071392 CC Reg Min
r..
. -
< . {
.
.
.
,
.
.""'" ' '..
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JULY 13, 1992
MINNEWASHTA SCHOOL
26350 SMITHTOWN ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Brancel at 7:00 p.m., July 13, 1992.
A
ROlL CAlL
Present:
Mayor Brancel; Councilmembers Daugherty, Gagne, Lewis and Stover. Also
present were Administrator Hurm, Engineer Dresel, Attorney Keane, Planner
Nielsen and Finance Director Rolek.
B.
REVIEW AGENDA
Brancel moved, Stover seconded that Agenda Item 3A be removed, tabled and placed on
the agenda of the July 27, 1992 Council meeting.
Motion passed 5/0.
Gagne moved, Daugherty seconded to approve the agenda for July 13, 1992, with the
removal of Item 3A
Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Gagne moved, Stover seconded to approve the City Council Minutes of June 22, 1992.
Motion passed 5/0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Brancel read the Consent Agenda for July 13, 1992.
Gagne moved, Daugherty seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with the removal of
Item A, and to adopt the Motions and Resolutions therein:
B.
RESOLUTION NO.63-92 "A Resolution Amending the 1992 Sewer Fund Budget for
Rehabilitation of Lift Stations 7 and 11."
1
,
, ~
.
.
.
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE 2
C.
RESOLUTION NO. 64-92 "A Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plat for Spruce
Hills-25110 Yellowstone Trail."
D. A Motion to Approve A Reduction of Letter of Credit - Shorewood Suburban
Estates.
E. A Motion to Approve An Extension for Recording the Final Plat of Gideon Cove
P.D.D.
F. A Motion to Approve Payment Voucher No.6 - Old Market Road Intersection.
G. A Motion to Approve Payment Voucher No.3 - Pine Bend Water Main Extension.
Motion passed 5/0.
4. PARKS
A A Resolution Amending the 1992 Capital Improvement Budget - Silverwood
Park
Hurm explained that this Resolution amends the 1992 Capital Improvement Budget. It
increases the budget from $55,200 to $63,500 to allow for payment of additional costs--if the
Park Fund is not sufficient--associated with work done in Silverwood Park that resulted in
an overage in the Park's grading budget. Hurm noted that while the 1992 Park Fund is
projected to be sufficient, this Resolution authorizes the use of General Funds on an interim
basis until the Park Fund balance is sufficient to repay. He further noted that it may be
possible to negotiate a lesser cost for the additional work with the contractor.
Lewis moved, Gagne seconded to approve "RESOLUTION NO. 65-92 "Amending the 1992
Capital Improvement Budget - Silverwood Park."
Motion passed 5/0.
5. PlANNING
A. Report on Planning Commission Meeting of July 7, 1992.
Planning Commission Vice Chair Janet Leslie read a statement prepared by the Commission
explaining the reasons for its recommendations to the Council made on June 16, 1992 in
connection with the Waterford III-Comprehensive Plan and P.D.D. amendments proposed
by Ryan Construction Company (Ryan). The Commission took action to recommend denial
of any of the proposed plans for Old Market Road, and in particular Scheme C, and to
recommend denial of the Ryan proposal for Waterford III.
B.
A Resolution Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Waterford
III.
2
.
.. ",
.
.
.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE 3
Staff Presentations
Nielsen presented a brief review of the current and proposed land use and transportation
plans of the Waterford complex. He suggested that the Council not take action on the
proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan until after the public hearing.
Daugherty moved, Gagne seconded to ~ action on the Resolution Approving a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Waterford ill until after the public hearing.
Motion passed 5/0.
Hurm presented a chart comparing key items of the plan approved in 1991 and the Ryan
proposal. These comparisons included total acreage, hours of operation, commercial and
residential acreage, estimated market value, estimated city tax revenue, and size of buffer.
Hurm reported on the preliminary responses from MNDot relating to Scheme C and noted
that further information and decisions will be forthcoming from MNDot. Preliminary
indications include: 1) it is likely that Scheme C will not affect the Old Market
Road/Covington Road MSA designation as long as their criteria continues to be met; 2)
because of the question of the MSA route continuity criteria, the service road from the
intersection around the new development to Old Market Road will need to be designated
eligible for MSA funding; 3) the funding issue of the Highway 7 intersection can be
separated from the MSA route designation funding issue; 4) cooperative agreement funding
for the intersection project should not be affected if the traffic needs do not change at the
intersection as a result of Scheme C.
Dresel reviewed a number of options and associated costs to address the traffic impact on
Vine Hill Road, Shady Hills Road, Radisson Road and Waterford Place which could result
from the adoption of Scheme C involving re-routing of Old Market Road. He noted that
generally the options available include blocking one direction of traffic and that the fire
marshall has stated these options can be expected to increase response time to the
neighborhood involved.
Mr. William McHale, Vice President, Retail Development, Ryan, commented briefly and
indicated he will respond to questions as necessary.
C. Public Hearing on Concept Stage (PUD) Amendment - Waterford III
Mayor Brancel opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. She explained that speakers must
sign up to do so and that each public speaker will be allowed 3 minutes to present a
statement.
Comments from the public included:
Jim Peterson. Christmas Lake Point: Not in favor of the proposal. Concerned about the
quality of the buffer zone. I've heard very little discussion about the size of the small strip
mall; it doesn't have to be "seedy". Concerned about the increased cost of fire and police
3
.
.
.
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE 4
protection. Applaud free enterprise system, but it's not the function of government to allow
a megamall to infringe on the citizens and it's incumbent to vote the broad interests of the
community and not the interests of the developer.
Bill McKenna. 5725 Ridge Road: Would like to know who initiated the discussion between
the City and Byerly's. Those who did not agree with the Planing Commission, what were
their specific reasons?
Dick Thomson. 5920 Ridge Road: Moved to Shorewood to raise my children near to
nature. Byerly's seems to be awarded almost sainthood. Grocery operation is very volatile.
Commented on the ownership of Byerly's and noted the demise of other grocers such as
Country Club, Piggly Wiggly etc.
Margaret Low. 19845 Sweetwater Curve: Voiced support for the proposal. As much as we
love our wildlife, the property is zoned commercial; there will be something built there.
Urge Council to look forward instead of backward and not discuss whether there will be
something, but what kind of development it will be. Believe Byerly's is a better choice for
Shorewood. Don't need another strip mall. Byerly's is, a stable retailer respectable with
high standards; would be a good neighbor. Urge the Council to consider what's good for
all of Shorewood.
Pat McDavitt. 21125 Christmas Lane: The amendment to the P.U.D. will not guarantee us
a byerly's; it adds a 60,000 square foot super market to a retail strip. There are limitations
to operating hours. The proposal would be a 24 hour operation. Also there has to be a
change in Old Market Road; however the developer is willing to go ahead without nny
changes. This would result in a double jeopardy - commercialization and traffic. Urge
Council to make it a place for people.
Barb Christensen. 19545 Vine Ridge Road: Support the Byerly's proposal. Shorewood has
some of the highest tax rates and we need strong businesses to increase our tax base. Enjoy
Byerly's and would shop there.
Judy Candell. 20125 Sweetwater Curve: Favor bringing Byerly's; it's a fine top quality
addition to our City and it might be our only chance to bring in a quality store.
John Fox. 4967 Kensington Gate: Oppose this development. Increased traffic to Vine Hill.
Highway 7 is already hazardous; ther'd be a log-jam of traffic. Suggest putting it someplace
else in Shorewood and not in that narrow corridor.
c;laire Sparber. 5840 Ridge Road: Live in Shorewood for "no conveniences." Proposal
would change character of Shorewood. Ask City to consider that a 24 hour Byerly's would
change the area; be careful when decision is made.
Kris Thayer. 5345 Shady Hills: Moved to Shorewood to raise a family. Approved P.U.D.
is limited commercial with some residential. Shady Hills would be affected by such a large
development. Leave Old Market Road and the P.U.D. as is.
H. D. Peterson. 5490 Covington Road: Over the years, previous Councils have made clear
statements that "people still count here." That included limiting commercial development
on Highway 7. The 1992 Council should make decisions for all the people of the City. The
proposal does not represent the views of the Commission and the people.
Ellen Moore. 19825 Muirfield Circle: Confused about who to believe about whats going to
be in the neighborhood. Seems to me should keep Old Market Road as is for quiet and less
traffic. 24 hour large market can't benefit our area. With the changes there will be a huge
draw of traffic. Concerned that other businesses would want to come in. We don't have
4
.
