The URL can be used to link to this page

111389 CC Reg Min . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1989 MINNEWASHTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 26350 SMITHTOWN ROAD 7:30 PM M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER The Regular Council meeting of the Shorewood City Council was called to order at 7:30 PM, Monday, November 13, 1989, in the gymnasium at the Minnewashta Elementary School. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Haugen, Councilmembers Brancel, Watten, Gagne, and Stover Staff: Administrator Whittaker, Attorney Froberg, Engineers Norton I, and lvlorasjc,- Planner- Nielsen, and Assistant Clerk Niccum. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Administrator Whittaker deleted the Executive Session. FUTURE COUNCIL MEETINGS November 20......Regular Council Meeting November 27........No meeting unless significant items appear that must be solved December 4.........Regular Council Meeting December 11........Final Budget Hearing APPROVAL OF MINUTES Brancel moved, Gagne seconded, to approve the minutes of the Regular Council meeting of Monday, October 23, 1989, as written. Motion carried - 5/0. WATERFORD THIRD PHASE, PRELIMINARY PLAN Mayor Haugen opened the meeting for public comment stating that the Council had received comments made at the Planning Commission meeting, all letters, and some telephone calls. She asked that new information be presented and a 3 minute limit be observed. Betty Abelson - 19915 Muirfield Circle-distributed an article from the Star Tribune dated October 31, 1989 that stated about 2,200 cars a day are counted on Crosstown near 1-494. She said if the Council allows the intersection to go through they are asking residents to allow 5,000 to 8,000 cars a day by the Council's own numbers. She said this is not acceptable and asked the Counil to take this into consideration. David Dean - 5690 Old Market Road - said he wanted to discuss what he felt was a concern to all Shorewood residents - financing. He asked: Has Shorewood ever used tax increment financing before? Is it approp- riate? He wonders if the City realizes the risks. Is the develop- ment is financially viable? He said the City asked the developer to guarantee the bond, and asked if they realize that if the developer guarantees more than 25% of the bond they are no longer tax exempt? MINUTES - MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1989 PAGE 2 . WATERFORD THIRD PHASE, PRELIMINARY PLAN - Continued Public Discussion David Dean went on to say the interest rate on the bonds would lncrease, and this would raise the risk. He feels the whole City should be in- formed and public hearings should be held before tax increment financ- ing is approved. He asked if it was a condition that the developer build and lease the project before the intersection is built? Has the developer been asked to pay for the intersection? He said if the only way the City can afford the intersection is through a successful devel- opment, they should wait for a low risk financing package before spend- ing a million dollars. Pat Malmsten - 5350 Shady Hills Circle - a 27 year resident - discussed that many people spent many hours from the beginning on the develop- ment, the fact that it was all R-l, the fact that Old Market Road was shown on a 1984 map going through to Hwy 7, that the information was available, and that he felt anyone buying in the area should have check- ed it out when they bought. He said if there is an emergency, you have to be able to get to it. . Tad Shaw - 5590 Shore Road - said 19 years ago his first political in- volvement in Shorewood was trying to get Radisson Road declared a one way, and it still hasn't happened. He was on the City Council for 8 years, primarily during the time this original project came through. He said the developers and the City negotiated and came up with a concept plan which is being discussed tonight. There were many tradeoffs on both sides. The project we see tonight has a significantly lower density. He said he would support the Planning Commission and hopes the Council will do the same. Steven Dzurak - 19570 Vine Ridge Road - said he requested the City of Shorewood to get another legal opinion concerning the obligation of the City in approving the intersection of Old Market Road. He said he makes this request for 3 reasons, 1st, Attorney Froberg's opinion is based upon dubious and false assumptions, including the assumption that homeowners obtain legal opinions rather than title insurance, and the assumption that the development agreement was filed with the Registrar of Deeds, which is simply false; 2nd, an attorney from a respected law firm who specialized 15 years in municipal law...has reached a conclusion contradictory to Mr. Froberg; and 3rd, if the City is legally bound, which Trivesco insists it is, then there would be no reason for City action to approve of the P.D.D. in response to this matter. He said he is not asking for arbitration, he is simply asking the City to select another Attorney, approved by both Froberg and the Attorney hired by Waterford, Covington Vine Ridge, and other subdivisions, then the third Attorney would then make a fresh determination of the issues and resolve them objectively. . Pat Zettel - 19580 Vine Ridge Road - referred to "the iron curtain com- ing down", saying that what was good in 1984 is not necessarily good now. He said he works in St. Paul but moved to Shorewood because it is quiet. He also was concerned with the Crosstown traffic coming into the neighborhood, increased crime, decreased property value, and it is in- evitable, someday a child will be hit. -2- . . . MINUTES - MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1989 PAGE 3 WATERFORD THIRD PHASE, PRELIMINARY PLAN - Continued Public Comment Les Anderson - 5385 Shady Hills Circle - said expressing opinions is a very important process. He said traffic has to be channeled from the commercial area and out of the neighborhoods, and the Vine Hill intersection can't handle it, even with the proposed improvement. A lot of compromises were made when that whole area was developed, and he thinks the intersection is necessary. He asks for approval. He did express concern over the Crosstown traffic and said he hoped measures could be taken to prevent a problem. Russell Lindquist - 5820 Ridge Road - said he recognizes that some things need change, he recognizes that some of the people in Waterford didn't know where the road was going, but the people who lived here had a chance to stand up and protest the development. They agreed, con- tingent upon the intersection, and he thinks it would be sad indeed if the agreement was rescinded. Don Birdsong - 19695 Sweetwater Curve - asked why and what is the driv- ing force behind the intersection? He said he feels the residents are being ramrodded into having the intersection. He said maybe in 1984 the intersection was a good idea, but it is not now. He is an Attorney, and he told Froberg he was not saying that the opinion is not good, or that he is not right, but that as an individual, and as a resident of Shorewood, they should not "rollover and play dead" because they think they have a contract they must live up to. He said in the last meeting they heard that the commercial was facing the neighborhood, and was going to serve the people of the neighborhood, now it's turned around. When it faced the neighborhood, and there was no gas station, no con- venience store, ingress and egress to Highway 7 was not necessary be- cause there was nothing to bring the people in off the Highway. He very much favors the citizens of Shorewood putting together some money and to devise a plan to see if they can win in a court of law, or bring in an arbitrator to try to solve the situation. He said if the road was planned to go through it should have been developed right, 4 lanes, berms, homes facing in the other direction. Julie Daugherty - 19670 Sweetwater Curve - said they moved here because of the safe streets, quiet neighborhood, and the park. She said she would not allow her children to cross a busy street to get to the park and a joint community meeting area would be lost. Richard Thompson - 5920 Ridge Road - asked that the Council "keep faith". He said originally the area was all zoned for 40,000 sq. ft. lots and the P.U.D. doubled the density. He said they don't want the developments' traffic on Covington Road, that they should take care of their own traffic. He also said the Planning Commission and the Council have given a great deal of time and thought to this issue, and they are all the arbitrators that are needed. Susan Fenstein - 19720 Sweetwater Curve - deferred her time to Tana Tatnall - 19735 Sweetwater Curve - who said she agrees that an access to Waterford is needed and it is for their neighborhood, but she has never had any trouble getting to Highway 7. She expressed concern over traffic on Sweetwater Curve, children at the bus stop, right and left turns onto Covington Road, and childrens access to the park. She feels the intersection would be a detriment. -3- COUNCIL MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1989 Page Four WATERFORD THIRD PHASE, PRELIMINARY PLAN - Continued . Public Comment Claire and Robert Peterson - 5474 Covington Road - said because of the assurance of the Old Market Road Intersection, he promoted the develop- ment for a tax base. He said if there is a legality question now, the people felt in 1984 that everything was fully legal or they wouldn't have voted for it. He questioned why people would buy expensive real estate without more checking, although he said it may have been non- disclosure on the part of the builder or the developer, and maybe the problem should be addressed to them. He said he has been in municipal financing for 30 years and discussed the issue of the developer paying over 25%. He said while tax free bonds would be 6.81% taxable would only be 8.80 % which is still very cheap financing. Mark Hugo - 5395 Shady Hills Circle - said he thought it would be easier for Sweetwater people to exit onto Vine Hill Road. He also said he hadn't noticed any objection to the Vine Hill Road intersection. He said he would be delighted to have the intersection on Highway 7. Barry Michaels 19735 Muirfield Circle -said he doesn't object to the high density or commercial, what he's concerned about is the quality of life. He's concerned about traffic coming from outside the community. He would like to see a solution worked out that would satisfy everyone and still work. He said he never received any indication of an inter- section onto Highway 7, only onto the service road. .. Claire and Shel Sparber - 5840 Ridge Road - said there are two groups of people annoyed with each other, he feels the developer was less than honest, and he hopes those who make the most noise won't be the victors because of it. He said there's too much traffic on Covington now. He suggested working together and trying to corne up with a reasonable solution. He felt it was important to find a way to prevent Crosstown traffic from cutting through. Don Berglund -19895 Waterford Place - suggested some type of modifica- tion such as using the frontage road or slip ramps. He said he is a 4th generation resident of the area and looks forward to a quality of life that doesn't include traffic danger for his children. F.S. Garcia - 20430 Radisson Road - said the road and intersection should have been created before the homes were put in. He said it's not right to have that many houses and no exit, Radisson Road is too narrow to accommodate this traffic. He also said he finds it hard to believe that the people in the area didn't realize their area would need an exit, that it was obvious that the road would extend to 7. . Ric Rosow - 19835 Waterford Place - said he did not build with the dev- eloper, but with a builder who informed him of the intersection. It was no problem when he thought it was there to serve the neighborhood, but it will become a major problem if it has to service Crosstown traffic, because he cannot let his daughter ride from Waterford Place up to Muirfield Circle. He also said he has worked as a tax increment consultant and it is a bad idea, you will rob from the City and the County the taxes that legitimately belong to the City, so all new resident's and bus~ness' taxesjirtstead of going for servicesAwill be used to pay for the intersection and the rest of us will be left support- ing the City and County and other services that would be paid for with that money. -4- COUNCIL MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1989 Page five ~ WATERFORD THIRD PHASE, PRELIMINARY PLAN - Continued Public Comment Larry Buesgens - 20090 Excelsior Blvd. - said he was concerned about increased traffic in the neighborhood and the safety of the children. He asked if the Councilor someone on Staff could answer what neigh- borhood is being served? Peter Damisch - 19705 Chartwell Hill - said he resents the implications of a number of speakers this evening that tend to indicate that there is an issue that a resident of longer duration in the City or newresi- dents have any less care about their homes and property, or that the value of theirproperty is any less concern to those homeowners, or that the business profession takes any particular interest. He also resents the implication that any homeowner who failed to look into surroundings failed to do their job. Me said he specifically looked into the issue associated with the road and was told by the City of Shorewood that the road would go through to the access road but there were absolutely no plans to go through to Highway 7. He said he is not against the multiple dwellings or the commercial property, he realizes the need to diversify the tax base of the City. He does think the Council should take note of the many many questions- park property, safety of children, financing, outside traffic-there is insufficent information at this time to make a final decision. ~ Jack Rennels - 19600 Sweetwater Curve - said he learned never to buy from a developer in good faith. He is concerned about the value of his property and the safety of his children. He also wondered why the intersection was passed in 1984 and not scheduled to go in until 1990. Jim Slaughter - 5570 Old Market Road - said that he realized 5 years ago a lot of time and attention went into this 5 year plan. He said he has done a lot of planning in his life and things change. He said if the intersection must be opened, show us what will be done to control the traffic and maybe we'll be happy. Just close the road between us and the intersection and we'll be happy. There are lots of alternatives, we'd like to hear the Council discuss them. . Ann Copeland - 19650 Chartwell Hill - said her purpose in speaking was to point out the tax implications of completing Old Market Road. She said by doing some calculations she has determined that the neighborhoods of Waterford, Covington Vine Ridge, and Sweetwater generate 1.2 million dollars in taxes for the City, up to 20%. As property values decline, property owners can demand a reduction in taxes. The intersection cost is approximate one million dollars, which sounds very conservative, this does not include the cost of improving Covington Road, or the cost of closing on/off ramps in the area. Shorewood would have taxpayers believe that the revenue from residental and commercial development will cover the cost. Then who will pay for services? All citizens of Shorewood should be informed and allowed to vote. She said Shorewood tax rates are second highest of all suburban municipalities in Minneapolis. She said its the Council's responsibility to find a solution to the road that all the citizens of Shorewood can live with. She asked that it be tabled until a complete analysis of the financial impact can be completed. -5- COUNCIL MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1989 Page six WATERFORD THIRD PHASE, PRELIMINARY PLAN - Continued . Public Comment B. Snyder - 19855 Chartwell Hill - said he has tried to listen and observe, he feels that previous Councils gave commitments to residents of the City, now new residents have built homes and the City has equal obligations to them. He expressed fear of the Crosstown traffic. He said some Radisson Road residents are willing to consider alternatives. Don Kline - 19285 Shady Hills Road - showed a transparency from a 1986 Hudson s~reet ,map showing Old Market Road clearly going out to Highway 7. He said there is grave concern over the Vine Hill Road intersection, it cannot handle any more traffic. He said diverting Crosstown traffic onto Vine Hill Road is not a solution. Elliott Sirota - 19675 Chartwell Hill - said he was told the road would only go to the service road. He also said that about 3 months ago they proposed on and off ramps and it seemed to fall on deaf ears. He also said he can't understand how the Old M.arket Road intersection is tied into the Vine Hill Road intersection. He feels the Council should respond to its citizens. Vicky Underland Rosow - 19835 Waterford Place - said they moved to the neighborhood because it was quiet and nice for walking. If the intersection goes in it will be impassable for children. She said the park would be unuseable to anyone under 12 years of age. She doesn't want to subsidize the intersection, she is adamantly opposed to it. . Jay Hare - 5670 Old Market Road - had several peoples~time deferred to him. He said he was representing several neighborhoods east of Vine Hill Road and south of Highway 7, excluding Shady Hills. He said we are all residents of Shorewood whether we've been here a long time or a short time. He said he's here to address a lot of concerns heard throughout the discussions, not only the new developments, but Shady Hills and Radisson Road as well. He said a compromise plan is needed for 6 different reasons: 1)to meet the needs and concerns of over 300 Shorewood residents that are opposed to the intersection; 2) the Radisson Road problem (he referred to a traffic accident involving. a child); 3) Shady Hills has concerns about the traffic on Vine Hill Road; 4) Silverwood Park because of increased traffic; 5) The costly financial burden that will fall on the City; 6) Heavy non-Shorewood traffic, he said the neighborhood doesn't mind taking care of their own traffic, they just don't want problems with other traffic. He said even if the intersection goes through there will still be some problems, Shady Hills will still have the Vine Hill Road traffic and the Vine Hill Intersection. He said Stratford Apartment people cut through Shady Hills, and the intersection will not solve this problem because they will come in the intersection, use the frontage road, and still cut up and through Shady Hills. There is also a problem with Covington Road and Radisson Road, people will still cut through to Excelsior. He urges the Council to look at a complex plan that will accommodate a number of the concerns. . 9:32 - 9:42 10 minute Council Break -6- ~ ~ 10:05 ~ COUNCIL MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1989 Page seven WATERFORD THIRD PHASE, PRELIMINARY PLAN - Continued Public Comment Jay Hare - Continued Hare presented a transparency showing the proposed intersection area. He said the basic compromise point is that Old Market Road go through to the frontage road; then have slip on and slip off ramps, this way most areas would be sharing their own traffic burden, and the cut through would not be served. He suggested all working together to solve all the problems. He suggested curving Covington Road onto Highway 7 so Radisson Road could not be used for cut through traffic. A cul-de-sac in Shady Hills was suggested. They are in support of updating the Vine Hill Road intersection, not to divert traffic but because it is such a bad intersection. A way has to be figured out to prevent Crosstown traffic from coming through. He said MnDOT would have to be part of the package deal. He said with the slip on ramp, the emergency vehicles could get into the area in a hurry, they would not have to hurry leaving. He said all have to work together as a community, meet with City Staff and representatives from each neighborhood. He asked if some of the questions asked during the discussion could be answered during Council discussion. In conclusion he asked that the issue be tabled and allow for time to discuss the issue. He said he thinks the traffic count needs some attention. Jerry Steiner Attorney for Trivesco Steiner said he thinks it's very clear that what is being proposed for Old Market Road and the intersection is exactly what was intended by both the Council and the developer. Four years ago his client made a commitment to the City and that commitment was documented in the Development Agreement. That Development Agreement established some specific deadlines, such as commercial development in the Fall of 90/91. Trivesco has done this by bringing Sherman's proposal to the City. He said this is a very high quality development. H~e thinks it is very ironic that after meeting the commitments, the primary obstacle becomes the road intersection. The road intersection was requested by the City and the Staff and was put into the Development Agreement. The issue was throughly evaluated and resolved in 1985. It is unfortunate that the people feel they have been taken advantage of. Trivesco controlled Waterford only, reasonable steps were taken, it was in the Development Agreement which was available at City Hall, the layout was made clear, it was in the Trivesco Sales Brochure, Trivesco did not try to conceal it. The intersection had been recommended by the Public Safety Departments, Police and Fire, the City Staff has recommended it, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. A memorandum of the Development Agreement was recorded at the County with the title. Council Questions Preliminary Design Engineer for the Golden Valley Office of MnDOT Haugen - There has been some comment that we have not done very good research. Would you refresh their memories on what went on with the Corridor Study? -7- MINUTES - MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1989 PAGE 8 . WATERFORD THIRD PHASE, PRELIMINARY PLAN - Continued Council Questions - MnDOT He said he was not personally involved in the Corridor Study, which was published about 3 years ago. It did indicate a preference for two scenarios, the number one preference was for an interchange with a bridge on Highway 7 in the vicinity of Covington Road, and the second was for an interim intersection in the vicinity of Old Market Road. Haugen - Did or did not the City investigate the off/on slips, and what was the response. Robinson - Said he understood that they did and that they were not acceptable to the City Staff. He said the next proposal received from the City included the intersection. Haugen - But what about MnDOT telling us that they are going to close all the slip on/slip offs from Highway 41 to 101? Robinson - As far as the Highway 7 Corridor Study, we would be looking on a long-term basis at Highway 7 in the area you're talking about, there would be access only at interchanges or fully controlled signal- ized intersections. All other slip ramps would be closed off from Highway 7. . Brancel - Then why was the new Super America right off Highway 7 and 41 allowed to put in a right turn slip ramp that goes around behind the station and exits onto 41? Robinson - Said he was not involved in that but they were probably given a permit with the understanding that if a problem resulted, they would have to find another solution. He said generally if a property owner adjacent to Highway 7 requests an access onto Highway 7, they don't have the right to refuse it, if they do refuse it, they have to purchase access control. Brancel - You mean if we had requested access to Highway 7 we could have gotten it? Robinson - Possibly, although in the very recent past we have started an acquisition of access control whenever we've gotten a request for an access onto Highway 7, due to the Corridor Study. . Gagne - Said that when they first started talking about this MnDOT wanted to put a five million dollar bridge across Highway 7. He thinks there's a lot of information here the people haven't heard about. County Road 19 and 7 is going to have stop signs, the result of that was to eliminate a couple of cross streets. He said he understood that all the on and off ramps were going to be closed and now you're tell- ing us we can have them? Robinson - MnDOT has projects proposed for County Road 19, Christmas Lake Intersection, and Vine Hill Road Intersection, and eventually all entrances onto Highway 7 not served by a controlled intersection will be closed. -8- MINUTES - MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1989 PAGE 9 . WATERFORD THIRD PHASE, PRELIMINARY PLAN - Continued Council Questions - MnDOT Gagne - Asked about the loop size on the Vine Hill Road Intersection. He said in the last 10 years there have been a coup~e dozen ~roposals. He also asked if the frontage road would be upgraded along wlth-the intersection improvement? Robinson - The bigger loops work better, smaller loops create con- gestion. He said they are aware of the residents concern about getting too close to their properties. The proposal only includes the inter- section at this time. He said that there are other programs, he also mentioned the fact that Shorewood is now eligible for State Aid and if they put the frontage road on their improvement list, they should be able to get aid for it. Watten - Asked what the plan is to handle the Crosstown traffic. Robinson - This is a County problem. Haugen said she had asked that a County Representative be present but none came. Audience question - What are the warrants necessary for this project to get MnDOT approval? . Robinson - We've had discussion with the City Staff on several occasions and they have seen some preliminary proposals. We've reviewed those and we've laid down some criteria. We would consider approving this plan when the criteria are met. We also required, that in order for this intersection to be approved, the signal warrants must be met and must be signalized on day of opening. Haugen - What authority do we have as to whether that is a 3-way or a 4-way intersection? Robinson - Either properly designed is acceptable. Brancel - Does MnDOT have a standard set for the distance between stop lights? Robinson - We din't like to get them any closer than about ~ mile. They feel that the Old Market Road intersection would be fine, in fact could be an improvement for traffic flow and signal timing. Audience question - What are the specific traffic count warrants for Old Market Road? Number of cars per hous, if this is less than 100, does it really make sense to add another stop light one quarter of a mile from Vine Hill? . Bob Morast - Traffic Engineer - One is a warrant called peak hour volume, this is intended where traffic conditions are such that during peak hours of the day the traffic would have a difficult time entering or crossing the major street. He showed the graph and said the area does meet the criteria required. -9- MINUTES - MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1989 PAGE 10 . WATERFORD THIRD PHASE, PRELIMINARY PLAN - CONTINUED Council Questions - MnDOT Audience Question - If the County has responsibility for Crosstown, why does MnDOT recommend an intersection at Old Market Road? Robinson - This is not a MnDOT proposal, it is a City proposal. Haugen - What is the progress on Vine Hill at this time? Robinson - We have talked with both Shorewood and Deephaven on a number of occasions, we have discussed a number of proposals, as far as Shorewood goes we are ready to submit them when the Council is ready to hear them. We have three and have discussed at least three more. There are four on Christmas Lake. We are dealing with Deephaven and Shorewood at Vine Hill and Greenwood and Shorewood at Christmas Lake. Gagne informed the new residents that when they started talking about it Deephaven expressed serious concerns, they didn't want any traffic going north on Vine Hill Road. Haugen asked if MnDOT had control at this time over the Old Market Road intersection property. . Robinson - The answer was that he didn't think so. To get control they have to either purchase it or take it by default. Council Questions - German Sherman . Sherman said there are a couple issues he'd like to address. First, the intersection was already approved as a part of the P.U.D. and, in order for commercial to be viable there has to be a ready access - not on/off ramps. No retailer is going to accept an access that MnDOT can come along and close. Part of the concept plan was to have multiple housing acting as a transition between the commercial and the single family residential, the density of the multiple family was reduced to make it as pleasing as possible. The improvements in a mixed