SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – APRIL 5, 2011
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Mayor: Richard Williams
Councilmembers: Judy MacManus, Paul Burke and Roger Conant.
City Attorney: Tim Kuntz
City Planner: Carie Fuhrman
City Engineer: Tim Hanson
City Treasurer: Mike Blair
Interim Building Inspector: David Neameyer
City Forester: Jim Nayes
City Clerk: Cathy Iago
and Members of the General Public.
Councilmember Mike Hovey and Police Chief Manila Shaver were absent.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Williams opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and requested a moment of silence in remembrance of City Building Official Russ Wahl.
2. APPROVE AGENDA: Mayor Williams asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda. He explained that he wished to present a report on the Lower Mississippi Watershed Management Organization as Item 8.h. under New/Other Business. He asked if there were any further additions and there was no response.
Councilmember Conant moved approval of the Agenda with additional Item 8.h. as recommended by Mayor Williams, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (4-0)
3. CONSENT AGENDA: The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Conant explained that he had discussed the discrepancy with the Xcel Energy billing statement with the City Treasurer and the Treasurer offered to contact Xcel to correct the problem. Treasurer Blair explained that it is a timing issue with the billing statement and he would contact Xcel to resolve the matter.
Councilmember Burke noted that Council had discussed setting a study meeting in May and questioned if he should defer his comments on the financial reports for discussion at the study meeting.
Mayor Williams asked if the comments related to content or format.
Councilmember Burke responded the comments relate to format and noted that the City is currently trending at a deficit of $20,000. He suggested discussion of project revenues and noted that if the current spending continues, the City would have a $20,000 deficit due to the overage for snowplowing.
Treasurer Blair indicated that is correct and suggested that this matter should be raised during the upcoming budget discussions in September for next year’s budget.
Councilmember Burke suggested that staff request bids for snowplowing on a “per trip” basis and asked if staff had ever challenged one of the snowplowing bills.
Engineer Hanson explained that he confirms the plowing time is consistent with the snow fall event and previous snow plowing billings, however; he has not challenged the billing statement. He pointed out that no two snowfall events are exactly the same.
Councilmember Burke commented that due to the amount of the snowplowing bills this subject merits further review and discussion.
Mayor Williams suggested this item be placed on the study meeting agenda and that Council should also review the cash flow issue in conjunction with budget discussions. He explained that the Treasurer had prepared the financial reports in this format for Council review after discussions with Councilmember Conant.
Treasurer Blair commented that the City of Inver Grove Heights has not issued a billing statement for plowing along 60th Street as it is a boundary street.
Councilmember Conant questioned the usual amount for the plowing cost and Treasurer Blair responded it is usually $2,000 to $3,000 per year.
Councilmember Burke noted that he is a new member of the Council and questioned if there was any past practice to establish an hourly limit on staff review of matters, such as legal issues.
Mayor Williams responded that in the past there has not been an hourly limit established for this purpose; he noted that Council authorizes a budget amount based on knowledge of upcoming items and has asked for cost estimates from staff on items that arise during the year. He noted that he has suggested Council direct questions to him versus staff in order to save costs related to questions he may be able to answer versus using staff time to research the question. He explained that it is difficult to manage consultant fees and that some years the costs are higher based on citizen inquiries or issues that are raised by Council; he noted that is why the City is required to carry reserve funds.
Councilmember Burke noted that the consultant billings are currently organized by persons and he suggested that it may be more helpful to organize the billings by projects. He questioned if the time spent on with a resident on the upcoming subdivision request could be charged back to the resident.
Mayor Williams indicated that it may be possible to recoup those fees. Planner Fuhrman pointed out that no formal application has been submitted at this time. The Mayor noted that would be a procedural issue and that it may be possible to impose a fee for feasibility studies.
Engineer Hanson pointed out that residents have questions about the process and regulations prior to making applications; he explained that most cities with full-time staff do not charge to respond to these questions.
Mayor Williams suggested further discussion of this matter at the study meeting.
Councilmember Burke stated that he had reviewed the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) document and did not find the proposed culvert replacement project for Angell Road listed in the document; he noted the plan was adopted in 2007.
Mayor Williams explained the document was developed when the former Mayor was elected and Council agreed to establish funds for identified infrastructure projects. He pointed out that the document had not been updated and that it would be appropriate to do so in conjunction with the 2012 budget discussions.
Councilmember Conant questioned if the City plans to assess benefitted property owners for the Angell Road culvert replacement project.
Engineer Hanson explained that in the past the City has been reluctant to assess for storm water projects; he noted it is difficult to assess watershed areas since some properties are not necessarily adjacent to the improvement project location.
Councilmember Conant commented that in is opinion it is unfair that persons residing on a private road must pay for their culvert installation and must also pay for public roadways.
Mayor Williams pointed out that there was similar discussion when the Acorn Drive improvement project occurred and he noted that a portion of the assessments was paid from the City road maintenance fund. He agreed that it is difficult to show benefit to properties that are not adjacent to the project area.
Councilmember Burke noted that there is a methodology for assessment in the CIP and he suggested the City should formalize an assessment policy for future equitability.
There was discussion relating to establishing an assessment policy for improvement projects and possibly reviewing the matter at the study meeting.
Councilmember Conant suggested Council direct staff to obtain copies of assessment policies from similar cities for their review. Engineer Hanson offered to compile information on other cities policies.
The Mayor pointed out that there are numerous private roads in Sunfish Lake and therefore it may be easier for other cities with more public roads to adopt an assessment policy.
Attorney Kuntz explained that all of the cities he currently serves have an adopted assessment policy; he noted that Sunfish Lake did adopt an assessment policy for collector streets versus neighborhood streets. He explained that assessment policies vary depending on the type of project and the law specifies that the amount of the assessment cannot be greater than the benefit.
Councilmember Conant asked who filed for the Recycling Grant and how the funds are utilized. Clerk Iago responded that she filled out the application for the grant and that it is done annually.
Mayor Williams explained that the funds are used to publish the Sunfish Lake Quarterly and for other recycling efforts undertaken by City.
Councilmember Conant questioned why the City funds are showing a negative balance.Treasurer Blair explained that the property taxes collected by Dakota County are not sent to the City until July each year, therefore the funds show a negative balance between January and June.
Councilmember Conant commented that he has knowledge of government accounting and offered to share the information with the Treasurer. Treasurer Blair stated he would be happy to work with Councilmember Conant on this matter and explained that the practices used for the financials are no different from prior years.
Mayor Williams asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Burke moved approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Councilmember Conant and carried. (4-0)
a. Regular Council and Special Council meeting minutes of March 1, 2011.
b. List of Bills
c. Monthly Financials
4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: Mayor Williams asked if there were any comments from the public.
Holly Divine explained that she has secured twenty-five (25) recycling containers from Dakota County for distribution at the Arbor Day celebration; she stated that the bins will be provided to the first 25 residents who bring recyclable materials to the vent. She explained that the recycling grant funds may be used to print the quarterly newsletter since the document provides information on recycling.
The Mayor asked if there were further comments and there was no response
5. PUBLIC HEARING:
a. Review the City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Plan (SWPPP) and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Mayor Williams opened the public hearing for the purpose of reviewing the City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Plan (SWPPP) and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
Engineer Hanson explained that Engineer Todd Hubmer was unable to attend this evening, therefore, he will present the information. He distributed informational packets for relating to the Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. He stated that the permit must be renewed annually and that City is required to conduct an annual public hearing to educate the public on the permit requirements and to receive public comments. He advised that the City is also required to have Best Management Practices and he reviewed the six minimum control measures undertaken annually; 1) public education and outreach, 2) public participation and involvement, 3) illicit discharge detection and elimination, 4) construction site storm water runoff control, 5) post-construction storm water management, and 6) pollution prevention and good housekeeping for municipal operations.
The Engineer explained that the City’s MS4 Permit actually expired in 2010, but the City will continue to operate under the permit until the MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agenday) has completed its review of the current requirements and determined if any new requirements are necessary. He advised that although Sunfish Lake does not meet minimum pollution requirements to be a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System City, the MPCA requires all metropolitan cities to be permitted and to conduct an annual public hearing. He noted that the permit regulates storm water drainage from culverts that flow into wetlands and there are a few in Sunfish Lake.
Engineer Hanson explained that the City would conduct the public hearing and respond to any comments received this evening; he advised that the annual report would then be finalized and submitted to the MPCA.
Councilmember Burke asked how many ponds (storm water management ponds) are located within the City and what needs to be done relative to the ponds. Engineer Hanson explained that the City monitors the ponds every three years; he noted that there is not substantial runoff from roadways into the ponds and that the ponds should not require maintenance for approximately 20 to 30 years. He stated that he is unsure of the number of (storm water management) ponds within the City and that he would find the information and report back to Council.
Attorney Kuntz explained that in conjunction with the last 3 or 4 plat applications received by the City, he had recommended and drafted storm water management agreements that require the landowners be responsible for maintenance of the ponding area; he stated these documents were recorded with the plats.
Councilmember Conant questioned who performs the monitoring of the ponds and if records are kept; he asked if the information was available for review. Engineer Hanson explained that his office reviews the inlets and outlets for sediment, as well as design and shape maintenance and records are kept and available for review. He noted that the MPCA has also performed audits relating to this information on other cities.
Ibby Hammett explained there is a natural pond near her home that has dried out in the last five years. Holly Divine explained that it could be due to the low snow and rainfall amounts in previous years.
Engineer Hanson agreed the low moisture amounts could be responsible.
Ibby Hammet pointed out that the pond is full of weeds and asked if it could be dredged. Engineer Hanson explained that a permit from the MPCA and DNR must be obtained; he commented that it is difficult to obtain the permit and that it would be expensive to complete.
Engineer Hanson explained that the City would continue the 2010 MS4 Permit objectives; expand public outreach and storm water related programming through the Environmental Commission; post storm water related articles on the City’s website and in the Sunfish Lake Quarterly and conduct the Arbor Day clean-up activities. He noted that in 2010 there were no construction sites greater than 1-acre and that he had conducted some outfall and pond inspections on smaller areas. He offered to respond to questions.
Mayor Williams asked if there were any comments from the public and there was no response.
Councilmember Conant moved to close the public hearing at 8:15 p.m., seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (4-0)
Council thanked the Engineer for his presentation.
b. Consider An Ordinance Amending Section 202.03 of the Sunfish Lake City Code and Section 1201.10 of the Zoning Ordinance Relating to Fees and Charges for Permits, Land Use Approvals, Site Plan Approvals, Burning Permits and Septic System Permits. Mayor Williams opened the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Section 202.03 of the City Code and Section 1201.10 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to fees and charges for permits, land use approval, site plan approvals, burning permits and septic system permits.
Planner Fuhrman explained that the changes that the proposed ordinance amendment would encompass;
1) Relating to Septic System Fees – This change is in light of the new contract with the Septic System Inspector to reflect the contracted amounts.
2) Reimbursable Charges for Forestry Work - This change allows for fees related to the use of the City Forester’s services in conjunction with land use approvals to be passed through to the developer/landowners as a reimbursable fee.
3) Nexus to Actual Costs Related to Reimbursable Charges – State Statutes requires that reimbursable to the City “have to have a nexus to the actual cost of the service for which the fee is imposed.” The change allows the City to charge the hourly rates set forth in contracts with consultants as the “pass through” fee for providing their services in conjunction with an application.
4) Additional Charges for “After-the-Fact” Permits or Approvals – Council discussed imposing an additional fee or charge when a landowner has performed work on their property prior to obtaining a requisite land use approval. The fee would be to reimburse the City with regard to verifying the condition of the property prior to the work, documenting the work that was performed prior to obtaining the requisite approval and analyzing whether work already performed complies with City Code and conditions that may be imposed as part of the approval process. The fee must be reasonable and Council concurred that a $250.00 fee would be reasonable to cover the City’s administrative costs. In addition, the ordinance requires reimbursement for any legal, planning, forestry and engineering costs incurred related to verifying, documenting or analyzing the previous work.
The Planner stated that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter on March 16, 2011; no persons were present at the hearing. She advised that the Commission recommended Council adopt the proposed ordinance as presented this evening.
Councilmember Conant questioned if the $40 fee for Burning Permits is kept by the City or the Forester.
Treasurer Blair explained that the City collects the fee and then pays the Forester for his time. He stated that the Forester’s hourly rate is $41.60 and that it would be appropriate for the City to set the fee at that amount.
Mayor Williams asked the Attorney if a separate hearing would be required to raise the fee since it was not part of the previous discussion on this matter. Attorney Kuntz explained that the previous discussion related to including the Forester’s fee in conjunction with planning applications, however, since the discussion is related to fees, Council has the authority to adjust the fee for the burning permit.
The Mayor pointed out that the fee for the burning permit was merely to cover the costs for the Forester’s time, not to make money for the City. He asked the Forester if the $40 fee covers his time.
Forester Nayes explained that for first time permit holders he may spend an hour or more explaining precautions to be taken and reviewing the site for burning, however; with repeat permit holders he may not spend a full hour of his time.
After a brief discussion, Council concurred to raise the fee for the Burning Permit to $45 to insure it would cover the costs of issuance and inspection of the site by the Forester.
The Mayor asked if there was any further discussion or comments from the public and there was no response.
Councilmember Burke moved to close the public hearing at 8:40 p.m., seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (4-0)
Councilmember Conant moved to adopt Ordinance No. 2011-02 titled, Ordinance Amending Section 202.03 of the Sunfish Lake City Code and Section 1201.10 of the Zoning Ordinance Relating to Fees and Charges for Permits, Land Use Approvals, Site Plan Approvals, Burning Permits and Septic System Permits, as amended to increase the Burning Permit Fee from $40.00 to $45.00, seconded by Councilmember Burke and carried. (4-0)
6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT:
a. Planning Report: Planner Fuhrman referred Council to her report dated March 31, 2011. She explained that
Steve Bulach is interested in constructing an addition on his home and that the home is considered an existing, non-
conforming structure as it does not meet the required 50 ft. side yard setback. She advised that Mr. Bulach is working with his neighbor, Mr. Kampmeyer, to negotiate purchase of a portion of the neighboring property in order to meet the setback requirements and avoid requesting a variance. She noted that this will require a lot split and major site and building plan review due to the size of the addition and most likely will be heard by the Planning Commission in May.
The Planner explained that she received an inquiry regarding “geocaching” within the City. She stated that geocaching is an increasingly popular outdoor recreational activity in which a “prize” is hidden from public view and participants use a GPS device and internet-published coordinates to locate the geocache on public property. She advised that the City does not have any regulations in terms of conducting this sport within the city limit. She noted that some municipalities have chosen to establish restrictions and/or policies in terms of regulating the practice. She indicated that she is notifying Council of the request to gauge if there is an interest in establishing regulations on this activity.
Councilmember Conant questioned how often the activity occurs, how many people it might involve, and how long the prize is left in place.
Rick Ranalle was present and explained that the activity normally generates four to five persons per week to search for the prize. He noted that some prizes are taken when they are found and that some remain in place with items added to the geocache. He displayed a pine cone that he proposed to use if approval was obtained from Council.
Mayor Williams questioned if the group was looking for permission to place these items on public property. Mr. Ranalle responded yes and noted that the items could be placed on public property or attached with a magnet to a Stop Sign.
Forester Nayes pointed out that the parks are the only public property within the City and that there is no off-street parking near the parks.
Councilmember MacManus questioned if the Planner is seeking a decision this evening or merely presenting the information.
Planner Fuhrman explained that she was only presenting the information to Council to determine if there was interest in allowing the activity; she noted that legally the City cannot prohibit the event, but can regulate the activity.
Councilmember Conant asked what happens if the City does not take any action.
Attorney Kuntz explained that staff could remove the prizes or leave them in place until such time as the City establishes regulations. He indicated that there would be safety concerns relating to the lack of parking near the parks.
Mayor Williams pointed out that Musser Park operates under the Land Trust and the City may also require their permission before allowing the activity. He indicated that Council is not in a position to take action this evening and thanked the participants for their input.
Planner Fuhrman asked if staff should gather information relating to the activity. Mayor Williams indicated that this matter could be discussed at a future time and that he was unsure if Council has the time to address the question.
Councilmember Conant suggested that the interested parties return in six months to pose the question.
The participants pointed out that they reside in neighboring communities and have received permission from other cities such as Maple Grove and St. Paul.
Mayor Williams thanked the participants for their input and suggested they return in six months.
Planner Fuhrman advised that a resident inquired about hosting a wedding and reception on her property in the City. She explained that the City has not required any permits for this type of use in the past. She noted that the Police Chief has asked the neighborhood officer to contact the property owner and offer suggestions regarding any potential problems that could arise; such as traffic and/or parking issues. She explained that the property owner is attempting to get permission from a nearby church for parking and shuttling persons to the site; she also suggested that the property owner contact the neighbors to inform them of the event.
The Planner reported that the Metropolitan Council had updated the City’s Community Profile with the 2010 Census data; the City population has increased from 504 to 521. She explained that no applications had been submitted for the April meeting, but the Commission may meet to conduct a public hearing on a proposed ordinance amendment depending on Council’s later discussion of Minor Subdivision approvals.
Planner Fuhrman stated she attended the Shoreland Management Workshop with two of the Councilmembers and indicated that the biggest challenge in the future appears to be requiring a buffer of natural vegetation along the shoreline; she noted that Sunfish Lake already has such regulations in place. She also pointed out there maybe grant opportunities available for shoreland restoration.
The Planner distributed a list of staff for Council review. Councilmember Conant questioned if the list would be placed on the website. The Planner responded that this list is only for staff and Council use as it contains cell phone numbers.
b. Discussion among Council, City Planner and City Attorney Concerning Variance Standards: Attorney Kuntz explained that due to a recent ruling from a Court of Appeals case, cities were mandated to take the language of the State Statute regulating zoning variances literally. He noted that the term “hardship” was eliminated as a reason for granting a variance and that a variance could not be granted unless a property cannot be put to reasonable use without granting the variance. He noted that currently there is a pending legislature bill that would re-establish variance authority for cities thereby allowing cities to respond to unique local needs to their ordinances. He further advised that the bill would allow cities to impose conditions that “directly related” and bearing a ”rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance” which will insulate cities from future court challenges. He stated that he will keep Council informed on this matter and that this report is for informational purposes.
Planner Fuhrman noted that she had informed Mr. Bulach that he would have a limited chance of obtaining a variance for his proposed addition and therefore, Mr. Bulach had approached Mr. Kampmeyer to obtain the additional land required to meet the current setback standards.
c. Discussion among Council, City Planner and City Attorney Concerning Eligibility for Minor Subdivision Approval: Attorney Kuntz explained that currently the City requires an application for a Minor Subdivision to change lot lines or split an existing lot or to combine lots. He noted that this type of application requires Council approval either by re-platting or by approval of a minor subdivision. He advised that the current ordinance contains criteria and three methods to accomplish a minor subdivision; however, the current ordinance also states that the minor subdivision process cannot be used if the dedication of an easement is required. Any time new lots are created or boundaries are adjusted, the general policy objective of the City should be to obtain the boundary and other easements. Therefore, under the current ordinance, the result is that landowners are forced to follow the platting procedures, even in what would typically be considered a minor subdivision. Staff is recommending an ordinance amendment that would eliminate this requirement, along with a few other adjustments, so that the necessity for easements would not be a disqualification of minor subdivision approval, but rather that the dedication of easements would be a condition that has to be met for the minor subdivision approval to be effective.
The Attorney pointed out that staff has had a few inquiries relating to this application and therefore has brought the matter to the attention of Council for discussion and direction. He suggested that if Council concurs with the staff recommendation, they direct the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the matter.
Mayor Williams moved to authorize staff to prepare a draft ordinance amendment and to direct the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment relating to minor subdivision requirements, seconded by Councilmember MacManus.
In discussion, Councilmember Conant asked who would be responsible for determining if an easement is necessary.
Planner Fuhrman responded that the City Engineer would make that determination. Attorney Kuntz pointed out that the application would be reviewed by Council for final determination and approval.
Councilmember Conant asked who would draft the ordinance amendment. Attorney Kuntz responded that he would draft the amendment for the public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting and for Council approval.
There was discussion regarding whether or not the draft ordinance should be first sent to Council.
Councilmember Conant questioned if Council would have an opportunity to change the proposed ordinance amendment prior to its adoption and Attorney Kuntz responded yes.
Councilmember Burke questioned if there would be conditions related to requiring the same existing easement and when an easement is not necessary. He also asked if there was no existing easement on the property, would the easement follow some geography, such as a lot line.
Attorney Kuntz responded that there would be conditions in place relating to the necessity of an easement and also relating to granting the same type of easement that was originally on the plat.
Planner Fuhrman pointed out that a geographic lot line could be utilized, however, she noted that some drainage easements do not follow lot lines.
Engineer Hanson commented that on larger lots a drainage easement is usually not adjacent to a lot line.
Councilmember Conant suggested that it may be appropriate for the City Attorney to attend the public hearing to respond to the legal issues related to this matter.
Mayor Williams indicated that if the Attorney is unable to attend the public hearing, the legal issues could be addressed by Council. He asked if there was further discussion and there was no response. He called the question.
Motion Carried. (4-0)
Council thanked the Planner for her report.
7. INSPECTOR’S REPORTS:
a. Building Inspector: Interim Inspector David Neameyer stated he issued one (1) building permit in March.
Council thanked the Inspector for his report.
- City Engineer: Angell Road Culvert Replacement: Engineer Hanson stated he would discuss this matter as a separate agenda item.
Musser Parking Lot: The Engineer stated he had conversation with Ann Murphy of the Minnesota Land Trust and they have granted approval of a parking area, but they are requesting detailed information regarding the parking area. He stated that the Land Trust requested information relating to the size of parking lot and building materials; he noted that they prefer the lot to look as “natural” as possible. He explained that no decision is needed this evening, however, Council should consider the size of the parking area and what type of materials they wish to use. He explained that there are materials that could be used to keep the appearance of the area “natural” and still support parking.
Councilmember Burke suggested soliciting the Police Chief’s input regarding the potential for problems with off-street parking in this area.
Engineer Hanson explained the proposed site is an open area adjacent to the road, although the Land Trust has indicated it would prefer the parking to be less visible.
Councilmember Conant pointed out that at this time it is unsure whether or not it would actually be used by the public or just for maintenance purposes.
Engineer Hanson suggested that the question could be posed to the community regarding its use.
After discussion, Council concurred to place this matter on the May Council agenda for further discussion.
NPDES Annual Public Hearing: Engineer Hanson stated that the annual public hearing for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) MS4 Permit was prepared and the public hearing held.
Miscellaneous: Engineer Hanson reported that a letter was sent to the Mayor from West St. Paul Mayor Zanmiller relating to adjacent cities sharing costs associated with updating Fire Hydrant nozzles. He explained that he had spoken to Fire Chief John Mazcko who indicated he is not totally supportive of the nozzle update and pointed out that there are only two fire hydrants located within the City. He advised that the Fire Chief recommended no action on this matter.
Mayor Williams explained that he responded to the letter from Mayor Zanmiller.
CIP: The Engineer stated he sent out the Capital Improvement Plan for Council review; he commented that it is a dynamic document and a planning tool for budgeting. He recommended that Council consider updating the document and noted that it is typical for projects to fall behind schedule due to lack of funding. He suggested that the document be reviewed and updated in conjunction with the 2012 budget discussions.
Councilmember Burke noted that the Angell Road culvert improvement was not listed in the document. The Engineer responded that the problem was found during an inspection of the culvert last fall and was immediately brought to Council attention.
Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of March: Spring Weight Road Restrictions: The Engineer stated the road restrictions were placed on City street on March 14 in accordance with the restrictions placed by the Commissioner of Transportation. He advised that permission was granted to a septic hauler to utilize Charlton Road for access to a private parcel to pump a failed septic system.
Street Snowplowing: The Engineer stated City streets were plowed and sanded twice on March 7 and 23; review of streets has found them to be in typical winter driving condition. He stated that potholes are forming on the older City streets; Salem Church, Windy Hill and Angell Roads; the potholes are not hazardous and repair will be completed when bituminous hot mix is available. He further explained that Windy Hill Road is showing signs of excessive stresses and minor failure; the pavement will continue to be monitored. He also advised that Charlton Road held up very well so far this spring and that the cold weather has benefited the street.
Anticipated Engineer/Public Works Activities’ for the Month of April:
- Seasonal load restrictions will be remain on City streets according to restrictions identified by the Minnesota
State Commissioner of Transportation
- Complete street sweeping
- Preparation of the NPDES Annual Report
- Easement Acquisition for Angell Road Culvert Replacement Project
Council thanked the Engineer for his report. - CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes stated he issued four (4) burning permits in March and that he continued with clearance of high risk trees adjacent to various streets within the City. He explained that Xcel Energy will remove tree branches near power lines. He stated he would begin seeding along Charlton Road in April and also begin removal of Buckthorn.
Council thanked the Forester for his report. - PUBLIC SAFETY: Mayor Williams stated that Chief Shaver was unable to attend the meeting this evening and he reviewed the incidents as outlined in an email sent by the Chief. He pointed out that alarm calls are somewhat lower than the same time period last year.
8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS:
a. Consider Memorandum of Understanding with Dakota County and its Cities Participating in the High Performance Partnership (HiPP) Project Mayor Williams presented the Memorandum of Understanding with Dakota County for the City’s participation in the High Performance Partnership (HiPP) Project and recommended Council approve the City’s participation.
Councilmember Conant pointed out that there is no information in the document relating to the purpose of the group.
Councilmember Burke agreed that it would be helpful if the document listed the six initiatives that were completed. He asked if there were any costs associated with participation.
Mayor Williams stated there are no costs and that the cities meet to discuss and share information.
Attorney Kuntz commented that the committee appears to work in cycles and when the initiatives are completed a new cycle begins; he indicated he was not aware of the time-frame for the cycles. Councilmember Burke noted the inception date was 2004.
Mayor Williams stated he would attend the meetings on behalf of the City.
Councilmember Burke moved to authorize the Mayor to execute the Memorandum of Understanding with Dakota County and its Cities Participating in the High Performance Partnership (HiPP) Project, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (4-0)
b. Consider Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for Angell Road Culvert Replacement, Improvement Project 2011-01: Engineer Hanson explained that the construction plans and specification for the Angell Road Culvert Replacement Project are complete and the advertisement for bids has been prepared. He stated that the project replaces three existing centerline culverts that extend across Angell Road at three locations. He noted the culverts are being replaced using a plastic pipe material (HDP). He advised that the flared end section of the culverts is concrete material and the project also includes drainage swale re-grading, tree clearing and bituminous roadway patching. He stated that the estimated construction cost for the project is $54,000. He pointed out that the culvert was installed in 1961 and that the design lifespan for corrugated pipe is 35 years.
The Engineer stated that the project involves easement acquisition from six property owners; he advised he has received two signed documents for permanent easements and that tree parties have indicated they will sign a waiver of trespass for construction purposes. He noted there is one property owner that has expressed a willingness to provide an easement; however, he has been unable to contact this party to obtain a signed document.
Engineer Hanson noted that the project estimate of $54,000 is higher than anticipated and this is due to the significant size of the trees to be removed, as well as the fact that three separate contractors will be used for tree removal, road patching and culvert installation. He recommended letting the bids for opening on May 13 and presentation to Council at the regular meeting in June. He stated the project could be completed during July and August and finalized in September.
The Engineer indicated that funding for the project was not identified in the budget; however, there was $30,000 identified for the Charlton Road improvements. He advised that he had contacted the Treasurer to determine if there are sufficient cash reserves to cover the additional project costs; the Treasurer advised that the remaining funds could be identified in next year’s budget. He noted that the project costs to date are $11,000; $5,000 for preparation of plans and specifications and $5,000 for drafting easement documents. He recommended that Council approve the plans and specifications and authorize advertisement for bids.
Councilmember Conant noted that the previous estimate for the project was $25,000 to $30,000 and now the project costs appear to be $65,000 and growing. He expressed displeasure at the Engineer’s original estimate.
Engineer Hanson pointed out that when he presented the original estimate he was not aware of the extensive tree removal and ditch cleaning that would occur; he further noted that the $54,000 is merely an estimate and that the bids could be lower. He commented that it is common practice to provide a higher estimate to err on the higher side versus being too low.
Councilmember Burke pointed out that the culvert was installed in 1961 and questioned why staff had just recently realized the improvement was necessary; he questioned what other infrastructure problems may arise.
Engineer Hanson explained that he was not on staff during the last review of the infrastructure and that the City is in a unique situation because it does not operate with staff present on a daily basis. He pointed out that there may be other problems that staff is unaware of or that arises due to unforeseen circumstances.
Councilmember Conant indicated that the budget process was still underway in September and that the increased costs should have been brought to their attention at that time.
The Engineer explained that the substantial size of the trees to be removed had added additional costs to the project.
Mayor Williams questioned if staff has an existing record of infrastructure and its age. The Engineer responded no and commented that the age of this culvert was discovered when staff was searching for easements on the plat.
Councilmember Burke asked if there was a method to inventory the existing infrastructure. The Engineer explained that he has begun to identify the infrastructure and will continue to compile a list this fall when the inspections are done; he further noted that the list contains information from recent improvements such as Salem Church Road and Acorn Drive.
Councilmember Burke questioned if the issue of assessments would be easier if an assessment policy were in place.
Attorney Kuntz pointed out that the City usually retains a cash reserve for such purposes. Treasurer Blair responded that cash reserve low point is $95,000 and that utilizing funds for the project would bring the reserves below that amount.
Attorney Kuntz pointed out that the project was not presented as a special assessment project under the Chapter 429 regulations for improvement projects and no public hearing was conducted. He stated that the City cannot assess for the project without conducting a public hearing and would have to hold a hearing prior to awarding the contract.
Engineer Hanson noted that the City could still advertise for bids and hold the bids until the hearing is completed.
Attorney Kuntz suggested that Council should discuss the fact that if all easements are not obtained prior to beginning the project, the City may only be able to partially complete the project or cancel it. He noted that some landowners have only granted a temporary easement for construction.
Councilmember Conant stated that a city-wide assessment would cost approximately $500 per home and would only benefit a small number of residents; he questioned why persons on Horseshoe Lake should be paying for a project on Angell Road.
Councilmember Burke asked how the City would fix the culvert if it collapses without the necessary easements.
Engineer Hanson explained that the City would be authorized to fix the culvert in an emergency situation without obtaining easements. He stated he attempted to gain permanent easements from all the property owners.
Councilmember Burke questioned if the City should spend anymore money on the project without the easement; he suggested notifying the residents that the road may not be fixed.
Councilmember MacManus pointed out that it is a public road and the City is liable if the culvert collapses.
There was discussion relating advertising for bids and how long the bids could be held. Engineer Hanson stated that the current advertisement holds the bids for 60 days; however, he advised he could change that to 120 days.
Mayor Williams commented that in his opinion the City should have an assessment policy in place, but he favored allowing the advertisement for bids while Council discussed assessment policies.
Councilmember MacManus commented that it is odd the City cannot fix a public road without easements. Attorney Kuntz pointed out that the culverts extend beyond the road right-of-way and that is why easements are required.
There was discussion regarding the time-frame for adoption of an assessment policy, conducting he public hearings and preparing an assessment roll for the project. Engineer Hanson indicated it would take approximately 60 days to accomplish all the items. He noted that since it is not a petitioned project, it requires a 4/5ths vote from Council to approve the project.
Councilmember Burke favored proceeding with obtaining bids for the project and suggested that two quotes be requested, one holding the bid 60 days and an alternate for holding the bid 120 days.
Mayor Williams asked if there was any further discussion and there was no response.
Councilmember Burke moved to authorize the advertisement for bids for the Angell Road Culvert Replacement Project as presented and also with a 120 day hold on the bids, seconded by Councilmember Conant.
Engineer Hanson asked for clarification on whether or not the bid should be held for 60 days or 120 days.
Mayor Williams stated his preference would be to request the bid be held for 120 days to obtain the best bid and let the contractor bid the best price.
Councilmember Burke offered a friendly amendment to have the advertisement hold the bid for 120 days and offered a “friendly amendment” to the motion. Councilmember Conant agreed.
