SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – AUGUST 2, 2011

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

Attendants:

Mayor: Richard Williams

Councilmembers: Judy MacManus, Roger Conant, Paul Burke and Mike Hovey.

City Attorney: Tim Kuntz

City Planner: Allen Brixius
Engineer: Tim Hanson

City Treasurer: Mike Blair
Interim Building Inspector: David Neameyer

City Forester: Jim Nayes
City Clerk: Cathy Iago
Fire Chief: John Maczko
and Members of the General Public.
Police Chief Manila Shaver was absent.

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

2. APPROVE AGENDA: Mayor Williams asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda.

Councilmember Hovey moved approval of the Agenda as amended, seconded by Councilmember MacManus 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.

Councilmember Conant stated that at the July 5 Council meeting he made an inquiry relating to two invoices, one from the Planner and one from Xcel Energy. He noted that the wording on page 2 of the minutes states that he “questioned the payment”. He asked that the wording be changed to reflect that he was merely “inquiring” about the invoices, not questioning the payment of the invoices. The Clerk stated she would change the word “questioned” to “inquired” in both cases.

Mayor Williams indicated that there may be an error in the List of Bills relating to the reconciliation of the PERA payment; he pointed out that the check number does not coincide with the listing and that the Treasurer may have transposed the check numbers. Treasurer Blair stated he would correct the error.

Councilmember MacManus referred to the billing statement from the Lily Suburban Newspaper for publication of an ordinance; she noted that the amount appears to be exorbitant from other publication costs. She questioned if the City was required to publish the ordinance more than once or if it was lengthy. She also noticed that the line rate for this publication appears to be much higher than normal.

Treasurer Blair advised that the bill was originally sent to the Attorney’s office because he initiated the publication.

Attorney Kuntz pointed out that he sent the bill to the Treasurer for payment, as directed by previous Council discussion relating to protocol for processing invoices. He explained that he was unsure why the amount was so high.

Treasurer Blair stated he would contact the newspaper to determine why cost was so high and why the line rate appears to be higher than normal.

Councilmember Conant commented that staff has made progress in terms of consistency and clarity of the financial reports.

Councilmember Burke agreed and advised that although he still had some questions for the Treasurer, progress has been made regarding clarification of these items.
Mayor Williams asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.

Councilmember MacManus moved approval the Consent Agenda with amendments to the minutes as requested, seconded by Councilmember Burke and carried. (5-0)

a. Regular Council Meeting minutes of July 5, 2011.

b. List of Bills

c. Monthly Financial Statements

4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: Mayor Williams asked if there were any comments from the public.

Lynette Olson thanked the City Forester for his efforts to remove the Burdock and for the wonderful wildflower plantings along Charlton Road. Councilmember MacManus agreed that the wildflowers are a wonderful addition to the roadway.

5. PUBLIC HEARING/PRESENTATIONS: Clerk Iago suggested that Item 8.b. Proclamation Naming a Wetland Area in the City in Honor of Former Building Official Russ Wahl be considered at this time.

Mayor Williams stated that he would be honored to present the Proclamation naming the wetland area in the City to honor former building official Russ Wahl. He explained that Russ was instrumental in assisting him during the time he was purchasing his home in the City. He read the proclamation honoring Russ by naming the wetland area in the City the “Russell Wahl Wetland” and also praised Russ for his 32 years of dedicated service as a building official. He presented the proclamation to Marilyn Wahl and her family. He noted that not only was Russ respected by residents within the City, but also by builders over the years. He noted that Russ was diligent in his duty to insure that homeowners received the best service from their contractors.

Mrs. Wahl and her family thanked the Council and stated her late husband would be very proud to receive this honor.

6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT:

a. Consider Setback Variance and Major Site & Building Plan Review, Oakman Property, 1055-60^th Street West: Planner Allen Brixius of Northwest Associated Consultants introduced himself to Council and stated he would be filling in for Planner Grittman this evening. He explained that Planning Commission reviewed the request from John Oakman for a setback variance and major site and building plan review to construct a garage addition onto his home. He advised the parcel is located at the end of a private cul-de-sac and is surrounded by Horseshoe Lake on three sides. He advised the proposal includes an extension of the existing garage, a covered entryway improvement, and an addition of patio space, all on the south side of the existing structure. The new addition is approximately 550 sq. ft. of garage area and approximately 200 sq. ft. of porch/patio area.

The Planner explained that the house with the proposed addition meets the required 100 ft. front yard setback. However, the setback toward the lake is just 40 ft. for both the existing building and the proposed improvements. He stated that the required setback from the ordinary high water mark of the lake is 200 ft.; however, due to the configuration of the lot in question and proximity to the lake, there would be no buildable area under these setback requirements as the width of the land area is less than 150 ft. at its widest point. He advised that the outside porch/patio area of the project meets all Zoning Code requirements.

Planner Brixius stated that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval of all the requests, with conditions recommended by staff, as well as an additional condition relating to shrub planting on the steep slope adjacent to the lake to minimize erosion and runoff from the existing site and building addition. He stated that Mr. Oakman agreed to the additional condition and explained that he was planning to add plantings in the area where he cleared Buckthorn and other undesirable species.

Councilmember Conant commented that there are three variance requests proposed this evening and questioned if these requests are in response to the recent change in the variance laws.

The Planner explained that the new law was intended to provide a greater flexibility when granting a variance request; however, in this case, there would be no other area to place an addition on this lot of record using either the previous language in the statute or the new language for considering the request. He noted that once a lot is created and becomes a lot of record, the City has determined it is a buildable lot and must consider its unique circumstances when reviewing a variance request.

Councilmember Conant questioned if the City must grant variance requests for all lots within the City that fall below the current standards.

The Planner explained that the City may see more requests for variances for lots that do not meet current standards; however, Council will have to determine if there are unique circumstances, such as lot configuration when determining whether or not to grant the variance request.

Councilmember Conant discussed the possibility of the City being arbitrary or capricious if they deny other variance requests. He pointed out that this was not discussed when Council amended the ordinance to include the new language.

Mayor Williams advised that prior to the new statute, the City was reviewing variances the same as now, only with different language criteria for granting the requests. He pointed out that the new language was initiated to return to the standard the City had previously for reviewing these requests. He commented that the change was not designed to limit the standards for considering a variance but to return to what cities had previously used when considering variance requests.

Councilmember Conant questioned if the City would have the same authority if the same application had been submitted prior to the language change. The Mayor responded yes.

Councilmember MacManus pointed out that previously the City had to identify a “hardship” when considering a variance request and now the City uses different language; she asked the Planner what the new language states.

The Planner explained that the new language states Council must identify “practical difficulties” and agreed that the criterion for considering the request is the same.

Councilmember Burke commented that Council did not have an opportunity to elect to change the language and now must apply these standards.

Attorney Kuntz pointed out that State Statutes mandated the change.

Mayor Williams asked if there were any further questions and there was no response.

Councilmember Burke moved to approve the Setback Variance and Major Site and Building Plan Review for the Oakman Property, 1055-60^th Street West based on the findings of fact and to authorize the Planner to draft a resolution outlining the findings of fact and the conditions of the approval as listed in the Planner’s report, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)

b. Consider Preliminary/Final Plat, Major Site and Building Plan Review and Variance for Construction on a Substandard Parcel, Bulach Property, 118 Salem Church Road: Planner Brixius explained the request for a Preliminary/Final Plat, Major Site and Building Plan Review and Variance for construction on a substandard parcel owned by Steven and Elizabeth Bulach. He advised that the Bulach’s have made arrangements to purchase a portion of Mr. Kampmeyer’s property and add that portion to their parcel. The Bulachs are also planning to construct an addition to the northwest corner of the home, consisting of a master bedroom and dining room addition to the first floor and a recreational room addition to the basement floor, both proposed at 995 sq. ft. He advised that the project includes relocating the well and removal and replacement of the existing front patio and steps.

The Planner stated that the applicants are requesting a variance to permit construction on a lot that does not have the required 2.5 acres of buildable area. He explained that the plat is providing additional land area; however, due to slopes, the additional land acquisition will not provide adequate area per zoning ordinance requirements.
Planner Brixius stated that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval of the requests with conditions related primarily to verifying compliance with final construction requirements.

Councilmember Conant asked if all neighbors had been advised of the requests and have had an opportunity to comment on this matter.

The Planner responded yes and explained that notices were sent to all adjacent property owners and the public hearing notice was posted as required.

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

Councilmember Burke moved to approve the Preliminary/Final Plat, Major Site and Building Plan Review and Variance for Construction on a Substandard Parcel, Bulach Property, 118 Salem Church Road, to authorize the Planner to draft a resolution outlining the findings of fact and the conditions of the approval as listed in the Planner’s report, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (5-0)

c. Consider Major Site and Building Plan Review, Peters Property, 336 Salem Church Road: Planner Brixius explained the applicant plans to construct a new paved driveway on their property located a 336 Salem Church Road, He stated that the existing driveway measures approximately 750 ft. in length and connects to a series of private drives located to the east, which ultimately connect to Salem Church Road. The existing driveway is impassable in winter due to steep slopes and to improve site access, the applicant wishes to construct a second driveway oriented in a north-south fashion. This driveway would be approximately 350 ft. in length and will provide a more direct and navigable connection to Salem Church Road.

The Planner stated that Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval of the project with all the conditions outlined by staff except one; the applicant indicated that the “relocated gate” on the plans is actually a field gate and would no longer be necessary once the new driveway and fence are completed. The applicant has agreed to remove the gate. He further explained that the new trees to be planted would not match the caliper inch required by City Code, but, they are sufficient size and will exceed the number of trees removed from the site during construction.

Councilmember Conant asked if the old driveway would be removed. The Planner explained that the applicant wishes to retain the old driveway but indicated that they will not maintain it during the winter months.

Mayor Williams questioned if the Planning Commission agreed to the old driveway remaining on site and the Planner responded yes.

Councilmember Conant questioned who would oversee that the plantings are installed and what process is in place to insure the plantings are completed.

The Planner explained that the City Forester reviews the plantings to insure they are installed; he advised that Council has the authority to establish a deadline for the installation of the plantings and attach that date as a condition of approval.

Engineer Hanson pointed out that the City usually holds the escrow funds until a final inspection of the project has been completed by the City Engineer, Forester, Building Inspector and Planner.

Councilmember Conant commented that the Planner is then responsible for releasing the escrow funds. Planner Brixius explained that he was not aware of this procedure since he is new to the City.

Mayor Williams asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.

Councilmember Conant moved to approve the Major Site and Building Plan Review for the Peters property, 336 Salem Church Road and to authorize the Planner to draft a resolution outlining the findings of fact and the conditions of the approval as listed in the Planner’s report, seconded by Councilmember Burke and carried. (5-0)


d. Consider Conditional Use Permit, Bethel Baptist Church, 2100 Delaware Ave: Planner Brixius explained the request for a conditional use permit to allow an accessory daycare center with the church building located at 2100 Delaware Avenue. He stated that the church currently provides nursery service as part of its Sunday services and now wishes to utilize two rooms currently devoted to such use for weekly daycare operations. He advised that the applicant proposes the facility would operate Monday through Friday from 6 am to 6 pm and plans to accommodate up to 17 children ranging in age from 16 months to 5 years. As part of the project, the applicant plans to construct a 4 ft. high chain link fence around the church’s existing playground located in the southeast corner of the property. The area to be fenced measure 1,600 sq. ft. in size or 50 ft. by 32 ft.

The Planner stated that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and discussed four primary issues; potential noise and visibility impacts from the playground on the property to the south; materials for fencing the playground area; clean-up of existing debris and other materials currently stored outside of the existing garage adjacent to the playground area; and better definition of the proposed exterior door construction on the primary building.

Planner Brixius advised that the Commission, on a split vote, agreed to recommend approval of the CUP with the condition that these items be addressed prior to council consideration of the project. The applicant responded that the church intends to address all of the required items and would work on detailing these improvements prior to the Council meeting. He noted the applicant sent an email and correspondence outlining their plans, as attached to the Council report this evening. He explained that the applicant has proposed using a wrought iron fence, since chain link fencing is prohibited by ordinance.

The Planner noted that the City Attorney recommended an additional condition that the Certificate of Occupancy should not be issued for the daycare operation until such time (1) as the applicant provides verification of State licensing for the facility; (2) that the applicant has met all conditions of compliance with the Zoning Code regulations; (3) has met the specific conditions and terms of the Conditional Use Permit and; (4) has cleaned-up the debris and other materials currently stored outside.

Councilmember MacManus pointed out that the applicant was supposed to have a more complete plan prepared prior to Council review.

Dan Zwakman, representing Bethel Baptist Church, was present and explained that the church plans to hire an architect to draft a more detailed plan but has not had sufficient time to do so.

Councilmember MacManus commented that normally Council does not approve a request without detailed plans.

Councilmember Burke noted that the split vote was due to the applicant indicating that they were working under a time constraint to open the facility in September; he questioned if it is realistic that the applicant could acquire the detailed drawings for the facility by September.

Mr. Zwakman indicated that the September deadline most likely will not be met, but that the church wished to have the facility up and running as soon as possible.

Attorney Kuntz asked how far along the applicant is in the process of obtaining State licensing.

Mr. Zwakman explained that the State would not review the facility until it is actually set-up and local approval has been granted.

The Planner pointed out that generally the City requires detailed drawings when reviewing this type of proposal; he advised that if Council is not comfortable with granting approval, they may extend the 60-day deadline for action on this matter and table the request until the drawings are available for review.

Mayor Williams asked if a public hearing would be required if the matter is tabled and the City Attorney responded yes.

The Planner noted that there is an issue with the grade near the exterior doors that should be addressed in the plans.

Mr. Zwakman explained that there would be no other building alterations other than the two exterior doors.

Lynette Olson questioned if the church is allowed to conduct a business operation.

The Planner explained that the site is zoned Institutional, which allows a daycare facility as an accessory use. He commented that this is a non-profit organization and if the facility is run by the church as a service to its members, it would qualify as an accessory use.

Mr. Zwakman explained that it is part of the ministry for the church members and not a business operation.

Councilmember Burke noted that the Planning minutes stated there would be 17 children allowed at the facility, but he did not see that as part of the conditions. The Planner explained that the City can verify that number or include it as a condition.

Mr. Zwakman explained that State Statutes limit the number of children to 17.

Councilmember Conant stated his preference would be to review a more detailed plan.

Mayor Williams agreed and stated he would also prefer that this matter be referred back to the Planning Commission for another public hearing on the detailed plans and for their review and recommendation. He suggested that if timing is an issue the Planning Commission could hold a special meeting to speed up the process once the plans have been submitted

Attorney Kuntz suggested that Council should direct staff to provide the applicant with a list the specific conditions that must be met prior to reconsideration of the request and also prior to occupancy of the facility; such as, the number of people allowed; the fencing requirements; the plantings and timeframe for the plant installation, etc.

Pastor Don Delseh explained that the opening the facility in September was not a firm date and that the church will take time to do a thorough job before returning with the plan.

The Planner advised that if Council wishes to table this matter, they should direct staff to notify the applicant that the City is extending the 60-day timeframe for action on the request and to include a list of items that must be submitted.

Mayor Williams asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.

Councilmember Hovey moved to table this request until such time as the applicant can provide a more detailed plan and to authorize the Planner to send notice to the applicant that the City is extending the 60-day deadline for action on this matter, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (5-0)

Planning Commissioner Wahlstrom explained that the Commission had also recommended that a trash enclosure be placed next to the garage area or that the trash be enclosed within the garage.

The Planner stated he would send a letter to the applicant notifying them of the extension and outlining the conditions that must be met prior to review of this request by Planning Commission.

Planner’s Report: The Planner advised that no applications had been submitted this month and therefore the August Planning Commission meeting was cancelled.

Council thanked the Planner for his report.

7. INSPECTOR’S REPORTS:

a. Building Inspector: Inspector David Neameyer stated that he issued four (4) building permits and two (2) plumbing permits in July. He explained that he has had constructive and cordial dialog with the occupant at 2078 Charlton Road in response to his letter. He noted that the issues relating to this property may resolve themselves as the owner has indicated they may sell the property.
Councilmember Burke commented that he was contacted relating platting of the parcel and therefore it appears the owners are looking to move.

Inspector Neameyer suggested no further action be taken at this time and he would keep Council apprised of what develops.

Councilmember Conant asked if the Inspector had emailed his report to Council. Mr. Neameyer responded that he was somewhat delayed gathering information and had emailed the report over the weekend.

Council thanked the Inspector for his report.

b. City Engineer: Angell Road Culvert Replacement: Engineer Hanson stated that he contacted all property owners for whom easements are identified. He explained that he received positive responses regarding the acquisition of easements or waivers of trespass. He commented that it has been difficult to schedule meetings with some property owners due to vacations.

The Engineer advised that he contacted the low bidder on the project, Minnesota Dirt Works, and they advised they will hold the bid until October.

Qwest Utility Repairs: The Engineer stated that Qwest has requested a permit to complete repairs on their facilities at the west end of Windy Hill Road; a permit was issued and posted on the City’s website.

Bulach Acres: Engineer Hanson advised that he completed a preliminary and final plat review for Bulach Acres.

Capital Improvement Plan: The Engineer stated that future City capital improvements and major maintenance items were identified and prioritized, and cost estimates were completed. He referred to the Capital request sheets sent with his monthly report that identify these improvements. He stated the cost estimates are “thumb nail”, and the year of improvement is subject to the following: Council preference, financing, and need or demand due to future conditions.

Engineer Hanson explained that he also included cost recovery estimates. He stated there may be some assessment potential for the storm water maintenance items identified for Charlton Road and that this should be reviewed by the City Attorney and Treasurer. He advised that the CIP should be discussed as part of the 2012 budget process and that there may be improvements that are not indicated which need to be added to the list; he asked if Council or staff had suggestions for projects that should be added to the list.

Councilmember Burke commented that the detail in the report was terrific, but he indicated it would be preferable to see a spreadsheet for the projects by year. The Engineer offered to prepare the spreadsheets for Council review.

Councilmember Burke commented that it does not appear sensible to start easement acquisition until a project is identified. Engineer Hanson agreed and noted that projects may move or change in the CIP and it would be more prudent to start easement acquisition as projects reach high priority on the CIP listing.

Mayor Williams noted that the City should have easements for recent plats and that it may be wise to start an inventory of the known easements. The Engineer stated he identified areas where easements would be needed in the CIP document.

Councilmember MacManus questioned how the engineer determined the estimated costs for the projects and noted that the City may defer a project due to the costs.

The Engineer explained the process he used to determine costs was based on the items to be done and current pricing; he noted that the estimates are not related to a detailed plan and could change. He commented that the estimates are a starting point and provide a relative idea of costs.

Councilmember Hovey noted that the estimates are necessary to be used for budgeting purposes.

Mayor Williams noted that the estimates may change based on the economy when the projects are ordered. He commented that he assumes there were no comments for the need to obtain easements on projects where they already exist. Engineer Hanson agreed with his assumption.

Councilmember Conant asked if there was a listing of the easements anywhere within the City. Engineer Hanson explained that if the property is platted, the easements are shown on the plat. He advised that if the property has a metes and bounds description, the City has prescriptive rights, but would have to do a title search to determine if easements were granted. He noted that easement acquisition is identified for projects proposed in areas with metes and bounds descriptions in the CIP.

Councilmember Conant inquired about the “TMDL” Improvements. Engineer Hanson explained that is the Total Maximum Daily Load” in conjunction with identifying impaired water; he noted that the City may receive a grant through the Lower Mississippi Watershed Organization for the project. He explained that the City must determine a method to reduce the pollutants, and that it may be as simple as educating the property owners adjacent to the lake.

Councilmember Conant advised that he has noticed the appearance of some type of weed in Sunfish Lake. Engineer Hanson indicated that it may be Coon Tail.

Forester Nayes explained that the water temperature at 80 degrees, due to the recent heat wave, and the excessive rain, provide for weeds to grow substantially this year; he indicated that it may not be a new weed, just a weed that is normally in the lake but growing more rapidly. He offered to view the weed for identification purposes.

Councilmember Conant asked if the runoff from Mauer Chevrolet is going into Sunfish Lake. Engineer Hanson explained that the site drains across the highway and into the City, not actually into the lake; he apologized for not clarifying this item in his report.

Mauer Chevrolet: Engineer Hanson explained that the City of Inver Grove Heights completed a review of a proposed building expansion and site improvements to Mauer Chevrolet on the north side of Trunk Highway 110. He stated their review was forwarded to the City due to the runoff from the site flowing into the City of Sunfish Lake. He advised the proposed improvements provide storm water treatment and reduce the volume and rate of storm water discharge from the site.

Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of July: Charlton Road: The Engineer stated that Charlton Road was graded.

Anticipated Engineer/Public Works Activities’ for the Month of August:

- Easement acquisition for the Angell Road Culvert Replacement Project
- Prepare draft Capital Improvement Program

Council thanked the Engineer for his report.

c. CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes advised that four (4) burning permits were issued in July. He stated that Spotted Knapweed was found in the City and that most of the Burdock has now been removed. He advised that he has been clearing brush from sight-lines near Stop Signs along the roadways. He noted that Dutch Elm is active in the City, but no Emerald Ash Borer has been found. He advised that Japanese Beetles are thick this year and that they should be treated in early spring, but not at this time of the year. He stated that he found some Purple Loosestrife along the lakes and explained that the wildflower seeding along the roadways have done well due to the amount of rainfall this year.

Council thanked the Forester for his report.

d. PUBLIC SAFETY: Fire Chief Maczko was present and explained that he normally makes an annual visit to the council meeting; however, if Council has any issues they wish to discuss, he would be happy to attend any meeting.

The Chief explained that he made a presentation to the Mendota Heights Council after an article appeared in the newspaper stating that it was difficult to recruit volunteer firefighters. He noted that Mendota Heights has had no trouble in recruiting or retaining its volunteer fire department; he explained that the department is currently in the processing of interviewing 14 candidates to fill two vacant positions. He advised that Mendota Heights provides fire service for the cities of Sunfish Lake, Lilydale and Mendota and has done so for the past 63 years.

Chief Maczko explained that he is currently working on an insurance rating review. He noted that with the new 2,200 gal. tanker truck and a testing evaluation by Insurance Services Organization (ISO) inspectors of their ability to establish, and deliver, the water supply necessary for fire extinguishment, preliminary indications are the department has passed the criteria for Sunfish Lake to be considered for the same insurance rating as that is given for cities that have their own water system. He advised that this could mean a reduction in insurance costs for residents in Sunfish Lake to the same level as the City of Mendota Heights that has its own water system. He explained that currently Sunfish Lake is rated at Class 9, however; there is a significant difference in insurance costs if the level is dropped to an 8. He explained that Mendota Heights has a Class 4 rating. He indicated that savings are insurance company dependent, as some companies do not use ISO ratings and do their own evaluations. Once he is notified of the results of the ISO evaluation, he will inform the City. This could take several months.

Mayor Williams asked if there are still Sunfish Lake residents on the volunteer fire department and the Chief responded yes.

The Mayor questioned if the portable reservoir staging areas, such as those installed on Acorn Drive, are a factor in reducing the insurance rating and if so, he indicated that Council should consider including their installation with future road improvements.

Chief Maczko responded yes and explained that the reservoir staging areas improve response time and efficiency. He agreed that their installation is a benefit to both emergency responders and residents. He described how the system works to improve the efficiency of emergency vehicles responding to fire calls.

The Chief reported that Fire Alarm calls are higher than last year at this time and that reports are sent to the City on a monthly basis. He advised that Mendota Heights adopted an ordinance that requires the alarm company to contact the resident first to determine if there is actually a fire and then to notify the fire department if it is confirmed or no response is received.

Mayor Williams explained that this matter was discussed a few years ago with the alarm companies, but to date Council has not considered adopting that type of ordinance.

Chief Maczko stated he had discussed requiring the installation of sprinkler systems in residential homes with the previous building inspector and noted that the cost for the systems has decreased over the years and most likely is less than installing an underground sprinkling system for watering outside.

Councilmember Hovey asked if the higher capacity tanker truck has problems accessing streets and if it is a larger vehicle than the smaller tanker. The Chief responded that it is approximately the same size truck with the only difference being the tank capacity.

Councilmember Conant commented that he was advised there was some trouble with response time in the northeast section of the City; he asked if the fire department had worked out an agreement with West St. Paul to respond to calls in this area to improve response time.

The Chief explained that there is a Mutual Aid agreement with West St. Paul and other cities to respond to calls, but there is no agreement to provide service to the northeast area of Sunfish Lake. He explained that the response time concern was raised by a resident who did not understand the fire procedures for dealing with a brush fire in this area and that he believes this was the only concern raised in this area. He explained that Mendota Heights has a great working relationship with all the surrounding cities and the South Metro Fire Department.

Council thanked the Fire Chief for his attendance and report.
The Mayor explained that Chief Shaver was not available to attend the meeting due to National Night Out festivities he was obligated to attend. He reviewed the public safety report and noted that alarm calls are 30 percent less than the same time period last year. He explained that the police had responded to a loud party report in the 2550 block of Delaware Avenue and that the department requests that neighbors continue to report any nuisances at this address in order to establish a pattern of incidents prior to confronting the homeowner regarding this matter. He further reported that officers responded to a number of animal complaints about loose dogs and he encourages pet owners to maintain control of their pets and to make sure they have identification tags. He advised that a resident reported juveniles driving recklessly on Charlton Road and the officers found that the vehicle registered to a Sunfish Lake resident; he stated that the officer notified the father of the driver who was waiting in the driveway when his son returned with the vehicle.

8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS:

a. Consider Resolution Establishing 2011 Deer Hunt: Mayor Williams explained that by ordinance every August Council is required to adopt a resolution setting the deer hunt limits for the upcoming deer hunting season. He advised that the City still retains the authority to conduct a controlled hunt, but the resolution prohibits residents from hunting within the City.

Councilmember Burke commented that this ordinance appears to be dated and that it is unlikely the City would permit residents to hunt in the future; he suggested taking action to set the number at zero every year, unless otherwise specified, rather than adopt a resolution each year.

Attorney Kuntz pointed out that Council would have to amend the ordinance in order to do so and that maybe more costly than adopting the resolution on an annual basis.

Mayor Williams agreed that the ordinance amendment would have to be drafted and published.

Councilmember Conant suggested that Council adopt the resolution this year and that staff prepare an ordinance amendment for next year.

The Mayor pointed out that it may be appropriate to have a general “clean-up” of the ordinances.

Councilmember Burke suggested that this matter be included at the next appropriate opportunity when a code change is required. Council concurred.

Mayor Williams asked if there were any questions or comments and there was no response.

Councilmember Conant moved to adopt Resolution No. 11-14 titled, A RESOLUTION SETTING THE DEER LIMITS PURSUANT TO SUNFISH LAKE CITY CODE SECTION 601.04 and setting the number at zero, seconded by Councilmember Burke and carried. (5-0)

b. Proclamation for Former Building Official:– This item was moved to Presentations earlier in the meeting.

c. Consider Proposal for State Auditor’s Office Review of City Financial Procedures: Mayor Williams advised that he and Councilmember Conant have not had an opportunity to compile the information for the State Auditor’s office and suggested tabling this matter at this time.

Councilmember Hovey moved to table this matter until such time as the Mayor and Councilmember Conant are ready to present the information, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (5-0)

d. Schedule Special Council Meeting for 2012 Budget Discussion: Mayor Williams explained that the Clerk had contacted the Church to determine dates the meeting room is available to conduct a Special Budget meeting. The Clerk found that the meeting room is available on August 16 or 23 for this purpose. The Mayor and asked which date and what time would work best for conducting the budget meeting.

After discussion, Council concurred that the meeting should be set on August 16 from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

The Clerk asked Council which staff members should be present. Council determined that the Engineer, Treasurer and Clerk should attend.

Councilmember Conant moved to schedule a Special Council Meeting to discuss the 2012 Budget on Tuesday, August 16, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Burke and carried. (5-0)

e. Discuss Additional Exterior Building Materials for Inclusion in the City Code: Mayor Williams explained that Council had discussed this matter at a previous meeting. The Planner explained that his office has not had sufficient time to prepare a report on this matter.

After a brief discussion, Council concurred to table this item to the September meeting.

Councilmember Conant moved to table discussion of this item to the September 6, 2011 Regular Council meeting, seconded by Councilmember Burke and carried. (5-0)

f. Discuss Properties at 55 Salem Church Road and 50 Woodridge Drive: Mayor Williams explained that he had received an email relating to the property conditions at 55 Salem Church Road and that he responded the City has limited authority with respect to some of the items mentioned in the email. He advised the complainant that the concerns relating to “housekeeping” on the property may be an ongoing issue and that Police Department had checked on the vehicles and found they were registered to the property owner.

Councilmember Hovey commented that the City should not get involved if this is a dispute between two neighbors.

The Mayor agreed and pointed out that there are also issues at 50 Woodridge Drive that may be in violation of the City Code as they relate to trash and debris on the property.

Councilmember Burke questioned who determines if there is a violation on the property. The Mayor stated that the Building Inspector or Police Department normally checked for violations.

Councilmember Burke commented that staff should check the property to determine if a violation exists prior to any Council action.

The Mayor pointed out that the Building Inspector had checked the property at 55 Salem Church Road and found no violations and that the Police Chief had checked the vehicles at that location and found them to be registered to the property owner. He noted that the person submitting the complaints has their property for sale and wishes to have the neighborhood cleaned up for aesthetic purposes.

Mayor Williams suggested that the Building Inspector check the property at 50 Woodridge Drive to determine if there are any violations and report back to the Mayor.

Inspector Neameyer asked if there is a citation booklet in the event a violation is found. Attorney Kuntz explained the City procedure is to file a formal complaint rather than issue a citation.

The Mayor asked if there were any comments or questions and there was no response.

g. Other: Mayor Williams asked if there was any further business and there was no response.

9. ADJOURN: Councilmember Burke moved for adjournment at 9:00 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)

___________________________ ___________________________
Richard A. Williams, Jr., Mayor Catherine Iago, City Clerk