The URL can be used to link to this page

042693 CC Reg AgP CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1993 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. Following the adjournment of the regular meeting the City council will convene to a Work session Format AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call Lewis Mayor Brancel Benson stover Daugherty C. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes - April 12, 1993 (Att.No.2A-Minutes) B. city Council Work Session Minutes - April 12, 1993 (Att.No.2B-Minutes) 3 . CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to Approve Items on consent Aqenda and Adopt Resolutions Therein A. A Motion to Approve a Resolution for a Single Temporary Gambling License - variety Club Association (Att.No.3A-Proposed Resolution) B. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution with Findings of Fact - Denying Setback Variance Dave Nelson/Pete Knaeble, 21740 Lilac Lane-Postponed from 4/12/93 meeting (Att.No.3B-Proposed Resolution) C. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Ar ~ ~ "'\) ng Lot width and Setback Variance Lance DeTrudp~ 0 0 West 62nd Street- postponed from 4/12/93 mee~.~ (Att.No.~ 0 S posed Resolution) 5. PARK ~ A. Report on Park Commision Meeting - April 13, 1993 B. Consider a Resolution Amending the 1993-1997 capital Improvement Program and 1993 Capital Improvement Budget (Att.No.5B-Proposed Resolution) C. Consider Use of Twin cities Tree Trust Crews and Organizations Donations to Improve Parks (Att.No.5C-Report) D. Consider Planned Activities for Arbor Month (May) 1993 (Att.No.5D-Park Commission Letter) . . CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 26, 1993 PAGE TWO 6. PLANNING A. Report on Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1993 B. Authorization to Proceed with Bid Process - City Hall Parking Lot (Att.No.6B-staff Memo and Budget) 7. REPORT ON REQUEST OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN REGARDING DEER RIDGE SUBDIVISION (Att.No.7-Staff Report) S. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INTERGOVERNMENTAL DISCUSSIONS RELATING TO A SOUTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER AND DISCUSSION OF RELATED ISSUES (Att.No.SA-Proposed Resolution; SB-Staff Report) 9. CONSIDER JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT - BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE CITY - (CDBG) (Att.No.9-Agreement) 10.**CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING A LICENSE FEE - RENTAL HOUSING (Att.No.-proposed Ordinance) 11. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 12. STAFF REPORTS A. City Attorney B. City Engineer C. City Planner D. Finance Director E. City Administrator 13. COUNCIL REPORTS A. Mayor Brancel 1.** Consider a Low Income Discount for Water Utility (Att.No.13A-1-Finance Director's Memo) 2. Letter from David W. Lindsey Regarding the Reconfiguration of six of the Forty Boat Slips at Boulder Bridge Farms - which is before the LMCD (Att.No.13A-2-Lindsey Letter and Staff Memo) B. Councilmembers 14. ADJOURN TO WORK SESSION SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (Attachment) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 26, 1993 PAGE THREE WORK SESSION 1. CONVENE WORK SESSION - No Action will be Taken at this Work Session A. ** Discuss a Proposed Policy on Special Assessments for Street Reconstruction Projects (Attachment - Agenda) B. Discuss Badger/Woodhaven Wells (Attachment - Finance Director Rolek) 2. ADJOURN WORK SESSION ** indicates tax or fee implications JCH.al 4/19/93 MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1993 I.i If EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA AGENDA ITEM 3A - This item has become an annual resolution which authorizes a one day gambling license for a raffel to be held at the Minnetonka Country Club on Monday, June 7 to benefit the Variety Children Hospital at the University of Minnesota. . AGENDA ITEM 3B - On the recommendation of the Planning Commission the City Council directed staff to prepare this resolution denying a set back variance for Dave Nelson/Peter Knaeble on Lilac Lane. AGENDA ITEM 3C - THIS ITEM IS BEING POSTPONED BECAUSE ALL OF THE APPROPRIATE PAPER WORK HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED BY MR. DETRUDE. AGENDA ITEM 4 - ERROR IN NUMBERING AGENDA ITEM SB - Park Commissioner steven Dzurak will be present to make a presentation to the City Council. A revised five year Capital Improvement Program for Park Improvements is being recommended to the City Council by the Park commission and is enclosed in the packet. . AGENDA ITEM SC - The Commission hopes to complete as many park improvements as possible by requesting donations from sporting groups and neighborhood associations, businesses and individuals. They also hope to be able to take advantage of Twin cities Tree Trust Program. Further information on that program will be available at the meeting. AGENDA ITEM SD - The Park Commission will be working with Sth and 6th grade students in area schools by sponsoring an essay contest with students completing the statement "trees are important because. . .". The winning essay will then participate with Park Commission members in Arbor month ceremonies at Freeman Park the last week in May. AGENDA ITEM 6 - A motion would be in order authorizing staff to begin the bid process for recontructionof a City Hall/Badger Park parking lot with some of the work being done by the Public Works crew. AGENDA ITEM 7 - As I communicated separately to the City Council Chanhassen City staff is now pursuing options other than trading several lots as discussed at the last Council meeting. Therefore there is nothing to report at this City Council meeting. Hopefully a proposal will be developed so that it can be brought to the City Council in May. The Chanhassen City Council has removed the condition of annexation for approval of the Deer Ridge Subdivision agreement. AGENDA ITEM 8 - Bob Gagne will be present requesting that Shorewood begin participating in discussions .with other municipalities on intergovernmental questions. He also will request that approximately $3,900 of the CDBG funds which had been set aside for Senior Center Planning be budgeted for soil boring and surveying on the site. staff Report by Planner Nielsen under separate cover. AGENDA ITEM 9 - The enclosed resolution authorizes Shorewood to participate in the Hennepin County CDBG program for the years 1994, 1995, and 1996. AGENDA ITEM 10 - This ordinance establishes the rental housing license fee at $35.00 per unit every three years. Additional inspections, as necessary, will be $20.00 per inspection. . AGENDA ITEM 13A - Mayor Brancel has asked the staff to research the concept to allow a low income resident discount for eligible residents to pay the minimum rate for water service. If the Council upon reviewing the attached material agrees with the concept an ordinance can be prepared for the next Council meeting. AGENDA ITEM 13A-2 - A letter was sent to Mayor Brancel concerning Boulder Bridge Farms requesting to remove six slips to Lake Minnetonka from an inlet. The attached staff memorandum state~ that dock facilities were left at the discretion of the LMCD at the time of Boulder Bridges platting. WORK SESSION - Please notice that there is a separate agenda for the work session as recommended by Mayor Brancel. We will attempt to make presentations as succinct as possible. I ask that the Council take a five minute break after the Regular Council meeting to allow us to set tables down below. This format will be more conducive to a work session type of discussions and we will be using the overhead. Please review the work session material in detail before the meeting. It is enclosed separately in the packet. . JCH.al CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1993 COUNCrr. CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING The meeting was called to order by Mayor Brancel at 7:00 p.m. . A Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call Present: Mayor Brancel; Councilmembers Benson, Daugherty and Lewis; Administrator Hurm, Attorney Keane', Planning Director Nielsen and Financial Director Rolek. Absent: Councilmember Stover. C. Review Agenda Daugherty moved, Lewis seconded to approve the Agenda for April 12, 1993, with the postponement of Consent Agenda items 4.D. and 4.E. . Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUfES Daugherty moved, Lewis seconded to approve the City Council Minutes of March 22, 1993. Motion passed 4/0. 3. REOUEST OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN REGARDING DEER RIDGE SUBDIVISION Mr. Don Chmiel, Mayor of Chanhassen, introduced Mr. Don Ashworth, Chanhassen's City Manager. Ashworth presented a request that Shorewood consider a friendly annexation/de- annexation agreement with Chanhassen of 1 or 2 lots located in the Deer Ridge plat of the J. Scotty Builders development (detailed in Ashworth's letter and attachments to Hurm dated March 30, 1993). The purpose of the request is to ensure that Chanhassen continues to be eligible to receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- APRIL 12, 1993 - PAGE TWO Ashworth outlined the benefits for both cities. He noted that without Chanhassen's cooperation to allow for the extension of sewer and water to the Deer Ridge development, the developer would have been limited to three lots whereas the utility extension from Chanhassen allows five lots giving economic gain to Shorewood from increased taxes from the additional two lots. He noted, however, the request is being made solely to continue Chanhassen's eligibility under the CDBG program. He explained that under that program, a city split by counties may count it's entire population as long as there are residents in both counties. With the widening of Highway 5, two Chanhassen residences previously in Hennepin County were eliminated by that highway expansion thereby rendering Chanhassen ineligible for the CDBG program beginning in 1994. A final determination of ineligibility has been received after appeals at various levels of HUD. Ashworth pointed out that with the loss of the Block Grant funds, the South Shore Senior Center and the Chanhassen Center, frequented by residents of ShorewoodjExcelsiorjTonka Bay as well as Chanhassen, would lose significant contributions heretofore provided by Chanhassen. Ashworth explained that under the CDBG distribution program, with the deletion of Chanhassen, the remaining cities in the entitlement area, would lose the availability of $53,000 in funds. In addition, he pointed out that to retain secret balloting, the annexation of two lotsjresidences is preferred. . Lewis noted that according to Mr. Ashworth's letter, the Chanhassen Council has made this matter a condition of approval of the extension of utility service to the Deer Ridge development and requested clarification of the status of the previously approved water and sewer connections and other joint actions related to that development. Ashworth noted that the Chanhassen Council was adamant that if the Shorewood Council denied this request, the J. Scotty Builder's development should be reconsidered as soon as possible. Ashworth noted that Chanhassen has been contributing to the Senior Centers and providing handicap accessibility at two of its parks with CDBG funds. Lewis stated that according to Ashworth's remarks the previous agreements between Shorewood and Chanhassen in connection with the Deer Ridge development would be suspended if Shorewood acted to deny Chanhassen's annexation request and expressed concern that those agreements are being held hostage for approval of the annexation . request. Chanhassen's representatives confirmed that position. Brancel questioned why Chanhassen is making this request of Shorewood at this time while they have known of their dilemma for several years. Ashworth indicated that Chanhassen has been investigating other avenues for- maintaining its eligibility including requesting that interpretations of Federal law be made in favor of Chanhassen. Ashworth pointed out that there is a possibility that Federal legislation may be introduced to allow for continued participation in the CDBG program since the highway, expansion program was a Federal/State program. He indicated that it has only recently become clear that all possible avenues have been pursued and exhausted for retaining eligibility. Ashworth stated that other Chanhassen property located in Hennepin County is zoned commercial whereas HUD guidelines restrict qualification to residences only. Ashworth stated that it is possible that the Annexation Board could deny the approval of the described annexation if it was determined that it did not provide for continuotls borders and if Chanhassen could not demonstrate that the provision of sewer and water allows for the development of the lots. However, Chanhassen feels confident the request would meet the 2 . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUfES APRIL 12, 1993 - PAGE 3 necessary annexation requirements. Barbara Montgomery spoke on behalf of the senior citizens pointing out that Chanhassen has been most supportive of senior issues not only in Chanhassen but in the surrounding area and that the seniors support the City's annexation request. Montgomery further stated that funds are distributed wisely and responsibly with input from the senior citizens. She pointed out support of the Southshore Center and Sojourn is important to the entire community and a loss of funds is a major concern. Larry Blackstad, Senior Planner, Hennepin County, provided the background to Chanhassen's eligibility for CDBG funds as a split-county city. He stated that a contract cannot be offered to Chanhassen for the next three years (1994-95-96) because of this ineligibility situation, however, if and when the City of Chanhassen does have a resident in Hennepin County and it's eligibility is reinstated, a participation contract for would again be granted under the program. Blackstad indicated that even if the requested annexation were approved, eligibility could not be restored in time for 1994 funding. Blackstad described the proposed Federal legislation that would recognize that population was lost in Hennepin County due to no action of the city, but that the residential property was purchased through State and Federal action for the purpose of widening the highway, thus rendering Chanhassen ineligible. At Daugherty's request, the method used by HUD to distpbute CDBG funds within an entitlement area was described. In order for Chanhassen to be included in the program for 1994-95, Blackstad stated that resolution of this problem must be completed one year from now. Brancel asked whether the Chanhassen Council considered the possibility of swapping lots to avoid Shorewood's loss of tax income. Chmiel indicated that would be a possibility and reiterated that Chanhassen's major concern was the loss of CDBG funds by the entire community particularly with regard to support of the senior citizens programs and facilities. Chmiel noted that currently Chanhassen owned property located in Hennepin County is commercial which provides a $1.1 million tax base to the County. Ashworth stated that a swap of property would be a preferred solution to the problem if property at the west end (Cathcart) could be combined with Shorewood property to make a developable lot. Ashworth assured that if an annexation agreement could be reached, other possible resolutions to the problem would continue to be pursued and followed through and the annexation would not be finalized until the summer of 1994. He stated that he was not aware of any reason that work involving the Deer Ridge development would be suspended at this time. Hurm stated that additional problems to be considered in crossing County lines including different 911 lines, radio frequencies, ballot concerns and municipal board problems. Rather than exchanging property, Hurm suggested that if possible the City of Chanhassen reimburse Shorewood for the loss of municipal taxes. 3 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRll.. 12, 1993 - PAGE 4 Lewis stated that Shorewood and it's residents should derive benefits from this appeal and requested that a formal proposal be developed by Chanhassen incorporating those benefits. Chmiel indicated willingness to pursue that course if necessary. Daugherty explained that Shorewood is also very supportive of the senior centers and of the Sojourn program. He stated that it is necessary to analyze the ramifications of a land swap to the citizens of Shorewood and supported having the staff explore alternatives including reimbursement of tax loss to Shorewood. Chmiel reiterated willingness to consider reimbursement of tax loss. Lewis supported tabling further consideration of the request to allow staff from both cities to work together in a joint effort to maintain Chanhassen's eligibility in the CDBG program for the mutual benefit of all the communities. He reiterated his concern that the Deer Ridge development not be jeopardized while seeking resolution of this issue. The Councilmembers agreed to continue further consideration of the request presented by Chanhassen and of other alternatives with the primary objective of maintaining that city's eligibility for CDBG funds for the mutual benefit of the surrounding communities. . Benson moved, Daugherty seconded to table action on the request from the City of Chanhassen for two weeks to allow the staffs of Shorewood and Chanhassen to develop other options. Motion passed 4/0. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Brancel read the Consent Agenda for April 12, 1993. . Daugherty moved, Lewis seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and to adopt the Resolutions and Motion contained therein: A RESOLUTION NO. 35-93 "A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit to Develop a Substandard Lot to Pat Pechacek." B. RESOLUTION NO. 36-93 "A Resolution Approving Subdivision and Combination of Real Property." C. Motion Approving Criteria for Drainage Projects. Motion passed 4/0. 4 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUfES APRIL 12, 1993 - PAGE 5 5. PARK COMMISSION - Report on Park Commission Meetings Elizabeth Fuller, Park Commission member, stated that the Commission recommends that a vacant property identified by the staff owned by the City be sold and that the proceeds be used for construction of the Manor Park shelter building. In addition, Fuller stated that over the next several weeks, the Commission will be carefully reviewing each City park site to determine the best allocation of available funds for park improvements. A. Recommendation on Sale of Property and Use of Proceeds for a Manor Park Warming House Hurm requested the Council's authorization to place the identified vacant property on Academy Avenue on the market for sale at a fair market price. . Daugherty suggested that an analysis of all City-owned property be made. Nielsen indicated that an analysis is in process in connection with a land use study and that study which includes' a park land inventory will be available within 30 days. Lewis moved, Benson seconded to authorize the City to sell at market value a vacant property located on Academy Avenue and designated the proceeds from the sale of the property to construction of a shelter building at Manor Park. Motion passed 4/0. 6. PLANNING COMMISSION - Report on Planning Commission Meetings . Doug Malam, Planning Commission member, reported on the action taken by the Commission at it's April 6 meeting regarding a request from Jim Pyle for a C.U.P. and variances for the addition of gasoline service at the Vine Hill Market. He stated that by a 3/2 vote, the Commission voted to table action and requested the staff to initiate a study to determine if a revision of the zoning ordinance text regarding parking requirements for convenience grocery stores with gas pumps is warranted. 7. FINAL REPORT ON PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY CONSTRUcnON PROrnCf - NICK REUHL. EOS ARCHITECTIJRE Mr. Nick Reuhl, EOS Architecture, presented a brief report on the Public Works facility construction project and thanked the City for the opportunity to be of service. He stated the project was completed in 6 months and the overall cost of the project including site work and the building was $40.43 per square foot. He noted that there is a one-year warranty on the project and inspections will be conducted from time to time during the year. Hurm pointed out some landscaping work remains to be completed and that the project was completed a~out $40,000 under budget. 5 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUfES APRll.. 12, 1993 - PAGE 6 8. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REVISING RENTAL HOUSING CODE Nielsen stated that comments from the Council and the City Attorney have been incorporated into the revised Ordinance. He stated that if this Ordinance is approved, an amendment to the City's fee schedule establishing a fee for the inspection and licensing of rental units will be presented for the Council's action at a future meeting. Brancel stated the Ordinance as written includes the issues discussed at various levels and by the Council. Lewis moved, Daugherty seconded to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 272, Rental Housing Code, effective July 1, 1993, and approved for publication the Official Summary of Ordinance No. 272. Motion passed 4/0. . 9. CONSIDER FINAL PIAT - SPRUCE HILL Applicant: Location: Paul Kelly Yellowstone Trail Nielsen noted that the final plat shows a change from the preliminary plat to combine the southerly two lots to accommodate a prospective buyer. This eliminates the issue related to the driveway. Nielsen noted, however, that if that lot is subsequently split, the lot would have to be re-platted and the driveway issue resolved at that time. Lewis moved, Benson seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 37-93 "A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Spruce Hill," subject to the approval of the City Engineer of revised plans and specifications.. . Motion passed 4/0. 10. SEASONS P.U.D. - CONSIDER PETITION FOR PUBLIC FINANCING OF IMPROVEMENTS/ORDER FEASffiILITY STUDY Nielsen stated that a signed petition for public financing of improvements, to be reviewed by the City Attorney, has been received from Mr. Boyer, developer of the Seasons, a proposed development for mature adults. The Council is requested to authorize a feasibility report regarding the improvements. Lewis moved, Daugherty seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 38-93 "A Resolution 6 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUfES APRIL 12, 1993 - PAGE 7 Declaring the Adequacy of the Petition for Improvement and Ordering the Preliminary Feasibility Report in the Matter of the Seasons P.U.D. Improvement of 1993." Motion passed 4/0. 11. CONSIDER APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENTS FOR BIDS FOR MODIFICATIONS AND APPURTENANT WORKS TO LIFT STATIONS NO.9 & 10 Hurm stated this budgeted project is similar to those previously completed for other lift stations. . Lewis moved, Benson seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 39-93 "A Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisements for Bids for Lift Station Modifications to Lift Stations No.9 and 10 and Appurtenant Works." Motion passed 4/0. 12. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A BRIDGE CRANE FOR TIlE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Hurm stated that Public Works Director Zdrazil requests authorization to purchase a used Manning, Maxwell and Moore bridge crane for the Public Work~ facility. The cost of the crane and hoist installed is $9,235 plus approximately $500 for wiring and electrical work. He explained that the work for which it is to be used for such as moving motors and maintenance of heavy equipment would not be a compatible shared function with other communities. . Daugherty moved, Lewis seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 40-93 "A Resolution Authorizing the Purchase and Installation of a Bridge Crane" for the Public Works facility, subject to the provision of operating procedures including adequate supervision and designation of authorized operators; subject to the approval of the City Engineer relative to the safety and adequacy of installation; and subject to a reasonable warranty on the unit. Motion passed 4/0. 13. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None. 14. STAFF REPORTS A. City Attorney - None. B. City Engineer - None. C. City Planner - None. 7 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUfES APRIL 12, 1993 - PAGE 8 D. Finance Director - None. E. City Administrator Hurm reported that the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has scheduled an informational meeting at City Hall on April 14 in conjunction with work it has scheduled for re-lining of pipes in the Covington Road area. 15. COUNCIL REPORTS A Mayor Brancel 1. Proclamation Reading - Southshore Senior Center Anniversary and Celebration of Older American Month Brancel read a Proclamation designating Friday, May 7, as the 10th anniversary celebration of the Southshore Center, proclaiming May 1993 as Older Americans Month and the Year 1993 as Senior Center Year "...to recognize the special contributions of the Senior Center participants and the special efforts of its staff and volunteers who work every day to enhance the well-being of the older persons in our city." B. Councilmembers - None. 16. ADJOURNMENT TO WORK SESSION SUBJECf TO APPROVAL OF ClAIMS Daugherty moved, Benson seconded to adjourn the City Council Meeting, subject to the approval of claims, at 8:25 p.rn. to a Work Session. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMrl.I'.ED, Arlene H. Bergfalk Ftecordblg Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial ATIEST: BARBARA J. BRANCEL, MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR 8 . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1993 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 8:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE WORK SESSION Mayor Brancel convened the work session at 8:30 p.m. Present were: Mayor Brancel; Councilmembers Benson, Daugherty and Lewis; Administrator Hurm, Planning Director Nielsen, Attorney Keane, and Finance Director Rolek. Councilmember Stover was absent. A. 1993 Street Project Report Hurm presented the 1993 Street Project Plan and reviewed the details and budgeted amounts for each project including patching, seal coating, overlay, rebuilding, and replacement of a concrete apron. The staff responded to questions from the Councilmembers regarding warranty coverage on problem streets. The Council and staff discussed the issue of wear on City streets caused by garbage trucks. The Council agreed that the staff study a number of paradigms with a view to developing an alternative garbage removal system for the Council's consideration. B. Discuss a Proposed Policy on Special Assessments for Street Reconstruction Projects Hurm reviewed the special assessment policy proposed by the Street Reconstruction Financing Task Force, presented a unit method of special assessment prepared by Engineer Dresel, and presented a number of policy questions for the Council's consideration. Hurm indicated that the Task Force recommended a special assessment policy to distribute the cost of improvements on an equitable basis to those benefitting from a specific improvement rather than financing improvements from the General Fund. During discussion, staff responded to questions from the Councilmembers regarding the policy. It was agreed that additional information on specific policy and financial considerations would be provided for discussion at the Council's next work session with a view to expeditious approval and implementation of the Policy. 2. ADJOURN WORK SESSION Daugherty moved, Benson seconded to adjourn the Work Session at 9:15 p.rn. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECfFULL Y SUBMIlTED. Arlene H. Bergfalk, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial 9 . . RESOLUTION NO. - 93 A RESOLUTION APPROVING SINGLE TEMPORARY GAMBLING LICENSE WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code, Chapter 301, provides for the licensing of certain gambling activities in the City; and WHEREAS, said code prescribes certain restriction concerning eligibility for such licensing and application, whereby the licensee will hold the City harmless for all claims arising out of the granting of such license; and WHEREAS, the following applicant has met the eligibility requirement for such license and has agreed to all terms and conditions of the agreement contained in the license. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That a single temporary license for the conduct of gambling as specified in the terms and conditions of the license, be issued for 1 day, Monday, June 7, 1993, for a raffle to be held at the Minnetonka Country Club to benefit Variety Children's Hospital at the University of Minnesota. Applicant Name Address Variety Club Association 391 East River Road Minneapolis, MN 55455 ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 26th day of April, 1993. Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm City Administrator 3A ..........J FOR BOARD USE ONLY FEE CHK INIT DATE ,:.~3. - .~ oJ ,-~ LG220 (Rev.l1/1419O) CurrenT/prevIOus license number Variety Club Association none Street City State 391 East River Rd Minneapolis MN Chief executive officer Phone Treasurer ip code none County in 55455 R. Car t e r M c Com b, Pre s ( 6 1 2) 6 2 4 - 6 9 0 0 Dan Man d i c h, T rea s (6 1 2) 6 2 4 - 6 9 0 0 Check the box below which indicates your type of organization o Fraternal 0 Religious 0 Veterans ;tJ Other non-profit State MN Zip code 55331 in Bingo 0 Raffles 0 Paddlewheels 0 Tipboards 0 ull-tabs 0 Township Township name SignabJre of person receiving application Title Date received Whilo - BooId Pi,. - -<)Jgana.adcn Yellow -SOud reuns to Or9anzabon 10 compete sh.ded .... Gold - Cily or Caunly '3 Ma" with $25 permit fee and copy of proof of nonprofit status to: Department of Gaming - Gambling Control Division Rosewood Plaza South, 3rd Floor 1711 W. County Road B . . Office: 612-474-5222 M~ e~ eLuA. Assn., Inc. P. O. BOX 360 EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 Golf Shop: 474-9571 May 4, 1993 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Attention: Sue Niccum Ref: Variety Club Outing - June 7, 1993 Dear Ms. Niccum: I'm referring to your phone call regarding a one-day gambling permit application to conduct a raffle here at the Minnetonka Country Club by the Variety Club during their golf outing on June 7, 1993. We have no objection to this raffle as long as it is in compliance with all applicable laws; Municipal and State, and that the City of Shorewood does explicitly approve such a raffle. We are not in a position to rule on this point. Please advise if there are any specific requirements on our part to supervise, police, etc. such a raffle. Yours truly, B. Witrak BW/dc . . RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DENYING A SETBACK VARIANCE TO PETER KNAEBLE AND DAVID NELSON WHEREAS, Peter Knaeble and David Nelson (Applicants) propose to build a house on property located at 21740 Lilac Lane, said property being described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and . WHEREAS, the location of the proposed house does not comply with the setback requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code, and the Applicants have therefore made application for a variance; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed by the City Planner and his comments were set forth in a memorandum dated 1 March 1993, which memorandum is on file in the Shorewood City Hall; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on 2 March 1993 and, after deliberation, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested variance; and WHEREAS, the City Council at their regular meeting held on 22 March 1993 reviewed the material submitted by the Applicants, the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Planning Director's staff report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the Applicants' property is located in the R -IA zoning district which allows single-family dwellings and requires a 50-foot front yard setback. 2. That the Applicants propose to build the house 35 feet from Lilac Lane which requires a variance of 15 feet. 3. That the R-IA zoning district requires a minimum lot area of 40,000 square feet for single-family residential dwellings and a minimum lot width of 120 feet, and the subject property contains approximately 43,589 square feet of area and is approximately 160 feet wide. 3B 4. That the Applicants claim a loss of mature trees, the location of nonconforming structures in the area, sewer elevation, and site topography as justification for his requested variance. . 5. That the house to the west of the subject property is located approximately 35 feet from Lilac Lane and the house to the east is located 70 feet from Lilac Lane. 6. That lowering the house on the site would reduce the amount of fill necessary to build on the property. 7. That lowering the house would require the lowest level of the house to be served by a sewage lift pump', but the upper two floors could be served by gravity sewer. CONCLUSIONS . 1. That the variance requested by the Applicants constitutes a significant deviation from the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code. . 2. That the Applicants' property can be put to a reasonable use under the conditions impoSed by the Shorewood Zoning Code. 3. That the Applicants have not met the criteria for the grant of a variance under Section 1201.05 of the Shorewood City Code and have failed to establish any undue hardship as defined by Minn. Stat. Section 462.357, Subd. 6(2). 4. That the Applicants' request for the variance set forth above is hereby denied. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 26th day of . April 1993. Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST" James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk - 2 - . . LEGAL DESCRIPTION "That part of Lot 135, Auditor's Subdivision Number 120, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Lot 135; thence South 88 degrees 34 minutes 58 seconds West, a distance of 160.00 feet, along the south line of said Lot 135; thence North 04 degrees 11 minutes 38 seconds West, a distance of 212.71 feet; thence North 88 degrees 06 minutes 50 seconds East, a distance of 68.16 feet; thence North 29 degrees 33 minutes 04 seconds East, a distance of 195.78 feet, to a point on the east line of said Lot 135; thence South 01 degrees 37 minutes 44 seconds East, a distance of 380.90 feet, along the east line of said Lot 135 to the point of beginning. " Exhibit A . . RESOLUTION NO. -93 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1993-1997 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND 1993 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET WHEREAS, a Referendum for Park and Trail Improvements was defeated March 9, 1993; and WHEREAS, the Park Commission has reviewed and updated an alternative five year Park Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, said recommendation is attached to and made a part of this resolution; and WHEREAS, the first year of said program is recommended to be the Park Capital Improvement Budget for 1993. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the attached five year program is hereby adopted as the revised Park Capital Improvement Program, 1993-1997. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the first year of said program is hereby adopted as the 1993 ~ark capital Improvement Budget. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the City Administrator is authorized and directed to provide a full distribution of said revised Park Program and Budget. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE Shorewood this 26th day of City COUNCIL of , 1993. the of CITY April Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator Sb -- - REVISED PARK IMPROVEMENT PLAN APRIL 13, 1993 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 PREVIOUS BAlANCE ..0- 9,600 600 1,600 4,000 REVENUES PARK FUND $25,000 $22,500 $22,500 $17,500 $17,500 GENERAL FUND 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 SALE OF PROPERTY 25,000 DONATIONS 25,000 35,000 TOTAL 125,000 107,500 72,500 67,500 67,500 BADGER PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 10,000 10,000. TRAIL 2,500 PICNIC AREA 2,500 CATHCART RELOCATE BALLFIELD 22,000 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 20,000 PARKING LOT 12,000 MANOR SHELTER BUILDING 25,000 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 20,000 PICNIC AREA 2,500 LANDSCAPING 5,000 5,000 PARKING REFURBISH 5,000 SIL VERWOOD TENNIS/BASKETBALL CRTS 38,400 PICNIC FACILmES 2,500 LANDSCAPING 6,000 5,000 SLIDING HILL 1,000 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 20,000 TRAIL TO POND 4,000 FREEMAN BUILDING NORTH 15,Ooo(D) BUILDING soum 15,000 (D) SHELTER-family area 12,500 PLAYGROUND NORTH 20,000. PLAYGROUND sourn 20,000. VOLLEYBALL COURT 5,000 PICNIC AREA 5,000 PREPARE FAMILY AREA 25,000 5,000 LANDSCAPING 11,000 ENTRANCE & SIGN 5,600 SIGNAGE 5,000 TENNIS COURTS (3) 64,000 DRINKING FOUNTAINS (2) 11,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 115,400 116,500 71,500 65,100 69,000 YEAR END BALANCE 9,600 600 1,600 4,000 2,500 D = Donated . = $10,000 donated C:\PCIP\PKPLNALT.928 4/14/93 al Q ~ z ~ ~ ~ Q . . ~ . CI) ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ r./). ~ ~ ~ ~ u Z ~ ~ ~ 0.