Loading...
05-23-2022 City Council Regular Meeting MinutesCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, MAY 23, 2022 Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilman Campion, Councilwoman Rehm, Councilwoman Schubert, Councilman McDonald. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager; Matt Unmacht, Assistant City Manager; Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Charlie Howley, City Engineer/Public Works Director; Don Johnson, Fire Chief; Jerry Ruegemer, Park & Recreation Director; Priya Tandon, Recreation Coordinator; Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resource Specialist; Ari Lyksett, Communications Manager; Lt. Lance Pearce, Carver County Sheriff’s Office; Kim Meuwissen, City Clerk; Andrea McDowell-Poehler, City Attorney; PUBLIC PRESENT: Sharon Pudwell 2237 Lake Lucy Road Stephen Kerkvliet 2201 Lake Lucy Road Gary Pudwell 2237 Lake Lucy Road Jason Dreher 2144 Lake Lucy Road Mayor Ryan asked the City Council if there were any modifications or additions to the agenda. After the roll call vote there were no changes to the published agenda. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Ryan noted the City of Chanhassen and American Legion Post 580 are proud to host the annual Memorial Day ceremony on Monday, May 30. She invited the public to join them as they honor those who gave their life for this great country. There will be cemetery services at Leech Cemetary at 7:30am, Pioneer Cemetery at 8:15am, and St. Hubert’s Cemetery at 10:15am. The ceremony will take place at City Center Park at Noon. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Schubert seconded that the City Council approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: 1. Approve City Council Minutes dated May 9, 2022 2. Receive Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated April 19, 2022 City Council Minutes – May 23, 2022 2 3. Receive Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes dated April 13, 2022 4. Receive Economic Development Commission Meeting Minutes dated April 12, 2022 5. Approve Claims Paid dated May 23, 2022 6. Approve Purchase of Replacement Traffic Signal Control Cabinet at West 78th Street and Kerber Boulevard 7. Approve Temporary Modification of the Licensed Premises to Serve On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor in Chanhassen Dinner Theatre's Parking Lot located at 501 West 78th Street for the 10th Anniversary Celebration of Brindisi's Pub to be held on June 20, 2022 8. Approve Advance Resignation Policy 9. Resolution 2022-49: Waiving Municipal Consent Process for MnDOT's 2023 TH 41 Resurfacing Project 10. Resolution 2022-50: Authorize Entering Into an Agreement and Easement with Oak Hill Homeowners Association for the Maintenance of Nicholas Way 11. Approve Permit for Fireworks Display at Lake Ann Park, July 4, 2022 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. None. FIRE DEPARTMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE 1. Fire Department Update Chief Johnson gave an update noting they responded to 75 calls for service in April. He shared they did away with the day-only calls and switched to duty crew calls. Out of 18 general alarms, 15 came in on non-staff weekend hours. Fire response included an apartment fire in Excelsior, a commercial building fire in Excelsior, and an outside trash fire on the Avienda construction site. Total medical responses for the month were at 46 responses and on 26 of the calls the Fire Department arrived before the ambulance. On May 6 they had the annual Firefighter Banquet with Aaron Busch being named Firefighter of the Year. Chief Johnson noted he was contacted by Westwood Church requesting mass casualty response training. Ridgeview Medical assisted with wounds and makeup. During this training on Saturday morning there were about 180 people on site with 60-70 role players provided by church members, and 32-34 fire fighters as well as the Carver County Sherriff’s office, Chaska Police Department, Eden Prairie Police Department, and South Lake Minnetonka Police Department. It was an awesome opportunity for their young staff to work in an environment that they can control. City Council Minutes – May 23, 2022 3 2. Law Enforcement Update Lieutenant Pearce shared a report on April activity for the Sherriff’s office noting they had 825 patrol calls for service including 54 A Offense, 19 B Offense, 59 non-criminal, and 393 traffic category events. In April they did a major target enforcement detail promoting safe driving and visibility and saw significantly more traffic stops for the month. It was also hands-free violation targeted month and in the City of Chanhassen they made 296 traffic stops, 72 citations, and 32 of those were hands-free violations, and five DUI arrests. Lieutenant Pearce shared about fraud, theft, and domestics which have been relatively consistent for the month with mental health calls down from 16 in March to 8 in April. He thanked Chief Johnson for leading the mass casualty incident at Westwood Church and also thanked surrounding law enforcement partners for sending people over for the training. The Community Outreach program for registering a surveillance camera with the Sherriff’s Office will be called Community Watch and will begin very soon. Beginning today the Towards Zero Death enforcement will be seatbelt restraint through June 5. Lieutenant Pearce shared they are partnering with Change the Outcome to do a community drug presentation about the opioid epidemic on Tuesday, June 21 at the Chanhassen Recreation Center from 6:30-8:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Resolution 2022-51: Accept the Bids and Award the Contract for the Lake Lucy Road Rehabilitation Project #02-03; and Resolution 2022-52: Adopt the Assessment Roll Director of Public Works/City Engineer Howley gave a presentation on the item noting they are here tonight to hold the Assessment Hearing (public hearing) and consider accepting the bids for the project, award the contract, and adopt the final assessment roll. The project will be mill and overlay of .7 miles of street on Lake Lucy Road, the existing bituminous trail will have a full depth reclaim which will be ground up and repaved, spot curb and gutter replacement, minor utility repairs, repairing some deficient storm manholes, replace castings that do not meet current standards, as well as adding in three storm sewer catch basins. They also included a storm pond maintenance project as a bid alternate. Mr. Howley gave history on the project noting it was originally designed and bid in 2019-2020 with two open houses and public hearings with no formal assessment appeals received. The project was rescheduled due to the pandemic to align with the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2022. The City held an open house the previous week with five property owners at the meeting with questions about assessments on a collector road. Mr. Howley noted four bids came in and Valley Paving, who has done street projects for the City in the past, came in the lowest and Staff recommends going with their bid. Regarding budget, Mr. Howley stated the CIP has a total of $875,000 for the entire project and the City added $88,000 in Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSAA) funds. Lake Lucy Road is a collector roadway designed to move traffic through an area; therefore, the road is wider. Per the City’s assessment policy and to be fair, they normalize the road width, take a percentage of that, and use it to calculate the assessments. The property City Council Minutes – May 23, 2022 4 owners are not charged for the full 36-foot width of the road but are charged for a pro-rated share of 31 feet. Because there aren’t as many residential homes on collector roads, the City also does an adjustment downward based on front footage of the actual lots versus the front footage of the entire street. He noted they also did not include the trail FDR work or the Texas underseal because it is a test case of a new sealing method. The final per-unit assessment rate is $3,816 which falls within the historical assessment range for mill and overlay projects of $2,000-$4,000. He shared about assessments on other collector roads within the City and shared more about the adjustments noting with adjustments the per-unit cost went from $9,205 to $3,816. Attorney McDowell-Poehler shared about the Assessment Appeal process, noting anyone who wants to object needs to file a written objection up until the end of the hearing with the City. Appeals then need to be filed within 30 days with the District Court. The Assessment Roll constitutes initial proof that the proposed assessment does not exceed the special benefit and it is up to the property owner to provide evidence that counteracts that determination. At that time the District Court can either affirm the assessment or send it back to the City for reassessment. If the appeal is not successful, the objector must pay back the City its costs. She shared about two St. Paul court cases regarding fees versus maintenance services and the court looked at those as fees or taxes and sent it back to the City for adjustment. Attorney McDowell-Poehler noted this situation in Chanhassen is completely different and it is completely allowed under Minnesota Statute 429 as a local improvement that benefits specific property and the City has determined there is a special benefit to those properties. She shared the St. Paul cases are not applicable in this situation. Mr. Howley stated if the project moves forward they will start construction in June or July 2022 with completion in September. Mayor Ryan opened the public hearing. Sharon Pudwell, 2237 Lake Lucy Road, is objecting to the assessments, noting they did not live there in 2020 when the feasibility study was happening. She would like to present the objections with signatures of all the 19 neighbors who have objected. She asked if there is a separate form they need to fill out or if this written objection is sufficient. Attorney McDowell-Poehler replied the written objection will be fine. Ms. Pudwell noted she and her husband signed a separate document that goes more into the distinction between taxes and fees and speaks to the question of the franchise fee. She would like the document to be considered as part of the objection. She feels that this road, being a municipal state aid road, is different than the City’s assessment policy. She noted the City’s assessment policy is not as clear cut and allows the Council and Mayor a lot of flexibility on how they impose those assessments. Ms. Pudwell does not see anything in the policy that says there is only a policy of assessing a property once and it is based on the driveway. She noted 20 people live on the road and she objects to doing any work that is not fully funded by the City when what is City Council Minutes – May 23, 2022 5 being asked of the citizens is a tax. In her reading of the court cases, when there is a general improvement that benefits everyone in the City with no unique, special benefit to the properties being assessed, that is a tax. It does not mean the City cannot impose that tax but there is a higher standard in establishing that there is a special benefit to Ms. Pudwell that is different from anyone else. She stated the proof available and most commonly accepted by the courts is an appraisal to establish that the value of Ms. Pudwell’s property increased by the amount of the assessment. She has not seen the feasibility study and does not know if it is sufficient for evidentiary purposes to be considered an appraisal. Ms. Pudwell does not feel she will be getting $4,000 worth of benefit from the road project. Her preference is that the City look to an advance from the Municipal State Aid (MSA) fund or dip into the franchise fee, particularly if the City is funding 60% of the project from the MSA funds. As a taxpayer it seems to her that it is the State highway MSA fund and herself paying for the road; she does not see where it is coming out of the City’s general revenue or the franchise fee which she understands is collected to pay for road maintenance including mill and overlay. She would like to see the $76,000 proposed assessment be rejected and thinks it is unfair to have 19 families pay for this based on what the Department of Transportation says is 2,300 vehicles per day on average traveling the road. That would be asking 19 families to pay $4,000 for a road construction project that she does not feel is necessary on a road that at least 2,300 people per day drive across. Plus, there will be even more when the Lennar development is up and running and noted there is a lot of construction traffic right now. Second, regarding the City’s assessment policy there is a lot of flexibility and it recognizes various ways to calculate assessments and that the policy does not apply in all circumstances. The policy does not bind the City to any particular outcome and Ms. Pudwell suggests that for an MSA road that is exactly the type of situation they would depart from the policy and not impose the assessments on 19 property owners. She stated it is already a burden enough to have 2,300 people drive in front of their house every day, they should not have to pay $4,000 for that privilege. She told Mr. Bender at the public meeting that she guesses the nicer the road is, the higher the speed people will travel, as well. In looking at the assessment map there are at least five dead-end roads that dump into Lake Lucy Road and if all are benefitting from that road, then all of those people should be included in the assessment role and pay a share of it. Those people pull out on Lake Lucy and drive further than Ms. Pudwell does each day as they cannot get out of those dead-end roads without driving on the rehabilitation project being proposed. There are at least 150 houses that are getting a benefit without being assessed. She asked that the City find $76,000 in its tax base or a franchise fee to pay for the balance of this project. She is curious that if the City can pay its share of a $3,800 assessment with a pot of money funded by levies, MSA funds, or franchise fees, why are they not able to pay the $76,000. Ms. Pudwell genuinely means no disrespect to anyone in the room, if they want to raise her taxes and everyone in the City of Chanhassen for the $1.8 Million dollars they get in franchise fees. She noted she would be the first person there defending the City’s right to do that. However, doing this as an assessment is wrong and she thinks it jeopardizes the City’s ability to continue moving forward with the franchise fee program, as well. Stephen Kerkvliet, 2201 Lake Lucy Road, apologized if he did not do something correctly two years ago as he was informed there were no formal complaints. He did send an email to the City City Council Minutes – May 23, 2022 6 with his disagreement at the time. He asked how often a home has the road done at between $2,000-4,000, noting with the increased traffic he suspects Lake Lucy Road will be done with a greater frequency. He has heard about a roundabout at the end of Lake Lucy which means there is recognition of increased traffic and wear and tear and would ask the City Council to consider that, as well. Gary Pudwell, 2237 Lake Lucy Road, would like to know where Mr. Howley gets his assessment authority from. When looking at Chapter 429 on this MSA road showing they are allowed to do that versus a City-wide tax because of the type of road that it is. With over 2,300 vehicles travelling that road he has a hard time understanding the justification that it is increasing the homeowner’s property value. Mr. Pudwell would like to see that formula and property value increase. He noted in Prior Lake he owned a house where the road was completely destroyed but the price of the house doubled and it had nothing to do with the road. Jason Dreher, 2144 Lake Lucy Road, has lived in his residence almost 20 years and has not really seen the road change and does not see a need for the road project. He was on Google maps earlier and noted there may be a couple more potholes but the crack in front of his house was there 12 years ago when the Google vehicle came through. Mr. Dreher is very concerned about increased speed on the road with any kind of improvement that does not introduce traffic calming and he does not see that in this project. In talking about Galpin Road being redone, that will certainly increase traffic a lot with wear and tear and heavy trucks. Mr. Dreher also does not seen an added value to his property, stating when he reroofs his house he does not get assessed, it is an improvement to his house but he does not get assessed for that. However, the City is going to impose a road project on him that he feels the road does not even need, without calming, speed reduction, or enhancement to his property value. He stated it is unbelievable in his eyes and many neighbors feel the same way. He noted if the plan was better he would pay more money for it but he will not pay more money for a road that will increase the speed without any benefit to his property. Mr. Pudwell noted earlier they looked at road projects the City has accomplished over the last 5- 7 years and, as alluded to earlier regarding the dead ends off Lake Lucy Road, on many of those projects the dead ends were included as part of the rehabilitation. He asked what is different about Lake Lucy Road when there are approximately 150 residences that must use the road as an entrance and an exit with no liability at all in this process. Ms. Pudwell followed up on the issue of value. Some of her clients do appraisal work for federal land acquisitions and she knows the federal appraisal standards do not add any value for an improved road. When the federal government acquires property they do not pay extra for the road, the only time they make an adjustment to the value of the property is if the road needs to be completely reconstructed and then it is a reduction in the value. She disputes that the City would be able to prove as it needs to that Ms. Pudwell is getting almost $4,000 worth of special benefit for the road project. Mr. Kerkvliet noted the Minnewashta Parkway comparison and stated it does not mean that project was done properly. He asks the Council to consider not just following what was done last time but to look at whether that is the right comparison to move forward with. City Council Minutes – May 23, 2022 7 Mayor Ryan asked the City Attorney with the formal complaint and signatures if she needs to do anything. Attorney McDowell-Poehler replied the Mayor just needs to accept the objection as part of the City Council meeting. If the objecting parties want to move forward with their objection they would then need to file an assessment appeal in district court. Mayor Ryan closed the public hearing. Mr. Howley answered some of the questions brought up during public hearing. Speaking of the dead end roads, he thinks the answer is because Lake Lucy Road is an MSA road and these other cul-de-sacs are not. They built out the project just to do the MSA road, the other roads do not have MSA funding, they prepare the plan sets differently and it is out of ease to do an MSA road by itself. If this was a non-MSA road the City probably would have had some of these cul-de- sacs attached to it. Mr. Howley noted they tend to go after roads in areas that need the work to be done; the City will not rip up a road if it does not need it, although he does not know the index of the cul-de-sacs. Regarding what authority within Statue 429 the City is allowed, he will have to defer to the City Attorney. Attorney McDowell-Poehler read from Statute 429 saying, “Council of municipality shall have the power to make the following improvements: to acquire, open, and widen any street, and to improve the same by constructing, reconstructing, and maintaining sidewalks, pavements, gutters, curbs, and vehicle parking strips of any material or by grading, graveling, oiling, or otherwise improving the same, including the beautification thereof including storm sewers or other street drainage and connections from sewer, water, or similar mains to curb lines.” Ms. McDowell-Poehler noted that is recognized by courts as the authority for assessing for local improvements to the extent that there is a special benefit to the properties that abut it. Mr. Howley noted there was a question about the City Council having flexibility which is true. They have the flexibility to do whatever they want on these assessments, but the policy is there to guide their decision. As for patching and doing the road later, Mr. Howley would argue it would just cost more later so the assessment would be higher not only from the cost of doing business and inflation, but the repair may not be a mill and overlay at that point but may be an full depth reclamation (FDR) or reconstruction so they would pay more. Regarding the frequency of a $2,000-$4,00 assessment compared to other local streets, road sections are designed based on traffic, so in theory a collector road that has 3,000 cars per day, the road section would be built thicker and bigger than a normal road so it handles the traffic. In theory, the recurrence of an assessment, whether on a local or collector road, should be the same. Regarding the roundabout on Galpin and increasing traffic, he shared they are under Galpin design right now and are just now looking at what the options are. He noted with development in a City traffic volumes will go up on streets and could this road have 3,500 cars years from now? Yes. However it is a collector road and is designed for 3,000-6,000 cars per day. Regarding the road being 20 years old and has not changed so there is no need to redo it, Mr. Howley stated the road City Council Minutes – May 23, 2022 8 has an Overall Condition Index (OCI), it has been evaluated and it needs a rehabilitation. The only maintenance done on this road is some pothole patching and some sealcoating and it has held up pretty well as the current project is probably 10 years overdue. Mayor Ryan asked Mr. Howley to explain the OCI and how they evaluate across the City, including a five year plan. Mr. Howley replied the City’s pavement management plan is based on reviewing and rating the pavements. They are called OCI (Overall Condition Index) or sometimes PCI (Pavement Condition Index). Citywide, they are broken into three zones: 1, 2, and 3. Every third year a consultant goes out and physically looks at, measures, and does a performance evaluation of that pavement. The data is then input into the pavement asset management cartograph and will now have a new OCI. OCIs are zero (dirt or gravel road) to 100 (brand new road) and an OCI less than 40 would probably be a full reconstruction or FDR. If the OCI was up in the 90s they would probably just need a sealcoat; 50-70 would probably be a mill and overlay. With any project the City goes t hrough and looks at the last rating, does geotechnical evaluations, has the consultants review the road, and they come up with the best rehabilitation. The goal for the overall street network in the City is to have an OCI of 70 and every year they are doing projects to keep that average at 70. That is how they create the five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), how they budget it out, and have a plan for attacking these roadways which has been bolstered by the franchise fee. Regarding no traffic calming, the driver feedback signs, which are already in, are the first strategy on the road. The City has not done follow up yet to see how it is working and it is on the list as those signs collect traffic data. That was the new calming strategy, along with the pedestrian crossing and signage. He noted they are also going to have a parking lane on one side of the street and the visual white line is another mitigation strategy to reduce speeds. Regarding special benefit in the rules of Statute 429, Mr. Howley cannot say that there is direct correlation to a property value and he does not know if that is the special benefit test and would defer to the City Attorney on that. He clarified the formula for calculating the assessments is the cost and the assessment policy and how to equitably break them down across the City. Mayor Ryan asked about being assessed only once. Mr. Howley replied a person living in the City long enough may be assessed again. The point made about if one has driveway access off that road, it is written in the document and perhaps could be clearer. When they went through the policy in January the intent was to make that more clear. The intent is to specify the road one takes access off of, not a backyard or sideyard. Mayor Ryan asked about the suggestion to borrow against MSA. Mr. Howley replied the pot of money the Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds come from are the gas tax, vehicle registrations, and other things at the State level to collect money. The State puts it in a big pot and segregates it out to MnDOT, Counties, and Municipalities. The City has needs based on mileage within the City, how much of that mileage is MSA, and how much of that big City Council Minutes – May 23, 2022 9 pot the City gets and then receives that every year for maintenance and rehabilitations of MSA eligible streets. That is why there are special plans for MSA streets as they must submit them to State Aid, meet standards, and it will be reviewed. The account fluctuates based on how many projects the City does. If they do four MSA roads in one year, more money would be expended than is in the account and they would have to advance or borrow from their future allotments to spend today. Mr. Howley clarified the City makes a plan based on the money coming in, what the MSA needs are, and then they look out 5-10 years to plan for the roads and spend that money judiciously. The City generally does not like to advance the MSA money. Mayor Ryan noted years ago the City borrowed against it and it put them in a challenging situation when projects came due. That is why the policy was changed to not borrow against the MSA funds. She asked about the 60% versus 40% and asked where that money is coming from. Mr. Howley replied the City’s road projects are funded by the Pavement Management Program (PMP) fund. The revenue for that fund comes from the franchise fee, a tax levy, and MSA dollars. The City’s policy for assessments is that the City will cover 60%, which is paid for by the PMP fund, and then 40% is assessed to the benefitting properties. Mayor Ryan noted the Council recognizes that the PMP is taxpayer dollars. They had two years of discussion around the franchise fee and there were a lot of residents who wanted it to just be added to the levy and the City should cover 100%. Conversely, a higher number of people who had been assessed and were paying those off said how unfair it would be to go away from the assessment process because the people who had paid would now be paying twice. After a challenging conversation over two years, the City made the final decision to keep the assessment practice and implement the franchise fee. She also noted during the pandemic the City recognized the uncertainties of Covid and people’s financial situations, and as a City Council they decided not to do any road projects in 2020. However, they cannot keep continuing to defer road projects because of the unknown regarding the economic stability of the City, County, State, and Nation. She knows it can be challenging and they hear all the time that the road is still in great shape, and that is why they have their engineers and consultants to do the evaluations. Councilman McDonald asked about Ms. Pudwell’s statement regarding something separate regarding the franchise fee; he needs to know more about what that is and how it impacts what the City Council is looking at doing tonight. City Manager Hokkanen replied the statement related to franchise fees was, “if City taxes or franchise fees are not otherwise available to offset the proposed $76,000 assessment and the City does not want to bond for it, I recommend tabling the project until tax revenue can fully cover the cost of the rehab. This is what our family has to do in our own budget. Asking 19 families to pay nearly $4,000 at this point in time is a financial burden that outweighs any perceived benefit from the road rehab project.” City Council Minutes – May 23, 2022 10 Councilman Campion asked Mr. Howley if there are any MSA roads that they have not assessed the properties with frontage. Mr. Howley replied to his knowledge, no. A couple years ago Lake Drive East by McDonalds was assessed. The road is an MSA road but all of the properties are commercial properties and were assessed by an area rather than per unit. Minnewashta Parkway and Kerber Boulevard also had assessments. Councilman McDonald noted this has brought forward some interesting legal questions. However, right now the way the law and ordinances are put together, his hands are tied, and it has been alluded to that the City has been doing this for years. The general comments about not needing the street to be repaired are not new comments, it is a subjective decision that is made, the City has policies and processes in place, and this was debated quite a bit two years ago. He stated it is not the City Council’s job to interpret the law but to implement the law. Right now he feels it is very clear that he needs to support the project as he has not seen anything that would say exceptions need to be made. He also asked with the cul-de-sacs, are they asking to assess those properties twice? When the City goes onto their street to fix it they will ask for an assessment from them, as well. Councilman McDonald was one of the advocates for doing away with assessments as he feels they are somewhat unfair and he noted other communities where the City pays for everything. The City floated that balloon and it was shot down so quickly with people wanting their money back and how far back should they go…5 years, 10 years, 15 years? It is an impossible solution and the City could not refund all that money. He clarified it is not a viable solution. Mayor Ryan acknowledged the two residents that said they brought forward formal objections two years ago. She noted they were not formal, filed objections but the City did receive those emails and were familiar with the objections on this project. She appreciates Mr. and Mrs. Pudwell bringing forward their arguments the way they did this evening and the City may need to go back and make sure the assessment policy is clear, refined, and understandable. Mayor Ryan agrees with Councilman McDonald. She does think they need to make sure there is a concerted effort on speeds. Councilman Campion agrees with Councilman McDonald, noting the history of the assessments and that they could not find a better way to do it going forward. Councilman Campion moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council adopts a resolution accepting the bids and awarding the contract; and adopts a resolution adopting the assessment roll for the 2022 Lake Lucy Road Rehabilitation Project. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. City Council Minutes – May 23, 2022 11 GENERAL BUSINESS 1. Adopt Chanhassen Public Tree Policy Environmental Resource Specialist Jill Sinclair gave a presentation on the public tree policy draft. She noted approximately 7,000 public trees in the inventory including 3,000 park trees and 4,000 street trees. The policy was created by City Staff from various departments to address issues and provide transparency for the public. She stated this could be a working document and in the future the City can establish tree planting goals or other issues they would like to address. Mayor Ryan spoke about tree trimming and asked if the City will do any communication with the policy for residents. Ms. Sinclair replied it would be published on the City website. Councilwoman Schubert moved, Councilwoman Rehm seconded that the City Council adopts the Public Tree Policy. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 1. Approve Update to Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Management Plan Ms. Sinclair shared about the EAB Management Plan, noting the insect is an invasive insect first discovered in Detroit in 2002, most likely brought in on packaging from Asia. The insect kills all types of ash trees and the larva hatch within the tree and tunnel within the phloem tissue of the tree. In 2016 when the City first discussed a plan, the City’s closest infested tree was 10 miles down the road in Shakopee and now Chanhassen has infested trees within its borders. She showed photos on screen of a tree infested with EAB and one that was chemically treated, noting the treatment does work. The agreed-upon strategy for the plan is education, inspections, and best management practices including removal or chemical protection. Ms. Sinclair shared the components include a tree inventory, inspection/detection/monitoring, tree removals and planting, treatments, wood disposal, education and outreach, ordinance/policy, and licensing and permitting. She noted risk management practices include tree removal because the trees become very brittle within 8-12 months of death. Councilwoman Rehm asked regarding tree tags, will people be able to see when the tree was treated and what it was treated for. Ms. Sinclair replied in the affirmative, noting the first tags did not have the year but by the end of this year they will reflect that. Councilman McDonald asked what would happen