Loading...
112706 CC Reg Min CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 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 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Love; Councilmembers Callies, Lizee, Turgeon, and Wellens; Administrator Dawson; Attorney Keane; Planning Director Nielsen; and Director of Public Works Brown Absent: None B. Review Agenda Lizee moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, November 13,2006 Wellens moved, Callies seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of November 13, 2006, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, November 13,2006 Callies moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of November 13, 2006, as Amended, in Item 8.A, Page 6, Paragraph 5, Sentence 1, change "Callies moved, Turgeon seconded" to "Lizee moved, Callies seconded", and in Item 9.B, Page 7, Paragraph 11, Sentence 1, change "Motion passed 1/4 with" to "Motion failed 1/4 with". Motion passed 5/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Love reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the Motions contained on Consent Agenda & Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Staffing - No action required C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 06-092, "A Resolution Approving a Temporary Gambling License for the American Legion Auxiliary Unit #259/Excelsior." SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 27, 2006 Page 2 of 12 D. Agreement with Minnetonka Country Club regarding Deer Removal E. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 06-093, "A Resolution Approving a Concept Plan for the Bowman Addition P.U.D. for Mark Kawell, on behalf of Richard Bowman who was the Owner of the Property Located at 20025 Manor Road." F. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 06-094, "A Resolution Accepting Final Improvements for the Badger Field Well House Project, City Project 98-06." G. Fire Services Agreement with City of Mound H. Required Revisions to Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) I. Gideon Glen Conservation Easement (This item was moved to Item 9.F under General /New Business) Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS None. 6. PUBLIC HEARING None. 7. PARKS - Report by Representative A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held November 14,2006 Director Brown reported on matters considered and actions taken at the November 14, 2006, Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). He noted that the winter community event had been officially named Arctic Fever, and the event was scheduled for January 20, 2007. He provided an update on activities scheduled for the event. He explained the Park Commission had requested a survey of the City's residents for their perspectives on the Music in the Park series. The responses indicated residents would prefer fewer high-quality events to more lower-quality events. They enjoyed performer Big Walter Smith; therefore, the Commission directed Staff to obtain a commitment from Big Walter Smith for the 2007 season. With regard to the Minnewashta Dog Park, an agreement was being prepared for the City's one-time donation to the Park for review by the City Attorney. Councilmember Turgeon stated the next Arctic Fever Coordinating Committee meeting was scheduled for December 6, 2006. The Committee was looking for contributions from local area businesses, as well as volunteers to work the event. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 27, 2006 Page 3 of 12 8. PLANNING - Report by Representative Director Nielsen stated there had been five public hearings held at the November 14, 2006, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes ofthat meeting). A. Conditional Use Permit - Fill in Excess of 100 Cubic Yards Applicants: Tim and Melia Liester Location: 26355 Oak Ridge Circle Director Nielsen explained Tim and Melia Liester, who owned the property at 26355 Oak Ridge Circle, had applied for a conditional use permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards. The applicants proposed to construct a swimming pool in the back of their yard, and that project required more than 100 cubic yards of fill to be brought onto their property. The property was zoned R-IA, Single-Family Residential, and was presently occupied by the applicant's home. Nelsen stated poor soils on the back of the applicants' property necessitated the removal of approximately 800-900 cubic yards of bad material which would be replaced with the same amount of compacted sand. He noted the alteration of the site's topography would be minimal; the most significant change would be that the back of the pool would extend approximately three feet above the existing elevation of the yard, and that would be supported by a retaining wall. Also, the project would not adversely affect drainage onto adjoining propeliies; the site would continue to drain south on the applicants' property. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request subject to the recommendation of the Director of Public Works, with respect to the timing of trucks hauling, and the applicants' final plans containing provisions for erosion control, which would be subject to approval by the City Engineer. He clarified the Director of Public Works would specify the hours-of-operation for trucks hauling prior to any construction being started, which was expected in Spring 2007. Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 06-096, "A Resolution Granting a Conditional use Permit to Place Fill in Excess of 100 Cubic Yards for Tim and Melia Liester, 26355 Oak Ridge Circle." Motion passed 5/0. Discussion moved to Item 9.A on the agenda. B. Conditional Use Permit - Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet Applicant: James Loffler Location: 6030 Mill Street This item was discussed after Item 9.B on the agenda. Director Nielsen explained James Loffler, the owner of the property located at 6030 Mill Street, was in the process of constructing a new home on the property. The property was zoned R-lA, Single-Family Residential and contained approximately 44,800 square feet in area. Mr. Loffler had chosen to create additional space under the attached garage for additional storage. The combined floor area of the two garage levels would be 2,344 square feet; therefore, the applicant had applied for a conditional use permit. The City Code Section 1201.03, Subd.2.d.(4), delineated four criteria for C.U.P. approval. The request complied with all four criteria, specifically: 1) the total area of accessory buildings did not exceed the total floor area, above grade, of the proposed house; 2) the total area of the accessory SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 27, 2006 Page 4 of 12 buildings did not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the R-IA zoning district; 3) the proposed house and garage complied with the R-l A setback requirements; and 4) the architectural compatibility of the new garage was considered not to be an issue because the new garage was an integral part of the proposed house. Nielsen noted that based on compliance with the zonmg criteria, the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request. Callies moved, Turgeon seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 06-097, "A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for Additional Accessory Space to James Loffler, 6030 Mill Street." Motion passed 5/0. C. Conditional Use Permit - Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet Applicant: Ryan Smolik, Lake Country B1drs (Erickson residence) Location: 6155 Murray Court Director Nielsen explained David and Chantel Erickson, who owned the property at 6155 Murray Court, were seeking a conditional use permit to construct a detached garage on the their property. The property was zoned R-IC, Single-Family Residential and contained 74,885 square feet of area. The proposed detached garage contained 576 square feet, and when combined with the existing attached garage, the amount of accessory space on the site would total 1764 square feet. The City Code Section 1201.03, Subd.2.d.(4), delineated four criteria for C.U.P. approval. The request complied with all four criteria, specifically: 1) the total area of accessory buildings did not exceed the total floor area, above grade, of the existing house; 2) the total area of the accessory buildings did not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the R-l C zoning district; 3) the proposed garage complied with the R-l C setback requirements, and the hardcover was significantly less than 33%; and 4) the architectural character of the new garage would be the same as the existing house. Nielsen noted that based on compliance with the zonmg criteria, the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request. Callies moved, Wellens seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 06-098, "A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for Additional Accessory Space to David and Chantel Erickson, 6155 Murray Court." Motion passed 5/0. D. Conditional Use Permit - Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet Applicant: Paul V ogstrom Location: 6140 Pleasant Avenue Director Nielsen explained Paul Vogstrom, the owner of the property located at 6140 Pleasant Avenue, was in the process of constructing a new home. The property was zoned R-lA, Single-Family Residential, and it contained approximately 64,279 square feet in area. The applicant wanted to keep the most northerly located of three old outbuildings located on the south half of the property. The new garage contained 800 square feet and, when combined with the existing outbuilding, the amount of accessory space on the site would total 1,680 square feet in area; therefore, the applicant had applied for a conditional use permit. The City Code Section 1201.03, Subd.2.d.(4), delineated four criteria for c.u.P. approval. The request complied with all four criteria, specifically: 1) the total area of accessory buildings did not exceed the total floor area, above grade, of the proposed house; 2) the total area of the accessory buildings did not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the R-l A zoning district; 3) the proposed SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 27, 2006 Page 5 of 12 house and garage complied with the R-l A setback requirements, and the hardcover on the property would be 15%; and 4) the applicant had indicated that the outbuilding would be re-roofed and re-sided to match the new house. Nielsen stated Staff recommended the refurbishments to the outbuilding should become a condition of the C.U.P. Those improvements should be completed before the applicant would be issued a certificate of occupancy for the new home. As an alternative, the applicant could provide a letter-of-credit guaranteeing that the outbuilding would be refurbished by June 1, 2007. The removal of the old lean-to structure at the rear of the building should also be a condition of the C.U.P. Nielsen noted that based on compliance with the zoning criteria, the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request subject to Staff recommendations. Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 06-099, "A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for Additional Accessory Space to Paul Vogstrom, 6140 Pleasant Avenue." Motion passed 5/0. E. Zoning Code Text Amendment Regarding Dock Regulations Director Nielsen stated the topic of dock regulations arose from a proposed dock installation for a multiple dock facility on Enchanted Island which raised many questions as to whether the City's regulations were up to date. It was the consensus of the Commission to examine both the LMCD and City regulations. The only limitation that could be imposed under Shorewood regulations was that a resident could have just one dock housing up to four boats, for their use; after that point the City deferred to LMCD regulations. The proposed ordinance presented to Council was the result of a Planning Commission study. The proposed ordinance was amended to: 1) clarify the definition of a single dock; 2) include conditions for granting an annual conditional use permit once an applicant had obtained a multiple dock/mooring license from the LMCD; and 3) update the reference to the LMCD rules in the zoning code. Nielsen reviewed the specifics of how the ordinance was amended. Mayor Love thanked Staff and the Planning Commission for their efforts. In response to a comment by Councilmember Wellens, Director Nielsen explained the City's regulations were more restrictive than the LMCD's regulations. Turgeon moved, Callies seconded, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 431, "An Ordinance Amending the Shorewood Zoning Code as it pertains to the Regulation of Docks in Residential Zoning Districts." Motion passed 5/0. 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Approval to Install Street Light Applicant: Shorewood Ponds Homeowners Location: West End of Park Lane Director Nielsen stated the residents of the Shorewood Ponds neighborhood near Freeman Park had petitioned the City to approve a street light for the west end of Park Lane. Per City policy, Staff had notified all property owners within 500 feet of the intersection. The City had received correspondence from two residents stating they supported the installation of a light. Nielsen stated if the request was SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 27, 2006 Page 6 of 12 approved, the City would pay for the monthly cost for electricity for the light, but it would not pay any additional installation costs to bring electricity to the site (if that was required). Nielsen stated Staff recommended approval of the request. Jerry Smith, 25630 Park Lane, stated the installation of a light was needed. He stated that end of the street was extremely dark, and there were suspicious activities occurring in that area that may be eliminated once the area was illuminated. In response to a question from Mr. Smith, Director Nielsen clarified Xcel Energy would install the light. Mr. Smith stated at the north end of the same parking lot there was a light pole, but there was no light attached to the pole. He stated the neighborhood residents would like to have a light installed on that pole. Director Brown stated he would research if there was an electrical source at that pole; he then noted that would be a separate request. Councilmember Lizee commented the many residents' signing the petition was a reflection of the residents' desire to have the light installed. Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, Approving a Request for the Installation of a Street Light to be Located at the West End of Park Lane. Motion passed 5/0. B. Request for Speed Study for Park Lane Director Nielsen stated the residents of the Shorewood Ponds neighborhood petitioned the City requesting a reduction in the current 30 miles-per-hour speed limit on Park Lane. Staff had informed the petitioning residents that reducing a speed limit to below 30 mph needed approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and MnDOT required a formal speed study prior to making its determination. Nielsen stated Park Lane served as the southerly access road to Freeman Park. Therefore, Staff recommended a study be requested for June 2007 when Park activities were underway. Staff also suggested the City conduct its own preliminary study, using the City's new traffic monitoring equipment, in advance of MnDOT's study. Per Mayor Love's request, Director Brown explained Minnesota's Commissioner of Transportation was responsible for establishing speed limits. Speed limits lower than 30 mph could not be posted unless a MnDOT had conducted a speed study and had determined circumstances existed that warranted a lower speed limit - the only exception to that rule he was aware of was if there was an official and designated marked bicycle path along side a roadway that complied with MnDOT standards (e.g., on Old Market Road). He noted there were roadways in the City that had posted speed limits less than 30 mph. Brown went on to explain the MnDOT assumed that 85% of drivers travel a speed that was safe to travel, not necessarily the posted speed. As a result of a speed study, MnDOT often decided to post the speed limit at the speed 85% of the drivers travel on a particular roadway (e.g., if 85% of the traffic was moving at 40 mph in a 30 mph zone, that speed limit could be increased to 40 mph). The reason Director Nielsen suggested the City conduct a preliminary speed study first was to understand the speed drivers traveled prior to formally requesting a MnDOT speed study. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 27, 2006 Page 7 of 12 Director Brown explained the City's speed-display equipment had the capability to display a vehicle's speed and with some degree of effort it could capture vehicle counts (assuming a "traffic tube" was placed on the roadway). The South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) had agreed to have its Community Service Officer set up the equipment where requested on a first-come first-served request basis, provided weather permitted. Brown then explained the new traffic equipment (of which there were four units) would record the vehicle speed, as well as determine type of vehicle (e.g., automobile versus large truck). The new equipment also required "traffic tubes" to be placed on the roadways; therefore, the equipment could not be used when roads needed to be plowed. He commented drivers had a natural tendency to slow down when they saw a large speed-display piece of equipment. The new equipment was extremely small and not very noticeable; therefore, the information gathered with regard to speed traveled would be more accurate. Councilmember Turgeon suggested the City conducted speed study be conducted in early May 2007 because softball and baseball activities at the City parks began in early May. Director Nielsen stated that could be done. In response to a comment from Councilmember Lizee, Director Brown stated roadways with posted speed limits of 20 mph had been established long ago. Today the 30 mph posted speed limit was the lowest that could be posted without a MnDOT speed study which would determine if a lower speed was warranted. Wellens moved, Lizee seconded, Directing Staff to Conduct a City Speed Study in early May 2007 on Park Lane. Motion passed 5/0. The discussion returned to Item 8.B on the agenda. C. Resolution for Preliminary Authorization for the EDA to Refinance Public Safety Bonds Administrator Dawson stated he had had provided Council with updates regarding the oppOliunity to refinance the bonds issued for the Public Safety facilities. The refinance process was a two step process, and the first of which was to give preliminary authorization to the Shorewood Economic Development Authority (EDA) to refinance the bonds (either the 2002 issues only, or the 2002 and 2003 issues). The preliminary estimates for net savings was over $570,000 over the life of the bonds, and Shorewood's share would be slightly less than 50% ofthat amount. Dawson eXplained under the terms of the various bond documents, leases, and subleases, five parties must agree to go ahead with the financing: 1) the Excelsior Fire District (EFD), as sub-lessee and affected by the 2002A, 2002C, and 2003A issues; 2) South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD), as sub-lessee and affected by the 2002B and 2003B issues; 3) the City of Deephaven, as lessee for the East Side Station and affected by the 2002C issue; 4) the City of Shorewood, as lessee for the West Side Station and affected by the 2002A, 2002B, 2003A, and 2003B issues; and 5) the Shorewood EDA. He went on to explain that the SLMPD and the EFD had approved resolutions giving preliminary authorization to the Shorewood EDA to refinance either the 2002 issues or both the 2002 and 2003 issues. The City of Deephaven also approved an identical preliminary resolution, with a stipulation that the sale must occur by April 1, 2007. The City must also approve a similar resolution before the Shorewood EDA could consider the refunding of the bonds. SHORE WOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 27, 2006 Page 8 of 12 Wellens moved, Lizee seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 06-100, "A Resolution Giving Preliminary Approval to Issuance of Refunding Bonds Related to Certain Public Safety Facilities." Motion passed 5/0. D. Amending Ordinance regarding Sump Pump Inspection Administrator Dawson stated this matter was placed on the agenda per Councilmember Wellens's request. At the November 13, 2006, City Council meeting, Council member Wellens had requested that Council consider removing some, if not all, of City Code Sec. 904.09, Subd. 2, regarding inspections for sump pump connections. Council had requested Staff to provide comments on this matter prior to it considering the possible repeal of this provision. Section 904.09, Subd. 2, reads as follows: "Authority to inspect. Every person owning improved real estate that discharges into the City's sanitary sewer system shall allow inspection by authorized City employees or its agents, as deemed appropriate and authorized by the City Council, of all properties or structures connected to the sanitary sewer system to confirm there is no sump pump or other prohibited discharge into the sanitary sewer system. The authority to conduct further inspections on a property under this section shall lapse upon a determination that the property is in compliance with the requirements of this section." Dawson stated Staff had provided comments regarding full or partial repeal of this subdivision. He noted the memorandum also included an illustration from the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) of the volume and cost of a sump pump discharge to the sanitary sewer system as it related to the City. Councilmember Wellens stated his concern with the subdivision was that it implied a resident violated the ordinance before the resident had an oppOliunity to face an accuser or partake in a trial. A resident was required to prove his 1 her innocence, rather than the government (i.e., the City) proving the resident's guilt. He then stated 100% of the houses in the City had been inspected; therefore, there was no longer any need for that subdivision in the City Code; the subdivision stated "this section shall lapse upon a determination that the property is in compliance with the requirements of this section". He went on to state that the subdivision infringed on City residents' civil liberties. He made an analogy to the Patriot Act and the fact the many people are offended by the government's right to monitor what they are doing; yet the City believed it had the right to enter residents' houses without a warrant to conduct a sump-pump inspection. He suggested that section of the City Code be expunged. Councilmember Callies stated that the subdivision of the City Code did not authorize non-voluntary inspections in a residents' house without a warrant. Councilmember Wellens stated the sump-pump surcharge in effect equated to a resident paying for the right to decline an inspection. In response to a question from Councilmember Callies, Administrator Dawson explained Section 904.09, Subd. 2, granted the City Council the right to set a surcharge for all unauthorized discharges. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 27, 2006 Page 9 of 12 Councilmember Callies stated it was her understanding that the Minnesota Courts had found this provision in the City's Code lawful. Attorney Keane concurred with that statement. Callies then stated the Minnesota Courts served as the arbiter in determining if the City's Code was lawful. Councilmember Wellens stated the Councilmembers took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, and this included protecting City residents' civil liberties (in particular the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution). Callies stated it was the Council's responsibility to protect the interests of all the City's residents, and protecting the City's sanitary sewer system was in the best interest of all the residents. Councilmember Lizee stated that earlier in the meeting Council had approved the items contained on the Consent Agenda, and one of those items was the required revision to the 2006 permit application for the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). Many of the revisions related to illicit discharge detection and elimination, a discharge detection and elimination plan, and a public and employee illicit discharge information program. Therefore, she believed it was important to retain that section of the City Code. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Councilmember Wellens clarified he had issue with the inspections for all types of discharges listed in this Section of the Code. Turgeon stated she did not want to eliminate the City's ability to request inspection for all types of discharges. Mayor Love stated although he had respect for the conviction with which Councilmember Wellens addressed his concerns, he did not believe the City's Code met the test of being a civil liberties issue. He supported retaining the provision. Councilmember Turgeon expressed concern with the impact the proposed change would have on all discharges. She stated the City had a significant infiltration and inflow (I & I) problem, and could be incur a large surcharge if the City did not take steps to mitigate the problem. Councilmember Wellens stated the City Engineer had stated the majority of the City's I & I problem originated at the connection points to the right-of-way sewer line. Councilmember Wellens stated since he did not believe there would be any support for a motion to amend the code, he would not make a motion to do so. E. Request to Review EFD Funding Formula Administrator Dawson explained that at the EFD Board Meeting on October 25, 2006, Deephaven City Councilmember David Wheaton requested that the formula for funding the EFD by its member cities be reviewed. Mr. Wheaton suggested the review should consider changes based on individual cities' use of EFD resources, rather than the full transition to tax capacity (aka ad valorem, aka taxable value) as the basis for funding beginning in 2010. The EFD Board noted that it did not have authority to consider changes to the joint powers agreement (JP A); that conversation would need to occur between the member cities' councils. Administrator Dawson then explained that at the November 15, 2006, EFD Board meeting the Board received a resolution adopted by Deephaven City Council formally requesting a review. At that meeting, the Boardmember from Deephaven provided an explanation of Deephaven's rationale for requesting the review. The Boardmember clarified that if there were any funding formula changes agreed to, those changes would only apply to operational funding; funding for lease obligations would remain as they currently were. He stated EFD responses had evolved to a 60% medical / 40% fire split, which was perhaps different than what was envisioned when the District was formed in 2000. Given that people, SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 27, 2006 Page 10 of 12 rather than property, was the greater component of EFD' s service, tax capacity (i.e., the value of property protected) might not be the appropriate basis for funding. The Board then recommended a framework for an effective discussion among the EFD member cities. It recommended that a forum group be created as soon as possible and include: . The mayor or mayor-elect from each City. . One alternate from each city, preferably a sitting councilmember who was a former Boardmember, or a past representative to the Board who can provide a historical perspective to the forum group. . That the discussion include the funding formula and the protocol for medical responses (which Deephaven stated has in the past is duplicated within its jurisdiction, as this is provided by its police department). Councilmember Callies stated although she was interested in discussing other member cities' concerns, there was a JP A in effect and she did not think it was appropriate to change the JP A the five member cities entered into in 2000. In response to a question from Councilmember Callies, Administrator Dawson