031093 CC Reg AgP
.
..
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1993
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B.
Roll Call
Benson
stover
Daugherty
Lewis
Mayor Brancel
C.
Review Agenda
PRESENTATION OF AWARD TO RESIDENT COMMISSIONER DEAN JOHNSON - LAKE
MINNETONKA.CABLE COMMISSION AND CITY OF SHOREWOOD
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
. (Att.No.2A-Minutes)
3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to Aoorove Items on Consent Aqenda and
Adoot Resolutions Therein
A. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving Preliminary Plat
Deer Ridge (J. Scotty Builders)
(Att.No.3A-Proposed Resolution
B. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving Lot width and
Setback Variances - Lance DeTrude, 26620 West 62nd Street
(Att.No.3B-Proposed Resolution)
C. A Motion Amending Final Pay Voucher No.8 for Old Market
Road City Project 91-4
(Att.No.3C-Engineer's Letter and
Amended Pay Voucher)
4. . PARK
A. Park commission Report
B. Consider Agreement for park Management Service
5 . PLANNING
Report on Planning Commission meeting - February 16, 1993
6. IDENTIFY AND DISCUSS ISSUES IN RELATION TO RENTAL HOUSING CODE
(Att.No. 6-Rental Housing Code)
7. FINAL REPORT ON PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY - Nick Reuhl, EOS
Architecture
A. Consider a Motion to Approve a Resolution Accepting the
Final Change Order, Pay Request and Final Acceptance of
the Construction of the Public Works Building - Rochon
Corporation
(Att No.7-EOS Memo, Change Order, Pay
Request and Proposed Resolution)
.
.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1993
PAGE TWO
8. APPEAL LOCAL SANITARY SEWER ACCESS CHARGE CLSSAC) ORDINANCE
Appellant:
Location:
Douglas and Bonita Shoutz
6130 Cathcart Drive
Att.No.8-Planner's Memo and Resident
Letter and Proposed Ordinance)
9. ** CONSIDER A RESOLUTION SETTING POLICY REGARDING STORM WATER
MANAGEMENT FEES FOR SMALL PARCELS
(Att.No.9-Administrator's Memo and
Proposed Resolution)
10. LMCD REPRESENTATIVE BOB RASCOP - APPLICATION FROM BOULDER
BRIDGE FARMS REGARDING DOCK LICENSE
11. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
12. STAFF REPORTS
A. City Attorney
B. City Engineer
C. City Planner
D. Finance Director
E. City Administrator
**
1.
Review First Draft of a Policy on Special
Assessments for Street Reconstruction Projects
(Att.No.12E-1-Attachments)
13. COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Mayor Brancel
B. Councilmembers
14. ADJOURN TO CONTINUATION OF WORK SESSION SUBJECT TO THE
APPROVAL OF CLAIMS
(Attachment)
JCH.al
3/04/93
** indicates tax increase or fee implications
PLEASE NOTE, THAT AT THE REQUEST OF THE MAYOR, BEGINNING WITH THIS
AGENDA ANY ITEM WHICH HAS POTENTIAL TAX OR FEE IMPLICATIONS WILL BE
IDENTIFIED WITH TWO ASTERISKS (**) NEAR ITS NUMBER ON THE AGENDA.
NOTE ITEMS 9 and 12E1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1993
AGEND/I
6:00 pm - REFERENDUM CANVASS
...
A resolution will be prepared for Council consideration. All this
is doing is certifying the results of the election. Paper ballots
are being used.
Upon adjournment of the canvass we will break out into a work
session format. A separate memo and material is enclosed in the
packet for you to review before the work session. Assuming there
will not be enough time to complete the work session before the
7:00 pm City Council meeting the Council can reconvene the work
session following the adjournment of the regular council meeting.
'.
f
,
I
.1
..'
7:00 pm - REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA ITEM 3A ~ The Council has directed the staff to prepare this
resolution and findings of fact regarding the preliminary plat for
Deer Ridge development, just north of the Shorewood/Chanhassen
border off Koehnen Circle. A special agreement with the city of
Chanhassen for services will be required.
AGENDA ITEM 3B - Council has directed staff to prepare this
resolution and findings of fact for lot width and setback variances
for Lance DeTrude at 26620 West 62nd Street. This resolution
prearranges how his property can be subdivided into three lots with
minimal problems. A 4/5 vote of the Council is required.
AGENDA ITEM 3C - This action would be a motion to amend the final
pay voucher #8 for Old Market Road City project. This had been
finalized in January. An enclosed memorandum explains in detail
that it has been determined that an under-estimation was made and
that final payment for the concrete median was based on 1687 square
yards rather than the appropriate 2020 square yards. This
increases the final paYment from $77,260.73 to $83,920.73.
AGENDA ITEM 4 - By the time of the meeting the Council will know
the results of the Park Referendum. The Park Commission is meeting
the night before the Council meeting to discuss ways to manage the
Park Capital Improvement program if the referendum passes and if
the Council wishes to proceed. This item is on the agenda for
discussion only.
-over-
AGENDA ITEM 6 - Review the status of the rental housing code was
placed on the Council's first February meeting agenda. The
memorandum dated February 3 on this issue is again placed in this
Council packet. The Council wished to discuss these issues at a
meeting when the full Council was present. Please review the
memorandum and be prepared to discuss and to give direction to
staff.
AGENDA ITEM 7 - Nick Reuhl, EOS Architecture, will be present to
give the final report on the Public Works facility. Enclosed in
the packet is a letter from Mr. Reuhl summarizing the activity and
finalizing the contract and final pay request with Rochon Corp. A
resolution accepting the construction of the Public Works" building
is also enclosed. Mr. Reuhl will report on corrections to the
exhaust system and answer any questions the Council may have. Don
Zdrazil will also be present for the discussion.
AGENDA ITEM 8 - Douglas and Bonita Shoutz, 6130 Cathcart Drive, are
requesting a refund of $1,000 LSSAC charge. The subject property
had been charged for two sewer units in the early 1970's. A brief
memorandum explaining the circumstances is enclosed in the packet.
Attached to that memorandum is a draft ordinance addressing such
situations for the Council to discuss.
.
AGENDA ITEM 9 - with this item staff is asking Council to establish
policy as to whether or not very small parcels of land which do not
already receive a utility bill should receive a storm water
management utility charge if the charge is less than $2.00 per
quarter. A proposed resolution is enclosed.
AGENDA ITEM 10 - LMCD Representative Bob Rascop wants the City
Council to be aware of a Boulder Bridge Farms dock license issue.
They have ten docks on Lake Minnetonka and another thirty docks in
a lagoon off the lake. They are requesting that about six of the
lagoon docks be allowed to be moved to the lake.
.
AGENDA ITEM 11 - MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There is a possibility that Eric Sims who is building a home at
5555 Sylvan Lane will attend the Council meeting. He feels the
City should allow heavy trucks to deliver concrete and fill to his
home on Wildrose and Sylvan Lane. Public Works Director Don
Zdrazil has been very strict on the weight limits. Mr. Sims
indicated his displeasure and indicated that he may attend the
Council meeting.
AGENDA ITEM 12E-l - Enclosed is a draft of a proposed policy
regarding special assessments for street reconstruction projects.
The staff and myself have spent a lot of time over the last four
months preparing this draft in a form which we feel is consistent
with the recommendations of the Street Reconstruction Financing
Task Force. A draft has been sent to the members of the task
force. Several adjustments have been made as a result.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - MARCH 10, 1993
continue Agenda Item 12E-1
There are a lot of substantive policy considerations in this
document. The Council needs to determine in what manner they wish
to evaluate and review it. I am sure you will find in talking with
Councilmembers from many other cities, such policies can take many
months if not several years to fully develop. I assume at this
point it will take a number of meetings before the Council is
comfortable with the final draft.
As this meeting it is intended simply for the policy to be
presented. We certainly can identify major policy questions for
your consideration.
.
JCH.al
.
~
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1993
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Braneel at 7:08 p.m.
A PIEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
B. ROll CAlL
Present:
M-ayor Braneel; Councilmembers Benson, Daugherty and Lewis;
Administrator Hllrm, Engineer Dresel, Acting Attorney Martin and Planner
Nielsen.
.
Absent:
Councilmember Stover.
c.
REVIEW AGENDA
Daugherty moved, Lewis seconded to approve the agenda for February 22, 1993, with the
postponement of Consent Agenda item B. to March 10, 1993, and Agenda item 6. changed
to: Summary of Shoreland Management Regulations.
Motion passed 4/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUIES
.
A.
Regular City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993
Lewis moved, Benson seconded to approve the City Council Minutes of February 8, 1993.
Motion passed 3/0. Daugherty abstained.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Braneel read the Consent Agenda for February 22, 1993.
Lewis moved, Benson seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and to adopt the
Resolutions and Motion therein:
A RESOLUTION NO. 24-93 "A Resolution Appointing Susannah Dodson,
19265 Shady Hills Road, to West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board."
C. RESOLUTION NO. 25-93 "A Resolution Proclaiming March 1993 as Chronic
Fatigue Syndrome Awareness Month."
1
....
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 22, 1993 - PAGE 2
D. Motion to Approve the Annual Half-Marathon Easy Race to go Through the
City - May 2, 1993.
E. RESOLUTION NO. 26-93 "A Resolution Approving a C.D.P. for Freeman
Park Storage Building."
Motion passed 4/0.
4. PARK
A. Report on Park Commission Meeting of February 9 , 1993
Hurm reported that the South Shore Softball Association recently donated $3,000 to the
City's Parks.
.
5. PlANNING
A. Report on Planning Commission meeting of February 16, 1993
Commissioner Malam stated that the February 16 meeting consisted of a Work Study
session. He reviewed the Commission's actions on matters before the Council which were
considered and discussed at its meeting on February 2, 1993. These include unanimous
recommendations for approval for: Deer Ridge preliminary plat; lot width and setback
variances for Lance DeTrude; and adoption of an Ordinance amendment to simplify
enforcement and compliance of signs. Malam noted that with regard to the Deer Ridge
preliminary plat, the Commission recommends. that the center island in the cul-de-sac be
permitted with the approval of the fire marshall. Nielsen indicated that the fire marshall
requires a 50 foot radius to meet minimum standards for safety/emergency equipment
accessibility. .
B. Consider a Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare Findings of Fact for Preliminary
Plat - Deer Ridge - (J. Scotty Builders)
Lewis asked for clarification of Public Works' recommendation for elimination of the center
island in the Deer Ridge plat. Nielsen explained that the concern is related to difficulty in
snow plowing around the center island. He also noted that landscaping must be provided
on the island and maintained by the homeowners' association. Nielsen indicated that the
developer could provide for the required 50 foot turn-around radius by re-design of the
grading plan.
Benson asked for clarification of the effect of run-off and drainage particularly as it relates
to the northwest corner of the property. Dresel stated that the development will not solve
any of the existing problems nor will it significantly create additional problems.
Benson stated that based on his experience, he agreed with Public Works' position that a
cul-de-sac with a center island will hamper expedient snow plowing of the street.
2
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 22, 1993 - PAGE 3
Lewis moved, Benson seconded to direct the staff to prepare a findings of fact resolution
for preliminary plat - Deer Ridge - J. Scotty Builders.
Motion passed 4/0.
C. Consider a Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare a Findings of Fact for Lot
Width and Setback Variances - Lance DeTrude, 26620 West 62nd Street
Nielsen reviewed the details of the lot width and setback variances requested by Mr.
DeTrude and pointed out that the setback variance is part of a proposed settlement
suggested by the City Attorney so that Mr. DeTrude's property will contain three buildable
lots at the time of subdivision. Nielsen recommended that the western-most interior lot be
given the width variance.
.
Lewis asked for clarification of DeTrude's actions related to the shed on the property which
will become non-conforming at the time of subdivision. Nielsen stated that DeTrude may
decide to remove the building.
Benson moved, Daugherty seconded to direct the staff to prepare a findings of fact
resolution for lot width and setback variances - Lance DeTrude, 26620 West 62nd Street.
Motion passed 4/0.
D. Consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1201 of the City Code Relating to
Zoning Regulations (Signs)
.
Nielsen stated this Ordinance provides that political signs shall not be placed in front of any
property without the consent of the property owner, shall not be located closer than 10 feet
from the paved surface of any street, may be displayed 60 days prior to an election, and
permanent signs may be located no closer than 5 feet to any lot liJ;le. He noted that the
provisions of the amendment make the Ordinance enforceable with regard to placement of
signs.
Daugherty suggested that the Ordinance be made available to interested persons prior to
the next election.
Lewis moved, Benson seconded to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 270. Amending Chapter 1201
of the Shorewood City Code Relating to Zoning Regulations.
Motion passed 4/0.
6. SUMMARY OF SHORELAND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
Nielsen indicated that the Summary is a public notification that the City adopted shoreland
regulations in November 1992. Publication of the Summary only will avoid costly
publication of the 12-page regulations. The Summary discusses the shoreland regulations
and states that copies of the full document are available at the Excelsior Library and at City
3
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 22, 1993 - PAGE 4
Hall. Nielsen noted that Council approval of the Summary is required prior to its
publication.
Lewis suggested that a list of lakes to which the regulations apply be included in the
publication Summary.
Lewis moved, Daugherty seconded to approve for publication the Shoreland Management
Regulations Snmmary, including a list of lakes to which the regulations apply.
Motion passed 4/0.
7. MATIERS FROM THE FLOOR
Mr. Dan Puzak, 23830 Smithtown Road, spoke to express concern regarding the Park .
Commission meeting minutes which stated that there is a policy to ban snowmobiling in
Shorewood. He reviewed the activities of the newly-organized snowmobile club to improve
snowmobiling conditions. He inquired what the status of that policy is. In addition, he
discussed a letter from a resident who supports banning snowmobiling in Shorewood and
reviewed actions taken by the club with regard to the complaint.
Lewis expressed concern regarding protection of the privacy of the resident during the
presentation and requested removal of the visual map.
Puzak stated his concern that decisions are being made regarding snowmobiling without
accurate and complete information. He stated that snowmobilers will work with the City
and residents to prevent trespassing and promote responsibility, and that snowmobiling adds
to the variety of recreation available to residents. Bruzak commented on the snowmobile
trail system.
.
Hurm clarified that the statement in the Park Commission meeting minutes vyas not
intended to construe that a policy currently exists banning snowmobiling, but that in the
future, the Council may need to consider such a policy. He pointed out that to date, no
such recommendation has come before the Council. The minutes ~eferred to were "draft"
and had not been reviewed or approved by the Park Commission yet.
Daugherty reported he has received complaints regarding snowmobilers and suggested the
club continue to mitigate problems in a non-threatening way.
Lewis stated the club does an excellent job in its work with the South Lake Police
Dep(lrtment and noted that some surrounding cities have banned snowmobiling.
Mr. Mike Ellis, 6135 Cathcart Road, commented that just because other cities have
banned snowmobiling, Shorewood does not have to go along with that. He commented on
the availability of gas tax funds for maintenance of multi-use trails.
Lewis stated that if the snowmobile club is successful in its efforts in Shorewood, citizen
pressures will not arise and the Council will not need to consider a ban on snowmobiling.
4
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 22, 1993 - PAGE 5
8. STAFF REPORTS
A City Attorney - None.
B. City Engineer
Dresel reported on a public information meeting held regarding the Lake Linden Drive
proposal. Although invitations were sent to 14 residents, only two residents and a concerned
neighbor attended the meeting. Comments received concerned sidewalks following the trail
system causing the possible removal of lilac bushes and the need for additional input from
the other residents. Dresel will circulate a summary of the meeting to the other residents.
He noted that assessments were not discussed at this meeting.
.
c.
City Planner
1. Installation of Pedestrian Crossing Signs - Old Market Road
Nielsen noted that the Old Market Road Task Force recommended safety improvements
regarding pedestrian crossing signs. Installation of such a sign is suggested across from
Silverwood Park to get people from the south side to Silverwood Park. It is recommended
that the signs and stripe painting be done simultaneously.
Lewis asked for clarification of the type of sign to be posted. Nielsen stated it will be a
yellow diamond-shaped sign with the pedestrian symbol. Lewis asked if there is a plan to
develop the access to Silver Creek and suggested that installation of the pedestrian sign be
coordinated with development.
.
Daugherty expressed concern regarding the location of the sign and stated that installation
of the sign be coordinated with sidewalk installation.
The consensus of the Council was that installation of the pedestrian sign be deferred until
such time that development of Silverwood Park is completed.
2. Hennepin County Ground Water Plan Report
Nielsen briefly commented on an Executive Summary of the Hennepin County Ground
Water Plan which is intended to protect the ground water supply in Hennepin County.
Local governments are being asked to provide base information and implementation of the
plan.
From Shorewood's standpoint, Nielsen stated the plan is positive particularly because of the
number of private wells. This issue will be further addressed in the Comp Plan.
D. Finance Director - None.
E. City Administrator
5
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 22, 1993 - PAGE 6
1. Setting a Public Hearing 1993 (Year XIX) Urban Hennepin County
CDBG Program
The Councilmembers concurred with a recommendation that a public hearing be set for
Monday, March 22, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. regarding the City's Community Development Block
Grant Program.
Hurm informed the Council that the City was not among those awarded funding from the
F ederal Bikeway/Walkway Program.
Hurm noted that the City received a notice of pay equity compliance from the Minnesota
Department of Employee Relations.
Hurm stated that the City will continue to apply for grants as opportunities arise. Dresel
noted that new Federal funding for trails has recently become available.
.
9. COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Mayor Brancel - None.
B. Councilmembers
Daugherty thanked and commended the South Lake Police Department and Excelsior Fire
Department for their professional and timely response to a potential fire at his home
recently.
10. ADJOURNMENT SUBJECf TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS
Lewis moved, Benson seconded to adjourn the City Council Meeting at 8:10 p.rn. subject to . .
the approval of claims.
Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMHTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
ATIEST:
BARBARA J. BRANCEL, MAYOR
JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
6
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR
DEER RIDGE
WHEREAS, J. SCOTTY BUILDERS, INC. (Applicant) has an interest in certain
land within the City of Shorewood and has applied to the Council for preliminary approval of
a plat to be known as Deer Ridge; and .
.
WHEREAS, Applicant's request has been reviewed by the City Planner and his
recommendations have been duly set forth in a Memorandum to the Planning Commission
dated 27 January 1993, which Memorandum is on fIle at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Shorewood Planning Commission on
2 February 1993, for which notice was duly published and all adjacent property owners duly
notified.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
1.
granted.
That Applicant's request for preliminary plat approval of Deer Ridge is hereby
.
2. That such approval is subject to recommendations a. - L, set forth in the
Planner's Memorandum, dated 27 January 1993, being incorporated into a development
agreement between the Applicant, the City of Shorewood and the City of Chanhassen as part
of final plat approval.
3. That such approval is also subject to the recommendations 1. - 4., 6. and 7.,
set forth in the Planner's Memorandum, dated 27 January 1993, and the terms and conditions
contained in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of 2 February 1993 on file at
Shorewood- City Hall. -
4. That the landscaped center island in the cul-de-sac shown on the Applicant's
plans is approved subject to the following:
a. . The radius of the paved surface of the cul-de-sac be increased to 50 feet per
the recommendations of the Fire Marshal and the City Engineer.
b. The Applicant must provide a revised grading plan showing the enlarged cul-
de-sac diameter and a detailed landscape plan for the center island.
3A
.
.
c. That the center island will be maintained by a homeowner's association
consisting of the owners of all five of the future lots. Legal documents
establishing the homeowner's association shall be provided by the Applicant
with his final plat.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 10th day of
March, 1993.
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
ATIEST:
Jamces C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk
- 2 -
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT WIDTH VARIANCE
AND A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LANCE DETRUDE
WHEREAS, Lance DeTrude (Owner) is the owner of certain real property in the City
of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota legally described as:
"Lots 2 3 4 and 5 Minnewashta". and
, " ,
.
WHEREAS, a recent condemnation of right-of-way by the City for the improvement
of Church Road has reduced the width of the property such that the Owner can no longer
subdivide his property into three lots which comply with the minimum lot width ~equirements
of the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Owner does not propose to subdivide the property at this time, but
desires assurance from the City that he will be able to subdivide his property into three lots
in the future; and
WHEREAS, the City has agreed to consider a lot width variance and a setback
variance to allow the property to be subdivided into three lots in the future; and
WHEREAS, the variances were reviewed by the City Planner and his
recommendations have been duly set forth in memoranda, dated 30 December 1992 and
27 January 1993, which memoranda are. on file at the Shorewood City Hall; and
.
WHEREAS, after legal notice and publication a public hearing was held to consider
the variances by the Shorewood Planning Commission on 5 January 1993, the minutes of
which .meeting are on file at the Shorewood City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the variances, the memoranda of the City Planner and the
recommendations of the Planning Commission were considered by the City Council at its
regular meeting held on 22 February 1993.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the subject property contains approximately 34,920 square feet of area
and is located in an R-1D, Single-family Residential Zoning District, which requires
minimum lot areas of 10,000 square feet and minimum lot widths of 75 feet.
~f:>
2. That prior to condemnation of 12.5 feet of right-of-way for the Church Road
improvement project, the property was capable of being subdivided into three lots.
3. That subsequent to the r.o.w. condemnation a lot width variance of
approximately three' feet will be necessary to subdivide the property into three lots.
4. That in order to maintain a reasonable buildable area for the future easterly
lot, a setback variance of approximately eight feet will be required at the south end of the
easterly lot.
5. That despite the need for the variances, three future lots can be created which
comply with .the minimum area requirement of the R-1D district.
.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That the variances will not violate the intent and purpose of the City
Comprehensive Plan and will not alter the essential character of the locality.
2. That the condemnation of right-of-way for the Church Road improvement
project has resulted in an undue hardship for the Owner which prevents him from making
reasonable use of his property.
3. That the request satisfies the criteria for granting variances under Section
1201.05 of Shorewood City Code and qualifies as undue hardship as defined by M.S. Section
462.357, Subd. 6(2).
4. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants a lot width
. variance and setback variance as set fort)1 above, subject to the following:
a. That the property will be subdivided by the formal platting process prescribed
by the Shorewood Subdivision Ordinance in effect at the time of subdivision.
b. That the lot width variance be applied to the westernmost lot of the future
subdivision.
c. That lot lines for the future subdivision be made as close to 90 degrees to the
West 62nd Street right-of-way as possible, taking site features into
consideration.
d. That except for the width and setback variances granted herein, the
development of the property will comply with all rules and regulations of the
City of Shorewood in effect at the time the property is subdivided.
- 2 -
.
.
5. That a certified copy of the Resolution be recorded with the Hennepin County
Recorder or Registrar of Titles.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 10th day of
March, 1993.
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
ATTEST:
James C. Hurm, City AdministI'3:tor/Clerk
- 3 -
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
OSMorr
Schelen
. . ly1ayer~>n &
AsSociates, Inc.
300 Park Place Center
5775 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis, MN 55416-1228
612-595-5775
1-800-753-5775
FAX 595-5774
Engineers
Architects
Planners
Surveyors
February 26, 1993
Re: Old Market Road
Amendment to Final Pay Voucher No.8
City Project 91-4
OSM File 4705.01
. Dear Mayor and Council Members:
At the January 11, 1993 meeting the Council approved, by Resolution, final acceptance
and payment for the construction of Old Market Road. This resolution was subject to
several items, one of which was evidence in the form of an affidavit by the Contractor
that all claims (materials and subcontractors, etc.) were paid in full. This provision
protects the City from additional claims after the Contractor has received final payment.
In this case, the Contractor (Hardrives, Inc.) was unable to provide this affidavit due to a
claim from one of the subcontractors that he had been underpaid. After much
deliberation, it is apparent that an underestimation was made, and that final payment for
item 44 (concrete median) be based on 2020 square yards instead of the 1687 square
yards previously proposed. This increases the final payment amount from $77,260.73 to
$83,920.73 based on the unit cost of $20.00 per square yard.
. As no payment has been made to Hardrives to date, we recommend this amendment to
the final voucher and payment to them in the amount of $83,920.73, subject to the terms
of the Resolution. Please call me at 595-5695 with any questions.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MA YERON
&~M
~sel, P.E., l..S.
City Engineer
~
Equal Opportunity Employer
VOOCHER NO.:
DATE :
PROJECT:
PROJEC'l' NO.:
OSM COMM. NO.:
FOR:
8 &: FnmL
January 1, 1993
Old Market Road Intersection
91-4
4705.01
City of Shorewood, MN
TO:
HARDRIVES, INC.
9724 10TH AVE. NO.
PLYMOUTH, MN 55441
A. ORIGINlU. CClIIiI'l'RAC'l' AMOON'l':
$1,044,615.70
B. 'l'O'l'AL ADDI'l'IONS:
$28,654.06
~AL DEDOC'l'IONS:
D. 'l'O'l'AL FtJNDS ENC:tJMBERED:
$1,073,269.76
B. 'l'O'l'AL ~ OF WORK CBR'l'IFIED TO DATE:
$1,113,464.52
11' . LESS RB'l'ADIBD PBRCEN'l'AGB:
o
%
G. LESS 'l'O'l'AL PREVIOO'S PA'DIEN'l'S:
$1,029,543.79
R. 'l'O'l'AL PAYMEN'l'S INCLUDIm THIS VOO'CHER:
$1,113,464.52
I. ENCtlMBERED FtJNDS CARRIED FORWARD:
($40,194.76)
J. APPROVED FOR PAYMEN'l' 'l'BIS VOOCHBR:
$83,920.73
.SCRBLBN-IlAYBR~ &: ASSOCIA'l'ES, INC.
uant to our field observation, as perfoz::med in accordance with our contract, _ hereby certify that the materi
satisfactory and the work properly perfoz::med in accordance with the plans and specifications and that the tota
-" i. :-- % ~1.'" - 0' _ 1. 1993. .. ..~ T 0' """ _.
Signed: ~t.. I IfPh/ J" 'J'nD Signed: ~tr-- /7'
Construction Observer prey Engineer ~
CClN'l'RAC'l'OR: Bardrives, Inc.
SIGNIm BY:
belief, the quantities and values of work
k-thiilXf
'l'his is to certify that to the best of m;y II:zIoIfledge, info:clllltion,
certified herein is a fair approximate value for the period cove
DATE :
January 11, 1993
'l'I'l'LB:
()u-.e.
CI'l'r OF SRORBWOOD
APPROVED:
DA'l'B :
January 11, 1993
'l'I'l'LB:
VOUCHER NO. : 8 & FINAL TO: IlARDRIVES, INC.
DATE: Janua:ry 1, 1993 9724 10TH AVE. NO.
PROJECT: Old Market Road Intersection PLYMOUTH, MN 55441
PRQJEcr NO.: 91-4
OSM COMM. NO.: 4705.01
FOR: City of Shorewood, MN
CONTRACT COMPLETE TO DATE
ITEM SPEC. TOTAL UNIT TOTAL TOTAL
NO. REFERENCE ITEM UNIT QUANTITY COST AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT
1 0563.601 Traffic Control (Stage I&II) L.S. 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 1 $20,000.00
2 0564.602 F&I Signs L.S. 1 $5,720.00 $5,720.00 1 $5,720.00
3 0564.602 Pavement Messages L.S. 1 $2,650.00 $2,650.00 1 $2,650.00
4 0564.603 Line Pavement Markings L.S. 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00
5 2101.511 Clear & Grub L.S. 1 $10,500.00 $10,500.00 1 $10,500.00
6 2104.501 Remove Curb & Gutter (all types) L.F. 85 $5.00 $425.00 166 $830.00
7 2104.501 Remove Pipe (all sizes and types) L.F. 1460 $3.60 $5,256.00 1636 $5,889.60
8 2104.505 Remove Bituminous Median S.Y. 1410 $4.20 $5,922.00 1052 $4,418.40
9 2104.505 Remove Bituminous Pavement S.Y. 16142 $1.40 $22,598.80 12676 $17,746.40
10 2104.513 Sawing Bituminous Pavement L.F. 2414 $2.00 $4,828.00 2954 $5,908.00
11 2105.501 Common Excavation C.Y. 41532 $1. 85 $76,834.20 52932 $97,924.20
12 2211. 501 Class 5 (100% CJ:Ushed) Ton 9899 $7.10 $70,282.90 8906 $63,232.60
13 2105.522 Select Granular Bo=ow (LV) C.Y. 5164 $5.50 $28,402.00 947 $5,208.50
14 2331. 508 Type 61 Wearing Course Mixture (TH7) Ton 1835 $28.65 $52, 572 .75 1574.0 $45,095.10
15 2331. 512 Type 41 Leveling Course Mixture (TH7) Ton 175 $23.30 $4,077.50 529.7 $12,342.01
16 2331. 508 Type 41 Wearing Course Mixture Ton 1023 $20.40 $20,869.20 1326 $27,050.40
17 2331.510 Type 41 Binder Course (TH7) Ton 886 $19.80 $17,542.80 866 $17,146.80
18 2331. 510 Type 31 Binder Course Ton 1487 $19.35 $28,773.45 1803 $34,888.05 .
19 2331.514 Type 31 Base Course Mixture Ton 5400 $18.90 $102,060.00 4766 $90,077.40
20 2357.502 Bituminous Material for Tack Coat Gal. 3485 $1. 00 $3,485.00 2935 $2,935.00
21 2411. 503 Concrete Retaining Wall (5397.723) S.Y. 450 $360.00 $162,000.00 525 $189,000.00
22 2501. 567 12" R.C. APron w/trash guard Each 4 $300.00 $1,200.00 4 $1,200.00
23 2501. 567 15" R.C. Apron w/trash guard Each 3 $325.00 $975.00 3 $975.00
24 2501. 567 24" R.C. APron w/trash guard Each 2 $465.00 $930.00 1 $465.00
25 2112.501 SUbgrade Preparation RdSt 57 $100.00 $5,700.00 59 $5,900.00
26 2104.509 Remove C.B. Each 16 $265.00 $4,240.00 16 $4,240.00
27 2501.501 Random Rip Rap Class III C.Y. 17 $42.00 $714.00 10.7 $449.40
28 2503.541 24" R.C.P. Class III L.F. 230 $21. 00 $4,830.00 211 $4,431.00
29 2503.541 18" R.C.P. Class III L.F. 361 $19.00 $6,859.00 345 $6,555.00
30 2503.541 15" R;C.P. Class IV L.F. 335 $17.60 $5,896.00 398 $7,004.80
31 2503.541 12" R.C.P. Class IV L.F. 731 $14.30 $10,453.30 1025 $14,657.50
32 STD SPEC STD 4' Dia. Manhole (0-8' Deep) Each 4 $960.00 $3,840.00 4 $3,840.00
33 STD SPEC Catch Basin Manholes (0-8' Deep) Each 14 $880.00 $12,320.00 14 $12,320.00
34 STD SPEC Excess Manhole over 8' Deep L.F. 5 $105.00 $525.00 5.6 $588.00
35 STD SPEC STD Catch Basin Each 10 $715.00 $7,150.00 9 $6,435.00
36 STD SPEC Adjust Existing Manhole Each 4 $150.00 $600.00 6 $900.00
37 STD SPEC Adjust Existing Catch Basin Each 2 $150.00 $300.00 1 $150.00
38 STD SPEC Adjust Existing Gate Valve Each 2 $150.00 $300.00 3 $450.00
39 2521.501 3" Con=ete Walk S.F. 145 $2.00 $290.00 6059 $12,118.00
40 2531.501 B618 Con=ete curb and Gutter L.F. 5889 $5.00 $29,445.00 6893 $34,465.00
41 2531. 501 B624 Concrete Curb & Gutter L.F. 2170 $6.40 $13,888.00 956 $6,118.40
42 2531. 501 0424 Con=ete Curb & Gutter L.F. 575 $6.60 $3,795.00 1627 $10,738.20
43 2535.501 Bituminous Curb L.F. 270 $3.00 $810.00 499 $1,497.00
44 2531. 503 Concrete Median S.Y. 1385 $20.00 $27,700.00 2020 $40,400.00 .
45 2554.501 Traffic Ba=ier Design 8322 L.F. 300 $23.00 $6,900.00 322 $7,406.00
46 2565.511 Full T. Actuated T. Control System L.S. 1 $70,000.00 $70,000.00 1 $70,000.00
47 DIV II SeedinglMulch, Fert. and 4" Topsoil Acre 6 $1,000.00 $6,000.00 4.2 $4,200.00
48 2571.541 Transplant (Pine) Tree 15 $150.00 $2,250.00 9 $1,350.00
49 2575.505 Sod/4" Topsoil (Lawn Type) S.Y. 9.823 $1. 60 $15,716.80 8100 $12,960.00
50 2611. 5 Hydrant Each 10 $1,040.00 $10,400.00 10 $10,400.00
51 2611.5 6" Gate Valve and Box Each 11 $375.00 $4,125.00 11 $4,125.00
52 2611. 5 8" Gate Valve and Box Each 7 $500.00 $3,500.00 6 $3,000.00
53 2611.5 12" Gate Valve & Box Each 3 $850.00 $2,550.00 3 $2,550.00
54 2611.5 Fittings Lbs 8040 $1. 20 $9,648.00 8790 $10,548.00
55 2611. 5 1-1/2" Corporation Stop Each 4 $121. 00 $484.00 4 $484.00
56 2611.5 1-1/2" Curb Stop & Box Each 4 $200.00 $800.00 4 $800.00
57 2611. 5 1-1/2" Copper Type K L.F. 90 $1;.00 $1,260.00 90 $1,260.00
58 2611.5 Insulation (4" Thick) S.F. 1500 $" .05 $3,075.00 1504 $3,083.20
59 DIV II Erosion Control L.F. 1000 $".00 $2,000.00 1137 $2,274.00
60 2611. 5 6" D.I.P. Class 52 L.F. 244 $16.50 $4,026.00 190 $3,135.00
61 2611. 5 8" D.I.P. Class 52 L.P. 760 $12.10 $9,196.00 1095 $13,249.50
62 2611. 5 12" D.I.P. Class 50 L.P. 2650 $16.50 $43,725.00 2444 $40,326.00
63 DIV II Relocate Hydrant Each 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00
64 DIV II Jack Casing for 12" Watermain L.P. 140 $110.00 $15,400.00 120 $13,200.00
65 DIV II Mobilization L.S. 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 1 $20,000.00
66 DIV II Clean-Up L.S. 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 1 $20,000.00
$1,044,615.70 $1,084,810.46
CHANGE ORDER No. 1 $11,413.00 $11,413.00
CHANGE ORDER No. 2 $12,509.22 $12,509.22
SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT No. 1 $3,100.00 $3,100.00
SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT No. 2 $1,631. 84 $1,631. 84
TOTAL ADDITIONS $28,654.06 $28,654.06
GRAND TOTAL $1,073,269.76 $1,113,464.52
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
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
. FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 3 February 1993
RE: Rental Housing Code
FILE NO.: 405 (City Code Chapter 1004)
.
In 1990, after direction by the City Council and considerable work by the Planning
Commission, the City adopted Chapter 1004, a Rental Housing Code providing rules and
regulations pertaining to rental housing of all types. Before the Code was published, putting
it legally into effect, the Council heard from a number of rental property owners who-
objected to. not having input into the Code. The Council then directed staff to put the Code
on hold an.d establish a committee to review the Code and comment to the City Council.
The only people who volunteered fo~ !!1e committee were the following rental property
owners:
.
Pat Niemi
Warren Clague (representing Dutcher properties)
Helen Schimmelfennig
David Ryan
'I.
\
.~.
.-
.
.-
-'
In addition, Councilmember Gagne and Mayor Brancel participated in two meetings- with the
group. Due to the subsequent change-over in City Administrators no action was taken on the
Code. Consequently, we have an ordinance on the books which is not being enforced. > Staff
feels the Council needs to decide whether to publish the Code and begin enforciIlg it or
repeal it. -
A copy of the summary of the Code is attached for your review. Also we are forwarding a
complete copy of the Chapter in case you have detailed questions. , '
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
b
I'
I
Re: Rental Housing Code
3 February 1993
~,
Following are the comments made by the rental property owners:
- ,
1. . The general concensus of the group is that the Code discriminates against renters and
, rental property. They feel that the types of problems which had been raised can be
addressed with existing codes (e.g. the Building Code), and that tenants have pther
remedies against problem landlords. They also feel that the Code punishes the good
landlords because of the practices of a few poor ones. Their basic recommendation is
that there should not be any code. '
2.
If there is to be a housing code it should apply to all residential property - not just
. rental property.
.
3.
Licenses should be issued every three years and the fee should be paid every three
years.
4. Fees' should reflect the number of inspections required. Lower the initial fee and
charge for follow-up inspections.
5. There should be no initial inspection, the Code should be enforced only on a
complaint basis.
6. The group was split 2-2 on whether a resident agent should be required.
7.
They questioned who had standing to make a complaint
· tenant - yes, but current only ,
. · neighboring tenant - yes
· neighboring property ,- split 2-2 ,
· Councilmember - yes, but subject to other complaints
· angry competitor - no
/.
8. The grQup was'split on whether screens should be the responsibility of the landlord.
. .
9. Correction of immediate hazar~s (Sect. 1004.04 Subd. 4) sh9u1d be the resp~nsibility.
'of_the owner or his agent- not the occupant or other responsible person. ':
"
. ,.
S!aff will be prepared to answerquestions on the Code at Monday night's meetiIlg.
need any additional in!ormation; please call me prior to the meeting.
cc: 'iim Hur~' ~ Helen Schimmelfennig
Tim Keane Dave Ryan'
Pat Niemi Bob Gagne '
Warren Clague'
..
If you
\ "
- 2 -
ULj 17 {' ~
rc~[p)f
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
OFFICIAL SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 223
On March 19, 1990, the Shorewood City Council adopted Ordinance No.
223 entitled: An Ordinance Amending Title 1000 of the Shorewood City Code
Adopting A Rental Housing Code. The Shorewood City Council hereby adopts
this 0 ffi~ial Summary of the 0 rdinance . .
.
Sharing the concerns of a growing number of Minnesota
communiti-esv Shorewood has adopted a rental housing
code. T he intent of the new regulations is to correct
and prevent housing conditions that may adversely
affect the health, safety and general welfare of
Shorewood's rental population. The code is also
intended to improve and maintain the quality of
Shorewood's housing stock.
The new code establishes a procedure for the licensing
of rental dwelling units, imposes minimum standards
relative to health and safety, provides for a system of
inspections, and establishes procedures for
administering and enforcing the code.
.
Anyone operating a rental dwelling unit must obtain a
license to do so. This requirement applies not only to
apartments, duplexes and double bungalows, but also
extends to single-family homes, or parts thereof (e. g.
accessory apartments). T he cost of obtaining a license
is $35 per unit. Licenses must be renewed annually or
upon change of ownership, whichever occurs first.
The new code requires that rental dwelling units comply
with certain minimum health and safety requirements.
Standards for plumbing, wiring and heating have been
adopted by reference from the Uniform Housing Code.
Property maintenance is also addressed in the
reg~lations.
In order to obtain a license, owners of rental units
will be required to have th~ir properties inspected.
T he code provides for an initial inspection to ensure
compliance with the aforementioned minimum standards.
T hereafter inspections will be made every three years
or when changes in ownership occur. Inspections will
also be made on a complaint basis.
T he last section of the code establishes deadlines for
compliance: a::d an appeal process. Penalties for
violating the code are also prescribed.
~.b;t ^
A copy of the new code is being mailed to all known
owners of rental property. Copies of the code are also
available for review or purchase at the Shorewood City
Hall.
The Rental Housing Code goes into effect as of 1 June
1990.
A complete text of the Rental Housing Code, Ordinance No. 223, is
available for review in the City offices located at 5755 Country Club Road
during regular office hours.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 14th day of May,
1990. .
Jan Haugen, Mayor
ATTEST:
Laurence E. Whittaker
City Administrator/Clerk
.
A
Eos
ARCHITECT[RE
.
.
March 3, 1993
Ms. Barb Beancel, Mayor
City Council Members
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorevvood,Nlinneso~ 55331
Re: Public Works Facility
Dear Mayor Brancel and Council Members:
21 \\;'\TER STREET
EXCELSIOR. mXXESOn ;;331
FAX 612-47'+-3928
612--Ci-3291
We are pleased to report to the Council that the Public Works Facility
construction contract vvith Rochon has been completed. Follovvmg is a
summary of the fInancial activity on the project:
Original contract amount
C.O. 1: Upgrade steel joists to accommodate
future crane in service bay. add:
C.O.2: Provide signange and drinking foun~
to A.D.A. requirements ded:
C.O. 3: Install A.D.A. curb ramb add:
C.O.4: Paint interior service bay walls add:
C.O.5: Add backflovv preventer to City's
pressure washer per Mo. Dept. Health. add:
C.O. 6: Add 10 "no parking fIre lane" signs
per Fire Marshal. add:
C.O.7: Earthvvork change orders per OSM add:
Tow change order amount:
net:
Final contract amount:
$684,500.00
$ 3.200.00
$ 144.00
$ 1284.00
$ 922.00
$ 328.00
$ 634.00
$ 12,707.00
$ 18,961.00
$703,461.00
With the building consisting of 17,398 square feet, the toal cost of the
construction is $40.43 per square foot.
1
EQCAL OPPOR1t~Y EMPLC
A
Eos
ARCHITECTURE
.
.
Thank you again for the opportunity to work together on this project. The
City can be proud of the Public Works Facility, as it is both functional and
very cost effective.
Sincerely,
1!Au !20~
J. Nicholas Ruehl AlA
President
JNR:nr
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. _ -93
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has entered into a contract with Rochon
Corporation for the construction of the public works building; and
WHEREAS, the Contractor has petitioned for final acceptance of the project
based on work performed to date; and
WHEREAS, a final inspection has been made by the City's Architect for the
project pursuant to Article 9.10.1 of the General Conditions of said contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that;
The City does hereby accept Change Orders No.6 and 7, and the work completed
pursuant to said contract and the one-year guarantee provided for in Article 12.2.2 of the
General Conditions shall commence as of the date of substantial completion pursuant to
Article 9.8.2 of the General Conditions of said contract subject to the following items:
1. Compliance with section 01700, paragraph 1.02 of said contract:
Submission of:
a) AlA G706 Affidavit of Payment of Debts and Claims;
b)
AlA G707 Consent of Surety to Final Payment; and
c) State Tax Form IC-134.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, of the City of Shorewood this _ day of
. 1993.
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
AlTEST:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator
...L....~,....... ,
:;:::. .
',~..
Rochon Corporation
12866 Highway 55
Plymouth. MN 55441
Office 612/559-9393
Fax 612/559-8101
March 1, 1993
.
Gordon Metcalf
EOS Architecture Inc.
21 Water St.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Re: Shorewood Public Works Facility
Attached is our final Application for Payment for work completed
through February 28, 1993 at Shorewood Public Works Facility.
fJ]l1I/hJl1
~ ~:llman
Project Manager
.
JW/clb
Enclosure
~
':-I~\,
.,b",
i .(....,1'."),.....,
. '--"'(.:/;.~
rJ:) '.
.J .,~) ;,
'" I'
n'") J.:"
, ,ot),;c';).~ >!'<1~'
0::
o
,g 1-1-
UU
C I-W<
.g ffi _ 0::
::l Z :r: zI-
p-.... ::: U
00::0
'" <u
000000
M
O'l
O'l
'"
w
t.)
~
N
(5
w
Z
o
w
t.)
g;
~
"'0
'Y:;
QJ
'"
....
QJ
>
~
C
o
ex:>
o
z
z
o
~
U
'"
C
o
U
::l
.:::
'"
C
...J
a..
a..
<
::::.
>,
+J
I-
<
LJ.J
~
::)
U
o
C
~
~
....
Z
w
~
~
~
u
ctl
l.J...
LI'l
.::.t.
t..."O
Octl..-
30M
0:: M
U t..n
...... C t..n
~3
.oOZ
:J+J:E
~ .t::
+J
"0...... "0
OEO
o tI') 0
3 3
(l) 0 (l)
t...Ot...
ON 0
.t:: q- .t::
tI') N tI')
I-
U
W
o
0::
a..
u..
w
~
U
-
u..
-
~
W
U
C
Z
<2:
Z
o
-
~
U
"0
ctl
o
0:: ..-
M
"0 .0 M
0:Jt..n
o ~ t..n
3U
(l) Z
t... >,Z
Ot...
.t:: +J
tI') C"O
:JO
t+-OO
OU3
(l)
>, t..n t...
+Jt..n0
...... r-.... .t::
U t..n tI')
2
W
z
:::
Q
f2
-
....
c..
c..
<2:
ex:>
N
.0
(l)
l.J...
o
I-
o
o
0::
W
a..
!.'l0
tJz
~tJ
:r:W
uQ
0::0::
<a..
..-
M
M
(l) t..n
t... t..n
:J
i=0 .~
U (l) +J
w~tI')
1-...... t...
:r: -5 ~.~
~t...+JLI'l
~<I:~Ci)
<~..-~
>UJNUJ
C ..-
o q-
...... q-
+J t..n C
ctl t..n 0
t... t..n ......
ot..nZ+J
Cl.. ::E U
t.... :J
o >, - t...
U3.t::+J
::I:+JLI'l
C :JC
O~ 0 0
.t::~EU
U ex:> >,
ON~~
0:: ..- a.. ctl
t...
(l)
C
(l)
c.!:l
2
o
I-
U
~
I-
Z
o
~
~
o
0::
u..
N
O'l
........
N
N
........
q-
W
<
o
I-
U
~
I-
Z
o
U
0::
o
u..
tJ
<
0::
1-.
Z
o
U
U
rll
....
C
o
U
QJ
-=
-5
.~
C
o
U
QJ
C
C
o
U .
c]
.- .c
~- U
o~
-(j n;
.J:J",
C ,
~C"'l
00
~G
",-
rll c:
, QJ
C E
QJ ::l
~ U
c: 0
~o
0..<
,,~<
QJ':
-oQJ
rll QJ
E~
.~ c:
c.:!
.Q ~
- ::l
.~.=
o..c
0.0
<U
\A Vl \A \A
\A \A
w
'1-
N'<
+I 0
~~
'" C 0
.....Jw
~QJ~o::
::l"Ewo
LI'lO!;(I-r::;-
I-QJo~R
~~OO""lJ
0:: "' I- C
~6~~0
O>-::l...JlJ
u,aLl'lo..c
QJI-:EEw
...J ooU 0 I.:)
~c:<u2<
-1~...J8z
!:2uz<~<
00:: QJ 0 1-'0 ~
ZUI- o::ni
\A
Vl
0::
o
. w u..
~I.:) LI'l
8< w
r-.~~!;(
lJ~ou
'Owl-"'U:
O::LI'lE
LI'l QJ ....
~.~ W
-'...Ju
o~;g
zQJo
0::'<1';>
< QJ w
wco::
-,::io..
~ LI'l
~ .~
....
~ v
"""r;\cu ...0
~ R';: LI'l
lJ~-+
rll ,., rll
~RLI'l
-o0~c
~c::iE
Q 0 ::l
inu...QJ'O
_ c ~u
o E c c
?fi. :J o;u
'OQjco
uo::~
~co
~
-0
QJ C
Qj 0
o..w
E +
80
c
'0 E
"* ::l
'0
U
.ci
...-NM.,r
vi
....
Z
:w
"~
~
~
~
o
u..
Z
o
-
~
U
0 0
LI'l 0 0
Z . .
0 q- q-
..- ..-
~ ..- ..-
U -tA- -tA-
::l
0
w
0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Vl . . . .
Z ex:> r--.. t..n ..-
0 ~ 0 r-.... ~
E M r-.... 0 O'l
- - ~ ~
0 ~ N O'l ex:>
0 -tA- ...... ..- ~
< -tA-
...J Vl
M ...J ~
~ C .... ~ -0 O'l ~ QJ
0:: Q QJ O'l Q -0
< .- QJ > ...... ....
-oC 0 0
~ QJ ~ ....
~ 150 0. ~ ~
-5 0. ......
::l 0.>- < ...... c
Vl 0..J:J C QJ rll
0 . .c
0:: rll '" ~ Ri .0 U
W ",.c 0
0 .... - (l) E
QJ C '" LL.
0:: -00 ~
0 .... E ~
W 0", -0
lJ QJ .... C
QJ ::l > QJ '"
Z 000 0 .J:J .c
< C.- .... E U
'" > 0. r-.... Qj
:r: .c~ 0. ::l
U Uo. < Z Z
-
....
c..
c..
<2:
rJ'J
...
~
~
U
<2:
~
....
Z
o
U
o
..-
~
q-
M
o
r--..
'"
IA Vl \A
"
~
Ri
U w
':: I.:)
.... <
~ Z
.... ~
o w
.~ 0::
III
Ew::l
.g::l-'
",0':;:0
I- J: QJ
~ Z ~.~
.- w Z...J
==-:Eu:'"
I- >- '"
za:;oQJ
W I-M
~~uQJ
:;(WZC
a.;o::<::i
0::-,
::l<
Uco
cO",
\j~
\r'
0'1
.-,
r ~
~ ~ (\
{],~
~;s ~
~~
~ _ <1'"
~ 0,- \
. ~);
.. -o~
'O_U
c ~
5~\-
o
U
V) \." f~
:.c:~-"-'-....;
- "
QJ j
~~
,;,2 ~
4) QJ .~
1. .J:J'~
~o~..
"'if _ ,~\I)
'>.) C ~ ~
.J.... .-
~ ~.,. 0.
~... . ~
~
~ -0 C
~ C u.Q
to == ~
] -g 'E
.J:J a.. E
'O\j>-o
~ '" ::; u
~-go~
VlIllZ..c::
.~ "'WWWIf:!'.
~ 0>
'CCQJC:.s: 0
~QJQJQj~w~ -:.
-oQJQJ>o:::!iO <D
QJ.J:J.J:J -<JZ3~>-l!
;;~~c'eOz!Z::s
6.crllQJii:i=~:::)~
c_.c E Cl/a:::tO.
~ C '" >- ~ 4: <-> (.)a.
,'" QJ c rll >- a> ::; it; .~
....E::lO"<1IwCQQ,.w
o >-0"" Q..w:::)wl
urllEO~""Q,.Z.
rllo.. -aW>Z
,-,-fOtI'I&OCCW-
co-QJ-'i>c:XE
o-coRi"'O!-' A
c_u:;JZO
~ .Q ~ ~ i~ ~ Z ~
..cn;-'- . 2
- u .. QJ
-.- "'U (j. ~
Oo..c i ·
-o.QJ::g \;\.
~ < E 0 \IIIIiVIIWlNII.
.J:J '" ::l':;; ....'
QJ'- U QJ QJ
.c-5O....c
_ >-0 0. ~
,g.J:Ju-5O
Ri-O:;!:CQJ
.c~-,..c
_Q,JC;a._
"'>uO....E
QJ 0 0
:: U ...- 0
..;::~~.::L...::
~o~o-o
....~.-=::::~
,g QJ ~ .....Qj
u.c QJ,2 UQJ
rll-U
\.o.....c\-\-
cQ)tU2V1
o::-OU-
U QJ .... rll C .
.J:JO....QJQJ
-o-otjcE-6
~CrllO~
DOrllCUo.~
.- c'- QJ 0
~o-O.c"'OC:
QJ.- Q) _ C U'I
-0 iii Q) >-- to .-
5 E a. .J:J ] .~
QJoE:2::l~
..ccoro~OJ
1-.- U o.._.c
C +J
o ~
...... "0
+J .~
! \i
.t::~
g C
0::
......
..:
',E
'0-0
-...9 .~
Vl&
o III
~:5
_ 0
0-5
;:~
-QJ
tv' g::;
(j'- QJcU
:QQJ:;!
\ rll E-
l\~ >- >- C
\.. 1 '" '" 0
0. o.U
M .~'O.~
OQJ-5
wU....
-CQJ
QJ!:::~~
~f- ....,
Oo::o.C
I.UQJ::l
UU....
Uo
~n;t_
Z -0 U
::l~~
ocg
QJU
E ....
~O
...
~QJ
U
C
'"
::l QJ
.c
00 -: .:
~.~ 0
QJ",
-QjE
.c 00
U'I -C ";:
-QJ>-
QJ E C
rll rll
U C 0
.- ~-
o QJ
ti.~
U;-g
'" C.-
>..:CO~
COI-Uo.
M
O'l
O'l
~~~~
- - ""C res
~,g~vl
_ ",-
.... :::~~~
z g:: ~E
._ Q) .... :J
W - C o.U
~ ~o~ ~8
.c<1J ...t:__
>-llQJ~~O
J1tI' 0-5 (5 z ~
;;:-. QJO~C!:::
_.-=:- 01-
'?~~Uffi
#OJ C:;: - QJU
.... 0.,;:: _ .c
O C"'QJ-I-
o~~-5Z
u.. -0 - .J:J .~ ::l
~~-oQJO
W ",.-=:CU~
!:::~-5~~<
-.. ~..(.Q"E ~
U CQJRiO-
QJ.cEU-
_ E _ U 0
u.. ::lCO~-
- g.Q C';;; ~
.... a Ri '-:,.- E
~ U.~ ~ ~ ~
w:;!o..-ogo.
U-o.QJ>o
C"'~QJ_
8~0-5-O
rJ'J OC_QJ
... ~.o~ 0:=
J- - co ~ ~c
U-5~~~QJ
W .~ ~.-=: ::l.~
C.cO"....
.... ~'Y:; ~ QJ ,g
- C:';: < -5 ~
:I: '" c.QJ '....
'EE-5]c
U 00- - 0
~ tj ~ ~ .~ U
......~Ri~-g~
-.. _ -0 .J:J ._ _
.t::
U
t...
ctl
::E
QJ
Ri
a
t...
(l)
/"?
>-
a:l
M
co
Q')
...-
N
o
.....
\,j
"''''
~8
Q~
. U
:CO
<:i
. 0
Z....
Ot.)
-Z
....-
-J:
0",
...."c
:;)3:
a-
~ .
?(~
:EZ
. .
w
....:>
Zz
Ww
~~
ii:~
~~
2~
w>
t(~
UZ
;;:'"
-'"
~~
w
Uvi
0....
Z~
<....
z:r
OU
-~
~<
u"-
::.;0
~~
<:>
. ....
N-
co....
....'"
I.:l~
""z
3<
:l;U
;:)~
u~
o~
c<
<w
-J:
<....
OA8E _ DF i..
CONTINUATION SHEET
Substitute AlA Document 6702
SHORE WOOD PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY
TO:
B
MARCH Oi! 1993
DECEMBER 01! 1992
FEBRUARY 28, 19~)
APPLICATION NUMBER:
APPLICATION DATE:
PER I uD FROr1:
CONTRACTOR'S PROJECT ND~ 9210
SCHEDULEu PREVIOUS THIS ::ilur.EjJ TOTAL BALANCE
, CODE DESeR I pmm VALUE J APPLICATION APPL EA Tl ON MATERIAL Tn DATE T[) FINISH RETAINAGE
II,; .;,
- -
:mn RmHS 2o!424.10 26!424.10 0.00 0.00 26!424.10 :100 0.00 0.00
" J'~ BUILT ALLOWAN 7,500.00 7,500.00 0:r00 0.00 7~500.00 ; l(H) 0.00
i. !H~ V:!...HJ
- :SIGNAGE ALUJJlANC 3,034.0(1 3~O34.00 0.00 (1.00 3,034.0(1 ;100 0.00 0.00
4 ;BOND 6,971.00 6,971.00 0.00 0.00 6,971.00 :100 tJ.(}O 0.00
.:GRADING 40!OOO.OO 40,000.00 0.00 0.00 40,000.00 : 100 0.00 0.00
J ;~! "'B t ~I!TT~R 14,754.00 14,754.00 U:rUO 0.00 14.754.00 : 100 \);00 0.00
,'-'I.HI 'oJ bu. ~
! ; ASPHALT PAVING 49,100.00 49,100.00 0.00 0.00 49,100.00 :100 0.00 0.00
8 ; LANDSeAPI NG 500.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 :100 V.tlt) 0.00
9 :CONCRETEfMASONRY 78,965.00 78,965.00 0.(;0 0.00 78!965.00 :100 0.00 0.00
10 : PRECAST CONCRETE 138,823.00 138,823.00 0.00 0.00 138,823.00 : 100 0;(:0 0.00
11 :STRUCTURAL STEEL 36,530.00 36,530.00 0.00 0.00 36,530.00 ; l(H) 0.00 0.00
1" I ~T~~' ERECTION 6,047.00 b,047.00 0.00 0.00 6,047.00 :100 O.(H} 0.00
i. ;~ ttL
. . : LUMBER 1,618.69 1,618.69 0,00 0.00 1,618.69 ;100 0.00 0.00
h'
14 :DRYWALLfPLASTER 7,375.00 7,375.00 0.00 0.00 7,375.00 : 100 0,00 0.00
15 :WOOD DOORS 1,597.00 1,597.00 0.00 0.00 1 , ~197 ,00 :100 0.00 0.00
16 : CASEWORK 620.00 620.00 0.00 0.00 620.00 ~100 0.00 0.00
17 :ROOFIN6 & SHTMTL , 34,350.00 34!350.00 0.00 0.00 34 ~ 3~!O. 00 :100 0.00 0.00
18 : CAULK 4,300.00 4,300.00 0:r00 0.00 4,300.00 : 100 0.00 0.00
19 :OIiERHEAD DOORS 16,600.00 16,600.00 0.00 0.00 16,600.0(l ;100 0.00 0.00
20 :SLASS & ALUM. 8,492.00 8,492.00 0.00 0.0(: 8,492.00 :100 0.00 0.00
~ :HH & HARDWARE 13,338.21 1~ ~~8 ~1 0.00 0.00 13,338.21 :100 0.00 0.00
,),.).;., .L
: ACOUSTICAL TILE 2,165.00 2,165.00 0.00 0.00 2,165.00 :100 0.00 0.00
"" :CERAHIC iILE 6,150.00 6,150.00 (i.OO 0.00 6,150.00 :100 0.00 0.00
...\
24 : RESILIENT TILE 489.00 489.00 0.00 0.00 489.00 :100 0.00 0.00
25 :PAlNT & IiHm 3,360.00 3,360.00 0.00 0.00 3,360.00 :100 0.00 0.00
26 :TOILET PART. 934.00 934.00 0.00 0.00 934.00 ; 100 0.00 0.00
27 :iOILET ACCESS. 1,059.00 1,059.00 0.00 0.00 1 ,O~19 .00 :100 0.00 0.00
28 :SPECIAL TIES 2,127.00 2,127.00 0.00 0.00 2,127.00 :100 Q.OO 0.00
29 :PLUKBiHVACiUiIL 94,952.00 94,952.00 0.00 0.00 94,952.00 :100 0.00 0.00
30 :fIRE SPRINKLER 11,760.00 11 ,760.00 0.00 i}.OO 11,760.00 : 100 0.00 0.00
31 : ELECTRICAL 37,427.00 37,427.00 0.00 0.00 37,427.00 :100 0.00 0.00
32 :fEE 33,392.00 33,292.QO 100.00 0.00 33,392.00 ;100 0.00 0.00
:CHAN6E ORDER 17 12,707.00 0.00 12,707.00 0.00 12,707.00 :100 0.00 0.00
:TOTAL
703,461.00
690,154.M
13,307.00
0.00
703,461.00 ;100
0.00
0.00
WAIVER OF CONSTRUCTION LIEN. PAYMENT
BOND AND LIEN FUNDS
March 1, 1993
.
For good and valuable consideration, the undersigned hereby
irrevocably and tmconditionally waives and releases any and all
(a) rights and claims for a construction or other lien on land
and buildings being constructed, altered, erected or repaired and
to the appurtenances theretmto, (b) rights and claims on any
payment bond(s) ft~nished in conjunction with said constrtlction,
alteration, erection or repair, and (c) rights and claims for
lien on money, bonds, or warrants due or to become due to the
prime contractor therefor. The property covered by this waiver
is owned by Citv of Shorewood (owner), is located at
24200 Smithtown Blvd., Shorewood. MN is described as
Public Works Facilitv and this waiver pertains to a portion of
the work to be performed by Rochon Corporation (prime
contractor).
.
This waiver covers all labor, material and supplies for
construction, alteration, erection, and repairs furnished by the
undersigned tmder a contract with Citv of Shorewood
through the date of this waiver in the amount of
THIRTY THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY & 85/100 DOLLARS ($30,560.85).
This lien waiver is not valid tmtil the amount listed above has
been received.
Company Name ~o::::n CoR_ ."
By Jerrv &!L..Q!! __'j4~
Its Vice President
Contractor Waiver Form
.~VV'\IVW\NV\NVV'No.
I~CANDYCE LEE SA RTHOLOMEW J
,. NOTARY PUBlIC.MINNESOTA
HENNEPIN COUNTY
My Commission expires June 6,199
. .
ft /'uWl/ff: dtt -4,),l(,tl---if;-ttitt()
CHANGE
ORDER
AlA DOCUMENT G701
OWNER
ARCHITECT
CONTRACTOR
FIELD
OTHER
o
o
o
o
o
PROJECT:
(name, address)
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER:
Seven (7)
February 11, 1993
91129
Aprll 22, 1992
Complete Construction
Shorewood Public Works Facility
24200 Smithtown Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
TO CONTRACTOR:
(name address) Roch9n ~orporation
, 12866 Hicl1way 55
Plymoutn, Minnesota 55441
DATE:
ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO:
CONTRACT DATE:
CONTRACT FOR:
The Contract is changed as follows:
(SEE ATTACHMENTS)
.
ATTACHMENTS:
Letter from OSM to EOS Architects Dated February 5, 1993
Total Cost of Change Order No.7
ADD
$12,707.00
Not valid until signed by the Owner, Architect and Contractor.
.The original (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Price) was . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . S
Net change by previously authorized Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
The (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Price) prior to this Change Order was. . . . . . . . . . S
The (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Ma.xin)um Price) will be (increased) (decreased)
(unchanged) by this Change Order in the amount of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
The new (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Price) induding this Change Order will be .. S
The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by
The date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is
684,500.00
6,254.00
690,754.00
12 707.00
703:461.00
( -0- ) days.
December 1, 1992
NOTE: This summary does not reflect changes in the Contract Sum, Contract Time or Guaranteed Maximum Price which have been authorized by
Construction Change Directive.
~9A:tYchitectuf'e
CO~ Corporation.
OWNQty of Sho.rewood
Addr~7" (,ounuy 1..1ub Koad
A& W.d", Sb~. Add~866 mghway :5:5
~ . P~th,~5~1
BY . . BY ul) MIA'v
DATE 2- c: -:s - ?3 DATE :1 f z--z-/ c., -;J
BY
AlA DOCUMENT G701 . CHANGE ORDER . 1987 EDITION . AlA'" . @1987 . THE
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
G701-1987
WARNING: Unlicensed photocopying violates U.S. copyright laws and is subject to legal prosecution.
CHANGE
ORDER
OWNER
ARCHITECT
CONTRACTOR
FIELD
OTHER
o
o
o
o
o
FEB 26 1993
AlA DOCUMENT G70J
,
,
.~.
PROJECT:
(name, address)
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER:
Six (6)
November 4, 1992
91129
April 22, 1992
Complete Construction
Shorewood Public Works Facility
24200 Smlthtown Road
Shorewood, Minnesota S5331
TO CONTRACTOR=u . h C ti
_oc lQn orpora on
(name, address) 12866 Hi2hway 55
PlyploutIi, Mirinesota SS441
DATE:
ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO:
CONTRACT DATE:
CONTRACT FOR:
The Contract is changed as follows:
.
1. Add Ten (10) "No Parking Fire Lane" signs along the entrance drive
as directed by the Local Fire Marshall.
ATI'ACHMENTS:
Rochon Proposal Dated November 2, 1992
Statement of Justification
Total Cost of Change Order No.6
ADD
$634.00
Not valid until signed by the Owner, Architect and Contractor.
. The original (Contract Sum) (CtlllflHlteea MIHEiffitIfH Pri€~ was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Net change by previously authorized Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
The (Contract SumH6~~.la.d M~l.~.~ P.:~~) priorto this Change Order was. . . . . . . . . . S
The (Contract Sum) ~CtlarllAteea Hft!ltfMtlM P1'iee) will be (increased) (at:w:ooea)
(tit\ehM~~ by this Change Order in the amount of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
The new (Contract Sum) (CtlttflH,teca I.h....:......... f .k.,,) including this Change Order will be .. S
The Contract Time will be (i1.~lC~CJ) (~.:..c...,(,~ (unchanged) by
The date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is
684,soo.00
5,620.00
690,120.00
634.00
690,754.00
( -0- ) days.
December 1, 1992
NOTE: This summary does not reflect changes in the Contract Sum, Contract Time or Guaranteed Maximum Price which have been authorized by
Construction Change Directive.
"'-..
BY
Rochon Corporation
CONTRACTOR
12866 Ilighway SS
City of Shorewood
OWNER
S7SS Country Club Road
Eos Architecture
ARCHITECT
21 Water Street
BY
BY
DATE
DATE
AJA DOCUMENT G701 . CHANGE ORDER . 1987 EDITION . AlAe . @1987 . THE
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
G701-1987
WARNING: Unlicensed photocopying violates U.S. copyright laws and Is subject to legal prosecution.
.
.
. KUCHUN (UKt'.
I,!:.L : b 1:L-~~'j-B 1 0 1
Nov O~,'::l2
10:34 No.006P.02
~
IlllChwl ~on
f 2MG , lighw<l)' 55
Plymouth. MN 55441
Office 612/559-9393
~a~ 61Z/~59~101
November 2, 1992
Gordon Metcalf
BOS Architecture
21 Water Street
Excelsior, MN 55331
Re: Shorewood Public Works Maintenance Facility
Dear Gordy:
'!'his letter is a request for change to add "No Parking Fire
Lane" signs as per the Fire Marshall.
Signs: Material - 10 @ $49.00 each
Labor - 10 signs @ $10.00 each
Bond & Insurance
OR & P
$490.00
100.00
8.00
36.00
'I'OTAL ADD
$634.00
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to
contact me.
Sibcerw~
~llman .
Project Manager
JW/gr
STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION
CHANGE ORDER #6
A meeting was held within the last two weeks between
the Contractor and the Local Fire Marshal to
determine the actual location for the 8 fire lane signs
referenced in Change Order No.2.
During that meeting the Fire Marshal requested an
additional 10 signs be located along the entrance
drive. ( five each side ).
.
This Change Order therefore reflects the direct request
of the Fire Marshal, and these additional sign are
added scope to the Contract.
.
February 5, 1993
OS, ;\torr
SChelen
~er~>n&
AsSociates, Inc.
300 Park Place Center
5775 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis. MN 554]6-]228
6]2-595-5775
1-800-753-5775
FAX 595-5774
Engineers
- Architects
,:...:ECt.~.I\il:"l"" I
_ . ~_' P anners
Surveyors
F~81 1 'lS53
Mr. Gordon Metcalf
EOS Architecture
21 Water $t.
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
,....-~ ~
l:Uv I 0PPt"R1'. "";'"'r.., ,
~ i I. ~l\l
Re: Shorewood Public Works Facility
Change Order Review
OSM Project No. 4860.01
.
Dear Mr. Metcalf:
As you are aware, we have received several change order requests for the site work on
the referenced project from Rochon Corporation. After a review of the file, punch list
items, and numerous telephone conversations with Mr. Wellman, we have reached a
conclusion regarding this request. This letter summarizes our conclusions and
recommendations.
The change order request for extra work can be summarized as follows:
Item No. 1
Item No.2
Item No.3
Removal- 'of 820 yards of clay from the building pad.
Subgrade corrections for the parking lot
Change to 100% crushed aggregate base
$ 2,628.00
12,247.00
2.135.00
.
Total Request $17,010.00
With regard to Item 1, the grading plan for the site clearly states that the rough grading
for the building would be completed within 0.5 feet vertically prior to June 15, 1992. On
June 6, 1992 our survey crew made elevation measurements across the site and found the
grading to be well within this 0.5 foot tolerance. Therefore, we do not feel that an extra
or change order for this item is warranted.
The supporting documentation for Item No.2 states that approximately 25% of the
additional work done at the south and southeast area of the building was related to
trench settlement caused by the utility work. Since this utility work was performed under
your contract, we feel that it is appropriate to subtract 25% from the amount requested.
In the itemization, you have deducted approximately $432.00, which is 25% of the sub-
cut and 'removal work done on September 23, 1992. We believe 25% of the fill work
performed on September 24, 1992 should also be deducted., Therefore, the total amount
to be deducted for utility trench repair work would be 25% of $4,251.31, or $850.26.
Using the same rates for bonds, insurance, overhead, and profit, this would leave a total
for Item No.2 of $11,805.00.
Equal Opportunity Employer
Mr. Gordon Metcalf
February 5, 1993
Page 2
Item No.3 was discussed during construction and the amount appears reasonable.
Finally, several items were not completed prior to the snowfall on November 1, 1992.
These items are for the seeding and mulching specified; restoration of the trail and
easement property; and clean-up of the trailer site. The seeding required was just over
1.0 acre in extent and, based on quotes received, this would result in a deduction of
$500.00. The trail restoration deduction amounts to $533.00 based on a 1.5 inch course
of Class 5 Aggregate for the 900 feet affected. The cost for the restoration of the
easement property and trailer site clean-up was estimated by Public Works at $200.00
each. According to Mr. Wellman, the trailer site will be cleaned up this coming week,
and should not result in a deduct.
.
Our change order recommendation is then as follows:
Item No. 1
Item No.2
Item No.3
Item No.4
Item No.5
Removal of clay from the building pad
Subgrade corrections for the parking lot
Change to 100% crushed aggregate base
Site Seeding
Trail and Easement Restoration
$ 0.00
11,805.00
2,135.00
- 500.00
- 733.00
Grand Total Change Order Addition
$12,707.00
Please call me at 595-5695 if you have any questions on this. Thank you.
. Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MA YERON
& ASS~OIA/ S, INC.
/. 1/ //
,0 ,~
Joel Dresel, P.E., L.S.
City Engineer
\jme
c: James Hurm, City Administrator
Don Zdrazil, Public Works Director
Jeff Wellman, Project Manager, Rochon Corp.
.
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: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
. DATE: 4 March 1993
RE: Shoutz - Appeal Sewer Access Charge
FILE NO.: City Code- - Chapter 904
In a letter dated 17 February 1993, James Penberthy, representing Douglas and Bonita
Shoutz, proposes to appeal the Local Sanitary Sewer Access Charge (LSSAC) which was
imposed as a condition of approval of the Shoutz's recent lot split (6130 Cathcart Drive).
The subject property was charged for two sewer units in the early 70's. Consequently, they
question the fairness of paying the LSSAC which was adopted last year to replace the
previous sewer equalization charge.
.
One of the primary purposes of changing from the equalization charge to the LSSAC was to
get away from a complex and confusing formula system to a flat fee basis for sewer
connections on subdivided property. In making this change, however, the LSSAC ordinance
did not address properties that had previously been assessed for more than one unit. Staff
agret:s with the appellant that it is unfair to have to pay twice for sewer service.
Since there is no provision in the current ordinance for waiving the fee, and the issue is very
likely to come up on other properties, staff has prepared- the attached amendment to' address
the problem. If agreeable to the Council, past sewer charges will be addressed as part of the
. review of all future lot divisions. Once the amendment has been published, it is
recommended that the $1000 LSSAC paid by the Shoutzs be refunded.
If you have any questions relative 10 this matter, please contact me prior to next:.-
Wednesday's Council meeting. . .
"'-\..
cc: Jim Hurm
Tim Keane
Joel Dresel
AI Rolek
Jim Penberthy
9
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
:Penberihy Baw Offices, Bid.
264 WATER STREET
EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331
PHONE (612) 474-1188
JAMES G. PENBERTHY
February 17, 1993
'-,
-:--:~. \ -l
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Attn: Brad Nielsen
Re: Your File No. 405 (92.31)
Our File No. 2469
Dear Brad:
-
This letter will serve to confirm our phone conversation of
February 16, 1993 wherein I requested that Mr. & Mrs. Shoutz be
placed on the agenda for the next Shorewood council meeting and you
requested that I send you a letter containing that request.
You indicated that you would be willing to provide me with all
relevant memoranda, minutes of meetings, and a copy of the
ordinance with respect to the sanitary sewer access charge.
I would appreciate your letting me know when I can pick the above
information up at the Shorewood City Hall.
information in this regard, please contact me
Penberthy
JGP/ckm,
cc: Douglas & Bonita Shoutz
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
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
~
James C. Hurm, City Administrator
March 5, 1993
TO:
DATE:
.
RE:
Agenda Item Number 9 - "A Resolution setting Policy
Regarding storm Water Management Fees for Small Parcels"
In preparing for the storm water management utility billing
required by the ordinance passed January 25, 1993, staff has
identified over a hundred, mostly unbuildable parcels, which
currently do not receive a utility bill of any kind. It is the
feeling of staff that although technically all parcels add to the
storm water problem, parcels which would generate bills of less
than $2.00 per quarter should perhaps.not receive a bill at all.
considering the cost associated with the establishing and
maintaining these tiny utility accounts as well as mailing cost.
We are suggesting that the Council consider the attached enclosed
resolution excluding for billing purposes any lot which would
generate a fee of less than $2.00 per quarter.
.
This might be an appropriate time for the Council to discuss if
they would like the fee to take effect at a time different than the
~pril 1993 billing.
JCH.al
"
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
q
.
.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY FOR BILLING OF STORM
WATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY FEES TO CERTAIN PARCELS
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 268
establishing a Storm Water Management Utility; and,
WHEREAS, the ordinance provides for the billing of a Storm
Water Management Utility fee upon all parcels of land within the
City of Shorewood; and,'
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the fee for such utility
on certain parcels would be less than $2.00 per calendar quarter;
and,
WHEREAS, the costs to establish, maintain and bill accounts
for such parcels would be excessive; and,
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to manage the utility in
an efficient, effective manner; now,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood to establish a policy to exclude for billing purposes
under Ordinance No. 268 certain parcels which would generate a fee
of less than $2.00 per calendar quarter.
AROPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHROEWOOD this 10th day
of March, 1993.
Barbara Brancel, Mayor
ATTEST:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator
ASSESSMENT POLICY
FOR STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
.
MARCH, 1993 DRAFT
.
J;)E~/
ASSESSMENT POLICY
FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS
I. HISTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 1
II. SCOPE AND PURPOSE. . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 2
III. DEFINmONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. 3
IV. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CONCEPT .......................... 5
.
A. Benefit Principle .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
B. Consistent and Equitable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
V. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE ....................... 7
.
A.
B.
e.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
Initiating the proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 7
Preparing the feasibility study ........................... 9
Holding a public hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
Ordering the Improvement and ordering Plans and Specifications 10
Advertising for Bids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
Awarding Contracts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
Preparing Proposed Assessment Roll .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 12
Holding Public Hearing on Proposed Assessments ........... 13
Adopting the Assessments ............................. 14
Transmitting Assessments to County Auditor . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
VI. ASSESSMENT POUCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
A. Establishing an annual assessment rate ................... 16
B. Assessable Street Reconstruction Projects ................. 16
e. Project Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 17
D. Term of Assessment ................................. 17
E. Government Owned properties ......................... 17
F. Non-developable Land. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18
G. Interest Rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18
H. Payment Procedures ................................. 18
I. Appeal Procedures .................................. 19
J. Reapportionment upon Land Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19
VII. ASSESSMENT METHOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21
A.
B.
Unit Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21
Front Footage Method ............................... 22
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Standard Lots ................................. 23
Rectangular Variation Lots ....................... 23
Triangular Lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
Cul-de-sac Lots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24
Curved Lots .................................. 24
Irregular Shaped Lots ........................... 25
Corner Lots .................................. 25
Flag Lots and Back Lots ......................... 26
Double Frontage Lots ........................... 27
.
VIII. DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS............................... 28
A. Large Tracts of Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ .. 29
B. Conditions of Hardships .............................. 29
C. Termination of Hardship Deferment ..................... 31
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
ASSESSMENT POLICY
FOR STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
SECTION I - HISTORY
The City Council has become concerned with street reconstruction needs for a number of
reasons: 1) Street mileage and costs associated with reconstruction have been increasing;
2) Shorewood's becoming eligible for the Municipal State Aid Program (MSA) in 1990 has
provided funding for certain street reconstruction on an accelerated basis; and, 3) many.
of Shorewood's streets were last worked on beyond normal maintenance in the early 1970's
with the installation of city-wide sanitary sewer. The Council has further concerns that the
necessary financial resources may not be available to properly reconstruct city streets as the
need arises.
These concerns culminated in the City Council creating an ad hoc citizen Street
Reconstruction Financing Task Force in 1992. That Task Force concluded that"...replacing
streets on a forty year cycle would be a tremendous drain on the City's general fund".
Therefore it recommended "...that an assessment procedure be established for the
reconstruction of streets", and that"...the special assessment rate be established at 33 percent
of the cost of a standard 24 foot street with a rural cross section (no curb and gutter)". This
special assessment policy is based on the recommendations of the Task Force Final Report
dated August 18, 1992, attached to this policy as Appendix A.
1
SECTION II - SCOPE A1~D PURPOSE
This policy is intended to provide for a fair, equitable, and consistent means of recovering
and distributing the cost of street reconstruction improvements to already existing streets.
This policy does not apply to new construction nor to maintenance functions which are
defined as patching, seal coating and overlay. Street reconstruction is considered to be any
street improvement over and above these maintenance functions.
2
.
.
SECTION III - DEFINITIONS
Adjusted Front Footage: A method for determining the average front footage for odd-
shaped lots which would be equivalent to the footage of a rectangular shaped lot of the
same area and depth.
Building Site: An area of land on which a building exists or an area of land meeting city
code requirements on which a building could be constructed.
.
Construction Cost:
Amount paid to contractors for constructing the improvements.
Construction Interest: Cost of financing the improvements from the time the project is
initiated until the assessment roll is approved by the City Council, less any interest earned
on invested funds. The interest rate will be at the expected assessment rate.
Equivalent Residential Units: Equivalent residential units are the number of assessment
units into which a large or unplatted parcel of land, which abuts a City functionally classified
collector or arterial street, is divided in order to determine an assessment rate. The number
of equivalent residential units is determined by dividing the adjusted front footage of the
. parcel by the average street footage of the project.
Front Footage: The shortest dimensions of existing or potential sites abutting the streets.
Lot: Land occupied or to be occupied by a building and its accessory buildings, together
with such open spaces as are required under the provisions of this zoning regulation having
not less than the minimum area required by this Zoning Ordinance for a building site in the
district in which such lot is situated and having its principal frontage on a street, or a
proposed street approved by the CounciL
Lot: Corner: A lot situated at the junction of and abutting on two (2) or more intersecting
streets; or a lot at the point of deflection in alignment of a single street, the interior angle
of which is one hundred thirty five degrees (1350) or less.
3
Project Cost (Total Cost of Improvements): All construction costs, plus costs for
administration, engineering, legal, fiscal, easement acquisition assessing, and any project
related work previously done but not assessed.
Residential Unit: A residential unit is a platted single family residential lot which, in
accordance with the City of Shorewood's zoning and subdivision regulation, cannot be
further subdivided.
Side footage: The longest dimension of existing or potential corner building sites abutting
the street.
4
.
.
A.
.
.
SECTION IV - SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS CONCEPT
Benefit Principle
Special assessments, as authorized by Minnesota State Law, Chapter 429, may be
levied only upon property receiving a special benefit from the improvement. In
Minnesota, the Constitution and courts apply this general rule by placing the
following limitations upon the power to levy special assessments: 1) the rate must
be uniform and consistent upon all property receiving special benefit: 2) the
assessment must be confined to property specially benefitted; and 3) the amount
of the assessment must not exceed the special benefit.
The special assessment is a financial tool employed by the City of Shorewood as a
means of allocating the costs of specific improvement projects to the benefitted
properties and spreading those costs over a number of years as specified by the City
Council.
Special assessments are billed to the property owner along with real estate taxes.
There is, however, a distinct difference between taxes and special assessments. Real
estate taxes are a function of the real estate value as determined by the municipal
assessor, while special assessments are a direct function of the enhancement of value
or the benefit which a specific improvement gives to the property.
B.
Consistent & Equitable
Once an improvement project is initiated and it is determined that the improvements
are necessary and desirable, the special assessment procedure is intended to equitably
and consistently allocate and levy the cost of specific improvements to the benefitted
properties. Minnesota Statutes and the courts have extended broad authority to City
Councils for determi~ng assessment methods and policies.
5
The City must recover the appropriate portion of the expense of installing public
improvements, if undertaken, while ensuring that each parcel pays its fair share of
the project cost in accordance with these assessment guidelines. It is important that
assessments be implemented in a reasonable, consistent and fair manner.
This policy sets forth the general assessment methods and policies to be utilized by
the City Administrator and City Engineer when preparing assessment rolls for
approval by the City Council so as to assure uniform and consistent treatment to the
various properties from year to year. The following policy is general in nature, and
that certain circumstances may justify deviations from stated policy as determined by
the City Council. .
.
6
SECTION V - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
A flow chart on the Shorewood Public Improvement Process for Special Assessment projects
a detailed explanation of the process is shown on the next page.
A. Initiatin~ the Proceedin2s
Improvement proceedings may be initiated in anyone (1) of the following three (3)
ways:
.
1.
By a petition signed by the owners of not less than thirty-five percent (35%)
of the frontage of the real property abutting on the streets named as the
location of the improvement;
2.
By a petition signed by 100% of the owners of real property abutting any
street named as the location of the improvement. Upon receipt of a petition
of 100% of the abutting property owners, the City Council must determine
that it has been signed by 100% of the owners of the affected property. After
making this determination, a feasibility report shall be undertaken and the
project may be ordered without a public hearing; or
.
3. By the initiative of the City Council.
Petitions for improvement shall be referred for Administrative report and estimated
budget. A simple majority vote of the City Council is needed to start the
proceedings. Whether initiating the proceedings or accepting a petition requesting
such proceedings, the City Council may simultaneously order a feasibility report on
the proposed improvement. Feasibility reports shall be paid for by the City in the
case of street reconstruction projects and recouped once the project is completed
under the terms of this policy.
7
City of Shorewood
Public Improvement Process
for Special Assessment Projects
Staff Activities/Tasks
:~., ........::::->>:WSW:~~...."f-:~:::-"::::::f-m">>~":::='5(-m:~::~::::-;.::-;.~::::::::::::::::::::$:::':(.:::::::::::::::;':ID"i(,~::::-;>>"*:<;'::::::-;-;':::::'"X:::::::::::~::f-:::::~
.::::
~~;~
.::~
.:~:
1
.~~
Prepare/update capital improvement program &
budget or comment on petitioned project
~~::::*;:::::::::::::;:-":::::::::::::::::::::::::~::.-::::::x::::::::::::x::-::::::%::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::--:::::::::::::::::::::::::::".(.::::::;:;:::::::::::::;:;:;:::::::::X:::
::::X::::::::::::::::::::::::::
~jf:~
;1:111
,:::~:
'::~:
;.
Feasibility report; prepare cost estimate, project
budget, and schedule; determine benefited area
and proposed assessments
:~::~:::::::X:~:::::::::::x::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.-:::::::--:::::::::::-":--:::::::::::;:::::::-,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::--:::::::::;:::::::::~.(.:::::::::.-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
;:~::.
:Ii
it
.:.;.:
Mail hearing notices; prepare engineering
agreement
Prepare plans & specs
City Council Decisions
Modify/approve capital improvement program and!
or budget,
or
resolution declaring adequacy of petition,
and
resolution ordering preparation of feasibility report
~===:-j
:-:-:-:<<....;-:.:.:.:-:->>:-:.:->>:.:-:-:<<.>>:.:-:.:-:-:.:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:<<->>>>:-:*>>:-:->>:.:.>>X<<-:.,.:-:-:<<.>...,.:->>:<<->>:->>:.:<<<<-:.:~:-:.:-:<<.>>>>:-:<<<<<<.:.:-:-:.:.:.:-:<<-:<<:::::
:
Hold public hearing on the proposed project; order
the improvement and preparation of plans; ap-
prove engineering agreement
:-:-:'.
.~"","""*'W-.,.>>>>>>>>>~,,,,*,,_>>>>>w._"'>:OO' ..00..: .....:o..=~'*:",.,.,.,..:<<<.....<...........<....;~.?:" ..
Approve plans and order advertisemeot for bids I
. .:::::'%::':::-"':=:::'"':=:*::::::::::::::::-":o"::::'-::::::::::::::::::::::::--:::::-"X:::::::...:::::.:=:~:::..:::::::::::::::::X:::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::::-"X:-OWf.:-":::::::::::::::-'
:::"o%::::::::::::::::::::X*
Take bids, compare with estimates
.'. .....~~.::m.9f.,;?'*.:::'!l:-<<<<::::::::..:.:.~....=...~~~)x:x:::"<<.::m:~~:.......:~'<<'::::::::::-;~:M::::~S
Prepare & execute contract; initiate & adminis-
ter constmction; prepare fInal assessment roll
. .'.:~:(<<0~";':::::.~.~~:::~<<<<-:"<<:::~::~-:::::::::::::::::::-"'t-::::::::::::::::':::::::::'$'m:::~.;.;.;.;.;.;.:...~.,'oJ:."';~'<'::::'::::-;:::"-:::
~:..~:
...-:'"
~"*'
I
Prepare & mail hearing notices
if:>>:-:<<-::::"'::~~-:':::::'::::::'X<<::::::::<<::::>>--:::::-:-:::-:-:':':-:::-:::':':::::::<<%":::':-::~::::::::::::::'::::x-:':::::':::::::::.::':::::::::::-:::::::-;::::::::::::::::-:.x::::.:x:
:::::.::;.::::-:::-~:':.x
Certify assessment to County Auditor
8
:-:-:-:-:<<:::>>:.,.:-:-:-:::-:-:-:;>>:::::.:.:*:<<-:-:-:<<<<<<.::::::::>>>>:.:-:::<<*:.:-~~:::x::-:-:<<.:-:::x-:<<<<<<-: ~.~:-::::.--:-:;:-:<<<<::::*::;:
:.:.:.'
:-:.;.:.
.':-:.:
~h:
Accept bid and authorize contract
::-:<<::-:<<<~<<::-:::-:-::::>>~;>>:-:<<-:<<......,. ..... ....::-: '.'~~"::'~::
Accept work & call for final hearing on pro- 1~:.
posed assessments ;~l
;.:::;::
:::;"":::;,,:::::~::>>:-::::::::,,,;:::x::::"':<<:".(.x::x~<<-:~':::':::::::-:::<<::-:-:::-:-::>>::::::::::::>>':-:-:;::::"<<=-:<<:=--.;:-:w:::::<<::::::<<:::>>X::::<<<<::o:::-=<<:::::::;:::;
~:;:::
::::;:;:
Hold fInal assessment public hearing
and
adopt assessment roll
.
.
B.. Preparinli: the Feasibility Study
An improvement project which is initiated by action of the City Councilor by a 35%
petition may be ordered only after a public hearing. Prior to adopting a resolution
calling a public hearing on an improvement, the Council must secure from the City
Engineer a report advising it in a preliminary way as t,o:
1. Whether the proposed improvement is feasible;
2.
Whether the proposed improvement is consistent with Capital Improvement
Plannino'
0'
3. Whether the improvement should be made as proposed or in connection with
some other improvement;
4. The estimated cost of the improvement;
5. A proposed project schedule; and
6.
Any other information thought pertinent and necessary for complete Council
consideration.
c. Holdin~ a Public Hearinli: on the Improvement
Improvement projects which are initiated by a 100% petition may be ordered by the
City Council without a public hearing if the City Council determines the project may
be undertaken without unreasonable changes to the Capital Improvement Finance
Plan. or the petitioning property owners agree to pay 100% of the cost of the
improvements.
9
In the case of a Council - initiated project or petition of less than 100% of abutting
property owners, the Council must adopt a resolution calling a public hearing on the
improvement project for which mailed and published notices of the hearing must be
gIven. The notice of public hearing must include the following information:
1) The time and place of hearing;
2) The general nature of the improvements;
3) The estimated cost; and
4) The area proposed to be assessed.
