SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – OCTOBER 2, 2012
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Mayor: Richard Williams
Councilmembers: Judy MacManus, Mike Hovey and JoAnne Wahlstrom
City Attorney: Tim Kuntz
City Engineer: Don Sterna
City Treasurer: Mike Blair
City Planner: Alan Brixius
Building Inspector: David Neameyer
City Forester: Jim Nayes
Police Chief: Manila Shaver
City Clerk: Cathy Iago
and Members of the General Public.
Councilmember Roger Conant was absent.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Williams opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
2. APPROVE AGENDA: Mayor Williams asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda.
Attorney Kuntz requested that the agenda be amended to include an item under 8.d. Other; Question on Deer Management Plan.
The Mayor asked if there were any other additions and there was no response.
Councilmember Hovey moved approval of the Agenda as amended, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (4-0)
3. CONSENT AGENDA: The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda and there was no response.
Councilmember MacManus moved approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (4-0)
a. Regular Council Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2012.
b. List of Bills
c. Monthly Financials
4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: Mayor Williams asked if there were any comments from the public and there was no response.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: None.
6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT: a. Major Site and Building Plan Review and Conditional Use Permits; MABM, LLC, 2400 Delaware Avenue. Planner Brixius explained that a public hearing was conducted and this application was reviewed by staff and the Planning Commission at their August meeting. He advised that the Commission findings were provided to the applicant with detailed conditions to be met for final approval of the project. He stated that Council reviewed the application and the revised plans at their September meeting and took action to continue discussion to the October meeting with a request that the applicant address some special items.
The Planner reported the following: 1) The Variance request for a solid fence was withdrawn by the applicant and a revised set of plans showing an alternative fence design was submitted. The new fence design meets Zoning Code requirements. The proposed new cedar louvered fence is 60 % open and exceeds the 50% solid matter requirement.
2) The Conditional Use Permit request for the security gate has been revised and the new design meets Ordinance standards.
3) The Conditional Use Permit for up to two (2) accessory buildings has been revised on the major site and building plans. The revised plans dated September 13, 2012 now show that the number of accessory buildings has been reduced to one (1) detached accessory building; the proposed cabana structure is the only additional building and all other accessory buildings that were previously attached to the fence have been removed. The changing room and toilet facilities have been relocated to the interior of the attached garage. This modification does not expand the building footprint; however it will require a building permit.
The Planner explained that the Revised Major Site/Building Plan recommendation for approval includes all conditions as outlined by the Planning Commission and Engineer. He further advised that Planning staff has reviewed and approved the revised plans and forwarded them to the City Engineer for review and approval. He further noted that the proposed resolution for approval of these items includes all conditions as recommended by Planning Commission and Council, a legal description of the property, and reference to the revised plans as submitted for review this evening.
The Mayor asked if there were any questions.
Councilmember Hovey asked where the outdoor shower would drain.
Architect Dan Green advised that the shower drains to the septic system, which will be modified to meet code. He noted that the sink in the outdoor kitchen area will also drain to the septic system.
The Mayor asked if there were any further questions and there was no response.
Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt Resolution No. 12-15 titled RESOLUTION APPROVING A MAJOR SITE AND BUILDING REVIEW FOR A POOL TERRACE AND PARKING AREA, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY BUILDING, AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ENTRY GATE, FOR THE MABM, LLC HOME AT 2400 DELAWARE AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, BLOCK 1 AND OUTLOT A, BELFIELD HILLS 2ND ADDITION, subject to conditions as listed, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom.
In discussion, Councilmember Wahlstrom questioned if the chemicals used in the pool would be draining into the rain garden.
Jim Hagstrom, Landscape Architect, explained that there would be a drain-field installed to accommodate drainage from the pool in the fall and that it would meet ordinance requirements. He advised that the applicant proposes to install a salt water pool that does not require the same amount of chemicals as a regular pool. He noted that the pool is drained approximately 18 inches in the fall and the remaining water is left in the pool over the winter months. He advised that the runoff from the pool would be directed to the rain garden, with overflow onto the lawn. He stated that rain garden would include special soils and ornamental grasses and that a culvert would be installed under the driveway to assist with draining the runoff onto the lawn area. He commented that the plan exceeds the current City Code requirement for a 300 ft. grass swale for runoff and that the rain garden is not required.
