SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – JUNE 7, 2011
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Mayor: Richard Williams
Councilmembers: Roger Conant, Paul Burke and Mike Hovey.
City Attorney: Tim Kuntz
City Planner: Carie Fuhrman
Engineer: Chris Hartzell
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.
Councilmember Judy MacManus and City Engineer Tim Hanson were 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. He added two items for discussion under New/Old Business: Discussion of Property at 50 Woodridge Lane and a letter from FEMA.
Councilmember Conant moved approval of the Agenda as amended, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)
3. CONSENT AGENDA: The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Conant requested a correction on page 2 of the May 3 Special Council meeting minutes, paragraph 6, first sentence, to change the word “most” to “many”. He also pointed out that the Council minutes from the March meeting still contain the word “DRAFT” at the top of the page and questioned why the resolutions are not posted on the website.
Councilmember Hovey, website manager, stated he would correct the minutes on the website. Clerk Iago explained that she is working with the City Attorney’s office to scan the resolutions for placement on the website.
Councilmember Burke requested a correction on page 5 of the Regular Council meeting minutes, paragraph 7, first sentence, to change the word “if” to “what”. He also requested a change to the wording on page 6, second paragraph, to read as follows: “Councilmember Burke commented that he attended a Water Quality seminar and found out that some cities use only salt mix on the streets as saline issues are less problematic for water quality than sediment from sand issues.”
Clerk Iago stated she would make the corrections.
Mayor Williams asked if there were any further comments relating to the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Conant commented that he compared the List of Bills to the invoices and that he had a problem with reconciling some items. He indicated that the Clerk was paid additional funds, but there was no explanation. He also referenced the Lillie Suburban News invoice and a charge to Office Depot for supplies. He explained that he was not questioning the integrity of the payments, but that the invoices did not provide details for the payments.
Treasurer Blair advised that he could provide explanations for each of the payments and invoices; he noted that there are some withholdings associated with the Clerk and Treasurer salaries.
Councilmember Conant indicated that he did not want explanations at this time for those items. He referred to the $890 invoice for the purchase of trees and asked if those costs are reimbursed when people purchase the trees.
The Treasurer explained that the trees were purchased for sale at the Arbor Day celebration and that the payments received are listed under “Charges for City Services”; he stated that the costs are reimbursed when residents pay for the trees.
Mayor Williams pointed out that the purpose of the List of Bills is to provide information for Council review; he commented that it is not a General Ledger and that if Council has specific questions on a billing statement they may ask for an explanation at the meeting.
Treasurer Blair suggested that options for presenting the information could be discussed when the review of the City finances by the State Auditor’s office is scheduled.
Councilmember Burke referred to the projections for the year and indicated that the overage relates to snowplowing and legal fees; he questioned why the financials show a deficit of $47,000.
Treasurer Blair explained that it is a cash flow issue since there is a one month delay on payment of bills.
Councilmember Burke commented that it is confusing when comparing the information against the “budget” column shown; he suggested elimination of the budget line when presenting the documents.
Treasurer Blair commented that previous elected officials requested that information be provided, however; if Council so desires he would eliminate the column.
Mayor Williams pointed out that in his opinion the information was requested in order to for Council to make an evaluation as to whether or not the City was on-track with the budget. He agreed that this council may suggest modifications relating to how the information is presented.
Treasurer Blair pointed out that the intent of presenting the information was for Council to be able to project what the cash balance would be at the end of the year.
Councilmember Burke commented that based on the revenues and expenses the cash flow as presented it appears that the City is on-track with the budget.
Mayor Williams asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Hovey moved approval the Consent Agenda with corrections to the minutes as requested, seconded by Councilmember Conant and carried. (4-0)
a. Special and Regular Council Meeting minutes of May 3, 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.
Lynette Olsen stated she wished to commend everyone associated with the Arbor Day celebration and to thank Cathy DeCourcy for her generous donation of trees to be planted at the park.
Councilmember Conant questioned the function of the wooden poles that were placed in the park. Forester Nayes explained that the wooden stakes and tubes were placed around the newly planted trees to protect them from deer. He advised that a company with local ties to the community had donated the tubes.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: None
6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT:
a. Planning Report: Planner Fuhrman referred Council to her report dated June 2, 2011 and explained that Jim Nayes has requested to utilize fiber cement on the exterior of the attached garage located on his property at 5900 Zehnder Road. She stated that Section 1219.03.B. of the Zoning Ordinance lists the allowed exterior building materials with a provision that other materials not specifically listed may be allowed with Council approval. Therefore, Council must make a determination as to whether or not Mr. Nayes can utilize this material for the exterior finish. She noted that Council had considered expanding the list of allowed materials earlier this year after a request from another resident regarding the use of vinyl siding. However, Council decided against making any amendment to the ordinance and instead opted to review each individual request.
