|
City of Gem Lake City Council Meeting Minutes March 19, 2024 2 | Page
<br />Gem Lake Clean-Up
<br />White Bear Township passed Resolution 24-09 at their February 21, 2024, Town Board meeting
<br />authorizing the City of Gem Lake to enter into a joint clean-up day event agreement for the event beginning
<br />for fiscal year 2024. The 2024 Clean-Up days are scheduled to take place on Saturday, May 11, 2024, for
<br />household hazardous waste collection only from 9 a.m. – 3 p.m., and Saturday, May 18, 2024, for the
<br />White Bear Township Spring Cleanup from 7 a.m. – 2 p.m. Both clean-up events will be held at Otter Lake
<br />Elementary School. The City of Gem Lake and White Bear Township agree that White Bear Township will
<br />charge $10.00 per household to cover the cost of the city’s participation at the May 18, 2024, event. This
<br />cost will be charged to the City, not the participants.
<br />
<br /> Resolution #2024-005 2024 Joint Recycling Event with White Bear Township
<br />A resolution authorizing the City of Gem Lake to enter into a joint recycling event agreement with
<br />White Bear Township for the event beginning for fiscal year 2024 is being presented to the
<br />Council for adoption. The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced by
<br />Councilmember Lindner and supported by Councilmember Johnson, and upon vote being taken
<br />thereon, the resolution passed with a vote of 4 in favor and 0 against.
<br />
<br /> Municipal Water Funding Request Update
<br />Last year, the City of Gem Lake applied for various state and federal funding programs to subsidize the
<br />cost of a municipal water system. This system would potentially serve several homes, generally in the
<br />northwest part of the city, where small amounts of the chemical 1,4-dioxane was found in 20-22 wells. The
<br />city was recently awarded $959,757 in federal funding through support from Congresswoman Betty
<br />McCollum. The current estimated project cost is $6,860,000, meaning the award is roughly 14% of the total
<br />project cost. The original request was for $5,488,000, which is 80% of the project cost. Due to the
<br />competitive nature of the funding awards, many, if not most, of the project requests received less than
<br />applied for, according to Community Development Specialist Kristin Prososki of SEH, the city’s
<br />engineering firm.
<br />
<br />A bonding bill request was submitted in June of 2023 to the Minnesota Legislature and is currently being
<br />considered. An outcome on this request is expected this coming May. Based on feedback from Prososki, it
<br />was suggested that the city reapply for Community Project Funding through the State of Minnesota, in the
<br />amount of $4,528,243. If awarded, the combined federal amount would be 80% of the project cost, which is
<br />the maximum that can be obtained. If state bonding bill funds are obtained, they would be part of the
<br />required non-federal match.
<br />
<br />Other possible strategies were also discussed, such as awaiting next steps from the Environmental
<br />Protection Agency assigned to oversee funding requests. In the past few years there hasn’t been any
<br />immediate need for the community to decide about municipal water or proceed with next steps within a
<br />certain deadline. This allows time to find out the results of the Minnesota bonding bill and whether a
<br />funding gap remains. SEH has also suggested that the city apply for another round of government
<br />earmarks, which are expected to open to applications very soon.
<br />
<br />Councilmember Lindner introduced a motion to authorize SEH to apply for another round of government
<br />funding, seconded by Councilmember Johnson. Voice vote taken, all voted yes, motion carried.
<br />
<br />Ordinance No. 45 Garbage and Refuse Updates
<br />City Planner Evan Monson prepared a memo for the Council regarding Ordinance No. 45. Under the
<br />direction of the City Council, the Planning Commission has discussed potential updates to the garbage and
<br />refuse ordinance (ordinance 45) over the last few months. The ordinance was adopted in 1983 and has not
<br />been updated since. The commissioners reviewed different examples of garbage ordinances from nearby
<br />communities, discussed the pros and cons of requiring licenses, and reviewed results of a survey that was
<br />sent out by city staff last fall to residents and businesses regarding their garbage hauling service.
<br />
<br />Based on the results of the survey and direction from the Council, the commissioners focused on updates to
<br />the ordinance language to ensure the rules work for the community today. At their March Planning
<br />Commission meeting, the commissioners recommended the Council approve the amended ordinance.
|