clarified that Deephaven's concerns about providing its own medical response services had been discussed during the JP A development process. Councilmember Turgeon stated she would support a review of the JP A. She suggested the members of the review panel should not be selected prior to the newly-elected members of the cities' councils taking office. She commented that the SLMPD reviewed its funding formula every five years; therefore, it seemed appropriate to review the EFD funding formula. Mayor Love stated the EFD JP A was a relatively new contract, where the SLMPD JP A had been in effect for approximately 30 years; therefore, he did not think it was appropriate to equate the two situations. Having said that, he stated would suppOli funding formula equity discussions. He explained that during the development discussions for the EFD JP A the challenges for servicing the far-reaching geographic locations of Deephaven and Shorewood had been addressed, as were the differences in medical response requirements (e.g., Shorewood's increased medical response needs resulting from accidents on Highway 7), and medical response protocols. The objective of those laborious discussions was for the District to come together and funded on an ad valorem basis. Although he would support discussion, he did not think it would be appropriate to change the premise the District was formed on. The EFD was formed under the premise that the services addressed the District as a whole. Councilmember Turgeon stated she did not think Deephaven was expecting a major change in the funding formula; the discussion would serve as a method for determining if the member cities would foresee a need to change. Mayor Love again stated he did not object to the discussions occurring. But, the EFD was formed of the premise of a funding mechanism which was ad valorem. He commented recent EFD history would be relative during the discussions. Councilmember Wellens stated that from his perspective he would be interested in how the City could benefit, with regard to the funding formula, from the discussions. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 27, 2006 Page 11 of 12 Administrator Dawson stated when the District was formed one of the main objectives was to focus on providing services on a "district" boundary rather than on city boundaries. That value-based decision resulted on using a tax capacity basis to ensure all propeliies were treated equally. Councilmember Turgeon stated she thought it would be unfair to designate review panel members prior to newly-elected officials taking office. Based on Council consensus, Administrator Dawson stated he would report back to the EFD Boardmembers that the City was interested in participating in review discussions, but it would prefer to wait until 2007 to select review panel members. F. Gideon Glen Conservation Easement This item was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Turgeon's request. Councilmember Turgeon stated that from her vantage point there should be more consistency amongst documents that were similar to this conservation easement. She suggested language be added to the document that would confer maintenance responsibility for the wetland to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) as it was the local government unit (LGU). Attorney Keane stated the City was responsible for maintenance of the wetland. Mayor Love stated the City was responsible for maintenance of the first pond (a wetland area); the plantings and the survival of the plantings in the general wetland area was the responsibility of the MCWD. Director Brown stated the City was responsible for maintenance of the easterly pond, which was actually a storm water basin, and the grit chamber that was installed. He clarified the local government unit would administrate the maintenance rules, but that did not necessarily mean it would perform the actual dredging of the wetland. He stated the MCWD generally required a storm water maintenance agreement be put in place. Both Administrator Dawson and Attorney Keane stated that agreement did not have to be included as part of the conservation easement agreement. Councilmember Turgeon stated suggested Item 14. Signs in the conservation easement be amended to include a statement "subject to the City Code". Administrator Dawson recommended changing sentence two in that section to read "With the prior written approval of the Owners being the City and subject to City Code,..." Director Nielsen stated this conservation easement was modeled after the Eureka Road conservation easement that was in effect. Lizee moved, Callies seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 06-095, "A Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to Execute a Conservation Easement for the Gideon Glen Site." Motion passed 5/0. 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS None. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 27, 2006 Page 12 of 12 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff Administrator Dawson reminded Council that Council's appreciation event was scheduled for December 8,2006, at 6:00 P.M. B. Mayor & City Council Mayor Love noted the next EFD Board meeting was scheduled for 6:00 P.M. December 20,2006, at the West Side Station. He stated he had met with the EFD and SLMPD regarding medical protocols. Councilmember Wellens repOlied on matters considered and actions taken at the most recent Lake Minnetonka Communications Committee (LMCC) meeting. 12. ADJOURN Callies moved, Lizee seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of November 27, 2006, at 8:14 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Woody Love, Mayor ATTEST: