Loading...
031296 CC SP Min . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1996 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 6:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Bean called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Bean; Councilmembers Benson, McCarty, and Shaw; City Administrator Hurm, Acting City Attorney Wahlgren and City Engineer Brown. Absent: Councilmember Stover. Mayor Bean noted City Attorney Keane was being represented tonight by Sharna Wahlgren, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. He also introduced Councilmember Tad Shaw who was appointed to the City Council on March 11, 1996 to fIll the vacancy left by Doug Malam. B. Review Agenda McCarty moved, Shaw seconded to approve the agenda for March 12, 1996 as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. PUBLIC HEARING 6:30 P.M. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARING FOR W ATERMAIN AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT . STRAWBERRY LANE A. Consideration of a Resolution Approving Project #95-17 - Strawberry Lane Watermain and Street Reconstruction Project Brown reported this proposal is for extension of a watermain on Strawberry Lane from Smithtown Road to West 62nd Street. The City has been considering the 20 year water plan and has made the decision to try to link road reconstruction efforts and watermain extension together in the same project whenever possible to avoid residents experiencing construction more than once. Strawberry Lane has deteriorated beyond the point of repair and has been slated for reconstruction through the last few Capital Improvement Programs. The proposal includes extension of a 12 inch watermain down the entire length of Strawberry Lane with 6 inch watermain stubs to the intersecting streets of Peach Circle and Strawberry Court. There were two types of sections considered. The first section, a rural section, would consist of 2 - 12 foot lanes and 6 foot shoulders. There is the possibility of use of MSA funds for this improvement. When State funds are utilized the roadway is required to meet the State's design criteria. This section does meet the criteria but is extremely wide. This will greatly impact the area and cause difficulty with drainage. The second type of section, urban section, includes a bituminous surface with installation of curbs and gutters. State . . . " , CITY OF SHOREWOOD . SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES March 12, 1996 . PAGE 2 Aid funds would only be available for this project if the improvements were extended all the way to Highway 7. Brown outlined the two alternatives .of the urban section. The first would include 2 -12 foot lanes and a 4 foot trail behind the curb. The right-of-way on Strawberry lane varies from 33 feet to 66 feet. This proposal would be difficult in areas where the right-of-way decreases to 33 feet. Brown noted the existing roadway is 20 feet in width. Feedback received at the public information meeting resulted in the discussion at a work session of the City Council of how the trail would impact homes in close proximity to the roadway. The City Council then considered various options. One option suggested at the public informational meeting was to increase the 12 foot lanes to 13 feet, reduce the curb and eliminate the trail. The widening of the street and reduction in curb would allow room for pedestrians or bicyclists to take refuge from passing vehicular traffic. Brown reported total costs for the 24 foot roadway and off-street trail which was presented at the public informational meeting is $473,846.00. The total cost of the alternative of the 26 foot roadway without a trail is $481,532.00. Brown reported from a technical standpoint the 24 foot roadway is the most logical alternative. Mayor Bean opened the public hearing at 6:46 p.m. Larry Kapustka, 26400 Shorewood Oaks Drive, asked how much of the right-of-way would be cleared when the roadway was installed. Brown indicated approximately 5 to 10 feet of grading area will be required. This is due to the concern that drainage from every front yard goes over the curb. He noted every effort will be made to work around trees and bushes so as not to disturb them. Tim Leland, 5825 Strawberry Lane, stated he would prefer the wider street without the pedestrian trail. He stated one concern with the trail was that in the winter time the snow from the street would be plowed onto the trail. He questioned who would be responsible for the trail. He stated he was concerned with the starting date of construction being August 1, 1996. He felt this was late in the year and was approaching the rainy season. He felt the two month projected construction time for this project was extensive. He stated he had been employed in the construction area for 23 years. He suggested the City hire a general contractor who was capable and responsible to complete the entire project himself. He asked if a geo-textile fabric would be installed on any portion of the roadway. Brown reported soil boring was not included as part of the feasibility study. If the soil is determined to be bad, extra sand or the geo-textile fabric will be utilized. Mr. Leland stated he would prefer the geo-textile fabric. He stated he felt it was necessary as the ground was very wet in this area. Wayne Oelfke, 6170 Strawberry Lane, asked if the proposed street would come down the middle of the existing roadway. He asked if the trail would be located on the east or west side of the roadway. Mr. Oelfke asked how much the geo-textile fabric would cost. Brown explained the trail would be located on the east side of the road. He stated the fabric would be approximately $11,000.00. Paul Fasching, 26450 W. 62nd Street, asked if the City was intending to raise the grade level. He noted the property on the west side was lower than the road level. Brown noted . CITY OF SHOREWOOD - SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES March 12, 1996 - PAGE 3 . there is an area which pockets water. The proposal will try to lower the roadway elevation to ensure the water will drain over the curb. Chuck Cochran, 5915 Strawberry Lane, stated he was happy to see there was more than one alternative being proposed. He asked if the center of the proposed road would be the same as the existing roadway. Brown noted they had tried to create an alignment of Strawberry Lane which would allow a narrower roadway and the trail without impact to the homeowners. This was not possible due to the two long stretches of 33 foot right-of-way and that the right-of-way is not evenly distributed on the roadway. Mr. Cochran stated he is against the trail. He would prefer the 26 foot wide road. If the trail is installed the trees would be lost. He stated his home is so close to the right-of-way that he was denied the ability to install a bay window as it would encroach on the 50 foot setback. He asked if there was going to be a bike path on Smithtown Road. City Administrator Hurm stated this is included on the Trail Plan but will not be installed this year. Mr. Cochran stated if there was a bike trail intended for Smithtown Road he did not feel it was necessary to have a bike trail on Strawberry Lane. He stated he felt the trail would have a negative market impact to the residents on Strawberry Lane. . Patty Helgeson, 6120 Strawberry Lane, stated she was trail neutral. She stated however, she was not comfortable with a 26 foot wide road. She did not believe a 26 foot wide road would accommodate pedestrians any better than a 24 foot road. She expressed concern that a 26 foot wide road would be installed and at a later date a trail would also be installed. She stated she was against that much asphalt and width. She stated she liked the rural flavor of the area and didn't care for the suburbanization. She stated she appreciated the road improvement itself. Delores Mullenbach, 5840 Strawberry Lane, stated she would prefer to not have the trail. She saw no reason for the trail. She moved to this area because she wanted to live in a rural area. She stated there is a trail near the railroad tracks and she did not see a reason to have a trail through every yard. She felt this was a waste of money, a great extravagance that the residents did not need right now. Ann Hidding, 5885 Strawberry Lane, stated she was against the trail. She felt the wider street would be suffIcient for people to bike and walk. Steve Bradley, 6175 Strawberry Lane, stated he would prefer the 24 foot wide road. He expressed his concern with the speed of traffIc and noted he did not want Strawberry Lane to serve as the access from Smithtown Road to Highway 7. He stated he would appreciate whatever the Council could do. . Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Bean closed the public hearing at 7: 14 p.m. Mayor Bean read a petition received from 24 residents on Strawberry Lane in opposition to the widening of Strawberry Lane to 26 feet. Two-thirds of the signatures were those of residents on Strawberry Lane. He also noted a letter received from Allen and Peggy Johnson, 5865 Strawberry Lane in opposition to the proposed trail. Mayor Bean explained the rationale for the trail was due to the safety standpoint of separating vehicular traffIc from pedestrian and bike traffIc. He asked if installation of a 26 . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD . SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES March 12, 1996 . PAGE 4 foot roadway at this time would mitigate the possibility of installation of a trail at a later date. Councilmember McCarty stated she felt it would not be possible to install a trail at a later date as there was not room. She stated she liked the idea of the trail for children who were walking to school but did not see how it would be possible from a right-of-way standpoint. Councilmember Benson stated he felt a 26 foot wide road with 8 inch high curbs would create a barrier. He stated if there was a trail, it needed to be an off-street trail. He noted he was not prepared to say he did not want trails in the City of Shorewood. The City Council had agreed to consider the trail on Smithtown Road in a different phase and he felt it may be appropriate to do the same in this situation. He stated he was not convinced that residents of the City did not want trails. He was willing to consider a 24 foot roadway with the potential of installation of a trail at a later date. Councilmember McCarty noted one concern with the 26 foot wide road was increased speed. She asked if there was anything which could be done as far as curving. Brown stated this was not possible due to the right-of-way. Brown also noted gentle curves tend to result in a higher accident rate. Councilmember McCarty asked if there was a difference in safety between a 24 foot and a 26 foot wide roadway. Brown stated it was difficult to say as there were so many variables involved. Councilmember McCarty noted there was a lot of vehicles parked on Strawberry Lane and Smithtown Road during school events and asked how the two widths would affect parking. Brown noted there was not enough width to designate allowable parking under either proposal. He indicated an 8 foot shoulder is required to allow people to park and get out of a vehicle without being hit. He stated Strawberry Lane will be signed "no parking". Mayor Bean questioned the timing and access issue. Brown stated originally the bids were to be let out in August of 1996. He stated the City was eager to let bids out as soon as possible. He stated the two month projected construction time was an estimate and could vary significantly. He noted the project will include interim completion dates to keep the contractor on schedule. He indicated there will also be construction occurring on Smithtown Road. That construction will be done in halves and one lane will remain open in each direction at all times. He stated although Strawberry Lane will not be completed in halves, access will be maintained at all times. The City is anticipating periodic meetings with residents in the field. Mayor Bean asked if it was necessary to use surmountable curbs. Brown noted this was strictly an MSA issue. He noted the advantage to barrier curbs is that they prevent a car from going over the curb. Mr. Oeltke noted surmountable curbs would allow more room for vehicles to park on the street. Mayor Bean stated surmountable curbs also allow cars to pull up on the grass. Barrier curbs prevent this. Mr. Bradley asked if the MSA funding was an incentive to include the trail or to widen the road to 26 feet. Brown noted the trail and the MSA funding were two separate issues. MSA funds only applied to construction of roadway. Mayor Bean noted MSA funds were not available for this project. . CITY OF SHOREWOOD - SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES March 12, 1996 - PAGE 5 Benson moved, Shaw seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 96-23. "A Resolution Approving Project #95-17, Strawberry Lane Watermain and Street Reconstruction project with a 24 foot wide street without a trail, with an option for a future trail and no change in the Trail Plan, and Ordering Plans and Specifications. Benson asked the difference in barrier curbs and surmountable curbs from an engineering standpoint. Brown noted the cost and drainage were the same, the only difference was the safety issue. He indicated many communities use surmountable curves so they do not have to install depressed curbs in driveway areas. . Councilmember McCarty stated she did not feel that a trail would fit in this area. She felt the 26 foot road would provide a lot more room. Councilmember Benson stated he preferred to keep residents off the street. He felt if a trail was not created people could walk and ride their bikes on the grass. He felt the addition of one foot of roadway would result in a false sense of security. He stated he was not giving up on the trail but felt it should be further discussed and should not hold this project up. Councilmember McCarty stated she felt this was different than Smithtown Road. She didn't want the residents to have to wonder for the next five years when or if they would be getting a trail. Councilmember Benson noted the issue would have to be addressed but again stated he did not feel it should hold up the street reconstruction project. A 26 foot wide street would totally eliminate the possibility of a trail in the future. Councilmember McCarty reiterated the point that she did not feel there would ever be a trail in this area. She did not like putting the residents in limbo and did not feel this was the same thing as Smithtown Road. V oting on the motion: Motion passed 4/0. B . Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing OSM to prepare Plans and Specifications for Project #95-17, Strawberry Lane Improvements Benson moved, McCarty seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 96-24. "A Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Agreement for Professional Engineering Services with OSM for Project #95-17, Strawberry Lane Improvements for Watermain Installation and Street Reconstruction. Motion passed 4/0. Mayor Bean recessed the meeting at 7:50 p.m. and reconvened at 8:00 p.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARING FOR WATERMAIN AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT - EUREKA ROAD A. Consideration of a Resolution Approving Project #95-14 - Eureka Road Watermain and Street Reconstruction Project . Brown reported this proposal was for extension of an 8 inch watermain on Eureka Road from Smithtown Road to Birch Bluff Road. Watermain stubs will be installed at all intersecting streets. Currently Eureka Road is a rural bituminous surface without curbs or gutters, 20 to 22 feet wide which is showing signs of distress. The City has made the decision to perform watermain extension and necessary road reconstruction at the same . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD - SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES March 12, 1996 - PAGE 6 time so residents will only have to go through construction one time. Several alternatives were considered in the feasibility study. The first alternative is to do nothing to the roadway. Staff does not feel this alternative is feasible. The second alternative would be to install the 8 inch watermain and reconstruct the roadway to a 24 foot bituminous surface with 6 foot wide shoulders. Due to the mature trees along the roadway this option is not considered feasible. The third alternative would be to install the proposed watermain and reconstruct the roadway as a 26 foot wide driving surface with curbs and gutters. This is the alternative which was presented at the public informational meeting. The residents at that meeting did not approve of this alternative as they did not want to alter the character of the neighborhood. The fourth alternative would be to install the proposed watermain and restore the area including a seal coating of the entire roadway in the fall of 1996. The total cost of alternative 3 is $799,442.15. The total cost of alternative 4 is $289,144.05 with the major cost being attributed to the watermain construction. Brown stated staff is recommending alternative 4. Mayor Bean indicated Duncan Storlie had been requested to represent the homeowners on Eureka Road so he would be allowed more time to speak during the public hearing. Brown explained the proposal which the residents supported had two possibilities. One possibility would be to open a trench in the roadway which would result in one lane remaining open. The other possibility would be to bore a portion of the main. This would result in little disturbance to the area. With the technology that is becoming available it is difficult to determine which method would be more cost effective. Brown noted there will also be construction occurring on Smithtown Road. One lane in each direction on Smithtown Road will remain open at all times during the construction process. The City's intention is to conduct weekly on site residential meetings to allow residents to come and voice their concerns during construction. The contractor will be expected to maintain driveway access at all times. If necessary, temporary mailboxes will be provided so as mail service will not be interrupted. Mayor Bean opened the public hearing at 8: 17 p.m. Duncan Storlie, 5375 Eureka Road, stated he had lived in Shorewood for 23 years. He was here tonight to represent the homeowners on Eureka Drive. He had performed a survey which illustrated that most people were not in favor of water extended on their street. He stated he had attended many meetings in the past and the residents were against the installation of municipal water. He felt that the water was being pushed through. He stated he thought a lot of people felt the costs of the water system were being misrepresented by the City. He noted there were many other costs associated with water extension including hook-up charges, plumbing fees and a sac charge. This did not include the cost of the water itself. He felt the water system was unnecessary, unwanted and ridiculous. He questioned how the water could go forward on its own inertia without the support of the residents. He indicated another cost is the waste of a good well and also results in a duplication of service. Mark Harland, 5300 Eureka Road, stated he had owned his home since 1985. He referred to a notice which stated the City Council must serve in an impartial fashion. He stated this did not mean the Council would advocate water or construction. The Council was here to work for the people. He cited the City newsletter which listed the reasons City water was in the best interest of the residents. It cited reasons such as water pressure for fire protection, elevated water storage in case of power failure, watermain installation before street reconstruction, interconnection of the systems, provide sprinkler systems for senior housing, make water available to developments, and replace aging wells. Mr. Harland . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD - SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES March 12, 1996 - PAGE 7 argued all these points and stated he would be the Council's worst nightmare if they "slammed" the water through. He felt the City was trying to tax him out of his house. He . stated he did not want City water and there was no reason for City water. He felt the only one that was benefIting was the developers. Bill Bukovec, 5335 Eureka Road, asked if $5,000 for water installation was still an accurate fIgure. Brown stated it was and noted that the City had chosen not to assess the homeowners for street construction. Mr. Bukovec stated that to his understanding the Boulder Bridge water project system did not support itself. He felt the City-wide project would help spread the cost of an ill- conceived water project such as Boulder Bridge. He stated it appeared that the Boulder Bridge system was a mistake and this was an attempt to cover that up. He stated fIre protection was not an issue as all residents not on municipal water paid an extra insurance premium. He asked if City water was indeed installed, the City would be responsible if his house burned down. Duane Laurila, 5595 Eureka Road, stated he had been at the Comprehensive Plan meetings last winter at the Minnewashta School and had been one of the two persons to speak against municipal water. He cited a Shorewood newsletter from 1991 which stated the City had performed a City-wide survey which indicated that 70% of the residents had their own well and 30% had City water. 91% of the persons polled stated they were satisfIed with the water they had and 9% were dissatisfIed. The determination was that it was not viable to provide City water. He questioned what had changed in four years. He stated he felt the water needed to be installed for the Smithtown Road development. He did not feel the residents should have to subsidize the developer. He stated $5,000.00 was a lot of money to him. He noted 3-4 persons in his neighborhood had replaced their well within the last two years. He noted these wells were useless if city water was installed. They would have to be capped if they were not in use. He stated he did not know of anyone in the City of Shorewood who had a problem with contaminated water. He asked if a water treatment plant was planned for City water in the near future. He felt that residents had the misconception that they would not need water softeners for the City water. He read a statement from the City newsletter that stated one goal of the City of Shore wood was to make the people want to live here. He felt the City Council was misrepresenting the people who live in Shorewood and felt they were doing too much for the developers. He stated no one in the City listens and this was the biggest problem. Renee Foster, 5595 Eureka Road, stated she had been to all the planning meetings and the Minnewashta meetings. She stated she wanted to go on record as being opposed to the water since the planning stage. She stated she did not think a lot of people knew what was going on. She did not think the City even knew what was going on. She stated she did not want water and did not need water. She felt City water would lead to a number of other things including water treatment plants and road improvements. She felt the only reason for the water extension was developers. She understood the developers paid more but noted most of the residents did not even want the City to be developed. She felt Shorewood was being turned into a "mini Edina". She noted these were the exact reasons she left the cities. She stated if the residents had voted the water in, she could be happy. But they had not. There was no referendum, no survey. She felt that even at the public informational meeting the City kept saying, "You will get water." She felt the City Council was supposed to represent the citizens wishes. Jerry O'Neill, 25540 Nelsine Drive, stated he was opposed to the City water and road improvements. He stated the last time he had spoken with Mayor Bean. he was informed that the installation of City water would increase his property valuation by $5,000.00. He '. CITY OF SHOREWOOD - SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES March 12, 1996 - PAGE 8 . stated he had spoken with three appraisers and two real estate agents and they had informed him City water would not increase the value of his home, Also, for the next seven to eight months he was stuck with a pending assessment on his home, from which he would gain no value. This would decrease the value of his home if he tried to sell. Councilmember McCarty stated this was not totally correct as there would be no assessments to his property until he was actually included on the assessment roll. Mr. O'Neill stated that in reality the pending assessment was still there. He questioned who had informed Mayor Bean that the market value would raise. Mayor Bean stated he believed that statement was based on the County Assessor's input. Councilmember McCarty stated the information would be made available to the public. Greg Larson, 25535 Orchard Circle, cited a letter from Jim and Judy Marshall, 2320 Eureka Road and noted there were a number of residents on Eureka Road who could not afford this financial burden. These people have lived on the land a number of years and are ready to retire. Due to their fixed income and the cost of assessments, they may not be able to retain their land. He stated he believed the water issue should be tabled. Mr. Larson presented a petition which was signed by 70 to 80 residents opposing the upgrade of the road and the watermain extension. He stated 90% of the people do not even know if they want water or not. He believed the City had failed on their obligation to inform the residents. Larry Opfer, 25900 Wild Rose Lane, stated he agreed with the residents. He did not know why the City Council wanted to install City water. He stated the less government did for . him, the happier he was. He stated he was still being assessed for installation of sewer. Councilmember Benson noted the sewer had been installed in 1971. Mr. Opfer asked what the specials on his property taxes were if they were not sewer. He stated he would now be assessed for another twenty years and he would never be able to get ahead. He stated he had a rock well that was 208 feet deep. He stated he did not want the streets upgraded because he felt it would only increase the speed of the traffic on the road. . Kate Lynch Bix, stated she was speaking for herself and her husband. She stated she lived on Orchard Circle and her only access was Eureka Road. She stated she had gone out and talked to the neighbors about this project and it was compelling to her that not one person was in favor of this project, especially the older residents. She stated the residents are sad, discouraged and feel alienated because no one listens to them. When she bought her house in 1992, she was looking for a well. She stated she is allergic to and has never drank City water. When she bought her house she was told there were no plans for City water. She felt if the 20 year City water plan was in place it would impact residents who wanted to sell their homes. She questioned the penalty for not hooking up within 18 months. She requested a vote by roll call on this item so she would know who to campaign for or against in the upcoming November election. She stated she like the rural character of Shorewood including the potholes, trees, water, marshes. She asked to go on record stating the Bix family is opposed to major changes in the City of Shorewood. Mary Dorfman, 25845 Birch Bluff Road, stated three years ago she called City offices and asked when City water would be installed. She was told it would be 20 years. She asked what had happened to change this timeline if it was not development based. She stated she did not believe that the citizens would be safer if City water were installed because not one . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD . SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES March 12, 1996 . PAGE 9 house had burned to the ground in the City of Shorewood. She questioned what connection between the other funding source and the completion of City-wide water made it so appealing to the Council that they would go against a whole City that does not want water. Mark Harland, 5300 Eureka Road, asked who had put together the reasons the City of Shorewood needs City water in the newsletter. He stated he felt it was impossible to address the water issues and avoid the connection with the developments. He noted if the option of watermain and seal coating were chosen and the developments were approved, the trucks for that development would come down Eureka Road. He questioned who would be responsible for the damage the trucks caused to the road. He suggested the "do nothing" approach and stated he felt the road would last longer. Mr. Opfer stated all the residents were in agreement and all were against the City Council. He stated he did not need and did not want the City's help. He asked if there had ever been a meeting when all the people were in support of water, Mr. Storlie asked if the assessment amount or the water rates could change. Judy Englund, 25555 Orchard Circle, stated she would like the opportunity to negotiate the length of time allowed to hook-up to the system. Her well is only three years old and she had no intention to have City water until her well went bad. Steve Croissant, 26025 Birch Bluff Road, stated he was against City water. He stated this year his property taxes went up 12% which resulted in a $500.00 higher increase than his raise at work last year. He felt the development would result in more children and would require another school being built. He felt it was going to get to the point that it was difficult to put food on the table. He stated his house was built in 1992 and he did not need City water. Ms. Lynch Bix stated the residents felt betrayed and discouraged because no matter what they do the City Council has not listened. She stated she felt the City was providing a duplication in services. She stated she had a well with a brand new pump which was 330 feet deep. Robin Thompson, 25960 Birch Bluff Road, stated she felt there were not many seniors living in the area because they were all being taxed out of their homes. This was the result of things like City water and the City Council not listening to the residents. Mr. Larson stated he felt a big problem was cynicism toward government. He cited a recent poll which stated people don't trust each other or government and feel powerless. Mr. O'Neill stated no one listens to what the people say. Mr. Harland noted the City will be providing chlorinated water and this may have something to do with cancer. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Bean closed the public hearing at 9:25 p.m. Mayor Bean explained that the process of the City water plan development had been extensive and thorough. He stated this is a 20 year water plan but this is the beginning of the 20 years. He noted there were several water systems in the City currently but with the exception of the Southeast system there are no elevated storage systems to regulate pressure and control if the electricity failed. He noted a house had recently burned to the ground in . . . .. CITY OF SHOREWOOD - SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES March 12, 1996 - PAGE 10 the City of Deephaven. This area was not on municipal water and was served by the same Fire Department as the City of Shorewood. He stated fire pressure does make a difference. Mayor Bean noted as much as we all like to keep things from changing, there will be development in Shorewood. Based on the most recent estimates, approximately 200 more homes will be built. The majority of these homes will be west of County Road 19. All of these homes will feed the Minnewashta Elementary School. Estimates show there will be approximately 100 additional children in the next 5 to 10 years. Currently the school does not have elevated storage or municipal water. He stated he hoped there was never a fire at the school. Mayor Bean stated one objective of this City Council has been to provide affordable senior housing in the City of Shorewood. This has resulted in five Cities coming together and funding a Senior Center. He noted there is a provision in the water ordinance that was passed to waive the assessment as long as the senior citizen owns the home. The City Council has no intention of driving the senior citizens out of Shorewood. The achievement of the objective of affordable senior housing will result in higher density units. The Council is striving to achieve these goals and mandates and still preserve the character of Shorewood. Mayor Bean stated the water project is not being done for the developers. The developments were taken into consideration in the planning procedure as to avoid duplication of services. This project is not being done to subsidize development. Mayor Bean stated the cash flow derived from the water system does fund the water systems in place at the present time. The objective of the 20 year water plan is to make the water system as efficient as possible and create an interdependency in the water system which does not exist currently. The first priority of the project is to provide elevated storage for the west end and address the school deficiency. The second priority is to provide the interconnection of the systems. The City of Victoria is also in need of expansion of their water system. This planning makes good sense as it will contain government spending and is looking at the issue representatively across the whole City. Mayor Bean stated the assessments have been determined after many hours of discussion as to the best way to lay the plan out. The assessments are not cast in stone and the ordinance provides for increase in response to inflation based on the consumer price index. The mandatory hook-up will still be evaluated before the first person is required to hook- up. The assessments were determined by considering what value was added to the property by having municipal water available, the cost to install the water system and to a degree what was equitable. The assessments will not cover the costs of the whole water system. As stated previously, the cash flow does support the system as it exists now but maintenance costs will require a policy decision to support another source of revenue possibly a unit fee or a base fee. The only other option would be to fund the water through the general fund. Mayor Bean stated there was no referendum on this issue. This item is to be decided by the City Council as representatives of the City of Shorewood. He noted all the Councilmembers are residents of Shorewood and have nothing to gain by the water project. This decision has been made earnestly and with much conscious thought. Mayor Bean stated the City is also trying to address street construction as the water project is addressed. They received input at neighborhood meetings that residents do not want curbs and gutters. The Council understands the residents desire to maintain the look and rural feel of the neighborhood but maintains if the street is simply put back the way it is . . . '. , CITY OF SHOREWOOD - SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES March 12, 1996 - PAGE 11 today, it will fail. The Council has looked at which streets are in need of repair and tried to schedule the water at the same time so as to avoid duplication of services and government waste. Mayor Bean recessed the meeting at 10:00 p.m. and reconvened at 10:01 p.m. Mayor Bean noted the age of neighborhood and resulting age of wells had also been considered in determining the water plan. It is projected that Shorewood will be fully developed within the next 10 years and this was another reason it was determined the water system needed to be done soon. Many residents have indicated they are not interested in spending $5,000.00 but that they understand the need to implement the system within the next 20 years. Mayor Bean stressed that the Comprehensive Plan and water plan implementation had been widely publicized in the local newspaper, the newsletter, cable television and neighborhood meetings. The water plan has not been done arbitrarily but has been a process with much effort from the City Council, City staff, the Planning Commission and a citizen task force. Mayor Bean noted wells will not have to be capped. Minnesota State statute requires that municipal and well water cannot be co-mingled. At such time as a well fails, it will be required to be capped. He noted water has been provided by the Boulder Bridge system for 15 to 20 years and has never been contaminated. The City water provided will be chlorinated or fluoridated. Councilmember Benson stated he had lived in Shorewood all his life and appreciated the residents who have stayed to listen to the Council's response to the issues raised tonight. He stated he has talked with many residents in regard to the water issue and he felt people are generally receptive to the water project. He stated there had been a great deal of thought which went into this project. He stated he was offended that people say this project is in response to developers. He stated he would not prostitute himself to another and the decision he made tonight would be his decision based on how he felt. He stated this has been a difficult decision and is one that has been made not without thought but with much care and concern. Councilmember McCarty stated she echoed the thoughts expressed by Councilmember Benson and Mayor Bean. She stated the Council had done everything possible to inform the residents. This decision was not being made arbitrarily or copiously. Council has worked hard to make the best decision for the City of Shorewood. She stated she felt comfortable and would vote yes knowing it is the best decision for the City of Shorewood and for the future of Shorewood in the 21st century. Councilmember Shaw stated he felt this decision was long worked over. The need for City water has been a long time coming and its time has come. He stated his phone numbers were 474-3636 and 474-3939 and he could be reached on the internet at TadSter@aol.com. He stated he would be happy to speak with any of the residents in regard to this issue. Benson moved, McCarty seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 96-25. "A Resolution Approving Project #95-14 -Eureka Road Watermain and Street Reconstruction Project to include no improvements except restoration and seal coating of the entire roadway in the fall of 1996, and Ordered Preparation of Plans and Specifications. Motion passed 4/0. . . . " CITY OF SHOREWOOD - SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES March 12, 1996 - PAGE 12 B . Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing OSM to Prepare Plans and Specifications for Project #95-14, Eureka Road Improvements. Benson moved, Shaw seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 96-26. itA Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Agreement for Professional Engineer Services with OSM for Project #95-14, Eureka Road Improvements. Motion passed 4/0. 5. ADJOURNMENT Benson moved, McCarty seconded to adjourn the Special meeting at 10:40 p.m. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Lorri L. Kopishcke Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial ATTEST: 1<'/) i,:)J::J,. , \-~* I~J~./,,-\ '1 j""S :yt0,~ \....-.. ROBERT B. BEAN, MAYOR N{U() C (; 1^'- . HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR