- DRAFT –

 SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – July 12, 2022

7:00 P.M. – ONLINE MEETING

Attendants:


Mayor:  Dan O’Leary

Councilmembers:  Mike Hovey, Steven Bulach, and Shari Hansen

City Attorney:  Tim Kuntz

City Planner: Lori Johnson

City Engineer:  Jeff Sandberg

City Treasurer:  Ann Lanoue


City Forester: Jim Nayes
Police Chief:  Brian Sturgeon

City Clerk:  Cathy Iago

     and Members of the General Public.

Councilmember Ginny Beckett and Building Inspector Mike Andrejka were absent.

1.   CALL TO ORDER:  Mayor O’Leary called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  Clerk Iago explained that the Building Inspector was attending the Mendota Heights Council meeting this evening.

2.  APPROVE AGENDA:  Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda and there was no response.  

Councilmember Hansen asked if the August meeting had been moved to another Tuesday due to the “Night to Unite” activities and Clerk Iago responded no.

Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt the agenda, seconded by Councilmember Hansen and carried. (4-0)

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

Chief Sturgeon noted that officers had conducted traffic enforcement activities along Delaware Avenue and South Robert Street.  He also pointed out that there was only one (1) false alarm this month.

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

Councilmember Hansen moved approval of the Consent Agenda as presented, seconded by Councilmember Hovey carried. (4-0)

a.   Regular Council Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2022

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.

5.  PUBLIC HEARING/PRESENTATIONS:  None.


6.  PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT:  a. Consider Major Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit, 15 Sunnyside Lane, applicant Jeff Lindgren, property owners Howard and Julie Punch:  Planner Johnson referred to her report dated June 28, 2022 and stated that the applicant Jeff Lindgren, Jalin Design, applied on behalf of property owners Howard and Julie Punch for a Major Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit to construct an 8,200 sq. ft. single-family home and a rear yard pool and patio on the property located at 15 Sunnyside Lane.  She further advised that the property owners also wish to construct a walkway to Sunfish Lake on an adjacent parcel they also own that does not currently contain any principal structures.  She explained that the Zoning Ordinance allows an accessory structure such as the walkway to the lake on a vacant lot with review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application by the Planning Commission and Council.

The Planner explained that the property owner had demolished the existing home on the property in 2021 in order to construct a new home on the site; all proper procedures were followed to obtain the permit for the demolition of the previous structure.  She advised that the new home and pool meet or greatly exceed all required site setbacks. She stated that the total impervious surface coverage for the lot on which the home and pool are located and the lot on which the walkway is located is 6%; total impervious surface allowed is 30%, therefore the plan meets the requirement. She further stated that the total building coverage allowed on the lot must not be greater than 10% and the proposed building coverage on the lot containing the new home is 3%.

Planner Johnson stated that the new home would have two (2) accesses located on Sunnyside Lane, which lead to a half-circular drive in the front yard of the property.  She noted that two (2) entrance monuments are located adjacent to the entrances to the property and these monuments would be on the south side of the north driveway and the north side of the south driveway.  She further advised there is also a driveway that leads to the north side of the home and the rear portion of the lot.

The Planner stated that the pool, pool deck and rear patio would be 3,823 sq. ft. and would be located in the rear yard of the property. A fire table and seating would be provided on the pool deck and the rear patio.  She advised that the new home would be 28.5 ft. high and constructed with Hardie siding and stucco as the primary building materials.  Cedar shingles and stone are also proposed along with decorative window trim and shutters.  She stated that the exterior elevations and height of the structure meet Zoning Ordinance requirements.

Planner Johnson explained that the landscape plan submitted shows a total of 96 trees to be removed on site, with 29 of them being Ash trees and 5 being dead trees. She pointed out that the plan shows 70 replacement trees which will be spread out around the lot with 3-River Birch Clumps located on the top of the berm surrounding the southern biofiltration pond for screening purposes.  The 70 replacement trees are accented by ornamental trees, shrubs and grasses.  She noted that the City Forester had reviewed and approved the landscape plan. She further stated that a temporary construction parking lot area would be located on the north side of the site and would be removed after construction is completed.

The Planner stated that the City Engineer also reviewed the plans for this site and submitted a memo with regard to the plans for the home and for the walkway; this memo dated May 31, 2022 is attached to the Planner’s report.  She explained that the proposed plan was sent to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Hydrologist and no comments were returned.  


Planner Johnson stated that an application was also submitted for a CUP for a walkway to the lake on an adjacent parcel which is owned by the same property owner.  She noted there is currently a worn path down to the lake in this same area that the steps are proposed to be installed; there is no structure on this parcel at this time.  She explained that a new walkway would be located as such to ensure the least amount of tree removal and cause the least amount of disturbance as possible. The steps would include stepping stones interspersed with gravel, a handrail along the walkway and the walkway would be surround by boulder outcroppings to stabilize the area due to the steep slopes. She stated that the applicant will need to ensure that all work being done creates the minimum disturbance to the slope adjacent to the lake.

The Planner explained that a dock is proposed to be installed on the lake. She noted that docks are allowed, however, they must not be permanently affixed to the shore or the lake bottom and they shall not be greater than four (4) ft. in width or larger than 200 sq. ft. in area.  The dock shall not extend more than 50 feet from the lake shore.  She stated that the applicant and property owner must first check with the Minnesota DNR to determine if a dock permit is required.  If a permit is required, the dock must meet all requirements of both the City of Sunfish Lake and the DNR prior to installation. She pointed out that the proposed dock is 200 sq. ft. in size and will extend 20 ft. into the lake. She noted that there are parts of the proposed dock that exceed four feet in width, therefore, the dock size will need to be amended to meet City Code requirements prior to its installation. She advised that she included the standard language in the proposed resolution for approval of this request which requires that the applicant must seek review and approval from the DNR prior to installation of a dock at this location.

Planner Johnson stated that the proposed walkway is located on an adjacent lot which contains no other structures.  She explained that the City Zoning Ordinance allows for a walkway on a vacant lot with the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.

Mayor O’Leary explained that he and Councilmember Bulach walked the property with the applicant, property owners and staff and found the slope to be lake was incredibility steep. He explained that this configuration of the walkway was not only to save trees, but also to be positioned farther away from an adjacent lot to allow for more privacy.

Councilmember Hansen confirmed that the property owner owns both parcels and the Planner responded yes.

Planner Johnson stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of both the Major Site Plan Review and the CUP based on the Findings of Fact and conditions as listed in the Planner’s report.  She explained that Commissioner Nelson asked what would happen if the new property owner to the south of the site, which is currently for sale, had any objection to the proposed plan.  She advised that the Commission discussed it and determined that the proposed plan did not change anything on the site that was in place when the previous home was there.

The Planner explained that the Planning Commission and staff recommendation for approval included the standard conditions with the exception of Nos. 11 and 12, which relate to seeking DNR approval  for the dock installation and modifications to the dock prior to installation and also Condition #3 which refers to inclusion of the City Engineer’s recommendations as listed in his report.  She advised that all these conditions are listed in the proposed resolution that staff recommends be adopted by Council.

Mayor O’Leary explained that there was some concern as to whether or not the new home would increase the amount of runoff to adjacent properties.  He noted that there is currently a huge “gorge” to the east of the property caused by runoff in this area that flows through the lot and flows into Sunfish Lake. He advised that Tim Johnson, landscape contractor, stated he would include a berm near the infiltration rain garden and asked if that was noted on the plans.


Planner Johnson responded yes.

Engineer Sandberg explained that the applicants’ engineer and he had discussed the berm installation and they decided to upsize the basin 30% to 130% in size.  He noted that the upgrade would essentially accommodate what the berm would have and it would be visually appealing and more effective.

Councilmember Hovey asked why the applicant had not combined the two lots and indicated that they could lose their access to the lake if the lot were sold.

Planner Johnson explained that the applicant could have combined the lots, however, they wished to keep the lots separate for tax purposes.


Councilmember Hansen asked about the size of the adjacent lot and the Planner stated she was unsure of the lot size.

Councilmember Bulach noted that it appears to be a buildable lot that has access from Sunfish Lane, not Sunnyside Lane.

Engineer Sandberg explained that if the current property owner sells the adjacent lot, they would lose access to the lake.

Mayor O’Leary stated that if they sell the lot, they could retain access to the lake with a permanent easement.  He asked if there were any further questions or comments and there was no response.

Councilmember Hansen moved to adopt Resolutions No. 22-12 titled, RESOLUTION APPROVING A MAJOR SITE PLAN AND BUILDING REVIEW AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY AT 15 SUNNYSIDE LANE, SUNFISH LAKE, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the conditions from the City Engineer and as listed in the resolution, seconded by Mayor O’Leary.


Councilmember Bulach stated that he would abstain from voting as he may be working on the project.

Motion carried.    Ayes:       3 (Hansen, Hovey, O’Leary)

                                Nayes:     0

                                Abstain:  1 (Bulach)

b.  Discuss Zoning Ordinance Update:  Planner Johnson referred to her memorandum dated June 27, 2022 and explained there were three (3) projects that had been discussed by Council that are outside the normal scope of staff workload for the City and that would take a substantial amount of staff time. She stated that she wished to make sure Council is aware and in agreement with the costs associated with these items prior to embarking on the projects.

Escrow Work:  The Planner and City Engineer have been working with Mayor O’Leary and other staff members on the escrow policies and the land use application and fee schedule amendments since the beginning of the year.  She noted that this work was outside of the normal planning work for the City, and WSB “held” the time spent on this effort (time has not yet been invoiced).  She stated the total fee being held is in relation to the initial escrow work and is $3, 854.75.

Ordinance Update:  Planner Johnson stated that she prepared a time/cost estimate based on the memo Mayor O’Leary presented to Council on February 8, 2022 and indicated that it would be representative of the effort by staff to amend the entire zoning ordinance.  She referred to the table listed in her memo that showed a break down of the project by hours and costs.  The total estimated cost for the ordinance update would be $32,700, which includes monthly meetings, travel time, review/research, and drafting new chapters over an 8-month period of time and also drafting the final ordinance. 

The Planner stated she plans to work with Mayor O’Leary to review 6 chapters per month and meet each month for approximately three (3) hours based on their schedules.  She further estimated that the City Engineer may be asked to assist for approximately 2-hours per month.  She pointed out that her hourly rate is $159/hour and the City Engineer’s rate is $205/hour.  She also explained that there would be a substantial amount of research work required and that she proposed to use the services of Joe Hartmann, Professional Community Planner I, to assist with the research at a lower rate of $95/hour. She stated that his research would then be used to draft and comment on any proposed amendments.  

Planner Johnson further explained that these are cost estimates and that she will attempt to do her best to stay within these hours and schedule.  She also noted that she will monitor the hours and if it appears more time is necessary, she will inform Council of what the additional cost might be. 

Chickens and Bees: The Planner stated that she would discuss with Council what they wish to achieve with updating and/or renewing all existing permits.  She explained the plan is to do site inspections and determine compliance for each existing permit that has been issued; there are approximately 10-12 existing permits.  She advised that Joe Hartmann would do inspections at the billing rate of $95/hour.  Upon receiving his report, action would be taken to either renew the initial permit or take enforcement steps. She estimated that it would take Joe Hartmann 4 hours for inspections and 2 hours to compile a report. She stated that it would take 10 hours for her to issue compliance/renewal letters.  The total fee estimate would be approximately $2,200.

Planner Johnson stated that the final cost estimate for the Escrow Work, Ordinance Update and Updating/Renewal of Existing Bee and Chicken permits would be $38,754.75. She requested Council take action to approve the cost estimate as presented and offered to respond to questions.

Mayor O’Leary thanked the Planner for her presentation. He explained that there are inconsistences with various sections of the current Zoning Ordinance and he indicated that these may have been caused by ad hoc amendments.  He questioned if a review of the ordinances had ever been completed. He advised that Mendota Heights is also doing a review of their ordinances and received a much higher quote for an expert to review their City Code. He pointed out that there may be additional costs for the City Attorney’s opinions on changes to the code since he has the municipal law expertise.   He urged Council to support this undertaking and commented that it is the City’s fiduciary responsibility to make better regulations.  He also suggested that staff should attempt to get input from residents on the Bee and Chicken permits and also use the City Forester’s input on those regulations.

