SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 4, 2020

7:00 P.M. – ONLINE MEETING

Attendants:

Mayor:  Dan O’Leary

Councilmembers:  Mike Hovey, JoAnne Wahlstrom, and Shari Hansen

City Attorney:  Tim Kuntz

City Planner: Ryan Krzos

City Engineer:  Jeff Sandberg

City Treasurer:  Ann Lanoue

Building Inspector: Mike Andrejka
City Forester: Jim Nayes
Police Chief:  Brian Sturgeon

City Clerk:  Cathy Iago

     and Members of the General Public.

Councilmember Steven Bulach was absent

1.   CALL TO ORDER:  Mayor O’Leary called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  

2.  APPROVE AGENDA:  Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda.

Clerk Iago requested an additional item be placed under 8.e. Other, Consider Resolution and Agreement Between Dakota County and the City of Sunfish Lake for the CARE Grant funding.

Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any further additions or corrections and there was no response.  

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to adopt the agenda as amended to add the CARE Grant resolution under Item 8.e Other, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)

3.  CONSENT AGENDA:  Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda. He noted that there was only one False Alarm, however, the number was higher than last year at this time.  He also noted that there did not appear to be vehicles parked on Charlton Road.

Chief Sturgeon explained that the property owner had installed a new system and was unsure how to operate the alarm. He explained that there were no parking violations on Charlton Road, which may be due to the fact that he had conversations with several of the landscaping companies advising them of the “no parking” regulations.  He noted that he received one call regarding a vehicle parked on the road; he explained that it was a contractor who was meeting someone and that the vehicle was moved into the driveway of the person he was meeting.

Councilmember Hovey explained that there have been a few vehicles parked on the road but it is not consistent.

Mayor O’Leary suggested that Councilmember Hovey call the police if he witnesses vehicles parked on the roadway.

Chief Sturgeon stated he would have officers continue to make trips on the roadway.

Mayor O’Leary stated he received a call regarding tree removal activity at 2150 Charlton Road and asked if there had been building activity on this property. He asked if the property stays on the permit list until it is closed out by the Inspector.

Building Inspector Andrejka explained that there is new home construction at that location and has been for approximately a year.  He noted that the permit does not appear on his monthly report until it is finalized and then it would be listed as “closed”.  He explained that he is waiting to conduct a final inspection and that he does not issue a Certificate of Occupancy until the Planner advises him that all conditions of approval have been met.

Councilmember Hovey referred to the Police Report regarding the ten street racers and asked where this occurred.

Chief Sturgeon explained that the racers were on Highway 62 and I-494, heading eastbound on Delaware Avenue; he noted that they were gone when the police arrived.  He stated that most of the traffic incidents listed occurred in neighboring cities.

Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any further comments or questions and there was no response.         

Councilmember Hansen moved approval of the Consent Agenda as presented, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)

a.   Regular Council Meeting Minutes of July 7, 2020

b.   List of Bills

c.   Monthly Financial Statements

d.   Receive Building Inspector Report

e.   Receive Forester Report

f.    Receive Public Safety Report

4.  COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC:  The Mayor asked if there were any comments from the public.

Robert Reisberg, 343 Salem Church Road, explained that he contacted the Mayor and Council regarding the tree and vegetation removal and excavation that occurred adjacent to the shoreline on the property directly across the lake from his home.  He referred to the comments listed on the Sunfish Lake City website which express the fact that the City’s goal is to maintain the rural atmosphere of the community. He noted that he had been a resident for 40-years and that the City had always adhered to maintaining the natural environment of the community. He commented that the City is heavily wooded and that past officials were committed to preservation of the pristine character of the land. 

Mr. Reisberg explained that he searched the website to find the section of the City Code which outlined what type of vegetation removal would be allowed on lakeshore property and he was unable to locate the information; he noted that in searching the City Code it stated that the section on Lakeshore Management was deleted.  He stated it was his understanding that the City prohibited removal of trees that were a certain diameter in size. 

Mayor O’Leary stated that Mr. Reisberg had sent photos of the shoreline across from his home and he displayed the photos for those present.  He explained that Mr. Reisberg also advised that there was a bobcat that was used for the vegetation removal which left bare earth which was subject to erosion. 

