City Council Meetings

Watertown City Council Regular Meeting Mayor Steve Washburn Lindsay Guetzkow Adam Pawelk Michael Walters Dan Schuette 5/24/2022 - Minutes 1. Call To Order And Roll Call Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the Watertown City Council was called to order in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 6:32 p.m. on Tuesday, May 24, 2022, by Mayor Steve Washburn. Councilmembers present: Steve Washburn, Adam Pawelk and Michael Walters. City Staff present: City Administrator Jake Foster, City Engineer Andrew Budde, Fire Chief Tom Hanson, and Administrative Services Director Maggie Reisdorf. 2. Adopt Agenda City Administrator Foster requested to add the following two items to the agenda: Under consent agenda 3.F. Accept Donation from Legion Post 121 and 3.G. Amendment to Resolution 2022-27. COUNCILMEMBER PAWELK MOVED TO ADOPT THE AGENDA WITH THE TWO ADDITIONAL ITEMS. WALTERS SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED 3-0. 3. Consent Agenda Discussion And Approval COUNCILMEMBER WALTERS MOVED TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA. PAWELK SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED 3-0. 3.A. Approve City Council Work Session Minutes From May 10, 2022 3.B. Approve City Council Regular Meeting Minutes From May 20, 2022 3.C. Approve Step Movement For Mike Dressel 3.D. Approve Step Movement For Jake Foster 3.E. Approve Step Movement For Christine Dammann 3.F. Accept Donation From Legion Post 121  3.C. Approve Step Movement For Mike Dressel 3.D. Approve Step Movement For Jake Foster 3.E. Approve Step Movement For Christine Dammann 3.F. Accept Donation From Legion Post 121 3.G. Amendment To Resolution 2022-27 4. Open Forum 5. New/Old Business 5.A. Adopt Resolution #2022‐36 Authorizing The Purchase Of Sutphen SLR108 Ladder Truck Fire Chief Hanson introduced this item to the City Council. He started by stating that at the February 22 nd , 2022 City Council meeting, the City Council authorized staff to solicit pricing for the replacement of the Fire Department’s current 1997 American LaFrance 65’ Telesquirt Ladder Truck. Hanson provided details on obtaining quotes and pricing. Hanson explained that since February, staff has reviewed plans and specification documentation from the manufacturer and that several changes were proposed as a way to reduce the net effect of pricing increases on the apparatus. Items removed include the raised rear roof and the extended crew cab. Hanson presented the cost proposal with the City Council. He stated that the proposal, dated May 17 th , 2022, was for a Sutphen SLR108 which is a 108’ Tandem Axle Rear Mount Ladder Truck with a Pump. The cost proposal provided a proposed purchase amount of $1,372,124.99. Hanson explained that the pricing proposal would be good until June 5 th , 2022 and after that date, the cost would increase approximately 4%. Hanson explained that the building time for the apparatus changed from an estimated 14 months to 21 – 23 months. Hanson reviewed financial information and prepayment amounts and the eligible reductions for different prepayment percentages. Hanson discussed price increases, fund balances and other methods available to purchase the apparatus. Pewalk expressed concern over the two-year build time and stated that the Fire Department will have to make sure that the current apparatus stays in good working condition through maintenance over the next couple of years. Walters thanked the Fire Chief for his hard work and the Fire Department’s hard work on the ladder truck replacement item. He also expressed concern over the two-year wait time. He added that he would like to see more financial numbers brought back to the City Council for additional discussion on financial timelines. There was agreement to bring more financial information and data back to the City Council at a later date to determine whether a prepayment option or other financing options make sense. WALTERS MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION #2022-36 AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF SUTPHEN SLR108 LADDER TRUCK. PAWELK SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED 3-0. 5.B. Adopt Resolution #2022-37, Authorizing The Preparation Of Final Plans & Specifications For Water Tower #2 City Engineer, Andrew Budde, introduced this item to the City Council. Budde explained that the City of Watertown needs to add a second water tower to meet future storage capacity needs related to city growth. He explained that the city needs additional water storage to meet consumption demands. Budde said that the second water tower construction is scheduled for 2023 on the Capital Improvement City Engineer, Andrew Budde, introduced this item to the City Council. Budde explained that the City of Watertown needs to add a second water tower to meet future storage capacity needs related to city growth. He explained that the city needs additional water storage to meet consumption demands. Budde said that the second water tower construction is scheduled for 2023 on the Capital Improvement Plan and that two years is generally needed for planning, design and construction. Budde reviewed some history into this proposed project beginning back in July of 2021 when a variety of sites within the community were identified for the location of the tower. Budde stated the desirable criteria for the location of the new water tower including that it would be at an elevation that allowed the city to maintain the system in one pressure zone, being on the east side of the river, being located near larger existing watermains to ensure adequate distribution and ideally on city property. Budde said that work sessions were done with the City Council to narrow the potential sites to three preferred locations. He said that an open house was held on January 20, 2022 and information provide online regarding site preferences between the three locations. Budde said that some discussions had started with the property owners adjacent to Site A. He explained that Site A would include obtaining property from 2-3 properties to have sufficient land for construction space. Even though preliminary in the process, property owners did express some concerns. Major concerns for Site A were: l Street connection to Newton Ave for future development to the east and to access the water tower. l Future trunk gravity sanitary sewer needed in that area. l Potential electrical transmission line relocation Budde explained that even through there would be variable to work through to make Site A work, staff believed that Site A provides a great opportunity for the city to plan for future infrastructure needs and encourages and supports the development of infill and future growth areas. Budde said that at previous work sessions, the City Council indicated pursuing the most economical options for the actual tower construction. He explained that due to current economic conditions that steel is high in cost and that the most economical construction material would be composite. Budde reviewed financial information for Site A. He explained that it is estimated to around $4.57 million which includes the acquisition of property, contract agreement costs and construction costs. He said that the city’s capital improvement plan has the project listed at $4 million. He said that project would likely be financed through bond proceeds or the Watermain Revolving Loan Fun through the Public Facilities Authority. Budde stated that staff recommended to the City Council approving the preparation of plans and specifications for water tower #2 at Site A near Newton Avenue and CSAH 20. Pawelk asked what the timeline would be for the engineer to put the design documentation together. Budde answered that that the plans and specification documents take about three months to draft and added that easement contracts and putting other items in place would take more time. Pawelk asked when the tentative bidding process would happen Budde responded that the bidding process would likely happen in late fall/early winter to allow 4-5 months for materials to be ordered for a scheduled project start in May, 2023. Budde projected the project to have a year and a half build time. Walters said that he preferred site C over site A because there was a significant impact and more barriers to work through with site A. He questioned why staff time had been spent on site A when the City Council hadn’t confirmed that site A would be the chosen site. Walters explained that the city  Budde responded that the bidding process would likely happen in late fall/early winter to allow 4-5 months for materials to be ordered for a scheduled project start in May, 2023. Budde projected the project to have a year and a half build time. Walters said that he preferred site C over site A because there was a significant impact and more barriers to work through with site A. He questioned why staff time had been spent on site A when the City Council hadn’t confirmed that site A would be the chosen site. Walters explained that the city owns site C which and there would be less property impact. He stated that because of these reasons, site C seemed more economical. Walters explained that the City Council needs to narrow down and decided a location first because more work is done on specific site planning. Budde explained that staff explored site A more in depth because of the future opportunities it provided for development in the future. Budde agreed that site C would provide a simpler solution, however site A would plan ahead for future development. He also stated that the developers who are developing land next to site C are not in favor of a water tower in that location. Walters pointed out that there are only three councilmembers present at the meeting and suggested that this topic be brought back at a later date with all councilmembers present. Washburn suggested waiting through the summer to monitor the impact of the recent changes to the watering ordinance. He explained that the project will be needed eventually, however questioned if it is needed right now. He also agreed that additional discussion should take place when a full council is present. Walters asked staff to provide more data on site C at the future meeting. He stated that without the data, he is not comfortable moving forward with site A. Washburn asked more cost data on sanitary sewer costs that would be associated with site A. Pawelk explained that it made sense that staff did a “temp check” on site A to determine the feasibility of this site being an option. He stated that the provided information on the resident feedback was good information. He explained that additional community growth and development is going to happen and therefore the city needs to plan ahead. He also agreed that a full council should be present at a future meeting to continue the discussion. THIS ITEM WAS TABLED. 5.C. CSAH 10 And CSAH 24 Safety Improvements Budde introduced this item to the City Council for discussion. He explained that at the May 10, 2022 City Council work session, the City Council and school board members discussed improvements at a crossing on CSAH 10 that could increase pedestrian safety. Budde explained that Carver County will be doing a pavement rehabilitation project and shoulder widening project on CSAH 10 in 2022. When the project was announced, the Watertown-Mayer School Board took the opportunity to discuss making improvements at the crosswalk currently located at CSAH 10 and Bickford Street. Budde stated that the school pursued specific changes and that Carver County responded by stating that any improvements would need to be covered by the City and/or School. He provided an estimated project cost of $14,000 and $18,000 for the recommended/designed “bump out” pedestrian improvements. Budde explained that part of the approval process would be entering into a joint powers agreement between the city and county, and another agreement between the city and school district. Budde asked the City Council for formal direction on how to move forward. Walters explained that the school felt that this improvement was important for safety reasons and that he was in favor of the city paying half of the cost. He reviewed the city’s commitment to safety and connectivity. Washburn expressed some concern about the overall benefit with the minor changes being proposed.  Walters explained that the school felt that this improvement was important for safety reasons and that he was in favor of the city paying half of the cost. He reviewed the city’s commitment to safety and connectivity. Washburn expressed some concern about the overall benefit with the minor changes being proposed. Budde explained that the road crossing section, with the bumpouts, would shorten the walking length across the highway. Walters stated that he understood Washburn’s concerns, however was willing to work with the school to address their concerns. Pawelk explained that studies show that bumpouts create more visibility and a sense that drivers need to slow down as the road narrows. He highlighted that the crosswalk would be changed to be straight instead of diagonal creating better site lines. Washburn agreed. WALTERS MOVED TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH COORDINATING THE CROSSWALK IMPROVEMENTS ON THE CSAH 10 CROSSWALK WITH THE COUNTY AND THE TWO ASSOCIATED AGREEMENTS. PAWELK SECONDED. MOTION PASSED 3-0. Budde informed that the County is completing roadway and shoulder widening improvements along CSAH 24 by Paul Ave. He explained that Paul Ave. currently has a relatively steep incline as it approaches CSAH 24 and has been something that the city has wanted to address and improve over the years. Budde stated that the County is only required, when they make improvements, to match existing conditions that were previously in place. He said that since the city is interested in improving this area by flattening out the road, the city would need to contribute to a portion of the cost. Budde stated that through a preliminary discussion with the County that the cost split would be a 50/50 split of an estimated $20,000. Budde said that the process would include entering into a JPA Agreement. Pawelk asked staff to coordinate and work with the property owner located off of Paul Ave. to make sure the process goes smoothly. Walters supported the project stating that the site lines are currently bad and it can be a tough incline to navigate during the winter months. Washburn supported the project as well and agreed that coordination with the property owner off of Paul Ave. was important to make sure there would be no negative impacts to them. WALTERS MOVED TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO MOVE AHEAD WITH THE JPA AGREEMENT AND COST SHARE FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE AT CSAH 24 AND PAUL AVE. PAWELK SECONDED. MOTION PASSED 3-0. 5.D. CSAH 10 Resurfacing And Striping Plan Budde introduced this item to the City Council. He presented that Carver County will be completing a mill and overlay project along Highway 10 (Territorial Street) between Trunk Highway 25 and CSAH 27 (Lewis Ave N). He explained that as part of the project, the county is intending to stripe a painted median between Franklin Ave SW and Westminster Ave SW. Budde said that the goal of the striping would be to restrict the lane width as a way to slow traffic down at the pedestrian crossing near Westminster Ave SW.  Budde introduced this item to the City Council. He presented that Carver County will be completing a mill and overlay project along Highway 10 (Territorial Street) between Trunk Highway 25 and CSAH 27 (Lewis Ave N). He explained that as part of the project, the county is intending to stripe a painted median between Franklin Ave SW and Westminster Ave SW. Budde said that the goal of the striping would be to restrict the lane width as a way to slow traffic down at the pedestrian crossing near Westminster Ave SW. Budde continued that the striping is meant to also provide space for pedestrians between the two directions of oncoming traffic. He said that the County is the road authority for this section of roadway, but that the city enforces and administers the parking ordinances on the street. Budde stated that Carver County is asking the city to approve a no parking resolution on both sides of CSAH 10/Territorial Street between Franklin Ave SW and Westminster Ave SW to support the new striping. Walters asked why the city would support the new striping. Washburn stated that the county should have been at this meeting to explain this project in more detail. He expressed concern about whether paint would be able to improve safety. He was not in support of the change. Walters suggested that a button crosswalk with lights would be more effective. Walters asked what would happen if the City Council did not approve the recommended parking change. Budde stated that the County would likely stripe the road as it currently is. He added that the County wouldn’t put the crosswalk markings back in at Westminster either. The Council did not vote on this item. 6. Other Reports Foster informed that the city would be hosting an Economic Development Day at City Hall on June 16, 2022. Foster stated that the Planning Commission would be meeting on May 26, 2022. Pawelk informed that there were no updates for the Park Board. Walters had no reports. Washburn reported that a local, Dr. Scott Jensen, was running for Governor for the State of Minnesota. Washburn informed that Watertown-Mayer High School had their graduation ceremony scheduled for May 27, 2022. 7. Claims 7.A. Approve Claims Roster PAWELK MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 24, 2022 CLAIMS PACKET, WALTERS SECONDED. MOTION PASSED 3-0. 8. Adjournment PAWELK MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:09 PM, WALTERS SECONDED. MOTION PASSED 3-0. 309 Lewis Avenue South; P.O. Box 279, Watertown, MN 55388 309 Lewis Avenue South; P.O. Box 279, Watertown, MN 55388 ________________________________________________________ Steve Washburn, Mayor ATTEST:__________________________________________________ Maggie Reisdorf, Admin. Services Director