- DRAFT -
SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – NOVEMBER 1, 2022
7:00 P.M. – ONLINE MEETING
Attendants:
Mayor: Dan O’Leary
Councilmembers: Mike Hovey, Steven Bulach, Shari Hansen, and Ginny Beckett
City Attorney: Tim Kuntz
City Planner: Lori Johnson
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.
2. APPROVE AGENDA: Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda.
Clerk Iago explained that there was a typing error and the November Agenda should be corrected to read “Tuesday” instead of “Wednesday”, November 1, 2022.
Engineer Sandberg stated that the City had received complaints relating to activities on the property at 205 Salem Church Road. He advised that staff prepared a memorandum regarding this matter and asked if discussion could be placed on the agenda for discussion.
Mayor O’Leary suggested the matter be discussed under Item 4. Comments from the Public and he asked if Council had received the memorandum from the City Engineer relating to this matter.
Council stated they received the memorandum from staff and agreed that the matter should be discussed under “Comments from the Public”.
The Mayor asked if there were any further changes or additions and there was no response.
Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt the agenda as amended, seconded by Councilmember Hansen 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 and there was no response.
Councilmember Bulach moved approval of the Consent Agenda as presented, seconded by Councilmember Beckett and carried. (5-0)
a. Regular Council Meeting Minutes of October 4, 2022
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: a. Discussion of Property at 205 Salem Church Road: Mayor O’Leary explained that several residents had registered complaints regarding removal of a substantial number of trees at the property located at 205 Salem Church Road.
Councilmember Hovey suggested that Engineer Sandberg review his report prior to discussion of the matter.
Mayor O’Leary agreed and noted that the City Engineer had been very thorough in reviewing this matter with the contractor and the property owner.
Engineer Sandberg referred to his memorandum dated October 28, 2022 and explained that on October 11, 2022 staff received an email with pictures from a concerned resident regarding grading activities at 205 Salem Church Road. The email inquired whether proper permits were secured for the work and noted that a number of trees had been cleared from the site. He stated that staff had not received any application for exterior work at this location. However, after discussion with the Building Official, it was determined that a building permit was pulled for interior remodeling, but it did not include any exterior work.
The Engineer advised that the following day staff conducted a site visit that verified that grading and clearing activities had occurred at the property and that no erosion controls were installed for the grading work. Staff determined that the limits of disturbance were greater than 1-acre (which also triggers the State National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and a required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)) and information had been submitted that indicates close to 2-acres of disturbance. He noted that the NPDES permit is granted by the MPCA, but it is administered by the City of Sunfish Lake to ensure compliance.
Engineer Sandberg stated that staff spoke with both the homeowner, Mark Sullivan, and the contractor, Dan Shimon of Willow River Contracting, by phone on October 13, 2022. The Engineer asked for an explanation of what they were doing on the property and explained to them that they had violated City codes and state permitting requirements by completing the work without getting the proper permits. Both Mr. Sullivan and Dan Shimon were apologetic and cooperative and stated they were unaware of the City and state permit requirements. Staff explained to Mr. Sullivan and Dan Shimon that a “Stop Work Order” would be issued until the magnitude of the work and what permits would be required could be determined. Staff also provided a communication to Councilmembers on October 13 to inform them of the concerns at 205 Salem Church Road and that staff were working with the homeowner to get the property into compliance.
Engineer Sandberg stated that the contractor installed perimeter erosion controls on Octobers 13 at the request of staff and that staff alerted the City’s NPDES compliance specialist and directed them to issue a “Stop work Order” to the resident with a requirement to secure all required City and state permits within 5 business days. The “Stop Work Order” was issued to the homeowner on October 14.
The Engineer explained that since the “Stop Work Order” was issued there were numerous communications between staff, the homeowner, the contractor, and Mayor O’Leary. At the direction of the Mayor, staff has been flexible with the contractor and homeowner with respect to the 5-day requirement to apply for permits, as long as it is demonstrated that progress is being made by them to work towards compliance. Staff provided contact information of professionals familiar with the City of Sunfish Lake requirements to help the property owners navigate toward compliance.
Engineer Sandberg stated that a number of residents in the area contacted City staff to express concerns regarding the unpermitted activity. Staff encouraged these residents to attend the November Council meeting to voice their concerns. He stated that Mr. Sullivan and Dan Shimon were also invited to attend the meeting.
The Engineer explained that he, the Planner and the City Forester met on October 27 to discuss the project and to formulate a recommendation for how to proceed on this matter. Staff recommends that the property owner apply for a Major Site Plan Review, which requires a $750.00 fee and submission of $12,500 in escrow fees as well as Planning Commission and City Council review and approval. The submissions required for the application are listed on page 2 of the Engineer’s report and the tree survey and mitigation required is listed on the City Forester report dated October 20, 2022 and is attached to the Engineer’s report.
Engineer Sandberg noted that in addition to the application and escrow fees, the City Code Section 1201.10 stipulates that work done without a permit requires an additional $250 fee and all staff time spent to get the property into compliance is the responsibility of the homeowner. This is in addition to the application and escrow fees as cited above. He stated that staff had begun work on the SWPPP today and the NPDES Permit was also submitted today. He noted that the Forester estimated the number of trees lost to be in the range of 60 to 105 trees, and this will be further reviewed when the application is submitted by the homeowner.
The Engineer stated that staff requests direction from Council whether to request the property owner to submit an application for a Major Site Plan Review with submissions as outlined in the Engineer’s report dated October 28, 2022.
Mayor O’Leary explained that on October 11, a resident brought this matter to the City’s attention and that staff did an inspection of the property on October 12. He stated that both the property owner and contractor were contacted by staff, and the contractor installed perimeter erosion controls on October 13. He noted that Sunfish Lake is known as a “Tree City” and for its pristine rural setting. He indicated that the removal of 60 to 105 significant trees would be problematic, however, there are guidelines that outline the size measurement to define “significant trees”, therefore, it is possible that not all of the trees removed may be classified as significant in size. The Mayor stated that he advised the residents who had expressed concern to attend the meeting this evening to discuss this matter.
The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments from the public and there was no response.
Mayor O’Leary noted that Mr. & Mrs. Sullivan were in attendance at this meeting and he commented that is appears as property owners they made a mistake in not obtaining a permit for the work. He explained that he had discussions with Mr. Sullivan and that, in his opinion, it appears that this was an honest mistake on the part of the property owner and the contractor Mr. Shimon.
The Mayor expressed his displeasure after hearing that some residents expressed detrimental comments to the property owners that were hurtful and he apologized to Mr. & Mrs. Sullivan on behalf of the community. He further welcomed them and their family to Sunfish Lake.
Mayor O’Leary noted that the contractor Mr. Shimon was based out of Wisconsin, however, he explained that he should have contacted the City to determine if any permits were needed or to request information from staff on how to proceed prior to doing work on this property. He also suggested Mr. Shimon should have checked to determine if there were any State laws that needed to be followed.
The Mayor noted that the replacement of the trees could be expensive since one tree must be planted for each significant tree removed, and they must be sized according to the City Code regulations.
Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any comments from the audience.
Mark Sullivan, 205 Salem Church Road, explained that he had hired a landscaper to do the work and that he had no knowledge of what would be required prior to beginning the project. He stated that he is not a general contractor and explained he had done a smaller landscape project at his home in Mendota Heights and was only required to submit a sketch of the project and pay $25.00.
Mayor O’Leary pointed out that the previous property may have been less than one acre in size, which may be why no permits were required. He asked if there were any questions from Council.
Councilmember Bulach commented that when this type of incident occurs it places everyone in a bad position and residents ask how this happens. He noted that he has been a contractor for 40 years and pointed out that a simple phone call to the City could have avoided this type of incident. He suggested that Council move forward and determine how best to correct the matter. He asked the property owner what was the purpose of grading such a large area and removing the vegetation. He questioned if it was Buckthorn or scrub trees and if there were plans for the area that was cleared.
Mr. Sullivan stated that the area was unsightly with Buckthorn and weeds. He explained it is the drain field for the home and that it had become overgrown, therefore, he was basically just clearing the area. He indicated that in his opinion it did not appear to be 100 trees and that this area had not been maintained for at least 15 years. He further commented that everything in the house will need to be remodeled. He reiterated that he was not aware there were any large trees being removed.
Mayor O’Leary explained that the property is not visible from the road and that the City does not have full-time inspectors, therefore, the only way to know what is happening is when a complaint is received. He suggested that when new residents move into the City, neighbors should stop by and welcome them to the community. He further suggested that neighbors could refer new residents to the City website where there is a listing of permits that are required. He noted that Welcome Committee had been working on compiling a packet of information for new residents to be put on the City website.
Dan Shimon, contractor and part-owner of Willow River Company in Hudson, Wisconsin, explained that he has been doing this type of work for 18 years and that he had worked in several metro suburbs. He stated he has no reasonable excuse and apologized for not checking with the City prior to beginning the project. He commented that he cannot turn back the clock, however, this would be a learning moment. He stated he looked forward to remediation on the site.
Councilmember Bulach asked how many days it took to clear the site. He noted his surprise that no one saw or heard the noise and called the City at that time, which may have stopped the project sooner.
Mr. Shimon responded that it only took one day to clear the trees on the hillside.
Councilmember Bulach stated that tomorrow everyone will move forward and he thanked the contractor and the Sullivans for taking responsibility for their actions.
Councilmember Beckett stated that it is unfortunate this ever happened and that it would be a learning moment not only for the contractor and property owner, but for all involved.
Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
Attorney Kuntz asked if Council wished to take action on the City Engineer’s recommendations to resolve this matter, as listed in his report dated October 28, 2022.
Mayor O’Leary responded yes. He noted that the Engineer had immediately issued a stop work order and the contractor installed silt fencing to control any runoff.
Mayor O’Leary moved to request the property owner at 205 Salem Church Road to make application for a Major Site Plan Review and to post the required fee and escrow and submit all plans as listed on page 2 of the City Engineer’s report dated October 28, 2022, and additionally to pay the $250 fee in addition to any staff time incurred to get the property into compliance, seconded by Councilmember Hansen.
In discussion, Councilmember Bulach asked if Council should impose a time frame for completion of this project or if it is necessary to review the plan prior to setting a deadline.
Engineer Sandberg explained that the area that was disturbed had been secured for the winter months.
Mayor O’Leary commented that it had been difficult for him to secure a contractor and that it was his opinion that the property owners are anxious to resolve the matter as soon as possible.
Katie Sullivan explained that she has four (4) children, the youngest being 22 months old, and that she did not want landscaping on the property to drag out for a lengthy period of time.
Mayor O’Leary asked if there was any further discussion and, hearing no response, called the question.
Motion carried. (5-0)
Mayor O’Leary welcomed the Sullivan family to Sunfish Lake.
5. PUBLIC HEARING/PRESENTATIONS: None.
6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT: b. Planner’s Report: Planner Johnson reviewed the following information listed in her report dated November 1, 2022 and stated there would be no Planning Commission meeting in November due to lack of applications. The Planner reviewed the following updates:
- 300 Salem Church Road – Nothing to report on this unpaid escrow.
- 2184 Charlton Road – This will be presented shortly.
- 205 Salem Church Road – This issue was discussed earlier.
- Ordinance Updates – Work continues on the Zoning Ordinance updates to present to the Mayor for his review.
Councilmember Bulach stated that he would be finishing up some work on the property at 300 Salem Church Road and that the property owners would be providing him with a check for the escrow funds by the end of this week. He indicated that this should be resolved by the next Council meeting.
Engineer Sandberg pointed out that Councilmember Bulach was not at the October meeting and missed the discussion regarding the procedure for collecting unpaid escrow funds that Mayor O’Leary had reported.
Mayor O’Leary explained that during his meeting with the mayors from surrounding communities, he was advised that the City has the authority to send a notice of assessment to a property owner for payment of the unpaid escrow funds and that the homeowner would have an opportunity to appeal the matter prior to the amount being added to their property taxes for payment. He advised this procedure would be used for future collections since the Council had already authorized Councilmember Bulach to negotiate a settlement with the property owners at 300 Salem Church Road.
Councilmember Bulach agreed that would be a much better approach to handle the matter.
a. Consider Resolution Approving a Minor Site & Building Plan and Variance for 2184 Charlton Road, Applicant Patrick Mackey, Property Owners Mike and Suzanne McDonald: Planner Johnson referred to her report dated November 1, 2022 and stated that the application was for a Minor Site Plan Review and a Variance for property located at 2184 Charlton Road, and that the applicant was Patrick Mackey and the property owners are Mike and Suzanne McDonald.
The Planner explained that the applicant and homeowners submitted an application to construct an 804 sq. ft. three-car garage on the existing home site. She noted that there is currently an existing two-stall garage on the site that is attached to the home. The applicant would use the existing sidewalls of the garage, remove the front portion of the structure and add a new 3-car garage that partially overlaps the existing garage footprint. She stated that most of the existing foundation would remain, with new foundation at the expansion portion.