The Mayor noted that he supports maintaining trees and vegetation for screening purposes and that he had planted 75 trees on his property when his home was constructed.   He further advised that the City Forester and Planner encourage removal of invasive species such as Buckthorn. He asked the Planner to address the issue of lakeshore management regulations.

Planner Krzos explained that the application for construction of the home at this location was approved prior to his tenure with the City.  He further advised that in 1995 the Shoreland Management Ordinance was repealed and updated and those regulations are now included in the Shoreland Overlay District regulations.  He noted that the current ordinance outlines limits for what alterations may be made to lakeshore property and that the ordinance requires vegetation be maintained within a distance of 200 ft. from the shoreline.

The Planner further advised that invasive species by practice had not been not classified as significant trees that must be maintained. As such, removal of noxious species, such as Buckthorn, is not considered to be prohibited. 

Forester Nayes stated that removal of invasive species do not require obtaining a permit and, therefore, could be removed from private property as residents deemed necessary.  He noted that there are “best practices” that should be followed and that he now recommends cutting the Buckthorn and treating the stumps to maintain soils.

Mayor O’Leary explained that the City Forester, Engineer and Planner met with the property owner.

Forester Nayes explained that he met with the contractor who was hired to do the work on this area of the property and he suggested it would be better to cut the Buckthorn and leave the stumps to maintain the soils due to the steep slope.  He stated that when he viewed the cuttings, he found that approximately 90 percent of the material removed were noxious Buckthorn and Honeysuckle.  He explained that he agreed it would be good to have erosion controls in place in case of rain.

Mayor O’Leary asked if the Engineer had discussed erosion control with the landscape contractor.

Engineer Sandberg stated that he appreciated Mr. Reisberg bringing this matter to the City’s attention.  He explained he met with the architect for the project last week but he was not advised that there would be doing landscape work of this nature.  He spoke with the landscape contractor today and advised them that they needed to place erosion control measures on the area immediately for at least a minimum 16-1/2 ft. natural buffer from the lakeshore.  He displayed a photo he received by email showing the area with silt fencing and hydroseeding installed and advised that he would contact the landscaper to tell them they need to also hydroseed the slope.  He commented that the contractor was very cooperative.

Mr. Reisberg pointed out that the erosion controls do not appear to be close to the lake and he indicated that the mulch, seed and fertilizer could be washed into the lake. He advised that the lake residents had recently incurred the expense of treating the lake and he expressed concern that chemicals may enter the lake through erosion.

Engineer Sandberg explained that the hydroseed emulsifies and adheres to the ground and that the silt fence should prohibit soils from entering the lake.

Mr. Reisberg asked if there should be a silt fence installed near the water adjacent to the shoreline and if sod should be installed to maintain the soils.

Engineer Sandberg explained that he would send a staff person to determine if silt fencing should be placed adjacent to the shoreline.  He noted that installing sod would require watering the area and maintaining the grass.

There was discussion related to the installation of Fescue grass.  Mayor O’Leary explained that he only maintains a small portion of his lawn and that he installed the Fescue grass to maintain a more natural appearance.  He suggested Mr. Reisberg stop by and view the area.
 

Engineer Sandberg explained that the erosion control would remain in place until such time as growth is established on the soil and that the landscaper would treat the remaining Buckthorn stumps.

Mr. Reisberg asked if the landscaper would use Round-Up to treat the stumps and noted that the chemicals in Round-Up could have a negative impact on the lake water.

Forester Nayes explained that the landscaper would most likely use Triclopyr to treat the stumps from the Buckthorn. He also advised that pesticides contained in Round-Up are poison and should be used according to the directions listed; he commented that only a small amount of the chemical would be used to treat the stumps.

Mr. Resiberg indicated that it may be more appropriate for the City to require a permit in the future if residents along the shoreline wish to remove invasive species.

Mayor O’Leary agreed that it would be inappropriate to see this occur again in the future. He suggested that the Planner be directed to research including language in the Shoreland Overlay District regulations that include the following:

1.  Leaving a buffer zone on the lakeshore, or, upon removal of invasive species in the buffer zone, erosion controls must be immediately installed, or sufficient good species must be immediately planted;

2.  That there be no use of bobcats, or other similar machinery within a certain distance, 50 or 100 ft., of the lakeshore without prior written approval from engineering and forestry staff; and,

3.  Any other recommendations that staff determines should be included.

Forester Nayes pointed out that in the past few years the City has held discussions relating to clear-cutting or removal in full of invasive species such as Buckthorn or Honeysuckle, however it is his opinion that these plants are not always bad and could be maintained in small clumps in some areas for screening.  He further indicated that it is his opinion that the regulations for obtaining a permit prior to removal of invasive species should not be imposed throughout the City, but definitely along the shorelines of the lakes.   

