HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-22-2017 Council Packet EXPANDED AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Monday, May 22, 2017
***********
6:30 p.m.
(Scheduled to be broadcast on Channel 16)
City Council: Mayor Reinert, Council Members Kusterman, Maher, Manthey and Rafferty
City Administrator: Jeff Karlson
COUNCIL WORK SESSION, 6:00 P.M.
Community Room (not televised)
1. Review Regular Agenda
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, 6:30 P.M.
Call to Order and Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance
Open Mike / Public Comment
Setting the Agenda: Addition or deletion of agenda items
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
American Legion Post 566, Presentation of Awards:
- Lino Lakes Police Officer of the Year: Matt Paulson
- Lino Lakes Firefighter of the Year: Mark Hokkanen
Promotion to Sergeant Police Division: Melissa Christensen
Promotion to Fire Lieutenant: Brian Finke
Public Safety Dept. Volunteer Recognition – Andy Bennett, 20 Years
1. CONSENT AGENDA
A) Consideration of Expenditures:
i) May 22, 2017 (Check No. 105869 through 105957) in the
amount of $260,484.71
B) Consider approval of May 1, 2017 Work Session Minutes
C) Consider approval of May 8, 2017 Council Meeting Minutes
D) Consider approval of May 8, 2017 Board of Appeal Minutes
E) Consider Resolution No. 17-46, Extension of Time for the Recording of the
Final Plat of St. Clair Estates
F) Consider Resolution 17-45 Approving a Permit for Consumer Fireworks Sales
for Super Target
G) Consider Resolution 17-47 Approving a Solicitor/Peddler License for Edward
Jones
Council Agenda -2- May 22, 2017
2. FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
3. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT
A) Consider Resolution No. 17-44, Approving Joint Powers Agreement
between the City of Lino Lakes and County of Anoka for Assessment of
Property, Jeff Karlson
B) Consider Appointment of Joseph Widing to Community Development
Intern Position, Karissa Henning
C) Consider Appointment of Benefits Broker, Karissa Henning
D) Consider Resolution No. 17-48, To Censure Councilmember, Mayor
Reinert
4. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT
No report
5. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT
A) Consider Resolution No. 17-43, Accepting Bids and Awarding a
Construction Contract to Sunram Construction Inc., NorthPointe Park
Project, Rick DeGardner
6. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
No report
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
8. NEW BUSINESS
None
Adjournment
Community Calendar – A Look Ahead
May 22, 2017 through June 12, 2017
Monday, May 29 CLOSED MEMORIAL DAY
Wednesday, May 31 6:30 pm, Council Chambers Environmental Board
Thursday, June 1 8:00 am, Community Room EDAC
Monday, June 5 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION May 1, 2017
DRAFT
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES 1
MINUTES 2
3
DATE : May 1, 2017 4
TIME STARTED : 6:00 p.m. 5
TIME ENDED : 9:35 p.m. 6
MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Rafferty, Kusterman, 7
Maher, Manthey and Mayor Reinert 8
MEMBERS ABSENT : None 9
10
Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Public Safety Director John 11
Swenson; Community Development Director Michael Grochala; City Engineer Diane 12
Hankee; City Planner Katie Larsen; Public Services Director DeGardner; City Clerk Julie 13
Bartell. 14
15
1. Anoka County Assessor – Preview of Board of Appeal and Equalization – 16
Alex Guggenberger, Anoka County Assessor, and Scott Schutz, Anoka County 17
Residential Appraiser, were present. Mr. Guggenberger referenced the Assessor’s 18
Report for the Board of Appeal and Equalization that is included in council’s packet and 19
that the county intends to make the report more user friendly in coming years. As 20
indicated in the Report, the number of sales in Anoka County increased by 11.6 percent 21
and registered a decrease in the number of disqualified sales. The city showed a similar 22
trend (in increased sales). He provided information to the council that is on file. Mr. 23
Guggenberger reviewed a chart of sales history, a sales breakdown by price, and sales 24
volume by price bracket. Information was also reviewed relative to sales that occurred 25
after the report deadline of September 30, 2016. Mr. Guggenberger moved to review of 26
the Board report, noting increases in property values by type (page 13). 27
28
The council will have their Board of Appeal meeting on Monday, May 8 at 6:00 p.m. 29
Anoka County staff said that, based on their phone calls, they do not anticipate any 30
property owners to be present however the board process was reviewed in preparation. 31
Mr. Guggenberger explained that some commercial/industrial properties have sent 32
correspondence to the county but they are normally matters handled by tax court. 33
34
Mayor Reinert explained that the city council acting as the Board does have the authority 35
to change valuations if they see fit. Mr. Guggenberger further explained that the role of 36
the Board is to judge valuations without preference to either the assessor or the property 37
owners. Council Member Kusterman clarified that most concerns (of residential property 38
owners) are handled by simply explaining the process and the inherent 39
40
need to reflect market increases. 41
42
2. Arlo Lane Stop Sign Request- City Engineer Hankee reviewed her written report 43
that explains the city’s process for evaluating the need for traffic control, including 44
review by the city’s staff traffic safety committee. The report is intended to be an update 45
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION May 1, 2017
DRAFT
2
and staff intends that there will be more information and discussion in the future with 46
resident involvement included. 47
48
The council expressed their support for strong neighborhood involvement. The residents 49
would be directly affected by additional traffic control (or no additional traffic control) 50
and should have their voices heard. City Engineer Hankee explained that staff is still 51
looking at the validity of the stop sign request from an engineering perspective. Staff 52
could provide notice to the area residents at any time with council direction. Council 53
Member Kusterman pondered the council’s authority if it comes to overruling a staff 54
recommendation. Ms. Hankee explained that safety is the number one priority and so a 55
recommendation would be based first on that consideration. If the addition of a stop sign 56
isn’t the right action, there could be other traffic calming recommendations. 57
58
Council Member Rafferty asked if a traffic study and the work occurring on this situation 59
is a standard response to a resident’s request and staff confirmed that they review several 60
requests each year as part of their normal work load. 61
62
3. Public Works Site Analysis and Space Needs Study – Public Services Director 63
DeGardner introduced Quinn Hutson (Principal Architect) and Jessica Johnson 64
(Architectural Designer) representing CNH Architects, to present their report. 65
66
Mayor Reinert noted that he believes the council requested an option of fixing the current 67
facility but that doesn’t seem to be included in the analysis. Mr. Hutson said that Option 68
One includes renovating the current facility with a building expansion. 69
70
Jessica Johnson and Quinn Hutson, reviewed a PowerPoint presentation that included 71
information on: 72
- Overview of analysis they have completed; 73
- Public Works site options map (site options are the existing site as Option A, or 74
site adjacent to fire station #2 as Option B); 75
- Space needs for the city’s public works program: office, vehicle storage, vehicle 76
maintenance, and departmental shops; 77
- Growth consideration for the next 20 years; 78
- A comparison with other public works facilities in cities in the area and with 79
similar population; 80
- Layout options (two at site one and one at site two); 81
- Sanitary and water service addition would be required at current site; there would 82
be some disruption of services at current facilities (Council Members expressed 83
concern about losing the baseball field and suggested that should not be 84
necessary); 85
- Site Option B advantages were noted (sewer and water hookup;, etc); the site is 86
sufficient to meet the needs of both Phase 1 and 2; 87
- An architectural review of the current facilities; accessibility and code review 88
(several issues noted); mechanical systems review; 89
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION May 1, 2017
DRAFT
3
- Cost estimate: Phase 1, all three options priced, both low cost options to higher 90
cost (Mayor Reinert remarked that a remodel without a space expansion hasn’t 91
been priced and Mr. Hutson said that is because that option wouldn’t address 92
future space needs). Mayor Reinert suggested that there is an even lower cost 93
option that would basically add an unheated pole barn, although Director 94
Grochala suggested there could be some space/utility services issues. 95
96
Mayor Reinert noted his concern about costs and prudence in spending the taxpayer’s 97
funds. He is more supportive of exploring improvements at the Fire Station No. 2 land 98
for community use, such as a park, and improving the current public works facilities to 99
get equipment protected (i.e. unheated pole barn). Council Member Kusterman 100
remarked that perhaps a more detailed, lower level explanation of costs would be helpful 101
in a careful consideration of spending. Mayor Reinert remarked that the city just dug out 102
of a recession and he’d like to keep the city’s budget small. He supports forward and 103
innovate thinking but this requires a lot of thought and there may be more urgent needs 104
right now. 105
106
In addition to more information on costs (at a more micro level), 107
a comparison of proposed square footages to current space would be helpful. Council 108
Member Rafferty remarked that city hall is a good example of a decision based on future 109
needs and the rocky road and changes that can occur as the future comes upon you. 110
111
Council Member Rafferty noted that one option would move facilities to the south side of 112
the city and he wonders if that is best location for service provision. Director DeGardner 113
suggested that the closer to the core of the city, the better as far as saving trips and driving 114
economy. Mayor Reinert noted that the future could mean population changes however. 115
Mr. Hutson added that with the south site, it is anticipated that the current site facilities 116
would continue to some extent. 117
118
The mayor asked Administrator Karlson, if the roof were leaking here at city hall, what 119
procedure and funding is available to address the problem. Mr. Karlson noted the 120
facilities fund that is available for building expenses at city hall; for the work itself, a 121
bidding process would be appropriate. The mayor asked, would that facilities fund be 122
the same source to fund repairs to the public works facilities. Director DeGardner 123
explained that staff makes judgements about how to move on repair situations. Mayor 124
Reinert suggested that repairs should be done as needed along the way and he feels the 125
funds were available for repairs. 126
127
The council concurred that they will receive additional information as they have 128
requested. Council Member Manthey asked about the move of city hall from the old 129
building to the current. Director Grochala noted a study that involved creating a town 130
center as well as the space needs that developed. 131
132
Council Member Rafferty requested that the Hugo, Shoreview, etc. public works 133
locations be shared with the council. 134
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION May 1, 2017
DRAFT
4
135
3. Century Farm North Park Dedication Review, Michael Grochala/Rick 136
DeGardner - Community Development Director DeGardner reviewed the written staff 137
report. It includes background on the Century Farm development and the park 138
dedication element. The review includes information back to the preliminary plat that 139
included a linear park system, a map showing the development area and the upland that 140
has been included for the park dedication. Going back to 2003, the park dedication 141
requirements were reviewed and Mr. Grochala explained how they were met and what the 142
developer provided. The developer did argue the formula however and there was 143
discussion that included the city attorney who eventually opined on the amount that was 144
returned to the developer in 2003. When the 2nd addition came through, the council 145
discussed the situation again, there was the same discussion and the city attorney gave the 146
same opinion. Director Grochala concluded that the city has planned its park system to 147
serve certain amounts of areas. The current day park dedication formula has, of course, 148
increased and so the last phase currently underway is higher ($20,000 noted) but it 149
wouldn’t be enough to provide a linking trail on its own; the possibility of supplementing 150
the park dedication budget is the council’s prerogative. 151
152
Mayor Reinert recalled that the developer was sold some property and the dedication 153
funds received were supposed to be used for park development. Director Grochala 154
explained that the funds were used for Behm’s Park. 155
156
The council discussed the cost of trail development. Community Development Director 157
Grochala added that there isn’t a master plan in place for the park. 158
159
Robert Sibell, 7898 Century Trail, spoke on behalf of the Century Farm North Homeowners 160
Association (49 homes); reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (on file). Some points 161
included: 162
- Noting the city’s comprehensive plan; 163
- Issues with the park dedication fee reversal; 164
- Issues with land provided for park land and its usability; 165
- Developer dispute timeline review; 166
- 2003 Developer Agreement (validity; cannot be altered); Community 167
Development Director Grochala suggested that the agreement is done when the 168
phase is done; Mayor Reinert suggested staff obtain a legal opinion on the point; 169
- Information in staff report for council approval states the amount of the park 170
dedication fee; 171
- A sample from current development agreement (NorthPointe) language on park 172
dedication fees; 173
- The generosity of the deal to the developer based on county tax appraisal of land, 174
city ordinance value of land and developer appraisal of land (developer shouldn’t 175
be able to return and change contract terms); 176
- State statutes (history) regarding park dedication fees and judicial review of 177
actions; 178
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION May 1, 2017
DRAFT
5
- His recommendations: pursue collection of funds based on improper procedure; 179
restructure based on lack of usability of land dedicated; follow through on park 180
plans to grade area and provide work to make the land suitable for development of 181
park (Director Grochala explained the work that’s been done to a portion of the 182
land to date); 183
- Discussion of the number of acres dedicated (Director Grochala suggested that 184
any upland is considered usable); 185
- Original maps shown; 186
- Recommendation to verify status of 4.7 acres dedicated; evaluate if the remaining 187
dedicated park land acreage is open and usable to public; 188
- Developer trails that were put in; a master plan was called for by the city; 189
190
Mr. Sibell explained that the property owners were told that they would get more. 191
192
Community Development Director Grochala suggested that the presentation is really 193
bits and pieces of information from a 13 year period and a conclusion is attempted 194
based just on that. He cannot fully reconstruct the entire scenario considering the 195
many discussions and decisions along the way. There was a determination along the 196
way that the developer fulfilled his obligations. 197
198
Mayor Reinert suggested that the city attorney should review Mr. Sibell’s presentation 199
and any information that is pertinent. The city could find that there is some 200
responsibility but the council must have a discussion with the complete information. 201
He has heard of developments falling short of expectations. Staff should obtain a 202
legal opinion on the presentation, implications, council discussion and a 203
recommendation on how to proceed. The city has been presented with a serious 204
question and it deserves a thorough review. 205
206
Council Member Rafferty asked that the developer’s appraisal information should be 207
available. 208
209
The mayor asked to be involved in the attorney’s review and staff suggested that the 210
attorney will have to review prior to an opinion. The mayor wants to make sure the 211
information is all that is available. 212
213
Council Member Kusterman suggested that there should be a dual track of the council 214
considering how to provide some relief moving alongside the legal review. 215
216
Council Member Manthey asked if there was an original design for a park that changed 217
with the change in funding and Director Grochala remarked that there wasn’t a plan 218
that he was aware of. 219
220
The mayor is hearing that, at a minimum, the request is to fix the existing trails and 221
also improve the park land. 222
223
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION May 1, 2017
DRAFT
6
4. West Shadow Lake and LaMotte Projects – City Engineer Hankee presented 224
information from the feasibility study on the proposed projects: 225
- background on city’s pavement management plan that guides maintenance and 226
reconstruction work on the city’s roadways; 227
- where the projects fit in to the plan recommendations (there is a strong need to 228
reconstruct these streets based on their condition); 229
West Shadow Lake Drive 230
- Establishment of roadway project first (neighborhood meeting didn’t seem to 231
show interest in water utility); 232
- Separate project would be sanitary sewer; 233
- Determining project scope (input, safety and function; cost effectiveness; funding 234
within five year plan); 235
- West Shadow Lake Drive existing conditions (roadway, drainage and wells with 236
ISTS systems); 237
- Picture shown indicating water sitting on roadway and ditch; 238
- Culvert under roadway (flooding has occurred in the area) that staff is researching; 239
- Proposed improvements (three options presented): Option 1 is to reclaim the 240
existing roadway with no subgrade or drainage improvements that would result in 241
a reduced use expectancy; Option 2 would be reconstruction to city standards; 242
Option 3 would be reconstruction to city standards but also widen roadway, 243
stormwater management and curb and gutter in various sections; 244
- How staff proposes to move ahead (continue to work on cost effective design); 245
- Estimated project costs for roadway, drainage, curb and gutter and culvert (total 246
$4.5 million); 247
- Proposed funding source is through street reconstruction bonds (couldn’t include 248
all curb and gutter); no proposed assessments; Sewer and water funding source 249
would have to be determined (Mayor noted that sewer and water will be up to the 250
residents); 251
- Proposed project schedule. 252
LaMotte neighborhood 253
- Roadway project and sanitary sewer repair or reconstruction; 254
- Water system extension; 255
- Project would include roadway, drainage improvements, with remaining wells and 256
sanitary sewer improvements; 257
- Roadway pictures shown (high water table, drainage issues, ice issues); 258
- Estimated project costs (total $1.1 million); 259
- Project funding proposed through street reconstruction funds with no proposed 260
assessments for roadway or drainage, sewer through operating funds; 261
- Same schedule proposed as for West Shadow Lake Drive; 262
263
Rough costs noted for municipal utility improvements for each project. 264
265
Community Development Director Grochala noted that the West Shadow Lake Drive 266
project is quite complicated. There is discussion for packaging of some elements of the 267
two projects together. 268
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION May 1, 2017
DRAFT
7
269
Mayor Reinert acknowledged that there are some residents who have actually waited 270
decades for improvements in the area. 271
272
5. Public Safety Update – Director Swenson reviewed his presentation: 273
- Reiteration of the department’s mission; 274
- Statistics for the 1st Quarter of 2017, including emergency response times and 275
medical calls for service and who responded. 276
- Fire division total calls; 277
- Mutual aid given; 278
- Criminal offenses by category; 279
- Arrest data; 280
- Felony case submissions. 281
282
Director Swenson also reviewed HeartSafe training that has been provided in city hall and 283
out, as well as fire training and CERT training. The department is also in the process of 284
expanding the fire prevention program, continuing car seat training, and smoke detector 285
distribution through a grant. There is also research underway on body cameras. They 286
will be reinstituting the citizens’ academy and will continue training officers in crisis 287
intervention (nine trained already). 288
289
Regarding the department’s upcoming volunteer recognition event, the council is 290
encouraged to attend and will receive a reminder invitation. 291
292
6. Council Updates on Boards/Commissions, City Council – There was no report. 293
294
7. Monthly Progress Report – Administrator Karlson reviewed the written report. 295
296
8. Review Regular Agenda – The agenda was reviewed with a brief review of items 297
presented by the Community Development Division: 298
299
6A) Consider Second Reading of No. 04-17, Vacating Drainage & Utility 300
Easements over Outlot A, NorthPointe 3rd Addition and Outlot C, NorthPointe 4th 301
Addition – City Planner Larsen explained that is second reading of the vacation 302
ordinance. 303
304
6B) Saddle Club Third Addition: Consider Resolution No. 17-39 Approving 305
Final Plat; Consider Resolution No. 17-40 Approving Development Agreement – City 306
Planner Larsen reviewed the inclusion of a road connection and land change between the 307
Comcast/City/Developer. This would be the final addition of eight new lots. There is 308
standard final plat and development agreement included for council approval. 309
310
6C) Woods Edge 2nd Addition Final Plat: Consider Resolution No. 17-37 311
Approving Final Plat; Consider Resolution No. 17-38 Approving Development 312
Agreement; Consider Resolution No. 17-42 – City Planner Larsen explained this would 313
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION May 1, 2017
DRAFT
8
be the second and final phase – the first is under construction. The project is going well, 314
with many walkthroughs and sale of some units. 315
316
9. Adjourn 317
318
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. 319
320
These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on 321
May 22, 2017. 322
323
324
325
326
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 327
328
COUNCIL MINUTES May 8, 2017
DRAFT
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES 1
MINUTES 2
3
DATE : May 8, 2017 4
TIME STARTED : 6:30 p.m. 5
TIME ENDED : 8:15 p.m. 6
MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Rafferty, Kusterman, Maher, 7
Manthey, and Mayor Reinert 8
MEMBERS ABSENT : 9
10
Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Community Development Director Michael 11
Grochala; City Planner Katie Larsen; City Engineer Diane Hankee; and City Clerk Julie Bartell 12
13
PUBLIC COMMENT 14
15
Bernadine Skoglund, 7481 Lake Drive, expressed her concern about trucks parking overnight at the 16
service station next to her home. It has been a problem in the past and the problem was addressed 17
but now it is becoming an issue and she doesn’t want it to get out of hand. Since she spoke with 18
Community Development Director Grochala, the one semi that was parking has left. She would like 19
to see the city’s ordinance become more specific so there is no confusion about parking in that lot. 20
21
Mayor Reinert concurred that the location is not a truck stop and he directed staff to act swiftly to 22
ensure that the management isn’t becoming permissive. Director Grochala explained that there are 23
parking restrictions on the street and while there is not a prohibition within the CUP for the station, an 24
agreement was reached with Holiday when they moved in; there is signage on the station’s part. 25
Mayor Reinert asked that staff report back and Ms. Skoglund be kept apprised. 26
27
SETTING THE AGENDA 28
29
The agenda was approved as presented. 30
31
CONSENT AGENDA 32
33
Council Member Maher moved to approve Consent Agenda Item 1A, as presented. Council Member 34
Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 35
36
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1B and 1C as presented. 37
Council Member Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote; Council Member 38
Maher abstained from voting. 39
40
ITEM ACTION 41
Consideration of Expenditures: 42
43
May 8, 2017, (Check No. 105796 – 44
105868, $292,993.89) Approved 45
COUNCIL MINUTES May 8, 2017
DRAFT
2
46
April 24, 2017 Council Work Session 47
Minutes Approved 48
49
April 24, 2017 City Council Meeting 50
Minutes Approved 51
52
FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT 53
54
There was no report from the Finance Department. 55
56
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT 57
58
There was no report from the Administration Department. 59
60
PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT 61
62
There was no report from the Public Safety Department. 63
64
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT 65
66
There was no report from the Public Services Department. 67
68
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT 69
70
6A) Consider Second Reading of No. 04-17, Vacating Drainage & Utility Easements over 71
Outlot A, NorthPointe 3rd Addition and Outlot C, NorthPointe 4th Addition – City Planner 72
Larsen noted that this is a request for second reading of an ordinance that provides for vacation of 73
certain drainage and utility easements related to the next phases of the NorthPointe development. The 74
council received a full presentation and approved first reading of the ordinance at their last meeting. 75
76
Council Member Kusterman moved to waive the full reading of Ordinance No. 04-17 as presented. 77
Council Member Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 78
79
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve the 2nd Reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 04-17, 80
as presented. Council Member Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried: Yeas: 5; Nays none. 81
82
Item 6B had been pulled from the agenda by staff. 83
84
6C) Woods Edge 2nd Addition Final Plat: i. Consider Resolution No. 17-38 Approving 85
Development Agreement; ii. Consider Resolution No. 17-37 Approving the Final Plat– City Planner 86
Larsen presented information on the development in a PowerPoint: 87
- Elements and location of the proposed development; 88
- Second phase of townhouse development; 89
- Consistency with final plat; 90
COUNCIL MINUTES May 8, 2017
DRAFT
3
- Phasing Plan; 91
- 55 lots and no outlots; 92
- Park dedication fees will be collected in the amount of $133,000 (park will be constructed in 93
conjunction with Anoka County); 94
- Architecture and landscaping (same as current phase); 95
- Planning and Zoning Board approval of the final plat. 96
97
Council Member Maher moved to approve Resolution No. 17-37 as presented. Council Member 98
Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 99
100
Council Member Manthey moved to approve Resolution No. 17-38 as presented. Council Member 101
Kusterman seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 102
103
6D) Consider Resolution No. 17-42, Accept Feasibility Report, West Shadow Lake and 104
LaMotte Neighborhood Street Reconstruction – City Engineer Hankee reviewed a PowerPoint 105
presentation outlining: 106
- Project background, including the location of both proposed projects, the city’s Pavement 107
Management Plan rating and need for work on these streets; 108
- The roadway project and scope (one preliminary neighborhood meeting has been held for each 109
project); 110
- The scope includes consideration of safety and function; 111
- Existing condition of both roadways (including drainage, wells and ISTS systems); Council 112
Member Maher asked how drainage systems get blocked and Ms. Hankee explained that they 113
get clogged and while the Public Works Department routinely works on a storm water 114
maintenance program, there is great demand); 115
- Picture from 2007 showing a full ditch and water on the road; 116
- Culvert on road (currently full of water); 117
- Three options presented: 1) replace roadway without storm water improvements; 2) 118
Reconstruct city roadway to city standards with smaller rural section and include storm water 119
improvements as possible; 3) reconstruction to full city standards with stormwater 120
management to improve drainage. Option 3 would be divided into four drainage sections that 121
were reviewed; 122
- Discussions with the golf course (Anoka County) about involvement in stormwater detention 123
(they already have reuse ponds); 124
- No specific site for detention of water (cost evaluation and neighborhood discussion remains 125
ahead); 126
- Discussion has occurred about the possibility of utilizing a lift station to move water but it is 127
an expensive option; 128
- Possibility of road through golf course during construction. 129
130
Regarding options, a council member asked about resident input and what is popular with the 131
neighborhood? Ms. Hankee noted that Option 3 is popular with the neighborhood and further 132
explained how city and watershed standards have changed since past projects were proposed in the 133
area, how that along with neighborhood comments have guided staff to bring a proposal that is based 134
both on standards and comments and that also considers options for drainage (the option of a lift 135
COUNCIL MINUTES May 8, 2017
DRAFT
4
station would be expensive in the area of maintenance). She noted that with Options 1 and 2, there 136
would be less impervious surface and therefore perhaps more flexibility in stormwater management. 137
138
Ms. Hankee explained how staff would propose to move forward, including specifics to each option. 139
- Staff will be working toward a cost estimate for action under the Street Reconstruction 140
Program and Option 3 will be the guide because the cost estimate cannot be more than what is 141
proposed for approval and public hearing; 142
- Project design will continue, permitting will be pursued; 143
- Cost for each of the projects was noted and elements explained; grant funding will be sought 144
as possible; 145
- Proposed funding outlined in the report; 146
- Proposed project schedule reviewed; 147
- Future council actions proposed (Street Reconstruction Program process). 148
- 149
The roadway project for the LaMotte neighborhood was reviewed; 150
- Santitary sewer repair and road reconstruction is included; 151
- The water system extension somewhere to WSL project would be separate if it is done; 152
- Width of roadway noted; 153
- Drainage is currently overland flow and that would be cleaned up and curb and gutter added; 154
- The street has municipal sewer service but not water; the sanitary system doesn’t require much 155
upgrade; there isn’t much interest staff has heard in water service; 156
- Good feedback from neighborhood meeting has led staff to get more input on sump pumps on 157
the street; 158
- Proposed cost of project reviewed. 159
- Proposed funding outlined in the report as well as schedule; 160
161
Council Member Rafferty asked about the information meetings, and confirmed with staff that there 162
was good turnout and interest. 163
164
Council Member Manthey confirmed that all options are available for water/sewer. Ms. Hankee 165
noted some basic numbers identified for utility connection. 166
167
Ms. Hankee explained process ahead and noted that staff is requesting approval of a resolution 168
accepting the feasibility study at this time. 169
170
Mayor Reinert remarked that this is exciting; city government is about helping people. This road has 171
been in bad shape since the 1980’s and many attempts have been made to get the road reconstructed. 172
He explained the history of getting a different road reconstruction project done two years ago by not 173
requiring water as part of the project. This road needs to be fixed and that should include giving the 174
road’s residents the option of joining utilities or not. 175
176
Council Member Rafferty asked why the projects would be connected for the process; couldn’t that 177
prevent one from going forward. Director Grochala explained that the process is linked to a five year 178
plan for reconstruction of roads and everything in the plan is what is subject to petition/referendum. 179
180
COUNCIL MINUTES May 8, 2017
DRAFT
5
Council Member Maher asked if adoption of a feasbility study is adoption of an outline. Ms. Hankee 181
said the study is meant to provide enough information to proceed toward a more detailed plan. 182
Mayor Reinert likened the feasibility element to requesting a house to be built and for a cost but not 183
providing the details of the house. 184
185
Mike Trehus, 675 Shadow Court, noted that he is glad that the whole neighborhood is happy and 186
looking forward to a fixed road and perhaps sewer included. He suggested that the city’s approach 187
this year is much better (not a required bike path, no option to not have water). He understands that 188
at this level of the project, everything can’t be nailed down but when he looks at the report he sees 189
that a storm pond and lift station is included at his property. Mayor Reinert said he understands the 190
question and the possibilty of a storm pond on Mr. Trehus’ property, but he pointed out that it isn’t a 191
recommendation at this point and there will be decision points in the future, after a recommendation 192
comes in. Mr. Trehus noted Page 7 and quoted a portion. Ms. Hankee responded that the language 193
indicates where there is a low point but not where a basin would be placed since it could be placed 194
several lots away and still work. Ms. Hankee also noted that the east side of the street would actually 195
be more desirable. Mayor Reinert asked if language could be added about the possibility of utilizing 196
other suitable locations. 197
198
Mr. Trehus showed a map of the roadway area indicating the length of the ditch. He noted the lack 199
of elevation change over that entire area. He asked if there couldn’t be a pond added to the end of the 200
project and therefore not impact anyone’s property. Engineer Hankee explained that the grade would 201
only be .2% and that would not be enough to move the water. Mr. Trehus asked if curb and gutter 202
would allow the runoff and Ms. Hankee said that Option 3 includes curb and gutter that would bring 203
the water to the low point. Mayor Reinert remarked that he’d like to keep the discussion relative to 204
this point in the process; there are some points that would be discussed down the line. 205
206
Mayor Reinert said he fully expects that the city will be in touch with Mr. Trehus and vice versa. Mr. 207
Trehus asked the council to postpone approval and the Mayor suggested that there’s no reason not to 208
get the project going at this point. 209
210
Mr. Trehus said he is also concerned about the drainage reporting on water flow. Water doesn’t flow 211
over the road to get from the west side to the east site – that is in the report but it is not accurate. 212
Engineer Hankee explained that is a design element, and added that there is a culvert question and 213
that will be discovered. The report refers to a high flood year that Mr. Trehus hasn’t seen. Mr. 214
Trehus added that there is an outlet. 215
216
Mr. Trehus asked who will decide between options one, two and three? Ms. Hankee said ultimately 217
the decision is the council’s but they will have a staff recommendation for consideration and there 218
will be much neighborhood input through the process. 219
220
Mr. Trehus noted that staff has indicated that the ditchs have been maintained but he hasn’t seen that 221
ever. 222
223
COUNCIL MINUTES May 8, 2017
DRAFT
6
Mr. Trehus asked if the design process will culminate with a report that the public can comment on? 224
Ms. Hankee said it will be design and specificatons and they will be presented at a neighborhood 225
meeting. 226
227
Mr. Trehus noted his questions about the difference between reclamation and total reconstruction. 228
Ms. Hankee said she will respond to Mr. Trehus after the meeting. 229
230
Mayor Reinert suggested that everyone has the same goal – a good project that everyone can be happy 231
with. He commits to working together. 232
233
Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 17-42 as presented. Council Member 234
Manthey seconded the motion. 235
236
Council Member Rafferty said he has heard comments and questions about how people are brought to 237
the information (do they receive a mailing)? Engineer Hankee remarked that staff did not hear that 238
anyone was not notifyed and she personally checked the list. 239
240
Engineer Hankee offered a suggestion to address the discussion relative to location of a storm pond: 241
add to Page 7 of the report “multiple properties will be evaluated for stormwater basin within the 242
block north or south of the low area”. Council Member Rafferty suggested “multiple properties or 243
possibilities within a block south and block north”. Director Grochala explained that ultimately 244
there will be a basin on someone’s property and there are criteria that will drive that location 245
recommendation. 246
247
Council Member Kusterman amended his motion to include Engineer Hankee’s suggestion. Council 248
Member Manthey concurred. Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 17-42 249
with the amendment to the Feasibility Report (above). Council Member Manthey seconded the 250
motion. Motion carried on a voice vote; Council Member Maher recorded as voting no as she would 251
prefer that the feasibility study be called a draft. 252
253
UNFINISHED BUSINESS 254
255
There was no Unfinished Business. 256
257
NEW BUSINESS 258
259
There was no New Business. 260
261
COMMUNITY EVENTS 262
263
MONTHLY RECYCLE DAY will be held at Lino Park (7850 Lake Drive) on Saturday, May 20 from 264
10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. See city website for a list of accepted items. 265
266
267
268
COUNCIL MINUTES May 8, 2017
DRAFT
7
269
COMMUNITY CALENDAR 270
271
Community Calendar – A Look Ahead 272
May 8, 2017 through May 22, 2016 273
Tuesday, May 9 5:30 pm, Community Room Council – Goal Setting 274
Wednesday, May 10 6:30 pm, Council Chambers Planning & Zoning 275
Monday, May 15 6:30 pm, Council Chambers Mtg. w/Bds, Comp Plan 276
Tuesday, May 22 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session 277
Tuesday, May 22 6:30 pm, Council Chambers City Council Meeting 278
279
ADJOURN 280
281
There being no further business, Council Member Maher moved to adjourn at 8:15 p.m. Council 282
Member Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 283
284
These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council Meeting, May 26, 2017. 285
286
287
288
289
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 290
291
BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES May 8, 2017
DRAFT
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES 1
MINUTES 2
BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION 3
4
DATE : May 8, 2017 5
TIME STARTED : 6:00 p.m. 6
TIME ENDED : 6:22 p.m. 7
MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Maher, Manthey, Rafferty, 8
Kusterman and Mayor Reinert 9
MEMBERS ABSENT : none 10
11
Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; City Clerk Julie Bartell 12
13
Anoka County Assessor Staff present: Molly Johnson, Commercial Appraiser; Scott Schutz, 14
Residential Appraiser. 15
16
Mayor Reinert called the meeting to order. 17
18
The council had reviewed the official board report (on file) at a recent work session. 19
20
Anoka County Appraiser (residential) Schutz explained the county increase in residential assessments 21
and the correlating increase in Lino Lakes, as outlined in the board report. Increases are driven by 22
high demand and the actual number of homes available. They h ave seen bigger increases in sales 23
figures (207 qualified sales), showing an increase in demand. There have been major increases in 24
new construction, with 83 last year. County staff has taken a few phone calls from property owners 25
with questions. He believes they were able to answer all questions satisfactorily. 26
27
Mr. Schutz noted that he has inspected a few other properties where there have been calls and is 28
asking the board to act on reductions as follows. It was noted that the County Assessor is requesting 29
that, in cases where there is a revision in the valuation but the official notice has not yet been 30
delivered, the Board should confirm those changes. 31
32
PID# 25-31-22-13-0090 – valuation reduction from $393,700 to $384,400 33
PID# 02-31-22-31-0002 – valuation reduced to $257,300 34
PID# 25-31-22-43-0030 – valuation reduced to $398,500 35
PID# 02-31-22-42-0001 – valuation reduced to $44,900. 36
37
Molly Johnson, Anoka County Appraiser (commercial), reviewed the increase in 38
commercial/industrial valuations noting that there has been more stabilization in that market. She 39
noted valuation increases of about three percent overall and 6.9% including new construction. 40
Ms. Johnson noted the following properties: 41
42
- 7960 Lake Drive, PID# 09-31-22-22-0024, inspected and will lower the value from $554,600 43
to $518,900 but the owner would like to keep his options open by being referred to the Anoka 44
County Board of Appeal. 45
BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES May 8, 2017
DRAFT
2
- 7920 Lake Drive, two parcels, PID# 17-31-22-21-0034 and 17-31-22-21-0033, vacant lot near 46
city hall that is for sale and has divided owners. They want to appeal the pay 2018 and would 47
like to keep options open while staff works on the details and be referred to the County Board. 48
49
Ms. Johnson indicated that one property owner was present wishing to address the Board regarding 50
his lot on Lake Drive, a 2.97 acre piece at 7920 Lake Drive (PID# 09-31-22-22-0030), zoned general 51
business that has recently been on the market. The property owners are interested in getting it 52
rezoned. She is recommending a reduction in valuation to $146,300. 53
54
John Magill, property owner, stated that he wanted to come this evening to see if he could get the 55
“temperature” of the city council on the possibility of a rezoning. Mayor Reinert explained that the 56
council isn’t acting in that type of capacity at this point and a rezoning process wouldn’t begin with 57
council consideration, but he would direct staff to pursue further information on the matter and he 58
invites Mr. Magill to come to the June work session for further discussion. 59
60
Motion by Maher to accept the board report and to approve the changes as recommended by the 61
Anoka County Assessor and the referrals to the Anoka County Board of Equalization as indicated. 62
Council Member Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion adopted on a voice vote. 63
64
These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council Meeting on May 22, 2016. 65
66
67
68
69
70
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 71
1
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 1E
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner
MEETING DATE: May 22, 2017
TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 17-46, Extension of Time for
Recording the Final Plat of St. Clair Estates
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Jamie Jensen, St. Clair Land Company, is requesting a 90 day extension for recording the final
plat of St. Clair Estates.
BACKGROUND
On February 27, 2017, the City Council passed Resolution No. 16-133 approving the final plat
for St. Clair Estates. Per Section 1001.059(3), the developer shall record the plat within 90
days after the date of approval, otherwise the approval of the final plat shall be considered void,
unless the developer requests and receives an extension from the City Council. The current 90
day deadline is May 28, 2017.
Mr. Jensen has requested a 90 day extension to finalize details related to financing. The new
extended filing deadline would be August 26, 2017.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 17-46 granting a 90 day extension until August
26, 2017 for recording the final plat and related documents of St. Clair Estates.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 17-46
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 17-46
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR RECORDING THE
FINAL PLAT OF ST. CLAIR ESTATES
WHEREAS, review and approvals of plats are governed by Minnesota Statutes and City of Lino
Lakes ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the final plat for St. Clair Estates, a residential subdivision, was approved by the
City Council on February 27, 2017 with Resolution No. 16-133; and
WHEREAS, Section 1001.059(3) states the developer shall record the plat within 90 days after
the date of approval, otherwise the approval of the final plat shall be considered void, unless the
developer requests and receives an extension from the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Jamie Jensen, St. Clair Land Company, has requested a 90 day extension to
finalize details related to financing.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes,
1. The final plat and related documents for St. Clair Estates shall be recorded with
Anoka County by August 26, 2017 unless an additional extension is granted by the
City Council.
2. All conditions of approval for Resolution No. 16-133 will continue to apply to the
site.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 22nd day of May, 2017.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member
_______________and was duly seconded by Council Member ________________ and upon
vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against same:
_______________________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 1F
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Lisa Hogstad-Osterhues, Deputy City Clerk
MEETING DATE: May 22, 2017
TOPIC: Resolution No. 17-45, Approving a Permit for Consumer
Firework Sales for Super Target
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1002 of the City Code sets forth the city’s regulations in regard to the sale of consumer
fireworks. The City’s regulations mirror those provided by state statute with the addition of
certain terms and conditions for issuance of a local permit.
BACKGROUND
The City has received an application from Target Corporation requesting a permit to sell
fireworks at their Super Target facility located at 749 Apollo Drive. With the permit
application the City has received verification of the required liability insurance. In turn the
applicant has been provided with a copy of the City’s regulations concerning the sale,
possession and use of consumer fireworks (Section 1002 of the Lino Lakes Code of
Ordinances) as well as a copy of the State’s regulations including information on what can be
sold.
The application and plans have been reviewed and approved by the Public Safety Department.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the city council approve Resolution No. 17-45, Authorizing issuance of
an annual permit for the sale of consumer fireworks to Target Corporation for the Super Target
store at 749 Apollo Drive.
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 17-45
Approving Issuance of an Annual Permit Allowing the Sale of Consumer Fireworks at
Super Target, 749 Apollo Drive
WHEREAS, the City has received an application from Target Corporation requesting
permission to sell consumer fireworks at the Super Target store at 749 Apollo Drive in the City
of Lino Lakes; and
WHEREAS, the city has conducted a background investigation of the applicant, and
WHEREAS, the Public Service Department has reviewed the application and finds the request
to be in compliance with applicable fire codes and fire prevention regulations; and
WHEREAS, Target has paid the required license fees and is in compliance with city ordinance;
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes:
That the City Council hereby approves an annual permit for sale of consumer fireworks for the
Super Target Store at 749 Apollo Drive, effective upon the date of passage of this resolution.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 22nd of May, 2017.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member
_____________and was duly seconded by Council Member _____________ and upon vote
being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against same:
_____________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 1G
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Lisa Hogstad-Osterhues, Deputy Clerk
MEETING DATE: May 22 , 2017
TOPIC: Resolution No. 17-47, Approving a Peddler License for
Edward Jones Financial
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
BACKGROUND
A representative from Edward Jones Financial, 5661 – 147th Street North, Hugo, MN has
submitted a peddler’s license application to the city clerk's office. The company
representative who will be working in Lino Lakes is Mr. Andrew Fish. He plans to travel
through Lino Lakes’ neighborhoods going door to door offering financial services to
interested potential clients.
The City has received all the necessary forms required to issue this company a license.
The license is contingent upon the background check being completed by the Lino Lakes
Public Services Department.
The application and all other required information is on file in the city clerk's office for
review.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Resolution No. 17-47, Approving the issuance of a Peddler License for a six
month period commencing May 23rd, 2017.
CITY OF LINO LAKES
COUNTY OF ANOKA
RESOLUTION NO. 17-47
APPROVING A PEDDLER LICENSE FOR EDWARD JONES FINANCIAL
WHEREAS, Andrew Fish, Financial Advisor for Edward Jones Financial, has submitted a
peddlers license application to the city clerk's office; and
WHEREAS, Andrew Fish has complied with all of the provisions of Chapter 613 of the Lino
Lakes City Code for obtaining the necessary license; and
WHEREAS, the Peddler/Solicitor License is contingent upon the Lino Lakes Public Safety
Department’s background check on the company representatives that will be working in Lino
Lakes, Mr. Andrew Fish;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lino Lakes City Council hereby approves
the request of Andrew Fish, Edward Jones Financial, to travel throughout Lino Lakes offering
financial services door to door for a period of six-months beginning May 23, 2017 and ending
November 23th, 2017.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 22th day of May, 2017.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member
_____________ and was duly seconded by Council Member ___________ and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against same:
_____________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 3A
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Karlson
MEETING DATE: May 22, 2017
TOPIC: JPA with Anoka Co. for Assessment Services
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is being asked to consider a resolution approving a Joint Powers Agreement
between the City of Lino and Lakes and Anoka County for assessment services.
BACKGROUND
The current five-year agreement for years 2013-2018 was adopted in 2012. Prior to the
Council approving this agreement, staff was directed to look at other options for property
assessments, including hiring a full-time assessor. Based on the Minnesota Local Government
Salary & Benefits Survey updated annually by the League of Minnesota Cities, the annual cost
of having an in-house assessor exceeds what the County can offer us.
The parcel rate for each type of property would remain unchanged for the duration of the
contract period for years 2019-2023. The County Assessor’s Office is able to do this because
of technological advances and process improvement changes.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 17-44, approving a “Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Lino
Lakes and County of Anoka for Assessment of Property.”
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. 17-44
Joint Powers Agreement
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 17-44
RESOLUTION APPROVING A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF LINO LAKES AND COUNTY OF ANOKA
FOR ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §273.072, subd. 1, any county and city, lying
wholly or partially within the county and constituting a separate assessment district, may, by
agreement entered into under Minn. Stat. §471.59, provide for the assessment of property in the
City by the County Assessor; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §273.03, subd. 2, the agreement may provide for the
abolition of the office of the City Assessor when the assessment of the property within the City is
made under an agreement with the County Assessor; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lino Lakes wishes to cooperate with the County to provide for a
fair and equitable assessment of the property within the City; and
WHEREAS, said work will be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Minn.
Stat. §471.59.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino
Lakes, Minnesota that the Joint Powers Agreement with Anoka County for assessment services
be approved for the term beginning January 16, 2019, through the year 2023, unless earlier
terminated as provided by the Joint Powers Agreement.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 22th day of May 2017.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member
_____________and was duly seconded by Council Member _____________ and upon vote
being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against same:
__________________________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 3B
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Karissa Henning, Human Resources Manager
MEETING DATE: May 22, 2017
TOPIC: Appointment of Community Development Intern
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
The Council is being asked to approve the appointment of Joseph Widing for the Community
Development Intern position in the Community Development Department.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Joseph Widing accepted a conditional job offer, which is contingent upon the successful
completion of a criminal background check and a drug and alcohol test. His starting salary will
be $12.00 an hour at 32 hours a week.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the appointment of Joseph Widing as Community Development Intern, effective May
30, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 3C
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Karissa Henning, Human Resources Manager
MEETING DATE: May 22, 2017
TOPIC: Appointment of Benefits Broker
VOTE REQUIRED: Simple Majority
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is being asked to approve contracting with National Financial Partners for
benefit broker services.
BACKGROUND
In March, staff sent out Requests for Proposals (RPF) for benefit broker services to five brokerage
firms. Johnson McCann, Marsh & McLennan, National Financial Partners, and Arthur J.
Gallagher submit competitive proposals and were interviewed for further evaluation of their
services.
Through an in-depth review of services, National Financial Partners came in as the lowest bidder
based on services provided and the following percentage of premium costs: medical 2.4%, dental
10%, life 12% and long-term disability 12%. Inclusive of this cost is extensive assistance with
the City’s wellness program and free GASB valuations.
Switching to National Financial Partners will save the City around $2,500 annually for benefit
broker services alone, and an additional $3,500 with their free GASB valuation services. It should
also be mentioned that the wellness assistance being provided at no charge typically has a price
tag between $3,000 to $5,000 dollars from competitive vendors. Johnson McCann, the City’s
current benefit broker proposed the following percentage of premiums: medical 3%, dental 10%,
life 10%, long term disability 10%. This did not include wellness or GASB valuation services.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council appoint National Financial Partners as the City’s benefit
broker.
ATTACHMENTS
None.
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 3D
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Karlson
MEETING DATE: May 22, 2017
TOPIC: Resolution to Censure Councilmember
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is being asked to consider a resolution censuring Councilmember Maher for
inappropriate comments on Congressman Tom Emmer’s Facebook page.
BACKGROUND
On May 10th Mayor Reinert was contacted by Congressman Emmer’s office that
Councilmember Maher had posted comments of a threatening nature earlier that morning on
Emmer’s Facebook page. The matter was referred to Capital Police for further investigation.
Councilmember Maher admitted it was “a terrible lapse of judgment” and publicly apologized
to Congressman Emmer, Lino Lakes residents, other councilmembers, and City staff. Ms.
Maher also insisted she had no intention of personally threatening Mr. Emmer.
The City Council Code of Conduct policy provides that the Council can formally sanction a
councilmember by resolution at a council meeting if they determine the offending
councilmember violated the Code of Conduct policy by engaging in inappropriate behavior.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff was directed to place this item on the Council agenda for consideration.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. 17-48
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 17-48
RESOLUTION TO CENSURE COUNCILMEMBER
WHEREAS, the City of Lino Lakes is in the 6th Congressional District of Minnesota,
which is represented by Congressman Tom Emmer; and
WHEREAS, on or about May 4, 2017, the United States House of Representatives
passed the American Health Care Act, with Congressman Emmer voting in favor; and
WHEREAS, on or about May 10, 2017, Council Member Melissa Maher posted the
following message on Congressman Emmer’s Facebook page:
If I were you Emmer, I’d avoid people who have a lot of
deadly objects at hand. Selling us all out was not a good plan
for your future. You’re a coward and a party whore.
WHEREAS, the message can be interpreted as threatening or espousing violence against
Congressman Emmer; and
WHEREAS, the City Council Code of Conduct provides that “Council members shall
refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges or verbal attacks upon the character or
motives of other members of the city council, boards, commissions, committees, staff or
public”; and
WHEREAS, the Code of Conduct further provides that “When presenting their personal
opinions or positions, members shall explicitly state that they do not represent the council
or the city”; and
WHEREAS, Councilmember Maher’s Facebook post was inappropriate, reflects poorly
on the City, and violates the Code of Conduct.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino
Lakes as follows:
Council Member Maher is hereby censured by the City Council for her
posting on Congressman Emmer’s Facebook page.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 22nd day of May 2017.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council
Member ____________ and was duly seconded by Council Member _____________ and
upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against:
________________________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 5A
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director
MEETING DATE: May 22 , 2017
TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 17-43, Accepting Bids and Awarding a
Construction Contract to Sunram Construction Inc., NorthPointe
Park Project
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting council authorization to accept bids and award a construction contract to
Sunram Construction Inc., for the development of NorthPointe Park.
BACKGROUND
The City Council approved plans and specifications and authorized the advertisement for bids
during the April 10, 2017 City Council meeting. Fourteen Project Manuals were distributed.
The bid opening was conducted on Wednesday, May 10 at City Hall. One bid was received.
The bid was checked for mathematical accuracy and tabulated.
Estimate
Sunram
Consruction
Base Bid $261,853 $239,973
Alternate 1 $4,000 $8,800
Alternate 2 $4,000 $12,400
Alternate 3 $7,000 $15,400
Alternate 4 $7,000 $21,700
Alternate 5 $900 $1,500
Alternate 6 $1,500 $2,250
Alternate 7 $4,000 $5,625
Total Alternates $28,400 $67,675
Base Bid + Total Alternates $290,253 $307,648
WSB Engineering has worked with Sunram Construction Inc., on previous projects and
recommends that the City award a contract to Sunram Construction Inc., for $280,823.00 to
include the base bid and Alternates 3-6. Funding for this project is the Dedicated Parks Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 17-43, Accepting the Base Bid and Alternates
Numbers 3, 4, 5, and 6 resulting in awarding a Construction Contract in the amount of
$280,823.00 to Sunram Construction Inc., of Corcoran, MN.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 17-43
2. NorthPointe Letter of Recommendation
3. Bid Tabulation
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 17-43
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
TO SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION INC., NORTHPOINTE PARK PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Council approved plans and specifications and authorized the advertisement
for bids during the April 10, 2017 City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids
were received complying with the advertisement; and
CONTRACTOR BASE BID
TOTAL
ALTERNATES
(1-6) TOTAL BID
Sunram Construction Inc. $239,973 $67,675 $307,648
WHEREAS, Sunram Construction, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it would be in the best interests of the city to proceed with
the construction of NorthPointe Park to include the base bid as well as Alternates 3, 4, 5, and 6; and
WHEREAS, funding for this project is the Dedicated Parks Fund.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes:
1. The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with
Sunram Construction, Inc., in the name of the City of Lino Lakes for the construction of the
NorthPointe Park Project according to the plans and specifications approved by the City
Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk.
2. The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with
Sunram Construction, Inc., in the name of the City of Lino Lakes for the construction
services of the NorthPointe Park Project in the amount of $280,823 to include the base bid
as well as Alternates 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 22nd day of May, 2017.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member
_______________and was duly seconded by Council Member ________________ and upon
vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against same:
_______________________________
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800
Building a legacy – your legacy.
Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com
K:\02988-250\Admin\Construction Admin\2988-25 LTR reccomendation 051017.docx
May 10, 2017
Mr. Rick DeGardner
Director of Parks & Recreation
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Hall Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Re: NorthPointe Park Development
WSB Project No. 2988-25
Dear Mr. DeGardner:
Bids were received for the above-referenced project on May 10, 2017, and were opened and read aloud.
A total of one were received. The bid was checked for mathematical accuracy and tabulated, and there
are no errors made on the Proposal Form.
The bid tabulation indicates the low bidder as Sunram Construction, Inc., in the amount of $307,648.00
for Base Bid plus all Alternates, which overall was approximately 6% over the engineer’s estimate.
WSB has worked with Sunram Construction on previous projects and would recommend that the City
consider this bid and award a contract to Sunram Construction, Inc. for $280,823.00 to include the base
bid and alternates 3 - 6 as detailed below:
Base Bid: ........................................................................................ $239,973
Alternate #3: Export unsuitable soils for court ............................... $15,400
Alternate #4: Import select granular borrow for court .................... $21,700
Alternate #5: Remove & replace curb & gutter .............................. $1,500
Alternate #6: Remove and replace concrete walk ......................... $2,250
Total Contract Amount: ............................................................... $280,823.00
We also recommend setting aside a construction contingency of 10% of the construction budget to allow
or any unknowns on the site that may require change to the construction contract.
It has been a pleasure working with the City of Lino Lakes on this project and I look forward to seeing this
project move into construction. If you have any questions or concerns, please call me directly at (763)
231-4848.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Candace Amberg, RLA
Project Manager
Attachments: Bid Tabulation
ef
Northpointe Park Development
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page - 1 of 3
No.Mat.
No.Item Description Quantity Units Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price
BASE BID SCHEDULE
GENERAL REMOVALS AND SITE WORK
1 MOBILIZATION & TRAFFIC CONTROL (NOT TO
EXCEED 5% OF PROJECT VALUE)1 LUMP SUM $12,469.20 $12,469.20 $11,400.00 $11,400.00
2 GENERAL EARTHWORK/SUBGRADE PREP 1 LUMP SUM $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $20,800.00 $20,800.00
3 WATER 20 MGAL $50.00 $1,000.00 $25.00 $500.00
4 IMPORT AND PLACE COMMON BORROW (LV)1,800 CU YD $8.00 $14,400.00 $21.50 $38,700.00
5 IMPORT AND PLACE SELECT GRANULAR BORROW
(CV)150 CU YD $30.00 $4,500.00 $26.60 $3,990.00
6 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V 700 SQ YD $2.50 $1,750.00 $2.25 $1,575.00
UTILITIES
7 ELECTRICAL WORK 1 LUMP SUM $16,000.00 $16,000.00 $13,260.00 $13,260.00
8 4" PERFORATED DRAINTILE IN ROCK TRENCH 670 LIN FT $20.00 $13,400.00 $13.75 $9,212.50
9 4" NON-PERFORATED PVC PIPE 100 LIN FT $20.00 $2,000.00 $16.25 $1,625.00
10 CORE DRILL CONNECTION INTO TURF CB 1 LUMP SUM $800.00 $800.00 $850.00 $850.00
11 DRAINTILE CLEANOUT 13 EACH $200.00 $2,600.00 $350.00 $4,550.00
PAVEMENT AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS
12 BASKETBALL BITUMINOUS PAVING (RAP-FREE) WITH
AGGREGATE CLASS 5 BASE 406 SQ YD $35.00 $14,210.00 $33.65 $13,661.90
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
I hereby certify that this is an exact reproduction of bids received.
Landscape Architect: Candace Amberg
ESTIMATE
SUNRAM
CONSTRUCTION INC.
BID TABULATION
NORTHPOINTE PARK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-250
Opening Time: 10:00 a.m.
Opening Date: May 10, 2017
Northpointe Park Development
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page - 2 of 3
No.Mat.
No.Item Description Quantity Units Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price
ESTIMATE
SUNRAM
CONSTRUCTION INC.
13 8' WIDE BITUMINOUS TRAIL PAVING WITH
AGGREGATE CLASS 5 BASE 600 SQ YD $32.00 $19,200.00 $23.65 $14,190.00
14 COURT COLOR COATING & LINE STRIPING 406 SQ YD $7.00 $2,842.00 $10.85 $4,405.10
15 BASKETBALL COURT STANDARD 1 EACH $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00
16 PICKLEBALL NET SYSTEM 1 EACH $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00
17 CONCRETE PLAYGROUND CURB 350 LIN FT $25.00 $8,750.00 $33.75 $11,812.50
18 4" THICK CONCRETE PAVEMENT OVER GRANULAR
BASE 520 SQ FT $6.00 $3,120.00 $8.15 $4,238.00
19 6" THICK CONCRETE PAVEMENT W/THICKENED EDGE
OVER AGGREGATE BASE 1,500 SQ FT $12.00 $18,000.00 $10.05 $15,075.00
20 SHELTER STRUCTURE W/FOOTINGS 1 EACH $36,000.00 $36,000.00 $30,250.00 $30,250.00
LANDSCAPE & EROSION CONTROL
21 TYPE 1 TURF SEED 1.30 ACRE $2,000.00 $2,600.00 $6,960.00 $9,048.00
22 SOD 16 SQ YD $7.00 $112.00 $20.00 $320.00
23 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET 3,000 SQ YD $2.00 $6,000.00 $1.30 $3,900.00
24 2.5 INCH CAL B&B DECIDUOUS TREE 16 EACH $500.00 $8,000.00 $500.00 $8,000.00
25 1.5 INCH CAL B&B DECIDUOUS TREE 2 EACH $350.00 $700.00 $440.00 $880.00
26 8 FOOT B&B CONIFEROUS TREE 4 EACH $300.00 $1,200.00 $510.00 $2,040.00
27 25-GALLON POTTED TREE 8 EACH $150.00 $1,200.00 $255.00 $2,040.00
28 DEWATERING AND PERMIT 1 LUMP SUM $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $850.00 $850.00
29 BIOROLL 500 LIN FT $3.50 $1,750.00 $3.10 $1,550.00
30 HEAVY DUTY EROSION CONTROL SILT FENCING 1,500 LIN FT $2.50 $3,750.00 $2.60 $3,900.00
31 ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DRIVE 1 LUMP SUM $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $850.00 $850.00
Northpointe Park Development
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page - 3 of 3
No.Mat.
No.Item Description Quantity Units Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price
ESTIMATE
SUNRAM
CONSTRUCTION INC.
TOTAL BASE BID: $261,853.20 $239,973.00
ALTERNATE BID SCHEDULE
A1 EXPORT UNSUITABLE SOILS FOR SHELTER PAD (LV)400 CU YD $10.00 $4,000.00 $22.00 $8,800.00
A2 IMPORT AND PLACE COMMON BORROW (CV)400 CU YD $10.00 $4,000.00 $31.00 $12,400.00
A3 EXPORT UNSUITABLE SOILS FOR COURT (LV)700 CU YD $10.00 $7,000.00 $22.00 $15,400.00
A4 IMPORT AND PLACE SELECT GRANULAR BORROW
(CV)700 CU YD $10.00 $7,000.00 $31.00 $21,700.00
A5 REMOVE AND REPLACE CURB & GUTTER 30 LIN FT $30.00 $900.00 $50.00 $1,500.00
A6 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONCRETE WALK 150 SQ FT $10.00 $1,500.00 $15.00 $2,250.00
A7 HYDRAULIC SOIL STABILIZER 1 ACRE $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,625.00 $5,625.00
TOTAL ALTERNATES: $28,400.00 $67,675.00
$290,253.20 $307,648.00TOAL BASE BID + ALTERNATES