101209 CC Reg MinCITY OF S OREWOO
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2009
MINUTES
1 9 !,
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7000 P.
Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey, Turgeon, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Tietjen;
City Administrator Heck; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; Director
of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini
Absent: None.
B. Review Agenda
Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, approving the agenda amended. Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Minutes, September 28, 2009
Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of
September 28, 2009, as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Zerby abstaining due to his absence at
the meeting.
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, September 28, 2009
Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of
September 28, 2009, as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Zerby abstaining due to his absence at
the meeting. .
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
B. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 09 -054 "A Resolution Approving Licenses to
Retailers to Sell Tobacco Products for CUB Foods Shorewood, Holiday Station
Store #12, and SASA, LLC, dba Metro Petro Gas and Food."
C. Setting the Date for the 2009 Appreciation Event
D. Recycling Service Contract
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL, MEETING MINUTES
October 12, 2009
Page 2 of 13
With regard to Item 3.A Verified Claims, Councihnember Woodruff requested that at some point in the
future Council discuss what claims related to the Southshore Community Center's adjacent grounds
should be charged back to the Center and what should be considered the City's normal maintenance
requirements.
With regard to Item 3.0 Setting the Date for the Appreciation Event, Councihnember Woodruff stated the
Council Action Form on this item states the amount budgeted for this in 2009 is $5,000. The event will be
held at the Southshore Community Center. The 2010 tentative budget for a similar event is $2,500; it is
also planned to be held at the Southshore Community Center. He questioned why there was such a
difference in the amount. Administrator Heck clarified the $5,000 is the amount in the 2009 budget; that
entire amount will not be spent on the event. Councihnember Zerby clarified this item was only to set the
date for the event.
With regard to Item 3.D Recycling Service Contract, Councihmember Turgeon stated the contract
indicates there are only two size options for recycling containers. One is a 68- gallon container and the
other a 95- gallon container. She asked Staff to investigate is there is a smaller size container. She then
asked how residents will be able to request a 95- gallon container. Administrator Heck explained the 68-
gallon container will be the standard container delivered to all households. If someone wants the larger
container they should contact City Hall who in turn will contact Allied Waste. They can either get a 95-
gallon container or two 68- gallon containers. There is a smaller 30- gallon container, but it will not be
available until two months after the new program starts. Allied Waste has experienced that when people
recycle everything they can recycle they exceed the capacity of the 30- gallon container.
Councihnember Zerby stated Section 3.7 Collection in the proposal states the contractor shall provide
service once every other week. He questioned if that should be changed to include the day of Wednesday,
or does the City's Ordinance address that. Administrator Heck stated the Ordinance specifies when that
will occur. The question is whether or not recycling services for the islands in the City can be done on the
same day as the rest of the City. Zerby asked if the collection hours specified in Section 3.11 are
consistent with the Ordinance, to which Heck replied they are.
Councihmember Woodruff stated the month September in the first paragraph in the contract needs to be
changed to October. Section 6.8 has some typographical errors in it. Staff had informed him they have
been corrected. He suggested section 3.22.2 Monthly Customer Relations Report be revised to state the
monthly report should also include the dollar value of the credits earned under the recycle bank program.
Administrator Heck explained the recycle bank program is run by a third party, and the dollar value of the
credits varies. Heck stated the City could ask to receive a report on the number of points earned under the
program. He questioned what significant value there is in knowing the dollar value. Woodruff stated the
residents are going to be charged a higher rate for recycling services with the new contract which includes
the recycle bank program, and he would like the City to demonstrate the return to the customer of this
program. He had no problem with points being reported instead of dollar value.
Woodruff then stated Section 5.2 Liquidated Damages Item c indicates the contractor will have to pay the
City $100 per incident for failing to provide monthly or annual reports. He suggested the amount be
changed to $500 for each monthly report incident and $5,000 for each annual report incident.
Woodruff went on to state Section 6.17 Bankruptcy be expanded to include a clause related to the
contractor being ruled financially insolvent or not able to perform as a going concern.
