SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 7, 2020

7:00 P.M. – ONLINE MEETING

 

Attendants:

Mayor:  Dan O’Leary

Councilmembers:  Mike Hovey, JoAnne Wahlstrom, Steven Bulach 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.

 

1.   CALL TO ORDER:  Mayor O’Leary called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  He asked if anyone present knew of any residents who need assistance during this pandemic and there was no response.

The Mayor commented that he wished to recognize all the residents who strive to make the City a better place to live and thanked all the citizens he has seen while out walking who greeted everyone while maintaining “social distancing”. 

Mayor O’Leary also invited residents to view the gardens at his home at 10 Windy Hill Road. He noted that his wife is a Master Gardener and has spent a great deal of time to create a beautiful landscape that they are proud to share.

2.  APPROVE AGENDA:  Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda and there was no response.  He explained that he had an email from resident Liz Lee regarding an issue with mail thefts and that he had asked her to attend the meeting to raise this matter under Public Comments; he stated that he would advise Council of her concerns if she does not attend the meeting.

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to adopt the agenda as presented, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)

3.  CONSENT AGENDA:  Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda.

Councilmember Hovey asked if the City would continue to pay the $350 per month rental fee to St. Anne’s Church since the City is unable to use the facilities for meetings.

Treasurer Lanoue stated she continued to pay the fee as part of the lease agreement and suggested that it would be appropriate for a City representative to discuss this matter with a representative from the church. She pointed out the church is unable to use the facilities due to the State mandates relating to COVID-19. She noted that the church diocese will not allow the church to conduct masses due to the pandemic regulations.

Mayor O’Leary asked Councilmember Hovey if he would be willing to contact the church to discuss either placing the payments on hold until the City is able to use the facilities or some reduction of the fee.

Clerk Iago noted that the City had designated the church facilities as the polling location to conduct both the August Primary and the November General Elections, and that it should be made clear that the City is still planning to use the facilities for those events. She offered to contact the church to verify that the City would still be able to use the space for the elections and would follow the State mandated regulations relating to COVID-19.

Mayor O’Leary indicated that the City could still pay the fee for those months and asked that the Clerk contact the church to verify the election use and let Councilmember Hovey know the response.

The Mayor pointed out that the False Alarm calls are just slightly above the 2019 calls for the same time period as last year; he asked that all residents be diligent with the alarms in order to keep the numbers low. He also thanked the Chief for submitting a more extensive Police Report and asked for a bit more detail relating to the three (3) gunshots fired in the “Suspicious Activities” section of the report and if residents should be concerned.

Chief Sturgeon explained that the officers responded to the call but could not find any evidence and could not locate where the gunshots came from.  He indicated that at this time of year his staff responds to this type of call and most incidents are related to fireworks, not actual gunshots.  He commented that residents need not be concerned at this time.

Councilmember Hansen noted the extra patrols on Charlton Road and asked if the 23 stops involved lawn maintenance vehicles.

Chief Sturgeon explained that there were most likely more than 23 extra patrols when officers were patrolling on Charlton Road but that 23 were documented. He advised that one (1) lawn service vehicle was contacted and advised there was no parking on the street and one (1) contractor was contacted regarding parking on the roadway.  He also noted that one landscape vehicle owner explained that he was unable to park in the church parking lot as it was too far to move his equipment from there to the property where he was scheduled to do lawn maintenance.  Chief Sturgeon noted that his officers spent time educating the landscaping maintenance operators while they were conducting the extra patrols.

Mayor O’Leary thanked the Chief and officers for the extra time spent to “get the word out” regarding no parking on the road. 

Councilmembers Hovey and Hansen asked the Chief to explain some acronyms in his report. 

Chief Sturgeon explained what the initials meant and advised that he would ask that they not be used in future reports.

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

Councilmember Hovey moved approval of the Consent Agenda as presented, seconded by Councilmember Hansen and carried. (5-0)

a.   Regular Council Meeting Minutes of June 2, 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 and there was no response. 

Mayor O’Leary explained that he received an email from Liz Lee regarding a rash of mail thefts on Salem Church Road and stated that she knew of at least four (4) in the last few months where the entire bank of mailboxes had been opened and emptied. She also advised that most residents have locked mail boxes, however, even some of the locked boxes were pried open. He further explained that he had discussed the matter with Chief Sturgeon who advised that the police had received a call from Robert Reisberg regarding broken locks on mailboxes on Salem Church Road and explained that Officer Sean Melville would contact both Ms. Lee and Mr. Reisberg regarding this matter. He stated that the Chief explained that it is critical for everyone to notify the police each time there is a mailbox theft attempt so that there is a record of it.  The police would then have a chance at determining a pattern and taking some enforcement action. 

 

The Mayor also explained to Liz that Council receives a police incident report every month and that there were no prior complaints of mailbox theft, so neither the police nor the Council were aware that it was occurring in Sunfish Lake. He noted that there was an article on “Mail Theft” that was previously posted on the City website and he suggested that the Chief forward the article to Councilmember Hovey so that it could be posted again.  He asked if the Police Chief had any comments.

 

Chief Sturgeon indicated that mailbox theft across the United States had gone up significantly as a result of the government stimulus checks being sent out over the last several months. He stated that he had posted an article in the Spring on the City’s website warning of that possibility and giving 8 excellent tips on how citizens can protect themselves from mail theft and that he would send the article to Councilmember Hovey for posting. He noted that if residents report the thefts he is able to send this information to the US Postal Inspectors so that they can also look into the matter.

 

Mayor O’Leary noted that the Police Department indicated they have some camera equipment that could be set up to view the mailboxes.

 

Chief Sturgeon explained that West St. Paul only has two cameras capable of the type of surveillance that would be necessary to identify the perpetrator and that is why it is so important to report the theft.  He noted that if other thefts are reported, he would utilize the cameras to monitor the area and contact the US Postal Service to ask for assistance. 

The Mayor stated he would inform Liz Lee of the discussion and advise her that information will be placed on the City website regarding tips for protection from mail thefts.

Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any further comments from the public and there was no response.

5.  PUBLIC HEARING/PRESENTATIONS:  None

 

6.  PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT:  a.  Consider Resolution Approving Major Site and Building Plan Review and Conditional Use Permits, 39 Windy Hill Road, Applicant Joe Crowley, Henke Property:  Planner Krzos referred to his report dated June 30, 2020 regarding the application for a Major Site and Building Plan Review and Two (2) Conditional Use Permits for property located at 39 Windy Hill Road by applicant Joe Crowley, Streeter Homes, for property owner Amanda Henke. He explained that the applicant proposes to construct a new residence on the vacant lot and that the request includes approval of two (2) conditional use permits (CUP’s) to allow for:

 

1)  Development of a legal, non-conforming, vacant, substandard sized lot of record for single family detached uses, and;

2)  A Low-profile structure between the principal building and the lakeshore within the Shoreland Overlay District.

 

The Planner advised that the property is zoned R-1 Single Family and is located in the Shoreland Overlay District.

Mayor O’Leary asked if the portion of the plat that is in the lake was needed to meet regulations.

Planner Krzos explained that the lot was platted in the 1980’s and that the current Ordinance regulations. He explained that due to the portion of the property that is in the lake and the steep slopes on the parcel, the property does not meet the current 2.5-acre requirement but that it is a legal non-conforming lot of record.

The Planner explained that the proposed 8 x 18 sq. ft. patio located on the northwest portion of the structure is located between the principal building and the lakeshore, therefore a CUP is required.  He advised that access is provided from a private driveway and that easements have been granted for access to the site.  He further advised that the request meets the required setbacks for a legal non-conforming lot with approval of the CUP and all other applicable requirements.

Planner Krzos displayed photos of the building elevations and noted that the Nordic design of the front columns was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. He stated that the exterior building materials also meet code requirements. He noted that the landscape plan shows removal of sixty-seven (67) trees and that 38 new trees would be installed. The new trees include Norway Pine, Spruce, White Pine and Quaking Aspen.

Mayor O’Leary asked if the City Forester had approved the landscape plan.

Planner Krzos responded yes and explained that the Forester noted many of the trees were “scrub” trees, such as Boxelder and Ash trees.

Forester Nayes stated that he found a few dead Elm trees and a high population of Ash trees that would not survive Emerald Ash Borer. He also noted the property contained Buckthorn and a few nice trees.

Engineer Sandberg wanted to be sure that the applicant was aware that tree replacement must be of a certain size.  He explained that he went to another recent home construction project with the Planner and the Forester to visit the site and indicated that in that case the applicant was unaware of the fact that the ordinance requires a certain size tree dimension for replacement trees, and had planted smaller trees than would be allowed and had to replant with larger trees.

 

Forester Nayes advised that evergreens must be at least 6 ft. tall and hardwood trees must have at least a 2-inch trunk caliper.  Planner Krzos explained that the applicant proposed trees on the landscape plan meeting the minimum sizes.

 

Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Major Site and Building Plan and two (2) Conditional Use Permits based on the Findings of Fact as listed in the Planner’s Report dated June 30, 2020 and subject to the eight (8) conditions as listed in the proposed resolution.  The Planner offered to respond to questions.

 Councilmember Hovey asked if the drain fields were located on the east side of the lot and the Planner responded yes.

Councilmember Hovey asked who has ownership of the easement for access and who is responsible to maintain the driveway access.

Planner Krzos explained that the easement is located within an Outlot and that easements were granted to the four (4) property owners that are benefitted with access to their property. He stated that the property owners would be responsible for maintenance of the road and driveways.

Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any questions or comments from those present.

Amanda Henke, owner of the property at 39 Windy Hill Road, stated she is excited to live in the City. She explained she currently lives in St. Paul and is originally from Ottertail, MN.  She advised that she grew up on a lake and is looking forward to living on the lake and enjoying the small-town atmosphere in Sunfish Lake.

 

Mayor O’Leary welcomed Ms. Henke to the City. He asked the Planner to review the conditions listed in the resolution.

Councilmember Hovey asked when construction would be completed.

Planner Krzos advised that once the request is approved and the building permit is issued, the permit is valid for one year as long as progress is being made at the site.

Councilmember Bulach asked when construction would begin.

Joe Crowley, applicant from Streeter Homes, thanked Council and staff for their assistance with the request. He explained that it is his intention to obtain the building permit once the request is approved and to start construction by the end of July.

 

Attorney Kuntz suggested that the Planner add a “Whereas” clause in the proposed resolution that includes the description of the two Conditional Use Permits as shown this evening for future reference.  The Planner agreed to do so.

Building Inspector Andrejka questioned if the Planner has to draft a letter to staff that outlines the final approval prior to him issuing a building permit. 

Planner Krzos stated he would send the Building Inspector a letter that includes the conditions of approval and any other documentation.

 

Inspector Andrejka suggested that the applicant submit two (2) sets of plans and a survey of the property along with the approval so that he is aware of exactly what was approved and to resolve any future issues that may arise at the site.  He asked if the contractor understood this request.

Joe Crowley, applicant from Streeter Homes, stated he has no problem with submitting the plans and that he understands the request.

Mayor O’Leary agreed that it would be appropriate for staff to coordinate all the information and approvals to eliminate complaints from contractors or the resident in the future.

Planner Krzos agreed that it may be confusing for applicants that have two places to send building permit applications to as certain building permit requests would not have to go through the planner.
Inspector Andrejka explained that there have been issues relating to whether or not some requests should include an application for review by the Planning Commission, such as replacement of an egress window. He also noted that the Planner had approved a request and then the builder had submitted different plans.  He suggested that no building permit request should be reviewed by him until all the approvals have been received and the Planner sends him the final approval documentation. He commented that other cities do not issue a building permit until everything related to the request had been approved.

 

Planner Krzos stated he would send the final approvals and conditions and all other documentation to the Building Inspector to avoid any future confusion on approved applications and also discuss with the Inspector which requests require Planning Commission and Council approval versus only staff approval prior to issuance of a permit.

 

Amanda Henke thanked Council and staff for their work on this matter.

 

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

 

Councilmember Bulach moved to adopt Resolution No. 20-09 titled RESOLUTION APPROVING A MAJOR SITE AND BUILDING PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 39 WINDY HILL ROAD, SUNFISH LAKE, DAOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, as amended to include an additional paragraph outlining the conditional use permits and based on the findings of fact listed in the Planner’s report dated June 30, 2020 and subject to the eight (8) conditions as listed in the resolution, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)
 

b.  Planner’s Report:  Planner Krzos reviewed the following information listed in his report dated July 1, 2020.  He explained that the City Code requires issuance of an Interim Use Permit for pumping of any natural bodies of water and that the regulation had been in place since 1989.  He explained that the regulation was established on the basis that water pumping was not considered to be an activity that residents routinely or regularly engaged in.

The Planner explained the process for the Interim Use Permit review and approval follows the requirements for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which involves a public notice, a public hearing at the Planning Commission and review and action by the City Council.

Mayor O’Leary explained that in his opinion the notification and public notice should be sent to all property owners on the lake and not just those within a 100 ft. radius of the subject property. 

Planner Krzos stated that staff agreed and that was one of the questions Council would be asked to consider as an amendment to the current regulations.  He reviewed the eight (8) criteria listed in his report to consider for approval of such a request and also the detailed written and graphic material that fully explain the proposed use.  He noted that if the City determines the application meets the requirements of the ordinance, generally the City must grant it. Conversely, if the City is to deny an application, rationale for the denial must relate to a finding that the request fails to meet standards established in the ordinance. 

 

Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any permits issued prior to 1989.

Planner Krzos responded that the property owner would have to substantiate if a permit was issued and, as noted in the ordinance, any permit existing prior to the ordnance adoption would be grandfathered in.

 

Mayor O’Leary asked the City Attorney if the approval would remain with the property if it was sold.

Attorney Kuntz explained that any permits issued prior to 1989 may be reflected in the Council minutes when the ordinance was adopted and if a permit was grandfathered in by the ordinance, it would remain with the property.  He further explained that any permits issued prior to 1989 or grandfathered in may have been eliminated due to non-use of the permit.  He commented that he did not recall this permit being heavily used or requested.

 

Planner Krzos stated that several new homes have recently been constructed around the lakes and there was been a number of inquiries over irrigating lawns from the lake.  He noted that over the last 10 years or so, we have been in a wet cycle and water levels have been generally high. In wet years pumping from the lakes may not be noticeable, but in dry years it could become a problem and have a negative effect on the lake and surrounding properties.
The Planner suggested that it may be appropriate for staff to prepare educational information for distribution to residents and further discuss development of revisions to the current ordinance. He asked if Council supported the following items:

 

 1) Include an amendment in the current ordinance which requires notification be sent to all residents with lake frontage when an application is received;

2) Staff review criteria and determine potential language that supports denial of a request so that all applications are not “rubber stamped” for approval, and;

3) Follow the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regulations for lake pumping.

 

Engineer Sandberg explained that he collaborated with the Planner on the memo provided and had also mentioned the pumping permit issue in his report. He suggested that a news article be placed on the City website and that staff send a letter to all lake residents which outlines the permit process. He commented that he was unaware of the permit requirement until 6 weeks ago and that it is possible many of the residents are also unaware of the requirement.  He agreed that it could become an issue if several of the residents on the lake are pumping.

 

Mayor O’Leary referred to Item 3 on page 2 of the Planner’s report that questions whether or not the City should regulate the water pumping or if it would be better to have a full-time professional from the DNR oversee the process through their water appropriations permit program. He askd staff what that would involve.

Engineer Sandberg explained that he would work with the Planner and City Attorney to review the current process and provide any suggestions for amendments to the current ordinance.  He pointed out that the DNR permitting process threshold relates to pumping 10,000 gallons of water per day and that it may not be appropriate for smaller lakes.

There was discussion regarding whether or not the DNR permit process would apply to Sunfish Lake and if it would be more appropriate for the City to monitor the permit process. 

After a brief discussion, Council concurred that staff should review the current permit process, research the DNR permit process and provide a recommendation for any amendments to the current ordinance.  Council further concurred that a letter should be sent to all property owners abutting the lakes to advise them that pumping is not allowed without a permit and explain the process for obtaining a permit.

Councilmember Hovey asked if the permits would be issued on a yearly basis and if residents would have to reapply each year.

Planner Krzos explained that usually the permit remains in place as long as there is activity, however, the City would have the authority to attach an expiration date.

Councilmember Hovey commented that he was unsure what would happen in a dry year if several residents seek permits for pumping and he preferred the City be responsible for making that decision rather than the DNR.

In discussion, Council concurred that they would support issuing the pumping permit on a yearly basis.

Attorney Kuntz explained that in the past the main concern from residents was the fact that if the permit was not used, it would expire and they would have to go through the process again.

Mayor O’Leary stated that is a valid concern, however, he noted that residents who do not live on the lakes use their wells for irrigation purposes.

Councilmember Bulach questioned why pumping from the lake is allowed when residents can use their wells.

Councilmember Hovey pointed out that it is easier to run a high volume of water through the pumping process versus through the well.

The Mayor suggested that it may be possible to shorten the process for reapplication once a permit was initially issued for a property, however, he still supports permitting on an annual basis.

Councilmember Hansen suggested that a clause be inserted in the ordinance that requires all permits to be submitted by May 31 each year so that the City would know how many residents wished to apply each year. She commented that maybe the City could limit the number of permits issued each year.

Councilmember Hovey questioned if there would be regulations relating to new construction.

Mayor O’Leary suggested it would be possible to make a May 31^st deadline exception for new construction.

Councilmember Bulach indicated that if the lake level is high in the spring, the City could issue the permits but allow for a cut-off if the lake level drops below the high-water mark.

Council concurred that Councilmember Bulach’s suggestion should be included in the ordinance.

Mayor O’Leary suggested that Councilmember Hovey work with staff to draft the proposed regulations for inclusion in the ordinance and Councilmember Hovey agreed to do so.

Planner Krzos thanked Council for their input on this matter.

Planner Krzos referred to the signage request from Pastor Jerry Brantham from South Side Baptist Church for construction of a Dynamic Sign on the property.  He noted that this item was placed on hold in March due to the pandemic and the fact that a public hearing could not be held in person relating to an ordinance amendment.  He stated that Mayor O’Leary had provided direction to staff to process such requests for installation of Dynamic Signs if the application met all the proposed requirements that were contained in the ordinance. 

The Planner explained that Pastor Brantham had submitted an application for installation of a Dynamic Sign, however, the request included a variance for the sign setback.  He advised that the request was to reduce the front setback from 50-feet to 25-feet and staff concluded that without an adopted ordinance, this request was outside the direction provided to staff by Council.  He stated that staff is seeking direction with regard to either a time frame to process the sign ordinance amendment or if the variance may be processed by staff without an adopted ordinance.   

 

Mayor O’Leary explained that the request for Dynamic Sign inclusion in the ordinance occurred during the transition between the new and old planning staff and that it was his opinion the request was delayed due to the fact the staff transition was happening.  He suggested that staff be able to process this request and then hold the public hearing when the COVID-19 regulations allow for larger groups to meet.

Councilmember Hovey asked if this would then be grandfathered in so that the City  would be unable to change the approval if the ordinance changes prior to its formal adoption.

Councilmember Hansen stated she recalled that staff was directed to approve the new signage if the applicant was placing the new sign in the same location and it met the regulations for setbacks.

Councilmember Wahlstrom asked if this would set a precedent for other setback variances if approved.

Planner Krzos stated that each variance request is considered based on the location, site and its unique circumstances at the location where it is installed.  He explained that staff would do a thorough review of the site and its impact on surrounding properties and that the approval would not be automatically granted.

Councilmember Hovey asked if the sign dimensions would meet the proposed requirements in the ordinance and the Planner responded yes.

After a brief discussion, Council agreed to allow staff to proceed with processing the application for a variance for the Dynamic Sign installation at South Side Baptist Church.  The Mayor asked staff to contact Pastor Brantham to advise him of the Council decision.

Planner Krzos stated that staff approved a Minor Site and Building Plan review for replacement of an existing accessory building at 1 Sunfish Lane. Staff also reviewed a Minor Site and Building Plan for replacement of an existing accessory building and roof overhang for property at 2 Sunfish Lane and approval is currently pending.

The Planner advised that staff conducted a Final Site Inspection at 270 Salem Church Road. 

 

Staff also conducted two pre-application site visits.  The property at 2130 Charlton Road is seeking a CUP for a reduced side yard requirement to facilitate construction of a covered porch addition.  The property at 2400 Delaware Avenue is considering the construction of a building addition exceeding 1,000 sq. ft.  This requires a Major Site and Building Plan review and includes a Variance request to reduce the rear setback and a CUP to allow a second accessory structure on the site. These requests will be heard at the July Planning meeting.

Attorney Kuntz questioned why the request at 2130 Charlton Road would be a CUP for a reduced side yard requirement and not a variance request.

Planner Krzos explained that there is an ordinance that allows for the CUP application for a reduced side yard requirement versus a variance application.

Council thanked the Planner for his report.
 

7.  ENGINEER’S REPORT:  1. Engineering Activities Undertaken in June:     A.  Water Pumping Ordinance:  This item was discussed under the Planner’s report. Staff included information in the City newsletter and also posted the information on the City website.  Staff will prepare a letter to send to lakeshore residents with information about the permitting process.  Enforcement will follow the education initiative. 

 

B.  2021 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP):   Staff updated the proposed CIP for 2021.  Engineer Sandberg explained that as a result of the 2018 Pavement Condition Report, three (3) roads are scheduled for the 2021 Crack Seal and Seal Coat project: Acorn Drive, Roanoke Road and Angell Road west.  Staff also recommends consideration for a 2-inch overlay in 2021 on Zehnder Road, Angell Road east and Sunnyside Lane.  It is further recommended that a Full Depth Reclamation should be undertaken on Grieve Glen Road as the City has spent considerable funds for maintenance of this road the last few years. 

The Engineer explained that he had discussions with the City of Inver Grove Heights regarding their future plans for 60^th Street and they advise they do not have funds programmed for any improvements on 60^th Street in the near future. He further advised that only two (2) properties are served on Upper 55^th Street and one had been vacant for several years.  He noted that it is not economically feasible to do a full reconstruction of this cul-de-sac road. 

Engineer Sandberg stated that Inver Grove Heights advised that MnDOT is considering a future interchange at Argenta and I-494 and the concepts show 60^th Street potentially being connected to serve as a frontage road.  He commented that the timeline for this is at least 7 to 10 years out, therefore, staff recommends working with Inver Grove Heights on patching 60^th Street as necessary. 

The Engineer explained that the three (3) roads identified for the 2-inch overlay would be assessable per the City’s adopted Assessment Policy.  He stated that he would review the feasibility studies previously prepared for these improvements and outline available funding options.  He further stated that the reconstruction of Grieve Glen would also require a feasibility study and is an assessable project.

Engineer Sandberg stated that staff has conducted a review of all of the roadways within the City every three years and used the information to prepare the Pavement Condition Report; the last report was completed in 2018. Staff recommends that a Pavement Condition Report be completed in 2021 and the cost for the project was included in the proposed Engineering Annual Budget for 2021.

Mayor O’Leary asked the Engineer and City Treasurer if they could identify any economic impacts with the upcoming budget due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  He asked the Engineer if he had seen any increase in construction costs.

Treasurer Lanoue explained that she did not foresee any issues at this time and that tax collections were going well.

 

Engineer Sandberg stated he had not seen any substantial increase in construction or materials costs at this time.  He asked if the City was aware of the fact that there are funds available to Sunfish Lake to assist with the impact of COVID-19 on the City budget.  He offered to circulate the information to Council and staff.

Treasurer Lanoue advised that she was aware of the fact that funds are available, however, the City would have to document expenditures related to the virus; in her opinion the City had not used funds for that purpose.

Clerk Iago noted that she had seen the information relating to the funding and that she agreed the City would be unable to provide documentation to support receiving the funds.

 

C.  2021 Annual City Engineer Budget:  Engineer Sandberg referred to Attachment 1C in his report which outlined the proposed 2021 Engineering Budget items to be discussed at the August Special Council meeting.  He explained that the costs associated with the proposed 2021 road improvements were listed in this document. He commented that the Pavement Management Report in in the budget and is planned to be conducted in the spring of 2021.

 

2.  Building and Site review in the Month of June:  Staff conducted seven (7) property reviews in June:

 

270 Salem Church Road:  Final walk-through to ensure the project was built in accordance with the approved plans.

39 Windy Hill Road:  Site visit for new home construction on a vacant lot.

2130 Charlton Road:  Reviewed submittal for porch addition.

1 Sunfish Lane:  Staff has been working with the homeowner on plans to change the grading and stormwater management on the site from what was previously approved. A formal application has not yet been submitted.

357 Salem Church Road:  Staff reviewed and approved minor changes to the stormwater management for the project.

2400 Delaware Ave:  Staff reviewed the application for several additional improvements to this property.

8 Sunfish Lane:  Staff reviewed a submittal for a CUP for an accessory building.

 

3.    Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of July:  A.  Misc. Street Signage: Staff installed a “No Outlet” sign today on Roanoke Road per request of the residents.

 

4.   Anticipated Engineering and Public Works Activities for July:   A. Staff will prepare final drafts of the Engineering budget and the 2021 five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for discussion at the August Budget meeting.

 

Council thanked the Engineer for his report.

8.  NEW/OTHER BUSINESS:  a. Discuss 2020-2021 Deer Management Program:  Chief Sturgeon explained that the dates for the 2020-2021 hunt were adopted last fall by resolution and that Lt. Matt Muellner had contacted the Metro Bowhunters to verify they are available on those dates. 

Councilmember Hovey stated the dates for the 2020-2021 Metro Bowhunters dates are as follows:  October 9, 10, 11 and 22, 23 and 24; November 12, 13 and 14 and December 4, 5, and 6.

 

b. Schedule Special Council Meeting, August 4, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. to Discuss Proposed 2021 City of Sunfish Lake Budget:  Clerk Iago explained that Council annually conducts a Budget Study meeting prior to the August Council meeting and that a motion is necessary to schedule the special meeting.

Treasurer Lanoue asked that staff send her any budgetary requests or increases as soon as possible so that she may incorporate them into the proposed 2021 budget documents. 

Planner Krzos asked if the meeting was open to the public and should be set-up as a Zoom meeting and the Clerk responded yes.

Mayor O’Leary moved to schedule a Special Council Meeting to discuss the proposed 2021 City of Sunfish Lake Budget at 5:30 p.m., August 4, 2020, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)

 

c. Consider Resolution Appointing Election Judges for Primary Election, August 11, 2020:  Mayor O’Leary moved to adopt Resolution No. 20-10 titled, Resolution appointing election judges to serve at the August 11, 2020 Primary Election, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)

 

d. Other:    Councilmember Hovey asked that staff send him a copy of the lease agreement with St. Anne’s Church so that he may review it prior to contacting the church. 

 

Clerk Iago suggested that Leah Rose from the City Attorney’s office should be able to provide a copy of the lease agreement to Councilmember Hovey and the City Attorney concurred.

 

Mayor O’Leary asked if there was any further business and there was no response.

9.  ADJOURN:   Mayor O’Leary moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
 

____________________________                                 ________________________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk                                                  Dan O’Leary, Mayor