The URL can be used to link to this page

062590 CC Reg AgP .. - (~ n:: " ... A CCT1'Y OF SHOREWOOD .. 'a REGULAR. CITYCOURCIL' MEETllfG ., MONDAY, JUNE 25, 1990 C9UlfCIL..... 5755 CO'O'11'flY. atUB aoo 7 :'30 PH ......-- ---------- AGENDA 1. CONVENE I .':30 flY! . A. Pledge of. A.llegiance B. Roll Call C. Review Agenda 57/4- V Wat~ '; StOftC Br8DCel Mayor. aaua. Gap 3 . APPEAL - NOTICE TO .1lEMOVE Location: 5970 AftoD Road Applicant: Micbael O'Brien A. June 4, 1990 -.CoDDcilWorksbop (Att. 12A.-Mi.u.>.>:, B. JUDe 11, 1990.... Regular City Council.Heetiog (Att. 12"1... Mi.ut..)....+k. "1JM S &-)~ 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. (Att .13 -App._l~f.Let:~l> 2; r~\< ." ..... ~f)"'lI/7;' CONTRACT WITH LHCDIDJIR FOR SHORELAND GRANT AGItEf.I1E)lT'c,-"\;Sr .. ~ (Att. 14 - Jun. 5 Lt...f~_,<UI.) . . ..' . '''1,. 1r>W~' ~ 5. PllOPOSALTO UPDATE_STER PLANS ANDCIP FOil PADS LUV~~~~ . (Att. #5 -June 8 L'Cr.fr_.l~ 6: ~~. . (Att. '.6 - ~,in.a.l. _'., a..f.t.....:..~>E.:............................. '. <..~............... (f/w~~~~~...~ 7. ~::~~=:FOR=~:I~=STlJl)Y .OF :::~~~~ Appl1cant: Petitroners l.k .Jf3-'b".~~.~ (Att. .17 -Pla.ner...~~) ~~;~?~Tfqc.~~~jct.;~ -l~<~;~ ...~. 8. MATTERS FROM THEFLOOll ri SBOREWOOD CCITY COUBCIL .AGElmA ~ ..TDliE 25, 1990 . . Page two 9. STAFF REPORTS A. ....... ~~::'.\:i": Plannina Director I.Coaplaintfollow-up - Dallman, 4830 Ferac...itflt....l1.J} 2. Status ofl:U8Opel Cbbre Laud.eap~ng . Wk-~~~~.\ (Att. 19A2 - ..ppll..~~,l_~..' B. City Att()rne~ 1. Resolution Approving setbac~~ varian. C_.. forT..Bj11Cf.......... 4715 Lakewa, . Terrace y!cJ tb~. ~ .'. (Att. 19B1 - ResQluti_>-" .,,' C. City Enaineer '. . . . ........ .......... ....,i "Y' 1. PreparatioDof FiDalCO$t for. Beariag oa Speei.1t.I'.~..""," District. Glen Road DraiDa~e ~I :;..,-.- Nr-C7Z1o/a.t~!)Q'../;,... (Att. #9Cl- 5110J~~'Lt't....; coat..,.....,. .. 2. Present Up-date on C-.prebeosive Watet* PlaW " .' c.", .. t-- d-~.~rcr D. ~~;~~ed~et.. witb CoUDeil~ 7t/[,V;f' - s 0 ~ c.r1L 1...4~ . >. COUN.CILUPORTS t.olJ.:--i:> ilJ)Itt-S . A. Mayor Haugen B. Council.ember's 10. 11. ADJOlIRMENT SUBJECT TO PAlHENT OF CLAIMS (Att. '11-Clai_Li.t), CALElmAR JUDe 29, 1990.....LHCDbegins review of Public Long range program. July 9, 1990.... .Regular Couneil Meeting July 16, 1990.....Council Workshop on Iron Rt1lIIIlOval: Elderly Housing July 25, 1990.....R.egular City CouDci.l Meeting CITY OF SHOREWOOD .'" COUNCIL STUDY SESSl MONDAY, JUNE 4, 1990 CO.' L CHAMBERS 57 OUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 PM l<IINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Haugen called the Council Study Session of Monday, June 4, 1990, to order at 7:30 PM. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Haugen, Councilmembers Gagne, Watten, Stover and Brancel; Administrator Whittaker; Public Works Director Zdrazil; and Assistant Clerk Niccum AGENDA REVIEW Add these items to the Agenda #4-1 LMCD Public Hearing - June 6, 1990 #4-J Citizen's Request - Water Connection #5-C T1F Notice APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 12, 1990 Gagne moved, Stover seconded, to approve the minutes of March 12, 1990, as written. Motion carried - 5/0. April 30, 1990 Gagne moved, Brancel seconded, to approve the Minutes of the April 30, 1990 Board of Review. Motion carried - 5/0. CONTRACT FOR RECORDING SECRETARY Gagne moved, Stover seconded, to approve a contract between the City and Kathleen M. Snyder, for Ms. Snyder to take minutes at the regular and ' special meeetings of the City Council and Planning Commission. Motion carried - 5/0. ' LIQUOR LICENSE - VINE HILL MARKET RESOLUTION NO. 46-90 Gagne moved, Brancel seconded, to a99Pt Resolution No. 46-90 _ "A Resolution Approving Non-intoxicating Malt Liquor License" for the Vine Hill Market, 12915 State Highway 1. Motion carried by roll call vote - 5/0. LIQUOR LICENSE - MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB RESOLUTION NO. 47-90 Gagne moved, Stover seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 47-90 - "A Resolution Approving Intoxicating Liquor License" for the Minnetonka Country Club, 24575 Smithtown Road. Motion carried by roll call vote - 5/0. -1- 4ft COUNCIL STUDY SESSI. MONDAY, JUNE 4, 199 Page two . LIQUOR LICENSE - AMERICAN LEGION POST 259 RESOLUTION NO. 48-90 Gagne moved, Brancel seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 48-90 - "A Resolution Approving Intoxicating Liquor License" for American Legion Post 259, 24450 Smithtown Road. Motion carried by roll call vote - 5/0. COMPOSTING/BRUSH PICK-UPjRECYCLING NEWSLETTER The Council reviewed information from R & W Rolloff Service, Inc. regarding yard waste and brush. Watten moved, Gagne seconded, to approve the disposal of "Yard Waste" and "Brush" as presented; and that a one-page notice, in a bright color, be sent out to all Shorewood residents. Motion carried - 5/0. DISCUSSION OF SCHEDULING AND PLANS FOR DISCUSSION OF ELDERLY HOUSING Gagne said the City needs elderly housing. He mentioned the small houses in the City of Minnetonka across from the "Marsh", and encouraged the rest of the Council to look at them. He said they are for people that are still mobile. The zoning is higher density, the pricing is reasonable, the yard work and snow removal is done, and they are close to stores. Stover said if the housing is limited to the elderly - no provisions are needed for children, less open land is needed, and there are usually security measures. for people that go south for the winter. Gordon Christensen mentioned a similar project done in Waseca, and offered to provide the Council with information. Gagne said he knows several people that are interested. He will do some research and return to the Council with the information. Stover said she felt it important that itwas made clear that the units be reasonably priced. Haugen asked Administrator Whittaker to -research the constraints. Whittaker said the zoning district does not allow density this high at this time. He also said there could be special standards for elderly housing (i.e. parking). Whittaker also said Larry Blackstad provided some information last year on elderly housing and he will c~eck into this. Watten said it would be nice if the housing could overlook a wildlife area. Haugen mentioned various properties in the City as possible locations. IRON REMOVAL STUDY - SCHEDULE AND PLANS Gagne mentioned a letter he received, and the feedback he has received, and said he feels this should be the only item on the agenda the evening it is discussed~ Whittaker asked the Council if they want to discuss this with Vogen first? -2- COUNCIL STUDY SESSI. MONDAY, JUNE 4, 199 Page three . IRON REMOVAL STUDY - SCHEDULE AND PLANS Brancel asked that Tonka Bay be contacted to find out if they are satisfied with their system, and if not, why not, and what the problem areas are. Whittaker will check on this. Whittaker mentioned the questionnaire sent to S.E. Area residents, and said 60%-75% didn't respond. He said its possible that the majority already have home treatment. Watten suggested making it a requirement of future development contracts to have the developer install water treatment in the homes. Whittaker will contact McNulty to see if they put water treatment systems in the Amesbury homes. Stover discussed the assessment policy, saying she attended a meeting a long time ago when Staff discussed this. She said no decision was reached, and the discussion took 8 hours. Whittaker suggested an informational meeting to get input from the citizens. on this proposal for iron removal in the S.E. Area. There.will be a meet:ing on Iron.Removal on. Monday, July 16, 1990. GLEN ROAD DRAINAGE - SCHEDULE & PLANS Gagne said there is a meeting tomorrow evening, June 5, at 4:30 PM, at the Minnetonka Community Center. Glen Road Dra~nage is the second item on the agenda. He will do his best to attend. Gagne asked Whittaker to send copies of the May 10, 1990, report from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to David Littlefield, and the neighbor to Littlefield's east, stating that it is informational material. Gagne said we are going to do something - who is going to pay? Haugen said OSM has suggested for many years that we have districts, and those districts encompass the area from which the water flows, and the areas to which the water flows. Stover said this would have to include areas in other cities. It could be more than one city's problem. Gagne asked Whittaker to check with Golden Valley and see how they assess. Watten said he feels the City has an obligation to protect the people in situations like this. Haugen said there is a method to assess for surface water problems over a period of years. It has to be spent within a certain period of time on certain projects. The Nephew water problem was discussed. Watten suggested having the City Attorney determine what the City can do. Stover said the Council has to determine how much to set aside, and how to -3- COUNCIL STUDY SESSI. MONDAY, JUNE 4. 199 Page four . GLEN ROAD DRAINAGE DISCUSSION - continued determine who is elibible. Whittaker said the General Fund will not support an overall City storm v.later program. Gagne said be wants to get Engineer Norton involved. Whittaker will ask Norton to get estimates together, if it isn't too expensive, for the next meeting. He will also remined him of the Shore~lood Apartment owner's offer to give land for a pond, and ask him to consider whether a smaller, deeper permanent pond would work. The Council will wait for comments from tOIDorrow'smeeting. They will continue discussion at the next meeting. DISCUSSION - OPTION ON BISHOP PROPERTY Whittaker said the Staff has had difficulty dealing \lith Mr. Bishop. Haugen asked Zdrazil to talk to Bishop and ask him to have his attorney contact the City. The Council will continue the discussion after Zdrazil talks to Mr. Bishop. Council Break - 9:00 - 9:09 PM COUNCIL POSITION ON ISSUES RAISED BY THE PARK COMMISSION Use of Park Planner/OSH for Park projects Whittaker said the role of the City Engineer has to be defined better. We have to decide if an Engineer is needed for parks and, when will we get as good, or better, service from and landscape architect, park planner, or other expert. We should decide if OSM is the best engineer for the job. We paid considerably more than some projects than \le thought it should cost and still had an enormous number of problems. This issue came up again this Spring when the Park Commission considered irrigation in Freeman Park. The Park Commission asked for an estimate, from the Park Planner, to review the irrigation specifications that vlere prepared by Toro and presented by George Haun and see if they were adequate and if they could be bid out. Whittaker called Watten that Friday and asked if that would be adequate or if we would need proposals from OSM and the Park Planner? He thought they agreed that they didn't want to have a bidding contest every time there was a project, and a landscape architect could handle the irrigation. They also discussed whether a landscape architect cound do irrigation, trails, fences, and other park related projects. ~vhittaker said Van Doren Hazard Stallings, particularly Koegler, has probably done 10-15 of these in the past 5 years. Watten said, but, they also have civil engineers who can sign off on the plans, if necessary. Whittaker said there is a civil engineer \iith that firm. Whittaker then asked Koegler for an estimate. At the next meeting the Council said to get an estimate from OSM. ~fuittaker -4- 'COUNCIL STUDY SESS~ MONDAY, JUNE 4, 199f'!' Page five . COUNCIL POSITION ON ISSUES RAISED BY THE PARK COMMISSION Use of Park Planner/Osm for Park Projects - continued said he feels Koegler is better qualified to do this work than OSM because they specialize in this field. OSM are primarily civil engineers and their IDain work is in sewer, water and streets. Watten said as long as OSr.'l has the engineering contract ,he thinks they should do all the engineering. He felt that otherwise RFP's should be sent out. Haugen said that was basically done with the parks because of the problems that happened with the fences and the ballfields. Watten and Stover both said that Koegler had been retained as the "Park Planner". Brancel asked what role each has, she said she did not think it was the intention that aSM would supervise Van Doren Hazard Stallings. She said because the Park Commission did not like .the results they tvere getting from aSM, they asked the Council to hire someone else to do the work in the parks, someone that had more park experience. She thought the intention was to put them side by side, so the Park Planner/Landscape Architect would do the park work, and aSM would do the other work, and they would be on an equal level. Watten said the City could go to the registering body in the State and get the determination on what the responsibilities are. He thinks the Council should have definitions if they are going to talk about it, otherwise they are just opinions. Gagne said this whole thing came up because we have a City Engineer that, in the Park Commission's opinion, was not doing what they were supposed to be doing, and when they did it, they did it at three times the cost of anyone else. He said it partly their opinion and partly his opinion that they were overpaying and running into numerous problems. They then said let's see if we can get a firm to do work on parks. He said the RFPs were put out. Gagne said time after time he has been concerned about the cost with OSM. Watten said aSM is the City Engineer and he has aa contract. "toThittaker said he does not think aSH is the right engineer to do things efficiently and well in the parks. There has been poor design, poor inspection, outrageous costs. ~ve asked George Haun' s opinion because he was independent of Shorewood. We asked if it was a good design? Is this what should have happened here? Is this adequate now? All the answers to these questions were no. Watten said they run into that all the time in his business. There is always someone that can do it without certification. Haugen said Haun had been supervising park projects in St. Louis Park for many years. Watten said there are all kinds of , opinions out there. Haugen said that's why they have experts in different fields. Watten said he thought NOrton and his boss should sit and discuss this vii th the Council. ~vhi ttaker said he thought the Council should agree on its position before inviting the Engineer to react. Watten didn't feel the Council needed to take a position before they talk to OSM. Gagne said a decision has to be made on Park Projects. He said for a year he represented the Park Commission and listened to a lot of the things going on. He was involved in a portion of the interviews. He said the Council knows that the Park Commission is and advisory body to the City, but they are also 7 people that have good common sense. They kept drawing Gagne's attention to the fact that too much was being paid. The firms interviewed tvere asked what the fence work would cost. -5- ,COUNCIL STUDY SESS~ l:lONDAY, JUNE 4. 19~ Page six COUNCIL POSITION ON ISSUES RAISED BY THE PARK COMMISSION Use of Park Planner/O~t for Park Projects - continued and they were all half cost or less. He said you would think someone else would be high, or close, but no one was. Then he started thinking - these people on the Park Commission are all in business in the real world, we are representing our citizens, and we have to think we are doing it right. Gagne moved. Brancel seconded. that because Van Doren Hazard Stallings was hired to do the work in the parks. tbat they be allowed to do all work in parks. including engineering. Haugen said it has been her experience over the years that many firms will set their prices low to begin with, and raise their prices after they are established. She said she is not saying Van Doren Hazard Stalling is going to do this, she is just making a statement. Stover said she agrees that neither OSM nor Van Doren Hazard Stallings should have control over the other. She does fee!' that the engineering responsibilities should be handled by the City Engineer, and those things that are park planning should be handled by the Park Planner. She said you could have a park planner that is not an engineer. Brancel said that's true. but it should be left up ~o the Park Planner, if he needs an engineer he can go to an engineer. She did not care who but did not want to pay extra for an outside engineer. Gagne said the Park Planner does have his own engineer, but, you know that the use of this engineer would be included in his price. Stover, using the City Planner and City Attorney as an example, said the Park Planner and the City Engineer should be able to work together and respect each other's opinions. Gagne asked Stover if she thought we are getting the right things from our City Engineer? Stover said she didn't think that was the question right now. Brancel said the Park Planner should ask for the City Engineer's input if he needs it. However, it sounds like he hasn't needed the Engineer yet. If he does, he should work with OSM. Stover said next January the Council has the opportunity to make any changes necessary. Whittaker said actually the Council has that option any time. All the contracts have this type of clause in them. Stover said she didn't think the City should expect a person hired as one thing to do something else. Gagne said he has a different opinion. Watten said he thinks when these people were intervietved by tbe Park Commission, he feels there tvas a great amount of pique established in the Park Commission against Norton and his tasks, and lack of completing tasks. Gagne said "thats right". Watten said they were looking for a Planner, and he thins, it's an opinion, that the fact that this person was an engineer also had an impact on the selection. Stover said with everyone else that has been hired by the City, the Counci1 has interviewed them, and has some idea of who they hired, why they were hired, and what they expect these people to do. She said that because the Council didn't have anything to do with this, all she knows is what she thought the City wanted from a Park Planner. She -6- . COUNCIL STUDY SESSI. MONDAY, JUNE 4, 199 Page seven . COUNCIL POSITION ON ISSUES RAISED BY THE PARK COMMISSION Use of Park Planner/OSM for Park Projects - continued thought that had something to do with professionalism in the overall park plan, which the Park Commission has been charged with the respons- ibility of doing, and they've done a fine job, they're growing and getting more sophisticated, and this would be an asset, like the Planning Commissio having a Planner, the Park Commission would have a Planner. She did not think they were saying let's go out and compete with our Engineering firm in any way, shape or form. She said, as she said before, the Planning Commission Planner and the Attorney work well together, and she thinks it would be very nice if these people could do that. She said Norton suggested sprinkling the whole area. She thinks these are the tinks a Park Planner and the Engineer could sit and talk about. Then they could come together with a unified idea for the SLAff and Council, as other Staff does. ~1$S/~ Stover said she doesn't think the Council should sit and make individual decisions on whether it needs an Engineer. She said this is something the Administrator should know. She said the Council has worked so hard for so long to get the Park Commiss ion to do something v7i thout trying to save every dollar all the time. Everything free has always ended up costing money. Watten said in his career he has probably been involved in about 20 schools. They all involve playgrounds, football fields, and the like. In some cases, when new things come up, they go to a Park Planner Con- sultant. The Consultant would then come in and advise them what to do. He was still the Contact person. He said this is the way it should work, if one has the contract, the other ~s the consultant. Whittaker said he thought it was clear from the beginning that the Park Commission was looking for someone to do most of the work. According to George Haun, and other cities, most of the work does not require engineering. However, the Commission also said they did not want OSM involved in the parks. The Commission believes the Park Planner could complete most of the plans for parks. He said in their mind, and in his mind, they did not need OSM to put up fences, for instance. Stover said if an engineer is not needed, thatls fine; but, if you do need an engineer, OSM should be used. Whittaker said that ideally this would work; but, if you go to Norton and ask him if an engineer is needed for ball park fe~ces, he will say yes"l-lhi ttaker, referring to Van Doren Hazard Stallings, said the capaci ty for engineering was not even there a year ago. They were Park Planners/ Landscape Architects. A partner of theirs in Kansas City ha~e~: bean engineering firm. For years they have been basic park palnner~ landscape architects. We were nt looking for engineering wor . , we did the RFP's, we said we wanted them to be able to plan, to prepare for public heari~ to help us put together the financial package and sell that. He t~ks it was the general opinion of the Park Commission, and everyone else, that you don't need a civil engineer to do these things. Irrigation systems are a little more risky, but ~ have been putting them in for years, allover the cities. They've ~igned and built entire parks. Whittaker said there seems to be a real territorial problem with OSM. He said if he had gone to the engineer in Lake Elmo and asked if they needed an engineer to do irrigation for ballfields; be'd have said "no, -7- COUNCIL STUDY SESS~ "MONDAY, JUNE 4, 19~ Page eight . COUNCIL POSITION ON ISSUES RAISED BY THE PARK COMMISSION Use of Park Planner/OSK for Park Projects - continued I don't think so, but be concerned about these three issues, and that's what you have to tell the Planner". He said he did not think you would get that kind of answer from Norton. Haugen said she thinks you are going to find, after a while, a paternal attitude, which is a good feeling, and that's fine. But, the Council has also hired Whittaker to make sure that things are going right. When we hired him, we said we \lanted someone that had experience, and knew what he was talking about, someone who has done certain things in parks, construction, and planning. She siad she is going to change her mind on this. We have a Park Planner and he is doing park projects. That's what we hired him for. When the question is called, she will vote for the motion. Stover said her recollection was that one of the reasons this Planner \'las hired vlaS because of the potential for a park referendum, and this might require a salaried person, as opposed to the volunteers. Whittaker said we wanted someone who knows how to market and package. Stover asked for clarification of the motion. Gagne said his motion - after having work with the Park Commission for a year - was to have the Park Planner be totally responsible for park projects. Stover and Watten had a problem \'1i th this. Watten said that's a personal opinion after what has transpired in dollars and cents. Watten said you have to look at all the dollars and cents, which he had not reviewed. He said maybe these proposals should be compared to see if there is a difference. Gagne said there's a sharp difference on the prices that he has right in front of him --.Koegler wants a total 9f $3,000 to do the irrigation. Norton wants $3,700 plus inspection and staking. Koegler's price includes staking and inspection in his $3,000 price. Stover still feels very strongly that the Park Planner should use the City Engineer if engineering is needed. mlittaker said if Norton had not been put on the defensive a year ago, or put himself in a position where he had to defend himself, this conver- sation probably wouldn't even be taking place. Then he 't'lould probably be willing to work with the Park Planner like he has worked with the rest of the Staff. He may not have asserted himself as he has on these park issues. But, he has defended what Whittaker said he would consider indefensible positions over the past year. Whittaker says he still thinks he's a very good civil engineer. He's doing ~ good job on our streets, our water system, our sewer system, our lift stations - the things that a civil engineer does. But he doesn't think he has as much expertise in park projects. We do need somone who can say that, in this design, there is detailed work that has to be done by a civil engineel We can advise Van Doren Hazard Stallings that adjustments to City systems, like hooking into the water system or other things that require civil engineering must be approved by OSM. Koegler wants to stay in business. He doesn't want to be sued by OSM for practicing without a license or signing off on plans and specs he shouldn't have. Koegler is very reason- able, very sharp, and has lots of experience with the planning we are talking about. The Park Commission is comfortable with him. Whittaker said he will advise Ko~that engineering has to be done by OSM at this time. He said he thi ~basic opinion - leading~and planning that the Park Commissio an~ do - has to be done by someone other than OSM as the Park Commission is not comfortable with OSM. , -8- .COUNCIL STUDY SESS. MONDAY JUNE 4, 199 Page nine . COUNCIL POSITION ON ISSUES RAISED BY THE PARK COMMISSION Use of Park Planner/OSM for Park Projects - continued Stover said that's why they decided to hire a Park Planner. Motion denied - 2 ayes - 3 nays (Haugen, Watten and Stover). Stover moved, Watten seconded, that the Park Planner/Landscape Architect do all the work in parks, and is the person hired to do this kind of work without going out for bids, except when an engineer is needed, the City Engineer will be used. Haugen said this is the way it should be until the Council, as a whole, decides they want to change Engineers. Stover said that's why she did not say Norton, she just said City Engineer. Gagne said the Council is approving an "open checkbook". Brancel said they are putting the Park Commiss'ion 'right back 't'lhere they started. They did not want to deal with Norton at all. Stover said what she is understanding from Whittaker is that the majority of the things the Engineer used to do in the parks can be done by the Park Planner. . Gagne said the majority of the Council is ready to support a motion offering an "open checkbook" to OSJ:vl, l.]atten disagreed. Motion carried - 3 ayes - 2 nays (Gagne and Brancel). IrriRation of Freeman Park Ballfields GaRne moved, Brancel seconded, to accept the proposal from Van Doren Hazard StallinRs for the irriRationsystem'for the ballfields in Freeman Park at a cost not to exceed $3000. Watten said he wasn't sure whether or not the irrigation system needed an Engineer. Haugen said from what Whittaker says, they are capable of doing this. Whittaker said he didn't think they would have done an estimate on it if they were uncomfortable with it. Whittaker said when he asked Van Doren Hazard Stallings for an estimate on the irrigation system, he was not asking them to bid against OSM. He said the Council requested this at the next meeting. He asked the Park Planner because he thought it was the logical thing to do. Watten said he \vould like to clarify that he is not specifically refer- ring to OSM. He just feels the engineering should be done by the City Engineer, whoever that may be. Motion carried - 5/0. Park Commission Chairman's Comments Haugen noted that the Chairman of the Park Commission, Gordon Christensen, was pr~n~~d~asked him if he cared to make any comments on the statement "that ~~.fYlg;pofficials would have a harder time adjusting to the decision regarding the Park Planner's role and the Engineer's role. She asked him what he thought. Christensen said yes, he thought this was true. He said the Park Commis- sion had made a strong motion to the City Council stating that they -9- COUNCIL STUDY SESSI. MONDAY, JUNE 4, 199 Page ten . COUNCIL POSITION ON ISSUES RAISED BY THE PARK COMMISSION Park Commission Chairman's Comments - continued did not wish to work with OSM in the parks at all. He said he didn't know where the Park Commission would go. He said he had specifically not raised his hand, or tried to interfere in any T,lay. However, as long as he has been asked, he said he feels the engineer would be in- volved in near~)l very park project, being an engineer himself. He said he doesn' ~ow what the decision of the Park Commission will ultimately be. e knows the opinions of the Park Commission. He said the Park Commission had wanted to have their own person because of costs. He said they approached Freeman Park with a whole structured plan which was properly done and fully organized. They had organizational charts and budgets carefully prepared. He said they encountered gross negligence, malpractice, and just multiple problems. As a result, being an advisory body to the City, our advice was that the City retain a different engineer for the parks- not the City - 6nly the parks. The kind of people we have on the Park Commission -- 3 small business owners, a business executive, an employee at the University of Minnesota Arboratum, and myself, a registered professional engineer -- we aren't a group of people that just want to pass things through regardless of the way the City is affected. He said he doesn't know what will happen when the joint meeting comes up. Haugen said they'll find out when they get there. Gagne said the final decision is made by the Council, whether he agrees with it or not. Christensen said that's absolutely right - he is just replying because he was asked for comments. He said the only reason he is here is because he is replacing Wilson as liaison. Update on Master Plans, AuthorizinR overall Trail Plan, and CompletinR Park Capital Improvement Plan Whittaker explained that the Park Commission is currently getting estimates from the Park Planner to bring the master plans of the parks up-to-date, to include all proposed improvements. The Planner will also present estimates for an overall trail plan for the City, and one for completing the Park Capital Improvement Plan. 1990 Capital Projects Whittaker said the major 1990 priority items are: Silverwood Park.. .... ........$ 150,000 (Completed). Cathcart Park.... ..... ....... 40,000 (Ballfield relocation & pkg.) Freeman Park-Little League... 24,000 (Completion) Freeman Park-lrrigation...... 40,000 (Cqmpletion - three softball) Total.......$ 244,000 Haugen asked if all the items in all the parks have been prioritized? Watten said these are items the Commission thinks should be done in 1990, this doesn't mean they have to be done today. Gagne said when the S.E. Area questionnaire was sent out, the priorities were set for Silverwood Park. He also pointed out that the majority of the people in that area don't want the park done "piecemeal". Whittaker said there are also people who have lived next door to parks for 20 years and seen very little improvement. -10- . COUNCIL STUDY SESS. MONDAY, JUNE 4, 19 Page eleven . COUNCIL POSITION ON ISSUES RAISED BY THE PARK COI~ISSION 1990 Capital Projects Watten suggested Staff estimate the impact of a referendum on parks for property owners, it might not be very much. Gagne said the Park Planner was hired to get everything together for a referendum. This may take a year or longer. Niccum said the Park Commission is working on it now, they want to up-date the master plans, prepare a capital improvement plan, and bring the entire plan to the Council. Gagne said the Park Commission feels that there should be more than a ~trickle of money set aside for improvements. Niccum said this can't be accomplished with park dedication fees alone. Stover said, given the current economic conditions, if this is done for parks, something else will have to be removed from another area. Gagne said the Park Commission knows that there are some funds available. Watten said there has to be money available somewhere. Commission By-laws Haugen asked the staff to review the By-laws and present the recommended revisions to the Council. Whittaker said Mound's by-laws make it clear Park Commission recommendatior are advisory. He said the clause on planning recommendation is not as clear, but it's understandable. He said applications for appointments normally go to the City Council, rather than the Commission. The Council vsually picks a group of applicants, and then the Commission screens them. Watten asked how the Planning Commission works. Stover said the Council does the whole thing. Whittaker suggested: 1. Applications will go to the Council for review - they will then pass the ones they think are suitable to the Commission for review. 2. Resignations will go to the Mayor. 3. The Council will inform the Commission of vacancies. 4. The City Staff will consult with the Chairman on the agenda. Whittaker will outline this for the Park Commission, then return to the Council T,V'ith their comments. Operatin~ Bud~et to include maintenance of facilities This will be included in the budget discussion. Use of Parks for Political Groups Haugen said a political group called her aIld asked if they could hold a political function in the park. Council expressed concern over clean- up and legal problems. Haugen asked Whittaker to check with Mound. Council discussed a permit. Whittaker cities often require a permit and a bond for group reservations in the park. -11- . COUNCIL STUDY SESsa MONDAY, JUNE 4, 19~ Page twelve . Meetin~ Len~th - 11:00 Rule The Council discussed the 11:00 Rule. Haugen said the Council has never restricted the time citizens have to speak. Watten said public comment could be limited. Stover said it may be difficult to put a e limit on all public input. Watten said he would be willing to .~ at Council rules of order to shorten meetings. Stover would like time to be a little later, like an 11:30 rule. Haugen suggested going by the tape times: two hour segments. Gagne moved, Watten seconded, to adopt the 11:00 rule with the condition that the topic under discussion be concluded; and the normal closing procedure be observed - payment of bills and adjournment. Motion carried - 3 ayes - 2 nays - (~and'~c:&u~en). .~7{) 0..)1t77't-~ Stover moved, Watten seconded, tha the 11:00 rule can be over-ridden by a 4/5 vote. Motion denied - 2 ayes - 3 nays (Brancel, Gagne and Haugen). The Council asked Whittaker to draft rules of order for Council meetings. Locatin~ Clay Tile Whittaker said he discussed this with the Engineer, Attorney and Planner, and their feeling was that the City shouldn't get involved. Whittaker suggested calling Witrak and advising him to use Visu Sewer. He also said the law requires preserving the drainage tile. The Attorney will be asked to report on the law. Policy on Code Violation Complaints Haugen asked if violation letters should be sent out? Gagne said he understands the City works on a Complaint basis only. The Council agreec to leave it this way. Whittaker said if you are not persistantly pursuing every code violation, you can be accused of discrimination. LMCD - Lon~ Term Mana~ement Pro~ram Gagne said there is a meeting at the Minnetonka City Hall on June 6, Wednesday - with one meeting at 1:00 and one at 7:00, to receive public input. Rascop said if this thing is going to work, everyone will have to give a little bit. Haugen said, she went to every meeting they had, and her opinion was that the LMCD was bullying what they wanted through. She said the U1CD consultant appeared to disregard the requests of the Mayors and City representatives. They also wanted to expand the board membership to include the DNR, Hennepin County, Hennepin County Parks, and the Watershed Districts, when the City representatives said bring some money with you, the organizations said they didntt have any. Haugen said Brad had been asked to review and see if anything conflicted with Shorewood Ordinances. She would like that information as soon as possible. ~CONNECTION CHARGE - ASSESSMENT REQUEST Bob Berg, of 26900 Beverly Drive, is disabled, his well went dry, and he is asking for an assessment to be spread over a period of years to -12- COUNCIL STUDY SE~~N MONDAY, JUNE 4, ~ Page thirteen . WELL CONNECTION CHARGE - ASSESSMENT REQUEST - continued Gagne moved, Watten seconded, to assess Bob Berg, 26900 Beverly Drive, for $4,000 plus 8% annual interest for a period of 5 years for hooking up to City water on the Boulder Bridge system. Motion carried - 5/0. SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY Gagne moved, Stover seconded, to refuse the invitation of the Suburban Rate Authority to join their organization. Motion carried - 5/0. GLEN ROAD AND MANITOU ROAD DISCUSSION Gagne vlill tell Mrs. Wendt, who. is complaining about speeding, that the Council disagrees with the stop sign, but they will have the police department patrol the area on Friday and Saturday nights, from 7:30 to 9:30 PM. RECYCLING PLASTICS AND GRASS CONTROL ' Brancel said most programs now are pilot programs. In 1991, the cities recycling contract will start a pickup (weekly) of recyclable plastics. The cost will be $.30 per household per month. The Council felt this should be conveyed to the residents. They feel the residents have to be educated regarding recycling. Brancel said this should be turned back over to Kennelly, as she is dealing with the company. Brancel said she thinks grass over 6" should have to be cut, and this should be written into the Ordinance. Brancel moved, Gagne seconded, to direct Zdrazil to pick up the debris and cut the grass at 25535 Birch Bluff Road. The cost is to be certified to the taxes. Motion carried - 5/0. The Council \lill discuss the grass issue at another meeting. ADJOURNMENT Gagne moved, Stover seconded, to adjourn to an executive session 11:57 PM to discuss pending litigation and employee discipline. carried - 5/0. The Council reconvened Watten moved, seconded Motion carried - 5/0. at Motion the Regular City Council meeting at 12 :06 AM. by Gagne, to adjourn the meeting at 12:07 ML RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Sue Niccum Assistant City Clerk Jan Haugen Mayor Laurence E. Whittaker City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD . REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES. JUNE 11. 1990 colc I L CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PAGE 1 M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER Mayor Haugen called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Haugen opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Haugen. Counc i lmembers Gagne. Stover. Brance I and Watten; Administrator Whittaker. Attorney Froberg. Engineer Norton. Planner Nielsen. Finance Director Rolek. Haugen read a letter from Coldwell Banker saying that they would be placing flags on the lawns around the City the evening of June 13th to commemorate flag day. Haugen said if residents objected they should call Coldwell Banker. AG ENDA R..EY.J_EN Gagne moved. Watten seconded. to approve the Agenda with the following amendments: 1. Add Planning Commission Report as item 3 B on the Consent Agenda and the Park Commission Report as item 3 C. 2. Delete item 4 D. 3. Item 18 C is an update on the Hanson/Wittman lawsuit. 4. Item 18 E no. 3 is the agenda for the workshop and item 4 is a discussion of the Block Grants. Motion carried - 5/0. APp'ROV~L Q:e_I1INUTE~ Brance I moved. Gagne seconded. to approve the Minutes for the Counci I Workshop of May 7. 1990 with the following amendment: . 1. Change page 6. paragraph 2 (add if). Motion carried_- 5/0. Brancel moved .Gagne seconded.to approve the RegUlar Council Meeting Minutes of May 14. 1990 with the following amendment: 1. Page 6.paragraph 4. should read (they all approve). Motion carried - 5/0. MAYOR HAUGEN - QUESTIONS 1. Mayor Haugen asked Planner Nielsen if he had the paperwork from Mr. Prescher at Plumbline Bldr. He said they received the paperwork. but it was inadequate. Attorney Froberg stated that. subsequently the paper work had come in and the easements were obtained. The Resolution was released on Friday. June 8. 1990. 1 di3 CITY OF SHOREWOOD ~ REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES. JUNE 11. 1990 C.CIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PAGE 2 2. Haugen asked Administrator Whi ttaker if he had received an estimate for the fencing around Manor Park from Public Works Director Dradzil. He said he had not. 3. Haugen asked Whittaker about Brackets Rd. Mr. Whittaker said they had drafted a letter to the responsible party and asked them to repair the road before the street overlay project begins. CONSENT AGENDA Gagne moved. Stover seconded. the approval of the Consent Agenda. approving a street light request at Strawberry Lane and Peach Lane. Motion was carried - 5/0. PLAl:iN I NG_ COl\'~U ss :(.QN__RE.PORI. Councilmember Stover explained that a number of Planning Commission i terns would be on the agenda later. Stover said that the Commission was concerned about the condition of Timber Lane. Engineer Norton indicated that he had looked at the road and decided not to proceed with any rebuilding at this time because it will require extensive work. It is still on his agenda. Stover said the Planning Commission would be working on an Ordinance to restore forested areas and require replacement of trees that are cut. .S I MPLE SUBD I V I S IONLLOT. AR.EA- VARll\!Il.C.E._-=_. :R.QNALD _...M!.L~LEN~A CH FESOLUTION NO. 49-9Q Stover moved. Gagne seconded. to adopt REpOLUTION NO. 49-90. .. A Resolution Approving a Simple Subdivision and Lot Area Variance for Donald Mullenbach." Motion carried - 5/0 on roll call vote. ~OND I T I ONAL-JLSE P E..B.M.LT--="..Rl~H}tB.:R.__G_AX RESOJ;.,UT tillf_RO '__ 56=2..Q. Gagne moved. Wa t ten seconded. to adopt B..ESQL!.IT1QN NO. 5k2.Q...t-" A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for Additional Accessory Space For Richard Gay." Motion carried - 5/0 on roll call vote. ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS - BRE~BJ_QGE_ RESOLUTION NO. 5~-~Q Stover moved. Gagne seconded. to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 54-90. .. A Resolution To Accept Improvements in the Plat of Brentridge." Motion carried - 5/0 on roll call vote. 2 CITY OF SHOREWOOD . REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES. JUNE 11. 1990 C~NCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PAGE 3 PAYMENT VOYCIIEIL.NQ",-~JND Flli~~_P~X!"IENT.L RESOLUTION ACC~PTING StREET APPURTENANT ~ORK.PROJECT NO. 89 - 1. ~ESOLUTION NO. 5~-90 OVERLAY A~jQ Brance I moved . Gagne seconded. Resolution Authorizing Final Appurtenant Work. Project 89-1." Motion carried - 5/0 on roll call to adopt Resolution No. 55-90. Payment for Street Overlay "A and vote. ~ I NNETONKA SCHOQ.L-P-I S':(R I C'LREOUE.ST FOIL TAX-FO..RFEITEQ PROP;ERTi PRESENTER: TOM BERGE LOCATION: SMITHTOWN RD. HESSLLJIT 19NJlQ~Q..-9 Q Tom Berge. Director of Business Services, Minnetonka Schools presented a proposal from the Minnetonka School District to purchase the tax- forfeited property adjacent to Minnewashta School. He requested that the Council remove this property from the tax- forfeit list and authorize sale of the property to the District for expansion of the school. Stover questioned the ownership of the adjacent property. Mr. Berge said the School District's attorney had reviewed the title and there was no question the land belongs to the District. Stover - do the property owners surrounding the school know about this purchase? Mr. Berge felt there would be no impact on them. The school would expand to the playground area behind the existing school. Haugen - who would get the proceeds from sale? Froberg - after the sale the prior taxes are cancelled. The money would be distributed between the city. county and school district. Planner Nielsen - ownership of property. has this been resolved with the county. as far as changing maps? Mr. Berge - it has been turned over to attorney. Nielsen - the school expansion will require a C.U.P. so that everyone within 500 ft. of the site will be advised of the plans. Stover moved, Gagne seconded, to adopt RESOLUTI.ON NO. 5!1::-.9._Q..... "A Resoluti08PprOVing the sale of tax- forfeited property PID NO. 32- 117-23-24 ~ 1 to the Minnetonka School District . Engineer ton - this property has been identified as possible site for a water tower. Stover - can we retain one acre and sell 9 acres? Froberg stated that the property would have to be split arid the county would have to approve this. This would also be true of an easement. Gagne did not want to hold- UP sale of property. Haugen requested that Mr. Berge inform the School Board that the water tower location was a concern of the Council. Councilmember Watten felt the water tower should be part of the Resolution. Froberg - Resolution should only address the sale of the property and the water tower site be mentioned in the minutes. Motion carried - 4/1 (Watten) on roll call vote. 3 . ~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES. JUNE 11. 1990 ~ COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PAGE 4 APPEA..L..l:.l.9T I CE.._TO REMOV~ APPLICANT: EDWARD L. MOE LOCATION: 4990 SUBURBAN DRIVE Mr. Moe appeared and requested an extension of time to remove material from his property. Gagne moved, Stover seconded. to grant a 30-day extension to remove the offensive material. Motion carried - 5/0. APPEAL NOTICE TO REMOV~ APPLICANT: JOHN O. CHAMBERS LOCATION: 24560 SMITHTOWN ROAD Mr. Chambers appeared and asked to keep the material on the property. He had sold property to the Legion with the stipulation that he could store equipment on the property. Some of his equipment could be stored in a building on the property. The Council said addition outside storage was not permitted. Gagne moved, Brancel seconded. to grant a 30- day extension to remove the offensive material. Motion carried - 5/0. SETBACK VARIA~C~ APPLICANT: TOM HARRIS LOCATION: 4715 LAKEWAY TERRACE Stover indicated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this variance. Gagne moved that the Attorney prepare Findings of Fact for the approval of this variance. Stover seconded. Motion carried - 5/0. Gagne moved.Stover seconded, to authorize the Planner to issue a building permit if all proper plans and specifications have been received, prior to the Findings of Fact. Motion carried - 5/0. Gagne requested a study session on issuing building permits prior to final Council action on the Resolution. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION RESOLUTION NO. APPLICANT: SHOREWOOD OAKS DEVELOPMENT LOCATION 5715 BRENTRIDGE DRIVE & 5695 HOWARDS POINT ROAD Q..;l.-90 Stover reported that the Planning Commission had recommended this subdivision. Watten moved. Stover seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 51-90. "A Resolution Approving a Simple Subdivision and Combination of Real Property for Dave Johnson (Shorewood Oaks Development,Inc.)." Motion carried - 5/0. GOOSE ROUNDUP - REQUEST Stover said some Enchanted Island residents did not want a goose roundup. Gagne moved.Brancel seconded. to approve a request to roundup geese at two sites; Christmas Lake and Timber Lane at $1000 per site. Motion carried - 4/1 (Watten). 4 CITY OF SHOREWOOD . REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, JUNE 11, 1990 C~CIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PAGE 5 REQUEST FOR PARTJ..Cl.fl\TI_Q.N._WJ.J1L..J...UL.Y...-4.....CEL~BRATION COST Gagne moved, Brancel seconded, to donate $1000 for Excelsior, July 4 celebration. Motion carried - 5/0. LMCD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - RQBERT RASCQP RESOLUTION NO. 52-90 Mayor Haugen read a letter from the Ci ty of Greenwood which stated that they thought the LMCD Comprehensive Plan was flawed. Robert Rascop presented the LMCD's Comprehensive Plan. He stated that they are already a taxing authority. They can levy 1 mi ll. They propose to extend this tax to all of Hennepin County and parts of Carver County. Haugen indicated that many citizens of Shorewood and many of the other lake cities feel this would be double taxation for the lake cities. Rascop said that would not be true. Stover brought up the subject of user fees as another way to tax. Mr. Rascop stated that some sort of boat sticker could also be used but the DNR has said they oppose any agency but the DNR licensing boats. Gagne said that he had read all of the responses and most of them were negative. He felt,however,that as one city out of 14 Shorewood would have to give a lit t lei n order to make the LMCD work or another authority would take over from LMCD and diminish City control. Mr. Rascop said that the LMCD was not looking for any increased authority over the cities, only enforcement of the current shoreline provisions. They would like to comment on any variances and make agreements with other agencies for enforcement of existing rules. Haugen felt that the mayors of the various cities were not heard at the.LMCD meetings. The mayors thought that there should be a provision for recall of LMCD representat ives in the bylaws of the LMCD; so that City's had some control over LMCD policies, philosophy and actions. LMCD is proposing new membership for Hennepin County, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Hennepin County Parks. Stover was concerned about Hennepin County having two votes, effectively, as they appoint the the Watershed District managers. Administrator Whittaker indicated that Shorewood had no problem with any of the regulations and that cooperation among the cities around the lake would be to everyone's benefit. Any further questions for the LMCD should be given to Mr. Whittaker before Monday June 18, 1990. Whittaker advised the Council of the concern other cities have abou~ the DNR determination of lake area, which is used to determine the number of boats per acre of lake surface. They want the DNR to use the same standard on Minnetonka as other Metropolitan lakes. Motion bY Gagne,Stover seconded, to adopt .RESOLUTION NO. 5;?-90...._ "A Resolution Approving the Long Range Management Plan of the LMCD, with the provision that the LMCD use the same DNR surface standard on Minnetonka as that used on other Metro lakes." Motion carried - 5/0 on roll call vote. 5 ~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, JUNE 11, 1990 ~ COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PAGE 6 APPROVAL OF STATE AID AG~~CY_~~BE~.N.I RESOLUTION 5~-9o. Attorney Froberg stated that the State fi led to get Federal assistance for Shorewood is authorizing the State to agent, for computer equipment. Gagne moved, Brancel seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION Resolution Approving the State Aid Agency Agreement". Aid Agency Agreement must be purchases through the State. app I y for the funds, as our NO. 53-90. "A ~ O-rfrN ~iM-tdf) r' h APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH PRECISION COMPUTERS Brancel asked if there would be additional costs for the training of personnel. Finance Director Rolek said all anticipated training was included in the proposal. All personnel would be trained at the same time. There is a 90 day warranty on equipment followed by a maintenance agreement. Stover asked if there were any other costs involved. Rolek stated that all costs had been anticipated as much as possible. However. he recommended a contigency for those not anticipated. Brancel moved, Gagne seconded to approve the contract with Precision Computers. . Motion carried - 5/0. i;OMPYTE-R_C;::ONT I NGENc;.X Stover moved, Watten seconded to appropriate not more than $7000 for contingencies and consulting with Chapel Consulting, Inc. Motion carried - 5/0. SAI,.,i:_OF.._. SY.s..TE_~_~Q. Watten moved,Gagne seconded, to authorize the staff to sell the System 36 computer equipment at a price not less than $4000.00. Motion carried - 5/0. ZQN I NG Q.RJ2I NANCE-~..NQM.E.NT - ~CCESSOR.Y__J3tllLJ2I.N.9'-s_.::._.QRP UIANCE;~A.~ The Planning Commission recommended the approval of zoning ordinance amendments for a accessory buildings. Gagne moved, Watten seconded, to adopt. ORDINANCE NO. Ordinance Amending Chapter 1201 of the Shorewood City Code Zoning Regulation, for Accessory Buildings." and waive reading. Motion carried - 5/0. 226. "An Relating to the second ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - FENCES - ORDINANCE 227 Council agreed to accept the Planning Commission's recommendations to amend the Zoning Ordinance on fences. Brancel moved. Gagne seconded. to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 227, II An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1201 of the Shorewood City Code relating to Zoning Regulation, for Fences", and waive the second reading. Motion carried - 5/0. MATTERS FROM THE FLOQR None 6 . ' CITY OF SHOREWOOD . REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES. JUNE 11. 1990 C.CIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PAGE 7 PLANNERING DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMPLAINT FOLLOW-UP: LARRY JOHNSON. Planner Nielsen said that very little progress had been made and Public Works would be directed to clean up the site. BERNIE EISENREIC~~ much progress had been made and the site was being cleaned up. DISCUSSION OF HIGHWAY BABBLERS -A.T__~ijR~..smAS---L.A.K~__ROAD INTERSECTION,_ The barrier would be a J barrier with decorative treatment on the south -side. Pictures of the barrier were shown. Watten moved. Gagne seconded. to approve the barrier. as proposed by Mn/DOT. Motion carried - 5/0. A UORNE.Y...:...s R,EeORI Attorney Froberg reported the plaintiffs have appealed the verdict reached by the Court in the matter of Hanson/Wittmer vs. City of Shorewood. et AI. ~ij~lNEER'S RE~QRT Engineer Norton reported that: CELLULAR QNE will be installing the equipment building and antennae on the water tower soon; and CBI/NaCON had completed the erosion control work near the water tower and could be paid as soon as Zdrazi 1 approved the work. AD~ISTRATOR'S REPORT OPT I ON_Q1.:Ll3..J....sH..OP JROPERTx:. Whittaker reported that Mr. Bishop has refused to discuss the sale of his property to the City. Public Works Director Zdrazil had approached him. also. with no more success. Nielsen advised the Council that Mr. Bishop and adjacent property owners would be notified of the hearing on the C.U.P. to use the site for a Public Works ga~age and that the property could be condemned after the C.U.P. is approved if Mr. Bishop does not agree to sell it. FERMI T FOR SOFTBAL.L.JOURNAMENT----E.REEM.M:L.p~_RK SOFTBALL TOURNAMENT Whittaker reported that the Excelsior Softball League had requested a permi t for a softball tournament June 22-24 in Freeman Park and permission to operate a concession stand during the tournament. Watten moved. Gagne seconded. to approve the contract for the softball tournament for the Excelsior Softball League for June 22-24.1990. in Freeman Park's two finished fields. Motion carried - 5/0. 7 'ill. . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD . REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES. JUNE 11. 1990 C.NC I L CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PAGE 8 Haugen expressed her concerns about concessions in the parks. The Counci 1 agreed to ask the Park Commission for a recommendation on future operation of such facilities. The Council agreed tOe" it a concession stand for this tournamen~J_~n a trial basis subj ~ 0 the approval of Public Works Director ZdL~il and a deposit and urance from the league. I _ "AJ~.J _Il~ {) l...-O ~ r r..... '" 0 JV 1" /I-t II" ff7T--1--//v tr L 0 .,... COUNCIL WORKSHO~ Wednesday June 20.1990 8:00 PM. from Excelsior on TIF. Workshop to discuss TIF and letter CDBG GRANT~ Block Grant funds: No discretionary funds will be available in 1990- 91. So the City Housing Rehabi 1 i tation Program wi II stay at 1989-90 levels. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Brancel the traffic island at he would work with the Trail. Whittaker also said a letter was being sent advising the Center that the City did not own the right-of-way and'that they would have to work out an agreement wi th Mn/DOT to repair or replace the island at Shorewood Center. inquired about grading on Yellowstone Trail and the Shorewood Shopping Center. Whittaker said builders concerning the grading on Yellowstone Counci lmember Gagne said he attended the Minnehaha Creek Watershed meeting to discuss the Glen Road drainage project. They would not object to deeper ponds at the downstream of the project. Gagne also commented on elderly housing. He has arranged for a speaker from Real Life Development to meet with the Council on July 16.1990. The Council agreed Councilmember Stover should attend the GTS workshop on TIF June 27th. .AJ1IDURNMENL~ECT TO PA.:iME1:IT Or_'!:;.L.AJ.M.9- Brancel moved. Gagne seconded. to adjourn the meeting at 11:25 PM. subject to the paYment of claims. Motion carried - 5/0. GENERAL AND LIQUOR FUNDS - ACCOUNT NUMB~R 00-Q~1~6-Q~ GENERAL $70.977.86 Checks No.4388-4462 LIQUOR $50.682.97 Checks No.4463-4537 $121.660.83 TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL $104.278.89 TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LJ~T. 8 TOTAL CHECKS ISSUEQ .. ".. . CITY OF SHOREWOOD ~ REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, JUNE 11, 1990 C.NC I L CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PAGE 9 $225,939.72 PAYROLL REGIqTER Checks No.204068/204102 ~EN~R~k $2814.10 $15,890.28 GENERAL $13,052.22 $16,024.42 LIQUOf.i $3,076.18 TOT~L PAYROLL PAYROLL REGISTER JUNE 6 Checks No.204103/204142 1..l.QUOR $2,972.20 TOTAL EJ:o.YROLL RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Katie Snyder Recording Secretary MAYOR JAN HAUGEN ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK LAURENCE E. WHITTAKER 9 " ~ ~ JUN r 2 Igg) ~ {,J))lDM. I -r 0AY CONC~ - () /l:! ...I6-~4reD__--ro. ;JO-7/c-G~o.- iCCHOJ.(f~ . /SSuco U.a'l -z....qt /1 &j' D 7//6 H;LLow/NG ;::~o 1-1 5170 A PTO.rI . J2?J' - r/Co~___ /~D."/! _~'2-~ I / 7~ 2.3 '~"5 L-Oo I '-.u___. - . - --- ..- (I ) /J;7/, /2oy '7- cug /c- y'4-/G.D $ C!J,c !5~cJ.s;~ d _m..(Z).I$cJ.4r_ OAf /3L6c.k"5 (' S't;.4r f/,4-~ L../CE/--tSe-) . ~ / ("5) t5. {i 1<- ~->" ~(/-I.4vc J$eEM /< ~~tf) J t:-~ ') .0 (4) __C tJN CJZE-~ J3LOCK-.$ (lf~U~ t$;;?8J /C<E=J.-(D<J~::::.o"') -(5) 7Un. (A..') .,A ,2. I~ ;?f r..r/~;;. (f#:}v-C 1-?c..:.I.J ,~~~t,~). _.__._(~\ OLD PfCjLLE (t-ft+S._.l5Ec-/.lfZ-Er<.OJ iS~ ') _______..__ ______._.-.w_.._. _ -rile- Cr/Z..J~H p/C-C" /S7PC:- CJ;vc-y -'-j.)Jd~;-/:I4T"o 311 LL. ;;r..&.AlLJs IN {)loL4'11V.Al I I4/-f. rl",l- A;J~/ALLY U~(t415L-C "'/0 Cof1.?cy. ;n--r)//so -7/ H 152. _<_ .~o.ovLQ___Llj~}Zu.r:J . --go._D.fJ_Y-d.cx_rC=r/s/oM ( . jOUfL . C ~/'I~/lJE/2..4T7D~ I H ""'-I-I/~ /vlr4rr c-pL U-JOtlLD jJ:~__n ~~Gi4rl--( /Jrr ,e;(;"dt!l-r~. .. u 0___' ._ _ u__ . - __n_ ... __.__...n__On_ __--7'//#tft<=-yo-c..l .--. _.._n____ - ~O~ :5 . . . " \ MAYOR Jan Haugen COUNCI L Kristi Stover Robert Gagne Barb Brancel Vern Watten CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474.3236 DA'PE: 29 May 1990 TO: Michael.O'Brien 5970 Afton Road Sbur~wo<...d, I-iN 55331 PROPERTY LOCATION: PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO.: 5970 Afton Road 32-117-23-32~0016 NOTICE TO REMOVE offensive and Unhealthy Substances NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there exists a condition on the above referenced property which is in violation of Chapter 501, Section 501.01 of the Shorewood City Code, a copy of which Section is enclosed. The offensive matter to be removed from the property includes the following: "''A-r- ~? - ;1) -!>. - rox. 4 cubic-_o;;-'~- ~. 2) .~-'Boat o11...b ocks (unlicens .~;;1'f'f'" 3) ~.(8)tire~ ~::~- ~~ ld~::C~~~. You are hereby required to remove the above-described matter and any other offensive matter located on the property and in violation of Chapter 501, Section 501.01 within ten (10) days from the date hereof. In the alternative, you may file a wri~ten notice of appeal at the Shorewood City Hall within ten (10) days, in which case your appeal will be set for hearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council. If you do not respond to this Notice within ten (10) days, the City shall take whatever action as may be necessary to have the offensive matter removed. The costs incurred by the City for such removal shall be charged to the property owner and become a lein against the property ***PLEASE GIVE THIS MATTER YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION*** BY ORDER OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL. cc: Clarence Clover American Legion Post 259 A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore BOARD MEMBERS David H, Cochran, Chair Greenwood Albert O. Foster. Vice Chair Deephaven .)an Boswinkel. Secretary Minnetonka Beach .)ohn Lewman. Treasurer Minnetrista Douglas E. Babcock Spring Park Marv," Bjorlin Tonka Bay .)ames N. Grathwol Excelsior .)oEllen L Hurr Orono .)ohn G. Malinka Victoria Thomas Martinson Wayzata Robert K, Pillsbury Minnetonka Robert Rascop Shorewood Thomas W. Reese Mound Robert E. Slocum Woodland (C~, JUN -5 \990 ~ LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 402 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 612/473.7033 .' I 0 Lo u... hoA.. ~ /2 ).0 EUGENE R. STROMMEN. eXeCUTIVE DIRECTOR June 5, 1990 The Honorable Jan Haugen Mayor, City of Shorewood 4780 Lakeway Terrace Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Jan: The MN DNR Statewide Standards for "l1anagement of Shoreland Areas" were adopted July 3, 1989. These revised standards are expected to be adopted by all cities. As a special accommodation to the 14 Lake Minnetonka citiest the MN DNR invited your Lake Minnetonka Conservation District to facilitate the adoption of the shoreland standards among its member cities. Coincident to the development of the Long Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka, the Shoreland Rules study was the first to be conducted. Your city participated in this shoreland rules assessment in the winter of 1988-89. Profressional staff and some elected official participation in this study resulted in the recommended Shoreland Management guide distributed with eight other study areas in November, 1989. Workshops sponsored by the MN DNR were held in late JanuarYt 1990. We believe all lake communities participated in these workshops. The process for each community's'responsibility in adopting the revised Shoreland Rules was reviewed in detail. LMCD's role as the facilitating agency for the Lake Minnetonka communities was also explained by DNR officials. The Shoreland Grant.Agreement is now ready after a careful review of its contents with the MN DNR. Your LMCD Board has reviewed and approved it for your subsequent review and, we trustt adoption. ~ ~ & MINNETONKA CONSERVATION O.ICT LMCD Municipalities DNR Shoreland Rules June 5, 1990 Page 2 Certain funding reimbursement for eligible costs is being provided by the MN DNR through LMCD as the facilitating agency. A provision to fund necessary consulting service to assist the cities in the adoption process is also included as part of the agreement. Eligibility for the matching funds is available through July 31, 1991. That is the deadline for all LMCD cities to complete their shoreland rules adoption. This leaves just a year to accomplish this task upon your prompt review and signing of the agreement. May we count on you and your City Council to favorably adopt this Shoreland Grant Agreement in June so we may move ahead with the maximum time available? You may direct questions to me personally at 474-4743, or to Executive Director Gene Strommen, 473-7033. Thankyou for your positive and early response. Sincerely, LAKE HINNETONKA CONSERVATION, DISTRICT ~~ David H. Cochran Chair DHC:am enc:agreement c:city administrator . . STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SHORELAND GRANT AGREENENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by the State of 14innesota, acting by and through the Commissioner of Natural Resources, hereinafter referred to as the "State"; and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, hereinafter referred to as the "U1CD"; and, the Cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Minnetonka, ['Iinnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Mound, Orono, Shorewood, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Victoria, Wayzata and Woodland, hereinafter referred to as th e "C i tie s II . WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the State has been granted certain responsibility for regulation of shoreland development, as provided by Minnesota Statutes 105.485 and l4innesota Rul es parts 6120.2500 through 6120.3900 pertain ing to "Statewide Standards for Management of Shoreland Areas"; and WHEREAS, the State is authori zed by the Laws of 1989, Chapter 335, Article 1, Section 21, Subdivision 3 to provide grant assistance for local l governments to adopt a shoreland management ordinance consistent with statewide standards, and to develop comprehensive lake management strategies and plans; and WHEREAS, the LHCD has prepared a Lake IHnnetonka Comprehens i ve Lake Management Plan which includes a strategy for shoreland area management; and WHEREAS, a coordinated, comprehensive approach to shoreland standards for the shorel and areas of Lake 14innetonka will resul t in greater local consistency and acceptance of the controls, and WHEREAS, the L1~CD and the Cities have submitted an appl ication for grant assistance. 1 . . NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto: I. LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY A. CITIES' RESPONSIBILITY 1. Shoreland Ordinance Adoption. After the official two year notice has been given, per Minnesota Rules part 6120.2800, subpart 2., and before July 31, 1991, the Cities agree to adopt a shoreland management ordinance cons i stent with statewide standards and the Lake Minnetonka Comprehens i ve ~1anagement Pl an. 2. The Cities shall document all el igible costs defined in Section II .A. of thi s agreement, and report them to the LMCD for payment. B. LMCD RESPONSIBILITY 1. Local Government Coordination. After the official two year notice has been given, per Minnesota Rules part 6120.2800, subpart 2., U>1CD agrees to coordinate the shoreland ordinance adoption for the shoreland areas of Lake Minnetonka (I.D.#27-133) of the following local governments: City of Deephaven City of Orono City of Excelsior City of Greenwood City of Minnetonka City of Minnetonka Beach City of Shorewood City of Spring Park City of Tonka Bay City of Victoria City of Minnetrista City of Wayzata City of Hound City of Woodl and 2. Ordinance Certification Checklist. Within the adoption schedule described in item A.I. above, the LMCD also agrees to ensure completion of all the tasks and return the attached ordinance certification checkl ist for each City to the State. 2 .. . 3. The LMCD shall pay to the Cities from funds received pursuant to Section II.A of this Agreement 50% of all reasonable ordinance adoption expenses (described in item 4, below) up to a maximum of: a} $2,500.00 for each of the Cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Mound, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Wayzata and Woodland, and b} $5,000.00 for each of the Cities of Minnetrista, Orono, Shorewood and Victoria. 4. Documentation of Actual Costs. The LMCD agrees to provide to the State documentation of all actual eligible costs, defined below, in the adoption of shoreland ordinances for the Cities, and the coordination of shoreland ordinance adoption by the local governments listed in item B.l., above. Examples of allowable costs are: a) Publishing costs for hearing notices and ordinance provisions; b} Consultants fees and/or legal fees involved in the ordinance adoption process; c) Hail ing costs associated with ordinance adoption and publ ication; d) Education and training costs incl~ding, expenses for attending the DNR workshops; e) Costs of holding public information meetings; f) Costs of shoreland classification reviews, including map revisions and ordinance development; g} Costs for comprehensive plan development and revisions pertaining to the shoreland district only, unless combined with the J~ Floodplai~ and/or Wjld and Scenic Rivers programs. h) Costs for upgrading zoning administration forms such as: permit application, permit certification, variances, conditional uses, special uses, zoning changes, amendments. . i} Costs resulting from tasks performed by local appointed officials, employees or staff involved in the adoption process of a shoreland ordinance. 3 . . j) Coordination costs of local government shore1and ordinance adoption relating to: meeting attendance, training and explanation of county codes and ordinances for compatibi1ity,_ lake and stream classification review for county wide consistency, review and comments on local government controls and ordinances for county consistency and state compliance, and review and comments on local government administrative procedures for consistency and compatibility with the county. k) Office computerization relating to shoreland management. 5. The LMCD shall return to the State any grant funds advanced which are in excess of 50% of actual costs and which have not previously been paid to the Cities. Funds which have been previously paid to the Cities which are in excess of 50% of actual costs shall be returned to the State by the Cities. 6. If any City does not adopt a shoreland ordihance by July 31, 1991, then all grant funds for the purposes of adopting ashore1 and ordinance for that City shall be returned to the state. 7. Each City shall provide to the Department for review a draft ordinance at least 60 days before the deadline date defined in item 6, above. II. GRANT A. The State shall pay to the LMCD up to a maximum of $45,000.00 for payment to the Cities of 50% of all reasonable ordinance adoption expenses for the services auth6rized hereunder. J.;" Invoices wi1l( be submitted for doub1 e the requested payment amount to demonstrate both the local and state share. Final payment will be made after the Work has been compl eted and if costs and Work for which invoices are .. submitted are satisfactory to the Commissioner of Natural Resources. This also includes submittal of the Ordinance Certification Checklist. 4 . . Advance payments to the. LNCD by the State not to exceed 50% of the grant amount may be authorized if a 1 isting of anticipated incurred expenses are submitted by the LMCD to the State. The LMCD and/or Cities agree to pay all expenses not paid for by the grant. 6. The State shall pay $15,000.00 costs of coordinating the adoption of local controls up to a maximum of $15,000.00. Examples of allowable expense are described in Section 1.6.4. of this contract. III. SPECIAL PROVISIONS 1. The LHCD agrees that in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work under any contract, or sub-contract hereunder, neither it nor any contractor, material supplier or vendor shall engage in any discriminatory employment practices as such practices are defined in Minnesota ~tatutes Section 181.59 and Chapter 363, or in any practices prohibited by Minnesota Statutes Sections 177.42 and 177.43 (1988). 2. The LMCD shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless the State, its agents and employees from all claims or actions which may arise from performance of this Agreement. 3. The books, records, documents and accounting procedures, and practices of the LMCD relevant to this Agreement shall be subject to examination of the Department of Natural Resources and the Legislative Auditor. 4. The State agre~s to provide technical and coordinative assistance to the U1CU and/or Cities for the adoption of shoreland controls for non-Lake Hinnetonka shoreland areas within the Cities of Minnetrista, Orono, Shorewood, and Victoria. 5 . . 5. The State intends by this Agreement to el iminate unnecessary duplication of ordinance adoption procedures by requiring all ordinance standards prepared by the Cities to be coordinated with the U1CD prior to submittal to the State for approval. Failure by the Cities to coordinate with the LMCD will result in non-payment of el igible costs to the Cities by the LHCD. IV. TERN This Agreement shall become effective when all signatures required have been obtained and when the funds have been encumbered by the Commissioner of Finance, and shall continue in effect until the agreed tasks are completed or until July 31, 1991, whichever is earlier. V. TERHINATION The State may terminate this Agreement "with cause". "With cause" sha 11 mean that the LMCD and/or C it i es are not performing the Work in accordance with the terms of the Agreement or th~ Work is not being performed to the satisfaction of the State. If this Agreement is so terminated, the State shall only be liable to pay for Work found acceptable. In the event of termination of this Agreement as heretofore provided, the U4CD and/or Cities shall have seven (7) days prior written notice and if the Agreement is being terminated "with cause" the LMCD and/or Cities shall have until the date of termination to show cause why the Agreement should not be terminated. If it is determined by the State that the ~ LMCD/Cities default was beyond its control or it was not otherwise in default, the Agreement shall not be terminated. 6 . CITY OF 1.10UND By: t./ayo r Date: By: Cl erk Date: CITY OF ORONO By: Mayor Date: By: Clerk Date: CITY OF SHOREWOOD By: t4ayor Date: Date: CITY OF SPRING PARK By: Mayor Date: By: Clerk Date: CITY OF TONKA BAY By: Hayor Date: By: Cl erk Date: . CITY OF VICTORIA By: Nayor Date: By: Date: By: Clerk Date: CITY OF WOODLAND By: I.layor Date: 8 .ORD I NANCE CERT / F I CAT I ON CHEC.T Once a II the be I ow listed tasks are comp I eted , p I ease sign and return the check list and a 1.1 requ i red documents to the State. Th i s must be returned before final payment wi I I be authorized. . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Date of pub I i shed hear i ng not i ce. Date of postmark of hearing notice to 'Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources/Area Hydrologist. Date of hearing(s). Date of ordinance adoption. If ordinance is published in entirety, date and affidavit of newspaper publ ication of adopted ordinance. (Include three copies of ordinance) If only ordinance summary publ ished, date and affidavit of newspaper publ ication of ordinance title and summary along with certified copy of adopted ordinance in its entirety from the Clerk. (Include three copies of ordinance) Date of official fi I ing of adopted ordinance with County Recorder ( record book number page number). Board of Adjustment/Appeals has been estab I i shed. *Note: C i ties under charter must a I so subm ita list of any add i t i ona I requ i rements for hear i ngs, not ices, etc. stated in the i r . charter. P I ease specify: BY: Mayor DATE: CITY: . . (C 17"'--- ,,~ pev.-!c G.~ ~ Van Doren Hazard Stallings JUN , f 10Cf) ,. (...... An:hitects. Engineers- Pfann8n' June 8, 1990 Mr. Laurence Whittaker, City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Dear Larry: As a follow-up to our recent discussion, I have prepared cost estimates for the preparation of park master plans and a capital improvement program for parks. Master Plans Mas t e r p 1 a n s wi 11 be prepared for Badger , Cathcart , Manor and Freeman Parks. As you are aware, a plan for Silverwood Park was recently completed. It is anticipated that the preparation of plans for each of these facilities will involve varying time commitments depending on the corresponding amount of information that is currently available. Given this assumption, the estimated fee for the plan preparation ranges fro~ $1,200.00 - $1,500.00. Recreation Capital Improvement Program (CIP) To date, the Park and Recreation Commission has prepared extensive background material required for preparation of a CIP. The remaining task is to assemble this information into a package which programs the improvements over a five year period, looks at long range improvements beyond five years, and identifies appropriate funding sources. The CIP also should include existing maintenance costs and projected maintenance requirements in order to be truly representative of the total cost of providing parks in the City of Shorewood. The estimated cost for the preparation- of the CIP is $1,000.00. If I can provide you with any additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, ~~...~ R. Mark Koegler ~ Consulting Park Planner ,-' ~~ 3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.II, Suite 104 Minneapolis. MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950 ~ AMENDED PAGE 4~ Contract for Tax Incre~ Finance Development by~d Between the City and Sh~an-Boosalis 6-22-90 (3) pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of the Bonds; (4) return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their tax capacity rate. In addition, the City may choose to modify Tax Increment Financing Plan No. 1 in order to finance additional public costs of the Development District. Section 5.3 Developer's Guaranty. If for any reason the tax increment anticipated to be generated from the Development Project is insufficient to pay the annual principal or interest due on' the Bonds, the Developer agrees to pay to the City such amounts as will be necessary so that the City is able to pay the debt service on the Bonds, as such payments come due. Any such payments by Developer shall be applied first to accrued interest. The Developer shall provide the City with an unrestricted irrevocable letter of credit in the sum of $678,403.00. In the event, upon 30 days written notice, the Developer shall fail to pay to the City the amount necessary to pay the debt service on the Bonds, the City shall be entitled to draw from the letter of credit such amounts as may be necessary to pay the debt service. If such letter of credit is not furnished to the City on or prior to December 1, 1990, this Contract shall become null and void, and all parties hereto shal~'be released from all obligations thereunder. Section 5.4 Reduction of Developer's Guaranty. The letter of credit required by Section 5.3 shall be reduced each year commencing with the year 1994 by a sum equivalent to 80% of the tax increment collected by the City for the previous year. In no event, however, shall such reduction reduce the amount of the letter of credit below $224,488.00 for the year 1995. -14- $6 " . . DRAFT 05/18/90 CONTRACT FOR TAX INCREHENT FINANCE DEVELOPHENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHOREvlOOD, HINNESOTA ...... AND SHERMAN-BOOSALIS INTERESTS, INC. , . ... Introduction . . TABLE OF CONTENTS Paqe . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Definitions .................................. ARTICLE I ARTICLE II Section 2.1 Section 2.2 ARTICLE III Section 3.1 Section 3.2 Section 3.3 Section 3.4 Section 3.5 Section 3.6 Section 3.7 Section 3.8 ARTICLE IV Section 4.1 Section 4.2 ARTICLE V Section 5.1 Section 5.2 Section 5.3 ARTICLE VI Section 6.1 Section 6.2 Section 6.3 Section 6.4 Section 6.5 Section 6.6 Section 6.7 Section 6.8 Section 6.9 Section 6.10 Section 6.11 Representations and Warranties Representation and Warranties of the City...................... ~........ ..... Representations and WarFanties of the Developer ... -. . it". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Construction of the Project; Financing and Liens Construction of Project ...................... Commencement and Completion of Construction .. Construction Done by City ...........~........ General Restrictions ......................... Notice of Default..."... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Destruction of Facilities .................... Insurance .................................... Condemnation ................................. Assessment Agreement Execution of Assessment Agreement ............ Real Property Taxes .......................... Tax Increment Bonds Issuance of Tax Increment Bonds .............. Use of Tax Increments ........................ Developer's Guaranty ......................... General Provisions Restrictions on Use .......................... Conflicts of Interest ..................,..... Provisions Not Merged with Deed .............. Titles of Articles and Sections .............. Notices and Demands .......................... Counterparts ................................. Law Governing ................................. Partial Invalid! ty ........................... Assignment ................................... Rights Cumulative ............................ Amendments, Changes, and Modifications ....... '. Signatures Acknowledgments . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . CONTRACT FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCE DEVELOPMENT THIS CONTRACT, made on and entered into as of the day of , 1990, by and between the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the City), and Sherman-Boosalis Interests, Inc., a corporation licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota (the Developer). WHEREAS, the City has all the powers of a municipal corporation under Minnesota law; and WHEREAS, as of the date of this Contract there has been prepared and approved by the City Council a Development District No. 1 and the Development Program relating thereto (which program as it may be amended, is referred to as the "Economic Development Plan"); and rmEREAS, there is included in the Economic Development Plan a Tax Increment Financing Plan (which plan as may be amended is referred to as "the Tax Increment Financing Plan"), providing for the use of tax increment financing in connection with the Economic Development Project; and WHEREAS, the prompt development of the certain area in the Economic Development Project, which is not now in productive use or in its highest and best use, the encouragement of business expansion and improvements, the maintenance of balanced commercial activities, and the securing of additional employment opportunities are, some of the stated objectives of the Economic Development Plan and the' Tax Increment Financing Plan; and WHEREAS, in order to achieve the objectives of the Economic Development Plan and particularly to undertake certain roadway, interchange and utility improvements in order to make the land in the Project area suitable for development by private enterprise in conformance with the Economic Development Plan and in accordance with the development stage plan approved by the Council on November 20, 1989, the City has determined to provide aid for the Economic Development Plan through tax increment financing of the Public Improvements defined herein. WHEREAS, the City believes that the construction of a development consisting of 54 twin homes and approximately 50,000 square feet of retail/office space is in the be~t interests of the City, and the health, safety, morals and welfare of its residents, and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of the applicable state and local laws and requirements under which the Economic Development Plan has been undertaken and is receiving assistance. -2- - , , , ~ . . NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: -3- . . ARTIcr.}:' ! Definitions Section 1.1 Definitions. In this Contract unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context: "Articles and Sections" mentioned by number only are the respective Articles and Sections of this Agreement so numbered. "Assessor's Market Value" means the market value of the Project as determined by the Assessor for the City of Shorewood. "Assessor's Minimum Market Value" means' the agreed mJ.nJ.mum market value for property tax purposes certified by the Assessor for the City of Shorewood for the Project pursuant to Article IV of this Agreement and the Assessment Agreement. ' Assessment Aqreement" means the assessment agreement to be executed by and between the City and the Developer, and certified by the Assessor for the County, pursuant to the provisions and requirements of Minn. Stat. Section 469.177, Subd. 8, establishing the Assessor's Minimum Market Value. "Bonds" means the general obligation tax increment bonds to be issued by the City, the proceeds of which will be used to finance the public improvements of the project described in Section 2.1(4). The term "Bonds" shall also include any bonds or obligations issued to refund any ,bonds. "Certification Date" means April 29, 1990, 'which is the date on which the City requested certification of original tax capacity value of Tax Increment Financing District No.1. "City" means the City of Shorewood, Minnesota. "Contract" means this Contract for Tax Increment Finance Development by and between the City and the Developer, as the same may be from time to time modified, amended or supplemented. "Council" means the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota. "County" means the County of Hennepin, Minnesota. - "Developer" means the Sherman-Boosalis Interests, Inc. "Development Property" means the real property described in Exhibit 1 of this Contract. "Economic Development Plan" means the City of Shorewood Development Program for Development District No.1, originally adopted by the Council on April 23, 1990, and as amended and as it shall be amended. -4- . . "Economic Development Proiect" means the City of Shorewood Development District No.1. "Parcel A" means Parcel A as described in the legal description attached as Exhibit 1 hereto. "Parcel B" means Parcel B as described in the legal description attached as Exhibit 1 hereto. "Party" means either the Developer or the City. "Parties" means the Developer and the c:;:ity. "Proiectlt means the Development Property and the completed improvements and buildings. j'Proiect Area" means the real property located within the . boundaries of the Economic Development Project. Public Improvements" includes (1) improvements to the .State - Highway 7 frontage road, (2) upgrading of the intersection of State Highway 7 and Old Market Road, (3) improvements to Old Market Road, (4) installation of watermains, and (5) the closing of slip ramps onto State Highway 7, all as further described in Exhibit 2 attached hereto. "State" means the State of Minnesota. "Tax Increment" means the tax increment generated by the Project, calculated as provided in Minn. Stat. Sections 469.174 - .179. "Tax Increment District" means the City of Shorewood Tax Increment Financing District No.1, adopted by the Council on April 23, 1990, and requested for certification on April 29, 1990. "Tax Increment Financinq Act" means the statutes located at Minn. Stat. Sections 469.174 - .179. "Tax Increment Financinq Plan" means the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Tax Increment District. -Tax Official" means any City or County Assessor; County Auditor, City, or County or State Board of Equalization; the Commissioner of Revenue of the State; or any State or Federal District Court, ~e Tax Court of the State or the State Supreme Court. "Termination Date" means the date of expiration of the Assessment Agreement as provided in Section 5.4. "Unavoidable Delays" means delays, outside the control of the Party claiming its occurrence, which are the direct result of strikes, other labor troubles, unusually severe or prolonged bad weather, acts of God, fire or other casualty to the Project, litigation commenced by third -5- . . parties which, by injunction or other similar judicial action or by the exercise of reasonable discretion, directly results in delays, or acts of any federal, state or local government unit (other than the City) which directly result in delays, or the failure by [date 90 days prior to latest date on which the Proiect is to commence] to secure City approval of the construction plans for the Project. -6- . . ARTICLE - I Representations and Warranties Section 2.1. Representations and Warranties of the City. The City makes the following representations and warranties: (1) The City has all the powers of a statutory city under the laws of the State. The City has the power to enter into this Contract and carry out its obligations hereunder. (2) The Tax Increment District is a "tax increment financing district" within the meaning of the Tax Increment Financing Act, and was created, adopted and approved in accordance with the provisions of the Tax Increment Financing Act. (3) The Project contemplated by this Contract is in conformance with the development objectives set forth in the Economic Development Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan, and in accordance with the development stage plan approved by the Council. (4) The City promises to use its best efforts to issue the Bonds and use the proceeds thereof to finance the Public Improvements. (5) The City has authority, but does not anticipate purchasing property within the Economic Development Project. Section 2.2 Representations and Warranties of the Developer. The Developer makes the following representations and warranties: (1) The Developer is a corporation under the laws of this state, has power to enter into this Contract and to perform its obligations hereunder. (2) The Developer will cause the Project to be constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the terms of this Contract and the Amended Development Agreement of August 12, 1985, between the City and the developer's predecessor. The Developer shall also comply with all local, state and federal laws and regulations (including, but not limited to, environmental, zoning, energy conservation, building code and public health laws and regulations). (3) The Developer has or will obtain, or cause to be obtained, all required permits, licenses and approvals, and has met all requirements of all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before the Project may be lawfully constructed. (4) Neither the execution and delivery of this Contract, the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance wi ththe terms and conditions of this Contract is prevented, limited by or conflicts with or results in a breach of, the -7- . . terms, conditions or provisions of any contractual restriction, evidence of indebtedness, agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Developer is now a party or by which it is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing. (5) Developer agrees that City, its agents, and employees, shall not be personally liable or responsible in any manner to Developer, Developer's contractors or subcontractors, material men, laborers, or to any other person, firm, or corporation whomsoever, for any debt, claim, demand, damages, action, or causes of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of this Contract of the performance of the work and improvements hereunder; Developer shall save City, its agents, and employees harmless from any and all claims;,damages, demands, actions, or causes of action arising therefrom and the costs, disbursements, and expenses of defending the same, except for any work performed by City. (6) The Developer will cooperate fully with the City in resolution of any traffic, parking, trash removal or public safety' problems which may arise in connection with the construction and operation of the Project. (7) The Developer would not undertake the Project without the construction of the Public Improvements by the City to be financed pursuant to this Contract. -8- . . ARTICLE III Construction of the Proiect: Financinq and Liens Section 3.1 Construction of Proiect. The Developer agrees that it will construct the Project, called Waterford Phase Three, including all site improvements necessary for the construction of 54 townhomes on Parcel B and will construct at least 32,000 square feet of retail/office space on Parcel A, and all necessary public improvements associated with the Project on the Development Property excluding Public Improvements to be constructed by the City, in conformance with the Developer's plans and specifications as the same have been submitted to and approved by the City, and in accordance with the Amended Development Agreement dated August 12, 1985. Section 3.2 Commencement and Completion of Construction. Subject to unavoidable delays, the Developer shall commence construction of the Project: (a) t(b) Within thirty (30) days of the signing of this Contract; or On such other date as the Parties shall mutually agree in writing. ...A:?Jh12 S U--'/hJ-r 7 o7'AI-r.P/ .Jt 1I~~~e Developer shall complete C-\,nstrllCt;ion of the Project u:ri-.. !,.-c;;c~ ~ ,SOJ ~~~'-< /Ue-r- ~ { --z:i I-e ~.. ov 71' //1 V t9r- &t ~. / ;;;--1}1 190 The Developer, for itself, its successors and assign&, acknowledges and agrees that, for the purpose of determining the fair market value of the Development Property for real estate tax purposes, the value ascribed to the Development Property as of January 2, 1992, shall be $3,172,500 for Parcel A and $2,160,000 for Parcel B, as provided for under the Assessment Agreement, notwithstanding the fact that the improvements contemplated by the Developer, and further, notwithstanding the fact that the commercial district may not then be in operation or the houses occupied. The Developer agrees for itself and every successor in interest to the Development Property, or any part thereof, that the Developer, and such successors and assigns shall, in good faith, construct the Project in accordance with this Contract and during such construction, designated representatives of the City shall be allowed to/enter upon the Development Property to inspect any and all such construction. Section 3.3 Construction done bv City. The City agrees to construct the Public Improvements as specified in Section 2.1(4,. Section 3.4 General Restrictions. The Developer agrees for itself, and its successors and assigns, and every successor in interest to the Property, that the Developer and its successors and assigns shall: (a) Not discriminate on the basis of sex, color, creed, national origin, in the sale, lease or rental, or in the use or occupancy of the Property or the facilities, or any part thereof; -9- . . (b) Not cause the Project to be removed from the public tax rolls or to become exempt from assessment for general ad valorem real estate taxes by reason of any conveyance, lease or other action. Section 3.5 Notice of Default. Whenever the City shall deliver any notice or demand to the Developer with respect to any breach or default by the Developer in its obligations or covenants under this Contract, the City shall at the same time forward a copy of such notice or demand to each holder of any permitted mortgage, lien or other similar encumbrance at the last address of such holder shown in the records of the City. Section 3.6 Destruction of Proiect: So long as any of the Bonds are outstanding under this Contract, in the event of destruction of any portion of the Project which reduces the Assessor's Market Value of the Property below $3,172,500 for Parcel A and $2,160,000 for Parcel B, the following shall apply: (a) The Developer shall as soon as reasonably possible, and in any event on or before the second succeeding December 31 following such destruction, time. being of the essence, repair, rebuild or replace the .damage to such extent as will cause the Assessor's Market Value of the Project to equal or exceed the Assessor's Market Value thereof as finally determined most recently prior to such destruction; or (b) If such repair, rebuilding or replacement is not completed by such date, the Developer shall be liable to the City for damages in an amount equal to the difference between the Tax Increment received by the City in each subsequent year and the Tax Increment that would have been received by the City had such repair, rebUilding or replacement been completed by such date. Section 3.7 Insurance. During the term of this Contract, until the Bonds are paid in full, the Developer shall maintain (or cause to be maintained) with reputable insurance company or companies licensed to do business in Minnesota such insurance covering the Project including all buildings on Parcel A in such amounts as are customarily carried on such properties. The Developer shall annually file with the City a scheduie describing all such policies in force, including the types of insurance, name of insurers, policy numbers, effective dates, terms and duration and any other information the Developer deems pertinent. Section 3.8 Condemnation. In the event of condemnation of any or all of the Project, other than by the City, which reduces the Assessor's Market Value of the completed Project below $3,172,500 for Parcel A and $2,160,000 for Parcel B the Developer shall take the action specified in Section 3.6(a); or if such actions cannot be performed, the Developer shall pay to the City, an amount of the condemnation proceeds thereof equal to the amount outstanding on the Bonds. -10- . . ARTICLE IV Assessment Aqreement Section 4.1 Execution of Assessment Aqreement. The Developer shall agree to and execute with the City an Assessment Agreement pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 469.177, Subd. 8, specifying the Assessor's Minimum Market Value which shall be established with respect to the Project for calculation of real estate taxes. Specifically, the Developer shall agree that as of January 2, 1992, all improvements to the Project with respect to which any real estate taxes are levied or assessed and payable by the Developer, shall be assessed based on a market'yalue of not less than $3,712,500 for Parcel A and $2,160,000 for Parcel B (the Assessor's Minimum Market Value). Nothing in the Assessment Agreement shall limit the discretion of the assessor to assign a market value to the property in excess of such Assessor's Hinimum Market Value, nor prohibit'the Developer from seeking through the exercise of legal or administrative remedies a reduction in such market value for property tax purposes, provided, however, that the Developer shall not protest or seek a reduction of such market value below the Assessor's Minimum Market Value in any year so long as the Assessment Agreement shall remain in effect. The Assessment Agreement shall remain in effect until December 31, 1999 (the Termination Date). The Assessment Agreement shall be certified by the Assessor the County as provided in Minn. Stat. Section 469.177, Subd. 8, upon a finding by the Assessor that the Assessor's Minimum Market Value represents a reasonable estimate based upon the plan and specifications for the improvements to be constructed on the Development Property and the market value previously assigned to the Development Property. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the Assessment Agr~ement shall be filed for record in the office of the county recorder or registrar of titles of Hennepin County, and such filing shall constitute notice to any subsequent encumbrancer or purchaser of the Development Property, whether voluntary or involuntary, and such Assessment Agreement shall be binding and enforceable in its entirety against any such subsequent purchaser or encumbrancer. Section 4.2 Real Property Taxes. The Developer shall timely pay all real property taxes payable with respect to the Development Property and pursuant to the provisions of the Assessment Agreement and any other statutory or contractual duty which shall accrue subsequent to the date of its acquisition of title to the Development Property and prior to the sale of any portion of the property, and until the Developer's obligations have been assumed by any other person with the written consent of the City and pursuant to the provisions of this Contract. -11- . . The Developer agrees that prior to the Termination Date: (a) It will not seek administrative review or judicial review of the applicability of any tax statute relating to the taxation of real property contained on the Development Property determined by any tax official to be applicable to the Project or the Developer or raise the inapplicability of any such tax statute as a defense in any proceedings, including delinquent tax proceedings; (b) It will not seek administrative review or judicial review of the constitutionality of any tax statute relating to the taxation of real property contained on the Development Property determined by any ta~official to be applicable to the Project, or the Developer, or raise the unconstitutionality of any such tax statute as a defense in any proceedings, including delinquent tax proceedings; (c) It will not seek any tax deferral or abatement, either presently or prospectively authorized under Minn. Stat. Section 270.07, or any other state or federal law, of the taxation of real property contained in the Development Property between the date of execution of this Contract and the Termination Date; and (d) Notwithstanding the prohibitions set out in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) above, nothing in this Contract shall prohibit the Developer from seeking a reduction in the market value of real property contained in the Development Property provided such reduction does not fall below the Assessor's Minimum Market Value. ! -12- . . ARTICI.J:' i Tax Increment Bonds Section 5.1 Issuance of Tax Increment Bonds. The City agrees to exercise its best efforts to take all steps necessary to issue the Bonds and shall exercise its best efforts to issue the Bonds at such time as shall, in the judgment of the City, be necessary and desirable to finance the construction of the public improvements described in Section 2.1 (4). Section 5.2 Use of Tax Increments. The City shall be free to use any Tax Increment received from the Tax IncFement District for any purpose for which such increments may lawfully be used pursuant to the provisions of Minn. Stat. Sections 469.174 - .179, and specifically: 1. To pay principal and interest on the Bonds. 2. To finance or otherwise pay the public costs set forth in the Tax Increment Financing Plan. 3. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on the Bonds or other bonds to pay public costs. 4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their tax capacity. The City pledges and agrees to collect from the County Auditor of Hennepin County, lfinnesota, the entire Tax Increment derived from the Project. For purposes of this Contract, Tax Increment is received "with. respect to" a particular calendar year if the Tax Increment was generated by ad valorem real property taxes (or taxes in lieu thereof pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 469.176) first becoming due and payable in such calendar year, irrespective of when such tax Increment is actually paid to the City. To the extent excess Tax Increments exceed in any year the amount necessary to pay the public costs authorized by the Development Program and Tax Increment Financing Plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in Minn. Stat. Section 475.61, Subd. 3, the City shall be free to use such excess Tax Increments for any purpose,' consistent with any covenants made with respect to the Bonds, for which the excess Tax Increments may-lawfully be used as provided in Minn. Stat. Section 469.176, Subd. 2; and the City shall have no obligations to Developer with respect to the use of such excess Tax Increments. The City may use the excess amount to: ( 1 ) prepay the outstanding Bonds; (2) "discharge the pledge of Tax Increments thereto; -13- . . Bonds; 3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of the 4. return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their tax capacity rate. In addition, the City may choose to modify Tax Increment Financing Plan No. 1 in order to finance additional public costs of the Development District. Section 5.3 Developer's Guarantv. If for any reason the tax increment anticipated to be generated from the,Development Project is insufficient to pay the annual principal or-interest due on the Bonds, the Developer agrees to pay to the City such amounts as will be necessary so that the City is able to pay the debt service on the Bonds, as such payments come due. Any such payments by Developer shall be applied first to accrued interest. The Developer shall provide the City with an unrestricted irrevocable letter of credit in an amount sufficient to pay the highest four years of debt service, inclUding principal and interest on the Bonds. In the event, upon 30 days written notice, the Developer shall fail to pay to the City the amount necessary to pay the debt service on the Bonds, the City shall be entitled to draw from the letter of credit such amounts as may be necessary to pay the debt service. Section 5.4 Reduction of Developer's Guarantv. The letter of credit required by Section 5.3 shall be reduced each year after the fourth year to a level that will equal the remaining principal and interest of the Bonds as originally issued to finance the Project costs. Excess Increments will be deducted from the remaining principal balance for the purpose of determining the level to be required of the letter of credit. -14- , . . . ARTICLF. ". General provisions Section 6.1 Restrictions on Use. The Developer agrees for itself, its successors and assigns and every successor in interest to the Development Property, or any part thereof, that the Developer and such successors and assigns shall devote the Development Property to, and only to, and in accordance with the uses specified in the Shorewood City Code or in this Contract. Section 6.2 Conflicts of Interest. No member of the governing body or other official of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Contract, the Project, or any contract, agreement or other transaction contemplated to occur or be undertaken thereunder or with respect thereto, nor shall any such member of the governing body or other official participate in any decision relating to the Contract which affects its personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership or association in which it is, directly or indirectly, interested. No member, official or employee of the Cit~ shall be personally liable to the Developer or any successors in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to the Developer or successor or on any obligations under the terms of the Contract. Section 6.3 Provisions Not Herqed With Deed. None of the provisions of this Contract shall be merged by reason of any deed transferring any interest in the Development Property, and any such deed shall not be deemed to affect or impair the provi~ions and covenants of this Contract. Section 6.4 Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts, Articles and Sections of the Contract are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions. Section 6.5 Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Contract, a notice, demand or other communication under the Contract by either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally; and (a) In the case of the Developer~ is addressed to or delivered personally to the Developer at the following address I Mr. George Sherman 340 Century Plaza 1111 Third Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55404-1040 -15- . . (b) In the case of the City, is addressed to or delivered personally to the City at the following address: City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 (c) Either party may upon written notice to the other party change the address to which such notices and demands are made. Section 6.6 Counterparts. This Contract is executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Section 6.7 Law Governinq. This Contract will be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of Minnesota. Section 6.8 Partial Invalidity. If anyone or more of the covenants, agreements or provisions of this Contract shall be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the invalidity of. such covenants, agreements, and provisions shall in no way affect the validity or effectiveness of the remainder of this Contract and this Contract shall continue in force to the fullest extent permitted by law. Section 6.9 Assiqnment. Neither the City nor the Developer shall have the right to assign its rights or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party, except that the City may assign all or any part of its rights and duties under this Contract (except its obligation to issue Bonds) to any governmental unit. Section 6.10 Riqhts Cumulative. The rights and remedies of the parties of this Contract, whether provided by law or by this Contract, shall be cumulative, and the exercise by either party of anyone or more of such remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other remedies for the same default or breach or of any of its remedies for any other default or breach of the party. Delay by a party'instituting or pros~cuting any cause of action or claim hereunder shall not be deemed a waiver of any rights hereunder. Section 6.11 Amendments. Chanqes and Modifications. This Contract may be amended or any of its terms modified only by written amendment authorized and executed by the City and the Developer. -16- . . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Contract to be duly executed in its name and behalf, and the Developer has caused this Contract to be duly executed in its name and behalf, on or as of the date first above written. THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA By: Its Mayor And . . Its Administrator/Clerk SHERMAN-BOOSALIS INTERESTS, INC. By: Its Chief Executive Officer STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing day of instrument was acknowledged before me this , 1990, by and , the Mayor and Administrator/Clerk, Shorewood, Minnesota, a municipal corporation the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the respectively, of the City of and political subdivision of City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1990, by George Sherman, Chief Executive Officer of Sherman-Boosalis Interest, Inc. Notary Public -17- ,. . ASSESSMENT AGRE~~NT AND ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATION By and Between CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA AND SHERMAN-BOOSALIS INTERESTS, INC. . DRAFT May 18, 1990 -- . . THIS AGRE~NT, made on and entered into as of the ____ day of , 1990, by and between the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the City), and Sherman-Boosalis Interests, Inc., a corporation licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota (the Developer): WHEREAS, on or before the date hereof the City and the Developer have entered into a Contract for Tax Increment Finance Development dated as of , 1990 (the TIF Development Contract), regarding certain real property located in City of Shorewood Development District No. 1 in the City of Shorewood, Minn~sota; and WHEREAS, it is contemplated that pursuant to a said TIF Development Agreement the Developer will undertake a project called Waterford Phase Three; and WHEREAS, the City and Developer desire to establish a minimum market value for the Development Property and the improvements and buildings to be constructed thereon (the Facilities) pursuant to the TIF Development Contract, (cumulatively, the assessed property) for the calculation of real property taxes, or taxes in lieu thereof pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 272.01 or any successor statute pursuant to the provisions of Minn. Stat. Section 469.177, Subd. 8; and WHEREAS, the City and the Assessor for the County have reviewed the preliminary plans and specifications for the Project which it is contemplated will be erected; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement in consideration of the promises, covenants and agreements made by each to the other, do hereby agree as follows: (1) Upon substantial completion of construction of the Project by the Developer but in no event later than January 2, 1992, the minimum market value which shall be assessed with respect to the Assessed Property on January 2, 1991 shall be $2,598,750 for Parcel A and $2,160,000 for Parcel B; and on January 2, 1992, shall be $3,712,500 for Parcel A and $2,160,000 for Parcel B. The Developer has agreed to commence construction of the above-referenced improvements within thirty (30) days following the date of this agreement and to diligently and in good faith complete said improvements within a reasonable period of time thereafter. Notwithstanding the foregoing the Developer has agreed, whether or not the _ improvements have been completed, that the fair market value which shall be assessed with respect to the Assessed Property on January 2, 1991 shall be $2,598,750 for Parcel A and $2,160,000 for Parcel B; and on January 2, .1992 shall be $3,712,500 for Parcel A and $2,160,000 for Parcel B. At such time as plats are filed for Parcel A and Parcel B, the assessment for each parcel shall be divided equally among the platted lots. . . (2) The minimum market values herein established shall be of no further force and effect and this Agreement shall terminate upon December 31, 1999, or upon the earlier payment of the Bonds. (3) Nothing in this Assessment Agreement shall limit the discretion of the Assessor for the County to assign a market value to the Assessed Property in excess of $3,712,500 for Parcel A and $2,160,000 for Parcel B, nor prohibit the Developer from seeking through the exercise of legal or administrative remedies a reduction in such market value for property tax purposes, provided, however that the Developer shall not seek a reduction of the market value of the Assessed Property below $3,712,500 for Parcel A and $2,160,000 for Parcel B, for-the year 1992 or any year thereafter so long as the Assessment Agreement shall remain in effect. (4) Neither the preamble nor provisions of this Agreement are intended to, nor shall they be construed as modifying the terms of the TIF Development Contract between the City and the Developer. (5) This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties. THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA By: Its Hayor By: Its Administrato~-Clerk SHERMAN-BOOSALIS INTERESTS, INC. By: Its Chief Executive Officer STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of , 1990, by and the Mayor and the Administrator-Clerk of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota. Notary Public . . STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of , 1990, by George Sherman, Chief Executive Officer, of Sherman-Boosalis Interests, Inc. Notary Public CERTIFICATION BY ASSESSOR The undersigned, having reviewed the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed and the market value assigned to_the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed, and being of the opinion that the minimum market values contained in the foregoing Agreement appear reasonable, hereby certifies as follows: The undersigned Assessor, being legally responsible for the market value assigned to such land and improvements upon completion of the improvements to be constructed thereon, and in no event later than January 2, 1992, shall not be less than $3,712,500 for Parcel A and $2,160,000 for Parcel B , prior to termination of this Agreement. Assessor for the County of Hennepin STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of , 1990, by , the Assessor in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. Notary Public , . . MAYOR Jan Haugen COUNCIL Kristi Stover Robert Gagne Barb Brancel Vern Watten .. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: ~~YOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 20 JUNE 1990 RE: CHURCH ROAD - REQUEST FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FILE NO.: STREETS - CHURCH ROAD We have received a petition (see Exhibit A) from residents on Church Road asking the City to look into the installation of storm drainage facilities and blacktop for their street. Exhibit B shows the subject area and location of residents who have signed the peti"tion. It should be noted that Lot 11, on the west side of the street, is believed to be owned jointly by the property owners to the north and south of it. That being the case, the petition represents all of the land fronting directly on Church Road. Exhibit C is an excerpt from the Handbook For Minnesota Cities and contains a summary of the process for handling special assessment projects. The petition should be considered as a request for a feasiblity study. As you can see the initiation of a study only requires a petition of those owning 35 percent of frontage bordering the proposed improvements. The City Engineer has been asked to prepare an estimate of how much the feasibility study will cost. Staff recommends that this cost be borne by the petitioners in the event the project is not undertaken. If the project is done, cost of the feasibility report will be incorporated into the project. There are a number of issues which should be addressed in reviewing the request: 1. Drainage. Based on the complaints we've received relative to drainage in this area and the reference to storm sewer in the petition, we feel that Church Road residents are well aware that drainage must be addressed as part of any improvement project. There is no point in considering blacktop without solving the drainage adjoining the road. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 7 . . Re: Church Road Improvements 20 June 1990 2. Right-of-Way. Church Road is grossly substandard in terms of right-of-way. Whereas the City requires a 50 foot r.o.w., Church Road currently has only 24.5 feet of r.o.w. width. The petitioners should be aware that the improvement will require an additional amount of easement approximately 12.5 feet on each side of the existing road. 3. Turn-around. In addition to substandard r.o.w. width, Church Road currently deadends at the north end. The feasibility report for this project should include a cul-de-sac at the end of the street. This matter has been scheduled for discussion on the 25 June Council agenda. If you have any questions, please contact staff prior to that meeting. BJN:ph cc: Larry Whittaker Jim Norton Glenn Froberg Neil Vegsund - 2 - . . To: Shorewood City Council Date: May 24, 1090 Re: Assesment Hearing; Curb & Gutter Blacktopping Storm SeHer Members of City Council, The following is a petition =or an assesment hearing for the installation of Curb & Gutt~r, Storm Sewer and Blacktopping on the unfinished portion of Church Road. The following is a list of signatures and addresses of the affected land owners in agreement with this petition. c; c .~.. Jl.a; ~~4.~~Q__. ::':1. ,nc tu;~~ Date b1~U.~_[2!d7~.bJ__\j~~"l:2_---------- ~,rf3.mE.~ (pr in.t ) ~J.E.22___k:-H..12J?'~~~__J?j2~___._____________ ~Jtreet Address ,~~t!--- ~.____~_~.:2-.2_:::'!Q____ ~~gnature :~~--~~ Date V. . -1.-/ I ~~l111.e..:.5LJ.Q n_~tJJ.)_~{ky~____________ Name (print) . I _tr'2Ld-6___t2-j/dli~~L~_a______------ Street Address ~~~4 1 ~____________________~J2_=~------- Signa~~ Date _JeeLL~ll-_ Cmw~L___- Name (prInt) ( _Cal~s:_~~gQ~------------- Street Address Page - 1 ~h;bit "~J ~ .I . J?'1v1 ~ D/Ll!'!" 7~~_1J~~!-!,,~____Date N.arn;/~~nt)~Cu-~ (/j2 Stre~t-Addre;~--------------------------- c Date ___~L_~~.hlL1J!r/ _____________ N.ame (print) --~~~L:d~~-~------------------ Street Address ~_ !J-.__~------------~~;Z{2--2/;!--'--------~ Signatur(:~- Dat~ J_~-sW_Y2.-b_2. ~ J~______________ Nc..m'~ (print) .----------------------------......-------- Street Address ~~cdJ._~~/~------- ~=3.e~_~_c2______ Signature -~()~ Date -~fl~OLf"~cU2____________ Name (print) _(Q_~__~~~~~1--~J)~------------_ Street Address Page - 2 ~.z.. . , . . ~;r' '"m. ~ _~A~r: ~_.s:..-3..Q..:::.L() ~ S~gn~~ ~ w~ Date ..J16~q_-I-S.~~~_~L______----- Name (print) 1?L1D__~~o~_~n__---_--------------- Street Address 1J,Ji!/&LL~^=>._~_~b~- bLgnatur8 ~. Date . ~~d-i-~~~__th~0~~-_-_------------- Name ~print) _6i1Q_~~~~c6-~i_____________________-___ Street Address ~ - ~ - 10 ..----------------------- D.3. t~: ~ c..... ~Ott"^'seN ~I~-r- ~~ ~ -------------------------------------- Name (print) _~.J-}---~_____~~____________---------- Street Address oJ.J~~~~-4UJ-~-fL-4~~.-- Signature Date ~~ ;~~~~G~~.b~~..o.~~------- Name (print) _(g,1~Q_~1~c:.., k_~~~________________ Street Address Page - 3 A... 3 ;. . . _~L . " ~ - C; - I '1'7 ~ -..._-----~- Date Signature __hM~6 'DG\~ub6 Name (print) __~~_~~~__W_c__(g.~~__~2 - _________ Street Address ---------------------------------------------------- Signature Date -------------------------------- Name (print) --------------..----------------------- Street Address Please notify all affected parties prior to dates that this matter will be scheduled on the adgenda. Your coop~ration is greatly appreciated. Sincerly; The Residents of Church Road, THANK YOU A.~ Page - 4 / ~/, ..,'/ ..... c<; I . - ---------------~ ,.... (~) 40 '. ..... 200 .-.-......1 ---------- ------: I (( ;-(3) ~: "39 ~ . .... "'.::.' ....+.. Sl2.9 100 100 100 I ~ Ne9 2tl'SS'E ,.\~..,.... :J.' ... ,">.' {>/ i:/ . . .t... - . J:i ' . r,...l 6 ,..: . .- .~::, .{;.- ~ ( 15) ::! ( 10) -, .. .- ,.ot~S ",-- 62..17 62..17 <..... S,,~QI~"\\~ ~ .' ' ".- ......- 5 1 2 ....,.. ,;:.." ( J J) ~'.- ( 14) ::!: ....-.. 62..'35 62.. '35 .,('. J:i 3 '._)C 4 ...:.-.i ..-_ ,..: ,,' ( 1'3) ::! (12) -- .~. ",-" 589..9'.0" <0 N 51'3.14 ........ ('39) 2! (40) 161.09 161.09 8 ..; '" .' - ~'ii'lrlA ~[E~~l \.,:,-:- g 2 '" :e (48) '3 :e (49) ~ , ;; ~ :!ERRY 161.09 68'3 09 OUTLOT A :B '" ('35) /... ............... .." ( '3) (4) "" .//C , 429 ~ ~ ltt '11 r:. 't.: ;.t 7i:~ 'j' ~-i.i. ", "{ ~Ii {; ..:..- ~ .s' . 'f ~I 1 \:7 I ~ r.! ~ -: ~ : \::::: ; \ ; --{ ~ I o ',~,u..tt~ -t~-\ FOptlrt1 ~ \~~eJ ~,. ',~ 'O~ @ ()l.J 'I\t. r'" _4_' ..._ .--_.....,.,~ 105 (4) 'iJ 4 . (II)2! 5' ( 12) ". . Nor't~ I II -::;. 200' ...... {/g, ". f'S ~bl~ t? , h i~ ..... . Financing Public Improvements . Cities may issue bonds or other debt instru- ments to finance the cost of current services in the same manner as for local improvements, with three modifications: 1. These obligations may not run for more than two years; 2. The amount of debt a city issues at anyone time may not exceed the estimated cost of the work it will do during the next six months; and 3. The council must set up a separate fund for each of the different services financed through this procedure. Other Programs In addition to financing public improvement projects and current services, cities may use special assessments to: 1. Construct, acquire, reconstruct, extend, maintain, and improve storm sewers in a storm sewer district; and 12 2. Construct and maintain sidewalks in a sidewalk district. 13 B. Synopsis of Procedure The following discussion is not a complete guide to the proper fulfillment of special assessment procedures. But, it will acquaint city officials with the tasks they must complete and make sugges- tions on the effective use of special assessment financing. The council should consult an attorney, familiar with the individual project, to ensure that all legal procedures are followed. Determining Economic Feasibility The law does not require cities to complete the following tasks, but they may help the council evaluate a proposed public improvement project involving special assessments. The purpose of these steps is to determine whether the program is practical, desirable, and workable, considering the condition of city finances and the taxpaying capability of the property owners. To make such an economic study, the council should first prepare a report containing the follow- ing information: 1. The boundaries of the area that will benefit from the project. 2. The total market valuation of all lands in the benefited area, plus the market value of each individual parcel or lot; 3. The kinds of land use in the area and the percentage of land unused for urban pur- poses; 4. The estimated cost of the improvement and the amount the city will finance from the general fund; 5. The total amount payable from special as- sessments and the estimated levy against each parcel of land; 6. The ratio of special assessments to market valuations for the area as a whole and for each individual parcel, and also the ratio of all outstanding and unpaid prior assess- ments, plus the proposed one to the market value for all land in the area and for each individual parcel; 7. The estimated increase in market value for each parcel of property if the improvement occurs; and 8. The total amount of bonds the city intends to issue and their proposed maturity. The report will indicate whether the proposed assessment would be too heavy a financial burden on the property owners involved, and whether the assessments are not in excess of the amount of in- creased market value as a result of the improve- ment . The report will indicate the financial bur- den the city will need to assume, in terms of the demand upon money in the general fund and the impact on the city's borrowing capacity. Steps in Special Assessment Proceedings In general, the local improvement code proposes the following steps. 14 1. Initiation of proceedings. Either the coun- cil or a petition of affected property owners may initiate proceedings. If a petition, it must have the signatures of the owners of at least 35 percent in frontage of the Page 398 Handbook for Minnesota Cities ~.\bit c,.., ~ . . Chapter 25 property bordering the proposed improve- ments. If the council acts on its own initia- tive, an extraordinary majority is not necessary to initiate the proceedings. 2. Preparation of a report. The law requires that the city engineer or another competent person prepare a feasibility report on the proposal. 15 It must cover such factors as the need for the project, the availability of necessary money in the general fund to pay the city's share of the cost, an estimate of that cost, and any other information neces- sary for council consideration. 16 . .3. Public hearing. The council may omit this step. if 100 percent of the affected land owners sign the petition requesting the im- provement. The city must publish notice of the hearing twice in the official newspaper, with the notices appearing at least one week apart. At least three days must elapse between the last publication date and the date of the hearing. The city must mail a notice to each property owner in the proposed assessment area at least 10 days prior to the hearing stating the time and place of the hearing, the general nature of the improvement, and the estimated cost. At the hearing, the council should give in- terested people a chance to voice their con- cerns, whether or not theJ' are in the proposed assessment area. 17 4. Ordering the improvement and prepara- tion of plans. If the council began proceed- ings because of a petition, the council needs a simple majority to pass a resolu- tion for the improvement. If the council in- itiated the proceedings it will need a four- fifths majority of the council to pass the resolution. After this, the city engineer should prepare necessary plans and specifications. The council should then decide how to do the work, and if neces- sary, issue a call for bids. 18 5. Time limits for local improvements. When a city council decides to make a public im- provement, it must, within one year of adopting the resolution ordering the im- provement, let the contract for all or part of the work or order all or part of the work to be done by day labor. However, the council could specifically state a different time frame in the resolution ordering the improvement. 6. Performance of work under contract or by day labor. The council may order the work to be done by day labor if the estimated cost does not exceed $5,000, if there are no bidders on the project, or if the only bids the council receives exceed the estimated cost of the project. Day labor means the city carries out a public improvement with its own employees, or with people the city hires specifically for that purpose. There is no contract under this system; the city itself assumes full responsibility for the work. Even using day labor, however, the city must get bids for purchases of more than $5,000. 19 7. Preparation of proposed assessment rolls. Preparation of proposed assessment rolls is the clerk's responsibility. 20 The council may require the clerk to conduct, before and after market improvement, valuation studies regarding the proposed assessment property to determine the amount of spe- cial benefits. 8. Public hearing on the proposed assess- ment. The purpose of the second hearing is to give affected property owners an op- portunity to express their concerns on the actual special assessment levy. The city must publish notice of the hearing, includ- ing the total cost of the improvement, in the city newspaper or, if none, in a county seat newspaper, one or more times. It must also mail notice of the hearing, in- cluding the amount of the special assess- ment against the individual parcels, pos- sible prepayment provisions, and the interest rate on the assessments to each property owner at least two weeks prior to the hearing date. The published notice must include the hearing time, date, place, overall project description, area_ to be assessed, amount of total assessment description of appeals procedures, and any deferment options. 21 In light of recent court decisions, the council may want to consider evidence of market value im- provement at this hearing. The hearing notice should contain a statement that those who wish to dispute their assessment may notify the council, and the council can Handbook for Minnesota Cities Page 399 C,,-2- . Financing Public Improvements . Levying and Collecting Assessments then arrange for a hearing beforc an im- partial hearing officer. The property owner could then testify concerning the improvement in market value of the property, and the city could do likewise. The city should keep a detailed record of this evidence. 9. Approval and certification of assessment rolls. After the public hearing, the council must approve the assessment rolls in their final form so that the clerk can certify them to the county auditor. 22 The council should examine assessment rolls to deter- mine whether an appeal is likely to result from a particular assessment and whether that assessment is realistic in view of the rcal estate market in the city. 10. Issuance of obligations to finance the im- provement. Most citics usc onc of thrcc types of bonds to finance spccial assess- ments: Improvement bonds, improvcment warrents, and temporary improvemcnt bonds. For a full discussion of thcse steps, plus a full set of model forms, see League publication Local Improvement Guide. If the council wishes to expcdite matters or to provide better estimates of cost at the first hearing, it may, in addition to the required prelimi- nary report, prepare complete plans and specifica- tions, advertise for bids, and open and tabulate them before the hearing. The council may combine into one proceeding, an improvement on two or more streets or dif- ferent improvements on the same or different streets. For example, it may combine sidewalk, water, sewer, and curb and gutter ~rojccts anywhere in the city in one proceeding. After completing the assessment roll, the council must divide the improvement cost between the city as a whole and the benefit district. Aftcr this the council can apportion the district's share of the cost in proportion to the estimated spccial benefits the individual properties will rcceive. Asscssmcnt rolls arc lists for cach asscssmcnt projcct containing a description of each parccl of property, the name of the property owner, and the amount of the assessment. The clerk should prcpare a separate assessment roll for each im- provement project prior to the hearing on the as- sessmcnt. Aftcr the hearing, the council must of- ficially adopt the roll, by resolution, and then the clerk must certify it to the county auditor. 24 The clerk may use one of two methods in cer- tifying assessments to the auditor. In the first method (which the clerk should use unless the council directs otherwise), the clerk certifies a du- plicate copy of the assessment roll and sends it to the county auditor. The auditor is then responsible for spreading thc assessment against the propcrtics in thc year in which each installmcnt is duc. This eliminates thc clerk having to do an an- nual computation, and avoids errors in later years. If thc council prefers, however, it may direct the clerk to file all the spccial assessment rolls in the clcrk's office, and to certify annually to the county auditor only the total amount of principal and in- tercst due on special assessments from each parcel of property for the following year. 25 The clerk must certify all assessments to the county auditor on or before October 10 if the auditor is to spread the first installment on the books for collection in the following year. The auditor may agree to accept a late assessment for collection the following year, but the auditor does not have to agree to the late assessment. 26 Payment of Assessments Once the clerk has prepared these special as- sessment rolls and the council has approved them, property owncrs have the option of either paying the total amount of their assessment immediately, or of paying it in annual installments under the terms the council sets. 27 If the property owner pays the entire amount of the assessment within 30 days after the council adopts the assessment rolls, the city cannot charge any interest. 28 If the property owner pays the en- tire amount at any time after 30 days, but before Page 400 Handbook for Minnesota Cities G..~ " S\ /,:1~$~~..~\.1J :J.~~. 0wl I ~ l....... . ,.( .. .. :-: ~~.:?: -' -=- ~j~i-iT SttL~~a~1:2Si~ ~~t~5~~el~h~J:~ 4~1g A\ I 1~~~;1 =\ . . " June 21 1990 Our business has been our hobby for more than fifty years serving homecrafters the world over Bradley J. Nielsen, Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minn 5331 Dear Mr. Nielsen, Thank you for telHng us of the fence requirements in Shorewood. As you know we paid ,for a permit (we did not know one was needed fo~ replacing existing fence). The fence we told you about is 6 ft in height. We plan to alter it to allow for 25% air to come through, by removing some of the verticals--and re-modeling the fence, but the fence will still be attracUve.With all the rain we have not been able to accomplish tllis. We have talked to our neighbor, and she says she will be pleased. She really likes the fence as it now is, but we told her the existing policy would not allow the more solid fence. We will be planting the six Norway pines as weather permits. We wi 11 phone you when all is accompl is hed so you may inspect. Our men wi 11 be on vacation in July, so some of this will take some extra time. We hope you will not mind. As to the north and south sides of the building, existing vegetation/growth precludes more planting of trees. There is neither enough space or enough sunshine. - We will keep in touch. Thank you. AUd~~ a !#f~ KUEMPEL CHIME CLOCK WORKS Ene; Photos Letter from T. Boone Reduced land site/bldg. CJ ,4~c2. . . . . . tr a ~ ~ ~ o CO' ~ ~ ~ lu 1/1 j <: 0 .S <:: E II) ~ - ~ ~ t c:Q ~ J I...... 0 I~ 3 ., {l (b ~ l.) " " )f , I I I I'n /'.... ." NO '1..""'..L ~ 9 :3 ^ ~ N 1.1..<; b<3- r !>I. line or s, 10.00 hel or Lo/ 17 I J ,.. .\..... N89-S9'00"c .""... ..../2935 ... ) o ., ./ ~ ,2 ~~ -------- .. ./"r" ..../ .../ ! ........ ,.....1 r) J- -( /- )..---- 10 ~ C;j ~ Ih " ... "7 \1 \ .......1 100.2. rOo...; '.: :, ", :. ~ ., c: o U .... V' 21.0 .. '" or. "' ,.;.' (--r ~ (-~ - -r .J''''' ..- 0'1- .- 0: - ' --L- o g CJ: , : 00 00 (.,,0 0.... . l)4 Oi ~. '-- ,"7... . " . conc,.../~ ! . .. III ~ ''':l~'\ 15'* 1 \r Ski ~.l ],~ ~<. ~~ ~: ~;. '~l 4(1 1 ~<..'. .",. .... .. .... .' " Bilurninous ._~ r-.c""' y.\~ ':'.:~'.' :', .....f'oI .', .. I (? I ..::.; ( I . I I , Is'l , , . :0,,: .:: ':.., :... ", ': 8.'1/' 'ios..e .....0.2 '. ' , " '.. (If :: -: .0 <,; ... _("1 r....r ~ -(' '., ../ j.. .. ... ---' 100.2. \ .?~ ; i .... ....138.16..- '-- \.IE'S r E:)(I"'T"~& \Ie. G€TA\' I 0 N ... ,.... , ., '. . . . glunJa & c:il.ndd (jJtJM. 4930 r;~ fJ)dJu ~, JIIlil55331 .~0"""~\d. IcyqO :~I~ cT{6 ,^-or-~wa~C{ t3 r-o-cl t-(Lj J. N ; ~ I 5 e..f"\ :p ~o-r' . nl r. N ~ €- Ls e...Y'\ , R "- ~ '-' o-r j:~ J .n-L I 0.0" J s <-0.. pZ f 1",-" +~ b~ Su b(Y\;tl~db'--l (Y)~ (Y\c...G--r-€'<Jcr cry K\J€....MfQ...t Lj\,\~ ~lou.{worK'S-:' We.- u.)~l\' . Lc ht ~ , ?U:L-€.. f t: 0.- f r- I v 0-<:.- 'i ,\:-€f\. c:. e.... ~ ~t : I ^ k \ Cf k t:: a.t +L (' e..o-r O:L..,#Z b J ; l d.~ Y'J o-.S o...Y'\ t?--CL-€-.p +o--\"L~ ..sub.sf-;+\Ji-~or.. (0 r +k ~ €-'Ve..'Jf'<:f<..f\ ~e..~ 5 re.., u ~ ~~ d 0..- ~ 0- Co ^ J ; of-: 0 f'\ 0-/ t~ ~ : r-- CD f"'" d ~ +- 'i. ~ f'. 0... ~ IJ 5 e... f <...,r /,<, ~ t. . .s. ~ c-"-" e..1 J I -rl e...N?. ~fT ~ 0 () N Lf'73D ~e.I^ cr-o ft:. dr. 6h.ore...v:>c~ <::.