HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 3, 2009 Council packet r_i L
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
March 3, 2009
7:00 p.m,
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
C. ATTENDANCE: Johnston DeLapp Emmons Park Smith
D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: (The approved agenda is the order in which the City
Council will do its business.)
E: ORDER OF BUSINESS: (This is the way that the City Council runs its meetings
so everyone attending the meeting or watching the meeting understands how the
City Council does its public business.)
F. GROUND RULES: (These are the rules of behavior that the City Council
adopted for doing its public business.)
G. APPROVE MINUTES:
1. Consider approval of February 17, 2009 minutes
H. PUBLIC COMMENTS/INQUIRIES: In order to be sure that anyone wishing to
speak to.the City Council is treated the same way,meeting attendees wishing to
address the City Council.on any items NOT on the regular agenda may speak for
up to three minutes.
I. CONSENT AGENDA: (Items are placed on the consent agenda by city staff and
the Mayor because they are not anticipated,to generate discussion. Items may be
removed at City Council's request.)
2. Approve payment of disbursements and payroll
3. Recognition of Washington County Historical Society 75"' Anniversary
J. REGULAR AGENDA:
4. Introduce new fire captains
5. Refunding bond
6. Street financing discussion
7. Process for selecting city attorney
i
i
8. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:
(These are verbal updates and do not have to be formally added to the agenda.
• Mayor and City Council
• Administrator
• Planning Director
9. Adjourn
i
City of Lake Elmo
City Council Minutes
February 17, 2009
Mayor Johnston called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Mayor Johnston and Council Members Emmons, Park and Smith
Absent: Council Member DeLapp
Also present: Interim City Administrator Dawson, Planning Director Klatt, City
Engineer Griffin, City Attorney Schmidt, Finance Director Bouthiiet, and Recording
Secretary Luczak.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Motion: Council Member Smith moved to approve the`' ebruary 17,`~ 9 agenda as
presented. Council Member Park seconded the on. The:,motion parsed 4-0.
ORDER OF BUSINESS: =
GROUND RULES:
APPROVED MINUTES: n
The minutes of February 3i 09, weri11a rovea-by consensus.
PUBLIC COMMENT E1NQUIS:
Michelle Carlsalce Ehn6� ycee9`presented a check to the City for $7,500 from the
charitable gambli _proceeds. s
Ann Bucheck,2301 Le on Ave.N, questioned the frequency of Planning Commission
meetings, when the City`Wkould be contacting the Metropolitan Council regarding
changing the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, and were the storm water fees
only being spent on storm water utilities.
CONSENT AGENDA:
MOTION. Council Member Park moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Council Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
• Approve payment of disbursements and payroll in the amount of$133,637.39
• Approve I-94 Corridor Joint Powers Agreement
• Affirm the City's participation in the Urban Land Institute's study regarding the
development of common understandings regarding development
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1 FEBRUARY 17, 2009
I
REGULAR AGENDA:
Conditional Job Offer to Brittnie Cunnien Jason Sinclair Tarn Steinman and Andrea
Friedrich
Fire Chief Malmquist introduced four volunteer firefighters to the City Council, and
requested approval of conditional job offers to Brittnie Cunnien,Jason Sinclair,Tom
Steinman, and Andrea Friedrich pending the outcome of their department physical and
each would be placed on probationary status with the fire department if their physical was
passed. Chief Malmquist also informed that the dept. had four firefighters resign.
MOTION.- Council Member Smith moved to make conditional job„offers to Brittnie
Cunn en, Jason Sinclair, Tom Steinman and Andrea Friedrich p &ng the outcome of
their department.physical and that each would be placed on„probationary status with the
fire department if their physical was passed. Council Me 0- .".'Mons seconded the
motion. The motion passed 4-0.
Extend a Deadline for the Removal of Vehicles f m� 5699.Keats Avenue
Interim City Administrator Dawson updated the City° of ncil regarding the status of the
vehicles at 5699 Keats Avenue, stating teswdent had"e i ailed a request for an
extensionof May 15, 2009, for removal o f e v tiles due tib weather. He asked the
Council for Staff direction.
MOTION.- Council Member B&k m.6iiW to e end the deadline for the three vehicles
being openly stored at 569eats AyMort_h whach are unlicensed and/or inoperable are
in violation of City Code Sect 6.004 150.003, 154,095(b)and 96 03, Subd. I1(a);
and all three vehicle�quld bfi oved from the property or be brought into
conformance with; re by 1109. The vehicle currently used for snow removal
shall have cure, rytabs in place with�i�seven days (2124109). Council Member Emmons
seconded the mo - _., The motion passed 4-0.
Planning_CommissiotMO..WW,1 6rk Plan
Planning Director Klatt reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed and approved a
2009 work plan,and the Commission was requesting the City Council to comment on it. He
briefly outlined the zoning,planning and administrative initiatives,and the projected
timelines, Joint Workshop and Planning Commission meetings were also possible.
City Council discussed the workload for the staff and commission based on deadlines;
monthly vs.twice monthly meetings; how priorities were determined.
Ann Bucheck,2301 Legion Ave. N., commented the Plamling Commission should meet
twice monthly;new members would be better informed to work on the Comprehensive
Plan deadline.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2 FEBRUARY 17, 2009
MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to accept the 2009 Planning Commission Work
Plan. Council Member Park seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 4-0,
2009-w2013 Street Capital Improvement Pro ram CIP), Authorization to Proceed on the
2009 Street Improvements Feasibility Report
Interim City Administrator Dawson requested the City Council to approve the 2009-2013
Street Capital Improvement Program,and authorize TKDA to prepare the feasibility
report for the 2009 street improvements in the estimated amount of$9,800.
Council discussed a street finance proposal,.special assessments, and monitoring process.
MOTION: Council Member Park moved to approve the 2009-2013 Street Capital
Improvement Program, and authorize TKDA to prepare the fegolity report for the 2009
street improvements in the estimated amount of$9,800. Mayas Johnston seconded the
motion. The motion passed 4-0.
,v
Selection Process for City Attorney ,
Interim City Administrator Dawson reported th xe City received eleven proposals for
City Attorney services. He provided the Council 10 draft form to rate the firm and
provide comments.
Vy
Council consensus was to review the propo`als ari =zrss the process at the March 3,
2009, Council meeting.
Set Date to Consider Forme*ublicadR ;qf.Fii9t Village AUAR
Interim City Admini _tore D n recommended that the City Council consider
authorizing publiciin o ,LakFlmo Village Area final AUAR at the March 17,
2009, City Co Rl meeting.= doptii of the AUAR could then be considered at the
April'7,20Q9, uncil meetingi-
Wireless Communicalzl3t,5 ilities Ordinance Update
Planning Director Klatt provided an update on the wireless communications facilities
ordinance moratorium. He stated that Staff has received numerous inquiries and
questions from consultants interested in providing their services. The intent is to have a
consultant on board before a public open house on the topic in the latter part of March.
The Planning Department is scheduled to begin initial discussions regarding a new
facilities ordinance at the March 9, 2009,Planning Commission meeting in March.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Carole Luczak,Recording Secretary
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3 FEBRUARY 17, 2009
City Council
Date: 3/3/2009
CONSENT
Item: 2
ITEM: Approve disbursements in the amount of$192,373.49
SUBMITTED BY: Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director
Claim# Amount Description
ACH $ 7,408.95 Payroll Taxes to IRS 02/26/09
ACH $ 1,145.47 Payroll Taxes to Mn Dept.of Revenue 02/26/09
DD2076 - DD2088 $ 17,733.89 Payroll Dated 02/26/2009 (Direct Deposit)
33911 - 33917 $ 9,555.20 Payroll Dated 02/26/2009 (Payroll& Benefits)
33918 - 33960 $ 156,529.98 Accounts Payable Dated 03/03/2009
Total: $ 192,373.49
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to approve disbursements
in the total amount of $192,373.49
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
User:Administrator
Printed:02/26/2009- 8:34 AM
Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Amount
33918 03/03/2009 Water Water Meters&Supplies Ace 1jardware,Inc 29.10
Check Total: 29.10
33919 03/03/2009 General Fund Contract Services Animal Control Services 1,211.63
Check Total: 1,211.63
33920 03/03/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Bldg Arammrk,Inc. 37.01
33920 03/03/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Bldg Aramark,Inc. 38.54
33920 03/03/2009 General Fund Uniforms Aramark;Inc. 36.14
33920 03/03/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg Aramarkk,Inc. 75.96
Check Total. 187.65
33921 03/03/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Eqpt ASTI.EFORD International 25.50
Check Total: 25.50
33922 03/03/2009 General Fund Insurance Berkley Risk Administrators Co 28,882.00
33922 03/03/2009 General Fund Vehicle Insurance Berkley Risk Administrators Co 14,472.00
33922 03/03/2009 General Fund Insurance Berkley Risk Administrators Co 1,025.00
33922 03/03/2009 General Fund Insurance Berkley Risk Administrators Co 13,743.00
33922 03/03/2009 General Fund lnsurance Berkley Risk Administrators Co 5,084.00
33922 03/03/2009 Water Insurance Berkley Risk Administrators Co 9,143.00
33922 03/03/2009 General Fund Insurance Berkley Risk Administrators Co 9,096.00
33922 03/03/2009 General Fund Insurance Berkley Risk Administrators Co 335.00
Check Total: 81,770.00
33923 03/03/2009 General Fund Rentals-Buildings Biffs Inc. 61.27
AP-Checks for Approval(02/26/2009- 8:34 AM) Page I
Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Amount
Check Total: 61.27
33924 03/03/2009 General Fund EMS Supplies BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 246.54
33924 03/0312009 General Fund EMS Supplies BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 68.93
33924 03/03/2009 General Fund EMS Supplies BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 48.84
33924 03/03/2009 General Fund EMS Supplies BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 141.56
33924 03/03/2009 General Fund EMS Supplies BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 260.94
Check Total: 766.91
33925 03/03/2009 General Fund Equipment Parts Car Quest Auto Parts 137.39
Check Total: 137.39
33926 03/03/2009 General Fund Conferences&Training Century College 894.96
Check Total: 894.96
33927 03/03/2009 General Fund Miscellaneous City of Roseville 2,564.51
Check Total: 2,564.51
33929 03/03/2009 General Fund Mileage Craig Dawson 51.70
Check Total: 51.70
33929 03/03/2009 General Fund Repaiis/Maint Bldg Fastenal 210.84
33929 03/03/2009 General Fund Shop Materials Fastenal 45.50
Check Total: 256.34
33930 03/05/2009 General Fund Assessing Services FXL,Inc. 2,000.00
Check Total: 2,000.00
33931 03/05/2009 General Fund Conferences&Training Governmen Training Services 220.00
33931 03/03/2009, General Fund Conferences&Training Government Training Services 145.00
33931 03/03/2009 General Fund Conferences&Training Government Training Services 55.00
33931 03/03/2009 General Fund Conferences&Training Govermnenj Training Services 115.00
Check Total: 525.00
AP-Checks for Approval(02/26/2009- 8:34 AM) Page 2
Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Amount
33932 03/03/2009 Water Small Tools&Minor Equipment HSBC Business Solutions 46.84
Check Total: 46.94
33933 03/03/2009 General Fund Radio Interstate All Battery Ctr . 27.00
Check'Total: 27.00
33934 03/03/2009 General Fund Miscellaneous ITERiS Inc. 993.00
Check Total: 993.00
33935 03/03/2009 General Fund Conferences&Training Metropolitan Area Manager Asociation 25.00
33935 03/03/2009 General Fund Conferences&Training Metropolitan Area Manager Asociation 25.00
Check Total: 50.00
33936 03/03/2009 General Fund Refuse Maroney's Sanitation,Inc 103.66
33936 03/03/2009 General Fund Refuse Maroney's Sanitation,Inc 45.62
33936 03/03/2009 General Fund Refuse Maroney's Sanitation,Inc 219.53
33936 03/01/2009 General Fund Refuse Maroney's Sanitalion,Ir c 198.87
Check Total: 567.68
33937 03/03/2009 Water Utility System Maintenance McCarthy Well Compa4y 2Q0.00
Check Total: 290.00
33938 03/03/2009 General Fund Contract Services McCombs Frank Roos Assoc Inc. 3,564.00
33938 03/03/2009 General Fund Engineering McCombs Frank Roos Assoc�nc. 891.00
33938 03/03/2009 General Fund Contzuct Services McCombs Frank Roos Assoc one. -3,832.00
Check Total: 6?3.00
33939 03/0�/2009 Water Water Utility MDH 1,4Q5.00
Check Total: 1,405.00
33940 03/03/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint 13ldg Mengds-Stillwater $5.09
Check Total: $5.09
