SUNFISH LAKE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING – FEBRUARY 3, 2009
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Mayor: Molly Park
Councilmembers: Cathy DeCourcy, Judy MacManus and Roger Conant.
City Attorney: Tim Kuntz
City Building Official: Russ Wahl
City Planner: Laurie Smith
City Engineer: Tim Hanson
City Treasurer: Mike Blair
City Clerk: Cathy Iago
and Members of the General Public.
City Forester Mark Johnson was absent and Councilmember Richard Williams arrived at 7:05 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Molly 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 and there was no response.
Councilmember Conant moved approval of the Agenda, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (4-0)
Councilmember Williams arrived at 7:05 p.m.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Conant moved approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (5-0)
a. Regular City Council meeting minutes of January 6, 2009.
b. List of Bills
c. Monthly Financial Statements
4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: Lee Driscoll, 357 Salem Church Road asked if at their next regular meeting the
Council would consider discussing how to measure the deer population within the city, outline the problems that arise with over-population and what approach would be best to correct the problem of over-population. She noted that recently she had counted approximately 12 deer crossing the road near her home; she advised that when she moved to the city 40 years ago it was exciting to see one deer. She commented that she is aware of the fact that this is a complex problem and she offered to contact the DNR Area Wildlife Manager and any other agencies regarding this issue and prepare a report for Council review at the next meeting.
Mayor Park advised that she planned to ask Council to schedule a Special Work Session meeting to discuss several other issues and that it may be possible to place this matter on the agenda. She noted that the discussion could include all wildlife such as the cougar that has been seen in town, wild turkeys, and the deer. She thanked Ms. Driscoll for her comments.
Councilmember DeCourcy explained that she had discussed this matter with personnel at the Dodge Nature Center and was advised that it may be a migratory herd of deer that travels through the city; she suggested a new type of mesh that could be used to keep the deer off private property. Ms. Driscoll responded that she has tried mesh to no avail and that in her opinion it would be fairer to cull the herd for their safety and well being as well as residents.
Councilmember DeCourcy stated she would favor conducting an aerial survey to identify the deer population.
Mayor Park advised that she has been working with surrounding cities regarding conducting an aerial survey.
Councilmember Conant noted there is $450.00 budgeted for deer management. Treasurer Blair stated that the amount placed in the budget was based on a previous billing from the DNR to conduct an aerial survey; however, he only recalls one such survey since his employment with the City.
Mayor Park asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Ordering Sunfish Lake City Project 2008-02, Salem Church Road Reconstruction
Mayor Park opened the public hearing to discuss ordering the Salem Church Road Reconstruction Project, City Project 2008-02. She asked Engineer Hanson to provide a brief overview of the project for those present.
Engineer Hanson briefly summarized the scope of the project which consists of reclaiming he existing bituminous surface, re-grading with aggregate and placing three inches of bituminous surfacing, shouldering, roadside swale grading and turf restoration. He stated that staff requests Council input regarding including the use of traffic signs or speed humps and also striping of the road surface. He noted that the road would be 24-25 ft. wide with a 2-4 ft. shoulder width and that the posted speed limit would be 35 mph. He explained that the road surface has swelling and cracking particularly on the east end and that originally staff reviewed the possibility of mill and overlay for the road; however, that is not recommended based on the condition of the road surface. He reviewed the process of reclamation of the road surface and noted this is one step above the mill and overlay procedure. He advised that there are four centerline culverts for drainage across the road and it is proposed to replace three of these culverts with corrugated metal pipes; he advised that the life expectancy for the pipes is 50 years. He explained that replacement of the culvert pipe near Delaware Avenue would be delayed until reconstruction of Delaware is proposed. He noted that no street lighting is proposed.
The Engineer stated that due to the speed issue on the roadway he researched the possible installation of an automated traffic sign and flashes the speed of the vehicle as it approaches the sign. He explained the sign is solar powered and has been noted to reduce speeding up to 20%; he recommended installation of the traffic signage in lieu of the speed humps. He advised that the signage collects data and reduces liability to the City versus the speed humps which may create liability for the City. He advised that the cost of the solar powered signs is approximately $6,000 per sign and if it is found they do not reduce the speed along the roadway, it is possible to install the speed humps at a later date. He noted that at the neighborhood meeting it was brought to his attention that speeding occurs mainly on the downhill portion of the road.
Councilmember Conant questioned the life span for the signs. Mr. Hanson responded that he is unsure and would get back to Council with that information
Engineer Hanson explained that another major comment at the open house related to pedestrian facilities along the roadway. He stated it would be possible to pave the 2 ft. wide shoulder to accommodate pedestrians; however, it could not be designated as a “pathway” since it does not meet the width requirements. He further explained that he wished to receive input regarding striping of the roadway; he explained that striping tends to promote a faster speed on the road. He advised that it would be possible not to stripe the road at this time and if speeds increase the striping could be added at a later date.
The Engineer stated the estimated cost for the proposed is $360,000, which includes engineering, administration, legal, financing and other miscellaneous costs. He explained that the Council identified a 40% residential, 60% City cost share for the project; the 40% share of $144,000 would be divided by the 50 parcels adjacent to the site and that the proposed assessment per parcel would be $2,800.00. He explained that the remaining costs of $216,000 would be financed by the City. He stated that if the project moves forward this evening the proposed project schedule would be as follows; Plans & Specifications approved and bids let in March; bids received in April; construction begins at end of May/June; project completed summer of 2009; and the assessment hearing scheduled in September.
Engineer Hanson offered to respond to questions.
Councilmember Conant commented that the 50 parcels included in the project would also pay a portion of the City’s cost share through taxes. Engineer Hanson responded yes.
Councilmember DeCourcy asked when the street was last improved. Mr. Hanson responded that the east end of the street was improved in the 1980’s when the I-494 corridor was constructed. He commented that he would guess the remainder of the street was done in the 1960’s or 1970’s due to the cracking and brittleness of the pavement surface.
Mr. Bancroft stated that the County improved the road in the 1980’s prior to turning it back to the City and that the eastern section of the road was assessed at that time.
Mayor Park opened the meeting for public comments.
Dick Bancroft stated that in is opinion it would be fair to assess those on the east end of the road such as Salem Lane, Windy Hill Road and Roanoke Road; he noted this would lessen the assessment amount per parcel and that those residents use the road daily to access their property.
Mr. Hanson advised that those parcels are not included since they will be assessed when their portion of the road is improved in the future; he advised that no work is proposed from Roanoke east to Delaware.
Mayor Park explained that Council proposed the 40/60 split since the road is used by a majority of persons within the City and therefore all are paying a portion of the cost.
John Draxton, 85 Salem Church Road, advised there are drainage issues at the corner of Roanoke and Salem Church Road and asked why that is not being addressed. He also questioned where the speed humps would be installed; he noted that the speed problem appears to be closer to Robert Street and that traffic speeds are between 40-60 mph.
Engineer Hanson agreed there are some issues relating to the shoulders at that corner and suggested they could be patched. He indicated that if Council agrees to the installation of the speed humps they would most likely be placed mid-way over the hill and a little further to the east along the road.
Mr. Draxton explained that after a fatality occurred on the road Mayor Tiffany appointed a committee to study the road; he advised that the committee recommended the installation of temporary speed humps. He advised that the temporary humps did slow traffic and therefore permanent humps were installed. He suggested the humps be moved further to the east to slow traffic.
Adina Overbee, 425 Salem Church Road, favored the speed humps versus the traffic signs. She indicated there appears to be no compelling case for the signage and in her opinion the speed humps slow traffic. She opposed the costs and aesthetics of the signs and commented that it is a lot easier to speed past a sign versus over a hump.
Councilmember Conant asked if a speed study had been done on the road; Mr. Hanson responded he has no current data and that several residents at the open house commented on the traffic speed along the road.
Councilmember Williams asked if the City must place signage for the speed humps; Mr. Hanson responded yes.
Mayor Park asked that the Engineer clarify the difference between speed “humps” and “bumps”; Mr. Hanson noted that speed bumps are placed in parking lots to slow speeds to 10-20 mph, whereas the speed hump allows for 15-20 mph speeds and are used on streets. He explained that the speed humps provide a longer area of disruption so that a driver does not loose control of the vehicle.
Elizabeth Driscoll, 357 Salem Church Road, favored speed humps versus the sign based. She indicated she did not wish to have a flashing sign in the area.
Mr. Draxton asked if the City still owned the temporary speed humps; Mr. Hanson responded yes and explained he is only aware of one hump that is in storage at this time.
Ms. Driscoll asked if the trees casting shows on the road would affect the longevity of the road and Mr. Hanson responded that it would have only a minor affect on the road. He explained that there are a few shrubs that may need trimming along the roadway and that a narrower corridor along the road also tends to slow traffic.
Pamela Bennett, 400 Salem Church Road, asked how the City decides on the number of parcels to be assessed since all residents utilize the road; she questioned why the assessment is not spread along the entire road. Mr. Hanson reiterated that the remaining parcels would be assessed when their potion of the road is improved.
The Mayor thanked the Engineer for his report and asked the Attorney to review the financing for the project.
Attorney Kuntz explained that the estimated cost of the project is $360,000 and that if the project is ordered the City would advertise for bids and the bid would be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. He advised that after construction of the project the final costs would be known and the City would then conduct an assessment hearing. He stated that the assessment roll for the project must be certified to the County in September for payment with taxes in 2010.
The Attorney advised that the estimated assessment cost per unit is $2,880, to be paid on a 10-year amortization, although it may be paid in full with no interest or paid in full at anytime during the 10-year period with interest through December 31 of that year. He indicated the proposed interest rate would be 1 to 1-1/2 percent above the bond rate. He stated that affected property owners would be notified of the assessment haring when the assessment roll is finalized. He further commented that the City anticipates borrowing the funds; he noted the firm of Ehlers and Associates will assist with the tax exempt bond issue and Kennedy & Graven will be retained to provide an opinion on the bond issue.
Mr. Kuntz referred to the detailed schedule and amortization schedule prepared and attached to his report and distributed copies to the public. He offered to respond to questions.
Engineer Hanson explained that a 4/5ths vote is required to order the improvement due to the fact the project was initiated by Council. He also asked for input regarding the installation of traffic signs or speed humps and striping of the road. He noted that the striping costs of approximately $5,000 were not initially included in the project costs although he speculated that the bidding environment may be good due to the economy. He also questioned if Council preferred to pave the shoulders and noted that if the shoulders are paved the width of the road would require striping.
Councilmember MacManus asked if the striping would be in the middle of the road or only on the sides. Mr. Hanson responded that if the shoulders are paved the striping would be required in both places.
Councilmember Williams asked if the shoulder would be outside of the striping and the engineer responded yes.
Councilmember Williams stated it would be his inclination to strip the road so it is more pedestrian friendly, but he preferred the shoulders remain gravel to lessen the paved surface of the road. He also favored installation of speed humps versus the signs.
Councilmember DeCourcy agreed and favored installing two speed humps.
There was discussion regarding the speed hump installation and the location. Mr. Draxton showed the engineer the location he preferred on a City map. Mayor Park suggested the other speed hump be installed near Dan Lee’s property at 315 Salem Church Road. Mr. Lee showed his location on the map which is directly across from Musser Park and also where the speeding occurs.
Councilmember MacManus agreed with Councilmember Williams’s statements regarding striping the road and that the shoulders remain gravel to lessen the road surface.
Mayor Park questioned if striping of the sides of the road would make the road surface appear narrower. Engineer Hansen explained that engineers in his firm debated this issue and he believes it helps to reduce speed if the road is striped since it confines the vehicle to a specific area. He agreed that striping the road does visually narrow the road.
Councilmember Williams commented that in his opinion the traffic signage would be more useful on major roads with high traffic volumes versus a moderate traffic volume roadway such as Salem Church Road.
Attorney Kuntz reported that when the speed humps were initially installed along Salem Church Road as part of the Task Force recommendation, a resolution was adopted that memorialized the rationale for a non-standard roadway and that he would recommendation adoption of a similar resolution in this instance when the contract is approved for the project.
Councilmember Conant questioned if there had been any lawsuits in Minnesota relating to this issue. The Attorney responded that he does not recall any lawsuits of any substance; however, the resolution is a mechanism to memorialize the rationale.
Mr. Draxton stated he wished to thank the City Forester for doing such a good job trimming trees along the roadway and other staff for mowing and plowing services to allow pedestrian traffic on the road. Council thanked Mr. Draxton for his comments.
Mayor Park asked if there were any questions or comments and there was no response. She asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
Councilmember Williams moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (5-0)
Attorney Kuntz stated that he had prepared a resolution for Council consideration and that a motion should state the revisions to the document to include striping of the road, aggregate shoulders and the placement of two (2) speed humps.
Councilmember DeCourcy questioned the expense to place the temporary speed humps along the road. Mr. Hanson advised it would be approximately $1,500 to $2,000, since signage would have to be installed and an additional $500 to remove the humps if permanent ones were installed in the future.
Councilmember Conant stated he would abstain from voting on this matter since he was not a member of the Council when the improvement was initiated.
Councilmember DeCourcy moved to adopt Resolution No. 09-04 titled, RESOLUTION Ordering Public Improvement Project 2008-02 and Approving Final Plan and Specifications for Project 2008-02, Salem Church Road Reconstruction with the project specifications to include installation of two (2) speed humps, striping of the road and gravel shoulders adjacent to the road, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (4-0-1)
Ayes: 4 (DeCourcy, MacManus, Williams, Park)
Nayes: 0
Abstain: 1 (Conant)
6. INSPECTOR’S REPORTS:
a. Building Inspector: Mayor Park advised that the City Clerk would provide the report for Inspector Wahl.
City Clerk Iago advised that three (3) inspections were conducted and no building permits were issued in January.
- CITY PLANNER: Planner Smith stated that the Community Development Sub-Committee of the Metropolitan Council had approved the Sunfish Lake Comprehensive Plan Update as submitted and that there was no discussion of the document. She explained that the document is scheduled for review by the Met Council next week and if approved the City designation would be identified as Rural Residential and would insure that no utilities would be installed within the City.
Councilmember Conant questioned if another update would be due in 10 years; Planner Smith responded that the updates are scheduled for 10 years unless there is a change ordered by the Met Council.
Council thanked the Planner for her report. - City Engineer: Salem Church Road Reconstruction Project: Engineer Hanson stated this project was covered during the public hearing discussion.
Sunfish Lake Street Map: The Engineer advised that the street map had been updated and he distributed copies to Council and staff.
Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan and NPDES Annual Public Hearing: The Engineer stated the plan was updated as requested buy the Lower Mississippi WMO and he has copies available for distribution to Council this evening. He advised that if Council authorization is given a public hearing could be scheduled at the regular meeting on March 3 or could be delayed if Council wishes to have more time to review the plan. He noted that the plan was forwarded to Councilmember Conant and that staff had responded to his comments; he stated that if other members of Council have comments he would address them as they are received. He further noted that the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) annual public hearing would also be scheduled at the same time since the two items are interrelated in several ways.
Mayor Park asked how much time should be allotted for each hearing. The Engineer responded that staff would provide a brief summary of each item and then respond to questions or comments so that approximately one hour should be sufficient to accomplish both hearings.
Charlton Road Feasibility Update: Engineer Hanson advised he has been working on the feasibility update and the report should be completed for Council review at the March 3 regular meeting.
Engineering Activities Undertaken in the Month of January: Street Clearing Activities: Engineer Hanson advised that there were several occasions during the past reporting period where snowplowing and sanding occurred, as outlined in his report. He explained that he had not personally heard any complaints regarding the plowing and/or sanding activities.
Anticipated Engineer Activities for February: Engineer Hanson stated he would be working on the following items: Completion of the Charlton Road Feasibility Study, Preparation of Salem Church Road Project Plans and Specifications, Preparation for the Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan and the NPDES Annual Public Hearing and snow plowing activities.
Council thanked the Engineer for his report.
Councilmember Conant stated that he had reviewed the Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan and advised that persons living on the lakes have concerns relating to the water quality of the lakes and how it has been deteriorating over the years; the plan appears to address the issue of water quantity not quality. He advised that he found errors in the document and that no changes have been made to correct them after he pointed them out to staff. He commented that the plan should be accurate and that staff needs to clean-up the language as indicated in his comments. He suggested the plan should be put aside for a month and corrected by staff so that it is relevant to the community.
