SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES – DECEMBER 1, 2015

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

Attendants:

Mayor: Molly Park

Councilmembers: Mike Hovey, JoAnne Wahlstrom and Steven Bulach

City Attorney: Tim Kuntz

City Planner: Michelle Barness

Engineer: Don Sterna

City Treasurer: Ann Lanoue

Building Inspector: Mike Andrejka
City Forester: Jim Nayes
Police Chief: Manila Shaver

City Clerk: Cathy Iago

and Members of the General Public.

Councilmember Cathy DeCourcy was absent.

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

2. APPROVE AGENDA: Mayor Park asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda. The Mayor asked that an additional item be added under 7.b. Engineer’s Report relating to a request to form a Citizen Task Force to discuss proposed MnDOT improvements along Highway 110 and that Bernard Tuohy would present the information.

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

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

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

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

a. Regular Council Meeting Minutes of November 3. 2015

b. List of Bills

c. Monthly Financials

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: a. Public Hearing to Consider Budget and Tax Levy for the Year 2016:

Mayor Park opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. for the purpose of reviewing and receiving comments relating to the proposed 2016 Budget and Tax Levy for the City of Sunfish Lake. She asked the Treasurer to review the proposed budget and tax levy for those present.

Treasurer Lanoue stated that the City annually conducts a truth in Taxation Hearing to review the proposed City Budget and Tax Levy for the upcoming year for residents and to receive their comments. She distributed a handout with the proposed budget and tax levy information. She explained that the information also contains budget information for School District 197, Dakota County and special taxing districts; she noted that the City would not discuss that information this evening and that interested residents could contact those entities with questions. She explained that Dakota County sets the property valuations for the City.
She stated that the tax capacity rate for the City taxes are .25558 or 31.6% of the tax dollar. She advised that the School District, County and Special Districts make up the remaining tax dollar collected. She advised that the General tax Levy proposed for 2016 was $430,023 which is a 9.68% increase from 2015,

The Treasurer stated that the Council conducted a special meeting in August to discuss the budget requests from the staff consultants and review information from Dakota County on the tax capacity rates. She explained that the Council must adopt the preliminary budget and certify it to Dakota County in September. She noted that the proposed budget amount could be decreased prior to final adoption but could not be increased.

Treasurer Lanoue explained that the major increase in the levy amount was based on the fact that next year is a presidential election year and explained that although it is not a large dollar increase, it raises the percentage increase for the 2016 proposed budget. She noted that the dollar amount increase for the election was $3,000 but the percentage increase would be 46%. She indicated that the increase in bond payments and the cost for street improvements and maintenance also contribute to the 9.68% increase in the 2016 proposed budget over the adopted 2015 budget amount. She referred to the proposed 2016 City Budget Revenue projections and explained that the projections were based on the property tax increase, the franchise fees, fines, special assessments, and permit and plan check revenues. She stated that revenues were projected to increase 5.2%.

The Treasurer stated that the average market value for property in the City had changed and some property values increased while others decreased. She reviewed the comparison of the mean and median home values and the impact of the proposed tax rate certified to Dakota County as shown in the documentation distributed to the audience.

The Treasurer stated that the overall budget documents are similar to prior years and that Council would be requested to adopt the 2016 Budget and Tax Levy later on the agenda to be certified to Dakota County in December and filed with the Minnesota Department of Revenue and State Auditor. She offered to respond to questions.

Mayor Park thanked the Treasurer for her presentation and opened the public hearing for any comments from the audience. There were no comments from the floor.

The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments from Council and, hearing none,called for a motion to close the public hearing.

Councilmember Bulach moved to close the public hearing at 7:25 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. 4-0)

6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT: a. Consider Major Site and Building Plan Review and Variance, 27 Sunnyside Lane, Tom and Julie Hurley: Planner Barness stated that Tom and Julie Hurley were present with their contractors to respond to questions. She explained that Council had reviewed the requests for a Major Site and Building Plan and variances for a new home at their November meeting and had tabled the requests to the December meeting to allow the applicant time to address the issues of septic systems locations on the site. She noted that no alternative location for the secondary septic system had been identified and the City requested the applicants provide the location prior to completing the application review. She stated that the three (3) variances were related to the home not meeting shoreland and sideyard setback standards on a legally approved substandard sized lot.

