Loading...
012808 WS CC MinCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2008 MINUTES CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M. 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. Present. Mayor Lizee; Counciimembers Turgeon, Wellens and Woodruff; Administrator Dawson; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: None A. Review Agenda Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE Mayor Lizee noted that Steve Gurney, with WSB & Associates, was present this evening. Administrator Dawson stated that Mr. Gurney had done the majority of the work on updating the City's Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (the Plan); the Plan was required by State Statute. Mr. Gurney had been assisted by Engineer Landini in the effort. He commented Mr. Gurney had updated a number of other cities' plans. He then stated that Mr. Gurney would explain why the plan had to be updated, and what was updated. Mr. Gurney stated the Plan was intended to satisfy the requirements for a local watershed management plan required by the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act and to be in conformance the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) Rules Chapter 8410. He explained the Plan was being updated to reflect changes in requirements from the Metropolitan (Met) Council, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD). Because all of new requirements had not been identified yet, WSB had made an attempt to anticipate what the new requirements would be for the MCWD with the understanding some minor modifications may have to be made when the requirements were finalized. WSB also used input from other cities' plans, in particular Excelsior's plan. Mr. Gurney stated the discussion this evening would focus on Section IV and Section V of the Plan. Section IV discussed the water resources related concerns within the City and identified possible corrective actions to address those issues. Among the list of problems were the flood problem areas that were studied after the autumn storm events of 2005. Section V outlined the suggested goals and policies for the City. Many of those goals were carryovers from the previous plan. There were several new policies that were already included in the City's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Other goals and policies were recommended based on input WSB had received from review agencies on other cities' plans. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORI{ SESSION MEETING MINUTES January 28, 2008 Page 2 of 8 Mr. Gurney then stated if the Plan was acceptable, the Plan would be submitted to the MCWD, the RPBCWD, and the Met Council for their comments. It was anticipated they would use their full 60-day comment period to provide input. Once their comments were received, the Plan would be finalized and it would be re-submitted for approval. He explained that during the time the Plan was being reviewed by the agencies, WSB (with assistance by Staff) would be updating the following items for the City: the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis; the water quality analysis (which was a modeling exercise using a water quality model prepared by the MCWD); the GIS utility mapping and database; and, the financial analysis. The water quality analysis/modeling effort would incorporate steps the City had taken since 2000 as part of the requirement to achieve an annual reduction of phosphorus loading of 50 pounds per year as specified by the MCWD; for example, the City would received credit for the installation of the Gideon Glen wetland pond, a pond in the Parkview area located in the northeast part of the City, a pond in Lake Virginia Woods area, and a pond in the Arbor Creek area. Mr. Gurney stated the purpose this evening was to review the policies in the plan and explain the reason for the policies. He then addressed questions Council had. The following clarifications and comments were made by Mr. Gurney and Staff. - The City had land in the Lake Minnetonka and Christmas Lake watersheds, and in the Lake Virginia/Lake Minnewashta watershed. - The MCWD was developing its equivalent of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements; technically TMDLs were established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA). - The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations included requirements for the City to periodically check the sediment level of the stormwater ponds (and to clean them out if necessary), and to monitor that information. There was a plan to check the ponds in 2008; the 2008 budget included fiu~ds for the purchase of a sonar device to help with that task. - Section VI would outline implementation priorities and develop an implementation program. It contained a prioritized listing of the studies, programs, and capital improvements that had been identified as necessary to respond to the water resource needs within the City. - Section IV, Item A.4 -There would be some level of improvements done to Manor Park Pond (it would probably be dredged at some time); and, it would be unlikely that the Pond would ever be completely clear because of the nature of the Pond (e.g., the Pond would always have some level of algae). 1f the item was left in the Plan there would be a possibility to receive some level of grant funding for the improvement effort. A phrase would be added to the item to refer to cooperation with other agencies. - Section IV, Item B.1 -The list of drainage problems listed came from the "Analysis of Drainage Problem Areas within the City of Shorewood" report which was reviewed with Council in January 2006. - Section IV, Item B.2 -Footprint Lake was a large pond. The list was from the most recent version of the Plan. - Section IV, Item E.1 -The City had an erosion control ordinance for new construction. - Section IV, Item E.3 -This came from a fact sheet listing concerns from the MCWD. - Section IV, Item F.1 -Selected areas of the City would be clarified to refer to new developments within the City. - Section IV, Item G.1 -The Best Management Practices were practices identified by the PCA; that would be clarified. - Section IV, Item I.l -With regard to the corrective action, WSB would do the modeling after it received data from the MCWD. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES January 28, 2008 Page 3 of 8 - Section V, Item B.3 -The reporting of construction erosion control concerns and waste disposal problems was addressed in Section V, Item B.9. - Section V, Item C.11 -This item was clarified to state "allowing for no increase compared to existing (runoff) rates" was specific to all storms (the 1-year, 10-year, and 100-year events). Currently the rates must not exceed the pre-development rates. The MCWD had established that the TMDL volume requirements would eventually be those in existing in 1988. - Section V, Item C.30 (pg. 9) -The PCA website identified Low Impact Development Techniques; a reference to the website would be added to the item. - Section V, Item C.32 (pg. 9) -The City had a map designating the area with general depression, low points, etc. - Section V, Item C.43 -The new MCWD rules would either be adopted or to referred to in the City's erosion and sedimentation control ordinance. - Section V, Item D.49 -The City did not have a specific discharge ordinance; stormwater discharge requirements were referred to in multiple places in the City Code. It was necessary to develop a storm water management ordinance in 2008 as specified in the City's SWPPP. - Section V, Item D.58 -This would be changed to say the City would implement the recommendations identified in the TMDL studies. The following comments and suggestions were made by Mayor Lizee: - Section V, Item A -She suggested the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) be added to the list of organizations for which the City would conform with their rules. Councilmembers Turgeon, Wellens, and Woodruff stated they did not agree with the addition of the LMA as it was not a legislative body. Lizee stated the LMA had done a tremendous amount of research regarding water resource needs. There was agreement to add the LMCD to the list, as all of the organizations on the list were agencies. - Section V, Item C.35 (pg. 9) -She questioned what the costs and time would be for the City to manage wetlands in conformance with Mimlesota Rules Chapter 8420 as developed by the BWSR. She also questioned if it was legal for the PRBCWD to require the City to do that (the City would become the Local Governmental Unit for areas of the City within the RPBCWD). After ensuing discussion, it was agreed this was a topic for discussion at another meeting. The following comments and suggestions were made by Councilmember Wellens: - Section IV, Item E.3 -The MCWD requested that shoreline conditions on Christmas Lake (specifically the eastern shore) be monitored and maintained; shoreline restoration practices needed to be implemented to prevent erosion. He stated that was private property; he suggested the property owners should be made aware of that request. Lizee stated property owners could be educated about improving the quality of stormwater run- off from residential properties at an environmental education program the City would offer during 2008. - Section V, Strategies, Cooperation with other agencies - He expressed concern with. the statement the City "will cooperate and coordinate with these agencies as necessary". He questioned what organization determined what was necessary. There was agreement to change the statement to say "will cooperate and coordinate with these agencies as deemed necessary by the City". CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES January 28, 2008 Page 4 of 8 The following comments and suggestions were made by Counciimember Woodruff: - He had heard there was phosphorus reduction requirement for Lake Virginia and that would apply to the City. - Section N, Item D.1 - He suggested it be changed to the City consider implementing a water quality monitoring program. The MCWD already had that type of data and was accumulating additional data. Mayor Lizee suggested the program be expanded to included partnerships with other agencies, such as the MCWD. - He requested agreement be reached regarding who would do the work, how would the task be accomplished and when would it be accomplished for: Section IV, Items E.3 and L2; Section V, Items C.40 (pg. 10), C.41 (pg. 10), C.35 (pg. 11), C.37 (pg., 11), C.38 (pg. 11), C.39 (pg.l1), C.43 (pg. 12), D.45 (pg. 12), D.46 (pg. 12), D.49 (pg. 13), D.51 (pg. 13), D.52 (pg. 13), D.54 (pg. 13), D.55 (pg. 13), D.56 (pg. 13), D.58 (pg. 13), D.60 (pg. 14), D.62 (pg. 14), D.64 (pg. 14), and D.65 (pg. 14). Mr. Gurney stated he thought it would be prudent to bring the revised updated Plan back before Council for discussion. Councilmember Woodruff commented he did not need to discuss Sections IV and V after the changes discussed were made. He did want to discuss the changes that would be made to the other sections in the Plan. Gurney noted the Plan must be finalized by September 1, 2008. There was agreement to review the updates to the other sections of the Plan during a March 2008 work session. 