SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – JULY 7, 2009
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Mayor: Molly Park
Councilmembers: Cathy DeCourcy, Judy MacManus, Richard Williams and Roger Conant.
City Attorney: Tim Kuntz
City Planner: Laurie Smith
City Engineer: Tim Hanson
Building Official: Russ Wahl
Interim City Forester: Jim Nayes
City Treasurer: Mike Blair
City Clerk: Cathy Iago
Police Chief Manila Shaver
and Members of the General Public.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Molly Park opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
2. APPROVE AGENDA: Mayor Park asked if there were any corrections or additions to the agenda and there was no response.
Councilmember Williams moved approval of the Agenda, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (5 -0)
3. CONSENT AGENDA: The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda.
Mayor Park asked the City Attorney to provide a brief explanation of the insurance liability coverage. Attorney Kuntz responded that this is an annual action item for Council and in the past Council has chosen not to waive the statutory tort liability limits thereby limiting the amount a claimant would be able to recover .He noted that there was a change that became effective on July 1, 2009 that increased the amount a claimant could recover for a single occurrence to 1.5 million. He and the Treasurer recommend that the City does not waive the statutory limits as it has done in the past and authorize the Treasurer to sign the document on behalf of the City.
Councilmember Williams requested a clarification be placed in the June 2 minutes on page 9, paragraph 2; he asked that the sentence be corrected to read as follows: “he stated that he is less concerned about the assumptions being correct as to whether or not the same assumptions were made with respect to the two types of roads and their costs.”
Mayor Park asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Conant moved approval of the Consent Agenda with the amendment to the June 2, 2009 minutes, seconded by Councilmember Williams and carried. (5-0)
a. Regular Council meeting minutes of June 2, 2009.
b. List of Bills
c. Monthly Financial Statements
d. Authorize City Treasurer to Sign & Submit LMCIT Liability Coverage Insurance Form
4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: Councilmember Williams reported on the joint meeting with the Mendota Heights City Council and the Open House regarding the Dakota County Transportation Study for the northwest area of Inver Grove Heights and the northeast area of Eagan. He explained that the Mendota Heights Council supports the City of Sunfish Lake and its residents in their opposition to a proposed interchange at Delaware Avenue and I-494. He noted that the city officials present at the joint meeting made it clear that neither city is willing to make a voluntary contribution of land to the City of Inver Grove Heights for the purpose of an interchange at that location. He further explained that those present pointed out the most sensible solution would be to widen 70th Street/Lone Oak since it is the connection street between the cities of Eagan and Inver Grove Heights. He noted that they obviously do not wish to place the interchange at this location since it would hamper development options in their cities.
Councilmember Williams stated that at this time there are no future plans to improve Highway 3/Robert Street since it would be difficult to widen the highway north of 70th Street. He reiterated that it those present made it clear to Dakota County that it would make more sense to widen 70th Street and place the interchange at 70th Street/Lone Oak Road to accommodate traffic in all directions. He noted that Dakota County has narrowed the number of possible scenarios to three (3); Mayor Park interjected that there used to be eleven (11) scenarios. He commented that this is a long range issue and would most likely not be completed for a number of years.
Councilmember Williams pointed out to Dakota County that the City of Sunfish Lake is not opposed to development in Inver Grove Heights and realize the need to move traffic from the south where development has occurred. He indicated that Council may wish to lobby Dakota County Commissioners to insure they recognize that the cities of Eagan and Inver Grove Heights should bear the brunt of this traffic extension and interchange since they will are the main contributors and that the 70th Street/Lone Oak Road location would be best suited to carry traffic.
Mayor Park thanked Councilmember Williams for his report; she asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
5. PLANNING COMMISSION:
a. Preliminary/Final Plat for a 2-lot Single Family Residential Subdivision; Mullery Acres: Planner Smith explained the applicant is requesting approval to allow for re-subdivision of two existing vacant parcels that are generally located south of Salem Church Road and west of Horseshoe Lane. She stated the proposed new parcels are consistent with lot area and setback requirement and that the proposed subdivision will not result in the creation of additional lots. She stated that all necessary documents relating to easement and access for the lots was submitted by the applicant and that the lots will be served by a private driveway She advised that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the subject and members of the general public expressed concern regarding the condition of the private driveway serving the proposed subdivision. The Planner explained that the City does not have the authority to require improvements to the private driveway.
Planner Smith stated that the septic inspector reviewed and approved the locations of the proposed systems. She advised that the drainage plans were approved and that the four (4) rain gardens would be reviewed and approved in conjunction with new home construction on the lots.
The Planner advised that the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request, subject to the five (5) conditions listed in the planning report dated June 10, 2009.
Paul McGinley and Mike St. Martin of Loucks & Associates were present representing the applicant.
Councilmember Conant questioned if the City had any options other than to approve the request since it meets all requirements. Planner Smith explained that it may be possible to develop findings to deny the request; however, staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval with the conditions listed.
Planning Commission Chair Andrea McCue explained that the Commission recommended approval since the request meets all requirements. She pointed out that resident Brent Baskfield was present at the public hearing and that he expressed concern that the existing 10 ft. wide road is located closest to his property rather than the applicant’s parcel on the 33 ft. wide easement; she noted that he also expressed concern regarding the fact that utilities along the road are deteriorating and must be dug out to be replaced.
Councilmember Williams asked who would be responsible for the costs associated with replacement of the utilities. Attorney Kuntz explained that the landowners adjacent to the roadway easement would be responsible since it is a private road.
Councilmember Williams noted that Council may face similar situations with private road access in the future and questioned if the City would have any authority to impose conditions in future situations. Attorney Kuntz explained that if a future plat results in a greater number of lots than presently exists the City may have the authority to place conditions on the roadway and access design; however, if the plat meets all requirements when submitted, there would be no authority to impose conditions. He pointed out that this is merely a lot reconfiguration and therefore the City has no authority to impose conditions on the private road.
Engineer Hanson explained that currently the utility company would most likely abandon the deteriorating lines and bury a new line to service the properties.
Paul McGinley stated he researched this question after the Commission meeting and found that XCel Energy could run the utilities for the new parcels from an existing transformer in the area that serves the Bulach property. He further noted that in discussion with Mr. Mullery he was informed that the gas lines had been run to the property by Mr. Mullery from Hwy. 100 and Delaware and that the line runs along the west side of the private road.
Councilmember Williams questioned who would be responsible for maintaining the private road; he noted that in the past the City has required new development to create an association to insure roadway maintenance. Attorney Kuntz explained that the City would have authority to impose a condition relating to an association if this were a new plat versus a lot reconfiguration. He pointed out that the residents could form an association to insure maintenance of the road.
Mayor Park asked if there are any issues relating to public safely vehicle access and noted it is a long private driveway; she questioned if the street addresses would be sufficient to identify homes in an emergency situation.
Planning Commissioner Wahlstrom indicated that the fire numbers should be sufficient to identify the property.
Councilmember Williams questioned if there are any requirements for keeping the fire numbers visible and if the City has any liability if the numbers are not visible. Attorney Kuntz explained that the Fire Code imposes responsibility for the landowner to keep the numbers visible and the City would be responsible for enforcement of the requirements; he indicated he does not believe the City would be have liability since the responsibly for keeping the number visible rests with the landowner.
Councilmember DeCourcy suggested a notice on the website to remind residents to keep the fire numbers clear.
Mayor Park asked if the City could require the formation of an association for roadway maintenance purposes.
Attorney Kuntz responded no and advised the City has no authority to impose that condition.
Paul McGinley explained that there is a maintenance agreement attached to the roadway easement and that it would move forward with the title for any property divisions.
Councilmember Williams asked if all the development contracts and stormwater agreements could be included as part of the motion for action on this item. Attorney Kuntz responded yes.
Mayor Park asked if there was any further discussion and there was no response.
Councilmember Williams moved to approve the Mullery Acres Preliminay/Final Plat subject to the five (5) conditions as listed in the Planner’s report dated June 10, 2009 and to approve the following documents: 1) Development Contract for Lot 1, Block 1, Mullery Acres; 2) Development Contract for Lot 2, Block 1, Mullery Acres; 3) Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Agreement for Lot 1, Block 1, Mullery Acres; and 4) Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Agreement for Lot 2, Block 1, Mullery Acres, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (5-0)
Planner Smith explained that the Planning Commission had discussed the need for requiring an invasive species survey for properties seeking development or redevelopment approvals. The Commission has requested that Council authorize staff and the Commission to study this issue and potentially draft new ordinance language requiring such a survey with future development applications.
Councilmember Williams agreed it would be a good time to begin such a study.
Councilmember DeCourcy commented that in her opinion the City should begin removal of invasive species in the City parks before requiring residents to do so on their property. She also pointed out that some plantings were not previously considered invasive species but now have been classified as such and therefore the City needs to proceed carefully.
Councilmember Williams agreed; however, he commented that the focus of the Planning Commission request appears to relate to undeveloped property and he supports the study for new development properties.
Planning Chair McCue agreed that the Commission does not wish to impose the removal of invasive species on current properties only on new development to require the property be cleared of the species prior to new construction. She indicated the Commission is asking to explore the issue only in conjunction with new construction.
Councilmember Conant suggested that this issue could be referred to the Mayor’s Environmental Commission for study.
Mayor Park indicated that the Environmental Commission is currently studying general polices on this matter.
Councilmember MacManus pointed out the Commission is also studying educational methods.
Mayor Park announced that the new co-chairs of the Environmental Commission are Councilmember MacManus and Holly Divine.
Planning Chair McCue indicated that the Commission wishes to have authority to explore what other communities are doing to insure removal of invasive species in conjunction with new development.
Attorney Kuntz suggested that Council could give a directive to the Planning Commission to study what other communities are doing and report back to Council.
Councilmember Williams commented that the information received from the Planning Commission study of other communities regulations could also be forwarded to the Environmental Commission.
After discussion, Council concurred to direct the Planning Commission to study what other communities are requiring to insure the removal of invasive species in conjunction with new development and report back to Council.
The Planner advised no application were received and there would be no Commission meeting in July.
Council thanked the Planner for her report
6 INSPECTOR’S REPORTS:
a. Building Inspector: Inspector Wahl stated that he conducted eleven (11) inspections and that no permits were issued in June. He advised a new fire number sign was ordered for 120 Salem Church Road and that the contractor has agreed to pay for the sign.
Councilmember Conant asked the Inspector if the lack of permits is a reflection of the economy of other factor. Mr. Wahl responded he believes it is a reflection of the economy.
Council thanked the Inspector for his report.
b. City Engineer: Salem Church Road Reconstruction: Construction work began the week of June 8 and with the road reclamation, culvert installation, grading and test rolling. The culvert extending south from the westerly wetland was removed back to a buried concrete box culvert in which the existing culvert was constructed through; since this culvert was in good condition the remaining culvert was left in place and the new culvert connected to the existing at the box culvert wall. He noted that this saved money since removal of the box culvert would have been expensive. He stated that the test roll completed on the aggregate base detected one area that was soft so the aggregate was removed and the subgrade corrected by excavation and replacement with granular material. He explained that the bituminous base was paved on June 15 and the contractor chose to pave the bituminous wear course on June 16 and 17. He advised that the aggregate shouldering was then roughed in and topsoil was placed beyond the shouldering. He stated that equipment breakdowns and very hot weather caused the contractor to halt work on the project; however, the work is scheduled to resume on July 6 to complete the items listed in the Engineer’s reported dated July 2, 2009. He noted that the speed table installation began today and that they are very effective.
NPDES Annual Public Hearing: The Engineer reported that the annual report for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) was competed and sent to the MPCA.
Charlton Road Feasibility Update: Engineer Hanson explained that the Charlton Road feasibility report was presented to Council on June 2 at which time the Council requested the Engineer and Attorney provide a report relating to easement acquisition at the next meeting. He stated he has worked with the City Attorney to develop schedules and appraisal needs for right-of-way acquisitions and after review of the report b y Council a neighborhood meeting and public hearing could be scheduled to review the information with affected property owners.
Angell Acres Rain Gardens: The Engineer advised that the construction plan for the ponding areas/rain gardens to be constructed in Angell Acres were submitted for review; he advised that he reviewed and approved the plans and construction of the rain gardens was completed. He stated that Engineering staff will be reviewing the final construction.
Public Works Activates Undertaken in the Month of June: Charlton Road Dust Control: Charlton Road was sprayed for dust control on July 1.
Anticipated Engineer/Public Works Activities for the Month of July:
* Project management for the Salem Church Road Reconstruction Project
Councilmember DeCourcy asked what is used for dust control on Charlton Road. Engineer Hanson explained it is salt, possibly Magnesium Chloride, and it is applied wet.
Councilmember Conant noted that there was a cost saving for using the existing box culvert and questioned if the issues relating to the aggregate removal would increase costs. Engineer Hanson explained there may be a slight cost increase; however, the aggregate was already included as a bid item. He explained that since it is uncertain how much aggregate would be used for the project the bid for aggregate is done in quantity and the City only pays for how much it uses.
Council thanked the Engineer for his report.
- CITY FORESTER: Interim Forester Nayes stated he had issued six (6) burning permits in June and that he identified numerous trees with Dutch Elm disease within the City. He noted that chipping of the diseased trees is much better than burning the trees. He displayed a poster showing the Emerald Ash Borer beetle and a small vile with a preserved beetle that he received from the DNR.
Mayor Park asked what the general philosophy was for treating the disease and the Forester responded that he does not recommend treating the trees unless they have some special meaning to the resident. He noted that his company stopped planting ash trees several years ago.
JoAnne Wahlstrom asked if he recommends cutting down the trees. He stated and that he would recommend removal of the tree only after the disease or insect infestation is identified.
Council thanked the Forester for his report. - PUBLIC SAFETY: Mayor Park distributed the Public Safety monthly report for June, 2009. Chief Shaver was present and reported that the false alarms had tapered off this month although they are higher than the same period last year. He also noted that while on patrol construction debris was found, although he is unsure if the debris was from a project located within the city.
Chief Shaver explained that on August 4 there would be a “Night to Unite” that was formerly called “National Night Out”. He stated this is an opportunity for neighbors to get together and meet and that he would provide information for the City website. He noted that Sunfish Lake residents have been very good about calling police when they witness suspicious activities.
Mayor Park noted that the stop sign on Windy Hill Court was “tagged” with graffiti and questioned if this was gang related. Chief Shaver stated he does not believe this was a gang-related incident and that the stop sign be cleaned up or replaced. Engineer Hanson stated he would order a new sign for replacement.
Councilmember Conant questioned if the monthly activity report was sent to his home. Chief Shaver stated the reports are sent by email and that he would check to confirm it was sent.
Mayor Park stated she would prefer to have a paper copy sent to her home.
Council thanked Chief Shaver for his report.
6. OTHER/NEW BUSINESS:
a. Consider Resolution Defining the Administration Procedures of the Wetland Conservation Act: Engineer Hanson explained that the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BOWSR) has requested the Local Government Unit (LGU) to identify responsibility for implementing the Wetland Conservation Act and that Council has the option to delegate certain functions to City staff. He noted that the proposed resolution clarifies the definition of City Staff and which decision staff may make independent of Council; the resolution also defines the type of decision that must receive Council action. He explained that resolution does not change the City’s status of LGU it merely services to define and clarify the role of staff and Council and formalize the City’s authority to delegate certain LGU functions to staff.
Councilmember Conant questioned what happens if staff denies a request from a property owner. Engineer Hanson explained that the property owner retains the right to appeal the decision before Council or to have the decision determined by a third party.
Councilmember Conant asked if the Planning Commission would be involved in the decisions. Engineer Hanson responded no that it would ultimately be a Council decision. The Engineer advised that Andi Moffet from his firm is extremely knowledgeable regarding these issues and would be the contact for all requests.
Mayor Park asked if there was any further discussion and there was no response.
Councilmember Williams moved to adopt Resolution No. 09-12 titled, A RESOLUTION DEFINING THE ADMINISTRATION PROCEDURES OF THE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (5-0)
b. Consider Appraisal Report for Easement Acquisition, Project Costs and Project Schedule for Charlton Road Improvement Project: Attorney Kuntz explained the four memorandums sent from his office relating to the Charlton Road Improvement Project; he stated that the following information does not require Council action this evening:
1.) Memorandum relating to memorialize a decision by Council for a substandard roadway standard for the Charlton Road Improvement;
2.) Project Schedule, he indicated this schedule will continue to be redefined as it appears the project would not be constructed until the summer of 2010;
3.) Project Costs, since it appears that Council must first develop a strategy to acquire the easements from 16 parcels along the road and the costs will not be know until the easement acquisition is completed. He indicated that acquisition of the easements could conceivably increase the total project cost from approximately $400,000 to $800,000 and would also substantially increase the assessment amount for property owners. He noted that with the increased project cost and the proposed 40 percent assessment of the total cost to the property owners the assessment per parcel would be approximately $11,000. He commented that Council needs to discuss a strategy and the feasibility of the project in light of the increased costs for easement acquisition.
The Attorney explained that the fourth memorandum outlines the quotes received from two firms for property appraisals for the project. He noted that both firms have quoted a price of $5,000 and explained that the appraisal would not be based on a parcel by parcel acquisition but rather on acquiring approximately 108,000 sq. ft. of right-of-way for the project. He pointed out that prior to conducting a public hearing on the improvement project this information would be necessary in order to provide a more accurate assessment figure. He suggested that both firms be retained given the significance of the task.
Attorney Kuntz noted that two items need to be addressed prior to the public hearing, those being a discussion of acquiring the easements and the associated costs and to authorize hiring an appraiser.
Councilmember MacManus stated she did the math, without the right-of-way costs included, for a total project cost of $575,900 and a 40 percent assessment divided by 21 parcels; she indicated that an $11,000 assessment per parcel would place a substantial burden on property owners and also on the City. She commented that she does not believe an $11,000 assessment is appropriate for property owners or the remaining 60 percent of the project costs for the City for a road that is only one-quarter mile long and not in such bad condition.
Councilmember Williams questioned if the appraisal would provide a value for the properties without going into specifics. He also asked if the appraisal would provide the worst case scenario.
Mr. Kuntz explained it would not be a parcel by parcel appraisal but rather based on a total square footage of right-of-way that needs to be acquired to complete the project. He commented that it would not provide a worst case scenario but rather provide the judgment of the two professionals hired as to the total acquisition cost.
The Attorney pointed out that it is not an insignificant task to discuss 16 different acquisitions; he noted that Engineer Hanson had conducted a preliminary per-inventory of significant trees that may have to be removed which would be considered as part of the process.
Councilmember Williams commented in his opinion this process began because some people residing on the roadway changed their minds regarding improvement of the road; he indicated that he wished everyone to understand that he paid $13,000 for an assessment on Acorn Road even though it would not increase his property value but rather because of the potential liability to the City. He stated that in his opinion he believes the City should at least go through the appraisal process in order to find the total cost of the project. He further commented that he wished to find out the liability to the City if nothing is done since it is a public road and the City has an obligation to make decisions that benefit all the residents of the community.
Councilmember Conant indicated that the discussion has drifted away from the subject and that Council should consider the agenda item. Councilmember DeCourcy agreed.
Councilmember MacManus pointed out that some discussion needs to be held regarding the sub-standard road conditions; she discussed the court case for the City of Orono whereby the City was not held liable for an accident because the roadway was defined as a rural road and the City supported the definition with findings of fact. She commented that in her opinion Acorn Drive improvements went beyond what was necessary because the residents supported the improvements.
Councilmember Williams indicated that he does not agree with those comments.
Councilmember Conant asked what the improvement meeting involved. Mr. Kuntz explained that once the feasibility report is accepted the Council calls for a public hearing to receive input from residents prior to ordering the improvement.
Councilmember DeCourcy stated she wished to consider the appraisal report and take action on the matter.
Councilmember MacManus commented that in her opinion it is too much money to spend and she does not support the expenditure.
Councilmember DeCourcy questioned if the City needs to utilize both firms. Attorney Kuntz pointed out that in his opinion it would be helpful to have two firms since there are 16 parcels and the issue is signnificant.
Engineer Hanson commented that once a number is identified that number would be the one that stays with property owners. Mr. Kuntz stated it may be more appropriate to determine if there is a wide disparity between the two findings from the appraisers.
Councilmember Williams questioned if the City does nothing to the road in its present condition would the City lose discretionary immunity.
Councilmember Conant suggested that Council vote on the item.
Councilmember Williams indicated that he wished to have the question answered prior to taking action on the $10,000 expenditure. Attorney Kuntz stated that on-going maintenance will continue on the roadway and therefore he does not believe the City would lose discretionary immunity if the City memorializes its policy decisions.
Councilmember Williams moved to authorize hiring the two appraisal firms of Metzen and Integra to conduct an appraisal of the market value and approximate costs for right-of-way acquisition for a 23 feet wide strip total along Charlton Road at a cost of $5,000 each, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy.
In discussion, Councilmember Conant noted that there is no resume for Thomas Metzen as compared to the other firm’s appraiser. Mr. Kuntz stated he would provide that information.
Councilmember Conant asked if Mr. Metzen was the appraiser that conducted the Acorn Drive appraisals and stated the property values would increase the value of each home by $20,000. Mr. Kuntz responded that Metzen Appraisals provided appraisal for the Acorn Drive project, but Attorney Kuntz said he did not remember the amount of the appraisal.
Councilmember Conant asked if Mr. Kuntz has had any business dealings or owned joint property with Mr. Metzen; he stated that he saw Mr. Kuntz’s name in a lawsuit with Mr. Metzen’s name. Mr. Kuntz responded no.
Mayor Park asked if there was any further discussion and there was no response. The Mayor called for a vote.
Motion carried. Ayes: 4 (Williams, DeCourcy, Conant, Park) Nays: 1 (MacManus)
c. Consider Contract and Resolution Approving Independent Contractor Agreement for City Forester: Mayor Park stated she had met with Interim Forester Nayes to discuss a contract for his company to provide service as the City Forester. She explained that Attorney Kuntz would review the contract details.
Mr. Kuntz stated that the contract would be with the business owned by Mr. Nayes, Living Sculpture Tree and Shrub Care, Inc. He explained that Mr. Nayes has requested two changes to the contract:
1. Under Article 2.5, Item 11: Mr. Nayes suggested the language be changed to read: “Bring to Council’s attention enforcement issues….” This change was recommended as the Council retains final determination on all enforcement issues.
2. Under Article 3.3, paragraph 3: Mr. Nayes suggested that that the words “supplies” and “materials” be eliminated due to the fact that in the past the City has paid for or reimbursed consultants for these items.
Mr. Kuntz explained a few other items that should be incorporated into the document:
1. Under Article 3.4 a) the compensation rate would remain at $40 per hour, which was the same amount as the previous forester’s salary.
2. Under Article 3.6, the words “supplies” and “materials” should also be deleted.
3. Under Article 3.9, the insurance amount was increased to $1.5 million in compliance with the July 1, 2009 LMCIT regulation change.
The Attorney also noted that he has reviewed Article 3.12 Conflict of Interest Policy with Mr. Nayes and that he will provide a copy of the policy to him for reference.
Councilmember MacManus questioned if the hourly rate would be sufficient and if it would be more appropriate to set a “not to exceed” figure. Treasurer Blair explained that there is a budgeted amount for the City Forester position and an amount for expenses.
Mr. Kuntz also noted that there is no liability insurance payment by the City for Mr. Nayes as was in the previous contract with Mr. Johnson.
Mayor Park indicated that the contract would be renegotiated in December.
Councilmember Conant asked if the term of he contract is outlined in the document. He also questioned if the reporting every six months requirement would continue with the new forester.
Mr. Kuntz responded that the term of the contract is defined under Article 2.2 and that the reporting dates of June 30 and December 31 remain in the contract under Article 3.12.
Councilmember Conant noted that the Weed Control Officer reports to Dakota County and has the authority to enforce the regulations; he questioned if these duties remain in the contract. Mr. Kuntz responded yes under Article 2.5, Item 14.
Councilmember Williams stated that Mr. Nayes has completed the project on his property and therefore no conflict of interest exists.
Councilmember DeCourcy suggested that the City Forester look into using the Sentence to Serve personnel to help eliminate weeds along City property. Chief Shaver stated he could provide information on the program to Mr. Nayes.
Mayor Park asked if there was any further discussion and there was no response.
Councilmember Williams moved to adopt Resolution NO. 09-13 titled, RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT WITH LIVING SCULPTURE TREE AND SHRUB CARE, INC. FOR CITY FOESTER SERVICES, and to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (5-0)
The Mayor asked if there was any further business and there was no response.
9. ADJOURN: Councilmember Conant moved for adjournment at 8:41 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Williams and carried. (5-0)
______________________ ___________________________
Molly Park, Mayor Catherine Iago, City Clerk
We are a small community proud of our heritage and committed to the preservation of our pristine, rural character. We cherish our privacy, yet know we are part of a thriving Dakota County and the greater Twin Cities metropolitan area. With these partnerships in mind, we strive to preserve that unique spirit which is Sunfish Lake, Minnesota.