HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-2020 Council work Session Packet
CITY OF LINO LAKES
CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION AGENDA
Monday, April 6, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Meeting to be held electronically
Pursuant to MN Statute 13D.021
1. Preview for Board of Appeal and Equalization, Anoka County Assessor
(Alex Guggenberger, County Assessor, will join remote meeting)
2. Birch Street Reconstruction, Michael Grochala
3. Watermark Overview and 3rd Addition PUD Final Plan/Final Plat, Katie Larsen
4. Utility Late Fees, Sarah Cotton
5. Bond Issuance for Water Tower No. 3, Sarah Cotton & Terri Heaton, Baker Tilly
6. Communications Coordinator, Jeff Karlson
7. Metro I-Net Update, Jeff Karlson
8. Council Updates on Boards/Commissions, City Council
9. Monthly Progress Report, Jeff Karlson
10. Review Regular Agenda
11. Adjourn
How to Join the Meeting
Phone: Dial 1-312-626-6799
Meeting ID: 352 630 020
Weblink:
https://zoom.us/j/352630020
WS #1
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 1
Date: April 6, 2020
To: City Council
From: Julie Bartell, City Clerk
Re: 2020 Board of Appeal and Equalization
Background
Each year the city council acts as the Board of Appeal and Equalization for Lino Lakes.
The purpose of the Board is to hear from property owners in the city who have questions
or concerns about the appraised value of their property for the coming year. The Board
has the authority to determine whether taxable property in Lino Lakes has been properly
valued and classified by the Anoka County Assessor.
State statute requires that at least one member of the board complete a training course.
Council Members Ruhland and Lyden have completed the training.
This year’s Board meeting is scheduled for May 4, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. It will be the first
item on that evening’s work session agenda. Since it appears that the work session will
be held remotely, the public has been informed and can participate by phone or computer.
Assessor staff will attend remotely as well.
Anoka County Assessor’s Office staff will be joining tonight’s work session remotely to
give a brief preview for next month’s board meeting and a review of valuations.
Attachments
None
WS – Item 2
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 2
Date: April 6, 2020
To: City Council
From: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director
Re: Birch Street (CSAH 34) proposed improvements
Background
Staff has been working with Anoka County representatives to address City Council
concerns and questions regarding the proposed Birch Street Reconstruction project.
Pending City Council direction, staff anticipates consideration of the Joint Powers
Agreement at the April 13, 2020 meeting. Action at that time will allow for a 2021
construction start.
Project Layout
Anoka County is proposing to construct the two roundabout option. A mill and overlay is
planned for the section of roadway between Kingfisher Court and Old Birch Street. This
option appears to address the majority of access, safety and speed concerns while
delaying permanent improvements to the east.
The mill and overlay would address immediate pavement concerns while allowing for
future consideration of a roundabout at Old Birch Street.
The County is also continuing to work with the City to avoid the house on the NE corner
of Birch and West Shadow Lake Dr. The West Shadow Lake Drive roundabout design
has been modified to minimize impacts to the extent practicable.
Pedestrian Crosswalks/Safety
The City Council has repressed concerns regarding pedestrian safety at the roundabout
crossings. WSB and Associates has prepared a memo regarding Pedestrian Crossings at
Roundabouts. In summary there are four main aspects that make RAB’s safer than
traditional intersections:
1. Reduction of conflict points
2. Crossing one direction of traffic at a time
3. Shorter crossing distance
4. Driver multi-stage recognition.
The memo also provides a brief description of a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
(RRFB), as previously suggested by the City Council, for the west roundabout. Anoka
County is committed to working out a safe solution for crossing including the evaluation
of an RRFB at the intersection.
Staff is suggesting that additional language addressing the RRFB be inserted into the
Joint Powers Agreement.
Cost Estimates
As discussed at the March work session, the City’s estimated share, based on the two
roundabout option, is approximately $571,000. Over 1/3 of the costs are related to
relocation of trunk water main. This cost will be funded by the Water Utility fund. The
balance of the City’s share would be funded by Municipal State Aid funds. Any
proposed landscaping, within the roundabouts, would be 100% City Cost.
Representatives from Anoka County and WSB will be available for questions during the
work session.
To maintain a 2021 construction schedule, we are proposing to act on Municipal Consent
and JPA approval at the April 13 meeting.
Requested Council Direction
Staff is requesting council direction to place the JPA on the April 13, 2020 Council meeting
agenda for consideration.
Attachments
1.WSB Ped Xing Memo, dated March 31, 2020
2.Project Layout as of March 31, 2020
3.Preliminary JPA and Cost Estimate
S:\Community Development\Projects\Government Agencies\Anoka County 2019 CSAH 34 (Birch Street)\Staff Reports\20200406 WS Birch Street Recon\a1,
CSAH 34 Ped Crossing0_20200401.docx 701 XENIA AVENUE S | SUITE 300 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN | 55416 | 763.541.4800 | WSBENG.COM Memorandum
To: Michael Grochala, City of Lino Lakes
From: Andrew Plowman, PE, WSB
Date: March 31, 2020
Re: CSAH 34 (Birch Street) Reconstruction Project
Pedestrian Crossings at Roundabouts
WSB Project No. 014400-000
The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss the operations and benefits of pedestrian
crossings at roundabouts versus standard intersections. The information provided in this memo
is information obtained from NCHRP 672: Roundabouts an Information Guide, 2nd Edition and
from my own personal experience designing and implementing roundabouts over the past
decade.
There are four main aspects that make pedestrians crossings at roundabouts safer than
traditional intersections:
1. Reduction of conflict points
2. Crossing one direction of traffic at a time
3. Shorter crossing distance
4. Driver multi-stage recognition
Reduction of Conflict Points:
A conflict point is any time two paths of a vehicle or pedestrian cross. Roundabouts reduce the
number of vehicle to vehicle conflict points from 32 to 16. They also reduce the number of
vehicle to pedestrian conflicts from 16 to 8. A pedestrian that is crossing at a standard
intersection not only has to cross multiple lanes at one time, they also have to know where the
vehicles are coming from that might be crossing their path. This includes vehicles to the left,
right, across from the pedestrian and behind the pedestrian.
Michael Grochala
March 31, 2020
Page 2
S:\Community Development\Projects\Government Agencies\Anoka County 2019 CSAH 34 (Birch
Street)\Staff Reports\20200406 WS Birch Street Recon\a1, CSAH 34 Ped
Crossing0_20200401.docx
Crossing One Direction at a Time
As mentioned, at a standard intersection a pedestrian must cross at least two lanes of traffic with
any crossing. At a roundabout, a pedestrian is only required to cross one lane at a time and can
wait at the pedestrian refuge before finalizing the crossing across the other lane. The refuge
island breaks up the maneuver thus allowing the pedestrian to gain a good sense of when the
approaching vehicle will yield to their movement.
Shorter Crossing Distance
Crossing at a standard intersection is longer than at a roundabout. A standard intersection
usually includes crossing a minimum of 24 feet at one crossing, and often includes a right or left
turn lane making the crossing closer to 48 feet at one crossing. Because a roundabout can
handle the same amount of traffic with single approach lanes, the pedestrian crossing at a
roundabout is 12-16 feet per crossing. This limits the amount of time that they can have
interaction with a vehicle.
Driver Multi-Stage Recognition
At roundabouts, the pedestrian crossing is pulled back from the yield line, where a driver waits to
enter the roundabout. This is different from a standard intersection where the crossing is at the
same location as the stop location. At the roundabout, the driver is able to focus on the
pedestrian crossing movement before trying to find a gap in traffic. The standard intersection
requires the driver to not only look for pedestrians crossing in front of them, but in every other
direction. The driver at a standard intersection also needs to ensure that the other drivers at the
intersection are also not going to conflict with their movement.
Michael Grochala
March 31, 2020
Page 3
S:\Community Development\Projects\Government Agencies\Anoka County 2019 CSAH 34 (Birch
Street)\Staff Reports\20200406 WS Birch Street Recon\a1, CSAH 34 Ped
Crossing0_20200401.docx
Another option to enhance the pedestrian crossing is the use of Rectangular, Rapid Flashing
Beacons (RRFB) or LED signs. The RRFB and LED signs are designed to alert the driver that a
pedestrian is crossing. These are pedestrian actuated and blink for a period of time to allow the
pedestrian to cross. It should be noted that a warrant analysis to implement these types of
enhancements would need to be analyzed based on gap analysis and MnDOT best practices. It
would likely only be recommended if warrants are met.
Conclusion
The roundabout pedestrian crossing can be considered safer compared to a standard intersection
due to reduction of conflict points, crossing one direction at a time, shorter crossing distance, and
driver multi-stage recognition. The pedestrian crossings at roundabouts in the state have
performed well in terms of safety.
6492
6518 WARE RD
6501 WARE RD
6497 6483
6550 DEERWOOD LN
6510
6526 WARE RD
6526 DEERWOOD LN
64866489
6498
6490 HOKAH DR
6492
6518 HOKAH DR
401
6489 HOKAH DR
403
6514 FAWN LN
6508
6520 DEERWOOD LN
6513 FAWN LN
601
6501
6507
600
485
6543
510
6537
453
641 695
6498
6441 RICE CT
655
473
6494
6491
65496517
681
881 OLD BIRCH ST
509
638
870
865 BIRCH ST
575
495
855
875
441
498 552
660
424
6526 HOKAH DR
6497
6495
6449 RICE CT
432416
6534 WARE RD
6495
6498 6490
6521
6498
6490 WARE RD
440
6509
6500 6501
6525 HOKAH DR
461
6491
6498
6457 RICE CT
6501
6514 DEERWOOD LN6520 FAWN LN 6519 FAWN LN
6502
6497
6498
6499
6485
717 725 733 741
749
LN
DEERWOOD
6544
LN
DEERWOOD
6538
LN
DEERWOOD
6532
LAKES DR
COUNTRY
720
LAKES DR
COUNTRY
726 LAKES DR
COUNTRY
738 LAKES DR
COUNTRY
744 LAKES DR
COUNTRY
750
LAKES DR
COUNTRY
756
609
6508
6540 6540
651
651
638
575
6498
6492
6487
6482
6489 6490
WARE ROADHOKAH DRTOTEM TRAILTOMAHAWK TRAILW SHADOW LAKE DRDEERWOOD LANE
DEERWOOD LANEOLD BIRCH STOLD BIRCH STLAKERESHANAUPATH & FILENAME:c:\users\aplowman\appdata\local\bentley\projectwise\workingdir\wsbeng-pw.bentley.com_wsbeng-pw-01\aplowman@wsbeng.com\dms04506\014400_Exhibit 7.dgnAnoka County, Minnesota
8' SHLD
10' TRAIL
300' X 13' RTL
12' THRU LANE
1:15
1:15
1:15
1:15
8' SHLD
12' THRU LANE
141' ICD
300' X 13' RTL
300' X 13' RTL
8' SHLD
8' SHLD
10' TRAIL
N
0 100 ft 200 ft
300' X 13' LTL 300' X 13' LTL
14' THRU LANE
14' THRU LANE
14' THRU LANE
14' THRU LANE14' THRU LANE
14' THRU LANE
14' THRU LANE
763-324-3100
Department with any questions:
Contact Anoka County Highway
from this draft plan.
The actual project plan may differ
as shown in part or in whole.
Anoka County to construct the project
This draft document does not commit
information only.
change, and is provided for
This document is a draft, subject to
design concept only.
This drawing represents a potential
Disclaimer:
763-324-3100
Department with any questions:
Contact Anoka County Highway
from this draft plan.
The actual project plan may differ
as shown in part or in whole.
Anoka County to construct the project
This draft document does not commit
information only.
change, and is provided for
This document is a draft, subject to
design concept only.
This drawing represents a potential
Disclaimer:
CSAH 34 (Birch Street) Geometric Layout
BIRCH STREET BIRCH STREET14' THRU LANE
8' SHLD
8' TRAIL 8' TRAIL 8' TRAIL
1:10
RICE LAKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
POTENTIAL POND
12'LANE
13'RTL
13'LTL
13'SHLD
14'LANE
1:15
12'LANE
13'LTL
14'LANE
13'RTL
13'LTL
14'LANE
13'RTL
1:15
1:15
Trail
Median/Curb & Gutter
Legend
Roadway
Shoulder
Truck Apron
Blvd/Central Island
Driveway Apron
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Potential Pond Location
Mill and Overlay
34
COUNTY
34
COUNTY
1
Anoka County Contract No. C000XXXX
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF CSAH 34 (BIRCH STREET)
FROM HOKAH DRIVE TO 550 FEET EAST OF WEST SHADOW LAKE DRIVE
IN THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN
(SAP 002-634-003, SAP XXX-XXX-XXX)
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 2020 by and
between the County of Anoka, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, 2100 Third Avenue,
Anoka, Minnesota 55303, hereinafter referred to as "County", and the City of Lino Lakes, 600 Town
Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, hereinafter referred to as "City".
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the parties to this agreement agree it is in the best interest of the traveling public to
reconstruct County State Aid Highway 34 (Birch Street) from Hokah Drive to 550 feet east of West
Shadow Lake Drive; and,
WHEREAS, said parties mutually agree that CSAH 34 needs to be reconstructed; and,
WHEREAS, the County has prepared preliminary design plans for the reconstruction of CSAH
34 in accordance with Anoka County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation standards to a
staff approved layout condition; and,
WHEREAS, Anoka County has jurisdiction over CSAH 34 and,
WHEREAS, the parties agree that it is in their best interest that the cost of said project be shared;
and,
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 471.59 authorizes political subdivisions of the state to enter into joint
powers agreements for the joint exercise of powers common to each.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY STIPULATED AND AGREED:
I. PURPOSE
The parties have joined together for the purpose of reconstructing CSAH 34 (Birch Street) from
Hokah Drive to 550 feet east of West Shadow Lake Drive as described in the preliminary design plans.
The County project number is SAP 002-634-003 and the City project number is SAP XXX-XXX-XXX.
Said engineering plans are filed in the office of the Anoka County Highway Department and
incorporated herein by reference.
The parties to this Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) agree in principle that construction of SAP 002-634-
003 / SAP XXX-XXX-XXX, is in the best interest of the traveling public and that the Preliminary
Layout as shown in Exhibit “A” defines the preliminary design of the Project.
It is agreed that the Exhibit “A” Layout dated has been reviewed and accepted by
the parties and is suitable for preparation of final construction documents. Any significant changes
2
made hereafter to the design as presented in the Exhibit “A” Layout will require approval by the parties
as an amendment to this JPA. These same changes will require a change in the cost share to include any
additional design engineering costs that may occur.
II. METHOD
The County shall cause the construction of Anoka County Project SAP 002-634-003, City project
number SAP XXX-XXX-XXX, in conformance with proposed engineering plans and specifications.
IMPROVEMENTS
It is agreed by the parties that in 2021, CSAH 34 will be reconstructed with concrete median to the
extent shown in ‘Exhibit A’. Improvements include but are not limited to: roadway widening,
roundabout construction, storm sewer and associated ponding, turn lanes, shoulders, bituminous trails,
retaining walls/fencing and concrete curb & gutter. The costs of these improvements have been
estimated for this agreement and will be finalized after bids have been received. These costs will be
shared by the County and the City.
INTERSECTIONS:
As agreed by the parties, improvements to the following intersections have been incorporated in the
‘Exhibit A’ Layout design:
CSAH 34 @ Hokah Drive: Full Access
CSAH 34 @ Totem Trail: ¾ Access
CSAH 34 @ Tomahawk Trail: Roundabout – Full Access
CSAH 34 @ West Rice Lake Elementary School Entrance: Closed (relocated to Roundabout)
CSAH 34 @ East Rice Lake Elementary School Entrance: Right-in/Right-out Access
CSAH 34 @ Vaughan Court: Right-in/Right-out Access
CSAH 34 @ West Shadow Lake Drive: Roundabout – Full Access
CSAH 34 @ Kingfisher Court: Full Access
RIGHT OF WAY:
The parties agree that the County will acquire all necessary right-of-way and easements for the Project.
Acquisition of any additional right-of-way and/or easements needed for improvements to city street
intersections beyond what is defined in the ‘Exhibit A’ Layout will be the responsibility of the City. It is
agreed by the parties that all necessary right of way and easements will be in legal possession of the
County prior to acceptance of bids for the project. The County will work with the City to facilitate any
land transfer necessary to complete the project and provide for proposed City Well location.
DRAINAGE:
The City shall pay for a percentage of the cost of the storm sewer system, including the detension basins
and their outlet structures. The City portion of the cost is based on contributing flow through the storm
sewer system determined by the product of contributing area and runoff coefficient.
TRAFFIC CONTROL:
3
The parties agree and understand the cost share for traffic control for the city shall be a prorated share
based on the City project cost divided by the total project cost.
The parties understand and agree that CSAH 34 will be open thru traffic during most phases of
construction. During certain phases of construction CSAH 34 will be open to one-way traffic, while the
opposing traffic will be detoured through CSAH 49, Ash Street, CR J, CSAH 32 and CSAH 21.When
necessary, CSAH 34 will be closed to through traffic and detoured through CSAH 49, Ash Street, CR J,
CSAH 32 and CSAH 21. Closures will be limited to weekends. Access for local and emergency
vechicles will be maintained during all phases of construction.
DRIVEWAYS:
The parties agree that all driveways affected by the Project will be reconstructed in kind at 100% project
cost with the cost of any upgrades requested by the City, including concrete aprons, to be the sole
responsibility of the City.
LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING:
The parties agree that if the City wishes to include landscaping or streetscape features in the project, they
shall be designed in accordance with Anoka County Highway Department Landscape/Streetscape
Guidelines. The City shall supply the signed plan sheets and specifications for the proposed
landscape/streetscape. The total cost of the design as well as the construction cost above standard cost
will be at the expense of the City. All construction documents must be submitted to the County by May
20, 2020. Maintenance of any landscaping/streetscaping will be the sole responsibility of the City.
RETAINING WALLS:
The parties agree that if the City wishes to include aesthetic treatment to any retaining walls, any
construction cost above standard cost will be at the expense of the requesting City
LIGHTING:
The parties agree that the roundabout intersection lighting costs will be shared per the standard County
cost share for new traffic signals, with the City paying for 75% of the roundabout lighting. If the City
would like additional lighting on the project, or requests upgraded lighting materials (e.g. decorative
poles, fixtures, and luminaires), this additional cost would be 100% City responsibility. Lighting will be
installed in accordance with the City lighting ordinance and will contain LED fixtures wherever possible
and provided such lighting is within the budget for the Project.
UTILITIES:
The parties agree that the ‘Exhibit A’ Layout does not include specific proposed utility locations. The
City will be responsible for the design of any sanitary sewer and water main improvements and/or
relocations due to road reconstruction, which will be incorporated into the project bid documents. The
cost of the design, construction, and inspection of these features shall be the responsibility of the City.
The City’s design of the sanitary sewer and water main utilities are to include signed plans,
specifications, and estimated quantities (using MnDOT Trns*port Item List Numbers) and cost. All
construction documents must be submitted to the County by May 20, 2020.
4
PERMITS:
The parties agree that the County will secure all necessary permits for this Project. The City agrees to
coordinate with the County in securing any permits required by the Rice Creek Watershed District, city
permits, as well as any other permits that may be required. The County also requests that the City
inform the County of any ordinances or city regulations that affect construction at the time of the signing
of this JPA. (e.g. setbacks, tree clearing ordinances, or any other city ordinances.)
III. COSTS
The contract costs of the work, or if the work is not contracted, the cost of all labor, materials,
normal engineering costs and equipment rental required to complete the work, shall constitute the actual
"construction costs" and shall be so referred to herein. "Estimated construction costs" are good faith
projections of the costs, which will be incurred for this project. Actual costs will vary and those will be
the costs for which the relevant parties will be responsible.
The estimated construction cost of the project is $4,703,745.00. The total estimated construction
cost to the City is $528,090.00. State Aid funds have been allocated for this project.
The City participation in construction engineering will be at a rate of eight percent (8%) of their
designated construction share of $528,090.00. The estimated cost to the City for construction
engineering is $42,247.20. In summary, the total City share of this project is $570,337.20 (includes
construction and construction engineering costs).
For a detailed breakdown of the cost splits for this project see “EXHIBIT B”.
Upon award of the contract, the City shall pay to the County, upon written demand by the
County, ninety five percent (95%) of its portion of the cost of the project estimated at $541,820.34.
Prior to billing, this estimate will be updated by the County to reflect the actual bid prices as awarded.
An updated cost estimate shall be provided to the City at the time of billing. The City's share of the cost
of the project shall include only construction and construction engineering expense and does not include
engineering design and administrative expenses incurred by the County.
