Loading...
051299 CC ES Minr 0 0 CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 12,1999 MINUTES 1. CONVENE WORK SESSION MEETING A. Roll Call CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 6:45 P.M. Present: Mayor Love; Councilmembers Garfunkel, Stover, and Lizee; Finance Director Rolek; Planning Director Nielsen; City Engineer Brown, and Don Sterna, WBS & Associates Absent: Councilmember Zerby. B. Review Agenda The agenda was accepted as presented 2. 6:45 - 7:30 P.M. - INFORMAL DISCUSSION WITH AREA RESIDENTS ON PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ON EUREKA ROAD The Council met informally with residents to present and discuss proposed public improvements on Noble Street and Eureka Road and gain their input. 3. 7:30 P.M. - COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS A. Noble Improvement Project Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 8:08 p.m. and requested a report on the input received from residents during the informational hearing. Engineer Brown stated based on resident comments he received on the Noble improvement project, there did not appear to be an overwhelming number in support of watermain extension. Mayor Love asked if there was or was not a majority in support. Engineer Brown stated he was not able to review all of the comments submitted but there did not appear to be a majority either way. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MAY 12,1999 - PAGE 2 Councilmember Garfunkel asked if the number of homeowners who attended the informational meeting were counted. Engineer Brown responded there were seven who signed in at the meeting. He advised that eight will be impacted by the roadway improvement and 14 will be impacted if the watermain is extended. Councilmember Stover stated her impression that residents were not opposed to a watermain improvement but would not make a decision until they knew what the costs would be. She stated the presentation provided was fantastic but the residents' hesitancy is because they did not know the cost. She advised that two owners she talked with did not sound nervous until the cost was mentioned. Mayor Love agreed and stated this is the same reaction he heard, the primary concern was the cost and until they knew the cost they wouldn't commit. Don Sterner, WSB & Associates, agreed that residents are withholding their opinion until the costs are known. He stated if the cost was within reason, he thinks there will be interest. Also, residents understand that having the watermain improvement will give them the option to connect if they have problems with their well. Councilmember Garfunkel stated this is not a surprise since cost has always been the issue. He commented that he believes it is a straight -up economic issue. • Councilmember Stover added that some residents also prefer having their own well. Engineer Brown asked if staff was successful in informing residents or if another meeting is needed. He asked if residents should be contacted, given an estimate, and asked if they are interested in proceeding. Mayor Love stated it seems there may be unique situations to consider when a road is being installed, and putting in water without assessing until connection does make sense. He stated it is possible to forecast over the next ten years the percentage of connections that will be made and asked if it is reasonable to wait that Iong before recapturing the expenses. Finance Director Rolek explained that factor is already built in for the existing utilities. He advised that over the next 15 to 20 years, most of the residents will connect who have water available. Finance Director Rolek stated this would have to be closely monitored but is something that can be relatively accurately forecast. Engineer Brown asked if Springsted would look at this option if the City were to take on that philosophy.. Finance Director Rolek stated the bonding aspect is another issue since bond rating agencies like to be assured the City has a "handle" on the pay back of the debt with a bond revenue stream to retire the debt. He added the bond company will want a • concrete proforma to show that, indeed, is what will happen. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MAY 12,1999 - PAGE 3 Councilmember Stover asked if you could split the assessment and charge a portion upon installation and the remainder at the time of connection. Finance Director Rolek stated that is what has been done since $5,000 was assessed when installed and, over time, water revenues will pick up the rest of the costs. Councilmember Stover asked if the bonding company is comfortable with that arrangement. Finance Director Rolek stated they will agree if there is sound reasoning. Councilmember Stover stated she does not think anyone who wanted water objected to the $5,000 assessment, but, $10,000 caused a lot of nervousness. She asked if residents can be told it will cost $5,000 to extend water whether or not they connect and then add an additional amount at connection. Planning Director Nielsen stated that is what is being done now, an installation cost and a connection cost. Mayor Love asked if there are areas where some innovative options can be considered. He stated he understands a limited area would have to be considered and that area only expanded after connections fill in. Finance Director Rolek agreed with the need for caution to avoid accepting a lot of debt without a good revenue stream being in place. He stated that careful planning, a good idea of public sentiment, and having a plan that is agreeable with everyone is the secret to success. • Councilmember Garfunkel stated if there are a potential of 21 affected residents and only seven attended tonight, he is not comfortable that provided a good indication so he would like to explore what the "real wants" are. Mayor Love suggested it is time to address a uniform water policy and if there is a desire to look at flexible programs. He suggested those issues be addressed and then the residents approached. He stated that all 21 residents could be polled but he believes the same reaction will be found -- they first want to know the cost. Councilmember Stover stated she also heard residents express concern about the tinting and frustration that they were being asked if they support it without first knowing the cost. She stated they also asked how they were to give that indication by June 1st without knowing the cost. She indicated support for holding a meeting and deciding what to do since residents have indicated they want an answer as soon as possible. Engineer Brown stated if it is just a road project, those issues can be quickly addressed but putting the water policy in place will take a longer period of time. Mayor Love asked where the water would be extended from, if approved. Mr. Sterna explained it will be extended from a newer development which is about 1,100 feet to the . west. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MAY 12,1999 - PAGE 4 • Engineer Brown reviewed the alignment planned for the reconstruction and advised there are two options for making the water connection, conventional trenching or directional boring. He explained that conventional trenching would result in tearing up a road that is in reasonably good condition. Councilmember Lizee asked if it would allow for services to each property. Engineer Brown explained it would cause little pockets of boring for each house service. He also explained that directional boring appears cheaper than open trenching but that cost did not include the cost of individual services. He stated by the time it is done and individual services added in, he believes the cost will be about equal. Mr. Sterna agreed there is not a great cost difference between conventional trenching and directional boring so the benefits need to be weighed. He explained why there is higher potential for joint problems with boring projects but with trenching it can be assured there are good joint connections. Engineer Brown stated the "downside" of trenching is the spoil piles that you need to contend with. He explained the watermain is in place one-half way down Noble Road which would be extended toward Grant Lorenz. Engineer Brown stated he agrees with Councilmember Stover's comments that residents are hesitant since they don't know the cost. . Mayor Love suggested this would be a good time to draft a policy and present it to the 21 residents to see if they are interested. Councilmember Garfunkel inquired about the cost for installation. Engineer Brown stated it would be about $9,000 per household. Mr. Sterna stated the cost to rip up 1,100 feet of roadway and put it back down with curb and gutter is included in that calculation. He noted those costs are included as part of the watermain project but they could be viewed as something that should be paid from the general road fund. Councilmember Garfunkel disagreed and stated he believes they are separate issues. He noted the only reason the road is being torn up is to install the watermain. Mr. Sterna estimated the cost of the road reconstruction portion at $85,000 to $90,000, or about one-half of the entire cost of the project. Engineer Brown stated if directional boring is used the roadway reconstruction would not be needed. He agreed with Councilmember Garfunkel that the costs should be added to the watermain project costs because it is needed for the extension. Mayor Love stated that issue needs to be addressed but the Council needs to first determine how to formulate a consistent policy. Councilmember Stover indicated support • to make those decisions as soon as possible. Mayor Love suggested a meeting be scheduled to address those issues. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MAY 12,1999 - PAGE 5 • Engineer Brown stated he believes residents would accept the option of extending water if they don't have to pay until it is connected. He advised that a number of wells have failed in that area and staff has been asked when water will be extended. B. Eureka Improvement Project Mr. Sterna stated residents on Eureka Road want the most narrow road possible but there was not a clear objection to the curb and gutter. Mayor Love reported a resident told him his concern was not wanting any change so the original character of Eureka Road could be preserved. He stated this point is well taken that they want to preserve the character of the neighborhood. Councilmember Garfunkel explained the resident also mentioned Shorewood Ponds which they didn't support and now, because of that, felt the road project is needed. He noted there may have been more of a philosophical issue than an economical issue. Several residents also mentioned a more narrow road slows the speed of traffic. Mayor Love stated this resident had indicated he was willing to accept some things but not to turn the road into a feeder route or to have the character of the roadway disrupted. Engineer Brown agreed the number 1 preference is to be left alone but he also heard a number of residents ask about the option of bringing the water through the park. Mayor Love stated he thinks the real issue is whether this needs to be researched more. He noted that several residents took the survey home with them so they could spend more time to complete it. Planning Director Nielsen stated he heard comments blaming the need for the improvements on the senior housing development. He stated it is important for residents to understand there are other options. Mayor Love agreed and commented that an exemplary job was done in presenting the information but, perhaps, it should be made more clear that other options are available. He stated the spirit of the situation should be whether they want to take advantage of an opportunity. Councilmember Stover suggested communicating to those residents who attended within a short period of time indicating answers to questions asked or that the City is still working on it. 0 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MAY 12,1999 - PAGE 6 • Councilmember Garfunkel asked if everyone on the road can be provided with the opportunity to respond to the survey. City Engineer Brown stated staff will send a letter advising a meeting was held and attach the survey form so the City can consider their comments. Mr. Sterna stated one option none liked was the wider road. City Engineer Brown concurred and asked if the costs calculated included right-of-way acquisition. Mr. Sterna stated they did and reviewed the options for funding acquisition including use of MSA funds. City Engineer Brown stated he heard the question raised several times about whether residents would be compensated for any easements or right-of-way. He suggested, since residents are concerned about the loss of trees, that residents be asked to sign over the easement if the City plants trees, etc. Mayor Love stated he believes people are looking specifically at which trees may be lost. Mr. Sterna stated additional survey work and exact locations would have to be identified since six inches can make the difference in a tree remaining or needing to be removed. Councilmember Garfunkel suggested the City get more feedback to assure there is enough interest for staff to proceed. Councilmember Stover noted that a fairly accurate dollar amount is needed before residents are approached. Council consensus was reached to direct staff to schedule a work session on May 24, 1999, following the Council meeting, potentially at 8:30 p.m. to address a water policy. City Engineer Brown asked what type of financial projections the Council would like to see at the work session. Mayor Love requested an abbreviated report on what water policy has been and some examples from other communities. He added he would also like to see an abbreviated statement of the need expressed by staff on how to best present projects to the residents. Finance Director Rolek stated the information he distributed from Springsted on TIF includes three scenarios of what a limited district would generate for use if there is a 15 year, 20 year, or 25 year term. He stated there is no information on different options for working with the developer but, if that is an area of interest for the Council, staff could address that. • CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MAY 12,1999 - PAGE 7 4. ADJOURN • Garfunkel moved Stover seconded to adjourn at 8:57 p.m. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off -Site Secretarial, Inc.