> IU I . . , "'0 "0 ~ .~ ~8...c:..c::8~tac5_E .-...... f-< Po.- '" '" v Po ~~ "''''O'::~oo_ ~ ..~!i.9.a ..::::..c:;3 ~ a ~ ;: u ~ g g;o 15: f-<.c u ~ ~ .~ ~ .- .- ~ . u ~ = ~ 0. e B :l.~ ~ t: ~.9 . tU U ~ Q.. ~ .~ l:: ~ 8.. 4.) ~ ~ ~ .s J!f ~'c ~ ~ g go ~ :=: :;:: .:; v ~ !i ~ ~ ~ -- ", ~ ~ 5 e ~ .0' = ..c t: -- -= ll) rj'l E Po C. i5. v e 8. ~ va .:: 2 -0 a -o8v~oPo&Po~~~0 c: 8 .: ~ ~ ~ ~";.~ ..a ~ ~ ca ", a ", tlO . r::r I: ca u ,_ n B I: ._ I: I: = u.- > >. u u .~ -0 .S!'o OJ I:-.g ca ~ -5 .~ ~ ~ ~ :; g;o.s .S! ",.!!l Poa c; 8cn"'O :90.--0.=..... Po~;;;~=v2~aSl~!l ... u 2 'v C -0 u 0 0 v .c u "g ~ E- t) 8 "> ~ Q.. en _ _ Go) u; ';;J o tlO u .;;; ca .0 ~ V > ca .c ", a e! tlO o ... Po ~ V V ~ :2 tlO I: .~ as u g a .~ '" t v Po > ~ ';j u~ f: C5 ;;; ~ ;:I tlO a .5 tlO ~] g] Pou 8-0 P;l ~ u a . n :::: 0 B ~ .J:J ..... 1i =' ;:I ..... CI) c;t Po~v~ vu.cv I: ....f-<-g ._ ;:I .c 0 . a ", ", v ... o ..... 0 ~ (j -:s t) .~ CfJ"- ~.- e ~ v';;J ~ 1: ~.~ tlO 0) .:: '2 o a ... ;:I i5.r;~a _"ac'\:f ", a ~ ~ 2 v ,- f-< 0) ::0 ~ (.) =' ".:::: V'- Po I: 0) ~ 0) ;:I ... u .c 0 f-<",_u .~ ';;J ;:I r::r '" 0) > ';j u u .... - ", ::l 8 ", .~ 'a ~ a ... o u u ;:I ~"8 E-;' i5. 1L~L~3 B] ~ oJ i; 3~-g >, c:: .0 ..... VJ ~ '(; .s ~ ~.~ C':S ~ .- =' 13 r--- """ - 4) CJ:l Q) "'0 ~ 0 e! Po B '0 ~ ~ ~ ;5:-s! . 8 'Z U -0 t; ~ I: >'.:: .c u >>. I: I: c:: Q) "'" 0 'O",J Q) o.~ 00 .=, ._ cu \.00 ~ au; ~ ~ ~ o..~ 3 ~ 8 fr ] ..E -0 ,!!l -:0 ~ ~ - e > 0) I: >. ~ CI) e \.I '- ""="1 VJ r::I eO> C o ~ ~08-o.s ",cu C. 0 '- 0) 0 - Co C ", 0 >. ::t: 8-~C f;3.....~ouoee .c Po...-o e 0 u 0) 0C.0 ; :; 8 .0 ~ >. ~ -g 'O'.s e ~ ,g 20Co"'1:0~_... U >'0'" cac.!=:u Poo >..cn f-< e ~ Po a - .5 .... - - :; "3 ~] 0:0 ~ o!:! 0~!l'3 ~'g ~tlOU O)---c-~w ~ .e.5 a ", .c f-< -0 0 0 2 -0 8 ;';~~";j~o .~1lf;3"'~0\ ~~.97j;;;-g!!;~.ot;~~ 'Z ca -0 :; 2 u ;:I ~ 0 tlO 2 '" > :.5 :a ~ Q f-< .5 -g u 'Z .5 f-< > 0 ->" o-o=e' ne' a' '=!i'= "'.cl: - 0;:1 ';;JCi-"'ev.g08u.e0 cPo~.cu"''''o -o",u ,2 0 .5 :; > ~ >< cu ~ ~ Q I: ~ (,,) .c 0 8 - ~.:: ~ .. B C $=: >. Po'- .....c tlO I: tlO '" C 0 -0 a - M Po ,5 'i5. C . 8 u ~.- gf -0 -0 ~ ~ ~ :c "3 .!!l Co'::: .e -.- ~ I: .c u I: '" ~ _I =5~-5cct--U)tIJ~ "';5-.0"'5;:1::;10 -g::t:o>....; 2 c:;:; ~ e 02 ~.~ <Ii ~ I: -0 ~ f-< 0).... '" 1:", ~ 8 ......_ :;; 0 - eno_~O) 0", U r::I = .- ......_ en r::I ~ ~ ~ ~ .:: "- ~"> I) ...- ~ TJ g QJ.-:: f-< ... ] 0 I: u V') I: 0 U .."... "'e U c....c _ QJ .5 ....-t QJ """ .... e G.) ~ '.~ I: .c CI) .... a Co -g Co "l .c .- ~ - QJ - ~ c: - ::s c: c: - 6 N ~ e'~ .:3 0 ~ i3 ..:: 0 <e--g ':: ;;; r; ", u 13 ~ a -0 'B ~ '" .5 ~ ~ c. ~ '5> >. tlO ~ * 8 g ~ ~ u 0 E -0 """ ..9 c:: _ _ _ < ''::: f-< ~ 'Z U '" i:l.o i:l.o._ i:l.o Po en ...... ~i ~ .~~, ~ ~?j 0 ::r= ~ ~ u ~~V) E;S::s::i ~g:~ OClO~ ,"'~ ~ ~ >-< < u p.. ~~~ i t I I ., J' r " r. I'" .~,~'~'<"..,' ~.. ~ I i t'. ;' ~~ ~ ~o ....1~:>p.. ~<~~ ,~~ ~ i j +~. .., """ '.. -'-,- ;_;:-~I--.' ttl ~~ 0> ttl~, ttlttl", z"'t; :X:~ttl uiiia ::>::>~ ::s Pd'" O~ ;~~ os~ ~::S...l ~::s< _0> ...lu< dSh", -._"',,....... ~. T >-@ ::Joo <<ttl u!z;~ -<< ::s>~:x: ooot-- z<z::> o~<o &lo:x:>- o >-ttl ::Jo << u!z; 51<", o~!:l z<::> ocno &lo< 5e . April 19, 1.993 Dear Educator: . May is Arbor Month .... a month set aside to celebrate nature's qreat gift of trees. Shorewood is proud to be designated a "Tree City, USA" and the city's Park commission is planning an Arbor Month celebration that will feature a ceremonial tree-planting in Freeman Park in late May. The Commissioners 'would love to have several area fifth and sixth grade student.s participate in the ceremony. We invit~ your students to apply for that honor by part.icipating in our first Arbor Month essay contest. A winner would be chosen from every team that elects to participate. The winners essays would be published in the Shorewood City Newsletter and hopefully, the local papers in observance of Arbor Month. The rules are simple. The essay should be less than 200 words and should begin with the statement, "Trees are important because".... Entries should be mailed or delivered to Sue Niccum at Shorewood City Hall on or before Friday, May 14. Entries will be judged for originality, accuracy, content and writing skill by a panel of jUdges from the Junior High. winners will be notified during the week of May 17 and invited, with their parents, to participate in the Arbor Month ceremony that will take place during the last week of May. I know this is a busy time for you and your students, but I hope you can take the time to help your students focus on the importance of trees in this way. If you have any questions about the contest or the ceremony, please don't hesitate to contact me at work 924- 5364 or home, 470-1329 (after 6 pm). sincerely, Mary R. Bensman, commissioner Shorewood Park Commission Chairman, Arbor Month 1993 TOTAL P.02 ;fJ ....~ .... 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 MEMO TO: Mayor and City council \~ FROM: James C. Hurm, city Administrator ! ' \ April {. DATE: 21, 1993 j \ RE: Agenda Item 6B - city Hall Parkinq Lot Ii . The Park and Planning Commissions have reviewed the City Hall parking lot plans and are recommending them to the City Council. The attached proposed budget breaks down the cost for this plan. The second column from the right is the budget estimate if the entire project is contracted out. with a contingency of almost $10,000 the estimate is $82,128. The last column is a revised budget with certain items being done by the Public Works department. . staff recommends that the City council authorize proceeding with the bid process with the Public Works department doing a part of the work. A budget figure of $75,000 was authorized in the Capital Improvement Program. JCH.al Attachment A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore foB CITY HALL PARKING LOT PROPOSED BUDGET SHOREWOOD, MN APRIL 19, 1993 Total Contract Public Works Helping . 1 REMOVE 18" PIPE I 330 L.F. S5.00 Sl,650.Q9 I 5500 I 2 COMMON ~CAVATION (SUB-CUT) I 1400 C.Y. $4.00 $5.600.00 I $4,000 I 3 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 4450 S.Y. 51.50 $6.675.00 51.500 4 REMOVE CONCR8EWMX 60 S.F. -' $1.00 $60.00 SO .- " 51CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER 1380 L.F. 56.00 $8,280.00 58.280 61 BITUMINOUS CURB I 160 L.F. $4.00 S640.00 $640 7 CONCRETE WPJ...K .- $200.00 ! ___.. ._..1.~QQ.. ... ......... ~.. i 100 $.F. _...J~.PO 8 TYPE 41 WEAR COURSE 800 TONS $21.00 $16,800.00 I $ 16,800 9 CLASS 5 (100% CRUSHED) 2000 TONS S7.00 $14,000.00 I $14.000 10 18" R.C.P. CLASS V 330 L.F. $25.00 S8. :250.9.Q... .. $5,000 ...--... 11 C.B. MANHOLE :3 EACH $1.000,00 53.000.00 $3.000 -. I $5,000 12 LANDSCAPING 1 EACH _~?:OCO.OO $5,000.00 --~.= UGHTS . .......... I 13 1 ~ I $4,000.00 $4,000.00 I $.4,000 14 STRIPING 1 EACH $500.00 $500.00 $500 1.5 ~~MOVE GAR. FLOOR 1 EACH ~J .000.00 $1.000.00 .-. $1.000 _.__.eI..... , I ! . --. f-.. -- Isue-ioTAL....- $65.155.00 553.920.00 15% APPURTENANT ITEMS & CONTINGENCY $9.773.25 $8.Di3~ ESTiMATED CONSTRUCT/ON COST -. - $74.928.25 \ $62.008.00 I i .-- I S1.ooo.oo $1.000.00 SOIL BORINGS DESIGN SURVEYING I $300.00 $300.00 iDESIGN ENGINEERING $3.000.00 $3.000.00 J~ $2900.00 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING $2.900.00 I ! GRAND TOTAL BUDGET $82.128.25 I $69.208.00 This Cost Does Not Include Restoration RESOLUTION NO. -93 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INTERGOVERNMENTAL DISCUSSIONS RELATING TO A SOUTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER WHEREAS, the cities of Shorewood and Tonka Bay and the Board have jointly established location issues; and Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, South Shore Senior Center Advisory a Task Force to study Senior Center WHEREAS, said Task Force, which is scheduled to expire October 1, 1993, reported findings to the cities in February, 1993; and . WHEREAS, the cities have requested the Task Force to continue study on Senior Center location issues; and WHEREAS, preliminary estimates would provide up to $2.1 million in Federal Economic stimulus Program funds for eligible Hennepin County community Development Block Grant projects which are "ready-to-go" upon passage of the stimulus package and its being signed into law; and WHEREAS, in order to be eligible to be considered for saiq stimulus package funding, work will need to proceed expeditiously in many areas: . Preliminary site and facility planning . . Construction and program management planning . Preparation for the architectural selection process . Fund raising . Fin~ncial planning . Operations planning; and WHEREAS, prior to, or in conjunction with said planning and project preparation efforts, intergovernmental agreements in many areas will need to be reached; and WHEREAS, . early intergovernmental cooperating efforts are essential in preparing a successful application for Federal Stimulus Package Project funding and for the success of a South Shore Senior Center with or without said Federal funding. '6 Resolution - South Shore Senior Center Page Two NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Shorewood City Council that the city Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to begin discussion on intergovernmental issues which need to be addressed by the cities if a South Shore senior Center is to be built jointly. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this is in no way a committment to participate in the funding of a South Shore Senior Center building, but rather an authorization for staff to work with neighboring cities and the Task Force in developing a program addressing issues for each city to consider in deciding whether to jointly sponsor a South Shore Senior Center. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the Shorewood this 26th day of city council April of the City of , 1993. Mayor ATTEST: City Administrator . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Kristi Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAO . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: James C. Hurm, city Administrator r DATE: April 21, 1993 RE: Aqenda Item 8 - Senior Center Report . Bob Gagne will be present to ask the City council to pass the attached resolution. If each City council passes this resolution the administrator will be directed to begin discussions on a whole series of intergovernmental issues which would face the cities in regard to a joint South Shore Senior Center. Secondly the City Council authorized the use of Community Development Block Grant funds for Senior Center site planning. Bob will report that the current planning needs are $2,700 for six soil borings and $1,200 for survey data. If the City Council approves this by motion we will attempt to get preapproval from HUD so that we can acquire bids, undertake the work, pay them with city money, and reimburse the City with HUD funds in July. . JCH.al Attachment A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore g OFFICE OF PLANNING. & DEVELOPMENT Development Planning Unit 822 South Third Street Suite 310 Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 348-6418 FAX (612) 348-6057 ,.,DR - 2 ,!-l..,! 1\ !,-.._r--, . .,-.-../ ~ HENNEPIN - - I.....- April 1, 1993 . Mr. Jim Hurm City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Hurm: Earlier we mailed you a letter inviting your continued participation in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program. At that time we were awaiting final language required by HUD for inclusion in the Cooperation Agreement. We have now received and incorporated the required language in the Joint Cooperation Agreement. Please find enclosed one copy of the Cooperation Agreement which highlights the changes from the previous agreement. Most of the changes are minor language changes or clarifications. In addition, new HUD language regarding the HOME Program and CDBG Program requirements are also reflected. . ~e have also enclosed three copies of the Joint Cooperation Agreement and a sample Council Resolution for your convenience to authorize participation in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program for the next three years. A certi- fied copy of the authorizing resolution must be returned with all three copies of the executed Cooperation Agreement by May 28, 1993 to: - . ~ Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development Development Planning Unit 822 South jrd Street, Suite 310 Minneapolis, MN 55415 This date has been adjusted from the date in our earlier letter. HUD is, however, mandating that we adhere to this new schedule in order to assure execution by the County Board and transmittal of a fully executed agreement to HUD by the July 16, 1993 deadline. One copy of the fully executed Cooperation Agreement will be returned to you by that same date. HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer q April 1, 1993 Page Two At the February 25, 1993 meeting with cooperating communities, it was suggest- ed that DPU staff explore support for the creation of a special initiatives set-aside funded from a portion of any increment in CDBG funds which might be received in Program Years XX and XXI. While a number of communities expressed support for the concept, a sufficient level of support was lacking and we have elected not to go forward with the Special Initiatives Program without further discussion. We have, therefore, not included any language relative to this matter in the Cooperation Agreement. We look forward to your continued participation with us in the CDBG Program. Should you have any questions concerning the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program, please feel free to contact us. . Sincerely, o rr;r- ~, {l~ -~ Douglas A. Benson, AICP Planning Supervisor DAB:tf Enclosures: Urban County CDBG Program Schedule Joint Cooperation Agreement highlighting changes (1) Joint Cooperation Agreement for execution (3) Sample Resolution . . . March 1, 1993 April 1, 1993 May 21, 1993 May 21, 1993 May 28, 1993 June 22, 1993* July 16, 1993 Sept. 10, 1993 URBAN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM SCHEDULE HUD notifies County that it may seek to qualify as an Urban County County mails Cooperation Agreement to each included unit of government Cities wishing to be excluded must notify County and HUD Any entitlement city that wishes to defer entitlement status in favor of Urban County participation must notify HUD and the County Deadline for Cooperation Agreements from Communities County Board Approval of Cooperation Agreement County must submit documentation to HUD to qualify as Urban County HUD will notify County of Urban County Status Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program Contract No. A07483 JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITNESSETH: . COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree that it is desirable and in the interests of defineduuand, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions. . ---- I. DEFINITIONS The definitions contained in 42 USC 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR ~570.3 of the Regulations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof, and the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them: A. "Act" means Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). B. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, including but not limited to 24 CFR Part 570. C. "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. D. "Cooperating Unit" means any city or town in Hennepin County which has entered into a cooperation agreement which is identical to this Agreement, as well as Hennepin County which is a party to each Agreement. E. "Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds" means the document bearing that title or similarly required statements or documents submitted to HUD for authorization to expend the annual grant amount and which is developed by the COUNTY in conjunction with COOPERATING UNITS as part of the Community Development Block Grant program. F. "Metropolitan City" means any city located in whole or in part in Hennepin County which is certified by HUD to have a population of 50,000 or more people. II. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY and COOPERATING UNIT to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing :i~~i~:~~4~ activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing and authorizes COUNTY to carry out these and other eligible activities for the benefit of eligible recipients who reside within the corporate limits of the . COOPERATING UNIT which will be funded from annual Community Development Block Grant II;fj!il9~i::I~~~~~~~;~:i.~f~~:;!.~;'!:;i~p'gf.~i~:~::~~:&r.1!:f~.II:~t::::~p.9.:1+.~~€:Ii~~I:i#!@I,I:~Y III . AGREEMENT 2 . This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY pursuant to authority granted them by their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the authorizing resolution and executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the COOPERATING UNIT in the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development, and in no event shall the Agreement be filed later than ~!!llig~illi$~!Bm COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the applicant's certifications required by Section 104(b) of the Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Fair Housing Act, section 109 of Title IV. ACTIVITIES . COOPERATING UNIT agrees that awarded grant funds will be used to undertake and carry out within the terms of this Agreement certain projects involving one or more of the essential activities eligible for funding under the Act. COUNTY agrees and will assist COOPERATING UNIT in the undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services specified in this Agreement. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable requirements of the Act and the Regulations and other relevant Federal and/or Minnesota statutes or regulations in the use of basic grant amounts. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate COUNTY's responsibility to assume all obligations of an applicant under the Act, including the development of the Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds pursuant to 24 CFR ~570.300 et seq. COOPERATING UNIT further specifically agrees as follows: A. COOPERATING UNIT will in accord with a COUNTY-established schedule prepare and provide to COUNTY, in a prescribed form, an annual request for the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds consistent with this Agreement, program regulations and the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives. . B. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that, pursuant to 24 CFR ~570.50l (b), it is subject to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients, including the requirement for a written Subrecipient Agreement set forth in 24 CFR ~570. 503. The Subrecipient Agreement will cover the implementation requirements for each activity funded pursuant to this Agreement and shall be duly executed with and in a form prescribed by COUNTY. C. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that it is subject to the same subrecipient requirements stated in paragraph B. above in instances where an agency other than itself is undertaking an activity pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. In such instances a written Third Party Agreement shall be duly executed between the agency and COOPERATING UNIT in a form prescribed by COUNTY. D. COOPERATING UNIT shall implement all activities funded for each annual program pursuant to this Agreement within Eighteen (18) months of the authorization by HUD to expend the basic grant amount. 3 1. Funds for all activities not implemented within Eighteen (18) months shall be added to the next annual basic grant amount received by COUNTY and allocated according to the procedures set forth in and comply with all conditions of this Agreement. 2. Implementation period extensions may be granted upon request in cases where the authorized activity has been initiated and/or subject of a binding contract to proceed. E. COOPERATING UNIT shall use funds provided pursuant to Section V. of this Agreement $iw~p'jili~%!injllipi~g!;si.9+jllito undertake no more than Three (3) gr ant - funded......actIv{iies......adiiiInfi;iiered by the COOPERATING UNIT. Each activity shall have a budget of at least Seventy-five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00), or the total amount of the planning allocation of COOPERATING UNIT if less than Seventy-five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00). A COOPERATING UNIT may assign less than Seventy-five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00) to an activity when the activity is one that is programmed by at least one other COOPERATING UNIT and administered by only one COOPERATING UNIT 9pllijli~ ~[on behalf of the others, provided that the total activity budget is ai"lea:st Seventy-five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00). . F. COOPERATING UNIT will take actions necessary to accomplish the community development program and housing assistance goals as contained in the Urban Hennep in County ma1IDiEgP;!p~:i:y!I!!!ffRH~:;p.g!:!!:!ffiR9;R.j9:gti';~::::::~j!il!:*!!GY':I:i:!1lMIJ::t G. COOPERATING UNIT shall ensure that all programs and/or activities funded in part or in full by grant funds received pursuant to this Agreement shall be undertaken affirmatively with regard to fair housing, employment and business opportunities for minorities and women. It shall in implementing all programs and/or activities funded by the basic grant amount comply with all applicable Federal and Minnesota Laws, statutes, rules and regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative action and equal employment opportunities and Administrative Rule issued by the COUNTY. . H. COOPERATING UNIT that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that impedes action by COUNTY to comply with its fair housing certification shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funding for any activities. 1. COOPERATING UNIT shall participate in the citizen participation process as established by COUNTY in compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. J. COOPERATING UNIT shall comply with all of the administrative guidelines of the COUNTY now in effect or as hereafter promulgated. K. COOPERATING UNIT shall prepare, execute, and cause to be filed all documents protecting the interests of the parties hereto or any other party of interest as may be designated by the COUNTY. 4 Jf~I!i:I:!IH~~gg.t.J!:tm::::::I:ffmIi1liIi!:~gffi:es<~p::::!:1!!:!Iffi~:I!$p:E9llsffiifj@: COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows: A. COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies on an annual basis all plans, statements and program documents necessary for receipt of a basic grant amount under the Act. . B. COUNTY shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance and coordinating services to COOPERATING UNIT in the preparation and submission of the request for funding. C. COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERATING UNIT to aid COUNTY in fulfilling its responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the community development program and housing assistance goals. D. COUNTY shall upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT agree to administer local housing rehabilitation grant programs funded pursuant to the Agreement, provided that COUNTY shall receive Twelve percent (12%) of the allocation by COOPERATING UNIT to the activity as reimbursement for costs associated with the administration of COOPERATING UNIT activity. E. COUNTY may, at its discretion and upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to administer for a possible fee other programs and/or activities funded pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. . F. COUNTY may, as necessary for clarification and coordination of program administration, develop and implement Administrative Rules consistent with the Act, Regulations, HUD administrative directives, and administrative requirements of COUNTY. V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under ~!$!I~ntEgg of the Act shall be allocated as follows: A. COUNTY shall retain Ten percent (10%) of the annual basic grant amount for the undertaking of eligible activities. 5 B. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be apportioned by COUNTY to COOPERATING UNITS in accordance with the formula stated in part C of this section for the purpose of allowing the COOPERATING UNITS to make requests for the use of funds so apportioned. The allocation is for planning purposes only and is not a guarantee of funding. C. Each COOPERATING UNIT will use as a target for planning purposes an amount which bears the same ratio to the balance of the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between: 1. The population of COOPERATING UNIT and the population of all COOPERATING UNITS. 2. The extent of poverty in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of poverty in all COOPERATING UNITS. 3. The extent of overcrowded housing by units in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of overcrowded housing by units in all COOPERATING UNITS. . 4. In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio involving the extent of poverty shall be counted twice. D. It is the intent of this section that said planning allocation utilize the same basic elements for allocation of funds as are set forth in 24 CFR ~570.4. The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based upon data to be furnished by HUD. The COUNTY assumes no duty to gather such data independently and assumes no liability for any errors in the data furnished by HUD. E. In the ev~nt COOPERATING UNIT does not request its planning allocation, or a portion thereof, the amount not requested shall be added to the next annual basic grant amount received by COUNTY and allocated according to the procedures set forth in and comply with all conditions of this Agreement. . VI. FINANCIAL MATTERS A. Reimbursement to the COOPERATING UNIT for expenditures for the implementation of activities funded under the Act shall be made upon receipt by the COUNTY of Swnmary of proj ect Disbursement form and Hennepin County Warrant Request, and supporting documentation. B. All funds received by COUNTY under the Act as reimbursement for payment to COOPERATING UNITS for expenditure of local funds for activities funded under the Act shall be deposited in the County Treasury. C. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall maintain financial and other records and accounts in accordance with requirements of the Act and Regulations. Such records and accounts will be in such form as to permit reports required of the County to be prepared therefrom and to permit the tracing of grant funds and program income to final expenditure. 6 O. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree to make available all records and accounts with respect to matters covered by this Agreement at all reasonable times to their respective personnel and duly authorized federal officials. Such records shall be retained as provided by law, but in no event for a period of less than three years from the last receipt of program income resulting from activity implementation. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall perform all audits as may be required of the basic grant amount and resulting program income as required under the Act and Regulations. E. COOPERATING UNIT shall inform COUNTY of any income generated by the expenditure of COBG funds it has received and shall pay to COUNTY all program income generated except as derived from activities with an approved revolving account. When program income is generated by an activity that is only partially assisted with COBG funds, the income shall be prorated to reflect the percentage of COBG funds used. . 1. COUNTY will retain Ten percent (10%) of all program income paid to COUNTY to defray administration expenses. 2. The remaining Ninety percent (90%) of the program income paid to COUNTY shall be credited to the grant authority of COOPERATING UNIT whose project generated the program income and shall be used for fundable and eligible COBG activities consistent with this Agreement. 3. COOPERATING UNIT ~#4.ffiRQPN+.Mffi~gi.mauthorized to retain program income derived from proj'e.c.ts.....wlth....an....approved revolving account provided such income is used only for eligible activities in accordance with all COBG requirements as they may apply. 4. COOPERATING UNIT shall maintai~ appropriate records and make reports to COUNTY as may be needed to enable COUNTY to monitor and report to HUO on the use of any program income. . 5. Any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the closeout or change in status of COOPERATING UNIT shall be paid to COUNTY. F. Should an approved activity be determined to represent an ineligible expenditure of grant funds, the COOPERATING UNIT responsible shall reimburse the COUNTY for such ineligible expense. 1. All reimbursements for ineligible expenditures shall be added to the next annual basic grant amount received by COUNTY and allocated according to the procedures set forth in and comply with all conditions of this Agreement unless decreed otherwise by a Federal regulatory body or by final determination of a court of competent jurisdiction. 2. When it is determined by the COUNTY that grant funds have been expended on an eligible activity and through no fault of the COOPERATING UNIT the project fails or is no longer eligible, the 7 return of grant funds shall be reallocated in the same manner as program income in Sec tion VI. E. of this Agreement unless decreed otherwise by a Federal regulatory body or by final determination of a court of competent jurisdiction. VII. REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION OR IMPROVEMENT The following provisions shall apply to real property acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds. A. COOPERATING UNIT shall promptly notify COUNTY of any modification or change in the use of real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvement including disposition and comply with 24 CFR ~570.505. B. COOPERATING UNIT shall reimburse COUNTY an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG . C. Program income generated from the disposition or transfer of property prior to or subsequent to the closeout, change of status or termination of this Agreement shall be treated as stipulated in Section VI. E. of this Agreement. VIII. METROPOLITAN CITIES . Any metropolitan city executing this Agreement shall defer their entitlement status and become part of Urban Hennepin County. Etlt?::::OlttNIONI:OF(J;:OUNSlL ......................................................................h. .................. ...................-............ .............. Assistant County Attorney 8 X. HENNEPIN COUNTY EXECUTION The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on , 1993, and pursuant' to such approval and the proper County official having signed this Agreement, the COUNTY agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Upon proper execution, this Agreement will be legally valid and binding. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA By: Chairman of its County Board And: Deputy/Associate County Administrator Assistant County Attorney . Date: . Attest: Deputy County Auditor APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: Assistant County Attorney Date: 9 XI. COOPERATING UNIT EXECUTION COOPERATING UNIT, having signed this Agreement, and the COOPERATING UNIT'S governing body having duly approved this Agreement on , 1993, and pursuant to such approval and the proper city official having signed this Agreement, COOPERATING UNIT agrees to be bound by the provisions of this Joint Cooperation Agreement, contract A07483 CITY OF By: Its And: Its Date: . CITY MUST CHECK ONE: The City is organized pursuant to: Plan A Plan B Charter . 3/26/93 10 . . RESOLUTION NO. -93 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM AND EXECUTION OF THE JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1994, 1995 AND 1996 WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood, Minnesota and the County of Hennepin have in effect a Joint Cooperation Agreement for purposes of qualifying as an Urban County under the united states Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant and HOME Programs; and WHEREAS, the City and the County wish to execute a new Joint Cooperation Agreement in order to continue to operate as an Urban County for purposes of the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Programs. BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the current Joint cooperation Agreement between the City and the County be a new Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and County be executed effective October 1, 1993, and that the Mayor and City Administrator be authorized and directed to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 26th day of April , 1993. Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator . . ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 263 ESTABLISHING A RENTAL HOUSING LICENSE FEE section 1. Section 1300.02 of the Shorewood city Code is amended by adding the following to Schedule A: Tvpe of Charae/Fee City Code Reference Charqe/Fee Tri-Annual Rental Housing Licence Fee, per unit (includes up to three inspections per unit) 1004.03(3) $35.00 Additional inspections, as necessary, per inspection 1004.03(3) $20.00 Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, this 26th day of April, 1993. Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator /0 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 Councilmembers FROM: Al Rolek DATE: April 20, 1993 . RE: Minimum water charge for low income residents Upon receiving questions from residents regarding the City's minimum water charge, especially from low-income seniors, Mayor Brancel asked that staff research the matter. She asked for data on how many accounts were being charged the minimum charge, the average consumption for those being charged the minimum, and the comparable rates of other communities. We assembled water billing data from the last four billing cycles for this analysis. We also surveyed other cities for their water rate structures. The data is attached for your ,information. In examining the data, we found that, on average, less than 10% of water customers are billed the minimum charge. Those who were billed the minimum used an average of 6,400 gallons per quarter. They are allowed 10,000 gallons at the minimum charge. . In doing our survey, we found that few cities offer a low income or a senior citizen rate for water. Most simply charge their normal rates. Excelsior has a senior citizen rate of $18.83 per quarter if the resident is under the minimum 13, 000 gallons. If the resident exceeds this minimum, they then pay at the normal rate. After discussing this data with Mayor Brancel, it was felt that a rate may be warranted for low income households and low income senior citizens who use less than the 10,000 gallon per quarter minimum. Low income would be defined in accordance with the guidelines set for section 8 low income housing. Since the City already offers a discount of 1/3 on sewer charges for low income households, a 1/3 discount for minimum water users was also discussed. This discount would be automatic for demonstrated low income households provided that they use less than the quarterly minimum gallons. Should they use more than the minimum, the charge would revert to the normal rate. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore - !3A,1 MEMO APRIL 20, 1993 PAGE 2 The low income minimum charge would be $15.00 per quarter. The financial impact of this minimum charge, assuming 15 low income households (25% of those now at minimum) using the minimum, would be $112.50 per quarter, or $450.00 annually. This would not place any undue burden on the financial stability of the Water Fund. This information is assembled for discussion of the City Council at the April 26 meeting. Should you have any questions about the data assembled, or want any further information, please call me. . . . . 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 1992 1992 1992 1993 Total Connections 770 772 778 788 Number at minimum charge 53 37 58 94 Avg consumption at min 6,375 7,760 5,100 6,385 Avg consumption, all accounts 44,480 44,720 27,485 24,360 Total consumption, gallons (millions) 34.337 34.433 21.384 19.193 RATE COMPARISONS SHOREWOOD $22.50 mlnlmum + $1.45/1000 gals. over 10,000 gals. per quarter Excelsior - $25.40 minimum + $1.30/1000 gals. over 13,000 gals. per quarter Senior citizen rate $18.83 per quarter if under minimum gals. used Tonka Bay - $5.00 base charge + $1.80/1000 gals. per quarter $.90/1000 gals. per quarter $1.15/1000 gals. for first 25,000 gals, $1.35/1000 gals. therafter per quarter minimum of $5.75 charge per quarter Minnetonka - Chanhassan - Mound $3.30 base charge + $1.00/1000 gals. per quarter SHOREWOOD Excelsior Tonka Bay Minnetonka Chanhassan Mound Ordinance # 74 Ordinance # 86 Ordinance # 114 - WATER CHARGE COMPARISIONS PER 10,000 GALS. PER 25,000 GALS. $22.50 $43.75 25.40 41. 00 23.00 50.00 9.00 22.50 11.50 28.75 13.30 28.30 Historv of Shorewood Water Charqes set initial water rates at $.60/1000 gallons with a $15.00 minimum 9/10/73 set water rates at $.70/1000 gallons with a $17.50 minimum 2/5/76 set water rates at $1.00/1000 gallons with a $17.50 minimum 11/19/79 Resolution # 96-85- set water rates at $22.00 mlnlmum + $1.40/1000 gals. over 10,000 gals. per quarter 12/12/85 Ordinance # 263 - set water rates at $22.50 minimum + $1.45/1000 gals. over 10,000 gals. per quarter 1/25/93 . . ~ '- . . - j-,!-;-, - ieaniel W. iinlJsep 28040 jioulber jirillge iBribt $oonknoob. :minnesota 55331 April 5, 1993 The Honorable Barbara Brancel Mayor, City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Dear Ms. Brancel: The property owners in Boulder Bridge Farm respectfully request your assistance in the matter pending before the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, specifically, the reconfiguration of six of our forty authorized boat slips. This reconfiguration does not increase density and meets all applicable setbacks and restrictions. It would allow us to use six authorized slips adjacent to the Duane Little property which are no longer accessible to us. The Littles support this reconfiguration. It is my understanding that Mr. Robert Rascop, our representative on the LMCD, is opposed to this reconfiguration. In that this reconfiguration involves only 15% of our boat slips and does not add to our authorized number, we wonder why Mr. Rascop is opposed to what 38 Shorewood residents view as a reasonable request. Enclosed you will find the complete list of Boulder Bridge Farm property owners who, through their elected Board of Directors, request your assistance in this matter. The next action on this matter is April 10, 1993. Thank you. Daniel W. Lindsey cc: Boulder Bridge Farm Homeowner's Association Enclosure ~~A'Z. ,~, The below listed members of the Boulder Bridge Farm Homeowner's Association respectfully request the assistance of our elected and appointed Shorewood officials in the matter pending before the LMCD regarding our request for boat slip reconfiguration. Our elected Board of Directors has been given the authority to act on our behalf in this, matter. Mr. & Mrs. Thuy Bui Mr. & Mrs. Jerry Cohen Mr. & Mrs. Joe Cox 5890 Boulder Bridge Lane 28005 Boulder Bridge Drive 5960 Boulder Bridge Lane Mr. & Mrs. Don Fagen Mr. & Mrs. Jim Flannery Dr. & Mrs. Hollis Fritts 28070 Boulder Bridge Drive 5905 Boulder Bridge Lane 28045 Boulder Bridge Drive Mr. & Mrs. Larry Gaines Mr. & Mrs. Richard Hanson Mr. & Mrs. Rick Haun 5935 Boulder Bridge Lane 28145 Boulder Bridge Drive 28100 Boulder Bridge Drive Mr. & Mrs. Gary Jarrett Mr. & Mrs. John Jones Mr. Evon Kelly . 28155 Boulder Bridge Lane 28010 Boulder Bridge Drive 5900 Boulder Bridge Lane Dr. & Mrs. Tom Kiefer Mr. & Mrs. Steve Klocksien Mr. & Mrs. Mike Kristo 28150 Boulder Bridge Drive 28130 Boulder Bridge Drive 5920 Boulder Bridge Lane Mr. & Mrs. Barry Lindquist Mr. & Mrs. Dan Lindsey Mr. & Mrs. Brian Mandeville 5950 Boulder Bridge Lane 28040 Boulder Bridge Drive 28160 Boulder Bridge Drive Mr. & Mrs. Curtis Marks Dr. & Mrs. Roger Mazze Mr. & Mrs. Scott Meyer 2801 Copperfield Circle 5870 Boulder Bridge Lane 28025 Boulder Bridge Drive 'Mr. & Mrs. Kent Olson Mr. & Mrs. Gregg Ostrander Mr. & Mrs. Timothy Pawlak 28200 Boulder Bridge Circle 28060 Boulder Bridge Drive 27995 Boulder Bridge Circle Dr. & Mrs. Rob Pollock Mr. & Mrs. Mike Radcliff Mr. & Mrs. John Roedel . 28090 Boulder Bridge Drive 28065 Boulder Bridge Drive 28115 Boulder Bridge Drive Mr. & Mrs Don Ryks Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Shoger Mr. & Mrs. Michael Simpson 28080 Boulder Bridge Drive 28085 Boulder Bridge Drive 5955 Boulder Bridge Lane Mr. & Mrs. Jack Smith Mr. & Mrs. Tom Storey :N1r. & Mrs. Bruce Taher 28140 Boulder Bridge Drive 5860 Boulder Bridge Lane 28135 Boulder Bridge Drive Messrs. M. Waldrep & B. Hodges Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Wartman Mr. & Mrs. Carl Westin 5880 Boulder Bridge Lane 28120 Boulder Bridge Drive 28110 Boulder Bridge Drive Mr. & Mrs. Charles Wirth Mr. & Mrs. Steve Zahn 5910 Boulder Bridge Lane 28050 Boulder Bridge Drive April 5, 1993 D~el~ Boulder Bridge Farm Homeowner's Association .. CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Kristi Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM ' TO: Mayor and City Council . FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 20 April 1993 RE: Boulder Bridge Docks FILE NO.: Plats - Boulder Bridge Staff has researched the fIles relative to past approvals for docks for the Boulder Bridge Farm. Although all plans in the fIle show 30 slips in the lagoon and 10 on the mairi lake (see Exhibit A, attached), the development agreement for the project is silent on the subject of docks. In fact, a letter from the City Attorney at the time states that the dock issue would be handled as a separate matter (see Exhibit B). . /" From the records we have reviewed to date, it appears that the layout of dock facilities was left to the discretion of the LMCD in its capacity of issuing multiple dock licenses. Any change in dock configuration must comply with LMCD Code requirements. cc: Jim.Hurm Tim Keane A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore ?HI1-H1CJwN t7A Y_' ~ .. ~o t't" . , ";:, IDlY <; '-./ ~-^ I7IH-I0, ~~"y~:-e.... ---- ..~. C', .,' . ...~. '. . @g?b~~~..2i',- ,." r' j ,./ ) " 5 ... .., .-. " j v- . \ : -5 ( :,', ~:.' '~," )}. , r" I \~, ....y I Exhibit A '7 'W'.--r~"7, BOULDER BRIDGEDOCK LAYOUT ,- ~. . ~ From Boulder Bridge Farm Preliminary Plat, , ;- S '~ dated 30 November 1978 ) ,01 - .' ,. _. .... ".. ' .' -.".. ...;/ __,-P ,,~'j .' ~.I -- ) LAW OFFICES WILLIAM' F. KELLY AND ASSOCIATES 35 I SECOND STREET EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 (6 12) 474-5977 WILLIAM F, KELLY JOHN C, SANDERS THOMAS C, HANNON December 14, 1978 Mrs. Elsa I. Wiltsey Clerk/Administrator City of Shorewood 20630 Manor Road Excelsior, Mn. 55331 . Dear Elsa: . I am enclosing a proposed development contract, covenants and restrictions, by-laws for owner's association and Articles of Incorporation of owner's association all in connection with the Boulder Bridge P.U.RoDo The by-laws and Articles of Incorporation of the associa- tion appear to be satisfactory. I have provided most of the information for the covenants and restrictions and in general they appear to be adequate, however, certain amendments would appear to be in order. l I will be discussing changes with the attorney for the developer. Enclosed is the development contract prepared by myself. I expect it to be refined before it is presented for execution. As yet I have not received any comments from the attorney for Boulder Bridge. They should be forthcoming in the next week or twoo The plats as presented have been reviewed by our planner and he will have some comments to make on them. The docks as shown on the plat are not part of the approval. Their construction will require a special permit fo~ con- struction at a later time in the event the developer obtains permission from all appropriate agencies to construct the sameo In the meantime, I see no reason why the Plannin~ Commission cannot be~in its procedure of review, comment and recommendation on the plat and documents submitted by the developer. s~u~// ~ Exhibit B LEITER FROM CITY ATIORNEY RE: DOCKS Dated 14 December 1978 WFK: mw Enclosure CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR APRIL 26, 1993 COUNCIL MEETING CK NO TO WHOM ISSUED CHECKS ISSUED SINCE APRIL 6. 1993 11249 11291 11292 11293 11294 11295 11296 11297 11298 11299 11300 11301 11302 11303 11304 1305 06 307 11308 11309 11310 11311 11312 11313 11314 11315 11316 11317 11318 11319 11320 11321 6122 W323 11324 11325 11326 11327 11328 11329 11330 11331 11332 11333 11334 11335 11336 11337 11338 (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (G) Sam's Club US Postmaster Void First State Bank commiss of Revenue Pera ICMA Retirement Trust city cty Credit Union AFSCME Local #224 Child Suppt Enforcemt Anoka cty Spt/Collctn Pera Cragun's Conf Center Wendy Davis Govt Training Svc Govt Training Svc . Patricia Helgesen James Hurm Dennis Johnson Bradley Nielsen NW Asphalt, Inc. Joseph Pazandak US Postmaster Void City of Centerville Norther States Power Kenneth Potts Superamerica Us West Communications Bellboy Corporation Boyd Houser Candy/Tobac Budget Lighting, Inc. Midwest Coca-Cola Bottlg Day Distributing East Side Beverage Co. Griggs, Cooper and Co. Hoops Trucking Johnson Brothers Liquor Mark VII Mn Bar Supply Natl Guardian Security North Star Ice Pepsi-Cola Co. Ed Phillips and Sons Pogreba Distributing Quality Wine/Spirits Thorpe Distributing The Victoria Gazette US Postmaster PURPOSE Office supplies Newsletter postage Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Lodging deposit-Hurm Sec 125 reimbursement Conf regist-Hurm Conf regist-Pazandak Sec 125 reimbursement Mileage/expenses Mileage Sec 125 reimbursement Payment voucher #3/final Mileage 1st qtr u/b postage Luncheon mtg-Latter utilities March legal-prosecutions Gasoline purchases . Telephone .svc Liquor purchases Misc and supplies purchases Light bulbs Misc purchases Beer and misc purchases Beer and misc purchases Liquor and wine purchases Liquor and wine purchases Liquor,wine,misc purchases Beer and misc purchases Misc and supplies purchases Security system Misc purchases Misc purchases Liquor and wine purchases Beer and mise purchases Liquor and wine purchases Beer and misc purchases Advertising Postage for machine TOTAL GENERAL TOTAL LIQUOR TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED -1- AMOUNT 102.41 396.50 6,067.30 997.78 2,080.39 641. 57 320.00 134.40 87.50 110.59, 25.00 100.00 140.00 155.00 25.00 590.00 19~66 35.10 140.00 19,792.79 66.47 395.03 7.00 1,467.44 1,458.33 350.22 48.93 1,093.16 3,516.59 121. 25 294.70 5,986.65 6,672.65 3,602.33 351.40 2,340.03 4,777.26 624.22 315.48 241.80 134.20 2,737.11 3,378.90 2,441.77 10,236.35 40.00 750.00 36,504.41 48.905.85 85.410.26 CK NO CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR APRIL 26, 1993 COUNCIL MEETING TO WHOM ISSUED PURPOSE AMOUNT CHECKS FOR COUNCIL APROVAL 11339 11340 11341 11342 11343 11344 11345 11346 11347 11348 11349 11350 11351 11352 11353 11354 11355 11356 11357 11358 11359 11360 11361 11362 11363 11364 11365 11366 11367 11368 11369 11370 11371 11372 11373 11374 11375 void ABM Equipment Abdo, Abdo and Eick Earl Andersen and Assoc. Applied Engineering Applied Graphics Consolidated Typewriter Contact Mobile Commun. Rolf E.A. Erickson City of Excelsior Feed-Rite Controls Hoisington Koegler Grp J-Craft, Inc. J.B. Soil and Rock Lake Business Supply Life and Safety Lyman Lumber Mann Made Products Metro Waste Control Midwest Business Prod. Mn Conway Fire/Safety Mn Sun Publications Munitech, Inc. Navarre True Value Oh' Landscapes Old Dominion Brush Pepsi-Cola Company Research Quik So Lk Mtka Pub Safety Sterling Codifiers Time Saver Off site Sec. Toll Welding Tonka Printing Twin City Water Clinic Unitog victoria Repair/Mfg witt Financial Sweeper drape Audit services Street signs Tank removal project Newsletter printing Typewriter maint Radio installation May assessing fee/supplies 2nd qtr fire contract paymt Demurrage charge Park planning svcs Steel flat bed Slab removal Office supplies First aid supplies Wood supplies Maint supplies May contract payment Office supplies Fire extinguisher maint Publishing May contract payment Maint supplies Haul demolition-City Hall Sweeper parts City Hall supplies Questionnaire services May contract payment Code pook codifications Planning commiss minutes Welding supplies Business cards March water testing Uniform services Maint supplies Financial services TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST -2- 60.08 3,500.00 60.43 290.00 803.01 110.00 128.18 3,141.77 24,525.75 25.00 464.19 4,016.70 361. 00 20.64 41. 96 35.05 15.89 30,795.67 488.52 65.13 16.56 6,200.00 202.13 361. 00 58.75 95.32 112.50 32,468.64 2,381.76 78.00 37.07 185.31 20.00 390.92 14.85 250.94 . . 111,822.72 197,232.98 CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR APRIL 26, 1993 COUNCIL MEETING CK NO TO WHOM ISSUED HOURS AMOUNT CHECK REGISTER FOR 4/1/93 PAYROLL 207211 207212 207213 207214 207215 207216 207217 Void Bruc'e Benson Barbara Brancel Robert Daugherty Daniel Lewis Void Kristi Stover Council Mayor Council Council 184.70 233.87 184.70 184.70 council 184.70 TOTAL PAYROLL 972.67 . . -3- CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR APRIL 26, 1993 COUNCIL MEETING CK NO TO WHOM ISSUED HOURS AMOUNT CHECK REGISTER FOR 4/6/93 PAYROLL 207210 (G) Susan Niccum 80.0 reg hours 702.26 207211 Void 207219 (L) Scott Bartlett 24.0 reg hours 137.83 207220 (G) Charles Davis 80.0 reg hours-2 ot 629.38 207221 (G) Wendy Davis 80.0 reg hours-17.75 ot 1,048.54 207222 (L) Julie Dunn 1.0 reg hours 5.22 207223 (L) Cory Frederick 41.0 reg hours 183.47 207224 (L) John Fruth 14.0 reg hours 78.55 207225 (L) Patricia Helgesen 80.0 reg hours 633.06 207226 (G) James Hurm 80.0 reg hours 1,540.97 207227 (L) Brian Jakel 33.0 reg hours 180.07 207228 (G) Dennis Johnson 80.0 reg hours-3.38 ot 756.11 207229 (L) Loren Jones 14.5 reg hours 73.74 207230 (L) Martin Jones 16.75 reg hours 67.40 207231 (L) William Josephson 80.0 reg hours 630.22 . 207232 (L) Mark Karsten 29.25 reg hours 158.90 207233 (L) Sandra Klomps 12.0 ' reg hours 62.62 207234 (G) Mary Beth Knopik 8.0 reg hours 44.32 207235 (G) Anne Latter 80.0 reg hours 859.35 207236 (L) Susan Latterner 37.5 reg hours 201. 61 207237 (G) Joseph Lugowski 80.0 reg hours-3.5 ot 801.65 207238 (L) Russell Marron 30.0 reg hours 166.24 207239 (G) Lawrence Niccum 80.0 reg hours-6 ot 784.87 207240 (G) Bradley Nielsen 80.0 reg hours 953.51 207241 (G) Joseph Pazandak 80.0 reg hours 1,033.73 207242 (L) David Peterson 8.5 reg hours 44.75 207243 (G) Daniel Randall 80.0 reg hours 766.74 207244 (L) Brian Roerick 4.5 reg hours 25.98 207245 (G) Alan Rolek 80.0 reg hours 1,225.32 207246 (L) Brian Rosenberger 44.5 reg hours 224.89 207247 (L) Christopher Schmid 80.0 reg hours 404.27 . 207248 (G) Howard Stark 80.0 reg hours 646.70 207249 (G) Beverly Von Feldt 80.0 reg hours 579.74 207250 (G) Ralph Wehle 80.0 reg hours 614.97 204251 (L) Dean Young 80.0 reg hours 614.44 204252 (G) Donald Zdrazil 80.0 reg hours 1.189.45 TOTAL GENERAL 14,810.67 TOTAL LIQUOR 3.260.20 TOTAL PAYROLL 18.070.87 -4- . ,.;; i - .:,. . ;\ ~:. t '. , ;. " .;' '. ..:. , . .' 4' .' . ''# .' , .. :, '. 'j . ~ I ">'- ., CITY COUNca AGENDA Monday, April 26, 1993 UNDER SEPARATE COVER AGENDA ITEM 8 - South Shore Senior Center - Staff Report by Planner Nielsen .. . , al/4/22/93 . MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: RE: . PAGE 2 5-6 7-15 16-20 16 . 16 16 .17 17 ..,18 21 22 MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Kristi Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce ~enson CITY OF ') SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 . (612) 474-3236 Mayor and City council James C. Hurm, city Administrator t March 17, 1993. Policy considerations for the Work Session of Special Assessments for Street Reconstruction Projects. NOTES Scope and Purpose defines what projects are assessable under this ordinance. Explains what special assessments are. There is no one "right" way to do special assessments. The key is to be reasonable and to be consistent over time. Explains the procedures to be followed. Read this section on "policies" carefully. A. Explains how ,an annual rate is established. This annual rate is then used in the formulas to determine the assessments according to the unit Method (pg. 21) and Front Footage Method (pg. 22). \- Kristi has suggested,the following policy pe added. It could be a second paragraph for section VI, A:_When the City determines that a street should be reconstructed it would be rebuilt to its current width. Current-'width could be adlusted by the city Council upon request of the- property owners or bv the Council followinq public hearinq' if traffic counts or safety considerations sugqest wider street is warranted. B. Defines when a project becomes ",assessable". D., Says assessments should typically b~ spread over a .ten year period.- . ~_. \. i~'"-_, --- E. All government property is assessed. F.' -, De:(ines: properties which are not to" be assessed. . _'_-. - .' , i_~, ' A. Defines when 'and how "unit" method is to be used. B. Defines when and how "front footage" method is to be used. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore )Iemo tv l'-1c:.yor and City., Couhcil Policy Special-Assessment for street March 17, 1993 .. Page Two !, Reconstruction Projects :'1-1. . .\ \ i 29 Top paragraph - Read carefully how interest payments are to be handled in cases of deferred assessments. 29 A. Does the Council want large assessments on large tracts of land to be deferred? 29 B.lo If the "and" at the end of paragraph one is changed to "or" low or moderate income owners could qualify for deferment'. 5/16/92,HUD qualifying guidelines are as follows: Number in Annual Low Annual Moderate . Household Income Guideline Income Guideline 1 $ 17,850 $ 27,000 2 $ 20,400 $ 30,900 3 $ 22,950 $ 34,750 4 $ '25,500 $ 38,600, Perhaps low income families should qualify for def erment.. JCH.al . , .~ "J, - I - \. , 1 (. ,/ ,,_}f 'I ASSESSMENT POLICY FOR STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA . MARCH, 1993 DRAFT . ASSESSMENT POLICY FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS I. HISTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 II. SCOPE AND PURPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 III. DEFINITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 IV. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CONCEPT .......................... 5 . A. B. Benefit Principle ..................................... 5 Consistent and Equitable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 V. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE ....................... 