Mayor O’Leary suggested Council should adopt new regulations to eliminate the possibility of this type of vegetation removal occurring in the future.  He noted that every property on the lakeshores has an affect on the other properties as well as the lake itself. He noted that he would encourage Council to support inclusion of language which states that there would be no fee to obtain the permit or to have staff review the properties. He suggested that the City would have the ability to control and protect the lakeshores and could absorb the costs since it is his opinion that the City would benefit by maintaining lake water quality and the rural atmosphere of City.

Mr. Reisberg thanked everyone for such a quick response to his concerns.

Mayor O’Leary asked if Council had any comments or wished to add additional items for inclusion in the proposed permit process. He asked the City Attorney if the City could issue a permit without charging a fee and the Attorney responded yes.

Councilmember Wahlstrom commented that it appears the City is headed in the right direction to control this type of removal so it does not happen in the future.

Councilmember Hovey pointed out that this is not the proper procedure for conducting this discussion and that this item should have been placed on the regular agenda so that all residents were aware of the fact it would be discussed this evening.

Mayor O’Leary explained that he was not aware of that procedure and in the future he would place such items on the regular agenda.  He suggested that Council direct the Planner, Engineer, Forester and City Attorney to prepare a draft ordinance amendment relating to obtaining a permit for removal of invasive species along lakeshore properties within the City.

Councilmember Hansen asked if everyone in the City should be aware of this and if the City should inform them through the newsletter or website.

Attorney Kuntz explained that a public hearing would be held at the Planning Commission meeting to discuss the proposed ordinance and that notice would be published and  placed on the City website.  He indicated that a letter could be sent to all properties adjacent to the lakeshores.

Mayor O’Leary thanked Mr. Reisberg for bringing this matter to the attention of Council and staff. 

Sara Thompson, 335 Salem Church Road, asked what would be placed on the sloped area that was disturbed at that property.  She asked if this was a confirmed part of the original approval process for this property.

Mayor O’Leary suggested that the property owner may install the Fescue grass or other plants on the steep slope. and there was no response.  He explained that the initial application for the property did not address removal of invasive species, therefore, the City was not aware nor did it approve the removal of these plantings.  He advised that this is why Council has recommended an ordinance amendment to address this matter and to require a permit be obtained before removing invasive species near a lakeshore.

The Mayor asked if there were any other comments from the public and there was no response.

5.  PUBLIC HEARING/PRESENTATIONS:  None.

6.  PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT:  a.  Consider Conditional Use Permit, 2130 Charlton Road, Steve and Claire Noble:  Planner Krzos referred to his report dated July 29, 2020 and explained that the Planning Commission reviewed the request for a Conditional Use Permit to reduce the side yard setback for the property located at 2130 Charlton road to accommodate construction of a covered porch addition to the existing residence.   He stated that the proposed porch is located within the R-1 and Shoreland Overlay Zoning District and that the setback would be reduced from 50 ft. to 28 ft. to facilitate the covered porch. He advised that the existing residential structure encroaches on the required side yard in this area of the site; at its closest the existing structure is 27.3 ft. from the west property line.  He noted that the residence was built prior to the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance, therefore the encroachment is considered a legal non-conformity.  He stated that expansions to legal non-conforming structures are allowed provided the expansion complies with all Zoning requirements including side yard setbacks.  The Ordinance provides the ability to reduce the required side or rear yard by Conditional Use Permit provided certain conditions are met.  

The Planner displayed a photo of the proposed enclosed 3-season porch addition and stated that the architectural design and materials would match the existing residence. He stated that there is an existing buffer along the west property line that would screen the porch from the neighboring property. He advised that the neighbors were sent notice of the application and sent documentation that they have no concerns with the request. 

Mayor O’Leary asked who owned the property to the west.  Clerk Iago suggested it was the Crandall property.

Claire Noble, applicant, stated the property owners to the west were Hoyt and Kitzie Nye.