The Mayor indicated that Council could set aside additional funds in next year’s budget to cover any additional costs associated with the ordinance review and update.

Councilmember Hansen commented that this is a good plan and using the services of Joe Hartmann may help keep costs lower.


Councilmember Bulach stated his opinion that this is overdue and needs to be done.

Councilmember Hovey agreed and pointed out that there are contradictions in the code and it is time to clean it up.

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


Councilmember Hansen moved to authorize the Planner’s estimated cost of $38,754.75 to undertake the following projects as outlined in her report dated June 27, 2022 and including Escrow Work in the amount of $3, 854.75, Zoning Ordinance Update in the amount of $32, 700, and Chicken & Bee Permits in the amount of $2,200, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (4-0)

c.   Planner’s Report:  Planner Johnson stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 16, 2022 on the Major Site Plan and Building Review and CUP applications for 15 Sunnyside Lane.  She stated that the Commission recommended approval as discussed earlier.  She noted there would be no July Planning meeting due to lack of applications.  She reviewed the following information listed in her report dated June 27, 2022:

300 Salem Church Road:  There are no updates on this unpaid escrow. The Planner asked if Council wished to have this item removed from her monthly report or left on the report as a reminder. 

Mayor O’Leary suggested it remain on the planner’s report.

410 Salem Church Road: The Planner explained that Tim and Kristal Barber submitted a preliminary plan for an indoor sport court and an attached garage on their property in May.  She stated that the previous planner had interpreted the definition of a side yard incorrectly and the Barbers existing home and proposed addition did not meet the side yard setback required by ordinance.  Staff was asked to take another look at the ordinance to determine if anything could be interpreted differently to remove the nonconforming status of the property.  Planner Johnson met with the Mayor and City Attorney to review the site plan and to ensure that all aspects of the zoning ordinance were considered as it pertained to this property. 

Planner Johnson explained that she and the Mayor and City Attorney determined that the front yard of the property could be considered on the north side of the property adjacent to Salem Church Road based on a definition of a “Lot Front” in the ordinance as it is abutting a public right-of-way. She advised that with the front yard being determined as being on Salem Church Road it alleviates the non-conforming status and allows the Barbers to submit plans for a Major Site Plan Review for the indoor sport court and attached garage.

Mayor O’Leary explained that the “front yard” definition would also apply to the Bennett’s property and Mr. Sullivan’s property as they all gain access from the same driveway off Salem Church Road.  He commented that staff may have to use creative ideas when reviewing the zoning ordinance since several lots in Sunfish Lake are not “normal” city lots.

2184 Charlton Road:  The Planner stated that Michael and Suzanne MacDonald along with their architect, Pat Mackey, submitted an application for a Variance to allow for a third garage stall to be added to their existing garage. She noted that the lot and all buildings on the lot are nonconforming since they were constructed prior to current ordinance requirements.  At this time the application remains incomplete as the applicant and property owners need to submit all site development plans and surveys signed by a licensed engineer.  This item is tentatively scheduled for the August Planning meeting pending receipt of these plans.

Zoning Ordinance Update: This item was presented and discussed earlier.

Council thanked the Planner for her report.

7.  ENGINEER’S REPORT:  1. Engineering Activities Undertaken in June:     A. Meetings Attended:  Staff attended a meeting with the Dakota County Regional Rodway System Visioning Study. As discussed at the last Council meeting, staff prepared a letter requesting a Traffic Study be done at the intersection of Delaware Avenue and Salem Church Road. 

Engineer Sandberg explained that Dakota County discussed the fact that there appears to be more traffic both at the Delaware Avenue and Robert Street intersections with Salem Church Road.  He noted that Dakota County would be recommending “spot” improvements at these locations versus signalization.  He advised that residents had difficulty getting out onto Robert Street and Delaware Avenue due to the increase in traffic as an argument in support of the traffic study.  He noted that the Dakota County Engineer stated they would do a “Signal Warrant Study” for Delaware, however, they are not overly confident a signal would be needed at this time; maybe at some point in the future a signal may be warranted.

The Engineer advised that he was delaying sending a letter to MnDOT requesting a traffic study until the Dakota County study on Delaware is completed.  He suggested that he would request a “signal warrant study” on Robert Street in the fall of this year.

Mayor O’Leary commented that it is extremely difficult to access South Robert from Salem Church Road during rush hour traffic and he hoped at MnDOT would agree to the study.

B.  2022 Street Maintenance Projects; A pre-construction conference was held on June 29 with the contractor. Crack sealing work is anticipated to start the week of July 4th and should take approximately two days to complete.  The contractor will return at the end of July to complete the “fog seal” on all the streets.  Staff sent a notice to affected residents with information prior to the work starting, a copy was attached to the Engineer’s report.

Councilmember Bulach asked the Engineer what “fog seal” involved. 

Engineer Sandberg explained it is an innovative seal that is placed after the crack-sealing materials and has been shown to be more effective in prolonging the life of the roadway.

C.  No Solicitation Signage:  Engineer Sandberg stated he worked with the Police Chief to create a “No solicitation” sign and received a quote from a local sign vendor for $495 to create the custom sign and install six (6) signs on existing posts in designated locations in the City.  He advised that a sample of the sign was included with his report.  He advised that the language on the sign may be modified if necessary.

Councilmember Hansen asked if the spacing on the sign could be changed.


Engineer Sandberg responded yes and asked that she contact him with any suggestions she may have regarding the sign layout.

Councilmember Hansen moved to authorize the expenditure of $495 for six (6) “No Solicitation” signs as outlined by the City Engineer and that she would work with the Engineer regarding the spacing on the sign, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (4-0)

 

D.  Draft 2023 Engineering Budget/CIP:  Staff prepared a draft of the 2023 Engineering and CIP budget for the City Council review and consideration, a copy of the draft was attached to the Engineering report dated June 29, 2022.

Engineer Sandberg explained that there would be no street improvements recommended until 2024 as three items that were originally scheduled for 2023 were included in this year’s plan.

2.  Building and Site review in the Month of June:  A.  Staff conducted reviews for the following property this month: 

2150 Charlton:  Staff conducted a final site review of the finished improvements to create stairs and a pathway to the dock along with associated low-maintenance plantings and rock outcroppings to hold the slope in place.  The work was completed per the approved plans and the project will be closed out.  

3.    Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of June:  A.  A sign contractor replaced/repaired three (3) street signs in the City.

B.  Xcel Energy repaired damage to the shoulder of Salem Church Road caused by their utility contractor extending a new gas service to a new residence.

C. Dakota County performed spot repairs on previous pavement work at the intersection of Delaware and Salem Church Road. 

4.   Anticipated Engineering and Public Works Activities for July:   A.  Staff will work to finalize the 2023 Engineering Budget and CIP.

B.  Staff will coordinate the crack seal and chip seal work on the 2022 Street Maintenance Projects.

Council thanked the Engineer for his report.


8.  NEW/OTHER BUSINESS:  a. Consider Approval of Solicitor’s Permit:   Chief Sturgeon referred to his report dated July 12, 2022 and explained that an application for a Solicitor’s Permit was received from Daniel Oelfke, Arbor Gold, Inc., to conduct business in Sunfish Lake.  He stated that the applicant has a tree removal service business and had contracted with a resident in the City to do work and then contacted the City Clerk requesting a permit to solicit for other customers within the City.

Chief Sturgeon stated that the applicant had submitted all necessary documents, paid the applicable fees and submitted a Certificate of Liability Insurance as requested to ensure the business has sufficient insurance coverage.  He advised that the background check included a criminal history, Better Business Bureau check and various other data bases and that no issues were found to deny the request.  He recommended Council take formal action on the permit and, if approved by Council, the Police Department will issue a photo ID for Mr. Oelfke. He further recommended that information about the permit be placed on the City website to inform residents.

Councilmember Bulach asked if this person would be going door-to-door or placing information in the mailbox.

Chief Sturgeon stated the applicant would be going door-to-door.

Councilmember Hovey explained that this person cannot legally place items in a mailbox.

Councilmember Bulach stated he is not comfortable with door-to-door solicitation and he was unsure if other residents would be comfortable with this type of activity.

Mayor O’Leary explained that the City cannot restrict someone from this type of activity if they make proper application and follow the regulations.

Attorney Kuntz agreed that the City is not allowed to prohibit solicitation, however, the applicant is subject to the regulations as listed in the City Code.

Mayor O’Leary asked if the permit could include language that place certain restrictions on the license holder.

Chief Sturgeon explained that the license can include any language that is listed in the city code regulations. He indicated that the current times solicitation is allowed are 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

There was discussion relating to the times shown in the ordinance and whether or not Council could further limit those hours. 

Mayor O’Leary suggested 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Attorney Kuntz explained that the applicant may need to contact residents during early evening hours after they return home from work.

Chief Sturgeon commented that he could suggest the hours from 9:00 a.m. to 7 or 8:00 p.m. and that he would discuss those hours with the applicant.

There was further discussion regarding the hours for solicitation during the winter months when it gets dark earlier. Attorney Kuntz pointed out that a rationale defensible request would be acceptable such as concern with people soliciting on private property after dark.

There was discussion regarding whether or not residents could put signage on their property that prohibits solicitors.

Attorney Kuntz advised that residents may place signage on private property that prohibits solicitors.

Councilmember Bulach asked if the permit was issued for a year and if the applicant could solicit 7 days a week.

Chief Surgeon stated he would have to review the ordinance on the days of solicitation, however, the permit is issued annually so it is valid for 12 months.

Mayor O’Leary suggested that the City Attorney work with the Planner and Police Chief to draft language that would be the most legally restrictive for this type of activity in the City.

Planner Johnson explained that she was unsure which section of the City ordinances this would be listed in and whether or not it would be part of the Zoning Code.

Councilmember Hovey asked if the applicant violates the regulations would it nullify the permit.

Attorney Kuntz explained that the applicant would be entitled to some due process prior to invalidating the permit.

Chief Sturgeon explained that there would have to be grounds for suspension or revocation of the permit and also a hearing would be held before Council. 

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

Mayor O’Leary moved to approve the application for a Solicitors Permit as presented and requested that staff attempt to limit the number of days during the work and the hours that solicitation may occur and to advise the applicant to abide by any “No Solicitation” signage on private property and advise that violation of these regulations could be subject to revocation of the permit, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (4-0)

In discussion, Councilmember Bulach asked if the Certificate of Insurance included limits that were high enough to cover the work.

Chief Sturgeon reviewed the insurance information listed on the certificate and noted it is in line with most certificates he has reviewed.

Mayor O’Leary asked the Planner to be sure that the language in the ordinance includes the higher insurance limitations and an escalator clause.

Councilmember Bulach asked whether or not the City could deny a permit based on insurance requirements as can be done with larger projects. 

Mayor O’Leary explained that he was unsure if the City could do so for this type of permit versus for a larger contractor.

Attorney Kuntz advised that staff would review that issue and research what is acceptable.

b. Consider Resolution Appointing Elections Judges to Serve at the State Primary Election on August 9, 2022:   Clerk Iago presented the resolution appointment election judges to serve at the State Primary Election on August 9, 2022.

Mayor O’Leary moved to adopt Resolution No. 22-13 titled, RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES TO SERVE AT THE AUGUST 9, 2022 STATE PRIMARY ELECTION, seconded by Councilmember Hansen and carried. (4-0)

c. Schedule Special Budget Meeting on August 2, 2022 at 5:30 p.m.:  Mayor O’Leary moved to schedule a Special Budget Meeting on August 2, 2022 at 5:30 p.m.to discuss the proposed 2023 Budget, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4—0)

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


9.  ADJOURN:   Mayor O’Leary adjourned the meeting at 8:30 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.