Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-17-15 City Council Meeting Packet NOTICE OF MEETING City Council Meeting Tuesday, November 17, 2015 7:00 P.M. City of Lake Elmo | 3800 Laverne Avenue North Agenda A. Call to Order • Parliamentarian Introduction B. Pledge of Allegiance A. Roll Call/Order of Business B. Approval of Agenda C. Accept Minutes 1. Approve November 4, 2015 Minutes D. Council Reports E. Presentations/Public Comments/Inquiries F. Finance Consent Agenda 2. Approve Payment of Disbursements 3. Accept Financial Report Dated October 31, 2015 4. Accept Building Report Dated October 31, 2015 5. Accept Assessors Report Dated October 31, 2015 6. Approve Eagle Point Blvd. Street Improvements Pay Request No. 3 7. Approve Special Assessment Payoff for Kleis Property G. Other Consent Agenda 8. Water Tower No. 4 – Approve Preliminary Design Recommendations 9. Downtown Phase 1 Improvements – Approve Design Revisions for Upper 33rd St. and Library Parking Lot H. Regular Agenda 10. Reconsider Hammes Plat Extension (Bloyer request) 11. Clarification of Manning Avenue Redesign and Funding Options (Fliflet/Lundgren request) 12. Search Firm for City Administrator 13. High Priority for Highway 5/County Road 14 (Fliflet request) I. Staff Reports and Announcements J. Adjourn Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible Manner While Preserving the City’s Open Space Character CITY OF LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 2015 A. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Pearson called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. PRESENT: Mayor Mike Pearson and Council Members Julie Fliflet, Anne Smith, Justin Bloyer, and Jill Lundgren. Staff present: Interim Administrator Schroeder, City Attorney Snyder, City Engineer Griffin, City Planner Wensman, and City Clerk Johnson. B. PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEW Susan Dunn was interviewed for a vacancy on the Planning Commission. Councilmember Bloyer, seconded by Councilmember Fliflet, moved TO APPOINT MAYOR DUNN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. C. PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Items 4, 7, 9 and 11 were removed from the Consent Agenda and Item 12 was moved to the beginning of the Regular Agenda. Councilmember Smith, seconded by Mayor Pearson, moved TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. E. ACCEPT MINUTES Minutes of the October 20, 2015 Regular Meeting were accepted as presented. COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Pearson: Thanked Washington County for hosting neighborhood meetings on the Olson Lake Road project, met with owner on 33rd Street regarding right of way concerns, met with Fields of St. Croix residents, announced the upcoming Meeting with the Mayor, noted that the ISD 622 election went well, and welcomed Stephen Wensman to the City staff. Councilmember Smith: Met with Ellie Hammes, met with Fields II residents regarding realignment of County Rd. 5, met with Focus Engineering and took calls from developers. Councilmember Fliflet: Met with residents regarding various issues, noted Kyle Klatt’s last day with the City and thanked him for his service, welcomed the new City Planner and thanked Ben Gozola for his high quality work during the transition period. Councilmember Bloyer: Received a lot of emails from Fields II residents, met with League of Minnesota Cities with Councilmember Fliflet. Councilmember Lundgren: Met with Fields II residents, thanked staff for meeting with Councilmembers prior to the Council meeting to answer questions and welcomed City Planner Wensman. PUBLIC COMMENTS/INQUIRIES Mike Reeves, 11075 14th Street North, commented on City Council effectiveness and interaction with each other, and censure of Councilmember Bloyer. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 2015 Page 2 of 7 Christine Nelson commented on her application to serve on the HR Committee and comments made concerning her experience. PRESENTATIONS None FINANCE CONSENT AGENDA 2. Approve Payment of Disbursements 3. Approve 404 Lake Elmo Avenue Assessment Agreement 5. Wildflower at Lake Elmo – Approve Release of Grading Security per the Site Grading Agreement 6. Eagle Point Boulevard Street Improvements – Change Order No. 2 Councilmember Bloyer, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO APPROVE THE FINANCE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. OTHER CONSENT AGENDA 8. Receive Building Department Report 10. Motion to Request Being Added to the County CIP for 2017 Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO APPROVE THE OTHER CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ITEM 12: 2016 STREET IMPROVEMENTS – IMPROVEMENT HEARING, ORDER PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICAITONS AND PUBLIC HEARING City Engineer Griffin provided an introduction of the history of the project and planning. City Engineer Stempski reviewed the project schedule for each of the three portions of the project, providing details on the improvements proposed for each area. Stempski also reviewed the assessable properties and the costs for each neighborhood with the City share and per unit assessment rate for the proposed street project and optional water project. Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Bloyer, moved TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:00 P.M. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. Curt Monteith, 331 Julep, requested clarification on the project area and suggested squaring off the parking area at the park. Wayne Hector, 5110 Kirkwood, provided a written statement in favor of the project. David Loos, 3567 Kelvin, spoke in favor of the water main improvement due to pollution from the landfill and plume, adding he is not in favor of the road project unless the water portion is included. Dick Hedquist, 3440 Kelvin, questioned the expense for the water connection and additional cost for looping. Bill Rogers, 3490 Kelvin, spoke against the water project and stated the road project should be paid from tax dollars due to City neglect in maintaining the road. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 2015 Page 3 of 7 Joe Chaves, 3505 Kelvin, stated that street maintenance has been lacking. Allen Kristenson, 5230 Kirkwood, spoke in favor of the project. Councilmember Bloyer, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:22 P.M. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. Discussion was held concerning the water utility portion of the project and funding options. City Engineer Griffin reviewed the 2030 Comprehensive Water System Plan as it relates to the Kelvin project. Councilmember Bloyer, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO AMEND RESOLUTION 2015- 82 TO INCLUDE STONGATE AND KIRKWOOD AREAS AND REMOVE THE KELVIN AVENUE AREA FROM THE PROJECT. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. Discussion held concerning the Kelvin Avenue area of the project. Citizen input was considered and allowing payment on the water connection as was done with the Keats Avenue project was discussed. Councilmember Fliflet stated that the road is not well traveled and the project could be postponed. Councilmember Lundgren, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO ADOPT 2015-82 ORDERING THE 2016 STREET, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS AND THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AS AMENDED, WITH REMOVAL OF THE 6” WATER MAIN LATERAL TO THE EAST, AND TO AMEND THE WATER LATERAL ASSESSMENT TO $2,900 WITH AN ADDITIONAL $2,900 DEFERRED TO THE TIME OF CONNECTION. MOTION PASSED 3 – 2. (Bloyer, Fliflet – Nay) Councilmember Bloyer stated he was opposed to the motion due to the $12,000 assessment on the north portion of the project. City Engineer Griffin reviewed the bids received for engineering design and support services. Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACT WITH SEH AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. ITEM 4: APPROVAL FOR GASB 67 & 68 VALUATION ACTUARIAL SERVICES CONTRACT Councilmember Fliflet reported that it is a new requirement to approve actuarial review on an annual basis. Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT FOR ACTUARIAL SERVICES AND ACCEPT AS AN ANNUAL POLICY NOT REQUIRING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL EACH YEAR. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. ITEM 7: RETAINING WALL FOR LIONS PARK Interim Administrator Schroeder explained the need for a retaining wall in Lions Park needed to support the trail as a result of a change in grade with the downtown project. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 2015 Page 4 of 7 Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO APPROVE THE RETAINING WALL CHANGE ORDER FOR LIONS PARK. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. ITEM 9: APPROVE MASSAGE LICENSE RENEWALS Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Fliflet, moved TO APPROVE THE LICENSE RENEWAL FOR RENEW AND RECOVER MASSAGE. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO TABLE THE LICENSE RENEWAL FOR NIRVANA MASSAGE & SPA. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. Councilmember Lundgren, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO APPROVE THE LICENSE RENEWALS FOR BODY & SOUL AND JENNIFER MERTES. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. ITEM 11: REASSIGNMENT OF INWOOD DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS Interim Administrator Schroeder reported that M/I Homes is acquiring the assets of Hans Hagen Homes. Schroeder explained that Hans Hagen Homes will continue to construct the homes and there will be no design changes. Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Lundgren, moved TO REASSIGN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS FROM HANS HAGEN HOMES TO M/I HOMES, LLC. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. ITEM 13: HAMMES PLAT EXTENSION Interim Administrator Schroeder reviewed the request for an extension of the plat approved in 2014. Councilmember Fliflet requested clarification on how the moratorium affects this request. City Attorney Snyder stated that the moratorium does not apply to previously approved plats. Discussion held concerning outstanding special assessments and property taxes. Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Bloyer, moved TO EXTEND THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR TWO YEARS THROUGH OCTOBER 7, 2016 WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BE PAID AT PLAT, AND THAT THE DEVELOPER’S AGREEMENT BE EXECUTED BY A DEVELOPER AS A CONDITION OF RECORDING THE PLAT. MOTION PASSED 3 – 2. (Fliflet, Lundgren – Nay) Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved THAT ASSESSMENT ARREARAGES AND BALANCE BE PAID WHEN OTHERWISE DUE UNDER THE CONTRACT. MOTION PASSED 3 – 0 – 2. (Fliflet, Lundgren – abstain) ITEM 14: RFP REQUEST FROM PARKS COMMISSION FOR BALLPARK REDESIGN LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 2015 Page 5 of 7 Parks Commission Chair Weis explained the scope of the RFP request and presented photos of ball parks in other Minnesota cities. Weis explained that the Parks Commission has placed Lions Park on the Parks Commission CIP and has incurred significant cost for repairs, prompting the need for further planning. Curt Monteith, 331 Julep, asked for denial of the request and stated that future parks should include long space, not just tot lots. Barry Weeks, 3647 Lake Elmo Avenue, stated that the ball field is a tradition in the area and is heavily used. Pam Hartley, 10010 Tapestry, spoke as a Parks Commissioner, stating that the Commission was unanimous in its decision to move forward toward making Lions Park a focal point and asset for the community. Nadine Obermueller stated she loves Lions Park and baseball is great for the town but the park needs freshening up. Jerry Kromschroeder, 3517 Lake Elmo Avenue, stated that Lions Park is an icon and anything that can be done to improve it would be a good thing. Parks Chair Weis discussed a potential timeline for receiving plans and initiating a project. Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Bloyer, moved TO ISSUE AN RFP FOR ARCHITECTURAL WORK TO REDESIGN THE BALLFIELDS IN THE HISTORIC DOWNTOWN. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. ITEM 15: BUILDING DEPARTMENT TRUCK Interim Administrator Schroeder reviewed bids received for two vehicle options under leasing and purchasing plans. Councilmember Lundgren stated that a leased vehicle would be cheaper for the City in the long run. Councilmember Fliflet stated she is in favor of leasing and allowing staff to turn in leased vehicles for new leased vehicles without City Council approval. Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Bloyer, moved TO PURCHASE A 2016 JEEP COMPASS WITH A LOAN FROM LAKE ELMO BANK AT 1.99%. MOTION PASSED 3 – 2. (Fliflet, Lundgren – Nay) ITEM 16: OP ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION Interim Administrator Schroeder reviewed the general requirements regarding density in the OP zoning district and questions concerning potential revisions. Councilmembers noted restrictions in the current code and potential for improving it. Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DIRECT THE OP ORDINANCE BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION BASED ON THE AREAS IDENTIFIED IN LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 2015 Page 6 of 7 ORDINANCE THAT WERE DISCUSSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION PASSED 3 – 1 – 1. (Bloyer – Nay, Pearson – Abstain) ITEM 17: PARLIAMENTARIAN DISCUSSION Councilmember Fliflet stated that she would like the Council to hire a parliamentarian to run the City Council meetings while the Council continues to work toward better relations. Discussion held concerning the current Council meeting procedures and decorum. Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Smith, moved TO DIRECT THE ADMINISTRATOR TO HIRE A PARLIAMENTARIAN OF HIS CHOICE FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION PASSED 3 – 1 – 1. (Bloyer – Nay, Pearson – Abstain) Dale Doerschner – 3150 Lake Elmo Avenue – questioned the cost and effectiveness of hiring a parliamentarian. ITEM 18: RFP PROCESS FOR ENGINEERING AND LEGAL CONTRACTS Councilmember Fliflet asked staff to look into the current contracts with City consultants to determine if the City needs to start an RFP process as part of year end planning. ITEM 19: INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR CONTRACT City Attorney Snyder stated that he prepared a letter to the Council and provided a copy of the Interim Administrator’s contract for Council review. Councilmember Bloyer suggested the City Attorney negotiate with the Interim Administrator for an extension to allow the City time to stabilize. Councilmember Fliflet stated the City needs to finish the process and conduct a search for a permanent Administrator but noted she is against using a search firm. Councilmember Smith stated she is in favor of using a search firm and offered to gather additional information for the next meeting. ITEM 20: PROFORMA UPDATE Interim Administrator Schroeder reported on follow up he conducted on questions from the previous Council meeting. Schroeder explained that the document is a very complex, interlinked spreadsheet with issues in calculations that occur after the year 2021. Schroeder reiterated his recommendation from the previous meeting for the City to purchase software from an outside vendor and hire a contractor to input the information to replace use of the spreadsheet. Wally Nelson, 4582 Lilac Lane, thanked staff for admitting errors in the spreadsheet and offered assistance to the Finance Director and Finance Committee Chair. STAFF REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Interim City Administrator Schroeder: Attended a library meeting, Washington County municipal water meeting, League of Minnesota Cities Meeting, met with developers, attended an in-service regarding livable communities. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 2015 Page 7 of 7 City Clerk Johnson: Reported that the ISD 622 special election went very smoothly with a 25% voter turnout, and thanked City staff and election judges for their help. Attended an HR training last week, preparing for HR Committee meeting Monday, November 9th, posted Community Development Director position opening, interviewing candidates for the Office Administrative Assistant position later in the week, working on license renewals and assisting residents with special assessment questions. Noted City Hall will be closed on Wednesday, November 11th in observance of Veteran’s Day. Meeting adjourned at 12:26 a.m. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ATTEST: ______________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor _______________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: November 17, 2015 CONSENT ITEM #2 MOTION AGENDA ITEM: Approve Disbursements in the amount of $698,524.57 SUBMITTED BY: Patty Baker, Accountant THROUGH: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director REVIEWED BY: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item .............................................................. City Administrator - Report/Presentation…………………………………………City Administrator - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council - Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Finance FISCAL IMPACT: $698,524.57 SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is asked to approve disbursements in the amount of $698,524.57. No specific motion is needed as this is recommended to be part of the Consent Agenda. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: NA City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 2] November 17, 2015 -- page 2 -- BACKGROUND INFORMATION/STAFF REPORT: The City of Lake Elmo has the fiduciary responsibility to conduct normal business operations. Below is a summary of current claims to be disbursed and paid in accordance with State law and City policies and procedures. Claim # Amount Description ACH $ 17,868.45 Payroll Taxes to IRS & MN Dept of Revenue 11/12/15 ACH $ 6,472.82 Payroll Retirement to PERA 11/12/15 DD6754-DD6803 $ 46,407.53 Payroll Dated (Direct Deposits) 11/12/15 43570-43636 $ 627,775.77 Accounts Payable 11/17/15 TOTAL $ 698,524.57 RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the staff recommends the City Council approve as part of the Consent Agenda the aforementioned disbursements in the amount of $698,524.57. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Accounts Payable – check registers MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: November 17, 2015 CONSENT ITEM #3 MOTION AGENDA ITEM: October 2015 Financial Reporting SUBMITTED BY: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director THROUGH: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director REVIEWED BY: Finance Committee SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item .............................................................. City Administrator - Report/Presentation…………………………………………City Administrator - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council - Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Finance FISCAL IMPACT: NA SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is asked to accept the October 2015 Financial Reporting Packet. No specific motion is needed as this is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Consent Agenda. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Lake Elmo has fiduciary authority and responsibility to conduct normal business operations and report the financial (unaudited) statement to the City Council. City guidelines suggest the Council be updated on a regular basis. STAFF REPORT: Attached please find the comparative financial statements for the month of October 2015 reflecting the monthly and year to date detail, comparing the actual results to the 2015 Budget. City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item #3] November 17, 2015 -- page 2 -- GENERAL FUND: Revenues: Total revenue for the month was 124% above budget for the month bringing the year to date total revenue to 3.6% above budget. The most significant budget to actual revenue variances are as follows: • Building Permit revenue was 32.3% below budget for the month bringing the year to date to 22.4% below budget. In October there were 25 new home starts compared to the budgeted 11 new home starts per month. 13 of the 25 new home starts were in the Hans Hagen development. The year to date new home starts is at 113, of which 10 were open space new homes. The 2015 budget did not include any open space new homes. • The DNR trail grooming grant proceeds of $4.1k and the County 5 tree project grant proceeds of $18k were received in October. • Recycling grant proceeds were received in October. Expenses: Total expenses for the month were 13.9% below budget bringing the year to date expenses to 3.6% less than budget. This was primarily a result of the receipt of the supplemental State Fire Aid received in September. Although a pass through expense, it is still reported within the operating expenses. All departments continue to manage to the bottom line. The following summarizes variances of note: General: • Planning & Zoning – The developer escrow offset expenses for August and September were booked in October. • Engineering services continue to be below budget due to their primary focus in 2015 being on development activity for which their fees are 100% recoverable from the developer escrows. • Building Inspection – The new building inspector has been hired and contract services will no longer be utilized on a regular basis. • Public Works – The total Public Works expenses were 38.4% below budget for the month and 13.9% below budget year to date. In summary, year to date actual expenses continue to be less than budgeted and the net income through October is 49.8% better than budget. City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item #3] November 17, 2015 -- page 3 -- LIBRARY FUND: Revenues: Revenues on a year to date basis far exceeded budget as a result of recovering the delinquent rent from a prior tenant of $20.6k. The library will no longer be renting out space due to the continued collection expansion and the need for the space by the Library. Expenses: Expenses for the month of October were 55% below budget for the month. This was primarily due to spending less than anticipated on repairs and maintenance during the month. On a year to date basis the actual expenses are 28% below budget. On a net income basis, the year to date results are 90% better than budget primarily due to the previously mentioned collection of delinquent rent mentioned in prior months. The ending October cash balance in the library fund is $193.9k. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the staff recommends the City Council accept the attached October Financial Report. ATTACHMENT: 1. October Financial Reports MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: November 17, 2015 CONSENT ITEM #5 AGENDA ITEM: Monthly Assessor Report SUBMITTED BY: Dan Raboin, City Assessor THROUGH: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director REVIEWED BY: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item .............................................................. City Administrator - Report/Presentation…………………………………………City Administrator - Questions from Council to Staff .............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council - Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion ..................................................................... Mayor Facilitates SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is asked to accept the monthly assessor report for through October 2015 outlining work performed on behalf of the City of Lake Elmo. No specific motion is needed as this is recommended as part of the Consent Agenda. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Property splits/plats – 3 Sales collected and viewed – 6 Taxpayer inquiries – 7 Miscellaneous inquiries - 6 Inspections – Residential – 46; Commercial – 1 Building permit reviews – 33 Pictures taken – 48 Other work performed included: • Monthly meeting with County residential and commercial supervisors • Input of all inspection and permit work City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item #5] November 17, 2015 -- page 2 -- • Perform sales verifications and land value analysis using MLS and other resources • Field telephone inquiries RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the staff recommends the City Council accept the October 2015 monthly assessor report. MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: November 17, 2015 CONSENT ITEM # 6 AGENDA ITEM: Eagle Point Blvd Street and Utility Improvements – Pay Request No. 3 SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stempski, Project Engineer THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Cathy Bendel, Finance Director SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS if removed from the Consent Agenda): - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate………………………………….Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council - Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Partial payment is proposed in accordance with the Contract for the project. Payment remains within the authorized scope and budget. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving Pay Request No. 3 for the Eagle Point Boulevard Street and Utility Improvements project. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for the action is as follows: “Move to approve Pay Request No. 3 to Miller Excavating, Inc. in the amount of $322,264.98 for the Eagle Point Boulevard Street and Utility Improvements”. City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 6] November 17, 2015 -- page 2 -- LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Miller Excavating, Inc., the Contractor for the project, has submitted Partial Pay Estimate No. 3 in the amount of $322,264.98. The request has been reviewed and payment is recommended in the amount requested. In accordance with the contract documents, the City has retained 5% of the total work completed. The amount retained is $36,506.10. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council consider approving, as part of the Consent Agenda, Pay Request No. 3 for the Eagle Point Boulevard Street and Utility Improvements project. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for the action is as follows: “Move to approve Pay Request No. 3 to Miller Excavating, Inc. in the amount of $322,264.98 for the Eagle Point Boulevard Street and Utility Improvements”. ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Partial Pay Estimate No. 3 PARTIAL PAY ESTIMATE NO. 3 EAGLE POINT BLVD STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA PROJECT NO. 2015.120 QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT 1 LS 1.00 $29,900.00 $29,900.00 0.25 $7,475.00 0.75 $22,425.00 2 LS 1.00 $6,850.00 $6,850.00 0.25 $1,712.50 0.75 $5,137.50 3 LF 3,100.00 $2.00 $6,200.00 0.00 $0.00 1,550.00 $3,100.00 4 EA 17.00 $200.00 $3,400.00 9.00 $1,800.00 17.00 $3,400.00 5 EA 2.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 1.00 $1,000.00 2.00 $2,000.00 6 HR 20.00 $100.00 $2,000.00 0.00 $0.00 4.00 $400.00 7 SY 5,145.00 $10.50 $54,022.50 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 8 SY 2,575.00 $1.15 $2,961.25 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 $107,333.75 $11,987.50 $36,462.50 9 EA 2.00 $2,800.00 $5,600.00 0.00 $0.00 2.00 $5,600.00 10 LF 764.00 $33.60 $25,670.40 0.00 $0.00 764.00 $25,670.40 11 EA 3.00 $3,400.00 $10,200.00 0.00 $0.00 3.00 $10,200.00 12 LF 12.00 $240.00 $2,880.00 0.00 $0.00 12.00 $2,880.00 13 CY 42.00 $52.00 $2,184.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 14 CY 42.00 $68.00 $2,856.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 15 LF 764.00 $3.50 $2,674.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 $52,064.40 $0.00 $44,350.40 16 EA 1.00 $2,650.00 $2,650.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $2,650.00 17 EA 1.00 $1,990.00 $1,990.00 1.00 $1,990.00 1.00 $1,990.00 18 EA 2.00 $4,770.00 $9,540.00 0.00 $0.00 2.00 $9,540.00 19 EA 1.00 $4,990.00 $4,990.00 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $4,990.00 20 EA 1.00 $4,560.00 $4,560.00 1.00 $4,560.00 1.00 $4,560.00 21 LF 209.00 $108.00 $22,572.00 199.00 $21,492.00 230.00 $24,840.00 22 EA 2.00 $985.00 $1,970.00 1.00 $985.00 2.00 $1,970.00 23 EA 1.00 $1,560.00 $1,560.00 1.00 $1,560.00 1.00 $1,560.00 24 EA 1.00 $2,190.00 $2,190.00 1.00 $2,190.00 2.00 $4,380.00 25 EA 2.00 $1,380.00 $2,760.00 0.00 $0.00 2.00 $2,760.00 26 EA 1.00 $1,270.00 $1,270.00 2.00 $2,540.00 2.00 $2,540.00 27 SF 32.00 $10.00 $320.00 0.00 $0.00 32.00 $320.00 $56,372.00 $35,317.00 $62,100.00 28 EA 2.00 $400.00 $800.00 0.00 $0.00 2.00 $800.00 29 LF 65.00 $15.00 $975.00 0.00 $0.00 65.00 $975.00 30 EA 2.00 $890.00 $1,780.00 1.00 $890.00 2.00 $1,780.00 31 LF 117.00 $33.00 $3,861.00 78.00 $2,574.00 117.00 $3,861.00 32 LF 971.00 $34.50 $33,499.50 387.00 $13,351.50 971.00 $33,499.50 33 EA 3.00 $1,695.00 $5,085.00 2.00 $3,390.00 3.00 $5,085.00 34 EA 7.00 $2,665.00 $18,655.00 2.00 $5,330.00 7.00 $18,655.00 35 EA 2.00 $475.00 $950.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 36 SF 27.00 $36.00 $972.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 $66,577.50 $25,535.50 $64,655.50 37 EA 11.00 $60.00 $660.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 38 EA 1.00 $60.00 $60.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 39 LF 553.00 $3.00 $1,659.00 538.00 $1,614.00 538 $1,614.00 40 SY 266.00 $5.00 $1,330.00 266.00 $1,330.00 266 $1,330.00 41 SY 380.00 $6.00 $2,280.00 42.00 $252.00 42 $252.00 42 LF 7,036.00 $2.00 $14,072.00 3,510.00 $7,020.00 7,080 $14,160.00 43 LS 1.00 $214,450.00 $214,450.00 0.52 $111,514.00 1.00 $214,450.00 44 CY 12,000.00 $11.95 $143,400.00 6,240.00 $74,568.00 12,000 $143,400.00 45 SY 2,700.00 $9.00 $24,300.00 118.00 $1,062.00 468 $4,212.00 46 RS 34.00 $150.00 $5,100.00 17.00 $2,550.00 34 $5,100.00 47 TN 9,850.00 $12.65 $124,602.50 3,382.00 $42,782.30 7,007 $88,638.55 48 TN 9.00 $80.00 $720.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 49 TN 1,825.00 $62.00 $113,150.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 DIVISION 5 ‐ STREETS SALVAGE POST AND SIGN REMOVE POST AND SIGN SAWCUT BITUMINOUS OR CONCRETE REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (DRIVEWAY) REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE CURB COMMON EXCAVATION SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) (P) SUBGRADE CORRECTION SUBGRADE PREPARATION REMOVE EXISTING STORM SEWER STRUCTURE CATCH BASIN/MANHOLE ‐ TYPE 406 RESET EXISTING CATCH BASIN CASTING REPAIR EXISTING CATCH BASIN CONCRETE REMOVE EXISTING STORM SEWER (ALL TYPES AND SIZES) CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER STRUCTURE STORM SEWER PIPE ‐ 12" RCP STORM SEWER PIPE ‐ 15" RCP CATCH BASIN ‐ TYPE 404 AGGREGATE TRAIL RESTORATION BITUMINOUS NON‐WEAR COURSE CLASS 6 AGGREGATE BASE SUBTOTAL ‐ DIVISION 4 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (DRIVEWAY) ITEM DESCRIPTION OF PAY ITEM UNIT CONTRACT AMOUNT THIS PERIOD TOTAL TO DATE DIVISION 1 ‐ GENERAL MOBILIZATION TRAFFIC CONTROL SILT FENCE INLET PROTECTION TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE STREET SWEEPING 6" TOPSOIL AND SOD HYDRAULIC MULCH (TEMPORARY) 16"X12" REDUCER MJ DUCTILE IRON COMPACT FITTING SANITARY SEWER PIPE ‐ 8" SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE ‐ TYPE 301 SUBTOTAL ‐ DIVISION 1 EXCESS MANHOLE DEPTH REMOVAL OF UNSTABLE FOUNDATION MATERIAL DIVISION 2 ‐ SANITARY SEWER CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE STABILIZING AGGREGATE BORROW TELEVISING 6" GATE VALVE & BOX SUBTOTAL ‐ DIVISION 2 DIVISION 3 ‐ WATERMAIN 16" BUTTERFLY VALVE & BOX 16"X45° BEND MJ DUCTILE IRON COMPACT FITTING 16"x16" TEE MJ DUCTILE IRON COMPACT FITTING CONNECT TO EXISITING WATERMAIN 12" GATE VALVE REMOVE AND REPLACE VALVE BOX HYDRANT  16"X6" REDUCER MJ DUCTILE IRON COMPACT FITTING 4" POLYSTYRENE INSULATION 16" DIP CL. 52 WATERMAIN SUBTOTAL ‐ DIVISION 3 DIVISION 4 ‐ STORM SEWER QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT ITEM DESCRIPTION OF PAY ITEM UNIT CONTRACT AMOUNT THIS PERIOD TOTAL TO DATE 50 TN 1,825.00 $62.00 $113,150.