7 . A. ' Initiating the proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 B. Preparing the feasibility study ........................... 9 C. Holding a public hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 D. Ordering the Improvement and ordering Plans and Specifications 10 E. Advertising for Bids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 F. Awarding Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 G. Preparing Proposed Assessment Roll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 H. Holding Public Hearing on Proposed Assessments ........... 13 I. Adopting the Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 J. Transmitting Assessments to 'County Auditor ... . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 VI. ASSESSMENT POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 A. Estabiishing an annual assessment rate ................... 16 B. Assessable Street Reconstruction Projects ................. 16 C. 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 1. Appeal Procedures .................................. 19 J. Reappor1'ioIlJ:Ilent 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 POUCY 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 Forceconc1uded 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 AND 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 Adiusted 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 requireITI;ents 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 i. 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 ~esidential 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 . . Proiect 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 foota~e: The longest dimension of existing or potential corner building sites abutting the street. 4 SECTION IV - SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS CONCEPT A. 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. I. 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. i. .., 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 determining 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 implenrented 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 giving a detailedexpJanation of the process is shown on the next page. A. Initiatin2 the J?roceedin2s 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 ..;. :::~?=::=-%~:;::;:;:;~:::;:;:::,::;:-::,::~:;::::~~::-,:=,:~:;:::::::::;~;:::-:~~:::::::;:::;:;:::,::::::::::::::;;;:;:::;:;::::;;:;:;~:::;:::~~:;:::::::::;~::-:~:::~:::;:;:>>~::::':::::::~:::;:::;:::::;O;:::::::::~~ Prepare/update capital improvement program & budget or comment on petitioned project Feasibility report; prepare cost estimate, project budget, and schedule; determine benefited area and proposed assessments Mail hearing notices; prepare engineering agreement :::::::::::::::::::;:;:;:::::::::~:~:~:::::::;:::::::;:;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::~::;:::::::::;:::::::::::;;::::=::;:;::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::;::::::::::::~:::::;::::::::::::::::::::-::::::::::::::;::::::::::--::::::::::::::::::::;::: Prepare plans & specs ..::::;:::::::::;::::::::;::::::::;::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::;;:;::::::::~::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::;:::::;:::::::::::::::~:;:;:;~:::;~:::;:;:-::;~:~;:::::::;::::::::::::=::;': Take bids, compare with estimates ::::::~~:::::;:::x::~:-::::::;:;:::;:;~:;::::~-::%;:::x-::;~:::~:::::::x::::;~;:::~~~:-::::~:::-::;:~;:;~:-:::::::::~:9.=::;::::::::::::::--::;::::::::~:;:::::::;:::X:::::::"-::::-:::C Prepare & execute contract; initiate & adminis- ter construction; prepare fInal assessment roll ;~tr:::::::::::::::~%:::::::~~::::;:?:~;::::~:::::::;::::=:~~:::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::~:X~~:::::~~::~~;~:::;::::::::-~:::::::::X::::::;::::::~::::~::~:::::::-::~:;~:;::::~:::': Prepare & mail hearing notices Certify assessment to COlmty Auditor 8 City Council Decisions :::::;:;::::;:;:~::::.:::::-::::::;:;:::;-:-:::~;;.;:;::~:::::;~:,,::-:-:::::::-::::>>:-:':-:-:~~';:;::::;....'..' .......<<.;~.::::,.~,.::::;:.,......~:::.,,:~::-;~~~::.:::.;.:::-::::,.~~. . y. Modify/approve capital improvement program and! or budget, or resolution declaring adequacy of petition, and resolution ordering preparation of feasibility report :;:::;;:::::::::::::::::;:::::;;:;:::::::::::::::'=::::::;::::::::;::;;::;;::;::::::;:;::::;;:;:;~;~;~::;::::::::::::::::x::::::;;;;::;:;::::;::::::;;;;~~;;;:::::::;::::::::::;:::::x::::::::::xX::::::::::;:::;:::X:::::' f. Accept report and call for hearing ;.:.:.:.;.:.;.:.:.;.;.:.:.;.:.:.:.:-:.:.;.:.;-:.;-:.;.;.:.:.:,.:-;.;.;.;.;.:.:.;.:.;.>>:.,.:.;.,.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.:.:-;.:.:.>>:.:.;.;-:.:.,.;-:-:.;.;.;.;.;.:-:-:.:.,.:-x.;.:.;.;-:.;.:.;.:.;.;.:....;.;<<.;.:.:.:.>>x.:<<.;.;.:.:.;.;.:,. Hold public hearing on the proposed project; order the improvement and preparation of plans; ap- prove engineering agreement ;;::::.;:::;:;:::;::::;:;:.:.;-:.;.;::::::.:::.:.:.>>x-:;:-x.:<<.;.;.;.:-~::::':':::*:-:;;::'" .:,:~:::::::::,;,~:-;::~;:::::::::::>>:<<-:::::,:::*:-:;::":':-:::".......~:::-:~.......,.....~::: Approve plans and order advertisement for bids ;::;;::;:;:::::::::::.;::;::::;.;.;:;.;;:::::::::::.;.;.;.;;:::::x.:::~::::::<<~::::::::-;;,.:<<.:x;::::::::::::::~:,,;-:;:-:-:.;;::;.:::::.:::::-:::.;.:;:.;.:;;:;::::::::;:::::~::;x;:::::~;;::::::':x:*:.:::::::Ir Accept bid and authorize contract :::;,;;::-:::x~,::":::-:::""",,,,""::':-:';::';':::(';~.......,...... ..........:::~~.............e.............~..... ....l................................~~.<<-::::: Accept work & call for final hearing on pro- posed assessments :::::::;::::;::::::.;:::::::::::::::::;:::;~~:::::::;::::;:x~..,.;~;::-;:::::,=,:~.;:-::::::::::>>::::",.<<::::::-~::.....-::::-:x:~::".:::::::;:~.::,::::~::::::~~~~:-'.;~::::::~~:::: Hold fmal assessment public hearing and adopt assessment roll . B. Pret>arin2 the Feasibility Study An improvement project which is initiated by action of the City Councilor by a 35% petition may be.brdered only after a public hearing. Prior to adopting a resolution calling a public hearing on an improvement, the Council must secure from the City .. Engineer a report advising it in a preliminary way,as to: 1. Whether the proposed improvement is feasible; 2. Whether the proposed improvement is consistent with Capital Improvement Planning; 3. Whether the improvement should be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement; '. 4. The estimated cost of the improvement; 5. A proposed project schedule; and 6: Any other information thought pertinent and necessary for complete Council consideration. . c. Holding a Public Hearing on the Improvement Improvement projects which are initiated by a 100% petition may be ordered by the City Council without a public hearing if the City Council determines the project may be undertaken without unreasonable changes to the Capital Improvement Finance Plan or the petitioning property owners agree to pay 100% of the cost of the improvements. 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) 2) 3) 4) The time and place of hearing; The general nature of the improvements; The estimated cost; and . The area proposed to be assessed. Not less than ten (10) days before the hearing, the notice of hearing must be mailed to the owner of each parcel in the area proposed to be assessed. The notice of public hearing must be published in the City's legal newspaper at least twice, each publication being at least one week apart, with the last publication at least three (3) days prior to the hearing. At the public hearing, the contents of the feasibility study will be presented and discussed with the intent of giving all interested parties an opportunity to be heard and their views expressed. D. Ordering the Improvement and Ordering Preparation of Plans & Specifications . Following a public hearing a resolution ordering the improvement may be adopted. at any time within six (6) months after the date of the hearing by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council, unless the petition was initiated by a 35% petition in which event it may be adopted by a majority vote. The resolution may reduce, but not increase, the extent of the improvement as stated in the notice. At this time a special assessment is considered to be "pending" for all assessable properties in the improvement area. 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. Advertisin2 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. Awarding Contracts Following receipt of the bids, the City Council must either: 1. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder; or 2. Reje~t all bids. ~. The contact must be awarded no later than one (1) year after the adoption of the resolution ordering the improvement unless that resolution specifies a different time limit. The City Council may purchase the materials and order the work done by day labor or in any manner it deems proper if: 1. The initial cost of the entire work does not exceed $25,000; 2. No bid is submitted after advertisement; or 3. The only bids are higher than the engineer's estimate. G. Preparing Proposed Assessment Roll After the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the completion on an improvement have been calculated as defined in Section VI-C Project Costs, the City Council must determine the amount it will pay and the amount to be specially assessed. The City Engineer and Administrator/Clerk must calculate the amount to be specially assessed against every parcel of land benefitted by the improvement. The area to be assessed may be less than, but not more than, the area proposed to be assessed as stated in the notice of public hearing on the improvement. The assessment roll should contain a description of each parcel of property and the assessment amount including any 12 deferred assessments. The assessment roll must be filed with the City Administrator/Clerk and be available for public inspection. H. Holdine Public Hearine on Proposed Assessments A public hearin~ 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. That the assessment roll is on file with the Clerk; 6. That written or oral objections will be considered; 7. 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. . Whetber partial prepayment of the assessment has been authQrized 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. .1. Adoptinl: 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 adopted assessment. The adopted .. assessment roll shall include any and all deferments ~:m large or unplatted parcels of land along the City's street system. 14 J. Transmittin2 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 benefit~ of improvements without paying for them. These policies relate to street reconstruction projects. A. Establishint: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 Proiects Street reconstruction projects are not likely to require the same amount of work throughout the entire length of the project. That is, some sections may need to be fully excavated and back-filled while other sections may need simple reshaping. It is the policy of the city that a project is assessable when 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-of-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 ~xistence of: undeveloped lands lying wholly and completely within zoned wetlands, flood plains, DNR protected wetlands and/or having restricted soils as determined by the City Building Inspector. However, all parcels of land are assumed to be buildabl~ 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 assess:r;nent p'repayments at an interest rate sufficient to meet the interest cost of debt or when the City experiences problems of payment collection delinquencies. In the event no bonds are issued then the rate of interest on assessments shall not exceed two (2) percent greater than the average rate of interest on all bonds issued in the previous calendar year or the current market municipal bond rate. Interest on initial special assessment installments shall begin to accrue from the date of the -resolution adopting the assessment. Owners must be notified by mail of any changes adopted by the City Council regarding interest rates or prepayment requirements which differ from those contained in the notice of the proposed assessment. H. Payment Procedures The property owner has four available options when considering payment of assessments: 1. Tax Rayment - 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. Parti?J. 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 and interest, pay the remaining assessment balance at any time, prior to November 15 without further interest charges. Thereafter, the next installment, with interest through December 31 of the following year, will be levied for collection with the real estate taxes payable the ensuing year. The principal balance will be reduced by the amount of the installment. . I. Appeal Procedures . No appeal ~ay 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 lO 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. 20 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 willi 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. 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 asignificant 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: Animal 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 ass~ssment area shall be equal to the maximum number of potential lots which c?l,lld 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 . . 22 Comer 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 reconstructiqn of the first project due to lot, driveway, and home location. B. Front Foota2e 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. Comer 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. 1. Standard Lots. In this instance, the adjusted front footage for rectangular lots wil~ be the actual front footage of the lot. The frontage measured shall be the lot width at the front lot line. ' MAIN: 'AVENLE ~o 90 A oS' Adj. Front Footage EXAMPLES Lot A - 50' Lot B,- 90' 2. Rectanqular Variation Lots. For a lot which is approximately rectangular and uniform in shape, the adjusted 'front footage is 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. MAJ'J AVEl'LE: 90' 7d A 8 110' 80' Adj. Front Footage EXAMPLES Lot A - 90 -+ 110 = 100' 2 Lot B - 70 + 80 = 75' 2 3. Trianaular l~ts. For a triangular shaped lot, the adjusted front footage is computed by averaging' the f~ont and back . lot lines. The measurement at the back lot l~ne shall no~ exceed a maximum distance in depth of 150 feet. MAIN AVENUE , ,100' I~OI _L~ Adj. Front Footage EXAMPLES Lot A 100 + 40 = 70' 2 Lot B 40 + 130 = 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-sa<;::s will be calculated at the building line as defined by the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance. . A -- 74;"-" HO. Adj. Front Footage EXAMPLES Lot A - 75' Lot B - ~~o' Lot C - 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. . 24 A: 8 - c 150' 90' Adj. Front Footage EXAMPLES Lot A - 70' Lot B 90 ' Lot,C - J.50' ,.....--.1 I i \ 6. Irreqularly 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 i -1 MAIN AVENUE Adj. Front.Footage EXAMPLES Lot A - 115' Lot E - 140' Lot C - 125' SBL = Setback Line . 7. Corner Lots. a. Residentially Zoned Corner Lots. The adjusted front footage will be assessed on the short side. A 150 foot side lot allowance credit will apply along the ~djacent side street. Any remaining frontage will const~tute an additional assessment. The short side will be assessed in those cases where the improvement may exist on one side only as well as for improvements abutting on both sides. 4It Adj. Front Footage EXAMPLES Lot A - 95 ' Lot B - 225' A -Ifj ~ I I I I I I ..~ 8 I I I I ISO' I 100' AVENLE 125' 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 Fccta~e EX.~"'-f?T,~S I J I J J . I~ _ 1 Of A ~l I 13d I ----- - --.--.. ~~ N o o N Lot A Lot B 230' 390 ,. .0 ~ I~' MAN 300' 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. . '20' MAIN ~. Adj. Frcnt Footage E:O...:.~!:.ES A 8 ~t A I.Qt B 80 I. 90' .0 o:r 170' ~ 26 d' ...-..-----'. ......... ~_.. 9. pouble Frontaqe Lots. It a parcel, other than a corner lot, comprises frontage on two streets and is eligible tor subdivision, then an adjusted tr9nt footage assessment will be .charged along each street. For double frontage, lots lacking the necessary depth for subdivision, only a single adjusted front footage will be computed. MAIN AV€.. 110' MAIN AVE. eo' - Adj. ~ront Footage EXAMPLES Lot A - 220~ Lot B - 80' .., A r0- C\! .0 N B 110' . . . . . 27 .. 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 tfiinimize 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 applicatio~ 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. Lar2e 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 the income of the year proceeding the year in which the application is made, or the average income of the three years prior to the year in which the application is made, whichever is less, and, 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 HardshilJ Deferment The Qption 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: 1. 2. 3. 4. 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 t~ere 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. . 5. 6. 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 A MAYOA Bart) Branca. COUNC: L Krona SCo"~r Bot) Gaqna Aot) OaugnarTV Oanoal Lewis CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (6121474-3236 MEMO TO: Mayor and city Council FROM: street Reconstruction Financing Task Force Members: . 'Robert, McDougal, James Finstuen, and Robert Shaw Kristi stover, Council Liaison Robert Bean, Planning Commission Liaison James C. Hurm, City Administrator Joel Dresel, city Engineer Al Rolek, Finance Director . DATE: August ~8, ~992 RE: Final Report .This report is the result of the charge assigned the street Reconstruction Financing Task Force in the "Purpose" and "Obj ectives II , portion of Resolution No. 54-92 dated June 8, 1992. The Task Force met on June 24th and 30th; July l~th and 28th; and August 11th. The Task Forces conclusions are as follows: Oblective 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 eove these maintenance functions. , When the City determines that a street should be reconstructed it would be rebuilt to its current width. Current width could be adjusted by the City council upon request of the property owners or.by the Council following public hearing if traffic counts or safety considerations suggest wider street is warranted. 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 than 20' Curb & Gutter where necessary A Residential Community on Lake Minneronka's Sourh Shore Obiective 2 -Review street reconstructi6n needs and review funding options. The Task Force determined ~~at the only two feasible funding sources are from ~'"le City I S general fund and from special assessments to abutting property owners. Projections show that replacing streets on a forty year cycle would be a tremendous drain on the City's general fund. Obiect~ ve 3 - Develop a program to match projected revenues with projected needs. It is very difficult to project when a street is going to break up. Perhaps a pavement management system could be utilized to attempt to make better proj ections of street needs. The Task Force however believes that it is likely that the needs in the foreseeable future will be greater than our current revenues will handle. Obiective 4 - Propose a fair and equitable method and procedure of financing reconstruction of streets. . The Task Force recommends that an assessment nrocedure be established for the reconstruction of streets. We fou~d in our analysis that utilizing only general funds results in high valued properties paying a disproportionately high portion of street improvement costs throughout the city. Some form of special assessments to pay for street improvements is very standard in municipalities throughout the State of Minnesota. A special assessment procedure would require a public hearing. This gives the property owner a formal way to offer input into the reconstruction of the street. In addition there is a fairness argument to consider. Should a resident who just paid for a new street be required, through the general property taxes, to pay for street improvements throughout the city for the next forty y!=ars? Perhaps those residents who abut a street which is being approved should be required to pay a percentage of that improvement. . The Task Force recommends that the special assessment rate be established at 33 percent of the costs of a standard 24 foot street width a rural cross-section (no curb and gutter). Each resident, no matter which of the four categories they would fall, would be required to pay this same rate established annually by the city council after study and recommendation by the City Engineer. That means that in any one year any street of the city which is being reconstructed whether it be a 28 foot MSA road with curb and gutter, or a 20 foot local road with no curb and gutter would pay the same rate. Again it is worth noting that any changes to the current width or ,street standard would have to be made by the city Council only after public hearing. 2 The last question considered by the Task Force was "Method of Assessment". In establishing a policy for this it is recommended that the guiding principle should be: Special assessments may be levied only upon property receiving a special benefit from. the improvement. In Minnesota, the Constitution and courts apply this general rule by placing the following limitations upon the power to levy special assessments: 1) the rate must be uniform and equal upon all property receiving special benefit: 2) the assessment must be confined to property specially benefited; and 3) the amount of the assessment must not exceed the special benefit. A survey of methods used by municipalities similar in nature to . Shorewood indicated that some have chosen to determine the "Method of Assessment" on a project basis in view of the fact 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. . al/taskforce..st 3 I. 2/. . Drawn By: P.S.H. QS;\lorr Schelen },{ayeron 8c Associates. Inc. EnllDeu~ _ Arcbltects _ PIa Doers _ Sur..eyora 300 Park Place C.lller _ ~77~ Yayula BoIlI.Yard 1IIIlIleapoU., IIN ~41S'I22ll _ eI2-~95'~~ Date: 2-4-93 APPENDIX B-1 50' R/W J 24' 4" TOPSOIL 2/. 1Yz" BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE W / ROLLED BIT. CURB 3" BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE 6" CLASS 5/GRAVEL (100/. 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 Ie 50' R/W J I I' 24' 4" TOPSOIL 2/. 2/. 4" TOPSOIL SUB-DRAIN 1Y'2" BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE . 3" BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE 6" CLASS 5/GRAVEL C1001- CRUSHED) BASE COURSE ,. SUBCUT W / SELECT GRANULAR BACKFILL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC NO SCALE Dote: 2-4-93 OSM. Orr Schelen Wayeron Sr Associates. Inc. Enclneers _ Architects _ Planners _ Surveyors 300 Peril: Plaee Ceoler _ 5775 ".yula Boul...rd WIDD.apolll. WM 554111'1228 _ aI2'585'5~ Drawing Title Comm. No. Drawn By: P,$.H. TYPICAL SECTION FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES Sheet no. ALTERNATE WI SUB-DRAIN , . 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 ,,),, ;' .~/ t DATE: April 21, 1993 RE: Work Session Item 1A - Street Reconstruction Staff will give a brief presentation Monday evening at the work session explaining how the Task Force came up with their recommendations on special assessments. Attached please find three charts which were developed by the Task Force in its deliberations. The first chart analyzes how much General Fund money will be necessary for a rebuilding cycle of 40 years. The second and third charts illustrate the tax impact of these varying options. The final attachment is a map illustrating the' estimated special assessments for Strawberry Lane if it were to be reconstructed and assessed under the front footage method. The city Engineer will review all of this at the work session. After the presentation we will go to the proposed special assessment document and review each of the sections: procedures, policies, methods, and deferred assessments. We will ask the Council to make decisions in certain areas and answer any questions the Council may have. .. JCH.al Attachment Work Session 1A A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore I- OW <(~ c..~ ~I- -2 ~~ I-ill ~~ w<C 0::<9 O~ ...-1& <(<( >~ of2 <(, I- (J) o u u. o C\l - ,... (J) (J) w (J) (J) <( (J) (J) w (J) (J) <( I- (J) o u u. o (1) - ,... ....::::::::::::::;:::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::;:::::::;:i:::::::::::'::::::*:;;:", I- Z w ::!: (J) (J) w (J) (J) <( o z o 0 o 0 (j) co o 0 o 0 f'.. (0 o o 1.0 o 0 o 0 v Ct) o 0 o 0 C\J ,- o [Stfv'llOO] l.O'v'dV\J1 XVi A ltJ'v'3A w ::!: o :c w ::> ...J ~ ~ o o 10 ~ ~ w ::!: o :c w ::> ...J ~ ~ o o (1) ~ ~ w ::!: o :c w ::> ...J ~ ~ o o (\J ~ I w ::!: o :c w ::> ...J <( > ~ o o ,... ~ I ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ , u~ NNNNN !:! U~ NNNNN !:! U~ Nt\iWNN !:! ...:1 ...:1 ...:1 0-, 0-, 0-, J1ii! J1ii! J1ii! 0 g 0 l- I- ~~ !\l!\l!\l!\l!\l III :a!~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ..;..;..;..;..; -' ...~ -' -' 0- gi 0- ...:1 ...:1 ~ mmmmlll ~ mmmllllll ~ lllmmmlll ~- ~E ~!:' -I::. codcic doddo -- ddddd :I :I :I ~ ~~~~~ - ~~~~~ i!: 00000 ~ ....~,........... 00000 I- ei 0) ar oi tIJ- I- ~~~~~ I- IIIII hi iiii:l:l:l u u '" '" 0 ... -.... ... II: ~ ~ A- A- A- :aE 13~ 13i!: 8;_ !:i~ ~~~~~ 8~_ ~~~~~ II: CD ~~~~~ gl~ moio;a;oi II: CD .,,;.,-.,j'''';.. :a!::- :a!::- ~~~~~ :a!::- 1212121212 u'" gill .-.-. gill 0'" ..~ ..'" ..'" C C ~ ~~~~~ i!: ~~~~~ i!: ~~~~~ l:e ,..:,..:,..:,..:,..: l:e I!!!! l:e ~i .. .,- .,: .. U a:! a:! a:! a:! a:! U U 111!HHlli .tit.._ -' -' -' 8 iDS"&riDir' 8 ,...............,.... f- ~~~~~ A-- A-- N ~~~~~ N ~l!l.~~~ N w"'" ,..:,..:,.:,..:,..: w"'" w"'" iiiii "'.. NNNN(\I "'.. il:liil~ ~.. "'- !!.!!.!!.!!.!!. "'- "'- III III III III ~ III C C C ~ ~ i!: '" i!: '" i!: '" I- ~ I- ~ I- Z III Z ............. It Z C')C')t':IC')C') '" II. '" .................,... II. '" c;c:;c:;::;c:; :I.. ~~~~~ 0 :I.. CD CD CD CD CD 0 :I.. ~~~~~ 111- '" "'- rsirliaimt:tS '" 111- III Q '" ................... Q '" ;;;;; '" iii '" ...... iii '" '" III III '" II: ~ II: ~ C '" '" A- A- lii I- III I- ~ ~ff 1Il1ll1ll1ll1ll 8 ~i;" 1Il1ll1ll1ll1ll 8 ~ff lllllllllllllll :I ciadcio II. i- decidd II. :I cidddd II: II: '" '" ffi~ CDlDllDCDCD A- i!: CDC)CDCDCD A- i!: Cl)CDCDCDUI ~ 1::1::1::1::1:: = 1::1::1::1::1:: ! 1::1::1::1::1:: t-o 13t ~~~~~ - IIII- ~~~~~ IIII- ~~~~~ I- s~ I- ~~ 0>- 8a ~~~~~ ;:) ~~~~~ ;:) ~~~~~ g :;)0 g 0 o~ III lI:i ~ ~!i II:f :!. II: A- :!. oc Q oc Q ocA- ~ ~ cnll.l ii!: 4D CD CD tD CD C ii!: IDCDCDCDeD i ii!: IDCDCDCDe .................... I::\::I::I::\:: 1::1::1::1::1:: ~>- ,.................... 0 l:E ,..:,..:,..:,..:,..: II: l:E "':":"':":i l:E ~................ OC) ~NNNN :ii! ~~~~ -' ~I-~i I- o~ U ....- U C U -~~~~ cnQ 9 9 ~~~i~ ~ ~:::! i!: ~~~~~ II. i!: ~~~~~ II. i!: ~~~~~ -:;) 0 0 ~~;i~o; ~II:I I!!::- ggggg I- I!!::- ggggg I- I!!::- g!ggg i~@@ai@ c- ~ c- ~ c- .11.1 I- t::~~~~ 8 ... ~~~~~ ... ~ ~~~ ~a:Q III III U It ii:!;jol!!w!;j '" '" Z5~-1!! z- 11.100 j: j: z i!~l!li t-t-o ~Ow i w ~(!J~ S S ol!llD~ ~lD a:~1I.I l- ll. l!i cl:J9w w9 z 0 I!!zgClO:l:J t--a: '" :I I!! i C2j ~~m8 ~QO ~ -' i! -' -' ~~~~...~~ II.I~:X: III C i! i! ~:;)cnli! '" I- III 0 I- g I- g ~~~~I~~ &&.&&. III I- Z Z ~ ~ 0;- C II: w II: '" II: 0 ! !i~l! :i :I ~ !i~l! :i :I !i !i~l! :i z III III m lL:i~l!l-,:i ~ t- t::: >- III >- ~ ~ >- j: ~ ~ '" ~ '" ~ ~ ....... cnO_z ~ ~ ~t-O;; i ~ ~ =':E~~e!:E ii: C II. II. CITY OF SHOREWOOD TAX IMPACT OF LEVYING FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS JUNE 30, 1992 TOTAL TAX CAPACITY RATE FOR 1991/92 CITY TAX CAPACITY RATE FOR 1991/92 124.997 20.164 CITY TAX CAPACITY RATE FOR EACH $100,000 OF TAX LEVY (using 1991/92 tax capacity figures) 1. 338 PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN CITY TAX CAPCITY RATE PER ADDL. $100,000 LEVY 6.640 PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN TOTAL TAX CAPCITY RATE PER ADDL. $100,000 LEVY 1. 070 EXAMPLES OF TAXES FOR EACH ADDITIONAL $100,000 TAX LEVY ------------------------------------------------------- MARKET VALUE TAX CAPACITY TOTAL 1991/92 TAXES TOTAL TAXES WITH ADDL. LEVY DIFFERENCE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $ 100,000 S 1,280 S 1,600 S 1,617 $ 17 150,000 2,455 3,069 3,102 33 200,000 3,705 4, 631 4,681 50 300,000 6,205 7,756 7,839 83 500,000 11,205 14,006 14,156 150 1,000,000 23,705 29,631 29,948 317 ',il-;".cU "jj !b:U,' _l~:H I-IFLS, l')j H1. , J.. '3 (18) ( 19)' le (20) le f I H~;Ja CI..\ (22) 1." .',- j:f ~ s't~~~'f.,,"'1 ~ ~ ~ - ..... 101.011 t81,OI '1t01 . I U .. ., ~ ~ ---.....-....-.- .--- . ;7; 4 ~ (?9: lOf a 115 !! . w t:~ ~ IO.Ot .101." 100 100 181.:11 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 MEMO TO: Mayor and City council A n I .; I ! i - FROM: James C. Hurm, City Administrator \J Ii V DATE: April 21, 1993 RE: Work Session Item 1B - Badqer/Woodhaven Wells ...-.. -tj The attachment is a cost analysis for the Badger/Woodhaven well systems for the year 1992. Badqer Well There are three obvious alternatives: 1) leave as a separate Shorewood water system; 2) hook the system up to the Tonka Bay water system; 3) hook the system up to the Excelsior water system. ~ The cost analysis indicate~ that Shorewood currently loses about $2,500 on the Badger system per year. We are facing future well repairs and a cost of approxiately $25,000 replacing the building which houses the well. To hook up to the Tonka Bay system we would literally have to only turn a valve. There would be a cost of approximately $7,000 for well abandonment or if our well were kept there would be the costs of building a new house for it and running the motor several times duriing the year. . . ' \ To hook up to the Excels10r system approx1mately 1,000 feet of 8 inch water main would have to be installed along with hydrants, valves, and pavement restoration. The cost estimate is approximately $42,200. An additional $7,000 for well abandonment would increase the cost to $49,200. Cost analysis indicates it would take approximately 10 years to reach a break-even point. Work Session 1B A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore .' Memo to Mayor and city Council - April 21, 1993 Badger/Woodhaven Wells Page Two . Woodhaven Well The Woodhaven Well lost approximate $830 in 1992. The first option is to leave the system as is. We would however be facing a cost of approximately $15,000 to rebuild the well pump in the near future. The second option is to connect the Woodhaven Well system to either Excelsior or Chanhassen. The cost 'would be similar in either case. The estimated cost of hook up to ei ther municipal system is $48,800. Because we are losing less than $1,000 per year the number of years to break-even is over 40. These memorandums will be explained by staff and discussed by the city council Monday evening. JCH.al Attachment i . . r .. APRIL 20, 1993 City of Shorewood BadgerjWoodhaven Well Cost Analysis For the Year 1992 Badger Woodhaven Revenue Water Sales Pro-rata Interest Water Connection Fees 5,458 234 20,000 4,911 211 -0- Total Revenue 25,692 5,122 Expenses Well Utilities Pro-rata Cornmon Expenses (Personnel, supplies, depreciation) Total Expenses 3,068 5,056 1,390 4,562 8,124 5,952 Net Revenue/Expense 17,568 (830) Less: Water Connection Fees (20,000) Net Loss (2,432) (830) Number of Connections 43 25 Future repairs/improvements Repairs to Well Rebuild Well Pump Approximate improvement cost 25,000 15,000 BREAK EVEN ANALYSIS OF BADGER/WOODHAVEN WELL ABANDONMENT AND CONNECTION TO OTHER WATER SYSTEK Cost to abandon well and connect to City of Excelsior water system Less: Future repairs* 49,200 (25,000) 48,800 (15,000) Excess cost to abandon Divided by annual net loss 24,200 2,432 33,800 830 Number of years to break even** 9.95 40.72 * NORMAL MAINTENANCE & REPAIR COSTS ALREADY FACTORED INTO NET REVENUE/EXPENSE ** MAY DIFFER IF CONNECTION IS MADE TO OTHER MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEMS, IE. TONKA BAY OR CHANHASSAN. BADGER WELL IS ALREADY INTERCONNECTED WITH TONKA BAY SYSTEM < , WORK SESSION AGENDA April 26, 1993 rlI1 i i 1 , i Vv A. STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - consideration of special Assessments 1. Task Force Recommendations - Presentation a) Why were special assessments recommended? b) How would special assessments be determined? c) How would street width be determined? 2. Policy Questions a) Procedures (pp. 7-15) b) policies (pp. 16-22) c) "Unit" and "Front Footage" methods (pp. 21-27) 'd) Deferred Assessments (pp. 28-31) B. BADGER/WOODHAVEN WELLS 1. Badger Well a) Financial Analysis b) Tonka Bay, Excelsior options c) Related issues 2. Woodhaven Well a) Financial Analysis b) Excelsior, Chanhassen options c) Related issues JCH.al 4/20/93 WORK SESSION Attachment #1 - A & B , ", , CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1993 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER MINUTES Chair Rosenberger ,called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Bonach, Hansen, Malam and Pisula; Planning Director Nielsen and Council Liaison Lewis, Absent: Commissioners Bean and Borkon. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Hansen moved, Pisula seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's March 16, 1993 meeting, as amended on Page 5, Paragraph 5, Line 3, "comments regarding a possible lawsuit against the City by KaUer." ... (added word underlined) Motion passed 5/0. PARK COMMISSION REPORT Steve Dzurak, Park Commission Chair, reported that the Commission has recommended to the Council that a City-owned parcel of land be sold and the proceeds be used to construct a warming house at Manor Park this fall. 1. 7:00 PUBLIC HEARING - VINE HILL MARKET - C.U.P. AND VARIANCES Aoolicant: Location: James Pyle 19215 State Highway 7 Chair Rosenberger announced the case of James Pyle, 19215 State Highway 7. Nielsen reviewed the background to the Applicant's request for a conditional use permit to install fuel pumps at the Vine Hill Market and for certain parking requirement variances. Nielsen noted that this is the Applicant's second request having withdrawn his previous requests prior to action by the Council. Nielsen reviewed the Applicant's current Proposed Site Plan and detailed the requested variances which include: aisle width variance/rear parallel parking; setback variance/northerly driveway to intersection; and setback variance/front parking. Nielsen outlined the staff analysis and recommendations contained in his memorandum dated April 1 , 1993. He noted that the City Attorney will be consulted regarding the title opinion related to the location of the east property line since the property line location is the basis for setback measurements. Nielsen stated that the grade problem cited in previous reviews is proposed to be resolved by eliminating the 1 , ~. , PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 6, 1993 - PAGE 2 front driveway and substantially filling the front of the lot to achieve maximum allowable grade on the parking lot. A retaining wall and berm will be constructed and professional landscaping will be added to the site. Nielsen reviewed alternative methods for corre~ting the 1: 1 slope grading proposed on the north side to a maximum 3: 1 slope., Nielsen explained the recommendation to eliminate the aisle width variance by limiting traffic circulation on the site to a one-way counter- clockwise pattern around the building. Nielsen referred to the Fire Marshal's April 6, 1993 letter outlining the requirements related to the location of fuel dispensing at service stations. Nielsen indicated the proposal meets those requirements and noted that the Marshal has indicated that a one-way traffic pattern would not interfere with required emergency access to the property. Nielsen explained that the setback variance required for the distance from the intersection right-of-ways is justified primarily because of the unusual lot configuration caused by Highway 7, which cuts off a corner of the subject site. In addition, he stated that removal of one driveway also provides for adequate distance from the right-of-ways. Nielsen stated that the variance requested for parking with a 5' setback in the front of the site does not appear to be justified. Compliance with the setback requirement of 15' however, eliminates the four parking spaces on the north end of the site which the puts the property into noncompliance with parking space requirements of the Ordinance. It was noted that under the Ordinance, spaces at the fuel pumps are not recognized as parking spaces. Nielsen noted that balancing the improvements made on the property against granting a variance for the number of spaces or for the setback would set a poor precedent. Nielsen suggested that if the City believes the Applicant's request has merit, it may wish to consider a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to reduce the parking