City Council 9-5-05

BACK to News

SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – FEBRUARY 6, 2007

7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH

Attendants:

      Mayor Molly Park

      Councilpersons: Joel Bennett, Judy MacManus, and Richard Williams.

      City Attorney: Timothy Kuntz

      City Building Official: Russ Wahl

      City Engineer: Donald Sterna

      City Planner: Laurie Shives

      City Forester: James Nayes

      City Clerk: Cathy Iago

            and Members of the General Public.

      Councilmember DeCourcy arrived at 7:05 p.m.



1.   CALL TO ORDER:           Mayor Park opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

2.   APPROVE AGENDA:       CouncilmemberWilliams moved approval of the Agenda, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried.



3.   CONSENT AGENDA:       Mayor Park asked if there were any comments or questions regarding the Consent Agenda and there was no response.

      Councilmember Williams moved approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Councilmember Bennett and carried:

a.       Minutes of January 16, 2007 Regular Council meeting.

b.       Accounts Receivable Billings Report.

c.       Monthly Financial Statements – January, 2007.

      Councilmember Williams noted that there was substantially less spent than budgeted and questioned if this was a timing issue. Treasurer Blair responded that it was due to timing and was also a seasonal issue; he noted that since there has not been a substantial snowfall, the funds budgeted for plowing had not been spent.

      Councilmember DeCourcy arrived at 7:05 p.m. City Clerk Iago administered the Oath of Office to Councilmember DeCourcy.



4. COMMENTS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC: There were none. Mayor Park noted that Mr. Hovey had requested additional sanding at the intersection of Charlton Road and Highway 110; she suggested that the Engineer address if the sanding was accomplished in his report at the next meeting.

5.   PLANNING COMMISSION: Preliminary Discussion of 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Planner Shives reported that the February Planning Commission meeting would be cancelled since no applications were received.

The Planner referred to her memorandum dated January 31, 2007 regarding the proposed Work Program for the Comprehensive Plan Update. She stated she would begin collecting the necessary information and materials for the preparation of the Inventory section of the comprehensive plan update this month. She explained that the next step would be Issues Identification which would be conducted through workshops with the assigned “task force” and/or open houses with the public. She suggested the Council should determine who would be appointed to the “task force”, whether it would be the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission and Council, or a newly formed group of City officials and other residents.

Councilmember Williams asked if the Council would ultimately make the decisions regarding the Comprehensive Plan update. Planner Shives responded yes and stated that the task force would only review and discuss the information presented and that all recommendations would be presented to Council for formal action.

Councilmember Williams stated that he wished to have input from residents, but he noted that it is hard to schedule meetings with a large group. He suggested that public input could be compiled at public meetings.

Mayor Park questioned how the process worked the last time it was updated. Ms. Shives stated she was unsure because she was not on staff at the time.

Councilmember DeCourcy stated she wished to have Council involved throughout the process. Councilmember Williams agreed and suggested that public hearings could be held with the Planning Commission for input from residents.

Councilmember Bennett asked if Council received a copy of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. The Planner stated it was distributed to Council and offered to get a copy for Councilmember Bennett.

Councilmember Bennett suggested that the previous plan update process should be reviewed and commented that $20,000 appears to be a substantial amount to accomplish the update. He asked if the City is required to do everything that is listed.

The Planner explained that the Metropolitan Council establishes the guidelines that the City must follow and that the new update requires additional items that were not done in 1998; she noted that it is not a simple process and that the amount of money spent would depend on staff time, and the number of workshops and public hearings. She explained that the amount spent may be less than the amount budgeted.

Councilmember Williams asked if the Planner could distribute a PDF version of the previous plan update. The Planner responded that she would attempt to do so.

Councilmember Williams pointed out that during budget discussions relating to the plan update it was noted that the City designation would be extremely important in terms of future development and he preferred to spend the funds so that the update is done well.

Councilmember MacManus commented that it does not appear that the City would be designated as a “Diversified Rural” Community.   The Planner advised that she would be meeting with the Metropolitan Council representative to discuss whether or not the designation change was merely a suggestion; she noted that staff would attempt to identify an appropriate regional planning designation for the City through this process. She suggested that it would be preferable to keep the designation as a “Developing Community” or proposing an alternative designation such as “Rural Residential” or “Developed Community”.

Councilmember Bennett pointed out that the funds were budgeted for 2008 although it appears that most of the work would be done this year. Mayor Park noted that some cities have already completed the work and that the process will take some time to accomplish.

Councilmember Bennett suggested the Mayor and Chair Bulach serve as the Council and Planning Commission representatives to complete the initial work with staff and to meet with the Metropolitan Council representative.

Mayor Park noted that Chair Bulach is out-of-town and asked the Planner if the meeting would be scheduled this month.

Ms. Shives advised that she would begin gathering information and data and creating new maps. She explained that once the background information is completed, the meeting could be scheduled with the Metropolitan Council representative to determine an appropriate designation for the City.

Councilmember Williams moved to designation a Task Force consisting of the Mayor and Chair Bulach from the Planning Commission to work with staff on the initial phase of the Comprehensive Plan update and that an alternate person from the Council and Planning Commission also be designated to serve in their absence, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried.

Councilmember Williams suggested that the Acting Mayor serve in the absence of the Mayor and Council concurred. Mayor Park asked the Planner to notify Chair Bulach and also ask the Planning Commission to appoint an alternate. The Mayor asked if the meeting with the Met Council representative would be scheduled prior to March.

Ms. Shives advised that she would contact the Met Council representative and she indicated that the meeting could be delayed until March.

Council thanked the Planner for her report.

6.   INSPECTOR’S REPORTS:

a.       CITY ENGINEER: Engineer Sterna explained that he attended a meeting out-of-town last month and that since there was not much activity he did not distribute a report. He advised that he received a telephone call regarding a property for sale on Charlton Road and the caller was interested in paving the road only to the home he wished to purchase. He advised that the potential property owner had received a quote of $30,000 to complete the paving to this parcel and asked if the City would allow the paving. He stated that he responded by explaining that the paving of public roads must go through a public process which takes time.

Councilmember DeCourcy advised that she had also received a call regarding the same parcel and was asked if the City would allow fencing of the property. She explained that the potential buyer houses rescued dogs and wished to have the entire parcel fenced to contain the dogs.

Engineer Sterna explained that there has been a changeover in residents along Charlton Road and past surveys indicated that it was a 50-50 split regarding paving the road. He advised that there are major issues related to improving the roadway such as drainage, topography, and right-of-way; he suggested the possibility of forming a committee to research the possible of paving the roadway.

Mayor Park asked if there was the option of designating Charlton Road as a “rural” road and improving it similar to Acorn Drive.

Engineer Sterna explained that the rural road designation may lend itself to Charlton Road; however, he noted that the traffic volumes are much higher on Charlton Road. He further noted that the corner near the Riley’s property would have to be reconfigured.

Mayor Park asked if speed humps would be possible near the Olson’s and Pastor’s properties.

The Engineer responded that one of the concerns previously voiced by residents was increased speed if the roadway were improved and that speed humps would help control traffic speeds. He offered to send out correspondence to residents along the roadway, similar to the one sent 6 years ago, and suggested a committee be formed to review the responses. He noted that he advised the caller there was no quick response to the question.

Councilmember DeCourcy stated she favored using a rustic road designation for Charlton; Mayor Park agreed.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked how she should respond to the inquiry about fencing the property.

Planner Shives explained that the potential property owner could fence 5,000 sq. ft. of the parcel.

Councilmember DeCourcy explained the caller wished to fence the entire 5-acres.

Mike Hovey pointed out that chain link fencing was only allowed for tennis courts. The Planner advised that chain link fencing could also be used for a small dog run. She indicated that it may be possible to issue an interim use permit for the fence such as the permit issued for the Spaulding property.

There was discussion regarding the fencing regulations.

Councilmember Bennett asked if two different clients are interested in the same property. Councilmember DeCourcy explained that it appears they are together in their interest; however, one wishes to pave the road and the other wishes to fence the property.

Mayor Park suggested the Engineer respond that the road would not be done immediately, but it may be paved within the next few years.

Councilmember Williams commented that although he may support a variance as an interim use for the fence, he would be opposed to fencing more than 5,000 sq. ft. He suggested that the person could install an invisible fence to keep the dogs on the property.

Councilmember MacManus questioned why the potential buyer wanted such a large area fenced.

Councilmember DeCourcy was unsure, but noted that she has experienced dogs running through her yard and favored fencing. She commented that the person explained there would be no more than four dogs housed on the property at one time.

Mike Hovey pointed out that the City Ordinance only allows two dogs.

There was discussion regarding the number of dogs allowed. Planner Shives agreed that the Ordinance only allows two dogs. The Planner advised that the person would also have to apply for a permit for a Dog Kennel to house more than two dogs at one time.

Councilmember DeCourcy noted that the fencing on this parcel would not impact any resident and she expressed concern that fencing is not allowed to control the dogs running at large.

Mayor Park explained that the fencing regulations and other regulations unique to Sunfish Lake were adopted to preserve the ambiance of the City.

Councilmember Bennett commented that he has chain link fencing on his property and it is also on the Kampmeyer property due to the freeway. Mayor Park explained that the City had no control over the fencing installed by MnDOT along the freeway.

Councilmember Williams indicated that a request for the fencing should be submitted as a Conditional Use Permit application and questioned if a person that is not the owner of the property could make an application.

Attorney Kuntz responded that the property owner would have to submit the application or Council could direct the Planning Commission to study an ordinance amendment to allow the fence. He further noted that there does not appear to be an identifiable hardship to support a variance application for the fence. He indicated that Council should determine if they wish to expand the ordinance relating to fencing.

Mayor Park commented that she does not support Council action to refer this matter to the Planning Commission since it is unsure at this time if the person will purchase the property; she indicated it would be more appropriate for the property owner to submit an application for a CUP. Councilmember MacManus agreed.

Councilmember DeCourcy noted that the City Attorney indicated a variance is not appropriate and asked how she should present the information to the potential buyer to make application.

Councilmember Williams suggested that the person be advised an application for a Conditional Use Permit for an interium use for the fence would be appropriate and that it would most likely be limited to 5,000 sq. ft. He further indicated that it does not appear that Council wishes to change the ordinance regarding fencing at this time.

Councilmember MacManus asked how many dogs would be allowed. Planner Shives advised that an interim use permit for the kennel would also be necessary if more than two dogs are on the property.

Councilmember DeCourcy commented that in her opinion the fencing regulations are too strict and she also noted that fencing around swimming pools should be required to protect small children; she commented that she thought it was mandatory to fence the area around pools.

Councilmember Williams pointed out that the swimming pool issue is separate; however, he believes the fence regulations were put in place to avoid the appearance of parcels being visually divided by the fence. He commented that he does not believe the ordinance should be changed to accommodate potential home buyers and that it should be a policy decision made by Council.

Mayor Park asked if it would be easy to enforce a CUP. Councilmember Williams indicated that conditions are included in the CUP to enhance enforcement; he stated that several conditions were added to the Spaulding CUP and interim use permit.

Engineer Sterna stated he would prepare information regarding the process for studying the proposed improvement of Charlton Road for a future meeting. He noted that he may not be available at the March meeting due to a family matter.

Councilmember Bennett asked if the same rural road width standard would be used for Charlton Road.

Mr. Sterna explained that it may be an option and he would discuss the matter with the City Attorney to determine if the same findings apply to Charlton Road to support that designation.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked if it was possible to “dead end” the road. The Engineer explained that he would have to review the public safety issues related to a “dead end” roadway.

Council thanked the Engineer for his report.

b.       BUILDING OFFICIAL: Inspector Wahl stated he conducted two inspections in January and issued one
permit. He thanked Council and staff for the flowers sent to his wife during her illness and advised she is doing well.

Council thanked Inspector Wahl for his report.

c.       CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes stated that he has not received any calls regarding this month regarding business or issuing burning permits; however he met with the DNR to discuss the process for issuing the burning permits. He advised that he was been becoming acquainted with the City and attempting to locate trees that are placed too close to the roads.

Mayor Park advised that Mr. Nayes was interviewed for the Sunfish Lake Quarterly newsletter.

Council thanked Forester Nayes for his report.

d.       PUBLIC SAFETY: Mayor Park distributed the Public Safety Report and noted that the false alarm calls were reduced significantly from the previous year.



7.   OTHER BUSINESS: Attorney Kuntz reviewed the confidential memorandum dated February 2, 2007 relating to the dispute between the City and PERA in the matter of the Independent Contractor Status for City Clerk Iago. He suggested that two members of the Council be appointed to meet with him, the Treasurer and the Clerk to determine a course of action in responding to this matter.

The Attorney advised that Ms. Iago had retired as a PERA employee and had requested a ruling regarding her contract status with the City of Sunfish Lake prior to submitting her retirement notice; PERA ruled that her status could be that of an Independent Contractor prior to her retirement. He explained that Ms. Iago would not be limited to the amount of money she could make working in the private sector after retirement; however , she would be limited to the amount she could make annually working for a government entity if PERA determined she could not be an Independent Contractor. He noted that PERA has now rescinded their initial ruling and has indicated that their determination may affect more than one position in the City. He explained that PERA has noted the major rationale for the ruling was based on the fact that the position of Clerk is defined and regulated by State Statute as a Public Officer and that a Public Officer must be an employee of the City. He noted the only other position so regulated is the City Treasurer.

Mr. Kuntz explained that the financial impact to the City would be minimal and would include one-half of Ms. Iago’s Social Security withholdings, state and federal withholdings and a slight increase in the City’s insurance; there would be no contribution made to PERA. He noted that if the City were to agree with the findings of PERA, the financial implications for the City would also apply to Mr. Blair as Treasurer; however, the City and Mr. Blair would have to make a contribution towards PERA since he is not a PERA retiree. He noted that the City must complete a survey regarding the other contracted positions of Engineer, Attorney, Planner, Building Inspector and Forester. He indicated that it may be an opportunity for the City to consider treating the City Forester Mark Johnson as an employee to provide workers compensation insurance and liability insurance on behalf of the City since the Forester position is prone to more dangerous activities than the other consultants; he stated he was not prepared to recommend treating the Forester as an employee at this time.

Mr. Kuntz advised that he contacted the PERA representative assigned to this matter to discuss the possibility of splitting the duties for the Clerk Administrator position and having two separate contracts with Ms. Iago; he suggested the Clerk portion of the position would be compensated at 70 percent and the Administrator portion at 30%. He noted that Ms. Iago could form an LLC and the reduced salary this would allow some leeway for Ms. Iago to receive some additional compensation working for other government entities without exceeding the monetary limit. He advised that PERA’s reaction was favorable since the proposal was done in good faith and if the Treasurer’s position would also be considered an employee.

Councilmember Bennett asked if the City would have the ability to increase Ms. Iago’s salary under the Administrator’s Contract. Mr. Kuntz responded yes.

The Attorney noted that Ms. Iago still retains the option to appeal the ruling and must respond within 60 days; the deadline to respond is March 10. He further explained that Ms. Iago may request the City to pay for the costs of an appeal. He explained that he has been in contact with the League of Minnesota Cities legal counsel and asked that they survey communities to determine if there are other Clerks serving as Independent Contractors for smaller communities. He explained that he was advised PERA may be working on a legislative bill regarding this matter for future City Clerk retirees.

Mr. Kuntz requested that he be directed to prepare a response to PERA regarding an extension on the appeal deadline and that Council designate two representatives to work with staff to resolve the issue; he noted that a recommendation from the committee would be brought to Council for formal action.

Councilmember Williams volunteered to serve and noted that he believes there is case-law to support Ms. Iago not being limited to the amount of money she may earn for the term of this contract.

Mayor Park suggested Councilmember Bennett also work with staff to provide perspective as a business owner.

Mr. Kuntz asked Ms. Iago if she would consider creating a company and entering an additional contract for the Administrator’s duties; Ms. Iago responded yes.

The Attorney explained that he asked Mr. Blair to contact the City’s insurance carrier to determine the costs for adding the positions of Clerk, Treasurer, and Forester to the labiality policy and he was advised that the positions of Clerk and Treasurer would be approximately $35 per year; however, the Forester position would be approximately $390 per year based on the fact that the position has the possibility for more hazardous duties.


Council thanked Attorney Kuntz for his report.

Mayor Park advised that the McFadden ice house has been removed and thanked Dick Bancroft on behalf of the City for allowing the use of his property to remove the structure.

Councilmember Williams extended his thanks to the person who was the first responder when him wife became ill; he stated he contacted Chief Shaver and asked that the staff member be commended for his assistance.

Mayor Park asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.

8.   ADJOURN:            Councilmember Bennett moved for adjournment at 8:45 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Williams, and carried.

Molly Park, Mayor                                                  Catherine Iago, City Clerk

BACK to News