.
.
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE 5
to pay for the bad decisions by Trivesco.
Mike Moffitt. 5570 Covington Rd.: Reasonable people can disagree. We were told this was
Byerly's; that's not true it's for Ryan and the Banks. Fascinated by the fact that no one's
mentioned the need for more services, with so much more traffic and less ability to service
it. H Ryan is not accountable for maintenance at Shorewood Mall, why would we expect
anything different here. Burnsville comparison development is not exactly
"Shorewoodesque".
Dan Noonan. 21115 Radisson Road: Strongly support a Byerly's. Byerly's is consistent with
being residential.
Frank Fallon. 1050 Holly Lane: Concerned about increased traffic. Proposal is not
consistent with character of Shorewood.
Clay Atkinson. 5735 Brentridge Drive: A larger commercial development will be at the cost
of less peace and quiet.
Henry Paetzel. 19625 Excelsior Blvd.: Went through this discussion several years ago and
agreed at that time a smaller project was better than a large one. Think about the people
living adjacent to the project. Leave it as it is; there are other places in Shorewood to put
it.
Jay Hare. 5670 Old Market Road: Support the Byerly's proposal because a known is better
than an unknown; Byerly's is better than a strip mall and better to opt for a quality tenant.
Traffic and environment a concern, but Vine Hill intersection should be improved anyway.
Bob Peterson. 5480 Carrie Lane: Opposed to changing the P.U.D. H the changes goes
through, it's my opinion there will be a 15-20% decrease in residential values around
Waterford, Vine Hill, Christmas Lake area. Can the City afford a 15-20% decrease in
revenues.
John Gunkier. 5695 Christmas Lake Point: Need to think about increasing protective
services for Shorewood. Shouldn't run rough shod against the neighborhoods; Council
should vote for the best long term interests of the community.
R. C. Good/Joanne Good. 5590 Christmas Lake Point: Where did our Planning
Commission fail.
Diane Bruce. 6030 Ridge Road: Strongly opposed to Byerly's or any amendment to the
P.U.D. Can't think of any positive benefits. The magnitude of the proposal doesn't fit our
community. It's just not a grocery store, there are other businesses included in the proposal.
Estimated traffic numbers will affect neighborhood streets.
Denis Tierney. 5060 Suburban Drive: Opposed to strip mall; can't keep tenants. The Hwy
7 and 41 Mall is half full. Opposed to the P.U.D.
Carol Ann Mackay. 5925 Christmas Lake Road: There's a pattern among developers; once
a P.U.D. is changed and approved, in 50% of cases the final tenant is changed. Concerned
about noise pollution. Sounds from air conditioning and trucks carries across the lake.
Opposed to the development. Council shoul consider very carefully.
Alec James. Christmas Lake Point: Appears that neighbors will be disadvantaged by traffic.
There was an agreement with Chanhassen to collect traffic out of the area. Concerned
about fire equipment maneuverability and safety; ambulance service, road is very narrow.
What about these services during construction.
John Palleschi. 19890 Muirfield Circle: First thought this was a great idea. However,
concerned about noise and increased traffic and am opposed to the development.
5
.
.
.
..
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE 6
Lori Millard. 19580 Silver Lake Trail: Shorewood wants the City Council to represent us
and vote in favor of a Byerly's with Option C to regulate the traffic. Byerly's is a high
quality operation and Waterford is their selected location. We can watch property values
soar.
Dick Maffey Mahaffey. 6020 Chestnut Court: Support the proposal, but don't change the
road only prCYlide aeeess to get to neighborhoods for emergeney services. Access is peeded
to provide, emergency services as quickly as possible.
Jean Harmon. 6115 Sweetwater Court: Advocate a Byerly's on Highway 7. It would
enhance the neighborhood. Traffic problems can be worked out. Need to enjoy good
shopping and enjoy having a Byerly's.
Julie Simondet. 5390 Shady Hills Circle: Leave the intersection the way it was intended.
Supports a Byerly's store.
Linda Tilton. 5620 Coviniton Road: Opposed to Option C and Byerly's. Commented on
the Transportation Task Force.
Karen Vance. 5690 Ridie Road: Opposed to proposal. Residential character of Shorewood
would be violated. Concerned about noise, odors, pollution.
