Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07-05-2011 CCMP
City of Lake Elmo City Council Workshop 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 July 5, 2011 :30 p.m. — 6:30 p.m, (,) Proposed Agenda* Agenda 1. 2012 Budget: Establishing Calendar Approach, and Preparation 2. Library Update Discussion 3. Adjourn **A social gathering 171(0.' 01' MC11' not be held at the Lake Elmo 11117 following the meeting.** Future Workshop Ideas: Establishing an EDA — July 19 Solid Waste Collection Home Occupation Ordinance Environmental Issues — Council Member Emmons Handling of Special Activities and Events — Mayor Johnston Highway 36 Corridor Joint Discussion with Oak Park Heights City Council & 4`h Tuesday) City of Lake Elmo 2012 Property Tax Levy Scenarios Summary Scenario A: Maintain 2011 tax capacity rate for 2012 Scenario B: Maintain 2011 total property tax levy for 2012 Scenario CI Maintain 2011 total General Fund property tax levy for 2012 Scenario D: Adjust property tax levy for General Fund CPI increase Property Tax Information: Estimated Market Value & Tax Capacity Change General Fund Levy % Change Debt Service Levies % Change Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario A B C D Actual Flypothetical Hypothetical Hypothetical Hypothetical Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 N/A -7,4% -7.4% -7.4% 2,484,903 2,178,088 2,379,523 2,484,903 2,595,833 N/A -12.3% -4.2% 0.0% 4.5% 304,656 410,036 410,036 410,036 410,036 N/A 34. 6°/0 34.6% 34.6% 34.6% Total Levy 2,789,559 2,588,124 2,789,559 2,894,939 3,005,869 % Change N/A -7,2% 0.0% 3.6% 7.8% City Local Tax Capacity Rate % Change Estimated Prooertv Taxes: $300,000 Home With No Market Value Change % Change $300,000 Home With 7.4% Market Value Decrease % Change General Fund Budnet: Expenditures and Transfers Out: Total 2011 Budget 2012 Increase due to Preliminary CPI: 21,832% 21.832% 23,660% 24.616% 25,622% NIA 0.0% 6.4% 12.8% 17.4% 655 655 710 738 769 N/A 0.0% 8,4% 12.8% 17 4% 655 606 657 684 712 N/A -7.4% 0.4% 4,4% 8,7% 2,919,223 2,919,223 2,919,223 2,919,223 2,919,223 Personnel N/A N/A NIA N/A 44,662 Supplies N/A 7,155 7,155 7,155 7,155 Other Services and Charges N/A 52,197 52,197 52,197 52,197 Capital Outlay NIA 0 0 0 0 Transfers Out N/A 6,916 6,916 6,916 6,916 Total Expenditures and Transfers Out % Change Revenues: General Fund Levy Other Revenues Total Revenues General Fund Revenue Shortfall 2,919,223 2,995,491 2,985,491 2,985,491 3,030,153 N/A 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 3.8% 2,484,903 2,178,088 2,379,523 2,484,903 2,595,833 434,320 434,320 434,320 434,320 434,32D 2,919,223 2,612,408 2,813,843 2,919,223 3,030,153 0 373,083 171,648 66,268 Consumer Price Index information: CPI Hypothetical 2011 Increase' 2012 Budget 3.8% Budget Personnel 1,175,324 44,662 1,219,966 Supplies 186,300 7,155 195,455 Other Services and Charges 1,373,599 52,197 1,425,796 Capital Outlay 0 0 0 Transfers Out 182,000 6,916 188,916 2,919,223 110,930 3,030,153 * CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), Midwest Region, All Items, May 2010 to May 2011 General Fund Results: Change in Fund Balance Amendment for Capital and Other Transfers Out 2008 2009 2010 155,890 24,971 250,351 0 340,632 0 155,890 365,603 250,351 2 O gt Cgtt tt t tg tC C. t !i„tc n t.t.f.t, c t tt t • 5 5 0,.1 g.,.T 4. gt cg. tg g IC gC go g gpogg g ggegge C g gg g 9d ri .i. ow <ria 6 XeNcOg g 6 ,,4 . • a 0 7W; 1 e el X 1 e 2 ? . 011 EE iEE tE it tt ;ti tt si FE Wr Rg NR ; g Rk P'o" k RE R E RE g 7 FR EVE' R g RE R g Hg o o - 2 R RR 0, Li 'M E H. 0 kttttv —1 1'141M g -g p A 1 A 1 g4gg 11 1. 1•4 . • N FE 1- i -N 9 n.". 5 _•5.5515 1 eogg g5 4° .R"" l'AgiR 1 RE R g --Rggr k • • 4 roflog N Mz4 g N 5 gmig -c•J EV 5ME' Eg R kk M; H—FF R §—kW t 'il I R kg R 4 5 E gE 5 RP: Eg 4gi •qREZ" E 6 604 01 4 04 kg 50 ERR' NE 5 M 6 RN 4 go 10. !I gazi 44 ER V' R N Fem.° k g R §- R5 5. 511 §000O boo 5R 5 V 5 5Rt 5 pooaao ti h 5 Tax Rate: Total General Fund Lew: * Debt Service Levies: Total Lew: 2011 CITY PROPERTY TAXES Market Value 2011 $100,000 $300,000 $500,000 $700,000 Tax Capacity ** 2011 $1,000 $3,000 $5,000 $7,500 City of Lake Elmo 2012 Proposed Property Tax Scenario Residential Homesteads SCENARIO A Maintain 2011 Tax Capacity Rate for 2012 Flat Variable Variable Variable City Local Tax Capacity Rate Pay 2011 21.832% 21.832% 21.832% 21.832% 2011 21.832% $2,484,903 $304,656 $2,789,559 City Property Taxes 2011 $216 $655 $1,092 $1,637 2012 CITY PROPERTY TAXES (WITH NO MARKET VALUE CHANGE) Market Value 2012 NO CHANGE $100,000 $300,000 $500,000 $700,000 Tax Capacity ** 2012 $1,000 $3,000 $5,000 $7,500 City Local Tax Capacity Rate Pay 2012 21.832% 21.832% 21,832% 21,832% City Property Taxes 2012 $218 $655 $1,092 $1,637 2012 CITY PROPERTY TAXES (WITH 7.4% MARKET VALUE DECREASE) Market Value 2012 DECREASE OF -7,4% $92,600 $277,800 $463, 000 $648,200 Tax Capacity ** 2012 $926 $2,778 $4,630 $6,853 City Local Tax Capacity Rate Pay 2012 21,832% 21.832% 21.832% 21.832% City Property Taxes 2012 $202 $606 $1,011 $1,496 2012 21.832% $2,178,088 $410,036 $2,588,124 Property Taxes Increase (Decrease) Property Taxes Increase (Decrease) * 2011 total General Fund levy Included levies for 2010/2011 MVHC Unallotments/Cuts ** Tax Capacity rates for residential homesteads are 1.00% of the first $500,000 of market value, plus 1,25% of any market value over $500,000 Change 0.0% ($306,815) $105,380 ($201,435) Percentage Tax Increase (Decrease) $0 0.0% $0 0,0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Percentage Tax Increase (Decrease) -7.4% -7.4% -7.4% -8.6% City of Lake Elmo 2012 Proposed Property Tax Scenario Residential Homesteads SCENARIO B Maintain 2011 Total Property Tax Levy for 2012 Tax Rate: Total General Fund Levy: Debt Service Levies: Total Levy: 2011 CITY PROPERTY TAXES Market Value 2011 $100, 000 $ 300, 000 $500,000 $700,000 Tax Capacity ** 2011 $1,000 $3,000 $5,000 $7,500 Variable Variable Variable Flat City Local Tax Capacity Rate Pay 2011 21.832% 21.832% 21.832% 21,832% 2011 21.832% $2,484,903 $304,656 $2,789,559 City Property Taxes 2011 $218 $655 $1,092 $1,637 2012 CITY PROPERTY TAXES (WITH NO MARKET VALUE CHANGE). Market Value 2012 NO CHANGE $100, 000 $ 300, 000 $500,000 $700,000 Tax Capacity ** 2012 City Local Tax Capacity Rate Pay 2012 2012 23,660% $2,379,523 $410,036 $2,789,559 Change 8.4% ($105,380) $105,380 $0 City Property Percentage Property Taxes Tax Taxes Increase Increase 2012 (Decrease) (Decrease) $1,000 23,660% $237 $18 8.4% $3,000 23.660% $710 $55 8.4% $5,000 23.660% $1,183 $91 8.4% $7,500 23.660% $1,774 $137 8.4% 2012 CITY PROPERTY TAXES (WITH 7.4% MARKET VALUE DECREASE) Market Value 2012 DECREASE OF -7.4% $92, 600 $277,800 $463, 000 $648,200 Tax Capacity ** 2012 $926 $2,778 $4,630 $6,853 City Local Tax Capacity Rate Pay 2012 23.660% 23.660% 23.660% 23,660% City Property Taxes 2012 $219 $657 $1,095 $1,621 Property Taxes Increase (Decrease) " 2011 total General Fund levy Included levies for 2010/2011 MVHC Unallotments/Cuts ** Tax Capacity rates for residential homesteads are 1.00% of the first $500,000 of market value, plus 1.25% of any market value over $500,000 Percentage Tax Increase (Decrease) 0.4 % 0.4% 0,4% -1.0% City of Lake Elmo 2012 Proposed Property Tax Scenario Residential Homesteads SCENARIO C Maintain 2011 Total General Fund Property Tax Levy for 2012 Tax Rate: Total General Fund Lew: * Debt Service Levies: Total Levv: 2011 CITY PROPERTY TAXES Market Value 2011 $100,000 $300,000 $500,000 $700,000 Tax Capacity ** 2011 $1,000 $3,000 $5,000 $7,500 Variable Flat Variable Variable City Local Tax Capacity Rate Pay 2011 21.832% 21.832% 21.832% 21.832% 2011 21.832% $2,484,903 $304,656 $2,789,559 City Property Taxes 2011 $218 $655 $1,092 $1,637 2012 CITY PROPERTY TAXES (WITH NO MARKET VALUE CHANGE) Market Value 2012 NO CHANGE $100,000 $300,000 $500,000 $700,000 Tax Capacity ** 2012 $1,000 $3,000 $5,000 $7,500 City Local Tax Capacity Rate Pay 2012 24.616% 24.616% 24.616% 24.616% City Property Taxes 2012 $246 $735 $1,231 $1,846 2012 CITY PROPERTY TAXES (WITH 7.4% MARKET VALUE DECREASE) Market Value 2012 DECREASE OF -7.4% $92,600 $277,800 $463,000 $648,200 Tax Capacity ** 2012 $926 $2,778 $4,630 $6,853 City Local Tax Capacity Rate Pay 2012 24.616% 24.616% 24.616% 24.616% City Property Taxes 2012 $228 $684 $1,140 $1,687 2012 24.616% $2,484,903 $410,036 $2,894,939 Property Taxes Increase (Decrease) $28 $84 $139 $209 Property Taxes Increase (Decrease) * 2011 total General Fund levy Included levies for 2010/2011 MVHC Unallotments/Cuts ** Tax Capacity rates for residential homesteads are 1.00% of the first $500,000 of market value, plus 1.25% of any market value over $500,000 $10 $29 $48 $50 Change 12.8% $0 $105, 380 $105,350 Percentage Tax Increase (Decrease) 12,8% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% Percentage Tax Increase (Decrease) 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 3.0% Tax Rate: Total General Fund Lew: " Debt Service Levies: Total Levv: 2011 CITY PROPERTY TAXES Market Value 2011 $100,000 $300,000 $500,000 $700,000 City of Lake Elmo 2012 Proposed Property Tax Scenario Residential Homesteads 'SCENARI O Adjust Property Tax Levy for General Fund CPI Increase Tax Capacity ** 2011 $1,000 $3,000 $5,000 $7,500 Variable Variable Variable Variable City Local Tax Capacity Rate Pay 2011 21.832% 21.832% 21.832% 21.832% 2011 21.832% $2,484,903 $304,656 $2,789, 559 City Property Taxes 2011 $218 $655 $1,092 $1,637 2012 CITY PROPERTY TAXES (WITH NO MARKET VALUE CHANGE) Market Value 2012 NO CHANGE $100,000 $300,000 $500,000 $700,000 Tax Capacity ** 2012 $1,000 $3,000 $5,000 $7,500 City Local Tax Capacity Rate Pay 2012 25.622% 25.622% 25.622% 25.622% City Property Taxes 2012 $256 $769 $1,281 $1,922 2012 CITY PROPERTY TAXES (WITH 7.4% MARKET VALUE DECREASE) Market Value 2012 DECREASE OF -7.4% $92,600 $277,800 $463, 000 $648,200 Tax Capacity ** 2012 $926 $2,778 $4,630 $6, 853 City Local Tax Capacity Rate Pay 2012 25.622% 25.622% 25.622% 25.622% City Property Taxes 2012 $237 $712 $1,186 $1,756 2012 25.622% $2,595,833 $410,036 $3,005,869 Property Taxes Increase (Decrease) $38 $114 $189 $284 Property Taxes Increase (Decrease) * 2011 total General Fund levy Included levies for 2010/2011 MVHC Unallotments/Cuts *" Tax Capacity rates for residential homesteads are 1.00% of the first $500,000 of market value, plus 1.25% of any market value over $500,000 $19 $57 $95 $118 Change 17.4% $110,930 $105,380 $216,310 Percentage Tax Increase (Decrease) 17.4% 17.4 % 17.4% 17.4% Percentage Tax Increase (Decrease) 8,7% 8.7% 8,7% 7,2% City of Lake Elmo 2011 Bond Estimate Construction Project Costs Assessable Potentially Bonded Proiects: 2011 Street & Water Quality Improvements 483,000 144,900 30% 50th Street & Kimbro Avenue 281,000 40,200 per Ryan Kindred Court Drainage Corrections 44,000 0 per Ryan 808,000 185,100 Legal, Fiscal, & Administration: Bond Underwriter's Discount 15,000 * Bond Issuance Costs 27,000 * 850,000 * May be partially assessable City mLake Elmo Debt Service Fund Analysis 2011 Street Project -Hypothetical $850u00Glllmnmvement Bonds ofmn1'*vvothetica| Interest Annual Debt Service Special Assessments TaxLevy/ Other Earnings Surplus Cumulative Principal Interest Prepayments Principal Interest Other Sources Uses 1.0% (]nfcit) Fund Balance zon o 2012 y0,000(25,500) 0 14716 9,255 76.000 0 Yu 4,4e3 4,493 2013 (75.000) (23.400) n 15,452 8.519 78.000 V 53 1.624 6.117 201* (7*.000) (21.150) U 16.22e 7.747 75.000 0 oO 3.902 10.019 2015 (75.000) (18.900) o 17.036 6.935 7e.000 u 131 6.202 16.221 2016 (80.000) (16.650) O 17.8e0 n.00* 76`000 o 179 3.501 18.722 2017 (oo.noO) (14.250) u 18.782 5.189 76.000 V 201 922 20.644 2018 (oo.ono) (11.700) o 19.721 4.250 7e.000 u 1ee (1.531) 19.11: 2019 (oo.000) (9.004 u 20,707 3,264 76,000 n 171 (3.858) 15.255 2020 (100.000) (6.1e0) o 21.743 2,229 76,000 o 122 (a.00s) 9.199 (650,000) U49,850 0 185,100 54,613 768,000 O 1,208 1,071 Note: Interest rate of 3% estimated on bonds Special assessments are assumed ata0%mau11street projects portion mthe bomm($483.000), payable over 10 years at 5% Special assessments are assumed sto4V.znnofnomStreet and xknumAvenue port -ion mthe bonds ($aa1.000).payable over 1oyears atsYo Special assessments are assumed at $0 of Kindred Court drainage corrections portion of the bonds ($44,000) Other Sources are annual special debt service property tax levies City of Lake Elmo 2011 Street Projects - Financing Hypothetical Payment 2011 G.O. Improvement Bonds Year Date Estimated $850,000 Principal Interest Total 0.5 6/112012 1.0 12/1/2012 70.000.00 1.5 6/1/2013 2.O 1211/2013 75.000OO 2.5 6/112014 3.0 12/1/2014 75.000.00 75,000,00 3.5 0/1/2015 4.0 12/1/2015 7500000 75'OU0.UO 4.5 0/1/2016 6.0 12/1/2018 80.000.00 | 80.000.00 5.5 E11/2017 6.0 12/1/2017 86,000.00 85,000,00 O.5 6V1/2018 7.0 12/1/2018 90.000.00 | 80.000.00 7,5 6V1/2019 8.0 12/1%2019 85.000.80 8.5 0/1/2020 8.0 12h/2020 100,000,00 1OD.00O.O0 9.5 6/1/2021 10.0 12/1/2021 105.000.00 105,000.00 850,000.00 12.75O.00 12.750.00 JUOY� 12`75O.00 82,76O.UO ' | 25.500.00 05.5U0.00. 11'700.00 11,700.00 3.00Y6 11.700,00 86.700.00 23,400.00 98'400.00 10.575.00 10.575.00 3,00% 10.575.00 85.575.00 21.150.00 86150.00 9.450.00 9,450.00 3.00% 9.450i00 84.450.00 18.900.00 93.90MO 8.525.00 8.325.00 3.00Y6 8,325.00 88.325.00 7.126-00 7.125.00 3.00% 7.125,00 92,125.00 14.250.00 99.250.00 5,850.00 5.850.00 3,00% 5.850.00 95,850,00 11,7DOM 101.700.00 4.500M 4,500.00 3.00% 4.500.00 98,500.00 9.000M 104.000.00 3`075.00 3.075.00 3OOY6 3.O75OD 1O3.U75�U� � | 6.15lOO 106,150.00 ' 1.575.00 1,575.00 3.00% 1.575.00 106.575.00 3.150.00 108'150.00 i 149.850.00 999.850.00 Year Payment Total City ofLake Elmo Special Assessment 2011Improvement Project Estimate Principal Interest 5.000% Balance TOTAL ASSESSMENT: ' $1BG,10.O0U � � 1 2012 $23.871.30 $14.716.30 $9.255.00 $170.383,70 2 2013 $23.971.30 $15.45211 $8.519.19 $154.931.69 3 2814 $23.971.30 $16.224.72 $7.748.58 $138.706.87 4 2016 $23,971.30 $17.035.96 $6.835.34 $121.670.91 5 2016 $23.871.30 $17.88775 $6.083.55 $103.783.16 8 2017 $23.97130 $18,782.14 $5189,16 $86.001.02 7 2018 S23.971.30 $19.721.25 $4.260.05 $65.270.77 8 2019 $23.97130 $20.707.31 $3.283.98 $44.572.46 Q 2020 $23.971.30 $21.742.68 $2.220.62 s22.82878 10 2021 $23.97130 $22.829.81 $1.141.48 ($0,03) $239.713.00 $185.100.03 $54.612.97 NOTE: Enbmahad2O11 street project ed$483.00O;30%assessed Estimated 5OthStreet &KjmbrnAvenue ot$281.O0O; $40.200asaemsed Estimated Kindred Court drainage corrections ot$44.00O; $Oosoeeoed NOTE: Amortization method used City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota July 5, 2011 7:00 p.m, A. CALL TO ORDER B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C, ATTENDANCE: Johnston Emmons, Park Pearson 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. ACCEPT MINUTES: 1, Accept June 21, 2011 City Council 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. . 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, Resignation of Susan Dunn from Parks Commission 4. Budget Adjustment/Authorization to Purchase Equipment for Animal Control Services REGULAR AGENDA: 5a. Huff Puff Proclamation b. Consider Approval of a Temporary On -Sale Liquor License for Lake Elmo Jaycees Huff n Puff Days and Waive the Fees for the Liquor License and Lions Park Ball Field Lights 6. Public Hearing: Appeal to Planner's Code Interpretation — Beytien 7. Hotel/Motel Commercial Water Rates — Discussion/Action 8. Variance Ordinance Update 9. Notification of Contract Termination — Engineering Services 10. Update on Library Services — Discussion/Action 11. City Council Meeting Calendar for August 2011 — Discussion/Action 12. Replace and Upgrade Field Lighting in Lions Park K. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: (These are verbal updates and do not have to be formally added to the agenda.) • Mayor and City Council • 2011 Administration Action Report & Summary • Administrator • City Engineer • Planning Director L. Adjourn **A social gathering may or may not be held at the Lake Elmo Inn following the meeting* * DRAFT City of Lake Elmo City Council Meeting Minutes June 21, 2011 Mayor Johnston called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Johnston and Council Members Park, Pearson, and Smith Absent: Council Member Emmons Also Present: Administrator Messelt, Attorney Snyder, and City Engineer Griffin, Planning Director Klatt, City Planner Matzek, Finance Director Bouthilet, Recording Secretary Luczak APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION,. Council Member Park moved to approve the June 21, 2011 City Council Agenda. Council Member Pearson seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0, ACCEPTED MINUTES: The June 7, 2011 City Council minutes were accepted by consensus of the City Council. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Sara Halverson, Sergeant, Andy Loehr, Deputy, provided an update on activities in the City, along with the Reserves and Water Parks and Trails Officers. Weight restrictions have been lifted, wake restrictions are being enforced, and animal control, CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to approve Items 5 & 6 as presented on the Consent Agenda. Council Member Park seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0, Adopt Ordinance No. 08-045 approving the Amended 2011 Fee Schedule for Special Events Support Permit Adopt Resolution No, 2011-023, approving a Planned Unit Development Amendment for Bremer Financial Services at 8555 Eagle Point Boulevard to allow the expansion of the parking lot on the site LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 21, 2011 Ei DRAFT • REGULAR AGENDA: Approve Payment of Disbursements in the Amount of $169,227.27 Council Member Pearson questioned City reimbursement fee for TKDA Whistling Valley claim. City Attorney Snyder stated the costs are highly likely to be covered by the performance bond, MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll in the amount of $169,227,27, Council Member Pearson seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. Letter of Support for Amendment to Minnesota Rules for MPCA Landfill Siting Requirements Council Member Pearson expressed a lack of foundation regarding the City endorsing the proposed amendments to the MPCA landfill siting requirements. Mayor Johnston stated the City has spent several years supporting the proposed alternative.. MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to approve the proposed Letter of Support for proposed amendments to the Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7001 and 7035 delineating additional siting requirements for MPCA approval of certain landfills, as presented. Mayor Johnston seconded the motion. Motion passed 3-0; Council Member Pearson abstained. Resolution Affirming Participation in the Office of the State Auditor's Voluntary 2011 Performance Measurement Program At the request of Council Member Pearson, City Administrator Messelt presented to the City Council consideration of the City's participation in the voluntary 2011 Performance Measurement Program. The 2010 State Legislature enacted the funded mandate to establish a standard set of performance measures for cities. It is a State funded mandate for the first two years. Discussion ensued regarding the efficacy of participating in the Performance Measurement Program, even though it is currently voluntary and funded, at least partially by the State. The City Council discussed the current benefits of participation but also acknowledged the need to evaluate this program annually, especially if it evolves into another "unfunded mandate" by the State. MOTION: Mayor Johnston moved to approve Resolution No. 2011-022, affirming the City's participation in the Office of the State Auditor 's Voluntary 2011 Performance Measurement Program. Council Member Park seconded the motion. Motion passed 3-1; Council Member voting no. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 21, 2011 2 DRAFT Downtown District Sidewalk Maintenance Project — Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications and Obtain Contractor Quotes Council Member Pearson questioned the cost of the project and whether or not special assessment could be levied. Discussion ensued regarding the sidewalk repair as a safety and liability issue, and the approach to this project as maintenance versus a new or reconstruction project to be assessed. City Engineer Griffin informed the Council that it's been practice for the County to be responsible for 50% of the construction and engineering costs of the project. MOTION: Council Member Pearson moved to Authorize TKDA to prepare plans and specifications and obtain contractor quotes for the Downtown District Sidewalk Maintenance Project in an amount not to exceed $6, 400 with a reimbursement of 50% ($3,200) from Washington County, Council Member Park seconded the motion, Motion passed 4,0, Recruitment for Appointments to Planning Commission: Ordinance Revision and Appointments The City Council was requested to consider either Ordinance No. 08-046, reducing the Planning Commission to seven (7) voting members and two (2) alternate members or appoint the current two alternate members to vacant positions and direct City staff to solicit potential new alternate members for future Council Considerations. MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to approve Ordinance No. 08-046, reducing the Composition of the Planning Commission to seven (7) voting members and (2) alternates. Council Member Pearson seconded the motion, The motion passed 4-0, Southern Lake Elmo — Process, Goals and Vision, Review of draft policy document concerning the vision and goals for the 1-94 planning committee The City Council was asked to review and provide preliminary feedback on a drafted Vision Statement and Goals for the Southern Lake Elmo area. Staff expects to utilize the Vision Statement and accompanying goals in planning for this area. Kelli Matzek, Planner, presented a brief update on the meetings and progress held to - date, The City Council directed the workgroup to draft language to encourage and incentivize a plan to work with businesses to want to come to Lake Elmo, LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 21, 2011 DRAFT City Council Reports: Mayor Johnston discussed the "GO Commando" special event located at Green Acres being held on Saturday, June 25, 2011. City Council members discussed the event and directed Staff to forward the Special Events Permit draft to address specific concerns for larger events, such as crowds, location, traffic, safety, fire, and parking. Mayor Johnston also stated the Art Center just held a workshop on how to write and sell ebooks. Council Member Smith provided newspaper articles about sharing the cost of City services; and how ebooks are outselling printed books. City Administrator Messelt updated the Council on the library. Springsted and Animal Control, City Engineer Griffin informed City Council that street work has begun in Tartan Meadows and should finish in 4-6 weeks. He also requested the Council reconsider the proposed rumble strips for Demontreville Trail, The safety concern is the shoulder width of the street, which would be reduced (12" vs. 8") and force people into the driving lane, Planning Director Klatt updated the Council on Planning Commission's changes to the City Code affected by the State Statutes. He reported that the Village Planning groups have.a general vision regarding developments and buffers, and that the next meeting will be with landowners, The City Council adjourned the meeting at 8:26 p.m. to an Executive Session to discuss litigation strategies and direction relating to the City vs. 3M Respectfully submitted by Carole Luczak, Recording Secretary, LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 21, 2011 4 f . crroi v LAKE EL 0 .... , . MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 06/07/2011 CONSENT ITEM #: 2 MOTION as part of Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM: Approve Disbursements in the Amount of $ 64,261.64 SUBMITTED BY: Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director THROUGH: Bruce Messelt, City Administrato REVIEWED BY: City Staff SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is asked to approve disbursements in the amount of $ 64,261.64. 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 operation. Below is a stu-nmary of current claims to be disbursed and paid in accordance with State law and City policies and procedures. Ciaini # ACH ACH ACH DD3404 - 3424 1$ 37220 $ 37221 - 37224 37225 - 37255 $ 7,292.89 $ 1,323.41 $ 3,893.98 22,402.72 2,100.00 2,608.10 24,640.54 64;261.64 Description Payroll Taxes to IRS 06/30/2011 Payroll Taxes to MN Dept. of Revenue 06/30/2011 Payroll Retirement to PERA 06/30/2011 Payroll Dated 06/30/2011 (Direct Deposit) Quality Air Emergency HVAC repairs Payroll Dated 06/30/2011 (Payroll) Accounts Payable Dated 07/05/2011 -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting July 5th, 2011 Consent Agenda Item #2 Approval of Disbursements STAFF REPORT: City staff has complied and reviewed the attached set of claims. All appears to be in order and consistent with City budgetary and fiscal policies and Council direction RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve as part of the Consent Agenda proposed disbursements in the amount of $ 64,261.64. Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to remove this item from the Consent Agenda or a particular claim from this item and further discuss and deliberate prior to taking action. If done so, the appropriate action of the Council following such discussion would be: "Move to approve the July 5th, 2011, Disbursements, as presented [and modified] herein." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Accounts Payable Dated 07/05/2011 SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent ALYenda): Questions from Council to Staff Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion Mayor & City Council Discussion .......... .............. ...........................„.. ........................ Mayor Facilitates Action on Motion Mayor & City Council -- page 2 -- Accounts Payable To Be Paid Proof List User: joan z Printed: 06/30/2011 - 1 1:26 AM Batch: 007-06-2011 Invoice # Inv Date Aniount Quantity Pint Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # ARAM Aran -lark, Inc. 629-7264920 06/16/2011 30.16 0.00 07/05/2011 Uniforms 101-430-3100-44170 Uniforrns 629-7264920 Total: 30.16 629-7266730 06/20/2011 115.38 0.00 07/05/2011 Linen City Hall 101-410-1940-44010 Repairs/1M aint Contractual Bldg 629-7266730 Total: 115.38 629-7266731 06/20/2011 52.40 0.00 07/05/2011 Linen City Hall Annex 101-410-1940-44010 Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg 629-7266731 TOta1: 52.40 629-7269662 06/23/201.1 21.29 0.00 07/05/2011 Uniforms 101-430-3100-44170 Uniforms 629-7269662 Total: 21.29 ARAM Total: 219.23 ASPENMI Aspen Mills, Inc. 109563 06/16/201 I 366.58 0.00 07105/201I Restock Patches 101 -420-2220-44170 Uniforms 109563 Total: 366.58 ASPENMI Total: 366.58 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 BAllYPL Batteries Plus Woodbury, Corp 032-729799 06/15/2011 79.07 0,00 07/05/2011 Battery Back up for Network Servers No 0000 101-410-1520-43185 Hardware Support 032-729799 Total: 79.07 BA'TTYPL Total: 79.07 CARQUEST Car Quest Auto Parts 2055-225294 06/21/2011 89.25 0.00 07/05/2011 Battery 89-1 101-430-3120-42210 Equipment Parts 2055-225294 Total: 89.25 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (06/30/11 - 11:26 AM) No 0000 Page 1 Invoice # Inv Date Amount Quantfty Pmt Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # 2055-225447 06/15/2011 65.28 0.00 07/05/2011 V belts 04-1 No 0000 101-430-3120-42210 Equipment Parts 2055-225447 Total: 65.28 2055-225962 06/21/2011 136.19 0.00 07/05/2011 Ign Module and Crank Sensor 98-1 - No 0000 101-430-3120-42210 Equipment Parts 2055-225962 Total: 136.19 2055-226089 06/22/2011 56,32 0,00 07/05/2011 Distributer Cap and Rotor 98-1 No 0000 101-430-3120-42210 Equipment Parts 2055-226089 Total: 56,32 2055-226118 06/22/2011 35.67 0.00 07/05/2011 Coil 98-1 No 0000 101-430-3120-42210 Equipment Parts 2055-226118 Total: 35.67 2055-226133 06/22/2011 9.76 0,00 07/05/2011 Grease No 0000 101-430-3120-42120 Fuel. Oil and Fluids 2055-226133 Total: 9.76 2055-226296 06/23/2011 111.10 0.00 07/0512011 Filters and Anti Freeze No 0000 101-450-5200-42210 Equipment Parts 2055-226296 Total: 111.10 2055-226297 06/23/2011 35.08 0.00 07/05/2011 Air Filters No 0000 101-450-5200-47210 Equipment Parts 2055-226297 Total: 35.08 2055-226846 06/29/2011 107.17 0.00 07/05/2011 Anti Freeze No 0000 101-430-3120-42120 Fuel, Oil and Fluids 2055226846 Total: 107.17 CARQUEST Total: 645,82 CENCOLLE Century College 418198 06/13/2011 450.00 0.00 0710/2011 Mask Confidence Course No 0000 101-420-2220-44370 Conferences & Training 418198 Total: 450.00 CENCOLLE Total: 450.00 CTYBAY City of Bayport 100 06/21/2011 70.00 0.00 07/05/2011 Animal Control Services No 0000 101-420-2700-43150 Contract Services 100 Total: 70.00 CTYBAY Total: 70.00 EMERGAPP Emergency Apparatus Mainz. INC 55158 06/15/2011 965.00 0.00 07/05/2011 Pump Test/Service, El ... No 0000 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 55158 Total: 965.00 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (06/30/11 - 11:26 AM) Page 2 Invoice # Inv Date 55159 06/15/2011 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 55159 Total: 55160 06/15/2011 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 55160 Total: 55161 06/15/2011 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 55161 Total: 55162 06/15/2011 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 55162 Total: 55163 06/15/2011 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 55163 Total: 55164 06/15/2011 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 55164 Total: 55165 06/15/2011 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 55165 Total: 55538 06/152011 101-420-2220-44040 kepairs/rvlaint Eqpt 55538 Total: 55539 06/15/2011 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 55539 Total: 55541 06/15/2011 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 55541 Total: 55543 06/15/2011 101-420-2220- 040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 55543 Total: EMERGAPP Total: EivlIvlONS A Emmons Alex 06/21/2011 06/21/2011 101-410-1450-43628 Cable Operations 06/21/2011 Total: EMMONS A Total: FDSOA FD Safety Off. Association 06/23/2011 06/23/2011 101-420-2220 44330 Dues & Subscriptions AP - To Be Paid Proof List (06/30/11 :2 AM) Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference Task Type FO # Close POLine # 1.150.98 0.00 07/05/2011 Pump Test/Service, E2 No 0000 1,150.98 237.00 0.00 07105;2011 Service , B2 No 0000 237,00 237,00 0.00 07/05/2011 Service , B1 No 0000 237.00 245.00 0.00 07/05/2011 Service , U2 No 0000 245.00 815.00 0-00 07/05/2011 Pump Test/Service T1 No 0000 815.00 1,040.00 0,00 07/05/2011 Pump Test/Service T2 No 0000 1,040.00 980.00 0.00 07/05/2011 Pump Test/Service Li No 0000 980,00 529-34 0.00 07/05/2011 Repairs Li No 0000 529.34 2,882.18 0.00 07/052011 Repairs E2 No 0000 2,882.18 505.16 0.00 07/05/2011 Repairs Tl No 0000 505.16 266.09 0.00 07/05/2011 Repairs B2 No 0000 266.09 9,852.75 55.00 0.00 07/05/2011 6/21/11 Workshop and C 55.00 55.00 85.00 0.00 07105/2011 Membership Renewal eting No 0000 No 0000 Page 3 Invoice # Inv Date Amount Quantity Prnt Date Due ription Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # 06/23/2011 Total: 85.00 FIJSOA Total: 85.00 FXL FXL, Inc. July 2011 07/01/2011 2,000.00 0.00 07/05/2011 Assessng Services - July 2011 No 0000 101-410-1320-43100 Assessing Services July 2011 Total: 2,000.00 FXL Total: 2,000,00 GRAINGER Grainger 9567481958 06/21/2011 17,75 0.00 07/05/2011 Replacetnent Bulbs for scene lights No 0000 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 9567481958 Total: 17.75 GRAINGER Total; 17.75 HAWKINS Hawkins. Inc. 3231814 RI 06110/2011 617.81 0.00 07/0512011 Flouride No 0000 601-494-9400-42160 Chemicals 3231814 RI Total: 617.81 HAWKINS Total: 617.81 Hewlett Hewlett Packard 29946500-02 05/05/2011 858.87 0.00 07/05/2011 Computer - Public Work No 0000 410-480-8000-45700 Office Equipment & Furnishings 29946500-02 Total: 858.87 Hewlett Total: 858.87 INTERSTA Interstate All Battery Ctr 40574 06/22/2011 92.04 0.00 07/05/2011 Replacement Batteries for SCRA's - No 0000 101-420-2220-44040 RepairsiMaint Eqpt 40574 Total: 92.04 INTERSTA Total: 92.04 MARYS Marv's Professsional Tools 2384 [2 06/16/2011 82.35 0.00 07/05/2011 Tools No 0000 101-430-31.00-4240U Small Tools & Minor Equipment 238412 Total: 82.35 MARVS Total: 82.35 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (06130/11 - 11:26 AM) Page 4 Invoice # Inv Date Aznotint Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # MENARDSO Menards - Oakdale 82492 06/16/2011 36.74 0.00 07/05/2011 New Fountain parts VFW No 0000 404-480-8000-45300 Improvements Other Than Bldgs 82492 Total: 36.74 MENARDSO Total: 36.74 MENARDST Menards - Stillwater 92605 06/2412011 4.24 0.00 07/05/2011 Cleaning Supplies No 0000 Ill I -420-2220-4-4010 Repairs/Main t Bldg 92605 06/2412011 27.37 0.00 07/05/2011 Vehicle Cleaning Supplies No 0000 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 92605 Total: 31.61 MENARDST Total'. 31.61 METRO MU METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES ASSOCI 586 06/09/2011 20.00 0.00 07/05/2011 Training Conference -13. Messelt No 0000 101-410-1320-44330 Dues & Subscriptions 586 Total: 20_00 METRO MU Total: 20.00 1vIICHAEL Michael Lee Inc. CHK REQ BLDG 06/23/2011 803-000-0000-22900 Deposits Payable CHK REQ BLDG Total: MICHAEL. Total: 3,000.00 0.00 07/0512011 Escrow Return 2958 Jonquil Perinit No 0000 #7681 3,000.00 3,000.00 MILLSCOL. Mills Cole 06/28/11 06/28/2011 27.50 0.00 07/05/2011 2 Hours of Training for Cable No 0000 101-410-1450-43620 Cable Operations Operating 06/28/11 Total: 27.50 MILLSCOL Total: 27.50 MN CORP Minnesota Corporate Mechanical 13479 06/15/2011 576.25 0.00 07/05/2011 A/C Repair City Hall A I 01-410-1940-44040 RepairsiMatint Contractual Eqpt 13479 Total: 576.25 MN CORP Total: 576.25 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (06/30/11 - 11:26 AM) No 0000 Page 5 Invoice # Inv Date NEXTEL Nextel Communications 761950227-0099 06/15/2011 101-410-1940-43210 Telephone 761950227-0099 06/15/2011 101-420-2220-43210 Telephone 761950227-0099 06/15/2011 101-420-2400-43210 Telephone 761950227-0099 06/15/2011 101-430-3100-43210 Telephone 761950227-0099 06/15/2011 101-450-5200-43210 Telephone 761950227-0099 Total: NEXTEL Total: OAKDRC Oakdale Rental Center 10076857 06/13/2011 404-480-8000-45800 Other Equipment 10076857 Total: OAKDRC Total: PRESSA Anastasia Press 06/28/11 06/28/2011 101-410-1450-43620 Cable Operations 06/28/11 Total: PRESSA Total: SAMSCLUB Sam's Club 06/20/2011 06/20/2011 101-420-2220-44300 Miscellaneous 06/20/2011 Total: 730 06/16/2011 101-420-2220-44010 Repairs/Maint 13Idg 730 Total: SAMSCLUB Total: SMITHANN Anne Smith 06/2612011 06/26/2011 204-450-5200-44300 Miscellaneous 06/26/2011 Total: SMITHANN Total: AP - To Be Paid Proof List (06/30/11 - 11:26 AM) Amount Quantity Pint Date Description Reference 9.04 86.28 19.36 35.64 103.63 253.95 253.95 0.00 07/05/201 1 0.00 07/05/2011 0.00 07/05,12011 0.00 07/05/2011 0.00 07/05r2011 Cell Phone Service - AdininistratiOn Cell Phone Service - Fire Dept Cell Phone Service Building Dept Cell Phone Service - Public Works Cell Phone Service - Parks Dept 196.65 0.00 07/05/2011 Concrete new Fountain VFW 196.65 196.65 55.00 0.00 07/05/2011 6/28/11 PZ nag & Training new operater 55.00 55.00 23.88 0.00 07/05/2011 Rehab Supplies 23.88 13.45 0.00 07/05/2011 Flagpole Maini. 13.45 37.33 125.91 0.00 07/05/2011 Arts & Crafts Supplies - Fall Festival 125,91 125.91 Task Type PO # Close POLine # No No No No No No No No No No 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 Page 6 Invoice lnv Date TASCH T.A. Schifsky & Sons Inc 51451 06;1412011 101-430-3120-42240 Street Maintenance Materials 51451 Total: TASCH Total; Amount Quantity Pint Date Description Refere 506.40 0.00 07/05/2011 Asphalt 506.40 506.40 Task Type PO # Close POLine # No 0000 TRKUTI Truck Utilities 2271/86 06/15/2011 71,49 0.00 07/092 Hyd e Parts No 0000 101-430-3100-42210 Equipment Parts 227086 Total: 71.49 TRKUTI Total: 71.49 V ANZ.ANDT Van Zandt Distributing 4840 06/14/2011 8.68 0,00 07/05/2011 Alcohol preps No 0000 101-420-2220-42080 EMS Supplies 4840 Total: 8.68 VANZANDT Total: 8.68 WASRADIO WASHINGTON COUNTY 69882 06/28/2011 3,800.76 0.00 07/05/2011 1/4 user fee for 800 IvlHz radios No 0000 101-420-2220-43230 Radio 69882 Total: 3.800.76 WASRADIO Total: 3,800_76 WHALEN Whalen William & Arlene Chk 06/24/2011 400.00 0.00 07/05/2011 Partial Return of Escrow for 12th St 803-000-0000-22900 Deposits Payable Imp Chk Total: 400.00 WHALEN Total: 400.00 Report Total: 24,640.54 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (06130/11 - 11:26 AM) No 0000 Page 7 CITYO LAKE ELMO AYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 7/05/2011 CONSENT ITEM #: MOTION AGENDA ITEM: Accept Resignation of Susan Dunn from the Parks Commission SUBMITTED BY: Sharon Lumby, City Administrator THROUGH: Bruce A. Messelt, City Administrator ‘Ikkik SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: The City received the resignation of Susan Dunn from the Parks Commission which creates a vacancy on the Commission. Ms. Dunn's second 3- year term as a Full Voting Member will expire on December 31, 2013. Past practice has been, when there is a vacancy to move the First Alternate, which is John Ames to fill out the term left of Susan Dunn's 3-year term and move Steve DeLapp to First Alternate. RECOMMENDATION: City Staff recommends the Council accept with regrets Susan Dunn's resignation from the Parks Commission and move John Ames to fill out the 2 1/2 year term left of Susan Dunn's 3-year tem and move Steve DeLapp to First Alternate on the Parks Conrunission. The vacancy will be advertized on the website and cable. "Move to accept Susan Dunn's resignation from the Parks Commission and move John Ames to Full Voting Member and Steve DeLapp to First Alternate". ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resignation from Susan Dunn -- page 1 -- utv oF LAKE - ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 7/05/2011 REGULAR ITEM #: 4 MOTION AGENDA ITEM: Authorization to Purchase Animal Control Equipment SUBMITTED BY: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator 6p‘k THROUGH: Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director REVIEWED BY: Washington County Sheriff's Department SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED; The City Council is respectfully requested to consider authorizing the purchase of animal control equipment and supplies for use by City staff and the Washington County Sheriff's Department in the undertaking of animal control duties, including seizure and transport. Should Council wish to approve such expenditure, the specific motion suggest6d is as follows: "Move to Approve Budget Adjustment 2011-004 in an amount not to exceed $2,500, designated from the Animal Control — Miscellaneous Account for purchase of Animal Control Equipment, Supplies and Services." BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City Council of Lake Elino has allocated certain monies in its approved 2011 Annual Budget for Animal Control services. However, in lieu of contracted services, the City is proceeding with developing an arrangement whereby contracted Sheriff's deputies will be responding to animal control needs. To undertake this, the City will be required to purchase certain animal control equipment, to include gloves, nets and other capture/seizure equipment (not traps), transport cages, and other miscellaneous supplies and equipment. The City has researched available equipment providers and believes such initial purchases will not exceed $2,500 (and will likely cost significantly less), Also included in this estimate is a possible retainer, which the selected animal shelter may or may not require as part of establishing a service contract. Appropriate quotes from multiple vendors for both equipment and sheltering services will be solicited prior to entering into any purchase decision or sheltering arrangement. RECOMMENDATION: In accordance with applicable State laws and City policies and procedures, it is recommended that the City Council consider authorizing the purchase of animal control equipment and supplies for use by City staff and the Washington County Sheriffs page 1 -- City Council Meeting Approval of Donation & Budget Adju for shington County 4H Federation March 1st, 2011 Regular Agenda Item #5 Department in the undertaking of animal control duties, including seizure and transport. Should Council wish to approve such expenditure, the specific motion suggested is as follows: "Move to Approve Budget Adjustment 2011-004 in an amount not to exceed $2,500, designated from the Animal Control — Miscellaneous Account for purchase of Animal Control Equipment, Supplies and Services," Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to further discuss, deliberate and modify any decision prior to taking action. If done so, the appropriate action of the Council following such discussion would be: "Move to approve the proposed Budget Adjustment/Designation, as Presented land modified] herein." ATTACHMENTS: Budget Adjustment 2011-004 SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item & Presentation . Questions from Council to Staff Public Input, if Appropriate ..... ........ . Call for Motion Discussion ....................... ........ „ ....... ...„... Action on Motion ..... ................... ...... ........ Bruce Messelt, City Administrator ..... .....,...................Mayor Facilitates .. . .......... ............ ...... Mayor Facilitates Mayor & City Council .................. ......... ....Mayor Facilitates ..... ......... Mayor & City Council -- page 2 -- BUDGET AD DSTMENT - 2010 DATE: July 5th, 2011 ACTIVITY # 2011-004 DESCRIPTION: Purchase of Animal Control Equipment & Supplies TYPE OF ACTIVITY: TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM ACCOUNT # TO ACCOUNT # PURPOSE: BUDGET ADJUSTMENT/DESIGNATION AMOUNT: AMOUNT: FROM ACCOUNT # 101-420-2700-44300 AMOUNT: $ 2,500 PURPOSE; Purchase of Animal Control Equipment & Supplies DESIGNATION/NEW ACCOUNT# Animal Control -- Misc. OTHER FROM ACCOUNT # AMOUNT: PURPOSE: City Approval: Honorable Dean Johnston, Mayor Bruce Messelt, Administrator (on Behalf of City Council) (Attest) - CRY OF LAKE ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNIPITIPN, DATE: 7/05/2011 REGULAR ITEM #: 5a, PROCLAMATION AGENDA ITEM: Proclamation Proclaiming Huff n' Puff Days SUBMITTED BY: Sharon Lumby, City Clerk THROUGH: Bruce A. Messelt, City Administrator SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED.: The Lake Elmo Jaycees are requesting the City Council Proclaim August llth-14th, 2011 as Huff n'Puff Days in the City of Lake Elmo, A Proclamation has been provided for the Mayor to read and sign. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proclamation --page 1 Lake Elmo aycees Arfiltatcd with JCI(i Proclamation WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Jaycees have been a vital part of the development of young leaders of our community the past 40 years and WHEREAS, this organization of young people will again be sponsors of Huff n' Puff Aug 11th, 12th 13th, and 14th 2011 NOW, THEREFORE, I, Dean Johnston, Mayor of Lake Elmo, do hereby proclaim the weekend of Aug 11th to the 14th Huff n' Puff Days In Lake Elmo, and urge all citizens of our community to give full regard to past and continuing services of the Lake Elmo Jaycees. Signed this day of July, 2011 Dean Johnston, Mayor of Lake Elmo PO Box 198 • Lake Elmo MN 55042 • www.lalceelrnojaycees.org �g communtctes , St. Croix >Rivet for over 4U Tears! CITY OF LAKE ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: REGULAR ITEM #: MOTION 7/05/2011 5b AGENDA ITEM: Consider Approval of a Temporary On -Sale Liquor License for Lake Elmo Jaycees Huffn Puff Days and waive the fees for the liquor license and Lions Park ball field lights SUBMITTED BY: Sharon Lumby, City Clerk THROUGH: Bruce A. Messelt, City Administrator SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Lake Elmo City Council is respectfully requested to consider its annual 1 to 4 day temporary On -Sale liquor license for the Lake Elmo Jaycees Huffn Puff Days. The Council is also being asked to waive the liquor license fee and the fee for the Lions Park ball field lights. The motion to approve this request is: "Move to approve the temporary On -Sale liquor license for Me Lake Elm© Jaycees Huff 'n Puff Days, August 11-14, 2011, and waive the ftes for the liquor license and Lions Park ball field lights. BACKGROUND & STAFF REPORT: The Lake Elmo Jaycees have submitted their annual request for a temporary on -sale liquor license for Huff 'n Puff Days, August 11-14, 2011. They are also requesting a fee waiver for the application and charge for use of the ball field lights at Lions Park. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council consider a 1 to 4 day temporary On -Sale liquor license for the Lake Elmo Jaycees Huff `n Puff Days and waive the liquor license fee and the fee for the Lions Park ball field lights. The motion to approve this request is: "Move to approve the teinporary On -Sale liquor license for the Lake Elmo Jaycees Huff 'n Puff Days, August 11-14, 2011, and waive the fees for the liquor license and Lions Park ball field lights. -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting Application for Temporary On-S Liquor License for Lake Elmo Jaycees July 5th, 2011 Regular Agenda Rem ft 5b Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to further discuss and deliberate prior to taking action regarding tabling, approval or denial, If affirmative action is then taken, the appropriate action of the Council following such discussion would be: "Move to approve the temporary On -Sale liquor license for the Lake Elmo Jaycees Huff'n Puff Days, August 11-14, 2011, and waive the fees for the liquor license and Lions Park ball field lights [as amended at tonight's meeting]." ATTACHMENTS: None SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item ...,......,.... ..... City Clerk Questions from Council to Staff Mayor & City Council Public Input, if Appropriate ....... .....,...,....„.....„.„„...,..„„„,.....Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion ..„.........„. ...... ,.,...... ........ ....... ............. ..., Mayor & City Council Discussion.... ............... ............. ..... . ......... __Mayor Facilitates Action on ....... ......... ....... Mayor & City Council -- page 2 -- LAKE ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 70/5/2011 REGULAR ITEM: 6 RESOLUTION 2011-026 AGENDA ITEM: Review of code interpretation concerning a proposed covered walkway at 7955 Hill Trail Court SUBMITTED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner THROUGH: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Bruce Messelt, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Dave Snyder, City Attorney SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: The Board of Appeals is respectfully requested to determine whether Staff s interpretation of the City Code related to the applicant's proposed construction at 7955 Hill Trail Court, is in conformance with the existing regulations, as written. The applicants ask that the Board of Appeals consider Staff s interpretation of Section 11.01 Definitions regarding "Lot Line, Front" and "Lot Line, Side" as well as Section 154.081 regarding permitted encroachments. The recommended motion to act on this is as follows: "Move to approve Resolution 2011-026 confirming staffs interpretation that the western property line at 7955 Hill Trail Court would function as the front lot line, the north lot line would function as the side lot line and the proposed covered platforms would not be allowed as it would be within the 30 foot front yard setback and is not a permitted encroachment " BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The home at 7955 Hill Trail Court was built in the 1980's after a variance for lot size was approved. In August, 1985 the City Council vacated Dempsey Avenue north of this property and Argyle Street to the east. At that same time a septic system variance to allow the system to be built five feet from the new northern property line was approved. The home was then built 30 feet from this new northern property line and approximately 18 feet from the western property line. It appears at this time, that the northern property line was utilized for the front yard setback. The applicants, Pam Beytien and Jim Normann, have been in conversation with City Staff regarding potential improvements to their property at 7955 Hill Trail Court a number of times over the past few years. In 2008, Consulting Planner Ben Gozola sent Ms. Beytien an email in -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting Appeal St' determination of Lot Line Designation 4 July 5th, 2011 Regular Agenda #6 response to a discussion they had regarding proposed additions to the home (see attachment). In the email, he concurs with current Staff s interpretation of the code, which Ms, Beytien is appealing. Planner Kelli Matzek provided a written response to the request for additional clarification on Staffs interpretation of the City Code (see attachment) of which the property owner's are appealing. Code Interpretation The applicable sections of code that are being called into question: 11.01 DEFINITIONS Building Line - A line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback beyond which a structure may not extend. Lot Line, Front - Th OW of a lot,ijhidt4huts,a"Pnblic street, In the case of a corner lot, it shall be the shortest dimension of a public street. If the dimensions of a corner lot are equal, the front lot line shall be designated by the owner. In the case of a corner lot in a non-residential area, the lot shall be deemed to have frontage on both streets. Lot Line, Side - Any boundary of a lot which is not a front lot line or a rear lot line. 154.081 PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS ON REQUIRED YARDS. The following shall be permitted encroachments into setback and height requirements, except as restricted by other sections of this chapter. (A) In any yards. (1) Posts, off-street open parking, flutes, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, cornices, eaves (up to 3 feet), gutters, awnings, open terraces, steps, chimneys, flag poles, open fire escapes, sidewalks, fences, essential services exposed ramps (wheelchair), patios, stoops, decks not requiring railings in accordance with state building codes, or similar features, provided they do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or to a distance less than 5 feet from any lot line nor less than 1 foot from any existing or proposed driveway; yard lights and nameplate signs; trees, shrubs, plants, floodlights or other sources of light illuminating authorized illuminated signs, or light standards for illuminating parking areas, loading areas, or yards for safety and security reasons; provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential property. Porches as defined in this ordinance may encroach up to 6 feet into a required front yard setback or side corner yard, but in no case shall be setback less than 10 feet from the front property line. A porch is not allowed in a side or rear yard setback. page 2 -- City Council Meeting Appeal Staff Determination of Lot Line Designation July 5th, 2011 Regular Agenda #6 STAFF REPORT: Request Ms. Beytien and Mr, Normann have meet with City Staff recently and sought information on rebuilding the front steps to their home. The plan they are proposing replaces the existing plank and stairs with wider platforms of increasing height up to the front door. The proposed platforms would be built further away from the roof's drip line, which, according to the applicants, causes ice build-up and icy conditions during winter months. The plans identify that the proposed steps are expanding upon what is there currently and are to be built closer to the western property line. Appeal Staff has identified that because the road right-of-way on the North side of the property (Dempsey Avenue) was vacated in 1985, the remaining dedicated public right-of-way on the western property line now functions as the front lot line by definition of "Lot Line, Front" as identified on page two of this report. Staff has determined that the entire western property line would function as the front property line. The applicant's are appealing this determination that the entire western property line would function as the front lot line and thus a 30 foot setback should be applied. City Staff has determined that the applicants' request would not be considered a permitted encroachment as identified in Section 154.081 because while the first few two or three sets of platforms could comply with the height requirements and be considered a permitted encroachment, the last platform needed to enter the home would be above the existing driveway and would be elevated to a height greater then the ground floor level of the home which would eliminate its eligibility for this exemption. At an October 6, 2009 City Council meeting, the Council approved the language to allow porches up to six feet into a required front yard setback, Because the front yard setback in this district is 30 feet and the existing home is already 12 feet into this setback, this provision would not help the applicant in allowing their proposed improvements, It is Staff s interpretation that the applicant's proposed improvements would be an expansion of a non -conformity to the 30 foot front yard setback and would not qualify as a permitted encroachment. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above background information and staff report, it is recommended that the City Council confirm the Staff interpretation that the proposed addition would not be allowed as it would be an expansion of a non -conforming structure within a 30 foot front yard setback and would not qualify as a permitted encroachment by undertaking the following action: -- page 3 -- City Council Meeting Appeal'nation of Lot Line Designation July 5th, 2011 Regular Agenda #6 "Move to approve Resolution 2011-026 confirming staffs interpretation that the western property line at 7955 Hill Trail Court would function as the front lot line, the north lot line would function as the side lot line and the proposed covered platforms would not be allowed as it would be within the 30 foot front yard setback and is not a permitted encroachment " Should the Board of Appeals agree with Staff s finding, the applicants are still able to apply for a variance to allow the proposed improvement. Alternatively, the City Council may find that only the portion of the western property line that is along dedicated road right-of-way should function as the front lot line, in which case the remaining western property line would function as a side lot line and would have a 10 foot setback. A third, option would be if the City Council determined that the proposed improvement would meet the criteria of a permitted encroachment as' allowed under Section 154.081 and would therefore be allowed. ATTACHMENTS: 1 Applicable Sections of Code 2. Letter from Consulting Planner Ben Gozola 3. Copy of Letter from Planner Matzek 4. Applicants' Submittals 5. Neighbor's Letter of Support 6. Resolution 2011-026 SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item ..........„ ...... ................. ..... ..... . ........... City Administrator Report/Presentation..... ..... ........... ....... ............ . ............ . Planning Director Questions from Council to Staff ........... ..... ......... ..... Mayor & City Council Public Input, if Appropriate Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion ................... ..... ................. ....... ............ Mayor & City Council Discussion Mayor Facilitates Action on Motion Mayor & City Council -- page 4 -- 11.01 DEFINITIONS Building Line - A line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback beyond which a structure may not extend. Lot Line, Front - The bouridaryof a lot which:al:hits:a public Street. In the case of a corner lot, it shall be the shortest dimension of a public street. If the dimensions of a corner lot are equal, the front lot line shall be designated by the owner. In the case of a corner lot in a non-residential area, the lot shall be deemed to have frontage on both streets. Lot Line, Side - Any boundary of a lot which is not a front lot line or a rear lot line. 154.081 PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS ON REQUIRED YARDS. The following shall be permitted encroachments into setback and height requirements, except as restricted by other sections of this chapter. (A) In any yards. (1) Posts, off-street open parking, flutes, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, cornices, eaves (up to 3 feet), gutters, awnings, open terraces, steps, chimneys, flag poles, open fire escapes, sidewalks, fences, essential services exposed ramps (wheelchair), patios, stoops, decks not requiring railings in accordance with state building codes, or similar features, provided they do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or to a distance less than 5 feet from any lot line nor less than 1 foot from any existing or proposed driveway; yard lights and nameplate signs; trees, shrubs, plants, floodlights or other sources of light illuminating authorized illuminated signs, or light standards for illuminating parking areas, loading areas, or yards for safety and security reasons; provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential property. Porches as defined in this ordinance may encroach up to 6 feet into a required front yard setback or side corner yard, but in no case shall be setback less than 10 feet from the front property line. A porch is not allowed in a side or rear yard setback. Pam -Beytien From: Ben Gozm|e[boozo|o@rnfra.con] 0oNt/ Fhdov, K8ay23, 2008 1:36 PM To: Pam'eviien Co: Kx|eNlatt Subject: Property/Code Review Thank you again for i into City Hall yesterday todiscuss your proposedmdditio for the home ot7955Hill Trail Court, As promised, I've looked into code and discussed your situation with Kyle Klatt. and here's what we came upwith: —Code|sverydearUlatUle front lot line isthe one adjacent bJpublic right-of-way. |nthis case, the vacation gf Dempsey Avenue huthe north ofyour property |O1985oh|ftedUle'fnont'ofthe|OttOthevYoatennprVperty|ine. AccondinnW, the City should have enforced o 30 foot setback from the western property line when the home was built in1B80. Placement ofthe existing home indioateothisdidnothappon.ondthe3OfootsetboohYvooinstead required from the northerly property line, Pnfortunately, thetpantrnistaka does not give us authority to authorize newadd|Monothotaneootoonfmrrn|ngtotl�eco[raotsetbaohs(3O'fromtheweote[DpnJperty|ine; 1D'fromthe north & south lines; and 4O'from the eastern property |ina). — Lake Elmo oode'seoUon154.U81does it certain projections to extend into required yards no closer than five hsst from a property line and one foot from a driveway. However, | don't believe this language vvUUlelP you given the types Vfadditions you'd like tnpursue, First, the improvements tothe hnntofthe home will clearly be adjacent blorabove the existing driveway, sothe exemption wou|dnotapp|y. Second, the proposed wrap- around porch would end up being elevated toadegree that would require e safety railing. The safety railing would extend the porch to a height greater than the ground floor level of the home which would eliminate its eligibility for this exemption. | could not find any other provisions in code that would alleviate the need for variances. ' To proceed, I' d suggest that you design your additions to be,no closer than 10 feet from either the northern or western property lines, While both additions would require you to request variances, you could argue that the landlocked nature of your parcel results in both property lines functioning as side yards, and that the building permit approval in 1986 resulted in the existing nonconformities. Provided you can show the proposed additions will not impact neighboring properties, you should be able to make a pretty good case for a variance.' Note that until we receive and review an application, we cannot guarantee what recommendation we will make to the planning commission and City Council, Ultimately the specific facts surrounding your property will determine our recommendation, Second, City Hall can provide you with a handout to explain the variance process and the information you'll need to submit, Normally I'd provide the handout via email, but the City computers are currently being updated and I will not have access to their system until sometime next week, Sorry for not having better news, but hopefully this gets you an the right track. Have agreat holiday weekend, and feel free to call anytime ifyou have questions, Ben G#zp|o.AJCp Senior Planner IVIFRA 148O02OthAvenue North Su/te14D P|ymouth, MN 55447 Qireot:7G3'748'1G5O Offioe:7O3'746'8D1O Fax:783'748-O532 'Ce||:852'217-O%52 5/27/2008 Kelli Matzek From- KaUK4obek Sent: Thursday, June OS.2U11 11-41AK4 To: idea-mo.00m' Cc: Kyle ruao Subject. Property/Code Review Pam, Thank you for coming into City Hall to discuss your,proposed additions for the home at 7955 Hill Trail Court. As we discussed, it is Staff's interpretation that the western property line is your front lot line because it is adjacent to public right-of-way and would therefore be sub'ec to a 38 foot setback, Ben GozVla's email dated May 23^ 2008 goes into more detail regarding the road vacation* existing code requirements, allowed exceptions and s±aff's interpretation soI will not restate them at this time. Options: l' If you are interested in appealing the decision that the western property line is the front lot line per the City [ode or that your proposed improvements should be considered one of the permitted encroachments as listed in Section 154,081, please fill out the applicable application with the fee of $150. As part of the application, we will also need °clear indication of which section of code (or both) you think staff is not interpreting correctly. Both sections of code are copied at the bottom of this email. The appeal application is to ask the Council if they disagree with staff's interpretation of the City [ode requirements. To he clear, an appeal isn't to allow an exception to the rules, but instead that staff is not correctly interpreting how the language is written. An appeal application must he filed at City Hall within ten days of receiving this email, Z' If you would like to apply for a variance* the application form is the same* but the application fee is $758' With the application, we will need a survey showing what proposed additions you would like to proceed with/ any statement you would like to provide explaining how your property is unique and a list of property owners (please follow up with me on this portion before -you apply). ~Kelli Matzeh Planner City of Lake Elmo (651) 233-5413 11,01 0EFINITIONS, LOT LINE, FRONT. The boundary of a lot which abuts o public street. In the case of a corner lot, it shall be the shortest dimension of a public street. If the dimensions of a corner lot are equal, the front lot line shall be designated by the owner. In the case of a corner lot in a non-residential area, the lot shall be deemed to have frontage on both streets. LOT LINE, REAR. The boundary of a lot which is opposite to the front lot line. If the rear lot line is less than 10 feet in length, or if the lot forms a point at the rear, the rear lot line shall he a line 10 feet in length within the lot, parallel to, and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. LOT LINE/ SIDE. Any boundary of a lot which is not a front lot line or a rear lot line, LOT LINE. /\ lot line is the property line bounding � a lot except that where any portion of a lot extends into a public right-of-way or a proposed public right-of-way, the line of the public right-of-way shall be the lot line. § 154.081 PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS ON REQUIRED YARDS, The following shall be permitted encroachments into setback and height requirements except as restricted by other sections of this chapter. (A) In any yards. (1) Posts, off-street open parking, flutes, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, cornices, eaves (up to 3 feet), gutters, awnings, openterraces, steps" chimneys, flag poles, open fire escapes, sidewalks, fences, essential services exposed ramps (wheelchair), patios/ stoops, decks not requiring railings in accordance with state building codes' or similar features* provided they do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or to a distance less than S feet from any lot line nor less than 1 foot from any existing or proposed driveway; yard lights and nameplate signs; trees, shrubs, plants, floodlights or other sources of light illuminating authorized illuminated signs, or light standards for illuminating parking areas, loading areas" or yards for safety and security reasons; provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right- of-way or adjacent residential property' (2) Porches as defined in § 11'01 <http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dIl7f=id$id=Lahe`/`20Elmo'%Z0MN%20[ode�20of%20Ordinances%3A r%3451$cid=minnesota$t=document'frame'htm$an=JD_11.81$3.@#3D_11.0I> may encroach up to 6 feet into a required front yard setback or side corner yard, but in no case shall be setback less than 10 feet from the front property line. A porch is not allowed in o side or reap yard setback, 2 ( ( (B) Slde,and rear yards.` Fences 30% open; wplIs and hedgey 6 feet in height or less; bays not to.exceed a depth of 3 fegtor containing an area of more than 30 square feet; fire escapes not to exceed a width of 3 feet. (C) Corner lots. Nothing shall be placed or allowed to grow in such a manner as materially to impede vision between a height of 2-1/2 and 18 feet above the center line grades of the intersecting streets within 100 feet of the'in±ersectiun. (D) Off-street parking. Inno event shall off-street parking space, structures of any type, buildings, or other improvements cover more than 75% of the lot area. In no event shall the landscaped portion of the lot be less than 25% of the entire lot as a result of permitted encroachments. In ShoreIand areas, no more than 1/3 of lot areas shall be covered with improvements. Fee $ I , City of Lake Elmo DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning District Amendment Ei Text Amendment 1:] Flood Plain C.U.P. Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) APPLICANT: ..(A/1 (Name) TI Variance * (See below) E Minor Subdivision El Lot Line Adjustment El Residential Subdivision Sketch/Concept Plan 1111 Site & Building Plan Review (Mal ing Address TELEPHONES: Cr.:5 - 117 R (Home) (Work) FEE OWNER: TELEPHONES: (Name) (Home) (Mailing Address) "KISS El Residential Subdivision Preliminary/Final Plat O 01 — 10 Lots O 11 — 20 Lots O 21 Lots or More E Excavating & Grading Permit 1:1 Appeal E1 PUD - i,19 blie) (Fax) (Work) (Mobile) PROPERTY LOCATION (Address and Complete (Long) Legal Description): DETAILED REASON FOR REQUEST: (Fax) LA.6 Elmo MO (Zip) (Zip) JUN 1 6 21111 *VARIANCE REQUESTS: As outlined in Section 301.060 C. of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code, he Applicant must demonstrate a hardship before a variance can be granted. The hardship related to this application is as follows:, In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. 1 further acknowledae the fee explanation as outlined in the application procedures and hereby aaree to nay all statements rec ed frdm the City pertaining to additi application expense. Sign nt Date Signe J071/2003 City of Lake Elmo • 3800 Laverne Avenue North • Lake Elmo • 55042 • 651-777-5510 • Fax 651-777-9615 1.I.h16/16/2011 Lake Elmo City Council, We need to rebuild the steps to our front door. The existing steps have posed a severe safety issue in the winter. We tried to resolve this problem by installing Leaf Guard gutters. The ice build-up continued along the walkway. We sought experts to help us. The conclusion was to move the steps away from the drip line. I have attached pictures of the existing entry and the front of the house to point out the structural reasons that this creates this safety hazard. We had a plan drawn up to move the steps in 2008. We brought the plan to the City of Lake Elmo and discovered the unique situation that there may be an issue as to whether our setbacks are consistent with current code. The City of Lake Elmo asked a consulting firm to address this issue. We have attached the letter written by Ben Gozola, Senior Planner MFRA. He suggested that the argument should be "that the landlocked nature of your parcel results in both property lines functioning as side yards and the building permit approval in 1986 resulted in the existing non -conformities." The project was put on hold. The steps must now be replaced. We recently met with Kelli Matzek, the City Planner for the City of Lake Elmo. She interpreted the code saying that the front and side yards as defined by code would not allow us alter our entry. I would like to point out that Kelli has been understanding of our problem and has been very clear in explaining this appeal process. Per Kelli, City Code Section 154.081, 11.01 DEFINITIONS defines the front lot line as "The boundary of a lot which abuts a public street". When the house was built in 1986, Dempsey Avenue was abandoned from our westerly property line to the east. Kelli said at that time, the westerly lot line became our front yard and the northerly lot line became our side yard. This definition places our house 18 feet into the front lot setback. Obviously the City and the builder agreed that the property lines complied with code when the house was built in 1986. Permits were issued, the contractor proceeded building and no violations were sited upon subsequent inspections. In 2002, a survey was done by Folz, Freeman, Dupey & Associates, the firm used by the City of Lake Elmo. Again, nothing came to light about non -conforming boundaries. The plan we have had drawn replaces the existing plank and stairs with wide steps that are moved away from the drip line. This will allow us to enter the house safely in the winter. The way we read Section 154.081, steps are permitted encroachments in any yard. § 154.081 PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS ON REQUIRED YARDS. The following shall be permitted encroachments into setback and height requirements, except as restricted by other sections of this chapter. (A) In any yards. (1) Posts, off-street open parking, flutes, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, cornices, eaves (up to 3 feet), gutters, awnings, open terraces, steps, chiirmeys, flag poles, open fire escapes, sidewalks, fences, essential services exposed ramps (wheelchair), patios, stoops, decks not requiring railings in accordance with state building codes, or similar features, provided they do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or to a distance less than 5 feet from any lot line nor less than 1 foot from any existing or proposed driveway; yard lights and nameplate signs; trees, shrubs, plants, floodlights or other sources of light illuminating authorized illuminated signs, or light standards for illuminating parking areas, loading areas, or yards for safety and security reasons; provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential property. We are proposing to move our steps which appear above to be a permitted encroachment. We ask the City of Lake Elmo to re -interpret the definition of our front and side yards. History shows there has been confusion on the definition of front and side lots for this property. Due to the land -locked nature of our property, we would like both property lines to function as side yards as was suggested by Ben Gozola, Senior Planner MFRA. We respectfully request that the City change the existing front and side yard definitions and allow us to re -build our steps so they are safe or determine that our building plans are permitted encroachments under Code 154.081. f I,IM 111,11il 1 I N 0 40 CJ frI L1 rS t V L N c r{ 0 ARGYLE 237 23v 240 24/ 242 243 244 245 24G Z.4 7 24 8 278 ioo 2 77 2 7, - /©©.00 - - 2_75 2 7 l 2-70 7_©o.pv-- 249 zsr 755 25 257 f __ 20- II I 00,/0 6 8 02" 00,/0 7951 Hill Trail Court Lake Elmo, Min. 55042 30th June 2011 The Honorable Board of Adjustment and Appeals City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Ehno, Min 55042 Ladies and Gentlemen: We, Veronica and Allen Siedle, have notice of a meeting to be held on July 5111 that concerns matters at 7955 Hill Trail Court. We cannot attend that meeting and so ask that you read this letter setting forth our views and consider them as though we had been in attendance and had actually spoken these words to you ourselves. We have standing because we own and live in the house adjacent to the one at 7955 Hill Trail Court, The Board of Adjustment and Appeals has considerable discretion in interpreting and applying the various relevant ordinances, regulations and precedents. When charged with such a task, courts, administrative and regulatory authorities consistently strive to give words their everyday, common sense meanings; and to avoid complex, hypertechnical readings. For the owners of 7955 Hill Trail Court, and virtually everyone else, the front door to their house is the principal, largest door through which people enter their dwelling. Form follows function and so, for them, the side of the house containing the front door is the front side. This is consistent with dictionary definitions of front door found on Google: );'. the main door at the front of the house )=. the main entrance to a house These definitions do not depend on how the door is oriented with respect to some other, arbitrary, definition of front, side or back. Importantly, at 7955 Hill Trail Court, the door in question is not only the main door, it is the only door. Planners appear to believe that the front side of a house can be determined by reference to a street that never was, that existed only on paper. This logic leads to an absurd result: at 7955 Hill Trail Court, the front door is at the side of the house. That should not stand. We know the owners of 7955 Hill Trail Court to be solid citizens and no mischief will flow from their plans. Rather, what they propose is a reasonable and prudent use of their property: to mitigate the hazard caused by an icy walkway. Their appeal seeks action well within bounds of sound discretion and that is backed by the forces of reason, logic and equity. We think that it should be granted. Veronica Siedle Allen R. Siedle CITY OF LAKE ELMO Washington County, Minnesota BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS RESOLUTION NO. 2011-026 A RESOLUTION STATING FINDINGS OF FACT RELATED TO AN APPEAL ON THE DETERMINATION THAT THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE IS THE FRONT LOT LINE AND THAT AN EXPANDED PLATFORM ENTRANCE TO THE HOME AT 7955 HILL TRAIL COURT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A PERMITTED ENCROACHMENT WHEREAS, the owners of property at 7955 Hill Trail Court, Pam Beytien and Jim Norniann, asked City Staff for an interpretation on applicable setbacks for their property and if a multi -tiered platform entrance to their home would be considered a permitted encroachment; and WHEREAS, the City staff determined that the proposed improvement could not be built due to the following circumstances: 1) The property is in the Tri-Lakes area of the City and is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, 2) The R-1 District requires a front yard setback of 30 feet and a side yard setback of 10 feet for residential structures, 3) In Section 11.01 of the City Code, "Lot Line, Front" is defined as "The boundary of a lot which abuts a public street. In the case of a corner lot, it shall be the shortest dimension of a public street, If the dimensions of a corner lot are equal, the front lot line shall be designated by the owner, In the case of a corner lot in a non-residential area, the lot shall be deemed to have frontage on both sides." 4) As approximately 20 feet of the western property line abuts a publicly dedicated road right-of-way, the entire western property line functions as the front lot line and is therefore subject to the 30 foot setback requirement. The western side of the existing home, including the front door and entrance to the home is non- conforming to the 30 foot front yard setback. 5) In Section 154.081 Permitted Encroachments on Required Yards, the following are permitted encroachments into setback and height requirements: "Posts, off-street open parking, flutes, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, cornices, eaves (up to 3 feet), gutters, awnings, open terraces, steps, chitnneys, flag poles, open fire escapes, sidewalks, fences, essential services exposed ramps (wheelchair), patios, stoops, decks not requiring railings in accordance with state building codes, or similar features, provided they do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or to a distance less than 5 feet from any lot line nor less than 1 foot from any existing or proposed driveway; yard lights and nameplate signs; trees, shrubs, plants, floodlights or other sources of light illuminating authorized illuminated signs, or light standards for illuminating parking areas, loading areas, or yards for safety and security reasons; provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential property." In addition: "Porches as defined in this ordinance may encroach up to 6 feet into a required front yard setback or side corner yard, but in no case shall be setback less than 10 feet from the front property line, A porch is not allowed in a side or rear yard setback." 6) Due to the size of the proposed improvement and the vertical height resulting in the last platform into the home requiring a railing in accordance with State Building Codes, the improvement is not considered a permitted encroachment as allowed in Section 154.081 of City Code, WHEREAS, the applicants submitted an appeal to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals regarding the determination to not allow the construction of platforms to replace the existing steps, at both a larger size then what is currently there and in a location closer to the western property line; and requesting that the Board find that a building permit should be issued; and WHEREAS, the Board heard the applicants and the City's staff and counsel on July 5, 2011, and considered the facts of this case. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments of the City of Lake Elmo, that the Board concurs with the reasons not to allow the construction of the proposed platforms for entrance into the home at 7955 Hill Trail Court, as stated in 1) through 6) above. ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS of the City of Lake Ehrio this 5th day of July, 2011, Dean A. Johnston, Mayor Attest: Bruce A. Messelt, City Administrator CITY OF LAKE ELMO AYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION. DATE: 7/05/2011 REGULAR ITEM #: 7 DISCUSSION Ordinance No. 08-047 AGENDA ITEM: Hotel/Motel Water Rates — Discussion & Proposed Ordinance No. SUBMITTED BY: Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director REVIEWED BY: Bruce Messelt, City Administrato SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: It is respectfully requested that the City Council receive and discuss Staffs evaluation of proposed alternatives to the City's commercial water rate structure to potentially address identified concerns with respect to hotel/motel water users. If appropriate, the City Council may wish to consider the following motion: "Move to approve Ordinance No. 08-047A (or 08-047B), amending the 2011 fee schedule to include a Commercial Hotel/Motel Water Rate." BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On June 21st, 2011, the Lake Elmo City Council directed City Staff to evaluate two alternatives to address identified concerns with respect to hotel/motel water users. Some large commercials water users have reported significant increases in water bills, despite increased conservation efforts. Other considerations included limiting the potential alternatives to non -irrigation water consumption only and making any changes retroactive to January 2011, as well as reviewing the commercial water rate structure later in 2011. On April 19th, 2011, the City Council had directed Staff to evaluate and prepare for Council review possible changes to the City's Water rate structure to with respect to large Commercials water users. The current Water Conservation rate structure has been in place since December, 2009. STAFF REPORT: A majority of surveyed northern metro cities use the same Increasing Block Rates structure that this City adopted in December, 2009. The two identified potential alternatives for Hotel/Motel consumption include the following: Modified Conunercial Water Rate Structure - The new commercial Water Rate structure for Hotels/Motels could be structured as follows: -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting July 5th, 2011 cenario.#1, -Gallons Per Quarter 0 — 15,000 Gallons 15,001 — 30,000 Gallons 30,001 — 50,000 Gallons 50,001 — 80,000 Gallons 80,001 — 150,000 Gallons 150,000+ Hotel/Motel Conrunercial Water Rates Regular Agenda Item # 7 Gallons Pe:rQuarter 0 — 15,000 Gallons 15,001 — 30,000 Gallons 30,001 — 50,000 Gallons 50,001 — 80,000 Gallons 80,001 — 150,000 Gallons 150,001 — 200,000 Gallons Over 200,000 Gallons (Quarterly domestic, non -irrigation usage only) Cost per , 1,000 Gaftons $3.11 $3.26 $3.26 3.77 $3.77 $5.00 $3.11 3.26 3.26 $3,77 $3.77 5.00 Scenario #1 applies a modified Water Conservation Rate structure, as presented to the City Council on June 21st, with four tiers, versus the current five. Under Scenario #1, one customer is currently identified at potentially benefitting from a separate commercial Hotel/Motel water rate structure. The net revenue reduction is estimated to be $8,200 to the Utility for the 2011 billing period, or an approximately 25% reduction in currently -estimated revenues from this customer for this period. While the estimated average water user's bill has increased approximately 15% since 2009, the identified Hotel/Motel customer has seen at approximately 100% in its water bill in both 2010 and 2011, as compared to 2009. Even with the rate adjustment utilized in Scenario #1, this customer's 2011 water bill is estimated to be 56% higher than 2009 (pre -water conservation rates). Scenario #2 applies a slightly modified Water Conservation Rate structure than #1, with four more evenly -dispersed tiers, Under Scenario #2, again with only one currently -identified customer, the net revenue reduction is estimated to be $8,500 to the Utility for the 2011 billing period, or an approximately 26% reduction in currently -estimated revenues from this customer for this period. Even with the rate adjustment utilized in Scenario #2, this customer's 2011 water bill is estimated to be 53% higher than 2009 (pre -water conservation rates). Ordinance No. 08- 047A has been prepared for Council consideration, utilizing Scenario #2 and making billing adjustments retroactive to January 2011. "Multifamily" Commercial Water Rate Structure — According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, another acceptable Water Conservation Rate Structure exists for multiple - family dwellings. While not specific to hotels/motels, this rate structure takes into consideration the independent consumptive nature of each unit within a larger single -metered facility, as well as meeting space and offices. According to the MN DNR Guidelines: Multiple —Family Dwellings: Total water use in a multiple -family dwelling, which has only one water meter for the entire dwelling, may exceed that of a single-family dwelling. The statute does not require individual water meters for each residential unit within a multiple -family dwelling; however, the required -- page 2 -- City Council Meeting Hotel/Motel Commercial Water Rates July 5th, 2011 Regular Agenda Item # 7 conservation rate at which the multiple -family dwelling's water use is billed must consider the number of residential units within that multiple -family dwelling. Example: A four-plex uses a total of 18,000 gallons per month or approximately 4,500 gallons per residential unit. Water use for each residential unit falls within the first block (0-6,000 gallons) of the above Excess Use Rate example. A rate of $2.50/1000 gallons would apply up to a total use of 24,000 gallons for the multiple -family dwelling. Thereafter, the rate increases according to the rate schedule, always considering each residential unit as an individual user. For this customer, a preliminary calculation, using the Metropolitan Council's formula, yields 55 SAC (REC) Units, based upon the number of hotel rooms and square footage utilized for office space and meeting rooms. Swimming pools for hotel users and mechanical rooms are exempt from this calculation by the Metropolitan Council. It should be noted that the City does not envision creating, at this time, a Multiple -Family Dwellings' rate structure for other than commercial hotels/motels. A more general commercial (and/or residential) rate structure for Multiple -Family Dwellings would likely increase the number of affected customers. Utilizing the Multiple -Family Dwellings' approach for the only currently -identified hotel/motel customer would yield an estimated net revenue reduction of $12,400 to the Utility for the 2011 billing period, or an approximately 40% reduction in currently -estimated revenues from this customer for this period. With this rate adjustment, this customer's 2011 water bill is estimated to still be 29% higher than 2009 (pre -water conservation rates). Ordinance No. 08-047B has been prepared for Council consideration, utilizing the Multiple -Family Dwellings' approach and making billing adjustments retroactive to January 2011. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive and discuss staff's evaluation of proposed alternatives to the City's commercial water rate structure to potentially address identified concerns with respect to hotel/motel water users. If appropriate, the City Council may wish to consider the following: "Move to approve Ordinance No. 08-047A, anzending the 2011 fee schedule to include a Commercial Hotel/Motel Water Rate, utilizing a new Water Conservation Rate Structure." or "Move to approve Ordinance No. 08-047B, amending the 2011 fee schedule to include a Commercial Hotel/Motel Water Rate Structure, utilizing a Multiple - Family Dwellings' calculation." Alternatively, the City Council may reject, table, further discuss and/or modify this recommendation, as appropriate. If the latter is undertaken, the suggested motion would be: -- page 3 -- City Council Meeting Commercial Water Rates July 5th, 2011 Regular Agenda Item 7 "Move to approve Ordinance No. 08-047A (or 08-047B), amending the 2011 fee schedule to include a Comniercial Hotel/Motel Water Rate [as agreed upon at tonight's meetingl." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. 08-047A 2. Ordinance NO. 08-047B 3, Minnesota DNR Water Conservation Rate Guidelines 4. Met Council SAC Calculations 5. Analysis of Identified Scenarios SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS. Introduction of Item City Administrator Report/Presentation Finance Director Questions from Council to Staff Mayor Facilitates Public Input Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion ........... ..... ........... ......... ......., ....... . ........... Mayor & City Council Discussion ...... ................, ............................ ................ Mayor Facilitates Action on Motion Mayor & City Council page 4 — CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08-047A AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL FEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2011 The Lake Elmo City Council hereby adopts the following fee schedule for calendar year 2011, applicable as services outlined in Appendix A, and directs that it be added to the Lake Elmo Municipal Code as Appendix A. Appendix A: 2011 Fee Schedule — Commercial Hotel/Motel Water Quarterly Rate ADOPTION DATE: Passed by the Lake Elmo City Council on the 5th day of July, 2011, CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: ATTEST Sharon Lumby City Clerk PUBLICATION DATE: Dean A. Johnston Its: Mayor Appendix A City of Lake Elmo 2011 Fee Schedule 2011 Escrow or Additional Charge Accessory Bldg Forward of Primary Structure $80.00 Administrative / Fines $0.00 Amateur Radio Antenna $875.00 Appeal (to Board of Adjustment and Appeals) $150.00 Assessment Search $25.00 Building Demolition First 1000 Square Feet $105.00 Each Additional 1000 sq feet or portion thereof $11.00 Burning Permits Residential Illegal Burn $100.00 $$4805.M°00 Commercial Comprehensive Plan Amendment $1,300.00 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) <new or amended> CONTRACTOR LICENSE FEES Blacktopping $75.00 Excavator License $75.00 Heating and A/C $75.00 Sign Installer $50.00 Solid Waste Hauler $120.00 COPY$70.00 SERVICES Tree Contract Copies (B&W) $0.35 Copies (B&W) 11 X 17 $1.00 Copies (Cor) lo$0.50 Copies (Color) 11 X 17 $2,00 City Map - colored $3.15 City Street Maps 36 X 40 $20.00 GIS / Engineering Maps Existing Maps $5.00 Custom (Per Hour rate) $70.00 Plan Size Maps Larger than 11 X 17 $20.00 Development Standards Specification & Details $55.00 Code Book $160.00 Sections 1, 2, 4, 6-12, 14 $12.00 Section 3 $52.00 Section 5 and 13 $27,00 Comprehensive Plan $125,00 OP Ordinance $12.00 Parks Plan $80.00 Culverts in Developments with Rural Section $160.00 Dog License $20.00 Service Dogs License (dogs with special training to $5.00 assist individual with disabilities) Unlicensed dog (first impound) $60.00 Licensed dog (first impound) $42.00 Cat Impound (first impound) $42.00 Subsequent dog/cat impound $85.00 Duplicate License or Tag $1,00 Driveway Residential Commercial Easement Encroachment Electronic Fund Withdrawal / Bill Payment Excavating and Grading False Alarm 1 to 3 False alarms In excess of 3 up to and including 6 false alarms within a twelve (12) month period Residential Commercial $70.00 $160.00 $100.00 Fee & Transaction Charge $125.00 $110.00 $315.00 Phis 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) New $1,050.00 Wireless Communication Facilities Escrow $6,000.00 Flood Amended $500.00 Plain Ordinance Escrow $500.00 Sign Reinspection Fee $25.00 Provided electronically or paper Provided electronically or paper Renew on expiration of rabies vaccination Plus Boarding Fee-20.00/Day Plus Boarding Fee-20.00/Day Plus Boarding Fee-20.00/Day Plus Boarding Fee-20.00/Day Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Staff & Recording Fee Erosion Control Bond, Escrow, or Letter of Credit: $1500.00 per acre. Page 1 of 4 Appendix A City of Lake Elmo 2011 Fee Schedule Accessory Bldg Forward of Primary Structure Administrative / Fines Amateur Radio Antenna Appeal (to Board of Adjustment and Appeals) Assessment Search Building Demolition First 1000 Square Feet Each Additional 1000 sq feet or portion thereof Burning Permits Residential Commercial Illegal Burn Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) <new or amended> CONTRACTOR LICENSE FEES Blacktopping Excavator License Heating and A/C Sim Installer Solid Waste Hauler Tree Contract COPY SERVICES Copies (B&W) Copies (B&W) 11 X 17 Copies (Color) Copies (Color) 11 X 17 City Map - colored City Street Maps 36 X 40 GIS / En, .gineering Maps Existing Maps Custom (Per Hour rate) Plan Size Maps Larger than 11 X 17 Development Standards Specification & Details Code Book Sections 1, 2, 4, 6-12, 14 Section 3 Section 5 and 13 Comprehensive Plan OP Ordinance Parks Plan Culverts in Developments with Rural Section Dog License Service Dogs License (dogs with special training to assist individual with disabilities) Unlicensed dog (first impound) Licensed dog (first impound) Cat Impound (first impound) Subsequent dog/cat impound Duplicate License or Tag Driveway Residential Commercial Easement Encroachment Electronic Fund Withdrawal / Bill Payment Excavating and Grading False Alarm 1 to 3 False alarms In excess of 3 up to and including 6 false alarms within a twelve (12) month period Residential Commercial 2011 $80.00 $0.00 $875.00 $150,00 $25.00 Escrow or Additional Charge $105.00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) MOO Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) $45,00 $80.00 $100.00 $1,300.00 New $4050.00 Amended $500.00 $75,00 $75,00 $75.00 $50.00 $120.00 $70.00 $0.35 $1.00 $0,50 $2.00 $3.15 $20,00 $5.00 $70.00 $20.00 $55.00 $160.00 $12.00 $52.00 $27.00 $125.00 $12.00 $80,00 $160,00 $20.00 $5,00 $60,00 $42.00 $42,00 $85.00 $1.00 $70.00 $160.00 $100, tIO Fee & Transaction Charge $125.00 $110.00 $315,00 Wireless Communication Facilities Escrow $6,000.00 Plain Ordinance Escrow $500.00 Sign Reinspection Fee $25.00 Provided electronically or paper Provided electronically or paper Renew on expiration of rabies vaccination Plus Boarding Fee-20.00/Dav Plus Boarding Fee-20.00/DaV Plus Boarding Fee-20.00/Day Plus Boarding Fee-20.00/Day Plus 5,00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Staff & Recording Fee Flood Erosion Control Bond, Escrow, or Letter of Credit: $1500.00 per acre, Page 004 Appendix A Ci In excess of six false alarms within a twelve (12) month period Residential Commercial :Fire Daycare inspection Fee Fie Alarm Systems Fire Sprinkler System (Inspection Fee) Fire Sprinkler System (livintperrion 17,e) Flood Plain District Delineation =Fuel Tank Removal (Underground) Fuel Tank Install Heating New Residential Addition to Residential Commercial (New or Addition) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP)-Renewal Interim Use Permit (IUP) AG Sales & Entertainment Lawn Sprinklers Liquor Club On Sale Intoxicating Off Sale Intoxicating Off -Sale Non -Intoxicating On -Sale Intoxicating On -Sale Intoxicating - 2nd Bldg On -Sale Investigation On -Sale Non -Intoxicating On -Sale Sunday Intoxicating Temporary Non -Intoxicating Winc -Lot Line Adjustment Manufactured Home Parks New Move home out of City Move into City Minor Subdivision Moving House or Primary Structure into City Moving Accessory Structure into City New Construction Plan Review Park Dedication (up to 3 lots) Parking Lots New Commercial Existing Commercial Platting Concept (PUD or OP) Preliminary Plat (and Development Stage) Final Plat (and Final Plan) Plumbing New Residential Addition to Residential Commercial (New or Addition) Private Roads (permitted only in AG zone) Restrictive Soils and Wetland Restoration Protection and Preservation Permit ake Elmo 2011 Fee Schedule Escrow or Additional Charge 2011 $185.00 $520.00 $60.00 $60.00 2% taw:due of work $50.00 $500.00 $100,00 2% of value of work $150.00 $75.00 Minimum $175.00 or 1% of total job $1,050.00 $300.00 $250.00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 1% of Value Minimum $100.00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State. Mandated) Minimum $100.00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus minimum 5.00 Surcharge 2011 Only $125.00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) $100.00 per year $200.00 per year $150.00 per year $1500.00 per year $750.00 per year $350.00 $100.00 per year $200.00 per year $25.00 per event $300.00 per year $310.00 81,000.00 $1,200.00 $100.00 $150.00 $500.00 $520.00 $305.00 Per 1997 UBC (65% $3600.00 for each Plus 2500.00 Escrow Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus bond with amount to be determined by City w/recommendation from Building Official Blue Escrow to be determined by the City wirecommendation from Building Official Four or more lots per Section 400 Formula $175.00 Pius 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) $100.00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) $1,250.00 $1,850.00 $1,250.00 $150.00 $75.00 175 Plus 2.5% Administrative Pee Development Agreement Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 5,00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus minimum 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) $150.00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) $800.00 1500.00 escrow Page 2 Of 4 Appendix A ( City of Lake Elmo 2011 Fee Schedule Escrow or Additional Charge In excess of six false alanns within a twelve (12) month period Residential Commercial Fire Daycare inspection Fee Frie Alarm Systems Fire Sprinkler System (inspection Fee) Fire Sprinkler System (Reinspection Fcc) Flood Plain District Delineation Fuel Tank Removal (Underground) Fuel Tank Instal Heating New Residential Addition to Residential Commercial (New or Addition) Interim Use Permit (IIJP) Interim Use Permit (IUP)-Renewal Interim Use Permit (IUP) AG Sales & Entertainment Lawn Sprinklers Liquor Club On Sale Intoxicating Off Sale Intoxicating Off -Sale Non -Intoxicating On -Sale Intoxicating On -Sale Intoxicating - 2nd Bldg On -Sale Investigation On-Salc Non -Intoxicating On -Sale Sunday Intoxicating Temporary Non -Intoxicating Wine Lot Line Adjustment Manufactured Home Parks New Move home out of City Move into City Minor Subdivision Moving House or Primary Structure into City Moving Accessory Structure into City New Construction Plan Review Park Dedication (up to 3 lots) Parking Lots New Commercial Existing Commercial Platting Concept (PhD or OP) Preliminary Plat (and Development Stage) Final Plat (and Final Plan) Plumbing New Residential Addition to Residential Commercial or Addition) Private Roads (permitted only in AG zone) Restrictive Soils and Wetland Restoration Protection and Preservation Permit 2011 $185,00 $520.00 $60.00 $60.00 2% of value of work $50.00 $500.00 $100.00 2% of value of work $150.00 $75.00 Minimum $175,00 or P/o of total job $1,050.00 $300.00 $250.00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus P/c. of Value Minimum $100.00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Minimum $100,00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 5,00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Pius minimum 5.00 Surcharge 2011 Only $125.00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) $100.00 per year $200.00 per year $150,00 per year $1500.00 per year $750.00 per year $350.00 $100.00 per year $200.00 per year $25.00 per event $300.00 per year $310.00 $1,000.00 $1,200.00 $100.00 $150.00 $500.00 $520.00 $305.00 Per 1997 UBC (G5% $3600.00 for each Plus 2500.00 Escrow Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Pius bond with amount to be determined by City w/tecornmendation from building Official Plus Escrow to be determined by the City w/recommendatinn from building Official Four or more lots per Section 400 Formula $175.00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) $100.00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) $1,250,00 $1,850.00 $1,250.00 $150.00 $75.00 175 $150.00 $800.00 Plus 2.5% Administrative Fee Development Agreement Plus 5,00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus minimum 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) 1500.00 escrow Page 2 of 4 Appendix A City of Lake Elmo 2011 Fee Schedule Escrow or Additional Charge Right -of -Way Permits Annual Registration (1415.05 Subd.1) Excavation (1415.11 Subd. 1) Each Additional Excavation Trench Fcc (boring or open cut) Overhead Installation Fee New Subdivisions (Alternate to per foot fee) Street Obstruction Fee 0415.11 (Sub 2.) Permit Extension Delay Penalty Sewage Disposal On -Site Septic Systems New Alterations or Repairs Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Sewer Wetland Treatment Hookup to Existing System Alteration/Repair 201 Off -Site Maintenance Fee Signs Permanent Signs Temporary Signs Temporary Renewal Site Plan Review (Chapter 520) Special Events Support Deparment Equioment/Personriel Public Safety Public Works Support (Traffic Control/Other) Street Cleaning Erosion Control Escrow Re -inspection Processing Fee Surface Water Residential Non -Residential (commercial, ag., etc.) Tennis Courts Vacations (Streets or Easements) Easements Streets Variance . Video Reproduction Water Residential - Quarterly Rate Plus Rate Per 1000 Gallons 0-15,000 Gallons 15,001 - 30,000 Gallons 30,001 - 50,00(1 Gallons 50,001 - 80,000 Gallons 80,0(11 +Gallons Commercial - Quarterly Rate Plus Rate Per 1000 Gallons 0-15,000 Gallons 15,001 - 30,000 Gallons 30,001 - 50,000 Gallons 50,001 - 80,000 Gallons 80,001 +Gallons 2011 $100.00 $230.00 $40.00 .60 per foot .60 per foot $100.00 $100.00 $1.00.00 25.00 per day $5,730.00 $4.50 per JAW 010115 $100.00 $75.00 75.00 per unit per quarter $180.00 $75.00 $25.00 $980.00 $250/HR (Engine) $350/HR (Ladder) -Ni $100.00 $5,000.00 $50.00 per hour $50.00 $50.00 Per 1997 CDC $515.00 $515.00 $750.00 $35.00 $25.00 Base $2.14 $2.86 $3.77 $5.00 $6.63 $25.00 Base $3./1 $3.26 $3.77 $5.00 $6.63 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) per SAC unit - 2230.00 tn Met Council; 3500 to City Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) As Per Washingtion County Sheriff's Dept. Fee Schedule Plus Meterials Portal to Portal from City Hall, Minimum: 1 hour 10% of Contractor's Invoice to City Utility Rate Factor per code Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) $500.00 Escrow $500.00 Escrow Page 3 of 4 Appendix A City of Lake Elmo 2D11 Fee Schedule Escrow or Additional Charge 2011 Right -of -Way Permits Annual Registration (1415.05 Subd.l) Excavation (1415.11 Subd, 1) Each Additional Excavation Trench Fee (boring or open cut) Overhead installation Fee New Subdivisions (Alternate to per foot fee) Street Obstruction Fee 0415.11 (Sub 2.) Permit Extension Delay Penalty Sewage Disposal On -Site Septic Systems New Alterations or Repairs Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Sewer Wetland Treatment Hookup to Existing System Alteration/Repair 201 Off -Site Maintenance Fee Signs Permanent Signs Temporary Signs Temporary Renewal Site Plan Review (Chapter 520) Special Events Support Fire Depannent Equipment/Personnel Public Safety Public Works Support (Traffic Control/Other) Street Cleaning Erosion Control Escrow Re -inspection Processing Fee. Surface Water Residential Non -Residential (commercial, ag., etc.) Tennis Courts Vacations (Streets or Easements) Easements Streets Variance Video Reproduction Water Residential - Quarterly Rate Plus Rate Per 1000 Gallons 0-15,000 Gallons 15,001 - 30,1)00 Gallons 30,001 - 50,000 Gallons 50,001 - 80,000 Gallons 80,001+Gallons Commercial - Quarterly Rate Plus Rate Per 1000 Gallons 0-15,000 Gallons 15,001 - 30,0110 Gallons 30,001 - 50,000 Gallons 50,001 - 80,000 Gallons 80,001 +Gallons $100.00 $230.00 $40.00 .60 per foot .60 per foot $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 25.00 per day $5,730,00 04.50 per 1,000 gallons $100,00 $75.00 75.00 per unit per quarter $030.00 $75.00 $25.00 $980.00 $250/HR (Engine) $350/HR (Ladder) -NA $100.00 $5,000,00 $50,00 per hour $50.00 $50,00 Per 1997 UBC $515.00 $515.00 $750.00 $35.00 $25.00 Base $2.14 $2,86 $3.77 $5,00 $6.63 $25.00 Base $3.11 $3.26 $3.77 $5.00 $6.63 Pius 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) per SAC unit - 2230,00 to Met Council; 3500 to City Plus 5,00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 5,00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Pius 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) As Per Washnigtion County Sheriff's Dept. Fee Schedule Plus Meterials Portal to Portal from City Hall. Minirmun: 1 hour 10% of Contractor's Invoice to City Utility Rate Factor per code Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) $500.00 Escrow $500.00 Escrow Page 3 of 4 Appendix A Citylo(Lake Elmo 2011 Fee Schedule Escrow or Additional Charge Commercial — Hotel/MotaQuarterly Rate Plus Commercial Rate Per 1000 Gallons MI Connection Permits Meters, MILT & Meter Installation Sets Delinquent Accounts Disconnect Service Reconnect Service Service Call Water Storage Violation Bulk Water from Hydrant Swimming Pool Fill Water Availability Charge (WAC) Existing, Structures within Old Village New Development Wind Generator Wireless Communication Permit Zoning Amendment ( Text or Map) 2011 $25.00rEase • r Utilizing Multiple :family Dwelline -Calculation— Rased Upon REC (SAC) $140.00 $300,00 6% per quarter $80.00 $80.00 $15.00 per day $61.20 fin first 5,000 gailons $61.20 for first 5,0011 gallons $800110 $3,000.00 $850.00 $500.00 $1,245.00 Plus 25.00 or 8%, whichever is greater, if certified to County for collection with taxes Plus 3.26 per additional 1000 Gais Plus 3.26 per 1000 Gals & $15.00 per labor hour $2000.00 Escrow $2000.00 Escrow Page 4 of 4 Appendix A City a e Elmo 2011 Fee Schedule Escrow or Additional Charge 2011 Accessory Bldg Forward of Primary Structure 1$B0.00 Administrative / Fines Amateur Radio Antenna Appeal (to Board of Adjustment and Appeals) Assessment Search Building Demolition First 1000 Square Feet Each Additional 1000 sq feet 01 portion thereof Burning Permits Residential Commercial Illegal Bum Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) <new or amended> CONTRACTOR LICENSE FEES Blacktopping Excavator License Heating and A/C Sign Installer Solid Waste Hauler Tree Contract COPY SERVICES Copies (B&W) Copies (B&W) 11 X 17 Copies (Color) Copies (Color) 11 X 17 City Map - colored City Street Maps 36 X 40 GOS / Engineering Maps Existing Maps Custom (Per Hoot rate) Plan Size Maps Larger than 11 X 17 Development Standards. Specification & Details Code Book Sections 1, 2, 4, 6-12, 14 Section 3 Section 5 and 13 Comprehensive Plan OP Ordinance Parks Plan Culverts in Developments with Rural Section Dog License Service Dogs License (dogs with special training to assist individual with disabilities) Unlicensed dog (6rst impound) Licensed dog (first impound) Gat Impound (first impound) Subsequent dog/cat impound - Duplicate License or Tag Driveway Residential Coinmercial Easement Encroachment Electronic Fund Withdrawal / Bill Payment Excavating and Grading False Alarm 1 to 3 False alarms In excess of 3 up to and including 6 false alarms within a twelve (12) month period Residential Commercial $0.00 $875.00 $150.00 $25,00 $105.00 Plus 5,00 Surcharge (State Mandated) $11.00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) $45.00 $80.00 $100.00 $1,300.00 New $1,050.00 Wireless Communication Facilities Escrow $6,000.00 Amended $500.00 Plain Ordinance Escrow $500.00 $75.00 $75.00 $75.00 $50.00 $120.00 $70.00 $0.35 $1.10 $0.50 $2.00 $3.15 $20.00 $5.00 $70.00 $20.00 $55.00 $160.00 $12.00 $52.00 $27.00 $125.00 $12.00 $80.00 $160.00 $20.00 $5,00 $60,00 $42.00 $42.00 $55.00 $1.00 $70.00 $160.00 5700.00 Fee & Transaction Charge $125.00 $110,00 $315.00 Sign Reinspection Fee $25.00 Provided electronically or paper Provided electronically or paper Renew on expiration of rabies vaccination Plus Boarding Fee-20,00/Day Plus Boarding Fee-20.00/Day Plus Boarding Fee-20.00/Day Plus Boarding Fee-20.00/Day Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Staff & Recording Fee Flood Erosion Control Bond, Escrow, or Letter of Credit.: $1500.00 per acre, Page 1 of 4 Appendix A City ake Elmo 2011 Fee Schedule 2011 Escrow or Additional Charge Commercial —.Hotel/Motel'Quarterly Rate Plus Rate -Per 1000 Gallons • . 0-15,000 -Gglons ' - 15001 - 30,000 Gallons • • 30;001- -50,000:-Gallons • -. . - -30,001 -:B0;000-Gallons -80,001 -150,000 Gallons . .150,001 — 200,000 Gallons • • 200,001+ Gallons . All Connection Permits Meters, MIU & Meter Installation Sets Delinquent Accounts Disconnect Service Reconnect Service Service Call Water Storage Violation Bulk Water from Hydrant Swimming Pool Pill Water Availability Charge (WAC) Existing Structures within Old Village New Development Wind Generator Wireless Communication Permit Zoning Amendment ( Text or Map) .$25,00 Base $3.11 . $3.11 $3.26 $3.26 $3.77 .$3.77 $500 $140.00 $300.00 6% per quarter $80.00 $80.00 $15.00 per day $61.20 for Erst 5,000 gallons $41.20 for first 5,000 gallons $000.00 $3,900.00 $050.00 $500.00 $1,245.110 hut 25,00 or 8%, whichever is greater, if certified to County for collection with taxes Plus 3.26 per additional 1000 Gals Pius 3.2G per 1000 Gals & $15.00 per labor hour $2000.00 Escrow $2000.00 Escrow Page 4 of 4 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08-047B AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL FEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2011 The Lake Elmo City Council hereby adopts the following fee schedule for calendar year 2011, applicable as services outlined in Appendix A, and directs that it be added to the Lake Elmo Municipal Code as Appendix A. Appendix A: 2011 Fee Schedule — Commercial Hotel/Motel Water Quarterly Rate ADOPTION DATE: Passed by the Lake Elmo City Council on the 5th day of July, 2011. CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: ATTEST Sharon Lumby City Clerk PUBLICATION DATE: Dean. A. Johnston Its: Mayor Conservation Rates Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.291, was amended in 2008 to include a requirement for public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 people to adopt a water rate structure that encourages conservation: Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.291, subd. 4. Conservation rate structure required. (a) For the purposes of this section, "conservation rate structure" means a rate structure that encourages conservation and may include increasing block rates, seasonal rates, time of use, rates, individualized goal rates, or excess use rates. The rate structure must consider each residential unit as an individual user in multiple -family dwellings. (b) To encourage conservation, a public water supplier serving more than 1,000 people in the metropolitan area, as defined in section 473.121, subdivision 2, shall use a conservation rate structure by January 1, 2010. All remaining public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 people shall use a conservation rate structure by January 1, 2013. (c) A public water supplier without the proper measuring equipment to track the amount of water used by its users, as of the effective date of this act, is exempt from this subdivision and the conservation rate structure requirement under subdivision 3, paragraph (c). In addition, Minnesota Statues, section 1036,291, was further amended to read: Subd. 3. Water supply plans; demand reduction. (c) Public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 people must employ water use demand reduction measures. including a conservation rate structure. as defined in subdivision 4. paragraph (al. unless exempted under subdivision 4. paragraph (c). before requesting approval from the commissioner of health under section 144.383, paragraph (a), to construct a public water supply well or requesting an increase in the authorized volume of appropriation. Demand reduction measures must include evaluation of conservation rate structures and a public education program that may include a toilet and showerhead retrofit program. A conservation rate structure must be employed before requesting well construction approval for a public water supply well or before requesting an increase in permitted volume for their water appropriation permit. Examples of Conservation Rates: Commercial and industrial rates can be based on cost of service and do not necessarily need to be the same rate as that used for residential water users. Below are examples of rate structures that encourage conservation. Many variations and combinations of these examples are possible. NOTE: Rate structures often include a service charge (base rate) and a volume based charge. Service charges may cover fixed costs (capital improvements) and the volume charge is often for operation and maintenance costs. Volume charges usually use units of 1,000 gallons or 100 cubic feet (748 gallons). Increasing Block Rates: Cost per unit increases as water use increases within specified "blocks" or volumes, The increase in cost between each block should be significant enough (25% or more and 50% between the last two steps) to encourage conservation. Example: 0-6,000 gallons = $2.50/1000 gallons 6,000-12,000 gallons = $3.15/1000 gallons 12,000-24,000 gallons = $4.00/1000 gallons Above 24,000 gallons = $6.00/1000 gallons. Seasonal Rates: The rate per unit increases in the summer to encourage the efficient use of water during peak demand periods caused by outdoor water uses. Seasonal rates can take the form of a surcharge added to the normal rate or a separate fee schedule for winter and summer periods. Example: Surcharge method - $1.00/1000 gallons is added on top of the regular fee schedule for all water use between May 1 and October 1. Page 1 Conservation Rates Page 2 Time of Use Rates: Water rates are higher at times of the day when water use demands are high. This rate requires specialized meters that can monitor water use during specified segments of time, for instance, every 15 minutes, Example: Water rates are reduced by $0.75 for customers that agree not to use water for certain purposes or over a set volume of water during certain times of the day or periods of high water demands, Individualized Goal Rate (Water Budget Rate): A rate with tailored allocations developed for each customer, The rates increase as the allocation is used or exceeded by the customer, The allocation is generally based upon winter or January use. Example: A family of four used 6,200 gallons in January. Surnmer use is higher than January use so a factor is applied to determine a sununer allocation (1.5 x 6,200 gallons = 9,300 gallons). 0-6,000 gallons = $2.50/1000 gallons 6,000-9,300 gallons = $2.75/1000 gallons 9,300-18,600 gallons = $4.00/1000 gallons. (Allocation is exceeded.) Above 18,600 gallons = $6.00/1000 gallons. Excess Use Rates: Cost per unit increases greatly above an established level in order to trigger a strong price signal that discourages excessive use, This rate is similar to an increasing block rate but with much higher charges for the larger volume blocks. Example: 0-6,000 gallons — $2.50/1000 gallons 6,000-12,000 gallons = $3.15/1000 gallons 12,000-24,000 gallons = $5.00/1000 gallons (Excessive Use Rate) Above 24,000 gallons=$7.50/1000 gallons (Excessive Use Rate) 1'41114le—Family Dwellings: Total water use in a multiple -family dwelling, which has only one water meter for the entire dwelling, may exceed that of a single-family dwelling. The statute does not require individual water meters for each residential unit within a multiple -family dwelling; however, the required conservation rate at which the multiple -family dwelling's water use is billed must consider the number of residential units within that multiple -family dwelling. Example: A four-plex uses a total of 18,000 gallons per month or approximately 4,500 gallons per residential unit. Water use for each residential unit falls within the first block (0-6,000 gallons) of the above Excess Use Rate example, A rate of $2.50/1000 gallons would apply up to a total use of 24,000 gallons for the multiple - family dwelling, Thereafter, the rate increases according to the rate schedule, always considering each residential unit as an individual user. Non -conservation rate examples: Declining. (Decreasina) Block Rates: The cost per unit of water (cubic foot or gallon) decreases as the water use increases beyond the basic block. This rate structure provides no incentive to conserve because the cost of water per unit decreases with increased use. Flat Rates: A set fee allows the use of an indefinite amount of water. This rate structure is used where water is unmetered and provides no incentive to conserve water because cost is unrelated to volume used. Uniform Rates: The cost per unit is the same regardless of the volume used. This rate structure is considered conservation neutral. Service Charge (Base Rate) that includes a Minimum Water Volume: The inclusion of a minimum volume of water in the service charge (base rate) discourages conservation especially if the minimum volume exceeds average customer usage. Conservation Rates 3 1 2010.pdf Ice Arena Shower (if lockers use Locker Room criteria) Team Room (plumbing fixture units) °17fixture units 1 B|aaoham 110uaotu 1 Ice roourfacer(if discharge goes tothe sanitary sewer) 1ranurfaomr 4 Laundromat (required water volume for cycle time x 8 cycles/day x # of washers) 274go||onn 1 Library (subtract book storage areoo, file omoa| charge for common plumbing fixture units in ^17fix1ure units 1 public areas) Raception, book checkout, office 2.400 square feet 1 Meeting room, board room 1.65Osquare feet 1 Loading Dock � 7.8OOsquare feet 1 Locker Room (if showers) 14lookers/hooka 1 Manufacturing (for remainder use other criteria (ie.Office criteria) 7.008square feet 1 Shower (if lockers use Locker Room criteria) °17fixture units 1 Process Discharge Contact K4CEGfor Determination Marina (Dumping Station) 1 station 1 Areas Open toPublic; see other criteria Massage Room 6atmUonu 1 Shower ~17fixture units 1 NMee|a to Go (prepared bulk meals) # meals prepared inone day x1.Sgallons/meal (no dishwashing) 274ge||ono 1 Meeting Room (conference room) 1.65Osquare feet 1 Memory Care (see Wmo/n0 Home) Mini -storage (storage area —nocharge) Apartment 1 apartment 1 Public Area °17fixture units 1 Mobile Home 1 Motel and Hotel (assume 2 psoplairoom; no�charge for pools, saunas, whirlpools, game rooms, 2momo 1 orexercise rooms used exclusively byguests) Breakfast only (complimentary) 45ueato 1 Cocktail hour (comp|imentory) 55eeotu 1 'Kitchenette (number nfkitchenettes x1OgoUons/day) 274goUnna 1 Museum 2.4DOsquare feet 1 Nall Salon (See Beauty Salon) Nursing Home 2 beds Office General office (deduct mechanical rooms, elevator shafts, stairwells, and restroom areas) 2,4ODsquare feet Shower (if lockers use Locker Room criteria) °17fixture units Meeting Roam (conference room) 1.G5Osquare feet Dental and Dnctor'n office, aaa Hospital, Outpatient Clinic Liquor License (see Banquet Room for the space covered under the liquor license) Parking Garage (if connected to sanitary sewer) Minimum 1 SAC; Otherwise use Floor Drain °17 fixture units equivalent fixture units for Trench Drain base fixture unit assignments on outlet pipe(s) diameter. Vehicle Washing Contact [0CES for Determination 1 1 1 38 Projected based on 2010 Ramis 03-00000721-00-6 NON -IRRIGATION WATER ACTIVITY Q1-11 Actual Billed Eater Gallons Used 1,233,280 Bill Amount F.F3C1TAR19 0-15.000 15,008 - 30,000 30,001 - 50,000 50,001 - 80,000 80,001 - 150,000 150.001 - 200,000 over 200,000 Enter Cottons Used 1,080;164 0 - 15,000 15.001 - 30,000 30,001 - 50,000 50,001 - 80.000 80,001 - 150,000 150.001 - 200.000 over 200,000 Enter Gallons Used 1,450,000 0 - 15,000 15,001 - 30_000 30.001 - 50,000 50-001 - 80,000 80.001 - 150,000 150,001 - 200.000 over 200,000 Enter Gallons Used 0- 15,000 15,001 - 30.000 30,001 - 50,000 50,001 - 80,000 80.001 - 150.000 150,001 - 200,000 OYU 200,000 New meter only... 0.00311 15000 0_00126 15000 0.00377 20000 0.00500 30000 0.00663 70000 0.00663 50000 0.00663 1,033,280 ST Q2-11 Bill Amount 0.00311 0.00326 0.00377 0.00500 0.00663 0.00663 0.00663 ST 15000 15000 20000 30000 70000 50000 880,164 $70.75 $48.90 $75.40 $150.00 $464.10 $331_50 $6,850-65 $7,991.30 $569.38 $8,560.68 $.70.75 $48.90 $75-40 $150.00 $464.10 $331.50 $5,835.49 $6,976.14 $497.05 $7,473.19 Q3-11 BEI Amount R7§A 0.00311 15000 0.00326 15000 0.00377 20000 0.00500 30000 0.00663 70000 0.00663 50000 0.00663 1,250,000 ST 1,250,000 Q4-11 Bill Amount 0.00311 15000 0.00326 15000 0.00377 20000 0.00500 30000 0.00663 70000 0.00663 50000 0.00663 1,050,000 ST Total projected annual amount to be billed 2011 Dollar amount impact to amount billed % impact to amount billed Dollar iucrease from 2009 rate structure % increase from 2009 $70.75 $48.90 $75.40 $150.00 $464.10 $331.50 $8,287.50 $9,428.15 $671.76 $10,099.91 $70.75 * $48.90 $75.40 $150 00 $464.10 $331-50 $6,961.50 $8.102.15 5577.28 $8,679.43 2492 16,856.06 107.76% Actual 0.00311 0.00326 0.00326 0.00377 0.00377 0.00500 0.00500 ST 15000 15000 20000 30000 70000 50000 1,033,280 0,00316 15000 0.00316 15000 0_00377 20000 0.00377 30000 0.00377 70000 0.00500 50000 0.00500 880,164 ST 0.00316 15000 0.00316 15000 0.00377 20000 0.00377 30000 0.00377 70000 0.00500 50000 0 00500 1,250,000 ST 0.00316 15000 0.00316 15000 0.00377 20000 0.00377 30000 0.00377 70000 0.00500 50000 0,00500 1,050,000 ST * lucludes $25 base charge Proposed Optionp.-1 $72.40 $48.90 $65.20 $113.10 $263.90 $250.00 $5,166.40 S5,979.90 $426.07 $6,405.97 $542 $70.75 $47.40 $75.40 $113.10 $263.90 $250.00 $4,400.82 S5.221.37 $372.02 $5,593.39 $70.75 $47.40 $75.40 $113.10 $263.90 $250.00 $6,250,00 $7,070.55 $503.78 $7,574.33 $70.75 $47.40 $75_40 $113.10 $263.90 $250.00 $5,250.00 56,070.55 $432.53 $6,503.08 4,242.31 -25.10% 8'7:6°37 5 D-1 0.00311 15000 0.00311 15000 0.00326 20000 0.00326 30000 0.00377 70000 0.00377 50000 0.00500 1,033,280 ST 0.00311 15000 0.00311 15000 0.00326 20000 0.00326 30000 0.00377 70000 0 00377 50000 0.00500 880,164 ST 0.00311 15000 0.00311 15000 0,00326 20000 0.00326 30000 0.00377 70000 0.00377 50000 0.00500 1,250,000 0.00311 15000 0.00311 15000 0.00326 20000 0.00326 30000 0.00377 70000 0.00377 50000 0.00500 1,050.000 ST Proposed Option D-2 11..71,.'43P4OR $71.65 $46.65 $65.20 $97.80 $263.90 $188.50 $5,166.40 $5,900.10 $420.38 $6,320.48 7115figiii $71.65 $46.65 S65_20 $97.80 $263.90 $188 50 $4,400.82 $5,134 52 S365.83 $5,500.35 ,148:qt,:ijA! $71.65 $46.65 $65.20 $97.80 $263.90 $188.50 $6,250.00 $6,983.70 S497.59 $7,481.29 $71.65 $46.65 $6520 $97.80 $263.90 $188.50 $5,250.00 $5,983.70 S426.34 $6,410.04 go,sq,p:f -26_14%, Usage @ 55 rec factor 22,423.27 Proposed Option Multi-Fam 0.00311 11049 0-00326 0 0.00377 0 0.00500 0 0.00663 0 0.00663 0 0,00663 0 times 55 ST 19,639.35 0.00311 15000 0.00326 7952 0.00377 0 0.00500 0 0 00663 0 0.00663 0 0.00663 0 times 55 ST $59.36 $0.00 $0.00 50.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,264.93 $232.63 $3,497.56 $71.65 $25.92 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,366.54 5382.37 $5,748.91 Old Pre -tier 3;8413r1,, Current bat at prior/flat rate structure t bill at prior/flat rate structure 26,363.64 F.?;17,71:$16,031J0:, ;".;WI:0/i10Current bill at priorfflat rate structure 0-00311 15000 $71.65 0.00326 11896 $38-78 0.00377 0 $0.00 0.00500 0 $0.00 0.00663 0 50.00 0,00663 0 $0.00 0.00663 0 $0.00 times 55 $6,073.70 ST 5432.75 $6.506.45 72,727.27 0.00311 15000 0.00326 8150 0.00377 0 0.00500 0 0.00663 0 0-00663 0 0.00663 0 times 55 ST 744111,1:00 11.10;:" Current bill at prior/flat rate structure $71.65 $26.57 $0.00 $0-00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,402.05 $334.90 $5,786.94 0441Vq0414; -38.13% 8,533;458 60.3i1 44655.5or5S D-2 Multi-Fam 111 at ,....rrriod-flat rate stnicture 03-00000721-00-6 NON -IRRIGATION WATER ACTIVITY Proposed Proposed Usage ®. Proposed Old Q1-10 Actual Billed ,,yptims LI- i Option D-2 55 rec tactor Option Multi-Farn Pre -ter Enter Gallons U131. sed 607.716 11Amount migi7§5.:?A :.:: tid P4411,77228, 11,049.38 "IO2r0-1*1-9'3 • :T,8c,9-f,;Current bill at prior/tlat rate structu NeW Meter only... 0 - 15,000 0.00305 15000 $70.75 * 0.00311 15000 $72.40 0.00311 15000 $71.65 0.00305 11049 $59.36 15,001 - 30,000 0.00320 15000 548,00 0.00326 15000 $48.90 0.00311 15000 $46.65 0.00320 0 $0.00 30.001 - 50,000 0.00370 20000 $74.00 0.00326 20000 $6520 0.00326 20000 $6520 0.00370 0 $0.00 50.001 - 80,000 0.00490 30000 5147.00 0.00377 30000 $113.10 0.00326 30000 $97.80 0.00490 0 $0.00 80,001 - /50,000 0.00650 70000 5455.00 0.00377 70000 $263.90 0.00377 70000 $263.90 0.00650 0 $0.00 150,001 - 200,000 0.00650 50000 $325.00 0.00500 50000 $250.00 0.00377 50000 $188.50 0.00650 0 $0.00 over 200,000 0.00650 407,716 $2,650.15 0.00500 407,716 52,038.58 0.00500 407.716 $2,038.53 0.00650 0 $0.00 53.769.90 $2,852.08 52,772.28 times 55 $3,264.93 ST 5268.61 ST $203.21 ST $197_52 ST $232.63 $4,038.51 53,05529 $2,969.80 $3,497.56 Enter Gallons Used 1,262.378 Q2-10 1301 Amount , S6; i3044: PRIE004,5.911 22,952.33 511 I77173.8.3r Current bill g pzior/flat rate structu 0 - 15,000 0.00305 15000 570.75 * 0.00316 15000 570.75 0.00311 15000 $71.65 0.00305 15000 571.65 15.001 - 30,000 0.00320 15000 S48.00 0.00316 15000 $47.40 0.00311 15000 $46.65 0.00320 7952 $25.45 30.001 - 50.000 0.00370 20000 $74.00 0.00377 20000 $75.40 0.00326 20000 $65.20 0.00370 0 $0.00 50.001 - 80,000 0.00490 30000 $147.00 0.00377 30000 $113.10 0.00326 30000 $97.80 0.00490 0 MOO 80.001 - 150.000 0,00650 70000 5455_00 0.00377 70000 5263,90 0.00377 70000 5263.90 0.00650 0 $0.00 150,001 - 200,000 0.00650 50000 $325.00 0.00500 50000 $250.00 0.00377 50000 5188.50 0.00650 0 $0.00 over 200.000 0.00650 1,062,378 $6,905.46 0.00500 1,062,378 $5,311.89 0.06500 1,062,378 $5,311.89 0.00650 0 $0.00 S8.025,21 $6,132.44 $6,045.59 times 55 $5,340.30 ST $571.80 ST $436.94 ST $430.75 ST $330.50 $8,597.00 $6,569.38 56,47634 $5,720.80 Enter Gallons Used 0- 15,000 15.001 - 30.000 30,001 - 50,000 50.001 - 50.000 80,001 - 150.000 150,901 - 200,000 over 200,000 Enter Gallons Used 0-15.000 15,001 - 30,000 30.001 - 50.000 50,001 - 80,000 30.001 - 150,000 150.001 - 200.000 over 200,000 Tolal annual amount billed Dollar impact to atnount billed % impact to amount billed Dollar increase from 2009 rate structure % increase from 2009 . 1,479.297Q3-10 Bill Amount p,wpoRIA 26,896.31 rr,41,-:.456,011;45 bill at prior/liat rate structu 0.00305 15000 570.75 * 0.00316 15000 $70.75 0.00311 15000 $71.65 0.00305 15000 $71.65 0_00320 15000 $48.00 0_00316 15000 $47.40 0.00311 15000 $46.65 0.00320 11896 $38.07 0.00370 20000 574.00 0.00377 20000 $75.40 0.00326 20000 $65.20 0.00370 0 $0.00 0,00490 30000 $147.00 0.00377 30000 $113.10 0,00326 30000 $97.80 0.00490 0 $0.00 0.00650 70000 $455.00 0.00377 70000 $263.90 0,00377 70000 $263.90 0.00650 0 $0.00 0,00650 50000 $325.00 0.00500 50000 $250.00 0.00377 50000 $188.50 0.00650 0 $0.00 0.00650 1,279,297 $8,315.43 0.00500 1,279,297 $6,396.49 0.00500 1,279,297 $6,396.49 0.00650 0 $0.00 $9.435.18 $7,217.04 $7,130.19 times 55 $6,034.45 ST $67226 ST $514.21 ST 5508.03 ST $429.95 $10,107_44 $7,731.25 $7,63821 $6,464.40 1,273.223 Q4-10 Bill Amount -1110 FE.:,Ivkba."§7§,j0; 23,149.51 77773-,9j-:.§9..::Current bill at prior/Rat rate strucm 0_00305 15000 $70.75 • 0-00316 15000 $70.75 0.00311 15000 $71.65 0.00305 15000 $71.65 0.00320 15000 $48.00 0.00316 15000 $47.40 0.00311 15000 $46.65 0.00320 8150 $26.08 0,00370 20000 $74.00 0.00377 20040 $75.40 0.00326 20000 $65.20 0.00370 0 $0.00 0,00490 30000 $147.00 0_00377 30000 $113.10 0.00326 30000 597,80 0,00490 0 50.00 0.00650 70000 $455.00 0_00377 70000 $263.90 0,00377 70000 $263.90 0.00650 0 $0.00 0.00650 50000 $325.00 0.00500 50000 $250-00 0.00377 50000 $183.50 0.00650 0 $0.00 0.00650 1,073,223 $6,975.95 0.00500 1.073,223 $5,366.12 0.00500 1,073.223 $5,366.12 0.00650 0 $0.00 $8,095.70 56,186.67 $6,099.82 times 55 55,375,15 ST $576.82 ST $440.80 ST $434.61 ST $382.98 58,672.52 $6,627.46 56,534A3 $5,758,13 $22-,388,22• (693777) W40044 NI'S(9:31TI•16), -23.66% -24.82% -3 /.75% 14,895,89 57,958.12 57,617.77 $5,584.73 10323% ' • - 55.15% ::' 52.79%'• .: -- • • 3E00% Actual 12-1 0-2 12-2 • Includes $25 base charge Curreat bill at prior/flat rate structu CITY OF 1 LAKE ELO MAYOR 8( COUNCIL COMMUNICA PON DATE: 7/05/2011 REGULAR ITEM #: 8 ORDINANCE - 08-048 RESOLUTION 2011-025 AGENDA ITEM: Variance Ordinance Amendments SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Bruce Messelt, City Administrato Lake Elmo Planning Commission Kelli Matzek, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to review and approve proposed changes to the "Administrative" section of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed update of this section of code will reflect the recent changes the Minnesota State Legislature made to the City's statutory authority to grant variances. The most significant change made to the State Statutes is the removal of the term "hardship" from the variance sections and the replacement of this term with "practical difficulties". The effect of this change is to make the issuance of variances a more viable option to communities than if the hardship language were left in place, It would also give the Council the latitude to decide whether or not an applicant has met the criteria for the issuance of a variance. The recommended motion to act on this is as follows: "Move to approve Ordinance 08-048 amending the "Administrative" section of the Zoning Ordinance concerning Variances as recommended by the Planning Commission and Resolution 2011-025 allowing summary publication of the Ordinance." BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In July of 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court made a decision in the case of Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka that resulted in a much more strict interpretation of the State Statutes regarding variances than cities had typically been using prior to the ruling. As a result of this case, Cities across the State, including Lake Elmo, were required to use a much more conservative approach to drafting findings related to variances. The ultimate affect of the court case, therefore, was to hold the issuance of variances to a much higher threshold than previously used, and greatly limited a City's ability to grant flexibility from zoning regulations, -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting iance Ordinance Amendments July 5th, 2011 Regular Agenda Item #8 In order to address the lack of flexibility that existed in the wake of the court decision, the Minnesota State Legislature has revised the section of State Statues pertaining to variances to allow some additional flexibility for City's that wish to consider variances from zoning regulations. The primary language that was changed is noted below: HARDSHIP: "Hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. [this language was removed and replaced with] PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES: "Practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Staff drafted ordinance changes for consideration by the Planning Commission that would amend the Zoning Ordinance to mirror the new Statutory provisions, and that will ultimately allow for greater flexibility in dealing with requests for exceptions to the City's zoning standards. Although the proposed ordinance would eliminate the problematic language concerning "hardship", the other criteria that were used for granting variances would still need to be met, including: 1) that circumstances unique to the property in question exist and were not created by the landowner and 2) the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The full text of the amendments to the State Statutes that were adopted by the State legislature are attached for consideration by the City Council. The original text of the City ordinance is included as part of the proposed ordinance (and shown as deleted text). PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The Planning Commission reviewed the draft ordinance, held a public hearing and provided a recommendation that included amendments to the draft ordinance revising the City's Variance submission and review requirements. The Commission asked that language be added to the draft making it clear that the City Council acts as the Board of Adjustment, that the term "practical difficulties" be added to the general definitions section of the City Code, and that the language concerning "unique circumstances" match the statutory wording. These changes have been incorporated into the document in front of the City Council, The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed ordinance amendments with the changes noted above. — page 2 — City Council Meeting July 5th, 2011 Variance Ordinance Amendments Regular Agenda Item #8 RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above background information, Planning Commission recommendation and staff report, it is recommended that the City Council approve an amendment to the administrative section of the Zoning Ordinance concerning Variances by undertaking the following action: "Move to approve Ordinance 08-048 amending the "Administrative" section of the Zoning Ordinance concerning Variances as recommended by the Planning Commission and Resolution 2011-025 allowing summary publication of the Ordinance." Alternatively, the City Council may also provide alternative language to incorporate as part of the draft Ordinances, or can decide to reject the proposed amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission. Should the Council decide not to make any changes, Staff' will need to investigate whether or not the provisions of the State Statutes would govern the review of variances or if the City's requirements would take precedent. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance 08-048 — Variance Ordinance Amendments 2. Resolution 2011-025 Authorizing Summary Publication 3. Revised MN State Statutes- Variances 4. League of MN Cities Handout: Variances Q and A SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item ...... ......... ..... .......... ........ .......... . ........ City Administrator Report/Presentation Planning Director Questions from Council to Staff . .......... ..........„.... ............. Mayor Facilitates Public Input, if Appropriate Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion .....„...... ................. . ...... ................. Mayor & City Council Discussion Mayor Facilitates Action on Motion ....,..... ........ ............ ...... ........ Mayor & City Council page 3 -- Ordinance 08-048 City Council; 7/5/11 CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08-048 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION OF THE ZONING ORDL&NCE TO REVISE THE VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS BASED ON RECENT AMENDMENTS TO MINNESOTA STATE STATUTES SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 11.01 (Definitions) is hereby amended to add the following defmition: PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES "Practical. difficulties," as used in connection, with the granting of a variance, means that the Property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. SECTION Z. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 11.01 (Definitions) is hereby changed to amend or eliminate the following defmitions as shown: d asc:ociated structures in ndcr the conditions allowed-hy-the-eity's zoning -and no-othe-eaonabic alternative une er light of the landownef ir due to the p1iyea to the-land5-straetffeFe are not applicable to other lands, otructu • divAriet; and he uni 111 of the site wer not c7ci1.1. the city' s zoning-r SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, by amending the following language: § 154.017 VARIANCES. ed in in:A' e the Hera! pr IT=111.3 that • e. -.Ycd by the zoning vari-anee, if granted, will nzt -e the essen eeeinic considerations alone -shall not col permit as a vaT. chapt City Council may not Ordinance 08-048 City Council; 7/5/11 affected person's land is located. B) TeMpOraiy LOC g au; a 2 fa. (2)—Septic, The septic system meets or exceeds current septic system regulation (1) The a apter. ,uffielent „icable develop as a leo,. A site plan drawn. to scale showing the propeity-dimensions; Location of all existing and pr4posecl buildings and their size, including (f) Curb cuts, driVeWar.1, 1?.rOCW, (g) The vari (h) A. list of Piannin (a) The Z./oiling Achn-inist; 111,Vriel'S Ling spaces, off street loading o arnol test Ordinance. 08-048 City Council; 71.5/11 vaiance, g Cornrnisaien, 1.7 , the hearing C<)uflc f he time and place c-f the h c:.;rvod ai-the vg-the-ditte-of cc adjacent properties, pe� recommend conditiom and r the terms of the, varime, (5) City Council action. The City Council 3hall ref,,,eive the neei enthtionof hall take final action on the variance request within 60 day' of the cit-'s receipt ofa2omp1ted app1icatiol, unleal ethe4e-e*1pffiant to the pp1iable Dtat-e-Ft (Al In General. The Board of Adiustrnent (which is the City Council in accordance with Section 31.1.0 of the City Code) shall have the power to irant variances to the provisions of this chapter under the following nrocedures and standards. (1) A reauest for a variance from the literal pro -visions of this chanter may be . granted in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual propertY under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such. actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. All reauests for variances shall be reviewed in accordance with the required findings listed in Section 154.01.7, Subd. E. (111 Use Variances Prohibited, A variance shall not be granted for any use that is not a listed permitted or conditional use under this chapter for property in the zone where the property is l.ocatcd, (C) Application Requirements, An application for a variance shall. be submitted to the Zoning Administrator and accompanied by such information as follows: (1) Name and address of the applicant: (2) The legal description of thc property involved in the request for variance, including the street address, if any. of the property:, Ordinance 08-048 City Council: 7/5/11 (3) The name and. address of the owners of th.e property and any other person that has a leaal interest in the property. The applicant shall sunnly proof of ownership of the Property for which the variance is requested, consisting of an abstract of title or registered property certificate. certified by a licensed abstractor, together with any unrecorded documents whereby the petitioners acquired leaal or equitable ownership, (4) A site plan drawn to scale or a certified survey if required by the City showing: i. Property dimensions; Locations of all existing and proposed buildings and their size, including square footaae; Existing and proposed septic systems: iv. Curb cuts, driveways, access roads,_parking spaces, off-street loading areas, and sidewalks; and v. Other information as deemed necessary for the request. (5) The variance requested and the reasons for the request; and f 6) The application form shall be accompanied b:y an accurate list: showing the names and the mailing address of the record owners of all property within a minimum of 350 feet of the property for which the variance is sought: verified as to accuracy by the applicant. (D) Review Requirements, The Planning Col -mission shall hold a public hearing on each complete application for a variance with the following procedure: (1 1 The Zoning Administrator shall, unon the filing of a completed application for a variance, refer the matter to the Plannina Commission. (2) The Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant and the applicable property owner(s) of the time and place of the hearing. The notice shall be served on the person by mail, provided the notices shall be mailed at least 10 days -preceding, the date of the hearing. (3) The Planning Comrnission shall make written findings for all variance applications and shall state in the tindinas the reasons for its recommendations to the Board of Adjustment. (4) The Planning Commission may recommend to the Board of Adiustmcnt conditions if granting of a variance which may be reasonably determined to be necessary to Protect adjacent properties, preserve the public health, safety, and welfare, and comply with the intent and purposes of this chapter. The Planning Commission may also recommend conditions and 4 OrdinanC6 08-048 City Council,' 7/5/11 reauirements deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of the variance. (5) Board of Adjustment Action. The Board of Adjustment shall receive the recommendation of the Planning Commission and shall take fin& action on the variance request. (E) Required Findinzs, Any action taken by the Board of Adjustment to approve or deny a variance request shall include the following findings: (1) Practical Difficulties, A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board of Adjustment 1,111011 the application by the owner of the affected property where the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Definition of practical difficulties, "Practical, difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not :permitted by an official control. (2) Unique Circumstances, The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner (3). Character of locality. The proposed variance will not -alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. (4) Adiacent pjgperties and traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to property adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. (F) Conditions. The Board of Adjustment may impose such restrictions, conditions, and mitigating requirements upon the property that is the subiect of the variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established. by this chapter or to reduce, or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. (G) Effect of denial. No application by a. property owner for a variance shall be submitted to the Board of Adjustment within a six (6) month period following a denial of such a request unless, in the opinion of the Board, new evidence of change in circumstances warrant it. 5 Ordinance 08-048 City Council; 7/5/11 (H) ExPiration. A variance shall be deemed to authorize only one narticular use and shall expire if work does not commence within twelve (12) months of the date of arantimz such variance or if that use ceases for more than six consecutive onths. (1) Revocation. The Board of Adiustment may revoke a variance if any conditions established by the Board as part of erantina the variance reauest are violated. SECTION 4. Effective Date This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo. SECTION 5. Adoption Date This Ordinance No. 08-048 was adopted on this 5th day of July 2011, by a vote of Ayes and Nays. ATTEST: Bruce Messelt City Administrator Mayor Dean A. Johnston This Ordinance No 08-048 was published on the day of 2011 6 CITY OF LAKE ELMO RESOLUTION NO. 2011-025 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 08-048 BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-048, an ordinance to regulate signage within the City of Lake Elmo; and WHEREAS, the ordinance is lengthy; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, subd. 4, allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 11 RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, that the City Administrator shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. 08-048 to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance: Public Notice The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-048. The ordinance amends the Administrative section of the Zoning Ordinance concerning variances to be consistent with recent revisions to the Minnesota State Statutes. The most significant change is the elimination of the language pertaining to "undue hardship" and the replacement of this term with "practical difficulties". Other changes to bring this section into compliance with State Statutes are included in the Ordinance, as well as other modifications that relate to the review and issuance of variances. The full text of Ordinance No.08-048 is available for inspection at Lake Elmo city hall during regular business hours. Mayor Dean A. Johnston BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo that the City Administrator keep a copy of the ordinance in his office at city hall for public inspection and that he post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place within the city. Dated: ,2011. Mayor Dean Johnston ATTEST: Bruce Messelt City Administrator (SEAL) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 01/04/11 REVISOR JMRJRC 11-0607 This Document can be made available in alternative formats upon request State of M nnesota HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EIGIITY-SEVENTH SESSION HOUSE FILE N 0. 52 January, 10, 2011 Authored by Peppin, Smith, Nelson, Mahoney, WesLmin and others The bill was read for the first time and referred to the Committee on Government Operations and Elections t.1 A bill for an act 1.2 relating to local government; providing for variances from city, county, and town 1.3 zoning controls and ordinances; amending Minnesota Statutes 2010, sections 1.4 394.27, subdivision 7; 462.357, subdivision 6. 1.5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA; 1.6 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 394.27, subdivision 7, is amended to read: 1.7 Subd. 7. Variances; hardship practical difficulties. The board of adjustment 1.8 shall have the exclusive power to order the issuance of variances from the terms of any 1.9 official control including restrictions placed on nonconformities. Variances shall only be Ho permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official LH control arc-practi,aldiffieuit,-, i.":.rticulat hardship in the way of 1.12 t..D5L1T11 o t tl1c StiiCt 1ctL.. vffrulal eernrol, and when the terms of the variance 1.13 are consistent with the comprehensive plan. ILHTITLI.4," Ca_ _ _ VX.11,.....11:4V11 With Ilk. 1.14 g;,aa:':;at-„ in quest:.-..„ putt..., ..:.a.saab 1.15 if—ttted-1..1,:ki. 44. cx.,,oaciatis 1.16 is duc to ihcpropciy 1A:ft 1-he 1.17 of thc.. leLality. Variances may be 1.18 granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties 1.19 in complying with the official control. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with 1.20 the granting of a variance. means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a 1.21 reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; the plight of the landowner is due 1.22 to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, 1.23 if granted. will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations 1.24 alone •sfraiido not constitute a -hardship if .ic....morrabie. tl,c pi Section 1. 01/04/11 REVISOR JMR/RC 11-0607 2,1 thc terms of the ordinance practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are not 2.2 limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be 2.3 granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in section 216C.06, subdivision 14, 2.4 when in harmony with the official controls. No variance may be granted that would allow 2.5 any use that is pioldbiteci not allowed in the zoning district in which the subject property is 2.6 located, The board of adjustment may impose conditions and mitigating requirements 2.7 in the granting of variances to insure compliance and, to protect adjacent properties, and 2,8 tire -public to protect the public health, safety, or the environment. The-bertrrti 2,9 of adjutmcn may ...v.usiLler-the-ittabil; Ey tv u uriai btfaftS a-9rardS1111,' jit 2.10 the -Mitt; ng of v.iianccs. ii EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. 2,12 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 462.357, subdivision 6, is amended to read: 2,13 Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and 2,14 adjustments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable 2.15 conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has 2.16 the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: 2.17 (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any 2.18 order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the 2.19 enforcement of the zoning ordinance. 2.20 (2) To hear requests for variances from the 14z1 visions of thc ordinance 2.21 traca-6i;:,if 2,22 , and o grant such 2.23 v janc,c.,5 it is 2.24 and intent of thc ordinancc. 2,25 crf a Ey in quicStif,' put to a rcasonablc use if uscd 2,26 ank. 1k,2 by ti,c effidal-cortrols, terms of the zoning ordinance including 2.27 restrictions placed on nonconformities. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in 2,28 harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the 2.29 variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the 2.30 applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with 2.31 the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of 2.32 a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable 2.33 manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to 2,34 circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner7, and the variance, if 2.35 granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone Sec.2. 2 01/04/11 REVISOR JMR RC; 1 I -0607 3.1 sittril- do not constitute ai.....d,.../,dthip-itE ,casc.miztlik usc for thc property exists undcr 3.2 Unduc hardship also includes nractical difficulties. Practical 3.3 difficulties include, but it are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar 3.4 energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in 3.5 section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the ordinance. The board of 3.6 appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may he, may not permit as a 3.7 variance any use that is not ptLa allowed under the zoning ordinance for property in 3.8 the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the 3.9 case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two 3.10 family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions 3.11 and mitigating requirements in the granting of variances to insure compliance anti, to 3.12 protect adjacent properties, and to nrotect the public health, safety, or the environment. 3.13 EFFECTIVE DA:I E. This section is effective the day following final enactment. Sec. 2. EAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES CONNECTING & INNOVATING SINCE 1913 VARIANCES Frequently Asked Questions (Reflects 2011 law change) What is a variance? A variance is a way that a city may allow an exception to part of a zoning ordinance. It is a permitted departure from strict enforcement of the ordinance as applied to a particular piece of property. A variance is generally for a dimensional standard (such as setbacks or height limits). A variance allows the landowner to break a dimensional zoning rule that would otherwise apply. Who grants a variance? Minnesota law provides that requests for variances are heard by a body called the board of adjustment and appeals; in many smaller communities, the planning commission or even the city council may serve that function. A variance decision is generally appealable to the city council. For more information, see Mirm. Stat. Ei 462.357. When can a variance be granted? A variance may be granted if enforcement of a zoning ordinance provision as applied to a particular piece of property would cause the landowner "practical difficulties." For the variance to be granted, the applicant must satisfy the statutory three -factor test for practical difficulties. If the applicant does not meet all three factors of the statutory test, then a variance should not be granted. Also, variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. For more information, see Minn. Stat. 462.357. What kind of authority is the city exercising? A city exercises so-called "quasi-judicial" authority when considering a variance application. This means that the city's role is limited to applying the legal standard of practical difficulties to the facts presented by the application. The city acts like a judge in evaluating the facts against the legal standard. If the applicant meets the standard, then the variance may be granted. In contrast, when the city writes the rules in zoning ordinance, the city is exercising "legislative" authority and has much broader discretion. What is practical difficulties? Practical difficulties is a legal standard set forth in law that cities must apply the when considering applications for variances. It is a three -factor test and applies to all requests for variances. To constitute practical difficulties, all three factors of the test must be satisfied. For more infomiation, see Minn. Stat. 462.357. This material Is provided as general Information and Is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST 1.4JNIViIStTY AVE. WEST PHONE: (65)) 281-1200 FAX (651) 281-1298 ST. I'AUL, MN 55103-2044 TOLL MEE: (800) 925-1122 vsPEB:www.t.mLoka What are the practical difficulties factors? The first factor is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, This factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. For example, if the variance application is for a building too close to a lot line, or does not meet the required setback, the focus of the first factor is whether the request to place a building there is reasonable. The second factor is that the landowner's problem is due to circumstances unique to the property riot caused by the landowner. The uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of property, that is, to the land, and not personal characteristics or preferences of the landowner, When considering the variance for a building to encroach or intrude into a. setback, the focus of this factor is whether there is anything physically unique about the particular piece of property, such as sloping topography or other natural features like wetlands or trees. The third factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Under this factor consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. For example, when thinking about the variance for an encroachment into a setback, the focus is how the particular building will look closer to a lot line and if that fits in with the character of the area. Are there are other factors a city should consider? Yes. State statute provides variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. So, in addition to the three -factor practical difficulties test, a city evaluating a variance application should make findings as to (1) whether or not the variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance, and (2) whether or not thevariarice is consistent with the comprehensive plan. What about economic considerations? Sometimes landowners insist that they deserve a variance because they have already incurred substantial costs or argue they will not receive expected revenue without the variance. State statute specifically notes that economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties. Rather, practical difficulties exists only when the three statutory factors are met. What about undue hardship? "Undue hardship" was the name of the three -factor test prior to a May 2011 change of law. Effective May 6, 2011 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 19, amended Minn. Stat: § 462.357, subd. 6 to restore municipal variance authority in response to Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. June 24, 2010), In Krummenacher, the Minnesota Supreme Court interpreted the statutory definition of "undue hardship" and held that the "reasonable use" prong of the "undue hardship" test was not whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there is a reasonable use in the absence of the variance. What did the 2011 law change? The 2011 law changed the first factor back to the "reasonable manner" understanding that had been used by some lower courts prior to the Krurnm,enacher ruling. The 2011 law renamed the municipal variance standard from "undue hardship" to "practical difficulties," but otherwise retained the familiar three -factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. The 2011 law also provides that: "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan." Can a city grant a use variance? Sometimes a landowner will seek a variance to allow a particular use of their property that would otherwise not be permissible under the zoning ordinance, Such variances are often termed "use variances" as opposed to "area variances" from dimensional standards. Use variances are not generally allowed in Minnesota —state law prohibits a city from permitting by variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for the zoning district where the property is located. For more information, see Minn. Stat. 462.357, Is a public hearing required? Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied, but many practitioners and attorneys agree that the best practice is to hold public hearings on all variance requests. A public hearing allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help determine if the application meets the practical difficulties factors. What is the role of neighborhood opinion? Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request. While city officials may feel their decision should reflect the overall will of the residents, the task in considering a variance request is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the statutory practical difficulties factors. Residents can often provide important facts that may help the city in addressing these factors, but unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request do not form a legitimate basis for a variance decision. If neighborhood opinion is a significant basis for the variance decision, the decision could be overturned by a court, What is the role of past practice? While past practice may be instructive, it cannot replace the need for analysis of all three of the practical difficulties factors for each and every variance request. In evaluating a variance request, cities are not generally bound by decisions made for prior variance requests. If a city finds that it is issuing many variances to a particular zoning standard, the city should consider the possibility of amending the ordinance to change the standard. When should a variance decision be made? A written request for a variance is subject to Minnesota's 60-day rule and must be approved or denied within 60 days of the time it is submitted to the city. A city may extend the time period for an additional 60 days, but only if it does so in writing before expiration of the initial 60-day period. Under the 60-day rule, failure to approve or deny a request within the statutory time period is deemed an approval. For more information, see Minn. Stat, 6 15.99. How should a city document a variance decision? Whatever the decision, a city should create a record that will support it. In the case of a variance denial, the 60-day rule requires that the reasons for the denial be put in writing. Even when the variance is approved, the city should consider a written statement explaining the decision. The written statement should explain the variance decision, address each of the three practical difficulties factors and list the relevant facts and conclusions as to each factor. Can meeting minutes adequately document a variance decision? If a variance is denied, the 60-day rule requires a written statement of the reasons for denial be provided to the applicant within the statutory time period. While meeting minutes may document the reasons for denial, usually a separate written statement will need to be provided to the applicant in order to meet the statutory deadline. A separate written statement is advisable even for a variance approval, although meeting minutes could serve as adequate documentation, provided they include detail about the decision factors and not just a record indicating an approval motion passed. Can a city attach conditions to a variance? By law, a city may impose a condition when it grants a variance so long as the condition is directly related and bears a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. For instance, if a variance is granted to exceed an otherwise applicable height limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the affect of excess height. For more information, see Minn. Stat. 462.357. What happens to the variance once granted? A variance once issued is a property right that "runs with the land" so it attaches to and benefits the land and is not limited to a particular landowner. A variance is typically filed with the county recorder. Even if the property is sold to another person, the variance applies. Jed Burkett 2011/06 4 AYOR & COUNCIL_ COMMUNICATION AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: DATE: REGULAR ITEM #: DISCUSSION 7/05/2011 9 City Engineering Services — Discussion of Discontinuation of Services Bruce Messelt, City Administrator p) Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director Dave Snyder, City Attorney SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: It is respectfully requested that the City Council discuss recent notification by TKDA of its intention to discontinue Engineering Services to the City and provide appropriate direction to City staff with respect to initiating a transition and new Engineer selection effort. If appropriate, the City Council may wish to consider the following direction: "Move to direct City Staff to initiate a transition and selection effort for City Engineering Services, as agreed upon at tonight's meeting." BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In June, the City received notice from TKDA that they will cease providing municipal Engineering Services to Lake Elmo, effective immediately with transitional services offered to allow a smooth transition until January 1 st, 2012. To provide for the smoothest possible transition and continuity of services, City Council direction is sought tonight with respect to initiating and effecting a new Engineer selection effort. TKDA currently provides general municipal Engineering Services, along with specialized engineering services in the areas of streets, water/wastewater/stomiwater, planning and economic development, and environmental and regulatory compliance, In February, 2011, the City Council approved a Review Schedule for City contracts (attached). Under the current schedule, the City Engineer contract would be evaluated in 2012 and, if Council deems appropriate, an RFP process would be undertaken in 2012, with continued or new services to begin in January 2013. STAFF REPORT: To assist the City Council in its discussion, City staff has prepared the following Decision/Option Matrix, based upon identified criteria. While in no means intended to -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting July 5th, 2011 City Engineering Services Regular Agenda Item # 9 be a definitive ranking or evaluation of the options available to the City Council, it is hoped that the following information proves useful to the City Council in evaluating possible responses to the need to decide on the future provision of City Engineering Services. olicited/ Hefted ouse Negotiated Evaluation' erta Continuity of Services: - Long Transition Time - Transfer of Historical Material - Transfer of Active Projects - Knowledge Transfer (time sensitive Cost of Services: - Management of Costs - Cost Reduction - Flexible to Changes in Need Services Provided: - Core Municipal Engineering Services - Sub -Contracting Specialized Services - Provision of Most/All Services Current City Policy/Procedures: - Current Review Schedule - NA - - Contract/Service Stability —/+ - Attractiveness of Position/Contract [Key: (+) positive •reeinOnt Lnuted11114! =I— (—) neutral (-) negative (—) varies] RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council discuss recent notification by TKDA of its intention to discontinue Engineering Services to the City, effective January 1st, 2012, and provide appropriate direction to City staff with respect to initiating a transition and new Engineer selection effort. If appropriate, the City Council may wish to consider the following direction: "Move to direct City Staff to initiate a transition and selection effort for City Engineering Services, as agreed upon at tonight's meeting." Alternatively, "Move to direct City Staff to proceed, as agreed upon at tonight's meeting." -- page 2 -- City Council Meeting City Engineering Services July 5th, 2011 Regular Agenda Item # 9 ATTACHMENTS: City Contract Review Schedule SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS.' Introduction of Item ..................... ......... ..,...... ...... . ..... ,.....,, City Administrator Questions from Council to Staff. .................. ............ ........... Mayor Facilitates Public Input, if appropriate ..... ......,........ .......... .......... ....... Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion Mayor & City Council Discussi on ...... .......... ......... ...... ................. ........ . ....... Mayor Facilitates Action on Motion Mayor & City Council -- page 3 -- Citv of Lake Elmo - 2011 Contracts Contract Accounting -General Ledger Accounting Payroll, Ub|iLps,AP Animal Control Assessor Attorney Civil/Municipal Attorney Criminal Attorney 'Combined Auditor Cleaning Emergency Communications Engineering Financial Planning (ViUage) Forestnr Health 8enOts IT OSHA/Safety Police Recycle Education &Support Rugs,UnifnrmsQ'5upp|/es Telephone Service Waste Electrical @kGas Franchise Agreements Bond Counsel BuUdingCude/|nspecton Electric Financial Consulting Fire Maintenance Fuel HR/Personne| Investment Brokers Keys/Security Medical Supplies Planning Support Road Grading Snuvvp|oxv Contractor KDm C{kJ Washington County FXL Eckberg, Lammers, 8riggs&VVo|f Peterson, Frann&Bergman, PA Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs &'Wolf Abdo, Eick& Myers Coverall ECN/CodeRed TKDA Ehlers Plant Health Associates Financial Concepts City ofRnseviIle City ofForest Lake Washington County Service oneShoe String Aamark Eventis K4aroney's Xce|Energy Dorsey &VVhittneykhmNorthern Trust) City ofBayport unner Northern Trust City pfOakdale /&Local Lake Elmo Oil, Yokunn 5prinQsied � Norther Trust, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley Anmdah|/Curt'sLock Miller Fepresentive ]oeRigdon Cathy 0'Joan Zier1man Sara Halvorson Frank Langer Dave Synder Jerry Fi||o Dave Synder Steve McDonald Jack Griffin KathvVVidin AndyVVeitnauer Terre Commander Dexter Karen Ritchman Colette Jurek Pau|Donna 0cnGazn|a Tvv Active Active Active Active Expired Expired Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Expired On -Call On -Call On -Call On -Call On -Call On -Call On -Call On -Call On -Call On -Call On -Call On -Call On -Call Start 20102008 2011 2009 |GA |GA Quote Quote 2011/13 ZO12/|3 2010 On -Call |GA an -Cali On -Call |GA On -Call On -Call On -Call On -Call On -Call On -Call On -Call On -Call AYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: DA1 E: REGULAR ITEM #: DISCUSSION Update Re: Library Service Considerations 7/05/2011 10 City Council (Follow-up from May 3rd, 2011 Staff Report) Bruce A. Messelt, City Administrator - NA - SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: This item and the preceding Workshop Discussion have been scheduled at the request of the City Council in order to update the Council and public on efforts to retain and enhance library services for the Lake Elmo community, BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Several formal meetings and informal discussions among City and County officials have led to an understanding that long-term provision of County library services in Lake Elmo remains highly vulnerable to both budgetary considerations and County -wide consolidation of services to address identified efficiencies, economies of scale and customer preferences. On June 29th, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-031 establishing a Public Library System, authorizing a Library Levy, and establishing a Public Library Board for the City of Lake Ehno, However, this Resolution could be dissolved by action of the City Council, if sufficient progress was made in discussions directed at "maintaining and improving existing library services or transferring library services from the County to the City . ." On August 17th, 2010, the City Council approved Resolution 2010-041 "staying establishment of a Public Library System, authorizing a Library Levy, and Establishing a Public Library Board for the City of Lake Elmo," pending outcome of further discussions with the County. In May 2011, the City Council directed City staff to explore the feasibility of the City undertaking library service provision, within some form of continued affiliation or association with Washington County. Since that time, City staff has also engaged the assistance of the Friends of the Rosalie E. Wahl Library in exploration of alternative service models. -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting Update from Washington Count .e: Library Service Considerations July 5th, 2011 Regular Agenda Item # 10 STAFF REPORT: The City Administrator, City Attorney and others have formally met and/or spoken with County officials on several different occasions, and have continued to research and discuss applicable legal, operational and financial implications with various representatives from the County, state and regional library authorities, and local library supporters. Based upon the County's 2011 Library budget, efforts have been taken to structure the retention of library services at minimum maintenance levels (generally current operations) at the four smaller branch libraries for 2011. However, ongoing State budget discussions seem to imperil even completion of 2011 at current operating levels (please note County White Paper). In addition, the County has begun discussions with each of the four communities hosting these branch libraries regarding long-term service options, alternative future service models (such as Hugo's new Kiosk system) and the possibility of transition to a new service model (please see the attached Marine on St. Croix proposal). Recent discussions indicate a potential transition to non -County affiliated "reading rooms" and County -run kiosks in two of these communities as early at autumn 2011 — even without service adjustments emanating from the State budget. City action would be required by the end of July to allow for the County to separate Library levy jurisdictions. For information, here is the 2009, Payable 2010, Levy collected by Washington County for Library operations and debt service. Library S 12,580,838 Library debt $ 12,580,838 1.97180655% $ 248,070 0.23896744% $ 30,064 RECOIVIMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council briefly review and discuss the actions, decisions and research undertaken, to date, as presented at the earlier Workshop. Appropriate staff direction is also recommended, should the City Council wish to proceed with a specific action. In particular, two follow-on activities are noted for Council consideration: Preparation and advancement of a City of Lake Elmo proposal to Washington County, based upon Council direction, for the continued provision of library services; and Consideration of Council action — through adoption of draft Resolution No. 2011- 024 — to establish a Public Library System, authorizing a Library Levy, and establishing a Public Library Board for the City of Lake Elmo and directing staff to work with Washington County on an affiliation/ association agreement and related transition efforts. -- page 2 -- City Council Meeting Update from Washington County R . —ibrary Service Considerations July 5th, 2011 Regular Agenda Item # 10 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2010-031 & Resolution 2010-041 2. "Public Library Service in Washington County" — March 2011 3. Marine Library Committee Recommendation to Marine City Council — March 2011 4. Draft Resolution No. 2011-024 SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item & Brief Staff Report Questions from Council to Staff City Administrator Mayor & City Council Public Input, if Appropriate ............... ..,............... ..... Mayor Facilitates Mayor Facilitates Direction or Action? ............. ........ ..................... ............. Mayor & City Council Discussion page 3 -- CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2010-31 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM, AUTHORIZDVG A LIBRARY LEVY, AND ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO. WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the residents of the City currently receive library services through Washington County; and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo desires to establish and operate a City Public Library Service pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 134.07 et seq.; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Lake Elmo to provide well managed and quality library services for the residents of Lake Elmo; and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo intends to set aside public property of the City for the benefit of the Public Library Service; and WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the establishment and operation of a Public Library Service at its June 29, 2010 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby establishes a City Public Library Service under Minnesota Statutes § 134.07 et seq., as follows: 1) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 134.09, the City Council hereby establishes a five - person Library Board, with members to be appointed by the Mayor with the approval of the City Council from among the residents of the City. The initial Library Board will have two residents of the City each appointed for a one- year term, two residents of the City each appointed for a two-year term, and one resident of the City appointed for a three-year term. Not more than one council member shall at any time be a member of the Library Board. ) Said appointments will be effective on January 1, 2011, or a date to be determined by the City Council. 4) Following the initial appointment of the Library Board., all terms will be for three years, commencing on January 1 of the year the term begins, with Library Board mernbers allowed to serve no more than three consecutive three-year terms. 5) The City Council will appoint an interim library director with the authority to organize and manage the Public Library System until a library director is appointed by the Library Board. The Library Board shall appoint a qualified library director and other staff as necessary, establish the compensation of employees, and remove any of them for cause. 6) The City Council will levy an annual, tax upon all taxable property within the City for the support Of the library and will place such money in a designated Library Fund. 7) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 134.11, the Library Board shall adopt bylaws and regulations for the library, and shall have exclusive control of the expenditure of all money collected for or placed to the credit of the Library Fund, of interest earned on all money collected for or placed to the credit of the Library Fund, of the construction of library buildings, and of the grounds, rooms, and buildings provided for library purposes. 8) The City shall set aside certain public property to be further specified by subsequent resolution for the benefit of the Public Library Service. With the approval of the council, the Library Board may erect a library building thereon. 9) The City Council may create a citizens' committee, to be comprised of residents from the City of Lake Elmo, to advise the City Council and the Library Board on issues of public concern related to the City of Lake Elmo Public Library Service. Notwithstanding the foregoing, subsequent to date of this Resolution, the City will continue good faith negotiations with Washington County for the purposes of maintaining and improving existing library services or transferring library services from the County to the City and adjusting the special levy limits therefore in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 275.72. If within sixty (60) days of the date of this Resolution, the City and Washington County resolve to provide library services to the residents of Lake Elmo and the City Council determines that the Public Library established herein is no longer desirable for the City, the City Council may by resolution dissolve the Public Library System and Library Board. Furthermore, the establishment of the Public Library System and the Library Board herein shall be contingent upon the City's determination that there is sufficient funding for the Public Library System. If within sixty (60) days of the date of this Resolution, the City Council determines that there is not sufficient funding for the Public Library System, the City Council may by resolution dissolve the Public Library System and Library Board, Passed and duly adopted this 29th day of June 2010 by the City C Ci Elmo, Minnesota. an A. Jo n, ayor ATTEST: Bruce Messelt, City ator CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2010-41 A RESOLUTION STAYING ESTABLISHMENT OF A PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM AUTHORIZING A LIBRARY LEVY, AND ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO. WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the residents of the City currently receive library services through Washington County; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Lake Elmo to provide well managed and quality library services for the residents of Lake Elmo; and WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution No, 2010-031 regarding the establishment and operation of a Public Library Service at its June 29, 2010 meeting; and WHEREAS, subsequent discussions with Washington County have led to an acceptable proposed timeline and process for advancing the objectives of the City of Lake Elmo. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby undertakes the following: 1) The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby stays establishment of a Municipal Public Library System pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 134.09, including establishment of a Public Library Board. 2) The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby stays authorization and imposition of a library levy upon all taxable property within the City, as well as the setting aside of certain public property for the benefit of the Public Library Service. 3) The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo extends the sixty (60) day period for formal dissolution of Resolution No. 2010-031 for an additional one hundred and twenty (120) days. 4) The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo will continue good faith discussions with Washington County for the purposes of maintaining and improving existing library services or transferring library services from the County to the City and adjusting the special levy limits therefore in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 275.72. Dissolution of Resolution No. 2010-031 regarding establishment of the Public Library System and the Library Board shall be contingent upon the City's determination that there is sufficient County funding for the host community's Branch Library for 2011 or a viable alternative service arrangement of transition plan is in place. If the City Council determines that there is not sufficient finding for local library services for 2011 within either the County or City annual budgets, the City Council may by resolution dissolve the Public Library System and Library Board, Passed and duly adopted this 17th day of August 2010 by the City cnci Elmo, Minnesota: Dean A. Johnston, Mayor ATTES Bruce Measelt, Citydministrator Public Library Service in Washington Countv: Maintaining Access & Qualitv in a Time of Fiscal Challenge, Changing Technologv and User Expectations The mission of the Washington County Library (WCL) is to enrich both the individual and the community by assisting people in their search for information, ideas, education and recreation. Asset forth \nthe Library's strategic framework, "ZO1Oand Beyond,"the Vision ofVV[L|stoprovide leadership to preserve the best of the past and to provide access for all while seeking new ways to promote and maintain library services in Washington County. Four strategic priorities or goals have been selected by the WCL Board that will further the Library's mission inatime Vffiscal and social change, They are: l)engage young readers; 2\provide entry tothe online world; 3) promote informed, knowledgeable users; and 4) inspire curiosity, *******~** Like all County departments, WCL finds itself in a difficult budget situation which results largely from the state budget shortfall and Its impact oncounty services, Like most other public libraries, both local and national, VVCLknows that change iointhe air and inthe budget. This situation leads 1oare-examination ofsome ofbasic assumptions aboutwhatUbrariesaneandvvhattheydo. From community surveys, we know that Washington County residents realize how important |ihraryservicasare to them. In light of the County's financial Situation, the rapid pace of technological changes that promote new typesUfaccessandchanginguserexpedationsaoaresultofteohnnlogioe||nnovat|ons,'ohangeatVVCL|s inevitable. Fortunately, it does not mean that library service will cease orthat access tothe collection needs tobelimited, |tdoes mean that VVCLmust take advantage ofthe tools that technology and electronic resources have provided to it. Itdoes mean thatVVCL has fewer staff and less funding available to provide traditional services at its current nine branch library locations. Tothis last point here are some facts: |nZOO9VVCLbegan the year with anadopted budget nf$6.GK4 Ofthis amount SG.5M(9GY6)was from property taxes In 2011VV[Lbegan the year with an adopted budget of$6.5 ;N Ofthis amount $G.1M(94Y6)isfrom property taxes AsofMarch 1,2O11VVCLhas astaff 98people including 3vacant positions /61.7F7Eplus 8 During the Great Recession libraries nationwide have seen an increase in demand for services and library materials. WCL's ability to meet even higher service level demands at its branches has been reduced asaresult ofstaff reductions and other budget reductions. Asaresult there are fewer library hours, less library staff in buildings to assist the public, fewer new materials and potential safety risks for the public and staff. 2Dl1ioprojected toseefurtherfundlDgneductons. Specif Ica UKthe ZO11VVCLbudget asauthohzed bv the County Board was constructed tu include an increase in the County Program Aid from the State of Minnesota. This state property tax aid is authorized in current statute at certain amount; however, it is very unlikely the County will receive the entire amount certified given the experience of the last few years. If the 2010 State budget reductions in County Program Aid are made permanent or simply extended for another year, the County will be forced to eliminate some of the library services funded by this aid program and possibly more depending on the extent ofthe total cut in state aid to the county. Based on current information about the atate'u budget situation, the County and VVCLane starting to plan for this reduction in I011; if it doesn't happen' so much the better but the Library must have a plan inplace. One final thought: |nplanning for the future nflibrary services inWashington County, there are other considerations of more |nngtermnatune that will impact the future of libraries in Washington County and the nation other than the current financial situation. VVC[o long-range facilities plan looks out to 2030 and attempts to set in place a vision that encompasses the changes and challenges anticipated. First, the population growth and its various shifts must be accommodated, 3econd,the advances in technology within the greater society will impact how people read, how they learn and what types nf virtual communities they will develop, Al|pfthese changes will also impact the public library world. Unfortunately one can only guess at the impacts right now; so WCL needs to develop a flexible model or models of service that encompass not only the traditional library but also new ways to meet demand for service, especially from the younger generations. Library Express Service Model: A Proposal for Partnerships For avariety ofreasons, there is need to find new service models that can expand or maintain library services that are in most demand while reducing the expense involved in staffing locations that hove'a low volume ofservice, In some instances the new models can be transitional models until an area's population grows dense enough torequire a new library building; inothers the models may simply expand services by providing access to library materials and programs in the more rural areas of the County. While generally referred to as "Library Express" service models, they can take several forms from automated locker systems to large vending machines (similar to Red Boxed to other ideas still in development. There isnnone model that will fit all locations needing ordemanding service. In any case the Library must find partmeovvho will support cooperative programming and house the new service model. A partnership could be between the County Library and another public entity or between the County Library and a private or non-profit enterprise. In addition to the entire library collection, the County Library could provide: w delivery services atleast once per week • programs, such assummer reading programs and author presentations, on an occasional basis • public access computers with Internet connections • electronic access tothe Library's collection • materials' return services. The partner could provide: * facility and all maintenance, e.g, refuse removal, cleaning, meeting orprogram spare telephones and other telecommunications services needed, such as a fiber or T1 connection � technical support for the computers ifneeded � staffing which could include volunteers � determine hours ofavailability � shared space and programs, e.g.community center orcoffee shop. These and other issues surrounding a new service model(s) are open for negotiation to ensure the best --Patricia Conley, Washington County Library Director, March 2011 Marine Library Committee Recommendation to Marine City Council Background The Marine Library Committee (the Committee) has been asked to formulate recommendations regarding possible changes to library services now available at the Marine Branch Library of the Washington County library system. The Committee sees an important role for a library within the extended community of Marine on St. Croix/Scandia/May Township. It is recognized that use of library services is changing, including the ability for patrons to use the internet to access the County catalog and order books, the ability to download ebooks from the County or commercial sites, access to free books on various web sites. These recommendations are made with the understanding that the need to be flexible and respond to changing interests must be a part of any plan for retaining library services in Marine on St. Croix. We appreciate Washington County including us in their strategic process reviewing the impact of potential budget reductions. While we recognize the County is mandated to provide library services to all county residents and their direction has been to place large libraries at locations accessible to many, we still believe there is value to small libraries located within walking distance or short vehicle rides from residents. Marine, being further away than most communities from the larger county libraries, depends even more on its local library. We recognize the County is facing increasing budget pressure, and want to work with the County to help formulate a model to maintain library services. The Committee is comprised of over thirty residents from May Township, Scandia and Marine who are interested in helping ensure the continuation of library services in the Marine area. We have identified key benefits provided to the Marine/May/Scandia area by a branch library, have gathered information on and toured a variety of other small libraries, have met with County personnel to understand the County requirements for library services and to discuss anticipated budget changes. We have initiated a meeting with Marine area residents and Pat Conley, Washington County Library Director and Jim Schug, County Administrator, to discuss library services in Marine. The recommendation which follows incorporates the results of these activities. Recommendation to the Marine Council for Retaining a Library The Committee is suggesting a response be developed by the City and its residents, in the event library services are reduced or eliminated at the Marine Branch Library by the County. We are suggesting a short term (Phase 1), medium term and long term plan (Phases 2 and 3) be identified. By considering a long term solution in phases, local library supporters will be able to determine how well the initial phase of a partnership with the City, the County and volunteers is working, plus further evolution of library use and services, in general, will have proceeded, and both library supporters and the County will be better able to understand what library services will be needed in the future. Our recommendation reflects the Village's interest in supporting and maintaining a vital Village Center, as outlined in the Marine Comprehensive Plan, and is in keeping with the current direction of theVillage Center Task Force. Overview: The Committee is proposing a partnership between the County, the City of Marine on St. Croix and local volunteers who support the continuation of library services in the area. The Community Library will be funded partially through a 'Friends of the Library' type charitable organization, which will be formed to oversee the operation of the Community Library and will raise and disperse funds in support of the Community Library. In addition to the charitable organization support, the Committee is suggesting the County continue to use of the Jordan Bequest to support Marine area library services, with a proposed 4 % per year of the total asset value of the bequest directed toward annual operation. The City will initially provide space, cleaning of that space, telecommunication lines, and City part-time employees who will be hired to manage the Community Library and coordinate volunteer help (funding for this position will come partially through the Friends of the Library donations). The primary reason for the hiring of City staff is to satisfy the County requirements for data privacy, although it is recognized paid employees will help ensure success of the Community Library through oversight/coordination of volunteers. The County will provide some book/media inventory, which will be shelved at the community library and rotated on a regular basis, and will deliver/pick-up books ordered by patrons from other libraries. Computers, shelving/tables and other depreciated assets currently in the Marine Branch Library, and hardware for self -check out/check-in will remain at the current library site in Marine. The County will also continue to provide access to MELSA services. We are suggesting the County create a new role, that of a 'Library Extension Agent' who will visit the Community Library periodically to enhance the partnership between the City and the County Library system, providing volunteer training (library catalog, checking books/media in and out of system, shelving procedures, etc.), information on new books, and outreach activities (book clubs, children's activities, etc). Volunteers will help staff the Community Library, both to ensure safe working conditions for a City employee (by being present during those hours when the library is open but City offices are not), and to help with the operation (shelving, book/media sorting, etc) of the Community Library. Additional details of the Phase 1 concept: A Friends of the Marine Library (FOML) will be formed to oversee the operation of the Community Library, including some of the funding. This 501c3 organization will raise funds to create an endowment, and if necessary will raise annual operating support, and will commit to directing funding to the City for the hiring of a City part time employee to manage/coordinate the Community Library. Once this recommendation is adopted by the City of Marine, the formation of the FOML will proceed (by laws created, Board members identified, etc.) so that the organization is ready to initiate Phase 1, when required. The City will commit to allowing the Community Library to remain in some or all of the space currently housing the Marine Branch Library in the Village Hall, at least during Phase 1 of this recommendation. The City will provide telecommunication service to the Community Library space on an annual basis. The City will provide a part time City employee(s) to coordinate the Community Library operation, including helping operate the self -check terminal, signing up new county library patrons, coordinate funding needs with FOML, coordinate the volunteer scheduling, etc. It should be noted that a City employee(s) is primarily being proposed in order to satisfy the County requirements for library data privacy. If the County suggests that another solution to this issue is possible, such as signed confidentiality waivers by volunteers, the need for a City employee(s) will be reduced. However, success of the Community Library concept will be enhanced with paid staff, especially since in a small community such as Marine on St. Croix volunteers are often over -committed and coordination of volunteers will help ensure smooth operation. Volunteers from May, Scandia and Marine will both serve as active members and Trustees of the FOML. They will provide staffing hours and operational oversight to the Community Library, as well as provide fund-raising ideas and manpower, and critical financial support. A partnership between a library sciences academic program, such as the one offered by St. Catherine University in St. Paul, will be investigated by the FOML. The hope is that an internship program might be developed to both help the college program and its students, and the Community Library. Proposed Operation It is proposed the Community Library will be open for 20 hours a week, which is same as the current number of branch library operating hours. However, the schedule will include hours on Saturday and evenings, to help encourage use by families and patrons who work outside of the area. It is believed that this re- configuration of operating hours will meet the needs &the community regarding prompt picking -up of their book/media requests. Budget The estimated expenses for the annual operation of the Community Library is as follows: Compensation $18,200 Supplies/Misc. $ 800 Total Expenses $19,000 *These estimated expenses do not include any new book/media purchases, it is assumed those will continue to be provided by the County Library. The estimated Sources of Funding for the annual operation of the Community Library are as follows: Jordan Bequest (4% withdrawal rate) Friends of Library Annual Contribution Washington County Support I Total Funding $12,000 $ 4,000 $ 3,000 $19,000 Savings to the County We recognize the County anticipates needing to cut or eliminate some library services, and their strategic direction has been to direct funding to larger libraries within the County. While Committee members may question the strategic direction, seeing a value in the continuance of local library services, we recognize the difficult position the County is facing. The recommended partnership between the County, the City and volunteers will allow the County to direct most of the staffing dollars and operational budget previously directed to the Marine Branch Library, toward other purposes. During the most recent tax year, the City of Marine residents contributed about $32,000 in tax levy toward County library services, with the contribution of residents who live in May Township and Scandia but who are considered in the Marine Branch Library service area contributing more, perhaps for a total contribution of between $100,000 - $150,000 (it is difficult to identify the actual total as the figure is dependent upon property values and a more careful analysis would be very labor intensive). The County has estimated the direct costs required to operate the Marine Branch Library are around $100,000 ( 'overhead' expenses not included). Our recommendation, if accepted, would reduce the direct contribution from the County to only on -going inventory support (used throughout the County library system by all patrons), transportation costs associated with dlivery/pick-up of books both ordered through the catalog and for shelving purposes, and a Library Extension Agent (estimated 6 hours including transportation, bi-weekly). Jordan Bequest Mrs. Jordan's generous gift to Washington County, to be used for the benefit of the Marine Library, has been prudently managed by the County. We are recommending the bequest be used to support the operation of the Community Library during Phase 1, as we believe this use will be for a public good and would be in keeping with Mrs. Jordan's intent. The idea of using the bequest to purchase and install a kiosk delivery system has been previously discussed, and could be pursued. However, this idea is not currently a part of the Committee's recommendation, as it was felt the estimated $50,000 investment might be better used to support the operation of the Community Library as outlined. We would suggest the kiosk system be further tested at the Hugo location and the results of this testing, along with a review of the success of the Community Library concept in Marine, once implemented, will help the County and the FOML determine if the kiosk approach is suitable for the Marine area in the future. Phase 2 As part of this recommendation, the City will allow the current Branch Library space to be used for the Community Library. The Restoration Society has retained an engineering firm to complete a review of the Village Hall and make recommendations regarding future maintenance and operation of the Hall. The City has also recognized the need to improve storage of City property, including historic City records, which are currently housed in the basement of the Village Hall, and has indicated some desire to return to holding meetings, including the monthly Council meeting, in the Council Chambers. When the information from the structural review is available, it is anticipated the City and the Restoration Society will develop a maintenance and use plan for the next twenty years of Village Hall operation. If part of that plan requires a different use of the library space, the FOML would work to identify another location for a Community Library. At that time, the investment in a kiosk delivery system may be pursued. Phase 3 The Committee has identified other possible models for a Community Library in Marine, and these discussions have included partnerships between a Community Library and other entities such as the Stone House Museum, the Minnesota Historical Society, commercial businesses, the Community Education department of Stillwater Schools, and others. It appears the condition of the Stone House Museum and its exhibits is of special concern. Once the operation of a Community Library has been established, the FOML may work with other community organizations to investigate other options for a future co -location of the Community Library. rwb 3/7/11 April 28th. 2011: Communication with Washington County Reaarding Library Services As explained in our prior meetings, the county's 2011 library budget does call for the continuation of all the existing library locations in the county. However, the 2011 library budget .as authorized by the County Board was constructed to include the state property tax aid that is authorized in current statute at a certain amount; however, it is very unlikely the County will receive the entire amount certified given the experience of the last few years. If the 2010 State budget reductions in County Program Aid are made permanent or simply extended for another year, the county will be forced to eliminate some of the library services funded by this aid program and possibly more library services depending on the extent of the total cut in state aid to the county. As a result, the county has begun discussions with communities in which the smaller branch libraries are located. As you may have read in recent newspapers, elements of a mutual agreement are being discussed in the cities of Marine and Newport. So, we thought it might be helpful to outline these elements for your consideration. The elements of an agreement with the Marine Library Association are that Marine remains part of the county levy for library services and the county will provide eel tain library services at a location determined and managed by the city estimated at this time to be approximately 20 hours per week. Marine: pays for rent or provides space rent free, provides maintenance services for space, provides location for an exterior access kiosk and book return, 2 part time city staff to provide oversight of city volunteers; open on a schedule to be determined by the city with at least one paid city staff at all times the location is open which is supplemented by volunteers recruited and supervised by the city, and telecommunication access. The county: draws down Jordan trust over time and provides kiosk and book return, computers, financial oversight of Jordan trust, a small collection, and rotating or periodic programming. Both: Effective 8/1/2011 with an evaluation at the end of 12/2012. The elements of an agreement with the City of Newport are not are far along as with Marine, Even though the City of Lake Elmo has voted to create their own library in 2011, the county's current library budget does include funding to keep the library open throughout 2011. Again, this budget is predicated upon the county receiving the full state allocation of County Program Aid. If the City of Lake Elmo would like to consider something different than assumption of library services in 2011, the Marine elements could be the foundation for an agreement. Such a proposal would have a location in the City of Lake Elmo open on a schedule determined by the city to which the county library system provides certain services and the city remains in the county library levy tax. The City of Lake Elmo: pays for rent or provides space rent free, provides maintenance services for space, provides location for exterior access kiosk and book return for a xxx number of years, city staff covering a schedule to be determined by the city with at least one paid city staff on duty at all times the location is open, which is supplemented by volunteers recruited and supervised by the city, and provide telecommunication access. The county: continues library service to all Lake Elmo residents and provides kiosk and book return, delivery and pick up of book orders through on-line catalog, computers, a small collection, and rotating or periodic programming Both: an evaluation at the end of a period to be determined but after at least one year of operation of the new model. 1 hope that this information will allow the City of Lake Elmo to provide more specific direction at their Tuesday meeting for our future discussions. Should our team set another meeting as a follow up to next Tuesday's City Council discussion? Molly O'Rourke, Deputy Administrator Washington County vata 2012 e3590 Washington min=" 8D Budget _Review _— by _'' BnnocpzLDn L=.°z ` For the Period Ending December 31. 2012 ^zo "ibz",r vE"snvss um""". Real nv;aCe cur-rruc 512000.HACA County Program Aid Total Levy Revenue , owzn/1z oy^4zw, ,00s 2010 201z 2011 2012 2012 2012 znzu-uuu « ^ctuaz Actual Adopted rTD Sase Given Dept PrQp^ =a Adoptd Difference Change s.mv'u"n' ,.vrx^^nu' 6'mm',vv' m'oo6'ano xvv'+ ,,v'ow- v ^ 61331.868- 5.871.*00- 610ss.900' 6'066.800 zov't suuuo. u°°z =","te Delinquent 97'077- v it ---------------------------------------------------- r"t"z c°me, z°x°° 97'077- v « z","z ace"=ev * =wrmity n » Subtotal Federal Grants s35000.rIcr ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ --- ^-------- ------------ ------`--- SSR Pymt in Lieu of Tax 8.236' u"*t"" l State Grants s,sovo.woum msLux Grant omuo.mz^c wi"` Agencies Subtotal Local Grants Total m~"rg°vern="t°l Re" s«wvo, 5u2vM 549000, Feeafor Svcs 'Other r°"" for Contracted sv"" c"zle"*/"" Service r"", Total Fees For Services 560000. Interest s°=u"s" 581000, n"r n"""u°"tiule ov n� 6.236- v % 83'135' v,.,sz' o,'wm' zzx^nov zov-x 100'293' 101'359' 70'000- 84'472- ,v.vvu z"o't ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ --- z,3.^28- zoo'nmn' ov.ovn- 54.4721e2.000 zoo-V ------------ ______ 191'664' zo*'uou- ,aa'ouo' a^.mx' 192,000 mo-v ,'n«=- ^.,,,- 35' v v 27'042' zy.`zz' 25.000- 7.297- 25`000 zvo'v ^,.v^o' s7.526' 71'000- ,u'mo- 71'000 100'rk ------------ ------ ___------------ --------- ____________________________ 79'926' 9o1n81' ov.nvv' 40'194- 96,000 100'14 r^zo,' 4.600' 2.022' ^'aoo zon'v `.zm- ^'ouo' 2'022' ^_sno 1007« ------------`----------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------ 113 so' o I. 83500 BD BUDDEPTLD7 LIB Library 2009 Actual 2012 Budget Review by DBPT Level 7 For the Period Ending December 31, 2012 Washington County Minnesota 2 04/18/11 09:42:03 2010 2011 2011 2D12 2012 2012 2012-2011 t Actual Adopted YTD Base Given Dept Propd ad Adoptd Difference Change 82000. 583000_ 584000, 585000. 586000. Total Misc Revenue Re6titution & Recovery Misc Sales 54/0 Sales Tax Misc Sales W/Sales Tax Mist Other Revenue DOnatiOns & Contributions Total Non -Levy Revenue TOTAL REVENUE EXPENDITURES 500100, 500400. 600500. 601055, 601055. 602005. Direct Material Board Meeting Per Diem Client Exo Reimb w/Reepts DP Electrical Services DP Electrical Repairs Dir Pmt SvC9 - Misc Total Direct Payments 610E00. 610900. 611400. 611500. 514020 Total Wages 615100_ 615200. 615300. 615400. 615500. 615600. 615900. 616000. Total Benefits Temporary Staff Special Project Staff Regular Pay Overtime Pay Jury Duty Reimb FICA (Soria! Security) PERA (Public Retirement) Group Medical insurance Employee Medical Pool Group Life Insurance Group LTD Ins Employer Liab Funding Unemployment Comp Total Wages & Benefits 102,523- 64,230- 90,000- 48 147- 52,409- 58,373- 62,000- 3,304- 2,500- 33,032- 46,551- 15,000- 187,803- 192,655- 168,500- 26,483- 24,379- 34,208- 75,070- 90,000 100-5 O t 51,000 100-% 2,500 100-t 15,000 100-5 168,500 100-t 561,282- 476,013- 461,100- 202.758- 461,100 100-% 6,893,150- 6,347,413- 6,527,900- 201,758- 6,527,900 100-t 774,967 639,658 766,800 148,763 140 245 500 55 5,371 1,878 1,039 73,835 77,438 65,000 14,741 766,800- 100-t 500- 100-t O t O 5 O t 55,000- 100-4 855,407 719,219 832,300 163,504 032,300- 100-5 45,898 44,597 27,900 12,707 10,359 2,932,650 2,885,982 2,951,700 697,682 113 364 73 10- 27,900- in-t O V 2,951,700- 100-t 0 O t 2,989,010 2.930,943 2,979,600 710,462 2,979,600- 100-5 224,052 216,077 217,800 56,033 197,149 200,913 204,500 54,213 253,434 251,633 264,000 74,413 70,990 67,274 67,300 21,260 5,544 4,035 4,300 1,163 15,777 9,507 9,800 2,298 249,425 245,470 252,100 63,024 278-, ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------ --------- 1,016,593 994,909 1,019,800 272,404 4,005,603 3,925,852 3,999,400 982,866 217,800- 204,500- 264,000- 67,300- 4,300- 9,800- 252,100- 100-t 100-t 100-t 100-5 100-t 100-5 100-t O t 1,019,800- 100-t 3,999,400- 100-t 93500 Washington County Minnesota 3 BD 2012 Budget Review by DEPT 04/18/11 BUDDEFILW Level 7 0912;03 For the Period Ending December 31, 2012 LIB Library 2009 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012-2011 V Actual Actual Adopteg YTD Base Given Dept Propd Bd Adoptd Difference Change ------ __ ----------------------------------------------- _....____ ____________ __ -- .: -------_____________ ___________- __-__ ------------------------------- ----- Total Other Operating Expense 0 t 622100. Transportation 84 64 36 0 % 522500. Mileage 12,881 8,668 8,000 1,915 8,000- 100-1 622600_ Cell Phone Allowance 720 220 0 k 623000. Lodging & Meals 419 0 t ----__-____- ----------- ----------------- - ----- - ------------ ------------ ----- _____-_ ____________ _ ----- Total Employwe Expenditures 14,104 6,952 8,000 . 1.951 8,000- 100-k Total County Vehicle Expense 0 * 630100. Consultant Service 15,892 0 % 630400. Dues and Memberships 125 130 0 t 630470. Other Svcs & Chgs Misc 21,297 72.891 28,900 6,29$ • 25 , poo- iss-k Total Other Services & Chgs 640000. 642000. 642900. 641000 644000. 645000. 648000. Total Facilities 651000. 654000. 657100, 657200, 657400, Facilities Telephone Rent/Lease Of Facilities Electricity Heat Refuse Collection Main/Repairs-Facilities Supply/Minor Equip Misc Books & Periodicals Minor Equip (c$5000) RentaMease of Equipment Equip Repairs 4 Maint Total Supplies & Minor Equip Total Operating Expenses 37,314 23,021 25,900 5,295 25.900- 100-k 118,400 118,400- IGO-% 115,018 89,462 86,500 23,436 96,500- 100-* 1,224,055 1,220,007 1,105,300 303,382 1,105,300- 100-1 2,696 3,194 701 0 % 2,447 2,119 1,140 0 t 1,092 1,248 455 0 % 9,888 7,472 1,611 0 1 1,355,196 1,323,502 1,310,200 330,725 1,310,200- 100-k 89,237 369- 45.176 9,152 106,987 76,400 10 69,631 8.870 97,589 67,000 105,400 14,700 124,000 17,491 10- 12,230 3,465 49,796 67,000- 105,400- 14,700- 124,000- 100-A 0 100-4 100-% 100-e 250,183 . 252,500 311,100 . 82,972 311,100- 100-* ------------------------ --_______-__ ------ ---------------------------- - --__________ ___________- ----- 1,656,797 1,607,975 1,655,200 120,943 1,655,200- 100-k 674000. Office Furnishings & Equip 674060. Office Equipment a$5,000 17' 674110, Computer Squip 45.000 7,770 674210. Computer Soft s$S,000 7,750 8,903 26,532 41,000 39,225 0 % 0 * 0 k 41,000- 100-1 Total Capital Expenditures 15,537 35,435 41,000 39,225 41.000- 100-k 32500 Washington County Minnesota 4 9D 2012 Budget Review by DEPT 04/18/11 BUDOEPTLD7 Level 7 09:42:03 For the Period Ending December 31, 2012 LID Library Total Debt Service TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2009 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012-2011 % Actual Actual Adopted XTO Base Given Dept Propd Bd Adoptd Difference Change 6,533,344 6,288,401 6,527,900 1,606,538 - O 1 6,527,900- 100 t EXCESS REVENUE OVER EXPENSES 359,806- OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Bond Pat: Total Bond Par OTHER FINANCING USES 58,932- 1,404,780 O t • } 0[her Financing Sources/Uses 0 } FUND BALANCE 159,806- S8,932- 1,404,780 0 t a==sa=m===== _____====m ===mass=s==-=a=-s----=a= aa---------_ CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, 1VHNNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2011-024 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM, AUTHORIZING A LIBRARY LEVY, AND ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO. WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the residents of the City currently receive library services through Washington County; and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo desires to establish and operate a City Public Library Service pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 134.07 et seq.; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Lake Elmo to provide well managed and quality library services for the residents of Lake Elmo; and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo intends to set aside public property of the City for the benefit of the Public Library Service; and WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the establishment and operation of a Public Library Service at its July 5th, 2011 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby establishes a City Public Library Service under Minnesota Statutes § 134.07 et seq., as follows: 1) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 134.09, the City Council hereby establishes a five - person Library Board, with members to be appointed by the Mayor with the approval of the City Council from among the residents of the City. 2) The initial Library Board will have two residents of the City each appointed for a one- year term, two residents of the City each appointed for a two-year teim, and one resident of the City appointed for a three-year term. Not more than one council member shall at any time be a member of the Library Board. 3) Said appointments will be effective on January 1, 2011, or a date to be determined by the City Council. 4) Following the initial appointment of the Library Board, all terms will be for three years, commencing on January 1 of the year the term begins, with Library Board members allowed to serve no more than three consecutive three-year terms. 5) The City Council will appoint an interim library director with the authority to organize and manage the Public Library System until a library director is appointed by the Library Board. The Library Board shall appoint a qualified library director and other staff, as necessary, establish the compensation of employees, and remove any of them for cause, 6) The City Council will levy an annual tax upon all taxable property within the City for the support of the library and will place such money in a designated Library Fund. 7) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 134.11, the Library Board shall adopt bylaws and regulations for the library, and shall have exclusive control of the expenditure of all money collected for or placed to the credit of the Library Fund, of interest earned on all money collected for or placed to the credit of the Library Fund, of the construction of library buildings, and of the grounds, rooms, and buildings provided for library purposes. 8) The City shall set aside certain public property to be further specified by subsequent resolution for the benefit of the Public Library Service. With the approval of the council, the Library Board may erect a library building thereon. 9) The City Council may create a citizens' committee, to be comprised of residents from the City of Lake Elmo, to advise the City Council and the Library Board on issues of public concern related to the City of Lake Elmo Public Library Service. Notwithstanding the foregoing, subsequent to date of this Resolution, the City will continue good faith discussions with Washington County for the purposes of maintaining and improving existing library services through continuation of existing Washington County Library System services or through the transfer of library services from the County to the City, subsequent affiliation, association or collaboration with Washington County, and adjustment of special levy limits therefore in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 275.72. Passed and duly adopted this 29th day of June 20] 0 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elrno, Minnesota. Dean A. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator Cur? DE LAKE ELMO N-04•9 AYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: REGULAR ITEM #: DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM: City Council Meeting Calendar for August 2011 SUBMITTED BY: Sharon Lumby, City Clerk REVIEWED BY: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator p‘ 7/05/2011 11 SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: It is respectfully requested that the Mayor and City Council discuss meeting dates for August 2011, given recent changes made by the Council relating to Workshops, suggested evening out of meetings among the five Tuesdays in August, accommodation of summer activities and schedules, and a suggestion from the Oak Park Heights City Council to convene a joint meeting to discuss the Highway 36 corridor. If desired, the suggested motion could be considered to address this suggestion: "Move to modify the Lake Elmo City Council Calendar to schedule a Workshop and Regular Meeting for both August 9th and 23rd and to Cancel the previously -scheduled August 2nd Meeting." BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City Council recently amended its summer schedule to hold Workshops prior to Regular Meetings, The City Council is currently scheduled to meet on August 2nd and 16th. City staff notes the following with respect to the August calendar: • There are five Tuesdays in August. With no meeting scheduled on the 4th and 5th Tuesdays, some noi-nial Council functions may be delayed. Meeting on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays would spread out the Meeting calendar and avoid a 3-week hiatus; • Summer activities and vacation schedules are being addressed and accommodated for both staff and Council Members. Meeting on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays would likely help spread out these personnel challenges; • The City has received notification from Oak Park Heights of a suggested joint City Council meeting to discuss the Highway 36 corridor. Initial suggestions of a July 26th or August 2nd meeting are in conflict with the Lake Elmo City Council's meeting schedule. However, meeting on August 9th and 23rd would allow for easier scheduling of this joint meeting. -- page 1-- City Council Meeting July 5th, 2011 City Counc4 reetMg Calendar for August 2011' Regular Agenda Item # 11 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council discuss meeting dates for August 2011, given recent changes made by the Council relating to Workshops, suggested evening out of meetings among the five Tuesdays in August, accommodation of summer activities and schedules, and a suggestion from the Oak Park Heights City Council to convene a joint meeting to discuss the Highway 36 corridor. If desired, the suggested motion could be considered to address this suggestion: "Move to modify the Lake Elmo City Council Calendar to schedule a Workshop and Regular Meeting for both August 9th and 23rd and to Cancel the previously -scheduled August 2nd Meeting." Alternatively, the City Council can elect to not change its meeting schedule or to establish a different meeting schedule for August. To undertake the latter, the suggested motion is: "Move to modify the Lake Elmo City Council Calendar, as agreed upon at tonight's meeting." ATTACHMENTS: None SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item .............. ............... .......................................... ..... City Clerk Council Discussion Mayor Facilitates Action on Motion Mayor & City Council page 2 — City of :Oak -Park Heights 14168 OakPark Blvd. N • Box 2007 • Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • Phone (651)439.4439 • Fax (651) 439-0574 June 304t, 2011 Mayor -and 'City Council members, City ofeLake Elmo C/a..Bru.ee IVIesselt, City Administrator ***SENT VIA EMAIL - bruce.m. esse RE: Possible Joint Meeting *** Dear Mayorand City Council .Members: With this letterthe 'Cityof Oak -Park -Heights,cloes wish to invite the Mayor Iltid embersof the CitynfLake Elmo City Council -to a joint -work session with Mayor City CounCil'Members of the -City of Oak Park Heights to-discuss.issues related to the :.STH 36 -Conidor. We offer our,City Hall as:the location for the meeting and_ suggest two potential dates, those being July 26' or August d't,,.:(both.at 6pm). Ifthese dates arenot workable, -we would glad rconSider other dates:that may be -more .favorable to allow all _parties to be present. We look forward toypur resp rie Joh City Ad Cc: Weekly Notes or TY OF LAKE ELMO AYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: DATE: RESGULAR ITEM #: MOTION Replace and Upgrade Field Lighting Lions Park Mike Bouthilet, Public Works Director Bruce Messelt, City Administrator Bruce Messelt, Tom Bouthilet, Carol Kreigler 7/05/2011 12 SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: The Public Works Department is requesting authorization to contract for replacement and upgrade to the ball field lighting in Lions Park. The suggested motion is as follows: 'Move to authorize a contract with Weber Electric for $14,900 to replace the lights and control junction boxes at Lions Park." BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The lights at Lions Park are approximately 35 years old. Over the last few years they have required maintenance and numerous repairs. They have reached the end of their expected life. The circuit and fuse boxes have been exposed to the elements over the 35 years and have deteriorated to the point of a potential hazard. STAFF REPORT: Four electrical lighting contractors were solicited for recommended improvements. Although replacing the current quartz lighting would be the least expensive, the cost would be offset by the re -wiring it would take to supply the power needed. Weber Electric $14,900.00 Parsons Electric......... ..... . ......... $18,450.00 Ulmer Electric... ..... ,........ ......... $18,930.00 Musco Electric............ ........ $49,000-54,000 (non -compatible quote) Upgrading to metal halide lights negates the re -wiring and would only use one fifth of the power of quartz, resulting in significant energy savings. This is a budgeted CEP purchase. City staff continues to explore possible grant opportunities for other innovative lighting projects. City Council Meeting Replace a pgrade Field Lighting Lions Park July 5th, 2011 Regular Agenda Item # 12 • RECOMMENDATION: it is respectfully requested that the City Council authorize contracting with Weber Electric to replace/ upgrade lights and control junction boxes at Lions Park. The suggested motion to undertake this recommendation is as follows: "Move to authorize a contract with Weber Electric for $14,900 to replace the lights and control junction boxes at Lions Park" Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to reject, table or modify this recommendation. If the latter, the suggested motion would be: Move to proceed as directed at tonight's meeting." ATTACHMENTS: None SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item & Brief Presentation .............. ..........Finance Director Questions from Council to Staff ......... ........ ............. Mayor & City Council - Public Input, if Appropriate . . Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion Mayor & City Council Discussion Mayor Facilitates Action on Motion, Mayor & City Council — page 2 --