Upon final completion of the project, the City's share of the construction cost will be based upon
actual construction costs. If necessary, adjustments to the initial ninety five percent (95%) charged will
be made in the form of credit or additional charges to the City's share. Also, the remaining five percent
(5%) of the City's portion of the construction costs shall be paid..
IV. TERM
This Agreement shall continue until terminated as provided hereinafter.
V. DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS
All funds disbursed by the County or City pursuant to this Agreement shall be disbursed by each
entity pursuant to the method provided by law.
VI. CONTRACTS AND PURCHASES
5
All contracts let and purchases made pursuant to this Agreement shall be made by the County in
conformance to the State laws.
VII. STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY
A strict accounting shall be made of all funds and report of all receipts shall be made upon
request by either party. Prior to City payment to the County, the County shall provide the City a copy
of all cost participation documents submitted to MnDOT State Aid.
VIII. TERMINATION
This Agreement may be terminated by either party at any time, with or without cause, upon not
less than thirty (30) days written notice delivered by mail or in person to the other party. If notice is
delivered by mail, it shall be deemed to be received two days after mailing. Such termination shall not
be effective with respect to any solicitation of bids or any purchases of services or goods which occurred
prior to such notice of termination. The City shall pay its pro rata share of costs which the County
incurred prior to such notice of termination.
IX. MAINTENANCE
A. Maintenance of the completed watermain, sanitary sewer, storm sewer (except catch basins,
catch basin leads, and sump structures within the roadway), detention basins (including ponds,
pond outlet structures, grit chambers / collectors outside the roadway, and filtration systems)
shall be the sole obligation of the City.
B. Maintenance of the bituminous trails shall be the responsibility of the City. The City shall be
responsible for general routine maintenance, such as, sweeping, clearing, plowing, trash removal
and other incidental items and shall be responsible for long-term maintenance, such as
bituminous overlays, crack sealing and replacement (unless replacement is part of a major
County road improvement project).
C. Maintenance of crosswalk pavement markings on City streets shall be the responsibility of the
City. The City will be responsible for all crosswalk pavement markings for the crossings at all
city streets.
D. Maintenance of streetlights and cost of electrical power to the streetlights shall be the sole
obligation of the City. The City will be responsible for long-term maintenance and replacement
of the complete street light system including items such as: poles, fixtures, luminaires, and
control cabinets.
XI. NOTICE
For purposes of delivery of any notices herein, the notice shall be effective if delivered to the
County Administrator of Anoka County, 2100 Third Avenue, Anoka, Minnesota 55303, on behalf of the
County, and to the City Administrator of the City of Lino Lakes, 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino
Lakes, MN 55014.
6
XII. INDEMNIFICATION
The City and County mutually agree to indemnify and hold harmless each other from any claims,
losses, costs, expenses or damages resulting from the negligent acts or omissions of the respective
officers, agents, or employees relating to activities conducted by either party under this Agreement.
7
XIII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT OF WRITING
It is understood and agreed that the entire agreement of the parties is contained herein and that
this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and all negotiations between the parties relating to the
subject matter thereof, as well as any previous agreement presently in effect between the parties to the
subject matter thereof. Any alterations, variations, or modifications of the provisions of this Agreement
shall be valid only when they have been reduced to writing and duly signed by the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have hereunto set their hands on the
dates written below.
COUNTY OF ANOKA CITY OF LINO LAKES
By: By:
Rhonda Sivarajah Rob Rafferty
County Administrator Mayor
Dated: Dated:
By:
Julianne Bartell
City Clerk
Dated:
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
By:
Joe J. MacPherson, P.E.
County Engineer
Dated:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
By:
Dan Klint
Assistant County Attorney
Dated:
8
EXHIBIT C
COST-SHARING AGREEMENT
FOR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTED IN ANOKA COUNTY
ITEMS COUNTY SHARE CITY SHARE
Concrete Curb & Gutter 50% 50%
Concrete Curb & Gutter for Median Construction 100% 0%
Concrete Median 100% 0*1
Concrete Sidewalk 0% 100%
Concrete Sidewalk Replacement 100% 0%
Bikeways 0% 100%
Bikeway Replacement 100%, 0%
Unless existing trail not placed at edge of R/W
Construction or Adjustment of Local Utilities 0% 100%
Grading, Base and Bituminous 100% 0%
Storm Sewer based on state aid letter*2 based on state aid letter*2
Driveway Upgrades 100%, in-kind 100%, of up-grades
Traffic Signals, new (communities larger than 5,000) ½ the cost of its the cost of its legs of
w/ State Aid approved SJR legs of the intersection the intersection plus ½
the cost of the County legs
of the intersection
Traffic Signals, replacement (communities larger than 5,000) the cost of its legs of the cost of its legs of
w/ State Aid approved SJR the intersection the intersection
Traffic Signals, new & replacements (communities less than 5,000) 100% 0%
w/ State Aid approved SJR
Traffic Signal, w/o State Aid approved SJR 0% 100%
EVP 0% 100%
Engineering Services *3 *3
Right-of-Way 100%*4 0%
Street Lights 0% 100%
Noise Walls 100%, if not previously notified*5 100%, if previously notified*5
*1 The County pays for 100% of Standard Median Design such as plain concrete. If a local unit of government requests decorative
median such as brick, stamped concrete, or landscaping, the local unit will pay the additional cost above the cost of standard
median.
*2 In the event no State Aid is being used, or in the event the state aid letter does not determine cost split percentages, drainage cost
shares will be computed by the proportion of contributing flow outside the County right of way to the total contributing flow.
*3 Engineering shall be paid by the Lead Agency except that any participating agency will pay construction engineering in the amount
of 8% of the construction costs paid by that agency.
*4 In the event that the Township or City requests purchase of right-of-way in excess of the right-of-way required by County
construction, the Township or City participates to the extent an agreement can be reached in these properties. For instance, a
Township or City may request a sidewalk be constructed alongside a County roadway which would require additional right-of-way, in
which case the Township or City may pay for that portion of the right-of-way. Acquisition of right-of-way for new alignments shall be
the responsibility of the Township or City in which the alignment is located. This provision may be waived by agreement with the
County Board if the roadway replaces an existing alignment and the local unit of government takes jurisdiction of that existing
alignment. In addition, any costs, including right-of-way costs, incurred by the County because a Township or City did not acquire
sufficient right-of-way during the platting process or redevelopment process as requested by the County shall be paid by the
Township or City.
*5 Notification includes any letter to the agency indicating that noise will potentially be an issue in the future, likely received during the
Plat Review Process. Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the agency paying for the initial installation. When the County is the
responsible agency, it shall pay 100% of Standard Noise Wall Cost. If a local agency requests decorative noise walls, the
requesting agency will pay the additional cost above the cost of standard noise wall.
WSB Project:CSAH 34 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS - 2 ROUNDABOUT OPTION
Project Location:ANOKA COUNTY, MN
WSB Project No.:014400-000
Date:02/26/2020
Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated
Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost
2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM $250,000.00 1.00 $250,000.00 0.89 $222,500.00 0.11 $27,500.00
2101.524 CLEARING TREE $250.00 10 $2,500.00 10.0 $2,500.00
2101.524 GRUBBING TREE $200.00 10 $2,000.00 10.0 $2,000.00
2104.502 REMOVE GATE VALVE EACH $300.00 5 $1,500.00 5 $1,500.00
2104.502 REMOVE HYDRANT EACH $250.00 3 $750.00 3 $750.00
2104.502 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH $300.00 10 $3,000.00 9.0 $2,700.00 1 $300.00
2104.502 REMOVE SIGN TYPE C EACH $35.00 60 $2,100.00 60.0 $2,100.00
2104.503 REMOVE WATER MAIN LIN FT $12.00 250 $3,000.00 250 $3,000.00
2104.503 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)LIN FT $2.00 950 $1,900.00 950.0 $1,900.00
2104.503 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM)LIN FT $20.00 780 $15,600.00 780.0 $15,600.00
2104.503 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT $5.00 2140 $10,700.00 2140.0 $10,700.00
2104.504 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD $4.00 160 $640.00 160.0 $640.00
2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD $3.00 900 $2,700.00 900.0 $2,700.00
2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD $3.00 22500 $67,500.00 22500.0 $67,500.00
2104.518 REMOVE BITUMINOUS WALK SQ FT $1.00 51000 $51,000.00 51000.0 $51,000.00
2104.518 REMOVE CONCRETE WALK SQ FT $1.50 2680 $4,020.00 2680.0 $4,020.00
2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON CU YD $10.00 10000 $100,000.00 10000.0 $100,000.00
2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE CU YD $12.00 13000 $156,000.00 13000.0 $156,000.00
2106.507 EXCAVATION - CHANNEL AND POND CU YD $16.00 2000 $32,000.00 2000.0 $32,000.00
2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)CU YD $20.00 15000 $300,000.00 15000.0 $300,000.00
2106.507 COMMON EMBANKMENT (CV) CU YD $3.00 12000 $36,000.00 12000.0 $36,000.00
2123.510 COMMON LABORERS HOUR $80.00 20 $1,600.00 20.0 $1,600.00
2123.510 DOZER HOUR $160.00 20 $3,200.00 20.0 $3,200.00
2123.510 10 CU YD TRUCK HOUR $180.00 20 $3,600.00 20.0 $3,600.00
2123.510 0.75 CU YD FRONT END LOADER HOUR $125.00 20 $2,500.00 20.0 $2,500.00
2123.610 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM)HOUR $140.00 20 $2,800.00 20.0 $2,800.00
2130.523 WATER M GALLON $40.00 10 $400.00 10.0 $400.00
2211.507 AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5 CU YD $25.00 5900 $147,500.00 5900.0 $147,500.00
2232.504 MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE (2.0")SQ YD $5.00 8600 $43,000.00 8600.0 $43,000.00
2301.504 CONCRETE PAVEMENT 7.0"SQ YD $75.00 2850 $213,750.00 2850.0 $213,750.00
2301.504 CONCRETE PAVEMENT 7.0" SPECIAL SQ YD $80.00 725 $58,000.00 725.0 $58,000.00
2302.602 DRILL & GROUT REINF BAR (EPOXY COATED)EACH $22.00 300 $6,600.00 300.0 $6,600.00
2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,B)TON $80.00 2200 $176,000.00 2200.0 $176,000.00
2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,C)TON $75.00 5900 $442,500.00 5900.0 $442,500.00
2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (4,B)TON $75.00 450 $33,750.00 450.0 $33,750.00
2402.503 ORNAMENTAL METAL RAILING LIN FT $120.00 150 $18,000.00 150.0 $18,000.00
2411.618 MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL SQ FT $60.00 1000 $60,000.00 1000.0 $60,000.00
2501.502 30" RC PIPE APRON EACH $1,150.00 3 $3,450.00 3.0 $3,450.00
2501.602 TRASH GUARD FOR 30" PIPE APRON EACH $1,500.00 3 $4,500.00 3.0 $4,500.00
2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS V LIN FT $65.00 2900 $188,500.00 2610.0 $169,650.00 290 $18,850.00
2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 LIN FT $68.00 400 $27,200.00 360.0 $24,480.00 40 $2,720.00
2503.503 24" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 LIN FT $75.00 300 $22,500.00 270.0 $20,250.00 30 $2,250.00
2503.503 30" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS IV LIN FT $125.00 300 $37,500.00 270.0 $33,750.00 30 $3,750.00
2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH $1,200.00 1 $1,200.00 0.9 $1,080.00 0 $120.00
2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EACH $1,500.00 4 $6,000.00 4 $6,000.00
2504.602 HYDRANT EACH $3,500.00 3 $10,500.00 3 $10,500.00
2504.602 16" GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH $4,500.00 4 $18,000.00 4 $18,000.00
2504.603 16" WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON CL 51 LIN FT $220.00 600 $132,000.00 600 $132,000.00
2504.608 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS POUND $6.00 2600 $15,600.00 2600 $15,600.00
2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH $750.00 60 $45,000.00 54.0 $40,500.00 6 $4,500.00
2506.502 ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING EACH $500.00 15 $7,500.00 15.0 $7,500.00
2506.503 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 48-4020 LIN FT $750.00 200 $150,000.00 180.0 $135,000.00 20 $15,000.00
2506.503 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 60-4020 LIN FT $1,000.00 50 $50,000.00 45.0 $45,000.00 5 $5,000.00
2506.503 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 84-4020 LIN FT $1,300.00 40 $52,000.00 36.0 $46,800.00 4 $5,200.00
2521.518 4" CONCRETE WALK SQ FT $6.00 23620 $141,720.00 23620.0 $141,720.00
2521.518 6" CONCRETE WALK SQ FT $10.00 5250 $52,500.00 5250.0 $52,500.00
2521.518 3" BITUMINOUS WALK SQ FT $2.00 61500 $123,000.00 61500.0 $123,000.00
2531.503 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGN R418 LIN FT $35.00 640 $22,400.00 640.0 $22,400.00
2531.503 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGN B418 (MOD)LIN FT $20.00 6500 $130,000.00 6500.0 $130,000.00
2531.503 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGN B424 LIN FT $22.00 8800 $193,600.00 4400.0 $96,800.00 4400 $96,800.00
2531.504 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD $60.00 305 $18,300.00 305.0 $18,300.00
2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES SQ FT $42.00 800 $33,600.00 800.0 $33,600.00
2545.502 LIGHTING UNIT TYPE SPECIAL EACH $7,000.00 15 $105,000.00 3.75 $26,250.00 11.25 $78,750.00
2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM $100,000.00 1.00 $100,000.00 0.89 $89,000.00 0.11 $11,000.00
2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C SQ FT $30.00 500 $15,000.00 500.0 $15,000.00
2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE D SQ FT $45.00 400 $18,000.00 400.0 $18,000.00
2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LUMP SUM $2,000.00 1 $2,000.00 1.0 $2,000.00
2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH $250.00 58 $14,500.00 58.0 $14,500.00
2573.502 CULVERT END CONTROLS EACH $200.00 3 $600.00 3.0 $600.00
2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS LIN FT $4.00 1500 $6,000.00 1500.0 $6,000.00
2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER LIN FT $3.00 1000 $3,000.00 1000.0 $3,000.00
CITY
Unit PriceDescriptionItem
No.Unit
STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED QUANTITIES
PROJECT TOTAL COUNTY
"EXHIBIT B"
P:\002-634-003\Documents\Agreements\Engineer Estimate_Alt. 1(Cost_Split).xlsx
WSB Project:CSAH 34 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS - 2 ROUNDABOUT OPTION
Project Location:ANOKA COUNTY, MN
WSB Project No.:014400-000
Date:02/26/2020
Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated
Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost
CITY
Unit PriceDescriptionItem
No.Unit
STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED QUANTITIES
PROJECT TOTAL COUNTY
"EXHIBIT B"
2574.508 FERTILIZER TYPE 3 POUND $1.00 1305 $1,305.00 1305.0 $1,305.00
2575.505 SEEDING ACRE $1,000.00 4 $3,800.00 3.8 $3,800.00
2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-121 POUND $10.00 228 $2,280.00 228.0 $2,280.00
2575.508 HYDRAULIC STABILIZED FIBER MATRIX POUND $2.00 11180 $22,360.00 11180.0 $22,360.00
2575.523 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 3 M GALLON $300.00 45 $13,500.00 45.0 $13,500.00
2582.503 4" SOLID LINE MULTI-COMPONENT GROUND IN LIN FT $1.00 7100 $7,100.00 7100.0 $7,100.00
2582.503 6" SOLID LINE MULTI-COMPONENT GROUND IN LIN FT $1.00 9800 $9,800.00 9800.0 $9,800.00
2582.503 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE MULTI-COMPONENT GROUND IN LIN FT $1.00 1430 $1,430.00 1430.0 $1,430.00
2582.503 12" DOTTED LINE MULTI-COMPONENT GROUND IN (WR)LIN FT $3.00 170 $510.00 170.0 $510.00
2582.518 PAVEMENT MESSAGE PREFORM THERMOPLASTIC GROUND IN SQ FT $26.00 180 $4,680.00 180.0 $4,680.00
2582.518 CROSSWALK PREFORM THERMOPLASTIC GROUND IN SQ FT $20.00 810 $16,200.00 810.0 $16,200.00
CONTINGENCY 15%$614,000.00 $545,000.00 $69,000.00
ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $4,703,745.00 $4,175,655.00 $528,090.00
P:\002-634-003\Documents\Agreements\Engineer Estimate_Alt. 1(Cost_Split).xlsx
1
WS – Item 3
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 3
Date: April 6, 2020
To: City Council
From: Katie Larsen, City Planner
Re: Watermark Overview and 3rd Addition PUD Final Plan/Final Plat
Background
At the April 27, 2020 Council meeting, staff will be presenting Watermark 3rd Addition
PUD Final Plan/Final Plat for Council consideration. For new Council members, staff
would like to provide an overview of the project.
Overview
Watermark is a 372 acre master planned residential community consisting of 692 single
family lots and 172 townhome units totaling 864 housing units. The development is
located in the northwest quadrant of I-35E and CSAH 14 (Main Street). It is comprised of
different neighborhoods with varying lot sizes and housing products to meet market
demands. At full build, Watermark will create over 82 acres of parks and open space
including a 5 acre master public park with community center, 63 acres of water and
wetland features, 3 miles of trails and 6 miles of sidewalk.
Previous Council discussions and approvals include:
• May 5, 2014: Council Work Session
o General discussion and overview of the project (Mattamy Homes)
• June 2, 2014: Council Work Session
o Review of variety of housing styles and lot widths
• November 3, 2014: Council Work Session
o Review Concept Plan
o Summary of advisory board meetings and comments
• July 6, 2015: Council Work Session
o General discussion regarding
Commercial development component
Lot widths and sizes
Public values
• June 13, 2016: City Council
o Resolution No. 16-51 approving PUD Development Stage
Plan/Preliminary Plat
• October 9, 2017: City Council
2
o Resolution No. 17-95 approving Amendment #1 to Land Use Plan (Lennar
Corporation)
• December 11, 2017: City Council
o Resolution No. 17-133 approving Amendment #2 to Architectural Design
Standards
• October 14, 2019: City Council
o Resolution No. 19-131 approving Amendment #3 to Architectural Design
Standards
• December 10, 2018: City Council
o Resolution No. 18-143 approving 1st Addition PUD Final Plan/Final Plat
• October 28, 2019: City Council
o Resolution No. 19-137 approving 2nd Addition PUD Final Plan/Final Plat
PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat
The PUD Development Stage Plan approved by Resolution No. 16-51 establishes
Watermark’s overall land use plan, street and utility layout, parks and open space plan,
architectural design standards, landscaping and lot development standards. These
standards are summarized in the PUD Master Plan Booklet (See Attachment #1) and are
incorporated as part of the Master Development Agreement. An Architectural Standards
Matrix details compliance of the housing products with the approved land use controls in
regards to exterior materials and styles, house elevations and garage and porch
requirements.
The net density is 3.39 units per acre and is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan’s required 3.0 to 4.5 units per acre.
October
2018
Gross Area (acres) 372.24
Wetlands & Water Bodies 45.09
Public Parks & Open Space 66.25
Arterial ROW 5.46
Other (Undevelopable) 0.62
Net Area (acres) 254.82
# of Housing Units 864
Gross Density (units/acre) 2.32
Net Density (units/acre) 3.39
PUD Final Plan/Final Plat
Each phase (i.e. addition) of development shall submit a PUD Final Plan/Final Plat. The
City’s responsibility in reviewing and approving final plans and final plats is to determine
that they substantially conform to with the previously approved PUD Development Stage
Plan and Preliminary Plat.
3
Watermark 3rd Addition creates 96 single family lots, 79 townhome lots and 1 outlot. The
PUD Final Plan is consistent with the PUD Development Stage Plan in regards to the
land use plan, street and utilities, parks and open space, lot standards, landscaping and
architectural design standards. The final plat also conforms to the preliminary plat.
The April 27, 2020 Council staff report will provide more detail on the 3rd Addition. A
Development Agreement will also be included. The Agreement securities are broken into
a Phase 3A and Phase 3B to reflect different grading and utility construction areas.
Requested Council Direction
At the April 27, 2020 Council meeting:
i. Consider Resolution No. 20-30 Approving 3rd Addition PUD Final Plan/Final Plat
ii. Consider Resolution No. 20-31 Approving Development Agreement
Attachments
1. PUD Master Plan Booklet
2. Watermark 3rd Addition Final Plat
PUD MASTER PLAN BOOKLET
August 31st, 2018
Developer - Lennar Corporation
16305 36th Ave N Ste 600
Plymouth, Mn United States
T. 952.249.3014
Contact: Joseph Jablonski
Site Planning / Surveyor / Engineer - Carlson McCain
3890 Pheasant Ridge Drive Suite 100
Blaine, MN 55449
Tel: 763-489-7900
info@carlsonmccain.com
Table of Contents
Introduction
Existing Conditions Plan
Guide Plan and Zoning
Approved Land Use Plan
Concept Grading Plan
Overall Sanitary Sewer Main Line Plan
Overall Watermain Plan
Overall Water Drainage Plan
Parks and Open Space Plan - Sidewalks and Trails
Public Park Conceptual Layout
Roadway Plan
Typical Street Sections
Phasing Plan - Utility
Phasing Plan - Grading
PUD Development Standards
Development Standards: Single Family
Development Standards: Attached Townhomes
Back to Back Homes
Entrance Monuments
Potential Bridge Design
Berm Sections
HOA Center Concept
High Visibility Location Map
...............................................................................................................2
...........................................................................................3
.............................................................................................4
...........................................................................6
...............................................................................7
.......................................................8
...............................................................................9
......................................................................10
.................................11
.................................................................12
............................................................................................13
..........................................................................14-15
..................................................................................16
..............................................................................17
...................................................................18
................................................19-20
........................................21
.................................................................................22
...............................................................................23
..............................................................................24
.......................................................................................25-26
.................................................................................27
........................................................................28
Lennar Homes is pleased to submit our PUD Master Plan & Standards
and Preliminary Plat for Watermark Development to the City of Lino
Lakes, Mn.
Watermark is located in the northwest quadrant of I-35E and County
Road 14/Main Street. Its boundaries encompass 12 parcels totaling
approximately 372 gross acres.
Since 1954, we’ve had the privilege of helping hundreds of thousands
of families across America move into the next stage of their lives with a
new home. We build homes in some of the most desirable cities in the
nation and for all stages of your life: first home, move-up home, or a
multigenerational home to accommodate your changing family needs.
Our communities cater to all lifestyles and include urban, suburban,
active adult and golf course living.
Respectfully,
Joe Jablonski
Lennar
Page 2
Existing Conditions Plan
Total Site Area +/- 372.24 ac
Propo
s
e
d
G
a
s
E
a
s
e
m
e
nt
Legend Wetland
Vegetation
Main Drain Tile
Page 3
Guide Plan and Zoning
Guide Plan - Mixed Use
Zoning - PUD, Planned Unit Development
Page 4
Overall Concept
Land Use Plan
Page 6
Concept Grading Plan with Spot Elevations
PrivatePark
PrivatePark
Private Park
PublicPark
Page 7
Overall Sanitary Sewer Main Line Plan
Legend
PrivatePark
PrivatePark
PrivatePark
PublicPark
Page 8
Overall Watermain Plan
Legend
PrivatePark
PrivatePark
PrivatePark
PublicPark
Page 9
Overall Water Drainage Plan
Legend
PrivatePark
PrivatePark
PrivatePark
PublicPark
Page 10
Parks and Open Space Plan - Sidewalks and Trails
Highway No. 35 E
20th Avenue (CSAH 54)
Highway No. 35 E
Lake
Lake
Pond PrivatePark
PrivatePark
Private Open Space
PrivatePark
PublicPark
HOA
Pond Pond
PondPondPondPond
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
Wetland (typical)
Wetland (typical)
Wetland (typical)
Utility E
a
s
e
m
e
nt
Wetland (typical)
Pond
20th Avenue (CSAH 54)
Legend Trails +/- 17,700 LF
Sidewalks +/- 34,000 LF
Open Space
Public Park
Private Park
Berm Berm Berm Berm
Berm
Page 11
Public Park Conceptual Layout - Master Plan as Designed by City
Page 12
Roadway Plan
Legend A 100’Corresponds to Typical Street
Section Exhibit Right Of Way Width
PrivatePark
PrivatePark
PrivatePark
PublicPark
D60’
D60’
D60’
B60’
B60’
C
D60’
B60’
D60’
D60’
C1 C1 C1 C1
B60’
D60’
D60’
D60’
D60’
F66’
E180’
B60’
E80’B60’B60’
B60’
A110’
B60’
B60’
B60’
B60’
B60’
G100’
B60’
B60’
Page 13
Typical Street Section
A
C1
B
D
C
E
Page 14
Typical Street Section
E1 F
G
Page 15
Phasing Plan - Utility
Legend Phases
PrivatePark
PrivatePark
PrivatePark
PublicPark
Page 16
Phasing Plan - Grading
Legend Phases
PrivatePark
PrivatePark
PrivatePark
PublicPark
Page 17
PUD Standards
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS
Per Approved Resolution 17-133
1. The following are acceptable exterior materials and styles for both the single family homes and the townhomes:
a. Exterior Materials
i. Vinyl, aluminum or steel siding
1. If vinyl siding is used on the townhomes, engineered trim products shall also be incorporated.
ii. Brick
iii. Stone
iv. Stucco
v. Wood
vi. Engineered siding products such as LP board, Hardie board or similar
b. Styles
i. Lap siding
ii. Board and batten
iii. Shakes
2. All single family home front elevations shall include brick, stone or similar engineered product. The front elevations shall also include 2 other exterior materials, or 1 other exterior material and 2
styles. The 2 styles shall be of contrasting or complimentary colors.
3. One of the following three architectural features shall be incorporated into the single family home side and rear elevations that are visible from 20th Avenue (CSAH 54), Street A and the public
park:
a. A minimum of 4 inch window trim on side and/or rear elevations to match the dimensions of the front elevation.
b. Incorporate trim and banding in complementary colors to add interest and variety to the side and/or rear elevations.
c. Incorporate more than one exterior material and/or style on the side and/or rear elevation.
4. Garages. All single family homes shall have a double garage and shall comply with the following:
a. Compliance with the Building Type and Construction Standards of §1007.043 (2), and
b. All garages, except side or rear loaded garages, shall not protrude forward of the front wall of the house, unless the house includes a front porch that is unenclosed, a minimum of 6 feet
in depth, and extends across 100 percent of the front façade of the house. The garage shall then not protrude forward of the front porch more than 6 feet, and
c. If the garage door faces the street, the length of the garage wall facing the street shall not be greater than fifty-five percent (55%) of the length of the entire front facade of the structure;
except on houses that comply with all of the following conditions:
i. The second floor living space extends over the two-car portion of the garage; and
ii. The garage doors are decorative and have a strip of windows; and
iii. Garages in excess of two stalls shall be broken up so the additional stalls are recessed two feet from the main garage façade; and
iv. Garage width does not exceed 32 feet except on four stall garages.
5. The following minimum architectural standards shall be incorporated into the townhome neighborhood:
a. A minimum of three (3) unique building facades for each elevation of the townhomes shall be provided.
b. A table of architectural façade data shall be included for each elevation.
c. A unique building color package shall be included for each phase of development.
d. At no point shall the same color package be specified on buildings that are immediately adjacent to or directly across the road from each other.
e. A minimum of 4 inch window trim on side and/or rear elevations to match the dimensions of the front elevation.
f. In no case shall any of the required exterior materials or styles per elevation be less than 10%.
i. Any additional exterior materials and/or styles included on an elevation that exceeds the minimum requirement do not need to meet the 10 % requirement.
g. Front elevations shall include brick, stone or similar engineered product. The front elevations shall also include 2 other exterior materials, or 1 other exterior material and 2 styles. Exteri-
or materials and styles are defined above.
h. Rear elevations shall, at a minimum, have a combination of 2 exterior materials,or 1 exterior material and 2 styles. The 2 styles shall be of contrasting or complimentary colors.
i. Rear elevations shall include some vertical and horizontal trim or element to break up the longer elevation planes.
j. Side elevations facing Street A shall include brick, stone or similar engineered product. These side elevations shall also have 2 other exterior materials, or 1 other exterior material and 2
styles. The 2 styles shall be of contrasting or complimentary colors.
i. Per the Preliminary Plat, these are lots 899, 903, 904 and 808.
k. Side elevations not exposed to public roadways shall require only one exterior material.
6. Garages: All townhomes shall include, at a minimum, a double garage and shall comply with the following:
a. Garages shall be a minimum of 379 square feet.
b. Garages shall be a minimum of 18’ 3” in width.
c. Decorative garage doors with windows are required on all units.
NOTE: Architectural analysis will be conducted at each phase.
Home styles subject to change throughout the building of neighborhoods Page 18
55’- 60’ Single Family Homesites
(2 car Single Family Development)
Lot Width @ Setback (min): 55 - 60 ft.
Lot Depth (min): 130 ft.
Note: Flexibility may be allowed during PUD final plan/final plat phases to allow for
a lot depth of 120 feet only if a public value of creating open space or protecting a
natural resource is achieved.
Lot Area (min): 7,150 - 7,800 sf
Setbacks (Minimum)
Front Yard Setback: 25 ft.
Side Yard Setback (interior): 7’.5 / 7.5’ (15 ft. total)
Side Yard Setback (corner): 20-25 ft.
Rear Yard Setback: 25 ft. Primary Structure
5 ft. Deck
Max Lot Coverage: Up to 60%
Max Building Height: 35 ft.
2-Car Garage Option: 68 Lots Available
Notes:
• Fireplaces, cantilevered bump outs and AC units up to 3’ allowed into setbacks.
• No encroachment allowed within Drainage & Utility easements.
Development Standards:
Single Family
Street
Not to Scale
Curb
ROW
Boulevard
5’ Sidewalk
5’ D/U Easement
25’ Rear Setback - Primary
Structure (5’ Deck Setback)
55’- 60’ House Pad
130’ Minimum Lot Depth10’ D/U Easement
10’ D/U Easement
55’ Lot Width
7.5’ Side Setback - 55’
Minimum
Lot Areas
55’ = 7,150
60’ = 7,800
25’ Front Setback
Page 19Page 19
65’ Single Family Homesites
(3 Car Single Family Development)
Lot Width @ Setback (min): 65 ft.
Lot Depth (min): 130 ft.
Note: Flexibility may be allowed during PUD final plan/final plat phases to allow for
a lot depth of 120 feet only if a public value of creating open space or protecting a
natural resource is achieved.
Lot Area (min): 8,450 sf
Setbacks (Minimum)
Front Yard Setback: 25 ft.
Side Yard Setback (interior): 7.5’ / 7.5’ (15 ft. total)
Side Yard Setback (corner): 20-25 ft.
Rear Yard Setback: 25 ft. Primary Structure
5 ft. Deck
Max Lot Coverage: Up to 60%
Max Building Height: 35 ft.
2-Car Garage Option: Available
75’ Single Family Homesites
(3 and 4 Car Single Family Development)
Lot Width @ Setback (min): 75 ft.
Lot Depth (min): 130 ft.
Note: Flexibility may be allowed during PUD final plan/final plat phases to allow for
a lot depth of 120 feet only if a public value of creating open space or protecting a
natural resource is achieved.
Lot Area (min): 9,750 sf
Setbacks (Minimum)
Front Yard Setback: 25 ft.
Side Yard Setback (interior): 7.5’ / 7.5’ (15 ft. total)
Side Yard Setback (corner): 20-25 ft.
Rear Yard Setback: 25 ft. Primary Structure
5 ft. Deck
Max Lot Coverage: Up to 60%
Max Building Height: 35 ft.
2-Car Garage Option: Available
Notes:
• Fireplaces, cantilevered bump outs and AC units up to 3’ allowed into setbacks.
• No encroachment allowed within Drainage & Utility easements.
Development Standards:
Single Family
Street
Not to Scale
Curb
ROW
Boulevard
5’ Sidewalk
5’ D/U Easement
25’ Rear Setback - Primary
Structure (5’ Deck Setback)
65’ & 75’ House Pad
130’ Minimum Lot Depth10’ D/U Easement
25’ Front Setback
10’ D/U Easement
Lot Width Varies
65’, 75’
7.5’ Side Setback Lot
Minimum
Lot Areas
65’ = 8,450
75’ = 9,750
Page 20Page 20
Development Standards:
Attached Townhomes
28’ Private Drive
28’ Private DriveCurb
25’ Setback
Min.
10’ Setback
Min.
Setbacks (Minimums)
Front Setback to ROW / Private Drive B.O.C.: 25 ft. min. garage
20’ min. House/Porch
Side Setback to ROW / Private Drive B.O.C.: 20 ft. Primary Structure
Separation - Building to Building: 30 ft. min.
Private Drive Street Widths: 28 ft. B-B
Proposed Garage Area: 379-408 sf per unit
Private Driveway Length: 25 ft. typ. min
Off-Street Guest Parking required: 0.5 stall / unit (86 stalls)
Off-Street Guest Parking provided: (84 stalls)
Guest Parking Length: 20 ft. min.
Rear Setback - Structures 15’
Rear Setback - Patio-Setback 5’
Max. Building Ht. 35’
Total Townhome Impervious 47%
Notes:
• Fireplaces, cantilevered bump outs and AC units up to 3’ allowed into setbacks.
• No encroachment allowed within Drainage & Utility easements.
30’
Setback
Min.
10’
Setback
Min.
15’ Setback
Min.
5’ Setback
Min.
Not to Scale
Page 21Page 21
Development Standards:
Attached Townhomes
28’ Private Drive
28’ Private DriveCurb
25’ Setback
Min.
25’ Setback
Min.
10’ Setback
Min.
Setbacks (Minimums)
Front Setback to ROW / Private Drive B.O.C.: 25 ft. min. garage
20’ min. House/Porch
Side Setback to ROW / Private Drive B.O.C.: 20 ft. Primary Structure
Separation - Building to Building: 30 ft. min.
Private Drive Street Widths: 28 ft. B-B
Proposed Garage Area: 379-408 sf per unit
Private Driveway Length: 25 ft. typ. min
Off-Street Guest Parking required: 0.5 stall / unit (86 stalls)
Off-Street Guest Parking provided: (84 stalls)
Guest Parking Length: 20 ft. min.
Max. Building Ht. 35’
Total Townhome Impervious 47%
Notes:
• Fireplaces, cantilevered bump outs and AC units up to 3’ allowed into setbacks.
• No encroachment allowed within Drainage & Utility easements.
30’
Setback
Min.
10’
Setback
Min.
5’ Setback
Min.
Not to Scale
Page 22Page 22
Entrance Monuments
1
2
3
Sign Location Map
Main Entry Sign Neighborhood Entry Sign
Roundabout Entry Sign
Note: Conceptual Only - Subject to Change - Construction Plans to be Submitted with Permit
1 3
2
Page 23
Potential Bridge Design
Bridge Location Map
Front Views
Side View
Note: Conceptual Only - Subject to Change - Construction Plans to be Submitted with Permit Page 24
Berm Sections
A
B
Section
Section
C Section
Page 25
Berm Sections
D
F
Section
Section
Section
E
Page 26
Southwest View21
Exterior Image
Interior Image
HOA Center Site Plan
HOA Center Concept
Note: Example Only and Subject to Change Upon Further Site Planning at Time of Construction Page 27
High Visibility Structures/Lots and Locations
Highway No. 35 E
20th Avenue (CSAH 54)
Legend
High Visibility Structures/Lots and Locations
Highway No. 35 E
20th Avenue (CSAH 54)
Highway No. 35 E
Lake
Lake
Pond PrivatePark
PrivatePark
Private Park
PublicPark
Pond Pond
PondPondPond
Pond
Pond
HOA
Model
Homes
Pond
Pond
Pond
Wetland (typical)
Wetland (typical)
Wetland (typical)
Wetland (typical)
Pond
20th Avenue (CSAH 54)
*
Page 28
ENVIRONMENTAL ◦ ENGINEERING ◦ SURVEYINGWATERMARK 3RD ADDITIONCRANE DRIVEBALSAMWAY CRANE DR.JOHANNA CIRCLEWATE
R
M
A
R
K
WA
YITASCACIRCLEWATERMAR
K
W
A
Y INSET 'C'of 5 sheets)(see sheet 4INSET 'D'(see sheet 5of 5 sheets)INSET 'A'(see sheet 2of 5 sheets)INSET 'B'(see sheet 3of 5 sheets)
ENVIRONMENTAL ◦ ENGINEERING ◦ SURVEYINGWATERMARK 3RD ADDITIONCRANEDRIVEBAL
S
A
M
W
A
Y INSET 'A'
ENVIRONMENTAL ◦ ENGINEERING ◦ SURVEYINGWATERMARK 3RD ADDITIONINSET 'B'SEE DETAIL 'A'SEE DETAIL 'B'DETAIL 'A'DETAIL 'B'DETAIL 'C'SEE DETAIL 'C'
ENVIRONMENTAL ◦ ENGINEERING ◦ SURVEYINGWATERMARK 3RD ADDITIONCRANE DRIVE
JOHANNA CIRCLEWAT
E
R
M
A
R
K
W
A
Y INSET 'C'
ENVIRONMENTAL ◦ ENGINEERING ◦ SURVEYINGWATERMARK 3RD ADDITIONITASCACIRCLEWATERMAR
K
W
A
Y INSET 'D'
Watermark 3rd Addition
Work Session
April 6, 2020
1
Watermark Overview•April 27, 2020 Council meeting,
•Watermark 3rd Addition PUD Final Plan/Final Plat
•Development Agreement
•New Council members, staff would like to provide an
overview of the project.
•May 2014: 1st Concept Plan Review
•June 13, 2016: CC approved PUD Development Stage
Plan/Preliminary Plat
•PUD Master Plan Booklet (attached)
2
3Main Street I-35E•Comprised 12 individual parcels
4
•372 acre master planned residential community
•692 single family lots + 172 townhome units = 864 housing units total
•Different neighborhoods with varying lot widths & sizes
•55’ to 75’ width
•130’ deep
5
•Flat, agricultural land with clay soils, poor drainage and drain tile
•Isolated, low quality wetland pockets
•66ft wide pipeline easement
•Low Quality Natural Environment vs. High Amenity Built Environment
6
•82 acre parks and open space
•5 acre master planned public park w/ community center
•63 acres water and wetland features
•3 miles trails & 6 miles sidewalks
•Multi -functional greenway corridor (stormwater, trails, wetlands, open space)
PUD Development Stage Plan•June 13, 2016: Resolution No. 16-51
•Establishes Watermark’s
•Overall land use plan
•Street and utility layout
•Parks and open space plan
•Architectural design standards
•Landscaping
•Lot development standards
•PUD Master Plan Booklet
7
PUD Development Stage Plan•Architectural Standards Matrix
•Exterior materials and styles
•House elevations
•Garage and porch requirements
8
PUD Final Plan/Final Plat•Each phase (i.e. addition) of development shall submit a PUD
Final Plan/Final Plat.
•City’s responsibility in reviewing and approving final plans and
final plats is to determine that they substantially conform to
with the previously approved PUD Development Stage Plan
and Preliminary Plat.
9
10•96 SF lots
•79 TH lots
•175 total lots
•1 outlot (wetland and open space)
11
Housing Type Lot Width Housing Product # Lots
Single Family 65’ -75’Landmark 64
Single Family 55’ -60’Discovery 32
Townhomes 32’-42’Colonial Patriot (row)55
Townhomes 32’-45’Colonial Manor (back-back)24
TOTAL 175
Architectural Standards•Res No 17 -133 detailed arch design standards for Watermark
•Exterior materials & styles and House elevations
•Garage and porch requirements
•Watermark 3rd Addition Home Plans booklet
•Architectural Standards Matrix
•20 different single family house plans
•Combination of over 100 different elevations and floor plans
•Color packages and anti-monotony are submitted with BP
12
13
Landscaping Plan
•Consistent with PUD Development Stage Plan
•Protected Open Space Area signage
Plat Phases
14
Addition # SF Lots
Remaining #SF
Lots # TH Lots
Remaining
#TH Lots
Total # Lots
Remaining
692 172 864
1st 100 592 93 79 671
2nd 57 535 0 79 614
3rd 96 439 79 0 439
15
Park Dedication
•3 sections of trail construction
•Credit for Private Parkland
•TH Tot Lot Construction in 2021
Watermark 3rd Addition
Total # Units =175
x Park Dedication Fee $3,150
= Cash in Lieu Value $551,250
-Land dedication value (Outlot K, Watermark)($32,000)
-Land dedication value (Outlot I, Watermark)($33,000)
-Trail Construction Costs ($39,000)
TOTAL CASH FEE DUE =$447,250
Development Agreements•Master Development Agreement
•Covers entire 372 acre site
•Lennar, Mattamy Homes and City are parties
•Details terms establishing overall Watermark development
•Development Agreement and PUD Agreement
•Standard DA specific to each addition
•3A and 3B
•HOA Documents recorded
16
17
3rd Addition PUD Final Plan/Final Plat
•PUD Final Plan is consistent with the PUD Development
Stage Plan in regards to:
•land use plan
•street
•utilities
•parks and open space
•lot standards
•landscaping
•Final Plat is consistent with Preliminary Plat 18
Planning & Zoning Board•March 11, 2020
•Recommended approval with a 3-0 vote
19
Council Action•Watermark 3rd Addition
•Consider Resolution No. 20-30 Approving
PUD Final Plan/Final Plat
•Consider Resolution No. 20-31 Approving
Development Agreement
20
WS – Item #4
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 4
Date: April 6, 2020
To: City Council
From: Sarah Cotton, Finance Director
Re: Utility Late Fees
Background
Staff is requesting that the Council consider temporarily suspending Utility late fees.
