Loading...
052708 CC WS Min CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 27,2008 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey, Turgeon, Wellens, and Woodruff; Associate Attorney Maier (joined the meeting at 9:42 P.M.), Acting Administrator/Director of Public Works Brown; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen, and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. REVIEW CITY ADMINISTRATOR RESUMES Acting Administrator Brownintroducted Ms. Sharon Klumpp, Springsted and Associates, and stated Council had been provided with credentials for eight candidates for the City Administrator position. He noted during the discussion it was important to refer to each candidate by the number associated with them for confidentiality reasons. Ms. Klumpp explained twenty one applications had been received, and thirteen of them met the minimum requirements. After further review nine candidates were asked to participate in the initial interview process. Eight candidates were recommended for consideration by Council. Background and reference checks will not be done until Council selects which candidates it wants to interview. This evening she would like Council to select the 4 to 5 candidates it would like to interview. She also provided a draft interview format and interview questions for consideration. She requested Council clarify its position on reimbursement of travel related expenses for the candidates. She stated she had interviewed all of the candidates presented to Council and each of them was very interested in the position. Councilmember Woodruff said the package provided to Council was very thorough. He selected candidates 1,2,4,5 and 8. Councilmember Turgeon selected candidates 3, 5 and 8. Councilmember Bailey stated Ms. Klumpp had done a very thorough job, but he was uncomfortable with the part of the process where Council was asked to select candidates based on their resumes. He said Ms. Klumpp had a better understanding of the candidates then Council did because she had interviewed them. He referenced candidate 7 as an example. Ms. Klumpp stated candidate 7 had worked in the parks and recreation area, and people in that position generally have a strong interest in sustainability and are adept CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES May 27, 2008 Page 2 of7 at collaboration. The candidate possesses strong management skills, and had professional maturity. The candidate also wants to return to the area for professional and personal reasons. She commented salary could be an issue. Councilmember Bailey stated he would prefer Ms. Klumpp recommend five candidates; he was concerned that Council may not select candidates that Ms. Klumpp thought were the best. He said the only basis for his selecting candidates was on experience as shown on the resume; he wasn't sure that was the correct approach. He did not think it would be beneficial to interview all eight candidates. Ms. Klumpp stated she would provide comments if she thought there were other things that should be considered about a candidate. Councilmember Bailey selected candidates 1,3,4 and 6. Councilmember Wellens selected candidates 2, 4, and 8. Mayor Lizee stated she was pleased with the process, and she appreciated the narratives Ms. Klumpp provided about the candidates. Mayor Lizee selected candidates 1,3,5, 7, 8. Mayor Lizee summarized candidate 8 had four votes and candidates 1,3,4, and 5 had three votes. Councilmember Bailey asked Ms. Klumpp if there was a candidate she thought should have been selected. Ms. Klumpp stated candidate 8 was a "rising star". The candidate would bring a lot of experience to the job. The candidate is ready to move into the position and had sought many leadership opportunities. She was comfortable with candidate 1, although the candidate had moved around a lot; this candidate wants to return to City government after having spent time in the housing development area. She understood the candidate's reasons for his more recent movement between jobs. She noted candidate 5 was actively pursuing other opportunities, and this candidate was very bright and a good project manager. Candidate 2 was not selected; this candidate was very articulate, has strong interpersonal skills, and a fascination with how work gets accomplished. There was consensus that candidate 2 could be an alternate should one of the selected candidates not interview. Ms. Klumpp said she would like feedback on the interview questions she distributed by June 9th. She usually suggested 14 - 15 questions; her list contained 18, but the last 4 questions should go fast. Councilmember Woodruff requested each Councilmember be allowed to ask one additional question of their choosing. Ms. Klumpp stated ifthat was going happen the list would have to be pared down. Ms. Klumpp reviewed the interview schedule. Candidates would have a City tour on the afternoon of June 13th (Acting Administrator Brown will coordinate the tour), and there would be an informal meet and greet session late in the afternoon. Interviews would be conducted on Saturday, June 14th. The Councilmembers were agreeable to the dates. One hour per candidate was scheduled for the interview, and the entire Council would participate. After ensuing discussion, there was consensus to reimburse mileage at the IRS rate if mileage was in excess of 50 miles; if an overnight stay was required, lodging and per diem would be reimbursed up to $250. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES May 27, 2008 Page 3 of7 Ms. Klumpp recapped that Council will interview candidates 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8; should one of the candidates chose not to interview candidate 2 will be chosen to fill that slot. 3. COLLABORATIVE DESIGN GROUP - REVIEW CITY HALL BUILDING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES Acting Administrator Brown stated Collaborative Design Group (CDG) submitted the building plans for the City Hall renovation. The original intent was to have Council approve plans and specifications for the project at its regular meeting this evening. However, the mechanical plans, the drainage plans and some other of items of key interest are not ready. The items remaining are critical elements of the project and cannot be separated from the building plan approval; therefore, approval of plans and specifications will be scheduled for the June 9th meeting. He noted CDG has indicated a substantial completion date of March 1, 2009. Acting Administrator Brown introduced Mr. Brian Lubben, with CDG. Mr. Lubben stated the plans are changing day-by-day, primarily to accommodate mechanical and electrical requirements and some civil changes to the site. To date the City had been given 27 sheets of the plan and there are probably another 20 sheets pending; most is coordination of architectural, mechanical, and electrical things. He explained they were working on assembling an advertisement for bid that could be published; during that process it became apparent that the City's schedule was more aggressive then what could realistically be done. The bid date is July 9th and he anticipated the contract to be signed with the contractor the first of August. Based on those dates he determined a substantial completion date of March 1,2009, which allows seven months for construction. The City could ask the contractor to do it faster, but it would likely cost more to do so. It should be possible to build the shell of the addition and have it enclosed in three months; one month for demolition work, one month for foundation work, and one month for framing. The current plan is interior renovation will begin August 1 st and continue for three months while the shell for the addition on the north end is being built, and then another three months, to finish the interior on the north end of the building. In response to a question from Mayor Lizee, Mr. Lubben stated there will be some difficult months for Staff when interior renovation of the existing building is in progress. Mayor Lizee said it may be wise to plan for Council and Commission meetings to be held off-site starting August. Mr. Lubben stated it may not be necessary the entire time, but it would be a good idea to plan for it. Acting Administrator Brown said when the carpet was replaced in City Hall, staff moved into the Council Chambers to work; it should be possible to do that again. Councilmember Turgeon stated because the bidding process will be later than originally thought, she suggested special Council meetings be called if necessary to expedite the process where possible. Councilmember Woodruff expressed his disappointment with the March 1, 2009 date. He stated a substantial completion date of October 2008 had been discussed a number of times. He also expressed disappointment with not having the completed plans and specifications available this evening. He asked Mr. Lubben if he was confident the plans would be completed by the date specified. Mr. Lubben stated the people responsible for mechanical, electrical and civil components of the plan were being pressured to get them completed. Councilmember Woodruff stated a suggestion had been communicated to CDG regarding adding windows on the solid exterior wall of the addition on the north and possibly relocating the storage space planned for the new Council Chambers area. The new plans do not reflect those suggestions. Mr. Lubben stated CDG considered relocating the storage space, but there was not anyplace else to put it because of CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES May 27, 2008 Page 4 of7 the shortage of space; it either had to be located there or there wouldn't be a place. He then stated the solid exterior wall actually added dimension to the building. Mr. Lubben stated he didn't think windows would be appropriate because the roofline defines the Council Chambers; but there maybe something else that can be done. Mayor Lizee stated everything will be softened with landscaping. Councilmember Bailey stated his disappointment that he was not sure his suggestions were conveyed by CDG representatives at the open house to the other CDG personnel. Mr. Lubben stated CDG thought it was difficult to change those things. Councilmember Wellens echoed Councilmember Woodruffs disappointment with the schedule delays; Mr. Lubben stated there was additional design time which he did not think was a bad thing. CDG pulled back for the open house, as CDG thought there may be changes. The lack of a survey for the entire property also caused a delay. Councilmember Woodruff commented the recommended changes were trivial. Councilmember Turgeon stated from her vantage point the City had some accountability for the delay in schedule. The issue at hand was how to get the project back on schedule. Mayor Lizee stated the original schedule was extremely aggressive, and she questioned it from the beginning. City Hall was originally a residential building. There are certain requirements for a public space and the process for renovating it are different. She it was important to be aggressive, but there was a process that had to be followed. Mr. Lubben stated during the bid process there could be a request for a January 31, 2009, completion date. If there was a significant reaction to that date it would be apparent that it was not possible. Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, recessing the work session to a City Council regular meeting at 7:03 P.M. Mayor Lizee reconvened the work session at 9:42 P.M. Associated Attorney Maier joined the meeting at this time. 4. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OF CITY HALL This was discussed after Item 5 on the agenda. Acting Administrator Brown estimated a construction manager for the City Hall renovation would be 2 percent of the project cost. Brian Lubben, CDG, said the cost would more likely be 5 percent. Based on a $1 million renovation effort, the cost for a construction manager would be approximately $50,000. He explained if the City used a construction manager, the manager would be the contracting agency and would carry out private bids on behalf of the City. A benefit of a construction manager may be a reduction in change order costs which would offset the cost for the manager. Councilmember Woodruff stated he had received an unsolicited proposal from a firm in December 2007 to serve as the construction manager, and the cost was in the $50,000 range. He supported the use of a construction manager. Staff had a full work load, and having a dedicated resource to oversee the project would be worthwhile. He recommended the City solicit quotes. Director Burton clarified the cost could be capitalized as part of the project costs. Mayor Lizee stated this would be added to the June 9th agenda. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES May 27,2008 Page 5of7 5. BOULDER BRIDGE ROAD REHABILITATION This was discussed before Item 4 on the agenda. Acting Administrator Brown stated at its January 28, 2008, meeting Council discussed a proposal from the Boulder Bridge Farm Homeowners Association (HOA) to mill and overlay Boulder Bridge Drive, Boulder Bridge Lane and Boulder Bridge Circle. The City had planned to sealcoat the three roadways in 2008. The HOA also requested Council allow the HOA to contract for the mill and overlay. Council had concluded if roadways were to be milled and overlayed the Association would have to pay the cost difference between the mill and overlay and the sealcoat; the City would be the letting agency for the project. After the meeting, Staff conveyed the City's conditions to the representatives of the HOA, and the representatives were to get further direction from the HOA board. He then stated Blair Bury and Tom Wartman, representatives of the HOA, were present this evening to provide an update of the HOA board discussion and to seek additional feedback from Council. Mr. Bury stated he was a resident in the Boulder Bridge Farm subdivision. The HOA had attempted to determine what the difference in cost would be, and what the value added would be for the City if the roadways were milled and overlayed. The HOA thought the expected life of a mill and overlay was approximately three times as long as a sealcoat; therefore, the HOA thought it should get credit for the value added. The HOA questioned if there is a way for the HOA to contribute to the City's roadway maintenance capital fund for the mill and overlay of the roadways. He commented the City had recently accepted a bid for the 2008 sealcoat project and in the next two weeks it would have a bid for 2008 mill and overlay project; once the City had both bids it would be possible to determine the actual difference in cost. When that difference was known and the value added determined, the City could determine what the HOA's contribution should be. The HOA also questioned if the HOA could be responsible for contracting for the mill and overlay work; the HOA thought it may be possible to get the work done for a lesser cost. The HOA thought some portion of the roadways are in need of mill and overlay in order to protect the City's investment in the roadways. Although Boulder Circle was not in the subdivision, it would be included in the mill and overlay project; the HOA would be responsible for collecting the funds from residents on Boulder Circle for the project. He would have to take the information, including the cost to the HOA, back to the HOA board for discussion. He noted Tom Wartman, the original developer of the subdivision and a resident, was also present this evening; Mr. Wartman is on the HOA board. Mayor Lizee stated the City has not done any public/private partnerships, and it did not have a road assessment policy for road improvements. The proposal would result in something like a self assessment by the HOA. There were a number of legalities that must be discussed with the City Attorney. Councilmember Wellens liked the concept of the proposal. He suggested HOA representatives meet with Staff to determine the cost, and any long-term savings that could be realized by doing a mill and overlay rather than a sealcoat could be shared by the HOA and the City. Councilmember Bailey stated the public/private partnership was an interesting idea, but he could not support the value-added credit the HOA wanted to receive. The HOA was requesting the mill and overlay be done earlier than planned; therefore, it should pay the additional cost to do so. He thought the City should be the letting agency. Acting Administrator Brown stated he was not aware of any vehicle to contract for the work privately. If it were bid publicly the Council could chose to assess for that portion of the improvement. Staff had not talked about a private development agreement. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES May 27, 2008 Page 6 of7 Councilmember Woodruff stated it was an interesting and good concept. He thought the City should be the letting agency. He was concerned about giving the HOA a credit for value added. He was not in support of assessing the HOA for the difference; he recommended the City be paid up front for the additional costs. Councilmember Turgeon stated in January 2008 Council concluded if the HOA wanted to pay the difference between the cost to sealcoat and the cost to mill and overlay, the City would be willing to do it. She thought giving a credit for the value added could set a precedent, and she was not sure how that could be handled. Mr. Bury stated Boulder Bridge Drive was constructed in 1981 and Boulder Bridge Lane was constructed in 1983. He thought one sealcoat, and possibly two, had been applied since the roadways were constructed. If the City goal was to sealcoat a road every seven years, the roadways should have had three sealcoats. The HOA thought the value of a mill and overlay was equivalent to three seal coats in today's dollars. It wanted to know if the HOA could pay the difference in cost between three sealcoats and one overlay in today's dollars. Mr. Wartman stated when he developed the subdivision he constructed quality roadways. There had been one sealcoat to Boulder Bridge Drive since it was constructed. The roadways in the subdivision are in disrepair. Some of the residents of the subdivision do not think the HOA should contribute to the cost of a mill and overlay; that is the City's responsibility. He commented there are roadways in the City that are in worse shape than Boulder Bridge Drive. He had initiated the discussions about this proposal. If there were other neighborhoods that wanted to contribute to mill and overlays, the City would come out ahead. He was not sure sealcoating Boulder Bridge Drive, Boulder Bridge Lane and Boulder Bridge Circle (for what he estimated to be a cost of $22,000 - $24,000) would add much to the structure of the roadways. The mill and overlay would make more sense. He stated he was trying to convince the HOA that it could contribute $70,000 - $80,000 to a mill and overlay effort. Mr. Bury had estimated the cost to be $125,000 - $130,000 for the effort, and he thought the City estimated the cost to be $180,000. The HOA wanted to work with the City on this. But, the HOA thought the City had to contribute more to the effort than the cost of one sealcoat to make it workable; if the City was only going to contribute the cost of a sealcoat the HOA would not move forward. The roadways in the subdivision had not been much of an expense for the City since it was developed, but the HOA strongly thought the subdivision had been a substantial tax base. If the City only does a sealcoat, the HOA will continually be before Council to repair the roadways to the level they were originally built. Councilmember Bailey stated the roadways in the subdivision were not scheduled for mill and overlay this year; if the City were to contribute funds for that effort it would have to use funds slated to be used for other roadway improvements. Mr. Wartman stated Boulder Bridge Lane on the north cul-de-sac was in such a state of disrepair that it needs a mill and overlay. In response to a question from Mr. Wartman, Councilmember Bailey explained Staff determines the priority for roadway improvements based on a rating matrix. Councilmember Woodruff stated if there was a change in condition that was not factored into the rating matrix for roadways, Staff could inspect the roadways and decide if its rating should be changed. Acting Administrator Brown stated Staff did not think there was a reason to change the rating of the three roadways. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES May 27, 2008 Page7of7 Mayor Lizee stated she was hearing the HOA ask the City to mill and overlay its road and follow a public process to do so. She clarified the City would contribute the cost for sealcoating the roadways to the mill and overlay effort; there would not be any value-added credit. Councilmember Woodruff stated it would require more Staff time for a mill and overlay effort than for a sealcoat effort. Mr. Bury stated the HOA was not questioning the City's rating of roadways, and it understood the City had budget constraints. The issue at hand was budget. In the next few weeks the City will know the cost to mill and overlay the roadways. He requested the City consider not doing the sealcoating of the three roadways in 2008, and doing a mill and overlay of them in 2009 with the City contributing more than the cost of sealcoating. It would be a win for both the City and the subdivision. The HOA did not have an issue with a public bid process. Councilmember Turgeon stated once the budget process for 2009 was started the Council would have a better understanding of what the 2009 budget would be for mill and overlay projects in 2009. Mayor Lizee stated the City was open to creative problem solving. Associate Attorney Maier stated if public dollars are used for a project it has to go through a public bidding process. Associate Attorney Maier departed the meeting. Discussion returned to Item 4 on the agenda. 6. OTHER There was no other business for discussion. 7. ADJOURN Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of May 27, 2008, at 10:31 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder c~u; Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: rence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk