Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2006 07-26 CC PACKET
CITY OF GEM LAKE MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING 19 JUNE 2006 The June, 2006 regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Gem Lake was called to order by Mayor Emeott on Monday, 19 June 2006 at 7:08 PM in the first floor meeting room of Tousley Ford. Mayor Emeott, Councilors Bosak, Rasmussen, Schilling and Watson. Also present were City Clerk Magnuson, City Attorney Newcome, City Engineer Higgins, City Planner Nolan, Special Counsel Ingram, Jim Lindner and Craig Rafferty of the Planning Commission, Mark Sweet of the Business Development Committee. Others in attendance included: Roger Anderson, Amy Cralam, Jim McNulty, Holly Watson, Felicity Furber, Bryan Har es, BryanHarjes, Bruce Shirley, Bill Griffith, Bob Uzpen, Mary Bauer, Ann Strommer, Mike Strommer, Gretchen Artig-Swomley, Dale Swomley, Gary Tangwall, Bryan Hansen, Sara Wyckoff. Mayor Emeott thanked those in attendance for coming. Following Mayor Emeott's request for additions, deletions, or corrections, the following actions were taken: 1) unanimous approval of the 15 May 2006 Minutes of the City Council meeting as presented on Motion by Rasmussen, Second by Schilling; 2) unanimous approval of the 19 June 2006 Agenda of the City Council meeting as amended (by Watson to include New Business on Planning Commission discussion, Hillary Farm discussion, Publication of Summary Ordinance; by Schilling to include 18 July 2006 workshop; by Special Counsel to table Public Improvement Items A) and C) per Clerk) on Motion by Bosak, Second by Rasmussen. The Clerk then presented General Announcements. The report of the Planning Commission and a brief summary by Mr. Lindner was acknowledged and accepted as received in the form of a letter from the Chairman to Mayor Emeott, said report having been distributed electronically to the Council in advance. Staff reports were presented by the Clerk and included comments as follows: 1) City Water Plan. Clerk Magnuson deferred to Mr. Higgins. Engineer Higgins confirmed that a draft of the plan is available and SEH would like a meeting to review same. Higgins explained the basis for the plan and Emeott expanded on the needs for the plan, including Metropolitan Council requirements and Comprehensive Municipal Plan requirements. 2) Town Hall Plan. Clerk Magnuson reported a meeting is scheduled for 22 June 2006 at 10:00 AM. Siting and space utilization will be discussed to determine space utilization. The White Bear Lake Conservation District has expressed an interest in renting space from the project for their needs. Mayor Emeott then briefly explained the project. 3) Scheuneman Road Cul-de-Sac. ClerkMagnuson reportedthat the cul-de-sac has not ternninatedtraffic from entering Highway 61. ProJect Engineer Mitchell has proposed three alternatives including a block wall, a boulder wall and placement of boulders, each costing approximately $2,500. Mn/DOT has indicated no guard rail will be placed. Watson asked if we have received a price for a guard rail and the answer was no. Tabled to next meeting pending cost of guard rail. 4) Right -Of -Way Maintenance. Clerk Magnuson indicated he and Mayor Emeotthavediscussed mainte[lance requirements of roads now that we have more than 1.5 miles of city streets. An ordinance needs to be discussed following research of League of MN Cities recommendations. Hopefully the project can be completed by the end of the year. 5) City Limit Signs. Mayor Emeott reported on the desire of the City Council and Planning Commission to install City Limit Signs at the various entry points to Gem Lake on LaBore Road, Otter Lake Road, County Road E, Hoffman Road and Big Fox and Little Fox. 18" x 24" signs have been ordered and will be placed to assist the public in knowing where Gem Lake is. Mayor Emeott then identified the needs of the City regarding the 2008 required update of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan last updated in 1997. MarkNolan was introduced. Mr. Nolan introduced himself as Senior Urban Planner for SEH, working throughout Minnesota and the Twin Cities. Mr. Nolan presented his credentials as a landscape architect and architect. Clerk Magnuson and Mr. Hoeschler have provided over view of Gem Lake and it's needs. He believes we can meet an early deadline of 2007 to complete the work. He provided an overview of the proposal, the process andthe System Statement ofthe Metropolitan Council, highlighting seve ra I items. He indicated how he proposes to engage citizens in the process. Clerk Magnuson presented the project can be completed for $35,000 per proposal. Watson asked for clarification of employees statement and Nolan responded he wasreferring to employment in the City. RESOLVED: Motion by Watson, Second by Bosak to approve the SEH proposal for Comprehensive Municipal Plan update was unanimously approved. Mayor Emeott welcomed Mr. Nolan as our Urban Planner. Mr. Higgins credentials were also discussed. Page 1 of 17 Clerk Magnuson reported that Ramsey County Elections, in response to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), has asked the City to adopt a resolution authorizing the use of the Automark ballot marking device to insure HAVA compliance, and to acknowledge the cost of the system acquisition and maintenance as delineated in the Joint Powers Agreement by and between Ramsey County and Gem Lake, and that the public be informed of the City's intent to use same. Magnuson explained the difference between the Accuvote which tabulates marked ballots andthe Automark which assists voters in marking the ballot. Magnuson indicated we will be using a Ramsey County machine and will be paying only maintenance and software maintenance. RESOLVED: Motionby Bosak, second by Rasmussento adopt Resolution No. 2006-15 was unanimously approved. Clerk Magnuson reported that a duly noticed public hearing was convened before the Planning Commission on 05 June 2006 to receive public comment on a request for a Variance of from Section 9.5(1), Ordinance No. 43G of 9 feet from the 15 foot side yard set back for the R-3 zoning district to 6' to accommodate construction of a detached garage that will align with the attached garage already in place. Construction of the garage will not provide accessory building square footage in excess of 1,000 square feet. The Planning Commission has recommended issuance of the Variance. RESOLVED: Motion by Bosak, second by Watson to adopt Resolution No. 2006-18 was unanimously approved. Clerk Magnuson then reported that the City has worked for the last several months with architect Chris Doehrman who represents Bruce and Lome Shirley to determine how to best construct a home which will include indoor parking for a 40' motor home. Mr. And Mrs. Shirley have acquired the former Thury property at 1400 Goose Lake Road. The current design would create a rear elevation of approximately 44' or 9' greater than the current ordinance allows. Architectural elements will preclude construction of any sheer surfaces of 44' without architectural elements to break the facade. Working with the Plan Review Committee, the Shirley's have agreed to utilize elements contained in Ordinance No. 43G and (proposed) Ordinance No. 43H for building height determination. A duly noticed public hearing was convened and all present who wished to be heard were heard. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of the proposed design. Mr. Newcome indicated inclusion of Clerk's comments be incorporated. RESOLVED: Motion by Schilling, second by Watson to adopt Resolution No. 2006-19 was unanimously approved. Mayor Emeott then recognized Mr. Watson who spoke regarding the Planning Commission. Indicating his discomfort at addressing the following issue as Mr. Hoeschler is out of the country, he stated it is important the City of Gem Lake take on a new direction in the way our Planning Commission works. Based partly on the fact that the Zoning Ordinance has been under consideration for more than 2 years, he feels it is important to take on new leadership. Watson suggested that Mr. Hoeschler be asked to offer his resignation within 60 days and that Mr. Lindner assume leadership as Interim Chairman of the Planning Commission. Mr. Bosak spoke indicating his desire to speak with Mr. Hoeschler prior to taking the action to get his input. Mr. Rasmussen supports starting anew, he feels the Planning Commission under Mr. Hoeschler's leadership have done a great deal of work for the community but supports the new start. Mr. Schilling stated we need to get to more "win/win" situations and agrees it is time for a change. Mayor Emeottthen spoke that he thanks Mr. Hoeschler for his very concerted efforts and also feels it is time for a change, indicating a more people friendly environment needs to be created willing to negotiate more, especially during the Comprehensive Plan revision process. Mr. Hansen then addressed the Council and Mayor Emeott then interrupted Mr. Hansen stating this is not the time for discussion in an open forum. Mr. Hansen then distributed a hand out to the Council which was not provided to Mr. Magnuson as the recording secretary. Mr. Hansen then called for Mayor Emeott to step down until the fall election and for the replacement of several members ofthe planning commission. RESOLVED: Motion by Watson, second by Schilling to ask Mr. Hoeschler to submit his resignation as Chairman of the Planning Commission and to appoint Mr. Lindner as Interim Chair. Mr. Lindner was then asked if he would serve. He stated he has been a resident for 18 years and has been involved with the Planning Commission for 10 years and has always attempted to balance heart and mind in the decision process. He further indicated he would be honored to serve in the capacity. The motion was approved on a vote of roll call vote of 4 Aye (Watson, Rasmussen, Schilling, Emeott) and 1 Nay (Bosak). Mr. Watson then asked to speak on a non -agenda item regarding Mr. Hansen hand delivering items such as this evenings and other recent hand deliveries. Mr. Watson requested that any person, resident or land owner or their representatives deliver only through the City via the City Clerk so that consistency of receipt of all information is uniform in process. While unsure of the process (law versus policy), materials dropped at the front door be disposed of. Mr. Newcome then spoke indicating correspondence to be distributed to the City Council must typically be delivered to the City at least 2 days prior to the preparation of City Council packets. He further stated most Councils will not consider anything "dropped in their laps" at a City Council meeting. Following inquiry by Attorney Newcome, Mr. Magnuson reported that, by policy, items for Council consideration are due by the close of business on the Thursday prior to a meeting. Following comments from Mr. Hansen, Mr. Watson indicated a consistent delivery pattern will help. Mr. Watson then spoke regarding the Hillary Farm deve I opine nt as it may be affected by the amendments contained in (proposed) Ordinance No. 43H. He stated that as we already have an ongoing development and a Developer's Page 2 of 17 Agreement, that we place a moratorium on the effect of local controls of 1 additional year and that the City meet with Mr. McNulty to discuss what issues keep us from collectively moving forward as effectively as possible. He stated he wants Hillary Farm to be a success and asked Mr. McNulty who he would like to work with, including Mr. Nolan, our new planner. Mr. Watson clarified he intends the moratorium to extend 1 year beyond the date local controls can be modified. Motion by Watson to extend the moratorium on change of official local controls for 1 additional year to August, 2007 from the August, 2006 date they would otherwise expire. Schilling offered a second to the motion. Mr. Bosak questioned the imposition of the cumbersome language of Ordinance No. 43G on Mr. McNulty to which Mr. Watson responded he feels positive dialogue between Mr. McNulty and Mr. Rafferty needs to be restarted and would meet our needs and supported forward movement. Mr. Bosak asked Mr. McNulty ifthe yearwould help and he indicated it would help and that he could work with Mr. Rafferty to work out problems. Mr. Newcome then indicated the Developer's Agreement can be amended to address specific issues at hand. Mayor Emeott indicated the primary problem is our method of measuring building height. Mr. Rasmussen questioned what we gain by not moving forward with the clarification of the new ordinance referencing Mr. McNulty's comments at the public hearing specific to the sections and also indicating we have already indicated awillingness to amend the Developer's Agreement to accommodate same. He also spoke in support of revised height definitions and the revised use of an expedited Conditional Use Permit process, and the use of the Plan Review process evidence the more recent results of their efforts. Mayor Emeott then described and supported briefly the Plan Review Committee's process. Mr. Rasmussen asked Mr. Rafferty if they can work with the old height ordinance and Mr. Rafferty responded in the affirmative and supported the motion. Mr. Schilling indicated to Mr. McNulty that it is important that he get back to building houses and not sit before the City Council every time they meet. RESOLVED: Motion by Watson, second by Schilling to extend by I year to August, 2007 the moratorium on the change of official local controls as they relate to the Hillary Farm development. On a roll call vote the motion was unanimously approved. Mayor Emeott then addressed (proposed) Ordinance No. 43H indicating he has prepared an Executive Summary hand out describing the changes proposed. It also indicates rationale of the changes and a reference to location of sections. Mayor Emeott stated that the zoning ordinance is the heart ofthe city's development policy. Mayor Emeottthen reviewed several comments ofthe summary, including Comprehensive Municipal Plan requirements. Mayor Emeott also referenced the large number of public hearings already held regarding proposed changes. lie highlighted recodi ficat ion, word smithing as it relates to Conditional Use Permits, lot coverage and open space. Mayor Emeott then opened the floor for Council discussion. Motion by Mr. Bosak to adopt Resolution No. 2006-20 approving proposed amendments to Ordinance No. 43G with said amended Ordinance to be identified as Ordinance No. 43H. Second by Schilling. Mr. Rasmussen applauded the Planning Commission and others efforts and looks forward to working with and not on the document. Regarding the section on grading for creation of walkouts, Mr. Rasmussen asked that the motion be amended to delete restrictions on grading and adding more than4 feet of fill to create artificial buildup for walkout designs. Mr. Watson spoke to clarify the ordinance and Mr. Rasmussen's intent. Mr. Rafferty spoke that it refers ti the fact that some sites have a natural topography for creation of walkouts and some do not and therefore the logic of site, recommending elimination ofthe 4' dimensional provision. Attorney Newcome then spoke indicating North Oaks provisions allow only walkouts on lots whose natural topography provide for said design. Mr. Rasmussen asked Attorney Newcome if policing North Oaks provisions was difficult and Newcome responded no. Mr. Rasmussen spoke in favor of the intent ofthe provision and could support a change in wording. Discussion followed. Mr. Rasmussen then withdrew his motion and Mr. Bosak withdrew his second. Mr. McNulty then spoke in objection to several items. Mr. Newcome reminded Mr. McNulty that he is exempted form these provision but would gladly review any submissions from Mr. McNulty. Mayor Emeott then provided 5 minutes for public comment. Bryan Hansen spoke charging the City Council to know this document thoroughly as they were not aware of Ordinance 43G provisions. The new provision will take place in August - Mayor Emeott stated they will take place upon publication and Hillary Farm will not be affected until August, 2007. Mr. McNulty spoke and recognized the 1 year moratorium and then indicated he is in a slow moving market and his houses don't exactly move and this could be the case 1 year from now so how do they ask us to further extend the moratorium provision. Attorney Newcome said he looks forward to working. with Mr. McNulty to amend the Developer's Agreement to accommodate his needs in the future and this is an "olive branch" extended to Mr. McNulty to relieve the tensions. Mr. McNulty's questions were then clarified. Mr. Griffith fo I.arkin Hoffman spoke on behalf of the Twin Cities Builders Association stating he was here at Mr. McNulty's request as a member to address concern over changes to the ordinance. He asked to work during the next year on the ordinance with the City on behalf of the Builders Association. Mayor Emeott indicated our willingness to work with everyone to further develop the City's controls, including PUD provisions. Mr. Watson then spoke regarding Mr. Griffith's and Mr. Hansen's comments and indicated he has read through the ordinance several times but would entertain delaying for Mr. Griffith and Mr. McNulty to comment and learn of trends. Mr. Watson asked if delay versus amendment later was most prudent. Mayor Emeott spoke indicating several people have been challenged to comment including Newcome's letter to Hillary Farm group and no comments have been received. We can not wait another 6 months. Discussion of time required to respond followed with clarification by Newcome of more than adequate time with the most recent request received today. Mr. Griffith asked fortime to study and comment. Mr. Newcome indicated that opposition has been received but no solutions or recommendations and we can't use osmosis to determine what you're thinking and that we will happily review your written suggestions for alteration. Mr. Schilling