The Planner advised that Section 1217.03 also requires that the same or similar quality exterior material shall be used in the accessory building as in the principal building on the lot and designed to blend with the environment. She further explained that the exterior of the accessory building should be “compatible” with the principal building so as not to cause a difference to cause incongruity; a depreciation of neighborhood or adjacent property values; or a nuisance such as an unsightly building exterior.
Planner Fuhrman provided background information on the application submitted in 2006 by Mr. Nayes, at which time Council approved three variances and a site and building plan for construction of the attached garage. At that time a condition was added that the garage’s exterior color was to be consistent with the exterior color of the existing principal structure. She advised that the principal structure is red brick in color, but the property owners have plans to eventually also update the exterior of the house; no final color has been chosen for the attached garage at this time. She stated that Mr. Nayes would be available for questions and provide examples of the proposed material this evening.
Mr. Nayes displayed the product he proposes to use for the garage siding and provided a photograph of the color he has chosen. He stated that the house would be painted the same color as the garage.
Councilmember Conant asked if the Planner would provide an opinion on the product. Planner Fuhrman advised that this type of product has been previously approved for use in the City and in her opinion it should not pose any problems.
Councilmember Burke questioned why this matter was not referred to the Planning Commission.
Planner Fuhrman explained that the City Code only requires approval of the materials by Council and does not require referral of such matters to the Planning Commission.
Attorney Kuntz explained that although the City Code does not require the Commission to review such matters, Council has the authority to refer the matter to the Commission for review.
Councilmember Burke commented that he does not wish to delay the request by Mr. Nayes, but suggested that in the future such matter could be reviewed by the Commission.
Councilmember Conant commented that if such matters are going to be reviewed by the Commission in the future it would be appropriate to have the Commission review this request. Mayor Williams agreed and noted that the original variance request included a condition that the garage color be consistent with the exterior of the home and questioned when the home would be painted.
Mr. Nayes pointed out that he plans to paint the house and garage at the same time; he explained that the siding comes primed and once it is installed he plans to paint both the garage and house the same color.
After a brief discussion, Council determined the siding as proposed would be acceptable. Councilmember Conant indicated that the motion should include a condition that the house and garage be painted at the same time to insure the condition of the original variance request is met.
Mayor Williams asked if there was any further discussion and there was no response.
Councilmember Burke moved to authorize the use of the cement composite material as shown by Mr. Nayes for use on the exterior of his garage with the condition that he comply with the condition outlined in the previous variance granted and simultaneously paint the existing home and garage the same color as presented this evening; seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)
Councilmember Conant questioned if subsequent requests for exterior building materials should be sent to the Planning Commission for review.
Attorney Kuntz noted that the Planner has one additional item for Council review and suggested they may wish to take action on this matter prior to a discussion of changing protocol.
Penovich/Moriarty Minor Site Plan Review, 344 Salem Church Road: Planner Fuhrman explained that a Minor Site Plan Review application was submitted for the property at 344 Salem Church Road. She stated the project includes a screen porch/sun room addition, deck addition and landscaping work. She noted that the addition and the hard surfacing are both less than 1,000 sq. ft. and less than 50 cubic yards of material would be moved onsite; therefore, it appears that the project meets the minor site plan review criteria.
The Planner advised that it has come to her attention the applicant is planning to use a composite material for the deck called Trex decking, and advised that this product is now commonly used in lieu of wood products. She noted that there is no list of allowable products for decking under the current City Code; however, since it is an exterior building material, she is presenting it for Council approval this evening. She asked the Building Official to provide information on the proposed product.
Interim Building Inspector Neameyer explained that the Trex product is being used in place or cedar or green treated lumber for deck surfaces. He explained that this product does not fade or splinter and has been on the market for at least a decade; he indicated that it widely used, is very expensive and has an excellent appearance. He explained that the product is a composite of wood and plastic and it is very durable.
Councilmember Burke asked if this application was still in process. The Planner explained that staff and the adjacent property owners have been notified per ordinance and the final planning approval or report will not be mailed until comments are received from staff and the property owners. She further explained that Minor Site Plan reviews are not presented to the Planning Commission for review.