7. PARKS
No report was given because there had not been a Park Commission meeting since the last City Council
regular meeting. The next Park Commission meeting is scheduled for October 13, 2009.
8. PLANNING
Commissioner Vilett reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 6, 2009, Planning
Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
A. Comprehensive Plan — Metropolitan Council Review
Director Nielsen stated Council had been provided with a copy of the Metropolitan Council's (Met
Council) review comments about the City's updated Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). The Met Council
would like to have cities such has Shorewood do new development at a minimum of three units per acre
and redevelopment and infill at a minimum of five units per acre. He explained the City does not have any
zoning that accommodates that other than for senior housing.
Nielsen then stated Staff suggested it identify a couple of areas in the City that could be evaluated in the
future to determine if they would be suitable for higher density housing. An accompanying cover letter
would explain why the City could not consider higher density residential development throughout the
City. It would identify the limitations created by substandard streets, limited mass transit, the lack of a
City -wide water system, the amount of wetland, the existing character of neighborhoods and the fact that
the City is 94 — 95 percent developed. If a house were to be taken down on a one acre lot it would make
no sense to replace it with five units. The response will be respectful. The Planning Commission agreed
with this approach.
CITE' OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ING MZNUTE
October 12 2009
Page 4 of 1
Nielsen clarified Staff was not expecting Council to take any action this evening. If Council disagrees
with the direction suggested it should provide Staff with a different direction.
Councilmember Bailey stated he was perplexed that Met Council would require that a one -acre lot would
have to be redeveloped with a minimum of five units. Director Nielsen stated that was in theory, but he
did not think it would push that. Nielsen explained because there is City -wide sanitary sewer the Met
Council cannot withhold sewer connections if it doesn't comply with that. Complying with the density
suggestions would alter the character of neighborhoods just to satisfy Met Council's goal.
Director Nielsen stated in 2005 the City tried to build a case that if Shorewood was viewed from the
perspective of being part of the South Lake community, the community is relatively complete. The City
of Excelsior has high density housing, it has a commercial district, and it has jobs. The other cities are
somewhat suburbs of that larger community. The Met Council might argue that the City is taking
advantage of Excelsior's density.
Councilmember Bailey asked if the City would have to rezone areas in order to allow this density
redevelopment, to which Director Nielsen responded it would. Nielsen stated the change in zoning on a
particular one acre lot would be spot zoning and that is illegal. He hopes the Met Council will accept if
those areas that could be developed as higher density will be developed such that it averages out to 3 — 5
unit densities.
Director Nielsen has suggested senior housing would be a good thing to consider. He commented that a
presentation was made to the Planning Commission in 2008 by an individual knowledgeable about the
trends with senior housing needs. In that presentation the individual conveyed there will be a growing
market for it. He explained the City's Ordinance already allows higher density for senior housing in
single family areas if it's a three acre site. The density is six units per acre. A senior housing unit as part
of a mixed use development on the northwest corner of the County Road 19 and Smithtown Road
intersection could help satisfy some of the request. Senior housing may also satisfy part of the need to
have 53 units of affordable housing units in the City by 2020. The Planning Commission wanted to
discuss all types of higher density housing. He noted that in 2006 affordable housing had a value of
$193,000 or less; the City has no units that cost that little.
Nielsen stated Staff will send the Met Council a draft response and copy Council on it.
Councilmember Turgeon commented that Met Council's comments have the City's number of
households and population reversed.
Director Nielsen explained up until recently the Met Council used the average of 2.9 persons per
household. It has reduced it to 2.8 and is considering reducing it again to 2.4. Because the City is largely
single family, the City uses an average of 2.7 in its projections.
Councilmember Turgeon stated the Council Action Form prepared by Director Nielsen indicates that
Staff will respond to Met Council's continents on a piece -meal basis. She asked which comments will be
responded to sooner rather then latter. Director Nielsen stated the simpler comments will be addressed
relatively soon. He hoped to respond to all of them by the end of November 2009.
Director Nielsen commented that based on other cities he has spoken with it appears that cities receive an
average of three rejection letters from the Met Council. He also commented that Met Council uses the
phrase "incomplete for review" when it does not agree with the City's stated direction.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEE'rINGMDNUTES
October 12, 200
Page 5 o 13
Couool|noemubmr '[orgeon stated she wanted 10 have the oocnrnontm and corrections back to the Mat
Council as soon mmpossible. She wanted it done in 2009.
Counudrnonaher Woodruff stated be thought he heard Director Nielsen state Council would see the draft
updates of substance and explanation cover letter in November and then it would be forwarded to the Met
Council. Director Nielsen stated be would send the information about housing density to Council for its
review before it goes to the Met Council, noting the Planning Commission will have tile opportunity to
review it during its next meeting un November 17, 2009. There was consensus to have it mn the
November 23, 2009, Council regular meeting agenda.
On on unrelated topic, Director Nielsen stated the Planning Conunoioainu had discussed the dangers at the
L|{T Trail crossing at County Road 19 and other trail crossings. Some bikers atop at the crossing and
o\bom don't, and some drivers stop and others don't. The State luvv for utrail unuayiug is not the same as
for u pedestrian crossing. The Planning Coonnniauiun pnuood u motion r000nnnnending Council adopt u
resolution asking Hennepin County to o|uriFv the aignugo at the bui| crossings and asking that the
resolution be passed on to neighboring cities for their support. If there is no objection 5mrn Council, Staff
will prepare a draft resolution {o that effect for Council's next rugu|urmeeting.
Mayor[iz& stated she thought part ofthe proh|onn is also inconsixtontaiguugc. Signago needs to he
consistently adopted throughout the different communities. She cited the trail crossings in the City of
Excelsior which cross Water Street and Excelsior Boulevard; it has pedestrian signs at the crossings
which indicate u nncdodut should stop ifaonneone is in the orusap/u|k. Tile question is whether or not they
are pedestrian crosswalks.
Director Brown mtu1ud this problem is being debated among engineers at the state |ovo|. There are
discussions about how to bring uniformity to how this is signed.
K4uyorLiz& stated the [RTIruii and other trail beds that have been converted to pedestrian use have a
passage under 8iuhvvoy 101 and there is u passage under 8igb`vuy 7. She questioned if it would be
possible to have u bridge over County Road lV where the [RTTrui| crosses. lf the objective is to make
the trails unocoaib|o and safe to pedestrians then how that is handled should be the yunnc throughout the
entire trail line.
Connoi|nuenubor7urgeon abated most of the problem is motorists think they have to stop and that ouuaeu
the motorists behind them to respond 0o their stepping quickly. Pedestrians and nuc4odots need to be
educated about who has tile right of way to continue oil their way.
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Tqwlmine Drive Feasibility Study
Mayor Lizde stated Council had been provided with copies of updated resolutions for Itern 9.A and |1unn
9.13.
Engineer Lundini stated the meeting puoku1 for this evening included the feasibility report for road
reconstruction ofNm|niuo Drive. The reconatruohun o[Nc|aine Drive is included in the 2010 Capital
Improvement Program (C[P) and the 20-Year Pavement Management Plan (PM9). The roadway has a
rating of3, it has 50 feet nfdght-of'v/uy, and the road is approximately 20 feet wide and 48Ofeet long.
There ia water main adjacent to the project makingup/a1crmuin extension possible.
CITY OF SHOREW iO D REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 12, 2009
Page 6 of 13
Landini explained the feasibility report evaluates: if the roadway reconstruction is feasible; sanitary sewer
improvements; storm water management improvements, and, watermain improvements. The report
indicates the items are feasible and cost effective. If Council chooses to move forward with the project, a
revised resolution approving the report and setting the date for the public hearing and public information
meeting had been provided to Council for its consideration.
Landini stated the feasibility report considers the following:
® Constructing a 24 -foot -wide driving surface with edge control outside of driving surface.
Making stormwater improvements consisting of pipes, catch basins, and a swale.
Extending the 8 -inch water main from Eureka Road down to the cul -de -sac, including the
installation of hydrants and service studs to adjoining properties.
® Making repairs to the sanitary sewer to correct the problems identified in the televising
report.
■ An option to reclaim the roadway with no water main extension.
Landini explained the report identified a need for a drainage and utility easement. There is some
flexibility with where it could be located. The City would not have known of this need had the feasibility
report not been done. He clarified the feasibility report is a broad brush report; it's does not contain the
detail of plans and specifications. The quantities and estimates are just estimates. Trees have not been
identified for removal, and construction limits have not been identified.
Landini stated the next step for the project would be for Council to accept the report, and direct Staff to
move forward with either a reconstruction option with or without water main or a reclamation option.
Should Council choose to move forward with an option to include the extension of water main, a public
hearing would need to be scheduled in accordance with the appropriate procedures. A public information
meeting is proposed for October 29, 2009, at 6:30 P.M., and a public hearing is proposed for November 9,
2009, during the City Council meeting.
Landini then stated there is some flexibility as to when to order the plans and specifications for the project
as far as impact to the project schedule goes. But, in order to stay on schedule Council needs to approve
the schedule for the public information meeting and public hearing.
Councilmember Zerby asked how wide Nelsine Drive is currently. Director Brown stated it is
approximately 19 — 22 feet wide. Zerby stated the City's standard of a 24 -foot wide driving service
seemed wide to him. Smithtown Road which is traveled much more heavily has two 11 -foot driving
lanes. Zerby asked how wide the cul -de -sac on Smithtown Lane is. Brown explained the City's adopted
standard for cul -de -sacs is a 35 -foot radius (70 -foot diameter). The Minnesota Department of
Transportation's standard for a driving lane surface is 12 feet wide; it does not include gutter. Zerby
stated lie called the standard up on the internet and related that the standard said "...the standard width of
a traffic lane is 12 feet. For highways and areas where speeds are 30 miles per hour or less lane widths
may be slightly reduced." Zerby asked if the driving lane surface could be narrower. Brown stated it
could go down to 11 feet wide. Zerby stated there are only 9 properties along Nelsine Drive and the cul-
de -sac. Therefore, he did not think it is necessary to have two 12 -foot driving lanes for the roadway,
especially because that would be wider then what currently exists.
Councilmember Zerby stated he found it beneficial to have satellite overlay for other recent roadway
projects. Director Brown explained when a feasibility report is done there is only basic topographical
information available. Estimates are made on construction limits, potential easements are identified and
so forth based on that basic information. The necessary survey information is not available until the
CITY OIL SHOREWf D REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 12, 2009
Rage 7 of 13
design and specification phase. It would be possible to generate a satellite overlay before the design phase
for an additional cost.
Councilmember Zerby related the State of Virginia has a standard which says that "for any street with a
projected traffic of 250 ADT (average daily trips) or less a curb -to -curb width of 22 feet on the right-of-
way but not less than 30 feet may be approved ". He stated it may be beneficial to tie the City's standards
to traffic volume.
Councilmember Zerby expressed his desire to have Nelsine Road reconstructed to a narrower width then
24 -foot wide driving surface proposed and for the cul -de -sac to also be less then the 70 -foot diameter
proposed. He recommended the City offer water to the residents along Nelsine Drive and the cul -de -sac.
Councilmember Turgeon stated she agreed the road could be constructed narrower than proposed and the
cul -de -sac be constructed with a diameter less than proposed. The current roadway is 22 feet wide, and
the current diameter is 60 -feet wide. The proposed roadway would be near 29 feet wide from the back of
the curbs. She asked when Nelsine Drive was last sealcoated. Director Brown stated it was patched and
sealcoated about five years ago, and has been patched each year since. She stated she had issue with the
requirement for easements. She asked what the impact on the project would be if the City is not able to
get the necessary easements. Director Brown stated there are options for where the easement can be
located. He explained Staff has discussed easements with the affected property owners through the public
hearing process. If the property owners are unwilling to grant easements then other alternatives will be
sought out during the design process. Another option, though not desired, would be to run the drainage
and utility easement along Eureka Road, noting it does add length to the storm sewer and thereby cost. As
a last resort if there is no cooperation by the property owners the roadway improvements could be done as
reclamation project.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the way he interpreted the report is the engineers are indicating Nelsine
Drive is not suited for reclamation because of the soils testing. He asked if the stormwater issues study
done a few years ago by WSB and Associates identified any significant stormwater issues in the area of
Nelsine Drive. Engineer Landini stated it did not. Woodruff asked if property owners have been
experiencing problems with well water. Director Brown stated that during his tenure with the City
property owners along Nelsine Drive have typically not favored City water. Brown is not aware if there
are well water quality issues in the area. He stated most private wells in the City range in depth from 120
— 125 feet, and there is generally high iron content in that aquifer.
Councilmember Bailey asked how the topic of City water was going to be present to the residents. He
strongly recommended the City "put its best foot forward" when explaining to residents the benefits of
City water and the need to extend water main. He suggested it may be beneficial to have a professional
brochure created. He thought it was this Council's bias to extend water into areas where property owners
are willing to accept it. He expressed concern about there being enough time to prepare a first class piece
of communication prior to the proposed dates for the public information meeting and public hearing.
Although he doesn't want to push the dates back, lie also does not want to enter into the meetings without
having quality information to help convince property owners of the benefits of City water. He wants to
ensure City will do the best job possible to sell City water. Director Brown stated Staff has a rough draft
of a water brochure it prepared some time ago. That could be enhanced and presented to Council prior to
proceeding to the next step. It may be worthwhile to take that necessary pause in the timeline. He
cautioned that Staff and Council need to be going in the same direction before this project is discussed
with residents.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 12, 2009
Page 8 of 13
Mayor Uz&stated she personally cannot support vroad reconstruction project that does not include all
utilities. It doesn't make sense for the City or for the oomL of the roadway. She thought there were other
means of paying for the tip-front investment in extending water main in the short term (such as borrowing
from the enterprise funds) until property owners decide to hook upto the water main.
CnuucdoneouhecZorby stated he agreed with Couooi|rncnnber Bailey that the City has to educate the
residents onthe benefits of City water. He also agreed with Mayor Liz6e that the City needed (ofind u
*/ay to help residents eoam the burden of the assessment for vvoker main such as some type ofmu|ti'your
payment terms. Counui1nuonuber]'urgeou stated residents can have up to u 15'yuurpuymont plan. Liz6e
stated the payment options should be marketed better.
Director Brown stated those types nf things can headdressed io the brochure. He suggested Staff enhance
the brochure and have it available for Council to review during its October 26, 2009, meeting.
Director Brown atu1cd as professional engineers 8tuO[ is bound to dnmlgo roadways in noouu|unce with
roadway standards; that is o 12-foot-vvide |uuc standard which could be reduced to |l feet if justified.
Should Council want to not udboro to the standards, he would like the report to indicated that Staff
,uconnnnonda the voudx'uye be constructed per the design standard but realizing that Council desires
something other then Staff recommendation, Council's po:feuroco will be adopted as part ofthe report.
Council indicated h would hc acceptable to document that.
Couuci|nnenubcr Tu,&eon a1u1ed it makes no sense to her to reconstruct Ne|sino Drive to u width of
approximately 29 feet including curb and gutter.
][nrgeum moved, Zmrby seconded, Adopting ,^^A Resolution Approving
Feasibility Report om Proposed Improvements, and Setting Public Hearing Date for November 9,
2009, and Informational Meeting Date for October %0, 2009, and directing Staff io start discussion
to w6tutm *mmwnmeats necessary for improvements, City Project 10-01 Nelmiom Drive Road
Improvement f^ '*ot,
Councilmember Bailey again expressed his concern that quality material will not be ready for the October
29, 2009, informational meeting. The meeting date may be too soon. He wanted Staff to ensure there are
quality materials available and m quality presentation prepared.
There was ensuing discussion about amending the motion to not schedule the meedngdatex.