Debbie Getlin. 5705 Ridie Road: Opposed to proposal - related California experience with
malls.
Dale Sonnichsen. 5695 Harding Lane: Favors proposal.
Claire Peterson. 5480 Carrie Lane: Don't change the P.U.D. and keep Old Market Road
as is.
Gus Zinno 5820 Ridge Road: Concerned about environment, taking away the wetlands,
construction trash and pollution; opposed to development.
Carolyn Squires. 5800 Christmas Lake Road: Concerned about willingness of developer to
work with neighborhood. Concerned about a 24 hour operation, lighting, noise, fumes.
Council can leave a legacy for Shorewood and vote for what's best for the community.
Mike Pierro. 5880 Christmas Lake Road: Opposed to development. Concerned about
security and changes being paid for by the residents through higher taxes. Concern about
increasing the dangers of Vine Hilland Christmas Lake Roads.
Charlie Kanan. 19715 Sweetwater Curve: Opposed to a Byerly's.
Bill Maddy. 5780 Christmas Lake Road: Urge the Council not to make a development that
will compromise the residential neighborhoods and compromise the value of our home.
Erick Renauld. 19780 Waterford Place: Questioned the effect development will have on
property values, what will happen to tax revenues, changing Old Market Road will affect
ability and convenience to get to Highway 7, concerned about traffic increases and safety
related issues.
Louise Tilton. 5620 Covington Road: Against the .U.D. Suggest separating the issue of
traffic and the development.
Bob Bushnell. 20940 Ivy Lane: The proposal would be a poor use of residential area. Put
Byerly's on Hwy 7 and 41. Maybe proposal would be a poor use of residential area.
Louise Bonach. 19625 Sweetwater: Council members represent all people in Shorewood;
voted in to make correct decisions.
Larry Buesgens. 20090 Excelsior Boulevard: Was opposed to commercial development
approved in 1984 and continue to be opposed. Concerned about Council's position on
commercial development on the north side of Hwy 7.
6
REGULAR CITY COUNCll.. MINUTES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE 7
. Mack Traynor. 19880 Sweetwater Curve: Favors improving the community and favors a
Byerly's type of development.
Mark Hugo. 5395 Shady Hills Circle: Whatever is developed there will be a "red herring".
Rod Smith. 5016 Ridge Road: Completely against the development.
Kathy Boun. 19755 Waterford: Against the change to the P.U.D. and the Byerly's
development.
Bill Resman. 5905 Sweetwater Curve: Concerned about property values - up or down;
apparently no comprehensive study made on this issue.
Jim Peterson. 5580 Old Market Road: Challenge the Council to look at the P.U.D. and the
issues brought up and come up with a win-win solution.
Denise Blaho. 2195 Radisson Road: Oppose the development.
Bill Newhouse. 5640 Christmas Lake Road: Traffic and other issues need to be addressed
if the store and development are going to be successful.
Mayor Brancel read statements from residents who left the hearing before speaking and
read a petition signed by a number of residents regarding the proposal.
Mayor Brancel closed the public hearing at 10: 15 p.m.
D. Motion Directing Staff to Draft a Resolution Regarding Concept Stage (PUD)
Amendment
.
Council Discussion
Council members responded to questions and issues raised by residents during the public
hearing and participated in a general discussion regarding various aspects of the proposal.
Daugherty defended his action at the June 22 Council meeting agreeing to move ahead with
the next steps for approval of the plan noting that responses he received from his
constituency generally support the Ryan proposal and everyone concerned wanted additional
information.
Gagne defended his action at the June 22 Council meeting noting that in order to obtain
additional written documentation and information from the State (MNDot) regarding
continued street/highway funding, work toward approval of the proposal needed to continue.
Lewis defended his action at the June 22 Council meeting indicating that the over-riding
factor was that more information was required to make decisions that would be best for the
community.
Brancel defended her action at the June 22 Council meeting noting that additional
information was necessary before a decision could be made.
.
Stover defended her action at the June 22 Council meeting in support of the Planning
Commission's actions and noted her respect for the work and dedication of the Planning
Commission.
7
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE 8
. Brancel read a letter from Fire Chief Dana George which pointed out major concerns
regarding Scheme C including sharp curves making it difficult to maneuver fire equipment
and potential traffic congestion at the entrance and exit to the proposed Byerly's store.