33941 03/03/2009 General Fund Conferences&Training MNAPA 40.00
AP-Checks for Approval(02/26/2009- 8:34 A l} Page 3
I
M
Check Number Check Date Fund Dame Account Name Vendor Name Amount
Check Total: 20.00
33942 03/03/2009 General Fund Dues&Subscriptions Munici-Pals 25.00
Check Total: 25.00
33943 03/03/2009 Park Dedication Repairs/Maint Imp Not Bldgs Northwest Computer Services 1,038.38
Check Total: 1,038.38
33944 03/03/2009 General Fund Miscellaneous Historical Society Oakdale Lake Ehno 1,100.00
Check Total: 1,100.00
33945 03/03/2009 General Fund Shop Materials Parts Associatds Inc. 325.84
Check Total: 325.84
33946 03/03/2009 General Fund Legal Services Peterson Fram&Bergman Corp 1,641.00
33946 03/03/2009 General Fund Attorney Criminal Peterson Fram&Bergman Corp 4,646.57
13946 03/03/2009 General Fund Legal Services Peterson Fram&Bergman Corp 931.50
33946 03/03/2009 General Fund Legal Services Peterson Fram&Bergman Corp 99.00
Check Total: 7,318.07
33947 03/03/2009 General Fund Contract Services PLANT HEALTIJ ASSOCIATES,INC 1,536.00
33947 03/03/2009 Development Fund Contract Services PLANT HEALTH ASSOCIATES,INC 120.00
Check Total: 1,656.00
33948 03/03/2009 General Fund Cable Operation Expense Steven Press 62.71
33948 03/03/2009 General Fund Cable Operation Expense Steven Press 78.38
43948 03/03/2009 General Fund Use Tax Payable Steven Press r9.61
Check Total: 132.48
33949 03/03/2009 General Fund Fuel,Oil and Fluids River Country Cooperative 79.00
Check Total: 79.00
33950 03/03/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg Diane Rud 340-00
33950 03/03/2009 General Fund . Repairs/Maint Bldg Diane Rud 255.60
AP-Checks for Approval(02/26/2009- 8:34 AM) Page 4
Check Dumber Cbeek Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Amount
33950 03/03/2009 General Fund Use Tax Payable Diane Rud -35.60
Check Total: 560.00
33951 03/03/2009 General Fund Office Supplies Sads.Club 57.18
33951 03/03/2009 General Fund Office Supplies Sam's Club 23.98
33951 03/03/2009 General Fund Miscellaneous Sam's Club 72.21
33951 03/03/2009 General Fund Miscellaneous Sam's Club 21.90
Check Total: 175.27
33952 03/03/2000. General Fund Software Support Software House International 126.74
Check Total: 126.74
33953 03/03/2009 General Fund Street Maintenance Materials T.A.Schifsky&Sons Inc 185.10
Check Total: 185.10
33954 03/03/2009 General Fund Telephone TDS METROCOM-LLC 165.56
33954 03/03/2009 General Fund Telephone TDS METROCOM-LLC 152.86
33954 03/03/2009 Sewer Telephone TDS METROCOM-LLC 102.87
33954 03/03/2009 Water Telephone TDS METROCOM-LLC 41.59
Check Total: 462.89
33955 03/03/2009 General Fund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 4,159.77
33955 03/03/2009 Infrastructure Reserve Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 4,575.59
33955 03/03/2009 Surface Water Utility Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 3,816.44
33955 03/03/2009 Water Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 2,687.12
33955 03/03/2009 Sewer Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 670.09
33955 03/03/2009 Infrastructure Reserve Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 2,969.81
33955 03/03/2009 Development Fund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 115.71
33955 03/03/2009 Development Fund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 127.22
33955 03/03/2009 Development Fund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 231.42
33955 03/03/2009 Development Fund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 1,323.31
33955 03/05/2009 Development Fupd Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 2,449.02
33955 03/03/2009 Village Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 277.70
33955 03/03/2009 Surface Water Utility Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 6,395.83
33955 03/03/2009 Infrastructure Reserve Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 5,005.68
33955 03/03/2009 General Fund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 1,640.93
33955 03/03/2009 General Fund Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 3,282.41
33955 03/03/2009 Water Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. • 409.32
33955 03/03/2009 Water Engineering Services TKDA,Inc. 1,244.94
AP-Chet;ks for Approval(02/26/2009- 8:34 AM) Page 5
Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Amount
Check Total: 47,382.31
33956 03/03/2009 General Fund Newsletter/Website United States Postal Service 500.00
Check Total: 500.00
33957 03/03/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Contractual Eqpt Vata Communications,Inc. 150.00
Check Total: 150.00
33958 03/03/2009 General Fund Repairs/Maint Bldg Washington County 85.00
Check Total: 85.00
33959 03/03/2009 General Fund Assessing Services Washington County 35.00
Check Total: 35.00
33960 03/03/2009 General Fund Cleaning Supplies Zack's,Inc. 108.48
33960 03/03/2009 General Fund Shop Materials Zacks,Inc. 297.93
33960 03/03/2009 General Fund Shop Materials Zack's,Inc. 197.03
Check Total: 603.44
Report Total: 156,529.98
AP-Checks for Approval(02/26/2009- 8:34 AM) Page 6
City Council
Date: 3.05.09
CONSENT
Item: 3
MOTION
ITEM: 751h Anniversary of Washington County Historical Society
SUBMITTED BY: Craig W. Dawson, Interim City Administrator
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City Council is being asked to recognize the 75th Anniversary of the Washington County's
Historical Society.
MOTION:
Move to adopt Resolution 2009-006 recognizing the Washington County Historical Society's 751h
Anniversary.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 2009-006
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.2009 - 1[�j 0(o
A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING
THE WASHINGTON COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY
ON ITS 75th ANNIVERSARY
WHEREAS, our shared history—the story of all events and the people who have gone before us—
is the foundation of all communities; and
WHEREAS, the past is important to explain the present and to guide the course for the future; and
WHEREAS, the histories of the communities in Washington County are the building blocks of
the larger Washington County community; and
WHEREAS, the Washington County Historical Society, a member-driven organization that has
been collecting,preserving, and sharing the history of Washington County—
Minnesota's first county—and the State of Minnesota since 1934; and
W'HEREAS., the City Council of the City.of Lake Elmo appreciates-the service given to the.
community by.the Washington County Historrical Society;
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo that it
congratulates the Washington County Historical Society on its 75"' anniversary,
ADTED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo on March 3"d OP , 2009,.
Doan A. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Craig W. Dawson, Interim City Administrator
City Council
Date: 3/3/2009
REGULAR
Item: 4
ITEM: Announce and introduce the promotions of two new Captains, Barney Sachs and Mike
Cornell
SUBMITTED BY: Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
REVIEWED BY: Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: No action is required by City Council as these two
appointments are filling existing positions.
Chief Malmquist will give brief introduction, District Chiefs Doug Pepin and Brad Winkels will give
brief explanation of hiring process and talk about candidates.
RECOMMENDATION:
Acknowledge promotions of Barney Sachs and Mike Cornell.
SUGGESTED MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
No motion required.
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
• Introduction Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
• Report and introductions District Chiefs, Doug Pepin and Brad Winkels
• Questions to presenter Mayor and Councilmembers
• Questions/comments from the
Public, if any (up to 3 minutes) Mayor facilitates
• Call for a motion
• Discussion
• Action
City Council
Date: March 3, 2009
REGULAR
Item: D
Motion
ITEM: Refunding of Bonds
SUBMITTED BY: Craig W. Dawson, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director
Joe Rigdon, Finance Specialist
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Paul Donna, a senior vice-president with Northland Securities,
has alerted staff about a favorable market climate for the possible refunding (i.e., refinancing) of two bond
issues. Given the anticipated market for municipal bonds over the next few months, the City should
achieve notable savings in future interest costs. (The average interest rates of the current bond issues is
approximately 4.8%; the projected average interest rate is approximately 2.9%.) In addition, by refunding
the bonds, the City will be able to free up funds to address other financial needs. The City Council would
need to adopt a resolution to authorize the process for the bond refunding to begin.
BACKGROUND:
There is greater efficiency in the financing transaction costs when larger amounts are financed, and
generally when the amount is greater than $1 million. Two bond issues, under consideration, totaling just
over$1 million in outstanding principal, are:
1. General Obligation State Aid Street Bonds, Series 2001A
These bonds were issued in 2001 for roadway improvements in the Eagle Point commercial area. The
streets were financed with special assessments and future Municipal State Aid (MSA) revenues.
Approximately$525,000 of outstanding bond principal remains. The bond issue is scheduled to mature in
2017, and the bonds are callable at any time.
The City's Bond Fund has a balance of approximately $240,000, as all special assessments have been
paid and have been accruing interest. This balance would be freed up for any purpose as deemed by the
Council. Interest on the existing bonds is currently $27,000, and is paid from the City's current $94,000
annual MSA maintenance allocation. As projected in the refunding, the interest amount could be reduced
to$23,000 in 2010, and would steadily decrease to $5,500 in 2016; the savings would be used for better
maintenance of the City's MSA-designated streets. Projected savings in future interest costs for the MSA
Bond would have a net present value benefit of$35,000 (given the current market).
2. General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2002B
These bonds were issued in 2002 for trunk water system improvements—Well No. 2 and its pumphouse,
and drilling Well No. 3. Payments for these bonds are included in the rates paid by all water customers.
Approximately $500,000 of outstanding bond principal remains. The bond issue is scheduled to mature in
2022, and the bonds are callable late in 2009.
As projected in the refunding, the savings in future interest costs for the Water Fund would have a net
present value benefit of$29,000 (given the current market)..
Consideration of Refunding Bonds
March 3, 2009, City Council Meeting
Page Two
Net Present Value Savings: State law requires that the calculated net present value savings be at least
3.0 percent in order for advance refunding bonds to be issued. The projected net present value savings
for these two issues is nearly$65,000, or to just over 6.0 percent, with the savings on the MSA bonds
being slightly higher than that percentage.
Advance Crossover Refunding Bonds: As the Water refunding bonds would be issued before the call
date of the existing bonds, the proceeds from the refunding would need to be placed in escrow until the
call date. These funds will be placed in a very low-risk account(direct obligations of the U.S, Treasury,)
in order to preserve the refunding principal until it is needed on the call date.
Use of Balance in 2001A Bond Fund: The City's bond attorney has advised that the approximate
$240,000 balance from special assessment revenue in the 2001A Bond Fund can be used for any
purpose deemed appropriate by the Council. Staff would suggest that the Council transfer these funds to
the Tablyn Park improvement fund in order to eliminate a deficit there. These improvements were made
with funding by the City and 3M, and at year-end 2008 the fund has a deficit of approximately $340,000.
The last installment due from 3M is$104,000, leaving the City's cost for the project underfunded by about
$236,000, and no strategy yet developed to address it. Applying the balance from the 2001A Bond Fund
would remove this deficit from the City's books and help keep the City in the good graces of the auditors
and credit rating agencies. Another advantage is that the City would not be "spending" funds, but rather
reassigning them, and thus be able to retain the entire $240,000 in cash during the current economic
challenges.
Financial Services: The City historically has used the services of Northland Securities, Inc.,for these
financial transactions. The firm receives compensation only upon issuance of the bonds. If the Council
decides at any time not to continue with the process, no fees will be due to Northland Securities, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution authorizing the
process to begin the refunding of these bonds, and to authorize the services of Northland Securities, Inc.,
to assist the City in this process. Based on its discussion with Northland Securities during the meeting, a
target level of savings should be stated within the resolution in order to guide the timing and future
consideration of the bond sale.
SUGGESTED MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
Move to adopt the resolution authorizing the commencement of refunding State Aid Bonds Series
2009A, and Water Improvement Bonds, Series 2002B, and to authorize the services of Northland
Securities, Inc., for this transaction.
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed resolution
Financial information from Northland Securities, Inc., related to the refundings
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
• Introduction Craig Dawson
• Report by staff or other presenter Paul Donna
• Questions from City Council members to the presenter facilitated by Mayor
• Questions/comments from the public to the City Council facilitated by Mayor
• Action on motion City Council
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.2009 - ocb 7
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS; SERIES 2009A
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, State of Minnesota (the "City"), as
follows:
l. The City Council hereby finds and declares that it is necessary and expedient for the City to
sell and issue its fully registered general obligation refunding bonds in the total aggregate
principal amount of not to exceed $1,100,000 (herein, the "Bonds"). The proceeds of the
Bonds will be used,together with any additional funds of the City which might be required,to
(i) current refund on or about May 12, 2009, all or a portion of the February 1, 2010,through
2017 maturities, aggregating up to $525,000 in principal amount, of the City's General
Obligation State-Aid and Improvement Bonds, Series 2001,dated October 1, 2001, as the date
of original issue, (ii) to crossover refund on December 1, 2009, all or a portion of the
December 1, 2010 through 2021 maturities, aggregating up to $500,000 in principal amount,
of the City's General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2002B, dated May 1,2002, as
the date of original issue and (iii)to fund the costs of issuing the Bonds.
2. The City Council desires to proceed with the sale of the Bonds by direct negotiation to
Northland Securities,Inc. (herein, "NSI").
3. The City Administrator and Finance Director are hereby authorized to approve the sale of the
Bonds in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $1,100,000 and to execute a bond
purchase agreement for the purchase of the Bonds with NSI, provided the total net savings is
at least $
4. Upon approval of the sale of the Bonds by the City Administrator and Finance Director the
City Council will take.action at its next regularly scheduled meeting thereafter to adopt the
necessary approving resolutions as prepared by the City's bond counsel.
5. NSI is authorized to prepare an offering document related to the sale of the Bonds.
6. If the City Administrator and Finance Director have not approved the sale of the bonds to NSI
and executed the related bond purchase agreement by December 31, 2009, this resolution
shall expire,
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo on March 3"1, 2009,
ATTEST: Dean A. Johnston, Mayor
Craig W. Dawson, Interim City Administrator
Wm-
I1ANCE T'LA'1� SUMMARY
f r€
i
I
FOR
CITY OF LAKE ELMO, IVIINNESOTA
$1,070,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS
SERIES 2009A
NORTHLAND ,SE GURITIES
45 South Th Street '
Suite 2500
Minneapolis,MN 55402
612-851-5900 800-851-2920 p
March 3, 2009
City of Like Elmo, Minnesota
$1,07 Q,00.0.
General Obligation refunding.Bonds, Series 2009A
Financing Overview,
The Bonds will be issued pursuant to Minnesota statutes 475, 444 and 162. The Bond proceeds
will be used for (i) a current refunding on or about May 12, 2009 of all or a portion of the
February 1, 2010 through 2017 maturities, aggregating up to$525,000 in principal amount, of the
CiVs General Obligation State Aid-Improvement Bonds Series 2001, dated October 1, 2001 as
date of original issue, (ii) a crossover refunding on December 1, 2009 for all or a portion of the
December 1, 2010 through 2021 maturities, aggregating up to $500,000 in principal amount, of
the City's General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds,Series 2002A dated May 1,2002, the date of
original issue and (iii) to pay the costs associated with issuing the Series 2009A Bonds. The
estimated sources and uses of funds are illustrated below.
Refunding Summary
Dated 05/0112009 1 Delivered 0511212009
2001 2002 Issue Summary
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds $550,000.00 $520,000. 00 $1,070,000.00
Accrued Interest from 05/01/2009 to 05/12/2009 337.33 451.00 788.33
Total Sources $550,337.33 $520,451.00 $1,070,788.33
Uses Of Funds
Deposit to Crossover Escrow Fund 531,970.00 507,255.84 1,039,225.84
Total Costs of Issuance including UnderwdWs Discount 18,025.00 13,185.00 31,210.00
Deposit to Debt Service Fund 337.33 - 337.33
Rounding Amount 5.00 10.16 15.%
Total Uses $550,337.33 3520,451.00 $1,070,788.33
Page 2
N0RTHI.ANI':) SE( t,)ItI1"ILS
The 2001 Bonds and 2002A Bonds are currently outstanding at an average interest rate of 4,79%
and 4.84%respectively. Given current market conditions,we estimate these maturities could be
refunded with a new bond issue at an average interest rate of 2.88%.This interest rate spread,
together with interest earnings on the new bond proceeds until the respective call dates,would
result in a total debt service cost savings of approximately$77,895 savings is net of all costs and
would be realized through the original terms of each series of refunded bonds. The debt service
comparison showing the scheduled debt service versus the new estimated debt service is
illustrated below.
Debt Service Comparison
Date Total P+I PGF Existing D1S Net New D/S Old Net DJS Savings
02/01/2010 85,050.00 (508,610.00) 654,765.00 130,852.51 134,366.00 3,512.49
02/01/2011 124,855.00 - 124,865.00 135,827.60 10,972.50
02101/2012 128,505.00 - 128,505.00 136,957.50 8,452.50
02/01/2013 131,825.00 - 131,825.00 137,787.50 5,962.50
02/01/2014 124,790.00 - - 124,790.00 133,260.00 8,470.00
02/01/2015 132,585.00 - - 132,585.00 138,600.00 6,015 00
02/01/2016 129,882.50 - - 129,882.50 13B,350.00 8,467.50
02/01/2017 121,950.00 - - 121,950.00 132,795.00 10,845.00
02101/2018 53,870.00 - 53,870.00 57,160.00 3,290.00
02/01/2019 52,272.50 - - 52.272.50 54,955.00 2,682.50
02/01/2020 55,675.00 - 65,675.00 57,760.00 29075.00
02;01/2021 53,900.00 - 53,900.00 55,250.00 1,360.00
02/01/2022 51,950.00 - 51,950.00 57,750.00 5,800.00
Total $1,247,110.00 (508,610.00) $554,765.00 S1,292,912.51 $1,370,807.50 $77,894.99
PV Analysis Summary(Net to Net)
Gross PV Debt Service Savings..................... 64,547.26
Net PV Cashfiow Savings @ 2.856%(Bond Yield)..... 64,547.26
Accrued Interest Credit to Debt Service Fund...... 337.33
Contingency or Rounding Amount.................... _ 15.16
Net Present Value Benefit $64,899.76
Net PV Benefit;$1,126,B59.52 PV Refunded Debt Service 5.759%
Included as Exhibit A is the complete refunding analysis,
Page 3
NORTH.1.AN'1) SF+.( U 1:1"C'I F":
Summary of Recommended Terms:
L Type of Bond Sale Negotiated Sale with Northland Securities
2. Proposed Pricing Thursday,April 2,2009.
3. Council Consideration Tuesday, April 7,2009 at 7:00 P.M.
4. Repayment Term The Bonds will mature annually each December 1,
2010 - 2021. Interest on the Bonds will be payable
on December 1, 2009 and semiannually thereafter
on each June 1 and December 1.
5, Security General obligation of the City. In addition,the City
pledges state-aid road payments formerly pledged
to the Series 2001 Bonds and water revenues
formerly pledged to the Series 2002A Bonds.
6. Prepayment Option The Bonds maturing on or after December 1, 2018
will be subject to redemption on December 1, 2017
and any day thereafter at a price of par.
7. Tax Status Dorsey and Whitney LLP,Minneapolis,Minnesota
8. Credit Enhancement We believe a credit rating will be cost beneficial.
The City's general obligation debt is currently rated
Aa3 by Moody's.
Page 4
N0R'T'}-[1_ANfD SECURITILS
Related Considerations:
• Bank Qualified-because total tax-exempt debt.issued by the City in calendar year 2009 is
expected to be less than $30.OM, the bonds will be designated as "bank qualified"
obligations pursuant to Federal Tax Law. The impact of this designation may result in
slightly lower interest rates since banking institutions will be interested in purchasing
the bonds. We have adjusted the estimated interest rates accordingly.
• Arbitrage Compliance-
o Project/Construction Fund-All tax exempt issues are subject to federal rebate
requirements which require all arbitrage earned to be rebated to the U.S.
Treasury. A rebate exemption the City expects to qualify for is the "small issuer
exemption" because the City expects to issue less than $5.OM of tax exempt
bonds,including any 501 C 3 conduit financings,in calendar year 2009.
o Debt Service Fund-The City must maintain a bona fide debt service fund for
the bonds or be subject to yield restriction in the debt service fund. A bona fide
debt service fund involves an equal matching of revenues to debt service expense
with a balance forward permitted equal to the greater of the investment earnings
in the fund during that year or 1/12 of the debt service of that year.
The City should become familiar with the various Arbitrage Compliance requirements
for this bond issue. The Bond Resolution explains the requirements in greater detail.
We are also available to assist the City in meeting these requirements.
• Book Entry- The Bonds will be global book entry with a bank designated as the paying agent.
As "paperless" bonds, .you will avoid the cost of bond printing and annual registrar
charges. The Paying Agent will invoice you for the interest semiannually and on an
annual basis for the principal coming due. You will be charged only for paying
agent/transfer agent services provided by the bank. This cost of services has been
capitalized into the bond issue.
• Continuing Disclosure - Because the City's outstanding debt is less than $10.OM, it is
subject to limited disclosure requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Northland can assist the City in complying with these requirements.
Page 5
N(:a IN"I-E-t LA N D S Ii.C`I)R I T i L S
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
G.O. Refunding Bonds of 2009
2001 and 2002
Table of Contents
Report
ISSUE SUMMARY
Refunding Summary I
Debt Service Comparison 2
Debt Service Schedule 3
2001
Refunding Summary 4
Debt Service Comparison 5
Debt Service Schedule 6
Debt Service To Maturity And To Call 7
Current Refunding Escrow g
2002
Refunding Summary g
Debt Service Comparison 10
Debt Service Schedule 1
Debt Service To Maturity And To Call 12
Crossover Escrow Fund Cashfiow 13
Rel I Issue Summary 12124l2009 I UU6AM
Northland Securities
Public Finance
Prellminary
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
G.O. Refunding Bonds of 2009
2001 and 2002
Refunding Summary
Dated 05/0112009 1 Delivered 05/12/2009
2001 2002 Issue Summary
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds $550,000.00 $520,000.00 $1,070,000.00
Accrued Interest from 05/01/2009 to 05/12/2009 337.33 451.00 788.33
Total Sources $550,33T.33 $620,451.00 $1,070,788.33
Uses Of Funds
Deposit to Crossover Escrow Fund 531,970,00 507,255.84 1,039,226,84
Total Costs of Issuance including Underwriter's Discount 18,025.00 13,186.00 31,210.00
Deposit to Debt Service Fund 337.33 - 337,33
Rounding Amount 5.00 10.16 15.16
Total Uses $550,337,33 $520,451.00 $1,070,788.33
Flow of Funds Detail
State and Local Government Series(SLGS)rates for 2/20/2009 212012009 2/20/2009
Date of OMP Candidates
Primary Purpose Fund Solution Method Net Funded Net Funded Net Funded
Total Cost of Investments $531,970.00 $507,255.84 $1,039,225.84
Interest Earnings @ 0.483% - 1,354.16 1,354.16
Total Draws $531,970.00 $508,610.00 $1,040,580.00
PV Analysis Summary(Net to Net)
Net PV Cashflow Savings @ 2 856%(Bond Yield) 35 124.94 29,422.42 64,547.26
Accrued Interest Credit to Debt Service Fund 337.33 - 337.33
Contingency or Rounding Amount 5.00 10.16 15.16
Net Present Value Benefit $35,467.17 $29,432.58 $64,899.76
Net PV Benefit 1 $1,025,000 Refunded Principal 6.756% 6.887% 6.332%
Net PV Benefit 1 $1,070,000 Refunding Principal 6.449°/a 6.660% 6.065%
Bond Statistics
Average Life 4.138 Years 7.420 Years 5.733 Years
Average Coupon 2.2920176% 3.2383801% 2.8872708%
Net Interest Cost(NIA 2.7270231% 3.4809719% 3.2012498%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.8564631% 2.8564631% 2.8564631%
True Interest Cost(TIC) 2,7571353% 3.4901374% 3.2105780%
All Inclusive Cost(AIC) 3.1646256% 3.6077151'/o 3.4351821%
Rai I issue Summary 1 2/24/2049 1 1US AM
Northland Securities
Public Finance page 1
Preliminary
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
G.O. Refunding Bonds of 2009
2001 and 2002
Debt Service Comparison
Date Total P+I PCF Existing D1S Net New D/S Old Net D/S Savings
02/01/2010 85,050.00 (508,610,00) 554,765.00 130,852.51 134,365.00 3,512.49
02/01/2011 124,855.00 - - 124,855.00 135,827.50 10,972.50
0210112012 128,505.00 - 128,505.00 136,957.50 8,452.50
02/01/2013 131,825,00 - - 131,825.00 137,787.50 5,962.60
02101/2014 124,790.00 - 124,790.00 133,260.00 8,470.00
0210112015 132,585.00 132.586.00 138,600.00 6,015.00
02/0112016 129,882.50 - 129,882.50 138,350.00 8,467.50
02/01/2017 121,950.00 - 121,950.00 132,795.00 10,845.00
02/01/2018 53,870.00 - 53,870.00 57,160.00 3,290.00
02/0112019 52,272.50 - 52,272.50 64,955.00 2,682.50
02/01/2020 55,676.00 - 55,675.00 57,750.00 2,075,00
02101/2021 53,900.00 - 53,900.00 56,250.00 1,350.00
02/01/2022 51,960.00 - - 51,950.00 57,760.00 5,800,00
Total $1,247,110.00 (508,610.00) $554,765.00 $1,292,912.51 $1,370,607.50 $77,894.99
PV Analysis Summary(Net to Net)
Gross PV Debt Service Savings..................... 64,647.26
Net PV Cashflow Savings aQ 2 856%(Bond Yield) .. 64,547.26
Accrued Interest Credit to Debt Service Fund...... 337.33
Contingency ar Rounding Amount.................... 15.16
Net Present Value Benefit $64,899.76
Net PV Benefit/$1,126,859.52 PV Refunded Debt Service 5.759%
Net PV Benefit/ $1,025,000 Refunded Principal... 6.332%
Net PV Benefit 1 $1,070,000 Refunding Principal.. 6.065%
Refunding Bond Information
Refunding Dated Date 5101/2009
Refunding Delivery bate 6112/2009
Ref I Issue Summary 1 212412009 1 10:36 AM
Northland Securities
Public Finance Page 2
Preliminary
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
G.O. Refunding Bonds of 2009
2001 and 2002
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
0611212009 - - -
1210112009 70,000.00 1.360% 15,060.00 85,050.00
02/01/2010 - - - - 85,OS0.00
0610112010 - - 12,427.60 12,427.60
1210112010 100,000.00 1.350% 12,427.50 112,427.60 -
02101/2011 - 124,855.00
0610112011 - • 11,752.60 11,752.50 -
12/01/2011 105,000.00 1.600% 11,762.50 116,762.60
02/01/2012 - - - 128.505.00
06/01/2012 - - 10,912.50 10,912.50 -
12/0112012 110,000.00 1.850% 10,912.50 120,912.60 -
02/01/2013 - 131,826.00
06/01/2013 - 9,895.00 9,895.00 -
12/01/4013 105,000.00 2.100% 9,895.00 114,896.00 -
OV0112014 - - - - 124,790.00
06/01/2014 - 8,792.50 8,792.60 -
12/0112014 115,000.00 2,350% 8,792.50 123,792.50
0210112015 132585.00
06/0112015 - - 7,441.26 7,441.25 -
12/0112015 115,000.00 2.550% 7,441.26 122,441.25
02/0112016 - - 129,B82.50
06/0112016 - - 6,975.00 .5,976.00
12/0112016 110,000.00 2.800% 5,975.00 116.975.00 -
02/0112017 - - - 121,950.00
06/01/2047 - - -4,435.00 4,435.00
12/01/2017 45,000.00 3.5500/0 4,436.00 49,436.00 -
02/01/2018 - - 53,870.00
06101/2018 - - 3,63625 3,636.26 -
1210112018 45,000.00 3.550% 3163625 48,636.26 -
02101/2019 - - 52,272.60
06101/2019 - • 2.837.50 2,837.50 -
12101/2019 50,000.00 3.550% 2,837.50 52,837.50 -
02/01/2020 - - - 55,676.00
06101/2020 - - 1,950.00 1,950.00 -
12/01/2020 50,000.00 3.900% 1,950.00 51,950.00 -
02/01/2021 - 63,900.00
06/01/2021 - 975,00 975.00 -
12/0112021 50,000.00 3.900% 975.00 50,975.00 -
0210112022 - - - 61,950.00
Total $1,070,000.00 - $177,110.00 $1,247,110.00
Dated 6/01/2009
Delivery Date 5/1212009
-First Coupon Date 12/01/2009
First available call date
Call Price
Accrued Interest from 05/01/2009 to 06/12/2009 788.33
Bond Year Dollars $6,134.17
Average Life 5.733 Years
Average Coupon 2.8872708%
Net Interest Cast(NIC) 3 2012498%
True Interest Cost(TIC) 3 2105780%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.8664631%
Net Interest Cost 2,8898217%
Weighted Average Maturity 5.702 Years
Ref I Issue Summary 12M/2009 1 10:36 AM
® Northland Securities
Public Finance Page 3
Ptelimi"ary
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
G.O. Refunding Bonds of 2009
2001
Refunding Summary
Dated 05101/2009 1 Delivered 0511212009
Sources Of-Funds
Par Amount of Bonds $650,000,00
Accrued Interest from 05/01/2009 to 05/1212009 337.33
Total Sources $550,337.33
Uses Of Funds
Deposit to Current Refunding Fund 531,970.00
Total Underwriter's Discount (1.800%) 9,9D0.00
Costs of Issuance 8,126.00
Deposit to Debt Service Fund 337.33
Rounding Amount 8.00
Total Uses $550 337.33
Flow of Funds Detail
State and Local Government Series(SLGS)rates for 212012009
Date of OMP Candidates
Current Refunding Escrow Solution Method Net Funded
Total Cost of Investments $531,970.00
Total Draws $531,97D.00
Issues Refunded And Call Dates
01 old 5113/2009
PV Analysis Summary(Net to Net)
Net PV Cashflow Savings @ 2.856%(Bond Yield) 36,124.84
Accrued interest Credit to Debt Servioe Fund 337.33
Contingency or Rounding Amount 5.00
Net Present Value Benefit $35,467.17
Net PV Benefit 1 $525,000 Refunded Principal 6 756%
Net PV Benefit 1 $560,000 Refunding Principal 6.449%
Bond Statistics
Average We 4.138 Years
Average Coupon 2.2920176%
Net Interest Cost(NIC) 2.7270231%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.8564631%
True Interest Cost(TIC) 2,7571353%
All Inclusive Cost(AIC) 3.1546266%
Ref 1 2001 1 2/24/2099 1 10;36 AM
® Northland Securities
Public Finance Page 4
Preliminary
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
G.O. Refunding Bonds of 2009
2001
Debt Service Comparison
Date Total P*I Net New D/S Old Net D/S Savings
02/01/2010 76,440.00 76,097.67 79,600.00 3,502.33
02/01/2011 75,095.00 75,096.00 82,262.50 7,167.50
02/01/2012 74,217.50 74,217.50 79,622.50 5,405.00
02/01121313 78,177.50 78,177.50 81,922.50 3,745.00
02/01/2014 71,882.50 71,B82.50 78,900.00 7,017.50
02/01/2015 75,617.50 75,617.50 80,780.00 5,262.60
02/0112016 78,872.50 78,872.50 82,350.00 3,477.50
02101/2017 71,960.00 71,960.00 78,675.00 6,715.00
Total $602,162.50 $601,820.17 $644,112.50 $42,292.33
PV Analysis Summary(Net to Net)
Gross PV Debt Service Savings..................... 35,124.84
Net PV Cashfiow Savings @ 2.856%(Bond Yield)..... Vi 124,84
Accrued Interest Credit to Debt Service Fund...... 337.33
Contingency or Rounding Amount.................... 6.00
Net Present Value Benefit $35 467 17
Net PV Benefit 1$573,514.72 PV Refunded Debi Service 6 184%
Net PV Beneflt 1 $625,000 Refunded Principal... 6,756%
Net PV Beneflt! $650,000 Refunding Principal.. 6.449%
Refunding Bond Information
Refunding Dated Date 5/01/2009
Refunding Delivery Date 5/12/2009
Ref 1 2001 1 2/242099 1 10:36 AM
® Northland Securities
Public Finance Page 5
Preliminary
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
G.O. Refunding Bonds of 2009
2001
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
05/12/2009 - - - -
12/01/2009 70,000.00 1.350% 6,440.00 76,440.00
02/01/2010 - - - - 76,440.00
06/01/2010 - - 5,047.50 5,047.50 -
12/01/2010 65,000.00 1.350% 5,047.50 70,047.50
02/01/2011 - - - 75,095.00
06/01/2011 - - 4,508.75 4,608.76
12/01/2011 65,000.00 600% 4,608.75 69,608.75 .
02/01/2012 - - - 74,217.50
06/01/2012 - - 4,088.75 4,088.75
12/0112012 70,000.00 1.850% 4,088.75 74,088.75 -
02/01/2013 - - - 78,177.50
06101/2013 - - 3,441.25 3,441.25 -
12/01/2013 651000-.00 2.100% 3,441.25 68,441.25 -
02101/2014 - - - - 71,882.50
06/01/2014 - - 2,758+75 2,758.76
12/01/2014 70,000.00 2.350% 2,758.75 72,758.76
02/D1/2015 - - - - 75,517.50
06101/2015 - - 1,936.25 1,936.25 -
12/01/2015 75,000.00 2.550% 1,936.25 76,936.25
02/01/2016 - - - - 78,872.60
D6/01/2016 - - 980.00 980.00
12/01/2016 70,000.00 2.800% 980.00 70,980.00
02/01/2017 - - - - 71,960.00
Total $550,000.DO - $52,162.50 $602,162.50
Dated 5/01/2009
Delivery Date — __ 5112120D9
First Coupon Date 12101/20D9
First available call date
Call Price
Accrued Interest from 05/0112009 to 05/12/2009 337.33
Bond Year Dollars $2,275.83
Average Life 4.138 Years
Average Coupon 2.2920176%
Net Interest Cost(NIC) 2.7270231%
True Interest Cost(TIC) 2,7571353%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.8564631%
Net Interest Cost 2.2941360%
Weighted Average MatUTity 4.107 Years
Ref 1 2001 1 2/2412009 1 10:36 AM
® Northland Securities
Public Finance Page 6
Preliminary
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
G.O. of
of 2001
Debt Service To Maturity And To Call
Refunded Interest to
Date Bonds Call D1S To Call Principal Coupon Interest Refunded D1S Fiscal Total
05/1212009 - - -
05/1312009 525,000.00 6,970.00 531,970.00 - -
08/0112009 - - 12,300.00 12,300.00 -
02/0112010 - 55,000.00 4.250% 12,300.00 67,300.00 79,600,00
0810112010 - - 11,131.26 11,131.26
0210112011 - 60,000.00 4.400% 11.131.25 71,131.26 82,262.50
08/01/2011 - - 9,811.26 9,811.25
02/01/2012 - 60.000.00 4.600% 9,811.25 69,811.26 79.622.50
08/01/2012 - - - 8,461.25 8,461.26 -
02101/2013 65,000.00 4.650% 8.401.26 73,461.26 81,922.50
08/01/2013 - 0,960.00 6.950.00
02/01/2014 65,000.00 4.800% 6,950.00 71,960.00 78 900.00
0810112014 - 5,390.00 5,390.00 -
0210112015 70,000.00 4,900% 5,390.00 75,390.00 80,780.00
08101/2015 - 3,676.00 3,675.00 -
02101/2016 - - 75,000.00 4.900% 3,675.00 76,675.00 82,360.00
0810112016 - - 1.837.50 1,837.60
02/0112017 76,000.00 4.900% 1.837.60 76,837.60 78,675.00
Total $525,000.00 $6,970.00 $531,970.00 $525,000.00 $119,112.50 $6",112.50
Yield Statistics
Average Life 4.483 Years
Weighted Average Maturity(Par Basis) 4.453 Years
Average Coupon 4 7992665%
Refunding Bond information
Refunding Dated Date 610112009
Refunding Delivery Date 5/1212009
01 old I SINGLE PURPOSE 1 2/2412009 1 10:30 AM
® Northland Securities
Public Finance Page
TP�reflmlnary
of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Refunding Bonds of 2009
Current Refunding Escrow
Date Rate Receipts Disbursements Cash Balance
05/12/2009 531,970.00 - 531,970.00
05/13/2009 - 531,970.00 -
Total - $531,970.00 $531,970,00 -
Investment Parameters
Investment Model]PV,GIC,or Securities] Securities
- - - -Default-investment yield target— ---- .._ --- ---__- . -_--- ... .-_.-.-- User-Defined--
Cash Deposit 531,970.00
Total Cost of Investments $531,970.00
Target Cost of Investments at bond yield $531,928.09
Actual positive or(negative)arbitrage (41.91)
Yield to Receipt
Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.B564631%
Ref 1 2001 1 M412009 110:36 AM
® Northland Securities
Public Finance Page 8
Preliminary
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
G.(O. Refunding Bonds of 2009
2002
Refunding Summary
Dated 05/0112009 1 Delivered 05112/2009
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds $520,000.00
Accrued interest from 05101/20DO to 05/12/2009 451.00
Total Sources $520,451.00
Uses Of Funds
Deposit to Crossover Escrow Fund 507,265.84
Total Underwriter's Discount (1.800%) 9.360.00
Costs of Issuance 3,826.00
Rounding Amount 10.16
Total Uses $520,451.00
Flow of Funds Detail
State and Local Government Series(SLGS)rates for _ __ 2/2012009
Date of OMP Candidates
Crossover Escrow Fund Solution Method Net Funded
Total Cost of Investments $507,255.84
Interest Earnings 0.483% 1,354.16
Total Draws $508.610.00
Issues Refunded And Call Dates
02old 12/01/200g
PV Analysis Summary(Net to Not)
Net PV Cashflow Savings @ 2.856%(Bon(J Yield) 29,422.42
Contingency or Rounding Amount _ _ 10.16
Net Present Value Benefll $29,432.58
Net PV Benefit/ $500,000 Refunded Principal 5.887%
Net PV Benefit/ $520,000 Refunding Principal 5.660%
Bond Statistics
Average Life 7.420 Years
Average Coupon 3.2383801%
Net Interest Cost(NIC) 3,4809719%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.8564631%
True Interest Cost(TIC) 3.4901374%
All Inclusive Cost(AIC) 3.6077151%
Ref 1 2002 1 2/24/2009 1 10:36 AM
® Northland Securities
Public Finance Page 9
Preliminary
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
G.O. Refunding Bonds of 2009
2002
Debt Service Comparison
Date Total P+I PCF Existing DIS Net New DIS Old Net DIS Savings
02/01/2010 8,610.00 (508,610.00) 554,765.00 54,754.84 54,766.00 10.16
02/01/2011 49,760.00 - 49,760.00 53,565.00 3,805.00
02/01/2012 54,287.50 54,287.51) 57,335.00 3,047.50
02/01/2013 53,647.50 53,647.50 55,865.00 2,217.50
02/01/2014 52,907.50 52,907.5D 54,360.00 1,452.50
02/01/2015 57,067.50 57,067.50 57,820.00 752.50
02/01/2016 51,010.00 51,010.00 56,000.00 4,990.00
02/01/2017 49,990.00 49,990.00 54,120.00 4,130.00
02/01/2018 53,870.00 53,870.00 57,160.00 3,290.00
02/01/2019 52,272.50 52,272.50 54,965.00 2,682.50
02/01/2020 55,675.00 55,675.00 57,750.00 2,075.00
02/01/2021 53,900.00 - 53,900.00 55,250.00 1,350.00
02/01/2022 51,950.00 51,950.00 57,750.OD 5,800.00
Total $644,947.50 (50B,610.00) $564,765.00 $691,092.34 $726,696.00 $35,602.66
PV Analysis Summary(Net to Net)
Gross PV Debt Service Savings..................... 29,422.42
Net PV Cashflow Savings @ 2.856%(Bond Yield)..... 29,422.42
Contingency or Rounding Amount.................... 10.16
Net Present Value Benefit $29,432.58
Net PV Benefit/$553,344.80 PV Refunded Debt Service 5.319%
Net PV Benefit/ $500,000 Refunded Principal... 5.887%
Net PV Benefit/ $520,000 Refunding Principal.. 5.660%
Refunding Bond Information
Refunding Dated Date 5/01/2009
Refunding Dellvery Date 5/12/2009
Ref 1 2002 1 2/2412009 1 10:36 AM
® Northland Securities
Public Finance Page 10
Preliminary
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
G.O. Refunding Bonds of 2009
2002
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+[ Fiscal Total
06/1212009 -
1210112009 8,610.00 8,610.00 -
02/0112010 - 8,610.00
06/0112010 7,380.DD 7,380.00 -
12/0112010 35,00D.00 1.35D% 7,360.00 42,380.00 -
02/01/2011 49,760.00
06/01/2011 - - 7,143.75 7,143.76
12/01/2011 40,000.00 1.600% 7,143.75 47.143.75 -
02/0112012 - - - 64,287.50
06/01/2012 - - 6,823.75 6,823.75 -
12/0112012 40,000.00 1.850% 6,823.75 40,823.75 -
02/0112013 - 53,647.50
00/01/2013 - - 6,453.76 6,453.75 -
12/0112013 40,000.00 2.100% 6,463.75 46,463.75 -
02/0112014 - 52,907.50
06/0112014 - 6,033.76 6,033.75 -
12/0112014 46,000.00 2.350% 6,033.75 51,033.75
02/01/2015 57.067.50
06/01/2015 - - 5,506.00 5,605.00 -
12/01/2016 40,000.00 2.550% 6,505.00 45,505.00
02/0112016 - - - 51,010.00
06/01/2016 - - 4,996.00 4,995.00
12/01/2016 40,000.00 2.800% 4,095.00 44,995.00 -
02/0112017 49,990.00
06/01/2017 - - 4,435.00 4.435.00 -
12/01/2017 45,000.00 3.550% 4.435.00 49,435.00 -
02/01/2018 - - 53,870.00
06/01/2018 - - 3,636.25 3.636.25 -
12/01/2018 45,000.00 3.550% 3,636.25 48,636.25 -
02/01/2019 - 52,272.60
06/01/2019 - - 2,837.50 2,837.60 -
12/01/2019 60,000.00 3.550% 2,837.50 52,837.50 -
02/01/2020 - - - 56,675.00
06/01/2020 - - 1,950.00 1,950.00 -
12/01/2020 50,000.00 3.900% 1,950.00 51,950,00 -
02/01/2021 53,900.00
06/01/2021 - - 975.00 975.00
12/01/2021 50,000.00 3.900% 975.00 50,975.00 -
02/01/2022 - - - 51,950.00
Total $520,000.00 $124,947.50 $644,947.50 -
Dated 510112009
Delivery Date _ 511212009
First Coupon Date 1210112ODD
First available call date
Call Price
Accrued Interest from 05/0112009 to 05/12/2009 451.00
Bond Year Dollars $3.858.33
Average Life 7.420 Years
Average Coupon 3.2383801%
Net Interest Cost(NIC) 3.4609719%
True Interest Cast(TIC) 3.4901374%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes _ 2.8564631%
Net Interest Cost 3.2400338%
Weighted Average Maturity 7.389 Years
Rof 12002 1 2/24n009 1 10:38 AM
Northland Securities
Public Finance page 11
Preliminary
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
G.O.Water Revenue Bonds of 2002
Debt Service To Maturity And To Call
Refunded Interest to
Date Bonds Call D1S To Call Principal Coupon Interest Refunded D1S Fiscal Totai
06/01/2009 - 11,782.60 11,782.50 11,782.50 11,782.50
12/01/2009 500,000.00 11,782.60 511,782.50 4.000% 11,782.50 11,782.50 -
02101/2010 - - - - - 23,565.00
06/0112010 - 11,782.50 11,782.50 -
12/0112010 30,000.00 4.100% 11,782.50 41,782.50 -
02/0112011 - - - 53,565.00
06/01/2011 - 11,167.50 11,167.50 -
1210112011 36,000.00 4.200% 11,167.50 46,167.50 -
02/0112012 - - - 57,335.00
06/01/2012 - 10,432.60 10,432.50 -
1210112012 35,000.00 4.300% 10,432,50 45,432.50 -
0210112013 - - - 55,866,00
0610112013 - - 9,680.00 9,680.00 -
1210112013 35,000.00 4.400% 9,680.00 44,680.00 -
02/0112014 - - - 54,360.00
06/0112014 - - 8,910.00 8,910.00 -
12/01/2014 40,000.00 4.550% 8,910.00 48,910.00 -
02/0112015 - - - - 57,820.00
06/01/2015 - - 8,000.00 6,000.00
1210112015 40,000.00 4,700% 8,000.00 48,000.00 -
02/01/2016 - - - 56,000.00
06/01/2016 - - 7,060.00 7,060.00 -
12/01/2016 40,000.00 4.900% 7,060,00 47,060.00 -
02/01/2017 - - 54,120.00
06/01/2017 - 6,080.00 6,080.00 -
12/01/2017 45,000.00 4.900% 6,080.00 51,080.00
02/01/2018 - - - 57,160.00
06101/2018 - - 4,977.50 4,977.50 -
12101/2018 45,000.00 4.900% 4,977.50 49,977.50 -
02/01/2019 - - - - 54,955.00
06/01/2019 - 3,875.00 3,875.00 -
12/01/2019 50,000.00 5.000°/ 3,875.00 53,875.00 -
02101/2020 - - 57,760.00
06/01/2020 - - 2,625,00 2,625.00 -
12/0112020 50,000.00 5.000% 2,625.00 52,625.00
02/0112021 - - - - 55,250.00
06/01/2021 - - 1,375.00 1,375.00 -
12/01/2021 55,000.00 5.000% 1,375.00 56,375.00 -
02/0112022 - - - - 57,750.00
Total $500,000.00 $23,565.00 $523,565.00 $500,000.00 $195,495.00 $695,495.00 -
Yield Statistics
Average Life 7.663 Years
Weighted Average Maturity(Par Basis) 7.633 Years
Average Coupon 4.8458351%
Refunding Bond Information
Refunding Dated Date 5/0112009
Refunding Delivery Date 5/1212009
02a1d I SINGLE PURPOSE 1 212412009 1 10:36 AM
® Northland Securities
Public Finance Page 12
' Preliminary
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
G.O. Refunding Bonds of 2009
2002
Crossover Escrow Fund Cash'flow
Date Principal Rate Interest Receipts Disbursements Cash Balance
05112/2009 - - - 0.84 - 0.84
12/01/2009 507,255.00 0.480% 1,354.16 508,609,16 508,610.00 -
Total $507,255.00 - $1,354.16 $508,610.00 $508,610.00 -
Investment Parameters
Investment Model[PV,GIC,or Securities Securities
Default investment yield target Bond Yield
Cash Deposit 0.84
Cost of Investments Purchased with Band Proceeds 507,255.0o
Total Cost of Investments $507,255.84
Target Cost of Investments at bond yield $500,698.10
Actual positive or(negative)arbitrage (6,567.74)
Yield to Receipt 0.4826784%
Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.8564631%
State and Local Government Series(SLGS)rates for 2120/2009
Ref 1 2002 1 212412009 1 IU;nGAM
® Northland Securities
Public Finance Page 13
CITY OF
LAKE
ELMO
City of Lake Elmo 651/777-5510
3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, MN 55042
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Craig W. Dawson, Interim City Administrator r
DATE: March 3, 2009
SUBJECT: Additional Information regarding Agenda Item 6
Councilmember DeLapp has prepared the attached materials, and requested that they be copied and
made available for the discussion of this agenda item at tonight's Council meeting.
S�� printed on recycled paper
Lake Elmo Road Assessment Policy for Consideration, March 3, 2009.
The "Basic Road Design" for a City road, except for designated MSA and Trail routes,
will be defined as a 9 ton, 22 foot wide,paved surface, intended for two way traffic and
without a curb. One way roads will be assumed to be 11 feet wide.
The"Basic Road Design" for City designated Minnesota State Aid roads will be 9 ton, 24
feet wide. One way road sections for MSA roads will be assumed as 16 feet wide, per
MnDot standards.
The"Basic Road Design" for City designated bike routes on the City Trail Plan, will be 9
ton, 26 feet wide.
Turn-arounds at the end of cul-de-sacs will be assumed as 16 feet wide because the sharp
turning radius precludes an l I or 12 foot width for City emergency vehicles and buses.
City taxes will fund the total cost for all seal coating, and the cost for overlays, and
replacement of roads up to the cost required for "Basic Road Design", which in all cases
is the minimum needed for equal provision of City services and the providing the least
negative environmental impact.
Property owners will pay 100% for road overlay/replacement costs above the costs for
"Basic Road Design". This includes additional costs for wider roads, and the costs for
replacement of curbs. (It will be assumed that the costs for engineering, and contractor's
general conditions will be included as part of the costs for"Basic Road Design".)
tl
NTO-?
L-A
1 I/
I `
1
r
I
I
e' I
I
I
I I
1
I
I I
rd
I I
1
I I
I I
I I
1 f
State Hwys - Cimarron Priv. St. Lake Elmo Streets
-- County Hwys City Thru Streets
Oak Park Hgts. St. City Insular Streets March 3, 2009
/ tl
d
+i I!
I �7
1 /d
I —
1 !
\ 1
1 1
I I
I 1
1
I I
I I
I I
I I
1
1 � 1
1
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I I
1 I
I
t 1
I 1
I I N
I 1
City Thru Streets
Lake Elmo Thru Streets
March 3, 2009
1 �
111 ,
' I
I
I �
I
I
I ,
I
I I
tl
City Insular Streets Lake Elmo Insular Streets
March 3,2009
City Council
Date: March 3, 2009
REGULAR
Item:
Motion
ITEM: Special Assessment Policy& Financing of Projects
in 2009-2013 Streets Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
SUBMITTED BY: Craig W. Dawson, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer
Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director
Jonathan North and Dave Callister, Ehlers, Inc. (financial consultants)
Jerry Filla, City Attorney
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council has had discussion in work sessions about the
options to finance the street improvement projects in the 2009-2013 Streets CIP, including the use of special
assessments. At the February 10 work session, the Council asked for information regarding the impacts of
assessments at 30 and 35 percent of project costs. On February 17, the Council authorized the preparation of
the feasibility report for the 2009 street projects in the CIP. In order for the feasibility reports to be completed,
the plan(s)for financing of the project need to be identified. After reviewing the complete feasibility report, the
Council may begin the process leading to ordering the improvement and eventually levying special
assessments (if any).
Council members have expressed differing opinions about preferences for debt versus pay-as-you-go
financing, whether and how special assessments should be used, and what changes may be needed for the
City's special assessment policy. The City Council should review and identify what amendments should be
made to the special assessment policy, and identify the general policy or guideline to be used in determining
the amount to be assessed.
BACKGROUND: The City's Public Improvement and Assessment Policy appears to have been adopted in
1996; however, there is no record in the minutes that Council formally acted on it. The policy generally follows
what is specified in Chapter 429 of Minnesota Statutes, which relates to public improvements as well as to the
possibility of special assessments in the financing of them. The policy is broad in terms of how assessments
may be set. Amendments were made to the policy in 2001, and provided that properties on cul-de-sacs would
be assessed for improvements made on streets that provided access to them.
The policy provides that the Council may establish the vary basis for assessments by zoning category. From
our research, we found that the Council has varied the assessment among different types of residentially-
zoned property. It also appears that the Council has generally used a "unit method" to make assessments,
rather than using frontage or land area or appraisals.
As an example of a recent special assessment, in 2007 street overlays were done in the Tablyn Park/Lake
Elmo Heights area. The assessment was $1,309 per buildable lot, which represented nearly 27 percent of the
project costs.
Major Types of Financinq: As explained in the report and presentation by Ehlers, Inc., there are three major
types of financing for public improvement projects.
1. Pay-as-you-go: The City simply accumulates funds until they are sufficient to pay all of the costs for
improvements. While this approach allows the City to earn interest during the years it is setting funds
aside and avoids paying interest if it issued debt, it has a "generational equity" matter in that future
beneficiaries do not contribute to the improvement. To the extent that the City needs to levy taxes to
fund these projects, they would be subject to levy limits that may be imposed by the Legislature.
Special Assessment Policy & Financing of Projects
in 2009-2013 Streets Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
March 3, 2009, City Council Meeting
Page 2
2. General Obligation Capital Improvement Program Bonds: Several years ago, the Legislature
authorized cities to issue these bonds for a variety of public improvements that are identified in their
capital improvement programs. However, using these bonds is subject to a reverse referendum.
Within 30 days after taking action to use this bond financing, if a number equivalent to at least five
percent of the voters in the last general election submit a petition calling for a referendum, then one
must be held. Capital improvement bonds are currently outside of any levy limits established by the
Legislature, but must not exceed 0.16 percent of the taxable market value of all property in the City.
3, General Obligation Improvement Bonds (Using Special Assessments): Chapter 429 of Minnesota
Statutes allows cities to issue general obligation ("G,O", meaning backed by the full faith and credit of
the City,) improvement bonds provided that at least 20 percent of the revenues for the bond issue
come from special assessments. By State law, the special assessment levied on a property may not
exceed the benefit(i.e., increase in market value)to the property resulting from the improvement.
Special assessments acknowledge that there are general public as well as private benefits from public
improvements. These bonds have not been subject to levy limits established by the Legislature.
For the improvements described in (2) and (3) above, the benefit of debt financing comes from being able to
plan for more constant and affordable levels of funding from year to year. Depending on one's point of view, it
also addresses the matter of generational equity.
Varying Percentages for Assessments: Updated information from Ehlers, Inc., illustrates the tax impact of the
2009-2013 Street CIP for$300,000- $700,000 residential properties, given the cost estimates for the projects
in the CIP. They show the resulting tax from special assessment revenue from 20 to 40 percent of project
costs, in five percent increments. The difference on the taxes for an individual property whether 20 or 40
percent is assessed amounts to only a few dollars per year. However, the amount assessed to a property
would vary significantly more, from $1,400 to $2,100 in 2009, for example.
Fixed Unit Assessments: The City has preferred to use the per-unit approach to special assessments. The
cost per unit can be spread based on the percentage chosen to be assessed. This can be done for each
improvement project, or based on the costs of all the projects to be done over a year or more, For example,
the Council might set the unit assessment at$1,600 for one year, raise it to $1,700 in a subsequent year, etc.
This approach would provide some consistency and predictability for property owners from year to year. The
rate would need to be set to assure that at least 20 percent of revenue for the improvement bonds would come
from special assessments.
Differentiation Based on Type of Improvement: There are at least two types of street improvements that the
Council may wish to address differently.
1) Major streets vs. minor streets: Major streets are designed to carry more traffic than minor, residential
streets. These streets will cost more to build, and may require more frequent improvements like
overlays. This raises an issue of fairness for the owners of properties on major streets compared to
those owning property on residential streets. it is common among cities to identify a standard for a
residential street, and to apply and cost for that street as the basis for assessments on properties
along major streets. The City's policy is silent about this matter.
2) Reconstruction vs. Rehabilitation/Overlay: The City's policy states that the Council may establish a
rate for each type of improvement. In practice, the City has treated each type of improvement the
same in terms of the level of assessments. There may be greater benefit for properties from
(re)constructing a street compared to an overlay. The Council may want to consider whether different
percentages of costs should be assessed based on the type of street improvement.
Special Assessment Policy & Financing of Projects
in 2009-2013 Streets Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
March 3, 2009, City Council Meeting
Page 3
Suggested Updates and Revisions to Current Policy: As staff has reviewed the existing policy, we have
identified several items that should be considered for revision.
• The policy is a bit cumbersome as the statutory process is often repeated under each type of
improvement. It could be reorganized with the process stated once toward the beginning of the policy
• The January 1 date by which petitions must be received should be removed. It really has no practical
effect on the likelihood of constructing an improvement the following year.
• In Section II (page 2), the unit-basis for assessments on Agricultural and Rural Residential Property is
addressed. Such properties that have not been subdivided will be assessed one unit per dwelling on
the property. If such a property is subdivided after the improvement is completed, but before the
greater of the period of assessment or eight years, the property will pay for the total number of new
lots based on the original assessment. It is unclear whether interest is to be charged.
To make special assessments collectible, this approach should be identified as something to be done
by deferred assessment. The deferred amount would likely be calculated based upon the number of
units that could be created given current zoning. The Council could consider capping the interest that
would accrue, as well as whether the deferral should sunset (in which case the City would be at risk to
cover the amount of the deferred assessment).
• The City Attorney has provided several comments for consideration (see attachment).
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council (1) determine the basis for any special
assessments to be used for projects in 2009 (i.e., a percentage of costs, or a fixed dollar amount); and (2)
identify and direct staff to prepare any modifications the Council wishes to make to the City's policy.
SUGGESTED MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION:
Move to set the special assessments to be used for 2009 street projects and to direct staff to prepare
modifications to the City's Public Improvement and Assessment Policy per Council discussion.
ATTACHMENTS:
City's Public Improvement and Assessment Policy
City's Attorney's memorandum of February 26, 2009
Revised Charts and Tables from Ehlers, Inc. (four pages)
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
• Introduction Craig Dawson
Report by staff or other presenter Craig Dawson, Jack Griffin,
Dave Callister
• Questions from City Council members to the presenter facilitated by Mayor
• Questions/comments from the public to the City Council facilitated by Mayor
• Action on motion City Council
City of Lake Elmo
Public Improvement and Assessment Policy
Page 1
City of Lake Elmo
Public Improvement and Assessment Policy
L INTRODUCTION
It has been and will continue to be,the policy of the City Council that when public improvements
are made which are of special benefit to certain areas,special assessments will be levied for the
benefits received. The procedures used by the City are those specified by Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 429,which provide that all, or a part of the cost of the improvements,may be assessed
against benefiting properties in accordance with the benefits received. The statute,However,
does not provide a guide as to how these benefits are measured or how the costs are to be
apportioned. The purpose of this general policy is to establish a consistent standard for the
apportionment of special assessments.
II. TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS
This policy shall relate to those public improvements allowable under Minnesota Statute 429.
Generally, the improvements include: street and street lighting improvements; sanitary and
water utility improvements; sanitary and water utility uprovements; storm sewer and drainage
improvements; and bikeway/ped/way improvements.
This policy outlines how new construction, reconstruction, and major maintenance shall be
financed under each type of project.
Project costs shall include: the construction costs; engineering, testing; permitting; legal;
administrative; land or easement acquisition; fiscal; capitalized interest; data processing and
publications fees.
III. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT METHODS
Benefiting properties generally are assessed by one or a combination of four(4)methods; front
footage; area; unit and benefit appraisal. Generally,the nature of an improvement lends itself to
a particular method. The four(4)methods are described as follows:
A. Frontage Method: Frontage is measured at the building setback line. Assessments
are determined by multiplying the frontage by the Council-established rate..
B. Area Method: Assessments are determined by multiplying the net developable area
(gross area less wetland area)by the Council-established assessment rate.
C. Unit Method: Assessments are determined by multiplying the particular land unit by
the Council established assessment rate, for each particular zoning category.
1
Adopted by the City Council on 5-21-95
}
City of Lake Elmo
Public Improvement and Assessment Policy
Page 2
D. Benefit Appraisal Method: Assessments are determined by assigning the increase
in value to a property as determined by the appraisal.
Corner Lots: Comer lots are included in the benefiting area with the exception of single/two
family dwellings. If the improvements are along the front lot line of a singleltwa family
dwelling, the parcel shall be included in the benefiting area with each unit assessed separately. If
the improvements are along the side lot line of a single/two family dwelling,the parcel shall not
be included in the benefiting area, unless the lot can be subdivided. I14or the purpose of this
Assessment Policy,the front lot line is defined as the side of the lot which abuts the street upon
which the property is addressed.
Recreational Lots: Recreational lots without a primary living structure, but used for
recreational purposes, and not combined with the owner's lot with a primary structure shall be
included in the benefiting area.and assessed at one--half(1/2) of the rate for a non-recreational lot
within the same project.
Agricultural and Rural Residential Property: Property zoned Agricultural or Rural
Residential that has not been subdivided will be assessed as one unit for each dwelling on the
property, If the property is subdivided after the completion of said improvement, but before the
expiration of the assessment period or eight years, whichever is the greater,then the property
will pay a total contribution equivalent to the total number of subdivided lots based on the
original assessment without interest. (or with interest.)
Cul de Sacs?: Property located on a cul-de-sac will be assessed the same as that of the street
providing access to the cul-de-sac. This policy shall apply regardless of the cul-de-sac being
included in the street improvement.
Iv, U"ROV ENENTS
A. Roadway and Street Lighting Improvements
1. Petitions for roadway and street lighting projects shall be filed and accepted by the
Council prior to January 1 of the year of construction. The Council may authorize
accepting a petition after January by special consent.
2. Projects may be initiated by petition of at least thirty-five percent(35%) of the
property owners measured in area and/or frontage, and requires a majority vote of
the City Council.
z Amended by the City Council on 8-21-01
2
Adopted by the City Council on 5-21-96
City of Lake Elmo
Public Improvement and Assessment,Policy
Page 3
3. Projects may be initiated by the City Council in absence of an adequate petition
and requires a four-fifths(4/5) majority vote of the City Council.
4. Street light petitioned projects shall be uniformly spread to the benefiting
properties,
B. Reconstruction
1. Petitions for roadway projects shall be filed and accepted by the Council prior to
January 1 of the year of construction. The Council may authorize accepting a
petition after January 1 by special consent,
2. The scope of project shall be determined by traffic volumes, and reason for
pavement deterioration.
3. Abutting property owners, and property obtaininlZ access to a cul-de-sac from
the street subject to imnrovement3 shall be assessed based on zoning category.
The Council will set the appropriate rate for each zoning category.
4. The assessment rate with a zoning category shall be equal throughout the
community, independent of project scope.
5. The City will assess it share of County Road projects to properties along County
roadways in the same manner as City streets.
6. The City participation in projects will be the difference between the project cost
and the amount to be assessed, The City's share may include: Municipal State
Aids(MSA)on MSA routes,Grants, Capital Improvement Funds, or a Citywide
Improvement Utility.
7. Streetlights may be installed as part of a roadway reconstruction project if sixty
percent(60%) of the neighborhood signs a petition requesting the installation.
The installation costs will be financed as part of the reconstruction project.
C. Major Maintenance
1. Overlays to postpone the reconstruction of a roadway shall be assessed to the
abutting property owners based on zoning category. The Council will set the
appropriate rates for each zoning category.
2. Sealcoating shall not require abutting property participation,
'Amended by the City Council on 5-21-01
3
Adopted by the City Council on 5-21-96
City of Lake EImo
Public Improvement and Assessment Policy
Page 4
3. The City's share of project costs shall be determined by deducting the assessable
costs from the project costs, The City's share may be financed with MSA, Capital
Improvement funds,Maintenance Funds, or funds acquired thorough a Citywide
Improvement Utility,
D. Bikeway/Pedway Improvements
I. The City may install bikeway/pedways according to the Comprehensive
bikeway/pedway plan for the community. The bikeway/pedways should be an
eight(8) foot wide asphalt surface'if separated from the roadway surface a
minimum of four(4)feet.
2. Bikeways/Pedways may be financed as part of a roadway reconstruction
assessment; park dedication fees; MSA, Capital Improvement funds, or funds
acquired through a Citywide Improvement Utility,
3. The City will repair and remove snom,from all bikeway/pedways.
E. Street Lirght Improvements
1. Streetlights may be included as part of reconstruction and overlay projects if sixty
percent(60%)of the property owners petition for the installation.
2. Streetlights installed as part of reconstruction or overlay projects shall be financed
as part of the assessed roadway proj ect.
F. Utility Improvements (New Construction)
1. Petitions for utility projects shall be filed and accepted by the Council prior to
January 1 of the year of construction.. The Council may authorize accepting a.
petition after January 1 by special consent.
2, Projects may be initiated by petition of at least thirty-five percent(35%) of the
property owners measured in area and/or frontage, and requires a majority vote of
the City Council,
3. Projects may be initiated by the City Council in absence of an adequate petition
and requires a four-fifths (4/5)majority vote of the City Council.
4. The City's share may be financed with Water/Sewer Access Charge funds
(WAC/SAC).
4
Adopted by the City Council on 5-21-96
City of Lake Elmo
Public Improvement and Assessment Policy
Page 5
G. Utility Improvements (Reconstruction and Major Maintenance)
1. The replacement of water mains,sanitary sewer mains and service lines within the
right-of-way shall be financed out of the Utility Reserve Fund.
2. The property owner shall pay for the replacement of services on private property,
3. Roadway reconstruction and major maintenance projects accelerated because of
utility replacement projects shall be financed through the Utility Reserve Fund in
proportion to the remaining design life of the street.
H. Storm Sewer Projects(New Construction)
I. Petitions for storm sewer projects shall be filed and accepted by the Council
before January 1 of the year of construction. The Council may authorize
accepting a petition after January 1 by special consent.
2. Projects may be initiated by petition of at least thirty-five percent(35%) of the
property owners measured in area and/or frontage, and requires a majority vote of
the City Council.
3. Projects may be initiated by the City Council in absence of an adequate petition
and requires a four-fifths (4/5)majority vote of the City Council.
4. Projects initiated by property owners shall have their participation determined by
land use, contributing area and rate of runoff. Project assessments shall be
deten-nined by multiplying the accessible area by the Council-established
assessment rate taking into account laud use and rate of runoff.
I. Storm Sewer Projects (Reconstruction and Major Maintenance)
1, Storm Sewer Projects shall be incorporated and considered as part of roadway
reconstruction and major maintenance projects, and assessed as part of the project.
V. ASSESSME'NT PERIODS DETERN NED BY TYPE OF PROJECT
New construction projects may be assessed over a five(5)year period, with the exception of
street lighting,which shall be limited to three (3)years.
* Reconstruction projects may be assessed over a ten (10) year period.
* Trunk water and sewer facilities maybe assessed over a twenty (20) year period,
* Overlay projects may be assessed over a five(5)year period.
5
Adopted by the City Council on 5-21-96
City of Lake Elmo
Public Improvement and Assessment Policy
Page 6
V1. HARDSHIP DEFERRALS FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
The City Council will consider a deferment for the payment of special assessments on any
homestead property, owned by a person 65 years of age or older or retired by virtue of permanent
and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments.
A hardship shall.be deemed to exist when the annual principle installment of all assessments
levied against the property exceeds two percent(21/o) of the adjusted gross income of the
applicant as evidenced by the applicant's most recent federal income tax return, and total assets
(excluding the homestead property)do not exceed six times the.adjusted gross income.
The City Council may also determine, on a case by case basis,the existence of a hardship on the
basis of exceptional and unusual circumstances not covered by these standards and guidelines, if
done in a non-discriminatory manner and without giving the applicant an unreasonable
preference or advantage over other properly owners.
All assessments will continue to bear interest on the unpaid principle balance at the rate
established on the original special assessment.
The deferment shall terminate and all principle and interest becomes due and payable upon the
occurrence of any of the following events,
1. The death of the owner when there is no spouse whom is eligible for deferment.
2. The sale,transfer or subdivision of the property or any part thereof.
3. The property should lose its homestead status.
4. The City Council should determine that the hardship no longer exists. A review of
the hardship will be conducted every three to five years.
6
Adopted by the Cite Council on 5-21-96
Warren E.Peterson � �i�1 V� Suite 800
Jerome P,Filla 1�-.1 55 East Fifth Street
Daniel Witt From Ft BERGMANI St.Pauli MN 1)291-1718
Glenn A.Bergman (651)facsimile
John Mlchael Miller (651)228.w.pf facsimile
Michael T.Oberle www.pfb pa.com
Steven H.Bruns'
Paul W.FahninR•
Sonia R.Ortiz
Amy K.L,Schmidt
Ben I.Rust
Jonathan R.Cuskey
Jared M.Goerlitz
(651)290-6907
ifilla(@pfb-pa.com
February 26, 2009
Craig Dawson
City Administrator
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Ave. North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Re: Special Assessment Policy
Craig:
At your request, I have reviewed the City's current Public Improvement and
Assessment Policy ("Policy"). It is my understanding that the City Council will be
reviewing and possibly amending portions of the Policy before it conducts hearings
on improvement projects proposed for 2009. 1 offer the following general comments
and recommendations:
1. All or a portion of the improvements listed in Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 429,021 can be specially assessed against benefiting
property.
2. The maximum special assessment is equal to the increase in a
property's market value resulting from the construction of the
improvement.
3. Cities adopt assessment policies primarily to ensure that, over time,
similarly situated properties are assessed in the same manner.
4. In regard to the City's current policy:
a. Section III (Assessment Methods) itemizes methods the City
uses to treat similar property equally. If a property owner
challenges the levy of a special assessment, a reviewing court
will determine whether the assessment method treats similar
property in an equal manner; and if, regardless of the
assessment method utilized, the assessment increases market
value by the amount of the special assessment,
'ALSO ADMITTQO IN WISCONSM
Craig Dawson
February 26, 2009
Page 2
b. The provisions in Section III (Agricultural and Rural Residential
Property) appear to have been adopted so that owners of large
parcels are not forced to subdivide in order to pay special
assessments. If the City intends to defer special assessments,
it should adopt a deferred special assessment roll and file it
with the county.
C. Various sections of the policy indicate that improvement
projects can be initiated by a petition of property owners or by
city council action. Public improvement projects constructed
pursuant to M.S. 429, can be approved by three (3) affirmative
votes of the city council when there has been a petition signed
by the owners of 35% of the frontage of the real property
abutting on streets named within the petition. Area is not a
criteria when determining the adequacy of a petition. if there
is no petition, four (4) affirmative city council votes are
necessary to approve an improvement project. After the project
is constructed, it only takes three (3) affirmative council votes
to levy assessments.
d. I don't know what assessing by zoning categories means and
this method of assessment is not identified in the first part of
Section III.
e. City Code Sections 50.17 and 51.025 relate to connection
charges for city water and waste treatment facilities. These
sections are based on the authority contained in M.S. 444,075
and indicate that the City can recapture improvement project
costs, which were not specially assessed by means of the
connection charge. This provision can only be applied to sewer
and water projects, but not street improvement projects.
f. I have not been able to establish, based on council minutes
that were given to me, when the current policy was adopted.
Therefore, when the city council completes its policy review,
would recommend that the entire policy be specifically adopted
by the city council as revised.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Very 1ruIv yours,
4r7eFHIla
JPF/jmt
City of Lake Elmo
Projected City Tax Impacts
Street Reconstruction Program
$300,000 Home (Inflated at 2%Annually)
i
80.00 XE ` ,`jk ',.
Pa� 3 � � �;,*�;��;,�iap�`�`�s��ii'��•'�#'�i r,�rF�,� � � �° E�� �
3.� �1 :.'�ytt-}�ihi�zf�
dk i
70,00
k P t ^t" ' a#s w a PIMP,
50.00 w t ; L'l
..�.
i rn 40.00 �
L 4 d 3 4a 1 bA'
30.00 M.
20.00
Lgl
Wua� 0{
' ,.v':.4ssc,:�•,rs,.,u rti Se�� ...,,x,�,,,..., !ka -.!
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
_------
-._� _._.... ...-._.............................
---... . { ...........
_ ....f 020°!Assessment 1 29.29 38.33 47.86 58.94 71.17 8Q.48
--...._........-------.__..._... ._................................--......__......_................................
®25%Assessment 29.29 37.70 47.23 58,31 7055 79.86 _....._
03Q°!o Assessment 2929 37.07 46.60 57.68 69.92 79.23
...._..... ..........._ .._...._................''' - _............ --...- _._....-......_.._._.._._..._.__................... - --- - __...._..._............................
_........................9............- --........
!■35°lo Assessment � 29_29 � 36.46 � 45.97 _ 57.05 69.29 75.60 ,
®40°l°Assessment ! 29.29 _35.g2 45.35 ._....__._._.-_ --1...__._._.._.._.__....._..-•--.._'--_.__--
T- —56.43 68.66 77.97
'
'
' —
/ City°, Lake Elmo
Projected City Tax Impacts |
i Street Reconstruction Program
| u50U,OoV Home (Inflated at2%Annually)
140.00
120-00
| |
�
� 00
| '
i
' uuuu �
| !
i .
ouoV /
/ @ (
/ _~ ~~ �
. i
|
� .
| ^ |
| �
. 111125%Assessment 82 15 48 .
�
' !
. !
59.99 76.31 95.40 lie. ' 133.02
_
/ | i
! �
�
__............-____—__—_- .
�
�
�
�
�
^
^
'
!
! CityofLaNe Ebnm
� Projected City Tax Impacts
| '
/ Sfma�* �mu�o�m� '
. |
� $700,008Hmmme(inflated at 2%Annwa@y) |
�
| |
' �
2r EllNfl
/
2 150-00 |
'
U) |
100.00 !
._
G
i
Nag |
' AK, !
' = np !
020%Assessment
i |
'
'
� 19 76
117.26
�
�
� | 73�4 / �
. _~' ' .~.~~
__- ...............
__
�
� |
�'------'----.......................................... — `- ............. __-�- ................ ---------------- .... _________ ................................... _i
Cash financing v debt financing
1 200 000 t L
S 7
as'x'4» Ri'.!=g.i8;�i9SKc..i�'v,�•' t£�_chn-xaw�ais t�,�y?�E `>{-:"Y�' Ras .:isP,.'., 'i ,x,t ix'�E kSR dh .tkz k iFli'}�y Gc z
g
f• g . r y + 14 :k: iaf i:!<rs hir
�:?a,: ^£iW ��q�,�S A .. t ns�>S�, � �;, � ✓x: �,l .s�'4 }rl �{li�� �#`�aky,C�. ����-. «sx.&�al e axr t
. ,, ', f+f!d,f„x,�'i .✓3f - Cn}tr- re tiro
.'a�&`$. ' { $ g1 $ t k 9 =�s �.p� i s( �a. § d:,.,.r�?ki 3z - X ° ;^y r :
1 000 000 _ y , >:sE-0ws " $f �' , �z r 'zy iN , 011
buj Sri
1 1 u w(pl 6 s q�q `t` � $ t k7 s v 9 ct y 9L r7" �{ 'w r$ 7 s y
����
.x ti;'p�E ^'.a -;.fig S" ';` x�t�` ,�.- � '���5`�'"
r'P 'se.. xt'2 a9itRfxa :° .$x4k��,'vsFuazB Cr# t v }rt
�q{ } K�. �=�# 1 sfi .ts5"k,, �,+9 rtpa
• E •` �" 6»" :i.; 2�' ! '�{ %'"g§P a� I3'$. �'` " `yy`dt.� tls'
• .. :, rt,�- a h t F � u-�� 1 i` rr.$��,�,z� E. E',��,
', ;�° ��mtR � p pp P.�, t�g`g n -{t x 3 i LL b* 'a3' �}. Eh,x�
i ......
� , p�tib' ��. }r. "1Y S'�kilo. 4 b' r'Nikih A� D
' �i.rva }e 'ga .i. n x a y; C t'
Tt
000 "a t'Sr i rv� kx^
�r - fz k
Lug
800S
,,$$a-�a�€nir j� f ,.{ airs � i�i; ;§Pa[,k}} 'rt„{.rs?rr r,'§r ^� 3,,,,,�x�° s°,*,i 7„7+ z� 7� �"r, r`4•'z` �-
P' {b7 *Ps
„ibi"Ppt'$` "..7! l,�ti i9{"E{:1.a k ra#iist xx43r+A{�` Fx3�'.i Tftk`}aj 5'$M X�[ 1 f x
,sn^s
a,# -�$ •r ; E tt9 ��Hi y', y tg''9 ry^$h_f{i,9 ,�1lr' es r 1' �`�'}.r 7�.Hs t rn ..ity�s'ytr s t y .
6 0 0 0 0 0 - _it k �i;ta#, t a.�'�'�L}r"hgg.*ia Pt� <� �H k(e � 3r�xsi�•.��'£ a 3«t$s ua nn�a�4i,R i s�xS"ti�� ling } l4 1 31 } eta
7 .i
RAM
.1i O9n'i°`
'i^tr
�p
-:.; ° �� ;a -`�:�-¢�i�:`t 6�¢�'ztrx!'�" t"�� i,�k'X 3S 1S$§4s.'.3..���..;BfieS r����yti r �#'rS�•# �i�""k�t�_�i•� a;h� £3E��M 3�� y
sd s
'iit a 9x
t f
bE �..k
1n?"'��gE!���+�x if�?x§�.}`"'B [_s �P tx r£sx�7}$,¢!x a>{�.:uns�g�xP"�h,,,:��2;-"�,'.,•$xXp�3q"�b'��$'�R-"'"$S 1 if�4 ! # i
'., ,Y ¢.
_
200 0 0 0
N
Y 4 -z f
VIVA
S x crs i$
t�j 4i pp+�V1,
f`Ai
#di'
3 1,,.i„�; it
rp �o rp rp
CITY OF
LAKE
ELMO
City of Lake Elmo 651/777-5510
3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, MN 55042
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Craig W. Dawson, Interim City Administrator
DATE: March 3, 2009
SUBJECT: Additional Information regarding Agenda Item 6
Councilmember DeLapp has prepared the attached materials, and requested that they be copied and
made available for the discussion of this agenda item at tonight's Council meeting.
��a printed on recycled paper
Lake Elmo Road Assessment Policy for Consideration, March 3, 2009.
The"Basic Road Design" for a City road, except for designated MSA and Trail routes,
will be defined as a 9 ton, 22 foot wide, paved surface,intended for two way traffic and
without a curb. One way roads will be assumed to be 11 feet wide.
The"Basic Road Design"for City designated Minnesota State Aid roads will be 9 ton,24
feet wide. One way road sections for MSA roads will be assumed as 16 feet wide,per
MnDot standards.
The"Basic Road Design"for City designated bike routes on the City Trail Plan, will be 9
ton, 26 feet wide.
Turn-arounds at the end of cul-de-sacs will be assumed as 16 feet wide because the sharp
turning radius precludes an 11 or 12 foot width for City emergency vehicles and buses.
City taxes will fund the total cost for all seal coating, and the cost for overlays, and
replacement of roads up to the cost required for "Basic Road Design",which in all cases
is the minimum needed for equal provision of City services and the providing the least
negative environmental impact.
Property owners will pay 100%for road overlay/replacement costs above the costs for
"Basic Road Design", This includes additional costs for wider roads,and the costs for
replacement of curbs. (It will be assumed that the costs for engineering,and contractor's
general conditions will be included as part of the costs for"Basic Road Design".)
1
I �
I
i
r
1�
I
I
r l
I
I
I
I
I
I I
1
I I
I
I I
I I
tl
ITT
I I
State Hwys — — — Cimarron Priv. St. Lake Elmo Streets
County Hwys City Thru Streets
Oak Park Hgts. St. City Insular Streets March 3, 2009
I
I Ir
I /1
( _ r
1 ,
1
I I
' I
I
1
' I
I 1
I
' I
I
I � 1
I
I
I
1 I
I
1
1
I
1
' I
1
I
I I
I IN
I �
City Thru Streets
Lake Elmo Thru Streets
March 3, 2009
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
,
I
1 �
I 1 11
' I C
I
i
i
I
t , I
Ii
' I
I
' I
I I
City Insular Streets Lake Elmo Insular Streets
March 3, 2009
City Council
Date: March 3, 2009
REGULAI
Item:
Motion
ITEM: Selection Process for City Attorney
SUBMITTED BY: Craig W. Dawson, Interim City Administrator
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: On February 17, the City Council received proposals from 11 firms
that responded to the City's Request for Proposal (RFP) for city attorney (civil legal) services. I provided a
rating guide for the Council to assist you as you reviewed the proposals. The Council decided to take the two
weeks between Council meetings to review the proposals, and to discuss at the March 3 meeting how it would
go about the process of selecting firms to interview.
The Council will need to decide how it will proceed with the next step(s) of the city attorney selection process.
The schedule anticipated in the RFP that firms would be interviewed during the week of March 9. The Council
will also need to set the date(s) for the interviews to be conducted.
SUGGESTED MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
(Move to proceed with the city attorney selection process per Council discussion.)
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
• Introduction Craig Dawson
• Report by staff or other presenter Craig Dawson
• Questions from City Council members to the presenter facilitated by Mayor
• Questionsicomments from the public to the City Council facilitated by Mayor
• Action on motion City Council
cirr 0r
-AKE
ELMil
�! City of Lake Elmo 651/7777-5510
MEMORANDUM 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, MN 55042
TO: City Council
FROM: Craig W. Dawson, Interim City Administrator
DATE: February 17, 2009
SUBJECT: City Attorney Proposals
When the door came down on the front counter last Friday afternoon,the City had received 11 proposals
from attorneys to civil legal services as the City's new City Attorney. Their proposals are non-
documents until the Council has appointed the new City Attorney: The firms submitting are:
1. Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd.
�2. Callies Law,PLLC
3. Campbell Knutson, PA
4. Eckberg,Lammers, Briggs, Wolff&Vierling, PLLP
5. Hoff, Barry.& Kozar, P.A.
6. Iverson Reuvers, LLC
7. Kelly &Lemmons, P.A.
8. Kennedy &Graven, Chartered
9.. Koll,Morrison, Charpentier & Hagstrom, PLLP
10. Malkerson Gilliland Martin, LLP
11. Meagher,&Geer, PLLP
The anticipated schedule related in the Request for Proposals (RFP) showed that the City Council would
be reviewing proposals through March 6, and the whole Council interviewing invited firms during the
week of March 9. Thus, it would be possible to appoint the City Attorney at the March 17 Council
meeting. The Council should discuss the process to be followed if it wishes to invite some,but not all,
of the firms to interview. This schedule can, of course,be adjusted as the Council deems appropriate,
but it would likely move the appointment date back to early April.
I would suggest that the Council individually review the proposals; use the attached form(or something
like it)to rate the firms and provide comments; and select two of its members to work with the city
administrator to determine which firms to invite to interview.
As with any selection process, it is challenging to be entirely objective; as councilmembers, you need to
exercise good judgment. I'm suggesting that the firms be rated as follows:
3—Definitely interview
2—Worth considering to interview
1 —Do not invite to interview
There will likely be a natural break-point which willmake it apparent which firms the Council believes
should be invited to interview. It's not necessarily necessary to set a fixed number of firms to consider.
Also,as with any professional services,the Council does not need to consider the firms' proposed fees
as the primary criterion in making its selection. The Council should be judging which firms offer the
best value in serving its interests. 4Mprinted on recycled paper