The Mayor asked if there were any comments or questions and there was no response.
Councilmember Conant moved to authorize the use of the Trex decking product for the property at 344 Salem Church Road, seconded by Councilmember Burke and carried. (4-0)
Councilmember Conant commented that it may not have been wise to keep the list of allowable exterior building materials in the City Code.
Councilmember Hovey agreed and noted that there are few cities that have such a list.
There was discussion relating to whether or not Council should reconsider their decision to retain the list of allowable exterior building materials.
Mayor Williams suggested that this matter could be placed on the next agenda for further discussion. Attorney Kuntz agreed that it would be more appropriate for Council to have the list for reference before they discuss the matter.
Mayor Williams indicated that newer materials may appear over time and that the exterior building materials list would appear to relate to new home construction rather than upgrades.
Councilmember Burke questioned if decking materials was discussed or addressed when this matter was originally presented. The Planner responded no, but explained that the Code refers to exterior building materials and a deck is an exterior structure.
Councilmember Hovey pointed out that a deck is not usually visible versus the exterior of a home.
Attorney Kuntz explained that no requests for decking materials have previously been reviewed by Council or the Commission. He pointed out that composite materials for decks are now widely used along with the Hardy Board siding.
Planner Fuhrman agreed and noted that it would be hard to make a list that includes all types of materials that could be used for exterior building purposes.
Councilmember Hovey asked if any other cities have a list of materials. The Planner explained that the City of excelsior has a list of materials.
Councilmember Conant questioned if the Building Official would deny a permit if the materials do not meet Code requirements. Mr. Neameyer responded that if he is familiar with the product and it meets the Building Code Standards he would approve the product; he noted that composite materials normally outlast natural products for decking purposes. He further explained that all products have an evaluation report provided by the manufacturers and he is able to check the information via the manufacturer’s website.
Mayor Williams explained he was unsure of the purpose of the original reason for listing the products in the Ordinance; he suggested this matter be placed on the next agenda for discussion.
Councilmember Burke commented that he would hope the Ordinance was adopted to insure quality products were used and for aesthetic purposes to maintain property values; he expressed the opinion that he would prefer to see this vigilance continue and not abolish the standards.
The Mayor agreed that his preference would be to have some type of aesthetic standards especially in conjunction with new home construction.
The Attorney suggested that a memorandum be prepared for review which lists the current exterior building standards so that Council could chose if they wish to pursue maintaining those standards and/or making adjustments to the list.
The Planner indicated that staff could put together a memorandum for Council review and discussion at their next meeting; she indicated that if changes are requested, Council could refer the matter to the Planning Commission for a public hearing in July and then consider adoption at their August meeting.
The City Attorney indicated that one item the Council wished to exclude from the list was steel siding.
The Mayor asked if there was any further discussion and there was no response.
Council concurred to direct staff to prepare a memorandum on this item for consideration at the next meeting.
Bulach Major Site & Building Plan Review, 118 Salem Church Road: The Planner advised that staff conducted a full review of the Bulach application for a major site and building plan review and minor subdivision and found that the lot subdivision did not qualify as a minor subdivision as it did not meet the minimum 2.5 acres of net area (minus wetlands and 12% slopes) that is required by the Zoning Ordinance. As a result, the property owner withdrew the minor subdivision portion of the application and has chosen to submit a plat and variance to the minimum lot size standard application. The applicant requested an extension on the major site and building plan application review; this matter will be heard by the Planning Commission at their June meeting.
Mayor Williams asked if the new variance laws would have any impact on this request. Attorney Kuntz explained that the application would be considered under the new variance standards. He advised that Council would be asked to consider a proposed ordinance amendment to include the new variance language after the Planning Commission holds a public hearing on the matter.
Planning and Zoning Applications: Planner Fuhrman advised that the Planning Commission moved their June meeting to June 22 and will consider a CUP application for St. Anne’s cell tower, a variance request for the Arcedo residence, the plat and variance request from Mr. Bulach and possibly an ordinance amendment relating to the new variance law.
Councilmember Conant questioned if local government has control over cell tower regulations or if they are regulated by the Federal government. He asked if the tower height would be increased.
The Planner explained that cities still retain the final authorization for cell tower approval. She advised that request is to remove and add some additional antennas, but that the height of the tower would not be changed.