asked Mr. McNulty how long to make his comments and he responded Page 3 of 17 34 days while Mr. Griffith asked for 1 week. Mr. Watson indicated he supports short term delay but after 2 years we need to go forward and it's a good document which also needs recognition. Mr. Bosak supported the document. Mr. Schilling asked if a 30 day delay is problematic. Mr. Watson requested we provide reasonable time for submission of change requests by the next planning commission meeting. Asked if redline versions were available, Clerk Magnuson indicated he had a box frill present. Attorney Newcome indicated friendly amendments could be considered by the City Council and that the matter does not need to go back to the Planning Commission but that their comments would be relevant. Mayor Emeott suggested utilization of the 18 July 2006 workshop to review amendments. Mr. Watson suggested return replies by Tuesday, 27 June 2006, for the July Planning Commission it would work. Mr. Griffith indicated he can work in Word Perfect and could respond to an electronic version in the time frame noted. Mr. Lindner asked the Planning Commission be changed to Monday, 10 July 2006 and duly noticed. RESOLVED: Motion by Watson, second by Schilling to table consideration of Resolution No. 2006-20 to July was unanimously approved by a roll call vote. Mayor Emeott proposed combining the Zoning and Subdivision ordinances to create a single land use document. stating it's done in other cities. Mayor Emeott asked Mr. Griffith who responded Bloomington already does this as a land development package. Mr. Magnuson asked Mr. Newcome if an additional public hearing is necessary. Mr. Emeott asked that the matter be tabled to follow consideration of Ordinance No. 43H. Mr. Magnuson presented Ramsey County's request that we enter into an agreement for Dispatch Services in recognition of the new dispatch center scheduled to go online. While we are currently paying for dispatch services through the contract cities agreement, accounting changes for all have been made and adjustments to reflect. RESOLVED: Motion by Watson, second by Rasmussen to adopt Resolution No. 2006-21 was unanimously approved. Mr. Magnuson reported that the Ramsey County Sheriff has been successful in utilizing Administrative Offenses ordinances and is seeking support of the City of Gem Lake to develop a consistent, common language ordinance for the contract cities to enforce. The code could be amended to reflect additional needs of the cities. Magnuson explained the process as presented. RESOLVED: Motion by Sch i I I i ng, second by Bosak to support development of an administrative offenses ordinance in concert with the contract cities group was unanimously approved. RESOLVED: Motion by Rasmussen, second by Schilling to hire an intern, First choice is Valerie Gross. Mr. Magnuson introduced the problem with fees charged by SEH for the Highway 61 /County Road E engineering. He then asked Mr. Higgins to explain. Mr. Higgins spoke regarding engineering cost overruns on the Highway 61 / County Road E cooperative agreement project. Mr. Emeott asked if the project will be completed this year and was advised it is about to start. Mr. Watson asked if Ramsey County and Vadnais Heights have approved the increase and Ramsey County has with Vadnais Heights expected to tomorrow. Mr. Magnuson also noted that Mr. Soler has agreed in principal that if Ramsey County is able to access any "Unweave The Weave" funds for the project, he will dispense those back to Gem Lake and Vadnais Heights. RESOLVED: Motion by Bosak, second by Rasmussen to approve an amendment to the Cooperative Agreement with Vadnais Heights and Ramsey County for sharing of cost overruns for engineering on the Highway 61 / County Road E project with Gem Lake's share at $8.337 or 21% of the overrun (Vadnais Heights share at $8,337 or 21 % of the overrun and Ramsey County at $23.026 or 58% ofthe cost overrun) was unanimously approved. In the absence of a motion, consideration of the MN Association of Small Cities membership was not considered. Mr. Schilling spoke in regard to the workshop scheduled for 18 July 2006 indicating it was intended to have the 2 finalist developers present themselves to a combined planning commission, city council, stakeholder and public form to facilitate the decision making process. No owner meetings have yet been scheduled but Mayor Emeott encouraged their invitation to the workshop. Mr. Magnuson then asked if the July meeting could be rescheduled to 24 July to accommodate conflicts with his schedule. While Mr. Bosak will not be available, all others present agreed to reschedule the July meeting to 24 July 2006. Mr. Watson reported that Deputy Dan Ruettiman recommends a letter go out to the com m u n i ty announcing that we want a neighborhood watch program. We also need a meeting location, an insert to Ramsey County as web link, and a map (possibly produced by Steve Hack 651-765-2912). Per Mayor Emeott, we need to fund the effort. Costs wiI I include maps, a mailing and a meeting place. Mayor Emeott mentioned the golf course, the Montessori and fields as possibilities. RESOLVED: Motion by Emeott, second by Watson to approve $500 for the Neighborhood Watch program was unanimously approved. Page 4 of 17 RESOLVED: Motion by Bosak, Second by Rasmussen to accept the May, 2006 Treasurer's Reports as prepared by Cobian were unanimously approved. Payment of bills S43,356.12 was unanimously approved. Mayor Emeott then asked if current property tax payments have been received from Ramsey County and Mr. Magnuson responded they are due any day now. Mr. Magnuson also indicated he foresees a diminished time schedule in the future. Mr. Magnuson then indicated the final 3 agenda items are carried forward as a reminder of Council's interest in alternatives to property tax funding. The following meetings were then confirmed and ordered published as necessary: 1) 7:00 PM 10 July 2006 Public Hearing - Land Dedication Tousley Ford 2) 7:15 PM 10 July 2006 Planning Commission & Public Hearing Tousley Ford 3) 6:00 PM 18 July 2006 Joint Workshop Nexen Group 4) 7:00 PM 20 July 2006 Facilitated Workshop With Hartford White Bear Township Hall 5) 7:00 PM 24 July 2006 Public Hearing - 2006 Road Improvements Tousley Ford 6) 7:15 PM 24 July 2006 Public Hearing - Combine Ordinances Tousley Ford 7) 7:30 PM 24 July 2006 City Council Meeting Tousley Ford Mr. Watson then requested Mr. Magnuson present job descriptions for the City Clerk, City Treasurer and the City Administrator. Mr. Magnuson indicated these were generally available as the State defines the City Clerk and the City Treasurer positions. Mr. Watson agreed to take on the job of considering same for the next meeting. Mayor Emeott then announced that this meeting will be continued to 27 June 2006 at 4:30 PM, Nexen Building, 560 Oak Grove Parkway, Vadnais Heights. The continuation of the meeting will be closed to the public as the City Council will be meeting with the City Attorney to discuss pending and ongoing litigation. Hence, the meeting will be closed to the public. Mayor Emeott at 9:24 PM then declared the meeting continued to Tuesday, 27 July 2006, at 4:30 PM at the Nexen Group building in Vadnais Heights. AUTHORED: 23 July 2006 APPROVED: 24 J u Iv 2006 AT TEST- �ATTEST: I Fred i C agn on L'Kmeoij City CI Mayor efile: Minutes\2006\196junm.wpd Page 5 of 17 CITY OF GEM LAKE RESOLUTION NO.2006-15 19 JUNE 2006 A RESOLUTION APPROVING USE OF THE AUTOMARK BALLOT MARKING DEVICE IN THE 2006 STATE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF GEM LAKE. WHEREAS, Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002 to ensure that the voting method utilized in every polling place includes a ballot marking device that is accessible for individuals with disabilities and provides them the ability to vote privately and independently; and WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners has adopted the local equipment plan developed by the cities and school districts in the County to acquire and operate a ballot marking device that is accessible to persons with disabilities; and WHEREAS, Ramsey County has received a state grant in the amount of $1,256,572 to acquire and operate such a ballot marking device for disabled voters; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota secretary of state has certified the Automark ballot marking device for use in this state; and WHEREAS, the Ramsey County auditor has authorized the use of the Automark ballot marking device in all elections in Ramsey County; Now, Therefore, Be It RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Gem Lake authorizes the use of the Automark ballot marking device for all elections held in the City of Gem Lake, in accordance with applicable state and federal laws; and be it further RESOLVED, that the operation and maintenance of the Automark ballot marking device be conducted in the same manner provided for voting systems in the joint powers agreement between the City of Gem Lake and the County adopted by the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners on April 24, 2001; and be it further RESOLVED, that the City Clerk of the City of Gem Lake provide information on the use of the A utomark ballot marking device to the public during the sixty (60) days prior to the 2006 state primary and public demonstrations of said device during the six (6) weeks prior to the 2006 state primary, in accordance with state law; and be it further RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be provided to the Ramsey County auditor. The foregoing Resolution was offered by Councilor Bosak and was supported by Councilor Rasmussen and was declared adn red based a on the Collowin, vote: NAME EMEOTT WATSON RASMUSSEN SCHILLING BOSAK VOTE Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye ATTEST I, Frederic C. Magnuson, the duly qualified City Clerk of the City of Gem Lake, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and accurate representation of action taken by the Citv Council of the City of Gem Lake on the date first written. 3T"Mc a "� 19d" 2006- Frederic C. Magnuson, City Clerk Date Certified Copy e-file: resolution\2006\no2006-15 Page 6 of 17 CITY OF GEM LAKE RESOLUTION NO.2006-18 19 JUNE 2006 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 9.5(1), ORDINANCE NO. 43G FOR MICHAEL AND ANNE STROMMER, 3910 SCHEUNEMAN ROAD. WHEREAS, Michael and Anne Strommer have made an application for a variance from nine (9) feet from the side yard set -back of fifteen (15) feet required by Section 9.5(1), Ordinance No. 43G; and WHEREAS, the needs for a variance have been reviewed by the Zoning Administrators and determined to be valid so as to provide symmetry of construction to existing onsite structures; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing on the matter was convened before the Gem Lake Planning Commission on 05 June 2006 in accordance the procedures set forth in Ordinance No. 43G and all in attendance were heard; and WHEREAS, the Gem Lake Planning Commission recommends approval of the Variance; and WHEREAS, the matter of this variance comes before the City Council of the City of Gem Lake at it's regular meeting convened on 19 June 2006; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Gem Lake finds adequate findings for the application and no significant opposition to the application and therefore approves issuance of a Variance from Section 9.5(1), Ordinance No. 43G with the codicil that construction commence within one (1) years from the date first issued. The foregoing Resolution was offered by Councilor Bosak and was supported by Councilor Watson and ,i 1 d do ted/ ailed based u on the followin vote: w� ec are a NAME EMEOTT WATSON RASMUSSEN SCHILLING BOSAK VOTE Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye ATTEST I, Frederic C. Magnuson, the duly qualified City Clerk of the City of Gem Lake, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and accurate representation of action taken by the Citv Council of the City of Gem Lake on the date first written. I Xmas -C-A� Frederic C. Magnuson, City Clerk Certified Date Copy OaO~ 2006 e-file: resolution\200fto2006-18 Page 7 of 17 CITY OF GEM LAKE RESOLUTION NO. 2006-19 19 JUNE 2006 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BRUCE AND LORRY SHIRLEY, 1400 GOOSE LAKE ROAD TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A REAR ELEVATION IN EXCESS OF THE HEIGHTS ALLOWED IN SECTION 7.4, ORDINANCE NO. 43G AND SECTION 5.4, (PROPOSED) ORDINANCE NO.43H. WHEREAS, Bruce and Lorry Shirley have made an application for a Conditional Use Permit to provide for an exterior elevation of forty-four (44') feet to provide for construction of an attached garage adequate for parking their motor home in doors; and WHEREAS, the needs for issuance of a Conditional Use Permit have been reviewed by the Zoning Administrators and Plan Review Committee and determined to be valid and in the best interest of the property; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing on the matter was convened before the Gem Lake Planning Commission on 05 June 2006 in accordance the procedures set forth in Ordinance No. 43G and all in attendance were heard; and WHEREAS, the Gem Lake Planning Commission recommends issuance of the Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Ordinance No. 43G; and WHEREAS, the Plan Review Committee recommends issuance of the Conditional Use Permit in accordance with (Proposed) Ordinance No. 43H; and WHEREAS, the matter of this Conditional Use Permit comes before the City Council of the City of Gem Lake at it's regular meeting convened on 19 June 2006; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Gem Lake finds adequate findings for the application and no significant opposition to the application and therefore approves issuance of a Conditional Use Permit providing for construction of a single family home with an exterior facade less than ten (10') greater than the thirty-five (35') feet allowed, providing construction of the building commences within one (1) year from the date first of this issuance. The foregoing Resolution was offered by Councilor Schilling and was supported by Councilor Watson and declared ado fed/ ailed based u on the following vote: yr u$ NAME EMEOTT WATSON RASMUSSEN SCHILLING BOSAK VOTE Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye ATTEST I, Frederic C. Magnuson, the duly qualified City Clerk of the City of Gem Lake, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and accurate representation of action taken by he City Council of the City of Gem Lake on the date first written. G xUft� .. /��L609L 49G'" 2006- Frederic C. Magnuson, City Clerk Date Certified Copy e-file: resolution\2006\no2006-19 Page 8 of 17 CITY OF GEM LAKE RESOLUTION NO.2006-20 19 JUNE 2006 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE NO. 43G TO PROVIDE LOCAL CONTROLS TO IMPLEMENT THE 1997 COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 1997-11. WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes §473.865 requires local governmental units to adopt "official controls" to implement it's Comprehensive Municipal Plan; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes §462.357, Subd. 1 authorizes the adoption of a zoning Ordinance or amendments thereto independent of the foregoing authorization; and W HEREAS, a Zoning Ordinance is an official control within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes §473.852, Subd. 9; and WHEREAS, On 05 June 2006 the Gem Lake Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review and to receive all public comment, written and verbal, regarding he proposed changes to the City of Gem Lake Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council adoptedthe 1997 Comprehensive Municipal Plan on 21 July 1997 by means of Resolution No. 1997-11; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1997-11 further charged the Gem Lake Planning Commission to recommend amendments to current local controls and to develop of such additional local controls as may be necessary to implement the 1997 Comprehensive Municipal Plan; and WHEREAS, the Gem Lake Planning Commission did on 05 June 2006 vote 3 Aye, 0 Nay, 2 Absent to present the proposed amendments to the Gem Lake City Council for adoption as Ordinance No. 431-1; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Gem Lake hereby adopts the following findings of fact: 1) the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as recommended by the Gem Lake Planning Commission promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare and promotes the use of land within the City of Gem Lake to conserve shorelands and otherwise accomplish the purposes authorize by Minnesota Statutes §462.357, Subd. 1; and 2) the proposed amended Zoning Ordinance No. 43H is consistent with the 1997 Comprehensive Municipal Plan. and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and all proceedings and information in the files of the City relating thereto: 1) Zoning Ordinance No. 43H is hereby adopted in it's entirety; and 2) The Zoning District Map shall be updated to reflect all changes contained in Ordinance No. 43H and is hereby adopted as the official Zoning District Map of the City of Gem Lake; and 3) The summary of Ordinance No. 43H attached hereto as Exhibit "A" shall be published in the White Bear Press in lieu of the full text of Ordinance No. 43H. The foregoing Resolution was offered by Councilor Schilling and was supported by Councilor Rasmussen and was declared adopted based upon the following vote: NAME EMEOTT WATSON RASMUSSEN SCHILLING BOSAK VOTE Aye Aye Aye Aye Absent RESOLUTION NO. 2006-20 19 June 2006 ATTEST I, Frederic C. Magnuson, the duly qualified City Clerk of the City of Gem Lake, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and accurate representation of action taken by the CityCounciloftheCityofGemLakeon the date first written. G',,eao ;,c a '/� I -/., yoke 2006 Frederic C. Magnuson, City Clerk Date Certif ieb Cog e-file: resolution\2006\no2006-20 EXHIBIT `A' Public Notice No. 2006-26 By means of City Council Resolution No. 2006-20, the City Council of the City of Gem Lake adopted amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Gem Lake which shall be in the future identified as Ordinance No. 43H, said Ordinance to be effective the date of this publication. A complete copy of Ordinance No. 43H which includes all amendments through 05 June 2006 may.be obtained from the City Clerk in electronic or published format and has also been placed for viewing at the Ramsey County Library, White Bear Lake branch. i RAMSEY COUNTY Workingwith You to Enhance Our Quality of Life W Office of the County Manager David J. Twa, County Manager 250 Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55102 MEMORANDUM TO- Fritz Magnuson City Clerk — Gem Lake FROM: Scott Williams Radio Systems Manager DATE: October 18, 2006 SUBJECT: 800 MHz Dispatch Agreement 0 Tel:651-266-8000 Fax:651-266-8039 e-mail: david.twa@co.ramsey.mn.us Enclosed is a fully executed copy of the 800 MHz Agreement between Gem Lake and Ramsey County. Thank you for returning the agreements in a timely manner. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 651-266-8028. Enclosure sam Excellence s Respect • Diversity Printed on recycled paper with a minimum of 10% post -consumer content ffir CITY OF GEM LAKE RESOLUTION NO.2006-21 19 JUNE 2006 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN RAMSEY COUNTY AND THE CITY OF GEM LAKE FOR DISPATCH SERVICES SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL AS TO FORM OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. This Agreement is between Ramsey County, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota ("County") and the City of Gem Lake, a municipality under the laws of the State of Minnesota ("City"). WHEREAS, the County is in the process of implementing a new 800 MHz radio communications system as a subsystem to the region wide 800 MHz system; and WHEREAS, the County currently operates a Public Safety Answering Point ("PSAP")/Dispatch Center, from which dispatch services are provided for the Ramsey County Sheriff, the cities of Arden Hills, Gem Lake, Little Canada, Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks, Roseville, Shoreview, and Vadnais Heights; and the township of White Bear (collectively, the "Contract Cities"); and WHEREAS, the County has entered into agreements with the City of Saint Paul and theCity of Maplewood for consolidated dispatch operations; and WHEREAS, the County is constructing a new facility on the campus of the Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center and the Saint Paul Police Department Headquarters to house the new Dispatch Center for theconsolidated dispatch operations using the County's new Public Safety Communication System ("PSCS")/800 MHz radio communications system; and WHEREAS, the City, which is one of the Contract Cities, wishes to obtain dispatch services from the County from the new Dispatch Center using the new 800 MHz radio communication system; and _ WHEREAS, the parties have reached agreement on the terms and conditions for the provision of dispatch services for the City by the County; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements contained herein, the parties do hereby agree as follows: Article I. Purpose The purpose of this agreement is to establish the parameters for the provision of dispatch services by the County for the City from the Consolidated Dispatch Center, and to delineate the terms and conditions under which the County will provide dispatch services. Article II. Definitions 2.01 Additional Member means any public entity or agency or governmental unit that signs an agreement with the County after the Dispatch Center becoming operational, for dispatch services by the County from the Dispatch Center. 2.02 Call for Service means a Computer Aided Dispatch ("CAD") incident number that originates from a 911 call. 2.03 County Manager means the Ramsey County Manager appointed by the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners, or the Ramsey County Manager's designee. 2.04 Dispatch Center means the location from which the County will provide emergency 911 communications and dispatching services using its PSCS/800 MHz radio communications subsystem, for police, fire, emergency medical services, and other public safety functions for cities and agencies that have contracted with the County for such services. 1 2.05 Initial Member means any municipality that signs an agreement with the County, prior to the Dispatch Center becoming operational, for dispatch services by the County from the Dispatch Center. --2.06 Initial Service Term means the time period from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2016. 2.07 Member means either an Initial Member or an Additional Member. 2.08 Radio System Manager means the Ramsey County employee who manages the County's 800 MHz interoperable radio communication system and the County's Dispatch Center. 2.09 Year means a calendar year. Article III. Term This agreement shall become effective on the date executed by both parties ("Effective Date") and shall continue in effect through December 31, 2016 ("Initial Term"). Thereafter, the term shall automatically renew for additional one (1) Year periods, up to a maximum of 30 renewal periods, subject to the right of either party to terminate as set forth in Section 7.01. Article IV. Dispatch Policy Committee 4.01 Creation The Dispatch Policy Committee ("Committee") is hereby created with the powers and responsibilities as set forth herein. 4.02 Membership a. If the Cities of Maplewood, Saint Paul, and White Bear Lake sign agreements to consolidate their PSAP/Dispatch Centers with the County's PSAP/Dispatch Center, the Committee is to be made up of the following elected officials: 1. The Ramsey County Sheriff 2. Four members of the Saint Paul City Council 3. The Mayor of the City of Saint Paul 4. The Mayor or one member of the Maplewood City Council 5. The Mayor or one member of the White Bear Lake City Council 6. Two elected representatives of the other cities in Ramsey County that do not operate independent PSAP/Dispatch Centers and that sign agreements with Ramsey County to receive dispatching services from the Dispatch Center, to be selected in a manner to be determined by the involved cities. b. If the City of White Bear Lake does not sign an agreement to consolidate its PSAP/Dispatch Center with the County's PSAP/Dispatch Center, the number of Saint Paul City Council members will be reduced by one. If the City of Saint Paul does not sign an agreement to consolidate its PSAP/Dispatch Center with the County's PSAP/Dispatch Center, the Committee will be made up of representatives from the jurisdictions that have entered into a consolidation agreement. c. If the individual appointed to the Committee leaves the elected office, the public entity's elected officials will be responsible for appointing a replacement representative in a timely fashion. d. Committee members shall be appointed by the jurisdiction they represent for such period of time as determined by each jurisdiction. 4.03 Duration a. Unless earlier dissolved by mutual agreement of all of the then -current Members, the Committee shall continue to operate for the duration of this Agreement. 4.04 Officers a. The Committee members shall select a Chair and a Vice Chair at its first meeting, and thereafter on an annual basis, provided that, during the first two Years of its operation, the Mayor of the City of Saint Paul shall be the Chair of the Committee. Thereafter, the Chair shall be selected annually from the Committee members. The initial term of the Chair shall be two Years and of the Vice Chair shall be one Year. Thereafter each shall serve for one Year. The Vice Chair shall be a representative of a Member other than a Member represented by the Chair. If the City of Saint Paul does not sign an agreement to consolidate its PSAP/Dispatch Center with the County's PSAP/Dispatch Center, the Committee will select a Chair and Vice Chair from Committee members from jurisdictions that have entered into a consolidation agreement. b. The duties of the Chair shall be as follows: J1. approve the agenda for Committee meetings, with the input and assistance of the Radio System Manager and other Committee members; 2. preside at Committee meetings; 3. sign all official documents as authorized by the Committee; 4. make reports, directly or through a designee, to the Committee and the Ramsey County Board as deemed appropriate; and 5. perform such other duties as are incident to the office and properly expected by the Committee. c. The duties of the Vice Chair shall be as follows: 1. in the absence of the Chair, to perform the duties of the Chair; and 2. to perform such duties as may be requested by the Chair. d. The Radio System Manager shall serve as executive secretary to the Committee and shall provide for all correspondence, reporting, and recordkeeping functions for the Committee, consistent with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and statutory retention laws. 4.05 Powers and Authorities of the Committee a. The Committee shall assist the County in reviewing and evaluating the performance of the Dispatch Center to ensure that the service meets the needs and expectations of the communities and public safety user agencies. b. The Committee shall make recommendations to the County Manager and to the Radio System Manager concerning voice and data communications systems relating to public safety agency dispatching, public service information, education and advertising programs, and any other matter relating to the provision of emergency communications services. c. The Committee shall periodically review operations and make recommendations on the operations, standards, and budget for the Dispatch Center. d. The Radio System Manager shall report to and serve at the pleasure of the County Manager as advised by the Committee relating to the functions involving consolidated dispatch services for the Members. The County Manager will work with the Radio System Manager in an expeditious manner to resolve any concerns raised by the Committee. If, however, a majority of the Committee is not satisfied with the outcome, the County Manager will take appropriate personnel action, which may involve termination. e. The Committee shall perform such other duties as may be requested by the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners. 4.06 Meetings and Voting a. The Committee shall meet at least quarterly during the first Year this Agreement is in effect. Thereafter, the Committee members shall determine the frequency of regular meetings. In addition, a special meeting may be called by the Chair or by a majority of the then -current Committee members. b. Each public entity with a member on the Committee shall be responsible for complying with requirements of State Statute relating to open meetings. c. Committee members may not appoint proxies. d. Each Committee member shall have one vote. e. A decision of the Committee shall require approval by a majority of the Committee members, provided there is a quorum in attendance. f. A quorum of the Committee shall require one half of the Committee members plus one to be in attendance at the time of any decision. g. At its first meeting, the Committee shall adopt a process for resolving tie votes. Article V. Dispatch Center Operations and Services 5.01 Mission The Mission of the Dispatch Center is to provide both field responders and citizens the best emergency communication service making maximum use of personnel and technology. 5.02 Day -to -Day Operations a. Day to day operations of the Dispatch Center will be under the direction of the Radio System Manager. 5.03 Services a. Emergency communications and dispatch services shall be provided on behalf of the City, the County, and other Members 24/7/365 for police, fire, and emergency medical services. b. The Dispatch Center will utilize a two -stage dispatching system whereby telecommunicators will take incoming requests for service and relay them to dedicated dispatchers who will be assigned for police calls as well as those for fire and emergency medical calls. This will not impact the County's ability to cross train dispatchers for fire and police dispatch. •'/ c. Standardized procedures will be formulated with input from user groups. Customization of procedures for participating agencies will be provided to the extent such customization can be accommodated by the Computer Aided Dispatch System. d. A quality assurance program will be adopted based on national standards. 5.04 Dispatch Users Group a. A Dispatch Users Group shall be formed, to be comprised of one chief or command officer from each of the following agencies: 1. St Paul Police; 2. St Paul Fire; 3. Maplewood Police; 4. Maplewood Fire; 5. One suburban fire department other than Maplewood; 6. One suburban police department other than Maplewood; and 7. One undersheriff or command officer from the Ramsey County Sheriffs Office. b. The Dispatch Users Group may adopt rules regarding the selection by the agencies of their Dispatch Users Group member by job classification and the duration of membership in the Dispatch Users Group. If the City of Saint Paul does not sign an agreement to consolidate its PSAP/Dispatch Center with the County's PSAP/Dispatch Center, the Dispatch Users Group will be made up of the appropriate representatives from the jurisdictions that have entered into a consolidation agreement. c. The suburban fire department representative will be selected annually by the Ramsey County Fire Chiefs Association. The suburban police department representative will be selected annually by the Ramsey County Chiefs of Police. The Dispatch Users Group will meet quarterly or at some other interval as determined by the group. d. The Dispatch Users Group shall have a Law Enforcement Subcommittee and Fire and EMS Subcommittees. The Law Enforcement Subcommittee shall be comprised of one police officer, deputy, or supervisor from each law enforcement agency served by the Dispatch Center. The Fire and EMS Subcommittees shall be comprised of one firefighter, emergency medical responder, or supervisor from each fire and EMS agency served by the Dispatch Center. e. Each representative to the Dispatch Users Group will have one vote. f. The roles and responsibilities of the Dispatch Users Group will be to: 1. Provide user agency input to the Radio System Manager into the process of developing protocols and dispatching standards for the Dispatch Center. 2. Provide a forum for the exchange of ideas between Dispatch Center staff and users for the purpose of improving service, reviewing critical incidents, and resolving complaints. 3. Provide for coordination of service between the Dispatch Center and local agencies with the intent of providing seamless public safety service that makes the administrative boundary between dispatching and field responders as transparent as possible to the public. 4. Provide input to the Dispatch Policy Committee as to the overall performance of the Dispatch Center in serving the needs of the user agencies. g. Issues that cannot be resolved by the Dispatch Users Group may be referred to the Committee. Article VI. Cost and Funding 6.01 Capital Expenditure and Equipment a. The County will pay the facility construction and site development costs for a Dispatch Center that will be of such size and configuration as to provide communications and dispatch services to meet the needs of consolidated dispatch. b. The County will pay for the 800 MHz radio system equipment in the Dispatch Center, including consoles and connections to the regional system backbone. 6.02 Operating Costs a. For the first Year (2007) and second Year (2008) of the Initial Service Term, the City will pay the annual sum of $3,653.00 if the City of Saint Paul is not a Member and the annual sum of $2,466.00 if the City of Saint Paul is a Member. The City shall make payment to the County monthly in an amount equal to 1/12 of the appropriate sum for that Year. The County will be responsible for the balance of operating costs for the Dispatch Center ("Dispatch Operating Costs") not covered by payments from Members. b. Thereafter, sixty (60) percent ofthe Dispatch Operating Costs will be paid through a county- wide property tax levy, and forty (40) percent of the Dispatch Operating Costs will be paid through an assessment to each Member based on Calls for Service from within the Member's jurisdictional boundaries compared to total Calls for Service to the Dispatch Center. A three-year rolling average of the Member's Calls for Services 1 as a percentage share of Total Calls for Service for those three Years will be used to compute the Member's share. The City's annual share of the Dispatch Center Operating Costs that will be paid based on Calls for Services will be computed as follows after the second Year of the Initial Service Term. 1. For the third Year of the Initial Service Term, an average of the following will be used to determine the City's share: i. The City's initial share of Dispatch Operating Costs in the first Year as identified in section 6.02.a; and ii. The City's initial share of Dispatch Operating Costs in the second Year as identified in section 6.02.a; and iii. The City's percentage share of Calls for Service in the first Year. 2. For the fourth Year of the Initial Service Term, an average of the following will be used to determine the City's share: i. The City's initial share of Dispatch Operating Costs in the second Year as identified in section 6.02.a; and ii. The City's percentage share of Calls for Service in the first Year; and iii. The City's percentage share of Calls for Service in the second Year. 3. For the fifth Year and for each Year thereafter, the City's share will be the average of the City's Calls for Services over the most recent three Years for which Total Calls for Service data is available. 4. The County will give the City notice no later than the first day of June each Year of the amount due and payable to Ramsey County as the City's annual share of the Dispatch Operating Costs for the following Year. 5. The City shall make payment to the County monthly in an amount equal to 1 /12 ofthe amount due and payable to Ramsey County for the Year, on the tenth day of each month of the Year, except for the payment for the first month of the Year, which shall be due by the end of the month._ 6.03 911 Fees Commencing with the first full month of the Initial Service Term, the County shall credit forty (40) percent of any 911 fees received by the County to the payments due to the County by the Members for forty (40) percent of the Dispatch Operating Costs for the Year the 911 fees are received, and shall credit sixty (60) percent of any 911 fees received by the County to reduce the County's property tax levy for the sixty (60) percent of the Dispatch Operating Costs to be paid through a county -wide property tax levy. 6.04 Other Funds 1 Nothing herein shall preclude either party from applying for and receiving federal or state, or funds from other 1 public and private sources, for the capital, equipment and/or operating costs of the Dispatch Center. Article VII. General Terms and Conditions 7.01 Termination a. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement may not be terminated during the Initial Term. Thereafter, either party may terminate this Agreement at the end of a calendar year by action of its governing body and upon a minimum of twelve (12) months written notice to the other party. 7.02 Indemnification and Insurance a. Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the acts of its employees, elected officials, and agents as they relate to this Agreement and for any liability resulting therefrom, to the extent authorized by law, and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party or its employees, elected officials, and agents, or for any liability resulting therefrom. Each party's liability shall be governed and limited by the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minn. Stat. Chapter 466 and other applicable law. b. Consistent with the provisions of Section 7.02 a., each party agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other party, its employees, elected officials, and agents from any liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs or expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the indemnifying party, its employees, elected officials, or agents, in the performance or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement. c. Each party warrants that it is able to comply with the aforementioned indemnity requirements through commercial insurance or a self -funding program. d. The County agrees to maintain property insurance coverage throughout the term of this Agreement on the Dispatch Center facility and all of the County equipment within the Dispatch Center. 7.03 Non -Assignability Neither party shall assign any interest in this Agreement nor transfer any interest in the same, whether by subcontract, assignment or novation. 0.7.04 Compliance With Applicable Law a. Both parties agree to comply with all federal, state and local laws, resolutions, ordinances, rules, regulations and executive orders pertaining to unlawful discrimination on account of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, sexual preference, disability, or age. b. Both parties agree to comply with all federal, state and local laws or ordinances, and all applicable rules, regulations, and standards established by any agency of such governmental units, which are now or hereafter promulgated insofar as they relate to the parties' performance ofthe provisions ofthis Agreement. 7.05 Data Practices All data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated for any purpose in the course of either parry's performance of this Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, or any other applicable state statutes, any state rules adopted to implement the Act and statutes, as well as federal statutes and regulations on data privacy. 7.06 Audit Until the expiration of six (6) Years after the termination of this Agreement, each party shall, upon written request of the other party, shall make available to the requesting party, the State Auditor or the requesting party's ultimate funding sources, a copy of this Agreement and the books, documents, records and accounting procedures and practices relating to this Agreement. 7.07 Alteration Any alteration, variation, modification, or waiver of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only after it has been reduced to writing and duly signed by both parties. 7.08 Notice Any notice required to be given by this Agreement shall be made by delivery by first class mail, postage applied, to: Ramsey County Office of the County Manager 250 City Hall/Courthouse 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 City of Gem Lake Office of the City Clerk 1369 East County Road "E" Gem Lake, MN 55110-5231 7.09 Arbitration Any dispute between the parties to this Agreement may be subject to arbitration, if mutually agreed to in writing by the parties. The parties shall mutually agree on an arbitrator and the arbitration will take place under the rules and procedures ofthe American Arbitration Association. The parties shall pay their own internal costs and shall each pay 50% of any out of pocket fees or costs related to the arbitration. 7.10 Interpretation of Agreement; Venue This Agreement shall be interpreted and construed according to the laws of the State of Minnesota. All litigation regarding this Agreement shall be venued in the appropriate state or federal district court in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 7.11 Conditions Outside Control of a Party No party to this Agreement can be held responsible for conditions outside the control of the party claiming its occurrence, which are the direct result of force majeure which shall mean and include acts of public enemies; strikes or lockouts; enforceable governmental or judicial orders; outbreak of war or insurrection, or acts of terrorism; insurrections; riots; civil disturbances; earthquakes, floods, fires; and explosions or other similar catastrophes or events not reasonably within the party's control 7.12 Entire Agreement This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties and shall supersede all prior oral or written negotiations. WHEREFORE, this Agreement is duly executed on the last date written below. RAMS Y COUNTY Tony Ben ett, Chair Board of unty ;nimissioners missioners Bonnie Jackelen,Jerk Board of County Date: /Q / % Z2-4� Approved as to form: / s istant County Attorney A ecommen David Twa, County Manager Funds are avu: Sul +- Budgeting and Accounting CITY OF GEM LAKE Paul R. Emeott, Mayor Freden C. M son, City Clerk Date: roved ps, form: Patrick Kel City Attorney Funds are av ' le: Frederi . M on, City Clerk The foregoing Resolution was offered by Councilor Watson and was supported by Councilor Rasmussen and was declared adopt based upon the following vote: NAME EMEOTT WATSON RASMUSSEN SCHILLING BOSAK VOTE Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye ATTEST I, Frederic C. Magnuson, the duly qualified City Clerk of the City of Gem Lake, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and accurate representation of action taken by the City Council of the City of Gem Lake on the date fir written. 7.9 f"l" 2006 Frederic C. Magnuson, City Clerk J Date &rtif ieb IMIL.-opli e-file: resolution\2006\no2006-21 June 19, 2006 Fritz Magnuson City of Gem Lake 1369 County Road "E" East Gem Lake, MN 55110-5231 Wadena, MN 56482 Dear Mr. Magnuson: RE: Agreement for Professional Services SEH No. AGEMLK0602.00 This letter constitutes an Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Gem Lake, Owner, and SEH for providing professional services in connection with the Gem Lake Comprehensive Plan Update (hereinafter called the "Project"). You agree to furnish us with full information as to your requirements including any special or extraordinary considerations for the Project or special services needed, and also to make available all pertinent existing information and data that we will need to perform our services. Our services will consist of: update/preparation of the comprehensive plan, land use planning and analysis, meeting facilitation and public involvement, and Metropolitan Council document submittal, all as set forth in this letter and Exhibit A. We will not enter into any subcontract for the performance of the services contemplated under this Agreement, nor assign any interest in the Agreement without prior written consent of the City. We agree that all data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated by us because of this Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. You will pay us on an hourly basis, including expenses, with a fee for our services related to the Project not to exceed $35,000, in accordance with Exhibit A. We will also furnish such Additional Services as you may request. Payment for additional services shall be based on the time required to perform the services and the billable rates for the principals and employees engaged directly on the project, plus charges for expenses and equipment, all in accordance with Exhibit A. We will bill you monthly for services and expenses. The estimated fee assumes prompt payment of our bills and the orderly and continuous progress of the project through completion. If there are delays in the payment of our invoices and if we agree to continue working on the project, it is agreed we are entitled to collect, and you will pay interest at the rate of 1% per month for all amounts unpaid for thirty (30) days or more. Additionally, if the project is delayed and we encounter additional costs as the result of the delays, it is agreed we are entitled to additional fees upon submission of the appropriate documentation of extra costs. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., Butler Square Building, Suite 710C, 100 North 6th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55403-1515 J SEH is an equal opportunity employer 1 www.sehinc.com 1 612.758.6700 1 866,830.3388 1 612.758.6701 fax City of Gem Lake June 19, 2006 Page 2 We will start our services promptly after receipt of your authorization and will complete our services for the Project within twelve (12) months from the date authorized on the notice to proceed. If there are delays in the Project that are beyond our control, you agree to grant additional time to complete the services. You agree, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to limit SEH's total liability for any and all claims, expenses, or damages in any way related to the services provided under this Agreement to the total sum paid to SEH for providing these services. If conflicts arise during the performance of these services, we agree they shall be submitted to non- binding mediation unless we have mutually agreed otherwise. This letter and Exhibit A represent the entire understanding between you and us in respect of the Project and may only be modified in writing signed by both of us. If it satisfactorily sets forth your understanding of our agreement, please sign the enclosed copy of this letter in the space provided below and return it to us. Sincerely, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. Mark K. Nolan Project Manager Accepted by: City of Gem Lake By: _ i'/ Date: Author ed Ii t S'gt lure vAmh worklpmjeclslgcm lakftem lake camp plan contract doe Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., Butler Square Building, Suite 710C, 100 North 6th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55403-1515 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com 1 612.758.6700 1 866.830.338B 1 612.758.6701 fax EXHIBIT A TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Between City of Gem Lake (Owner) and Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) Dated June 19, 2006 SEH's SERVICES The Owner intends to retain SEH to provide comprehensive plan updating, land use planning and analysis, meeting facilitation and public involvement, and Metropolitan Council document submittal services as may be directed by the Owner, and the Owner and SEH deem it mutually advantageous to set forth the general details described herein. It is our understanding that this comprehensive plan update will fulfill the Metropolitan Council's requirements for local comprehensive plans to be updated by 2008 as outlined in the Local Planning Handbook, dated September 2005 and in Minnesota Statute 473.86-862. We are currently reviewing the Gem Lake System Statement and the City's last comprehensive plan, dated July 1997, which was prepared in our Saint Paul office. We also understand that the City wishes to submit the updated plan to the Metropolitan Council by September 2007, one year in advance of the deadline. Our proposed scope of services for the comprehensive plan update assumes an approximate budget of $35,000 with a project time frame of about 8-10 months. The proposed outline scope of services is included below. Scope of Services: Comprehensive Plan Update 1. Project Initiation and Management • Conduct project kick-off meeting with City staff and officials • Progress reports and meetings • Personnel management and coordination (i.e. Gem Lake planning intern, etc.) 2. Inventory and Analysis of Gem Lake Review System Statement and 1997 Comprehensive Plan • Conduct updated community survey Base mapping • Infrastructure systems analysis • Demographic profile 3. Stakeholder Engagement • Public visioning workshop • Five neighborhood focus group meetings • Steering committee/planning commission meetings • Public hearing: presentation Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Exhibit A- 1 City of Vem L.aKe _J (Form 05/16/02) 4. Update of Comprehensive Plan Sections • Background and community profile • Policies and objectives Existing/future land use plans • Parks and open space plan • Housing plan • Resource protection plan • Transportation plan • Water management plan (storm, sanitary, water) • Community facilities & services plan • Plan implementation 5. Prepare and Present Final Comprehensive Plan Document Present draft update plan • Submit final update plan for agency review Hourly Rates Below are the hourly rates, including overhead and profit, for the SEH staff that are likely to perform services for the comprehensive plan update. Additional staff may contribute to the project based on need, which we can discuss as necessary. Mark Nolan Project Manager/Senior Urban Planner $110 f Dan Jochum Community Planner $74 Dave Mitchell Senior Professional Engineer $127 Bob Rogers Senior Transportation Planner $97 Dennis Tumberg GIS Specialist $80 Danyelle Payne Urban Designer $65 Debra Lee Administrative Assistant $65 y:\w\wrigh10601Wwffcspondcncc1sch wright county land use plan exhibit a.dnc Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Exhibit A - 2 City of Gem Lake (Form 05116/02) Comcast Message Center Page 1 of 1 From: pemeott@comcast.net To: "Hoeschler, Jack" <JHoeschler@dart.net> Subject: Re: Resignation Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:49:56 +0000 Jack, I acknowledge receipt of your resignation from the Gem Lake Planning Commission and will be happy to meet with you and discuss any questions you have when you return. Paul Emeott Mayor - City of Gem Lake -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Hoeschler, Jack" <JHoesc erddart.net> > Dear Mayor Emeott and Council Members: > > Since I am out of the country and I and my family only first learned of your > recent decision from newspaper reports, please accept this informal notice of my > immediate resignation as both chair and member of the planning commission. I > trust that this meets your needs. > > Jack Hoeschler Back ] © 2006 Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. littp ; //mail center. comca,st. net/wmc/v/wm/449A92F 9000DD99C 0000264122007601809B 9 ... 6/22/2006 CITY OF GEM LAKE Office of the City Clerk _ - — 1369 County Road "E" East``' . 1. Gem Lake, MN 55110-5231 Telephone: ( 651) 426 - 6443 Email: gemlakecity@aol.com Facsimile: (651) 426 - 6444 Memo to: Mayor Emeott Cc: Fritz Magnuson, City Council, Planning Commission, City Attorney From: Jack Hoeschler, Planning Commission Chair Date: June 6, 2006 Re: Planning Commission Meeting of June 5, 2006 The Gem Lake Planning Commission held its June meeting at 7 pm on Tuesday, May 2, 2006, at Tousley Ford, by prearrangement and special notice. Messrs Lindner, Wippich and Hoeschler were present along with Messrs Emeott and Magnuson acting as co -zoning administrators, Mr. McNulty, his counsel and court reporter, and a significant number of citizens were also present. The items discussed and actions taken were as follows: 1. Introduction of Mark Nolan, architect and planner with SEH who will be assisting us as we review and update our comprehensive plan. 2. Petition of Mike and Ann Strommen of 3910 Scliueneman Road for a sideline setback variance of 9 feet for a 24' x 24' garage. The variance request is from the 15-foot sideline setback. The request is founded on a desire to line the new garage up with an existing 24' x 24' garage (which is deemed by the zoning administrators to be attached to the existing structure because it is joined by a deck and less than 6 feet from the house). Messrs Magnuson and Emeott recommended approval because the new garage lined up with the old one and was therefore hidden from view from the street. The neighbor most directly affected did not appear and apparently does not object. Mr. Hoeschler asked questions about the size of accessory buildings (it was stated that a variance from the 1000 SF requirement was not required because the existing garage was attached and therefore not accessory), and the hardship involved (it was stated that the placement was required by the location of the existing drain field). Mr. Lindner moved to recommend approval and Mr. Wippich seconded that motion. They both voted in favor of the motion and Mr. Hoeschler voted against expressing concern about the hardship issue but stating that he was also favorably influenced by the fact that the neighbors did not object. The motion to recommend therefore passed 2-1. 3. Shirley CUP request for 1400 Goose Lake Road for review and approval of a walkout elevation of 44 feet. Mr. Magnuson reported that the Shirleys had agreed to allow their plans to be considered under the new site review process that we are in the process of adopting as a result of negotiations with Mr. McNulty. Plans prepared by Chris Doehrmann, Architect were displayed and discussed. The plans consisted of a site plan, floor plans for each of two levels and elevations from four directions. Mr. Magnuson reported that the site review committee of Messrs Emeott and Rafferty had reviewed the plans and recommended review. The big issue was the 44-foot height along a portion of the NE fagade that is required in order to allow the Shirley's motor home to be garaged below the first floor of the house. Mr. Shirley and Mr. Doehrmann explained that the entry to the motor home garage was oriented away from neighboring houses, mitigated by a 2-foot overhang along that facade, limited to only the door area by the 5-foot cut in the prevailing ground level and hidden from the street by the auto garage on level I. Mr. Hoeschler complemented Mr. Doehrmann on the completeness of the plan set, the orientation of the house and the detailing on the garage door (to keep it from looking like a big, industrial door), but expressed concern that Mrs. Swomley, the nearest neighbor was not present. (He said he had visited the site earlier in the day and was satisfied that the high facade in question was well screened by the topography, the building design and the woods in the NW front of the Swomley lot. Mrs. Swomley then appeared and expressed appreciation for the orientation of the house, but (later) expressed concern about the general size of the house. After further discussion of the fact that our existing and still -in -force ordinance does not require review of a CUP for a walkout fagade of this height, the design was unanimously recommended for approval to the City Council under the CUP provisions of the new ordinance that is likely to be approved by the Council. 4. Final review and public hearing regarding amended and restated Ordinance 43H then took place. The Chairman thanked Mr. McNulty, Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Swomley, Messrs Rafferty and Emeott, and Mr. Rossow and others for their helpful and detailed suggestions that have improved the final product. He also described for the audience the principal changed provisions in the l 04-page document. Since this was a public hearing, questions and comments from the audience were entertained throughout. Members of the audience expressed strong concern about the height of homes and Mr. Hoeschler explained that since our existing ordinance only controlled the front elevation, the new ordinance attempts to force a discussion of the design and impact on neighboring properties of walkout facades up to 10 feet higher than the front elevation limits by requiring a Conditional Use Permit for such facades. He said that Mr. McNulty had objected to any review procedure but that this was felt to be a reasonable compromise between advocates for the same absolute height limit on all facades and the no -control approach of the current ordinance. Mr. Hoeschler also described the new site plan review procedure that is intended to expedite such reviews for the benefit of the owner/developer. He said that this procedure would also involve affective notice to and consultation with impacted neighbors. He explained that this procedure would allow the owner/developer to bypass the Planning Commission and take any affected designs directly to the Council for review and approval. In the course of the discussion Mr. McNulty objected that Mr. Hoeschler was speaking too much and taking too long in his explanation of the ordinance. He said that the existing, operative rules did not require property owners such as the Tanqwells to agree to any additional screening vegetation (though he implied that they had graciously agreed to do so in response to concerns about the massive appearance of their home). Mr. Hoeschler replied that that sort of compromise was exactly what the new CUP and site plan review procedures were intended to foster. In response to the neighbors' complaint that the Hillary Farm model did not fit in with the existing housing in Gem Lake, Mr. McNulty suggested (in an apparent joke) that that was a good thing. The neighbors failed to see the humor in his remark. 2 At about that point Mr. McNulty left the room (in apparent irritation) and did not return for the rest of the discussion. The discussion continued regarding new CUP procedures in lieu of absolute 100-foot setbacks for stables and kennels, liberalization of the LDB district rules, the anticipated (but not in this version) addition of PUD procedures for the RB, GB and LDB districts, the addition of a park dedication requirement, and the use of time -limited Interim Use Permits in addition to Conditional Use Permits that are not time limited and which run with the land. Mr. Hoeschler explained that there had been a large number of typographical and section cross reference changes made in the latest draft after distribution to interested parties. These and other changes were summarized in a listing provided to the Commission by Mr. Magnuson. Mr. Hoeschler then asked for and received public input on the following: a. Liberalization of storm water runoff and detention rules to meet concerns of the Hillary Farm team. Audience members warned the City about legal exposure for not following the more strict state rules and guidelines. Mr. Magnuson described discussions with Mr. McNulty which he hoped would result in a hold harmless agreement from Mr. McNulty re any Hillary Farm homeowner claims. b. 25% lot coverage (verses 30%) limits in R-1 zones. It was explained that there had been an inconsistency in the language of the earlier drafts (calling variously for a 25% or a 30% coverage limit). 25% had been chosen as the final figure after analyzing the 11,500 SF Larkin home design and confirming that it, with its pool and drive areas as well as a possible tennis court, would not be constrained by a 25% limit. The audience seemed satisfied with this. c. 100' rather than 150' setback limits from the lake. Some audience members spoke strongly in favor of using a variance procedure rather than the site review committee or CUP procedures or the more liberal numbers in parts of the proposed Code. Mr. Hoeschler thanked the public for taking the time to appear and speak on these matters because arguments had been previously heard that only the Planning Commission seemed to be concerned about issues like height. He said that the comments made reflected what he had heard informally in discussions with various property owners. He explained that an absolute 35-foot limit on all facades had been considered (with a variance procedure as the relief device) but that idea had not seemed to gain traction. Mr. Hoeschler asked Amy Cralam, Mr. McNulty's attorney, for her comments and she distributed a 3-page letter which objected to: storm water control rules (even if more liberal than state guidelines) unless Hillary Farm is given a blanket exemption, definitions respecting the height rules, the use of a CUP and additional setback requirements re height of walkouts, prohibition of artificial grading to facilitate walkouts, and 70% (or 75%) open space requirements in the R-1 zone. Her letter was received into the record. After further discussion between Mr. Emeott and Ms. Cralam re the time limits for the site review committee procedure, the Commission voted 3-0 to recommend the latest language of the proposed ordinance to the City Council for adoption. Mr. Magnuson will email to all interested parties the final language of the proposed ordinance before the Council meeting on June 19. There being no further business and the rain having stopped, the meeting was adjourned. N 4 ''" JUN 14 2006 OAH 2-0330-16644-2 STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT UNIT In Re the Petition of Bryan Hansen and Robert Hansen, for the Concurrent FINDINGS OF FACT, Detachment and Annexation of Certain CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, Land pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, AND ORDER Section 414.061 (D-417) (A-7228) The above -entitled matter came on for hearing before Administrative Law Judge Raymond R. Krause at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 10, 2006, in Courtroom 3 of the Office of Administrative Hearings, 100 Washington Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The hearing continued on two subsequent days and ended on May 12, 2006. The hearing was recorded on tape. The final written memorandum was received on May 22, 2006 and the record closed on that date. Edward W. Gale, Esq., of the firm of Leonard, O'Brien, Spencer, Gale & Sayre, 100 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500, Minneapolis, MN 55402, appeared representing the City of Gem Lake. Harry T. Niemeyer, Esq., of the firm of Stringer & Rohleder, 1200 Fifth Street Center, 55 East Fifth Street, St. Paul Minnesota 55101, appeared on behalf of Petitioner Bryan Hansen. Timothy W. Ridley, Esq., of the firm of Meagher & Geer, 33 S. Sixth Street, Suite 4200, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, appeared representing Petitioner Robert Hansen. Caroline Bell -Beckman, Esq., of the firm of Jensen, Bell, Converse & Erickson, P.A., 1500 Wells Fargo Place, 30 East Seventh Street, St. Paul Minnesota, 55101 appeared representing the City of Vadnais Heights. STATEMENT OF ISSUE The issue in this proceeding is whether or not the Petition for Concurrent Detachment and Annexation should be granted or denied based upon the factors set out in statute.' The ALJ finds that the Petition should be denied. Based upon all of the testimony, exhibits and the record in this proceeding, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: Minn. Stat. §§ 414.061, 414.02, subd. 3. IVA FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural History "M RY JUN 14 2006 1. On January 14, 2005, Bryan Hansen, representing himself, filed a petition with the Municipal Boundary Adjustment Unit ("MBA") seeking the concurrent detachment and annexation -of approximately 18 acres of property located in the City of Gem Lake, to the City of Vadnais Heights. The area proposed for detachment and annexation ("the Subject Property') is described as follows: That part of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/) of Section Twenty- seven (27), Township Thirty (30), Range Twenty-two (22), Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the south line of said Southwest Quarter (SW '/4), a distant of 874.07 feet west of the Southeast comer of said Southwest Quarter (SW '/4); thence North 0 degrees 03 minutes 30 seconds East 1139.59 feet more or less to the southerly line of premises described in deed recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Ramsey County, Minnesota in Book "1453" of Deeds, Page 152, thence westerly along the southerly line of premises described in Book "1453" of Deeds, Page 152, and said line extended to the easterly line of premises described in Deed recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Ramsey County, Minnesota, in Book "1454" of Deeds, page 213; thence south 50 degrees 50 minutes west, a distance of 46.61 feet; thence south 68 degrees 31 minutes west, a distance of 85 feet; thence north 72 degrees 03 minutes west, a distance of 52 feet; thence south 26 degrees 21 minutes west, a distance of 210.5 feet; thence south at right angles to the south line of said Southwest Quarter (SW '/4) a distance of 886 feet to the south line of said Southwest Quarter (SW '/); thence east along the south line of said Southwest Quarter (SW '/) a distance of 816.28 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom a 40 foot wide road easement, the westerly and northerly line of which is described as follows: Beginning at a point on the south line of said Southwest Quarter (SW %) of said Section Twenty-seven (27), a distant 935 feet east of the South-west comer of said Section Twenty-seven (27); thence north at right angles to said south line 886 feet; thence north 26 degrees 20 minutes east, 210.5 feet; thence south 72 degrees 03 minutes east 52 feet; thence north 68 degrees 31 minutes east 85 feet; thence north 50 degrees 50 minutes east to the extended south line of premises described in said Book "1453" Deeds, Page 152. Together with an easement for road purposes, in common with others, over and across the last above -described 40 foot road easement. 4 ' C1) ar tone e JUN 14 2006 2. On September 21, 2004, a resolution supporting the annexation petition of the Subject Property was passed by the City Council of the City of Vadnais Heights .2 3. The MBA set the petition on for hearing for May 3, 2005. Notice of the hearing was published in the White Bear Press and Vadnais Heights Press. The hearing was rescheduled due to a notice error for May 9, 2005. The hearing opened on May 9, 2005 and was immediately continued to an indefinite date and referred to the undersigned ALJ for hearing. 4. The ALJ set a prehearing conference for Friday June 10, 2005. 5. Prehearing conferences were conducted by the Administrative Law Judge on June 10, 2005 and December 12, 2005. The hearing was set for February 21, 2006. 6. On November 17, 2005, the City of Gem Lake filed a Motion to Dismiss based upon a Ramsey County District Court decision that found that Petitioner Bryan Hansen was not the sole owner of the Subject Property. The decision by the district court found that Robert Hansen, brother of the Petitioner had a half interest in the Subject Property. Minn. Stat. § 414.061, subd. 5 requires the signatures of all owners to a petition for concurrent detachment and annexation. 7. Robert Hansen joined in an Amended Petition and the Motion to Dismiss was denied. 8. A Notice of Hearing in this matter was issued by the Office of Administrative Hearings on January 5, 2006 and duly published. 9. On January 13, 2006, the City of Gem Lake moved this ALJ for an Order of Dismissal for failure of the Petitioner to comply with the Prehearing Order. On January 17, 2006, Petitioner Bryan Hansen filed a motion to withdraw his Petition without prejudice. 10. The Motion to Withdraw without prejudice and the Motion to Dismiss were denied and the matter set for Hearing on May 10, 11, and 12, 2006. The parties requested an extension of the statutory deadline for completion of the decision in this matter. That request was granted for good cause shown. 11. Notice of the reconvened hearing was issued and duly published. 12. On May 4, 2006 a Notice of Appearance was filed noting that Bryan and Robert Hansen would be represented by counsel at the hearing. 2 Ex. 28. 3 M IS JUN 1 4 2006 13. At the hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation with regard to certain facts in this matter. The stipulation has been incorporated into these Findings of Fact. No agreement was reached between the parties as to a division of costs per Minn. Stat. § 414.12, subd. 3. Area Characteristics 14. Gem Lake became a city in 1959.3 15. The total acreage of Gem Lake is approximately 720 acres.a 16. Gem Lake includes a body of water also known as Gem Lake which is approximately 25 acres in size.5 17. Gem Lake's northern and eastern boundaries are the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. its southern boundary, except for the Hoffman Comers area, is County Road E. Its western boundary is Labore Road s 18. The population of Gem Lake per the 2000 census was 420 residents_ 7 The population in 1980 was 410. The population of Vadnais Heights has increased from 5,111 in 1980 to 13,500 currently.0 19. There are approximately 157 households in Gem Lake. There are approximately 37 businesses located within Gem Lake 9 20. The City of White Bear Lake abuts Gem Lake on the east and northeast. White Bear Township abuts Gem Lake on the north and northwest. Vadnais Heights abuts Gem Lake on the west and south.90 "Hoffman's Corners" is a primarily commercial area on the southeast comer of the city boundary. This area is surrounded on three sides by Vadnais Heights and White Bear Lake." 21. Interstate Highway 35 E is approximately a half mile west of Gem Lake. Highway 61 is on the eastern edge of Gem Lake. County Road E connects between Interstate Highway 35 E and Hi, 61. Interstate Highway 694 is approximately one mile south of Gem Lake.' 22. The City of Gem Lake is largely wooded_ Residential development to date has been primarily single-family homes (99.3%). This compares to White 3 Stip. 1, 4 Stip. 2. 5 Stip. 3. 6 Stip. 4. 7 Stip. 5. a Ex. 32. s Stip. 6. 10 Stip. 8. " Ex. 43, P. I. 12 Stip. 9 and 10, Ex. 43, p. 3. 0 "McI dY JUN 14 2006 Bear Lake with 27.9 percent multi -family housing units and Vadnais Heights with 18.0 percent multi -family structures and 7.4 percent mobile homes. There are no public open spaces or recreational areas in Gem Lake.13 23. The nearest regional shopping area to Gem Lake is the Maplewood Mall, approximately three miles away. The nearest community shopping center is the Vadnais Heights City Center, one half mile from Gem Lake.14 Most of Gem Lake's commercial development is confined to the "Hoffman's Corners" area in the extreme southeast portion of the city and along Highway 61.15 There is little if any office or industrial development within the city. 24. The nearest hospital is St. John's Hospital in Maplewood, approximately two miles distant.17 Subject Property 25. The Subject Property is approximately 17.64 acres situated on the southern border of Gem Lake with Vadnais Heights." The Subject Property is bordered on the south by County Road E. It is bordered on the east by the Tousley Ford automotive dealership property. The Subject Property is bounded on the west by a private road on which the Subject Property holds an easement. The Subject Property is bordered on the north by residential property owners in Gem Lake.19 26. The private road bounding the west of the Subject Property extends from County Road E to various properties to the north of the Subject Property. The private road is owned and maintained by a corporation (The South Roadowners Association of Gem Lake) formed by the property owners it serves. 20 27. The front approximate 11 acres of the Subject Property is zoned LDB (low -density business).21 It is the only parcel of land within the city that is, or ever was so zoned.22 The rear approximate six acres is zoned R1 (three acres residential lots23). The rear six acres contain Department of Natural Resources designated wetlands 24 13 Ex. 45, p. 7-14. 14 Stip. 11. 15 Ex. 43, p. 1. 16 Ex. 45, p.12, 13. 17 Stip 12. 18 Stip. 18, Ex. 43. 19 Ex.43, P. 1. 20 Stip. 22. 21 Stip. No. 19. 22 Ex. 43, p. 2, Testimony of P. Emeott, Tape 5 at 2795. 23 Stip. 20. 24 Stip. 21. 5 1 mc°IDY JUN 14 2006 28. The Subject Property has been part of Gem Lake since the city was incorporated in 1959.25 The Subject Property receives no governmental services other than fire and police protection which are provided under contract by non - Gem Lake service providers. Administration 29. Traditionally, the terms "urban" and "city" have been used synonymously by planners to connote the availability of a full range of services, including central sanitary sewer, public water, schools, higher levels of police and fire protection, a full range of housing types and densities, and significant employment opportunities. Police protection in an urban community is available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, for example. The City of Vadnais Heights has the full range of these urban characteristics; the City of Gem Lake does not. Gem Lake has a Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission, City Clerk, Zoning Administrators, and Code Enforcement Officers. All of these positions are part- time. The Mayor and City Clerk also serve as co -zoning administrators for additional compensation. The Cityy Council is a five -member body, directly elected by the citizens of Gem Lake. s 30. Both Gem Lake and Vadnais Heights provide police protection to their residents and businesses through a contract with the Ramsey County Sherriffs Department. 27 31. Gem Lake provides fire protection through a contract with White Bear Lake. Vadnais Heights has its own fire department. 28 32. Gem Lake contracts needs. Vadnais Hengineering Heights hasitsown staff for these planning and engineering purposes but also contracts with SEH for special needs.29 33. Gem Lake and a portion of Vadnais Heights are in the White Bear Lake ISD No. 624 School District 30 Both Gem Lake and Vadnais Heights are in Ramsey County. Water and Sewer 34. Gem Lake has a municipal sewer system. Approximately 44 residences and 35 businesses are connected to the city sewer system. The remaining residences are on individual septic systems .31 A majority of Gem Lake 25 Stip. 23. 28 Ex. 45, p. 4. 27 Stip. 14. 28 Stip_ 15 and 16. 29 Stip. 17, Testimony of I Urban. 30 Stip. 7. 31 Stip.24 0 'M 3 AN 1 4 2006 citizens are opposed to further extensions of the Gem Lake sewer system.az Gem Lake provides city water to Tousley Ford and municipal sewer and water to the White Bear Montessori School under a joint powers agreement with Vadnais Heights.33 There are no existing sewer or water connections to the Subject Property. The nearest Gem Lake sewer is 200 feet from the Subject Property near the comer of County road E and Highway 61 adjacent to Tousley Ford.sa The Gem Lake Comprehensive Plan calls for future sewer connections to the Vadnais Heights ystem when developing the commercial zone that includes the Subject Property. 3 The Mayor and other representatives of Gem Lake, however, insist that the only sewer connection for the Subject Property must be through the Gem Lake sewer system.36 Gem Lake does not have its own municipal water supply. It contracts for water service with neighboring communities that have municipal water supply.37 35. Vadnais Heights has an extensive sewer system that provides service to the residents and businesses of Vadnais Heights and to some entities outside of Vadnais Heights.38 The Subject Property is bordered on the south by County Road E, beneath which is the Vadnais Heights sewer line. The Vadnais Heights sewer line has capacity for reasonable development of the Subject Property.39 Connection to the Vadnais Heights sewer system would be less costly to a developer of the Subject Property than connection to the Gem Lake system.ao Gem Lake Comprehensive Plan 36. The City of Gem Lake adopted a Comprehensive Plan ("the Comprehensive Plan") for the city in 1997.4' The Comprehensive Plan contains a section entitled "Community Goals."42 The Community Goals are described as "the principal guidelines for the physical development of Gem Lake" and all policies of the Comprehensive Plan should be considered supplemental to the Community Goals.as 37. The relevant Community Goals as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan are: 1) The residents of Gem Lake desire to preserve and maintain a "small town" environment in a natural setting; 2) the residents of Gem Lake wish to contain future commercial development within the community; and 32 Ex. 45 App. A. 33 Stip. 25. 34 Test. of P. Emeott, Tape 5 at 2431, J.Thomas, Tape 1 at 3820. 35 Ex. 45, pg. 44. 38 Testimony of J.Thomas, P. Emeott. 37 Testimony of P. Emeott, tape 5 at 2590. 38 Testimony of G. Urban. 39 Testimony of G. Urban. 40 Testimony of J. Thomas, B. Hansen, Testimony of G. Urban, Tape 7 at 3178. 4' Ex. 45. 42 Ex. 45, p. 16-17. J 43 id. 7 P.En a'l MM2 J [ i 4 2006 3) the residents of Gem Lake desire to have a low -profile govemment that provides only essential public services necessary for their health, safety, and welfare.`4 38. The Comprehensive Plan describes several "Principal Issues" that face the community. The relevant issues cited are: 1) "Gem Lake will seek to maintain a low -density residential development pattern. This commitment responds to substantial pressure from developers who seek to construct higher density developments."; 2) the City's intention to maintain a stance of commercial containment ... additional commercial development would undermine the low= density character desired in the City .... 39. Relevant land - development goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan reinforce the desire of the residents to maintain a "small- town" character.46 40. Section 5.3.4 of the Comprehensive Plan addresses the specific policies of the Comprehensive Plan with regard to the Subject Property. 47 Fiscal Matters 41. Gem Lake has a net tax capacity of $746,000 and a current levy of $180'000 48 The tax levy for Gem Lake in 2005, according to the testimony of the Mayor was $241'000.49 The property tax for 2005 on the Subject Property was $4300, of which $1100 was Gem Lake's share of the total tax.50 The total operating budget for the City of Gem Lake is $317,000 for 2006.51 Vadnais Heights has a net tax capacity of $11,729,680, and a current levy of $2,634,000. 42. If developed to its highest and best use, the property taxes on the Subject Property are estimated to be between $300,000 and $440'000.52 Zoning/Planning 43. On September 22, 1981, the City of Gem Lake adopted Ordinance No. 40, which was the zoning ordinance for the city from that date until March, 2006.53 Ordinance No. 40 states that among the principal permitted uses for the land zoned as LDB are churches and business and professional offices. The ordinance also restricts the time of operation of any permitted use to the 44 Id. 45 Ex. 45, P. 17-20. 46 Ex 45, p. 20-24. 47 Ex. 45, p. 28-30. 48 Exs. 32, 33. 49 Test. of P. Emeott, Tape 5 at 2620. 50 Testimony of B. Hansen. 51 Test. of P. Emeott, Tape 5 at 2615. 52 Test. of P. Emeott, Tape 5 at 2650 and 6170. 53 EX. 15. 0 hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, including churches and synagogues. 44. Ordinance No. 40 was amended in March 2006.55 The section of Ordinance 40 relating to the land zoned LDB was replaced with new language 56 Although the Comprehensive Plan for Gem Lake specifically suggests the use of the Subject Property to be for `office park" development or "life cycle/condominium type residential uses"57, Ordinance 40 does not permit the use of the Subject Property for residential development other than that meeting the R-2 (1 unit per acre) zoning.58 45. As part of its process in developing the Comprehensive Plan for Gem Lake, the city undertook a survey of its residents 59 The response to the survey shows that the citizens of the city oppose by over 97 percent, any change to the low -density residential, "rustic" environment. The survey also shows that 87 percent of the responders feel that commercial development should be contained and over 91 percent do not favor a change to the low -profile city government providing only essential services. 46. The testimony of several developers with experience in working with metro area municipalities established that Gem Lake has a reputation for being difficult to work with regarding development.60 This reputation is corroborated by actions of the mayor and the City Council such as withholding information regarding public meetings from citizens seeking zoning changes ,6 and passing zoning ordinances that allow churches and synagogues to be built but not used on weekends.62 47. The City Administrator of Vadnais Heights believes that the possible permitted land uses for the Subject Property if annexed to Vadnais Heights would not be dissimilar to the uses allowed by the Gem Lake LDB zoning designation.sa Metropolitan Council 48. The Metropolitan Council's current role is to review and comment on plans, addressing each plan's compatibility and conformity with regional plans and systems, with an eye toward possible adverse impacts on the regional 54 Id. 55 Ex. 24, Test. of P. Emeott. 56 Ex. 24. 57 Ex. 45, sec. 5.3.4, pars C. 5a Ex. 24. 59 Ex.45, App. A. 60 Testimony of R. McNulty, Test. of Jason Thomas, Test. of Bryan Hansen. 6' Ex A4, Test. of B. Hansen,Tr. Tape 4 at 805. 62 Ex.15. J 63 Test. of G. Urban, Tape 6 at 600, Tape 7 at 3440. L BY M 5 JUN 14 2006 system. The Council has had the power to direct a change in the local comprehensive plan. 49. The Metropolitan Council reviewed Gem Lake's Comprehensive Plan in 1997. The Metropolitan Council adopted a report that contained the following recommendations, among others not relevant to this matter. 1) Inform the City of Gem Lake that its comprehensive plan is not consistent with the Regional Blueprint because it proposes Gem Lake will remain as quasi -rural (unsewered) and proposes no intensification of land use even though it is entirely inside the present MUSA and has good access to regional systems. 2) Inform the City of Gem Lake that it can adopt its comprehensive plan and that no plan modifications are required. 3) Encourage the city to modify its plan to provide for higher residential densities and intensification of land uses and expansion of public sewer to serve these land uses in appropriate areas of the community such as those vacant lands adjacent to County Road E_ 4) Encourage the city to use cluster planning techniques as it develops its remaining vacant residential land which would allow more economical urbanization of the community should public sewer and water be needed in the future. 5) Encourage the city to work with neighboring communities in the planning and development of affordable and life cycle housing. 50. The Gem Lake Comprehensive Plan was adopted without modification. The Metropolitan Council has not subsequently required amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administrative -Law Judge makes the following: CONCLUSIONS 1. The Administrative Law Judge has jurisdiction in this matter through the MBA under Minn. Stat. §§ 414.09, 414.02, 414.031, and 414.12. 2. - That proper notice of the hearing in this matter has been given. 3. That the subject area described in the Petition (A-7228) (D-417) is urban or suburban in character. Jsa Ex. U-5 10 MMS AN 1 4 2006 4. That detachment of the Subject Property from Gem Lake and annexation to Vadnais Heights is not required to protect the public health, safety and welfare. 5. That detachment and annexation of the Subject Property is in the best interest of the Subject Property owners, and in the best interests of the City of Vadnais Heights. 6. That the remainder of the City of Gem Lake would not suffer undue hardship by virtue of the annexation of the Subject Property by Vadnais Heights. 7. That there would be some benefits to Gem Lake by the detachment of the Subject Property and concurrent annexation to Vadnais Heights. 8. That the proposed detachment and concurrent annexation would, on balance, not be in the best interests of the City of Gem Lake. 9. That citations to transcripts or exhibits in these Findings of Fact do not mean that all evidentiary support in the record has been cited. 10. That these conclusions are arrived at for the reasons set out in the Memorandum which follows and which is incorporated into these conclusions by reference. Based upon the foregoing Conclusions of Law, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: ORDER 1. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Detachment and Concurrent Annexation is DENIED. 2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the costs of this proceeding are divided 50 percent to the Petitioners and 50 percent to the City of Gem Lake per Minn. Stat. 414.12, subd.3. 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the effective date of this Order is June 16, 2006. Dated: June 2006 (� RAYMOND R. KRAUSE Chief Administrative. Law Judge Taped: Seven tapes no transcript prepared. 11 T` JUN 14 2606 NOTICE This Order is the final administrative decision in this case under Minn. Stat. §§ 414.061, 414.09, 414.12. Any person aggrieved by this Order may appeal to Ramsey County District Court by filing an Application for Review with the Court Administrator within 30 days of the date of this Order. An appeal does not stay the effect of this Order.65 Any party may submit a written request for an amendment of these Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order within 7 days from the date of the mailing of the Order. ss However, no request for amendment shall extend the time of appeal from these Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. MEMORANDUM This is a concurrent detachment and annexation proceeding under Chapter 414 to consider a petition filed with the Municipal Boundary Adjustment Unit. Bryan Hansen filed first, seeking to have the approximately 18-acre property on the southern border of the City of Gem Lake detached from Gem Lake and annexed to the City of Vadnais Heights. He was subsequently joined in the petition by his brother and co-owner Robert Hansen. Statutory Factors Concurrent detachment and annexation of property by the landowner is governed by Minn. Stat. § 414.061. In arriving at a determination in such a case, the thirteen factors set out in Minn. Stat. § 414.02 subd. 3 are to be considered. The following discussion relates these factors to the evidence in this hearing record: a. Present population and number of households, past population and projected population growth for the subject area. The City of Gem Lake has a population of approximately 420 residents. There are approximately 157 households within its city limits. Portions of the city are still undeveloped. - Most of the residential and commercial development is concentrated on the eastern side of the city. The surrounding communities of White Bear Lake, White Bear Township and Vadnais Heights are substantially more intensely developed and more densely populated than Gem Lake. The communities around the City of Gem Lake have experienced substantial population growth in the last 50 years while Gem Lake has maintained a more rural character than the surrounding communities. In fact, Gem Lake has grown by only 10-30 people since 1980. The Metropolitan Council has expressed the ss Minn. Stat. § 414.07, subd. 2. 66 Minn. R. 6000.3100. 12 MMB JUN 14 2006 J need for Gem Lake to plan for and develop higher densities of residential housing and provide public water and sewer in response to the growth and urbanization of the surrounding communities. Compliance with these recommendations has not occurred. b. Quantity of land within the subject area; the natural terrain including recognizable physical features, general topography, major watersheds, soil conditions and such natural features as rivers, lakes and major bluffs. The City of Gem Lake is essentially suburban in nature. The terrain is heavily wooded. The main geographic feature is the 25 acre lake, also known as Gem Lake. The lake is entirely within the boundaries of the City of Gem Lake. The City of Gem Lake is 720 acres, none of which is intensively developed urban property. The City has a gently rolling topography. There are no physical features of the City that will prevent either detachment or annexation. However, having the immediate watershed of Gem Lake within one jurisdiction would seem to allow for more efficient and effective protection of this important community resource. (c) Present pattern of physical development, planning, and intended land uses in the subject area including residential, industrial, commercial, and institutional land uses and the impact of the proposed action on those uses. The City of Gem Lake's boundaries are adjacent to the City of Vadnais Heights on the entire south boundary of Gem Lake, the entire westerly boundary and part of the easterly boundary of Gem Lake. The southern border of Gem Lake is County Road E. That road is also part of the northern boundary of Vadnais Heights. Most of Gem Lake is zoned for single family residential purposes. There are no multifamily housing developments, no industrial development and limited commercial development. The Subject Property fronts on County Road E on the southern border of Gem Lake. The land to the west of the Subject Property is undeveloped and zoned R-1 residential. The land to the north is partially developed into residences and is also zoned R-1 for residences on three acre parcels. The land to the east of the subject property is zoned commercial and is currently occupied by one of the largest Ford automotive dealers in the Midwest. The Subject Property is currently undeveloped. It consists of approximately 18 acres. The northernmost six acres contain DNR designated wetlands. The front 12 acres of the Subject Property are zoned LBD (low density business). The Subject Property is the only parcel in the City of Gem Lake so 13 MMB JUN 14 2008 K zoned. The area to the east and southeast of the Ford dealership is commonly referred to as Hoffman's Comers. This is the main commercial area within the city limits. The Hoffman's Comer's area is served by Highway 61 and County Road E. The pattern of development places the Subject Property squarely between substantial commercial development and three acre minimum, high value, residential development. County Road E is a high volume connector road leading from Interstate 35 to the commercial area of Hoffman's Corners and Highway 61. The land abutting this county road, including the Subject Property, will not remain rural in nature for long. Detachment from Gem Lake and annexation by Vadnais Heights will not change the planned use or the character of the Subject Property but will merely expedite the inevitable development of it. (d) Present transportation network and potential transportation issues, including proposed highway development. Gem Lake and Vadnais Heights are served by the same county road system and state highways. There are no significant issues with regard to transportation that bear on whether the Subject Property is in one jurisdiction or the other. (e) Land use controls and planning presently being utilized in the subject area, including comprehensive plans, policies of the Metropolitan Council; and whether there are inconsistencies between proposed development and existing land use controls. Gem Lake has a Comprehensive Plan developed in 1997. Although it was not consistent with the Regional Blueprint in several respects, the Metropolitan Council allowed the City of Gem Lake to adopt the Comprehensive Plan without amendment. The current zoning ordinances are consistent with the community goal set out in the Comprehensive Plan that Gem Lake wishes to preserve its rural . feel. That goal, however, is one of the concerns of the Metropolitan Council. Maintaining its rural appearance in the face of the intense growth and development surrounding it is at odds with the growth and development management goals of the Metropolitan Council's Blueprint. It is apparent from the very credible testimony of multiple witnesses that vague and subjective ordinances are being used by officials of Gem Lake to discourage any development that does not suit their personal interests and that the practices and policies implementing those ordinances have been at best unpredictable and at worst possibly self-serving and subject to conflicts of interests. At a minimum, Gem Lake has used its current and previous zoning ordinances to fend off development that it deems is inconsistent with the "feel" that it wishes to maintain. While there was some testimony that the zoning ordinances and 14 'm e� JUN 11 4 2006 permitting processes were illegally misused, there was insufficient evidence to make specific findings of fact in that regard. What is clear is that Gem Lake has resisted and is intent on continuing to resist higher density development as suggested by the Metropolitan Council. In fairness, few of the attempts at development have proceeded far enough through the process to have had an outright and official rejection by the City of Gem Lake. Consequently, there is no way to say definitively what would have happened should any of the proposals have come to a vote by the city council. Vadnais Heights, on the other hand, has recognized the growth and development realities of its location. The zoning ordinances are clear and enforced professionally. It is apparent from the testimony that the owners of the subject property find Vadnais Heights a more welcoming and more efficient entity with which to work toward development than is Gem Lake. (f) Existing levels of governmental services being provided to the subject area, including water and sewer service, fire rating and protection, law enforcement, street improvements and maintenance, administrative services, and 'recreational facilities and the impact of the proposed action on the delivery of the services. The City of Gem Lake has entirely part time staff. Some are employed directly by the city and some are contract employees of private service providers. There are no public parks or other public recreational facilities. Gem Lake relies upon the White Bear Fire Department. Vadnais Heights has its own fire department. Both Gem Lake and Vadnais Heights contract with the Ramsey County Sherriff's Office for police protection. The City of Gem Lake has a municipal sewer system. Despite the recommendations of the Metropolitan Council in 1997, the city has not brought sewer and water connections to much of its developed or undeveloped areas. The City of Gem Lake has, however, recently developed city sewer and water for the businesses and residences along Scheuneman Road on the east side of the city. (g) Existing or potential environmental problems and whether the proposed action is likely to improve or resolve these problems. There are no environmental problems in the City which cannot be resolved with the present forms of government. While the City of Gem Lake understandably has a concern with development that may have an impact on the lake's water characteristics such as quality, runoff, and flooding, both Gem Lake and Vadnais Heights are part of the Vadnais Lakes Area Waste Management 15 M S JUN 14 2006 Organization (VLAWMO). This organization has authority to control any environmental threats to the lake from runoff on the Subject Property. In fact, the mayor of Gem Lake currently chairs VLAWMO. (h) Fiscal impact on the subject area and adjacent units of local government, including present bonded indebtedness; local tax rates of the county, school district, and other governmental units, including,- where applicable, the net tax capacity of platted and unplatted lands and the division of homestead and nonhomestead property; and other tax aid issues. As a small city that is surrounded by other cities, Gem Lake has limited opportunities for developing its tax base. Given the large areas of the city that are zoned residential, the opportunities for commercial development are further limited. The Subject Property represents a significant amount of the city's potential for enhancing its commercial property tax base. The tax revenue to Gem Lake from property taxes on the Subject Property, if developed, would not be inconsequential. The loss of that potential for revenue would be of greater impact on Gem Lake than the corresponding increase in revenue would be to Vadnais Heights, given the size of their respective budgets. If left undeveloped, the Subject Property generates Tittle property tax revenue and has little impact on the budget of Gem Lake. (i) Relationship and effect of the proposed action on affected and adjacent school districts and communities. The City of Gem Lake and the City of Vadnais Heights are both within the White Bear School District. There would be no impact on the school district. (j) Whether delivery of services to the subject area can be adequately and economically delivered by the existing government. The City of Gem Lake is capable of providing the minimal levels of service that its citizens prefer. There is a real question, however, if it can and will provide the sewer and water service for the development of its remaining vacant land, including the Subject Property, on an economical and timely basis. (k) Analysis of whether necessary governmental services can best be provided through the proposed action or another type of boundary adjustment. Necessary government services can best be provided by annexation of the Subject Property to the City of Vadnais Heights. The sewer line beneath County Road E already exists and would be simple and inexpensive to connect. Importantly, the City of Vadnais Heights is willing and eager to work out development plans regarding the Subject Property, ensuring that the necessary `11 REM P mms JUN 14 2006 government services are provided fairly and in a timely manner. The long history of development issues between Gem Lake and the Petitioners calls into question whether the same can be said for Gem Lake. (I) The degree of continuity of the boundaries of the subject area and adjacent units of local government. The Subject Property would, if annexed, be a peninsula of Vadnais Heights jutting into and surrounded on three sides, by Gem Lake. This, in and of itself, is not a major concern. Gem. Lake also has a peninsula of land that juts into Vadnais Heights and there was no testimony that this has caused any issues over the years. Furthermore, the planned land use for the Subject Property is very similar regardless of which city has jurisdiction. In reality, it is more likely that the concern of Gem Lake is that Vadnais Heights will approve development whereas Gem Lake will continue to find ways to postpone it in an effort to keep its rural feel. (m) Analysis of the applicability of the State Building Code. There are no issues affecting the state building code with respect to this petition. CONCLUSIONS Detachment of the Subject Property from Gem Lake and Annexation to Vadnais Heights Should Be Denied. After considering the factors for incorporation in Minn. Stat. §414.02, subd. 3, the proposed action shall be ordered on finding that it will be for the best interests of the municipalities and the property owner.67 This has been interpreted to mean that detachment and annexation must be in the best interests of both municipalities and the property owners.68 Consideration of the statutory factors in this matter demonstrates that the detachment and annexation would benefit Vadnais Heights. It would enhance its tax base with a prime piece of developable commercial property and allow it to spread its public utilities and other chargeable costs over a larger base. The property owners would also benefit. Clearly, they see a better opportunity to get the necessary services for development from Vadnais Heights at lower costs and in a more timely manner than they can from Gem Lake. Because of Gem Lake's reputation for being difficult about permitting development, the value of the Subject Property may actually rise simply, because of the annexation. Whether it would benefit Gem Lake is a thornier question. On one hand, Gem Lake would be rid of the dilemma of how to develop the Subject Property 67 Minn. Stat. § 414.061, subd. 5. sa City of Lake Elmo v. City of Oakdale, 468 N.W. 2d 575, 578 (Minn. App. 1991). 17 m sY JUN 1 4 2006 consistent with its zoning ordinance while preserving the rural feel of the city. In a case with many similarities, the Minnesota Court of Appeals stated: The concurrent detachment and annexation will allow that land which is appropriate and ready for development (the subject land) to be serviced by a community that is servicing land immediately adjacent to it. It will also allow the community that wishes to remain a rural residential community to remain s0.69 The "present pattern of physical development, planning and intended land uses" of both cities makes annexation by Vadnais Heights the more logical alternative. This would allow both cities to continue to operate on the basis of their respective comprehensive plans and community goals. Granting the petition would relieve Gem Lake of the financial burden of providing water and sewer resources to the Subject Property when it is clear from its own survey that the citizens are opposed to extension of sewer and water services and their attendant costs. On the other hand, it would clearly be a loss of potential tax base for Gem Lake to lose the Subject Property. Assuming that Gem Lake ever really allows the Subject Property to be developed, the resulting increase in property tax revenue would be significant to the comparatively small Gem Lake budget. The importance of this potential tax revenue is, however, tempered by the fact that the citizens of Gem Lake seem to prefer minimal services thus reducing the need for the revenue. Also, given its history of resistance to development, it is uncertain how far in to the future such development will be put off, leaving the revenue to be unrealized by either community. For the detachment and concurrent annexation to be approved, there must be a finding that, after a review of the statutory factors, such action would be in the best interests of the property owners and the municipalities. If Gem Lake proceeds with reasonable zoning ordinances and enforces them in a fair, open and reasonable manner, appropriate development of the Subject Property will likely occur in relatively short order. This would be beneficial to both municipalities and to the property owners. Loss of that opportunity, at this time, would not be in the best interests of Gem Lake. If, however, Gem Lake obstructs reasonable opportunities for development, it will likely encounter more law suits and additional petitions for detachment, which, as the mayor of Gem Lake pointed out, are expensive. Should unreasonable resistance to any development of the Subject Property occur in the future, it may be that it would be in the best financial interests of Gem Lake to detach the Subject Property so as to avoid further petitions. At that point, the balance may tip and the detachment may in fact be in the best interests of Gem Lake. Those benefits may not be as significant as the benefits to the b`' Id. W `� BY JUN 14 2006 property owners and to Vadnais Heights, but the statute does not require the benefits to be equally distributed among all the parties. The Costs of the Detachment and Annexation Proceedings Shall Be Borne Equally Between the Petitioners and the City of Gem Lake. When the parties are unable to agree on a division of the costs for a proceeding under Minn. Stat. § 414, the costs are to be assigned by the Chief Administrative Law Judge.70 In this case, the petition for detachment and concurrent annexation was brought by Petitioners and opposed by Gem Lake. Vadnais Heights has played no role in the proceedings and has taken no position other than to state that it would accept the Subject Property should detachment be ordered. The costs of this proceeding shall, therefore, be divided equally between the Petitioners and the City of Gem Lake. R.R.K. J 70 Minn. Stat. § 414.12, subd. 3. GENERAL FUND CHECKING 2006 CITY OF GEM LAKE TREASURER'S REPORT 1 GENERAL C 48234.15 51680.76 LAKE OF GEM FUND H 01/01/2005 START 73120.25 -248702.90 223816.80 -24886.10 Cgmty Road "E" East CHECKING K 52,221.86 48234.15 Gem ilelre. MN 55110-5231 I BANK TRAN TRAN CRECKSTO N DEBIT CREDIT BALANCE BALANCE DATE # DEPOSITS FROM PAYMENT FOR TronsferS SPaymenlF"'m 5 5 7,951.50 1,264.33 109 039.17 107,774.84 109 039.17 107,774.84 Oq l 06 1 Gem Lake Service 2004 Debit Fund 23-Ma -06 P6833 CITY OF WHITE BEAR LAKE TOTAL CLAIM 5 100.00 107 614.84 107.614.84 24-May-06 P6834 Meslow & Ob�on, PLLC TwoPreTrials: Hamer & Schottenbauer 5 100.00 107,514.84 107,514.84 2b-M -06 p6835 Coun of Local Govemm 2006 Membership Dues 5 314.00 107,200.84 107,200.84 24-Ma .06 P6936 Waste t Curbside Recycling 2005 5 114.75 107,086.09 107,0$6.09 17-May-06 P6837 PRESS PUBLICATIONS TOTAL CLAIM 5 (6,460.42 100 625.67 100,625.67 25-Ma -06 P6838 RAMSEY COUNTY TOTAL CLAIM 5 32,077.31 69,548.36 68,548.36 19- -06 P6839 LEONARA,01BRIEN,SPENCM0 & S TOTAL CLAIM TOTAL CLAIM 'n 5 5 ,791.79 73.05 60,756.57 60,693.52 60,756.57 60.683.52 23-Ma O6 P6840 SEH, INC. 22- -06 1 Xcel Street L' A 2006 5 8,076.41 52,607.11 52.607.11 17-M -06 P6942 MAGNUSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC TOTAL CLAIM AmDues:7/IM-6/30 5 (35.00 52,57211 52,572.11 25- -06 P6843 MCFOA MunWClerks&FinOfee 1264 33 51,307.78 52 572 11 19-Jun-06 P6844 CITY OF WHITE BEAR LAKE TOTAL CLAIM C 4/i/06 to 4/1/07 5 (1'S 49.648.78 30.913.11 22- 06 P6845 of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust MunicipalLiabiH 60 49,113.18 50,913.11 19-Jun-06 P6846 PAUL R EMEOTT TOTAL CLAIM 2ndQtr'06 (S206.00-12.77SS-2.99mm) (190.24 48,922 94 50,913.11 19-Jun-06 p6947 Richard Bosak 2nd 06 (f206.00-12.77ss 2.99mm 190.24 49.732.70 50,913.11 50,913.11 19-Jun-06 8 P6$49 Tom Rasmussen Hutch Schillin 2nd '06 Sa 206.00-12.77SS-2.99mm) 2nd 06 S (5206.00-12.77ss-299mm 190.24 I90 24 qg y12 48.35122 50,913.11 19-Jun-06 19-Jun-06 P6850 Chuck Watson 2nd '06 $772.50-47.89ssr11.20mm 713.41 47 638.81 50,913.11 19-Jun-06 P6851 Sarah Cobian 2nd 06 Salary S772 50 47.89ss-1120mm 713 41 46,925.40 50,913.11 50,350.61 C. n 19-Jun-06 2 Frederic nSo 5 562.50 46,362.90 30. .06 P6853 CINDY SHILTS TOTAL CLAIM 5 250.00 46,612.90 50.600.61 04 -06 1 b Utilities Permit #SC2006-01 Traffic Fines: A ' 20Sewer Conversion 06 Variance #2006-02 A Fee (Includes GIS S 5 5 62.00 250.00 46,674.90 46,924.90 50,662.61 50,912.61 06 1 State of Minnesota ire Transfer) 11-Ma 1 Michael Strommer 5 504.00 47,428.90 51,416.61 11-Ma 