- DRAFT -
SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – JULY 5, 2011
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Mayor: Richard Williams
Councilmembers: Judy MacManus, Roger Conant, Paul Burke and Mike Hovey.
City Attorney: Tim Kuntz
City Planner: Steve Grittman
Engineer: Tim Hanson
City Treasurer: Mike Blair
Interim Building Inspector: David Neameyer
City Forester: Jim Nayes
City Clerk: Cathy Iago
Police Chief Manila Shaver
and Members of the General Public.
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 requested that an item be added under New/Other Business; 8.h. Appoint Councilmember MacManus to serve as the Sunfish Lake Council representative to the Lower Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (LMWMO). He asked if there were any further additions and there was no response.
Councilmember Conant moved approval of the Agenda as amended, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (5-0)
3. CONSENT AGENDA: The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Conant observed that changes are made to the Council minutes are referred to by page number, however, when the minutes are placed on the website, the page numbers do not appear so it is difficult to discern the change.
Councilmember Hovey suggested that changes be referenced by the section of the minutes that have changed.
Clerk Iago explained that once the minutes have been adopted by Council with the changes, they are the official minutes and any changes that have been made become a part of the official minutes.
Councilmember Burke questioned why the bond interest listed varied from the budget documentation. Treasurer Blair explained that he only had an estimated interest amount when the budget documentation was prepared.
Councilmember Burke asked why there is a 90-day delay in receiving the tax payment. Treasurer Blair explained that Dakota County issues the payment and he is unsure why it is delayed.
Councilmember Conant noted that there is no invoice generated for the Clerk’s monthly salary similar to the other consultants. He also questioned the withholding payment to the Internal Revenue Service and why there was no invoice or explanation for the payment.
Treasurer Blair explained that the Clerk’s monthly salary does not change; he offered to include a copy of the page from her contract that lists the salary with the financials. He also explained that the IRS withholdings are based on the salaries of the City employees.
The Clerk suggested that a payroll spreadsheet could be submitted for these items on a monthly basis.
Councilmember Conant questioned the charge of $180 for photocopies and the charge of $779 for the newspaper.
Attorney Kuntz explained that the copying fees are associated with the number of copies made for Council packets and the public; he advised that the newspaper fees are associated with publication of Ordinances or Public Hearing Notices.
Councilmember Conant questioned the payment to Northwest Associated Consultants for mailing a check to the Treasurer. Planner Steve Grittman explained it was either a check for an application fee or an escrow fee that was mailed to the Treasurer.
Councilmember Conant questioned the payment to Xcel Energy in the amount of $83.37. Treasurer Blair explained that the balance rolls forward to the next invoice and that he now only pays the exact amount of the usage per Councilmember Conant’s request.
Mayor Williams asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Conat moved approval the Consent Agenda, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)
a. Regular Council Meeting minutes of June 7, 2011.
b. List of Bills
c. Monthly Financial Statements
4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: Mayor Williams asked if there were any comments from the public and there was no response.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: None
6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT:
a. Consider Variance and Major Site and Building Plan Application, 2600 Angell Road, Arcedo: Planner Grittman stated the applicants propose to construct a second story addition to an existing home. He explained that due to the shape of the lot, the east extension of the existing home extends to within 80 feet of the east lot line. Because the property gains access to Angell Road via a private drive, the east property line is the front lot line and there is a setback requirement of 100 feet from that boundary. He advised that the existing 80-ft. setback is a legal non-conformity and to construct an addition over the existing home in this area the vertical additional encroachment requires a variance from the 100-ft. setback requirement. He explained that the proposal would increase the total building height for this portion of the home by approximately 5-ft, to a total height of just below 29-ft., which meets the height requirements listed in the City Code.
The Planner stated that the Planning Commission visited the site prior to its meeting and observed that the property was well screened by existing vegetation to the south and east. Since the addition is on the east side of the house, limited visibility to the west is likely. He advised that no exterior lighting is proposed as part of the project.
Planner Grittman advised that variance application reviews are now subject to a new State law which lists new standards for granting a variance. He explained that rather than find the traditional physical hardship in putting the property to any reasonable use, the City may now find that if the applicant’s proposal uses the property in a reasonable manner and there are “practical difficulties” (based on unique aspects of the property), the City may choose to grant a variance.
The Planner noted that the Planning Commission found that the requirements for a variance are met, stating that the addition is a reasonable use of the property and that due to a series of factors, the variance was important to overcome practical difficulties on the property. He explained that there would be no great impact on neighboring property, no increase in impervious surface, and that there is no other practical location for the addition.
Planning Commission recommended approval of the request and there were no objections voiced at the public hearing.
Councilmember Conant asked if the neighbors were formally notified. Mr. Grittman responded yes.
Mayor Williams asked if there were any further questions and there was no response.
Councilmember Conant moved to approve the Setback Variance request for the Arcedo property at 2600 Angell Road and to approve the Major Site and Building Plan Review, seconded by Councilmember Burke and carried. (5-0)
In discussion, Councilmember Conant stated that he was highly influenced by the Planning Commission recommendation.
Mayor Williams asked if the motion should include the findings of fact to support the decision. Attorney Kuntz responded yes.
The Mayor offered a friendly amendment to the motion as follows: “based on the findings of fact that the proposal will have little or no impact on site conditions related to vegetation, land alteration or neighboring property, subject to the conditions as outlined in the Planner’s report dated June 15, 2011 and recommended by the City Engineer and City Septic Inspector.”
Councilmembers Conant and Burke, as maker and second of the motion agreed to the amendment.
Motion as amended carried. (5-0)
b. Consider Conditional Use Permit, Overland Contracting (AT&T), 2035 Charlton Road, St. Anne’s Church: The Planner explained that AT &T, represented by Overland Contracting, proposes to replace existing antennas mounted on leased space on the tower at St. Anne’s Episcopal Church. He noted that AT &T operates on the lower of two existing antenna arrays on the tower, at a height of 63 ft. He pointed out that the project consists of removing the existing six antenna panels and replacing them with nine antenna panels; the support structure is a triangular array. He advised that the change would increase the number of panels on each of the three legs of the triangle from two panels to three, thus the increase from six to nine panels total. He advised that no other changes are proposed to the tower or to the other antenna panels on the tower; the other panels belong to Sprint-Nextel, the owner of the tower.
The Planner stated that new equipment will be located in the existing equipment building and a slight exterior change would involve running new cable from the equipment building to the tower.
The Planning Commission reviewed the matter to ensure that the height of the tower was not affected and that the changes would be as proposed. He advised that one member of the public had phoned him to express opposition to the proposal based on concerns over aesthetics; however, no other members of the public were present at the public hearing.
Planner Grittman advised that the antenna structure is allowed by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the CUP, with conditions including assurances that the City Engineer’s office would review structural data received from the applicants.
Councilmember Conant questioned if the City has any choice to deny the request and if they are exercising their rights under Federal law.
Mr. Grittman explained that the use is allowed by CUP and the City has the right to place reasonable conditions on the application; he commented that under the Telecommunications Act the City cannot prohibit the installation of the antenna, but can include conditions for the installation.
Councilmember Conant questioned if the expenses of the City Attorney and Planner are absorbed by City. Mr. Grittman explained that there is an application fee for the review and in some cases an escrow fee to cover the costs of staff time.
The Mayor asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
Councilmember MacManus moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit request from A T &T for co-location of a personal wireless service antenna by Overland Contracting/AT & T as described on the submitted site plans, based on the findings of fact and subject to the two conditions as listed; 1) A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and installation; and, 2) The City Engineer should verify the tower capacity representations submitted by the applicant, seconded by Councilmember Burke and carried. (5-0)
c. Consider Ordinance Amendment City Code to Address Standards by which Variances are considered: Planner Grittman explained that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment that would update the standards for considering variance requests; he stated this action is pursuant to a change in the State Statutes passed by the Legislature earlier this year. He advised that the City Attorney prepared an ordinance amendment that changes the “hardship” standard with the term “practical difficulties”. He noted that rather than find the variance is necessary to make any reasonable use of the property, the new language merely asks the City to find that the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. He commented that the change makes it easier for the City to find that conditions warrant approval of the variance request.
The Planner explained that the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the ordinance amendment as drafted by the City Attorney. He noted there was no one present at the public hearing.
Councilmember MacManus supported the amendment.
Mayor Williams commented that the new language does not change that fact that the City should find a unique circumstance to support the variance request and that it would not be granted for economic reasons or just for the owner’s use of the property.
The Planner agreed that the language does not allow “use” variances.
Councilmember Conant commented on the language in the new law relating to “practical difficulties” include, but are not limited to “inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems”.
Attorney Kuntz pointed out that although there is a shift in the language, the terms for granting a variance based on unique circumstances remain valid; he explained that the City may impose conditions with the approval to minimize the impact of the variance on surrounding properties.
Mayor Williams asked if the ordinance amendment would be published and the Attorney responded yes.
Councilmember Burke referred to Section 8, Section. 1310.02, Item 4. “That the variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship such as topography”. He suggested that some word should be inserted in place of the stricken word “hardship”.
The City Attorney suggested that the word “characteristic” be inserted to replace “hardship”. Council concurred.
The Mayor asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Burke moved to adopt Ordinance No. 2011-04 titled AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUNFISH LAKE CITY CODE SECTIONS 1202.02(H), 1202.02(P), 1202.02(V), 1206.01(A) and (C), 1206.02(A)(2)(a), 1218.01(C)(3), 1301.10(V), 1310.02(A) RELATING TO VARIANCES as amended under Section 1310.02 (4), seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)
d. Planner’s Report: The Planner stated that there are four (4) applications to be heard by Panning Commission in July; 1. Bethel Baptist Church, 2100 Delaware Ave, Conditional Use Permit to operate a daycare; 2. Peters residence, 336 Salem Church Road, Major Site/Building Plan Review for paving a new driveway and installing a new culvert; 3. Oakman, 1055 60th St. W., Front Setback Variance and Major Site/Building Plan Review for building addition for garage expansion, front portico and paved patio; and 4. Bulach, 118 Salem Church Road, Major Site/Building Plan Review for a building addition, Preliminary/Final Plat and Variance for construction on a non-conforming lot of record.
Planner Grittman explained the future agenda items that he would be working on include an update on allowable building materials and an analysis of the potential for addition lot subdivisions in the community. He noted that staff had approved a Minor Site/building Plan request for 344 Salem Church Road, Penovich/Mariarty property, which consisted of a screen porch, deck addition, retaining wall, stone walkway and landscaping; he advised that all the items met the thresholds for minor review.
By way of formal introduction, Mr. Grittman explained that he is one of the principals of the firm Northwest Associated Consultants and that he has had experience working with Sunfish Lake over the years his company has served as the planning consultants. He thanked the Clerk and staff for their assistance during the period of transition between the former planner and himself and stated that he looks forward to working with Council.
Council thanked the Planner for his report.
7. INSPECTOR’S REPORTS:
a. Building Inspector: Interim Inspector David Neameyer explained that he issued five (5) permits and closed out two (2) minor permits in June. He advised that the letter was delivered to the property at 2078 Charlton Road on June 14, 2011 and that the property owner has thirty (30) days to respond.
Council thanked the Inspector for his report.
b. City Engineer: Angell Road Culvert Replacement: Engineer Hanson stated that a feasibility study for the replacement of centerline culverts was completed and will be presented to Council under New Business.
Oakman Site Plan Review, 1055 60th Street West: The Engineer stated that a major site and building plan review was completed for the proposed Oakman garage expansion at 1055 60th Street West.
Peters Site Plan Review, 336 Salem Church Road: Mr. Hanson advised that a major site and building plan review was completed for the proposed driveway construction at 336 Salem Church Road.
Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of June: Street Pothole Repairs: The Engineer stated that pothole patching was completed on City streets. The east end of Salem Church Road had several potholes and Angell Road Sunnyside Lane and Windy Hill Court had some repairs. He explained that Windy Hill Road has areas of severe distresses. He stated that Roanoke Road, Grieve Glen Road, Acorn Drive, Zehnder Road and Salem Church Road west of Roanoke Road are in very good condition.
The Engineer pointed out that the Forester indicated that the ditch mowing would start shortly.
Anticipated Engineer/Public Works Activities’ for the Month of July:
- Neighborhood meeting, Planning Commission meeting and easement acquisition for the Angell Rod Culvert
Replacement Project
- Prepare draft Capital Improvement Plan
Councilmember Burke questioned how far the CIP would be projected and if the first year projections serve as the basis for budgeting for the upcoming year. The Engineer explained that the CIP normally extends 10-years; he agreed that the first year could be used as a basis for the upcoming budget year. He pointed out that it is a living document and may be changed based on conditions or Council decisions.
Councilmember Hovey questioned how far out the current CIP extends. The Engineer indicated he recalls that it extends to 2018.
Councilmember Conant asked if the estimated costs are incorporated into projects. The Engineer pointed out that the existing CIP budgeted funds for the possible upgrade of Charlton Road, however the improvement was not pursued. He also noted that cracksealing for Acorn Drive was listed, but it was determined that it was not necessary. He commented that there may not be a need for projects each year although they are listed in the CIP.
Council thanked the Engineer for his report.
c. CITY FORESTER: Mayor Williams read the Forester’s report and advised that three (3) burning permits were issued in June. He stated that the Forester mowed the walking trail at Musser Park with extra space around the stone bench at the NW start of the Trail and the Harmon Park trail, along with Burdock and Buckthorn infested areas was also mowed. He explained that the Forester thanked Councilmember Hovey for providing a brush mower for use by the City at a minimal cost.
The Mayor read that the Forester arranged for Rough Cut to mow the street edges this week; noting a slight increase in the cost from last year due to the rise in fuel prices. He advised that the Forester noted Dutch Elm disease is showing up in the wooded areas of Sunfish Lake as it is throughout the larger Metro area.
In closing, the Forester suggested that wood ticks are still common and that any container holding water is a potential breeding location for mosquitoes; the Forester suggested that items that could hold water be emptied or disposed of from residential properties.
d. PUBLIC SAFETY: Chief Shaver reviewed the public safety report and noted that alarm calls are down 50% from last year at this same time. He advised that a red bicycle was found on Charlton Road, a resident on Windy Hill Road found a dead deer in their pool, and that the Fire Department responded to a residence where lightning struck a gas meter.
The Chief referred to Item 8.g. Letter from FEMA and advised that FEMA is requesting the City to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program which affords residents the opportunity to obtain flood insurance at a lower rate. He noted that there are no identified flood areas identified within Sunfish Lake, however, the City may still adopt a resolution agreeing to participate so that residents may obtain insurance.
Mayor Williams questioned how adopting the resolution would impact the City. Chief Shaver explained that he attempted to access the website, but was unable to call it up on the computer; he explained that he would forward information to Council as soon as the website becomes available.
Engineer Hanson agreed with the assessment by Chief Shaver that historically there are no flood areas or structures susceptible to flooding in Sunfish Lake. He indicated that after the 1993 flood in the City of Moorhead, some mortgage companies requested that applicants obtain flood insurance.
Mayor Williams suggested that Council wait until the Chief sends more information before making a decision on participation by the City. Council concurred.
Council thanked Chief Shaver for his report.
8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS:
Appointment to LMWMO: Mayor Williams suggested that Council take action to appoint Councilmember MacManus to serve as the Sunfish Lake Council representative to the Lower Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (LMWMO).
Councilmember Conant moved to appoint Councilmember MacManus to serve as the Sunfish Lake Council representative to the Lower Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (LMWMO), seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)
a. Consider Establishment of a Special Assessment Policy and a Resolution Approving a Special Assessment Policy:
Attorney Kuntz explained that Council reviewed the proposed Special Assessment Policy at their June meeting and suggested a number of changes. He stated that the changes have been incorporated into the draft policy presented this evening as requested by Council. He recommended that Council should consider the attached resolution approving the assessment policy as presented.
Mayor Williams asked if there were any questions or comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Burke moved to adopt Resolution No. 11-12 titled, RESOLUTION APPROVING ASSESSMENT POLICY FOR THE CITY OF SUNFISH LAKE, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)
b. Consider Approval of Feasibility Study for the Angell Road Culvert Replacement Project: Engineer Hanson submitted a feasibility study for the Angell Road Culvert Replacement Improvement Project and asked that Council consider receiving the study and calling for public hearing on the proposed project if they so chose to proceed.
The Engineer explained that there are three exhibits included in the study under Appendix A and that he would reference the exhibit in green during his presentation. He advised that storm sewer culvert inspection and repairs are a requirement of the City’s MS4 (NPDES) permit. While conducting an inspection in the fall of 2010, staff determined that the three culverts along Angell Road were significantly corroded as identified on page 1 of the report. He reviewed conditions of the three culverts as outlined on page 3 of the report, as follows:
First culvert – this culvert is 95% full of water on the east side due to blocked drainage along the swale to the east. The top portion of the exposed culvert is significantly corroded and the drainage swale has mature tree growth that is blocking drainage and raising the water elevation in the culvert and the wetlands to the west.
Second culvert – the culvert was visually inspected when the drainage swale was dry and the bottom of the culvert has approximately four inches of sediment in the culvert. Sediment was removed from each end and two locations in the culvert and the bottom of the culvert was found to be corroded and non-existent; the culvert has lost approximately 15% of its roundness. The drainage ways on each side of the culvert are partially overgrown, but still convey runoff along their alignment.
Third culvert – the culvert was visually inspected when the drainage swale was dry and the bottom of the culvert has approximately four inches of sediment. The sediment was removed from each end and one location within the culvert and the bottom of the culvert was found to be corroded and non-existent. The roundness of the culvert was checked and it has lost approximately 15% of is roundness. The drainage ways on each side of the culvert have downed trees and partial overgrowth, but still convey runoff along their alignment.
The Engineer advised that the three culverts were installed in 1961 and have been in the ground for 50 years; the normal lifespan for corrugated steel culvers is between 25 to 40 years. He explained that Angell Road is located within a 50-ft wide right-of-way and that the Sunfish Heights Final Plat does not identify drainage and utility easement along the drainage ways.
Engineer Hanson pointed out that a culvert failure along the road would be a problem since it would restrict access for some or potentially all residents that abut Angell Road and Sunnyside Lane. He indicated that he studied utilizing a slip lining of the existing culvert; however, this method of replacement was deemed to be unavailable due to the loss of roundness of the existing culvert and the lack of a culvert bottom. He explained that the project would consist of replacement of the culvert by excavation, removal of the existing culvert and placement of a plastic material that has an extended design life and is reasonable in cost. He explained that to preserve the culvert material from sun, the ends of the culvert are proposed to have concrete flared end sections.
The Engineer advised that the existing drainage way east of the first culvert is overgrown with mature trees that are restricting drainage; it is proposed to remove the tree growth along the bottom of the drainage way and regrade. He explained this work results in the removal of several mature trees, two of which are 36 inches in diameter. He noted the other drainage ways are partially overgrown but continue to convey runoff, therefore, no work is proposed in these areas at this time. He stated that removal and replacement of the three culverts requires removal of several trees, but that only trees that are necessary to be removed will be taken.
Engineer Hanson explained that drainage and utility easements are required at each culvert location as the culverts extend beyond the platted road right-of-way. He noted that 20 ft. wide easements extending between 20 ft. to 30 ft. along the culvert centerline are proposed to allow for construction and maintenance of the flared end section and drainage swales at both culvert ends. He advised that a 30 ft. wide easement is proposed at the easterly first culvert due to the depth of excavation required to replace the culvert. He stated that he has contacted all adjacent property owners and at this time all residents, with the exception of one are in favor of granting the easements to the City. He pointed out that property owners have the right to be fairly compensated for the land dedication and only one property owner has requested payment for granting the easement. He stated that an estimated $10,000 has been included in the project cost for potential land cost which brings the total estimated project cost to $87,824.
The Engineer advised that funding for the project would be a combination of City funds and assessment to benefitting properties. He explained that parcels would be assessed on a unit basis and parcels that have more than 50% of their buildable drainage area within the watershed served by the trunk facility are included in the assessment roll; the cost split is a 50%-50% split between assessed amount and City participation. The estimated project cost is $87,824; the proposed assessment amount is $43,912, with 18 parcels within the drainage area, for a proposed assessment amount of $2,440 per unit. The proposed assessment term is 5 years with an estimated interest rate of 6,0 percent. He advised that the City’s 2011 budget included $32,150 for a capital improvement project; this total amount is proposed to be dedicated to this project. The remaining balance of $11,762 would need to be dedicated from other budget items or cash reserves. He stated that the proposed assessment amount of $43,912 is proposed to be financed by the City from cash reserves; this will reduce the on-hand cash reserves of the City until assessment payments are made. He stated that he discussed this with the City Treasurer who indicated this is workable since historically Sunfish Lake assessments have been prepaid at a rate of 50 percent before being placed on the tax rolls and any prepayment of assessment would replenish the City’s cash reserves.
Engineer Hanson reviewed the project schedule as shown on page 9 of the feasibility report and stated that the Planning Commission must review the project to determine it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that he would schedule a neighborhood meeting in July to explain the project scope, and in August Council could conduct a public hearing on the improvement, order the improvement and award the contract. He indicated that construction could begin by the end of August, with completion in September and an assessment hearing held in October.
The Engineer stated that the improvement is necessary, cost-effective and feasible and therefore, recommends Council accept the feasibility report and call for a public hearing on the proposed improvements.
Mayor Williams thanked the Engineer for his report. He questioned the two culverts that are 15% out of round.
Engineer Hanson explained that although the cylinder is strong, once it begins to fail it will collapse. He indicated that his original thought was to line the existing culvert, but because it is out of round, it would be difficult to install the new culvert inside the existing culvert.
Councilmember Hovey questioned if the City is responsible to clean the culverts and if MnDOT has any responsibility to maintain the culverts.
Engineer Hanson advised that the City is responsible for cleaning the culverts and this is usually done every 20 years; he advised that all the ditches in this area are quite overgrown.
Councilmember Burke asked if the 20 ft. easements would be in addition to the 50 ft. road easement. Engineer explained, yes the additional 20 ft. easement is requested to allow for maintenance of the culvert ends and ditches.
Councilmember Burke referred to the permanent drainage swale near Highway 110 and questioned if it is adjacent to the parcel requesting compensation for the easement. The Engineer responded yes.
Councilmember Conant commented that earlier this year the Engineer estimated the project cost between $20,000 and $40,000 and now the feasibility report estimates the cost at $87,000; almost three times as much as the previous estimate. He indicated that during the discussions the Engineer had indicated there would be no problem obtaining easements and now there is a problem with the easements. He expressed concern that if the City pays for one easement, others residents along the road may be upset that they were not compensated. He pointed out that the cost estimates do not include engineering and legal expenses and that the City has already spent $7,100 for these expenses; he expressed concern that the project costs could be more and may be closer to $100,000.
Mayor Williams asked Councilmember Conant to allow the Engineer to speak regarding these expenses.
Engineer Hanson explained that the engineering and legal fees are already included in the project costs and would not increase the estimate costs.
Councilmember MacManus asked if the project costs include the $7,000 already spent and the Engineer responded yes.
Engineer Hanson pointed out that the original estimate was done before knowledge of the nuances of the project and the fact that a resident would request payment for the easement.
Councilmember Conant pointed out that if one person is paid for the easement other will also want payment. He explained that he had looked at the culverts and did not see the items mentioned by the Engineer. He suggested spending and additional $1,000-$2,000 to have an independent party review the report to determine if any changes could be made.
Mayor Williams indicated that Council should first determine if they wish to proceed with the project prior to authorizing an independent review. He expressed concern that the bid deadline may run out. Engineer Hanson stated the bid deadline would be in September.
There was discussion regarding whether or not to hire an independent review.
Mayor Williams commented that in his opinion there is no point in spending additional money on a review of the feasibility report if Council determines the project must be done. He questioned if a property owner is required to provide an easement if they are not paid for the easement.
Engineer Hanson explained that in previous conversations with the individual there was no mention of payment for the easement, however, during the last conversation the resident brought up the subject of payment. He advised that he then added the additional cost of $10,000 for easement acquisition into his report.
Councilmember Conant pointed out that if Council approves the feasibility report with that amount included in advance of obtaining the easement, the City loses its bargaining power. He suggested that Council could authorize someone to conduct an inspection prior to the next meeting at a cost not to exceed $2,000.
Councilmember Hovey asked if the bidders recommended any other method for culvert replacement.
Engineer Hanson advised that bidders do not recommend how to do improvements. He explained that the plastic pipe is a cost effective method and should last approximately 100 years; he noted that the life-span for the plastic pipe could exceed the life-span for concrete since it does not corrode.
Councilmember Hovey asked if the plastic pipe is easier to install than concrete. The Engineer responded no and pointed out that the plastic is more difficult to install, but has a longer life-span.
Councilmember Burke asked for clarification as to what needs to be done in each of the extended easements. Engineer Hanson reviewed the tree removal and clean-up for each of the easements.
There was discussion relating to the assessments and the process for determining the interest rate.
Councilmember Burke suggested that the City should identify some process for determining the interest rate on projects for future use. He questioned if there are other easement issues in the City that should be rectified for future improvements.
Engineer Hanson stated that there may be other easements the City needs to acquire and noted that this is because the easements were not dedicated with plats and several properties are “metes and bounds” descriptions. He commented that it would be quite an extensive project to determine where easements are needed within the City.
Councilmember Burke questioned if an inventory of culverts and infrastructure should be done. Engineer Hanson noted that the easement issues come up when the inventory is completed for the MS4 permit.
Mayor Williams questioned how many hours it would take to conduct a city-wide survey of culverts and easement needs given the age of the plats. Engineer Hanson stated he was unsure of the time it would take and stated he could prepare a cost estimate.
There was discussion relating to preparation of an infrastructure inventory. Mayor Williams recalled that there is a summary of infrastructure done within the last two years. Engineer Hanson advised that the CIP would list projects proposed over the ten years.
Councilmember Burke questioned if the more recent roadway improvements include extra drainage easements.
Engineer Hanson indicated that the Salem Church Road project did not and that plats filed within the last 10 to 15 years include drainage easements.
Mayor Williams suggested that the CIP identify infrastructure that requires easements.
Councilmember Conant suggested that an independent review of the report be considered.
Mayor Williams questioned what criteria would be included in the review. Councilmember Conant suggested that the review evaluate the proposed improvement project and verify it is the best and most efficient way to complete the project.
Councilmember MacManus stated that in her opinion the Council should not proceed with a review until the cost is known.
Councilmember Conant moved to retain an independent review of the project at a cost not to exceed $1,000, seconded by Councilmember Burke.
In discussion Councilmember Conant stated his opinion that it is irresponsible to spend $100,000 on a project without an independent evaluation and that most cities have an independent engineer evaluate reports.
Mayor Williams stated that it is important to specify exactly what the Council wishes to have reviewed if a second opinion is requested.
Councilmember Hovey called the question.
Motion failed. (Ayes 2: Conant, Burke; Nays: 3: Hovey, Williams, MacManus)
Councilmember Conant moved to submit the feasibility report to an independent engineer to review at a cost not to exceed $1,000, seconded by Councilmember Burke.
In discussion, Councilmember MacManus expressed her opinion that the City would be throwing away $1,000 since looking at the feasibility report will not show the condition of the site.
Motion failed. (Ayes 2: Conant, Burke; Nays: 3: Hovey, Williams, MacManus)
Councilmember Hovey moved to accept the Feasibility Report for the Angell Road Culvert Replacement Project as submitted, seconded by Mayor Williams.
In discussion, the Mayor asked if there was anyone who was of the opinion the project was not necessary and there was no response.
Councilmember Burke questioned the implications to accept the feasibility report.
Councilmember Hovey pointed out that by accepting the report Council has not ordered the project. He explained that Council must still hold a public hearing and order the work. He pointed out that by accepting the feasibility report at this time, Council will not have to start over and still retains the ability to decide if they wish to continue with the project.
Mayor Williams asked the City Attorney if that is correct and Mr. Kuntz responded yes.
Attorney Kuntz asked if the motion was to accept the report and schedule a public hearing.
Councilmember Hovey stated it was only to accept the feasibility report.
Motion carried. (Ayes; 4 Hovey, Williams, MacManus, Burke; Nays: 0; Abstain: 1 Conant)
Councilmember Hovey asked for clarification if the dollar amount for the easement acquisition was the amount requested by the property owner or merely the estimate of the engineer.
Engineer Hanson responded that it is his estimate and that no amount was mentioned by the property owner. He explained that he used the value amount from the Charlton Road appraisal and calculated the number with the amount of square footage required for the easement to arrive at that figure.
Councilmember Burke questioned if that rate was for all parcels or just one. Engineer Hanson responded just one.
Councilmember Conant noted that the figure is now part of the public record.
The Engineer explained he is unsure at this time if this property owner is the only one who would request payment; he suggested that the easements should be obtained before the City approves the project.
Mayor Williams suggested that the City does not have to proceed with the project this year and may delay it if the easements are not obtained.
Attorney Kuntz noted that there is 120-day time-frame for the bids to be valid and prior to conducting a public hearing on the project it is important to have knowledge of what is happening with the easements. He explained that the person requesting payment for the easement may not have been told by the Engineer that there may be an assessment for the project and additional costs would increase the total project cost. He indicated a delay of one month to confirm the easement acquisition would not cause the project to be delayed until next year. He suggested that Council direct the Engineer to proceed with easement acquisition and to inform property owners that not obtaining easements may delay the project to next year. He noted that forceful acquisition of the easements would take approximately 5 months.
Mayor Williams agreed that the City cannot proceed without easements.
Councilmember MacManus asked if the formula used for the property requesting payment could be extended to all properties if others request payment. Engineer Hanson responded yes.
Councilmember Burke commented that due to the significance of the issues, the Engineer should share the formula used with Council. Engineer Hanson apologized and explained that no negotiations have been started with the property owner.
Councilmember Conant pointed out that the City could delay the project until next year and place funds in the budget to complete the project without utilizing the cash reserves.
Mayor Williams commented that the feasibility study has been accepted and he preferred moving ahead with the project.
Councilmember Conant suggested authorizing the Engineer to proceed with easement negotiations. Council concurred.
Councilmember Conant moved to authorize the City Engineer to proceed with obtaining easements for the Angell Road Culvert Replacement Improvement Project and report any costs associated with obtaining the easements at the next regular Council meeting, seconded by Councilmember Hovey.
There was discussion regarding a method for formalizing the value of any easements that maybe required to complete the project and before including such costs in the feasibility report.
Engineer Hanson suggested that Council allow him to continue negotiations with the landowner to obtain the easements and report back at the next meeting.
Councilmembers Conant and Hovey withdrew their motion.
Councilmember Burke moved to authorize the City Engineer to proceed with obtaining easements for the Angell Road Culvert Replacement Improvement Project and report any costs associated with obtaining the easements at the next regular Council meeting and to accept the feasibility report as modified to exclude the easement acquisition costs with the total project cost set at $77,824.00, seconded by Councilmember Hovey.
There was discussion regarding the bid timeline. Engineer Hanson advised that he could ask the low bidder for an extension.
Councilmember Burke suggested that the Engineer make it clear to all affected property owners that the easement must be secured before the project can proceed and that the cost of the improvement would increase if the City has to pay for the easement acquisition.
Councilmember Hovey called the question.
Motion carried. (5-0)
Council took a brief recess at 9:10 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m.
c. Consider Contract between David Neameyer and the City of Sunfish Lake for Building Official Services: Attorney Kuntz presented the draft contract and resolution adopting the contract between the City and David Neameyer for providing Building Official Services. He reviewed the payments for services and other services provided under the contract and listed in his report dated June 29, 2011. He noted that the only difference in payment was that the City received 100% of the double permit fee when someone began work without a permit; the contract now provides for an 80/20 split, with Mr. Neameyer receiving 80% of the double permit fee and the City retaining 20%. He noted that $47.00 per hour would be paid to Mr. Neameyer as a pass-thru for any additional plan review required by changes, additions or revision to plans and also for site inspections conducted at the request of a landowner or for site inspections conducted in anticipation of a permit where the permit has not later been issued. He also reviewed the time spent by the inspector where there is no charge to the City, as listed in his report.
Councilmember Hovey noted that previously there have been fines assessed to residents for not obtaining permits. Mr. Kuntz pointed out that the City may charge an additional fee not to exceed 100% of the initial fee when a building permit for work has not be obtained; he explained that the City may charge an Administrative Fee for planning and land use items and those fees are separate from this contract.
Attorney Kuntz explained that State Law provides immunity to Building Officials for personal liability and in the contract the City included an indemnification clause; he noted that this is different from the Septic System Inspector as they carry their own liability insurance. He advised that because Mr. Neameyer enters the contract as an individual and not a company, the City has asked him to release the City for any personal injuries or property damage while acting on behalf of the City; however, in the event Mr. Neameyer hires an employee, he would be required to provide worker’s compensation insurance.
Councilmember Conant questioned if Mr. Neameyer would be covered under the City’s insurance policy with League of Minnesota Cities. Mr. Kuntz responded yes.
The Attorney explained that the contract may be terminated by either party without cause with 30-days notice.
Mayor Williams asked if there were any further questions or comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Conant moved to adopt Resolution No. 11-13 titled RESOLUTION APPOINTING DAVID NEAMEYER AS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR THE CITY OF SUNFISH LAKE AND APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN DAVID NEAMEYER AND THE CITY OF SUNFISH LAKE RELATING TO BUILDING OFFICIAL SERVICES, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (5-0)
d. Discuss Proposal for State Auditor’s Office Review of City Financial Procedures: Council received notification from the City Clerk that the Auditor’s Office may be closed due to the State shutdown; Council concurred to table this item until further notice.
e. Consider Mayoral Proclamation Relating to Former Building Official Russ Wahl: Mayor Williams suggested tabling this item until the next meeting to allow the City Attorney to insert the legal description of the wetland prior to adopting the proclamation. The Mayor also suggested that staff contact Mr. Wahl’s family and ask them to be present for adoption of the proclamation. Council concurred.
f. Consider Authorizing Change to Election Liability Insurance Form: Attorney Kuntz explained that each year the League of Minnesota Cities requests the City decide if they wish to waive or not to waive the statutory tort limits and notify the League of their decision; he advised that past practice has been not to waive the liability. He recommended that Council take action by motion of their decision.
The Mayor asked if there were any comments or questions and there was no response.
Councilmember Burke moved to authorize the Treasurer to send notification to the League of Minnesota Cities that the City of Sunfish Lake decides not to waive the statutory tort limits to the extent of the insurance coverage purchased, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)
g. Report on FEMA Letter Relating to Flood Insurance: This matter was discussed earlier on the agenda.
h. Other: Councilmember Hovey reported that copies of the resolutions adopted in 2008 through 2010 are now posted on the City website; he indicated he would post the 2011 resolutions as they are adopted and sent to him.
Mayor Williams asked if there was any further business and there was no response.
9. ADJOURN: Councilmember Burke moved for adjournment at 9:45 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)
___________________________ ___________________________
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.