Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/07/2006 Council Packet• • • WORK SESSION AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Monday August 07, 2006 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Community Room (not televised) 5:30 P.M. 1. August 14 Regular Meeting Agenda Items 2. Refunding EDA Lease Revenue Bonds 1998A (Civic Center Complex) To follow in Friday Update 3. Charter Amendment 4. Historical Documents 5. Adjourn Closed Council Session PAGE 1 Memorandum Date: August 7, 2006 To: City Council From: Gordon Heitke Re: Prior Comprehensive Plan Costs 21 Q 5 si g /7 /o, At the last City Council meeting, staff recommended the hiring of DSU to serve as the consulting planner for the comprehensive plan update project. The recommendation was based on the proven expertise and reputation of DSU, their familiarity with Lino Lakes from the previous AURA process, and a reasonable estimated cost in comparison with the costs associated with the preparation of the previous comprehensive plan. Staff indicated at the meeting that invoices related to the last comprehensive planning totaled approximately $191,000 with additional months of comprehensive planning invoices yet to be included. This figure was questioned. Staff has finished compiling the invoices and has determined that the last comprehensive plan project cost $211,171.41. A breakdown of costs by year and vendor is attached. Copies of the individual invoices are available for review. Comprehensive Plan Cost Summary Atlas Loose Leaf 1997 252.00 Total 252.00 Petty Cash 1996 Total 21.17 21.17 ECM Publishers 1997 30.86 Total 30.86 Lightning Printing 1998 80.84 Total 80.84 Northwest Associated Consultants 1996 17,020.45 1997 31,390.90 1998 39,264.18 1999 6,324.98 2000 4,275.18 2001 11,010.76 Total SRF Consulting Group 109,286.45 1996 12,476.15 1997 40,935.55 1998 11,598.92 1999 638.02 2000 - 2001 897.38 Total 66,546.02 Short Elliot Hendrickson 1997 2,156.68 1998 396.00 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total 2,552.68 TKDA 1998 5,961.73 1999 20,515.87 2000 2,680.31 2001 848.18 2002 2,395.30 Total 32,401.39 Grand Total 211,171.41 Comprhensive Plan Grant Dollars Received Metropolitan Council 10,790.00 Total 10,790.00 • • • MEMORANDUM August 2, 2006 To: From: Subj ect: City Council Jeff Smyser Millers Crossroads Shopping Center The city council discussed this project and a new site plan at the July 5 work session. Issues included the drive through use itself and landscaping of the site overall. We received a new plan set without the additional driveway (attached). The City Attorney reviewed the new plan and the original approval and provided a legal opinion (attached). The application will be on the August 14 city council agenda. I am preparing the staff report based on the attorney's opinion. The report that will be distributed in the packet for the August 14 meeting. • • LAW OFFICES OF William G. Hawkins and Associates WILLIAM G. HAWKINS BARRY A. SULLIVAN July 27, 2006 Legal Assistants TAMMI J. UVEGES HOLLY G. PROVO Mr. Jeff Smyser Lino Lakes City Hall 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 2140 FouRTH AVENUE NORTH ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 PHONE (763) 427 -8877 FAX (763) 421 -4213 E -MAIL HawkLawl@aol.com Re: Miller's Crossroads Shopping Center Conditional Use Permit Application Dear Mr. Smyser: 1 am responding to your request for a legal opinion concerning the application of Bruggeman Properties for a conditional use permit for a drive through and outdoor seating on their shopping center project known as Miller's Crossing. 1 have reviewed the application of Bruggeman Properties as well as the action of the City Council in approving a rezoning, planned unit development and conditional use permit for this site in 2003. FACTS AND BACKGROUND In 2003, Bruggeman Properties proposed to construct 152 town homes and a 13,000 sq. ft. commercial building on property owned by the company in the City of Lino Lakes. In order to accomplish the proposed development it was necessary for the applicants to obtain a rezoning of the commercial site from R -3 to Limited Business and rezoning of the residential portion of the property from R -1, Single Family Residential and R -3, Medium Density Residential to R -3 Planned Unit Development (PUD). In addition, a preliminary plat approval and a conditional use permit for a commercial daycare facility in the commercial building were submitted. The City Council, in Ordinances No. 19 -03 and 20 -03, amended the zoning ordinance of the City by approving the applications of the developers as recited above. In these ordinances, the City Council made findings to support the rezoning which included a finding that traffic generated by the proposed uses will be within the capabilities of the streets serving the properties. At the time of these zoning approvals, there was no mention of a drive through facility or outdoor facility in either of the ordinances. • • • Mr. Jeff Smyser July 27, 2006 Page 2 Bruggeman Properties has now filed a request for a conditional use permit pursuant to the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. Section 7, Subd. 2.H.1 provides that an accessory drive through facility is a conditional use in a Limited Business district. Subd. 2.H.8 of Section 7 states that outdoor dining facilities of restaurants are also conditional uses. The 2006 application originally submitted by Bruggeman Properties included a second entrance to the commercial site. After a review and discussion by the City Council, a revised plan has been submitted on July 21, 2006 which eliminates the second access and provides only the access that was approved as a part of the zoning change in 2003. It is my understanding the City staff and Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval of the first two access design application. Based upon these facts the question has arisen concerning the City's legal obligations in reviewing the applications of the Bruggeman Properties for these conditional uses. LAW AND ANALYSIS The authority for cities to include uses as conditional under zoning regulations is found in Minn. Stat. § 462.3595. The language of the statute reads: "The governing body may by ordinance designate certain types of developments, including planned unit developments, and certain land development activities as conditional uses under zoning regulations. Conditional uses may be approved by the governing body or other designated authority by a showing by the applicant that the standards and criteria stated in the ordinance will be satisfied." The standards in the City's zoning ordinance that the Council must review are found in Section 2, Subd. 2. The criteria are as follows: a. The proposed development application has been found to be consistent with the policies and recommendations of the Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed development application is compatible with present and • • • Mr. Jeff Smyser July 27, 2006 Page 3 future lands uses of the area. c. The proposed development application conforms to performance standards herein and other applicable City Codes. d. Traffic generated by a proposed development application is within the capabilities of the City. e. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. f. Will not result in the destruction, Toss, or damage of a natural scenic or historic feature of major importance. In considering whether or not to approve or deny a CUP application, a city council must rely on the standards found in the zoning ordinance. A municipality's decision to grant or deny a conditional use permit is a quasi - judicial decision that should be afforded great deference. A municipality's denial of a conditional use permit requires both a factual determination about the proposed use and an exercise in discretion in determining whether to permit the use. Once an applicant meets the requirements for granting a conditional use permit, approval of a permitted use follows as a matter of right. Citizens for a Balanced City v. Plymouth Congressional Church, 672 N. W.2d 13. In the original development, the Council made specific findings that when the commercial improvements were completed the traffic generated would be within the capabilities of the streets serving the property. The question now raised is whether the construction of the drive through will change that determination by the City Council. The original traffic study done on August 7, 2003 by the City consulting engineers TKDA concluded that while the proposed development would add traffic to the adjacent roadways, the roadways would be able to handle the increased traffic with little or no problems with the proposed improvements to Hodgson Road and Birch Street. A subsequent inquiry of the traffic consultant for evaluation of the effects of the drive through resulted in their verbal opinion that the activities of a drive through facility would not substantially change their opinion of 2003. In Yang • Mr. Jeff Smyser July 27, 2006 Page 4 v. County of Carver, 660 N. W.2d 828, the Minnesota Court of Appeals stated that traffic estimates based solely on information provided by landowners and commission members which ignored contrary expert evidence were insufficient to serve as a basis for denying a conditional use permit. Furthermore, public comments on projected traffic increases do not serve in and of itself and do not provide grounds for denial of a conditional use permit. Based upon by review of the facts surrounding the application and the engineering and planning reports provided to the City Council, there does not appear to be a factual basis for denying the application based on a determination that the traffic generated is not within the capability of the City street systems. Unless additional information is presented regarding traffic impacts of the drive through, it appears that a defense to a legal challenge of denial would be difficult. It should be noted that under Section 2, Subd. 2 of the City Zoning Ordinance, the City Council does have the right to apply conditions to the issuance of a conditional use permit and conduct an annual review to ensure that the conditions are being complied with. If there is concern that the proposed drive through use may be changed or expanded, it would seem reasonable to impose conditions on the applicant that would limit the drive through to the type of use being proposed in the application as well as limitation on the square feet in the building that could be occupied by an entity using the drive through. In the event of a change of use or expansion of the size that would cause additional traffic considerations, I believe the applicant could be required to seek an amended conditional use permit and review by the City Council under the ordinance. If any Council members have any questions, please feel free to contract me. William G. Hawkins WGH /tju V BIRCH STREET -22 SPACES ®70 -- 196•-0- aaMENEOM trEQi=Qffilialligl .111.11101111111111�■111011.11111.110110113ENO MENE W I I I 1 1 1 r1-1 917 1-1 L LIJ LJ OFFICE(RETAI L.rRESTAIIRANT 12,48p SF 1 1 MI 11111n:11116 ilh iii iNLING IINSWINELeiliai�f�104i��E •�4r. nom /I ® : S^11CFS �" fU'9 II /!I( -145,P I) /IE' \q \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Q\ \ \ \\ \ , FUTl. 1� r.^.00F.I7F^ARi'.•,VC 1A.F7r . OSITE PLAN 1'= 20'-lT anions 1. KINOICAP PARKING 204, SEE DETAIL 12/92. 2. 74.41401C41 ►MINCING 20419114 VAN ACt$9LE SIGN. SEE OETA6. 7 3/YZ 3. PA9REDMAN04AP SYMBOL AT END OF STALL 4. HANDICAPACCEIS ASCE BETWEEN HWpCAP SPAS 5. 4' WIDE WHITE PAINTED 57!9944 T7MAL 6 NEM CONCRETE CIO AND (2117156 9d DETAIL 7/92. 7. CONCRETE 9O! WAIX CUM AND GUTTER, SEE OETAL 6/92. & BITMI/N0u5 PAVEMENT. SEE CNL. 9. NEW Pal- LICK SEE DEALS 9A 699 ON 6/92. ID. 71494 mansun& SEE CETµ 1/92. 1I. STEP DIA SEEOETAL 74/92. 12. MOMpB(TSIGN. SEED TAB. 4/532. 13. tumour Q1119 9AMP, SEE DETAIL 1/73 734. CL N NOVNA404AP CURB CUT IN 00571NC CURE. EXIH40 CONOIER IYAIX TO TRAIE. 14. 4' COIR9EIE S=EMNX CPI 6'SAND 01511IOV. 15. CT CABINET 16 CAS METED IT. ARE IMPARTMENTCONNE<710N. It PARIONC SMACK (ITd RECTOS 19. suunsmc SET9= (44T-Er 000D5 20. NOT USED 21. PAM M4tl1UM 30% OF TENANT AREA. 22. RESTAURANT ORDER ROARA BY TENANT. 23. Tb 9 0T eenER' 904. SEE DETAI 7 7/92 24. 'ONE MAY SIGN SEE DETAIL. 9/332 15. MDOLRAR KRTANNG MALL SEE OWL 16. GATE A RM)NG • AMERICAN AEGIS PLUS. CO4MEROAL SERIES. 3- P007S. MAIL S RAL LENCIN M3 STYLE RAIL W/MNQ BLACK_ NOVICE SIKH 315- GATE W/19AO90LTCOM SEE DETAIL 19/92 27. SOLARO, SEE GEM& 4/533. 28 HEAVY PAVEIIE67 saamt. SEE CETA1L 2/93. 29. PLANTE!! CLOW SEE DETAIL 3/533. 30. NOT USED 31. WALXW9T STRIPPING, 70 CITY STANDARDS. 31. NOW TRANSFORMER 33. OR/VELP QM. SEE DETAR 3/44.4. 34. DR1VE•W BOLLARD. SEE DETAIL 5/393. 35. SWARD SAM AR TO (934) DETAIL 5/533. FILL AREA MTN 2ONLFE75. CURB F9CHT, 7D BUILDING. 36. 013455 1.414E 37. CONOIEIE APRON SITE STAT1S11CS TOTAL LOT AREA. 79,9595.7. - 1.6 RCVS TOTAL 0605044834, 27,70451. - .64 ACRES 356 14356 READ) LOT ZONING - UNITED BU MESS, LL PVC. USER6WOSFR RETAIL OFRf$ RESTAURANT TOTAL SLOG AREA 11,460 SF.. 15.66 PARKING AREA 39.77551. -.91 AO1E5. 509 WILOINC SETBAIX: 40,0' PARANGSETMAIX: Is-0' PARING ANALYSIS: !WILDING AREA LES5 106- 11,232 SF. FAST FOOD. 2,000 S.F. 9 15/1.000 - 30 STALLS COFFEE910P, 1,800 S.F. 9 10/1,000. 4 - 22 STALLS OUTDOOR SEATING. 6 STALLS MEDICAL OFFICE/RETAIL 3 ♦ 1/200 SF. OR 55/1.000 S.F. - 40 STALLS ►ARKINGREOTT 98 STALLS PARKING DEFERMENT FUTURE PROOF OF PARKING. 20 STALLS TOTAL PARKO4G AVAILABLE 107 STALLS>93 REVD. COFFEE 940P AND FAST FOOD ON ALTERNATE PEAKS AND COFFFE SHOP 1445 OWE W THAT REDOCES PARKING DEMAND PARKING FRONDED: 67 STALLS LANDSCAPE ISLANDS IN PAR PICAREA 64 STALLS/2S a 100 - 336 SF. REDO. 494 S.F. PROVIDED 20 40 100 71ROSEWOOD PORTFOLIO Architect/ • Conahuctlan Managers wUf M11. NN • eMt wise wl • 50000D. WI o m .r.wa•Dnlpi$fl lac • wwww.laponletwa. A. PETER POWER P15862 rA.+P_N.N_g_ •a•4)bNa .o Naar e.Nr w a3/Mrra N/nrY) adr1 9 6 a w.Pr N _omIAP ma erer lw. Adr Oa I... RW Rrs eta..vr� RECEIVED JUL 2 1 2006 TY OF UNO LAKES Z 0 yectInformation MILLERS CROSSROADS SHOPPING CENTER E 0 a. a. rth D Z as 8'6.! .- la MNIMENIMIW RD DOCUMFNI5 ISSUED 546.06 Or -61779 NDrory/ 69)3,OR5 CITY SUBMITTAL 124205 REVISED CITY SUBMITTAL 2 -77-06 REVISED COY SUBMITTAL 50806 REVISED CITY SUBMITTAL 7.21-06 Supervising Office SL Paul, MN 752 Stillwater Road 24ab51medL MN 55115 E4.651.63L1300 0 651.631.1500 Pro1.a AnchR4er A. PETER HILLER Prei4R 6 daunt 6v Checked or 8A05-010 SEB /AA SCC Shea Number SP LOOSEN ROOTS OF CONTAINERIZED MATERIAL ARBY 8011065ISm0 OF ROLL moil TO PIANTWG LANDSCAPE FABRIC TOP SOIL SUBGRADE SHRUG 70311 ONSUBCUDE ; 4•DEEP SHREDDED SARK 50D P.V.0 EDGING PLANTING SOIL 1.881W G OF SHRUB N BED TO TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER OMUSTON PROM EDGE ODECIDUOUS SHRUB DETAIL 1/r -1'O DOUBLE STRAND , STRAP; 16X 11/T WOE 14 CA LYRE A POLYPROPYLENE OR 360110 • rI POLYETNYIFIIE INTERVALS TREE WRAP 7T3 0501 BRAVO( 8,0'5-TEEL STAKE MULCH; 4' DEEP SHREDDED BARK -"'---FUAGONG; WE PER WIRE PLANTING 50u NOTES: SCARIFY BOTTOM 6 SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR 70 PLANTING. FOOTBALL TO SIT GINSUIORACE 7XTX2r WOOD STAKE SETO ANGLE TWO ALTERNATE METHODS OF TREE STAKNG ARE ILLUSTRATED. IT IS 714E CONTRACTORS OPTION TD STAKE TREES- HOWEVER. THE CONTRACTOR IS REPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING TREES IN A PURIM FO9AON THROUGHOUT THE GUARANTEE PERIOD. ODECIDUOUS TREE DETAIL /r. r-D• DOUR LESTRAND 14 GA WIRE 36 O 120 • INTERVALS 8 =0• STEEL STAKE 500 TOP SOIL SDR04DE STRAP. 16X, 1 /'WOE POLYPROPYLENE OR P00010 YLENE GING; ONE PER WIRE MULCH: 4' DEEP SHREDDED BARK SOD TOPSOIL 5VIGRA0E XTX24' 04000 STAKE sire ANGLE NOTES: CONFER 70 HAVE HARDWOOD MULCH UNITS 0754566575E NOTED. NO WWI 70 BEN CONTACT WIT( TRUNK. FOOTBALL TO SIT ON 57666406 PLANTING SCR SCARIFY BOTTOM 8 SEW OF HOLE PRIOR 70 PANTING TWO ALTERNATE METHODS OF TREE STAKING ARE ILLUSTRATED. IT IS THE CONTRACTORS OPTION 70 STAKE TREES; HOWEVER THE CONTRACTOR IS RESP'OMB E FOR EWNTAINING TREES IN A PLUMB POSITION THROUGHOUT THE GUARANTEE PERIOD. OCONIFEROUS TREE DETAIL 1/r- 1'.O NOTES: CONFER TO NAVE HARDWOOD MULCH UMIST OTHERWISE NOTED. NOWLO/ TO RE N CONTACT WITH TRL5& SCARIFY 60T70N 6 SIDES OF NOLL PRIOR TO PLANTING. OCONIFEROUS SHRUB DETAIL 1/1'- 1•-0' QUAMTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE 780 UTILE BLUES-TIEN SOIM201YRIW SCOPARUU r POT 12• a STAGGER ANUS NR7CA 4'6' 8 A 6 PURPLE COVEPLOWER 604N46A PURPUREA V POT Ir OC 5LLCi8 p_* CAUCA DENSATA• 44.148 STRIA CE ORO HEMMEROCAWS 'STELLA DE ONO• 6•POT 17' 0.C. STAGGER F1EAANUS PBWMSYLVANICA'MARSHALL' 7846 GOLOSTURM BLAIX-EYED SUSAN 80085065 'YAL0S7URAP 5 POT 17.0.0 STAGGER OPERENNIAL BED PLANTING LEGEND OPLANTING LEGEND BIRCH STREET 508, ' - • ■ ■ © O 3- ♦r .111j fL PRETRIAL 3' -0' NIGH BERM 5' -0' M 61304 SEED 56TORAT7oN POND 3 ROWS SOD ALONG CURB /� / / / / / / / /•f / /, / / / /// // IIITYILTIVPW21. ti0TiGfii2S1� ✓ /1111•u1111■IMu■u111111111Y 111MISGiii=.1r iiUall��� �umosim trir�a�■ B �r IW� , ramm■uulryutAr. 4�N 8R 1 12,48b SF 1 I 1 i I 1 0 • // / /// 7C�! %1 t• num PRAIRIE SEED MIX OLANDSCAPE PLAN 1'x30' -D. PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS 1. PLANING QED PREPARATION: ALL MASS PLANTING BEDS STALL BE TILLED 7D A AI IMIW OBTH O! ILO. AMEWASENT5 SHALL SE APPLIED AFTER CULTIVATION 1. MCC HU. SOU USE SOIL EXCAVATED FROM ACANTHI HOES AND PROMO( AMENDMENTS. RBNOVE ALL DEBRIS INCLINING ROOTS LARGER 71wN 3.074) 708. 3. FDR7RQA13OM ALL PLANT MATERIALS SMALL OEITEMIZED UPON INSTALLATION WAN CRIED BONE REAL W OTHER SPECIFIED FER7R/3R NIXED IN 51114 7NE PUNTING SOL PER THE MANUFACTURERS IPE27RUC7EOId MU.LO/ MA7DUAL AS AWNED ON 77ELANL7SCAPE RAMS MASS MULCH ALL PLANING REDS TO OFTEN OVER HIER MAT WEED IARIU(R. ALL P76SWW4L RANTING BE05 7D 100006ER 3 DEEP 0IREDLFD HARDWOOD HULOT WIF4 NO Fis& MIT WED BARREL ALL EVERGREEN AND (IOWDUS TREES TO 8!®V! 6• DEB SNREDOED NAROW000 485.06 MAN NO MAC N DIRECT CONTACT WAH ONE TREE TRUAX 5. TREE STAKING. IT SMALL BE THE CONTRACTORS RESPOWSLAY 71D STAKE A60/08 0517111E TREES AC:0RONG 7D 714E DETAILS 1715 'ME CONTRACTORS RLSP NSlt3TY TO TARE EVERT STEP NECESSARY 7O MAN7AN THE TREES AND SHRUBS N AN 7RIOIT AND PLUME C7NOA10V AT ALL HAW UNTIL 165 EN 0T THE PLANT 04UA5TEEPEA00 EiPEOAILY WHERE VAND46M. SOIL OR WNW CONDOMS ARE A MOSLEM. 6. TREE WRAPPING IA'RAPPIN W TERML SMALL BE QUALITY, HEAVY WATT RPROOF CREPE PAPER MANUFACTURED NW 1165 IMPOSE WRAP ALL DEODUOUS TWO RANTED N THE FALL NDOR TO 11.1 AND REMOVE ALL WRAPPING AFTER SI. 7. RODENT PROTECTION: PROVIDE ON ALL TREES EXCEPT SPRUCE UNLESS OTHERWISE 08I66W0 8. PLANTING PLAN ALL PROPOSED PLANTS 944115E LOCOED CAREFULLY AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. PLAN TARES NUCEDUICE OVER PLANT sQ/WULE R oiscroznotos N OLANTmES EXIST. SP5001C4T/ONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NOTTS. RESPECT STATED IXMBLSIDNS CO NOT SCALE 04MIN6. 9. EDGING WGUA, AWL BE 4'P.V.0 3668MEILQAL 07406 EWING RRTH STK (6) METAL ANCHOR STAKES PER 20 FOOT SECTION ALL MAS S RANTING REDS SHALL HAVEEDGNG PLACED BETWEEN MULCH AREA AND ANY AOJACDNT TURF AREA. GENERAL NOTES U. LANDSCAPE cm-mom ro VERIFY ALL =um /DCATONS ONPROPERTY WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND BY CALLING GOPHER STATE ONE GILL (454-0001) PRIOR 70 STA5NG PLANT LOCATIONS. 1. COORONATE THE PFM507 OF CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING INSTALLATIONS IVIT14 OMEN CONTRACTORS WONTING ON SITE 3. WHERE EXISTING TREES ANIUOR SIOWRCANT 546085 MASSING ARE FOUND (N S1TE WHETHER smowN W THE DRAWING 0R NOT. THEY SHALL RE PROTECTED AND SAVED UNLESS NOTED TO eERB40VED AND/OR ARE N AN AREA TO BE GRADED ANY QUESTION REGARDING WHETHER PLANT MAMMAL SHOULD REMAIN OR NOT SHALL BE 88000IT70 714E ATTHV7TOV OF THE LANOSCAPEARCHITECT P8ICR TO REMOVAL 4 ALL EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN TO BE FER77U7FD AND PRUNED TD REMOVE MAN M1000 AND DAMAGED OR RUBBING BRANCHES. 5. Ra TREES AND DRUBS ARE BALLED ANO BURLAPED. 6. NOPLANTMATEILAL SUBSTIMT7ONS NEL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS APPROVAL IS REQUESTED OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY ME LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF A BID AND/OR QUOTATION. 7. ALL PLANT MA7E8ML SHALL COMPLY LATH THE LATEST =770V OF THEAMERRi1N STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCC, AMERICAN ASSOO47TW 6 NURSERYMEN. 8. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ONGOING MAINTENANCE Of ALL NEWLY INSTALLED MAMMALS LIND E TIME OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE ANY ACTS OF VANCALLSM OR DAMAGE WHIG/ MAY OCCUR PRIOR TO OWNER ACCEPTANCE SHALL BE THE RLSP0N51814 51 OF 7HE CONTRACTOR 9. C0N7RAC70R SIW1 PROVIDEA MITTEN REQUEST FOR THE OWNER ACCEPTANCE INSPECTION 10. WARRANTY FOR LANDSCAPE 4647ER54L5 SHALL BEN ON THE DATE O ACCEPTANCE BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Ana THE COMPLETION 0r PLANTING 0FALL LANDSCAPE MAMMALS. NO PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE 785.. LIE COSI ED. 71. CONTRACTOR SNAIL GUARANTEE NEW RANT MAMMAL 7566/GN ON CALENDAR YEAR FROM THE 7) DATE OF OWNER ACCEPT.ANCO WITH ALL REPLACEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED AT NO AOOTIONAL COST TO THE OWNER PLANTING NOTES I. NO PLANTING 70 RE INSTALLED UNTIL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED N THE IBNEDLA7EAREA 1. ALL PUNT MATERIAL LOCAT70NSMUST BE REVIEWS) AND APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCRTECT PRIOR TO AMr END ALL [WO NG 3. IF 714E LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PQ ®YES ANY D01OHNOES N THE PLANT SELECTIONS, 50L CONO1OVS GR ANY OTHER SITE CL74Ol71ON WHICH NRQD' NEGATIVELY AFFECTP1ANTMATERIAL OTABUWIMEM, SURVIVAL OR 05.746454716 THEY SHALL BITTING THESED0ICENCES 70 THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE AROHAECTPRIOR TO IN5TAL2AITON. 4 403017658815174 LOCATION OF PROPOSED KANTMATEIALS MAY RE NEEDED IN TEED. SHOULD AN ADJUSTMENT BE ADVISED. THE LANDSCAPE ARORACTMUST BE NODDED . S. ALL PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED AS PER PLANING MOMS. 6. ONESR08 PER TYPE AND 512E /n EACH PLANTING BED AND EVERY TREE SHALL 8E CLEARLY IDENTIFIED (COMMON OR LATIN NOMEIOATURD WITII A PLASTIC TAG WH1015 4&u. NOT eE REMOVED PRIOR TO OWNER ACCEPTANCE 7. WHERE SOD/SIiDABPTS PAVEDSURFACS, MIMED GRADE OF 500/SEED DU(L BE HELD I' BELOW SURFACE ELEVATION OF TRIAL 51A6 CURB. ETC 8. SW SHALL BE LAD PARALLEL 70 THE CONTOURS AND SHALL HAVE STAGGERED JONES ON SLOPE 57EEPER THAN 3:1 OR IN ORARw6 SWALE', DIE SOD SMALL BE STARED TO THE GR0110 9 SEED ALL AREAS LOWERED DUE TO GRADING OTHER THAN 'MOSEAREAS NOTED 70 RECDVE SOD. LO REPAIR ALL OHMAGE TO PROPERTY FROM PUNTING O0RATILO5 AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. IRRIGATION NOTES 1. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL RE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING A SHOP DRAWING ILLUSTRATING AN IRRIGATION PLAN AND SPEDFICA7104 AS PART OF THE 5C0& OF WORK WHEN AMONG THESE SHALL BE APPROVED BY ONE LANDSCAPE AROOTECTPROR 70 CODEX 2. VERIFY EXISTING/PROPOSED IRRIGATION 575794 LOCATION. 3 LANCES OTHERWISE NOTED ALL 500I5EED AND PANTING AREAS INM ATE0 ON PLAN SMALL BE 100 X =GATED. THE IRRIGATION SHALL INCLUDE THE PUBLIC MOO' WAY 8EIW'E94 PROPERTY UNE AND BMOC OF CURB OR SOUND WALL WHERE NEW LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOTFD. .4. IT SHALL RE THE {ANOSU/E CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO INSURE THAT ALL 50006/5EECED AND PLANTED AREAS ARE IRRIGATED PROPERLY. INCLUDING THOSE AREAS OREiTLY AROUND AND NUTTING BUILDING FOUNDATION. 5 THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR DWI PROVIDE THE OWNER 6677H A WATERING/LAWN IRRIGATION 501EDULEAPPROPRIA7E TO THE PROJECT SITE CON07 0765 AND 7D PLANT MATER/AL GROWTH REQUIREMENTS. 0 30 60 100 ROSEWOOD PORTFOLIO MdJlecb • Co ,In cli n Managers sNMIAUI.NN• £AUQA/{ WI • afHUllaQ WI 0 NM • I•Nee• O•ee•ean>t Ik. • xr• awvod /Mli•usa OLLARTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SOX O6 1Y AUSTRIAN PME ANUS NR7CA 4'6' 8 A 6 © 1 BUCRHIL,S SPRUCE p_* CAUCA DENSATA• 44.148 © 13 MARSHALLS ASH F1EAANUS PBWMSYLVANICA'MARSHALL' 7846 O2 REDMOVDUNDEN T7LU XEUOLORA'REDMONQ ra &I © 4 NORT71W000 MAPLE 2.8 & 8 AIER MOW 74041774I1 O3 Maht medi, MN 55115 RAOANT CRABAPPLE ,MALLS 77A0AN7' I'B 6 8 O31 MISS KIM UTAC SYRINCA V7U77NA'MISS OW I r-24•H. Par . 30 CLEDFLAME SARA SWAM 8U44L.DA LODFL 546 Ir-74•N, POT • 11 RED TWIG DOGWOOD CORMUS STGLOWIERA 18,24. IL POT 40 4 RUGOSA ROSE'CAREEBEE BEAUTY RLIGOS4 ROSE 'CAROM REAM' 18.14' H POT ® 5 MOUT COLUMNAR ARBORVITAE 3' H, POT, SPACES QC THUM 0000ANTAUS TECNr ® 13 DWARF BUSH HONEY SUCKLE DIE8VLLA IOM'CERA Ir. 7 r N, POT ® I SAGA JUNIPER JWNER55 041NEWLS MUM- I r. it H. POT . 16 GROLOSUMAC RHOS ARLXMATICA 776010' 17', POT OPLANTING LEGEND BIRCH STREET 508, ' - • ■ ■ © O 3- ♦r .111j fL PRETRIAL 3' -0' NIGH BERM 5' -0' M 61304 SEED 56TORAT7oN POND 3 ROWS SOD ALONG CURB /� / / / / / / / /•f / /, / / / /// // IIITYILTIVPW21. ti0TiGfii2S1� ✓ /1111•u1111■IMu■u111111111Y 111MISGiii=.1r iiUall��� �umosim trir�a�■ B �r IW� , ramm■uulryutAr. 4�N 8R 1 12,48b SF 1 I 1 i I 1 0 • // / /// 7C�! %1 t• num PRAIRIE SEED MIX OLANDSCAPE PLAN 1'x30' -D. PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS 1. PLANING QED PREPARATION: ALL MASS PLANTING BEDS STALL BE TILLED 7D A AI IMIW OBTH O! ILO. AMEWASENT5 SHALL SE APPLIED AFTER CULTIVATION 1. MCC HU. SOU USE SOIL EXCAVATED FROM ACANTHI HOES AND PROMO( AMENDMENTS. RBNOVE ALL DEBRIS INCLINING ROOTS LARGER 71wN 3.074) 708. 3. FDR7RQA13OM ALL PLANT MATERIALS SMALL OEITEMIZED UPON INSTALLATION WAN CRIED BONE REAL W OTHER SPECIFIED FER7R/3R NIXED IN 51114 7NE PUNTING SOL PER THE MANUFACTURERS IPE27RUC7EOId MU.LO/ MA7DUAL AS AWNED ON 77ELANL7SCAPE RAMS MASS MULCH ALL PLANING REDS TO OFTEN OVER HIER MAT WEED IARIU(R. ALL P76SWW4L RANTING BE05 7D 100006ER 3 DEEP 0IREDLFD HARDWOOD HULOT WIF4 NO Fis& MIT WED BARREL ALL EVERGREEN AND (IOWDUS TREES TO 8!®V! 6• DEB SNREDOED NAROW000 485.06 MAN NO MAC N DIRECT CONTACT WAH ONE TREE TRUAX 5. TREE STAKING. IT SMALL BE THE CONTRACTORS RESPOWSLAY 71D STAKE A60/08 0517111E TREES AC:0RONG 7D 714E DETAILS 1715 'ME CONTRACTORS RLSP NSlt3TY TO TARE EVERT STEP NECESSARY 7O MAN7AN THE TREES AND SHRUBS N AN 7RIOIT AND PLUME C7NOA10V AT ALL HAW UNTIL 165 EN 0T THE PLANT 04UA5TEEPEA00 EiPEOAILY WHERE VAND46M. SOIL OR WNW CONDOMS ARE A MOSLEM. 6. TREE WRAPPING IA'RAPPIN W TERML SMALL BE QUALITY, HEAVY WATT RPROOF CREPE PAPER MANUFACTURED NW 1165 IMPOSE WRAP ALL DEODUOUS TWO RANTED N THE FALL NDOR TO 11.1 AND REMOVE ALL WRAPPING AFTER SI. 7. RODENT PROTECTION: PROVIDE ON ALL TREES EXCEPT SPRUCE UNLESS OTHERWISE 08I66W0 8. PLANTING PLAN ALL PROPOSED PLANTS 944115E LOCOED CAREFULLY AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. PLAN TARES NUCEDUICE OVER PLANT sQ/WULE R oiscroznotos N OLANTmES EXIST. SP5001C4T/ONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NOTTS. RESPECT STATED IXMBLSIDNS CO NOT SCALE 04MIN6. 9. EDGING WGUA, AWL BE 4'P.V.0 3668MEILQAL 07406 EWING RRTH STK (6) METAL ANCHOR STAKES PER 20 FOOT SECTION ALL MAS S RANTING REDS SHALL HAVEEDGNG PLACED BETWEEN MULCH AREA AND ANY AOJACDNT TURF AREA. GENERAL NOTES U. LANDSCAPE cm-mom ro VERIFY ALL =um /DCATONS ONPROPERTY WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND BY CALLING GOPHER STATE ONE GILL (454-0001) PRIOR 70 STA5NG PLANT LOCATIONS. 1. COORONATE THE PFM507 OF CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING INSTALLATIONS IVIT14 OMEN CONTRACTORS WONTING ON SITE 3. WHERE EXISTING TREES ANIUOR SIOWRCANT 546085 MASSING ARE FOUND (N S1TE WHETHER smowN W THE DRAWING 0R NOT. THEY SHALL RE PROTECTED AND SAVED UNLESS NOTED TO eERB40VED AND/OR ARE N AN AREA TO BE GRADED ANY QUESTION REGARDING WHETHER PLANT MAMMAL SHOULD REMAIN OR NOT SHALL BE 88000IT70 714E ATTHV7TOV OF THE LANOSCAPEARCHITECT P8ICR TO REMOVAL 4 ALL EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN TO BE FER77U7FD AND PRUNED TD REMOVE MAN M1000 AND DAMAGED OR RUBBING BRANCHES. 5. Ra TREES AND DRUBS ARE BALLED ANO BURLAPED. 6. NOPLANTMATEILAL SUBSTIMT7ONS NEL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS APPROVAL IS REQUESTED OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY ME LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF A BID AND/OR QUOTATION. 7. ALL PLANT MA7E8ML SHALL COMPLY LATH THE LATEST =770V OF THEAMERRi1N STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCC, AMERICAN ASSOO47TW 6 NURSERYMEN. 8. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ONGOING MAINTENANCE Of ALL NEWLY INSTALLED MAMMALS LIND E TIME OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE ANY ACTS OF VANCALLSM OR DAMAGE WHIG/ MAY OCCUR PRIOR TO OWNER ACCEPTANCE SHALL BE THE RLSP0N51814 51 OF 7HE CONTRACTOR 9. C0N7RAC70R SIW1 PROVIDEA MITTEN REQUEST FOR THE OWNER ACCEPTANCE INSPECTION 10. WARRANTY FOR LANDSCAPE 4647ER54L5 SHALL BEN ON THE DATE O ACCEPTANCE BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Ana THE COMPLETION 0r PLANTING 0FALL LANDSCAPE MAMMALS. NO PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE 785.. LIE COSI ED. 71. CONTRACTOR SNAIL GUARANTEE NEW RANT MAMMAL 7566/GN ON CALENDAR YEAR FROM THE 7) DATE OF OWNER ACCEPT.ANCO WITH ALL REPLACEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED AT NO AOOTIONAL COST TO THE OWNER PLANTING NOTES I. NO PLANTING 70 RE INSTALLED UNTIL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED N THE IBNEDLA7EAREA 1. ALL PUNT MATERIAL LOCAT70NSMUST BE REVIEWS) AND APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCRTECT PRIOR TO AMr END ALL [WO NG 3. IF 714E LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PQ ®YES ANY D01OHNOES N THE PLANT SELECTIONS, 50L CONO1OVS GR ANY OTHER SITE CL74Ol71ON WHICH NRQD' NEGATIVELY AFFECTP1ANTMATERIAL OTABUWIMEM, SURVIVAL OR 05.746454716 THEY SHALL BITTING THESED0ICENCES 70 THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE AROHAECTPRIOR TO IN5TAL2AITON. 4 403017658815174 LOCATION OF PROPOSED KANTMATEIALS MAY RE NEEDED IN TEED. SHOULD AN ADJUSTMENT BE ADVISED. THE LANDSCAPE ARORACTMUST BE NODDED . S. ALL PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED AS PER PLANING MOMS. 6. ONESR08 PER TYPE AND 512E /n EACH PLANTING BED AND EVERY TREE SHALL 8E CLEARLY IDENTIFIED (COMMON OR LATIN NOMEIOATURD WITII A PLASTIC TAG WH1015 4&u. NOT eE REMOVED PRIOR TO OWNER ACCEPTANCE 7. WHERE SOD/SIiDABPTS PAVEDSURFACS, MIMED GRADE OF 500/SEED DU(L BE HELD I' BELOW SURFACE ELEVATION OF TRIAL 51A6 CURB. ETC 8. SW SHALL BE LAD PARALLEL 70 THE CONTOURS AND SHALL HAVE STAGGERED JONES ON SLOPE 57EEPER THAN 3:1 OR IN ORARw6 SWALE', DIE SOD SMALL BE STARED TO THE GR0110 9 SEED ALL AREAS LOWERED DUE TO GRADING OTHER THAN 'MOSEAREAS NOTED 70 RECDVE SOD. LO REPAIR ALL OHMAGE TO PROPERTY FROM PUNTING O0RATILO5 AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. IRRIGATION NOTES 1. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL RE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING A SHOP DRAWING ILLUSTRATING AN IRRIGATION PLAN AND SPEDFICA7104 AS PART OF THE 5C0& OF WORK WHEN AMONG THESE SHALL BE APPROVED BY ONE LANDSCAPE AROOTECTPROR 70 CODEX 2. VERIFY EXISTING/PROPOSED IRRIGATION 575794 LOCATION. 3 LANCES OTHERWISE NOTED ALL 500I5EED AND PANTING AREAS INM ATE0 ON PLAN SMALL BE 100 X =GATED. THE IRRIGATION SHALL INCLUDE THE PUBLIC MOO' WAY 8EIW'E94 PROPERTY UNE AND BMOC OF CURB OR SOUND WALL WHERE NEW LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOTFD. .4. IT SHALL RE THE {ANOSU/E CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO INSURE THAT ALL 50006/5EECED AND PLANTED AREAS ARE IRRIGATED PROPERLY. INCLUDING THOSE AREAS OREiTLY AROUND AND NUTTING BUILDING FOUNDATION. 5 THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR DWI PROVIDE THE OWNER 6677H A WATERING/LAWN IRRIGATION 501EDULEAPPROPRIA7E TO THE PROJECT SITE CON07 0765 AND 7D PLANT MATER/AL GROWTH REQUIREMENTS. 0 30 60 100 ROSEWOOD PORTFOLIO MdJlecb • Co ,In cli n Managers sNMIAUI.NN• £AUQA/{ WI • afHUllaQ WI 0 NM • I•Nee• O•ee•ean>t Ik. • xr• awvod /Mli•usa A PETER I/PAwry Not ArAA.AVa ArmAr aNA ma I AA AAMy.Rb4.AY HILLER 115862 m PIED 444 smxtu myAA4rATA4 e ...an New saw AdeAR AANr a Mousse• as ANNAN 1Y M NA AAA NAL heel Description LANDSCAPE PLAN prq/ett Information MILLERS CROSSROADS SHOPPING CENTER RID DOCUMENTS ISSUED 51406 Drawing MUM' 1 Roritions cure SUBMITTAL 12-1245 REVISED CITY SUBMITTAL 2.17-05 REVISED CITY SUBMITTAL 3.2806 REVISED CITY SUBMITTAL 7.21-05 super'4org Office SE. Paul, MN 75Z5ti0Water Road Maht medi, MN 55115 P 651.531.1300 F 651.6311500 ProMoo A Jtlm0 A. PETER HILGER Prefect P 06d7& 8V RA05-010 SEEP / AA SGC Sheer Number Ll • • • WS -2 WORK SESSION MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Al Rolek Date: August 7, 2006 Re: Work Session Item 2 — Refunding of EDA Lease Revenue Bonds 1998A (Civic Center Complex) cc: Attached is a letter from Terri Heaton of Springsted, Inc., relating to the refinancing of the EDA Lease Revenue Bonds 1998A. These bonds were originally issued to finance the construction of the Civic Center Complex. We have been monitoring this issue for refinancing opportunities in recent years. As Terri explains in her letter, a recent change in statutes allows us the opportunity to refinance the issue with a general obligation issue of the city. Since the new issue will be backed by the full faith and credit of the city, we will save an estimated $208,000 over the term of the issue, over twice the savings of refinancing with another lease revenue bond (see asterisks on feasibilities). However, in order to refinance the issue in this manner, we must include the refinancing in our capital improvement plan (CIP) for 2006 and hold a public hearing. A 30 -day reverse referendum period follows the public hearing, effectively pushing the sale date out until after this period has elapsed. You may recall that the savings resulting from this refinancing was already factored into the reduction of the amount of tax abatement bonds (reducing the capitalized interest included in that issue) for the YMCA project. Staff recommends that the City Council schedule and hold the required public hearing and amend its CIP to include the refinancing of this issue. The refunding feasibility and a schedule for this process is attached for your review. Any further questions or comments can be addressed at the meeting on Monday night. August 3, 2006 Mr. Al Rolek, Finance Director City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Springsted Incorporated 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300 Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2887 Tel: 651 - 223 -3000 Fax: 651- 223 -3002 www.springsted.com RE: Refinancing Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority 1998A (Civic Center Complex) Mr. Rolek: Background In 1998, the construction of the Civic Center Complex was financed using lease revenue bonds issued by the City's Economic Development Authority (EDA). Lease payments of an amount sufficient to cover debt service are made by the City to the EDA annually. The original issue size was $5,350,000 and the bonds have a 20 year term, maturing in 2019. Ownership of the Civic Center Complex will be transferred to the City upon final payment of the bonds. The first call date was 2/1/2006. In 2003, the Minnesota Legislature enacted into law a program that allows home rule and statutory cities to establish a capital improvement program and issue bonds for certain capital improvements without an election. Eligible improvements include city halls, public safety facilities and public works facilities. Such bonds would be general obligation (GO) backed capital improvement plan (CIP) bonds. In order to qualify projects as CIP bondable improvements, a City would need to adopt a plan following a public hearing. Upon adoption, there is a 30 day reverse referendum period. The annual debt service of bonds issued under this authority may not exceed 0.16% of market value or about $2.7 million. This level of debt service would support about $31 million of bonds. The City has not used this financing before and so the entire $31 million is available. The proposed CiP Refunding Bonds would be $3,810,000, which is well below the cap. Refunding Opportunity We have been monitoring opportunities to refinance the 1998A EDA bonds for some time. Since they are not GO backed bonds, refinancing using new lease revenue bonds results in minimal savings (non GO backed to another non GO backed bond). The estimated present value saving without converting to GO CIP bonds was estimated to be $100,739. GO backed bonds result in the lowest interest rates. Using the 2003 CIP bonding authority, the City could issue GO CIP bonds to refinance the EDA bonds too increase the resulting savings. Legal counsel has advised that the City can add the purchase of Civic Center Complex from the EDA to the CIP. Upon adoption of the CIP, the City would be authorized to issue CIP refunding bonds. Even though the facility was built prior to the CIP bond law, the purchase from the EDA occurs when the bonds are refinanced, so the 2003 law would apply. Pub11c Se tor';Adr t cars • • • City of Lino Lakes August 3, 2006 Refinancing the 1998A bonds as GO CIP Refunding Bonds would result in savings of about $208,513. The present value savings as a percentage of the refunded debt service is 4.6 %. This is well above the 3% threshold set by the State for advance refundings. Although this is not an advance refunding, as they would be refinanced after the call date, the 3% threshold is a consideration. Annual savings through 2019 would average $22,088. The current outstanding bond amount is $4,210,000. The new bond issue size would be $3,810,000. Because a reserve fund required for the revenue bonds of $479,342 is no longer necessary, this reserve would be used to buy down the size of the new issue from $4,210,000. In order to accomplish the refinancing this fall, we have developed the attached calendar which covers both the CIP approval process and the sale of bonds process. We have also included the refunding feasibility for your information. Please let me know if you have any questions or wish to discuss further. Respectfully, Terri Y. Heaton, Senior Vice President Client Representative $3,810,000 City of Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority, Minnesota General Obligation Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds (Non -BQ Scale) Series 2006 - Current Refunding of Series 1998A Preliminary Feasibility Summary Dated 08/01/2006 I Delivered 08/05/2006 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $3,810,000.00 Transfers from Prior Issue DSR Funds 479,342.50 Transfers from Prior Issue Debt Service Funds 36,235.00 Accrued Interest from 08/01/2006 to 08/05/2006 1,684.94 Total Sources $4,327,262.44 Uses Of Funds Deposit to Current Refunding Fund 4,246,235.00 Costs of Issuance 40,000.00 Total Underwriter's Discount (0.950 %) 36,195.00 Rounding Amount 3,147.50 Deposit to Debt Service Fund 1,684.94 Total Uses $4,327,262.44 ISSUES REFUNDED AND CALL INFORMATION Prior Issue Call Price 100.000% Prior Issue Call Date 10/01/2006 SAVINGS INFORMATION Net Future Value Benefit $255,752.08 Net Present Value Benefit $208,513.03 .er Net PV Benefit / $4,516,826.86 PV Refunded Debt Service 4.616% BOND STATISTICS Average Life 6.629 Years Average Coupon 4.0823149% Net Interest Cost (NIC) 4.2256180% True Interest Cost (TIC) 4.2383257% Series 2.006 Current Rd: 9 / SINGLE PURPOSE / 6/17/2006 / 7:51 AM Springsted r =VG 1 • $4,265,000 City of Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority, Minnesota Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds Series 2006 - Current Refunding of Series 1998A Preliminary Feasibility Summary Dated 06/15/2006 I Delivered 06/15/2006 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $4,265,000.00 Transfers from Prior Issue DSR Funds 479,342.50 Transfers from Prior Issue Debt Service Funds 108,705.00 Total Sources $4,853,047.50 Uses Of Funds Deposit to Current Refunding Fund 4,318,705.00 Deposit to Debt Service Reserve Fund (DSRF) 426,500.00 Costs of Issuance 53,050.00 Total Underwriter's Discount (1.200 %) 51,180.00 Rounding Amount 3,612.50 Total Uses $4,853,047.50 ISSUES REFUNDED AND CALL INFORMATION Prior Issue Call Price 100.000% Prior Issue Call Date 8/01/2006 SAVINGS INFORMATION Net Future Value Benefit $142,936.10 Net Present Value Benefit $100,738.59$ 4 Net PV Benefit / $4,511,420.99 PV Refunded Debt Service 2.233% BOND STATISTICS Average Life 7.266 Years Average Coupon 4.4060647% Net Interest Cost (NIC) 4.5712282% True Interest Cost (TIC) 4.5972250% Serves 2006 Current Rrf? / SINGLEPURPOJE / .5/4/2006 / 11:47 AM Springsted r ago. Draft date 08/04/06 L0503.F3 Lino Lakes, Minnesota General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Refunding Bonds, Series 2006E S M T W Th F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 16 20 21 22 23 10 17 24 11 12 18 19 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 S M T W Th F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 3 26 27 28 29 30 31 S M T W Tft F 1 3 ' 4 11 18 10 17 24 5 6 i 7 8 9 12 13 i 14 15 16 19 20 1 21 22 23 25 26 29 W Th F 3 2 S 4 5 12 19 6 7 8 9 13 20 21 22 23 14 15 16 10 11 17 18 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Date Event Responsible Party August 7, 2006 City Council workshop. August 16, 2006 Notice in local paper advertising the Public Hearings for the CIP. August 30, 2006 Finalize Bond structure and prepare Terms of Proposal. Springsted September 5, 2006 Request for Official Statement Information sent to Staff. Springsted September 5, 2006 Sale Recommendations and Bond Resolution delivered to City. Springsted Kennedy & Graven d • • i Date Event Responsible Party September 11, 2006 Information forwarded to Springsted for preparation of the Official Statement. City Staff September 11, 2006 Public Hearings on the Capital Improvement Plan and Issuance of the Bonds. City Council adopts the CIP September 11, 2006 City Council considers Resolution authorizing the Bond sale. City Staff September 12, 2006 Thirty -day reverse referendum period begins. October 2, 2006 Rough draft of Official Statement sent out to City and Kennedy & Graven for review. Springsted October 6, 2006 Final comments to Springsted on Official Statement draft (no later than noon). City Staff Kennedy & Graven ; October 9, 2006 Posting of Official Statement and application for rating forwarded to rating agency. Springsted October 11, 2006 End of thirty -day reverse referendum period. Week of October 16, 2006 Rating of the Bonds. Moody's City Staff Springsted October 23, 2006 Sale and consideration and award of the Bonds by City Council. City Staff Springsted October 30, 2006 Distribution of addendum to Official Statement. Springsted Middle of November, 2006 Settlement of the Bonds; City receipt of Bond proceeds. City Staff Kennedy & Graven Springsted • • • WS -3 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 3 Date: Council Work Session, August 7, 2006 To: City Council From: Gordon Heitke Re: Charter Amendment Background The City Council was presented with a petition with more than 500 signatures at its September 26, 2005 meeting. The petition requested that the City Council place the question of whether "to not allow City Council Members (including the Mayor) to also be members of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission" on the November 2006 election ballot. The City attorney reviewed the petition and advised the City Council that the petition was advisory in nature and that it is the decision of the Council whether to carry out the request of the petitioners. Based on the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, Subdivision 5, the proposed charter amendment was put into ordinance form, given a first and second reading and submitted to the Charter Commission for their approval, rejection or substitution. The Charter Commission discussed the proposed amendment at their April 13, 2006 and July 13, 2006 meetings. The Charter Commission has proposed a revised amendment as described in the attached correspondence. Requested Council Direction Staff is seeking direction from the Council as to whether the Council: • accepts the revised amendment approved by the Charter Commission • accepts the Charter Commission recommendation that the Council approve the Charter Commission's proposed amendment by ordinance rather than by referendum • accepts the petition request and places the unrevised amendment question on the ballot • denies the petition request by not placing amendment question on the ballot 1 • • • Attachments 1. Petition proposing charter amendment and requesting referendum, dated September 26, 2005. 2. Charter Commission memo to Council, dated July 19, 2006 2 Robert Bening 6788 E Shadow Lake Road The Petition. Al Demotts 7140 Rice Lake Road 09/26/2005 Petition To Stop A Conflict Of Interest We the undersigned, who are registered voters in the City of Lino Lakes (the City), request the City Council and /or the City Charter Commission to place on the November, 2006 state general election a referendum. This referendum would amend the City Charter to not allow the City Council members (including the Mayor) to also be members of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission. Proposed change to the Charter. On page three of the Lino Lakes City Charter. • In Chapter II Section 2.04 insert "be a member of the City Charter Commission, ". Section 2.04 would be as follows: Section 2.04. Incompatible Offices. No member of the Council shall be a member of the City Charter Commission, hold any paid municipal office or employment through the City other than that to which elected. Further, until one (1) year after the expiration of his/her term, no Mayor or Council Member shall be appointed or employed by the City in a compensated position which was created, or the compensation for which was increased, during his/her term as Mayor or Council Member. Change to the Minnesota State Statutes Chapter 410 Section .05 before August 1, 2004 Subdivision 1. Appointment. No person shall be disqualified from serving on a charter commission by reason of holding any other elective or appointive office other than Judicial. After August 1, 2004 • Except as otherwise provided in the charter, no person shall be disqualified from serving on a charter commission by reason of holding any other elective or appointive office other than judicial. The charter may provide that members of the governing body of the city cannot serve on the charter commission. • Council authority to amend the Charter Minnesota State Statute CHAPTER 410 CLASSIFICATION; CHARTERS Section: 12 Amendments Subdivision 5. Amendments proposed by council. The council of any city having a home rule charter may propose charter amendments to the voters by ordinance. Any ordinance proposing such an amendment shall be submitted to the charter commission. Within 60 days thereafter, the charter commission shall review the proposed amendment but before the expiration of such period the commission may extend the time for review for an additional 90 days by filing with the city clerk its resolution determining that an additional time for review is needed. After reviewing the proposed amendment, the charter commission shall approve or reject the proposed amendment or suggest a substitute amendment. The commission shall promptly notify the council of the action taken. On notification of the charter commission's action, the council may submit to the people, in the same mariner as provided in subdivision 4, the amendment originally proposed by it or the substitute amendment proposed by the charter commission. The amendment shall become effective only when approved by the voters as provided in subdivision 4. If so approved it shall be filed in the same manner as other amendments. Nothing in this subdivision precludes the charter commission from proposing charter amendments in the manner provided by subdivision 1. From page 5 of the Lino Lakes City Charter CHAPTER III COUNCIL PROCEDURE Section 3.04. ordinances, Resolutions and Motions. (Amended) Subdivision 1. Except as otherwise provided in this Charter or state law, an affirmative vote of three (3) or more members of the Council shall be required for the adoption of all ordinances, resolutions, and motions. The votes of Council Members on any action taken shall be recorded in accordance with state law • Memorandum To: Lino Lakes City Council From: Lino Lakes Charter Commission Date: July 19, 2006 Re: Proposed amendment to the City of Lino Lakes Charter, Chapter II, Section 2.04 CC: Lino Lakes Charter Commission Members Proposed Amendment to the City of Lino Lakes Charter, Chapter II, Section 2.04 as 4110 submitted by Robert Bening and Al Demotts on bequest of several residents: On page three of the Lino Lakes City Charter : In Chapter II Section 2.04 insert "be a member of the City Charter Commission, ". The proposed amendment was presented to the Charter Commission for review at our April 13 meeting. At that time, a subcommittee was appointed to study the proposal and recommend an appropriate course of action; and to seek additional clarification from city attorneys, William G. Hawkins and Associates. Chair Warren, with assistance from City Clerk Julianne Bartell, obtained clarification of our options in a May 12, 2006 correspondence from Barry A. Sullivan and subsequent e -mail and voice mail conversations. This information was conveyed to Commissioners Dahl, Trehus and Duffy who formed the subcommittee, and communicated to all Charter Commission Members in the July meeting pack. The Charter Commission, at our July 13 meeting, accepted the recommendation presented by Council with an additional revision below: Proposed Revision to Amendment approved by the Charter Commission on July 13, 2006: • In Chapter II Section 2.04 also insert "However, one member of the Council may serve as a non - voting liaison to the City Charter Commission ": • • The Amendment would then read: Section 2.04 Incompatible Offices. No member of the Council shall be a member of the City Charter Commission, hold any paid municipal office or employment through the City other than that to which elected. However, one member of the Council may serve as a non - voting liaison to the City Charter Commission. Further, until one (1) year after the expiration of his/her term, no Mayor or Council Member shall be appointed or employed by the City in a compensated position which was created, or the compensation for which was increased, during his/her term as Mayor or Council Member. The Charter Commission wishes the Council to know that our intention in making this revision is to first address the concerns of citizens who proposed the amendment; and to further retain an option for Charter membership that will allow enhanced communication between the Council and Charter members, which we feel is essential. The Commission also recommends that the Council approve this amendment under Section 410.12, Subd. 7, by ordinance, rather than by referendum. We believe this is an appropriate path to meet the needs of our citizens, and our city attorney has indicated it is an acceptable procedure for this amendment. We urge the Council to move ahead at the next Council meeting to adopt both the resolution to approve the revised amendment above, and a resolution to approve such amendment by ordinance. Respectfully submitted, Paulette Warren Chair, Lino Lakes Charter Commission • Memorandum Date: August 2, 2006 To: City Council From: Gordon Heitke Re: Closed Session, Aug. 7, 2006 Staff has tentatively scheduled a closed session to follow completion of the work session IIIagenda items. The topic is the personnel issue discussed at the last closed session. • • WS - 4 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 4 Date: Council Work Session, August 7, 2006 To: City Council From: Gordon Heitke Re: Historical Documents Background The Mayor has requested the issue of historical City of Lino Lakes documents be discussed. 1