Engineer Hanson explained that he was under the impression that the comments submitted by Councilmember Conant were in the form of questions and he offered to meet with him to address his concerns.
Councilmember Conant indicated that he would not be available to meet since he will be out-of-town until just prior to the March 3 meeting.
Councilmember Williams suggested that this matter could be placed on the special work session meeting agenda. He pointed out that some items listed in the document are required by State Statutes and that he would review the materials to determine if there are factual inaccuracies that should be corrected.
Councilmember Conant commented that he was discouraged by the staff responses. Engineer Hanson pointed out that changes were identified in the staff response and that staff believes it would be preferable to make the corrections after the public hearing so that there would be no confusion with different versions of the document.
Councilmember Williams advised that when the Water Management Organization was formed the focus of the plan was placed on reviewing water quantity versus quality. He again suggested discussing the document at the special work session meeting.
Mayor Park indicated that there were other items brought to her attention for discussion at a study meeting including non-resident access to Sunfish Lake, tree removal and shoreline restoration.
There was discussion regarding whether or not to schedule a work session meeting on a separate day or prior to the next regular meeting. Council concurred it would be preferable to meet prior to the regular meeting.
Attorney Kuntz advised that the City must post notice of the Special Meeting three days in advance and also identify the subject matter to be discussed; he noted that Council had identified the following items for discussion: Storm Water Management Plan and Water Quality, Access & Trespassing on the Lakes; Vegetation Removal and Restoration Guidelines; Wildlife Control; and Weed Removal at Harmon Park. He indicated that he does not believe all the items could be covered within a short period of time.
Mayor Park pointed out that the Environmental Committee is working on a report regarding Buckthorn removal at Harmon Park and she suggested removing that from the agenda. Councilmember Williams noted that the City had initiated the use of lake access permits. Councilmember Conant stated that the number of persons fishing on the lake appears to be reduced with initiation of the permitting process and therefore his concerns relating to the access issue are not as prevalent at this time.
After discussion Council concurred to place the following items on the agenda for the work session meeting: 1) Water Quality and the Storm Water Management Plan; and 2) Vegetation Management on the Lakes. The Council further concurred to schedule the meeting at 5:30 p.m. on March 3 prior to the regular meeting.
Councilmember Williams moved to schedule a Special Work Session Meeting on March 3, 2009 to discuss; 1) Water Quality and the Storm Water Management Plan; and 2) Vegetation Management on the Lakes, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (5-0)
Councilmember Conant commented that he hopes that all members of the Council read the Storm Water Management document and prepare questions for discussion. Engineer Hanson pointed out that the updated required by the Met Council deals with water quality issues. - CITY FORESTER: Mayor Park noted that Forester Johnson had not submitted a report.
- PUBLIC SAFETY: Mayor Park distributed the Public Safety monthly report for January, 2009.
Chief Shaver advised that the City Forester had found some appliances that were dumped along Salem Church Road and he believes the Forester had taken them to the disposal site. He indicated that his staff has worked in the area of Salem Church Road to defer speeders and that he will encourage the police officers to do extra patrols along the roadway near the problem areas discussed at the public hearing.
The Chief explained that his staff does not have sufficient time to run the monthly statements for Council review since the meeting date is usually so close to the end of the month reporting period. He suggested distributing the monthly report on the 20th day of the month so that Council would have time to review the information prior to the meeting; he noted that if any incidents occur after the 20th of the month he would report them at the meeting. He suggested he could email the report to the City Clerk for distribution to Council. Council concurred.
Councilmember Conant thanked the Chief for the tour of the new Dispatch Center facilities.
Council thanked the Chief for his report.
7. OTHER BUSINESS:
a. Consider Conflict of Interest Policy: Mayor Park explained that at the January meeting Council had discussed the proposed policy and the City Attorney was directed to draft language options for consideration at this meeting.
Attorney Kuntz reviewed his memorandum dated January 29, 2009, with a proposed Conflict of Interest Policy attached which contains six (6) sections. He noted that at the last meeting there appeared to be Council consensus on various elements of the policy with the exception of whether or not Section 6 should be listed as an exception to Section 5. He explained that Section 1 states the purposes and intent of the policy; Section 2 defines City Business and prohibits employees from working on private matters that require city approval or enforcement; and Section 3 allows consultants or employees to work for other government entities that do not involve conflict of interest. He advised that the first three sections are the same as the 1991 policy.
The Attorney explained that Section 4 is new and prohibits employees and consultants from working for members of the City Council. He stated that Section 5 prohibits employees or consultants from working for private landowners; however, the section contains a reference to exceptions as listed in Section 6 that would allow the City Forester to work within the City if the conditions a, b, c, and d exist. He reviewed the conditions as listed in Section 6 and noted that if Council concurred with including this condition, staff would draft a “model” release form that would have to be signed by the property owner for which the work was performed. He indicated that the four exceptions listed were based on discussion at the last meeting. He further advised that Sections 7, 8, and 9 were standard format for such policies.
Mayor Park asked for Council comments.
Councilmember MacManus stated that in her opinion Section 6 does not belong in the policy and that the Forester position should not be exempt.
Councilmember Conant noted that Mark has done work in the City and questioned if the work was in conflict with the current regulations. He asked if the restriction was law or a guideline. Attorney Kuntz explained that the Forester would have been in conflict with the policy however, during contract discussions last August the language prohibiting work was omitted by Council direction from his contract. He commented that he does not have knowledge of any work the Forester performed in the City during that time period.
Councilmember Williams commented that the change in the contract prohibited the Forester from soliciting work within the City.
Attorney Kuntz agreed and explained that the issue was discussed in August when Mr. Bancroft brought up the fact that the policy did exist and Council agreed to discuss the matter at a future meeting.
Councilmember Williams pointed out that Mr. Bancroft preferred a clear “fine line” on this matter; he stated that he is unsure this is the best approach. He explained that he agrees that the Forester should not perform work for Council since they oversee his position; however, it is his opinion that the Forester could perform work for residents if it is not solicited and if a waiver releasing the City of liability is obtained from the property owner.
Councilmember Conant indicated that he was not comfortable with the waiver and suggested that requiring a periodic report on the Forester activities would provide Council with information to insure compliance with the regulation.
Councilmember Williams agreed.
Councilmember DeCourcy pointed out that the Forester had formed an LLC and therefore work would be performed by a business versus a person. Mr. Kuntz explained that the Forester’s LLC contracts with the City.
Councilmember Conant questioned if the Forester activities could be creating a liability for the City. Mr. Kuntz responded that it is possible the City may be named if a compliant is filed.
Councilmember Williams commented that would be the purpose of a disclaimer.
Mayor Park asked who would be responsible for holding the documents submitted by the Forester. Attorney Kuntz suggested that if a report is required for Council review, the document could be filed bi-annually and held by the City Clerk for the records.
Councilmember MacManus questioned if it would be worth the trouble.
Mr. Bancroft reminded the Council that this would be an exception from all other employees and consultants. He noted that the conditions included in the document are good, but in his opinion there should be a “fine line” and not grey area.
Councilmember MacManus agreed with his comments and the fact that there are not other exceptions for consultants or employees. She noted that the Treasurer did tax work for a former Councilmember that was against the policy and she questioned why the Forester is the only exception.
Councilmember Williams commented it was his understanding that it applies to all consultants and employees.
Pamela Bennett explained that some trees were downed during a storm on her property while she was in Germany; she questioned if she should have contacted the Forester to remove the trees. Mr. Kuntz responded no and explained that residents are responsible for tree removal on private property.
Councilmember DeCourcy questioned if residents would be prohibited from hiring other consultants to do work. Mr. Kuntz explained that residents would not be allowed to hire the Treasurer to work on a matter considered to be city business, but they could hire the Treasurer to do their taxes. He further explained that a resident could hire the Engineer or Planner to do work if they own property outside the City. He advised that Section 6 references only the exceptions for the City Forester.
Councilmember Williams asked if the work “contractor” could be inserted for the word “Forester”. He favored the exceptions applying to all consultants not just the Forester position.
Councilmember Conant commented that it appears as if the “tail is wagging the dog”; he noted that the Forester position was the specific target of the previously adopted policy.
After discussion of the matter, Mr. Kuntz suggested there appears to be two viewpoints on the matter; the exception should apply to all consultants or there should be no exception. Councilmember Conant pointed out it uniquely prohibits work on land within the City and therefore impacts the Forester position. Mr. Kuntz noted it also impacts the Building Inspector, Engineer and Planner.
Councilmember Conant stated he is more comfortable with limiting the exception to just the Forester position.
Councilmember DeCourcy commented that it would prohibit other consultants such as the Treasurer from doing work for residents.
Mayor Park suggested a more clean approach by eliminating Section 6. Councilmember MacManus agreed and commented that the matter is too convoluted.
Councilmember Williams pointed out that Section 5 prohibits consultants/employees for working for private landowners on land in the City, subject to the exceptions stated in Section 6; that particular provision doesn’t prohibit the Treasurer from doing work for residents unless they are a member of the City Council. He noted that the only person affected by the ruling would be the Forester. He also commented that neither the Engineer nor the Planner could ever do work for anyone in the City since they have to make a recommendation on such matters.
Mayor Park suggested that the decision should be based on principle and not empathy for a particular situation.
Councilmember MacManus commented that in her opinion it is a conflict of interest for any employee or consultant to work for residents in the City.
Councilmember Conant noted that the Forester position has enforcement authority and potentially has the power to use the position to his advantage; he proposed that the exception could be based on the Forester’s previous service to the City and he prefers it be unique to only that position. He suggested the Forester provide a report every six months listing the addresses where work was performed, the nature of the work and the cost.
Councilmember Williams stated he does not disagree with the proposal and that this creates a way for the Forester to do what other contractors are allowed to do under the policy.
Mayor Park asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Conant moved to adopt a resolution adopting a Conflict of Interest Policy with the condition requiring the City Forester provide a written report every six (6) months listing the names of the citizen’s he has done work for, the nature of the work and the dollar amount charged for the work performed, seconded by Councilmember Williams.
In discussion, Mike Hovey stated that in his opinion the Council does not need to know his private business if he hires the Forester. Councilmember Williams stated he understands Mr. Hovey’s concern, but the Council needs the information to determine if the Forester is in compliance with the new policy.
Councilmember Conant suggested that a general description of the work would be sufficient to determine if the Forester is in compliance and that a dollar value would not be necessary.
Attorney Kuntz suggested a “friendly amendment” to the motion that requires the Forester to list the location of the work, the landowner’s name and a general description of the work performed.
Councilmembers Conant and Williams agreed to the amendment.
Councilmember Conant moved to adopt Resolution No. 09-05 titled RESOLUTION ADOPTING POLICY WITH RESPECT TO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST CONCERNING CITY CONSULTANTS AND EMPLOYEES with the condition requiring the City Forester provide a written report every six (6) months listing the location of the work performed, the landowner’s name and the general nature of the work performed, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. Ayes: 3 (Conant, DeCourcy, Williams) Nayes: 2 (MacManus, Park)
b. Consider Appointment of Planning Chair and New Commissioner: Mayor Park recommended the appointment of Andrea McCue as Planning Commission Chair and the appointment of Thomas Schlehuber as the new Commissioner. She read a brief background information sheet on Mr. Schlehuber.
Mr. Schlehuber thanked Council for the opportunity to serve on the Commission.
Councilmember DeCourcy moved to accept the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Andrea McCue as the Planning Commission Chair and the appointment of the new Planning Commissioner Thomas Schlehuber for a three-year term commencing January, 2009, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (5-0)
c. Consider Request from City Clerk for MCFOA Conference Reimbursement: Councilmember Conant stated he had reviewed the memorandum from the City Clerk requesting reimbursement to attend the Minnesota Clerks and Finance Officers Association Annual Conference, March 17-20, 2009 in St. Cloud, Minnesota and that he supports the request.
Councilmember Conant moved to authorize the reimbursement of registration and lodging expenses for the City Clerk to attend the Minnesota Clerks and Finance Officers Association Annual Conference, March 17-20, 2009 in St. Cloud, Minnesota in an amount not to exceed $300 as requested, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (5-0)
d. Other: The Mayor asked if there was any further business and there was no response.
8. ADJOURN: Councilmember MacManus moved for adjournment at 9:30 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Williams 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.