CuuouilonnnoberZmrbycomplemented Staff for having started this project this yeareven though the actual
improvements will hennuduiu20l0.
Administrator Heck stated Council has expressed they wanted io have the projects 800nouQhu|oogaothe
hid letting could bodone in the spring of the construction year. If the informational nnondng is scheduled
for later date then the public hearing mus{u|xo be scheduled for later date. That in turn delays the filial
approval and Dua| start date for the project. He understands the concern expressed by Counoi|noonnhor
Bailey about prompting City water. He stated if there is u draft h,nuhurc Staff pdnddeu for the City's
communications person and City Engineer can be adjusted in order to focus on that.
Counci|nuembc« Bailey asked p/ho1`o going to happen if the materials are not finalized for the October 29"'
infbrmutiona| nnociingu. /\dnniniyt,uto, Heck expressed confidence that Staff can have quality nna1u,iu|o
ready.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 12, 2009
Page 9 of 13
Councilmernber Bailey commented that from his perspective if the City cannot convince property owners
on Nelsine Drive to agree to water main installation then he wasn't sure who the City would be able to
r
Engineer Landini stated the meeting packet for this evening included the feasibility report for road
reconstruction of Meadowview Road. The reconstruction of Meadowview Road is included in the 2010
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the 20 -Year Pavement Management Plan (PMP). The roadway
has a rating of 3, it has 50 feet of right -of -way, and the road is approximately 20 feet wide and 626 feet
long. There is water main adjacent to the project making a watermain extension possible.
Landini explained the feasibility report evaluates: if the roadway reconstruction is feasible; sanitary sewer
improvements; storm water management improvements; and, watermain improvements. The report
indicates the items are feasible and cost effective. If Council chooses to move forward with the project, a
revised resolution approving the report and setting the date for the public hearing and public information
meeting had been provided to Council for its consideration.
Landini stated the feasibility report considers the following.
■ Constructing a 24- foot -wide driving surface with edge control outside of driving surface.
■ Making stormwater improvements consisting of pipes and catch basins.
■ Extending the 8 -inch water main, and installing hydrants and service stubs to adjoining
properties.
■ Making repairs to the sanitary sewer to correct the problems identified in the televising
report.
■ An option to reclaim the roadway with no water main extension.
Landini clarified the feasibility report is a broad brush report; it's does not contain the detail of plans and
specifications. The quantities and estimates are just estimates. Trees have not been identified for removal,
and construction limits have not been identified.
Landini stated the next step for the project would be for Council to accept the report, and direct Staff to
move forward with either a reconstruction option with or without water main or a reclamation option.
Should Council chose to move forward with an option to include the extension of water main, a public
hearing would need to be scheduled in accordance with the appropriate procedures. A public information
meeting is proposed for October 29, 2009, at 6:30 P.M., and a public hearing is proposed for November 9,
2009, during the City Council meeting. He noted Council has been provided with an updated resolution
for its consideration this evening.
Landini explained that to extend water north on Meadowview Road it would come down Wild Rose Lane.
This route was chosen over two other possible routes because it would create a loop in the water system if
it was ever extended all the way down Wild Rose Lane. For storm sewer the suggestion is to go north
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 12, 2009
Page 10 of 13
across Valleywood Lane and discharge onto a piece of City -owned property on the north and into an
outlet. Temporary construction easements will be needed from property owners.
Mayor Lizee stated the report indicates directional boring from Eureka Road to Meadowview Road down
Wild Rose Lane. She asked if directional boring was used would it make it easier to stub out for water
along Wild Rose Lane at a later date, or would something like open trenching have to be done. Engineer
Landini explained with the directional boring for Wild Rose Lane there would be the water main for as far
as the boring went. Wild Rose Lane is scheduled to be reconstructed in 2023 according to the 20 -year
PMP and further extension of water main down Wild Rose Lane could be considered at that time. In
response to a question from Lizee, Landini stated Valleywood Lane is scheduled to be reconstructed in
2013 and Sunnyvale Lane in 2014.
Mayor Lizee stated she wondered if it would make more sense to extend water down Valleywood Lane to
Meadowview Road because Valleywood Lane is in such poor condition. She stated water main was not
going to be carried all the way down Wild Rose Lane; therefore, she thought it may be more prudent to
install it down Valleywood Lane. Director Brown explained Wild Rose Lane is the closest route to
creating a loop in the water system. Currently there is a dead end system that goes around Howards Point
Road, Edgewood Road and half way down Nobel Road. The goal is to create a loop for the west end of
the system. The Wild Rose Lane area has generally been pro City water. Valleywood Lane is a dead end
roadway, and it would be difficult to bring water down that road to Grant Lorenz.
Councilmember Turgeon asked if Staff could estimate the cost to extend water main down the remainder
of Wild Rose Lane. Director Brown stated Staff would do that. Turgeon said extending it all the way may
have a positive or negative impact on the cost per property.
Councilmember Turgeon expressed concern that if a reclamation effort was done instead the sanitary
sewer repairs may not be made. Director Brown clarified independent of what approach is taken sanitary
sewer repairs must be made.
Councilmember Woodruff stated when he did a quick count of the number of properties that would be
assessed for water main versus the number of properties on Meadowview Road he convinced himself that
the properties on Wild Rose Lane between Eureka Road and Meadowview Road would be stubbed out for
City water and therefore be assessed for water main. Director Brown stated that is correct. In response to
a comment from Woodruff, Director Brown stated lie is not aware of any water quality issues. In response
to another comment, Engineer Landini explained the WSB and Associates drainage issues report does not
identify any significant issues on Meadowview Road. There was one on Wild Rose Lane. It was number
10 in the report and it was a blocked culvert which has sense been jetted out.
Councilmember Woodruff asked if it would make sense to reconstruct the portion of Wild Rose Lane
between Eureka Road and Meadowview Road because the construction vehicles would likely use that
road. Director Brown stated construction vehicles will have more of an impact on roadways with a rating
of 3. By having construction vehicles use Sunnyvale Lane or Valleywood Lane the impact on them may
be enough that their reconstruction schedule would be advanced. Woodruff stated he thought the City had
the financial resources to reconstruct one of the other roadways in 2010 if there were sufficient personnel
resources. Director Brown stated a before and after assessment could be done of the roads after the project
is done. Brown then stated if the cost to extend water main down all of Wild Rose Lane makes sense then
Council could consider reconstructing it as well. Woodruff stated directional boring is significantly more
expensive then trenching and pipe. If trenching and pipe were considered the cost savings could partially
offset the cost of doing Wild Rose Lane, noting it is a very long street. He expressed he would like Staff
to determine the cost to reconstruct either Valleywood Lane or Sunnyvale Lane as part of this project.
CITE' OF SHORE WOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 12, 2009
Page II of 13
Councilmember Woodruff stated the proposed width for the reconstructed Meadowview Road appears to
result in the need to remove 25 trees. He asked if the width was reduced would that help lower the
member of trees that would be lost. If so, he suggested the roadway be made narrower.
Councilmember Turgeon stated if a 29 feet wide curb -to -curb is too wide for Nelsine Drive then it should
be too wide for Meadowview Road.
Councilmember Bailey stated because of all of the outstanding questions asked he did not see how it
would be possible to have an informational meeting on October 29, 2009. The Nelsine Drive project was
more straight forward. He expressed concern about the project being pushed forward without all of the
questions being answered. He did not recommend doing that. If Staff doesn't have answers for the
property owners it could make them upset and maybe angry.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the TKDA did indicate in the feasibility report that Meadowview Road
is a candidate for reclamation. Water main would not be extended if that approach is taken. Council could
decide to take the reclamation approach and then there would not be a need to have a discussion about
water.
Councilmember Bailey asked Staff if there is a reason to have the informational meeting and public
hearings on the same days for the two projects. Engineer Landini stated there are economies of scale to
advertise the meetings at the same time. Mayor Liz6e stated the meetings for Meadowview Road could be
delayed a few weeks and still be bid out at the same time.
