SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – JUNE 5, 2018

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

Attendants:

Mayor: Richard Williams

Councilmembers: Mike Hovey and JoAnne Wahlstrom

City Attorney: Tim Kuntz

City Planner: Ryan Grittman

City Engineers: Don Sterna and Jeff Sandberg

City Treasurer: Ann Lanoue

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

City Clerk: Cathy Iago

and Members of the General Public.

Councilmember Daniel O’Leary arrived at 7:10 p.m. and Councilmember Steven Bulach was absent.

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 and there was no response.

Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt the agenda, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (3-0)

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

Councilmember Hovey moved approval of the Consent Agenda as presented, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (3-0)

a. Regular Council Meeting Minutes of May 1, 2018

b. List of Bills

c. Monthly Financials

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

5. PUBLIC HEARING/PRESENTATIONS: a. Public Improvement Hearing to Consider City Project No. 2018-01 (Charlton Road Improvements): Mayor Williams opened the public improvement hearing to consider City Project No. 2018-01, Charlton Road Improvements. He referred to the memorandum from the City Attorney dated May 30, 2018 and asked Attorney Kuntz to review his report.

Attorney Kuntz explained that at the May 1, 2018 Council meeting Council took formal action to receive the Feasibility Report for the Charlton Road Improvement Project No. 2018-01, action to Call for a Public Hearing on the project and authorized publication in the official City newspaper and mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing for the project to all affected property owners. He stated that City Engineer Don Sterna would provide a brief overview of the project and then City Financial Consultant Jessica Cook would review financing options for the project. He stated that after the reports are finished, the Mayor would open the public hearing for comments from the public. He advised that after comments are received, the Mayor would close the public hearing and consider the four (4) resolutions relating to the project and as listed on this evening’s agenda. He asked that anyone wishing to speak should first provide their name and address for the record.

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

Engineer Sterna stated the proposed Charlton Road improvement project had been discussed by Council over the last 18 months. He explained that discussion for improvement of the road began in 1994, however, at that time the City determined there was not sufficient support by the residents to move forward with the project. He advised that since 1994 the City had continued to discuss proposed improvements to the road and in 2007 they appointed a task force to study the matter. He stated that costs for maintenance of the road have continually increased over the years and the City had spent approximately $10,000 annually toward maintenance of the road over the last few years. He also pointed out that this was the third time since 1994 that he had prepared a feasibility report for the proposed improvement of Charlton Road.

Engineer Sterna explained that last year Council requested he prepare three (3) options for the road improvement; Option 1 involved paving the road from Highway 62 (110) to just past St. Anne’s Church property; Option 2 extended the bituminous surface to approximately one-third of the road; and, Option 3 included paving the entire road. He explained that over the years there have been at least four (4) attempts to move forward with improvement of the road that did not proceed. He explained Council determined it is time to move forward with paving the entire road due to the increased maintenance costs for re-grading the road, applying dust control, filling potholes and to clean the culverts along the road.

The Engineer explained that Council recommended proceeding with Option 3, paving the entire road and determined that it would be appropriate to create a “Preservation Road” standard to maintain the rural aesthetics of the road. He stated that a narrower road, approximately 20 ft. wide versus the standard road width, could be installed and still accommodate emergency vehicle access. He noted that the character of the road would be maintained with some urban sections of curb and gutter near embankments on the road to cut down on erosion and preserve wetlands.

Engineer Sterna stated that the City held numerous formal and informal meetings with residents over the last 18 months to discuss the project and to obtain their input. He advised that the estimated cost of the project is $841,000 which includes construction and administrative costs. He stated that there are twenty-six (26) properties that abut the road and that thirty-one (31) units would be assessed; the church property and one larger residential property were calculated at 2-units for those parcels of land. He noted that the residential property could be split in the future into two units and that was taken into consideration when calculating the assessments.

The Engineer advised that the City had attempted to negotiate obtaining easements necessary to proceed with the project, however, there is one parcel that may require condemnation to obtain the easements. He explained that the project would be done in two parts by paving the roadway to the curve in 2018 and then finishing the road in 2019, which would allow time to complete condemnation proceedings. He commented that the condemnation process could take up to 9 months. Staff recommended that Council order the project to begin in 2019 which would allow sufficient time to continue negotiations for the necessary easement or to proceed with condemnation if the negotiations fail.

Engineer Sterna pointed out that the property owner adjacent to the sharp curve in the road had willingly granted the necessary easement and also some additional land for the project, which assisted in reducing the project costs. He explained that the City requested the property owners grant the necessary easements to reduce the project cost. He stated that the City has no other funding source due to the fact there is only limited residential property within the City.

The Engineer explained that the project would take approximately six (6) weeks to complete. He deferred to the City Attorney and the City Bond Consultant to discuss assessments and financing for the project.

Attorney Kuntz stated the Engineer’s Feasibility Report estimated the cost for the proposed Charlton Road Improvement Project at $841,000 and outlined a cost sharing of 60 percent from the General Tax Levy to be paid by the City and 40 percent of the cost to be paid by special assessments from benefitted property owners. He explained that there were thirty-one (31) units identified to be assessed at $10,851 per unit. He advised that the City Engineer recommends the project be started in 2019, which would allow for the bids to be obtained in February 2019, the contract awarded in March 2019, and the project to begin in the spring or summer of 2019. He advised that once the project is completed, the City would conduct a public hearing on the special assessments for the 31 units identified; he noted this would probably occur in September 2019. He stated that the special assessments would then be certified to Dakota County for placement on the 2020 taxes, or they could be paid in full without interest by the property owner within 30 days of the final action. He introduced Jessica Cook from Ehlers and Associates, the City’s Fiscal Advisor, who was present to review the options for bonding for the project. He explained that Jessica advised the assessments could be spread over 10 or 15 years and that the interest rate charged by the City is usually 1.5 or 2 percent above the bond rate.

