SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – SEPTEMBER 1, 2009

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

Attendants:

        Mayor:  Molly Park

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

        City Attorney:  Tim Kuntz

        City Engineer:  Tim Hanson and Engineer Chris Hartzell
        Building Official:  Russ Wahl

        City Forester: Jim Nayes

        City Treasurer:  Mike Blair

        City Clerk:  Cathy Iago
             and Members of the General Public.

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

2.     APPROVE AGENDA:                 Mayor Park requested that Item 8.c. Release of Liability, Waiver of Legal Rights and Assumption of Risk Form for use of “weed wrench”” at the Musser Park “Buckthorn Bust” be moved under Item 6.b. since it relates to discussion by the Planning Commission. She further requested that the items listed under 8. New/Old Business be re-alphabetized and an additional item be listed as 8.a. Discussion of a Professional Deer Hunt to Cull the Herd; she noted that guests were present for both items. 

The Mayor asked if there were any further additions or corrections to the agenda and there was no response.

Councilmember MacManus approval of the Agenda as amended by the Mayor, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (5-0)

Councilmember Williams added that he wished to discuss an item under the Engineer’s report relating to the grant issue and the fact that the DNR is prepared to place Sunfish Lake on the impaired water list.

Councilmember Conant commented that he finds it difficult to correlate agenda items received from consultants with the agenda and asked if it would be possible for the consultants to label the items to coincide with the numbers on the agenda.

Mayor Park questioned if the items are sent in a timely manner for the Clerk to provide numbers to the consultants and commented that it may be difficult to correlate the items.

Planner Smith advised that the planning reports are usually sent with the Planning Commission packets prior to the Council meeting.

Clerk Iago stated she would attempt to coordinate a numbering system with the consultants.  

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

Councilmember Conant asked if the mowing along the road shoulder was completed as discussed at the last meeting. Forester Nayes responded that the mowing was done two weeks ago and that additional areas were also included.

Mayor Park asked if there were any further questions and there was no response.
 
Councilmember DeCourcy moved approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Councilmember Williams and carried. (5-0)

a.       Regular Council meeting minutes of August 4, 2009.

b.       List of Bills

c.        Monthly Financial Statements

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

5.     PUBLIC HEARING – a. Proposed Special Assessments for Salem Church Road:  Mayor Park opened the meeting for the purpose of conducting a public hearing on the proposed special assessment for Salem Church Road Improvement Project No. 2008-02. She asked the City Engineer to provide a brief overview of the project and she requested a show of hands of those present for the public hearing; two members of the audience raised their hands.

Engineer Hanson outlined the scope of the project which included reclamation, culvert work and the installation of speed tables. He noted that the contract for the project remains open until such time as turf establishment and a “punch-list” of work remaining has been completed by the contractor. He advised that the “wash-outs” along the shoulders of the road will be tended to and that they are a typical maintenance item with roadway improvements. He explained that he had received comments from Richard Moreus, 340 Salem Church Road, and that all items would be addressed by the contractor.

The Engineer reviewed the proposed funding for the project, as previously determined by Council; the total project cost was estimated at $356,517.50 and the final cost of the project was $329,500.00. He explained that Council had determined 40 percent of the total project cost would be assessed to benefiting properties, and 60% of the costs would be paid by the City, and $3,000 would be paid from the road maintenance funds. He stated that any parcel abutting Salem Church Road with a driveway or from a roadway was considered a benefited property and there are 50 units that fall under that category. He explained that the total project cost was $326,500 and 40 percent of that would be $130,600 divided by 50 units for a per unit cost of $2,612.00.  He further explained that the $198,000 City portion of the costs would be financed by a $195,900 City Bond Levy and that $3,000 would be taken from the City Road Maintenance Fund to cover the costs of striping the roadway beyond the limits of the project to Robert Street.      

Engineer Hanson stated that if after receiving public comments the Council adopts the proposed assessments, the affected property owners will have 30 days from this date to perfect an objection.  Objections or grievances must be filed with the City Clerk at tonight’s meeting. He further explained that if affected property owners wish to pay the $2,612.00 assessment in full and without interest being charged, they will have 30 days from this date to do so. He noted that if no payment is received prior to October 1, the assessment would be added to the taxes for those properties and the property owner would have 10 years to pay; the interest rate of 6.05% would then be amortized over the 10-year period. He also pointed out that a property owner also would have the option to pay the unpaid balance at anytime during the 10-year period with the interest rate calculated on the remaining amount. He advised the payments would be split semi-annually to concur with regular tax payments.

The Engineer stated that the project is scheduled for completion in November, 2009, after turf establishment has been completed, and the assessment role will be certified to Dakota County on November 25, 2009 with the first payment due with property owners 2010 taxes.  He offered to respond to questions.

Mayor Park asked if there were any questions from the audience.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked if residents had any comments regarding the speed tables on the roadway.

Dan Lee, 315 Salem Church Road, stated he believes the speed tables are working well. He expressed concern regarding the washout and erosion adjacent to the roadway; he commented that if it is left in this condition it will lead to degradation of the road and the work will have to start over.  

Engineer Hanson stated that the erosion is on the “punch-list” of items that the contractor must complete.

Councilmember Conant commented that in his opinion it appears as if the erosion is actually beginning to undercut the road.

Mr. Lee expressed his concern that if the erosion is not repaired soon enough it will degrade the road.

Engineer Hanson explained the shoulder repair work is scheduled for this week and pointed out that the dry weather contributed to the erosion problem. He noted that the north side of the road was not as bad as the south side.

Arnie Svendsen, 1 Sunfish Lane, questioned how the City portion of the assessment would be financed.

Engineer Hanson stated the City’s portion would be paid from a city-wide tax levy. Treasurer Blair further explained that there are 172 homestead units within the City that would support the City’s portion of the tax levy.

Mr. Hanson further explained that the portion of the assessments paid by the City would also be spread over a period of time to coincide with the bond issue and that the unit tax would be levied ad valorem based on value.


Mayor Park asked if there were any further questions from the public and there was no response. The Mayor asked for a motion to close the public hearing

Councilmember Williams moved to close the public hearing at 7:20 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Conant and carried. (5-0)  

Councilmember Conant questioned the City’s payment of $3,000 for additional striping and when it was authorized by Council.

Engineer Hanson explained that during discussion of the feasibility report he raised the question of whether or not Council wished to authorize the additional striping of the roadway to maintain a consistent appearance and Council agreed to utilize the road maintenance funding for this purpose.

Councilmember Conant stated he did not recall discussion for indirect cost in the feasibility study. Engineer Hanson stated that indirect costs for the project were identified in the feasibility study.

Councilmember Conant disagreed that there was an item called “indirect costs” in the feasibility study.

Councilmember DeCourcy stated she recalled the discussion regarding the additional striping and that the expense was discussed and authorized by Council; Councilmember McManus agreed.

Councilmember Conant stated that he had concerns regarding the erosion and sloping shoulder on the roadway and he asked an engineer to look at the matter. He explained that the engineer reviewed the shoulders and agreed the repair work is necessary. He further advised that the engineer provided an opinion that the soils should have be compacted and that it was a failure on the part of WSB if they did not identify that compaction should be done.

Councilmember Williams commented that Councilmember Conant has raised the issue of the competency of the City Engineer on more than one occasion and that he is uncomfortable with Councilmember Conant securing an opinion from an outside engineering firm without authorization and also for repeating second hand statements from an unknown engineer.

Councilmember Conant stated he would privately provide the named of the engineer to Councilmember Williams.

Councilmember Williams pointed out that since Councilmember Conant began his service on the Council he has engaged in questioning the competency of the City Engineer and in his opinion has often jumped to conclusions that have been found to be inaccurate. He questioned why Councilmember Conant is so upset with WSB. He pointed out that if criticism is made from an outside source it should be based on that person appearing before Council and presenting their credentials and qualifications. He stated that in his opinion it is not appropriate or fair to provide second hand statements and that it is not good governance to proceed in this manner.

Mayor Park stated she would allow Councilmember Conant a two-minute response.

Councilmember Conant stated he would privately identify the engineer to Councilmember Williams. He explained that his motivation is to do the best for the City and if he believes the City is not being well served it is his duty to speak up. He commented that he should be able to discuss issues that concern him before Council. He noted that discussions relating to a conflict of interest are not bad intrinsically, however, his concern was if it was being exploited.

Engineer Hanson indicated he wished to interject that the soils were compacted and it was included as part of the project. He noted that the erosion problem was more prevalent due to the hard drenching rainfalls and runoff from  the new pavement; he pointed out that the statement from the outside engineer does not have credibility since compaction was included as part of the project specifications.

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

Councilmember DeCourcy moved to adopt Resolution No. 09-15 titled RESOLUTION ADOPTING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 2008-02 – SALEM CHURCH ROAD RECONSTRUCTION, seconded by Councilmember Williams and carried. (5-0)

6.     PLANNING COMMISSION:


a.     Site and Building Plan Review/Conditional Use Permit for Construction of a Pool, Pool House and Detached Garage Addition at 348 Salem Church Road, Baillon Residence:  Mayor Park reported that Paul and Jean Baillon were present and asked Planner smith to review the request.

The Planner explained the proposed in-ground pool and pool house will be located to the northeast of the existing home and that the pool would be approximately 1,100 sq. ft in size; the pool is proposed to be surrounded by a concrete patio consisting of 2,368 sq. ft. and the pool house is proposed to be 907 sq. ft. in area. She advised that the applicant is also proposing to add a 365 sq. ft. addition onto an existing detached garage which will be connected to the pool house via a covered walkway. She stated the heights of the proposed  pool housed measure to the peak of the roof is indicated as 15.1 ft. and that the detached garage, pool and pool house meet the setback requirements from the side and rear yard lot lines. She further advised that all existing buildings also comply with setback requirements.

Planner Smith stated that swimming pools area permitted accessory use within the R-1 District provided they are located below ground and are constructed with a protective safety feature such a retractable cover and/or fence. The pool house is also a permitted accessory structure provided that it is used only by the primary residents and their guests, is screened from the neighboring properties and the public right-of-way, designed and position in such a way to minimize any impacts upon abutting properties and is not used for human habitation.  She stated that the pool will be surrounded by a concrete patio including elevated planting beds and a fire pit area. She advised that an automatic pool cover will serve as the required protective safety feature. She stated that the pool house will consist of a sitting room with a gas fireplace, a kitchenette, two changing rooms, a bathroom and shower and a sauna. The applicant has stated that the pool house is not intended to be a guest house or a place for sleeping and will solely be used to the convenience of the homeowners while they are entertaining.
The Planner stated that the 293 sq. ft. addition to the existing garage is proposed to create an additional garage stall and a 72 sq. ft. addition to the west side of the garage addition will be added to accommodate the mechanical equipment for the pool.

Planner Smith advised the applicant is proposing to add 33 recessed lights in the soffits of the detached garage and pool house; the recessed lights will be primarily on the internal perimeters of the buildings facing the pool area. The applicant is also requesting to add a low-wattage carriage light adjacent to the proposed new garage stall as well as three (3) down-cast, motion-activated flood lights along the northwest side of the pool house. She further explained that low-voltage landscape lighting is also proposed along the western patio perimeter as well as between the house and the pool area.  She noted that the Zoning Ordinance stated that exterior lighting on property within the City shall be discouraged and only allowed where necessary for safety purposes unless fully screened from view of abutting properties.  

The Planner advised the applicant is proposing to remove 11 trees to accommodate the proposed new structures and nine of the trees are considered to be significant trees due to the size. The applicant is proposing to add seven (7) new Spruce trees along the north fence line to provide additional screening of the proposed new structures and the new trees shall be at least four-feet in height at the time of planting. She stated that tree removal and replacement is subject to the review and approval of the City Forester and that additional landscaping would be placed around the pool area.

Planner Smith advised that the proposal is consistent with all the Zoning Code criteria for Site and Building Plan review and for the Conditional Use Permits and with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the requests with a modification to Condition No. 5 relating to the landscaping and one additional condition reiterating the fact that the pool house may not be used for human habitation.

Mayor Park asked if there were any questions or comments.

Councilmember MacManus stated that it is a lovely plan; however, she expressed concern regarding the number of lights proposed.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked if the lights would only be on when the pool is in use. Mr. Baillon responded yes and noted that the area next to the pool would be dark at night and the lights are cautionary for safety purposes.

Mayor Park asked if there were any comments from neighbors regarding the motion sensor lights and the Planner responded no.

Mayor Park asked if the pool would be concrete or a vinyl liner and Mr. Baillon responded it would be vinyl. 

Councilmember MacManus asked if the number of lights is more than usually approved by the City.

Councilmember Conant questioned if the neighbors had comments regarding the lights.   Planner Smith explained that the neighbors were notified of the public hearing and only one neighbor was present.

There was discussion relating to the lighting plan. Mr. Baillon explained that they are recessed canned lights that will be placed in the soffets and reflect light downward.

Councilmember Williams asked if the lights would extend below the soffit and noted that the lights would only present a problem if they could be seen from the roadway. Mr. Baillon responded that the lights would not extend below the soffit.

Planner Commissioner Svendsen explained that he had viewed the property during the on-site visit and that the house is set off the road and has a long driveway; in his opinion the lights would not be seen from the road.
Councilmember Williams asked if any adjacent properties would be affected by the lighting and Commissioners Svendsen and Wahlstrom responded no.

Councilmember MacManus stated although in this instance the lights would not be visible, she preferred not to establish precedence for numerous lights.

Commissioner Svendsen noted that Jim Sullivan’s home is located close to the property and during the on-site visit Mr. Sullivan mentioned he cannot see the area proposed for the pool construction.

There was a brief discussion relating to the wattage of the lights and the lighting direction. Planner smith pointed out that the Ordinance states the lighting cannot impact neighboring properties; staff did not find evidence that the proposed lighting would have any impact on surrounding properties.  

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

Councilmember DeCourcy moved to approve the following:
   
1.  A Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of more than one accessory structure based on a finding that the request is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and will be compatible with surrounding land uses;

2.  A Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet in area based on a finding that the request is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and will not adversely impact the neighboring properties; and

3.  Site and Building Plan for the installation of a pool, pool house and detached garage addition, subject to the ten (10) conditions as recommended by the Planner Commission and as listed in the Planner’s report dated August 26, 2009 ;

seconded by Councilmember Williams and carried. (5-0)
 
b.     Release of Liability, Waiver of Legal Rights and Assumption of Risk Form for use of “Weed Wrench”” at the Musser Park “Buckthorn Bust”:   Mayor Park introduced Tom Schlehuber, 3 Acorn Drive and Bernie Touhy, 9 Sunfish Lane, and explained they wished to provide information regarding the proposed Buckthorn event at Musser Park.

Mr. Schlehuber thanked the Council for allowing time for the presentation and also thanked the Environmental Commission and the Planning Commission for their input on the subject.  He also expressed thanks to former Forester Mark Johnson and current Forester Jim Nayes for their assistance with removal of Buckthorn.

Mr. Schlehuber stated the power point presentation is titled “Saving the Forest from the Trees” and noted that residents may find information on the website relating to Buckthorn removal.  He stated that last September, at the request of the Environmental Commission, the City purchased a weed wrench that may be loaned to residents to assist with Buckthorn removal on their property; however, the Environmental Commission believes that more needs to be done. He explained that he was introduced to Buckthorn on his property by the previous Forester Mark Johnson when he moved to Sunfish Lake two years ago and he has since been on a mission to remove it from his property.

Mr. Schlehuber gave a power-point presentation showing Buckthorn throughout the City and explained it was planted as a screening hedge; he noted that each berry on the plant contains three (3) seeds and that is why it spreads so easily. He noted that because Buckthorn has become so thick it does not allow any new growth in wooded areas; he displayed photos of his
property before and after removal of the Buckthorn and how new tree growth has sprouted in the wooded area of his property where the Buckthorn was removed.

Bernie Touhy stated that there are three requests the Environmental Commission wishes Council to consider; he noted that the Commission is of the opinion that residents are not adequately aware of the Buckthorn or the problem it creates. He explained that the Commission wishes to conduct an annual Buckthorn Bust event in the fall each year; he noted this year’s event is tentatively scheduled on October 10, with volunteers being asked to remove Buckthorn from the park between 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and then a barbeque lunch would be provided, with games for families from 12:00 to 2 p.m.  He advised that the Commission is requesting the City provide $300 for the event, with $100 to cover the cost of food for the volunteers and $200 to purchase safety apparel for use by the volunteers cutting the Buckthorn. He further noted that Council is being asked to approve the “waiver of liability” prepared by the City Attorney.

Mr. Touhy explained the intent of the event is to build awareness of the Buckthorn problem and the Commission is not intending to police residential properties, but rather provide information and the tools for residents to clear their properties of this invasive species.

Mayor Park asked if the City Attorney wished to address the liability issues.

Attorney Kuntz stated he had prepared a release of liability waiver for citizen use that relates to this event which is similar to the waiver relating to individual use of the weed wrench by residents.

Mr. Touhy summarized the presentation by stated the request is for Council to authorize the Commission to proceed with the Buckthorn Bust on October 10, 2009; authorize a study to draft an educational plan and proposal for eradication of Buckthorn by residents; and consider if the City wishes to take a stronger stance on Buckthorn removal from properties in the future.

Mayor Park thanked the gentlemen for the presentation and asked if there were any comments or questions.

Councilmember DeCourcy stated she applauds the efforts of the group; she noted there is also an issue with grapevines in the City and she wished to address that in the future. Mr. Schlehuber stated that issue could be incorporated into the study.

Mr. Touhy noted that there are several invasive species identified within the City such as garlic mustard, burdock, and various noxious weeds; he explained that the Commission wishes to start with the Buckthorn issue only.

Mr. Schlehuber explained that no children would be in the area when the actual cutting of the Buckthorn is done, as requested by Council.

Mayor Park questioned if the funding for the project were not approved this evening could the event still be scheduled. Mr. Touhy responded yes and asked if the City could possibly donate the $100 for food and additional funds for the safety equipment could be discussed at a later date.

Councilmember Williams asked if the City may provide money for food for the event. Mr. Kuntz responded that the City can provide food for persons helping to improve City property.   

There was discussion relating to the purchase of the safety equipment and where it would be stored.

Councilmember Williams stated he supports the event, however he is unsure if this is a good time to purchase safety equipment; he expressed concern regarding people showing up with their own equipment. Councilmember Conant agreed.

Councilmember MacManus stated in her opinion it is a great idea and she supported the funding.

Mayor Park asked the City Attorney if a motion to authorize the event was needed. Mr. Kuntz responded that a motion to authorize the event and to approve the waiver should be adopted.

Councilmember Williams moved to authorize the Buckthorn Bust event at Musser Park on October 10, 2009, with a City contribution of $100 for food for the volunteers attending the event to make improvements to City property, condition upon all volunteers signing a waiver of release of liability form as drafted by the City Attorney, seconded by Councilmember Conant.

In discussion, Councilmember DeCourcy asked if poison would be used for eradication and what type of poison. Mr. Schlehuber stated he uses a type of Round-Up that is poured onto the stump and destroys the root system of the Buckthorn; he offered to provide the Round-Up.

Mayor Park asked the Treasurer if funds are available for the event. Mr. Blair explained that the Forester’s budget contains $200 per month for “forestry expenses”.

Councilmember Williams indicated he would prefer to wait a year to discuss the funding.

Mr. Touhy commented that the problem would not be resolved this year and will take a committed effort over a period of time.

Councilmember Williams stated he would accept a friendly amendment to cover the cost of the Round-Up.

Councilmember Conant asked Mr. Schlehuber for an estimated cost and he responded approximately $75.00 per gallon.

Councilmember MacManus offered a friendly amendment to the motion to authorize the use of City funds in an amount not to exceed $300 for the Buckthorn Bust event. Councilmembers Williams and Conant as maker and second accepted the friendly amendment to the motion. Motion carried. (5-0)

There was discussion regarding the best method to dispose of the Buckthorn after removal by either chipping or hauling it away from the site. Engineer Hanson suggested that designated people with safety equipment cut the Buckthorn prior to the event and then the volunteers could assist with removal from the site. Councilmember Williams suggested that the Buckthorn to be removed could be marked prior to the event.

Mr. Touhy commented that he believes there is a need for more communication to residents regarding removal of Buckthorn and asked that Council authorize the Commission to prepare a business plan for its removal.

Mayor Park asked if the plan could include all noxious weeds and Mr. Tuhy responded yes.

Council concurred to direct the preparation of a study and business plan for removal of invasive species and thanked the gentlemen for their presentation.  

7.     INSPECTOR’S REPORTS: 

        a.     Building Inspector: Inspector Wahl stated that he conducted three (3) inspections and issued four (4) permits in July.

Council thanked the Inspector for his report.

b.        City Engineer:   Salem Church Road Reconstruction:  Engineer Hanson stated that this item was discussed during the public hearing.

Charlton Road Feasibility Update:  Engineer Hanson explained that this item would be discussed later on the agenda in conjunction with the appraisal report.

Baillon Site Plan Review:  The Engineer stated he reviewed the grading plan for the project at 348 Salem Church Road and submitted his report to the Planner.

Southside Baptist Church Minor Site Review:  The Engineer explained he conducted a site visit with the pastor of the church on the location of an auxiliary building and found the proposed location to be acceptable.

Syvertsen Minor Site Review: The Engineer stated a site visit was conducted with Keith Syvertsen at 8 Sunfish Lane regarding minor grading adjacent to his driveway and the work was identified as acceptable.

Review of Clean Water Partnership Grant:  Engineer Hanson stated that Council requested a review of potential projects that may be considered for the Clean Water Partnership Grant. He explained that two critical criteria for the grant are necessary; 1) Projects need to be previously identified such as listed in the Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan; and, 2) the water body should have public access. He noted that neither of these criteria is met by the three lakes in Sunfish Lake, which
makes a grant very difficult to obtain. He advised that his firm pursued the possibility with an adjacent property owner, as detailed in his memorandum forward by email to Council and dated August 27, 2009.

The Engineer explained that the three lakes have relatively small drainage areas and are surrounded by private property. He advised that the south side of Sunfish Lake had been identified as a possible Best Management Practices (BMP) implementation area and the Bancroft property was found to be the most likely area to construct a BMP; he stated that Mr. Bancroft was contacted regarding donating land for the project and he was not interested in donating or dedicating land to construct another BMP since he had already constructed two on his property.


Engineer Hanson advised the second type of project that could be funded would be a water quality study project to identify sources of pollution, gather background data and provide additional direction on how to address water quality problems.  He noted that two main strategies for consideration of grant funding were identified, as outlined in his report dated August 27, 2009; 1) Creation of a Sunfish Lake Water Quality Preservation Study that determines strategies for preserving or improving the water quality, and 2) Development of a City –wide Public Education Campaign to educate citizens. He noted that the cost to perform the Water Quality Preservation Study is estimated between $50,000 to $60,000 and the estimated cost for the Public Education Campaign ranges from $8,000 to $10,000; he pointed out that the grants normally are a cost share situation with the City paying 50 percent of the actual costs. He reiterated that since the lakes do not have public access it may be difficult to obtain a grant.

The Engineer reported that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has been reviewing data collected on Sunfish Lake through the Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) and it appears that they may place the lake on the impaired waters classification; this may place the lake on a higher priority for funding.

Councilmember Williams suggested that phosphorous loads are one of the triggering items relating to water quality.

Councilmember Conant questioned what happens if the lake is classified as impaired. Engineer Hanson explained the DNR would conduct a study on what causes the impairment and establishes water quality improvement projects.

Councilmember Conant referred to the Syvertson report and asked what standards were met to classify the project as “acceptable”. Engineer Hanson responded that the work completed was relatively small, did not cause any drainage impacts to the area and did not have any impact on surrounding properties.

Councilmember Conant questioned if there are written standards and where he could find them. Mr. Hanson explained that the standards listed in the City Code are somewhat vague in nature and state that for a minor review, that is less than 50 cubic yards of material, the grading cannot change drainage patterns or make them worse.

Councilmember Conant asked who would be involved in discussions with the Lower Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (LMWMO) regarding water quality issues.  The Engineer explained that Councilmember Williams is the Chair and person appointed to serve as liaison and he represents the City during such discussions.

In response to Councilmember Conant’s inquiries, Councilmember Williams provided a brief explanation of the LMWMO and its function and Engineer Hanson explained the CAMP program and its use to propose water quality projects.  Councilmember Conant thanked both for the information.

In conclusion, Engineer Hanson stated that if the City wishes to proceed with either of the two options a more detailed engineering cost analysis could be performed at the time of submittal for the grant application.

2010 Budget: The Engineer stated he had identified Engineering and Public Works costs for the proposed budget and submitted them to the Treasurer.  
    
Public Works Activates Undertaken in the Month of August:   Windy Hill Road & Salem Church Road sign Repair:  The stop signs at the Windy Hill Road and Salem Church Road intersection were cleaned of graffiti last month. He noted that the Mayor had contacted him regarding two stop signs that were down and he put them back in place temporarily and he will have them repaired and re-installed.

Charlton Road:  The Engineer stated that Charlton Road was graded.    

Anticipated Engineer/Public Works Activities for the Month of September:

*Project management for the Salem Church Road Reconstruction Project
* Assessing of the Salem Church Road improvements

         
Council thanked the Engineer for his report.

Attorney Kuntz explained that Edward Paster had asked if he could bring to the attention of Council a petition for installation of a street light at the intersection of Huber Drive/Charlton Road and Delaware Avenue and he suggested discussing the matter under the Engineer’s report.

Mr. Paster explained that he started the petition with neighbors in Mendota Heights who expressed concern regarding children boarding school buses during the winter season since it is dark in the early morning hours. He stated that he had submitted the petition to the City of Mendota Heights and was also asking the City of Sunfish Lake to consider the request as he believes it will benefit everyone in the neighborhood.   

Mayor Park stated she was contacted by the City of Mendota Heights via the City Clerk regarding the request and asked the Clerk to provide information on this matter.

City Clerk Iago explained that the City Engineer from Mendota Heights informed her that their Council would consider the petition only if it contained signatures from all property owners adjacent to the intersection and that they would contact Mr. Paster to request he obtain the missing signatures prior to studying the matter. She noted that a letter was sent to Mayor Park and that she was planning to discuss the matter with the City Engineer prior to sending it to Council.  The Clerk explained that after discussing the matter with the Mendota Heights City Engineer it was determined that it would be a duplication of effort if both cities studied the matter and that all signatures should be obtained prior to either city undertaking a study.

Mayor Park suggested Mr. Paster attempt to obtain all necessary signatures and re-submit the petition to the Mendota Heights City Engineer.

Councilmember Conant questioned who would be responsible for the costs associated with the streetlight.

Engineer Hanson explained that normally Mendota Heights would propose a 50/50 cost share for installation and monthly maintenance of the light; he noted that installation could be fairly expensive depending on the location of the electrical service.

c.        CITY FORESTER:  Forester Nayes stated he issued two (2) burning permits in August. He noted that he had identified Purple Loose Strife in areas of the City and suggested that anyone seeing the purple flowered weed should remove it to curb further growth.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked if the Forester notified residents if he sees it on their property. Mr. Nayes stated he has not done so, but he will notify residents.  

The Forester explained that he has done some road and sign clearance of trees and will continue to do so. 

Mr. Nayes stated he contacted the Minnesota Land Trust and they agreed that if the City is removing Buckthorn or other invasive species they support the effort as long as best practices for removal are followed; he explained that removal must be by mowing, pesticides. He further explained that the Land Trust has asked that the City draft a Good Management Practices Plan for Musser Park. He stated the Land Trust has offered to look through their resources to find a property that is similar to the park and forward a copy of a similar document to the City. He also pointed out that eventually it would be wise to adopt the same regulations for all parks; he stated he would work with the Environment Committee on the document.

The Forester commented that he would contact the Forestry Newsletter to find out if they would print an educational article on Buckthorn removal as an educational tool. He also offered to assist with purchasing safety equipment such as chaps or safety glasses for the Buckthorn Bust.

Mayor Park commented that if would be fine only if the costs do not exceed the monies allocated for the event. Councilmember Williams suggested he contact the people involved with the event.
 
Council thanked the Forester for his report.

d.       PUBLIC SAFETY:   Chief Shaver was present and expressed thanks to Eric and Kathryn Newmark for hosting the “National Night Out” event over the weekend. He reported that he would be conducting a “Citizen Academy” in conjunction

with the City of Mendota Heights running from September 17 through November 5; the course is 21 hours, over 7 weeks, for 3 hrs. per night; he noted that the class is not strictly lecture and that residents would be actively involved in learning a police officers job duties. He stated he would send information and an application form for posting on the Sunfish Lake website for interested residents. 

The Chief referred to the Public Safety monthly report for July, 2009 and noted that the alarm calls were much higher than the same period last year; he suggested a reminder be posted for residents to attempt to limit the amount of false alarms. He explained that there was a robbery listed on the report that initiated in West St. Paul and the vehicle was stopped at Salem Church Road; he stated he is still investigating the incident. He also noted there were six “suspicious person” calls and he complimented residents for contacting the police to investigate the incidents. He also explained that two upcoming programs that will be offered to interested residents; one program is initiated by the Dakota County Communication Center called CODE RED and it offers storm warnings and emergency notifications to residents and the other is offered from the City of West St. Paul and it is called NEXTEL which offers amber alerts and community information. Both programs provide email or cell phone notification for interested residents. The Chief offered to send information for the website on both programs.  

Councilmember Conant asked if there are actually burglaries occurring with the alarms. Chief Shaver stated most are false alarms and there are very few burglaries.

Councilmember Williams stated staff makes a distinction between a false and actual alarm; Chief Shaver explained a key holder is usually called first and if no one answers the police then respond.         

Mayor Park introduced Mendota Heights Police Chief Mike Aschenbrener who was presented to discuss utilizing professional bow hunters as an option to reduce the deer herd in Sunfish Lake. She explained that the City conducted an aerial deer count earlier in the year and found 53 deer within the City limits; she noted that the DNR has advised that was a large amount of deer in such a small area. She further explained that the City Code requires Council to make a decision in August each year as to whether or not deer hunting will be allowed within the guidelines of the City Code.

Chief Aschenbrener introduced Ron Cormeir and Ron Lee from the Metro Bow Hunter Resource Base.  He explained that he had reviewed the Sunfish Lake Code relating to deer hunting. He advised that Mendota Heights does not allow hunting within the city limits; however, the city does actively cull the deer herd every two years utilizing volunteer professional bow hunters from the Metro Bow Hunter Resource Base. He stated that Mendota Height Council changed the Ordinance to grant an exemption for the hunt and that the Police Department mails a letter with a permission slip to all affected property owners. He advised that during the last six years there have been no complaints from residents regarding the hunt and that the bow hunters submit a report to the City Council regarding the number of deer they have culled from the herd. He commented that in his opinion 53 deer within the Sunfish Lake City limits is a serious problem; he noted that when the number of deer increased in Mendota Heights, the City scheduled two hunts within the same year.

Councilmember DeCourcy stated she is adamantly opposed to bow hunting since she has seen a deer in her area with an arrow stuck in its leg; she indicated she would prefer shooting the deer. She recalled that the dodge Nature Center staff had stated the heard may have migrated from the river and questioned how the City would determine if the deer are part of the Sunfish Lake herd or part of a migratory herd.

Chief Aschenbrener explained that deer are very territorial; he stated that 53 deer in a herd is extremely unusual and in his opinion deer may move somewhat but not a great distance.

Councilmember Conant asked the Chief to estimate the deer density in Mendota Heights. Chief Aschenbrener explained he did not bring the actual numbers, however; on the average over the last two years the City has 40 within a one square mile area.

Mayor Park noted that the deer population is mostly south of Salem Church Road.  She questioned the bow hunters regarding the incident of the arrow in the deer’s leg. Ron Cormeir explained that he has done the volunteer hunting for 15 years and that he does not believe it was a professional hunter that shot the deer; he noted that most professional hunters use high performance equipment and he guessed it was more likely a child using a common bow.

Ron Lee stated that the City has the option to use a sharpshooter at a cost of $200 per deer; however, he explained that the Metro Bow Hunters do it for free and donate the processed deer meat to the Food Shelves. He stated he understands it is an emotional issue, but he pointed out that the equipment is high performance and the professional hunters only take high percentage shots.

Mayor Park read the dates and hours that hunting is currently allowed in the City Code and the regulations that relate to issuance of a deer hunting permit and asked if the regulations are similar to Mendota Heights. Chief Aschenbrener explained that Mendota Heights does not allow any hunting within the city and that their Ordinance exempts the professional hunt.

The Mayor asked if Sunfish Lake could incorporate the regulations into the City Code. Ron Cormeir explained that Sunfish Lake may establish the same guidelines as Mendota Heights or expand them if they wish.

Councilmember DeCourcy noted that the area of Musser Park has been identified with the highest concentration of deer and asked if he could cordon off the entrance to the park and use sharp-shooters to cull the herd.

Councilmember Williams indicated there are deer in the area of Acorn Drive also and agreed that it is better to cull the herd versus having them struck by vehicles.

Ron Lee explained that the if the hunt occurs in a park, the City could contact the residents to advise them of the date and times for the event and would have more control over who is on the property.

Councilmember Williams noted that it may be hard to post the park with so many accesses.  Mr. Lee explained that the park could be well posted and specific guidelines set for removal of the deer.

Mayor Park indicated that there may be a group of homeowners south of Musser Park that would agree to have a hunt conducted on their properties; she indicated she would prefer to limit the hunting to a three-day period.

There was discussion regarding the how the hunt would be conducted and how seasonal baiting would work. Ron Lee explained that the DNR would have to grant a permit for the hunt.

Councilmember Williams indicated that baiting appears to be more predictable. Mayor Park asked if the City would incur any costs for the baiting and Mr. Cormeir responded no.

Ron Cormeir explained that the Council could determine which method they wish to use and baiting is more predictable.  He stated that normally local farmers donate the corn for baiting. 

Councilmember Conant asked if the City must apply to the DNR and Mr. Cormeir responded yes.

Chief Aschenbrener stated he would work with staff to contact the DNR for a permit to remove a certain number of deer and also to update the City’s Deer Management Plan.

Ron Cormeir explained that the DNR recommends seven deer per square mile for a total of 14 deer.

Councilmember Conant supported winter baiting in a concentrated area to limit danger to citizens. Ron Cormeir explained that there should be no danger to citizens with professional hunters; he indicated he would assist with contacting the DNR with a recommendation for removal of the deer.

Council concurred with the winter baiting type of hunt.

Attorney Kuntz pointed out that the existing Ordinance persons can hunt within the City limits if all regulations are met and if the City wishes to use the Special DNR Permit program that Mendota Heights uses the City would have to adopt a Deer Management Program and amend the existing ordinance.

Ron Cormeir explained that the DNR may be willing to issue a permit in a short period of time due to the number of deer and suggested that staff contact the DNR for a recommendation regarding the number of deer to be removed. He suggested that a Management Program also be drafted.

Chief Aschenbrener suggested that it takes approximately 30 days to gather information for recommending the appropriate number of deer to be removed. 

Councilmember Williams indicated that he is unsure how many residents actually take advantage of the current hunting policy; he suggested Council should review an animal management policy and remove the deer hunting from the ordinance and just go through the DNR to obtain a permit for removal. 

Councilmember DeCourcy stated residents used to request permits. Councilmember Williams commented that he does not believe residents have been able to obtain permission to hunt on 10-acre parcels.

Councilmember Conant suggested the ordinance be altered to have the special permit season and authorize the Clerk to draft a Deer Management Program for Council to review at the next meeting.   

Mayor Park suggested the City Attorney’s office draft the plan and ordinance amendment.  Chief Aschenbrener stated the DNR may have a model ordinance and Chief Shaver offered to work with the Clerk and City Attorney on this item.

Council thanked those present for their information.

Councilmember Conant moved to request the City Attorney to draft an ordinance amendment to allow an exemption for the Special DNR Permit and direct the City Clerk , Police Chief and City Attorney to draft a Deer Management Plan for Council review at the next meeting, seconded by Councilmember Williams and carried. (5-0)

Council took a 5 minute recess at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m.        
                       

8.     OTHER/NEW BUSINESS:       

a.      Consider Adopting the Proposed 2010 Budget and Tax Levy:   Mayor Park asked the City Attorney to review the legislative change relating to the Truth in Taxation meeting for taxes payable in 2010. 

Attorney Kuntz reviewed the 2009 legislative changes relating to Truth in Taxation as outlined in his memo dated August 26, 2009. He explained that the City must adopt a “not to exceed” tax levy and budget for 2010 at this meeting; however the Council will have an opportunity to adopt a final tax levy and budget at a later date. He noted that the City must also set a meeting date at which time public input will be taken and post notification of this meeting date as part of the new laws. He advised that the Council minutes must also reflect the action taken to set the time and date the final budget will be discussed and noted that this is normally done at the first meeting in December, which is scheduled on December 1, 2009.  He also noted that the City Treasurer would present the proposed 2010 Tax Levy and Budget this evening and that Council must forward a copy of the documents to Dakota County prior to September 15, 2009.

Treasurer Blair distributed a slightly modified budget document which reflects a $2,000 reduction in the Fire Department Budget for 2010; he explained that he did not receive this information until recently from the Fire Department.  He stated he is proposing a 10% decrease in the operating levy which will be offset by the increase in the Salem Church Road Bond Levy; the net decrease in the levy would be 3%. He referred to the comparison information relating to prior years of the levy; he noted the difference from 2004 to 2010 the levy has gone from $274,000 to $354,000. He explained this year the debt service levy consisting of Acorn Drive and Salem Church Road went from $8,500, which was primarily Acorn Drive, to $37,100 which is both improvement projects.

The Treasurer pointed out that although the City is no longer required to conduct a Truth in Taxation hearing, the City is still required to discuss the final budget at a future meeting.

Mr. Blair advised that pages 3 and 4 list the detailed budget. He pointed out that the permit income in 2009 was $31,875; however, given the current economy he estimated next year’s permit income at $12,000. He noted that this is not a significant items since most of the permit income, approximately 90 percent,  is passed on to the City Inspector   

Councilmember DeCourcy asked if Council could have a month to review the information. Treasurer Blair explained the budget is not much of a deviation from previous years.

Mayor Park stated that the City must submit the preliminary budget to the County by September 15.

Treasurer Blair pointed out that this is a preliminary budget and that Council has the option to lower the budget amount at the December meeting; however, the amount cannot be increased once it is sent to the County.

Councilmember DeCourcy stated she wished to see more funds available for the City Forester budget.

Mr. Blair pointed out that Council has the authority to increase the Forester’s budget for additional services above his compensation. He also noted that the Road Maintenance budget is reduced from last year; he noted that last year’s budget included maintenance for Salem Church Road and that improvement was turned into a bonding item.

The Treasurer stated that there is a line item of $30,000 for the Charlton Road improvement and he asked the Engineer to briefly comment on that item.

Engineer Hanson explained that some assumption were made relating to the Charlton Road project and some maintenance items were held back until it was determined if the project would proceed; he suggested that if the project does not proceed, there are some drainage consideration and the $30,000 could be used to make drainage improvements along Charlton Road.

The Treasurer stated that some of the “flat” budgets are the City Attorney, City Planner, City Treasurer and a modest increase for the Clerk’s position. He noted that most of the line items are similar to the prior year and he offered to respond to questions.

Councilmember Conant indicated that in his opinion the City cash reserves are too large and questioned when he would have an opportunity to discuss the issue.

Attorney Kuntz indicated that Council could discuss the final budget at the December meeting and that the public would also have an opportunity to provide input at that meeting.  He explained the County Auditor sends notice to all residents regarding the proposed budget and if Council wishes to discuss any budget items they have an opportunity anytime prior to and including the December meeting.

The Attorney noted that the major focus this evening should be to adopt a “not to exceed” budget this evening and in light of Councilmember DeCourcy’s comments regarding an increase he indicated it may be wise to adopt a higher amount; he noted the current proposed budget is $355,000 and suggested an additional $10,000 could be added for a total amount of $365,000. He pointed out this would allow Council some flexibility in determining a final budget.

Councilmember Williams indicated he was going to suggest the additional funds since the amount cannot be increased in December.

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

Councilmember Williams moved to adopt the 2010 Preliminary Budget for the City of Sunfish Lake not to exceed $365,000.00, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (5-0)

Mr. Kuntz suggested that Council take formal action establishing the date of the final budget discussion.

Councilmember Williams moved to set discussion of the final budget at the Regular Council meeting held December 1, 2009 at which time public input would be heard, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (5-0)

Attorney Kuntz stated that since the City does not publish minutes, he would post notice of the budget discussion on the City website and at the Church. He also noted that residents would receive notice in the mail.

b.     Discussion of Appraisal Reports for Charlton Road – Integra Realty Resources and Metzen Appraisals:

Attorney Kuntz explained that the two appraisal amounts were very close; one at $580,000 and one at $550,000. He suggested that given the late hour Council may wish to table discussion of this item to the next regular meeting.

Councilmember MacManus commented that she does not believe a million dollar project deserves further discussion. She indicated that she is displeased to hear this evening that certain maintenance on Charlton Road was delayed in lieu of the possible improvement project. She stated she had never heard this before that in her opinion it was unconscionable to her that maintenance would be delayed.

Councilmember Conant questioned if the appraisal costs may be increased if the City pursues eminent domain. Mr. Kuntz advised that the amounts have some costs built in for that purpose.

Councilmember Williams asked if potential landowner Attorney fees are included in the appraisal costs and Mr. Kuntz responded no, but that landowner appraisal reimbursement was included.

Mayor Park agreed that $1.2 million dollars to improve a half-mile of road is untenable; she indicated that Council needs to discuss what should be done to the road. She further agreed that maintenance should not be delayed. She asked the City Attorney how to proceed.

Mr. Kuntz suggested placing the item on the October agenda.

Councilmember DeCourcy agreed that some type of improvement needs to be done to the road.

Councilmember MacManus stated she wished to make a motion that this project is done.   

Councilmember Williams moved to table discussion of the appraisals for Charlton Road to the October 6, 2009 Regular Council meeting, seconded by Councilmember Conant.

Mayor Park asked if there was any discussion and Councilmember Williams advised that a motion to table an item ends all discussion.

Mayor Park called for a vote on the motion.

Motion carried. (3-2) (Ayes: Williams, Conant, Park; Nayes: McManus, DeCourcy)             



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

9.     ADJOURN:   Councilmember MacManus moved for adjournment at 9:55 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Conant and carried. (5-0)

Molly Park, Mayor                                                                      Catherine Iago, City Clerk