Loading...
041006 CC Reg Min CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 10,2006 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Love; Councilmembers Lizee, Turgeon, and Wellens; Administrator Dawson; Finance Director Burton; Attorney Keane; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Acting Engineer Gurney Absent: Councilmember Callies B. Review Agenda Administrator Dawson requested a gambling license approval for the Lake Minnetonka Excelsior Rotary Club be added as Item 3.F. Wellens moved, Lizee seconded, Approving the Agenda as amended. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, March 27, 2006 Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2006, as Amended, on Page 5, Item 7.B, Paragraph 6, Sentence 5, change "Commission for any cost overruns" to "Commission accountable for any cost overruns", and on Page 8, Item 9.A, Paragraph 3, Sentence 2, change "Spring Clean-up day prior are by 2006 year-end." to "Spring Clean-up are by 2006 year-end.". Motion passed 3/0/1 with Lizee abstaining due to her absence at the meeting. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Love reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Lizee moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the Motions contained on Consent Agenda as Amended & Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Staffing - No action reqnired C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 06-029, "A Resolution Approving a Gambling License - American Legion Post #259 Biennial License." CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING April 10, 2006 Page 2 of 11 D. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 06-030, "A Resolution Approving Specifications and Estimates and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Bituminous Seal Coating Project 06-01." E. Authorization for Expenditure of Funds for Document Imaging Enhancements F. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 06-031, "A Resolution Approving a Gambling License - Lake Minnetonka Excelsior Rotary Club." Motion passed 4/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Michael Pressman, 5670 Wedgewood Drive, stated he wanted to update Council on the support he had received with regard to City water on Wedgewood Drive. He thanked Council for its deliberative discussion of the City's water policy at its work session that evening. He then stated if he were a private company he would make the same decision as Council had made; but because the City was a public entity bound by two State statutes the City still had exposure on the just and equitable test for the connection charge. He went on to state the commodity model where everyone would pay the same for City water would work for private business, but the City was not a private business. Mr. Pressman explained he had a signed petition, which he did not bring with him, where 6 of 8 property owners fronting on Wedgewood between Smithtown Road and the trail had signed they would like City water at the $10,000 rate (contingent on them seeing the final numbers). He went on to state he believed there was a 7th property owner that would be in support of City water. He explained that he had not gone beyond the trail to determine support and he did not intend to. John Majestic, 5840 Eureka Road, stated he and his neighbors had been having water issues recently. He explained that his three sump pumps had been working continuously, and his neighbors each had one sump pump that had been working continuously. He stated he did not understand why they had begun to have water issues; the only change to the area was a new house built across the street from him. Mr. Majestic then stated when there had been an inch of rain recently he ended up with water as deep as 8 inches in front of his door. He also stated he had spent approximately $15,000 to repair damage from the 2005 storm. He went on to state his back year lawn was "squishy". He wondered what could be done to alleviate the problem and what the cause of the water drainage issue was. Mayor Love stated although the drainage problems may have worsened, that area had had problems with water drainage for a number of years. Director Brown stated there were a number of issues. There were grading issues on and around Mr. Majestic's property. He stated the City had been pumping water from the property across from Mr. Majestic's property. He noted the contractor that built the house on that property was scheduled to have the drainage issue for that property corrected by June 1, 2006. He went on to explain the drainage issues were exacerbated because the frost was not out of the ground. Councilmember Turgeon explained that Director Brown and she had been out to look at Mr. Majestic's property in September 2005. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING April 10, 2006 Page 3 of 11 Director Brown explained the City could install a small asphalt speed hump at the end of Mr. Majestic's driveway to reduce the amount of runoff down his driveway. He also explained that all the storm water cannot be diverted away from his property. Director Brown the explained there had been another property identified to the west of Mr. Majestic's property which needed to be assessed to determine if it was a wetland or a low lying property that traps water. He said the City was considering if it should install a ditch to help that area. He noted the City had its priority projects it was trying to address, but Mr. Majestic's issue was well documented. Mayor Love asked Staff to report back to Council on the drainage issue in Mr. Majestic's neighborhood in June 2006. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENT A TIONS A. Report on MCE Activities Tim Liftin, Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) Executive Director, provided an update on MCE activities. He stated the MCE staff consisted of 227 full-time and part-time employees, and there were approximately 600 volunteers that donated time to the organization. Liftin reviewed changes made at MCE over the last 18 months. They were: · Implemented a new organization structure · Developed a new comprehensive plan for Community Education · Reduced the leadership by one Coordinator · Revised the Executive Director and Coordinator job descriptions · Established an Advisory Council · Conducted a District needs assessment · Established consistencies with fees, marketing, evaluations and hiring · Executive Director involvement with the Superintendent was strengthened · Remodeled the Deephaven Education Center · Relocated the Community Education staff to the Deephaven Education Center · Changed the organization's name (it was Minnetonka Community Education Services) · Created a new website · Reorganized and downsized the clerical staff · Revised the budgeting process · Revised the MCE's Philosophy · Implemented changes to hiring practices · Established a Youth Development Council . Established a Tiny Tonka T-Ball program · Established an Explorer's Program Study and Parent Meeting · Held a Youth Triathlon . Held a Youth Development Council 5th Grade Fiesta · Made preparations for a Tour deTonka CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING April 1 0, 2006 Page 4 of 11 Mr. Liftin explained the MCE budget consisted of 75% fee-based programming and 25% levy and aid funds. He noted the source for the levy and aid funds were the State General Community Education Levy and the Early Childhood and Family Levyl Aid. Mr. Liftin then explained MCE had three core area of programming - young learners (early childhood and family education, and preschool), youth programs (kindergarten through twelfth grade), and adult programs. He then listed objectives and program examples for each of the core areas. Mr. Liftin then reviewed MCE's new philosophy. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Mr. Liftin confirmed MCE had eliminated its Advisory Board and increased the size of the MCE Board in 2005; and the role of the Board was to provide support, give recommendations, and be the community's ears and eyes for the Executive Director. He stated the Board was approximately 30 people in size, and roughly 20 people would attend each meeting. In response to another question from Turgeon, he said the Board was working together effectively for a large group. In response to a question from the public, Mr. Litfin stated for any beach open in the community during the summer of 2006 MCE would have staff on-site for various purposes (e.g. life guard, swimming lessons, etc.). He noted MCE would also have staff at the pools at Minnetonka Middle School East and Minnetonka Middle School West. In response to another question from the public, Mr. Litfin stated English Language Learning programs were conducted at the Deephaven Education Center. Council thanked Mr. Liftin for his presentation. 6. PUBLIC HEARING None. 7. PARKS No reports, as the Park Commission will be meeting on Apri111, 2006. 8. PLANNING Planning Commissioner Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the Planning Commission Meeting of April 4, 2006. He stated one item was reviewed for recommendation: a lot area variance and minor subdivision. He then stated C-3 District uses and dock regulations were discussed during the study session portion of the meeting. Woodruff stated the City's dock ordinance referred to "one dock" but there was no definition of what constitutes "one dock". He also stated the Commission had plans to invite Mayor Love to address the Commission with regard to dock regulations. A. Lot Area Variance and Minor Subdivision Applicant: Ann Meldahl Location: 6180 Cathcart Drive CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING April 10, 2006 Page 5 of 11 Director Nielsen stated Ann Meldah1 and her husband own the property at 6180 Cathcart Drive. The property was located in the R-1A, Single-Family Residential zoning district. In 1991 the Meldahls split their property into three lots. They had subsequently sold the westerly lot and later recombined the easterly two lots. The property currently contained 80,075 square feet of area. He noted the applicants had been granted a conditional use permit (C.u.P.) to place fill on the westerly ofthe two lots in 2005. Nielsen then explained the Meldahls had submitted an application for a minor subdivision to re-subdivide their property into two lots in October 2005 because of drainage issues. That request was addressed in a Staff memorandum dated 27 