SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – JUNE 2, 2009
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Mayor: Molly Park
Councilmembers: Cathy DeCourcy, Judy MacManus, and Richard Williams.
City Attorney: Tim Kuntz
City Planner: Laurie Smith
City Engineer: Tim Hanson
Building Official: Russ Wahl
Interim City Forester: Jim Nayes
City Treasurer: Mike Blair
City Clerk: Cathy Iago
Police Chief Manila Shaver
and Members of the General Public.
Councilmember Roger Conant arrived at 7:10 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Molly Park opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
2. APPROVE AGENDA: Mayor Park requested that Item 6.c. Report on Creosote Logs be removed from the Agenda and explained that City Forester Mark Johnson and Adina Overbee were not available to present a report on this matter. She also requested a discussion be held under Item 6.d. Other regarding appointment of Jim Nayes as the Interim City Forester as Mark Johnson has submitted his resignation and moved to Sweden. The Mayor advised that she also wished to discuss the joint meeting with the City of Mendota Heights under New/Other Business. She asked if there were any further additions or corrections to the agenda and there was no response.
Councilmember Williams moved approval of the Agenda as amended, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (4-0)
3. CONSENT AGENDA: The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember DeCourcy noted the discussion in the May 5, 2009 meeting minutes relating to John Roe’s complaint that he must install a rain garden since his property has natural drainage capabilities; she questioned if the City would have any liability if toddlers were injured on the property by mandating the rain garden installation.
Attorney Kuntz responded that generally the City would not have any liability since it is a requirement under the zoning code; he explained that once the rain garden is installed the responsibility for maintenance of the area shifts to the property owner. He noted that maintenance of the area requires the property owner to move anything that obstructs the function of the pond and/or rain garden. He also pointed out that normally fencing or design of the area serves to prevent accidents.
Councilmember Williams asked if the rain garden was recommended by the Planning Commission or the City Engineer. Attorney Kuntz responded that it was the Engineer’s recommendation and was attached as a condition by the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Williams noted that the issue appears to be whether or not to require the rain garden if the property has natural drainage and that liability is a separate issue.
Councilmember MacManus commented that typically rain gardens do not retain water and should not create any liability issues.
Councilmember DeCourcy questioned why Mr. Roe needed to install a rain garden versus a pond.
Engineer Hanson explained that rain gardens are a new requirement for new development versus a pond; he noted that it was Mr. Roe’s choice to install the rain gardens rather than a pond since they are shallower. He explained that by ordinance the City requires a new developer to install either a pond or a rain garden to control drainage.
The Mayor asked if Councilmember DeCourcy wished to make any amendments to the minutes after the discussion and Councilmember DeCourcy responded no.
Councilmember Williams asked if the Treasurer required a motion to amend the budget relating to the Salem Church Road project as indicated in his report.
Treasurer Blair stated that he had attached a supplemental schedule of expenditures and that a motion is not necessary unless Council wishes to do so.
Councilmember Conant arrived at 7:10 p.m.
Mayor Park asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Williams moved approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (5-0)
a. Regular Council Meeting Minutes of May 5, 2009.
b. List of Bills
c. Monthly Financial Statements
4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: None.
5. INSPECTOR’S REPORTS:
a. Building Inspector: Inspector Wahl stated that he conducted nine (9) inspections and issued five (5) permits in May. He explained that the Khang residence at 2095 Angell Road has gone into foreclosure and that the interior of the residence has been gutted. He advised that all the electrical receptacles have been removed leaving only the bare wires extending from the wall. He stated that Mr. Schadegg’s daughter has made an offer to purchase the property, however; he informed Mr. Schadegg that the property must be brought to code compliance prior to occupancy. He further noted that the grass has not been cut and questioned if there is an ordinance requiring maintenance of the property.
Mayor Park stated that she passes the property on her way home and she believes the grass has been mowed.
Inspector Wahl advised that there is a home on Acorn Drive that has been unoccupied for two years and has a dumpster in the yard. He explained that he contacted the company that placed the dumpster on the site and found they have been using it as a dump site for remodeling items, but not for the actual property remodeling. He asked the company to remove the dumpster.
Councilmember William thanked Mr. Wahl for his efforts and noted that neighbors in the area had expressed concerns about the property.
Councilmember Conant questioned if the property owner that removed materials from inside their home could be charged with vandalism. Mayor Park pointed out that this stripping of the interior occurs when a property is in foreclosure and is classified as “distressed housing”.
Council thanked the Inspector for his report.
b. City Engineer: Salem Church Road Reconstruction: The Engineer stated that the contractor had delayed construction until June 8 and that he confirmed that start date today with the contractor. He advised the work is anticipated to be substantially completed within three (3) weeks. He explained that his office has sent two flyers to affected residents with contact information as well as a small refrigerator magnet that also lists the contacts information.
Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP): The Engineer explained that the SWMP was approved, distributed and sent to Mr. Hovey for placement on the City website.
NPDES Annual Public Hearing: Engineer Hanson stated that the annual report for the NPDES was completed that is being sent to the MPCA; the deadline for submission is in June.
Charlton Road Feasibility Update: Engineer Hanson explained that this matter will be presented later on the agenda.
Angell Acres Rain Gardens: The Engineer stated that the developer has submitted plans for construction of the ponding areas/rain gardens for review. He stated that the plan was reviewed and approved and construction is scheduled for the beginning of June.
Public Works Activates Undertaken in the Month of May:
Charlton Road Grading: Engineer Hanson advised that Charlton Road was bladed and compacted on May 13, 2009.
Pothole Repairs: The Engineer stated that the City’s bituminous streets were surveyed for potholes and that bituminous patching was completed on May 14, 2009; he reviewed the locations for these repairs as listed in his report.
Culvert Collapse (Salem Church Road and Robert Street): Engineer Hanson explained that Mn/DOT crews replaced the culvert that extends across Salem Church Road at the Robert Street intersection and also installed street patch on May 7, 2009.
Anticipated Engineer/Public Works Activities for the Month of June:
* Project Management for the Salem Church Road Reconstruction Project
* Solicit Quotes for dust control on Charlton Road
Council thanked the Engineer for his report.
Mayor Park noted that the Planner was not listed under reports and asked if the Planner had any information to present to Council.
Planner Smith advised that no applications were received in May and that the May meeting was cancelled; she noted and one application was received in June and the matter would be presented to Council in July.
Council thanked the Planner for her report.
c. CITY FORESTER: Interim Forester Nayes explained that he issued two (2) Burning Permits in May and that he was unsure if Forester Johnson had issued any permits prior to leaving.
Mr. Nayes gave a brief presentation on Emerald Ash Bore and also regarding how to protect trees; he noted that the tree should be treated every year for the life of the tree with a systemic treatment around the base of the tree. He recommended that residents only treat an ash tree in their yard if it has special meaning to them. He advised that the beetles arrived from Asia in packing materials and that it was several years before anyone realized what they were or what was happening to the trees. He indicated that all Ash trees in Minnesota are in danger and that residents should consider transitional plantings now if they have Ash trees on their property.
Councilmember Conant asked how to identify the symptoms of a diseased Ash tree. Mr. Nayes explained the tree dies from the top down and that sprouts grow at the base of the tree; he noted that the actual beetle is very small and would not be visible. He displayed a photo of the beetle.
Councilmember Williams asked if Hornbeam is a form of Ash that would be affected; Mr. Nayes responded no and advised that Mountain Ash would not be affected either. Mr. Nayes advised that residents could report or confirm information regarding the Emerald Ash bore on the website:
Councilmember DeCourcy asked if Mr. Johnson is currently out of the country. She noted that she has an ailing Ash tree in her front yard and questioned if she would contact Mr. Nayes to look at the tree.
Mr. Nayes responded that the letter he received from Mark stated he was out of the country and it was dated May 25, 2009.
Councilmember Williams advised that he had hired Mr. Nayes firm to do some work for him and questioned if it would be a conflict of interest; he suggested a temporary moratorium until the work is completed.
Councilmember MacManus commented that reviewing diseased trees would be part of the forester’s duties.
Attorney Kuntz explained that as the City’s Interim Forester Mr. Nayes it would be customary for him to review trees within the City to determine if they are diseased as part of his normal duties.
Council thanked the Interim Forester for his report.
d. PUBLIC SAFETY: Mayor Park distributed the Public Safety monthly report for May, 2009. Chief Shaver
was present and stated the false alarms were up again this month although they are in line with last year’s alarm total. He advised that the Criminal Sexual Contact complaint was not related to the community and that the complaint was initiated in West St. Paul; he advised that the suspect drove to the parking lot at Southside Baptist Church in the City and is not in custody.
Councilmember MacManus questioned the Theft incident; Chief Shaver explained it was a theft of mail from a church mailbox. He cautioned residents not to place outgoing mail in their mailboxes but rather to bring it to the post office to prevent identity theft.
Councilmember Conant questioned if cancelled alarms would count as a false alarm and Chief Shaver responded no.
Holly Hammett explained that she has received unsolicited mail in her mailbox that is placed there by vendors.
Chief Shaver advised that is a Federal offense and indicated there is a “hotline” phone number for such incidents; he suggested she call the police department when this occurs.
Lynette Olsen explained that she was walking her puppy on Salem Church Road near the Ritter property and that two dogs were loose in the yard. She stated that it appeared as if the dogs had collars used with an invisible fence; however, one of the dogs left the yard and came after her dog. She explained that persons driving past stopped to assist her.
Chief Shaver stated he would contact someone at the property to encourage the resident to keep the dogs leashed and under control.
Council thanked Chief Shaver for his report.
6. OTHER/NEW BUSINESS:
a. Consider Resolution Accepting Feasibility Report and Ordering a Public Hearing for Charlton Road Street Reconstruction Project: Engineer Hanson explained that a draft feasibility study was presented to the Council in June 2007 and as a result of that study the Council formed a task force to evaluate Charlton Road. He stated the task force met in 2007 and 2008 and a summary of their discussions was presented to Council on December 2, 2008 by Co-Chair Jake Crandall. After receiving the task force report, the Council authorized an update of the June, 2007 draft feasibility study. He noted that the task force minutes are included in the feasibility study.
The Engineer reviewed the existing roadway conditions and stated that Charlton Road is a gravel road that varies in width from 19 to 25 feet. The typical road width is approximately 22 feet with approximately 4 to 8 inches of aggregate. Traffic counts were taken in May, 2006; the average traffic count on weekdays is 190 vehicles per day and on weekends 138 vehicles per day.
Engineer Hanson stated that the right-of-way exists in two forms. He advised that there is platted right-of-way for the more recently developed parcels adjacent to the road, however; of the 21 parcels, 6 are platted and the other 15 parcels have prescriptive rights and the City would have to obtain easements for these parcels. These parcels are shown in Figures 6 and 7 of the report.
The Engineer explained that residential surveys were taken in 1994, 2003 and 2007; in 2003 the survey showed that 7 of the 23 residents favored an improvement and in 2007 the survey showed 12 of the 23 residents favored some type of improvement. He explained that the task force looked at determining roadway deficiencies and identified potential improvements. He stated that the first meeting was a visioning session and members identified issues; one of the major issues was that the roadway maintains a rural character and the others included resolving drainage issues and safety and liability was also raised as a major issue. He noted that at the first meeting a history of Charlton Road was presented and fire safety issues were reviewed. He explained that fire safety issues included the minimum travel surface for fire code, tree canopy that overhangs the roadway to allow fire vehicles the full use of the roadway, and discussion relating to staging areas for set-up of fire equipment. He advised that police safety issues were also discussed and included issues related to the condition of the gravel surface. He stated that the City Attorney provided information relating to easements and assessments.
Engineer Hanson reported that the second task force meeting was held on Charlton Road and the members reviewed the natural beauty of the roadway and maintaining the rural atmosphere, sufficient access for fire safety issues, drainage issues, potholes, overhead utility lines and measuring the varying widths of the aggregate road surface. He advised that at the third meeting the task force reviewed options for improvements; the conclusions are listed on page 7 of the report. At the fourth meeting the task force identified the three major issues; drainage, safety and drivability and maintaining the rural character of the road. At the last meeting the task force summarized the issues discussed in previous meetings and Jake Crandall presented his summary report to Council.
The Engineer stated that the feasibility report outlines four (4) alternatives for improvement of the road:
1. Bituminous Pavement - Standard City Street: The Engineer stated that a standard street section as adopted by the City is two 11-ft. lanes with 1.5-foot shoulders and 3:1 slopes with a 4-foot bottom for the roadside swale. This is shown in Figure 2 of the report. He explained that this alternative was proposed in the 1993 feasibility study and that it is not recommended as it is deemed to have too much impact on the vegetation and property adjacent to the road.
2. Bituminous Pavement – Modified City Standard Street Section with Suburban Street Section: The Engineer explained this is the recommended improvement and would consist of a rural section roadway with reduced lane width to a 20-foot-wide bituminous pavement with 1-foot-wide aggregate shoulders. He stated the slope would be a 1:3 inslope with a 1-foot bottom ditch and is considerably narrower and a 1:2 blackslope. He stated these are minimum slopes to deal with drainage issues and this is the minimum width required by fire safety code for emergency vehicles. He noted that this street width closely matches the existing width along the roadway. He stated that it is also recommended that a bituminous berm be placed in areas of steep grades and cut section in lieu of a roadside swale to eliminate erosion and minimize removal of vegetation. He indicated that the optimal location for this type of design is adjacent to the Crandall Hill and to the Chase and Paster parcels.
Councilmember Williams questioned if the 12-ft. lane width shown in Figure 3 is the area for berm placement and preserving vegetation. Engineer Hanson responded yes and noted that some area behind the berm is needed for snow storage.
Councilmember MacManus questioned if bituminous berm and curb are the same; Engineer Hanson responded yes. She also questioned if the remainder of the road width would have a ditch. The Engineer responded yes and described the areas were the berms could be placed on either side of the road. He noted that in some areas he may recommend berming both sides of the road and the remainder of the road would have ditches. He noted that the figures merely show a typical section of the roadway.
Mayor Park questioned why the decision for a gravel road is shown at 11-foot wide and not 10-foot wide. The Engineer explained that it would be difficult to maintain a roadway to exactly 10 foot wide traffic lanes; he commented that if the one-foot made a difference to save a special tree it could be narrowed at that location.
Councilmember MacManus noted that the figures show a 1-1/2 foot gravel shoulder. The Engineer stated it should be one-foot.
Councilmember Williams questioned if the roadway width would be 22-feet with the centerline being a 10-12 with the extra width being close to the berm side. The Engineer responded yes and noted that the berm would eventually be hidden with vegetation and the extra width next to the berm would assist with drainage.
3. Aggregate Surfacing with Drainage Improvements: The Engineer explained that this alternative is similar to the improvements proposed in Alternative No. 2 except the roadway would be an aggregate surface. He stated that the ditches would be made as steep as possible since the ditches would fill up with dirt runoff from the road and require more maintenance. He advised that the existing condition of the road provides no sunshine to maintain vegetation in the ditches; he noted an alternative would be to install rock to maintain drainage, which is not as attractive. He pointed out that the only difference between Alternatives 2 and 3 is the surface; the ditch work remains the same.
4. Complete Annual Maintenance as Needed – “Do Nothing”: Engineer Hanson stated that this is a standard alternative placed in feasibility reports. He explained that this has been discussed with Council and the issues remain the same with drainage and erosion problems.
The Engineer stated a couple of options that were identified in previous reports include the Riley Curve at the south end of the roadway is a traffic safety issue; he noted that property is currently under different ownership and it is recommend that the City attempt to obtain an easement or right-of-way from this parcel. He explained that obtaining an easement to revise the curve radius would greatly increase the safety of the curve; he pointed out there have been several vehicles that have gone off the road in this area. He indicated that modifying the curve to a 25 mph radius is also recommended as part of the project and identified as an alternative.
Engineer Hanson stated that the issue of installation of speed humps had also been raised and could be included as part of the project.
The Engineer discussed the fact that easements and right-of-way are necessary as part off the project and are recommended to be acquired and costs for acquisition may vary significantly depending on appraisals and negotiations.
Engineer Hanson reviewed the cost comparison analysis as shown in Appendix B. He noted that the task force requested a cost comparison between an aggregate and bituminous roadway. The cost comparison was run out over a 40-year period and was based on a document presented by residents in the area from MnDOT titled “The Economics of Upgrading an Aggregate Road”. He noted that he used the document as a basis for the analysis and explained his preparation of the comparison; the cost analysis compares City costs with half the costs assessed to the abutting property owners. He stated that using a 25-year cycle based on a 6 percent interest rate, the cost of Alternative 2 (a bituminous roadway), the present worth is calculated at $260,000 with an annual cost of $20,250 for maintenance and capital cost. He stated that for Alternative 3 the present worth is calculated at $346,500 with an annual cost of $27,100 for maintenance and capital cost.
The Engineer stated that he briefly reviewed funding for the project; however it does not include easement costs since they may vary significantly. He stated the amounts only include construction costs; for the recommended Alternative 2 the construction costs are estimated at $370,100 and using a 40 percent assessment as used on Salem Church Road, the total amount to be assessed would be $148,040. He advised there are 30 individual units adjacent to the road for a cost of $4,935 per unit.
The Engineer offered to respond to questions.
Councilmember MacManus commented that she does not believe Alternative 1 belongs in the feasibility study and recalled that a directive was given by the Mayor to remove that option from the table.
Engineer Hanson explained that the choice is a Council decision and that Alternative 1 was included to show a basis for comparison; he stated he is recommending Alternative 2.
Councilmember MacManus questioned if Alternative 2 actually shows characteristics of a rural road and noted that Alternate 2 recommends a 1-foot bottom on the ditch however the drawing shows a 2-foot bottom. The Engineer explained that the intent would be to have a 1-foot bottom which is extremely reduced.
Councilmember Williams indicated that Alternative 1 is most likely listed as a benchmark and Mayor Park agreed that was the case with Alternate 4 the “do nothing” approach.
Councilmember MacManus clarified that she was questioning how much Alternative 2 incorporates the rustic road; she indicated that she defines it as keeping the road as narrow as possible, minimizing the ditching and removal of vegetation. She commented that she could not find information on the rustic road definition that was used for Acorn Drive
Councilmember Williams pointed out that earlier discussions indicated the rustic road standard could not be used on Charlton Road due to the traffic volumes; he noted that he believes Councilmember MacManus wishes to minimize the impact on the road as much as possible and to maintain the current atmosphere.
Councilmember MacManus referred to the mention of bituminous parking areas for emergency vehicles and indicated it was her understanding that these areas would be similar to those along Acorn Drive with reinforced grassy areas. Engineer Hanson responded that during discussions with the task force and Fire Chief and Council discussions there were issues with people parking on the road; he noted that those areas could be grass with a rubberized mat underneath that allows grass to grow through the mat.
Councilmember Williams commented that was used on Acorn Drive and could also be used on Charlton Road.
The Engineer explained there would be some aesthetic impact; he discussed possible locations for these staging areas.
Mayor Park asked if the lawn service vehicles could also park in these areas and the Engineer responded yes.
Councilmember MacManus questioned Alternative 3 with an aggregate surface and a 2-foot bottom ditch and asked if that number should actually be 1-foot. She commented that the impact of an aggregate road with 2-foot ditches would actually be greater than the bituminous road with a 1-foot ditch.
Engineer Hanson explained that due to the gravel surface, runoff from an aggregate road carries the aggregate into the ditch. A 1-foot ditch would require more maintenance and that is why a 2-foot ditch is recommended. He agreed that the impact would be greater with an aggregate surface and that Alternative 2 can handle drainage utilizing the bituminous berm also provides minimal impact.
Councilmember Williams questioned if parts of the road that have bituminous surface would have ditches that have less depth. Engineer Hanson responded yes, the bermed areas would not have ditches and explained that the rural character can be significantly maintained.
The Engineer explained that landscaping costs are identified in the report to assist with replacement plantings.
Councilmember MacManus questioned if the residents would be assessed for the additional costs to include the speed humps or if the City pays those costs.
Councilmember Williams indicated that the City would pay a portion and the residents would pay a portion. He asked if they would be speed tables or humps; he also asked if they create any plowing issues. The Engineer responded they would be speed tables; he noted that they are signed and that plowing companies do not like the speed tables, but they would deal with them.
Councilmember DeCourcy questioned if the church property would be included in the assessment. The Engineer advised that there are two parcels that would be assessed, the church and the residence.
Engineer Hanson explained that the benefit to the property is what is assessed; he stated that the City needs to show benefit from the improvement and it must be fair and consistent.
Councilmember MacManus questioned if costs for core drilling is included in the project costs and if they would be done. The Engineer explained that soil boring are included as part of the costs under “indirect costs” and they are not a specific line item and that they would be done.
Councilmember MacManus pointed out an apparent error in the information related to Alternative 2 and the
40-year plan; Councilmember Williams agreed that they information appears to be mislabeled. The Engineer apologized for the error.
Councilmember Conant questioned how the Council could make sense of the information if it is mislabeled and commented that in his opinion the analysis is wrong. The Engineer apologized and described the methodology he used to prepare the information.
There was discussion regarding the methodology used and the assumptions used. Councilmember Conant commented that the tables are incorrect and that they were done incorrectly.
Councilmember Williams asked Councilmember Conant to explain. Councilmember Conant commented that in his opinion none of the alternatives make sense and that the engineer used an inflation rate but failed to compound it. He also questioned why various rates were not utilized for the work items as it is shown in Appendix F.
Councilmember MacManus commented that she was also extremely confused.
Engineer Hanson explained that the document in Appendix F was submitted by task force member Mike McDonald and that the report looked at five different regions in Pennsylvania, while this report used pricing for this area.
Councilmember Williams pointed out that he does not believe the report compares “apples to apples”. He noted that in response to Councilmember Conant’s comments he believes the report to some extent assumes an inflation rate although it is not compounding that rate.
There was discussion relating to how the analysis was prepared.
Mayor Park questioned how the analysis is done by other engineering professionals. Engineer Hanson explained that this is the standard analysis and the report is based on estimates that could change and impact how it is prepared. He commented that both alternatives were treated equally.
Councilmember MacManus pointed out that in her opinion it is hypothesis and it would be difficult to base an opinion on present worth.
Councilmember Williams commented that this is a methodology based on certain underlying assumptions and the present value cost of each alternative; he stated he is less concerned about the assumptions being correct as he is to whether or not the same assumptions were made with respect to the two types of roads and their costs.
Councilmember Conant agreed that the numbers are based on estimates, but he referred to the tables and the methodology as discussed on page 38 of the report; he commented that the analysis does not examine the alternative of “do nothing” and that the report does not examine that issue.
Engineer Hanson pointed out that historically the report does that comparison.
Councilmember Williams commented that Council made the decision a long time ago based on legal issues that Alternative 4 was not an option. Councilmember MacManus disagreed.
Councilmember Conant pointed out that the legal issues are not listed in the feasibility report and people will read the report to determine why the improvement was ordered; he questioned how a decision could be made without a key element in the report.
Councilmember Williams stated that the issue is whether or not something should be done with Charlton Road and he noted that at any point in time when you have a City road that departs from a legally standard City road there are legal issues. He further noted that if the City improvements depart from a legally standard road the City must make findings of fact to justify why the road does not meet that standard. He stated there is a history of accidents on Charlton Road at the curve and there is potential liability as a City road. He also noted that there is a history of a lot of maintenance for the aggregate road; he pointed out that past discussions he never considered the alternatives to do nothing or to make it a standard City road but rather how to minimize impact on the road with an improvement whether it should be bituminous or gravel. He indicated that he used the report to determine at what point in time over a 40-year life of the road which one would cost more to maintain.
Mayor Park agreed and added that the task force also came to the conclusion that something needs to be done whether it be aggregate or bituminous to control erosion and for storm water management. She noted that she would support the best method for erosion control and safety.
Councilmember MacManus pointed out that Councilmember Conant is correct there is no calculation for Alternative 4.
Councilmember Conant pointed out that he had not been exposed to the background and questioned why it is not listed in the report.
Councilmember Williams indicated that was not the charge of the feasibility study and that Alternative 4 was never an issue as Council determined that something must be done. He pointed out that the report has nothing to do with the underlying policy of the City but rather an engineering feasibility study for the project.
Councilmember Conant thanked Councilmember Williams for the background. He noted that he still has a vote and that he is unconstrained by previous actions by Council. He noted that action by the Council would have an approximate impact of $2,000 per household since the City would assume a burden of $320,000. He stated he would not vote in favor of the project based on the information he received in the form of a feasibility study that is full of errors and hard to decipher.
Councilmember MacManus questioned the responsibility for the costs of obtaining easements. The Engineer stated that those would be included as part of the project costs and that those costs could vary. He explained that there are several ways to obtain the easements, either by payment or donation. He advised that until a detailed design is prepared it is difficult to estimate the cost of obtaining the easements.
Mayor Park pointed out that some citizens have indicated their willingness to donate easements or pay more than their share to obtain the necessary easements. She stated that she believes Attorney Kuntz would address this issue.
Councilmember Conant asked to be recognized and Mayor Park stated she would do so after the Attorney made his presentation. Councilmember Conant stated he believes he should be recognized as an elected official prior to a consultant. Mayor Park corrected him and advised that as the Chair she has the right to determine who is recognized and that he was out-of-order.
Attorney Kuntz explained the options for obtaining right-of-way and easements, either by voluntary acquisition or eminent domain. He advised that the process would take a minimum of at least 150 days and there 21 landowners and approximately 16 or 17 parcels where the City must obtain easements. He noted that the costs for the project could double depending on the costs to obtain the necessary easements. He indicated that these are policy considerations to be determined by Council as to how to obtain the easements and what the approximate costs would be prior to conducting a public hearing on the project so that the estimated costs are established.
Councilmember MacManus commented that it would be prudent to determine those costs prior to receiving the feasibility study. Attorney Kuntz agreed and explained that it would be preferable to know the total cost estimate prior to conducting a public hearing on the improvement. He noted that the report does not have the type of detail to determine what amount of easement is necessary and that should be determined. He suggested that this information be discussed with Council as to whether or not they wish to spend the money to obtain the easements at this time and what amount of easement is necessary.
Engineer Hanson stated that the easement amount identified the road would be 33-feet and noted that the bituminous and aggregate roads would be different; he indicated that the only way to determine the correct amount for each would be to prepare a design for both.
Councilmember Williams indicated that the cost for putting in the bituminous be the same except that the aggregate road would have larger ditches. He commented that prior to making a calculation of costs and present value calculations the Council would need detailed plans; he suggested the estimates be based on the narrower road and then in terms of the present value calculations if the City pays $100,000 more for a bituminous road they could review the historical data to determine the additional costs.
Councilmember Conant pointed out that if the road is two-feet narrower the costs would be reduced; he noted that there is no way to compare the two without the costs for the easement acquisitions. Councilmember Williams explained that in terms of engineering the cost comparison could be done, but not with the inclusion of easements.
Engineer Hanson stated he believes the question for Council is whether or not there is a project prior to beginning the work on the detail; he noted that the right-of-way cannot be acquired without a project although the City needs the easements to maintain the ditches.
Councilmember William suggested it may be appropriate to begin discussions with the landowners to determine if they are willing to provide the easements necessary.
Councilmember MacManus pointed out that there will be legal fees and additional costs and if it becomes a $600,000 project the residents along Charlton Road will have something to say about it. She commented that it would also be an additional cost burden on the City for a small portion of roadway.
Councilmember Conant pointed out that this has been an unpopular project among the residents along Charlton Road.
Mayor Park commented that it appears to be a 50/50 split in favor or against; she noted that some new residents have moved into the area since the discussions began.
Councilmember Conant commented that he is dealing with the information listed in the report in front of him and not with speculation; he noted that the cost studies are mislabeled and that the cost estimate is now $600,000 and could be less. He pointed out that he finds himself in a difficult position to make a decision.
Mayor Park noted that as the Attorney pointed out the City is not in a position to make a decision on the project this evening; she questioned if a work session is needed or if the Attorney could provide other options for Council action.
Attorney Kuntz suggested a special meeting could be conducted to discuss the matter. He noted that the key component appears to be the fact that the City does not own the right-of-way and that he believes that is what stopped the project in the past. He noted that although the engineer does not have detailed information, he has indicated that in the worst case scenario 33 feet would be necessary for either alternative. He indicated it would be appropriate to determine the expense to obtain the easement prior to making any decisions on the project. He asked how long it would take for the engineer to compile the information necessary to acquire the easements.
Engineer Hanson suggested that the square footage of the easements may be somewhat oversized and he recommend that Council determine a certain width to be acquired and a detailed area of acquisition would be prepared based on that figure versus attempting to figure the exact square footage.
Councilmember Williams asked if the engineer could prepare the estimate for an aggregate road design and then superimpose the bituminous design over that diagram to prepare the bituminous road estimate. Engineer Hanson stated that may be possible to accomplish with a fair degree of accuracy.
Attorney Kuntz suggested that he and the engineer be directed to prepare an appraisal approach for obtaining the necessary easements for Council review at the next meeting; he noted that although the figures may not be exact they would be fairly accurate.
Councilmember Williams asked if the estimate would assume the City would pay for all the easements. Both the Attorney and Engineer agreed that would be appropriate so that Council would have the worst case scenario costs.
Councilmember Williams moved to direct the City Attorney and Engineer to contact appraisers to obtain estimates for the analyzing the fair market value to obtaining the necessary right-of-way for the Charlton Road project using the worst case scenario which is the aggregate road alternative seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (5-0)
Councilmember Conant asked if he could obtain a synopsis of the legal issues relevant to this project. Attorney Kuntz responded yes and stated he would provide the materials distributed for Acorn Drive. The Mayor requested that the Attorney send the information to the entire Council.
Councilmember Conant volunteered to send information to the City Engineer in the form of an outline for preparing the present cost analysis he personally would feel more comfortable if it were adhered to. Engineer Hanson responded that he would not have a problem reviewing the information however, he noted that the method used for the analysis preparation was the standard format. He indicated that as Councilmember Williams pointed out the exact number is not the issue, but rather the comparison being fair.
Councilmember Conant asked if the engineer would be willing to prepare the analysis with his format. Engineer Hanson agreed and stated he believes the outcome would be similar.
b. Report on Videotaping Meetings: City Administrator/Clerk Iago distributed a letter from NDC4 and Mayor Park reviewed the information; she noted the two options were to either use volunteers to tape the meetings or to use NDC4 staff at a cost of $100 per meeting. She asked for Council comments regarding if they were interested in pursuing the trial sessions.
Councilmember MacManus stated she was not interested in pursuing the trial sessions if the tapings were not going to be done after the three sessions.
Councilmember Conant suggested that after the trial sessions Council could review community reaction and then decide if they wish to continue.
Mayor Park indicated that it would be difficult to get community reaction. Councilmember Conant suggested posting a notice with the taping asking citizens to provide comments.
Mayor Park commented that the purpose of taping the meetings would be to serve the citizens; she noted that during the Cable Commission meeting live broadcasts the Chair asks for residents to call in with comments and they very rarely get calls from the audience.
Councilmember Williams stated he had no strong objection to the trial sessions, however, if the Council decides to continue after the trial sessions it would cost approximately $4,000 per year. He commented that he believes very few people watch the meetings. He noted there are also issues relating to a secure place to store the equipment and also regarding adopting a resolution stating that the written minutes are the official record of the meetings so that the tapes cannot be used for legal matters.
Councilmember Conant commented that he recalled the expense would only be $1,200 annually and indicated that during the XCel powerline issue he was recognized by several people due to the televised meetings.
Mayor Park noted that the only reason to tape the meetings would be for public purposes, not for Council recognition.
Councilmember Conant stated he believes that people do watch and that a major portion of the community has no idea what is happening at the meetings.
Mayor Park stated she believes the viewership is less than 3/4ths of the population.
Councilmember DeCourcy commented that with information such as the foreclosed home and with suspicious cars in her neighborhood she was unsure if the meetings should be televised.
Clerk Iago noted that in her experience most residents will attend the meetings to discuss issues that affect them versus watching them on television.
Mayor Park asked if there were any further questions or comments and there was no response.
Councilmember DeCourcy moved that Council deny the trial sessions for videotaping of meetings. Motion died for lack of second.
Councilmember Conant moved to authorize the videotaping of meetings on a trial basis and discuss the matter after the trial period, seconded by Councilmember Williams. Motion failed (1-4) (Ayes: 1 Conant; Nayes: 4 Williams, DeCourcy, MacManus, Park)
Mayor Park stated she would contact NDC4 to thank them for their report and advised them of the decision.
c. Interim Forester Discussion: Mayor Park explained that Council should determine if they wish to hire Mr. Nayes on an interim basis and vote on the matter this evening since Mark Johnson has left the country. She further requested that she be allowed to conduct a private discussion with Mr. Nayes regarding the terms of a contract for the services of his company to serve as the City Forester and after this discussion she would bring forward a recommendation for Council consideration.
Councilmember Williams stated he wished to have some type of waiver to use Mr. Nayes firm since he has already hired him to do work on his property. Attorney Kuntz indicated that the matter of officially appointing Mr. Nayes as the Forester would be delayed one month and therefore he should be able to complete the work he has started for Councilmember Williams.
Mayor Park asked if there were any further questions or comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Williams moved to appoint Living Sculpture Tree Care as the Interim Forester for the City and to authorize the Mayor to negotiate a contact with the firm for review at the next meeting, seconded by Councilmember Conant and carried. (5-0)
d. Joint Meeting with Mendota Heights: Mayor Park advised that the Joint Meeting with Mendota Heights regarding the presentation from Dakota County on the Regional Transportation Study Plan, which should include information regarding the proposed I-494/Delaware Avenue interchange, will be held on Tuesday, June 16 2009 at 7:00 p.m. at the Mendota Heights City Hall. She stated she is unable to attend the meeting.
Councilmembers DeCourcy and Conant advised they would not be able to attend; Councilmember Williams and MacManus stated they would attend.
Mayor Park noted that no special meeting notice is necessary since only two members of Council would be attending.
e. ISD #197 Celebration: Mayor Park advised that School District 197 would be celebrating its 150th Anniversary on Saturday, June 6, and that Council has been invited to attend; the Mayor stated she would attend.
Mayor Park asked if there was any further business and there was no response.
10. ADJOURN: Councilmember MacManus moved for adjournment at 9:30 p.m., seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (5-0)
______________________ ___________________________
Molly Park, 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.