City Planner Responsibilities: The Planner advised that she would be leaving employment with Northwest Associates Consultants to take a new position. She advised that Steve Grittman would be taking over the planning responsibilities for Sunfish Lake. She stated that both she and Steve Grittman would be attending the June Planning Commission so that she could wrap up the current projects and introduce the new planner. She stated it has been a pleasure to work with residents, staff and Council in Sunfish Lake and thanked everyone for their support.
Council thanked the Planner for her report and also for her dedication; they wished her well in her new position.
7. INSPECTOR’S REPORTS:
a. Building Inspector: Interim Inspector David Neameyer explained that he issued four (4) building permits, two (2) mechanical permits and one (1) plumbing permit in May.
Councilmember Conant asked if the inspector could send out the report in advance for Council review.
Mr. Neameyer explained that it was his understanding the Clerk had sent the report; he stated he would email the report in the future.
Mayor Williams asked for a progress report for the property on Charlton Road. Mr. Neameyer explained that he is working with the City Attorney to draft a letter to the property owner; he indicated that they are attempting to insure due process is followed. He further explained that he was been in contact with Dakota County Human Services to provide assistance to the residents once the letter has been sent.
Councilmember Conant suggested that the inspector keep the Mayor apprised of what is happening in case there are media inquiries.
Councilmember Burke questioned if an inspection was conducted. Mr. Neameyer advised that the letter will request an inspection; he explained that due to the concerns for the residents he wishes to discuss the matter with Dakota County Human Services prior to sending the letter.
Councilmember Burke commented that the inspector had indicated there was some urgency at last month’s meeting.
Mr. Neamyer advised that he meant the property could not undergo another winter; he explained that he wished to insure that due process is followed because of the sensitivity of the matter. He explained that he anticipates the letter will be sent within the next two weeks.
Council thanked the Inspector for his report.
b. City Engineer: Angell Road Culvert Replacement: Engineer Hartzell explained that the bids for the Angell Road project were received and would be discussed under Item 8b. He further advised that a conceptual assessment roll for the project, with a 50-50 split for trunk stormwater improvements was prepared and would be discussed under Item 8.a. He explained that Mr. Hanson continues to work on the easement acquisition.
Musser Parking Lot: Mr. Hartzell noted that there was no activity on the Musser Park parking lot this month.
St. Anne’s Church Antenna Addition: Mr. Hartzell stated that Engineer Hanson completed a site review for the proposed antenna on the existing monopole on the St. Anne’s parcel.
Councilmember Conant questioned what the engineer reviewed. Mr. Hartzell explained that he most likely reviewed the structural calculators used to determine if it would support the weight of the additional antennae.
2600 Angell Road: Mr. Hartzell explained that the engineer had completed a review for the Arcedo parcel in conjunction with their variance application.
Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of May: Street Sweeping: Mr. Hartzell advised that street sweeping was completed on all City streets.
Pothole repairs: Mr. Harztell advised that potholes were patched on Salem Church Road.
Anticipated Engineer/Public Works Activities’ for the Month of June:
- Easement acquisition for the Angell Road Culvert Replacement Project.
- Prepare feasibility study for the Angell Road Culvert Replacement Project.
Council thanked the Engineer Hartzell for the report.
c. CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes stated that he issued eight (8) burning permits in May. He explained that he completed pruning of vegetation along the trail in Musser Park. He advised that the Arbor Day planting event was very successful and that recycling materials and information was available for residents. He reported that he has checked the plantings and found a 100 % survival rate for all plantings that were installed.
Councilmember Conant asked what benefit was received from the company that donated the tubes and stakes for the plantings. Mr. Nayes explained that a resident of Sunfish Lake worked for the company that made the donatations and that it was good advertising for the company.
The Forester reported that he checked on the Buckthorn removal and found no re-growth of the Buckthorn that was eradicated.
Lynette Olson asked who would be responsible for removal of garbage or trash along the roadways within the City.
Mr. Nayes responded that residents should call him regarding pickup of debris left along the roadways and he would dispose of the materials.
The Forester reported that he can document that ten deer died in the City in the last year including those taken during the deer herd reduction hunt.
Council thanked the Forester for his report.
d. PUBLIC SAFETY: Chief Shaver reviewed the public safety report. He advised he that had been working with the Planner on the issue of too many dogs at a residence within the City. He stated that the department had assisted the State Patrol with an accident. He explained that the department had responded to a call regarding peddlers within the City; he noted that two (2) gentlemen were arrested on warrants in conjunction with the peddler complaint.
