06-03-2014 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 3, 2014 Page 3 of 7 Council Member Smith asked about city’s policy with foreclosures. Mr. Chase noted that banks are reluctant to act. Mr. Chase explained that staff continues to work with the current ordinances and policies, but will retool them to make them more efficient as we proceed. Mr. Nelson asked about cutting grass and assessing costs. Mr. Chase explained that historically we have not, but the City can. Typically staff goes to great lengths to work with residents depending on the circumstances. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ITEM 12: LAKE ELMO AVENUE TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS – ACCEPT BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT; RES. NO. 2014-38 City Engineer Griffin provided overview of project. Three bids were received. Staff recommends awarding the contract to low bidder GM Contracting. Council Member Smith asked why this project is being done now, when she does not believe it is in the right sequence. Mayor Pearson offered that the Lake Elmo Avenue watermain project is part of paying for infrastructure that has been installed. Parties are also interested in having water brought to area. The current bid is good and may not be as good at later date. City has secured commitments to prepay WACs from respective property owners. Ms. Smith expressed her desire that the project needs to fund itself. City Administrator Zuleger explained that three potential developments have been brought to city in that area. One property needs fire protection. Ms. Smith asked if City understands the numbers involved. Ms. Smith noted that the comprehensive plan and density will change, and it is premature to act without new data. Mr. Zuleger stated that staff has a plan to recalibrate the number with minor comp plan amendments. Council Member Bloyer asked for status with the securities. It was explained that the City has $1,105,000 in prepaid WACs, plus pending $150,000. This is over 50% of the total cost. Mr. Bloyer asked about the risk involved if bankruptcy occurs. City Attorney Snyder said that the commitments are as secure as they can be at this point in the process, but bankruptcy can always present a potential problem. Community Development Director Klatt explained that comp plan also includes water and sewer plans. For 10 years Lake Elmo has been playing catch-up in this type of planning. Staff does expect to modify the numbers in area as development occurs. Mr. Griffin explained that this is part of the long-term master plan for infrastructure. Eventually this will connect with the western pipe and those along I94 to create complete loop. Ms. Smith asked if it has to be done now. She is concerned about “biting off more than we can chew.” Mr. Griffin said that the proper time to do this project is when development requires it. Mr. Klatt stated that current staff is handling 8-10 proposed developments. Ms. Smith asked what potential future developments may be missed by approving these developments now. That premise is too speculative answer. Ms. Smith wanted to know why the City has been actively searching for waivers for development in area not in sequence. City Attorney Snyder explained that projects can be built differently. Some cities build infrastructure and wait for development. Some wait for developers to install the infrastructure. In the middle is the approach where cities work together with developers to put it in jointly. That continuum is a philosophical, political, policy decision difference for councils. Reasonable people can disagree on which approach to follow. Mr. Zuleger explained that this area was planned for the third phase of development. Staff has sought waivers to help pay for infrastructure due to development interest. Mr. Griffin explained that this project was originally planned in 2013 to be done in 2014. Council Member Reeves asked about current staff’s ability and flexibility to handle these projects. Mr. Zuleger said that staff is getting much better, but there have been unexpected projects that have added to workload. Council Member Bloyer asked engineers if they can handle this project or if it would reduce the ability to work on other projects that need to be handled. Mr. Griffin explained that Focus and design contractors are involved, but they can handle the workload. Mr. Zuleger noted that the Inwood project has been moved to 2015, so the projects do not overlap. Mr. Reeves asked that the financed be explained publicly.