Not less than ten (10) days before the hearing, the notice of hearing must be mailed .
to the owner of each parcel in the area proposed to be assessed. The notice of
public hearing must be published in the City's legal newspaper at least twice, each
publication being at least one. week apart, with the last publication at least three (3)
days prior to the hearing.
At the public hearing, the contents of the feasibility study will be presented and
discussed with the intent of giving all interested parties an opportunity to be heard
and their views expressed.
D.
Orderinl: the Improvement and Orderinl: Preparation of Plans & Specifications
.'
Following a public hearing a resolution ordering the improvement may be adopted
at any time within six (6) months after the date of the hearing by a four-fifths (4/5)
vote of the City Council, unless the petition was initiated by a 35% petition in which
event it may be adopted by a majority vote. The resolution may reduce, but not
increase, the extent of the improvement as stated in the notice. At this time a
special assessment is considered to be "pending" for all assessable properties in the
improvement area.
10
.
.
After the order of an improvement project, the City Council must order the
preparation of plans and specifications which may be included as part of the
resolution ordering the improvements. When the Council determines to make any
improvement, it shall let the contract for all or part of the work, or order all or part
of the work done by day labor, no later than one (1) year after the adoption of the
resolution ordering such improvement unless a different time limit is specifically
stated in the resolution ordering the improvement.
E.
Advertising for Bids
If the estimated cost of the improvement exceeds $25,000, bids must be advertised
for in the legal newspaper and such other papers and for such length of time as the
City Council deems desirable. If the estimated cost of the improvement exceeds
$100,000, the advertisement must be in a paper published in a first class city, or in
a trade paper, not less than three (3) weeks before the last date for submission of
bids. The notice must contain the following information:
1. The work to be done;
2.
The time when bids will be publicly opened, which must be not less than ten
.(10) days after the first publication of the advertisement when the cost is less
than $100,000, and not less that three (3) weeks after publications in all other
cases, and
3. A statement that no bids will be considered unless they are sealed and
accompanied by cash, a cashier's check, bid bond or certified check for such
percentage of the bid as specified by the City Council.
11
F. Awardin2 Contracts
Following receipt of the bids, the City Council must either:
1. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder; or
2. Reject all bids.
The contact must be awarded no later than one (1) year after the adoption of the
resolution ordering the improvement unless that resolution specifies a different time
~. .
The City Council may purchase the materials and order the work done by day labor
or in any manner it deems proper if:
1. The initial cost of the entire work does not exceed $25,000;
2. No bid is submitted after advertisement; or
3.
The only bids are higher than the engineer's estimate.
.
G. Preparin~ Proposed Assessment Roll
After the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the completion on an improvement
have been calculated as defined in Section VI-C Project Costs, the City Council must
determine the amount it will pay and the amount to be specially assessed. The City
Engineer and Administrator/Clerk must calculate the amount to be specially assessed
against every parcel of land benefitted by the improvement. The area to be assessed
may be less than, but not more than, the area proposed to be assessed as stated in
the notice of public hearing on the improvement. The assessment roll should contain
a description of each parcel of property and the assessment amount including any
12
deferred assessments. The assessment roll must be filed with the City Administrator/Clerk
and be available for public inspection.
H. Holdin2 Public Hearin2 on Proposed Assessments
A public hearing on the special assessments must be held following published and
mailed notice thereof. The notice of the assessment public hearing must include the
following information:
.
1.
The date, time and place of the meeting;
2. The general nature of the improvement;
3. The area proposed to be assessed;
4. The total amount of the proposed assessment;
5.
. 6.
7.
That the assessment roll is on file with the Clerk;
That written or oral objections will be considered;
That no appeal may be taken as to the amount of assessments unless a written
objection signed by the affected property owner is filed with the City Clerk
prior to the hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing; and
8. That the owner may appeal the assessment to the district court by serving
notice on the Mayor or City Clerk within three (3) working days after the
adoption of the assessment and filing notice with the court within ten (10)
days after such appeal to the Mayor or the City Clerk.
The notice of the assessment hearing must be published in the legal newspaper at
least once, not less than two (2) weeks prior to the hearing.
13
The City Clerk must mail notice of the assessment hearing to the owner of each
parcel described in the assessment roll at least two (2) weeks prior to the hearing.
The mailed notice must also include, in addition to the information required to be
in the published notice, the following information:
1. The amount to be specially assessed against that particular lot, piece or parcel
of land;
2. The right of the property owner to prepay the entire assessment and the
person to whom prepayments must be made;
.
3. Whether partial prepayment of the assessment has been authorized by
ordinance;
4. The time within which prepayment may be made without the assessment of
interest; and
5. The rate of interest to accrue if the assessment is not prepaid within the
required time period.
I.
Adopting the Assessments
.
At the assessment hearing or at any adjournment thereof, the City Council may adopt
the assessments as proposed or adopt the assessments with amendments. If the
adopted assessment differs from the proposed assessment, the clerk must mail the
owner a notice stating the amount of the adop~ed assessment. The adopted
assessment roll shall include any and all deferments on large or unplatted parcels of
land along the City's street system.
14
.
..
J. Transmitting Assessment.to County Auditor
After the adoption of the assessment, the City Clerk must transmit a certified
duplicate copy of the assessment roll, including all deferred equivalent residential
units, to the County Auditor.
15
SECTION VI - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICIES
It is the policy of the City of Shorewood that all properties shall pay their fair share of the
cost of local improvements as they benefit. It is not intended that any property shall receive
the benefits of improvements without paying for them. These policies relate to street
reconstruction projects.
A. Establishine an Annual Rate
An annual assessment rate shall be established by the end of February by City .
Council Resolution upon recommendation of the City Engineer. The City Engineer
shall undertake a study to determine the per foot project cost of a "typical" 24 foot,
rural cross section street (with no curb and gutter), in the metropolitan area,
adjusted for typical Shorewood soil conditions (see appendix B). When determining
an annual rate with construction costs of the previous construction season the
construction cost index as published by the "Engineering News Record" or consumer
price index may be used. The annual Assessment Rate Resolution is appendix C of
this document.
B.
Assessable Street Reconstruction Projects
.
Street reconstruction projects are not likely to require the same amount of work
throughout the entire length of the project. That is, some sections may need to be
fully excavated and back-filled while other sections may need simple reshaping. It
is the policy of the city that a project is assessable when it's aggregate cost is
estimated to be at least 150% of a simple 2 inch overlay project.
16
.
.
C. Project Costs
Project cost shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
A. Total Construction cost including intersections
B. Engineering fees
C. Administrative fees
D.
Right-oi-way / easement acquisition/condemnation costs
E. Legal fees
F. Fiscal Fees
G. Capitalized interest
D.
Term of Assessment
Assessments for street reconstruction should be assessed for a ten (10) year period
unless the City Council determines that some other period of time is more
appropriate.
E. Government Owned Properties
Properties belonging to government jurisdictions, including the City, will be assessed
the same as privately owned property.
17
F. Non-developable Land
Special Assessments shall not be levied on properties deemed unbuildable due to
the existence of: undeveloped lands lying wholly and completely within zoned
wetlands, flood plains, DNR protected wetlands ~nd/or having restricted soils as
determined by the City Building Inspector. However, all parcels of land are assumed
. to be buildable until proven otherwise by the owner.
G. Interest Rate
.
The interest rate charged on assessments for all projects financed by debt issuance
shall not exceed two percent (2%) of the net interest rate of the bond issue. This
is necessary in order to insure adequate cash flow when the City is unable to reinvest
assessment prepayments at an interest rate sufficient to meet the interest cost of debt
or when the City experiences problems of payment collection d~linquencies. In the
event no bonds are issued then the rate of interest on assessments shall not exceed
two (2) percent greater than the average rate of interest on all bonds issued in the
previous calendar year or the current market municipal bond rate. Interest on initial
special assessment installments shall begin to accrue from the date of the resolution
adopting the assessment. Owners must be notified by mail of any changes adopted
by the City Council regarding interest rates or prepayment requirements which differ
from those contained in the notice of. the proposed assessment.
.
H. Payment Procedures
The property owner has four available options when considering payment of
assessments:
1. Tax Payment - If no action is undertaken by the property owner, then special
assessment installments will appear annually on the individual's property tax
statement for the duration of the assessment term.
18
2. Full Payment - No interest will be charged if the entire assessment is paid
within 30 days of the date of adoption of the assessment roll. In the initial
year, the property owner may at any time between that date and
November 15, prepay the balance of the assessment with interest accrued to
December 31 of that year.
3.
Partial Payment - The property owner has a one-time opportunity to make a
partial payment reduction of any amount against his\her assessment. This
option may only be exercised within the 30-day period immediately following
adoption of the assessment roll.
.
4. Prepayment - The property owner may, with the exception of the current
year's installment of principal ~nd interest, pay the remaining assessment
balance at any time, prior to November 15 without further interest charges.
Thereafter, the next installment, with interest through December 31 of the
following year, will be levied for collection with the real estate taxes payable
the ensuing year. The principal balance will be reduced by the amount of the
installment.
.
I. Appeal Procedures
No appeal may be taken as to the amount of any assessment adopted unless a written
objection signed by the affected property owner is filed with the City Administrator's
office prior to the assessment hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the
hearing. The property owner may appeal an assessment to District Court by serving
notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Administrator within 30 days after the
adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within 10
days after service of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Administrator.
19
J. Reapportionment Upon Land Division
When a tract of land against which a special assessment has been levied is
subsequently divided or subdivided by plat or otherwise, the City Council may, on
application of the owner of any part of the tract or on its own motion, equitably
apportion among the various lots or parcels in the tract all the installments of the
assessment against the tract remaining unpaid and not then due if it determines that
such apportionment will not materially impair collection of the unpaid balance of
the original assessment against the tract. The City Council may require furnishing
of a satisfactory surety bond in certain cases as specified in Minnesota Statutes
Section 429.071, Subd. 3. Notice of the apportionment and of the right to appeal .
shall be mailed to or personally served upon all owners of any part of the tract. In
most cases, dividing the assessment balance evenly on a unit or lot basis would result
in an equitable apportionment. If equitable in a particular case, such a procedure
would be most practical and administratively effective.
.
20
SECTION VII - ASSESSMENT METHOD
Once an assessment rate has been established for the year, that rate will be utilized for each
project, no matter the width, design, or type of street being reconstructed.
.
The City Council may utilize one of two methods of assessment for each project, "unit" or
"front foot". The City Engineer shall recommend the method and prepare the proposed
assessment roll based upon which method results in the most fair and equitable assessment
roll for that project. The unit method is to be utilized when the front footage of the
assessable properties are of relatively equal length or the benefit to the properties is similar.
The front footage method is to be utilized when there is a significant differential in the front
footage, . or benefit, of the assessable properties.
A. Unit Method
.
The unit method of assessment is most commonly used when the benefitting
properties are of similar benefit, but not necessarily similar geometry. For instance,
road reconstruction along a particular road will likely benefit the several properties
on a private drive as much as it benefits those properties directly abutting the road
being improved. In such a case, simply assessing the abutting front footage would
not be equitable.
..
A unit assessment shall be derived according to the following formula:
Annual.assessment rate X project length X 0.33 / number of assessable units.
The number of assessment units assigned to each parcel of land within the
assessment area shall be equal to the maximum number of potential lots which could
be possible on that parcel as determined by the City Planner. A lot shall be defined
in accordance with the City's Zoning Ordinance.
21
Corner lots shall typically have one-half (0.5) of its assessable units applied to each
street. However, the entire number of assessable units can be assessed in
conjunction with the street improvement project done first. This approach would
normally be taken where a single lot derives a majority of benefit from the
reconstruction of the first project due to lot, driveway, and home location.
B. Front Foota::e Method
The actual physical dimensions of a parcel abutting a street reconstruction project
shall NOT be construed as the frontage utilized .to calculate the assessment for a
particular parcel. Rather, an "adjusted front footage" will be determined. The front .
footage assessment rate shall be derived according to the following formula:
Annual assessment rate X project length X .33 / total adjusted front footage.
The purpose of this method is to equalize assessment calculations for lots of similar
size. Individual parcels by their very nature differ considerably in shape and area.
The following procedures will apply when calculating adjusted front footage. The
selection of the appropriate procedure will be determined by the specific
configuration of the parcel. All measurements will be scaled from available plat and
section maps and will be rounded down to the nearest foot dimension with any excess
fraction deleted. Categorical type descriptions are as follows:
1. Standard Lots 6. Irregularly Shaped Lots
2. Rectangular Variation Lots 7. Corner Lots
3. Triangular Lots 8. Flag Lots and Back Lots
4. Cul-de-sac Lots 9. Double Frontage Lots
5. Curved Lots
.
The ultimate objective of these procedures is to arrive at a fair and equitable
distribution of cost whereby consideration is given to lot size and all parcels are
comparably assessed.
22
~. Stancard L~ts. In ~~is instance, ~~e adjusted front footage
tor rectangular lots ~ilJ be t~e actual front footage Of t~a
lot. The frontage measured shall be t..~e lot widt."l at. t.i.a
~=ont lot line.
MAIN': AVEl'JLE
~O' 90'
A oS
Adj. Front Footage
::x."l....~US
Let A-50'
Lot 3.- 90'
2. Rectancrula!' Va!"iation !Jots 0 For a lot which is
approxi~ately rectangular and unifo~ in shape, the adjustaci
. front tootageis computed by. averaging the front -and back
sides of the lot. This method is used only where the
divergence bet-..;een front and rear lot lines is 20 feet or
less.
.
MAN AVEN-E
90' 7d
A
8
ltO'
80'
Adj. Front Footage
EXA.'fP!2S
L:lt A 90 - 110 - lOa'
...
~
Lot B 70 - 80 = is'
~
. 3. TrianC"'"..!lar Lets 0 For a triangular shaped lot, the adjusted
front: footage is computed by averaging the front and back
lot lines.. The measurement at the back lot line shall not
exceed a maxi~um distance in depth of 150 feet.
MAIN
AVENUE
:~ 100'
I~O'
_L~
Adj. Front Footage
EX-:u-!P!.ES
Lot A - 100 + 40 - 70'
2
Lot E - 40 + 1:30 = 85'
2
Lot C - 120 .;. 0 =- 60 ,.
2
23
4. Cul-de-sac Lots. The adjusted front footage for those lots that
exist on cul-de-sacs will be calculated at the building line as
defined by the Shorewoo~ Zoning O~dinance.
8
110'
Adj. Front Fcotage
E~'?T'.~S
Lot- A -
LotE
Lot C -
75'
110'
80'
.
5. Curved Lots. In certain situations- such as those where lots are
located along curved streets, road patterns create curvilineal
frontages. In such instances the adjusted front footage will be the
width of the lot measured at the midpoint of the shortest si~e lot
line.
A:
24
- .
"-...
7~' -..
8
90'
.
Adj. Front Footage
EXA..'I.!:?US
Lot A -
LotE
Lot .c
70'
90'
1.5 0 '
"-
6. ~rreqularlv Shaped Lots. In many cases, unplatted parcels that are
legally described by a metes and bounds description are irregular and
oddly shaped. The adjusted front footage will be calculated by
measuring the lot width at the building setback line based upon the
zoning district in which the lot is located.
.: SBL,
-1
MAIN
AVENUE
Adj. Front.Footage
E:u.~?!2S
LOt A-lIS'
Lot 13 - 140'
Lot C - 125'
.
SBL = Setback Line
7. Corner !.<lts.
.
a. Residentially Zoned Corner I..ots. The adjusted f=ont
footage will be assessed on the short side. A 150 foot
side lot allowance credit will apply a~ong ~~e ~djacent
side street. Any remaining frontage w~ll const~tute an
additional assess~ent. The short sid~ will be assessed
in those caseS where t..'1e improve~ent may exist on one
side only as well as for improvements abutting on bo~'1
sides. '
Adj. Front Footage
E~!.ES
I..ot A - 9 5 f
Lot 13 - 225'
A
-~
en
-~.
-
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
100'
12.5'
150'
'AVENLE
MAN
25
7. Commercial Zoned Corner Lots.
b. No allowance relief will be granted because of the
higher inherent property value associated with improved
traffic frontage and greater visibility along business
district intersections. The adjusted front footage
shall be the entire frontage measured along the setback
line comprising the building envelope.
Adj. Front Footage
EX.~1,fPUS , _
I
J
I
J
J .
''25
.. 1
or
A ~t
I
13d r
----- - -----.
a,
N
Lot A
Lot B
280'
390 "
,
r
I
~1
I
I
I.
.!2
.
.0
~
8
1- 27~'
L___________~______~
I
1~1
MAN
)J
AVEN..E:
I ' I
::00'
8. Flaq lots and back lots. Properties which utilize a narrow private
easement or maintain ownership of access to their property exceeding.
a minimum length of 125 feet, thereby 'having a small frontage on a
street, will be assigned an adjusted front footage based on the
minimum lot width for the zoning district in which it is located.
This dimension is consistent', with the zoning ordinance which
prescribes such length as the minimum lot width along a public
roadway. The adjusted front footage for flag lots whose driveway
access is under 125 will be measured at the building setback line from
the access terminus.
2d MAIN /SN'E.
Adj. Front Footage
E;o~~!.:ES
A
I
~ 8
Lot A
Lot B
SO I.
90'
"0
~
170'
~
26
.
.
9.
Double F~ontace Lets. It a parcel, ot~ar ~~an a c=~e= lot
cO:1prises !ront~ge on t....o streets and is eligible :o~
subdivision, ~~en an adjusted tr9nt rootage assess:ent ~ill
be .charged along eac:,. street. For double frontage .lots
lackinq t.."le necessary deptb. to::, subdivision, only a single
adjusted tront tootage will be cO:1putad.
MA!N Ave..
110'
Adj. Front Footage
EX.~1.!PUS
MArN AVE.
80'
Lot A. - 220'
Lot: B - a 0 '
.~ A
l"-
(1.1
.0
N
B
110'
.
