SUNFISH LAKE SPECIAL COUNCIL STUDY MEETING – APRIL 3, 2012

5:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH

Attendants:

Mayor Richard Williams

Councilmembers: Judy MacManus, Roger Conant, Mike Hovey and Paul Burke.

City Engineer:  Don Sterna

City Attorney: Tim Kuntz
Treasurer: Mike Blair

City Clerk: Cathy Iago

1.   CALL TO ORDER:            Mayor Williams opened the meeting at 5:00 p.m.

2.         DISCUSSION ITEMS:  a. Discussion of Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Engineer Sterna presented the draft 2012 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and explained that most cities use this document as a tool for planning improvements and budgeting purposes. He explained that the last Pavement Management Plan was compiled in August 2007 and that most cities complete the review of city streets over a three-year period by analyzing one-third of the streets each year. He suggested that review of this document be done annually by Council at a study meeting prior to establishing the budget. He noted that the pavement analysis is used to monitor the condition of the streets and plan for future improvements to keep the infrastructure investment maintained. He further explained that another tool for budgeting purposes is inspection of culverts and most cities usually schedule smaller projects to coincide with larger improvement projects to save money.

The Engineer stated that upon reviewing the current infrastructure improvements slated for this year, he would recommend an adjustment to move the Angell Road culvert replacement project back to next year. He indicated that this would allow time to complete a City-wide culvert inspection, identify and map City-owned easements and rights-of-way, and perform a Pavement Management Inventory of the City roadway conditions. He commented that the three tasks are not significant to complete but will provide a snapshot of the current condition of the City’s entire infrastructure which will improve planning and scheduling improvements to adopt in the annual CIP report. He noted that the CIP process provides a proactive management process rather than a reactive one.

Councilmember Burke commented that he was pleased with the report and its format. He pointed out that the current plan is based on a review of City streets that is 5-years old. He questioned if it would be more beneficial to complete the review of the City streets prior to adopting the CIP.

The Engineer explained that he is not asking for approval at this time and that he would revise the draft document after the study meeting and then present it for review in June and adoption in July. He pointed out there was an error in Appendix A under the 2012 column for the south end of Charlton Road culvert cleaning; he asked that the cost be shown as $1,612 for a sub-total of $56,012. He advised that he would recommend the pavement management report be redone for the entire City at this time and then staff could do the analysis for one-third of the roads over a three-year span of time.   

Councilmember Conant asked for a cost estimate to complete a review of the entire City and if it would be a visual analysis of the road. The Engineer responded that it would be a visual review and that it would cost approximately $2,400 for between 6 to 8 hours of staff time.

Councilmember Hovey asked if any core drilling would be done. The Engineer explained that core drilling may be done for unusual circumstances and cited the example of Windy Hill Court, which was installed in 1992 and has shown severe deterioration.

There was discussion relating to the cause for the deterioration of Windy Hill Court and the Engineer suggested it could have been caused by weather conditions or poor materials when the road was installed.  



Councilmember Conant noted that the Engineer referred to the 80/20 percent assessment policy and indicated that it was his understanding the policy had changed. 

The Engineer stated he would review the policy and make changes to his report if necessary. He explained that if a project is ordered under Chapter 429 of the Minnesota Statutes, the City must follow the guidelines and notify residents for assessment purposes.

Councilmember Burke commented that it would be of assistance to show the assessment offset against total cost to isolate the City obligation as part of the document.  The Treasurer advised that he would meet with the engineer to calculate the assessment portion of projects that are ordered by Council.  Engineer Sterna advised that a few roads may need to be reconstructed in 2015 and agreed it would make sense to break-out the costs for the City portion and assessments.

The Engineer referred to #9 on Appendix A and explained that there are a number of areas within the city that are already mapped to show easements, however, staff would have to do some research on easements in other areas where development occurred sporadically. He advised that several streets such as Charlton Road, Angell Road and Sunnyside Lane were not platted with easements like later developments. 

There was discussion regarding easements and methods for obtaining them. The City Attorney explained that a subdivision triggers the City’s right to request easements and this has been done with more recent plats. He agreed that it is more challenging to obtain easements on older lots and that some residents may not be willing to grant easements in conjunction with major improvements.

Attorney Kuntz explained that easements were obtained from three residents along Angell Road in conjunction with the proposed culvert replacement. He advised that the engineer’s office has the originals of these documents and asked if the Council wished to have these documents recorded and if the residents should be re-contacted since the project maybe delayed.

Councilmember Burke stated his opinion that the documents should be recorded as the CIP shows the culvert replacement as a project, although a date has not yet been determined for its installation. Council concurred.

Councilmember Burke commented that in his opinion the City should adopt a policy that there will be no payment from the City for easements.

Councilmember Conant agreed and suggested that it may be wise to adopt the policy and publish a copy so that residents are aware of it.

Councilmember Hovey questioned the process for obtaining an easement from an unwilling resident.

Engineer Sterna explained the City would have to proceed through a condemnation process.

Councilmember Hovey commented that the City may be able to negotiate an easement if the assessment was reduced or eliminated for the project.

Attorney Kuntz pointed out that the City may wish to offer an inducement to residents for an easement by offering site restoration with enhancements; he noted that most residents complain that the City removes trees or plantings when an easement is given and then the site is not restored to its original condition. He also noted that when larger projects are proposed, it may be helpful to discuss the project with residents earlier in the process so that tension is not created when deadlines approach and easements are not yet obtained.

Engineer Sterna pointed out that it benefits the residents to provide easements to the City so that culverts and rights-of-way can be maintained.



Attorney Kuntz suggested that a resolution could be adopted that provides language for review by residents; he commented that it may be advantageous for the City to have a policy in writing.

Councilmember MacManus agreed and suggested the information should be published.

Councilmember Burke suggested that the CIP be available for public review and notification provided to residents that the City does not pay for easements, but wishes to obtain easements to lower the costs of the improvements. He agreed that it may be appropriate for the City to repair damage or restore vegetation in conjunction with improvements.

The Engineer stated it would be helpful for staff to have a written policy when communicating with residents about improvement projects.

After a brief discussion, the Mayor suggested that information regarding the CIP and assessments could be placed in the City newsletter. The Engineer offered to prepare information for the newsletter.

Councilmember Burke commented that the capital projects are the largest variable in the City budgets. He asked if the City has the flexibility to move smaller projects, like the Angell Road culvert replacement, to coincide with a larger project scheduled in 2015. 

Engineer Sterna responded yes and recommended moving the Angell Road project to 2015.

There was discussion relating to establishing an annual expense allocation for capital improvement projects.

Councilmember Conant suggested using the average of $45,000.

Engineer Sterna stated that in previous years the amount was $30,000. 

Treasurer Blair pointed out that the City portion of the cost does not include interest or special assessments.

There was discussion relating to pre-payment of bonds. Attorney Kuntz indicated that typically there is a 5-year period prior to pre-payment of bonds.

Engineer Sterna advised that he would formally request authorization to conduct a City-wide culvert inspection, identify and map City-owned easements and rights-of-way, and perform a Pavement Management Inventory of the entire City roadway conditions to be presented at the regular meeting

Councilmember Hovey asked if the culverts under driveways are responsibility of the City or the property owners.

The Engineer explained that the City normally cleans the culverts under driveways, but replacement or repair is the owner’s responsibility.

Attorney Kuntz asked if it was the consensus of the Council to place $40,000 to $45,000 in the budget annually for improvement projects.

Councilmember Burke commented that it would be helpful to have a perspective from the Treasurer on what has been placed in the budget over the last decade.  Treasurer Blair pointed out that it may not be possible to prepare since only two projects have been bonded in the last decade.

There was discussion relating showing bonding costs and assessable projects. Councilmember Burke noted that Items #2, 6B, and 11 are the only assessable projects in the CIP.

Attorney Kuntz advised that Council had previously discussed the installation of parking stalls at Musser Park as part of the CIP; the previous engineer identified four alternatives with costs ranging from $12,000 to 30,000. He

noted that in March, 2011, Council adopted a resolution requesting 6-stalls be constructed at the park; however, in subsequent discussions, Council indicated that the use of the park may not warrant parking. He explained that a representative from the Land Trust contacted him and indicated that they may have to contact the heirs of the estate to receive permission to amend the Land Trust regulations to install the parking lot. He stated that he discussed the matter with the City Forester to determine what amount of parking may be needed and the Forester responded that he could manage with off-shoulder parking for maintenance purposes.

The Attorney asked for an opinion from Council as to whether or not he should inform the Land Trust that the City no longer wishes to pursue the parking lot request or if Council wishes to actively continue with the request.

After a brief discussion, Council agreed that they no longer wished to pursue the request.

Attorney Kuntz advised that he would ask Council to address this matter at the regular meeting by directing him to send a letter to the Land Trust.

Engineer Sterna asked if Council wished him to file the easements related to the Angell Road project and Council responded yes.

Councilmember Burke asked if projects such as the water quality issues could be assessed city-wide.

Engineer Sterna responded that typically the Lake Owners Association has been responsible for projects associated with the lake. He explained that the City could oversee the project and then assess 100% of the cost to the property owners.

Attorney Kuntz pointed out that there is no public access to the lake and in the past the City has refused to accept the drainage culvert that was designed, constructed and paid for by the property owners.

Councilmember Conant asked if the Engineer would be providing a memorandum on water quality issues and the Engineer responded yes.

Councilmember Burke pointed out that there are three lakes within the City and copies of the information on water quality should be provided to all lake residents.

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


3.         ADJOURN:   Councilmember Hovey moved, to adjourn the Study Meeting at 7:00 p.m., seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (5-0)

__________________________                                            ___________________________

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