-\ rn 1\. S..:s'3'J( ~{btnn) i . . RESOLUTION NO. 57-90 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SET-BAC K VARIANCE TO THOHAS H. HARRIS WHEREAS, Thomas H. Harris (Applicant) is the owner of real property located at 4715 Lakeway Terrace in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnsota, legally described as follows: Lot 20, Block 1, Tonkawood Estates and WHEREAS, Applicant proposes to construct a three-season porch over an existing deck at the rear of his home, which will encroach eight feet into the rear yard set-back area; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request has been reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations have been duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning commission dated 28 May 1990, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearirig was held and the application reviewed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on 5 June 1990, the Minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicant appeared before the City Council at their regular meeting on 11 June 1990 at which time the Planner's memorandum was reviewed and comments were heard by the City' Council from the Applicant and from the City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT (1) That the Subject Property is located in an R-1D single-family residential zoning district. (2) That the City Zoning Code requires a 35 foot rear yard set-back for structures located on property in an R-1D zoning district , (3) T hat the northeasterly corner of the proposed porch would extend to a distance of 27 feet from the rear property line, requiring a variance of eight feet. ( 4 ) T hat there exists on the property adjacent to the Applicant's property to the north, a building having a porch which extends to a distance of 20 feet from the rear property line. 4\:-96 J ~ . . (5) That, because the structure on the adjacent property is closer to the property line than the required set-back, if the average set-back is considered, the Applicant's proposed porch would be only one- half foot from the line resulting from the average of the set- back distance of the structure on the adjacent property to the north and the required set-back distance. (6) That the Applicant's existing home is built back a distance of 53' from the street right-of-way in the front, whereas a set-back of only 30 feet is required by the City Zoning Code. (7) T hat due to the location of an existing structure on the adjacent property to the north, and due to the location of Applicant's existing home on the subject property, it appears that the location of the porch as proposed by Applicant would effect the most appropriate and reasonable use of the property, provided there is no further expansion of Applicant's. home to the front. (8) That the Applicant has established undue hardship and has satisfied the criteria for the grant of variances under the appropriate sections of Minnesota Statutes and the Shorewood City Code. CONCLUSIONS (1) T hat based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicant's request for an eight foot rear yard set-back variance, subject to the condition that there be no future expansion of Applicant's home into the front yard area. (2) That a certified copy of this Resolution be filed with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, of the City of Shorewood this 25th day of June, 1990. Jan Haugen, Mayor ATTEST: Larry Whittacker, City Administrator/Clerk Roll Call Vote: ., _. . I 'O:""'''1:''r:l''10r!l1c.. ::~"ilt,,~~r:n[:lI r Jp-eu:;. ~':. . . " . .... .... .-.' ,'. . . "f. ':'I:~ ~.'di.d~" .:.....~&:; '.~ :~~ .~....i.4 .'~.~.!i -llYM ...JII1'~,- i'ojL : ;\onrc;r:mf:r'! ., :May 10, 1990 RECElVED Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Assoc. COMM. # , - .... ."':1":.U~;H)'; =:~,.:::l,~ri!:':'. :nc. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District P.O. Box 387 Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 MAY 1 4 1990 ATTN: Mr. James R. Spensley President Rav'~ Ccl!{ Name ~e'!d eo~ Gentlemen: In accordance with an agreement dated February 1, 1990 between the City of Shorewood and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., acting as the District Engineer, has completed an Addendum Study to the Glen Road/County Road 19 Hydrologic Analysis, dated June 1988. The results of this addendum study are summarized within this letter. Purpose The purpose of the addendum was to review the original study completed in 1988 utilizing current topographical data supplied by the City of Shorewood and revise the proposed pond configurations based on the new data. The topographical data used in the original study was dated May, 1966. This addendum study was limited to that portion of the subwatershed shown in Figure 1 and includes Ponds No.1, 2, and 3 as identified in the original study. Additional computer modeling was performed to better define the recommended pond configurations. Implementation of these recommendations will result in a comprehensive stormwater management system meeting District rate control and water quality standards for the portion of this subwatershed which is presently tributary to Pond No.3 at the southwest quadrant of Glen Road and County Road 19. Hydrologic Modeling Methodology The computer simulation model selected to generate the inflow hydrographs for use in this study is called SWMM (Storm Water Management Model, Version IlL3). SWMM was developed for the U.s. Environmental Protection Agency in 1969-71 and has been updated and modified in the intervening years. The data input requirements for the portion of the model which simulates storm water runoff include a user selected rainfall hyetograph (i.e., rainfall distribution), antecedent soil moisture conditions, infiltration parameters, surface depression storage, land use, and topography. The inflow hydro graphs generated by the SWMM model for each subwatershed were subsequently routed through the Glen Road/County Road 19 ponding areas using a supplementary storm water detention routing program to project high water levels. A more detailed description of the methodology can be - .-..~._,.,...,......,..--,-- _.._----_.~_. ...- ~~~T " /,- . I. MCWD -2- May 10, 1990 found in the report "Hydrologic Analysis, Glen Road/County Road 19 Subwatershed" dated June 1988. Results and Recommendations The new analysis of the Glen Road/County Road 19 subwatershed with current (May 1989) topographical information resulted in the pond configurations shown on Figure 1. Modeling results showed that no modifications would be required at Pond No.1 and that this area can be allowed to overflow into Pond No.2 through its natural outlet. Excavation of Pond No. 2 to a bottom elevation of 950.0 and installation of a 12-inch outlet pipe with the invert at the pond bottom results in a projected 100-year flood elevation of 954.5. This provides 1.47 feet of freeboard below the single family home highlighted on Figure 1 whose patio door is at elevation 955.97. A scenario for Pond No.2 assuming an inoperative outlet and the runoff being directed overland through the natural overflow'was also modeled. This resulted in a projected 100-year flood elevation for Pond No.2 of 955.1. Excavation of Pond No.3 as shown in Figure 1 results in a projected 100-year flood elevation of 947.08. This is 1.36 feet below the overflow elevation of County Road 19. The excavation shown to elevation 943.0 would provide .sediment storage as required by District rules. Another option, resulting in slightly less freeboard, was also simulated. This option involved connecting the 944.7 contour across the narrow swale separating the north and south basins of Pond 3. This option reduces available storage and results in a projected 100-year elevation of 947.3 and a freeboard of 1.14 feet. Stage/storage relationships for Ponds 2 and 3 shown in Figure 1 are shown in the table below. TABLE 1 . Pond No.2 Pond No. 3* Stage (EL.) Storage (A.F) o 0.51 1.91 2.83 4.98 Stage (EL.) Storage (.AF) 950.0 952.0 954.0 954.6 956.0 944.7 945.0 946.0 947.0 948.0 o 0.87 3.76 7.13 10.48 *NOTE: Data reflects a pond bottom of 944.7 over both north and south basins. To mitigate the effects of the critical duration 100-year rainfall event, the following improvements are recommended: 1. No alteration of Pond No.1 is necessary. 2. Acquisition of a suitable easement at Pond No.2 for drainage and access. _.---_.,_.~,.-..,_.---.-,-.--.~---~-_._. -"'-'-'-~' --_.- -.....-. ~....._--...- . i MCWD -3-- May 10, 1990 3. Construction of a 12-inch pipe outlet from Pond No.2 with an invert elevation of 950.0 Excavation of Pond No.2 to a bottom elevation of 950.0 with 2.8 acre-feet of storage below elevation 954.6. 4. " 5. 6. Increase the stormwater storage capacity of Pond No.3 located at the southwest quadrant of Glen Road and County Road 19 to 10.48 acre-feet below elevation 948.0. Construction of a skimming device to remove oils and floatable debris at the existing 12-inch outlet from Pond No.3. . Acquisition of appropriate drainage and access easements for Pond No.3. JMM appreciates this opportunity to provide hydrologic engineering services to the District. Please contact Jim Mahady or me with any questions or comments you may have. Sincerely, JAMES M. MONTGOMERY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. ~O,~ Kevin. C. Larson, P .E. Project Manager crs cc: City of Shore wood City of Tonka Bay "".-,-,,-..,-- ..--_.._--.---.~..,.......,...- ---,'--- .- --- ~-- --; ". 12 .- .. ". 'G I!ilI _.. III .. .. ; -- -..... . J i ." - 1_= I - . _ J. ~ &., .........-..~ l!Ift~_ .. . GLEN ROAD-COUNTY ROAD 19 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS ESTIMATE OF COSTS . TABLE 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 - INCREASED STORMWATER STORAGE CAPACITY Item Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement Easement 10llPVC Pipe 12"PVC Pipe Berm Berm Excavate Excavate Clear/Grub Clear/Grub Baffled Weir Baffled Weir Rip Rap Channel Granular Blanket Restoration 1211 CMP CMP Aprons Positive Overflow Positive Overflow SUBTOTAL Location Pond 1 Pond 2 Pond 3 Pond 4 Pond 4 to Brentwood Ave. County ROW Brentwood Ave. to Lake Mkta. Pond 1 to Pond 2 Pond 2 to Pond 3 East si de Pond 1 East side of County Road 19 Pond 3 Pond 4 Pond 3 Pond 4 Pond 3 Pond 4 Brentwood Ave. to Lake Mkta. Culverts Pond 3/Pond 4 Brentwood Ave. Brentwood Ave. Railroad line Brentwood Ave. Quantity 0.5 acres 1.25 acres 4.0 acres 3.0 acres 0.1 acres 0.0 acres 0.1 acres 150 L.F. 200 L.F. 65 yd3 50 yd3 5,850 yd3 5,750 yd3 2.5 acres 3.0 acres 1 /. 1 150 yd3 30 yd3 10 acres 70 L. F . 2 300 L.F. 300 L. F . Engineering and Contingencies at 15% TOTAL ".~.- ~~ -15- Unit Price $2,500/acre $2,500/acre $2,500/acre $2,500/acre $2,500/acre $0 $2,500/acre $20/L. F. $21/L. F. $10/yd3 $10/yd3 $5/yd3 $5/yd3 $2,000/acre $2,000/acre $2,000 $2,000 $15/yd3 $20/yd3 $1,500/acre $24/ft $400/each Estimated Cost $ 1,250 $ 5,625 $ 10,000 $ 7,500 $ 250 $ 0 $ 250 $ 3,000 $ 4,200 $ 650 $ 500 $ 29,250 $ 28,750 $ 5,000 $ 6,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,250 $ 600 $ 15,000 $ 1,680 $ 800 $ 5,150 $ 2,000 $133,705 $ 20,055 $153,760 -------- --------- , CHECK NO, CHECK APP& LISTING FOR JUNE 25, 1990 CeIL MEETING TO WHOM ISSUED CHECKS ISSUED SINCE JUNE 6, 1990 4538 (G) 4539 (G) 4540 (G) 4541 (G) 4542 (G) 4543 (G) 4544 (G) 4545 4546 (L) 4547 (L) 4548 (L) 4549 (L) 4550 (L) 4551 (L) 4552 (L) 4553 (L) 4554 (L) 4555 (L) 4556 (L) 4557 (L) 4558 (L) 4559 (L) 4560 (L) 4561 (G) 4562 (G) 4563 (G) 4564 (G) 4565 (G) 4566 (G) 4567 (G) 4568 (G) 4569 (G) 4570 (G) 4571 (G) 4572 (G) 4573 (G) 4574 (L) 4575 (L) 4576 (L) 4577 (L) 4518 (L) 4579 (L) 4580 (L) 4581 (G) 4582 (G) 4583 (G) 4584 (G) 4585 (G) 4586 (G) BRADLEY NIELSEN MR, STEVEN HASKINS THE BANK EXCELSIOR COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE AFSCME LOCAL #224 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT VOID US WEST COMMUNICATIONS BELLBOY CORPORATION BOYD HOUSER CANDY/TOB, CO, DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO, FRANCK'S TRUCKING GRIGGS, COOPER AND COMPANY JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO, MIDWEST COCA-COLA BOTTLING NORTH STAR ICE PEPSI-COLA COMPANY ED PHILLIPS AND SONS POGREBA DISTRIBUTING CO, THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO, WASTE MANAGEMENT-SAVAGE ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST US POSTMASTER PATRICIA HELGESEN JANE AND TOM BAUMAN PUB, EMP. RETIREMENT ASSOC. COMMERCIAL LIFE INS, CO, MINNESTOA MUTUAL LIFE LMCIT INSURANCE TRUST GROUP HEALTH, INC, MEDCENTER HEALTH CARE, INC. PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN-MN HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER MR. DWIGHT CLEMENT BELLBOY CORPORATION GRIGGS, COOPER AND COMPANY JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. MINNEGASCO, INC. MN BAR SUPPLY, INC, ED PHILLIPS AND SONS QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS CBI NA-CON, INC. LAURENCE WHITTAKER BRADLEY NIELSEN JOSEPH PAZANDAK MR. WALTER BEAN PUB. EMP. RETIRMENT ASSOC, PURPOSE SECTION 125 REIMBURSEMENT $ RETURN OF ESCROW RECEIVED 8/18/90 FED, FICA AND MEDICARE WITHHOLDING STATE TAX WITHHELD UNION DUES DEDUCTIONS PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS UTILITIES LIQUOR PURCHASES CIGARETTE PUCHASES AND SUPPLIES BEER AND MISC, PURCHASES BEER AND MISC, PURCHASES LIQUOR AND WINE PURCHASES LIQUOR, WINE AND MISC. PURCHASES WINE PURCHASES MISC, PURCHASES MISC. PURCHASES MISC,PURCHASES WINE PURCHASES BEER AND MISC. PURCHASES BEER AND MISC, PURCHASES WASTE REMOVAL FOR JUNE ICMA PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS POSTAGE FOR COMPOSTING NEWSLETTER SECTION 125 DEPENDENT CARE REIMBURSMENT RECYCLING AWARD PERA LIFE INSURANCE EMPLOYEE LIFE INS. FOR JUNE EMPLOYEE ACCIDENT/SICKNESS-JUNE EMPLOYEE DENTAL INSURANCE-JUNE EMPLOYEE HEALTH INS,-JUNE EMPLOYEE HEALTH INS,-JUNE EMPLOYEE HEALTH INS.-JUNE FEE FOR TRANSFER OF TAX FORFEITED REFUND FOR METER EXCHANGE LIQUOR PURCHASES LIQUOR AND WINE PURCHASES LIQUOR AND WINE PURCHASES UITLITIES MISC, PURCHASES AND SUPPLIES LIQUOR AND WINE PURCHASES LIQUOR AND WINE PURCHASE PAYMENT OF VOUCHER NO. 11 AND FINAL SECTION 125 REIMBURSEMENT SECTION 125 REIMBURSEMENT SECTION 125 REIMBURSEMENT REFUND OF ESCROW & C,U,P. APP. PERA PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS TOTAL GENERAL TOTAL LIQUOR TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED -1- .....- AMOUNT 130 .00 1,500.00 5,290,54 922,32 104,70 45.00 165.00 2,15 2 ,860. 13 2,050.94 4,710,01 9,564,05 312,00 2,460,23 513.65 548,66 387,48 362,02 185,30 2,707,55 15,994,85 55.00 543.46 260.17 434,00 100.00 27.00 34.00 114 , 00 344.84 290,67 435,80 3,901.50 LAND 45,68 100,00 2,682,85 6,350.56 1,172.18 41.08 155,08 1,755.61 735,22 4,628.26 113.64 130.00 106,50 962,57 1,639.19 21,928.74 56,046.70 77,975.44 ~-/-/ CHECK APP.AL LISTING FOR JUNE 25, 1990 ACIL MEETING .. AMOUNT PURPOSE TO WHOM ISSUED CHECK NO. CHECKS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL 75.00 110.00 8,106.00 217.92 210.00 969.36 3.10 300.00 986.76 22.50 195.00 7.50 233.50 340.00 18,509.75 67.50 130 .00 50.00 80.00 17.00 11. 25 652.26 332.00 26.20 23.00 13.84 263.70 22,793.64 6,534.00 85.00 137.86 103.40 465.85 18.00 75.60 1,365.50 166.55 88.56 2,113.22 5,795.00 63.38 10.00 765.00 100 . 00 29,512.50 176.18 45.94 1,520.25 66.80 68.51 .HAY-FREEl1AN PARK EROSION CONTROL $ PAYING AGENT FEES-IMP. 7/1/73 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT STREET SIGNS CHEMICAL TOILETS-PARKS BALLFIELD AGG FOR FREEMAN REBAR-PULBIC WORKS COMPUTER CONTRACT NEGOTIATIQNS HOT MIX FOR PATCHING STREETS WATER COOLER RENTAL CIVIL DEFENSE-SIREN REPAIR - DOCK CAPS FOR CRESCENT BEACH DOCK COFFEE, TOWELS, TOILET PAPER SOD FOR FREEMAN PARK THIRD QUARTER FIRE CONTRACT SERVICES FOR MAY 1990 REPAIR-CHOLRINE BOOSTER PUMP-WATERFORD GOPHER STATE ONE-CALLS FOR MAY BASIC MEMBERSHIP-A. ROLEK NOTARY STAMP-So NICCUM POSTAGE FOR MAY HYDRAULIC JACK AND FREIGHT YEAR 10 OF BUILDING FUND -CONTRIBUTION SHOP SUPPLIES SILICA SAND SUPPLIES FOR CATHCART PARK DIESEL FUEL SEWER SERVICE CHARGES FOR JULY MAY SAC CHARGES CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN REPAIR UTILITIES RE-LAMP 7 & 41, 7 & X'MAS LAKE(TWICE) PUBLISHING WELD CHAIN SAW ENGINE CASE COPIER PAPER THIRD QUARTER FIRE CONTRACT PUBLIC WORKS SUPPLIES APRIL, MAY & JUNE MILEAGE UTILITIES INT. & EXPENSES FOR GO IMP 1-1-74 JUNE MILEAGE JULY POP MACHINE RENT BRUSH HAULING SERVICES PLANNING MINUTES JULY POLICE CONTRACT COPIER PAPER-PRINTING OF NEWSLETTER UTILITIES PARK CONSULTATION AND MILEAGE JUNE MILEAGE AND PARKING UNLEADED GASOLINE PURCHASES MR. LYLE GAST AMERICAN NATWNAL En;I~. AMERIDATA EARL F. ANDERSEN & ASSOC. BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. C.H. CARPENTER LUMBER CHAPEL CONSULTING, INC. COMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY COMMERS CONDITIONED WATER COUNTRY CLUB SERVICE CREPEAU DOCKS CORSSTOWN-OCS, INC. DONiS SOD SERVICE CITY OF EXCELSIOR FLARE HEATING AND A.C. GENERAL REPAIR SERVICE GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL, INC. GOV FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOC. GRAPHIC SOLUTIONS HENNEPIN COUNTY TP~ASURER JRH EQUIPMENT DEPOT LEAGUE OF MN CITIES LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR LYMAN LUMBER COMPANY MANN MADE PRODUCTS H.C. MAYER AND SONS, INC. METRO WASTE CONTROL COMM. METRO WASTE CONTROL COMM. MID-CENTRAL, INC. MINNEGASCO, INC. STATE OF MN -DOT MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS MTKA PROPELLER AND WELDING MINNETONKA SCHOOLS CITY OF HOUND NAVARRE TRUE VALUE BRADLEY NIELSEN NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. NORWEST BANK, N.A. JOSEPH PAZANDAK PEPSI COLA COMPANY SHOREWOOD TREE SERVICE KATIE SNYDER SO. LAKE MTKA PUB. SAFETY TONKA PRINTING US WEST COMMUNICATIONS VAN DOREN-HAZARD~STALLINGS LAURENCE WHITTAKER YOUNGSTEDT, INC. 4587 4588 4589 4590 4591 4592 4593 4594 4595 4596 4597 4598 4599 4600 4601 4602 4603 4604 4605 4606 4607 4608 4609 4610 4611 4612 4613 4614 4615 4616 4617 4618 4619 4620 4621 4622 4623 4624 4625 4626 4627 4628 4629 4630 4631 4632 4633 4634 4635 4636 - 104,023.88 TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL 181,999.32 TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST -2- . CHECK APP.AL LISTING FOR J1JNE 25 ~ 1990 ~IL HEETING CHECK NO. TO WHOM ISSUED HOURS AMOUNT PAYROLL CHECK REGISTER FOR JUNE 20~ 1990 PAYROLL 204143 VOID $ 204144 (G) LAURENCE WHITTAKER 80 REG HOURS 1,032.29 204145 (G) SANDRA KENNELLY 80 REG HOURS 756.14 204146 (G) SUSAN NICCUM 80 REG HOURS 599.60 204147 (G) ANNE LATTER 80 REG HOURS 529.87 204148 (G) ALAN ROLEK 80 REG HOURS 929.19 204149 (G) WENDY DAVIS 80 REG HOURS 571.62 204150 (G) BRADLEY NIELSEN 80 REG HOURS 836.46 204151 (G) PATRICIA HELGESEN 64 REG HOURS 409.93 204152 (G) JOSEPH PAZANDAK 80 REG HOURS 814.07 204153 (G) CHARLES DAVIS 82 REG HOURS- 2 O.T. 471. 04 204154 (G) DENNIS JOHNSON 80 REG HOURS 694.09 204155 (G) DANIEL RANDALL 80 REG HOURS 702.33 204156 (G) HOWARD STARK 80 REG HOURS 560.76 . 204157 (G) RALPH WEHLE 80 REG HOURS 561. 61 204158 (G) DONALD ZDRAZIL 80 REG HOURS 1,004.45 204159 (G) JOffiPH LUGOWSKI 80 REG HOURS- 8.5 O.T. 797.30 204160 (G) TODD LATTERNER 66.5 REG HOURS 508.51 204161 (G) LAWRENCE NICCUM 80 REG HOURS 546.40 204162 (L) CHRISTOPHER SCHMID 80 REG HOURS 430.05 204163 (L) BRIAN JAKEL 47 REG HOURS 215.42 204164 (L) MARK KARSTEN 74.5 REG HOURS 289.34 204165 (L) WILLIAM JOSEPHSON 80 REG HOURS 598.00 204166 (L) SUSAN LATTERNER 24 REG HOURS 116.12 204167 (L) DEAN YOUNG 80 REG HOURS 551.76 204168 (L) SCOTT BARTLETT 38.5 REG HOURS 190.09 204169 (L) KELLY MICHELSON 18 REG HOURS 82.02 204170 (L) JOHN FRUTH 22 REG HOURS 98.15 204171 (L) NOEL NICHOLS 18 REG HOURS 82.02 203172 (L) CRAIG SCHOLLE 20 REG HOURS .90.09 204173 (L) ERICA SHAW 23 REG HOURS 94.16 204174 (L) BRIAN ROERICK 23.5 REG HOURS 96.01 TOTAL GENERAL 12,325.66 TOTAL LIQUOR 2,933.23 TOTAL PAYROLL 15,258.89 -3-