Loading...
041403 CC Reg Min , . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 14, 2003 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Love, Councilmembers Garfunkel, Lizee, Turgeon, and Zerby; Administrator Dawson; Attorney Keane; Engineer Brown; Finance Director Burton; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: None B. Review Agenda Mayor Love reviewed the Agenda. Councilmember Lizee requested that Item 8A, Smithtown Road Off-Street Trail, be moved to Item 4A. Lizee moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the Agenda as amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Joint City Council/LCEC Meeting Minutes, March 24, 2003 Zerby moved, Garfunkel seconded, Approving the Joint City Council/LCEC Meeting Minutes, March 24, 2003, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, March 24, 2003 Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, March 24, 2003, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Love read through the Consent Agenda and invited any members of the audience to speak against any item they questioned as he read them. There were no objections raised by the audience present. Garfunkel moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein: A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 03-024. "A Resolution Accepting Quotes and Awarding Contract For Spring Cleanup Services." C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 03-025. "A Resolution Accepting the Proposal For Electrical Services For Sanitary Sewer Lift Stations." . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 14, 2003 Page 2 of 13 D. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 03-026, "A Resolution Proclaiming April 25, 2003 As Arbor Day." E. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 03-027, "A Resolution Approving a Temporary Gambling License." F. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 03-028, "A Resolution Approving Specifications and Estimate and Authorizing Advertisements For Bids For Bituminous Seal Project 2003." G. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 03-029, "A Resolution Accepting the Proposal for Professional Engineering Services and Ordering Preparation of Plans, Specifications, and Estimates for Traffic Signal LED Conversion." H. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 03-030, "A Resolution Approving Licenses for Tree Trimmers. " 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR John and Judy Cross, 600 West Lake Street, attended this meeting with their attorney, WaIter Baker, in order to address their problem of housing powerboats at their marina against City ordinances. They have continued to keep powerboats at their marina due to the difficulty in finding sailboats to fit the slips and the high demand for powerboats from the people of Shorewood. The Crosses received their letter from the City of Shorewood regarding their violation of the City ordinance and their Conditional Use Permit against powerboats and they would like to address two points from that letter. First, they have restricted the powerboats to Pier 4. Second, the letter stated that they kept 18 powerboats but the correct number is 20. The Crosses have limited the area where powerboats can be used in order to keep them separate from the sailboats. Their attorney is negotiating through the legal process with Shorewood's City Attorney and the Crosses have sent a letter to the Council over the weekend. They stated that there are over 30 marinas on the lake and none of the others are restricted to sailboats. Mr. Cross stated that LMCD has studied the lake for over 20 years and they have distinguished no differential between power and sailboats. He also stated that the other Shorewood marina on the lake at Howard's Point has no restrictions regarding powerboats. Mrs. Cross stated that they want to resolve this situation so that it is mutually beneficial for both the City and their marina. She requested some suggestions from the Council as to a possible resolution for this issue as their past letters and negotiations have not been successful. Attorney Keane stated that there is a court hearing scheduled for Wednesday afternoon(April 16) and it would proceed as scheduled. He stated that he was available to talk at anytime with the Crosses' attorney. Councilmember Turgeon noted that the Crosses have the right to request an amendment to the ordinance through the Planning Commission. Mrs. Cross stated that they had approached the City Planner about amending the ordinance and that the City Planner turned down their suggestion. Mayor Love stated that this matter was not on the agenda tonight and that it would need to be scheduled . for a meeting in the future to specifically address this issue. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 14, 2003 Page 3 of 13 . A. Smithtown Road Off-Street Trail (this item moved from #8A) Mayor Love requested a report from Staff first concerning the status of a potential Smithtown Trail and then the Council would hear the input from the residents. . Administrator Dawson stated that at the Council meeting three weeks ago, the Council decided that the pedestrian space not be included in the bid documents for the rehabilitation project this summer pending further discussion and other alternatives that were still being considered. Staff included a memorandum in the packet that addresses the trail process and a statement of commitment to trails from the City Council and the Parks Commission, as they recognized the significant interest of the community in the trail process. Staff realized that there were issues in the trail process involving questions of who could propose trails, the purpose of the trails, what constitutes a consensus, and the area impacted by the trail. Staff attempted to make their efforts be all inclusive of Shorewood residents. Administrator Dawson stated that the purposes of the trail are multiple and include recreation, transportation, and safety, among many others. The Park Commission believed there was consensus among Shorewood residents concerning the Smithtown trail, although it was apparent that the consensus was not unanimity. The trail process called for emphasis in engaging the 14 property owners directly adjacent to the trail while also trying to include the larger public. Over a period of three to four years, there were a series of events designed to gather feedback regarding the community's opinion of proposed trails. Staff realizes that not all of the current property owners might have been involved due to changes in property owners. In February of 2003, members of Staff met with the 14 property owners on the north side of Smithtown Road, individually and collectively, in order to discuss the use of their properties. Staff suggested that standards needed to be developed in order to guide the discussion and the decision making process regarding trails generally. However, further discussions of this issue by the City Council are needed in addition to further analysis of the current issues in the Smithtown Trail process. Engineer Brown said that Staff needed to analyze the success of the Covington/Vine Hill trail in order to find out what worked with it, and to apply those same principles to Smithtown Trail. Also, Engineer Brown stated that the concept of consensus needed to be defined and definite numbers developed for the notion of consensus. Engineer Brown emphasized the issue of safety that needs to be addressed in connection with Smithtown Trail, as this trail was not solely a means of recreation. Administrator Dawson stated how the trail process should lead to an orderly decision abo~t whether to build a trail or not. Councilmember Garfunkel requested that Engineer Brown discuss examples of where the process had worked, such as the Covington/Vine Hill and Lake Linden area. Engineer Brown discussed how, in Covington/Vine Hill and Lake Linden, the same trail process was used with a successful outcome. However, there were different circumstances with the Covington/Vine Hill situation since 90% of the residents went to the City to undertake the process. The residents were actively involved as a collective group. However, there are other times when an issue is brought up to be addressed by Council from one of the Commissions or Boards that can also be successful. . Councilmember Zerby stated this depends on the definition of process, as initially the trails were to be used as connectors along circulation paths to and from particular points in Shorewood. He also stated that the process has yet to be defined by the Council, and for this reason, residents get upset due to this lack of process. For this reason, Councilmember Zerby considered the trail process currently to be flawed. . . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 14, 2003 Page 4 of 13 Councilmember Turgeon noted how the Park Commission had framed its discussion on Smithtown by separating out its various elements. She stated that the road reconstruction was the responsibility of the City Council while subdivision and new developments were in the purview of the Park Commission. Mayor Love stated that the trail progress was determined by the 14 property owners who were not anxious to sell the right-of-way. He discussed how a decision needed to be made concerning how a consensus should be defined, whose voices should be considered, and what is weighed regarding the future of Smithtown Trail. Councilmember Garfunkel stated that the bottom line was that nothing was moving forward on Smithtown Trail. Engineer Brown indicated that the intent of the memorandum was to point out that several meetings had taken place and there was no intention to show that a consensus had been reached. The meetings were merely part of the public process. Councilmember Turgeon stated that the Council received criticism for a lack of pedestrian space along Smithtown Road. She discussed how the Council was allowing 14 people to dictate to them because they possessed the right-of-way while the City did not. She asked whether there was a cost differential in legal proceedings between commercial and residential properties. Attorney Keane discussed how the cost of eminent domain depended on a variety of factors including court costs if hearings became necessary. Councilmember Garfunkel questioned whether the Council should consider just the 14 property owners or a larger group. He suggested that a consensus should be reached when a substantial portion of residents agree and he did not consider there to currently be a majority opinion in favor of the Smithtown Trail. Councilmember Garfunkel also questioned why the City Council was only looking at the west portion of Smithtown Road in considering the decision, and asked why only that portion is being used to determine a consensus. Councilmember Turgeon stated that the people want and deserve closure on the issue of Smithtown Trail and whatever decision the Council reaches does not necessarily have to be permanent. She stated that it was the responsibility of the Council not to discuss