Motion as amended carried. (4-0)
Engineer Hanson indicated that the bid opening would not be sent to Council until the June meeting and asked if he should prepare information on an assessment policy prior to that meeting in conjunction with this project.
Council concurred that it would be appropriate to review a policy relating to this project.
c. Consider Approval of Street Sweeping Contract for 2011: Engineer Hanson stated that he received three (3) quotes for street sweeping and debris pick-up and that Reliakor Services was the lowest responsible bidder. He indicated the prices are similar to quotes received in the past and that Reliakor completed the work last year and did an acceptable job.
Councilmember Conant moved to award the 2011 Street Sweeping contract to Reliakor in the amount of $1,075.00, seconded by Councilmember MacManus.
In discussion, Councilmember Burke noted that the quote does not specify hauling the debris off-site. Engineer Hanson stated it was noted in the bid document he sent to the bidders that the debris must be hauled off-site.
Councilmember Burke offered a “friendly amendment” to the motion to request that the debris be hauled off-site. Councilmembers Conant and MacManus agreed to the amendment.
Motion as amended carried. (4-0)
d. Consider Appointment of Representative to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MAC) Noise Oversight Committee (NOC): Clerk Iago stated that she had contacted Gretchen Keenan to confirm that she was interested in being reappointed to serve in this position for another two-year term; she agreed to serve another two-year term.
Councilmember Conant asked if the representative normally presents a report to Council. Clerk Iago stated she would request Ms. Keenan attend a future meeting to present a report.
Councilmember Burke moved to re-appoint Gretchen Keenan as representative to the MAC Noise Oversight Committee for a two-year term, seconded by Councilmember Conant and carried. (4-0)
e. Consider Authorizing Additional Reimbursement for City Clerk’s Attendance at MCFOA Conference: Mayor Williams explained that the Clerk from Lilydale had an unforeseen medical emergency and was unable to attend the conference; therefore, the Clerk has requested Council authorize the expenditure of an additional $136.56 for lodging.
Councilmember Burke moved to authorize the expenditure of and additional $136.56 for lodging costs for the Clerk, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (4-0)
f. Discussion of Establishment of Procedures to be Adopted by the City to Exercise Powers Granted to it Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 463: Mayor Williams suggested that due to the late hour this item be placed on the agenda for the May 3 Study Meeting for discussion.
g. Schedule Special Council Study Meeting prior to Regular Council Meeting on May 3, 2011: Mayor Williams asked for Council input for agenda items for the special meeting. He suggested the meeting begin at 5:00 p.m.
Council concurred to place the following items on the May 3 agenda:
1) Discussion of Establishing an Assessment Policy for Public Improvements; 2) Review of City Oversight Procedures and Financial Processes; 3) Discussion of Establishment of Procedures to be Adopted by the City to Exercise Powers Granted to it Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 463; and 4) Discussion of Joint Powers Agreements
Councilmember Burke moved to Schedule a Special Council Worksession Meeting at 5:00 p.m. on May 3, 2011 with the agenda items as above-listed, seconded by Councilmember Conant and carried. (4-0)
Councilmember Conant suggested that sandwiches be served since the meeting is conducted during dinner.
h. Lower Mississippi Watershed Management Organization Report: Mayor Williams noted that James Sullivan and Councilmember MacManus sit on the board for this organization and a grant application has been made by the organization that could benefit Sunfish Lake.
Jim Sullivan reported Sunfish Lake has been placed on the list for impaired waters and that an application was made to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requesting a grant for a TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) Study that shows the amount of phosphorous in the lake and where it is coming from. Based on the information obtained from the study, there may be remedial procedures to deal with the problems and the grant would help pay for these procedures. He stated that the grant request was forwarded to the MPCA and was submitted by the LMWMO.
Councilmember MacManus stated that grants for three other lakes were also submitted for different reasons. She explained that if the grant was not submitted at this time, it may not come up again for 10 years.
Councilmember Conant asked if testimonials from residents surrounding the lake would be helpful. Mr. Sullivan indicated that volunteers may be needed if the grant is approved, but testimonials are not necessary at this time.
Councilmember Conant noted that some grant request citizen input or matching funds. Councilmember MacManus explained that matching funds are not necessary
Mayor Williams asked if there was any further business and there was no response.
9. ADJOURN: Councilmember Burke moved for adjournment at 10:35 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Conant and carried. (4-0)
___________________________ ___________________________
Richard A. Williams, Jr., Mayor Catherine Iago, City Clerk
We are a small community proud of our heritage and committed to the preservation of our pristine, rural character. We cherish our privacy, yet know we are part of a thriving Dakota County and the greater Twin Cities metropolitan area. With these partnerships in mind, we strive to preserve that unique spirit which is Sunfish Lake, Minnesota.