requirement for convenience grocery stores with gas pumps. Nielsen stated that elimination of the steep driveway, reduction of the parking lot grade and confining access on Vine Hill Road to two driveways are considered to be substantial improvements to the Applicant's previous proposals. Since one of the variances can be eliminated by restricting traffic circulation to a one-way pattern behind the' building, but neither the setback variance for the parking or the variance for the number of spaces is justified, Nielsen recommended that the C:U.P. and variance request be tabled until an amendment to the Code for convenience store parking may be considered. Mr. Jim Pyle, the Applicant, pointed out that the lot is very nonconforming, small, angled and difficult to improve. According to Mr. Pyle, customers and the neighborhood support his proposal to add fuel service and to improve the property. He indicated that considerable expense and time have been put into the property for remodeling and improvements for the benefit of the City and its residents and that he is willing to further improve the property. Mr. Pyle pointed out that the proposed improvements will also provide traffic safety benefits for the community by eliminating cut-through traffic and hazardous conditions at the location. Pyle affirmed his 2 .; PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRil 6, 1993 - PAGE 3 relationship with the City of Shorewood as a resident and committed small business on-site owner/operator in the City. Rosenberger opened and closed the Public Hearing at 7:25 p.m. there being .no comments from the public. Malam requested clarification of the number of required parking spaces. Nielsen stated the Ordinance requires 9 for the store and 4 for the fuel operation for a total of 13 parking spaces. Malam requested clarification of the Ordinance regarding the spaces by the fuel pumps. Nielsen indicated the Ordinance states that the parking spaces cannot be used for other purposes, but must be exclusively designated for parking. Malam stated that with self-serve fueling, that space could be considered as parking because in essence, the vehicle is parked in the fueling space while the customer enters the store to pay for the gasoline purchase and most likely shop for other typical convenience store products. . Malam commended the Applicant for the proposed improvements. Malam and Rosenberger requested further clarification of the nature and implications of a Zoning text amendment. Nielsen stated that a specific study of convenience stores with gas operations would be conducted and any rules which may result and become part of the Ordinance would be administered uniformly. Hansen expressed concern about an Ordinance amendment designed to accommodate approval of this application. He indicated his opposition to amendments for unusual pieces of property and suggested that a long-range view of the issue is more appropriate. Nielsen responded that uses not anticipated have arisen since the ordinance was written and it is not intended to lower the requirements for this specific situation, but a study of the ordinance would examine the current applicability of the existing criteria. Hansen stated that to consider the possibility of decreasing the required number of parking spaces for such "mini-marts" appears inconsistent with the current trend of such operations becoming larger in size. Nielsen stated that the Ordinance requires 9 parking spaces for the convenience store. He clarified that the question is whether the installation of gas service requires that four additional parking spaces be provided. Nielsen reiterated that issue would be part of the study of convenience stores with gas operations. Hansen expressed concern regarding the proposed one-way traffic pattern. He pointed out that given the narrow aisles, congestion could result as vehicles jockey for the appropriate pump to access fuel tanks on the left or the right side of the vehicle. Nielsen described the one-way circulation system and acknowledged that there is not sufficient space to allow two cars to pass each other with the space allocated for the required four parking spaces. 3 ;. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 6, 1993 - PAGE 4 Mr. Jim Robins, attorney for the Applicant, explained that vehicles may still enter either the northerly or southerly driveway, pull into the property, shop in the store and still leave the property without becoming part of a line-up at the gas pumps. Mr. Pyle indicated he favors the one-way traffic pattern and did not anticipate any problems with circulation and traffic movement, given the relatively short "in and out" nature of the convenience store concept. Bonach stated that the current situation' at the subject location is unacceptable in terms of the traffic hazards. She supported the Applicant's proposal to improve the property and the neighborhood. Bonach questioned the need for 13 parking spaces and agreed that a review of the Ordinance was appropriate. Mr. Pyle indicated that during prime business hours, no more than 9-10 cars are on the property at the same time. Nielsen stated that while Shorewood's Ordinance appears to be consistent with those of other cities contacted, it is possible that the Ordinance needs to be reviewed and updated. Nielsen reviewed the procedures for considering an Ordinance amendment. Hansen cautioned that Ordinance amendments be considered in terms of the entire City of Shorewood and the long-term impact of any changes. Bonach supported investigating a change to the Ordinance since the Applicant does not have any alternative methods of meeting the current requirements of the Ordinance. Mr. Pyle indicated he intends to arrange for delivery of fuel during slack business hours to avoid traffic congestion on the lot. Pisula suggested that the Applicant investigate the possibility of leasing additional parking space from an adjacent property. Nielsen indicated that a shared use and a long-term lease for parking is feasible. Pisularequested clarification as to the proposed location of the fuel pumps. Mr. Pyle explained that the west side location provides for maximum use of the lot. He also pointed out that credit as a parking space at the fuel pumps is given in other cities. Rosenberger asked whether installation of the fuel pumps was contingent on approval of the site improvements. Mr. Pyle indicated that a determination of the economic feasibility of the improvements without the income from a fuel operation will have to be made. Rosenberger indicated that while he supported the improvements proposed for the property, he was reluctant to consider an Ordinance amendment since the Ordinance appears to be consistent with that of other cities. Malam supported study of the issue with a view to flexibility to changes that can be supported by research. Hansen stated that while he was willing to look at change, this piece of property simply cannot accommodate a use for which it is. physically unable to handle. 4 .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 6, 1993 - PAGE 5 Nielsen indicated it would be appropriate for the Applicant to pursue the feasibility of a long-term lease of parking on an adjacent property. Lewis noted that it is commendable that the Applicant has willingly worked with the staff to design the improvements to meet the requirements of the Ordinances. Hansen reiterated his concern regarding the potential problem regarding traffic congestion on the property and indicated that reducing the number of required parking spaces would not solve that problem. Malam pointed out that resolution of that issue involves a business decision by the owner in that if customers needs are not adequately met, they will take their business elsewhere. Malam moved, Bonach seconded to table the Applicant's conditional use permit and variance requests and recommended that the City staff initiate a study to determine if a revision of the zoning ordinance text regarding parking requirements for convenience grocery stores with gas pumps is warranted. Motion passed 3/2. Rosenberger and Hansen voted nay. 2. STUDY SESSION Transportation Plan Nielsen distributed a copy of a proposed bill before the State Legislature regarding changes in the replacement service program for transit services in the metropolitan area. He noted that the bill would allow cities to opt out of the transit system and provides an opportunity to consider other 'methods of providing bus service. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None. 4. REPORTS Councilmember Lewis reviewed actions taken by the Council at its March 22, 1993 meeting. 5. ADJOURNMENT Hansen moved, Malam seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Arlene H. Bergfalk Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial 5 f;' J, ::...:; :::DeA-FT CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1993 SHOREWOOD CITY HALL 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER Chairman Dzurak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Dzurak, Commissioners Andrus, Bensman, Laberee, Lindstrom, McCarty and Wilson; Administrator Hurm; Public Works Director Zdrazil; Park Planner Koegler and Park Secretary Niccum Absent: Commissioner Fuller and Council Liaison Benson APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of March 23, 1993 will be approve at the next meeting. FREEMAN PARK BUILDING Administrator Hurm informed the Commission that city Planner Nielsen, Public Works Director Zdraz~l, and himself had visited Freeman Park today to see how the new building has progressed. There was some question as to the location of the building in relation to the fence, City staff felt it was too close to the fence. It was to have been placed at least 6 feet from the fence. Hurm said the building should be done in approximately 3 weeks. Hurm also mentioned to the commission that if they wanted the color scheme and signage relatively similar on all planned buildings, a commi ttee of commissioners should work with the Little League. McCarty, Bensman and Laberee will do so. McCarty said she felt the buildings should be fairly unobtrusive. Laberee thought tones of gray would blend in. TENNIS COURTS Rollerbladinq on Tennis Court Administrator Hurm said kids have been rollerblading on the tennis courts and asked the Commission if they approve of this. The Commission discussed the possibility of damage with Park Planner Koegler who said rollerblading shouldn't hurt the court but jumping can. The Commission decided to allow rollerblading for the present but to keep an eye on it and take steps later if necessary. They would, however, like to have a sign posted giving priority to tennis players over rollerbladers. ~1 4. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1993 - Page two Tennis Court Windscreens Hurm said Niccum had received a call from Mr. Bill Hannan, an Amesbury Association President (474-4506). Mr. Hannan said the Association bought tennis windscreens, six 9' x 60' sections, at a cost of $1,400, used them twice, and discovered they did not need them. He was calling to see if the city of Shorewood would be interested in buying them for $500. The Commission discussed Mr. Hannan's offer and decided that they did not feel windscreens were necessary, that putting them in one area might set a precedence. They asked that Mr. Hannan be thanked for his offer. Park Planner Koegler left the meeting at 7: 30PM due to other commitments. RECOMMENDATION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 1993 Hurm and Koegler worked together to develop a proposed revised Park Improvement Plan which Hurm reviewed for the Commission. McCarty said people in her neighborhood want to do a sale and donate the proceeds toward playground equipment. She said they were ready to act now and suggested' moving Freeman playground equipment from 1994 to 1993. The Commission discussed the pro's and con's of doing the south end playground equipment or the north end playground equipment in 1993. The Commission also discussed whether or not to remove the Cathcart basketball court, and the tennis court. They will make the decision on removing the basketball court after the annual park tour. After discussing the tennis court, and figuring it might cost $3,000 to redo it but might cost $2,000 to remove it, they decided to leave in it until it needs major repair, probably 6-7 years from now. The Commission will be doing their annual tours of the parks at their next two meetings. They would like to have Park Planner Koegler' come along with the maps so they can discuss any possible changes on-site. McCarty, Bensman, and Dzurak will work as a playground equipment committee. i.l. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1993 - Page three DISCUSSION - CITY OF CHANHASSEN AGREEMENT FOR JOINT MAINTENANCE OF CATHCART PARK.................... WAS POSTPONED TO A LATER MEETING TWIN CITY TREE TRUST Mr. David Hawes, Director of Operations, was present. Hawes said Tree Trust is a small private non-profit organization that operates government work programs. They have been in business since 1977. They started with cutting trees with Dutch Elm Disease. They have done work in Hennepin, Ramsey, Washington, Scott and Dakota counties, and for the cities of Brooklyn Park, PlYmouth, Bloomington, and Minnetonka. Hawes said his crews are made up of males and females ages 14 through 21, and most of their work is done by hand. Each group is supervised. The City provides the material and they do the work. Transportation and insurance are taken care of by Tree Trust. He showed pictures of what his Tree Trust crews have accomplished, which included playground equipment, edging of playgrounds, bridges, trails, walls, flower boxes, landscaping, stairs, sign installation, hockey rinks, etc. He said youth can do some significant things if they are directed and supervised properly. If the City is interested, it is important that they act promptly and put together, on city letterhead~ a letter with a prioritized list of projects for consideration. ESTABLISHMENT OF ARBOR MONTH CEREMONIES The Commission discussed what to do for the Arbor Month Ceremony. They will have school children write an essay on "Trees are important because.........". They will have the winning children plant a tree in Freeman Park. The children will also win a tree of their own. The essay will be printed in the newspaper, and possibly the newsletter. Mary Bensman and Elizabeth Fuller will coordinate the effort. REPORTS Dzurak reported that he has talked to neighbors in the Silverwood Park area. They are pleased with the progress and"glad that the pond was enlarged the way it was supposed to be. Dzurak also attended the Planning commission meeting and informed the Commission that the Park commission approved of Planner Nielsen's suggestion to sell the lot on Academy Avenue to provide funds to build the Manor warming house building. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR None ADJOURNMENT Laberee moved, Lindstrom seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 PM. Motion carried - 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Susan Niccum, Park Secretary f MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Krist; Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 23 April 1993 RE: Senior Center - Zoning Issues FILE NO.: 405 (93.12) Per the Council's direction, the northeast corner of the Badger Field property has been examined for the possible location of a senior community center. Although the site has diminished somewhat (actual area is less than what is shown on old property maps) and the building has grown from 7000 square feet to 10,000 square feet, it still appears that a building and adequate parking can be situated on the site (see attached concept sketch). Our preliminary investigation raises certain planning and zoning issues: 1. While the sketch appears to work on paper, the site needs to be surveyed and soil borings must be obtained. Certain portions of the Badger Field property have extremely poor soil conditions. You have already earmarked CDBG money for this purpose and a proposed budget for the work has been provided under separate cover. 2. The portion of the site near County Road 19 is zoned R-2A, Single and Two-Family Residential. South of that is zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential. Both of these districts allow a community center by conditional use permit. The senior center task force has expressed a desire to accommodate an adult day-care operation (thus the increase from 7000 to 10,,000 square feet). Our current Code limits such uses in residential districts to 10 lOr fewer persons. Although the Code needs to be amended to address facilities serving more than 10 people (adult or otherwise), the R-IC and R-2A districts are not recommended for such activity. A solution to this is to rezone the site to R-C, Residential-Commercial. Given surrounding uses and zoning, this rezoning could be supported. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore ~ '" 3. The senior center task force has discussed renting out space in the new building for activities such as wedding receptions. While it is understandable that the task force is interested in something which would produce revenue, this type of activity raises - serious concerns for two reaons. First, it introduces a commercial element to the use of the property. Encouraging that type of traffic through a City park is not recommended. Secondly, it seems that wedding receptions inherently involve the serving of liquor. City. policy states that liquor can not be served on City property, and the City Code specifically prohibits liquor on park property. Other issues may arise as we continue the study of the site. The matter will be discussed at the Council meeting on 26 April. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me prior to the meeting. BJN:ph cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Joel Dresel . Nick Reuhl Bob Gagne - 2 - f ""- 10 --L \' \ "t, \ \ . ,"" ~ \ ~~ D 8' + ~ ( ~ , \" - - . '. -'-~~.t:.-e ~ . 1-0 , . ~ ~ .~ \J (' '---\(~f-(J -"---'" -........... .-------- , .-------- ----~ d:* ~, " ~. , d' ~ / .... ~ --1 I . t--- I I IZtS/Dt.N 77.t\L , \ \ \ \() \ ',0 c ~ W:::. .,;) ~ 0 E \ ~ :z ~ ~ -C) to ~.z. o \ \ \ \ , \ ~ \ & \ ::1: \ .. \ Z \. .. 7] F - - ~ ;t} -. ~ ~ ~ \ t __J , \ \ \ \ -- \ \ " \ " \ \ \\ \ \. \ \ \ ,~t: ~ \ ~., \~, r \ \ , \ \. \ \ \ , \. \ \ \ . \ I, ( \\ l\ L\- \ \ "- "\"""- "'-. " , \ \ I I . \ . I \ \ I \ I I , , \ \ I \ I , \ , \ --.~\ . . ~ I \ \ , , , I \ \ \ \ \ \ L- . \ \