The URL can be used to link to this page

112994 CC Reg AgP Sl,fu'" ......1 Cl:TY COUNCl:L REGULAR MEETl:NG Cl:TY OF SHOREWOOD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1994 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCl:L CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. Following the adjoumnent of the regular meeting, the Council will convene to Work Session fonnat. The Council may reconvene into regular session fonnat to take action on the work session item. AGENDA 1 . CONVENE Cl:TY COUNCl:L MEETl:NG A. Roll Call Mayor Brancel Stover Daugherty Lewis Benson B. Review Agenda 2 . APPROVAL OF Ml:NUTES City Council Regular Minutes - November 14, 1994 (Att.-#2 Minutes) 3 . CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: A. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Action Regarding Sale of Forfeited Land (Att.-#3A1 Planner's Memorandum; #3A2 Proposed Resolution) B. A Motion to Approve a Drug Testing Policy for Commercial Vehicle Drivers (Att.-#3B1 Proposed Policy and Executive Summary; #3B2 Proposed Agreement with Business Health Services) C. A Motion to Approve Change Order #1 Reducing the Amount for Project #94-9 Handicap Accessibility (#3C Proposed Change Order) D. A Motion Adopting a Resolution Granting Setback Variances and a Variance to Expand a Nonconforming Structure (Att.-#3D Proposed Resolution) Applicant: Howard Lehrol Location: 25585 Birch Bluff Road E. A Motion to Approve Tonka Bay Liquor Store Lease and Cooperative Agreement (Att.-#3E Lease & Agreement) F. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Improvements in the Spruce Hill Plat (Att.-#3F Proposed Resolution) '^ - CITY COUNCIL AGENDA NOVEMBER 29, 1994 Page 2 of 2 G. A Motion to Authorize the Hiring of a Part-time Clerical Assistant (Att.-#3G Staff Memorandum) 4. PUBLIC HEARING 7: 15 P.M. - TRUTH IN TAXATION No action will be taken until after a final Public Hearing on December 19, 1994 5 . PUBLIC HEARING 7: 30 P.M. - CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT (Att.-#5 Planner's Memorandum) Applicant: John Pastuck Location: 20345-47 Excelsior Blvd 6. PARKS Report by Representative Report on Park Commission Meeting Held November 22, 1994 7 . PLANNING Report by Representative A. A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare Findings of Fact Regarding Variances to Setback Regulations and Shoreland District Hardcover Regulations (Att.-#7A Planner's Memorandum) Applicant: Larry DeWitt Location: 28090 Woodside Road B. A Motion to Approve a Sign Permit for Video Update - Waterford Shopping Center (Att.-#7B Planner's Memorandum) C. Report on Comprehensive Plan Update MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR DISCUSSION OF POLICY ISSUES ADMINISTRATOR &: STAFF REPORTS MAYOR &: CITY COUNCIL REPORTS ADJOURN '1'0 WORK SESSION FORMAT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (Att.-#12) 8 . 9 . 10. 11. 12. * * INDICATES TAX INCREASE OR FEE IMPLICATIONS . . , WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1994 1 . DISCUSSION ON SENIOR COMMUNITY CENTER ISSUES 2 . CONSIDERATION OF APPLYING FOR GRANT FOR NEW POLICE OFFICER 3 . ADJOURN TO REGULAR SESSION ...'. ~ ~,:-l~ (. .... \~.'~~~ ~ . > ;~ ~ -."": ..{ . .:' .... . , . r - 'i . : ~. -:.if ,..., ".:;",,-,; MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Kristi Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1994 \ 2-.?' AGENDA ITEM #3A: Hennepin/County has advised the City that two p.arcels of land on the west end ofLthe city have are subject to tax forfeiture. The parcels total almost.R5' acres, most of which is wetland. The Planning Director recommends that the City acquire these parcels pursuant to the City's wetland ordinance, for conservation purposes. AGENDA ITEM #3B: State and Federal law requires a drug testing program be established for drivers of commercial vehicles, which would be the members of our Public Works Department. The attached policy has been reviewed with the Department and a copy sent to the Union. We recommend Council approve the policy by motion. A second motion would be in order to approve the agreement with Business Health Services. " " AGENDA ITEM #3C: This change order reduces the contract amount with Expert Asphalt Company by $3,389 because as you remember the Council did not include the trail in Cathcart Park as part of the handicap accessibility contract. AGENDA ITEM #3D: Mr. Howard Lerohl, 25585 Birch Bluff Road, has r~quested setback variances to build a detached garage on his property and a variance to build a basement under his existing home, which does not comply with current setback requirements. The Planning Director and Planning Commission have recommende approval of the variances. AGENDA ITEM #3E: The liquor store operational agreement and lease was to be considered by the Tonka Bay City Council at its meeting of November 22. We hope to be able to report under separate cover on the Tonka Bay City Council actions. AGENDA ITEM #3F: The City Engineer recommends that the improvements for Spruce Hill, a five-lot plat located on Yellowstone Trail, be accepted by the City. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 2 of 2 COUNCIL AGENDA NOVEMBER 29, 1994 AGENDA ITEM #3G: The motion would be necessary to officially hire Marlene Haptonstall to replace Heidi Mayas a permanent part-time clerical staff person. AGENDA ITEM #4: At 7:15 p.m. we will break to give a presentation on the operating budget and Capital Improvement Program. Public comments are to be taken but no action is taken until after the final public hearing on December 19. AGENDA ITEM #5: Mr. John Pastuck has requested that the City vacate part of a wetland conservation easement which he granted to the City as part of a two-family dwelling subdivision approved in 1992. Staff has considerable concerns regarding the buildability of the lot, due to its severe topography and the proximity of wetland. Staff also questions how vacating part of the existing easement serves a public purpose, . which is required by state statute. The Council is strongly encourage to vistit the property in question, located between 20185 and 20345-47 Excelsior Boulevard. AGENDA ITEM #7A: Mr. Larry DeWitt has requested a variance to expand the nonconformity of a nonconforming structure at 28090 Woodside Road. He proposes to extend a bathroom addition into the required side yard setback area. The Planning Commission determined that the addition could be made without a variance, and that hardship had not been demonstrated. The Commission recommended unanimously to deny the variance request. The Council must direct staff to prepare findings of fact. Approval of the request requires a four-fifths vote. AGENDA ITEM #7B: Video Update has applied for a sign permit for there location in the Waterford Shopping Center. The Planning Director recommends approval of the sign permit without the neon light extensio. which are proposed to span Video Update's store frontage. Following the regular portion of the meeting, the City Council will convene in work session format. The first item is discussion of the senior community center issues. Members of the Task Force plan on being present at our Council meeting at approximately 8:00 p.m. The second item on the work session agenda is consideration of applying for a grant for a new police officers from funds made available in the crime bill. Materials for these two items are enclosed in the packet. . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1994 . PAGE 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1994 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Brancel called the meeting to order at 7 :03 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Brancel; Councilmembers Benson, Daugherty, and Lewis; Administrator Hurm, City Engineer Dresel, City Attorney Keane, Planning Director Nielsen, and Financial Director Rolek. Absent: Councilmember Stover. B. Review Agenda Lewis moved, Daugherty seconded to approve the agenda for November 14, 1994. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes - October 24, 1994 Lewis moved, Benson seconded to approve the Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of October 24, 1994. Motion passed 3/0. Daugherty abstained. B. Canvassing Board Minutes - November 9, 1994 Benson moved, Lewis seconded to approve the Canvassing Board Meeting Minutes of November 9, 1994. Motion passed 3/0. Daugherty abstained. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Brancel read the Consent Agenda for November 14, 1994. Lewis moved, Daugherty seconded to approve the Motions on the Consent Agenda and to adopt the Resolutions therein: A . Motion to Approve Permanent Appointment - Light Equipment Operator - Jeff Jensen B. RESOLUTION NO. 94-91, "A Resolution Extending the Term of an Intergovernmental Senior Community Center Task Force" through 12-31- 95. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1994 - PAGE 2 G. C. Motion to Approve an Extension to Complete Required Landscaping to 07- 01-95. Appellant: Judy Christensen-Waldin. Location: 5755 Merry Lane. D. RESOLUTION NO. 94-92, "A Resolution Accepting Streets, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer in the Plat of Deer Ridge." E. RESOLUTION NO. 94-93, "A Resolution Accepting the Construction of the Near Mountain Local Drainage Maintenance Project City Project 94-05," and Authorizing Final Payment to Minger Construction, Chanhassen, MN. F. Motion to Authorize Execution of a Water Service Agreement for a Residential Connection to the Minnetonka Water System, subject to applicant signing standard water service agreement.Applicant: Warren McCurdy.Location: 5366 Vine Hill Road. RESOLUTION NO. 94-94, "A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Robert S.C. Peterson 2nd Addition," subject to applicant signing and recording an amended development agreement to include the new lot in the maintenance of the private road serving the plat. . Motion pa.ssed 4/0. 4 . PARKS - Report by Representative Report on Park Commission meeting held October 25, 1994 Park Commissioner Martin reported on matters discussed and actions taken by the Commission at its October 25 meeting. In response to petitions, action was taken to suspend further construction of the Silverwood Turf Trail pending a public hearing and to facilitate installation of platform tennis in a City Park. The snow patrol reported fewer citizen complaints, speeding violations, and curfew violations during the 1993-94 season. Lewis requested clarification regarding installation of platform tennis. Martin stated that if a court . is donated, the Commission will assist in locating the court. Benson stated the Commission is not willing to include the cost of platform tennis ($40,000-$70,000) in its capital improvement program, but generally supported private donations of equipment for City Parks. Lewis expressed concern that such items as platform tennis, hockey rinks, etc., would be arbitrarily installed in Parks without consulting residents adjacent to Parks. He suggested that before donated items are encouraged, the Commission ensure that acceptable locations are in fact available. He stated such additions may be interpreted as changes to the Park Plan, therefore, the established change process should be followed. Lewis inquired about the safety issues related to the proposed turf trail. Martin stated this included concern that the thickly wooded area is inaccessible to fire and police protection. 5. PLANNING - Report by Representative Commissioner Malam reported on actions taken and Comprehensive Plan Chapters reviewed at the Commission's November 1, 1994 meeting. A. A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare Findings of Fact for a Right of Way Permit to Construct a Retaining Wall. Applicant: Richard Siakel. Location: 25680 Birch Bluff Road. POSTPONED. . . l.. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1994 - PAGE 3 B. A Motion to Approve a Sign Permit for Waterford Shopping Center. Applicant: Waterford Partners. Location: 19905 Highway 7. Nielsen described the pylon sign designed for the Waterford Shopping Center identifying the Center's tenants. The sign will be located in front of the east end of the center in the berm area adjoining the service road. Nielsen recommended approval of the permit. He inquired whether the Council wishes to review subsequent permit requests on its regular or consent agenda. Daugherty moved, Benson seconded to approve the Waterford Partners sign permit application for the Waterford Shopping Center, 19905 Highway 7. Motion passed 4/0. Councilmembers concurred with Daugherty's request that the Council consider, on the regular agenda, each individual Waterford Shopping Center tenant's sign permit application. C. Presentation of 1995-1999 Capital Improvement Program Hurm directed the Council's attention to the proposed 5-year Capital Improvement Program and Capital Finance Plan. He stated the applicable sections have been considered and accepted by the Park and Planning Commissions. He noted that re-consideration is likely following completion of the updated Comprehensive Plan. The document consists of a work plan for the next 5 years for capital improvement elements including water, streets, stormwater management, sanitary sewer, public facilities, equipment purchases, parks, and unscheduled potential projects and identifies the funding sources for each element. Brancel noted that the document is available at City Hall for interested residents. Public comment on the proposed plan will be accepted at a November 29 hearing. D. Report on Comprehensive Plan Update Nielsen reported the Planning Commission continues purposeful work on the Comprehensive Plan update in preparation for its Joint Meeting with the Council on December 12 to consider the updated Plan. The Commission added an extra meeting to its schedule -November 22. 6. CONSIDERA nON OF A REQUEST FOR REFUND Rolek reviewed the request of Mr. Robert Castellano, 5900 Mton Road, for removal of penalties added to his utility statement because they are unwarranted. Rolek explained that the outstanding amount is for penalties on late utility payments accumulated over a 5-year period. Because the penalties initially were small, no action was taken by the staff. However, because the penalty amounts remained consistently unpaid, the accumulated amount now represents penalties upon penalties. Rolek pointed out that Castellano's October 27, 1994 letter, acknowledging the late payments and objecting to the penalties, is the only communication received during the 5-year period. Rolek stated the penalties are justified, therefore should stand, and recommended that the outstanding amount be added to Mr. Castellano's tax bill. During discussion, Brancel supported levying the subject amount and suggested that in the future, all unpaid penalties should be levied. Rolek detailed the specific amounts of the penalties and clarified that interest is not charged on outstanding balances. Lewis supported collection of the actual late penalty amount only, since charging a penalty upon a penalty appears distasteful. Daugherty expressed concern that action was not taken prior to accumulation of the current outstanding amount. Rolek explained that delinquent accounts are reviewed on amount rather than an aging basis, therefore the outstanding balance was deemed too small to act upon. Daugherty REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1994 . PAGE 4 suggested that similar delinquencies be identified and brought to the Council after one year for action. Lewis moved, Benson seconded to levy the actual total amount of penalties outstanding on the utility account of Robert Castellano, 5500 Afton Road, to his property tax statement. Motion failed 2/2. Brancel and Daugherty voted nay. Daugherty moved, Benson seconded to allow Mr. Robert Castellano 20 days to pay the exact amount of the individual late payment penalties on his utility statement or the total amount of late payment penalties including the penalties on the accumulated amount will be levied to his property tax bill. Motion passed 4/0. 7. CONSIDERA TION OF TONKA BAY LIQUOR STORE LEASE AGREEMENT Hurm directed the Council's attention to a second draft of an agreement dated November 8, 1994 . to lease the Tonka Bay liquor store reflecting changes based on the Council's prior discussion. He reported that the City of Tonka Bay approved the lease agreement and directed that the final details including an operating agreement be fmalized with Shorewood. During discussion, Liquor Committee Liaison Daugherty and staff responded to inquiries from Councilmembers regarding past and current sales and operating costs of the Tonka Bay store and prospects for future benefits to both Cities. Lewis expressed concern that the escape provisions of the lease are inadequate to protect the City. The Councilmembers agreed that the lease agreement should include a provision for termination should the store sustain losses over no more than a 12 month period. Keane stated a final lease and operating agreement reflecting the desire of the Council will be brought to the Council for its consideration and action at a future meeting. 8. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Mr. Robert Gagne, Chair of the Senior Center Task Force, noted that a response has not yet been received from Deephaven regarding its financial participation in construction of a senior/community center. Gagne requested the Council's participation in a work session with the task force following the November 29 Council meeting to consider the architectural plans for the center. He . explained that plans must accompany the required application to the City for construction approval. Gagne requested the Council to authorize an expenditure for architectural work from the grant funds designated for the senior/community center held by the City. During discussion, the Council acknowledged that numerous issues, such as costs, project administration, construction management, etc., associated with the project remain to be considered and agreed upon. The Council agreed to meet in a work session with the architect and senior center task force following the November 29 Council meeting and to re-convene the Council meeting to consider and take any necessary action with respect to the proposed senior center project. Mr. Greg Gac, a Chartwell Hill resident, stated that opposition to the turf trail from Silverwood Park to the shopping center was expressed by residents of Waterford and the adjacent neighborhoods at the Park Commission's October 25 meeting. He stated the project requires moving fences, sprinkler heads, has environmental concerns, etc. and appears not to have been thought through. He pointed out a path is not needed because of the recently installed sidewalk which is well used and patrolled. He reported that the area residents will likely request that the project be terminated rather than suspended and that the money be used elsewhere. Gac expressed ,- REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1994 - PAGE 5 . appreciation for Silverwood Park which is enjoyed by the entire neighborhood. Ms. Jennifer McCarty, Park Commission Chair, provided additional details of the Commission's meeting and discussion concerning the turf trail. She pointed out that a public hearing was not scheduled at that meeting, however, the petition and comments from residents were accepted. The Commission concluded that in view of the opposition expressed, the project should be ~uspended and policy procedures followed including a public hearing to be conducted in the Spring. She noted cost of the trail is minimal because it would be built by Public Works' employees. During discussion, McCarty and Hurm responded to Councilmembers' questions and concerns regarding the trail. Daugherty moved to amend the Trail Plan to negate the subject trail because of the constructed sidewalk to the Waterford Shopping Center. Daugherty subsequently withdrew the motion. Keane explained that the Council cannot act to remove the trail from the Trail Plan without a public hearing and recommended that the matter be considered in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan update. Lewis moved, Daugherty seconded to direct the Park Commission to conduct a public hearing, before year-end 1994, to consider revision of the City's Trail Plan. Motion passed 4/0. 9. DISCUSSION OF POLICY ISSUES Consideration of Establishing a Recycling Fee Rolek directed the Council's attention his November 9, 1994 memorandum outlining alternatives, for the Council's consideration, to finance the City's recycling program. In 1995, the Hennepin County Recycling Grant Program which has contributed $1.75 per month per household will be reduced to $.78 per month per household. The Council did not take action, but discussed the alternatives and operations and cost of the program. 10. ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF REPORTS . Hurm noted a resident's request for a school sign will be reviewed and brought to the Council for consideration and action at a future meeting. Keane clarified that amendments contemplated to the Park Plan, must be brought, at a minimum, to the Planning Commission for a public hearing, review and recommendation. 11. MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS Brancel requested that persons interested in serving on the West Hennepin Suburban Alliance contact City Hall. Daugherty inquired about the problems with the slide at Silverwood Park. Hurm explained that, in consultation with the slide company, sections have been interchanged and platforms altered for safety reasons. 12. ADJOURN SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS Daugherty moved, Benson seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting subject to approval of claims at 8:40 p.m. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULL YSUBMITTED, Arlene H. Bergfalk, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1994 . PAGE 6 ATTEST: BARBARA J. BRANCEL, MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR . . MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Kristi Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson . CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 NIEMORANDUM . TO: FROM: DA1E: RE: FILENO.: Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 23 November 1994 Tax-Forfeiture Land - Smithtown Road South of Boulder Bridge 405 (Wetlands) . Hennepin County advises Shorewood that two parcels of land located on the south side of Smithtown Road, west of Lake Virginia (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached) are subject to tax forfeiture. The parcels are available to the City if it has a public use for them. The subject sites total approximately 12.3 acres, most of which is designated wetland. Small portions of dry ground abut Smithtown Road as shown on Exhibit B. Shorewood's wetland ordinance provides for City control or acquisition of designated wetlands. As such it is recommended that the City adopt the resolution contained in the Council packet, requesting conveyance of the parcels to the City of Shorewood. If you have any questions relative to this matter, please contact me prior to Tuesday's meeting. cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Joel Dresel A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 3,A.' · ~ , , ~, iI, 0;. :..... .':::,, i 0/>-- ~,' '. I ~ ~1'- - - ... . 00> ~= 4.r. ". ;.. << , ~ '.J "'~ . ~- ;S iI .~ =:!I ~ 1"".) zg a 01:' ~ 8 "0 '- ~ ......-....- ,. SOOO .. c ~ ~ .\ J " , r .............,., ~~ j- It' .....................-....9[.'......... ..... -. --. ......-..... ""IS .L ~"t c~ ~'!::: . ~1 i "~ CJ. "'\ " ~"" " ....:... , .. q"" ............ R'\ \:!V '" ~ '"' 's: '" .n ~ ~ \:!V ". ',- 9tl ON OS. _ 'u7 dNQS . ~.... >:i~.;.;.;.._ ~ or; ~ .., '" :C '" Exhibit A nON SITE.,: Lrfi~~~d Property Tax-.iO - \ /';:0) J c, -=- " / .:. ~ ~ t ' -.I ~\.:\\...'..-....' \ .' / . ., \ ,\ " ( :~ I ~ { ... # .- .. -j -j ~. -i1 .. - '" 8~' il ,. -, """'- \ I \11 . .. ~. -+ ~ . .., .. ~, .. Ii S :l .j I . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE OF TAX-FORFEITED LANDS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES WHEREAS, properties located within the City of Shorewood bearing PID No. 31-117-23- 43-0001 amd PID No. 31-117-23-43-0004 are currently on the Hennepin County Property Tax Forfeited Land list and subject to sale by auction in the Spring of 1995; and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood does find that there is a public need to use the properties bearing PID No. 31-117-23-43-0001 and PID No. 31-117-23-43-0004 for drainage and wetland conservation purposes, and such need requires that the property be transferred to the City of Shorewood to be used as and for such public purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners is requested to remove from the tax-forfeited land sale list set for Spring, 1995, land bearing PID No. 31-117-23-43-0001 and PID No. 31-117-23-43-0004, being parcels of approximately 8.9 acres and 3.4 acres, respectively, located within ~he borders of the City of Shorewood and described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City of Shorewood proposes to use the property for a public purpose, to wit: drainage and conservation purposes. 3. That a certified copy of this Resolution be transmitted forthwith to the Hennepin County Commissioners. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 29tll November, 1994. .' Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk ~ . A. z... . . LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: P.I.N. 31-117-23-43-000 1: "That part of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 31 lying north of the south 789.36 feet thereof and lying easterly of Town Road and lying south of Lot 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 247, Hennepin County, Minnesota." P.I.N.31-117-23-43-0004: "Lot 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 247, Hennepin County, Minnesota. " Exhibit A "-. - ~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD DRUG TESTING POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVERS A City of Shorewood value. . . "Respect for City employees who, with fair treatment, proper training, and a willingness to let them excel, will take pride in association with the City and serve the people well. " I. INTRODUCTION The following Drug Testing Policy and Procedures has been adopted by the City of Shorewood ("Shorewood" or "City") for its Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers ("CMVD") and is effective as of August 1, 1994. Nothing contained in the Policy is intended to constitute a contract. It is intended only as a guide for Shorewood Public Works Department with regard to Shorewood's CMVD Drug Testing Policy and Procedures. . This Policy, in whole or in part, is subject to change, revocation, modification, or amendment at any time in Shorewood's sole discretion with or without prior notice. Shorewood also reserves the right to interpret this Policy at any time and in any manner it deems appropriate so long as such interpretation does not violate local, state, or federal law . Copies of this Policy shall be distributed to all CMVD and applicants for CMVD positions. Notice that this Policy has been adopted will be placed in g conspicuous location at the Public Works facility. This Policy will also be available for review during regular business hours in Shorewood's City Hall. II. APPLICABILITY This policy applies to all CMVD and job applicants for CMVD positions in Shorewood's Public Works Department. III. POLICY STATEMENT . A CMVD's involvement with controlled substances can jeopardize the safety of others, jeopardize a CMVD's well-being, adversely affect job performance, and increase the likelihood of injuries and property damage. Therefore, Shorewood's goal is to establish a drug testing policy to help prevent accidents and injuries resulting from the use of controlled substances by CMVD in compliance with the state and federal regulations applicable to commercial motor vehicles and CMVD. IV. DRUG-FREE AWARENESS PROGRAM To assist CMVD in understanding the perils of drug abuse, Shorewood has established a Drug- Free Awareness Program. This program, which is also referred to as an Employee Assistance Program, includes an educational and training component for CMVD, supervisory personnel and Public Works' officials which addresses the effects and consequences of controlled substance use on personal health, safety, and the work environment as well as the manifestations and behavioral changes that may indicate controlled substance use or abuse. The education and training component will consist of at least 60 minutes of training. Shorewood will maintain a written statement outlining the Drug-Free Awareness Program which is available for inspection at City Hall. Shorewood will also maintain documentation of training given to its CMVD, supervisory personnel and Public Works' officials. -#38 I ',.. V. DEFINITIONS A. ConfIrmatory Drug Test. A second analytical procedure to identify the presence of a specifIc drug or metabolite that is independent of the screening test and that uses a different technique and chemical principle from that of the screening test in order to ensure reliability and accuracy. B. Controlled Substances. The term "Controlled Substances" refers to marijuana (THC), cocaine, opiates, phencyclidine (PHP), and amphetamines (including methamphetamines). C. Conviction. A fInding of guilty (including a plea of "nolo contendere") or imposition of a sentence, or both, by a judicial body charged with the responsibility to determine violations of the federal or state criminal drug laws. D. Drugs. "Drugs" has the same meaning as Controlled Substances and the terms are interchangeable. E. Drug Testing. The testing of urine samples for the presence or absence of Controlled Substances or their metabolites in conformance with 49 CPR ~ 40 and 49 CPR ~ 391 Subpart H. F. Initial Test or Screening Test. A drug test using a method of analysis which is capable of detecting the presumptive presence of a drug or drug metabolite in a urine specimen. G. Medical Review OffIcer ("MRO"). A licensed doctor of medicine or osteopathy with knowledge of drug abuse disorders that is employed or used by Shorewood to review and verify Drug Testing in accordance with 49 CPR ~ 391 Subsection H. H. On Du~. All time from the time a CMVD begins to work or is required to be in readiness to work or until the time he or she is relieved from work and all responsibility for performing work. On Duty time includes all "on duty" activities set forth in 49 CPR ~ 395.2. I. Positive Test Result. A test result which evidences a presence of Controlled Substances in the sample tested above the cutoff levels set forth in 49 CPR ~ 40.29. A positive test result does not automatically identify a CMVD or CMVD applicant as having used Drugs in violation of this Policy. An Initial Test evidencing a Positive Result will be subject to a ConfIrmatory Test. A ConfIrmatory Test evidencing a Positive Result will be reviewed by the MRO prior to the . transmission of the result to Shorewood in accordance with 49 CPR ~ 40.33. . J. VerifIed Positive Test Result. A ConfIrmed Test evidencing a Positive Result which has been reviewed and verifIed by the MRO as establishing use of a Controlled Substance in violation of state and federal regulations. A VerifIed Positive Test Result may also be referenced as "Tests Positive. " VI. DRUG POLICY AND RULES A. lllegal drugs are strictly prohibited at the workplace. B. No CMVD shall report for duty or remain On Duty when he or she uses any Controlled Substances, except when the use is pursuant to the instructions of a physician who has advised the CMVD that the substance does not adversely affect the CMVD's ability to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle. 2 C. Any CMVD using a prescription drug which could potentially affect safety or the CMVD's job performance must immediately notify his or her supervisor of the drug the CMVD is taking, the name and address of the doctor prescribing the drug, and length of time the CMVD will be taking the drug. The supervisor will immediately notify the MRO. When in the MRO's opinion, after consultation with the prescribing physician, the CMVD's use of the drug will impair the CMVD's job performance or will create a threat to the safety of the CMVD or others, the CMVD will be deemed medically unqualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle. The City will work with the CMVD to determine if there is a suitable temporary job alternative. D. No CMVD shall report for or remain On Duty if the CMVD Tests Positive for Controlled Substances. . E. The distribution or sale of Drugs including, making arrangements during working time or on City property for the sale, purchase, or transfer of Drugs is strictly prohibited, even if the actual sale, purchase, or transfer of Drugs occurs during non-working time or off City property. F. All employees must notify the City Administrator of any criminal drug statute Conviction for a drug law violation occurring in the workplace. The notice must be given to the City no later than five (5) days after the Conviction. G. An employee violating these rules will be subject to immediate discipline up to and including discharge. H. All CMVD must sign a receipt form acknowledging that they have received this Policy. It is the CMVD's responsibility to notify the City Administrator if he or she does not understand the Policy. VII. DRUG TESTING A. General Rules. . 1. When Drug tests are performed, the testing will only test for the presence of Drugs and their metabolites. Other medical conditions will not be tested. All Drug Testing will be conducted by a laboratory certified under the Department of Health and Human Services "Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs," 53 FR 11970, April 11, 1988 and subsequent amendments thereto using the split sample method of collection set forth in 49 CFR ~ 40.25(f). 2. All CMVD asked to undergo Drug Testing will receive a consent form to complete. The consent form will state that the CMVD has seen Shorewood's Drug Testing Policy and Procedures, and will request that the CMVD list all prescription and/or over-the-counter medications which he or she has recently taken, and any other information which may be relevant or will explain a Positive Test Result. B. Right of Refusal and the Consequences of Such Refusal. 1. All job applicants for CMVD positions and all CMVD have the legal right to refuse testing for drugs. 2. The consequences of a CMVD job applicant's refusal to undergo testing is th.at the job applicant will be deemed unqualified and the conditional offer of employment WIll be withdrawn. 3 3. Existing CMVD who refuse testing for drugs shall not be permitted to operate a commercial motor vehicle. Such refusal shall be treated as a Verified Positive Test Result and the CMVD who refused the testing will be deemed medically unqualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle. In addition, CMVD may be disciplined for such refusal up to and including immediate discharge. C. Grounds for Testin~. 1. Job Applicants. Job applicants seeking employment for CMVD positions shall be required to undergo testing for the presence of drugs after they have received an offer of conditional employment. Prior to collection of the test sample, the job applicant shall be notified that the sample will be tested for the presence of Controlled Substances. Employment offers may be made contingent upon taking the required drug tests and withdrawn in the event that the test is refused or if the Initial Screening Test produces a Positive Result, is affirmed as a Positive Result by a Confirmatory Test and verified by the MRO. If the employment offer is withdrawn following testing, the applicant will be informed of the reason(s) for the withdrawal. 2. Periodic Testin~. CMVD shall be tested for the presence of drugs at least once every . two years commencing with the CMVD's first medical examination as required by 49 CFR ~ 391 Subdivision H after the implementation of this policy. The City may discontinue periodic testing after a CMVD has been tested at least once pursuant to the other testing set forth in this section of the Policy. 3. Random Testin~. CMVD may be tested on a Random selection basis for the presence of drugs. Random testing is unannounced. CMVD will not be selected discriminatorily but at Random. Under the Random selection process, there is an equal probability that any CMVD will be selected for testing. The number of Random tests conducted annually will equal or exceed fifty percent (50%) of the average number of CMVD positions. Shorewood does not have discretion to waive the selection of any CMVD chosen on a Random selection basis. 4. Reasonable Cause Testing. CMVD shall be required to undergo Drug Testing, without prior notice, if Shorewood believes the actions, appearance or conduct of a CMVD who is On Duty are indicative of Drug use. The requisite conduct necessary to require Reasonable Cause Testing must be witnessed by at least one supervisor or City official who has . received training in the identification of actions, appearance, or conduct of a CMVD which are indicative of drug use. If feasible, two supervisors or City officials who have received the aforementioned training should witness the conduct. The witness( es) of the conduct shall prepare and sign a written statement describing the observed conduct within 24 hours of the observed conduct or before the results of the test are released, whichever is earlier. 5. Post Accident Testing. CMVD shall be required to undergo Drug Testing as soon as practicable, but not later than 32 hours after an accident if the CMVD receives a citation for a moving traffic violation arising from the accident and if one or more of the following circumstances exist: 1. A fatality occurs; . 11. An individual injured in the accident immediately receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or lll. One or more vehicles involved in the accident are required to be towed from the scene. 4 6. After-Care Testing. Shorewood may test all CMVD who have tested positive for Controlled Substances without prior notice for up to sixty (60) months following their return to work. 7. Return-to-Duty Testing. Prior to returning to duty a CMVD who has had a Verified Positive Test Result must undergo a retum-to-duty test with a result indicating a negative result for Controlled Substances use. . D. Test Results and Re-Testing. 1. Initial Negative Result. If the Initial Test evidences a negative test result, Shore wood will inform the CMVD in writing within three working days after receipt of the test result report from the MRO. 2. Initial Positive Result. If the Initial Test evidences a Positive Test Result, the testing laboratory will run a Confirmatory Test. 3. Negative Confirmatory Test. If the Confirmatory Test is negative, the MRO will notify the CMVD in writing within three working days of receipt of the result from the testing laboratory . 4. Positive ConfirmatOl)' Test. If the Confirmatory Test is positive, the MRO prior to making a [mal decision to verify a positive test, shall contact the CMVD directly, on a confidential basis, to determine whether the CMVD wishes to discuss the test result. If the MRO cannot contact the CMVD directly, the MRO shall contact a designated management official who shall direct the individual to contact the MRO as soon as possible. The MRO may verify a test as positive without having communicated directly with the CMVD about the test if the circumstances set forth in 49 CFR ~ 391.97(b) apply. If the MRO concludes that there is a legitimate explanation for the confirmed positive test, the MRO shall declare the test negative. 5. Verified Positive Confirmatory Test. If the MRO verifies the Confirmatory Test as positive, the MRO shall notify the CMVD that he or she has 72 hours in which to request a test of the split specimen. 6. CMVD Request for Test of Split Specimen. Within 72 hours after receiving notice of the Positive Result of the Confirmatory Test, the CMVD or job applicant for a CMVD position may notify the MRO of his or her request for an analysis of the split specimen. If the CMVD is unable to contact the MRO to request an analysis of the split specimen within 72 hours due to circumstances set forth in 49 CFR ~ 40.33(g) and the MRO concludes that there is a legitimate explanation for the employee's failure to contact the MRO within 72 hours, the MRO shall direct that the analysis of the split specimen be performed. 7. Copy of Positive Confirmatory Test Result. The CMVD or job applicant for a CMVD position may request in writing a copy of the drug test results. . E. Notification of Test Results. 1. Notification to Shorewood of Test Results. The MRO shall report to Shorewood whether a CMVD's test was positive or negative and, if positive, the identity of the Controlled Substance for which the test was positive. 2. Notification to CMVD and Job Applicants for CMVD positions of Test Results. 5 a. Shorewood will notify a driver-applicant of the results of a pre-employment drug test. b. If a CMVD Tests Positive Shorewood will notify the CMVD of the test result as well as the Controlled Substance for which the CMVD tested positive. F. Consequences of a Verified Positive Confirmatory Test (or if applicable. a Positive Result of the Split Specimen). 1. A job applicant for a CMVD position who Tests Positive for Drug use will have his or her conditional offer of employment withdrawn. 2. A CMVD who Tests Positive for Drug use at any time is considered medically unqualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle and will not be permitted to report to work. The City will attempt to fmd temporary work for a CMVD who is on a prescription drug which impairs their ability to drive. 3. A CMVD who Tests Positive must obtain a negative test result before he or she will be deemed qualified to return to duty. 4. Discipline for a Verified Confirmatory Positive Drug Test may include immediate discharge of a CMVD; provided, however, that prior to discharge, the CMVD is given the opportunity to explain a Positive Result of the Confirmatory Drug Test and request an analysis of the split specimen. If the analysis of the split specimen is negative, no action will be taken against the CMVD. If the analysis of the split specimen is positive, and if it was the first such result for the CMVD the CMVD will not be terminated if he or she elects to participate, at his or her own expense in a drug treatment or rehabilitation program. A CMVD who refuses to participate in the treatment or rehabilitation program or who fails to successfully complete the treatment or rehabilitation program (as evidenced by withdrawal from the program before its completion or by a Verified Positive Test Result during or after completion of the program), may be subsequently discharged. 5. A CMVD who Tests Positive or refuses to undergo Drug Testing when he or she has been involved in a fatal accident shall be terminated and disqualified by issuance of a letter of disqualification for a period of one year. 6. Available sick leave, vacation leave or approved unpaid leave may be utilized by the CMVD until a negative test result is obtain or until termination from employment. G. Summary of Tests and Financial Responsibility 1. The Initial Test is done on a portion of the first half of split specimen and is paid for by the City. 2. The Confirmatory Test is done on a portion of the first half of split specimen when the laboratory gets an initial positive result, and is paid for by the City. 3. A Retest using the second half of split specimen may be done at the request and expense of the CMVD. 4. The Return to Work Test is done at the direction of the MRO and must be negative to return to work. The initial return to work test is paid for by the City Any further tests will be the fmancial responsibility of the CMVD. 6 . . . . Participation in any drug treatment or rehabilitation program beyond what is covered in the City' medical programs is the responsibility of the CMVD. VIII. RECORDS A. A CMVD may make a written request to see all information regarding his or her test results and any documentation of discipline inflicted based upon those results. B. Shorewood will maintain all records required by 49 CPR ~ 391.87 for a period of five years. C. CMVD test results will only be disclosed to the CMVD tested and to appropriate Shorewood officials. Further disclosure shall not be made without the written authorization of the CMVD. I X. EFFECT This Policy is intended to be in compliance with Minn. Stat. ~ 221.0313 and all applicable state and federal regulations and nothing herein is intended to violate any local, state or federal law . Should any part of this Policy be in violation of local, state or federal law , the offending provision shall be deleted and the remaining parts of the Policy shall be in full force and effect. 11/94 7 I . DRUG TESTING POLICY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Who is involved? All persons operating City owned commercial motor vehicles with a gross weight over 26,001 lb. or vehicles requiring placards. I I . Who is requiring this program? . III. . The Minnesota Department of Transportation has adopted the Federal Regulations Code, Title 49, Chapter 3, Subchapter B, Section 391, and Subpart H (also know as Minnesota Statute 221.0313). What types of testing are part of this policy? 1. Pre-emolovrnent: All individuals that the City intends to hire as Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers (hereinafter CMVDs) , either permanent or temporary basis. 2. Biannual (oeriodicl: Under this method the City would require a driver to be tested at least once every two years. The City can discontinue periodic testing after a driver has been tested at least once for: 1) pre-employment; 2) biannual; or 3) random. 3. Random Testinq: The number of tests conducted annually must equal or exceed 50% of the average number of CMVDs within the Public Works Department or any pool of drivers the City may join in the future. 4. Reasonable Cause: The City shall require a driver to be tested upon reasonable cause. This means that the actions, appearance, or conduct of a driver indicate use of a controlled substance. The conduct must be witnessed by at least two supervisors or City Officials, if feasible. The witnesses must have received training in the identification of actions, appearance, and conduct which indicate use of a controlled substance. Documentation of the drivers conduct must be prepared and signed by the witnesses within 24 hours of the observation. 5. Post Accident: A driver must provide urine sample for testing within 32 hours after being involved in an accident in which the driver received a citation for a moving violation arising from the accident if: 1) a 1 IV. V. VI. VII. fatality occurs; 2) an injured individual requires medical treatment away from the scene; and 3) vehicles involved in the accident are required to be towed from the scene. What are these tests for? There are five controlled substances the laboratory will test for: 1) marijuana; 2) cocaine; 3) opiates; 4) amphetamines; and 5) phencyclidine (PCP) . These prohibited substances are described in State Regulations adopted on August 1, 1994. How will testing be done? When you have been selected for testing you will be instructed where to report for specimen collection. Collection sites must follow prescribed guidelines set forth in 49 C.F.R., Part 40. Your specimen will be in two containers (split specimen). It will then be sent to a certified laboratory for drug analysis. A portion of half of the specimen will be tested (initial test). If the initial test is positive, the laboratory will use another portion of the specimen for another analysis (confirmatory test). Test results are then turned over to a Medical Review Officer (MRO) who will notify the City Administrator of a positive or negative result. . Who will receive test results? Only the MRO will receive the test results. The City Administrator and your supervisor will only be told if the test is positive or negative and for what substance. The MRO will be sole custodian of any other information. The MRO may not release any other information without written approval of the individual tested. What happens if the test is positive? A) If the result is still positive, the CMVD is considered medically unqualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle and unfit for duty until a negative test is obtained. The individual may request the laboratory to test the second half of 2 . . VIII. IX. X. the original split specimen (retest). Information from the MRO will inform the CMVD as to the time period for a possible negative (return to duty) test. B) During this time period the CMVD may use vacation or sick leave. If neither is available, then leave without pay will be used. What if a driver refuses to take a drug test? Refusal to take a test is considered the same as a positive test result. If after being involved in a fatal accident, a driver refuses to take a drug test or tests positive, the driver is disqualified from driving a commercial motor vehicle for one year (by State law). Who will pay for these tests? Test Initial Confirmatory Retest (upon CMVD's Return to Duty Financiallv Resoonsible City City Employee request) City pays for first test, Employee pays for each additional What does the testing cost? Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $19.62 Analysis ................................ 36.00 MRO Service 10.00 $65.62 Initial Test............................. $55.62 Confirmatory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46.00 Retes t. . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46. 00 Return to Duty...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 65.65 (Prices are subject to change.) This executive summary is intended as a brief overview only. Please read the entire Drug Testing Policy and Procedures document. 11/94 3 Business Health Services , - , i { . . 500 South Maple Street Waconia, Minnesota 55387 612/442-2191 Ext. 6050 November 15, 1994 Jim Hurm, City Administrator City of Shorewood to 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Jim, Please find enclosed a copy of the revised Drug Testing Service Agreement. If all looks fine, please sign and return to me. Charges for 1994 services (per test) are as follows: Urine collection (routine, unobserved) Chanhassen Medical Center Ridgeview Med. Center $19.62 $19.00 Medtox NIDA urine test all collection sites $36.00 Medical Review Officer $10.00 $65.62 or $60.00 Dr. Thomas Jetzer Total per test If tampering is suspected on the first specimen collection, a "same gender" observed specimen collection is mandated by the regulations. Cost for this service is $31.00 per collection. This should be a rare occurrence. Please call me with any questions. We look forward to seeing you at the December training. Sincerely, &cttt (l &fu Cathy A. Cato, RN, MPH Occupational Health Consultant enclosures A Service of Ridgeview Medical Center and Affiliated Medical Staff 1f33;).. ...--- .- -""" .' DRUG TESTING SERVICE AGREEMENT BUSINESS HEALm SERVICES City of Shorewood November 14, 1994 Business Hea1thServices (BHS) acts as an agent of the City of Shorewood in collecting forensic quality urine and/or blood specimens for the purpose of legal testing for drugs of abuse. BHS understands that the City of Shorewood complies with the regulations outlined in the State's Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace legislation and Federal regulations if applicable (Le. DOT). The following is a description of drug testing services for the City of Shorewood. DRUG SCREENING UNDER DOT REGULATIONS (FEDERAL AND STATE) Testinf! Circumstances Collection Sitels) Test Code #/Account # DOT preplacement CMC DOT periodic, arid CMC DOT random CMCIRMC Lab DOT post accident CMCIRMC ED DOT reasonable suspicion CMCIRMC EDIRMC Lab DOT return to duty & follow-up CMC Medtox #223 Account #12411 . Company Contact: Back-up: Jim Hurm Terry Naab 474-3236 474-3236 Random Selection: Internal Medical Review/Officer (MRO): Dr. Thomas J etzer Phone #924-1640 Laboratory: Medtox Phone #636-7466 Results: Handled through MRO Billing: Each collection site will bill for collection services. Medtox will bill for lab analysis and MRO services. . We have reviewed and agree to the services as described. City of Shorewood Representative Date ~Hjti f1 ~11h Business H lth Services Representative IIllblqt- 'Date . cc: Barb Templin, Chanhassen Medical Center Jean Robbins, Ridgeview Medical Center/Lab Dept. Jeanne Oeltke, Ridgeview Medical Center/Emergency Dept. BIIS N_ 16, 1994 DRUGTEST\SHOllECl'Y.OT CHANGE ORDER PROJECT CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: Park Trails and Rubber Playground Surfacing Date: City of Shorewood Improvements Project No. PK-94-9 Contract Date: TO (Contractor): Expert Asphalt Co. 44 West 1st Street Waconia, MN 55387 The Contract is changed as follows: . 1 October 31, 1994 October 6, 1994 Add 17 square yards of sod. Subtract 1,405 square feet of bituminous paving. Subtract 42 cubic yards of topsoil hauling. This Change Order is not valid until signed by the Landscape Architect, Contractor and Owner. The original (Contract Sum)(Guarantced Maximum Priec) was Net change by previously authorized Change Orders The (Contract Sum)(Guaranteed Maximum Price) prior to this Change Order was The (Contract Sum)(Guaranteed Maximum Priee) will be (inercascd)( decreased)( unehanged) by this Change Order in the amount of The new (Contract Sum)(Guaranteed Maximum Price) including this Change Order will be The Contract Time will be (inereascd)(deercased)(unchanged) by . The date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is APPROVED: Landscave Architect: Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite. 525 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 By: ~H~~.I&~ t.... /jA~~"hh.. Date: Joh,/~~ / 7' $16,260.15 $ 0 $16,260.15 $- 3,389.00 $12,871.15 ( 0 ) days Ckloh:r 28, 1m Contractor: Expert Asphalt Co. 44 West 1st St. Waconia, MN 55 Owner: City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 B. By: Date: tralchgl frm .#"SC The undersigned Contractor hereby swears under penalty of perjury that (1) all previous progress payments received from the Owner on account of work performed under the contract referred to above have been applied by the undersigned to discharge in full all obligations of the undersigned incurred in connection with work covered by prior application for payment under said contract, being Applications for Payment numbered through inclusive; and (2) all materials and equipment incorporated in said project or otherwise listed in or covered by this Application for Payment are free and clear of all liens, claims, security interests and encumbrances. Dated lDlOi o19.Jj ~D, A- ~Lff.f Co. (CoriJ;;;;;j - o() By: /2...,. ~ ~ -~~ (Nain(~ Title)' . State of ~ Before me ~ ~ day 0 . -. 0 19Z1personallY appeared \. known to me, who being duly sworn did depose and say tIlat /he is the ~ ~ (office) of the Contractor. above mentioned; that s/he executed the above Application for Payment and statement on behalf of said Contractor; and that all of th st ements con . ed therein are true, correct and complete. r My commission expires: i-lfp-f6 8 DARI.ENf M. LINDGREN NOrAR\' IIUBlJC.MINNESO HENNEPIN COUN1Y .., 'C'c -...Ioft IbrplNaAtlrl11. ,... . APPROVED FOR PAYMENT: Dated ~ 15 .193t BY:~~'~ Landscape Architect Dated . 19_ By: City of Shorewood Park Trails and Rubber Playground Surfacing Page AP - 2 .' - -' CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SETBACK VARIANCES AND A VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO HOWARD LEROHL WHEREAS, Howard LeroW (Applicant) is the owner of real property located at 25585 Birch Bluff Road, in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, legally described as: "Lot 1, Block 1, Lee's Square, Hennepin County, Minnesota." WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City for a setback variance to construct a detached garage; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for a variance to add a basement under the existing house, which house is nonconforming due to its proximity to Birch Bluff Road and Eureka Road; and . WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 28 September 1994, which memorandum is on fIle at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on 4 October 1994, the minutes of which meeting are on fIle at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the City Council at their regular meeting on 28 October 1994, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: . FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the adjacent house to the east is located 16.5 feet from the street right-of-way. 2. That the rights-of-way for Eureka Road and Birch Bluff Road are both 16 feet wider than the standard 50-foot street right-of-way. 3 . That the existing home was built in approximately 1908 and has a small, single-car garage on the east side. 4. That a garage located to the south of the Applicant's property is located in the public right- of-way and the Applicant proposes to locate his garage 21 feet further back from Eureka Road than the adjoining garage. 5 . That the construction of the basement will not increase the visual mass of the existing home. 3_0. ~. \ . . CONCLUSIONS 1 . That the Applicant has satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under Section 1201.05 of the Shorewood City Code and has established an undue hardship as defined by Minnesota Statutes Section 462.375, Subd. 6(2). 2. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicant's request for variances as follows: a. The detached garage may be constructed 10 feet from the rear lot line and 18 feet from the Eureka Road right-of-way. b. The Applicant may build a basement under the existing home, extending the porch on the front of the house one foot. 3 . That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of this Resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 29th day of November, 1994. Barbara 1. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk - 2- " To: From: . Date: Re: Article 20: Article 6: Article 8: Article 9: . Article 13: MAYOR Bare Branc!!1 COUNC: I.. Kri sti S cover Rob Daugne~ Daniel I..ewis Bruce Benson CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (6121474-3236 Vern Haug, Tonka Bay Mayor Guy Sasanfar, Tonka Bay councilmember Pat Wussow, Tonka Bay City Administrator #I- James C. Hurm, City Administrator November 22, 1994 Liquor Contract Agreement Response Shorewood will drop its request for a 6 month notice. Shorewood has incorporated wording suggested by Tonka Bay into the article. Change accepted. Language needs to ra~in as is with the landlord responsible for snow plowing and ra~oval (this certainly can be done by a private party) . Language to the ., repairs d article has been revised several tL~es and has evolved to a very fair and reasonable position for both parties. No changes should be made to current language. Shorewood carries $500,000 in liability insurance for its operations. Margins are such that the expe.."1di ture for a $1,000,000 liability insurance policy on this one store is not justified. Shorewood accepts the.MPc.~ letter of April 2, 1993 as an attachment to this agreement. Our City Attorney has drafted the operational agreement which must accompany the lease agreement. Hopefully you can act on both documents and respond before our next Council meeting of November 29, 1994. If you have any concerns with the operational agreement, we certainly can discuss and amend it prior to final approval. We appreciate all your efforts in bringing this to a conclusion which will benefit both our communities. A Residenrial Communiry on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore j4=3E. ,. DATs. 1S-NOV-94 ORAl"!' COOPERATIVB OPERATING AGRBBMBNT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITIES OF TONKA BAY AND SHOREWOOD RELATING TO THE TONKA BAY MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the undersigned units of government, all acting by and through their governing bodies, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section . 471.59 providing for the joint exercise of powers. WHEREAS, the City of Tonka Bay does own and operate a municipal liquor store pUrsuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes' Section 340A.601; and WHEREAS, the City ot ShorewoOd does own and operate municipal off-sale liquor stores pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 340A.601; and WHEREAS, the City of Tonka Bay does desire to increase the . efficiencies and economies of its municipal liquor store operations; and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood does possess the resources and management expertise to assist Tonka Bay in the profitable operation ot its municipal liquor store; and 1. <: "d ,Sltt v66t"8t"It S9<:~96a-<:I9 H3~9aHI' ^'~a H~W~~OH HI~~~' wo~~ . . ;: "d WHEREAS, pursuant to che authority of Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59, the undersigned governmental units are authorized and dO desire to enter into joint cooperative agreements to exercise common powers to provide more cost effective services; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreement contained herein, the parties agree as tollows: 1. Purpose. The parties agree that they have joined together for the purpose of the profitable operation of the Tonka Bay Liquor Store to serve the mutual interests of the parties. 2. The City of Tonka Bay shall continue to own the Tonka Bay Liquor Store. 3. The City of Shorewood shall provide management staffing, bookkeeping, accounting, inventory control and other services as necessary. 4. The Cities of Shorewood and Tonka Bay shall enter into a lease tor the premises as set forth in the attached :Sxhi~it A 5. The term of this Agreement shall coincide with the term of the Lease. CITY OF TONKA BAY CITY OF SHOREWOOD 2. ~s:tt ?66t"St"tt S9~;:96S-~t9 H3~9QHI' ^'~Q H~W~~OH HI~~~' wo~~ ......<1M3...... By: I Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk TJK:MA7S rOd as:lt r6Sl0atoll By: . Mayor ATI'ES'l': City Clerk 3. S~~t~6a-~t~ H3~9<1HI' ^'~<I H~W~~OH HI~~~1'WO~~ r . . I '1 ; i . i i .; .! ! f I ! . i ! -./ I l-., ,:-, i i ; i ., I I I I I~v. " ! I I .1 .j . .! :1 I 'j I '1 " I :j .' ! I j .1 i I I ! i ! i I ! . i I TONKA BAY 4746538 City Of Tonka Bay MEMO TO: Jim Hunn, Shorewood Administrator AJ Rolek, Shorewood Rnance Director FROM: Patrick Wussow, Administrator PATE; November 15. 1994 I ! SUBJECT:. Additional Changes for Lease of liquor Store i Article 6 Wording n~ds to state that Tonka Bay will be paid at its costs, based upon the following ~arked up rates: Liquor 25% Beer 25% Wine 40% All other 35% Article 8 ' t anant will, be responsible to plow and remove snow as necessary from the parking lot. Article 9 (Starting at. line 12 of the most recent add'ition) Tenant is responsible to repair existing equipment. If Tenant desires to bring in new equipment it must first be pegotiated 'with Landlord. . Article 13 The Tenant shall maintain $1,000,000.00 in liability insurance. (sama amount the ~dlord currently maintains) ! ' - ~ 1''-'(''- - ~.ral C-Dp' ~_'.. ""J .:.; :.::..,...., _. _~:_~':IKA BAY 4746.:53S p.a,":: ;" .",.~ Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ~~ ~ ~ April 2 t 1993' i ! I ! i ! , I j I , ( Hr. Greg Uuver Tanka Bay Liquor Store 5681 Manitou Road Ton~ Bay, Kinnesota 55331 Dear Hr. lCluver1 RE:; PetroleUm Tank Release Site Closure Site: Tonka Bay Liquor Store, 5681 Manitou Bay, Tonka Bay Site IDt: LEAK00003942 . I , The: Hinnesota Pollution Control Agency (HPCA) staff has determined ~at the cleanup performed in response to the petroleum tank release at the site referenced above has adequately addressed the petroleum contamination, and therefore the file regarding this release will be closed. i I I OniApril 22,: 1991, a petroleum tank release vas reported to the HPCA. Since .','.' then the folloving corrective actions bave been taken in response to the reiease: I ; I I ! I I I '/ i I I I i ,I i I I -i i ! i I . I I ! , i 1.: Applied Engineering, Inc:. vas retained to observe tile removal and investigate -the release from 1000 gallon fuel oil undeL"iround s'torage tank. 2.1 Ground vater vas not encountered du~ the excavation. i 3.: During tank excavation, soil vas scanned for the presence of organic' vapors.: Tvo hundred ~ubic yards of soil shoving elevated levels of organic vapors ~ere excavated and sto~~piled on site. . 4.1 ~ Strong gasoline odors vera also ~re$ent when the baekfill of the vater main and sani cary sewers vas excava.ted. The sever uncovered at the 5i te goes to the aas;t and continues across County Road 19 and onto the propertY of a Fina station (MPCA Leaksite 1643). Free product has been found on the Fine. property vithin 15 feet of the sanitary sever. The Yater main at the Site continues on to the ICO ser/ice station property (HPCA Leaksite 14166) vhich for~~rly experienced a surface spill. The fuel oil tank vbich vas removed vas never used for the storage of gasoline, although ch~ property vas used as a Texaco gas station up until the 1950's. Chelllic:~l analyses done on soil samples of tile excavated soil found 840 parts per million (ppm) to 2000 ppm total petroleum hydrocarbons (TfB). The soil vas treated at ConTek. s. ; 520 Laiayette Ad ' 51; P f MN 5- . : '" au.. :>t5:>-4194; (612) 296.6300: Regional Offices: Duluth. Brainerd' Detroc'! I -k M ; E ..... es. arsnall' Rochester , qu~ O~1y !mploye,. l'Ml,., on Recyde<l ~NlI i I i 'j I :; .1 I :1 ;! i i . :1 i .1 .> i ,I I i ., I .i :1 , ., '1 :i i I 1 . 'j :1 I I :1 '1 '1 i I .: I :1 ., .1 I .! i ., ., . i -, I TONKA BAY 4746538 P.03 Mr.; Greg Kluver Page 2 . Apr.il 2 I 1993 6. Organi~ vapors ranging from 9 ppm to over 225 ppm vere detected on the , sidevalls and the base of the tank basin a.fter the soil vas removed. Seven i soil samples were ~ollected and ana1y%ed. Petroleum contaminants vere i detected. in all seven samples including TPH as gasoline and methyl tertiary i butyl ether. Based on the currently available information, ye concur with the conclusions of yo~r consultant that these actions have adequately addressed the petroleum tank re~ease and ~hat the majority of the contamination is a result of off-site petroleum release episode(s). Therefore, HPCA staff does not intend to require ani. more inv~s tip tion or cl.eanup york in nsponse to this release. Bovever, th~ KPCA reserves the right to reopen this file and require additional york it in :the future more york' is determined to be necessary, and this letter does not release any ~ar~ from liability for this contamination. I . i Bec~use you performed the requested york, the state may reimburse you for a major portion ot your costs. The Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Act est~blishes ~ fund which in certain circumstances provides partial rei~bursement for petroleum tank release cleanup costs. This fund is ad~nistered. by the Petro Board. Kore specific eligibility rules are available fro~ the Petro Board (612/297-1119 or 612/297-4203). Th~Dk you for your cooperation vith the KPCA in responding to this petroleum tank release. to protect the public health and the environment of the state of Minnesota. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence. please call lIle at 6121297-8581, TDD 612/297-5353, Greater Minnesota IOD 1-800-627-3529. , Sin:cerely, VizA.i) 7:b'J/IY("!j Bar.bara Hearley ?o~lution Co~trol Project Leader Tanks and Sp~lls Section Hazardous Vaste Division BH:hh cc:; Ki rk McDc.~Ald. Ci t:y Clerk, Tonka Bay Douglas, Sqeeney, Fire Chief. Excelsior Pete Engebretson, Hennepin County Solid Vaste Officer, Minneapolis Tom Gre~e, Applied Engineering, Yayzata . . DRAfT LEASE AGREEMENT 11/.22/1 i THIS LEASE is made as of the day of Nova~er, 1994, between the city of Tonka BaYI Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter designated "Landlord") and the City of Shorewoodl Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter designated "Tenant"). WITNESSETH: Landlord hereby leases to Tenant, and Tenant leases from Landlord, the property identified as 5681 Manitou Road, PID No.33-ll7-23-14- 0035 (hereinafter designated "Premises"). The Premises consists of a building containing approximately 1,300 square feet, and all the equipment and fixtures therein, and the surrounding parking lot area. The Premises, and all equipment and fixtures therein, shall be in good repair and in working order at the commencement of the lease term. The Premises is outlined on Exhibit A, and is described on Exhibit B, attached hereto. ARTICLE 1 TERM. The initial term of the Lease shall consist of a period of three years, commencing on and terminating on unless sooner terminated either party as described in Article 20. Tenant shall have the option to extend its tenancy :..ndc=:':l:..::~2.i' at a mutually agreed upon fair market rent. At such time that lease is extended, changes to the lease document may be made as negotiated between Landlord and Tenant. ARTICLE 2 RENT. Section 1 Minimum Rent. The fixed minimum rent shall be payable in equal monthly installments on or before the first day of each month in advance, at such place designated by Landlord. Said fixed minimum rent shall be One Thousand and No/100 Dollars payable per month. Said minimum rent shall remain constant throughout the initial term of the lease. Minimum rent for any fractional calendar month at the beginning or end of the lease term shall be prorated based upon the proportion which the number of days in such month is comprised within the lease term bears to the total number of days in such month. No security deposit shall by payable by Tenant. Section 2 Percentage Rent. Tenant shall pay an additional percentage rent to Landlord at the rate of 2% of annual gross sales in excess of $400,000.00. Such percentage rent shall be paid in a lump sum by June 1 of each year, beginning in 1996 for the year 1995, and shall be based upon audited gross sales for the preceding calendar year. 1 ARTICLE 3 USE. Tenant shall use the P-:-emises for purposes of operating a retail off-sale liquor establishment. ARTICLE 4 TRADE NAME. Tenant shall operate its business under a trade name suitable to Tenant. ARTICLE 5 HOURS OF OPERATION. business upon the Premises within established by Minnesota State Statute. Tenant shall operate the days and times its as ARTICLE 6 EXISTING STOCK INVENTORY. Tenant agrees to hire, at its cost, a retail inventory service to perform a physical inventory at retail value. Representatives from Landlord and Tenant shall be present during the taking of such inventory. Tenant agrees to purchase the inventory in its entirety at Landlord I s cost based upon the following d.:.;:;ccunt markuo rates: Liquor 25%; Beer 25%; Wine 40%; Cigarettes 35%, Miscellaneous items - 35% (Examnle: Retail orice/l + Markuo rate = ~ Cost) . Payment for such inventory will be made in three equal monthly installments over the first three months of operation. At termination of Lease, Landlord shall have the option to purchase from Tenant the existing stock inventory, at Tenant's cost, in the same manner as described herein. ARTICLE 7 SALES REPORTS. By June 1 of each year, Tenant shall deliver to Landlord audited financial statements for the preceding calendar year. At Landlord's written request, within fourteen (14) days of Landlord I s delivery to Tenant of such written request therefore, Tenant shall submit to Landlord an unaudited written statement, certified by Tenant to be accurate, showing in reasonable detail the full amount of sales achieved on the a property for any period of time not previously reported by the .., Tenant to Landlord; provided, Landlord shall not be entitled to delivery of more than four (4) such requests in anyone calendar year. ARTICLE a CARE OF PREMISES. Tenant shall, at l<ri-s ~ expense, keep the Premises in a clean and sanitary condition, operate its business in the Premises in conformance with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations and codes; store all. trash and garbage in rat-proof receptacles and remove it regularly. Landlord shall, at its expense, plow and, as necessary, remove snow from the parking lot of said Premises. ARTICLE 9 REPAIRS. Landlord shall keep the building, including the foundation, the walls, the roof in good repair, and if necessary or required by governmental authority, make modifications or replacement thereof. The cost of such repairs shall be paid by Landlord. Tenant shall, at its expense, keep all 2 fixtures and equipment, including hvAC units, within the Premises in good repair. Prior to Tenant starting operations, an inventory of existing fixtures and equipment will be taken, and each ita~ shall be rated as to its condition. In addition, the usable life of each item shall be established according to the remaining usable life as listed on Landlord's equipment depreciation schedule, as adjusted for its condition as determined prior to the commenca~ent of this Lease. After the end of the usable life of such fixtures and equipment, as heretofore determined, should the repair of said fixture or equipment be financially unfeasible, Tenant may, at its discretion, and in cooperation with Landlord, surrender such fixture or equipment to Landlord and replace such fixture or equipment. Replacement fixtures or equipment may be purchased by Landlord or Tenant. Replacement fixtures or equipment purchased by Tenant shall be the property of Tenant. At termination of Lease, Landlord may purchase replacement fixtures or equipment owned by Tenant at its amortized cost. . Tenant shall, at its expense, replace broken or cracked glass, including plate glass used in structural portions, and any interior or exterior windows and doors, with glass of the same grade and quality. If Tenant does not make such repairs for which it is responsible within a reasonable period of time, upon written notice by Landlord, Landlord may cause such repairs to be made and charge the cost of such repairs to Tenant as additional rent. If Landlord does not make such repairs for which it is responsible within a reasonable period of time, upon written notice of the Tenant, Tenant may cause such repairs to be made and may deduct the cost of such repairs from future rent paYments. . ARTICLE 10 UTILITY SERVICES. Tenant shall pay for all gas, water, sewer services, and electricity used on the Premises during the lease term. Landlord shall not be liable if utilities furnished to the Premises shall be interrupted or impaired by. causes beyond Landlord's control. ARTICLE 11 SIGNS; DISPLAY WINDOWS. Tenant shall have the right to maintain existing permanent signage. In addition, Tenant may install a 4 x 6 foot lighted advertising sign to the outside exterior wall of the building, such sign to remain the property of Tenant. Any changes to permanent signage, other than the change of text or content on the existing signage, must be approved in advance, in writing, by Landlord. Tenant may display temporary advertising signs in display windows and on outside exterior walls at its discretion. All signage will comply with City of Tonka Bay Sign Code. ARTICLE 12. ALTERATIONS, INSTALLATIONS, FIXTURES. Tenant shall, at its a~ense, maintain necessary. store fixtures and floor covering required by it and all interior paint and decorating. Tenant shall not make any structural alterations or additions to 3 "" the P~a~ises without Landlord's written consent and delivering to Landlord the plans and specifications and copies of the proposed contracts and necessary permits, and shall furnish inda~ification against liens, as may be required by Landlord. Tenant shall have the right to, at its discretion, make installations and alterations of a non-structural nature to the pra~ises. ARTICLE 13 INSURANCE. Section 1 Liabilitv Insurance. Tenant shall, at ~t:s expense, maintain in effect at all times during the lease term a Commercial Liability Insurance policy with a total combined policy limit of at least $600,000.00, which policy shall include, but not be limited to, coverages for Bodily Injury, Property Damage, Personal Injury, and Contractual Liability (applying to this lease), or an equivalent form, so long as such equivalent form affords coverage which is at least as broad. Tenant's liability insurance coverage may be subject to a deductible, "retention" or "participation" percentage of each covered loss; provided, however, that each deductible, retention or participation amount shall not exceed $1,000.00 per occurrence. Such policy shall name the Landlord as an Additional Insured thereunder. Tenant shall maintain, at its expense, or shall reimburse Landlord for Landlord's cost therefor, a Liquor Liability (Dra~ Shop) insurance policy in an amount of $500,000. . Section 2 Prooertv Insurance. Tenant shall, at its own expense, maintain in effect at all times during the lease term insurance covering all of Tenant's improvements, fixtures and property in the Pra~ises against loss by fire and other hazards covered by the so-called "all risk" form of policy, in an amount equal to the actual replacement cost thereof, without deduction for physical depreciation. Such insurance shall include "Contingent Liability from Operation of Building Laws," demolition and increased costs measure of recovery; business interruption coverage for a period of at least twelve (12) months; and coverage for damage to Electronic Data Processing Equipment and Media, inClUding coverage of the perils of mechanical breakdown and electronic disturbance. . Section 3 Policy Provisions. Policies for the liability and property insurance coverages contemplated by this Paragraph shall be in a form and wi th an insurer reasonably acceptable to Landlord. The liability under this Article, Sections 1 and 2 , shall/be primary with respect to the Landlord and its agents and not participating with any other available insurance. Tenant shall deliver on the Commencement Date and on each anniversary date thereof the Landlord insurer-certified copies of such policies, or other evidence reasonably satisfactory to Landlord, confirming the terms of such insurance and confirming that the policies are in full force and effect. Section 4 Landlord's Insurance. Landlord shall maintain, at its 4 expense, a liability and property insurance policy on the building on said Premises, the value of such policy to be at replacement value or said building. . ARTICLE 14 INDEMNIFICATION. Tenant agrees to indemnify Landlord from and against any liability for damages to any person or property in or upon the Premises, or arising form Tenant negligence or intentional misconduct occurring in or around the Premises. Notwithstanding any contra~J provision herein, Tenant hereby waives any claims against Landlord relating to, and Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant for, any damage to any equipment, inventory, tenant fixture or other property situated in the Premises due to any condition, design, or defect in the building, or leakage of the roof, windows, and pipes, or of damage from gas, oil, water, steam, smoke or electricity, or due to any other cause whatsoever, including Landlord I s negligence, and Tenant assumes all risks of damage to such property; provided, the wai ver and assumption contemplated by this sentence shall apply only to the extent covered by insurance in place or required to be maintained by the terms of this lease. Landlord hereby waives any claims against Tenant relating to and Tenant shall not be liable to Landlord for, any damage to any property situated in the Premises due to any reason, including Tenant I s negligence, and Landlord assumes all risks of damage to such property; provided, the waiver and assumption contemplated by this sentence shall apply only to the extent any such damage is covered by insurance in place or required to be maintained by the terms of this lease. ARTICLE 15 ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Tenant shall not assign or in any manner transfer this lease or any interest therein, nor sublet said leased Premises or any pert thereof, nor permit occupancy by anyone with, through, or under it, 'without the previous written consent of Landlord. . ARTICLE 16 ACCESS TO PREMISES. Landlord shall have the right to enter the Pra~ises at all reasonable hours for the purpose of inspecting the same or of making repairs, additions or alterations thereto, or for the purpose of exhibiting the same to prospective tenants, purchasers or others, or enter at anytime in the event of an emergency; provided, Landlord shall provide notice of at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to any entry that occurs under non- emerga~cy conditions. ARTICLE 17 EMINENT DOMAIN. Section 1 Entire Premises. If substantially all of the Premises shall be taken by any public authority under the power of eminent domain then the' term of this lease shall cease as of the day possession shall be taken by the public authority and the Rent shall be paid up to the day the condemning authority acquires possession of the Premises. 5 Section 2 ?artial Takincr. If ten percent: (10%) or more of the building or twenty percent (20%) or more of the parking area shall be taken under a~inent domain, Tenant shall have the right either to ter:ninate this lease or to continue in possession of the remainder of the pra~ises upon notice in writing to Landlord of Tenants intention within ten (10) days after such taking. In the event Tenant elects to remain in possession, all of the terms herein provided shall continue in effect except that the rent shall be proportionately and equitably abated if the taking was of any part of the Premises, and Landlord shall make all necessary repairs or alterations to improvements of the Premises. Section 3 Damacres. All damages awarded for any such taking under the power of eminent domain shall be the property of Landlord, whether such damages shall be awarded as compensation for diminution in value of the leasehold or to the fee of the Premisesi provided, however, that Landlord shall not be entitled to any separate award made to Tenant for losses other than diminution in value of the leasehold. ARTICLE 18 DEFAULT AND REMEDIES. . Landlord may terminate this lease and the term da~ised upon the happening of anyone or more of the following events, and the same are not remedied within thirty (30) days (within ten (10) days in regard to the payment of rent) after Written notice to Tenant: (a) the making by Tenant of an assignment for the benefit of its creditors; (b) the levying of a writ of execution or attac~~ent on or against its lease; (c) in the event proceedings are instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction for the reorganization, liquidation or involuntary dissolution of Tenant, or for its adjudication as a bank.~pt or insolvent, or for the appoin~~ent of a receiver of the property of Tenant, and said proceedings are not dismissed, and any receiver, trustee, liquidator appointed therein discharged, within sixty (60) days after the institution of said . proceedings; (d) the failure of Tenant to pay an installment of rent when due or to perform any other of its covenants under this lease. Upon the termination of the estate pursuant to the preceding paragraph, Landlord may re-enter the leased Premises with or without process of law by using such force as may be necessary and Landlord shall not be liable for damages or otherwise by reason of such re-entry. Notwithstanding such termination, the liability of Tenant for performance of the terms hereof shall not be extinguished for the balance of the term remaining after said termination. In the event of any breach hereunder by Tenant, Landlord may immediately or at any time thereafter, without notice, cure such breach for the account and at the expense of Tenant. If Landlord at any time by reason of such breach, is- compelled to pay, or elects to pay, any sum of money to do any act which will require 6 "-'~ . . the payment of any sum of money, or is compelled to incur any expense, including reasonable attorney's fees, the sum or sums so paid by Landlord , with interest thereon at the rate of eighteen percent (18%) per annum or the highest rate permitted bylaw, whichever is less, from the date of paymenc thereof, shall be deemed to be due from Tenant to L~~dlord on the first day of the month following the paYment of such respective sums or expenses. Landlord is hereby given a first lien upon all property of Tenant which shall come in or be placed upon the leased Premises and whether acquired by Tenant before or after the date hereof to secure the payment of rent and the performance of eac~ and every other covenant herein contained to be performed by Tenant. Opon any default hereunder and failure oft cure as herein provided, Landlord, without notice or demand, may take possession of and sell such property without legal process of any kind, at public or private sale after on publication of a notice thereof in a daily newspaper published in the county where the leased Premises are situated, not less than ten (10) days before such sale or by giving minimum notices required by law. The proceeds of such sale shall be applied first to the payment of expenses thereof, second to the discharge of the rent or other liability hereunder unpaid, ~~d the balance, if any, to be held for the account of the Tenant. Tenant agrees to execute and record any financing statements and other documents necessary to perfect of record the lien herein granted. Should Landlord be in default under the terms of this lease, Landlord shall have reasonable and adequate time in which to cure the same after written notice to Landlord by Tenant. ART:ICLE 19 SURRENDER OF POSSESS:ION. At the expiration of the tenancy created hereunder, whether by lapse of time or otherwise, Tenant shall surrender the Premises in good condition ~~d repair, reasonable wear and tear and loss by fire or unavoidable casualty excepted. If the Premises be not surrendered at the end of the term or the sooner termination thereof, Tenant shall indemnify Landlord against loss or liability resulting from delay by Tenant in so surrendering the Premises, including, without ILmitation, claims made by any succeeding tenant founded on such delay. Tenant shall promptly surrender all keys for the Premises to Landlord. In the event Tenant remains in possession of the Pra~ises after the expiration of the tenancy created hereunder, and without the execution of a new lease, it shall be deemed to be occupying the Premises as a tenant from month to month, at 150% of the minimum rent, subject to all the other conditions, provisions, and obligations of this lease insofar as the same are applicable to a month-to-month tenancy, provided said possession is with Landlords consent. ART:ICLE default 20 on TERM:INAT:ION. the part 0 f Notwithstanding the Tenant, this the remedies agreement may for be 7 te=minated by Landlord at the end of the lease te~ by serving written notice upon Tenant at lease six (6) months prior to the expiration of the lease term. ) Tenant may terminate this agreement wi thin ninety ( 90) days 0 f serving written notice upon Landlord should the following occur: 1) Landlord establishes an off-sale liquor establishment in direct competition with Tenant; 2) the ability of Tenant to operate an off-sale liquor establishment in the City of Tonka Bay is challenged by legal action or legal opinion; or, 3) Ten~~t's ta~ exempt status is changed. In addition, Landlord understands that Tenant is a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, responsible to the Taxpayers within its jurisdiction. In the event Tenant sustains operating losses ~ (2) COfl:3c;:uti7c y::e:.r:3, Tenant may provide six (6) months written notice to Landlord of its right to terminate the Lease. ARTICLE 2 J. liAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. The term "Hazardous Substances," as used in this lease, shall mean pollutants, containments, toxic or hazardous wastes or any other substances, the removal of which is required or the use of which is restricted, prohibited or penalized by any "Environmental Law, II which term shall mean any federal, state or local law or ordinance relating to pollution or ~he protection of the environment. Tenant hereby agrees that (i) no activity will be conducted on the Premises that will produce any Hazardous SubstaTlce, except for such activities that are part of the ordinary course of Tenant's business (the "Permitted Activities"), provided said Permitted Activities are conducted in accordance with all Environmental Laws and have been approved in advance in writing by LaTldlord; (ii) the Premises will not be use in any manner for the storage of any Hazardous Substances, except for the temporary storage of such materials that are used in the ordinary course of Tenant's business ( the "Permitted Materials"), provided such Permitted Materials are properly stored in a manner and location meeting all Environmental Laws and approved in advance in writing by Landlord (iii) Tenant will not permit any Hazardous Substances to be brought onto the Premises, exceot for Permitted Materials, and if so brought or found located- thereon, the sarne shall be immediately removed, with proper disposal, and all required cleanup procedures shall be diligently undertaken pursuant to all Environmental Laws. If, at any time during or after the term of the lease, the Premises is found to have been so contaminated by Tenant or subject to said conditions created by Tenant, or at Tenant's instance, Tenant shall indemnify and hold Landlord harmless from all claims, demands, actions, liabilities, costs, expenses, damages, and obligations . of any nature, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from or as a result of such conditions or use of the Premises by Tenant. The foregoing indemnification and warranty shall survive the termination or expiration of this Lease. To the best of Landlord's actual and not constructive ~~owledge, 8 ~ .. . . . (" . as of the Commencement Date, the Premises shall be free of all Hazardous Materials that are not in compliance with applicable Environmental Laws. In the event that during the lease term, Tenant discovers the existence in the Premises of Hazardous Materials other than those handled by Tenant, handled by a sublessee of Tenant or other party that has occupied any portion of the Premises after acquiring all or any portion of Tenant's rights hereunder, and if such Hazardous Substances have not been handled in compliance with all applicable Environmental Laws (such hazardous materials, that have not been handled in compliance with all applicable Environmental Laws being defined as "Building Unlawful Hazardous Materials"), then Landlord's sole obligation and responsibility to Tenant shall be (a) the commencement, within sixty (60) days after Landlord receives from Tenant notice of such breach or discovery, as the case may be, and verifies the accuracy of such claim by Tenant, 0 f a removal, encapsulation or other containment program reasonably elected by Landlord which is required by and complies with applicable Environmental Laws, and (b) the diligent prosecution of such program to completion, including any required monitoring or reporting activities, in such a manner as will make the Premises free from Building lJnlawful Hazardous Materials in accordance with the standard promulgated in applicable Environmental Laws,. Landlord shall indemnify Tenant from and against any claims made by, or liabilities or judgements owed to, third parties to the extent that the damages forming the basis thereof are caused by the presence, now or hereafter, of any Hazardous Materials that have been placed, stored or generated in the Pra~ises or the Building by Landlord. ARTICLE 22 PARTIAL INVALIDI'l'Y. If any provision of this lease, or the application thereof to any party or circumstance, shall be determined to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, such determination shall not affect the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision of this lease, or the application thereof to any other person or circumstance. o J THIS L~_SE is hereby executed and delivered as of the date first above rNTitten. CITY OF TONKA. BAY I MINNESOTA Its Mayor Its Administrator CITY OF SHOREWOOD I MDmESOTA Its Mayor Its Administrator 10 ...~,f1 fi'.J.. . . ... RESOLUTION NO._ A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING STREETS, SANITARY SEWER AND CURBS IN THE PLAT OF SPRUCE IDLL WHEREAS, on April 26, 1993, the City of Shorewood entered into an Agreement with Paul B. Kelley for the development of certain property known as SPRUCE HILL; and WHEREAS, Paragraph 1 of said Development Agreement provided for the Developer to construct and install certain enumerated improvements within the plat of said property, which improvements included streets, sanitary sewer, and curbs; and WHEREAS, Paragraph 12 of said Development Agreement provided for such improvements to be subject to a fmal inspection by the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, Paragraph 13 of said Development Agreement provided for the conveyance of said improvements to the City by the Developer and for the acceptance by the City of such improvements; and . WHEREAS, the Developer has completed construction and installation of the streets, sanitary sewer, curbs, and such improvements have been inspected by the City Engineer and found to be in compliance with the applicable plans and specifications; and WHEREAS, the Developer is desirous of conveying said improvements to the City and the City is desirous of accepting said improvements from the Developer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the City hereby accepts from the Developer the streets, sanitary sewer, curbs, in the plat of SPRUCE HILL. . 2. That the Developer shall cause, after one year from said acceptance, a video tape to be made of the sanitary sewer system and shall provide such tape in VHS format to the City. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 29th day of November, 1994. ATTEST: James Hurm City Administrator/Clerk Barbara Brancel Mayor H:\CIVIL\NM\MASTER\RESLUTN\PLAT ACPT.RES 4f3f To: Mayor & City Council James C. Hurm, City Administrator From: Teri Naab, Deputy Clerk Date: November 22, 1994 Re: Part-time Clerical Assistant In order to expeditiously fill the position previously held by Heidi May, staff has advertised, screened and tested applicants. We recommend hiring Marlene Haptonstall, 25700 Smithtown Road, Shorewood for the part-time clerical assistant position. Marlene and her husband have recently moved to Minnesota from Colorado. She was seeking a flexible position to allow her time to volunteer at her daughter's school. . Marlene has worked in public relation areas and bookkeeping in the past. Her references were excellent. She will begin immediately upon approval by the City Council. She will start at $8.40 per hour with a six month probation period. . ~& " . . << MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Kristi Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DAlE: RE: FILE NO.: Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 23 November 1994 Pastuck, - Request for Partial Vacation of Wetland Conservation Easement Property - 20345-47 Excelsior Boulevard Mr. John Pastuck has asked that the City vacate a portion of the wetland conservation easement which encumbers his property at 20345 Excelsior Boulevard (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). The easement was granted as part of a subdivision and variance request which was granted by the City in 1992. The area outside of the easement is slightly smaller than what is necessary to create one more lot on the property, which is what Mr. Pastuck desires to do. Exhibit B shows the existing easement and the area which Mr. Pastuck proposes to have vacated. Exhibits C and D are reports from Mr. Pastuck's consultants, explaining why there is a discrepancy between the easement which was granted and the actual wetland. As mentioned previously to the Council staff has concerns over the buildability of the property in question. Exhibit E shows the. topography of the site. In addition to the significant amount of wetland on the property, the land drops off severely from Excelsior Boulevard. Mr. Pastuck plans to locate a home in the northeast comer of the property where a small triangle of high ground exists. Several years ago he built a two-family dwelling on the westerly corner of the lot. The northeast comer is substantially smaller and the higher portion of the land is taken up by setbacks. As a result any home constructed on the site would be built on slopes ranging from 28-36 percent. Eighteen percent slope is considered severe. Staff encourages the Council to visit the site to see how steep it is. Setbacks from the wetland is another issue. Shorewood's wetland regulations do not currently require .a setback from the edge of wetlands. This subject has been discussed at length as part of the Natural Resources chapter of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The new Comp Plan will recommend that such a setback be established, further restricting the buildability of the property. Criteria for the vacation of easements is provided in Minnesota Statutes 412.851. The statute specifically states: "No such vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so after a hearing preceded by two weeks' published and posted notice." A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore ~f . . .... Re: Pastuck, John Partial Wetland Vacation 23 November 1994 Given the preceding analysis it appears to be more in the public interest to protect the wetland than . to force a home onto an extremely marginal property. Therefore approval of the partial vacation is not recommended at this time. cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Joel Dresel John Pastuck .1 " - 2 - , , / / / / / / I , , / I ,1- _ '..;~ _ :-. \: 1000 ,/_.:><f-:-----1i' ('34 ) _.....- '" ~ ... 43 ..1 /.,' "'I 39 ere ~ . ( 2) " l ::'0: U ( I I) ~ ('3) ~ 55 ~ ( 22) ~(241) , 10 R t::" /,. , ..... 135. 9 ."~ - c.....:... i I " 220 'ZO R t . .......1 - rO r,.-;. ~~/l' ~., ~ .... ~ ,'" I ,," " I 0......: ".' : ,(' ",I''' ... "", ?3S ~ .~\ //...... ~~ , " . ,.., - - - - ~..- - - - - - . ,. ." '" :~ ... - ... - .. . .. / .. ,. " ,. ...'" ,.. ~"", \\\) ~Q ~ ....",,/ l(IT 34 I-----ZOO---~~ ( l"OT41 ", ...-'.~ ........ . ~. h,.b,..t :At.. . t "~,, / .... :" itrJ:4~\ .i, _ ' - ' ~ . , ,~..........-= 0 .. I "' ":J-J:II ') I ... 7.. ,,~' '.,. ,.~~ '. ... I ~ l" - "l:;~. '"1"I)O'~ ....... : .~- . .:t ~, lOT 75 ........ 10 /I...... .- ~ ... !O ... :'; '-,,' ..' !,,'- .... 06( ~ ~ (~q) ~ lOT 4& ,.. .,'f '! v rY-O'~.." '): ,,", ,,'" 'l \ . .1. ~ ~.:_--------------, /~' '. 99003. .: \ I '\ ~~" ,', 1.' -~ ~ : \ - .../1 . .... \ - ;>'..- \ ( 25) . -'( ,~.. :\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 15) 299. 06 ISO 1~,66 :R PA/lT OF lOT 49 ( 10) on ~'t. ~ ( 6) ". ~.~ '0 IS" R ....~ 241. S ."" 220 PAlIT OF lOT 49 (7) , , , , , , , , , \" 4S , , , " , , , , , , , , , , (4) ( 5) o (6) ,. (18)' - ~s~ -} .~. -'" .... N~~ \ "::: 2m ~ -rr ( 8) lOT 36 .. Wort~ N~ +0 ~~ Prof",,~J F;u'dd i ~ ~)I"e.._..... .' o o t! ,/.' 'foO' ("\ ,)'0' ~ tv' ~,)(,.Cj '" ~~. a.. ~p.'" J. ,i /Vo"o A. \\\\1. .t.. . . / . I . , .. e;A"T eO 1~;)'" .'\. 0" wt4 -e.f'. '\ \1~1j) - ..: ~:~7t.~l~~r.~~;11'.AI..' ~ ~! Or- E('4.\I" ' . ""- I~ g '- e:o~::.,:r..,..,II1'" '\. : .~., 1< _' - . - -T :!: .'t7; 6~ .. .:....'. \ J'/' 0 ~'. Pr.~ ~-;~'~'. ~d~-t i ld ", r~.r--. ~(]""'" '! :!!'"::j . . J " ~o~1\ : ll'I g :::) V <t 0 ". (:1'<.. 6-'<.\ ~: "'..". \,\\Q.; {~ ' 'l' ~ 0~ - ~~. cd ~ ~ ~ - <II '" <.u OJ "'" .5 'v \~+\d;~d -\ ,,'''<. ~ <II '" '" E-.~,b,t B AD VANCE SUR VEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (6l2) 474 7964 Fax (612) 4748267 Attn: Mr. Brad Nielson City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, :MN 55331 fiLE COpy r~'-'" l..,J ......; ~ October 10, 1994 Re: Wetland delineation at 20345 Excelsior Boulevard, Shorewood, Minnesota. Dear Brad: . We showed a wetland on our survey No. 92368. To do that, we used the 980 contour line from a city topographic map of the area. That contour line appeared to separate the steep slopes from flat low lying wetland area We felt it was a conservative estimate of the wetland. Because John Pastuck, who is now contemplating division of the property, is concerned about the exact limits of the wetland,'he has hired a consultant who specializes in delineating wetlands per the 1991 Wetlands Protection Act and they have delineated that wetland. We located the stakes that the consultant set according to soil conditions and vegetation as per the Federal Manual that details wetland delineation under the 1991 Act. It turns out that there is not a great deal of difference between the 980 contour and the wetland per manual delineation except in the eastern portion of the site, and there, John could gain a few square feet which are important to him in his effort to divide the property. We enclose a copy of the survey showing the two lines and have enclosed a copy of a legal description of the area of a replacement conservation easement (Exhibit B) and a portion of the conservation easement . that you may wish to consider vacating (Exhibit A). c--Sin. cerely, '. r\.~. ~ ._~~~ US H. Parker P .E. & P .s., President, No. 9235 ,.. ~".b~,t~-'-' . . EXHIBIT "A" That part of Lot 44, "Auditors Subdivision Number One Hundred Forty One" (141), Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 44; thence North 89 degrees 56 minutes 14 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the Southerly line of said Lot 44 a distance of 347.17 feet; thence Northeasterly, continuing along said Southerly line, a distance of 104.91 feet along a curve not tangential with the last decribed line, said curve is concave to the Southeast and has a radius of 673.00 feet, a central angle of 8 degrees 55 minutes 54 seconds and the chord of said curve bears North 66 degrees 54 minutes 29 seconds East, to the intersection with the . Easterly line of said Lot 44; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 55 seconds East along said Easterly line a distance of25.35 feet to the point of beginning of the easement to be described; thence North 69 degrees 46 minutes 01 seconds West a distance of 284.16 feet; thence North 23 degrees 22 minutes 37 seconds East a distance of 161.00 feet; thence North 47 degrees 16 minutes 31 seconds East a distance of 95.00 feet; thence North 84 degrees 49 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 133.58 feet to an intersection with said Easterly line of Lot 44; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 55 seconds West a distance of322.56 feet to the point of beginning. . . EXHIBIT "B" That part of Lot 44, "Auditor's Subdivision Number One Hundred Forty One" (141), Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Lot 44; thence North 89 degrees 56 minutes 14 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the Southerly line of said Lot 44 a distance of 347.17 feet; thence Northeasterly, continuing along said Southerly line, a distance of 104.91 feet along a curve not tangential with the last decribed line, said curve is concave to the Southeast and has a radius of 673.00 feet, a central angle of 8 degrees 55 minutes 54 seconds and the chord of said curve bears North 66 degrees 54 minutes 29 seconds East, to the intersection with the Easterly line of said Lot 44; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 55 seconds East along said Easterly "line a distance of25.35 feet to the point of beginning of the easement to be described; thence North 69 degrees 46 minutes 01 seconds West a distance of 284.16 feet; thence North 23 degrees 22 minutes 37 seconds East a distance of 161.00 feet; thence South 87 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 86.00 feet; thence North 11 degrees 10 minutes 24 seconds East a distance of 80.07 feet; thence North 84 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 41.00 feet; thence South 38 degrees 55 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 96.50 feet to an intersection with said Easterly line of Lot 44; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 55 seconds West a distance of249.56 feet to the point of beginning. October 10. 1994 /~ .....;~ Summit ~--..... Enviroso/utions ~ w ---.;;,;, FiLE COpy ,'';' ~ f \... - , , '--.' /,,' .l.""~ ~ ~. ,J' .- ~~. Mr. Brad Neilsen City Planner - City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Subject: Methodology Used for Wetland Delineation Shorewood Site A portion of the SYz of the SWIA of Section 25. Township 117 North, Range 23 West Hennepin County, Minnesota . Dear Mr. Neilson: Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. (Summit) has completed wetland delineation activities associated with a wetland located on the subject property. A description of Summit's wetland delineation methodology is provided below. Prior to conducting our field reconnaissance, Summit reviewed the following existing doCumenl'i for wetland information: · National Wetlands Inventory map prepared by U. S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service; .. Protected Water Inventory map developed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; . · Soil Survey of Hennepin County. prepared by U. S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service; and, · U. S. Geologic Survey 7.5 minute Excelsior quadrangle map. During our field reconnaissance a wetland basin was identified and delineated using the Federal Manual for Identifvin~ and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Interagency Task Force on Wetland Delineation, 1989) and the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987). The wetland basin was classitied according to the methodologies set forth in Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31; Cowardin et a1. 1979) and Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39; Shaw and Fredine 1971). Summit personnel use tield data forms to document the vegetation, soils, and hydrology observed at the site. A blank Summit data form is attached for your review. I 10201 Wayzata Boulevard- Suite #10~. Minneapolis. MN 55305 - Phone (612) 595-8888. ~(62~1~9~8'L, 0 Offices Strategically Located Nationwide '--"". U ."'T Mr. Brad Neilsen Methodology Used for Wetland Delineation Page 2 October 10, 1994 If you have further questions regarding Summit's wetland delineation methodology or the project in general, please contact our office. Thank you. Sincerely, Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. D glas M. Mens' 0 Project Manager attachment . DMMfh.'i . . . SUMIVUT DATA FOR.'V( ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMlNA TION METHODl Date: Field lnvesti!;:lton.s): ProjecriSite: State: ApplicanrlOwner: Plant Community #/Name: Nme: If a more detailed site description is necessary. use the back of data form or a field notebook. Proj. #: County: 00 normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes No If no. explain Has the vegetation. soils. and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No If yes. explain VEGETATION Scientific Name I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. I:!. Indicator Status Common Name Percent of dominant species that are OBL. FACW, and/or FAC: Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion mer! Yes No Rationale: SOILS Series/phase: L~ the soil on the hydric soils lisC'! Is the soil a Histosol? Yes Is the soil: Mottled? Yes Matrix Color. Other hydric soil indicators: L~ the hydric soil criterion met'! Rationale: .., Subgroup:- No Undetermined Histic epipedon present'! Yes Gleyed? Yes No Mottie Colors: Yes No No Yes No HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No L~ the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Surface water depth: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Rationale: Yes No JURISDlCfIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Rationale for jurisdictional decision: Yes No ..~ /:"", Summit .....~:.... "",..~ Enwcsoluflons ~ Stratum Percentaee No IThis data fonn can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. .., -Cla.~sification according to .. Soil Taxonomy." 10201 Wayzata Blvd. Suite # 100. Minneapolis, MN 55305. Phone (612) 595-8888. Fax (612) 595-0888 :-io. <)409-152 November 22, 1994 City Council City of Shorewood Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 ATTN: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director SUBJECT: Vacation of Wetland Conservation Easement - 20345 Excelsior Blvd. . The following are our concerns regarding the request to vacate the existing Wetland Conservation Easement for the above-named property. 1. There should be a minimum of 35' setback from a wetland. There is no setback requirement in the ordinance now. However, a portion of Wetland Conservation Ea~ement should not be vacated in order to allow building, whether there is a setback requirement or not. 2. This property is really a marginal buildable property - it is too steep of a hillside, there will be erosion problems, there will be run-off problems and there is always the question of the environment and wildlife, once habitat is gone, wildlife is gone. . 3. The Wetland Conservation Easement should not be given up without the public gaining some good. Tax revenue on a single home is not a public asset. What public good will be served to us, as the residents to the East of this property, with a home on a Wetland Easement. Shorewood has given up so much on this street already, e.g. Pete Boyer's subdivision. We really don't need to give up more land, especially wetland. Some of the reasons that people live here, nature and wildlife, are being given up. The quality of life changes dramatically and the neighborhood's tax value goes down. We urge all Council members to view the property before the hearing, as a site evaluation, in this case, will be valuable in determining the outcome of this piece of property. Sincerely, f)JUt4~ ~ ~~. Dennis and Barbara Martin 20185 Excelsior Blvd. Shorewood, MN 55331 11 J ~ J~ c....O-fr.R ~Oo,^~,^(....{L, f...e~i Oil-V\ \" I{ Nov. 17, 1994 City Council and Planning Commission City of Shorewood Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Attention: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director Subject: Wetland Conservation Easement - 20345 Excelsior Blvd. I have several concerns regarding subject plan to vacate a portion of the existing Wetland Conservation Easement at 20345 Excelsior Blvd. These include: . 1. Minimum setback requirements from the wetland. What is the required setback for residential property from a wetland in the city of Shorewood? According to Joan Hadley of the Minnetonka Planning Dept., Minnetonka's Wetland Ordinance requires residential property to be setback a minimum of 3 5 feet from a wetland. Even if Shorewood adopted a 25 foot setback requirement, I do not believe this would allow enough room to construct a residence on subject property. 2. Suitability of this property for construction. The entire property located a 20345 Excelsior looks to me to be a marginal buildable property. My guess is that some relaxation of restrictions or guidelines must have taken place before construction permits were issued for the existing two residential structures at this location. Now a request is being made to push development of this poorly qualified property even further? . The proposed construction site is located on a very steep hillside. Construction will require either substantial amounts of fill, or construction into the hillside. The house will have to be literally forced into the location. Will a maximum slope of 3 : 1 be maintained for all disturbed soil? How will erosion into the wetland be prevented during the construction process? How will disturbance of the wetland be prevented when the house is in use, and children are playing in the backyard? Who will monitor the property owners to insure there is no further development in the wetland over time? I suggest that before a decision is made to approve this request to vacate the \VetIand Conservation Easement, that members of the City Council and the Planning Commission drive by the site and take a look for themselves, while thinking of the question: "Should there be a house on this location?" n _ I ~ ~~~e~~o~~.^L~ ~~~o.e.l\...\ r 3. What is the public purpose or gain in the City of Shorewood giving up this right? My understanding is that the City of Shorewood, in holding a Wetland Conservation Easement, has a right which should not be surrendered without some public purpose, gain, need, etc. I suppose it could be argued that the small increase in tax revenue from a developed property will benefit all residents of Shorewood. But will it really? Will higher density housing be a benefit to the residents in the area of this proposed development? Will our taxes go down a1ittle next year? How will the City of Shorewood' s giving up this right benefit me, as an individual resident of Shorewood residing near the existing Wetland Conservation Easement? I will not be able to attend the November 29, 1994 public hearing on this subject, as I will be out of town on business. It would be appreciated if these question~ could be considered during the hearing. . ~~ /j7~ 20270 Excelsior Blvd. Shorewood, Nrn 55331 . ~ , November 22, 1994 lYIr. Brad Nielsen, Planning Director City of Shorewood Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Oub Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 . Re: John Pastuck request to vacate wetland Dear Mr. Nielsen: Alice and I live at 20250 Excelsior Boulevard and have for the past seventeen years. We strongly oppose the proposed vacating of the Wetland Conservation easement at 20345 Excelsior Boulevard. We suggest that one or more City Council members directly observe the lot in question with Mr. Pastuck and believe that if you do, your decision will be to turn down his request. Please note Mr. Pastuck has already developed a duplex residence facing this wetland which from a zoning perspective was questionable in this neighborhood of single family residences. The proposed dwelling will be forced into a truly marginal lot with an extreme grade and little potential for an aesthetic outcome. . Questions that should be answered are the driveway placement near the duple.x driveway and near a blind and highly vegetated curve; the nature of excavation and fill needed, and the setbacks from the wetland to the west and the neighbors to the east. Not only will this project disturb an already fragile wetland but it will violate Shorewoods' standards of integrity in development. Sincerely, Ch -k,;,(.,J f? !~6L t-e/o ~s R. Waldo Re.?'\~+ c-rxr.e? F"'-dllt\c.e.... MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Kristi Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 . (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM . TO: FROM: DAlE: RE: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 26 October 1994 DeWitt, Lawrence - Variance to Expand a Nonconforming Structure and Variance to 25% Hard Surface Requirement FILE NO.: 405 (94.26) BACKGROUND Mr. Lawrence DeWitt proposes to remodel and add on to his existing residence at 28090 Woodside Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A,_attached). The property is zoned R-IAfS, Single-Family ResidentiallShoreland. The property does not currently comply with R-IAfS District requirements. Both the existing structure and the proposed addition are too close to the side lot lines, and the total area of impervious surface on the site exceeds 25 percent. As a result, Mr. DeWitt has requested variances to the setback requirements, to increase the nonconformity of a nonconforming structure and to further exceed hard surface restrictions. . Exhibit B illustrates how the house is situated on the lot and where the addition is proposed. As can be seen the largest portion of the house is only eight feet from the south property line. The north end of the house is 15 feet from the north lot line, plus a short wing wall extends to within eight feet of the property line. The wing wall will be removed as part of the remodeling. Based on information provided in the applicant's request letter (Exhibit C), his lot contains approximately 46,690 square feet of area. His calculations indicate a total existing hard cover percentage of 3 ~. 7 percent. The addition would increase hard cover area to 32.3 percent of the lot. _More up-to-date information has just been received from the applicant's surveyor ~ . indicating existing and proposed hard surface to be 34.5 and 35 percent, respectively. The Shoreland District limits impervious surface to 25 percent. As mentioned in the applicant's letter, the property was the subject of a pervious variance request in 1984. The staff report for the request is provided in Exhibit D (copied in yellow). Minutes from the Planning Commission and City Council meetings at which that request was considered are attached as Exhibits E and F. . Floor plans and elevations of the proposed addition are shown on Exhibits G and H. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 7A Re: DeWitt, Lawrence Variances 26 October 1994 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Section 1201.03, Subd. 1.k. of Shorewood's Zoning Code provides for the expansion of nonconforming residential structures: "k. Lawful nonconforming, single-family residential units may be expanded, provided: (1) That such expansion does not increase the nonconformity and complies with height and setback requirements of the district in which it is located. . (2) That if the nonconformity exists because the lot area does not meet the minimum requirement for the district in which it is located, said expansion shall not increase the floor area of all structures to lot area ratio greater than thirty percent (30%). (This provision is superseded by the stricter 25 percent requirementfound in 1201.26 Subd. 8.b.( 1) of the Code.) " (3) That the granting of said expansion shall not adversely affect the aesthetics or character of the adjacent property. (4) That any such expansion shall take into consideration the protection of light and air to the adjacent property. (5) That in case where a structure is too close to a lot line, the City may require that the discrepancy be made up by enlarging the opposite required yard space. (Example" where a building is eight feet [8'] from a side lot line in a district in which a ten foot [10'] setback is required, the City may require a twelve foot [12'] setback on the other side.) (Ord. 188, 11-24-86)" . Strict enforcement of this provision would suggest that the two-foot discrepancy on the south side be made up on the north side, and that a twenty-two-foot setback be maintained on the . north side. Given the age of the structure and the granting of the previous variance, strict enforcement is not recommended. What is recommended is that the south side of the lot be considered the lO-foot side and that a 20-foot setback be required on the north side to maintain a total30-foot side yard setback for the property. To accomplish this, the proposed addition would have to jog in five feet from the existing building line. The applicant prefers not to jog the addition because it would eliminate an existing window on the east side of the guest bedroom. He also references a large tree that may be lost if the addition were reconfigured and extended further to the east. The survey does not show the subject tree. If thisis part of the justification for a variance, it should be shown on an updated survey. With respect to lot coverage, it is probably unrealistic to expect that the lot will ever comply with the 25 percent requirement. What is recommended is that the hard cover not be increased. If an addition is approved it should be contingent upon removal of an equal amount of hard cover elsewhe,re on the site (e.g. reduction of driveway area). - 2- . . ~ , Re: DeWitt, Lawrence Variances 26 October 1994 Section 1201.05 Subd. 2.b. provides criteria for the gr~ting of variances. As proposed, the applicant's request fails parts of this section: 1, The property is not unique in size or configuration. In fact it exceeds the width and area requirements of the R -INS district. Other property owners have adjusted their plans to limit expansions of nonconforming structures to within the buildable area. Also, in a recent conditional use permit, the owner modified his existing driveway and removed an existing building in order to stay within the 25 percent hard cover requirement. 2,. The applicant, through the previous variance, already enjoys more use of his lot than those who comply with current regulations. 3 , Information received to date does not adequately demonstrate that the applicant is unable to make reasonable use of his property. This is illustrated by the fact that existing hard cover on the site exceeds requirements by 40 percent. RECOMMENDATION Based on the preceding it is recommended that any addition to the existing home comply with current setback requirements. Further/any increase in hard cover are~be mitigated by removal of hard cover elsewhere on the site. . If the applicant wishes to provide further evidence of hardship (e.g. tree cover, soils, etc.), the request should be tabled pending analysis of additional material. cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Joel Dresel Lawrence DeWitt - 3 - = o==!I ~ ,J' '"- l;) :_____6J.~~lL____ ~l ;0 .~., 7' e . '.1 ,.... 2: ~ Q ~ ~ '., ~ I' d 09l ,~ In ~ ;;; ... ,'} "' ~- "- ('j oel -. ;:;: ! , ...... DIll ~ C ~ ::!. , " Olll Ii=' ,,~ lJl'OZI: ....... ~- u~. ~6 '61t tl 'u.l oin tl'm ....... N ,... - '^ '" '-' 9O-;lt '" .. 11\ " ~ q ~lt ~ ...~ ,,-.. '" '^ >oJ ;r: -, ,.... N ~ 'oJ - '" ~~ <JU'o.t ~ ':i " ~ ,I ,-' ,'i ',J '\: -"1 .... , ,'''- \'~ lilt ~ .~ ..; lV'Ole ~ '- !:: " -- ~ '.I, 'OIC -;::- '- ~ . ~ .. t' c::::!I In @h,~i" ~ ~'l C;lt "'- ~) ~ ~ 'N I'- ~ \'~ Il'91( ~ ~ .. ;;; '" ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ... - N . C ~ :~ ~ 0 :Ill!! @Q) 0;= 99 'Olt ~ ~ t '" t'- G="'- \'.!. ~'~It ::~ '" ...... '" '., r ,. ~~ ,- - ';:i w ~~ ~ ... -, N ,'K!; ~ 1 ;<, ...... .9'lot \\; ::),1 ,... to-" r N <'- 'oj N ~ ~ ~@ t- G== > o o /l'll, :: ~/, ''I: l,' 6'OZl N- ~ t: .;; ~ ,. ::1 e-.~ :i 000J -l:; Q e: to) .!:;. . -.<:~ ""'t~ c -Z-t . .~~ ...;0 '7. N ~ tN ~@ j ~ r';' ... ...... ,., N I- ~~~ ~ :300 "- "- ~<;> Exhibit A <';,., 0", ~~~ SITE LOCATION o~~s De Witt variances --..... \. \~, ~ .... ""... ". y . '-.,I \1 - I '" (Q ~ II CA..... . ..... OOe t1l::S .....ct . ct..., tlIiJ ~ <C?-t. a.'" CD. t:J('t 1>>::0::0 Q\ ::s .....::s 0 - ~ l-v-<1 ~ ::S<t EJ(Q -t> '-- r", rc-,. 1lIc+ eDeD '-~ ~I(? 0.'1 00l ...... ~ (ItI' > 1O <S-< a.. c+m ::So .......... ~ "'~ t"...,. ..... 11;1 ~ IDOl ~ 0 9<9 -? ~ r- c+era ~: .....m c+c+ ..... 0 '1<t lI\ '/~ 0 o era II ::S. 0 ~'1 ~ , S.,~,,"'-(:' <(' ~g '1c+ U1'1 8 '1eD t:J "'11 ~O <t 0- . /3 . ~ ~..... txJ 0 PJ -t ~ '''':)6><jt c+1I ~~ CD II a.:s [I) ~~ 00 1\ 0 CDet CD ::s a.c+ '1>-\ .....0- (') ~ ..... . . ('t c+ D ---"11 ~ '1 c+CD .....00 ::0 0\ ~ ft, ~ ~ ( ~ rA ~c+ CD s:: . -....I ..... 0 ~~ H ...., iV IJ\ ( ::s 0 ~~ )> \::J 111 - ~ ('t "d , VI ~ ~ c+ .a. ~~ () (: . 1':!:. ::r '1 <t . ~ it) - III 1\) CI . c+a. g~ 0 CD H "" () ( ~ Ci' III 0 ::SO t1l · rn :j 'i \J\ 13\ '1 '1 0..... 'd 0 ~ '-D III . a. c+s ..........:a / .. C7 CX) ~ 11 ~ c+~ :s~ :z ..... .,.o"S ~.__ '-' G'> --t-.ffi- II OrA .....:a -.....::::::. -- i\i 0 ~ 0- ............<0.. __ I; ~ ClIO 0 "-!!2:" _ CD ~ '" . -...;:::-....::..: 0 O~ . ". c+ ~1lI c+ "Ilt -- ~-- "~/,? ~ ~ .1fJ "- 0 ~. I <t - ~ ~ . ~~ I \ Q , . q) . I I If I :r o C 1/1 IIi VI -; c n fI o N ./l '/ o I'iI " -- ---- ---- ---- I \. :'"1 ~ I ::::.: V ~ \ ..... \ \ --L "' ~ Cl ~I :t (. ... /~~ ,-~:. '-..!.' :> ...~ '\ ,A: (~-:-- t .... ~ -=-7- ~~t 0..5 ..-~~~, I '. I bjentr1 I ~~~ I (D tr1..... o.."'C[ . I o ~bj ~~ I 00 +>- tn H UJ ~ "d "d c:: '1 j:2 II '1 '1 ~ 0 ~ .aa 0 0 :s <t "d 'd '< CD S " (J d '< ('t t1 '1 .... :s c+ c+ d ..... c+ ~ "< . ..... ~ ~ :s ..... 1-\ ('t ..... ..... ..... '1 .... '1 n \J .....j - \II " ...:..: :'-'.' r .~.:... ..' ." I ..... . . e.. .. -.,. 20 -. '~-"-' l>~ ~ \) ~ \) "i () .. \/I (l 111 ~ t) .Jl () - 71 ;UN .bUt :t '/ III 0 iIJ l-< c 11\ 'TI ...... .... .... :... ..' .0 ~ Il) 1.1\ <Xl ~I(::o.'.,. ... '.. ':... ~ .....' ......... \ : :...~.... .b Ci' Q \::l :t> i'ij \) i'i) ~ " \. II 'I '" ~ " ~ 1.11 ~ llJ III ~ t) - . '--- ~' .. - tst"\ ~>D ..J .... )>. .() 0- 0- -. + cr ~ N V'l \0 oJ \)l r"r; U'l 0) \{) I) ..... ;... ...... I ...... ~. : . .. t...: .... .~ ~ ~ ~ S- et- ~ 0- ()- -. +- \h ~ , ! l". . . . '.. 0" ~ '" ~ , :t '}.-17_ \tJ r- i\) " '\ Itl ~ -.l -.l (\l .....: :.... '.. ~ .....: ...... .' .... ~...' . r.; ..... ~ () \0 ~ Cl ...... ........ I {/j o ? ........ ~....; 6' ...... J\ ^ .. - .... ~ '-.. ...... '. '" \1>11 ~ ~ ~ OJ \ () IO~ ~ )> :2 \II < ~ ... :t. r- \II .J> .-.-J ~ ~ ~ ,{ ........ ." .,,::... II .'{' '. S 8057'35>" W --, /2 6.54 __. u , , ~'~ - - - - .-'., ----- , 9 o .l) ~ --l o WOOciS('c(e r--- Roqc( 6'\ (5\ C\7'\. ~ C'\ r----.. ---. September 21, 1 994 Shorewood Planning Commission 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood MN 55331 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter is a request for a variance to build a 260 square foot addition to our 'residence at 28090 Woodside Road, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331. . We are aware of two covenants concerning the commission and would like to address both of them with this request. I ~ ./"ID 1. Structures must be built no closer than 1 5 feet from existing property lines, with a total of 30 feet both sides. Our project extends an existing structure 10 feet along a line 1 5 feet from the north property line. Our cumulative distance both ends is only 23 feet because the existing structure is 8 feet from the southern lot line and has been since 1959. The south-side neighboring house is approximately 70 feet from the existing property line. It is my understanding that if I owned 7 feet of that 70 feet, I would be in compliance. The owner has refused to sell any land to me. . My understanding of the law is to protect drainage to the lake and protect the interest of neighbors. I have attached letters from each neighbor expressing their views on this project. I would submit this addition of 260 square feet is di minimus and does not create any new restriction to water flows. We can understand the commission's concerns on new structures, but we ask for your consideration given no change is really created with respect to drainage or water access. Any alternate design would create a need to remove a 75-foot tree that is healthy and provides shade to our neighbor, as well as to us. 2. No more than 25 percent of the land area can be covered with hard surface. ~ {p '\ 1,- The existing lot is 46,690 square feet and a very close estimate ~ \\, deck and driveway is 8,525 square feet, well under the 11, 622 square feet the formula allows. Our problem is a tennis court additionally partially exists on the property, moving us approximately 3000 square feet over the rule. Our problem is we cannot pull up the tennis court because it is owned jointly with the neighbors to the north and mutual easements require its continued joint maintenance and use. The tennis court dates back to the 1930s or Exhibit C APPLICANT'S REOUEST LETTER Dated 21 September 1994 Page 2 September 21, 1 994 earlier as part of an original property owned by the then-owners of our "* neighbor to the south. The subdividing of our property and that of the D. O. ~ Leavenworths was approved by then-existing government planning and lA17 zoning authorities. It is interesting to note the original house built in 1959 / ~ slightly exceeded the 25 percent rule and it further was not an issue in 1985 when we added two rooms and extended the garage per a city council- granted variance. It is my belief if we would have included the bathroom project (which we could not afford at the time) in the 1985 package, it would have been approved. . In summary, we are asking for a variance to add 260 square feet to our home. It will allow us to keep the number of bedrooms intact (a grandmother requirement) and still expand our bath and closet area to be consistent with comparable new homes being built in the area today. We are faced with a difficult dilemma. We have currently two leaking showers and rotten wood structures surrounding them. This will require substantial cost to repair. If the project is expanded only by this 260 square feet, we effect a substantial improvement to our property at a very reasonable cost difference. The structure added is small, extends away from the lake, does not add to drainage concerns, and is encouraged by our neighbors. We believe we are victims of past decisions and rule changes in which we had no part. We view our circumstance as arguably grandfathered. We can't buy land and we can't lift up existing surfaces. We would if we could. . Your consideration of this request will be very much appreciated. Yours respectfully, J:~d~ ';dUMJ ~ 28090 Woodside Road Shore wood MN 55331 * ~t'(djOV\~ ~ 41-6.+f"" c...2- September 16, 1994 To Whom It May Concern - My name is Greg Scott and I live immediately north of the DeWitt property currently under review for a building permit. My address is 28100 Woodside Road, Shorewood MN 55331. . This letter is to express two points: 1. I do not have any land that I would be willing to sell to Mr. DeWitt. We have spent substantial amounts of money to upgrade our home and property and intend to maintain the status quo indefinitely. 2. I have no objection to his small project. I view it as a non-issue. The upgrading of our Shorewood community is important to all its stakeholders. This projec should be approved. /t~V~ . ~~.3 September 16, 1994 . To Whom It May Conce:rn: My name is Ann Leavenworth and my husband and I live at 28070 Woodside Road, Shorewood MN" 55331. OUr property is adj acent to the Lawrence F. DeWitt property currently being proposed for a building permit. I would like to emphatically state that the tennis court existing between our two properties is extremely important to me and under no circumstances would I agree to its removal. . I further would like to state that the DeWitts have continuously improved their property since they moved next door, to our great pleasure and in contrast to the previous owners. The small addition they are proposing has no negative effect on us, unless they take down a very large tree that offers us exceptional shade. A particularly attractive feature of their plan removes a decorative wall that serves no real purpose and which has in the past narrowed water flows to the lake during exceptional rains, like the 10-inch rain of 1987. We would encourage the Planning Corrmission to support no net -loss proj ects (in this case we should have a gain) that raise property values for Shorewood neighborhoods. When we can do that, we are all winners. Yours very truly 0 ('Jj/ ~ 0 rJ)12C:U~O-> ~ Arm Leavenworth c.