052499 CS WS MinCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
• CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
MONDAY, MAY 24,1999 10:15 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 10:15 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Present: Mayor Love; Councilmembers Garfunkel, Stover, Lizee and Zerby; Administrator
Hurm; Planning Director Nielsen; and City Engineer Brown.
B. Review Agenda
Stover moved, Lizee seconded to accept the agenda as presented. Motion passed 510.
2. DISCUSSION ON MUNICIPAL WATER POLICIES
Administrator Hurm reported on current Water projections. He advised that by the years 2011
• and 2012, the balance of the Water fund is projected to be over $500,000. Four different
scenarios were then presented for expansion and compared to the current projection.
Mayor Love stated scenario #3 appeals to him since it doesn't appear to impact the fund
excessively and provides incentive for hook up.
Councilmember Zerby agreed that scenario #3 seems to be in line with what is being looked for
at present.
Mayor Love stated that Noble Road residents were concerned that a future Council may force
connection and asked if there was something that could be done about that.
Councilmember Garfunkel stated he has heard that some lending institutions also insist on City
water upon financing the sale of a home.
Engineer Brown stated this may have to do with the liability for a bad well or other water
problems.
Administrator Hurm stated he had some financial information to relay from the Finance Director
indicating to have a policy where there is no payment until hookup is bothersome, since you
never know when or if there will be any income.
0
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
MAY 24,1999 - PAGE 2
• Mayor Love stated that the "bottom line" question is whether City water availability is or is not
an asset to the property.
Councilmember Garfunkel stated the individual homeowner may wish to make that decision.
Councilmember Lizee stated she believes this could be a City decision, as it is a City service.
Councilmember Garfunkel stated that not everyone in the City will benefit, so it is not a City-
wide service.
Administrator Hurm stated that the first question may be, if a road is being reconstructed, should
the water system be expanded in conjunction with that reconstruction.
Councilmember Stover supported a fee that is City wide but not figured by neighborhood since
citizens should pay the same for the same services.
Councilmember Garfunkel disagreed, stating that a high density area should maybe pay less and
an area with very large lots should maybe pay more.
Councilmember Stover disagreed citing that one house does not benefit more than another with a
service such as this.
• Mayor Love stated that the primary question when approaching a neighborhood about City water
is how much it is going to cost. He noted that to answer this question, either a flat rate is needed
or a study needs to be done before contacting the neighborhood.
Councilmember Garfunkel added that when a road is being reconstructed, the whole situation
changes regarding cost. He questioned what happens when 100% agreement is not available in a
given neighborhood.
Planning Director Nielsen answered that past policies have said that those who want it pay for it.
Also, they have to get the neighbors' consent. He noted that extenuating circumstances can be
considered and the Council can override the 100% consent requirement by a four -fifths vote.
Mayor Love asked what percentage of the neighborhood should be required to study the
feasibility of adding City water. Mayor Love suggested 50% plus one.
Planning Director Nielsen indicated he feels this is a good minimum on which to base a
feasibility study.
Engineer Brown stated he would rather see 60%, or something stronger than majority, as that
may convince some people who do not have strong convictions either way to side with the
majority. Also, regarding fees, there are ways to combine a flat fee and a "sliding" fee based on
• neighborhoods.
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION - MAY 24,1999
PAGE 3
• Engineer Brown stated he would rather see 60%, or something stronger than majority, as
that may convince some people who do not have strong convictions either way to side
with the majority. Also, regarding fees, there are ways to combine a flat fee and a
"sliding" fee based on neighborhoods.
Mayor Love reminded the Council that there is not a goal to complete the City water
system but, rather, general interest is required before much more discussion would be
profitable.
Planning Director Nielsen stated it would be possible to keep the policy the same but
rewrite the Ordinance to provide clarity.
Councilmember Stover stated that the expense seems to be the main problem and if
Shorewood cannot come close to competing with the cost of a new well, perhaps, the City
should not be in the water business.
Councilmember Zerby suggested the cost could be a percentage of the value of the home.
Planning Director Nielsen stated if a flat average rate was set, the City would lose too
much money unless the project was City wide, where an average could be reached.
Mayor Love suggested that public education about wells would be beneficial and possibly
• affect people's decision about City water as most don't know what kind of care and
maintenance is required for their well. He commented that this has been a profitable
discussion in that it has brought to light many specific questions to work on.
Councilmember Garfunkel requested more information on how many mortgage lenders
would require a connection to City water.
Mayor Love directed staff to organize the questions and suggestions that were raised for
discussion at a future work Session.
11
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
MAY 24,1999 - PAGE 4
• 3. ADJOURN
Lizee moved, Stover seconded to adjourn at 11:27 p.m. Motion passed 510.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Kristine Kitzman, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
y
ATTEST: WOODY LOVE, MAYOR
�a,Ga/—
THERESA L. NAAB, DEPUTY CLERK
•
0