022601 CC Ws AgP
C!
i
~
I
.f1,2
~.
o -
~ a
I ~...
8 .(
~
111'11
~Ilil
~~
::E
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 . www.cLshorewood.mn.us . cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
Larry Brown, Director of Public Works It
Craig Dawson, City Administrator
TO:
DATE:
February 22, 2001
RE:
Discussion Regarding Municipal Water Ordinance
Attachment 1 is a Memorandum dated July 16, 1999 from Brad Nielsen, Al Rolek, Larry Brown,
and Jim Hurm regarding discussion of City Water policies. Attachment 2 is the excerpt from the
latest draft of the Comprehensive Plan for Municipal Water.
It should be noted that the last page of Attachment 1 is listed as "Policy Alternatives." During
previous work sessions, Staff interpreted the feedback received by the City Council as reaching
consensus wIth regard to these alternatives.
While striving not to get bogged down in the details of the, ordinance amendment, the following is a
summary of key points and issues that appear to have consensus, and items that have yet to be
addressed.
I. Actions for Initiation of an Improvement Project
It has been discussed previously that there are three primary scenarios to initiate a watermain
improvement project. The three scenarios are summarized below.
A. Scenario 1, Petition by Residents. If fifty percent of the owners of property along an
identified route petition the City for a watermain improvement project, the City Council will
direct the following actions to occur:
1. Verification that fifty percent of the owners (based on a unit basis) along the identified
route are represented on the written petition.
...
~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
:#~
2. After the petition has been formally accepted by the City Council, the City Engineer will
be directed to prepare a feasibility report as to the technical and financial feasibility of
such an improvement proj ect.
3. If after the feasibility report has been prepared and presented, and two thirds of those
affected property owners along the route agree in writing that the project should proceed,
the City Council will order the preparation of Plans Specifications and Engineer's
Estimate for Construction.
4. A public hearing shall be ordered to review the proposed assessment roll and scope of
project. If found to be acceptable a project will be ordered.
B. Scenario 2 Review of the Installation of Watermain in Conjunction With a Roadway
Improvement Project.
In the event that the City of Shorewood initiates a public works improvement project for
roadway reconstruction, owners of property along the affected route will be "surveyed" to
determine if a report addressing the feasibility for the installation of city water is desirable.
If fifty percent of the affected property owners along the affected route desire such a project,
as evidenced by the survey, the City Council will direct the City Engineer to prepare a
feasibility report as to the technical and financial feasibility of such an improvement project.
1
From this point forward, the process would follow the identical process of lA 3 and 4 above.
C. Scenario 3 Water Improvement Project Ordered by the City Council That Stems out of
System Needs or Mandates From Other Agencies.
Under this scenario, the City Council can order an improvement project that may be required
to meet an urgent need of the distribution system, or mandates to remain in accordance with
current standards. It has been discussed previously that a vote of 4/5ths of the City Council
should be required to initiate such an improvement project.
II. Assessment Policy
The City of Shorewood has relied in the past on a unit assessment method for installation of
municipal water projects. The following is a summary of principles that have been discussed
previously with a unit charge, and items that have yet to be resolved.
A. It is desirable to have the Connection Charge for single-family residential lot as a minimum
fixed rate. Costs determined by construction shall be portioned out equally amongst all of
the affected units, with the minimum remaining at the set connection charge.
B. It has been suggested that any difference in the connection charge between an existing lot of
record and newly-created lot is discriminatory in nature. Therefore, the minimum connection
charge should be uniform.
C. Individuals or corporations who install improvements, i.e. watermain, service stubs, shut off
valves, within the public right-of-way should be given a credit to be applied directly to the
connection charge, at the time of assessment.
D. Residents who connect to a watermain improvement after the fact, shall pay the connection
charges that are in effect at the time of connection. If such a connection requires excavation
within the public right of way and installation of a service stub, a credit shall be applied to
the connection charge at the time of assessment.
E. At some point a consensus as to the amount of a connection charge needs to be reached.
While not the focus of Monday night's work session, Staff is intending on performing a long-
term cash flow analysis of the City Water System to determine permissible ranges. It is
anticipated that this will be presented with the draft ordinance amendment.
These major issues indicated above and within the attachments are to serve as the basis of Monday
night's Work Session. Once a consensus has been reached, Staff will turn their attention to
amending the current ordinance to reflect these policies, and return to the City Council meeting with
a draft ordinance amendment.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128. www.ci.shorewood.mn.us. cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen, Al Rolek, Larry Brown and Jim Hurm
DATE:
16 July 1999
RE:
City Water Discussion - Study Session
FILE NO.
Comp Plan - Comm. Facilities Chapter
Having discussed city water at several meetings, staff has prepared an outline for the
section of the Community Facilities Chapter of the Comp Plan that addresses City Water.
The first two pages contain a very brief background on the current system and identify
issues that have been raised to date. It is hoped that the last two pages can be formulated
into a broad-based policy to be incorporated into the Plan.
This outline attempts to establish a general direction, from which more substantive plans
can evolve. With little exception, we have attempted to avoid getting bogged down in
detail. Hopefully the Council can come to some agreement on Monday night so that we
can wrap up this section of the Comprehensive Plan.
ATrAC.HtJ\E.Ni
ft
~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Backg:round
· Approximately 40% of the city is connected to the system (1075 out of
2667 households)
· Study conducted in 1991 revealed that the majority of residents did not
favor a city-wide system - despite this, the City still receives requests for
City water
. Improvements have been made to the system since 1991 to resolve
health and capacity issues
- interconnection of Boulder and Badger systems
- construction of west end water tower
- extension of water to senior housing project (Seasons)
. Overall water system is presently self-supporting financially
. Of five water system,deficiencies identified in the 1995 Comp Plan,
three have been resolved - remaining are:
- connection between Amesbury and Southeast systems has not
been made
- W oodhaven system stands alone - no interconnection to Excelsior
or Chanhassen '
Issues
. Reasonable expansion of the system to those who want it - current
policies discourage (e.g. all residents have toconsent to the extension
even if they are not paying for it)
. Extension of City water is expensive, due mostly to low density,
geographic conditions and retrofit
. Correction of existing system deficiencies (i.e. interconnections for the
Woodhaven and Amesbury systems)
. . Installation of water when streets are reconstructed
. Flat unit charges - can everyone be charged the same if the City does not
plan to extend water city-wide?
. Cost uncertainty - without a flat unit charge residents do not know how
much water will cost, without doing a feasibility study
. Do lending institutions require connection to City water - no evidence to
support this
. Metropolitan Council requirements
Current Council Consensus
. No intention to extend water city-wide
. System is to remain financially self-supporting (if there isn't consensus on
this one, there should be!)
. Allow water main extensions to provide water where residents want it
and where technically and financially feasible
. Any future extensions must be consistent with overall plan for City water
(i.e. pipe sizes)
. With the exception of commercial and multiple-family residential no one
is required to physically connect to the system
- existing wells can be maintained
- new wells can be drilled
Policv Alternatives
. Provide City water as economically as possible - explore ways to reduce
costs of water main extension
. New development (more than three lots) should provide City water
where it is available and financially feasible (e.g. $10,000 per unitor
less)
. Consider super-majority rule of the residents (e.g. 67%) as being demand
for City water
. Explore demand for water with all street reconstruction projects
- consider super-majority rule of residents as demand
- City Council can initiate projects on 4/5ths vote
. Prepare engineering cost estimates for various logical extensions of
water main - to be used to advise residents of approximate cost only;
feasibility studies will still be prepared based upon interest; estimates to
be updated annually
. Plan ahead for water -leave right-of-way if nothing else
..
system located in wet soils were televised, sealed and repaired with noticeable results in
decreased flows through lift stations. The City also initiated an aggressive sump pump
inspection program to identify and correct properties that previously pumped or drained
storrnwater into the sanitary sewer. The City should continue to monitor and analyze data from
its lift stations and from the MWCC to identify problem sections of the system. These sections
should be televised, sealed and repaired.
In addition to reducing III, the City has established a routine sewer maintenance program.
Manholes are inspected on a periodic basis and sewers are flushed at minimum once every five
years.
The City requires that all new development connect to the sanitary sewer system. Although new
on-site septic systems are prohibited, a small number of systems remain in existence. These
systems should be identified and, where feasible, required to connect. Regulations to this effect
already exist within the City Code.
Remaining new segments of the municipal system will be constructed and paid for as part of
private development projects. Gravity sewer is to be encouraged, while lift stations are to be
allowed only when gravity service is technically and economically not feasible.
Municipal Water
Shorewood's municipal water system consists of five separate systems as shown on the following
page. Approximately 40 percent of the households in Shorewood are connected to the system.
In 1984 the City prepared a Comprehensive Water Study to serve as a guide for the development
of an overall system. The Study was updated in 1990 and again in 1996 after which the City
initiated a plan for extending water throughout the cqmmunity over a ten to twenty-year period.
Since then the City Council has determined that the majority of Shorewood residents did not
support such an aggressive approach to the construction of a city-wide system. Consequently, .
the direction at this time is to concentrate on making the existing system as reliable and
financially viable as possible, and to serve residents where demand can be demonstrated.
The City's water policies and codes should be updated based upon the following guidelines:
· The overall water system is to remain financially self-supporting.
· Any future extensions of city water must be consistent with the overall plan for city water
(Le. pipe sizes).
· With the exception of commercial and multiple-family residential, no one is required to
physically connect to the system. Further, existing wells can be maintained and new
wells can be drilled.
· New development of more than three lots shall provide city water where it is technically
and financially feasible.
· Allow water main extensions to provide water to residents where technically and
financially feasible and where demand can be demonstrated. Consider a super-majority
of residents as being demand for water extensions.
A TiP\c..1-\ tv\EJ,JT 2..
8/99
CF- 14
.'
~
The City will continue to examine ways to provide water as economically as possible. Future
planning should include the preparation of engineering estimates for various logical extensions of
water main. These estimates should be updated annually to advise residents of approximate
water costs. Feasibility studies will be prepared based upon interest. Water main extension
should be considered in all projects, providing adequate right-of-way, if nothing else. Finally,
the City should explore the demand for water in conjunction with all street reconstruction
projects.
Storm Sewer
In 1975 the City prepared a Comprehensive Storm Water Study which identified 16
subwatershed districts within the community (see page CF-19). The Purgatory Creek drainage
district and part of the Carson Bay district is located in the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed. The remaining 15 drainage districts are located within the Minnehaha Creek
'Watershed. While the study proposed substantial reliance on natural drainage systems,
particularly the preservation and use of wetlands, a number of areas were proposed to be served
by storm sewer. New development has, for the most part, been required to install stann water
drainage facilities consistent with the 1975 study. Certain areas which developed prior to the
Storrnwater Study, however, have experienced drainage problems which have been difficult and
expensive to correct. The City has adopted a three-part program to address drainage problems:
1. A storrnwater management utility has been established, funds from which are used
in two ways. Half of the annual revenue from the utility is set aside for large
drainage projects. The remaining funds are used on an annual basis for
maintenance or small drainage projects. Projects will be prioritized and
programmed based on the following criteria:
8/99
a.
Public Safety and Health. Primary attention will be paid to those projects
that impact the public health or safety. These projects include ice
problems on the road, erosion that is causing a hazardous structural
problem (i.e. undermining a road), or storm water that is causing a
significant health problem (such as flooding the sanitary system).
b.
Substantial Financial Impact to the City. This category includes those
projects that, while not endangering the public health, will still have a
negative impact on the residents as a whole. Projects in this category
include minor infrastructure replacement that cannot be funded cost
effectively by other means. Other potential projects include erosion
causing property damage and minor structure replacement.
c.
Public Nuisance. This category includes those projects that cannot be
considered a substantial hazard, are not likely to cause a financial loss to
the City, but are a public nuisance~ These projects include standing water
in the roadway, unwanted flooding in public parks, and minor erosion
projects.
d.
Private Nuisance. Finally, those projects that are a nuisance to a single
residence or small group of residences that the City Council deems that the
City has some responsibility to help correct. These projects include those
CF- 17
"
..
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
January 24, 2001
FROM:
Board of Directors ~ fill. I.,a _
Greg Nybeck, Executive Director t!J AJ4 '/r'
Update on Sheriff's Water Patrol Proposal foP2001 Boating Season
TO:
SUBJECT:
Feedback has been received from all of the LMCD Member Cities, with a commitment of $16,434.49 to
date, for 2001 boating season. Detailed below isa summary of the feedback received:
. Sp~ingPark
FEEDBACK
Yes- $2,217.13 voluntary payment
Yes-one year $791.66 voluntary payment
Yes- $488.86 voluntary payment
No (Revisited at 1/16/01 City Council Workshop meeting)
Yes- $524.25 voluntary payment
Yes- one year $2,155..89 voluntary payment
No (To be revisited possibly~ phone call made)
Yes- $5,073.33 voluntary payment.
Possibly(T 0 be revisited at an upcoming City Council meeting with
Water Patrol representative) .
Possibly (Revisited at 1/16/01 City Council meeting, to be voted on in
February)
. ..'i.~.~~'$99_5 ,Q.tYQluntf!ryPi3ym~rlL.._,..~.._...~... ..._....._.....,................ ~c......__":'__c~......~...,_ .c__"c..
No (To berevisited possibly)
Yes- one year $3,718.36 voluntary payment
Yes- $500.00 voluntary payment
MEMBER CITY
. Deephaven
. Excelsior
. Greenwood
. Minnetonka
. Minnetonka Beach
. Minnetrista
. Mound
. Orono
. Shorewood
._._~__!_...Io[lkfL6ay ~.___
. Victoria
. Wayzata
. Woodland
To date, nine member cities have committed to funding this proposal for the 2001 boating season. Five
membercities have either indicated thaUhey are not interested in participating in the funding of this
proposal for the 2001 boating season or they need additionalinformation.' These cities include Minnetonka,
Mound, Shorewood, Spring Park, and Victoria. Staff, working with the respective Board .member of these
cities, and either Chair Babcock or Vice Chair Foster, plans on revisiting this issue with the city councils of
these member cities in the near future.
1:
~
~ .
BOARD MEMBERS
Douglas E. Babcock
Chair, Tonka Bay
Bert Foster
Vice Chair, Deephaven
Eugene Partyka
Secretary, Minnetrista
Craig Nelson
Treasurer, Spring Park
Andrea Ahrens
Mound
Bob Ambrose
Wayzata
Kent Dahlen
Minnetonka Beach
Craig Eggers
Victoria
Tom Gilman
Excelsior
Greg Kitchak
Minnetonka
Lili McMillan
Orono
Tom Skramstad
Shorewood
Herb J. Suerth
Woodland
Sheldon Wert
Greenwood
a
50% Recycled Content
20% Post Consumer Waste
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. . DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 . TELEPHONE 612/745.0789 . FAX 612/745.9085
Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
September 12, 2000
TO:
LMCD Mayors and Council Members
LMCD Member Cities
LMCD Board of Directors
Interested Parties ~ 41/,1 !A-
Bert Foster, LMCD Vice Chairman fJAJ.A vU ~
Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director J .0
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Update on Proposal for Adding Two Water Patrol Deputies for 2001 Boating Season
In the attached letter, dated 7/24/00, the LMCD brought to your attention a proposal for a way to
increase Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka, for the 2001
boating season, by two full-time Deputies. We requested feedback from the LMCD member cities,
by 8/15/00, on two questions relating to this proposal. These were: 1} whether the member cities .
would support an increase of Water Patrol presence for the 2001 boating season, and 2} whether the
member cities would be willing to share in some of the costs for it.
Overwhelmingly, the member cities have indicated that they support an increase in WaterPatrol
presence on Lake Minnetonka. Many cities indicated a willingness to share some of the cost and
two cities had some concerns regarding cost sharing. The comments received from these two
member cities included: 1) Lake Minnetonka is a regional amenity and that that increased presence
of Water Patrol should be funded at Hennepin County level, and 2) there is.a need to provide
justffication for increased Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka.
A meeting was held at the Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol Headquarters on Thursday,
8/24/00, to discuss the proposal, to review and address the feedback received from LMCD member
cities, and to further define the details of the proposal. There was a wide range of local and regional
representation at this meeting, including:
. Hennepin County Commissioner Penny Steele
. Tom Church, Principal Assistant to Hennepin County Commissioner Mary Tambornino
. Orono Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Shorewood Mayor Woody Loveland Spring Park Mayor
Jerry Rockvam
. Four staff members of Hennepin County Sheriff's Office
." Folirstaffmembersltom tMCDmembercities" ._..m._.m....._~__.~".....__..~....... .......
. LMCD Directors Foster and McMillan, and LMCD Executive Director Greg Nybeck
After significant discussion, three key points were identified that justify the need for increased Water
presence. They include:
1. A cultural chanae of boatina activities on Lake Minnetonka. The boats are larger, are
driven in a manner that make larger waves, and are sometimes driven by people who do not
know the rules of the road and courteous operation. There seems to be an increase in
aggressive operation on some boats of all sizes with a disregard for the law and their effect
Web Page Address: http://www.winternet.com/-Imcd/
E-mail Address:lmcd@winternet.com
,
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
on others. This cultural change has resulted in increased concerns by the public, including
riparian owners and watercraft operators. This has resulted in a reduced quality of the
experience of those that recreate on Lake Minnetonka. The group felt that this situation
could be improved by increased Water Patrol presence by having increased patrol hours.
2. Sianificantlv reduce patrol hours due to increased complexity of processina violators.
A BWI arrest, that used to take a Deputy off patrol for an hour to process the offender, now
can take four to six hours. The increased processing time results from laws created to
protect the rights of the public and has affected criminal investigations. Arrests on the water,
which are more difficult than land, now take much more time, which results in fewer actual
patrol hours. The end result is less visible presence of the Water Patrol on the Lake.
3. The need to prepare for the Special Deputv Iitiaation currentlv at the Minnesota State
Supreme Court. Historically, the Water Patrol has supplemented their full-time, licensed
Deputies with 30 volunteer special deputies. These special deputies man patrol boats, make
stops, and issue tickets. They average approximately 250 hours of volunteertime per year;
however, their authority to "investigate" has been challenged in court and is. currently at the
Minnesota Supreme Court. If the ruling goes against the Water Patrol, there willbe a serious
reduction in Water Patrol presence on the Lake. The group felt that the increase of two
licensed paid Deputies would be at least some protection in the case of an adverse ruling. In
the case of a favorable ruling, the two new deputies would have the needed effect of
increased patrol hours.
The group decided to try to establish a two-year funding commitment, for $100,000 per year, to be
used exclusively for two additional Water Patrol Deputies to patrol Lake Minnetonka beginning in the
2001 boating season. None of these funds have been voted upon, but the proposed breakdown is
as follows:
. 50% from Hennepin County.
. ,30% from the LMCD Member Cities.
· 20% from the LMCD "Save the Lake" Fund (Private contributions resulting from LMCD
solicitation letters).
The LMCD member cities would need to fund the proposed $30,000 through voluntary contributions
for 2001. For 2002, it could be funded either through voluntary contributions orby adjusting the
LMCD levy to its member cities in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.635. The
increased levy would require adoption of a resolution by % of the member cities (11 of 14). Details
of how much each member city would be levied, using the LMCD formula outlined in Minnesota
~~_._- ."-.- - ~._.. Statutes..1-03R 635, is detailed in the attachedspreadsheet'---h_..'~~"-_h""--"-_._'-'c'~-'...--:---.'.-.. ....... ~
We are asking each city to add the amount shown on the attached spreadsheet to their 2001 budget.
If the other sources of revenue do not become available, the LMCD will rethink the plan and be back
to each group. Please feel free to call the LMCD Executive Director if you have questions.
~
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
2001 WATER PATROL PROPOSAL INCREASE
MEMBER CITY LEVY ADJUSTMENTS
~
CITY
1997
POPULATION
ESTIMATES
1999 TAXABLE
MARKET VALUE
1999 NET TAX
CAPACITY
PERCENTAGE OF
TOTAL NET TAX
CAPACITY
SHARE OF WATER
PATROL PROPOSAL IN
2001
Per Minnesota Statute 1038.631, no city may pay more than 20% of the total levy. The City of Minnetonka would pay a constant 20% of any amounts to be levied.
Remaining cities factor for determining levy amounts is computed as: (City Net Tax Capacity/(Total Net Tax Capacity - Minnetonka Net Tax Capacity)) · 80%
Total Net Tax Capacity
Less Minnetonka Net Tax Capacity
Net Tax Capacity for remaining 13 cities
$159,382,759
($84,744,523)
$74,638,236