SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – JUNE 5, 2007
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Mayor Molly Park
Councilpersons: Joel
Bennett, Cathy DeCourcy, and Judy MacManus.
City Attorney: Timothy
Kuntz
City Building
Official: Russ Wahl
City Engineers: Donald
Sterna and Tim Hanson
City Planner: Laurie
Shives
City Forester: James
Nayes
City Clerk: Cathy Iago
and Members of
the General Public.
Councilmember Richard
Williams arrived at 7:05 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Park opened
the meeting at 7:00 p.m. The Mayor advised that the Council had scheduled a
special meeting with a public hearing to discuss the Storm Water Management
Program at 7:30 p.m. this evening; she explained that Council would adjourn to
that meeting at 7:30 p.m. and then reconvene the regular meeting.
2. APPROVE AGENDA: Councilmember
DeCourcy moved approval of the Agenda, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and
carried.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Park asked if
there were any comments or any questions regarding items on the Consent Agenda
and there was no response.
Councilmember MacManus moved approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by
Councilmember Bennett and carried:
a.
Minutes of May 1, 2007 Regular Council meeting.
b.
List of Bills.
c.
Monthly Financial Statements – May, 2007.
4. COMMENTS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC: Mayor
Park asked if there were any comments from the public regarding items not listed
on the agenda and there was no response.
5. APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE TO MAC NOISE
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AT-LARGE COMMUNITY GROUP: Mayor Park advised that the
two-year term for the representative to the MAC Noise Oversight Community Group
had expired and that they have requested Council appoint a representative to
fill the next two-year term. She explained that Ann Barkelew-O’Hagan has served
for the last two years and has expressed an interest in continuing in this
position. She stated that Council action is required to make the appointment.
Councilmember Williams moved to reappointment Ann Barkelew-O’Hagan to serve
as the Sunfish Lake representative to the MAC Noise Oversight Committee At-Large
Community Group, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried.
6. PLANNER:
a. Request to Post “No
Trespassing” Signs on Mager Property: Planner Shives explained the request
from Mr. Mager to post “No Trespassing” signs on his parcel located at the
northwest corner of Windy Hill Road and Salem Church Road because the site has
been subject to trespassing by use of all-terrain vehicles and has experienced
illegal dumping. She advised that the Zoning Ordinance does not explicitly allow
for the placement of such signs and therefore, Mr. Mager has requested
authorization from Council to post the signs to deter further illegal activity
on the property.
The Planner advised that the only signs specifically allowed in the Zoning
Ordinance are real estate signs, signage denoting construction work on a site,
residential identification or directional signs, campaign signs, signs for the
sale of agriculture or garage/estate sales and signs for permitted institutional
uses. She indicated the provision most closely related to this request would be
under Section 1222.02A.4 that relates to residential identification or
directional signs of sufficient number for the purposes of control, direction,
or orientation and such signs may be allowed by Council but shall not exceed two
square feet per surface. She also noted that such signs shall be located at the
property line.
Planner Shives recommended that Council approve two to four “No Trespassing”
signs no larger than two square feet to be located along the southern and
eastern perimeter of the Mager property.
Mayor Park stated she has seen a “No Trespassing” sign in her neighborhood and
she question if they are not allowed.
Planner Shives explained that although the ordinance does not specifically spell
out this type of sign, she believes it would fall under the definition of
control/directional signage and should be limited to two square feet in size.
Councilmember Bennett also noted that he has seen “No Trespassing” signs on the
Pastor property.
Councilmember Williams asked if it would be a criminal offense to enter property
if there is no sign posted.
Attorney Kuntz explained that if a person enters a property the owner would
verbally request the person to leave and the signage wording would be that
request since there is no owner present.
Councilmember Williams moved to
authorize Mr. Mager to post up to four (4) “No Trespassing” signs not to exceed
two square feet on the property located at the southern and eastern perimeter of
the property to deter illegal activity on the property, seconded by
Councilmember DeCourcy and carried.
Planner Shives explained that Council had discussed the proposed Illicit
Discharge Ordinance at their last meeting and raised a question regarding
drainage of pools. She distributed a revised copy of the ordinance with a change
in language on page 4, that provides for legal discharge of the pool if
“not-directly to a public waterbody through a vegetative swale or grass way a
minimum of 300 feet as to provide pre-treatment prior to entering the City storm
water system”. She stated that was the only change requested by the Council and
recommended approval of the ordinance as revised.
Mayor Park explained that she had raised the question and that her property
provides sufficient area to meet this requirement.
Councilmember Williams asked if more reading of the ordinance are required.
Attorney Kuntz explained that there
was a public hearing conducted at the Planning Commission meeting and that one
reading would be sufficient.
Councilmember Williams moved to adopt the revised Ordinance No. 2007-01
titled, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SECTION OF THE SUNFISH
LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO ILLICIT DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS IN THE CITY’S
STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried.
Attorney Kuntz suggested that council may wish to provide some educational
materials to residents regarding the pool discharge regulations. Mayor Park
explained that the Sunfish Lake Quarterly would be distributed at the end of
summer and that would be an appropriate time to inform residents. Engineer
Sterna offered to compose a brief informational item for the newsletter.
Council thanked the Planner for her
report.
7. CITY ENGINEER: a) Review Draft 2008-2013 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP):
Engineer Hanson explained
that the Draft CIP and the Pavement Management Report documents are tied
together. He explained that the draft CIP includes recent maintenance and street
improvements and identifies future maintenance projects as well as estimates
future maintenance cost through the year 2019. He further advised that the
Pavement Management Report identifies the existing conditions of the City’s
streets and is the basis for establishing the maintenance schedule for the
streets. He noted that both are tools for Council use in establishing a
maintenance and capital improvement budget for 2008 and for future years.
Mr. Hanson reviewed the rating system for pavement review; a 71-100 rating means
the street is in good condition and would require only routine maintenance; a
61-70 rating means the street is in fair condition and more intense maintenance
is required; and a 0-60 rating means the street is in poor condition and would
require a mill and overlay or reconstruction. He advised that all streets
within the City were evaluated and that the street ratings were included in his
report.
Councilmember Williams questioned if all of 60th Street was rated or
only a portion of the street is located within Sunfish Lake; he recalled that
the street is equally shared, down the middle of the road, with Inver Grove
Heights.
Engineer Hanson stated that the rating for 60th Street was for the
entire street and that the City does share the roadway and maintenance with
Inver Grove Heights. He noted that the estimated costs are rough estimates.
Mr. Hanson explained that the appendix of the report lists the ratings and the
report also shows how the ratings were obtained. He noted that Table 2 lists the
streets, data relating to the streets and the values.
Mayor Park commented that there are 12 city streets, two highways, one County
road and the remaining streets are private. She pointed out that it is her
understanding the City only pays for maintenance of city streets.
Engineer Hanson agreed and stated that private streets are maintained by
residents adjacent to the private streets.
The Engineer stated that the information developed in the CIP is a tool for
Council use for planning, maintaining and financing future infrastructure
improvements. He reviewed the five maintenance items that are available for
street improvements; routine maintenance, cracksealing, sealcoating,
mill/overly, and reconstruction.
Mr. Hanson stated that the CIP budget presents two financing scenarios for
Charlton Road improvements; the first budget depicts and 80/20 percent
assessment to the city financed improvements and the second budget depicts a
60/40 assessment ratio. He noted that both budgets utilize a ten-year term for
assessments. He also explained that the Mill and Overlay improvements to Salem
Church Road are identified to be financed by 50 percent assessment and 50
percent City finance in both budget scenarios.
Attorney Kuntz made an observation that this is a momentous time for the City to
have developed a Capital Improvement Program document and he pointed out that
the document information is not “set in stone”, but merely a planning tool for
council use to assist with budgeting. He noted that during budget discussions
Council would have figures available for establishing the next year’s budget and
then in the first quarter of the budget year, Council has the opportunity to
select projects to remain within the budget.
Mayor Park commented that the document would also be a frame of referenced for
the City as a whole when decisions are made.
Eberhard Bulach, Chair of the Planning Commission, pointed out that the engineer
has discussed maintenance of shoulders and drainage ditches on a more regular
basis and he questioned if a different type of material should be used for
maintenance to prevent washouts. He noted that the areas near Delaware and Salem
Church Road and also at Robert Street seem to experience washouts on a regular
basis and asked if these areas should be corrected with asphalt swales.
Mr. Hanson explained that if asphalt was identified for use it could be done as
annual maintenance.
Councilmember Bennett pointed out that both Class 5 and bituminous have been
used and the washout still occurs, he questioned if a better product could be
found.
Mr. Sterna explained that recycled bituminous was used and that held up for
several years.
Mayor Park pointed out that Mr. Hammett had provided her some information
relating to an alternative product for use and she distributed the information
to the City Engineer. She asked if different materials would be identified for
use in the next few years due to environmental concerns such as global warming.
Mr. Hanson responded that he does not believe there will be many new products
introduced for use in Minnesota due to the extreme temperature changes, but he
stated he is not opposed to reviewing new material information.
Mr. Sterna pointed out that MnDOT has used some new products but they are
anticipating problems due to the extreme changes in weather in Minnesota.
Mr. Hammett referred to the materials he presented to Mayor Park and explained
that the product was used for trails on the North Shore in Minnesota; he
explained that the ground stone has jagged edges and locks in place with fine
stone.
Mayor Park informed those present that the Council must adjourn to the Special
Meeting at this time and would reconvene the regular meeting.
Council adjourned to a Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m., to conduct a Public
Hearing and receive comments on the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program.
Council reconvened to the Regular
Meeting at 7:56 p.m.
Mayor Park asked that residents who were present for discussion on the Draft
Feasibility Report for Charlton Road Improvements identify themselves for the
record.
Mike and Sue McDonald, 2184 Charlton Road; Jane Corn, 2190 Charlton Road; Arnold
Bockstruck 2194 Charlton Road; William Hammett and Holly Divine, 2196 Charlton
Road; Henry Hovey, 2030 Charlton Road; Mike Hovey, 2030 Charlton Road.
Attorney Kuntz stated that prior to
discussing the feasibility report he wished to clarify the scheduled use of the
CIP documentation. He noted that budget discussions would be starting soon and
that Council could use the CIP information to determine which projects they wish
to undertake in 2008 so that funds could be identified in during the budget
process. He explained that the 2008 preliminary budget must be certified to the
County by September, 2007 and that the 2008 final budget must be adopted in
December, 2007. He indicated that it would be appropriate for Council to use
the CIP as a budgeting tool and to identify projects for 2008.
Councilmember Bennett noted that the CIP report came from discussions at the
budget meetings last year and that Charlton Road was discussed as a project for
2007; he commented that it remains to be seen if the project would be completed
this year.
Councilmember Williams commented that he wished to receive information regarding
the upcoming year projects in a timely manner to make decisions in conjunction
with budget discussions; he agreed that the document it a helpful tool but that
Council makes the final determination for each project on their own merits. He
stated he would prefer that the Treasurer and Engineer review the proposed
improvements and recommend which ones should be undertaken in the next year; he
noted that Council does not have to spend the funds to complete the project
since unexpected issues may arise. Council concurred.
Councilmember Bennett asked if the residents of Charlton Road had seen the
feasibility report stated he would prefer the Charlton Road improvements move
forward in 2008. Engineering Sterna explained the resident had not seen the
draft feasibility report.
Engineer Hanson pointed out that the CIP document is a planning tool for Council
to prioritize improvements and to budget for the upcoming year to complete
improvements; he pointed out that if the Charlton Road improvement is not
completed, the monies remain in the budget. He stated that staff is not asking
for adoption of the document this evening.
Engineer Sterna commented that Tim did a very good job setting up the cost
estimates and he explained that the City sets aside $30,000 in reserves annually
for pavement management to assist with the City’s portion of improvement costs;
different funds are set aside for patching and road maintenance. He discussed
the fact that if a project changes the plan can be revised and that is why it is
an excellent tool for managing the budget and planning and prioritizing
projects.
There was no further discussion on the CIP document.
b). Review Draft Feasibility Report Charlton Road Improvements: Mayor
Park explained to residents that this evening would mark the beginning of
Council discussions relating to the proposed improvement project. She also
advised that a decision may not be reached this evening and that there would be
ample time during the process for residents to provide input on the project.
Engineer Hanson explained that scope of the project includes the reconstruction
of street and drainage improvements along Charlton Road from Delaware Avenue to
TH 110; this includes reconstruction of approximately 3,500 feet of 20-foot wide
rural gravel sections streets, complete with bituminous paving and drainage
improvements. Staff has identified four proposed options and a “do-nothing”
alternative for consideration:
1) Construct a bituminous pavement surface according to the City’s typical
11-foot lane width street section and
full ditches;
2)
Construct a modified street section utilizing a 10-foot lane width;
3)
Construct a modified street section utilizing a 10-foot lane width with
curb, either concrete or bituminous, in specific locations;
4)
Maintain an existing gravel surface with subgrade repairs and drainage
improvements; and
5)
Continue to perform annual maintenance, “do-nothing” alternative, on the
roadway with no major improvements or repairs.
Mr. Hanson also noted that the proposed project includes the acquisition of
permanent street easements over 16 parcels along Charlton Road.
Engineer Hanson reviewed a brief history of the previous improvements completed
on Charlton Road in 1994. He advised that the 1994 improvement project was able
to stabilize a majority of the deterioration of portions of the roadway and, in
some areas it improved the driving surface and lessened some of the maintenance
costs. He stated that since that time, other areas with poor soils have become
unstable because poor subgrade soils underneath Charlton Road are very sensitive
to moisture and frost heaves. He noted that more extensive maintenance has been
necessary in these subsequent years to provide an adequate driving surface. He
explained that the City’s maintenance costs for the past twelve years range
between $537 and $13,787; the average expense per year is approximately $4,589
with a total cost of $55,072 since 1996.
Councilmember MacManus asked if snow removal costs were included in those
figures; Mr. Hanson responded no that only maintenance costs were identified.
Mr. Hanson explained that the City currently only has prescriptive rights for
easements and that obtaining easements to complete the project may be an issue.
Engineer Hanson distributed a revised copy of the residential survey results and
noted that one additional survey was received. He explained that the survey asks
residents to comment on whether or not they believe there is a problem with
specific items related to the road, and that it appears that residents are
equally split on the certain issues such as the surface of the roadway, paving
the roadway, installing speed humps and removal of trees and shrubs within the
ditches and close to the roadway. He advised that several good comments were
also received from residents.
The Engineer reviewed Alternative No. 1 and explained that it proposes a typical
residential street section that consists of two 11-ft. traffic lanes with
1.5-ft. shoulders and 3:1 slopes with a 4-ft. bottom for the roadside swale. He
stated the improvements would involve reconstruction of the street and
replacement with the City standard street section of a 22-ft. wide paved
surface. He reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of this street section as
outlined in the report and stated the estimated cost for Alternative No. 1 would
be $338,000.
Mr. Hanson reviewed Alternative No. 2 and explained that the proposed
improvements would be similar to Alternative No. 1 except that the width of the
rural section roadway would be reduced to a 20-foot wide bituminous pavement
with 1.5-ft. wide aggregate shoulders; this is the minimum width required to
serve this area with emergency service vehicles. He reviewed the advantages and
disadvantages of this street section as outlined in the report and stated the
estimated cost for Alternative No. 2 would be $303,000. He explained that this
street section was proposed in the 1993 feasibility report and was not accepted
by residents as it was deemed to have too much impact on vegetation and property
adjacent to the roadway. He also noted that this street would require more
maintenance and would reduce the area for walkers.
Mayor Park asked if this alternative would be similar in width to Acorn Drive.
Councilmember Williams stated that Acorn Drive is somewhat narrower and asked if
Alternative No. 3 would be more similar to Acorn Drive.
Mr. Hanson reviewed Alternative No. 3 and responded that in some areas, such as
Crandall Hill, this would be similar to Acorn Drive. There was discussion
regarding the appearance of the street using Alternative No. 3 and the Engineer
reviewed the street design and explained it would not have the appearance of a
typical city street. He explained the street would not have curb on both sides
and it would reduce the impact on slopes and particularly the hill area.
Councilmember Williams asked if the paved surface would have 11 feet on the curb
side. Mr. Hanson explained there would be 10 feet of paved surface on the rural
side and 12 feet on the curb side, basically due to the addition of the
shoulder. He stated the top surface of the road would be 23-1/2 feet and noted
that most of the existing road is currently at 22 and 25 feet.
Mayor Park stated that currently there is nothing less than 20 feet. Mr. Hanson
agreed.
Councilmember Williams commented that Acorn Drive used a lesser road standard
but it was a different road with ditching on both sides and a culvert under the
road. He pointed out the topography was much different. He asked if any
consideration was given to using the rural road design that was used on Acorn
Drive and, if not, why.
Engineer Sterna explained the rural road design used on Acorn Drive was not
considered due to recent traffic counts on Charlton Road being higher than Acorn
Drive; he noted that there are 30 properties that are serviced by Charlton Road
versus 10 properties on Acorn Drive; he explained that the Acorn Drive averages
81 vehicle trips per day whereas Charlton Road averages a high count of 258 and
a low count of 149 trips per day. He advised that most municipalities consider
paving when vehicle trips approach 300 per day.
Councilmember Williams questioned how communities determine when to install
bituminous versus gravel. He stated that the initial discussion of Charlton Road
improvements was based on the present value analysis of bituminous versus rising
maintenance costs for the gravel roadway. He stated he would prefer not to spend
the money to pave the roadway if maintenance costs do not warrant the paving; he
pointed out that he hoped the survey would provide a much clearer message from
residents supporting the improvements; however, there appears to be an equal
split in their opinions.
Engineer Hanson explained that most communities consider bituminous versus
gravel when maintenance becomes an issue. He stated that page 9 of the report
discusses alterative cost comparisons for the roadway options; however the cost
comparison does not include such issues as valuation of property or vehicle
maintenance. He also noted that some insurance and mortgage companies review
roadway conditions.
Councilmember Williams commented that in his opinion he is unsure if those
issues related to insurance or mortgages would apply in Sunfish Lake.
Engineer Hanson reviewed Alternative No. 4 which includes reconstruction of the
street with a Class 5 Aggregate surface. He stated that this alternative is the
least costly and would have the most rustic/rural appearance, but it would
require maintenance sooner than a bituminous surface and would be the least safe
for multiple users.
Mr. Hanson stated that Alternative No. 5 would be the “do-nothing” alternative
and would consist of maintaining the existing roadway surface and drainage
system as situations arises. He explained that poor soils are working their way
closer to the surface due to poor drainage and frost action and this will
increase the current annual maintenance costs over time.
The Engineer advised that Alternative No. 1 has the highest cost estimate,
Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 have approximately the same estimated costs and
Alternative No.4 is estimated at $179,000. He referred to the proposed Riley
Curve realignment that was identified as a proposed improvement in 2003 and
noted that the sharp curve has caused vehicles to slide off the road during
slippery and winter conditions or to miss the curve and end up on the property
to the south. He noted that resident’s opinion of the curve in the survey
document varies, although a strong majority favors leaving the curve to assist
with slowing traffic. He explained that the new property owner had indicated
that they would be interested in having the curve softened which would require
property acquisition by the City; the new owner appear to be amenable to the
City acquiring the property for this purpose, however this was not formalized.
He also noted that the option for installation of the speed hump would be an
additional cost of approximately $4,000. Staff would recommend either
Alternative No. 2 or 3 be considered by Council.
Engineer Hanson explained the other issues that must be addressed include
acquisition of right-of-way for the project; staff recommends the City acquire
33 feet of right-of-way as standard. He stated that scope of the project must be
identified prior to determining necessary easements and that easement costs are
not included in the estimated figures. He also explained that financing was
calculated with an 80 percent assessment to property owners and a 20 percent
cost sharing for the City; if Alternative Nos. 2 or 3 were utilized this would
result in an assessment of $243,000 to the 30 adjacent property owners or $8,100
per unit, which is usually spread over a 10-year term. The City’s share would be
$60,730.
The Engineer also reviewed the Project Schedule listed on page 11 of the report,
which proposes receiving the feasibility report this evening and scheduling a
meeting with property owners on June 19 and returning with a final feasibility
report in July. He noted this is an aggressive schedule to follow for completion
of the project in 2008.
Councilmember Bennett asked the Engineer to review the costs for Alternative No.
1 and asked what the assessments would be if that alternative were chosen. Mr.
Hanson explained that the cost for Alternative No. 1 was estimated at $337,000
and would most likely increase the assessments by 10%.
Councilmember Bennett commented that if the improvements are similar to those
done in 1993 the city would have to do the project again in 15 years; he
indicated that he believes the only options for consideration should be the
first three alternatives.
Councilmember MacManus read a prepared statement expressing her concerns that
the Draft Feasibility Report does not address preserving the rustic/rural
ambiance of the road or neighborhood. She noted that the City spent a great deal
of time determining findings of fact to preserve the rustic nature of Acorn
Drive and that a special assessment was determined for that neighborhood with a
60/40 percent cost sharing. She expressed her displeasure that the report did
not include an option for a rustic road or a 60/40 cost sharing and noted that
all of the alternatives listed would make Charlton Road a new road, with the
exception of No. 5. She also pointed out that the resident survey is equally
split on whether or not the roadway should be improved with a bituminous or
gravel surface and also shows that the majority of residents believe the
problems with the road are small. She pointed out that in her opinion the
project schedule listed in the report is not realistic since notices would have
to be sent to the property owners and she believes that residents should be able
to review the report prior to such a meeting.
Engineer Hanson explained that the roadway is currently a 22-foot roadway and he
does not believe the area would be significantly impacted if a 23-foot roadway
were installed; he also explained that drainage is a major issue on the existing
road.
Councilmember MacManus stated that in her opinion there is no real palatable
option and she believes a neighborhood meeting at this time would only serve to
pit neighbor against neighbor.
Engineer Sterna explained that there was discussion regarding whether or not a
rustic road designation would apply to Charlton Road, however, he noted there
are substantial differences with Charlton Road and Acorn Drive. He pointed out
that Acorn Drive ends in a cul-de-sac and with less traffic. He discussed the
fact that there are only ten residences on Acorn Drive versus 29 on Charlton
Road; using the 10 to 1 ratio of trips per day that would mean 290 trips on
Charlton Road. He explained that the document was presented as a “draft” and
that Council has the authority to request staff review to review other options.
He noted that this is a contentious project and has been over the years he has
served the city; he agreed that the schedule was aggressive to complete the
project by next years. He noted that there are major drainage issues relating to
buried culverts and silt in ditches and he pointed out that environmental issues
will arise if these items are not addressed.
Mr. Sterna explained that the 20-foot roadway was recommended by staff based on
the traffic counts and that staff would recommend that the roadway be 22-feet
from TH 110 to St. Anne’s Church to accommodate higher traffic volumes for
church attendees and then it could be reduced to a 20-foot surface for the
remainder of the road. He advised that if Council wishes to do so they could go
through the process of attempting to identify findings of fact to justify a
rustic road designation for Charlton Road. He reiterated that it is a difficult
project due to the subgrade and drainage issues and that is it also an extremely
sensitive issue with residents.
Councilmember Williams asked if ditching for drainage purposes would still be
required with Alternative No. 4.
Councilmember MacManus stated that the recommendation was the same as
Alternative No. 2 and Engineer Hanson agreed.
Mayor Park asked if anyone from the audience wished to speak regarding this
matter.
Mike McDonald asked the Engineer for the most recent traffic counts on the
roadway and questioned why the Engineer discussed the counts at 240 vehicles; he
stated he does not believe the counts are that high and commented that the same
number of residents have lived on the street for the past 15 years.
Mr. Sterna explained that the most recent traffic count was taken last week and
varied between 149 and 196.
Mr. McDonald asked if the traffic counts included the increased traffic from
construction on the Riley property and if the count was similar to one year ago.
Mr. Sterna responded that the count did include the Riley property traffic and
that could account for the increase; he noted the counts are similar to one year
ago. He stated that the higher traffic counts are what are expected on a roadway
like Charlton Road and he explained that he was not saying that staff was not
recommending the improvement to carry that amount of traffic, but merely
pointing out the rule of thumb to calculate traffic counts. He noted that
traffic is below what is normally expected; the numbers appear to indicate there
is not as much of a through traffic issue as anticipated by residents.
Mr. McDonald noted that Mr. Hanson
estimated $23,000 per year over a 5-year period and asked what the present worth
value to do nothing but maintain the road over that same 5-year period would be.
He commented that in his opinion maintenance of the gravel road would be
cheaper.
Mr. Hanson agreed that maintenance of the gravel road would be cheaper; however,
he noted that due to the roadway conditions the comparison would have to be made
for a major maintenance situation.
Councilmember Bennett commented that he believes that annual maintenance costs
would be higher. Mr. McDonald disagreed and offered to provide cost comparisons.
Mr. Hammett stated he would like the
information he distributed to each Councilmember and to residents. He commented
that he also wanted the engineers to have a copy of the report and that he
believes the engineer’s facts are wrong and the City should not have to pay for
a feasibility report. He suggested that Council and staff visit the website
listed in the Penn State University Study. He believes that over the long-term
the costs would be cheaper to have this type of road installed versus a paved
road. He noted that residents paid for the 1993 improvements and that no
maintenance has been done on the road; he stated the ditches have not been
maintained.
Councilmember Williams stated that is one
of the problems needs to be addressed. He noted the reason for preparing a
feasibility report is that it would be imprudent for Council to try to determine
what needs to be done. He explained the feasibility report provides options
regarding what needs to be done to a specific road with specific
characteristics, but also it gives Council an idea of what it might cost and
makes certain assumptions; he noted that it also looks at options for
assessments. He noted that there are also legal considerations regarding how the
City proceeds with roads improvements; he pointed out that the same process was
followed with Acorn Drive because the City cannot do whatever it wants without
considering the legal repercussions.
Sue McDonald commented that the engineer indicated that the pavement would
provide increased safety for walkers and bikers and noted that she does both and
she believes a gravel surface is far better. She explained that the gravel
deters the traffic; she purchased her home in 1993 when the first improvement
was considered and she believes that through traffic would be an issue if the
road is improved. She stated that Charlton Road is unique and different from
Acorn Drive would provide a convenient path for through traffic.
Councilmember Williams pointed out that Acorn Drive was a different situation
and that there were several legal considerations due to the dedication of the
road to the City. He suggested it may be appropriate for the City Attorney to
outline decisions that Council must consider relating to legal responsibility
for the road.
Arnold Bockstruck stated he likes the road in its present condition. He pointed
out that he was not notified of the meeting. He stated he would be concerned
about increased traffic speeds if the roadway is improved and he agreed with
Councilmember MacManus’s summation of her concerns.
Mayor Park explained that the
meeting agendas are placed on the City’s website and at this stage of the
process the City is not required to notify residents. She advised that as the
project progresses the residents will be formally notified for a public hearing.
She agreed that June 19 would not be feasible for a residents meeting.
Councilmember DeCourcy asked if the Mike
and Henry Hovey had any comments.
Henry Hovey stated he would pay for the
paving of the road up to the Church property; he explained that this area
experiences the most washouts where the pavement meets the gravel surface. He
also stated that he believes a swale is needed along the side of the blacktop to
keep the surface from eroding and that he tried to get this accomplished when he
was Mayor. He offered to pay for the blacktopping up to the Church driveway if
the City agrees; he asked for an opinion from the City Attorney.
Attorney Kuntz stated that residents cannot make improvements to public roads
without Council authorization and if Council does authorize him doing so, the
City could accept the payment as a gift or donation to the City.
Mayor Park suggested the City Attorney provide background on legal
responsibilities of the City.
Mr. Kuntz explained that Councilmember
Williams was referring to the legal obligation of the City to determine findings
of fact to deviate from the adopted roadway standards and to support a rural
road designation when Acorn Drive was improvement. He advised that to protect
the Council went through an exercise to determine why the road should be
improved as a “non-standard” road. He stated that the City would have to go
through a similar exercise for Charlton Road if they deem it appropriate to
deviate from the adopted standards. He noted that if Council deems the road
improvement should be “non-standard” on Charlton Road, the same process could be
undertaken.
Attorney Kuntz explained that at this time
Council should determine what type of public participation would bring this
discussion to a conclusion. He explained that if Council wishes to hold a public
hearing to receive input they must send a formal notice to residents with the
cost of the project listed and therefore it would be appropriate at this time to
narrow down the options. He further explained that easement costs would have be
included in the project estimates and that Council and staff would have to
determine what easements are needed and develop a strategy to acquire the
easements. He noted that the issues related to the project are the same as those
identified in 1993 and the City was not able to acquire any easements at that
time. He stated that the legal descriptions of the easements would be needed,
an appraiser would have to be hired, and the documents would have to be prepared
and that this process could take a substantial amount of time. He further noted
that Council also needs to determine a cost sharing scenario for the
assessments; he recalled that the 1993 improvements were proposed as an 80/20
cost sharing and ended up as a 75/25 percent cost sharing.
Mr. Kuntz advised that the Acorn Drive improvement hearing and assessment
hearing were held at the same time in order to determine if assessment appeals
would be forthcoming prior to ordering the project; he noted that is also an
option for this project. He pointed out that the project should also be reviewed
by the Planning Commission to insure it is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. He summarized by noting there was a substantial amount of information
contained in the feasibility report and that Council should attempt to narrow
the options for discussion.
Councilmember DeCourcy stated she supports staff reviewing the alternative
materials information provided by Mr. Hammett.
Mike McDonald commented that he assumes some residents would not be willing to
give up land for right-of-way and questioned how costly it would be for the City
to use eminent domain. Mr. Kuntz indicated that he could estimate the legal fees
and commented that it would be a substantial cost to the City that needs to be
discussed.
Holly Divine stated she has lived in Sunfish Lake her entire life and she wishes
to preserve the wildlife by maintaining the existing gravel road. She stated
that in her opinion the construction trucks for the new residence are creating
drainage issues. She also commented that the improvements will affect those who
live adjacent to the road and not those who live closer to the lake.
Mr. Sterna stated that his staff respects the opinions of all the residents
along the roadway and pointed out that there is a gentleman who experiences
severe dust allergies who supports the paving of the road. He noted that the
proposed schedule for the project is flexible and explained that the report is a
“draft” for Council review. He commented that the residents remain as divided on
the issue as they were in 1993. He pointed out that even if the DSA aggregate
material that Mr. Hammett suggested were used, the road would still require
drainage improvements and he offered to review the information submitted by Mr.
Hammett.
Holly Divine commented that the man with
dust allergies may have developed them after moving to Sunfish Lake, however she
does not believe the road surface should be paved because allergies have arisen.
She commented that Minneapolis/St. Paul are ranked as the 10th
highest City producing stormwater runoff due to paving.
Mayor Park stated that as Council moves through the process there will be a need
to eliminate options from the report; she recommended discarding Alternative
No.1. She indicated that Council does not appear to be opposed to reviewing
other surface materials and she believes that Council supports protecting
wildlife. She commented that in her
opinion it may be appropriate to consider
some type of rustic road designation. She expressed concern regarding the fact
that numerous easements would be needed and she asked staff to provide
suggestions for having discourse with neighbors regarding easement acquisition.
She stated she would prefer to close the discussion at this time and asked if a
motion is needed.
Councilmember Bennett asked if it would be appropriate to get a copy of the
report to residents. Mayor Park suggested that as the document exists it is not
finalized; she preferred to have the 80/20 assessment ratio removed.
Mike Hovey suggested the report could still be distributed to
residents.
Councilmember Williams commented that he has no problem with the residents
reviewing the report with the understanding that if any alternatives vary from
the standard road with it would be a policy issue that needs to be determined by
Council; he also reminded residents that the right-of-way issues need to be
resolved and he agreed that most likely the roadway improvements may not be
standard.
Councilmember MacManus suggested that some
resident may be angry since the report does not include other viable options.
Engineer Hanson explained that staff cannot define the final project until
Council determines which alternative they prefer.
Councilmember Williams pointed out that Alternative Nos. 1-4 cannot be
constructed without easements.
Mayor Park asked the City Attorney what should be done about disseminating the
information. Mr. Kuntz explained that Council has the option to change the
report and they may request that the Engineer’s include other options. He noted
that once the report is distributed it will set the tone for discussion with
residents.
Clerk Iago commented that normally the draft feasibility report is not
distributed to residents, although the document is usually available for their
review at the City offices or by contacting staff. Attorney Kuntz agreed and
reiterated that this is not the final report.
Mayor Park asked if Council wished to request the Engineering staff to revise
the report
after researching the information on use of
alternative surface materials and also to include an option for a rustic road
designation alternative in the report. Council concurred.
Engineer Hanson stated that staff would revise the report as requested, however
he suggested that Council should determine if they wish to move forward with the
project prior to staff pursuing acquisition of the right-of-way easements. He
also noted that information relating to the 60/40 assessment scenario could be
included.
Councilmember Williams pointed out that the assessment information should be
calculated with a 60/20/20 formula; Mayor Park suggested that Treasurer Blair
could assist with the assessment calculations.
Mike Hovey asked where the traffic counter was placed on the road to determine
if the traffic counts from the church were calculated. Engineer Sterna stated he
believes it was approximately mid-way on the expanse of road. Mr. Hammett stated
there was a counter near the second curve of the roadway.
Mayor Park thanked everyone present for their comments.
c). Review 2007 Street Improvements and Award Bid for 2007
Sealcoating/Cracksealing Project: Engineer Sterna explained that bids were
received today for the proposed 2007 Sealcoating/Cracksealing Project and that
the project scope is as follows:
1. Angell Road and Sunny Side Lane pavement repairs particularly near the
entrance area, which would also include removal of the speed hump located at the
stop sign and also removal of signage related to the speed hump;
2. Angell Road, Sunny Side Lane, Windy Hill Court, Windy Hill Road and portions
of Upper 55th Street, crack-sealing to prevent moisture from
penetrating into the subgrade;
3. Angell Road from TH 100 to the intersection with Sunny Side Lane, along with
Sunny Side Lane to be seal-coated.
The Engineer explained that the estimate for the seal-coating and crack-sealing
for the above-described work was $25,000 and two bids were received. He stated
the low bidder was Allied Blacktop at $32,000. He advised that he contacted
Treasurer Blair to determine if additional funds were available to complete the
project and was advised that there are funds remaining in the snowplowing budget
that were not used. He further stated that since the bids were higher than
anticipated, another option would be to delay some of the proposed improvements.
He commented that most cities solicit bids earlier in the year and that
contractors normally have projects scheduled by spring of each year.
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Allied Blacktop and that the
additional funds available be utilized to complete the entire project as
described.
Treasurer Blair concurred that funds are available from the remaining
snowplowing budget to complete the project as originally described.
Councilmember DeCourcy moved, to authorize the use of the remaining funding
from the 2007 Snowplowing Budget and award the bid for the 2007
Sealcoating/Cracksealing Program as presented by staff to Allied Blacktop in the
amount of $32,000, seconded by Councilmember Williams and carried.
In discussion, Councilmember Williams asked if it would be possible to combine
such projects with other cities to obtain lower bids. Mr. Sterna responded yes
and noted that the CIP would be helpful in identifying projects for the upcoming
year.
8. INSPECTOR’S REPORTS:
a.
CITY ENGINEER: Engineer Sterna reported on the following activities
undertaken in May and proposed for June:
Salem Church Road Pavement Repairs: Two deteriorated pavement sections on
westbound Salem Church Road were repaired.
Charlton Road Maintenance: Two guard rail posts were repaired on the
cable guard rail adjacent to the 90 degree bend on Charlton Road. Grading and
ditch cleaning were completed and the failed roadway section was repaired along
with regarding the surface and adding gravel to some sections of the roadway.
Also, two ditch sections near the 90 degree bend were dug out, regarded and
material removed to assist with the flow of surface water to remain within the
ditches.
Street Sweeping: Touch up street sweeping was completed within the
requested streets.
Charlton Road Dust Control: Council authorized the reapplication of a
dust control agent on Charlton Road and this will be completed in June.
Sign Maintenance/Replacement on Zehnder Road: An existing “Dead-End”
street sign is in need of replacement due to fading and two wood traffic
barricades that demarcate the end of the road also need replacement; these
replacements and/or repairs will be completed in June.
Council thanked the Engineer for his report.
b.
BUILDING OFFICIAL: Inspector Wahl stated he conducted 18 inspections in
May and issued 6 permits.
Council thanked Inspector Wahl for his report.
c.
CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes stated he issued 4 burning permits and
performed rough cut mowing of the road edges. He advised that the Arbor Day
program was very successful and that the deer have not eaten any of the trees
planted. He commended Adina Overbee for hosting the recycling portion of the
program and doing a wonderful job.
Mr. Nayes explained that he inspected a tree for Dutch Elm disease at 2165
Charlton Road and told the property owner that the tree should be removed; he
also discussed methods of saving a Red Oak tree with the property owner.
Councilmember DeCourcy asked if the Burdock was going to be removed from Harmon
Park.
Mayor Park explained that the Burdock must be removed with poison. Mr. Nayes
explained that he does not have a pesticide license and suggested hiring a lawn
service to treat Burdock on private property. Mayor Park asked if Mr. Nayes
could recommend someone to treat the Burdock at the Park; he agreed to research
the matter.
Council thanked the Forester for his report.
d.
PUBLIC SAFETY: Mayor Park advised that she had not received the Public
Safety Report for May.
9. OTHER BUSINESS:
a. New Business: Mayor Park explained that Engineer Samantha
O’Connell has been visiting cities involved in the Light Rail Study Project and
she suggested inviting Ms. O’Connell to attend the July meeting to discuss the
project with Council.
Planner Shives stated she serves as the
Sunfish Lake representative to the Technical Advisory Committee that is studying
the Robert Street Corridor as one of the options for Light Rail. She offered to
contact Ms. O’Connell to give a brief presentation to Council in July.
The Planner also noted that she had been contacted by a resident who expressed
concern relating to the application of lawn fertilizers; she noted that the
currently City ordinance does not address lawn fertilizers and asked if Council
wished to update the ordinance.
Engineer Sterna noted that two years ago legislation was passed that banned the
use of phosphorous and it would be appropriate to incorporate that into the City
ordinance.
Mayor Park suggested that staff prepare a report for the July meeting.
Mayor Park explained that she received a letter from Mr. Mager in which he
requests an explanation of why his stockpiling request was denied, that Council
reconsider the request and that his escrow funds be returned. She asked the City
Attorney to comment on the letter.
Mr. Kuntz explained that Council does not have to reconsider the request and
that an explanation of denial would be that the stockpiling request was not
incidental to submission of a site plan; he noted that the letter alludes to the
fact that Mr. Mager perceives an option is to come forth with a final site plan,
which was never denied him. He advised that Council should consider if they wish
to reconsider the action and, if not, a letter could be sent to Mr. Mager
advising him that isolated stockpiling is not a permitted use within the City.
Council concurred they did not wish to reconsider the action and directed staff
to formulate a response to Mr. Mager advising him of the basis for denial of his
request.
Planner Shives explained that normally when a request is denied the full amount
of the escrow is not refunded, but only the portion that is unused and that she
would return any unused funds to Mr. Mager.
8. ADJOURN: Councilmember DeCourcy
moved for adjournment at 10:25 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Williams and
carried.
Molly Park,
Mayor Catherine Iago, City
Clerk
BACK to News