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 51 GA 842.00 $3.00 $2,526.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 52 LF 6,596.00 $12.00 $79,152.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 53 EA 4.00 $2,970.00 $11,880.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 54 SY 40.00 $55.00 $2,200.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 55 SY 295.00 $27.00 $7,965.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 56 LF 6,660.00 $9.00 $59,940.00 1,976.00 $17,784.00 4,273 $38,457.00 57 EA 50.00 $150.00 $7,500.00 15.00 $2,250.00 31 $4,650.00 58 EA 8.00 $400.00 $3,200.00 4.00 $1,600.00 8 $3,200.00 59 EA 6.00 $515.00 $3,090.00 4.00 $2,060.00 6 $3,090.00 60 EA 4.00 $600.00 $2,400.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 61 EA 18.00 $350.00 $6,300.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 62 SF 15.00 $45.00 $675.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 63 EA 2.00 $200.00 $400.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 64 LF 7,116.00 $0.53 $3,771.48 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 65 LF 1,524.00 $0.53 $807.72 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 66 LF 2,558.00 $0.53 $1,355.74 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 67 EA 2.00 $1,200.00 $2,400.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 68 LS 1.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 69 EA 10.00 $815.00 $8,150.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 $967,146.44 $266,386.30 $522,553.55 TOTALS ‐ BASE CONTRACT $1,249,494.09 $339,226.30 $730,121.95 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 CO1‐1 LF (2,850.00)$9.00 ‐$25,650.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 CO1‐2 EA (19.00)$150.00 ‐$2,850.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 TOTALS ‐ CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 ‐$28,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTALS ‐ REVISED CONTRACT $1,220,994.09 $339,226.30 $730,121.95 PAVEMENT MARKINGS ‐ POLY PREFORMED SUBTOTAL ‐ DIVISION 5 ADJUST MANHOLE CASTING ADJUST GATE VALVE BOX FURNISH SIGN PANEL INSTALL SIGN PANELS 4" SOLID LINE WHITE EPOXY 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW EPOXY 4" BROKEN LINE YELLOW EPOXY STOP BAR ‐ POLY PREFORMED TEMPORARY PAVEMENT STRIPING BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE PERFORATED PVC EDGE DRAIN DRAINTILE CLEANOUT PERFORATED PVC EDGE DRAIN DRAINTILE CLEANOUT DRAINTILE CONNECTION INTO CATCH BASIN PRECAST CONCRETE HEADWALL FOR DRAINTILE BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DRIVEWAY VALLEY GUTTER 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 11/17/15 CONSENT ITEM: #7 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Special Assessment Payoff – Kleis Family Trust SUBMITTED BY: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director THROUGH: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director REVIEWED BY: Peter Kastler, Kleis Family representative SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item ................................................................................ Finance Director - Report/Presentation ................................................................................ Finance Director - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................................ Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate ................................................................... Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion .............................................................................. Mayor & City Council - Discussion ...................................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion................................................................................... Mayor Facilitates FINANCIAL IMPACT: Special Assessment payoff of 6,879.55; $3,821.97 principal and $3,057.60 interest (10 years at 8% which was the rate charged on assessments for this project based on the bonding rate at that time). BACKGROUND AND STAFF REPORT: In 1995, the Kleis property (PID #03.029.21.24.0001) was part of a street overlay project which involved assessments to parcel owners. The assessment to their property was $3,821.97. These assessments were assessed over 10 years at a rate of 8%. Peter Kastler’s grandparents owned the property at that time and the property was, and still is, in the Green Acres program. Mr. Kastler recently purchased a portion of this property from his family and they were unaware of any outstanding special assessments on the parcel until a request to sub-divide the property was brought forward to the City Council on 10/6/15. The family firmly believes that had their grandparents been aware that the interest being charged was 8% until the special assessment is paid in full, and that it would be a lien on the parcel, they would have paid it off in full prior to assessment. The special assessments will need to be resolved in order for Mr. Kastler to move forward with the sub-division which was approved by the City Council on 10/6/15. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends accepting the payoff offer of $6,879.55 from Mr. Kastler/Kleis family to pay in full the outstanding special assessments related to the 1995 street overlay project. The amount offered is fair and reasonable. MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: November 17, 2015 REGULAR ITEM # 8 AGENDA ITEM: Inwood Water Tower (No. 4) – Preliminary Design Update SUBMITTED BY: Chad Isakson, Project Engineer THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item .................................................................................. City Engineer - Report/Presentation………………………………………… .................. City Engineer - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate………………………………….Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council - Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering. FISCAL IMPACT: None. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to receive an update on the preliminary design recommendations for the Inwood Water Tower (No. 4) and to provide input and direction as may be deemed appropriate. No formal action is required. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City retained an engineering design consultant (SEH) to complete a preliminary design evaluation for the Inwood Water Tower (No. 4), including recommendations for the storage volume requirements and to evaluate the capital and life cycle costs for the two most common elevated tank styles. The size of the water tower was evaluated based on current and projected water use in the high pressure zone water system and including its interaction with the south intermediate pressure zone near Keats and Hudson Boulevard. Water use projections were reviewed to determine the water demands on the system City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 8] November 17, 2015 -- page 2 -- including current and projected average day demand, maximum day demand, and peak hour demand. In addition, fire flow storage was evaluated for a fire event of 3 hours at 3,000 gallons per minute. Water tower size requirements were then calculated using guidelines and practices from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Manual of Water Supply Practices. This analysis confirmed the capital improvement program need to construct a 1.0 Million Gallon (MG) elevated water storage tank. The final design phase will further investigate the potential need for mixing systems to address the interim low water use condition until the high pressure zone is built out. At a size of 1.0 MG there are two cost effective elevated water tower styles that are typically constructed. The attachments provide a visual comparison of the two styles of tanks for reference. Style of Tank Capital Cost Lifecycle Cost (60 Year) Composite Style $2,400,000 $450,000 Fluted Steel Column Style $2,500,000 $1,000,000 The composite style tank matches Water Tower No. 2 near the Public Works building. With the lower anticipated capital cost and lower lifecycle cost it is the recommended style of tank. Composite style tanks have become more popular as the relative construction costs have equalized or become less than the Fluted Steel Column Tank and as tank repainting costs have significantly increased. Other composite tank highlights and advantages include: • One of the most common and most economical style tanks in the 1,000,000 gallon range. • A cost efficient, low maintenance and durable structure combining an efficient use of reinforced concrete for the support pedestal and welded steel for a watertight storage tank. • No coating system required for concrete shaft and thus less long-term maintenance (reduced surface area for painting). • Some believe it is an aesthetically pleasing design. Architectural Rustications highlight the concrete column. These rustications are placed vertically and horizontally at the edge of concrete forms to blend concrete appearance and hide construction joints. • Interior ladders and piping protects against weather and vandalism and easily allows for pipe insulation. With confirmation from the council regarding these two recommendations, the final design phase will proceed forward and will include meetings with Public Works and City Officials to consider how to best utilize the site and position the tower for potential future use by telecommunication companies. These additions and design considerations will be brought forward to Council in December or January for presentation and approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Final Design proceed forward for a 1.0 Million Gallon (MG) Composite Elevated Water Storage Tank. This tank would be similar in style to the existing City Water Tower No. 2 located at the Public Works facility. No formal action is required. ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Exhibit – Example Composite Elevated Storage Tanks. 2. Exhibit – Example Fluted Steel Column Elevated Storage Tanks. COMPOSITE ELEVATED STORAGE TANKS FLUTED STEEL COLUMN ELEVATED STORAGE TANKS MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: November 17, 2015 REGULAR ITEM #9 AGENDA ITEM: Phase 1 Downtown Street, Drainage, and Utility Improvements – Review Proposed Plan Revision for Upper 33rd Street and Proposed Library Parking Lot. SUBMITTED BY: Chad Isakson, Project Engineer THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Cathy Bendel, Finance Director Nate Deprey, Library Director SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item .................................................................................. City Engineer - Report/Presentation………………………………………… .................. City Engineer - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate………………………………….Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council - Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering. FISCAL IMPACT: 1) Upper 33rd Street Revisions – No Cost. The revised Upper 33rd Street plan includes striping alterations within the quantities already approved in the contract. 2) Library Parking Lot - $77,200. Staff was requested by the Library Board to provide a design and cost estimate to construct a paved parking lot east of the Library facility. The cost to design and construct the proposed parking lot is approximately $77,200 using the contractor’s unit prices for the Phase 1 Downtown Improvements. Funding for this expense would be 100% from the Library Fund. City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 9] November 17, 2015 -- page 2 -- SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving the proposed Upper 33rd Street striping revisions for the Phase 1 Downtown Street, Drainage, and Utility Improvements as requested by the property owner at 11320 Upper 33rd Street. The recommended motion for this action would be as follows: “Move to [approve or deny] the Upper 33rd Street striping revisions for the Phase 1 Downtown Street, Drainage, and Utility Improvements.” Furthermore, the City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving the proposed Library parking lot improvements as requested by the Library Board to be funded by the Library Fund. The recommended motion for this action would be as follows: “Move to [approve or deny] the Library parking lot improvements to be constructed in conjunction with the Phase 1 Downtown Street, Drainage, and Utility Improvements.” LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Lake Elmo was approached by the property owner located at 11320 Upper 33rd Street North to review shifting the new roadway constructed north away from his existing commercial building. Upon extensive staff review, property ownership and right-of-way verification, and the improvements previously approved by Council it was determined that it is not possible to shift the roadway further north. To address the property owner’s concerns, staff worked with the design engineer to propose a revised striping plan which would direct traffic further away from the building by repurposing the drive lane locations within the paved surfaces. By changing only the pavement striping the roadway improvements, including curb locations, were constructed as originally proposed. The impact of the proposed restriping plan is the elimination of 5 on-street public parking spaces. Staff received a request from the Library Board to consider constructing a parking lot on City owned property east of the Library building. A draft layout was prepared and presented to the Library Board for consideration. The cost of the improvements as provided by North Pine Aggregate (current contractor working in the Village) is estimated at $77,200. A decision to proceed with this work is needed by November 20, 2015 to retain this quoted price for the work. The library board will meet on November 18, 2015 to consider the improvements as presented. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving the proposed Upper 33rd Street striping revisions for the Phase 1 Downtown Street, Drainage, and Utility Improvements as requested by the property owner at 11320 Upper 33rd Street. The recommended motion for this action would be as follows: City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 9] November 17, 2015 -- page 3 -- “Move to [approve or deny] the Upper 33rd Street striping revisions for the Phase 1 Downtown Street, Drainage, and Utility Improvements.” Furthermore, the City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving the proposed Library parking lot improvements as requested by the Library Board to be funded by the Library Fund. The recommended motion for this action would be as follows: “Move to [approve or deny] the Library parking lot improvements to be constructed in conjunction with the Phase 1 Downtown Street, Drainage, and Utility Improvements.” ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Upper 33rd Street – Proposed Striping Plan Revision. 2. Proposed Library Parking Lot Layout. 11’ THRU 11’ THRU 11’ THRU 14’ 12’ THRU (TO F/C) 12’ THRU (TO F/C) 11’ THRU 40 SCALE IN FEET 1:30 PARKING SPACES 5 PUBLIC ROADWAY EDGE PRECONSTRUCTION ADJUST CURB LINE 10-27-15 LANE SHIFT UPPER 33RD STEPHEN D JOHNSON #11320 #11178 & VICKY REHAK JOHN LENZMEIER #3469 US POST OFFICE #3459 FLY SHOP BOB MITCHELL’S #3459 INSURANCE NATIONAL AMERICAN#3 47 9ARCH IT EC TU RE F INE L INE #3407SANDRA J EDERWILLIAM J &#3417 MARGARET BUILFOYLE JOHN W BAILLIE & ST CROIX COUNSELING CRAFTY CHICKS CHIROPRACTOR LAKE ELMO AUTO SALES PSYCHOLOGIST KLM ENGINEERING #3394 JOSHUA L TAYLOR BLDG #3481BLDG LLCCREAMERYLAKE ELMO #3481BLDG LLCCREAMERYLAKE ELMO UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD #3880 CITY OF LAKE ELMO 10/27/20152:18:02 PMS:\UZ\W\Washc\126774\5-final-dsgn\51-cadd\junk\F126774_cp1_33rdBumpout.dgnOF Exhibit 33Laverne no BumpoutFILE NO. WASHC126774 ST. PAUL, MN 55110 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR. PHONE: (651)490-2000 REQUIREDPARKINGVEHICLE IDUP TO $200 FINEFOR VIOLATIONVANACCESSIBLEREQUIREDPARKINGVEHICLE IDUP TO $200 FINEFOR VIOLATIONMB DOORDOORMH11/4/20151:38:29 PMS:\UZ\W\Washc\126774\5-final-dsgn\51-cadd\Misc_exhibits\Washc126774_ParkingLot.dgnOF DefaultFILE NO. WASHC126774 ST. PAUL, MN 55110 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR. PHONE: (651)490-200014’22’ B618 C&G 11-4-15 PARKING LOT LAYOUT LAKE ELMO PUBLIC LIBRARYLAVERNE AVE NPUBLIC LIBRARY LAKE ELMO 7670 SQ FTIMPERVIOUS: PROPOSED 6174 SQ FTIMPERVIOUS: EXISTING 11,800 SQ FTLOT SIZE: 20 SCALE IN FEET 10 10 WALK CONCRETE 8’ CONCRETE FLUME MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 11/17/15 REGULAR ITEM #: 10 MOTION AGENDA ITEM: Reconsideration of the Hammes Plat Extension SUBMITTED BY: Clark Schroeder THROUGH: Clark Schroeder REVIEWED BY: City Attorney Snyder, City Planners Gozola and Wensman and Finance Director Bendel SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item .................................................................................................... Staff - Report/Presentation .................................................................................................... Staff - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................................ Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate ................................................................... Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion .............................................................................. Mayor & City Council - Discussion ..................................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................................. Mayor Facilitates PUBLIC POLICY STATEMENT SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Councilmember Bloyer has requested a reconsideration of the extension of the Hammes Estate Plat. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Delayed/Lost revenue related to 163 units; General fund impact of approximately $100k per year, Utility fund access and connection fees of $1.2M, Utility fund usage revenue of $150k per year and parkland dedication fees of $107k. Risk related to recovery of utility fund special assessments of $580k. BACKGROUND AND STAFF REPORT: On October 7, 2014, the City Council approved the Hammes Estates final plat. At that same meeting, a draft developer agreement was proposed and approved as well. However, the developer agreement was never executed due to various issues. The issues which previously prevented the execution of the developer agreement and the plat from being recorded have since been mitigated. The broker and Mrs. Hammes were granted an extension to file the plat till October 7th 2016 on November 4th 2015 by city council. In consultation with Mr. Snyder on the question of reconsideration of the approved motion he states. “The council can reconsider any action at the next subsequent meeting. Or even after that. The motion to reconsider must be brought by somebody who voted in the affirmative. So, yes, it can be reconsidered. But,there is, however, the matter of what standards are to be applied in considering a reconsideration (must not be arbitrary, must not be capricious, must be fact-based) and the matter of whether intervening rights have accrued in the meantime (ie: whether the applicant has taken steps or materially changed its position after the first vote). Bottom line, absent a showing of materially changed circumstances, reconsideration can be raised, but a vote to effectuate it is likely not recommended”. In consultation with Ben Gozola on the initial question of whether to grant the extension he stated the following. Statute 462.358 Subd. 3c. Effect of subdivision approval. For one year following preliminary approval and for two years following final approval, unless the subdivider and the municipality agree otherwise, no amendment to a comprehensive plan or official control shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout, or dedication or platting required or permitted by the approved application. Thereafter, pursuant to its regulations, the municipality may extend the period by agreement with the subdivider and subject to all applicable performance conditions and requirements, or it may require submission of a new application unless substantial physical activity and investment has occurred in reasonable reliance on the approved application and the subdivider will suffer substantial financial damage as a consequence of a requirement to submit a new application. In connection with a subdivision involving planned and staged development, a municipality may by resolution or agreement grant the rights referred to herein for such periods of time longer than two years which it determines to be reasonable and appropriate. Nothing in this language says the applicant must have filed the approved plat or followed through with conditions, so even if the Council wishes to see something different happen on this land, it cannot compel such changes for approximately one more year. Put another way, if the Council elects to not approve the extension, the Hammes family can simply reapply for the subdivision through the preliminary and final plat process, and Council would have to approve the requests (it would be very difficult to arrive at findings for denial when the subdivision has already been approved under existing regulations). No one wins if the extension is not approved: the Hammes family would need to spend time and money to redo the process (which would then restart their two-year protection clock), staff would need to prepare for and oversee this item taking up valuable meeting time, and the public would be invited to public hearings for an item that essentially has a predetermined outcome. Accordingly, it is strongly recommended that Council approve this item on the consent agenda and grant the requested one-year extension to file the approved final plat. If the Hammes family does not act prior to the new deadline, then Council may be free to re-examine the comprehensive plan guidance and zoning for the site, and make changes to local controls as it sees fit. (End of Ben’s Comments) The question as to whether to rescind the approved extension should be weighed with the same consideration as granting the extension in the first place. Such decision should not be capricious nor arbitrary. Since there have been no intervening area-wide zoning changes, or big land-use changes, since the city council approved the plat and subsequently approved the extension there would have to some sort of material reason to withdraw the extension at this point in time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend rescinding the plat extension. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 11/17/15 REGULAR ITEM #: 11 MOTION AGENDA ITEM: Clarification of Manning Avenue Redesign and Funding Options SUBMITTED BY: Julie Fliflet and Jill Lundgren THROUGH: Clark Schroeder REVIEWED BY: Clark Schroeder SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item ........................................................................................ Staff - Report/Presentation ......................................................................................... Staff - Questions from Council to Staff ................................................ Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate ....................................................... Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion .................................................................. Mayor & City Council - Discussion .......................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion ....................................................................... Mayor Facilitates PUBLIC POLICY STATEMENT: Council seeks to clarify the proposed changes associated with the Manning Avenue redesign. BACKGROUND AND STAFF REPORT: Councilmembers have received questions from residents regarding the Washington County project to redesign Manning Avenue and would like to provide clarification on the design concept and aspects, specifically as it pertains to the building of the new city connection road. RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and provide direction to staff. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 11/17/15 REGULAR ITEM #: 12 MOTION AGENDA ITEM: Search firm for City Administrator SUBMITTED BY: Clark Schroeder THROUGH: Clark Schroeder REVIEWED BY: Clark Schroeder SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item .................................................................................................... Staff - Report/Presentation .................................................................................................... Staff - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................................ Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate ................................................................... Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion .............................................................................. Mayor & City Council - Discussion ..................................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................................. Mayor Facilitates BACKGROUND AND STAFF REPORT: The question has been raised as to whether or not to hire a search firm to vet/recruit the cities next administrator. According to Springsted, a search for Lake Elmo would run around 15 to 20 thousand dollars based on the scope of services. The firms could collect resumes, initial interviews, background check, negotiate contracts, recommend for hire, develop descriptions/scope of duties, establish compensation range, develop and execute recruitment and marketing strategy, or other duties which you wish to outsource. The city could develop a RFP for these services and have parties respond with a competitive bid. The city could contract with a search firm with a negotiated price. The city could search for a new candidate themselves making sure that the current interim administrator does not involve themselves in the selection process. Some firms which might be of interest to the city are as follows. Springsted Public Sector Advisors http://www.springsted.com/ Waters and Company, a Springsted Company http://waters-company.com/ ROO solutions http://www.roosolutions.net/ The Chandler Group http://www.roosolutions.net/ RECOMMENDATION: City Council should decide whether to utilize a search firm or not for their next administrator. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 11/17/15 REGULAR ITEM #: 13 MOTION AGENDA ITEM: High Priority for CSAH 15 SUBMITTED BY: Julie Fliflet THROUGH: Clark Schroeder REVIEWED BY: Clark Schroeder SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item .................................................................................................... Staff - Report/Presentation .................................................................................................... Staff - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................................ Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate ................................................................... Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion .............................................................................. Mayor & City Council - Discussion ..................................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................................. Mayor Facilitates PUBLIC POLICY STATEMENT POLICY BEING SET, REQUEST STOP LIGHT AT 50TH AND COUNTY ROAD 15 BACKGROUND AND STAFF REPORT: As part of its annual budget process, Washington County prepares a five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP includes the county’s tentative plans for roads, bridges, parks, land, trails, and public facilities. The first year of this plan will be included in the county’s 2016 budget. The County invites Cities to send comments to be considered when developing the final CIP. Those comments must be received by November 20 and a public hearing will also be held on December 15 prior to adopting the final document. During 2015, State Highway 5 that runs through Lake Elmo was turned over to Washington County so the County now controls the improvements to Hwy 5. Under the County’s control, the road is now called CSAH 14. At the May 19 City Council meeting Wayne Sandberg from Washington County spoke regarding the turnback of Hwy 5 to the County, and noted that the County would be looking to work with the city of Lake Elmo regarding improvements for this stretch of road. He also said during the meeting that a stoplight between the high school and the Manning Ave intersection was on the priority list for 2016, presumably that it would be at the intersection of Hwy 5 and 50th Street, or possibly at the Carriage Station entrance. In speaking with Wayne Sandberg and Frank Ticknor, it was confirmed that the number one comment and concern they hear regarding this stretch of road that has now been turned over to the county is the need for a stoplight at the 50th Street intersection. Since 50th Street is the only connecting road between Hwy 5 and Lake Elmo Avenue it is heavily traveled. It can be very difficult to turn onto Highway 5 at this intersection, especially during the busier times of the day. Traffic is highly affected by the traffic from the high school and rush hour traffic. It is not uncommon for it to take 5 minutes or longer for a car to make a left turn onto Hwy 5. There have been many accidents at this intersection, and in recent years three people were killed at this intersection. In speaking with the County staff, they have indicated that it is important for the City Council to make it known what their concerns are regarding this stretch of road that is now under the control of the County. The Council is being asked to pass a resolution in support of a traffic signal at the intersection of CSAH 15 and 50th Street, making it known that the Lake Elmo City Council would like this to be the number one priority as part of the transfer of Hwy 5 over to the County. This resolution can be submitted to the County during the comment period for their 2016 CIP. RECOMMENDATION: Resolution: The Lake Elmo City Council would like by matter of resolution to support a traffic signal at the intersection of new CSAH 15 and 50th Street and make it known that the city would like this to be the number one priority for the County for this stretch of roadway recently turned over to the County from the State of Minnesota previously known as State Highway 5.