06 2 White Bear Lions Club 1st 2006 Charitable Gamblin S al Use Permit #SU2006-025265.50 5 250.00 47,678.90 47,944.40 51,666.61 51932.11 18-May-06 Hlg _06 �=RICA HEATING &COOLING, TOTAL PAYMENT 5Y_ Bank Interest Paid This Period J Run Date: 06/13/2006 at 04:31:55 PM IrFile: CheckinglGenFund06.123 Page 1 of 1 Premier Bank Minnesota Owned. Minnesota Ope ated. CITY OF GEM LAKE GENERAL FUND 1369 COUNTY ROAD E E GEM LAKE MN 55110-5231 Page: 1 Account Number: 6005590 Statement Date: 5/31/06 Checks/Items Enclosed: 19 86 PREFERRED ELITE Now offering Health Savings Accounts Contact your branch office for more infromation CITY OF GEM LAKE guar. FUND Beginning Balance 5/01/06 Deposits / Misc Credits 5 Withdrawals / Misc. Debits 17 ** Ending Balance 5/31/06 Service Charge Interest Paid Thru 5/31/06 Interest Paid Year To Date Annual Percentage Yield Earned Number of Days for A.P.Y.E. Average Balance for A.P.Y.E. Average Collected Balance Minimmm Balance Enclosures Miscellaneous Credits Acct 6005590 117,922.19 1,871.25 67,571.58 52,221.86 ** .00 289.75 1,617.67 3.92 31 88,611.64 88,612 51,932 19 Date Deposits Withdrawals Activity Description 5/04 250.00 DEPOSIT 5/08 62.00 MN STATE FINANCE/ACH PYMT GEM LAKE CITY OF 5/11 754.00 DEPOSIT 5/18 515.50 DEPOSIT 5/31 289.75 Interest Earned LENDER fQI' EiEMBER FDIC SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CITY OF GEM I,AIKE Account Number: Statement Date: Miscellaneous Debits Date Deposits Withdrawals Activity Description .Si/C - -- - --- - -7, y�i SG -- �iRe�ivSrF:R 3 i- 6103—IOU -- — Paid Checks Date Check No. 5/02 6800 5/05 6811* 5/05 6823* 5/23 6833* 5/24 6834 5/26 6835 Daily Balance Summary Date Balance 5/01 117,922.19 5/02 117,622.19 5/04 109,920.69 5/05 109,289.17 5/08 109,351.17 5/31 110,105.17 j Page: 2 6005590 5/31/06 * indicates skip in check numbers Amount Date Check No. Amount Date Check No. Amount 300.00 5/24 6836 314.00 5/22 6841 73.05 190.24 5/19 6837 114.75 5/17 6842 8,076.41 441.28 5/25 6838 6,460.42 5/25 6843 35.00 1,264.33 5/19 6839 32,077.31 5/22 6845* 1,659.00 160.00 5/23 6840 7,791.79 5/30 6853* 562.50 100.00 Date Balance Date Balance 5/17 102,028.76 5/24 59,090.03 5/18 102,544.26 5/25 52,594.61 5/19 70,352.20 5/26 52,494.61 5/22 68,620.15 5/30 51,932.11 5/23 59,564.03 5/31 52,221.86 TREASURER'S REPORT SEWER FUND CHECKING 2006 CITY OF GEM LAKE OF GEM County Road Gem Lake, MN LAKE "E" East 55110-5231 SEWER FUND CHECKING C H K I N 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 OS Jan START 42,968.82 24562.94 BANK BALANCE 21701.31 20662.84 20645.44 20775.44 20807.94 20840.44 20872.94 20905.44 20937.94 20970.44 21165.44 21295.44 22075.44 22107.94 22237.94 23147.94 23180.44 23212.94 24070.94 24265.94 24395.94 24525.94 24558.44 24562.94 -33102.80 15734.97 DEBIT -5000.00 -1038.47 -17.40 CREDIT 130.00 32.50 32.50 32.50 32.50 32.50 32.50 195.00 130.00 780.00 32.50 130.00 910.00 32.50 32.50 858.00 195.00 130.00 130.00 32.50 4.501 24561.94 94 24561. BALANCE 21700.31 20661.84 20644.44 20774.44 20806.94 20839.44 20871.94 20904.44 20936.94 20969.44 21164.44 21294.44 22074.44 22106.94 22236.94 23146.94 23179.44 23211.94 24069.94 24264.94 24394.94 24524.94 24557.44 24561.941 TRAN DATE TRAN # CHECKS TO DEPOSITS FROM Gan LakeC4gW Projem Fund Mebapoliten Council State One -Call Dan's Auto Clininc Maia Hendrickson Kou V Dr. R.T. Donahue Charles Rudisel Patrick O'Phdau Hillary Farm, LLC Cafe avin Gl Hoss Performance SINGH ENTERPRISES MeNufty Construction AM -PM Automotive BARNETT CHRYSLER JEEP KIA John Birkeland parry Mwpbcrd DONALD L. WALDOCH PROPERTIES Country Loun Inc. White Bear Floral Waldoch Custom Center RANDALLVONLEUTHARDT Premier Bank PAYMENT FOR Transfer to CPF/Tempamy Loan Current User : June 2006 12 Tix $1.45/ea 1st 2006 Sewer Fees/Commercial 1st 2006 Sewer Fees/Residential 1 st Qtr 2006 Sewer Fees/Residential 1st 2006 Sewer Fees/Residential 1st 2006 Sewer � ewer 1st 2006 Sewer Fa vResidadial 1st 2006 Sewer Fees/Residential 1 st 2006 Sewer Fees/Commercial 1st Qtr 2006 Sewer Fees/Commercial TOTAL PAYMENT I st Qtr 2006 Sewer Fees/Residential lst 2006 Sewer Fees/Commercial Qtr TOTAL PAYMENT 1st Qtr 2006 Sewer Fees/Residential 1st Qtr 2006 Sewer Fees/Residential TOTAL PAYMENT 1st 2006 Sewer Fees/Commercial 1st Qtr 2006 Sewer Fees/Commercial 1st Ow 2006 Sewer FeeslCommercial ITOTALPAYMENT I Interest Paid This Period 15 1 19.May.06 23. -06 SP2113 SP2114 04 May-06 04- -06 1 2 pq_y p6 3 Oq_Hlay.p6 4 04-May-06 5 04-Ma -06 6 pq_ p6 04-May.06 7 8 04-May-06 9 04-May-06 10 04.Ma _O 11 04-May-06 12 04-May-06 13 11-May-06 11-Ma -06 1 2 l l-May-06 3 it-May.06 11.May-W 4 5 11-May-06 6 18-May-06 1 31-Ma -06 1 Run Date: 06/13/2006 at 06:01:26 PM E-File: Checking2SewerFund06.123 Page 1 Claims For Payment CITY OF GEM LAKE Period Ending 06/19/2006 DATE CLAIM# PAID Paul Emeott, Mayor Chuck Watson, Council Hutch Schilling, Council Richard Bosak, Council Tom Rasmussen, CouncUY Frederic Magnuson, Clerk PAID Signatures Approving Claims For Payment Date Of A roval DATE DATE DATE y /9 DATE - DA I I ld� ! �. DATE OF CLAIM SP 2115 19-Jun-2006 Metropolitan_ Council - Current User Charges Juh 2006 SP 2116 19-Jun-2_006 Gopher State One -Call 14 tix ® $1.45/ea _ SP 21 17 19-Jun-2006 SEH, Inc. Sewer Maintenance Protocol _ GP 6844 19-.1un-2006 CITY OF WHITE BEAR LAKE TOTAL CLAIM GP 6844 19-Jun-2006 City of White Bear Lake Fire & Paramedic: June 2006 GP 6844 19-Jun-2006 City of White Bear Lake Fire Marshall & Inspections June 2006 GP 6845 18-May-2006 1 League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust I Municipal Liability Coverage 4/l/06 to 4/1 /07 _ GP 6846 19-Jun-2006 PAUL R. EMEOTT _- _ TOTAL CLAIM _ GP 6846 19-Jun-2006 Paul R. Emeott 2nd Qtr'06 Salary($515.00-31.93ss-7.47mm) J GP 6846 19-Jun-2006 Paul R, Emeott 1/2 High Speed Internet Apr/May/Jun GP 6847 19-Jun-2006 Richard Bosak 2nd Qtr'06 Salary ($206.00-12.77ss-2.99mm) GP 6848 19-Jun-2006 Tom Rasmussen 2nd Qtr'06 Salary($206.00-12.77ss-2.99mm) _ GP 6849 19-Jun-2006 Hutch Schilling 2nd Qtr'06 Salary ($206.00-12.77ss-2.99mm) GP 6850 19-Jun-2006 Chuck Watson 2nd Qlr'06_Salary ($206.00-12.77ss-2.99mm) GP 6851 19-.tun-2006 Sarah Cobian 2nd Qtr'06 Salary ($772.50-47.89ss-11.20mm) GP 6852 19-Jun-2006 Frederic C. Magnuson 2nd Qtr'06 Salary($772.50-47.89ss-11.20mm) GP 6853 23-May-2006 CINDY SHILTS TOTAL CLAIM GP 6853 23-May-2006 Cindy Shilts Permit Closure #SC2005-14 GP 6853 23-May-2006 Cindy Shilts Permit Closure #SC2005-18 GP 6853 23-May-2006 Cindy Shilts _ Permit Closure #SC2006-01 GP 6854 19-Jun-200-6 COUNTY TOTAL CLAIM GP 6854 19-Jun-200�RamseyCounty lI-RAMSEY 2006 Voting System Fees - GP 6854 19-Jun-2006 Ramsey County -I Law Enforcement: June 2006 GP 6854 19-Jun-2006 Ramsey County- -- _ 911 Dispatch Services 5/l/2006-5/31/2006 GP 6854 19-.Tun-2006 -_ ! Y tY Ramse Coun ---- Special Assessment Administrative Fees for 200 GP 6855 19-Jun-2006 PRESS PUBLICATIONS TOTAL CLAIM GP 6855 19-Jun-2006 Press Publications LcgTrans4353629: Public Notice 2006-15 GP 6855 19-.Tun-2006 Press Publications LegT_rans#353630: Public Notice 2006-14 GP 6855 19-J_un_-200_6 _ Press Publications _ L.e_gT_rens_#353631: Adv for Bids _ GP 6856 19-Jun-2006 Jiffi Print Color Copying and Collating Prop Ord No 43 GP 6857 19-Jun-2006 MESLOW & OLSON, PLLC TOTAL CLAIM GP 6857 19-Jun-2006 _ Meslow & Olson, PLLC .[�RvwPoliceRpt:Snodie-.PreComplaint-.Copies GP 6857 19-Jun-2006 Meslow & Olson, PLLC Pretrial:Ousley/JuryTrial:Tubridy GP 6858 19-Jun-2006 REED BUSINESS INFORMATION TOTAL CLAIM GP 6858 19-Jun-2006 I Reed Business Information PIP #2006-01 Bid Anncouce May 26, 2006 GP 6858 19-Jun-2006 Reed Business Information PIP #2006-01 Bid Anncouce June 2, 2006 GP 6858 19-Jun-2006 Reed Business Information PIP #2006-01 Bid Anncouce June 9, 2006 _ GP 6859 19-Jun-2006 White Bear Floral Shoff Flower Arrangement For Kathy Robins GP 6860 19-Jun-2006 _ Domain Registry ofAmreic_a Domain Name Renewal (I Year) GP 6861 19-Jun-2006 Waste Management Curbside Recycling: June 2006 GP 6862 19-Jun-2006 Xccl Energy Street Lighting: May 2006 - 1 GENERAL SEWER kMOUNT I FUND I FUND 1,038.47 ' 1,038.47 20.301 20.30 887.001 887.00 1,264.33 942.33 _ 322.00 _ 1,659.00' 1,659.00 535.601 1 475.60 ; 60.001 190.24 190.24 190.24 190.24 _ 190.24 190.24 190.24 190.24 713.41 713.41 713.41 713.41 562.50 18750 18750 18750 6,178.42 _ 13063 _ 5,533,58 _ 231.71 _ 282.50 _ 4_08.00 _ 51.00 51.00 306.00 1,049.03 ` 1,049.031 _ 355.40 _ 100.40 255.00 40704 13568. 135.68 _ 40.47 135.68 40.47 30.00 30.00 314.00 314.00 72.45 72.45' Run: 06/19/2006 at 03:19:34 PM Page I of 3 File: 06claim06.123 Premier Bank EAEF �1lIi�znesota Owned. Minnesota Oj�erated. me�,tsa oic CITY OF GEM LAEE SEWER FUND 1369 COUNTY ROAD E E GEM LAKE MN 55110-5231 Page: 1 Account Number: 6005582 Statement Date: 5/31/06 Checks/Items Enclosed: 5 86 NOW OFFERING Health Savings Accounts 6 Remote Deposit Capture NON PROFIT PREMIER PLUS CITY OF GEN LAEE Acct 6005582 SEWER FUND Beginning Balance 5/01/06 26,701.31 Deposits / Misc Credits 4 3,917.50 Withdrawals / Misc Debits 3 6,055.87 ** Ending Balance_ 5/31/06 24,562.94 ** Service Charge .00 Interest Paid Thru 5/31/06 4.50 Interest Paid Year To Date 25.67 Annual Percentage Yield Earned .20 Number of Days for A.P.Y.E. 31 Average Balance for A.P.Y.E. 26,486.61 Average Collected Balance 26,487 Minimm Balance 24,558 Enclosures 5 Miscellaneous Credits Date Deposits Withdrawals Activity Description 5/04 2,502.50 DEPOSIT 5/11 1,378.00 DEPOSIT 5/18 32.50 DEPOSIT 5/31 4.50 Interest Earned Miscellaneous Debits Date Deposits Withdrawals Activity Description 5/15 . 5,000.00 TRANSFER TO 6103844 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CITY OF GEM IMM Paid Checks Date Check No. 55J, 49 _ 3-u3 -- — Daily Balance Summary Date Balance 5/01 26,701.31 5/04 29,203.81 5/11 30,581.81 j Account Number: Statement Date: Page: 2 6005582 5/31/06 * indicates skip in check numbers Amount Date Check No. Amount Date Check No. ii.40 Date Balance Date Balance 5/15 25,581.81 5/23 24,558.44 5/18 25,614.31 5/31 24,562.94 5/19 24,575.84 Amount CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND CHECIQNG 2006 CITY OF GEM LAKE TREASURER'S REPORT OF GEM LAKE --T 2004 - 2006 BONDS ounty Road "E" East CAPITAL PROJECT Gem Lake, MN 55110-5231 CHECKING #6103844 TRAM CHECKS TO DATE # I DEPOSITS FROM PAYMENT FOR 15-Mav-06 1 I Gem Lake Sewer Fund i Transfer from SF/Pi Loan FUND C H PREMIER BANK WBL 03-Nov-04 START 0.00 K -755287.57 760287.57 545857.85 5000.00 1 N DEBIT CREDIT 5000.00 BALANCE BANK BALANCE 5 ;_Ann fin 5,000.00 5,000.00 Run Date: 06/13/2006 at 06:02:40 PM E-File: Checl®g3Projeol06.123 Page I Claims For Payment CITY OF GEM LAKE Period Ending 06/19/2006 Paul Emeott, Mayor Chuck Watson, Council Hutch Schilling, Council Richard Bosak, Counciil/l Tom Rasmussen, Council Frederic Magnuson, Clerk Signatures Approving Claims For Payment Date Of Approval DATE t DATE (p l / j l O(y DATE l�I <r'i DATE /� 6 / / 6 DATE DATE GENERAL SEWER CLAIM# PAID PAID TO DESCRIPTION OF CLAIM $AMOUNT FUND FUND GP 6863 19-Jun-2006 SE_H, INC. GP 6863 19-Jun-2006 1 SEH, Inc. GP 6863 19-Jun-2006 SEE, Inc. GP 6863 19-Jun-2006 SEE. Inc. GP 6863 19-Jun-2006 SE_H, Inc. :GP 6863 19-J_un_-2006 SEH, Inc. GP 6863 19-Jun-2006 SEH, Inc. GP 6863 19-J_un-2006 SEH, Inc. GP 6864 19-J_un-2006 ALLEN 0. ZEPPER GP 6864 19-J_un-2006 Allen 0. Zepper GP 6864 19-Jun-2006 Allen O. Zepper _ GP 6864 19-Jun-2006 Allen 0. Zepper GP 6864 19-Jun-2006 Allen 0, Zep_per GP 6864 19-Jun-2006 Allen 0. &Mr GP 6865 19-Jun-2_006 MAGNU_SON & ASSOCIATES, LLC GP 6865 19-Jun-2006 _Magnuson & Associates. LLC _ GP 6865 19-Jun-2006 _Magnuson & Associates. LLC GP 6865 19-Jun-2006 I Magnuson & Associates. LLC 'GP 6865 19-Jun-2(06 liMagnusort & Associates. LLC GP 6865 19-Jun-2006 Magnuson & Associates. LLC _ GP 6865 194un-2006 j Magnuson & Associates. LLC GP 6865 1 19-Jun-2006 I Magnuson & Associates. LLC GP 6865 19-Jun-2006 & Associates. LLC GP 6865 19-1un-2006-i _Magnuson Magnuson & Associates. LLC GP 6865 19-Jun-2006 Magnuson & Associates. LLC GP 6865 19-Jun-2006 Magnuson & Associates. LLC GP 6865 19-Jun-2006 Magnuson & Associates. LLC GP 6865 19-Jun-2006 Magnuson & Associates. LLC GP 6865 19-Jun-2006 Magnuson & Associates. LLC GP 6865 19-Jun-2006 } I Magnuson & Associates. LLC GP 6866 19-Jun-2006 PAUL R. EMEOTT GP 6866 19-Jun-2006 Paul R. Emeott GP 6866 19-Jun-2006 FPaul R. Emeott _ GP 6866 19-Jun-2006 Paul R Emeott GP 6866 19-Jun-2006 Paul R. Emeott GP 6866 19-Jun-2006 Paul R. Emeott GP 6866 19-Jun-2006 Paul R. Emeott GP 6866 19-Jun-2006 Paul R. Emeott GP 6866 19-Jun-2006 Paul R. Emeott GP 6866 19-Jun-2006 Paul R. Emeott GP 6866 19-Jun-2006 Paul R, Emeott GP 6866 19-Jun-2006 Paul R. Emeott ` GP 6866 19-Jun-2006 Paul R. Emeott J TOTAL CLAIM _ 12,230.87 PIP 2006-03 BusSew/Wat Feasibility 9050 PIP 2006-01 Road Feasibility 832.10 PIP 2006-01 Road Feasibility. _ 4.111.00 PIP 2006-02 Water Feasibility_ 5.734.99 CityEngineering$ves: Mise Extra Service 605.50 Hillary Farm 742.00 Interstate I-35E Corridor Study 124.78 TOTAL CLAIM 865.23 Permit Closure #132005-08 (2nd Level Not Coil ete) 0.00 Permit Closure #M2006-03 225.38 _ Permit Closure #P2006-02 10_3.13 _ Permit Closure 4D2006-01 187.50 _ Plan Review for #132006-03 349.22 - TOTAL CLAIM 9,778.46 Telep(toix&FacsimileScrvicc: May/1un06 _ 118.51 _OfiiceSupplies,Copying&Postagc: May/Jun06 236.04 _Mileage(I84 r@S0.445):May/Jun06 _ 81.88 IntcmctAccess-(50%):May/Jun06 11.95 PlanningMeeting,Inteminterview,EconDevMtg _ 83.68 GencralAdministration:May/Jun-84 5 hours _ 6,591.00 BiIlab leAdininistration: May/Ju_n-03.4ours 265.20 _ ScwcrAdministration:May/Jun-01.5 hours 117.00 _ Capital Proj ectAdministration:May/Jun-04.4 hour;- 343.20 _ ElectionAdministration:May/Jun_-02.20 hours l _ 110.00 AsstClerkGeneral:May/Jun-22 hours 1,430.00 373.75 AsstClerkSewcr:May/Jun-05.75 hours AsstClerkRecycling:May/Jun-00.25 hours 16.25 AsstClerk:CapProjAdmin:May/Jun-00.00 hours 0.00 AsstClerk:PIP2006-03-May/Jun-0.00 hours _ 0.00 TOTAL CLAIM 3,471.77 _ Intergovernmental_M_ts: 2 x $20 40.00 _ NPDES Inspection:.5 hrs x $78 (1/2" Rain Eve 't) 39.00 Developer's _Meetings: 4.5 hrs x $78 (Hoffman Corner) 351.00 HansenDetach/AnnexMtg/Court Hearing 17.5 x 78 1,365.00 SewerAdmin: Sewer Locating: 1.25hrs x $78 _ 97.50 _ Reimbursement: 2 Cans Green Marking Paint 10.00 hange of Rtn Date on 2 Airfares (FL to Twin Citi ) 500.00 Change in Care Rental: 3 days extra 69.68 Taxi -Fare: To and From Ft. Lauderdale Airport 50.00 3 Extra Nights Stay - Florida 401.31 Extra Meals During Extra Days Stay _47.33 I-T Extra Parking Costs: MSP Airport _ J34.00 Run: 06/19/2006 at 03:19:34 PM Page 2 of 3 File: 06claim06.123 Claims For Payment CITY OF GEM LAKE Period Ending 06/19/2006 Paul Emeott, Mayor Chuck Watson, Council Hutch Schilling, Council Richard Bosak, Council Tom Rasmussen, Council Frederic Magnuson, Clerk Signatures Approving Claims For Payment Date Of Approval DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE CLAIM# PAID I PAID TO I DESCRIPTION OF CLAIM GP 6866 19-Jun-2006 Paul R. Emeott Extra Cell Phone Costs for Month (OT Chi GP 6866 19-Jun-2006 Paul R. Emeott Round Trip Airfare Ft. Lauderdale to MSP GP 6866? 19-Jun-2006 Paul R. Emeott 2 Days Parking at 100 Washington Ave - C 2 Noon Lunches GENERAL I SEWER AMOUNT I FUND FUND GP 6866 19-Jun-2006 Paul R. Emeott — --- ALL 06/19/2006 JUNE SUMMARY 8.33% Of Budget Monthly ALL 06/19/2006 I YEAR-TO-DATE SUMMARY 50,00% Of Year Completed ALL 06/19/2006 �ERSUS ANNUAL BUDGET 50.00% Of Year Com leted 5.75 409.20 40.00 12.00 TOTAL FOR JUNE $43,356.12I $41,410.35 $1,945.77 % Annual Budget 11.82% 11,29% 0.53% TOTAL YEAR-TO-DATE $279,683.14 $268,025.24 $11,657.90 % Annual Budget 76.26% 84.60% 23.34% Annual Budget $Under/($Over) ($96,310.14 ($109,627.24 $13,317.10 Annual Budget%Under/-%Over -26,26% -34.60%. 26.66% Rtm: 06/19/2006 at 03:19:34 PM Page 3 of 3 File: 06claim06.123 Premier Bank Mimiesota Ozmed. Milmesota Operated. LENDER MEMBER FDIC CITY OF GEM LAKE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 1369 COUNTY ROAD E E GEm LAKE MN 55110-5231 Page: 1 Account Number: 6103844 Statement Date: 5/31/06 Checks/Items Enclosed: 0 86 NOW OFFERING Health Savings Accounts 6 Remote Deposit Capture NON PROFIT PREMIER PLUS CITY OF GEM LAKE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Acct 6103844 Beginning Balance 5/15/06 .00 Deposits / Misc Credits 1 5,000.00 Withdrawals / Misc Debits 0 .00 ** Ending Balance 5/31/06 5,000.00 ** Service Charge .00 Average Balance 1,393 Average Collected Balance 1,393 Mini* um Balance 0 Miscellaneous Credits Date Deposits Withdrawals Activity Description 5/15 5,000.00 TRANSFER FROM 6005582 Daily Balance Summary Date Balance Date Balance Date 5/15 5,000.00 Balance SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DEBIT FUND CHECKING 2006 CITY OF GEM LAKE TREASURER'S REPORT OF GEM LAKE CLoki, MN 55East County Road "E" East Gem TRAN TRAN�CHECKSTO DATE # DEPOSITS FROM 2006 BONDS FROM PIP2004-01 DEBT SERVICE CHECKING#6103780 PAYMENT FOR TnmsferS ialAsscwPa entFtgmRamCty(W C H K I N 5 O1tiTan-OS START 0.00 79262.24 BANK BALANCE 79262.24 -27019.61 79413.00 26868.85 DEBIT CREDIT 7951.50 79262.24 BALANCE 79262.24 nA-AA--nF 1 Gem Lake General Fund Run Date: 06/13/2006 at 06:03:41 PM E File: Checking4Bonds06.123 1 Premier Bank Minnesota Owned. Minnesota Operated. CITY OF GEM LAKE SERVICE 2004 DEBIT FUND 1369 COUNTY ROAD E E GEM LAKE MN 55110-5231 LE -i LNDER �.IE.1BEFI FDIC Page: 1 Account Number: 6103780 Statement Date: 5/31/06 Checks/Items Enclosed: 0 86 NOW OFFERING Health Savings Accounts & Remote Deposit Capture NON PROFIT PREMIER PLUS CITY OF GEM LAI{E SERVICE 2004 DEBIT FUND Acct 6103780 Beginning Balance 5/01/06 71,310.74 Deposits / Misc Credits 1 7,951.50 Withdrawals / Misc Debits 0 .00 ** Ending Balance 5/31/06 79,262.24 ** Service Charge .00 Average Balance 78,493 Average Collected Balance 78,493 Mini mm Balance ance 71,310 Miscellaneous Credits Date Deposits Withdrawals Activity Description 5/04 7,951.50 TRANSFER FROM 6005590 Daily Balance Sumo- ry Date Balance Date Balance Date 5/04 79,262.24 :j Balance SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION