SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES – NOVEMBER 3, 2015

8:00 P.M. – ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH

Attendants:

Acting Mayor: Mike Hovey

Councilmembers: JoAnne Wahlstrom and Steven Bulach

City Attorney: Tim Kuntz

City Planner: Michelle Barness

City Engineer: Don Sterna and Engineer Erik Eckman
City Treasurer: Ann Lanoue

Building Inspector: Mike Andrejka
City Forester: Jim Nayes
Police Officer: Kurtis Syvertsen

City Clerk: Cathy Iago

and Members of the General Public.

Mayor Molly Park and Councilmember Cathy DeCourcy were absent.

1. CALL TO ORDER: Acting Mayor Hovey opened the meeting at 8:00 p.m.

2. APPROVE AGENDA: The Acting Mayor asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda
and there was no response.

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to adopt the agenda as amended, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and
carried. (3-0)

3. CONSENT AGENDA: Acting Mayor Hovey asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda and there was no response.

4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: The Acting Mayor asked if there were any comments from the public and there was no response.

5. PUBLIC HEARING/PRESENTATIONS: None.

6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT: a. Major Site and Building Plan Review and Variance, 27 Sunnyside Lane, Julie and Tom Hurley: Planner Barness explained that the applicants are requesting approval of a Major Site and Building Plan review and a Variance to allow the construction of a new home at 27 Sunnyside Lane. She stated the applicants wish to demolish the existing home and build a new home at approximately the same location on the site and a Major Site and Building Plan review is required for building alterations exceeding 1, 000 sq. ft. in area. She further explained that a variance is also required for two separate issues; 1) a portion of the home will intrude in the required Shoreland and side yard setback areas and, 2) the applicants are also requesting a variance to permit redevelopment of a substandard sized lot that will contain a home that does not meet setback requirements.

The Planner explained that the new home meets all setbacks with the exception of the side yard on the north of the parcel and the shoreland setback. She stated that the existing home is setback approximately 170 ft. from the shoreland and the new home would be setback approximately 173 ft. She noted that the new home would be a one-story structure and the previous home was a two-story structure. She advised that the proposed new home meets the height requirements and is proposed to be constructed with materials that meet the building materials standards for the R-1 Single Family district. She stated that the new home would be constructed with copper siding, which is a new material, stucco and stone.

Acting Mayor Hovey asked if a variance would be necessary for the copper siding.

The Planner explained that there is a provision in the City Code that would allow the use of the copper siding, if Council approves the material. She noted that the applicants brought samples of the copper siding to the Planning Commission meeting and they recommended it be allowed for construction. She noted that the applicants had brought a sample for Council to review this evening.

Planner Barness explained that the proposed pool is considered an accessory structure and meets ordinance standards for setbacks (apart from the variance from shoreline setback being requested), safety features, size limitations and treatment of pool water on site. She noted that no other detached accessory structures are proposed.

Planner Barness explained that the existing circle driveway at the front of the home would be removed and a smaller drive constructed in its place that consist of pavers in the entryway area and bituminous surface to match the existing grade and construction where it meets the street.

Planner Barness stated that the applicants had submitted a landscape plan showing the removal of twenty-one (21) trees within the construction zone and protection for all remaining trees. She advised that the City Forester walked the site with the applicants and recommended approval of the plan. She noted that the applicants will continue to work with the Forester to insure the health of site trees and to further discuss preservation or removal of any trees. She stated that staff asked the applicants to submit information demonstrating where natural vegetation currently exists on the slope to the lake and where no mow fescue lawn or grass will replace natural vegetation. The information was submitted and reviewed. She noted the percentage of lawn with the shore impact zone (within 100 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark - OHWM) may not exceed 20% and intensive vegetation clearing in bluff or shore impact zone is not permitted; this is contained as a condition in the draft resolution for approval of the application. She stated that the landscape plan contains a variety of plants that meet standards and that the applicants propose to install seventeen (17) replacement trees. She noted that there are a lot of invasive species on the shoreland area and the applicants wish to improve this area by removing the dead or diseased plantings. She explained that a condition was included in the draft resolution requiring the applicants to contact the City Forester and Planner prior to construction or removal of natural vegetation so that a Certificate of Compliance may be issued to remove the plantings.

The Planner explained that City Engineer had reviewed the plans and recommended approval of the revised plans in his report dated October 16, 2015. She stated that the Engineer requested a copy of the he NPDES permit which is required due to the amount of soil that would be disturbed during construction.

Planner Barness stated that staff recommends approval of the Major Site and Building Plan subject to the conditions as listed in the draft resolution. She commented that the home was designed with consideration for low impact on the lot and the lake and it was the opinion of staff that it would be an attractive addition to the City.

Councilmember Bulach asked if the well and septic systems would both be abandoned and replaced.

Planner Barness responded yes and advised that the applicants had walked the site with the Septic Inspector to identify an area for placement of the new septic system. She noted that the Planning Commission pointed out that there was no secondary site for the septic system shown on the plan and that the City Engineer had requested a second site be identified. She commented that the site has steep slopes and the septic system must be placed 150 ft. from the lake, which limits the area for placement of the secondary location. She advised that staff has discussed this issue with the applicants and had advised them that a secondary site needs to be confirmed. She commented that this could a challenge due to the site topography.

Acting Mayor Hovey asked what happens to the request if the applicants cannot identify a secondary location for the septic system.

Engineer Sterna stated that he is unsure and explained that the Septic Inspector’s input is needed to determine if there are other options to meet the requirement, such as installation of a mounded septic system or a gravity system. He indicated that staff could work with the applicants to attempt to find a creative solution.

Acting Mayor Hovey asked if the variance request is voided if no secondary site for the septic system is identified. He questioned if Council could take action and make it a condition of approval that a second site be found prior to beginning construction.

Attorney Kuntz responded yes.

Councilmember Wahlstrom stated that she would prefer to have the site identified prior to making a decision on the application.

Planner Barness explained this was a difficult issue since the Septic Inspector was not clear in his email as to whether or not it would be possible to find a secondary location for the septic system. She agreed that Council could approve the application with a condition that a secondary site be identified prior to beginning construction since the applicants wish to start as soon as possible. She advised that Tom Wertfield, contractor for the applicants, asked if the applicants could submit a waiver of liability to the City that indemnifies them if a secondary system location is not found.

Councilmember Wahlstrom stated that it not what Council is asking for and that she prefers to have information as to whether or not a secondary location or other options are available prior to taking action on the application.

Engineer Sterna explained that the City requests a secondary location for protection and also in the event a property owner wishes to construct an addition onto an existing home. He pointed out that there may be new technology in the area of septic systems or an area of the site that could be re-used for the system that he is not aware of at this time.

Councilmember Wahlstrom asked if the home could be shifted on the site to accommodate a secondary drainfield.

Gabriel Keller, architect for the project, explained that the location of the drainfield has nothing to do with the size of the home. He explained that the location of the home on the site was designed for environmental purposes to limit the number of trees removed and minimize the sight-lines from the lake. He explained that he plans to meet with Tom Wertfield this Thursday at 9:00 a.m. to again walk the site and attempt to identify a secondary location for the septic system and asked if the City Engineer could join them to discuss this matter and possible options. He commented that the septic system proposed for installation with the new home construction is an expensive product that would last 40 to 50 years and that it is not a mounded system.

Planner Barness noted that the City Septic Inspector had recommended approval of the proposed septic system in his email response, but his response did not state that a second location was required. She explained that the City Ordinance requires that an application for new home construction identifies a secondary septic location and that the applicants have been trying to address this issue. She commented that it does not appear that Council favors accepting a waiver of liability in lieu of a secondary location.

Engineer Sterna advised that it may be possible to determine if there are other lots around the lake that have a variance for a secondary location if a secondary site cannot be found on the property.

Planner Barness explained that the language in the City Zoning Code requiring a secondary location only relates to Major Site and Building Plan applications, but she was unsure if the requirement is located under specific standards in the Septic System portion of the Code.

Attorney Kuntz commented that a variance would not be an unreasonable request given the size and topography of the site.

Councilmember Wahlstrom asked if a secondary location had been identified when the original home was constructed.

The Planner explained that since the existing home was built the standards may have changed. She pointed out that Council has the option to table this matter until the applicants have identified a secondary site or they could approve the current plan contingent upon a secondary location being identified. She noted that the applicants would have to submit a revised site plan showing the secondary location.

Attorney Kuntz pointed out that the City Engineer’s comments indicate that there was not sufficient sharing of information between staff and the applicant’s contractors. He noted that the City is open to continue discussions to resolve this matter, however, if no secondary location is identified, a revised plan would have to come back to Council.

Planner Barness asked if Council wished to move forward and have her review the variance request, or if they would prefer to table the discussion at this time.

Councilmember Wahlstrom stated she would prefer to table the matter and Acting Mayor Hovey agreed he would prefer more information.

Councilmember Bulach asked if the applicants were anxious to begin construction.

Gabriel Keller responded that if the request was approved the construction could begin next week.

Councilmember Bulach asked if the Engineer and Septic Inspector are comfortable with a secondary location or some other option to resolve this matter, would the request would only come back for Council review and not have to go back the Planning Commission.

The Planner responded yes and noted that Council could also defer that authority to staff if they wish to take action this evening or they may require the matter come back for Council review and approval.

Councilmember Bulach commented that in his opinion it is important to hear from the City Septic Inspector before Council proceeds and if no secondary site is identified, to have his input on an alternative or options.

Attorney Kuntz asked the Planner when the City would reach the 60-day term for action on this matter.

The Planner responded that the deadline would be November 20, 2015 and that she could send out a notice of continuation if Council wishes to delay action on the request.

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to table the application for a Major Site and Building Plan Review and Variance for the property at 27 Sunnyside Lane to the December 1, 2015 Council meeting and direct the Planner to forward a letter to the applicants notifying them of the extension for the 60-day action on the matter, seconded by Councilmember Bulach.

Gabriel Keller asked if the Council could provide any input, either negative or positive, on the application so that they could be prepared for the December meeting.

Acting Mayor Hovey stated that in his opinion Council appears to support the application for the new home construction if the applicants show that a secondary septic location is identified or an alternative option that the Septic Inspector would approve is presented. He commented that the applicants have submitted an excellent plan for a lovely home.

The Acting Mayor asked if there were any further comments and hearing none called the question.

Motion carried. (3-0)

Councilmember Bulach commented that recently there have been applications presented to Council for approval prior to having all the information and requirements in place. He asked if the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request without having a secondary septic location identified. He pointed out that he experienced several delays when he added an addition to his home due to the fact that there was some information that was delayed when submitting his application.

Councilmember Wahlstrom agreed with the comments and questioned what could be done by staff so that this type of delay does not occur in the future.

Planner Barness explained that when an application is received by her office, she sends out the information to all pertinent staff for their review and comments. She noted that the Septic Inspector does not typically respond immediately to the application review and that she usually inserts a condition that requires the applicants to seek his approval prior to beginning construction. She noted that his analysis is usually not as much of an issue with some applications, however, in this instance it was important to insure a secondary location was identified. She also noted that the Engineer did not state in his report that the secondary location was required, therefore, she asked the applicants to contact him and the Septic Inspector to discuss the issue of an alternative location. She pointed out that the Planning Commission recommendation was based on the fact that the secondary septic system location would be worked out prior to Council review, which staff had attempted to do.

The Planner further explained that the requirement to identify a secondary location for the septic system is listed in the application requirements for a Major Site and Building Plan review, however, she was unsure if it is a requirement under the Septic regulations in the City Code. She commented that both staff and the applicant work to resolve any issues prior to Council review of an application, although on occasion some issues are not resolved prior to the review by Council.

Councilmember Bulach asked if Mr. Wasmund works for Dakota County or the City.

Attorney Kuntz explained that Mr. Wasmund is an independent contractor hired by the City. He pointed out that it is his observation the discussion of a secondary septic system location always arises as an issue when a property is undersized and a variance may be required.

Planner Barness explained that the property owner and their contractor walked the site with the Septic Inspector in an attempt to identify a second location for the septic system and she was told that they were advised a secondary site was impossible to locate due to the topography and lot size.

Engineer Sterna stated he arranged to meet with the applicants and their septic representative on Friday at the property to determine if a secondary location or other alternative could be found.

The Planner also noted that there was less turn-over time for this application between the Planning and Council meeting schedule.

Acting Mayor Hovey indicated that Council may wish to discuss procedural changes since the applications do not always come before Council with all the information necessary to make a decision.

Richard Williams, City Representative to the Lower Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (LMWMO), pointed out that there is currently discussion regarding upcoming issues with allowable flow rates on undersized lots and it may not be possible to get a septic license if a secondary location is not identified.

Engineer Sterna agreed that the regulations will become more complex in the future.

The Planner commented that the stormwater components of the application process are more complex and past practice has been to recommend approval if the major regulations are met by the Council meeting and to attach conditions that insure the smaller items are resolved prior to beginning construction.

Councilmember Bulach agreed that the smaller issues are not a problem, but larger issues such as septic and boundary issues should be addressed prior to approval of the application.

Councilmember Wahlstrom commented that the applicants may have to redesign the home or location to insure that a secondary location is accomplished. She noted that it would save time and anxiety to the applicants to have the Septic Inspector review the site and make a formal recommendation prior to Council review.

b. Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance: Planner Barness referred to her report on the proposed Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance dated October 28, 2015. She explained that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to review a draft of the proposed ordinance and that no residents were in attendance at the meeting. She advised that after reviewing and discussing the draft ordinance that was compiled from examples of similar ordinances from other cities, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft ordinance presented this evening to Council.

The Planner distributed a hand-out of the draft ordinance which incorporated language from the City Attorney that clarified the procedures for "abandonment" of a system that remains nonfunctional or inoperative for a continuous period of one year and declares that the abandoned system is a public nuisance.

Planner Barness explained that if an alternative energy system is not addressed in the City ordinance, it is not permitted and that the Planning Commission and staff agreed that these alternative energy systems would be requested for use in the future and should be addressed prior to the City’s Comprehensive Plan update.

The Planner noted that the Planning Commission discussed three types of alternative energy sources; Solar, Wind and Geo-Thermal systems. She explained that the Commission had issues with the wind turbines and discussed the fact that the turbines would have to be extremely tall to capture sufficient wind to generate enough energy to be useful. She reviewed the three findings identified by the Commission and listed in her report to support not identifying wind energy systems as part of the permitted alternative energy sources at this time. She commented that if Council wished to include wind energy systems, they have the option to review and discuss regulations at this time.

Planner Barness stated that the Planning Commission agreed that solar and geo-thermal energy systems could be viable alternative energy sources for inclusion in the proposed ordinance at this time. She noted that the Commission reviewed ordinances from three (3) metro cities and determined what regulations would be appropriate for inclusion in the Sunfish Lake ordinance. She explained that a new section of the City Code would be initiated, Section 1230 and that it would establish alternative energy system definitions and regulations for Ground Source Heat Pump Systems and Solar Energy Systems.

The Planner noted that the Commission recommended that the open loop geo-thermal systems not be allowed to protect ground water

Acting Mayor Hovey agreed that he also had concerns relating to drilling for geo-thermal systems and what happens if an aquafer is hit during drilling.

The Planner explained that the State of Minnesota has set standards for the geo-thermal systems and their installation that protect against such possibilities, and the City may include additional conditions to insure ground water is not contaminated. She noted the Commission recommend only the closed-loop systems be permitted and that they be prohibited in public waters. She advised that the setbacks for installation of these systems are similar to the regular Code setbacks for accessory structures to provide sufficient buffering from lot lines and adjacent properties. She further noted that permits are required for installation of the system and extra steps are included in the abandonment process to further protect the City.

Acting Mayor Hovey asked if State Statutes for abandonment apply to capping wells. The Planner explained that she include revisions recommended by the City Attorney for sealing of underground systems according to State standards.

Planner Barness advised that the Planning Commission recommended inclusion of the solar energy systems and agreed that the roof mounted solar panel systems be equal to the height limitation for home construction so there are no large projections on residential roofs. She noted that there are some exemptions that are allowed to exceed the home height limitation such as mechanical devices or cupolas and that Council could include solar panels under the exemption listing. She advised that ground mounted solar panels would be limited to 16 ft. in height, have the same setback requirements as accessory, and may not exceed 25 percent of the rear yard. She explained that most installers indicated the ground mounted panels would not have to be high to be functional.

Acting Mayor Hovey asked if property owners could place a sufficient amount of solar panels so that they could sell energy back to Excel to cover their costs.

Planner Barness explained that the ordinance regulates the fact that the energy source would have to be underground and the property owner would need an agreement with the energy company. She further noted that there are stringent safety standards and certification requirements referenced in the ordinance, along with the abandonment regulations and regulations for restoring the land. She further explained that a building permit would have to be obtained prior to any solar energy installation. She commented that Council may wish to further discuss the regulations or request more information prior to making a decision.

Acting Mayor Hovey asked if the State regulations are more stringent or the City’s and which take precedence. The City Attorney advised the State regulations would take precedence.

Acting Mayor Hovey asked if a variance would be required if the solar panels exceed the residential building height.

Planner Barness responded yes, but she reiterated that some items on roofs are exempt such as chimneys and mechanical items and that Council could include solar panels in the exemptions if they wish.

Acting Mayor Hovey stated that in his opinion people are energy conscious and he would prefer to take a pro-active approach at this time.

Councilmember Bulach stated he had concerns relating to screening the ground mounted solar panels if they are 16 ft. high.

Councilmember Wahlstrom agreed that they could appear to be large mirrors for adjacent properties.

Planner Barness advised that the cities of Woodbury and Elko-New Market limit the height at 15 ft., and that she recommended 16 ft. since it was the regulation for accessory structures in Sunfish Lake. She pointed out that Spring Lake Park limits the height of ground mounted panels to 6 ft. and Council could also determine a lesser height limitation.

There was discussion relating to what height would be necessary for the panels to be productive and it was determined that each property could be different. The Planner explained that she was told by installers that 12 ft. would be a more typical height for ground solar installations.

Councilmember Wahlstrom commented that she does not find ground mounted panels attractive, but she was unsure if the City could prohibit them.

Acting Mayor Hovey explained that there are several types of solar panels including roof shingles. He advised that his concern relates to the battery storage compartments and their replacement. He commented that he preferred to have more information as to how the energy is stored to assist staff and Council when permits come to the City for review.

The Planner explained that Council discussion this evening only relates to the ordinance regulations and that safety standards are referenced in the draft ordinance. She advised that the ordinance contains language to deal with public nuisances that are identified.

Acting Mayor Hovey asked the Building Inspector if he is familiar with the alternative energy products.

Inspector Andrejka explained that he is not extremely familiar with the projects but has done some inspections in the City of Mendota Heights and he advised that city does not have an ordinance.

Forester Nayes stated he would not favor solar panels that extend beyond the roof of a residential home.

Acting Mayor Hovey pointed out that may be the only area some residents have to install the panels and he would prefer that language is included in the ordinance to identify the variance process.

The Planner explained that it could be included unless the Council wishes to amend the current City Code.

Activing Mayor Hovey explained he didn’t wish to make the ordinance more complicated.

Councilmember Bulach stated he agrees with the geo-thermal energy source, but he is unsure about the solar panels at this time. He advised he would prefer to have more information on the solar panel products.
Planner Barness explained that the Planning Commission was not as concerned about the solar panels, and stated that the Council had been forwarded the same information as the Planning Commission analyzing the issues and providing examples of the alternative energy options.

Acting Mayor Hovey stated he would prefer to table action on this matter until the full Council is present. He advised that he had no concerns relating to the geo-thermal energy and noted there have already been installations in the City.

Planner Barness asked if the Council had any changes they wished to incorporate into the document or if they only wished to have more information prior to the next meeting.

Council concurred they wished to have more information on the solar panels prior to the December meeting
and had no changes to the document at this time.

Attorney Kuntz asked if Council wished for staff to address the solar panel height on the roof as a comparison to other mechanical items that may somewhat exceed the height limitation. He advised that the exemptions usually exceed the roofline height by a certain number of inches. He suggested that he would discuss this with staff and provide information at the December meeting.

c. Planner’s Report: Planner Barness referred Council to her report dated October 28, 2015 and offered to respond to any questions. She noted that there were no planning applications submitted and therefore the November Planning Commission meeting was cancelled.

Council thanked the Planner for her report.

Clerk Iago suggested that Council receive the Public Safety report from Officer Syvertsen due to the late hour.

7.d. PUBLIC SAFETY: Officer Syvertsen reviewed the Public Safety report dated October 21, 2015. He noted that there were four (4) False Burglar Alarms, which is similar to the same number for the time period last year and one (1) False Fire Alarm. He advised there were a couple of suspicious persons reported to the department and he recommended that residents call police if they see any suspicious activity in their neighborhood. He advised that the Metro Bowhunters were active at this time within the City park areas and asked that residents call police if they witness any persons illegally hunting within the City. He offered to respond to questions.

Councilmember Wahlstrom thanked Officer Syvertsen for his participation in the Meet the Police event held at Mayor Park’s residences. She noted that approximately 41 residents and their families participated in the event and that all who attended enjoyed talking to Officer Syvertsen and viewing his squad car.

Officer Syvertsen stated he enjoyed meeting everyone and hoped that the meet and greet would become an annual event. He asked that residents feel free to contact him with questions and noted that he currently works nights and would respond to their message as soon as possible.

Council thanked Officer Syvertsen for his report.

7. STAFF REPORTS: a. BUILDING INSPECTOR: Inspector Andrejka stated he issued ten (10) and closed (8) permits during the month of October.

Council thanked the Inspector for his report.

b. CITY ENGINEER: Engineering Activities Undertaken in October : A. Angell Road Culvert Surface Repairs: Engineer Sterna advised that the contractor completed the final lift surface repairs on Angell Road and the only items left are to place some aggregate shouldering material along the edges of the final lift of pavement.
B. Snow Plow Contract: The Engineer stated he met with the snowplow contractor to show the plowing routes within the City. He explained he would continue to work with the new crew throughout the season and he would distribute contact information for placement on the City website. He noted that usually the Mayor calls him directly with any complaints or concerns during the snowplowing season. He stated that typically he requests more sand be used in the City than salt products.

C. Building and Site Reviews: Engineer Sterna introduced Erik Ekman from his staff and advised that Erik would occasionally be working with staff members and attending meetings on his behalf.

Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of October: None.

Anticipated Engineering and Public Works Activities for November: The Engineer stated that Charlton Road should be graded and pot-holes fixed this month. He explained that with two (2) members of Council absent this evening, he preferred to delay discussion of proposed improvements to Charlton Road. He noted that MnDOT had expressed a willingness to include Charlton Road paving to the end of the Church property into their project along Highway 110, but they would have to take ownership of the road until the project was completed. He suggested the issue be discussed with a full Council present in December.

Council thanked the Engineer for his report.

c. CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes stated he issued six (6) burning permits in October and that he spot sprayed oriental bittersweet along Acorn Drive and on the MnDOT fence line near Horseshoe Lake. He advised that he completed street clearance pruning to the east end of Salem Church Road, Windy Hill Road and Windy Hill Court.

The Forester stated that he planted seven (7) wild plum trees and eight (8) white pines in Harmon Park, along with several other trees on the south side of Salem Church Road and in the north meadow of Musser Park. He noted that all have been watered and will be mulched generated from pruning efforts within the City. He advised that all deciduous trees are in tubes or have deer damage protection tubes installed and white pines will be caged to prevent deer damage.

Forester Nayes stated that he completed repairs to the street right-of-way at 6 Acorn Drive and next spring he will place seed in the area. He also noted that there are now eleven (11) counties within Minnesota with confirmed cases of Emerald Ash Borer (EAB, with the latest confirmation location in Duluth.

Council thanked the Forester for his report.

8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS: a. Consider Scheduling Special Council Meeting to Conduct Consultant Reviews, December 1, 2015: Clerk Iago referred to her memorandum dated October 28, 2015 requesting Council schedule a Special Meeting prior to the December 1, 2015 regular Council meeting in order to conduct the annual consultant reviews. She noted the time schedule for each consultant beginning at 5:00 p.m. for 15 minute intervals, with the last review scheduled at 6:45 p.m. She noted that she would post the Notice of the Meeting as required.

Councilmember Bulach moved to schedule a Special Council Meeting to Conduct Consultant Reviews on December 1, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. and to direct the City Clerk to post Notice of the Special Meeting as required, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (3-0)

b. Other: Acting Mayor Hovey explained that three (3) deer had been taken by the Metro Bow Hunters and asked the City Forester is any residents had reported taking any deer.
Forester Nayes responded that no residents had advised him of taking any deer.

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

9. ADJOURN: Councilmember Bulach moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried (3-0)


____________________________ ________________________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk Mike Hovey, Acting Mayor