SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – APRIL 3, 2018

7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH

Attendants:

Mayor: Richard Williams

Councilmembers: Mike Hovey, JoAnne Wahlstrom, and Steven Bulach

City Attorney: Tim Kuntz

City Planner: Ryan Grittman

City Engineers: Don Sterna and Jeff Sandberg

City Treasurer: Ann Lanoue

Building Inspector: Mike Andrejka
City Forester: Jim Nayes
Police Chief: Manila Shaver

City Clerk: Cathy Iago

and Members of the General Public.

Councilmember Daniel O’Leary arrived at 7:10 p.m.

1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Williams opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

2. APPROVE AGENDA: Mayor Williams asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda.

The Mayor added a resolution under Item 8.c. Other: Resolution Supporting Local Decision-Making Authority and explained that there are forty (40) bills in the legislature that would take away authority from local elected officials and it is his opinion it would be appropriate to adopt the resolution while the legislature is currently in session.

Mayor Williams asked if there were any other additions and there was no response.

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to adopt the agenda as amended, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (4-0)

3. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Williams asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda and there was no response.

Councilmember Hovey moved approval of the Consent Agenda as presented, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (4 -0)

a. Regular Council Meeting Minutes of March 6, 2018

b. List of Bills

c. Monthly Financials

4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: The Mayor asked if there were any comments from the public and there was no response.

5. PUBLIC HEARING/PRESENTATIONS: a. Public Hearing to Review the City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Plan (SWPPP) and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Mayor Williams opened the Public Hearing to review the City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Plan (SWPPP) and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and asked the City Engineer to present the information.

Environmental Specialist Meghan Litsey from WSB distributed information and explained that as part of the MS4 permitting process the City must conduct a meeting annually to educate residents on water quality issues, to review the City’s SWPPP Best Management Practices (BMPs), and to receive comments from the public on the City’s MS4 program. She stated that National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) monitors the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) and the program includes municipal operations, constructions sites and industrial activities. She stated that stormwater runoff is the leading source of water pollution due to the fact that if flows across surfaces and picks up trash, debris and pollutants. She advised that the annual meeting is to educate residents and receive their comments.

Councilmember O’Leary arrived at 7:10 p.m.

Ms. Litsey stated that the MS4 Program consists of 6 minimum control measure as listed on page 2 of the informational report she distributed and the City’s achievements include an annual meeting, the Arbor Day Green Fair, Newsletter and website articles and collaboration with Dakota SWCD (Blue Thumb Workshops). She noted that no illicit discharges were discovered in 2017 and there were no new projects in the City greater than one acre. She advised that the current MS4 permit expires in July, 2017 and the City had submitted Part 1 of a two-part application in January 2018. She explained that the 2017-2018 objects include maintaining the existing program, MS4 inspections, monitoring for illicit discharges and monitoring construction projects. She noted that additional information on the program may be found on the MPCA MS4 website and the Dakota County SWCD website and that both were included in her informational materials.

Ms. Litsey offered to respond to questions.

Mayor Williams asked if there were any comments or questions from Council or the audience and, hearing none, he closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.

Council thanked Ms. Litsey for her presentation.

6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT: a. Planner’s Report: Planner Grittman reviewed the following information listed in his report dated March 28, 2018. He stated that there was no Planning Commission meeting in March due to a lack of agenda items. He explained that the City of Eagan had submitted two comprehensive plan amendments for review; one to allow rezoning of 10 acres from Business Park to Medium Density Residential located along Yankee Doodle Road, east of Highway 149 for a 72-unit townhome development; and, one to allow construction of a 250 units luxury apartment complex on 5.22 acres at 3150 Dodd Road. He stated that staff signed off on both projects with no objections.

The Planner stated that staff is working with the owners at 8 Wood Duck Pass on processing a variance application to allow for an updated septic system to be located within the 75-foot wetland setback. He explained that the existing septic system is non-compliant and the lot has topographical issues for placement of the new system.

Mayor Williams asked if the applicants would be installing a mounded septic system and Engineer Sandberg responded that he had been discussing the mounded septic system installation with the applicants.

Planner Grittman explained that staff had been working on updating the Zoning Ordinance and City Code to regulate small cell wireless facilities in the City and that the City Attorney would present this item later on the agenda.

Council thanked the Planner for his report.

7. STAFF REPORTS: a. BUILDING INSPECTOR: Inspector Andrejka stated that he issued two (2) and closed one (1) permit in March.

Council thanked the Inspector for his report.

b. CITY ENGINEER: 1. Engineering Activities Undertaken in March: A. Charlton Road Improvements Update: Engineer Sandberg stated that Engineer Sterna would provide the draft Feasibility Report later on the agenda.

B. Fire Number Review: Engineer Sandberg referred to his memorandum dated March 29, 2018 regarding his review and recommendation to provide fire number markers on properties throughout the City. He explained that WSB staff reviewed all properties in November, 2017 and classified the fire signage into four (4) categories; good, missing, hidden/blocked and titled. He advised that of the 262 properties surveyed, the signage was as follows: Good – 189 properties (72%); Missing – 39 properties (15%); Hidden/Blocked – 18 properties (7%); and, Tilted – 15 properties (6%).

The Engineer pointed out that staff also found that 27% of the fire numbers within the City are not 100% visible to emergency responders and that Council had discussed installation of replacement markers that are 2-sided and placed perpendicular to the road for more visibility. He noted that the pricing includes two (2) different types of signs; one option would be the standard on-sided sign, and the second option would be a two-sided sign that would be placed perpendicular to the road for visibility from either direction.

Engineer Sandberg stated that three quotes were sent to contractors, and two companies responded; Safety Signs and Advantage Signs. He also reviewed the cost estimates for three (3) replacement options;

Option 1 – Replace all fire markers in the City with new 2-sided markers in Year 1. The quotes were: Safety Signs $26,310.50 and Advantage Signs, $19,911.

Option 2 – Develop a Five-Year plan to replace all fire markers in the City with 2-sided markers. This proposes to replace 52 markers per year for five (5) years and the 72 missing, hidden, or tilted markers would be done first. The quotes were as follows: Safety Signs $6,283 per year for a total of $31,415.50 over 5 years and Advantage Signs $4,251 per year for a total of $21,265 over 5 years. The fire marker signs would be 2-sided and placed for 100% visibility.

Option 3 – Replace only fire markers that are missing with standard one-sided markers and correct hidden/blocked or tilted markers. The 39 missing markers would be replaced with the standard one-sided marker and the markers that are hidden, blocked or tilted would be removed from the existing post and attached to a new post in a visible location. The quotes were as follows: Safety Signs $6,012 and Advantage Signs $4,414.65. This would be the most cost-effective to have all fire markers visible throughout the City as quickly as possible.

The Engineer noted that Advantage Signs provided the most cost-effective quotes for all options and staff would recommend using their services for the option Council wishes to pursue.

Councilmember Hovey asked if the quotes included labor and the Engineer responded yes.

Ibby Hammett asked if there was a difference in the quality and size of the new signs.

Engineer Sandberg responded that there should be no difference in the quality since the specifications provided were the same as the existing signs. He commented that if Option 3 is chosen, the new signs would have a higher reflectivity than the old signs.

Mayor Williams commented that with Option 3 the other difference would be that the new signs would be two-sided.

Engineer Sandberg agreed and noted that the new flag signs would be placed perpendicular to the road.

Councilmember Wahlstrom asked the Police Chief how good GPS would be for emergency vehicles to find addresses within the City.

Chief Shaver pointed out that GPS works, but having the fire markers insures that the location is correct. He pointed out that police vehicles sightlines are lower than fire trucks and it would be easier to see the markers if they are two-sided rather than having to back-up a fire truck.

Attorney Kuntz asked what happens to the old signs that are replaced and if emergency vehicles are dispatched to the fire marker number or the property address.

Engineer Sandberg explained that the old signs are removed and the Police Chief stated that emergency vehicles are dispatched with both the address and the fire marker number.

Forester Nayes recommended that two of the fire marker numbers should be changed due to their implication; 911 and 420. He commented that number 911 was the emergency call number and that number 420 had drug-related implications.

Engineer Sandberg explained that some private driveways have multiple fire marker numbers and that staff found three number missing; he advised that the three (3) missing numbers should be added to the list and should not significantly increase the cost estimates.

Councilmember O’Leary asked if the Police Chief for his opinion if the $19,000 expenditure to replace the signs was worth the expense to the City.

Chief Shaver explained that it would be beneficial to have the signs two-sided and perpendicular to the road to assist emergency responders to locate the property. He suggested that the Fire Chief be contacted for his input and also to ask if there are grant funds available to assist with the replacement costs. He stated he would also check to determine if any grants or funding is available.

Engineer Sandberg explained he sent the information to the Fire Chief but he did not receive any input. He offered to contact the Fire Chief to ask for his input.

Councilmember O’Leary moved to table this item to the May meeting and to direct the City Engineer to contact the Fire Chief to review the options and provide his input regarding which option would be preferable and to comment on the value of two-sided signage, and also to ask if any grant funding would be available for this purpose, seconded by Councilmember Hovey.

In discussion, Mayor Williams suggested that the Engineer also ask the Fire Chief for an opinion on spreading the installation over 5-years.

Councilmember O’Leary stated in his opinion it would be better to do the replacement all at the same time.

The Mayor asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.

Motion carried. (5-0)

C. CAMP Water Quality Monitoring: Engineer Sandberg stated that he contacted the three (3) volunteers and they agreed to gather samples from the three (3) lakes within the City. He noted that they would gather seven (7) samples versus the fifteen (15) gathered in previous years. He stated that Scott Spaeth would monitor Hornbeam Lake, James Stowell would monitor Sunfish Lake, and Jim Nayes would monitor Horseshoe Lake. He further explained that Jim Nayes offered to gather the samples and deliver them to the storage facility per the new Met Council requirements. He explained that he is preparing a new contract for presentation to Council at a future meeting.

D. SWPPP Yearly Public Hearing: The Engineer stated that the annual SWPPP public hearing was held early this evening and that Meghan Litsey provided information on the City’s MS4 Permit activities.

E. 2019-2023 CIP Update: Engineer Sandberg stated he would prepare a draft of the 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for presentation to Council at a future meeting.

F. 8 Wood Duck Pass Variance Request: The Engineer explained that he met with the property owner at 8 Wood Duck Pass to discuss a setback variance for a new septic mound system. He stated that additional information is required prior to submission of a formal application.

G. 2570 Delaware Ave. Variance Request: Engineer Sandberg stated that staff met with the architect representing the property owners to discuss a possible setback variance for a garage relocation and home expansion. He noted that no formal application had been submitted at this time.

H. Backflow Prevention Management: The Engineer explained that the City Clerk referred information regarding the City’s compliance with recent changes to the State Plumbing code relating to Backflow Prevention Management. He stated that a software vendor had contacted the Clerk to warn that the City may not be in compliance and offered to provide information about their product that would help bring the City into compliance. He noted that after reviewing the information, staff determined that the regulations only apply to public water systems and that Sunfish Lake would not be subject to the requirements.

I. Request for Resolution of Support – Proposed TH 110 Project: Engineer Sterna explained that he received a notice from MnDOT that he attached to his report. He stated that MnDOT was requesting support for project funding for expanding TH 110 to freeway design with interchange accesses (instead of signals or stop signs) from Mendota Heights to Inver Grove Heights. He advised that an additional project outside of Sunfish Lake proposes a new intersection at TH 156 and Barge Road between US 52 and Annapolis Street was also submitted for funding. He explained that the City may choose to support the project or not to. He referred to the information attached to his report.

Mayor Williams stated that in his opinion they City does not have enough information about the projects to support them and that he was reluctant to support the projects.

Engineer Sandberg agreed that there was not sufficient information relating to the projects for the City to make a decision.

Council concurred that there was not enough information to support the request.

Engineer Sandberg explained that he also received an email from MnDOT which advised that it would be the City’s responsibility to change the addresses along Highway 110 when the name change to Highway 62 occurs. He noted that only one property would be affected by the change.

Councilmember Hovey asked if any formal action is required.

Attorney Kuntz recommended that Council direct the City Engineer to work with MnDOT and the property owner on this matter.

Council concurred to direct the City Engineer to work with MnDOT and the property owner to resolve the address change.

J. Request for Variance for Load Limits – 1 Horseshoe Lane: Engineer Sandberg stated that he received a request for a variance to the posted load limits from the property owner at 1 Horseshoe Lane in order to have a dumpster delivered and picked up at this location. He noted the property owner would be remodeling and needed the dumpster for construction debris. He explained that the City Engineer has the authority to grant a one-time permit for this purpose and that he would approve the request once an application is received.

Councilmember Bulach asked if this would be done within the next few weeks and the Engineer responded yes.

2. Building and Site Reviews in March: None.

3. Public Works Activities Undertaken in March: A. Snow Plowing for March: The Engineer stated that he had not received an invoice for services in March, however, it appears that expenditures to date are within the budgeted amount.

B. Street Sweeping Quotes: Engineer Sandberg referred to the three (3) Street Sweeping Quotes received and attached to his report. He explained that the last two (2) years Mike McPhillips, Inc. had done the sweeping, however, this year the quote was higher. He also noted that Reliakor Services had submitted the lowest quote, however, it was received three days after the requested deadline for submission. He recommended that Curb to Curb, Inc. be awarded the project this year at a cost of $1,000.00.

Councilmember O’Leary moved to award the 2018 Street Sweeping Contract to Curb to Curb, Inc., at a cost of $1,000.00, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)

4. Anticipated Engineering and Public Works Activities for April: A. Spring Load Limits: Engineer Sandberg explained that the load limits are in effect and would be removed when conditions permit.

Councilmember Bulach asked if the City follows the MnDOT schedule for removal of the signs and the Engineer responded yes.

Council thanked the Engineer for his report.

c. CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes stated he issued one (1) burning permit in March and that the street load limit signs were installed on March 7. He explained that he completed the annual Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) winter survey on March 15 and 16 and located additional infested trees in the same general area as during winter 2017. He noted that the EAB continues to expand, however, it is possible for residents to protect individual trees have sentimental value.

Mayor Williams asked if information could be placed on the City website and the Forester responded yes.

The Forester stated that an organizational meeting for the “Welcome to Sunfish Lake” brochure committee would be held on Wednesday, April 11, at 7:00 p.m. at the West St. Paul Public Library and all are welcome to attend.

Forester Nayes stated that the Arbor Day celebration planning for the first Saturday in May is progressing.

Council thanked the Forester for his report.

d. PUBLIC SAFETY: Chief Shaver reviewed his report dated March 30, 2018 and advised there was one (1) false alarm, two (2) suspicious persons and one (1) domestic call during this time period.

Council thanked the Chief for his report.

8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS: a. Consider the following: 1) Ordinance Amending Sunfish Lake City Code Chapter 1241.05-1 to Include Small Wireless Facilities as a Conditional Use in the R-1 District; 2) Ordinance Amending Sunfish Lake City Code Chapter 1242.02 to Include Small Wireless Facilities as a Permitted Use in the Institutional District with Performance Standards; 3) Ordinance Amending Sunfish Lake City Code Chapter 1242.05-1 to Include Small Wireless Facilities as a Conditional Use in the Institutional District; 4) Ordinance Enacting Chapter 806 of the Sunfish Lake City Code Relating to Right of Way Management; and 5) Resolution Approving a Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement : Attorney Kuntz referred to his report dated March 28, 2018 and explained that all four (4) proposed ordinances and the proposed resolution relate to regulating small wireless communications within the City. He noted that the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously recommended that small wireless communications be allowed as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the R-1 Single Family District right-of-way, that they be prohibited on private property in the R-1 District, that they be allowed by a Conditional Use Permit on private property in the INS Institutional District, and that they be allowed in the right-of-way in the INS Institutional District with performance standards. He further explained that the proposed resolution adopts a model agreement form that allows wireless companies to use government owned structures in public right-of-way and allows the City to charge a fee for placement of the units. He noted that although Sunfish Lake does not own many structures in the public right-of-way, it would be wise to have the Collocation Agreement model form in place if it is needed in the future. He also noted that the City must be contacted before any work commences in the right-of-way.

The Attorney explained that Council may adopt all five (5) items in one motion.

Councilmember O’Leary noted the documents appears to be somewhat standardized in nature and used by other cities; he asked if staff had proof-read them for errors.

Attorney Kuntz responded yes and noted that staff and the Planning Commission had found some typographical errors that were corrected prior to sending the documents to Council.

Mayor Williams asked if there were any further comments or questions and there was no response.

Councilmember O’Leary moved to adopt the following:

Ordinance No 18-01 titled, An Ordinance Amending Sunfish Lake City Code Chapter 1241.05-1 to Include Small Wireless Facilities as a Conditional Use in the R-1 District;

Ordinance No. 18-02 titled, An Ordinance Amending Sunfish Lake City Code Chapter 1242.02 to Include Small Wireless Facilities as a Permitted Use in the Institutional District with Performance tandards;

Ordinance No. 18-03 titled, An Ordinance Amending Sunfish Lake City Code Chapter 1242.05-1 to Include Small Wireless Facilities as a Conditional Use in the Institutional District;

Ordinance No. 18-04 titled, An Ordinance Enacting Chapter 806 of the Sunfish Lake City Code Relating to Right of Way Management; and

Resolution No 18-05 titled, Resolution Approving a Model Form Small Wireless Facility Collocation Agreement

Seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)

b. Receive Charlton Road Feasibility Report: Engineer Sterna referred Council to the April 3, 2018 Feasibility Report for the Charlton Road and Sunfish Lake Outlet Improvement projects and stated that no formal action from Council is required at this time. He explained that improvements to Charlton Road had been discussed for several years and a feasibility Study was presented in to Council in 1994, however, due to lack of support from residents, the Council decided at that time not to proceed with the improvements and only repaired areas of the road that were in poor condition. He advised that the project was also discussed in 2007, but no action was taken at that time due to the fact that the City did not have the necessary easements to proceed with the project and residents did not appear willing to provide the easements.

Engineer Sterna stated that the City held open house meetings with residents to discuss the project in 2017. After the meetings and discussion of the proposed project, staff prepared three (3) options for the road improvements, Option 1 involved reconstruction from TH 110 to the south property of St. Anne’s Church; Option 2 extended the reconstruction to the south property line of the Smith residence; and, Option 3 included reconstruction of the entire length of the road to Delaware Avenue and softening the 90-degree curve. He noted that his report also discusses a “do-nothing” option, which would be to continue with current maintenance of the road. He pointed out that the maintenance costs on the road continue to increase each year.

The Engineer advised that his report also includes improvement to the outlet from Sunfish Lake. He explained that the maintenance costs for cleaning the outlet are high as it continuously plugs and the improvement would increase the outlet capacity to better regulate the lake level and eliminate the rising maintenance costs. He commented that the previously installed outlet was incorrectly designed and does not function properly.

Engineer Sterna explained that during the open house meetings, residents on the south end of Charlton Road had raised questions regarding the possible installation of a cul-de-sac at Delaware Avenue and staff determined that the cul-de-sac option would not be feasible due to the length of the road. He explained that the distance for emergency vehicles to reach the cul-de-sac would not meet standards and would hamper fire-fighting efforts. He stated that residents also raised the possibility of installing speed tables on the road, and staff is of the opinion that speed tables could be installed, however, they are detrimental to emergency vehicles, school buses, and snow plowing equipment. He commented that the installation of speed tables could be further discussed when a public hearing is conducted to decide if the project will move forward.

The Engineer stated that he prepared estimated costs and proposed assessments for the three (3) improvement options and referred Council to page 15 of the feasibility report. The proposed cost estimates and assessments are as follows:

Option 1 - Estimated cost of $120,000, proposed cost share 60% City and 40% property owner, for an assessment of $12,000 per unit.

Option 2 – Estimated cost of $415,000, proposed cost share 60% City and 40% property owner, for an assessment of $7,546 per unit.

Option 3 - Estimated cost of $841,000, proposed cost share 60% City and 40% property owner, for an assessment of $10,852 per unit.

Engineer Sterna explained that Option 3 does not include the water service line reconstruction at the south end of the road, however, he included two (2) alternates in the report for the water service line reconstruction shown on page 16. He stated that the water line is privately owned by six (6) residents and that they are solely responsible for the costs to repair or replace the line. He commented that the residents indicated they do not support the road improvements due to the fact that they would be responsible for the costs to repair the water line if it breaks and also to repair the road.. The Engineer reviewed the costs associated with the two alternates associated with the water line improvement as listed in the feasibility report:

Alternate No. 1 – Estimated cost of $121,000, proposed cost share 40% City and 60% property owner, for an assessment of $1,562 per unit;

Alternate No. 2 – Estimated cost of $85,000, proposed cost share 40% City and 60% property owner, for an assessment of $1,097 per unit.

The Engineer explained that the City does not own the water line and would need permission and easements from the six (6) residents to proceed with including the alternates in the project. He stated that if Council determines the water line improvements should paid 100% by the residents on Charlton Road, the per unit assessment would increase from those shown in the feasibility report.

Engineer Sterna stated that he recommends the City pursue right-of-way acquisition for one parcel on the west end, north side of Charlton Roads and advised that the costs could be included in the total project cost. He noted that the costs to pursue the right-of-way acquisition would slightly increase the per unit assessment for the road improvement.

The Engineer explained that while preparing the report, he attempted to address all concerns raised by property owners and stated that he would continue to work with residents to address their concerns during construction if the project proceeds. He noted that a majority of the property owners along the road support the project.

Engineer Sterna further recommended that the improvements to the Sunfish Lake outlet be done as part of the project and noted that no additional easement are required to construct the outlet improvements. He explained that the estimated cost of $41,000 or $1,243 per unit for the outlet improvement would be 100% assessed to property owners

The Engineer stated that the property owner of the wetland area at the north end of the road had expressed concern that the pond had slowly filled in over the years. He suggested that staff could contact the property owner to discuss the possibility of the City including removal of the sediment in the wetland as part of the project. He offered to contact the property owner in an attempt to negotiate including the pond improvements as part of the project in exchange for the necessary easements on that parcel.

Engineer Sterna advised that the project could begin this fall and be completed next spring depending on the length of time it takes for the condemnation proceedings. He suggested that Council determine the scope of the project and then he would formally present the Feasibility Report at their May meeting. He stated that once the final report is approved, the next steps would to schedule a public hearing in August, then order Plans and Specification for presentation in September. He indicated that the bids could be let this year or delayed until January or February 2019, with construction delayed until June 2019. He noted that delaying the project until 2019 may also be beneficial for bonding for the project.

There was discussion regarding whether or not costs for materials and interest for bonding would increase if the project was delayed until next year.

Engineer Sterna explained that it would be difficult to determine if the costs would substantially increase if the project is delayed, however, he indicated that it may be beneficial to receive bids in February when contractors are seeking work for the spring. He pointed out that the project could be completed in only a few months.

The Engineer displayed a diagram of the properties included in the project and the areas where easements had been provided.

Councilmember O’Leary expressed concern regarding the City taking possession of the water main line and asked if a new water line could be installed by boring under the road.

Engineer Sterna stated that it could be done, however, the City of St. Paul Water Department supplies the water and they do not allow installation of plastic pipe. He stated the options would be to leave the water line as is under the road or move the line from under the road and place in on the adjacent properties, which would require permission and easements from all the property owners.

Mayor Williams stated he would not support the City taking ownership of the water line.

Engineer Sterns pointed out that he would not recommend Council include moving the water line as part of the project unless all six (6) residents granted permission to do so, provided the necessary easements and waived their right to appeal assessments for the road and water line improvements.

Councilmember Bulach questioned if the City could put in a 12-inch pipe and sleeve it; he expressed concern that a break in the water line would close the road until repairs are done.

Engineer Sterna explained that it would be possible to sleeve the pipe, but it would require digging to the depth of the pipe, which is not part of the project. He pointed out that the pipe is located in the center of the road and he discussed the possibility of placing another pipe adjacent to the road and connecting it to the main line.

Ibby Hammett asked if it would be feasible to move the water line and place it under the ditch line adjacent to her residence. She asked if the sewer line could be left under the road.

Engineer Sterna explained that would be possible, however, the City would require all six (6) residents to grant their permission, to grant the City the necessary easements, and to waive their right to appeal any assessments for the road and water line improvements. He stated that the sewer line could remain under the road since it is easier to repair.

Councilmember O’Leary stated it is his opinion that the other residents along the road do not receive any benefit from the water line replacement and that they should not bear any of the costs for that portion of the project.

Engineer Sterna stated he could change the proposed assessments in the feasibility report if Council recommends that only the six (6) property owners be assessed the costs.

Attorney Kuntz asked what would happen if the water line remains in the road and needs repairs 10 years from now.

Engineer Sterna explained that St. Paul Water would shut off the water line and the property owners would have to find a contractor to make the necessary repairs and pay the entire cost. He noted it could be $10 to $15,000 to repair the water line and the road and the residents would not have water until it was repaired. He also noted that a contractor would require some type of guarantee that the property owners would pay for the repairs.

Attorney Kuntz asked if the water line would be fixed in its current location.

The Engineer responded yes and explained that would be the only option in the event of an emergency; he also noted that a water line break occurs during the winter months due to cold weather conditions, and it would be costly to repair.

Councilmember Bulach pointed out that in any event the residents would have to pay for the water line repairs and that the only additional cost would be for 4-inches of blacktop on the road.

Engineer Sterna agreed and pointed out that the bituminous replacement would be the lessor amount of the cost. He stated that if Council decided to include the water line as part of the project, he could modify the feasibility report by adding those costs that would be paid in full by the six (6) residents who own the line.

Councilmember O’Leary explained that he does not see any benefit to other residents on the road and in his opinion the residents who own the line should pay for its replacement, just as he would pay for repairs to his well or septic on his property.

Ibby Hammett asked if the hydrant near St. Anne’s Church is being included in the project.

Engineer Sterna stated that he would not recommend installing that water line for the hydrant at this time, He explained that the residents on the north end of the road have the benefit of two hydrants and the City has the option to install the line in the future. He noted that the cost for installing the water line under TH 110 is $72,600 and the cost for reconstructing the water line at the south end of the road is $51,000.

Mayor Williams pointed out that because it is impossible to determine when or if the water line will break, it may be wise for the residents who own the line to set-up a fund for the purpose of future repairs and the monies could be transferred with the sale of their homes. He pointed out that having the funds available for future repairs could resolve this issue and the City could then proceed with the project.

Ibby Hammett asked if the City would allow the residents to form an association.

Mayor Williams explained that the City has not control over the formation of such an association.

Councilmember Bulach asked if the water line could be scoped.

Engineer Sterna stated he had never heard of scoping a water line and that he had only heard of running a pressure test on the line.

Councilmember Bulach stated that he would prefer knowing at this time if there is any damage to the line. He suggested if it could be scoped during construction it may be wise to find out at this time.

Mayor Williams asked if the line would be exposed during construction and Engineer Sterna explained it would not since it is buried too deep. He offered to check with his waste water staff to ask if the line could be scoped or its integrity could be tested.

Shannon Werb commented that in his opinion the risk is not really changing with the road improvements so it appears that the homeowners should decide whether or not they want to do the project or not.

Mayor Williams explained the City’s concern is that the road would be affected if it breaks after the repairs are made.

Shannon Werb pointed out that the estimated project costs had increased and asked if that was directly due to the condemnation proceedings or if it had to do with more details.

Engineer Sterna explained that the increased costs included estimates include the condemnations as well as the preparation of the feasibility report, additional meetings with residents, and researching the alternative options in the projects.

Shannon Werb stated that in his opinion staff is doing an excellent job and he was not criticizing their work. He commented that the residents that are unwilling to provide the easements are increasing the assessments for everyone including themselves.

Engineer Sterna noted that there are two (2) separate projects included in his report, the road improvements and the outlet improvement and that there would be two separate assessment hearings, one for each project.

