Loading...
022601 CC WS Min , . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2001 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 8:00 p.m. or immediately following Regular Meeting MINUTES 1. CONVENE WORK SESSION MEETING Mayor Love convened the meeting at 7:55 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Love; Councilmembers Garfunkel, Lizee, Turgeon, and Zerby; Administrator Dawson; Attorney Keane; Engineer Brown; Finance Director Burton; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: None B. Review Agenda Mayor Love reviewed the Agenda for this meeting. Garfunkel moved, Zerby seconded, approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. REPORT FROM THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT (LMCD) ON WATER PATROL FUNDING Mr. Tom Skramstad, City Representative to the LMCD, stated he had attended a Council meeting in December 2000, regarding issues of Water Patrol funding. At that time, Council had requested information about the necessity of this funding. Mr. Skramstad introduced Mr. Bert Foster, Chair of the LMCD Board; Mr. Greg Nybeck, Executive Director of the LMCD; and Lieutenant Ken Schilling of the Hennepin County Sheriff s Department to Council, noting any of these people were able to answer questions regarding this issue. Lt. Schilling reported he had no numerical data for presentation this evening, but would be happy to answer questions and provide as much information as possible about the need for additional Water Patrol deputies on Lake Minnetonka. Mayor Love asked Lt. Schilling how additional patrols would enhance the current situation on Lake Minnetonka. Lt. Schilling explained more patrols would be more visible to people using the lake, and it had been his experience that presence was a deterrent to problems. He also explained the Sheriff's Department was responsible for servicing the entire county which included 104 lakes, 3 rivers, and virtually any other body of water. He further explained that if the City contributed the funding amount of $3285 for two full-time water patrol deputies, one hundred percent of their time would be dedicated to Lake Minnetonka versus the eighty percent currently being dedicated by the Water Patrol. In addition, he stated he believed two additional full-time deputies would provide a bit quicker response as their time would be spent solely on the lake instead of having to travel from some other body of water to address a problem on Lake Minnetonka. He stated overall there would be a bit quicker response, a more focused response, CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2001 Page 2 of 4 . and a more constant presence felt on Lake Minnetonka with the addition of these two full-time deputies. Councilmember Garfunkel stated this was the third time he had requested a demonstration of additional need. He stated he could only hear a perceived need, but had no actual statistical data to support this request. Lt. Schilling stated the level of service currently being provided to the community would not change whether the full-time officers were funded or not. However, it seemed that people wanted a level of service above and beyond what was currently being demonstrated. He reported there were seven full-time Water Patrol deputies with approximately forty Special Deputies. Thus, approximately fifty deputies patrolled the entire county with eighty percent of their focus being given to Lake Minnetonka. He reiterated that there would be more constant coverage, visibility, and focus given to Lake Minnetonka. Raw statistics would not necessarily show that there was a need. If there were low incidence statistics, it could mean either a better job had been done patrolling the lake, or fewer problems had occurred on the lake in past years. There seemed to be different variables that could be applied to give different statistics. He noted the 2000 Annual Report was not yet available, but he would be happy to share it with Council once available. . Councilmember Zerby asked about the origin of requests for additional patrols. Mr. Foster explained some Lake Minnetonka community mayors, as well as comments shared with the LMCD from people using the lake, prompted this request. Mr. Nybeck stated the Water Patrol and DNR had been involved with this issue when problems occurred around Big Island. Several people at that time testified about the need for additional patrols on Lake Minnetonka. Mayor Love commented there seemed to be a lack or loss of boating culture on the Lake. Lt. Schilling stated presence on the Lake would act as a deterrent, but could not cure these cultural problems. Lt. Schilling stated, in response to Councilmember Garfunkel' s question about funding, Water Patrol funding was mandated by the State but only to a level the County could sustain. Lt. Schilling stated it was his belief the commitment of $50,000 was all that the County budget could sustain at this time. He noted it was also a challenge to keep, maintain, and recruit Special Deputies who would receive little compensation for their time. Councilmember Turgeon asked for the status of the fourteen cities surrounding Lake Minnetonka as it related to this issue. Mr. Skramstad reported nine cities favored the funding, two cities did not favor the funding, and three cities were undecided at this point. . Councilmember Garfunkel stated it did not seem as though much had changed from past reports. He stated he would like to see a demonstration of need, and if need could be demonstrated to the City, then it should be demonstrated to the County. It was his belief that once cities agreed to fund these deputies, that funding would never be budgeted by the County. He stated the money was not the issue for him, but rather he did not believe the responsibility for funding these officers to be with the individual Lake Minnetonka cities. By statute, it seemed it was the County's responsibility for funding of these positions. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2001 Page 3 of 4 . Mayor Love stated he would like to see a permanent funding mechanism for these positions, not a short-term approach. Mr. Foster responded the County had agreed to fund $50,000 toward these positions, with the remaining $50,000 made up of $20,000 from private donations, and $30,000 from the Lake Minnetonka cities. The cities were being asked to contribute toward these positions for two years only, and he believed need could then be demonstrated to the County as a perception heard through feedback, rather than data of different variables put together under various circumstances Councilmember Lizee commented she could understand how this project could be beneficial to residents without a large financial commitment over the next two years when it would then become a budget item for the County, so she did not have a problem supporting this funding request. Councilmember Zerby questioned the amount the County was willing to contribute toward these positions. Mr. Foster explained the current County budget included start-up costs related to the new County Jail. As a result, there would be a large increase in the budget during the next two years, making it very difficult to obtain additional funding for these positions. Councilmember Zerby stated he could understand those issues, but he still believed he needed statistical results in hand before supporting this request. Lt. Schilling stated he could provide different measuring tools which could provide different results, as statistics related to patrolling were somewhat environmentally dependent. However, he could provide statistics regarding the implementation of two full-time positions and then that . information could be compared to the Annual Report. Mayor Love noted a concern about how the two-year period would be measured. While he heard people desired more presence and a better experience on the lake, he still thought it important to know why statistically this funding request had come forward and what would change over the two-year period. Councilmember Zerby stated he believed more scientific data should be applied if the positions were to be perceived as a two-year test for need. Councilmember Turgeon stated she did not have a problem with the amount of money being requested; however, she would like to have baseline data so that a comparison could be made in two year's time. Mayor Love agreed. Councilmember Garfunkel stated he thought the same as he had in earlier discussions. Regardless of the data presented, this issue was really about enhancing the experience of using the lake from a safety standpoint, and the responsibility for funding additional patrols belonged with the County. Also, it was not too early to begin lobbying the County for these funds in the future. . Administrator Dawson stated future discussions would need to take place regarding this issue once baseline data had been supplied along with the budget and a two-year measurement tool for comparison. He thanked Mr. Foster, Mr. Nybeck, and Lieutenant Schilling for their time and efforts regarding this discussion. -~~'. \. .. ... . . . CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2001 Page 4 of 4 3. REVIEW WATER UTILITY ORDINANCE Administrator Dawson provided a brief historical background on efforts related to working on this ordinance. Engineer Brown then summarized three scenarios for Council regarding the initiation of a watermain improvement project in the City. After much discussion, Council supported the idea of a fixed minimum charge for this type of project. Council also agreed, regarding the City's assessment policy, it was important to make costs reasonable for water connections and still allow the Water Fund to remain solvent. Engineer Brown explained there would need to be a Public Hearing to provide clarification about the ordinance after a draft ordinance was shared with Council. 4. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to be addressed this evening. 5. ADJOURN Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded, adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of February 26, 2001, at 9:30 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, au Sally Keefe, Recording Secretary Woody Love, Mayor