SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – MARCH 2, 2010

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

Attendants:

Mayor:  Molly Park

Councilmembers: Cathy DeCourcy, Judy MacManus, Richard Williams and Roger Conant.

City Attorney:  Tim Kuntz

City Building Official: Russ Wahl
City Planner:  Laurie Smith

City Forester: Jim Nayes

City Engineer:  Tim Hanson

City Treasurer:  Mike Blair

City Clerk:  Cathy Iago
Police Chief Manila Shaver
Police Officer Matt Muellner
Engineer Tom Madigan, Foth Engineering
and Members of the General Public.

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

2.   APPROVE AGENDA:       Mayor Park explained that Gretchen Keenan was unable to attend to provide the Airport Noise Oversight Committee report. She asked if there were any further additions or corrections to the agenda and there was no response.                     

Councilmember DeCourcy moved approval of the Agenda, seconded by Councilmember Williams and carried.  (5-0)

3.   CONSENT AGENDA:       The Mayor stated she had two minor corrections to the February 9, 2010 Council minutes; on page 2, under the City Forester’s report she asked that the wording be changed to read “Invasive Species rather than “Evasive Species”, and on page 4, she asked that the word “with” be changed to “without” in the sentence commending Officer Muellner for his assistance with the scheduling and preparing the deer hunt.

Mayor Parks asked if there were any other questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda. 

Councilmember Conant referred to the List of Bills and asked the City Attorney what his office charges to make photocopies. Mr. Kuntz responded that he is unsure, but he believes the cost is twenty-five cents per page.

Councilmember Conant asked that the Attorney check on the costs and let Council know if that is correct.

Councilmember Conant noted the costs from the City Forester for writing and research and questioned what the costs relate to and if the Council would have access to the finished product.

Forester Nayes stated he would be reporting on the information later on the agenda. 

The Mayor asked if there were further comments or questions and there was no response.

Councilmember Williams moved approval of the Consent Agenda with corrections to the February 9, 2010 Council minutes as recommended, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried.  (5-0)

a. Regular Council meeting minutes of February 9, 2010.

b. List of Bills

c. Monthly Financials

4.   COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: None.

5.   PUBLIC HEARING/PRESENTATION:

a.   Report from Airport Noise Oversight Committee Member Gretchen Keenan: This item was removed from the agenda since Gretchen Keenan was unable to attend the meeting

b.   Report on Visioning Study – Engineer Tom Madigan: Engineer Tom Madigan of Foth Engineering was present to report on the peer review for Regional Roadway System Visioning Study as requested by the Cities of Mendota Heights and Sunfish Lake and relating to the proposed  I-494/Delaware Avenue interchange.

Mayor Park asked that Council and audience members observe Roberts Rules of Order during the presentation.

Engineer Tom Madigan stated that he had presented this report to the Mendota Heights City Council on February 16 and subsequently offered to attend a Sunfish Lake Council meeting to present the information. He explained that his firm was hired by Mendota Heights and Sunfish Lake to provide an objective review of the County’s study on the regional roadway needs for this area and that his job was to evaluate and provide an opinion on the materials presented, but not to advocate for a specific plan.

Councilmember Conant asked Mr. Madigan to describe his firm and his credentials. Mr. Madigan responded that he has worked as a Civil and Municipal Engineer for the past 32 years and that his firm has done municipal work for numerous cities in the upper Midwest.

Engineer Madigan explained that there was concern expressed at the neighborhood meeting by some people attending that the Mendota Heights Council was not presented the report in sufficient time for them to review the document; he noted that the report was prepared on January 26 and presented to the Mendota Heights Council on February 16. It is now March 2 and he is presenting the peer review to this Council.

Mr. Madigan explained his presentation would cover Report Objectives, Analysis and Findings, Recommendations, and Steps Going Forward; he stated he would then respond to questions.  He explained that the peer review of the materials related to safety and capacity of the road as it appears today, however, the review did not include any substantial comments on the environmental or the social aspects as they affect the communities, but focused on the traffic engineering.

Engineer Madigan stated that Foth reviewed the Land Use/Development Assumptions by looking at the Comprehensive Plans for the cities of Inver Grove Heights and Eagan; he pointed out that the projected numbers for traffic have been increased by 20 to 30 percent. He indicated that the County was probably looking at the worst case scenario for projected traffic volumes given that there are often conditional use permits and rezoning that occur in communities that could alter the densities and increase traffic beyond the Comprehensive Plans. He pointed out that Foth believes that the study is trying to identify corridors for roads prior to platting and that the County was attempting to identify sufficient right-of-way for the worst case scenario traffic volumes given this Visioning Study is out beyond 2030. He commented that it would be better for the County and cities to obtain additional right-of-way prior to development even if the projected numbers do not reach the higher capacity it is a lot less costly. He noted that the numbers are generated from a traffic model using the Metropolitan Council growth projection model based on the comprehensive plan information from the cities, with the additional 20 to 30 percent increase in the projected numbers. He reiterated that it is preferable to plan for the worst case scenario, in his opinion, at this time rather than trying to acquire more expensive developed land for the additional right-of-way if the numbers do reach the projected levels.   

Mr. Madigan stated that Foth generally agreed with the traffic patterns provided in the report and noted that if development occurs in Inver Grove Height and Eagan, the traffic volumes will significantly increase on all affected roads over time. He noted that if traffic increases as projected, at some point in time an improvement to Delaware Avenue may be necessary. He indicated that the rolling hills and number of private driveways along the road would create problems for persons attempting to access their properties. Foth has suggested that a possible three lane road with designated center left turn lane, as proposed by Dakota County north of Highway 110, may be appropriate at some time in the future. He commented that this may never occur, however, he would be remiss if he did not point out how to deal with the matter in the future.  He further commented that the communities adjacent to Delaware Avenue would share responsibility because Sunfish Lake is under 5000 population, the current County policy would not require participation for future improvements to Delaware Avenue. At some point in the future, if Delaware is in the visioning plan for the County, it would be easier for the two cities to request funding and inclusion in the County CIP if the communities see the need for improvements. Forth believes that if the traffic approaches 11,000 average daily traffic trips there may be such a need.

Engineer Madigan explained that Forth believes that if traffic approaches the level predicted in the Visioing Sutdy an interchange would be needed to balance the amount of traffic accessing I-494. Traffic volumes at the intersections on Robert Street and Dodd Road would become unmanageable. An interchanged located between these two existing roads, in Foth’s opinion, would help balance the traffic and reduce congestion on theses roads. Without an interchange the options for Robert Street and Dodd Road would be grade separations at the intersections. There would definitely be environmental impacts if an interchange were placed at Delaware Avenue and I-494 and that was the basis for Foth recommending to the cities that they push for the interchange to be placed entirely in Inver Grove Heights, as identified by Alternative “E” located east of Delaware Avenue, if one is needed. He noted that this location would lessen the social and environmental impacts as well as provide a better traffic balance within Inver Grove Heights and that in his opinion it appears that the County has started to look at Alternative “E” as a better location.

A resident questioned if the County would be charged with reviewing the social and environmental impacts of the proposed interchange at the designated location. Mr. Madigan responded yes and noted that this has not been undertaken by the County at this time.

Mayor Park pointed out that the Federal Highway Department and MN/DOT would also have to review and approve the location of a proposed interchange and that the Federal Highway Department would require a very detailed traffic study.

Mr. Madigan commented that the Federal government does an extensive study with more specific traffic modeling. He noted that if the interchange were placed at Delaware Avenue it would require removal of homes and that if the interchange were placed at Alternative “E”, the 60^th Street bridge would pose problems. He displayed a diagram showing the location of Alternative “E” on the map and noted that this location would require the realignment of Argenta Trail and also require a substantial environmental study due to the wetlands.

Councilmember Williams noted that the proposed interchange at this location would be an exit/entrance ramp only onto the freeway and that existing traffic would have to turn onto Argenta. Mr. Madigan agreed. He also noted that almost all of the proposed improvements would be located in Inver Grove Heights and Eagan, not in Sunfish Lake or Mendota Heights. He explained that he questioned the County at the neighborhood meeting as to why they would not recommend making additional improvements such as more lanes or grade separations to Dodd Road or Robert Street, beyond what they are currently considering in the Visioning Study. The County explained at the neighborhood meeting that expanding Robert Street and Dodd Road would back up traffic with vehicles stuck at intersections. Forth’s concern would be that vehicles would find alternate routes. Mr. Madigan stated that the traffic would most likely use Delaware as an alternate to avoid potential intersection delays and that is why it would be preferable to have another interchange to I-494.

Councilmember Williams pointed out that there are two separate issues; he noted that the City has no control over the traffic increases generated by development in the southern portion of Dakota County and it is difficult to get from the south to the north end of the County. He explained that initially Inver Grove Heights proposed high density development in the area adjacent to Sunfish Lake; however, the City has now reduced the density due to Sunfish Lake’s concerns. He commented that Inver Grove Heights based their Comprehensive Plan and traffic projections on the fact that there would be an interchange at I-494. He indicated that his mistrust stems from the planning for this area being based on the fact that an interchange would be in place.

Councilmember Conant commented that Alternative “E” does not appear to substantially impact Sunfish Lake and appears it would be the preferred option. Mr. Madigan agreed and noted that Alternative “E” impacts Inver Grove Heights since it is totally within that City except for any potential environmental impacts with the future ramps on the north side that could affect Sunfish Lake.   

Mr. Madigan stated he appreciates Councilmember Williams’s comments and noted that after reviewing the Comprehensive Plans for both cities, he does not find the projections to be unreasonable, although high; however, he indicated that the numbers may never reach the projections. Any future road improvements would be based on current traffic at the time and tighter future traffic projections.

Engineer Madigan advised that under the “Steps Going Forward” the County was attempting to have a draft report to the affected communities for comment either this month or in April and they would then submit the Study to the County Board. He noted that the cities would have a formal opportunity to provide feedback to the County Board. He stated that if the County Road Board wishes to move forward, the next step would likely be an interchange warrant study that would be ordered for submission to the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) and also a complete environmental review would be conducted. He pointed out that access approval for an interchange would have to be given by MN/DOT, FHA, and the Met Council. The County would also need to seek Federal, State and local funding for the improvements. He noted that once funding is secured, the design phase and ultimately construction would occur at some unknown time in the future.

Mr. Madigan noted that with today’s economy the project may not occur for many years and that development in Inver Grove Heights and Eagan would spur any road projects outlined in the Visioning Study.

Resident Dan O’Leary commented that it may take decades for the business cycle to return and that Dakota County indicated the project could be 40 years out. He noted that it is unfair that the persons surrounding the proposed interchange sites have not been notified or offered an option to buy their properties.  

Councilmember Williams agreed and noted that developers will look at the costs and risks associated with obtaining right-of-way and installing infrastructure; he explained that some developers expect cities to provide these amenities.

Michael Noonan of the Delaware Crossing Community Group distributed a memorandum dated March 2, 2010 and addressed to Brian Sorenson at Dakota County expressing the group’s concerns regarding the Visioning Study. He commented that there is frustration and lack of trust regarding the fact that no social, environmental or economic aspects have been addressed by the County. He explained that planning for the project should include public interest elements and should address the social and environmental impacts not just the traffic and transportation needs. He stated that infrastructure for the project will be overstated due to the over inflated forecasts and projections. He expressed concern with the fact that the projected densities of the comprehensive plans of the cities of Inver Grove Heights and Eagan had been inflated by 20 to 30 percent. He noted that consideration should be given to looking at all that can be done with the existing interchanges at Dodd ad Robert Street before an additional interchange is contemplated or before supporting Alternative “E”. He commented that an interchange at Delaware Avenue results in a host of unacceptable impacts on the communities and it not supported by the communities. He further commented that the County policy for sharing improvement costs is that 55 percent is paid by the County and the remaining 45 percent is paid by adjacent communities; he noted that if the community population is less than 5,000, they do not have to pay. He indicated this would be beneficial for Sunfish Lake, but not for Mendota Heights.

Mr. Noonan suggested that it is important to conduct another community meeting to provide the opportunity for all residents to hear the message and respond accordingly, not just an open house where there is no input into the planning process. He reviewed the seven (7) recommendations this group is submitting to the County relating to the issues discussed. He indicated the group concurs that the County should review what could be done at Dodd Road and Robert Street prior to considering other alternatives for the interchange. He further noted that residents in both Sunfish Lake and Mendota Heights should be told how their properties will be impacted and that the plan needs to address the social and environmental concerns.

Mr. Noonan stated that the group appreciates the peer review; however, they take exception to the fact that Foth Engineering should not be advocating an alternative.
Mayor Park asked if there were any further comments.

