Loading...
09-25-23 CC WS Agenda Packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2023 5:45 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Roll Call Mayor Labadie _____ Callies _____ Maddy _____ Sanschagrin _____ Zerby_____ B. Review Agenda ATTACHMENTS 2. MILL STREET WATERMAIN City Engineer Memo 3. AGENDA STRUCTURE DISCUSSION City Administrator Memo 4. ADJOURN City Council Work Session Item Item Title/Subject: Mill Street Watermain 2 Meeting Date: September 25, 2023 Prepared by: Andrew Budde – City Engineer Reviewed by: Matt Morreim – Public Works Director Marc Nevinski – City Administrator Attachments: Overview Maps Background: Hennepin County is the lead agency for the planning and construction of a pedestrian trail along Mill Street (CSAH 82) from the Carver County/Chanhassen boundary up to and into the City of Excelsior that is planned to be constructed in 2025. The involved agencies have been coordinating for over a year with internal design meetings and external public engagement meetings. One item the City of Shorewood staff has been evaluating is the potential extension of watermain along Mill Street in coordination with the project. However, there are some nuances to adding watermain in this area that are to be described in more detail below. 1. Public Interest: Over the last five years there have been many inquiries/requests for residents along this corridor to be able to connect to municipal water, however no formal count, or survey on interest to connect has been completed. The inquiries are likely due to many of the existing wells in the area being constructed in the 1980’s, are 40+ years old, and starting to become problematic for the property owners. Also, many residents’ comment on the high levels of iron in the wells. 2. Served by Chanhassen: This area of Shorewood is unique in that it is currently served water by the City of Chanhassen at an interconnection on Apple Road. Therefore, the city of Shorewood does not produce or treat water for these residents. The city purchases the water from Chanhassen and then bills the residents. Chanhassen has indicated that if Shorewood wanted to expand the distribution system to the residents along Mill Street that they would have adequate capacity. 3. Interconnect of East-West Systems: Shorewood currently has two interdependent watermain systems referred to as the East and West that are planned to be interconnected at some point in the future. The systems would be connected via a 12” watermain. The 12” watermain currently exists under Bracketts Road but would also need to be extended along Murray Street west of this area and Christmas Lake Road/Radisson Road to the east before the two systems could be interconnected. If Shorewood wanted to plan on getting the residents currently served Chanhassen’s Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 system onto Shorewood’s production/distribution system, it would be most economical to connect to the West System as it is currently located in Chaska Road. This western connection would still be a multimillion-dollar watermain investment. 4. Design Options: Staff have looked at several different design scenarios that evaluated the number of properties served, future development, and both directionally drilled and open cut construction techniques. The proposed option is to route a 12” watermain on Apple Road to Mill Street then south to Brand Circle where it would terminate. At the south end the watermain would be extended through future developable parcels. At the north end an 8-inch main would be extended north of Apple Road. Both directionally drilled and open cut construction appear to be very close in costs and serve 29 new connections. Financial or Budget Considerations: The estimated total project cost is $1.5 million for both open cut and directionally drilled options. There is an estimated $100,000-$300,000 costs savings by constructing the project in coordination with the Hennepin County trail project as it will minimize the amount of roadway pavement that would need to be replaced at city expense and is already accounted for in these estimates. Currently this project is budgeted for in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for construction in 2025. However, as discussed on several occasions of the last year, the Water Fund is not adequately supported to be able to finance many of the projects listed in the CIP and further discussions need to be advanced by staff and council on a variety of methodologies to remedy that situation. At the $1.5 million cost for the project and servicing 29 parcels it ends up being approximately $51,700 per parcel. One of the major factors of the high per parcel cost is that the existing lot sizes range from 0.5 – 2.0 + acres and many of them would not qualify for subdividing without variances. Currently the Water Availability Charge is $10,000 and only covers a fraction of the costs. Also, these costs only get the water service stubbed to the property line. It does not include the cost of running the service from the property line into the house. Staff have previously submitted a State Bonding Request for this project that includes the city portion of the trail costs and the watermain costs. Generally bonding dollars cover only 50% (at most) of the project costs and must be matched by non-state funds. If desired by council to pursue the watermain portion of the project staff will present resolutions in support of the project at a future council meeting. Action Requested: Discussion and direction to staff on one of the following options: 1. Proceed to advance the watermain project. This could be as minimal as providing additional information if needed for further discussion. 2. Only pursue the project if State Bonding is awarded. 3. Do not pursue the watermain project any further. 4. Other options as guided by Council. City Council Work Session Item Item Title/Subject: Council Meeting Agenda Structure and Procedures 3 Meeting Date: September 25, 2023 Prepared by: Marc Nevinski, City Administrator Reviewed by: Jared Shepherd, City Attorney Attachments: None Background: In April the Council discussed a number of procedure items regarding its agenda. The discussion was cut short with some additional items remaining. Agenda Structure The City’s agenda structure closely follows that suggested by the LMC, but Council may wish to consider modifications at this time. Some specific question that have been asked are as follows:  Consent Agenda – Currently the consent agenda allows for council members or staff to request an item be pulled from the consent agenda and discussed. Some cities also allow members of the public to request an item be pulled from consent. This may especially be true in cases where cities place a large amount of items on the consent agenda. Some cities may automatically include items with unanimous votes from the Planning Commission on the consent agenda. However, it appears in Excelsior’s bylaws, only council members are allowed to pull items.  Getting Items on an Agenda – Generally staff sets the meeting agenda, which is driven by statutory or procedural requirements (land use approvals, budget), business items (contracts, expenditures) and/or are matters related to Council directives or policy (project approval, bid award). Occasionally a council member wishes to bring a topic to his or her council for discussion. Some cities have defined procedures for these instances to determine if there is sufficient interest by the Council to consider a topic. In other cities, there is generally a point on meeting agenda where a council member can request the council to consider placing a topic on a future agenda. The council determines if there is enough interest and provides direction to staff.  Commissioner Presentations at Council Meetings – It has been the practice to have Planning and Park Commissioners provide a meeting summary to the City Council once per month, which often aligns when matters are before the Council for approval. There does not appear to be any requirement in code for commissioners to present matters to Council, and there is no legal concern with the practice. However, it is not a common Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 practice in communities with professional staff and seems inefficient and redundant to have both commissioners and staff present matters to Council, particularly planning applications. It is also an additional meeting for volunteer commissioners to attend. As alternatives, Council could accept or approve commission meeting minutes as part of its agenda, or ask the Council Liaison to provide regular updates, in addition to relying on staff presentations.  Council Policies or Bylaws – Some cities establish written policies or bylaws outlining processes and procedures for meetings and other council activities. Such policies are helpful to ensure consistency and may be reviewed periodically and modified is desired. If Council wishes, staff can research and prepare draft policies for consideration at a future meeting.  Interactive Technology (aka Zoom) – Council may wish to discuss the continued use of Zoom at Council Meetings. Recent legislation now allows elected officials to participate via interactive technology up to three times per year if medically advised. The State of Emergency requirement was removed from statute. Financial or Budget Considerations: None Discussion Requested: Council discussion of these or other agenda or process matters is requested.