3. GOALS AND PRIORITIES This was discussed after Item 5 on the agenda. Administrator Dawson stated Council had received a very rough draft of items that could be considered for next year's list of Goals and Priorities. The intent was to discuss the list of items at this meeting, and to delete and add items as the Council deemed appropriate. He would update the list with the recommended changes, and distribute the updated list to Council for them to prioritize. Administrator Dawson clarified the items on the list were mainly items that were not part of day-to-day responsibilities. The following clarifications were made by Staff: - 2007 Medium priority Item 2 -Two-thirds of the property files had been scanned for use on the LaserFiche system. Engineering files would be scanned next. - The Planning District 6 item did not include the landscape design entry activities for County Road 19; it was part of the corridor activities. - 2007 Medium priority Item 1 -Changes to Planning District 6 would be implemented as part of the update to the City's Comprehensive Plan. - 2007 Medium priority Item 3 -Hennepin County had committed to a meeting to discuss how it planned to complete the administrative activities regarding the Shorewood/Tonka Bay corporate boundary change in the County Road 19/Smithtown Road intersection area. - Item c -This would be addressed after the 2007 audit was completed. - Item i -the engineering plans and specifications had been developed. An area of concern was the Southeast water tower would have to be taken off-line for the work to be done. The City's well capacity may not satisfy the instantaneous demand for City water. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES January 28, 2008 Page 5 of 8 Contingency planning was being addressed. It was likely the project would be delayed until the fall of 2008 for contingency purposes. - Item g -Council had added $300,000 to the roadway improvement system for 2008. Council needed to decide if that level of funding should be continued into future years, and if so how would that level of funding be sustained. Councilmember Wellens stated he thought it was aone-time increase. Councilmember Woodruff agreed a plan needed to be developed. for addressing the backlog of roadway improvement needs. - Item iii -the road reconstruction of Star Lane/Star Circle had been on the project list for many years. The priority list was an evolving list -there were times when a road survived the winter elements better than expected and that road would shift down in the project list. However, it was incorrect to list Star Lane/ Star Circle as the road reconstruction project for 2008. Mayor Lizee suggested Item ee be added - Conduct a community survey during May 2008. Councilmember Turgeon made the following suggestions: - Add Item cc -Revamp the City Administrator's performance evaluation form with a scheduled completion date of March 2008. - Add Item dd -Resolve who was responsible for the maintenance of the Boulder Bridge pond. - She suggested Staff first prioritization of the items on the list because Staff probably had a better understanding of what items had to be done and when; Council could then review the prioritized items and adjust the priorities as it deemed appropriate. - 2007 Lower priority Item 4 -She stated she did not see the need for this item. Administrator Dawson suggested the item be removed from the list. Councilmember Wellens agreed. That item would be removed from the list. Councilmember Wellens stated that the LaserFiche Webline module was hard to use. He questioned why Staff should continue to add documents to the system if it was difficult to use. He suggested Staff develop instructions on how to use the system. He suggested this be a low priority. Councilmember Woodruff made the following suggestions: - He suggested a plan be developed for 2007 medium priority Item 2 and for Item s. He suggested medium priority 2 be combined with Items s and z; and, that a priority list for scanning documents be included in the plan. - Item y - He stated it was completed at the January 28, 2008, Council meeting. - Item j - He suggested Item j include the development of measures to assess the economic benefits of installing the radio-read meters. - Item o - He suggested the item be completed by June 2008. Councilmember Wellens suggested this item be expanded to include the cost savings or added benefits of hiring a full-time City Engineer, and this be completed by May -June 2008. - Item bb - He requested this item be completed by seasons end. Mayor Lizee suggested November 2008 as a completion date. - He suggested adding Item ff - Develop a long-term plan for future road reconstruction and improvement projects. Administrator Dawson stated he would update the list with the recommended changes. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES January 28, 2008 Page 6 of 8 4. DRAFT POLICY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE EXPENDITURES Administrator Dawson stated Council had received a draft of policies regarding expenditures for employee recognition and other public purposes. The policies had been adapted from Minnetonka's policy; the City's practices had. been very consistent with Minnetonka's written policy. Mayor Lizee requested the following be added to Item 1.A Permitted Expenditures -coffee and purified water for employees and visitors to City Hall. Councilmember Woodruff stated from his vantage point the policy could be too restrictive; he suggested the policy be adapted to be more flexible. Mayor Lizee noted the policy addressed the requests of some Councihnembers. Councilmember Woodruff suggested the following be added to Item 2.A Other Permitted Expenditures - those promoting wellness and safety of the public or staff while using City facilities (e.g., filtered or bottled water, centralized coffee/tea/hot water service, etc.). He thought it was a public as well as employee benefit. He stated individual coffee pots were a safety hazard. Mayor Lizee stated it was not important where coffee and water were added in the policy; she just wanted it to be included. Councilmember Wellens stated the auditor's letter stated coffee and water went outside of basic supplies and it generally recommended employees cover the costs for those items. Mayor Lizee noted the Auditor's letter was a recommendation only. Councilmember Turgeon stated from her vantage point the draft policy should be much shorter. Councilmember Woodruff questioned if the donation to the Excelsior July 4`~' Fireworks display would be prohibited by the policy. Mayor Lizee clarified the City made a donation to the event and not specifically for the fireworks. Administrator Dawson stated that would still be a permitted expense for public funds. Councilmember Turgeon stated the City could not donate funds to the Excelsior Chamber of Commerce, but it could donate funds to the Chamber for an event. Councilmember Wellens stated Item 1.A. bullet 2 could be interpreted to mean a meal could be provided at every Council meeting because it could be decided it was adjacent to a meal hour. Administrator Dawson clarified it stated you may, not you shall. Wellens stated he did not want to authorize that. Councilmember Woodruff stated he agreed with Dawson -the Council could decide what to do. Woodruff stated he did not want to specifically state the City could not do something. Councilmember Turgeon stated the Council could specify what time the meetings would have to start for meals to be provided. 5. REQUEST RE: BOULDER BRIDGE SEALCOATING This item was discussed before Item 3 on the agenda. Director Brown stated the City had planed to sealcoat the streets in the Boulder Bridge subdivision in 2008; and, representatives of the Boulder Bridge Farm Homeowners Association had approached the City about the possibility of placing a bituminous (aka asphalt) overlay on the street instead of sealcoat, and the Association would pay the difference in cost between the overlay and the sealcoat. He then stated the Association could take a position that the City would benefit from the overlay approach (which Staff CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES January 28, 2008 Page 7 of 8 thought it would). Administrator Dawson stated if the City were to fund part of the overlay process it would utilize funds that would impact other roadway projects. Dawson recommended if the overlay process were to be done the Association should pay the additional cost. In response to a question from Mayor Lizee, Director Brown explained the Infrastructure Improvement Matrix rated the structure of various roadways; in the past the City had attempted to keep all the roadways at a structural rating of three or higher but that was not possible because of asphalt costs and oil costs. He then explained sealcoating did not address structural issues; a sealcoat should last five years (that had not been the City's experience as of late). An overlay did improve the structure of a roadway somewhat; it could add up to ten years to the life of the roadway. Councilmember Turgeon stated she would not support this if it impacted the existing priorities for roadway improvements. Director Brown clarified the City would only pay the amount it would have cost to sealcoat the streets in Boulder Bridge; those costs were planned for in the budget. He explained the City had implemented a block program for seaicoating roadways as it was more efficient (i.e., roadways that were located in the same geographical area were sealcoated in the same year). If a roadway was scheduled to be reconstructed in 1 - 2 years, that roadway would not be sealcoated. Councilmember Woodruff stated if the City were to pay the amount of the cost of sealcoating and the Association paid the remaining amount of the cost to overlay the streets, the City would in effect have received more for its money. Director Brown clarified if the Association (as a group) agreed to waive its right to appeal the City would not have to be concerned with assessments. Woodruff stated he could support the request provided the Association pay the entire cost for the overlay (minus what the cost would have been to sealcoat) up-front; the City would place those funds in an escrow account and it would serve as the contracting agency. Director Burton stated the City could assess the individual property owners. Administrator Dawson stated it would be better to have the Association pay the incremental difference up-front. Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, recessing the meeting to a City Council regular meeting at 7:02 P.M. Motion passed,4/0. Mayor Lizee reconvened the work session at 8:15 P.M. There was continued ensuing discussion about the request. Administrator Dawson stated the next step in the process would be to convey the City's conditions to the Boulder Bridge Homeowners Association. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Director Brown stated the company owned by a member of the Association performed overlay work; it did not perform sealcoat work. In response to another question, Brown explained if the City were the letting agency the project would go out for bids. The discussion returned to Item 3 on the agenda. 6. OTHER There was no other business for discussion. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES January 28, 2008 Page 8 of 8 7. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of January 28, 2008, at 8:58 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: ,, ~ `, s _ _ _ Craig W. L1~vson; City Administrator/Clerk P '~~~ ~° Christine Lizee, Mayor