if a City sent a letter about removal of a tree and the property owner refused, especially if they had 15 trees to take down at a significant expense. City Council Minutes – May 23, 2022 12 Ms. Sinclair noted the City Code says they would be issued a citation and the fact remains it will remain a dangerous tree to have in one’s yard and ultimately the issue will resolve itself. Councilwoman Rehm asked if a neighbor has EAB, can she apply the treatment in hopes of preventing it on her own tree? Or do the bugs die and how soon would one need to apply it for the prevention. Ms. Sinclair replied the treatments only occur in the summer when the tree is leafed out and actively growing. One can treat any ash tree and it will kill all the EAB in that tree. It is recommended that trees with 30% or more damage in the canopy are not really worth treating. Killing the EAB will not make the tree look better as it is already damaged. Catching it early on with minor damage is encouraged to be treated. Ms. Sinclair noted if a neighbor has EAB you could be 99% confident that your tree has it also, even if you cannot see the damage. Councilwoman Schubert moved, Councilwoman Rehm seconded that the City Council approves the updated Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 2. Minnetonka Middle School West Roundabout Update Mr. Howley gave a presentation on the item, noting the proposed improvement is a roundabout at the main entrance on Highway 41. The overall project costs approximately $2.8 million. He noted the City had a meeting with Staff at the school district who brought the question of the funding gap to a board study session and the superintendent reported back that they do not have support for the project. The funding still needs to be resolved and noted the City does receive complaints from impacted neighborhoods in the area being used as drop-off points. He asked the City Council for guidance on types of outreach strategies to keep the project afloat, gain traction, and gain support. He has a draft letter to the school board in the packet tonight and could also send the letter to other organizations to spread the word. He stated the unfunded portion of the project is about $400,000 and the State MnDOT grant of $1.5 million expires on June 30, 2025. He has been told verbally by MnDOT that this is a very supported project and they are likely to be successful again. If the City wants to align their MnDOT competitive grant from two years ago, next year would be the last cycle where those two funding sources would align for the project. Councilman Campion thinks that a simple simulation or model can show the district the situation right now and the traffic model changes with a roundabout. He noted a new superintendent will be starting soon and asked if they could revisit this then. Councilman McDonald asked why ISD 276 is not supportive of the project? City Council Minutes – May 23, 2022 13 Mr. Howley shared they were told it is a small amount of time that the problem exists, perhaps 15 minutes in the morning and 15 in the afternoon. ISD 276 thinks that actively managing it with police directing traffic solves the problem and why would anyone spend $2.8 million to solve a problem that does not exist? The district acknowledges that parents are parking and dropping off in these neighborhoods but the response is that it is a public street and they can do it. Councilman McDonald asked how the roundabout solves the problem of parents parking on public streets? Mr. Howley stated the philosophy is that people are using the neighborhood streets because they do not want to go into the parking lot as they cannot get back out efficiently or safely. They do not want the hassle of the exiting queue. If the roundabout does what it is supposed to do in keeping everything moving in and out, those parents would go back to picking their kids up at the school. He noted the traffic study showed that it would mitigate the problem. Councilman McDonald thinks it benefits the safety of the school, kids, parents, and the neighborhood. Councilwoman Schubert asked if students are walking across private property to get to school off Lake Lucy Road. Mr. Howley stated there is a path that leads to the street. Councilwoman Schubert does not like spending more money but if they think it would be able to help, she thinks it is a big enough problem and does not want to lose out on State aid to fund it. Mayor Ryan thinks the letter is great. In terms of timing there is a challenge with the summer months and the group that initiated the project was the PTO President. With a new superintendent there is a lot to juggle right away and it may be a little risky to put that on him to overturn what was already discussed by Dr. Peterson. Mayor Ryan thinks there may be a better strategy to tackle this in the fall although it makes timelines tight. She does think it is worth pursuing but there needs to be some management within the parking lot, as well as help engineering the traffic flow. Councilwoman Rehm asked about having another meeting with the school district and MnDOT. Mr. Howley noted he could see a strategy of pausing and waiting until the fall, sending the letter with an invitation for a meeting, and perhaps splitting the cost of the simulation. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. None. City Council Minutes – May 23, 2022 14 CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilwoman Schubert moved, Councilwoman Rehm seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m. Submitted by Laurie Hokkanen City Manager Prepared by Kim Meuwissen City Clerk