Loading...
061697 CC WS1 Min . CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION The City Council met at 6:00 p.m. at the site of the Watten Ponds development near 5370 Eureka Road to review issues of non-compliance with the development agreement. Mayor Dahlberg called the work session meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Dahlberg; Councilmembers Stover, McCarty, O'Neill and Garfunkel; Administrator Hurm; Planning Director Brad Nielsen; Engineer Larry Brown; Finance Director AI Rolek. B. Review Agenda Mayor Dahlberg moved, O'Neill seconded to consider Agenda Item No. 3 prior to discussion of Item No.2. Motion passed 3/0. Mayor Dahlberg moved, O'Neill seconded to limit discussion of Agenda Item No. 3 to begin the discussion at 7:33 p.m. and end at 7:50 p.m. Motion passed 3/0. . The agenda was approved as amended. 2. DISCUSSION OF CITY WATER POLICIES 1.1 Water is available in the street, however, at the time it was put in, one resident chose not to hook up. At a later date, when he wants to hook up to municipal water, what should he pay? Mayor Dahlberg felt the assessment in effect at the time of the hook up would be applicable. Councilmember Stover felt the assessment amount should be a consistent figure and not differ depending upon the development. 1.2 Is there a need to put it on parity with what original costs to neighboring properties were? Mayor Dahlberg felt the property owner would pay the same amount the neighboring property owners paid in addition to inflation. 1.3 What is the money collected used for? The consensus was to follow the existing policy of allocating these funds to the water system infrastructure. . 2.1 Water is on Smithtown Road. Smithtown Circle is a cul-de-sac off of Smithtown Road with five homes on it. If they submit a 100% petition for water, what would they pay per unit? 2.2 What factors would be used to determine this fee? . . . CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JUNE 16, 1997 - PAGE 2 2.3 Would they pay any toward the cost of the infrastructure? Councilmembers O'Neill and Garfunkel felt the property owners should share the full cost. Councilmember Stover felt a particular dollar amount should be established for an assessment so that property owners know what to anticipate when petitioning for water. If the cost would be beyond the assessment rate which had been established, it would not be considered feasible to provide municipal water. Mayor Dahlberg felt a minimum rate for the assessment should be established. From a financial view, Councilmember Stover felt if a loss were incurred on the sale of the product, the City would make up that loss in the quarterly water charges which are imposed over the years. Councilmember McCarty felt a minimum of $5,000 should be established and in the event it is determined a project would cost more than that amount, a higher assessment would be imposed. She expressed her opinion each project should be evaluated on an individual basis. Mayor Dahlberg agreed there should be a minimum assessment. If the assessment is in excess of the minimum, the property owner would need to decide whether they want to pay the higher amount. If they do not wish to pay the higher amount, the project would not be feasible. Mayor Dahlberg stated the Council would review an analysis of a project situation. In the event it will cost in excess of $5,000 to extend water, but the analysis reveals it will become profitable in three years to extend the service, the Council would need to determine the affordability of the project. Mayor Dahlberg felt a possible formula would be to have Finance Director Rolek perform a break even analysis reflecting the number of years in which the project would break even. The Council would need to agree on what number of years would be acceptable in which to break even. Councilmember Stover stated she is not in favor of forcing anyone to connect to municipal water, however, the City has built a new water tower which needs to be financed. She would like to make it as easy as possible for users to connect because users help pay for the system. Councilmember McCarty expressed concern a product such as municipal water can be priced so high that no one will want to hook up. Councilmember O'Neill expressed concern relative to charging property owners for an oversized watermain which would be installed taking into consideration future developments in the area. He felt the City should pick up the cost of the oversizing of the watermain. Hurm noted his understanding the Council would anticipate assessing the actual cost minus oversizing and a minimum cost of $5,000. Mayor Dahlberg further noted a break even analysis will determine whether or not a project is feasible. As a part of the break even analysis, the project would break even in a specified number of years and then become profitable. Rolek felt the Council needs to establish a minimum charge. The consensus of the Council was to use a minimum charge of $5,000. 3.1 Water is on Smithtown Road. Smithtown is a cul-de-sac off of Smith town Road with five homes on it. A petition from four of the five neighbors is submitted for water. 3.2 Do the four pay the entire cost of extension? . . . CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JUNE 16, 1997 - PAGE 3 Mayor Dahlberg suggested the property owner would be responsible for the cost minus the oversizing taking into consideration the fifth property owner was willing to sign off on the petition for the benefit of his neighbors. If that person were to refuse to sign off, the Council could override the person refusing to sign. It would be preferable to have the fifth person sign an acknow ledgment the bank: will require a hook up upon the sale of the property. Councilmember McCarty felt this would be pitting neighbor against neighbor and that there needs to be a clear cut policy on this issue. Mayor Dahlberg believed this was a clear cut policy. Councilmember McCarty was in disagreement and felt the policy should be definite. Councilmember Garfunkel felt if there are a majority number of property owners requesting hook up and only a few who are opposed, this may become a cost for the property owners who desire to hook up to cover the cost of those refusing. (Councilmember Stover left the meeting at 9:01 p.m.) Councilmember McCarty felt there should be a clear cut policy in which a percentage of the neighborhood could petition for water. Mayor Dahlberg felt the project must be financially feasible based on the number of people petitioning. Those opposed to the petition would need to sign off on the petition. If they are unwilling to sign off on the petition, those in favor would be subject to an increased assessment, however, the hook up charge would not be included. Virginia Kolstad was present and suggested a standard assessment be established which would allow property owners to know in advance what the cost would be to hook up to water. Each property owner in the neighborhood would be assessed the same amount whether or not they signed off on the petition. She stated the criteria for determining whether or not a neighborhood gets water would be based on the percentage of people in the group who want it as well as the feasibility of putting the water in given the fixed charge and the fees over the long term on the system. Ms. Kolstad felt this would create predictability of the cost for those who may decide to agree to the extension of water because their neighbors want it. Councilmember O'Neill remarked the majority of residents in Shorewood do not want municipal water extended within the city. Councilmember McCarty noted there has not been a recent survey on this issue. She expressed her opinion if the citizens had knowledge of all of the financial details, they may change their minds. The City would also need to have good policies in force. Mayor Dahlberg remarked he had completed a poll in the previous year which produced a scientific sample reflecting the citizens are opposed to the extension of water in Shorewood. Councilmember Garfunkel felt if 100 percent of the people in a given area want water, they should be allowed to have it. He felt everyone who is financially affected would need to agree to it. He did not feel there should be an exception to this position. (Councilmember McCarty left the meeting at 9:18 p.m.) 3 .3 What if the fifth resident wants to hook up at a later date, what would the charge to that property be? The Council agreed that a resident wishing to hook up at a later date would pay the same charge the others had paid plus inflation. 4 A petition is received for water in an area where it is not available. A trunk main would need to be extended to provide the service. What would the cost be for each unit that petitioned for water? CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JUNE 16, 1997 - PAGE 4 . The Council felt the policy should be to charge the actual cost minus the oversizing of the watermain. S.1 It has always been the City's policy to require commercial and multi- family units to hook up to water within 90 days of it becoming available. Should this policy continue? Rolek pointed out these particular units would be required to hook up within 90 days of receiving notice from the Council. Councilmember O'Neill did not feel a building such as a double bungalow should be included as a commercial building. Mayor Dahlberg noted they would not be forced to hookup unless they were part of a 100 percent petition. Councilmember O'Neill expressed concern this is forcing someone to hook up to the system. He felt multiple family should be defined as more than four units. The consensus was that duplexes should not be required to hook up. S . 2 If so, what would be the cost for water for these types of developments (example: four unit multiple family)? The existing policy is for $10,000 total existing and $20,000 total future. The Council felt this policy should continue. 6.1 If a developer of a new development submits a 100% petition for municipal water, will the water be extended to the area? . The existing policy is to extend the water if it is feasible. The Council did not express any objection to this policy continuing. 6.2 At what cost? The existing policy is $10,000 per unit for residential. The Council felt the policy should be $10,000 with inflation. Mayor Dahlberg expressed his opinion Councilmember O'Neill's point was extremely well argued relative to the majority of the residents of Shorewood last year decided they did not want to expand the municipal water system. He pointed out the polls which were completed last year and in prior years indicated the same position. Mayor Dahlberg stated the policy of the Council which appears to be working out in consensus is that the City would nevertheless attempt to make water available to neighborhoods wanting it. He felt this to be a policy which represents a gracious and very democratic type of principle because the Council did not necessarily have to do this. Mayor Dahlberg remarked the Council is trying to work toward a system which is voluntary. 