Many residents have already contacted Staff expressing the financial hardships they are
facing due to the circumstances surrounding the spread of COVID-19 (loss of
income/employment). Residents are inquiring as to what the consequences of a late
payment are, as well as, requesting that late fees be waived.
Per City Code, each quarterly billing for water/sewer service not paid when due shall
incur a penalty charge of 10% of the amount past due.
Attachments
None
Requested Council Direction
Consider temporarily suspending Utility late fees for a period of three months.
WS – Item 5
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 5
Date: April 6, 2020
To: City Council
From: Sarah Cotton, Finance Director
Re: Bond Issuance for Water Tower No. 3
Background
On August 26, 2019, the City Council accepted bids and awarded a construction contract
for the 2019 Water Tower No. 3 Project. Water Tower No. 3 is a 1.5 million gallon
(MG) composite tower located off Birch Street and Centerville Road (City Property). In
order to finance these improvements, the City planned to issue General Obligation Utility
Revenue Bonds.
On September 9, 2019, the City Council adopted a resolution declaring the intent to
reimburse from future bond proceeds. The Internal Revenue Code requires cities to
declare their intent to reimburse project costs incurred prior to receipt of bond proceeds.
Preliminary expenditures such as architectural, engineering, surveying, bond issuance,
and similar costs are exempt from this provision.
Staff has had preliminary discussions with Terri Heaton, Baker Tilly, regarding the
issuance of bonds to finance Water Tower No. 3. Terri will be joining the meeting
virtually to present and discuss the bond issuance process and proposed calendar, as well
as answer any questions that the City Council may have relative to the financing
recommendations.
Total project cost, based on bids awarded and a construction contingency of 5%, is
approximately $4,682,367. The General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds will be repaid
over a 15-year period by utilizing revenues from the City’s Area and Unit Trunk Utility
fund.
Attachments
General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2020 Scenario
Requested Council Direction
For informational purposes only. No action is required at this time.
Preliminary
$4,775,000
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2020
15 Year
Sources & Uses
Dated 06/18/2020 | Delivered 06/18/2020
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds......................................................................................................................................................$4,775,000.00
Total Sources................................................................................................................................................................$4,775,000.00
Uses Of Funds
Deposit to Project Construction Fund..............................................................................................................................4,682,367.00
Costs of Issuance...........................................................................................................................................................47,000.00
Total Underwriter's Discount (0.950%)...........................................................................................................................45,362.50
Rounding Amount...........................................................................................................................................................270.50
Total Uses......................................................................................................................................................................$4,775,000.00
2020 GO Utility Rev Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 2/13/2020 | 3:11 PM
Preliminary
$4,775,000
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2020
15 Year
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 105% Levy
02/01/2021 315,000.00 1.200%47,210.96 362,210.96 380,321.51
02/01/2022 290,000.00 1.200%72,435.00 362,435.00 380,556.75
02/01/2023 295,000.00 1.250%68,955.00 363,955.00 382,152.75
02/01/2024 295,000.00 1.250%65,267.50 360,267.50 378,280.88
02/01/2025 300,000.00 1.300%61,580.00 361,580.00 379,659.00
02/01/2026 305,000.00 1.350%57,680.00 362,680.00 380,814.00
02/01/2027 310,000.00 1.400%53,562.50 363,562.50 381,740.63
02/01/2028 315,000.00 1.450%49,222.50 364,222.50 382,433.63
02/01/2029 320,000.00 1.550%44,655.00 364,655.00 382,887.75
02/01/2030 325,000.00 1.650%39,695.00 364,695.00 382,929.75
02/01/2031 330,000.00 1.800%34,332.50 364,332.50 382,549.13
02/01/2032 335,000.00 1.900%28,392.50 363,392.50 381,562.13
02/01/2033 340,000.00 2.000%22,027.50 362,027.50 380,128.88
02/01/2034 345,000.00 2.150%15,227.50 360,227.50 378,238.88
02/01/2035 355,000.00 2.200%7,810.00 362,810.00 380,950.50
Total $4,775,000.00 -$668,053.46 $5,443,053.46 $5,715,206.13
SIGNIFICANT DATES
Dated..........................................................................................................................................................................................6/18/2020
Delivery Date..............................................................................................................................................................................6/18/2020
First Coupon Date......................................................................................................................................................................2/01/2021
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars......................................................................................................................................................................$37,517.85
Average Life...............................................................................................................................................................................7.857 Years
Average Coupon........................................................................................................................................................................1.7806284%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)..............................................................................................................................................................1.9015376%
True Interest Cost (TIC).............................................................................................................................................................1.9036962%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes............................................................................................................................................1.7708313%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)..............................................................................................................................................................2.0432865%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost........................................................................................................................................................................1.7806284%
Weighted Average Maturity.......................................................................................................................................................7.857 Years
Interest rates are estimates. Changes in rates may
cause significant alterations to this schedule.
The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary.
2020 GO Utility Rev Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 2/13/2020 | 3:11 PM
Preliminary
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2020
Disclosure
Baker Tilly Municipal Advisors, LLC is a registered municipal advisor and wholly-owned subsidiary of Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP, an accounting firm. Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP tradingas Baker Tilly is a member of the global network of Baker Tilly International Ltd., the members ofwhich are separate and independent legal entities. Copyright 2020 Baker Tilly Municipal Advisors, LLC
2020 GO Utility Rev Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 2/12/2020 | 10:11 AM
City of Lino Lakes
Study Meeting
April 6, 2020
Presenter:
Terri Heaton, Baker Tilly
Lino Lakes Project Information
•Water Tower
•Project Cost $4,682,367
•Repaid with Trunk Utility Fees
•15-year for repayment
1
2
Utility Bonds
•Minnesota Statutes, §444.075 –City or Town
•Water, sanitary sewer, or storm sewer
•May be general or special obligation
•May be payable primarily from taxes,
special assessments or net revenues
or other non-tax sources
•No election required
if non-tax sources
expected to cover debt service
The Parties Involved in a Bond Issuance
3
Issuer
Investor
Intermediaries
Underwriter
Rating Agency
Credit
Enhancement
Provider
Paying Agent
and Registrar
Roles of Players in a Bond Sale
4
Bond Counsel Underwriter(s)Paying Agent / Registrar
•Does issuer have authority to issue
bonds?
•Did they follow the process
outlined in statutes?
•Are the bonds tax-exempt?
•Purchases bonds from issuer and
resells to bondholders.
•Collects payments from
issuers/borrowers and transmits to
bondholders.
Credit Rating Agency Municipal Advisor Depository Trust Corporation
•Provides a neutral, third-party
credit assessment of issuer.
•Fiduciary of the Issuer
•Advise on feasibility, structure,
terms and manage issuance
process through closing
•Debt Management and
Compliance
•Serves as clearing house for debt
service payments.
Issuer Paying
Agent DTC Bond-
holder
Bond Issuance Process and Timeline
5
Credit Rating:
Prepare and
present
materials
Enhancement:
Determine
availability
and benefit
Post IssuanceClosingMarketing/
Sale
Rating/Credit
EnhancementDocumentation
Referendum
Campaign
(if needed)
Planning
Evaluate
financing
alternatives
Determine
structure
and fiscal
impact
Develop
campaign
strategy and
implementa-
tion plan
Draft Official
Statement
(OS)
Document
financial plan
Distribute
Official
Statement
Conduct Sale
Coordinate
the closing
process
Bonds
proceeds sent
to Issuer
Continuing
Disclosure
Arbitrage and
Rebate
Month
Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Planning `
Documentation
Credit Rating
Marketing/Sale
Closing
April May June July
Sources and Uses
Sources & Uses
Dated 06/18/2020 | Delivered 06/18/2020
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds..............................................................................................................................................$4,775,000.00
Total Sources........................................................................................................................................................$4,775,000.00
Uses Of Funds
Deposit to Project Construction Fund......................................................................................................................4,682,367.00
Costs of Issuance...................................................................................................................................................47,000.00
Total Underwriter's Discount (0.950%)..................................................................................................................45,362.50
Rounding Amount....................................................................................................................................................270.50
Total Uses..............................................................................................................................................................$4,775,000.00
Estimated Debt Service-15 Year Term
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 105% Levy
02/01/2021 315,000.00 1.200%47,210.96 362,210.96 380,321.51
02/01/2022 290,000.00 1.200%72,435.00 362,435.00 380,556.75
02/01/2023 295,000.00 1.250%68,955.00 363,955.00 382,152.75
02/01/2024 295,000.00 1.250%65,267.50 360,267.50 378,280.88
02/01/2025 300,000.00 1.300%61,580.00 361,580.00 379,659.00
02/01/2026 305,000.00 1.350%57,680.00 362,680.00 380,814.00
02/01/2027 310,000.00 1.400%53,562.50 363,562.50 381,740.63
02/01/2028 315,000.00 1.450%49,222.50 364,222.50 382,433.63
02/01/2029 320,000.00 1.550%44,655.00 364,655.00 382,887.75
02/01/2030 325,000.00 1.650%39,695.00 364,695.00 382,929.75
02/01/2031 330,000.00 1.800%34,332.50 364,332.50 382,549.13
02/01/2032 335,000.00 1.900%28,392.50 363,392.50 381,562.13
02/01/2033 340,000.00 2.000%22,027.50 362,027.50 380,128.88
02/01/2034 345,000.00 2.150%15,227.50 360,227.50 378,238.88
02/01/2035 355,000.00 2.200%7,810.00 362,810.00 380,950.50
Total $4,775,000.00 -$668,053.46 $5,443,053.46 $5,715,206.13
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization proclaimed the Coronavirus (COVID-19) to be a pandemic. The
continually changing conditions resulting from the pandemic have created significant, ongoing volatility in the
financial markets. It is not known what impact this may have on the City’s ability to issue the proposed Bonds on
the timeline, at the interest rate estimates, or under the method of sale presented in this Pre-Sale Summary. This
document and corresponding schedules are based on estimates made at the time this document was prepared. In
the time leading up to the City’s sale, Baker Tilly Municipal Advisors will continually monitor the market on the City’s
behalf and will work with the City to address issues and/or identify alternative approaches to the City’s financing.
COVID -19 Impacts
Alternative Methods of Sale:As part of the Parameters Resolution authorizing the issuance of the Series 2020A
Bonds,the Council has approved the use of alternative methods of issuance for the Series 2020A Bonds in light
of the current Pandemic.These alternatives may be used in the event that they are determined to be beneficial
to the City in lieu of a competitive public offering process.
•Competitive
•Negotiated
•Negotiated Private Places
9
What is a Competitive Sale?
•A method of submitting proposals for the purchase of a new issue of municipal
securities by which the securities are awarded to the initial purchaser
(underwriting syndicate) presenting the best bid in accordance with the stipulated
criteria set forth in the notice of sale.
10
Competitive Favored
•Stable markets
•Strong credit quality
•Less complex transaction
•Number of bidders expected
•Time to complete the process
•Common security
•Well known name
11
What is a Negotiated Sale?
•The sale of a new issue of municipal securities through an exclusive agreement with an
underwriter or an underwriting syndicate selected by the issuer. A negotiated sale is
distinguished from a competitive sale, which requires competitive bidding by the
underwriters.
12
Negotiated Favored
•Unstable markets
•Specific and unique structure
•Few bidders
•Timing matters
•Very small issues
•Very large issues
•Weaker credit
13
Credit Rating
•Cost Benefit
•Ratings broaden the potential investor base
•Lowers cost of debt in most cases
•Perform a cost benefit analysis
•Primary Credit Factors
•Economic –trends & diversity
•Debt –structure & burden
•Financial –operations & flexibility
•Management –policies & flexibility
•Legal –bond security & flexibility
14
Rating Categories
Moody’s S &P Fitch
Highest Aaa AAA AAA
Aa1 AA+AA+
Aa2 AA AA
Aa3 AA-AA-
A1 A+A+
A2 A A
A3 A-A-
Baa1 BBB+BBB+
Baa2 BBB BBB
Lowest
(Investment Grade)
Baa3 BBB-BBB-
•April 6-Study Meeting
•April 27-Authorize the Sale of Bonds
•Week of May 5-Rating Call
•June 8-Sale date
•July 8-Receipt of Bond Proceeds (Settlement)
Next Steps
15
WS – 6
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 6
Date: April 6, 2020
To: City Council
From: Jeff Karlson, City Administrator
Re: Communications Coordinator
Background
Staff is requesting that the City Council give consideration to approving a new
Communications Coordinator position.
It has become increasingly evident that City staff does not have the ability to consistently
provide timely and up-to-date communication to residents, businesses, and the general
public via social media and the website. Staff is doing the best they can with the
resources they have, but we regularly receive feedback about the lack of up-to-date
information, particularly because we don’t have a general Facebook page and the website
doesn’t get updated frequently enough.
Two recent events further brought this to light—the manganese predicament and the
coronavirus pandemic. The management team has had several discussions about this and
we agree that creating a Communications Coordinator position is a high priority given the
public’s demand for more current information through social media. The City simply
does not have the capacity to keep up with people’s expectation that the City will provide
up-to-the-minute messages and notices.
Therefore, staff is proposing that a Communications Coordinator position be posted
immediately. The new hire would be supervised by the HR Manager.
A position description is attached for your review. This individual would manage and
coordinate the City’s communications, including social media, website, newsletter,
marketing, and cable television. Based on the League of Minnesota Cities’ salary survey,
we anticipate the minimum and maximum salary range will be approximately $62,000 to
$77,000. However, there would be no increase in the general fund budget for two
reasons.
First, to partially fund the position I am proposing the transfer $40,000 annually from the
Communications Fund. There is currently more than $200,000 in the fund. The revenue
source for this fund are the monthly franchise fees and PEG fees the City receives from
North Metro Television based on the number of Comcast cable subscribers in Lino
Lakes. In February the City received its 2019 share of cable revenue in the amount of
$64,000, which has gradually increased over the years as more residential homes are
being added in the city even as homeowners have more options to choose from.
The second component of this proposal is to reorganize positions to maximize skill levels
and generate more efficiency amongst our support staff. Because we currently have one
employee on maternity leave and have another expecting this fall, we do not anticipate
making any staff changes until the end of the year.
Requested Council Direction
Staff is recommending the Council approve posting the new position.
Attachments
Communications Coordinator Position Description
WS – 7
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 7
Date: April 6, 2020
To: City Council
From: Jeff Karlson, City Administrator
Re: Metro I-Net Update
Background
The City of Lino Lakes has been a member of the Metro I-Net consortium since
December 2004. The consortium has grown considerably over that time and now services
44 agencies. Metro I-Net’s entire operation is currently under the control of the City of
Roseville.
The current structure has presented many challenges for Roseville and is not sustainable
for many reasons, including those listed below.
• Roseville’s inability to take on additional employees and equipment due a lack of
space.
• The additional liability Roseville is responsible for.
• The recruitment and retention of employees in a competitive labor market.
• The existential question of whether the Roseville City Council would want to
continue these operations.
These vexing challenges prompted the member cities to discuss other options for the
future of Metro I-Net. A sub-group of six members met several times to discuss options
regarding the future of Metro I-Net and recommended an independent joint powers entity
be established. Membership would be made up of current client cities. The framework
for a joint powers agreement was drafted with the help of the law firm, Kennedy &
Graven.
The City of Roseville hosted a meeting of all its clients on February 13 and outlined the
issues that led to the initiative to establish a joint powers organization to continue IT
services. Roseville asked user agencies to indicate a commitment to this idea by March
25 in order for Roseville to begin planning the transition to a joint powers entity.
Key Points of the Proposal
• The JPA would be effective January 1, 2021.
• Initial membership would consist of current Metro I-Net members that choose to join
the group. In order to establish the JPA, at least 15 members are needed.
• The Board of Directors would be made up on one representative from each entity.
The Board would have authority over the organization and meet at least quarterly.
The number of votes each member would get would directly correspond to its share
of the overall budget. Lino Lakes’ current share is 6.15 percent, which would give
Lino Lakes seven of 121 total votes if every current member stayed with the group.
Lino Lakes is currently the fifth largest member in the consortium behind the Cities
of Roseville, Anoka, Oakdale, and North St. Paul.
• The Board of Directors would elect an Executive Director, who would be responsible
for day-to-day operations and remain accountable to the Board.
• The JPA would outline procedures for entities to withdraw from the group, as well as
procedures to dissolve the organization.
The annual cost of overhead for operating the JPA is estimated at an additional $175,000,
which represents a five percent increase for each member if every user group elects to
join the JPA. If any of the current members choose to opt out, then the shared cost for
remaining members would likely increase.
Options for Lino Lakes
Lino Lakes basically has three options:
1. Stay with Metro I-Net by entering into the JPA. The City’s 2020 budget for Metro I-
Net is $204,058. One of the benefits is that public sector consortiums are not in the
business of selling services and products and can focus exclusively on providing
support to government entities.
2. Hire one or two IT positions and join another consortium like LOGIS to provide
software and support. In order to be able to support a staff of our size, Lino Lakes
would likely need two IT positions. A reasonable estimate would be $100,000
(including benefits) for each position. Since we have provided Roseville office space
at city hall for two of its employees, we have space for these positions.
Since the City does not own any computer equipment, we would have to purchase all
the hardware equipment and licenses that are currently utilized through Metro I-Net,
including servers, antivirus protection, firewalls, switches, and program licenses such
Laserfiche, Microsoft, Abode, Milestone, Arbitrator, etc.
Only one other IT joint powers government consortium exists in the metro area.
LOGIS (Local Government Information Systems) was founded in the early 1970s by
seven suburban cities in Hennepin County, which now has 52 members. Each city in
the LOGIS network has its own unique setup. The one common theme is that cities
still need to have their own IT staff. LOGIS primarily provides software and support.
3. Become independent and completely outsource IT services. Staff would need to seek
bids from private companies, which would include purchasing equipment, computer
hardware support, and 24/7 end user support.
Other Considerations
Other Metro I-Net cities have explored other options as well. We are finding that cities
of similar size to Lino Lakes who are with LOGIS or operating independently are paying
considerably more for IT services.
The City owns its own Cisco IP phones. In order to continue using these phones, we
would need to purchase a Cisco Unified Communications Manager server, Cisco voice
router, and a PRI or SIP connection through a local telco. The cost to continue with the
telephone system would be roughly $200,000. We simply couldn’t do it. The City would
be looking purchasing a less expensive phone system and going with another telephone
provider like Verizon.
The City owns its own physical cameras, but without Milestone VMS through Metro I-
Net, we would have to purchase our own video management server and associated
licensing and hardware support. The City also owns Arbitrator VPU’s and body worn
cameras. We would be responsible for purchasing our own Arbitrator server and
associated licensing and hardware support at an approximate cost of $40,000.
Summary
Option two and three would result in considerable cost to Lino Lakes. These costs are
difficult to calculate as there are so many aspects to consider. The most informed
estimate of annual costs if the Council chose another option is $300,000 to $350,000,
which does not include upfront capital costs of around $150,000.
We don’t know what another option would look like without a comprehensive analysis
based on IT services we currently receive from Metro I-Net. Because of the many
services provided by the City by Roseville, we are “highly entangled” with them.
Inasmuch as we’re dealing with wheels within wheels, staff would recommend hiring an
IT consultant to analyze the City’s needs and substantiate or verify the most cost effective
option for Lino Lakes.
A transition from I-Net is possible if that is the direction the Council wants to go.
However, it would come with significant cost, disruption, and time. We would need to
hire IT staff in a tough labor market. The pain level would be high.
It is staff’s contention that Metro I-Net is one of the best values for IT services that can
be found anywhere. It has provided Lino Lakes excellent 24/7 support and would
continue to do so under a joint powers arrangement. I have personally never had a
complaint about the service I’ve received nor has anyone complained to me.
Requested Council Direction
Consider joining other Metro I-Net agencies in establishing a joint powers agreement.
Attachments
2020 Budget Summary
Descriptions of Metro I-Net Services Provided to Lino Lakes
Item #9
Monthly Progress Report
April 6, 2020
Item Last Action Taken Staff Status
White Bear Lake Restoration
Assn. v. Dept. of Natural
Resources (DNR)
4/22/19 – The Minnesota Court of
Appeals released its ruling in favor of the
DNR
Jeff The case was appealed and
will be heard by the Supreme
Court
Agenda Preparation 4/1/20 – Mayor Rafferty would like to
review the agendas before they go out
Jeff Administrator is looking for
resolution on this matter
Pandemic Response 4/1/20 – The management team is
meeting daily for updates and to execute
plans
Jeff Ongoing