102692 CC Reg Min
,.
.
.
'f{ ,.
lI,
''''
.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGUlAR CITY COUN~ MEETING
MONDAY, OCfOBER 26, 1992
COUN~ CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
L CAlL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Brancel at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A
ROIL CAlL
Present:
Mayor Brancel; Councilmembers Daugherty, Gagne, Lewis and Stover;
Administrator Hurm, Engineer Dresel, Attorney Keane, Planner Nielsen, and
Finance Director Rolek.
B.
REVIEW AGENDA
Stover moved, Gagne seconded to approve the Agenda for October 26, 1992.
Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992
Gagne moved, Daugherty seconded to approve the regular City Council meeting minutes
of October 12, 1992.
Motion passed 5/0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Brancel read the Consent Agenda for October 26, 1992.
Stover moved, Gagne seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and to adopt the Motions
and Resolutions therein:
A. RESOLUTION NO. 98-92 "A Resolution Approving Refuse Collectors License -
Action Sanitation."
B.
RESOLUTION NO. 99-92 "A Resolution to Assess Water Connection Fee for Tony
Studer at 5685 Minnetonka Drive."
1
f,+
..
.
.
.
REGUlAR CITY COUN~ MINUTES
OcrOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 2
c.
Motion to Approve the LMCIT Excess Liability Coverage and to Not Waive the
Monetary Limits.
D. RESOLUTION NO. 100-92 "A Resolution Accepting Modifications and Approve
Final Pay Voucher for the Rehabilitation of Lift Stations 5 & 6 - City Project No. 91-
3."
E. RESOLUTION NO. 101-92 "A Resolution Approving the Final Pay Voucher and
Accepting the Final Pay Voucher for Improvements to Pine Bend - City Project No.
91-11."
F. Motion to Approve the Installation of Street Lights on Apple Road.
G. RESOLUTION NO. 102-92 "A Resolution Extending the Deadline for Recording the
Final Plat of Boulder Ridge Estates."
Motion passed 5/0.
INTRODUCI10N OF FIRE MARSHAlL
Mayor Brancel introduced Mr. Carey Smith, Fire Marshall. Smith described his duties,
reviewed recent activities in connection with Fire Prevention Week and noted that he can
be reached at the Excelsior Fire Station.
4. PARK - None.
5. PLANNING
A. Report on Planning Commission Meeting of October 13, 1992.
Stover reported the Planning Commission took action at its October 13 meeting on items
coming before the Council at this meeting and indicated the Commission's recommendations
will be presented as these matters come up on the agenda.
B. Seasons P.U.D. - Concept Stage Plan - Elderly Housing Project - Pete Boyer
Mr. Boyer introduced Mr. Jim Robbin, Landscape Architect, for the project and noted he
has also worked with a consultant with expertise in senior housing. Using visuals, Boyer
showed the location of the project at 20095 Excelsior Boulevard, presented the background,
reviewed his research for the development and described his concept plan.
Boyer stated that Shorewood has indicated a need for senior housing through its Senior
Housing Task Force. He described three types of senior housing: 1) congregate living, 2)
assisted living, and 3) cottage style living. He stated his project is a cottage style
development of two 12-unit cluster homes designed to offer independence and secure private
2
, ,
. '
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OcrOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 3
. homes for active seniors 62 years or older with access to a wide range of services. The
Seasons will be one-level living units with attached two-car garages. The project will be
accessed from St. Albans Road and Excelsior Boulevard and each cluster will be served by
a separate private driveway. The site will be landscaped and existing vegetation will be
retained wherever practical particularly the areas along Excelsior Boulevard and the
residential area to the west. The homes will be for sale to seniors age 62 or older and will
be managed by a property owners association. Construction is planned to begin in the
spring of 1993. Boyer stated that consideration may be given to allowing occupancy of care-
givers under the age of 62. He noted the American Disabilities Act was used as a guide for
designing the project and the individual homes. He pointed out the project's tax advantage
to the City. He described a potential problem related to the ponding area and the storm
sewer running through the entire project. He indicated further study and additional work
with the City must be conducted to resolve the situation.
Gagne stated the Senior Housing Task Force was impressed with the concept of the
proposed project. Stover indicated the Planning Commission voted 7/0 to recommend
approval of the concept stage plans. Planning Commissioner Hansen stated the Commission
voted to recommend approval of this P.U.D. and directed the staff to review and
recommend action to allow occupancy of care-givers under age 62 in Shorewood's senior
housing. In addition, Hansen noted the Commission's concerns regarding current and
potential traffic issues brought to its attention by nearby residents during the public hearing.
.
Stover explained the Planning Commission's support of striping appropriate sections of
Excelsior Boulevard and St. Albans Road in the interests of traffic safety and indicated that
the Council may wish to consider allowing occupancy of care-givers under the age of 62 in
this project.
Dresel indicated striping is not feasible at this time of the year and will be deferred until
next spring. Lewis requested that the police be asked to monitor traffic speed levels in the
subject area.
Mr. Boyer asked that the issue of the storm sewer be resolved to assure that his project
complies with the regulations of the Watershed District and asked for the City's assistance
with this issue.
Gagne asked the staff to determine the responsibility and cost associated with the storm
sewer issue and bring the information to the Council at its next meeting.
Gagne moved, Stover seconded to direct the staff to prepare a Findings of Fact Resolution
approving the concept stage plan of the Seasons P.U.D., submitted by Pete Boyer, subject
to the recommendations of the staff.
.
Motion passed 5/0.
C. Setback Variance - John Leebens, 23825 Smithtown Road
3
. .
,A
.
.
.
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OcrOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 4
Hansen stated the Commission voted 7/0 to recommend denial of the applicant's request
for a setback variance primarily because the applicant did not demonstrate a hardship in
that the property can be put to reasonable use under the City's Code without a variance. He
noted the applicant based his request for the variance primarily to preserve a stand of trees.
Hansen noted there are several viable alternatives for use of the land which would not
require variances. Stover reiterated the Commission's discussion and noted the applicant
did not demonstrate any hardship whatsoever relative to use of the property and its planned
restoration.
In response to Brancel's request, Nielsen noted that although a request for subdivision of
the lot was approved several years ago, the subdivision was not recorded and remains as one
parcel of approximately 38,000 square feet.
Stover moved, Gagne seconded to direct the staff to prepare a Findings of Fact Resolution
to deny the request of John Leebens for a 25' setback variance from Minnetonka Drive at
23825 Smithtown Road.
Motion passed 4/1. Daugherty abstained.
D. C.U.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet - Allan Larson,
4320 Dellwood Lane
Hansen stated the Commission received no comments from the public on this request and
voted 7/0 to recommend approval of the request. He stated the property has a 17-year
restriction attached to it and the Commission recommended that the original owner be
notified of the issuance ofa building permit to Mr. Larson.
Lewis moved, Stover seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 103-92 "A Resolution
Granting a Conditional Use Permit For Additional Accessory Space to Allan Larson,"
subject to the staffs recommendations.
Motion passed 5/0.
E. Subdivision of a Two-Family Dwelling/Lot Area Variance - Joe O'Connor,
20345-47 Excelsior Boulevard
Hansen stated the Commission voted 7/0 to recommend approval of this request. The
Commission noted there may be some drainage benefit to the large wetland area
surrounding the property. Nielsen noted some of the Exhibits were not available for
attachment to the proposed Resolution and that receipt of those documents may make
minor technical changes to the Resolution.
Stover moved, Gagne seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 104-92 "A Resolution
Adopting a Subdivision of a Two-Family Dwelling/Lot Area Variance for Joe O'Connor,"
subject to the staffs recommendations.
4
REGUIAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OcrOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 5
. Motion passed 5/0.
.
.
F. C.U.P. for Accessory Space over 1200 Square Feet - Dana George, 25925
Smithtown Road
Hansen stated the Planning Commission voted 7/0 to recommend approval of this C.U.P.
without escrow subject to the staffs recommendation that five existing structures be removed
by July 1, 1993. Hansen suggested that the Council may wish to consider a specific formula
for the determination of when escrow funds are required. He noted that in the
Commissioners' view, escrow funds were not required in this case since the buildings are
rather small in size, the applicant is improving the property beyond requirements and is
willing to remove the buildings.
Lewis move~ Stover seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 106-92, "A Resolution
Granting a Conditional Use Permit for Additional Accessory Space to Dana George,"
subject to the staffs recommendations.
Motion passed 5/0.
G. Simple Subdivision - Dave Nelson, 21780 Lilac Lane
Hansen stated the Commission voted 7/0 to recommend approval of this subdivision subject
to a number of staff recommendations. Nielsen stated the Applicant will deed Lot 3 to the
City as designated wetland and will comply with the Code in regard to the driveway.
Lewis move~ Stover seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 107-92, "A Resolution
Approving Subdivision of Real Property."
Motion passed 5/0.
H. Request for CUP for Temporary Trailer at Manor Park
Hansen stated the Commission voted 4/3 to recommend denial of this request. He clarified
that the Commission does not wish to deny the children's usage of a warming house, but
that the Commission's vote was designed to send the message that use of a temporary trailer
on a year after year basis is a violation of the City Code and to express its desire for a
permanent structure at Manor Park. He reiterated the Commission's strong views against
continuing this violation of Code. The City has advised that funds for construction of a
permanent structure are included in the 1994 budget with the possibility of funds available
in 1993.
Brancel indicated appreciation of Hansen's comments, but pointed out that the Park
Commission does not have the funds to erect the warming house that is needed. Hansen
indicated the Commission understands this, however, it appears that Silverwood Park has
been getting consistent priority over this park and it also appears that $25,000 has been
5
.