Councilmember Hovey asked if the rain garden would absorb the chemicals and how long it would be functional.
Mr. Hagstrom explained that the rain garden should not ever have to be cleaned since most chemicals, such as chlorine used in pools evaporate; he commented that the salt level in the pool is minimal and that the rain garden should last decades before cleaning is necessary.
The Planner also pointed out that the rain garden location was moved away from the nearest wetland.
Mayor Williams asked if the city could impose a condition for maintenance of the rain garden. He commented that he foresees possible issues arising with water quality studies in the future.
Councilmember Wahlstrom asked who would be responsible for reviewing the maintenance of the rain garden.
Planner Brixius explained that by including a condition that it is the property owner’s responsibility to maintain the rain garden, the City would have enforcement powers to insure maintenance is done if necessary. He noted that engineering staff would most likely be contacted if a problem arises with water quality.
Mayor Williams also pointed out that the property ownership may change and that the condition to maintain the rain garden would be in place as it relates to the property.
Attorney Kuntz suggested that the maker and second of the motion could make an amendment to include a condition requiring that the property owner be responsible for maintaining the rain garden to prevent pool discharge from negatively impacting the adjacent wetland.
Councilmember Hovey as maker and Councilmember Wahlstrom as second agreed to the amendment to require the property owner be responsible for maintaining the rain garden to prevent pool discharge from negatively impacting the adjacent wetland.
The Mayor asked if there was any further discussion and hearing no response called for a vote on the amended motion.
Motion as amended carried. (4-0)
b. Planning Report: Planner Brixius reviewed his report dated September 27, 2012. He advised that the September and October Planning Commission meetings were cancelled due to lack of applications. He explained that there were two items relating to the last two planning applications that arose during discussions at the last Planning Commission and also at the last Council meeting; one item relates to suitable development for the property at 345 Salem Church Road and the other relates to the request for a solid wall fence and multiple accessory buildings at 2400 Delaware.
The Planner noted that the Council asked the applicant to withdraw the request for a solid wall fence variance and the applicant agreed to do so. He pointed out that the current City Code prohibits solid wall fences, except under circumstances that justify a variance. He noted that the recent application illustrated that the City had difficulties in meeting the practical difficulty criteria to justify a variance. Staff recommends that the City consider either prohibiting solid wall fences and repeal the exception language through variance or establish criteria other than variance under which the City may find solid wall fences acceptable.
Planner Brixius further noted that the provision in the current City Code that relates to multiple accessory buildings states: “No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one accessory building except by conditional use permit… “. He pointed out that the provision does not establish a numerical cap on the number and therefore, the City may wish to amend this section to describe the number of detached accessory buildings that may be allowed on a lot in conjunction with an attached garage.
The Planner suggested that the Planning Commission discuss these items at their November meeting and make a recommendation to Council for their consideration. He also noted that there were inquiries relating to the properties at 2154 Charlton Road regarding setbacks for a garage expansion and at 345 Salem Church Road relating to action on the Baillon development application. He stated that at this time he has not had any formal applications submitted.
Mayor Williams agreed that the items raised were worth discussion by the Commission. He noted that the property at 345 Salem Church Road would require some type of variance for development since it is a uniquely shaped parcel and cannot meet current shoreland setback requirements if the structure is expanded. He noted that the problem with the last application related to visual impacts from the lake side sightlines and commented that there was never actually a variance for the existing setback of the structure. He questioned if the building would be grandfathered in at the current setback if it were taken down and replaced or destroyed by fire and rebuilt.
The Planner advised that if the building were destroyed by fire or demolished and rebuilt on the same footprint, it would be grandfathered in at the current setback if a building permit was issued within 180 days. He commented that under the current City Code standards, there would be no buildable pad on the parcel without some type of variance.
Attorney Kuntz agreed that a non-conforming use can be replaced with the same footprint if a permit is requested within 180 days from its destruction due to fire or other peril. In the case of a voluntary tear down, the non-conforming use can be replaced with the same footprint within a time period set by the non-conforming use statute.
Planning Commissioner Tom Hendrickson pointed out that if the land was vacant and the City denied a variance request for building on the property, it may be considered a “taking” of the property. He noted that the recent application for this parcel met all other conditions in the City Code and in his opinion the main complaint related to impact on sightlines from across the lake.
The Mayor pointed out that the negative impact on sightlines across the lake was an issue and also there were concerns relating to the removal of matured trees. He explained that he pointed out to those expressing concern that if the request for a variance were granted, the City could require plantings to screen the home and lessen the sightline impacts. He further commented that the City may not have authority to deny some type of variance request for the property.
Councilmember MacManus commented that this is a unique community and she suggested that it might have been appropriate for the applicant to talk to the neighbors prior to submitting an application so that any concerns could have been addressed. She commented that potential applicants should be advised that the lot is unique and may be difficult to develop.
The Planner explained that he had advised the architect for the project to talk to the neighbors prior to submitting the application. He explained that he wished to discuss the potential development of the property so that he may advise future applicants as to what would be acceptable on the property.
Attorney Kuntz pointed out that the application was withdrawn before Council had an opportunity to review the matter. He advised that it would not be appropriate for Council to discuss issues relating to development of specific non-conforming lots without conducting a public hearing on the matter. He suggested that comments relating to what would be reasonable for development of this type of property should be spoken in abstract rather than relate to a specific site.
The Planner stated that he would place these items on the November Planning Commission agenda for discussion and report findings to Council at their December meeting.
The Attorney suggested the variance discussion at the Commission meeting be two-fold as it relates to all property that does not meet setbacks on lakeshore: 1) Entitlement to reconstruct a home on the same footprint on a non-conforming lot as is; and, 2) If an applicant is seeking a variance for the lot, what conditions would be deemed reasonable for construction of a new structure on the parcel.
Mayor Williams commented that future applicants for variances should be advised to address issues with neighbors relating to visibility as this was a major point of discussion at the Commission meeting with the previous application.
Council thanked the Planner for his report.
7. INSPECTOR’S REPORTS: a. Building Inspector: Building Inspector David Neameyer informed Council that there were six (6) building permits issued in August.
The Inspector explained that he made numerous attempts to contact the property owners at 2075 Charlton Road, the Dobranz property, but he was unsuccessful. He explained that the Police Chief had contacted the property owners and they reported the property would stay “as is” for the time being. He advised that he had discussed this with the City Attorney and Police Chief and all agree that at this time the property does not pose a health or safety hazard and is not a nuisance property. He suggested the best approach would be to monitor the property over the winter months to determine if further deterioration occurs and to address any issues in the spring and decide what should be done.
The Mayor suggested that Council consider the request from Mr. Bellomo at this time and Council concurred.
8.a. Consider Request for New Building Permit, Jim Bellomo, 14 Sunfish Lane: Inspector Neameyer explained that Mr. Bellomo is in the process of adding an addition to a 100 year old farmhouse and has been doing the work by himself. He stated that Mr. Bellomo was made aware of the recently adopted ordinance which allows Council to grant a one-time extension on for exterior work for a period of six months on an existing building permit. He advised that Mr. Bellomo was granted an extension for his building permit and that the six month period expired in September of this year. He advised that Mr. Bellomo is now requesting a new building permit be issued for the remaining exterior work only and that the original permit remain for the interior work on the structure.
Mr. & Mrs. Bellomo appeared before Council and Mr. Bellomo explained that the project has taken much longer than he originally planned due to the fact that he has been doing the stone exterior work by himself. He asked that Council allow him to obtain a new permit for the exterior work only.
Mayor Williams asked the City Attorney if the Council has the authority to grant this request. He commented that it appears the exterior work has been slowly progressing and that high quality materials are being used.
Councilmember Hovey moved to grant a building permit for the exterior work only on the Bellomo property located at 14 Sunfish Lane, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom.
In discussion, Councilmember MacManus asked if the permit would be for an additional six months. The City Attorney responded that the permit for the exterior work would be a new permit and would be in effect for one year. He asked Mr. Bellomo when he expected to complete the work on this project.
Mr. Bellomo responded that the work involves stone and stucco and that he would be unable to work on the project over the winter months, however, he stated it is his intent to complete the project within the one year time period.
The Mayor asked if there were any further questions and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion.
Motion carried. (4-0)
Council thanked the Building Inspector for his report.
b. City Engineer: Engineer Sterna reviewed his report dated October 2, 2012. 2013 Snow Plow Quotes: The
Engineer stated he received three (3) quotes and would discuss this item later on the agenda.
Harmon Park Address Revision: Engineer Sterna explained that the address change for Harmon Park has been submitted to Google for their review and approval. He stated the new address requested for the park would be 2450 Angell Road and that he would update Council when approval has been received.
LOWER Watershed Stakeholders Meeting: The Engineer advised that he attended a kick-off meeting held by the watershed to discuss the development of a Restoration and Protective Plan for five (5) separate lakes, one of which is Sunfish Lake. He noted the study would include water quality monitoring, lake level monitoring, aquatic plant surveys, sediment core analysis and sub-watershed modeling. He reported that the watershed has already begun collecting and analyzing water samples, along with identifying existing aquatic plant study within the lakes.
Engineer Sterna advised that Eurasian Water Milfoil was found to be present in Sunfish Lake, which is a reminder that even private lakes may attract invasive species. He stated the goal is to develop lake specific Protective Plans to reduce the nutrient load to meet State standards. He pointed out that the study would determine methods to improve water quality, however, he noted that the methods identified may not be inexpensive to implement. He commented that the study may take up to one year and that he will continue to monitor the study activities and keep Council updated.
Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of September: Charlton Road Snow Plow Marker Replacement: The Engineer stated that a new snow plow marker was installed on the west end of the cable guardrail on Charlton Road.
Charlton road Ditch Cleaning: Engineer Sterna stated he requested a small section of the Charlton Roads ditch be cleaned when the culvert marker was installed on the west end of the guardrail area which was obstructing the flow. He noted the work was coordinated with the snow plow marker replacement.
Piper Road New Signage: The Engineer explained that he was contacted by Inver Grove Heights to request that Sunfish Lake participate in a 50/50 cost share contribution towards new signage along Piper Road; he advised that Council approved the request. He stated that the City received an invoice from Inver Grove Heights for $369.72, which he forwarded to the Treasurer for payment.
2400 Delaware Avenue Site Plan Review: Engineer Sterna stated he completed his third review of the revised plan for the proposed site addition at 2400 Delaware and provided comments to the planner.
Anticipated Engineer/Public Works Activities’ for the Month of October: Charlton Road Fall Grading: Engineer Sterna advised that he plans to have the road graded towards the end of October to prepare the roadway surface for the upcoming snow plowing season.
Mayor Williams suggested that the 2013 Snow Plowing Contract be discussed at this time and Council concurred.
8.b. Consider Award for 2013 Snow Plowing Contract: The Engineer stated that three quotes were received from snow removal companies and copies were distributed for Council review. He explained that last year the contract was awarded to Ace Blacktop, Inc. in Inver Grove Heights and that this company provided adequate services after a few start-up “glitches”. He noted there was not a significant amount of snowfall last year. He advised that the bid from Ace Blacktop was slightly lower than the other two companies and noted that this company has one year of experience plowing within the City. He recommended awarding the contract to Ace Blacktop, Inc.
Mayor Williams questioned if the Engineer had discussed the minimal use of salt with the contractor.
Engineer Sterna replied that he did discuss with the contractor keeping the use of salt to a minimum, unless the snowfall event warranted its use. He pointed out that salt would be used in the event of an icy situation, since the use of sand only would not work. He indicated that some streets, such as Salem Church Road near Delaware Avenue, may require salt if an icy snowfall event occurs.
The Mayor also asked if the contractor was aware of the fact that the City wished to delay plowing if there was a minor snowfall so that plowing did not occur twice within a short period of time.
The Engineer responded yes and advised that the contractor was told to delay the plowing until early morning rather than plowing twice. He noted that resident expectations increase annually for snow plowing events.
The Mayor agreed and commented that the City is attempting to change expectations, however; there are medical personnel who must leave for work or arrive home in the early morning hours.
The Engineer advised that he received a few phone complaints last year relating to early morning and late evening accessibility.
Councilmember Hovey recommended that the Engineer advise the contractor to plow side-to-side along the roads and not just one path down the middle. The Engineer stated he would stress that point to the contractor. He asked that any complaints regarding plowing be referred to him so that he could discuss the issues with the contractor.
The Mayor asked if there were any further comments or questions and there was no response.
Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to award the 2012-2013 Snow Plowing Contract to Ace Blacktop, Inc., seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (4-0)
Council thanked the Engineer for his report.
c. CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes stated he had not issued any burning permits this month and does not recommend any burning until a substantial period of rain or winter snow occurs.
The Forester advised that he and the Fire Chief surveyed City streets and private lanes to determine if there was adequate access for fire fighting equipment. He stated that all City streets allow good access for the largest fire truck. He explained that they found various private driveways and shared driveways were found to have less open access. He noted that restricted access means the fire truck must park further away from a residence and this makes it more difficult to manage bringing water to the fire. He distributed photos showing some areas of concern. He advised that he is preparing an article for the City newsletter to help educate residents regarding this issue. He further advised that the Fire Chief has indicated he is willing to visit private residences to provide an analysis of the property and identify vegetation that should be removed to provide better access for emergency vehicles.
Forester Nayes stated the tree pruning was completed along Salem Church Road. He explained that several stumps were ground near the edge of Charlton Road and burdock plants with seedheads were removed to prevent dispersal along the ditches. He advised that the young trees planted in Musser Park last year have been watered twice in September and the deer protection tubes were reinstalled. He stated that large branches were cleared from the trail in Musser Park and the trail was mowed. He urged residents to water young trees during the fall months.
The Forester stated that there was no news to report regarding emerald ash borer.
Council thanked the Forester for his report.
PUBLIC SAFETY: Chief Shaver reviewed his report dated September 26, 2012. He noted that the false alarm calls were up this month, but close to last year’s total. He explained there was a fire call on a dryer overheating, a theft of golf clubs from a vehicle and a neighbor dispute relating to a recreational fire. He offered to respond to questions.
Council thanked the Chief for his report.
8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS: c. Consider Resolution Appointing Election Judges to Serve at the November 6, 2012 General Election: Clerk Iago explained that State statutes require the City to appoint election judges to serve at the general election; she recommended Council adopt the proposed resolution appointing the election judges as submitted.
Mayor Williams moved to adopt Resolution No. 12-16 titled RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES TO SERVE AT THE NOVEMBER 6, 2012 GENERAL ELECTION, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (4-0)
d. Discussion of Variance Process per Councilmember Conant: Mayor Williams explained that Councilmember Conant was unable to attend this evening and since the Planning Commission would be discussing this issue at their November Meeting, this matter should be deferred at this time. Council concurred.
e. Questions Relating to Deer Management Program for 2012: Attorney Kuntz explained that the contract with the Metro Bowhunters has been signed and they have provided an insurance certificate which lists the City as an additional insurer. He distributed a copy of an email he received from resident Richard Braun which outlines the requirements for residents to be eligible to hunt. He noted that there are four requirements listed for residents, one of which states: “b. Must have completed a bow hunter safety course.” He noted that Mr. Braun spoke with Officer Muellner and was advised that just having the certificate of completion of the DNR classroom course does not satisfy the requirement as listed. He explained that Mr. Braun was told by Officer Muellner that an additional 4-hour field day course is required and that it is conducted by the DNR. He noted that this was not clarified when discussion was held by Council to determine the requirements for residents to hunt. He stated that Officer Muellner has indicated that he would be comfortable with residents hunting having only received the classroom portion of the safety course and that the requirement to complete the additional 4-hour field course training could be added next year. He noted that the field classes are difficult to register for and that there are no additional classes offered this year.
Councilmember MacManus asked if the DNR requires this class. Attorney Kuntz responded that in order to get a certificate as to completion of the safety class, both the classroom and field training are required by the DNR.
Councilmember MacManus stated her opinion that everyone who hunts should be required to complete the field training course if it is required. Councilmember Wahlstrom agreed.
Councilmember Hovey commented that the point of the hunt was to be able to cull the herd and by requiring the field training class it wastes further time to complete hunting.
Forester Nayes explained that resident hunters would not be able to hunt this year since there are no additional field classes offered.
Clerk Iago pointed out that Officer Muellner had suggested he could conduct a field training course for the residents this year so that they may be able to hunt.
Attorney Kuntz pointed out that he is unsure if that would qualify as the required field training course for DNR certification and that Officer Muellner was merely attempting to help meet the requirement.
Councilmember Hovey suggested that since this matter was not addressed during the hunting discussion, in his opinion it would be appropriate to allow residents to hunt this year with just the classroom course completed and next year Council could add the requirement to specify the field training course must be completed.
Mayor Williams pointed out that the ordinance only required sharp shooter status and did not require passage of a field training course. He raised the issue that the residents technically met the statutory and ordinance requirements without having completed the field training course. He indicated that the ordinance should be changed for next year's hunt to specifically include passage of the DNR field training but agreed with Councilmember Hovey that he would prefer to have residents be allowed to hunt this year.
Councilmember MacManus pointed out that the DNR document makes a distinction that both classes must be completed to receive certification for completing the DNR safety course.
Mayor Williams suggested that Council determine what they wish to authorize at this time.
Mayor Williams moved that for the purpose of this year’s deer hunt, Section B of the requirements be determined to be fulfilled by residents having completed the classroom portion of the safety course, seconded by Councilmember Hovey. Motion failed. (Ayes: Williams, Hovey; Nays: MacManus, Wahlstrom)
Councilmember Hovey pointed out that Officer Muellner was willing to conduct a field training class so that residents could be allowed to hunt this year and he asked if Council would consider authorizing that as an option.
Councilmembers MacManus and Wahlstrom agreed that they would be more comfortable with residents having field training experience to be allowed to hunt this year.
Mayor Williams suggested that Council could take action to authorize Officer Muellner to conduct a field training course consistent with the DNR course for residents this year.
Councilmember Hovey asked Mr. Nayes if he believes it is worthwhile to have a field training course prior to hunting.
Mr. Nayes commented that he would take the course and that Officer Muellner is qualified to provide the training.
Chief Shaver pointed out that if Officer Muellner provides the course it would be only for this year and Council should amend the conditions for next year’s hunt to include the field training certification.
Councilmember Hovey moved to authorize hunting by residents who who are interested in participating in the 2012 Deer Management Program that have completed the DNR classroom training course certification and who have successfully completed a field training program from the DNR or as provided by Officer Muellner to allow their participate in the 2012 hunt, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom.
In discussion Councilmember MacManus asked if Officer Muellner would be conducting the course on behalf of the Police Department or the Metro Bow Hunters and if this would only apply to the 2012 hunt.
Mayor Williams stated this would only apply to the 2012 Deer Management Program and Council could amend the qualifications for next year to include completion of both classes offered by the DNR and residents obtaining certification from the DNR. He stated that Officer Muellner would be conducting the class as the City liaison to the 2012 Deer Management Program and a member of the Metro Bowhunters organization and that the class would be deemed equivalent to the course offered by the DNR.
The Mayor called for a vote on the motion.
Motion carried. (4-0)
Attorney Kuntz explained that the second question arose when Mr. Braun approached a homeowner to ask permission to hunt on his land. He stated that the homeowner indicated to Mr. Braun that it is his opinion the homeowner should be held harmless versus the City of Sunfish Lake being held harmless. He advised Mr. Braun that this matter would be presented to Council for discussion.
Mayor Williams pointed out that the City is allowing residents to hunt on behalf of the City, not as individuals, and in his opinion the City should be held harmless, not the homeowner. Council concurred.
Attorney Kuntz advised he would report to Mr. Braun that the City release form would remain as is.
The Mayor asked if there was any further business and there was no response.
9. ADJOURN: Councilmember Hovey moved for adjournment at 8:32 p.m., seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (4-0)
___________________________ ___________________________
Richard A. Williams, Jr., 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.