Smithtown Trail until a definite process was in place to deal with the issue of majority, consensus, and eminent domain. Councilmember Zerby suggested that the Council should now consider other alternatives as it appears it will be too difficult to acquire the rights to the land from the 14 property owners. Councilmember Garfunkel suggested that the Council should focus on the community rather than just the 14 property owners and the Council should consider new information that they now possess. Mayor Love recognized the need to discuss the process involved with Smithtown Trail and he also stated that acquiring the right by eminent domain should not be determined by the difficulties of the current economic situation. He stated that there was no intention from the City Council to proceed with Smithtown Trail at this time. Lauralee Chellen, 26710 Smithtown Road, presented three main points to Council outlining the community opposition to Smithtown Tail. The first point was to encourage the Council to eliminate plans for Smithtown Trail during the current council administration. She stated that the public understood the plan for Smithtown Trail and rejected it. Ms. Chellen also stated that there were 48 total . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 14, 2003 Page 5 of 13 landowners who owned land to the center line of the roadway and they also would be impacted by the roadway project, not just the 14 whom the Council had mentioned. She also requested that the Council write a contract that during the rest of its term it would not proceed with Smithtown Trail. Her second point involved a signed petition that she presented to the Recording Secretary. In this petition, Ms. Chellen obtained signatures from the most affected residents of the Smithtown Road, namely those west of the LRT. She stated that she had uncovered widespread opposition to the Smithtown Trail through emails.surveysandeditorials.Ms. Chellen stated that 89% of the residents to the northside signed while 68% from both sides signed the petition. She mentioned similar trails proposed along Howard's Point, Grant Lorenz and others in which the majority had opposed, fought and succeeded in preventing the trails from progressing. Her third point highlighted how a cost-benefit analysis of the Smithtown trail was not beneficial to the community as the costs outweighed the benefits. Ms. Chellen stated that the sole benefit to the community was public safety while the costs included funding for other important community projects like sewer upgrades, snowplows, busing for schoolchildren, County Road 19 and the environment. She suggested that there were other ways to spend money since the location of the trail was opposed by the majority of the residents, and there were the costs to the environment. Ms. Chellen also stated that the residents needed closure to this issue; some were delaying remodels and major home improvements have been put on hold until this matter was resolved. She reiterated that there was no support from the community for the trail including west and east of the LRT, south and north of Smithtown Road in addition to residents from Eureka Road and Strawberry Lane. She also stated that the majority of the residents preferred the charm of the older, established streets in Shorewood without trails and sidewalks that encroach on their private living spaces. Paul Gagner, 25650 Smithtown Road, stated that he had not had any problems with his neighbors regarding his opposition to the trail. He questioned how the Council could only consider the 14 residents owning to the center of the road instead of the 50 people all along the proposed trail location. Nancy Williams, 26270 Smithtown Road, stated that she had not been notified by the City regarding the Smithtown Trail and she considers it her right to be contacted by the City along with the others among Smithtown Road since she is one of the 14 property owners. Mayor Love called for any other speakers from the audience to present their views and no one else spoke. He stated that there were no plans by the Council that involved Smithtown Road in 2003 and the Council needs to review and redefine the trail planning process and the issue of consensus. Mayor Love told Staff to schedule this issue for a work session in several months and there was no rush to decide anything at this time. He stated his appreciation and seriousness of the residents that is mirrored by the Council. Councilmember Zerby suggested that a work session should be scheduled for this year, preferably in the fall. Mayor Love stated that all the names on the petition would be specifically notified regarding any future meetings regarding Smithtown Trail. He requested that Staff so notify the residents. Councilmember Turgeon stated that she preferred the process be community-driven rather than motivated by the Council so that neighbors would not be pitted against each other. Mayor Love stated that this was another idea to discuss in order to arrive at a majority consensus. . Councilmember Garfunkel requested a copy of the petition. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 14, 2003 Page 6 of 13 . Mayor Love stated that once the petition was officially entered in the record a copy of it would appear in the next packet sent to the Council. 5. PARKS A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held April 8, 2003 . Commission Chair Pat Arnst presented a report on the Park Commission Meeting that included two parts, notably an overview of the Park Improvement Fund, and updated information on the concession stand plan. Commissioner Arnst suggested a work session in 2003 to allocate funds for some elements in the master plan. Regarding the concession stand, it is considered to be the Park Commission's top priority for 2003. Commissioner Meyer heads a subcommittee to research some alternatives for operation of the Eddy Street concession stand. The plan for the concession stand is two-fold as it will provide a service and amenity to park users and break even financially. Commissioner Arnst stated that Engineer Brown had provided a memorandum to the Council that detailed the concept of the concession stand which depends on the person who is to be the Operations Manager and volunteers from sports organizations. Commissioner Arnst stated that there were two sports organizations currently using the park facilities on Monday through Thursday nights which is what the Park Commission considers to be prime time for the concession stand, namely MGSA and TUSA. MGSA is a girl's softball organization with approximately 500 girls involved and TUSA is soccer organization with an involvement of approximately 800 members. The Park Commission intends to recruit volunteers from these two organizations to operate the concession stand. Members from MGSA agreed to help and provide volunteers for Tuesday and Wednesday nights for a total of 12 person hours per week. However, she stated that TUSA declined the Park Commission's request for volunteers as TUSA believed that they could not get the volunteers and there was no benefit to them volunteering. Commissioner Arnst provided clarification of trail history regarding the process involving community consensus. The trail along Lake Linden Road was driven by the petition of residents. The Park Commission process of trail building has slowed down due to lack of funds. She discussed how the trail at Howard's Point Road evolved from the requests of the residents and the goal was interconnectivity at similar trails along Howard's Point, Edgewood and Grand Lauren. Councilmember Garfunkel asked about the trail process for the senior community at Shorewood Ponds. Engineer Brown stated that the seniors of Shorewood Ponds put pressure on the Park Commission to see the trail finished. Commissioner Arnst discussed how the cost of a trail is significant on its own and the Parks Commission started researching Smithtown Trail five years ago and the preliminary discussions with engineers then revealed that the average cost of the Smithtown Trail would be around $400,000. In May of 2000, the Parks Commission recommended that trail process be stopped because there were insufficient funds to pay for the trail and they wanted to tie the funds in with MSA monies. B. Dog Ordinance Amendment . Engineer Brown stated that the Council had revised the dog ordinance regarding 701.01 and subsequent sections and certain items required clarification and revision. He stated that the major changes to the ordinance OCCUlTed in 701.01, Sbdivision 4,regarding restraint of animals. Subsection A should read "while it is on any public trail, sidewalk, the Southwest LRT Regional Trail, or along any public right-of- way (e.g., along roadways and streets) it is on a leash no more than six feet in length;" and subsection b should state "while it is in any City park, it is on a leash." Engineer Brown stated that the revised . . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 14, 2003 Page 7 of 13 ordinance does not allow voice commands. Subsection 5 stated how the dog owner "must have in their possession a device for removal of dog feces when in or on City parks, trails, sidewalks, public right-of- way, and the Southwest Regional LRT Trai1." If the dog owner does not have a receptacle to handle the dog waste, then that is considered an admission of guilt. Engineer Brown requested that this amended ordinance be passed if the Council accepts the changes. Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting ORDINANCE NO. 394. Amending Chapter 701 of the Shorewood City Code Relating to Dogs. Motion passed 5/0. C. Eddy Station Concessions Engineer Brown discussed how the intent of the concessions was to expand on previous operations by examining the operations of other concession stands and to enhance an individual's use of the park. Engineer Brown discussed the use of volunteers instead of paid labor except for the position of coordinator who would be held accountable for the concession stand and undertake duties such as opening the stand, taking inventory, managing cash counts, and working with Staff. He stated that the Park Commission had discussed the need for a refrigerator and freezer unit that would cost around $350 and also a popcorn machine that would cost around $480. Engineer Brown also mentioned how they could borrow hot dog rollers from another park with the possible intention to buy them for $250. He stated that the Park Commission was moving forward with their plan but they needed the amount in the motion approved from $1,000 to $1,200 from the Park Improvement Fund in order to cover all the expenses. Engineer Brown stated the steps necessary to be approved by the Council as the following: motion approving concept, buying of sports organization to support volunteers, report by City Attorney regarding the individual to be hired as the coordinator in order to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act, and consideration of the motion to purchase additional equipment. Attorney Keane supplied the Staff with a Draft Labor