-4 . CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Kristi Stoller ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM " TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 26 SEPTEMBER 1984 . RE: DE WITT, LARRY - VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE FILE NO. 405 (84.31) BACKGROUND . Mr. Larry DeWitt has made an offer to buy the home at 28090 Woodside Road, (see Site Location map, Exhibit A, attached) which is now owned by Ernest and Irene O'Neill. The sale is contingent upon Mr. DeWitt being able to obtain a variance to expand the existing home. As shown on the applica- tion survey (Exhibit B, attached) the house is located eight feet from the side lot line. The R-1 district in which the property is located requires a 10 foot setback from side lot lines. Consequently the house is a non- conforming structure. Mr. DeWitt proposes to extend the building eastward 24 feet to increase the existing garage space and westward to add a family room. Exhibit C was prepared by the applicant's attorney and summarizes the request. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION As you are aware, Section 10, Subd. 4 of the Zoning Ordinance formerly precluded any expansion of nonconforming structures. Ordinance 159 amend- ed the Zoning Ordinance to allow variances for expansion of nonconforming structures in certain instances in which the nonconformity would not be increased. In this particular request the nonconformity would be increased. Instead of 26 feet of building encroaching into the required side yard, 65 feet of building would encroach. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Exhibit D 1984 STAFF REPORT Re: previous variance , . . PLANNERS MEMORANDUM DE WITT, LARRY VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE 26 SEPTEMBER 1984 page two When the applicant first contacted the City relative to the proposed addition it was suggested that the new portions of the building could be jogged in to comply with the 10 foot requirement. The applicant cites aesthetics, and reduction of the family room space as the reason for not designing the additions in that manner. This request is virtually identical to a request which was approved sever- al months ago. The Verdorn residence at 28210 Woodside was granted a "variance to expand the house, but as a condition of approval, they were re- quired to build the addition within the required setbacks. Given this precedent plus the fact that the house in question could accom- modate expansion through redesign, it is suggested that the variance be denied. BJN:sn CC: Dan Vogt Gary Larson Sue Niccum Larry DeWit t Ernest O'Neill .. . r1' ., ~. ~.~,\lD ~o' I · 0,r fYl. ~ . ~.1,5 I!S- 1577 . '-iI.' 1ST REO..-- NO .- .. ~, ..:, i i :t. .'97~ E.(~ ) I f1) G I (6) "N 122 ' . I ,1 'f . ... I , 250.... l i .~. " ~ . - , '..... . Lor 4 : 'I l~ 8 :~n 06 ~5 ..... . 3Ahibit A SIrr: LOCAl'IOI-; JeHitt - variance to expand a nonconforming structure @) 'tJ Ii o '{.l o L1 ro p. U UJ t,; \UH}-: Ll '"-:~ IT ~. t:. 1-" (\) 0- p.. tlJ 1-" C c~ f-'N 1-" ":1 bJ ::ll'J roo-< Ul Ul ~. o ~ - . . ....c-t ... ::s :J~ 0.. c-t. . -- II ~ ~ . o c+ ~ GIt .... . t:J. .....::J .. ..... ilO ....~ o ::J. .... . S.... 0.::1 ~ ...~ . .... 3c-t ~r; .0. . c+o. . :JO ~. ...~ o. .0 O~ ~.. . . :a o t-i till en III p. ~ 1-" c+ 1-" o ::l (1 ~: II ...... ~O c-t. .. ..... o.c-t . . ... . o ~ ... . o o 3. , ! o c ,. '" '^ y C' n ^ o N ,}I .../ 0' N " ua 00>- c-t ""\. III ::o:u .. ~~ .... ..... at.. c+c+ .... 11'1 '1. a. o ""\t"4 ~~ .....Do c-t ....en .~ !'~ CI :s:'< ~ ~~ . . 'd .... -...J ::I\J\ -...J 0- o ~ ... ~ . .... i.:'" ..' '.. "',": .1: : : .. f"- . . . , ,', . . . ',.: . . . .....! ...... :'~: '" : :'.. ..' ... . . . . . . .....: . -- ----- ----\ \ \ \ \ ---L I I I I U ~ I I fD tlIIlI ~ ~ 0 5 c: ... ... 0 0 . 'I 1 . . ~ 3 a :l --- .... .... .~ -- .... l 7\ =- .... ~ t'4 f\ A . .... .... (;) :1 ::1 ~ ...... ~ of I .. "l \) ~, :t . i r! ..' . :'t . .. .... . ----.~ - , 9 o .1\ t"4 .... Cl >- t"4 .I' II <-! ~ ..., ~. -f ~ ~r<:" ~<. ~. r 9 '?~ <'9 ~ r- '/:3 Q s~ ~L r..;-. "C' q /3 . ...~ 6'''il' . ~ 0' ~ \0 o 11\ 9 11 -l t:I M en o :IlJ .... " o 0, ...... )> o -:::-1J:n1ll 1:. III ~, I\J ~ ~ Q I - VI ~ ,. ~ c.. 1':h ~().~~ II] -.j " 41' ..... -J ...., \I' ... rt\ oJ) Itl '" __ __ _._ ~_<--" ,~ ~ ~ I, -....:::::. --- . rn ..........< ~ --- - J I\j ~ -- ~. -- -....: . --'-- ~/.;z __ "-: I "? ~. I ~ ~ ~ .... o x '../ '../1./) I/) · . " 11) ~ 6\ .. o Q) ,f , ..n ))~ t1 \) ~ \) "'i \) - \II () III ~ " ~ f1\ C1I ~ .b ~ II tJ l> 1Il ~ ill ~ ..., ~ 8 ~ ~ t,/I ~ 'tI III tJ ~ ..0 ..J ... 0 ~~ ~ ,,~ ~ l ..>> tJ .J .... .:.. I.o;...-tf . J I -~l N '!'- ~ ,..., I ~ oJ\ I . 0 '. " ~r~.at Q" ....-' - .....1 i ~ ,...~JL_'- - .t--I~ I-JI< .'-~- \.. I;: ;A .:. ~ I .... b ~ to" '" ~ '" i- '" .Jl ~li"' '" 'II " 0' ill 0 1- ~La " III ~.4 ... o .z.,": , ...... ~' ,- II 11"-111 r i\) x 8 p ~ - "1 -lit- i'J c. -I ", l\) . l1\ qtI-<.Q- r Ul .t. '" ~ 0 -.I - C. -.I (\ .,. i'\ III ~ t:1 ~ --t ... ~ Itj :D 'l> '" , :t *-.---...-- l> r -\ 1\ ~ ll:t l> ..~ 2 \II ~ ~ < \) 1\ .. l. 0 ~r r-- \JI )> ~ ,J\ ~ l (\ r i\ () -I c I\) -I , I I , '0 S 8. '57 . 38 .. W -. IZ'-'.S4 - -. w o 0 ct 5 (. c:I ~ r---------- R 0 q c:( r--- _.. ... '" - -. z _. 0..,. - '. 11 1IJN J> :t'" '" 0/ ~ Ii} o -< C' III 'II - CJ\ II :. Q) :.... ; ..... \l) \. : . (::: \h ..... Q) . , -..: ....... . . . '" . ...... .... :t -..: ...... . . 'll .., (..~. \.aI :".,,; -." C) ',L /", \0 ....: : " :..... () ....- ,Ir: \. . -... :..J i= '" ...... ^ \.... ........... '. __I' .' , ",.... ........'\{.. - \II co . . 6' 6'\ , . . City of Shorewood Application for Variance Applicants: Ernest & Irene O'Neill Lawrence & Donna De~itt The set back for the building to the side lot line is 10 feet. The present building line is approximately 8 feet from the lot line; however, the neighbor's house to the west is a~proximately 70 feet away from the cornmon lot line. The Applicants seek a variance which would allow the DeWitts to improve the premises with an addition which would not extend the premises toward the side lot-line but would extend the premises in a westerly direction along the exist- ing south wall of the residence. (See drawings and surveys). Owner/Applicant O'Neill has offered the subject property for sale for more than one year. The present offer (contingent upon the variance being granted) is the only viable offer they have received during that time. If the variance is not granted, the Applicant De~vitt will withdraw their offer and the OWner/Applicant O'Neill will loose the sale, which loss will create a severe financial hardshio for OWner/ Applicant O'Neill. The proposed addition will increase the value of the subject property and may enhance the value of the surrounding properties. Consents of the owners of surrounding neighborhood prooerties are beinq solicited and will be provided to the City of Shorewood as soon as they are obtained. ~:hibit C APPLICA!R'3 Iill~u~~r " ~.~~. ~,:. f:.' .~..~. .,... .' ". . -~. :#; ,...~'. , ':~: '~.,t"', /i';-;\.:::: . ! I ~ ~ .. ll.'~'" ~',' , " I ' < , .~..~. . . - ~...... ~:~', " .8:\:hi bi t D PRO?03~D FLOOR PLAN Pro~~-'I f~",'\ ~y po=> "i~ .J I;;--.'t. ,', ':,~ ~...~ ~~A , _ -'vFtJ A n~(// ~'J?t'l r\~ 9"'('~' r ---1-:---71f::---""---:1- -- I 1,1 '-, ,.",-"" I I I I' '/.' ,,- ~----+-___1<____":.L._ __':l.:~__-,- ~rDf"'~ll.J - I I',t\~ 9"r~,~ ~, -', ,------- ---'1 I ' i I I I I , '"",,..,.. ':~ ..;: r OOt'(\ ,=- ~ Q ? ~, ~,I,__,_.". " I ,-' , . , I --r o r , r- I, - -~ ' I I f \~\ , I I _.;', --- .4 I -r~- 1 -+--_ 1 I ~.....;.__ ,I It?; ~ ',' ,. . ........... , --'--'--' . . -... , '" ;, ..'-. ..:..." ~-~...... .. .",.. A ~-.. . , , ............ ft PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1984 page two \ VARIANCE - JOHN LUCE - continued ( l \. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST - EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ERIC DANSER - 21640 LILAC DRIVE Mrs. Danser was present. This variance request is to add a 16' x 20' single story addition onto a nonconforming structure. The addition would be to the rear of the house and conform with both rear and side setbacks. Reese'moved, Leslie seconded, to recommend to Council to approve the variance request for expansion of a nonconforming structure, as recommended by the City Planner. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST - EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE LARRY DE WITT - 28090 WOODSIDE ROAD Ernest O'Neill, current owner and Larry DeWitt, prospective buyer, appeared before the Commission. Mr. O'Neill said that the sale of the property is contingent upon the variance. He pointed out two differences from the Verdoorn example used in the Planner's Report. 1) His neighbor, Mr. Ellis' house is 70' from the property line with a grove of trees in between the two homes, and; 2) The two feet will create a vast difficulty with the garage. He also said it would ruin the lines of the house. Mr. DeWitt pointed out that when the house was built in 1959, the setback was eight feet and the house was a conforming structure. He also said that he felt that moving the proposed additions back two feet would ruin the lines of the house and lower the value. Mr. Ellis, the neighbor to the south, said he has inspected the drawings and he doesn't have any concerns. He said that being 70' from the property line plus having a large grove of trees between them, he can't see any problem with the variance. He said he applauds the attempt to improve a lovely old house. Commission discussed the question of a procedure setting problem. Commissioner Benson said he thinks it can be redesigned to limit the noncon- formity. Boyd moved, Benson seconded, to recommend to Council to deny the variance. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Carol Brown asked to make a statement. She said when you have a property as large as this and as valuable as this, and you have an architect design it to begin with, then you have an architect now add to the house, it has to be in conformity with the actual style and value of the house. This house is so unique that for the architect to do less than first cJass would be difficult. Exhibit E PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1984 variance request MIl\ ;:S REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, OCT. 15, 1984 page three 8:15 PUBLIC HEARING ERIC DANSER - 21640 LILAC LANE VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE RESOLUTION NO. 71-84 Jane Danser of 21640 Lilac Lane was present to request a variance to add onto a nonconforming structure. The existing dwelling is 46 feet from the street instead of 50 feet as required by Ordinance. The hearing was opened at 8:30 PM to the public. John Breckheimer of Lilac Lane spoke in favor of the addition to the rear of the existing dwelling. With no other public comments, the hearing was closed at 8:32 PM. Stover moved, seconded by Shaw to approve the variance request based on the Planning Commission recommendation. Motion carried unanimously by Roll Call Vote - 5 ayes. 8:30 PUBLIC HEARING LARRY DeWITT - 2e090 WOODSIDE ROAD VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE RESOLUTION NO. 72-84 ( The public hearing was opened at 8:35 PM. Ernest O'Neill, the present owne~ was present to explain their variance request. He has asked the Council for a variance to add to his existing home at the same setback distance as now exists, which is 8 feet. That was the proper setback according to Ordinance at the time the house was constructed. The present Ordinance requires 10 foot side setbacks. Mr. DeWitt, the new purchaser, did not feel this would adversely affect any of the adjoining properties. Shaw moved, seconded by Rascop to approve the variance based on a hardship of the change tn Ordinance since the house was constructed. Motion carried by Roll Call Vote - 4 ayes, 1 nay (Stover). Stover motioned to review Ordinance No. 159. Failed for lack of second. RECONSIDERATION - SHOREWOOD OAKS Representing a request from Dave Johnson, the owner of the property proposed for Shorewood Oaks, was John Shardlow, Tim Phenow, and Geoff Martin, of Howard Dahlgren Associates. Mr. Shardlow began by asking the Council to reconsider their position and approve their request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and consider a P.U.D. zoning and development plans as previously submitted. He felt that this proposal is a perfect example of the use of the P.U.D. zoning. Geoff Martin then reviewed for the Council the proposed plan, reviewed possible water supply, density (3 units per acre), price ranges ($80,000. - $120,000.),average square footage of lots (10,900 sq. ft.), and hardships of the property being watertable, Highway traffic and noise and park noise. Exhibit F CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1984 variance request -.......-.. . '"" 1 I . t i I '1:ltrl 1':'>< oS: '1:lo' o:=;.' CI.lQ trl t:l fl o o I':' '1:l t'"" ~ .. _."..~. --....~ - "-'--"'~'-"'Ii',.t"._... .."'............. ...~~- ...~'-~ .- . r .... '.."'C" ._, - ~ .,..., 1 I i r ...._~ , I ~ .' l :1;, '~!h~ " ii, I ~ ~ ] t in f.~/ I i. I; J' ~ A ~' ~ " ~- , - - ~"""'a , I f ~ \" '~~.\ ~'lO . ...L ," . ll\' I, 'I I, ' I , . I I 1 I . ! , . ". ...~..I"lt i ii~ : h 4,~ . , ::~ . . '. .: ~ ., ~. ", '~.)r: . ".-:. :J" . ~r - I . . , .,...... . , ~ .:' 'II --~ -X .,I( . ~~ ' "'l~' o!.! '\ -,. .;....., . ...y . I. I!r t .f' ~~ ~. ".......--. ------ ------ - , . "0 ... ", ,. ......- rc:~-~~'~ t~ 1111 It ~ ilj; "f \.~ ,'t'~ 'f ~!,~!t,l ~,~ :'~J'" l!. ~:!~o1'li' 11~:~~1 ~1~~~ 1 ~ I ~~~ l' all! i 1j i> t ,~ , ,,, '!~ . F ;~ ; .~:, h, ai~I' I -.~ II !i i~ -1, I: t ! I -r... I' - C I' .n : J -~ ~ .' ... '" l::l:ltr1 ~~ tn~: ~~ 0 tr1 l" tr1 <: ~ 1-04 Z - , "T1 ~ 0 z ~ , ~, n. g\" r {} t l' ~(~~(..,r ~.- .II..-u:1 . ~lr~ 1.1l\ IJ ~ ~12l j~ ~l~ If ~~ --J 7 _ --L II' IIIII1 L I J I . !, 111m] I, I I I u lili1\ ; ~'DD- ; I' ' , 1\ \ : \ 11111.11 n II!: rrc~ I',! I I: 1 ", I I I ill : I '1 I! \ I I~ ! I'll: i I I 111!l": :, I ! Ill. · ~; , ! '1'\\' ~ I ! I !to ,: K I i\111' \ : ' I! ! ~ 'liHI! ; : ~ il 0 ;:\l,'i; \1~ ! :: ~'l ~ - i : 1'1 ., ~~ !';, i !:.i 1 .~!;di IJq~.i{ _,._ '\I~lrm II' H H . ~ d II \ :!I.),~J~' '1p. ~ ~ 'i'i!i!' ".~ .!t' ' II~, ~':: · \lilllli~ Rt'l.!i U ~~}l I I >~JY!YJ~i~ I ,~i 'y;: I Q " I :. I . :' I ~ ....., iJ i I I =l I 'j'll I :' ! l'Yf(,'(?___. 'j W~~~r- ~ I, .' .,:~--t. ! , ~~'\'~~ \ ,1 r~ ~ n IT " l '.: 1:1 jJ ~ I ,. '\ dill , I 1/1: II' \ l' \ ~. : ~ ~.; ~_vtr f) I:::. t-v " ~ I- ~ ~ F I~ ~ ~ == = ~ - -_.:;' ~J' (r:m - ,lli!'ll11 ~,~I'il'!~ '... ~ ill';~ l! I -s___ \1,' I';' I ----- ~ \';:1' ~ \l~:ill i d, . ' ~!lh/)] I" ,~:l , I: P: (Inl: i'l -. =: 1::. !,' 1:1; i -~- -r.'. P ;!i!t,! ll. . ~ '. I . l ~ ~ i i I ! 1'~1 I i~~~~' , Ii. I .=-===.,.... .-'='" ," 1:\ I I. ' 1:.1 . ,I!: I! ~ ,till! I ;; ~ ,I. .. ,--"'_'==_"""' " " '- . , Ii" Ift1 ~==,., - I ~t\' I . q" ! jllUJ!J! .' ' \:! ; 'UJI[ ''', J I '1 .1~~. :' 'CJ L- d~ ':lllf 0 '." · /1- I ' ~ I I m I='- t=== ...t}~i..- _ = ::::::- := :=. ! '" ~ '1 -1 ~ Jl ~ ~ i' 1 - ~ ~ II ,1 'I ' 4t~ {j .~ It :[3 J. <\.'I - .I-h ~ 'aP .- I ,.,...... ,,/' ~ lJ.--r~ "-1 ~ J i['" ~~ ~I I~ I ':f. '-"..,. , ') '~-1 - J /lOTEI GREAT CARE AND EffORT IIAVE GONE IIHO TilE CREATION. DESIGN AND F.NGlllf'F.'''NG Of THESE PLAhS AlII) AliI> 'fllL SOLE P"O~t:H"rY Of 51 LVER ',IN I IIGS, AllY USP. Of "IllS Illf/WHA'r'OIl WITII...I'T fJlColR ..mnf.;..;4 (.;l,o,it.o:...t lS 1..",.h.Jul:..,). SlL'.'r:t, L IIIIIlGS ASSUMES 1I0 RES PONS I HI L 1 TY fOR O....EIISION OR STRUCTURAL ERnORS OR 00155101'9. TIll,' (O,'ll'l'''' ,~,..,"\n . 'rr' J'" Silver Lini-ngs ) . . -. . MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Krist; Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson CITY OF SHOREWOOD . 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927 . (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 22 November 1994 Sign Permit - Video Update - Waterford 405 (Sign Permits) Schad-Tracy Signs has applied for a sign permit on behalf of Video Update for a wall sign on the Waterford Shopping Center, currently under construction at 19905 State Highway 7. The plan shown on Exhibit A, attached, is not consistent with the overall signage plan which has been approved for the center. The actual "Video Update" wording complies with dimensional requirements of the approved plan. They propose, however, to extend two neon light tubes to the limits of their store frontage. This is considered to be an integral part of the sign which is limited by the shopping center sign covenants to the lesser of 25 feet or the total frontage of the tenant space. Based on the plans provided by the applicant, the frontage is approximately 92 feet. The applicant states that the neon extensions are required as part of Video Update's corporate image. Unless the overall sign plan for the center is allowed to be amended so that this treatment is available to all of the tenants, approval of the sign permit is not recommended as proposed. . Rather, it is recommended that the permit for the "Video Update" wording be approved without the neon extensions. cc: Jim Hurm Dave Fredrickson A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 7.r,. ~ "" ~ .~ '" ~ i as ~ ~ II> a 9 li a... ~ ';; it ~ ~ ! ~ :r. ~ ~ i<! ~ l!l ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ C\l t:I 141 ~ c < g ,.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ I- ,,"---j E"". ~i C\l ,. , --------------------,-- 0 - - - 0 ........ 71 ( - 0 \ ~ .. ~ a. ::J CJ I I I&J ~ ~ 0 & \. ~ -- ----- - ------ --- f' C o .- S + ')L ~ j ~ -1 z o \= ,.) UJ In at: UJ I- I- UJ -' \- :::::; :l! ~ e " W "II: U U w < ~ ~~~l'.! Q2~ OW t:a:to> ~~~~~,,~I~~ ~o"U5;Oo~':; ~ll!~;~5~~~'!:g ~2o~a:t1;; ~lil ~q:l!u:l!if:l ~- =;:;ii.:;;;;;;:.;a9 ~'" @\_ 1_ _ L . {E53'e -JI..~~ -' ..: =:l D s: C; z o:..c.. - --, ....~c;>,p u.. ..N 0- a~:;;:! ..u~:::; ~&l5;;( ~$~~ u. ~~ o cr ~ .- ~ '" ~ ::r ...."'u iE ra !!! -. ~ 1-' ~ ~ 'Q c ~ to ~ ,'lo... .c ~ 'A' U -..... '" zo;;: .... ... ~...",.... ;.c~~: ~z~~ ~~~~ ~o"~":' zg-o ~~~~ .. . I CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR NOVEMBER 29, 1994 COUNCIL MEETING CHECKS ISSUED SINCE NOVEMBER 4, 1994 CKNO TO WHOM ISSUED PURPOSE AMOUNT 14832 PERA CITY & EMPLOYEE SHARE PERA $1,959.07 14833 PERA CITY & EMPLOYEE SHARE PERA 25.00 14834 AIRSIGNAL, INC. BEEPER RENTAL 9.58 14835 METRO. WASTE CONTROL COMM OCTOBER SAC CHARGES 792.00 14836 STEWART, ZLlMEN & JUNGERS GARNISHMENT 323.37 14837 AIR REFRIGERAllON COOLER MAINTENANCE 258.00 14838 BELLBOY CORP. L1QUORIWINE/MISC 3,318.44 14839 BOYD HOUSER CANDY & TOBACCO CIGAREITES 386.86 14840 CASH REGISTER SALES, INC. CASH REGISTER REPAIR 255.62 . 14841 MIDWEST COCA-COLA BOTTLING MISC 139.85 14842 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEERlMISC 1,755.55 14843 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO. BEERlMISC 2,172.40 14844 GRIGGS, COOPER & COMPANY L1QUORIWINE 4,889.69 14845 HONEYWELL PROTECllON SERVICE ALARM SERVICE 96.25 14846 HOOPS TRUCKING FR8GHTS 47.20 14847 JOHNSON BROS. LIQUOR CO. WINE 2,182.67 14848 MARK VII SALES BEERlMISC 3,855.15 14849 MN DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFElY 1995 BUYERS CARD 20.00 14850 NORTH STAR ICE ICE 99.12 14851 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS CO. WINE 335.96 14852 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO. L1QUORIWINE 1,969.93 14853 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO. BEERlMISC 4,791.45 14855 FIRST STATE BANK FED/FICA TAX 6,131.66 14856 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE STATE TAX WITHHELD 1,028.95 . 14857 PERA EMP & CITY SHARE PERA 1,817.43 14858 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457 DEFERREDCOMP 671.57 14859 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 432.00 14860 GRAHN, SUZANNE MILEAGE 18.89 14861 NMB, THERESA HEALTH CARE REIMB. 329.00 14862 NIELSEN, BRADLEY DEP CARE REIMB. 100.00 14863 NORTHER STATES POWER UTILITIES 1,012.09 14864 PAZANDAK, JOSEPH FILM/MILEAGE 108.05 14865 TOTAL REGISTER SUPPLJES 109.50 14866 BELLBOY CORP LIQUOR/SUPPLIES 1,720.27 14867 GTE DISTRIBUTING ADVERllSING 71.95 14868 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO L1QUORIWINE/MISC 3,806.43 14869 HOOPS TRUCKING DELIVERY CHARGE 123.20 14870 JOHNSON BRCS LIQUOR CO L1QUORIWINE 1,556.07 14871 MN CROWN DISTRIBUTING INC WINE 89.57 14872 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS LIQUOR 112.01 Page 1 CKNO 14873 14874 14875 14876 14877 14878 14879 14880 14881 14882 14883 14884 14885 14886 ..........., ;I..':~.;.~'''--~.'''~,~_.'''''''''-''-#~.'~: CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR NOVEMBER 29, 1994 COUNCIL MEETING CHECKS ISSUED SINCE NOVEMBER 4, 1994 TO WHOM ISSUED QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO US WEST COMMUNICATIONS THE VICTORIA GAZETTE MINGER CONSTRUCTION COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE CELLULAR TELEPHONE CO. NORTHERN STATES POWER BELLBOY CORPORATION GRIGGS, COOPER & CO. JOHNSON BROS. LIQUOR CO. MINNEGASCO PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS CO. QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO. VAL-PAK PURRlSE WINE COMMUNICATIONS ADVERTISING NR MT LOCAL DRAINAGE MAINT OCT. LIQUOR SALES TAX CELLULAR AIR TIME UTILITIES UQUOR L1QUORiWINE L1QUORiWINE UTILITIES L1QUORiWINE WINE ADVERTISING TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED Page 2 AMOUNT 328.74 48.93 45.00 15,907.00 5,054.00 11.06 1,521.39 1,374.00 4,009.67 3,780.70 47.00 1 ,241 .45 354.14 450.00 . $83,094.88 . CITY OF SHOREWOOD CK AI~I~RO~L(;j_ j_iS.l'IN(~ f:OR NOV 29. 1994 COUNCIL MTG CHEC:f<'j;! Vi::: f"'J, D I:) F;: (..J, (f (1 I:: Di:: SC:I~ I PT I O(J, 14887 EARL F. ANDERSEN. INC. M(~J j'j T :31...1:):)1...11::::3 1482;8 ASSOC. OF METRO HUNIC MEET I (J,G 148;:3') C.H CARPENTER LUMBER SUPPI._ I E:3 14:390 Eh: I CI<'SO(J,. h:OLF j'- ,'\ C. ~i.. r:~~3 ~3 E~ 3sel F<;~ i::~ E E ~3 *** ASSI::SSOR SUPPLIES FOR ERICKSON, ROLF E.. () ,. rOT (fl._ 14891 EXPERT ASPHALT PMT. ~ 1 - PROJ.. 94-9 14892 FINASERVE, INC. \IEH I CLE F:: UE: 1._ . .14393 GO~::)}-~ER S-l"ATC ONE....(:AlL~ TN UTILITY LOCATION UT I I... I TY' LOC(jT I O(J. *** TOTAL FOR GOPHER STATE ONE-CAL 14894 HANCE HARDWARE. INC. i3LDG SUPPL I ES 14~395 J"IAR"l" FClRMS & SYSTEMS 1...1 C:,~F:DS LJ ../ i3 C: ;:>; F~~ [) ~~; :~;~~;( l"O-TAL_ l.'.l..)t.~ }..Ir;p-r J::~(JRM3 & SYS-TE~MS 14:396 LIFE AND SAFETY FIRST AID SUPPLIES 14897 M C I TELECOMMUNICATIONS LONG DISTANCE 14898 METRO WASTE CONTROL COMM. DEC TREATME:NT CHARGE . 148<;iS~ i'1IDI;.)E:3T (~SPH(:~LT C:ORP.. (f:::)PH(~L,T 14900 MUNITECH, INC. DEC MAINT DEC ('1(1 I (J,T *** TOTAL FOR MUNITECH, INC. 14901 NAVARRE TRUE VALUE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES ~3UPPLIES SUPPLIES *** TOTAL FOR NAVARRE TRUE VALUE 14902 PEPSI COLA COMPANY POP MACHINE RENTAL 14903 SO LK MTKA PUB SAFETY DEP UL~ PAYMENT 14904 TIME SAVER OFF SITE SEC r1 I r",J,UTE~3 14905 TOLL COMPANY I/,JELD I (J,G ~:)t.!PPL I E~:) 14906 TONKA PRINTING CO. ~'3 iJ F) ::J L~ :r i:: :3 14907 TWIN CITY WATER TESTING i;,) ;~~t T E:: F~~ "r E:: ~:) T I i-') (~ O(:(:)T .. (1r10U(j r l~) ('1 F~~ }<. :3 8, () " .1 ,~~.I (1Dr"iI r'J. 2 .~:l .. () f) Fi (\ t:~~ }<, :3 8( ?0..2,:J Pf'.(OF PF<~Oi:~ ~'3 E= F? 3 ~ 4 <~. ~:.I '. ():'::l :3 I::: F~: 17~::. .. 96 3 , t.\:2 ,~l .. ().1 ,12, '721.. 1. :-:' CITY' Cl(~h' 4~U. .. 90 i/')(fTCF' DE ::::::E I,h) I::: F.: DE 27 ..l~; 27" 1~: ~[l-l ~ :2 _~:l r'1Ui"~ qL.DC ~'52 ~ '::}} i;.i(jT[F<~ IJC ~~; E~ V.J E: F~~ () E: .1 ~~:~ I::;. ,. 1'7 3 '7 ~2 ,~ ~~, (~. ~-::15:3... ,:::;.J. Fi (~i F'i~ ~<, S I~X. <1.8 .. ,~-:;,) j"i I..J i'~ i3 L. D C 14" 1 c:j SEWCR DE 34,570.91 ~::; 'r F~ E E: 'r ~3 .1'::1';) ,. "79 WATER DE 3,720.00 SCWER DE 2.480.00 6,200..00 PARKS & 8~95 CITY GAR 7..96 MUN BLDG 3.71 I~ARKS & 16..~?-7 .,:3)r.. ,:;,'j 11 Uf"J. [3 L. D G 11. :::':5 POL.ICE P 34.040.82 PLAf...J,N I f",J,C 13;:;... 7:. C:IT'{ G(~F' ,- "-. ",' '. ..:"',',; ClE(,! G(!\/T ~.34..l. 1/'!(fTCF.: DC ,2(j " ;,~. '. ,.,.,.,..._'-'.. ..h-.-;-;':- :,' ;,', .,_, _~_..;._. ,..~,,-.1"_'___ _.....,.,._S.__~..~ CITY OF SHORE WOOD CK {~Pl:)R()VAI_ LIS'T:IN(~~ r:~(JR NOV 29, 1994 COUNCIL MfG CHECKW VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNT .----.----.- _.._.._.._._._.._.._.._......_._._...__..._.._'._~_._.......-..-.-..... .._._.._...~-_._.._..._......_..-_._..__._._........_.---".._--".- .-.-.-.-...-.-..-.... ,-,---'---'-"-'-"-'- 14908 WARNING LITES OF MN. INC. WARNING LIGHTS 2_L<:i. A 15 14909 WITT FINANCIAL INVESTMENf SERVICES F I (](if..!CC (,0. .4.L (c(c(( TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL <):) ~~ () .~::j ,) ,. ;::):2 :lc{(:~' TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST 176,154.70 . . Page 4 C H E C K I~ E: G I S T E R CHECK CHECK EMPLOYEE NAi1E CHECK CHECK TYPE Df'HE NUMBER NUMBER AMO'LJNT COM 1.1. 1.5 94 62 DEE M. ALLAR 208828 82.45 COt1 1.1. 1.5 94 82 LENORA F. BACHE 208829 78.78 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 1.72 EDWIN B. BOL Tl1AN 208830 43.63 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 21.5 EUGENE L. BRISTOL 208831. 36.37 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 225 JOEL L. CAPES IUS 208832 48.48 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 230 CHRISTOPHER M. CAREY 208833 31.6.02 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 500 CHARLES S. DAVIS 208834 736.37 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 775 JAMES C. EAKINS 208835 446.96 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 790 BARBARA A. EVANS 208836 46.07 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 800 Df~N I EL H. FEENEY 208837 1.20.72 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 835 GAIL M. FINNEY 208838 56.98 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 850 JASON A. FISCHBACH 208839 45.23 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 865 PADY FLAHERTY-REGNIER 208840 53.33 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 902 KATHY FRADETTE 208841. 43.63 . COM 1.1. 1.5 94 1.1.1.5 AMY L GRAHN 208842 59.79 Mi-IN 1.1. 1.5 94 1.1.50 SUZ{~NNE M. GRAHN 208890 359.81. COM 1.1. 1.5 94 1.1.90 KATHLEEN A. HEBERT 208844 336.07 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 1.400 PATRICI(~ R. HELGESEN 208845 788.85 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 1.440 JANICE C. HENKE 208846 8.49 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 1.450 JOANNE C. HERMANN 208847 1.1.0.82 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 1.482 ELVERA HOOPS 208848 80.00 COM 1..1 1.5 94 1.550 JAMES C. HURM 208849 1.51.2.66 MAN 1.1. 1.5 94 1.700 JEFFREY A. JENSEN 208889 651..02 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 1.800 DEi'.jN I S D. JOHNSON 208851. 770.25 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 1.81.2 KAY JOHNSON 208852 94.20 COM 11. 1.5 94 1.822 LINDA JOHNSON 208853 99.73 Cot1 1.1. 1.5 94 1.950 MARTIN L. JONES 208854 46..54 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 21.00 WILLIAM F. JOSEPHSOi'j 208855 631...55 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 221.2 MARY BETH KNOPIK 2088.56 87.27 COt1 1.1. 1.5 94 2302 IRENE KRONHOLM 208857 80.00 COM 1.1. 1..5 94 2402 CARLA LABORE 208858 99.73 . COt! 1.1. 1.5 94 2420 DOROTHY r1. LANG 208859 39.99 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 2500 SUSAN M. LATTERNER 208860 1.48.08 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 2800 JOSEPH P. LUGOIpJSKI 208861. 791..94 COM 1.1. 15 94 2850 JILL D. MAJESTIC 208862 50.91. COM 1.1 15 94 2900 RUSSELL R. MARRON 208863 62.59 COM 1.1 15 94 2932 JUDY MCCUSKEY 208864 94.20 COM 11 15 94 2935 MARK E. MCDAVITT 208865 65.46 COM 1.1 15 94 2965 MARY LOU MEYER 208866 84.85 COM 11. 15 94 2970 KAREN V. MIESEN 208867 89.70 COM 1.1 15 94 3000 THERESA L. NAAB 208868 638.33 COM 11 15 94 31.00 LAI,yRENCE A. NICCUM 208869 870.75 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 3400 BRADLEY J. NIELSEN 208870 1.030.31 COM 11 15 94 3410 BARBARA R. OBERMEYER 208871 67.87 COM 11. 15 94 3500 JOSEPH E. PAZANDAK 208872 1.065.72 COM 11. 1.5 94 3542 NANCY PETERSON 208873 112.21 COM 1.1 1.5 94 3545 NOR11A O. PETERSON 208874 84.85 COM 11 15 94 3600 DANIEL J. RANDALL 208875 832.94 COM 1.1 1.5 94 3632 MARY L. REUTIMAN 208876 108.22 COt1 11. 15 94 3701 BRIAN M. ROERICK 208877 48.36 ." '- COM 11 1.5 94 3800 ALAN J. ROLEK 208878 1.137.55 COM 1.1 15 94 3900 CHRISTOPHER E. SCHMID 208879 .00 COM 1.1. 1.5 94 391.0 R CONRAD SCHMID 208880 5.54 COM 1.J. 1.5 94 4012 MARY M. SCHMITT 208881 82.43 Page 5 C H E C K R ,- G I ro. T ,... R Co ..:.> Co CHECK CHECK Er1PLOYEE NAME CHECK CHECK TYPE DATE NUMBEH NUMBER AMOUNT COM .1.1 .15 94 4552 NANCY STRAUSS 208882 58 _.18 - COi-1 .1.1 .15 94 4600 BE'lERL Y J. VON -FELDT 208883 6.18.78 COM .1.1 .15 94 4750 RALPH A. WEHLE 208884 598.47 COM .1.1 .15 94 4770 MARY E. WEINGART 208885 36.37 COM .1.1 .15 94 4900 DEAN H. YOUNG 208886 656.23 COM .1.1 .15 94 5000 DONALD E. ZDRAZIL 208887 .1.187.93 COM .1.1 .15 94 5.100 ANDREW D. ZUM8ACH 208888 46.07 **;e<*TOT ALS**** .18686.63 Page 6 . . ~..-. I"- -..... MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Kristi Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331.8927 · (612) 474-3236 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 1995 PROPOSED BUDGETS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1995 - 1999 November 29, 1994 A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Kristi Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 November 29, 1994 Honorable Mayor, City Councilmembers, Residents of the City of Shorewood: Presented for your review is the 1995 Proposed Budgets and Capital Improvement Program for 1995 - 1999. This document, upon adoption by the City Council, becomes the guide for the delivery of services to be provided to the residents of the city in the coming year. The budgets anticipate the level of funding necessary for the City to provide these services. The budget for the coming year was prepared in consideration of many variables. Changes in financial aid formulas from the state, new legislation, growth in the tax base of the City, types and quality of services provided by the City, continuation and revision of the Capital Improvements Program, among other factors, were carefully considered, while conforming to the City Council's statement of Purpose, Goals and Expectations. It continues to be our purpose to provide a value in municipal services to our residents to assure compliance with community laws and standards, and to keep residents informed of these services, laws and standards. Our goal is to do this in such an efficient, friendly manner that residents feel good about being citizens of the Shorewqod community. This budget is proposed as a guide to fulfilling our purpose and reaching our goal. The City is continuing its efforts in capital improvements through the revision of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP continues to provide the planning which is essential in meeting the city's goals for improvements in its infrastructure and equipment A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore .. Page 2 over the next five years, and provides a sound financial plan for aChieving those goals. The proposed 1995 General Fund expenditures are decreased from the 1994 adopted budget by .87%. This is mainly due to a decrease in transfers from the General Fund for capital projects. Increases in expenditures for 1995 are due mainly to fire protection and public works functions. The property tax levy for the coming year will remain the same as in 1994 and 1993. This is the third year out of the last four years that there is no increase in tax levy dollars. Growth in the Ci ty , s tax base over the last year translates to a City tax rate which is 7.29% lower than in 1994 and, therefore, to lower City taxes to our residents. It is anticipated that construction permit revenue will increase in 1995, and that other revenue sources will remain fairly flat for the year. The effect of City property taxes on homestead properties with market values of $100,000, $150,000, $200,000 and $250,000 home are as follows: City Property Tax Increase/ Market Value 1995 1994 (Decrease) $100,000 236 254 (7.09%) $150,000 421 452 (6.85%) $200,000 605 650 (6.92%) $250,000 790 848 (6.84%) The Sewer Fund budget will also decrease in 1995 by 15.~. The amount charged to the City by the Metro Council Wastewater Services for sewage treatment charges, which lead to large increases in 1993 and 1994, is down for 1995. This, in turn, has lead to a decrease in the City's sewer operating budget. Maintenance of the sewer system and equipment, a sewer cleaning program and correction of infiltration and inflow (I & I) are included in the 1995 budget. The Water Fund presents a balanced budget for 1995. Some capital improvements are planned for the Badger well building and main extensions. A water system analysis is also budgeted for 1995. The levy for the Water Revenue Bond issue is decreased slightly in 1995 in response to a decrease in the bond paYment schedule. This bond issue is scheduled to be fully retired in 1996. The Recycling Fund budget is slightly higher in 1995. Although the Page 3 rate charged by the recycling company will decrease from $1.90 to $1.85 per household per month, the number of households served in this program' has increased. Because the amount of revenue. the City receives through the Hennepin County Recycling Grant program will decrease from $1. 75 to $.78 per household per month, there will be a significant gap in funding for this program. This will be financed through the use of fund reserves in 1995. The City will be exploring funding alternatives for this program for the coming years. The stormwater Management Fund budget is increased significantly from 1994. The intent of this fund is to collect sufficient revenue through utility fees on each parcel in the city to maintain our current system and to make system improvements in the coming years. Approximately one-half of proceeds will be devoted to each purpose. A storm drainage project for the Glen Road area is planned in 1996, and the easement acquisition for this project is scheduled in 1995. The increased 1995 budget is intended for this purpose. In approving these budgets, the City Council is being responsive to the needs of the residents of the City, both now and into the future. We,. therefore, recommend the adoption of the 1995 Budgets, the Capital Improvement Program for 1995-1999, and the 1994/95 Property Tax Levy. spectfully submitted, ~~0l1 ames C. Hurm City Administrator/Clerk Rolek Director/Treasurer CITY OF SHOREWOOD .. 1995 PROPOSED BUDGETS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1995 - 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary of Proposed 1995 General Fund Budget Preparation Calendar for 1995 Budget PAGE 1 2-3 Organizational Chart 4 SECTION I. SUMMARY BUDGETS General Fund Revenues Proposed Revenues Chart 5 Summary of Proposed 1995 Revenues Expenditures 6-7 Proposed Expenditures Chart 8 Summary of Adopted 1995 Expenditures 9 Departmental Budgets 51 - Mayor and Council 10-11 52 - Administrator 12-13 53 - General Government 54 - Finance 55 - Professional Services 56 - Planning and Zoning 57 - Municipal Building - City Hall 58 - Police 59 - Fire Protection 60 - Protective Inspection 61 - City Engineer 62 - Public Works Service 63 - Streets and Roadways 14-15 16-17 18-19 20-21 22-23 24-25 26-27 28-29 30-31 32-33 34-35 Departmental Budgets (cont.) 64 - Snow and Ice Removal 65 - Traffic Control/Street Lighting 67 - Sanitation/Waste Removal/Weeds 68 - Tree Maintenance 69 - Parks and Recreation 70 - Capital Improvement 71 - Contingency PAGE 36-37 38-39 40-41 42-43 44-45 46-47 48-49 Water Fund Proposed 1995 Revenues and Expenses 50-51 Sewer Fund Proposed 1995 Revenues and Expenses 52-53 Recyclinq Fund Proposed 1995 Revenues and Expenses 54-55 Stormwater Manaqement Fund Proposed 1995 Revenues and Expenses 56-57 SECTION II. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1995 - 1999 I CITY OF SHOREWOOD SUMMARY OF PROPOSED 1995 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX LICENCES AND PERMITS INTERGOVERNMENTAL FINES AND FORFEITURES CHARGES FOR SERVICE TRANSFERS AND MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL BUDGETED REVENUES MAYOR AND COUNCIL ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES FINANCE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PLANNING AND ZONING MUNICIPAL BUILDING (CITY HALL) POLICE FIRE PROTECTION PROTECTIVE INSPECTION CITY ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL OUTLAY STREETS AND ROADWAYS STREET IMPROVEMENTS SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL TRAFFIC CONTROL/STREET LIGHTING SANITATION/WASTE REMOVAL/WEEDS TREE MAINTENANCE PARKS AND RECREATION/BEACHES CAPITAL OUTLAY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT CONTINGENCY TOTAL BUDGETED EXPENDITURES REVENUE SUMMARY ADOPTED BUDGET 1994 1,491,888 146,500 439,015 75,000 18,000 271,921 ------------ 2,442,324 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY ADOPTED BUDGET 1994 51,231 95,084 90,694 92,782 107,660 92,967 168,150 430,041 109,584 91,740 70,000 166,885 95,500 160,128 230,000 38,510 32,500 4,609 26,907 114,102 51,250 97,000 25,000 2,442,324 -1- PROPOSED BUDGET , 1995 CHANGE 1,491,888 169,900 440,720 84,000 32,000 172,477 ------------ 2,390,985 0.00 15.97 0.39 12.00 77 .78 (36.57) ---------- (2.10) PROPOSED BUDGET , 1995 CHANGE 52,879 93,183 87,918 96,140 112,500 93,929 88,400 448,889 123,513 95,705 77,937 182,656 99,225 162,129 250,000 38,830 35,200 4,614 19,723 124,681 41,250 15,000 46,684 ------------ 2,390,985 3.22 (2.00) (3.06) 3.62 4.50 1.03 (47.43) 4.38 12.71 4.32 11.34 9.45 3.90 1.25 8.70 0.83 8.31 0.11 (26.70) 9.27 (19.51) (84.54) 86.74 (2.10) JUNE 24, 1994 JUNE 24 - JULY 22, 1994 JULY 22 - AUGUST 5, 1994 AUGUST 1, 1994 AUGUST 5 - AUGUST 18, 1994 AUGUST 18, 1994 AUGUST 20, 1994 AUGUST 29, 1994 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 1995 BUDGET PREPARATION CALENDAR Budget worksheets distributed to Department Heads and Administrator Departmental budgets are prepared Departmental budgets are reviewed with Administrator and Finance Director Dept. of Revenue advises City of 1995 Local Government Aid and HACA amounts Departmental budgets are revised and budget is assembled for Council workshop(s) Council receives proposed 1995 budget County informs city of county and school board(s) public hearing dates Workshop with Council to review proposed 1995 budget SEPTEMBER 12, 1994 City Council approves preliminary 1995 Tax Levy and Budget and sets two public hearing dates SEPTEMBER 15, 1994 Preliminary 1995 Tax Levy and Budget certified to County Auditor SEPTEMBER 15 - NOVEMBER 29, 1994 ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 10, 1994 TWO TO SIX DAYS BEFORE PUBLIC HEARING DATE NOVEMBER 29, 1994 Inform County of public hearing dates Council reviews and revises proposed budget County mails notice of proposed property tax increase to all property owners City publishes 1/8 page ad of public hearing dates in official newspaper Council holds first public hearing on proposed 1995 Budget and Tax Levy -2- CITY OF SHOREWOOD 1995 BUDGET PREPARATION CALENDAR (CONT.) DECEMBER 19, 1994 ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 28, 1994 ON OR BEFORE MARCH 19, 1995 Council holds second public hearing and adopts final 1995 Budget and Tax Levy City certifies final 1995 Tax Levy and Budget to County Auditor City certifies compliance with Truth in Taxation requirements to Dept. of Revenue 1995 Budget is submitted to GFOA Distinquished Budget Presentation Awards Program -3- o o o $ w cc o :I: U) LI- o > .... - CJ .... 0:: cd: :I: CJ ...J cd: 2 o - .... cd: N - 2 cd: CJ CC o I (/J 0: UJ t- O > L _1 - r-(J) 2 o (J)U; C(J) 0::- e::(2 02 CCo (.) ~ I IZ W o ~ ~zot$5: ~Q~:::::= ~en~en O~(I)<:: C,.) ~ ::J .... ~Ow Oz 0 :r: C,.) - C,.) a: > Z 00:: Z:::::=-w <::a:Zen ~<::w 0. 0. en I I ~ - 0::1 0 ~ I-- 1 . e::( ...J - c:: (.) I-- 2 C/'J ~ - 0 - 2 ,- - U ~ > C I-- cd: - (.) > .. I-- - I. - (.) I I / I / 1 - I > w 2 c:: 0 I-- I-- e::( > I-- - [(.)J - _01 > 1-- w.... u..u od:od: CJ)a: u.... I::J 2 ccO ::)u 0.- ,---- u~ ::JC2 cco ~~ ~~ 22 -- _22 20 od:N ~~ ,-- 2 o i= od: a: I- CJ) - 2 - 2 o od: . . W U 2 -od: 2 u: ,- ~- ~~ a:od: Wa: WI- 22 ~O 2U W_ -a: 0 ::) d 4 L::J - - '- \I:l \I:l Q) c:: _ "1:l .... ~ Q),":: 0 -0 *lJl ~ C::.S: .2 ;:: Cl ~ ~ .;: Q) Cii.2 2: ~ "1:l Qi c:: 0 lJl .- U -..... Q) Q) c:: > .;:: U \I:l u'> ':~ClJU~~~_~ o;t~ Q)';::CJ~oc.g~c 'cn-oVj\l:l= '~Q)Q;c::l'C -('QQ,)..o '-_.._.: Q) - - > ~ Q) '-.- c:: U ~ c: l'C.~ c:: c.. _.. ,u.. _ ~ =O'Oc..O-;-,~ . . CL.-" I . c: o > lJl Ol .- _ "1:l c:Olu_.._.. .- c: Q) Q) 0 C:._ Co Co g C:C:IIlOc:: l!!oc:a: '7 ~ I I \I:l ... E u ~ III c: l'C ~ - C:O-.. _. E 0 .- Ol c: III c: .;::'C;jeOl 0 Ci Ci ~ E c.. .s S2. I ~ > =oC:C::...>o o ..Q-oC:CJOL.....c.. C.:JOl\l:l ~c:.;::l!!l'CIIlr- - .S c:: ~ c.. ~ ~ c.. ;: ~ ..:!1 .S ~ 1Il.2 ..._=...~ c: 1Il..Q 0 Q)C:-Ol'C..QCJ_..ollll'C, C:Q)CJUOl~Q)l'CU<(U Q) CJ..:!1 Q) Q)c..c::a.._, . <.:l~lf'f-f . . , . . E Q) ... \I:l III > \I:l c enC) _~ c Q)~~.~ Q) .;:: Q) E .;:: ~ l'C C:c:_E IIlQ)Co~ C:~O~Ol~OlE~ o 0 ... Q) .S Ul "1:l 0 ~ III CJ >>= Ul ~ua.. CiCJl'Cc::Cii~co I 0..<(0.. I I . I I I . I CJ > en- OlE c: Ol .;::~ Q)- Q) CJ c: Q) '5'0' c:: ... wa.. I . JL <l) ca:: en l'C . - - Q) -c:: 9 --; N O"l m .J.... ~":: 0- <( - - "1:l ... l'C o ..Q Ol c: 'c -.. Q) > o Ol - c:: Q. c: o Q) > co c Q) III Q) ... Co Q) ... III '> ... u en ... o > l'C :2 J . ~ Om w 0::) O~ $~ Wo et::~ w Og :r:~ (j)1t') 0\ LL~ 08 m >-~ ~~ Ua.. ....... ~ ~ N to -- ~ ~ W ll. o ~ a.. u ....... (I') ~ ~ It')....... ~ ..;~ --tIl m (l')T""" ~ w__ ....... I.L.. Z(I') T""" ~ l- . + G:C) r--. . J: -- DO U Vl T""" -- w !::: oJ u ~ ~ ~ ~ w z W ll. L&J m ~ ~ (I') Z Z 0:: W W > U 0 ::::i C) 0:: L&J I- Z -5- I BUDGET COMMENTS: GENERAL FUND REVENUES ~ TAXES: The City taxes its residents to finance the general operating fund to provide for basic governmental services LICENSE/PERMIT FEES: Rental Housing License Fees Liquor licenses Otner Business Lic. - Fees for licenses & permits to business establishments State Surcharge Collections Building Perm~ts - based upon valuation of structure Dog Licenses Other Non-business - Misc. Permit or Lic. Fees HOMESTEAD AND AGRICULTURE CREDIT AID (HACA)- A State credit which reduces the tax levy FISCAL DISPARITIES - Received with taxes above. In 1971, the legislature enacted this law to allow municipalities to share in metropolitan commercial/industrial growth. A percentage of commercial/industrial taxes are pooled and distriouted to communities with little or no commercial/industrial tax base. MSA ROAD AID (Became eligible for this aid as of 1/1/90) Aid provided to cities over 5000 pop. to maintain des~gnated MSA roads GENERAL GOVERNMENT The City provides services to the public for which a charge is collected such as assessment services, map sales, planning fees, etc. ENGINEERING - Fees charged to other City funds and developers for engineering services RECREATION - fees charged to Freeman Park Foundation for park maintenance ($10,000) and Crescent Beach charges ($500) FINES & FORFEITS - Fines imposed for traffic & ordinance violations MISC. REVENUES - Revenue from a variety of sources such as interest income, special assessment searches, pop sales, etc. LIQUOR STORE TRANSFER - Profits from liquor operations BUDGETED RESERVES - 1994 funds re-allocated for 1995 budget purposes -6- I SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED REVENUES 1995 GENERAL FUND BUDGET REVENUES: Actual 1992 Actual 1993 Budget 1994 Jan-Oct 1994 Annual EST-94 Proposed 1995 Adopted 1995 TAXES: General property 1,494,073 1,438,675 1,491,888 Fiscal Disparit~es 82,085 76,958 Special Levy 700,318 1,413,364 1,4S1,888 39,262 78,524 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Taxes 1,576,158 1,515,633 1,491,888 739,580 1,491,888 1,491,888 o LICENSE\PERMIT FEES: Rental Housing 2,100 3,000 1,470 1,500 Surchar<]e Rebate Alcohol~c Beverage 8,200 8,201 8,200 8,200 8,200 8,200 Others-Business 2,900 1,950 1,500 385 1,500 2,000 State Surchar<]e 7,967 11,085 6,500 9,634 10,500 7,500 Building Perm~ts 153,082 221,963 125,000 189,419 210,000 150,000 Well Permits Dog Licenses 2,834 1,714 2,200 1,200 1,800 1,700 otfiers-Misc. 140 545 100 2,200 2,300 500 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 175,123 247,558 146,500 212,508 235,800 169,900 0 INTER-GOVERNMENTAL REVENUES FEDERAL AIDS CDBG Grant STATE AIDS 2,025 Local Gov't Aid HACA 264,934 412,352 425,265 212,633 425,265 426,970 Misc. 5, 000 MSA Road Aid 13,755 13,750 13,750 13,750 13,750 13,750 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 283,689 426,102 439,015 226,383 439,015 440,720 0 COUNTY/METRO AIDS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total o o o o o o o CHARGES FOR SERVICE General Government 9,301 4,868 7,500 11,641 13,000 6,500 Engineering 15,000 Recreation 508 329 10,500 6,000 10,500 10,500 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 9,809 5,197 18,000 17,641 23,500 32,000 0 FINES & FORFEITS 89,960 70,135 75,000 55,853 75,000 84,000 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 89,960 70,135 75,000 55,853 75,000 84,000 0 MISC REVENUES 137,640 125,287 172 , 800 141,717 170,000 92,500 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 137,640 125,287 172 , 800 141,717 170,000 92,500 0 TRANSFERS From Other Funds From Liquor Stores 35,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 50,000 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 35,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 50,000 0 BUDGETED RESERVES 59,121 29,977 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 0 0 59,121 0 0 29,977 0 ============================================================================================= TOTAL REVENUES 2,307,379 2,429,912 2,442,324 1,435,707 2,475,203 2,390,985 o -7- ..-... ..-... ~ ~ a q~ ~ t'.IlO - - - . ~ ~ >-e ..... u:i (.)0.. LL t'.I t5~ - < "-' ,,- ~ rn ~ z...J t'.I U . ~~ 10 ::J ~ z- "-' III 00.. :::l " u< w a.. u 0:: 0 rn G: 0:: w w 0:: :I: 0 :::l t- t- O 0 Ci $ z - w ~ a.. DO W X . w DO 0::: ..... 0 "-' 0 w w ti u J: C-' :J 0 0 if) :::l D.. III LL 10 0'1 0 0'1 ..... 0 >- w rn I- 0 - a.. U 0 0:: a.. ..... - ..... t'.I ~ "-' - N a.. rn .0 ~ ~ - - 0:: - rn ...J 0 ..-... ~ ~ 3: ~ 10 ~ ..... c:i 0:: a: ~ <( u ..... a.. (5 :::i - - III a.. rn ~ :::l :::l t- o:: D... 0 U ~ w w ~ ...J 0 ~ 0:: a.. a.. ti (j w 0:: t- rn -8- I CITY OF SHOREWOOD SUMMARY OF DISBURSEMENTS 1995 PROPOSED BUDGET GENERAL FUND FUND # 10 Ado~ted Proposed Dept # Bu ~et Bud~et Department 1 94 1 95 ------- ------------------ ------------ ------------ 51 Mayor and Council 51,231 52,879 52 Administration 95,084 93,183 53 General Government Services 90,694 87,918 54 Finance 92,782 96,140 55 Professional Services 107,660 112,500 56 Planning & zoniny 92,967 93,929 57 Municipal Bldg. City Hall ) 168,150 86,400 58 Police 430,041 448,889 59 Fire 109,584 123,513 60 Protective Inspection 91,740 95,705 61 City Engineer 70,000 77,937 62 Pub ic Works Service 166,885 182,656 63 Capital Outlay 95,500 99,225 Streets & Roadways 160,128 162,129 street Im~rovements 230,000 250,000 64 Snow & Ice emoval 38,510 38,830 65 Traffic Control/Street Li~hting 32,500 35,200 67 Sanitation/Waste Removal/ eeds 4,609 4,614 68 Tree Maintenance 26,907 19,723 69 Parks & Recreation/Beaches 114,102 124,681 70 ca~ital Outlay 51,250 41,250 Capi al Improvement 97,000 15,000 71 Contingency 25,000 46,684 ------------ ------------ Total General Fund Expenditures 2,442,324 2,390,985 -9- I FUND: DEPARTMENT: DEPT NO: DEPARTMENT MISSION: General Mayor and Council 51 The Mayor and City Council set policy for the City and provide general direction to the Administrator in policy implementation. The department budget supports council development, information efforts and special City associations and programs (ie: LMCD) OBJECTIVES: - Televise all City Council meetings - Inform citizens through quarterly city newsletters - Identify and address zoning issues for specific sites for senior housing projects - Meet with Cooperative Services Study Task Force semi-annually - Undertake a meaningful goal setting session during the first 60 days of 1995 - As part of comprehensive plan update, undertake a city visioning process HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: staffing: City Council Salaries in 1995: Mayor - $250/moi Council- $200/mo Supplies/Materials: Awards and misc. supplies support Services: Christmas Lake Milfoil Inspections (2) City Service Satisfaction Survey Comprehensive Plan Visioning Conferences and Seminars A~preciation Dinner for City Volunteers/Staff c~ty Newsletters (4) Charges & Fees: Lake Mtka Consv. Dist. (LMCD) Assn of Metro Municipal~ties League of MN Cities Misc. Subscriptions West Henn. Human Services Henn. Co. Fair Fireworks MN Mayors Association Board & Administrator Magazine 1,500 1,000 ~OOO 1,000 1,900 5,500 16,195 1,820 3,640 200 1,350 50 1,000 10 200 -10- I FUND: #10 .BUDGET ITEM DEPARTMENT: Mayor and Council DEPT # 51 Actual 1992 Actual 1993 Budget 1994 Jan-Oct 1994 Annual Proposed Adopted Est-94 1995 1995 staffing 10,628 13,621 13,714 11,273 13,528 13,714 Supplies/Materials 422 841 500 1,184 1,500 500 Support Services 12,590 11,606 10,700 5,535 10,800 14,200 Charges & Fees 24,447 20,697 25,717 16,332 18,700 24,465 Capital Outlay 600 600 Transfers TOTAL ======================================================================================= 46,765 51,231 48,687 34,324 44,528 52,879 o SERVICE INDICATORS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 0 1 0 0 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 25 24 20 24 4 9 5 12 140 138 Conferences & Schools Attended Newsletters Published No. of Council Mtgs. No. of Workshops Agenda Items Ordinances & Resolutions Adopted % Satisfied with Televising Council Mtgs. 87% 94% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COST INDICATORS: Expenditures Program Revenues Levy Dollars Other Dollars 48,687 51,231 34,324 44,528 52,879 o 46,765 48,687 34,324 44,528 52,879 o 46,765 51,231 STAFFING: ------------~-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part time: Mayor Councilmembers 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 -11- I FUND: DEPARTMENT: DEPT NO: General Administration DEPARTMENT MISSION: 52 To implement policy established by the 4 City Council; offer staff sup~rt to the City Council in it policy mak~ng role; and manage day-to-day operations of the City in a manner consistent with established City values to effectively and efficiently meet set goals & objectives ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OBJECTIVES: - Complete annual citizens satisfaction survey . - Update comparable worth pay plan - Take a leadership role in intergovernmental cooperative efforts .in the Lake Minnetonka area - Review City objectives in July, October and at the end of the year - Develop a complete orientation program - Develop an organizational team building program HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: staffing: Includes step increases Supplies/Materials: Maintenance contracts on computer & office equipment Miscellaneous books & supplies Support Services: Labor Relations Associates Contract Conference, mileage, meetings & seminars Charges & Fees: Memberships to ICMA, MCMA, MAMA & MPELRA -12- I FUND: #10 DEPARTMENT: Administration DEPT # 52 ...BUDGET ITEM Actual 1992 Actual 1993 Budget 1995 Jan-Oct 1994 Annual Proposed Adopted Est-94 1995 1995 Staffing 81,724 83,788 85,984 69,494 85,984 84,083 Supplies/Materials 762 960 800 311 450 800 Support Services 5,059 8,118 7,750 5,363 6,750 7,750 Charges & Fees 687 614 550 211 620 550 Capital Outlay 1,496 Transfers ======================================================================================= TOTAL 89,728 93,480 95,084 75,379 93,804 93,183 o --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SERVICE INDICATORS: Council Meetings Council Agenda Items Park Commission Meetin 25 24 20 18 23 12 Park Comm. Agenda Items Staff Meetings --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COST INDICATORS: Expenditures 89,728 93,480 95,084 75,379 93,804 93,183 o Program Revenues Levy Dollars 89,728 93,480 95,084 75,379 93,804 93,183 o Other Dollars --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAFFING: Full Time: Admistrator/Clk Exec Sec/Dep Clk Secretary/Recept 1 .50 .25 1 .50 .25 1 .50 1 .33 1 .33 1 .33 -13- I FUND: DEPARTMENT: DEPT NO: General General Government DEPARTMENT MISSION: 53 Provide staff support for the City Counc~l including preparation of agendas and - meeting packets. Responsible for City Clerk functions including elections, record retention, notices and licenses. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OBJECTIVES: - Update City Code in-house on a semi-annual basis - Implement system software to its fullest capacity and identify necessary training, including input of minutes for easier retrieval/~ndexing - Continue to improve public relations by providing responses in a timely manner - Improve City newsletter quality; research lower printing cost options - Develop orientation package for new commission members and staff - Update existing personnel relationship policy handbook - Maintain or improve on helpfulness rating for office personnel (87%) HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Staffing: Includes step increases Part time includes permanent part-time employee and summer office staff Election judges excluded for 1995 Supplies/Materials: Office supplies Maintenance contracts for computers and office machines Support Services: Microfilming/retention of permanent documents Conference, mileage and Seminars Publication of legal notices for all General Fund Depts Updates to city code Council Record~ng Secretary Charges & Fees: Memberships to IIMC, MCFOA & Municipals Capital Outlay: -14- I FUND: #10 DEPARTMENT: General Government Services DEPT # 53 .BUDGET ITEM Actual 1992 Actual 1993 Budget 1994 Jan-Oct 1994 Annual Proposed Adopted Est-94 1995 1995 staffing 63,948 62,417 65,669 48,632 63,079 61,293 Supplies/Materials 12,020 11,610 13,750 8,277 11,400 13,750 Support Services 6,091 10,298 11,050 6,798 9,548 12,650 Charges & Fees 1,492 235 225 210 210 225 capital Outlay Transfers ======================================================================================= TOTAL 83,551 84,560 90,694 63,917 84,237 87,918 o --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SERVICE INDICATORS: No. of Elections held 3 3 2 0 2 0 No. of Ordinances 13 21 15 11 18 15 No. of Resolutions 127 117 130 69 120 120 Dog licenses issued 450 343 450 321 450 350 Other licenses issued 15 15 20 19 20 20 Council Agendas 25 25 24 21 24 24 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COST INDICATORS: Expenditures 83,551 84,560 90,694 63,917 84,237 87,918 Program Revenues Licenses 14,074 15,410 12,000 9,529 12,000 12,400 Sale of copies 713 798 500 744 800 1,000 Levy Dollars 68,764 68,352 78,194 53,644 71,437 74,518 Other Dollars o o --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAFFING: Full time: Exec Sec/Dep Clk Secretary/Recept Assistant Clerk 1 .75 .50 1 .75 .50 .50 .70 .66 .75 .66 .75 .66 .70 Part time: Clerical summer/seasonal Election Judges 1 1 1 1 40 1 1 40 1 1 40 1 1 -15- I FUND: General DEPARTMENT MISSION: To administer financial policies of th~ DEPARTMENT: Finance City; perform accounting functions for. all fund types; invest available funds in DEPT NO: 54 accordance with state statutes; oversee City insurance policies; and provide for timely reporting of financial matters to City Council, staff and the public. ------~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OBJECTIVES: - Prepare annual budget document and submit to GFOA Distinguished Budget Award Program - Prepare CAFR for submittal to GFOA Certificate of Excellence Program - Provide monthly reports to staff, quarterly reports to council, - Implement Capital Improvement Annual Budget format - Complete computerized database for General Fixed Asset records - Review debt issues and make recommendations on debt structure - Establish finanicial policies and procedures manual HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Staffing: Includes step increases Supplies/Materials: Computer supplies, checks & budget supplies Maintenance contracts for computer ana office equipment Miscellaneous supplies Support Services: Conferences, Mileage, Meetings & Seminars Publication of Financial Statements & Budgets Charges & Fees: Membershi~s to GFOA & MGFOA Subscript~on to GFOA periodicals Submittal fee - GFOA Certificate of Excellence Program Submittal fee - GFOA Distinguished Budget Award Program Bank & Broker service charges capital Outlay: Printer -16- I FUND: #10 DEPARTMENT:: Finance BUDGET I~EM Actual 1992 Budget 1994 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adopted 1995 Actual 1993 Jan-Oct 1994 Annual Proposed Est-94 1995 Staffing 72,320 74,109 82,232 63,902 77,167 84,540 Supplies/Materials 3,864 2,794 3,400 2681 3,840 3,450 Support Services 3,031 5,530 4,250 4,208 4,850 4,250 charges & Fees 1,820 529 2,900 569 860 2,900 Capital Outlay 1,000 Trclnsfers DEPT # 54 ============================================================================================= TOTAL 81,035 82,962 92,782 71,360 86,717 96,140 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SERVICE INDICATORS: No. Monthly Statements 12 12 12 No. Accounts Payable 2,213 Checks Issued 2,285 Utility Bills Sent 9,000 9,200 Total Budget 5,730,942 4,725,746 4,926,255 NO. of Payroll Checks Issued 1,168 1,073 No. of S~. Assess. Rolls aintained 16 16 1,773 7,050 777 10 12 12 2,300 2,300 9,400 9,600 4,698,830 977 1,000 COST INDICATORS: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Expenditures 81,035 92,782 82,962 Program Revenues Interest Earnings Sp. Assess. Searches Levy Dollars 86,206 86,374 65,000 2,000 27,782 (5,171) (3,412) Other Dollars 71,360 30,006 225 41,354 18 86,717 96,140 o o -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAFFING: Full time: Finance Dir Sr Acctg Clerk 1 .60 1 .70 1 .70 -17- 1 .60 80,000 500 6,717 75,000 500 21,140 1 .60 1 .60 I FUND: DEPARTMENT: DEPT NO: DEPARTMENT MISSION: General Professional Services 55 Provide contracted ~rofessional servicea to the City, includ~ng general legal, ' prosecution, financial audit and property assessment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OBJECTIVES: Contain costs on contracted professional services - Attempt to utilize mediation services to avoid litigation - Improve on helpfulness rating for assessor (74%) HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Supplies/Materials: Supplies for City Assessor Support Services: Includes general legal fees and prosecutions, mediation services, assessing contract and annual audit services -18- I FUND: #10 DEPARTMENT: Professional Services DEPT # 55 . BUDGET ITEM Actual 1992 Actual 1993 Budget 1994 Jan-Oct 1994 Annual Proposed Adopted Est-94 1995 1995 Staffing Supplies/Materials Support Services Charges & Fees Capital Outlay Transfers 589 836 500 828 1,000 500 99,010 115,360 107,160 116,463 143,281 112,000 ======================================================================================= TOTAL 99,599 116,196 107,660 117,291 144,281 112,500 o --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SERVICE INDICATORS: No. of parcels 2,716 2,716 2,780 2,818 2,818 2,850 No. of cases filed No. of litigations 5 5 2 3 3 3 No. of City Funds 23 23 25 27 28 30 Court Hours Parcels Reinspected --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COST INDICATORS: Expenditures 99,599 116,196 107,660 117,291 144,281 112,500 , Program Revenues Fines 28,431 28,431 18,000 9,000 18,000 19,000 Levy Dollars 71,168 87,765 89,660 108,291 126,281 93,500 Other Dollars o o --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAFFING: -19- I FUND: DEPARTMENT: DEPT NO: General Planning & Zoning 56 DEPARTMENT MISSION: ~ Guide and control the physical development of the community. Coordinate and implement long range city-wide and area planning act4vities. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OBJECTIVES: - Hold public meetings on draft Comprehensive Plan and adopt - Update City Subdivision Code - Establish an action plan to implement Comprehensive Plan - Begin work on a short-term implementation plan - Complete the automation of property records - Undertake a Housing Plan Update HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Staffing: Includes step increases Supplies/Materials: Maintenance contracts for computer & office equipment, and cellular phone Miscellaneous supplies Support Services: Recording secretary for Planning Commission Meetings Air time for cellu ar phone Conferences, mileage, meetings & seminars Printing of Compo Plan map updates Charges & Fees: Membershi~s to APA, MN APA, Sensible Land Use Coalition Subscript40ns to APA Journal & Zoning News -20- I FUND: #10 DEPARTMENT: Planning & Zoning DEPT # 56 ~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- , BUDGET ITEM Actual 1992 Actual 1993 Budget 1994 Jan-Oct 1994 Annual Proposed Adopted Est-94 1995 1995 Staffing 79,828 86,769 84,267 69,015 83,250 85,329 Supplies/Materials 2,229 2,124 2,000 807 1,400 1,600 Support Services 4,596 4,338 6,450 3,346 4,650 6,750 charges & Fees 261 246 250 216 250 250 capital Outlay Transfers ======================================================================================= TOTAL 86,914 93,477 92,967 73,384 89,550 93,929 o --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SERVICE INDICATORS: No. of zoning apps. 24 36 35 22 40 40 No. of zoning complnts 8 25 15 15 30 30 Planning Corom. Meeting 12 12 12 12 12 12 Planning Carom. Work Sessions 8 9 12 8 10 12 Council Agenda Items --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COST INDICATORS: Expenditures 86,914 93,477 92,967 73,384 89,550 93,929 0 Program Revenues Zoning Appl. Fees 6,324 5,307 5,000 12,250 13,000 5,000 Bld1. Permit Carryover 80,980 150,545 42,760 79,218 91,175 61,795 ( rom Proto Inspection) Levy Dollars (390) (62~375) 45,207 (18,084) (14,625) 27,134 0 Other Dollars --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAFFING: Full time: Planning Dir Planning Asst. .85 .5 .85 .5 .95 .7 .95 .7 .95 .7 .95 .7 .95 .7 -21- I ~ FUND: DEPARTMENT: DEPT NO: General DEPARTMENT MISSION: 1 Municipal Bldg - City Hall 57 Provide for the ~hysical operation of City Hall: ut~l~ties; maintenance of off~ce equipment and the buildin9 structure; and provide for the City s general liability, pro~erty, auto and worker's compensation ~nsurance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OBJECTIVES: - Improve City Hall landscaping - Dispose of outdated items in storage area - Clean City Hall Carpet HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Supplies/Materials: Maintenance contracts for copiers, telephones and office equipment Maintenance to city hall building City Hall supplies Support Services: Citr Hall janitorial & rug services Uti ities and phone service for City Hall - I new phone Insurance coverage for all city depts except enterprise line funds Charges & Fees: Rental of postage meter and pop machine Special Assessments on City owned property Capital Outlay: -22- I \ FUND: #10 DEPARTMENT: Municipal Building - City Hall DEPT # 57 ~ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'BUDGET ITEM Actual 1992 Actual 1993 Budget 1994 Jan-Oct 1994 Annual Proposed Adopted Est-94 1995 1995 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Staffing Supplies/Materials 6,581 7,317 8,050 4,527 5,800 7,750 Support Services 73,036 68,340 78,500 33,899 74,800 75,500 charges & Fees 1,932 5,459 5,500 4,797 4,900 5,150 Capital Outlay 6,693 3,277 76,100 73,015 76,233 Transfers ======================================================================================= TOTAL 88,242 84,393 168,150 116,238 161,733 88,400 o --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SERVICE INDICATORS: Number of copies 164,653 164,653 175,000 147,176 178,000 175,000 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COST INDICATORS: Expenditures 88,242 84,393 168,150 116,238 161,733 88,400 o Program Revenues Insurance rebate Levy Dollars 18,829 69,413 13,159 71,234 15,000 153,150 o 116,238 15,000 146,733 15,000 73,400 o Other Dollars --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAFFING: -23- I ~ FUND: DEPARTMENT: DEPT NO: General Police DEPARTMENT MISSION: ~- 58 To provide a modern, flexible, full-service criminal justice agency which is responsive to commun~ty needs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OBJECTIVES: Complete review of police funding formula - Maintain high helpfulness rating of police personnel (88% helpful to very helpful) - Maintain or improve on hi9h excellent rating on overall service (90%)( response t~e (92%), courteouseness/professionalism (89%), and crime prevent~on programs (88%) - Maintain or improve on "feeling of safety om my neighborhood" (satisfied to very satisf (satisfied to very satisfied - 86%) - Address discrepency in level of service requirements of the various cities HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Supplies/Materials: Service for civil defense sirens Support Services: Police services contract for 1995 Part-time Traffic Control S~cialist Prisoner expense, court off~cer expense, & booking fees Annual Police Auxilliary Dinner -24- I FU~I3: #10 DEPARTMENT: Police DEPT # 58 ~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ,BUDGET Actual Actual Budget Jan-Oct Annual Proposed Adgpted ITEM 1992 1993 1994 1994 Est-94 1995 1995 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Staffing Supplies/Materials Support Services Charges & Fees capital Outlay Transfers 430 500 74 100 500 389,182 400,704 429,541 383,627 426,541 448,389 ======================================================================================= TOTAL 389,612 400,704 430,041 383,701 426,641 448,889 o SERVICE INDICATORS: Initial complaint report 12,876 15,037 15,000 16,500 17,000 Clearance rate - ICR's 95.8% 96.1% 96.0% 96.0% 96.0% Part I crimes (serious) 304 353 300 300 300 Part II crimes (other) 599 623 700 650 700 Clearance rate (Parts 57% 57% 60% 57% 57% I & II) Statewide clearance rate 39% 41% 38% 38% 38% Citations issued * 6,015 4,682 4,600 4,000 4,000 Police vehicles 8 8 8 8 8 Shorewood demand 45.6% 44.5% 44.8% 44.5% 44.8% COST INDICATORS: Expenditures 389,612 400,704 430,041 383,701 426,641 448,889 Program Revenues Fines 72,769 52,135 57,000 25,001 57,000 65,000 Levy Dollars 316,843 348,569 373,041 358,700 369,641 383,889 Other Dollars o o --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAFFING: Chief 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lieutenant 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sergeant 2 2 2 2 2 2 Investigator * 2 2 2 2 2 2 Patrol fficer 7 7 7 7 7 7 Administrative Clerk 1 1 1 1 1 1 ClerkfTypist ** 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Part- ime Traffic Office 1 1 1 1 * 1 Juvenile Specialist ** 2 Part time @ .6 -25- I , DEPARTMENT MISSION: r FUND: DEPARTMENT: DEPT NO: General Fire Protection 59 Provide the highest possible quality of fire suppression, prevention and education services, and First Responder emergency medical services OBJECTIVES: - Maintain helpfulness rating of fire personnel (94% helpful to very helpful) - Maintain or improve on hi9h excellent/good rating on overall service (93%), response t~me (98%), courteousness/professionalism (98%) and inspection and fire prevention programs (82%) HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Support Services: Fire contracts with Mound ($6,443) & Excelsior ($117,070) , -26- I FUND': #10 DEPARTMENT: Fire Protection DEPT # 59 'BUDGET ITEM Actual 1992 , --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jan-Oct 1994 Actual 1993 Annual Proposed Adopted Est-94 1995 1995 Budget 1994 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- staffing Supplies/Materials Support Services charges & Fees Capital Outlay Transfers 95,398 101,542 109,584 109,747 109,747 123,513 TOTAL ======================================================================================= o 95,398 101,542 109,584 109,747 109,747 123,513 SERVICE INDICATORS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Excelsior Fire Dept. for Shorewood Fire calls Rescue calls Inspection hours Investigation hours other hours * 67 102 30 10 150 Cost of emergency response 86,927 Cost of ins~ction/ inves igation 8,471 Fire Loss 81 90 84 90 95 96 110 75 95 100 62 80 41 55 75 16 25 35 40 35 457 380 374 450 450 101,479 8,105 193,800 * includes plan review, paper work, complaint investigation, tank removals, burning permits, etc. COST INDICATORS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 95,398 101,542 109,584 109,747 109,747 123,513 o Expenditur~s Program Revenues 95,398 101,542 109,584 109,747 109,747 123,513 o Levy Dollars Other Dollars --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAFFING: Chief 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Asst. Chief 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 captain 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Lieutenants 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Fire Marshall 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Trainin~ Officer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Firefig ters 20 20 37 30 30 37 37 -27- I FUND: DEPARTMENT: DEPT NO: General Protective Inspection 60 DEPARTMENT MISSION: r Enforce construction safety and related building codes through plan review and inspections # ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OBJECTIVES: - Increase and enhance public information through the development of at least two additional handouts relative to building codes (Total of 4) - Draft an article for each City newsletter - Explore joint inspection possibilities with adjoining communities - Implement automated permit tracking system - Increase helpfulness ratings of building inspector (68% helpful to very helpful-1993) - Increase helpfulness ratings of animal control personnel (49% helpful to very helpful-l - Increase citizen excellent/good rating on overall service 174%) and courteousness/professional~sm (73%) of inspection staff - 993 - Increase City excellent/good rating on overall service of animal control personnel (33%) HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Staffing: Includes step increases Supplies/Materials: Maintenance contracts on computer and office equipment Miscellaneous supplies Support Services: Contractual inspections during vacations, sick leave Conferences, mileage( meetings & seminars Printing of applicat~on forms Animal control contract with City ofChanhassan Charges & Fees: Membership to lCBO Remittances to state of permit surcharges collected capital Outlay: Notebook Computer -28- I FUND: #10 DEPARTMENT: Protective Inspection DEPT # 60 .~~~~ET--------------------A~1~~~---A~1~~~--Bi~iit---J;~i~~i---~~~~~~-p;~~~i~--Ad~i~i~- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Staffing 56,605 56,232 64,365 45,319 55,700 65,755 Supplies/Materials 1,884 596 1,775 358 500 775 Support Services 13,049 17,014 18,500 10,266 16,563 19,075 Charges & Fees 8,531 10,761 6,500 8,815 10,500 7,100 capital Outlay 600 437 537 3,000 Transfers ======================================================================================= TOTAL 80,069 84,603 91,740 65,195 83,800 95,705 o --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SERVICE INDICATORS: No. of ~rmits issued New omes 55 102 75 47 90 75 Additions/other 496 593 500 311 600 500 Avg ins~ectionsjpermit 8-10 8-10 8-10 8-10 New omes 8-10 8-10 Additions/Other 2-4 2-4 2-4 2-4 2-4 2-4 No. of complaints 21 18 25 15 25 25 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COST INDICATORS: Expenditures 80,069 84,603 91,740 65,195 83,800 95,705 Program Revenues Building Permits 153,082 221,963 125,000 109,135 170,000 150,000 State Surcharges 7,967 11,085 6,500 5,658 8,000 7,500 Rental Housing License 0 2,100 3,000 1,260 1,500 0 Levy Dollars (80,980)(150,545) (42,760) (50,858) (95,700) (61,795) Other Dollars o o --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAFFING: Full time: Building Official Planning Dir Planning Asst secretaryjRecept 1 .15 .50 1 .05 .30 .10 1 .05 .30 .10 1 .05 .30 .10 1 .05 .30 .10 1 .05 .30 .10 -29- I FUND: DEPARTMENT: DEPT NO: General City Engineer 61 DEPARTMENT MISSION: '" Provide engineering and construction management services for the City. . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OBJECTIVES: - Complete an inventory of right-of-way needs on collector street system - Keep construction project files up-to-date and accurate - Communicate in written form to affected residents at least two (2) times during a construction project - Keep change orders at less than 5% of original contract amount - Complete a smooth transition to the City Engineer/Public Works Director position - Provide in-house engineering at or below 15% of project construction cost - Keep in-house design below 7% of project cost - Provide good public relations with property owners adjacent to construction projects HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Staffing: City Engineer for 1/2 year Part-time Clerical Supplies/Materials: Books and Materials Support Services: Contractual engineering for 1994 Additional phone line and cellular phone Conferences and mileage Charges & Fees: Subscriptions and Memberships Capital Outlay: Com~uter and software Off~ce furniture - Drafting Table, etc. -30- I , FUND: #10 BUDGET ITEM Staffing Supplies/Materials Support Services Charges & Fees Capital Outlay Transfers DEPARTMENT: City Engineer Actual 1992 68,813 Actual 1993 66,580 Budget 1994 70,000 Jan-Oct 1994 37,595 DEPT # 61 Annual Proposed Adopted Est-94 1995 1995 70,000 33,937 300 39,400 300 5,000 ======================================================================================= TOTAL 68,813 66,580 70,000 37,595 70,000 77,937 0 SERVICE INDICATORS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COST INDICATORS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Expenditures Program Revenues Park Cap. Imp. Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund MSA Public Projects Private Projects Levy Dollars Other Dollars 68,813 66,580 68,813 , 66,580 70,000 70,000 37,595 37,595 70,000 70,000 77,937 o 15,000 62,937 o --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAFFING: City Engineer -31- 1 I FUND: DEPARTMENT: DEPT NO: General Public Works Service DEPARTMENT MISSION: 62 Provide supervision and su~port . for all public works funct~onsi provides for public works util~ties, shop and equipment maintenance and fuels ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OBJECTIVES: Perform preventative maintenance on all equipment within 100 miles or 10 hours of scheduled service - Perform 90% of City building repairs and preventative maintenance using City personnel - Maintain or improve on helpfulness rating of Public Works personnel (92% helpful to very helpful) HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Staffing: Includes step increases Supplies/Materials: Includes motor fuel, maintenance of equipment and buildings, and inventory supply items Support Services: Uniforms for crew Utilities and telephone service for public works building Conference, mileage, meetings & seminars Miscellaneous - damage to private property (mailboxes, etc) Charges & Fees: Miscellaneous equipment rentals Membership to MN Street Superintendents Assn Capital Outlay: Transfers: Transfer to Equipment Replacement Fund -32- I FUND: #10 DEPARTMENT: Public Works Service DEPT # 62 -BUDGET ITEM Actual 1992 Actual 1993 Budget 1994 Jan-Oct 1994 Annual Proposed Adopted Est-94 1995 1995 Staffing 141,608 145,721 113,785 105,122 126,834 128,606 Supplies/Materials 29,124 29,251 34,000 26,006 31,100 35,000 Support Services 12,270 15,987 18,450 17,858 24,600 18,300 Charges & Fees 1,205 1,234 650 300 500 750 Capital Outlay 9,092 9,638 1,000 Transfers 90,000 94,500 94,500 94,500 99,225 ======================================================================================= TOTAL 193,299 291,831 262,385 243,786 277,534 281,881 0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SERVICE INDICATORS: No of Gopher One calls No of vehicle repairs 1,689 123 2,275 120 2,300 140 1,077 2,200 130 2,300 140 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COST INDICATORS: Expenditures 193,299 291,831 262,385 243,786 277,534 281,881 o Program Revenues Levy Dollars 193,299 291,831 262,385 243,786 277,534 281,881 o Other Dollars --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAFFING: Full time: Public Works Dir 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lt Equip Oper/Foreman 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 Part time: Clerical 1 1 1 1 -33- I FUND: DEPARTMENT: DEPT NO: General Streets & Roadways 63 DEPARTMENT MISSION: To maintain and upgrade City streetsr parking areas and storm water contro systems in an efficient and economical manner ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OBJECTIVES: - Develop a pavement management system to aid in scheduling of street projects - Paint lane markings on all designated streets - Sweep each City street at least once annually Mow roadsides at least twice annually - Mow boulevards at least 6 times annually - Visually inspect storm drainage - Increase satisfaction rating on streets in general 64%) - Maintain or improve satisfaction level on cleanliness of streets (81%) - Increase citizen excellent/good service rating on street maintenance (62%) grates annually and repair as needed condition of streets (my street 58%; HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: staffing: Includes step increases Supplies/Materials: Rock, gravel & bituminous for street & road repair Support Services: Operators and equipment for contracted street & road repair Safety training Contracted road striping Transfers: Transfer to Street Replacement Fund -34- I , FUND: #10 DEPARTMENT: Streets & Roadways DEPT # 63 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- , BUDGET ITEM Actual 1992 Actual 1993 Budget 1994 Jan-Oct 1994 Annual proP9sed Adopted Est-94 1995 1995 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- staffing 76,708 86,080 92,528 70,570 88,586 94,029 Supplies/Materials 60,198 30,822 30,000 25,257 30,000 30,000 Support Services 2,248 33,954 37,600 41,277 43,777 38,100 Charges & Fees Capital Outlay 24,005 Transfers 220,000 230,000 230,000 230,000 250,000 ======================================================================================= TOTAL 163,159 370,856 390,128 367,104 392,363 412,129 0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SERVICE INDICATORS: Miles of street State 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 County 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 City - MSA 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 City - Local 37.5 37.5 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 Miles Seal coated 0.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 Tons of patch material 1,120 1,068 1,500 245 1,200 1,300 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------~--- COST INDICATORS: Expenditures 163,159 370,856 390,128 367,104 392,363 412,129 Program Revenues MSA Maintenance 13,755 13,755 13,750 13,750 13,750 13,750 Budgeted Reserve 28,000 15,000 15,000 28,000 Levy Dollars 149,404 357,101 348,378 338,354 363,613 370,379 Other Dollars o o --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAFFING: Full time: Lt Equip oper/Foreman 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 -35- I t DEPARTMENT MISSION: FUND: DEPARTMENT: DEPT NO: General Snow & Ice Removal 64 Provide snow and ice control for public streets and city owned parking lots to ensure the safe and efficient movement of traffic OBJECTIVES: - Remove snow and ice and complete salt/sand operations within 14 hours after the end of a snow event - Complete widening and clean up functions within 48 hours of a snow event - Maintain high citizen excellent/good service rating on snow removal (91%) HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Staffing: Includes step increases Supplies/Materials: Sand and calcium chloride for ice control -36- I FUND: #10 DEPARTMENT: Snow & Ice Removal DEPT # 64 ~ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BUDGET ITEM Actual 1992 Actual 1993 Budget 1994 Jan-Oct 1994 Annual Proposed Adopted Est-94 1995 1995 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Staffing Supplies/Materials Support Services Charges & Fees Capital Outlay Transfers 12,971 12,882 16,214 11,366 24,510 14,000 12,837 8,754 24,509 14,000 24,830 14,000 ======================================================================================= TOTAL 25,853 27,580 3~,510 21,591 38,509 38,830 0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SERVICE INDICATORS: Miles of street plowed 41 41 41 41 41 41 Tons of salt used 199 222 200 173 197 200 Tons of sand used 1097 1017 800 715 788 800 Manhours spent 825 840 1,040 665 1,000 1,040 No of cul-de-sacs plow 80 80 82 82 82 84 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COST INDICATORS: Expenditures 25,853 27,580 38,510 21,591 38,509 38,830 o Program Revenues Levy Dollars 25,853 27,580 38,510 21,591 38,509 38,830 o other Dollars --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAFFING: Full time: Lt Equip Oper/Foreman .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 -37- I DEPARTMENT MISSION: FUND: DEPARTMENT: DEPT NO: General Traffic Control/St Lights 65 Provide for street lighting and traffic signals at intersections and other locations throughout the City for the safety of pedestrians and vehicular traff~c ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OBJECTIVES: - Perform a cost efficiency study of street lighting system HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Supplies/Materials: Maintenance to semaphores and Hwy 7 & Vine Hill Road, Christmas Lake Road, County Road 19, Hwy 41 and Old Market Road Street signs & posts Support Services: Electricity for semaphores and street lights -38- I , FUND: #10 DEPARTMENT: Traffic Control/Street Lighting --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPT # 65 . BUDGET ITEM Staffing Supplies/Materials Support Services charges & Fees Capital Outlay Transfers Actual 1992 3,505 23,916 Actual 1993 3,056 28,910 Budget 1994 4,000 28,500 Jan-Oct 1994 2,187 23,823 Annual Proposed Adopted EST-94 1995 1995 2,700 31,300 4,000 31,200 TOTAL ======================================================================================= 35,200 o 27,421 31,966 32,500 26,010 34,000 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SERVICE INDICATORS: No of street lights No of traffic signals 147 5 154 5 157 5 168 5 170 5 175 5 COST INDICATORS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Expenditures Program Revenues Levy Dollars Other Dollars 27,421 27,421 31,966 31,966 32,500 32,500 26,010 26,010 34,000 34,000 35,200 o 35,200 o STAFFING: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -39- I FUND: DEPARTMENT: DEPT NO: General Sanitation/Waste Rmv/Weeds 67 DEPARTMENT MISSION: Provide for the general sanitation ' and cleanliness of the City and provide for the treatment of noxious weeas on City properties. OBJECTIVES: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Resolve all property cleanup complaints - Resolve 100% of weed complaints HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Staffing: Miscellaneous staff time for property clean-ups Support Services: Miscellaneous property clean-ups Contracted weea spray~ng services -40- I FuND: #10 DEPARTMENT: Sanitation/Waste Removal/Weeds DEPT # 67 , BUDGET ITEM Actual 1992 Actual 1993 Budget 1994 Jan-Oct 1994 Annual Proposed Adopted Est-94 1995 1995 Staffing Supplies/Materials support Services Charges & Fees Capital OUtlay Transfers 2,886 485 609 547 633 614 3,175 2,507 4,000 2,450 3,000 4,000 10,000 ======================================================================================= TOTAL 6,061 12,992 4,609 2,997 3,633 4,614 o --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SERVICE INDICATORS: No of weed complaints 2 2 2 2 No of notices served 2 2 2 2 No of parcels sprayed 0 0 0 0 Miles/roadside sprayed 10 10 10 10 10 Spraying in Dollars 2,240 2,407 3,000 2,450 2,600 3,000 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COST INDICATORS: Expenditures 6,061 12,992 4,609 2,997 3,633 4,614 o Program Revenues Levy Dollars 6,061 12,992 4,609 2,997 3,633 4,614 o Other Dollars --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAFFING: -41- I FUND: General DEPARTMENT MISSION: To provide diseased tree inspection . DEPARTMENT: Tree Maintenance services to residents; to remove diseased trees located on City property; and to DEPT NO: 68 maintain and trim trees located on City rights-of-way and other property ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OBJECTIVES: - Remove 100% of diseased trees on public property - Respond to all property owner requests to identify diseased trees - Maintain and trim trees on City property which present a hazard to public HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Staffing: Includes step increases Supplies/Materials: Paint for tree marking Support Services: Contracted tree and brush removal Tree inspection certification -42- I FU~I): #10 . --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPT # 68 .BUDGET ITEM DEPARTMENT: Tree Maintenance Actual 1992 Actual 1993 Budget 1994 Jan-Oct 1994 Annual proposed Adopted Est-94 1995 1995 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Staffing 6,315 5,524 14,707 534 1,782 7,473 Supplies/Materials 90 100 100 100 Support Services 11,818 15,479 12,100 3,399 12,152 12,150 Charges & Fees Capital Outlay Transfers TOTAL ======================================================================================= 19,723 o 18,223 21,003 26,907 3,933 14,034 SERVICE INDICATORS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No of trees removed Yards of brush hauled 8 993 4 796 10 700 4 240 6 600 10 700 COST INDICATORS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Expenditures Program Revenues Levy Dollars Other Dollars 18,223 18,223 21,003 21,003 26,907 26,907 3,933 3,933 14,034 14,034 19,723 o 19,723 o --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAFFING: Lt Equip Oper/Foreman .4 .4 .4 -43- .2 .2 .2 I FUND: General DEPARTMENT MISSION: DEPARTMENT: Maintain City parks, trails & beaches tOI ensure safe ana enjorable recreational amenities, and coord~nate recreational opportunities for City residents of all ages and physical abilities ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Parks & Recreation DEPT NO: 69 OBJECTIVES: - Make playground equipment handicap accessable to people with disabilities through use of CDSG funding - Add and/or replace 5 picnic tables per year - Plant at least 10 trees per year Assist Shorewood Parks Foundation in coordination of fund raising efforts Assist Shorewood Parks Foundation in building a concession bldg. - Freeman Park North - Undertake park project management internally - Continue to develop user support for funding improvements and maintenance in parks Increase knowledge and use of Shorewood's parks - Increase satisfaction rating of condition (84%) and amount of recreation equipment in parks (75%) - Maintain satisfaction rating of park maintenance (91%) HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Staffing: Includes step increases Supplies/Materials: Small tools Maintenance Maintenance Rock, black contracts for computer and office equipment to park equipment and buildings dirt, gravel, sand, fertilizers, seed for parks Support Services: Contracted park planning services Playground and beach scheduling services - Mtka Community Services Contracted weed control in parks Park utility and telephone charges Annual park newsletter Charges & Fees: Rental of portable toilets Capital Outlay: 5 new picnic tables Transfers: Transfer to Park Capital Improvement Fund -44- I FUND: #10 , ' DEPARTMENT: Parks & Recreation/Beaches DEPT # 69 'BUDGET 'ITEM Actual 1992 Actual 1993 Budget 1994 Jan-Oct 1994 Annual Proposed Adopted Est-94 1995 1995 Staffing 64,610 75,092 71,652 69,550 82,509 82,231 Supplies/Materials 20,121 17,029 22,150 17,260 18,900 19,150 Support Services 21,652 17,666 15,800 16,644 25,950 18,500 Charges & Fees 3,693 6,433 4,500 4,926 6,000 4,800 Capital Outlay 6,099 3,251 1,250 974 1,250 1,250 Transfers 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 40,000 ======================================================================================= TOTAL 116,175 169,471 165,352 159,354 184,609 165,931 0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SERVICE INDICATORS: Acres of maint park 79.7 79.9 79.9 79.9 79.9 79.9 No. of ball fields Softball 3 3 3 3 3 3 Baseball 4 4 4 4 4 4 No. of shelters 3 3 3 3 3 3 No. of hockey rinks 2 2 2 2 2 2 No. of skating rinks 3 3 3 3 3 3 Miles of Trails 2.75 2.75 2.75 Cost of maint per acre 992 1,077 1,055 1,188 1,083 No. of times rinks are cleaned & resurfaced 80 80 80 80 80 80 No. of picnic tables 20 25 30 30 30 35 No. of Tennis Courts 4 4 4 4 4 4 ---~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COST INDICATORS: Expenditures 116,175 169,471 165,352 159,354 184,609 165,931 0 Program Revenues Shorewood Park Foundation 10,000 1,000 10,000 10,000 Tonka Bal - Beach 508 329 500 500 500 Liquor S ore Transfer 35,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 50,000 Levy Dollars 80,667 129,142 114,852 118,354 134,109 105,431 0 Other Dollars --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAFFING: Full time: Lt Equip Oper/Foreman 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Part time: Office Staff Summer Winter (rinks) 1 9 1 9 1 2 10 1 3 10 1 3 10 1 3 10 -45- I FUND: DEPARTMENT: DEPT NO: General capital Improvement 70 DEPARTMENT MISSION: To ~rovide a conduit for funding of " cap~tal improvement program through the transfer of dollars lev~ed througfi the City's General Fund ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OBJECTIVES: HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Transfers: Transfer to Capital Reserve Fund for future capital, improvements -46- I FUND: #10 - , 'BUDGET ITEM Staffing Supplies/Materials Support Services Charges & Fees capital Outlay Transfers DEPARTMENT: Capital Improvement Actual 1992 165,000 Actual 1993 10,000 Budget 1994 97,000 Jan-Oct 1994 97,000 DEPT # 70 Annual Proposed Adopted Est-94 1995 1995 97,000 15,000 TOTAL ======================================================================================= 15,000 o 165,000 10,000 97,000 97,000 97,000 SERVICE INDICATORS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COST INDICATORS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Expenditures Program Revenues Sale of House Levy Dollars Other Dollars 165,000 165,000 10,000 10,000 97,000 87,000 10,000 97,000 87,000 10,000 97,000 87,000 10,000 15,000 o 15,000 o STAFFING: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -47- I , " FUND: DEPARTMENT MISSION: General To provide for unanticipated increases F DEPARTMENT: Contingency in ~rogram costs and decreases in ant~cipated revenue; and to provide DEPT NO: 71 . a source of funds for ~rojects and purchases approved dur~ng the fiscal year by the City Council ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OBJECTIVES: HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Support Services: Council Contingency -48- I FUND: #10 ~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annual Proposed Adopted Est-94 1995 1995 BUDGET ITEM DEPARTMENT: Contingency Actual 1992 Actual 1993 Budget 1994 Jan-Oct 1994 DEPT # 71 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- staffing Supplies/Materials Support Services Charges & Fees Capital Outlay Transfers 8,636 25,000 46,684 TOTAL ======================================================================================= o o o SERVICE INDICATORS: Original budget Used during the year COST INDICATORS: Expenditures 8,636 50,000 8,636 50,000 Program Revenues Refunds & Reimbursemts Levy Dollars 50,000 Other Dollars STAFFING: 57,074 o 50,000 4,456 45,544 o 25,000 62,326 37,326 25,000 1,000 24,000 -49- 46,684 46,684 o 46,684 o 1,000 45,684 o I DEPARTMENT MISSION: FUND: DEPARTMENT: DEPT NO: Water Water 80 To provide a safe, clean, uninterrupted' sup~ly of drinking water to all City , res~dents connected to the City water system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OBJECTIVES: - Supply a safe, clean uninterrupted source of water to all connections - Study the feasibility of decommissioning Badger and Woodhaven wells. - Explore possibility of interconnecting with other communities - Maintain helpfulness rating of water utility personnel (94%) HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Revenues: Property taxes levied for revenue bonds increases due to addl. principal $4,150 Other revenues estimated based on 50 new homes Retained earnings budgeted for capital projects Expenses: Staffing: .25 Light Equipment Operator .10 Senior ~ccounting Clerk Supplies/Materials: Office Supplies, including billing forms and postage Maintenance contracts for computer hardware and software Chemicals for water treatment support Services: Engineerin9 - Water System Analysis Contract w~th Munitech for system maintenance Insurance on water system Water testing Water system analysis Charges & Fees: Sales Tax on commercial water sales State surcharge of $5.21/year on all connections Capital Outlay: Shady Hills Area Watermain Loop Badger Well Building Repair Other: Water Purchased from other communities Meter purchases Debt service payments Well utility charges -50- I FUND: #60 . DEPARTMENT: Water DEPT # 80 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . BUDGET , ITEM Actual 1992 Actual 1993 Budget 1994 Jan-Oct 1994 Annual Proposed Adopted Est-94 1995 1995 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REVENUE Property Tax 15,927 14,918 18,825 9,313 18,600 17,550 Charges for Service 218,359 192,798 192,100 214,281 268,800 213,950 ~~~~=:=~_~=~=~~=~____ 31,589 15,139 ---------------------================================================================== TOTAL REVENUE 234,286 207,716 242,514 223,594 287,400 246,639 0 EXPENSES Staffing 7,688 7,546 12,364 7,107 7,977 10,939 Supplies/Materials 71,317 95,948 17,200 26,621 29,000 22,200 support Services 60,281 52,706 67,425 52,108 62,358 74,300 Charges & Fees 1,695 4,956 5,200 5,392 6,650 6,650 Capital Outlay 68,000 20,000 58,500 Transfers Other 64,705 68,087 72,325 69,165 81,035 74,050 ======================================================================================= TOTAL EXPENSES 205,686 229,243 242,514 160,393 207,020 246,639 0 SERVICE INDICATORS: Miles of Water Line 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 No. of Connections 744 778 800 789 795 825 825 No. of Hydrants 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 Avg Daily Con sump- gal 234,000 299,600 300,000 310,000 310,000 Water rate/1000 gals 1.40 1.40 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COST INDICATORS: Expenditures 205,686 229,243 242,514 160,393 207,020 246,639 0 Program Revenues charges for Services 218,359 192,798 192,100 214,281 268,800 213,950 0 Levy Dollars 15,927 14,918 18,825 9,313 18,600 17,550 0 Other Dollars STAFFING: Sr. Acctg. Clerk Lt. Equip. Oper./Foreman 0.10 0.50 0.10 0.50 0.15 0.25 0.15 0.25 0.15 0.25 0.10 0.25 0.10 0.25 -51- I FUND: DEPARTMENT: DEPT NO: Sanitary Sewer Sanitary Sewer DEPARTMENT MISSION: To provide a safe, sanitary sewer service to all City residents 82 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OBJECTIVES: - Work with MWCC to correct inflow and infiltration into the sanitary sewer system - Work with MWCC to reduce sewage treatment costs to the City HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Revenues: Sewer service charges Interest revenue Other revenues estimated based on 50 new homes Expenses: Staffing: .25 Light Equipment Operator .10 Senior Accounting Clerk Supplies/Materials: Office Supplies, including billing forms and pqstage Maintenance contracts for computer hardware and software Support Services: Contract with Munitech for system maintenance Sewer Main Cleaning I & I Study Insurance on sewer system Le9al & engineering services Utl.lities Travel & seminars Charges & Fees: MWCC service access charges Charges for sewage flow l.nto Excelsior MWCC sewage treatment charges Trunks -52- I FU~O: #61 DEPARTMENT: Sanitary Sewer DEPT # 82 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BUDGET Actual Actual Budget Jan-Oct Annual Proposed Adopted 'ITEM 1992 1993 1994 1994 Est-94 1995 1995 REVENUE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Charges for Service EXPENSES Staffing Supplies/Materials Support Services Charges & Fees Capital Outlay Transfers 643,360 762,970 696,750 591,925 762,800 737,500 17,333 13,804 12,364 8,106 9,653 22,373 190,540 189,833 7,400 10,002 11,300 8,800 41,496 104,025 177,725 68,517 82,146 121,400 432,737 436,259 595,022 435,333 479,100 519,967 343 ======================================================================================= TOTAL EXPENSES 682,449 743,921 792,511 521,958 582,199,672,540 0 SERVICE INDICATORS: Miles of Sewer Line 54 54 54 54 54 54 No. of Connections 2,270 2,300 2,340 2,356 2,370 2,420 No. of Lift Stations 18 18 18 18 18 18 Sewer Charge 49.75 54.75 65.00 65.00 65.00 65.00 COST INDICATORS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Expenditures Program Revenues Charges for Services Levy Dollars Other Dollars 682,449 743,921 792,511 521,958 582,199 672,540 o 643,360 762,970 696,750 591,925 762,800 737,500 o --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAFFING: Sr. Acctg. Clerk Lt. Equip. Oper./Foreman 0.10 0.50 0.10 0.25 0.10 0.25 0.10 0.25 0.10 0.25 0.15 0.25 0.15 0.25 -53- I FUND: DEPARTMENT: DEPT NO: Recycling Recycling 84 DEPARTMENT MISSION: To provide weekly pickup of recyclables' to all city resiaents; provide for the annual pickup of household and yard wastes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OBJECTIVES: - Continue weekly pickup of recyclable materials Hold curbside pickup of household and yard wastes in the Spring of the year - Improve on excellent/good rating for recycling program (85%> - Provide a leaf and yard waste disposal site in Fall of the year HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Revenues: Hennepin County grant - $.78/household/month City Clean-up fees for Spring clean-up Expenses: Staffing: Miscellaneous staffing for City Clean-up and Yardwaste Disposal Supplies/Materials: Office Supplies Support Services: Recycling contract with E-Z Recycling - $1.8s/household/month City Clean-up costs -54- I FU~D: #62 DEPARTMENT: Recycling DEPT # 84 :~g~~ET--------------------A~~~~~---A~~~~~--Bi~iit---J;~i~~~---~~~~~-p;~;~ii~--Ad~~~i~- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REVENUE County Aid 56,896 60,714 51,100 32,200 51,100 22,000 Charges for Service 11,848 18,250 16,000 17,117 17,050 17,000 Transfers/other 12,033 11,195 500 1,016 1,100 1,000 ======================================================================================= TOTAL REVENUE 80,777 90,159 67,600 50,333 69,250 40,000 0 EXPENSES Staffing 546 1,483 1,222 673 927 956 Supplies/Materials 3,550 100 100 support Services 58,015 64,889 64,300 53,792 68,000 68,800 Charges & Fees 1,327 1,357 1,400 1,185 1,160 50 Capital Outlay Transfers ======================================================================================= TOTAL EXPENSES 63,438 67,729 67,022 55,650 70,087 69,906 o --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SERVICE INDICATORS: Avg. monthly participa Avg Monthly Collect. ( 4,900 54.78 6,000 50.00 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COST INDICATORS: Expenditures 63,438 67,729 67,022 55,650 70,087 69,906 o Program Revenues 80,777 90,159 67,600 50,333 69,250 40,000 o Levy Dollars Other Dollars --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAFFING: -55- I FUND: DEPARTMENT: DEPT NO: Stormwater Management Stormwater Management 85 DEPARTMENT MISSION: .... To provide proper surface water and ground water management throughout the city. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OBJECTIVES: HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Revenues: Stormwater Management Utility Charges Expenses: Staffing: Miscellaneous staffing for Administration & Public Works Supplies/Materials: Drainage Correction/Maintenance Materials Support Services: Capital Outlay: Easement Acquisition for Glen Road Drainage Project -56- I FUND: #63 DEPARTMENT: Stormwater Management Utility DEPT # 85 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BUDGE"T ITEM Actual 1992 Budget 1994 Annual Proposed Adopted Est-94 1995 1995 Actual 1993 Jan-Oct 1994 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REVENUE Charges for Service 41,217 40,000 28,513 40,000 40,000 Transfers/other 594 21,354 21,500 78,046 ======================================================================================= TOTAL REVENUE 0 41,811 40,000 49,867 61,500 118,046 0 EXPENSES Staffing 3,906 3,664 1,385 1,852 7,496 Supplies/Materials 16,336 Support Services Charges & Fees 16 3,065 19,550 22,550 Capital Outlay 20,000 88,000 Transfers 10,000 10,000 ======================================================================================= TOTAL EXPENSES o 3,922 40,000 14,450 31,402 118,046 o --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SERVICE INDICATORS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COST INDICATORS: Expenditures o 3,922 40,000 14,450 31,402 118,046 o Program Revenues o 41,811 40,000 49,867 61,500 118,046 o Levy Dollars Other Dollars --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STAFFING: -57- SECTION II CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1994 - 1998 Proposed CITY OF SHOREWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Consisting of a Capital Improvement Plan and a Finance Plan for the Years 1995-1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS I . INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 3 II. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN...... ........ .......4 A. Capital Improvement Plan Elements: Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-16 Stormwater Management. ..... ......... ... .17-19 Sani tary Sewer... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Public Facilities & Office Equipment.. ..21 Equ ipmen t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 24 Parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25-35 Unscheduled Potential Projects.. ... ... ..36 B. Project Schedules: 1995-1999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37-40 C. Capital Improvement Funding by Source. ..41 'III. CAPITAL FINANCE PLAN.... ....... ........ ..... .42 A. Funding Source Summary.... ............ ..43 B. Capital Improvement Budget........... ...44 IV. APPENDIX - Public Improvement Process..... ....45 I. INTRODUCTION This Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a coordinated schedule of municipal capital projects, improvements and purchases for the years 1995 through 1999. Furthermore, it is a Capital Improvement Finance Plan. It identifies sources of revenue to pay for the planned capital project improvements and purchases. There are two main parts which are integrated into this program document, the Capital Improvement Plan and the Finance Plan. The Capital Improvement Plan consists of several elements. The capital improvement narrative explains each capital expenditure by function. The capital improvement project schedule lists expenditures by year,over the five year period. The Funding Source Summary traces all expenditures and revenues in and out of each of the various funds, and tracks fund balances during each capital improvement fiscal year. The section enti tIed "Proj ects Not Assigned a Year" is a list of projects which have been identified but not developed enough or attained a high enough priority to be scheduled at this time. The final schedule in this section is a summary of expenditures by funding source. The Finance Plan section is a summary of general fund appropriations for capital projects and a summary of activity in the capital reserve fund over the five year period of the CIP. Also included in this section is a sample Capital Improvement Budget Resolution which would have to be passed separately for the first year of the program, 1995. It budgets capital purchases and projects for the year. The Capital Improvement Program is an important element of the comprehensive planning process. See Step 4: "plans, projects, programs" of the Comprehensive Planning Process Chart on Page 3. It is the bridge between policy planning and implementation. It is the direction the City will take over the next five years and beyond in undertaking and financing capital improvements consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. With this Capital Improvement Program the City Council is integrating the City's physical needs with financial resources. This document has been reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission; the Parks and Trails section by the Park Commission. The Comprehensive Plan is scheduled to be updated by the end of February, 1995, following neighborhood meetings and a public hearing. As a result of this exhaustive process it is likely this Capital Improvement Program document will be revised in the Spring of 1995 to make it consistent with the goals of the revised Comprehensive Plan. Page 1 It is important to recognize that needs, resources, and projections change over the years. Therefore, it needs to be a fluid program, with review and update each year, and in this case, more than once a year. ~ The CIP' s place in the City Council's work agenda is explained well in the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report: "The City Council recognizes that its work consists of more than responding to citizen requests and adopting an annual budget. The City Council's calendar consists of three phases. The first phase is Planning, which includes employee and systems evaluations, review of the previous years work plan, review of the City's Comprehensive Plan Executive Summary, review of the Statements of Purpose and Values, and identification and prioritization of issues for the next twelve and twenty-four months. The second phase is that of Programming. Each year the five- year Capital Improvement Program is reviewed and updated based upon priorities established in phase one. In addition, any changes to the Comprehensive Plan are made based upon the phase one decisions. The third phase is Budgeting. The Capital Improvement Budget is established as year one of the five-year Capital Improvement Program. This five-year Capital Improvement Program is a very important financial planning document as it projects the City's capital improvement needs and identifies financial resources to meet those needs. It clearly identifies areas where policies are lacking and where problems may arise in the future." Each project which is identified in this program must be approved by the City Council under normal processes. A typical proj ect public improvement process is shown as a separate appendix. Page 2 . . comprehensive pianning process ~ If ~Ia~~j~~~~~~j~~ 0J ~.::];~'::.:::n~: ~ If planning inventory I 11 physical. economic . social !w. ;} land \ transpot- \ community I' POPU-jl property I' marxet I l~~ ~~j~ use r tation I taciiities tation values potentialS I~~~ ~k""".."""""."1ir"""""""""""'".............,.,..............".."......,.............................,...,........................,....}; 0J W.... ..... ..~.t:;:;:;::.;...:.....:............................................................;.:.:.:.:..........................................-:.:....:.:.::.:. ~. ~ poiicy plan ~. ~~ inventory ooals and planning and ;.:.J develocment anaiysis Objectives poiicies plan ............... ............. .. .. - . - . y I::: '.. ...... .. . ... ^ . + prOjec-.s, programS 3 1 , II. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN < The first section of the Capital Improvement Plan explains proposed capital projects and expenditures by function: water, streets, drainage, sanitary sewer, public facilities, equipment, and parks. It consists of a project narrative, a project schedule, and a funding source summary which traces the affect of the scheduled projects on the various funds in the City. The second section is a series of charts which layout the project schedules for each year of the five year plan. Page 4 ~ WATER In recent years, the City has investigated the feasibility of a city-wide water system, and ways of making the existing system more efficient and economical. Future capital expenditures should concentrate on proper upgrades to the system, combined with orderly expansion where possible. This section completion of will need to the Comprehensive be Plan revisited following review process. 1995: Water System Analysis. An overall water system analysis was last performed in 1984 in conjunction with the Comprehensive Water Plan. This analysis was performed for the water system as a whole (ci ty-wide) to help guide future water extensions towards an overall system. It is now apparent that a complete water system is not imminent, and that near-future extensions of the existing systems must be carefully analyzed to prevent problems to existing users. This analysis should include field calibration of the model to ensure accuracy. ESTIMATED COST: $10,000 SOURCE: Water Fund Shady Hills Area Watermain Loop (Shady Hills Alley). In 1994 water use in the Shady Hills Areas was transferred from Minnetonka water to the Southeast system through the use of the 8" DIP placed in Waterford Fourth Addition. While this area is technically served from two directions, the Minnetonka connection is only an emergency backup, and is not automatic (gate valves need to be manually turned on). Therefore, another "loop" should be connected from the Shorewood system. Eventually, it is desirous to accomplish these loops through connections in both Vine Hill road and the so-called Shady Alley. However, the Vine Hill loop would ordinarily be placed when Vine Hill is reconstructed. Therefore, the Shady Alley loop should be placed in 1995 to accomplish a secondary water source until the Vine Hill Loop can be built. ESTIMATED COST: $8,500 SOURCE: Water Fund Page 5 ~ , Water Extension Policy: As a part of the Comprehensive Plan review and update the current water discussions held by the Council following page. review the City Council should extension policy. A summary of in 1992 is presented on the 1995-1999: Trunk Extensions. The City has had, and will continue to have, trunk extension needs. The connection of the Southeast area and the Amesbury System has been made shorter due to recent development, but a final route, potential easements, and actual connection still remain. This program provides a means of funding this connection and minor extensions. The City should set aside funds each year for this purpose. ESTIMATED COST (per year) : $25,000 SOURCE: Water Fund Page 6 r Follow-up thouaht to the work session notes Mondav. Mav 18, 1992 WATER SYSTEM OVERALL GOAL Allow maintenance of individual wells throughout as much of the City as possible while encouraging the interconnection of municipal systems and requiring new subdivisions within a water system area to connect to the municipal water system. Obiectives: · Provide for the interconnection of all municipal water systems. · Require all new developments to hookup to municipal water which are within a municipal water service area. . Provide all individual water systems with source of water including a water tower on side. a backup the west · Ini tiate a fund to finance the interconnection of systems and a water tower on the west end. Potential Fundina Sources: · Bond defeasance funds · A surcharge on west end system water bills · Any fund balance in a Public Works facility account · Proceeds from the balloon payment due from the sale of the house behind City Hall · Transfer from water fund cash balance · General or capital fund transfer · TIF districts associated with senior housing (option added later) Besides tower and interconnection expenses, balances in this water system improvement fund could be used to pay the City's share of projects to get water to new developments. Formula for paying for the cost of getting watermain to a new development: 20% charged to the developer to be paid up front; 20% City for oversizing and on assessable frontage 60% property owners along the assessment to be paid upon for $500 which would be availability charge Page 7 way in a form of deferred hookup to the system, except an up front fire hydrant '" '" STREETS The need for safe, well-maintained streets has been recognized as important by the City of Shorewood, as well as by the traveling public in general. Street maintenance functions have annually been budgeted in the general fund as follows: patching $30,000; and seal coating $35,000. In addition, funds have been set aside for street overlays ($80,000 per year) and reconstruction, which is growing to $170,000 in 1995. Public Works and Engineering believe that it may not be economically advisable to continue maintenance functions without reconstruction. Proper drainage and subgrade of a roadway are essential to long pavement life and are left uncorrected with a simple overlay. This section completion of will need to the Comprehensi ve be plan revisited following review process. The SDecial Assessment Question: In addressing the policy considerations identified in the 1992- 1996 CIP, specifically design standards and financing options, the City Council established and accepted the final report of a Street Reconstruction Financing Task Force in 1992. During 1993, the Council considered a special assessment ordinance consistent with the recommendations of the Task Force of assessing one-third the cost of a typical street, and similar to the program described in the 1993-1997 CIP. The Council determined that the proposed ordinance should not be adopted at this time. There was concern voiced for the actual benefit to property owners from improving collector streets, for the concept of a special assessment adding to the "tax burden", for truck traffic due to construction, and for the fact that many streets do not have water utility mains under them. The Council will continue to consider these issues. This 1995-1999 CIP continues to plan for street reconstruction without the added revenue source of special assessments. The taxing effort for street reconstruction is being accelerated by $20,000 per year, $170,000 in 1995 to $250,000 in 1999 in anticipation of greater street reconstruction needs. The annual overlay effort remains constant at $80,000. , Page 8 , Streets Defined: Shorewood has two very different kinds of streets: standard local streets and MSA/local collector streets. MSA stands for Municipal State Aid. In 1990 Shorewood became a part of the MSA system and therefore eligible for State funding fora portion of the major roadways in the City. Currently the amount budgeted is at about $220,000 per year. Appropriately, 25 percent is being utilized on program management, planning and easement acquisition for future MSA projects. There is a potential penalty for not using the funds on a timely basis. Construction funds from MSA may not be used for local utility improvements (i. e. water mains) or for asphalt bike trails. They can, however, be used for storm sewer (in the roadway) sidewalks (5' wide max.) and must utilize curb and gutter. Street planning should incorporate trail plans as adopted by the City Council (see Park and Trail section). Page 9 ~ MSA/LOCAL COLLECTORS Desian Policy: The current minimum width and current Shorewood standard for MSA streets is 26 feet. This width could be adjusted by the City Council (with State approval) if factors might call for a different width, such as the need for on-street bike lanes, need for on-street parking, high traffic counts or other safety considerations. Such changes should be made only after holding a public information meeting. Curb and gutter is required on MSA system streets. Reconstruction proiect Schedule: The current, average, estimated cost per mile of reconstruction to MSA standards is $712,800. The following project list is a blending of the City Engineer's needs analysis with available financial resources. During 1995 right-of-way acquisition and preliminary design work can be taking place. Foot- 1995 '1996 1997 age 1,500 Lake Linden $200,000 1,700 Yellowstone to $230,000 Country Club 2,300 Country Club $50,000 $300,000 4,200 Smithtown Road Country Club to Eureka Road 1998 1999 $540,000 TOTAL $50,000 $730,000 $0 $540,000 $0 Additional potential projects for the future are the remainder of Smithtown Road, Galpin Lake Road (which must yet be officially designated) and Covington Road. Because of the time and potential additional expense for obtaining right-of-way, clearing existing utilities, and gaining the required permits, each potential project will have to be approved on its own individual merit. Therefore, the above list is considered a goal over the next five years, with revision as necessary. Due to the complexity of reconstruction projects, a two-year timetable for each project from start to finish should be anticipated. At the end of this MSA section is a "MSA System" map (current and proposed) . Page 10 . Fundinq Source Summary: The following funding source summary illustrates where dollars will come from to fund the project schedule. MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET FUND 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Fund Balance, January 1 868,055 1,024,305 527,555 733,805 404,055 MSA Contributions 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 Transfer - Street Reconstr. 73,000 54,000 Transfer - Trails (46,000) (50,000) Projects/Expenditu res (50,000) (730,000) (540,000) Program Management (13,750) (13,750) (13,750) (13,750) (13,750) Fund Balance, December 31 1,024,305 527,555 733,805 404,055 610,305 The State of Minnesota allocates fund to cities over 5,000 in population to improve designated municipal state aid streets. The mileage of city streets designated as MSA streets is according to a ratio established by the State. Annual allocations for this purpose are made by the State according to a formula which considers a city's population and its need for funding for MSA streets. It is anticipated that the City's annual MSA allocation for the nest five years will be as shown above. Expenditures shown above are as listed in the Municipal State Aid section of the Streets and Highways schedule. Page 11 N \ . ). -.,., B s 1200 600 0 1200 I ., . SC~LE IN 2400 I FEET LEGEND * CITY PARK . CITY HALL * SCHOOL COUNTY HIGHWAY STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY CITY STREETS ... CITY BOUNDARY HCRRA TRAIL flqi"fi!' f ~! ~'l-C FALL 1994 Orr Sohelen Yayeron III Associates. Inc. '\ LOCAL STREETS Desiqn Policy: When the City determines that a street should be reconstructed (work beyond patching, seal coating, and overlay), it would be rebuilt to its current width. Current width could be adjusted by the City Council upon request of the property owners or by the Council following a public information meeting if traffic counts or safety considerations suggest a wider street is warranted. The City's Street Reconstruction Financing Task Force broke the local streets down into three categories: · Standard local · Substandard local · Other 24'+ 20-24' less than 20' There are potential safety and legal concerns in reconstructing a street today to less than a 20' width. This needs to be reconciled prior to reconstruction of any of our narrow streets. Shady Island Bridge. The 1994 annual bridge inspection revealed substantial bridge deterioration over the past year. Enough deterioration has occurred, in fact, that weight posting and repair were necessary in 1994. In addition, previous reports indicate that the useful life of the bridge will be running out within the next few years. Therefore, it will be necessary to begin the process of replacing the bridge, with the following steps: 1) Study the feasibility of the varying options available for bridge replacement, their costs, and funding options. Early 1995 - Estimated cost: $10,000. 2) Plan for project expenditures in 1997. 3) Establish an advisory group of island residents. Page 13 { , Reconstruction proiect Schedule: .~ Currently it is determined that the first projects can wait to be reconstructed until 1996. This will allow time for subdivision construction traffic, along Strawberry Lane for example, to subside before it is reconstructed. Some of the project funds in this schedule should be spent in 1995 for preliminary design work so projects can be ready to be bid in January or February of their scheduled construction year. Mile- 1995 1996 1997 "- 1998 1999 age .49 Strawberry $0 $297,000 Lane .16 Smithtown $97,000 Lane .16 Shorewood $97,000 Lane .06 Christmas $36,000 Lane .11 Dellwood $67,000 Lane .09 Mallard $55,000 Lane .17 Timber $103,000 Lane .11 Pleasant $67,000 Avenue .62 Excelsior $326,000 Blvd Shady $10,000 $0 $120,000 Island Bridqe TOTAL $10,000 $491,000 $381,000 $393,000 In addition to this list, sections of St. Alban's Bay Road may need striping or widening due to traffic increases which have resulted from closure of slip ramps on Highway 7. Murray Street may need reconstruction following subdivision construction in 1995. Additionally, the following streets have been identified as the next priority: Noble Road Wild Rose Garden Road Wiltsey (100% assessed - 770' 2,360' 540' 490' currently gravel) $100,000 236,000 75,000 70,000 Streets and conditions need to be re-evaluated each year so that more specific plans can be established. Only the first year of this plan is considered "authorized". Page 14 ' - , Fundinq Source Summary: The following funding source summary illustrates where dollars will come from to fund the project schedule. STREET RECONSTRUCTION FUND 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Fund Balance, January 1 611,200 781,768 408,224 232,392 3,990 General Fund Contribution 250,000 270,000 290,000 310,000 330,000 Tfr - 5% to Trail Fund (8,500) (9,500) (10,500) (11,500) (12,500) Overlay Projects (80,000) (80,000) (80,000) (80,000) (80,000) Projects/Expenditures (10,000) (491,000) (381,000) (393,000) MSA Project Funding (73,000) (54,000) Interest Income @ 5% 19,068 9,957 5,668 97 6,037 Fund Balance, December 31 781,768 408,224 232,392 3,990 247,527 The City budgets funds for the overlaying and reconstruction of local city streets. The Street Reconstruction Fund is established as a reservoir for these funds. Revenues are budgeted transfers from the General Fund and expenditures are as shown in the Streets and Highways schedule for local streets. Fund balances are allocated to future local street improvements. Page 15 , < 1995 Activities: r Although no reconstruction projects are scheduled during 1995, there will be significant activity undertaken in the street area. · Annual seal coating and patching programs will continue as funded through the general operating budget. · $80,000 is set aside each year for the on-going overlay program. · Investigate the Lake Linden/TH 41-TH 7 intersection and service road. Among the alternatives to be considered are: - Closing the Lake Linden access to TH 7; - Upgrading the frontage road; - Upgrading the TH 41/TH 7 intersection; and - A combination of these alternatives. At this point there are no cost estimates. · Preliminary design should be undertaken for proj ects scheduled in 1996 so that projects can be let in January or February. · Acquisition of right-of-way necessary to do future planned projects should be undertaken so the schedule can be adhered to. · Policy questions such as the use of special assessments for reconstruction projects should be finally determined. Page 16 . , STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The major goal of the first few years of this capital program will be the implementation of the projects that can now be funded with the Storm Water Utility Fund. These projects are, by definition, small in scope. No single project should be larger than $15,000, and it is anticipated that they will average about $3,000. Funding for the Glen Road and Grant-Lorenz drainage projects are still included in this schedule, but the public need or desire for these projects should be investigated before initiating them. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed district has expressed interest in completing the Glen Road project, and may be willing to participate in the cost. The two planned projects would require establishment of separate watershed taxing districts from which 70% of the proj ect cost would be collected through special assessments: Glen Road. This project consists of developing ponds two and three as delineated in the Glen Road drainage report prepared by the watershed. Also included are the interconnecting pipes and a rough estimate of the easement required. Grant-Lorenz. This project entails improvement to the drainageway north of Smithtown Road along Grant-Lorenz. Included are ditch cleaning, culvert replacement, and realignment ~n some areas. proiect Schedule: 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Glen Road: Easements $88,000 Construction $111,000 Grant-Lorenz: Easements $ 5,000 Construction $55,000 TOTAL $88,000 5116,000 $55,000 $0 $0 Page 17 ( , Fundinq Source Summary: J The following funding source summary illustrates where dollars will come from to fund the project schedule. STORM DRAINAGE 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Fund Balance, January 1 59,700 1,743 56,419 75,254 107,885 Utility Fee Revenues 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 General Fund Contrib 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Drainage District Revenue 139,300 42,000 Maintenance Expenditures (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) Project Expenditures (88,000) (116,000) (55,000) Interest Income @ 5% 43 1,376 1,835 2,631 3,447 Fund Balance, December 31 1,743 56,419 75,254 107,885 141,333 The Storm Drainage Fund is established to finance maintenance of the City's storm sewer system, and to fund future drainage projects. Revenues are derived from a utility charge to all properties within the City. The City anticipates that 50% of annual revenues will be used to maintain the system, and 50% will be available for drainage projects. Annual contributions from the General Fund and tax levies on special drainage districts will complete the funding requirements for drainage projects. The amounts shown for drainage projects are as listed on the Storm Drainage Schedule. The following page is a flow chart which explains funding for the Shorewood Stormwater Management Program. Page 18 Vi . , 0 ~ u @ ~'E '- ..... ~uo o~ CO 'C .c '*-....... ............... 02 ...... v COlJ)::1 r-..o.. C ...... ~ 0.'- <( v~~lJ) vO c.n" 00 Euco...... vc v .~ fr.g C.c .- oooc.n...... ~ vlJ)>< co... V) ~ v...~ C 0.. .- ......v co .......:: 0 0 ><.....c :'i:c.c" C t:s .- co ..... e c.n~.~ Vl V.-::: v 2 0 "'E~.c 5 u v V) ~ ~ '- ..... ...... v" ... ~ o~ co>vv ~ co " ,*-'0' 3:ec~ ~ ~ Vc 0... E 0.<:: ~ -0.. f5 C ~. ,,::1 "'Ec 0 ._ l.I.. 0-0 Q..) ~~ U) U ~ \3 - <tl ~ ~... t:s 11 E ......v .- .- c 1::: ~ Uv a <tl 0 .~ ..... e -C::l ~ Vl 13 0 Q.. ::::: u '$ Q.) '- ..... V) <tl o~ ~ gp e -C::l <tl...... c:: ,*-'0' .~ C ::St) 0... '- -'t::: .~ No.. ::s E ~V) ~ ~ \3 \3 '- <tl C\3 ~ -s ~ 0\3 ... V) '..., \3<tl ~ 0 n:s <tl S ~"P5 ~ ~ b t:s~ " -C::l~ ~ ~ 0 -a '0 ~~ ~ 0 0 8 6 E ~~. @ N C/5 C t:st:s .~ ~ 0 .cs S '\j '- u ...... ~ c:: E ...... ... E~ t) ::s ~C -C::l t).- c~ :s :s :ss ~ vv... vv V) V)'$ .8 ......Eco .......- :e C V) 0 '- .~ ~v::s ~... .0 8 "\::S<tl c.n 00 CI (/)0.. ~c C/) v co......... ...v .:::: \3 ~cl.() vu ~ C .>( .g scol': ......c ::s ~ s.~ ~ COco ~ .........:'i:~ 3:c - -~ a " ... II E~ '..., ~ t:st) S '-. <tl o~v <u u.~ ~ Ocov ... "'C I C ~e n:s 0.- .0 3:3:l.I.. v ......CO <tl >- c.n:'i: '- t:J Cl)Q.. ~ E.q " u (0 0"'- 0 @@ ~ 0'- 0 .c......5 0 c.nc.n 6 a <"'l ~ ~ . . "\::j Q.) Q.) be .. CI) f2 t:;Q..> ~ . ...... \..) Q.)~ '\::i~ ~'\::i t:;~ CI)"\::j ~a ~~ ~V) , ~ SANJ:TARY SEWER SYSTEM The operation and maintenance of the sanitary sewer is a City responsibili ty necessary to protect the public health. The existing system covers nearly all property within the city limits and includes varying sizes and types of gravity sewer along with 18 lift stations to transport sewage where gravity flow is not possible. The system can be divided into roughly two categories, the older, original portions constructed by the City in the early 1970's and the newer portions constructed as a part of (relatively) recent development. As the older portions of the system are nearing 20 years old, recent expenditures have focused on the maintenance and cleaning of the older gravity lines combined with the rehabilitation of lift stations (which is now completed). Maintenance has consisted of flushing, televising and sealing to prevent the inflow and infiltration (III) of clear (ground and rain) water into the system. In 1994 a Comprehensive City-wide clear water inflow and infiltration inspection program was completed. Rehabilitation of the lift stations consisting primarily of conversion to modern systems and the replacement of worn parts was completed in 1994. Inflow and Infiltration (III) Control: III reduction is desirable from both an economic and environmental standpoint. Reducing the amount of clear water in the sanitary system should reduce the charges levied by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) and reduce the operating time of the lift stations. Data from the MWCC and lift station run times will be analyzed yearly to determine what, if any, benefit is being realized by the City. The economic worth of the environmental issues involved is necessarily a matter of council policy. Sanitary Sewer System Extensions: The existing trunk sewer system is adequate to serve the anticipated development over the next five years. Any local extensions are anticipated to be paid for either through development or assessment at the time of petition. Page 20 . , PUBL:IC FAC:IL:IT:IES AND OFF:ICE EQU:IPMENT Plans must be finalized on the disposition of the old buildings at Badger Park. A new shelter may need to be built to house the Badger well. This should be investigated in 1995. Park Commission and Planning Commission have identified a parcel of land on Academy Avenue which could be sold with the proceeds going to park improvements. The City would receive only a prorated share of sale proceeds. Current plans call for the City to contribute $311,000 to the South Shore Senior/Community Center project. This could be funded through Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority bonding (1995). The Council has concluded that an increasing amount of funds should be set aside each year so that timely upgrades to computer systems can be made. Because these funds are "set-aside" rather than "expended" each year, the set aside is shown on the General Fund Capital Appropriations Chart of the Capital Finance Plan section of this document. The balance is shown as "designated" for office equipment on the Capital Reserve Fund Chart. $ 25,000 Badaer Well Buildina (1995) (Water Fund) $311,000 South Shore Senior/Communitv Center (1995) 1r Page 21 I .. EQUIPMENT The Equipment Replacement Schedule, as laid out on the next page, identifies the year that each piece of equipment is likely to need replacement. The overall purpose of the schedule is to help us identify the financial resources that will be necessary to maintain an economical Public Works fleet which meets the City's needs. The schedule indicates that $99,225 should be set aside in 19'95. An increase in the set-aside amount of 5% per annum may be necessary to keep up with inflationary trends in the heavy equipment industry. Projections show a need for short term internal borrowing in 1996- 1998 and 2008-2009 time frames. During all other years balances should be sufficient to cover equipment purchases. As time goes on we may find the need for borrowing narrows if the fund balance increases because resale values are higher than 15% used, or if purchase prices are lower than anticipated. In addition, equipment will be replaced when needed, not when scheduled. If a vehicle's life can be reasonably extended, fund balances remain high and therefore there may be no need to borrow. Other options which "could be considered at the time of a short term fund deficit is the use of five-year equipment certificates, or capital lease/purchase agreements. Page 22 , '" '" 0 g iD '" @ .... 8 '" N '" .... '" .... ~ <5 ~ ai ai ;! ~ ~ '" N N ;0 0 .... u;- '" ;; 8 .... ;! .. '" 0 '" N <5 <5 ~ <5 ~ N ~ e ;! '" 0 N u;- N i ;0 @ '" 8 .... '" 0, '" '" t:. '" <5 ~ ai on <5 ~ '" e g N 0 '" 0 u;- ~ <0 '" ;; '" 8 .... '" gj, '" '" 0 N 0' 0' m ~ ;! ~ '" .... 0 8 ~ .... u;- '" 0 1lj 8 '" N '" 0 0, 0 '" N <5 N ~ N ~ ~ 8 '" 8 0 .. g .... gl 8, ;g N !il N '" N <5 ~ N on '" ~ ~ !:; '" 0 .... ~ 8 .... 8 ~ !il '" '" ri 0' ,..: ai N' .... ~ '" '" N !2. 8 .... '" ~ r::: '" ~ 0 N .... 0 .... .... '" N N oi 'Ii ,..: ri ~ ~ .. N '" N .... g gf .... 0 '" N ~ 0 '" "', N ..... ~ ~ ",' N 0 ~ '" ;g '" ~ Ie ~ N PI. '" 0 '" '" 0 N ri ~ g ~ z N ~ 0 ::l en '" u.. Z .... 0 '" '" '" S '" z ;::: 0 8 ~ '" 8 ~ w 0 !il '" ::; w ",' ",' ,..: ! w ...., ~ ;! N ~ 0 a: -' a.. ~ a.. 8 .... 0 '" '" w ~ ":J N g 8 a: '" N .... -' N ..... m on ai ri Z u.. ;:: ~ '" ~ ai w J: ::; en u;- '" <? .... :; a.. <( ;; Iii Iii "0 5 0 .... '" ~ ":J !il 0 '" CD (} N N' ~ N ~ ~ &:. (,) W ~ '" (j ~ '" '" u;- .... N Iii ~ '" '" .... '" ~ '" '" '" ",' N ~ N Q. ~ ~ CD -5 <? r::: "0 ~ .... '" !il '" c: '" 0 '" ~ ~ .2 N '" '" <5 N ,..: ,g ~ t:. ~ E ,g m N '" 0 u;- ~ i .... .... '" 8 N '" CD .... '" N E ~ ai ~ ai 8 ;:: ~ a "i ~ .... '" 8 u;- gJ ~ N i ~ '" t:. ~ '" 0. '" m <5 '0 ~ ~ '" "0 l!! <? CD ~ '" '" :5 0 '" .. &:. '" ~ :5, '" 0 ~ == '" .... N, N ~ ~ N ..... '" .... ~ N 0 CD ~ -e u; '" 0 '" '" ~ 8 ~ '" 8 N Sf \! N ~ ",' ~ ai <5 ;:,' !il .... os ~ E E ::J (I) Z ~ CD <( .... e 0 ~ os ::J -' E 0 0 0 a'! en E (I) z '" :.t w Z 0 en ::J Cl w ::l ::l <<>> '" <( In c: ~ u.. u.. J: '6 a: a: z w 0 w CD c: :s w ~ ::; a: f .2 0 w .... 0 ::l 0 a1 3: z -' Z ::J Cl z ~'t:: u.. 0 a.. ~ 0 ::l ~ In c: (!l u.. 0 .... ~ >- a: z Cl z -' a: W .... .... W ID Z ~ ::; en c: <( 0 W ::; (!l i5 :2 z .... a.. >- a: a.. z W <( c: CD a z Z 5 a.. W 5 0 ::J &:. W W C;; fil W .... (} z u.. .... ID (!l a: ~ W W NOTE: 1. INFlATION ON EQUIPMENT COST S 2. INTEREST ON CAPITAL FUND BALAI 3. REPLACEMENT COST IS AT 85% OF 4. TO PROVIDE FOR LEVEL OR SLlGHl L EQUIPMENT PURCHASED BEFORE 19\ c\LUE. FOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASED 'I' LCULATED FROM DATE OF AQUISITION Page 24 . .,~ , ' PARKS & TRAJ:LS Park Pro; ect Schedule:' The Park Capital Improvement Plan (PCIP) for 1995-1999 is shown on the following pages. The PCIP lists projects planned for each year. Budget numbers are adjusted with an inflation factor and should be considered the budget for the entire project including "soft costs" such as planning, engineering, project management, etc. PARK CAPJ:TAL J:MPROVEMENT PLAN (PCJ:P) PROJECT SCHEDULE 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 BADGER: Playground Equipment 20,000 CATHCART: Relocate Ballfield Parking Lot Playground Equipment 16,000 23,800 25,000 MANOR: Picnic Area Landscaping Parking Refurbish 2,800 11,400 11,000 SILVERWOOD: Improvements FREEMAN : Building North (L) Playground South Lights-Softball (L) Shelter-Family Area Prepare Family Area Picnic Area Landscaping Entrance & Sign Signage Drinking Fountains (2) Volleyball Court Tennis courts(3) Asphalt Roadway Other: Contingency 50,000 18,000 15,000 10,000 5,700 12,500 6,400 5,700 12,500 5,700 60,000 TOTAL EXPENSES $173,000 $78,500 $60,000 15,000 40,000 $55,000 $0 Page 25 Park Fundina: Bids came in very high for the Cathcart Park parking lot, therefore it will be done in 1995. The Funding Source Summary - Park Capital Fund illustrates where funds will come from to pay for the improvements scheduled on the PCIP. Note that the "projects/expenditure" line corresponds with the "total expenses" line on the PCIP. Fundina Source Summary: Fund Balance, January 1 Park Dedication Fees General Fund Contribution Donations General Fund Balance Parks Foundation - Park Maint. Parks Foundation - Park Imp. Parks Foundation - Building Projects/Expenditu res Tfr to General Fund - Maint. Interest Income @ 5% Fund Balance, December 31 1995 168,300 37,500 40,000 10,000 (173,000) (10,000) 1,820 74,620 Designated for Freeman Park Undesig. Fund Balance, Dec. 31 74,620 PARK CAPITAL FUND 1996 74,620 17,500 30,000 1997 59,061 17,500 20,000 1999 51,685 12,500 1998 55,925 17,500 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 4,000 8,000 12,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 (78,500) (60,000) (55,000) (12,000) (14,000) (16,000) (18,000) 1,441 1,364 1,261 2,230 59,061 55,925 51,685 91,415 4,000 12,000 24,000 39,000 55,061 43,925 27,685 52,415 The Park Capital Improvement Fund is established to finance improvements in the City's park system. Revenues are derived from park dedication fees from land subdivisions within the City, budgeted transfers from the General Fund, donations and the Shorewood Parks Foundation. Expenditures shown are for improvements funded from these sources. Fund balances will be allocated to future park improvements. Page 26 SHOREWOOD PARK FOUNDATION: For the following reasons, the City of Shorewood determined that a separate, non-profit corporation should be established for the general improvement of Shorewood's parks: There is increasing pressure to reduce the increase of property tax dollars for park improvements. · A park improvement referendum was defeated in the Spring of 1993 which means borrowing funds is not an option. Federal and state funding for recreation continues to decrease. There is increasing pressure for more and better facilities for organized sports at Freeman Park. Improvements likely funded from the "foundation" would clearly benefit those who participate in organized sports. This would add to the general quality of life for the entire Shorewood Community and open up the potential for more residents and civic organizations to participate in recreational activities. The following are the objectives of the Shorewood Park Foundation: · Add to the general quality of life for the entire Shorewood Community; · Allow for more residents and civic organizations to participate in recreational activities; · Provide an opportunity to encourage donations to Shorewood's parks; · Serve as a vehicle for cooperation and coordination of human resources to support, operate and approve Shorewood's park facilities; · Reduce the use of property tax dollars for park related expenditures; · Raise and distribute funds for a portion of the cost of maintaining Shorewood's parks, park capital improvement projects as listed in the City's Five Year Parks Capital Improvement Program, and park improvement projects beyond the scope of the five year program; · Work with the City to apply for and provide matching and in-kind contributions for various recreational grants; and · Provide for an organized means to review, prioritize, recommend and undertake park improvement projects. Page 27 TRAJ:LS Past public opinion surveys have indicated a strong interest in trail development in Shorewood. The City adopted a trail plan in 1992. With this Capital Improvement Plan resources are allocated and a trail implementation plan is adopted. The trails identified on this trail project schedule are along streets which are likely to be worked on over the next five years and along those not likely to need reconstruction for at least ten years. TRAIL PROJECT SCHEDULE 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Strawberry 25,000 2,600' Asphalt Lake Linden 24,000 1,500' Concrete Yellowstone Trail 108,000 6,900' Concrete Country Club 37,000 2,300 Concrete Srnithtown Rd 67,000 (Country Club to Eureka) 4,200' Concrete TOTAL $0 $194,000 $0 $67,000 $0 Page 28 Fundina Source Summary: The following funding source summary illustrates where dollars will come from to fund this project schedule: TRAIL FUND 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Fund Balance, January 1 44,800 70,008 264 26,408 37,062 Tfr - Cap. Reserve Fund 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 10,000 5% from Street Fund 8,500 9,500 10,500 11,500 12,500 Tfr - MSA 45,750 50,250 ISTEA Grant 54,000 Trail Construction (194,000) (67,000) Interest Income @ 5% 1,708 6 644 904 1,489 Fund Balance, December 31 70,008 264 26,408 37,062 61,051 The Trail Fund is established to finance the implementation of the City's Trail System plan. Revenues are derived from budgeted transfers from the Capital Reserve Fund, Street Fund, MSA Fund (75% of MSA Project Cost) and anticipated ISTEA grants. Expenditures shown are improvements funded from these sources. Fund balances will be allocated to future trail improvements. The following pages are the individual park site improvement plans and the trail plan. Page 29 ~i~'! K~~~f!f~~;.:. , k'~1!~,. ..=:-::... m~i ~~7:-~? ~~~~,> - ~~..~ .,.~::---( ~.,.. ~~ f'..~., ; ~f~ :.'iJ1/ -" - '~ ., ell '1' ., '" ,;: ( I:' '1'.':..~'\~. , .:~, ' ..... "'''-.:' . : '~': ,"~, 'lk' ~<"," I ~ \., \ '",,- 11')1 \ \," crt . \.f'\y- ~ I r--+-~7'~1 v ""I .... ~.t/j4.. ~ ;;;. " f ~ j ~ ... f 'U f f :~ ::D ~ f a ~ i f I : E i i > lit -4 ~~ g: f f ~ . z . ~ $ Q r i I f { , ~ . ! ~ SILVERWOOD PARK mm fiB l.ulIII ~. "_...,DM4. Hoisington Koegler Group 1nc. "lOll .II."" Baulrwonll Sou..l~ M;""""'"is.M;n....... 15419 /6121 Ul.9960 CIty of Shorewood. Mlnneaot8 i Hi' lW ~ ~ HiiJi! ; ! Je IW i fU li:1 i h ti! ! h if I i . i ~ ~ r / . ~ . i / , ) Vi ~j ~- ,. ~~-:-- ....~-,. ......_-~ "," -- , ------ ...-_... _ '-------'!. - -- . ---- _------ 'I --- , -- -- ----""...... ~~--~ -"'1 Q~~...-- . ~~ -~~ ~. I j,.~ -- -- ~- ----- -~- ~-~ I . i . J i ~ i 3: I III ~ .. ~e ~ I -u !' ii ! :l f (I f CATHCART PARK Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 7300 MettO BIYd. . Sui.. '25 Minne'polis, MN "439 . (612)83'-9960 City Of Shorewood, Minnesota s . s . ~ ., ..~ ..., I I mm 110 l.uf.U~. "'_."..... -::':'~ I ~ i . i i i I i ,. Hi' illi I ~ [JJ r t ;: iJi llr~ .. fij flU ," . iiI Ii ~rj I ( I . ~ ! I I i ~ ~ J ~ i ~ f , L v I' ., ....) 1 I I I ',oJ ..--- ~o ~ .. .. ~ "I:l ;; ::::I f r f f Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 7300 Merro Blvd. . Saite '23 Minne.poli., MN ''''39 . (612)83'.9960 MANOR PARK City of Shorewood, Minnesota Lull u..,....,...... . "''''I8rJ'DQ,. ) Y-"~ mitt DO ".,# ,oJ ._.:::..:-::~ .. " :.....-. ."1,;-, ".-. -....-. .. ,; :.:.~~.;;~+~ .....::~. ; . , - . . ~ I i - ~ I ~ i . . 'i .= ~ UtiHi' ~ !i! ;~ii " l'iI tHr fi r I) jf 1~11 It I, ..1-'1 I" W I [ ~ iJ i x r ,~ .,.. ,. '." "'" -..... \ \ .... 'c;,., .~~ ;\ !e f i ~ - . : J . I " ! i 3:: f QJ i co ~ i " .- m ::l - l f Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 7300 MettO Blvd. . Sui.. 523 Minne.poli., MN 55439 . (6121835.9960 BADGER PARK City of Shorewood, Minnesota Lud UMf!lIIwifOD.'" . Pf...ilc/DIdr. mil gO . ..- . ,:: . . . I . i · IJ i -1 ; l.t.. :~ ~- _oj i !: wt S; I: ;1 -t !. Ii mil' Elm~ ~;1 ! ~ J Cii:~ ; ;! i IllS ij' t;~~ ! " ~J!o> Q) 2 to~S: CD . o. W"l .. en ::':1~ 0:", "g'" u"l .E:t. is] =:::~ ~ ... u.. ;.. ii,' :i........~ _,v) ."1 :..; ,~:'I, 1;\ .\ . :"':' .1' "',' .11 '\.' i'.L .~ ~, .'. .Ii '. ", ".j ~ 1('" ~,-,~_.~--.:~.*t~l.....t~iv~ "_ 1'1. -~'...,'_. ~,._ _' ~- _',., . J... .".~..., 10 ", ./', \,\ f./ .c -;~. i '. " ..,i.. il. ":': ;:/~":"'. '\;i~u'~ ". "", ;..... 111'Y ',- \;, . \"\~\ - : ..~-.: (l1L"::...... '.' ,::.::' ",;~~,~;:;.'~'.: ; .,...... . , .~' I , , c I'''' \. i .j. ll~ II I {II UJ f:}lltI ijll t. J'n Iii e P11df! ~ l ,m {,", /r'" ,-' '~.:./I (.,<~!f, .... ,t.,';" ')' '0" '''-_., ~l". .. l~lI." . " " ''\.'\. ' '~..:\ . ~'?\~\. ! " ,;",::\~'\"""'. '-", \'~'," :{.. ......:..r.~ '.....'\1. [ ,"" ~>. "...:',.......". \ )').:~ , ~'1 .. : ( ~.:-.~ -- I.". ..('~..~~.;\ '1.\ \ ""., 'y ""';/1 q'; ( (-"r."" .' i', ... 'd(;.i:~......;,J~~.:. ,.1\<:\. '" . lJ," ,t'"" '. '\"\, "" (1?-~ '\J . \\, ", '; .......;t.~~...:"'\ ",~.;',\ ',' Y'i":" '\, .,1\,;..... "'''':';<'' '~_ \.~"t:\:)':.../ f'-.,'~ :'.,~,>. . I,,,. ~~ "'.>, "'... ~\\ '~',I,~l :~ . '\. ',"\,)-' . . I. ' ','~l J . I~"'\. ',' C \ \,.', '. '\\' l " "'.', ..!O- ". . -= ~=c::: :3 ~. ~ ~ ! S g ~ = = 1 = ~! i ;. =-... '$ ~!,i~~j g~i;i~}i v ~ ~ i i i t J .. . ~ ~ ~I al -; ... ; s: - <= ~ -= o o ~ ~ I I.. v O. .:~ t:I)= _e 01- ... ~i ?& · ceB;: ;.j~: ~-I o II ~~ !~ i~ o . o : o : g ~ . . . . . . . . : ! - CJr-.- ! .- ! . II . . ill ! f . ~ Ii; H. !_: ~H ~ B~!!ni ~ I:rl~ ~ f , : : : i ~ I:!!: I II . . UNSCHEDULED, POTENTIAL PROJECTS The following projects have been identified as potential future projects which have been discussed in general terms. At this time there is not enough information or need to assign a year to these potential projects: · As alluded to in the water section, it will eventually be desirous to add a watermain connection along Vine Hill Road between Shady Hills Road an T.H. 7 to "loop. the City's existing system in that area. However, since these portions of the water system are now connected to Minnetonka's system, the project is not immediately needed. Therefore, it will be much more cost effective to construct this portion of watermain when Vine Hill Road is upgraded or reconstructed. The 1994 cost estimate is $41,000. The Shorewood City Council has acknowledged that the goal of affordable senior housing may require expenditure of public funds at some point. A specific plan must first be presented for the City to consider. One project which would be considered is to expand the City Council Chambers to the north (to the parking lot curb). This could more than double seating capacity which would make the chambers more usable for large meetin,;s and hearings. Building a Southshore Senior Community Center may fully address this need. At some point in time the City may be interested in providing a satellite fire s~ation in the western portion of the City. The City might wish to participate with Hennepin County and the City of Tonka Bay to improve traffic movement on County Road 19 at its intersection with Country Club Road. Upgrade the storm water system from Church Road to Grant Lorenz. It may be possible to upgrade this system when Strawberry Lane is reconstructed, and this possibility should be investigated during the feasibility study of that project. · There is a serious erosion problem along a 200 foot section of the lake side of Timber Lane. A cost effective plan needs to be agreed upon so cost estimates can be acquired and the project undertaken. · The Public Works Director portable generator for a backup stations during a power outage. options should be examined. has identified a need to provide a source of power to run wells and lift The estimated cost is $130,000. Other . The City should investigate improvements to the intersection of Seamans Drive and Yellowstone Trail at Highway 7. Among the alternatives to be considered are closing the access to Highway 7 and moving Yellowstone Trail further to ,the north, and realigning the intersections. City costs for these alternatives could range from $5,000 for closing the access to $200,000 for realignment. Page 36 : . ._.'. ..rt .-< ~...;O..... ..,_..... ~_..~~.;.._~_...~.....~.~~_.~" . . TYPE CAP:I'l'AL PROJEC'l' :IMPROVEMEN'l' SCHEDULE PROJECT/PURPOSE FUNDING SOURCE AMOUNT PER SOURCE AMOUNT ~ WATER STREETS DRAINAGE PUBLIC FACILITIES EQUIPMENT PARKS CATHCART MANOR FREEMAN TRUNK EXTENSIONS 25,000 WF 25,000 WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS 10,000 WF 10,000 SHADY HILLS AREA WATERMAIN LOOP 8,500 WF 8,500 OVERLAY PROJECTS 80,000 SR 80,000 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - LOCAL - SHADY ISLAND BRIDGE 10,000 SR 10,000 - MSA PROJECTS - COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 50,000 MSA 50,000 GLEN ROAD AREA - ACQUIRE EASEMENT 88,000 DF 88,000 BADGER WELL BUILDING 25,000 WF 25,000 SOUTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER 311,000 CR 311,000 REPLACE 1985 FORD F250 4X4 17,170 ER 17,170 REPLACE 1985 FORD L8000 DUMP 64,386 ER 64,386 REPLACE 1985 926 CAT LOADER 109,881 ER 109,881 REPLACE 1988 FORD F250 4X4 17,170 ER 17,170 REPLACE 1988 TORO GROUNDSMASTER 18,779 ER 18,779 NEW 48. WALK-BEHIND MOWER 3,500 ER 3,500 NEW SIDE-MOUNT FLAIL MOWER 9,300 ER 9,300 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 25,000 PF 25,000 RELOCATE BALLFIELD 16,000 PF 16,000 PARKING LOT 23,800 PF 23,800 PICNIC AREA 2,800 PF 2,800 LANDSCAPING 11,400 PF 11,400 REFURBISH PARKING AREA 11,000 PF 11,000 BUILDING NORTH 50,000 PF 50,000 SHELTER - FAMILY AREA 18,000 PF 18,000 PREPARE FAMILY AREA 15,000 PF 15,000 FUNDING SOURCE KEY CR - CAPITAL RESERVE FUND DF - DRAINAGE FUND ER - EQUIPMENT REPLCMT FUND GF - GENERAL FUND GR - GRANTS MSA - MUNICIPAL STATE AID PF - PARK CAPITAL FUND SA - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SR - STREET RECONST FUND SS - SANITARY SEWER FUND TF - TRAIL FUND WF - WATER FUND Page 37 CR - CAPITAL RESERVE FUND DF - DRAINAGE FUND ER - EQUIPMENT REPLCMT FUND GF - GENERAL FUND FUNDING SOURCE KEY GR - GRANTS MSA - MUNICIPAL STATE AID PF - PARK CAPITAL FUND SA - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT Page 38 ~ . SR - STREET RECONSTR FUND SS - SANITARY SEWER FUND TF - TRAIL FUND WF - WATER FUND . . . . PARKS FREEMAN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SCHEDULE FUNDING AMOUNT PROJECT/PURPOSE AMOUNT SOURCE PER SOURCE .ll21. TRUNK EXTENSIONS 25,000 WF 25,000 OVERLAY PROJECTS 80,000 SR 80,000 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - LOCAL - CHRISTMAS LANE 36,000 SR 36,000 - DELLWOOD 67,000 SR 67,000 LANE - MALLARD 55,000 SR 55,000 LANE - TIMBER LANE 103,000 SR 103,000 - SHADY ISLAND BRIDGE 120,000 SR 120,000 GRANT LORENZ AREA - CONSTRUCTION 55,000 DR 55,000 REPLACE 1987 FORD L8000 DUMP 72,344 ER 72,344 REPLACE 1987 FORD L8000 DUMP 72,344 ER 72 , 344 REPLACE 1990 JOHN DEERE AMT622 5,667 ER 5,667 TENNIS COURTS (3 ) 60,000 PF 60,000 ll2..a TRUNK EXTENSIONS 25,000 WF 25,000 OVERLAY PROJECTS 80,000 SR 80,000 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - LOCAL - PLEASANT AVENUE 67,000 SR 67,000 - EXCELSIOR 326,000 SR 326,000 BLVD - MSA - SMITHTOWN ROAD, COUNTRY CLUB TO EUREKA 540,000 MSA 540,000 ROAD REPLACE 1987 FORD L8000 DUMP 76,685 ER 76,685 REPLACE 1988 MOBILE SWEEPER 143,146 ER 143,146 REPLACE 1991 TORO GROUNDSMASTER 19,165 ER 19,165 ASPHALT ROADWAY 15,000 PF 15,000 CONTINGENCY 40,000 PF 40,000 SMITHTOWN RD - COUNTRY CLUB TO EUREKA 67,000 TF 67,000 TYPE WATER STREETS DRAINAGE EQUIPMENT WATER STREETS EQUIPMENT PARKS FREEMAN TRAILS FUNDING SOURCE KEY CR - CAPITAL RESERVE FUND DF - DRAINAGE FUND ER - EQUIPMENT REPLCMT FUND GF - GENERAL FUND GR - GRANTS MSA - MUNICIPAL STATE AID PF - PARK CAPITAL FUND SA - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SR - STREET RECONSTR FUND SS - SANITARY SEWER FUND TF - TRAIL FUND WF - WATER FUND Page 39 .. . . CAP:ITAL :IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SCHEDULE FUNDING AMOUNT TYPE PROJECT/PURPOSE AMOUNT SOURCE PER SOURCE llll WATER TRUNK EXTENSIONS 25,000 WF 25,000 STREETS OVERLAY PROJECTS 80,000 SR 80,000 EQUIPMENT REPLACE 1992 FORD F150 4X2 PICKUP 12,781 ER 12,781 REPLACE 1994 FORD F350 DUMP 34,637 ER 34,637 FUNDING SOURCE KEY CR - CAPITAL RESERVE FUND DF - DRAINAGE FUND ER - EQUIPMENT REPLCMT FUND GF - GENERAL FUND GR - GRANTS MSA - MUNICIPAL STATE AID PF - PARK CAPITAL FUND SA - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SR - STREET RECONSTR FUND SS - SANITARY SEWER FUND TF - TRAIL FUND WF - WATER FUND Page 40 , ~ ,.,.'t CAP:ITAL :IMPROVEMENT EXPEND:ITURES- BY SOURCE SOURCE CODE 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 TOTALS CAP. RESERVE FUNDS CR 311,000 311,000 DRAINAGE FUND DF 88,000 116,000 55,000 259,000 EQUIPMENT REPLACE. ER 240,186 181,453 150,356 238,996 47,417 858,408 GENERAL FUND GF 0 GRANTS GR 0 MUNCPL STATE AID MSA 50,000 730,000 540,000 1,320,000 PARK CAPITAL FUND PF 173,000 78,500 60,000 55,000 366,500 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SA 0 STREET RECONSTRUCT SR 90,000 571,000 461,000 473,000 80,000 1,675,000 SANITARY SEWER SS 22,750 22,750 TRAIL FUND TF 194,000 67,000 261,000 WATER FUND WF 68,500 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 168,500 TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL 1,020,686 1,918,703 751,356 1,398,996 152,417 5,242,158 IMPROVEMENT FUNDING Page 41 III. CAPITAL FINANCE PLAN The City recognizes the importance of maintaining a reasonable funding level for public improvements, equipment, and depreciation of current City assets. Therefore this CIP projects an increase of between 3 to 4 percent annually in general revenues allocated for capital improvements. The first chart of the Funding Source Summary projects the property tax levy for capital improvements through 1999 and identifies expehditures by type of improvement. The capital Reserve Fund Chart summarizes all capital anticipated revenues and expenditures. Each functional area summarized here is explained in detail in the funding source summary chart in each functional area. Maintaining a reasonable Capital Reserve fund balance is an essential element in the financial stability of the City. It can be an important factor in maintaining and improving our good bond rating. Such a reserve can serve as a sound financial resource. It can serve as a depreciation fund for City Assets. In addition, it can allow for short term or interim internal borrowing for projects or equipment. This can reduce the cost of borrowing. by allowing for combined bond sales at the most advantageous time. The last portion of the Capital Finance Plan is a proposed 1995 Capital Improvement Budget. It adopts, as a budget, the projects identified in this document for the year 1995 and authorizes purchases and preliminary project expenses up to and including a feasibility study for those projects pending Council approval of appropriate agreements. This budget needs to be adopted by the City Council an action separate from acceptance of this plan. Page 42 ~. ~( .. - ,:.- , . .. GENERAL FUND CAPITAL APPROPRIATIONS Street Reconstruction Storm Drainage Equipment Replacement Park Capital Office Equipment Total General Fund Capital Levy 1995 250,000 10,000 99,225 40,000 5,000 404,225 1996 270,000 10,000 104,186 30,000 10,000 424,186 1997 290,000 10,000 109,396 20,000 12,500 441,896 1998 310,000 10,000 114,865 10,000 15,000 459,865 1999 330,000 10,000 120,609 17,500 478,109 A summary of General Fund capital levies is shown above. The capital levy is budgeted in the General Fund as transfers to the various capital improvement funds. The increase in general capital improvements levy each year is less than 5%. CAPITAL RESERVE FUND 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Fund Balance, January 1 50,000 55,950 59,399 58,321 59,779 General Fund Contribution 404,225 424,186 441,896 459,865 478,109 County HRA Bond - Senior Center 311,000 Special Assessments 7,000 7,000 Transfers: Park Capital (40,000) (30,000) (20,000) (10,000) 0 Equipment Rep!. (99,225) (104,186) (109,396) (114,865) (120,609) Street Reconstr. (250,000) (270,000) (290,000) (310,000) (330,000) Storm Drainage (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) Trails (15,000) (15,000) (15,000) (15,000) (10,000) Senior Center Project (311,000) Int€lrest Income @ 5% 8,950 1 ,449 1 ,422 1,458 1,682 Total Fund Balance, Dec 31 55,950 59,399 58,321 59,779 68,961 Designated for Office Equip. 5,000 15,000 27,500 42,500 60,000 Undesignated Fund Balance 50,950 44,399 30,821 17,279 8,961 The Capital Reserve Fund is established as a repository for funds for anticipated future projects which have not been formally ordered by the City Council. These projects include public facilities and city hall improvement projects, and others as may be identified. Funds are transfered to the proper capital project fund, once established. The expenditures shown are anticipated in the next five years. Undesignated fund balances are allocated to future capital improvement projects as specified by the City Council and may be used as identified in the introduction to the Capital Finance Plan. Page 43 RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 1995 WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Council wishes to carefully plan and coordinate City public capital purchases and projects over a five year period matching physical needs with financial resources; and WHEREAS, Improvement Program purpose; and the for Ci ty Council the years 1995 has adopted through 1999 a Capi tal for this WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council to have the first year of the five year Capital Improvement Program document serve as the capital budget for year 1995. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City hereby adopts those purchases and projects identified to in the year 1995 in the Project Schedule of the 1995-1999 Improvement Program (attached hereto) as its 1995 Improvement Budget. Council be made Capital Capital BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the adoption of said budget authorizes purchases, and preliminary project expenditures up to and including feasibility study for those projects identified to be undertaken in the year 1995 pending City Council approval of appropriate agreements and operating budget adjustments. this ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood day of , 1994. Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator Page 44 .../ , .. .. ~l il ~ <~ 'I ( :.~ I I :'* :~l '~ U t .,..'1........... .~. :, j t 0- ~ ~cr''T1 P" C1l .... g 0 ~ o e. ~a~ e.g:en o ~ ~ o B. en ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ .., e- ~ ~~~ o .... ~ ~ P" S' E- ~. OQ OQ . >1 ~ ....... C1l ;l> el ~ .... ..... g f( ~ .~ C1l ..,.., ~ J:: 0 S:l '0 Ci1 0 Ii} '0 ..... ~ a ~ A- 0..;:;,. C1l E; R '"1 S' g. ~. OQ O~ s- a ~. ~ t:l ~. c:r en B. ~ ~ r::. o t:l /\/\ n C1l a. ~ el en ~ en S n :;, .... 6 n o 5 .... '< ;l> J:: 0- .... ... o ... ::r: o ..... A- R<>~ ~ e. 8"el '0 en ~ ~ el rn rn S C1l C1l f:: ~ 8'0 ~g. .., t=': o 0 ~r OQ I"d II> (JQ (1) .J:- VI j I .~ -~ .~ I I t , i ~ \ :~ I ! j ::* 11 -,:~ ~ .{.; ; '!. ;j i t ~ .~ ~j 1 ! t ~; II ~.~ r 4 i 1 . ::~ ,~. J .)i OJ i ! :} I I ~ '0 ~ R<> S E. ....... :4 -) :::r n ~. ~ OQ ~ o O. o ~ ~ o n '0 .... '0 ~ a !'1 'OP;- ~ R<> n 0 A-~ el rn 0' OJ .., en S' ~ e. ac:r ~. OQ o ~ I .,....,... .. j .. ~ I[ A- il ~ t:l .... n ;1 ff ~ ~ >< '"Cj :::$ () & ~ en 0 'E. Ci1 .~ ...... n .... S' I r-1' OQ ~ '0 t=': ...... '0 t:l r::. I N a ~ ~. 0 Ci1 I 0 R<> .. a i C1l "g '0 g :}l el , ::s c:r t a I ~ g ! en ~. () n '0 S A- S 0- 0 n 8' i! 0 '0 en n '0 n Jl ::s OQ .~ n g. 0 .., n ., a CIl g. :: r-1' .... 0 0- ::~ en '0 ll) OQ .:~ '"1 R ~ I el 0: .g. OQ :=r () ~ .... en 0 I cr R 6 I r-1' ~ 0 .n CIl ~ , a i , n fA g A i I 1< t ; 4 :~ " .~ > g n '0 ~ cr .... 0- R<> f3 e- o ~. C1l o o ~ ~ ~ ;l> '0 '0 a < n '0 [ R<> o a C1l .., ~ ,~ ~. ~ n g 0' .., cr' ~ I I ~~ '"1 s: &'0 ll> C1l J:: 't:l =;. cr' 't:l~t=': a'O 0 < a P" ~ ~ ~ ~ S s' s. C1l OQ ft ~ g s' p,o s- OQ-an 111 C1l g 8- go'O ~g .......R ~n /\ /\/ =;'. ~ I n ~ ~n 't:l no '0 O. '"Cj Ci1 &' l4 Cil~'"1 cr 't:l t:ln l ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g. 'T1 , Hi. ] i. i., i ~ t. 1 q Ii ] I ! ~.g! ~l~ I I I Ii I \/\/\/\/\/\/\/ I 'i1 ~ I R<> en o ~ o n '0 ~ Cd '0 o ~ FP ~ ~ o 0 E"'" g. ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ E" e: 0.. o. -<' C1l 0 't:l __ ~. ~ a ~ OQ ffl '0 '0 0 a .g ~ ~ ~ OQ ~~ l>> 0 .... .O"..,e. ~ ~ [s' ;:OllQ~ ~6~~~ .......... n g'"8 S . rt' r::. g '<: r::. ~ Ci1 g "gH ~ 0' .., r OQ I 1 I I I :* ~ r ~ o o ~ n :;, ~ o ~ '"8 o. r::. o ~ B. '0 .2. R .... I ,:,,}fl I i '.1 ~! I I ~ ~ , a il 5-: 'j C1l '1 VI ,.~ ~ ..f ll) VI [ I J I I I l t~. . .~ j <Y t-t~ (f)~ l--' (D ..... · n n ..... · ........c ~s >t-t~ ~~CJJ ~~5 en ;:J t-t S CD CD (D ::J ~ ::J r-1" 0 r-1"~o ~aCL o n (D'~ n CJ) r-1" CJ) ..... o ::s VI n ..... . r-1" )> "'0 "'0 m z c X .\. '. - -- CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1994 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Borkon; Commissioners Bean, Malam, Pisula, and Turgeon; Council Liaison Lewis; and Planning Director Nielsen. Chair Rosenberger entered the meeting at 7:33 p.m. City Administrator Hurm attended a portion of the meeting. Absent: Commissioner Foust. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Pisula moved, Malam seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's October 18, 1994 meeting. Motion passed 5/0. 1. 7:00 PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCES TO SETBACK REGULATIONS AND SHORELAND DISTRICT HARD COVER REGULATIONS Applicant: Location: Lawrence DeWitt 28090 Woodside Road Vice Chair Borkon announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing. Nielsen presented background information on the applicant's proposal to remodel and add to an existing residence. The existing structure and the proposed addition do not comply with the R- IAlS District requirements since both are too close to the side lot lines and the total area of impervious surface on the site exceeds 25%. The request for variances to the setback requirements will increase the nonconformity and will further exceed hard surface restrictions. The largest portion of the house is 8' from the south property line and the north end is 15' from the north lot line. A wing wall to be removed as part of the remodeling extends to within 8' of the property line. Information from the applicant's survey indicates existing and proposed hard surface to be 34.5% and 35% respectively. The Shoreland District limits impervious surface to 25%. Nielsen reviewed the provisions of the Code providing for expansion of nonconforming residential structures and the staff analysis of the proposal. Strict enforcement suggests that the 2' discrepancy on the south side be made up on the north side and that a 22' setback be maintained on the north side. However, given the age of the structure and granting of a previous variance in 1984, Nielsen recommended that the south side of the lot be considered the 10' side and that a 20' setback be required on the north side to maintain a total 30' side yard setback for the property. To accomplish this, the proposed addition would have to jog in 5' from the existing building line. The applicant prefers not to jog the addition because it would eliminate an existing window on the east side. Reconfiguration, according to the applicant, may jeopardize a large tree. Nielsen pointed out that if the tree is part of justification for a variance, it should be identified on an updated survey. .- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 1,1994 - PAGE 2 With respect to lot coverage, Nielsen stated it is unlikely the lot will ever comply with the 25% requirement, but recommended that if an addition is approved, it should be contingent upon removal of an equal amount of hard cover elsewhere on the site to avoid increasing hard cover. Nielsen explained that the applicant's request, as proposed, fails to meet certain criteria for the granting of variances: 1) the property is not unique in size or configuration, 2) a previous variance provides the applicant with more use of the lot than those who comply with current regulations, and 3) the applicant does not adequately demonstrate he is not able to make reasonable use of his property. Therefore, based on the analysis (detailed in Nielsen's October 26, 1994 memorandum), Nielsen recommended that any addition to the existing home comply with current setback requirements and that any increase in hard cover area be mitigated by removal of hard cover elsewhere on the site. If the applicant wishes to provide further evidence of hardship, the request should be tabled pending analysis of additional material. Mrs. Donna DeWitt introduced Ms. Lynn Pirkl, architect, handling the project. Ms. Ferkol stated the applicant does not wish to eliminate a window as recommended because of its aesthetic value, noted the wing wall will be eliminated, and explained the hardship with respect to the tree on the site. She stated the applicant wishes to retain the setbacks as proposed in the plans submitted since a variance was previously granted notwithstanding the fact that the property was in nonconformance. She stated that alterations to decrease the hard cover by about 1/2% are possible, however, any further reduction is not feasible because of the limitations caused by the shared driveway and a tennis court on the site. Mrs. De Witt reviewed the plumbing problems which led to the remodeling and proposed addition. Ms. Ferkol pointed out that the project enhances the neighborhood and value of the property. Vice Chair Borkon opened and closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. there being no comments from the public. Letters from Greg and Lorraine Scott and Ann Leavenworth, neighbors of the De Witts, were accepted for the record. The Commissioners reviewed the guidelines for approving variances. Turgeon expressed concern regarding the excessive hard cover and found it difficult to justify a variance that increases the existing nonconformity. She suggested additional options be considered by the applicant. Pisula sympathized with the aesthetic concerns, was encouraged by the willingness to reduce the hardcover, however, he suggested that additional remedies be explored to avoid creating further nonconformance. Malam described a possible alternative configuration for the addition. Mrs. DeWitt stated an unacceptable jog would result. Malam pointed out that State statute mandates the criteria used by the Commission in its decision-making process. He suggested options without the need for variances be examined. Bean stated the variances requested are not justifiable, reiterated that options be explored, and pointed out that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to disapprove the variance previously requested in 1984, even though the Council subsequently approved the variance. Borkon reiterated that the Commission is required to adhere to the guidelines for variances. Pisula inquired whether the applicant wishes to re-examine its proposal with a view to re-submitting a revised acceptable plan for the Commission's consideration at a future meeting. Mrs. DeWitt and Ms. Ferkol stated their preference that the current application be brought before the Council regardless of the Commission's recommendation. Malam moved, Pisula seconded to recommend to the Council that it deny the application for variances to setback regulations and Shoreland District hard cover regulations of Lawrence De Witt, 28090 Woodside Road. Motion passed 6/0. The Council will consider the recommendation at its November 29, 1994 meeting. A. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 1, 1994 - PAGE 3 2. REVIEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Hurm directed the Commission's attention to the: "Proposed City of Shorewood Capital Improvement Program, Consisting of a Capital Improvement Plan and a Financ~ Plan for the Years 1995-1999." He reviewed the planning process and the finance plan. Hurm pointed out that some programs will require revision upon completion of the Comprehensive Plan update. Hurm also noted editorial corrections in the document. The Commissioners asked questions; the staff and Councilmember Lewis responded. The Commissioners participated in a lengthy discussion on several proposed programs and identified issues for reconsideration during the Commission's updating of the Comprehensive Plan. Bean moved, Borkon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the proposed Capital Improvement Program for the Years 1995-1996, recognizing that while it is generally consistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan, it is contingent upon reconsideration when the Comprehensive Plan is completed and approved. Motion passed 6/0. 3. STUDY SESSION Comprehensive Plan Land Use Nielsen reviewed the proposed zoning changes in the Land Use Chapter of the Plan. He stated that no change from the 0-1 units per 40,000 square feet is currently contemplated in the zoning district that includes the proposed Lundgren Bros. development of the LedinIW artman/School Property. Lundgren requests re-zoning from 0-1 to 0-1.3 units per acre in a Planned Unit Development. Rosenberger stated that the Commission's consideration of this issue at this time will establish its view with respect to the requested re-zoning amendment. Bean requested that the Lundgren representatives present general information to assist the City in determining its long-range development direction rather than specific information on the Lundgren development proposal. Mr. Mark Anderson and Mr. John Uban, representing Lundgren Bros., presented considerations the Company believes supports its request for re-zoning to 1.3 units per acre in a P.U.D., outlined in a document distributed to the Commissioners. Using the Land Use Map, Nielsen reviewed current and proposed zoning (changed to reflect present land use) of areas adjacent to and surrounding the Lundgren development property. The Commissioners participated in an extended discussion on zoning, the City's infrastructure, market demand, affordable and diversified housing, senior housing, and the desires of Shorewood residents, and responsible city management. The Lundgren representatives provided additional clarification as requested. With the exception of Malam, the Commissioners agreed that to re-zone the subject area to a higher density is not in the best interests of the City because the residents do not favor higher density, the character of Shorewood should be maintained particularly the western section, buyers can still be found for one-acre lots, the property can still be developed and controlled using a P.U.D. and raising the density will not necessarily provide affordable or diversified housing in the City. A PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 1, 1994 - PAGE 4 Commissioner Malam, on the other hand, stated it is clear that re-zoning is a natural transition from one district to the other. He supported raising the density across the board because the City needs to: react to the increased cost of land in the City to keep home sites affordable; recognize and accept Shorewood's status as a City rather than a rural area; and be responsive to buyers desiring less than one acre lots. Rosenberger moved, Bean seconded to retain the current density of the City's R- IA zoning districts at 0-1 units per 40,000 square feet. Motion passed 5/1. Malam voted nay. Chair Rosenberger recessed the meeting at 10:15 p.m. and reconvened at 10:22 p.m. Rosenberger described an area that he advocated for re-zoning from R-IA to R-IC to facilitate a goal, identified by the senior housing survey, to provide affordable rental property in the City. The Commissioners discussed the recommendation and considered other methods of accomplishing the goal. In general, while the Commissioners supported the goal, the majority considered such re-zoning to be "spot" zoning, therefore, inappropriate action. Rosenberger moved, Malam seconded to re-zone the tier of lots along Highway 7. . . including the golf course...from R-IA to R-IC. Motion failed 2/4. Bean, Borkon, Pisula, and Turgeon voted nay. Natural Resources The Commissioners accepted the Natural Resources Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan as re- written to reflect the Commission's recommendations. Community Facilities The Commissioners re-scheduled discussion on the Community Facilities Chapter to its November 15 meeting. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None. 5. REPORTS Council Liaison reported on the Council's October 24, 1994 meeting. Bean commented on a resident's inquiry regarding allowed height of a house. Nielsen referred to the ordinance covering the issue. 6. ADJOURNMENT Turgeon moved, Pisula seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED Arlene H. Bergfalk, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial .,j " .. WORK SBSS:r:ON 1 . DJ:SC'OSSJ:ON ON SENJ:OR COMMUNJ:TY CENTER J:SS'OES 2. CONSJ:DERATJ:ON OF APPLYJ:NG FOR. GRANT FOR NEW POLJ:CE OFFJ:CER 3 . ADJOURN TO REGULAR SESSJ:ON . .6 November 7, 1994 senior Community Center J:tems 1) Resolution extending Task Force 2) Partial checklist of "to do" items for discussion at a City Council Work Session 3) One design of a reconstituted Task Force with committees for the following purposes: · Programs and policies . Finance and fund raising (establishing and working with a foundation) · Construction management · Community liaison This and other concepts should be discussed at a work session. CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 94 -.2..L- A RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE TERM OF AN' INTERGOVERNMENTAL SENIOR COMMUNITY CENTER TASK FORCE WHEREAS, the cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay and the South Shore Senior Center Advisor~ Board have jointly established a Task Force to study Senior Community Center location issues; and WHEREAS, said Task Force, which had been scheduled to expire October 1, 1993, reported findings to the cities in February 1993; and WHEREAS, in the Spring 0 f 1993 the ci ties requested the Task Force to continue study on Senior Community Center location issues and work with the Administrators on intergovernmental issues; and WHEREAS, Resolution #93 -98 extended the term of the Senior Community Center Task Force through Deca~er 31, 1994; and WHEREAS, the Task Force has many duties yet to accomplish including the establishment of a Senior Community Center foundation. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED that Council hereby extends the term of the Senior Center Task Force through December 31, 1995. the Ci ty Community BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that current Shorewood Task Force representatives shall continue to serve through December 31, 1994 and that 1995 representatives will be cons idered at the time annual appointments are made by Council resolution. ADOPTED BY TRE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 14th day of November, 1994. ATTEST: c1Juvvv; {,'I' C. Hurm, City Administrator . .. . ~ovember 7, 1994 PARTIAL FOR THE SOUTHSHORE CHECKLIST OF CONSIDERATIONS DISCUSSION REGARDING SENIOR/COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT 1. Address conditions communicated by Excelsior. Officially communicate with each municipality to solicit all "conditions" in advance. 2. Agreement needed on: . Final share cost to each City. How and when will funds be collected? . Bonding agreement. Bonding costs and capitalized interest need to be added to bonds issued. . If there is a project surplus, where will funds go? If there is a shortfall, where will funds come from? . How will $100,000 be raised from fundraising? When will the money be available to pay project costs? . How will up front costs be covered if the deal falls through because of high bids or other reasons? 3. Governing/managing the building once it is built. Cities need to agree up front on issues relating to management, accountability, ownership. 4. How will an architect be selected? Who will be responsible for overseeing the project from the "owners'" perspective? Who is the Owners' representative? 5. Decide on the point in time when architectural/project management agreements can be signed. will there be an early agreement to provide funds on a prorated basis for expenditures necessary before construction bids are awarded and project is a "go"? 6. Preliminary plans will be needed and details worked out to proceed with a Conditional Use Permit hearing. Related Issues: . Roadway - hockey rink will need to be moved to the south (funds will need to be made available) . . Reliable water source for sprinkling the building. . Removal of current pole barn and constructing a new building to house the Badger well. . Conditional Use Permit (CUP) hearing needs to be held with needed material submittted by an architect. 3::00Q~:!! III CD CD 0 0 ~ ~3.3.Q)~QJ CDCDCDiir~~ - - -. (') (')iijQoQ'O'CD CD < -t l'D :JCD~2en(') CD~O:Jai30 ~c:coo.O" 0" CD 01-=3 o en 3 ID en ~_ iir:r= o.~O"S"IDCD en 0 c:CO_CD 0' 3 0. ~ 0 " o3~=5 9!.CDCD:!:o. r<~ ~lll 0. m ~ i g.~ en Q -< iJ III co CD ~~Om6N ~~g~~- C:CD!e.<;;~ :g=2CDCDQ CD3 o5"CD CD c.~~O'n~(') '< 000 S"n~ID~8.~ I~O- cn QII "Q(J)3'"E:::;-n:: ~~lllo.C:-C .a~~co2.~n CDc:2j)oO'CD: 2.2. ~~o 30'~~3=~ .:::: ~ III 0 ID 1Il '=:o....c:~iir3: 1Il~iS.lllglll 2. cg. cn~ 0 ; ~-03 a:I g ~ III III o 3 ~ 3 - CD g::: ;a- lii III (') o 3 3 - CD III (J) O"tl:r ~=~ III ~ III 2=.~ o ~ 0 ~a:lo a. , , . r- 0>>- c: en <:) Ql _CD -- <DcntUrn III - m 0 g. ~ ~ ~I 0' ~ ~ 2 o n ~ ~ -0-3 af30= ~~01CD '8;:Q~ CD<1l-< ?:m(') 1Il III 0 -mc: (')-~ CD CD <:) ~J:1= _c:cn ~iQo c:a.> o a. ~ 3 ~ ~ o - ~ a o 0 ;; N (J) (') ~ N~O a ~ ):It ~ 3 cn en (') CDQo"O ~~"T1~ :r c: 0 C (') z;s ::c =. ~=(")-< arm(') iir CD o ~ ~ CD ... , , "tI :DO... ~ < 0 I o~a:I <30; 2.3::3 s CD ~ QII -~... CDa.O~ ~(')~"tl OCDlll=O c: ~ 3 ;-igo!!. lIl~O"CD o 0 c: liD :r~a:(') --0 :g ~ 3 :=:33 CDID- ~afo a:co ~ co III c: 3 m CD ~3. .... ~ m :> iJ iJ ~ :I: d :D m > r- G'5 z Z G) ~ m (J) m z o :D 8 s: s: c z ~ (') m z rM :D ~ (J) ^ g (') m MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCIL Kristi Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 September 27, 1994 Mayor and City Council City of Greenwood 20225 Cottagewood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Mayor and City Council: The Senior Community Center Task Force has revised plans and estimates a base building can be built for less than $400,000. However, when earthwork, paving, design, project management and inspection, kitchen, furnishings and all other expenditures are considered the total Senior Community Center project is likely to cost over $700,000. To lower this expense even more, the Task Force feels a hundred thousand dollars can be raised through fundraising events on a southshore community-wide basis for "finishing touches" such as kitchen equipment, furnishings, blinds and canopy over the entrance. With this effort it is estimated the project can be built in total with a financial commitment from the five cities of $622,000. Attachment A shows the construction project budget and what contributions would be if based on City population (Chart I) . Shorewood recognizes that as the' years go by it's percentage of the southshore population is likely to increase. Therefore we have prepared Chart II with Shorewood contributing 50% of the final base cost for cities. We are, on a conditional basis, committing to contributing minimally the amount identified for Shorewood in Chart II. We are asking you to make a similar conditional commitment ($24,569) for your City. The project could be completed sooner and with greater ease if cities were to consider contributing even more than what is indicated on Chart II. Fundraising efforts could then emphasize future building maintenance and equipment needs (depreciation) as is done by the Westonka Senior Foundation in Mound. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore .... , Senior Community Center September 27, 1994 Page 2 of 2 In addition, the Task Force feels funds raised from space rental in excess of building maintenance expenditures should go toward building depreciation. See Attachment B for a detailed explanation of their projections. Clearly many details need to be worked out. But we feel the best way to see a Southshore Senior Community Center built is for each of the cities to commit city resources at or greater than the amount listed on Chart II and to help with fundraising efforts throughout our southshor~ community. We understand your Task Force rePresentatives will be attending your next City Council meeting to discuss this letter and to answer any questions. We would appreciate your response to this inquiry immediately following your next meeting. If your answer on a tencative basis is "yes," we can dive into tackling the many questions we all have, and into the many details to be worked out, such as center governance, management and accountability. It is also important for all of us to know if your answer is "no". We can then look at other options o~ move on to other areas where joint efforts benefit us all. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL A~ . Dan Lewis, Co ncilmember " ~~u Kristi Stover, Councilmernber ~~ -5~ Bruce Benson, Councilmember MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Kristi Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 September 27, 1994 Mayor and City Council City of Deephaven 20225 Cottagewood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Mayor and City Council: The Senior Community. Center Task Force has revised plans and estimates a base building can be built for less than $400,000. However, when earthwork, paving, design, project management and inspection, kitchen, furnishings and all other expenditures are considered the total Senior Community Center project is likely to cost over $700,000. To lower this expense even more, the Task Force feels a hundred thousand dollars can be raised through fundraising events on a southshore community-wide basis for "finishing touches" such as kitchen equipment, furnishings, blinds and canopy over the entrance. . With this effort it is estimated the project can be built in total with a financial commitment from the five cities of $622,000. Attachment A shows the construction project budget and what contributions would be if based on City population (Chart - I) . Shorewood recognizes that as the.years go by it's percentage of the southshore population is likely to increase. Therefore we have prepared Chart II with Shorewood contributing 50% of the final base cost for.cities. We are, on a conditional basis, committing to contributing minimally the amount identified for Shorewood in Chart II. We are asking you to make a similar conditional commitment ($139,639) for your City. The project could be completed sooner and with greater ease if cities were to consider contributing even more than what is indicated on Chart II. Fundraising efforts could then emphasize future building maintenance and equipment needs (depreciation) as is done by the Westonka Senior Foundation in Mound. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore . <- Senior Community Center September 27, 1994 Page 2 of 2 In addition, the Task Force feels funds raised from space rental in excess of building maintenance expenditures should go toward building depreciation. See Attachment B for a detailed explanation of their projections. Clearly many details need to be worked out. But we feel the best way to see a Southshore Senior Community Center built is for each of the cities to commit city resources at or greater than the amount listed on Chart II and to help with fundraising efforts throughout our southshore community. We understand your Task Force representatives will be attendi~g your next City Council meeting to discuss this letter and to answer any questions. We would appreciate your response to this inquiry immediately following your next meeting. If your answer on a tentative basis is "yes," we can dive into tackling the many questions we all have, and into the many details to be worked out, such as center governance, management and accountability. It is also important for all of us to ~~ow if your answer is "no". We can then look at other options or move on to other areas where joint efforts benefit us all. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL Aya' Dan Lewis, Councilmember ~~ Kristi Stover, Councilmewber ~~L _ Bruce Benson, Counci~ember . '. MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCl L Kristi Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 September 27, 1994 Mayor and City Council City of Tonka Bay 4901 Manitou Road Excelsior, MN 55331-6538 Dear Mayor and City Council: The Senior Community Center Task Force has revised plans and estimates a base building can be built for less than $400,000. However, when earthwork, paving, design, project management and inspection, kitchen, furnishings and all other expenditures are considered the total Senior Community Center project is likely to cost over $700,000. To lower this expense even more, the Task Force feels a hundred thousand dollars can be raised through fundraising events on a southshore community-wide basis .for "finishing touches" such as kitchen equipment, furnishings, blinds and canopy over the entrance. With this effort it is estimated the project can be built in total with a financial commitment from the five cities of $622,000. Attachment A shows the construction project budget and what contributions would be if based on City population (Chart I) . Shorewood recognizes that as the years go by it's percentage of the southshore population is likely to increase. Therefore we have prepared Chart II with Shorewood contributing 50% of the final base cost for cities. We are, on a conditional basis, committing to contributing minimally the amount identified for Shorewood in Chart II. We are asking you to make a similar conditional commitment ($55,980) for your City". The project could be completed sooner and with greater ease if cities were to consider contributing even more than what is indicated on Chart II. Fundraising efforts could then emphasize future building maintenance and equipment needs (depreciation) as is done by the Westonka Senior Foundation in Mound. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Senior Community Center September 27, 1994 Page 2 of 2 In addition, the Task Force feels funds raised from space rental in excess of building maintenance expenditures should go toward building depreciation. See Attachment B for a detailed explanation of their projections. Clearly many details need to be worked out. But we feel the best way to see a Southshore Senior Community Center built is for each of the cities to commit city resources at or greater than the amount listed on Chart II and to help with fundraising efforts throughout our southshore community. We understand your Task Force representatives will be attending your next City Council meeting to discuss this letter and to answer any questions. We would appreciate your response to this inquiry immediately following your next meeting. If your answer on a tentative basis is "yes," we can dive into tackling the many questions we all have, and into the many details to be worked out, such as center governance, management and accountability. It is also important for all of us to know if your answer is "no". We can then look at other options or move on to other areas where joint efforts benefit us all. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL ~L~~ ' Dan Lewis, Councilmember ~ ~Lcru.uJ Kristi Stover, Councilmember /~~C ~.~ ~ Bruce Benson, Councilmember ember MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Kristi Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson CITY OF SHOREWO'OD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331.8927 · (612) 474.3236 September 27, 1994 Mayor and City Council City of Excelsior 339 3rd Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Mayor and City Council: The Senior Community Center Task Force has revised plans and estimates a base building can be built for less than $400,000. However, when earthwork, paving, design, project management and inspection, kitchen, furnishings and all other expenditures are considered the total Senior Community Center project is likely to cost over $700,000. To lower this expense even more, the Task Force feels a hundred thousand dollars can be raised through fundraising events on a southshore community-wide basis for "finishing touches" such as. kitchen equipment, furnishings, blinds and canopy over the entrance. With this effort it is estimated the project can be built in total with a financial commitment from the five cities of' $622,000. Attachment A shows the construction project budget and what contributions would be if based on City population (Chart I) . Shorewood recognizes that as the years go by it's percentage of the southshore population is likely to increase. Therefore we have prepared Chart II with Shorewood contributing 50% of the final base cost for cities. We are, on a conditional basis, committing to contributing minimally the amount identified for Shorewood in Chart II. We are asking you to make a similar conditional commitment ($90,812) for your City. The project could be completed sooner and with greater ease if cities were to consider contributing even more than what is indicated on Chart II. Fundraising efforts could then emphasize future building maintenance and equipment needs (depreciation) as is done by the Westonka Senior Citizens Foundation in Mound. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore . ... Senior Community Center September 27, 1994 Page 2 of 2 In addition, the Task Force feels funds raised from space rental in excess of building maintenance expenditures should go toward building depreciation. See Attachment B for a detailed explanation of their projections. Clearly many details need to be worked out. But we feel the best way to see a Southshore Senior Community Center built is for each of the cities to commit city resources at or greater than the amount listed on Chart II and to help with fundraising efforts throughout our southshore community. We understand your Task Force representatives will be attending your next City Council meeting to discuss this letter and to answer any questions. We would appreciate your response to this inquiry immediately following your next meeting. If your answer on a tentative basis is "yes," we can dive into tackling the many questions we all have, and into the many details to be worked out, such as center governance, management and accountability. It is also important for all of us to know if your answer is "no". We can then look at other options or move on to other areas where joint efforts benefit us all. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL (LA'~~ \ . ~, 'lmemb Dan Lew~s, Counc~ er ~UAL- ~ Kristi Stover, Councilmember ~4~ Bruce Benson, Councilmember MJ-~ Rob Daugher. y, C . lmember . . Attachment A FUNDING FORMULA FOR SENIOR COMMUNITY CENTER September 27, 1994 Base Bldg $391,000 Landscaping 30,000 Walks/Paving Curb 67,000 Soils Correction/ 39,000 Earthwork $527,000 Hard Costs + 58,000 = $585,000 .1 Design/Project Mgr 7.5% Legal/Misc. .2 3.0% Canst. Inspections 2.0% 12.5% $73,000 Contingency 8.0% 47,000 20.5% 120,000 Soft Costs 647,000 Total Base Cost (25,000) Cooperation Grant 622,000 FINAL BASE COST FOR CITIES 97,000 .3 Additions from Fund Raising $719,000 Total Project Cost Chart I: Share of Chart 1/: Share of 1993 Population $622,000 Shorewood RemaininQ 50% City Estimate % Rnal Base Cost 50% % $ Excelsior 2,377 16.3% 101,386 29.2% 90,81 2 Greenwood 643 4.4% 27,368 7.9% 24,569 Deephaven 3,646 25.0% 155,500 44.9% 139,639 Shorewood 6,430 44.2% 274,924 .4 311,000 Tonka Bay 1,466 10.1% 62,822 18.0% 55,980 14,562 100% $622,000 $311,000 100% $311,000 .1 Kitchen and canopy should be added to hard cost to determine soft cost .2 Testing, LSAC .3 Kitchen, furnishings, blinds, canopy .4 Land donated by Shorewood is not included in this cost B) CENTER BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUDGET _.. SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVIceS - SOUTHSHORE SENIOR calTER - RENTAL BUDGET . EXPENSES Eedric power, lights.. AC 5.000 Gas for heat & cocking 3.500 Removal 800 5norN Removal 800 Lawn mak'ltenance 300 Sewer & Watsr 700 Oeaning 4,200 Telephone 1,300 Repairs & Maintenance 2,400 TOTAL EXPENSES $19,000 Based 00 EOS Architec1ure's est for a 7.000 sq"~ REVENUES Southshcn (?ro~ Rental Fees)- I...arge (seats 200) Room wlKitchen 19,500 - Craft (ssats 40) Room wJSlnk 7,2BO - Library (seats 20) Room 4,160 - ITOTAL REVENUES $3O.94C .. . .-..- - .--.....-....- ......_--..-.~...._------- . . --- .--. . SClUthshors Rentd Budget based on Rich1ie/d and MinnetoriQ Centers Richfiekf 1W1tal rooms, similar 10 those projected fer Southst1oI8, $38,000 n 1993 Richfield's rooms 1hat can be r8l'1t8d 1st Large (seats 150) Room 2nd large (seats 180) Room Small (sea1S -40) Room - ?mject&d fees are based on a per event cost similar to Mlnneconl<a's rather than a per hour cost like Richfield's w"netcnKa's fee schedu1e - Community (sea13 250) Room: Weekend ResiderX rate $375; Non-Resident rate $450 Meeting (seats 30-40) Rooms: Nonprofit group rats $101half day; LocaJ Business or Resident rate $2OJhaJf day; - Nonlocal Business or nonresident rate $3OIhaif day Southshore Comnxrity Clnter Projectsd Scheduing _ --urge (seats 200) Room: 156 potentia. annual slots (Fri & Sat eves, Sun att<<noocls}-Estima1a based on 78 rentaJsI year (50%) @ $2SOIevent '.-Crail (seats 40) Room: 4 hour sessions, 21 potential weekly lime slots {3Iday)-Estimate based on 7 rentalsl week (33'%) @ $2Oftime average. Nonprofit group rate $10/half day; locaJ Business or Resident rate $201haJf day , NonIoc::af Buri1ess or Nonresident rase $3OIhaJf day. -tJbrary (sea1s 20) Room: 4 hour sessions, 21 potential weekly tlme slots {3/day}-Estimate based on 4 rentaJsJ week (33%) @ $2OIUme average. ... .... . . Suggested means of generating revenue for the maintenance of a Community/Senior Center: 1. Rental Revenue (See attached) 2. Establish a Foundation The Westonka Senior Center Inc. formed a Task Force and established the West Tanka Senior Citizen Foundation in 1988. The foundation now has $103,000. This money is not being used at present and in fact a policy has been set that the interest on the money will not be used until the foundation reaches a half-million dollars. Westonka Foundation has raised about $20,000 to $23,000 per year. A once a year fundraising letter is sent to all resident of the Westonka School District. This effort has generated about $13,000 to $14,000 of the year's amount. The remaining money has been raised principally through Memorials/50th wedding anniversary gifts, etc. A foundation could also be established for the Southshore Community/Senior Center, funds to be used for building maintenance, capital campaign, etc. ~. SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBliC SAFElY DEPARTMENT 810 Excelsior Boulevard Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 RlCHARD A. YOUNG of Police (612) 474-3261 Chief MRMQBAN~UM To: Coordinating Committee Chief YOU~~ November 8, 1 R 4 From: Date: Subject: Crime Bill The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 created a federal-local law enforcement partnership with funds to hire new police officers. The officers are to be used in community policing and a special program for cities under 50,000 population has been established. The application is only one page with very few questions asked. It must be submitted by December 31, 1994 and, if selected for funding, the funds would become available around February 1, 1995. ,. There are some conditions which must be met. The officer mu~t be used in community policing. The officer must be a new addition to '~he current force. If awarded, we must submit additional information on our budget and a two page description of how we will be using the new officer to participate in community policing. The program has an award limit of $75,000 total for the three year program. The federal funding decreases from 75% in the first year to 50% in the second year, to 25% in the third year. This means that as the officer increases in salary, the federal share decreases. In our case, the officer would be reaching top pay just as the funding ends. Since there was discussion about my request to add another patrol officer and, in fact, resulted in a tie vote at the Coordinating Committee, this may be a method by which an officer could be added and the increased costs associated with the officer could be phased in over the grant period. Obviously, such opportunities are infrequent and may not be available again for many, many years. Since our budget is already set for 1995, some funding mechanism would have to be found for the required matching funds in 1995. Unfortunately, the award year and our budget year would not be'the same. I would assume that if approved, the very soonest an'officer could be hired would be March 1995. Given that, I have estimated the costs, including fringe benefits, below. The costs are based on 1995 rates. 1st grant year - 75% - $38,880 total - $29,160 federal - $9,720 local 2nd grant year - 50% - $44,688 total - $22,344 federal - $22,344 local 3rd grant year - 25% - $47,724 total - $11,931 federal - $35,793 local Serving SoUlh Lake MinnetonJaz Cof7'l11lUnities of Ext:elsWr, Gtemwood, Shorewood and TonJaz Bay .~ " By budget year, including taking over full costs in 1999, the SLMPSD estimated costs would be: 1995 $ 7,246 9 months at 25% 1996 $19,232 3 months at 25%, 9 months at 50% 1997 $32,431 3 months at 50%, 9 months at 75% 1998 $47,198 3 months at 75%, 9 months at 100% 1999 $51,000 100% We would use approximately $63,435 federal dollars over the three years. Since we do not have another scheduled Coordinating Committee meeting until after the deadline for application submission, I thought all Coordinating Committee members should be made aware of the program. If there is any interest, any Mayor can ask for a special meeting. I have attached a copy of the application materials I received. cc: City Adminsitrators Mr. Robert Bean " 'I '- ~... U. S. Department of Justice Office of the Associate Attorney General RECEIVED NOV - 7 1994 Wa.rhington. D.C. 20530 November I, 1994 Dear Colleague: The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, signed into law by President Clinton on September 13, created a federal-local law enforcement partnership and the opportunity to hire 100,000 new officers under the "Cops on the Beat" program. With community policing as its base, the program is intended to encourage the development of police-citizen cooperation to control crime, maintain order, and improve the quality oflife in America. Attorney General Janet Reno has established the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) to expedite the hiring of new police officers and to implement community policing programs. The Department of Justice and the new COPS Office are pleased to announce the Funding Accelerated for Smaller Towns (COPS FAST) application. Through this new expedited grant approach, law enfofCement agencies serving populations under 50,000 are eligible to quickly hire new offu:ers to participate in community policing. I am enclosing a fact sheet that describes COPS FAST in more detail. To applJ1 for a share of these funas, you must return the enclnsed application form and certifu:ations to the COPS Offu:e, by December 31,1994. We were pleased to be able to abbreviate the application process, but in order to comply with Federal laws and regulations, we must ask you to examine and agree to the attached certifications. One of the goals of COPS FAST is to expedite and streamline the process of making funds available to law enforcement agencies. We will inform you of an authorized hiring level by February 1, 1995. Prior to fmal approval of your grant, we will ask for more information about your budget and a 2-page description of how your new officers will participate in community policing. If you need technical assistance to prepare your community policing plan, we will be happy to provide it. COPSF AST is one part of a multi-faceted effort that will bring new officers and deputies to cities, counties, and towns throughout America. If you do not wish to participate in COPS FAST, other funding opportunities will be available for innovative community policing programs, equipment, overtime, and other needs. Electing to wait for other programs will not prejudice your funding opportunities under those programs. Similarly, participating in COPS FAST will not prejudice your opportunity to participate in other programs. Announcements will be sent to you soon about these other programs. We have tried to distribute this announcement widely and if you received more than one copy of this announcement Of if your agency does not meet all of the eligibility requirements for COPS FAST, please pass the information along to a colleague. FOf more information about this program please call the Crime Bill Response Center at 1-800-421-6770. We look forward to working with you in a productive partnership to fight crime in our country. d4 I Jo!in R. Schmidt i Associate Attorney General , U.S. Department of Justice IJ u.s. Department of Justice -Y- u.s. Department of]ustice Fact Sheet Community Oriented Policing Services Funding Accelerated for Smaller Towns (COPS FAST) for Populations under 50,000 Program Information The COPS FAST Application is one of several approaches developed by the Department of Justice under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to speed the deployment of new officers devoted to community policing on the streets and rural routes in this nation. As directed by Congress, the FAST Application dramatically simplifies the task of applying for a federal grant. The FAST Application may be used by jurisdic- tions with populations under 50,000, while the COPS AHEAD approach will expedite the hiring by agencies serving larger populations. Funding Provisions Q The FAST Application - a fill-in-the-blank, one page fonn - will be available by November 1, 1994. The application will request basic identifying information about the agency, the number of police officers currently on the force and the number of new officers requested, basic fmancial information, and an agreement to abide by standard legal requirements. Q Completed applications will be due to the COPS Of- fice by December 31, 1994. The COPS Office will in- fonn the agency of an authorized hiring level by February I, 1995. Before funding may begin, jurisdictions desig- nated for funding will be required to submit necessary budget infonnation and a brief, satisfactory description of community policing plans. Technical assistance with the development of policing plans will be provided to juris- dictions in need of such assistance. Q Up to $165 million in grants will be made under COPS FAST to state, local and other public law enforce- ment agencies which serve populations under 50,000. If requests exceed the funds available, the atnount or start- ing date of grants may be adjusted to accommodate de~ mand. Q Funding will begin once the FAST Application has been approved and the new officers have been sworn. Grants will be made for up to 75 percent of the iotal sal- ary and benefits of each officer over three years, up to a maximum of $75,000 per officer. Q COPS grant funds must not be used to replace funds that eligible agencies otherwise would have devoted to future officer hiring. In other words, any hiring under the COPS program must be in addition to, and not in lieu of, previous hiring plans. Q In hiring new officers, agencies may not reduce the scope of their customary screening and training proce- dures, and must include community policing principles in their training curricula. In addition, to the extent practi- cable, COPS grant funds should be used to increase the representation of women and racial and ethnic minorities within the ranks of sworn officers. Q An award under COPS FAST will not aff~ct the con- sideration of an agency's application for a grant under any other COPS program. An agency that received funding under COPS Phase I is eligible to receive additional fund- ing under COPS FAST. Oc:tober 15. 1994 ~. , OMB A_' No. "05-001I' (EJcg. '0IlI7) ~ COPS FAST Application U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services This FAST Application is for jurisdictions serving populations of under 50,000. This grant pays only for salaries and benefits of new or rehired police officers. Complete the information below, read the assurances on the back and the enclosed Certifications, and sign below. By signing this application you also !!cknowledge that COPS FAST hiring grants provide a maximum federal contribution of75% of the salary and'benefits of each officer over three years, up to a cap of $75,000 per offiter, with the federal share decreasing from year to year. 633 Indiana Avenue, NW, 3rd Floor (202) 514.2058 Washington, DC 20531 FAX (202) 514.9272 Applicant Organization's Legal Name Law Enforcement Executive's Name Address City Telephone State FAX Zip Code Government Executive's Name Address City Telephone State FAX Zip Code Number of Officers Requested Through FAST Actual Number of Sworn Officers Performing Law Enforcement Functions as of 10/1/94 I. .. "1 Area of Jurisdiction (square miles) Entry Level Annual Salary Per Officer '. Number of 1993 UCR Part I Crimes Entry Level Annual Fringe Benefits Cost Per Officer I. Current Population Served (per most recent U.S. census data) Is the applicant organization delinquent on any federal debt? (If answer is yes, please attach an explanation.) Yes o No o I certify that the information provided on this form is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, I understand that the applicant must comply with the assurances on the reverse side if the assistance is awarded. On behalf of the applicant. I certify compliance with the applicable requirements of the Certifications Regarding Lobbying: Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters: Drug-Free Workplace Requirements; and Non-Supplanting. Law Enforcement Executive's Signature Government Executive's Signature Return this form postmarked by December 31, 1994 to: COPS Office, P.O. Box 14440, Washington, DC 20044. Overnight mail: 633 Indiana Avenue, NW, Third Floor, Washington, DC 20531. FAX: (202) 514-9272. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated at 55 minutes per response. including the time for reviewing instnlctions, searching existing data soun:es, gathering and maintaining the data needed. and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspects of this collection of information. including suggestions for reducing this burden to the Office of Omununity Oriented Policing Services. U.S. Department of Justice, 633 Indiana Ave., NW, Third Floor, Washington, DC 20531; and to the Public Use Reports Project, 1105-0061. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. COPS 001101 .,.- Assurances Several provisions of federal law and policy apply to all grant programs. We (the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services) need to secure your assurance that you (the applicant) will comply with these provisions. If you would like further information about any of the matters on which we seek your assurance, please contact us. By your authorized representative's signature, you assure us and certify to us that. if the grant is awarded, you will comply with all legal and administrative requirements that govern the acceptance and use of federal grant funds. In particular, you assure us that: 1. You have been legally and officially authorized by the appropriate governing body (for example, mayor or city council) to apply for this grant and that the persons signing the application and these assurances on your behalf are authorized to do so and to act on your behalf with respect to any issues that may arise during processing of this applica- tion. 2. You will comply with the provisions of federal law which limit certain political activities of your employees whose principal employment is in connection with an activity financed in whole or in part with this grant. These restric- tions are set forth in 5 U.S.C. ~ 1501,.ltl.gg. 3. You will comply with the minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Ad, if they apply to you. 4. You will establish safeguards, if you have not done so already, to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose that is, or gives the appearance of being, moti- vated by a desire for private gain for themselves or others, particularly those with whom they have family, business, or other ties. 5. You will give us or the Comptroller General access to and the right to examine records and dQcuments related to the grant. 6. You will comply with all requirements imposed by us as a condition or administrative requirement of the grant, with the requirements of OMB Circulars A-87 (governing cost calculations) and A-128 (governing audits), with the appli- cable provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, with 28 CFR Part 66 (Uniform Administrative Requirements), with the provisions of the current edition of the Office of Justice Programs. Financial and Administrative Guide for Grants, and with all other applicable laws, orders, regulations, or circulars. 7. You will, to the extent practicable, seek, recruit, and hire members of racial and ethnic minority groups and women in order to increase their ranks within the sworn positions in your agency. 8. You will not, on the ground of race, color, religion, . national origin, gender, disability or age, unlawfully exdude any person from participation in, deny the benefits or employment to any person, or subject any person to discrimination in connection with any programs or activities funded in whole or in part with federal funds. These civil rights requirements are found in the nondis- crimination provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. ~ 3789(d)); Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. ~ 2000d); the Indian Civil Rights Act (25 U.S.C. ~~ 1301-13Cl,3); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. ~ 794); Title II, Subtitle A of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. ~ 12101, ~ ~.); the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. ~ 6101, .ltl.gg.); and Department of Justice Non- Discrimination Regulations contained in Title 28, Parts 35 and 42 (subparts C, D, E and G) of the Code of Federal Regulations. A. In the event that any court or administrative agency makes a finding of discrimination on grounds of race, color, religion, national origin or sex against you after a due process hearing, you agree to forward a copy of the finding to the Office of General Counsel. COPS, P.O. Box 14440, Washington, DC 20044. B. If you are applying for a grant of $500,000 or more and Department regulations (28 CFR 42.301 ~ ~.) require you to submit an Equal Opportunity Employ- ment Plan, you will do so at the time of this application, if you have not done so in the past. 9. You will insure that the facilities under your ownership, lease or supervision which shall be utilized in the accomplishment of the project are not listed on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) list of Violating Facilities and that you will notify us if you are advised by the EPA indicating that a facility to be used in this grant is under consideration for listing by EP A. 10. If your state has established a review and comment procedure under Executive Order 12372 and has selected this program for review. you have made this application available for review by the State Single Point of Contact. COPS 001101 (Backl T, e @ - . ~ U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services CERTIFICATIONS REGARDING LOBBYING; DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS; DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS; AND NON-SUPPLANTING Although the Deparonent of Justice has made every effort to simplify the application process. other provisions of federal law require us to seek your certification regarding certain matters. Applicants should read the regulations cited below and the instruc- tions for certification included in the regulations to understand the requirements. The signature of the applicant's representative on the application provides for compliance with certification requirements under 28 CFR Part 69, "New Restrictions on Lobbying" and 28 CFR Part 67. "Government-wide Debannent and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Government-wide Requirements for Drug- Free Workplace (Grants)," and the non-supplanting requirements of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The certifications shall be treated as a material representation of fact upon which reliance will be placed when the Deparonent of Justice determines to award the covered granL 1. LOBBYING As required by Section 1352, Title 31 of the U.S. Code, and implemented at 28 CFR Part 69, for persons entering into a grant or cooperative agreement over $100,000, as defined at 28 CFR Part 69, the applicant certifies that: (a) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member. of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the making of any Federal grant. the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal grant or cooperative agreement; (b) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influenc- ing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or em- ployee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal grant or coop- erative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form - LLL, "Disdosure of Lobbying Activities," in accordance with its instructions. (Blank _ copies of Standard Form - LLL can be obtained from the Department of Justice Response Center at: (800) 421- 6nO); (c) The undersigned- shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subgrants, contracts under grants and cooperative agreements, and subcon- tracts) and that all sub-recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. 2. DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RE- SPONSIBILITY MATTERS (DIRECT RECIPIENT) As required by Executive Order 12549, Debarment and Suspension. and implemented at 28 CFR Part 67, for prospective participants in primary covered transactions, as defined at 28 CFR Part 67. Section 67.510- I A. The applicant certifies that it and its principals: -The simature on the anoJjc~!ion c,"',n . ". ... (i) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, sentenced to a denial of Federal benefits by a State or Federal court, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency; . (ii) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing public (Federal, State. or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; viola- tion of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; (iii) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a govemmental entity (Federal, State,-or local) with commission of any' of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (A)(ii) of this certification; and (iv) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application had one or more public transactions (Fedeial, State, or local) terminated for cause or default; and B. Where the applicant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, he or she shall attach an explanation to this application. 3. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE (GRANTEES OTHER THAN INDIVIDUALS) As required by the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, and implemented at 28 CFR Part 67, Subpart F, for grantees, as defined at 28 CFR Part 67 Sections 67.615 and 67.620 - A. The applicant certifies that it will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by: (i) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture. distribution, dispensing, posses- sion, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition; r'~ .. (ii) Establishing an on-going drug-free awareness program to inform employees about - (a) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; (b) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free work- place; (c) Any available drug counseling. rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and (d) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; (iii) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (i); (iv) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (i) that. as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will - (a) Abide by the terms of the statement; and (b) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction: (v) Notifying the agency, in writing. within 10 calendar days after receiving notice under subparagraph (iv)(b) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice. including position title. to: COPS Program. P.O. Box 14440. Washington, D.C. 20044. Notice shall include the identification number(s) of each affected grant; (vi) Taking one of the following actions. within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under subparagraph (iv)(b). with respect to any employee who is so convicted _ (a) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an. employee. up to and including termination. consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or (b) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for ." such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement or other appropriate agency; (vii) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of para- graphs (i). (ii). (iii), (iv). (v). and (vi). B. The grantee may insert in the space provided below the site(s) for the performance of work done in connection with the spedfic grant: Place of Performance (Street address, city. county, state. zip code) Check 0 if there are workplaces on file that are not identified here. Section 67.630 of the regulations provides that a grantee that is a State may elect to make one ~rtification in each Federal fiscal year. a copy of which should be included with each application for Department of Justice fund,ing. States and State agendes may elect to use OJP Form 406117. Check 0 if the State has elected to complete OJP Form 406117. 4. NON-SUPPLANTlNG The applicant hereby certifies that Federal funds will not be used to replace or supplant State or local funds. or funds supplied by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. that would. in the absence of federal aid. be made available for the employment of law enforcement officers. The applicant further certifies that funds required to pay the non-federal or Rcash matchR portion of the grant . program shall be in addition to funds that would otherwise be made available for the employment of law enforce- ment officers. COPS 002101 (Back)