These concerns compound the current reduced fire department and equipment response
time caused by the Old Market Road exit from Highway 7.
Lewis discussed the projected traffic levels and reviewed the origin of Scheme C and
indicated that it appears to be the best option to mitigate traffic concerns.
Stover indicated that in her opinion Scheme C creates more problems than it solves in that
planning for Old Market Road intended for it to do exactly what it is doing. Stover pointed
out that the original P.D.D. allowed for minimal commercial development and adding a
larger commercial development and trying to change the road at this point is nearly
impossible. She questioned who in Shorewood would benefit from Scheme C.
.
Lewis stated that he has been fairly consistent in his opposition to the project and the
intersection in particular. He indicated that attempts are now being made to change the
road to a collector street after the fact. He pointed out that the City is not soliciting
commercial development for the City, but is faced with the fact that some type of
development will occur and it behooves the Council to look at all options that would best
benefit the City of Shorewood. Lewis explained the objective and work of the Citizen's
Transportation Task Force.
Stover asked for clarification at what point in the process the P.D.D. is actually amended.
Keane responded that the Developer's ~'\greement ':/ould bind Ryan/Byerly's into the (Y;erall
deYlelopment. the P.D.D. is not technically amended until final plan approval. Stover asked
if the P.D.D. Agreement could specifically require a Byerly's store. Keane responded that
at the time of av.proval of the P.D.D. the Developer's Agreement would bind Ryan/Byerly's
into the overall development. but that this condition may be impossible to enforce 5 or 10
years later if Byerly's were to be acquired or out of business.
Nielsen stated that the issue of whether property values would increase or decrease could
be explored by a selected real estate appraiser.
Keane responded to the concern that both a strip mall and a Byerly's are considered
unacceptable developments by stating that the City has an approved P.D.D. that provides
for certain usage including a strip mall. He pointed out that the approved developer has
spent money in reliance ofthat P.D.D. and the City has a responsibility to honor that P.D.D.
Keane stated that although the developer may be in technical default of certain obligations
and schedule deadlines at the present time, the City can't wipe away the rights of that
approved P.D.D.
Stover asked whether the City has a letter of intent or written statement from Ryaft ureEly's.
. Nielsen stated the City has fteYef IQ1 requested such a letter.
8
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE 9
. Daugherty commented on the positive and negative points brought up by the residents and
he hoped that all the input will result in a ''win/win'' outcome of this matter.
Stover asked whether Council members would support the proposal without Scheme C.
Gagne indicated he would accept a Byerly's ''with the road straight through." Lewis
responded that he would not support it. Daugherty indicated he was interested in defining
the people's feelings regarding both the traffic and commercial developments sides of the
issue and that he would have to be totally convinced that the traffic concerns this would
create would not create additional problems for the people in and around the development.
Daugherty acknowledged this is a difficult problem to work around. He indicated that at
the present time he would be in favor of the overall development of Byerly's if the overall
traffic concerns could be alleviated. He noted that he had a number of other issues he
would attach to his support of the proposal.
Lewis indicated he was not in favor of shifting traffic from Old Market Road to other
routes, but agreed that the problems are solvable.
In response to a question, Keane explained that there is no provision for submitting this
issue to a referendum since the responsibility for decisions regarding land use is delegated
to City officials.
. Stover commented on communications between the Council and the Planning Commission.
Developer Comments
McHale thanked those residents speaking in support of the proposal and clarified some
points regarding the proposal. He also indicated that Ryan and Byerly's represents a quality
development and a good potential taxpayer. He felt confident that problems can be worked
out satisfactorily and this proposal provides for better use of the property than that
previously approved. Mr. Tom Harberts, Byerly's President and Chief Executive Officer,
said that according to research, residents want a Byerly's in the area and Byerly's is prepared
to make a 25-year commitment to Shorewood. He indicated Byerly's is sensitive to the
issues raised and will work to alleviate those concerns. Mr. Dick Koppy, Engineer, RLK
Associates, presented information interpreting data provided by the traffic and noise studies.
He explained the type of lighting fixtures proposed for use in the development. Koppy also
commented on the MNDot meeting and noted that it appears that State funds will continue
as long as certain criteria are met.
Council Action
Lewis moved, Gagne seconded to tabk action on a Resolution Approving a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment for Waterford m, and to tabk action directing staff to draft a Resolution
Regarding Concept Stage (PUD) Amendment until the Council's meeting on August 3, 1992.
Motion passed 5/0.
.
9
.
.
.
REGULAR CITY COUNcn. MINU1ES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE 10
E.
A Resolution Approving a Simple Subdivision/Combination
Applicant:
Location:
Londo/Kinghorn
22695 Murray Street
Stover stated that the Planning Commission recommended unanimously to approve the
Subdivision/Combination subject to staff recommendations. Staff recommended approval
of this Resolution with the contingencies outlined in the Resolution.
Stover moved, Gagne seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 68-92 "Resolution
Approving a Simple Subdivision/Combination..
Motion passed 5/0.
Council/Planning Cornrnk~ion Meeting
Council members agreed that a joint meeting of the Council and the Planning Commission
will be held on Monday, August 10, at 7:00 p.m. with the regular Council meeting to follow
at 8:00 p.m.
6. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACf - REZONING UPPER
lAKE MINNETONKA YACHT CLUB
This Resolution denies a request for re-zoning and variance to the Upper Lake Minnetonka
Yacht Club.
Mr. Owen Nelson, requested that the Council reconsider action on the Resolution, in view
of significant changes the ULMYC has made to address the concerns of the staff and
Council regarding its request for re-zoning that would allow construction of a club house
building on property located at 4580 Enchanted Point.
Stover moved, Gagne seconded to refer the matter of rezoning for the Upper Lake
Minnetonka Yacht Oub back to the PJannine Commission for further study and a new
public hearing. Motion passed 5/0.
7. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PIAT FOR BOUIDER RIDGE
ESTATES
This Resolution approves the final plat and Development Agreement for Boulder Ridge
Estates. The City Attorney will be responsible for technical changes or additions to the
Agreement.
Stover moved, Gagne seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 66-92 "Approving a Final
Plat for Boulder Ridge Estates..
Motion passed 5/0.
10
.
.
.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINU1ES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE 11
8.
A RESOLUTION SHITlNG A DATE FOR A PUBliC HEARING TO
CONSIDER A PARTIAL S1REET VACATION - NOBLE ROAD
Stover moved, Gagne seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 67-92 "Setting a Date for
a Public Hearing to Consider a Partial Street Vacation - Noble Road"
The date set for the public hearing is Monday, August 10, at 8: 15 p.m.
Motion passed 5/0.
9. MATfERS FROM TIIE FLOOR
Mayor Brancel called for matters from the floor.
Karen Vance, 5690 Ridge Road, spoke regarding the distribution of flyers in the community.
Robert Rascop, 4560 Enchanted Point, informed the Council about the elected officials boat
trip on the first Saturday in August.
10. STAFF REPORTS
A
B.
C.
D.
Attorney's Report - None
Engineer's Report - None
Planner's Report - None
Administrator's Report - None
11. COUNCIL REPORTS
A Mayor Brancel reported that the City of Excelsior has chosen to participate
in the Joint Powers Agreement for Police services on a year-to-year contract
r;~!I;.:'~.~.$b. ~.. f~ Qc;pattnmnt slton1dstlq
She noted the Shore wood aty Council wanted a long term agreement. Councilman Gagne
stated it is important that the agreement be at least for five years. The contract should not
lapse into a year by year status. Lewis stated we should continue with Tonka Bay and
Greenwood
Lewis moved, Gagne seconded to indicate, under terms of the agreement, that we want a
minimum of a five year contract. Motion passed 5/0.
B. Councilmembers - None.
11
,
,
, .
"
.
0\..
.
.
~
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINU1ES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE 12
12. ADJOURNMENT SUBJECf TO APPROVAL OF ClAIMS
Stover moved, Daugherty seconded to adjourn the aty Council Meeting at
12:25 a.m., Tuesday, July 14, 1992, subject to approval of claims.
Motion Passed 5/0.
RESPECfFUlL Y SUBMrl"lED,
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
Northern Counties Secretarial Services
ATfEST:
J
A9. C-
C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Note: At the August 3, 1992 Council meeting Councilperson K. Stover cited
changes in the minutes. These have been corrected with strike outs
and new insertions with underlines. (Anne Latter, Deputy Clerk)
.
12