vote. The resolution may reduce, but not increase, the extent of the improvement as stated in the notice. At this time a special assessment is considered to be "pending" for all assessable properties in the improvement area. After the order of an improvement project, the City Council must order the preparation of plans and specifications which may be included as part of the resolution ordering the improvements. When the Council determines to make any improvement, it shall let the contract for all or part of the work, or order all or part of the work done by day labor, no later than one (1) year after the adoption of the resolution ordering such improvement unless a different time limit is specifically stated in the resolution ordering the improvement. 5. e. Advertising for Bids If the estimated cost of the improvement exceeds $25,000, bids must be advertised for in the legal newspaper and such other papers and for such length of time as the City Council deems desirable. If the estimated cost of the improvement exceeds $100,000, the advertisement must be in a paper published in a first class city, or in a trade paper not less than three (3) weeks before the last date for submission of bids. The notice must contain the following information: 1. The work to be done; 2 . The time when bids will be publicly opened, which must be not less than ten (10) days after the first publication of the advertisement when the cost is less than $100,000, and not less that three (3) weeks after publications in all other cases, and A statement that no bids will be considered unless they are sealed and accompanied by cash, a cashier's check, bid bond or certified check for such percentage of the bid as specified by the City Council. . 3 . f. Awarding Contracts Following receipt of the bids, the City Council must either: 1. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder; or 2. Reject all bids. . The contact must be awarded no later than one (1) year after the adoption of the resolution ordering the improvement unless that resolution specifies a different time limit. The City Council may purchase the materials and order the work done by day labor or in any manner it deems proper if: 1. The initial cost of the entire work does not exceed $25,000; 2. No bid is submitted after advertisement; or 3. The only bids are higher than the engineer's estimate. 6. g. Preparing Proposed Assessment Roll After the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the completion on an improvement have been calculated as defined in Section VI-C Project Costs, the City Council must determine the amount it will pay and the amount to be specially assessed. The City Engineer and Administrator/Clerk must calculate the amount to be specially assessed against every parcel of land benefitted by the improvement. The area to be assessed may be less than, but not more than, the area proposed to be assessed as stated in the notice of public hearing on the improvement. The assessment roll should contain a description of each parcel of property and the assessment amount including a~y deferred assessments. The assessment roll must be filed with the City Administrator/Clerk and be available for public inspection. . h. Holdinq Public Hearing on Proposed Assessments A public hearing on the special assessments must be held following published and mailed notice thereof. The notice of the assessment public hearing must include the following information: The date, time and place of the meeting; The general nature of the improvement; The area proposed to be assessed; The total amount of the proposed assessment;' That the assessment roll is on file with the Clerk; That written or oral objections will be considered; That no appeal may be taken as to the amount of assessments unless a written objection signed by the affected property owner is filed with the City Clerk prior to the hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing; and 8. That the owner may appeal the assessment to the district court by serving notice on the Mayor or City Clerk within three (3) working days after the adoption of the assessment and filing notice with the court within ten (10) days after such appeal to the Mayor or the City Clerk. The notice of the assessment hearing must be published in the legal newspaper at least once, not less than two (2) weeks prior to the hearing. 7. The City Clerk must mail notice of the assessment hearing to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll at least two (2) weeks prior to the hearing. The mailed notice must also include, in addition to the information required to be in the published notice, the following information: 1. The amount to be specially assessed against that particular lot, piece or parcel of land; 2. The right of the property owner to prepay the entire assessment and the person to whom prepaYments must be made; 3. Whether partial prepaYment of the assessment has been authorized by ordinance; 4. The time within which prepaYment may be made without the assessment of interest; and . The rate of interest to accrue if the assessment is not prepaid within the required time period. i. Adoptinq the Assessments 5. j . At the assessment hearing or at any adjournment thereof, the City Council may adopt the assessments as proposed or adopt the assessments with amendments. If the adopted assessment differs from, the proposed assessment, the clerk must mail the owner a notice stating the amount of the adopted assessment. The adopted assessment roll shall include any and all deferments on . large or unplatted parcels of land along the City's street system. Transmitting Assessment to County Auditor After the adoption of the assessment, the City Clerk must transmit a certified duplicate copy of the assessment roll, including all deferred equivalent residential units, to the County Auditor. . Subd. 5 - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICIES It is the policy of the City of Shorewood that all properties shall pay their fair share of the cost of local improvements as they benefit. It is not intended that any property shall receive the benefits of improvements without paying for them. These policies relate to street reconstruction projects. a. Establishing an Annual Rate An annual assessment rate shall be established by the end of February by City Council Resolution upon 8. recommendation of the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall undertake a study to determine the per foot project cost of a "typical" 24 foot,; rural cross section street (with no curb and gutter), in the metropolitan area, adjusted for typical Shorewood soil conditions (see following page). When determining an annual rate with construction costs of the previous construction season the construction cost index as published by the "Engineering News Record" or consumer price index may be used. When the City determines that a street should be reconstructed it would be rebuilt to its current width. Current width could be adjusted by the City Council upon request of the property owners or by the Council following public hearing if traffic counts or safety considerations suggest wider street is warranted. . b. Assessable Street Reconstruction proiects Street reconstruction projects are not likely to require the same amount of work throughout the entire length of the project. That is, some sections may need to be fully excavated and back-filled while other sections may need simple reshaping. It is the policy of the city that a project is assessable when its aggregate cost is estimated to be at least 150% of a simple 2 inch overlay project. c. Project Costs Project cost shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Total Construction cost including intersections . 2. Engineering fees 3. Administrative fees 4. Right-of-way/easement acquisition/condemnation costs 5. Legal fees 6. Fiscal Fees 7. Capitalized interest d. Term of Assessment Assessments for street reconstruction should be assessed for a ten (10) year period unless the City Council determines that some other period of time is more appropriate. 9. e. Government Owned Properties Properties belonging to government jurisdictions, including the City, will be assessed the same as privately owned property. f. Non-developable Land Special Assessments shall not be levied on properties deemed unbuildable due to the existence of undeveloped lands lying wholly and completely within zoned wetlands, flood plains, DNR protected wetlands and/or having restricted soils as determined by the City Building Inspector. However, all parcels of land are assumed to be buildable until proven otherwise by the owner. g. Interest Rate The interest rate charged on assessments for all . projects financed by debt issuance shall not exceed two percent (2%) of the net interest rate of the bond issue. This is necessary in order to insure adequate cash flow when the City is unable to reinvest assessment prepaYments at an interest rate sufficient to meet the interest cost of debt or when the City experiences problems of paYment collection delinquencies. 'In the event no bonds are issued then the rate of interest on assessments. shall not exceed two (2) percent greater than the average rate of interest on all bonds issued in the previous calendar year or the current market municipal bond rate. Interest on initial special assessment installments shall begin to accrue from the date of the resolution adopting the assessment. Owners must be notified by mail of any changes adopted by the City Council regarding interest rates or prepaYment . requirements which differ from those contained in the notice of the proposed assessment. h. Payment Procedures The property owner has four available options when considering paYment of assessments: 1. Tax PaYment - If no action is undertaken by the property owner, then special assessment installments will appear annually on the individual's property tax statement for the duration of the assessment term. 2. Full PaYment - No interest will be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days of the date of adoption of the assessment roll. In the initial year, the property owner may at any time between that date and November 15, prepay the 10. balance of the assessment with interest accrued to December 31 of that year. 3. Partial PaYment - The. property owner has a one-time opportunity to make a partial paYment reduction of any amount against his@her assessment. This option may only be exercised within the 30-day period immediately following adoption of the assessment roll. . PrepaYment - The property owner may, with the exception of the current year's installment of principal and interest, pay the remaining assessment balance at any time, prior to November 15 without further interest charges. Thereafter, the next installment, with interest through December 31 of the following year, will be levied for collection with the real estate taxes payable the ensuing year. The principal balance will be reduced by the amount of the installment. i. Appeal Procedures 4. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of any assessment adopted unless a written objection signed by the affected property owner is filed with the City Administrator's office prior to the assessment hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. The property owner may appeal an assessment to District Court by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Administrator within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within 10 days after service of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Administrator. . j . Reapportionment Upon Land Division When a tract of land against which a special assessment has been levied is subsequently divided or subdivided by plat or otherwise, the City Council may, on application of the owner of any part of the tract or on its own motion, equitably apportion among the various lots or parcels in the tract all the installments of the assessment against the tract remaining unpaid and not then due if it determines that such apportionment will not materially impair collection of the unpaid balance of the original assessment against the tract. The City Council may require furnishing of a satisfactory surety bond in certain cases as specified in Minnesota Statutes Section 429.071, subd. 3. Notice of the apportionment and of the right to appeal shall be mailed to or personally served upon all owners of any part of the tract. In most cases,.dividing the assessment balance evenly on a unit or lot basis would result in an 11. . . equitable apportionment. If equitable in a particular case, such a procedure would be most practical and administratively effective. Subd. 6 - ASSESSMENT METHOD Once an assessment rate has been established for the year, that rate will be utilized for each project, no matter the width, design, or type of street being reconstructed. The City Council may utilize one of two methods of assessment for each project, "unit" or "front foot." The City Engineer shall recommend the method and prepare the proposed assessment roll based upon which method results in the most fair and equitable assessment roll for that project. The unit method is to be utilized when the front footage of the assessable properties are of relatively equal length or the benefit to the properties is similar. The front footage method is to be utilized when there is a significant differential in the front footage, or benefit, of the . assessable properties. a. Uni t Method The unit method of assessment is most commonly used when the benefitting properties are of similar benefit, but not necessarily similar geometry. For instance, road reconstruction along a particular road will likely benefit the several properties on a private drive as much as it benefits those properties directly abutting the road being improved. In such a case, simply assessing the abutting front footage would not be equitable. A unit assessment shall be derived according to the following formula: Annual assessment rate X project length X 0.33 / number of assessable units. . The number of assessment units assigned to each parcel of land within the assessment area shall be equal to the maximum number of potential lots which could be possible on that parcel as determined by the City Planner. A lot shall be defined in accordance with the City's Zoning Ordinance. Corner lots shall typically have one-half (0.5) of its assessable units applied to each street. However, the entire number of assessable units can be assessed in conjunction with the street improvement project done first. This approach would normally be taken where a single lot derives a majority of benefit from the reconstruction of the first project due to lot, driveway, and home location. 12. . ~ . b. Front Footaqe Method The actual physical dimensions of a parcel abutting a street reconstruction project shall NOT be construed as the frontage utilized to calculate the assessment for a particular parcel. Rather, an "adjusted front footage" will be determined. The front footage assessment rate shall be derived according to the following formula: Annual assessment rate X project length X .33 / total adjusted front footage. . The purpose of this method is to equalize assessment calculations for lots of similar size. Individual parcels by their very nature differ considerably in shape and area. The following procedures will apply when calculating adjusted front footage. The selection of the appropriate procedure will be determined by the specific configuration of the parcel. All measurements will be scaled from available plat and section maps and will be rounded down to the nearest foot dimension with any excess fraction deleted. Categorical type descriptions are as follows: 1. Standard Lots 6. Irregularly Shaped Lots 2. Rectangular Variation Lots 7. Corner Lots 3. Triangular Lots 8. Flag Lots and Back Lots 4. Cul-de-sac Lots 9. Double Frontage Lots S. Curved Lots . The ultimate objective of these procedures is to arrive at a fair and equitable distribution of cost whereby consideration is given to lot size and all parcels are comparably assessed. 13. . . ~ Subd. 7 - DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS a. The City Council may defer Special Assessments: 1. On portions of large tracts of land as allowed in this chapter so as to minimize the influence of the proposed improvement on the development of said land. 2. On homestead property owned by a person who qualifies under the hardship criteria set forth below. b. Procedure The property owner shall make application for deferred payment of special assessments on a form prescribed by the Hennepin County Auditor and supplemented by the Shorewood City Administrator. The application shall be . made within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment roll by the City Council and shall be renewed each year upon the filing of a similar application no later than September 30. The City Administrator shall establish a case number for each application; review the application for complete information and details and make a recommendation to the City Council to either approve or disapprove the application for deferment. The City Council by majority vote, shall either grant or deny the deferment and if the deferment is granted, the City Council may require the payment of interest due each year. Renewal applications will be approved by the City Administrator for those cases whereby the original conditions for qualifications remain substantially unchanged. If the City Council grants the deferment, the City . Administrator sham notify the County Auditor who shall in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 435.194, record a notice of the deferment with the County Recorder setting forth the amount of assessment. Interest shall be charged on any assessment deferred pursuant to this Section at a rate equal to the rate charged on other assessments for the particular public improvement projects the assessment is financing. If the City Council grants an assessment deferral to an applicant, the interest may also be deferred, or the interest may be due and payable on a yearly basis up until the assessment period terminates and only the principal is deferred. The decision as to whether the principal and interest or just the principal is deferred is decided by the City Council when considering the application. 14. . . . ~ . 1. Large Tracts of Land Upon application, the City Council may defer the assessments on large tracts of land that may be subdivided or developed in the future. It is the intent of this policy to grant deferments of special assessments to large tracts so as to minimize the influence of the proposed improvement on the premature development of said land. The deferment granted pursuant to this section may be of indefinite duration subject to the occurrence of: o The subdivision of the property resulting in the creation of a new, buildable lot 2. o If the City Council determines there is no continuing need for the deferment Conditions of Hardship a) Any applicant must be 65 years of age, or older, or retired by reason of permanent and/or total disability and must own a legal or equitable interest in the property applied for which must be the homestead of the applicant, or b) The annual gross income of the applicant shall not be in excess of the very low income limits (50% of median) asset forth by family size in Hennepin County's Section Eight guidelines. Calculation of the total family income shall be determined by the summation of all available income sources of the applicant and spouse. Income specified in the application should be the income of the year proceeding the year in which the application is made, or the average income of the three years prior to the year in which the application is made, whichever is less, and, c) The special assessments to be deferred exceed $1,000.00. d) Permanent and/or total disability shall be determined by using the criteria established for "permanent and total disability" for Workman's Compensation, to wit: 1) The total and permanent loss of the sight of both eyes. 2) The loss of both arms at the shoulder. 15. 3) The loss of both legs so close to the hips that no effective artificial members can be used. 4) Complete and permanent paralysis. 5) Total and permanent loss of mental faculties. 6) Any other injury which totally incapacitates the owner from working at an occupation which brings him/her an income. ~ . r An applicant must substantiate the retirement by reason of permanent and/or total disability by providing a sworn affidavit by a licensed medical doctor attesting that the applicant is unable to be gainfully employed because of a permanent and/or . total disability. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota this day of , 1993. ATTEST: Barbara Brancel, Mayor James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk TJK:AK5 16. . . . . . ~ . CITY OF SHOREWOOD OFFICIAL SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. -93 The following is the official summary of Ordinance No. ____-93, approved by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, on July __, 1993: Ordinance No. -93 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ESTABLISHING SECTION 901.04 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO ADOPTING PROCEDURES AND POLICIES FOR ASSESSING THE COST OF STREET RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING STREETS. The Ordinance is intended to provide a fair, equitable, and consistent means of allocating the cost of street reconstruction improvements to existing streets. Street reconstruction is any street improvement over and above general maintenance functions as defined in the Ordinance. The Ordinance establishes definitions including but not limited to equivalent residential units, front footage, lot, project cost, residential unit and side footage. The Ordinance provides special assessment procedures including the process for initiating proceedings, improvement hearings, awarding of contracts, public hearings on proposed assessments, and adoption of assessment rolls. The Ordinance sets forth policies establishing an annual rate for assessments, inclusion of project costs, terms of assessments, interest rates, payment procedures, appeal procedures, reapportionment procedures and specific methods for assessment formulas. The Ordinance further establishes procedures for deferring assessments for large tracts of land, hardship for the elderly, disabled persons or low income. A printed copy of the Ordinance is available for inspection by any person at the Office of the City Clerk and at the Excelsior Library. Barbara J. Erancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurro, City Administrator OJ CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (6121474-3236 . DATE: TO: FROM: RE: November 20, 1995 The Mayor and City Council James C. Hunn, City Administrator Philosophy regarding paying for street improvements After having talked to several members of the City Council about the concerns of requiring special assessments for street reconstruction at the time a water main is installed and assessed, I thought it would be helpful to put on paper what I have drawn from those discussions. . The City Council has been telling residents that installation of municipal water would involve a $5,000 assessment. We have not related to that improvement an additional assessment of approximately $3,000 which would result from street reconstruction. which would be called for after having dug up the street to install water. As we know, the streets were last dug up in the 1970'5 at the time the sanitary sewer was installed. Shorewood streets can be placed under three categories: 1. Collector streets - Those streets carrying traffic from the various neig:hborhoods to other areas. 2: New streets - Streets constructed over the last 15 years under current city code standards. (i.e. the Southeast area- Shorewood Oaks) 3. Older streets - These are streets that are not collector streets and are over 10 to 15 years old which do not meet current City Code standards. (i.e. Christmas Lake Rd. and the streets in the northeast area of the city) Most of the collector streets are designated MSA streets and have MSA funding to help pay for any reconstruction. The newer streets should not need reconstruction for perhaps over 20 years. Therefore, if a newer street is dug up for the installation of watermain is it fair or proper to "reassess" the property owners for that improvement? A Residenrial Comrnunir'l on Lake MinneronKa's Sour'" Snl)r7 It should be. therefore, the streets which are in the third categ:orv, or the "'older streets" which Jre me biggest question. There Jre many peo-ple" who live on these streets ~ho would prefer nO[ having their street reconstructed. They like the rural ouahrv of Shorewood and thev feel that a smooch street will onlv encourage' faster driving. They perhaps not only do not wantmunicipaI water, but they also do not want their street improved. Tne question therefore may be, "Is it reasonable to not assess for improving streets whether related to watermain construction or nor?". We do know from the work of the Street Reconstruction Financing Task Force that our current effort of levying for street improvemems is nowhere near enough to cover the COSts if special assessments are nO[ involved. Our current Capital Improvement Program schedule calls for an increase in levy effort of .520,000 per year over the next five years. On top of that the Council may want to consider a one time 5 to 6% increase in levy for street improvemems. Tnat would bring in 380.000 to 5100,000. In addition. we are exoecting: 550,000 to 570,000 in additional revenue bezinning: with the year 2001 when the tax incremem financing: district comes to an end. -That money could be earmarked for street reconsrrucrlon purposes. The immediate question for the year 1996 is Strawberry Lane. It is not an MSA co ilector. Water installation is not drivinlZ the need for reconstruction of Strawberry Lane. In fact we have been holding off the project for several years uncil orivate constrUction is done in me area. It is in fD.cr the need for reconstrUction of the street chat is pushing installation uf wCJ.termmn under th& street to 1996. If the street is not assessed it mav be verv ditncult to bemn assessing for street improvemems after 1996 should the "council determIne u,1at assessing for reconstruction of streets is in fact necessary at a later date. Because you'11 notice in the analysis provided for the CIP vVork Session that street reconstruction is often more expensive than installation of warermain. t..f-te lack of funds for reconstruction can. in the furore. delay the expansion of the municipal water system. That is why, if assessments are not made for street reconstruction, that a significant effort must be made to increase the levy for street reconstruction. .. '1 -... . . .- - ,. . .. ID. CAPITAL FINANCE PLAN The City recognizes the importance of maintaining a reasonable funding level for public improvements. equipment, and depreciation of current City assets. Therefore this CIP projects an increase of between 3 to 4 percent annually in general revenues allocated for capital improvements. The fIrst chart of the Funding Source Summary projects the property tax levy for capital improvements through 2000 and identifies expenditures by type of improvement. The Capital Reserve Fund Chart summarizes all capital anticipated revenues and expenditures. Each.functional area summarized here is explained in detail in the funding source summary chart in each functional area. Maintaining a reasonable Capital Reserve fund balance is an essential element in the fmandal stability of the City. It can be an important factor in maintaining and improving our good bond rating. Such a reserve can serve as a sound fmandal resource. It can serve as a depreciation fund for City Assets. In addition. it can allow for short term or interim internal borrowing for projects or equipment. This can reduce the cost of borrowing by allowing for combined bond sales at the most advantageous time. The last portion of the Capital Finance Plan is a proposed 1995 Capital Improvement Budget. It adopts, as a budget, the projects identified in this document for the year 1996 and authorizes purchases and preliminary project expenses up to and including a feasibility study for those projects pending Council. approval of appropriate agreements. This budget needs to be adopted by the City Council an action separate from acceptance of this plan. ;".:.'.:,:: ::~ .... .... .'..~~~~~=j.~=:;ii=I~,~~(i)NS;:i':'-~ 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Streets: Reconstruction 190,000 210,000 230,000 Overlay 80,000 80,000 80,000 Storm Drainage 10.000 10,000 10.000 Equipment Replacement 104,186 109,396 113,225 Park Capital 30,000 20,000 10,000 Public Facilities 10,000 15,000 18,947 23,471 18.596 Total General Fund Capital Levy 424,186 444,396 462.172 480,659 499.885 Annual Capital Levy Increase - % 4.76 4.00 4.00 4.00 A summary of General Fund capital levies is shown above. The capital levy IS budgeted in the General Fund as transfers to the various capital improvement funds. 250,000 80,000 10,000 117,188 270,000 80,000 10,000 121,289 ,151 To: Mayor and City Council ~ From: James C. Hurm, City Administrator Date: May 15, 1997 Re: Jerry O'Neil's Comprehensive Plan List Jerry reviewed his Comprehensive Plan list and reorganized the items under several headings. There is only one Council policy discussion point at this time. The others can be brought up with the Planning Commission by Jerry or in work session. The remainder are rewording questions or inquiries into implementation status. Please bring this to Monday's work session. ..ity Council Discussion: CF-19 through CF-20 (change) Water System Planning Commission Discussion Issues: LU-6 Lake Access (work on) fire lanes LU-35 #s 1-3 (work on) LU-35 #s 4 & 5 (change) Cluster and PUD LU-36 #s 7-16 (work on) Planning LU-9 LU-9 LU-9 LU-28 TR-9 Commission Discussion Issues for 1998: #9 (change) Land Cost #11 (work on) Density and Lot Size #13 (change) Cluster and PUDS #s 1-15 (work on) #2 & 5 Parking & 1-8 Mass Transit (work on/review) For Rewording: L U -17 Design ConceptIPUDS (change) Cluster . ___ LU-21 Low to Medium (change) Development Cost ...... LU-27 (see note) What about LU-9 #18? TR-7 #2 (what does this mean?) TR-7 #3 (what does this mean?) TR-8 #14 (change) Cluster and PUD CF-3 #5 (change) Water System CF -5 "Update - Water System" (change) CF-39 #1 & #8 (change) Water System CF -39 #s 6 & 7 (what has been done?) Water Policies and Capacity CF -40 #9 (change) Water System CF-40 #19 (work on) Garbage Districts CF-40 #20 (work on) Underground Wiring Inquiry on Implementation: LU-7 #2 (?) (work on) LU-31 Subdivision Regulations Update (work on) LU-32 Inventory of Housing Plan (work on) LU-34 3rd Paragraph (work on) Lake Access TR-8 #15 (what has been done?) Garbage Trucks TR-17 #3 (look at/work on) CF-6 Stormwater Mgmt & Solid Waste (trucks) & last paragraph - Overhead Wires (work on) CF-12 #15 (what has been done?) Recreation Program Study CF-13 #s 1-4 (what has been done?) Public Utilities CF -14 #s 1-3 (what has been done?) Energy