October 2005 (as detailed in the memorandum). Before any action could be taken on the Meldahls' request they asked for that application to put on hold, pending their submittal of a lot area variance and a different lot configuration. He noted had the lots been subdivided as specified in that application the lots would have complied with the R-1A zoning regulations. Nielsen stated the Meldahls had submitted a new plan to re-subdivide their property into two lots. He noted R-IA zoning regulations required a lot to be a minimum of 40,000 square feet in area and a minimum of 120 feet wide. The new plan showed the northerly parcel to have only 30,000 square feet of area; therefore, the Meldah1s had requested for a lot area variance of 10,000 square feet for the northerly parcel. Nielsen went on to explain while there were several specific criteria set forth in the Zoning Code and state statutes regarding the granting of variances, the first and simplest question to be answered was - could it be done without a variance? In this case, the applicants had already answered it could with their 2005 application. The division shown in the 2005 application complied with the width, depth and area requirements for the R-1A zoning district. It also allowed a house to be built exactly where the applicants suggested the best spot on the property was - the higher ground adjoining Cathcart Drive. It also provided a more buildable area for the northerly lot than would be provided if the variance were granted. This was considered to be a very reasonable use of the applicants' property. Nielsen went on to explain the current request did not comply with the criteria set forth in Section 1201.05 Subd. 2.b. ofthe Zoning Code, and the request failed as follows: 1. The applicants were not being deprived of rights commonly enjoyed by properties in the same district. A review of the area in which the property was located showed the lots in the western half of Planning District 4 are at least 40,000 square feet in area. While lots lying east of the LRT Trail were smaller in size, they were located in different zoning districts (R-lD and R-1C). 2. The existing lot configurations were the result of how the applicants themselves divided the property in 1991. As such, if there was any hardship, it had been self- imposed. Nielsen explained the Planning Commission reviewed the request and unanimously voted not to recommend the variance for approval; the request failed at least two of the criteria for granting a variance. He also explained the Planning Commission did offer to consider the applicants' minor subdivision application submitted in October 2005, subject to the conditions included in the 27 October 2005 Staff report. He noted that application had been placed on hold and no action had been taken. Nielsen stated that in discussions with the applicants, much of their concerns had more to do with the aesthetics of having the northerly parcel cut behind the southerly parcel. He stated if the rear view of the CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING April 1 0, 2006 Page 6 of 11 existing home was of great concern, the concern could be addressed by the applicant placing a "sight or scenic" easement over the portion of the northerly lot that would affect any view. The easement could restrict construction or preserve vegetation, or both. Nielsen stated Ms. Meldahl had informed the Planning Commission at its April 4, 2006, meeting that she intended to present her variance request to Council at its April 10, 2006, meeting. Ann Meldahl, 6180 Cathcart Drive, explained their original subdivision in 1991 was done to provide daughter and son-in-law a lot to build a home on. She stated prior to subdividing the lot her son-in-law had met with Director Nielsen regarding the proposed subdivision. Nielsen had explained to build on the proposed northerly lot of the subdivision would require an extra building to be removed, an extra driveway with stone pillars to be removed, and the entrance to the garage would need to be changed to face Cathcart Drive. She stated they changed the subdivision plan so the lot would be divided into three equal sized rectangular shaped lots, with two lots facing West 6211d Street and one lot on the corner of Cathcart Drive and West 6211d Street. She then stated her family did build on the westerly lot. Ms. Meldahl stated they recombined the lots because they did not want to pay taxes on a buildable lot with the belief they would never have to sell that lot. She said circumstances had changed and she and her husband needed the income that would result from the sale of the lot, and they believed the northerly portion of their lot would be most suitable to build on. She explained they applied for the C.U.P. for additional fill for the raise the low-lying area on the westerly side of their lot to alleviate some of the water problems. She noted there was significantly more storm water runoff than there was before all the development occurred. Ms. Meldahl explained she had written the Planning Commission explaining her reason for her request. She stated the request would create a clean rectangular lot (as opposed to a less conventional lot line with the October 2005 request), they had no plan to change the density of the property, nor did she think the request would set a dangerous precedent for future variance requests (though she noted anytime legal action was taken a precedent was established). She noted a 30,000 square-foot lot size was a decent-sized lot, and satisfied the lot size regulations of the R1-B District. Ms. Meldahl explained she surveyed ten Cathcart Drive properties owners regarding her request, and they were supportive of her request. She submitted the names of the property owners she had surveyed. She noted a neighboring property located in Victoria, which was in Carver County, where the lot size requirement was half an acre. She stated when the Planning Commission voted to not recommend approving the request, she decided to bring her request before Council. Councilmember Wellens stated he would support the Planning Commission's decision. Councilmember Lizee stated Ms. Meldahl may more properly seek a rezoning of their property from R1- A to R1-B. She stated granting the variance would set a precedent. She explained the City was obligated to adhere to State standards for how property can be used. She questioned Director Nielsen if a "scenic" easement on the triangular portion of their lot behind their house would prohibit any building from being constructed in that area, to which he responded it would. Mayor Love stated Ms. Meldahl's request could be viewed as an unusual situation. He went on to state the diagonal lot line was a demonstration of the Planning Department's willingness to work with her on the minor subdivision. CITY OF SHORE WOOD COUNCIL MEETING April 10, 2006 Page 7 of 11 In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Director Nielsen explained the October 2005 minor subdivision configuration was a result of the location of the existing house and setback requirements. He stated the Planning Department generally was not in favor of unconventional lot lines. Councilmember Turgeon noted she could recollect denying a variance for 18 inches. She stated many variances had been granted, but those variances had met the hardship criteria. She then stated she was sympathetic to Ms. Meldahl's request, but it did not meet the variance criteria. If the variance were granted it would set a precedent. Ms. Meldahl stated there was a large discrepancy between planned unit development areas in proximity to the area where her property is located and neighborhoods such as hers. She stated she referred to some of the houses in the planned unit developments as "McMansions". She then stated the property owners west of Cathcart Drive around Smithtown Road and over to the new Virginia Highlands Development had modest houses on acre lots. She did not agree with some of the decisions that were made planning Shorewood. She stated she had lived in their home before Shorewood was a village. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Director Nielsen explained the Meldahls could submit their October 2005 minor subdivision request to the Planning Commission for review and consideration and it would probably be recommended for approval. Wellens moved to Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution with Findings of Fact Denying the Lot Area Variance and Minor Subdivision Request for Ann Meldahl, 6180 Cathcart Drive. In response to a question from Mayor Love, Attorney Keane explained if the request was not acted upon within the time required, the request would be deemed approved by operation of State law under the 60- day rule. Mayor Love deferred to Acting Mayor Lizee and handed her the gavel. Love seconded the motion. Motion passed 4/0. Acting Mayor Lizee deferred to Mayor Love and handed him the gavel. 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Excelsior Fire District 2006-2025 Capital Equipment Plan Administrator Dawson explained the Excelsior Fire District Board had passed its proposed 2006-2025 Capital Equipment Plan for consideration by the councils of the five member cities. According to the joint powers agreements, any amendment (which was what an update was) to the CEP required approval by at least two-thirds of the member cities by April 15, 2006. Dawson stated the City was the third city council to consider the proposed CEP. The Deephaven Greenwood city councils had already approved it. Interim Chief George stated he was available to answer questions from Council. Councilmember Wellens questioned if Interim Chief George's statement "The CEP was not intended to provide surplus funds to cover Operating Budget shortfalls. If money from the CEP is used to offset CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING April 10, 2006 Page 8 of 11 other budget shortfalls, the funds should be replaced." in the Capital Equipment Plan Evaluation memo dated March 2006 was intended to convey there had been a mismanagement of funds. Interim Chief George stated there had been items purchased in 2004 and 2005 with CEP funds that had not been budgeted for in the CEP. He also stated member cities' contributions to the CEP fund had been reduced in recent years from prior CEPs. He went on to state that in his twenty-year history there had been times when unbudgeted purchases were funded with CEP funds. He explained that he was not saying the use of CEP funds for unbudgeted purchases should not occur, noting sometimes it was the prudent thing to do; but the CEP funds needed to be supplemented by the unbudgeted amount spent in order to ensure equipment replacement stays on schedule. Councilmember Turgeon thanked Interim Chief George for bringing that practice to the member cities' attention. She explained she had expressed concern in the past 2 - 3 years with the lack of clarity of how CEP funds had been spent. Turgeon questioned who had approved the unbudgeted expenditures which totaled approximately $100,000. Administrator Dawson stated ultimately the EFD Board had approved them. Turgeon then questioned if they were approved as separate line items. Mayor Love stated he would need to research that. Mayor Love stated one of the reasons he would support the proposed CEP was there was a better history of how long equipment would last and the CEP reflected that better. He did state there had been a time when the CEP funds were being shortchanged in order to show reduced contributions figures in the future, because some equipment life expectancy beyond 30 years was being realized. Councilmember Turgeon stated her concern was with using CEP funds to purchase unbudgeted items without the member cities councils being aware. She stated that impacted the cities budgets. She did not think the cities had been provided accurate CEP numbers in the past years. She questioned if she could be assured that capital truck maintenance would not be funded from CEP funds in the future, noting it should never have been paid out of CEP funds. She questioned whether her concerns had ever been conveyed to the EFD Board. Mayor Love stated he had most certainly conveyed Councilmember Turgeon's concerns to the EFD Board. Her concerns were an impetus for having a more realistic CEP. He also stated he would take total responsibility for finding answers to Turgeon's questions. Interim Chief George stated approximately $43,000 was spent to purchase an unbudgeted utility truck (which was used for rescue) for the East Side Station. The radio system had to be upgraded when Hennepin County changed the radio frequency; the budgeted amount had been $7,500 and the actual cost was almost $21,000. He stated there had been some radio system upgrade money budgeted in the Operating Fund for 2004 and 2005, and he was not sure why the CEP funds were used for the entire purchase. He then stated the need for those two purchases were an unknown at the time the CEP was prepared. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Interim Chief George explained he had not researched what the expenditures were that comprised the 2003 unbudgeted CEP expenses totaling approximately $48,000. He explained he had only researched the 2004 and 2005 expenses. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING April 10, 2006 Page 9 of 11 In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Administrator Dawson explained the other member cities were considering $150,000 for the 2007 contribution amount. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Interim Chief George stated he did not know if the beginning 2006 CEP beginning balance was an audited number. Councilmember Turgeon stated she did not have an issue with the proposed CEP. She then stated she would conceptually approve the CEP provided there were internal controls to ensure purchasing of unbudgeted items with CEP funds without the member cities councils' approval would not happen again. She stated the JP A specifically identified who could authorize payment of an invoice. She also stated she was uncomfortable approving a budget that could be used to purchase unbudgeted items. Turgeon stated if there was a requirement to purchase an unbudgeted item, then some other budgeted line item must be reduced accordingly. Mayor Love stated he did think progress was being made with regard to the CEP, and also the Orono Contract. He explained the organization was in its early stages when CEP funds were used for unbudgeted purchases, and there may have been a shortage on internal controls. He then explained the Operating Committee was going to be more regularly involved with the EFD budget. Administrator Dawson stated Councilmember Turgeon's concerns were heard by the EFD Board, and the CEP reflected her concerns. The Board did agree any changes to the CEP purchases would go through the member cities councils for approval in accordance with the JP A. Interim Chief George stated the unbudgeted equipment that was purchased needed to be purchased. Some of the items were required when a second station was built, there needed to be two of many things. He stated the unbudgeted purchases were done in a manner that made the best use of available funds. Mayor Love again stated Councilmember Turgeon's concerns had been clearly communicated to the EFD Board. He stated the need for the utility vehicle had been strongly debated. Councilmember Turgeon again stated she had no issue with the CEP, and she could approve it conceptually. She did want to see internal controls had been put in place before the next CEP was prepared. Mayor Love stated he would convey Councilmember Turgeon's request to the EFD Board as clearly as he had conveyed her previous concerns. Lizee moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the 2006 - 2025 Capital Equipment Plan for the Excelsior Fire District. Motion passed 3/1 with Turgeon dissenting stating she would have approved the CEP on a conceptual level but not as a final action. 10. ENGINEERINGIPUBLIC WORKS A. Approve Plans, Specifications and Estimates and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for Amesbury I SE Area Interconnect Acting Engineer Gurney explained the Southeast Area Well I Amesbury Area Well Interconnection Project was being considered for a number of reasons. The existing Amesbury system consisted of a hydropnuematic system that had become obsolete. The current Plumbing Code allowed a maximum of CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING April 10, 2006 Page 10 of 11 25 connections to that type of system, and there were 137 connections on the Amesbury system. The controls for the system were no longer commercially available. The project would allow the city to remove the hydropnuematic tank at the Amesbury well house. Gurney then explained an interconnection with the Southeast Area system would provide a more reliable system. The elevated water tower, located south of Highway 7, provided greater storage capacity in the event of a fire or a power outage. The current Amesbury system had limited storage, and relied on electricity to operate consistently. Better water quality would be provided to users since the interconnection would allow the city to blend water between the two systems in the event that one well would be producing water that did not meet the standards for drinking water. Gurney also explained because the project was initiated by the City, the abutting properties would not be assessed for the improvements. The installation of the watermain would allow for property owners to voluntarily hook-up to City water, and they would be charged a $10,000 connection fee if they choose to do so. Gurney stated the cost for the project was approximated at $1 million based on the engineers estimate. He stated Staff recommended approving a resolution which would approve the plans, specifications, and engineer's estimate and authorizes advertisement of bids. Lizee moved, Wellens seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 06-032, "A Resolution Approving Plans, Specifications and Estimates, and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids City Project 05-05 Southeast Area Well I Amesbury Are Well Interconnection Project". Administrator Dawson stated it was anticipated there would be a need to issue bonds approximating $1 million plus to finance the project. He also stated the City had issued $1.5 million in bonds in 2005. Councilmember Wellens questioned if the pressure tank was removed from the Amesbury well, would the well still be able to run and would it run continuously if there was no mechanism to turn it off. Director Brown explained that would be controlled by the level of water in the tower. He stated the CIP had budgeted for both the interconnect and replacement of the systems controls. Motion passed 4/0. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff None. B. Mayor & City Council In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Mayor Love explained that he had unofficially been interviewed by the League of Women Voters. He had spoken about the history of the Council. Administrator Dawson noted they had also met with him for background information. Councilmember Wellens expressed concern with the Parks Foundation donating 50% of the profits from the Art for the Parks show and donate it to the Diamond Club, as stated in Park Foundation meeting minutes. He questioned how Park Foundation donors would react to that. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING April 10, 2006 Page 11 of 11 Mayor Love explained he had attended the meeting, and he had thought he was invited to discuss broadening the scope of the Foundation. He noted that was not the case. The Foundation's issue was whether or not they would have the staff to continue to conduct Art for the Parks. What he observed was the forming of a collaboration where the proceeds would be split. He explained the funds would never be commingled; there would be a sharing of funds for a sharing of effort. Discussion ensued with regard to whether or not that was a prudent strategy. Mayor Love recessed the Regular City Council meeting to an executive session at 8:39 P.M. 12. RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION - SLMPD ARBITRATION STRATEGY Mayor Love called the executive session to order at 9:26 P.M. Mayor Love; Councilmembers Lizee, Turgeon, and Wellens; Administrator Dawson; and Attorney Keane were present. The strategy related to the arbitration for funding of South Lake Minnetonka Police Department operations was discussed. The Executive Session was concluded at 9:26 P.M. The City Council reconvened in regular session at 9:27 P.M. 13. ADJOURN Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded, Adjourning the Regular City Council Meeting of April 10, 2006, at 9:28 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder OJ Woody Love, Mayor