Planner Johnson advised that the Minor Site/building plan approval generally allows for an administrative approval process, however, in this circumstance, a good portion of the existing site is considered legal nonconforming and a variance is required for the increase in building coverage of 5.1% over the 10% building coverage requirement. The existing two-stall garage has a setback of approximately 25 feet from the side property line and the existing house has a minimum setback of 23 feet 8 inches from the side property line. The required building setback from the side lot line is 50 feet and the existing setbacks indicate that the home is considered legal nonconforming.
The Planner explained that because the proposed new structure would not be closer to the lot line than the existing home, the nonconforming section of the ordinance allows for improvement to those nonconforming structures with setback violations to enhance livability provided the site and building plan approval process is followed. She noted that no variances are required for the proposed setbacks for the new garage given that this application would be reviewed for approval by the Planning Commission and Council.
Planner Johnson advised that the front yard setback of 100-feet for the new structure would be met and the bituminous driveway for the garage would remain intact and expanded on the south side in two locations as shown on the site plan. She stated that the homeowner would be removing a portion of the driveway that encroaches on a neighbor’s property. The work plan was approved by the adjacent property owner, and they sent a signed letter to staff approving the work. She noted that the existing impervious surface on site is 33.71% and the Shoreland Ordinances require a minimum impervious surface percentage of 30%. Given that the applicant is not proposing to exceed the existing nonconforming impervious surface requirement on site and that the site and building plan approval process is being followed, no variance is required.
The Planner stated that a Variance is required for the proposed building coverage on the lot. The existing home and garage are considered nonconforming with respect to building overage at 12.9%. The proposed addition of a stall to the garage would make the building coverage percentage on the lot 15.1%. The current requirement for building coverage percentage in the R-1 Zoning District is 10% and therefore a variance of 5.1% to the 10% building coverage is required.
Planner Johnson stated that an on-site meeting was held prior to the Planning Commission meeting on October 20, 2022 at which time the applicant, property owners, an adjacent neighbor, the City Engineer, and Planning Commissioner Nelson were present. She explained that Chair Tom Hendrickson also visited the site after the on-site meeting had concluded. At the site meeting, Engineer Sandberg determined that an existing retaining wall on the south side of the existing driveway had not been shown on the plan set provided for the application. The homeowner advised that he planned to remove the wall and reinstall it due to the removal of the impervious surface in that specific area. Staff suggested adding a condition to the approval that requested the applicant provide information regarding the retaining wall on the plan prior to its review at the Council meeting. Staff was looking for information regarding the existing and new location, the height of the wall and the materials to be used, as well as how the drainage and erosion control would be accommodated with the new wall. She stated that Chair Hendrickson and Commissioner Nelson noted their concern that requiring the new plan was onerous given the nature of the existing retaining wall and slope in the area and the nature of the new retaining wall.
The Planner stated that the applicant indicated he could have the retaining wall plan done relatively quickly and the Commission made a recommendation to approve the Minor Site and Building Plan and the Variance as requested.
Planner Johnson stated that on Monday, October 24, 2022 the applicant presented staff with a plan that included notes relative to the existing and future planned retaining wall. The wall is currently 20 inches high and 50 feet long. The applicant advised that the new wall would be rebuilt on the south edge of the new bituminous portion of the driveway to a height of approximately 28 inches and that the applicant plans to reuse the existing materials and extra material that matches the existing wall. The City Engineer reviewed the plan and indicated his support of the proposed plan with conditions as listed in the Findings of Fact and including a new condition imposed after the Planning Commission meeting: “The new retaining wall height (from top of the wall to bottom of footing) should not exceed 4 feet. If the wall is 4 feet or greater (to include the footings) the wall must be designed by a licensed engineer.“
The Planner advised that staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of proposed resolution approving the Minor Site and Building Plan and Variance subject to the Findings of Fact and the conditions as listed in the Planner’s report dated November 1, 2022 with the additional condition from the City Engineer relating to the new retaining wall.
Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any questions or comments and there was no response.
Mayor O’Leary moved to adopt Resolution No. 22- 18 titled, resolution approving a minor site and building plan review and a variance to construct a three stall garage at 2184 Charlton Road, sunfish lake, Dakota county Minnesota, subject to the Findings of Fact and conditions as listed in the resolution with the additional condition from the City Engineer pertaining to the retaining wall, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)
Council thanked the Planner for her report.
7. ENGINEER’S REPORT: 1. Engineering Activities Undertaken in October: A. Development Review Process Chart: Staff worked with the Mayor and Council to update the Development Review Process Chart that was attached to this report. Staff updated the process to include an on-site meeting with the applicant and staff after the application is received.
B. No Solicitation Signage: Staff is still working on finalizing the language for the signage with the City Attorney.
C. Escrows, Applications, Pre-application Fees: Staff worked with the Mayor and Council to update the City policy on staff time charged to properties. After additional conversations with the Mayor, it was determined that any pre-application questions staff receives would be coded to a separate project number for tracking purposes and won’t be charged to the applicant. Previously, any staff time spent on application questions, including pre-application, were the responsibility of the applicant.
2. Building and Site review in the Month of October: Staff conducted reviews for the following properties:
- 245 Salem Church Road: An inspection for final project close out was completed. A few items remain to be done, including turf establishment and function of the infiltration basin. Some escrow was recommended for release for the items that were completed.
Mayor O’Leary explained that the check should be mailed tomorrow for the released escrow funds.
Engineer Sandberg stated that staff has received the updated report relating to the infiltration system and would be recommending finalizing the project and releasing the remaining funds to the property owner next month.
- 15 Sunnyside Lane: Staff inspected the erosion control on site in order for the applicant to begin work on the stairway to the lake and was satisfied with the placement of the erosion control materials. Work on the project should begin tomorrow and staff will continue inspections to ensure the project proceeds as planned.
- 2184 Charlton Road and 205 Salem Church Road – Both these properties were discussed earlier.
3. Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of October: A. Staff assisted the City Forester in coordinating removal of a downed tree on Salem Church Road.
4. Anticipated Engineering and Public Works Activities for November: A. Staff will work with the City’s snow plowing contractor to ensure the roads remain safe for travel. If residents find areas on City streets that need attention, they should email the contractor at
Mayor O’Leary asked Councilmember Hovey to place this information on the City website homepage.
Councilmember Bulach asked the Building Inspector if any other permits had been issued for the property at 205 Salem Church Road.
Inspector Andrejka stated that a building permit was issued for several interior remodeling projects in the home, including the kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom. He stated that a reputable contractor had submitted the permit application.
Councilmember Hovey asked if the snowplowing contractor would be applying the pre-treatment materials to the streets prior to snowfalls and the Engineer responded yes.
Mayor O’Leary suggested that this information also be listed on the website.
Council thanked the Engineer for his report.
8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS: a. Consider Resolution Establishing Joint Powers Agreement for the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (LMRWMO): City Attorney Kuntz referred to his memorandum dated October 26, 2022 and explained that the LMRWMO was established with a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between nine (9) cities in 1985 and that the JPA expires this year. He stated that the document had been amended over the years and that the member cities wish to again amend the document as outlined in Exhibit A attached to his report. He advised that there were no significant changes proposed to the document.
The City Attorney explained that the document would be presented to all the cities and each city will be asked to adopt the proposed resolution approving the JPA by the end of this year. He offered to respond to questions.
Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any questions or comments and there was no response.
Mayor O’Leary moved to adopt Resolution No. 22-19 titled, resolution approving joint powers agreement establishing the lower Mississippi river watershed management organization, seconded by Councilmember Beckett and carried. (5-0)
b. Discussion of Escrow Deficit: Mayor O’Leary stated that he had a discussion earlier today with the City Treasurer regarding the escrow amounts that were outstanding from 2013 to 2019 and also the amounts that may potentially be owed to residents. He noted that the tallies from 2020, 2021 and 2022 are still being calculated.
The Mayor stated that the City Engineer and Planner had sent information relating to the escrow accounts, however, he had some difficulty matching the figures.
Planner Johnson explained that the escrow information for each year is located on separate tabs on the Excel spreadsheet.
Mayor O’Leary noted that staff continues to move forward with reconciling these escrow amounts. He suggested that the Council support not pursuing any fees from any property owners that have moved out of the City. However, he indicated that Council should decide if there should be a reimbursement to those residents who overpaid and were not refunded the money because the information was not available at that time. He commented that the good news was the amount for possible refund totals less than $6,000.
The Mayor asked Council to review the charts and that action for possible payback of funds to residents could be discussed at a future meeting. He pointed out that the $750 fee that was collected as part of the application process should have gone to the City and that staff would be sure to do so in the future.
Mayor O’Leary advised that the City would have to pay an auditor an additional $3,000 to ask specific questions about the escrow accounts and that those funds had been added to the proposed 2023 budget document.
The Mayor further stated that Council should also ask the auditor hired what type of accounting program would work best going forward for a small city. He asked the City Attorney to add this question to the Request for Proposal for hiring an auditor.
Mayor O’Leary advised that the City Treasurer provide the calculations for the escrows for the additional three (3) years, 2020, 2021 and 2022 at the next meeting and pointed out that there may be projects that require higher amounts for payback to residents.
Councilmember Bulach stated that it is his opinion whoever is owed money should receive a refund.
Mayor O’Leary agreed.
Councilmember Hovey commented that if the City was not going to attempt to collect $90,000 in outstanding escrow and plans to refund money to some residents, wouldn’t it be wise to attempt to collect as much money as possible.
In discussion, Mayor O’Leary stated that he had no problem with attempting to collect outstanding escrow funds from the last three (3) years, however, it may be difficult to try to go back further than that to collect from residents. He stated that, going forward, WSB staff had incorporated a “Not to Exceed” column for escrows on their project sheets in an effort to ensure this does not happen in the future.
The Mayor asked the City Treasurer to contact the State Auditor to determine the best method to correct the outstanding escrows in the budget documentation.
Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any further comments or questions and there was no response.
c Discussion of Transition Period with New City Clerk/Administrator: Mayor O’Leary explained that Clerk Iago has indicated that she will submit her resignation as City Clerk/Administrator to be effective December 31, 2022. He advised that when Clerk Iago was hired for this position, there was a brief transitional period when both she and the former clerk were paid a salary. He recommended that Council consider a three-month transitional period for Clerk Iago to work with the new Clerk in order to ensure a smooth transition. He asked if there were any questions and there was no response.
Mayor O’Leary moved to propose a three-month period whereby the City continues to pay both Clerk Iago for her time spent working to transition with the new City Clerk and also pay the newly hired Clerk’s salary, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)
City Attorney Kuntz asked what Clerk Iago’s title would be after her official resignation on December 31, 2022 and explained that the City would require an actual “person” with the title of Clerk to sign formal documents.
Clerk Iago stated that she would continue to serve in the official capacity of City Clerk until such time as the formal transition to the new clerk is accomplished.
Councilmember Bulach thanked Clerk Iago and suggested that the process get started so that she is able to retire as soon as possible.
There was discussion regarding setting up interviews between Councilmembers Bulach and Beckett with candidates for the Clerk’s position. Councilmember Hovey asked if a new contract would be required to continue using Clerk Iago’s services during the transition.
Attorney Kuntz stated he would review the current contract and recommend any necessary changes.
d. Consider Approval of the 2023 Dakota County Recycling Grant Application: Clerk Iago requested that Council consider approval of the 2023 Dakota County Community Waste Abatement Grant Program Application. She noted that the grant application for 2023 had no significant changes. She noted that Recycling Coordinator Cassandra Johnson would be moving to Texas, however, she would continue to work remotely from that location until a replacement was found. She asked Council to approval the grant application as submitted.
Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any questions and there was no response.
Councilmember Hansen moved to approve the 2023 Dakota County Recycling Grant Application as submitted, seconded by Mayor O’Leary and carried. (5-0)
e. Other: Mayor O’Leary explained that Treasurer Lanoue had prepared a new “Budget Analysis” that did not include any additional funds in the reserves to cover the escrow deficit. He referred to the areas that were highlighted in blue with comparison properties that show the costs with the reserve funds removed and that this would be a significant reduction in the proposed 2023 taxes.
The Mayor advised that this budget analysis would be the documentation the Treasurer will present at the public hearing at the December 6 Council meeting.
Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any further comments or questions and there was no response.
9. ADJOURN: Mayor O’Leary adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
____________________________ ________________________________
Catherine Iago, City Clerk Dan O’Leary, Mayor
We are a small community proud of our heritage and committed to the preservation of our pristine, rural character. We cherish our privacy, yet know we are part of a thriving Dakota County and the greater Twin Cities metropolitan area. With these partnerships in mind, we strive to preserve that unique spirit which is Sunfish Lake, Minnesota.