HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/06/2011 Council PacketWORK SESSION AGENDA
CITY OF LINO LAKES
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Community Room (not televised)
5:30 P.M.
1. Fence at 1205 Buckthorn Lane
2. Paul Montain — Zoning Issue at 8122 80th Street
3. Charter Amendments
4. Discuss Current Conservation Water Rate Structure
5. Comprehensive Plan Update
6. Weekly Progress Report
7. Review Sept. 12 Council Agenda
Adjournment
WS — Item 1
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item
Date: September 6, 2011
To: City Council
From: Jason Wedel, City Engineer
Re: Fence Encroachment at 1205 Buckthorn Avenue
Background
On July 29, 2011 the City received an application for a fence permit from Michael &
Tracey Jansen for their property located at 1205 Buckthorn Lane. The Fence Application
included an illustration identifying the location of the fence which is proposed to be
located on their property line within an existing fifteen foot drainage and utility easement
on the east and north sides of their property, and within a ten foot drainage and utility
easement on the west side of their property. In addition to the fence permit application,
the Jansens also submitted an Easement Encroachment Agreement for the proposed fence
to be located within the existing drainage and utility easements. Both of these documents
are attached for your review.
Drainage and utility easements are established during the plat approval process. The
easements are mutually agreed to with the land developers and are established to
facilitate the City's protection and maintenance of various infrastructure improvements
prior to home construction beginning. The items typically located within the drainage
and utility easement include sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, and storm water
ponds to name a few. In addition, private utility providers such as telephone, cable TV
and electric can also be located with the drainage and utility easement. Typically, the City
does not allow property owners to construct any improvements within the easements.
However, through the Easement Encroachment Agreement application, some
improvements have been permitted.
The Fence Application and the associated Easement Encroachment Agreement for the
above - referenced property were reviewed by City staff. During the review it was
determined that there was an existing storm sewer pipe located within the drainage and
utility easement on the east and north sides of the above - referenced property. The
language included on the Easement Encroachment Agreement states the following:
"Structural encroachment shall not be allowed on any drainage and utility easement
unless the following criteria apply to said property:
1. The easement is not currently for underground utility purposes.
2. The drainage will not be affected by the approved structure or other
encroachment on the easement."
Since there is an existing storm sewer pipe on the east and north sides of this property it
fails to meet item number one of the required criteria included in the Easement
Encroachment Agreement. Based on this, the property owners were informed by the City
they would not be permitted to encroach into the drainage and utility easement with a
fence on the east and north sides of their property. However, they would be allowed to
encroach into the drainage and utility easement on the west side of their property.
The Jansens responded by asking if there was anything else that could be done to
facilitate installing the fence on their property line since they did not want to locate their
fence outside of the easements and have fifteen feet of their property behind the fence.
Staff then further evaluated the easement width to determine if it could be reduced. The
easement width is related to the depth of the pipe located within the easement. The
minimum width allowed is a direct 1:1 relationship with the depth. For example, if the
pipe is five feet deep we would require five feet of easement on either side of the pipe.
This is not only a City requirement but also an OSHA requirement for trench safety.
After reviewing the as -built drawings for this location, the City determined that the storm
sewer is ten feet deep. The pipe is not located on the property line, but is five feet into
the Jansen's property. Therefore the City has ten feet of easement on the house side of
the pipe and five feet of easement on the other side of the pipe. When the five feet of
easement on the Jansen property is combined with the existing five foot easement on the
adjacent property, it provides a total easement width of ten feet. The easement just meets
the minimum requirements for having ten feet of easement on either side of the pipe due
to the depth being ten feet. There is no room to reduce the amount of easement required.
The Jansens have stated that the fence they are proposing to construct is temporary and
that the fence panels can be quickly removed if the City requires access to the easement.
The City's concern is that the posts supporting the fence would not be temporary. The
posts would be cemented in place and would impair the City's ability to access the storm
sewer pipe. In the past, the City has approved gates or temporary fence panels if a fence
was crossing a storm sewer pipe at a perpendicular angle. However, on this property the
fence is running parallel with the storm sewer on two sides of the lot and all of the posts
would be in direct conflict with the storm sewer pipe.
A similar request was presented to the City in this same neighborhood in 2002. The
property at 6491 White Oak Road requested an encroachment agreement to construct a
fence within the drainage and utility easement around their pool. It was determined that
an existing drain tile pipe was located within the easement and the encroachment was
denied. As you can see in the attached aerial photo, the property owners constructed their
fence outside of the drainage and utility easement.
Attached for the City Council's information are the following items:
1. Aerial photo of property
2. Fence Application
3. Easement Encroachment Agreement
4. Building Department Information Sheet for Fences, Walls and Earth Berms
5. Information submitted by homeowners
6. Existing fence example in the same neighborhood that was previously denied an
Easement Encroachment Agreement
Requested Council Direction
Staff is requesting direction from the City Council on this matter in regards to deviating
from existing City requirements to facilitate an Easement Encroachment Agreement for a
fence to be located within a drainage and utility easement that contains an existing storm
sewer pipe.
[NANOK020022Nei ghOrtho 3 5 71 _0 8 0417.pmi
Copyright r,_)' 2007 International Coi
C I T
IN
APPLICATION FOR FENCE OR RETAINING WALL PERMIT
JOB ADDRESS / `2-)5 7-'10IN &AA/6- Project Valuation $ gg 00
Is this permit for a fence or retaining wall?
Owner's Name Mikz -Tai
General Contractor
Day Telephone -71,3 -35u,
F Address
E -mail Address fl) a'v5e .e 44 -1—) �ru
City State Zip Telephone
License Number (note: all contractors /subcontractors must be city or state licensed)
TO BE SUBMITTED:
• Plot Plan /Certificate of Survey (showing all easements and dimensions of fence from principal building or
home). Please note that retaining walls are not allowed in easements.
Type of Fence /Retaining Wall Material
Approximate Starting Date I (o/ 20/1
Signature
/gyp` wood.1 I vy Height t',7. (4,0o4i, (f'c..14't;''
Una6J�,�
Approximate Completion Date g I/ 312 )1
Date
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
Type of Construction Occupancy Group
Division Use Zone
Permit $50.00 Easement Encroachment Agreement $55.00 License Verification $5.00
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $
Engineering Approval: Note:
Review By: Date:
Issued By: Date:
Permit #�/ ,0 c
600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182
Building Department: 651- 982 -2420 • Fax: 651- 982 -2499
building@ci.lino-lakes.mn.us
-Es (-A,1-‘r"A"
HOUSE STAKING \ SITE PLAN
FOR
TOM FERZICHILLI
DESCRIPTION: LOT I, BLOCK 1, BRANDYWOOD ESTATES 3RD ADDITION, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
905.0 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION
DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION
UPPER LEVEL =910.9
CENTRAL LEVEL =906.7
GARAGE= 905.5
BASEMENT= 902.5
• De/poler .466J!Y
uP .
0.
900.0
115.00 N 89 °23'36"
r
ICA
DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT 15'
O 7O j
900.8 O5.
901.0
49.33
- 24 00 -.r
g r
0
34.00
o (902) o PROPOSED HOUSE
N
O
904.4
905.5
904
65.50
b, 9.25
14:25-'4
905.8
05.
15'
riot
cn
W
GARAGE
901.5
905.2
NORTH
SCALE 1"=30'
0 - DENOTES IRON MONUMENT
904.6
O
0
0
O
Z
0
O
LC)
- woo• b i
N I
0 22.83 0 0 11.57 L 15.00 905.3 (905) 905 A ,-7
.1 905 - BENCH MARK= 905.86
1 W TOP OF NUB
0
0
0
10'
115.00 N 89 °23'36" E
TC -904.6
/XS-- B
<T
905.1
0
TC=904.3
OR\ LA\
tA4,v tie
I ha/nay a.rttly Must Ohs array,. pica, o. moor, .as
pr.por.d try ma o undo my dine supra-vision and Prot 1
0 duly Rogatw.d Land Surr.yar under U.o loos
of Ih..$tote al Y:rn..ota.
Q9
Dp1. s-ho l f3
AsAYue�cs
Planning • Engineering • Surveying
TL00 &mbc# L.e. kite 303
b
Rowe pi Ctwr I i5:0 -5s
Foeiaic (6tZ) 421 -5121
CITY OF LINO LAKES
EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
PLEASE CHECK WHICH STRUCTURE APPLIES:
FENCE X RETAINING WALL ❑ ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ❑
Weg, n ciAcke t P Y1 s c? j\
and I t�C L2'Li 3 ,i 11118Eni
(' husband and wife) property owner(s) of a parcel of property legally
described as:
Lc+ t X31 'ergo
and known as (address) : i305 Budc,k '`V . hereby acknowledge on this
day of A. t , in the year of p3O O that or we) are aware of the
following described requirements of the City of Lino Lakes in regard to structures and other
encroachments:
A. Structural encroachment shall not be allowed on any drainage and utility easement unless
the following criteria apply to said property:
1. The easement is not currently for underground utility purposes.
2. The drainage will not be affected by the approved structure or other encroachment
on the easement.
B. The encroachment construction is done at the property owners own risk. If drainage
and /or utility improvements on this easement become a problem in the future, the
property owner(s) may be required by the City to remove the easement structure and
regrade the easement, at the property owner(s) expense.
C. All other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance are enforced. This agreement shall
become a part of the property record and apply to all present and future property owners.
The placement of the approved structure or other encroachment shall be located in
accordance with the Certificate of Survey, attached he e to as xhibit A
OWNER
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Fences, Walls and Earth Berms
INFORMATION SHEET
Permit Required
It is unlawful for any person hereafter to construct or cause to be constructed or erected within the platted area
of the City, any fence or wall without first making an application for and securing a fence or wall permit.
Certificate of Survey
An application for a fence permit shall be accompanied by a current certificate of survey providing exact lot
dimensions, the location of existing buildings, structures, and easements on the lot, and the location of the
proposed fence. At the discretion of the City, a final plat detail of the lot with the required information shown
may suffice if no certificate of survey is available. Applicant shall be required to physically identify the
property corners for City inspection.
Location
All fences or walls shall be located entirely within the private property of the person, firm, or corporation
constructing or causing the construction of such fence.
a) No fence or wall shall be permitted on public rights -of -way.
b) Traffic visibility requirements set forth in Section 3, Subd. 3.D.3.b of the City of Lino Lakes Zoning
Ordinance shall be satisfactorily met.
c) No fence or wall shall obstruct natural drainage.
d) Fences may be constructed within public and private utility and drainage easements provided that:
a. No fence shall be located within a drainage or utility easement without prior approval of the
building and /or engineering department and the filing of an easement encroachment agreement.
b. Removal of a fence or portion thereof for the purpose of utilizing the easement shall be at the
property owner's expense.
Construction and Maintenance
a) Every fence shall be constructed in a professional and substantial manner and of substantial material
reasonably suitable for the purpose for which the fence is proposed to be used. The materials and design
shall also be compatible with other structures in the area in which the fence is located and shall not
cause blight or a negative impact. Fences shall be at least ten (10) percent open to provide space for the
passage of air. No used material shall be used in conjunction of fences.
b) Every fence shall be maintained in a condition of a reasonable repair and shall not be allowed to become
and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private. Any such
fence, which is or has become dangerous to the public safety, health or welfare, is a public nuisance, and
the City shall commence proper proceedings for the abatement thereof.
600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182
Building Department: 651 -982 -2420 • Fax: 651- 982 -2499
building @ci.lino- lakes.mn.us
c) All posts or similar supporting instruments used in the construction of fences shall be faced inward
toward the property being fenced. That side of the fence considered to be the face shall be oriented
toward abutting property.
d) Fences which are ninety (90) percent open (barb wire, chain link, woven wire, and other similar type
fences) which are for the sole purpose of containing NON - DOMESTIC animals within a rural zoning
district are not subject to the provisions of this Ordinance and do not require a permit. Chain link fences
shall have round steel parts and braces.
e) Solid walls and retaining walls (such as masonry construction) in excess of forty -two (42) inches in
height shall be prohibited when utilized, tiered retaining walls shall be separated by a horizontal landing
not less than three (3) fee in width.
Access
All fences shall be provided with a gate, which affords reasonable and convenient access for public safety.
Residential District Fences
All residential district fences shall be placed within the property being fenced.
a) Fences may be located in any yard up to a height of four (4) feet.
b) Except as prohibited by Subd. T.6.c in the City of Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance, a fence up to six (6)
feet high may be erected from a line extended from the front facade of the principal building to the side
lot lines, and then along the side lot lines and the rear lot lines.
c) Should the rear lot line of a lot be common with the side lot line of an abutting lot, that portion of the
rear or side lot equal to the required front yard setback of the abutting lot shall not be fenced to a height
of more than four (4) feet. For the purpose of this section, the front and side yards of the abutting lot
shall be as defined in this Ordinance rather than as related to the orientation of the house.
d) Residential Fences Height Exceptions:
a. Fences for sport courts may be up to twelve (12) feet in height with a ten (10) foot setback.
b. Residential boundary line fences may be erected to a height of eight (8) feet along a property line
abutting a commercial, industrial, or semi- public use or zoning district.
e) Wire fence other than chain link shall not be permitted as boundary line fences within five (5) feet of the
property line in residential districts.
f) Electrical and barbwire fences are prohibited in residential zoning districts.
Commercial and Industrial District Fences
a) A fence not exceeding four (4) feet in height may be erected in any yard.
b) A fence not exceeding eight (8) feet in height may be erected parallel to the front lot line from a front
corner of a principal building to a side lot line that is not adjacent to a street.
c) A fence not exceeding ten (10) feet in height may be erected on a rear lot line or on a side lot line that is
not adjacent to a street from a point where the front facade of a principal building would intersect with a
side lot line extending to the rear property line.
d) Should the rear lot line be common with the side lot line of an abutting lot, that portion of the rear lot
line equal to the required front yard setback of the abutting lot shall not be fenced to a height of more
than four (4) feet.
600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182
Building Department: 651- 982 -2420 • Fax: 651- 982 -2499
building @ci.lino- lakes.mn.us
e) Within commercial and industrial, and public /semi- public zoning districts, barbed wire may be attached
to the tops of fences with the following conditions:
a. Fences must be a minimum of eight (8) feet in height exclusive of the security arm.
b. The security arm must be angled in such a manner that it extends only over the property of the
permit holder.
c. Wire security fencing shall not be permitted within the required front yard or along a property
line abutting a residential use.
Public and Semi - Public District Fences
Fences in the public and semi- public districts may be erected in any yard to a height of eight (8) feet. Barbed
wire fences used for security purposes may be permitted in the public and semi- public zoning district per
Section 3, Subd. 4.T.7.e of the City of Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance.
600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182
Building Department: 651- 982 -2420 • Fax: 651- 982 -2499
building @ci.lino- lakes.mn.us
City Counsel Request for Consideration
Respectfully submitted by Tracey and Mike Jansen
1205 Buckthorn Lane, Lino Lakes, MN 55038
651 - 414 -0100
Request:
To grant homeowner easement encroachment agreement on property's existing easement for the
purpose of the construction of removable fence on our near homeowner's property line (north and east
side of property). Homeowner believes current policy requiring construction of removable fence 15 feet
from property line is not the only solution to achieving necessary access and that doing so would result
in homeowner's significant Toss of property use (fenced area).
History:
• City representative called homeowner on 8/2/11 in response to permit request to construct
removable fence on or near property line. Message to home owner: removable fence must be
15 feet in from property line.
• Request made from homeowners to city engineer on 8/2/11 to consider granting of permission
to construct removable fence on or near homeowner property line.
• City engineer visited property on 8/3/11 and met with homeowners via phone to communicate
decision to hold enforcement of fence construction 15 feet in from property fine.
• Homeowner met via phone with city administrator who upheld city engineer's decision and
instructed homeowner to petition city council.
Understood City Goal /Interest:
To have access to easement as needed in the event of emergency or routine maintenance.
Homeowner Goal /Interest:
To provide access to easement as needed in the event of emergency or routine maintenance.
Understood City Risks Associated with Granting Removable Fence Approval:
• Routine and emergency access: ability to access in the event of needed maintenance or
emergency servicing.
• Future homeowners: expectations regarding responsibility should the need arise for the
removal of the entire fence or a portion of.
• Precedence: policy enforcement to date.
Homeowner Risks of Not Being Granted Removable Fence Approval:
• Safety: community members using the property's adjoining path frequently and routinely allow
dogs, unfamiliar to the family, to run through and in home owner's property. This puts home
owner's three young children at great risk (3 year old and 2 year old twins).
• Safety of community member's children: path users have lost control of kids who enter our
property to explore. This puts homeowner at liability risk.
• Traffic on 12th street is not monitored and perpetual speeding by those who frequent the road
puts home owner's very small children at risk.
City Benefits:
• Safety provided to homeowners children.
• Easier access to easement than attempting with homeowners alternative plan to create natural
barrier (trees /shrubs).
• Satisfaction in working with community members to successfully coordinate mutually agreeable
solutions that maintain city policy regarding need for both efficient and full access to easement.
• Satisfied community members, to include neighbors who are interested and invested in seeing
both open and favorable response from City.
Homeowner Benefits:
• Safety provided to homeowners children.
• Full use of property (15 feet in from property line cuts homeowner off from the use of a
significant amount of property as well as looks aesthetically awkward.)
• Satisfaction and faith in appointed members of community governing body.
• Interest and investment in remaining occupants and positive contributing members of the Lino
Lakes community.
Agreements:
• Homeowner agrees to remove the fence or portion thereof for the purpose of utilizing the
easement at home owner's expense.
o Fence will be constructed in 8 foot section.
o Fence portions will be attached via easily removed screws. Estimated time required for
removal: 15 minutes /section.
• Homeowner agrees to installation of gates in affected area to afford additional reasonable
and convenient access.
• Homeowner agrees to the following before entering into purchase agreement with any
potential buyer:
o Provide full disclosure regarding owner obligation to assume all financial responsibility
associated with fence removal should there be a need for any routine or emergency
access on the easement in the future.
• The encroachment agreement shall become a part of the property record and
apply to all present and future property owners. The placement of the
approved structure or other encroachment shall be located in accordance with
the Certificate of Survey.
o Removal of fence if future homeowner does not agree to assume all financial
responsibility associated with previous bullet.
Considerations:
• Frequency of emergency access needs: several neighbors original to development to include
original owner on shared easement have no recollection of any need to date for routine
maintenance or emergency service requiring large machinery or digging (development is
approximately 18 years old).
• Neighboring communities successfully manage easement access by granting similar
encroachment agreements specific to the installation of removable fences.
• Homeowner's commitment to abiding by any mutually agreeable solution.
• Community members are interested in seeing more consideration and flexibility from city
officials surrounding the topic of property rights, negotiations and considerations.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We fully understand, support and respect the city's
need for both routine and emergency access to easements and believe that our plan fully
accommodates that need. It is our belief that based on this accommodation, that an encroachment
agreement should be granted and that there are already steps in place to proceed with that process
(form attached). It is further our belief, that there needs to be a focus on periodic policy review
within the planning department. Review of historical data such as frequency of routine /emergency
maintenance and associated timeframes along with an understanding of modern removable
structures should allow for greater flexibility within the department.
Attached is a picture of our family to help you in connecting our request to some faces : -)
Best Regards,
Tracey and Mike Jansen
1205 Buckthorn Lane
Lino Lakes, MN 55038
651.414.0100
DataViewOnline Map
Page 1 of 1
- 3 +anSeV% "'"'
Mapee ty
1223:
LLLbJF -i_kR LR
E vit t is4“
Fr est, Inc* 04 to ` "
Disclaimer: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be
used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data from city, county, state
and federal offices, and is to be used for reference purposes only.
https: // portal. sehinc. com /sehsvc/html /dvo /mapLayout.htm
8/29/2011
CITY OF LINO LAKES METER NO:
600 TOWN CENTER PARKWAY PERMIT NO . :0201401
LINO LAKES, MN 55014
651/982 -2420 FAX: 651/982- 2499DATE ISSUED: 08/22/2002
Address
PIN
Legal Desc
6491 White Oak Rd
:27- 31 -22 -32 -0057
Subdivision BRANDYWOOD ESTATES 3RD ADDITION
:Lot 8 Block 2 Parcel
Permit Type :Building
Property Type :Single Family
Construction Type :Fence
Activity
NOTE: NOT ALLOWED IN REAR LOT EASEMENT (DRAINTILE EXISTS).
OWNER
Craig, Kurt & Mary
APPLICANT (763/424 -0643)
TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE
8511 Xylon Ave N
Brooklyn Park, MN 55445
AGREEMENT
the work for which this permit is issued shall be performed
according to: (1) the conditions of this permit; (2) the
approval plans and specifications; (3) the applicable City
approvals, Ordinances, and Codes; and (4) the State Building
erode. This permit will expire and become null and void if
vork is not started within 60 days, or if work is suspended or
abandoned for a period of 120 days any time after work has
:ommenced. The applicant is responsible for assuring all
equired inspections are requested in conformance with the
>tate Building Code. No contractor or subcontractor will work
d the above job address unless properly licensed by City or
;tate. If violation occurs, I understand that this permit may
)e suspended or revpked at the discretion of the Building
)fficial. <� �/'
>ignature: 1 1.,{,' -0 ZL-(; i t.
)ate:-22 -c-__ r
SEPARATES ERMITS REQUIRED FOR WORK OTHER THAN DESCRIBED ABOVE.
FENCE PERMIT $30.00
STATE SURCHARGE - BUILDING $0.50
COUNTY RECORDING FEE $30.00
CONTRACTOR LICENSE VERIFICAT $5.00
Total $65.50
Paid with check # 7329
[[NO[kKLS
APPLICATION FOR FENCE PERMIT
JOB ADDRESS 9 . \i4 ,kE ()kL. 1Z..D Project Valuation $
Owner's Name r �? °-t i rt C\I°-c .c
General Contractor ‘ c: c,.. c•.i "N -r - _r\ CZ.
City BYCa K!b cl f 04? te- State K t3 Zip S S (HS-"1 V.6 Telephone
Day Telephone
Address
t INC.)
License Number (note: all contractors /subcontractors must be city or state licensed)
TO BE SUBMITTED:
Plot Plan/Certificate of Survey X. (showing all easements)
Type of Fence Material 51 v a V L `Y c� Height 5
Approximate Starting Date S
Signature
t
Approximate Completion Date 1 0
Date
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
f ••
FENCE X
TOTAL VALUATION $
Type of Construction Occupancy Group
Division Use Zone
Survey: Required On File N/A
Permit $30.00 State Surcharge $0.50 Easement Encroachment Agreement $30.00 License Verification $5.00
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ lO j. SQ
Review By: % 1 i r Date: 3' ',?e3 ' ,949Q—
Issued By:
Permit# 02011401
Date:
4 g_11_24, o 2. NpT /!s_yowC-w /N gekfg
Lo-r d13eMEW1- EX,5,3) .
L ^ L
1cifei3"+ME?A r AOR '741E LOT -
It
* PIONEER.
engInerIflY
* *
Certificate of Survey for: CICISSiC Home Design
House Address: White Oak Road LinQLokM.
e_s„
Lo.DSLAVEroNS
LAND PLANES • LANDSCAPE RO4fltCT 5
!, 2422 Enterprise Drriti
endotc,, Heights, 4iN 55120
(612) 681-1914.F0x 681-9485
625 Highway 10 Northeast
Bloine, MN 55434
:(812) 783-1880•Fox 753-1883
454
7'30
S6973`36W
115.00
17
20,01
34.00 114' 1Z.C4
L _
24.00 p+rprt.,L.%FFty,
8
22.00
w•L•OUT
13 COURSE eaStMENT
er 0.V
7
PR0POSED NOUSE
7'1)-814,33
r
1 33 8
GAR ACE
24.01
115.0
4/z..44
S892336"W
WHITE OA
S.
< ROAD
/c,V9
Minimum Dusernent Elevation: 908,5
NOTE: CONTT.ACTOR $.41JS T WPIFY ALL OWENS:041S &NO DRNEWAY ocsicA
sr .n.0 Denotes Existing Elevotion
DPntpr-sp-n 14n: iqc-- rve Tinkl
et.tte
917.Z
• NEM • • • • • • • • 11 .10' IMO
(6504)
z
0
4s,
(c)
0
z
r-
Pl
0);
•••
3
B
1
B
r
z.
r-
WHITETAIL TRAIL
(6509)
L. C/1"-
n 1
—
WS — Item 2
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item 2
Date: September 6, 2011
To: City Council
From: Michael Grochala
Re: 2122 80th Street — Code Enforcement
Background
Based on the complaints the City Council received, the city attorney sent a letter to the
owner of 2122 80th Street and indicated that violations of the zoning ordinance were
occurring on the site. The property owner contacted staff and requested a meeting to
discuss the property and the code issues. On Monday July 25th staff met with the
property owner Lloyd Drilling and the business owner on the site Paul Montain.
The business that is being operated on the site is Mountain Environmental, a fertilizer
company that hauls post - production wastes from industrial users to farm locations and
then spreads the materials on farm fields for fertilization. The occupant of the home on
site is not involved in this business directly. The use was not established as a home
occupation, but as what they considered to be an `agriculture' use. Agriculture is allowed
as a permitted use within the Rural Business Reserve zoning district.
The City Council reviewed the issue at the August 1, 2011 work session. The council
determined that the use was a trucking business and not consistent with the permitted
uses within the Rural — Business Reserve District.
Following notification by staff to cease the use the owners appeared at "Open Mike" at
the August 22, 2011 City Council meeting. The owners requested an opportunity to
speak with the council regarding the existing use. The City Council placed the item on
the September 6, 2011 work session for discussion.
Requested Council Direction
Staff is requesting council direction regarding resolution of the zoning issue.
WS — Item 3
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item 3
Date: September 6, 2011
To: City Council
From: Jeff Karlson, City Administrator
Re: Charter Amendments
Background
On July 29 the Charter Commission submitted two amendments to the City Charter with
a request that the City Council adopt the amendments by ordinance. The first amendment
is to add two sections to Chapter 1, which would grant the Commission more
discretionary power to amend the Charter and to control how public funds are spent to
inform the public about an amendment. The second amendment restricts the Council's
ability to raise taxes by instituting a "tax cap."
The public hearing is scheduled for Monday, September 12. After the public hearing has
been held, the ordinance would be enacted upon a unanimous vote from council members
and the mayor.
To inform the Council of the legal implications and the potential impacts of both
amendments, staff has contacted City Attorney Joe Langel and Terri Heaton, the City's
financial advisor. Mr. Langel prepared written comments which address the amendments
to Chapter 1. Joe will be attending Tuesday's meeting. Ms. Heaton also provided staff a
letter that points out how the "tax cap" amendment may impact the City financially.
Attachments
Proposed amendments submitted by Charter Commission
Letter from City Attorney Joe Langel
Letter from Terri Heaton, Sr. Vice President with Springsted
HAND DELIVERED
July 29, 2011
Dear Mayor and City Council of Lino Lakes,
On July 28, 2011, the Lino Lakes Charter Commission unanimously voted affirmatively to adopt
two (2) separate amendments to the City Charter by ordinance, in accordance with Minn. Stat. §§
410.12 Subd. 7. We are now moving these two amendments forward in that process, and
recommend that both amendments be adopted as soon as possible for the benefit of the voters and
the taxpayers in Lino Lakes.
Caroline Dahl, Chairperson, Lino Lakes Charter Commission
Amendment to Our Charter Chapter 1
Section 1.04. Charter Commission.
The City shall have an ongoing Charter Commission with responsibility for maintaining and
updating the Charter, and for informing residents of the meaning or impact of proposed Charter
amendments. Members of the Charter Commission shall be appointed by the Chief Judge of the
local district court, and shall receive no compensation.
Section 1.05. Amendments to this Charter.
All proposed amendments to the Charter and corresponding ballot wording shall be submitted to
the Charter Commission for review. The City Council may not directly or indirectly use public
funds to inform the public about an amendment unless the City Council provides the Charter
Commission with equal funds and opportunities to inform the public about the amendment.
Amendment to Our Charter Chapter 7
Section 7.13. Tax Cap.
The City shall be restricted in the amount it can raise taxes each year. The maximum levy shall
be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Minn. Stat. §§ 275.70 to 275.74 (2010), as
modified below. If the state legislature adopts new levy limits, the City shall be restricted to the
lesser of the limits imposed under the laws in 2010, and the new limits.
The City's levy for the year 2011 shall be used as the starting point for calculating all
subsequent levy adjustments. Any unused levy authority from 2011 or prior years may not be
used.
Levies imposed on a majority of the property owners in the City for a new special district or
utility (such as a storm sewer improvement district, storm sewer utility, or lake improvement
district) created after 2010 shall be included in the levy limit. These levies will qualify as
"special levies" only if a majority of the City's voters specifically vote to authorize the creation of
the special district or utility.
