Mayor:  Dan O’Leary

Councilmembers:  Mike Hovey, JoAnne Wahlstrom, Steven Bulach and Shari Hansen

City Attorney:  Tim Kuntz

City Planner: Tom Ramler-Olson

City Engineer:  Jeff Sandberg

City Treasurer:  Ann Lanoue

Building Inspector: Mike Andrejka
City Forester: Jim Nayes

City Clerk:  Cathy Iago

     and Members of the General Public.

Police Chief:  Brian Sturgeon was absent.

1.   CALL TO ORDER:  Mayor O’Leary called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  

2.  APPROVE AGENDA:  Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda. He requested an item be added under New/Other Business 8.e. Discuss Changing the August Council meeting date. He explained that the first Tuesday in August is the “Night to Unite” and by hanging the meeting date it would allow for the Mayor and Councilmembers to be able to attend neighborhood gatherings.

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

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to adopt the agenda as amended, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (5-0)

3.  CONSENT AGENDA:  Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda and there was no response.

Councilmember Hovey moved approval of the Consent Agenda as presented, seconded by Councilmember Hansen and Carried. (5-0)

a.   Regular Council Meeting Minutes of July 6, 2021

b.   List of Bills

c.   Monthly Financial Statements

d.   Receive Building Inspector Report

e.   Receive Forester Report

f.    Receive Public Safety Report


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


Planner Ramler-Olson was unable to display his report online and Council concurred to have the Engineer present his report.  

7.  ENGINEER’S REPORT:  1. Engineering Activities Undertaken in July:     A.  2021 Capital Improvement Projects: Engineer Sandberg explained that a preconstruction conference was held on Monday with the contractor to discuss project phasing. He stated that letters would be mailed to affected residents prior to the start of the project that would include information outlining the project details and schedule dates and also would list contact information for questions. He advised that signage will be posted the week of August 15th, and work is scheduled to begin shortly thereafter at Sunnyside and Angell Road and that portion should be completed within one week. The contractor would then move to Zehnder road and then to Grieve Glen.  He advised that all work should be completed by September 13. 

B.  Salem Church Road and Delaware Intersection Improvements:  The Engineer explained that Dakota County plans to begin work on the intersection of Salem Church Road and Delaware Avenue in August and complete the work by September 13.  He stated that the City had petitioned the Council to make improvements to the intersection as it is difficult to keep it clear of ice during the winter months due to the grade. He further advised that the skew of the road is not safe and contributed to several accidents at that location.  He explained that Dakota County elected to do a friction treatment on the pavement at Salem Church Road and, and that he is still in discussions regarding restriping the road by moving the centerline a bit south and including a right-turn lane for better sightlines.  He commented that there should be traffic access at all times during the project.

Mayor O’Leary explained that the petition sent to the County asked for more safety improvements to the road, however, the County explained the type of improvements they deem necessary are based on the number accidents that are more serious accidents such as those with injuries. He pointed out that this intersection had several accidents but none with serious injuries.

C.  2022 Draft Engineering Budget:  The Engineer stated this item was discussed at the earlier Special Budget meeting.

D.  City Lake Pumping:  Engineer Sandberg stated that all city lakes were down approximately 2-feet from normal and there was no overflows, therefore, there was no pumping permitted in July.  He explained that a letter was sent to all lakeshore owners regarding how to obtain a pumping permit and that there had been a good response thus far. 

2.  Building and Site review in the Month of July:  A.  Staff conducted reviews for 100 Windy Hill Road, 300 Salem Church Road and 2154 Charlton Road in July.

Engineer Sandberg stated he spent a significant number of hours at 369 Salem Church Road regarding issues with grading on the property.  Staff confirmed that the work was in violation of the City Code and State permits and issued a “stop work” order. 

Engineer Sandberg noted that staff continues to work with the property owner to bring the site into compliance and to restore areas that were disturbed by the grading. He commented that earlier today staff and the property owner had developed a plan to restore the site.  