Zi
SECTION VIII - DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS
The City Council may defer Special Assessments:
1.
On portions of large tracts of land as allowed in this chapter so as to
minimize the influence of the proposed improvement on the development of
said land.
2.
On homestead property owned by a person who qualifies under the hardship
criteria set forth below.
Procedure
.
The property owner shall make application for deferred payment of special assessments on
a form prescribed by the Hennepin County Auditor and supplemented by the Shorewood
City Administrator. The application shall be made within 30 days after the adoption of the
assessment roll by the City Council and shall be renewed each year upon the filing of a
similar application no later than September 30.
The City Administrator shall establish a case number for each application; review the
application for complete information and details and make a recommendation to the City .
Council to either approve or disapprove the -application for deferment. The City Council
by majority vote, shall either grant or deny the deferment and if the deferment is granted,
the City Council may require the payment of interest due each year. Renewal applications
will be approved by the City Administrator for those cases whereby the original conditions
for qualifications remain substantially unchanged.
If the City Council grants the deferment, the City Administrator shall notify the County
Auditor who shall in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 435.194, record a notice
of the deferment with the County Recorder setting forth the amount of assessment.
28
Interest shall be charged on any assessment deferred pursuant to this Section at a rate equal
to the rate charged on other assessments for the particular public improvement projects the
assessment is financing. If the City Council grants an assessment deferral to an applicant,
the interest may also be deferred, or the interest may be due and payable on a yearly basis
up until the assessment period terminates and only the principal is deferred. The decision
as to whether the principal and interest or just the principal is deferred is decided by the
City Council when considering the application.
A.
Larjle Tracts of Land
.
Upon application, the City Council may defer the assessments on large tracts of land
that may be subdivided or developed in the future. It is the intent of this policy to
grant deferments of special assessments to large tracts so as to minimize the
influence of the proposed improvement on the premature development of said land.
The deferment granted pursuant to this section may be of indefinite duration subject
to the occurrence of:
.
The subdivision of the property resulting in the creation of a new, buildable lot
.
.
If the City Council determines there is no continuing need for the deferment
B. Conditions of Hardship
1. Any applicant must be 65 years of age, or older, or retired by reason of
permanent and/or total disability and must own a legal or equitable interest
in the property applied for which must be the homestead of the applicant,
and,
2. The annual gross income of the applicant shall not be in excess of the income
limits asset forth by family size in Hennepin County's Section Eight guidelines.
Calculation of the total family income shall be determined by the summation
29
of all available income sources of the applicant and spouse. Income specified
in the application should be t,he income of the year proceeding the year in
which the application is made, or the average income of the three years prior
to the year in which the application is made, whichever is less, and,
3. The special assessments to be deferred exceed $1,000.00.
4. Permanent and/or total disability shall be determined by using the criteria
established for "permanent and total disability" for Workman's Compensation,
to wit:
a.
The total and permanent loss of the sight of both eyes.
.
b. The loss of both arms at the shoulder.
c. The loss of both legs so close to the hips that no effective artificial
members can be used.
d. Complete and permanent paralysis.
e.
Total and permanent loss of mental faculties.
.
f. Any other injury which totally incapacitates the owner from working at
an occupation which brings him \her an income.
An applicant must substantiate the retirement by reason of permanent and/or total
disability by providing a sworn affidavit by a licensed medical doctor attesting that
the applicant is unable to be gainfully employed because of a permanent and/or total
disability.
30
C. Termination of Hardship Deferment
The option to defer the payment of special assessments shall terminate and all
amounts accumulated plus applicable interest shall become due upon the occurrence
of anyone of the following events:
The death of an owner when there is no spouse eligible for deferment.
The sale, transfer, or subdivision of all or any part of the property.
Loss of homestead status on the property.
Determination by the City Council for any reason that there would be no
hardship to require immediate or partial payment.
Failure to file a renewal application within the time prescribed in A. above.
The end of the term of the original special assessment.
.
Upon the occurrence of one of the events specified in this section, the City Council
shall terminate the deferment. Thereupon the City Administrator shall notify the
County Auditor and County Assessor of the termination, including the amounts
accumulated on unpaid principal installments, plus any applicable interest, which
shall become due and payable as a result of the termination. The City Administrator
may negotiate and establish a payment schedule on the principal and interest owed
after the deferment terminates.
Nothing herein .shall be construed to prohibit the City Council from considering an
application of hardship on the basis of exceptional and unusual circumstances which
are not covered by the standards and guidelines as set forth in this ordinance. This
consideration and determination must be made in a non-discriminatory manner so
as not to give the applicant an unreasonable preference or advantage over other
applicants.
31
APPENDIX.
MAYC;:;
Bara 3ranc:so
C::UNC: :.
Kr.u. 5:0....'
Baa G.qn..
Rao O..ugne'r,
Can.., I.""",
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331 . (612] 474.3236
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM:
street Reconstruction Financing Task Force Members:
...Robert McDougal, James Finstuen, and Robert Shaw
Kristi stover, Council Liaison
Robert Bean, Planning commission Liaison
James c. H~, City Administrator
Joel Dresel, City Engineer
Al Rolek, Finance Director
.
DA.TE:
Au~st 18, 1992
Final Report
RE:
.This report is the result of the charge assigned the street
Reconstruction Financing Task Force in the "Purpose" and "Objectives'"
portion of Resolution No. 54-92 dated June 8, 1992. The Task Force met
on June 24th and 30t..~; July 11th and 28th; and August 11th. The Task
Forces conclusions are as follows:
Obiective 1 - Define a reconstructed street.
.
The Task Force defines maintenance as patching, seal-coating, and
overlay. Reconstruction is defined as any street improvement over and
above these maintenance functions.
When the City.determines th.at a street should be reconstructed it would
be rebuilt to its current width. Current widt..~ could be adjusted by
the City Council upon request of t..~e property owners or.by the Council
following public hearing if traffic counts or safety considerations
suggest w~der street is warranted.
The Task Force broke the streets down into four categories:
1) MSA/Collector 28'+ Curb & Gutter
2) Standard Local 24'+ Curb & Gutter where necessary
3) Substandard
Local 20-24' CUrb & Gutter where necessary
4) Other Less t..~an 20' curb & Gutter where necessary
.
A Residenr:ial Cammunir:y an Lake Minner:onka's South Shore
Ob;ective 2 - Review street reconstruction needs and review funding
options.
The Task Force deter:ined ~~at ~~e only two feasible funding sources
are from t..~e City's general fund and from special assess~ents to
abutting property owners.
Projections show that replacing streets on a forty year cycle would be
a tremendous drain on the City's general fund.
Ob;ective 3 - Develop a program to match projected revenues with
projected needs.
It is very difficult to project when a street is going to brea~ up.
Perhaps a pavement management system could be utilized to attempt to
make better proj ections of street needs. The Task Force however
believes that it is likelv t...~at t...'1e needs in t..~e foreseeable future .
will be greater than our cUrrent revenues will handle.
Ob; ecti ve 4 - Propose a fair and equitable method and procedure of
financing reconstruction of streets.
The Task Force recommends t...~at an assessment procedure be established
for the reconstruction of streets. We found in our analysis that
utilizing only general funds results in high valued properties paying
a disproportionately high portion of street improvement costs
throughout t..'1e city. Some form of special assessments to pay for
street improvements is very standard in municipalities throughout the
state of Minnesota. A special assessment procedure would require a
public hearing. This qives the property owner a formal way to offer
input into the reconstruction of the street. In addition there is a
fairness argument to consider. Should a resident who just paid for a
new street be required, through .the general property taxes, to pay for .
street improvements throughout the city for the next forty years?
Perhaps those residents who abut a street which is being approved
should be required to pay a percentage of that improvement.
The Task Force recommends that the. ,'soecial assessment rate be
established at 33 percent of the costs of a standard 24 foot street
width a rural cross-section (no curb and gutter). Each resident, no
matter which of the four categories they would fall, would be required
to pay this same rate established annually by the city council after
study and recommendation by the City Engineer. That means that in any
one year any street of the City which is being reconstructed whether it
be a 28 foot MSA road with curb and gutter, or a 20 foot local road
with no curb and gutter would pay the same rate. Again it is worth
noting that any changes to the current width or .street sta~dard would
have to be made by the city council only after p~lic hear~ng.
2
The last question considered by the Task Force was "Method of
Assessment". In establishing a policy for this it is recommended that
. the guiding principle should be:
special assessments may be levied only upon property receiving a
special benefit from the improvement. In Minnesota, the
Constitution and courts apply this general rule by placing the
following limitations upon the power to levy special assessments:
~) the rate must be uniform and equal upon all.property receiving
special benefit: 2) the assessment must be confined to property..
specially benefited; and 3) the amount of the assessment must not
exceed the special benefit.
. A survey of methods used by municipalities similar in nature to
Shorewood indicated that some have chosen to determine the "Method of
Assessment" on a project basis in view of the fact that the "Front
Footage" method may be most equitable in some cases and the "Unit..
method in others. Following in depth discussion the Task Force
recommends that the City of Shorewood and its citizens and property
owners would be best served by choosing this course. In doing so, it
would be necessary to develop policies for applying both methods.
It is the opinion of the Task Force that its assignment as defined in
Resolution No. 54-92, has been satisfied in his report.
.
a1/taskforce..st
3
L
2/.
Drawn By:
P.S.H.
OSM.orr
Schelen
Wayeron Sc
Associates. Inc.
EnllDen~ _ Architect. _ Plannen - Suueyon
300 Pork Pleee Cent.r _ 5775 W.y,..t. Boul...rd
IIlnneopollo. ilK 554111.1228 - 1112.5811-5775
Date:
2-4-93
APPENDIX B-1
50' R/W
J
24'
4" TOPSOIL
2.%
1'12" BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE
W / ROLLED BIT. CURB
3" BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE
6" CLASS 5/GRAVEL (1001. CRUSHED)
BASE COURSE
l' SUBCUT W / SELECT GRANULAR BACKFfLL
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
NO SCALE
Drawing Title
Comm. No_
TYPICAL SECTION FOR
ASSESSMENT PURPOSES
PER ORDINANCE
Sheet no.
APPENDIX B- 2
L 50'R/W J
I I
I I
24'
_~" TOPSOIL .
21. 2% ~ 4 \I TOPSOIL
\ r . 1
\0 4~ ---:J
~..:.:
SUB-DRAINJ
- 1Y'2" BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE
3" BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE .
6" CLASS 5/GRAVEL (1001. CRUSHED)
BASE COURSE
l' SUBCUT W / SELECT GRANULAR BACKFILL
,
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
NO SCALE
Drown By: Drawing Title Comm. No.
P.S.H. ~\\ Orr
Schelen TYPICAL SECTION FOR
Wayeron 8t
Dote: Associates. Inc. ASSESSMENT PURPOSES Sheet no.
En,ln"n _ Arebllec:b _ Plannen _ SurveJon
2-4-93 300 Part Place Ceuler _ :;775 lfayzala Boule..rd ALTERNATE WI SUB-DRAIN
IIluDe.poU.. 1111 :;5418'1228 _ 812.:;ll:>.577:>
CK NO
CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR MARCH 10, 1993 COUNCIL MEETING
TO WHOM ISSUED
PURPOSE
AMOUNT
CHECKS ISSUED SINCE FEBRUARY 18, 1993
10994
10995
10996
10997
10998
10999
11000
11001
11002
11003
&1004
~005
11006
11007
11008
11009
'11010
11011
11012
11013
11014
11015
11016
11017
11018
11019
11020
.1021
1022
11023
11024
11025
11026
11027
11028
11029
11030
11031
11032
11033
11034
11035
11036
11037
11038
11039
11040
11041
11042
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(G)
(L)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(G)
(G)
(G)
Void
Fina Fleet Fueling
Jack/Katherine Holmes
Cellular Telephone Co.
Mn Pollution Control
Northern States Power
Petty Cash
Superamercia
US West Communications
Steven Wigness
Bellboy Corporation
Griggs, Cooper and Co.
Johnson Brothers Liquor
Mn Bar Supply
North Star Ice
Northwest Typewriter Ex
Ed Phillips and Sons
Quality Wine/Spirits
Thorpe Distributing
City cty Credit Union
Mn Department of Revenue
Void
First State Bank
Commiss of Revenue
Pera
ICMA Retirement Trust
child Support Enforcemt
Anoka cty supt/Collectn
Wendy Davis
State of Minnesota
Susan Niccum
Bradley Nielsen
Joseph Pazandak
Pepsi Cola Company
Alan Rolek
WMI Svcs of Mn
united Creditors Allian.
Bellboy Corporation
Day Distributing
Griggs, Cooper and Co.
.... Johnson Brothers Liquor
Pepsi-Cola Company
Ed Phillips and Sons
Quality Wine/Spirits
Thorpe Distributing
Void
Pera
Medcenter Health Plan
Medica Choice
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
Gasoline purchases
Final bill overpaYment
Cellular phone air time
Truck emissions tests
utilities
City hall/office supplies
Gasoline purchases
Telephone services
Gagne party entertainment
Liquor purchases
Liquor,wine,misc purchases
Wine purchases
Misc and supplies purchases
Misc purchases
Supplies
Liquor and wine purchases
Liquor and wine purchases
Beer and misc purchases
Payroll deductions
January sales tax
300.57
14.28
10.92
24.00
2,115.38
49.84
648.01
48.93
40.00
2,217.36
6,525.65
436.33
118.40
60.00
13.00
1,846.73
899.05
5,896.60
970.00
7,858.70
Payroll deductions 6,239.58
Payroll deductions 1,049.95
Payroll deductions 2,097.38
Payroll deductions 654.93
Payroll deductions 87.50
Payroll deductions 110.59
Sec 125 reimbursement 140.00
Haz chemical fee statement 125.00
Sec 125 reimbursement 209.00
Sec 125 reimbursement 240.00
Mileage 39.84
. Pop machine rental 10.65
Sec 125 reimbursement 99.60
Warming house rental 150.00
Annual fee 25.00
Liquor purchases 1,806.84
Beer and misc purchases 1,538.55
Liquor, wine,misc purchases.. ......1,710,34
. Liquorand'winepurchasesic:~':",;"""l ,460.05.1..
Misc purchases .. ~118:70
Liquor and wine purchases 1,564.55
Liquor and wine purchases ,040.51
Beer and misc purchases 248. 0
Emp-ee addtl life
March health insurance
March health insurance
2:00
1,021.40
4,383.16
-1-
CK NO
CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR MARCH 10, 1993 COUNCIL MEETING
TO WHOM ISSUED
PURPOSE
CHECKS ISSUED SINCE FEBRUARY 18, 1993 (CONTINUED)
11043
11044
11045
11046
11047
11048
11049
11050
11051
11052
11053
11054
11055
11056
11057
11058
11059
11060
11061
11062
11063
11064
11065
11066
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(G)
(G)
Group Health Inc.
League of Mn cities
Mn Mutual Life
Commercial Life Ins Co
AFSCME Council 14
Wendy Davis
Mr. Don Fisher
James Hurm
Metro Waste Control
Cellular Telephone Co.
Minnegasco
Northern States Power
US West
Bellboy Corporation
Griggs, Cooper and Co.
Hoops Trucking
Johnson Brothers Liquor
Mn victoria oil Co.
Harry Niemela
Ed Phillips and Sons
Quality Wine/Spirits
Ryan Properties
Minnesota North Stars
Paine Webber
March health insurance
March dental insurance
March disability insurance
March life insurance
March Delta dental insurance
Mileage
Release of escrow
Mileage/expenses
Feb SAC charges
Cellular phone air time
Utilities
utilities
Telephone/advertising svcs
Liquor purchases
Liquor and wine purchases
Liquor and wine purchases
Liquor and wine purchases
Fuel oil
March rent store 1
Liquor and wine purchases
Liquor and wine purchases
March rent store 2
GFOA tickets
Additional investment
TOTAL GENERAL
TOTAL LIQUOR
TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED
AMOUNT
1,192.44
403.00
85.50
50.15
224.00
24.64
1,000.00
45.75
2,227.50
64.39
1,871.33
2,459.29 .
1,039.34
555.91
1,839.90
210.00
3,238.12
167.70
1,664.00
921. 69
322.50
2,400.00
184.50
.1.493.81
33,288.15
47.704.98
.
80.993.13
-2-
CK NO
. ..:--..
CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR MARCH 10, 1993 COUNCIL MEETING
CHECKS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL
TO WHOM ISSUED
11067
11068
11069
11070
11071
11072
11073
11074
11075
11076
11077
.1078
1079
11080
11081
11082
11083
11084
11085
1108-6
11087
11088
11089
.1090
1091
11092
11093
11094
11095
11096
11097
11098
11099
11100
11101
11102
A/G Electric
American Natl Bank
Earl F. Andersen & Assoc
City of Chanhassen
ChanhassenLawn/Sport
Champion Auto
Doboszenski & Sons
Eden Prairie Ford
City of Excelsior
Hance Hardware
Hennepin County
Hopkins Parts
KAR Products
Knox Commercial Credit
Knutson Services
Lake Business Supplies
Lk Mtka Cable Commiss
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly
and Lindgren, Ltd.
Life and Safety
M-V Thermogas
Metro Area Mgmt Assoc.
Midwest Business Prod.
Commiss of Transportatn
State of Minnesota
Minnetonka Country Club
Mn Sun Publications
MTI Distributing
Northern States Power
Oil-Air Products, Inc.