Lynette Olson asked how the investigation of the dog shooting within the City is progressing. Chief Shaver explained that he is working with the BCA on this matter.
Mayor Williams explained that he received a letter from the Mendota Heights Fire Department that stated there were no Fire calls within the City during the month of May.
Council thanked Chief Shaver for his report.
8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS:
a. Consider Establishment of a Special Assessment Policy and a Resolution Approving a Special Assessment Policy:
Attorney Kuntz stated that staff drafted an assessment policy for street and storm water improvements in response to
Council discussion at the last meeting. He explained that previously the City has assessed for five (5) street
improvements on a per unit or per lot basis. He advised that potentially the Angell Road Culvert improvement would be
assessed as an area assessment and include properties that contribute to the storm water runoff. He explained that the
first step in determining an assessment is to decide which portion of the project costs would be paid by the City and
which portion would be specially assessed. He stated the second step is to spread or divide the total assessment among
the various lots that receive a special benefit.
The Attorney reviewed the typical types of street improvements that are ordered within the City; seal-coating, mill and overlay and street reconstruction. He pointed out that seal-coating is normally a maintenance item and the City pays the cost out of the general fund as a maintenance item. He stated that projects involving mill and overlay and street reconstruction would be specially assessed and Council should determined the percentage of costs for these types of projects based on the type of street. He reviewed the three (3) types of streets that staff identified; collector street, neighborhood collector street and local street. He also noted that streets within the City may be categorized and identified within the policy by meeting criteria outlined for the type of street. He stated that staff had identified the streets by classification within the draft policy and outlined the percentages that would be assessed for each type of improvement on these streets.
Attorney Kuntz reviewed the two categories for storm water improvements, lateral and trunk lines, and explained the criteria for each type. He explained that staff proposes that a lateral storm water improvement would be assessed to the adjacent benefitted properties on the same basis as a street assessment, taking into account the different classes of streets and allocating the assessable portion of the project on a per buildable lot basis. He stated that staff proposes that trunk storm water improvements would be assessed fifty percent (50%) of the project costs and the assessable amount would be spread or divided among the specially benefitted properties on a basis of the gross area of each property. He also reviewed the terms for payment of each type of assessment and how the interest in determined.
The Attorney explained that the draft policy is merely a guideline for Council use and may be changed if special type of project or a unique circumstance occurs when an improvement is being considered. He further noted that the policy for street reconstruction was intended to cover assessments for existing streets, where pavement already exists, and not for a first time installation of a street such as if pavement were installed on Charlton Road where none currently exists. He stated that staff has also prepared a resolution if Council chooses to adopt the policy this evening.
Mayor Williams questioned the rationale for treating Charlton Road differently for assessment than a typical reconstruction project on an existing road. Attorney Kuntz pointed out that he has heard argument that there is a greater benefit to a landowner since they never had pavement and they had never previously paid for a paved road.
Councilmember Hovey commented that reconstructing an existing street is basically the same as starting with no street.
Councilmember Conant asked if the Angell Road improvement would be classified as a lateral or trunk improvement.
Engineer Hartzell responded that it would be classified as a trunk improvement project based on the fact that so much drainage comes from area not immediately adjacent to improvement; he noted that the assessment map identifies the area that comes into the improvement project area.
Councilmember Burke complimented the City Attorney for his work in crafting the draft assessment policy. He questioned why the storm water assessment would be based on the type of road it is adjacent to.
Mr. Kuntz explained that it could be argued that a typical lateral storm water improvement includes removing vegetation along the immediately adjacent ditch area to attempt to take water from the street; he commented that there is usually no pavement improvement and the benefit is to residents along the street.
Councilmember Burke commented that this type of improvement is to protect the integrity of the street. Attorney Kuntz and Engineer Hartzell agreed with this rationale.
Councilmember Burke questioned why the interest rate paid by the landowner would be 2% above interest rate the City would have received over the five-year term of the assessment. He questioned if this would be easily calculable; he recommended that the language reflect what the City would have disbursed for interest if the funds were borrowed.
Attorney Kuntz explained that the interest rate is set slightly higher to recover interest lost due to prepayment of the assessments.
Councilmember Burke asked if citizens can prepay without penalty. Attorney Kuntz responded that the residents may prepay without penalty, however the City’s ability to prepay maybe subject to limitations.
Councilmember Conant commented that in terms of assessment by acreage there are lots adjacent to Sunfish Lake with a substantial portion of acreage within the lake versus buildable property; may want to use a term like “buildable” area.
Mayor Williams suggested that it could be determined by the “ordinary high water mark”.
Attorney Kuntz agreed that point should be addressed; he suggested it could be gross acreage not including the lake; or gross acreage minus “unusable” land as measured by the ordinary high water mark.
Engineer Hartzell pointed out that with the trunk storm sewer improvement the rainfall over wetlands and lakes have an effect on the storm water.
After discussing a variety of assessment scenarios based on calculating acreage for lake lots with property in the lake include, Council decided to use a per buildable lot basis for the calculation rather than the total acreage method of calculating storm water assessments.
Attorney Kuntz suggested that a buildable lot for storm water assessments would mean a standard 2.5 acre lot, and would be the same for lateral and trunk storm sewer projects.
The attorney summarized the assessment discussion for Council review:
1. Interest Rate should not be more than 2% above the bond rate;
2. Trunk Storm Water improvement should be a 50/50 cost share and calculated on a per buildable lot basis;
3. Street Reconstruction Projects: add language to Section 2, page 1, to include new streets for typical street
improvements when installing new pavement where none previously existed.
Councilmember Burke questioned if new streets should be excluded and reviewed separately.
Councilmember Hovey supported including new streets in the policy. He commented that in his opinion Charlton Road should be classified as a collector street since it has more in common with Salem Church Road.
The Mayor pointed out that a collector street also has other streets that come off of it and Charlton Road does not.
Councilmember Hovey noted that Charlton Road connects to Delaware and Highway 110.
After discussion, Council concurred to list Charlton Road as a collector street.
Councilmember Conant questioned if a road collapses who would fix it. Attorney Kuntz explained that typically the City would make emergency repairs and then assess when a permanent repair is ordered.
Mayor Williams asked if there was any further discussion and there was no response.
Attorney Kuntz reviewed the discussion relating to changes in the assessment policy:
1. The Interest Rate should not be more than 2% above the bond rate;
2. Trunk Storm Water improvement should be a 50/50 cost share and calculated on a per buildable lot basis;
3. Street Reconstruct to include new pavement where none previously existed;
4. Charlton Road to be listed as a “collector” street;
The Attorney explained he could make the changes for adoption at the next meeting and if Council wishes to proceed with the Angell Road project they could direct the engineer to use the policy as proposed.
Councilmember Conant asked if the City could deviate from the adopted policy for an improvement such as Charlton Road where no pavement currently exists. Attorney Kuntz responded yes and explained that Council would have to determine “findings of fact” to deviate from the adopted policy.
Council concurred to have the Attorney incorporate the changes and present the assessment policy for adoption at the next meeting.
b. Review Bids and Authorize Preparation of a Feasibility Study for the Angell Road Culvert Replacement Project: Engineer Hartzell explained that ten (10) bids were received and tabulated for the project with the low bidder being Minnesota Dirt Works, Inc. in the amount of $54,483.10. He stated that the bids were competitive, with the lowest four bids within 10% of the engineer’s estimate. Staff recommends that Council table the award of the contract until an assessment policy is established. He further explained that staff is requesting Council authorize the preparation of a feasibility study for the project in order to be able to proceed with assessing benefit for the project. He reviewed the time schedule to complete the process.
Councilmember Conant stated he looked at the culverts and found that all three need to have access and egress channels dug out and cleaned. He explained that the culvert closest to Highway 110 appeared to be in bad shape; however, in his opinion the two other culverts appear to be in excellent shape, with no sign of rusting metal. He stated that he will stand by his opinion that the two culverts are in excellent condition and suggested that only maintenance of these channels be done. He offered to send photos of the culverts to anyone interested.
Councilmember Hovey questioned if he was able to view the bottom portion of these culverts to see there was any rusting; he asked if the bottom was underwater.
Councilmember Conant stated he was unable to see the bottom of the culverts.
Mayor Williams pointed out that if the bottom on the culvert was in bad shape it could cause a collapse of the culvert.
Councilmember Conant questioned what methodology was used to determine the condition of the culverts.
Engineer Hartzell stated he was unsure how the condition was determined and offered to check with the City Engineer.
Councilmember Conant commented that in his opinion both culverts should be reviewed again.
Mayor Williams commented that originally the City Engineer had suggested inserting pipe into the existing culvert, but found that would be more costly and recommended replacement.
Councilmember Conant suggested that it may be appropriate to have an independent person review the culverts to obtain a second opinion.
Engineer Hartzell stated he could ask the City Engineer to email Council with the methodology used to determine the condition of the culverts and he could also request that this information be placed in the feasibility report.
Councilmember Conant proposed that Council hire an independent engineer to review the culverts.
Mayor Williams asked the City Attorney if Council could hire an independent engineer to review the culverts and what the cost would be to do so.
Attorney Kuntz advised that the City could hire someone to review the culverts, but he had no idea what it would cost.
The Mayor suggested that Council proceed with ordering the feasibility report and ask the City Engineer to include the methodology for determining the improvement. He explained that after reviewing this information the City would then have a basis for hiring an independent engineer to obtain a second opinion.
Council concurred with the Mayor’s suggestion. Mayor Williams asked that Mr. Hartzell advise the City Engineer to forward a copy of the methodology by email for their review.
Attorney Kuntz explained that staff anticipated the cost of the project would be paid from City funds; he noted that staff calculated an approximate cost for the City portion of the project. He explained there is $30,000 in the budget for an unspecified road maintenance project and that an additional $10,000 would be needed to cover the City’s cost share. He advised that once the funds are utilized for the project, there would be $58,000 in reserve; he asked if Council is comfortable with that amount in reserve. He pointed out that if Council wishes to borrow the funds for the project, staff should begin working on that process.
Mayor Williams advised that it would be more costly to borrow the money with the fees to the fiscal advisor.
Treasurer Blair stated he would prefer not to bond for the project and agreed it could increase the project costs by approximately $15,000.
Councilmember Burke commented that either way it is his opinion the interest rate should be the same; he stated he wished to have a recommendation from the Treasurer on how to proceed. He questioned how much has been expended to date on the project and noted that the City must still obtain easements.
Treasurer Blair advised that the Engineering fees are $6,700 and with the Attorney’s fees the costs are approximately $10,000 to date.
The Mayor explained that the easements are necessary to do maintenance on the culverts and that staff is attempting to get permanent easements.
Councilmember Conant commented that residents should be providing easements and be grateful that the City is willing to clean-up the culverts.
Councilmember Burke questioned the need to spend $2,000 on a feasibility study and noted that easements are not yet obtained.
The Mayor explained that in his opinion it is necessary to obtain the feasibility study and that it would be useful if an independent review is undertaken for comparison purposes. He pointed out that the engineer indicated that easements would be granted for maintenance purposes; however, it would be preferable to obtain permanent easements.
Engineer Hartzell explained that obtaining easements is a long process for any type of improvement project.
Attorney Kuntz commented that landowners may be amenable to granting the easements after an assessment policy is adopted, as they are made aware of the fact that costs for obtaining an easement may increase the project costs and also their assessment.
The Mayor asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Hovey moved to direct the City Engineer to prepare a Feasibility Study for the Angell Road Culvert Replacement Project which includes the methodology for determining the improvement , seconded by Councilmember Burke and carried. (4-0)
c. Review MS4 Annual Report from 2010: Engineer Hartzell presented the 2010 MS4 Annual Report and summary of the City’s Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that were implemented in 2010. He explained that Sunfish Lake had no construction activity in 2010 that disturbed an acre of land and that the report identifies the inspections that occurred on the City’s storm water system. He advised that no action is required.
Councilmember Conant asked if the report has been submitted and Mr. Hartzell responded yes.
d. Consider Approval of the 2011 CAMP Contract/Agreement: Engineer Hartzell advised that the Metropolitan Council sent a copy of the 2011 Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) which trains volunteers to monitor lake water quality within the City for Council review and approval. He stated that volunteers have signed up for all three (3) lakes within the City.
Councilmember Conant questioned the fee of $350 for maximum of 14 inspections on the lakes.
Treasurer Blair advised that the fees are consistent with past invoices; he explained that last year one lake did not have 14 inspections and therefore the total cost was slightly less.
Mayor Williams asked if there were further comments or questions and there was no response.
Councilmember Burke moved to authorize execution of the Contract for Services for the 2011 CAMP Program , seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)
e. Consider Extending the Temporary Appointment of David Neameyer as Building Official for the City of Sunfish Lake and Discuss a Contract between David Neameyer and the City: Attorney Kuntz explained that he would be meeting with Mr. Neameyer to review the proposed contract he had drafted. He indicated that after review and discussion of the matter with Mr. Neameyer, the contract would be presented to Council at their July meeting.
The Attorney explained that Mr. Neameyer was appointed to serve 90-days as the Interim Building Official and that time-period will expires shortly. He suggested Council extend the appointment an additional 60-days or until a contract has been finalized.
Councilmember Conant asked if the City had a contract with Mr. Wahl. Attorney Kuntz responded no; he noted that all the other consultants have contracts and it would be appropriate to include the Building Official.
Mayor Williams asked if there were further comments or questions and there was no response.
Councilmember Conant moved to extend the appointment of Mr. Neameyer as the Interim Building Official for 60-days, seconded by Councilmember Burke and carried. (4-0)
f. Consider Directing Planning Commission to Conduct a Public Hearing on a Proposed Ordinance Amendment Relating to Variance Regulations: Attorney Kuntz explained that staff is requesting Council direct the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing on the new law adopted by the State legislature that amended the standards for granting a variance. He stated that staff has prepared an ordinance amendment to incorporate these standards into the City Code.
Mayor Williams asked if there were comments or questions and there was no response.
Councilmember Burke moved to direct the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing on the new law adopted by the State legislature that amended the standards for granting a variance, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)
g. Discuss Proposal for State Auditor’s Office Review of City Financial Procedures: Clerk Iago explained that per Council direction she had contacted the State Auditor’s Office to discuss a proposal for review of the City’s financial procedures and they requested that Council prepare of list of items for review as related to financial procedures. She further explained that once the list is prepared, the State Auditor’s staff would meet with two (2) Council representatives to discuss and clarify the items listed and then they would prepare a cost estimate for the review.
Mayor Williams suggested that Council prepare items they wish to be included in the review and then Councilmembers Burke and Conant could meet with the State Auditor’s staff to review the items.
Councilmember Burke questioned if the Auditor’s office had a template they normally follow to conduct this type of review. Clerk Iago advised that the Auditor’s office stated they do not and preferred the information be provided by Council.
Councilmember Burke indicated that in his opinion it is good to periodically have an outside individual review of the financial procedures.
Council concurred to prepare information for discussion at the next meeting.
h. Discuss Property at 55 Salem Church Road and 50 Woodridge Lane: Mayor Williams explained that he had received complaints regarding the property conditions at 55 Salem Church Road and also at 50 Woodridge Lane. Due to the late hour he suggested that discussion of these properties be held until the next meeting. He questioned if Council wishes to become involved in creating a housekeeping ordinance to deal with these issue.
There was no discussion on these items.
i. Discuss Mayoral Proclamation Relating to Former Building Official Russ Wahl: Mayor Williams pointed out that there is a wetland area that is owned by the City that is currently unnamed and unused; he suggested that the wetland be named “Wahl Wetland” in memoriam for the former building official Russ Wahl. He suggested that a proclamation be drafted for consideration at the next meeting.
Council concurred to direct staff to prepare a proclamation designating the unnamed wetland “Wahl Wetland” in memory of Russ Wahl.
j. Other: FEMA Letter: Mayor Williams referred to a letter he received from FEMA regarding designating Special Flood Hazard Areas within the City and requesting participation in their National Flood Insurance Program. He noted that the letter states FEMA determined the City does not have property within the flood plain.
Planner Fuhrman explained that FEMA encourages the City to participate in this program so that property owners have the option to purchase flood insurance; if the City does not participate the residents cannot buy flood insurance.
Mayor Williams advised that he would do some research on this matter and report to Council at the next meeting. Chief Shaver stated he would also research the matter with Dave Gish.
Payment to Andy Park for Sunfish Lake Quarterly Invoice: Clerk Iago advised that the City received an invoice from Andy Park for his work on the Sunfish Lake Quarterly; however, it was too late to be included in the List of Bills; she asked that Council authorize the payment of $100 to Andy Park for his work on the Sunfish Lake Quarterly.
Councilmember Conant moved to authorize the payment of $100 to Andy Park for his work on the Sunfish Lake Quarterly, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)
Mayor Williams asked if there was any further business and there was no response.
9. ADJOURN: Councilmember Hovey moved for adjournment at 10:00 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Burke and carried. (4-0)
___________________________ ___________________________
Richard A. Williams, Jr., Mayor Catherine Iago, City Clerk
We are a small community proud of our heritage and committed to the preservation of our pristine, rural character. We cherish our privacy, yet know we are part of a thriving Dakota County and the greater Twin Cities metropolitan area. With these partnerships in mind, we strive to preserve that unique spirit which is Sunfish Lake, Minnesota.