3. REVIEW OF SHADY ISLAND BRIDGE OPTIONS Councilmember O'Neill reported on a visit which was made to the Shady Island bridge site. The residents expressed an interest in designing a bridge as a surrogate speed bump. The proposed design plans do not include any type of speed bump. In addition, the residents requested the bridge be built taking into account a 20 mile per hour speed limit as opposed to the 25 mile per hour speed limit of the proposed design. Mayor Dahlberg reported in order to satisfy the specifications, it will be necessary to raise the . roadway on both sides of the bridge. . . . CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JUNE 16, 1997 - PAGE 5 (Councilmember McCarty arrived at 7:36 p.m. Councilmember Stover arrived at 7:38 p.m.) Mr. Pat Delaney was in attendance and presented a petition to the Council requesting the current speed bump characteristic of the bridge remain. Mr. Delaney expressed concern for the number of children who are present on the island and felt it important the speed bump remain. The consensus of four members of the Council was they would prefer a 10 mile per hour speed limit. Mayor Dahlberg believed the liability issues did not necessarily prohibit alternate designs. Administrator Hurm inquired whether the design changes could be made and still allow sufficient time to complete construction of the bridge this season. Brown stated it will take approximately three weeks to obtain the amended design. The current schedule for completion of the restoration is October 31 st. It is possible the blacktop will not be able to be completed by the Thanksgiving cut-off date. He explained the bridge will be completed with a rock surface in place. Restoration items such as sodding would occur the following spring. Brown explained there have been discussions with OSM as to whether or not these changes would add to the cost of the project. Generally an addendum to a project will result in higher bids being submitted by the contractors. Councilmember Garfunkel pointed out there are issues relative to liability. Councilmember O'Neill recalled the insurance company was not happy with a 25 mile per hour bridge, however, they would be willing to accept this. He expressed concern that lowering this to a 10 mile per hour bridge with a speed bump may result in the insurance company not wanting to insure. Brown clarified the insurance company would prefer the City abide by the engineer's judgment, however, if there are other criteria which outweigh that judgment, the insurance company may agree to coverage. The Council would need to set out reasons for their decision. Brown felt the liability question has been exceeded by the evidence previously placed in the records. Brown stated he would be willing to request OSM redesign the bridge to a 20 mile per hour design as opposed to the current 25 mile per hour design if that is the direction of the Council. He felt this would result in an increased cost of approximately $3,000 to $5,000 for the project. Councilmember Garfunkel felt the speed bump to be a traffic control issue and noted other neighborhoods had expressed concerns relative to traffic control as well and it was the decision of the Council that speed bump controls are not appropriate. He noted the issue at hand to be the construction of a bridge rather than speed control. Councilmember Garfunkel felt a number of design changes had been made and the current design should be used. Councilmember McCarty noted she was not initially comfortable with the current design profile because of potential liability issues and was in agreement with Councilmember Garfunkel that the current design profile should be used. Councilmember O'Neill also expressed concerns relative to liability. He did not feel reducing the approach from 30 feet to 25 feet will really give the residents what they want. Councilmember Stover noted the engineering firm had informed the Council at the time of the initial design that the design was contrary to engineering standards. They did agree to design this particular bridge with the understanding the City would take responsibility for this decision. Councilmember Stover stated she would not be comfortable making any further changes which would be against the advice of the engineering firm. Brown noted other engineering firms had been contacted and refused to take on this project since it is in conflict with engineering standards. Mayor Dahlberg inquired whether the bridge could be made private. Brown stated the City would need to maintain an easement. In addition, the City would not provide plowing services to a . . . " ... CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JUNE 16, 1997 . PAGE 6 private roadway. Mayor Dahlberg pointed out under that scenario the neighborhood would also be responsible for the cost of the bridge. Councilmember Stover felt there to also be an issue of liability relative to replacing the bridge in a condition which could delay emergency service to the island. Councilmember Garfunkel felt a number of compromises had been made to the bridge construction design and that every effort was made to address the concerns of the residents. He expressed his opinion the construction of the bridge needs to proceed. Councilmember Stover stated she would be uncomfortable making further change to the design profile and noted she would not be in agreement with a 10 mile per hour design. The consensus of the Council was to leave the original design profile in place due to the potential for issues of liability. 4. ADJOURNMENT The Council agreed to moved the work session currently scheduled for Monday, July 7, 1997, at 7:30 p.m., to Tuesday, July 8, 1997, at 7:30 p.m. O'Neill moved, Dahlberg seconded to adjourn the City Council Work Session Meeting at 9:32 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Cheryl Wallat, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial ATTEST: d?~ ~ TOM DAHLBERG, JAM