Loading...
082597 CC Reg AgP .. CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDA Y, AUGUST 25, 1997 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. Immediately following the regular portion ?f the meeting, the Council will convene in Work Session format. No action will be taken at this time. AGENDA 1 . CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call Mayor Dahlberg_ Stover _ McCarty _ O'Neill Garfunkel B. Review Agenda 2 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES City Council Regular Meeting Minutes August II, 1997 (Att.-#2 Minutes) 3 . CONSENT AGENDA. Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: A. A Motion to Establish Fall Clean-up Day as Saturday, October 25, 1997 B. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Accepting Bids for a Dump Truck, Boxes, Hydraulic and Ughting Systems and Awarding Contract (Att.-#3B Proposed Resolution) 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.) 5. 7:45 P.M. PRESENTATION ON ANNUAL REVIEW OF LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION BY JIM DANIELS (Att.-#5 Annual Report) 6 . PARKS . Report by Representative Report on August 12 Park Commission Meeting 7. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR DELINQUENT UTILITY CHARGES & OTHER PROPERTY SPECIFIC CHARGES (Att.-#7 Proposed Resolution) 8. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION APPROVING THE 1998 BUDGET FOR SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT (Att.-#8 Proposed Budget) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 25, 1997 PAGE 2 OF 2 9. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ORDERING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES FOR THE LAKE SIDE LATERAL EXTENSION (Att.-#9 Revised Feasibility Report and Proposed Resolution) 10. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A PETITION - SOUTH BORDER WATERMAIN EXTENSION (Att.-#lO Proposed Resolution) 11. STATUS REPORT OF SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ON SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF SMITHTOWN ROAD AND EUREKA ROAD SOUTH (Att.-#11 Engineer's Memorandum) 12. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR A STREET OVERLAY PROJECT (Att.-#12 Proposed Resolution) 13. ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS A. Staff Report on Development Monitoring B. Review of Upcoming Meeting Dates C. Discussion of Recycling Contract 14. MA YOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS 15. ADJOURN TO WORK SESSION SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (Att.-#15) J?; tlcJ UtzZ/;-&z/co/bt. a;~atZ7" /lj,v ~r?.g/ ~1trT-~~ IIlf7 ?Ut< ~~s 0/ ?& ~aJca:I .~. ~/l~tJ Cl1 '"Vehem.e/lYU; O~po~ ~ -tk:u/~~ a ~~ &~/} /1'0/ /1ntfC.. aA.P ~ ~!tvut.J . ~ tf~~ 4ft; I .~ O~ 5/sr) ex .47~ ?11rh:J /Jttf 7ft mtI . 6tnu tAa-l- ~ ~ ~aa a<<ded twe<. #26/~. U1 ?nt P ~ /J1-e/l ,(s- >'?J /lU; tI//j~/ ~ ~arC/ltiJ<-. C?1 /?1ac1~ ~/.J~ ?l1vesf~ ~Cd-a.JL 77ft ~R-- ~udr u/1 -Ia ~!J ~ah ~/aAds~. ~ ~tJ{ 1fc au ?/UJ/ec/L~ A/UJ/ ~/U.J;;{/ ~ ~~I!J a '/i,nUL. ~/? ~ --fU?u.,e. ,L ~/U a.-cr/~ ~ ~cr- eM- /?amKd! Cflzf~ ~ v'/U M/d.!:jc. ~ VAts 4ALP-. ~A.-.~ a.r ~ ~ /U> /7~?u/t4c.... " ~a,e.J!lt!;l-.r -Ik~ tdM. ~pon~ /adauq ,.uU..I ~ ~7 ~ ~ ~ t/v 7l&O ;eIlSI d~ncr aM/ /tXU PnYtJ ~ t'Vt/lcLdtJJ amt 1/~/7~ ~/rs. 4/ 40/. j?/tUlCi u/, " du ~r~ ;;tr?o/~l~~ a/lP Mu-/r~/h'er; ~ / ~~/ ~ /0-0/ 7' ~r~/ ~?tJU/. d,.;y?4>c/ >~ au my /tFJrlL I ~o~/.6~ a::r a /CJ.ss . .,R/7Ce ur- .dI/ICPil~ t:{/lCl vo~/ ..-:Jf/ ~-ft; ~t:ljLb' ~CWt'., Q'~R//Lq. ~/o~ ?"UJ{u:u~ ~/2~ 10/ ~. L>(tt(~ 1 tV7~r~fzcaL'lr Nl /U?; t:cuL ilaA-ct IS ?cu::t( ~. c?h adqUk,/h', fi?utdbd 1f~c1z~ ..~ IN aecf~ ~ \h4f~ ~.vb. ~ 'ke/1 /lo-Q-? c/ ..&.q, 1lad ?n C:U:~ dY24!_< (? z:N /lUtri~ arw~/~#.) 7M /?1~. a;J/l1-C? W C/LCt/LL4 . - /0 aatz.-(~ ~ /Jt)r/ ~R? /l/){d,i?-r! '4 JJ1tk.{ PJ.. / ~../J- ~ /YYl t7zi ~~'l4;./lI}d ..ifa ~ :I1-FJ?t<, cI< ( as a/l a.d~/ ~M CJfCNa/m flzrlJ ScA~// /lfJlf:,f taM /ad trI, ....~ tP4 t/l mIz-/A ~. ~. {1a.n/lll'.. .... atimt/ tAt ~ ~ uMtOJ .~ ~ ~..?mj -~ f/n /Ui/. ~ ~ * dffrdM'. ~l v~ / / c:J/) asi f/Il .~ dt'/tf' ~ k-.~ 1r 6luf:/lmt? ~ -h ~kd- ~__~~~~~/I-r P?I .s;;/l~LdJ~ . ~ Szn~/ #~t2/fd ~&/N~ 7"'70 - /?/9 cN) CfQP- R-?Yj2 (w) Nt.ro - /.UrI &U~ /7tf' tAN} ~2 -e. MI ctdPfAth tv~s --vu/.Ja-ttr altu h'CI ClAP ~ ~!/1~Nd- -4 tftt,?11fUt- u)A~ Wtlfl-'k fc, ~ ~/L y &uo tlf. . ~ t!t<sn~ tu::U.1-tdj WI mil. -&i2d.. 'f1l1C/. UJ#IF ,~-;:;/1 ~ aftdct "9/ '8/u tverlv' I"h trl~ ct~ uJ'Rt'L wM -I .IlL tAJ21'2tz7l. Ik -mId Au Iv. Iftl& j-tLCtlti; II m~ At 'Aatt -Mty jeu;/tl ~ & !/rIW.k tlv1t! ct ot 0 ask tlJCt/l!dJ. ?tJ"M- h1 an h1 tit ~f ?tJttt ~ attntr .s4h:l..l. ,) fit> S'v-o t ptd v ~fo()C/ atl1f7 8tCit P/1 J- lj dM. Sara It war 3tJ ~ ~h /.z:;ndL av- ttuJ /llan~. em -tz)'J/Uti; . ~a~ ~ ;'JnJiClJ1tU; aNl SD21~ ~ htar/ tlJt:frcts) fiJu ctULut rf/U pdlta'. .7J;t f1t!)lll etlH1l. thu /m-n) ~./IU!. dluLf~ tdMtFlftf Ctif, tAt ~#)1k (!p],IlU,i! mll'knJ ;11 tAts S~ /.fiW) ~. , ~ cttuLjeu. 8M two at i1tL. ~. filaj ~LS tltJi /11PtI. I as) ~ //Pc! r:h .~ . " - ~, ~ ms aiJartix- pttr?#! nt~. dpststf rwLffijlt#. 1m ')JuJ.rf -/-m> ~ft# t?t pUL- /rnJu. afi-I{~) - Vt 1/ ,,""Ii- aiL. ~ a-Pt!Sbr d. t:Uct ri t/Wl tiS. 1BpttitcUl ~&JJ1LU--- I VPhfzj -fWrd- 1fuS ~-t IS ..7nU. fb/Z4f(l- Questions of concern Most of this area is designated as wetland. To accesslbuild, some of these areas will need to be filled. 1. What is the locations of the areas to be filled? 2 . How will fill in this/these areas impact drainage (2 sites minimum) coming into the upland property, and the drainage out? 3. Is the stream flowing into the intended building site from the southeast going to be altered, and if so, how? 4. If so, how will the alteration affect those properties upstream(mine)? 5. The area which has been roped off, I assume the intended building site, is generally under water, or at least very wet, most of the springtime - even on a dry year as the spring of 19% was. Is that site really buildable? Is it just a delta from the straem floating over peat? . 6 . The area in question has a number of mature trees, of which would all come out if someone was to build in that part of the swamp. 7. At least 2 surveys have been performed that I am aware of, with a 12' to 15' discrepancy in the location of the eastern property boundary. 12' to 15' is a rather substantial amount, isn't it? What are the building plans based on? Where I saw soil samples taken seemed questionable also. The holes I saw were only about 18" deep. (and filled with water) 8. In the spring of 1975 when we were negotiating the purchase of the house we are currently in, we contacted the city with regards to the possibility of someone ever building behind the property. The answer at that time was "that area is a wetland and there was Virtually no chance of anyone ever building there. It would be pretty stupid." 9 . The home at 5535 W edgewood sued the city because of water problems which were allegedly not researched thoroughly enough prior to building on the property, and not being able to sell as a result. That property appears substantially higher and does not have at least 2 sources of water being dumped into it. How will the city handle a like situation when it happens in this case? Will taxpayer money fund another unnecessary lawsuit? Statements of Fact 1. Building on the proposed site would substantially decrease the saleability and value of my property, and the property directly north of mine, as one of the largest selling points of these lots is their privacy of their secluded yards and the fact there is nothing and would be nothing built behind theme to the north and west). 2 . Building would most likely remove or cause the death of the only mature trees on a small area of higher ground - exposing those of us to the east to more of the sights and sounds from across the wetlands, traffic noise from Eureka Road. With the loss of those trees, our homes would be exposed to more of the northwest winter winds, raising heating costs, and the summer would rmd more of the mosquitoes moving closer to our living areas. 3. Survey crews, wetland people, and various other people doing who knows what have been accessing this property by cutting through our yards without asking or notifying us. I have had people walking rn )( ~ -, 0- 1< n ~ :3 11 ([) -, l' 0 ::J e< ~ \=- ~ -\ :::0 ~. n ^ ~ ::J 0.. :5< n ^ ~. '" Q>~ \ .?;?/ (j) rt- -, o :3 0- ([) -, <.0 ~ U\ x X \i t: (f\~ X: ~~ SVOBODA ECOLOGICAL R SOURCES Providing the Sharper' Edge in Natural Resou es & Environmental Consulting Mr. BrQdJey J, Nielson Planning Director , City of Shorewood S755 Country Club Road Shorewood,~SSJ31 " . Dear Mr. Ni~lsen: Thank you for allowing me to Ilppeat before watershed suboomrnitt on April 2, 1997 to present some facts about why I believe a building pemut should not be issued for a !residence located immediately north of Nelsine Drive with access off of Eureka Road. , , , As I understand the facts av~nabJe to me, one single faptily resic!e~ ill beiitg proposed at the, end of a ' long driveway that would commence at Eureka' Road and extend cas d approximately 500 to 6OO.fecl The driveway would parallel the rear lot lines of existing residences the north side of Nelsine Drive. The proposed home is to be con.wc~ near tbe diSCharge point of a arge ~1Ie th4t lies in a north~ soutlt direction at the end of Nelstne Drive. ' ~y concerns are ba~ ,on lnyexperience as a'wildlife biologist with er 30 years offield experience, 24 years of Which has been involved with wetland related projects: I ha heldjobs with acadmnic institutions, various agencies within the Public sector and three . to the for tion ~ > . . .<" ,....,' have worked with s an p InDers on severa died projects inVOlving wetland a1tcratioll, evaluation and restoration/creation'desimi. Many of tho wetland ~ratiOQ/c;reation 'go pac~ces in use tod8y ill the Twin Cities metropoli.tan area ~ve been the result of my involvement!l1l1d Qtf1ueuce in the wetlands process and regulatory community for nearly a quarter of a centiuy. I . , ,.. Based on my involvement witll ~cver;tJ hundred development projects . having 'worked with several dozen dtffereot engineers from both the public and ~ of . what is a "ri t" versus "wrong" location for a house c. An examination of the contour map indiCa e en'e era.ionet process carries its load of silt as . nlat silt load is deposited as a delta at the mouth of the ravine and i. 'ng dep0site4 ~ top oIthe. existing wetlanct peat soil. Over time, the silt has settled compressing t e peat. I believe that any house pad built on this consolidated peat will be subject to eVentUal settling ng in cracb4 walls a"d floors. 'III ods of exceptionally heaVy , pe carnes large voJwnes of water which co d wash t any driveway cWvert ~at may be put in place. ~i "- .hilll ,- I lil' 11l1~ts hokIiac the city" " h jn.! .. · .b,j'" ) ~ ~ lIHf.-n,e house is .sold and resold until, at so point in time, the effects 01 poor . - location become evident, The city is then held responsible by the cuir: owner. It is also my'Mderstanding that the individual who has an option to bui ct on the-lot intends to build Ii speculatiVe home and sell the house and lot to a seco ' se it fj idence. . If that is tlte case, . 2477 Shadywood Road · Excelsior, 55331 (612) 471-1100 (Office) · (612) 471-00 7 (Fax) I' I would also recommen4 the pennit require that any instiument u. tran$fer ownership of the property and any constructed structures require a performance guarantee tqr a 'imum otten ~ apiust any . ~unil defects or'damage (10m r~nfal1 events or settling, It may so be possible to require ~ builder/developer of the prepeny to own the home .and reside on ~ isea tor a minimum of two yom if his Slated intent is in fact to build the borne for his own use rather tor "'e. ' :.' . I r _ If you should. have any question. about this' propeny regarding its , ~and related impacts, please call ~ . , Sincerely YOQrs, Svoboda EeoIogieal Re80ureel ~~{~.,~ Fl'8JIldin J,svoboda CWB~ PWS, Prelident ' . , . ty to wetlands aDd possible " . , , . I " r ~ '. ,I I :1 'I II' ~ , ~ ';' . r ~ -' ',' . ' " . , ' '. " 'I ' I, '. -, " , , " , I , .. . , , / MAYOR Tom Dahlberg CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL Kristi Stover Jennifer McCarty Jerry O'Neill John Garfunkel 5755 COUNTRY CLUB. ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128. www.state.net/shorewood. cityhall@shorewood,state.net Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Meeting Monday, August 25, 1997 Agenda Item #3A: Each fall the City contracts with an outside firm to provide containers at the Public Works facility and on the Islands for materials that can be composted. Residents are required to bring this material to the designated locations. This year we suggest the Fall Pickup to be Saturday, October 25, which is the date ~. of the Tonka Senior Rake-A-Thon program. Action would be a motion establishing this date. . ~ Agenda Item #3B: This resolution awards the bid for a dump trunk, boxes, and hydraulic and lighting systems to . J Craft in the amount of $31,525.98. This completes the dump trunk purchases for 1997 and is within CIP budget. . . Agenda Item #5: Jim Daniels, Administrator of the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission, will be ,. ~ present at 7:45 p.m. to give a review of the LMCC activities. :: to Agenda Item #7: This motion approves a resolution setting delinquent utility charges and other property specific charges. This is done annually. A memorandum is enclosed in the packet addressing a letter from Ron Johnson. The Council may wish to address this question before adopting the final resolution. Agenda Item #8: Enclosed in the packet is the 1998 South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department operating budget as recommended by the entire Coordinating Committee. The cities need to approve this budget by September 1 of each year. It will be discussed in more detail at subsequent budget work sessions. i j-.' , to ~ ) ~ . . Agenda Item #9: Staff is currently working on revised break even analyses as requested by the Council. If we , ;.. are unable to get them in the packet. we will review them for the Council at the meeting. Agenda Item #10: This is a second petition for the extension of water on the west side of Smithtown Road ~mmediately adjacent to the Victoria border. Mr. Bill RummIer, Mr. Bill Pye, Mr. Bill Gotschall and Mr. Frank Fox are petitioning the City to extend a lateral watermain from the south link watermain to close proximity of their homes. Agenda Item #11: This item is a continuation from the last meeting regarding the improvements to the southwest quadrant of Smithtown Road and Eureka Road. Mr. Stubstad has agreed to a location for the curb which will allow the intersection to function. The issue of acquisition for an easement has not been resolved at this time. However, a plan has been discussed as to how this may be resolved. Agenda Item #12: This item approves the specifications and authorizes advertisement for bid for the City's annual street overlays. The amount budgeted as part of the Capital Improvements Program is S80.000. A Residentiai Community on Lake Minnetonka's Sourh Shore CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDA Y, AUGUST 11, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. MINUTES CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING IJJ RAfT 1. Mayor Dahlberg called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Dahlberg; Councilmembers Stover, McCarty, O'Neill and Garfunkel; Administrator Hurm; City Attorney John Dean; Engineer Larry Brown; Planning Director Nielsen. B. Review Agenda . Planning Director Nielsen requested the addition of Item D to the Consent Agenda. Dahlberg moved, O'Neill seconded removing Item A from the Consent Agenda to be considered as Agenda Item 4 A. Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Dahlberg read the Agenda for August 11, 1997. The agenda was approved as amended. 2 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes - July 28, 1997 Stover moved, McCarty seconded approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes for July 28, 1997, as amended on Page 6, Item 10 B, Sentence 1, change to read "Mayor Dahlberg reported on a meeting with the Department of Transportation which he attended with Councilmember O'Neill." Motion passed 3/0. (Councilmembers McCarty and O'Neill abstained.) . 3. CONSENT AGENDA McCarty moved, Stover seconded approving the Motions on the amended Consent Agenda and adopting the Resolutions therein: A . A Motion to Approve an Extension to the Contract for Assessing Services ** This item was removed from the Consent Agenda and was considered as Item No. 4A ** B. A Motion Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-63, "A Resolution Regarding Personnel" C. A Motion to Approve Job Descriptions for Liquor Store Employees D. A Motion to Approve a Sign Permit for Marine Plus, Waterford Shopping Center ~% REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1997 - PAGE 2 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Christine Lizee, 27055 Smithtown Road, commented on a letter from Martin Wellens which was sent to both the Council and the Planning Commission. Ms. Lizee clarified several points which Mr. Wellens raised. Ms. Lizee explained the project is not government subsidized and that the proposal makes no request for public funds. She noted this project would result in a positive cash flow to both the city and the state. Ms. Lizee clarified the project is not low income, however the developer has stated a price per unit of approximately $120,000 in an effort to keep the price affordable. Ms. Lizee remarked that Mr. Wellens has referred to this project as a "housing project." She stated this development is a housing project by strict definition, but that it could also be defined as a housing aim, housing ambition, housing goal or housing intention. Ms. Lizee urged Mr. Wellens to attend the public meetings, learn the truth and then share his questions and concerns in a public forum and not leap to unfounded and uninformed conclusions. . Greg Larson, 25535 Orchard Circle, stated in late May the City Engineer received a call from the Hennepin County Parks Division expressing a safety concern relative to the placement of curbing 1-2 feet into the LRT at the corner of Smithtown, Eureka and the new street which serves the subdivision and asking that the curb be removed from the trail. Mr. Larson stated this situation presents a safety hazard as it still remains. Mr. Larson also felt the entire design of the new street was foolishly approved, giving more consideration to the developer's needs than the safety and future use of the LRT. Mr. Larson also stated that sewer construction has severely damaged the wetland. He felt City Staff and the developer were very forceful in their contention that there was no wetland damage because the crossing was made in the buffer area. Mr. Larson commented that City Staff challenged the residents to prove that the area was indeed wetland and that they refused to listen to the residents when told that this particular area was wetland. Mr. Larson stated Staff would not consider the photos presented by residents and did not take into consideration the study which was completed by the Minnewashta fifth grade class. Mr. Larson stated he had been informed by representatives of the Watershed District that there was little doubt that this particular area was a wetland, however, they were unable to comment on the record. Mr. Larson reported the MCWD requested an official wetland technical evaluation panel to view the site and provide a final determination whether the area is a delineated wetland. . Mr. Larson also reported the evaluation panel has determined that the utility did cross a wetland. He felt it should not have been necessary for a technical panel of wetland experts to determine this area was wetland. Mr. Larson remarked the residents only expect fairness and a chance to be heard. It was Mr. Larson's opinion that the developer was fully aware they were digging through wetland area, yet continued their work. He pointed out utilities may cross a wetland if it is determined doing so would be for the good of the public. In addition, a permit would need to be issued. Mr. Larson felt the developer circumvented public officials and public process and that City Staff abetted the developer in covering up this fact. He stated an important natural neighborhood amenity has been destroyed and he felt Staff were arrogant and mean-spirited and owe the people of Shorewood an apology. . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1997 - PAGE 3 Mr. Larson requested the project be shut down until such time the wetland is restored and that this restoration be monitored by a wetlands biologist or ecologist as opposed to City Staff. He stated City Staff have no credibility relative to natural resource issues in the City of Shorewood. Mayor Dahlberg asked who made the decision that this particular area was not a wetland and whether or not the developer had performed this work without any sort of permission from the City. Engineer Brown stated the approved plans clearly show the pipe line proposed in the direction in which it was constructed. The plan was approved by the Council. Brown stated once objections were received from Mr. Larson, staff inspected the area and determine the pipeline was placed as reflected in the plans which were approved by the Council. Brown explained Staff met with the MCWD at the site after their panel was conducted and no objection was made to where the pipeline had been placed. He noted Mr. Larson to be correct in his statement that no one on City Staff claims to be a wetland biologist. Staff relied on the licensed wetland delineator as put forward by the State. The wetland delineation which was conducted by a licensed professional stated where the pipeline crossed was a buffer. Councilmember O'Neill stated he is aware the MCWD approved plans to this particular development and asked whether the sewer was depicted on any of the plans which were reviewed by them. Mr. Larson stated the MCWD did not consider the sewer line because they had been told there would be no impact to that wetland. Mr. Larson asked who would be taking responsibility to restore the wetland. Councilmember O'Neill noted the MCWD has already stated the wetland will have to be restored. Mr. Larson did not agree with this statement. Brown explained there had been a meeting with the MCWD at which time staff was informed the wetland would have to be restored and material would have to be removed from the site. At this time, the wetland is beginning to grow over and the MCWD will be making a decision whether it will cause more disturbance to remove the material from the site or if the site should be allowed to revegetate on its own. Brown stated at this time, staff has been informed by the MCWD that the site will be restored to wetland characteristics. Mayor Dahlberg asked if the project will be shut down until the wetland is restored. Brown stated to the best of his knowledge, the project will not be shut down. City Staff were informed by the MCWD it would cause less disturbance to dredge out the wetland in the winter. In addition, there are questions to be asked of the wetland specialist with respect to the delineation which was completed. Brown pointed out it is the intention to staff to minimize the damage which was done and this may be achieved by completing this work in the winter, however, that decision will be left to the wetland specialists. Nielsen commented there are two other areas of wetland restoration which need to take place consisting of the road which separates the northerly wetland from the main basin as well as the spoil pile located off of Eureka Road. One or both of those areas need to be dredged out and restored along with the wetland. He noted the City does have a Letter of Credit to guarantee that site work and improvements are completed. Mayor Dahlberg asked if there is a drawing included in the PUD agreement which indicates where the utility was to be placed. Nielsen stated it is not in the PUD agreement itself, but it is depicted in the plans and specifications of the project which are incorporated by reference in the PUD agreement. Councilmember McCarty commented she wants the residents to be satisfied, but if it is going to create more damage than what has already been done, the work should be done in the winter months. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1997 - PAGE 4 Councilmember O'Neill felt the blame should go to the person who delineated the wetland and gave approval to the plans. Mayor Dahlberg requested a clear chronology of the events and felt a clear procedure needs to be followed. Councilmember O'Neill pointed out since the area was delineated to not be a wetland, there would have been no need to pull a permit. Mayor Dahlberg requested the MCWD's published opinion related to this situation. He also requested published information relative to the enforcement authority, responsibility and accountability to this situation. Councilmember O'Neill suggested the Council consider obtaining expert assistance relative to wetlands given the number of wetland areas within the city. He suggested hiring assistance on a part-time or project by project basis. Martin Wellens, 4755 Lakeway Terrace, responded to Christine Lizee's comments. He stated his description is more accurate than calling the project senior housing since Council cannot maintain the status of senior housing. Mr. Wellens believes a future Council could change the regulations. Councilmember O'Neill stated the present proposal specifies the properties would not be sold to . anyone under the age of 62. This provision would be in effect for 30 years. Mayor Dahlberg asked if this provision could be changed in the event all of the parties were to agree. Attorney Dean stated that would be possible. Councilmember McCarty pointed out that is the case with any issue the City faces. Mr. Wellens felt it to be deceptive to refer to this project as senior housing. He also related his belief the zoning will be changed. Councilmember McCarty stated the zoning is not changing and the developer proposes less units than the current zoning allows. Mayor Dahlberg.questioned whether this project will be a Planned Unit Development. Nielsen stated that is required by ordinance. Mr. Wellens questioned the necessity of a PUD if the project is conforming to the zoning laws. Nielsen explained the PUD is designed to address the association and common areas. Mr. Wellens felt an exception is being made for this developer and that the developer is not being held accountable for the zoning laws. Councilmembers McCarty and Stover expressed their . disagreement with Mr. Wellens' statement. Councilmember Stover invited Mr. Wellens to contact her to further discuss this matter. A . A Motion to Approve an Extension to the Contract for Assessing Services ** This item was removed from the Consent Agenda and was considered as Item No. 4A ** . Mayor Dahlberg inquired whether a competitor comparison has been made. Administrator Hurm stated that is not done on an annual basis. Councilmember Stover explained if the City does not hire its own assessor, a County Assessor is appointed and the City is then responsible for payment of that assessor which is at a much higher rate. Councilmember O'Neill stated his intention to vote against the motion. He stated he was not impressed with the manner in which Mr. Erickson presented his explanations to the residents. He had no problem with the quality of his work, but felt that someone who can work better with the people would be more effective. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1997 - PAGE 5 Councilmember Stover commented the response from the residents over the years has been they were may be unhappy with the assessment of their property, but they were very pleased with Mr. Erickson and his personality as an assessor. Councilmember Stover suggested speaking with Mr. Erickson relative to this matter. Councilmember Garfunkel stated the assessor is hired for the quality of the job and the technical part of the work. Councilmember Stover felt it would be helpful to let Mr. Erickson know of the concerns which were raised. Stover moved, McCarty seconded approving an extension to the contract for assessing services noting Councilmember O'Neill's concern. Motion passed 4/1 (O'Neill was dissenting vote). 5. PLANNING - Report by Representative . Commissioner Kolstad reported on the matters considered and the actions taken by the Planning Commission at its meeting of August 5, 1997, (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare Findings of Fact Regarding a Variance Request Applicant: Location: Richard and Ingrid Hoyt 5710 Ridge Road Attorney James Pemberthy appeared on behalf of Richard and Ingrid Hoyt. He stated the Hoyts knew what they bought when they bought the property and that it was already being put to reasonable use. He noted there is a deck on the house and there is reasonable access to Christmas Lake. Mr. Pemberthy felt as long as the use meets the requirements of the ordinance, it should be permitted. With respect to the requirements, he noted those to be environmental and aesthetic. He pointed out the Hoyts will be reducing hardcover and there will be an opportunity to eliminate nonconforming structures. . Mayor Dahlberg noted there were 26 letters submitted to the Council which are in favor of the Hoyts' plan. Councilmember Stover stated the point of zoning, in many cases, given the fact a lot of the city existed before it became a city, was to continually attempt to upgrade to the standards the zoning ordinance had in place. She felt this to be a perfect opportunity to achieve what the city was hoping to achieve when it wanted to have less hardcover. The compromise offer from the Hoyts is to remove a great deal of the hardcover and a better hardcover surface will result. In addition, the appearance from the water will be improved. Councilmember Stover pointed out this will be allowing a variance, however, if the City were to never allow a variance, there is no point in having a variance procedure. She pointed out variance procedures generally take into consideration the topography. Councilmember Stover noted this structure is commonly accepted in that particular neighborhood and granting the variance would not change the character of the neighborhood. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1997 - PAGE 6 Councilmember McCarty stated she would appreciate a reduction in hardcover, however, traditionally, the City has been strict relative to the granting of variances. She could not identify a hardship and felt the property has reasonable use. Given the fact that a large number of the homes in this area have like situations, she suggested the Planning Commission may wish to revisit the ordinance. Councilmember Garfunkel felt this to be a unique situation, noting the Hoyts are trading some hardcover for a lesser amount of hardcover. The pump house and the steps are being remove which will address aesthetics. Councilmember O'Neill pointed out the Hoyts bought the land knowing about the bluff. He stated in the case of hardship, no one would ever be granted a variance because everyone would know what they were buying and there would never be a hardship. Attorney Dean commented when referring to a reasonable use, this would mean a use which is normally consistent with property in that type of zoning district. He noted a deck would be a reasonable use for most residential property. Attorney Dean also noted the circumstances were not caused by the applicants and when granting . variances, the City must not look at self-imposed problems created by the applicant, but rather consider solid land use reasons for or against granting a variance. Attorney Dean pointed out a form resolution which was included in the packet. He noted the dates would need to be changed as well as the reference to the Mayor. The resolution contained the terms and conditions which would be applicable in this matter. Stover moved, Garfunkel seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-64, "A Resolution Granting a Setback Variance to Richard and Ingrid Hoyt, 5710 Ridge Road, subject to a release with prejudice being received by the City. Councilmember McCarty suggested the Council consider other lakeshore owners who may be making a similar request. Councilmember O'Neill asked Attorney Dean for his opinion relative to setting of precedent. Attorney Dean did not feel granting this variance would create a precedent. Councilmember Stover pointed out other variances have been granted on Christmas Lake within the 75 feet which were much more extensive than the current situation. . Motion passed 4/1. (Councilmember McCarty was the dissenting vote.) 6. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO GIDEONS WOODS' DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING REMOVAL OF BILLBOARD O'Neill moved, McCarty seconded approving a motion to set a public hearing regarding an amendment to Gideons Woods' Development Agreement regarding removal of billboard. Motion passed 5/0. 7. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ORDERING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES FOR THE SOUTH LINK - LAKE SIDE LATERAL EXTENSION Mayor Dahlberg questioned why the Council is adopting a resolution which simply warrants that the feasibility report is accurate. Engineer Brown explained the feasibility report provides an REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1997 - PAGE 7 indication whether or not the project is technically feasible and does not warrant that the actual cost will not be higher than estimated. Attorney Dean explained whether or not the property owners are willing to enter into a contract or not, the City is financing this, in part, through a special assessment approach. In order to proceed, the City must meet certain statutory criteria. Councilmember Stover inquired, given the high cost of the project, whether the residents are interested in proceeding. Hurm stated the project is technically feasible in addition to being feasible from a system standpoint and financial standpoint from the City's perspective. The petitioners would now have to determine whether it is financially feasible. Attorney Dean remarked after the bids come back, prior to the work being ordered, the City would enter into a contract in which the petitioners would be obligated to pay the special assessment. If the petitioners did not like the bids, the City would not go forward with the project. . Brown pointed out the resolution provides that once the bids have been obtained and tabulated, the petitioners would re-execute an agreement with the City stating they are willing to waive their right to a public hearing and contestment of the assessments. Mayor Dahlberg asked two of the petitioners who were present if they are still interested in this project. The residents indicated they are hopeful the estimates would not be high, however, they are still very interested in getting municipal water either way and would like to see the process continue at this point. Councilmember Stover noted two of the petitioners had paid a $5,000 assessment when watermain was installed on Smithtown Road. She asked why that would not be taken into consideration. Hurm pointed out that was applied toward the previous project. Councilmember Stover pointed out these petitioners did not hook into the system from that point. She felt the assessment should be applied to this project since this is where they will be getting their water. . Mayor Dahlberg recessed the meeting at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:40 p.m; With respect to previously assessed properties, Brown stated he was unsure of the exact procedure in which to arbitrarily pull these petitioners off of the assessment roll and apply them to another project. In addition, bonds were obtained for those projects and the bonding company may be opposed to changing the financial guarantee on that project versus the bonds which have been issued. Attorney Dean stated a previously levied special assessment can be relieved only by assuring there was a mistake or error or in the original special assessment and that it should not have been levied initially or that it was levied according to a policy which was then in existence. Attorney Dean pointed out even if this could be accomplished because of a mistake, there would be a $10,000 shortfall which would result in the first project. By statute, the City cannot reassess properties previously assessed to make up a shortfall. Councilmember O'Neill asked what percentage of an average water bill finances the water system. He states this results in the City financing private properties installing water in their homes. Councilmember O'Neill stated he would like to see a breakdown of how this project is financed. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1997 - PAGE 8 Stover moved, O'Neill seconded tabling consideration of a motion to adopt a resolution accepting Feasibility Report and ordering plans, specifications and estimates for the South Link - Lake Side lateral extension to the August 25, 1997, meeting of the City Council. Motion passed 5/0. 8. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION REGARDING STREET LIGHTING AT BRYNMA WR Mayor and Mrs. Dahlberg completed a random sample of 15 calls to determine how residents of the Brynmawr neighborhood felt relative to the street lighting. Of the calls which were made, half were neutral and half were in favor of leaving the light in place. Mayor Dahlberg took this to be an indication to leave the light in place. McCarty moved, Garfunkel seconded keeping the street light at Brynmawr Place. Motion passed 3/1. (O'Neill was the dissenting vote and Stover abstained.) Councilmember Stover stated she is not a proponent for lights, curb or gutter in a city place. However, when a request is made by a neighborhood and no objections are made, the neighborhood should have what it wants. She noted there was one objection raised. Mayor Dahlberg stated he is also not in favor of lights, curb or gutter in Shorewood, however, given the results of the random sample, he felt there seems to be support in the neighborhood. Councilmember O'Neill was not in favor of street lights, but he felt if the neighborhood has decided they want them, then they should be able to have them. . 9. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION REGARDING M1~DOT'S PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR HIGHWAY 7 Councilmember O'Neill questioned the provision of the resolution which indicates the City of Shorewood will initiate a cooperative agreement. Brown explained some time ago, the City agreed in principal to enter into an agreement with NfNDOT for this particular intersection. The actual agreement would have to come back before the Council for approval and review. Attorney Dean suggested rewriting the provision to say the City of Shorewood is willing to initiate . negotiations toward the creation of a cooperative agreement. Administrator Hurm suggested changing Provision No.2 to read, "The City of Shorewood is willing to consider a cooperative agreement with NfNDOT along TH7, striking out the words "initiate aid." O'Neill moved, McCarty seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-65, "A Resolution Regarding MNDOT's Proposed Improvements for Highway 7," with the changes indicated. Motion passed 5/0. 10. RECONSIDERATION OF A MOTION REGARDING SAFETY IlVIPROVElVIENTS ON SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF SMITHTOWN ROAD AND EUREKA ROAD SOUTH O'Neill moved, McCarty seconded reconsidering safety improvements on southeast quadrant of the intersection of Smithtown Road and Eureka Road South. Motion passed 312. (Mayor Dahlberg and Councilmember GarfunkeJ were the dissenting votes.) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1997 - PAGE 9 Mayor Dahlberg inquired whether or not staff has informed Mr. Stubstead the easement is valued at $3,500. Brown stated that has not been done. Councilmember O'Neill addressed the results which were obtained by the placement of a speed cart on Smithtown Road for a two week period of time. It was noted the average speed in one week was under 30 miles per hour which is the existing speed limit. He noted he had observed the intersection and expressed concern that modifications to the intersection may create a safety problem. Mayor Dahlberg observed cars on the curve and did not see that it was much more difficult than it otherwise would have been. Councilmember O'Neill asked if it is the intent of the Council to change the road in an effort to change driving habits or if driving habits would be better addressed through enforcement. He expressed concern in placing obstacles which would cause someone to be hurt. . Councilmember McCarty inquired whether the police chief and the fire marshal have been consulted relative to this situation. Councilmember O'Neill stated he has not yet received a response from the fire marshal. Mayor Dahlberg suggested going back to Mr. Stubstead with proposals and obtaining his feedback. He suggested tabling this matter to allow staff sufficient time to follow up on this matter. Councilmember Garfunkel felt the Council had not been provided sufficient information on this matter. He expressed concern this matter had been resolved several months previously and it is now back for reconsideration. He felt a better job could have been done investigating this matter when it was initially presented to Council. O'Neill moved, Stover seconded directing staff not to act on anything further relative to the motion which was passed and reconsidered until such time as additional information is received from staff. This matter will be reconsidered at the Council Meeting of August 25, 1997. Motion passed 4/1. (Mayor Dahlberg was the dissenting vote.) 11. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PETITION TO THE COUNTY TO INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROAD 19 AND SMITHTOWN ROAD . Brown reported in speaking with representatives of Hennepin County, he was informed that the Capital Improvement Program for 1998 had been improved and there would be little chance of completing this work in 1998. Occasionally the County receives special projects to complete. Brown suggested Mayor Dahlberg contact Commissioner Penny Steele in an attempt to gain the project special status. Councilmember McCarty inquired as to the status of Tonka Bay in this matter. Brown explained Tonka Bay, having a population of less than 5,000, does not have state aid status. Therefore, by county charter, the county would pick up their portion of the cost. It is intended to use municipal state aid funds for the Shorewood share. Councilmember McCarty asked if Tonka Bay had expressed any opinion relative to this project. Mayor Dahlberg will contact the Mayor of Tonka Bay as well as Penny Steele and then report back to the Council. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1997 - PAGE 10 Councilmember Stover stated she would like to see semaphores put in as an encouragement to stay on County Road 19 as opposed to traversing Country Club or Smithtown. McCarty moved, Stover seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-66, "A Resolution Authorizing a Petition to the County to Install Traffic Signals at the Intersection of County Road 19 and Smith town Road." Motion passed 5/0. 12. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO APPROVE A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR POLICE SERVICE Stover moved, McCarty seconded approving a Joint Powers Agreement for police service. Motion passed 5/0. 13. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT McCarty moved, Stover seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-67, "A Resolution Accepting the Public Improvements for Heritage Development." Motion passed 5/0. . 14. ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF REPORTS A. STAFF REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT MONITORING Watten Ponds Nielsen reported things have improved substantially with the arrival of Phil Tipka who inspects the site daily. Staff will be drafting a specification for the erosion control and tree protection fencing. This will require a product which is much more durable. The first lift of black top is down and the pond is nearing completion. Staff will be reviewing the original delineation of the wetland. If it is in error, staff will consider what steps need to be taken. Brown reported on the curb which is extending into the LRT. Staff has marked it for removal. In . speaking with Hennepin County, they agree it is not a safety hazard. It was been covered and a bicyclist or a pedestrian are not likely to stumble on it. Brown stated he has been in communication with the developer for several weeks asking that curb be removed. The developer assures it will be removed as soon as there is sufficient dry weather in which to take a backhoe into the area and remove the curb. Due to concerns of liability, it is not Brown's intention to use City crews to remove the curb. Councilmember McCarty would like to see it done, however, having observed the area, she did not feel the curb is in a dangerous location. Mayor Dahlberg expressed concern the developer continues to put off the removal of the curbing. Mayor Dahlberg noted he was under the impression the County intended to view the situation with regard to right of way and where the road should be bordered. Brown stated the County has not been to the site. He pointed out the County has issued a permit which allows that curb to be there. Mayor Dahlberg stated he drives through Watten Ponds on a weekly basis. He commented he is confused by the amount of fencing which is within the drip line. , . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1997 - PAGE 11 Nielsen stated there are two areas in which the fence looks closer than it should be, but the original location against the tree trunk was not in violation, but was actually an approved location. Nielsen suggested Mayor Dahlberg meet him on the site to review these situations. Councilmember O'Neill complimented Mr. Tipka on his work at the Watten Ponds site. Brown stated Tipka's history in Shorewood is of benefit to the City. He noted Mr. Tipka has been directed to spend an inordinate amount of time at the development. The cost for this is passed on to the developer. B . SECOND QUARTER PROGRESS REPORT ON 1997 PRIORITIES Hurm noted while a few priorities have been completed, the Council is currently working on almost all of them. He noted there will be a work session scheduled for Monday, August 18, 1997, to discuss the issue of snowmobiles. . C. ENGINEER'S REPORT ON STATUS OF RETAINING WALL AT OLD MARKET ROAD Brown reported a portion of the timber retaining wall is bowed out. He noted the recommendations he received from OSM relative to this issue were unclear. He noted there are no recorded drawings to indicate what is involved in the tie back of that retaining wall. Mayor Dahlberg inquired as to the status of Mr. Leffel's property. Brown did note a landscaper was working in the area. Brown has scheduled a meeting to meet with Mr. Leffel. D. STATUS REPORT ON ISSUES DISCUSSED AT MAYOR'S MEETING Mayor Dahlberg reported he met with Bob Rascop and he is attempting to contact Tom Wartman. Hurm reported meals have begun in the Southshore Center. Nielsen reported representatives of the Southshore Center have approached staff with the possibility of the Center and the City Hall going together on a sign. Mayor Dahlberg felt the Center needs its own signage, however, he asked that staff presented a more definite proposal. . 15. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember McCarty reported on the Park Foundation meeting and noted the concession trailer will make a profit, however, she was unsure what dollar amount this would be. The Park Foundation would request the Park Commission proceed with the building that has been planned. MA YOR'S REPORT ON JULY 29 MEETING WITH GIDEONS WOODS HOMEOWNERS Mayor Dahlberg reported on his meeting with representatives of the Attorney General's office. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1997 - PAGE 12 16. ADJOURNMENT McCarty moved, Stover seconded adjourning the meeting at 11:40 p.m. subject to the approval of claims. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Cheryl WalIat, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial ATTEST: TOM DAHLBERG, MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR . . . . MAYOR Tom Dahlberg CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL Kristi Stover Jennifer McCarty Jerry O'Neill John Garfunkel 5755 COUNTRY CLUB,ROAD' SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128' www.state.neUshorewood' cityhall@shorewood.state.net MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council James Hurm, City Administrator ~ . FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: August 20, 1997 RE: A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for Dump Truck Boxes, Hydraulic and Lighting Systems and Appurtenances. On March 24, 1997, the City Council authorized the purchase of two dump trucks. Since the box, hydraulic systems and lighting systems were quoted as a package for both trucks which exceeded $25,000 a formal bidding process was required. Bids were received and opened on August 20th at the Shorewood City Hall. . Attachment 1 is the Bid tabulation for the box, hydraulic system and lighting systems for both trucks. The two vendors who bid the package are the main suppliers for this market. The low bid was received by J-Craft for an amount of $31,525.98 in total for both trucks. This figure is well within the budget that was authorized by the City Council. A resolution is attached for your consideration which would award the contract to J-Craft for the amount of$31,525.98. :t3B A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Bid Tabulation City of Shorewood Bid Openning 10:00 AM Shorewood City Hall FURNISHING AND INSTALLATION OF 2 SINGLE AXLE DUMP TRUCK BOXES, HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS, L1GHTNG SYSTEMS AND MISCELLANEOUS APPURTENANCES Bid Bond Bidder Or Check (5%) Total Bid Crysteel Bond $39,675.00 . J Craft Cashier's Check $31,525.98 . I Hereby Certify that the bids represented ~te ;;;;;:'the bids receiv Theresa Naab, Deputy Clerk ~~~- Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Attachment 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 97 - A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND A WARDING CONTRACT FOR FURNISHING AND INSTALLATION OF 2 SINGLE AXLE DUMP TRUCK BOXES, HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS, LIGHTNG SYSTEMS AND NITSCELLANEOUSAPPURTENANCES WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for local improvements designated and tabulated according to Furnish and Install 2 Dump Truck Boxes and Hydraulic Systems and Appurtenances, bids were received, opened on August 20, 1997 and tabulated according to law, and such tabulation is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A; and . WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that J-Craft Incorporated, is the lowest responsible bidder in compliance with the specifications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with J-Craft Incorporated, in the name of the City of Shore wood, for the Furnishing and Installation of 2 Single Axle Dump Truck Boxes, Hydraulic Systems, Lighting Systems and Miscellaneous Appurtenances according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council on file in the office of the City Administrator/Clerk. . 2. That the City Administrator/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all the bidders the deposits made with their bids, except for the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder, which shall be retained until a contract has been signed. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25th day of August, 1997. Tom Dahlberg, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk ------------ ------------- ----- ----- . . . Bid Tabulation City of Shorewood Bid Openning 10:00 AM Shorewood City Hall FURNISHING AND INSTALLATION OF 2 SINGLE AXLE DUMP TRUCK BOXES, HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS, L1GHTNG SYSTEMS AND MISCELLANEOUS APPURTENANCES Bid Bond Bidder Or Check (5%) Total Bid Crysteel Bond $39,675.00 . J Craft Cashier's Check $31,525.98 . . I Hereby Certify that the bids represented ::;:;;::::..e ;};)Ol the bids receiv Theresa Naab, Deputy Clerk ~ Ltf.