Jessica Cook stated that Ehlers and Associates had assisted the City with previous bond sales for other projects. She explained that a bond sale was similar to a mortgage payment that could be spread over 10 or 15 years. She noted that a 15 year bond sale lowers the payments, but increases the amount of interest paid, while a 10 year bond sale has a higher payment, but less interest is paid as it is a shorter time period. She advised that if Council prefers to proceed with the project this year, it would be appropriate to have their input regarding the length of the bond sale, however, if they prefer to delay the project until 2019, it would not be necessary to make a decision this evening.

Ms. Cook explained that if the project is completed in 2019, sixty (60) percent of the project cost would be spread in tax payable in 2020. She advised that if the City agrees to a 10 year bond sale, the tax impact on a $500,000 home would be approximately $108 a year, $9 a month or 30 cents per day. She stated that on a 15 year bond the annual payment by the City would be lower, however, the City has outstanding bond debt at this time. She noted that the tax capacity could be “wrapped” which would lower the payment for a $500,000 home annually to $21. She noted that although this sounds better, the interest paid by the City would be $150,000 more over the life of the bonds and the City would be using up its tax capacity for future road improvements.

Mayor Williams asked the City Treasurer when the current bonds would be paid.

Treasurer Lanoue explained that by using the 15 year sale it would keep the debt levy flat and that the 10 year issue would increase the debt levy for approximately five years, after that it would drop off.

Attorney Kuntz explained that Council may wish to delay providing input to the Fiscal Advisor on this matter until after the public hearing.

Mayor Williams thanked staff for their presentations and open the public hearing for comments from the audience.

Gladys Dobranz, 2078 Charlton Road, stated she only owns one parcel of land and asked why she would be charged for two units.

Mayor Williams explained that she owns a large property that has the potential to be split into two residential properties in the future.

Ms. Dobranz stated that it is only one parcel of land and she does not plan to split it or sell it.

Engineer Sterna stated that all the properties on the road were studied and it was determined that her property could be divided into two parcels in the future.

Ms. Dobranz pointed out that there is another property on the south end of the road that was larger but it was only one unit. She stated that her family has owned the since 1885 and has no plans to sell it in the future.

Mayor Williams stated that he understands her point of view, however, the City has followed the same protocol for identifying assessments on parcels of land on all of its previous road improvement projects.

Dick Bancroft, 100 Windy Hill Road, advised that long-time resident and former Councilmember Roger Conant passed away. He stated that the public hearing notice he received listed the starting time for the hearing a 7:30 p.m., but Council started the hearing at 7:15 p.m. and one-third of the audience was not here at that time.

Attorney Kuntz explained that there are two (2) Public Hearings this evening and the notice for the Charlton Road Improvements was scheduled at 7:00 p.m. and the notice for the Sunfish Lake Outlet Improvement was scheduled for 7:30 p.m. He apologized on behalf of the City for any confusion to those in attendance.

Jim O’Hagan, 35 Windy Hill Road, explained that he lives on the south side of Sunfish Lake and several years ago when the water level got high on the lake and residents called the City they were advised that the City does not own the lake, and that was when the culvert was installed. He expressed displeasure that the proposed outlet would cost $40,000 and commented that the City only wants the new culvert because they want to build the road. He stated he should not be assessed for a culvert that is not needed or wanted.

Mayor Williams advised that Mr. O’Hagan’s comments should be referred to next public hearing for the Sunfish Lake Outlet Improvements.

Mike McDonald, 2184 Charlton Road, stated that over the years three (3) surveys were sent to residents on Charlton Road and all were against improving the road.

Mayor Williams agreed that earlier surveys sent by the City in the 1990’s indicated that the majority of residents did not want road improvements and the feasibility study showed that the City would require extensive condemnation of property to acquire easements for the project. He noted that since that time the property owners have changed and the general majority on Charlton Road support improvement of the road. He further advised that since that time there has been an increase in potential liability for the City and the residents have generously donated land for the project, therefore, this Council has focused on the general majority of residents that support improving the road.

Mr. McDonald questioned how the Council is sure there is a general consensus in support of the project.

Mayor Williams explained that numerous residents attended formal and informal meetings to express their support. He stated that laws have changed over the years and the City’s liability increased since it is a public roadway. He pointed out that sixty (60) percent of the costs would be borne by the City.

Mr. McDonald stated his opinion that the Council should not try to convince people that most of the residents are in favor of the project without sending out a survey to confirm their support.

Mayor Williams stated that the last survey was sent in 2008 and the response was approximately split 50/50 on the matter. He explained that over the past 18 months the Council and City Engineer have held meetings with the residents and talked to them individually to determine if they support the project. He noted that several residents have willingly donated property in order for the project to proceed. He commented that if the City had not received as many donations for the easements the project would not be able to move forward.

Councilmember O’Leary agreed and pointed out that there is a group of residents at the south end of the road that are generally against the project, however, most residents at the north end of the road favor the project. He advised that the resident along the sharp curve on the road donated additional land to the City in order to make the curve less dangerous.

Engineer Sterna pointed out that he had made some adjustments to the project so that the least amount of roadway easements were necessary. He noted that the City has prescriptive rights on the road and that utility companies also utilize prescriptive rights when they have to complete work on roads. He stated that the City asked for fifteen (15) easements and to date have received five (5) signed, five (5) acknowledged they will sign, one (1) parcel will not sign and the City may have to proceed with condemnation. He stated the remaining four (4) parcels on the south end of the road have not signed the easements and the City will use prescriptive rights to complete the project. He further explained that he had worked with the concerns from residents expressed during the meetings to minimize the impact on properties such as reducing the width of the road to 20 ft. versus a standard City street size.

The Engineer explained that there have been numerous accidents, some with injuries, at the south end of the road and that it is difficult to maintain the road in the winter months due to the lack of sun from overgrown vegetation and ice that forms. He advised that the maintenance costs for re-grading, repairing potholes and dust control are approximately $10,000 per year or more. He agreed that the majority of residents now appear to support paving the road for safety purposes and to increase property values.

Mayor Williams agreed and explained that from a liability point of view a gravel City road is not acceptable and the Council is required to make decisions that protect all residents.

Jeff Norton, 2148 Delaware, stated that at the last meeting he suggested the City hire an analyst to study the project and asked why the City was so reluctant to do so.

Mayor Williams stated that at that meeting he explained the City Engineer was a professional and there was no need to hire another analyst to review the project. He pointed out that the Council has an obligation to make decisions on behalf of all its residents and hires professional staff to provide information in their areas of expertise. He noted that other engineers had reviewed the matter over the years.

Mr. Norton commented that the City had not used an independent professional without political ties.

Mayor Williams explained that the City Engineer is not biased in his opinion and that the condition of the road warrants repair.

Karen Gott stated she was present to represent St. Anne’s Church located at 2035 Charlton Road and that she is also an engineer. She advised that the Church had provided the necessary easements at no charge to the City. She explained that the Church has limited income and asked if the project is delayed to 2019 if the assessments would be the same or if they could be increased or reduced.

Attorney Kuntz advised that the assessments could change, but that this is an improvement hearing and the assessments would be discussed after the project is completed at the assessment hearing.

Treasurer Lanoue explained that the Church would be responsible for only the assessment costs because the Church does not pay taxes.

Ms. Gott asked what the cost would be for road maintenance after the improvements are completed.

Engineer Sterna explained that the road should remain in good condition for 20 years or more. He stated that any minor future repairs to the road such as seal coating or overlay are paid from the General Tax Levy funds. He note that the City would be saving approximately $10,000 per year in maintenance costs if the road is improved. He further explained that paving the road would also prevent gravel from entering the ditches and wetlands adjacent to the road.

Mr. Norton asked if the assessments would be spread out over 10 to 15 years and Attorney Kuntz responded yes.

There was discussion relating to whether or not the assessments would be spread over 10 or 15 years.

Jessica Cook explained that there are various combinations that could be used for the bond issue. She pointed out that existing Debt Levy is around $81,500 or $90,000 and would remain until 2025, then for 10 years it would increase from $81,000 to $120,000 for 5 years and then it falls down, so by 2029 the Debt Levy would be gone.

John Hutchinson, 2194 Charlton Road, stated he purchased his home on the south end of the road in 2010 and that he is one of five (5) properties that are connected to sewer and water utilities. He noted that the water line was installed under Charlton Road. He pointed out that if the road is improved the water line would be below bituminous surface and could freeze and break. He expressed concern relating to the possible break in the water line and asked what assurance the City could provide so that he would not be responsible for roadway repairs along with water line repairs. He pointed out that the utilities were installed in 1980 after it was found that a septic system was leaking into the lake.

Engineer Sterna stated that there are no guarantees about the water line which could break at any time or could last several more years. He commented that water lines break all the time in Minnesota and that paving the road does not change the dynamics of the water line. He pointed out that age of the line has more impact than the surface above the line. He further advised that both the water and sewer lines are privately owned and replacing the lines would add $86,000 to the project. In his opinion that cost would have to be paid by the residents who own the line and not shared with any other property owners or the City. He further explained that improving the road would direct water from the roadway to the north which would assist with keeping the road frost free. He noted that residents in the area had been placing dams in the ditches which hinders the water flow.

Michael Divine, 2196 Charlton Road, pointed out that the water line is older and may fail. He explained that because the utilities are owned by five (5) people it would be difficult to determine how to pay to fix the water line and the road if this occurs.

Engineer Sterna explained that he had numerous discussions with the property owners relating to options for fixing the issues, but It is a privately owned line that would have to be repaired at the expense of the owners.

Mr. Divine stated that the City was substantially increasing the cost for repairs if the residents had to pay for the road repairs after it is improved and asked why the City was unwilling to work with the residents on this issue.

Mayor Williams pointed out that the City had discussed several options with the residents in the past.

Mr. Divine noted that one option discussed was the City moving the water line so it is on private property.

Mayor Williams agreed but noted that the cost would be the same and would be paid by only the residents who own the line. He commented that those residents could set up an association and collect funds to pay for the repairs when they occur.

Mr. Divine stated that the City would be burdening the residents with additional cost and risk by paving the road.

Mayor Williams indicated that the risk is incidental since the residents installed a private line. He stated that the City is improving a City road, but the City did not create the risk by installing a private water line.

Mr. Divine questioned if the five (5) owners could get together and agree on a solution for payment of repairs, there is still a ticking time bomb under the road. He asked why the City would not work with these people now to fix the issue and what would happen if the City has to repair the line and the residents are unable to pay.

Mayor Williams explained that the City would impose a lien against the properties and would assess the costs to their taxes.

Councilmember O’Leary explained that Sunfish Lake does not wish to lose its “rural” designation with the Metropolitan Council and cannot accept ownership of these utilities.

There was discussion regarding what happens if the water line breaks. Engineer Sterna explained that St. Paul Water Department would shut off the water valve and residents would be responsible for the costs to repair both the line and the road.

Mr. Halverson asked if the residents could install wells on their property if the water line break occurs.

Engineer Sterna stated that the residents would have to meet the required setbacks on their property to install a well.

Mike McDonald explained that the five (5) properties were hooked up to the sewer and water lines as an accommodation to the City because the septic system was leaking into the lake.

Mayor Williams stated that this was the first Council heard that explanation since the only documents they saw did not explain why the hook up was done. He explained that the City cannot ask all the other residents to incur costs for something that may never happen. He explained that the residents who are serviced by the water line should be willing to discuss their own options such as forming an association and contributing funds that they could use for repairs in the future.

Ibby Hammett, 2196 Charlton Road, asked if the City had done a study of other roads that had sewer and water lines under the road and then added bituminous surface on the road.