Planner Krzos stated that staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the conditions as listed in the proposed resolution.  He pointed out the supporting factors being the unique lot configuration and the fact that the existing home encroaches into the setback since it was constructed prior to the current regulations.

Mayor O’Leary commented that it appears the porch addition encroaches less into the setback than the current structure.

Planner Krzos explained that the request merely expands the existing structure but does not increase the encroachment.

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

Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt Resolution No. 20-11 titled, RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2130 CHARLTON ROAD, SUNFISH LAKE, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the conditions as listed, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried.

(4-0)
 

b.  Consider Major Site & Building Plan Review, Rear Setback Variance and Conditional Use Permit, 2400 Delaware Ave, Tom Flint, Alexander Design Group:  Planner Krzos referred to his report dated July 29, 2020 and explained the request is for a Major Site and Building Plan  review, rear setback variance and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to facilitate an addition to the existing single-family residence and to construct a second accessory structure on the property located at 2400 Delaware Avenue.

The Planner explained that the proposed project includes demolition of a portion of the existing residence and construction of the addition over an expanded basement. He noted the above-grade portions of the addition would be in compliance with the 50 ft. rear yard setback, however, the basement addition is proposed to encroach to a distance of 17-ft. from the rear property line. He stated that the above-ground addition would match the existing residence and adds a second story to this portion of the home. 

Planner Krzos explained that the basement addition would accommodate a sports court, however, since the addition is underground, the applicant was not able to apply for a CUP, as the previous application, to reduce the rear yard setback, since as defined by the ordinance  the area of the site must be above-ground. The applicant is therefore requesting a variance for the rear yard setback.

The Planner advised that building additions in excess of 1,000 sq. ft. are required to apply for a Major Site and Building Plan review. He further explained that the proposed detached garage would be considered a second accessory structure and requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit.  He noted that the proposed detached garage structure would match the existing garage is design and materials.

Planner Krzos explained that the landscape plan shows some tree removals and replacements on the east portion of the site for screening purposes. He pointed out that the home addition would not be visually different from the existing structure.

Mayor O’Leary asked if the landscaping would be placed above the basement area and the Planner responded yes.

The Planner advised that the adjacent neighbors were notified of the request and they submitted documentation stating they had no objections to the requests.   

Planner Krzos stated that staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the conditions as listed in the proposed resolution.

Mayor O’Leary referred to the proposed resolution and questioned the language in Condition 1 of the document which stated that “Construction of the proposed improvements shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented at the July 15, 2020 Planning Commission meeting.”  He expressed concern that the wording “substantial conformance” may cause issues in the future.

Planner Krzos explained that the wording is standardized and do allow for some changes to the plans if they are warranted.

Mayor O’Leary explained that based on the earlier discussion relating to Buckthorn removal near the lake, he would prefer to avoid any misinterpretation and he recommended removal of the word “substantial” from this condition in the resolution.  He noted that staff may still determine if a minor change is appropriate.

Councilmember Hovey questioned the location of the septic system on the property and asked if there would be any disturbance of the area where it is located.

The Planner showed the septic location on the site which is east of the pool area. He noted that this area would not be disturbed during construction.

Councilmember Hansen noted that part of the existing structure would be demolished and asked if there would be any attempt to recycle materials from the home prior to demolition.

Planner Krzos explained that staff was still working on compiling information on recycling materials prior to demolition and that the information had not yet been distributed with planning applications.

Thomas Flint, architect for the project, stated he would attempt to salvage as much of the brick from the structure as possible in order to reuse it on the new structure.  He explained that waste management companies have been taking as many items as they can for recycling when demolition occurs.

Mayor O’Leary asked if Council agreed to remove the word “substantial” from Condition 1 listed in the proposed resolution and Council concurred. He asked if there were any further questions or comments and there was no response.

Councilmember Hansen moved to adopt Resolution No. 20-12 titled, RESOLUTION APPROVING A MAJOR SITE AND BUILDING PLAN, VARIANCE, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2400 DELAWARE AVENUE, SUNFISH LAKE, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the conditions as amended to remove the word “substantial” from Condition 1 in the resolution, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)
 

c.  Planner’s Report:  Planner Krzos reviewed the following information listed in his report dated July 29, 2020 and stated that staff conducted a final site inspection for the dwelling and site improvements at 2150 Charlton Road. He advised some work remains to be completed.