- ~ - Larry Brown, Director of Public Works "Exhibit A" .. DEEPHAVEN EXCELSIOR G.WOOD LONG LAKE MEDINA MINNETONKA BEACH MINNETRISTA ORONO ST.eFACIUS SHOREWOOD SPRING PARK TONKA BAY VICTORIA WOODLAND L~c;,c;,LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 540 SECOND STREET. P.O. BOX 473. EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-0473 612.474-5539. FAX 612.474-0430 August 20, 1997 Mayor Tom Dahlberg City Council Members City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Drive Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mayor Dahlberg and Council Members: The Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) passed the enclosed budget figures for 1998, at its full LMCC meeting on August 19, 1997. It has become customary over the last few years, to schedule a timed item on your city council agenda and talk for a few minutes about the LMCC success and some current/future challenges. At that time, any questions you may have regarding the LMCC future plans or an explanation of any budget figures can be explained As always, we look forward to appearing before you, to talk about the achievements of your Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission. Sincerely, Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission O~~ c;:~:s W. Daniels Administrator Enclosure cc T. Pattrin, LM CC Chair Jeffrey Foust, Commissioner , ..--- ! J..- , ..-lI""""'" _ .......--.. ~ -_/ LAKE lVlINNETONKA COlVllVH .lCA TIONS COlVllVIlSSION PROPOSED 1998 BUDGET APPROVED BY Ll\tfCC AI)IJI'O\"cd P rOI)Oscd Changc % Budgct Budgct Changc fOl' 1997 for 1998 INCOME Franchise Fees $147.283.28 $155,000.00 + $7716.72 Other 2,000.00 2.000.00 0.00 Triax-North Studio Interest _4,000.00 4,000.00 0.00 Contingcncy Fund ** 14,560.00 (Only if nceded) $153,283.28 $175,560.00 I OPERA T1NG EXPENSES Administrator, Access & $81,100.00 $85,600.00 + $4,500.00 5% Officc StalT Secrelarial Service 800.00 825.00 + 25.00 3% Payroll Taxes/PERA 10,140.00 10,640.00 + 500.00 3% Travel Expenses 2,175.00 2,295.00 + 120.00 5% Health Insurance 5,400.00 5,670.00 + 270.00 5% Legal Fees 8,000.00 9,000.00 + 1,000.00 12% Insurance/Bonds 5,670.00 5,670.00 0.00 0% LMCC Accounting! 2.0()O.00 2.050.00 + 50.00 2% Annual Review Conf., Schools & 7,000.00 7,200.00 + 200.00 3% Conventions Office/Studio Supply Janitor 4,000.00 4,000.00 0.00 0% Serv/Supply , Membership Dues/ 1,500.00 00.00 0.00 0% Subscriptions .. At this time income can only bc estimated. It has never been nccessary to withdraw funds from the contingency account to cover expenses, but this shows a balanced budget for 1998. DESCRIPTION ~ Payroll for Admin., Prod. Coord., Studio Coord., PT Prod. Asst.'s & Admin. Ass!. ~ Payroll Services ~ PERA & employer w/holding contribution ~ LMCC visibility at all cities, MACT A , North Studio & errands ~ Ami. attributed to employee health ins. ~ Rate reg.lfranchise renewal/legal counsel ~ Workers Comp., Dishonesty Bond, Property Liabilily ~ Bookkeeping & annual audit ~ NA TOA, MACT A, NFLCP ~ Normal office/studio supplies, copy machine agree- ment @ $30/010. & janitor service and supplies ~ ~OA, MACT A, magazines and 4 local .nbcrs of Commerce . 1GE2. LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COlVlMISSION PROPOSED 1998 BUDGET - CONTINUED ,b Apllroved Prol)Osed Change % Budget Budget Change for 1997 for 1998 OPERATING EXPENSES (continued) TelephonclVoice $ 2,280.00 $ 2,330.00 + $50.00 2% Mail PostagcIPO Box 1,450.00 1.480.00 + 30.00 2% Miscellaneous 1,000.00 1,000.00 0.00 0% AdvertisinglPromo 4,200.00 4,200.00 0.00 0% Four Quarterly NewslcUers Office Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Office Rent 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00 0% Equipment Maint. 1,700.00 1 ,700,00 0.00 0% & Repair Sales Tax 1,500.00 l. 000.00 ( -500.(0) - OPERATING EXPENSES $144,915.00 $151,160,O() $ 6,745.00 4.4% SUB-TOTAL DESCRIPTION => Monthly charges/answering service ~ LMCC agendas/correspondence, & PO Box Rental ~ Varies ~ Four quarterly newsletters to all interested cities, direct mail promos, Triax bill stuffers & Annual eh. 21 Awards ~ Office Rent & Bank Box ~ Increased hours on equipment will create need for repair ~ Based on 6.5% of taxable purchases "GE3 LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COlVll\tlSSION PROPOSED 1998 BUDGET - CONTINUED AI)I) roved Prollosed Change 0/0 Budget Budget Change for 1997 for 1998 SPECIAL FUNIJS Capital Funds $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0% Franchise Renewal 1,000.00 1,500.00 + 500.00 50% Fund Tape Stock 300.00 300.00 0.00 0'% Technical/Financial 2,500.00 2.500.00 0.00 0% Rate Audit Studio Equipment 2,500.00 2,500.00 0.00 0% Legal Fund 100.00 100.00 0.00 0% Office Equipment 1,500.00 1,000.00 ( -500.(0) - Access Equipment 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00 0% Access/Development 11,000.00 11,000.00 0.00 0% Contingency 708.28 0.00 ( -708.28) - Sales Tax 300.00 500.00 + 200.00 66% SPECIAL FUNDS SUB-TOTAL $ 24,908.28 $ 24,400.00 ( -508.28) - OPERATING FUNDS SUB-TOTAL $144,915.00 $151,160.00 $6,745.00 4.4% GRAND TOTAL $169,823.28 $175,560.00 + $5,736.72 3.2% . DESCRIPTION => Expenses involved in "Future" Needs Assessment and Renewal => Rcplaccmcnt of videotapc for production => Future audit if needed => Replace equipment / Purchase North Studio => Future unforeseen legal expenses => Replace / purchase new office equipment => Cameras, porta-pack, misc. for another city council meeting => Coverage of 8 city council mtgs., film development and DeWolf Audio => Based on 6.5% of taxable purchases . Budget98.)lllh . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING TUESDA Y, AUGUST 12, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER DRAfl Chair Colopoulos called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Colopoulos; Commissioners Puzak, Dallman, Arnst, Packard, and Wilson; Council Liaison McCarty; Engineer Larry Brown, Planning Director Brad Nielsen, Park Planner Mark Koegler and Administrator Jim Hurm. Absent: Commissioner Bensman . 3. REVIEW AGENDA The consensus of the Commission was to reorganize the agenda to ensure consideration and discussion relative to the Shorewood Senior Housing Project as well as the 1998 Park Budget. 4 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES JUNE 24. 1997 Wilson moved, Arnst seconded, to approve the minutes as amended on Page 1, Item 6A, Sentence 5, change to reflect, "Commissioner Puzak recommended that the City replace the signage with a city sign, utilizing its own wording . ." Motion passed 6/0. JULY 9. 1997 . Arnst moved, Packard seconded, to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion passed 6/0. 5. MA TTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 6. DISCUSSION OF SHOREWOOD SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (EAGLECREST) PROPOSAL City Planner Nielsen noted in walking the site there are a number of individual trees which may lend themselves to relocation. Commissioner Dallman noted there had been discussions relative to moving units 45 through 48 in an effort to avoid a cluster of willow trees. He asked if shifting or eliminating the buildings would be necessary to save a cluster of willows. Nielsen stated the developer is giving consideration to shifting some of the buildings. He stated the age and the value of the trees will be taken into consideration. Commission Dallman stated he would support the land swap which is proposed by the developer. He would not want to see a unit in the development lost in an effort to save one of the willows since the loss of one building would also result in a reduction of tax revenue. Commissioner Dallman felt there may be space sufficient for an additional ballpark on the land to be swapped. -'" . , . '. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 2 Commissioner Arnst inquired relative to the parking spaces which will be lost and whether there is room to mitigate for them on this particular piece of property which will be gained through the land swap. Nielsen stated parking arrangements have not been laid out. There have been some discussions relative to expanding the southerly parking lot which would result in the addition of approximately 15 to 20 spaces. Commissioner Arnst stated her concern is not for the loss of trees, but rather mitigation of the parking and if it cannot be accommodated in the upper area, could it be accommodated in the space of units 18, 19, and 20. Nielsen was unsure how many cars could be accommodated in the space of units 17, 18 and 19. Hurm commented the area north of where the street will come in where the current parking lot is located for Field No. 1 is estimated to be approximately 100 feet. This would be sufficient area for three rows of parking. Commissioner Arnst asked if units 18, 19 and 20 were moved, could the berm be brought around to the back of units 16 and 17. Nielsen stated it would be desirable to screen the parking from those units. Commissioner Puzak stated it would further encroach into the parking lot, but it would be the appropriate thing to do. Relative to trails, Commissioner Packard felt the road comes very close to wetland and questioned . whether there is sufficient room to put a trail in that area. Nielsen explained if the concept plan is approved, the development stage plans would include a wetland delineation. There is a 35-foot buffer requirement from the wetland. The wetland ordinance does allow some encroachment into the buffer area with, in some cases, roads or driveways. Nielsen stated a trail would be a reasonable use of the buffer area. Commissioner Packard asked if it is anticipated the trail would go around the wetland Of just along the southerly side. Nielsen stated typically it would be expected the developer would put in the segment relative to the development itself. If the City wants to tie onto that trail, that would be at City expense. Nielsen pointed out relative to park dedication that on this particular project it is based on the development potential under the current zoning. Park dedication for the development is estimated to be approximately $22,000. Hurm commented the Park Commission would need to decide whether these funds should be rolled into park improvements which relate to this park. Commissioner Dallman noted there had been a reference to acquiring additional right-of-way on . Eureka Road and asked if that would lend itself to the developer building a trail along Eureka Road between the development and the road which would tie into the trail system. Nielsen stated this has not been discussed, however, it could be incorporated into the plans. He was unaware of any discussions relative to extending a trail along Eureka Road. Commissioner Puzak felt this would give units 5,6,7 and 8 access to the trail around their wetlands. Commissioner Dallman stated he would also like to see a trail along the west side of the wetland. Nielsen pointed out it may be preferable to have the trail closer to the fences and farther away from vehicular traffic. It was the consensus of the Commission that the initial swap was good. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 3 Commission Wilson felt it would be wisest to place the parking at the south end. He noted that was not why other parties were interested in that swap. It was initially discussed it would be favorable to gain land on that end to reconfigure ball fields and possibly add a ball field. Commissioner Arnst questioned how another field could be added without additional parking. Commissioner Wilson felt if the goal of the land swap is to provide additional parking, it would make more sense to design additional parking to the south end. With the entrance closed, this would allow for additional parking. Commissioner Dallman felt tennis courts could be added to this area as well. He felt if it comes to the point where one unit has to be removed from the system, it would make more sense to place it in this area than to lose the tax revenue. However, if a unit will not be lost, then the south piece could be retained for a tennis court as well as additional parking. Nielsen stated the developer is going to look at doing some shifting. He is aware of the suggestion that one particular unit be moved down farther. . Commissioner Wilson felt tree preservation may have gone to extremes and stated it needs to be sensible. He pointed out many of the trees should be saved, however, the brush could be removed. Council Liaison McCarty pointed out tree preservation is a policy and not an ordinance. Chair Colopoulos presumes the City has been more involved in the design of this project and shepherding this project through the consideration of various sites that it would have been in the instance of a private property owner selling to a developer for general development. Nielsen stated this is true. He explained the City did a site selection survey relative to senior housing. Out of 35 sites, this particular location was at least in the top three, if not the most favorable site. Several of the reasons for the high ranking is the fact that it is available, undeveloped, and the proximity to single family residential. Water was also a consideration. . Chair Colopoulos stated senior housing is considered to be a public project interest from the City's perspective. Nielsen explained it is an established goal under the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Colopoulos remarked he is in favor of senior housing. He noted that with this development, the last adjacent land expansion for Freeman Park is gone and there are no other alternatives available. Council Liaison McCarty stated the policy of the City is to not acquire any additional park land. Chair Colopoulos inquired as to the market value the developer paid for the property. He wanted it to be clear that this is an irrevocable step that is being taken. Regardless of the policy now or in the future, the land will be gone and the park will not physically be capable of being expanded in this area. Chair Colopoulos noted the developer paid $720,000 for this property which is considerably more than would be available in the Park budget. It was also noted this is not land which could be held in abeyance and undeveloped for an extended period of time. In terms of selecting a neighbor for the park, there are opportunities available given the City's involvement in the planning process which would not be available under other certain circumstances. Commissioner Puzak stated given the two goals to acquire senior housing or purchasing additional park land, it has been the express desire of the City Council that senior housing is needed. He noted there is an amount of acreage in Freeman Park which is undeveloped and at this point, the City needs senior housing more than it needs additional park land. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 4 Commissioner Dallman stated if the Osha property could possibly become park property in the future, it would not make sense to give away the south portion of the property. Chair Colopoulos stated that to be true, however, the Oshas have not been approached nor volunteered to sell the property. Engineer Brown commented that even if some area is gained in a land swap, the area that has been taken into consideration on south side of TH 7 was originally a parking lot. Returning this area to a parking lot would not take as great an effort as what he would envision in the north end. Clearing of trees and soil conditions are items which would have to be taken into consideration. It was agreed if the Osha property was ever feasible, the second proposed land swap would not be a good idea. Commissioner Puzak asked if that situation would be in the realm of possibility in the next ten years. Hurm reminded the policy as set out in the Comprehensive Plan is to not acquire additional park land. It was the consensus of the Park Commission to withdraw the second land swap. Commissioner Arnst felt the Council is asking the Commission to make recommendations on land swap one. Nielsen reviewed the recommendations made. (1) closing the southerly access to the park; (2) trail . system ties into Freeman Park; (3) relative to the actual land swap itself, what the developer suggested would be agreeable and some use could be made of the southerly portion; (4) screening and landscaping along the back side of the units. Chair Colopoulos felt the recommendation should hinge on things such as berm, fence, and covenants mentioning the proximity to the park. Commissioner Puzak felt as the swap is negotiated, it should be negotiated or encouraged that as street traffic is allowed to come through the park, the City would like the developer to provide for the development of a trail on the west side of Eureka from TH 7 to the Freeman Park entrance or at least tie into wetlands that comes into Freeman Park. Commissioner Puzak summarized the Commission likes the four recommendations which were proposed and would add the trail which would take some of the foot traffic off of the road and also allow the senior citizens access to the park. This would provide additional walking area. Hurm asked if the Commission would want to attempt to obtain another six feet along the park . road for a trail. Nielsen did not feel this would be possible. Commissioner Puzak expressed concern with street traffic through Freeman Park. The road is extremely narrow and will now have a berm on one side and a fence on the other side as well as children walking out to the parking lot. He noted this speaks to the need for more width, however, there is no place to obtain it. Nielsen stated he would not be in favor of having a second exit from the park giving the ainount of activity which occurs. Brown stated there may also be additional amounts of emergency vehicles which service the development. Nielsen stated for concept stage purposes, the Commission may want to look at what options are available to create pedestrian access between the property and the park. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 5 Commissioner Puzak pointed out there is currently a substandard driveway through the park. If a new public street is allowed to tie into that substandard driveway, he inquired whether there will be pressure to upgrade the driveway to a road. Nielsen noted there is not sufficient room to do that and there is no good purpose to go through there other than park traffic coming and going. Commissioner Puzak expressed concern relative to the needs of the fire department. Nielsen stated the fire marshall has already reviewed the plans and he is satisfied with the circulation. It has been recommended that the internal system be widened somewhat. Dallman moved, Puzak seconded approving the land swap; requesting the developer to tie into the development contract that a trail be built along the west side of Eureka Road from the public road to the Freeman Park entrance; that a trail be built along the south side of wetlands area and be tied into the Freeman Park system; subject to the recommendations of staff for a berm and fence to be built along outlot B to establish a buffer between the park and the development; and that the public road connect to the park and tie into the existing park road. Motion passed 6/0. . 7. DISCUSSION OF PARK AND TRAIL PLANNING WITH MARK KOEGLER . Mark Koegler, Hoisington Koegler Group, met with the Commission to discuss park and trail planning. Chair Colopoulos commented on Mr. Koegler's memorandum of August 6, 1997, and pointed out that while there is strong support for a trail system, there is also strong opposition to the trail system. Mr. Koegler noted he was responding to the numbers of the survey. He stated there are certain aspects of the trail plan which will need to be updated. He suggested the Commission review the trail system to assure what is being looked at represents the minimum necessary to effectively link all areas of the community which the Commission wants to be linked. Mr. Koegler stated at this point, he would like to build a common level of expectations and put together a scope of services. Chair Colopoulos felt the best place to start may be to identify the segments of the trail plan relative to their value to the community and from where their base of support is derived. He noted there are some elements which are recreation and others which relate to access and safety. Chair Colopoulos explained a trail system is a conglomeration of many different segments for different purposes. Chair Colopoulos noted many residents are opposed to the trail system because they see it as a plan to place sidewalks throughout the city. Mr. Koegler stated this is a misconception which needs to be addressed. Commissioner Puzak felt the Commission needs to further focus the vision in the mission statement which was written approximately a year ago. He stated he would like to take the discussion of a designated trail system and add some structure to it. Commissioner Puzak suggested on those roads designated feeder roads, the Commission propose a 6-foot wide bituminous trail. Those trails interconnecting small communities, going through parks, to wetlands or into scenic areas would be chip bark. The major thoroughfares within the city, such as Smithtown, might be off street, protected by curb, gutter and buffer. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 6 Commissioner Puzak felt if the Commission agreed this was the direction the Commission is going, this could be communicated to the citizens. Mr. Koegler stated the message needs to read clearly in the plan and there may need to be some changes made to achieve this. Commissioner Puzak stated the Commission needs to do a better job communicating their vision. Mr. Koegler commented as the trail issue is addressed, there will need to be some flexibility to allow issues which might arise to be addressed. He questioned the necessity for another survey given the fact there is data which is less than a year old. He also questioned if another survey is anticipated, if trails would be the only issue addressed or whether other issues such as tennis courts would be included. Chair Colopoulos felt it necessary to segregate the trail plan from other in-park issues which preclude the need for a further survey. He felt the Commission may want to poll through the [mal communication plan what the Commission is contemplating. Council Liaison McCarty pointed out there is some desire on the Council for scientific data and as many respondents as possible on a survey of this nature prior to proceeding. Commission Puzak suggested the Park Commission develop a vision and then publish two . versions of that vision. A survey could then be done asking which of the ideas is best. He felt this progress would begin immediately, communicating and educating would begin and capital dollars would not be spent without obtaining good feedback from the citizens. Commissioner Arnst noted her understanding the Commission is going to move ahead with this plan and the options will be set forth. She questioned whether there would be an option set forth which would provide for no trails at all. Commissioner Puzak felt that option would have to be presented. Commissioner Wilson stated he is in favor of the plan as set out in Mr. Koegler's August 6 memorandum. He stated he would not want to have the funds spent on this every year without implementing a plan. Commissioner Arnst asked why the Park Commission did not do anything when this plan was first completed six years ago. Council Liaison McCarty stated there were public meetings as well a funds set aside. She explained much of the system was planned for future years. . Commissioner Wilson questioned at the time the Concept Plan was completed, how much money was available to spend on trails. Hurm stated there had been no funds set aside at that time. Chair Colopoulos stated he was more enthusiastic about the trail project before he began understanding there are certain procedures or processes in place which were not agreeable to various members of the Council. He stated the Park Commission needs a charge to go forward with this plan and to bring the vision to the citizens. Commissioner Puzak stated the Commission must be sure this issue is not approached in a forceful manner or in such a way as to suggest a final decision has been made. Commissioner Arnst stated the City Council charged the Park Commission with reviewing the trail plan and she would like some reassurance or acknowledgment of what has been done. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 7 Chair Colopoulos remarked he would like to see a removal of the presumption that the Commission will come to the public assuming this is a done deal. Hurm suggested keeping in mind that this is a process and a plan and it will be several years before the first implementation occurs. At that point, the Commission could hold discussions with the affected neighborhood to work out the details. Chair Colopoulos did not feel it would be reasonable to expect a 100 percent response survey. He did not feel that would be necessary to arrive at a statistically valid sample of public opinion. Mr. Koegler felt there to be a certain amount of political resolve necessary in this situation and suggested it would be important to integrate the Council early on. Mr. Koegler suggested the Council be brought into a work session with the Park Commission when discussions are held relative to the vision statement. . Chair Colopoulos felt the Commission to be looking for reassurance from Council that no one would be sabotaging any outcome but the one which would provide for no trail. Council Liaison McCarty was hopeful if a process is followed, it will be respected. Mr. Koegler stated he will compile the background material on the plans which currently exist and requested time on an agenda to go through that information, review what was done, bring it up to date and set some direction at that meeting. In addition, he will refme the information into a more detailed work program. Mr. Koegler. suggested the Council be integrated early on to assure the Commission is not going in a different direction than the Council would like to see. Mr. Koegler will be added to the September 9, 1997, agenda. Commissioner Packard was very satisfied with Mr. Koegler's memorandum. 8. DISCUSSION WITH SOCCER LEAGUE - FREEMAN PARK FIELDS #1 AND #2 REMODEL Mike Moore and Missy Carbonneau, Tonka United Soccer, were in attendance. Chair Colopoulos noted previous discussions had been held relative to resting certain field space, renovating the space and allowing time for it to recover. He asked for Mr. Moore and Ms. Carbonneau's input to determine which segments will be addressed first. Ms. Carbonneau stated if a third is taken out each year, there will be periods of time in which two-thirds of the fields are not useable. . Ms. Carbonneau asked if the Commission would consider every other year as opposed to every year. Commissioner Dallman stated one-third per year had been discussed. Brown stated at this time there are no provisions for maintaining the fields. Mr. Moore requested not more than one-third of the fields be taken out of commission at one time. Chair Colopoulos pointed out the amount of space must be worth doing incrementally, but he would like to have the league determine what would be acceptable. Hurm pointed out the City did rest a number of the fields this year. Ms. Carbonneau stated smaller kids were put on some of the fields giving them a partial rest. In addition, she will be looking at other alternatives to relieve parking issues. Commissioner Puzak stated the two goals to be to allow the City time to rest the fields to make them pleasant and safe and to work with the users to be sure they will be ableto accommodate their schedules. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997 . PAGE 8 Hurm ask whether or not the Board will support the City's program of requesting funds be donated for maintenance of Freeman Park. Mr. Moore assured the Association is willing to make the donations. Ms. Carbonneau noted there is a Soccer 6 tournament Labor Day Weekend and asked whether the fIelds would be off line prior to this tournament. Brown stated there are no plans at the moment to address that particular fIeld, however, it could be made a priority. Chair Colopoulos noted some fIeld painting has ended up on the bituminous path in the park. He suggested additional adult supervision. Ms. Carbonneau stated she will address this matter. Chair Colopoulos recessed the meeting at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m. 9. 1998 PARK BUDGET REVIEW Chair Colopoulos noted the balance of the trail fund to be $106,826 and the total park fund to consist of $124,318. Hurm explained they are separate funds, one for trails and the other covers everything else. He noted the funds are not interchangeable without Council approval. Commissioner Packard questioned where the expense for Mark Koegler would be addressed. Hurm suggested splitting the expense into two categories, parks and trails. There was $1,500 budgeted this year and $6,000 for 1998. . Commissioner Dallman reported the Park Foundation discussed the concession and the consensus of the Foundation was that a $50,000 building is quite low and they felt the Park Commission should be willing to spend money to get conceptual drawings and/or a cost estimate completed. Chair Colopoulos felt rather than arbitrarily increasing the budget, there would be a need to investigate this to determine a figure. Hurm suggested the Commission or possibly a committee take the time to tour several buildings in Chaska. Perhaps a building would not have to be designed if one of the buildings toured were to be of interest. Commissioner Dallman pointed out this item will have to be budgeted for in 1998 and suggested a line item be added to the budget. Hurm stated the Commission could go back to the Foundation . and ask that the profIts from the concession stand be used for this purpose. Another alterative would be to allocate $3,000 for the plans or utilize, with Council approval, part of the $50,000 which has been set aside for this project. Chair Colopoulos felt a footnote should be added to the effect that $3,000 of the funds set aside for this project would be used for the study. Hurm stated under the Park Project Schedule, a' sentence will be added with an asterisk under "Building North - Loan $50,000, approximately $3,000 may be spent in 1998 on a building plan." .. . PARK COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 9 It was agreed the task force would be removed from the objectives since the task force was to be completed in 1997. Commissioner Puzak noted some funding along Smithtown and noted the land was acquired and questioned whether it would be developed in 1998. Brown and Hurm were unsure of the status of this matter and Hurm will further investigate. Commissioner Puzak recalled the Park Commission had asked Council to negotiate with the developer to provide some land in lieu of their $1,000 per lot fee. Hurm stated it was not in lieu of the lot fees. Commissioner Puzak recalled the land had been negotiated for with the intent that a bird watch bench would be placed there. He felt this should be completed in 1998 since the developer will be out of the development in 1999. Puzak moved, Dallman seconded submitting the 1998 Park Budget to City Council as amended. Motion passed 5/0. It was noted this motion would include the five year Capital Improvement Plan. Dallman moved, Puzak seconded tabling the remainder of the agenda to the September 9, 1997, meeting of the Park Commission. Motion passed 5/0. Commissioner Arnst requested a final report relative to the concession stand and Park Foundation Report be included on the September 9, 1997, agenda. It was also recommended the concession stand issue be placed on the first agenda in January, 1998. . 10. REPORTS - Tabled PARK "TODD" UPDATE RECONSIDERA TION FOR SEP ARA TION OF OFF -STREET TRAIL FROM COVINGTON ROAD - Tabled DISCUSSION OF LIQUOR USE AT FREEMAN PARK - Tabled DISCUSSION OF CHANGING FREEMAN PARK SIGN ("CITY PARK" TO "FREEMAN PARK") - Tabled ELECTION OF LIAISON TO PARK FOUNDATION (TO REPLACE SANDRA TRETTEL) - Tabled REVIEW DEEPHA VEN PARK BOOKLET - Tabled NEW BUSINESS - Tabled OLD BUSINESS - Tabled ADJOURNMENT 11. 12. 13. . 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Puzak moved, Wilson seconded adjourning the meeting at 10:13 p.m. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Cheryl Wallat Recording Secretary TimeSaver Ofr Site Secretarial . . To: Mayor and City Council James C. Hurm, City Administrator Teri Naab, Executive Secretary 1 Deputy Clerk From: Date: August 21, 1997 Re: Notice of Proposed Assessment Mr. Johnson has submitted a letter objecting to a Notice of Proposed Assessment he received for delinquent property specific charges. On several occasions in the past, staff has tried to seek compliance of Mr. Johnson with the sump pump ordinance which requires each homeowner in the City to have an inspection to ensure materials are not being put into the sanitary sewer unnecessarily. Mr. Johnson has repeatedly refused the inspection and in March, 1996 the City Attorney advised him that we would begin charging the surcharge of $100 per month as allowed per the ordinance. Initially Mr. Johnson paid the surcharges, but most recently has only paid for his regular utility charges. Our billing system does not provide for a means to apply a partial payment to specific charges, thus his account shows a delinquent amount for the sump pump surcharge plus interest charges on his regular utility portion. The City Council in the past has waived the surcharge fees for compliance with the sump pump ordinance upon completion of a favorable inspection. /^; ~ / '""\ ,- .-;; ii~\': i-1UC; '. 1 1997 RON JOHNSON 3y August 10, 1997 5355 Shady Hill Cir. Shorewood, MN 55331 NOTICE City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Rd. Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Sir or Madaille: I received the City's Notice of Proposed Assessment dated August 8, 1997. I obj ect to the amount as in error for the items indicated. Further, the amount is offset by items itnproperly billed and paid previously. Finally, any amount is subj ect to offset of unpaid second judgement outstanding. . Indeed, on July 22, 1997 the Hennepin County District Court entered judgement against the City on the action brought by the City against me. The City previously indicated the amount the City owes is about $200,000.00. Kindly pay the amount owed forthwith. Please consider this letter to be demand for immediate payment. . This demand is made necessary for three reasons. The jury awarded judgement, as confirmed by Judge Oliesky' s Order of October 24, 1996 to the City, and the amount is still unpaid. The City refused to pay Judge Montgomery's judgement against the City that forced me to garnish the City's bank account; the amount was paid into court qnd held pending the City's inaction. Finally, the City has chosen not to answe r my set t lemen t 0 ff er 0 f February 7, 1997 requesting a far lesser cash amount. About that time the City hired the law firm that previously represented me on the issues. I've.been told by the Lawyer's Board that most likely created a conflict of interest - one lawyer still with the firm worked on illY file regarding the City and the subject property. If the City has any questions, please do not hesitate to contac~ me within 10 days by letter at the above address. Previously the City Administrator by letter indicated any communication I ~hose to direct to the City would go unanswered by the City. He has not indicated to me the directive has been vacated. y~ R cc: Mayor Dahlberg CITY OF SHOREWOOD NOTICE OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AUGUST 8, 1997 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Shorewood will meet on August 25, 1997 at 7:30 p.m., and will pass upon the following proposed assessments: Nature of Assessment Property to be Assessed Amount of Assessment Delinquent sewer charges, 25-117-23-44-0049 spring clean up charges, recycling, dry hydrant, and storm water mgmt charges $997.87 . The proposed assessment is on file for public inspection at the office of the City Administrator/Clerk. Written objections will be considered at this meeting, but the Council may consider any objection to the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected property owners as it deems advisable. Anyone having questions relative to this matter may contact James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk at 474-3236. ****NOTE: Upon receipt of this notice, please check your records to confirm the charges listed. If your records do not agree with the notice, or if full payment has been made since the above date, please call the Finance Department at City Hall, 474-3236, BEFORE AUGUST 25, 1997, so that proper credit can be made to your account. ~ --------~------------------------------------------------------------------------------. CUT OUT THIS PORTION AND MAll. BACK WITH YOUR PAYMENT TO: CITY OF SHOREWOOD, 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 ACCORDING TO OUR RECORDS, THE AMOUNT DUE FOR SEWER CHARGES, SPRING CLEANlJP CHARGES, RECYCLING, DRY HYDRANT AND STORM WATER MGMT CHARGES FOR THE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED ABOVE, UP TO JUNE 30, 1997 IS $997.87. PAYMENT MUST BE RECEIVED IN FULL BY THE END OF THE BUSINESS DAY ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1997, TO A VOID ADDITIONAL INTEREST CHARGES, AT 8% PER ANNUM, AND A $20.00 CERTIFICATION FEE. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF DELINQUENT CHARGES, PLUS INTEREST AND THE CERTIFICATION FEE, WILL BE CERTIFIED TO PROPERTY TAXES PAYABLE IN 1998. ---~._~-.. - ~/.. .-------~ ) ./ 0705053550 5355 Shady Hills Cir --------------.._- Ronald R. Johnson 5355 Shady Hills Cir Shorewood, MN 55331 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION DIRECTING DELINQUENT SEWER CHARGES, WATER CHARGES, STORMW A TER UTILITY CHARGES, RECYCLING CHARGES, CITY CLEAN-UP CHARGES, DRY HYDRANT CHARGES, AND PROPERTY CLEAN-UP CHARGES BE PLACED ON THE 1998 PROPERTY TAX ROLLS . WHEREAS, Shorewood City Code provides for the City to place delinquent sanitary sewer charges, water charges, stormwater management utility charges, recycling charges, city clean-up charges, dry hydrant charges and property clean-up charges on the succeeding year property tax rolls for the specified properties; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has scheduled a discussion on the assessment of such charges and has caused notice of such assessments to be mailed to the affected property owners; and, WHEREAS, the Council held such discussion at a regular council meeting and has made a determination that delinquent sanitary sewer charges, water charges, stormwater management utility charges, recycling charges, city clean-up charges, dry hydrant charges and property clean-up charges exist for the specified properties set forth in Exhibits A, B. C, D, E, F and G attached hereto and made a part hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the Hennepin County Special Assessment Division is hereby authorized to place the delinquent sanitary sewer charges, stormwater management utility charges, city clean-up charges, dry hydrant charges and recycling charges on the 1997 property tax rolls, payable in 1998, at eight percent (8%) per annum, against the specified properties as set forth in Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F and G. . 2. That such delinquent charges shall be called Delinquent Sanitary Sewer Charges, Levy No. 14076; Delinquent Water Charges, Levy No. 14077; Delinquent Stormwater Management Charges, Levy No. 14078; Delinquent Recycling Charges, Levy No. 14079. Delinquent City Clean-up Charges, Levy No. 14080; Delinquent Dry Hydrant Charges, Levy No. 14081; and Delinquent Property Clean-up Charges, Levy No. 14082. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, this 25th day of August, 1997. Tom Dahlberg, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk EXHIBIT A . . SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14076 PAGE 1 OF 6 MUNIC CODE 26 33-117-23-12-0017 34345 340.51 0015247400 33-117-23-12-0018 34345 351 .84 0015247700 32-117-23-33-0012 34342 127.32 0040271750 29-117-23-43-0014 35120 119.22 0045261950 35-117 -23-32-0023 35580 170.15 0070221200 32-117-23-31-0013 00778 337.58 0110059950 34-117 -23-43-0001 34440 208.71 0125060200 36-117 -23-22-0034 35448 351.84 0140055950 33-117 -23-13-0029 03628 351.84 .0155057050 32-117 -23-34-0008 35300 1,527.30 0160061700 32-117 -23-34-0021 35300 272.78 0160061850 34-117 -23-23-0027 35220 339.34 0165238850 33-117 -23-41-0029 34420 161 .46 0185059350 33-117-23-14-0013 34910 170.15 0220056650 33-117-23-14-0010 34910 179.85 0220056700 33-117 -23-14-0038 34420 351.84 0220057550 PID NO. ADDN NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. EXHIBIT A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS MUNIC CODE 26 LEVY NO 14076 PAGE 2 OF 6 PID NO. ADDN NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 33-117 -23-41-0016 34911 108.98 0220057850 30-117 -23-23-0007 34915 170.1-5 0245043650 30-117-23-32-0019 34915 244.92 0245045300 30-117 -23-33-0030 34590 170.15 0255045500 33-117 -23-22-0014 34970 659.88 0260055251/55551 33-117 -23-23-0003 34420 660.76 0260056550/56650 33-117-23-32-0017 35200 337.58 0260058350 33-117 -23-32-0031 35200 337.58 0260058900 25-117 -23-34-0025 34460 339.34 0270203450 25-117 -23-34-0006 34460 351.84 0270203700 25-117 -23-33-0035 .. 01061 78.07 0270205620 26-117 -23-14-0065 35240 660.76 0285048120/48140 26-117 -23-14-0087 35240 339.34 0285049250 26-117 -23-14-0083 35240 339.34 0290209250 34-117 -23-43-0023 34440 273.33 0300059800 34-117 -23-43-0023 03993 337.63 0300060700 . . EXHIBIT A . . SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14076 PAGE 3 OF 6 MUNIC CODE 26 33-117 -23-12-0025 35100 351.84 0320246950 33-117-23-12-0010 34345 419.97 0320247800 32-117 -23-12-0002 34420 338.46 0330054550 32-117 -23-12-0007 34420 170.15 0330054650 26-117 -23-14-0022 35240 339.34 0385209400 26-117 -23-11-0044 35555 339.34 0435046450 26-117 -23-11-0028 35555 339.44 0435047400 28-117 -23-33-0015 35070 339.34 0445052900 33-117 -23-21-0038 35585 190.12 0470054170 33-117 -23-21-0033 35585 456.52 0470054200 33-117-23-21-0037 35585 670.34 0470054350/54370 25-117 -23-32-0023 35260 339.88 0485205750 26-117 -23-11-0050 03562 351.84 0550211050 26-117 -23-14-0069 35240 170.15 0550211550 34-117 -23-32-0014 35225 338.60 0550058300 34-117 -23-44-0048 34440 178.50 0570227650 PID NO. ADDN NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. EXHIBIT A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14076 PAGE 40F6 MUNIC CODE 26 PID NO. AD ON NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 33-117 -23-22-0011 34970 338.02 0585254550 32-117 -23-12-0024 35360 338.46 0605263950 36-117 -23-22-0024 35400 351.84 0655204300 36-117 -23-22-0019 35400 170.15 0655207800 36-117 -23-33-0003 34336 170.15 0675060900 26 -11 7 - 2 3 -1 4 -0 011 35240 339.37 0685049410 33-117 -23-32-0033 34420 164.27 0700058850 25-117 -23-44-0049 35490 987.09 0705053550 36-117 -23-21-0009 35400 170.15 0740055800 33-117 -23-11-0054 35520 660.76 0745055350/55450 33-117 -23-11-0055 35520 320.30 0745055550/55650 34-117 -23-23-0004 34440 265.32 0775238250 34-117 -23-22-0008 34440 255.54 0775239300 34-117 -23-22-0007 . 34440 177.14 0775239700 33-117 -23-13-0003 34420 419.36 0775246200 33-117 -23-24-0032 34420 337.59 0775248450 . . EXHIBIT A . . SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14076 PAGE 5 OF 6 MUNIC CODE 26 PID NO. ADON NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 33-117 -23-24-0006 34420 337.58 0775248600 33-117 -23-23-0027 34960 256.67 0775255650 32-117 -23-14-0040 34420 1,537.58 0775258950 26-117 -23-41-0026 35240 265.32 0780050350 25-117 -23-23-0016 35240 246.12 0815049050 26-117-23-41-0012 35240 170.15 0815050400 26-117 -23-41-0013 35240 338.60 0815050500 34-117 -23-23-0045 34440 660.76 0872055950/55970 25-117-23-31-0018 35590 338.46 0892201550 33-117 -23-21-0040 35585 661.46 0905053650/53670 33-117 -23-22-0018 35575 291.11 0905054950 32-117-23-11-0019 35510 307.47 0930257200 33-117 -23-43-0018 34890 256.67 0935248000 33-117 -23-44-0032 04031 338.33 0940242150 29-117 -23-44-0046 06052 170.15 3503256550 33-117-23-14-0016 34911 351.84 2220057050 EXHIBIT A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14076 PAGE 6 OF 6 MUNIC CODE 26 PID NO. ADDN NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 33-117 -23-23-0035 34960 417.69 9775255750 29-117 -23-44-0042 06052 15.74 0260053400 29-117 -23-44-0043 06052 15.74 0260053400 29-117 -23-44-0044 06052 15.74 0260053400 29-117 -23-44-0045 06052 15.74 0260053400 29-117 -23-44-004 7 06052 15.74 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0035 06052 15.74 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0036 06052 15.74 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0037 06052 15.74 0260053400 32-117 -23-11 -0038 06052 15.74 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0039 06052 15.74 0260053400 32-117-23-11-0040 06052 15.74 0260053400 32-117 -23-11 -0041 06052 15.74 0260053400 . . EXHIBIT B MUNIC CODE 26 PIO NO. 33-117-23-14-0016 . . SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14077 PAGE 1 OF 1 AOON NO. 34911 ACCOUNT NO. 2220057050 TOTAL PRINCIPAL 108.38 EXHIBIT C . . SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14078 PAGE 1 OF 7 MUNIC CODE 26 PID NO. ADDN NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 33-117-23-12-0017 34345 14.31 0015247400 33-117-23-12-0018 34345 13.42 0015247700 32-117 -23-33-0012 34342 9.49 0040271750 29-117-23-43-0014 35120 6.07 0045261950 35-117 -23-32-0023 35580 6.07 0070221200 . 32-117-23-31-0013 00778 28.73 0110059950 34-117-23-43-0001 34440 20.39 0125060200 36-117 -23-22-0034 35448 19.17 0140055950 33-117 -23-13-0029 03628 13.42 0155057050 32-117 -23-34-0008 35300 9.57 0160061700 32-117 -23-34-0021 35300 11.02 0160061850 34-117 -23-23-0027 35220 15.46 0165238850 33-117 -23-41-0029 34420 8.67 0185059350 33-117-23-14-0013 34910 6.07 0220056650 33-117-23-14-0010 34910 9.92 0220056700 33-117 -23-14-0038 34420 13.42 0220057550 EXHIBIT C SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14078 PAGE 2 OF 7 MUNIC CODE 26 33-117 -23-41-0016 34911 6.74 0220057850 30-117 -23-23-0007 34915 6.07 0245043650 30-117-23-32-0019 34915 19.17 0245045300 30-117 -23-33-0030 34590 11.28 0255045500 33-117 -23-22-0014 34970 22.16 0260055251/55551 33-117 -23-23-0003 34420 15.50 0260056550/56650 33-117-23-32-0017 35200 28.73 0260058350 33-117 -23-32-0031 35200 28.73 0260058900 25-117 -23-34-0025 34460 15.46 0270203450 25-117 -23-34-0006 34460 19.17 0270203700 25-117 -23-33-0035 01061 3.53 0270205620 26-117 -23-14-0065 35240 15.50 . 0285048120/48140 26-117 -23-14-0087 35240 15.46 0285049250 26-117 -23-14-0083 35240 15.46 0290209250 34-117 -23-43-0023 34440 11.05 0300059800 34-117-23-43-0023 03993 28.69 0300060700 PIDNO. ADDN NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. . . EXHIBIT C . . SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14078 PAGE 30F7 MUNIC CODE 26 PID NO. ADDN NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 33-117 -23-12-0025 35100 24.93 0320246950 33-117-23-12-0010 34345 17.65 0320247800 32-117 -23-12-0002 34420 22.10 0330054550 32-117 -23-12-0007 34420 8.67 0330054650 26-117 -23-14-0022 35240 15.46 0385209400 26-117 -23-11-0044 35555 15.46 0435046450 26-117 -23-11-0028 35555 15.38 0435047400 28-117 -23-33-0015 '35070 15.46 0445052900 33-117 -23-21-0038 35585 4.81 0470054170 33-117 -23-21-0033 35585 8.86 0470054200 33-117 -23-21-0037 35585 1 5.44 0470054350/54370 25-117 -23-32-0023 35260 26.42 0485205750 26-117 -23-11-0050 03562 13.42 0550211050 26-117 -23-14-0069 35240 6.07 0550211550 34-117 -23-32-0014 35225 21.96 0550058300 34-117 -23-44-0048 34440 14.16 0570227650 EXHIBIT C SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14078 PAGE 4 OF 7 MUNIC CODE 26 PID NO. ADON NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 33-117-23-22-0011 34970 22.54 0585254550 32-117 -23-12-0024 35360 22.10 0605263950 36-117 -23-22-0024 35400 78.62 0655204300 36-117-23-22-0019 35400 6.07 0655207800 36-117 -23-33-0003 34336 13.37 0675060900 26-117-23-14-0011 35240 15.43 0685049410 33-117 -23-32-0033 34420 11.28 0700058850 25-117 -23-44-0049 35490 17.35 0705053550 36-117 -23-21 -0009 35400 6.07 0740055800 33-117 -23-11-0054 35520 15.50 0745055350/55450 33-117 -23-11-0055 35520 6.10 0745055550/55650 34-117 -23-23-0004 34440 14.16 0775238250 34-117 -23-22-0008 34440 13.67 0775239300 . 34-117 -23-22-0007 34440 18.43 0775239700 33-117 -23-13-0003 34420 25.22 0775246200 33-117 -23-24-0032 34420 28.72 0775248450 . . EXHIBIT C . . SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14078 PAGE 5 OF 7 MUNIC CODE 26 PID NO. ADDN NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 33-117 -23-24-0006 34420 28.73 0775248600 33-117 -23-23-0027 34960 13.67 0775255650 32-117 -23-14-0040 34420 28.73 0775258950 26-117 -23-41-0026 35240 18.43 0780050350 25-117 -23-23-0016 35240 17.78 0815049050 26-117 -23-41-0012 35240 6.07 0815050400 26-117 -23-41-0013 35240 21.96 0815050500 34-117 -23-23-0045 34440 15.50 0872055950/55970 25-117-23-31-0018 35590 22.10 0892201550 33-117 -23-21-0040 35585 14.82 0905053650/53670 33-117-23-22-0018 35575 15.30 0905054950 32-117-23-11-0019 35510 7.38 0930257200 33-117-23-43-0018 34890 9.57 0935248000 33-117 -23-44-0032 04031 22.24 0940242150 29-117 -23-44-0046 06052 8.67 3503256550 33-117-23-14-0016 34911 13.42 2220057050 EXHIBIT C SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14078 PAGE 60F7 MUNIC CODE 26 PID NO. AD ON NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 33-117 -23-23-0035 34960 22.00 9775255750 32-117 -23-24-0002 34332 44.00 0775267500 25-117 -23-33-0046 04689 42.66 0780052600 33-1 17 -23-43-0027 03937 33.67 0935246500 25-117-23-43-0016/14 05035 39.87 4897190009 26-117-23-14-0016 35240 26.07 9261400169 26-117-23-14-0017 35240 33.42 9261400179 30-117 -23-14-0001 34330 44.93 9301400019 34-117-23-22-0002/03 34334/34440 46.88 9342200029 34-117 -23-33-0005 34440 29.14 9343300059 34-117 -23-34-0011 34440 26.74 9343400119 29-117 -23-44-0042 06052 10.65 0260053400 29-117 -23-44-0043 06052 10.65 0260053400 29-117 -23-44-0044 06052 10.65 0260053400 29-117 -23-44-0045 06052 10.65 0260053400 29-117-23-44-0047 06052 10.65 0260053400 . . EXHIBIT C . . SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14078 PAGE 70F7 MUNIC CODE 26 PID NO. ADDN NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 32-117 -23-11-0035 06052 10.65 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0036 06052 10.65 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0037 06052 10.65 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0038 06052 10.65 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0039 06052 10.65 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0040 06052 10.65 0260053400 32-117-23-11-0041 06052 10.65 0260053400 EXHIBIT C . . SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14078 PAGE 70F7 MUNIC CODE 26 PIO NO. ADDN NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 32-117 -23-11-0035 06052 10.65 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0036 06052 10.65 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0037 06052 10.65 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0038 06052 10.65 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0039 06052 10.65 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0040 06052 10.65 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0041 06052 10.65 0260053400 EXHIBIT D . . SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14079 PAGE 1 OF 6 MUNIC CODE 26 PIO NO. ADON NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 33-117-23-12-0017 34345 16.24 0015247400 33-117-23-12-0018 34345 15.31 0015247700 32-117-23-33-0012 34342 7.62 0040271750 29-117-23-43-0014 35120 6.93 0045261950 35-117 -23-32-0023 35580 6.93 0070221200 32-117-23-31-0013 00778 16.24 0110059950 34-117 -23-43-0001 34440 12.52 0125060200 36-117 -23-22-0034 35448 15.31 0140055950 33-117 -23-13-0029 03628 15.31 0155057050 32-117 -23-34-0008 35300 10.92 0160061700 32-117 -23-34-0021 35300 16.09 0160061850 34-117 -23-23-0027 35220 16.24 0165238850 33-117 -23-41-0029 34420 6.93 0185059350 33-117-23-14-0013 34910 . 6.93 0220056650 33-117-23-14-0010 . 34910 11.32 0220056700 33-117 -23-14-0038 34420 15.31 0220057550 EXHIBIT D SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14079 PAGE 20F6 MUNIC CODE 26 PID NO. ADDN NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 33-117-23-41-0016 34911 7.69 0220057850 30-117 -23-23-0007 34915 6.93 0245043650 30-117-23-32-0019 34915 10.92 0245045300 30-117 -23-33-0030 34590 8.91 0255045500 33-117-23-22-0014 34970 32.48 0260055251/55551 33-117 -23-23-0003 34420 32.48 0260056550/56650 33-117-23-32-0017 35200 16.24 0260058350 33-117 -23-32-0031 35200 16.24 0260058900 25-117 -23-34-0025 34460 16.24 0270203450 25-117 -23-34-0006 34460 15.31 0270203700 25-117 -23-33-0035 01061 4.03 0270205620 26-117 -23-14-0065 35240 32.48 0285048120/48140 26-117-23-14-0087 35240 16.24 0285049250 26-117 -23-14-0083 35240 16.24 0290209250 34-117 -23-43-0023 34440 12.61 0300059800 34-117 -23-43-0023 03993 16.24 0300060700 . . EXHIBIT D . . SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14079 PAGE 30F6 MUNIC CODE 26 PID NO. ADDN NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 33-117 -23-12-0025 35100 15.31 0320246950 33-117-23-12-0010 34345 20.14 0320247800 32-117 -23-12-0002 34420 16.24 0330054550 32-117 -23-12-0007 34420 6.93 0330054650 26-117 -23-14-0022 35240 16.24 0385209400 26-117 -23-11-0044 35555 16.24 0435046450 26-117 -23-11-0028 35555 16.24 0435047400 28-117-23-33-0015 35070 16.24 0445052900 33-117-23-21-0038 35585 10.92 0470054170 33-117 -23-21-0033 35585 20.14 0470054200 33-117-23-21-0037 35585 32.48 0470054350/54370 25-117 -23-32-0023 35260 16.24 0485205750 26-117 -23-11-0050 03562 15.31 0550211050 26-117-23-14-0069 35240 6.93 0550211550 34-117-23-32-0014 35225 16.24 0550058300 34-117 -23-44-0048 34440 11.32 0570227650 EXHIBIT D SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14079 PAGE 40F6 MUNIC CODE 26 PID NO. ADDN NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 33-117-23-22-0011 34970 16.24 0585254550 32-117 -23-12-0024 35360 16.24 0605263950 36-117 -23-22-0024 35400 15.31 0655204300 36-117 -23-22-0019 35400 6.93 0655207800 36-117 -23-33-0003 34336 10.92 0675060900 26-117-23-14-0011 35240 16.24 0685049410 33-117 -23-32-0033 34420 6.93 0700058850 25-117 -23-44-0049 35490 6.93 0705053550 36-117-23-21-0009 35400 6.93 0740055800 33-117 -23-11-0054 35520 32.48 0745055350/55450 33-117 -23-11-0055 35520 13.86 0745055550/55650 34-117 -23-23-0004 34440 11.56 0775238250 34-117 -23-22-0008 34440 10.92 0775239300 34-117 -23-22-0007 34440 11.32 0775239700 33-117 -23-13-0003 34420 20.14 0775246200 33-117 -23-24-0032 34420 16.24 0775248450 . . EXHIBIT D . . SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14079 PAGE 50F6 MUNIC CODE 26 PID NO. AD ON NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 33-117 -23-24-0006 34420 16.24 0775248600 33-117 -23-23-0027 34960 10.92 0775255650 32-117 -23-14-0040 34420 16.24 0775258950 26-117 -23-41-0026 35240 11.32 0780050350 25-117-23-23-0016 35240 10.92 0815049050 26-117 -23-41-0012 35240 6.93 0815050400 26-117-23-41-0013 35240 16.24 0815050500 34-117 -23-23-0045 34440 32.48 0872055950/55970 25-117-23-31-0018 35590 16.24 0892201550 33-117 -23-21-0040 35585 32.48 0905053650/53670 33-117-23-22-0018 35575 16.24 0905054950 32-117-23-11-0019 35510 16.24 0930257200 33-117-23-43-0018 34890 10.92 0935248000 33-117 -23-44-0032 04031 16.24 0940242150 29..117 -23-44-0046 06052 6.93 3503256550 33-117-23-14-0016 34911 15.31 2220057050 EXHIBIT D SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14079 PAGE 6 OF 6 MUNIC CODE 26 PID NO. ADDN NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 32-117 -23-24-0002 34332 16.24 0775267500 29-117 -23-44-0042 06052 0.78 0260053400 29-117 -23-44-0043 06052 0.78 0260053400 29-117 -23-44-0044 06052 0.78 0260053400 29-117 -23-44-0045 06052 0.78 0260053400 29-117 -23-44-004 7 06052 0.78 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0035 06052 0.78 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0036 06052 0.78 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0037 06052 0.77 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0038 06052 0.77 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0039 06052 0.77 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0040 06052 0.77 0260053400 32-117-23-11-0041 06052 0.77 0260053400 . . EXHIBIT E . . SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14080 PAGE 1 OF 6 MUNIC CODE 26 PID NO. ADDN NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 33-117-23-12-0017 34345 13.00 0015247400 33-117-23-12-0018 34345 6.50 0015247700 32-117 -23-33-0012 34342 6.50 0040271750 29-117-23-43-0014 35120 6.50 0045261950 35-117 -23-32-0023 35580 6.50 0070221200 32-117-23-31-0013 00778 13.00 0110059950 34-117-23-43-0001 34440 6.50 0125060200 36-117 -23-22-0034 35448 6.50 0140055950 33-117 -23-13-0029 03628 6.50 0155057050 32-117 -23-34-0008 35300 6.50 0160061700 32-117 -23-34-0021 35300 13.00 0160061850 34-117 -23-23-0027 35220 13.00 0165238850 33-117 -23-41-0029 34420 6.50 0185059350 33-117-23-14-0013 34910 6.50 0220056650 33-117-23-14-0010 34910 6.50 0220056700 33-117 -23-14-0038 34420 6.50 0220057550 EXHIBIT E SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14080 PAGE 2 OF 6 MUNIC CODE 26 PIDNO. ADDN NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 33-117-23-41-0016 34911 6.50 0220057850 30-117 -23-23-0007 34915 6.50 0245043650 30-117-23-32-0019 34915 6.50 0245045300 30-117 -23-33-0030 34590 6.50 0255045500 33-117-23-22-0014 34970 26.00 0260055251/55551 33-117 -23-23-0003 34420 26.00 0260056550/56650 33-117-23-32-0017 35200 13.00 0260058350 33-117 -23-32-0031 35200 13.00 0260058900 25-117 -23-34-0025 34460 13.00 0270203450 25-117 -23-34-0006 34460 6.50 0270203700 25-117 -23-33-0035 01061 6.50 0270205620 26-117 -23-14-0065 35240 26.00 0285048120/48140 26-117 -23-14-0087 35240 13.00 0285049250 26-117 -23-14-0083 35240 13.00 0290209250 34-117 -23-43-0023 34440 6.50 0300059800 34-117 -23-43-0023 03993 13.00 0300060700 . . EXHIBIT E SPEll ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATIONtLLS LEVY NO 14080 PAGE 30F6 MUNIC CODE 26 PID NO. ADDN NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 33-117 -23-12-0025 35100 6.50 0320246950 33-117-23-12-0010 34345 13.00 0320247800 32-117-23-12-0002 34420 13.00 0330054550 32-117-23-12-0007 34420 6.50 0330054650 26-117 -23-14-0022 35240 13.00 0385209400 26-117 -23-11-0044 35555 13.00 0435046450 26-117 -23-11-0028 35555 13.00 0435047400 28-117-23-33-0015 35070 13.00 0445052900 33-117 -23-21-0038 35585 6.50 0470054170 33-117 -23-21-0033 35585 13.00 0470054200 33-117 -23-21-0037 35585 19.50 0470054350/54370 25-117 -23-32-0023 35260 13.00 0485205750 26-117 -23-11-0050 03562 6.50 0550211050 26-117 -23-14-0069 35240 6.50 0550211550 34-117-23-32-0014 35225 13.00 0550058300 34-117 -23-44-0048 34440 6.50 0570227650 EXHIBIT E SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIRCA TlON ROLLS LEVY NO 14080 PAGE 4 OF 6 MUNIC CODE 26 PID NO. . ADDN NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 33-117 -23-22-0011 34970 13.00 0585254550 32-117 -23-12-0024 35360 13.00 0605263950 36-117 -23-22-0024 35400 6.50 0655204300 36-117-23-22-0019 35400 6.50 0655207800 36-117 -23-33-0003 34336 6.50 0675060900 26-117-23-14-0011 35240 13.00 0685049410 33-117 -23-32-0033 34420 6.50 0700058850 25-117 -23-44-0049 35490 6.50 0705053550 36-117 -23-21-0009 35400 6.50 0740055800 33-117 -23-11-0054 35520 26.00 0745055350/55450 33-117 -23-11-0055 35520 13.00 0745055550/55650 34-117 -23-23-0004 34440 6.50 0775238250 34-117 -23-22-0008 34440 6.50 0775239300 34-117 -23-22-0007 34440 6.50 0775239700 33-117 -23-13-0003 34420 13.00 0775246200 33-117 -23-24-0032 34420 13.00 0775248450 . . EXHIBIT E . . SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14080 PAGE 50F6 MUNIC CODE 26 PID NO. ADDN NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 33-117 -23-24-0006 34420 13.00 0775248600 33-117 -23-23-0027 34960 6.50 0775255650 32-117-23-14-0040 34420 13.00 0775258950 26-117 -23-41-0026 35240 6.50 0780050350 25-117-23-23-0016 35240 6.50 0815049050 26-117-23-41-0012 35240 6.50 0815050400 26-117-23-41-0013 35240 13.00 0815050500 34-117 -23-23-0045 34440 26.00 0872055950/55970 25-117-23-31-0018 35590 13.00 0892201550 33-117-23-21-0040 35585 26.00 0905053650/53670 33-117 -23-22-0018 35575 13.00 0905054950 32-117-23-11-0019 35510 13.00 0930257200 33-117-23-43-0018 34890 6.50 0935248000 33-117 -23-44-0032 04031 13.00 0940242150 29-117 -23-44-0046 06052 6.50 3503256550 33-117-23-14-0016 34911 6.50 2220057050 EXHIBIT E SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS LEVY NO 14080 PAGE 60F6 MUNIC CODE 26 PID NO. AD ON NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 29-117 -23-44-0042 06052 1.08 0260053400 29-117 -23-44-0043 06052 1.08 0260053400 29-117 -23-44-0044 06052 1.08 0260053400 29-117 -23-44-0045 06052 1.08 0260053400 29-117 -23-44-004 7 06052 1.08 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0035 06052 1.08 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0036 06052 1.08 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0037 06052 1.08 0260053400 32-117-23-11-0038 06052 1.09 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0039 06052 1.09 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0040 06052 1.09 0260053400 32-117 -23-11-0041 06052 1.09 0260053400 . . . . , . EXHIBIT F SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROllS . LEVY NO 14081 PAGE 1 OF 1 MUNIC CODE 26 PID NO. AD ON NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 30-117 -23-23-0007 34915 34.65 0245043650 30-117-23-32-0019 34915 54.62 0245045300 30-117 -23-33-0030 34590 34.65 0255045500 . . , . EXHIBIT G SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS . LEVY NO 14082 PAGE 1 OF 1 MUNIC CODE 26 PID NO. ADDN NO. TOTAL PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT NO. 33-117 -23-12-0061 05283 440.24 9313000009 33-117 -23-12-0062 05283 440.24 9313000009 33-117 -23-12-0063 05283 440.23 9313000009 33-117 -23-12-0064 05283 440.23 9313000009 SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBUC SAFElY DEPARTMENT 810 Excelsior Boulevard Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 RICHARD A YOUNG Chief of Police (612) 474-3261 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Tom Dahlberg' Shorewood City Council City Admisistrator James C. Hurm Chief Rick Younq ~ / July 17, 1997 6 From: Date: .Subject: 1998 Police Department Budget Attached is the recommendation of the Coordinating Committee for the police department 1998 budget. This was arrived at after a fairly lengthy process. I prepared a department budget request in late May and submitted it to the four city administrative staffs. We met as a group in late June to discuss the department request. Several changes were recommended by this group. Those changes were made and the revised budget request submitted to the Coordinating Committee on July 16th. They also requested some changes be made before submitting the budget to the cities. I have made those changes and the attached modified budget request is presented to the Shorewood City Council upon the unanimous recommendation of the Coordinating Committee. As usual, please feel free to contact me if there are any questions about the budget recommendation. I would also be available to appear at a City Council work session or regular meeting to discuss the budget, if . you so desire. Serving Souzh Lake Minneumka Col7l11lWliIies of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and To".kn Bay ; /~ ..:r 7"f", -,-' ---' SOUTH LAKE HINNETONKA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTKENT 1998 BUDGET Coordinating Committee Recommendation 10 - Salaries $710,310.84 39,302.21 39,966.00 4,000.00 6,000.00 4,500.00 15,100.00 9,000.00 18,500.00 100.00 6,400.00 3,750.00 17,000.00 5,900.00 12,400.00 41,400.00 43,000.00 850.00 11 - Salaries - overtime 12 - Salaries - parttime 13 - Professional Services 20 - Communications 21 - Printing & Publishing 22 - Utilities 4It 23 - Travel, Conferences & Schools 24 - Maintenance 27 - Care of Persons 28 - Cleaning & Waste Removal 30 - Office Supplies 33 - Motor Fuels 37 - Uniforms 39 - General Supplies 40 - Rent 4It 41 - Insurance 43 - Subcriptions & Memberships 45 - Pensions & Benefits TOTAL 149,522.38' 9,500.00 3,500.00 5,000.00 57,500.00 7,000.00 1,209,501.43 48 - Special Projects 51 - Building Expense 52 - Furniture & Equipment 53 - Vehicles 54 - Fruniture & Equipment Fund State Aid INCOME Transfer From Contingency Grant Shorewood Interest Minnetonka School District Park Patrol Court Overtime Civil Defense Training Sale of Vehicles Accident Reports Fingerprints Photocopies Report Copies Miscellaneous CITY Excelsior Greenwood Shorewood Tonka Bay TOTAL (75,000.00) 19,842.57 (4,164.00) (63,251.39) (11,000.00) (6,800.00) (6,900.00) (7,800.00) (4,000.00) (4,000.00) (17,000.00) (600.00) (100.00) (100.00) (800.00) (2,000.00) (183,672.82) . GRAND TOTAL 1,025,828.61 . BUDGET $1,025,828.61 1,025,828.61 1,025,828.61 1,025,828.61 % TOTAL SHARE .310 .074 .459 .157 318,006.87 75,911.32 470,855.33 161,055.09 City 1997 Contributions Excelsior Greenwood Shorewood Tonka Bay 313,062.99 72,782.16 449,654.17 161,516.18 SOUTH lAKE :MINNETONKA PUBUC SAFElY DEPARTMENT BUDGET NARRATIVE FOR 1998 EXPENSES 10-Salaries $710,310.84 This is the salary line item-with no estimated wage increase for 1998. The Shorewood Community Policing Officer is included. A revenue line item for this position is also included. II-Salaries - Overtime $39,302.21 This category includes all holiday overtime and regular overtime. It also inc 1 udes court and school overtime. The revenue for court overtime and school overtime is shown under anticipated income. . 12-Salaries - Part Time $39,966 This line item' covers part time secretarial help to assist the Administrative Clerk. With increased mandatory state requirements, an amazing increase in walk in and telephone requests and the increase in police calls, much additional work is required in the office. The part time positions are essential to accomplish the necessary and required job tasks. There are two of these positions. This category also includes the Excelsior Park Patrol. A revenue is shown under anticipated income for the Park Patrol. 13-Professional Services $4,000 . This account covers the audit required by state statutes, physical and psychological exams and all legal services that are required by the department. Should legal assistance be used more than anticipated, this line item would skYrocket in costs. Legal fees are currently running higher than normal because of a continuing lawsuit. New hires are also causing an increase. 20-Communications $6,000 This account covers all costs associated with necessary radio communications equipment required by the department. This line item has decreased in the recent past due to the amortization of the portables, mobiles and MDT's over this time period. 21-Printing & Publishing $4,500 This section covers all correspondence and necessary report keeping functions. Expected expenses in this category include stationery, envelopes, report forms, warning citations, legal and professional publications. New or changed state and federal reporting requirements always necessitate new forms. -- -- 22-Utilities $15,100 This account covers all utilities. Rate increases are expected. 23-Travel, Conferences & Schools $9,000 This account covers all departmental training programs. The cost of training is expensive; however, litigation is much more so. It is imperative that we continue to provide the best possible training for our personnel. Recent State and federal mandated training require addi t;tonal .. ~xpendi tures . This line item also covers local meeting costs and parking fees for court, etc. The costs of training are rising along with mandates for more training. 24-Maintenance $18,500 Funds disbursed from this category provide for the maintenance of departmental equipment. All automotive repairs, along with office equipment and departmental radio service, are covered in this classification. Radar units require scheduled calibration and are . paid for from this account. Maintenance contracts on the typewriters, copy machine and computers are in this category. 27-Care of Persons $100 This account covers care of prisoners. 28-Cleaning and Waste Removal $6,400 This category covers all janitorial services and waste removal. 30-0ffice Supplies $3,750 This section covers all necessary office supplies for maintaining the operation. It also includes all postage expenses. 33-Motor Fuels $17,000 . This portion of. the budget covers all fuels and lubricants for the department's vehicles. Gasoline prices are currently increasing, and past experience shows an increase is warranted. 37-Unifor.ms $5,900 This line item covers replacement of the required uniform for all department personnel. The costs of uniform equipment have been escalating each year. New hires could cause a greater cost. 39-General Supplies $12,400 This category includes all items of a general nature required by the department. It includes ammunition, tires, first aid supplies, small tools, vehicle supplies and any and all items required for the general operation of the department. State mandates on firearms training are driving this increase along with the increased cost of ammunition. . l~ ~ 40-Rent $41,400 This item covers the rent of the building. Also in this category are rents for the state CRT, Postage Meter, etc. 41-Insurance $43,000 Covered in this section is the insurance protection for: worker's compensation, general. liability, automobile and professional liability. This amount will be transferred to the Insurance Fund. The worker's compensation has again been reduced significantly from last year. ~ 43-Subscriptions & Memberships $850 This area includes subscriptions to professional and legal journals. Memberships in area and national professional organizations are also taken from this category. These costs have been increasing and past experience justifies an increase. 45-pensions & Benefits $149,522.38 This line item is for hospital and life insurance, PERA and Social Security. The expected State Aid funding is shown as a revenue. 48-Special Projects $9,500 This section covers the required cash match for the federal drug enforcement grant administered through the state. This is the Southwest Metro Task Force made up of eight police agencies in this area. It also covers the departments fee to use CornerHouse, a child sexual abuse center. ~ 51-Building Expense $3,500 This category covers any and all necessary expenditures for building repair. As the building ages, we have found the costs going up. The increase is to allow for some carpet replacement. 52-Furniture & Equipment Repair $5,000 This line item of the budget is to replace items that become inoperable. Replacement computer equipment that breaks down is always a large expense. 53-Vehicles $57,500 This includes the expenses involved in preparing the new cars for police service. This budget item reflects the current costs for 2 1/2 vehicles. In each budget year 2 1/2 cars are budgeted. Every other year we need to replace three vehicles, instead of two, in order to maintain the fleet and avoid costly repairs and reduced resale values. Vehicles have risen in price dramatically. The dealers have stated that next years police vehicles will cost in excess of $21,500. We have started keeping the vehicles in service longer, when possible. We shall continue that practice next year. 54-Furniture and Equipment Fund $7,000 This is a new line item. The 800 MHz Fund name has been changed to include other capital items of furniture and equipment. This will be used for the purchase or new or replacement equipment. INCOME State Aid $75,000 This is the same as last year. Transfer to/from Contingency $19,842.57 Due to a new state law mandating city coverage of family health . insurance premiums for officers disabled in the line of duty, this line item includes a transfer of an initial $3,700 to cover our possible first years costs of this mandate. After that point, the state will be reimbursing our expense. In past years, $15,000 to $20,000 was not an unusual amount to be taken from the contingency fund to offset the budget. However, the contingency fund has been reduced to where this would now be a detrimental. The budget actually has an amount of $23,524.57 going into the contingency fund to cover adjustments to the budget when labor agreements for 1998 are negotiated. Grant $4,164 This is the federal COPS FAST Grant which is being used to offset the Shorewood Community Policing Officer. The grant runs out in May of 1998. Shorewood $63,251.39 . This is the balance of the funds necessary to cover the costs for the Shorewood Community Policing Officer. Interest $11,000 This years amount is based upon performance during the 1996 and 1997 budget years. Minnetonka School District $6,800 The Minnetonka School District provides these funds for police liaison and education services in the schools. 3 Park Patrol $6,900 This is a reimbursement from the City of Excelsior for costs of the Park Patrol. Expenditures of a like amount are budgeted under Salaries - Part Time. Court Overtime $7,800 It is impossible to accurately budget this very variable item. This should cover the expense~ Civil Defense $4,000 This item has been consistent for the past several years. expect any change. In order to receive this money, training requirements must be met. I do not certain Training $4,000 ~ After an increase in 1990, the state legislature has been taking ~ away this money for other purposes, including to help the general fund. Exact amounts to be received are unknown. Sale of Vehicles $17,000 This category reflects the sale of three vehicles. Accident Reports $600 This is an average of the past several years. Fingerprints $100 This is a standard amount that has been budgeted for years. 'Photocopies $100 ~ Past performance indicates this as a sufficient figure. Report Copies $800 This has been variable from year to year. Miscellaneous $2,000 An extremely volatile category. There is just no way to accurately predict this income item. Past experience has shown this to be an average amount. q EXPENSES BUDGET ITEM 1995 1996 1997 1997 1998 ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATE BUDGET REQUEST 10 Salaries 662,423.91 664,988.02 733,363.76 722,916.76 710,310.84 11 Salaries - overtime 33,667.75 41,518.30 38,000.00 38,157.28 39,302.21 12 Salaries - parttime 37,279.64 37,218.52 38,802.00 38,802.00 39,966.00 13 Professional Services 4,228.00 4,346.28 5,000.00 3,000.00 4,000.00 20 Communications 6,229.06 5,730.60 6,000.00 6,000.00 6,000.00 21 Printing & Publishing 3,621. 65 3,180.95 4,500.00 4,500.00 4,500.00 22 Utilities 13,326.88 13,593.87 14,600.00 14,600.00 15,100.00 23 Travel, Conferences & Schools 6,903.31 7,192.11 12,000.00 8,500.00 9,000.00 24 Maintenance 16,892.16 13,231. 43 18,500.00 18,500.00 . 18,500.00 27 Care of Persons (60.08) 12.32 100.00 100.00 100.00 . , 28 Cleaning & Waste Removal 5,338.95 5,007.82 6,400.00 6,400.00 6,400.00 30 Office Supplies 3,604.71 3,601.87 3,750.00 3,750.00 3,750.00 33 Motor Fuels 13,866.67 16,154.43 16,500.00 16,000.00 17,000.00 37 Uniforms 10,839.47 1,745.07 9,900.00 5,900.00 5,900.00 38 Genera,l Supplies 9,172.45 12,542.37 12,000.00 11,400.00. 12,400.00 40 Rent 41,236.51 40,240.06 41,400.00 41,400.00 41,400.00 41 Insurance Fund 52,000.00 48,775.00 43,000.00 43,000.00 43,000.00 43 Subscriptions & Memberships 732.80 801.20 850.00 700.00 850.00 45 Pensions & Benefits 133,546.10 133,648.97 144,000.00 142,100.00 149,522.38 48 Special Projects 9,411.00 9,451.00 9,500.00 9,500.00 9,500.00 51 Building Expense 2,155.94 1,261.56 2,000.00 1,500.00 3,500.00 52 Furniture & Equipment Repair 11;336.43 19,721.28 9,000.00 9,000.00 5,000.00 !i) Vehicle Fund 40,000.00 51,250.00 57,500.00 57,500.00 57,500.00 S4 Furniture & Equipment Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,000.00 TOTALS 1,117,753.31 1,135,213.03 1,226,665.76 1,203,226.04 1,209,501.43 "Q; . . IN. . BUDGET ITEM 1995 1996 1997 1997 1998 ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATE BUDGET REQUESTED state Aid (71,556.29) (77,137.00) (77,000.00) (75, 000 . 00 ) (75,000.00) Transfer from Contingency 3,184.88 (3,110.02) (23,500.86) (20,000.00) 19,842.57 Grant (25,000.00) (15,000.00) (16,660.00) (16,660.00) (4,164.00) Shorewood (5,075.72) (1,883.29) (40,450.15) (40,450.15) (63,251.39) Interest (10,485.31) (10,092.53) (11,300.00) (11,000.00) (11,000.00) Hinnetonka School District (0.00) (10,257.00) (6,800.00) (6,800.00) (6,800.00) Park Patrol (6,019.11) (6,359.32) (6,900.00) (6,900.00) (6,900.00) Court Overtime (4,848.34) (2,949.09) (7, 800. 00 ) (7, 800 . 00 )' (7,800.00) Civil Defense (4,287.00) (4,500.00) (4,000.00) (4,000.00) (4,000.00) Training (5,193.85) (5,158.93) (4,000.00) (4,000.00) \ (4,000.00) Sale of Vehicles (9,700.00) (15,668.00) (12,500.00) (10,000.00) (17,000.00) Accident Reports (656.00) (555.00) (600.00) (600.00) (600.00) Fingerprints (170.00) (280.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Photocopies (120.35) (29.40) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Report Copies ( 77 3 . 00 ) (649.25) (800.00) (800.00) (800.00) Miscellaneous (10,187.08) (5,160.92) (17,138.86) (2,000.00) (2,000.00) Drug Forfeiture (1,897.99) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) TOTALS (152,785.16) (158,789.75) (229,649.87) (206,210.15) (183,672.82) Net to Cities 964,968.15 976,423.28 997,015.89 997,015.89 1,025,828.61 \ "~) DESIGNATED VEHICLE FUND EXPENSES ITEM 1995 ACTUAL 1996 ACTUAL 1997 ESTIMATE 1997 BUDGET 1998 REQUEST 63,000.00 5,000.00 101 Vehicles 34,062.00 2,868.36 57,152.00 102 Preparation 7,124.07 39,830.00 5,341.85 43,000.00 3,500.00 TOTALS 36,930.36 64,276.07 45, 171. 85 46,500.00 68,000.00 INCOMB ITEM 1995 1996 1997 1997 1998 ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATE BUDGET REQUEST 110 Annual Budget (40,000.00) (51,250.00) (57,500.00) (57,500.00) , (57,500.00) 120 Fund Transfer (0.00) (8,500.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) TOTALS (40,000.00) (59,750.00) (57,500.00) (57,500.00) (57,500.00) Net Fund Change (3,069.64 ) 4,526.07 (12,328.15) (11,000.00) 10,500.00 YEHICLE FUND BALANCE 6,811.05 2,284.98 14,613.13 13,284.98 4,113.13 \ I . . (jJ DESIGNATED AUCTION FUND EXPENSES ITEM 1995 ACTUAL 1996 ACTUAL 1997 ESTIMATE 1997 BUDGET 1998 REQUEST 2,000.00 301 Reserve Banquet 302 Miscellaneous 200.00 52.93 1,105.00 2,000.00 1,250.00 129.78 100.00 75.00 100.00 TOTALS 252.93 1,234.78 2,100.00 1,325.00 2,100.00 INCOHB ITEM 1995 1996 1997 1997 1998 ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATE BUDGET REQUEST 310 Cities Normal Contribution (900.00) (900.00) (900.00) (900.00') (1,800.00) 311 Auction Proceeds (966.75) (0.00) (1,000.00) (0.00) (0.00) 312 Miscellaneous (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) TOTALS (1,866.75) (900.00) (1,900.00) (900.00) (1,800.00) Net Fund Change (1,613.82) 334.78 200.00 425.00 300.00 AUCTION FUND BALABCB 2,547.63 2,212.85 2,012.85 1,787.85 1,712.85 (. . . . . DESIGNATED 800 MHz FUND EXPENSES ITEM 1995 ACTUAL 1996 ACTUAL 1997 ESTIMATE 1997 BUDGET 1998 REQUEST 401 Radio Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 402 Miscellaneous TOTALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 INCOME ITEM 1995 1996 1997 1997 1998 ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATE BUDGET REQUEST 410 Annual Budget (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 411 Fund Transfer (0.00) (0.00) (10,000.00) (10,000.00) (15,000.00) 412 Miscellaneous (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) TOTALS 0.00 0.00 (10,000.00) (10,000.00) (15,000.00) Net Fund Change 0.00 0.00 (10,000.00) (10,000.00) (15,000.00) BOO MHz FUND BALANCE 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 25,000.00 Net Fund Change FURNITURE &.EQUIPMENT P & R FUND 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (12,000.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,000.00 . . ~ MAYOR Tom Dahlberg CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL Kristi Slover Jennifer McCarty Jerry O'Neill John Garfunkel 5755 COUNTRY CLUB. ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128. www.state.nellshorewood . cilyhall@shorewood.state.net MEMORANDUM: TO: Mayor and City Council James Hurm, City Administrator Larry Brown, Director of Public Works A~ FROM: - . DATE: August 20, 1997 RE: Consideration of a Motion to Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Feasibility and Ordering Plans Specifications and Estimates During the August 11 th City Council meeting this item was tabled until such time as an analysis could be completed which shows where the various portions of a typical water bill is directed as it relates to a break even analysis. Al Rolek will address this issue during Monday night's Council Meeting. In addition, the City Council asked staff to address a revised break even analysis for the 5, 10 and 15 year period. Attachment 1 is a memorandum from the Finance Director which provides that analysis. It was noted during the meeting that table two of the report did not account for the 2 properties being previously assessed $5,000 each. This table has been revised to show that all five of the petitioners will pay, or have paid $5,000, plus the remaining portion of the project cost distributed evenly amongst all five parties. . ALT DESCRIPTION WATER- SERVICE SERVICE AVERAGE MAIN LINE LINE COST! COST PER COST LENGTH (F HOUSE HOUSE 1 860 lin ft of 6 inch $51,780 300 $3,300 $15,656 2 600 lin ft of 6 inch $31,952 560 $6,160 $14,550 3 600 tin ft of 4 inch $30,973 560 $6,160 $14,355 4 1160 ftlhouse $0 1160 $17,402 $17,402 5 Null Alternative $0 0 $0 $0 Table 2 A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka~'5 South Shor9 #~ :. MAYOR Tom Dahlberg CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL Kristi Stover Jennifer McCarty Jerry O'Neill John Garfunkel 5755 COUNTRY CLUB. ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128 . www.state.nellshorewood . cityhall@shorewood.state.net MEMO TO: Mayor and Councilmembers James Hurm . FROM: DATE: RE: AI Rolek, Finance Director ClIL--. August 22, 1997 Water Break Even Analysis and Water Bill Breakdown It is my understanding that the City Council at its meeting of August 11 asked that break even analyses for the proposed Lakeside water project for both 5 and 10 year periods be prepared. Is was also my understanding the Council wanted a breakdown of how much of the operating revenues for the water system (water billings) was used for operation, maintenance, debt service, etc.. . Attached to this memo are the 5 and 10 year break even analyses. The net effect of the new analyses is that more of the cost of the water system improvements will be assessed as opposed to collected through future water sales. We can review and explain these analyses at the meeting on Monday night and answer any questions that you may have. I have also researched the question of how the operating revenue from the water system is allocated. Of the revenue generated through water sales, about 60 to 65% is used for operation and maintenance of the water system. This includes the labor of City crews, supplies such as chlorine and fluoride, general maintenance and repair, contracted services from Munitech, insurance, electrical and communication utilities, water purchases from other cities, and miscellaneous expenses. About 32 to 33% of the revenue is needed to pay debt service costs. The remaining revenue is held for future capital and/or maintenance needs. Is should be noted that these figures do not include depreciation. I hope that this data helps to answer your questions. I will be able to provide further explanation and answer your questions at the Council meeting. Should you have any questions prior to the meeting, please feel free to call me. Attachment 1 A Residential Community on Lake /'vlinnetonka's South Shore .; Notes for the alternatives: . Service lengths are an average and may vary according to the actual position of each house . Alternatives 2 and 3 assume an average cost/ft of service of $11.00. . Alternative 4 assumes total cost of service (curb box, restoration, etc.). As stated in the earlier report, Alternative 2 appears to have the best cost benefit ratio. A resolution is attached for your consideration. . . . . I' Less: (3) Spec Assess @ $5,000 (15,000.00) (15,000.00) (15,000.00) Less: 5 Year Total Water Sales - 3 lots (1,687.50) (1,687.50) (1,687.50) Plus: Finance cost @ 7% of $1,687.50 310.08 310.08 310.08 Project Financing Shortfall 35,402.58 15,574.58 14,595.58 Add!. Sp. Assess needed to B/E - 3 lots 11,800.86 5,191.53 4,865.19 Add!. Sp. Assess needed to B/E - 5 lots 7,080.52 3,114.92 2,919.12 Five Lot Scenario Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Project Cost 51,780.00 31,952.00 30,973.00 Less: (3) Spec Assess @ $5,000 (15,000.00) (15,000.00) (15,000.00) Less: 5 Year Total Water Sales - 5 lots (2,812.50) (2,812.50) (2,812.50) Plus: Finance cost @ 7% of $2,812.50 516.80 516.80 516.80 Project Financing Shortfall 34,484.30 14,656.30 13,677.30 Add!. Sp. Assess needed to B/E - 3 lots 11,494.77 4,885.43 4,559.10 Add!. Sp. Assess needed to B/E - 5 lots 6,896.86 2,931.26 2,735.46 .: Interest Cost of Revenue-Based Financing of Water Infrastrusture with 3 Lots Connected With a 5 Year Break Even Point Interest Cost of Revenue-Based Financing of Water Infrastructure with 5 Lots Connected With a 5 Year Break Even Point Otr/Year Water Sales Interest @ 7% Balance Otr/Y ear Water Sales Interest @ 7% Balance 1,687.50 2,812.50 1 /1 84.38 29.53 1,603.13 1/1 140.63 49.22 2,671.88 2/1 84.38 28.05 1,518.75 2/1 140.63 46.76 2,531.25 3/1 84.38 26.58 1,434.38 3/1 140.63 44.30 2,390.63 4/1 84.38 25.10 1,350.00 4/1 140.63 41.84 2,250.00 1/2 84.38 23.63 1,265.63 1/2 140.63 39.38 2,109.38 2/2 84.38 22.15 1,181.25 2/2 140.63 36.91 1,968.75 3/2 84.38 20.67 1,096.88 3/2 140.63 34.45 1,828.13 4/2 84.38 19.20 1 ,01 2.50 4/2 140.63 31.99 1,687.50 1/3 84.38 17.72 928.13 1/3 140.63 29.53 1,546.88 2/3 84.38 16.24 843.75 2/3 140.63 27.07 1,406.25 3/3 84.38 14.77 759.38 3/3 140.63 24.61 1,265.63 4/3 84.38 13.29 675.00 4/3 140.63 22.15 1,125.00 1/4 84.38 11.81 590.63 1/4 140.63 19.69 984.38. 2/4 84.38 10.34 506.25 2/4 140.63 17.23 843.75 3/4 84.38 8.86 421.88 3/4 140.63 14.77 703.13 4/4 84.38 7.38 337.50 4/4 140.63 12.30 562.50 1/5 84.38 5.91 253.13 1/5 140.63 9.84 421.88 2/5 84.38 4.43 168.75 2/5 140.63 7.38 281.25 3/5 84.38 2.95 84.38 3/5 140.63 4.92 140.63 4/5 84.38 1.48 0.00 4/5 140.63 2.46 0.00 Totals 1,687.50 310.08 Totals 2,812.50 516.80 . aTH LINK LAKESIDE WATER EXTENSION. FEASIBILITY COST ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS With 10 Year Break Even Point 8/22/97 Estimated Annual Water Revenue/Lot Less: 25% addl operating cost Annual Revenue avail for infrastructure/Lot Times 1 0 years Total Revenue - (3) lots Connected to water Total Revenue - (5) lots Connected to water Three Lot Scenario Project Cost Less: (3) Spec Assess @ $5,000 Less: 10 Year Total Water Sales - 3 lots Plus: Finance cost @ 7% of $3,375.00 Project Financing Shortfall Add!. Sp. Assess needed to B/E - 3 lots Add!. Sp. Assess needed to B/E - 5 lots 150.00 (37.50) 112.50 1,125.00 3,375.00 5,625.00 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 51,780.00 31,952.00 30,973.00 (15,000.00) (15,000.00) (15,000.00) (3,375.00) (3,375.00) (3,375.00) 1,210.78 1,210.78 1,210.78 34,615.78 14,787.78 13,808.78 11,538.59 4,929.26 4,602.93 6,923.16 2,957.56 2,761.76 Five Lot Scenario Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Project Cost 51,780.00 31,952.00 30,973.00 Less: (3) Spec Assess @ $5,000 (15,000.00) (15,000.00) (15,000.00) Less: 10 Year Total Water Sales - 5 lots (5,625.00) (5,625.00) (5,625.00) Plus: Finance cost@ 7% of $5,625.00 2,017.97 2,017.97 2,017.97 Project Financing Shortfall 33,172.97 13,344.97 12,365.97 Add!. Sp. Assess needed to B/E - 3 lots 11,057.66 4,448.32 4,121.99 Add!. Sp. Assess needed to B/E - 5 lots 6,634.59 2,668.99 2,473.19 Interest Cost of Revenue-Based Financing of Water Infrastrusture with 3 Lots Connected With a 10 Year Break Even Point Interest Cost of Revenue-Based Financing of Water Infrastructure with 5 Lots Connected With a 10 Year Break Even Point Otr/Y ear Water Sales Interest @ 7% Balance Otr/Year Water Sales Interest @ 7% Balance 3,375.00 5,625.00 1 /1 84.38 59.06 3,290.63 1/1 140.63 98.44 5,484.38 2/1 84.38 57.59 3,206.25 2/1 140.63 95.98 5,343.75 3/1 84.38 56.11 3,121.88 3/1 140.63 93.52 5,203.13 4/1 84.38 54.63 3,037.50 4/1 140.63 91.05 5,062.50 1/2 84.38 53.16 2,953.13 1/2 140.63 88.59 4,921.88 2/2 84.38 51.68 2,868.75 2/2 140.63 86.13 4,781.25 3/2 84.38 50.20 2,784.38 3/2 140.63 83.67 4,640.63 4/2 84.38 48.73 2,700.00 4/2 140.63 81.21 4,500.00 1/3 84.38 47.25 2,615.63 1/3 140.63 78.75 4,359.38 2/3 84.38 45.77 2,531.25 2/3 140.63 76.29 4,218.75 3/3 84.38 44.30 2,446.88 3/3 140.63 73.83 4,078.13 4/3 84.38 42.82 2,362.50 4/3 140.63 71.37 3,937.50 1/4 84.38 41.34 2,278.13 1/4 140.63 68.91 3,796.8. 2/4 84.38 39.87 2,193.75 2/4 140.63 66.45 3,656.2 3/4 84.38 38.39 2,109.38 3/4 140.63 63.98 3,515.63 4/4 84.38 36.91 2,025.00 4/4 140.63 61.52 3,375.00 1/5 84.38 35.44 1,940.63 1/5 140.63 59.06 3,234.38 2/5 84.38 33.96 1,856.25 2/5 140.63 56.60 3,093.75 3/5 84.38 32.48 1,771.88 3/5 140.63 54.14 2,953.13 4/5 84.38 31.01 1,687.50 4/5 140.63 51.68 2,812.50 1/6 84.38 29.53 1,603.13 1/6 140.63 49.22 2,671.88 2/6 84.38 28.05 1,518.75 2/6 140.63 46.76 2,531.25 3/6 84.38 26.58 1,434.38 3/6 140.63 44.30 2,390.63 4/6 84.38 25.10 1,350.00 4/6 140.63 41.84 2,250.00 1/7 84.38 23.63 1,265.63 1/7 140.63 39.38 2,109.38 2/7 84.38 22.15 1,181.25 2/7 140.63 36.91 1,968.75 3/7 84.38 20.67 1,096.88 3/7 140.63 34.45 1,828.13 4/7 84.38 19.20 1,012.50 4/7 140.63 31.99 1,687.5. 1/8 84.38 17.72 928.13 1/8 140.63 29.53 1,546.8 2/8 84.38 16.24 843.75 2/8 140.63 27.07 1,406.25 3/8 84.38 14.77 759.38 3/8 140.63 24.61 1,265.63 4/8 84.38 13.29 675.00 4/8 140.63 22.15 1,125.00 1/9 84.38 11.81 590.63 1/9 140.63 19.69 984.38 2/9 84.38 10.34 506.25 2/9 140.63 17.23 843.75 3/9 84.38 8.86 421.88 3/9 140.63 14.77 703.13 4/9 84.38 7.38 337.50 4/9 140.63 12.30 562.50 1/10 84.38 5.91 253.13 1/10 140.63 9.84 421.88 2/10 84.38 4.43 168.75 2/10 140.63 7.38 281.25 3/10 84.38 2.95 84.38 3/10 140.63 4.92 140.63 4/10 84.38 1.48 0.00 4/1 J 140.63 2.46 0.00 Totals 3,375.00 1,210.78 Totals 5,625.00 2,017.97 . . :... CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ORDERING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES FOR THE LAKESIDE LATERAL WATERMAIN EXTENSION WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council June 9th, 1997, a Feasibility Report for the Lakeside Lateral Extension was presented to the City Council on August 11, 1997; and WHEREAS, City Engineer Lawrence Brown has prepared said Feasibility Report; and WHEREAS, such improvement is considered to be technically and financially feasible. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota: 1. That the Mayor and City Administrator are authorized to enter into. an agreement for the City of Shorewood with the Petitioners of said improvement, which shall outline compensation of all reasonable costs incurred by the City to be recovered from said petitioners.. 2. That the Mayor and City Administrator are authorized to enter into an agreement for preparation of Plans, Specifications, and Estimates with for said project and will report to the City Council will all convenient speed. 3.. That Orr Schelen Mayeron, and Associates Inc., is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. They shall prepare Plans, Specifications, and Estimates for he making of such improvement. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25th day of August, 1997. Tom DaWberg, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator :... MAYOR Tom Dahlberg CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL Kristi Stover Jennifer McCarty Jerry O'Neill John Garfunkel 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128. www.state.netlshorewood. cityhall@shorewood.state.net MEMORANDUM TO: . Mayor And City Council James Hurm, City Administrator Larry Brown, City Engineer p..y August 7, 1997 FROM: . DATE: RE: Revisions to the Feasibility Report for the South Link- Lakeside Watermain Extension On July 14, 1997. the City Council tabled the motion to approve the feasibility report for the subject project until a break even analysis could be incorporated into the report, additional cost information could be revised, and to and to obtain further comment on the costs from the affected homeowners. . It was noted during the discussion that two of the five petitioner's were previously assessed as part of the initial South Link Project on Smithtown Road. It was discussed that due to the inordinate amount of distance required for an individual service line for these. two properties, that these assessments may be credited to the subject project versus the initial South Link Project. The total project costs were reanalyzed for the different alternatives presented previously and are summarized below. Detailed construction estimates are included as attachments 1 through 4. AL TERNA TIVE DESCRIPTION PROJECT COST 1 860 lin ft of 6 inch watermain $ 51,780 2 600 lin ft of 6 inch watermain $ 31,952 3 600 lin ft of 4 inch waternlain $ 30,973 4 1160 ft/house of individual service $ 17 4C2 I , each 5 Null Alternative $ 0 TABLE 1 A Residential Community on Lake ,vlinnetonka's South Shore : ~ Mayor arid City Council Lakeside Feasibility Report August 6, 1997 Page 2 ~f 4 The project costs were increased from the original cost estimates provided due to re-analyzirig the design required, construction inspection and survey costs. The original feasibility had considered a percentage of the project costs. versus actual proposal numbers provided by OSM and Associates, Inc. . Of the alternatives considered, the option which appears to give the most benefit is alternative 2. The cost of extending a 6 inch .w~termain provides not only the municipal supply that is desired, but also adequate fire flow protection. The difference in cost between the alternatives 2 and 3 (6 inch diameter watermain versus 4 inch) amounts to $1,068.00. . The total distance for most of the homes by the lake is approximately 1160 feet from the right of way of Smithtown Road. The extension of a 600 foot watermain from the right of way would require individual service lengths of approximately 560 lineal feet. Under normal conditions, the cost of the individual service line is not factored into the actual feasibility cost of the project. In this instance, the cost of the service lengths have been estimated below for reference by the homeowners, to aid in their determination of the best alternative. Mayor and City Council Lakeside Feasibility Report August 6,. 1997 Page 30f 4 - . In accordance to the City Council direction, a break even analysis was prepared to show what additional assessment would be required over and above the base charge of $5,000 per household, taking into consideration the revenue generated by domestic water usage over the 15 year assessment period. . Attachment 5 is the break even analysis which shows two scenarios. Scenario lreflects a three lot connection based on the assumptjon that 2 . of the petitioners have already been assessed. Scenano 2 is based on the assumption that all 5 lots will be connected. In light of the feedback received at the July 14th Council meeting, it is assumed that all 5 lots will be considered for this study. Table 3 below summarizes the findings of the break even analysis . ALT DESC PROJECT CONNEC- ADD'NL TOTAL TOTAL COST TION BREAK CONNECTION COST/HOUSE CHARGE! EVEN COST FEE W/SERVICE HOUSE /HOUSE LINE 1 860 ft - $51,780 $~,OOO $6,569 $11,569 $14,869 6 inch 2 600 ft - $31,952 $5,000 $2,604 $7,604 $13,764 6 inch . 3 .600 ft - $30,973 $5,000 $2,408 $7,408 $13,568 4 inch . 4 1160 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $22,402 ftIhouse 5 Null $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 AIt TABLE 3 Again, Table 3 summarizes the estimated costs per household including the base connection charge, the additional charge to break even on the project, and the total cost to the homeowner including the anticipated service installation (for informational purposes only). It is worth noting that the service line costs represented here are an average cost per household. The actual cost ~ Mayor and City Council Lakeside Feasibility Report August 6, 1997 Page 4 of 4 can vary considerably dependent upon proximity of the service line to the existing wetland, and actual service length. Each homeowner is solely responsible for the construction and cost of the individual service lines. . During the Monday night City Council meeting, I will report any feedback received regarding these costs from the homeowners. , If these costs appear reasonable to each of the petitioners, it is recommended that the attached resolution be approved which would order the preparation of plans specifications, and" estimates . by OSM and Associates, Inc.. . South Link - Lakeside Water Extension Cost Opinion Alternate 1 - 860 LF @ 6" Cia Watermain . ITEM UNIT QUANTITY COST/UNIT ITEM COST Connect to Existing Water Main EA 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Clear and Grub Trees LUMP SUM 1 $ 2,600.00 $ 2,600.00 Dewaterino LUMP SUM 1 $ 2,250.00 $ 2,250.00 Hvdrant EA 1 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00 6" Ductile Iron Pipe Class 52 UN FT 860 $ 22.00 $ 18,920.00 Pipe Beddina CUYD 130 $ 12.00 $ 1,560.00 6" Gate Valve and Box EA 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 6" DIP Tee EA 1 $ 170.00 $ 170.00 6" 45 Degree Bend EA 3 $ 140.00 $ 420.00 Drivewav Restoration TON 600 $ 8.00 $ 4,800.00 Turf Establishment LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 1-1/2" Corooration EA 5 $ 85.00 $ 425.00 1-1/2" Curb Stop and Box EA 5 $ 135.00 $ 675.00 1-1/2" Water Service (10 feetlea) UN FT 50 $ 11.00 $ 550.00 Subtotal $ 36,770.00 Contingency 10% $ 3,677.00 Design, Survey, Legal $ 11,333.00 Grand Total $ 51,780.00 . Attachment 1 South Link - Lakeside Water Extension Cost Opinion Alternate 2 - 600 LF @ 6" Oia Watermain ITEM UNIT QUANTITY COST/UNIT ITEM COST Connect to Existing Water Main EA 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Clear and Grub Trees LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 Hydrant EA 1 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00 6" Ductile Iron Pipe Class 52 UN FT 600 $ 20.50 $ 12,300.00 Pipe Bedding CUYD 60 $ 12.00 $ . 720.00 6" Gate Valve and Box EA 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 6" DIP Tee EA 1 $ 170.00 $ 170.00 6" Bends EA 3 $ 140.00 $ 420.00 Driveway Restoration TON 20 $ 8.00 $ 160.00 Turf Establishment LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 1-1/2" Corporation EA 5 $ 85.00 $ 425.00 1-1/2" Curb Stop and Box EA 5 $ 135.00 $ 675.00 1-1/2" Water Service (10 feet/ea) UN FT 50 $ 11.00 $ 550.00 Subtotal $ 21,320.00 Contingency 10% $ 2,132.00 Design, Survey, Legal $ 8,500.00 Grand Total $ 31,952.00 . . ATTACHMENT 2 South Link - Lakeside Water Extension Cost Opinion Alternate 3 - 600 LF @ 4" Cia Watermain . ITEM UNIT QUANTITY COST/UNIT ITEM COST Connect to Existing Water Main EA 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Clear and Grub Trees LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,600.00 Hvdrant EA 1 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00 4" Ductile Iron Pioe Class 52 UN FT 600 $ 19.00 $ 11,400.00 Pipe Bedding CUYD 60 $ 12.00 $ 720.00 6" Gate Valve and Box EA 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 6" DIP Tee EA 1 $ 170.00 $ 170.00 4" Bends EA 3 $ 110.00 $ 330.00 6" x 4" Reducer EA 2 $ 150.00 $ 300.00 Driveway Restoration TON 20 $ 8.00 $ 160.00 Turf Establishment LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 1-1/2" Corooration EA 5 $ 85.00 $ 425.00 1-1/2" Curb Stop and Box EA 5 $ 135.00 $ 675.00 1-1/2" Water Service (10 feetlea) UN FT 50 $ 11.00 $ 550.00 Subtotal $ 20,430.00 Contingency 10% $ 2,043.00 . Design, Survey, Legal $ 8,500.00 Grand Total $ 30,973.00 . ATTACHMENT 3 ,. - : South Link - Lakeside Water Extension Cost Opinion Alternate 4 - 1160 LF 1.5 inch Service Line ITEM UNIT QUANTITY COST/UNIT ITEM COST Clear and Grub Trees LUMP SUM 1 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 Driveway Restoration TON 20 $ 8.00 $ 160.00 Turf Establishment LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 1-1/2" Corporation EA 5 $ 85.00 $ 425.00 1-1/2" Curb Stop and Box EA 5 $ 135.00 $ 675.00 1-1/2" Water Service (10 feetlea) UN FT 1160 $ 11.00 $ 12,760.00 Subtotal $ 15,820.00 . Contingency 10% $ 1,582.00 Design, Survey, Legal 0% $ - Grand Total $ 17,402.00 . ATTACHMENT 4 SOUTH LINK LAKESIDE WATER EXTENSION FEASIBILITY COST ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 8/4/97 Estimated Annual Water Revenue/Lot Less: 25% addl operating cost Annual Revenue avail for infrastructure 150.00 (37.50) 112.50 Times 15 years 1,687.50 Total Revenue - (3) lots Connected to water 5,062.50 Total Revenue - (5) lots Connected to water 8,437.50 Three Lot Scenario Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Project Cost 51,780.00 31,952.00 30,973.00 . Less: (3) Spec Assess @ $5,000 (15,000.00) (15,000.00) (15,000.00) Less: 15 Year Total Water Sales - 3 lots (5,062.50) (5,062.50) (5,062.50) Plus: Finance cost @ 7% of 5,062.50 2,702.11 2,702.11 2,702.11 Project Financing Shortfall 34,419.61 14,591.61 13,612.61 Add!. Sp. Assess needed to B/E - 3 lots 11,473.20 4,863.87 4,537.54 Add!. Sp. Assess needed to BIE - 5 lots 6,883.92 2,918.32 2,722.52 Five Lot Scenario Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Project Cost 51,780.00 31,952.00 30,973.00 Less: (3) Spec Assess @ $5,000 (15,000.00) (15,000.00) (15,000.00) . Less: 15 Year Total Water Sales - 5 lots (8,437.50) (8,437.50) (8,437.50) Plus: Finance cost @ 7% of 8,437.50 4,503.52 4,503.52 4,503.52 Project Financing Shortfall 32,846.02 13,018.02 12,039.02 Add!. Sp. Assess needed to B/E - 3 lots 10,948.67 4,339.34 4,013.01 Add!. Sp. Assess needed to B/E - 5 lots 6,569.20 2,603.60 2,407.80 ,..~i ~ ,;~'(~-M M~f'rr ~- Interest Cost of Revenue-Based Financing of Water Interest Cost of Revenue-Based Financing of Water Infrastrusture with 3 Lots Connected Infrastructure with 5 Lots Connected OtrlYear Water Sales Interest @ 7% ~ OtrlYear Water Sales Interest @ 7% ~ 5,062.50 8,437.50 1 /1 84.38 88.59 4,978.13 1/1 140.63 147.66 8,296.88 2/1 84.38 87.12 4,893.75 2/1 140.63 145.20 8,156.25 3/1 84.38 85.64 4,809.38 3/1 140.63 142.73 8,015.63 4/1 84.38 84.16 4,725.00 4/1 140.63 140.27 7,875.00 1/2 84.38 82.69 4,640.63 1/2 140.63 137.81 7,734.38 2/2 84.38 81.21 4,556.25 2/2 140.63 135.35 7,593.75 3/2 84.38 79.73 4,471.88 3/2 140.63 132.89 7,453.13 4/2 84.38 78.26 4,387.50 4/2 140.63 130.43 7,312.50 1/3 84.38 76.78 4,303.13 1/3 140.63 127.97 7,171.88 2/3 84.38 75.30 4,218.75 2/3 140.63 125.51 7,031.25 3/3 84.38 73.83 4,134.38 3/3 140.63 123.05 6,890.63 4/3 84.38 72.35 4,050.00 4/3 140.63 120.59 6,750.00 1/4 84.38 70.88 3,965.63 1/4 140.63 118.13 6,609.38 2/4 84.38 69.40 3,881.25 2/4 140.63 115.66 6,468.75 3/4 84.38 67.92 3,796.88 3/4 140.63 113.20 6,328.13 4/4 84.38 66.45 3,712.50 4/4 140.63 .110.74 6,187.50 1/5 84.38 64.97 3,628.13 1/5 140.63 108.28 6,046.88 2/5 84.38 63.49 3,543.75 2/5 140.63 105.82 5,906.25 3/5 84.38 62.02 3,459.38 3/5 140.63 103.36 5,765.63 . 4/5 84.38 60.54 3,375.00 4/5 140.63 100.90 5,625.00 1/6 84.38 59.06 3,290.63 1/6 140.63 98.44 5,484.38 2/6 84.38 57.59 3,206.25 2/6 140.63 95.98 5,343.75 3/6 84.38 56.11 3,121.88 3/6 140.63 93.52 5,203.13 4/6 84.38 54.63 3,037.50 4/6 140.63 91.05 5,062.50 1/7 84.38 53.16 2,953.13 1/7 140.63 88.59 4,921.88 2/7 84.38 51.68 2,868.75 2/7 140.63 86.13 4,781.25 3/7 84.38 50.20 2,784.38 3/7 140.63 83.67 4,640.63 4/7 84.38 48.73 2,700.00 4/7 140.63 81.21 4,500.00 1/8 84.38 47.25 2,615.63 1/8 140.63 78.75 4,359.38 2/8 84.38 45.77 2,531.25 2/8 140.63 76.29 4,218.75 3/8 84.38 44.30 2,446.88 3/8 140.63 73.83 4,078.13 4/8 84.38 42.82 2,362.50 4/8 140.63 71.37 3,937.50 1/9 84.38 41.34 2,278.13 1/9 140.63 68.91 3,796.88 2/9 84.38 39.87 2,193.75 2/9 140.63 66.45 3,656.25 3/9 84.38 38.39 2,109.38 3/9 140.63 63.98 3,515.63 4/9 84.38 36.91 2,025.00 4/9 140.63 61.52 3,375.00 1/10 84.38 35.44 1,940.63 1/10 140.63 59.06 3,234.38 2/10 84.38 33.96 1,856.25 2/10 140.63 56.60 3,093.75 . 3/10 84.38 32.48 1,771.88 3/10 140.63 54.14 2,953.13 4/10 84.38 31.01 1,687.50 4/10 140.63 51.68 2,812.50 1/11 84.38 29.53 1,603.13 1/11 140.63 49.22 2,671.88 2/11 84.38 28.05 1,518.75 2/11 140.63 46.76 2,531.25 3/11 84.38 26.58 1,434.38 3/11 140.63 44.30 2,390.63 4/11 84.38 25.10 1,350.00 4/11 140.63 41.84 2,250.00 1/12 84.38 23.63 1,265.63 1/12 140.63 39.38 2,109.38 2/12 84.38 22.15 1,181.25 2/12 140.63 36.91 1,968.75 3/12 84.38 20.67 1,096.88 3/12 140.63 34.45 1,828.13 4/12 84.38 19.20 1,012.50 4/12 140.63 31.99 1,687.50 1/13 84.38 17.72 928.13 1/13 140.63 29.53 1,546.88 2/13 84.38 16.24 843.75 2/13 140.63 27.07 1,406.25 3/13 84.38 14.77 759.38 3/13 140.63 24.61 1,265.63 4/13 84.38 13.29 675.00 4/13 140.63 22.15 1,125.00 1/14 84.38 11.81 590.63 1/14 140.63 19.69 984.38 2/14 84.38 10.34 506.25 2/14 140.63 17.23 843.75 3/14 84.38 8.86 421.88 3/14 140.63 14.77 703.13 4/14 84.38 7.38 337.50 4/14 140.63 12.30 562.50 1/15 84.38 5.91 253.13 1/15 140.63 9.84 421.88 2/15 84.38 4.43 168.75 2/15 140.63 7.38 281.25 3/15 84.38 2.95 84.38 3/15 140.63 4.92 140.63 4/15 84.38 1.48 0.00 4/15 140.63 2.46 0.00 Totals 5,062.50 2,702.11 Totals 8,437.50 4503.52 CITY OF SHOREWOOD . RESOLUTION NO. 97-_ A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FEASrnllJTY STUDY AND ORDERING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES CITY PROJECT 97-3 LAKESIDE W A TERMAIN EXTENSION WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council June 9, 1997, a Feasibility Report for City Project 95-15 was presented to the City Council on August 11 tit, 1997; and WHEREAS, The City Engineer has prepared the Feasibility Report. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of . Shorewood, Minnesota: 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed on this 11 tit day of August, 1997. 2. Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. They shall prepare Plans, Specifications and Estimates for the making of such improvement. 3. Petitioners of said project as indicated below, shall be required to execute an agreement with the City of Shorewood after such time as bids have been accepted and tabulated by the City of Shorewood for said project, waiving their right to appeal connection charges, costs associated with the preparation of Plans Specification and Estimates, and construction services. . 1. Bill Wicka 2. Dan and Alane Johnson 3. Darrell and Missy Carver 4. David and Patti Wessner 5. John Alsip 27930 Smithtown Road 27944 Smithtown Road 27910 Smithtown Road 27920 Smithtown Road 27940 Smithtown Road ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCn.. OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 11 tit day of August, 1997. Tom Dahlberg, Mayor ATTEST: James C Hurm. Citv Administrator/Clerk . . MAYOR Tom Dahlberg CCL;NCil. Krlstl Stover Jennlier McCarty Jerry O'~Je!l! John Gar.unkei CITY OF SHORE\VOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWCOD. MI 1'4N ESOTA 55331-3927. \612) <17<1-3236 FAX \612\ .:17.1.0128 . .''IIww.state.netisho~e'.vood . citynall @Shorewccd.sta:e.net FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR SOUTH LINK- LAKESIDE'VATER~IAIN EXTENSION CITY PROJECT NO 97-3 July 10, 1997 Prepared By: City of Siwrewood Department of Public Works 2.1200 SmithlOwn Road Slwrewoot!. JL\' 55331 (612) .;';.1-3236 . . CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ~a -./ t$'~ ;::> Date: July 10,1997 Reg. No.: 23390 City Project No. 97-3 Cert-l . . TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE SHEET CERTIFICATION SHEET TABLE OF CONTENETS 1. INTRODUCTION Authorization Scope ll. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION Ill. GENERAL BACKGROUND Location Existing Conditions Existing Public Utilities Existing Private Utilities IV. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS v. EASEMENTS VI. ESTIMATED COSTS AND COST P ARTICIP ATION VII. RECOMMENDATION APPENDEX A Cost Estimates I. INTRODUCTION Authorization - On June 9, 1997 the Shorewood City Council authorized preparation of a feasibility study for the extension of municipal water service to serve 5 single family residents west of Smithtown Road near the Shorewood - Victoria City border. . Scope - Five existing single family residents along Smithtown Road have petitioned the City Council to extend a watermain lateral from the existing 12 inch watermain in Smithtown Road known as the "South Link Watermain", to the subject parcels (refer to Figure 1). This report will investigate the technical and financial feasibility of serving these homes with municipal water service. II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The purpose of this study is to outline the feasibility of extending a 6 inch diameter watermain from the Smithtown Road right of way to five homes located West of Smithtown Road (refer to Figure 1). . Residents petitioned the City Council to run a lateral watermain extension towards Lake Minnetonka, due to the inordinate amount of distance between Smithtown Road and the location of the homes. Four of the five petitioner's homes are approximately 1,160 feet from the road right of way. The intent of the original alternative was to provide both municipal water service and adequate fire flow protection. This could be accomplished by the construction of a 6 inch diameter watermain with a fire hydrant located near the homes. Other alternatives considered were: . Decrease the length of 6 inch watermain from 860 lineal feet to 600 lineal feet to reduce costs. City Project No. 97-4 Page 1 - ., rI ;~1.r{"1 / / \ \-!~/ \ / \~. \-.: ~ Z o Iii z z :i w :.:: ~ , (OJ ~@ 2~r J" z. PROJECT SITE rOll 0: (J; 0:,- 'Z: '~I o. I ~WIDlOO:!r I' 1 I;') , l- .,.' .,.... I ~I ....~.......;...I"'.(I)I ..; ...f "... 1 .,- UI /~p-; . I I " .1. I .-:..../ PI I;~ 161 III I I ,,.I~__I ~J .....:.~.--;i~!'. ";J~ I') IZl " . IlJf\OII/2";'\ ~111 . Clot I ~l SHOREWOOD . "ICTORIA BORDER City of Shorewood Feasibility Rellort South Link - Lakeside Water Extension PROJECT LOCATION Figure No. t . Decrease the diameter of the watermain to 4 inch diameter and reduce the length to 600 feet. This reduces costs, however does not provide adequate fire flow protection. . Installation of individual 1 1h inch service lines the entire length of the project. . Of the 5 property owners who petitioned the City Council for this extension, two of the property owners have been assessed previously as part of the South Link Project. Under the City's current policy, each existing lot of record would pay a $5,000 connection charge for municipal water service. For the three properties not yet assessed, total revenue generated for the project would be $15,000. If a watermain is to be constructed, the least expensive alternative is the extension of a 4 inch diameter watermain 600 feet West of Smithtown Road. The direct project costs of this alternative is $24,516. . It is estimated that additional expenses by the homeowner would include $6,000, over and above any connection costs, for the installation of a private service. Under this scenario, service lengths would be approximately 560 lineal feet. In total, the average home owner under this option would pay the connection charge of $5,000 plus an average cost of $6,000 while not obtaining adequate fire flow protection. Since the direct project costs associated with construction of a 4 inch diameter watermain (Alternative 3) equals $24,516 versus the generated revenue of $15,000, this project is considered financially unfeasible. ID. GENERAL BACKGROUND Location - The proposed improvements are located in the southwest comer of the City of Shorewood, west of Smithtown Road between its intersection of Boulder Bridge Drive and the Shorewood- Victoria border. City Project No. 97-4 Page 3 Existing Conditions - Smithtown Road is a two-lane undivided rural roadway with a bituminous surface varying in width from 22 to 26 feet, and gravel shoulders one to four feet in width. The existing driveway which parallels the proposed watermain route is a gravel surface which varies from approximately 8 to 12 feet wide. Mature trees are located throughout the edges of the westerly portion of the main access driveway. A wetland is located south of the driveway. Existing Public Utilities - A lift station is located 390 feet West of the edge of Smithtown Road. The force main from the lift station extends along the center of the driveway to Smithtown Road. A gravity sewer line extends from the lift station to the west to service the existing homes. . Existing Private Utilities - A telephone cable extends along the South side of the main access drive. IV. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS There are four alternatives considered as part of this report, and are as follows: . Alternative 1 - Extend a 6 inch diameter watermain from Smithtown Road to the west 860 lineal feet (refer to Figure 2). This would place watermain within close proximity to the location of the existing houses. Alternative 2 - Extend a 6 inch diameter watermain from Smithtown Road to the west approximately 600 feet. This would approximate two thirds the distance between the existing homes and Smithtown Road (refer to Figure 3). Alternative 3 - Extend a 4 inch diameter watermain from Smithtown Road to the City Project No. 97-4 Page 4 \\ 1\ \1 I' 27920 I :) I, 27930 ii ~\ 1\ \\ I'. \\ \~ '\ :; \~\ "'C;t. " 0 . ~ ' . c' ~ \''-. .. < ' '-"~..., -,. 0._ \ ~"'''''-/ ~~'O) (, OlJt:. \ ~ -, '-' 0 u- . ':-; Q tZ. (:~.' . 0 " :" ''-. ......~/ 000 ..9 '~ 00 ~ :'~.- / . I <; :uc9{'''\.. r. " O. -:O"'~""-..Ja" < ''-':; " '". ,........ ., '\::c, 0,.., ..... :" ""':>" g) '. _____. =-"fm" ,. va.. '-_'_'_._--... d ".~.w '" " ',' _. . PmMn'.... = . ~.....,." ........ a ".G>' .~ .........., " . nlv Thls.'s d ~~ '"", CO,.. _ "P""" .' .. ""'M ~ . , CO."'. ...... .., , _ -Yo ~"...... ..... "") '. ,. , . . e c 8 ~ ~ '" ~ -' -. ;. ~; 1::::: ~::: ~ I ~~BOU'DtR / t;J:ii .....'3~~rt.l,t~ --------- : / ~...-... ....'}!.94. - '\'.. 0 ~, '\', "'~ ...~" I~ i N I / . /9 , ! i I / I' IT: l.. S i:i' .0 / ! . ~~ ~ AJ I I ~ ~ 'vO , 33' 6<16 I 198,Sq' 9~,G~ . 27910 l' NORTH -.-- - ---- ~ . ~~: CIFT. 27940 TO EXISTING CONNE<:TERVICE STUB 6 INCH" ~. ~.~ ~ ~ LEGEND - d Watermain Propose :t. Fire hydr ant . . e z OJ ..", ::I r..c ii: I: -e:: Qj - 5 OJ OJ .. t;f., ~~-; 0: 0: OJ 1:;;'- I: .. ... .- CJ '..:l ...... C': <Q~ ~ ex: ~ .~ .. " t.l .. ~ " ~ G) "0 := ~ 1:: ] ~ ~ j .. .. , ;: c:::: .:.: en .~ :j '-::: C "Q .c .o'~ ;: .- ~ c U to. (I') ~ i_~ ~ ., ~ ';r: ~ ~ g ~ .~. ~.~. ~ g ." R. 5:;;i:! :::w ;;;. ~ !a c:;" ~ <>- ~ .. a ~:g ~ 1:). a D ~ ~ " ~ " ~ g. ~ ~.~ ~ '0> ... ~+- :!1 ;;; ::r < ~ .. ~ ~ lake Mlnnetonl(a .:' ~ . ... ;::;-----.. ,. ~ ...:.-____ (O;69j- ..::n -'-. -'--_ r--- ,0 ,~~";' 7 .d g> 0) "U o -c o III '" C. ~ '" m 3 '" 5' t""' M C"l M '2 c3 z ~-+ III City of Shorewood Feasibility Report South Link - Lakeside \Vater Extension Alternatives 2 and 3 4"& 6" Dia. Watermain 600 Lineal Feet ----~ . .r, Figure No. 3 " <! I . . west approximately 600 feet. Reduction in the diameter of the watermain would reduce project costs, as compared to Alternative 2. Alternative 4 - Extend private services from Smithtown Road to each home. Alternative 5 - The Null or "do nothing" alternative. ANALYSIS OF THE ALTERNATIVES . Alternative 1 includes the extension of a lateral watermain 860 lineal feet from the existing 6 inch service stub on Smithtown Road to the West, where the main access drive splits to serve a majority of the homes. By Minnesota Plumbing Code requirements, the watermain must be installed 10.0' away from the location of the sanitary sewer. After a close review of the site, this would force the watermain into mature trees which border the driveway. The proximity of the trees to a watermain trench, coupled with the groundwater elevation for the westerly half of the driveway added considerable cost to the project. The estimated cost of this alternative is $44,124. . Alternative 2 involves extending a 6 inch diameter water service 600 feet West of the edge of Smithtown Road. By decreasing the length of the service line, conflicts with groundwater and trench width requirements could be reduced. This reduces the overall cost to the project. Longer individual service lines as compared to Alternative 1 would be required for four of the five parcels considered under this option. The benefit of running a service line is that services could be bored in the ground versus trenched. This would save in what would be lost trees and problems associated with groundwater as it relates to conventional trenching, City Project No. 97-4 Page 7 Costs of the service installations are not included as part of the project costs, and would be the responsibility of the homeowners to install. It is estimated that the length of the services required under this alternative is approximately 550 feet. At an average cost of $11.00 per lineal foot, the cost of each service would be $6,050. The direct project costs of alternative 2 is $25,584. Alternative 3 is identical to alternative 2 with the modification to the diameter of the watermain. Under this scenario, the main would be a 4 inch diameter main versus 6 inch. Although the advantage of this alternative is a minor reduction in material costs, the disadvantage of using a 4 inch diameter main is that it will not provide adequate fire flow protection. The estimated cost for this alternative is $24,516. . Alternative 4 considers the extension of private services from Smithtown Road to the existing homes. The average length of service would be 1,160 lineal feet. This equates to a total cost of approximately $ 17,402. Therefore, this alternative is cost prohibitive. Alternative 5 is the "null" alternative. Although the costs of this alternative are zero, the residents have stated their desire to obtain municipal water service largely due to the amount of iron in the private wells. . V. EASEMENTS There is an existing sanitary sewer easement centered over the gravity, and forcemain located within the driveway. The prescription of this easement is for sanitary purposes only. The Minnesota Plumbing Code requires a 10.0 foot separation between sanitary sewer and water mains. Therefore, the alignment of the watermain would be north of the existing driveway. A separate 20.0 foot easement would have to be granted by the property owners to the City, where the watermain traverses their property. City Project No. 97-4 Page 8 Neighbors would also be required to grant another neighbor an easement to traverse their parcel with a water service. These specific easement agreements would be between each property owner without the City being party to these agreements. The City would require that agreements be presented to the City for recording, to insure that each party would have proper access to the watermain. VI. ESTIMATED COSTS AND COST PARTICIPATION Estimated Costs - The project costs of each alternative are summarized in Table 1 . Alt No. Description Total Cost 1 860 lin ft of 6 inch watermain $44,124.00 2 600 lin ft of 6 inch watermain $25,584.00 3 600 lin ft of 4 inch watermain $24,516.00 4 1160 ft/house individual service line $17,402.00 per service 5 Null Alternative $ 0.00 Table 1 Cost Participation - Under the current policy of the City of Shorewood, each . existing single family residence would pay a $5,000 connection charge. Since two of the property owners who submitted the petition have already been assessed, they would not pay an additional connection fee. Therefore, the revenue collected through assessments for this project would be 3 lots x $5,000 per lot, or $15,000 in total. VII. RECOMMENDA TION Under the current policy of the City of Shorewood, a project is financially feasible if the revenue generated by the connection charges meets or exceeds total project costs. Based on the alternatives considered, this project is unfeasible from a financial viewpoint. City Project No. 97-4 Page 9 South Link - Lakeside Water Extension Cost Opinion Alternate 1 - 860 LF @ 6" Cia Watermain . ITEM UNIT QUANTITY COST/UNIT ITEM COST Connect to Existing Water Main EA 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Clear and Grub Trees LUMP SUM 1 $ 2,600.00 $ 2,600.00 Dewatering LUMP SUM 1 $ 2,250.00 $ 2,250.00 Hydrant EA 1 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00 6" Ductile Iron Pipe Class 52 UN FT 860 $ 22.00 $ 18,920.00 Pipe Bedding CUYD 130 $ 12.00 $ 1,560.00 6" Gate Valve and Box EA 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 6" DIP Tee EA 1 $ 170.00 $ 170.00 6" 45 Degree Bend EA 3 $ 140.00 $ 420.00 Driveway Restoration TON 600 $ 8.00 $ 4,800.00 Turf Establishment LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 1-1/2" Corporation EA 5 $ 85.00 $ 425.00 1-1/2" Curb Stop and Box EA 5 $ 135.00 $ 675.00 1-1/2" Water Service (10 feetlea) UN FT 50 $ 11.00 $ 550.00 Subtotal $ 36,770.00 Contingency 10% $ 3,677.00 Design, Survey, Legal 10% $ 3,677.00 Grand Total $ 44,124.00 . ------ ---- ~ . South Link - Lakeside Water Extension Cost Opinion Alternate 2 - 600 LF @ 6" Cia Watermain ITEM UNIT QUANTITY COST/UNIT ITEM COST Connect to Existino Water Main EA 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Clear and Grub Trees LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 Hydrant EA 1 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00 6" Ductile Iron Pipe Class 52 UN FT 600 $ 20.50 $ 12,300.00 Pipe Bedding CUYD 60 $ 12.00 $ 720.00 6" Gate Valve and Box EA 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 6" DIP Tee EA 1 $ 170.00 $ 170.00 6" Bends EA 3 $ 140.00 $ 420.00 . Driveway Restoration TON 20 .$ 8.00 $ 160.00 Turf Establishment LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 1-1/2" Corporation EA 5 $ 85.00 $ 425.00 1-1/2" Curb Stop and Box EA 5 $ 135.00 $ 675.00 1-1/2" Water Service (10 feetlea) UN FT 50 $ 11.00 $ 550.00 Subtotal $ 21,320.00 Contingency 10% $ 2,132.00 Design, Survey, Legal 10% $ 2,132.00 Grand Total $ 25,584.00 . . ' .. : t South Link - Lakeside Water Extension Cost Opinion Alternate 3 - 600 LF @ 4" Oia Watermain ITEM UNIT QUANTITY COST/UNIT ITEM COST Connect to Existing Water Main EA 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 I Clear and Grub Trees LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,600.00 I Hydrant EA 1 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00 4" Ductile Iron Pipe Class 52 UN FT 600 $ 19.00 $ 11,400.00 Pipe Bedding CUYD 60 $ 12.00 $ 720.00 6" Gate Valve and Box EA 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 6" DIP Tee EA 1 $ 170.00 $ 170.00 . 4" Bends EA 3 $ 110.00 $ 330.00 6" x 4" Reducer EA 2 $ 150.00 $ 300.00 Drivewav Restoration TON 20 $ 8.00 $ 160.00 Turf Establishment LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 1-1/2" Corporation EA 5 $ 85.00 $ 425.00 1-1/2" Curb Stop and Box EA 5 $ 135.00 $ 675.00 1-1/2" Water Service (10 feetlea) UN FT 50 $ 11.00 $ 550.00 Subtotal $ 20,430.00 Contingency 10% $ 2,043.00 Design, Survey, Legal 10% $ 2,043.00 Grand Total $ 24,516.00 . . , . I South Link - Lakeside Water Extension Cost Opinion Alternate 4 - 1160 LF 1.5 inch Service Line ITEM UNIT QUANTIT't' COST/UNIT ITEM COST Clear and Grub Trees LUMP SUM 1 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 Driveway Restoration TON 20 $ 8.00 $ 160.00 Turf Establishment LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 1-1/2" Corporation EA 5 $ 85.00 $ 425.00 1-1/2" Curb Stop and Box EA 5 $ 135.00 $ 675.00 1-1/2" Water Service (10 feetlea) UN FT 1160 $ 11.00 $ 12,760.00 Subtotal $ 15,820.00 . Contingency 10% $ 1,582.00 Design, Survey, Legal 0% $ - Grand Total $ 17,402.00 . MAYOR Tom Dahlberg CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL Kristi Stover Jennifer McCarty Jerry O'Neill John Garfunkel 5755 COUNTRY CLUB, ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612)474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128. www.state.netlshorewood. cityhall@shorewood.state.net MEMORANDUM RE: Mayor and City Council James C. Hurm, City Administrator Petition Water Project Agreement to Pay Up Front Costs TO: FROM: . August 22, 1997 Enclosed please fmd a draft of a consent and agreement proposed to be used for petitioned watermain projects. By executing such agreements the petitioners would agree to pay for feasibility report costs and engineering costs to get us to bidding should the project go that far. Please review this draft agreement and consider approving it in general format for the West Smithtown Road project as well as future petition projects. . ~9& A Residential Communiry on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore . . CONSENT AND AGREEMENT IPROJECT NAME] THE UNDERSIGNED Petitioners hereby consent, agree and understand as follows: 1. They represent 100% of the owners of real property abutting on the following streets 2. They have petitioned the city to construct the following public improvement ("Improvement") along such streets and to assess the entire cost of the Improvement against their properties. 3. Following acceptance of the petition by the city council. the city engineer or other competent person will prepare a feasibility report on the Improvement. The feasibility report will address issues including an estimate of the cost of the Improvement. 4. If the Improvement is determined to be feasible. the council will direct the preparation of plans and Specifications, and, depending on the estimated cost, will call for bids on the Improvement. The preparation of plans and specifications will ordinarily provide further information regarding the cost of the Improvement. 5. Not later than the time the petition is considered for acceptance by the council, the petitioners will provide the city -with a deposit equal to the city engineer's estimate of the cost of preparing the feasibility report. The city may treat the petition as having been vvithdrawn if the deposit is not made by the earlier of the date the petition is scheduled for consideration of the city council or 45 days from the date the petition was filed. 6. Not later than the date on which the city council directs the preparation of plans and specifications for the Improvement, the undersigned will deposit with the city an amount <:: JS!)~:B6$: FIRM-l 3:J'<:td 01f:6L.f:f:<::19'CI N3n'<:t~:::> ~ ~C3NNS~NOci~ -. '50 L5-:0-~n~ equal to the city engineer's estimate of the cost of preparation of plans and Specifications and the cost of public bidding, if required. The deposit shall also include the cost of preparation of the feasibility report, if not previously deposited. The city may treat the petition as having been withdrawn if the deposit is not made by the earlier of the date the council is. scheduled to consider directing the preparation of plans and specifieations or 30 days following receipt on the feasibility report. . 7. Not later than five days following the date on which the bids for the Improvement have been opened and tabulated, the undersigned will provide the city vvith waiver executed by all the petitioners in substantially the form of the attached Exhibit A. In the event that the waiver is not so provided, the city may treat the petition as having been withdrawn, may rcject all bids and may abandon further consideration of the Improvement. 8. If the petitioners fail to make the deposit provided for in paragraph 6 above, or for any other reason withdrawn their petition, the city shall be entitled to apply the deposit required under paragraph 5 to reimburse it for all costs and expenses which it incurred in . connection with prcparation of the feasibility report. 9. If the petitioners fail to execute and deliver the instrument provided for in paragraph 7 above, or for any other reason withdraw the petition, the city shall be entitled to apply the deposit required under paragraph 6 to reimburse it for the costs and expenses which the city incurred and which were to be covered by that deposit. 10. Upon execution and delivery of the instrument described in Exhibit A, the city shall award the contract in the manner provided by law and proceed with the construction of the improvement and assessment of the costs against the petitioner; and either return the deposits to petitioners or apply them against Improvements as the parties may agree. If the city holds the JBD129c91 FIriZ-!-l 2 3:~':td 0!S6L.SE"6!B:CI NE^~~~ ~ Aa3NN~~-~iC~d : :30 .:.:.. .5- !::: - :)n"':"7' ExmBlT A W AlVER AGREEMENT The undersigned is the owner of property located at in the City of Shorewood and legally described as The undersigned together with the owners of other property have petitioned the City of Shorewood to construct the following public improvement . and have agreed that 100% of the cost of the improvement be assessed against the petitioners' properties. The undersigned understands that the cost of the project may be as much as . -" and the amount assesscd against the undersigned's property may be as much as The undersigned understands that state law gives them the right to appeal the levy of special assessments against their property. The undersigned, for themselves and their successors and assigns hereby waive any rights to appeal either with respect to the procedure or the amount . of any special assessment which is levied in accordance with the dollar limitations contained in this agrcement. Dated: s ....~Dl.2aiE~l. ?:RX-:. 3:~~d a. :2)! ESL.~EG 1,:3: aT Na^~~~ ~ ~G2~IN3~:~O~~ _. 50 ~2-~~-8n~ MAYOR Tom Dahlberg . CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL Kristi Stover Jennifer McCarty Jerry O'Neill John Garfunkel 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 rJf/- FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works . DATE: August 20, 1997 RE: Consideration of a Motion to Accept a Petition for Local Improvements Note: Due to a technical difficulty, this item will be placed on the next City Council agenda. I apologize for any inconvenience. . A Residentiai Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore #10 MAYOR Tom Dahlberg CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL Kristi Slover Jennifer McCarty Jerry O'Neill John Garfunkel 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128. www.state.net/shorewood. cityhall@shorewood.slale.nel MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council James Hurm, City Administrator . FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works ~ DATE: August 22, 1997 RE: Status Update for the Improvements to the S.W. Quadrant of Eureka Road South and Smithtown Road. During the August 11th City Council meeting, the improvements to the s.ubject intersection were reconsidered and tabled until further information could be obtained regarding the width and safety requirements necessary for this intersection. . The property owner at this intersection is Mr. David Stubstad at 5705 Eureka Road. After viewing the City Council meeting on a taped delay, Mr. Stubstad requested a meeting on site with Mayor Dahlberg, Councilmember O'Neill, and the City Engineer to discuss possible alternatives. A meeting was conducted on Wednesday, August 20th with the individuals mentioned above. During that meeting, a compromise was discussed to where the curb could be placed to provide adequate room for traffic movements, while providing adequate room to re-grade the boulevard area to avoid steep slopes or retaining walls. The original motion made during the May 7th, 1997 City Council meeting authorized the expenditure of $3,000 for this improvement. The adjustments discussed in the field on August 20th will still be within the $3,000dollars authorized, if the City Council desires to move ahead with this project. During this meeting, it was also discussed that the street does encroach onto the property corner. Mr. Stubstad is requesting compensation for the encroachment in exchange for an easement for the encroachment. There are several questions that need to be addressed before moving ahead with such an easement if the City Council desires. The first of which is if there is an encroachment, how much area is involved, and what is the fair market value of any easement to be obtained. These items will undoubtedly be discussed at Monday night's City Council meeting. A F?esidential Community on Lake j1;linnetonka's Soutf, Shore +11 . MAYOR Tom Dahlberg CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL Kristi Stover Jennifer McCarty Jerry O'Neill John Garfunkel 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 r#~ ~ . DATE: May 7, 1997 RE: A Motion Authorizing Safety Improvements for the Southeast Quadrant of Smithtown Road and Eureka Road South. Attachment 1 is a memorandum dated May 5, 1997 to the Mayor and City Council which explains the safety improvemen~s and restoration that is being requested at 5705 Eureka Road South. Normally minor roadway modifications are completed without authorization from the City Council. However, in this instance the modifications being requested are being discussed to outline current traffic safety problems for this area, and to help resolve a long standing issue of encroachment onto a private property. I believe attachment one outlines the scenario thoroughly. Therefore, if the City Council agrees with . the recommendations, staff is requesting authorization to complete these items in attachment one as part of the local roadway reconstruction fund. It is estimated that these improvements will cost approximately $3,000. I will present a final estimate at the City Council meeting.. A Residential Communitv on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore MAYOR Tom Dahlberg COUNCIL Kristi Stover Jennifer McCarty Jerry O'Neill John Garfunkel 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 Lany Brown, Director of Public Works ~. May 5, 1997 . FROM: DATE: RE: 5705 Eureka Road David Stubstad Property Southwest Quadrant of Smithtown Road and Eureka Road South The City has received two separate requests from Mr. Stubstad, property owner of 5705 Eureka Road. Mayor Dahlberg and myself met with Mr. Stubstad on April 28, 1997 to discuss these issues. . The first issue is with regard to damage to an existing retaining wall along the subject property which occurred as part of the SmithtownRoad WatermainProject (City Project 95-16). Although the existing wall was in a severe state of deterioration, Mr. Stubstad has requested that the City replace the wall in its entirety. During previous conversations with Mr. Stubstad, it has been stated that it is the contractor's responsibility for the restoration of the wall. Mr. Stubstad stated that it is the City's responsibility to replace the wall, and does not want to want to wait for the contractor to respond the Issue. In researching this issue, it was also found that the inside of the radius of the roadway of Smithtown Road and Eureka Road South encroaches onto Mr. Stubstad's property comer (refer to attachment 1). It was suggested that if Mr. Stubstad were willing to grant the City a permanent easement for the encroachment, we could easily justify letting a separate project to build a complete retaining wall in exchange. Mr. Stubstad declined stating that he did not want to incur any more encumbrances for the title of his property. The second issue that was discussed was with regard to a letter received by the City of Shorewood from Mr. Stubstad dated April 8, 1997 (refer to attachment 2). It was noted that South Lake Minneotnka Police Department has increased their efforts to patrol speed levels on Smithtown Road. In addition, a stop sign which does not meet traffic warrants increases the problem as drivers tend to speed up to make up for lost time and increases the number of unnecessary accelerations as cars start up from a stopped condition. A Residential Community on Lake I'vlinnetonka's South Shore .