Resident Peggy Rabus expressed concern regarding the fact she had heard the City of Inver Grove Heights has been pushing to send the proposal to the Met Council in March.  Mr. Madigan explained that is incorrect since any plan must first be reviewed by the County Board; he stated that once a proposal is determined by the County it would first be sent to the cities for review and comment. He indicated that most likely something would be forthcoming from the County to the cities in April.

Ms. Rabus asked when Inver Grove Heights would send the proposal to the Met Council. Mayor Park explained that the Met Council has been part of the technical meetings throughout the process and that a formal proposal would not occur until after the County has reviewed the plan.

Ms. Rabus commented that the population projections appear to be high and noted that the population in this area has not increased substantially; she pointed out that the graduating class of Sibley High School has decreased substantially over the past several years.

Resident Dan O’Leary agreed and pointed out that the projections for development in Inver Grove Heights were completed when the economy was at its peak.

Councilmember Conant questioned if Alternatives “C” and “D” are still being considered as they appear to have a greater impact on the community.  Engineer Madigan stated that either of those alternatives would not be best for the communities and he would not recommend supporting them. Mr. Noonan agreed that those alternatives would have too much impact and that Alternative “E” would be preferable; however, the County must still review the social and environmental impacts to the wetlands and residents.

In conclusion, Mr. Madigan stated that a final report from the County has not been completed to date. He noted that during the technical meetings with the County there were comments relating to the social and environmental impacts; however both those items still need to be addressed by the County. He explained that County staff and consultants considered impacts to wetlands if Argenta were to be realigned and, in his opinion it appears that County realizes the social impacts with the proposed option of placing an interchange at Delaware. He explained that he is not defending the County, but merely pointing out that they have not yet completed their final report.

Councilmember Williams commented that setting aside the costs to re-route Argenta, it appears that Alternative “E” would be the least costly alternative for the interchange location.

Mayor Park explained that the Federal government representative noted that a warrant study for the interchange would be ordered and that the study would review all pertinent information provided by the County and surrounding communities.

The Mayor asked if there were further comments and there was no response. She thanked everyone for their input and participation and called for a brief recess.         

Council took a brief recess at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at 8:20 p.m.

6.   PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT:        Planner Smith was present and stated there was
nothing to report at this time. 

7.   INSPECTOR’S REPORTS:

a.   Building Inspector: Inspector Wahl stated he conducted two (2) inspections and did not issue any permits in February.

Council thanked the Inspector for his report.

b.   City Engineer: Salem Church Road Reconstruction: Engineer Hanson stated he has nothing to report on the project.

NPDES Annual Public Hearing: Engineer Hanson advised that the annual public hearing for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) MS4 Permit will be held at the April regularly scheduled Council meeting. He stated that a copy of the public notice for the hearing was published in the Southwest Review and posted on the City website.

Public Works Activates Undertaken in the Month of February: Snow Removal: The Engineer advised the City streets were plowed and sanded several times during February; he reviewed the dates listed in his report that the sanding and snowplowing events that occurred. He stated that these operations have been fairly extensive this winter season and that temperature conditions with moisture resulted in slippery street conditions. He stated he has not received any comments or complaints regarding snow removal.

Anticipated Engineer Activities for the month of March:

-   Street Snowplowing
-   Preparation for the NPDES Public Hearing
-   Placement of Road Restrictions on City Streets

Councilmember Conant asked if the Council would be provided a copy of the SWPPP report prior to the public hearing.

Engineer Hanson advised that he will provide a copy of the report to Council; he noted that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requires the City to conduct activities during the year relating to the NPDES permit and that the report is rather routine and outlines the activities.

Mayor Park asked if the document is on the website. Engineer Hanson responded that he would check to see if the document is on the website. He stated he would forward copies to Council prior to the public hearing.

Council thanked the Engineer for his report.

1. CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes reported that he had not issued any Burning Permits in February. He stated that Emerald Ash Borer had bee found in the City of Minneapolis and noted that normally it cannot be found in trees during the first two years of infestation.
   
   The Forester explained that he would be making a presentation to the Planning Commission at their March meeting regarding Invasive Species inventory documentation in conjunction with Major Site Plan reviews. He noted that he would use a document similar to the State’s standard weed inspection form to conduct the inventory on the property. He stated he has been researching various educational materials to distribute to homeowners regarding how to control or eradicate invasive species identified on their property as part of the inventory. He pointed out that none of the invasive species discussed as part of this review are listed as noxious weeds and that property owners are not officially required to remove them, therefore, he would merely make recommendations for removal or control.
   