Contract. Mr. Davis of the Public Works Staff was approached to head the concession stand as he is knowledgeable about past operations. Engineer Brown stated that they did not want to start the concession stand understaffed although they have potential volunteers from MGSA but not TUSA. Councilmember Garfunkel asked how the concession stand could remain staffed with volunteers if TUSA, the biggest sports organization that uses the park facilities, refused to supply some volunteers. He asked if Engineer Brown knew any of the reasons why TUSA declined to offer volunteers. Engineer Brown stated that TUSA saw no profit motive in supplying volunteers. However, he remained optimistic by the support of MGSA. Councilmember Turgeon suggested that perhaps the Council could recruit more and other Councilmembers could also speak with TUSA. Councilmember Lizee stated that TUSA had not started its sports year yet, so no meetings had been held at least that she was aware of. She stated her interest in pursuing this issue and getting other answers from other parents of TUSA kids about this idea. Councilmember Lizee expressed her appreciation to the Park Commission for its initiative and suggested that all the Council should progress with this idea. Lizee motioned, Turgeon seconded, motion to approve concept of Eddy Station Concession Stand. Motion passed 5/0. Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, motion to approve contract for concessionaire services. Motion passed 5/0. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 14, 2003 Page 8 of 13 . Turgeon moved, Lizee approved, motion of authorization to purchase additional equipment for the Eddy Station Concession Stand in an amount not to exceed $1200.00. Motion passed 5/0. Commissioner Arnst stated that there was a time constraint to this issue since the Park Commission wanted to open the concession stand by May 1st, She suggested that any discussions with TUSA should take place the next day since she believed there was a TUSA Board meeting scheduled then and the Board was the deciding factor. She also thanked Mary Lou Meyer for all of her hard work on this project. 6. PLANNING Commissioner Packard reported on how the last two meetings involved the Mass Transit situation and the option to opt-out of it. A packet was presented to the Council by LJR, Inc. and they recommended that the City Council not opt out at this time. Mayor Love stated that this issue would be discussed at the next work session. He asked Commissioner Packard what the central matter of this issue was. Commissioner Packard stated that there was a condensed time frame and the group did not understand the needs of the community and what to do based on the community's needs. Planning Director Nielsen asked if there was any need for improvements to mass transit. Regarding the study, he found no need for additional improvements. . Councilmember Zerby questioned if the statistics of ridership created a demand for services. Planning Director Nielsen stated that there appears to be no demand. 7. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Accept LCEC Final Report Planning Director Nielsen provided the Executive Summary, with the additions of the Table of Contents and Summary, to the City Council and mentioned the report had been a couple of years in the making. There were minor changes to the environmental consultants section of this report such as references to Hennepin County Parks changed to Three Rivers Park Systems. Councilmember Turgeon asked about the specific wording of the report if accepted and approved necessarily means adopting what is in this report. Planning Director Nielsen stated that they specifically chose not to use the word 'adoption' as accepting merely meant considering the report at a future time in light of the budgets. Administrator Dawson stated that the Council could accept report and resolution but that action does not necessarily indicate approval. . Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, approving the resolution to accept the LCEC Final Report and the recommendations shall be taken into consideration. Motion passed 5/0. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 14, 2003 Page 9 of 13 . B. Budget Report Administrator Dawson reported how proposed legislation would affect the City of Shorewood, as and noted they remain proposals and may be amended or withdrawn. Due to the budget crisis facing the state government, cities expect dramatic impacts which may result in reducing services and layoffs. Regarding the City of Shorewood, there will be small revenue reductions. The Governor's tax bills could cause a reduction in the local government aid (LGA) and market value homestead credit. He stated that the City of Shorewood would lose $8,700 in LGA and $80,000 in MVHC for a total loss of $89,030 in 2003 and in 2004. This total is 2% of the total revenue in the City's general fund. Other pending legislation would extend the levy limit for another 2 years and apply to all cities, and not just those with 2,500 residents. Also, Senator Pogemiller is proposing a property tax freeze for all local government. Speaker Sviggum had stated that the levy limits limit local accountability. Administrator Dawson stated that the bill would place limits on the City's ability to after May 1st. The effect on Shorewood would be that the City is prevented from issuing long and short term financing for two years. Some potential strategies that can be used include relying on the City's own resources instead of revenue from the state. Administrator Dawson suggested that the budgets could be drawn up to limit the scope of City service. He also suggested some structural changes could be made, but noted the fund balance at 65% of operating budget could be tapped for the short term. Also capital fund transfers from City savings accounts could cause the amounts to be adjusted. Potential programs that could have reduced or eliminated services need to be reviewed and also a discussion about what to do with the $90,000 shortfall effect on Shorewood. . Finance Director Burton stated that Administrator Dawson had summed up the pertinent points of the budget and she suggested that multiple work sessions be held regarding this process as it is not really as drastic and painful as had been expected. Councilmember Turgeon stated that the amount did not seem like a lot but the City of Shorewood was facing an unknown future regarding potential costs since the levy potentially could not be increased to support rising costs. She suggested that the Council consider cost-cutting strategies now and plan ahead now. Councilmember Garfunkel agreed with Councilmember Turgeon and suggested that the Council look for opportunities to cut costs now. Finance Director Burton stated that levy increases under levy limits was $88,000 for the past year, and this amount would be likely for 2004 and 2005. She also stated that she had received suggestions from Councilmember Turgeon and suggested additional work sessions focused on cost cutting suggestions from the Council. Finance Director Burton also stated that the annual City audit would be presented in 6 weeks and that the revenues exceeded the expenditures by over $100,000. Councilmember Zerby asked what the potential impact of the state's budget crisis could have on neighboring cities and if those cities could potentially cause problems to other cities in the area. Mayor Love stated his uncertainty in dealing with this issue regarding SLMPD. Last year, other City budgets were not determined by the state budget, but that will not be the situation this year. Mayor Love suggested that the issue of the budget freeze be brought back in front of the Council as a work session. . . . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 14, 2003 Page 10 of 13 C. Approval of the Agreement with Minnetonka Public Schools Community Education and Services (MCES) for Lifeguard Services for Crescent Beach Administrator Dawson stated that this item would usually appear on the Consent Agenda but it was pending suggestions by the Council's discussion on finances (Item 7B). MCES was requesting a 5% increase in its budget. Lizee authorized executive, Garfunkel seconded, approving the Agreement with Minnetonka Public Schools Community Education Services (MCES) for Lifeguard Services for Crescent Beach. Councilmember Zerby believed that not a lot people use that particular beach. Mayor Love stated that the Council should look at the dollar cost and that beach was the only public access to Lake Minnetonka. Planning Director Nielsen agreed with Mayor Love as people swim by the fire lanes that are not secured. Mayor Love stated that the purpose of this service was to increase safety at the lake. Councilmember Zerby spoke with reservations about this measure as he would like to wait until he has statistics to back up this position. Councilmember Lizee stated that it was done for the public and MCES was the best organization to coordinate it. Motion passed 5/0. D. Approval of Architectural Design Services for Shorewood Liquor Store #2 Administrator Dawson noted Council's plan to move this liquor store in the shopping center. Staff had interviewed architect / design firms at the beginning of April. He stated that the Liquor Committee met last Monday and agreed the most responsive proposal came from Seaborne Architects. Councilmember Garfunkel stated that Staff looked through all the proposals and Seaborne Architects also provided the lowest fee. He said there were larger design firms than Seaborne but that it was clear to him that these other firms would not be as responsive to the needs of the City as Seaborne Architects. Garfunkel moved, Zerby seconded, approving the architectural design services for Shore wood Liquor Store #2. Motion passed 5/0. 8. ENGINEERINGIPUBLIC WORKS A. Smithtown Road Off-Street Trail Item 8A was moved to Item 4A on this agenda. B. County Road 19 Intersection Project Update by Jim Grube, Hennepin County Jim Grube, Hennepin County Transportation Director, provided the Council with a progress report on the County Road 19 Intersection. Mr. Grube has met with parties in Tonka Bay. In his opinion, the majority . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 14, 2003 Page 11 of 13 at Tonka Bay seemed interested in this project. However, there were still financial issues that remained important to Tonka Bay. Also, Dave Kirkland, the representative from the shopping center, was present at the Council meeting with Tonka Bay. Mr. Grube stated that Mr. Kirkland and his associates present at the meeting helped the Tonka Bay Council to understand the value of the project and agree that it was a good project. He also hopes to meet with the Mayor of Tonka Bay and a representative from the Council in order to specifically address the financial issue. Mr. Grube also stated that the value of the property acquired had to be determined, and the issue of the pond and drainage control and some compensation to Shorewood still needed to be addressed. He stated that he believed Tonka Bay had been under the misconception that the project would be accomplished with no cost to the City Tonka Bay; however, Tonka Bay will need to pay for curb and gutter costs. Mr. Grube remained confident about the project as it was needed for public safety and traffic control. Also, Mr. Bruce Polaczyk, head of the Design Division, was present at this meeting to answer any questions that the Council may have. Mayor Love stated that money was not the only primary issue and this City Council could not address this issue with regards to Tonka Bay. He asked what this Council could do as he was concerned that this project be completed as soon as possible. Mr. Grube encouraged the City Council to have conversation with the Tonka Bay Council and the shopping center in order to facilitate the progress on County Road 19. Councilmember Turgeon questioned how much the costs would be to Tonka Bay for the curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Mr. Grube stated that the engineering estimate was $30,000. The construction costs would approximately be $25,000 with an 18% markup for engineering. Councilmember Turgeon asked if there would be any other costs involved for Tonka Bay. Mr. Grube stated that there would be other nominal costs such involved such as driveway concrete aprons, but those three things mentioned above were the primary costs for Tonka Bay. He also stated there might be an assessment to private property owners as the storm sewer would create drainage from the private properties to create a regional pond that they would derive a benefit from. Also, this needed to be discussed with the shopping center owners; they would lose parking due to the roadway alignment while on the other hand the shopping center owners would not need to put a pond on their site. Mr. Grube expressed his concerns about Shorewood's proposal, namely undergrounding of overhead utilities and the installation of a pedestrian level street lighting along the road. The current state of the project does not include underground lighting or pedestrian scale lighting. Planning Director Nielsen asked Mr. Grube to discuss the street lighting issue. Mr. Grube stated that the pedestrian scale lighting would be 15 feet tall as opposed to 30 feet and more closely spaced. The purpose needed to be defined for the lighting as to whether it was to light the road or the road and the sidewalk However, the commercial owners remained interested regarding potential future because they see the nice street lights for the project five years down the road. Engineer Brown stated that he had not had the opportunity to examine the landscape portion of the plan since they were focusing on other details. . Mayor Love requested another potential time for an update by Mr. Grube. Mr. Grube stated that he could come back on a monthly basis for updates. * . . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 14, 2003 Page 12 of 13 Attorney Keane questioned that if the project was not going to be a 2003 project, then funding and priority standing could be affected and jeopardized. Mr. Grube stated that the intent was to keep it a high priority, bring it to closure and construction, and do so in fairness to all for a fair and reasonable price for the acquisition of the liquor store property and part of the shopping center. He stated that he would modify the capital improvement program and put some more funding in for the project in 2004, noting costs were higher than original expectations. Councilmember Zerby questioned whether the November temporary solution includes any improvements to the sight lines at the public safety facility regarding lowering the grade of the road. Mr. Grube had no answer to this question and said that he would further investigate this issue. Mayor Love stated that he would look forward to the monthly reports, offered Council support to the county in expediting this process, and thanked Mr. Grube for his efforts. 9. REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff 1. County Road 19 Intersection This issue was addressed in Item 8B. 2. Public Safety Facilities Administrator Dawson stated that Staff had received documents that day that needed to be looked at before the meeting of the EFD and SLMPD Boards, City Council, and EDA on Wednesday. He stated that he would inform the Council as soon as possible if there was a change in the scheduled time of the meeting to 5:00 P.M. 3. Smithtown Road Engineer Brown stated that last Friday he picked up the final draft of the Smithtown Road portion of the project that is being sent off to State Aid tomorrow morning for its review and commentary. He hopes to return to the next City Council meeting for an authorized advertisement for bids. He cautioned that Smithtown Road would require the bulk of the City's State Aid funds and he suggested that the Council consider alternative funding sources for Shorewood' s portion of the County Road 19 project. B. Mayor & City Council Mayor Love stated that he had heard from Paul Skrede who asked to meet with him and the mayor of Deephaven regarding boring well on the east side station that would cost around $125,000. This is within the budget. He suggested discussions with Minnetonka in order to create interest among that city although there would be no substantial cost savings for them. The benefit would be to Shore wood residents in the nearby area as they would then have a reliable source of water. Mayor Love stated that he would report back once the meeting had taken place. There were no reports from the Council.