In summary, Engineer Sterna stated that staff recommends Council proceed with Option 3, Improvement of the entire road, that the project not include the water line at the south end of the road or the extension of the water main under Highway 110 near the Church or any Alternates. He further recommended that the Sunfish Lake outlet improvements be included in the project.

The Engineer explained that the utility company may trim trees adjacent to the road so that they do not hamper the power lines. He noted that when this occurs there may be a notable difference in the appearance along the road since the power company excessively trims back the trees and that they have prescriptive rights to do so.

Ibby Hammett asked if bad soils are found during the project, would a plastic liner be installed on the road surface.

Engineer Sterna stated that in the backflow area a fabric would be installed to prevent silt from coming through to the surface of the road and weaken the base.

Ibby Hammett explained that St. Paul Water Department had mentioned that if the soil was bad a plastic liner could be placed over the line.

Engineer Sterna explained that would be necessary if hot soils are found in the area, a plastic bag is placed over the pipe during its installation. He indicated that cannot be done at this time, only be done if the water line is replaced.

Attorney Kuntz reviewed the fact that State Statutes require the City to prepare a feasibility report prior to proceeding with the project and advised that Council must formally accept the report and call for a public hearing. He explained that after Council reaches a decision this evening, the City Engineer should finalize the report for presentation to Council at their May meeting. He explained that this determination should be made prior to calling for a public hearing.

Council concurred that the Engineer be directed to proceed with finalizing the report with Option 3, improvement of the entire road and to also include the Sunfish Lake Outlet improvement as part of the project.

Attorney Kuntz asked Council if the wished to authorize the Engineer to contact the property owner regarding the condemnation proceedings and attempt to determine if they would be willing to provide the necessary easement in exchange for drainage improvements issues relating to the pond on their property.

Councilmember O’Leary moved to authorize the City Engineer to negotiate with the property owner regarding obtaining an easement in exchange for the City including improvements to the pond on their property, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried (5-0)

Engineer Sterna explained there are two parcels he had been unable to contact and that he would attempt to make contact again. He noted that the Church has expressed a willingness to grant the easement.

Attorney Kuntz asked if Council was of the opinion the project may not begin until 2019.

Mayor Williams indicated that Council agrees the project may not begin until 2019.

Shannon Werb commented that it appears the project may not proceed until 2019, but encouraged Council to continue to move forward with the project.

Engineer Sterna explained that the condemnation process could be from 9 to 18 months, however, if easement negotiations are successful the project could be undertaken in 2018 versus waiting until next year.

Mayor Williams asked if there were any further questions or comments and there was no response.

Council thanked the Engineer for his report.

c. Other: Consider Resolution Supporting Local Decision-Making Authority: Mayor Williams explained that the City Attorney had advised there were 40 bills in the legislature that would take decision making authority away from local elected officials and that over 100 Minnesota cities had adopted the model ordinance distributed by the League of Minnesota Cities that encourages State legislators to oppose these bills and leave the authority with local elected officials.

Attorney Kuntz explained that other surrounding communities had adopted resolutions similar to the model drafted by the League of Minnesota Cities.

The Mayor asked if Council had any questions or comments and there was no response.

Councilmember O’Leary moved to adopt Resolution No. 18-06 titled, A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LOCAL ECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)

Clerk Iago explained that she had only received notice of the draft resolution today and that she would forward the document to the League of Minnesota Cities for distribution to the State Legislature.

The Mayor asked if there was any further business.

Resident Pamela Bennett asked if the City was still monitoring airport noise issues.

Councilmember O’Leary responded yes and explained that he is the City’s representative to the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC). He stated that some airlines are looking to purchase newer planes that would be less noisy and that the NOC holds bi-monthly meetings with other communities that are adjacent to the airport. He commented that the NOC is one of the top citizen involvement groups in the United States and that the group works with the Metropolitan Airport Commission on the noise issues.

Mayor Williams asked if there were any other comments or business and there was no response.

9. ADJOURN: Mayor Williams adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.


____________________________ ________________________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk Richard A. Williams, Jr., Mayor