2006 03-20 CC MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CITY OF GEM LAKE MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING •2O.MARCH 2406 The March, 2006 regular meeting of the: City. Council of the City of Gern Lake was called to order. by Mayor Erneott on Monday, 20 March 2006. at 7:18 PM in the first floor meeting room of Tousley Ford immediately following the NPDES 2006 Annual Meeting, Mayor Emeott, Councilors Bosak, and Watson and Clerk Magnuson were present. Also present were Special Project Engineer Dave Mitchell (SEI•I), Jim. Lindner ofthe Planning Commission, Gretchen Artig- Swomley. 1-Iolly. Watson, Jim McNulty and Bryan Hansen. Following Mayor Emeott's request for additions, deletions, or•correclions, the following actions were taken:.l unanirihotts approval o#-the 2! February 2006 Miiitites.of the City Council meeting as presented:an Motion by Watson, Second by Bosak; 2) unanimous. approval of the 20 March 200.6.Agenda of'the City Council meeting: as. amended. on Motion by l3osak, .Second by Watson. The Clerk Bien presented General Announcements. The report of -the Planning Commission was presented by Mayor Emeott in the form ofa letter from the. Chairman to Mayor Ellicott, said report having been distributedelectronically to the Council in advance. Specific additional comments \vere as follows: 1) Mr, McNulty submitted his corrections to the Chai€-man's minutes in the form of a letter to the Mayor and City Council, a copy of which is attached hereto. staff reports were presented by the Clerk. and included cominentsas.follows; 1) The application :for a variance: submitted by Mr.. Macalus. remains incomplete and it is noted: i'or therecord that Mr. Macalirs failed toappear before the Planning Commission and present supplemental data as requested. Notice to Mr. Macalus will be sent again. 2.) ]'he pending application by Flanagan Properties of 1567 East County Road E and Enterprise: Car Rental has been delayed due to unexpected terms included in the lease by Enterprise. The matter may still comebefore the. Planning Coniinission and City Council in April. Mr_ Mitchell was recognized and presented for discussion the draftFeasability Study for Public Irnprovement Project No. 2006-0I, Residential Road Improvements to Big Fox Road, Little Fox Lane. Haven Lane and Tessier Road. The draft proposal indicates roadway reconstruction costs to Big. Fox Road and Little Fox Lane. of $344,500 or $18132 per residence (19 total residences) and to Haven Lane and Tessier Road of $13.7,400 or $9,814 per residence. (14 total residences). Additional costs shown included installation of sanitary sewer main and water main, Following discussion, City Council.and Engineer Mitchellrecommendeda public hearing for Big Fox/Little Fox .residents be convened on 10 April 2006 and a. public hearing for the ]-laven!Tessier residents be convened on 12 April 2006 and that at the hearings the City should present three (3) scenarios for improvements: 1) a one year patch and hold with attendant costs and determination of alternative funding; or, 2) a live to teri (5-10) year plan for mill and overlay with attendant costs; or, 3) a thirty to forty (30-40) year plan for total reconstruction with attendant costs. In the interim, City Engineer will develop the costs and also a Local Improvement Policy for consideration by the Council_ Motion by Watson,: Second by Bosak to adopt Resolution No. 2006-07 wasunanimously approved. Mr. Mitchell was again recognized and presented for discussion the draft Feasability Study for Public Improvement ProJect No..2006-03, Business Road lmprovements.lo South Scheuneman Road ti-om County. E north to Highway 61 and .including: road reconstruction. widening to thirty-two (32+) feet, andinstallation of curb and gutter; stormsewer installation; city water installation; and, sanitary sewer replacement. Discussion followed regarding the proposeddrain pattern for storm sewer and determination is needed as towhether thedrainage under Barnett represents a public or private easement. . It is clear that filtration will be necessary to manage potential pollutant delivery to Gem Lake: Discussion of the Highway .6 I ditch indicated .it may be adequate.. to satisfy the NURP requirements for the. district, Relative to funding, Mitchell sees this area as less problematic. Mayor Erneott asked if the City has adequate funds in the Sewer Investment Fund to pay for the sewer replacement and the answer from the Clerk was yes. Following discussion, City Council and Engineer Mitchell recommended a public hearing for Business ;Residents/Property Owners be convened on 24 April 2006 and that at the hearings the Cityshould present findings .along with aPublic .improvement Policy. Motion .by Bosak, Second by Watson to adopt Resolution No.. 2006-08 was unanimously approved.. Mr, Mitchell and the Council agreed that he develop a Local Improvement. Policy document with "fill in the blank" type decisions for the Counci l's consideration and that same be presented and supported by State statutes supporting the decisions. 'Fhematter will be heard at the 17 April 20.0E City Council meeting. Page 1of.13