Loading...
041403 CC WS3 Min . . . i CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, APRIL 14,2003 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 8:00 p.m. or immediately following Regular Council Meeting MINUTES 1. CONVENE WORK SESSION MEETING Mayor Love called the Work Session meeting to order at 9:38 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Love, Councilmembers Garfunkel, Lizee, Turgeon, and Zerby; Administrator Dawson; Engineer Brown; Finance Director Burton; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: None B. Review Agenda 2. SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA VISIONING UPDATE Administrator Dawson stated that all of the City Councilmembers should have received a copy of the final report regarding the South Lake Minnetonka Visioning Update, and Bruce Chamberlain of Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. is here this evening to answer any questions from the Council. Bruce Chamberlain provided an overview of the process involved in the Visioning process. First, there was a scoping stage that included answering questions of structure, cooperation, and inclusion of other communities in the South Lake Minnetonka Visioning process. The second stage was visioning which included three parts of public meeting as the scoping stage did not include a public workshop approach. At the Visioning work sessions, the entire public was invited. At the strategy work sessions, a smaller group was invited to refine the details of the process and this group included the two councils and their advisory commissions from Shorewood and Excelsior. Mr. Chamberlain also mentioned that a web survey and photo analysis was presented at the first Community Vision Work Session. The general public was invited to the various processes through newspaper press releases and the web site. Mr. Chamberlain presented a draft plan to the councils at the end of the process and their comments were incorporated and the brochure prepared and sent out to public in January. Councilmember Turgeon expressed concerns regarding the internal communication of their process since the Council never saw the brochure before it was sent out and the Council did not see the bound books that Lawless Institute compiled. Also, the message on the website was never discussed by the Council before it was put on the website and information about the Vision plan seemed to have been disseminated to the public before the Council ever learned of it. Councilmember Turgeon stated that she had received feedback from residents that indicated that they did not favor the project. Councilmember Zerby questioned whether the drive behind this project was community based or politically motivated. . . . ( WORK SESSION MEETING APRIL 14,2003 PAGE 2 OF 2 Councilmember Garfunkel stated that it was not necessarily political, as the problem can be that the same goals and views are not shared in different communities. Mr. Chamberlain noted that it was important for the communities to continue to work together as the identity of the South Lake Visioning project extended beyond municipal boundaries. Councilmember Garfunkel stated that he did not disagree with Mr. Chamberlain but that the Council could only control the process in Shorewood. Councilmember Lizee indicated that she never assumed this Vision plan would set policy in motion, as it was a means of receiving feedback and ideas from the community. Councilmember Zerby stated that a problem was that this plan was a visionary report and survey rather than a clear cut process. Mayor Love stated that the Council should regard this Visioning Plan as a way to get data and input from the public and avoid the notion of a plan. Mr. Chamberlain stated that it was too late to change the wording on the brochure from "plan", but rather that the Council should consider this to be a process of furthering communication between the Shorewood and Excelsior City Councils. Councilmember Garfunkel noted that another problem with the plan was that it was not possible to distinguish which comments specifically related to Shorewood. Mr. Chamberlain stated that it was a collaborative effort that did not address individualized community concerns since it focuses on collaborative efforts. Councilmember Turgeon asked what the next step for the Council should be considering the Council never even accepted the report or its findings. Mayor Love stated that the Council cannot accept this report in a work session and the Council does not intend it to be endorsed or adopted. He suggested a work session before the next council to discuss various comments in the report and to clarify misconceptions. Councilmember Turgeon stated that the Council needed clear direction for its next steps. Mayor Love suggested that the Council accept the report and use it as a basis for discussion. He thanked Mr. Chamberlain for his efforts. 3. MASS TRANSIT - OPT-OUT STUDY REPORT Lisa Radeunz from LJR, Inc. highlighted the key points from the Opt Out Transit presentation. As of June 30 of this year, the City must decide whether it wants to opt out of the Metro Transit system. She stated that currently there were three main routes that ran through Shorewood and it was estimated that fifteen to twenty seniors rode the routes per month. She stated that the services did not operate as long as they were needed since they only ran from 9 to 4 on the weekdays and not at all on the weekends. The transport systems were not in high demand in Shorewood for the following reasons: more than one vehicle per household was usually available, very convenient public school transportation system exists, ~ WORK SESSION MEETING APRIL 14, 2003 PAGE 3 OF 3 . working adults in home offices or traveling to work at non-peak times of work day or in sales-related jobs where travel times are adjusted, little to no lower-income/rental property exists within city limits, and demographic information defines community with higher household incomes, fewer minorities and two-parent working families. In 2001, Shorewood taxpayers paid $273,438 through property tax levied by Met Council for transit services. With the addition of Fiscal Disparities and HACAlMVHC funds, total gross levy in 2001 was $465,303. 90% of Local Available Funds would have been $418,773 in 2001. The 2003 estimate available for operating levy for the City is $418,773. The Met Council estimate of the value of service currently provided within City limits is 12,500/month or 20% of total route coverage. $150,000 is the annual cost and $418,733 is the estimated annual MVET funds available and with $150,000 current system value there is $268,733 net available transit funds estimated of which up to $62,816 available for administrative purposes, 15% of total available. The capital funds can be used for vehicles, bus shelters, park-and-ride lots, transit hubs, and other depreciable assets that can be purchased for public transit systems. In 2001, Shorewood's gross levy for the Regional Transit Debt Levy was $110,272. Shorewood would not be eligible for any debt levy funds but would be eligible to compete in future federal funding solicitations under CMAQITEA-21 process or secure RTC funds or sell its own municipal (GO) bonds. New service possibilities in Shorewood include extension of Senior Community Services (SCS) service hours Monday through Friday, new weekend Dial-A-Ride service hours, extension of SCS service area for Shorewood residents or special routes, and dial-a-ride only through city limits (open to all ages) connecting to Ridgedale, 394 and local populated destination points 8-12 hours per day, Monday through Friday and possibly shortened weekend hours. There are various alternatives that the City can explore. . The first alternative involves not exercising the opt-out authority which requires sending letter to Met Council and Legislature by 6/30/03 and the impact would be no change in service unless forced by budget cuts. There is no guarantee that the service will remain the same. The other alternative is to exercise the City's Authority to "Opt Out" of the Regional Transit System which requires the Council to formally submit letter of intent and all data required to Legislature and Met Council by 6/30/03. The impact of this alternative would be that the City would have to provide more comprehensive information about enhanced services desired, contract for service, provide management and financial supervision, etc. The second opt-out alternative is to opt out and adopt a system similar to Minnetonka's, in which it has negotiated a specific level of service with the Met Council, prior to 6/30103. However, there are problems with this alternative as Shorewood has a significantly less of an impact on Metro Transit's system than Minnetonka which would lower and possibly negate the City of Shorewood's bargaining power with the Metro Transit system. The third alternative to opt-out is to negotiate with Met Council before June 30th in order to gain enhancements to current system. The impact of this plan would be that no backup plan would be in place if Met Council does not participate except to "Opt Out" formally. This would not guarantee future service levels or changes due to budgetary concerns. Ms. Radeunz's professional opinion is that the City does not need more service right now; however, further down the road when there are more seniors in Shorewood, the City could consider expanding its services. For this reason, she suggested that the City not opt-out. She also recommended that the City Council draft a letter and invite Met Council Commissioner Mary Hill Smith and a representative from Metro Transit to discuss the issue with the City Council. . Mayor Love asked the Council to work with the consultant and come back with some recommendations for the future. He thanked Ms. Radeunz for her report. I WORK SESSION MEETING APRIL 14, 2003 PAGE 4 OF 4 . 4. MUNICIPAL WATER CHARGES Administrator Dawson indicated that Planning Director Nielsen would discuss filling in key segments of the water system in providing incentives for developers and future connectors to the water system with connection fees. He requested feedback from the Council in order to develop it further. . Planning Director Nielsen said the feasibility study had been prepared for extending water down Minnetonka Drive, across Yellowstone Trail through Linden Hills to the Shorewood Village property at the request of Shorewood Village Center and the developer of the Linden Hills project. They specifically asked what the costs involved would be. The Engineering Consultants prepared cost estimates. He discussed three scenarios that would apply to the existing projects in place, namely Shore wood Village Center, a commercial development; Linden Hills, a single-family residential development; and Capestone, a multiple-family project. The first policy was to leave the current water charges alone as they are not currently unreasonable. The second policy was that the developer pays the cost of water based upon the City's water plan, which includes installation of services. Finally, if the pipe sizing is greater than required by the City's water plan, then the City will pay for oversizing. However, if the extra pipe sizing is due to their own needs then the developer would pay for the oversizing. At projects where the water is available to the site, then the developer would pay the water connection fee minus its cost of putting laterals/services within the project, ex. Linden Hills. Also, projects that require extension of water main to serve the site would require that the developer pays the cost of the project or the water connection fees, whichever is greater. Finally, propel1y owners along the way of an extension should always be invited in on the original project and can choose to have their connection fee assessed. Later connections must be paid in full at the time of connection with the City getting the connection fees. Planning Director Nielsen was looking for direction from the Council regarding offering this report to the developers so that they could make their decisions based on the feasibility report. Time was important since the developers were planning on opening their projects soon. Councilmember Turgeon asked whether the only cost to the City was the Minnetonka Drive service costs. Planning Director stated that this plan would cost the City minimally. Councilmember Garfunkel stated that Shorewood Village and Linden Hills would agree with this report. Planning Director Nielsen agreed with these costs. Mayor Love stated that this was a good partnership between public and private interests. Councilmember Zerby raised the issue of the dead-end main. . Engineer Brown stated that it was an issue since if there was a dead-end main with a limited number of users, there would be water complaints. The City will not be able to comply with the revisions to the Fire Code since it requires supplying 3,250 gallons of water per minute for 2 hours. This flow is just not even approachable for the City. The water plan for the City needs to be reviewed and revised due to the demands of the new Fire Code pertaining to new commercial developments. The issue of dead end mains will be problematic for the City since iron complaints can arise if the water is allowed to sit and not be used and an attempt to subvert this problem is through the encouragement of more users. . . . .. WORK SESSION MEETING APRIL 14, 2003 PAGES OF 5 Councilmember Zerby questioned whether the City could provide the Shopping Center with the high volume of water that they would need. Planning Director Nielsen stated that the volume that is being requested is only in the situation of a fire. Engineer Brown stated that the City would be able to supply the amount of water needed, though it would be a bit difficult. Mayor Love stated that Staff would proceed with the feasibility study and bring back the report at the next Council meeting. 5. ADJOURN Garfunkel moved, Lizee seconded, adjourning the Work Session meeting of April 14, 2003, at 11:15 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, SUSAN FISCHER Recording Secretary Attest: