SUNFISH LAKE SPECIAL COUNCIL OPEN HOUSE MEETING – OCTOBER 16, 2013

6:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH

Attendants:

Mayor: Molly Park
Councilmembers: Cathy DeCourcy, JoAnne Wahlstrolm, Steve Bulach and Mike Hovey.

City Engineer:  Don Sterna
City Clerk: Cathy Iago
and Members of the General Public.

1.   CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Park opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the proposed 2014 Street Improvement Project.

2. REVIEW OF PROPOSED 2014 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT:  Windy Hill Court, Windy Hill Road and the Western Section of Angell Road: Mayor Park asked Engineer Sterna to the rationale and an overview of the proposed 2014 Street Improvement project by street.

Engineer Sterna explained that Council adopts a 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that identifies improvement projects and is used as a tool to plan, finance and maintain the City infrastructure.  He further explained that the City has also established a pavement management Program that evaluates street pavement conditions of all City streets and rates their condition; he described that a lower rating means the street is in worse condition. He advised that a rating below 60 to 65 indicates a pavement structure that has defects too large for corrective maintenance such as crack seal or seal coat; streets with these ratings required reconstruction or rehabilitation to extend their life.

The Engineer advised that there are approximately 4.5 miles of public streets within the City that are maintained; he noted that private roads are not included in the maintenance program.  He explained that all public roads in Sunfish Lake were evaluated in 2012 and the western section of Angell Road had ratings between 40 and 59, Windy Hill Court and Windy Hill Road were rated below 39.  He displayed a map showing the areas involved in the improvement project. He advised that Angell Road was constructed in 1989 and explained that seal coating was done every 7 to 8 years to maintain the road. He noted that the normal lifespan of a road is 20 years and that since the road is already beyond the normal lifespan, an overlay is proposed. He explained that Windy Hill Road and Windy Hill Court are newer roads, however; due to unknown factors, these roads are in worse condition. He advised that Council had decided to remove Upper 55^th Street from the project so that staff may study options for types of improvements to that road.  He noted that major improvements were made to a portion of Salem Church Road in 2009 and the City plans to do improvements to the remainder of the road after the bonds are paid in 2018. He explained that the City combines the major and minor road improvement projects in order to receive the best pricing for improvements. He explained that staff had identified the deterioration of the culverts along Angell Road a few years ago and suggested delaying the culvert repairs so that they could be done in conjunction with the proposed overlay project to save on costs. 

Engineer Sterna advised that a feasibility report was prepared that estimated costs and that this mandated by State law in order for the City to assess a portion of the costs to affected property owners. He advised that prior to finalizing plans for an improvement project the City usually meets with residents to receive their input and then the plans are finalized, the project may then be ordered and an assessment roll is prepared. He noted that the City hired an appraiser to determine benefit to affected properties since the City cannot assess an amount more than the benefit shown to the properties. He explained that the appraisal determined that the project would have an equally distributed assessment of $8,500 per unit; however, the current City assessment policy would not support that amount of benefit to the parcels.  He noted that currently the City proposes a $4,500 per unit assessment on Angell Road for the overlay project and a $6,500 per unit assessment on Windy Hill Court and Windy Hill Road for the reconstruction project.

The Engineer advised that when calculating the number of units for assessment, staff counted are nine (9) properties that abut Angell Road, however, one of the lots utilizes a different access so eight (8) parcels were identified for assessment; he explained that, two parcels are owned by the City. He stated that the project plans to slightly expand the cul-de-sac at the end of Angell Road to allow for easier vehicle turn around near the park entrance.  He commented that the street is currently 20 ft. wide and that the normal street width is 22 ft., but since this in not a high traffic area, 20 ft. would be acceptable. He stated that the culverts would also be replaced.     
Engineer Sterna explained that Windy Hill Road has severe pavement distress and also needs sub-grade repairs. The City proposes a mill and overlay with a new aggregate base; he advised that fabric would also be installed over the poor soils to keep water from migrating into the gravel. He advised that the current with varies to 18 ft. on a portion of the road and a minimum of 20 ft. is proposed to accommodate emergency vehicle access. He noted that culvert replacement would be included in an area where water gets trapped and ice forms to create hazardous driving conditions in winter.

Richard Bancroft, Jr., 100 Windy Hill Road, stated that it was his understanding that a portion of Windy Hill Road shown is a private road.  Engineer Sterna advised that the plat for the Windy Hill development shows the area is dedicated to the City as right-of-way and is a public easement. 

Dr. John Lamey, 55 Windy Hill Road, questioned how a private road could be platted without the property owners’ knowledge. He commented that in his opinion the road was private and the residents paid for blacktopping the road.

Engineer Sterna advised that a legal document was filed when the development was platted; he noted that the County verified parcel ownerships and certified the right-of-way dedication.

Mr.Bancroft explained that the residents were granted easements to access their properties and that is why the road is 18 ft. versus 24 ft. 

Dr. Lamey pointed out that there is not a high amount of traffic on the 18 ft. section of roadway and it could remain at that width.  Engineer Sterna explained that emergency vehicles request at least 20 ft. in width for access purposes.

Mr. Bancroft suggested that portion be widened to 22 ft. to make the entire road the same width; he stated he would prefer to have the road consistent. He pointed out that one area of the road is not even at 18ft. wide and noted there is a tree that should be removed and the shoulder of the road should be built up.

Engineer Sterna advised that staff would consider those options with Council after all comments are received.

Dan O’Leary, 10 Windy Hill Road, stated he would prefer that the road not be wider due to the severe drop off adjacent to the road. He stated his preference would be a 22 ft. or 24 ft. wide road. He questioned why the curve in Windy Hill Road was not included in the project.

Engeineer Sterna explained that 22 ft. road would be feasible and he pointed out that there are different colors for each type of project; he stated that the curve is included in another type of project.

Mr. Bancroft pointed out that there are several cracks along Salem Church Road as traffic approaches the hill. 

Engineer Sterna explained that section of Salem Church Road would be include dint he next phased improvements scheduled in 2018 after the bonds have been paid. He commented that after the City concludes the proposed improvements scheduled in the five-year CIP, the roads should be in good shape and there should not be any extensive rehabilitation for a number of years. 

Jim O’Hagen, 35 Windy Hill Road, asked if the City would bond for the project.  Engineer Sterna responded yes and discussed the percentage threshold and the attempt to keep the tax base low so that there are no substantial spikes in the next few years.

The Engineer offered to respond to citizen comments or questions on the improvements.

Council thanked the Engineer for his presentation. 


3.   RECEIVE CITIZEN COMMENTS: Mayor Park opened the meeting for questions and comments from the public.

Mr. O’Leary     questioned the assessments that were charged for the Salem Church Road improvements.  Engineer Sterna advised the amount was $2,500 per unit; he noted that there were a greater number of units benefitted and that is why it was a lesser amount. He explained that the payment for the proposed $6,500 per unit for Windy Hill Road and Court could be spread over 10 years with a minimum of interest or paid in full with no interest.

Joyce Arney, 4 Windy Hill Court,  asked how residents would gain access to their property during construction. The Engineer explained that access would be provided to residents by a gravel incline to their driveways; he noted that during the Windy Hill project, the City normally complete one half of the road so that residents have access and then complete the remaining half of the road.

Mr. O’Leary noted there are nine (9) units for assessment on Windy Hill Court with 5 units shown on the vacant parcel. He recalled that in past discussion there were a possible 13 units for development on the vacant parcel.

Engineer Sterna explained that staff had calculated the buildable area of the vacant parcel and due to the steep topography; staff identified only 5 units of 2.5 acres based on buildable area calculations.

Mr. O’Leary commented that developers do not minimize density on vacant land and that he recalled 9 units were discussed. 

Engineer Sterna explained that staff had discussed the possibility of 9 units, however, after reviewing different options, it was determined that due to the steep slopes and wetland area, only 5 units would be possible.

Mr. O’Leary expressed the hope that the City would recall the lower number of units when a development plan is submitted.

Peter Molinaro, 511 Angell Road, expressed his opinion that Angell Road does not appear to be in very poor condition with the exception of a few patches that were installed by Xcel Energy when power failures occurred.

Engineer Sterna explained that the western portion of Angell Road is in poor condition and the proposed overlay should extend the life of the road; he advised that the overlay was proposed due to the low rating of the road surface. He commented that he is unsure why this portion of the road was in worse condition that the portion that ends at Sunnyside Lane.

There was discussion relating to the turn around area near Mr. Molinaro’s home and the fact that he driveway was used as a turn around for traffic near Harmon Park.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked if the use of Mr. Molinaro’s driveway has stopped since the sign for Harmon Park was moved. Mr. Molinaro responded that the problem had lessened since the sign was moved.

Katie Johnson, 2431 Angell Road, questioned why the culvert project was not completed four years ago and pointed out that the entire road would have been assessed for that project.

The Engineer explained that the originally the City planned to only replace the culverts with a high density plastic material; however, the costs were substantial and staff suggested delaying the project to include it with a larger project so that the costs may be lessened.

There was discussion relating to whether or not an insert could be placed into the culvert versus totally replacing the pipe.  Engineer Sterna explained that it would be more expensive to place an insert into the pipe because it is shallow; he indicated that inserts are more cost effective on deeper culverts, such as the one on Upper 55^th Street.

There was discussion relating to previous attempts to obtain easements for the culvert replacement.  The Engineer explained that if the easements are obtained by the City, the project would not affect the assessments proposed and the City would pay the improvement costs.


Dr. Lamey questioned if the property owners would pay the unit assessments for the improvement project and also pay a portion of the City costs as taxpayers.        

Engineer Sterna responded yes and explained that is why the City staggers the improvement projects over a period of time so that the tax levy stays as consistent as possible.

Councilmember Hovey commented that the City would be plowing snow on Windy Hill Road and questioned how the contractor would get rid of the snow in such a small area.  Engineer Sterna advised that the City may have to strengthen the pavement or construct a hammer-head turning area for plows to maneuver, such as the one on Acorn Drive.

Katie Johnson asked how the City would complete the project on Angell Road without obtaining the easements.

Engineer Sterna explained that the City would continue to attempt to obtain easements; however, the City does have prescriptive rights to do the work. He commented that it the City obtains easements from the property owners it would be responsible for cleaning the culverts to maintain them in good working order.

There was discussion relating to the City obtaining easements. The City Clerk explained that the City does not actually own the easement area, but only retains the right to work within the easement area if a problem occurs.

Councilmember DeCourcy explained that she was hesitant to grant an easement because there are huge cottonwood trees that were proposed to be removed with the previous culvert replacement and those trees block the lighting glare from the car dealerships along the highway frontage road.

Engineer Sterna advised that there may be a tree that has to be removed during the culvert improvement; however, he stated it was not his intent at this time to remove any trees during the project.

Katie Johnson asked if the driveway apron would be replaced for property owners in conjunction with the overlay on Angell Road.

The Engineer explained that project would only take a small portion of the driveway pavement and that it would be replaced.

Mr. Molinaro pointed out that there is no room for snow storage at the cul-de-sac near his home and that he uses his snow-blower to move the snow from the area.  The Engineer advised that it is not the intent of the City to increase the size of the cul-de-sac but merely to mimic the existing area.

Dr. Lamey asked who owns the private road adjacent to the hill on Windy Hill Road.

Mr. Bancroft explained that he and the Spauldings own the property and have granted access easements to the other property owners. He stated that the City does not have to widen this driveway and that the property owners are responsible for snow plowing and will continue to do so in the future. He also discussed tree trimming on Windy Hill Road and what portion should be the City’s responsibility

Engineer Sterna stated that he would send a copy of the plat showing the right-of-way area to Mr. Bancroft.

Mr. Bancroft asked who determined that he should be charged for 4 units for the assessment.  The Engineer explained that the tax records show 4 lots owned by Mr. Bancroft.

Mr. Bancroft stated he objects to the charges for 4 units and advised that there are only two dwellings on his property.

The Engineer explained that the Council would determine the assessments once the project is ordered and a public hearing would be held for discussion of the assessments.

Henry Pabst, 6 Windy Hill Court, asked when the City would begin the project.  Engineer Sterna responded that if Council orders the project, it would begin in June of 2014 and should take approximately 3 weeks to complete.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked if soil borings were taken on Angell Road to determine why one portion of the street deteriorated faster than the other portion.  The Engineer stated staff would take core samples from both areas on Angell Road prior to the November Council meeting and would report on the findings. He pointed out that the remaining portion of Angell Road would most likely be included in the CIP for an overly within the next five years.

There was discussion regarding the fact that Windy Hill Court was built in 1992 and was in worse shape than most of the older streets within the City. The Engineer explained that he was unsure why the street was in such poor condition and noted that his firm was not working for the City at that time.

Mr. O’Hagen commented that he was slated for assessments for two units but one parcel is a vacant lot.

Engineer Sterna explained that a legal taxable parcel of land is considered a unit whether or not it contains a dwelling. He advised that objections to the assessments would be heard by Council during the assessment public hearing when and if the project is ordered.

Mayor Park asked if there were any further questions or comments from the public and there was no response.

The Mayor asked if there were any further comments from Council and hearing no response, she called for adjournment.

4.   ADJOURN:   Councilmember Hovey moved, to adjourn the Study Meeting at 7:15 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)

__________________________                                            ___________________________

Molly Park., Mayor                                                      Catherine Iago, City Clerk