Engineer Sterna explained that he was not aware of any such studies, however, he pointed out that bituminous surface serves the same purpose as gravel and would have no effect on the utility lines. He stated that the City of Lilydale has several privately owned water lines in their City. He pointed out that the more the water moves off the road, the drier the road would be and could assist to prevent the road freezing in the winter.

The Engineer suggested that if Council agrees, staff could review placing some insulation on the water line during the improvement project. He indicated that the City would prefer to have easements from these residents so that this discussion does not occur in the future.

Mr. Halverson asked if moving the Delaware Avenue fire hydrant is part of the project and Engineer Sterna responded yes.

Ibby Hammett suggested that one solution would be for the City to leave that portion of the road unpaved.

Engineer Sterna explained that option was originally discussed by Council with residents along with installation of speed table along the road. He explained that Council preferred to pave the entire road. He stated that he does not support the installation of speed tables and that the speed tables present issues for emergency vehicles and snow plowing equipment.

Jim O’Hagan commented that people on the lake are against the outlet improvement. He stated that it is a private lake and the City has nothing to do with it.

Mayor Williams explained that those comments relate to the Sunfish Lake Outlet project and asked if there were any further comments on the Charlton Road project. There was no response.

The Mayor asked for a motion to close the public hearing.

Councilmember O’Leary moved to close the public hearing on the Charlton Road Improvement Project No. 2018-01, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (4-0)

Attorney Kuntz provide a brief overview of the actions necessary to proceed with the project.

Councilmember O’Leary stated that it appears the City would have to go with condemnation proceedings for one property and suggested that the project be moved to 2019.

Mayor Williams agreed and stated that in his opinion it would be best to use the 10 year bond issue.

Council concurred to delay the project until 2019 and to have Fiscal Advisors prepare a preliminary 10 year bond issue.

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to adopt the following resolutions for Public Improvement Project No. 2018-01 (Charlton Road Improvements) and that Council concurred that the project schedule be extended through 2019 with the bids advertised in or around February 2019 and that the Preliminary Financing Bond Issue be spread over 10-years:

Resolution No. 18-08 title, Resolution Ordering Public Improvement Project No. 2018-01 (charlton road improvements)

Resolution N. 18-09 titled, Resolution Appointing Don Sterna and wsb & associates, inc., Steve Apfelbacher and ehlers and associates, inc. and Jenny Boulton and kennedy & graven, chartered to assist the city with city project no. 2018-01 (charlton Road improvements)

Resolution No. 18-10 titled, Resolution Approving Project SCHEDULE for CITY PROJECT NO. 2018-01 (CHARLTON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS)

Resolution No. 18-11 titled, Resolution Approving a Preliminary Financing Plan FOR CITY PROJECT NO. 2018-01 (CHARLTON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS)

Seconded by Councilmember O’Leary and carried. (4-0)

b. Public Improvement Hearing to Consider City Project No. 2018-02 (Sunfish Lake Outlet Improvements): Mayor Williams opened the public improvement hearing to consider City Project No. 2018-02, Sunfish Lake Outlet Improvements.

City Attorney Kuntz referred to his memorandum date May 30, 2018 and explained that the format would be the same for this hearing with City Engineer to providing a brief overview of the project. He stated that the Mayor would then open the public hearing for comments from the audience and asked that anyone wishing to speak provide their name and address for the record. He explained that if this project moves forward it would be completed in conjunction with the Charlton Road Improvements and would follow the same schedule.

The City Attorney advised that the project cost is estimated at $41,000 and Jessica Cook indicated that the City may be able to utilize some form of internal cash funding rather than include the project costs with the bond issue. He explained that this could be an option for financing and that it could be determined by Council at a later date.

Engineer Sterna thanked the residents for attending the meeting. He stated the history of the outlet dates back to when he became the City Engineer in 1996. He stated the lake is privately owned and there is no public access to the lake. He stated and there is no natural outlet to the lake and no tributary stream coming into the lake just what is draining through to the City. He stated that over the years there had been incidents of high water and the outlet is not high enough to pump through to Charlton Road and would have to rise another 3 to 4 ft. to drain. He explained that in the 1990’s there was a lot of discussion with the DNR and the Ordinary High Water Mark was set at 937.10, which is key to the drainage of the outlet. He pointed out that the design of the outlet was done by property owners around the lake and there was no City Engineer working at that time to review the design. He explained that when he was hired by the City, he found that there was a higher outlet elevation and the pipe was very flat. He described the angle of the pipe being too flat to accommodate the flow and speed. He noted the flow goes into a manhole and the sediment from the road hits the back wall and remains in the pipe.

The Engineer explained that for 10 to 12 years there were few issues with the pipe due to the weather being dry, however, with the recent years of heavy rainfall, the pipe plugs more often.. He noted that a few years ago the water from the outlet backup flooded a neighboring resident’s basement and caused damage to the home and also ran across the road creating ice and hazardous driving conditions.

Engineer Sterna stated that in his professional opinion the outlet was not designed correctly to handle the situation. He advised that there are approximately 1,000 gallons a minute coming from the lake and the water level in the lake is high at this time. He pointed out that the original design had the right intention, however, the pipe has now become a maintenance issue for the City. He advised that the City now has accepted the outlet pipe and has a dedicated easement out to the lake. He noted that the City Forester has cleaned out the pipe on numerous occasions. He pointed out that people on the lake have also cleaned out the pipe on numerous occasions.

The Engineer stated that the proposed outlet improvement includes removal of the existing outlet control pipe and replacing it with a new higher capacity hydraulically designed outlet that would reduce blockage and increase discharge capacity. He noted that the pipe would be sloped correctly so the flow would remove the debris with minimal maintenance. He advised that the proposed concrete pipe would replace the existing PVC pipe which had recently come apart and would increase the discharge rate from the lake.

Engineer Sterna explained that the outlet improvement benefits only the property owners adjacent to the lake and that the design of the outlet would move the water at a faster rate. He pointed out that the debris would be pushed from the outlet and prevent clogging. He stated the City had paid the maintenance on the pipe for the last few years.

The Engineer stated that the new design would place the outlet separate from the roadway and buried on the south side of the road under and past the first driveway and follow the natural drainage to the south. He explained that no easements are required from the residents and this fix should last 80 to 100 years with very little maintenance. He further explained that it would be less costly to complete the improvement in conjunction with the road improvements.

Engineer Sterna advised that the estimated cost for the outlet improvement is $41,000 and that the thirty-three (33) units identified as abutting the lake would be assessed $1,243 each. He noted that this assessment could be spread over 10 years at approximately $12.50 per month. He stated that the costs would be 100% assessed to the property owners.

Mayor Williams asked if this was Engineer Sandberg’s area of expertise and if he could provide any data on the recent weather events and the higher calculations recently proposed for rainfall events.

Engineer Sandberg explained that in 2014 the Design Guidelines water systems were changed due to the increase in rainfall rates. He pointed out that engineering designs rates were increased 17 percent in the past 15 years.

Mayor Williams commented his concern relates to the fact that if the pipe is not adequately designed to carry the rainfall rates, the potential for damage to property would increase substantially.

Councilmember O’Leary asked if it the proposed system as currently designed would handle the larger water volume.

Engineer Sterna responded yes and explained that he had run the proposal through “models” and also checked to insure it would not create problems for systems downstream. He stated that he checked with Mendota Heights and was advised their system can handle the increased volume.

Mayor Williams asked if there were any further questions from Council and there was no response. He opened the public hearing and asked that anyone wishing to speak provide their name and address for the record.

Dick Bancroft, 100 Windy Hill Road, commented that he is the only guy cleaning out the culvert and that he was also responsible for the installation of the outlet. He stated it is his opinion that a larger tube is not necessary and it would risk too much water flowing into Mendota Heights. He commented that the present drainage system from the lake is adequate. He explained that he and John Roe put in the outlet and that in his opinion the problems are created by the gravel placed on Charlton Road. He stated that the outlet can be cleaned by placing the gravel in the bucket and removing it. He stated that paving Charlton Road should fix the problem and that the debris from the lake could be handled with screening. He commented that he had found two or three residents who agreed to remove debris from the outlet as volunteers.

Jim O’Hagan, 35 Windy Hill Road, stated that there was no outlet from Sunfish Lake for 100 years and that 30 years ago Mr. Bancroft was instrumental in installing the culvert. He commented that the City indicated the new outlet would benefit the lake owners, but 80 percent of the lake owners do not want the new outlet.

Dr. Lamey, 55 Windy Hill Road, state that the City had paid $7,000 for maintenance of the outlet and asked how much the City would pay toward the improvement.

Engineer Sterna stated that the City would not contribute to the outlet improvement because the lake is privately owned by the abutting property owners.

Dr. Lamey pointed out that maintenance had cost the City $21,000 over the last three years and in his opinion the City should contribute to fixing the outlet.

Engineer Sterna stated that the City had invested a substantial amount of money to insure the outlet flows properly. He advised that he found a portion of the pipe had broken. He explained that he could review the use of a PVC pipe instead of installing a concrete pipe in order to somewhat lower the cost of the project.

Tom Hendrickson, 4 Grieve Glen Lane, asked what would happen if the pipe is abandoned or the outlet is eliminated.

Engineer Sterna stated that the lake level would continue to rise and trees around the lake would die and fall into the lake. He explained that residents shouldn’t have to clean the outlet and that the City now owns the outlet and has liability in the event someone gets injured.

Mr. Hendrickson asked if the water from the outlet affects City property.

Engineer Sterna responded yes and explained that an adjacent property had also received damage from flooding a few years ago.

Sena Kihtir, 331 Salem Church Road, stated she had seen many of the large trees near the lake that could fall over and in her opinion it seems rather primitive to have people cleaning out the gravel from the outlet and expressed concern for their safety. She explained that if residents wish to preserve the vegetation around the lake the project should be taken seriously and that she supports the project.

Dr. Lamey asked what the project would cost if it’s not done at this time.

Engineer Sterna explained that it is more cost effective to do this project in conjunction with the Charlton Road project and that it would most likely cost 50 percent more if done separately. He pointed out that the City had paid the maintenance costs from the General Tax Levy in the past and the problem has not improved. He stated that the plans includes creating a berm and installing a screen to assist in preventing the outlet from plugging.

Molly Park, 15 Sunnyside Lane, expressed concern that the drainage of gravel from the road is entering the outlet, but questioned if there would be a need for the upgrade if the road is paved.

Engineer Sterna explained the main concern is that that the water floods the culverts and ditches and the project would divert the water past the neighboring driveway to prevent damage to adjacent properties. He explained that the outlet is a public facility and that the City would be liable if a resident is injured when attempting to clean-out the outlet.

Sena Kihtir stated that she views the improvement as insurance that would lower the cost for an event that would be more expensive in the future.

Jim O’Hagan stated that the City is not responsible for the lake and in the past the City indicated they would not contribute to requests to assist with problems such as alum removal in the lake.

Mayor Williams explained that the outlet functioning properly is different from treatment of the lake water. He noted that if the lake exceeds the Ordinary High Water Mark it could cause damage to surrounding property.

Jim Stowell, 389 Salem Church Road, pointed out that he offered to help with cleaning the existing system and had placed a screen to help keep debris from the plugging the outlet. He asked if the outlet improvement could be delayed until Charlton road is paved to see if that helps the problem. He stated that volunteers could continue to clean it out until that time.

Councilmember Wahlstrom asked what happens if the volunteers are gone and a problem arises.

Mr. Stowell agreed that could be a problem, but indicated that there are several volunteers in place. He pointed out that a property owner on the south side of Charlton Road had been damming the culvert and asked if the City could have him remove the items that create the dam. He advised that he had talked to residents around the lake and approximately 70% state they prefer the outlet to remain as is.

Engineer Sterna pointed out that the City took ownership of the outlet and therefore is liable for any damage or incidents that occur. He stated that the proposed improvement would insure that the lake level can be regulated and that the drainage would be directed properly.

Councilmember O’Leary questioned if the volunteers could continue to assist with cleaning the outlet until such time and the project is completed.

Mayor Williams indicated that the volunteers could continue to remove the debris from the outlet.

Mr. Stowell asked the location where the pipe was damaged.

Engineer Sterna stated the damage was in the section of the pipe between the manhole and the road.

Mayor Williams asked if there were any further comments and there was no response. He asked for a motion to close the public hearing.

Councilmember O’Leary moved to close the public hearing on the Sunfish Lake Outlet Improvement Project No. 2018-02, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)

Mayor Williams asked if there were any further comments.

Mike McDonald stated that he would prefer the City not use inexpensive pipe for the project.

Engineer Sterna explained that the proposed plastic material would be more cost effective and a lighter weight material, however, it would still last a long time.

Councilmember Hovey asked if the City would use General Fund monies or a 10-year bond issue.

Mayor Williams pointed out that it would be better to leave that decision open at this time. He called for a motion.

Councilmember O’Leary move to adopt the following resolutions for Public Improvement Project No. 2018-02 (Sunfish Lake Outlet Improvements) and that the financing for use of 10 year Bond Issue or payment from the General Fund would remain open at this time:

Resolution No. 18-12 titled, Resolution Ordering Public Improvement Project No. 2018-02 (Sunfish Lake Outlet improvements)

Resolution No.18-13 titled, Resolution APPOINTING DON STERNA AND WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC., STEVE APFELBACHER AND EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. AND JENNY BOULTON AND KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED TO ASSIST THE CITY WITH CITY PROJECT NO. 2018-02 (SUNFISH LAKE OUTLET IMPROVEMENTS)

Resolution No. 18-14 titled, Resolution Approving Preliminary Financing Plan FOR CITY PROJECT NO. 2018-02 (SUNFISH LAKE OUTLET IMPROVEMENTS)

Seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (4-0)

Council took a recess at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:40 p.m.

6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT: a. Consider Major Site and Building Plan Review and Two (2) Variances from Shoreland and Side Yard Setbacks, 2570 Delaware Avenue: Planner Grittman explained the request for a Major Site Plan Review and Two (2) Variances for property located at 2570 Delaware Avenue from Jeremy Segal. He stated that the proposed addition to the home would be constructed to match the existing wood siding and stucco and would include a steel roof. He advised that the material for the roof was not listed as an approve material in the Zoning Code and Council would have to make a determination if the material could be used. He stated the lighting plan meets all code requirements and would be reviewed to determine if it meets the appropriate candle foot regulations after installation. He advised that the patio and existing deck would be remodeled to match the proposed addition.

The Planner stated that the proposed home addition would be located off the existing breezeway of the home and that the plan is not the traditional style of home construction, however, it is allowed in the Zoning Code since the foundation of the addition and roof line would be continuous with the existing home. He further explained it is not considered a detached dwelling unit as it does not have certain rooms that a detached unit allows.

Planner Grittman stated that the Planning Commission met earlier this evening to make their recommendation; he explained that the initial Notice of Hearing was not published in time prior to the Planning meeting and therefore had to be continued prior to formal action by the commission.

The Planner stated that Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the Major Site and Building Plan and the Two (2) Variances as requested, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions as listed in the proposed resolution. He explained that there were no objections from property owners who received notice of the hearing and some residents attended the meeting in support of the project. He advised that the landscape plan also meets code requirements and that the trees removed would be replaced with 1-1/2 trees and that Council should make a determination regarding approval of the roofing material.

Councilmember O’Leary asked to see roofing material and for the Planner’s opinion if the material was suitable.

Planner Grittman stated that he had not reviewed other requests for this type of roofing material, but the material has a 90-year warranty. He commented that the Building Inspector may have more information.

Councilmember O’Leary questioned if it would be noisy when it rains and questioned if there would be issues with reflection from the material.

Matt Byers, Architect for the project, stated there may be some noise if it hails, but normal rainfall should not create noise. He stated that it would have a standing seam along the roof so that it is leak proof. He explained that the roof material was not as reflective as galvanized steel and over time it would gain a patina.

Councilmember O’Leary asked if there would be insulation installed underneath the roofing material.

Mr. Byers state that there is a slip-sheet type of material placed under the roofing as another layer to prevent leaking, but it is not an insulator. He advised that insulation would be placed on the interior of the roof.

Councilmember Hovey asked if there would be an issue with snow sliding off the roof or a buildup of icicles.

Mr. Byer responded no and explained that as additional protection, snow guards would be placed near the entrance/egress areas.

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

Councilmember O’Leary moved to approve the use of the metal roofing materials as presented by the applicant, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (4-0)

Planner Grittman stated that Council action would be necessary to approve the proposed resolution for the Major Site and Building Plan and Variances.

Councilmember O’Leary moved to adopt Resolution No. 18-15 titled, Resolution Approving a shoreland setback variance, a side yard variance, and major site and building plans for the property located at 2570 delaware avenue, sunfish lake, Dakota county, minnesota, based on the Findings of Fact dated May 16 and June 5, 2018 and subject to the conditions as listed in the resolution, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried (4-0)

b. Discuss Bee Keeping at 340 Salem Church Road: Planner Grittman stated that the property owners at 340 Salem Church Road applied for a bee keeping permit to be located on their property that is across a private driveway from their home. He explained that bee keeping equipment is allowed as an accessory use, however, since the vacant lot has no residence as the principal use, an accessory use would not be allowed. He stated that the City Forester visited the site and indicated that the proposed location for the equipment would be better than any onsite alternatives. He noted that in the past Council had approved bee keeping equipment on vacant parcels that abut property, but not on a parcel that is detached by a private road. He stated that notices were sent to all adjacent property owners and no comments or concerns were received.

Mayor Williams explained that he had kept bees in the past and asked who uses the private road and if those residents had any objections.

The Planner explained that there were several homes that use the road but none of the residents notified contacted him regarding the request.

Councilmember O’Leary asked if there was a rationale for the language in the ordinance and the Planner stated he was unsure of why the ordinance was drafted as it is.

Mayor Williams indicated that the ordinance may have been drafted as such to keep the bee equipment close to the property owner as possible to prevent any hazard to neighboring property, however, he pointed out that honey bees aren’t aggressive and normally do not sting.

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

Councilmember O’Leary moved to approve the Bee Keeping Permit request for property located at 340 Salem Church Road, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (4-0)

c. Planner’s Report: Planner Grittman referred to his report dated May 31, 2018 and explained that he had reviewed the property at 8 Wood Duck Pass to determine if a setback variance was required for placement of a septic system from a wetland. He stated that after extensive research with Dakota County and the City’s Septic Inspector, staff found that there is no actual setback requirement for the system and that it would be different on each site. He advised that the application for a variance was cancelled.

The Planner reported that he had conducted a Minor review for a home addition at 420 Salem Church Road and found that the application meets all requirements. Staff approved the project and construction should begin shortly.

Council thanked the Planner for his report.

7. STAFF REPORTS: b. CITY ENGINEER: Engineering Activities Undertaken in May: A. Charlton Road Improvements Update: Engineer Sandberg advised that Engineer Sterna reviewed this matter at the public hearing earlier on the agenda.

B. Fire Number Review: Engineer Sandberg explained this matter was tabled at the May meeting and Council directed the Engineer to work with the Police Chief to pursue grant opportunities. He stated this item would be discussed at the July meeting.

C. 2019-2023 CIP Update: The Engineer referred Council to the Draft 2019-2023 CIP and explained that the document is scheduled for discussion later on the agenda. He advised that the document provides a plan for infrastructure and road maintenance projects to be undertaken over the next 5 to 10 year and serves as tool for budgeting purposes. He asked that Council review the document and submit any questions and/or provide input to him. He stated the goal is to review and approve the document at the August meeting in conjunction with 2020 budget discussions.

D. Traffic Study Proposal – Salem Church Road: Engineer Sandberg stated that Council directed staff to provide a proposal for a traffic study to establish a baseline for traffic counts on Salem Church Road. He explained the study may be useful in the future if anticipated traffic increases once the Vikings development moves forward. He referred to his letter dated May 15, 2018 that outlined the Scope of Services for the work and the Cost Estimate of $2,500 for the project.

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

Councilmember O’Leary moved to approve the for the Traffic Study on Salem Church Road as outlined in Engineer Sandberg’s letter dated May 15, 2018 at the ” not to exceed” cost of $2,500, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (4-0)

E. Pavement Conditions Report – Grieve Glen Road Condition Analysis and Proposed Corrections: The Engineer explained that at their March meeting Council authorized staff to perform a city-wide assessment of pavement conditions on all public roads and a copy of the Pavement Condition Report dated May 30, 2018 was attached to the Engineer’s report dated June 1, 2018. He stated that Council and residents asked that WSB also complete a coring analysis of Grieve Glen Road, due to its visibly poor condition. He noted that three (3) core samples were taken from the roadway and the results indicated that a Full Depth Reclamation be done on Grieve Glen Road at an estimated cost of $115,000. He explained that when the roads are reviewed a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) number is assigned with a value from 0 to 100; he noted that a value of 100 normally relates to a new road condition, while a value of 0 relates to a gravel road. He explained that any road with a value of less than 40 needs repair and Grieve Glen Road was valued below 40. He noted that two other roads in the City, 60^th Street West and 55^th Street West, were also identified with a low PCI in the 2018 Pavement Condition report, however, 60^th Street West is partially in Inver Grove Heights and the City has a Joint Powers Agreement for that roadway with Inver Grove Heights.

Engineer Sandberg reviewed the following cost estimates for Full Reclamation of Grieve Glen Road at $115,000 being shared at be 20 percent paid by the City and 80 percent assessed to the property owners abutting the road; the cost estimate for 60^th Street West at $130,000 being share 50/50 with Inver Grove Heights and the City paying 20 percent of the cost and residents paying 80 percent, and the cost estimate for 53rd Street West at $80,000 with the City paying 20 percent and residents paying 80 percent of the costs. He pointed out that there are only two (2) property owners abutting 53^rd Street West.

Councilmember O’Leary commented that it would mean two properties sharing an assessment of $64,000.

Engineer Sandberg concurred, but explained that he would not recommend that 53^rd Street West be included in the project at this time. He advised that some of the projects outlined in the CIP are critical and the assessments could be spread over 10 years. He referred Council to Appendix B in the CIP which provided financing scenarios and that outlined bonding for the projects. He pointed out that its appears as though Charlton Road would be delayed until 2019 and that it would be feasible to include these projects in the same bid in 2019. He stated that no formal action is being requested at this time.

Treasurer Lanoue suggested that the Engineer discuss the financial options with Ehlers prior to making a formal recommendation.

Engineer Sandberg pointed out that some residents on Grieve Glen Road have contacted him to complain about the roadway condition and asked if any repairs could be done at this time. He stated that it is his opinion any repairs short of reclamation would be a “band-aid” solution and that the cost would be approximately $7,800 to do minor repairs to the road.

Councilmember O’Leary asked if the repairs could wait until 2019.

Tom Hendrickson, 4 Grieve Glen Lane, stated he lives on the road and it is in very bad condition.