Orr, Schelen, Mayeron,
and Associates
Pepsi Cola Company
Peterson Enviro Consult
Pitney Bowes
Rouse Mechanical
Time Savers
'Tonka Auto/Body Supply
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
PURPOSE
Electrical services
GO 9/1/80 bond fees
Street signs
Storm water charge '
Chain saw supplies
Vehicle maint supplies
PaYment voucher #2
Vehicle maint supplies
4th qtr water
Maintenance supplies
Homestead supplies
Vehicle maint supplies
Plow maint supplies
PW site supplies
Feb recycling services
Office supplies
Mtg tapes/plaque
January legal fees
general 3490.90
park ref 333.80
pw site 190.50
church rd 1577.78
mwcc 603.00
First aid supplies
Utilities
Luncheon meeting
Office supplies
Re-Iamping svcs
State agency services book
Gagne retirement party
PUblishing
Carburetor kit
Plow damage to equipment
Vehicle maint supplies
January engineering svcs
developmental 1016.35
general 5878.76
pw site 964.50
old mkt rd 3907.98
church rd 549.23
lift stns 598.50
City hall pop suppl
Litigation services
Postage machine supplies
Overhead exhaust system
Planning commiss minutes
Equipment maint supplies
AMOUNT
277.66
50.00
157.62
21. 42
7.86
17.64
26,394.80
7.46
2,248.72
8.75
111. 04
340.39
145.79
145.28
3,893.40
9.14
111.72
6,195.88
11. 66
147.61
13.00
203.62
127.07
18.00
580.00
220.32
40.05
513.96
123.26
12,915.32
-3-
CK NO
CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR MARCH 10, 1993 COUNCIL MEETING
TO WHOM ISSUED
PURPOSE
AMOUNT
CHECKS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL (CONTINUED)
11103
11104
11105
11106
11107
11108
11109
Tonka Printing
Turf Supply Co.
Viking Safety
Voson Plumbing
West Hennepin Human
witt Financial
Ziegler, Inc.
Council business cards
Parks supplies
Vehicle maint supplies
City hall maint
Svcs 1993 contribution
Investment services
Vehicle maint supplies
202.35
2,968.79
24.34
57.60
1,302.00
662.75
32.67
TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL
67,987.4.
TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST
148,980.53
.
-4-
CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR MARCH 10, 1993 COUNCIL MEETING
CK NO TO WHOM ISSUED HOURS AMOUNT
CHECK REGISTER FOR FEBRUARY 23, 1993' PAYROLL
207078 Void
207079 (L) Scott Bartlett 17.5 reg hours 101.01
207080 (G) Randie Berg 77.5 reg hours 368.21
207081 (G) Eric Chiles 71. 25 reg hours 316.03
207082 (G) Jeff Chiles 54.75 reg hours 251.29
207083 (G) Charles Davis 80.0 reg hours 589.64
207084 (G) Wendy Davis 80.0 reg hours 70.16
207085 (L) Cory Frederick 50.0 reg hours 232.70
207086 (L) John Fruth 19.75 reg hours 105.64
207087 (G) Timothy Heiland 23.5 reg hours 113.94
207088 (G) Patricia Helgesen 80.0 reg hours 633.06
.07089 (G) James Hurm 80.0 reg hours 1,664.42
07090 (L) Brian Jakel 28.75 reg hours 159.87
207091 (G) Dennis Johnson 80.0 reg hours 775.31
207092 (L) Loren Jones 14.5 reg hours 73.74
207093 (L) Martin Jones 17.5. reg hours 71. 32
207094 CL) William Josephson 80.0 reg hours 630.22
207095 (L) Mark Karsten 42.5 reg hours 217.08
207096 (L) Sandra Klomps 4.0 reg hours 20.87
207097 (G) Douglas Koerting 19.0 reg hours 85.03
207098 (G) Jason Koerting 25.0 reg hours 126.98
207099 (G) Anne Latter 80.0 reg hours 859.36
207100 (L) Susan Latterner 37.25 reg hours 200.31
207101 (G) Joseph Lugowski 82.0 reg hours 772.69
207102 (L) Russell Marron 15.0 reg hours 74.61
207103 (G) Lawrence Niccum 82.0 reg hours 819.70
207104 (G) Susan Niccum 80.0 reg hours 702.26
207105 (G) Brent Nicolle 47.5 reg hours 222.83
<<07106 (G) Bradley Nielsen 80.0 reg hours 953.52
07107 (G) Joseph Pazandak 80.0 reg hours 1,033.73
207108 (G) Daniel Randall 80.0 reg hours 785.94
207109 (L) Brian Roerick 3.25 reg hours 18.76
207110 (G) Alan Rolek 80.0 reg hours 1,225.32
207111 (L) Brian Rosenberger 35.5 reg hours 184.73
207112 (L) Christopher Schmid 80.0 reg hours 404.27
207113 (G) Howard Stark 80.0 reg hours 665.90
207114 (G) Beverly Von Feldt 80.0 reg hours 579.74
207115 (G) Ralph Wehle 80.0 reg hours 634.17
207116 (L) Dean Young 80.0 reg hours 614.44
207117 (G) Donald Zdrazil 80.0 reg hours 1.189.45
TOTAL
TOTAL LIQUOR 3.109.57
TOTAL PAYROLL 18.548.25
-5-
CK NO
CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR MARCH 10, 1993 COUNCIL MEETING
TO WHOM ISSUED
AMOUNT
PURPOSE
CHECK REGISTER FOR MARCH 1, 1993 PAYROLL
207118
207119
207120
207121
207122
207123
void
Bruce Benson
Barbara Brancel
Robert Daugherty
Daniel Lewis
Krististover
council
Mayor
council
Council
council
184.70
233.87
184.70
184.70
184.70
.
TOTAL PAYROLL
972.67
.
.
-6-
11
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL CANVASS
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1993
t
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
6:00 P.M.
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CANVASSING BOARD
A.
Roll Call
Benson
Stover
. Daugherty
Lewis
Mayor Brancel
2. REVIEW AND APPROVE THE LOCAL ELECTION RESULTS FROM THE PARK
REFERENDUM ELECTION - MARCH 9, 1993
(Attachment - Proposed Resolution
and Canvass Results)
3. ADJOURN CANVASS BOARD - RECONVENE INTO SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION MEETING
JCH.al
2/25/93
t
~
RESOLUTION NO. -93
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SPECIAL CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PARK AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENT BOND REFERENDUM RESULTS
WHEREAS, a municipal election was held on March 9,1993; and
WHEREAS, the question was:
May the City of Shorewood borrow money by selling its
General Obligation Bonds in an amount not to exceed $900,000
to pay for the construction, betterment, and equipping of park,
trail.and recreation facilities and related land; and
WHEREAS, a count of the local municipal election was held on Tuesday,
March 9, 1993, in Precincts I, IT, lIT, and IV of the City of Shorewood; and
WHEREAS, said election results are officially contained in the tabulation attached
hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
1. That the tabulation of election count results for the Park Referendum election
held on March 9, 1993, as contained in the tabulation attached hereto as
Exhibit A, is hereby approved.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this
10th day of March, 1993.
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
ATTEST:
.::,
James C. Hurm, City Administrator
~
{'
CANVASSING BOARD RESULTS
. .
-
For a Special City of Shorewood Park and Trail Improvement Bond
Referendum Election held March 9, 1993, in the County of Hennepin,
state of Minnesota.
At an Election held in Precincts I, II, III, and IV, the following
named proposition received the number of votes as indicated below:
QUESTION: May the City of Shorewood borrow money by selling its
General Obligation Bonds in an amount not to exceed
$900,000 to pay for the construction, betterment, and
equipping of park, trail and recreation facilities and
related land?
PCT I
PCT II
PCT III
PCT IV
TOTAL VOTES
YES
NO
BLANK OR
DEFECTIVE
TOTAL # OF
PERSONS WHO
VOTED PER
PRECINCT
REG. VOTERS
PER PCT.
# BALLOTS
COUNTED
I, the undersigned Clerk of the City of Shorewood do hereby certify
that all of the blue ballots cast at the Special Park and Trail
Improvement Bond Referendum held on March 9, 1993, were carefully
and properly piled, checked and counted, and that the number of
votes marked opposite the respective names of the candidates or
propositions, correctly shows the number of votes cast. The
national flag was displayed on a suitable staff during all the
hours of voting.
signed:
Title:
Date:
city of Shorewood, MN
EXHIBIT A
FOLLOWING THE CANVASS OF THE PARK REFERENDUM ELECTION THE
CITY COUNCIL WILL CONVENE INTO A WORK SESSION FORMAT
(Note: No Action to be Taken at this work session)
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10i 1993
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
APPROXIMATELY 6:10 P.M.
AGENDA
1. CONVENE WORK SESSION
Roll Call
Benson
Stover
Daugherty
Lewis
Mayor Brancel
2. ESTABLISH AND PRIORITIZE OBJECTIVES FOR 1993i1994
(Attachment)
3. ADJOURN WORK SESSION AND RECONVENE INTO THE REGULAR CITY
COUNCIL MEETING
JCH.al
2/25/93
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,
------
, !
MEMO
TO:
Mayor and City Council
~
FROM:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator
/~
DATE:
March 5, 1993
RE: Council Work Session -Wednesday, March 10, 1993, at 7:15 p.m. (following
Referendum Canvas) and r~convening after the regular meeting.
Attachments:
A. City Council Work Calendar
B. Shorewood City Values
, C. Statement of Purpose
D. Partial List ,of Shorewood,Accomplishments in the year 1992.
E. Issues facing the City in 1993.
l i
Preparing for the Work Session:
1)' Pl~ase review attachments A, B & c. Be ready to discuss and come to a concensus
on any changes to these items, particularly the "V alues"~nd "Purpose" statements~
\ . \ --
" .. \, -
, 2) Review attachment D. It can be helpful 'to 'review what has,-in ~fact,been'~
accomplished over the previQus twelve months. be prepared t~_add to the list of) >"
,accomplis4I1>ents. \~ . \ . . . ,'(i\ 4;\"~rf3n'~)'j.~~.~t;\:i
Review attachinentE. "Add ,issues th~t you see facing the City in 1993.'c"Nterthis '
list has been complIed by'the Council at the work session, ~taff will offerJmput,
iIlcluding e~timated staff time requirements for~ach issue. ';;~; ,;'ii: :'.i-:.";"'<:
') ,i ' , ' "\ (- ; \ '" >,.'2::,:i'{": ':,'-.t'/:~30;,>
The City Council then will rate the identified issues onaj' scale 'of 1 to 5 (1 being not'
urgent/not important to 5 being urgent/important), on an individual basis...then come toa '
Council concensus. The list should then be reviewed and adjusted keeping in mind time
constraints. '
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's Sou~h" Shore '
CITY COUNCIL WORK CALENDAR
PHASE 1. Planning
December, January, February, March
. Evaluations
. Review Work Agenda of Previous Year.
. Review the Comprehensive Plan Executive Summary;
Refocusing a Vision for the City.
...
. Review Council Procedures, City Statement of Purpose and Values.
. Identify and Prioritize Issues for the Next 12 to 24 Months.
PHASE 2. Programming
April, May, June, July
. Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Based on Phase 1 Priorities.
. Changes to Comprehensive Plan Based on Phase 1 Review.
PHASE 3. Budgeting
August, September, October, November
. Operating Budget - Based on Phase 1 and 2 Decisions.
. Capital Improvement Budget - Based on CIP.
JCH.al
2/20/92 (packet)
ATTACHMENT A
SHOREWOOD CITY VALUES
The Shorewood city council, in its governing roll, is responsible
for setting policies for the city, which are implemented by the
Administrator and city employees. Furthermore, the Administrator,
employees, and city commissions propose overall goals, specific
objectives, service levels, and action plans for council
consideration and direction.
This "team" makes decisions and acts based on a strong set of
values. The team values are:
. A strong sense of commitment to the city and its statement of
purpose.
. Open, democratic government, enhanced by an informed populace.
. Responsiveness to the needs and desires of the citizens;
public service..
. Fair and equal interpretation and enforcement of city Codes.
. A reputation for dependability and integrity.
. Teamwork and action oriented problem solving (acting rather
than reacting) .
. striving for improved productivity and efficiency through new
technology and innovation.
. Employee selection by merit.
. Professional development.
. 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.
. The provision of accurate, timely information to the city
Council, thru proper channels, so the best possible decisions
. can be made.
. Adherence to professional, ethical standards of conduct.
JCH.al
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
This statement is a point of reference for all decisions and
actions of Shorewood city Officials and Employees.
Our purpose: to provide a value in municipal services, to assure
compliance with community laws and standards, and to keep citizens
informed of those services, laws and standards.
Our Goal: to serve our purpose in such an efficient, friendly
manner that residents feel good about being citizens of the
Shorewood community.
Our Expectations: to accomplish our goal we must serve in an
impartial fashion; be open, accurate, patient and courteous; and
take pride in the job we do~
Let us know when we don't meet our expectations!
JCH.al
ATTACHMENT C
PARTIAL LIST OF CITY OF SHOREWOOD'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS
IN THE YEAR 1992
1. Completed Public Works facility
2. Completed salt/sand storage building
3. Sold and began removal old Public Works building
4. Revised and improved CIP process
5. Initiated a new operating budget format based on objectives and relevant
information
6. Updated job descriptions
7. Filled foreman position
8. Initiated Comprehensive Plan review
9. Initiated commission openings being advertised with interviews held
10. Established storm drainage utility
11. Special task force reported on street reconstruction financing
12. Closed recycling drop off center
13. Began challenges of MWCC charges
14. Entered into a five year Police Agreement
15. Senior Housing Task Force initiated inquiries to developers
16. Received proposals for banking services
17. Improved newsletter format
18. Creation of a task force to recommend location of a senior center
19. Improvements to City Hall offices, kitchen and coat closet
20. Submitted Comparable Worth plan (which has since been accepted)
21. Initial phase of Silverwood Park
22. Church Road str~et and water improvements
23. Overlayed 3 miles of City streets
24. Installed "drop box" at city Hall
25. Updated Shoreland Management Regulations
26. Completed land use map background data
27. Updated Zoning Ordinance to accommodate/encourage senior housing
28. Updated City base map and zoning map
29.
30.
ATTACHMENT D
'/
I . I ,
. ' / I
~ Co"",'1 ""0' I
c 1-5
";" ~
STAFF CONCENSUS ~. ' ~ II 2 ~ ;
'" - ::::: '''::;
~ e '" ~
- ~ . :.; ~
Facing the ~8 ;g '0
Issues City in 1993 ~C) ..0 :.:: ~ G ~
e u 0..;.;:: .Q t:"
p~~S ~ ~ Q - 0 -
,.;; C) i5'
... ~
-
r
. Implementation of Park Capital Improvement <g [
Program IA
. Park land inventory IfJ I
. Consider establishing a bonus pay system IIf .ti I
;
. Update comprehensive Plan lA q I
. Improve on CIP document I~ ~
iJA Y. I I
. MSA designations and designs I
I
. special Assessment Ordinance for street ~ t -I
reconstruction lA !
ILB i ,
,
~ ; ,
Complete landscaping of Public Works facility i
. , i
ILA 4 I
I
. Reconstruction of City Hall parking area ~' I
. ,
,
!
. Decide on future of Badger and Woodhaven Wells rAA 5 I ~. ,
and Badger building ,
J I
1~ Lj I :
. Improve disaster preparedness ~ ~
Consider contracting for municipal itA j , i
. garbage to ]I I
service I j ,
,
~ I
position/A .3 , !
; ;
. Consider feasibility of city Engineer i
. Pursue joint efforts with neighboring ~ S" : 1
municipalities
I
. Review Contract for Excelsior Fire I ~A c} i
Department service I Lr-J ,
I
. i i ,
i
. Review of formula for police service as 1ft. J. ,
request.ed by Excelsior I
! ,
~ J i
. Review paramedic response
. Computerization of property records, permit q, i
tracking, clerk indexing IA ,
t.A 1. i
. Resolve MWCC rate increase issues .- 1
1~ i
Update flood plain regulations ~ ~~ j
.
.e, ~ ,
. Request for South Shore Senior Center , ;
ATTACHMENT E
"4
Staff Concensus - Issues Facing the City 1993
Continued - Page Two
.
Pursue various types of senior housing
within Shorewood
.
Consider a snow emergency parking ban ordinance
.
Improve new operating budget format
.
Revise Planning and Park Commission ordinance
.
Relocation of ea~t liquor store
.
Review policy on method of extending water to a
new development
.
Develop a finance plan to address continuing
cuts in state Aid
.
Personnel manual with harrassment policy
.
Acquisition of right-Of-way on MSA
designated streets
.
.
.
I
Council Rating I
tl8 4
/8 I \
(P.J
IRJ ~
Pt :3
i
J At.
"I} )
I~ .3
I
\Ut b
l
!
l
l
I
,
,
!
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1993
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 p.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Bean, Bonach, Borken, Hansen,
Malam and Pisula; Council Liaison Lewis; Planner Nielsen.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Hansen moved, Borkon seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's
February 2, 1993 meeting, with Paragraph 1, Page 3 corrected to read:
"Williams stated that with regard to Outlot A, he has discussed with the owner of the
property on the south to make it an easement rather than an outlot, but was not sure
if the owner was okay with that. Sather stated he wants to make sure trees get
saved in that area; an easement could be created and deeded to the other person, but
he would not own the property. He indicated this may be acceptable to the property
owner. "
Motion passed 7/0.
1. STUDY SESSION - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Review Final Draft Transportation Policies
Review Current Transportation Plan, Proposed MSA System
Review Proposed Trail Plan
Nielsen reviewed the Transportation Issues as outlined in his memorandum of May 5,
1992; the current Transportation Plan, including the functional class system of
Shorewood's streets and the proposed MSA system; and the Proposed Trail Plan.
The Commissioners asked questions, discussed the proposals before them, and
requested the staff to provide summary recommendations for each of the issues for
the Commission's consideration at its ne?<t meeting.
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1993 - Page AB
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Nielsen noted that the EAW related to the. Gideon's Woods P.U.D. will be examined
at the Commission's March study session.
3. REPORTS
Lewis briefly commented on Council discussions at its February 5 meeting.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Hansen moved, Borkon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSavers Off Site Secretarial
2