HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 11-16 CCMINUTESCITY OF GEM LAKE
MINUTESOF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER, 2005
A duly. ordered and noticed Public Hearing before the City Council of the City of Gein Lake wascalled to order by
Mayor Emeott on Wednesday,16 November 2005, at 7:05 PM in the first floor tneeting. rootn .of'fousley Ford. Mayor
Lmeott, Councilors.Bosak, Schilling, Watson and Rasmussen and Clerk Magnuson Were present. Also present were 3
representatives.of SEH, Inc. as City Planners and Engineers, im McNulty, Bryan. Hansen and approximately 16 residents
of the City.
Mayor Imeott opened by thanking all present for attending the public: hearing. He thenstated that the Clerk has
previously presented the final' accounting for Public. Improvement ProjectNo. 2004-01, Reconstruction .of Scheuneman
Road from I-lighway61 northerly to it's intersection with Otter Lake Road and Construction of. Municipal Sanitary Sewer
along a portion of the same roadway to provide sanitary sewer service to all residents .of Scheunernan Road and Hillary
Farm. Mayor Emeott then referred presentation of the accounting to Mr. Magnuson.
Clerk Magnuson provided a brieifhistory of the.proiect's evolution including the needs of Hitlaty Farm, the residents
along the north section of Scheuneman Road, and the golf course. Inspections of existing systems also indicated
needs to be served by the project. The bonding process was also reviewed.
Clerk Magnuson presented the :accounting for the project, providing a breakdown of the project by cost allocation
for roadway reconstruction versus sewer installation and a breakdown of the project by cost allocation for engineering,
administration, finance, legal, etc. Costs associated with the project were presented toand reviewed by the City Council
at it's October meeting and have been permanently retained in both printed and electronic formats as PIP200402b,xis.
Final costs of the roadway portion of the project totaling:$68,250 are proposed to be assessed against seventy-eight (78)
belle fitted properties resulting in a cost to each benefitted property owner of"$875.00 with Gem Lake hills paying five.
(5) shares based upon property units. Final costs of the sewer portion -of the project totaling $517,394 arc proposed to
be assessed against sixty-five (65) benefitted properties resulting in a cost to each bene fitted property owner of.$7,960.00
with (jeni Lake paying: six (6) shares based upon the.. number of SAC charges associated with their facility.
At Mayor Eineott's request, Clerk Magnuson then identified the reductionin tonight's accounting from the letter
noticed to the community as. a clerical error postingexpenses that actuallyreduced costs to residents..
Mayor Enieott then: recognized those present.
Mr. Tessier (4085 Sch) questioned the total on the: notice amount with Magnuson responding it is atypographical
error and corrected copies are available. Mr. Tessier was also advised that if his property were sold, the assessment
typically becomes due andpayableby either buyer or seller usually on a negotiated basis.
Hazel White (4106 Sch) asked regarding. interest: stating she intends to pay the entire assessment on January 2, 2006
and wants to know if she must pay interest for the entire. Magnuson responded he would attempt to clarify the matter
for her given her special circumstances and would call her wit the. results. Magnuson also explained deferment options.
for the assessment: Mr.: Hoeschler corrected Magnuson that the entire years interest would be due on January 2.
Gerhart Meyer (3920 Sch) asked regarding definitions of SAC and charges related to Sac to which Mayor Ellicott
responded, clarifying SAC units, charges, and application: He also indicated we intend to waive the SAC charges for
the first lull year`t'or everyone who converts septic to .sewer.
Bill John (4015 Sell) asked if additional extensions of SAC waivers were goingto be available as he has a new septic
system and wouldliketo convert in two years. Clerk Magnuson suggested the matter" be considered by the Council.
following the public hearing.. Hestated that he spent $6,500 working with .relatives to install his system and thathe
believed his costs were very cheap.
Gerhart Meyer (3920. Sch) then asked what SAC chargeswere being paid by Geri Lake Hills and Hillary Farm to
which Mayor Ehteott responded. one (1) per:new home built.
Bill Flaspeter (401 0Sch) asked about where all materials removed from road went. ."M.itchell indicated all went back
into the road bed. Mitchell also represented additional fill materials required. due to poor soil. Questions and responses
Iollowed regarding soilborings and why we didn't find it earlier to which Mitchell responded. Costs would not have:
varied based upon findings.
Page of 3
Dan Marier (4000 Sch) asked if costs were higher as a result of not boringto which Mitchell indicated the reverse
was true. Costs.would have gone up if more borings were done as the same result wouldhave come to pass. Magnuson
also discussed Ramsey County's opinion toward refilling: subsoil deficiencies. Magnuson then discussed maintenance
costs related tothemanner in which the road was built versus Ramsey County's proposed.. methods:. The road as built
will last 25_30 years.
13i1I Flaspcter (4010 Sch) asked how much the County paid for the road to which Magnuson replied
$170 000. Without the County contribution, each benefitted property owner would pay :approximately $3,000. Mitchell
indicated a total reconstruct would cost approximately $5,000. Mitchell also noted typical assessments for suburban
roads is $.1,000 - $1,500.
❑an Marier (4000 Sch) asked about the engineering costs to which Mitchell responded common. are..15%-22%.
Magnuson also noted full time staff during .the entire project, more than $60,000 in design fees. Cominents were it
seemed high as a percentage. Magnuson also noted engineering fees are higher as a.percentage of a smaller project but
don't vary dramatically againsta larger project. Economies of scale are generally relatedto actual. construction.
Pete Gaetke (4.131 Sch) asked if SEH would eat any of the soilprob€ems. Mitchell saidit would havebeen more
expensive if there Soil borings had been done. Mayor Eineott. also explained how added fill was coanpensated for in the
contract and how additional fill was. Monitoredandaccounted for.
Dan Marier (4000 Sch) asked regarding completion dates and penalties. Magnuson responded to actual dates of
completion and Mitchell responded to penalties in contract. Discussion of first year delays due to weather was noted.
Nodecision has beenrnade regarding assessment of penalties against the contractor. If they are, the funds collected
would go to refunds to affected property owners.
Gerhart Meyer (3920 Sch) asked for clarification of sewer assessment versus SAC charges and road assessment.
Magnuson explained SAC. charges further.
Pete .Gaetke :(4131 Sch) asked if a list of approved contractors is available. Magnusonindicated he can provide a
list ofall currently licensed contractors but cannot recommend any single contractor for connections. Gaetke also asked
about financial: charges to which. Magnuson responded identifying bond council costs, financial consultants costs, bond
discounts,bond repayment escrow.
Bill Flaspeter (4010.Sch). asked about possible defects in the pipe. Mitchell responded regarding a warranty
extension and: Magnuson identified a $100,000 surety in Gem Lake's name for coverage of the problem during the
warranty extension period.
Dan Marier (4000 Sch) asked further regarding penalties for late completion. Magnuson further explained that road
pavingwas allowed .tobe delayed to accommodate Hillary Farin pavingavoidingdamageto our road. Mitchell also
noted we would need to provide proof of liquidated damages prior to filing for them which rnosr contractors fight. What
about additional engineering fees for late. Typical penalties per day are usually $500.00 per day per Mitchell. Magnuson
noted that if costs arc further diminished, costs are returned to the citizens.
Discussion of stub location and record maintenance followed with Ertieott. indicating all stubs would be located
an the "at -built" drawings for future hook ups and maintenance: Camera work was discussed and identified as state-of-
the-art and was included in the. project. Erneott rioted used for €ocation as. well as inspection.
Questions regarding snow plowing. and speed signs were raised.and were deferred to•the.City Cduncii meeting.
Magnuson then read into. the. record a written .objection from Mr. McNulty on behalf of I-lillaiy. Farm LLC. noting
that said objection will be frled.with the formal. record: and will be. forwarded to the City Attorney for. consideration as
same. violates..Mr.. McNulty's origirial.Developer's Agreement.
Final explanation of payment.schedules followed with Magnuson explaining when and how payments and interest
will..aftect property owners.
Paget of 3
Mayor Emeott then asked if any Councilors had any questions. With no. response, Emeottdeclared the public hearing
adjourned at 8:05 P
AUTHORED: 18 November: 2005
APPROVED-„ 1.9 December 2005
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
Frederic C. Paul R. Emeott ,:,,.
City Clerk Mayor efile:: niinutcsllsearingst2005/Asesllearipg05l I 16awpd
.Page 3 of 3
CITY OF GEM LAKE
MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER, 2005
The .November, .2005:.regular .meeting of the City Council of the City of Gem Lake, with change of meeting date
having been duly noticed, was called to order by Mayor. Emeott on Wednesday, 16 November 2005, at 8:07 PM in the
'first floor meeting room of TousIey Ford followingihe public hearing for assessment ofPublic Improvement No 2004.01
also duly noticed. Mayor Emeott, Councilors.Bosak, Schilling, Watson and Rasmussen and Clerk Magnuson were
present: Also present were City Engineer Mitchell, 2 representatives of SEH,. Inc. And several members of the
community.
Following Mayor Emeott's request for additions, deletions, or corrections, the following actions were taken: 1)
unanimous approval of the Minutes of the 24 October 2005 City Councilmeeting as presented on Motion by Watson,
Second by Rasmussen; 2) unanimous approval of the Joint Workshop minutes of 26 October 20.05. on Motion by
Rasmussen, Second, by Schilling; 3) unanimous approval of the City Council Meeting Agenda for 16 November 2005
aspresented on Motion by Bosak, Second by Watson.
Magnuson then made General Announcements.
The Council acknowledged receipt of Hoeschler's reportof the Planning Commission for 0.1 November 2005 with
notes thatsame has been distributed to interested parties. Mr. Fioeschler then summarized hisreport for the benefit of
the Council and those present.
Magnuson then reported as. Zoning Adrninistratornoting:placement of an approximate. 10! wide x.34' long mobile:
home as a•pigeon coup on the Macklus property' at 1216 Little FOX Lane. He noted he is currently discussing the:matter.
with Macklus-following.several complaints from. neighbors.
Following discussion of the assessment public hearing just completed and Motion by Bosak, Second by Schilling,
Resolution.No. 2005-29:approving assessment ofPublic Improvement Project No. 2004-01 to benefitted properly owners
was unanimously approved.
Following: discussion .of the current status of the proposed Joint Town Hall project with White Bear Township and.
Motion by Schilling, Second by Watson, Resolution No: 2005-25 appointing Frederic Magnuson and Craig Rafferty as
representatives and: Tom Rasmussen: asalternate representative to a committee to pursue the Project and act as liaison
to the Council was unanirnously approved.
Discussion followed regarding the status ofthe Feasability Study for repaving Big Fox Road, Little Fox Lane, Haven
Road and. Tessier Lane.. and possible installation of sewer and water infrastructure with Mitchell indicating thestudy
would he available in plenty of time for implementation in the 2006.construction season if approved..
Mitchell then discussed the essence of his proposal to complete a feasabllitystudy for replacement of sanitary sewer,
installationof storm sewer, repaying of Scheuneman.Road, and implementation of Phase One of the City. Water project.
for the business district. Mr. Norton was then recognized and discussed his proposal to provide a feasability study to
develop a city water plan in accordance with the Comprehensive Municipal Plan .acknowledging that .Phase One, city
water in the business district would be available forinclusion in Mitchell's study.. Motion by Bosak, Second by Watson
to adopt Resolution No, 2005-26 ordering two feasability studies, one for a comprehensive city water plan and one for
a public improvement project to replace existing sewer, install stonn sewer; and install city water was unanimously
approved.
Magnusonthen presented of a proposal from T.A. Schifsky.to perform snow plowing in the 2005-6 season at rates
of $1.30/hour for largetruck with plow wing (vs $115/hour prior season),.$100/hour for sanding truck (vs $901hour prior
season) and $251ton for salt/sand (vs.$23.50: previous season). Motion by Schilling, Second by. Bosak to approve the
proposal and empower the Clerk to execute same was unanimously approved.
Motion by Emeott, Second. by Watson to adopt Resolution No. 2005.27 approving a one year extension ofthe Joint
Powers. Agreement between.the communities of the VLAWMO until January.2007 was unanimously approved.
Motion by Bosak Second by Watson to adopt Resolution No. 2005-28 enacting (Proposed) Ordinance No. 69, Draft
K as Gem Lake Ordinance. No. 69 with summary publication was unanimously approved.
Page. 1 of 7
Magnuson then presented.. a proposal from Waste Management to extend the current recycling collection contract
for a period of one year and amendingsame to provide for a collection fee of $2.00 per household and every other week
collection :instead of .1' and 3`' Wednesdays wasunanimously approved.
Motion by Schilling, Second by Rasmussen to amend their previous decision and extend the waiver of SAC charges
for all who convert septic to sewer alongScheuneman Road for two years through 15 November 2007 was unanimously
approved.
Emeott then reported on the.1-35E Corridor Management Group meeting he attended in place. of Wippich and made
several comments regarding "unweave .theweave", proposedclosure of highway 36. from White. Bear Avenue to
Highway 120, and extension of Willow Lane northward in Vadnais Heightsas the west frontage road for 1.35E,
Magnuson asked if key elements: could be provided for the newsletter which is near completion. Emeott noted a request
to approve Gem Lake's portion of I-35E Corridor Management Group costs in 2006 at S650 will be forthcoming.
Discussion ofspeed and•signs oit Scheuneman Road followed and Magnuson agrecdto investigate speed reduction
with Mn!DOT and signs: with Ramsey County.
Motion by Bosak and.second by Schilling to;accept the October Treasurer's Reports as prepared by Cabian which
indicate balances in the General Fund of S67,912.20, iit the Sewer Fund.of:$39;361.94, in the Capital Projects Fund of
S39.,004.,5.9,.and.in the GernLake Bond. Debt Service Fund.of S:10,727:81.were unaniinouslyapproved. Payment: of bills
totaling.$23.,674.63 was unanimously. approved.
The next City Council/Planning. Commission Workshop is scheduled for 6:00 pm on Wednesday,05 Deceinber
2005, at the Nexen Group Building, 560 Oak Grove Parkway in Vadnais Heights withnotice of same to appear in the
30:November 2005:.edition .ofthe White Bear Press. Thenext meeting .ofthe City Council willbe on 19 December 2005.
There being nofurther business, Motion by Watson, Second by Bosak to adjourn at 8:28 PM was unanimously
approved with all present voting Aye.
AUTHORED: 08 November 2005
APPROVED:..•. 16 November 2005
ATTEST:
.rC
Frederic C- . - Maw` Paul R. Emeott
City Clerk Mayor
ATTEST:
e#il.e: minuiest2O /186ociin2OO5.wpd
Page 2 of 7