Loading...
051892 CC WS Min .. ,< . . . .. CITY OF SHOREWOOD SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, MAY 18, 1992 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PAGE 1 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION In the absence of Mayor Brancel, the work session was called to order by Councilmember Daugherty at 7:08 p.m. A ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Daugherty, Gagne, Lewis and Stover. Also present were Administrator Hurm, Engineer Dresel, Planning Director Nielsen, Finance Director/Treasurer Rolek and Public Works Director Zdrazi!. Absent: Mayor Brance!. B. REVIEW AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved. 2. 1993-1997 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DISCUSSION - EMPHASIS ON STREETS AND WATER SYSTEM ISSUES Mr. Hurm stated that in response to the Council's request made at its May 18, 1992, meeting, the staff has prepared a summary addressing the issues regarding Streets, Assessments, and Water in Shorewood. He referred the Council to Engineer Dresel's letter of May 13, 1992 and its attachments and to Planning Director Nielsen's May 14, 1992 summary memorandum "Water Policy-Developer Reimbursement." Policy questions to be addressed are: STREETS: 1) Which streets need to be included in the MSA system, and should a revision be made to our current system?, 2) When should each of the streets be reconstructed?, and 3) What section (width) should be used on the various segments of the MSA system? ASSESSMENTS: 1) Does the Council want to start assessing for roadway reconstruction at all? WATER: 1) What do we do about water mains when reconstructing a street? 2) What do we do with developer requests to extend the water system? 3) Who pays for various segments of the extension? If developer makes systems available to other residents, should he be liable for all costs? 4) If City pays part of cost, what funds should be used? Mr. Dresel reviewed the MSA Needs Ranking, May 12, 1992 (Roadway Summary) attached to his 5-13-92 letter. He noted that according to his review, current rankings/ratings place Covington Road, Cathcart Road and Eureka Road North as first, second, and third priorities, respectively, for reconstruction. 1 , J . . . It SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MAY 18, 1992 - PAGE 2 Mr. Dresel reviewed Sheet Nos. lA through 3B attached to his 5-13-92 letter. These drawings compared 28', 32' and 36' Face to Face Road Sections. Messrs. Dresel and Hurm showed a videotape of examples of Shorewood roadways of various widths. Mr. Hurm explained that the purpose of this work session is to obtain the Council's general guidance on these issues and questions for decision making for 1993 and beyond. During discussion, the Council expressed the following views and concerns: - Stover pointed out that for community acceptance it is important that whichever road is selected for priority reconstruction/improvement, a fair and defensible rationale/policy for selection be defined, particularly if resident assessments will be used to finance this work. - Gagne indicated that the potential construction of a Byerly's store be taken into consideration to facilitate its access and the safe movement of related traffic. - Lewis expressed concern about the impact of potential additional traffic on streets that are currently considered residential streets. - Daugherty questioned the ability of the City to finance the reconstruction of streets without some assessment of residents noting that MSA funds can only be used for qualifying streets. He also pointed out that maintenance of the streets must also be continued during any reconstruction schedule. - Stover suggested that most residents would not want wider streets in the City but that in selected areas sidewalks would be desirable for pedestrian safety. - Lewis was not convinced that assessment was the way to finance reconstruction because of the fairness issue. He pointed out that an increase in funding from the General Fund might be justified in that the roads are used by all residents thus all residents benefit from reconstruction. Other points considered were: - Bonds could be used for financing - Any removal of trees be carefully considered - Install curbs and gutters only on roadways that require them for proper drainage - City streets are 20 years old and a realistic plan and schedule for their reconstruction and maintenance should be developed - MSA funds need to be spent or they will be lost - MSA funds may be used to acquire any needed right-of-ways this should begin soon - Reconstruction of roadways must take into account the provisions of the City's Transportation Policies which are part of the Comprehensive Plan review process 2 . . . . .-' SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MAY 18,1992 - PAGE 3 - It is prudent that reconstruction and/or street repair allow for future installation of future water mains where appropriate - It was recognized that there is some urgency in decision making on the street issue so that plans, if any, for 1993 work can move forward expeditiously. It was the consensus of the Council that a Street Task Force be established. It's charge would be to study and develop a policy/guideline statement for the financing of reconstruction of the City's streets over the next 5-10 years for the Council's consideration at its work session in August 1992. The composition of the Task Force shall include: A City Councilmember - liaison (non-voting) A Planning Commission member - liaison (non-voting) Three Shorewood residents City Finance Director - nonvoting City Engineer - nonvoting Staff was directed to prepare a Resolution establishing the Task Force for the Council's action at its next regularly scheduled meeting. The work session recessed at 8:45 p.m. Councilmember Daugherty reconvened the session at 9:00 p.m. Daugherty reviewed the issues regarding policy parameters for water extensions and connections as it relates to developers. He noted that currently a variety of reimbursement agreements exist between the City and developers whose constructed facilities are capable of serving properties outside of those projects. In general, the agreements permit some reimbursement or waiver of fees to such developers. During discussion, Councilmembers expressed the following concerns and views: - Gagne suggested a policy for assessing residents for hookups based on a fee schedule be designed to encourage hookups as soon as available rather than at sometime in the future and that the assessments be made on an equitable basis. - Lewis suggested that a policy assessing residents for hookups based on a fee schedule could include a surcharge for improvements in the water system and an additional tower. - Gagne suggested that additional assessments for the General Fund may be more acceptable to residents than a water assessment fee. - Daugherty suggested that the residential policy could set an up-front initial fire hydrant fee but that actual water hookup could be deferred to a future date at which time the remaining costs would be assessed. 3 . .. . . . . ," SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MAY 18, 1992 - PAGE 4 Following discussion, it was the Council's consensus that Administrator Hurm and staff develop- a basic City Water Policy for the Council's review. The Policy should be designed to include continuing to assess developers on a case by case basis and an equitable formula- based assessment of benefitting residents, with a view to justification of a water revenue source for the City. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Stover, seconded by Lewis to adjourn the Special City Council Work Session at 10:04 p.m. Motion Passed 5/0. RESPECfFULL Y SUBMrl"I'ED, Arlene H. Bergfalk Northern Counties Secretarial Services ATTEST: RO~~~'Acting Mayor ~L~ J C. HURM, City Administrator 4