Loading...
061499 CC WS Min• CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD MONDAY, JUNE 14,1999 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 9:50 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Love; Councilmembers Garfunkel, Stover, Lizee and Zerby; City Engineer Brown, and Finance Director Rolek. B. Review Agenda Lizee moved, Stover seconded to accept the agenda as presented. Motion passed 510. 2. REVIEW OF MUNICIPAL WATER POLICIES Engineer Brown presented the water policy questions used by staff in order to better understand the water policy. Brown suggested using these questions to discuss policy changes, if any. Mayor Love stated the Work Session would then proceed with these questions sequentially, to avoid lengthy discussion that does not have a definite goal. Engineer Brown pointed out that for each question, an existing policy and a suggested policy are noted. He indicated that a decision on these would give direction for rewriting the water policy. As discussion commenced, it became clear that discussing the questions sequentially may not work after all, as many questions are dependant on the answers to various other questions. Mayor Love then stated that perhaps the questions with the most uncertain answers should be addressed first, in order to stabilize some answers to base other answers on. Mayor Love first addressed the question of charges for water hookup, in conjunction with the scenario of five existing houses, four of which want hookup. Some of the questions that arose during discussion about this scenario were: • Do the four who want the water hookup pay for it? • Does the fifth resident need to consent to the project? • If the fifth resident wants to hookup at a later date, what would he pay? • Where would the funds go from this fifth hookup? 0 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES JUNE 14,1999 - PAGE 2 . With all these questions linked, no one question can be answered without considering the rest. Mayor Love stated, at this point, he was unsure of the best way to proceed. Additional discussion followed about the scenario, and more questions were brought up as the discussion commenced: • Should the four people have to pay the whole cost, basically ignoring the fifth resident? • Could the consent issue cause neighbor problems the City may end up involved in? • If the funds are to be redistributed when the fifth resident wants to hookup, what if some of the original residents have moved away? • Should interest and inflation be added to the charge that the resident pays who hooks up at a later date? Councilmember Stover stated that a Policy is needed that is consistent regardless of the scenario. A policy would not force anyone, but could possibly be written to put pressure on a citizen that does not want water. Engineer Brown stated that a water access charge will also need to be a consideration. Some of the charge would be assessed for access, and another portion would be charged only upon connection. Mayor Love indicated one question that needs to be determined fairly soon is whether the City should attempt to accelerate the installation of City water. Councilmember Lizee asked if road reconstruction could be tied in with water line installation. Engineer Brown stated that some attempt was made to tie them together, but some roadways are deteriorating where there are no water infastructure nearby to hookup to. Councilmember Lizee asked about the possibility of laying dry pipe. Engineer Brown stated that the short answer is, it does not work. Mayor Love pointed out areas that have dry pipe, and asked why it is not put in now, as it was in years past. Engineer Brown explained that while this was a very popular practice years ago, time has proven that the pipe shifts when there is no pressure. Then, when the water pressure is put through the pipe, leaks are imminent. Councilmember Garfunkel stated that item number 3 on this agenda poses two actual scenarios rather than a hypothetical one, and maybe those two scenarios would be further discussed. • CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES JUNE 14,1999 - PAGE 3 • 3. DISCUSSION OF EUREKA ROAD & NOBLE ROAD PROJECTS Engineer Brown stated that according to the surveys from residents returned on Noble Road, road repair is wanted, City water is not wanted. Councilmember Zerby pointed out that eight residents did not respond, which could change the outcome when they do respond. Councilmember Stover stated that no response would likely indicate low interest. Engineer Brown stated that as far as Eureka Road, surveys there show that most residents are not interested in having City water either. Councilmember Zerby pointed out that cost seems to be the largest component. Well water is much cheaper and very few residents seem to want to switch. Councilmember Garfunkel stated Eureka Road is also not in need of any reconstruction right now, and waterlines are not desirable there anyway. Mayor Love stated that a TIF district was discussed and is a definite negative. Noble Road also is a definite negative. Eureka Road may constitute more discussion, and more information to the residents. Councilmember Lizee stated that puttin g g waterlines down Eureka Road is also the best way to loop the watermain. The design of the water system and better fire protection needs to be considered so the big picture needs to be looked at. Mayor Love stated that it seems a mixed message has been received regarding Eureka Road. Residents don't want waterlines down the road, and they also do not want the water running through the baseball field. Engineer Brown added that Eureka Road needs to be treated a bit differently than other projects because of its proximity to Shorewood Ponds. The developer is paying for the watermain through the development, and where this watermain comes from may not matter to the developer. Roadway dollars may be the largest problem if the waterlines go down Eureka Road. Engineer Brown stated the question then would be who pays for the widening and reconstruction of Eureka Road. Councilmember Garfunkel stated that, from the responses received, residents of Eureka Road do not want City water, or a new road. Councilmember Zerby stated their biggest concern seems to be losing trees, whether water is put in or not. 0 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES JUNE 14,1999 - PAGE 4 • Councilmember Garfunkel asked if the question of refinancing or selling a home had been answered. Last time this subject was discussed, it was brought up that some lending companies might insist on connection to City water before approving a mortgage on some homes. Councilmember Stover stated she had done some calling, and City water is not a requirement for a mortgage on a State-wide level. However, any lender can make up their own rules. Councilmember Lizee stated that the lending institutions she spoke with answered that in general, lenders go with what is common to the area. Councilmember Stover stated that a City could also make City water hookup a condition of purchase of a home. Mayor Love stated that for Eureka Road, most replies on the citizen survey stated that the road is the big issue. Residents do not want the road widened or changed. Councilmember Zerby asked if there was a need to again meet with Eureka Road residents. Mayor Love stated he would like to meet with the neighborhood again since residents he met with at the last meeting seemed to want and need more information. Councilmember Zerby suggested that the next neighborhood meeting be a walk, to possibly involve more of the residents. 4. ADJOURN Zerby moved, Garfunkel seconded to Adjourn at 10:30 p.m. Motion passed 510. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristine Kitzman, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. ATTEST: I� JA ' ES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR 0 LOVE, MAYOR