Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-02-2016 Council Work Session MinutesCITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APPROVED May 29 2016 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 2 MINUTES 3 4 DATE May 2, 2016 5 TIME STARTED 6900 p.m. 6 TIME ENDED 9:35 p.m. 7 MEMBERS PRESENT Councilmember Rafferty, Kusterman, 8 Maher, Manthey and Mayor Reinert 9 MEMBERS ABSENT None, 10 11 12 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Finance Director Sarah Cotton; 13 Community Development Director Michael Grochala; Public Safety Director John 14 Swenson; City Planner Katie Larsen; City Clerk Julie Bartell 16 1. Board of Appeal —Alex Guttenberg, Anoka County Assessor's Office, reviewed 17 the Board of Appeal written report and explained the board meeting process. He pointed 18 out that the role of Anoka County is to assist the city in running the meeting. Based on 19 the number of calls they have received, they are not expecting a large turnout. 20 21 Mayor Reinert reviewed his experience; the process allows the council to consider special 22 situations or issues that may not be clear in the mass assessment process used by the 23 county. 24 25 Mr. Guttenberg explained changes in the timing of the assessment process to provide 26 more accurate valuations. He reviewed parcel count data, how property review is handled 27 and adjustments planned in the industrial/commercial assessment process. He reviewed 28 sales data from the last period and how that is considered in the valuation process. He 29 explained valuation increases by type of property. 30 31 Mayor Reinert explained that the council has authority over valuation of properties in the 32 city and while that authorize is not to be abused, there are some situations when it is 33 appropriate to use that power to make corrections. 34 35 The council requested that they receive the taxable market value report that was created 36 by the County. 37 38 2. Apollo (109in)/Sunset Improvement Update —City Engineer Hankee reviewed 39 the written report outlining plans by Anoka County to improve the intersection of County 40 Highways 12 and 53 (the intersection of 109t' Avenue NE/Apollo Drive and Sunset 41 Avenue). Improvements include construction of a roundabout. She explained the three 42 actions that the council will be asked to consider next Monday: prohibit parking on 43 Highway 12 County Road 53, authorize the City Engineer to sign the project construction 44 plans, and convey permanent easement for drainage purposes. She noted that Anoka 45 County staff is in discussion with impacted property owners, some in Lino Lakes and 1 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APPROVED May 292016 46 some the city of Blaine, and that they were notified that the council would be discussing 47 the matter this evening. She introduced Anoka County Engineer Doug Fisher. 48 49 Mr. Fisher told the council that the intersection has been problematic and the county has 50 been seeking improvements for some time and is committed to moving ahead with a 51 project now. They have looked at different options, sought funding from other levels, and 52 worked out joint powers agreements with the impacted cities. Through engineering 53 analysis they have come forward with the proposed project. Major considerations 54 through the process of planning this project have been to improve safety, improve 55 capacity and present a good design (roundabouts are quite new to the county). Like all 56 projects, they've had to balance impact on property and environment as well. He 57 reviewed the location of the project noting movement of the intersection to the south and 58 west. They have heard from people of the need to improve Sunset Road (to North Road) 59 as well and so they've added a mill and overlay county funded project to this scope. He 60 explained where turn lanes will be added. When both cities (Lino Lakes and Blaine) 61 approve the joint powers agreement, they will go out for bid. An aggressive schedule is 62 planned because they want no closures during the school year to avoid disruption of 63 school bus routes. 64 65 Mayor Reinert remarked that the intersection obviously needs improvement because of 66 safety concerns. He's been hearing from neighbors about the size of the roadway and 67 noise concerns. He understands that the design may actually reduce some truck noise 68 since a roundabout will allow trucks to proceed without air braking. M 7o Council Member Kusterman asked about the status of land acquisition. Mr. Fisher 71 explained that acquisition of easement is required from four properties (maps were 72 shown). The council reviewed the project plan from an overhead view. Ultimately when 73 Sunset is reconstructed, there will be some additional changes. Regarding those 74 properties, a resolution has been reached with one of the four. 75 76 Council Member Rafferty asked about a substantial completion date and the project 77 engineer responded that the date they are using is August 28, based on a May 13 bid 78 opening; it is an aggressive schedule. Mr. Fisher added that the aggressive schedule 79 generally means that there could be a longer closure to allow more work hours. Council 80 Member Rafferty asked about the bid process and how quality will be considered. Mr. 81 Fisher replied that the work will be done under contract and failure to perform as required 82 has consequences; inspections will occur and a high standard is called for. 83 84 Council Member Maher asked if the properly where the driveway is relocated will receive 85 that work paid through the project and Mr. Fisher said that is the plan and the county will 86 offer the work done or pay for the property owner's choice of work. 87 88 Comments were offered by impacted residents and county staff responded: 89 2 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 2, 2016 APPROVED 90 - Road closures — engineer will make sure there is access to all properties at all 91 times; they will work with special events or special access needs also. 92 - Start date — engineer stated June 6 is the county's plan, based on the final day of 93 school and the plan to not disrupt school transportation; 94 - Communication to residents — folder of information planned for residents; 95 - After construction issues —county engineer said they hold a retainage from the 96 contractor to deal with issues that arise; 97 - Property owner at 7262 Sunset Av expressed concern about the easement that 98 would cut his property in half and his concern that it isn't clearly needed; Mr. Fisher said 99 the county is willing to not ask for that easement. 100 101 Mayor Reinert expressed concern about a fair process for property acquisition and Mr. 102 Fisher said they are always committed to negotiating a fair deal and avoiding a long 103 drawn out process; they respect the rights of the property owner but must as well 104 recognize they are using taxpayer funds. Mr. Fisher added that impact on just four 105 properties is low. 106 107 Mr. Fisher and the engineer noted the size of the proposed roundabout — it has been well 108 planned and will be large enough to accommodate needs. 109 110 Mayor Reinert remarked that if people have concerns or questions, the council's heard 111 that the county is ready and able to communicate. 112 113 3. 550 Lilac Street SAC Assessment — Community Development Director 114 Grochala noted that the owner of this business center property appeared before the 115 council at their last meeting to discuss an assessment against his property. Mr. Grochala 116 reviewed the history of the situation: 117 - The business center was built in 2003 and was charged SAC charges from the Met 118 Council for facilities in place at that time; 119 - In 2010 a building permit was issued for a retrofit to allow for Anytime Fitness. It 120 included the addition of showers and that triggered a SAC addition of three credits; 121 $6,300 came due; 122 - In 2010 the city approached the property owner and a study of SAC charges was 123 requested and prepared by engineering staff; the additional assessment wasn't picked up 124 (the city charges were there but the SAC wasn't picked up); 125 - The building was purchased by Mr. Moriteza in 2010; 126 - In 2012 the Met Council did their normal audit process (the city is responsible for 127 collecting their SAC charges) and found that charges were outstanding; 128 - A notice was given to Mr. Moriteza; he did not pay and indicated he felt the previous 129 owner should pay; 130 - Because the assessment wasn't paid, it was certified against the property, payable 2014; 131 - What was ultimately sent to Anoka County for certification included an incorrect PIN 132 number; when that was determined, the charges were abated and reassessed to Mr. 133 Moriteza's property; 3 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 2, 2016 APPROVED 134 - Mr. Moriteza then filed an appeal to the Anoka County district court asking for relief on 135 the matter; 136 - The assessment issue arose again when a restaurant requested a liquor license and back 137 taxes were identified; 138 - A court hearing is now scheduled for next week on the matter. 139 140 Mayor Reinert asked about the court process and heard that the city is likely to be allowed 141 to have the assessment stand; of course both sides would incur court costs. He thinks the 142 path coming here today is ridiculous and, being pragmatic, he'd suggest splitting the 143 difference and avoiding the court costs. 144 145 Council Member Kusterman asked Mr. Moriteza about the status of Anytime Fitness, and 146 heard it is still operating with the showers in question. 147 148 Mr. Moriteza argued that he already paid for the properly and doesn't feel he owes 149 additionally for that purchase. He purchased the building six months after the charges 150 came up so they are owed by the previous owner. He has paid the taxes and due to lack 151 of tenants at one point he almost lost the property. 152 153 Council Member Kusterman argued that the city didn't benefit from the improvements as 154 far as he can see. 155 156 Council Member Manthey noted that it seems that Mr. Moriteza has done his due 157 diligence with the property and tried to work it out. 158 159 The council asked about the possibility of seeking payment from the previous owner; Mr. 16o Grochala explained that he can't respond on the legal possibility. What the city could 161 possibly do is look at the SAC amount determination and, since the Met Council's 162 parameters have changed, there could be a lesser amount of SAC owed to the city in the 163 form of credit and he could check on that possibility by the court hearing next Tuesday. 164 The mayor suggested that the council look at two solutions — one being taking a lesser 165 amount into consideration and one that doesn't. GO 167 The council discussed the involvement of title insurance and Mr. Moriteza explained that 168 despite the fact that he purchased title insurance, the company providing it will not take 169 responsibility since it involves a government mistake. 170 171 Council Member Maher explained that she sees government mistakes leading to this issue 172 and it appears that Mr. Moriteza wasn't able to know about the charges. She is leaning 173 toward abating the charges. If the city must hold someone responsible, there should be a 174 course to follow the trail to the person who really should be paying. 175 176 The council will have additional opportunity to discuss this prior to the court date. Mr. 177 Grochala suggested delaying the hearing so that attorney preparation doesn't cause 178 additional costs to be incurred while more study occurs. 0 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APPROVED May 2, 2016 179 180 4. Watermark Development Update — City Planner Larsen updated the council on 181 the Watermark Project. A public hearing was held at the Planning and Zoning Board and 182 three comments were received (none from Lino Lakes' residents). The comments heard 183 were about drainage, traffic, signals, buffers or noise walls. The Planning and Zoning 184 Board discussed the lack of commercial development that was planned and one member 185 still has concerns with the development being called mixed use under those terms. There 186 were some minor changes proposed to the development based on P&Z discussion on 187 traffic and those changes will be brought back to them. The design standards are still 188 under review for the townhomes (they are mostly hammered out for the single family 189 element). 190 191 Council Member Maher asked about the small parcel in the southwest corner of the map 192 that isn't included. Ms. Larsen said the property owners apparently are not interested in 193 selling that land. 194 195 Mayor Reinert noted that this would be the largest development in the history of the city 196 so it is a big consideration. He also noted that if this development wasn't master 197 planned, it would be split into many individual projects each looking for different things 198 and probably higher density and different standards and quality. As a whole he feels this 199 development looks good in its fit within the city. This being right against 35E and to get zoo good quality in that location, he sees as a win for the city. The gross and actual density 201 was noted and is fairly low. 202 203 Council Member Manthey noted that the project also ties into the city's future plans in the 204 area of drainage and improvements that are much needed. 205 206 Council Member Rafferty asked if this will be reviewed by the Public Safety Department 207 and Ms. Larsen said they've been involved in the design review process from the 208 beginning. 209 210 The mayor asked about remaining issues and Ms. Larsen noted design standards which 211 will be a topic at the next Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Other than that, minor 212 things like storm main location and impact on property lines, a trail connection and minor 213 tweaks in the plat. The mayor asked about park dedication budget and Ms. Larsen said 214 that isn't finally determined as yet but she explained the areas that will be credited to the 215 developer within the development (trails, private park land, etc). Mayor Reinert noted 216 that he really likes the front end build out of the park and those inclusions for residents to 217 use right away but he does understand that will have an impact on the park dedication 218 fees. 219 220 Mayor Reinert discussed a communication plan, including proactively working with the 221 newspaper to get information out about the development so that people can bring forward 222 their questions. 223 5 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APPROVED May 2, 2016 224 5. North Oaks Company PUD Concept Plan — Planner Larsen reviewed the 225 proposed development on a map. A concept plan has been reviewed by the Planning & 226 Zoning Board and they've returned with some modifications. It involves 29 single 227 family homes, 30 units of one4evel twin homes. 228 229 Gary Eagles, Vice President of Development of North Oaks Company, reviewed the 230 history of the company (they've done most of the development in the city of North Oaks). 231 The core tenant would be Presbyterian Homes. 232 233 Council Member Manthey asked about phasing and a development representative 234 indicated planned phases on a map. 235 236 The price range would be basically $500,000 and up and the project would be started as 237 soon as possible. There may be some highway issues to resolve. 238 239 Council Member Rafferty asked about water connection and Mr. Eagles explained that a 240 connection was included when the Rapp Farms development was done and is now 241 available to connect to this project. 242 243 Mayor Reinert indicated that this is a very preliminary review seeking the council's taste 244 for the project. He sees it as a positive project. He prefers the lower density and also 245 feels there is a market for the properties proposed. 246 247 Council Member Manthey said he likes the lower density next to the wetlands as it 248 decreases pressure on those resources. 249 250 There was discussion about the lack of commercial included in the plans. Ms. Larsen 251 explained that three members of the P&Z Board did express concerns with that missing 252 element (mixed use is called for in the location). She explained that the designation of 253 mixed use can be either/or. Also the market study that drives the designation should be 254 reviewed if, in fact, the market doesn't exist. 255 256 Council Member Rafferty noted the knowledge and experience of the developer and how 257 it speaks to the quality of the development. 258 259 Planner Larsen explained that staff is seeking just a preliminary concept review. Mayor 260 Reinert suggested that staff keep the discussion going on a commercial element and 261 continue to keep the council updated every few months. 262 263 6. Best Value Procurement — WSB & Associates representative Brian Bourassa 264 addressed the council. He noted that the council requested more information on a best 265 value contracting scenario. He distributed information provided by the League of 266 Minnesota Cities on the concept. It represents something of a new option that allows for 267 the establishment of performance criteria. It can be part of a bidding process or allowed 268 as an option. Because this is somewhat of a new process, there are statutory limits to the 0 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 2, 2016 APPROVED 269 number of times it can be uses yearly. He explained that he has been trained in this 270 process but it hasn't been as widely used as anticipated. It's been most popular with 271 school projects but is also used by the City of Roseville. He provided a sample bid 272 evaluation form and bid report that was done using this process. When asked why the 273 city wouldn't want to do it, Mr. Bourassa said it could result in a more expensive project. 274 Where it's being used, it is seen as valuable. 275 276 Mr. Grochala suggested that it would add more complexity to the bid process and 277 therefore could add cost since it requires more from the contractors. Mayor Reinert said 278 he likes the idea that it would be optional. Council Member Kusterman suggested this 279 would be good for the projects where the city doesn't have confidence or enough 280 information without it. Mayor Reinert said it raises the bar. Mr. Grochala suggested that 281 the city could tend to use this on a more complicated project and he doesn't necessarily 282 see that the project with problems would have been one of those. Mr. Bourassa suggested 283 that criteria could be tied to areas that need the most attention in the city's estimation. 284 285 Mayor Reinert suggested that it's always good to have options and he thinks this is a good 286 tool to have available. Mr. Bourassa explained that the concept could be implemented 287 when the city sees a project that calls for it; they can do research with contractors in the 288 meantime to see how they react to the concept. 289 290 7. 2017 Budget Priorities — Mayor Reinert noted the two new council members and 291 their introduction to the city's budget process. He reviewed some city budget history — 292 last year there was no valuation increase and in years previous there were some drops in 293 valuation. All that resulted in trimming the budget. He'd like to have a goal of lowering 294 the levy percentage this year. He reviewed some of the 2016 budget, including use of 295 fund reserve, closed bond funds and debt service. He noted that there are two years left 296 on debt service for the city hall complex and that was a consideration in the two year plan 297 on paying for the fire service. Looking ahead to this year, the startup costs should 298 disappear but there will be debt service on the fire station. He thinks there will be some 299 influx to the closed bond fund from the city hall debt service also. Looking at the 2017 300 budget, the council may be looking at a possible gap but he sees positives. He discussed 301 capital equipment costs and the need to have a balanced approach; he'd like a discussion 302 about an appropriate annual contribution for fire equipment. He feels the city is in good 303 shape and there is possibility of a reduction in the levy. He noted that he sees the Public 304 Services budget bouncing up and he'd like to have that discussion as well as keeping an 305 eye on the public works facility and how that will be maintained and if there should be a 306 plan for replacement in the future. 307 7 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION :'':1 IDI May 2, 2016 308 The mayor suggested a couple of budget sessions — one with council only (Administrator 309 Karlson and Ms. Cotton providing some education on the budget process and status) and 310 then one with staff. The council concurred to have the first session on the third Monday 311 of this month. Council Members asked for a tour of public works facilities. 312 313 8. Council Update on Boards and Commissions — 314 Council Member Manthey — Charter Commission discussed legal services for their ward 315 amendment work; the group has decided to not use the League of Minnesota Cities and 316 brought in another attorney who advised them to not argue the opinion of the city's 317 attorney. 318 319 Director Swenson — Joint Law Enforcement Council — how to pay for the replacement of 320 equipment will be discussed at July meeting — budget implications most likely. 321 322 Council Member Maher — North Metro Telecommunications Committee - met on the 323 Century Link agreement but she missed the meeting. 324 325 Council Member Rafferty — Vadnais Lake Watershed District — concern that the state may 326 approve some augmentation to White Bear Lake. Recent audit of their books may 327 indicate issues with underfunding of PERA — more information to come. 328 329 9. Monthly Progress Report - Administrator Karlson reviewed the written report. 330 Several of the items had already been reviewed. 331 332 Mayor Reinert asked for an update on the American Legion parking lot situation. A 333 memorandum was distributed from Springsted explaining options for financing parking. 334 Mayor Reinert remarked on his concern about paying for an opinion that says no. 335 336 Mayor Reinert asked Mr. Karlson to add the veterans' war memorial project to the report 337 for future updates. 338 339 10. Review Regular Agenda of May 9, 2016 340 341 The council agenda and background information was reviewed. 342 343 The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. 344 345 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at they�o 'meeting held on 346 May 23, 2016. 347 34 350 u i e Bartell, City Olerk Jeff 351 352