Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-02-2015 Council PacketWORK SESSION AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Monday, March 2, 2015 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Community Room (not televised) 6:00 P.M. 1. Fire Station Bid Alternates — Apparatus Bay Doors 2. Fire Facility Financing (Springsted) 2a. Miss Lino Lakes Ambassador Program 3. Recycling Update — Marty Asleson (from Feb. W.S.) 4. Tree Planting Program 5. Met Council Density Calculation Formula 6. Memorial for U.S. Military Service Members 7. Advisory Board Applicants 8. Council Member Updates 9. Monthly Progress Report 10. Review March 10 Meeting Agenda Adjourn WS — Item #1 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 1 Date: March 2, 2015 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Re: Fire Station Bid Alternates — Apparatus Bay Doors Background On February 23, 2015 the City Council awarded the construction contract for the Lino Lakes Fire Station to Jorgenson Construction in the amount of $3,847,100.00. The award included bid alternates 1 through 4. Bid alternate 5 was a deduct in the amount of $15,800 for installation of high speed coiling doors instead of the four -fold doors included in the base bid. During consideration of the award the council requested further review and discussion of the high speed coiling doors at the March 2, 2015 work session. Quinn Hutson, CNH Architects, has prepared a memorandum comparing the alternative door systems. Mr. Hutson will be present at the meeting to discuss. Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting council direction regarding acceptance of bid alternate no. 5. Attachments 1. CNH Architects Memo, dated February 24, 2015 7300 WEST 147TH STREET SUITE 504 APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580 (952) 431-4433 MEMORANDUM: PROJECT: CNH NO: DATE: TO: SUBJECT: Lino Lakes Fire Station 14045 February 24, 2015 City of Lino Lakes - Mayor and City Council Alternate #5 Background Information 027 The following is a summary of the information related to review of Alternate #5 High Speed Coiling Doors instead of Four -Fold Doors for City Council consideration for the Lino Lakes Fire Station project. CNH Architects has provided additional review and information for use by the City Council in considering this item. Alternate #5 is a deduct to provide high speed coiling doors at the apparatus bays instead of four -fold doors indicated in the base bid. The four -fold door system was designed originally as the only approach for this project but the high-speed coiling doors were added as requested during the bidding process as an alternate for consideration by Council. Operation: Both doors systems provide the operational benefits that are important for a fire station, quick opening and closing allowing for faster response time and less risk of fire apparatus hitting the door in the urgency of leaving the building on a call. Slower opening sectional overhead doors are much more likely to be hit damaging the door and apparatus. While four -fold doors are easier to operate manually in the case of a power failure than high speed coiling, this is not an issue for this facility since the doors will be connected to the emergency backup generator. Maintenance: In our opinion, the maintenance on both door types should be very low. We have installed five four- fold doors at the Roseville Fire Station and they have been very pleased with their operation for the past 18 months of operation. We have also installed high-speed coiling doors at an auto dealership (a common use of this door type) and the record for low -maintenance operation is very good as well. CNH Architects is also aware of concerns that the Eagan Fire Department has had with the four -fold doors that were installed at their Fire Safety Center where they have had a lot of adjustments and several maintenance issues. It is hard to determine how representative the Eagan project is as the doors were specified incorrectly by that projects design firm, disassembled totally twice for factory painting, reassembled each time and then reinstalled. There are over 20 fire stations in the Twin Cities that have four -fold door installations while high-speed coiling doors have not been installed locally in any fire stations. They have however been installed in dozens of other uses locally include many auto dealerships as noted earlier as well as fire stations in other parts of the country. Energy Efficiency: The four -fold door and high-speed coiling doors have been compared for their thermal values. Four- fold doors have a typical U -value of 0.45 for a door based on an insulated door panel and 1" P:\PROJECTS\2014\14045\4 - BIDDING\ALTERNATE #5 RECOMMENDATIONS.DOCX insulated glass. High-speed coiling doors being considered for this project have a U -value of 1.20 for an uninsulated door with double pane glazing. Neither U -value is exceptional, but the four -fold door is almost three times better than the high-speed coiling door. The energy efficiency benefits of high-speed coiling doors are based on the amount of heat lost during the open period which is greatly reduced due to the high speed of the opening process. Doing additional research an article addressing this was found in the February, 2015, issue of Construction Specifier magazine just published this month. This article documents a study done on energy efficiency of high-speed coiling doors as compared to sectional doors. The conclusion of the study is highlighted in the table at left indicating that the energy conservation breakpoint between high- speed coiling doors and conventional doors is at an operation of 55 cycles per day. Since the fire station is anticipated to only have a very small fraction of that many daily cylces, the U -value is much more important than speed for energy conservation resulting in the four -fold door being a better energy efficiency choice for a fire station. Conversely, for the more common installation at auto dealership service reception doors where cycles are more commonly in the 100+ cycles per day, the high-speed coiling door would be the best energy performer. 30000 } ▪ 15,000 c � 20,000 7, mow 1• 5,000 3 t 43 5000 Annual Energy Consumption in Chicago for a r R8' Door (Facility Heated Only) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Number of Cycles Per Day —High Performance Door ,Conventional Door • Breakeven at 55 Cycles per Day Based on the test conditions, a high-speed door becomes more energy efficient versus a conventional door after 55 cycles. Visual Impact: Aesthetically, the high-speed coiling doors differ in two ways from the four -fold doors specified in the original design. First, the window pattern in the high-speed coiling door is different as each section of door is 9" or 10" tall (depending on manufacturer) with about a 6" to 7" glass strip centered in the panel. The four -fold door designed for this project has two large glass windows in each of its four panels resulting in a different look and a higher percentage of glass providing more visibility of the apparatus inside the station. Secondly, the four -fold door opens horizontally stacking inside the building at each side of the door opening. The door panels when open are protected by 6" steel bollards. The high-speed coiling door rolls up into a 3 foot deep by 3 foot tall box at the head of the door. This box sticks up into the window opening designed to be over the doors. If this door style is selected we would raise the sill of the windows at the three coiling doors in order to appropriately address this change. The following page shows renderings of the front of the fire station with each type of door for your review. P:\PROJECTS\2014\14045\4 - BIDDING\ALTERNATE 45 RECOMMENDATIONS.DOCX NB '!'I lUf�Il' 11 Four -Fold Apparatus Bay Door Rendering — Base Bid High -Speed Coiling Apparatus Bay Door Rendering — Alternate #5 Manufacturer: CNH Architects specified multiple manufactures for the apparatus bay doors of both styles as is required under public bidding rules as well as to provide competition and lower costs. We discussed the four -fold door and high-speed coiling door bidder results with Jorgenson Construction, the successful general contractor for this project to determine which manufacturers were the low bidders for each of the two door types. There were two specified four -fold door manufacturers, Electric Power Door of Hibbing and Door Engineering of Mankato. Door Engineering is the door manufacturer to be provided by the low bidder under the base bid for four -fold doors. This is the same manufacturer as we have used in the past at the Roseville Fire Station. Similarly, there were two specified high-speed coiling door manufacturers, Hormann Flexon manufactured in Pennsylvania and Rytec out of Wisconsin. The low bid contractor for high-speed coiling doors bid using Hormann Flexon as did most of the overhead door contractors bidding. This P:\PROJECTS\2014\14045\4 - BIDDING\ALTERNATE #5 RECOMMENDATIONS.DOCX is the manufacturer of the doors we have used in the past at auto dealerships. As you know, on a public project such as this hand-picking individual manufacturers is not allowed so we need to evaluate this based on the low bids provided. Further reviewing bid results it was indicated that the lowest cost price for four -fold doors was actually lower than the Rytec high-speed coiling door price provided by the subcontractor bidding that door system. If Hormann Flexon doors were not bid, Alternate #5 would have been a cost add instead of a deduct. Conclusion: There are many competing aspects to the determination of which door to select — aesthetically we prefer the four -fold door while economically there is a reasonable savings for the high-speed coiling door. Energy conservation is also better on the four -fold door as the opening cycles anticipated for the fire station does not approach the 55 cycles necessary to achieve best performance in a high- speed coiling door. Consequently, CNH Architects is looking for direction from City Council and Staff on which approach is preferred for this project. I will be at the City Council Workshop and City Council Meeting to answer any questions you may have regarding this door option. Respectfully Submitted, Quinn S Hutson, AIA, LEED AP Principal CNH Architects, Inc. P:\PROJECTS\2014\14045\4 - BIDDING\ALTERNATE #5 RECOMMENDATIONS.DOCX WS — Item #2 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 2 Date: March 2, 2015 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Re: Fire Station Financing Background At the February 23, 2015 work session Terri Heaton, Spingsted Inc., provided an overview of the two financing methods being proposed for the construction of the Lino Lakes Fire Station. Based on their evaluation Springsted is recommending the use of Lease/Revenue bonds to finance the building construction and internal road improvements. Abatement bonds will be used for construction of the external road and utility improvements. The amount of this bond will be offset in part by funding from the trunk utility area and unit fund. Mikaela Huot from Springsted Inc., will be present at the work session to review the abatement bond process. A public hearing, as required by law, is being noticed for the March 23, 2013 City Council meeting. Requested Council Direction None required. Staff and Springsted representative will be available to address council questions. Attachments None. 11.4 C. V4 on z a. From: Ray Culp Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 3:20 PM To: Dave Roeser Subject: Miss Lino Lakes Ambassador Program Dave, We spoke at the Miss Lino Lakes Ambassador pancake breakfast this last weekend. Our discussion was mainly focused on the float the young women ride on during parade events. I have completed a preliminary short presentation concerning the float (with a brief description of the program) and was wondering if I might be able to give the presentation at the next working board meeting. I know it is only February but summer, or the parade season, is right around the corner. I would like to have the float as complete as possible for the beginning of this season. Our community, and the ambassadors, will be well represented by the recommended float upgrades and refresh. I hope that the city council will approve the plan, please let me know if there is any additional work I can do to do to help make this happen. I appreciate your help concerning this matter. Thanks, Ray This electronic message including any attachments ("Message") may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under trade secret and other applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, permanently delete all copies of this Message, and be aware that examination, use, dissemination, duplication or disclosure of this Message is strictly prohibited. <City Council Presentation (3).pptx> 2 WS — Item #3 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 3 Date: March 2, 2015 To: City Council From: Marty Asleson Re: Recycling Funding Background In 1989, the Minnesota Legislature adopted comprehensive waste reduction and recycling legislation based on the recommendations of the Governor's Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment (SCORE). SCORE is part of Minnesota's Waste Management Act and provides counties with a funding source to develop waste reduction, recycling and solid waste management programs. Ambitious goals for recycling and waste reduction were set for Minnesota counties and have typically been met, if not exceeded. The dollars that the City receives from SCORE is an annual apportionment. There are no guarantees this funding will always be there. It has been a "carrot" to promote and increase recycling at the City level. The City has available in 2015 $41, 900 basic SCORE funding and another $39,764 of enhancement funding for a total recycling grant of $81,674. As we spend money during the year, the money is coded to the recycling account. The account is reimbursed at the time we request SCORE funds (two times a year). Money that we collect from a recycling event is revenue placed into the general fund. Any money that we collect is deducted from the SCORE dollars reimbursement approved by the County. Freimuth Enterprises runs our monthly recycling days. This is set up similar to the Blaine monthly recycling days. The company collects money for the materials. The City gets credit for the tonnage that is recycled that day. Prices for monthly recycling day is advertized at least bimonthly. There are some things that we recycle at the monthly and yearly recycle days that Freimuth Enterprises traditionally does not provide service for. Paper shredding is one of them. Mattresses and old furniture were items that mostly went to the landfill in the past. Since we obtained a container to collect them in, this container will be at recycling days. We have been collecting $5.00 for each mattress and piece of furniture. The disposal recycling fee is about $15 for each mattress once the mattress reaches a recycling destination. There is also a disposal fee for old furniture at the recycling facility. We get charged for this and pay Freimuth Enterprises for transporting it to the plant. The money we collect for mattresses and furniture is taken off SCORE request, money we pay to have it recycled is received back through SCORE. In 2014 we collected $1,332.85. As a policy we have routinely charged a small amount from residents to recycle some materials like furniture and mattresses. We are subsidizing most of the cost with SCORE dollars. If SCORE dollars were decreased or became unavailable, we would have to charge the full amount to recycle these materials. There are some items we take for free. We take tires for free because right now mosquito control will take our tires for free. If we didn't have a free pick up from mosquito control, we would have to pay to have the tires recycled. We would collect money for tires at that time because this is not a SCORE eligible material. It is classified as a "problem" material. We take steel for free because it generates revenue (taken off of SCORE). We take batteries for free because we have an agency that comes takes them for free. We take household items for free because we have someone to take household items from our recycling site. Sometimes we have to pay a vendor to take materials like household items (truck and time). That part is SCORE eligible. We take small engine materials for free because we have a Lino Lakes resident that takes the small engine equipment to train unemployed, unskilled people in small engine repair. Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting City Council direction regarding the current policy of charging nominal fee for drop off of mattresses and furniture. Attachments None. WS — Item #4 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 4 Date: March 2, 2015 To: City Council From: Marty Asleson Re: Reforestation /EAB Background The City Council has requested a discussion about reforestation in light of the Emerald Ash Borer threat. Council member Roeser forwarded a brochure describing a program that Minneapolis offers their residents. The program offers residents a tree for their private property at a $25 match to a $95 tree obtained from the Twin City Tree Trust. The City of Minneapolis subsidizes the residents $70 for these trees. The City of St Louis Park also runs a similar program but the residents are required to pay a $35 administrative fee. The City of Lino Lakes could do this program but would need to provide funding in the budget to facilitate it. Other sources of trees available to residents: • Council member Roeser has interest in providing trees from acorns. • The Anoka Conservation District has a tree sale each year. We have this on our web page right now with order forms. The Conservation District will try to get us their tree sale information earlier in the year so we can get it in our newsletter. • The DNR has tree seedlings available each year. We have provided thousands of these seedlings to residents on Earth Day and Arbor Day each year. Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting Council direction regarding the supply of new trees to residents Attachments 1. Minneapolis Brochure Get ready to order a tree to plant on your MinneapoUs property this spring. Starting Marren 23, the City of Minneapolis is offering more than 1,000 five- to eight -foot trees for only $25 each. Trees are available for Minneapolis property owners including residents, businesses and nonprofits. Choose from several varieties and sizes of trees, including fruit trees. First-come, first-served — order early for best selection. Limit one tree per property, maximum three properties. You'll pick up your tree May 16, 17, 18 or 19 at the Minneapolis impound Lot. www.tr f r o r Mark your calendar now. order your tree starting 8 a.m., March 23. Pick it Hp May 16, 17, 18 or 19. WS— Item #5 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 5 Date: March 2, 2015 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Re: Metropolitan Council Residential Density Formula Background At the February 17, 2015 City Council Strategic Planning Workshop, the Council raised residential development density as a future concern. During the discussion the question of how residential density is calculated was raised. The Council specifically suggested that stormwater management ponds should be excluded from the net area of a parcel. The Council requested the topic be placed on the work session for discussion. Density Overview The City's Comprehensive Plan includes a Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan provides a guide for managing future development and growth by determining future land uses, development intensity, and areas for environmental protection. The City contains approximately 21,267 acres. Of that area 9,900 acres (46%) is comprised of open water, parks/open space, and wetlands and will remain undeveloped. Residential uses account for approximately 34 percent of the total 2030 net developed land area. Mixed use areas, which allow for both residential and commercial development, account for an additional 4.3 percent of net land area. Each residential land use designation establishes a net density range as follows: Land Use Net Density (units per acre) 2030 Net Developed Acres % of Total Area* Low Density 1.6 to 3.9 3,388 27.1 Medium Density 4.0 to 5.9 581 4.7 High Density 6.0 to 10 162 1.3 Mixed Use Varies** 536 4.3 *Total Acres = 12,480 (excluding wetlands & open water areas) ** Mixed use typical 8-15 units/acre. Legacy = 10-24/acre, Hardwood Creek 3.0- 4.5 units per acre In order to ensure that regional sewer infrastructure investments are used cost-effectively, the Met council requires a minimum average net density of three to five dwelling units per acre 1 for sewered areas of the city. The 2030 Land Use Plan guides new sewered residential development at an average density of 3.01 units per net acre. Density Definitions The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance contains the following definitions: DENSITY. The number of families, individuals, dwelling units, or housing structures per unit of land. In this Ordinance, net density shall mean number of dwelling units per acre of buildable land. Gross density shall mean number of units per acre of the total subject property. BUILDABLE LAND, CONTIGUOUS. Land area occurring within the property lines of a parcel or lot excluding wetlands and/or water bodies. In summary net density as defined in the zoning ordinance is the number of units divided by the gross land area minus wetlands and waterbodies. The City's definitions are different than the definition used by Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council calculates net density by taking the total land area and excluding wetlands and waterbodies, public parks and open spaces, arterial road rights- of-way, and any other area that is protected or removed from development by local ordinances. Examples of areas that may be protected by local ordinances include steep slopes and flood plains. The "net" density calculation allows for the development site area to be adjusted to account for unique physical characteristics of the property. Essentially these are limiting characteristics of the land rather than requirements related to the design of the site. For example, right of way for an arterial road is excluded from the calculation because it is needed for purposes other than the specific development it abuts. Internal streets, however, are necessary for the development of the site, and are not excluded. Staff uses Metropolitan Council's definition for the purpose of meeting residential density requirements. Generally the Metropolitan Council's definition is more permissive in its exclusions than the City's zoning ordinance and results in a higher calculated "net" density for reporting purposes. Metropolitan Council has been fairly clear that stormwater ponds are not excluded from buildable land. However, there may be cases where this is appropriate to do so. For example, regional ponds that are being constructed to serve multiple properties or ponds constructed as water features within a development. A case could be made that given different soil characteristics throughout the city ponding can have greater impact on density from site to site. Our initial research identified a couple of communities that have density definitions that exclude storm ponds. 2 Plymouth: Density: The number of dwelling units divided by the acreage of a site, excluding areas of wetlands and required wetland buffer strips, areas below the 100 year flood elevation, areas below the ordinary high water level of lakes and streams, areas below the high water level of ponds, and areas of right-of-way for arterial roadways. For planned unit developments, the acreage of a site shall also exclude conservation easement areas. Rochester: While not subject to Met Council requirements the City of Rochester has developed a site capacity calculation that determines net density. The formula excludes arterial road right-of-way, stormwater detention areas, park/open space and natural resource areas. To illustrate the change in density by removing ponds we have developed the tables below using two active projects in Lino Lakes. NorthPointe Gross Densi Net Including Ponds Net Excluding Ponds Gross Area acres Wetland 0 9.66 9.66 Conservation Easements 0 0.68 0.68 Arterial ROW 0 0.26 0.26 Park Dedication 0 5.04 5.04 Storm Ponds 0 0.00 2.80 met Area (acres) 94.09 78.45 57.03 # of Units 315 315 315 Gross Density (units/acre) 3.35 3.35 35 Net Density (units/acre) 3.35 4.02 4.16 Mattamy Project Gross Density Net Including Ponds Net Excluding Ponds Gross Area (acres) A 372 372.00 372.00 Wetland 0 25.23 25.23 Conservation Easements 0 0.00 0.00 Arterial ROW 0 3.92 3.92 Park Dedication 0 55.11 55.11 Storm Ponds 0 0.00 57.03 Net Area (acres) 372 287.74 230.71 # of Units 876 876 876 Gross Density (units/acre) 2.35 2.35 2.35 Net Density (units/acre) , 2.35 3.04 3.80 As shown, the net density in NorthPointe would increase from 4.02 to 4.16 by excluding storm ponds. The net density of the Mattamy project would increase from 3.04 to 3.8 units per acre. The density calculation has no physical impact on the site development. 3 Neither the gross acres nor the number of units have changed as a result of the net density definition. Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting concern direction on whether to develop new density definitions. At a minimum the existing zoning ordinance definition should be revised to reflect exclusions currently provided by Met Council. If the City Council wishes to incorporate the exclusion of storm ponds, staff would recommend additional research on density definitions and evaluation of possible impacts. Attachments None. 4 WS — Item #6 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 6 Date: March 2, 2015 To: City Council From: Jeff Karlson Re: Memorial for U.S. Military Service Members Background Mayor Reinert was contacted by local Lino Lakes Lions Club members about placing a memorial for U.S. Military Service members somewhere in Lino Lakes. The mayor would like discussion on how the City can help with this effort. WS — Item 7 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 7 Date: March 2, 2015 To: City Council From: Lisa Hogstad-Osterhues Re: Annual Board Appointments Background Attached is an outline of new applicants for each board or committee with openings. - Park Board — 1 seat, 1 new applicant - P&Z — 1 seat, 1 new applicant (Term expires Dec. 31, 2016 — Charles Evan resigned from his term) - EDAC — 2 seats, 0 applicants — reposted Applicants are both new to the process and have not been interviewed previously. Requested Council Direction The council should determine the application review process: 1. If new applicants are to be interviewed and date/time to set up interviews. Attachments List of new applicants (applications will be provided to council previous to the interview date) WS — Item 7 Attachment New Advisory Board Applicants Park Board 1. Clark Gooder EDAC 1. 2. Planning & Zoning 1. Matt Kassner (Term expires Dec. 31, 2016 — Charles Evan resigned from his term) Park Board —1 seat, 1 new applicant P&Z —1 seat, 1 new applicant EDAC — 2 seats, 0 applicants Item #9 Monthly Progress Report March 2, 2015 Item Last Action Taken Staff Status Digital Scanning Project 12/08/14 — Council adopted 2015 budget, Jeff which includes one PT scanner operator We're down to one scanner as of February 3 Labor Negotiations Police Officers, AFSCME, and 49er's are settled for 2015. Jeff Mediation is scheduled with the Sergeants on March 10. White Bear Lake Restoration Assn. v. Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) The WBL Restoration Assn. & WBL Homeowners' Assn. reached a settlement agreement with the DNR that imposes a three-year stay on the lawsuit so funds can be appropriated for a Northeast Metro Project. This involves a construction project to connect Northeast cities to the St. Paul Regional Water Service. Lino Lakes is one of seven cities included in the second phase of the project. Jeff Hugo hosted a NE Metro Water Summit on Jan. 29 to discuss the settlement agreement. The other cities named in Phase 2 of the project are Centerville, Circle Pines, Columbus, Forest Lakes, Hugo, and Lexington. Legacy Grant Funding 1/22/15 — Staff met with Met Council and Anoka Co. Parks officials to discuss the qualifications for Legacy Grant funds for certain park and trail projects in Lino Lakes Rick Staff prepared a report for the Council CFRA vs. Lino Lakes 10/27/14 — CFD Fire Relief Assn. appealed district court's decision to dismiss Assn's petition for a writ of mandamus Jeff Arguments will be heard in the Court of Appeals on March 26 Joint Council/Board Meeting Joint meeting will be held Monday, March 16 at 6:30 p.m. Julie Set agenda 11 kNip 4N1 NIARiPtt- Ltb 774,R, F • kNippt L K NIPPEL,MY WAR I DUINc B WORLD �r� NAVYtVNE rT RE U WAR 11 RAYMOND J NAVyMALSOM 1956 - 19b0 KNIPPEL (BORNE Ar AY-DEN;CE �9 11 6RL�E E � 3 196$ Noy REs i E:NI E- 196 SERV PHILIIP AV��REFN1 N 1960 Y 1956 • ARNO F ARMY AIR,y CORP �FNNING WORLD WAR II BERNARD J NOLAN NAVY WORLD WAR II STEVEN L GREENE NAVY VIETNAM KENNETH W GREENE NAVY VIETNAM • OSCAR JOHNSON ARMY WORLD WAR 1 HARRY JOHNSON ARMY WORLD WAR I LOWELL JOHNSON ARMY 1961 - 1962 C HA RolEery Lino Lakes Fire Station Lino Lakes City Council Workshop Apparatus Door Options March 2, 2015 Lino Lakes Fire Station CNH � Agenda r Lino Lakes Fire Station Alternate 5 — High Speed Coiling Doors Successful Manufacturers & Cost Energy Efficiency Image — Four -fold Door Image — High-speed Coiling Door Project Timeline Questions Lino Lakes Fire Station Civiv ARCHlT�io :Apparatus Bay Door Options Alternate #5 Base Bid Four -Fold Door Door Engineering, MN No Cost Change Alternate #5 High Speed Coiling Hormann Flexon, PA 15,800 Deduct* *(Rytec coiling door bid was higher than lowest four -fold bid) Lino Lakes Fire Station CNN `"� Apparatus Bay Door - Energy Efficiency Alternate #5 Energy Efficiency — Door Closed Four -Fold Door High Speed Coiling Door U -Value 0.45 1.20 Four -fold door almost more efficient at closed position Lino Lakes Fire Station CNN `"� Apparatus Bay Door - Energy Efficiency Alternate #5 Energy Efficiency Based on Speed High Speed Coiling Door benefit > 55 cycles/day 0.000 25,000 0 ▪ 7:0.000 O } 15.440 S+A ▪ 10,004 C RI 5,000 a 0 Annual Energy Consumption in Chicago for a 8' x8' Door (Facility Heated Only) 9rn2kes.wt PS 35 Cytics p Slav 0 20 40 50 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Number sof Cycles Per Day —High Performance Door —Conventional Door • Breakeven at 55 Cycles Per Day Lino Lakes Fire Station Alternate #5 • Large glass panel pattern at door • Full window above doors • Aesthetic benefits • Better energy efficiency Lino Lakes Fire Station CII1jL, 4Rem, High Speed Coiling Door Image Alternate #5 • Smaller glass panel pattern at door • Reduced window above doors • Initial cost savings • Less energy efficient Lino Lakes Fire Station Alternate #5 aratus Ba Door Selection Four -Fold Door ,, 111'1 ■�!i ®RHS' ■ i r r z ig !! 1111 tiiI� H-) , 8111 1111 IIP "IL in High -Speed Coiling Door Lino Lakes Fire Station CNN ARCylA Construction Mileposts Contract for Signature Timeline 3/2 Notice to Proceed �3/7 Pre -Construction Conference 3/15 Construction Start 4/15 weather Substantial Completion 12/4/2015 Lino Lakes Fire Station Public Sector Advisors Springsted ((ES PRESENTATION TO The City of Lino Lakes Tax Abatement for the Road Improvements near Fire Station March 2, 2015 PRESENTER: Mikaela R. Huot, Vice President Public Sector Advisors QI Springsted Projects to be Funded • Fire Station using Lease Revenue Bonds • Fire Station No. 2 Road, Sanitary and Water Main Improvements using Abatement Bonds — Estimated Costs $850,000 — Estimated Bond Par Amount of $895,000 • Subject to final structure and availability of trunk utility fund contribution amounts Public Sector Advisors Springsted Why Abatement Bonds? • GO Special Assessment Bonds require assessments - none are anticipated • Abatement Bonds are General Obligation backed which provides the lowest bond interest rates Public Sector Advisors Springsted Abatement What is it? How Does it work? • Economic development tool • All properties identified pay taxes just like every other property • Created by Resolution • Benefiting properties are identified and city tax rate applied to the tax capacity is the maximum annual levy allowed to be pledged to the bonds • Fixed levy for the term of the bonds Public Sector Advisors Springsted Tax Abatement Basics • Defined in Minnesota Statutes 469.1812 to 469.1815 (as amended) • NOT an actual abatement of taxes • Permits levy of taxes for application toward development purposes • Adopted by resolution at a noticed meeting (does not require property owner consent) • Abatement resolution indicates terms: amount, length, public benefit, etc. Public Sector Advisors Springsted Tax Abatement Eligible Costs • Improvements to private property • Finance or provide public infrastructure • Acquire or construct public facilities • If bonds are issued, eligible costs only include — public improvements that benefit the property, — acquisition and conveyance of land or other property, — reimbursements to the property owner for the cost of improvements made to their property, or — costs of issuance Public Sector Advisors Springsted Tax Abatement Constraints • No back-to-back abatements — Eight years must pass before a new abatement may begin on the same parcel • Cannot be applied within TIF districts, but can be used after TIF decertification • Maximum duration of 15 years if three participants (City, County & SD), 20 years if two or fewer — Expect City only participation Public Sector Advisors Springsted Tax Abatement Constraints • If Tax Abatement Bonds issued - principal may not exceed the estimated sum of total abatements • Maximum aggregate annual abatement for any taxing entity is the greater of: - 10% of the net tax capacity or $200,000 • Maximum parcel abatement is subdivision's tax rate times net tax capacity of parcel Public Sector Advisors Springsted Tax Abatement —Project Examples • Infrastructure Improvements — New Interchange — Highway Improvements — New Frontage Road — Public and private improvements for Development • Construction of Community Center/Senior Center • Construction of Recreational Facility Public Sector Advisors Springsted Abatement Revenue Assumptions • Maximum principal amount of bonds cannot exceed estimated sum of abatements • Identified properties to include in abatement: — Residential properties that `benefit' from project — Combination owner -occupied and rental — Not currently within Tax Increment Financing District or Tax Abatement Public Sector Advisors Springsted Abatement Revenues • Current taxable market values (existing) • Approximately $12M of residential property value — Final abatement analysis and identification in process • Estimated total abatement revenues equal to debt service principal ($895,000) • Annual revenues between $55,000-$74,000 • 10-15 Year Term (commencing in 2016) — Subject to final review and feasibility Public Sector Advisors Springsted Proposed Tax Abatement Area Public Sector Advisors Stoneybrook Abatement Area 12 Springsted Schedule of Events —Next Steps February 9, 2015 • City staff/Springsted working meeting — Define boundaries — Review sources and uses February 23, 2015 • City Council Study Session March 2, 2015 • City Council Meeting to discuss abatement Public Sector Advisors Springsted Abatement Calendar March 10, 2015 • Publication of notice of public hearing March 23, 2015 • Public hearing to approve abatement • Authorize sale of bonds April 27, 2015 • Sale of bonds End of May • Settlement of bonds, receipt of bond proceeds Public Sector Advisors 14 la Springsted Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this very important project. Public Sector Advisors 15 Springsted