-\ttachmenr 5705 Eureka Road Property Restoration May 5, 1997 Page 2 of2 After reviewing both of these issues, it was discussed and agreed that there is a compromise which may help address both issues. Since the radius at the southeast quadrant encroaches unto Mr. Stubstad's property, this radius could be reduced (refer to attachment 2). This will not only reduce the encroachment onto the property, but will reduce the width of the intersection. This decrease in the width of the lane should slow traffic as they make their turning movements. This will reduce the amount of retaining wall required while adding some "traffic calming" amenities to the . intersection. Mr. Stubstad felt that this was a good compromise. This issue is tentatively scheduled for aCtion on the May 12 City Council meeting. . . C)'I>. , ~ ,,~ ~ '\~. 0) . ~~".~ E8 I,? 't-." C) 0~ ~-'\ ~~. I _ -::\ 't- "- \ \0) -L . I " Ie) @) "-1. UJ I I I I I I :0 I 1ft: I I): .~dyf Jlo"j' I <C I't-'I>. O)~ f ~ + I W I I CL ~ I Ut1 I 0. 10)"- -~ . I -_ i -.' --- c + @) ..5705 - \1-).,,/ I I I i I I I I 14-- Et:6.E PA~E"rr- I : I RI&HT OF wI>.:.'! r: EUREKA: R ~ : ~CD I I ,,-Co. \+ ~ N ~ 6f\"-ITHTO\dl-j KD 10 20 j I'EET 10 S 0 ~ SCALE !N Vx><XX\0l ARi:::A. OF r)~ \!f.=:.i\A,,=_fo.,,r-;:- Attachment 1 t<':+-=:!'<,.\ ~:l\//\,.l_ April 8, 1997 if? I e:rr~ I c:: 11 \\/7 i c: ,""""" ! InJ-~S7:r- J I:, ~l/ni; 11~1 A P R ~ 1597 lJil u. By J Mayor Dahlberg City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Rd. Shorewoo~ N1N 55331 . Re: Traffic on Smithtown Road Dear Mayor: Weare residents of Shorewood and write to request your assistance with a serious and dangerous traffic problem that is occu:rr=.ng n~..r our home. Our address is 5705 Eureka Road. Our house is located at the comer of Eureka Road and Smithtown Ro~ and the front of our house, including the driveway, front Smithtown Road. . As you are certainly aware, the posted speed limits on Smith town Road and Eureka Road are 30 . mph. However. the majority of the vehicles traveling along these residential streets are greatlv exceeding that speed.. Since our driveway is located on a slight hill, when the traffic is traveling at speeds in excess of the posted limit. it creates a dangerous situation for us to pull into or out of our driveway. To make matters worse., many drivers feel the ne~ to spin their tires or accelerate quickly from the stop sign at Eureka Road and SmithtOwn Road. This re--Jdess behavior combined with excess speed makes it ciifficult for pedestrians to safely gain access to the LRT trail. We write to request your assistance in addresi.ng these problems. We have several suggestions which could be implemented.. First, the police department does not appear to be concentrating.any traffic enforcement effortS in this area. The morning and afternoon rush hours, as well as 8:00 p.m. to 11 :00 p.m. seem to be the most problematic times of the day. We would request heavy traffic enforcement at these time whenever possible until the problem begins to resolve itSelf. Second, maybe the city should look intO lowering the speed limit thron~h the area. Other residential meetS in Shorewood are po~~d at 20 mph. While we are aware that Smithtown Road and Eureka Road are main streetS which. feed into other residential areas, there is considerable pedestrian tr~ffic through me area as people walk. run or bike to the LRT trail. Vehicles traveling at a high rate of speed are not conducive to the pedestrian traffic which results from locating the trail in that area. ,~ttachment2 Finally, a three way stao at the ime.."'Secrion misthr heIo. Tn.e ather interSection of Smithtown Road ~ .. -... ; and Eureka Road is controlled by stop signs in all directions. A three way stop would work to keep the speeds down. We would appreC.aIe your help in addressing these issues. It is my undersranding that you are also a resident of this same are3. of the city and are probably aware of at least some of the problems already. I am sure many of our neighbors also share these concerns. Please feel free to offer the use of our driveway to the police department in their traffic effortS if it would be useful Tnank you in advance for your assistance. . Sincerely, U-QJ)Q@ ~"'''-;1fV ~ ~'1 David J. Stubstad cr- Jennifer Vander Ploeg . Mayor and City Council James Hurm, City Administrator Larry Brown, Director of Public Works J~ August 22, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: . FROM: DATE: MAYOR Tom Dahlberg CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL Kristi Stover Jennifer McCarty Jerry O'Neill John Garfunkel 5755 COUNTRY CLUB,ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128. www,state.neVshorewood. cityhall@shorewood.state.net RE: Authorization for Advertisement for Bid for Street Overlay Project The following streets are scheduled for Overlay . Street Excelsior Blvd. Covington Rd Galpin Lk Road Park St. Glencoe Rd From City Limits Old market Rd May Flower Rd City Limits Yellowstone Trail To St. Atbans Bay Road Vine Hill T.H7 Glencoe Rd Dead End A resolution is attached for your consideration. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's Sourh Shore :#1'2..,. . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 97 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENTS FOR BIDS FOR 1997 STREET OVERLAY PROJECT WHEREAS, the 1997 Operating Budget and Capital Finance Plan designates $80,000 for street overlays; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has identified streets within the City that need bituminous overlay in 1997. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Shorewood City Council hereby authorizes advertisement for bids for the 1997 city street overlay project. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25th day of August, 1997. Tom Dahlberg, Mayor ATIEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk . . MAYOR Tom Dahlberg CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL Kristi Stover Jennifer McCarty Jerry O'Neill John Garfunkel . 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128. www.state.netlshorewood . cityhall@shorewood.state.net MEl\10RANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 14 August 1997 Watten Ponds - Development Monitoring 405 (96.02) Based upon ongoing concerns of neighboring residents, the Mayor and I visited the site on Wednesday, 13 August. Following are items on which we agreed the Council should be apprised: . Even though the tree protection fence has been relocated to the dripline, I have authorized the most southwesterly of the "Lavin Maples" (the large maples which line the old driveway on the Lavin site) to be removed. From the road this tree looks healthy, but examination from the north side reveals that it is substantially rotted. . The tree protection adjacent to a large maple tree on the north side of the site was located inside of the dripline because an old building was previously sited there. We will direct the developer to move the fence to the dripline, however, it must be understood that some finish grading will have to be done which will require temporarily moving the fence. . Tree protection fencing around trees on the old Watten homesite will be moved to the dripline even in areas where the old driveway is located. It must be understood, however, that fencing will have to be relocated temporarily in order to get the old bituminous out. . A large, but somewhat spindly tree on the north end of the pond will be monitored through next season. If it appears to be suffering, it will be required to be removed. . Two large maples on the west side of the pond are close to the tree protection fencing. These trees are worth saving even though the tree protection fence is inside the dripline. . Two large trees on the west side of the road just before the cul-de-sac will be too close to the retaining wall which will be built there. Unless the Council disagrees, I will order these to be removed. . It is still my intent to try to save several trees near the roadway, even though the fencing is inside the dripline. We will keep an eye on them. Our experience with the trees along Boulder Bridge Drive (the curb is within one foot of the trunks of several large maples) suggests that it is worth the attempt. . As previously mentioned. the developer will be asked to plat additional evergreen trees near the two pines on the north side of the road. If those trees do not make it, the new trees will take their place. -: ~'9s/d2rj~iai CC{7";;"--::.//?;;:'.' '-.-~ _~~:,c:: :! ."~c_-,_._,,.~ I I .., I"i .-...:-- !....... ! , .~ i ~I .f-' Re: Watten Ponds Development Monitoring 14 August 1997 page two · A large maple on the first lot on the left as you enter the project was originally identified for removal. The developer has submitted his first site plan for a building permit and indicates that they will attempt to save it. I recommend that all possible measures be taken to save this tree (including saw-cutting the roots), even if tree protection fencing will be inside the dripline around part of the tree. We will mark this tree as "Attempt to Save". I will be on vacation until 25 August. If any of you wish to visit the site with me to discuss these recommendations further, please discuss it with me at the Council meeting on 25 August. cc: Jim Hurm Larry Brown Phil Tipka Joe pazandak Chuck Dillerud . . September 1997 Sun Man Tue Wed Thu 1 2 3 4 7:00p Planning Comm Labor Day Fri Sat 5 -Coffee W/Mayor-Lake Virginia Dr 6 ! 71 8 9 10 11 12 13 I I 17:30P City Council 7:30p Park Com I , I I 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 7:30p Tent. Council 7:00p Planning Work Session on Commission CIP 21 22 7:30p City Council 23 24 25 26 27 I I 28 29 .........~ .;..-- ....., J..::, ~--- ~---....-" . . To: Mayor and City Council James C. Hurm, City Administrator Teri Naab, Executive Secretary / Deputy Clerk From: Date: August 20, 1997 Re: Recycling Contract The City of Shorewood is a member of a Lake Minnetonka Recycling Consortium which has in the past sought bids from recycling companies and reviewed their services as a group to ensure the best contract. Members of the group include Wayzata, Mound, Minnetonka Beach, Excelsior, Spring Park and Shorewood. In December, 1997 our three year contract with E-Z Recycling Company is finished. Recently I attended a meeting to discuss what to do at the end of 1997 about recycling services. All members of the group felt that E-Z Recycling has provided exceptional service for the past three years at a very affordable cost. It was also felt by many members of that group that even though a contract might be available for a reduced rate by another company, we may be sacrificing service which is a top priority. E-Z Recycling has been very responsive to the group's needs and has been proactive in seeking out new markets for products. To go through the bidding process can be very costly and time consuming. All members expressed a desire to negotiate an extended contract for services with E-Z Recycling. It was suggested that the group explore expanding the contract to include additional items such as chip board, styrofoam and plastics. The consortium plans to meet again in September or October to discuss the contract terms with representatives from E-Z Recycling. The Council should direct staff with regard to participation of this negotiation effort. :tF/3c August 21, 1997 9 Highway 7 reconstruction project hits roadblock By Mark Wilde The planned major recon- struction of Highway 7 in Excelsior has drawn sharp criticism from some residents, although MnDOT has already approved plans and begun acquiring property. Homeowners also complained to the city coun- cil about recent increases in traffic past their homes. MnDOT has purchased one home along Highway 7 near Second and Third Avenues, and is negotiating with homeowners to acquire at least parts of three other lots. The project is sched- uled to begin in 1999, and was approved by the council several years ago. Some concerned resi- dents are urging the council to reopen negotiations. The group of homeowners in the area, led by Cindy Studer, 647 Second Ave., say they are not get- ing all the necessary informal' n abo ,ns, an urged the ouncil to schedule a meeting with Shorewood city officials and, . DOT representatives to ~ar up 100 -emls"---------- City Manager Craig Dawson said he had been in contact with MnDOT representatives, and they guaranteed him that no more homes would need to be purchased. Hennepin County has the right to condemn property for use in highway reconstruction projects. Studer said MnDOT has been sending mixed messages. She wants more say in the plan because it will directly affect her house. "I don't think MnDOT is shooting straight," she said. "They are telling us and the coun- cil two different things." Residents also presented the city council with an informaltraf- fic survey which shows a large percentage of cars are ignoring stop signs around Second and Hopkins Cente~ for the Arts has $400K to go on fund drive By Jessica Rojas With the new Hopkins Center for the Arts months away from completion, Community Educa- tion Directors Ted Sauer and Donna Leviton attended the August 14 Hopkins School Board meeting to update the members on the center's plans. With $390,000 of the $4 million dollar project left to fund raise, the emphasis now is how to use the center to bring in community members. The area schools were ,'~\wcia\ly larg,'I(',\ as parlidp;mts III h;\V,' ill II,,' 1'1'111..... 'I'll\' bllilrd held in the studio, sketch and watercolor classes in the art stu- dio and the large 742 seat audito- rium space to be used by the Child's Play Theater and other small theater groups. "It's unlimited to what we can .basically do with it," Sauer said. The Grand Opening for the cen- ter, located on Main Street Hopkins across from the movie theater, will be Nov. 7, 8 and 9. Celebrations include a fund rais- ing banquet and an all day event welcoming the community to the new 34,400square foot facil. "{:or so lonp; it's been a~ .11'1';1111," s,lid SdHllll bllard nll'lll- 1. "T;,l' n",.,,,,!,,,,, "It\ (''l(('Hin!'' In The athletic center was com- pleted last November and is located near Hopkins High School. "This year has been a real grow- ing experience," said Sauer. The most enlightening aspect came from the partnership between the school district and the city who share the cost of the center. "We had to look at the (Hopkins) School District's use and satisfy our needs as well as look at the city's needs," Sauer said. "The city is very happy. The partnership is good," said David Shapl'ly, a dislrid administrator with Business Servires. Third Avenues, posing a danger for many of the children who live nearby. The survey shows that, on some days, as many as 42 percent of cars ignore the stop sign at Second Avenue and Wheeler Drive. Eleven of 58 cars observed by the residents also ran the stop sign at Third Avenue and Wheeler Drive on the evening of August 14. Residents say traffic has become increasingly intrusive in their neighborhood since Shorewood lost Christmas Lake Road, so that traffic needs to find an alternate route. Council members "pplauded the residents for taking the time to conduct the study, but voiced concerns about Studer's proposal because of its unknown impact on others. After a lengthy debate, they voted to hire a traffic engi- neer to get more accurate traffic flow data. Despite the objections of Council Members Bruce Duncan and Tom Gilman, the council passed a resolution authorizing the city to hire the engineer to col- lect data. The council also agreed tu hold a public hearing on the traffic problems some time in October. CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR AUGUST 25, 1997 COUNCIL MEETING CHECKS ISSUED SINCE AUGUST 13, 1997 CKNO TO WHOM ISSUED PURF03E AMOUNT 21356 BROWNING FERRIS IND AUG RECYCUNG-TB UQ $33.66 21357 BRADLEY NIELSEN SEC 125 REIMB 100.00 21358 BRADLEY NIELSEN MILEAGE 159.08 21359 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING BEER PURCHASES 739.80 21360 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEERMISC PURCHASES 8,421.40 21361 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEERMISC PURCHASES 14,690.15 21362 LEEF BROS. MATS 26.20 21363 MARLIN'S TRUCKING UQUORtWINE FREIGHT 213.40 21364 PERA PERA CONTRIBUTIONS 2,407.20 21365 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457 DEFERRED OOMP 888.92 . 21366 CITY COUN1Y CREDIT UNION PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 929.00 21367 ANOKA CO SUPPORT/COLLECT CHILD SUPPORT-C. SCHMID 156.50 21368 MN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE TAX 1,347.94 21369 HAMUNE UNIVERSITY TUITION-A. ROLEK 954.00 21370 KATHLEEN HEBERT SEC 125 REIMB/MILEAGE 285.05 21371 NORTHERN STATES POWER UTI UTI ES 6,231.26 21372 JOSEPH PAZANDAK MILEAGE & EXPENSES 106.76 21373 PEPSI MISC/POP PURCHASES 154.20 21374 ALAN ROLEK SEC 125 REIMB 200.00 21375 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 1,090.68 21376 BELLBOY CORP. UQUORMISC PURCHASES 5,862.95 21377 . BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY MISC/SUPPL Y PURCHASES 174.48 21378 MIDWEST COCA-GOLA MISC PURCHASES 831.95 21379 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO UQUORtWINElMISC PURCHASES 7,943.69 . 21380 HONEYWELL PROTECTION SVC QTRL Y MONITORING-L1Q 1 83.07 21381 JOHNSON BROS. LIQUOR CO UQUORtWINElBEER PURCHASES 5,950.16 21382 LAKE REGION VENDING MISC PURCHASES 1,059.64 21383 MARLIN'S TRUCKING L1QUORtWINE FREIGHT 72.80 21384 PAUSTIS WINE CO WINE PURCHASES 679.74 21385 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS L1QUO~NEPURCHASES 5,,182.40 21386 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS L1QUORtWINE PURCHASES 901.39 TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR AUG. 25. 1997 COUNCIL MTG CHECKW VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNT ~------- ----------------------.-.-- ------------------------ -------- -------.---- 21387 ALLIED BLACKTOP CO SEALCOf~T ING 21388 B & J AUTOMOTIVE EQUIP ,1AINT 21389 BOYER TRUCK PARTS E(:JU I P jYlf"U N T 21390 CHANHASSEN LAWN AND SPORT EQUIP MAINT 21391 COORDINATED BUSINESS SYST COPIER DEVELOPER 21392 OJ'S MUNICIPAL SUPPLY INC MEASURING WHEEL 2.1~5f7.5 ERICKSON, ROLF E.A. SEPT ASSESSOR FEE SEPT ASSESSOR SUPPLIES TOTAL FOR ERICKSON, ROLF E.A. . ;+:;+:::\< S Tf~EE T S I':? 482 .12 CI TY Gr~f~ 3:Z ... CICt CI TY GAi~ 201.48 CITY GAR 8.48 GEN GOVT loll ...(.....';J~t CITY GAR 105.44 PROF SER 3,853.33 PROF SER 42.98 3,896.31 21394 EXCELSIOf~~ FWTARY CLUB QTRL Y DUES--HU~~i1 ADi"llN 4(). OC) MEALS-HURM ADMIN 130.00 ::\<;+:;+: TOTAL FOR EXCELSIOR ROTARY CLU 170.00 21395 FEED-RITE CONTROLS. INC. CONTAINER RENTAL 2.1396 F 1i~;STAR BOND FEES BOND FEES **;+: TOTAL FOR FIRSTAR 21397 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL CO ElJUIP ,-IAINT 21398 FRONTIER ELECTRIC REPAIR W/H ELEC SVC .399 GOPHER STAfE ONE-CALL, iN ONE CALL SERVICE ONE CAL.L SEFN ICE ;+:;+:;+: TOTAL FOR GOPHER STATE ONE-CAL 21400 HOPKINS PARTS COMPANY SHOP SUPPLIES EQUIP ,.IAINT ;+:;+:;+: TOTAL FOR HOPKINS PARTS COMPAN 21401 J & R RADIATOR CORP. Rf~DlFlTOf~ f':':EPAI~~ 21402 KENNEDY & GRAVEN JUNE GENERAL. LEGAL JUNE LEGAL-REBILL JUNE L.EGAL-REBILL ;+:::\<* TOTAL FOR KENNEDY & GRAVEN 21403 L.AKE RESTORATION, INC. 2ND TREATMENT-XMAS LK 21404 LAN-DE-CON INC TREES-GIDEON WOODS DEV 21405 METRO SAL.ES, INC. DUPLICATOR SUPPLIES i1A B..n f~GREEj'-lH.n ."....." fUT(:d... HJh: j-1ETRO ~:)ALES.. 11'lC. ~~~_.L /~. i.) t.- . '''1 '.. ;'-'.'! .' i .:1 L~.] (..i (~: i ."'..\, ,- ,.....'-..'. "-,.,,,.'.. ;-:~T'? ../ L t.~: 1,_J r',.! r"1::.:; !".! ::: V..ii~: i..... ')::::; o-!:> \AJATER DE 2().. ()C' -------- 193..00 -------- 193..00 386.00 CITY GAR 125.52 995.0() I,AJATER DE SE II-JE R DE 40.25 20.12 20.13 CITY GAR C1 TY GA~~ 7 <;. . ,., . ._'. ..l.L. 24 . ~38 50. /4 CITY GAR 68.00 PROF SER 4 . 9()8 . /8 1,'::'06.82 :;'56, .. ()() 6,9/l.60 COUNCIL ... {'" .., , (" /. ,;/,1 ... t'.)I~ ~1 ':l '.;) .~:' ,:1 .4 () () GEN GOV'!' 2l2~J.5 MUN SLDG 345.00 t..:., ~;.. ./ "I ....-.... J. ,. ..h ;I.J ;-~: CITY OF SHORE WOOD CHECK APPROVAL lIST FOR AUG. 25, 1991 COUNCIL i1TG CHECKW VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. Ai10UNT -------- --.----------------------- ------------------------ -------- ----------- 21401 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP.. BU;CK T OP 21408 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 21409 ,-l1NNEGASCO FINAL U/B-SF< C Ti~~ 21410 i1UNITECH, INC. SEPT WATER MAINT SEPT SEWER i1AINT **;+: TOTAL FOR MUNITECH, INC. 21411 ORR,SCHELEN,MAYERON/ASSOC BACHE DRAINAGE ENG JUNE ENG-f~EBILL JUNE GENERAL ENG SrRAWBERRY LN ENG-JUNE JUNE Sf~ CTR ENG JUNE ENG-WATER TOWER JUNE ENG-EUREKA RD JUNE ENG'-SO LINK JUNE ENG-SMITHTOWN RD FOR ORR,SCHELEN,MAYERON/ . ;+:;t;* TOT AL 21412 POTrS, KENNETH N. JULY PROSECUTIONS 21413 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN EQUIP ,-lAINT SO SHORE SR CTR LANDSCAP -------- 335.48 21414 SHORE WOOD NURSERY STREETS .160.39 GEN GO"." T 36/.11 21.96 WATER DE 3,795.00 SEWER DE 3,105.00 6,900.00 61.2.00 3,096.99 ". '" .~ ", I Vb . ~,.;) 212 M '::f() -------- 4,066.16 -------- 946.11 -------- 132.09 -------- 656.29- -------- 212.50 10,641.63 P~;OF SEf~ 1,508 . 3~3 CITY GAR 75.39 4,5.10.00 TREE REMOVAL TREE MAL POL.ICE P 37,47.1.18 21415 SHORE WOOD TREE SERVICE .4.16 SO ll", j'vlll",r; PUB Sr;FETY DEP SEPT POL.ICE BUDGET 21411 SUBURBAN TIRE CO., INC. TIRES 21418 TIi1E SAVER OFF SITE SEC PLANN COMM MINUTES COUNCIL MTG MINUTES ;+:;+:* TOTAL FOR TIME SAVER OFF SITE 21419 TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC I.^JATEF< TEST ING 21420 UNITED LABORATORIES PARK SUPPL.IES 21421 VISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL, SEWER CLEANING ;ICICI< . TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL ;+:;;<;+: TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST [-'age --' CITY GAR 213.66 PLANNING 281.00 GEN GOVT 218.75 49'9.75 1,^Jf~l T ER DE 20.00 PAF<KS & 188.03 SE\^JER DE 1,889.64 151., BSS.. 69 219,763.16 C H E C !-< H E G I (-.. r E R f, ,;) CHECK CHECK ElvlPLOYEE Nr;I"IE CI-lECK CHECl'<, TYPE DATE NUrI8E~~ NUrlBER r;i10UN T cm-l 8 19 97 115 LAt,.,lf~ENCE H. BF-:OI,.JN 212110 1432.48 COr'! 8 1'9 97 150 Hb=1THER A.. 6LECl--!Tf; 2121.11 Q-; ..,.. ",_..'::;'.::J COI"1 ~., 19 t..~7 ..~ ..... ~ Al'-.jGEU; 1"1- COLE 212112 222. l8 0 '::;'.t._, cm-! 8 19 91 3.50 THOf-jAS A. Df;HL6Ef~G 212113 230.8l en'-, 8 19 91 S....)CI Cl-lAF-:LE S '" DAVIS 2J.2114 761.40 ..~I , ;::0. COI"! 8 19 ~1 ",i' '7)' S JAI"jES C. EAKINS 212115 l11.60 COI-! 8 1'...:; 9'7 1100 JOHN J. GARF Ui'iKEL 212116 184. l() COI"l 8 19 97 1190 KATHLEEN f~.. HEBEF-: T 212111 661.73 cm1 8 19 97 J.400 PATFHCH~ P. HELGESEN 212118 554.8.5 COI"1 r' 19 91 15.50 Jr;l"jES C. HURrl 212.11'9 11'48.30 0 COr! 8 19 91 1601 Bf~ I r;N D. JAKEL 212120 48.31 COr! 8 19 91 11'00 JEfFREY A.. JENSEN 212121 92J..51 COI"! 8 19 9'/ 1800 DENNIS D. JOHNSON 212122 843.40 COI"; 8 1 t..~ '9',1' 2l()() 1,....1 LL I Ai"! ,.. JOSEPHSON 212123 632.94 r. COI"1 8 11.~ Q'" 22()() JOSEPH ,., KAGOL 212124 J.05.l1 , i ;:). . ClH-l 8 19 Q'" 2.500 SUSAN 11. LATTERNER 21212.5 642.68 , l COI-j 8 1'9 Q'" 2S5() PE T E~: I,..... . LENZEN 2.12126 121.33 , i COi"! 8 19 ~4)' 2/60 SAF-:r; E.. LOTTIE 212121 418.31 C l1l"1 8 19 9)' 28C1C,. JOSEPH P. LUGO',loJSK 1 2.12128 877.l6 CUI"1 8 .19 9"7 2805 JASON R. LUND 212J.29 415.05 CCH-l 8 19 9l "'q" .. JENNIfER T . t1Cw;RTY 212130 182..51 .t.,..::;...... COI"; 8 19 91 295() ANTHONY J i"l 0 F-:f OFm 212131 323.68 COI"1 p 1 ~:) 91 3 (J()() THERESA L. i'4f;f~B 212132 601..57 ...:; COI-j 8 1'...~ 9/ .31 (J() Lr;I..,IRENCE A.. NICCUr-l 212133 IJ.24.40 rlr;N 8 19 9'7 3t."1.{',(". 8Rr;DLEY J.. NIELSEN 212108 8'/2.8':? COI"j Q .19 9/ 3430 GEF.:ALD A. O'NEILL 212134 184.10 w COI-; 8 19 91 3.S()() JOSEPH E. PAZANDAK 2.1213.5 1085.6.5 COi-i 8 19 9l 3.580 CHR.l STOPHEf~ J. ~:JOUNDEf~ 212136 "? 92.. C'2' COl"l 8 19 9/ ~,6CI() "Of';:' '-.) T r;; I .J.. HANDr;LL 212131 926.44 1.., ,I ,___ COi"l 8 19 q'" 36.50 JASON J. FUCE 2l.2138 252..33 , i COM 8 19 91 3101 6RIr;N M. ROEF<ICK 212139 36.43 . COr; 8 19 9/ 3150 SHr:;NNON 1~.. RO I GEF.: 212140 123.55 Cm'l 8 19 91 3800 ALAN J. f~OLEK 212141 J.142.03 COI-! 8 19 '9/ 381.5 i"!ICHAEL J. F-:UfFENACH 212142 213. .14 COIv! 8 19 q'" 3'9(11) CHRISTOPHER E. SCHI11 D 212143 448.44 , I COrl 8 19 9'/ 4.500 KRIST.I STOVER 212J.44 184. /0 COr; 8 19 91' 45/5 f~EBECCr; A. TARVIN 212145 188. 9rl COI"! r' 19 91 4.51/ PAI"!ELA J. HELLING 212146 101.82 <:l COI"; 8 19 9/ 46()5 JUSTIN C \A,lr;KEf 1 ELD 21214/ 361.9.5 COI"1 8 19 q'" '-ll.:;I) F-:ALPH r; . \A,IEHLE 212148 669.51 , I ~*~;l< TOT AL s;t; *;;.: * 22C1S(J.. -;16 J ~-::.. c- c.