The Planner explained that the applicants, their septic contractor, the City Engineer and the City Septic Inspector had met at the site to discuss the issue of a secondary septic location and a location was identified and agreed upon by all in attendance. She advised that the City Septic Inspector had provided an email memorandum describing the process, the intended secondary septic system technology and included approval of the proposed secondary septic location. She further explained that the City Attorney, at the request of the City Septic Inspector, had prepared a legal document detailing the requirements for a secondary septic system on the property to clarify for future property owners what is required with regards to providing, protecting and maintain the secondary system on the site. She explained that the City Attorney provided this document for Council review and was available to respond to questions. She also noted that a monitoring and mitigation plan for the septic system on the property at 27 Sunnyside Lane would be kept on record with the City Septic Inspector and the City Planner for future reference. She stated that the applicants had revised their site plans to show the location of the secondary septic system on the property and the plan was reviewed and approved by both the City Septic Inspector and City Engineer with regards to setback from systems on adjacent properties and other relevant standards.

Planner Barness explained that City Engineer provided a final report dated November 23, 2015 recommending approval of the project. She noted that Engineer Erick Eckman reported that all previous engineering conditions recommended had been addressed by the applicant, with the only remaining conditions pertaining to construction and the provision that retaining wall plans be submitted as the project moves ahead.


Planner Barness stated that staff recommends approval of the major site and building plans and variances, subject to the conditions as listed in the proposed resolution attached to her report. She reviewed the practical difficulties relating to the unique configuration of the lot, the steep slope from the road to the lake which results in difficulty creasing a flat building site entirely within the setbacks and to place the new home far enough from the road to create the mild driveway grades necessary for safety and stormwater drainage purposes. She noted that the new home lessens the encroachment into the setback from the shoreland as the existing home was placed at 170 feet from the shoreland and the new home would be placed at 173 feet. She noted that there are other homes comparable in size located on the lake and that the new home meets all performance standards. She further advised that the one-story home proposed would reduce the visual impact from the lake as the existing home was a two-story structure and that the neighbors to the north of the site had stated they have no objections to the proposal. She commented that she had not received any comments or objections from the southerly neighbors and that there were no objections voiced at the public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting.

The Planner advised that staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance requests.

Mayor Park asked if there were any questions from Council.

Councilmember Bulach asked for information relating to the advanced septic system.

Tom Hurley stated that he was not extremely knowledgeable about the system but explained that he was advised the system processes the waste at a higher level of parts per billion of the amount running through it and requires only one half of the area of a regular septic system due to the condition of the water passing through it. He noted that it is expensive and requires monitoring and testing every year.

Planner Barness explained that one small revision occurred with the building plans since the November meeting, shifting a fireplace in the screened porch on the north side of the proposed home further north a few fee to provide a more functional space for the homeowners She advised that the shift north does occur within the sideyard setback, but does not increase the furthest extent of the intrusion beyond that which was previously discussed with Council.

Mayor Park noted that 21 trees would be removed and 18 replacement trees installed. She advised that invasive species would be removed from the lot and replaced with sumac. She commented that in her opinion the applicants and their contractors had done a wonderful job with the design and placement of the new home.

The Planner stated that the draft resolution provided lists the findings of fact for approval of the variance requests and also the conditions of approval for the major site and building plan application. She reviewed the conditions of approval as listed in the proposed resolution.

Mayor Park asked if the resolution included all the requests from the applicants and the Planner responded yes.

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

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to adopt Resolution No. 15-23 titled RESOLUTION APPROVING A SHORELAND AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, A LOT AREA VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME ON A SUBSTANDARD SIZED LOT WHERE THE RESULTING STRUCTURE IS UNABLE TO MEET SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND MAJOR SITE AND BUIDING PLANS FOR THE PROPERTY LCOATED AT 27 SUNNYSIDE LANE, SUNFISH LAKE, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, subject to the conditions and based on the finding as listed in the resolution, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (4-0)

Attorney Kuntz explained that Council should also take action to approve the Agreement Relating to Identification of Primary and Secondary Locations for Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems on Lot 7, Block 1, Knutson Addition between the City and Thomas and Julie Hurley.

Councilmember Bulach moved to approve the Agreement Relating to Identification of Primary and Secondary Locations for Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems on Lot 7, Block 1, Knutson Addition between the City of Sunfish Lake and Thomas and Julie Hurley, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)

b. Consider Adoption of Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance: Planner Barness explained that she had presented the draft Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance to Council at their November meeting and they tabled consideration of the ordinance to December to allow her time to gather additional information on solar energy systems. She advised that Council requested the Planning Commission study alternative energy sources after staff received inquiries from residents relating to installation of geo-thermal and solar systems; she noted that no inquiries were received regarding wind turbine systems. She commented that it is her understanding that wind turbine systems would not be permitted if they are not addressed in the proposed ordinance.

The Planner explained that the Planning Commission preferred not to address the wind turbine systems in the draft ordinance they recommended to Council. She stated the Commission based their exclusion of the turbines on findings such as that in order for the system to be productive it would have to be mounted on a high tower structure due to the mature trees on property within the City. She also pointed out that she found through her research and discussions with installers that the land area within the City would not be ideal for harvesting wind energy.

Planner Barness advised that in response to the request from Council she had found images of solar and geo thermal systems for them to view. She explained that Council questioned the height necessary to install rooftop and ground mounted solar panels. In her research, she found that the City of Spring Park limited the ground mounted systems to 6 feet in height, however, the Planning Commission recommended the ground mounted systems not exceed 16 ft. in height as that was the height limitation for accessory structures in the City. She referred Council to her report and explained that pitched roof solar panel mounts follow the pitch of the roof and only a few inches are required between the roof and the panels to allow for temperature regulation and roof drainage. She commented that solar panels installed on pitched roofs most likely would not conflict with the building height limit. She further advised that the flat roof solar panel mounting requires ballast mounting in order to protect against potential wind interference. She stated this type of panel may be angled towards the sun and may have a more difficult time adhering to the building height limit. She stated that most flat roof homes in the City do not reach the building height limit, and therefore are not anticipated to pose issues for installation exceeding the height limitations, however, there may be some flat roof homes that could create a conflict with the height limitation. She displayed photos of two types of roof mounted systems, Photovoltaic and solar thermal energy.

The Planner explained that to address any potential conflict with the roof mounted panels exceeding the building height limitation, Council may consider amending the Ordinance to allow roof mounted solar panels to exceed the maximum building height limit by up to 5 feet; she noted that certain roof structures are permitted to exceed the maximum building height limit in Section 1219.02 of the Zoning Code.

Mayor Park commented that she had solar panels installed on the roof of her home in Hawaii and most of the homes in the neighborhood had also. She stated that the panels followed the roof line and none of the panels appeared to extend beyond the roof height.

Building Inspector Andrejka recalled that the panels do not extend to the sides or the peak of the roof to allow space for workers to install the panels.

Mayor Park questioned if there was research relating to whether or not roof panels or ground mounted panels supply more energy to the home.

Councilmember Hovey commented that ground mounted panels may be more effective since they are motorized to track the sunlight and the roof panels are stationary.

Planner Barness agreed that the ground mounted panels may be a little more effective.

Mayor Park asked what happens to the panels after 20 or 30 years on the roof.

The Planner explained that the Commission had enhanced the language regarding abandonment of the alternative energy systems to provide better enforcement options. She noted that the additional language provides for the City to notice the property owner and details the steps for the City to remove the items and collect a fee for their removal.

Councilmember Bulach questioned if screening of the ground mounted panels was discussed and noted that the City usually requires screening when additional accessory structures may be visible from adjacent property.

Councilmember Hovey asked if the screening requirement would be only for ground mounted units.

Councilmember Bulach responded yes and asked if it would be appropriate to add language to require screening or merely deal with this issue on an individual basis.

Planner Barness advised that when researching and preparing the draft ordinance she found that other cities included language that required them to be screened from view to the extent possible without impeding their function. She noted that Sunfish Lake included language in their ordinance relating to accessory structures which requires any new accessory use must be screened and the ground mounted panels are considered an accessory use. She noted that the proposed ordinance does not require review by the Planning Commission or Council, however, staff could refer the matter to Council if a complaint is received.

Mayor Park asked if the City could prohibit ground mounted solar panels.

Planner Barness explained that State Statues requires that solar energy systems be permitted in that solar access must be protected, however, they do not specify which types must be allowed. She commented that the solar energy systems are the only one that the State specifies must be allowed. She pointed out that due to the larger lot size requirement in the City, it should be possible to keep the ground mounted panels from view.

There was discussion relating to whether or not placement on the roof panels would cause an issue with glare. The Planner explained that she was informed by installers that glare is not an issue any longer due to the materials used and that because of the limited color choice, the panels blend with the roof color.

Councilmember Wahlstrom asked if the ground mounted systems are safe for children and pets.

Councilmember Hovey explained they should be as safe as other accessory structures installed on properties such as pools, etc. He stated he has no objections to the ordinance as presented.

Planner Barness asked if Council would prefer to allow the 5 ft. height extension for roof mounted panels and explained that it would require another ordinance to amend Section 1219.02 of the Zoning Code to include the panels as one of the allowed structures on the roof.

Councilmember Hovey stated he would prefer not to allow the 5 ft. extension of the roof panels.

Linda Tuohy, 9 Sunfish Lane, asked if the solar panels are silent or create a humming noise.

Mayor Park explained that the panels on her home do not create any noise.

Forester Nayes stated he had hot water solar panels and they were completely silent.

Hoyt Nye, 2140 Charlton Road, asked if the ordinance addresses architectural integrity.

Planner Barness responded yes and explained that the resident must contact the Building Inspector to obtain a permit.

Councilmember Bulach stated he has concerns relating to allowing the 16 ft. height for the ground mounted panels. He commented that most of the lots in the City are large and could hide the panels, but there are some lots where they may be visible.

There was discussion relating to whether or not the ground mounted panels could be prohibited. Planner Barness stated she could do research with the State to determine if they could be prohibited.

Councilmember Bulach stated he would prefer to delay action on this matter until the Planner has more information on the ground mounted panels and asked that she check to determine if they could be prohibited.

Planner Barness pointed out that the City would allow a detached garage structure of 1,000 sq. ft. and 16 ft. high which would be more visible than the ground mounted units due to its volume.

Kitzie Nye, 2140 Charlton Road, questioned if the panels would provide glare if viewed from across the lake.
Planner Barness explained the panels would have to be setback 200 ft. from the shoreland of the lake and it would depend on their orientation as to whether or not glare would be visible.

Hoyt Nye pointed out that the only area where the ground mounted panels could be placed on his lot would be very close to his neighbor as that would be the only area with sunlight due to the trees.

Mayor Park asked the Planner to research the legality of prohibiting ground mounted panels.

The Planner asked if there were any other questions for research or changes to the ordinance.

Councilmember Bulach asked if one ground mounted panel would be sufficient to supply energy or if multiple panels are necessary.

Councilmember Hovey pointed out that only one area would be allowed for an accessory structure so multiple areas of the yard could not be used to install the panels.

There was discussion regarding whether or not the ground mounted panels create problems between neighboring properties.

Clerk Iago suggested that the Planner contact the cities researched to determine if they have received complaints relating to the ground mounted or roof mounted panels.

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

Council concurred to table action on the proposed ordinance to the January 5, 2016 Council meeting to allow the Planner time to research legality of prohibiting ground mounted solar panels and if other communities have received complaints relating to the visibility of ground mounted panels from neighboring property owners.

c. Planner’s Report: Council received the Planner’s report dated November 25, 2015.

7. STAFF REPORTS: a. BUILDING INSPECTOR: Inspector Andrejka stated he issued five (5) and closed six (6) permits in November.

Council thanked the Inspector for his report.

b. CITY ENGINEER: Engineering Activities Undertaken in the month of November: A. Fire Numbers: Engineer Sterna stated that all but one of the new Fire Numbers were delivered to the City Forester prior to this evening and that the cost was $31/per sign, for a total amount of $780.00.

B. TH 110 Improvement Project for 2017: The Engineer stated that he attended a neighborhood meeting on November 18 with the Mayor Park and Councilmember Hovey to discuss the MnDOT’s proposed improvements to Trunk Highway 110. He stated he would discuss this matter later on the agenda when the neighborhood group provides their presentation to Council.

C. Charlton Road Improvement Discussion: Engineer Sterna explained that Council had discussed three (3) possible options for improvement to Charlton Road which included paving the roadway to the end of the church parking lot, paving the roadway to the corner near the Crandall home or paving the entire road. He stated that the City has the opportunity to partner with MnDOT to do improvements to Charlton Road in 2017 when MnDOT undertakes improvements to Highway 110. He noted that the City must inform MnDOT if they are interested in such a project by April 2016 and advised that the City would be required to turn over possession of Charlton Road to MnDOT until the project is completed. He also advised that the City would have to pay for the project and also determine options for financing the project. He stated that Council could hold a public meeting with residents to discuss the three (3) options and determine the level of support for the improvements from the residents. He noted that Council should also discuss the easement requirements and financing of the project with the residents.

D. 27 Sunnyside Lane Septic Resolution: The Engineer stated that he met with the City Septic Inspector and the applicant’s septic representative at the building site to find an acceptable location for the secondary septic system location; all present agreed to a secondary location on the site.

E. Snow Plowing for November: Engineer Sterna stated that the first snowplowing event went well with the new contractor.

F. Building and Site Reviews: The Engineer referred Council to the building and site reviews listed in his report and offered to respond to any questions.

Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of November: None.

Anticipated Engineering and Public Works Activities for the Month of December: The Engineer explained that he had discussed the Charlton Road Improvements earlier and that he would defer discussion of the T.H. 110 improvements by MnDOT to the citizen group.

Mayor Park explained that a group of approximately 26 residents from Charlton Road and Sunfish Lane met with her, Councilmember Mike Hovey, and Engineer Sterna to discussion the proposed MnDOT improvement Project for Trunk Highway 110 (TH 110) scheduled for 2017. She noted that Councilmember Hovey attended the meeting as a resident, not as an elected official. She introduced resident Bernard Tuohy who would present the information on behalf of the citizen group.

Bernard Tuohy, 9 Sunfish Lane, stated he had been reading the Council meeting minutes on-line and was made aware of the possible changes to TH 110 that MnDOt is proposing in 2017. He explained that the group wished to emphasis that their concerns relate to safety issues versus concern for losing crossing areas. He stated that in his opinion TH 11- had become an expressway to move traffic from the crosstown highway and the Hiawatha Avenue corridor to I-494 and Hwy 35E. He commented that TH 110 was not built as an expressway and that it was the opinion of the group that MnDOT was not addressing safety concerns by eliminating the cross-over areas near Sunfish Lake.

Mr. Tuohy stated that the group wished to petition Council to establish a citizen task force to review the proposed MnDOT improvements on TH 110 and to compile a recommendation on behalf of the City that includes compelling arguments for considering all the safety aspects of their proposed 2017 improvement project. He explained that the group would work with the City Engineer to draft a formal recommendation for Council consideration at their January meeting.

Mayor Park asked if Council had any questions relating to the appointment of a Citizen Task Force to study the proposed MnDOT improvements to TH 110 and draft a formal recommendation for the City to submit to MnDOT.

Councilmember Bulach asked if the Engineer could provide any accident statistics to the group or other pertinent information from MnDOT.

Engineer Sterna explained that his company recently hired a former MnDOt engineer who worked on proejcts in the metropolitan areas of the City and that he could provide information to the task force.

The Engineer explained that he has had discussions with John Solberg, the MnDOT area representative, and had informed him of the City and the citizen concerns relating to the proposed project.

Mayor Park commended the citizens group that met to discuss the proposed project and their concerns relating to traffic safety that could be affected by the proposed MnDOT improvements.

Mr. Tuohy pointed out that the residents were concerned about the details of the project and also the attitude MnDOT expressed when discussing the proposed improvements.

Mayor Park noted that the Fire Chief also had concerns relating to the impact on emergency vehicle access to streets in the City if the crossing areas are closed. She advised that the Fire Chief recommended some type of surface that would support the turn-around of emergency vehicles if the access points are eliminated be included in the project.

Engineer Sterna agreed that the turning radius for a tanker truck would be limited if the access points are closed and he suggested that a diagram be included with the recommendation to show MnDOT the necessity of including a left turn lane as a possible option. He showed those present the impact near the traffic signal at Mendota Road and noted that closing the current cross-over areas would create a traffic back-up at that intersection. He also noted that residents would be forced to make a U-turn at that location to travel west on TH 110.

Mr. Tuohy commented that the safety of residents is the main concern of the group and that they wished to work with the City to present their concerns to MnDOT. He stated that it is the hope of the citizens that Council support establishing a task force to compile the safety concerns and a recommendation to present to MnDOT.

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

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to appoint a Citizen Task Force to prepare a draft recommendation for formal presentation to MnDOT on the proposed 2017 Improvements to Trunk Highway 110 near the City of Sunfish Lake and to authorize the City Engineer to work with the Task Force on the project, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (4-0)

Council thanked the Engineer for his report and Mr. Tuohy for the presentation.

c. CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes stated he issued three (3) burning permits in November and completed clearance pruning of trees along Angell Road, Sunnyside Lane and Charlton Road. He explained that he seeded the street right-of-way at 6 Acorn Drive and planted the Wildflower Demonstration area near the corner of Wind Hill and Slame Church Road. He advised that he installed tree cages around several evergreen trees to prevent damage from deer and that he met with the builder at 240 Salem Church Road to discuss tree and shrub planting suggestions. He stated that both Sunfish Lake and Horseshoe Lake water levels are up to within 6 inches of their respective outlets and water levels are quite high for this time of year.

The Forester advised he picked up and disposed of a dead deer and four vacuum cleaners that were dumped along 55^th Street. He stated that this Wednesday he would be attending an Emerald Ash Borer informational meeting presented by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.

Council thanked the Forester for his report.

d. PUBLIC SAFETY: Chief Shaver reviewed his report dated November 25, 2015 and complimented residents for their diligence in reporting suspicious persons in the City.

Council thanked the Chief for his report.

8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS: a. Consider Resolution Adopting the Tax Levy for Collection in the Year 2016: and 8 b. Consider Resolution Adopting the General Fund Operating Budget for 2016: Treasurer Lanoue explained that Council must first adopt the General Fund Budget and then the Tax Levy resolution.

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

Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt Resolution No. 15-24 titled, RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE GENERAL FUND OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF SUNFISH LAKE FOR THE YEAR 2016 in the amount of $530,814, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (4-0)

Councilmember Bulach moved to adopt Resolution No. 15-25 titled, RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE TAX LEVY FOR COLLECTION IN THE YEAR 2016 for the City of Sunfish Lake in the amount of $471,484, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)

c. Consider Resolution Setting Dates for the Regular City Council & Planning Commission Meetings for 2016: Attorney Kuntz explained that Council annually adopts a resolution establishing the dates for the regular City Council meetings and the dates for submission of the planning and land use applications. He noted that there were a couple of changes for the regularly scheduled meetings due to the precinct causes and the November election. He noted that Council retains the option to change the dates during the year if necessary.

Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt the following:

Resolution No 15-26 titled, RESOLUTION SETTING THE DATES FOR THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR 2016, and;

Resolution No. 15-27 titled, RESOLUTION SETTING THE DATES FOR PLANNING AND LAND USE APPLICATION DEADLINES FOR 2016, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (4-0)

d. Consider Resolution Authorizing Submission of the 2016 Small Community Funding Application to Dakota County Requesting Funding to Operate a Citywide Recycling Program: Clerk Iago referred to her memorandum dated November 22, 2015 requesting adoption of the recycling grant application for 2016. She explained that the grant monies are used to administer the City’s recycling program and for publication of the City’s newsletter.

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

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to adopt Resolution No. 15-28 titled RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF THE 2016 SMALL COMMUNITY FUNDING APPLICATION TO DAKOTA COUNTY REQUESTING FUNDING TO OPERATE A CITYWIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Sunfish Lake and Dakota County, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)

e. Report on 2015 Deer Management Program: Chief Shaver stated that he was told by Investigator Matt Muellner that five (5) deer were taken over two weekends. He explained that six (6) deer were killed by cars and one deer received a gunshot wound, which must have been a poacher within the City.

Councilmember Hovey stated that he also saw one dead der in the median near Sunfish Lake.
Chief Shaver stated that the first year of the hunt over ten deer were taken and approximately 6 to 8 deer have been taken annually within the City. He pointed out that the last aerial deer count authorized by the City was done over 5 years ago and 60 deer were counted at that time. He suggested that it may be appropriate to authorize another count this year or early next year and that the City should continue to utilize the services of the Metro BowHunters group to cull the herd. He commented that the deer hunt should be a balance of what the community would tolerate and if no complaints are received, the deer management efforts must be working.

Councilmember Hovey agreed with the Chief’s statements and pointed out that he had not heard of any residents taking any deer. He advised that the Metro BowHunter group asked that one or two additional hunting weekends be included in next year’s contract.

Chief Shaver stated that Council could discuss authorizing the aerial deer count after the hunting term ends.
He advised that deer stands were found in the woods by the police and it is his opinion “poaching” is occurring within the City. He noted that it would be wise to communicate the possible poaching to residents so that they are aware and may call the police if they see suspicious activity.

Councilmember Hovey commented that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) advised the City could only support the survival of 12 to 15 deer due to the small land area.

Forester Nayes explained that it was advised by the helicopter service pilot that last year there wasn’t sufficient snow to allow an accurate count. He suggested that it may be appropriate to conduct the aerial deer count this year since the budgeted funds were not spent.

Mayor Park asked if the City of West St. Paul does an aerial count and if they may be willing to share the cost.

Chief Shaver explained that West St. Paul does not conduct an aerial count since most of the deer reside in the Dodge Nature Center.

Mayor Park asked if the budgeted funds for 2015 could be used to conduct the aerial count in 2016 and Attorney Kuntz responded yes.

Councilmember Bulach asked what the amount would be to conduct the aerial count.

Forester Nayes stated the helicopter costs would be $300 per hour and the count should take approximately 2 hours. He stated that after the count was completed the Council would have information at their disposal when discussing next year’s deer management.

Mayor Park asked if Council had any further questions and there was no response.

Councilmember Hovey moved to authorize an expenditure not to exceed $1,000 for an aerial deer count in the City of Sunfish Lake in 2016, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (4-0)

f. Other: Mayor Park asked if there was any further business and there was no response.

9. ADJOURN: Councilmember Hovey moved to adjourn the meeting 9:05 p.m. seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried (4-0)

____________________________ ________________________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk Molly Park, Mayor