For the purpose of determining the maximum levy, the original net tax capacity shall be used
for all property which is both (a) placed in a tax increment financing district after 2010 and (b)
being taxed on the basis of its original net tax capacity.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lino Lakes City Council
FROM: Joseph Langel, City Attorney
DATE: August 31, 2011
RE: Proposed Amendments to the City Charter
Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 410.12, subdivision 7, the Charter Commission
forwarded to the Council three proposed amendments to the Charter that the Commission seeks
to have approved by ordinance. The first two concern the Charter Commission's authority and
the Charter amendment process, while the third seeks to limit the City's levy authority. After
reviewing the proposed amendments, I have the following comments on the first two; it is my
understanding that the City's financial consultants will comment on the amendment concerning
the levy limit.
At the outset, it bears mentioning that these amendments are unusual in that they do not
address City powers or organizational structure, which is the normal subject matter of city
charters, Rather, they seek in part to expand the powers of the Charter Commission. It is
questionable whether a city charter is the appropriate vehicle for addressing such issues.
Regardless, as discussed below, the specific language in the proposed amendments appears to
be either of no effect or runs afoul of state law.
Section 1,04 Charter Commission
The proposed language is as follows:
The City shall have an ongoing Charter Commission with
responsibility for ]maintaining and updating the Charter, and for
informing residents of the meaning or impact of proposed Charter
amendments. Members of the Charter Commission shall be
appointed by the Chief Judge of the local district court, and shall
receive no compensation.
730 Second Avenue South, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55402 • p (612) 339 -0060 • f (612) 339 -0038 • www.ratwiklaw.com
Paul C. Ratwik
John M. Roszak
Patricia A. Maloney*
Terence 1. Foy*
Scott T. Anderson
Kevin J. Rupp
Jay T. Squires *t
Ann R. Goering
Nancy E. Blumstein*
Joseph J. Langel*
Michael J. Waldspurger*
Margaret A. Skelton
Amy E. Mace
Eric J. Quiring
Erin E. Ische
Christian R. Shafer
Trevor S. Helmers
Matthew J. Bialick
Tessa S. Kowalski
Scott 13. Solvent
Timothy A. Sullivan
* Also admitted in WI
t Real Property Specialist
Certified by the MN
State Bar Association
This language raises several issues. First, the purpose of the initial phrase, "The City shall
have an ongoing Charter Commission" is unclear. Under Minnesota law, charter commissions
continue to exist unless discharged. Minn. Stat. § 410.05. If the intent was to essentially
restate that fact, then there is no purpose to it. If, by using the word "ongoing," the intent was
to make the commission perpetual, then it is contrary to state law. Pursuant to Chapter 410, the
commission can discharge itself or voters can do it in a referendum. Minn. Stat. § 410.05,
subd. 5. Those discharge rights cannot be abrogated via the charter. Thus, the language
appears to be without substance or invalid.
Second, stating that the Commission has the responsibility for "maintaining and updating the
Charter" basically restates the law without adding or clarifying anything. Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 410 already sets forth the Commission's authority.
Third, stating that it is the Commission's responsibility to inform residents of the meaning or
impact of proposed amendments is problematic. Recall the issue that arose approximately two
years ago when the Commission sought to inform voters by initiating a "Vote No" campaign.
The legal opinion obtained at that time from outside counsel concluded that charter
commissions have limited authority, and such authority does not include the production and
distribution of informational materials. This proposed amendment appears to be contrary to
that opinion; it seeks to establish powers that the City already determined the Commission
does not and cannot have. Informing residents of issues pending before the City is the City's
job (see Charter section 12.12). If charter commissions are to have that power, it needs to
come from the legislature through an amendment to Chapter 410.
Finally, the last sentence states that Commission members shall be appointed by the Chief
Judge and shall receive no compensation. This simply restates existing law. Minn. Stat, §
410.05, subd. 1, 410.06.
Section 1.05 Amendments to this Charter
The proposed language is as follows:
All proposed amendments to the Charter and corresponding ballot
wording shall be submitted to the Charter Commission for review.
The City Council may not directly or indirectly use public funds to
inform the public about an amendment unless the City Council
provides the Charter Commission with equal funds and
opportunities to inform the public about the amendment.
This amendment raises issues similar to the previous amendment. The first sentence, requiring
that all proposed amendments be submitted to the Commission for review, is duplicative of
Chapter 410, Amendments can be initiated by the Commission itself, by voters via petition, or
2
by the City Council. Minn. Stat. § 410.12. If voters or the Council initiate, the proposed
amendment must be sent to the Commission for review. Id., subds. 1, 5. This sentence,
therefore, does not add to or clarify the Commission's authority.
The second sentence again refers to empowering the Commission with authority to "inform the
public," which is outside their statutory authority. The City Council does not have the power to
give the Commission authority that the legislature did not grant, either explicitly or impliedly.
Even if that were not true, the language concerning "equal funds and opportunities" is
problematic given its vagueness. How would one measure "equal funds and opportunities ?"
Like any other law, a charter amendment ought to be clear and not subject to a variety of
interpretations. Moreover, the language implies an adversarial relationship between the
Council and Commission that is sought to be balanced by equal funds, apparently so each side
can advocate their position. No public entity, however, is allowed to use public funds to
advocate. A violation of that rule is not remedied by giving public funds to another public
entity so they can violate it, too.
In conclusion, the proposed amendments do not appear to further effectuate the exercise of
governmental functions by the City, which is, or ought to be, the primary purpose of Charter
amendments. Rather, the amendments seem to be an attempt to broaden the authority of the
Commission itself. There is no statutory support for this expansion of power. If there are
ongoing issues about disseminating information to the public, there are other ways of
addressing those issues that could be discussed.
3
Springsted
August 31, 2011
Jeff Karlson, City Administrator
Al Rolek, Director of Finance
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Re: Proposed Tax Cap Amendment
Springsted Incorporated
380 Jackson Street, Suite 300
Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2887
Tel: 651 - 223 -3000
Fax: 651 - 223 -3002
www.springsted.com
I have reviewed the proposed "Amendment to Our Charter" for Chapters 1 and 7, dated July 29, 2011. The following
comments pertain to the impact these amendments would have on the City of Lino Lakes.
Charter restrictions place additional restraints on local governments beyond those required by federal and state law,
and our concern would be financial restraints that impair the City's ability to finance ongoing operations, to comply
with debt obligations, and to meet capital and infrastructure maintenance needs.
It appears that the Chapter 1 proposed amendment addresses the Charter Commission's role in maintaining and
updating the Charter. We have no particular comment on this section as it does not directly impact the three areas of
concern noted above.
Chapter 7, Section 7.13, Tax Cap Amendment
The proposed amendment raises several concerns that should be considered by the City Council.
1) The City of Lino Lakes has minimized increases for several years in response to the recession and declining
property values. The empty chair at the reception counter is one of many notable reductions. Using the
2011 actual levy as the starting point, as proposed in paragraph 2, will restrict the City to a base year levy
that was developed during the recession and may not be sustainable over time, even with implicit price
inflators.
2) The third paragraph includes levies for storm sewer districts, storm sewer utilities, or lake improvements as
part of this levy limit. These special districts are usually funded by special assessments or fees as opposed
to general tax levies. How or if a levy limit can be calculated is not clear. It is also unclear whether these
districts can be added even if they do not levy or use special assessments.
Public Sector Advisors
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Page 2
3) In paragraph 3, restricting new special levies to a vote reduces flexibility. While a referendum may seem
like a cost saving measure today, the repercussions, such as added costs of delays or eliminating the ability
to correct financial issues early, are not usually understood by voters. They may actually be limiting the City
to a more expensive option later if they vote no. Special levies are allowed under state law. The implicit
price deflator increases were considered punitive by some legislators for communities who did not have
growth (historically, a fixed 3% increase or similar amount was a stated levy limit). As a compromise, the
legislators softened this cap by allowing local government to special levy for specific purposes.
4) The last paragraph is not understandable. In Minnesota, cities levy a dollar levy and the tax rate is a
function of dividing the levy by the tax capacity. In other states where a mill rate system is used, the tax rate
(mill rate) is first set and then applied to land values to determine the amount of taxes generated. This
language may make more sense for the mill rate system. Since tax capacity is not used to calculate the
maximum levy, it is confusing.
5) Tax increment is an economic development tool that allows the City to incent development where it may not
otherwise occur. If the intent of the last paragraph is to limit the use of this tool, the City may be tying its
hands when competing with other cities for development. Ultimately, this could result in missed
opportunities to lower taxes for each taxpayer by increasing the overall tax base to which levies are spread.
The tax increment market value becomes part of the City's tax base when the tax increment district expires.
The proposers of this amendment are presumably trying to protect the citizens from higher taxes than necessary. In
the end, these provisions may have the opposite effect. Why is that?
• Credit ratings are based on an issuer's ability to repay bonds. The higher the credit rating, the lower the
interest costs will be on debt. For future debt issues, if the rating agencies perceive that the added
restrictions imposed make Lino Lakes a greater credit risk, they may lower the credit rating. On a $2 million
bond issue with a 15 -year term and assuming the new rating falls from the City's current Aa2 rating to the
single "A" category rating (50 basis point differential); this may translate into an extra cost of $70,000 over
the life of this bond issue. Each bond issue going forward would have a similar penalty until the rating was
improved. Financial flexibility is the key to maintaining and improving credit ratings. The City of Lino Lakes
would be impairing their financial flexibility with this amendment.
• Maintenance of infrastructure and facilities are a "pay today' or "pay more tomorrow" proposition.
Restrictions on the City Council's ability to levy and special assess for projects means that voters have to
choose to increase their taxes today instead of tomorrow. It is easy for them to vote no— especially if they
plan to move out of Lino Lakes or do not see the citywide benefit of maintaining transportation systems that
a City Council may see. As a result, the repairs are delayed and the needed repairs become more severe
(i.e. reconstruction rather than sealcoat) while the cost of pothole repair, car damage, and safety issues
continue to be incurred. Overall, this is much more expensive than a systematic plan to maintain capital at
the most cost - effective time rather than when a referendum passes.
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Page 3
• The administration of these amendments means the City has to incur the costs of elections to pay for new
utilities or service districts. The result is: (a) the cost to administer the election including ballot language,
notices, hearings, and election facilitation is borne one or more times; (b) the language is unclear and
confusing, which means time will be spent interpreting the language and explaining how it fits with state law;
(c) staff will spend time explaining the citywide impact, resulting in additional costs for mailings and
newspaper brochures, without which the voter will be uninformed; d) at a time when cities are streamlining
processes, this would be adding processes for situations that are already authorized in state law.
• Losing the City's competitive edge is a concern. An effective way to lower taxes and fees is to spread them
further by retaining existing members of the community and to attract new residents and employers who
provide excellent salaries and benefits. All of this leads to economic vitality for the community and financial
health. Infrastructure condition, safety, amenities, convenience, education systems, overall appearance and
community support are business considerations. The proposed Charter amendments seem to look inward
only rather than looking forward, while neighboring cities are sizing up their competition and preparing to be
more attractive for development.
In conclusion, the proposed amendment in Section 7 is difficult to understand, as written. Adopting part of state law
and modifying it has proven difficult in the past as it creates new terminology and interpretations than are not always
defensible, should there be a challenge. The proposed amendment would need to be modified before it could be
administered. An attorney familiar with state levy laws may be a good resource,
Overall, I encourage the City of Lino Lakes to think about where the community should be in the next 5, 10, 15 and
20 years by considering the following questions:
1. Does this type of amendment align with plans for the future direction of the City?
2. Does it provide the flexibility to compete?
3. Does it ensure bondholders and rating agencies that Lino Lakes is a well- managed City poised to be
successful in the long -term and able to pay obligations?
4. Will the City of Lino Lakes struggle even more to provide services during the economic downturn if this
amendment passes?
This amendment is well intended, but financially it is not sound policy and it will not reduce costs long -term,
Please let me know if you would like to discuss further or if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
C.,1QA)Lt
Terri Y. Heaton, Senior Vice President
Client Representative
WS — Item 4
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item
Date: September 6, 2011
To: City Council
From: Jason Wedel, City Engineer
Re: Discuss Current Conservation Water Rate Structure
Requested Council Direction
It is Staffs' understanding that the City Council would like to discuss the current
conservation water rate structure. Staff will be available at the work session to provide
information and answer questions as needed.
2011 RESIDENTIAL WATER CONSUMPTION COMPARISONS
WINTER
Less than 20,000 Gallons
SUMMER
ROUTES 1, 2
3
1,403
18
970
ROUTES 3, 4
ROUTES 3, 4
962
826
1
ROUTES 5, 6,
7, 8
1,045
TOTAL
405
(0 %)
TOTAL
(2 %)
3,410
(82 %)
2,201
(53 %)
Between 20,000 and 40,000 Gallons
ROUTES 1, 2
3
224
18
478
ROUTES 3, 4
ROUTES 3, 4
189
306
1
ROUTES 5, 6,
7, 8
305
TOTAL
447
(0 %)
TOTAL
(2 %)
718
(17 %)
1,231
(29 %)
Between 40,000 and 80,000 Gallons
ROUTES 1, 2
3
15
18
188
ROUTES 3, 4
ROUTES 3, 4
9
29
1
ROUTES 5, 6,
7, 8
12
TOTAL
438
(0 %)
TOTAL
(2 %)
36
(1 %)
655
(16 %)
Between 80,000 and 120,000 Gallons
ROUTES 1, 2
3
1,645
18
1,654
ROUTES 3, 4
1
1
ROUTES 5, 6, 7, 8
1
ROUTES 5, 6,
64
1,364
TOTAL
5
(0 %)
83
(2 %)
Greater than 120,000 Gallons
ROUTES 1, 2
0
1,645
0
1,654
ROUTES 3, 4
0
0
ROUTES 5, 6, 7,8
1
ROUTES 5, 6,
10
1,364
TOTAL
1
(0 %)
10
(0 %)
TOTAL CUSTOMERS
ROUTES 1, 2
1,645
1,654
ROUTES 3, 4
1,161
1,162
ROUTES 5, 6,
7, 8
1,364
1,364
TOTAL
4,170
100%
4,180
100%
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
2011 - 99% RESIDENTS CONSUME LESS THAN 40,000 GALLONS IN THE WINTER
2011 - 82% RESIDENTS CONSUME LESS THAN 40,000 GALLONS IN THE SUMMER
2011 - 98% RESIDENTS CONSUME LESS THAN 80,000 GALLONS IN THE SUMMER
2011 - SUMMER WATER CONSUMPTION 150% GREATER THAN WINTER
2010 - SUMMER WATER CONSUMPTION 230% GREATER THAN WINTER
2009 - SUMMER WATER CONSUMPTION 310% GREATER THAN WINTER
2008 - SUMMER WATER CONSUMPTION 280% GREATER THAN WINTER
2007 - SUMMER WATER CONSUMPTION 360% GREATER THAN WINTER
9/6/2011
g--1,t L7 014.4 V'i ic . ss i wl
Why are Water Utility Rates Changing? (b (11
For the first time since 2001, the City of Lino Lakes is proposing a change to the water utility rates. The
proposed rates are aimed at encouraging water conservation by increasing the impact for those who
consume large quantities of water. Families that consume less than 40,000 gallons per quarter (98.7% of
residents during winter months) will experience a negligible increase (less than 3 %).
In the winter billing quarter of 2007, the average residential water use in Lino Lakes was 15,854 gallons.
In the summer of 2007, residents used an average of 56,545 gallons. This difference can be attributed
largely to irrigation of lawns in the summer months.
The city's long -term goal is to decrease annual average residential water usage to 75 gallons per person
per day, or 20,250 gallons per quarter for a 3- person household. This will be reached through a variety of
conservation measures and public education.
Current Residential Rates
Gallons
0- 30,000
Charge per 1,000 gallons
$1.77
Above 30,000
$2.07
osed Residential Rates
Gallons C
Charge per 1,000 gallons
0 - 20,000 $
$1.80
21,000 - 40,000 $
$2.00
41,000 - 80,000 $
$2.50
81,000 - 120,000 $
$3.00
Over 120,000 $
$3.50
Includes $10 Base Fee
Gallons per Quarter
Current Rate
Proposed Rate
Cost Difference
Percent Change
15,854
$38.06
$38.54
+$.48
1%
25,000
$54.25
$56.00
+$1.75
3%
40,000
$83.80
$86.00
+$2.20
3%
80,000
$166.60
$186.00
+$19.40
10%
100,000
$208.00
$246.00
+$38.00
15%
Did you Know...
• Average residential use: 15,854 gallons per winter quarter
56,545 gallons per summer quarter
• 95% of residential users consume 30,000 gallons or less per winter quarter
• 98.7% of residential users consume 40,000 gallons or less per winter quarter
23.8% of residential users consume 80,000 gallons or more in the summer quarter
6.7% of residential users consume 120,000 gallons or more in the summer quarter
Conservation is everybody's responsibility.
For more detailed information about the city's proposed utility rate adjustments and water conservation
techniques please visit the city website at www.ci.lino- lakes.mn.us
Why is it Important to Conserve Water?
Water costs a great deal in energy and money to pump, move and purify. Water conservation will reduce costs to
the city's water system and reduce the need for expansions of pipes, wells and water storage. High water use com-
promises the city's ability to provide adequate and reliable public water supplies, water pressure, storage capacity,
and fire protection reserves. The city has experienced daily summer water demands that average four times the
daily winter use, and has gone as high as seven times the average daily winter use.
All cities in Minnesota with more than 1,000 in population are required by state law to develop water conservation
programs that must include an evaluation of the city's water rate structure, public education, and other measures to
assist residents and businesses with water conservation. The city has not met its goals set by the Minnesota Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, and must use a variety of methods to reduce water consumption.
Since much of the high summer demand can be attributed to lawn irrigation, the City of Lino Lakes has employed
other conservation measures, including lawn watering restrictions and a free rain sensor installation program.
Water Utility Rate Adjustment
Public Hearing
Monday, November 24
6:30 p.m.
Lino Lakes City Hall Council Chambers
Do you have questions or concerns about the new Water Utility Rate structure? You have the oppor-
tunity to address the Lino Lakes City Council regarding the rate increases at the public hearing. You
may alternatively submit your concerns in writing to city hall.
VIOSS NW 'sa�e� oui�
APM)ped aatueD uMOI 009
£ ON.LIV iAd
NW `S2NId �1OdIO
aIVd DOV ±SOd .s.n
�IVW SSVIO-ISdId
uoi4eW 0Eui
a4eJ Amin aaleM
600Z
Bated: 9/6/2011
•
•
2012 Proposed Revenue
2012 Proposed Expenditures
Budget Gap
s-h hu Lei \Mc. Ce 611 lob)
Effect on Effect on
Revenues Expenditures
9,368,109 9,368,109 9,649,195 Beginning 2012 Budget Proposal
9,649,195
(281,086)
ECFE Lease - Incr Debt Levy (60,000) (60,000)
Organizational Assessment (Net of UC) 183,105 (183,105)
Adj for Health Insurance - 18% to 14% 32,690 (32,690)
Govt Bldgs Janitorial (Net of UC) 48,480 (48,480)
Civil Legal Fees - Eliminate Meeting Attendance 5,000 (5,000)
Criminal Legal Fees - Renegotiate Contract 20,000 (20,000)
Reduce Staff COLA Adjustments to 0% 100,000 (100,000)
Reduce 2012 Contingency 25,000 (25,000)
Use of 2011 Contingency 50,000 50,000
Use of Fund Reserves 100,000 100,000
Redirect Fund Reserves from Street Reconst 150,000 150,000
Reduce Capital Equipment Current Levy 50,000 (50,000)
Misc Reductions 9,552 - (9,552)
Reduce Tax Levy
Gap to Balance
432,741
Market Value Homestead Exclusion - est (220,000)
(432,741)
9,175, 368
9,175,368 Preliminary 2012 Budget - Final
•
City of Lino Lakes
2012 Proposed Tax Levy
Adopted Adopted Adopted Adopted Adopted Proposed
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Difference
General Fund Levy 7,430,427 7,864,704 8,247,178 7,768,238 7,675,424 7,138,640 (536,784)
Special Levy - PERA Contribution 38,418 47,994 47,994 43,816 54,178 10,362
Total Operating Levy* 7,430,427 7,903,122 8,295,172 7,816,232 7,719,240 7,192,818 (526,422)
Special Levy - Target/Kohls Abatemt
Special Levy - Legacy/YMCA Abatemt 20
128,568 70,114
42,443
128,568 112,557
Debt Levy
Certificate of Indebtedness 2004 107,016 - - -
Certificate of Indebtedness 2005 39,774 40,404
Certificate of Indebtedness 2006 122,303 122,603 120,698 -
Certificate of Indebtedness 2007 - 66,990 62,948 60,349 -
Certificate of Indebtedness 2008 82,975 81,732 80,808 - (80,808)
Certificate of Indebtedness 2009 126,840 127,008 127,617 609
Certificate of Indebtedness 2010 - 64,864 64,617 (247)
Certificate of Indebtedness 2011 - - 43,365 43,365
Civic Complex Bond 1998A (3) 177,056 191,213 126,788 - -
Public Project Revenue Bond 1999C 119,952 109,557 104,570 - - - -
Taxable G.O. Imp Bond 2003B 21,844 20,741 19,534 23,524 21,917 20,248 (1,669)
G.O. Improvement Refunding Bond 2005E 97,152 108,041 113,482 124,176 124,172 134,863 10,691
G.O. Tax Abatement Bond 2006C (2) 86,656 66,148 108,591 140,091 196,581 235,011 38,430
G.O. CIP Refunding Bond 2006E (3) 125,580 125,580 209,580 322,470 325,410 408,720 83,310
Total Debt Levy 897,333 851,277 949,166 879,182 940,760 1,034,441 93,681
Total Levy 8,456,328 8,866,956 9,244,338 8,695,414 8,660,000 8,227,259 (432,741)
(1) Levy result of Street Referendum
(2) Levy result of participation in YMCA project
(3) Levy result of Civic Complex Construction. Levy amount is decreased by School District lease
•
v
•
Taxable Market Value
Annual % Change
Total Net Tax Capacity Value
Less FD Contribution in Value
Less Captured Value for Tax Increment
Total Net Tax Capacity Value
Annual % Change
Total Levy
Less FD Distribution
• Total Net Levy
of increase /(decrease)
City Tax C pacif to e',
•
City of Lino Lakes
Net Tax Capacity Calculation
Adopted
2010
Adopted
2011
Estimated
2012
Difference
2,001,889,600
(6.22 %)
22,070,825
1,697,800
327,659
1,804,121,500
(9.88 %)
19,783,539
1,576,375
251,890
1, 731, 585,600
(4.02 %)
18, 794, 362
1,497, 556
239,296
(72, 535, 900)
(989,177)
(78,819)
(12,595)
20,045,366
(4.87 %)
17,955,274
(10.43 %)
Net Tax Capacity Rate Calculation
Actual
2010
8,695,414
1,097,539
Actual
2011
8,660,000
1,111,501
17,057,510
(5.00 %)
Estimated
2012
8,227,259
1,055,926
7,597,875
(6.90 %)
B -8
7,548,499
(0.65 %)
.04
7,171, 333
(5.00 %)
(897,764)
WS — Item 5
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item 5
Date: Council Work Session, September 6, 2011
To: City Council
From: Michael Grochala
Re: Comprehensive Plan Review
Background
The City Council passed Resolution No. 09 -23 adopting preliminary approval of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan for submittal to the Metropolitan Council in June of 2009. The plan was
submitted to Metropolitan Council in August of 2009. At the request of Metropolitan Council,
supplemental materials were submitted in October 2009 and the plan submittal was deemed
complete. On December 9, 2009 the Metropolitan Council authorized the City to put its 2030
Plan Update into effect.
Throughout 2010 the City Council continued to discuss modification of the plan regarding
growth management and housing. In January of 2011 the City Council completed its review and
directed staff to submit the plan to adjacent jurisdictions for review. In May of 2011 the City
Council passed Resolution No. 11 -49 granting preliminary approval of the revised plan for
submittal to the Metropolitan Council. On August 10, 2011 the Metropolitan Council authorized
the City to put the revised 2030 plan into effect.
Analysis
The City Council has worked extensively, since the plan was received from the City's Planning
and Zoning Board, to build upon and enhance the draft document. The City Council's work over
the past two years have centered on concerns regarding pace, quality and density. Through the
resulting stages of plan review the Council has addressed these concerns.
The initial 2009 council action included the following changes to the draft plan:
• Decreased the household growth forecasts from 6,600 units to 4,600 units resulting in the
reduction of the cumulative 2030 household forecast by a total of 2,000 units.
• Reduction in the City's affordable housing goal from 1,275 to 560 units.
1
• Modified the Utility Staging Plan to more closely monitor growth by dividing the 10 year
staging areas into five year phases. The council will determine by resolution if the next
phase /stage is to be opened up to development based on criteria in the plan
The 2011 council action further modified the plan to include the following changes:
• Reintroduced an annual average new housing growth benchmark. The new language
reads:
"The City will plan to accommodate an annual average of 230 units per year over
each 5 year phasing period not to exceed 395 units in any one year. At the end of the 5
year phasing period unallocated units will be averaged out over the next five year phase.
• Amended the Housing Plan text to limit City financial assistance to meet regional
housing goals. The plan now includes a statement that in acknowledging Metropolitan
Council's affordability goals the City is not committing to provide funding for housing.
• Modification of residential development densities to lower the high density category as
follows:
• Low Density Residential
• Medium Density Residential
• High Density Residential
1_6 — 3.9 units per acre (instead of 1.5 to 3.5)
4.0 — 5_9 units per acre (instead of 3.6 to 6.9)
6_0 — 10.0 units per acre (instead of 7.0 to 12)
• The City's proposed net residential density was reduced from 3.04 units per acre to 3.01
units per acre which is just over the minimum requirement of 3.0 units per acre.
Upon adoption of the plan the City will begin updating our official controls, including zoning,
and subdivision ordinances, to implement the new plan. Adoption of the new plan will also
allow for implementation of the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP). The SAMP was
prepared for the City in coordination with the Rice Creek Watershed District and Army Corps of
Engineers to stream line administration of the Wetland Conservation Act.
Council Direction
1. Staff is requesting council direction to place adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
on the September 12, 2011 City Council meeting agenda for consideration.
Attachments
1. Metropolitan Council Notice of Final Action (8/15/2011)
2
;;A Metropolitan Council
AA
August 15, 2011
Mike Grochala, Community Development Director
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
RE: City of Lino Lakes 2030 Comprehensive Plan — Final Action
Metropolitan Council Review File No. 20653 -2
Metropolitan Council District 11, Sandy Rummel
Dear Mike:
The Metropolitan Council has completed its review of the City of Lino Lakes 2030
Comprehensive Plan (t_Tpdate). The Council based its review on the staff's report and analysis
(Business Item 2011-197, attached).
At its August 10, 2011, meeting, the Council found that the Update meets all of the Metropolitan
Land Planning Act requirements; conforms to the regional system plans for transportation,
waster resources management, and parks, is consistent with the 2030 Regional Development
Framework; and is compatible with the plans of adjacent and affected jurisdictions. There, the
City may place the Update into effect.
The Council adopted the Advisory Comments and Review Record in the staff report and adopted
the following actions:
1. Authorize the City of Lino Lakes to put its 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update into effect.
2. Advise the City to:
a. Continue to participate in the Council's Plat Monitoring Program.
b. Implement the advisory comments for Transportation. Surface Water
Management, and Water Supply.
3. Approve the City of Lino Lakes Tier II Comprehensive Sewer Plan.
Please consult the attached staff report for important information about the next steps that the
City should take. Of particular importance are the Council's actions found on the first page,
general Advisory Comments found on Page 2, and specific comments for technical areas found
in the body of the report.
www.metrocouncil.org
390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 • (651) 602 -1000 • Fax (651) 602 -1550 • TTY (651) 291 -0904
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Mike Grochala, Community Development Director
August 15, 2011
Page 2 of 2
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Lisa Barajas, Sector Representative,
at 651- 602 -1895. Council staff sincerely appreciates the cooperation of City staff in completing
this process.
Since
Phyllis Hanson, Manager
Local Planning Assistance
Attachment
CC: Ciara Schlicting, Bonestroo
Julie Monson, Minnesota Housing
Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT Metro Division
Sandy Rummel, Metropolitan Council District 11
Lisa Barajas, Sector Representative / Principal Reviewer
Cheryl Olsen, Reviews Coordinator
N:ICommDevILPAICommunities\Lino LakeslLetterslLino Lakes 2011 CPU 20653-2 final action.docx
WS — Item 6
MANAGEMENT TEAM'S
Weekly Progress Report
September 6, 2011
Item
Last Action Taken
Staff
Status
Organizational Assessment
7/11/11 Council approved reclassification
of Secretary B to Office Technician I
Jeff
Further recommendations are
pending
2030 Comprehensive Plan
Amendments
5 /23 /11Council approved revised plan for
submittal to Met Council
Mike
Approved by Met Council
8/10/11. Included on Sept. 6
work session agenda.
Five -Year Financial Plan
4/4/11 Staff presented a first draft of the
plan
Al
A second draft of the plan will
be presented in October
Early Childhood/Family
Education Center (ECFE)
Lease
5/2/11 Council directed staff to begin
marketing the space at city hall currently
occupied by the ECFE
Mike
Staff researched tax
implications and had
discussions with nonprofits &
businesses about the space