Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-062 Council Resolution• • CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 05 -62 RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. A certain petition requesting the improvement of West Shadow Lake Drive between Birch Street and its northern terminus, Shadow Court, and Sandpiper Drive by street reconstruction, municipal water and municipal sanitary sewer, filed with the council on Friday, April 29, 2005, signed by 47 of the 72 property owners benefited by the improvement, is hereby declared to be signed by the required percentage of owners of property affected thereby. This declaration is made in conformity to City Charter and Minnesota Statutes. 2. The petition is hereby referred to the City Engineer and he is instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost - effective, and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement both in unit price and in total thereof as recommended. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 9th day of May, 2005. R Ann Blair, C►(y Clerk Joh Berg on, M or • STAFF ORIGINATOR: CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: TOPIC: AGENDA ITEM SA Michael Grochala May 9, 2005 Consideration of Resolution No. 05 -62, Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering Preparation of Report, West Shadow Lake Drive Area Street and Utility Improvements ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 Vote BACKGROUND In 2004 TKDA, the City's Engineer, completed an updated Pavement Management Report, which includes condition ratings of each city street to prioritize rehabilitation and /or reconstruction of roadways. While the overall Pavement Management Program is still being developed, TKDA's report identified the importance of timely maintenance and the need for reconstruction of certain streets within the City. The streets within the Shenandoah Area and West Shadow Lake Drive, Sandpiper Drive, and Shadow Court continue to warrant consideration for reconstruction. As such, and given the initial costs incurred (2003 Feasibility Studies) the City is currently proposing to move forward with the same two projects for consideration by the voters of the City in 2005. At the March 9th 2005 City Council work session, the council requested that sanitary sewer and water improvements be evaluated as part of the project. There is currently no sanitary sewer service to properties abutting West Shadow Lake Drive, Sandpiper Drive and Shadow Court. The streets within the Shenandoah Area are serviced by sanitary sewer but do not have access to municipal water. The City Council authorized preparation of the Shenandoah Area Feasibility study on March 28, 2005. The proposed cost for the West Shadow Lake Drive Area feasibility study is $55,000. The City Council considered authorizing the preparation of the feasibility study on April 11, 2005. However, the motion to approve Resolution No. 05 -45 failed for lack of a super majority vote. On April 25, 2005, the Council received a petition from property owners along West Shadow Lake Drive requesting that the council order the feasibility study. A revised petition was submitted to the City on April 29, 2005 with 52 signatures. Section 8.04 of • • the City Charter provides that an improvement may be instituted by a petition of at least twenty -five percent in number of the benefited property owners together with a resolution adopted by an affirmative vote of the majority of all the council (3/5 vote). 47 signatures have been verified with Anoka County property owner records, which represents 65 percent of the benefited property owners. Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Implications The proposed extension of sanitary sewer and water into the West Shadow Lake Drive area does create conflicts with the City's existing Comprehensive Plan. The plan currently guides the area as Low Density, Unsewered Residential. The council should be aware that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be required to service the area with municipal sanitary sewer and water. Additionally, portions of the project area will require the allocation of MUSA. It should also be noted that the project area is currently zoned Rural. Staff anticipates that a comprehensive plan amendment and extension of public utilities to the area will generate requests for rezoning to a sewered residential district (R -1, R -1X etc.) to allow for resubdivision of individual parcels. The potential for resubdivision will be a large factor in determining proposed individual lot assessments. The Growth Management Ordinance also creates some uncertainty as to when property owners could subdivide their property. This may also impact the City's ability to specially assess large Tots on the basis for future development potential. This issue will require further review by the City Attorney. Funding The feasibility study is proposed to be funded, on an interim basis, from the City's Trunk Utility Area and Unit Fund. If the project is accepted by the benefiting property owners and approved by the voters these costs will be recovered through assessments and voter approved tax levy. In the event that the project is not approved, the City will not be able to recover these costs. The council should be aware that the trunk utility fund cannot continue to absorb these engineering costs without a dedicated repayment source. Staff has previously suggested that future feasibility studies will need to be funded from the general fund to avoid the potential for deficit project funds. Questions were raised regarding conformity to City Charter requirements. The City Attorney has provided a written opinion confirming the City's ability to use general funds for the cost of feasibility studies. RECOMMENDATION The improvement of West Shadow Lake Drive, Sandpiper Drive and Shadow Court has been discussed by the City and property owners for several years. From an infrastructure standpoint, regardless of the outcome of this process, improvements to • • this road will be necessary. In addition to the poor road condition, the area has a need for an improved stormwater conveyance system. Problems also exist regarding existing on -site sewage treatment systems. Given the proximity to Reshanau Lake it is in the best interests of the City to further evaluate improvements to this area. Based on the petition received, there also appears to be significant interest from adjacent property owners to, at a minimum, provide answers to the feasibility of improvements in this area and reduce the growing uncertainty of project timing, cost, and scope. issues regarding the comprehensive plan will need to be addressed if the project goes forward with sewer and water. However, these issues are not substantially different from those addressed with the Comprehensive Plan amendments approved for Elm Street, Marshan Lane, and Lois Lane for similar sewer and water projects. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of Resolution No. 05 -62. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 05 -62 2. City Attorney Letter — Charter Interpretation LAW OFFICES OF William G. Hawkins and Associates WILLIAM G. HAWKINS BARRY A. SULLIVAN April 25, 2005 Legal Assistants TAMMI J. UVEGES HOLLY G. PROVO Michael Grochala Lino Lakes City Hall 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 2140 FoURrH AVENUE NolzrH ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 PHONE (763) 427-8877 FAx (763) 421 -4213 E -MAn. HawkLawl @aol.com Re: Home Rule Charter Interpretation Dear Mr. Grochala: am writing in response to your request for my legal opinion concerning the ability of the City to fund feasibility reports which are prepared in connection with a proposed local improvement within the City of Lino Lakes. The question that . has arisen is whether or . not the City can use general funds for payment of the cost of the feasibility reports. Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter governs the procedures that are applicable to the local improvements. The specific Charter provision that must be examined is found in Section 8.04, Subdivision 2. This provision states: "Regardless of the provisions of Subdivision 1 of this section, when less than one hundred (100 %) percent of the estimated cost of the proposed improvement is to be paid for by special assessments, connection charges, or any outside funding sources other than the city general fund, the Council shall within one hundred twenty (120) days after the conclusion of the public hearing, submit the proposed local improvement and its assessment formula to the voters of the City. If no election is scheduled during such one hundred twenty (120) day period, the Council shall schedule a special election by which said improvement and its associated assessment formula can be submitted to the City's voters. If a majority of those voting on said improvement and associated assessment formula are opposed, the Council shall not proceed with the local improvement as proposed." Mr. Michael Grochala April 25, 2005 Page Two This provision indicates that the City cannot utilize monies from the City general fund for construction of a local improvement. It would seem upon the first reading that since the feasibility report is a part of the local improvement process under the City Charter and Minn. Stat. §429 that an expenditure of City general funds would be prohibited. Nevertheless, the Charter does require that if you are going to use the City general funds, you have to hold an election and submit to the voters the associated assessment formula. Without a feasibility report, there is no way that the City would .know the costs of the improvement and the potential assessment and the formula for levying them. This would result in the City never being dhle . to commence a local improvement project and submit this to the voters for approval. It is my opinion that such an interpretation prohibiting use of general funds for the feasibility report would make the process impossible to institute and not a reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, my opinion is that the City can use general funds for the cost of the local improvement since it is obligated under the Charter to provide this information to the voters on election. Even though this is an essential step of the local improvement itself and the costs would be included in the local improvement, I believe the other requirements of the Charter to develop a formula for an election would make it reasonable to use funds in this manner. Since this is the only cost that would be necessary- for an election, 1 do not believe other local improvement expenditures, such as preparation of plans and specifications, costs of soliciting bids and costs of the actual improvements could be paid for by the general fund unless there is authorization by the voters as provided in subdivision 2. If you or the Council have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, William G. Hawkins WGH /hgp