The Planner stated that staff issued an incomplete application notice to the property owners at 1 Horseshoe Lane after they submitted an application to construct a swimming pool at that location.  He noted that the applicant was advised that the request would not be reviewed until all materials are submitted; this item should be heard by the Planning Commission in the near future.

Planner Krzos stated that staff worked with Pastor Jerry Brantham from Southside Baptist Church regarding the dynamic message signage proposal. This matter will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at their August 19 meeting. 

The Planner explained that staff received a request from 1 Sunfish Lane for an amendment to the Stormwater Management facilities and Water Use Permit request which will be presented to the Planning Commission at their August 19 meeting and will be placed on the September 1 Council meeting agenda.

Planner Krzos explained that the variance request from Southside Baptist Church would have a public hearing at the option of the Council and asked if Council would like to exercise that option. 

Councilmember Hansen stated she would prefer to hold the public hearing at the Council meeting.

The Planner explained that other actions had taken place with the public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting such as the 2400 Delaware variance for simplicity reasons since there were other actions included in the application.

Clerk Iago indicated that Council has the authority to direct the public hearing to be held by the Planning Commission.

Attorney Kuntz agreed that Council has the authority, however, to be straightforward it may be more appropriate to conduct the public hearing on the variance request at the Council meeting. 

Council concurred that the public hearing for the Southside Baptist Church variance request should be conducted at the Council meeting.  

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

Council thanked the Planner for his report.
 

7.  ENGINEER’S REPORT:  1. Engineering Activities Undertaken in July:     A.  Water Pumping Ordinance Task Force:  Engineer Sandberg stated that staff sent a letter to residents in the City whose property abuts a lake to advise them of the need to obtain a permit if they wish to pump water from the lake; he referred to a copy of the letter that was included in his report dated July 29, 2020.  He advised that water was still flowing from the Sunfish Lake outlet, however, if a dry spell occurs it may cause an issue with the lake level.

B.  2021 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP):  The engineer stated that the attached updated CIP document includes funding for road maintenance projects in 2021 including the reconstruction of Grieve Glen Lane, and overlay on Zehnder, Angell Road east and Sunnyside Lane.  He explained that the project did not go forward last year due to a calculation mistake in the Feasibility Report; he noted that the report would be corrected at no cost to the City and that staff would be presenting those projects for Council review in the future. He noted that staff would also work with Ehlers, the City bond counsel, to discuss bonding scenarios. 

Engineer Sandberg stated that the CIP contains proposed road maintenance projects over the next 5 years and that staff would be inspecting and rating all roads within the City in the spring of 2021.  He pointed out that staff included $46,000 for projects in 2021 and that it may be possible to move some minor projects, such as crack-sealing and seal-coating earlier in the 5-year schedule if funds are available. 
 

C.  2021 Annual City Engineer Budget:  This item was discussed at the Special Budget meeting held earlier this evening.

D.  Dakota County Draft Groundwater Management Plan:  Staff reviewed and provided comments on the draft plan as noted in the letter to Dakota County attached to the Engineer’s report.

2.  Building and Site review in the Month of July:  Staff conducted reviews for five properties in July:

270 Salem Church Road – Reviewed plan changes made during construction and continue to work with the applicant to ensure the property is ready prior to release of the Certificate of Occupancy;

1 Sunfish Lane – Reviewed a plan submission from the homeowners to change the grading and stormwater management on the site from what was previously approved.

1 Horseshoe Lane – Reviewed a submittal for an in-ground pool.

2400 Delaware Avenue – Reviewed the application for several additions/improvements to this property.

2150 Charlton Road – Staff performed a final inspection to ensure the property is ready for release of the Certificate of Occupancy.

Engineer Sandberg stated that either he or a member of his staff would visit the property at 2150 Charlton Road tomorrow to discuss the additional erosion control items that need to be installed and to advise the contractor that a plan must be submitted to show the placement of the erosion control items and show any additional plantings that are proposed for installation.

Mayor O’Leary asked that the Engineer ensure that documentation from the contractor is submitted in writing prior to the Certificate of Occupancy issuance for this property.

3.    Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of August:  A.  Clean out of Sump Manholes on Charlton Road:  Pursuant to the City’s obligation for annual maintenance, the Sump Manholes in Charlton Road were cleaned of sediment with a Vac-Truck.

Mayor O’Leary asked the cost to do the maintenance and the Engineer responded $500.00.

Engineer Sandberg explained that he examined the settling of the driveway apron at 2058 Chariton Road and that this was redone as part of the Carlton Road project. He noted that he also saw a few sections of curbing that have heaved and that he advised the contractor they need to be fixed as part of the warranty.  He stated that the contractor does not believe it was his responsibility and that he told the contractor that the warranty was good for one-year and the areas need to be fixed.  During this conversation the contractor explained that it was his opinion that the cause of the heaving was due to excessive runoff coming down the driveway and getting in to the road base and the contractor did the work as specified in the plans. 

The contractor noted that the driveway area is a steep slope which allows water to get under the road base and that the frost and freeze of the water creates the condition at the driveway.  Engineer Sandberg advised that during the discussion, he pointed out that the City would be ordering other road improvements and that it would be beneficial for the contractor to contribute to the repair costs so that the City would be more amenable to hiring them in the future.  After this discussion, the contractor agreed to contribute to the repair costs estimated at approximately $7,500.  Engineer Sandberg advised that he would keep Council informed regarding this matter.

Mayor O’Leary commented that it is not the property owner’s fault that this occurred and that there was no way to predict this would happen. He agreed that the contractor should contribute to the costs, although the City most likely would pay the majority of the repair as the city has an obligation to correct the problem.

Engineer Sandberg pointed out that the project came in under what was expected and that remaining funds could be applied to the repairs. He also noted that the contractor did a good job on the project and that he advised them that their contribution would place them in a favorable position with the City.

Councilmember Hovey asked if the contractor would correct the settling behind the curbing along the roadway.

Engineer Sandberg responded that the contractor had agreed to correct that problem.

4.   Anticipated Engineering and Public Works Activities for August:   A. Staff will continue to finalize the 2021 5-year Capital Improvement Plan and Engineer’s Budget for Council approval at a future meeting.

Council thanked the Engineer for his report.

8.  NEW/OTHER BUSINESS:  a. Discuss Proposed 2021 Budget and Tax Levy:  Mayor O’Leary referred to the memo from Attorney Kuntz dated July 28, 2020 regarding the Annual taxation Notification Procedures and Deadlines for Taxes Payable in 2021.  He asked Treasurer Lanoue to review the proposed 2021 Budget and Tax Levy she presented at the Special meeting held earlier this evening.  

Treasurer Lanoue explained that the City conducted a Special meeting earlier this evening to discuss the proposed 2021 City Budget and Tax Levy.  She stated that the City must adopt a Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy and certify both to Dakota County in September. She advised that the City must hold a public meeting to discuss these items in December prior to adopting the final budget and tax levy documents.  She pointed out that the City has the ability to reduce both amounts at their December meeting, however, the City cannot increase the amounts once the preliminary figures are adopted.

The Treasurer advised that there were no significant cost increases submitted by staff and that the levy for Debt Service would be considerably less than last year’s budget.  She also noted that there would be no election next year, which would also reduce that budget item.  She advised that the City Clerk asked for an additional $500 to purchase shelving for files that were transferred from the previous planning firm to the City’s new planning firm; the costs for the new planner increased $6,000; the Police Department costs increased only one-percent and the Fire Department preliminary budget cost decreased from this year.  She indicated that the Mendota Heights City Council had not yet approved the Fire Department budget and, therefore, the Fire Department request may change prior to Council adoption of the preliminary budget document in September. 

Treasurer Lanoue stated that Council determined it would be appropriate to maintain the same Tax Levy rate as presented in 2020 and explained that Council suggested the additional funds be placed in the General Fund for possible future use on road maintenance projects.  She offered to respond to questions.

Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any further comments or questions and there was no response.

b. Preliminary Discussion of Lease Agreement with St. Anne’s Church: Mayor O’Leary asked if Councilmember Hovey had met with the Church to discuss a reimbursement to the City regarding the lease agreement due to the fact that no meetings have been held at the church due to the COVID virus. 

Attorney Kuntz stated that he had sent a copy of the current lease agreement to Council for their review.  He explained that the City had previously negotiated a 5-year lease with the church beginning in 2016 and that the lease expires at the end of this year.  He noted that the rent started at $220 per month in 2016 and increased each year; the current cost per month is $350.  He suggested that upcoming negotiations should be straightforward and that changes to the contract should include the dates of the lease and the rental amount.  He noted that Council should provide staff direction regarding these items for discussion at upcoming lease negotiations. 

Councilmember Hovey explained that he had sent emails to church representatives, but had not yet met with church officials to discuss the matter. He stated that he proposes to hold discussion of the matter this month relating to whether or not the church would be willing to provide a rebate to the City for the rental fees since the City is unable to use the facilities for meetings. He further suggested he would discuss what the church proposes for upcoming rental costs and if they would be amenable to another 5-year lease. 

Councilmember Hansen commented that the rental increases appear to be high each year.

Treasurer Lanoue explained that during the 2016 discussions, the church representatives presented higher rental costs and that staff had negotiated the $25 per month per year increase for the term of the lease.

Mayor O’Leary pointed out that if the COVID virus becomes more substantial in 2021, the City may not be able to meet in person at the church facilities. He also noted that the City may be able to contact other churches within the city to ask if they have space available for meetings.

Clerk Iago pointed out that the church is also used for the Planning Commission meetings and the elections.

There was a brief discussion relating to any other facilities within the City or businesses close to the City that maybe available for meeting space.

Councilmember Hovey suggested the Mayor contact the pastors at the other churches in the City to determine if they have facilities available that would accommodate the city meetings and elections and ask  what the cost would be  to rent their facilities.

Mayor O’Leary suggested the City Attorney review the current lease agreement and determine if the City should add any language relating to reduction of costs of elimination of costs for rental if the City is unable to meet due to the pandemic regulations. 

Mayor O’Leary asked the Clerk to email him the names of the churches within the City and their pastors, if that information is available, so that he could contact them regarding possible rental of their facilities. 

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

c. Consider Resolution Adopting 2040 Sunfish Lake Comprehensive Plan Update:   Clerk Iago explained that Planner Nate Sparks from Northwest Associated Consultants had contacted her with the final draft of the 2040 Sunfish Lake Comprehensive Plan and advised that the Council must adopt the final version by resolution in order to submit the document to the Metropolitan Council for its final approval.  She explained that once the resolution is adopted by Council, she would forward the document to Planner Sparks for submission to the Met Council.  She noted that Planner Sparks also agreed that his firm would provide the City with hard copies of the document and also send the City the document in Word format so that additional copies may be made as needed.   She further noted that Planner Sparks had discussed providing suggestions for placing the document on the City website and offered to assist staff if necessary.  

The Clerk further explained that this should be the final step in the process for adopting the 2040 Comp Plan and should also finalize the duties of the former planning consulting firm.  She recommended Council adopt the resolution as presented and direct the clerk to forward a copy to Planner Sparks for submission to the Met Council.

Mayor O’Leary asked there were any questions or comments and there was no response.

Mayor O’Leary moved to adopt Resolution No. 20-13 titled A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2040 SUNFISH LAKE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, A COMPILATION OF POLICY STATEMENTS, GOALS, STANDARDS, AND MAPS FOR GUIDING THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY and to direct the Clerk to forward a copy of the resolution to Planner Sparks for submission to the Met Council, seconded by Councilmember Hansen and carried. (4-0)

d. Other:  Consider Resolution and Agreement with Dakota County for CARES Grant Funds:   Clerk Iago explained that Dakota County prepared a grant application for cities to obtain Federal funds through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) and prepared a resolution for Sunfish Lake to adopt in order to receive the funds.  She stated that the City would receive $584.48 in grant monies to assist with COVID related expenses for the upcoming Primary election.  She noted that the City is required to match 20% of the grant funds for the election; approximately $116.00.  She indicated that the funds could be used to supplement the costs for the election judges’ salaries.  She recommended that Council adopt the resolution as presented.

Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any questions or comments and there was no response.

Mayor O’Leary moved to adopt Resolution No. 20-14 title RESOLUTION IN ABSENCE OF AN AGREEMENT FOR CARES ACT GRANT FUNDING, seconded by Councilmember Hansen and carried. (4-0)

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

9.  ADJOURN:   Mayor O’Leary moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
 

____________________________                                 ________________________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk                                                  Dan O’Leary, Mayor