3.    Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of July:  None.

4.   Anticipated Engineering and Public Works Activities for August:  A. The 2021 Capital Improvement Projects are anticipated to begin construction in August and WSB staff will provide inspections for the work.  

Council thanked the Engineer for his report.


b.  Planner’s Report:  Planner Ramler-Olson reviewed the following information listed in his report dated August 3, 2021: 

July Planning Updates:  1. Staff prepared lake water extraction permit application materials for distribution.  No formal applications have been received but there were several inquiries.  Staff will keep a record of the permits since they will be subject to annual renewal.  The permit contained an exception that was specified in the documentation; if anything changes, other than replacement of existing parts in the pumping system, staff would need to reevaluate the permit application.  

2.  Staff received one response from a lakeshore resident about applying for a water extraction permit.

3.  Staff met with Paster Verway at First Calvary Church to review the facilities for holding hybrid in-person/virtual meetings. The meeting room is large, air conditioned, and has nice acoustics.  A projector is available to connect to laptops for presentations.  However, church staff would not be present at meetings to set-up any AV equipment, therefore, there would be no microphones available for anyone speaking. 

Planner Ramler-Olson explained that he was not aware of what equipment would be necessary for the city to purchase to accommodate a hybrid meeting at the church.  He noted that these limitations would complicate recording the meetings and allowing those attending virtually from listening in.

a.  Consider Resolution Relating to a Major Site & Building Plan and Conditional Use Permit (CUP), 2154 Charlton Road, Allen and Judy Werthauser:  Planner Ramler-Olson referred to his report dated August 3, 2021 and explained the request relates to construction of a new 3-staff garage that exceeds 1,000 sq. ft. and that the CUP is necessary to allow for a second accessory structure on the property.  He advised that the property is located in the R-1 Single Family and Shoreland Overlay Districts.   He stated that the proposal meets all setback requirements for both zoning districts and meetings all the criteria for a Major Site & Building Plan and a CUP.  He noted there would be no negative impact on the surrounding properties.

The Planner referred to the proposed building plan that showed the trees to be removed marked with an “X” and those proposed to be replanted at the northeast corner of the new garage. He explained that there was discussion at the Commission meeting relating to placement of additional screening on the southwest side of the proposed new garage. He advised that the applicant pointed out that there is an established garden located in the southwest area of the property.

Planner Ramler-Olson stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Major Site & Building Plan and Conditional Use Permit with a revision to Condition No 8 that states that the applicant must move two (2) of the five (5) trees shown for planting at the northwest corner of the garage to the southeast corner of the garage for screening.  He further advised that the City Engineer recommended that a silt fence be properly installed at the limits of disturbance along the north and east portions of the site adjacent to the neighbor. He noted that both of these conditions were included in the proposed resolution for approval of the requests.

Mayor O’Leary asked if the adjacent neighbors had any comments about the installation of the trees for screening. He also asked if they had received notice of the public hearing.

Planner Ramler-Olson stated that the neighbors did not attend the Commission meeting, however, the applicant stated he had discussed the screening with his neighbor and they did not express any concerns. He advised that notice of the public hearing was sent to all adjacent neighbors.

Building Inspector Andrejka asked if the silt fencing should be installed prior to construction and if he should hold the permit until the fencing is installed and who would be responsible for inspecting the fencing to ensure proper installation.

Engineer Sandberg stated that the silt fencing installation should be a condition of issuing the Building Permit and that WSB staff would inspect the silt fencing installation once it is in place.

Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any further questions or comments and there was no response.

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to adopt Resolution No.21-33 titled, resolution approving a major site and building plan review and conditional use permit to construct a detached garage and driveway at 2154 Charlton road, sunfish lake, Dakota county, Minnesota, based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the conditions as listed in the resolution including the two (2) conditions Nos., 8 and 9 relating to the location of two (2) trees at the southeast corner of the garage and the installation of the silt fencing prior to issuance of a building permit, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (5-0)


b.  Consider Resolution Relating to a Major Site & Building Plan Review, 300 Salem Church Road, Tim Winters, Winco Landscaping, Inc., Roger and Shari Wilsey:  Planner Ramler-Olson referred to his report dated August 3, 2021 and explained the request was to install an in-ground pool and pool deck that would be surrounded by a retaining wall. He stated that the property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential District and that the proposed plan meets all setback and other requirements in this zoning district.  He displayed a survey showing the entire property and the proposed improvements at the southwest corner.  He advised that the contractor would be removing an existing fountain and terraced patio and constructing a retaining wall to house the in-ground pool and deck that would be roughly at the same elevation as the existing patio. He pointed out the proposed vegetation placement along the length of the wall, regrading, and the erosion controls that were placed after conversations between the applicant and City staff.

Mayor O’Leary asked if it was a steep grade.

The Planner responded yes and showed the proposed grades and illustrations of the proposed retaining wall.

Planner Ramler-Olson responded yes and showed an elevation drawing of the proposed retaining wall which illustrated the height of the wall on the shorter 68 ft. side graduating from 1.5 ft to approximately 12 ft. in height and the longer 107 ft. portion of the wall which would be approximately 12 ft. in height for the entire length of the wall.  He also showed photos of the existing terraced retaining wall to be removed and the current view of the wall from the adjacent property at 336 Salem Church Road.

The Planner stated that there was a lengthy discussion relating to the proposed screening of the retaining wall and proper vegetation that would accomplish an adequate amount of the screening.  He noted that the Planning Commission modified staff’s original recommendation for plantings and also added a condition to address the City Engineer’s comment relating to the need for a geotechnical engineer to evaluate the proposed footings of the retaining wall prior to issuance of a building permit. 

The Planner stated that the property owner had removed some invasive species vegetation between their property and the neighboring property at 7 Grieve Glen Lane.  He noted that the property owner, Jane Johnson, was present at the Public Hearing and expressed concern regarding the proposed screening and asked that some type of planting be installed that would screen her view during the winter months.  He pointed out that screening is one of the criteria when reviewing major site & building plans.  He noted that the applicant advised the proposed Blue Hydrangeas could grow to a height of 8 to 10 feet, however, he was unsure if they would screen the wall throughout the year.

Councilmember Wahlstrom explained that she is familiar with the proposed hydrangeas and that they are stunning and do retain the flower heads year-round.  She stated that, in her opinion, the plantings would soften the view of the wall during the summer and also when they catch snow in the winter.

Councilmember Hovey asked if the height of the original retaining wall was approximately 6 ft.

The Planner responded he was unsure and explained that Councilmember Bulach may be able to respond to the question since his company was involved in the construction.  He noted that Council should also consider the length and enormity of the new wall that is obviously increasing in size from the existing wall and would be moving closer to the rear property line.  He commented that the applicant preferred to have the in-ground pool on a flat surface that was at the height of their existing patio door.

Mayor O’Leary noted that the current retaining wall was not screened.

The Planner responded that the vegetation that was removed by the property owner provided screening of the current wall, but now the view was more open.  He noted that the Johnson property view looks up at the retaining wall and the hydrangeas may provide screening from that angle.

Councilmember Wahlstrom questioned why it would be the responsibility of new property owner to install screening rather than the responsibility of the existing neighbor to put screening on their own property.

The Planner explained that there is guidance in the City Zoning Ordinance that screening accompany any new addition to a property.  He explained to the Commission that they had an opportunity to soften the appearance of the retaining wall and staff also expressed the fact there was flexibility in what plantings are installed to soften the view of the retaining wall.  Staff would take guidance from Council and Commission as to how the screening requirements are applied

Mayor O’Leary referred to Section 1241.07 in the Building Code and explained that when the finished building grade has the potential to impose an adverse impact on the neighboring properties, the City may impose additional conditions related to landscape screening in order to lessen the impact. He noted that it doesn’t limit the neighbor from putting in screening on their property.

Councilmember Hansen asked what type of material would be used for the retaining wall and if it would be similar to what is currently there now.

Planner Ramler-Olsen asked if Councilmember Bulach would respond to the question.

Councilmember Bulach explained that the neighbor complained about the height of the wall, however, it will not be higher than current wall, the only different is that the current wall is two-tiered, with one portion slightly forward from the other. He stated the new wall would block, backfilled and compaction tested.  He noted that Ms. Johnson could always see the wall.  He stated he struggled with the screening issue and noted that Ms. Johnson has room on her property to plant trees if she didn’t wish to see the home.  He stated his opinion that the wall would be nice looking.  He explained that the property owner removed Buckthorn from her property and pointed out that Mrs. Johnson would have room on her property to plant trees to screen the wall.  He advised that he would not vote on the matter, however, it was his opinion that, if his yard was abutting the property, he would plant screening on his property to soften the view. He stated that the proposed hydrangeas should hide most of the wall and the neighbor

There was discussion relating to the height of the current retaining wall and the proposed wall and how the changes would impact the neighboring views.  The Planner noted the proposed wall would have a larger appearance than the current wall, however, staff would defer to Council to determine if further screening should be included.

Councilmember Hansen commented that there is also be the potential for further noise due to the removal of the invasive species between the two properties and questioned what Council could be doing about noise and if it is a concern.

Planner Ramler-Olson explained that screening is not only for visual impact, it is also for the increased intensity of use and he would defer to Council regarding whether or not additional screening is necessary. 

Councilmember Bulach stated that there is no screening between the Wilsey property and the pool located to the west. He advised that the Wilsey’s are retired and that the pool would be used mainly by their grandchildren, not teenagers.  He agreed that screening is important, however, the vegetation that was removed form the site were scrub trees and invasive species. 

The Planner explained that staff is concerned only with the request for consideration this evening and the recommendations from staff and the Planning Commission relate only to the subject site.

Planner Ramler-Olson stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request with an amendment to Condition No. 6 to include language requiring the applicant to plant two (2) evergreen trees along the property line and also appropriate understory plantings, and a condition that requires the owner to retain a licensed geotechnical engineer to provide plans and an evaluation of the proposed footings for construction of the retaining wall. He advised that the Commission voted 3-0-1 to pass the recommendation with one Commissioner abstaining from voting.

Councilmember Bulach explained that the property owner had already retained a geotechnical engineer who would provide the information to the Building Inspector.

Planner Ramler-Olson stated that staff would defer to Council to provide more guidance on the screening requirement.

Mayor O’Leary asked the City Forester to confirm what type of Evergreen trees would provide screening.

Forester Nayes explained that his first recommendation would be White Pine and his seconded choice is Norway Spruce. He stated that he is not a landscape architect and he would leave the placement of the trees up to a professional or the property owner as to where they should be placed to best screen the view.  

Councilmember Hovey asked what size the trees should be and the Forester responded that the City normally requires a minimum of 6 ft. when planting evergreens. 

Mayor O’Leary asked what was meant by including understory trees.

Planner Ramler-Olson explained that during discussion the property owner suggested that she would plant understory trees for screening. 

The Mayor explained that he preferred to provide a proper recommendation as to what type of understory trees should be planted and how many. He stated he would not vote to approve the request unless the condition has more specificity.

Forester Nayes explained that the Planning Commission was hesitant to identify what type of tree and that is why they just said evergreens.

Councilmember Bulach recalled that the Commission was struggling with the fact that the Forester explained the deer would destroy the evergreens unless they had fencing around them.

Mayor O’Leary agreed that the deer would destroy the trees and noted that he planted 150 on his property and had to fence them. He asked the City Forester is the understory trees were necessary for screening.

Forester Nayes explained that it is his opinion the understory trees are not necessary and may not provide sufficient screening for this project.  He commented that if the property owner does nothing to treat the buckthorn that was removed, it would regrow within 5 years. He further noted that white Pines start out as an understory tree and that he would recommend them as most likely to provide screening.

Mayor O’Leary suggested that the applicant may want to place fencing around the pines so that the deer won’t eat them. He asked if there were any further questions or comments and there was no response.

Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt resolution No. 21-34 title RESOLUTION APPROVAL MAJOR SITE AND BUILDING PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AN IN-GROUND POOL, POOL DECK AND RETAINING WALL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 SALEM CHURCH ROAD, SUNFISH LAKE, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in the Planner’s’ report dated July 27, 2021 and subject to the conditions as listed with an amendment to Condition #6 that removes the language “must establish and maintain understory trees along the property line” and requires the applicant to plant two (2) White Pine Evergreen Trees at a minimum height of 6 feet in a location to best screen the retaining wall from the adjacent property, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried.


Ayes:      4 (Hovey, Wahlstrom, Hansen, O’Leary)

Nayes:    0

Abstain:  1 (Bulach)

c. Consider Resolution Relating to Major Site & Building Plan and Variance, 100 Windy Hill Road, Tom Flint, Alexander Design Group, Joseph and Madeline Mauer:  Planner Ramler-Olson referred to his report dated July 27, 2021 and explained the request for a Major Site & Building Plan to construct a new home and a Variance of three (3) feet above the maximum height allowed.  He stated that the site is located within the R-1 and Shoreland Overlay Districts and meets all requirements in both districts with the exception of the building height. He advised that the tree preservation plan identifies the number of trees to be removed on the more level portion of the site. 

The Planner stated that the City Engineer reviewed and approved the Stormwater Management Plan which includes infiltration basin and a stormwater pollution prevention plan.  He noted that the applicant is proposing to fill an on-site wetland and replace by banking the wetland credits. He advised that the wetland review is a separate process through another agency and that construction on the site would not be permitted until the applicant receives approval of the request.

Planner Ramler-Olson explained that the home is a traditional design and that the materials used for construction meet the standards in the zoning ordinance. He further advised that the plan shows the primary and secondary locations for the septic system. He further stated that the plan meets all requirements for lighting and screening.

Mayor O’Leary noted that it appears the applicant is placing more of the home in-ground so that the additional height would not be visible from across the lake.

Planner Ramler-Olson explained that the rationale for the height variance relates to the topography of the site and that substantial grading and removal of more trees would be necessary by adhering to the allowed height. He displayed a diagram which showed that the only items exceeding the 30 ft. height were the small stacks on the roofline. 

Planning Commission and staff recommended approval of the Major Site and Building and the Variance due to the unique topography of the site and the fact that less grading would occur and fewer mature trees would be removed.

Mayor O’Leary stated he met with staff on the site and the City Engineer suggested the proposed variance may be appropriate for this application in order to lessening the amount of grading on site, save trees and push grading limits further from the lake.  He noted that Forester Nayes was present and supported the variance due to the fact that 21 mature Oak trees would be saved by granting the variance. He noted that it would be beneficial to preserve the trees to provide additional screening and that it would be difficult to discern the 3 ft. height variance.

Engineer Sandberg agreed that the grading involved would be significantly less if the variance were granted.

Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any further questions or comments and there was no response.

Councilmember Bulach moved to adopt Resolution No. 21-35 titled, resolution approving a major site and building plan review for a new home and variance for a principal structure height of 33 feet at 100 windy hill road, sunfish lake, Dakota county, Minnesota, based on the Findings of Fact and conditions as listed in the resolution, seconded by Councilmember Hansen and carried. (5-0)

Council thanked the Planner for his report.

8.  NEW/OTHER BUSINESS:  a. Consider Resolution Approving Bond Sale for City Improvement Project No 2021-01 (Sunnyside Lane Mill & Overlay) and City Improvement Project No. 2021-02 (Zehnder Road Improvement) and City Improvement Project No. 2021-03 (Angell Road East Mill & Overlay) and City Improvement Project No. 2021-04 (Grieve Glen Lane Reconstruction):  City Attorney Kuntz introduced Todd Hagen, Senior Municipal Advisor at Ehlers, who was present to review the bond sale 2021A for the 2021 Street Improvement Projects.

Todd Hagen explained that Ehlers partnered with United Bankers Bank (UBB) of Bloomington to negotiate the bond sale. He explained that the interest rate was 30% less than the pre-sale estimate and the costs of issuance were $2,600 less than expected which allowed the size of the bonds to be reduced by $5,000. He noted that the call date for the bonds was also shortened by one year and prepayment with penalty is allowed without negatively impacting the interest rate. 

Mr. Hagen explained that the City would have an additional $1,500 for project costs and that the bond sale amount was reduced to $630,000 with a fixed rate bond issue of .05%.  He stated that he appreciates working with the City of Sunfish Lake and offered to respond to questions.

Treasurer Lanoue explained that the City needs to insert a dollar amount for the 2022 tax levy amount for debt service and she asked if the amount of $27,534.99 would be correct. She noted that the figure may be reduced if residents make prepayments on their assessments.  

Attorney Kuntz noted that the true interest rate of the bonds is shown at 1.4285% and that the City usually charges interest at 1.5% over that amount. He asked if the City should include an interest rate of 3% for the assessments and

Mr. Hagen responded yes.

Mr. Hagen explained that the City is reimbursed for expenses prior to construction and may capture the last three years. He advised there was a payment for Engineering costs from January 2019 thru 2021 at $50,000, the City Attorney costs were between $14,000 and $15,000 and the City Clerk/Treasurer/Publishing costs were $5,000. He noted that the City would be reimbursement for $75,000 for work done to date.  He stated that the City would receive $70,000 that would be placed in the General Fund and the remaining amount would be placed into a construction fund.  He suggested that the total amount first be placed into the construction fund and then it could be moved to the General Fund at a later date.  He commented that any funds leftover could be used to pay the bond.  He commented that the City has the capacity to collect $350,870 in assessments for the four (4) improvement projects.

Attorney Kuntz explained that there may have been an error in the proposed resolution sent to the City by Ehlers. He referred to Section 4.03(a) on page 7 and pointed out that the second sentence states “..the first installment will be collectible not later than 2021…”  He asked if the date should be “2022” and, if so, asked Mr. Hagen to correct the document and send it back to staff.

Mr. Hagen stated he would review the resolution and send a corrected version to staff. He commented that although this is a non-rated bond issue, the City of Sunfish Lake is well known and bond brokers enjoy working with the City.

Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any further comments or questions and there was no response.

Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt, Resolution No. 21-36 as amended from $635,000 to $630,000 and change the collectable date from 2021 to 2022, titled, resolution providing for the issuance and sale of $630,000 General Obligation improvement bonds, services 2021A, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (5-0)

b. Discuss Proposed 2022 City of Sunfish Lake Budget and Tax Levy:   Council was referred to the City Attorney’s memorandum dated July 28, 2021 which outlined the procedures for adopting the Preliminary 2022 Budget and Tax Levy and for conducting the annual Truth-in-Taxation meeting in December to adopt the final budget and tax levy. 

Treasurer Lanoue explained that earlier this evening Council conducted a special meeting with staff to discuss their requests for the 2022 budget and to review options for setting the Tax Levy. She stated that Council discussed options for setting the tax levy and requested staff prepare documentation with the proposed tax levy options and final budget amounts for their review at the September meeting. She advised that Council must adopt a “Not-to-Exceed” tax ley resolution at their September meeting. She noted that once Council adopts the Not-to-Exceed tax levy amount, they have an opportunity to decrease the tax levy, but they cannot increase the it.

Mayor O’Leary noted that Council expressed their preference to keep the tax rate close to 9 percent and thanked the Treasurer for her report.

c. Consider City of Sunfish Lake Insurance Renewal with the League of Minnesota Cities:  Treasurer Lanoue referred to her memorandum dated August 3, 2021 and explained that each year the League of Minnesota Cities request that the City determine if they wish to waive liability limits. She advised that under Minnesota Statue 466.02, Subd.1, the City’s tort liability is limited to $500,000 per claim and $1,500,000 for any number of claims arising out of a single occurrence. She noted that the City had consistently responded not to waive the limits and by doing so, the Council avails itself of the protection provided by statute.  Staff recommends that Council approve a motion not to waive the liability limits and to accept the coverage of $1,500,000.

Mayor O’Leary moved to continue insurance renewal with the League of Minnesota Cities, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)


Mayor O’Leary moved not to waive the liability limits and to accept the coverage of $1,500,000, seconded by Councilmember Hansen and carried. (5-0)

d. Discuss Conducting In-Person Meetings (Continued from July 6, 2021 Council Meeting):  Mayor O’Leary explained that due to the recent upward surge in Covid-19 cases, the possibility of renewal of wearing mask mandates, and the technical issues related to conducting in-person meetings at First Calvary Church, he would suggest that Council continue with the virtual meetings at this time. He stated that in his opinion, the Zoom meetings appear to work well and that this matter can be revisited in the future.

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

Mayor O’Leary moved to adopt resolution No. 21-37 titled, resolution ratifying continued existing declaration of local emergency based on continuing covid-19 global health pandemic, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)


Mayor O’Leary asked that Planner Ramler-Olson notify the Planning Commission that their meetings would also continue to be conducted virtually. 

The Mayor explained that the received information that it is difficult for Commissioners to review the large packets of information on-line. He suggested that it would be easier for them to review the plans if copies were mailed to them so that they were easier to read. He indicated that it should be within the City budget to cover the cost of mailing this information.

The Mayor asked the Planner to mail the future planning packets to the Commissioners. He indicated that that it would not be necessary to mail the large packets to Council unless they wished to have copies. 

Council concurred that they would review the inform on-line and did not need copies of the Planning Commission packets mailed to them; they noted that the summarized information sent with the Council packets would be sufficient.

Chair Hendrickson asked if he should poll the Commissioners to determine if they wanted the packet by mail or electronically.

Mayor O’Leary explained that the information would still be sent electronically and that copies would also be mailed to the Planning Commissioners and other necessary staff.


e.  Discuss Rescheduling the August Council Meeting to Accommodate “Night to Unite” Activities:   Mayor O’Leary asked if Council would be willing to change the date of the August meeting to accommodate staff and Councilmembers being available to attend “Night to Unite” activities. He suggested changing the meeting to either Wednesday evening or the following Tuesday.

Clerk Iago noted that the Paster at First Calvary had indicated that Wednesday evenings were busy at the church and it may be better to schedule the meeting on the following Tuesday.

Councilmembers Hovey agreed and explained that the dates had been changed for other holidays and also to accommodate elections. Council concurred. 

Clerk Iago stated that she would contact Leah Rose at the City Attorney’s office and ask her to include the change when she prepares the 2022 meeting calendar.

Mayor O’Leary asked if there was any further business and there was no response.

9.  ADJOURN:   Mayor O’Leary moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m.

____________________________                                 ________________________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk                                                  Dan O’Leary, Mayor

We are a small community proud of our heritage and committed to the preservation of our pristine, rural character. We cherish our privacy, yet know we are part of a thriving Dakota County and the greater Twin Cities metropolitan area. With these partnerships in mind, we strive to preserve that unique spirit which is Sunfish Lake, Minnesota.