   Forester Nayes explained that in conjunction with the Arbor Day celebration this year he is planning a Buckthorn tour that visits approximately six (6) properties where Buckthorn has been removed and the stumps destroyed. He stated he would also suggest replacement plantings in areas where Buckthorn has been removed.
   
   Councilmember DeCourcy questioned what types of plantings would be recommended. Mr. Nayes responded that Grey Dogwood, Red Twig Dogwood and some other shrubs would be suggested.
   
   Mr. Nayes stated that the Tree Board would be meeting on March 25 to review a proposed resolution relating to handling Emerald Ash Borer.
   Councilmember Conant questioned the Tree Board and its duties. Mr. Nayes explained that it consists of residents that discuss what can be done with trees within the community; he advised that having a Tree Board is one of the requirements of the City’ Tree City designation.
   
   Mayor Park asked what residents serve on the board. Mr. Nayes stated that he has asked Dick and Debbie Bancroft, Allen and Melissa Spaulding, Liz and Dan Lee and Tom and Michelle Schlehuber to serve as well as some other residents who are new to the community.
   
   Mr. Nayes advised that he had prepared an article for the upcoming newsletter relating to an insecticide option for Emerald Ash Borer that may be placed in the trunk of the tree or in the soil at the base of the tree; he explained he preferred placing the materials in the trunk of the tree since all residences in the City have wells.
   
   The Forester further explained that he had found a program for a grant application through the Tree Trust whereby the City could apply to receive 50 trees for $150; he indicated he will do further research on the matter.  
   
   Councilmember Conant asked if the Council would receive the research information that the Forester had been working on as referenced in the List of Bills.
   
   Mr. Nayes explained that the hours listed related primarily to research on the Invasive Species inventory and Emerald Ash Borer materials for the newsletter; he noted the documents would be sent to the Planning Commission for review and then to Council for consideration.
   
   Councilmember DeCourcy asked if Council should take action on the expenditure of $150 for the grant.
   
   Mr. Nayes responded that he would not need formal action until he completed the application process.            
   
   Council thanked the Forester for his report.
   
   
2. PUBLIC SAFETY: Chief Shaver reviewed the Public Safety report and explained that Officer Muellner was present to discuss the possible extension of time for the deer hunt.
   
   Councilmember DeCourcy questioned the number of 911 hang-up calls. Chief Shaver explained that the majority of these calls come from cell phones that use an antenna in this area; he indicated that most are probably driving along Highway 110 when the call occurs.
   
   Councilmember Conant commended the police department for their follow-up to the ice fishing situation on Sunfish Lake; he noted that the problem has been greatly reduced since the issuance of the permits. Chief Shaver explained that Officer Muellner has taken it upon himself to patrol the lake and check on the permits.
   
   Chief Shaver explained that Officer Muellner was present to report on the deer hunt progress.
   
   Officer Muellner stated the good news is that there have been no major conflicts with the deer hunt to date. He advised that only two (2) deer had been taken during the first week and this could be based on the fact that the hunters were only out two days during the week. He explained that the hunters suggested extending the time period by one more week since the DNR permit actually runs through March 15.
   
   Mayor Park asked if the City has an obligation to notify residents of the extension. Councilmember Williams pointed out that Officer Muellner and the deer hunters had contacted each of the surrounding neighbors to explained the hunting procedures.
   
   Officer Muellner stated that he had not received any negative comments regarding the hunting and that some neighbors offered to let the hunters come onto their land to hunt; he indicated that the neighbors could be contacted regarding the extension.
   
   Attorney Kuntz explained that this matter was presented to him earlier today and that he does not believe the permit from the DNR requires notice be given to the residents. He indicated there is some opportunity to distribute a notice prior to the extension if Council determines it is necessary.
   
   Councilmember Williams suggested a notice be placed on the website and pointed out that the extended time could be listed on the signage posted at the park access areas. He commented that the issue relates to keeping persons from entering the park and this could be accomplished with signs at the entrance areas.
   
   Councilmember DeCourcy noted that Spring Break starts in March and expressed concern regarding children not being in school. She indicated that she believes the deer have been scared away with the initial hunt.
   
   
   Officer Muellner pointed out that having the additional week may help since the deer may leave the bait alone after the initial hunt for a one week period and then return.
   
   Mayor Park asked if formal action must be taken. Attorney Kuntz advised that he had prepared a resolution and an addendum to the contract for Council consideration.
   
   Mayor Park asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
   
   Councilmember Williams moved to adopt Resolution No. 10-07 titled, RESOLUTION APPROVING ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF SUNFISH LAKE AND METRO BOWHUNTERS RESOURCE BASE, INC., extending the time period for the deer hunt, seconded by councilmember MacManus and carried.
   
   Ayes:   4 (Williams, MacManus, Conant, Park)
   Nayes: 1 (DeCourcy)
   
   Chief Shaver stated his staff would work with the bow hunters to insure property signage and notification to surrounding neighbors is provided.
   
   Council thanked Chief Shaver for his report.

8.   NEW/OTHER BUSINESS:

a.                      Consider Appointment of Alternate to Serve on the Watershed Board: Mayor Park stated that she asked James Sullivan to serve as the Alternate on the Watershed Board. She advised that Councilmember Williams serves as Chair of the Watershed Board. She asked Council to confirm the appointment of Mr. Sullivan.

Councilmember Williams explained that Mr. Sullivan is welcome to attend meetings at any time and stated he will provide Mr. Sullivan’s information for the email notification of the meetings.

Councilmember Conant moved to confirm the appointment of James Sullivan to serve as alternate on the Watershed Board as recommended by Mayor Park, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried.
(5-0)

b.                      Consider Resolution Authorizing Prepayment of Acorn Drive Bonds: Attorney Kuntz explained that he has been working with the Treasurer regarding prepayment with respect to the Acorn Drive Bonds. He stated that he and Treasurer Blair are recommending the following; 1. The City make a prepayment of the bonds in the amount of $55,000;  2. The City not make any tax levy in 2011 for the bonds; and 3. The City pay the 2011 Bond installment amount from whatever available special assessment funds and other monies that are in the bond account and that the difference be paid out of the City General Fund Reserve.

Treasurer Blair explained that the League of Minnesota Cities generally recommends that cities carry a reserve of between 35 to 50 percent of their operating budget measured at the time of the lowest cash point in the city. He noted that with the proposed prepayment of the bonds the forecasted reserve would be approximately 43% and he believes this would be a conservative amount to maintain the reserve funds.

Councilmember Conant questioned why the Treasurer would not recommend bringing the reserve to the minimum buffer; he commented that this appears to be too conservative and in his opinion the City could easily place an additional $10,000 into the payment.

Treasurer Blair stated that he would not be as concerned if an additional $10,000 were included and noted that the operating budget had been reduced due to the levy from Salem Church Road. He suggested that this matter be addressed during the budget discussions in August or September at which time the Council could consider paying the balance.
Mayor Park stated she would be more comfortable with the $55,000 payment now and further discussing the matter in September.

The Mayor asked if there were any further comments.

Treasurer Blair stated there would be a small amount of interest associated with the payment and indicated Council should authorize him to make the payment as part of the formal action.

Councilmember Conant moved adopt Resolution No. 10-08 titled, RESOLUTION authorizing partial prepayment of bonds relating to acorn drive public improvement in the amount of $55,000 as recommended by the Treasurer and authorize the Treasurer to make the payment on behalf of the City, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (5-0)

Miscellaneous: Mayor Park stated she wished to conduct a work session with Council and staff in April; she noted that she would not seek re-election for Mayor and that there are some issues she wished to discuss prior to the end of her term.  She asked if the Planning Commission would hold a meeting in April.

Planner Smith indicated that the deadline for applications for the April meeting is March 15; however, since she has not been approached by anyone she does not believe there will be a formal application for the meeting.

Mayor Park suggested the work session be held on April 21 at 7:00 p.m. and asked that Council check their schedules to determine if they are available on that date. She asked how much notice must be given for a special meeting.

Clerk Iago explained that three days formal notice is required; however, Council has sufficient time to schedule the work session at their April meeting.

The Mayor advised that she would be giving a State of the City address at the Dakota County Northern Service Center on Thursday this week along with the Mayors from the surrounding communities. She also reported that she would be attending the National League of Cities conference in Washington, D.C. next week.

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

9.   ADJOURN:           Councilmember Conant moved for adjournment at 9:05 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Williams and carried. (5-0)

Molly Park, Mayor                                                 Catherine Iago, City Clerk