Engineer Sandberg suggested he could review possible options for some type of repair to Grieve Glen Road and present the information to Council at the July meeting.

F. 2018 CAMP Contract/Agreement: The Engineer explained that the City received the contract for the Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program whereby resident volunteers take water quality samples from the three (3) lakes within the City; Hormbeam, Horseshoe, and Sunfish Lake. He noted that the agreement reflects the direction from Council to reduce the number of samples to be taken on each lake from 15 to 7 in order to reduce the costs. He noted that the City Forester agreed to drop off the samples, which also saves money. He requested that Council approve the agreement and authorize the Mayor to sign the document.

2. Building and Site Review in the Month of May: Engineer Sandberg stated he completed a minor building and site review at 420 Salem Church Road and found that all engineering items were in order. He advised he is in the process of reviewing a proposal for a new home at 245 Salem Church Road.

3. Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of May: A. Snow Plowing for 2017/2018 Season: The Engineer stated that he received the final invoices for the past snow plow season and that the final bill of $38,271 appears to be $8,271 over budget. He indicated that the overage was due in part to a maintenance intensive season with more ice than snow. He suggested that it may be appropriate to increase the snowplowing budget for 2019/2020.

Councilmember O’Leary asked the City Treasurer if the previous year’s costs for plowing were below budget.

Treasurer Lanoue responded yes and explained that the previous year costs were $11,500.

Attorney Kuntz asked what time period the plowing invoices covered.

Treasurer Lanoue explained that the invoices covered the costs from February to April 2018 and offered to review the costs for the entire 2017/2018 season.

4. Anticipated Public Works Activities for the Month of June. None.

Mayor Williams asked if there were any questions.

Attorney Kuntz explained that if Council determines that Grieve Glen Road should be included with the bid and funding for the Charlton Road improvement project next year, they should consider directing the City Engineer to prepare a feasibility report for the project as part of the State required procedures for assessments.

Councilmember O’Leary recommended that the City Engineer confer with the City Treasurer and/or Bond Counsel to discuss the financial impact of including the project before Council authorizes a feasibility report.

Council concurred with his recommendation and directed the Engineer and Treasurer to review the financial impact of including additional projects with the Charlton Road project and discuss options with Ehlers.

Mayor Williams asked if there were any further comments.

Clerk Iago advised that Council should take formal action to approve the CAMP agreement.

Councilmember Hovey moved to approve the 2018 CAMP Agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (4-0)

Council thanked the Engineer for his report.

a. BUILDING INSPECTOR: Inspector Andrejka stated that he issued ten (10) and closed two (2) permits.

Council thanked the Inspector for his report.

c. CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes referred to his report dated April 26, 2018 and stated that he issued five (5) burning permits in May and removed the street weight limits signs on May 1. He explained that the Arbor Day Green Fair was held on Saturday, May 5 and thanked Cassandra Schoeller, the recycling coordinator, who provided recycling information to those in attendance. He also thanked the volunteers who planted 15 new trees along the southeast side of Salem Church road. He stated the he removed the deer rubbing protection tubes in Musser Park and along Salem Church Road and added mulch to more than 150 trees in both locations to assist with growth and suppress weeds.

The Forester explained that the second meeting of the “Welcome to Sunfish Lake” committee would be held on June 6 at 7 p.m. at the Heartland Credit Union community room at the corner of South Robert Trail and Upper 55^th Street, and that anyone is welcome to attend.

Council thanked the Forester for his report.

d. PUBLIC SAFETY: Chief Shaver reviewed his report dated May 30, 2018 and stated that there was one (1) False Alarm this month. He reviewed the other calls for service as listed in the report.

Council thanked the Chief for his report.

8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS: a. Consider Approval of NDC4 2018 Draft Budget – Northern Dakota County Cable Commission: Clerk Iago referred to the email from Executive Direction Jodie Miller dated May 17, 2018 which provided an overview of the 2018 NDC4 Draft Budget and requested the City’s approve the document. She explained that she had sent the draft to the Mayor and City Treasurer and neither one had expressed any concerns with the document. She stated that NDC4 requested the City approve the draft document by July 16, 2018.

Mayor Williams asked If there were any questions and there was no response.

Councilmember O’Leary moved to approve the 2018 Draft NDC4 Budget as presented by Jodie Miller in her email dated May 17, 2018, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)

b. Discuss Draft 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): Mayor advised this item was discussed earlier on the agenda under the Engineer’s report.

c. Consider Request for Sunfish Lake to Participate in Inver Grove Heights Fall Clean-up Day: City Clerk Iago referred to her memorandum dated June 5, 2018 requesting authorization for Sunfish Lake to participate in the Inver Grove Heights Fall Clean-Up Day to be held in September, 2018. She noted that the City of West St. Paul would also participate and that the costs would be shared based on how many residents from each city attend. She advised that the costs should be covered by the recycling grant funds.

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

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to approve the City of Sunfish Lake’s participation in the Inver Grove Heights Clean-Up Day in September 2018, seconded by Councilmember O’Leary and carried. (4-0)

d. Other: Discuss Changing the July 3, 2018 Council Meeting Date: Clerk Iago asked if Councilmembers would be available to attend the regularly scheduled July 3 Council meeting to determine if there would be a quorum for the meeting. She explained that she would be out-of-town for the meeting, however, the City Attorney had agreed to record the minutes in her absence.

After a brief discussion, Council concurred to move the meeting to July 10, 2018 at 7:00 p.m.

Councilmember Hovey moved to reschedule the July 3 Regular Council meeting to July 10, 2018 at 7:00 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (4-0)

The Mayor stated he wished to extend condolences to the family of Roger Conant on behalf of the City and noted that the Conant family were long-time residents and Roger was a former Councilmember. He advised that a memorial service would be held later this month.

Mayor Williams asked if there was any further business and there was no response.

9. ADJOURN: Mayor Williams adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.

_____________________ ________________________________

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