Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/07/2007 Council Packet5:00 p.m 7:00 p.m. WORK SESSION AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Wednesday, February 7, 2007 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Community Room (not televised) 5:00 P.M. 1. Hodgson/CR J Master Plan 2. Review Regular Meeting Agenda 3. SAC Refunds Update 4. Temporary Directional Signs S �l, SO'�l GtrtGt'j'I O✓1 45 (j} oyy,ac+(cm 5. Spotlight 2030 Vision — Citizen Visioning Committee 6. Establishing Comprehensive Plan Advisory Panel, Comprehensive Plan Update Process Adjourn • • WS -4 WORK SESSION MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Date: December 4, 2006 Re: Work Session Item 4 Temporary Directional Signs BACKGROUND At the January 3, 2007 City Council work session the council discussed the possibility for allowing off - premise "directional" advertising signage. The council's discussion stems from the request of an existing commercial development to place signage on neighboring property which is adjacent to a higher traffic volume roadway. The council discussed allowing the off - premise sign on a "temporary" basis until any ordinance requirements could be sorted out and amended if necessary. The definition of what "directional" means was unclear. Staff informed the council that 1) the City sign ordinance does not allow off - premise advertising signs; and 2) that the sign ordinance does not provide any authority to grant a "temporary" off - premise sign. The council requested the City attorneys opinion on whether they (council) could allow for a "temporary" off - premise sign until an ordinance amendment could be completed. Attached is an opinion from the City Attorney regarding this issue. COUNCIL ACTION Staff is requesting council direction on how to proceed. ATTACHMENTS • 1. City Attorney letter dated January 30, 2007 LAW OFFICES OF William G. Hawkins and Associates WILLIAM G. HAW INS SCOTT C. BAUMGARTNER January 30, 2007 Legal Assistants TAMMI J. UVEGES HOLLY G. PROVO Michael Grochala Lino Lakes City Hall 600 Town Center Parkway - Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Re: City Sign Regulation Dear Mr. Grochala: 2140 FOURTH AVENUE Notre -i ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 PHONE (763) 427 -8877 FAX (763) 421 -4213 E -MAIL HawkLawl@aol.com I am responding to your email of January 22, 2007 concerning the issue of allowing a temporary off - premises advertising sign. It is my understanding under the current City Sign Ordinance, off - premises advertising signs are not allowed. Furthermore, there is no provision in the ordinance that allows for temporary off - premises signage. In absence of such authority, I do not believe the City Council would have the authority to approve temporary off -sign premises. My recommendation would be that the City Council immediately initiate an amendment to the ordinance to either allow off - premises advertising signs in the City under certain conditions or in the alternative add provisions in the sign ordinance allowing temporary off - premises signs. Should the City Council allow the issuance of a temporary sign without specific authority in the ordinance, I believe that would make any attempts by the City to deny off- premises advertising signs in the future impossible to enforce. William G. Hawkins WGH /tju • lA) rk Se SS( 0,0 2'r (a(707 WS -3 WORK SESSION MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Al Rolek Date: February 7, 2007 Re: Work Session Item 3 — SAC Refunds Update cc: At the August 9, 2006 Financial Retreat, staff recommended that the City Council refund the SAC charges it has held in escrow since 1990. The Council directed the staff to seek an opinion from the City Attorney on the refund of the escrows and to refund the SAC escrows to the owners of record. The City Council also implemented a 1 year grace period to those property owners having access to sanitary sewer and connecting within the next year. In December, 2006 refund checks were mailed to the property owners of record. The status of this project is as follows: Number of Refunds mailed 425 Value of Refunds mailed $325,046.27 Checks cleared as of 2/6/07 386 Checks returned to the City 11 Number having sewer available 3 Checks Outstanding as of 2/7/07 27 We have encounter a few property owners who do not have sewer service available but still want the City to pay their SAC charges when they connect, and they have returned their refunds. Two wrote letters to the City Council, which I am attaching to this report. In all, this has been a successful effort. Staff seeks direction relative to those property owners returning their refunds who do not qualify for the grace period. The City Attorney has reconfirmed his opinion relative to the Council's policy to refund the SAC escrows. Staff will continue to follow up on the outstanding refunds. Page 1 ( 0--A2 % / 7 /o Staff Recommendation: While finance strategies are important for the general fund, this is the fund that is most focused upon during the budget cycle; it is the fund we are most aware of and that has the most direct tax impact. Staff recommendation is to monitor the general fund for possible weaknesses in the future and to employ the consultant's recommendations as needed to curtail any unfavorable affects. Facilities Replacement and Maintenance Nick pointed out that according to the square footage of our city building facilities and assuming a 40 year useful life, we should be putting aside about $175,000 per year for eventual replacement. He stated that all residents are beneficiaries of these facilities and that funding replacement solely from debt results in unequal payments from taxpayers. Finally, he stated that repair and maintenance (roofs, parking lots, flooring, etc.) is an annual cost that has not been budgeted and should be set aside each year. Staff Recommendation: We have recently performed some building maintenance on city hall and replacement of capital items from the Capital Improvement Fund. The major resource flowing into this fund is from antenna lease revenues — about $105,000 — 110,000 per year. Staff recommends that these funds be dedicated to the maintenance and repair and the eventual replacement of city building facilities. This amount can be supplemented with tax revenues in future years. Pavement Management Nick presented graphics which showed that the impact of following the city's Pavement Management Plan (PMP) for maintenance and reconstruction of the city's road infrastructure would save $11,000,000 over the next 10 years. Following the plan would also improve the average condition of the road system and spread the costs of maintenance and replacement more gradually through the use of debt financing. This has been an area that has been among the first to cut out of our annual budgets when we are looking for effective areas to cut; however, it also is among the greatest future cost impacts if not addressed as needed. The charter provisions relative to funding street reconstruction further inhibit the City Council's ability to initiate and complete these proj ects. Staff Recommendation: The City Council should recognize road maintenance and repair as a priority to avoid sharp increases in cost and tax impact in the future. Staff recommends budgeting annual road maintenance (seal coating, overlay, etc.) at the recommended level stated in the PMP, and to take a proactive approach to addressing necessary reconstruction projects, perhaps through a strong education and communication effort. SAC Revolving Fund Prior to the mid 1980's, it was the practice to collect the Metropolitan Council Service Availability Charge (SAC) charge with the issuance of a building permit regardless of whether utilities were available. The city accepted SAC refunds (about 900) from the Metropolitan Council in the late 1980's. In the early 1990's the City Council gave residents the option of whether they wanted to receive a refund or have the city pay their 2 SAC charges when they hook up to the sewer service. About 18% of the residents at that time elected an option. Staff informed the Council in June that since the city accepted the refunds, the amount of the city's unfunded liability that has accumulated in this fund is roughly double the actual dollars available. This liability is projected to grow in the future, with increases to the SAC charges expected to eclipse interest revenue on the fund. Staff Recommendation: The potential impact of this liability on the City in the future will be quite heavy — over one -half million dollars. The only sources available to relieve the liability are utility fees or property tax revenue. In any case, it falls on all other residents of the city to pay the difference in SAC costs attributable to these properties. Staff recognizes that residents were given an option in the past, that properties have changed ownership over time, and that it may be many years before sewer service is available for these properties, or maybe never. However, given the potential magnitude of this liability, staff recommends that these property owners be made aware of the situation and that a refund be issued to the affected property owners, thereby eliminating the potential liability. Dedicated Parks Fund In 1999 the City purchased a 67 acre parcel of property on the east side of the city to be developed into a recreational facility. The purchase was financed through an interfund loan from the Area and Unit fund to the Dedicated Parks_fund. The loan was to be repaid from the proceeds of a successful bond referendum for this project. As you know, the referendum was held in 2001 and failed. Since then, the Dedicated Parks_fund has had fund deficit. Our auditors have strongly recommended that the city cure this deficit through one of the following options: 1) Make the loan a permanent transfer of funds, 2) develop a repayment schedule for the loan, or 3) sell the property to repay the loan. The City Council has been holding the property for possible development, and the property is certainly worth more today than it was purchased for. However, Council seemed reticent to sell the property at this time. Staff Recommendation: In light of the auditor's recommendation, and interpreting the vibes from the Council, staff recommends establishing a repayment plan for the interfund loan. An outright transfer of the funds would not be an appropriate use of the Area and Use funds, which were collected to implement trunk sewer and water facilities. In addition, the Area and Unit fund is having its own financial challenges, as was discussed in June. Therefore, a repayment plan seems to fit best. The loan can be repaid over a 10 — 15 year period with a moderate rate of interest. The source of the repayments would be park dedication fees. As a result of this plan, there will be an impact on the rate of park development over this repayment period. If, at some point in the future, it is determined that the city should divest itself of this property, the proceeds would flow into the Dedicated Parks fund to be used toward repaying any unpaid loan balance and /or completing development in any of the remaining city parks. 3 COUNCIL FINANCIAL RETREAT AUGUST 9, 2006 APPROVED Finance Director Rolek advised following the Pavement Management Plan (PMP) for maintenance and reconstruction of the City's road infrastructure would save $11,000,000 over the next 10 years. Following the plan would also improve the average condition of the road system and spread the costs of maintenance and replacement more gradually though the use of debt financing. This has been an area that has been among the first to cut out in the annual budgets when the City is looking for effective areas to cut; however, it is also among the greatest future cost impacts if not addressed as needed. The Charter provisions relative to funding street reconstruction further inhibit the Council's ability to initiate and complete these projects. Finance Director Rolek advised the Council should recognize road maintenance and repair as a priority to avoid sharp increases in cost and tax impact in the future. Staff recommends budgeting annual road maintenance (seal coating, overlay, etc.) at the recommended level stated in the PMP, and to take a proactive approach to addressing necessary reconstruction projects, perhaps through a strong education and communication effort. Finance Director Rolek reviewed the history of the SAC Revolving Fund. He stated the potential impact of this liability on the City in the future would be quite heavy at over one -half million dollars. The only sources available to relieve the liability are utility fees or property tax revenue. In any case, it falls on all other residents of the City to pay the difference in SAC costs attributable to these properties. Staff recognizes that residents were given an option in the past, that properties have changed ownership over time, and that it may be many years before sewer service is available for these properties, or maybe never. However, given the potential magnitude of this liability, staff recommends that these property owners be made aware of the situation and that a refund be issued to the affected property owners, thereby eliminating the potential liability. The Council directed staff to obtain an opinion from the City Attorney regarding issuing refunds. If there are no legal issues, staff should proceed with the refum - option for the affected residents.-- CI -4 o'--t f ci,t- cat.,-6,1 u. '1t. 0.4.1 et _I.3. Cl Finance Director Rolek advised in terms of the Dedicated Parks Fund, staff is recommending establishing a repayment plan for the interfund loan for the 67 -acre parcel of property purchased for a recreational facility. An outright transfer of the funds would not be an appropriate use of the Area and Unit Funds, which were collected to implement trunk sewer and water facilities. In addition, the Area and Unit Fund is having its own financial challenges. Therefore, a repayment plan seems to fit best. The loan can be repaid over a 10 -15 year period with a moderate rate of interest. There will be an impact on the rate of park development over this time frame due to this plan. If, at some point in the future, it is determined that the City should divest itself of this property, the proceeds would flow to the Dedicated Parks Fund for use of repaying any unpaid loan balance or in any of the remaining City parks. 2 December 1, 2006 Name Address Lino Lakes, MN 55038 RE: Refund of Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer Service Availability Charge Prior to 1986, it was the Metropolitan Council's practice to collect the Sanitary Sewer Service Availability Charge (SAC) on all new housing building permits. SAC charges were collected whether sewer service was available to the property or not. The amount of SAC collected on your property at the time the permit was issued was $ XXX.00. Upon changing this policy, the Metropolitan Council refunded this amount to the City of Lino Lakes in 1991. In turn, the City offered affected property owners the opportunity to elect a refund of the SAC amount or to leave it with the City to pay the SAC charges at such time as sewer service is available and the property connected to the system. Many property owners elected to receive a refund; many others wanted the city to pay the SAC charge upon connection. The vast number of affected property owners did not reply to the original offer. Any SAC charges not refunded have been held in escrow by the City. In most cases, sanitary sewer service is still not available for these properties and, in many cases, will not be available in the foreseeable future, if ever. In light of this, the City Council has reviewed its policy with regard to the escrowed SAC charges and has decided to return all remaining SAC charges, along with interest calculated at 4% per annum from 1991, to current property owners of record. Accordingly, enclosed please find a check in the amount of $ XXX.00, which consists of the original SAC amount of $ XXX.00 and interest of $ XXX.00. It is the City Council's intent that each affected property owner be treated fairly. If sewer service is currently available to you and you will be connecting to the service within the next year, you may still have the City pay your SAC charge for you. Simply return the enclosed check to the City within 30 days of the date of this letter and the city will pay your SAC charge at the time of your connection. Should you have any questions relative to this letter, please feel free to contact me or Paula Schloer at (651) 982 -2400. Sincerely, Alan J. Rolek Director of Finance cc: Mayor and Council members Gordon Heitke, City Administrator 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182 Phone: 651- 982 -2400 Fax: 651 - 982 -2499 TDD: 651- 982 -2416 January 7, 2007 To the City Council of Lino Lakes, My name is Scott Featherstone, my wife's name is Carol. We have lived at 631 Andall Street since November 1982. This letter is concerning the check that was sent to us dated December 1, 2006 for the amount of $796.02. This check is a refund of the Sanitary Sewer Service Availability Charge (SAC) collected at the time our home was built in 1982. W-e are returning this check and requesting the city to keep these monies and honor the original agreement that was made in 1982. This agreement was re- established in a letter that was sent to us June 8, 1998 by the City of Lino Lakes. This letter offered us the option of collecting a refund check for $559.27 or have the city pay for the sewer connection when the time came. We again chose to have the city pay the SAC. We are aware that the city has no plans at this point in time nor does the council for -see in the near future sanitary sewer being run in the Arena Acres area. However, it has been our experience over the past 25 years that the council's fore -site, vision, and plan for the future of the city are ever changing. Couple this with the information provided in the letter dated June 8, 1998 which told us the connection fee was $1000.00 and the knowledge that the current connection fee for 2007 is $1675.00 we feel it is in our best financial interest to hold the city to our original agreement. I spoke with Alan J. Rolek on January 2, 2007 regarding this matter. From that conversation I came away with no more information concerning the reasons for this rebate other than it's a change in city policy or the method of calculating the interest rate other than it's what the council felt was fair. It was Mr. Rolek's suggestion we take this up with the City Council. In your letter dated December 1, 2006 you state "It is the City Council's intent that each affected property owner be treated fairly." If fairly means equally then a refund should equate to the connection fee paid within the next year since this is what the Council has extended to households with sewer service currently available. It is neither Carol's nor my intention to profit at the city's expense. Our only intention is to hold the City responsible to our past agreement. We respectfully ask the council to address this situation at an up coming work session and respond in writing to this request within thirty days. If the council prefers to speak with us in person, or for us to be present at the time the council is discussing this issue, please call us at 651- 786 -0494 after 4:00 p.m. to arrange a meeting. Thank you for your time in looking into this matter. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincer / /�!1T Scott and Carol Featherstone December 7, 2006 City of Lino Lakes 1189 Main Street Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 RE: 7850 20th Avenue North PIN Number: 12- 31 -22 -21 -0003 Refund of Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer Service Availability Charge Lino Lakes City Council c/o Alan Rolek This letter is in reference to your letter dated December 1, 2006 with regard to the SAC fee which was returned to me. I am returning the check which includes my $375 fee and $327.37 interest which you are paying from 1991. Incidentally, the fee was collected in 1977. At this time I do not wish to have my SAC fee returned to me, as was indicated on the copy of your letter and card dated June 8, 1998, which I returned to the City of Lino Lakes on June 15, 1998. As then, I want my SAC fee to remain with the City until such time my home is connected to sanitary sewer. As you stated in your letter in 1998, I also Wish for; "...the city to pay the full amount of SAC to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission at the time you { I } hook up to sanitary sewer services regardless of what was originally paid for your { my } property." In conclusion I will quote your most current SAC letter and note to you that; "It is the City Council's intent that each affected property owner be treated fairly" and ask that you comply with my request of keeping the fee until such time that sanitary sewer is available to me, as I feel it only fair to keep the arrangement that has been set in place. I sincerely hope that this refund is not only because the costs of hook up today are greater than in the past and that you hold true to past binding agreements, also that this be the last correspondence needed. Sincerely, dadokarsol44) Judith Tooker 7850 20th Ave N Lino Lakes, MN 55038 June 8, 1998 Judith Tooker 7850 20th Avenue Hugo, Minnesota 55038 RE: 7850 20th Avenue PIN Number 12- 31 -22 -21 -0003 Dear Judith Tooker, At the time the City issued a building permit for your home, a SAC (Sewer Availability Charge) fee was collected with the penult fees. The City remitted the SAC fee to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. It was later determined that since your property is not in the MUSA, (Metropolitan Urban Sewer Area) it will not receive sanitary sewer services until sometime in the future. Therefore, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission reimbursed the City for the SAC fees they collected for your home. The City is now in the process of returning the SAC fees to the property owners, if they so desire. The fees vary according to the year they were collected. The SAC fee paid for your property plus interest is $493.47. You may request reimbursement of this fee by completing the enclosed form and returning it to city hall. If you elect to request the return of your SAC fee, you will be required to pay the full SAC fee that is applicable in the year your property is connected to sanitary sewer. The SAC fee for 1998 is $1,000.00 and the fee increases each year. If you do not request the return of your SAC fee, the City will hold the fee and pay the full amount of SAC to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission at the time you hook up to sanitary sewer services regardless of what was originally paid for your property. Please review this letter carefully and then let us know what you wish to do with your SAC fee by filling out the enclosed postcard and returning it to city hall. If we do not hear from you, the SAC fee will remain with the City until such time your home is connected to sanitary sewer. If you have further questions, please feel free to call myself or Marilyn Anderson, City Clerk at 464 -5562. Respectfully, Peter Kluegel, Building Official 1189 Main Street • Lino Lakes, Minnesota • 55014 Phone%FDD: 612 - 464 -5562 • Fax: 612- 464 -4568 Judith Tooker 12-31 -22 -21 -0003 7850 20th Avenue Li I wish to have my SAC fee of $493.47 including interest returned to me. I do not wish to have my SAC fee returned to me. i • V Work se 5.1 otn 2'"] /200% Memo To: Gordon Heitke From: Marty Asleson Date: February 7, 2007 Re: Earth Day Donations 1,). S. (eM Environmental Gordon, I would like to know if it is ok for us (the City) to ask businesses for financial support of Earth Day. In the past, donations have gone into the Friends of the Parks fund on behalf of the Earth Day Committee. For several years there was a Quad City Earth Day Committee where Cities involved asked for funding within their own Cities. For the last few years the other cities have dropped out of Earth Day participation and the County has become involved in it. The County donates" in- kind" by providing a location at Wargo Nature Center, staff to run Earth Day programs, and production of promotional flyers. The City of Lino Lakes recruits residents in Lino Lakes to become involved on Earth Day by cleaning up parks, trails and other open spaces in the City. Monies donated by several businesses in Lino Lakes have been used to reward volunteers by providing lunch and beverage to volunteers who were involved in clean -up activities. Additional money has been used to fund a petting zoo, entertainment, and miscellaneous other cost items such as popcorn and face paint supplies. I would like to send out letters this year to a select group of businesses asking for help. In the past, there has been a number of businesses that have contributed • Page 1 financially or with some other donation. For example Northern Instruments donated bio- degrading bags last year. Please let me know if 1 am following correct procedure. Thanks, • Page 2