Loading...
050806 CC WS Min CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, MAY 8, 2006 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CONFERENCE ROOM 5:30 PM MINUTES 1. CONVENE WORK SESSION MEETING Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Love, Councilmembers Callies, Lizee, Turgeon, and Wellens; Planning Director Nielsen; and Acting City Engineer Gurney Absent: None B. Review Agenda Without objection from Council, Mayor Love proceeded with the Agenda for the meeting. 2. MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONTRACT AND FUNDING FORMULA Administrator Dawson stated Mound Fire Chief Greg Pederson was present this evening to review the Mound Fire Department Contract and funding formula. He noted the Mound Fire Department (MFD) provides services to Shorewood's Lake Minnetonka island residents, and noted Shorewood was a small contributor to MFD costs. He then stated the MFD was most easily able to service the area, and the City had maintained a good relationship with the Department for a number of years. He went on to state there had been a significant amount of quality discussion over the last 6 - 7 months between the contract parties with regard to the length of future contracts (noting the recent contracts had been 3-year contracts), and the funding formula (which had been the same for a minimum of thirty years). He explained the MFD has a master contract that was slightly modified for each contracting city's specifics. Chief Pederson stated he had been the MFD Chief since 1998, and had become a full-time Chief in 2003. He noted he had been with the MFD for 30 years. The MFD had 40 paid on-call volunteers and he was the only full-time firefighter. There was also a full-time administrator. He went on to state the MFD serviced all of Mound, approximately 62% of Minnetrista, Minnetonka Beach, Spring Park, and a small part of Shorewood. Pederson stated the MFD operating budget had increased approximately 5%, and the building costs had increased substantially. About one year ago the Mound Fire Commission, which has a representative from each member city and meets quarterly, decided to review the funding formula because of the increase in costs. Pederson stated a subcommittee met every 2 - 3 weeks to discuss a new contract funding formula. It determined the following items should be included in a contract funding formula: a cost allocation formula that utilized an "averaging" method similar to the one in the existing formula; a formula based CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING May 8, 2006 Page 2 of 6 on service availability, use of service, and property value based on the estimated market value of the property and the structure; and a formula that was manageable with a minimum number of variables. The Commission also considered emergency call trends (both National and Minnesota), MFD emergency call trends, and a comparison of emergency response firefighter hours versus number of calls for service. In addition the Commission considered how to weigh the selected factors of a new formula, how to justify and substantiate a new formula, and the date for implementing a new formula (the goal was January 1, 2007). Pederson stated Mound had approved the proposed contract and funding formula, assuming the other member cities would also approve the contract and funding formula. He would present them to the Minnetonka Beach Council after the Shorewood Council meeting; the Minnetrista Council on May 15, 2006; and lastly to the Spring Park Council. Pederson stated some of the members of the Commission had felt that Minnetonka Beach and Shorewood may have been paying slightly more than both cities should have been paying. Pederson then provided an overview of the new contract funding formula proposal recommend by the Mound Fire Commission and the Mound Fire Chief. The new formula recommendations entailed: . Implementing a new cost sharing formula that included population, use of service, market value of land, and market value of structures; . Changing the length of the fire service contract to 5 years from 3 years, but a minimum length of 3 years; . Changing the fire service contract cancellation clause to 2 years from 1 year; . Establishing standard and consistent response protocols for all member cities; . Approving the new contract and formula, and implementing it January 1,2007; and, . Performing an annual review of the contract formula and financial results to ensure the formula was effective and fair. Pederson noted Mound required all member cities accept the new funding fornmla. The other proposed changes did not have to be accepted by all cities. Mayor Love questioned what portion of the utilization was for medical services. Chief Pederson stated approximately 50% of the calls were rescue related, and 50% were fire alarms and hazardous materials. He explained there were 10 medical events the MFD would automatically "start to" for Mound, Minnetrista and Shorewood. The MFD did not currently provide an automatic "start to" for the events for Minnetonka Beach or Spring Park. Administrator Dawson stated the automatic "start to" for rescue services was provided by the Orono Police for those two cities. Chief Pederson stated the call-time to scene-time for medicals to Spring Park was approximately 6 minutes. In response to a question from Councilmember Callies, Pederson explained the Orono Police respond to a medical situation and then request assistance from North Memorial; the response time for North Memorial was not meeting the required response time of 10 minutes. Pederson noted the MFD Rescue Captain was the Medical Director for Ridgeview Ambulance, and he was an emergency room physician. He also noted the MFD had a couple of medics that fly with North Memorial. Councilmember Turgeon asked Chief Pederson what the normal response time to the islands in Shorewood was for non-medical calls. Pederson stated he would provide her with that information as it was not readily available, although he thought it was approximately 12 minutes because ofthe roads. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING May 8, 2006 Page 3 of 6 Chief Pederson stated response times were tracked two ways for both medical and non-medical calls routine and "red" runs (i.e. the lights or sirens were on). Councilmember Turgeon stated if the length of the contract was extended to 5 years she would like to see service history tracked for 5 years and used in calculating the formula. Chief Pederson then reviewed the current and proposed funding formula. He explained how the existing formula was calculated: 50% of the formula was each city's average percentage of firefighter hours used in the past three years; and 50% on the market valuation of properties as provided by the Hennepin County Assessor. The then explained how the proposed formula would be calculated: 20% of the formula would be based upon each city's percentage of firefighter hours averaged for the last three years; 20% of the formula would be based upon each city's percent of market valuation of land; 30% of the formula would be based upon each city's market value of structures; and 30% of the formula would be based upon each city's percent of total for fire service area population. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Chief Pederson stated one of the large differences between the old formula and the proposed formula was the reduction in utilization to 20%, which minimized the impact of medical calls on the overall cost to a member city. Mayor Love stated the components of the funding formula were not as important as getting all the member cities to agree to the formula. He also stated police departments have differing views on responding to medical calls, noting the SLMPD did not feel it was the best qualified to respond to medical calls. Administrator Dawson stated the utilization factor in the funding formula tried to reward cities for fire prevention efforts. Chief Pederson stated there was no perfect formula, and the proposed formula was one the Commission could all bring forward to their respective Councils. Councilmember Wellens stated he was comfortable with the proposed formula, but he would prefer to not extend the contract length to 5 years out of respect for future Councils. He also requested the funding formula detail data be identified for the next contract. Mayor Love stated he would prefer a longer contract term. Chief Pederson stated Shorewood's share of the costs would decrease in the future, partly because of the growth in Minnetrista. He then reviewed examples for calculating each city's costs for MFD services. He noted all member cities except Mound appeared to have a reduction in costs. He stated Council would be provided the final cost allocations based on the proposed formula. Council thanked Chief Pederson for his efforts. Mayor Love also thanked the MFD for its excellent care of Shorewood's islands. 3. WEDGEWOOD ROAD, MALLARD LANE, TEAL CIRCLE WATER IMPROVEMENT DISCUSSION Administrator Dawson stated as Staff was preparing to move forward with the Wedgewood Road, Mallard Lane, and Teal Circle road reclamation project, Council had expressed a desire for Staff to conduct a feasibility study for installing watermains as part of the project. He then stated Acting City Engineer Gurney would review the feasibility report, including the timeline and projected costs, prior to the Council's regular meeting. He also stated Staff had updated a communication to the property owners CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING May 8, 2006 Page 4 of6 that would more clearly explain the project and the City's water policy. He noted there had been favorable response to installing City water along the project route, and Staff had prepared three options for extending City water along the project route. He also noted a valid 67% petition had been submitted for a segment of the proposed installation. Acting City Engineer Gurney highlighted the May 8, 2006, Feasibility Report for improvements related to watermain installation during the road rehabilitation project for Wedgewood Drive, Mallard Lane, and Teal Circle. Gurney stated Staff had revised the proposed project estimates to better reflect costs, noting the cost of the watermain installation was somewhat higher than previously anticipated; the cost estimates increased from approximately $280,000 to $315,000. He explained each of the three option's project cost estimates contained a 10% contingency and a 30% estimate for indirect project costs. He also explained the special assessment process (Chapter 429) was being considered to fund the watermain installation project costs. Gurney reviewed the three options that were developed for the report. Ootion 1: Option 1 consisted of extending City water throughout the entire road reclamation project limits. Eighteen of the 37 properties (approximately 49%) adjacent to the project had expressed interest in connecting to City water. The approximate total project cost of $315,400 represented a cost of approximately $8,550 per property, based on 37 properties. Ootion 2: Option 2 consisted of extending City water to just east of Mallard Lane. Eighteen of the 28 properties adjacent to the project limits (approximately 64%) had expressed interest in connecting to City Water. The approximate total project cost of $234,700 represented a cost of approximately $8,400 per property, based on 28 properties. Ootion 3: Option 3 consisted of extending City water on a portion of Wedgewood Drive. Six of the eight properties (approximately 78%) of the properties fronting on Wedgewood Drive, between Smithtown Road and the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) Trail, had expressed an interest in connecting to City water. A petition of possible interest in City water had been signed by the six interested property owners. In addition, the resident at 5640 Harding Lane had expressed interest. The approximate total project cost of $80,100 represented a cost of approximately $8,900 per property based on 9 properties. Gurney then reviewed a tentative timeline for the project process. . May 8, 2006 . May 31, 2006 June 12,2006 . . July 12,2006 July 24, 2006 August 28, 2006 . . Resolution Approving Feasibility Report and Calling Public Hearing on Improvement Public Information Meeting (which is not required by Chapter 429) Public Hearing Resolution Ordering Improvement and Preparation Plans Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids Bid Opening (no Council action required) Hold Final Assessment Hearing Award Contract (after a 30-day appeal window) Gurney then reviewed an alternate schedule that would be more conducive to completing the project in mid-November 2006; the date for awarding the contract could be moved up to July 24, 2006, and the CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING May 8, 2006 Page 5 of 6 project could start on August 15,2006. The final assessment hearing would then be held after completion of the proj ect. Administrator Dawson explained it was common to have either a final assessment hearing before the contract or to have the final assessment at the completion of the proj ect. Although the more conservative approach would be to have the final assessment before awarding the contract, in order to try and complete the construction this year it would be beneficial to have the final assessment after the completion of the project. He stated that with a special assessment project, it was beneficial to consider a larger scope that could be downsized rather than increase a project scope, which would require starting the special assessment process over. He then stated one of the reasons for including contingency costs and indirect project costs was that the final assessment figure could always be reduced from the original estimates when the final costs were determined. Councilmember Turgeon stated for Option 2 another property owner was needed to reach the 67% petition requirement, and the owners of a Teal Circle property had previously expressed interest in City water, but had grown tired ofresponding. Administrator Dawson explained the 67% threshold was set by Council and was not part of any State statute. Mayor Love stated the 67% requirement was to have a watermain installation project automatically done, but Council could decide to proceed with a project without a petition. He also stated half of the property owners up to Mallard Lane that had not responded to the petition had their properties up for sale. He then stated the number of interested responses was indicative of success in communicating the benefits of City water. Councilmember Turgeon questioned whether scheduling a public hearing date for the Wednesday following Memorial Day was prudent. Administrator Dawson and Acting City Engineer Gurney explained why that date was a reasonable date. In response to a comment from Councilmember Wellens, Administrator Dawson explained a four-fifths majority Council approval was required by statute for any 429 project unless the project was 100% petitioned or the project was paid for entirely by the City. Discussion ensued with regard to the fixed cost to these property owners for the installation of the watermain and the connection fee, the current amount being $10,000. Councilmember Callies stated she did not agree with a fixed amount of $10,000 for the combined watermain assessment and the connection fee. Administrator Dawson stated the Public Hearing notice should include all three options which were being considered. Councilmember Turgeon suggested the communication publication for the property owners have an example of how the cost for the watermain assessment and connection fee was calculated. 4. DISCUSSION ON THE ROLE OF THE PARK COMMISSION Administrator Dawson stated Council had wanted to discuss the role of the Park Commission prior to a joint meeting with the Commission. He stated Staff had assembled documents that had defined the Commission's role for Council's review. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING May 8, 2006 Page 6 of 6 Discussion ensued with regard to the Commission's role in monitoring open spaces. There was consensus that monitoring and maintenance of open spaces in the City's parks could be part of the Commission's responsibilities, but that decision should not be made until the joint meeting of the Council and Commission regarding the Commission's role had taken place. Councilmember Wellens stated he would like to understand which parcels of open spaces were being discussed. Councilmember Turgeon stated the current Park Commissioners were extremely concerned with the environment, but that may not be the case with future Commissioners; therefore, the role of the Commission should be decided consistent with varying Commission membership ideals. She also stated she would prefer to see the Commission promote more than Freeman Park. Councilmember Callies stated she had thought the Commission did promote different City parks. Administrator Dawson stated changes to the ordinance for the Park Commission may be appropriate. Mayor Love stated caution needed to be exercised so as not to encroach on the Land Conservation and Environment Committee's (LCEC) jurisdiction. The role of the Park Commission would be resolved after a joint discussion between the Council and the Commission. 5. ADJOURN Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of May 8, 2006,6:55 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: