Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-2008 Council Work Session Minutes Orono City Council Committee of the Whole December 9, 2008, 6:15 p.m. Orono City Council Chambers Present: Mayor Jim White, Council Members Lili McMillan and Jim Murphy; Council Member- Elect Doug Franchot; City Administrator Bill Wells, Finance Director Ron Olson, Assistant City Administrator for Long-Term Strategy Mike Gaffron, City Clerk Lin Vee, Public Works Supervisors Don DeBaere and Scott Oberaigner, City Engineer Tom Kellogg 1. ID Badges for Council Members • The Police Chief obtained pictures and signatures from 3 Council Members for ID badges. The remaining Council Members should stop at the Police Department office during regular business hours to process their ID badges. 2. Request for Trapping Permit • The Police Chief would prefer issuing a trapping permit when a complaint is received rather than having a homeowner take action into their own hands. • Once problems are documented, the Police Chief would recommend approving a permit for site-specific areas, with traps located only underwater. • Relocation of beaver is not a good option. The DNR allows trapping at anytime on any public waterways during the season with a license. In addition, the City requires a City- issued permit. • If a problem is documented, the City would like to be able to use this applicant as a resource. No complaints were received about the permit that was issued to him last winter. • Jim Murphy moved, Lili McMillan seconded, to issue a trapping permit that is site specific with traps located underwater to Steve Ruchti and Kevin Lamp for the area identified with beaver destruction, and the Police Chief may approve additional sites if complaints or documentation is received about other areas with beaver destruction. Vote: Ayes—3, Nays—0. 3. Michael Kuruvilla —850 Wayzata Boulevard West • Kuruvilla has a small day care business that has fewer students and teachers than previous years. Although the economy is partly responsible, he also feels the uncertainty about access to the property and provision of sewer and water are contributing factors. The Mn/DOT highway impact was not an issue when he purchased the property. • Kuruvilla suggested removing a highway median to allow left turn access for traffic headed east and asked for a letter of support from the City so he could contact state officials to help solve the problem. • Murphy indicated he would re-visit the issue with Mn/DOT and noted there are still safety concerns with access and turning movements to and from this property. If a letter seems appropriate, City staff would be directed to draft a letter. • Kuruvilla stated there are new Federal regulations that make the well water unusable for drinking and he would like to have City water. A new well wouldn't guarantee that the water would be usable at the school because of the water table. • Water to this property is not dependent on being in the MUSA. There are some potential options for water service from Wayzata or Long Lake. • The septic system to the property needs to be replaced and sewer would be preferred if it is available. The property would need to be included in the MUSA, which requires Met Council approval and triggers density calculations. There are 4 options for adding this property to the MUSA. Three of the options involve changes to the zoning code and/or Comp Plan. The fourth option is a density transfer. Any options that limit ability to sell his property are not acceptable to Kuruvilla. • If a sewer and/or water project is done to serve the Myrtlewood neighborhood, this property could be included. • The City should determine what type of development is preferred at 850 and 875 Wayzata Blvd. W. • Council suggested proceeding with the density transfer option based on the proposal from Comforts of Home for a multi-unit senior housing and memory care facility. 4. Gillespie Center Discussion • The City was approached by the Gillespie Center to give them $30,000 for each of next 10 years to help with operating costs while an endowment fund is established. • A meeting is scheduled with Donna Smith of the Gillespie Center to discuss a potential contract on Thursday. • Senior Community Services (SCS) hasn't been specific about what they can provide. They are willing to do their work for Orono through the Gillespie Center. The City Attorney has prepared a draft contract with the Gillespie Center that will start out with payment of the money currently given to SCS at $19,000 that would be given directly to the Gillespie Center, but would not increase to $30,000 as requested. • The City should spend money where the service can be identified and needs a contract with whoever provides the service. • Contract should be for one year, and then review services that have been delivered. 5. Casco Point Street Reconstruction Project a. Preparation for December 11, 2008 Neighborhood Meeting • Xcel will have representative there —hasn't confirmed who it will be. • Mayor will summarize the summarize city's position about undergrounding utilities, including: o City has spent considerable time and energy to study the possibility of undergrounding utilities. o City will not pay for undergrounding utilities, but it will it pay for street reconstruction and underlying sewer and water work. o Outline options for paying for undergrounding utilities. ■ City won't front-end the project. ■ Everyone has to buy-in. o Undergrounding utilities won't solve the outage problems and doesn't need to be done at the same time as the street project. • Kellogg will be present. • The only efficiencies to undergrounding utilities with the street reconstruction project would be strategically locating conduit. New technology makes installing conduit easier, so there is not as much benefit to installing at the same time as the street project. • The remaining discussion will be directed mostly to the Xcel representative. b. Funding and Final Design Specifics • No comments were received from Council regarding the draft feasibility report. • Kellogg will prepare a final draft with a few minor changes and revised numbers. • Electronic copy will be provided of the final report so it can be put on the website. • Pg 20 of feasibility report is a summary of the costs. Further analysis was done since the last meeting. The biggest wildcard is drainage/stormwater improvements. • 36 properties with drainage issues have been identified and prioritized by: i. highest level of severity ii. where severe erosion is created iii. if it would solve a regional problem iv. if the issue is detrimental to structures • Drainage issues are divided into 3 categories: i. Those that will be addressed with the street project ii. Those that are recommended to be included in the street project iii. Those that are optional and could be scheduled in a city-wide improvement plan • Scott, Don, and Jared reviewed the 36 issues to determine the most critical to be done at this time, which involves approximately $300,000 in additional project costs. • No project costs are included for easements. • There are limited resources for funding. Drainage issues that can't be included with this project would be put on the capital improvement plan for the next 5-10 years. • Any areas marked with blue on the maps are identified as ponding, filtration areas, or rain gardens to help with lake water quality. • The "Drainage Issues Cost Summary' sheet will be included in final feasibility report but in another format to indicate priority of drainage issues. • The street reconstruction plan costs are $3.1 million. Additional money for sewer, water and storm sewer improvements is needed. • 2008 street projects were under budget approximately $500,000. This money can be used to offset some of the costs. • Water improvements—some money is left from the bond proceeds and could be used as well as the $500,000 remaining from the 2008 street project. The water fund would then pay back these costs of approximately$47,000 annually over the next 14 years. • Sewer improvements—Approximately $200,000+ could be funded from the bond proceeds with payments of$22-23,000 from the sewer fund annually over the next 14 years. • Drainage/Stormwater improvements—The recommended drainage issues to be included would use approximately half of the existing stormwater utility funds; bids for the project will dictate how many will be done. The City can't use bond money for most of the stormwater projects—only the projects directly related to the street reconstruction project. • The City will need to take a position about private owner improvements in the public right-of-way. Council recommended a letter be sent to property owners prior to start of project notifying them to remove improvements in the right-of-way prior to start of the project as the city will not be responsible for relocating, damage or repairs. If the owner doesn't know where the property lines are, he could contact the City to help get the property lines marked. Invisible dog fences, underground irrigation systems, etc. are hard to identify. • There is some street lighting allowance included in the project cost. Engineer to bring back recommendations. • Schedule: i. Final plans to second meeting in January; action to approve plans and specs and authorize advertisement for bids, need 21 days ii. Open bids early March iii. Award project end of March or early April. Contractor could start as early as May depending on road restrictions. Some things can be done before school is out without disrupting traffic. iv. There is probably no need for additional neighborhood meetings—other methods are available for notifications and distributing information. • Technology used for this project is designed to cause the least disruption to the neighborhood. There may be some other less expensive methods available for some of the improvements. • Handling contaminated soils has increased the project costs approximately $400,000. 6. Review Annual Appointments • Replace Ron Moorse with Bill Wells. • Replace Dave Rahn with Doug Franchot. • Other appointments remain and can be revised as needed.