Administrator Heck asked Council what additional information it wants.
Director Brown stated he thought he heard Council wanted to have more information on the constraints
involving water main installation. Councilmember Woodruff asked that reconstruction of one of the other
three streets at the same time be evaluated. Engineer Landini asked if Council would consider
reconstructing only a portion of Wild Rose Lane. Woodruff clarified he meant the portion of Wild Rose
Lane between Eureka Road and Meadowview Road.
This topic was continued to the October 26, 2009, meeting.
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
None.
11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
None.
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Woodruff stated he attended the Excelsior Fire Department Open House and Safety Fair
on October 8"'. The attendance was outstanding. He also went to the grand re- opening of the Southshore
Community Center. The attendance was good, but the age range of 18 — 50 was not well represented. He
encouraged those individuals to take the time to check out the Center. He asked if Council is going to be
provided with a quarterly report on Southshore Center Operations at its next meeting, to which
CITY OF SHOREWO D REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 12, 2009
Page 12 of 13
Administrator Heck stated it would. Woodruff asked when Council was going to receive a closeout report
on the County Road 19 and Smithtown Road intersection project. Director Brown stated he provided
Council with a final closeout report during its July 27, 2009, meeting. Brown stated Ire would provide
another update during the October 26` meeting.
Councilmember Bailey stated during the last Council meeting he discussed the Excelsior Fire District
(EFD) 2010 budget and the fact that it included funding for a mandatory contribution to the Excelsior
Firefighters Relief Association (EFRA) field for pensions in the amount of $120,000. The $120,000
mandatory contribution in the budget was funded through expense reductions and the use of a total of
$80,000 in reserves being taken from two funds. Currently it appears that the deficit reduction for 2010
has been reduced from $120,000 by about $30,000. He asked if Council has an opinion of what do to with
the $30,000 that will not be needed for the mandatory contribution. He noted that EFD Chief Gerber had
prepared a list of his priorities for restoring the cuts made in the 2010 budget to help fund the
contribution.
Mayor Lizee stated Chief Gerber has prepared a list of restoration priorities, and she was confident
Councilmember Bailey (the City's representative on the EFD Board) would make the appropriate choices.
She commented that during the last Council meeting when this was discussed she had asked for
supporting information, but nothing was included in the meeting packet for this meeting. She was not
prepared to make any recommendations, and she thought Bailey was most qualified to make the
recommendations to the EFD Board.
Councilmember Bailey thought it would be prudent for Council to discuss its desired priorities.
Administrator Heck stated he would work with gathering the input on this prior to the next Council
meeting. Mayor Lizee stated she would prefer to discuss this when Councilmember Bailey could be in
attendance.
Administrator Heck stated during the last EFD Board meeting there was discussion about restoring the
reserves or restoring spending. There was one member who conveyed that her colleagues wanted it to be
used to restore reserves.
Councilmember Turgeon thanked Councilmember Bailey for bringing this to Council for input.
Councilmember Bailey stated that Director Burton has done a good job refining and preparing monthly
financial reports. He thought the report should be included as part of the Council agenda on a monthly
basis. Councilmember Woodruff agreed.
Mayor Lizee recessed the meeting to an Executive Session at 8:39 P.M.
12. RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION
A. Ron Johnson Matters
Mayor Lizee began the Executive Session at 8:42 P.M.
All Councilmembers as well as Attorney Tietjen and Administrator Heck were present. The purpose of
the meeting was for confidential attorney - client discussion regarding pending and threatened litigation
involving Ron Johnson.
The session ended at 9:04 P.M.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEE'rING MINurES
October 12, 2009
Page 13 of 13
13. RECONVENE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The City Council reconvened the regular meeting at 9:041 >M.
113 �- 11l
Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of October 12,
P-009, at 904 P.M. Motion passed 510.
I
• 06-1 w
Leff M
ATTEST:
Administrator/Clerk
3W4jk6�y&
Christine Liz6e, Mayor