SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – SEPTEMBER 3, 2013
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Mayor: Molly Park
Councilmembers: Mike Hovey, Cathy DeCourcy, JoAnne Wahlstrom and Steven Bulach
City Attorney: Tim Kuntz
City Planner: Emily Shively
City Engineer: Don Sterna
City Treasurer: Ann Lanoue
Building Inspector: David Neameyer
City Forester: Jim Nayes
City Clerk: Cathy Iago
and Members of the General Public.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Park opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
2. APPROVE AGENDA: Mayor Park asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda. She referred to Item 5a and explained that Eagle Scout Graham Smith would be attending the October Council meeting instead of this evening.
Councilmember Bulach asked if discussion of the Dobrantz property should be added to the agenda and Mayor Park advised that could be discussed under Other Business along with a letter that was sent to residents who live adjacent to Sunfish Lake. She asked if there were any other changes and there was no response.
Councilmember Bulach moved approval of the Agenda as amended, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (5-0)
3. CONSENT AGENDA: The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda and there was no response.
Councilmember Hovey moved approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)
a. Special and Regular Council meeting minutes of August 6, 2013.
b. List of Bills
c. Monthly Financials
4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: Mayor Park asked if there were any comments from the public.
Ingrid Conant, 2 Sunfish Lane, stated that she read in the August Council minutes that Highway 110 would be redone in 2017 and that MnDOT suggested eliminating two crossovers near Sunfish Lane. She asked if residents would have an opportunity to express their concerns to MnDOT before this occurs.
Engineer Sterna advised that MnDOT is currently studying options for eliminating access points along Highway 110 in conjunction with a mill and overlay improvement scheduled for 2017. He explained that he had discussed this information with Council at the August meeting and that he contacted MnDOT to advise them Council wished to at least maintain a three-quarter access point at Sunfish Lane. He stated he was unsure if MnDOT would hold an open house to receive input from residents before this occurs.
Ingrid Conant expressed her opinion that Sunfish Lake residents should have some input on the matter and she pointed out that no accidents have occurred at the Sunfish Lane access point. She questioned if the City could request a meeting with MnDOT and residents to discuss the proposed improvements. She stated that the most frequently used access point is to the west of Sunfish Lane and if it is closed, traffic would have to use the stoplight at Mendota Road, which would cause more backup.
Mayor Park explained that the Engineer had conveyed to MnDOT that the City wishes to keep the Sunfish Lane access point open.
Councilmember Wahlstrom asked the Engineer to explain a three-quarter access point.
The Engineer advised that the three-quarter access point only allows right in and left out turns and no cross-over movements are allowed. He pointed out that MnDOT sent the plans to affected cities to receive their input and he could contact MnDOT again to relay the concerns expressed this evening.
Ingrid Conant also asked why only a few residents were notified of the airport noise discussion when it was listed under Public Hearings. She asked how the City could improve informing residents when pertinent discussions occur. She also questioned why residents were not notified that the Noise Oversight Committee voted to support the R-NAV in November of 2012. She asked if there would be any future meetings to discuss this topic.
Mayor Park apologized that information about the airport noise discussion was not more widely publicized; she pointed out that it was posted on the website and at the Church. She explained that the City will attempt to spread the word in the future when such items are being discussed.
Clerk Iago explained that the agenda item number 5 always lists Public Hearings/Presentations; however, the airport information was not a public hearing. She thought it was listed as a “presentation”.
Ingrid Conant suggested it be more defined so residents are not confused.
Mayor Park explained that she was not serving on the Council in 2012 and was unaware that the R-NAV was supported by the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC).
Clerk Iago explained that the NOC vote was reported to Council by Gretchen Keenan, who was the City representative to the NOC. She advised that the Council did not vote on the matter, only the representatives serving on the Noise Oversight Committee.
The Mayor asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
5. PUBLIC HEARING/PRESENTATION: Congratulate Eagle Scout Graham Smith for Harmon Park Reforestation Project: Mayor Park advised this would be discussed at the October meeting.
6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT: a. Consider Minor Subdivision, Flynn/Park: Planner Shively explained that the applicants are requesting approval of a Minor Subdivision for a jointly owned lot between their properties at 2324 Angell Road and 15 Sunnyside Lane. She stated the parcel would be split in half and each half combined to its adjacent parcel. She advised that existing drainage and utility easements would be vacated and new drainage and utility easements along the perimeter of the new lots would be dedicated to the City. She noted that the parcel to be split is currently vacant and that conforming homes and driveways currently exist on both the impacted Flynn and Park properties. She stated that no additional site or building improvements are being proposed at this time.
The Planner explained that the site survey shows a narrow gap between the two properties which would be classified as a “lot remnant line”; she advised that if approval is granted for the minor subdivision, this remnant would fall within the Flynn lot and they would commence a court action to establish title for the gap area. She further advised that an outlot owned by Flynn would not be impacted by this request.
Planner Shively stated that staff recommends approval of the request based on the finding that the proposal would have minimal impact on site conditions or neighboring property and that upon subdivision the subject parcel would continue to meet all ordinance and lot design requirements and subject to the conditions as listed that the applicant record with Dakota County the approved survey and convey drainage and utility easement document as drafted by the City Attorney and record the easements with Dakota County.
Attorney Kuntz pointed out that approval of the minor subdivision should be coordinated with the procedure for vacation of the easements.
Attorney Carter Delaittre was present representing the Flynn property and asked if the vacation of the easements was part of the application process.
Attorney Kuntz advised that the proposed resolution does not state that the easements are vacated and he explained that State Statutes requires notice of a public hearing to vacate the easements be posted and published prior to the hearing.
Planner Shively stated that it was her understanding that the vacation of the easements and dedication of the new easements would occur at the same time. Attorney Delaittre agreed and commented that the surveyor drew up the survey as such.
Councilmember DeCoury asked if a buildable lot would be created with the subdivision and the Planner responded no.
Attorney Kuntz advised that the City must conduct a public hearing prior to vacation of the existing easements and suggested that approval of the lot split could be granted once that has been done.
Councilmember Hovey asked if there would be sufficient time to publish the notice prior to the next Council meeting.
Attorney Kuntz indicated that there should be time to publish the notice prior to the October meeting.
There was discussion regarding the delay in processing the application and both Mayor Park and Attorney Delaittre indicated it would not be a problem to delay the matter.
Attorney Kuntz commented that it would be advantageous to process both item at the same time.
Mayor Park asked if she must abstain from discussion. Attorney Kuntz explained she must abstain from voting on the matter, but she could discuss the application as a resident.
The Mayor asked who would be sent the notice of public hearing. Attorney Kuntz advised that adjacent property owners are normally sent the notice and any other interested parties as listed in the Statutes.
Mayor Park asked who would be responsible for the fees associated with the publication. Attorney Kuntz stated he was unsure, but pointed out that normally the application fee pays for any publication fees.
Planner Shively stated she was not aware of any separate fees for the notice publication or the vacation process. She explained that this information may have been a casualty of the job transfer due to Planner Barness being on maternity leave.
There was discussion relating to how the delay would impact the assessment for the lots at the County. Attorney Kuntz explained that normally if the filing is recorded by November 15 it shows on the next taxation cycle.
Mayor Park asked if there was any further discussion on the matter and there was no response.
Councilmember Bulach moved to delay action on the Minor Subdivision for Flynn/Park to the October 1, 2013 Council meeting to allow time for staff to publish notice of a public hearing on the vacation of easements, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (Ayes: 4 Bulach, Wahlstrom, DeCourcy, Hovey; Nays: 0; Abstain: 1 Park)
b. Consider Major Site & Building Plan Review, 21 Salem Lane: Planner Shively explained that the applicants are proposing to construct a one-story addition on the east side of their home to provide a master bedroom, bath and office on the first floor. She stated the proposed addition would also have a full basement. She advised that the applicant submitted a revised site survey showing the relocation of the soil stockpile as requested by the Planning Commission and to meet the engineer’s recommendation. She explained that silt fencing and erosion controls would be installed as recommended. She also advised that three (3) cottonwood trees would be removed from the site and the City Forester had recommended some additional trees be removed that are leaning toward the addition area.
The Planner stated that the project meets all R-1 District standards pertaining to building setbacks, size, height and material use, site grading, drainage and storm water management, landscaping and screening. She advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request with an amendment to one of the conditions; the Commission recommended that the septic system be pumped and inspected by a licensed septic inspector prior to making any changes to the system to ensure it is functioning appropriately.
Dick Bjorklund was present on behalf of the applicants.
Councilmember Hovey asked if there were any comments from neighbors regarding viewing the construction site.
Planner Shively stated that she did not receive any comments and pointed out that the home is barely visible due to the extensively wooded lot.
Mayor Park pointed out that Mr. Bjoklund had done wonderful work on homes within the City in the past. She asked that he be cognizant of the fact that this property is within in a cul-de-sac during the construction process.
Councilmember Bulach asked if the landscaping would be installed this fall or in the spring. Mr. Bjorklund stated most likely the landscaping would be done in the spring.
Mayor Park asked if there were any further comments or questions and there was no response.
Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt Resolution No. 13-09 titled RESOLUTION APPROVING A MAJOR SITE AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 SALEM LANE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS TRACT L, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 50, subject to the conditions as listed in the resolution, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (5-0)
c. Consider Major Site & Building Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit, 2154 Charlton Road: Planner Shively explained the applicants propose to renovate an existing home by reducing an existing attached garage, adding a second story and changing the entryway and to construct a new detached garage. She stated that the detached garage requires a Conditional Use Permit as it would be a second accessory structure on the lot since there is an existing swimming pool. She advised that the parcel is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and falls within the Shoreland Overlay District for Sunfish Lake. She stated that the lot is a legal-non conforming lot of record
The Planner stated that the site and building plans meets all conditions of the R-1 District and Shoreland Overlay District standards pertaining to building setbacks, size, height, material use, driveway and parking area design, lighting design, site grading drainage and stormwater management, landscaping and screening.
Planner Shively advised that the City Code requires that the proposed stone wall not exceed 36 inches in height and the applicant has submitted a revised plan showing the reduced wall. She displayed drawings of the new driveway and showed the area where a few trees would be removed; she noted that all trees would be replaced with the same species.
The Planner explained that the City Engineer provided additional recommendations regarding grading, site drainage, stormwater management, site access and erosion control as outlined in his report dated August 14, 2013. She advised that the applicant has agreed to address these recommendations. She noted that the Engineer requested a more detailed grading plan for stormwater management. She explained that the applicant is in the process of drafting the plan but has no definite plans for other stormwater management methods at this time.
Planner Shively noted that the lot contains a shared driveway for access and that the applicant would be required to document the condition of the gravel road and driveway prior to construction to show any damage that occurs in the spring.
Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the requests subject to the conditions as listed in the Findings of Fact. The Planner noted that the applicant submitted the revised plan for the wall reduction as listed in Condition No. 1.
Councilmember DeCourcy asked if the entire Planning Commission voted on the application. The Planner responded that the three members present voted in favor of the request.
Councilmember Wahlstrom asked if there was more than one detached garage on the property.
Mr. Nelson advised that there would be only one detached garage.
Architect Leffert Tigelaar explained that the swimming pool is considered an accessory structure.
Mayor Park asked why a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required and not a variance. Planner Shively explained that the CUP process more closely evaluates the impact of a seconded accessory structure on the property. She explained that the applicant originally sought an easement from the adjacent property for expansion of the attached garage, but was unable to obtain it. She noted that even with the easement it would have required a variance, which is somewhat difficult to justify, and therefore, they determined this was the best plan.
Councilmember Hovey asked if installation of a rain garden had been decided.
The Planner advised that the recommendations from the City Engineer were delayed and therefore the Planning Commission amended Condition No. 5 to require the applicant to provide a detailed grading and stormwater management plan to address the issues raised by the City Engineer prior to any work being done and issuance of a building permit.
Councilmember Hovey commented that he does not recall Council approval being granted prior to detailed plans being submitted by an applicant.
Planner Shively advised that the Engineer was delayed in submitting his recommendations and report and therefore the applicant did not have sufficient time to provide the detailed plans prior to the Council meeting.
Councilmember Wahlstrom pointed out that this is not a Council problem but the applicant’s problem.
Councilmember Bulach asked if a rain garden is required. The Planner explained that a stormwater management plan is required, but that does not necessarily mean a rain garden is required.
Mayor Park pointed out that the Planning Commission appeared to agree with the recommendation to submit the plan prior to the building permit issuance.
Mr. Nelson commented that there have been a number of obstacles pertaining to the project. He advised that initially he thought he could obtain an easement from the neighbor, but that did not happen, then the Engineer did not provide his recommendations in a timely manner so that the information could be submitted in detailed plans. He commented that he would provide the information to the City as requested prior to the building permit and that he wishes to break ground this year.
The Mayor commented that she is impressed by the applicant’s performance so far and questioned if an escrow account could be established to set some assurance that the recommendations would be completed.
Mr. Nelson commented that is not his intent to dodge what needs to be done.
Mayor Park asked the City Attorney to comment on the matter.
Attorney Kuntz asked the applicant when he intends to break ground for the project. Mr. Nelson stated he wishes to do so by the end of September or early October.
The Attorney explained that the Council meets the first Tuesday in October and asked if the only outstanding issue is the size and location of the rain garden.
Planner Shively responded that the stormwater management is the only outstanding issue. She explained that the Planning Commission thought the amendment to Condition No. 5 was a reasonable alternative and staff has a high level of confidence that the applicant would provide the information for the Engineer’s approval prior to requesting a building permit.
Councilmember Hovey stated he understands the dilemma but he preferred not to establish precedence for future applications.
Mr. Nelson stated he understands Councilmember Hovey’s comments, but he pointed out that the City staff did not uphold the timeframe for submitting their review.
There was discussion regarding any further delays with the permitting process if the application was delayed until the October meeting and how Council wished to proceed with the application. Also discussed was the Building Inspector’s review of the building plans prior to approval.
Attorney Kuntz explained that the Council could approve the Site and Building Plans and Conditional Use Permit with the exception of the stormwater management plans or could delay action on the matter until the October meeting.
Engineer Sterna stated he could review the plans prior to the October meeting and the building permit could be issued after approval is granted.
Inspector Niemeyer explained that he only reviews the building interior and exterior materials and design and he could review the plans in the interim, but not issue the building permit until Council approval is granted.
Planner Shively explained that typically staff has deadlines for submitting their responses for the plan review process, She pointed out that both the City Engineer and his associate were on vacation and therefore his response for the stormwater management information was delayed and did not allow the applicant sufficient time to prepare.
Councilmember Bulach stated that he also had the same issue with delays when he submitted an application for a home renovation. He commented that in his opinion a detached garage devalues a property and that this process is way to long and discourages applicants. He supported allowing the building plan review process to continue and suggested that the rain water be directed away from the lake. He stated he would vote no to delay the project another month.
Councilmember Wahlstrom commented that she has an issue with the detached garage and allowing more than one accessory structure. She questioned what Council would tell other residents requesting more than one accessory structure.
Architect Tigelaar pointed out that anyone can apply for an additional detached structure under a Conditional Use Permit; he explained that the swimming pool is considered an accessory structure although it is not a structure. He pointed out that due to the design of the garage, it actually appears to be connected by the stone veneer.
Councilmember DeCourcy asked if the neighbors had commented on the plans.
Mr. Nelson explained that Mr. Turrso supports the plan and that the Silverman’s also support the project even though they were not able to come to terms regarding the easement. He commented that this has been a long process and he respects the Councils fiduciary roles. He explained that he has been thoughtful and protective of the property he loves and that although he is unable to build what he originally planned, he submitted a plan that meets all requirements. He commented that he wished to keep the process moving and requested that Council only review the items that are at issue in October and allow him to proceed with obtaining a building permit.
There was discussion relating to how Council may proceed with action on the request. Attorney Kuntz explained that Council may grant approval of the Major Site and Building Plan and Conditional Use Permit subject to the applicant submitting detailed grading and drainage plans prior to issuance of a building permit.
Mayor Park asked if there was any further discussion and there was no response.
Councilmember Bulach moved to adopt Resolution No. 13-10 titled RESOLUTION APPROVING A MAJOR SUITE AND BUILDING REVIEW FOR HOME RENOVATIONS AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE, AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2154 CHARLTON ROAD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3, BLOCK 1, WILLIAM PEDERSEN ADDITION, subject to conditions as listed and an additional condition that site grading and drainage plans must still be reviewed and approved by Council prior to issuance of a building permit, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0).
Attorney Kuntz suggested that Council authorize the Building Inspector to proceed with review of the building plans.
Councilmember Hovey moved to direct the Building Inspector to proceed with review of the building plans for the project, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (5-0)
d. Planner’s Report: Planner Shively advised that a post-construction site inspection was completed at 2400 Delaware Avenue and explained that the initially approved louvered cedar fence between the driveway and the pool has been replaced with a wrought iron fence. She stated the wrought iron fence meets City standards for location, height and opacity. She also advised that the accessory building at the north end of the pool was downsized and that the pergolas on the east and west side of the cabana have not been constructed. She stated that the changes reflect the owner’s permanent intent and further changes would require an amendment to the approved site plan. She explained that the landscape plan was altered slightly, but the final design met the overall goals of screening and aesthetics. She noted that all stormwater improvement recommendations have been followed and the application is closed.
The Planner stated that she received an inquiry from Comcast Cable for an excavation permit and a deck renovation request that would be approved by administrative review. She further advised that she received a call from Crown Castle inquiring if the cell tower located in the City was at the maximum height and she told them yes; she advised that a variance would be required to change the tower height and explained the application process.
She stated that no new applications were received for the September Planning meeting and therefore it was cancelled.
The Mayor asked if there were any further questions and there was no response.
Council thanked the Planner for her report.
7. STAFF REPORTS: a. Building Inspector: Building Inspector David Neameyer stated that he issued seven (7) building permits in August, two for new homes. He stated that he visited the Dobrantz property today.
Council thanked the Inspector for his report.
b. City Engineer: 2014 Street Reconstruction Project: Engineer Sterna stated that the information from the appraiser Mr. Danich indicate that the properties involved in the street reconstruction project could sustain up to $8,500 per property and $17,000 for the Church’s assessments. He pointed out that some irregularities in the City’s Assessment Policy. He explained that Windy Hill Road and Angell Road were listed as neighborhood collector streets and might be considered as local streets; he indicated he would further discuss this and other discrepancies with the City Attorney and Mr. Danich and report at the October Council meeting. He suggested that the time-frame for conducting a public hearing also be delayed to October to allow Council review of the information.
Mayor Park commented that the Engineer’s report was sent by email to Council on Thursday, but did not arrive in the mail until today. Engineer Sterna apologized and advised that he would look into the matter; he indicated it may have been due to the Labor Day holiday.
TH 110 Proposed Access Modification: The Engineer explained that he provided a response to MnDOT regarding the Council concerns expressed at the August meeting. He stated he would contact MnDOT to advise that the City wishes to hold a public meeting on the proposed access modifications.
Mayor Park asked if Ingrid Conant’s comments were valid regarding the access closing and request for public input.
Engineer Sterna explained that the comments are valid, however, at this time the proposed MnDOT studies are preliminary and no definite plans have been drafted.
Councilmember Hovey asked if the City would have any input on the modifications. Engineer Sterna explained that the City would be contacted for input, but MnDOT legally has the authority to modify the access points. He explained that the City may have success in maintaining the access at Sunfish Lane since no accidents have occurred at that access.
Councilmember Hovey expressed concern that traffic would be deferred to Mendota Road and Highway 110 and that would create a further back-up situation. The Engineer discussed some options to maintain the access point at Sunfish Lane and agreed that it would be advantageous for MnDOT to conduct a public hearing on the matter.
Public Works Activities Undertaken in August: 2013 Seal Coat Project: Engineer Sterna advised that the seal coating work was completed in August and he received one concern on Acorn Drive relating to the workmanship; he sated he will attempt to resolve the matter with the resident. He noted the actual costs are slightly over budget and the additional work to resolve the resident’s concern may also slightly increase the cost; he indicated it should be less than $500. He advised the final payment would be presented at the October Council meeting.
Roadway Striping Quotes: Engineer Sterna advised that Salem Church Road and the speed hump on Angell Road need to be re-striped at the seal coating was completed. He explained the three (3) quotes he received were much higher than anticipated and the other options he explored were not viable. He explained that the quotes were $1,800 more than anticipated and that he was unsure if the costs would be reduced if he waits until spring to do the striping.
Mayor Park questioned how to explain the delay to residents.
Councilmember Bulach stated he would not be bothered by the delay but questioned what would happen if an accident occurs due to lack of striping on the road; he commented that in his opinion an additional $1,800 is not an exorbitant amount.
Councilmember Hovey asked if the City would be liable if an accident occurs. Attorney Kuntz responded no and advised it would be deemed a policy decision based on budgetary constraints.
Councilmember Bulach pointed out that driving at night without being able to see the speed humps may pose a problem.
He indicated that the City may not save a lot of money by delaying the project and that it would be better to stripe the roadway now than after it cures.
Councilmember DeCourcy moved to accept the quote from AAA Striping Services Company in the amount of $5,862.90 for the Roadway Striping project, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)
Anticipated Engineering Activities for the Month of September: 2013-2014 Snow Plow Quotes: Engineer Sterna advised that he would solicit three quotes for snow plowing for Council consideration at the October meeting.
2014 Street Improvement Project: The Engineer advised that a one month delay in conducting an open house to discuss this project is recommended in order to discuss the assessments prior to conducting the hearing. He explained that once the open house is completed the next step would be to hold a public haring, approve the Feasibility Report and order Final Plans and Specifications for the project.
The Engineer apologized for the delay in reviewing the planning application. He stated he would use additional staff if necessary to complete the reviews in a timely manner and that it appears there was some communication lacking regarding the urgency to complete the report this last month.
Councilmember Hovey asked when Charlton Road is normally graded. The Engineer advised that it is usually done in October, but he could expedite it if necessary.
Council concurred that the grading should be done as soon as possible
Council thanked the Engineer for his report.
c. CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes stated he issued one (1) burning permit in August. He explained that he pruned trees for sign clearance purposes along Acorn drive, 60th Street, Angell Road and Windy Hill; he asked residents to call if pruning near signs is noticed in their neighborhoods. He also advised that deal elm removals were done along Charlton Road.
Mayor Park noted that Burnsville has started an extensive campaign to save ash trees in their city; she asked if Sunfish Lake should consider a similar program.
The Forester explained that it would be dependent on the City budget and if Council wishes to pursue the matter.
Councilmember DeCourcy noted that most of the trees planted in Harmon Park are dead in the tubes. She asked if the City had funding to plant larger trees.
The Forester explained the trees were from the Arbor Day purchases and if the budget is increased, larger trees could be planted. He stated he would check on the trees in Harmon Park.
Councilmember Hovey asked if the Forester had completed an ash tree tree survey on City property. Forester Nayes advised he completed the survey several years ago and would forward the results to Council. He noted that most of the ash trees adjacent to City streets are less than 10 inches in diameter and that those have been removed since the survey was completed.
Council thanked the Forester for his report.
d. PUBLIC SAFETY: Chief Shaver reported there were five (5) false alarms in the City this month and that the alarm calls were substantially higher than last year at this time. He explained that the burglary listed was actually a theft by swindle on an elderly resident and asked that residents be diligent when dealing with strangers.
Councilmember DeCourcy complimented the Police Department on their assistance in helping to locate her missing cat.
Council thanked the Chief for his report.
8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS: a. Consider Resolution Adopting the Proposed 2014 Budget and Tax Levy and Scheduling a Special Truth in Taxation Public Hearing on December 3, 2013 at 7:00 p.m.: Mayor Park explained that the City Attorney had prepared a report dated August 28, 2013 regarding the process for adopting the proposed 2014 Budget and Tax Levy. She asked the Treasurer to provide an overview of the proposed budget.
Treasurer Lanoue presented the proposed 2014 Budget and Tax Levy documents with revisions as discussed by Council at the August 6 Special Budget meeting. She explained that after the resolution is adopted by Council, it would be certified to the County and they would send notices to residents on the proposed tax levy with notification of the public hearing. She explained that the Planning costs were reduced per discussion at the budget study meeting along with a few minor changes to the proposed 2014 budget which set the amount at $414,900. She stated that it is a balanced budget and that if it is adopted there would be no increase in the levy from last year. She explained that there was a 3.6% increase in housing market value which could result in some residents having a small tax increase.
Mayor Park asked how many homes may appreciate due to the increase in market value. The Treasurer stated she was unsure and would have to review properties individually to determine that information.
The Mayor asked what action is necessary this evening.
Attorney Kuntz explained that Council must take action to adopt the resolution and then schedule the Truth in Taxation public hearing.
Mayor Park stated that she had asked the Treasurer if additional monies could be placed in the budget for road improvements.
Attorney Kuntz advised that Council action would be needed to add funding for that purpose and suggested that Council may wish to wait until the end of the year in case any emergencies arise and then determine if the unexpended funds should be set aside for that purpose. Treasurer Lanoue agreed.
The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt Resolution No. 13-11 titled RESOLUTION SETTING NOT-TO-EXCEED TAX LEVY FOR COLLECTION IN THE YEAR 2014 in the amount of $414,000, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)
Attorney Kuntz advised that Council must schedule the Truth in Taxation Public Hearing.
Councilmember Hovey moved to schedule the Truth in Taxation Public Hearing on December 3, 2013 at 7:00 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (5-0)
Mayor Park asked how the information would be publicized. The Attorney advised it would be posted at the Church and on the City website. Treasurer Lanoue explained that the date of the hearing would also be listed on the notice sent to residents.
b. Consider Approval of 2014-2018 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): Engineer Sterna stated that the CIP was sent to Council last month for their review and comments. He explained that the document is merely a planning tool to assist with managing City infrastructure and is not set in stone. He offered to respond to questions.
Mayor Park asked if formal action is needed to adopt the document and the City Attorney responded yes.
Councilmember Bulach moved to adopt the 2014-2018 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) as presented by the City Engineer, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)
c. Discuss Proposed 2014 Street Improvement Project and Assessment Report: Engineer Sterna explained that after receiving the assessment report there appeared to be some irregularities relating to the designation of certain streets that were listed the City’s Assessment Policy. He pointed out that it may be difficult to justify the benefit on some properties and he wished to review the designations of Windy Hill Road and Angell Road prior to conducting an open house meeting with residents. He indicated that he wished to insure the information is appropriate before proceeding and therefore, he suggested this matter be delayed until the October Council meeting.
Mayor Park asked if there would be a time line for payment of the assessments. The Engineer explained the payment is normally run over a ten-year period with interest. The Treasurer advised that a resident would also have the option to pay the amount within 30 days after the assessment is levied without any interest payment. Engineer Sterna noted that a resident may also pay the remaining amount in full anytime during the ten-year period.
There was discussion relating to the church properties and an access issue for one of the churches and the Engineer also discussed the possibility of reducing the width of some roads to make the improvement more economical. Council also discussed the possibility of the assessments being reduced if the Council determines the City cost share should change.
Mayor Park asked if any action is required this evening. Engineer Sterna responded that no action is required.
Councilmember DeCourcy commented that a resident on Angell Road had contacted her with their opinion that there was nothing wrong with the roadway. She also asked why Angell Road was not resurfaced like Sunfish Lane.
Engineer Sterna stated that all the roads in the City are reviewed and rated annually. He explained that at this time Angell Road is only scheduled for an overlay which would be done to delay any major deterioration to the road and prolong is life. He pointed out that if the project is delayed, Angell Road would further deteriorate and the costs to improve the road would increase. He advised that Sunnyside Lane was recently seal-coated and he would have to review the project to determine why Angell Road was not included.
Council thanked the Engineer for his report.
d. Consider Approval of Cost Sharing Agreement with Dakota County for Purchase of Election Equipment: Clerk Iago explained that a resolution was adopted by Council in 2011 in support of a cooperative purchase of election equipment between the City and Dakota County. She noted that funding from the “Help America Vote Act” would first be utilized to pay down the costs and then the City and County would do a 50-50 cost share for the remaining amount. She advised that she placed $6,500 in the budget for the purpose of purchasing the equipment, however, she indicated that in her opinion that amount would be higher than actual costs.
Mayor Park asked if there were any questions and there was no response.
Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to approve the Cost Sharing Agreement with Dakota County for Purchase of Election Equipment, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)
e. Other Business: Mayor Park advised that she and Councilmember Hovey had met with a few residents, the City Engineer and the City Attorney to discuss water quality issues for Sunfish Lake.
Attorney Kuntz explained that Sunfish Lake has a large deposit of phosphorus that is imbedded in the lake and gets loose in the summer months which hinders recreational use of the lake as well as detracts from the appearance of the lake. He advised that the City Engineer outlined a program to introduce alum into the lake; however, the estimated cost for this could be in the range of $75,000. He noted that the lake is privately owned and there was discussion relating to how to pay for the program. He explained that they reviewed some financial tools offered by government agencies and some did not apply. He advised that the City could create a Lake Improvement District, however, it may be difficult to qualify Sunfish Lake as a lake district since there is no public access to the lake and property owner abutting the lake have valued this fact and their privacy. He also explained that there was discussion with City Bond Counsel Steve Bubul who suggested creation of a “Housing Improvement Area”, but this would involve a public hearing and 50 percent of the housing units have to petition the City to create such an improvement area and the County may have to be involved. He indicated this may be an option and that Steve Bubul suggested surveying the landowners prior to any formal discussion.
Councilmember Hovey further explained that treatment by copper sulfate is no longer allowed by the DNR. He explained that residents were sent a letter to determine if they wish to pursue this course of action.
Mayor Park asked if residents could obtain a copy of the information from the City Attorney. Councilmember Hovey stated he would forward the information to the Mayor and place it on the City website.
Mayor Park explained that there would be a meeting at Thompson Park this Thursday to discuss several lakes in the County and Sunfish Lake was on the agenda.
Councilmember Bulach reported that he and the Mayor met with Gladys Dobrantz regarding her property on Charlton Road. He explained that he visited the site and was totally shocked at the conditions; he advised that the home was collapsed, power lines were down and there was debris and several other buildings that need to be removed. He advised that neighbors have complained that there are coyotes nesting on the property. He advised that he sent Gladys the names of three (3) contractors to contact for bids to clean-up the site. He pointed out that he could set-up at meeting with Gladys and the three (3) contractors all in one day, but that he will be out-of-town on September 9 and 10. He asked if anyone else would be available to meet with Gladys and the contractors.
Mayor Park offered to meet with them.
Councilmember DeCourcy asked if the power lines were active and if Xcel Energy should be notified.
Building Inspector Niemeyer advised it would a good idea to contact Xcel to notify them of the situation.
Councilmember Hovey asked if Xcel was notified when the property was condemned. Inspector Niemeyer explained that the property was not condemned and that it was only posted as hazardous.
Councilmember Hovey asked if Gladys Dobrantz was receptive to being responsible for clean-up of the property.
Councilmember Bulach explained that he told Ms. Dobrantz if she did not take responsibility for the clean-up, the City would do so and it would be more expensive.
Councilmember Bulach thanked the Engineer for contacting the County regarding the placement of new guardrails on Delaware Avenue and for the County’s prompt action. He commented that it was unfortunate a tragedy had to occur at this location.
Engineer Sterna agreed and stated he would thank the County for their prompt response.
The Mayor asked if there was any further business and there was no response.
9. ADJOURN: Councilmember Bulach moved for adjournment at 9:45 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)
___________________________ ___________________________
Molly Park., Mayor Catherine Iago, City Clerk
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.