.
.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
ocrOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 6
spent to acquire additional new park land. Brancel pointed out that the completion of
Silverwood Park was made a part of the Capital Improvement Program and no objections
were raised at that time.
Stover suggested that since this is a conditional use permit, a condition could be attached
to the approval of this request that a permanent warming house be constructed during
calendar year 1993 so that in the fall this issue does not come up again and the children
would have a warming house. Further, she stated the City could lend money to the Park
Commission, as has been done in the past, in order that the City can comply with its own
ordinance.
Stover moved, Gagne seconded to approve the conditional use permit for a temporary
warming house at Manor Park on the condition that a permanent warming house be built
for seasonal use in calendar year 1993.
Daugherty stated that the Planning Commission's intent to encourage the Council to provide
for a permanent warming house vs. a temporary one at any park requiring one may not be
the proper approach for the Commission to direct the Park Commission on how to prioritize
its budget. Rather, he indicated, this is a Council, Park and Administration function,
therefore he opposed the motion.
Stover agreed that it was a Council function, noting that the Planning Commission's role and
expertise lies in knowledge of the Ordinances and application of the Ordinances in an
equitable manner. She pointed out, however, that in carrying out it's duties, the
Commission is not telling the Park Commission how to operate. Lewis indicated that the
Park Commission has outlined its capital improvement program to provide for a permanent
warming house and that the Park Commission is doing the best it can with the funds
available to develop a 15-20 year schedule for the park system.
Motion failed 1/4. Brancel, Daugherty, Gagne and Lewis voted nay.
Lewis moved, Gagne seconded to direct the staff to prepare a resolution to grant a
conditional use permit and authorized the staff to order a trailer for use as a temporary
warming house at Manor Park.
Motion passed 5/0.
I. Appeal Notice. to Remove
Appellant:
Location:
Mary B. Bussaus
5565 Harding Lane
Mary Bussaus, 5565 Harding Lane, stated: We moved to Shorewood about one year ago,
purchased land and built a home at 5565 Harding Lane. When we purchased that land,
there was already an accumulation of brush wood. Mr. Nielsen's letter stated that 30 cubic
6
.
.
.
REGUIAR CTIY COUNcn. MINUTES
OCfOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 7
yards of brush has accumulated, however that pile was there before we moved there and I
want to make that clear to the Council. My letter (dated October 9, 1992) basically states
all the facts in the case and I will not repeat them. I am concerned that first the notice sent
to us by a representative of the Council; they didn't call us about the situation. We did not
create brush accumulation, prior to our purchase of the land, the owner of the land already
had that accumulation of brush. The neighbors stated that the brush was there before we
came and believe the City may have something to do with that. I want to make it clear to
the Council that the neighbors were not complaining. In looking at this, would like to come
to a compromise situation, instead of 30 days, my husband and I would like a minimum of
60 days to react to this situation to get some legal advice as to who the parties are that
should be accountable for the brush accumulation. Also, I have a question as to where was
the City prior to our purchase of the property. Was there some negligence on the part of
the City that they didn't react sooner to the situation? We did not obviously cause the
problem. Also I'd like some type of police investigation as I don't think it's feasible for us
to knock on neighbors' doors to determine responsibility for the brush because I think
everyone would refuse responsibility. I would like to go one step further on it and get a
police investigation. Also Mr. Nielsen's letter mentioned that the Glen Road area could
possibly have contributed to this and we are on Harding Lane. Mr. Nielsen's letter said that
it was not our responsibility for the accumulation. I know the Ordinance states it's the
responsibility of the land owner to remove it.
Daugherty asked as a condition of purchase whether the Bussaus' requested the removal of
the brush. Mrs. Bussaus stated: No, it was late October and we did not see what was in the
woods and we thought it was the neighbors. We then started to question it and we did not
cause it but I cannot pinpoint the person who caused it. Homes have been built there for
the past two years and I don't know if the City was monitoring the proper disposal of brush.
Gagne asked whether there was a complaint. Nielsen stated that a complaint was received.
Gagne stated that there is not a formal program for monitoring this type of situation,
however, when a complaint is registered, it is the responsibility of the current landowner to
clean it up. He indicated that 30 days is a sufficient amount of time to clean up the existing
situation.
Stover stated that visually from the road it appears to be adjacent to the subject property,
but that it may be on the Bussaus' property. Brancel stated that a precedent for 30 days has
already been set, however the Bussaus' still have the opportunity to pursue their options.
Gagne moved, Daugherty seconded to grant an additional 30 days to Mary Bussaus, 5565
Harding Lane, to correct the violation of Code, described in the October 6, 1992 Notice to
Remove.
Motion passed 5/0.
6.
7:30 PM - PUBUC HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR PROrnCf
NO. 91-2. STREET AND WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS - CHURCH ROAD
7
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OcrOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 8
. Dresel stated that this project was petitioned by the residents in the late summer and fall
of 1990. Subsequent to that, the City prepared a Feasibility Report presented in November
of 1990. Plans and specifications were prepared during the winter of 1991 and bids were
taken in July 1991. Some of the underlying principles of the feasibility report were that the
road was to be built from 62nd Street up into a cul-de-sac and would include the taking of
lot 38. The City purchased the lot to enable the project to go forward. In addition, there
was insufficient right-of-way the entire length of the project to get the required minimum
of 50'. At the time the project was initiated, there was considerable discussion as to how
the right-of-way was to be obtained. The basic premise was that in order to keep the costs
low, the residents along the road would donate the easements. A number of requests for
right-of-way and easements were sent but the City never could get all of the residents to
donate the right-of-ways. In the winter of 1992, the Council decided to begin condemnation
proceedings to acquire the right-of-ways. This was completed in July and the project was
begun. The project is now nearly completed with final asp halting to be applied next spring.
Dresel indicated that the final costs will be assessed and distributed at this time. He stated
that the guiding principle was that each home would be assessed equally on a straight
division basis except for one. An assessment roll has been prepared based on the original
feasibility report. The feasibility report basically stated that a standard assessment would
be $12,800. Dresel stated that the net cost less the amount being returned through the
condemnation procedure on an average basis is $12,891.06. The range of actual assessments
is from approximately $9,200 to $14,600 after easement payments.
. Rolek stated that on an annualized basis spread over a 10-year assessment, the cost per
resident will be $1,563 with an interest rate of 7-1/2%. On a monthly basis, it would be
$225 the first year, $187 the fifth year and in the 10th year $138. Gagne asked whether this
included City participation. Rolek indicated the City's participation consisted of the
acquisition of lot 38 which has two assessments. Dresel stated that assessment Roll A
without City participation is being presented for the Council's consideration.
Mayor Brancel opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Lance DeTrude, 26620 W. 62nd Street, read his letter dated October 26, 1992 addressed to
the Mayor and City Council, Shorewood, MN and presented it to the Presiding Officer.
.
Neil Vegsund, 6155 Church Road, stated: A lot of us know that since day one we started
out naively unger the pretense that we would pass around a petition and get the road black-
topped. Originally it was petitioned as a through street and there was belief that if it was
a through street there would be more financial participation by the City and others. An idea
was brought by the staff at this point in time that it should be made into a cul-de-sac. This
had two major effects: it forced the major burden on the residents of Church Road and
required the purchase of a piece of land for a cul-de-sac which added another cost to us.
After the preliminary feasibility studies it was decided to continue on with this project, it
came out with a preliminary price of $9,995 per home owner. After you proceeded from
that point and the final feasibility study was done, it was increased to $12,800, an increase
of 28 per cent. Most of us felt this to be a burden, but it was a burden we felt was feasible,
8
.
.
.
,
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OcrOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 9
barely, but let's keep going. At completion, it's close to $16,000 at a total cost increase of
63 per cent from day one. It has to be fairly evident that the 63% increase has to be
addressed some how, if nothing else it's cause for a good argument. I don't believe that the
affected properties can support this especially in this real estate market. I don't think the
majority of the homeowners are looking for a free handout, however compensation or
something should be done for a more fair and equitable situation. Basically, the cul-de-sac
lots were purchased by the residents but its being retained as saleable property by the City.
The City is also gaining the assets by gaining additional improved property, additional
easement land, reducing the maintenance costs on the road substantially, increasing the
tax base and revenues incurred by the residents. The City has set a precedent on another
project and contributed to the costs of improvements on Pine Bend Road and some funds
came from State maintenance funds. Based on the items that I brought up I feel it would
be justifiable for the assessment to be decreased by a certain amount. First of all seeing
$12,000 for two lots down on the end that could be saleable lots deferred until such time
those lots are sold as buildable. Also not to charge the easement costs to offset the assets
of the City as far as the additional land and right-of-way along with the expanded tax
revenues and reasonable compensation for the maintenance saving costs. Also at
presentation of the final feasibility study, we were given the impression that we would have
a certain amount of say in the purchase of the bond. It comes out now that the a 10 year
bond has already been purchased. For ten years now, people are now looking a the
equivalent of a car payment with home costs going up as much as 25 percent. Not only do
we have these costs going up, but they are down to a 10 year bond and this will put some
serious financial burden on a lot of people on this street.
Barbara Cobb, 6180 Church Road, stated: It's my understanding that the City has come
forward with this assessment on the people. I don't believe the homeowners can afford this.
We purchased our house five years ago for $59,500 and felt lucky to find some place not
costing more than rental property. I live there with my husband and my daughter with
occasional visits by my husband's two children. It's a small one story house with no
basement or garage. I've worked for Fingerhut for 11 years. Because of the economy, I'm
looking at a maximum 3 per cent increase (salary) for this year. My husband works for
Musicland warehouse under a union contract for three years with minimal increases. Our
health insurance costs have increased enough so that we barely notice these raises. We pay
child support for his two children in addition to sharing in some clothing and school costs.
Within the next four years, both of them will be in college. We won't be able to help them
financially. We are faced with a 28 per cent increase in our house payment if this
assessment goes through as planned. One-fourth of our income will be going to housing.
If we were to sell our property, we would have to ask for $84,000. I don't know what type
of increase this means for the rest of the neighborhood, but they must be similar. This is
definitely a middle income neighborhood with a day-care provider, a teacher, a nurse and
construction workers among other jobs. Over half of the families have one or more
children, several of the families have children approaching college age and like our family
will not be able to assist them. Our neighborhood has become a true neighborhood and we
share both our joys and our sorrows together, but I have a real fear of the possibility that
we will have to give up our houses because of this assessment. I am not asking for
9
~
.
.
.
REGUIAR CITY COUNCIL MINU1ES
OcrOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 10
something for nothing and understand we will have to pay for this. Nevertheless, please
work with us to help support these expenses.
Mayor Brancel closed the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m.
Gagne asked for clarification on the proposed assessment roll hand-out.
Dresel clarified a point brought up regarding lot 38. He stated the City did pay for this lot,
however, in the assessment roll prepared the cost of the lot is being divided amongst the
residents. He noted that at some point the City would try to sell the lots to defray some of
the costs. The point being made by the residents is that they are paying for the lot while
the City will receive the proceeds.
Stover asked if the proceeds of the sale of the lots could go to abatement later. Dresel
responded that this could be done. Stover asked if the decision to purchase the 10 year
bond has been made and if the City was bound to that purchase. Rolek indicated that the
city sold bond issues last year in conjunction with construction associated with the water
treatment plant, Pine Bend and Church Road at a rate of 5.61 per cent. Rolek indicated
the City could re-finance depending upon interest rates. Keane stated that the term of the
assessment is not bound by the term of the bond. Stover asked for clarification of the City's
participation in the Pine Bend project. Rolek noted that project involved reconstruction of
an existing road rather than construction of a new road. He pointed out that in the past the
City has participated in re-construction; however, the cost of original construction has been
borne by the developer. Stover indicated that the original petition in May 1990 was for the
road only, but subsequently water was included. Stover asked if easements would be
required for the original petition. Dresel responded that the easements were required to
build the road to the minimum standard width of 24 feet, but the right-of-way required 50
feet.
Brancel stated that she understands that the reason the price increased was because of the
condemnation of the right-of-ways and not because of the purchase of lot 38. Dresel noted
that the average net cost stated on the original feasibility study was $12,800 and the final
average net cost is $12,891.06. Dresel indicated that the City was unable to get a clear
corridor of easements through the area, thus it was decided to treat all the residents
equitably.
Dresel presented proposed assessment Roll B with city participation on the lot.
Daugherty asked what the market value of lot 38 is. Dresel stated that lot 38 was purchased
for $24,000 and he would assume that two buildable lots would sell for $24,500 to $40,000
each with a paved road with water and sewer. Lewis asked what happens to the money
when the City sells the lot. Hurm stated the Council may determine where the money
would go. Brancel stated that under the circumstances the money should be returned to the
project. Daugherty asked if any outside participation such as by the State has been
considered. Dresel stated he has calculated proposed assessment Roll C with City
10
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OcrOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 11
. participation on the lot and 1/3 of the road cost. Dresel pointed out that at the present
time the City does not own a particular parcel of land along Maple Avenue and that the two
potential lots derived from lot 38 as they exist are not buildable. Lewis concluded that since
the lot is not buildable, the City, in fact, does not have the potential for realizing $60,000
from sale of the lots even though it may participate in the assessment costs.
Daugherty asked why the City did not purchase the entire parcel so it would end up with
two saleable lots. Rolek indicated that lot 38 was purchased to build the cul-de-sac.
Brancel stated that purchasing the additional parcel to make it saleable and putting the
money into the project would immensely help out the residents. It was noted that the City
would carry the assessments of $30,000 as originally agreed.
.
Dresel explained that proposed Roll C includes City participation on the lot of $30,000 and
$59,790 which is 1/3 of the cost of the road. Brancel noted that this project differs from
Pine Bend which was re-construction, and that the residents have not yet been assessed for
Church Road since it is a new road. Dresel indicated that the City participated about 50
per cent on the Pine Bend re-construction excluding water. Stover estimated that this
amounted to about 1/3 of the total of that project and indicated she favored keeping things
fair. Lewis questioned whether having the City pick up 1/3 would set a precedent for
future road assessments and pointed out that as a result all the taxpayers would be paying
those assessments. Stover noted that although the Council has not yet accepted the
recommendation, the Street Reconstruction Task Force has recommended 1/3 City
participation in financing and she indicated there was some correlation in terms of fairness.
Dresel indicated that Church Road had a number of drainage problems. In regard to
setting a precedent, Nielsen stated there are two remaining gravel roads in Shorewood.
Brancel asked whether originally it was stated that proceeds from the sale of lot 38 would
be returned to the project. Rolek stated the purchase of the lot for the cul-de-sac was to
be included in the cost of the project.
Brancel stated that proposed assessment Roll B with City participation on the lot appeared
to be a compromise for the residents. Daugherty stated it appeared that whomever owns
the adjoining property to lot 38 would be interested in acquiring lot 38. Nielsen indicated
that is a reasonable assumption. Daugherty further noted that if the City would acquire the
adjoining lot resulting in two buildable and saleable lots, proceeds from the sale could be
applied to the project. Brancel suggested the City absorb the cost of the assessments on the
lot and return back to the project the proceeds of the sale of the lot. Gagne expressed his
support for this concept. It was indicated that if Roll B was accepted, the City's
participation would include the two assessments totaling $31,000 and the $24,000 purchase
price of the lot totaling $55,000. Proposed Roll C includes City participation on the lot of
$24,000 and 1/3 of the cost of the road of $59,790 but does not include the assessments.
.
Brancel suggested perhaps this situation was unique because of the need to acquire lot 38
and would not necessarily set a precedent for another developer if the Council agreed to
a 1/3 participation in the cost of the road. Rolek reminded the Council of the need to
acquire the adjacent parcel to make buildable lots or sell lot 38. Daugherty suggested that
11
REGULAR CITY COUNCH.. MINU1ES
OCfOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 12
. the City retains a fair amount of leverage in this situation. Nielsen stated a developer
would need to build a road and to fully develop the adjacent parcel, acquisition of lot 38
would be necessary.
Daugherty moved, Gagne seconded to approve assessment Roll B with Oty participation
on the lot with the provision that the value of lot 38 be captured by the Oty as a return on
its investment.
Stover stated that the Council is eliminating consideration of Roll C in order to avoid
setting a precedent yet the City has already set a precedent in its participation in the Pine
Bend project. She questioned the wisdom of attaching an unknown sale price of a piece of
property as relief to the affected residents. She preferred that the City's participation be
based on the actual cost of the road as shown on proposed Roll C. Daugherty indicated
that the proposal is to carry the assessment costs, the acquisition costs of lot 38, plus allow
the additional sale price to roll back into the project which if it sells well could amount to
more than $24,000. Stover indicated her concern was the unknown estimated dollar amount
involved and she would rather have an absolute number to avoid uncertainty for the
residents. Lewis suggested that additional relief could be attained by stretching the length
of the bond.
Motion passed 4/1. Stover voted nay.
. Rolek compared the ten-year assessment and 15 year assessment figures. The total principal
and interest paid under a 10 year assessment is $271,622 or an average of $19,400. The
total principal and interest paid under a 15 year assessment is $307,678 or an average of
$21,900.
Stover asked what happens to the assessment if a property is sold. Keane stated property
owners generally are required to pay the principal outstanding at the time of sale.
Brancel polled the audience as to their preference for either a 10 or 15 year assessment
period. Brancel stated that a 15 year assessment period was preferred.
7. CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECf NO. 91-2. STREET AND WATER MAIN
IMPROVEMENTS - CHURCH ROAD
Gagne moved, Daugherty seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 105, "A Resolution
Approving Special Assessments for Project No. 91-2, Street and Water Main Improvements,
Church Road," establishing the assessment term for 15 years.
.
Stover asked when this bond would be re-financed. Rolek indicated the likely scenario
would be that this issue would be re-financed along with another issue, subject to favorable
market interest rates. Hurm noted, however, that the assessments would not be re-%calculated at that time.
12
.
REGUIAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCfOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 13
. Motion passed 5/0.
.
.
The meeting recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9: 10 p.m.
8. CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR DISCUSSION - MElROPOUTAN WASTE
CONlROL COMMISSION
Brancel briefly reviewed the Council's previous discussions with the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission (MWCC) noting that the Council feels the City is being over-charged
on sewer rates and asked the MWCC to verify its rates. She stated that 1992 sewer charges
increased 42 per cent and for 1993 the increase is projected to be 48 per cent. Daugherty
noted that the current increase will be approximately 25 per cent of the City's operating
budget. .
Lou Clark, Chair; Gordon Voss, Administrator; Don Bluhm, Manager, Municipal Services;
and Kyle Calvin, Staff Engineer, of the MWCC were present.
Voss stated that considerable information has been gathered with the City's assistance to
help verify the Commission's rates.
Using visual charts beginning with data for 1986, Bluhm described how the cost has
increased for the City. He stated that between 1990-91 major increases in the flows leaving
the City over what had been estimated created a deficit payment to be added to the account
two years later (1993). He described the system using both metered and unmetered lines
involving other area cities noting that a substantial number of the lines are metered. He
stated that last March a system of 22 WEIRs was installed in the western part of the system
to measure, record and calculate the flow and then was rotated to the eastern part of the
system. The object of this was to isolate the MWCC's intercepter and to measure the flow
into its system. That data has been analyzed and it appears that the western half averages
about 270 gallons per household while the eastern half averages 570 gallons per household.
Bluhm reported that recent televising of the Commission's lines did not locate any major
infiltration problems or leaks in its system. Therefore, he stated, the MWCC has not yet
been able to come up with all the answers to the questions. MWCC intends to review
historical data to compare per household usage and try to isolate the areas in the eastern
half to better determine where there may be problems. He described the Commission's
technical processes and measuring procedures. He indicated that MWCC will come back
to the City with further information when it's available. At this point, he stated the problem
appears to be in the eastern part of the City where per household usage is very high
compared to the western part of the City.
Brancel asked if comparisons have been made regarding the east and west sections of the
City. Dresel indicated the City's data show similar information as reported by the MWCC.
Hurm noted that according to the building inspector there are no sump pump hookups in
the east portion of the City.
13
..
."
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MINU1ES
ocrOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 14
. Brancel stated that the Council was disputing the interceptor system on the west end of the
City. Bluhm indicated leaks in the MWCC's system have been repaired to date. Lewis
asked for clarification on the rate increases over the past several years. He stated that the
substantial increase between 1990 and 1991 could not be attributed to rainfall and the lake
level. He disputed the correlation between the lake level and the increases. Gagne stated
that the request made at the previous Council meeting was to prove to the Council why the
City must sustain a 40 per cent increase.
Voss indicated that Shorewood is not an unusual community around Lake Minnetonka and
approximately 10 other communities have the same situation of greatly increased rates when
the lake elevation went up. He reiterated the fact that on the east side of the City average
per household usage is very high and after historical data on the west side is analyzed
further information will be available.
.
Brancel stated it appears that none of the Cities rates are calculated on actual usage.
Bluhm presented a chart showing the lake level and Shorewood's usage of the sewer system.
It appears that up until 1990-91 there was a correlation, however, it is difficult to determine
all the factors that have produced the rate increases. The Council members expressed
difficulty in understanding the correlation in that other cities are nearer to the Lake and
have not experienced increases similar to Shorewood.
Daugherty asked what the MWCC's cost of treating lake water vs sewer was. Bluhm stated
the cost is the same because the waters are combined. Stover asked what the average
household usage was per day across the Metropolitan area. Robbins stated it was
approximately 250 gallons per day. Lewis asked what the problem was on the east side of
Shorewood. Bluhm indicated that monitoring of the MWCC will continue and perhaps
Shorewood's lines need to be checked. Brancel indicated the City has spent considerable
sums of money to repair its lines yet the MWCC has not rebated any charges. Voss
indicated improvements have been made on the west side of the City. However, Council
members indicated that the system on the east side is new. Stover asked for clarification
of MWCC metering of its interceptors.
Gagne reiterated the Council's specific question: Why Shorewood is faced with a 40 percent
increase and where is this coming from? He stated the Council will not accept 40 per cent
increases over two years and asked the Attorney for options designed to prevent this.
Clark stated that the MWCC is attempting to find out why the large increases are occurring
and that it would like additional time to determine the underlying problem and agreed that
40 per cent increases are not normal unless there are extenuating circumstances.
.
Gagne expressed the Council's frustration in trying to get answers to why these increases are
occurring. Keane questioned the MWCC what it's next proposed steps are. Voss indicated
MWCC will look at comparative historical data, isolate where the water is coming from and
indicated that the Commission was prepared to financially assist Shorewood in its detection
efforts.
14
~
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OcroBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 15
. Keane stated possible courses of action for the Council include: 1) do nothing at this time
and pass the increased charges to the rate payers, 2) continue to work with the MWCC staff
and wait for its data to substantiate the flows and attempt to negotiate a charge reduction,
3) continue to work with the MWCC staff, but direct the City's Engineer to conduct an
independent extensive study of the verification of current flows, 4) pursue potential judicial
remedies to: - enjoin implementation of the increase, - seek a declaratory judgment that the
increase in charges without adequate substantiation is arbitrary, - require the MWCC to
substantiate the increased charges, and - pursue due process and equal protection claims
on the basis of unequal treatment of Shorewood vis-a-vis other similarly situated
communities. In addition, Keane suggested a possible challenging to the statutory State
policy that sets charges based on flows rather than actual household usage for Lake cities.
Gagne asked for clarification of what happens if the City does not pay. Keane stated that
the charges are certified to the tax rolls of the community. Gagne and Brancel indicated
they would not agree to passing the increase on to the rate payers. Stover asked whether
the Commission is aware of other problems that may exist. Clark reiterated what the
MWCC has done to date and indicated it will continue to work to find the answers.
.
Daugherty indicated he had difficulty grasping anything factual from the MWCC's
presentation and asked where residents may contact the MWCC. Clark encouraged
residents to write to MWCC staff at Mears Park Center, 230 East 5th Street, St. Paul MN
55101. Keane pointed out that in addition Dirk DeBries, representing the Metropolitan
Council, can be reached at the same address.
Daugherty stated that passing on a 40 per cent increase sounds like taxation without
representation.
Daugherty moved, Gagne seconded that the Uty pursue the judicial remedies outlined on
page 2 of Uty Attorney Keane's letter to Mayor Brancel and Members of the Uty Council
dated October 22, 1992, including challenging the basis of flow charges for Lake
communities.
.
Gagne suggested City staff should continue to work with the MWCC. Stover commented
on the proposed change in the method of charging. Daugherty suggested that other lake
communities be contacted for their interest and/or support in this challenge. Daugherty
stated that he understands that prior to any increase - even a 40% increase - the charges to
the City of Shorewood were probably 50 per cent higher than they should be in the first
place and that, in his opinion, the City is dealing with an agency, due to the rate charges,
is out of control in passing on such increases to the citizens. Stover suggested that the Lake
area group be contacted to determine their interest. Stover asked if a different method of
measurement was implemented other than by flow, would it still be fair to Shorewood.
Daugherty agreed that the other cities be notified as to what steps Shorewood is taking
independently to resolve this problem and determine their interest in joining Shorewood's
actions. Gagne, however, stated that it was important that Shorewood institute its actions
as soon as possible without having to wait for participation by other communities.
15
",.,1''''
.[
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OcrOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 16
. Motion passed 5/0.
.
.
Brancel thanked the MWCC staff for its presentation.
9. CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 67-91.
DENYING SETBACK VARIANCES TO JOHN EINHORN
Keane stated that the proposed resolution amends a previously adopted resolution denying
setback variances to John Einhorn. He explained that the previous resolution mistakenly
identified Howards Point Road as the front of the lot through a transposition and a
technical oversight. Keane noted that this matter is currently in litigation and requested that
discussion be limited.
Stover moved, Gagne seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 109-92, "A Resolution
Amending Resolution No. 67-91 Denying Setback Variances to John Einhom."
John Einhorn, 5580 Howards Point Road, using visuals and hand-outs, presented his views
on the proposed resolution and described his position.
Motion passed 4/1. Lewis abstained.
The meeting recessed at 11:10 p.m. and reconvened at 11:15 p.m.
10. MATfERS FROM TIlE FWOR
Mayor Brancel called for matters from the floor.
Mr. LeRoy Bishop, 24140 Smithtown Road, stated that his property adjoins the entire length
of the new Public Works facility on the east side. He presented a petition signed by
residents/citizens and near neighbors questioning the need for the exterior lighting of the
building which is polluting their space and objecting to the daily irritating noise penetrating
the area which emanates from one of the City's loading machines. In addition, Bishop
stated that run-off pollution from grading the property is eroding and running off to his
property. He expressed concern regarding the roadway and the run-off of water through a
culvert which will result in spillage on to his property. He requested that an investigation
be conducted to address these concerns and something be done to alleviate them.
Brancel thanked Mr. Bishop for his comments.
11. STAFF REPORTS
A. Attorney's Report - None.
16
4
V
.
.
.
.
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCfOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 17
B.
Engineer's Report
1. 1992 Project Update
Dresel reminded the Council of the Open House scheduled at the new Public Works Facility
on Friday, October 30, from 4:30-6:30 p.m.
C. Planner's Report - None.
D. Administrator's Report
Hurm brought the Council's attention to a letter received from the Police Chief regarding
surveillance conducted in Shorewood and indicated a copy of the letter will be available to
the Councilmembers.
12. COUNCIL REPORTS
A Mayor Brancel- None
B. Councilmembers
Daugherty reported he has received complaints from residents regarding transient door-to-
door sales persons. He suggested staff review this matter and prepare a draft ordinance to
regulate such sales.
Gagne reported on activities of the Senior Center Board, noted neighborhood meetings
scheduled and indicated that funds allocated for hiring a senior citizen housing consultant
may need to be increased based on preliminary estimates of consultants' fees. Rolek stated
the proposed 1993 budget allows for additional funds for that purpose.
Stover inquired about the landscaping plans for the residential area near the southeast water
tower.
13. ADJOURNMENT SUBJECf TO APPROVAL OF ClAIMS
Gagne moved, Daugherty seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting at 11:40 p.rn.,
subject to the approval of claims, and re-scheduled the Work Session to the Council's
meeting on November 9, 1992.
Motion passed 5/0.
17
, I'
I
~
.
.
.
.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCfOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 18
RESPECfFUlLY SUBMITIED,
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
Northern Counties Secretarial Services
ATTEST:
J
c. HURM, CITY ADMINISlRATOR
18