P.U.D. are after paid for by assessments on the commercial property. This particular commercial development paid over $250,000 in special assess- ments for Waterford I, II and III. Water ford would not have been developed as a P.U.D. without the intersection. Take away the commercial and you take away the economics of that decision made four years ago. Sherman showed slides and explained the landscaping, berms, and a water theme, ponding by the intersection with clay or plastic liner to hold the water. He said a tennis court will also be used as a buffer between the intersection and residential. They are proposing a large setback between the frontage and the commerical, with a berm and landscaping. The commercial is meant to have a residential flavor so it will fit in with the residential neighborhood. He talked about low-key signage. Haugen mentioned the fact that the Planning Commission had voted against the gas station and convenience store, are you telling me that economically it is a necessity? -10- MINUTES - MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1989 PAGE 11 ~ WATERFORD THIRD PHASE, PRELIMINARY PLAN - Continued Council Questions - George Sherman Sherman said that the convenience store in their opinion is an appropriate use for that site, it meets the P.U.D. requirements that were set out. The convenience store generates enough property value to allow the reduced number of multiply family units. He said you can't just pull part of a plan out. Without the convenience store it may mean that they would have to have 65 twin homes instead of 54 to generate the same income. He discussed tax increment financing. He said the Development Agree- ment that the City signed showed that they would participate in the cost of the intersection. He said the Developer does not guarantee the bonds, he guarantees the tax increment with a letter of credit. Haugen asked where they expect to get their commercial users? The majority of users will probably be from around the area, he said with approval they could probably be 50-60% leased. Haugen asked if they were counting on Crosstown traffic. He said they expect most their business to come with a half-mile area. ~ Different traffic patterns were discussed. Sherman reiterated that without an intersection there would not be enough business. Gagne asked what would happen if high-density residential was put in that space instead of commercial. Sherman said you could put up 400 units and it wouldn't have the same value you would get from 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial. Audience question - Is the gas station in or out? It has not been taken out so it is still up for review before the City Council. Audience question - If the commercial doesn't go through is the $250,000 special assessments all that would have to be reimbursed to the developer. Commercial property along Highway 7 on an intersection and established can get about $5 to $10 a square foot. Residential would be about $1 to $1.50 a square foot. As commercial, the 10 acres are worth over a million dollars more than if it was residential. Council Discussion ~ Gagne asked where the westbound traffic would go? Down Radisson Road? If they don't go back to the Vine Hill Road intersection, they will go through local roads. Audience question - When coming up with peak traffic volumes for the OMR intersection, those figures, a total of 4,225 VTD (Vehicle Trips per Day), include 1,680 VTD's that would not be there without the inter- section, without these 1680 VTD's would the residents of Shorewood still -11- . . . MINUTES - MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1989 PAGE 12 WATERFORD THIRD PHAS PRELIMINARY PLAN - Continued Council Discussion need the intersection? Bob Morast said they were not separated. Haugen said she has questions about Crosstown. Planner Nielsen said he has some information from Hennepin County There will be 4 lanes, 2 each way. Crosstown will terminate at 101. The contract for 1991 takes the road from Baker Road to County Road 4. The contract for 1992 takes the road from County Road 4 to 101. Final plans have not been improved by Minnetonka or Eden Prairie. Stover asked if they were intending to upgrade 101. Not to anyone's knowledge. Morast gave the Council the traffic projections at 101 and Crosstown. Gagne asked the City Attorney to restate the City's position as far as he's concerned regarding the contract we've had with the developer since 1984. Attorney Froberg gave his opinion ln a memorandum dated August 25, 1989, and he has received nothing that would cause him to change that opinion. Stover said someone asked why the change in the parking lot from one direction to another? George Sherman responded that the change of the retail was because they thought it was more aesthetically pleasing and would be more successful if it faced Highway 7. Stover asked if there has been a demographics change since 1984? Haugen said the number of houses and people has changed. Whittaker said that had been taken into account at the Planning Commission meet- ing. We are talking now about 415 additional units since 1984. What other routes would work? We had not found an alternative that didn't put traffic from the new developments through existing neighbor- hoods. Why was the park located on a collector street? The property was available and centrally located and it was purchased for park purposes. Haugen said that if you take overall taxes, including County, School etc. we are 2nd. If you take just the City portion we are 14th out of 44. Haugen explained the neighborhood meeting. Brancel was present as Council designee. Haugen said she had agreed to some of the things said but explained that she was only one of a Council of 5. She will read some of their requests and they can be dealt with separately. Request - A meeting between representatives from each of the Southeast -12- MINUTES - MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1989 PAGE 13 . neighborhoods and the appropriate City Staff to try and arrive at a compromise position on the traffic plan for the southeast area. . Gagne asked if the meeting had taken place? The answer was no. The neighborhood would like to meet with Nielsen. Haugen said then they are going to have to go to City Hall and work into Nielsen's schedule. She asked what the will of the Council is? Brancel asked how long we have with the Developer before it creates a problem? Attorney Froberg said there is no specific time, however, action should be taken within a reasonable time, and if the matter is put off or tabled, it should be tabled for a specific time and specific reason to accomplish things, and to review particular items. Another date should then be set at which time a conclusion would be reached to those items and action taken. Haugen asked Sherman what the time frame is that would be unacceptable or acceptable? Delay always costs dollars. He said they submitted their request in February. He said if its a design problem that's one thing. But if its the intersection, that has al- ready been approved. He said the City said they would work expediantly and it has been 8 months. Haugen asked if a month would be a problem? Brancel asked Sherman if he would rather have them vote on it tonight even if all these other things are involved? Sherman said he didn't see the intersection being resolved, and if the City is considering not having the intersection it could drag things out for another 6 months to 2 years. He said to vote on it and let Trivesco get on with what they legally have to do, and he'll just get on wit~ it. He said its better for them to get it out of the way. ~ 11:45 - 5 minute Council break Haugen said one thing she would like to clear up is what she did say at the neighborhood meeting. She made a statement and she sticks by that statement. She has some doubt in her mind whether some of the residents did know about the intersection. She said she does not doubt the original developer, that he did turn out brochures saying that there was an Old Market Intersection but its her understanding that he did not develop every single lot. She has no reason to doubt the citizens of Shorewood and feels there is a strong possibility that some of them were not told. Haugen said that she had agreed to bring before the Council the pro- posal that the City would hire a third party Attorney to look at the Development Agreement to see if Shorewood has a legal obligation with Trivesco concerning the Development of an intersection. Watten moved, Gagne seconded, that the City does not involve itself in hiring a third party Attorney. Motion carried - 3 ayes - 2 nayes - Haugen and Brancel. Haugen said she would talk to the Council about having a meeting with representatives from the developments and the City Staff to try to come to a compromise position on the intersection in the southeast area. . Stover said what they were supposed to be doing is considering the pro- posal presented by the Developer. She said if the Developer was will- ing to consider meeting with the neighborhoods she would not object to that, however, she does not feel it is the City's responsibility to re- design the Developer's plan, only to accept or reject it. -13- . . . MINUTES - MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1989 PAGE 14 Watten said he came here tonight hoping that maybe alternative solu- tions would be presented to satisfy the residents. He said there has been some attempt at alternative solutions and he thinks the one that Mr. Hare presented would be precluded by the MnDOT remark indicating that there needs to be a controlled intersection. Watten also discussed the traffic from 62. Brancel said she felt the neighbors could still deal with other pro- blems relating to Shady Hills, Radisson Road, etc. Haugen said she had agreed, at the neighborhood meeting, to refrain from voting on the intersection until all questions, including financing, had been answered - and she would encourage the other Councilmembers to do the same. However, she learned that she could not do that because the procedure in the City Ordinance requires her to act on this plan before studying the detailed financing of the public improvements. That procedure and past practice provide for Council consideration of the financing after a feasibility study is done. She could vote yes or no then and would be derelict in her duty if she did not follow this process. , Haugen asked the Council if they have received all the information they need, and if they have not, they must instruct the Staff on what they need and when they want it. Brancel said she would first like to have all the information on what's going to happen to Radisson Road and Shady Hills before she makes a decision and votes on this because, depending on the information, she might decide to vote for the intersection. Gagne said with Crosstown dumping into Old Market Road there is going to be a problem. He said he thinks we are going to have to get to- gether with Minnetonka and stop it somehow, find an answer. He said the Developer wants an answer and he wants it now, he has been waiting for 8 months. The City Attorney says that the contract is valid and he doesn't see anything that changes that. He said he could go out and hire 10 attorneys and they'd fight tooth and nail for their opinion, but this is what we have a City Attorney for, and we either rely on our City Attorney or get rid of him. He thinks the man deserves an answer. Haugen said from letters, phone calls, etc. that the information re- ceived is about 50/50 and they can't make everybody happy so they are just going to have to do the best they can with the information avail- able. Stover is concerned about the 62nd Street traffic. Haugen asked about the convenience store which the Planning Commission rejected. Watten moved, Gagne seconded, to approve the land use portion of the P.U.D. contingent upon the following Planning Commission recommendations: -14- . . . MINUTES - MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1989 PAGE 15 1. excluding the gas station 2. hours of operation to be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. for any of the commercial operations 3. signs shall be no higher than the buildings 4. there will be restrictions on accessory buildings and outdoor storage of boats, etc., for the residential area. Motion carried by Roll Call Vote - 5 ayes. Watten moved, Gagne seconded, to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and to approve the transportation portion of the pro- posal. Motion carried by Roll Call Vote - 4 ayes - 1 nay (Brancel) Haugen asked Planner Nielsen what the general design portion of the proposal included? He said type of building, landscaping, orientation of buildings to parking lots, and parking lots. Haugen asked about the building facade. Watten moved, Stover seconded, to approve the general design portion of the proposal, the final design is to be reviewed by the Staff and Council. Motion carried by Roll Call Vote - 5 ayes. Stover moved, Brancel seconded, to approve the park dedication fees as originally proposed - $78,500. Motion carried - 5 ayes. Gagne moved, Stover seconded, to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Resolution approving the Development Stage Plan and Pre- liminary Plat for Water ford Phase III, to be presented at the next meet- ing. Motion carried - 4 ayes - 1 nay (Brancel) Council Direction Haugen asked Staff to get together with Jim Miller at the City of Minnetonka and see if we can get something going regarding 10~ and to contact someone at Hennepin County to tell us what's going on, and what their time line is, and what they have proposed. Haugen would also like to have McDOT get together with Council and Staff to let us know what their proposals are for Christmas Lake Intersection, for Vine Hill Intersection, what proposals they have for closing on/off slips and where they are in Shorewood, and what their time line is on all of this. It was suggested that the person to talk to may be either Mr. Keith or Dennis Hanson. Council would like the information by December 4, 1989. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE VACATION OF PART OF UNIMPROVED SUNSET LANE RESOLUTION NO.94-89 Mayor Haugen opened the Public Hearing at 12:30 A.M. The Public Hearing was closed at 12:31 A.M. without public comment. Let it be recorded that Councilmember Stover left the Chambers before the Hearing began and returned after the Resolution was considered. -15- MINUTES - MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1989 PAGE 16 . PUBLIC HEARING ON THE VACATION OF PART OF UNIMPROVED SUNSET LANE-CONTINUED RESOLUTION NO.94-89 Gagne moved, Brancel seconded, to approve Resolution No.94-89, a Resolution "To Vacate a Portion of a Public Street". Motion carried- 4 ayes/no nayes - by Roll Call Vote. REPORTS Administrator Whittaker explained that Patti Helgesen, Planning Assistant, will be going on maternity leave for three months. The Administrator and Planner are requesting permission to hire a replacement, a temp that has worked for the City before and is very efficient, for six (6) hours a day for 3 months at a rate of $9 an hour. Stover moved, Gagne seconded, to approve the hiring of a temporary replacement for 3 months while Planning Assistant Helgesen is on maternity leave. Pay approved is $9 hourly for 6 hours daily. Motion carried - 5/0. APPROVAL FOR ADJOURNMENT Watten moved, Stover seconded, to adjourn the Regular Council meeting at 12:39 A.M., on Tuesday, November 14, 1989, subject to payment of the claims. . GENERAL & LIQUOR FUNDS - Acct No. 00-00166-02 General $ 120,071.79 Liquor $ 55,573.81 Checks # 3179-3299 Payroll Checklist: Checks # 203458 - 203525 Total $ 22,492.56 $ 142,564.35 $ 6,131.48 $ 61,705.29 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Susan A Niccum Assistant Clerk Laurence E. Whittaker City Administrator/Clerk . -16- CHECK NO., CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR NOVEMBER 13, 1989 COUNCIL MEETING TO WHOH ISSUED PURPOSE PJ.lOUNT .CKS ISUUED J179 (G) 3180 (G) 3181 (G) 3182 (G) 3183 (L) 3184 (1) 3185 (L) ~186 (L) 3187 (1) 3188 (1) 3189 (L) 3190 (L) 3191 (L) 3192 (1) 3193 (1) 3194 (1) 3195 (1) 3196 (L) 3197 (L) 3198 (1) 3199 (G) 3200 (G) 3201 (G) 3202 (G) ..03 (G) .L04 (G) 3205 (G) 3206 (G) 3207 (G) 3208 (G) 3209 (1) 3210 (L) 3211 (1) 3212 (L) 3213 (1) 3214 (1) 3215 (L) 3216 (1) 3217 (L) 3218 (L) 3219 (1) 3220 (1) 3221 (G) 3222 (L) SINCE OCTOBER 24, 1989 SANDR..~ KENNELLY COMHISSIONER OF REVENUE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE COHHISSIONER OF REVENUE ALL-ANERICAN BOTTLING CORP. BELLBOY CORPORATION BOYD HOUSER CANDY AND TOB. GRIGGS, COOPER AND COMPANY JOHNSON BROTP~RS LIQUOR CO. MINNEGASCO NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. ED PHILLIPS AND SONS QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS CO. WASTE ~_~NAGE~~NT - SAVAGE GRIGGS, COOPER AND COMPANY HONEYHELL PROTECTIONS SERVo JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. ED PHILLIPS AND SONS POGREBA DISTRIBTING COMPANY QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS CO. HOKANSON PLL~BING PETTY CASH MINNESOTA TITLES LMCIT INSURANCE TRUST COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE THE BANK EXCELSIOR ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST PUB. EMP. RETIREMENT ASSOC. CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AT & T BELLBOY CORPORATION GRIGGS, COOPER AND COMPANY JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. :HINNEGASCO MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY, INC. NATIONAL GUARDIAN HARRY NIEMELA ED PHILLIPS AND SONS QUALITY WINE Ah~ SPIRITS CO. RYAN PROPERTIES US WEST COM}lUNICATIONS VISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL, INC. KEN JARCHOINSURANCE AGCY. (CONTINED NEXT PAGE) . REI}ffiURSEMENT FOR HEALTH INS. $ SEPTEMBER 1989 SALES TAX SEPTEMBER 1989 FUEL TAX LICENSE RENEWAL (FL~L) POP PURCPiliSES LIQUOR PURCHASES CIG. PURCHASES AND SUPPLIES LIQUOR, WINE AND MISC. PURCHASES WINE PURCHASES UTILITIES UTILITIES LIQUOR AND WINE PURCHASES LIQUOR AND WINE PURCHASES WASTE REMOVAL LIQUOR, WINE AND MISC. PURCHASES CHECKED AFA P~~EL-STORE II LIQUOR p~TD WINE PURCa~SES LIQUOR AND WINE PURCHASES BEER AND MISC. PURCHASES WINE PURCHASES RETURN OF WATER METER HISC. EXPENSES ASSESSMENT FEE REFUND EMPLOYEE DENTAL INSURANCE 10 & 11/89 PAYROLL STATE TAX WITHHELD FEDERAL, FICA, MEDICARE WITHHOLD IN PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS UTILITIES LIQUOR PURCHASES LIQUOR, WINE AND MISC. PURCHASES LIQUOR AND WINE PURCHASES UTILITIES MISC. PURCHASES AND SUPPLIES MAINTENANCE CONTRACT-LIQUOR I NOVEMBER RENT FOR STORE I LIQUOR AND WINE PURCHASES WI1"'E PURCHASES NOVEMBER RENT STORE II UTILITIES AND ADVERTISING SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION LIQUOR LIABILITY 11/1/89-11/1/90 -1- 38.80 8,575.75 77 .50 10.00 46.00 4,620.26 2,131.68 3,166.99 6.18 41. 08 276.94 448.39 512.57 92.00 4,364.59 25.00 564.27 869.37 1,667.85 296.58 125.00 14.27 15.00 663.48 816.79 4,823.27 468.08 1,467.54 37.00 165.00 3.90 2,462.07 4,340.09 4,782.63 111. 00 153.40 187.52 1,292.00 1,858.38 989.72 1,922.58 212.27 8,416.85 6,423.00 CHECK NO. CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR NOVEMBER 13, 1989 COUNCIL MEETING TO \lliOM ISSUED PURPOSE AHOUNT .""ECKS ISSUED 3223 (G) 3224 (G) 3225 (1) 3226 (L) 3227 (1) 3228 (L) 3229 (L) 3230 (G) 3231 (G) 3232 (G) 3233 (G) 3234 (G) 3235 (G) 3236 (G) 3237 (G) . . SINCE OCTOBER 24, 1989 (CONT.) WIDMER, INC. E.H. RENNER AND SONS BELLBOY CORPORATION GRIGGS, COOPER AND COMPANY JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS CO. COM}lISSIONER OF REVENUE THE BANK EXCELSIOR COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST AFSCME LOCAL #224 CITY COUNTY CREDITY UNION CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEHENT PUB. EMP. RETIREMENT ASSOC. ....... __'~'d''''_~,_"__,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_,,, PAYHENT VOUCHER 1 AND FINAL REPAIR OF fu~ESBURY \mLL LIQUOR PURCHASES LIQUOR, WINE AND MISC. PURCHASES WINE PURCHASES UTILITIES LIQUOR AND WINE PURCP~~SES OCTOBER 1989 FUEL TAX FED, FICA, MEDICARE WITHHOLDING PAYROLL STATE TAX WITHHELD PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS PAYROLL UNION DUES DEDUCTIONS PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS TOTAL GENER..~L TOTAL LIQUOR TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED ............"\-,,..~" ..,....""" Approved '"'h . ~ nI.Qj.Wf'....,../' u....:;,l) G 'i~ ~J ~J L -2- $ 3,700.00 4,343.30 3,369.28 6,708.53 385.51 299.29 942.89 33.70 4,851.04 821.48 468.08 100.80 37.00 165.00 1,472.18 41,706.91 55.573.81 97,280.72 CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR NOVEMBER 13, 1989 COUNCIL MEETING UTILITIES $ 5.12 PHONE RENTAL 8.83 OFFICE SUPPLIES 346.09 BEEPER FOR PUBLIC WORKS 9.00 SALT FOR ICE CONTROL 2,631.76 VELLUM-PLANNING 10.65 LAUNDRY SERVICES FOR CITY HALL/PW 403.08 PAYING AGENT FEES 110.00 PLANNING SUPPLIES 29.81 AM}! MEETING-ADMIN/MAYOR 40.00 3/4 MINUS RED (CL 2) PW ROCK 110.05 RESURFACE TENNIS COURTS-MANOR PARK 2,410.00 ANIMAL PATROL SERVICES FOR SEPT. '89 510.00 AIR FILTERS-PULIC WORKS 17.30 SHOP/AUTO SUPPLIES 61.39 HOT MIX AND TACK OIL 4,458.97 COFFEE, CUPS, AND PAPER TOWELS 124.50 TAPING OF 2 COUNCIL MEETINGS 100.00 OCTOBER 1989 ATTORNEY'S FEES 4,307.17 DEVELOPMENTAL 900.00 ON-GOING 20.00 PARKS 20.00 PROSECUTIONS 1,290.00 GENERAL 1,020.00 DLSBURSMENTS 247.17 LITIGATIONS 560.00 RETAINER 250.00 ASSOC.PUBL. PENSION/BENEFIT NEWS SUB. TORO HANDMOWER BELT PARK CONSULTING FEES TREASURER PRISONER EXPENSE MAINTENANCE AGREEHENT 11/1/89-90 BUSINESS }1ACH. POLICY UNIV. JOINT/CUTTING EDGE COMPUTER SERVICES FOR AUGUST DIESEL FUEL, PUMP NOZZLE., GEARLUBE OCTOBER 1989 SAC CHARGES TACK OIL AND HOT MIX UTILITIES BUILDING PERMIT SURCHARGE PUBLISHING 3RD QUARTER WATER BILLING DELIVERED SAND FOR ICE CONTROL NOVEMBER SERVICES FEES AND EXPENSE-G.O. BOND 12/1/71 UTILITIES PAYING AGENT FEES ~HECK NO. TO WHOM ISSUED CHECKS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL 3238 3239 3240 3241 3242 3243 3244 3245 3246 3247 3248 3249 3250 3251 3252 3253 3254 3255 3256 AT & T AT & T ACRO MINNESOTA AIRSIGNAL AKZO SALT INC. ALBINSON SERVICES, INC. fu~RICAN LINEN AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK ARTWORKS ASSOC. OF METRO. MUNICIP. BRYAN ROCK C & H CONSTRUCTION CITY OF CHANHASSEN Ca~NHP.SSEN LAWN AND SPORT CHASKA PARTS SERVICE COM}1ERCIAL ASPHALT CROSSTOWN-OCS, INC HAROLD DIRCKS FROBERG & PENBERTHY,P.A. . 3257 3258 3259 3260 3261 3262 3263 3264 3265 3266 3267 3268 3269 3270 3271 3272 3273 3274 3275 3276 GOV. FINANCE OFFICERS HANCE HARDWARE GEORGE, R. HAUN HENNEPIN COUNTY IBM CORPORATION KEN JARCHO INSURANCE AGCY LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR MATTHIAS, ROEBKE & EBERT HC MAYER AND SONS METRO WASTE CONTROL COM. MIDWEST ASPHALT MINNEGASCO STATE TREASURER MINN. SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS CITY OF MINNETONKA WILLIAM HUELLER & SONS MUNITECH,INC. NATIONAL CITY BANK NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA . (CONTINUED NEXT PAGE) PURPOSE -3- AMOUNT 30.00 9.99 900.00 276.75 16.72 250.00 44.04 774.00 566.47 4,554.00 577 .41 56.95 1,546.96 309.39 828.37 2,074.23 4,917.00 166.50 1,468.34 200.00 CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR NOVEMBER 13, 1989 COUNCIL MEETING CHECK NO. TO WHOM ISSUED -CHECKS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL (CONT.) 3277 3278 3279 3280 3281 3282 3283 3284 3285 3286 3287 3288 3289 3290 3291 .292 293 3294 3295 3296 3297 3298 3299 . ORR, SCHELEN, }1AYERON AND ASSOCIATES JOSEPH PAZANDAK ALAN ROLEK SMALL BUSINESS CLEANING TARPS, INC. TONKA AUTO AND BODY SUPPLY TaNKA FORD TONKA PRINTING US WEST COMMUNICATIONS WASTE MANAGEMENT - SAVAGE WATER PRODUCTS, INC. WIDMER, INC. WIDMER, INC. WOODLAKE SANITARY LANDFILL COMMISSo WILLIAM H CAMPBELL COMMISSo MICHAEL O'TOOLE COMMISSo ISRAEL MIRVISS LLOYD/LENO~~ BACHE RICHARD/RAE WOOLDRIDGE T.FARRELL/J. HOLY T.FARRELL/J. HOLY GARY A. THOMPSON, ESQ. GARY A. THOMPSON, ESQ. l --~~~,__-....",,,,,,,~_..,, __.~... _ __~_ Approved hy Shorewood ~ i---------- I i J j i ...."".'''''''''.......~c..''''''.........~,,_....,'''..- ,__ PURPOSE SPET. 1989 3,021.96 4,358.81 75.38 962.61 386.24 807.76 946.82 ENGINEERING FEES FOR DEVELOPMENTAL ON-GOING K. RANNOW STREET PROJ. SW OAKS SAN. SEWER GENERAL MILEAGE FOR OCTOBER TUITION REIMBURSMENT JANITORIAL SERVICES FOR CITY HALL 8' X 10' TARP - PUBLIC WORKS HEADLIGHT SWITCH-#4 '85 FORD FUEL, OIL AND FLUD - PUB. WORKS RECYCLING BIN LOGO,ENVS, LETTERHEAD UTILITIES RECYCLING SERVICES FOR OCTOBER CLAMPS/HORNS/SWIVELS FOR RESALE PAYMENT VOUCHER 4 AND FINAL-87-5 PARK IMPROVEMENTS DUMPING FOR SHOREWOOD SHOP. CTR. CONDEMNATION-WEDGEWOOD EASEMENT CONDEMNATION-WEDGEWOOD EASEMENT CONDEMNATION-WEDGEWOOD EASEMENT WEDGEWOOD EASEMENT - AT.JARD WEDGEWOOD EASEMENT - AWARD WEDGE WOOD EASEMENT - AWARD WEDGEWOOD EASEMENT - AWAR~PP.FEE WEDGEWOOD EASEMENT - AWARD h~DGEWOOD EASEMENT -AWARD-APP.FEE TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST -4- AHOUNT $ 10,559.58 112.06 120.00 220.00 53.32 11.38 40.14 487.38 707.97 3,610.00 259.45 256.87 8,062.50 42.95 1,017.23 1,220.16 1,198.00 6,000.00 3,050.00 2,200.00 500.00 2,875.00 500.00 78,364.88 175,645.60 CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR NOVEMBER 13, 1989 COUNCIL ~mETING CHECK NO. TO WHOM ISSUED HOURS ~AYROLL REGISTER FOR OCTOBER 24, 1989 PAYROLL 203458 VOID 203459 (G) LAURENCE WHITTAKER 80 REG HOURS 203460 (G) SANDRA KENNELLY 80 REG HOURS 203461 (G) SUSAN NICCUM 80 REG HOURS 203462 (G) ANNE LATTER 69.5 REG HOURS 203463 (G) ALAN ROLEK 80 REG HOURS 203464 (G) WENDY DAVIS 80 REG HOURS 203465 (G) BRADLEY NIELSEN 80 REG HOURS 203466 (G) PATRICIA HELGESEN 64 REG HOURS 203467 (G) JOSEPH PAZANDAK 80 REG HOURS 203468 (G) CHARLE S DAVIS 80 REG HOURS 203469 (G) DENNIS JOHNSON 80 REG HOURS 203470 (G) DANIEL RANDALL 82 REG HOURS 203471 (G) HOWARD STARK 82 REG HOURS 203472 (G) RALPH WEHLE 80 REG HOURS 203473 (G) DONALD ZDRAZIL 80 REG HOURS 203474 (G) JOSEPH LUGOWSKI 80 REG HOURS 203475 (L) RUSSELL MARRON 62.5 REG HOURS 203476 (L) CHRISOPHER SCHMID 80 REG HOURS 203477 (L) JOHN THOMPSON 38 REG HOURS 203478 (L) MICHAEL KOEBENSKY 19 REG HOURS 203479 (L) BRIAN JAKEL 34.5 REG HOURS 203480 (L) MARK KARSTEN 15.5 REG HOURS .03481 (L) WILLIAM JOSEPHSON 80 REG HOURS 203482 (L) SUSAN LATTERNER 29.5 REG HOURS 203483 (L) DEAN YOUNG 80 REG HOURS 203484 (L) SCOTT BENNYHOFF 26 REG HOURS 203485 (L) SCOTT BARTLETT 55.5 REG HOURS 203486 (L) DOUGLAS FULLER 25.75 REG HOURS 203487 (L) MICHAEL FONTAINE 21 REG HOURS 203488 (L) JOHN JOSEPHSON 6 REG HOURS 203489 VOID 203490 VOID TOTAL GENERAL ~""""-';"'~--.~_\O~_,....,~,.....,,-,_..~.__. TOTAL LIQUOR "-"--'.-'-.t Approved bg J TOTAL PAYROLL Sh 1 ,"":"1 o"'evTn~t'!\:l; - ~If'fl $ .& . J .. 'cJ U. f /! ;"tL{ tz J .' j i ;. ( . -5- AHOUNT $ 897.19 73 7.28 526.84 444.56 904.31 542.95 892 .19 574.27 796.68 402.80 667.42 698.67 589.56 539.95 938.25 662.21 302.10 417.08 184.10 97.37 164.12 79.43 577 .54 136.41 551.95 122.45 248.81 112.67 107.62 32.52 10,815.13 3,134.17 13,949.30 ... ' ''\ . CHECK NO. -" CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR NOVEMBER 13, 1989 COUNCIL MEETING TO WHOH ISSUED HOURS mOUNT .PAYROLL REGISTER FOR NOVEMBER 7, 1989 PAYROLL 203491 203492 (G) 203493 (G) 203494 (G) 203495 (G) 203496 (G) 203497 (G) 203498 (G) 203499 (G) 203500 (G) 203501 (G) 203502 (G) 203503 (G) 203504 (G) 203505 (G) 203506 (G) 203507 (G) 203508 (G) 203509 (G) 203510 (G) 203511 (G) 203512 (G) 203513 (G) .203514 (L) 203515 (L) '203516 (L) 203517 (L) 203518 (L) 203519 (1.) 203520 (L) 203521 (L) 203522 (L) 203523 (L) 203524 (1.) 203525 (L) VOID LEONARD WATTEN JANICE HAUGEN BARBARA BRANCEL ROBERT GAGNE KRISTI STOVER LAURENCE WHITTAKER SANDRA KENNELLY SUSAN NICCUM ANNE LATTER ALAN ROLEK WNEDY DAVIS BRADLEY NIELSEN PATRICIA HELGESEN ANITA MACKEY jOSEPH--PAZANDAK CHARLES DAVIS DENNIS JOHNSON DANIEL RANDALL HOWARD STARK RALPH WEHLE DONALD ZDRAZIL JOSEPH LUGOWSKI RUSSELL MARRON CHRISTOPHER SCHMID JOHN THOMPSON MICHAEL KOEBENSKY BRIAN JAKEL MARK KARSTEN WILLIAM JOSEPHSON SUSAN LATTERNER DEAN YOUNG SCOTT BENNYHOFF SCOTT BARTLETT MICHAEL FONTAINE COUNCIL MAYOR COUNCIL COUNCIL COUNCIL 80 REG HOURS 80 REG HOURS 80 REG HOURS 80 REG HOURS 80 REG HOURS 80 REG HOURS 80 REG HOURS 64 REG HOURS 1 COUNCIL MEETING 80 REG HOURS 80 REG HOURS 80 REG HOURS 79.5 REG HOURS 82 REG HOURS 82 REG HOURS 80 REG HOURS 80 REG HOURS 34 REG HOURS 80 REG HOURS 35.5 REG HOURS 28 REG HOURS 41 REG HOURS 62.5 REG HOURS 80 REG HOURS 32.5 REG HOURS 80 REG HOURS 17.5 REG HOURS 35 REG HOURS 19 REG HOURS TOTAL GENERAL I I 1 1 J I ! i-- :. ,---..- ~--,~ '"= "A~~r~;;'db~ Shorewond TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL LIQUOR :n-- - , ~----- :----r --- - - - f~Vc~~~:: ......... .... ! D;:\E ct~C~ -- . -6- $ 147.82 177.30 147.82 150.00 150.00 905.54 756.68 526.84 505.40 904.31 542.95 892.19 574.27 98.55 796.68 386.00 650.62 662.99 572.76 555.06 928.24 645.41 176.13 417.08 173.24 137.91 190.33 277.03 577 .54 147.65 551.95 84.95 166.13 97.37 11,677 .43 ?,QQ7 11 14,674.74