Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-19-2011 CCMPCity of Lake Elmo City Council Workshop 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 July 19, 2011 5:30 p.m. — 6:30 p.m. (?) Proposed Agenda* Agenda Permanent Water Chlorination 2. Fire 'Department Issues 3. Adjourn Future Workshop ideas: Establishing an EDA Solid Waste Collection Home Occupation Ordinance Environmental Issues — Council Member Emmons Special Activities and Events Ordinance Highway 36 Corridor Joint Discussion with Oak Park I (Proposed August meeting) s City Council AMENDED AGEN City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne AvenUe North Lake Elmo. Minnesota July 19, 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 Wa y that the City Council runs its meetings so everyone attending the meetinc_), 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 July 5, 2011 City Council Minutes 1-1. PUBLIC CaMMENTSItNQUIRIES. 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 arc not anticipated to generate discussion. Items may be removed at City Councirs request.) 2. Approve payment of disbursements and payroll 3. 2011 Seal Coat Pav Request No, 1. 4a. 2010 Street & Water Utility Improvements Final Payment h. 2011 Street & Water Quality Improvements Pav Request No. 1 5. Award Contract for the 2011 Rain Gardens 13 total) 6, Ordinance No, 08-048 Relating to the State Building Code to Include the National Electrical Code 7. Electrical Inspection Services Agreement 8. 2011 Fee Schedule Amendment 9. Appro\ e Variance ibr 9940 591' Street Court to allow a 3.800 sq.11. buildinghui!cling 10 be internally Ilood-proofed 10. Approve Engineering Services Agreement REGULAR AGENDA: 11, Recognizing Jim Sachs Retiring from the Lake Elmo Fire Dept, 12, Accept Audit Report 13, HEARING: Appeal from Robert and Jodi Konop, 12418 Marquess Way North re:denial of a fence permit 14. Request for extension to file a Preliminary Development Plan related to a Senior-Living/Farm School Project at 9434 Stillwater Blvd. 15, Variance for 5761 Keats Avenue to allow the construction of a second agricultural farm building 16, Hotel/Motel Commercial Water Rates — Update/Discussion 17, Lake Elmo Library Services — Update/Discussion on Taxing District 18. Consider Ordinance to apply "No Wake" Zone K. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: (These are verbal updates and do not have to be formally added to the agenda.) • Mayor and City Council • Administrator — Update on Springsted • 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 July 5, 2011 Mayor Johnston called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Johnston and Council Members Emmons, Park, Pearson, and Smith Also Present: Administrator Messelt, Attorney Sandstrom, and City Engineer Griffin, Planning Director Klatt, Finance Director T. Bouthilet, Parks and Public Works Superintendent M. Bouthilet, Recording Secretary Luczak APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor Johnston suggested that the discussion on the commercial water rates be continued at the July 19, 2011, Council Workshop, Council Member Smith requested that the Staff involved in the billing of the water bills be in attendance to answer any questions and concerns, Council Member Park requested that this item should then be placed on the July 19, 2011, Council Workshop and then Council Agenda for final action, MOTION.. Council Member Emmons moved to approve the July 5, 2011 City Council Agenda as amended by deleting Commercial Water Rates and Library Services. Council Member Pearson seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0, ACCEPTED MINUTES: The June 21, 2011, City Council minutes were accepted as amended by consensus of the City Council. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION: Council Member Pearson moved to approve Items 3 & 4 as presented on the Consent Agenda, Council Member Emmons seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. • Accepted Susan Dunn's Resignation from the Parks Commission and move John Ames to Full Voting Member and Steve DeLapp to First Alternate • Authorized Purchase of Animal Control Equipment LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 5, 2011 RAFT REGULAR AGENDA: Approve Payment of Disbursements in the Amount of $64,261.64 Council Member Smith updated the City Council regarding the Fire Equipment and Repair claims. She asked about City policy regarding prepayment of services not yet provided to FXL, Inc., the repair work at the VFW Field and the City Hall Annex. Finance Director T. Bouthilet provided clarification regarding the claims. MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to approve Payment of Disbursements in the amount of $64, 261.64. Council Member Park seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Huff n' Puff Proclamation Council Member Pearson read the Lake Elmo Jaycees Proclamation proclaiming August 11-14, 2011, as Huffn' Puff Days in the City of Lake Elmo. Consider Approval of a Temporary On -Sale Liquor Licensefor Lake Elmo Jaycees Huff n' Puff Days and Waive the Fees for the Liquor License and Lions Park Ball Field Lights City Administrator Messelt requested the City Council to consider its annual 1 to 4 day temporary On -Sale liquor license for the Lake Elmo Jaycees Huffn' PufTDays, and to also waive the liquor license fee and the fee for the Lions Park ball field lights. The Lake Elmo Jaycees informed the City Council that this was their 35th Annual Huff n' Puff Days, and registration for the Softball Tournament had already begun. The Jaycees have also received National level awards for the adult flashlight Easter Egg Hunt for Relay for Life, and will again be participating in the Lake Elmo Fall Festival with a Cake Walk. MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to approve the temporary On -Sale liquor license fbr 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, Council Member Pearson seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. Review of Code Interpretation Concerning a Proposed Covered Walkway as 7955 Hill Trail Court; Resolution No. 2011-024 Planning Director Klatt requested the City Council, acting as the Board of Appeals, conduct an Appeal Hearing regarding Staffs interpretation of the City Code related to the applicant's proposed construction at 7955 Hill Trail Court, and specifically, whether or not the proposed project is in conformance with the existing regulations as written. He explained to the City Council that the applicants' proposal to construct a modified entrance to their home is in conflict with City Code standards regarding allowable encroachments into the setback area. He further explained that historic street vacation LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 5, 2011 2 DRAFT actions have resulted in an unusual situation that has created the issue with Staff's interpretation of "front yard". Mayor Johnston stated he concurred with the applicants regarding the health and safety issue of the covered steps. Council Member Smith inquired as to whether the applicants could proceed with a zoning variance application under the new variance standards recently adopted by the legislature and proposed for adoption by the City later on the Agenda. Council Member Park suggested that the Council could define the proposed improvements as steps rather than a deck and therefore become an allowable encroachment, Council Member Emmons commented that the proposed action may be better as a variance to overcome issues of precedent for the Staff, Attorney Sandstrom stated that the issue before the Council appears to be more of a variance matter than a Staff interpretation. Appeal Hearing opened at 7;49 p.m. City Planner read into the record a letter from the adjoining neighbors, Veronica and Allen Siedle, in support of the applicants' proposal. Property owner Jim Norton stated that they had a survey done and another improvement to their home in recent years and no mention was made of setback issues or yard definition. Property owner Parn Beytien further advised that the proposal to cover the proposed entry steps was to overcome ice buildup on the steps. Appeal Hearing closed at 7:58 p.m. Council Member Smith stated that this situation was unique but that Staff interpretation was correct based on the City Code and prior similar interpretation by Staff. She said she would prefer that the City Council handle this as a variance, City Attorney Sandstrom said he agreed that if the improvements were called steps rather than a deck, this issue could be handled without a variance. The Council reviewed the current configuration of the lot and determined that, based on the historical platting of this area and the current location of the home, that the northern property line should continue to function as the front property line for purposes of determining building setbacks, LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 5, 2011 RAFT MOTION; Council Member Smith moved to approve Resolution No. 2011-024, stating Findings of Fact related to an Appeal and overturning the Staff determination that the western property line is in the front lot line and instead specifying that the northern property line is the front property line for this parcel. Council Member Park seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0, Variance Ordinance Amendments Planning Director Klatt requested City Council approval of proposed changes to the Administrative Section of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed update of the section of code reflects the recent changes the Minnesota State Legislature made to the City's statutory authority to grant variance, MOTION: Council Member Park moved to approve Ordinance No, 08-047 amending the "Administrative " section of the Zoning Ordinance concerning Variances as recommended by the Planning Commission and Resolution No, 2011-025 allowing summary publication of the Ordinance. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0, City Engineering Services — Discussion of Discontinuation of Services City Administrator Messelt requested the City Council provide direction regarding the recent notification by TKDA, effective immediately, of their intention to discontinue Engineering Services to the City, with a transition. He also presented options for City engineering services, including a scoring of the several options. Mayor Johnston stated that there is a value with long term relationships with city consultants, He suggested that any new relationship entered into by the City for engineering services extend to the end of this year but include a City option for a 3 year extension. MOTION.. Council Member Emmons moved to direct City Staff to initiate a transition and selection initiative fbr City Engineering Services, as agreed upon at the July 5, 2011, Council meeting. Mayor Johnston seconded the Motion. Motion passed 5-0, City Council Meeting Calendar For August 2011 City Administrator Messelt requested the City Council discuss the scheduled meeting dates for August 2011 due to recent changes by the Council relating to Workshops, the five Tuesdays in August, accommodating the summer activities and schedules. The City also received a request from the City of Oak Park Heights City Council to convene a joint meeting to discuss the Highway 36 Corridor, City Council Smith stated she could have a potential conflict on August 9, 2011, proposed meeting date and would prefer August 3rd and 23"1 as meeting dates. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 5, 2011 4 DRAFT MOTION: Mayor Johnston moved to modify and approve the Lake Elmo City Council Calendar to schedule a Workshop and Regular Meeting for both August 9th and 2.31d and to cancel the previously scheduled August 3" Meeting. Council Member Park seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. The Council directed Administrator Messelt to contact the Oak Park Heights Administrator and provide them alternate dates adopted by the Council. Replace and Upgrade Field Lighting at Lions Park, Public Works Director Bouthilet requested authorization to contract for replacement and upgrade to the ball field lighting at Lions Park. The equipment and lights are over 35 years old, and CIP funds are available. Council Member Pearson asked if grants were available for this project. Parks and Public Works Superintendent M. Bouthilet responded that there probably were but were for LED lights only, and LED lights are not suitable for recreation fields. MOTION: Council Member Park moved to authorize a contract with Weber Electric for $14,900 to replace the lights and control junction boxes at Lions Park. Council Member Pearson seconded the Motion. Motion passed 5-0. City Council Reports: Council Member Emmons reported that he had met with the Fire Dept. Council Member Smith asked Parks and Public Works Superintendent M. Bouthilet about possible No Parking signs being posted by Carriage Station Park. She expressed safety concerns for residents leaving their private driveways, Parks and Public Works Superintendent M. Bouthilet stated signs were available. City Administrator Messelt said that this matter would be placed on a Consent Agenda at a future meeting. Council Member Smith also requested a report on the total cost of the monument sign on Keats Avenue. Administrator Messelt said a report would be prepared for the Council now that all the costs are known, Council Member Pearson requested tracking information on responses to the Lake Elmo Park Reserve. Council Member Park thanked the Administration regarding the library matters. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 5, 2011 5 RAFT City Planner Klatt informed the Council that an Appeal Hearing and two variance applications had been received. City Engineer Griffin updated the Council that the 2011 Street Project had the first level already down, and the Rain Gardens had received final plans from the Washington County Conservation District. The City Council adjourned the meeting at. 8:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Carole Luczak, Recording Secretary LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 5, 201 1 6 AYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 07/19/2011 CONSENT ITEM II: 2 MOTION as part of Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM: Approve Disbursements in the Amount of $ 225,848.80 SUBMITTED BY: Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director THROUGH: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator 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 $225,848.80 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 summary of current claims to be disbursed and paid in accordance with State law and City policies and procedures. I Anitian . **'*E *i!* ACH S 7,571.75 Payroll Taxes to IRS 07/14/2011 ACH S 1,275.07 Payroll Taxes to MN Dept. of Revenue 07/14/2011 ACH $ 3,867.07 Payroll Retirement to PERA 07/14/2011 DD3425 DD3461 $ 25,203.23 Payroll Dated 07/14/2011 (Direct Deposit) 1 37257 — 37264 $ 17,269.44 Payroll Dated 07/14/2011 37265 — 37314 $ 170,662.24 Accounts Payable Dated 07/19/2011 • page 1 -- City Council Meeting July 19th, 2011 Approval of Disbursements Consent Agenda Item #2 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 $225,848.80 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 l9th, 2011, Disbursements, as presented [and modified] herein." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Accounts Payable Dated 07/19/2011 SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Aeenda): Questions from Council to Staff Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion Mayor & City Council Discussion Mayor & City Council Action on Motion ............. ..... ...................... .................. . ........ Mayor Facilitates page 2 -- Accounts Payable To Be Paid Proof List User: joan z Printed: 07/I4/2011 - 12:36 PM Batch: 002-07-2011 Invoice # Inv Dat Amount Quantity Prot Date Destription Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # ALEXAIR Alex Air Apparatus, Inc 20116 07/13/2011 70.08 0.00 07/19/2011 Replacement parts for SCBA's 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 20116 Total: 70.08 ALEXAIR Total: 70.08 AMDAHL Amdahl Chris 8233 07/04/2011 83,40 0.00 07/19/2011 6 Primus Keys 101-410-1940-44010 Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg 8233 Total: 8340 AMDAHL Total: 83,40 ANCOM ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS. INC. 23311 06/30/2011 101-420-2220-43230 Radio 23311 Total: ANCOM Total: 105.00 0.00 07/19/2011 Pager Repair 105.00 105.00 ARAM Aramark, Inc. 629-7274413 06/30/2011 21.29 0,00 07/19/2011 Uniforms 101-430-3100-44170 Uniforms 629-7274413 Total: 21.29 629-7276202 07/04/2011 115.38 0.00 07/19/2011 Linen City Hall 101-410-1940- 0 0 Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg 629-7276202 Total: 115.38 629-7280913 07/11/2011 75.99 0.00 07/14/2011 Monthly rug service, station 42 101-420-2220-44010 Repairs/Maint Bldg 629-7280913 Total: 75.99 629-72809 I 4 07/11/2011 75.31 000 07/19/2011 Monthly rug service, station #1 10 I -420-2220-44010 RepairsiMaint Bldg 629-7280914 Total: 75.31 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (07/14/11 - 12:36 PM) No 0000 No No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 Page Invoice # Inv Pate ' ARAM Total: ASPENMI Aspen Mills; Inc. 105900 02/21/2011 101-420-2220-44170 Uniforms 105900 Total: ASPENMI Total: BIFFS Bill's Inc. Multiple 06729/2011 101-450-5200-4-4120 Rentals - Building Multiple Total: BIFFS TOW: BURBBLAC Burberl Black Dirt, Inc, 13610 07/06/2011 101-450-5200-42250 Landscaping Materials 13610 Total: BURBBLAC Total: C&J CONS C & J Consulting Services, LLP 06-2011 07/05/2011 101-410-1520-43150 Contract Services 06-2011 Total: C&J CONS Total: CARQUEST Car Quest Auto Parts 2055-226846 06/29/2011 101-430-3120-42210 Equipment Parts 2055-226846 T 2055-227013 06730/20 I 1 101430-3120422t0 quipment Parts 2055-227013 Total: 2055-227344 07/0572011 101-430-3120-42210 Equipment Parts 2065-227344 Total: 2055-227460 07/06/2011 101-430-3120-42210 Equipment Parts 2055-227460 Total: 2055-227661 07/07/2011 101-430-3120.-42210 Equipment Parts AP - To Be Paid Proof List (07/14(11 - 12:36 PM) Amount Quantity Plat Date Description Reference Task 287.97 42.59 0.00 07719/261i Collar Bras§ 42.59 42.59 612.89 0,00 07/1912011 Portable Restrooms 612.81 612.89 51.300.00 07/19/2011 Black Dirt VFW 5130 51.30 4,887.50 0.00 07/19/2011 Monthly Acctg SerViceS - tine 2011 4,887.50 4,887.50 17.40 0.00 07/19/2011 Cap & Sta 17.40 125.81 0.00 07/19/2011 Equipment Parts 12.56 0.00 07/19/2011 Fuel Filter 340.65 OM 07/19/2011Fuel Pump 0.00 07/19/2011 Bulbs & Silicone 125.81 12.56 340.65 12,78 Type PO # Close POLine # 14o 0000 No 0000 No 0000 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 Page 2 Invoice # Inv Date Anionnt Quantitr Prnt Date DeScrilition Reference Task -ripe PO # Close POLine # 2055-227661 Total: 12.78 CARQUEST Total: 509.20 COMCAST COMCAST 06/27/2011 06/27/20 II 7.90 0.00 07/19/2011 Monthly Service No 0000 101-420-2220-44300 Miscellaneous 06/27/2011 Total: 7.90 COMCAST Tota : 7.90 COMPENSA Compensation Consultants, Ltd July 2011 07/07/2011 40.00 0_00 07/19/2011 Monthly Adrnin Fee - July 2011 No 0000 101-410-1320-44300 Miscellaneous July 201 1 Total: 40.00 COMPENSA Total: 40.00 COVERALL Coverall of The Twin Cities 7070166952 07/01/2011 480.94 0.00 07/19/2011 Cleaning City flall No 0000 101-410-1940-44010 Repairs/Maint Contractual B1dg 7070166952 Total: 480.94 COVERALL Total: 480.94 CTYBLOOM City of Bloomington June 2011 06/29/2011 90.00 0:00 7/ /20l 1 Lab Bacteria Tests 601-494-9400-42270 Utility Stein Maintenance June 2011 Total: 90.00' CTYBLOOM Total: 99.06 No 0000 CTYROSEV City of Roseville 0214882 07/07/2011 1,551.58 0.00 07/19/2011 Monthly IT ServiceS - July 2011 NO 0000 101-410-1450-43180 Information Technology/Web 0214882 Total: 1,551.58 CTYROSEV Total: 1,551.58 EARLANDE Earl F. Andersen, Inc. 0096016-IN 06/30/2011 62.37 0.00 07119/2011 Tennis Court Straps No 0000 101-430-3100-44030 RepairsfMaint Imp Not Bldgs 0096016-1N Total: 62.37 EARLANDE Total: 62.37 .4P - To Be Paid Proof List (07/14/11 12:36 PM) Page 3 Invoice # Inv Date ECKBERG Eckberg Lamers Briggs Wolff 06 2011 06/30/2011 101-420-2150-43045 Attorney Criminal 06 2011 Total: 112774 06/30/2011 101-410-1320-43040 Legal Services 112774 06/30/2011 203-490-9070-43040 Legal Services 112774 06/30/2011 413-480-8000-43040 Legal Services 112774 Total: ECKBERG Total: EMMONS A Emmons Alex 07/11/2011 07/11/2011 101-410-1450-43620 Cable Operations 07/11/2011 Total: EMMONS A Total: ENVENTIS ENVENTIS 737500 07/01/2011 101-430-3100-43210 Telephone 737500 Total: 738507 07/01/2011 101-410-1940-43210 Telephone 738507 Total: ENVENTIS Total: HAGBERGS Hagbergs Country Market 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 101-420-2220-44300 Miscellaneous 06/30/2011 Total: HAGBERGS Total: HAWKINS Hawkins, Inc. 3236134 06/23/2011 601-494-9400-42161) Chemicals 3236134 Total: HAWKINS Total: AP - To Be Paid Proof List (07/14/11 - 12:36 PM) Amount 3,760.04 3,760.04 11,270.17 643.50 78,00 11,991.67 15,751.71 55.00 55.00 55.00 455.80 455.80 569.24 569.24 1,025.04 14.90 14.90 14.90 215.50 215.50 215.50 Date Description Reference Task. Type PO # Close POLine # 0.00 07/19/2011 Legal Services - Prosecution ne 2011 - 0.00 07/19/2011 Legal Services - Civil 0.00 0/19/2011 Legal Services Development 0.00 07/19/2011 Legal Services - Itifrastructure 0.00 07/19/2011 Planning Commission Mtg - July 11, 2011 0.00 07/19/2011 Tel eptioneDatO Service - PW July 2011 0.00 07/19/2011 Telephorie/Date Service CH - July 2011 0.00 07/19/2011 Rehab Supplies and Council Wkshp 0.00 07/19/2011 Chlorine No No No No No No No No No 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 Page 4 Invoice # Inv Date FIER1TAGE Heritage Printing 20712 07/07/2011 101-420-2400-42000 Office Supplies 20712 Total: HERITAGE Total: KDV Kern DeWenter Viere Ltd 130752 06/30/2011 101-410-1520-43150 Contract Services 130752 Total: KDV Total: LINNER Linner Electric Compahy, 21661 06/30/2011 601-494-9400-44030 Repaits\Maint lmp Not Bldgs 21661 Total: LINNER Total: LOFF Lofiler Companies, Inc. 1268224 07/05/2011 101-410-1940-44040 Repairs/Maint Contractual Eqpt 1268224 Total: LOFF Total: MARONEYS Maroney's Sanitation, Inc 0000395114 06/3012011 101-410-1940-43840 Refuse 0000395114 06/30/2011 101-420-2220-43840 Refuse 0000395114 06/30/2011 101-420-7770-43840 Refuse 0000395114 06/30/2011 101-420-2220-43840 Refuse 0000395114 Total: MARONEYS Total: MARVS Ivlarv's ProRmsional Tools 238901 06/30/2011 10E-430-3100-42400 Small Tools & Minor Equipment 238901 Total: Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference Task 32.os 0.00 07/19/201 2 part paper for Bldg application forms 82.08 82.08 1,093_50 0.00 07/19/2011 Financial ServiceS - June 2011 1,093.50 1,093.50 104.00 0.00 07/19/2011 104.00 104.00 244.49 0.00 07/19/2011 Copy Machine Overage 8c Base - July 2011 244.49 244.49 108.30 47.68 207.82 207.82 571.62 571.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 07/19/2011 07/19/2011 07/19/2011 07/19/2011 Waste Removal - City Hall Waste Removal - Fire Waste Removal - Public Works Waste Removal - Parks 35.52 0.00 07 9/2011 Spill FreeFunnel 35.52 Type PO # Close Mine # No No 0000 0000 No 0000 No No No No No No 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (07/14/11 - 12:36 PM) Page 5 Invoice # Inv Date Amount Quantity Putt Date Destription Reference Task Type PO -4 Close.P0 ine # MARVS Total: 35.52 MENARDST Menards - Stillwater 96795 07/0912011 71.05 0.00 07/19/2011 Station Repairs and Cleaning Supplies 101-420-2220-44010 Repairs/Maint Bldg 96795 07/09/2011 20.91 0.00 01/19/2011 Vehicle 'creeper for Maint Inspections 101-420-2220-42400 Small Tools & Equipment 96795 Total: 91.96 MENARDST Total: 91.96 METCOU Metropolitan Council 964742 07/06/2011 1282.98 0.00 01/19/2011 Mbrithly WasteWater SerViCe -Aug 602-495-9450-43820 Sewer Utility - Met Council 2011 964742 Total: 1,282.98 METCOU Total: 1;282.98 MILLEREX Miller Excavating, Inc, 15570 06/30/2011 1,019.70 0.00 07/19/2011 Grading GeaVel RriadS 101-430-3120-43150 Contract Services 15570 06/30/2011 1,300.00 0.00 0711912011 Haul & Dispose Street Sweeping 603-496-9500-44010 Street Sweeping 15570 Total: 2,319.70 MILLEREX Total: 2,319.70 MILLSCOL Mills Cole 07/0512011 07/0512011 27.50 0.00 07/19/2011 7/5/11 CC Workshop 101-410-1450-43620 Cable Operations 07/05/2011 Total: 27.50 MILLSCDL Total: 27.50 1vINIJNEMPL MN Dept Economic Security 07973555 07/0S/2011 510.57 0.00 07119 Unemployment Insurance 101-410-13 0-41420 Unemployment Benefits 07973555 Total: 510.57 MNUNEMPL Total: 510.57 MSFCB MN Fire Service. Cert. Board 974 07/05/2011 150.00 0.00 07/19/2011 FFII Test X 2 101-420-2220-44330 Dues & Subscriptions 974 Total: 150.00 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (07/14(11 - 12:36 PM) No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 Page 6 Invoice # Inv Date _Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Iteference Task Type Po # Close POLine # MSFCB Total: 150.00 MT1 MT1 Distributing Inc. 795626-00 06/23/2011 83.64 0.00 07/19/2011 Mower Blades 101-450-5200-42210 Equipment Parts 795626-00 Total: 83.E.-4 MT1 Total: 83.64 No 0000 NORTIIL Northland Trust Services, Inc. ELM004A 06/07/2011 64,633.75 0.00 07/19/2011 Interest - GO Cap Impry Band 2004A No 0000 313-480-8000-461 10 Bond Interest ELM004A Total: 64,633.75 LKELIOA 06/07/2011 9,265:78 0.00 07/19/2011 Interest- GO Impr Bond Series 2009B - No 0000 317-470-7000-46110 Bond Interest LKELIOA Total: 9.265.78 NORTHL Total: 73.899.53 ONECALL Gopher State One Call 15023 07/01/2011 214.90 0.00 07/19/2011 Line Locates - Thrie 2011 No 0000 101-430-3100-43150 Contract Services 15023 Total: 214.90 ONECALL Total: 214.90 PITNEY Pimey BOWC.5 397219 08/02/2011 211.83 Q.00 01/19/0 I 1 Postage Machine Rental No 0000 101-410-1940-44010 Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg 397219 Total: 211.83 PITNEY Total: 211.83 PLANTH PLANT HEALTH ASSOCIATES, FNC 1051-11 07/13/2011 2,100.00 0.00 07/19/2011 Forester Services = June 2011 No 0000 101-430-3250-43150 Contract Services 1051-1 I Total: 2,100.00 PLANTH Total: 2,100.00 POMPS Pomp's Tire Service, Inc. 519197 06/30/2011 400.15 0.00 07/19/2011 Tires for toro 4000 D No 0000 101-450-5200-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 519197 Total: 400.15 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (07114/1 1 - 12:36 PM) Page 7 Invoke # Inv Date POMP S Total: PRESSA Anastasia Press 07/05/2011 07/05/2011 101-410-1450-43620 Cable Operations 07/05/2011 Total: PRESSA Total: RIVRCOOP River Country Cooperative 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 101-420-2220-42120 Fuel, Oil and Fluids 06/30/2011 Total: RIVRCOOP Total: S&T S&T Office Products, Inc. 010R1287 06/30/2011 101-410-1320-42000 Office Supplies 010R1287 Total: 010R1612 07/01/2011 101-420-2220-42000 Office Supplies 010/11612 Total: S&T Total: SAMSCLUB Sarrfs Club 07/01/2011 07/01/2011 101-420-2220-44010 Repairs/Lk/taint Bldg 07/01/2011 Total: 07/12/2011 07/12/2011 101-420-2220-44300 Miscellaneous 07/12/2011 Total: SAMSCLUB Total: STCRTREE St. Croix Tree Service 65624 06/30/2011 101-430-3250-43150 Contract Services 65624 Total: STCRTREE Total: AP - To Be Paid Proof List (07/14/11 - 12:36 PM) Amount Quantity Pint Date Description Reference 400,15 55.00 55.00 55.00 1,143.02 1,143.02 1,143.02 44.67 44.67 21.36 21.36 66.03 0.00 67/19/2011 City Couneil Mtg - 7/5/11 0.00 07/19/2011 Fuel 0.00 07/19/2011 Office Supplies 0.00 07/19/2011 Ink Cartridge for printer/copier 19:80 0.00 07/19/2011 Supplies for Fire Dept 19.80 37.86 0.00 07/19/2011Rehab S pplies :17.86 57.66 470.25 0.00 07/19/2011 Cut & ReinovC, Poplar Lisbon Ave 470.25 470:25 Task Type PO # Close POLinO # No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 Na 0000 No 0000 NO 0000 0000 Page 8 Invoice # Inv Date SYmbol Symbol Arts 0149901-IN 06/21/2011 101-420-2220-44170 Uniforms 0149901-1N Total: SYmbol Total: TASCH T.A. Schifsky & Sons Inc 51498 06/21/2011 101-430-3120-42240 Street Maintenance Materials 51498 Total: 51547 06/2712011 101-430-3120 40 Street Maintenance Materials 51547 Total: 51596 07/05/2011 101-430-3120-42240 Street Maintenance Materials 51596 Total: TASCH Total: TDS TDS METROCOM LLC 651-779-8882 07/13/2011 101-420-2220-43210 Telephone 651-779-8882 07/1312011 101-430-3100-43210 Telephone 651-779-8882 07/13/2011 602-495-9450-43210 Telephone 651-779-8882 07/13/2011 601-494-9400-43210 Telephone 651-779-8882 Total: TDS Total: TKDA TKDA, Inc. 002011001796 07/14/2011 203-490-9070-43030 Engineering Services 002011001796 Total: 002011001797 07/14/2011 203490-9070-43030 Engineering Services 002011001797 Total: 002011001798 07/14/2011 413-480-8000-43030 Engineering Services 002011001798 Total: 002011001799 07/1442011 417-480-8000-43030 Engineering Services 002011001799 Total: AP - To Be Paid Proof List (07/14111 - 12:36 PM) Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # 82.50 0.00 07/19/2011 Replacement Badg 82.50 82.50 510.86 510.86 348.67 348.67 886,35 886.35 1,745.88 157.20 156.01 104.76 42.24 460.21 460.21 0.00 07/19/2011 Asphalt 0.00 07/19/2011 Asphalt 0.00 07/19/2011 Asphalt 0.00 0.00 0_00 0.00 07/1972011 07/19/2011 07/19/2011 07/19/2011 Analog Lines - Fire Analog Lines - Public Works Analog Lines -'Lift Station Alarms Alarm - Well House 42 1,363.55 0.00 07/19/2011 Development - Whistling Valley 414.73 0.00 07/19/2011 Development- Sanctuary 1,850.04 0k0 07/19/2011 1:-94 to 30th Street Village Sanitary 0.00 07/19/2011 Lake Elmo 2010 Street & Water Quality 1,363.55 414.73 1,850.04 2,346_36 2,346.36 No No No No No No No No 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 Page 9 invoice # lov Date 002011001800 07/14/2011 601-494-9400-43030 Engineering Ser.Vices 002011001800 Total: 002011001801 07/14/2011 41 8-480-8000-43030 Engineering Services 002011001801 To1alt 002011001802 07/14/201 1 101-420-2400-43030 Engineering 002011001802 07/14/2011 101-430-3100-43030 Engineering Services 002011001802 07/14/2011 101-410-1930-43030 Engineering Services 002011001802 07/14/2011 101-410-1910-43030 Engineering Services 00201 1001 84)1 Total: 00201 1001803 07/14/2011. 101-420-2400-43030 Engineering 002011001803 07/14/2011 101-410-1910-43030 Engineering Services 002011001803 07/14/2011 101-410-1930-43030 Engineering Services 002011001803 07/14/2011 409-480-8000-43030 Engineering Services 002011001803 07/14/2011 404-480-8000-43030 Engineering Services 002011001803 07/14/201 1, 703-430-3120-43030 Engineering Services 002011001803 07/14/2011 601-494-9400-43030 Engineering Services 002011001803 07/14/2011 602-495-9450-43030 Engineering Services 002011001803 07/1412011 603-496-9500-43030 Engineering Services 002011001803 Total: 002011061804 07/14/2011 409-480-8000-43030 Engineering Services 002011001804 Total: 002011001806 07/14/2011 409-480-8000-43030 Engineering Serviees 002011001806 Total: 002011001814 07/14/2011 409-480-8000-43030 Engineering Services 002011001814 Total: AP - To Be Paid Proof List (07(4/11 - 12:36 PM) Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference TaSk Type PO # Close POLitie # 1,426,74 0.00 07/19/2011 Lake Elmo Water Systems Strategies/Fin 1,426.74 13,001.14 0.00 07(19/2011 2011 Street liniirovernen al 13,001.14 178./8 0.00 07/19/2011 308.88 0.00 07/19/2011 4,151.61 0.00 07/19/2011 194.68 0.00 07/19/2011 4,833.95 1,2.95_73 0.00 07(19/2011 1,872.30 0.00 07/19/2011 2,842.42 000 07/19/2011 937,.62 0.00 07/19/2011 446.00 0.00 07/19/2011 791.10 0.00 01/102011 1,408.96 0.00 07/19/2011 320.02 0.00 07/19/2011 2,994.79 0.00 0-7/19/2011 General Engineering General Engineering General Engineering General Engineering General Engineering - VRA General Engineering --VRA General Engineering - VRA General Engineering VRA General Engineering - VRA deneral Engineering VRA General Engineering VRA General Engineering - VRA General Engineering - VRA 12,908.94 3,549.14 0.00 07/19/2011 2011 Seal Coat PrOject • 3,549.14 562.62 0.06 07/19/2011 Lake Elmo District Sidewalk Mairit 562.62 1,478.16 0.00 7/19/201 1 Lake Elmo Crt Drainage CbiclThri 1,478.16 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 Page 10 Invoice # Inv Date TKDA Total: VEOLIA Veolia Environmental Services G50001825694 06/25/2011 101-430-3100-44380 Clean-up Days G50001825694 Total: VEOLIA Total: VISALE40 VISA 804U 05/30/2011 101-420-222044370 Conferences & Training 8040 05/30/2011 101-410-1320-44370 Conferences & Training 8040 Tong: VISALE40 Total: XCEL Xcel Energy 51-0117417-0 101-430-3160-43810 4/2011 Street Lighting 51-0117417-0 Total: 51-4504807-7 07/14/2011 101-450-5200-43810 Electric Utility 51-4504807-7 97/14/2011 602-495-9450-43810 Electric Utility 51-4504807-7 07/14/2011 101-430-3160-43810 Street Lighting 51-4504807-7 Total: 51-4572945-7 07/14/2011 101-430-3160-43810 Street Lighting 51-4572945-7 Total: 51-4576456-3 07/14/2011 101-420-2220-43810 Electric Utility 51-4576456-3 Total: 51-4580376-5 07/14/2011 101-410-1940-43810 Electric utility 51-4580376-5 07/14/2011 101-430-3160-43810 Street Lighting 51-4580376-5 07/14/2011 101-410-1940-43810 Electric Utility 51-4580376-5 Total: 51-4733556-8 07/14/2011 101-450-5200-43810 Electric Utility 51-4733556-8 Total: AP - To Be Paid Proof List 07/ t 4(11 - 12:36 PM) Aincittat Quantity Pint Date Description Reference - Task Type PO # Close POLine # 43,735.37 5,833.91 0.00 07/19/2011 Clean Up Day Waste Removal 5,833.91 5,833.91 39556 0.00 07/19/2011 Lodging- Fire Training 6.68 0.00 07/19/2011 LeagueofMN Cities Conference 402.24 402.24 30.69 0.00 07/19/2011 Welconie Sign - Keats Avenue 30.69 189.62 0:09 07/19/2011 LightS' at Legion Park 86.61 0.00 07/19/2011 Lift Station 35.19 0.00 07/19/2011 Traffic Lights 311.42 28.03 0.00 07/19/2011 Street Lights 28.03 361.45 0.00 07/19/2011 Fire Station 2 361.45 330.25 0.00 07/19/2011 City Hall 33.98 0.00 07/19/2011 TtafFe Lights 258.63 0.00 07/19/2011 City Hall 622,86 10.19 0.00 07/19/2011 Tennis Court 10.19 .14 No 0000 Nu 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 Page 11 Invoice # Iny Date 51-5044219-0 07/14/2011 101-450-5200-43810 Electric Utility 5145044719-0 Total: 51-5275289-3 07/14/2011 101-450-5200-43810 Electric Utility 51-5275289-3 Total: 51-5356323-8 07/14/2011 601-494-9400-43810 Electric Utility 51-5356323-8 Total: 51-5522332-2 07/14/2011 101-430-3160-43810 Street Lighting 51-5522332-2 To al: 51-5747685-4 07/14/2011 101-450-5200A3810 Electric Utiliry 51-5747685-4 Total: 51-5916043-7 07/14/2011 602-495-9450-43810 Electric Utility 51-5916043-7 Total: 51-6429583-8 07/14/2011 602-495-9450-43810 Electric Utility 51-6429583-8 Total: 51-6433976-2 07/14/2011 101-420-2220-43810 Electric Utility: 51-6433976-2 Total: 51-6625457-1 07/14/2011 101-450-5200-43810 Electric Utility 51-6625457-1 Total: 5 1-6736544-2 07/141'2011 101-430-3160-43810 Street Lighting 51-6736544-2 Total: 51-6928283-3 07/14/2011 101-430-3160-43810 Street Lighting 51-6928283-3 Total:. 51-6956201-4 07/14/2011 101-450-5200-43810 Electric Utility 51-6956201-4 Tbtal: 51-7538112-1 07/14/2011 101-430-3100-43810 Electric Utility; 5 V-7538112=1 Total: 51-8126093-5 07/14/2011 601-494-9400-43810 Electric Utility 51-8126093-5 Total: 51-8711719=3 07/14/2011 101-430-3160-43810 Street Lighting 51-8711719-3 Total: AP -To t3ePMd Proof List (07114/11 - 12:36 PM) Amount Quantity Pmt Date Des 49.16 0.00 07/19/2011 Parks Building 49.16 9,95 0.00 07/19/2011 Pebble Park 9.95 2,360_25 0.00 07/19/2011 W 2,360.25 44.21 0.00 07/1912011 Traffic Lights 94.32 0.00 07/19/2011 Arts Center 18.95 0.00 07/19/2011 Lift Station 44,21 94.32 18.95 16,90 0,00 07 0 1 Lift Statibn 16.90 287.81 0.00 07/19/2011 Fire Station 141 36.27 0.00 07/19/2011 Legion Park 1,859.81 0.00 07/19/2011 Street Lights 31.97 0.00 07/19/2011 Traffic Lights = Manning 530.22 0.00 07/19/2011 VFW Bal Weld Lights 466.78 0.00 07/19/2011 Public Worke 18.70 0.00 07/19/2011 Water Tower #2 11.39 0.00 07/19/2011 Speed Sign Hwy 5 Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # 28781 36.27 1,859.81 31,97 530.22 46678 18.70 11.39 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 0000 Page 12 Invoice # Inv Date XCEL Total: Report Total: Amount 7,201.33 170,622.24 Pmt Date Description Reference Task type PO # Close POLine AP - To Be Paid Proof List (07/14 - 12:36 PM) Page 13 )(0'134 -CQUNCJ4 COMMUNICAT1ON DATE: 7/21/11 CONSENT ITEM #: 3 MOTION as part of Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM: 2011 Seal Coat Project — Authorizing Payment No. 1 SUBMITTED BY: Larry Bohrer, P.E. THROUGH: Bruce Messelt, City Administra o REVIEWED BY: Mike Bouthilet, Public Works Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director SUMMARY AND ACTION ,REOUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to approve partial payment to Pearson Bros., inc., the Contractor for the 2011 Seal Coat project. The Contractor submitted Partial Payment Certificate No, 1 in the amount of $69,076.00. This _request has been reviewed and payment is _recommended in the amount requested. No specific motion is needed, as this is recommended to be part of 'the overall approval of the Consent _Agenda. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The estimated cost to seal coat streets in Lake Elmo per the 2011 Seal Coat Project Contract was $73,500. The actual cost was $69,076, resulting in savings of $4,424, This reduced amount includes savings due to management of quantity. A retainage of 5% has been Withheld per the Contract documents. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above background information, it is recommended that the City Council approve as part of tonight's Consent Agenda. Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to remove this item from the Consent Agenda, table this item for future :consideration, or further discuss, deliberate and/or, if appropriate, amend the recommended motion prior to taking action, If the latter is done so, the appropriate action of the Council following such discussion would be: "Move to authorize Partial Payment No. 1 in the amount of $69,076.00 to be paid from the Street Maintenance Fund for the 2011 Seal Coat Project. [and amended and/or modified at tonight's meeting]." -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting ' Lune 21,2011 ATTACHMENTS:: (1) 2011 Seal Coat Acceptance and Payment No. 1 Consent Agenda Item # 3 Payment Certificate No. 1 for the 2011 Seal Coat Project SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Azenda): Questions from Council to Staff ..... .................... ................ Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion Mayor & City Council Di ..... ........ ..... Mayor & City Council Action on Motion... .. ... ....... _ ..... ..... ..... Mayor Facilitates -- page 2 -- The right time. The tight.Feniile, Tim right company Proj. No. 14816.003 Cert. No. To 'City -onalce Ehno, Minnesota This Certifies that Pearson Brothers For 2011 Seal Coat Proiect Is entitled to 444 Cedar Street, &Ile 1E00 Saint Paul, MN 55101 (651) 292-4400 (651) 292-0083 Fax www,Btda.com St. Paul, MN, July 14 , 2011 Owner .-Contractor Sixty -Five Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Two Dollars and 20/100 ------ ($ 65;622.20) being 1st estimate for partial payment on contract with you dated Received payment in full of above Certificate. Pearson Bros, Inc, Contract pri c p 1 us extras Al] previous payments Al] previous credits Extra No. 17 11 11 11 It 11 Credit No11 AMOUNT OF THIS CERTIFICATE , 2011 TKDA RECAPITULATION OF ACCOUNT CONTRACT PLUS EXTRAS 119,200:00 Totals 119,200.00 13 ICredit Balance Them will remain unpaid on contract after payment of this Certificate 53,577.80 May 19 2011 PAYMENTS CREDITS 65,622.20 65,622.20 $ 119,200.00 I $ 119,200.00 An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity TKDA Engineers -Architects -Planners Saint Pau1, Minnesota 55101 PERIODICAL ESTIMATE FOR PARTIAL PAYMENTS Estimate No, 1 Period Ending June 30 , 20 11 Page 1-of 1 Proj, No, 14816,003 Contractor Pearson Brothers Original Contract Amount $.119.200.00 Project .2011 Seal Coat Proiect Location 'City of Lake. Elmo. Minnesota Total Contract Work Completed $ 69,076.00 Total Approved Credits $ 0,00 Total Approved Extra Work Completed 0.00 Approved Extra Orders Amount Completed $ 0.00 Total Amount Earned This Estimate Less Approved Credits Less '5 %Retained Less Pr eViOUS Payments Total Deductions Amount Due This 'Estimate 'Contractor Engineer Larry Dfigoliter, P.E. $ $ :69,:076.00 0.00 3,453.80 0.00 Date Date July 14. 2011 3,453.80 65,622.20 ESTIMATE NO. 1 PERIOD ENDING: June 30, 2011 2011 SEALCOAT PROJECT CITY OF LAKE ELMO AND VVEST LAKELAND TWP, MINNESOTA PROJECT NO. 14816.003 ITEM CONTRACT QUANTITY +1- UNIT AMOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY n TO DATE DIFFERENCE PRICE TO DATE CITY OF LAKE ELMO & WEST LAKELAND TOWNSHIP 1 BITUMINOUS SEAL COAT WITH 1/8" DRESSER TRAP ROCK SY 119,200.00 69,076.0 (50,124.00) $ 1.00 $ 09,076,00 TOTAL ESTIMATE NO. 1 $ 69,076.0D LANE ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 7/19/11 CONSENT ITEM #: 4a MOTION as part of the Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM: Resolution accepting work for the 2010 Street Improvement Project and authorize Payment No. 4(Final). SUBMITTED BY: Larry Bohrer, P.E. THROUGH: Bruce Messelt, City Administratoi REVIEWED BY: Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfUlly requested to accept the work completed by T.A. Schifsky and Sons, Inc. under the contract for the 2010 Street and Water Quality Improvement Project. The work has been reviewed by staff and is fully completed in accordance with the contract, plans, and specifications. Please .refer to the attachments for the Engineer's Letter ofFinal Acceptance for the project. Additionally, the city council is respectfully requested to approve final payment to T.A.. Schifsky and Sons, Inc. for the 2010 Street and Water Quality Improvement Project. T.A. Schifsky and Sons, Inc. has submitted Payment Certificate No. 4 (Final) in the amount of $23,965.29 with all required documentation, including Change Order No. 4 and Compensating Change Order No. 5. This request has been reviewed and payment is recommended in the amount requested. All work has been completed per contract documents. The one-year warranty will begin July 19, 2011 and extend to July 18, 2012. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The original construction contract for the 2010 Street and Water Quality Project was $425,565,41. The actual cost to complete the work was $435,164.12. The additional cost of $9,598.71 was due to additional material required for proper sub -grade construction on Jane Road North, and the additional work and delay of work on 57'1' Street North due to unforeseen conditions of the road base. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above background information, it is recommended that the City Council approve as part of tonight's Consent Agenda accepting the Work for the 2010 Street and Water Quality Improvement Project and authorize final payment. -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting 2010 Street and Water Quality Improvement Project July 19, 2011 Consent Agenda Item # 4a Alternatively, the 'City Council does have the authority to table this item for future consideration, or further discuss and deliberation prior to taking action. If the latter is.done so, the appropriate action of the Council following such discussion would be: "Move to accept the work for the 2010 Street and Water Quality Improvement Project and authorize payment No. 4(Final) in the amount of $23,965.29 to be paid from the Project Fund for the 2010 Street and Water Quality Improvements project [and amended and/or modi ied at tonight's meeting]." ATTACHMENTS: :(3) 1. Engineer's recommendation for final acceptance, :dated July 19, 2011. 2. Payment Certificate No. 4(Final) for the 201:0 Street and Water Quality Improvement Project. a Change Order No. 4 4. Compensating Change Order No. 5 SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed front the Consent Agenda): Questions from Council to Staff... ..... ..... ..,......,........... .......... Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion Mayor & City Council Discussion ....... ...... ............ ........ ..... ...„ ......... ....,Mayor & City Council Action on Motion..„,.„„... ..... ..... ...........„...... ............ .......... Mayor Facilitates page 2 -- TKDA ENGINEERING 'ARCI-IITEC July 19, 2011 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 Re: Engineer's Recommendation of Final Acceptance 2010 Street and Water Quality Improvement Project City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota TKDA Project No. 14504.001 444 Ceder Street, Suite 1500 Saint Paul, MN 55101 (651) 292-4400 (651)292-0063 Fax wirav,tkd exam Dear Mayor and City Council Members: We have reviewed the work under Contract for the 2010 Street and Water Quality Improvement Project, and find that all of the project has been fully completed in all respects according to the Contract, Plans and Specifications as prepared by TKDA. The Improvements for Jane Road, Isle Avenue, and 53“1 Street were previously accepted on February 1, 2011. The one-year Warranty Period for Jane Road, Isle Avenue, and 53rd Street began on November 1, 2010, and will end on October 31, 2011. The Improvements for 57th Street are hereby declared to be complete and acceptance of the Contractor's work (TA. Schifsky and Sons, Inc) is recommended. The one year Warranty Period for 57th Street will begin July 19, 2011 and will end on July 18, 2011. Sincerely, S • Larry Bohrer, P.E. cc: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equa Opportunity TKDA ENGINEERING 'ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING The right time. The right people, The right compan* 444 Cedar Street, Guile 1500 Saint Paul, MN 55101.2140 (651 ) 292-4400 (651) 282.0083 Fax wwiti,tkda.com Proj. No. 14.504.001 Cert. No. 4F St. Paul, MN, July 13 2011 To City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota This Certifies that T.A. -Schifsky and Sons, Inc. For 2010 Street and Water Ouality Improvements Is entitled to being 4th Owner . Contractor Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Five Dollars -and 29/100 ($23,96'5.29) FINAL estimate for . payment on contract with you dated June 4 2010 Received:payment in full of above Certificate. T.A. Schifslcy and Sons, Inc, TKDA ,2011 Lariy D. B RECAPITULATION OF ACCOUNT CONTRACT PLUS EXTRAS PAYMENTS CREDITS Contract price plus extras 425,565,41 IAll previous payments IAll previous credits Extra No. Change Order No, 8,805,00 Change Order No, 3 3,099,55 Change Order No..4 892.45 Compensating Change Order No 5 (3,198.29) AMOUNT OF THIS CERTIFICATE Totals 435,164.12 $ Credit Balance There will remain unpaid on contract after payment of this Certificate 435,164,12 $ 411,198.83 23,965.29 435,164.12 $ 435,164,12 I $ An Employee Owned Company Prowling Affirmative Action and Equal Opportnnny TKDA Engineers -Architects -Planners Saint Paul, 'Minnesota 55101 PERIODICAL ESTIMATE FOR PARTIAL PAYMENTS Estimate No, 4F Period Ending July 13 ., 20 11 Page 1 of 1 Pali, No. 14504.001 Contractor T.A. Schifskv and Sons. Inc. Original Contract Amount 425.565,41 Project 2010 Street and Water Oualitv Improvements , Location City of Lake Elrno. Minnesota Total Contract Work Completed $ 435,164.12 Total Approved Credits $ 0,00 Total Approved Extra Work Completed 0,00 Approved Exh.a 'Orders AmountCompleted $ 0,00 Total Amount Earned This Estimate 435,164,12 Less Approved Credits $ 0,00 Less 0 % Retained $ 0.00 Less Previous Payments $ 411,198.83 Total Deductions $ 411,198.83 Amount Due This Estimate Contractor Engineer A. Schifsky and S Larry Delgihrer, P.E, Date Date 23,965.29 PAY ESTIMATE ND. 4F 1 2010 STREET & WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNEb-OTA TKDA PROJECT NO, 14504.001 ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT JANE NORTH ROAD 1 MOBILIZATION 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL 3 ISILT FENCE 4 INLET PROTECTION - 5 SALVAGE & 1,1E114st/ill MAILBOX 6 CLEAR & GRUB TREE EA 2 7 SALVAGE & REINSTALL SIGN EA 3 8 SAWCUT PAVEMENT (ALL TYPES)._LF 316 9 REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXIST. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (DRIVE SY 195 10 '-REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXIST. PAVEMENT (STREETS) SY 2467 11 REMOVE& DISPOSE OF EXIST. STO-km SEWER MANHOLE EA . 2 12 REMOVE & DISPOSE 'OF EXIST, STORM SEWER -ALL TYPES:8, SO, LF 22, 13 COMMON EXCAVATION (P) CY 1370 14 SUBGRADE PREPARATION - RS 10 15 PLACE & COMPACT RECLAIMED MATERIAL (FROM OTHER SITES CY 1046 16 2380 TYPE LV'3 BITUMINOUS rioNPWEARING COURSE TN 210 117 2360TYPE LV 4 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE TN 18 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 19 2". 2380TYPE LV 4 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE, DRIVE SY 20 I SAW & SEAL STREET (40' INTERVALS) LF 21 ID412 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER LF 22 12" RCP CL. 5 STORM SEINER PIPE LF 23 48" DIAMETER MANHOLE, TYPE 4065-(0-10' DEPTH) EA 24 CATCH BASIN, TYPE 404$ EA 25 4":PERFORATED PVC EDGE DRAINW/BACKFILL & WRAP LF 26 EROSION STABILIZATION-MAT,CL. 2 SY 27 DITCH CHECK EA .128 INFILTRATION -DITCH LF 26 RAIN GARDEN EA 30 RAIN GARDEN WISUMP EA 31 MnDOT SEED MIX-328 VW FERTILIZER &VVOOD FIBER BLANKET SY SHORT GRASS WODM-6-17GETs'AVANNA ME NHANCEMENT 32 ANC( WOOD FIBER BLANKET SY 432 • 33 SODDING -----SY 663 SUBTOTAL JANE NORTH ROAD la 17 /6 9 10 11 ISLE AVENUE.NORTFI MOBILIZATION TRAFFIC -CONTROL SILT FENCE INLET PROTECTION 'SALVAGE & REINSTALL MAILBOX 1SAWCUT PAVEMENT (ALL TYPES) REMOVE& DISPOSE OF EXIST. BITUMINOUS_ PAVEMENT (DRIVE LS 1 LS 1 LF 195 EA 3 EA 14 LF 341 SY 134 'REMOVE &DISPOSE -OF EXIST. CONCRETE PAVEMENT (DRIVE IN SY 50 SUBORADE CORRECTION SY LOAD & HAUL RECLAIMED MATERIAL (LV) RECLAIM EX, BIT. AND BASE MATERIALS 12 SUBGRADE PREPARATION OF REet.AWIEtYSURFACE 13 2360 TYPE LV 3 BITUMINOUS NON -WEARING COURSE 14 2380 TYPE LV 4 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE . 15 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT 18 2"- 2360 TYPE LV 4 BITUMINOUSVVEARINCOOURSE,'DRIVE 176"CONCRETEIJRIVE 18 SAW & SEAL STREET (40INTERVALS) 119 0412 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER 120 SAWCUT INLET 21 ' CL. 3 RIPRAP NJ/ GEoTExTILE FILTER FABRIC 122 EROSION STABILIZATIONMAT, CL. 2 123 DITCH GRADING 124 RAIN GARDEN 25 MnDOT SEED MIX 250 W/ FERTIUZER& WOOD FIBER BLANKET 26 SODDING 'SUBTOTAL ISLE AVENUE NORTH CY SY _ RS TN TN DAL SY SY LF LF EA CY SY LF EA SY SY 1440 414 8520 16 517 51.7 250 156 50 1121 3304 3 4 6 35 1 70 1080 PERIOD ENDING: I June.21, 2011 CONTRACT QUANEITY QUANTITY UNIT AMOUNT TODATE PRICE TO DATE LS 1 1,0 $ LS 1 1.0 $ LF 7 485 934.0 $ EA 2 5.0 $ EA 11 11.0 $ 7,0 $ $ 297.0 $ 348,0 2,437,0 $ 2,D $ 22,0 $ 1,370.D $ 10,0 $ 011.0 $ 203,0 $ 210 210,0 1 $ 117 115.0 I $ 195 497 2140 1 22 1 1 24 49 3 126 1 2 175 3,500,0D $ 3,500,00 309,0D $ 309.00 2.06-1 $ 1 92A.04 62.40 $ 412.00 60,95 1-$ 736.45 205.00 I $ 1,442.00 123,60 I $ 1,03 $ 305.91 1.55 I $ 539.40 1.13 $ 2,310.31 610.00 $ 1,235.00 18,54 $ 407.88 7.73 1:$ 10,590.10 189.95 -$ 1,689.50 4.12 1 $ 2,517.32 67.57 $ 11,6E36.71 57.67 $ 12,089.70 2.06 $ 236.90 3413.0 $ 10.61 $ 39E12.28 475.0 $ 1.67 $ 793.25 2,130.0 $ 7.93 $ 16,890.90 22;0 $ 30.90 $ 679.80 1,0 $ 2,266.00 $ '2,266.00 1.0 $ 1967,00 $ 1,957.00 24.0 $ 9.27 $ 222,48 49.0 $ 5.15 $ 262,55 3,0 $ 412,00 6 1,235.00 125.0 $ 20,80 .$ 2,675.00 1,0 $ 927,00 '$ 927.00 2.0 $ 1,442.00 $ 2804,00 116.0 $ 3.131 .$ 418,76 205,0 $ 1.,048.0 $ 1.0 $ 1.0 $ 202.0 $ 3,0 4 14.0 $ 252.0 $ 155.0 I 7.0 I $ 1,628.0 1 $ 260.0 $ 6,747,0 $ 16.0 $ 544.0 525,7 210,0 155,0 1,120.0 I 3,285.0 1 $ 4.0 3,0 35.0 1.0 650.0 1,707.0 4.64 2.68 $ 951:20- $ .2,703.134 $ .90;893,08: 4:444.00 $ 4,444.00 305.00 $ 306.00 1,02 -$ 206,04 61.80 $ 244.80 88.70 $ 1,213,80 1.15 $ 289.80 1.53 $ 237.15 3,06 $ 21.42 3.08 $ 4.675.88 5.97 4 1..552.20 0.87 $ 5,869.09- 102,00 $ 1,632.00 56.50 $ 30,736.00 56.50 $ 29.704,31 2.04 $ 4213.40 $ 10.51 $ 1 521) 05 31.52 $ 94,85 1.55 $ 1,040.00 766 $ 25,130.25 25,50 $ 112.20 ; 10.20 $ 9.10 $ 918.0D 3.67 3,06 446.00 61.20 321.30 918.00 2,320,50 5,223,42 $ 119,556,87 Page 1 12 13 14 15 18 17 Via PAY ESTIMATE NO, 4F 2010 STREET & WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA TKDA PROJECT NO;I14-80490 IITEM L !NO. IDESCRIPTION 63RD STREET NORTH 1 MOBILIZATION 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL 3 SILT FENCE 4 INLET PROTECTION 6 SAWCUT PAVEMENT (ALL TYPES) 6 REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXIST. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (DRIVE" REMOVE 8, DISPOSE OF E)OST. CONCRETE PAVEMENT (DRIVEV1/4 18 REMOVE 8, DISPOSE OF EXIST. STORM SEWER MANHOLE 9 REMOVE &DISPOSE OF E)OST, STORM SEWER (ALL TYPES & 81 10 SUBGRADE CORRECTION 11 LOAD & HAUL RECLAIMED MATERIAL (LV) 12 RECLAIMEX, BIT. AND BASE MATERIALS 13 SUBGRADE PREPARATION OF RECLAIMED014-FACE 14 236D TYPE LV 3 BITUMINOUS NON -WEARING COURSE 15 2300 TYPE LV 4 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE 16 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT 17 2%2360 TYPE LV 4 BITUMINOUSWEARING COURSE, DRIVE 18 '6" CONCRETE DRIVE 10 REMOVE & REPLACE BITUMINOUS FLUME 20 SAW & SEAL STREET 140' INTERVALS) 21 CONNECT DF5AINTILE TO EXISTING STORM SEWER 22 ADJUST CATCH BASIN CASTING & INSTALL CONCRETE WINOS 23 12" RCP CL. 5 STORM -SEWER PIPE 24 45 DIAMETER MANHOLE, TYPE 406S (0'-10DEPTH)_, 25 CATCH BASIN, TYPE,404S 26 4" PERFORATED PVC EDGE DRAIN 18.4BACKFILL & WRAP 27 EROSION STABILIZATION MAT, CL. 2 28 RAIN GARDEN 29 SODDING SUBTOTAL 63RD STREET NORTH PERIOD ENDING: 1 Jun 5 21, 2011 CONTRACT QUANTITY UNIT 1 QUANTITY TO DATE LS LS LF EA LF SY SY EA LF SY CY SY RS TN TN GAL SY SY EA LF EA EA LF EA EA IF SY EA SY 0 446 197 35 2 30 2520 411 10500 32 1,064 870 490 217 35 2 2205 8 30 1 1 16 12 2,270 57TH STREET NORTH MOBILIZATION 1 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 -3 SILT F ET1-C E LF 80 4 INLET PROTECTION -EA 2 5 SAWCUT PAVEMENT (ALL TYPES) LF 19111 6 IREMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXIST. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (DRIVE' 'SY 88 7.SUBGRADE CORRECTION SY J 803 8 ILOAD & HAUL RECLAIMED MATERIAL (LV) CY 233 9 RECLAIM EX. BIT. AND BASE MATERIALS SY 1 3,767 10 SURGRADE PREPARATION OF RECLAIMED SURFACE RS 11 11 2380 TYPE LV 3 BITUMINOUS NONJIA/EARING COURSE TN 382 2280 TYPE LV 4'BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE 1 ITN 314 BITUMINOUSMATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 176 2"- 2380 TYPE LV 4 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE. DRIVE SY 69 1SAW 8, SEAL STREET (401NTERVALS) LF 791 CONNECT DRA)NTILEITO EXISTING STORM SEWER EA 1 4 ADJUST CATCH BASIN CASTING & INSTALL CONCRETE WINGS EA I 2 14" PERFORATED PVC EDGE DRAIN VWBACKEILL & WRAP LF 380 SODDING 1 SY 763 SUBTOTAL 67TH STREET NORTH CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 CL. 6 AGGREGATE BASE SUBTOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO, 1 ICHANGE.oRDEN NO. 3 BITUMINOUS RAMPING OF 0.8.5 ON 57TH STREET SUBTOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO.3 CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 1 MOBILIZATION 2 HYDROSEEDING (SEED MIX 328) 3 - TOPSOIL BORROW 4 DEDUCT FOR RAINGARDEN CORRECTION 5 MILLING OF ADDITIONAL BITUMINOUS RAMPING ON 57TH ST SUBTOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 OTAL PAY ESTIMATE NO. 4F 7,0 $ 196.0 $ $ 2,0 $ 30.0 $ 44.0 $ 4 1 1-,W $ 10,700.0 $ 32.0 $ 1,042.7 $ 090.0 $ 380.0 $ 189,0 $ - $ 2.0 $ 2,356.0 $ 1.0 $ 6.0 $ 30.0 $ 1.0 $ 1.0 $ UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TO DATE 1.0 8, 4,00300 18, 4,000,00 1,0 $ 300.00 I $ 306.00 136.0 $ 2.04 L$ 277.44 81.60 1 $ 571.20. 1,02 1 $ 350.02 1.53 3.06 714.00 7.14 3.06 0.12 0.77 20.0 $ 7.0 I $ 1.0 I $ 3,435.0 I $ 1 1.0 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000,00 1.0 1 $ 300.00 $ 300,00 37,0 I $ 2.04 $ 75,48 2.0 1 4 01.00 $ 163.20 107,0 I $ 1.02 $ 190.74 89,0 1 $ 2.04 $ 181.56 683,0 $ 3,08 $ 2,089.90 233.0 5 6,97 $ 4,391.01 3,767.0 1 5 0.77 $ 2,900.59 11,0 $ 81.60 $ 897.80 371,0 $ 57,57 $ 21,369.47 328.0 5 57,57 $ 18.882.90 200.0 $ 2.04 $ 408.80 76.0 $ 10,51 $ 790.76 750,0 5 1.05 $ 1,247.40 2.0 $ 255.00 $ 510,00 2.0 $ 153.00 $ 306,00 422.0 $ 10.20 $ 4,304A0 868,0 $ 2,65 $ 1,703,40 $ 69,715,65 36.0 2.04 10.51 23.68 102,00 1,65 TN 687 1 587.0 $ LS 1 LS 1 SY 20 GY 4 LS 1 LF 000 1 .0 308,00 $ 153,00 $ 27,54 $ 2,244.00 $ 1,734,00 $ 16.30 $ 5,12 $ 910,00 I $ 2.55 $ 8,759,25 $ 152,201.62 299.08 10 1,420.00 214,20 134.04 2,515,32 8,239.00 2,720.00 56,380.64 49,840.00 775,20 1,996,39, $ 204.00- $ 3,087,40 306,00 010,(TE5 826,20 2,244,00. 1,734,00 308,00. 42 .04 918,00 16.00 $ 0,805J)0' 0,00$.00 $ 3,09E1,55 $ 3.099.55 $ $i09e.05 1.0 1 $ 350,00 $ 350.00- 20.0 $ 3.28 $ 06,09 $ 4.00 $ 18.00 $ 72.06- 1.0 $ (04$.10) $ (046.14i 900,00 $ 1.50 $ 1.350.00 $ 802,45 436,154,12 Page 2 6(07(14, CHANGE ORDER TKDA Engineers -Architects -Planners Saint Paul, MN June 21 20 :11 Proj. No. 14504.001 Change Order No. 4 To T.A. Schifskv & Sons. Inc.. 2370 Highway 36 East, North St, Paul, Minnesota 55109 for 2010 Street & Water Quality Improvements for City of Lake Ehno, Minnesota You are hereby directed to make the following Change to your contract dated June 4 .20 10 The change and the work affected thereby is stibject to all contract stipulations and covenants, This Change Order will (increase) (docreas©) (not-elaange) the contract sum by Eight Hundred Ninety Two Dollars and 4.5/100 ($ 892.45) CHANGE ORDER This change order -shows theactual quantities installed at the unit price bid amounts (see attached itemization). Additional re- seeding topsoil necessary to correct locations where others damaged restoration/milling. NETCHANGE 892.45 Amount of Original Contract 425,565.41 Additions approved to date (Nos 1, 3) 11,904.55 Deductions approved to date (Nos. ) Contract amount to date 437,469.96 Amountof this Change Order (Add) (Dednet) (NaChange) 692.45 Revised Contract Amount 438,362.41 Approved TKDA City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota By By 425 Larry D. Biehrer, P.E. White - Owner Pink - Contractor. Blue - TKDA CHANGE ORDER NO, 4 Period Ending: June 21, 2011 2010 STREET & WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA TKDA PROJECT NO. 14504.001 ITEM CONTRACT QUANTITY UNIT AMOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY TO DATE PRICE TO DATE 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1.0 1,0 $ 350.00 $ 350.00 2 HYDROSEEDING (SEED MIX 328) SY 20,0 20.0 $ 3.28 $ 65.60 3 TOPSOIL BORROW CY 4.0 4.0 $ 18,00 $ 72.00 4 DEDUCT FOR RAINGARDEN CORRECTION LS (1.0) (1.0) $ 945.15 $ (945.15) 5 MILLING OF ADDITIONAL BITUMINOUS REAMPING ON 57TH ST LF 900.0 900.0 $ 1,50 $ 1,350,00 SUBTOTAL 692.45 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO, 4 1192,45 T. A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. 2370 Highway 36 East North St. Paul, MN 55109 Phone (651) 777-1313 Fax (651) 777-7843 bd-fa.,Zrr Worlc-Order Request #6 for the City of Lake Elmo 'Project # 10-06 Date: 1.6.17,11 clianges were made to contract,document _Description Item Moblization Sod7R-eplaeemt Hydroseeding (Seed Mix 328) &mantic& l'opsoil Borrow Pr epared :by : Jonathan ,Hager Date AA : Additional r *---k-A7:174T47111MW .0201-?0,3L25',k&«t that were caused by residents. Unforseen Additional Work Unit LS SY Accepted by: Name Date Quantity Unit'Pkice _Amount 1 $350.00 $350,00 40 4 $3.28 -$1-2747611—{,f ' - $18,00 $72,00 "7' T. A. Schifsky .& Sons, Inc. 2370 Highway 36 East North St, Paul, MN 55109 Phone (651) 777-1313 Fax (651) 777-7843 Work Order Request #41 for the City of Lake Elmo Project4 10-06 Date: 6.17.11 The foliowing O de to contra Description. Item Milling -Machine (Based on 36" Mill) t (locum ' rig off Pavement Wedge, Unforseett Additional Work Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount LF 900 S1.50 $1,350.00 Total = $1,350.00 Prepared by: Accepted by: Jonathan Hager Num Date Date T. A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. 2370 Highway 36 East North St. Paul, MN 55109 Phone (651) 777-1313 Fax (651) 777-7843 4:7 figatEtio Work OrderRequest #5 for the City of Lake Elmo Project # 10-06 Date: 6.17,11 llowingchanges were made to contract docurneuts: Deduct 'Rain -Water -Gardens Description Item Defective. Rain Garden Correction snt 'Unforseen Additional Work 1.1 nit Quantity Unit Price Amount LS1 $945.15 $945.15 / Total Deduct $945.15 / Prepared by: Accepted by: Jonathan Hager Name Date Date CHANGE ORDER TKDA Engineers -Architects -Planners Compensating Saint Paul, MN June 21 20 11 Proj, No. 14504.001 Change Order No. To T.A. Schifslcy & Sons. Inc.. 2370 Hialiwav 36 East. North St, Paul. Minnesota 55109 for 2010 Street & Water Oualitv Imurovements for City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota You are hereby directed to make the following change to June 4 , 20 .10 The change and the work affected thereby is subject ccrvenants. This Change- Order will(increase) (decrease) (not-ehange) the contract sum :by .Hundred Ninety Eiuht. Dollars -and 29/100 COMPENSATING.CHANGE ORDER Thi your contract dated to all contract stipulations and Three Thousand One ($3,198.29) nge order Shows the actual quantities installed at the unit price bid amounts (see attached itemization): NET CHANGE = Amount of Original Contract Additions approved to date (Nos 1, 3, 4) Deductions approved to date (Nos. ) Contract amount to date Amount of this Change' Order (Add) (Deduct) (No-C-hange Revised Contract Amount Approved By Approved By City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota TeliviA414.11v TKDA By C Larry D. Boh White - Owner Pink - Contractor Blue - TKDA P.E, (3,198,29) 425,565.41 12,797.00 438,362.41 (3,198,29) 435,164,12 COMPENSATING CHANGE ORDER NO. 6 2010 STREET & _WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA TKDA PROJECT NO. 14504.001 PERIOD ENDING: I ITEM -CONTRACT NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT -QUANTITY JANE NORTH ROAD 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 2 ITRAFFIOCONTROL LS 1 3 [SILT FENCE LF' 485 4 'INLET PROTEGTION EA 2 5 SALVAGE & REINSTALL MAILBOX EA 11 6 CLEAR & GRUB TREE EA 2 7 'SALVAGE. & REINSTALL SIGN EA 3 0 ISAVVCUT PAVEMENT (ALL TYPES) LF 318 b I REmovE & DISPOSE OF EXIST.-BITUMINDUS PAVEMENT (DRIVE1; Mr 195 10 , IREM6TE & DISPOSE OF EXIST..PAVEMENT (STREETS) SY 2487 11 REMOVE &15ISFOSE.OF EXIST. STORM SEWER MANHOLE , EA 2 12 REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXIST, STORM SEWER.(ALL TYPES -& se; IF 22 13 COMMON EXCAVATION (P) CY 1370 14 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RS 10 T5 PLAGE- & COMPACT RECLAIMED-MATERIAL(FROM OTHER SITES. 'CY 1046 10 2360 TYPE' LV 3-BITUMINOITS NON.WEARING COURSE TN 210 'T7 2389 TYPELV 4 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE TN .210 _ _ _ 18 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 117 19 -2'. 2360 TYPE LV 4 BITUMINOUS VVEARING COURSE, DRIVE SY 195 20 _ SAW & SEAL STREET (40' INTERVALS) ._ . if '497 21 " D412 CONCRETE CURB A -GUTTER LF 2140 22 12" RCP CL, 5 STORM SEWER PIPE LF 22 23 . 46" DIAMETERMANHOLE, TYPE 40BS (Ocl 0' DEPTH) .EA 1 24 CATCH BASIN, TYPE 4045 - EA 1 26 -4" PERFORATED PVC EDGE DRAIN WiBACKFILL. & WRAP LF 24 ti'( 49 EA -3 26 EROSION STABILIZATION MAT, CL. 2 27 DITCH CHECK 28 INFILTRATION DITCH 2B RAIN GARDEN 30 RAIN GARETEN W/SUMP 31 MnDOT SEED MIX 328 W! FERTILIZER-& WOOD FIBER BLANKET SHORT GRASS WOODS EDG-ESAVANNA VVIENNANCEMENT 32 AND WOOD FIBER BLANKET 33 SODDING - SUBTOTAL JANE NORTH ROAD EA EA 'SY 125 1 2 175 SY 432 SY ISLE AVENUE NORTH 1 MOBILIZATION LS 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 3 SILT FENCE LF 4 INLET PROTECTION EA 5 SALVAGE & REINSTALL MAILBOX EA 6 SAWCUT PAVEMENT (ALL TYPES) 7 _ REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXIST, BITUMINOUSPAVEMENT (DRIVf, SY 8 REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXIST. CONCRETE PAVEMENT (DRIVEV, SY 9 SUBGRADE CORRECTION SY 10 I LOAD & HAUL RECLAIMED MATERIAL (LV) CY 11 I RECLAIM. EX. BIT. AND BASE MATERIALS SY 12 SUBGRADE PREPARATION OF RECLAIMED SURFACE RS 13 2300 TYPE LV1131TLIMIN(515$ NON -WEARING COURSE TN QUANTITY TO DATE I 1.0 $ 1.0 I $ 934,0 $ .5,0 $ 11.0 $ 7.0 $ June 21,2011 UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TO DATE NET CHANGE CONTRACT AMOUNT ' 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ - 3,500.00 309.00 $ 309.00 6 .. 309,00 2.06 $ 1,924;04 $ 966:14 957.90 62,40 $ 412.00 $ '217,20 0. 164.80 06.95 $ 736:46' $ - $ 730.45 205:00 $ 1.;'112:99 $ 1 t',130.00 I $ 412.00 .- $ 123.60 ,$__ $ _ (370,8011 $ 370.80 297.0 $ 1.03 ' $ 306,91 $ (21.63)1 $ 327.54 348.0 $ 1,05 $ 539,40 $ 237.15 I $ 302,25 2,457.0 $ 1.13 $ 2,010.31 $__ ,__ _ - $ 2,810,31 2:0 $ 618.00 $ 1,236,00 $ - $ 1,236.00 22.0 $ 18.54 $ 407,06 $ - 8 407.88 1,370.0 $ 7:73 $ 10,590.10 I $ - $ 10.590.10 101,0 $ 169.95 -$ Lamm $ - , $ 1.099:50 811:0 $ 4.12 $ 2,517,32 $ --(1,792:20) $ 4,309.52 203.0 $ 57.57 $ 711,896:71 $ (402.99) 6 12,089.70 210.0 $ _ 57.57-$ 12,009.79, $ - $ 12,089.70 115.0 $ 2.06 $ 236.90 $ (4,12) $ 241.02 348.0' $ 10.01 $ 3,892.28 $ 1,623.33 I $ 2,09870$,,, 475,0 $ 1.67 $ .79326 $ (3674) $ 829.99 2,139.0' $ 10,890s0 $ (79.30) $ 16,970.20 22.0 $ 1.0-$ 2,286.00 $ 30,90 i .$ '$ 670,80 $ 2,260,00 $ - - 00:1W - $ 22266.00 1.0 $ 1,957.00 $ 1,657.00 $ - $ 1,957:00' 24.0 $ 9,27 ; 222,4B I $ • $ 222:48 49.0 I $ 5,15 $ 16E36 $ - $ ' 252.35.- 3.0 I $ 412,00 $ 1,236.00 $ $ '1,236.00 125.0 $ 20.60 $ 2,675.00 $ - $ '761"1$:1515 1:.6 $ 927,00 $ 927.00 ;_ $ 927.00 2.0 0. 1,442,00 $ 2,884,00 $ $ 2,86400 116.0 $ 3,01 $ 418,76 $ (212.90) $ 631.75 205.0 663 1,048,0 .195 3 14 341 j 134 I 50 1440 -414 -6520 16 517 14 2300 TYPE LV-4 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE TN 517 15 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 280 16 2"- 2380-TYPE LV 4 BITUMINOUS -WEARING COURSE., DRIVE SY 168 17 6" CONCRETE DRIVE - SY 50 18 SAVV-&-SEAL STREET (40INTERVALS) LF 1121_ 19 D41-2 CONCRETE CURB 6 GUTTER LF 3304 20 I SAVVCUT INLET EA 3 21 id, 3 RIPRAP W/ GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC CY 4 22 I EROSION STABILIZATION MAT, CL. 2 SY 0_ 23 I DITCH GRADING LF 35 24 jRAIN GARDEN EA 1 26 MnDOT SEED MIX 2501N/ FERTILIZER & WOOD FIBER BLANKET SY 78 26 SODDING ' SV 1080 SUBTOTAL ISLE AVENUE NORTH $ 4,84 $ 951.20 $ (1,053.28) $ 2,004.4B $ 2,58 $ 2,703.84 $ D93.30 -$ 1,710.54 $ 90,893.08 I -$ 1,123.07 I -$ 69,770.01 I T-- to $ 4,144.00 $ 4.3420014B0.:000400 306.00 $ - - $ 306.00 $ 4,444.00 1.0 202.0 $ 1.02 $ 7,14 $ 190.90_, 3.0 $ 81.60 $ 244.80 $ - - $ 244.80 252.0 $ l'222F10°E) $:-- -(102-,35)3 1,213.802.15 _14.0 $ 813,70 $ 1.15 $ 165,0 1 21.42 $ 32,13 I $ 205.02 1,63 $ 1,628.0 $ 260.0 $ 7.0 $ 0335:9°7736 $ 8: 4,675.68 $ 1,652.20 $ 031,66)1 $ 163.00 (910.38) $ 2,471.58 269.26 $ 4,406.40 5,869.89 $ 197,49 $ 5,672.40 6,747,0 $ 16,0 $ 102.00 $ 1,832.00 $ .. $ 1,632.00 544,0 $ 56.50 $ 30,736.00 '0. 1,526,50 $ 29,210,50- 1,120.0 $ 210.0 $ 155,0 $ 3.0 10.51 $ 31,62 $ 2,04 $ 1.05 $ 1,629.05 fr (10,51) $ 1,639.56 1,848.00 $ 428A0 $ (161.16) $ 589.56 94.63 $ (1,480,14) $ 1,581,00 493,61 $ 29,210.50 (1.66) $ 1,819,65 525.7 $ 56,50 $ 20,704.31 $ 3,285.0 $ 7.85 $ 26,130.2.5 $ (145,35) $ 25,275.60 448.80 $ (76.50)I $ 76,5Cr $ 25,50 $ - $ 11102:22°0 I : - $ -- 44E1.W 4.0 $ 6.6 $ - $ 61.20 35.0- $ _ 9,10 $ 321.30 $ 61.20 $ - $ 321.30 1.!) $ 916.00 $ 918,00 $ 650.0 $ 3.67 0. 2,320,50 $ 2,042,04 $ 2°7103..466° 1,707.0 $ .116 $ 5,223,42 $ 1,016.62 $ 3,304.60 $ 119,556.87 $ 3,451.39 $ 116,105,48 - _ Page 1 COMPENSATING CHANGE ORDER NO. 6 PERIOD ENDING: June 21, 2011 2010 STREET & WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF LAKE'ELMO, MINNESOTA TKDA PROJECT NO, 14504,001 ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION 7 UNIT 53RD STREET NORTH MOBILIZATION LS TRAFFIC CONTROL LS SILT FENCE IF INLET PROTECTION EA AWCUT PAVEMENT (ALL TYPES) LF 6 REMOVE DISPOSE OF EXIST. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (DRIVEI SY 7 REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXIST, CONCRETE PAVEMENT (DRIVEW SY 8 REMOVE & DISPOSE -OF EXIST, STORM SEWER MANHOLE EA 9 REMOVE 3, DISPOSE OF EXIST, STORM SEWER (ALL TYPES & SII, LF 10 SUBGRADE CORRECTION SY 11 LOAD & HAUL RECLAIMED MATERIAL (LV) CY 12 RECLAIM EX. BIT. AND BASE MATERIALS SY 13 SUBGRADE PREPARATION OF RECLAIMED SURFACE RS 14 '2360 TYPE LV a BITUMINOUS NON-VVEARING COURSE TN 15 12360 TYPE LV 4 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE TN 16 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 17 2"- 2360 TYPE LV 4 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE, DRIVE SY Te e" CONCRETE DRIVE SY 19 REMOVE & REPLACE BITUMINOUS FLUME EA 20 SAW & SEAL STREET (40 INTERVALS1 LF 21 CONNECT DRAINTILE TO EXISTING STORM SEWEREA 22 !ADJUST CATCH BASIN CASTING & INSTALL CONCRETE WFNGS EA 23 I12"RCP CL, 5 STORM SEWER PIPE LF 24 48" DIAMETER MANHOLE, TYPE-400S (0,10DEPTH) 1 EA 25 CATCH BASIN, TYPE 404S EA 20 4" PERFORATED PVC EDGE DRAIN 1/11/BACKFILL & WRAP LF 27 EROSION STABILIZATION MAT, CL. 2 SY 28 RAIN GARDEN EA 20 SODDING SY SUBTOTAL 53RD STREET NORTH ONTRACT QUANTITY QUANTITY TO DATE 67TH STREET NORTH 1 MOBILIZATION LS 2 'TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 3 SILT FENCE LF 4 INLET PROTECTION EA 5 SA1NCUT 'PAVEMENT (ALL TYPES) LF 6 REMOVE-& DISPOSE OF EXIST, BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTLORIVEI SY 7 SUBGRADE CORRECTION SY 8 LOAD & HAUL RECLAIMED MATERIAL (LV1 CY 9 RECLAIM EX. BIT. AND I3ASE MATERIALS ' SY 10 SUBGRADE PREPARATION OF RECLAIMED -SURFACE RS 111 2360 TYPE LV 3 BITUMINOUS NON -WEARING COURSE TN 112 2360 TYPE LV 4 BITUMINOUS VVEARING'COURSE TN 113 BITUMINOUS MATERIALFOR TACK COAT GAL 14 2"- 2360 TYPE LV4 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE, DRIVE SY 16 SAW & SEAL STREET (40' INTERVALS) 'LF 16 CONNECT DRAINTILE-TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EA 17 ADJUST CATCH BASIN.cASTING & INSTALL CONCRETE WINGS EA 18 4" PERFORATED PVC EDGE DRAIN IN/BACKFILL & WRAP LF 19 SODDING SUBTOTAL 67TH STREET NORTE 11 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 CL, 6 AGGREGATE BASE SUBTOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 'CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 TN 1 AMOUNT NET TO DATE 1 CHANGE 1.0 $ 4,000.00 4,000.00 $ CONTRACT 1,0 $ 306.00 $ 300.00 $ - $ 105 100,0 $ 2.04 $ 446 197 361.0 $ 1960 1$ I $ 01,60 $ 571.20 $ (81,0a) 1.02 $ 356,02 $ (98.90) $ 277.44 $ $ 63.24 $ 8 7.D 1,63 $ 2011.88 $ (1,53) $ 35 - 1 $ 3.0G $ - I $ (107.10) $ 2 20 $ 714.00 $ 1,428.00 ' $ - $ 30 30,0 $ 7.14 $ 214,20 $ - $ 2620 44,0 $ 3.06 $ 134.94 $ (7,576.58) :6 411 411,0 $ 0.12 $ 2,515.32 $ 10500 10,700,0 $ 0.77 $ 8,239,00 3 154,00 $ 32 32.D $ 85.00 $ 2,720.00 $ * $ 2,720.00 076 890,0 $ 58.00 $ 49,840.00 $ 50,00 $ 50,300.64 $ (1,193,38)1 $ 59,6E4TT 1,064 1,042,7 $ 784.00 $ 48,056.00 490 380,0 $ 2.04 $ 776.20 $ (224,40)' $ 999,0(i 217 1139.0 I $ 10.51 5 1,086.39 $ (224.28)1 $ 2,280,67 35 - - $ 33,66 $ - $ (1,178.10) $ 1,178,101- 2 2,0 I $ 102.00 $ 204.00 $ - $ 204.00 AMOUNT 4,11013.00 300.00 214,20 052.80 464.92 30141 107,10 1,420.00 214.20- 7,711.20 24516.32 8 085 00 2206 2,356.0 $ 1,65 3 3,1387,40 $ 249,15. $ 3,038.26 1 1.0 $ 300.00 $ 306.00 $ - $ 306.00 ,. 8 0,0 $ 153.00 $ 910.00 $ - $ 918,00 30 1 30.0 $ 27.54 $ 826.20 $ - $ 820.20 1 1.0 $ 2,244.00 $ 2,244.00 $ - $ 2,24400 1 1.0 $ 1,734.00 ' $ 1,734.00 $ - $ 1,734.00 15 20.0 $ 15.30 I' 0 308,00 8 70.50 $ 229.50 12 7,0 $ 6.12 I $ 42.84 $ (30.00) $ 73:44 2 1.0 $ 918.00 I $ 918,00 $ (918.00) $ 1,030,00 2.270 -3,435.0 I $ 2.55 1 $ 8,759.25 $ 2,970.76 $ 5,788,50 $ 152,201.62 $ (7,404,79)1 $ 159,606.41 I 1 1.0 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ - I ; 2;909..00 1 1.0 $ 308.00 $ 300.00 1 $ - I $ moo 80 37.0 $ 2.04 $ 75.48 $ (87.72) $ 183.20 .2 2.0 $ 01.60 $ 103.20 $ - $ 103.20 198 187.0 $ 1.02 $ 190.74 $ (6.10) $ 199.92 89 890 $ 2.04 $ 101.58 $ - I $ 181,66 683 683.0 5 3.06 $ 2,089.98 $ - $ 2,089.98 233 233,0 $ 5.97 $ 1,391,01 $ • $ 1.391,01• 3,707 3,767,0 $ 0.77 $ 2,900.59 6 • $ 2.900.59 11 11.0 $ 81.60 $ 097.60 1 $ -- - 897,60 302 371.0 ( $ 57.67 $ 21.350.47 0 (633,27) $ 21,991.74 314 328.0 I $ 57.57 $ 18,882.98 $ 605.96 $ 18,078.96 176 200.0 1 $ 2.04 $ 406,00 $ 48,96 $ 369.04 89 76.0 I $ 10.61 $ 790.76 $ (138.63) $ 935.39 791 1 756,0 I $ 1.05 $ 1.247.40 $ )67,751 $ 1,305.15 4 2016 266.00 $ 510.00 $ (510.00) $ 1,020.00 2 2.0 $ 153.00 $ 306.00 $ - $ 306,00 380 422,0 $ 10,20 1 $ 4,304.40 $ 426.40 $ 3,876.00 I 763 668,0 $ 2.55 I 6 1,703.90 $ (216,7) $ 1,920.15 $ 59,716,55 $ (367.96) $ 60,003,51 507 'BITUMINOUS RAMPING OF C.B.'S ON 57TH STREET 'SUBTOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 CHANGE ORDER N0,4 1 MOBILIZATION 2 HYDROSEEDING (SEED, MIX,328) 3 TOPSOIL BORROVV DEDUCT FOR RAINGAROEN CORRECTION 6 MILLING OF ADDITIONAL BITUMINOUS RAMPING ON 97TH ST SUBTOTAL CHANGE ORDER N0.4 TOTAL COMPENSATINTANdt LT)RDER NO. 6 I LS LS SY CY LS LF 507.0 1 $ 15.00 $ 0.805.00 $ 0,006.00 $ 1.0 $ 3,099,55 I $ 3,099.55 3,099.65 $ $ 0,605.66 $ 8,806,00 § 3.099.55 $ -3;099.55 1 1.0 $ 350.00 $ 350.00 $ - I $ 350,00 20 20.0 $ 3.28 $ 05.130 $ - 8 e5.60 4 $ 4.00 $ 18.00 $ 72.00 $ - $ 72.00 1 1.0 $ (945.15) $ 045.153 $ - $ (945.15) - 1 $ 1,PC1.00 - $ 692,45 900 I $ 900.00 $ 1 50 $ 1,350,0D $ 802,46 I $ $ 436,164.12 $ (3,196,29 438,362.41 Page 2 ,6yoR cqmmoviqATION. AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: DATE: 7/19/2011 CONSENT ITEM 4b MOTION as part of the Consent Agenda 2011 Street and. Water Quality Improvements — Partial Payment No. 1 Larry Bohrer, P.E Bruce A Messelt, City Administrator Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: The City Council is asked to approve partial payment to Hardrives, Inc,, the Contractor for the 2011 Street and Water Quality Improvements project. The Contractor submitted Partial .Payment Certificate No, 1 in the amount of $167,703,49. This request has been reviewed and payment is recommended in the amount requested. No specific motion is needed, as this- is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Consent Agenda, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 5% of the work completed for Partial Payment Certificate No, 1 has been retained, in, the amount of $8,385.17 in accordance with the Contract documents. REC9MMENDATIPT.sI:. Based upon the above information, it is recommended that the City Council approve as part of tonight's Consent Agenda Partial Payment No. 1 in the amount of $159,318,32, Alternatively, the City Council .does have the authority to table this item for future consideration, or further discuss and deliberation prior to taking action, If the latter is done so., the appropriate action of the Council following such discussion would be: "Move to authorize Partial Payment No, 1 in the amount of $159,318.32 to be paid from the Project Fund for the 2011 Street and Water Quality Improvements project [and amended and/or niodified at tonight's nzeeting]." ATTACHMENTS: . Payment Certificate No. 1 -- page 1 -- T e right (line. Tile rig Proj, No. 1473.2,001 __,Cert. No.1 St. Paid:, MN, July 1,3 .Citv of Lake Eli o..Minriesota This Certifies that HardriVes, 20.1 Street -a n. 1Water ,Oual itv Intarovemetits Is entitled to One Rundred.Fiftv Nine ThOusand-Threeflundred..Eiditeen Dollars and 32/ 00 4159.318.,32) 1144 CedarStreel, Suite 1500 Saint Paul, MN.5.5101 (651)292-4400 (651) 202-0083 Fax wwwada,com being lat Owner Contra.etor estimate for partial payment:ma contract with you dated AriI 19 , 2011 Received. payment in fall. Of above Certificate, Ardrivea, Inc. Co ritract-price _Dims extras All previous pziyments All previous credits ExtrifNa, II 11. II li It 11.1 IF tl Credit No, AMOUNT OF -THIS CERTIFICATE Totals Credit Balance There will remain unpaid on-contraettifter payment of this Certificate • 20-11 TKDA RECAPITULATION OF ACCOUNT CONTRACT PLUS EXTRAS PAYMENTS 469,524.99 rs CREDITS $ 1.59,318,32 469,52-4.99 $ 159,318.32 $ 469,524.99 310,206,67 469,52/1.99 Is An EmpOyee Owned -Company Pr011lolinglIffirmativo Action -and fauetOpporamily TKDA Engineers -Architects -Planners Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 RIOIIMCAL ESTIMATE FOR PARTIAL PAYMENTS Estimate No , 1 Period Ending June 30 ,, 20 I -1 Pagel. of 1 Proj, No. 14732,001 C.ontractor klardrives. The. Original Contract Amount $169.524,99 Project 2011 Street and Water Quality Improvements Location City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Total Contract Work Completed 167,703.49 Total Approved Credits $ 0,00 Total Approved Extra Work Completed 0,00 Approved Extra Orders Amount Completed 0.00 'Po tal Amount Earned This Estimate Less Approved Cl'edits 0,00 Less 5 % Retained 8,385.17 Less Previous Payments 0,00 To tat Derluctions Amount Due This Estimate Contractor Engineer Lally V13ohter, P,E, Date Date if 167,703.49 8,385,17 159,318.32 ESTIMATE NO. 1 Dale: June 30, 2011 2011 STREET AND WATER.DUALITY IMPROVEMENTS COI.UMBLIS, MINNESOTA TKDA PROJECT NO.14732.001 ITEM NO, DESCRIPTION UNIT TARTAN MEADOWs NEIGHBORHOOD I 1 MOBILIZATION LS 4,532.25 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 965.23 3 SILT FENCE. LF 2.60 4 INLET PROTECTION EA 96,82 5 sAWCUT PAVEMENT (ALL TYPES) LF 2.15 6 REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXIST. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (DRIVEWAYS) SY 4.30 7 REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXIST. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FLUME) _ EA____ _ 80.69 6 REMOVE a DISPOSE OF EXIST. CONCRETE PAVEMENT (DRIVE(VAYS) BY 5.36 9 SUBGRADE CORRECTION SY 2,00 10 RECLAIM E(, BIT, AND BASE MATERIALS, 8-INCH DEPTH SY 0.60 11 HAUL OUT EXCESS MILLINGs (LV) CY 8,00 12 SUBGRADE PREPARATION OF RECLAIMED SURFACE RS 220,03 13 2350 TYPE LV3 BITUMINOUS NON -WEARING COURSE TN _14 2300 TYPE LV4 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE m 16- 131TOMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 2.14 10 2360 TYPE LV4 BITUMINOUS WEAR GOURSE, DRIVES SY 15.95 17 SAW & SEAL STREET:NO INTERVALS) LE 2,09 18 !ADJUST CATCH BASIN & INSTALL. CONCRETE WINGS EA 611.27 19 IREPAIR CASTING AND ADJUST CATCH BASIN & INSTALL C 5 T WING& EA 600.61 -FfIADJUST MANHOLE EA 458.24 21 I6"CONCRETE DRIVE I SY 46.26 22 'CONCRETE CURB CUT FOR RAIN GARDEN I EA 263,58 23 CLASS 3 RIP RAP WIGEOTEXTILE FABRIC CY 102.21 24 DITCH GRADING LF 2,37 .. 25 'IMPORT AND PLACE TOPSOIL CY 14,52 26 !SEEDING, FERTILIZER AND WOOD FIBER I3LANKET _ SY _ 2,16 27 SODDING SY 2,70 SUBTOTALyARTAN MEADOWS NEIGHBORHOOD 1 PAVID NELSON ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD 1 MOBILIZATION 2 TWEIOgotqFtpi„, a SILT FENCE 4 INLET PRoTECTION 5 SAWCUT PAVEMENT (ALL TYPES) 6 REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXIST. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (DRIVEWAYS) 7 REMOVE, & DISPOSE oF EXIST. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT(FLUME 0 REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXIST. CONCRETE PAVEMENLORIVEWAYS) 9 SUBGRADE CORRECTION 10 'RECLAIM EX. BIT. AND BASE MATERIALS, 8-IN5H DEPTH 11 11AOL OUT EXCESS MILLINGS (LV) 12 SUBGRADE PREPARATION OF RECLAIMED SURFACE 13 2360 TYPE LVa BITUMINOUS NON -WEARING COURSE 14 235D TYPE LV4 13ITUMINOUs WEARING COURSE 15 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TA5K.CDAT 16 2380 TYPE LV4 (0ITUMINOUS' WEAR GOURSE, DRIVES 17 SAW & SEAL STREET (40' INTERVALS) 18 IADJUST CATCH BASIN & INSTALL CONGRETE WINOS 19 REPAIR CASTING AND ADJUST CATCH BASIN & INSTALL G 'NORETE WINGS 20 "CONCRETE DRIVE 21 CONCRETEEURB CUT FOR RAIN GARDEN 22 pn-p-I GRADING .23 IMPORT ANDPLACETOPSGIL 24 ISEEDING. FERTILIZER AND WOOD FIBER BLANKET 25 SODDING SUBTOTAL DAVID NELSON ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD NMI STREET AND KIM() AVENUE 1- MOBILIZATION 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL 3 SILT FENCE 4 -CLEAR AND GRUB TREE 5 SAWCUT PAVEMENT (ALL TYPES) 6 REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXIST. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 7 REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXIST, BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT(DRIVEWAYS) 8 IcoMMoN EXCAVATION (CV) (P) 9 SUBGRADE CORRECTION 10 SUBGRADE PREPARATION OF GRAVEL SURFACE _ 11 PLACE & COMPACT REGLAIM MATERIAL (FROM -OTHER SITES)JLV) 12 2360 TYPE LV3 BITUMINOUS NON -WEARING COURSE- 13 2360 TYPE LV4 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE 14 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK GOAT 15 2360 TYPE LV4 BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE, (DRIVES 10 GUARDRAIL, MN/DOT TYPE 8307 oR 8398 17 CLASS 5 AGGREGATE SHOULDERING - 100% CRUSHED LIMESTONE 18 DITCH GRADING 19 SEEDING, FERTILIZER AND WOOD FIBER BLANKET 20 STRIPING -4" YELLOW STRIPING 21 'STRIPING - 4"WHITE STRIPING 22 INSTALL SIGN PANEL )SUBTOTAL 59TH STREET AND ISIMBRO AVENUE LS 1,639.88 LS 266.95 LF 2,69 EA 90.83 LF _2.15 SY 4.30 EA 80.69 sy 5,34 SY 2.00 SY 0.80 CY 1.00 RS 370.11 TN 50,75 TN 53 60 GAL 2.14 SY 16,05 LF 2.09 EA 560,43 EA 841.69 SY 53,78 EA 295,861 LF 10,76 46.95 1,797 51,08 1,637 UNIT CONTRACT QUANTITY CONTRACT AMOUNT . PRICE QUANTITY TO DATE AMOUNT TO DATE 1 0.75 $ 4,632,25 $ 3.474,19 1 0,__4 986,28 $_ 285 5$ 765.65 $ 14 __. -..... 0 $ 1,365.46_ $ . 1,012 671 $ 2,176,80 $ 1,442.65 155 289 $ 666_60 $ 1,242,70 2 _,....„ 6 $ ---iTC-17567 $ 101 4 3 543.38 6 21.52 966 0 $ 1,932,00 $ 19,294 19294 4 16.435,20 $ 16,435,20_ 1,084 078 $ 6,504,00 3 6,860.00 49 _40 $ 10,781,47 $ 10,781,471 1894 $ 87,9635 $ 92,711,39. 0 $ 76,479.22 $ . 6600 $ 1,840,40 $ 214 0 $ 3,419.72 $ 3,450 0 $ 7,273.20 $ 13 0 $ 6,646:51 $ _ 1 0 $ 839.61 $ - 1 '0 $ 458,24 $ - 134 0 $ 6,188,64 $ 12 0 $ 3,152,96 $ 4 0 $ 406.64 $ 210 0 I $ 497.70 $ 4B1 0 $ 6,984.12 $ 14 0 $ 311.75 $ _ 4,354 0 $ 11.765,60 $ - $ 252,132,40 $ 131,703.20 1 0.75 1,63903 3 1,229,91 1 0.75 266,95 $ 201.71 1 DO 0 $ 269.00 $ - 2 0 $ 193.85 $ - 165 '66 $ 350A5 $ 191.35 17 20 $ 73.13 $ 120,40 0 0, 80,69 $ _ 13 0 $ 69A2 $ . 508 0 $ 278,09 $ .. _ 2,760 27110 $ 2,200.00 $ 2,200.00 101 101 00 6 6 $ 2,268.66 $ 2,258,66' 249 272 $ 12,465,96 i $ 13,006.72 207 0 $ 11,113,63 $ --- 116 0 $ 245,24 $ 32 0 613.60 $ - 360 0 $ 762,40 $ - CY 34.68 SY 10.76 SY 2.70 1 0 I $ 500.43 $ 1 0 $ 641.89 $ 22 0 $ 1,153.58 $ 2. 0 1 $ 591.72 $ 6 0 $ 53.80 $ 62 0 $ 2,150.16 $ 25 0 $ 269,00 $ - 531 0 $ 1;433,70 $ $ 39,999,9L $ 20 01,9:75 LS LS LF EA LF sY sY CY SY RS CY TN TN GAL SY LF TN LF SY LF LF SF 3,075,56 699.30 2,60 236.69 2.15 1.20 4.30 1 0.5 $ 3,076,661 $ 1,537.711 1 0.5 $ 699.50 $ 349:65' 100 0 $ 269,00 $ 20 20 $ 4,723,90 $ 4,733.80 100 0 $ 29,00 $ 1,007 1067 _ $ 1,376,43 $ 1,376.A3., 8 0 $ 34,40 1 7.42 209 289 $ 2,144.3B $ 2,144.38 4,03 1,050 1050 $ 4,861.60 $ 4,861.60 180 00 38 0 $ 0,840.00 $ 1.00 1,239 978 $ 1,230.00 $ 978.00 49.98 1,201 0$ 59,903.99 $ ..._ 50.74 1 201 0 $ 60,938.74 $ 2.14 504 0 $ 1,07E3,56 $ 15.60 360 0 _ $ 5,563.00 $ 36,50 210 0 $ 7,466.00 $ 17.43 204- 0 $ 3,566,72 8 10,75 20 0 § 216,20 $ 2,15 420 0 $ 905,00 $ 0.22 2,320 0 $ 610.40 $ 0,22 7,440 0 $ 1,636.130 $ 32.26 5 0 $ 161.40 $ - $ 107,402.7 $ 15,981,54 1TOTA1ESIIMATE N0,1 469,524,96 $ 10 7 , 7 0 3 , 4 9 Pape 1 UITV OF LAKE MAYOR & COUNCIL ‘QMA4(1.1.\11(T/QN AGENDA ITEM; SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY; DATE: 7/19/11 REGULAR ITEM #: # 5 MOTION 2011 Street Improvement Rain Garden Project — Accepting the Quotes ,and Awarding the Contract Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer Bruce Messelt, City Administrator Jack Griffin, City Engineer Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is asked to accept quotes and award a contract for the 2011 Street Improvement .Rain Garden Project, Bids were received on July 8, 2011, Rusty Schmidt, WaShington Conservation District, solicited quotes from. five qualified contractors and. has prepared the attached recommendation Memorandum dated July 14, 2011. The recommended motion to act on is as follows: "Move to Accept the Quotes and Award a Contract -to Ati Weather Services in the amount of $25,074.00 for the 2011 Street Improvement Rain Garden Projectper the Washington County Conservation District Recommendation Memorandum dated July 14, 2011.," BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND STAFF -REPORT: TKDA has coordinated with the Washington Conservation District (WCD) to prepare rain garden plans to improve water quality along the 2011 Street and Water Quality Improvement Project, Planting plans were prepared by WCD and approved by the City of Lake Elmo, The 2011. Street Improvement Rain Garden Project plan set is available for review by -request. A total of 13 rain gardens will result from the 2011StTeet Improvement Rain Garden Project. These rain gardens will require the contractor to complete all tasks related to the gardens (grading, soil repair, draintile, concrete curb cuts, mulch, edging, rock retaining walls, planting and restoration), -- page 1 City Council Meeting September 21, 2010 2009 and.2010 Streetimprovement :Rain Garden Project Accepting Quotes and Awarding a Contract Agenda Item .# 5 Notice to proceed will be given if award of contract is given by the City Council. A Pre - Construction. Meeting will be held prior to the Contractor commencing any work to coordinate the project with the. contractor, The completion date for the project is August 12, 2011, All rain. gardens will have a residential_ maintenance agreement. FUNDING: The contract for the 2011 Street Improvement RaM Garden Project is for an estimated amount of $25,074.00. Actual quantities paid will be per the unit prices provided for each item. The City of Lake Elmo received a Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) Community Grant in January of 2011 for up to $13,100.00 in ,matching funds for water quality improvements., The estimated post -bid total qualifying costs for water quality improvements on the 2011 Street Improvements is $25,074.00, resulting in a $12,537.00 VBWD grant amount. This would leave a remainder of $12,5.37.00 for the City of 'Lake Bhno to be paid from the Storm Water Utility Fund. IFZEcQlyINIENDATION: Based upon the above background information and staff report, it is recommended that the City Council move to approve the motion by undertaking the following action: "Move to Accept the Quotes andAvard a Contract to All Weather Services in the amount of $25,074..00 for the 2011 Street Improvement RaM Garden Project per the Washington County Conservation District -Recommendation Memorandum dated July 14, 2011.," ATTACPMENTS: 1. Washington Conservation District Reeorninendation Memodated July 14, 2011 2. Construction Contract page 2 — PA' 1AS H INGTON ONSERVATION ISTRICT MEMORANDUM '1380 W FRONTAGE RD H 1 G H WAY 3 6 STILLWATER, MN 55082 651-275-1136 IPFIONE1 651-275-1254 1 FAX 1 WWW.M INIWCD.ORG TO: City of Lake.Elmo FROM: Rusty Schmidt, Washington .Conservation District DATE: Ally 14, 20.11 RE: - Recommended Lower Responsible Bidder forthe Raingarclens along the 2011 Roadway Improvement Projects On June 281h, 2011 the WCD in cooperation with the City of Lake Elmo and Valley Branch Watersbed'District sent out a proposal for quotes and bids for the 2011 Raingarden Roadway Projects, This project is to place 13 gardens along the -new roadways within the city limits, The raingardens -are to be installed and planted by mid August 2011.. Construction will include -but not limited -to grading, edging, mulch, plants, draintile and compost. The bids were returned on July -8`11, 2011 by 4 prn, Five bids were received with one bid significantly lower than the rest. Three bids were at the design estimate. And one bid was significantly higher than the rest and 25% higher then -estimate, The low bidder is responsible and has done many projects of similar size and scope, including last years roadway raingardens. The previous projects have been done competently and successfully. The low bid contractor's low bid is duc to the location to the project site. The following are the bid totals: All Weather Services Outdo -or Labs Creative Services St, Croix Valley Landscaping Landscape Renovations $25,074.00 $28,343,90 $28,952,70 $29,996,00 $35,340.76 I, Rusty Schmidt, recommend giving the project to the lowest bidder who is All Weather Services of Stillwater. Thank you, Rusty Schmidt Natura14esoutce Specialist rl'IRVISIMS: LOWS' SNIAI 1 II)Cir GARY licAl0.1ANN TONI 11,051 AIARY V/AI I SARAH I 2011 STREET IMPROVEMENT RAINGARDEN PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT State of Minnesota Washington County This Contract, made this day of 201 I., by the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota (herinafter called the "Owner") and A /I- Se ra e_e s , (hereinafter called the "Contractor"). WITNESSEM that the parties hereto agree as followsl (A) The Contractor shall provide all: labor, services, materials, equipment and machinery, t nsportation, toels, fuel, power, light , heat, telephone, water, sanitary facilities, temporary facilities, and all other facilities and incidentals, including profit and overhead, necessary for the performance, testing, start-up, and completion of -the work as described herein: DESCRIPTION OF WORK: The scope of work under this contract includes the complete construction of 13 rain gardens in accordance with the 2011 Street Improvement Raingarden Project Plan Set issued by the City of Lake Elmo and dated June 21, 2011. The complete Plan Set consists of 30 sheets, The complete construction of 13 rain gardens shall include the grading, soil repair, mulch, edging, retaining walls, planting and restoration in the locations shown on the plans and as staked in the field, This Construction Contract is intended to provide for a fully completed project. and shall be performed by the Contractor for the total estimated price of ZC't C.) 1'4 OAD ., based upon the attached Quote Proposal Form. The quantities stated therein are approximate only, Payment will be made for the quantities of work ordered and -actually installed complete. Any work items necessary to provide for a fully completed project and not listed as an itemized quantity on the Quote Proposal Form shall be considered incidental to the project work. However, no work shall be allowed to proceed that will result in additional quantities for payment without -the prior written authorization of the City by Lake Elmo. All work shall be completed within the specified time frame and under the terms and conditions provided within this Construction Contract, and in accordance with the "General Conditions" shown in this contract as follows: Work will be performed concurrently with the City of Lake Elmo Street Project. The Contractor shall make every reasonable effort to complete the work prior to the paving of bituminous wear course. The Final Completion Date is August 12, 2011, Any damage done by the Contractor to the new bituminous street and/or curb shall be corrected at the Contractor's expense. The Owner will make payment for the whole contract, upon acceptance by the Owner of all work required hereunder and compliance by Contractor with all the terms and conditions of this contract, Pttge 1 of 4 City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota General Conditions for Small Contracts IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this contract as uf the date first above written. (City of Lake Elmo) Page 2 oi'4 City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota General Conditions for Small Contracts GENERAL CONDITIONS L. CHANGES IN WORK. - The Owner may at -any time, make changes in the drawings and specifieations, within the general scope thereof. 'If such changes cause an increase or decrease in the amount due under this corttract.or in the time required -for its performance, an equitableadjustment will be made, and this contract will be modified aceordiogly by a "Contract Change Order". No charge for any extra work or material will be allowed unless the same has been ordered on such contract change order -by the Owner and -the pricetherefore stated in the order, IL INSPECTION OF WORK. - AU materials and workmanship will be subject to inspeetion, examination, and test, by the Ovvner, who will .have the right to reject defective material, and workmanship or require its correction. HI. COMPLETION OF WORK. - JftheConftactorrofLIesor fails to complete the work within -the time specified in this contract, or any extension thereof; the Owner may terminate the Contractors rights to proceed. In suchevent the Owner may take-over the work andproseditte the.saine -to completion by contract or otherwise, and Contractor will liablefor any excess cost occasioned the Owner thereby; and the Owner may take possession of and utilize in completing.the work such materials and equipment as may be on the site ofthe work:and necessary therefore,:if the Owner does not terminate the right of the Contract to proceed, the Contractor will continue the work, in which event, actual damages for delay -will be impossible to determine, and in lieu thereof, the Contractor may be required topay to the Owner the SUM of ROO as liquidated damages for each calendar day ofdelay, and the Contractor will .be liable .fer the amount thereof; Provided, however, That the right of the Contractor to proceed will not be terminated because of delays in the completion of the completion of the work due to unforeseeable' causes.:beyond the.Contractor's control and without Coritraetor's fault or negligence, IV. RELEASES. - Prior to final payment, the Contractor will. submit evidence that all payrolls, material bills, and other indebtedness connected with the work have been paid as required by the Owner. V, OBLIGATION TO DISCHARGE LIENS, - Aeceptance by the Owner of the completed work perforated by the Contractor and payment therefore by the Owner will not relieve lhe Contractor of obligation to the Owner (which obligation is hereby acknowledged) to discharge any and all liens for the benefit of subcontractors, laborers, material -person, or any other persons,performing labor upon the work or furnishing material or .machinery for the work covered by this contract, which have attached to or may subsequently attach to the property, or interest of the Owner, VI. NOTICES AND APPROVAL IN WRITING. - Any notice, consent, or other act to be given or done hereunder will be valid only if in writing. VII, CLEANING UP, - The Contractor shall keep the premises free from accumulation of waste material and rubbish and at the completion of the work shall remove from the premises all rubbish, implements and surplus materials. VIII. WARRANTY. - Contractor warrants and guarantees that title to all work, materials, and equipment covered by any Application for Payment, whether incorporated in the Project or not, will pass to Owner no later than the time of payment free and clear of all Liens. If within one year after completion of the work, arty work is found to be defective, Contractor shall promptly, without cost to the Owner, correct such defective work as approved by the Owner. IX, IDEMNIFICA.TION. - Contractor shall defend and indemnify the city against claims brought Or actions filed against the city or any of its officers, employees or agents for property damage, bodily injury or death to third persons, arising out of or relating to contractors work under the contract. X. WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE, - Contractor shall provide a certificate of insurance showing evidence of workers' oompetisation coverage or provide evidence of qualification as a self-insurcr of workers' compensation. XL LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. - A certificate of insurance acceptable to the City shall be filed with the City prior to the conunencement of the work. The certificate and the required insurance policies shall contain a Page 3 of h City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota General Conditions for Small Contracts provision that the coverage afforded under the contract will not be canceled or allowed to expire until at least 30 days prior written notice has been given to the city, Contractor shall maintain commercial generl (CGL), and if nacessary commercial umbrallainsurance, with a limit of not less than $1,000;000 each occurrence. If such COL insurance contains a general aggregate limit, the general aggregate limit shall be not less than $2,000,000 and the aggregate limit shall apply on a peivroject basis. The COL insurance shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors, products - completed operations, personal injury and advertising injury, and contractually -assumed liability. The city shall be named as an additional insured under the CGL. Contractor shall maintain:automobile liability insurance, and if necessary, umbrella liability insurance with:a lirnitof not less than $1,000000 each RCOelli, If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, the general aggregate lirnit shatbe not:less than $2,000,00.0. The insurance shall cover liability arising out of any auto, including owned, hired, -and non -owned autos, Page of 4 City of Lake Elm, Minnesota Genial Conditions for Small Contracts 2011 LAKE ELMO ROADWAY RAINGARDEN COST ESTIMATE Material QTY Unit unitDost Amount Anderson Plants plugs $4.00 MOO 19 #1 gal, $12.00 $228.00 9 442 gal, $22.00 $198.00 Mulch , double shredded hardwood 2 CY $30.00 $60.00 Compost - MnDOT Grade 2 2 CY $30.00 $60.00 Bullet Edgers 40 Lri, FI, $8.00 $320.00 Retaining Wall - Glacial Field Stone 2,5 TON $160,00 $376,00 12-24" Excavation 15 CY $11.00 $165,00 Sod 120 SF $3.00 $360.00 $1,766.00 Sargon Plants Mulch - double shredded hardwood Compost - MnDOT Gracie 2 Bullet Edgers Excavation Sod Gibson/ Plke Plants 38 plugs $4.00 $162.00 30 #1 gal, $12.00 $360.130 #2 gal. $22.00 $0.00 2 CY $30.00 $60.00 2 CY $30.00 $60.00 60 Ln. Ft, $8.00 $480.00 15 CY $11,00 $166.00 120 SF $3.00 8360.00 $1,637,00 33 plugs $4,00 $132,00 42 -#1 gal. $12.00 $604,00 #2 gal. $22.00 $0.00 Mulch - double shredded hardwood 2 CY $30.00 $60.00 Compost - MnDOT Grade 2 2 CY $30.00 $60.00 Bullet Edgers 80 Ln. Ft. $8.00 $480.00 Excavation 15 CY $11,00 $165.00 Sod 120 SF $3.00 $360,00 $1,701,00 Hommerlund Plants 32 plugs $4.00 $128 00 42 #1 gal. $12,00 $604,00 #2 gal. $22.00 $0.00 Mulch - double shredded hardwood 2 CY $30.00 $60.00 Compost - MnDOT Grade 2 2 CY $30,00 $60,00 Bullet Edgers 60 Ln. Ft. $6,00 $480,00 Excavation 15 CY $11.00 $165.00 Sod 120 SF $3,00 $360.00 $1,767.00 Lee Plants 18 plugs $4,00 $72.00 12 #1 gal. $12.00 $144.00 7 #2 gal. $22.00 $154.00 Mulch - double shredded hardwood 2 CY $30,00 $60.00 Compost - MnDOT Grade 2 2 CY $30.00 $60.00 Bullet Edgers 60 Ln, Ft. $8.00 $480.00 Excavation 16 CY $11.00 $165,00 Sod 120 SF $3,00 $360.00 $1,496.00 Linder Plants 35 plugs $4.00 $140.00 42 #1 gal. $12,00 $504.00 #2 gal. $22.00 $0.00 Mulch - double shredded hardwood 2 CY $.30.00 $60,00 Compost - MnDOT Grade 2 2 CY $30.00 $60,00 Bullet Edgers 50 Ln, Ft. $8.00 $480,00 Excavation 15 CY $11.00 $165,00 Sod 120 SF $3.00 $360,00 $1,769,00 Schauer Plants 65 plugs $4,00 $260,00 86 #1 gal. $12.00 $1,032,00 14 #2 gal. $22,00 $308,00 Mulch - double shredded hardwood 6 CY $30.00 $180.00 Compost - MnDOT Grade 2 2 CY $30.00 $60,00 Bullet Edgers 100 Ln. Ft, $5,00 $800.00 Excavation 15 CY $11.00 $165.00 Sod 130 SF $3.00 $390.00 $3,195.00 Schneider Plants 39 plugs $4.00 $158.00 39 #1 gal. $12.00 $468,00 #2 gal, $22.00 $0,00 Mulch - double shredded hardwood 2 CY $30.00 $eam Compost - MnDOT Grade 2 2 CY $30.00 $60,00 Bullet Edgers 78 L.n. Ft, $8,00 $624.00 Excavation 15 CY $11.00 $165.00 Sod 120 SF $3.00 $360.00 $1,893,00 Schumacher Plants plugs $4.00 $0,00 8 #1 gal. $12.00 $96.00 14 #2 gal. $22 DO $308.00 Mulch - double shredded hardwood 2 CY $30.00 $60,00 Compost - MnDOT Grade 2 2 CY $30.00 $60.00 Bullet Edgers 40 l_n, Ft $8.00 $320,00 Retaining Wall - Glacial Field Stone 2.5 TON $150.00 $37500 12" -24" Excavation 15 CY $11,00 $165,00 Sod 120 SF $3.00 $360.00 $1,744.00 Voeller Plants 46 plugs $4,00 $184.00 37 #1 gal. $12.00 $444,00 #2 gal. $22.00 $0.00 Mulch - double shredded hardwood 2 CY $30.00 $80.00 Compost - MnDOT Grade 2 2 CY $30,00 $60 00 Bullet Edgers 60 Ln, Ft. $8,00 $480.00 Excavation 15 CY $11 00 $165,00 Sod 120 SF $3.00 $360.00 $1,753,00 Wemeler Plants 34 plugs $4.00 $136.00 44 #1 gal. $12.00 $528.90 #2 I. $22.00 $0.00 Mulch - double shredded hardwood 2 CY $30,00 $60.00 Compost - MnDOT Grade 2 2 CY $30.00 $60,00 Bullet Edgers 70 Ln. Fl. $8.00 $560.00 Excavation 15 CY $11,00 $165.00 Sod 120 SF $3.00 $350.00 $1,869.00 Whalen ROMs 21 plugs $4.00 $34,00 69 #1 gal. $12:00 $708.00 17 #2 gal. $22.00 $374,00 Mulch - double shredded hardwood 5,6 CY $30,00 $165.00 Compost - MnDOT Grade 2 5.5 'CY $30.00 $166.00 9ullet.Edgers 126 Ln. Ft, $8,00 $1,008,00 Excavation 26 CY $11,00 $308.00 Sod 316 SF $3.00 1849,00 Retaining Wall - Glacial Field Stone 2.5 TON $150.00 $375,00 $4,135.00 12" - 24" Mobilization JOB $500.00 $500.00 $300.00 Total Cost Es1Im3te $25;074.09 $25,074.00 CITY OF LAKE 1 ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: DATE: 7/19/2011 CONSENT ITEM #: 6 MOTION Approve Temporary Authority for City Electrical Inspections Sharon Lumby, City Clerk Bruce A. Messelt, City Administrato Karl Horning, Building Official David Snyder, City Attorney SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: It is respectfully requested that the City Council receive and approve Ordinance No. 08-048, authorizing inspections of electrical installations within the City. A sample ordinance was provided by the League of Minnesota Cities, No specific motion is needed, as this is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Consent Agenda. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Construction projects are being delayed by a lack of state -provided electrical inspections. Under state law, any new electrical installation in any construction, remodeling or repair must be inspected for compliance with accepted standards of construction for safety to life and property. While it's usually the State that performs these inspections the State isn't doing any electrical inspections during shutdown. STAFF REPORT: A City can pass an ordinance authorizing inspections of electrical installations within its jurisdiction. Once the City conveys the adopted ordinance to the Department of Labor and Industry (DLI), the City can allow inspections to be performed within the City by individuals licensed by the State as master or journeyman electricians. The League of Minnesota Cities has learned that the DLI commissioner believes cities do indeed have the authority to pass such an ordinance for Cities to take over electrical inspections during state shutdown. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above background information and staff report, it is recommended that the City Council approve Ordinance No. 08-048 as part of tonight's Consent Agenda. -- page 1 — City Council Meeting Approve Temporary Authority for City mai Inspections July 19th, 2011 Consent Agenda Item # 6 Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to remove this item from the Consent Agenda further discuss and deliberate prior to taking action. If done so, the appropriate action of the Council following such discussion would be: "Move to Adopt Ordinance No. 08-48, An Ordinance amending Chapter 151 by adding the Minnesota Electrical Act to the Lake Elmo City Code" ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No, 08-048 SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Azenda): Questions from Council to Staff._ ,,,,,,,,,,,, , .............. ......,...„,Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion ..... .......„..,......„.... ........ ...... Mayor & City Council Discussion.„,.....„ ........ „ ...... . .......... ....... ............ .....,......., ..... ,Mayor Facilitates Action on Motion.— ............ .......... ........,..... ...... ..... Mayor & City Council -- page 2 -- ORDINANCE NO. 08-048 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, STATE OF MINNESOTA AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 151 OF THE CITY CODE OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 151 BY ADDING 1'HE MINNESOTA ELECTRICAL ACT TO THE LAKE ELMO CITY CODE The City of Lake Elmo ordains: SECTION 1: AMENDMENT: Chapter 151.002 of the Lake Elmo City Code is hereby amended with Ordinance No. 08- by adding the Minnesota Electrical Act to Chapter 151of the City Code which shall read as follows: Section 1. Authority to inspect. The City of Lake Elmo hereby provides for the inspection of all electrical installations pursuant to Minn, Stat. 326B.36. Subd, 6. Section 2. Adopted by reference. The Minnesota Electrical Act, as adopted by the Commissioner of Labor and Industry pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 326B, Sections 326B.31 to 326B.399. The Minnesota Electrical Act is hereby incorporated into this ordinance as if fully set out herein. The Minnesota State Building Code incorporates by reference the National Electrical Code pursuant to Minn, R. 1315.0020. All such odes incorporate herein by reference constitute the electrical Code of the City of Lake Elrno. Section 3. Section 4, Compliance. All electrical installations shall comply with the requirements of the electrical code of the Cit of Lake Elmo and this ordinance. Permits and fees. The issuance of permits and the collection of fees shall be as authorized in Minnesota Statutes 326B.37. Any inspections or handling fees will be payable to the City of Lake Elmo, Section 5. Notice and appeal. All notices of violations and orders issued under this ordinance shall be in conformance with Minn. Stat. 326B.36, subd. 4. Section 6. Violations and penalties. A violation of the Minnesota Electrical Act is a misdemeanor. (M.S. 326B.082, sub. 16) Section 7. Sunset. This ordinance shall be revoked without further action of the City Council once the Department of Labor and Industry is funded for the 2011 fiscal year by legislative enactment of a stare budget. SECTION 2. PURPOSE: The purpose of this amendment is to establish an electrical inspections program in the City of Lake Elmo that is administered and enforced by the City. SECTION 3. SUMMARY: The following official summary of Ordinance No. 08-48 has been approved by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo as clearly informing the public of the intent and effect of the Ordinance. It is the intent and effect of Ordinance No. 08-048 to establish an electrical inspections program in the City of Lake Elmo that is administered and enforced by the City, as permitted in Minn. Stat. 326B.36, subd 6. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: Adopted by the City Council of Lake Elmo the 19U day of July, 2011. Dean A. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Sharon Ltunby, City Clerk 4 CITY OF - LAKE ELMO AYOR & COUNCIL_ COMMUNICATION AGENDA ITEM; SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: DATE: 7/19/2011 CONSENT ITEM #: 7 MOTION Electrical Inspection Services Agreement Sharon. Lumby, City Clerk Bruce A, Messelt, City Administrator Karl Horning, Building Official David Snyder, City Attorney SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: It is respectfully requested that the City Council receive and approve an Electrical Inspection Services Agreement with Joseph Wheaton, Wheaton Inspections, Mr. Wheaton is the State Electrical Inspector for this area. No specific motion is needed, as this is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Consent Agenda. BACKFROUND INFORMATION: Once the City conveys the adopted ordinance to the Department of Labor and Industry (DLI), the City can allow inspections to be performed within the City by individuals licensed by the State as Master or Journeyman Electricians. The League of Minnesota Cities has learned that the DLI commissioner believes cities do indeed have the authority to pass such an ordinance for Cities to take over electrical inspections during the State shutdown. STAFF REPORT: Currently Joe Wheaton works as a contract employee with the State of Minnesota to conduct electrical inspection, as required by the National Electrical Code. The City keeps 25% of the permit fee and passes 75% onto the inspector, which is included in the draft agreement. The Building Official is pleased with the work performed by Mr. Wheaton, who provides timely inspection and good customer service, and would like to retain his services on behalf of the City. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above background information and staff report, it is recommended that the City Council approve an Electrical Inspection Services Agreement with Joseph Wheaton, Wheaton Inspections as part of tonight's Consent Agenda. -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting July 19th, 2011 Electrical Inspection ces Agreement Consent Agenda Item # 7 Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to remove this item from the Consent Agenda further discuss and deliberate prior to taking action, If done so, the appropriate action of the Council following such discussion would be: "Move to Adopt Electrical Inspection Services Agreement with Joseph Wheaton, Wheaton Inspection, as presented [and modified] herein." ATTACHMENTS: Electrical Inspection Services Agreement SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Aeenda): Questions from Council to Staff .„„...„.......,......,.....„.. ............ Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion ..... ....... ..... Mayor & City Council Discussion.......„......,...................„„..... ......... ....,....,......... ........ Mayor Facilitates Action on Motion...,.......... ......... „„....,.... ...... ........... ...... , Mayor & City Council -- page 2 -- City of Lake Elmo Electrical Inspection Services Agreement This contract is made and entered into between the City of Lake Elmo, hereinafter identified as "City" and Joseph Wheaton, Wheaton Inspections, hereinafter identified as "Contactor". WHEREAS, the City requires services to be provided for electrical inspections for electrical permits issued in the City; and WHEREAS, the Contractor desires to and is capable of providing the necessary services according to the terms and conditions stated herein. . TERMS The Terns of this Contract shall run from July 20, 2011 to 2. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS: General Description. The Contractor shall provide the following services: a. Provide qualified personnel to perform electrical inspections within two work days of notification by the electrical installer. b. Enforce the Minnesota Electrical Act and Rules as adopted and amended by the City and current National Electrical Code, e. Submit a report of complete inspections, invoice for completed electrical inspections with the completed permits. d. Cooperate with the City Building Official to resolve non -complying or incomplete electrical installations when the installers fail to comply with acceptable standards. e, Notify the electrical utility for connection or re -connection of all electrical services installed, replaced or repaired for which an electrical permit is required, Contractors may call in for hook-ups on residential installations. 3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS: General Description. The City shall: a, Receive and process electrical permits and fees in accordance to its fee schedule. b. Assign a permit number. c. Forward a copy of the permit to the Contractor. d. Receive and process orders for payments and fees collected for fee shortages and extra or special inspections. e. Adopt the most recent version of the Minnesota Electrical Act. f Adopt Minnesota Rules, 4, PAYMENT: a. Compensation. The City shall pay the Contractor 75% of the permit fees collected for completed inspections, b. Invoices, The Contractor shall submit an invoice and request for payment on an invoice form acceptable to the City. c. Time of Payment. The City shall make payments to the Contractor within thirty days (30) from the date of which the invoice is received. If the invoice is incorrect, or otherwise improper, the City shall notify the Contractor within ten days (10) of receiving the incorrect invoice. Upon receiving the corrected invoice from the Contractor, the City will make payment within thirty days (30). d, Payment for Unauthorized Claims. The City may refuse to pay any claim, which is not specifically authorized by the Contract. Payment of the claim shall not preclude the City from questioning the propriety of the claim, 5. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND STANDARDS: a. General. The Contractor shall abide by all federal, state, and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations now in effect or hereafter adopted pertaining to this Contract. b. Licenses, The Contractor shall procure, at his own expense, all licenses or other certifications required for the provision of services contemplated by this Contract. The Contractor shall inform the City of any changes in the above -stated laws, standards, requirements, rules, etc., within five (5) days of occurrence. c. Minnesota Law to Govern. This Contract shall be governed and construed in accordance with the substantive and procedural laws of the State of Minnesota, without giving effect to the principles of conflict of laws. All proceedings related to this Contract shall be venued in the State of Minnesota. 6, INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS: The Contractor is an independent contractor and nothing herein contained shall be construed as to create the relationship of employer and employee between the City and the Contractor. The Contractor shall at all times be free to exercise initiative, judgment and discretion as to how to best perform to provide services The Contractor acknowledges and agrees that the Contractor is not entitled to receive any benefits received by City employees and is not eligible for worker's or unemployment compensation benefits. The Contractor also acknowledges and agrees that no withholding or deduction for State or Federal income taxes FICA, FUTA or otherwise, will be made from payments due the Contractor and that it is the Contractors sole obligation to comply with the applicable provisions of all Federal and State tax laws. 7. INDEMNIFICATION: The Contractor shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its officers and employees against any and all liability, loss, costs, damages expenses, claims and actions, including attorney's fees which the City, its officers or employees may hereafter sustain, incur or be required to pay arising out of or by reason of any negligent or willful act or adequately perform the Contractors obligations pursuant to this Contract. 8. INSURANCE: a. Professional Liability Insurance — The Contractor must provide professional liability insurance with limits of at least $500,000 per occurrence $1,000,000 aggregate for each person performing inspections under this Contract and with the City as additional insured. b. Automobile Liability. The Contractor must provide a certificate of automobile insurance meeting the minimal requirements of the State for each person performing inspections under this Contract. c. Worker's Compensation. If applicable, the Contractor shall procure and maintain a policy that at last meets the statutory minimum. d. Certificates. Prior to concurrent with execution of this Contract, the Contractor shall file copies with the City. e. Failure to Provide Proof of Insurance. The City may withhold payments or immediately terminate this Contract for failure of the Contractor to furnish proof of insurance coverage or to comply wit the insurance requirements as stated above. Non -Waiver. Nothing in this Contract shall constitute a waiver by the City of any statutory limits or exceptions on liability. 9. SUBCONTRACTING: The Contractor shall not enter into any subcontract for the performance of the services contemplated under this Contract of the City and subject to such conditions and provisions as are deemed necessary. The Contractor may have another inspector fill in for him from time to time or in the case of sickness or while on vacation, 10. TERMINATION: a. With or Without Cause. This Contract may be terminated with or without cause by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice. 11. CONTRACT RIGHTS/REMEDIES; a. Rights Cumulative, All remedies available to either party under the terms of this Contract or by law are cumulative and may be exercised concurrently or separately, and the exercise of any one remedy shall not be deemed an election of such remedy to the exclusion of other remedies, b.Waiver, Waiver for any default shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver of Breach of any provision of this Contract shall not be construed to be modification for the telins of this Contract, unless stated to be such in writing and signed by authorizeD representative of the City and the Contractor. The PARTIES hereto executed this Contract as of the year and date listed below. City of Lake Elmo, MN Dated: By: Contractor: Joseph Wheaton, Wheaton Inspections Dated: By: ON OF LAKE ELMO AYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 7/19/2011 CONSENT ITEM #: 8 MOTION Ordinance No. 08-049 AGENDA ITEM: Consider Amended 2011 Fee Schedule SUBMITTED BY: Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director Karl Horning, Building Official THROUGH: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Sharon Lumby, City Clerk SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: The Council is respectfully requested to consider adopting Ordinance No. 08-049 approving an Amended 2011 Fee Schedule to include City support fees for electrical inspections. No specific motion is needed, as this is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Consent Agenda. BACKGROIJND INFORMATION& STAFF REPORT:. City staff prepared an ordinance revision and, if adopted, would allow the City to contract with Joe Wheaton, Wheaten Inspections, a private license master electrician, to perform the necessary electrical inspections. The code amendment involves adoption of the National Electrical Code and allows the City to administer the code by issuing permits, collecting fees and requiring inspections. Staff has created the proper form and will integrate the process into the City's computer permit issuing software. The City needs a mechanism to determine and collect appropriate fees for electrical services, which are provided in Appendix B. The staff felt it was a good idea for residents/contractors to have a "one -stop shop" for building permits during the State shutdown. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above background information and staff report, it is reconunended that the City Council consider adopting Ordinance No. 08-049 approving an Amended 2011 Fee Schedule to include City support fees for electrical inspections. No specific motion is needed, as this is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Consent Agenda. -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting July 19th, 2011 Consider Amended 2011 Fee Schedule — F rica1 Lnspections Consent, Agenda Item # 8 Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to remove this item from the Consent Agenda further discuss and deliberate prior to taking action. If done so, the appropriate action of the Council following such discussion would be: "Move to adopt Ordinance No. 08-048 approving Appendix B — Electrical Inspections Fees amending the 2011 Fee Schedule, as presented herein." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. 08-048 2, Appendix B — Electrical Inspection Fees SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Agenda): Questions from Council to Staff Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion Mayor & City Council Discussion ............. ............. ........... • ...... ....... Mayor Facilitates Action on Motion ..... . ................... ........„Mayor & City Council page 2 -- CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08-049 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 B, and directs that it be added to the Lake Elmo Municipal Code as Appendix B. Appendix B— 2011 Fee Schedule — Electrical Inspection Fees ADOPTION DATE: Passed by the Lake Elmo City Council on the 19th day ofJuly, 2011. CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: ATTEST Sharon Lumby City Clerk Dean A. Johnston Its: Mayor PUBLICATION DATE: Published on the day of. . 2011. APPENDIX B CITY 0 F 3800 Laverne Avenue N. LAKE Lake Elmo, MN 55042 ELMO ; Electrical Inspector; (612) 866-3784 Building. Official: (612) 233-5409 FAX: (651) 777-9615 www.lakeekno.org Item Description 0 to 400 Amp Power Source :401 - 800 Amp Power Source Over 800 Amp Power Source O to 200 Amp Circuit or Feeder Over 200 Amp Circuit or Feeder -New One- or Two-Famlly Dwelling -(up to 30 circuits and feeders per unit) New One- or Two -Family Dwelling (additionsl circuits ovii20.per unit) Existing One- or Two -Family Dwelling (where 15 or more feeders or circuits are installed or extended, per unit) Existing One- or Two -Family Dwelling (where less than 15 feeders or circuits are installed or extended per unit) Reconnected Existing Circuit or Feeder for panel Separate bonding inspection Inspection of concrete -encased grounding electrode Technology circuits & circuits less than 50 volts •Additional inspection trip(s) Investigative Fee (enter values in the Quantity and Fee column Request for Electrical Inspection (REI) (permit) Inspection Fee Worksheet Fee 5/ eeder or circuit $ 15/feeder or circuit $ 100/dwelling unit $ 8/feeder or circuit cements) Other.., Other.„ Other... Other... IOWA $ 100/dwelling unit $ 6/feeder or circuit 2/feeder or circuit inspection inspection 7 device or appa $ 35/inspection trip TOTAL INSPECTION FEE is the fee calculated above, or $35 multiplied by the number of required inspection trips, whichever is greater. Enter Inspection Fee Here & on REI >> *War* F LAKE ; ELMO MAYOR& COUNCIL POMMOVICATION DATE: 7/19/2011 CONSENT ITEM #: 9 RESOLUTION 2011-026 AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of an application for a variance to allow the construction of an accessory building over 500 square feet in size and designed to internally flood within a Flood Fringe District. SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, Planning Intern THROUGH: Bruce Messelt, City Administrato REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Kyle Klatt, Planning Director SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED,: The City Council is asked to consider a variance request from Mr. Douglas Lovett, 9940 59th Street Court North, to rebuild an accessory building, damaged during the last winter due to snow load, with a design intended to allow the structure to internally flood. Due to the fact that the barn is currently within a Flood Fringe District and would be considered nonconforming, the construction requires a variance. In addition, the applicant has decided to utilize internal flood proofing techniques as opposed using fill or stilts to raise the structure, which would prove to costly for the applicant. The variance will allow for the new structure to be larger than the 500 square foot limit allowed for internal flood proofing. It is important to note that the accessory structure or the home have not flooded previously. No specific motion is needed, as this is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Consent Agenda. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: For variance applications, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate why this situation is unique and necessitates flexibility to code requirements. To make this case, a variance can only be granted by the city when strict enforcement of the code would cause "practical difficulties" on a property owner. Therefore, the case must meet the following four findings: a. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board of Adjustment upon 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 spirits and intent of this chapter; -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting July 19th, 2011 Consent Agenda Item # 9 Variance; j40 59th St. Ct, N. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; c. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located; and d. 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 In addition to these requirements, the case must also satisfy the following criteria for variances in flood zones provided by the Federal Emergency Management Administration: a. Variances shall not be issued by a community within any designated regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result, b. Variances shall only be issued by a community upon (i) a showing of good and sufficient cause, (ii) a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii) a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization on the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances, c. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. In reviewing the request against the four criteria listed above, along with careful consideration of the FEMA variance criteria, staff determined all criteria were met. The request was deemed reasonable and found to have no ill effect on the character of the locality or adjacent properties. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The Planning Commission reviewed the application, held a public hearing, and recommended approval of the variance request at the regularly scheduled meeting on July 11, 2011. One Lake Elmo resident was present and spoke in favor of granting the variance request at the public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above background information and staff report, it is recommended that the City Council approve the variance as part of tonight's Consent Agenda. Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to remove this item from the Consent Agenda 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 Resolution 2011-026 approving the requested variance to allow an accessory building of over 500 square feet to be built as proposed at 9940 5911Street Court North with internal flood -proofing techniques" The City Council may also deny the requested variance with findings. If done so, the appropriate action of the Council following such discussion would be: -- page 2 -- City Council Meethig Variance; 9940 596 St. Ct. N. July 19th, 2011 Consent Agenda Item # 9 "Move to deny the requested variance to allow an accessory building of over 500 square feet to be built as proposed at 9940 591/1 Street Court North for the following reasons [stated herein]." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No, 2011-026 2, Detailed Staff report analyzing the request 3. Application Form 4. Site plan identifying dimensions of accessory structure 5, Flood plain map 6. Survey of 9940 59t1iSt, Ct. N. 7. Images of old accessory building that was damaged due to snow load 8. Letter detailing contractor's flood proofing measures SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS.. Introduction of Item ..„ „...„.....,..... ..... ..... ....... .„,„, Report/Presentation....„.....,........... ....... .„,........., ...... Questions from Council to Staff ...... ........ ..,....... Public Input, if Appropriate Call for Motion .....„, ....... ................. .......,...,... Discussion Mayor & City Council Action on Motion__ ..... ........ .......... ,.„...„.........„, ..... Mayor Facilitates ...... City Administrator City Planner .........Mayor Facilitates Mayor Facilitates Mayor & City Council -- page 3 -- CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2011-026 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING OVER 500 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE IN A FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT WITH INTERNAL FLOOD PROOFING WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Douglas L. Lovett, 9940 59th Street Court North (the "Applicant") has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the "City") for a variance to allow an accessory building of over 500 square feet to be rebuilt with internal flood -proofing techniques in a Flood Fringe District; and WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.017; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter on July 11, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated July 19, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its July 19, 2011 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following: FINDINGS 1) That the procedures for obtaining said Variance are found in the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.017. 2) That additional criteria concerning Variances for structures located within a Floodplain District are found in Section 152.10, Subd. C (3) of the City Code. 3) That all the submission requirements of said 154.017 and 152.10 have been met by the Applicant. 4) That the proposed variance is to allow an accessory building of over 500 square feet to be rebuilt with internal flood -proofing techniques in a Flood Fringe District. The proposed building would replace a slightly larger structure that was damaged and eventually tom down due to heavy snow loads over the past winter. 5) That the Variance will be located on property legally described as follows: ttgal Descrintian PART OUTLOT A LYING WESTERLY FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE COMMENCING AT MOST SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OUTLOT A THENCE AZ 89DEG5023" ALONG MOST SOUTHERLY LINE SAID OUTLOT 233.95 FEET PO B LINE DESCRIBED THENCE AZ 26DEG2740" 202.19 FEET THENCE AZ 38DEG43'28" 193.71 FEET TO POINT ON MOST SOUTHERLY LINE L.OT 1 BLOCK 4 SAID PRAIRIE HAMLET 448.98 FEET E OF SOUTHWEST CORNER SAID LOT 1 & THERE TERMINATING & PART SAID OUTLOT A LYING NORTHERLY & WESTERLY FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE BEGINNING AT MOST SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER SAID LOT 1 BLOCK 4 THENCE AZ51DEG58'02" 64.01 FEET TO ANG POINT IN MOST WESTERLY LINE OLITLOT B SAID PLAT THENCE AZ 400EG21'05" ALONG MOST NORTHWESTERLY LINE SAID OUTLOT B 32.78 FEET THENCE AZ 3590EG2105" 745.69 FEET TO POINT ON MOST NORTHERLY LINE SAID OUTLOT A 908.97 FEET WEST OF NORTHEAST CORNER SAID OUTLOT A & SAID LINE -THERE TERMINATING & LOT 1 BLOCK 4 SAID PLAT SUBJ TO EASE Lot A SubdivisionCd 00255 SubdivisionName PRAIRIE HAMLET Commonly known as 5761 Keats Avenue. 6) That the strict enforcement of Zoning Ordinance would cause practical difficulties and that the properly owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. Specific findings: a) There have been no known previous incidents °Blooding of the previous accessory building or the principal structure on the applicant's property. b) The property owner would be allowed to construct the structure with the same dimensions had it not been located in a flood plain. c) An accessory structure of only 500 square feet, which is what is allowed with internal flood proofing within the Flood Fringe District, is not large enough to fulfill the needs of the applicants farming activities that currently occur. Therefore, an accessory structure of this size would significantly limit their ability to continue their farming activities. 7) That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, Specific findings: a) In 2008, The Federal Emergency Management Agency updated the Lake Elmo Flood Insurance Rate Map, which resulted in the accessory structure on the Loyd t property being included within a Flood Fringe District where the structure previously was not designated as such. b) The designated flood plain boundaries extend well beyond the ordinary high water level of the pond on the applicant's property, which is not common for other inland water features within the City. c) The damage caused by heavy snow loads made the structure unsafe, necessitating new construction 8) That the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. Specific findings: a) The structure existed in the same location before being included within a Flood Fringe District. b) The proposed internal flood proofing techniques will allow the structure to be rebuilt in its historic location. c) The structure will not be visible from State Highway 36 or other adjacent properties. 9) That 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. Specific, findings: a) Replacing the damaged structure, as opposed to leaving a dilapidated structure on this property, will ensure that property values do not diminish in the neighborhoodt 10) That with regards to the City's Floodplain Management ordinance: a) That the granting of the Variance will not result in an increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge. b) That the application has demonstrating good and sufficient cause for the grating of the Variance. c) That the failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant d) That the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. e) That the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing, the Applicants' application for a Variance is granted with th conditions: 0110 ing 1) The structure must be anchored to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement. 2) All portions of the structure located below the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) must be constructed of flood -resistant materials. 3) The structure be designed to allow for the automatic entry and exit of flood waters. 4) Mechanical and utility equipment must be elevated or flood proofed at or above the BFE. 5) The structure shall comply with the floodway encroachment provisions of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulations. 6) The structure shall be limited to parking and storage. 7) Compliance with these conditions must be satisfied at the time a building permit is issued for the structure and will be verified during routine inspections required as part of the building perinit. Passed and duly adopted this 19th day of July 2011 by the City Council of the City of Lake Ehno, Minnesota. Dean A. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Variance Request To: City Council From: Nick Johnson, Planning Intern Meeting Date: 7/19/2011 Applicant: Douglas Lovett Owner: Same Location: 9940 59th Street Court North Zoning: OP/OS Introductory Information Application The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Mr. Lovett to construct and Summary: internally flood proof a 3800 square foot building at 9940 59u' Street Court North. The proposed building is larger than the 500 square foot allowable threshold for internally flood proofing buildings within a Flood Fringe District and therefore requires a variance. Property Information: The applicant's property is OP/OS Open Space Preservation District. It is located in the Northern part of Lake Elmo, There is an existing single family home and accessory structure located within the Flood Fringe District. The fact that these structures are in the flood plain is a result of FEMA's last updates of their flood map in 2008. It should be noted that the extent to which the flood boundary extends is larger than what is normal. The accessory structure, a barn used for the property owner's agricultural activities, was constructed more than 40 years prior. It is important to note that the structure is not visible from Hwy 36 and does not present a physical or visual nuisance in any way. Applicable §152.10 ADMINISTRATION (C, 3) Codes: Variances. The Board of Adjustment may authorize upon appeal in specific cases such relief or variance from the terms of this Ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest and only when the applicable criteria of Section 154.017 of the City Code is met. In the granting of such variance, the Board of Adjustment shall clearly identify in writing the specific conditions that existed consistent with the criteria specified in this Ordinance, any other zoning regulations in the City, and in the respective enabling legislation that justified the granting of the variance, No variance shall have the effect of allowing in any district uses prohibited in that district, permit a lower degree of flood protection than the regulatory flood Foriwicc Rcquest: 59' Si. Ct. Ciry Report; 7-19-20! 1 human intervention to open a garage door prior to flooding will not satisfy this requirement for automatic openings. § 152.11 NONCONFORMING USES (A, 3) The cost of all structural alterations or additions to any nonconforming structure over the life of the structure shall not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure unless the conditions of this Section are satisfied. The cost of all structural alterations and additions must include all costs such as construction materials and a reasonable cost placed on all manpower or labor. If the cost of all previous and proposed alterations and additions exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure, then the structure must meet the standards of Section 152.04 or 152.05 of this Ordinance for new structures depending upon whether the structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe District, respectively. Findings & General Site Overview Site Data: Lot Size: 17.9 acres Existing Use: Resid ential/Agricutlure Existing Zoning: OP/OS Open Space Preservation District Property Identification Number (PID): 03-029-21-12-0005 Application Review: Applicable Definitions: ACCESSORY BUILDING. A subordinate building, or a portion of the main building, which is located on the same lot as the main building and the purpose of which is clearly incidental to that of the principal building. A CCESSORY STRUCTURE. A use or stricture on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use or structure. BUILDING. Any structure, either temporary or permanent, having a roof and used or built for the shelter or enclosure of any person, animal, or movable property of any kind. When any portion of a building is completely separated from every other part of a building by area separation, each portion of the building shall be deemed as a separate building. NON -CONFORMITY— NON -CONFORMING USE. Any legal use, structure or parcel of land already in existence, recorded, or authorized before the adoption of zoning regulations or amendments to the zoning regulations that would not have been permitted to become established under the terms of the zoning regulations as now written, if the zoning regulations had been in effect prior to the date it was established, recorded, or authorized. LwoUR'',Voriai Ices-091(i .59th Al;RcT (717 Lolvii L. do, :Variance Reipcst: Lovett; 9940 59`h St. Ct, N. City Council &Tom 7- 19-201 1 Variance Conclusions: market value of the structure, as specified in Section 152.11 of the City Code. The request to rebuild the accessory building that was damaged due to snow load on the property is a reasonable request. Therefore, staff finds this condition is met. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; In 2008, FEMA updated the flood map, which resulted in the accessory structure on the Lovett property being included in the Flood Fringe District. In addition, the area of the flood plain is substantially larger than normal. Finally, the damage caused by snow load made the structure unsafe, necessitating new construction. Regarding this construction, the method of internal flood proofing was the most reasonable option for the applicant. Therefore staff finds this condition is met. 3. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. The structure existed in the same location before being included in the Flood Fringe District. As mentioned before, this stricture has never previously flooded. As long as the appropriate flood proofing techniques are utilized, then there shouldn't be any concern as to a shift in the character of the locality. In addition, the applicant has made it clear that this structure will not be visible to Hwy 36 or other adjacent properties. Therefore, staff finds this condition is met. 4. 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. Repairing the damaged structure should ensure that property values do not diminish in the neighborhood. In addition, completing the necessary flood proofing would not diminish the property value in any way. Finally, repairing this structure should not impair the supply of light or air, or cause any congestion to the public streets. Therefore, staff finds this condition is met. Based on the analysis of the review criteria in City Code, the Planning Commission and City Staff would recommend approval of this variance request with the conditions and amendments outlined in Resolution 2011-026 for 9940 59th Street Court North. SLam tilsc',F(frianf','9'141.1 590: Y Rep Pa,,,,,re 5 7) The structure must pass additional review to ensure that all of these conditions have been satisfied. Denial To deny the request, you may use the following motion as a guide: Motion Template: I move to deny the request for the construction of an internally flood proofed accessory building at 9940 59th Street Court Noth...(please site reasons for the recommendation) Approval To approve the request, you may use the following motion as a guide: Motion Template: f move to approve the request for the construction of an internally flood proofed accessory structure at 9940 59th Street Court North based on the findings provided in the staff report... (or cite your own) ...with the conditions outlined in the staff report. cc: Doug Lovett, applicant i uurl L's'c"Tar y-i 2.do:' Fee City of Lake Elmo DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM ED Comprehensive Plan Amendment ji Zoning District Amendment E Text Amendment Flood Plain C,U.P, Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P,) APPLICANT: TELEPHONES: FEE OWNER: TELEPHONES: ..bNe\ (Name) b ( L. (Nam:)e..) Variance (See below) Minor Subdivision Lot Line Adjustment Residential Subdivision Sketch/Concept Plan i".] Site & Building Plan Review Loe1t sl fe (Maihng Address) s'75" (Work) ove ft %iv {Mulling Address) 19E1. 338, Vs"75" (Horne) (Work) 111 Residential Subdivision Preliminary/Final Plat 0 01 — 10 Lots 0 11 — 20 Lots 0 21 Lots or More El Excavating & Grading Permit E] Appeal E PUD C + LA a-‘0. NW, CCO (Zip) (Mobile) S-14 Sfvert Ct K) (Mobile) (Fax) C LAI hit (Z (Fax) PROPERTY LOCATION (Address and Complete (Long) Legal Description): 9,1 -t.• reel" C+ e 6to bt 5-ee. A4t4 ate d Le5o, befcr- --t;o4 DETAILED REASON FOR REQUEST: ‹,ee 41--t ei chef 4 1)e led fLetA S *VARIANCE REQUESTS: As outlined in Section 301.060 C, of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code, demonstrate a hardship before a variance can be granted. The hardship related to this application c4F, b fi IC c0C7 VA? fv1; . V Lit -to -pal In an II IA S‘it e e c I ct; AA d m br t c le cv kir)1 +e ova 0#14i-: the Applicant must is as follows: seartek hi signing this application, 1 hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined in the application procedures and hereby agree to nay all statements received from the'Citv pertaining to additional aoolication,xoense, Signature FRI rno3 Zi - Z•PAe-2,5.21,1 Date Signature of Applicant City of Lake Elmo • 3800 Lnverne Avenue North • Lake Elmo • 55042 • 651-777-5510 • Fax G51-777,9615 Date L 2 2011 Detailed Reason for Remuemt OnDecember 24",301O,our barn roof was damaged due tosnow load. In 2008, FEMA updated the Flood Maps and included our barn in a Flood Fringe. According to the City of Lake Elmo, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, Ordinance No. 08-023, Section 152.05 Flood Fringe District (FF) (13, 2); "—accessorystructures that constitute aminimal Investment and that dpnot exceed 500square feet atits largest projection may6e)nternaUyOoodproofedinaccordancewithSect|on152.04 We would like rebuild the barn, making binternally flood proofed, )nthe preexisting footprint which is S 02 (odos) (0002) (0004) - r (0001) (4) (0002) 0002j '0015 (0005) (0001) (0004Y , (0002 (0001) (0.00) (0005) (0009) 02) 0003 - c 6)1 (0005) (0011) (0014) i _ _ —• Nona)! (cool} F 0603) ; 02) ESTAT look • _ (0002) (0002) (0 IC? luirg : I 0.20-2i.G3 (0001) -030-23-42-0 34- LJ t0002)1' (0001) (ado ) 7 A-P.4 44) (009) :;(006y (o614) LEWSZ Otift PACTECTEDWATEIS MR PROTECTED %MAW EIMPAOTECIU SMEACCRIAS! MUNCIMBOUNDARY PM< MAMMY NORTH SCALE: 11,0 19.7t 2 (UW4) (1.100)' U (0004) 7 (0002) (000.0 t(113F US- - r2=Ouul (0027) ,2ri1111 ;amen= Icazsel; 7 -7 ,raCtel;ICOM 1102d21 ! (0000) L.(00)4 0005),; 20,541.2-,« (0009) 7 -0002 0556) (To 111102-2 (017) 019 01 0001) 60041 MODEM MOUS OF LUCE FANO 02- 29-.0.1:21-0002 _2' 27 pco._ (0001) 817100/54000* 2" 12 1 1 1 ti —NON -t- 441.E — *.trarroto I 11010, 2-029-2i-21 -0003 (0003) 02-029-7:24-0001 ormararaspeccal mew Qua. 11,10V woo meal %own aixtre, 55,05. 0 0. 0 00 22(.111-,==.1.,11.7.112_2 • 35-0: (0006) rooci) 2-029-21-12-0002 7}15 DFLOYM 4 5 V E AMU OF A CINFIL4712SAM1 Paltret CM CF 4 uukv REIMAPS AS ray APPFAR it; MOW wamtarou =err efFors. : WASHINGITAS =SPY 6 WS RIRRIMKE FAS MS MASSPASASS, „,,e, 505717B0 UPES AS SNOWS, ARS ron finiSIEACS WARMS AND .911, ASSRESEISS ACTUAL LOCARONS r F i PIA1/45,1,1WEV, ,finary17,201 M''.5:',..7'"4-' NS AOSSIOVILCHAVSESISSSESSENASAVASEATODATE t DAIEOFCCAYSOM Ap52X0 VAINOFFKRIXRAPNI, ,kra i '••'• r!ric• r a 1, _ILJF,' , 10' ....I-7 1 7' 11" (1' ..14 - 'I; F- • - 0 4, -r .1 t" tV1it". / 1.13,0 'it 11 t 21:7 y Here is a picture of the remaining structure after the damage was removed. Since one third ofthe roof collapsed, vvawere told that the remaining two-thirds ofthenoofahou|dbe replaced and brought uptocode oritcould fall down too. VVewere also told that since the collapsed roof was taken down, there is a danger that the walls could fall down, To reduce this risk, we removed the metal from the side walls but have left the posts, slab, plumbing and electric in place. We have contacted the City of Lake Elmo and are requesting the proper permits to proceed. We would like to install a new roof which would meet snow load requirements and replace the metal on the sides which was taken down to mitigate the risk of the walls falling down. We would like to leave the posts, slab, plumbing and electric but will replace them if it is required by the building codes. The insurance company requiresustnsubmit all claim information bvJune 28h}norder tnreceive payment, The mortgage company is requiring that we rebuild the barn in order to protect their Meexts. Here is a picture of the barn with the damaged roof section removed. On December 24th, 2011, one third of our 40 foot by 95 foot pole barn collapsed from snow load, We have 4 children ages 10 and younger so we had an immediate need to make the area safe, On December 2 91h , 2011, we were issued a building permit of "Class of Work" Repair to remove the KyleK att 11111 „ 1 From: doug@thelovettfarm.com Sent: .Friday, July 01, 2011 3:21 PM To: Kelli Matzek; Kyle Klatt Subject: 9940 59th Street Ct N - Flood Proofing I have discussed the need to flood proof our barn with our building supplier, Wick Buildings. They told me that the barn will include the following attributes intended to make it FP-3 or FP-4 compliant: 1. Galvanized screws 2. Treated two by eight inch girt 3. Steal sides 4. Treated posts 5. Posts secured four to five feet deep, eight feet on center 6. - Ten to sixteen foot openings in front and back of building Please let me know if Lake Elmo requires any additional information or changes to the barn design. Thank you, Doug Lovett 9940 .59th Street Ct N 651.338.8575 AYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: CONSENT ITEM #: MOTION 7/19/2011 10 AGENDA ITEM: City Engineering Services — Consider Agreement with Focus Engineering SUBMITTED BY: City Council Direction REVIEWED BY: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director )4\.. Dave Snyder, City Attorney SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Pursuant to July 5th, 2011 City Council direction, is respectfully requested that the City Council consider the proposed Engineering Services Agreement with Focus Engineering to provide for Municipal Engineering Services. No specific motion is needed, as this is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Consent Agenda. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In June, the City received notice from TKDA that they will cease providing municipal Engineering Services to Lake Elmo, effective January 1st, 2012. To provide for the smoothest possible continuity of services, City Council direction was provided on July 5th, 2011 with respect to initiating a new Engineer selection effort. City Council direction was to solicit Engineering Service options that would advance the Council objectives of: Continuity of Services, Cost Containment/Reduction, Transition of Projects and Services, and Ability to Provide Required Services. The City Council also directed that the current Schedule for City contracts be amended to call for annual Renewal of the Engineering Services Agreement, with a more evaluation moved from 2012 to 2013 (allowing for a full two- year -plus timeframe for the newly -selected Engineering Services provider) and, if Council deems appropriate, an RFP process would be undertaken in 2013, with continued or new services to begin in January 2014. STAFF REPORT: Pursuant to City Council direction, the City has received a solicited proposal from Focus Engineering for the provision of City Engineering Services. Focus Engineering has been recently formed by Mr. Jack Griffin, former City Engineer for Lake Elmo. Also anticipated to join Focus Engineering are Mr. Ryan Stempski and Kara Geheren, both with significant municipal engineering experience; the former including Lake Elmo, -- page 1 — City Council Meeting City Engineering Services — Agreement wi. rocus Engineering July 19th, 2011 Consent Agenda Item # 10 The proposed Engineering Services Agreement would meet Council objectives, in particular: Continuity of Services, Cost Reduction and Transition of Projects/Services. The Firm's extensive experience and professional network and contacts appear to adequately address the objective of Ability to Provide Required Services. The City Attorney, Finance Director and Administrator have reviewed the proposed Agreement and find it acceptable as to form and content and consistent with applicable laws, regulations and City policies and procedures. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council consider the proposed Engineering Services Agreement with Focus Engineering to provide for Municipal Engineering Services. No specific motion is needed, as this is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Consent Agenda. Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to remove this item from the Consent Agenda further discuss and deliberate prior to taking action. If done so, the appropriate action of the Council following such discussion would be; "Move to direct City Staff to with respect to selection of a new City Engineering Services provider, as agreed upon at tonight's meeting." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter of Interest from Focus Engineering 2. Resumes' for Focus Engineering 3. Rate Sheet for Focus Engineering 4. Proposed Engineering Services Agreement with Focus Engineering SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Agenda): - Questions from Council to Staff ............... .............................. Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion Mayor & City Council Discussion Mayor Facilitates Action on Motion Mayor & City Council page 2 -- July 11, 2011 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue N. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 RE: City Engineering Services Appointment Dear Mayor and Council Members, FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc. Cara Geheren, P.E. Jack Griffin, P.E. Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4261 651.300.4264 651.300.4267 FOCUS Engineering is pleased to submit our statement of qualifications and respectfully request the City Council to consider our appointment as your City Engineer at the July 19, 2011 council meeting. We have enclosed for your consideration an introduction to our firm including the unique qualifications and benefits that we can provide Lake Elmo; the resumes and bios of Jack Griffin, Ryan Stempski and Cara Geheren; our hourly rate sheet; and Standard Agreement for Professional Services. Our team is extremely excited about this opportunity and look forward to creating a long standing partnership with the Community, City Council and staff. My partners and I have wanted to start our own business for some time, seeing an opportunity to provide cities a "city engineering" service model that is responsive to the unique needs of communities like Lake Elmo. The timing is right. We believe the opportunity to launch this service model is facing us today. With every budget cycle cities have worked hard to find ways to do more with less and each year it is becoming more and more difficult to make deeper cuts. Looking ahead there just won't be much more that can be done without changing the way that Cities do business. For engineering services, a new service model is needed with a FOCUS on efficiency and value. Lake Elmo will retain complete continuity of services at a reduced cost. Through FOCUS Engineering the City will receive a new City Engineering Service model that provides: • Increased value through building efficient systems and processes for day-to-day services. • Resource sharing and collaboration to improve efficiencies. • Staff who have dedicated their careers to the role of City Engineer. • Staffthat are experts in managing efficient Municipal Infrastructure Systems. • Experts in project management to hire outside consultants to bring the Best Value for the City for large infrastructure projects (FOCUS Engineering will not have a horse in the race). More specifically, by retaining Jack Griffin as your City Engineer and Ryan Stempski as your Assistant City Engineer, the City of Lake Elmo will receive the following additional benefits: • Complete continuity of services. www.FOCUSEngineeringinc.com 3973 Northview Terrace, Eagan, MN 55123 651.300.4285 Retention of knowledge of the City's existing and future infrastructure needs, the engineering department systems and processes, and the communities' values and character. Reduced hourly billing rates that will result in a 12-15% discount compared to current fees. The FOCUS Engineering team Includes (see attached resumes): Jack Griffin, P.E. over 23 years Municipal Engineering experience. • Areas of Focused Expertise — Infrastructure Planning, Policy and Standards Development, Continuous Process Improvements, Project Development, and Contract Management. Cara Geheren, P.E. — over 13 years Municipal Engineering experience. • Areas of Focused Expertise — Public Participation, Stormwater Management and Regulations, Residential Street Projects, and Construction Management. Ryan Stempski P.E. over 8 years Municipal Engineering experience. • Areas of Focused Expertise — Pavement management, Residential Street Projects, Construction Management, Permitting, and Site Development. With Focus we are seeking to create a new option that does not exist today; a business model that is focused solely on bringing smaller cities leadership and efficiency with a commitment to the shared resource model, all without a "horse in the race". Again we are very excited about this opportunity and ready to forge a long-term relationship with Lake Elmo. This information has been submitted in summary in order to remain focused on the key issues and highlights. Should you have more specific questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (651) 600-9305. Sincerely, FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc. Jack W. Griffin, P.E. Ryan W. Stempski, P.E. Principal / Sr. Municipal Engineer Principal / Municipal Engineer Cc: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator Dave Snyder, City Attorney FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc. CARA L. GEHEREN, P.E. 1 PRESIDENT / SR. MUNICIPAL ENGINEER Cara Geheren has dedicated her career to serving the public in the role of City Engineer. She is passionate about working as a team with residents and business owners to seek practical solutions to everyday problems, in particular on street reconstruction projects. Cara was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and began her career in Municipal Engineering while attending the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus when she was hired as an intern for the City of Maple Grove. Since graduating in 1998 with a Bachelor's Degree in Civil Engineering, she has been working as a Consulting Engineer, serving in the role of City and Town Engineer for various Minnesota communities. In her role as City or Town Engineer, she has been responsible for the management of infrastructure systems including sanitary sewer, water, storm water and streets. Responsibilities include the development and implementation of capital improvement programs and pavement management plans along with compliance and coordination with outside agency regulations, projects and programs. Ms. Geheren had considerable experience during the period of high growth reviewing land use applications, development proposals and construction documents for consistency with City ordinances and standards. Professional Registrations Minnesota and Wisconsin Associations American Public Works Association, MN Chapter City Engineers Association of Minnesota Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition Education Bachelors of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota Phone: 651.300.4261 Email: cara.geheren@focusengineeringinc.com FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc. 1, 1 1111 1 1.1 , 1 .411. 1.i • .11i JACK W. GRIFFIN, P.E. I PRINCIPAL / SR. MUNICIPAL ENGINEER Jack Griffin has 23 years experience as a Municipal Engineering Consultant working with local governments to plan, finance, develop, and implement municipal infrastructure systems. He has been the City Engineering Consultant for several Minnesota Cities, Townships, and Water and Sanitary Sewer Districts. He has extensive experience in helping growing communities establish and implement policies, procedures, systems and standards to effectively manage community growth and development. His most recent work has focused primarily on city engineering services and major infrastructure projects for the cities of Lake Elmo and Victoria, Minnesota. Over the course of his career, Jack also has developed a specific expertise in municipal water and wastewater infrastructure, focusing primarily on comprehensive system and capital planning. He has planned and implemented numerous water and wastewater systems projects for communities throughout Minnesota. He has also developed a strong understanding and expertise in infrastructure grant and loan programs, having assisted his clients in obtaining grants for many of his projects. Jack is a graduate of the University of Minnesota with a degree from the Institute of Technology in Civil Engineering and a degree from the College of Liberal Arts in Economics. He was born and raised in the Twin Cities and now lives in Eagan with his wife Amy. He has two sons in college attending the University of Minnesota and The University of Minnesota Duluth. Professional Registrations Minnesota and Wisconsin Associations American Public Works Association, MN Chapter (APWA) City Engineers Association of Minnesota (CEAM) Minnesota Society of Professional Engineers (MSPE) American Water Works Association (AWWA) American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC1. Past Director Education Bachelors of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota Rachelnrs of Science.. F.cnnnmics. tiniversitv nf Minnesnta Phone: 651.300.4264 Email: jack.griffin@focusengineeringinc.com FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc. RYAN W. STEMPSKI, P.E. 1 PRINCIPAL / MUNICIPAL ENGINEER Ryan Stempski has been working for the past eight years as the Assistant City Engineer for several municipalities in the Metro Area, including the Cities of Lake Elmo and Lino Lakes. In this role, Ryan has frequently officed at City Hall working as an extension of the City staff. He has provided day-to-day engineering services for each community in addition to managing and supporting several major infrastructure projects, and overseeing the street maintenance program for each community. Ryan has a passion for serving the public and being a Municipal Engineer. He enjoys working with people and helping them to find solutions to their problems. He has developed a strong expertise in pavement management strategies, surface water management, capital improvement and budget planning, permitting processes, and in the review and oversite of private development projects within a community. Ryan is from the St. Paul area and has spent most of his life in Minnesota. He graduated in 2002 from of the University of Wisconsin -Madison with a degree in Civil Engineering. Throughout his college years, Ryan worked as an intern first for a geotechnical engineering firm gaining valuable experience in material testing for soils and pavements, and later as a construction observer on various infrastructure projects. Professional Registrations Minnesota and Wisconsin Associations American Public Works Association, MN Chapter (APWA) City Engineers Association of Minnesota (CEAM) Minnesota Society of Professional Engineers (MSPE) Education Bachelors of Civil Engineering, University of Wisconsin -Madison Phone: 651.300,4267 Email: ryan.stempski@focusengineeringinc.com FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc. Standard Hourly Rate Schedule Standard Hourly Rates include salaries and wages paid to personnel in each billing class plus the cost of customary and statutory benefits, general and administrative overhead, non -project operating costs, and operating margin or profit. Sr. Municipal Engineer II -Jack Griffin Sr. Municipal Engineer I - Cara Geheren Municipal Engineer II - Ryan Stempski Reimbursable Expenses Schedule $118 / hour $105 / hour $90 / hour • Vehicle Mileage reimbursed at the current Federal IRS Rate. • Outside professional and technical services billed to the Engineer plus 10%. • Identifiable printing and reproduction costs when incurred in the direct performance of the City's work. • Other expenses for items and services as may be required by the City to fulfill the terms of a specific authorization. FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc. -Standard Hourly Rate Schedule inc, ��� �� � ��� ��N���"�0N������0m�IN���°� AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER ��` ����^� `��~^��^^^^^~^� �^��^^���"" FOR PROFESSIONAL This AGREEMENT is made effective as of the day of , 2011, ("Effective Date") by and between the CITY OF LAKE ELMO, M|NNGSOT4, a Minnesota Municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), and FOCUS ENGINEERING, Incorporated, a corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Engineer"). The City intends to engage Engineer to provide Professional Engineering Services and General Consulting Services, and to act as the appointed City Engineer for the City. This AGREEMENT sets forth the general terms and conditions which shall govern the relation -ship and performance of the City and Engineer. In consideration of the foregoing recitals and following terms and conditions contained herein, the City and Engineer agree asfollows: ARTICLEI: SERVICES OF THE ENGINEER 1.1 Scope of Services: The City agrees to and hereby does retain and appoint Engineer as the designated "City Engineer", and Engineer agrees to perform Professional Engineering Services in connection with the responsibilities of the City Engineer as directed by the City Council and under the direction nfthe City Administrator, A. Provide assistance on day-to-day matters, acting asthe City Engineer, and an requested by the City. B. Attend meetings of the City Council or other Committees or Cnmmiss/onu to address Engineering matters, FOCUS ENG I NEERING, Inc. -Agreement Between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services PaRe10n C, Engineering services will, in general, include studies and reports design, preparation of working drawings and specifications; construction administration and construction observations; utility mapping, and maintaining engineer|nQrecords and correspondence; preparing cost estimates, capital improvement planning, and department budgeting; maintaining the Municipal State Aid System; maintaining the K8S4 NPUES Permit; providing engineering support to other City departments; guiding and overseeing the design and construction of public infrastructure systems through private development projects; preparing Requests for Proposals, and assist with selecting outside Professional Services Consultants for certain projects, and managing the Professional Services contracts; and other related tasks of type normally associated with infrastructure and fadUh/ planning, design, construction, operation and/or maintenance. D. Under this AGREEMENT the Engineer will provide General Consulting Services in accordance with the scope of services, engineer's compensation, payment terms, and other provisions as provided herein. When requested by the City, services for each additional engagement or Specific Project will be detailed and documented in a duly executed "Authorization for Professional Serv|oes". 1.2 Procedure for "Authorization for Professional Services" A. Engineer shall provide the City with an "Authorization for Professional 3eniceo for specific services or projects when requested by the City. Each Authorization will indicate the specific task, scope ofservices, time for performance, deliverables to be provided, and the basis ofcompensation, B. Individual "Authorizations for Professional Services" shall be mutually approved by the City and Engineer. Each duly executed Authorization for Professional Services shall be incorporated and mode a part ofthis AGREEMENT and the General Considerations thereof. ARTICLE2: PERIOD OF SERVICE 2.1 Term: Engineer ishereby retained onacontinuing basis, subject, however, totermination by elthmrparty inaccordance with ARTICLE 5.9. 2.2 Engineer shall complete its obligations for specific projects and services as set forth in any "Authorization for Professional Serv|ceo". ARTICLE 3: COMPENSATION 3.1 Basis for Compensation: Compensation to Engineer for day-to-day services shall be on an Hourly Rate basis in accordance with a Standard Hourly Rate Schedule set forth by the FOCUS ENG I NEERING, Inc, -Agreement Between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services Page anf* Engineer and approved bvthe City Council onunannual basis. Services described inaspecific "Authorization(s) for Professional Services" shall be on an Hourly Rate basis and/or a Lump Sum basis asdesignated }neach authorization. 3.2 Reimbursable Expenses� The Engineer shall be reimbursed at cost for any Direct Expenses when incurred in the direct performance of the Cit/s work in accordance with the Standard Hourly Rate Schedule. 3.3 Payments for Services A. Preparation ondSubnitto/ of Invoices: Engineer shall prepare and submit invoices to the City ona monthly basis, Invoices are dbeand payable within 30doyo of receipt, B. , Unpaid Invoices: All accounts unpaid after 3Odays from the date oforiginal invoice shall be subject to a service charge of 1.5% per month, or the maximum rate of interest permitted by law, whichever is |eoo. Payment will becredited first to any interest owed to Engineer and then to principal, C. Disputed Invoices: If the City contests an invoice, the City shall promptly advise Engineer of the specific basis for doing so, may withhold only that portion so contested, and must pay the undisputed portion. D. Right to Suspend Work: Engineer may, after giving ten (10)days written notice mthe City, suspend services under this AGREEMENT until the City has paid in full all amounts due for services, expenses, and other related charges. The City waives any and all claims against Engineer for any such suspension. ARTICLE 4: CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES 4.1 [1ty's representative: When acting as the "[hx Engineer", Engineer shall provide services as directed by the City Council and under the direction of the City Administrator. For specific "Authorization for Professional Services", the City shall designate in writing, a person to act as City'o representatives with respect tothe services to be rendered. Such persons shall have authority to transmit instructions, receive instructions, receive information, 'interpret and define C|1y's policies with respect to Engineer's services, When no written designation is made by the City, the City's representative shall be the City Administrator. 4.2 Provide Access: The [by shall prov|de access to, and make all provisions for Engineer to enter upon public orprivate property asrequired tnperform their work. 4.3 Provide supporting documentation and Services: The City shall provide all necessary information regarding its requirements as necessary for orderly progress of the work, including records, data, instructions, and requirements for completeness, The City shall also FOCUS ENGINEERING, Inc. ' Agreement Between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services Page 3 of 9 provide services in regards to accounting, fiscal and bond counseling services, insurance, and legal services as may be required. 44 The City shall be responsible for, and Engineer may rely upon, the accuracy and completeness of all requirements, programs, Instructions, reports, data, and other information furnished by the City to Engineer pursuant to this AGREEMENT Engineer may use such requirements, programs, instructions, reports, data, and information in performing or furnishing services under this AGREEMENT, 4.5 Provide prompt Notice and ReWew� The City shall promptly review and examine all correspondence, reports, sketches, drawings, specifications and other documents and communications prepared and presented by Engineer and render decisions pertaining thereto within a reasonable time so as not tndelay the services of Engineer. The City shall also give prompt notice to Engineer whenever City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any development that affects the scope or timing of Engineer's services or any defect in the work, 4.6 The City shall make timely payments to the Engineer as set forth in ARTICLE 3, ARTICLE 5: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Standards and Parameters of Performance A. Standard ofCare: The standard ofcare for all professional engineering and related services performed or furnished by Engineer under this AGREEMENT will be the care and skill ordinarily used by members of the subject profession practicing under similar circumstances atthe same time and in the same locality, B. Consultants: Engineer may employ such Consultants as Engineer deems necessary to assist in the performance or furnishing of the services, subject to reasonable, timely, and substantive objections by Owner, [. Reliance on Others; Subject to the standard of care set forth above Engineer and its Consultants may use or rely upon design elements and information ordinarily or customarily furnished by others, including, but not limited to, professional certifications, contractors, suppliers, manufacturers, and the publishers of technical standards, D. Compliance with Laws and Regulations, and Policies and Procedures: Engineer and City shall comply with applicable Laws and regulations. FOCUS ENGINEERING, Inc. - Agreement Between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services Page 4 of 9 E. Certifications and Signatures: Engineer shall not be required to sign any documents, no matter by whom requested, that would result in the Engineer having to certify, guarantee, or warrant the existence of conditions whose existence the Engineer cannot ascertain, F� Engineer shall not at any time supervise, direct, control, or have authority over any contractor mmd, nor shall Engineer have authority over or be responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures of construction selected or used by any contractor, or the safety precautions and programs incident thereto, for security or safety at the Site, nor for any failure of a contractor to comply with Laws and Regulations applicable tnsuch contractor's furnishing and performing its work. G. Engineer neither guarantees the performance of any Contractor nor assumes responsibility for any Contractor's failure tofurnish and perform the Work >n accordance with the Contract Documents, or for the acts or omissions of any Contractor, Subcontractor, orSupplier, 5.2 Independent Contractor: Engineer is on independent contractor. The manner in which the services are performed shall he controlled by Engineer; however, the nature ofthe services and the results to be achieved shall be specified by the City. All services provided by the Engineer pursuant to this AGREEMENT shall be provided by the Engineer as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the City for any purpose, including but not limited to: income tax withholding, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, FICA taxes, and eligibility for employee benefits. 5.3 Insurance A. Engineer shall procure and maintain insurance for protection from claims against it under worker's compensation acts (statutory limits), claims for damages because ofbodily injury including personal injury, and from claims against it for damages because ofinjury to or destruction of property including loss of use resulting therefrom, B. Engineer shall also procure and maintain professional and commercial general liability insurance, and auto and excess insurance, for all damages arising out of the performance of services caused by an error, omission or negligent act for which Engineer is legally liable, C. Certificates of insurance wviU be provided to the City upon execution of the contract and thereafter upon request bythe City, FOCUS ENG|NEEIR|NG,|nc.-Agree mrnto*uwoenOwner and Engineer for Professional Services Page Scfe 5.4 Opinions ofCost A^ Engineer's opinions of probable project cost, construction cost, life cycle cost, alternative evaluations, and considerations for operations and maintenance costs are tobemade on the basis of Engineer's experience and qualifications and represent Engineer's best judgment as an experienced and qualified professional generally familiar with the construction industry, It is recognized, however, that Engineer has no control over the cost oflabor, materials, equipment, orservices furnished by others, or over contractors' methods of determining pr}ces, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, Engineer, therefore, cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual costs will not substantially vary from opinions of probable costs prepared by Engineer and submitted tothe City, 13. The services of Engineer with respect toTotal Project Costs shall be limited to assisting the Owner in collating the various -cost categories which comprise Total Project Costs. Engineer assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of any opinions of Total Project Costs. 55 Data Practices Act Compliance, Data provided hyEngineer orcreated under this AGREEMENT shall be administered in accordance with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. 5,6 Use of Documents A. All Documents prepared and submitted by Engineer are instruments of service and Engineer shall retain an ownership and property interest therein (including the copyright and the right of reuse at the discretion of the Engineer) whether or not the Project or Service is completed. The City shall not rely in any xvoy on any Document unless it is submitted bythe Engineer |nits final form. B. At the time of completion or termination of this AGREEMENT or for each "Authorization for Prnfeas|Vna|Service," Engineer shall make available to the City, upon request, copies of all deliverables, maps, reports, and correspondence, pertaining to the work or a Project described in an authorization. All such documents are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by the City or others on extensions of the work or Project or to any other pnoject. Any reuse without written verification or adaptation by Engineer for the specific purpose intended will be at the Ot/son|e risk and without liability o, |a0a| exposure to Engineer. In this regard, the City will indemnify and hold harmless Engineer from any and all suits or claims of third parties arising out of such reuse, which is not specifically verified, adapted, orauthorized bvEngineer, C. In the event electronic copies of documents are made available to the City, the Engineer makes no representations as to long-term compatibility, usability, or readability of such FOCUS ENGINEERING, Inc. ' Agreement Between own,and Engivverm,Professional Services Page 6nfe documents resulting from !the use of software application packages, operating systems, or computer hardware differing from those used by the documents' creator. 5.7 0am\8n without Construction Phase Services: The City acknowledges that it is customary for the Engineer who is responsible for the design of a Project to be employed to provide professional services during the Construction Phases of that Project. Therefore, the following provisions apply in the event that the City does not retain the Engineer for Construction Phase Services. The City waives all claims against the Engineer that may be connected in any way tn Construction Phase engineering or professional services except for those services that are expressly required nfEngineer onthe Project, 5.8 Conflict of Interest: The Engineer shall use best efforts in the performance of its services and professional obligations to avoid conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety in representation of the City. In the event of a conflict, the Engineer, with the consent of the City, shall arrange for suitable alternative engineering representation. It is the intent of the Engineer to refrain from handling engineering matters for any other person orentity that may pose aconflict ofinterest, ormay not beinthe best interests ofthe City, 5.9 Termination A. Either party may terminate this AGREEMENT upon thirty (30) days written notice. B. Either party has the right toterminate any "Authorization for Professional Semices" upon ten /1U>days' written notice, |naddition, the City may atany time, reduce the scope ofan "Authorization for Professional Services". Such reduction in scope of an authorization shall be set forth in a written notice from the City to the Engineer. C, In the event of o reduction in scope of an "Authorization for Professional Services," Engineer shall be paid for the work performed and expenses incurred on the authorization thus reduced and for any completed and abandoned work for which payment has not been made. D. In the event of termination of an "Authorization for Professional Services," copies Of all documents prepared by Engineer under the authorization Shall be mode available by Engineer to the City, pursuant tnARTICLE 5.5, and there shall be no further obligation of the City to Engineer under the authorization, except for payment of amounts due and owing for work performed and expenses 'incurred to the date and time of termination, plus expenses incurred by Engineer togather, compile, copy, and transmit all documents requested by the City. FOCUS ENG|NHIRING, Inc. -Agreement Between owner and Engineer for Professional Services Page 7 of 9 E, In like manner, if the entire AGREEMENT is terminated, copies of all remaining documents on file with the Engineer shall also, upon request, be made available tothe City pursuant to ARTICLE 5.6 upon receipt of payment of amounts due and nvv1nQ Engineer for any authorized work, plus expenses incurred by Engineer to gather, compile, copy, and transmit all documents requested bythe City. 5,10 Controlling Law: This AGREEMENT is to be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 5.11 Successors, Assigns, and Beneficiaries A. The City and Engineer are hereby bound and the successors, executors, administrators, assigns, and legal representatives of the City and Engineer are hereby bound to the other party hVthis AGREEMENT and tothe successors, executors, administrators, assigns and legal representatives of such other party, in respect ofall covenants, agreements, and obligations ofthis AGREEMENT, B. Neither the City nor Engineer may assign, sublet, or transfer any rights under or interest in this AGREEMENT, or any portion thereof, without the written consent of the other party. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall prevent Engineer from employing such Independent professional associates and consultants as Engineer may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of services hereunder. C. Nothing under this AGREEMENT shall be construed tngive any rights orbenefits in this AGREEMENTto anyone other than the City and Engineer. 5.12 Dispute Resolution A. The City and Engineer agree tn negotiate all disputes between them in good faith for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of notice prior to invoking other provisions of this AGREEMENT, orexercising their rights under law. B. The City and Engineer agree that all disputes between them arising out nfnrrelating 1othis AGREEMENT shall first besubmitted to non -binding mediation unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, thereby providing for mediation as the primary method for dispute resolution between the parties tothis AGREEMENT. 5.13 Notices: Any notice required under this AGREEMENT will be in writing, addressed to the appropriate party at its address on the signature page and given personally, by registered or certified mail postage prepaid, or by commercial courier service. All notices shall be effective upon the date ofreceipt. 5.14 Survival, Severabiiity, Waiver FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc, -Agreement Between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services Page nofy A. Survival: All express representations, waivers, indemnifications, and limitations of liability included in this AGREEMENT will survive its completion or termination for any reason, B. 3eAny provision or part of the AGREEMENT held to he void or unenforceable under any Laws orRegulations shall hedeemed stricken, and all remaining provisions shall continue tobevalid and binding upon the City and Engineer, C. Waiver: A pmrt/s non -enforcement of any provision shall not constitute a waiver of that provision, nor shall it affect the enforceability ofthat provision ornfthe remainder ofthis AGREEMENT. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the date first above written. FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc. CITY OFLAKE ELN1O\W1|NNESOTA By By John (Jack) W. Griffin, P,E. Mayor BY City Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this Subscribed and sworn to before me this clay of .2011. day of .2011. Notary Public Notary Public FOCUS ENG IN EER ING, Inc. -Agreement Between owner and Engineer for Profess Iona I services Page 9 of 9 CITY OF LAKE ELMO AYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: REGULAR ITEM #: RECOGNITION AGENDA ITEM: Recognition of James Sachs for over 30 Years of Service SUBMITTED BY: Fire Chief Greg Malmquist THROUGH: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator 11\., REVIEWED BY: Sharon Lumby, City Clerk 07/19/2011 11 SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to recognize James Sachs for over 30 years of service to the community and the Lake Elmo Fire Department. Fire Chief Malmquist will facilitate the Recognition and Presentation. BACKGROUND INFORMATION & STAFF REPORT: Firefighter James Sachs began his career on February 26th, 1980 and retired from the Lake Elmo FD on October 31, 2010 with over 30 years of service. Over the span of his career, Jim held the positions of Firefighter, Captain and Assistant Chief. He comes from a long line of Sachs on the FD, his father, brother, in laws and nephews have all served along side Jim during his career. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council is respectfully requested to recognize and assist in the presentation of an award to James Sachs for over 30 years of service to the community. ATTACHMENTS: None SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item Mayor Presentation, ...... . ..... ...... .......... ............... ....,........, .......... Fire Chief Public or Council Input, if Appropriate ......... ....... Mayor Facilitates -- page 1 — 4 ik CITY OF LAKE ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 07/19/2011 REGULAR ITEM IP 12 MOTION AGENDA ITEM: 2010 Audit Presentation SUBMITTED BY: Steve McDonald, Abdo, Eick & Meyer THROUGH: Bruce Messelt rbik REVIEWED BY: Tom Bouthilet & Joe Rigdon, KDV SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: The City has retained the services of Abdo, Eick & Meyers to audit the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information, which collectively comprise the basic financial statements of the City as of December 31, 2010. Enclosed is the 2010 Annual Financial Report with a management letter, The City Council is asked to review and accept the 2010 year end financial report. SUGGESTED "Move to Accept the 2010 Year End Financial Report" MOTION BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Annually, the City engages the services of an independent outside audit firm to review the financial statements. The accountants are asked to assure that the financials statements are free of material misstatement to the extent possible. They also review internal controls of the City. STAFF REPORT: Steve McDonald from Abdo, Eick & Meyers will present the report and respond to any inquiries. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above it is recommended that the City Council accept the 2010 year-end financials by undertaking the following action "Move to Accept the 2010 Year End Financial Repor4" -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting y %O^ RuditPresentation July 19th, 2011 Regular Agenda Item # 12 ATTACHMENTS: }. f\DzDzal Financial Report for the Year EDded7Ul0 2, Management Letter for the Year Ended 2010 SUGGESTED ORDER OF S.' Introduction 0fItem ................... Report/Presentation ............... Questions from Council t0 Staff Public Input, ifAppropriate .... Call for Motion ...,.......-.—. Discussion ................................ . ....... ._,.,,.,,,,.,,,,,,,City Administrator ......,S1ovo McDonald, Abdo, Ejck & Meyers .............................................. Mayor Facilitates .............................................. Mayor Facilitates ,,,,~.,... ..... ,,.,,,,.Mayor & City Council ............. ................................ Mayor Facilitates CITY OF LAKE ELMO LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY LJ L L ; L Li 1 CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MININESOTA ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT DECEMBER 31, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY SECTION Elected and Appointed Officials FINANCIAL SECTION Page No. Independent Auditor's Report 9 Management's Discussion and Analysis 13 Basic Financial Statements Government -wide Financial Statements Statement of Net Assets 27 Statement of Activities 28 Fund Financial Statements Governmental Funds Balance Sheet 32 Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet to the Statement of Net Assets 35 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances (Deficits) 36 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances (Deficits) to the Statement of Activities 38 General Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual 39 Proprietary Funds Statements of Net Assets 40 Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Assets 44 Statements of Cash Flows 46 Fiduciary Funds Statement of Fiduciary Net Assets 50 Notes to the Financial Statements 51 Required Supplementary Information Schedule of Funding Progress for the Postemployment Benefit Plan 79 Combining and Individual Fund Financial Statements and Schedules Nonmajor Governmental Funds Combining Balance Sheet 82 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances 83 Nonmaj or Special Revenue Funds Combining Balance Sheet 84 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances 85 Nonmaj or Capital Projects Funds Combining Balance Sheet 86 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances (Deficits) 88 Internal Service Funds Combining Statements of Net Assets 90 Combining Statements of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Net Assets 92 Combining Statements of Cash Flows 94 General Fund Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual 96 Debt Service Funds Combining Balance Sheet 100 Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances 102 Agency Funds Combining Schedule of Changes in Assets and Liabilities 104 -1- CIT OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED DECEMBER 31, 2010 Supplementary Information (Unaudited) Summary Financial Report Revenues and Expenditures for General Operations - Governmental Funds OTHER REPORTS Pao No. 107 Report on Minnesota Legal Compliance 111 L - L.. , -2- INTRODUCTORY SECTION CITY OF LAKE ELMO LAKE ELMO, MTNNESOTA FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY f r-1 r' L I t -4- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS DECEMBER 31, 2010 ELECTED Name Title Tenn Expires Dean Johnston Mayor 12/31/12 Anne Smith Council Member 12/31/12 Brett H. Emmons Council Member 12/31/12 Steve Delapp Council Member 12/31/10 Nicole Park Council Member 12/31/14 Name Bruce Messelt Tom Bouthilet APPOINTED Title City Administrator Finance Director/Treasurer -5- THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -6- FINANCIAL SECTION CITY OF LAKE ELMO LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY LJ L -8.. DO SICK Genii Public Accountants & Consul 520 I litlen Avenue Smile 250 Edina, MN 55436 jJP s INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota (the City), as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the City's management. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. The prior year comparative information has been derived from the City's 2009 financial statements and, in our report dated June 10, 2010, we expressed unqualified opinions on the respective proprietary fund financial statements. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of December 31, 2010, and the respective changes in financial position and cash flows, where applicable, thereof and the respective budgetary comparison for the General fund for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the Management's Discussion and Analysis on pages 13 through 23 and the Schedule of Funding Progress for the Postemployment Benefit Plan on page 79 be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management's responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. 952.835,9090 • Nix 952.835.3261 www.liclimptmcom -9- THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -10- Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the City's financial statements as a whole. The introductory section, combining and individual fund financial statements and schedules, and supplementary information are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the financial statements. The combining and individual fund financial statements and schedules are the responsibility of management and were derived from and relate directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the information is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the financial statements as a whole. The introductory section and supplementary information have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on them. 0,66fAot, iyytutwiLv June 7, 2011 ABDO, SICK & MEYERS, LLP Minneapolis, Minnesota Certified Public Accountants 952.835.9090 • Mix 952.835,3261 ww tv.acillepas.com -11- THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -12- Management's Discussion and Analysis As management of the City of Lake Elmo (the City), Minnesota, we offer readers of the City's financial statements this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, Financial Highlights • The assets of the City exceeded its liabilities at the close of the most recent fiscal year by $21,771,853 (net assets). Of this amount, $4,632,615 (unrestricted net assets) may be used to meet the City's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. The City's total net assets increased by $862,605. The increase can be attributed to both business -type and governmental activities. As of the close of the current fiscal year, the City's governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $6,795,517, an increase of $1,859,999 in comparison with the prior year. At the end of the current fiscal year, the unreserved fund balance for the General fund was $1,617,211, or 55.4 percent of the 2011 General fund budgeted expenditures and transfers out. The total General fund balance as of December 31, 2010 was $2,686,161, but reserves of $1,055,900 and $13,050 are related to the inter -fund loan with the Village Project fund and prepaid items, respectively. The City's total noncurrent liabilities increased $2,357,561 or 24.1 percent during the current fiscal year. The key factor of this increase was the issuance of the 2010A G.O. Improvement Bonds and 2010B G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Crossover Refunding Bonds. Overview of the Financial Statements This discussion and analysis is intended to serve as an introduction to the City's basic fmancial statements. The City's basic financial statements comprise three components: 1) government -wide financial statements, 2) fund financial statements, and 3) notes to the financial statements. This report also contains other supplemental information in addition to the basic financial statements themselves. -13- The financial statements also include notes that explain some of the information in the financial statements and provide more detailed data. The statements are followed by a section of combining and individual fund financial statements and schedules that further explains and supports the information in the financial statements. Figure 1 shows how the required parts of this annual report are arranged and relate to one another. In addition to these required elements, we have included a section with combining and individual fund financial statements and schedules that provide details about nonmajor governmental funds, which are added together and presented in single columns in the basic financial statements. Figure 1 Required Components of the City's Annual Financial Report Management's Discussion and Analysis Basic Financial Required Statements Supplementary Information Government -wide Financial Statements Summary Fund Notes to the Financial Financial Statements Statements Detail -14- Figure 2 summarizes the major features of the City's financial statements, including the portion of the City government they cover and the types of information they contain. The remainder of this overview section of management's discussion and analysis explains the structure and contents of each of the statements. Figure 2 Major features of the Government -wide and Fund Financial Statements Scope Government -wide Statements Entire City government (except fiduciary funds) and the City's component units Required financial a Statement of Net Assets statements Accounting Basis and measurement focus Type of asset/liability information Type of in flow/out flow information • Statement of Activities Accrual accounting and economic resources focus All assets and liabilities, both financial and capital, and short-telin and long-term All revenues and expenses during year, regardless of when cash is received or paid Fund Financial Statements Governmental Funds The activities of the City that are not proprietary or fiduciary, such as police, fire and parks a Balance Sheet a Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Modified accrual accounting and current financial resources focus Only assets expected to be used up and liabilities that come due during the year or soon thereafter; no capital assets included Revenues for which cash is received during or soon after the end of the year; expenditures when goods or services have been received and payment is due during the year or soon thereafter Proprietary Funds Activities the City operates similar to private businesses, such as the water and sewer system • Statements of Net Assets • Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Assets • Statements of Cash Flows Accrual accounting and economic resources focus Ail assets and liabilities, both financial and capital, and short-term and long-term All revenues and expenses during the year, regardless of when cash is received or paid Government -wide Financial Statements The government -wide financial statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of the City's finances, in a manner similar to a private -sector business, The statement of net assets presents information on all of the City's assets and liabilities, with the difference between the two reported as net assets. Over time, increases or decreases in net assets may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the City is improving or deteriorating. The statement of activities presents information showing how the City's net assets changed during the most recent fiscal year. All changes in net assets are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of related cashflows. Thus, revenues and expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future fiscal periods (e.g., uncollected taxes and earned but unused vacation leave). Both of the government -wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City that are principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenue (governmental activities) from other functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges (business -type activities). The governmental activities of the City include general government, public safety, public works, culture and recreation, and interest on long-term debt. The business -type activities of the City include water, sewer and storm sewer utilities. The government -wide financial statements start on page 27 of this report. -15- Fund Financial Statements Afund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City, like other State and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance -related legal requirements. All of the funds of the City can be divided into three categories: governmental funds, proprietary funds, and fiduciary funds. Governmental funds. The funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the government -wide financial statements. However, unlike the government -wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on near -term inflows and outflows of spendable resources, as well as on balances of spendable resources available at the end of the fiscal year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a city's near -term financing requirements. Because the focus ofgovernmental funds is narrower than that of the government -wide financial statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in the government -wide financial statements. By doing so, readers may better understand the long-term impact by the City's near -term financing decisions. Both the governmental fund balance sheet and the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental funds and governmental activities. The City maintains seventeen individual governmental fimds, five of which are Debt Service funds. information is presented separately in the governmental fund balance sheet and in the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances for the General fund, the Debt Service fund, the Village Project fund, and the 2010 Street Improvements fiind, all of which are considered to be major funds. Data from the other nine governmental funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation. Individual fund data for each of these nonmajor governmental funds is provided in the form of combining statements or schedules elsewhere in this report. The City adopts an annual appropriated budget for its General fund. A budgetary comparison statement has been provided for the General fund to demonstrate compliance with this budget. The basic governmental fund financial statements start on page 32 of this report. Proprietary funds. The City maintains two different types of proprietary funds. Enterprise funds are used to report the same functions presented as business -type activities in the government -wide financial statements. The City uses enterprise funds to account for its water, sewer and storm sewer utilities. Internal service funds are an accounting device used to accumulate and allocate costs internally among the City's various functions. The City uses internal service funds to account for the funding of equipment replacement for radios, IT, furniture, fixtures, and other equipment. Because these services predominantly benefit governmental rather than business -type functions, they have been included within governmental activities in the government -wide financial statements. Proprietary funds provide the same type of information as the government -wide financial statements, only in more detail, The proprietary fund financial statements provide separate information for the water, sewer, and storm sewer utility funds. The basic proprietary fund financial statements start on page 40 of this report. Fiduciary funds. Fiduciary funds are used to account for resources held for the benefit of parties outside the City. Fiduciary funds are not reflected in the government -wide financial statements because the resources of those funds are not available to support the City's own programs. The accounting used for fiduciary funds is much like that used for proprietary funds. The basic fiduciary fund financial statement can be found on page 50 of this report. Notes to the Financial Statements The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the govenunent-wide and fund financial statements. The notes to the fmancial statements start on page 51 of this report. Other Information The combining statements referred to earlier in connection with nomnajor governmental funds and internal service funds are presented following the notes to financial statements. Combining and individual fund financial statements and schedules start on page 82 of this report. -16- Government -wide Financial Analysis As noted earlier, net assets may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position. In the case of the City, assets exceeded liabilities $21,771,853 at the close of the most recent fiscal year. The largest portion of the City's net assets (69.3 percent) reflects its investment in capital assets (e.g., land, buildings, machinery and equipment); less any related debt used to acquire those assets that are still outstanding. The City uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Although the City's investment in its capital assets is reported net of related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities. An additional portion of the City's net assets (9.5 percent) represents resources that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be used. These restrictions are basically obligations for future debt service. The remaining balance of unrestricted net assets ($4,632,615) may be used to meet the City's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City is able to report positive balances in all three categories of net assets, both for the City as a whole, as well as for its separate governmental and business -type activities. Summary of Net Assets Governmental Activities Business -type Activities Increase Increase 2010 2009 (Decrease) 2010 2009 (Decrease) Assets Current and other assets $ 8,390,795 $ 5,992,288 $ 2,398,507 $ 1,274,094 $ 1,147,630 $ 126,464 Capital assets (net of accumulated depreciation) 13,651,257 12,867,731 783,526 11,385,473 11,350,804 34,669 Total assets 22,042,052 18,860,019 3,182,033 12,659,567 12,498,434 161,133 Liabilities Noncurrent liabilities outstanding 7,424,188 5,033,656 2,390,532 4,712,061 4,745,032 (32,971) Other liabilities 752,812 618,417 134,395 40,705 52,100 (11,395) Total liabilities 8,177,000 5,652,073 2,524,927 4,752,766 4,797,132 (44,366) Net assets Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 8,368,479 7,983,822 384,657 6,713,292 6,644,334 68,958 Restricted 2,057,467 1,399,968 657,499 Unrestricted 3,439,106 3,824,156 (385,050) 1,193,509 1,056,968 136,541 Total net assets $ 13,865,052 $ 13,207,946 657,106 $ 7,906,801 $ 7,701,302 205,499 -17- Governmental activities. Governmental activities increased the City's net assets $657,106 thereby accounting for 76.2 percent of the total growth in the net assets of the City. Key elements of this increase are as follows: Changes in Net Assets Governmental Activities Business -type Activities Increase Increase 2010 2009 (Decrease) 2010 2009 (Decrease) Revenues Program revenues Charges for services 352,763 292,868 59,895 796,518 673,983 122,535 Operating grants and contributions 168,491 174,433 (5,942) 32,721 30,100 2,621 Capital grants and contributions 1,090,419 798,687 291,732 418,400 776,473 (358,073) General revenues Taxes 2,711,067 2,718,691 (7,624) Grants and contributions not restricted to specific programs 9,771 8,764 1,007 .. Unrestricted investment earnings 113,989 160,679 (46,690) 11,129 15,343 (4,214) Gain on sale of capital assets - 8,517 (8,517) - Miscellaneous 17,311 41,827 (24,516) Total revenues 4,463,811 4,204,466 259,345 1,258,768 1,495,899 (237,131) Expenses Generalgovernment 980,456 971,677 8,779 - Public safety 1,171,158 1,125,464 45,694 . Public works 1,135,351 872,045 263,306 Culture and recreation 239,389 248,856 (9,467) - Interest on long-term debt 222,404 218,319 4,085 - - Water 898,319 857,014 41,305 Sewer 61,513 59,243 2,270 Storm sewer 151,384 140,365 11,019 Total expenses 3,748,758 3,436,361 312,397 1,111,216 1,056,622 54,594 Change in net assets before transfers 715,053 768,105 (53,052) 147,552 439,277 (291,725) Transfers - capital assets (7,947) (29,177) 21,230 7,947 29,177 (21,230) Transfers - internal activities (50,000) (100,000) 50,000 50,000 100,000 (50,000) Change in net assets 657,106 638,928 18,178 205,499 568,454 (362,955) Net assets, January 1 13,207,946 12,569,018 638,928 7,701,302 7,132,848 568,454 Net assets, December 31 $ 13,865,052 $ 13,207,946 657,106 $ 7,906,801 $ 7,701,302 205,499 -18- The following graph depicts various governmental activities and shows the revenue and expenses directly related to those activities. 51,200,000 $1,100,000 S1,000,000 $900,000 5800,000 5700,000 $600,000 $500,000 S400,000 5300,000 $200,000 $100,000 Expenses and Program Revenues - Governmental Activities General government Public safety Public works 0 Expenses Vi Program Revenues Culture and recreation Revenues by Source - Governmental Activities Investment earnings 2.6% Grants and contributions not restricted to specific programs 02% Property taxes 59.9% Other 1.2% Charges for services 7.9% Debt service Operating grants and contributions 3.8% Capital grants and contributions 24.4©% -19- Management Discussion and Analysis - Continued June 7, 2011 Business -type activities. Business -type activities increased the City's net assets by $205,499, accounting for 23.8 percent of the total growth of the City's net assets. Key elements of this increase are as follows: $900.000 $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 S400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 S- Expenses and Program Revenues - Business -type Activities Water Sewer Expenses n Program Revenues Revenues by Source - Business -type Activities Capitalgrants and contributions 3 3 .2 `)/0 Operating grants and contributions 2.6% Investment earnings 0.9% Storm sewer Charges for services 63.3% Financial Analysis of the Government's Funds As noted earlier, the City uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance -related legal requirements. Governmental funds, The focus of the City's governmental funds is to provide information on near-terin inflows, outflows and balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing the City's financing requirements. In particular, unreserved fund balance may serve as a useful measure of a government's net resources available for spending at the end of the fiscal year, Major funds Fund Balances (deficits) December 31 Increase 2010 2009 (Decrease) General $ 2,686,161 $ 2,435,810 $ 250,351 Revenues exceeded expenditures by $377,201; however, this excess of revenues over expenditures was offset by transfers out of $126,850 resulting in a $250,351 increase in fund balance. Debt Service $ 3,605,250 1,422,049 2,183,201 Fund balance increased $2,183,201 during 2010 due to transfers in and bonds issued. Village Project $ (1,146,241) $ (1,016,403) $ (129,838) The Village Project fund showed an operating decrease in fund balance of $129,838. The decrease was due to expenditures incurred on the Village project and interest on the advance from the General fund. 2010 Street Improvements 39,669 $ (19,037) $ 58,706 The 2010 Street Improvements fund has a fund balance of $39,669 due to bond proceeds exceeding the expenditures incurred during the year. Proprietary And. The City's proprietary fund provides the same type of information found in the government -wide financial statements, but in more detail. Unrestricted net assets of the enterprise funds at the end of the year amounted to $1,193,509. The total increase in net assets for the funds was $205,499. Other factors concerning the finances of this fund have already been addressed in the discussion of the City's business -type activities. General Fund Budgetary Highlights The City's General fund budget was not amended during the year. The budget called for no change in General fund balance. Actual net change to the General fund balance was an increase of $250,351. Actual revenues exceeded budgeted amounts and expenditures were under budget. Revenues were over budget by $142,798 mainly due to licenses and permits which were over budget by $103,690. Expenditures were under budget by $115,553 during the year. All departments were under budget, but the largest variances were provided by general government and culture and recreation which were under budget by $48,430 and $35,555, respectively. -21- Capital Asset and Debt Administration Capital Assets. The City's investment in capital assets for its governmental and business -type activities as of December 3 l, 2010, amounts to $25,036,730 (net of accumulated depreciation). This investment in capital assets includes land, structures, improvements, machinery and equipment, park facilities, and streets. Governmental activities increased governmental net capital assets by 6.1 percent while Business -type activities increased this figure by 0.3 percent. Major capital asset events during the current fiscal year included the following: Acceptance of the Farms of Lake Elmo development, approximately $761,000 from the developer and construction in progress. Completion of 42" Street Mill and Overlay project. 2010 street improvements of approximately $521,000. Improvements at Sunfish Lake park and City Hall as well as the purchase of a fire CV2 vehicle. Additional info nation on the City's capital assets can be found in Note 3C starting on page 62 of this report. Capital Assets Net of Depreciation Land Buildings Improvements other than buildings Machinery and equipment Infrastructure Construction in process Total 2010 $ 3,439,986 2,836,898 572,840 1,012,929 3,891,841 1,896,763 Governmental Activities Increase 2009 (Decrease) 2009 $ 3,388,035 2,820,398 623,171 1,072,823 3,719,527 1,243,777 $ 13,651,257 $ 12,867,731 $ 51,951 16,500 (50,331) (59,894) 172,314 652,986 2010 36,573 166,577 10,774,860 407,463 Business -type Activities 36,573 187,215 10,728,157 398,859 783,526 $ 11,385,473 $ 11,350,804 Increase (Decrease) (20,638) 46,703 8,604 34,669 Long-term debt. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City had total bonded debt outstanding of $11,990,000. While all of the City's bonds have revenue streams, they are all backed by the full faith and credit of the City. Other postemployment benefits payable Compensated absences payable Unamortized premium on bonds Bonds payable Outstanding Debt Governmental Activities Increase 2010 2009 (Decrease) 28,888 67,747 17,553 7,310,000 14,358 60,685 15,613 4,943,000 14,530 7,062 1,940 2,367,000 Business -type Activities Increase 2010 2009 (Decrease) 5,172 19,070 7,819 4,680,000 Total $ 7,424,188 $ 5,033,656 $ 2,390,532 $ 4,712,061 2,571 2,601 18,931 139 8,530 (711) 4,715,000 (35,000) $ 4,745,032 (32,971) The City's total bonds payable increased $2,332,000 during the current fiscal year, due to the issuance of bonds. The City bond rating was placed at "Aa2" from Moody's for its issuance of Bonds in 2010. Minnesota statutes limit the amount of net general obligation debt a City may issue to 3.0 percent of the market value of taxable property within the City. Net debt is debt payable solely from ad valorem taxes. The City is currently well within their limit. Additional information on the City's long-term debt can be found in Note 3E starting on page 65 of this report. -22- Economic Factors and Next Year's Budgets and Rates The City's taxable market value decreased by 0.6 percent from 2009 to 2010, and decreased 4.9 percent from 2010 to 2011. The City's net taxable tax capacity decreased by 1.3 percent from 2009 to 2010, and decreased 4.4 percent from 2010 to 2011. Plans are underway for serving the existing Village area with public infrastructure, and for the future Village area, including sewer, by 2030. The City accepted a Village Masterplan, which describes a vision of the future Village, in April, 2007. An extensive environmental review of several development scenarios for the Village project was completed. The City's comprehensive plan will be amended when a future development scenario is selected and a zoning code is developed to implement the plan. In addition, the City Council is working with a public financial advisor to determine what fiscal policies are necessary to implement the infrastructure and amenities called for in the plans. The costs of sewer are planned to be paid for by developers and future sewer users of the City's wastewater services. All of these factors were considered in preparing the City's budget for the 2011 fiscal year. Total property taxes levied for 2011 increased by 1.7 percent over property taxes levied for 2010. The City's tax capacity rate increased from 20.479 percent for 2010 property taxes to 21.826 percent for 2011 property taxes. Requests for Information This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the City's finances for all those with an interest in the City's finances. Questions concerning any of the information provided in this report or requests for additional financial information should be addressed to the City Finance Director, City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota, 55042, -23- THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTEN'l I ONALLY -24- GOVERNMENT -WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CITY OF LAKE ELMO LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 -25- THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -26- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS DECEMBER 31, 2010 ASSETS Cash and temporary investments Cash with fiscal agent Receivables: Current taxes Delinquent taxes Accrued interest Accounts Special assessments Due from other governments Prepaid items Deferred charges Capital assets Land and construction in progress Depreciable assets (net of accumulated deprec TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES Accounts payable Accrued salaries payable Accrued interest payable Due to other governments Deposits payable Noncurrent liabilities - due within one year: Compensated absences payable Bonds payable Noncurrent liabilities - due in more than one year: Other postemployment benefits payable Compensated absences payable Unamortized premium on bonds Bonds payable TOTAL LIABILITIES NET ASSETS Invested in capital assets, net of related debt Restricted for debt service Unrestricted TOTAL NET ASSETS Govermnental Activities Business -type Activities 4,423,257 $ 594,633 2,962,542 - 76,616 99,757 - 11,017 2,783 473,392 207,744 73,023 418,576 7,607 13,050 175,453 125,439 Total 5,017,890 2,962,542 76,616 99,757 11,017 476,175 280,767 426,183 13,050 300,892 5,336,749 444,036 5,780,785 8,314,508 10,941,437 19,255,945 22,042,052 12,659,567 34,701,619 272,367 19,520 34,142 2,583 71,775 15,908 299,528 2,694 75,000 13,549 3,814 344,000 40,000 291,887 36,725 87,683 302,222 75,000 17,363 384,000 28,888 5,172 34,060 54,198 15,256 69,454 17,553 7,819 25,372 6,966,000 4,640,000 11,606,000 8,177,000 4,752,766 12,929,766 8,368,479 6,713,292 2,057,467 3,439,106 1,193,509 3,865,052 15,081,771 2,057,467 4,632,615 7,906,801 $ 21,771,853 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement, -27- CITY {F LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 Program Revenues Operating Capital Charges for Grants and Grants and Functions/Programs Expenses Services Contributions Contributions Governmental activities General government $ 980,456 $ 18,296 $ $ 49,556 Public safety 1,171,158 320,242 40,153 - Public works 1,135,351 3,425 105,369 1,040,863 Culture and recreation 239,389 10,800 22,969 Interest on long-term debt 222,404 - Total governmental activities 3,748,758 352,763 168,491 1,090,419 Business -type activities Water 898,319 562,585 - 261,000 Sewer 61,513 48,508 .. 2,400 Storm sewer 151,384 185,425 32,721 155,000 Total business -type activities 1,111,216 796,518 32,721 418,400 Total $ 4,859,974 $ 1,149,281 $ 201,212 $ 1,508,819 General revenues Taxes Property taxes, levied for general purposes Property taxes, levied for debt service Franchise taxes Grants and contributions not restricted to specific programs Unrestricted investment earnings Miscellaneous Transfers - capital assets Transfers - internal activities Total general revenues and transfers Change in net assets Net assets, January 1 Net assets, December 31 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -28- Net (Expenses) Revenues and Changes in Net Assets Governmental Business -type Activities Activities Total (912,604) $ - $ (912,604) (810,763) - (810,763) 14,306 - 14,306 (205,620) (205,620) (222,404) - (222,404) (2,137,085) - (2,137,085) 2 (74,734) (74,734) (10,605) (10,605) 221,762 221,762 136,423 136,423 7,085) 136,423 (2,000,662) 2,345,626 327,716 37,725 9,771 113,989 17,311 (7,947) (50,000) 11,129 7,947 50,000 2,345,626 327,716 37,725 9,771 125,118 17,311 2,794,191 69,076 2,863,267 657,106 205,499 862,605 13,207,946 7,701,302 20,909,248 $ 13,865,052 $ 7,906,801 $ 21,771,853 -29- THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -30- FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CITY OF LAKE ELMO LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 -31- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA BALANCE SHEET GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS DECEMBER 31, 2010 101 413 Debt Village General Service Project ASSETS Cash and temporary investments 1,894,388 643,683 Cash with fiscal agent 2,962,542 Receivables: Current taxes 76,616 Delinquent taxes 99,757 Accrued interest 11,017 Accounts 2,783 Special assessments 93,992 Advance to other funds 1,055,900 Due from other governments 17,205 400,000 Due from other funds 88,129 Prepaid items 13,050 TOTAL ASSETS 3,256,062 4,103,000 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES (DEFICITS) LIABILITIES Accounts payable 136,687 3,758 26,923 Accrued salaries payable 34,142 Due to other governments 299,315 Due to other funds 63,418 Advance from other funds 1,055,900 Deposits payable Deferred revenue 99,757 493,992 TOTAL LIAI3ILITIES 569,901 497,750 1,146,241 FUND BALANCES (DEFICITS) Reserved for: Debt service 3,605,250 Prepaid items 13,050 Advance to other funds 1,055,900 Unreserved Designated, reported in: Capital projects funds Undesignated, reported in: General fund 1,617,211 Special revenue funds Capital projects funds (1,146,241) TOTAL FUND BALANCES (DEFICITS) 2,686,161 3,605,250 (1,146,241) TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES (DEFICITS) 3,256,062 4,1 ,000 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -32- 417 2010 Other Total Street Governmental Governmental Improvements Funds Funds $ 81,221 $ 1,756,231 $ 4,375,523 2,962,542 76,616 99,757 11,017 2,783 113,752 207,744 1,055,900 1,371 418,576 88,129 - 13,050 81,221 $ 1,871,354 $ 9,311,637 41,552 $ 47,741 $ 256,661 34,142 - 213 299,528 - 24,711 88,129 1,055,900 - 75,000 75,000 - 113,011 706,760 41,552 260,676 2,516,120 3,605,250 13,050 1,055,900 39,669 1,633,003 1,672,672 1,617,211 27,324 27,324 (49,649) (1,195,890) 39,669 1,610,678 6,795,517 81,221 $ 1,87 4 9 ,637 -33- THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -34- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA RECONCILIATION OF THE BALANCE SHEET TO THE STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Total fund balances - governmental funds 6,795,517 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of net assets are different because: Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and therefore are not reported as assets in governmental funds. Cost of capital assets 16,529,346 Less: accumulated depreciation (3,164,415) Noncurrent liabilities, including bonds payable, are not due and payable in the current period and therefore are not reported as liabilities in the funds. Noncurrent liabilities at year end consist of: Other postemployment benefits payable (28,888) Compensated absences payable (67,747) Bond principal payable (7,310,000) Less deferred charges, net of accumulated amortization 175,453 Add bond premium, net of accumulated amortization (17,553) Some receivables are not available soon enough to pay for the current period's expenditures, and therefore are deferred in the funds. Delinquent taxes receivable 99,757 Special assessments receivable 207,003 State contributions 400,000 Governmental funds do not report a liability for accrued interest until due and payable. (71,775) Internal service funds are used by management to charge the cost of services to individual funds. The assets and liabilities are included in the governmental statement of net assets. 318,354 Total net assets - governmental activities $ 13,865,052 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement, -35- CI Y OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES (DEFICITS) GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 REVENUES Taxes Licenses and permits Intergovernmental Charges for services Fines and forfeitures Special assessments Investment earnings Miscellaneous TOTAL REVENUES 101 413 Debt Village General Service Project 2,409,509 327,716 261,450 155,293 78,975 11,616 68,897 81,754 59,711 20,376 25,333 2,991,809 508,821 EXPENDITURES Current General government 921,590 Public safety 1,064,176 Public works 473,293 Culture and recreation 155,549 Capital outlay General govemment Public safety Public works 89,597 Culture and recreation Debt service Principal 313,000 Interest and other charges 176,820 40,000 Bond issuance costs 48,004 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,614,608 537,824 129,597 (241) (241) 4f 44I 444 EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 377,201 (29,003) (129,838) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers in 237,848 Bonds issued Refunding bonds issued 1,970,000 Premium on bonds issued 4,356 Transfers out (126,850) TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) (126,850) 2,212,204 NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES 250,351 2,183,201 (129,838) FUND BALANCES (DEFICITS), JANUARY 1 2,435,810 1,422,049 (1,016,403) FUND BALANCES (DEFICITS), DECEMBER 31 2,686,161 3,605,250 $ (1,146,241) The notes to the financial statements are and integral part of this statement. -36- L 417 2010 Other Total Street Governmental Governmental Improvements Funds Funds 2,737,225 261,450 4,976 239,244 10,800 22,416 - - 68,897 52,503 134,257 (1,735) 34,922 113,033 59,527 84,860 (1,735) 162,728 3,661,382 921,590 1,064,176 473,293 13,422 168,971 - 50,178 50,178 41,217 41,217 622,983 323,048 1,035,628 76,286 76,286 313,000 - 216,820 26,576 - 74,580 649,559 504,151 4,435,739 (651,294) (341,423) (774,357) 76,850 314,698 710,000 - 710,000 1,970,000 4,356 - (237,848) (364,698) 710,000 (160,998) 2,634,356 58,706 (502,421) 1,859,999 (19,037) 2,113,099 4,935,518 39,669 $ 1,610,678 $ 6,795,517 -37- CllY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES (DEFICITS) TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 Total net change in fund balances (deficits) - governmental funds 1,859,999 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of activities are different because: Capital outlays are reported in governmental funds as expenditures. However, in the statement of activities, the cost of those assets is allocated over the estimated useful lives as depreciation expense. Capital outlays Depreciation expense Revenues in the statement of activities that do not provide current financial resources are not reported as revenue in the funds. Capital assets contributed from developers Capital assets transferred to enterprise funds. 929,485 (529,062) 421,000 (7,947) The issuance of long-term debt provides current financial resources to governmental funds, while the repayment of principal of long-term debt consumes the current financial resources of governmental funds, Neither transaction, however, has any effect on net assets. Also, governmental funds report the effect of issuance costs, premiums, discounts, and similar items when debt is first issued, whereas these amount are deferred and amortized in the statement of activities. The amounts below are the effects of these differences in the treatment of long-term debt and related items, Debt issued (2,680,000) Less deferral of bond issuance costs 74,580 Add premium received on bonds issued (4,356) Principal repayments 313,000 Amortization of deferred charges (14,968) Interest on long-term debt in the statement of activities differs from the amount reported in the governmental funds because interest is recognized as an expenditure in the funds when it is due, and thus requires the use of current financial resources. In the statement of activities, however, interest expense is recognized as the interest accrues, regardless of when it is due. (5,584) Certain revenues are recognized as soon as they are earned. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, certain revenues cannot be recognized until they are available to liquidate liabilities of the current period. Special assessments 6,631 Property taxes (26,158) State contributions 400,000 Some expenses reported in the statement of activities do not require the use of current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds. Other postemployment benefits Compensated absences Internal service funds are used by management to charge certain costs to individual funds. The net revenue of certain activities of internal service funds is reported with governmental activities in the government -wide financial statements. (14,530) (7,063) (57,921) Change in net assets - governmental activities 657,106 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -38- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL GENERAL FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 REVENUES Taxes Licenses and permits Intergovernmental Charges for services Fines and forfeits Investment earnings Miscellaneous TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES Current General government Public safety Public works Culture and recreation TOTAL EXPENDITURES EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES OTHER FINANCING USES Transfers out NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES FUND BALANCES, JANUARY 1 FUND BALANCES, DECEMBER 31 Budgeted Amounts Original Final 2,392,853 157,760 163,768 5,500 52,000 60,000 17,130 2,849,011 Actual Amounts 2,392,853 $ 2,409,509 157,760 261,450 163,768 155,293 5,500 11,616 52,000 68,897 60,000 59,711 17,130 25,333 2,849,011 2,991,809 970,020 970,020 921,590 1,069,704 1,069,704 1,064,176 499,333 499,333 473,293 191,104 191,104 155,549 2,730,161 2,730,161 2,614,608 118,850 118,850 377,201 (118,850) (118,850) (126,850) 250,351 2,435,810 2,435,810 2,435,810 2,435,810 $ 2,435,810 $ 2,686,161 Variance with Final Budget 16,656 103,690 (8,475) 6,116 16,897 (289) 8,203 142,798 48,430 5,528 26,040 35,555 115,553 258,351 (8,000) 250,351 250,351 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -39- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA STATEMENTS OF NET ASSETS PROPRIETARY FUNDS DECEMBER 31, 2010 AND 2009 Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds 601 602 Water Sewer 2010 2009 2010 2009 ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS Cash and temporary investments 565,407 533,346 29,226 47,474 Receivables: Accounts 174,845 105,899 49,093 30,668 Special assessments 72,507 99,902 516 516 Due from other governments Due from other funds 56,226 80,154 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 868,985 819,301 78,835 78,658 NONCURRENT ASSETS Deferred charges 125,439 132,857 Capital assets Land 36,573 36,573 Machinery and equipment 282,860 282,860 - Infrastructure 11,745,589 11,542,659 346,607 346,607 Construction in progress 373,283 351,344 - - Less accumulated depreciation (1,835,300) (1,510,482) (169,190) (160,450) Total capital assets (net of accumulated depreciation) TOTAL NONCURRENT ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS 10,603,005 10,702,954 177,417 186,157 10,728,444 10,835,811 177,417 186,157 11,597,429 11,655,112 256,252 264,815 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -40- Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds - Continued Governmental Activities 603 701, 702, 703 Storm Sewer Totals Internal Service Funds 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 $ - 594,633 $ 580,820 $ 47,734 $ 60,000 249,454 196,968 473,392 333,535 73,023 100,418 - - 7,607 - 7,607 - 56,226 80,154 - - 257,061 196,968 1,204,881 1,094,927 47,734 60,000 125,439 132,857 36,573 36,573 - 282,860 282,860 560,729 552,371 595,833 423,952 12,688,029 12,313,218 - 34,180 47,515 407,463 398,859 18,512 (24,962) (9,774) (2,029,452) (1,680,706) (292,915) (236,096) 605,051 461,693 11,385,473 11,350,804 286,326 316,275 605,051 461,693 11,510,912 11,483,661 286,326 316,275 862,112 658,661 12,715,793 12,578,588 334,060 376,275 -41- C1TtY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA STATEMENTS OF NET ASSETS - CONTINUED PROPRIETARY FUNDS DECEMBER 31, 2010 AND 2009 Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds 601 602 Water Sewer 2010 2009 2010 2009 LIABILITIES CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts payable 12,788 10,823 2,545 1,616 Accrued salaries payable 1,589 1,292 355 274 Accrued interest payable 15,908 15,996 Due to other funds - - Due to other governments 2,176 18,418 - Current portion of compensated absences payable 2,282 2,232 459 460 Current portion of bonds payable 40,000 35,000 TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES 74,743 83,761 3,359 2,350 NONCURRENT LIABILITIES Other postemployment benefits payable 3,175 1,579 804 399 Compensated absences payable 9,129 8,926 1,836 1,840 Unamortized premium on bonds 7,819 8,530 - Bonds payable 4,640,000 4,680,000 TOTAL NONCURRENT LIABILITIES 4,660,123 4,699,035 2,640 2,239 TOTAL LIABILITIES 4,734,866 4,782,796 5,999 4,589 NET ASSETS Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 5,930,824 5,996,484 177,417 186,157 Unrestricted 931,739 875,832 72,836 74,069 TOTAL NET ASSETS 6,862,563 6,872,316 250,253 260,226 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -42- Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds - Continued Governmental Activities 603 701, 702, 703 Storm Sewer Totals Internal Service Funds 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 4,187 $ 2,685 $ 19,520 $ 15,124 639 496 2,583 2,062 - 15,908 15,996 56,226 80,154 56,226 80,154 518 500 2,694 18,918 1,073 1,095 3,814 3,787 - - 40,000 35,000 62,643 84,930 140,745 171,041 1,193- 593 5,172 2,571 4,291 4,378 15,256 15,144 - 7,819 8,530 - 4,640,000 4,680,000 5,484 4,971 4,668,247 4,706,245 68,127 89,901 4,808,992 4,877,286 15,706 15,706 15,706 605,051 461,693 6,713,292 6,644,334 286,326 316,275 188,934 107,067 1,193,509 1,056,968 32,028 60,000 793,985 $ 568,760 $ 7,906,801 $ 7,701,302 $ 318,354 $ 376,275 -43- C1'1'Y OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA STATEMENTS OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS PROPRIETARY FUNDS FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 AND 2009 Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds 601 602 Water Sewer 2010 2009 2010 2009 OPERATING REVENUES Charges for services $ 506,238 $ 429,235 $ 48,508 $ 45,146 Water meter sales 11,121 8,020 - TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 517,359 437,255 48,508 45,146 OPERATING EXPENSES Personnel services 102,711 99,319 22,996 22,350 Supplies 95,164 16,655 - Professional services 37,991 54,756 12,032 11,007 Repair and maintenance 11,550 23,966 12 1,806 Insurance 9,710 9,143 - - Utilities 117,801 125,103 17,733 15,341 Depreciation 324,818 312,351 8,740 8,739 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 699,745 641,293 61,513 59,243 OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) (182,386) (204,038) (13,005) (14,097) NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) Investment earnings 10,580 17,056 632 1,535 Connection fees 78,000 55,925 2,400 1,548 Rents 45,226 42,175 - Miscellaneous - 30,100 - Amortization of deferred charges (7,418) (7,418) - Interest expense (191,156) (208,303) - - TOTAL NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) (64,768) (70,465) 3,032 3,083 INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE TRANSFERS AND CONTRIBUTI( (247,154) (274,503) (9,973) (11,014) TRANSFERS IN 50,000 - - - CAPITAL CONTRIBUTED FROM DEVELOPERS 183,000 394,000 - CAPITAL CONTRIBUTED FROM OTHER FUNDS 4,401 17,553 - - CI-IANGE IN NET ASSETS (9,753) 137,050 (9,973) (11,014) NET ASSETS, JANUARY 1 6,872,316 6,735,266 260,226 271,240 NET ASSETS, DECEMBER 31 $ 6,862,563 $ 6,872,316 $ 250,253 $ 260,226 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -44- Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds - Continued Governmental Activities 603 701, 702, 703 Storm Sewer Totals Internal Service Funds 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 185,425 $ 149,347 $ 740,171 $ 623,728 - 11,121 8,020 185,425 149,347 751,292 631,748 39,855 38,410 165,562 160,079 - 20,752 10,153 115,916 26,808 41,940 85,217 91,963 150,980 - 33,649 - 45,211 25,772 2,058 9,710 9,143 - - 135,534 140,444 15,188 6,585 348,746 327,675 56,819 151,384 140,365 912,642 840,901 58,877 34,041 8,982 (161,350) (209,153) (58,877) (83) (3,248) 11,129 15,343 80,400 57,473 - 45,226 42,175 32,721 60 32,721 30,160 - - (7,418) (7,418) (191,156) (208,303) 956 32,638 (3,188) (29,098) (70,570) 956 66,679 5,794 (190,448) (279,723) (57,921) 100,000 50,000 100,000 - 60,000 155,000 325,000 338,000 719,000 - - 3,546 11,624 7,947 29,177 - 316,275 225,225 442,418 205,499 568,454 (57,921) 376,275 568,760 126,342 7,701,302 7,132,848 376,275 - 793,985 $ 568,760 $ 7,906,801 $ 7,701,302 $ 318,354 $ 376,275 -45- CI"i Y OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS PROPRIETARY FUNDS FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 AND 2009 Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds 601 602 Water Sewer 2010 2009 2010 2009 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Receipts from customers and users $ 475,808 $ 421,164 $ 30,083 $ 25,096 Other income related to operating activities 45,226 72,275 - Payments to suppliers (290,641) (216,377) (28,848) (30,659) Payments to employees (100,565) (97,338) (22,515) (21,796) NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES 129,828 179,724 (21,280) (27,359) CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES (Increase) decrease in due from other funds 23,928 (32,704) Increase (decrease) in due to other funds - Transfers from other funds 50,000 NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) 13Y NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES 73,928 (32,704) CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Acquisition of capital assets (33,320) (19,247) - - Connection fees received 78,000 55,925 2,400 1,548 Proceeds of long-term debt, net of issuance costs and bond premiums - 509,433 - - Principal paid on long-term debt (35,000) (530,000) - - Interest paid on long-term debt (191,955) (209,666) - - NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES (182,275) (193,555) 2,400 1,548 CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Interest received on investments 10,580 17,056 632 1,535 NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS 32,061 (29,479) (18,248) (24,276) CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS (DEFICITS), JANUARY 1 533,346 562,825 47,474 71,750 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, DECEMBER 31 $ 565,407 $ 533,346 $ 29,226 $ 47,474 The notes to the financial statements are an integr of this statement. -46- Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds - Continued Governmental Activities 603 701, 702, 703 Storm Sewer Totals Internal Service Funds 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 125,332 $ 99,942 $ 631,223 $ 546,202 $ - 32,721 60 77,947 72,335 (94,821) (103,299) (414,310) (350,335) (2,058) (39,221) (37,547) (162,301) (156,681) 24,011 (40,844) 132,559 111,521 (2,058) 4,458 23,928 (28,246) - - (23,928) 80,154 (23,928) 80,154 - 100,000 50,000 100,000 60,000 (23,928) 184,612 50,000 151,908 60,000 (33,320) (19,247) (11,164) 80,400 57,473 509,433 - (35,000) (530,000) - (191,955) (209,666) - (179,875) (192,007) (11,164) (83) (3,248) 11,129 15,343 956 - 140,520 13,813 86,765 (12,266) 60,000 (140,520) 580,820 494,055 60,000 - - $ - $ 594,633 $ 580,820 $ 47,734 $ 60,000 -47- CflY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS - CONTINUED PROPRIETARY FUNDS FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 AND 2009 Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds 601 602 Water Sewer 2010 2009 2010 2009 RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) TO NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES Operating income (loss) (182,386) (204,038) (13,005) (14,097) Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash provided (used) by operating activities Depreciation 324,818 312,351 8,740 8,739 Other income related to operations 45,226 72,275 (Increase) decrease in assets: Accounts receivable (68,946) (25,573) (18,425) (20,103) Special assessments 27,395 9,482 53 Due from other governments Increase (decrease) in liabilities: Accounts payable (2,183) (1,961) 929 (2,396) Accrued salaries payable 297 310 81 54 Due to other governments (16,242) 15,207 (109) Other postemployment benefits payable 1,596 1,579 405 399 Compensated absences payable 253 92 (5) 101 NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES 129,828 179,724 (21,280) (27,359) SCHEDULE OF NONCASH CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Capital contributions $ 187,401 $ 411,553 $ $ Capital assets purchased on account $ 4,148 $ $ $ Amortization of deferred charges $ 7,418 $ 7,418 $ $ Amortization of bond premium $ 711 $ 710 $ $ The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -48- Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds - Continued Governmental Activities 603 701, 702, 703 Storm Sewer Total Internal Service Funds 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 34,041 $ 8,982 $ (161,350) $ (209,153) $ (58,877) 15,188 6,585 348,746 327,675 32,721 60 77,947 72,335 (52,486) (49,405) (139,857) (95,081) 27,395 9,535 (7,607) - (7,607) - 1,502 (8,320) 248 (12,677) 143 105 521 469 18 391 (16,224) 15,489 600 593 2,601 2,571 (109) 165 139 358 24,011 $ (40,844) $ 132,559 $ 111,521 56,819 (2,058) $ 158,546 $ 336,624 $ 345,947 $ 748,177 $ $ 316,275 $ $ - $ 4,148 $ - $ 15,706 $ - $ - $ - $ 7,418 $ 7,418 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 711 $ 710 $ $ - -49- CJT2 OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF FIDUCIARY NET ASSETS FIDUCIARY FUNDS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Agency Funds ASSETS Cash and temporary investments $ 315,394 LIABILITIES Accounts payable Deposits payable 13,622 301,772 TOTAL LIABILITIES 315,394 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. -50- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES A. Reporting entity The City of Lake Elmo (the City), Minnesota, operates wider "Optional Plan A" as defined in the State of Minnesota statutes. The City is governed by an elected Mayor and a four -member Council. The Council exercises legislative authority and determines all matters of policy. The Council appoints personnel responsible for the proper administration of all affairs relating to the City. The City has considered all potential units for which it is financially accountable, and other organizations for which the nature and significance of their relationship with the City are such that exclusion would cause the City's financial statements to be misleading or incomplete. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) has set forth criteria to be considered in determining financial accountability. These criteria include appointing a voting majority of an organization's governing body, and (1) the ability of the primary government to impose its will on that organization or (2) the potential for the organization to provide specific benefits to, or impose specific financial burdens on the primary government. The City has no component units. B. Government -wide and fund financial statements The government -wide financial statements (i.e., the statement of net assets and the statement of activities) report information on all of the nonfiduciary activities of the City. Governmental activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, axe reported separately from business-(ype activities, which rely to a significant extent on fees and charges for support. The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function or segment are offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or segment. Program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function or segment and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or segment. Taxes and other items not properly included among program revenues are reported instead as general revenues. Separate financial statements are provided for governmental and proprietary funds and fiduciary funds, even though the latter are excluded from the government -wide financial statements. Major individual governmental funds and major individual enterprise funds are reported as separate columns in the fund financial statements. C. Measurement focus, basis of accounting, and financial statement presentation The government -wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting, as are the proprietary fund and fiduciary fund financial statements. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenues in the year for which they are levied. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the City considers revenues to be available if they are collected within 60 days of the end of the current fiscal period. Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. However, debt service expenditures, as well as expenditures related to compensated absences and claims and judgments, are recorded only when payment is due. -51- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED Property taxes, franchise taxes, license and interest associated with the current fiscal period are all considered to be susceptible to accrual and so have been recognized as revenues of the current fiscal period. Only the portion of special assessments receivable due within the current fiscal period is considered to be susceptible to accrual as revenue of the current period. All other revenue items are considered to be measurable and available only when cash is received by the City. Revenue resulting from exchange transactions, in which each party gives and receives essentially equal value, is recorded on the accrual basis when the exchange takes place. On a modified accrual basis, revenue is recorded in the year in which the resources are measurable and become available. Non -exchange transactions, in which the City receives value without directly giving equal value in return, include property taxes, grants, entitlement and donations. On an accrual basis, revenue from property taxes is recognized in the year for which the tax is levied. Revenue from grants, entitlements and donations is recognized in the year in which all eligibility requirements have been satisfied. Eligibility requirements include timing requirements, which specify the year when the resources are required to be used or the year when use is first peiniitted, matching requirements, in which the City must provide local resources to be used for a specified purpose, and expenditure requirements, in which the resources are provided to the City on a reimbursement basis. On a modified accrual basis, revenue from non -exchange transactions must also be available before it can be recognized, Deferred revenue arises when assets are recognized before revenue recognition criteria have been satisfied. Grants and entitlements received before eligibility requirements are met are also recorded as deferred revenue. On the modified accrual basis, receivables that will not be collected within the available period have also been reported as deferred revenue in the fund financial statements. The preparation of financial statements in confonnity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates. The City reports the following major governmental funds: The General fund is the government's primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of the City, except those required to be accounted for in another fund. The Debt Service fund accounts for the resources accumulated and payments made for principal and interest on long-term general obligation debt of governmental funds. The Village Projectfund accounts for engineering, planning and financing of the village area developments and redevelopments. The 2010 Street Improvements fiind accounts for the accumulation of resources and costs associated with the 2010 Street Improvement project. The City reports the following major proprietary funds: The Water fund accounts for the activities of the City's water distribution operations. The Sewer fund accounts costs associated with the City's sewer system. The Storm Sewer fund accounts costs associated with the City's storm sewer system, which are financed by the stoini sewer surcharge. -52- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO TIIE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED Additionally, the City reports the following fund types: Internal service funds are used to account for the replacement of radios, Information Technology (IT), and Furniture, Fixture, and Equipment (FFE) expenses of the governmental activities. Internal service funds operate in a manner similar to enterprise funds; however, they accumulate funding primarily from other departments within the City on a cost reimbursement basis. Fiduciary funds account for assets held by the City in a trustee capacity or as an agent on behalf of others. The agency funds are custodial in nature and do not present results of operations or have a measurement focus. Agency funds are accounted for using the modified accrual basis of accounting. These funds are used to account for assets that the City holds for others in an agency capacity. Private -sector standards of accounting and financial reporting issued prior to December 1, 1989, generally are followed in both the government -wide and proprietary fund financial statements to the extent that those standards do not conflict with or contradict guidance of GASB, Governments also have the option of following subsequent private -sector guidance for their business -type activities and enterprise funds, subject to this same limitation. The City has elected not to follow subsequent private -sector guidance. As a general rule the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from government -wide financial statements. Amounts reported as program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants for goods, services, or privileges provided, 2) operating grants and contributions, and 3) capital grants and contributions, including special assessments. Internally dedicated resources are reported as general revenues rather than as program revenues. Likewise, general revenues include all taxes. Proprietary funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating items. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in connection with a proprietary fund's principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenues of the City's enterprise fiinds are charges to customers for sales and services. Operating expenses for enterprise funds include the cost of sales and services, administrative expenses and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City's policy to use restricted resources first, then unrestricted resources as they are needed, -53- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED D. Assets, liabilities, and net assets or equity Deposits and investments The City's cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on hand, demand deposits and short-term investments with original maturities of three months or less from the date of acquisition. Cash balances from all funds are pooled and invested, to the extent available, in certificates of deposit and other authorized investments. Earnings from such investments are allocated on the basis of applicable participation by each of the funds. The City may also invest idle funds as authorized by Minnesota statutes, as follows: 1. Direct obligations or obligations guaranteed by the United States or its agencies. 2. Shares of investment companies registered under the Federal Investment Company Act of 1940 and received the highest credit rating, rated in one of the two highest rating categories by a statistical rating agency, and have a final maturity of thirteen months or less. 3. General obligations of a state or local government with taxing powers rated "A" or better; revenue obligations rated "AA" or better. 4. General obligations of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency rated "A" or better. 5. Bankers' acceptances of United States banks eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System. 6. Commercial paper issued by United States banks corporations or their Canadian subsidiaries, of highest quality category by at least two nationally recognized rating agencies, and maturing in 270 days or less. 7. Repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements and securities lending agreements with financial institutions qualified as a "depository" by the government entity, with banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System with capitalization exceeding $10,000,000, a primary reporting dealer in U.S. government securities to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, or certain Minnesota securities broker -dealers. 8. Guaranteed investment contracts (GIC' s) issued or guaranteed by a United States commercial bank, a domestic branch of a foreign bank, a United States insurance company, or its Canadian subsidiary, whose similar debt obligations were rated in one of the top two rating categories by a nationally recognized rating agency. Investments for the City are reported at fair value. The broker money market investment pool operates in accordance with appropriate State laws and regulations. The reported value of the pool is the same as the fair value of the pool share. -54- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED Property taxes The Council annually adopts a tax levy in December and certifies it to the County for collection the following year. The County is responsible for collecting all property taxes for the City. These taxes attach an enforceable lien on taxable property within the City on January 1 and are payable by the property owners in two instalhnents. The taxes are collected by the County Treasurer and tax settlements are made to the City during January, July and December each year. Taxes payable on homestead property, as defined by Minnesota statutes, were partially reduced by a market value credit aid. The credit is paid to the City by the State in lieu of taxes levied against the homestead property. The State remits this credit in two equal installments in October and December each year. Delinquent taxes receivable include the past six years' uncollected taxes. Delinquent taxes have been offset by a deferred revenue liability for taxes not received within 60 days after year end in the fund financial statements. Accounts receivable Accounts receivable include amounts billed for services provided before year end. Unbilled utility enterprise fund receivables are also included for services provided in 2010. The City annually certifies delinquent water and sewer accounts to the County for collection in the following year. Therefore, there has been no allowance for doubtful accounts established. Special assessments Special assessments represent the financing for public improvements paid for by benefiting property owners. These assessments are recorded as receivable upon certification to the County. Special assessments are recognized as revenue when they are received in cash or within 60 days after year end. All governmental special assessments receivable are offset by a deferred revenue liability in the fund financial statements. Interfund receivables and payables Activity between funds that are representative of lending/borrowing arrangements outstanding at the end of the fiscal year are referred to as either "due to/from other funds" (i.e., the current portion of interfund loans) or "advances to/from other funds" (i.e., the non -current portion of interfund loans). All other outstanding balances between funds are reported as "due to/from other funds." Any residual balances outstanding between the governmental activities and business -type activities are reported in the government -wide financial statements as "internal balances." Advances between funds, as reported in the fund financial statements, are offset by a fund balance reserve account in applicable governmental funds to indicate that they are not available for appropriation and are not expendable available financial resources. Prepaid items Certain payments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future accounting periods and are recorded as prepaid items in both government -wide and fund financial statements. -55- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED Capital assets Capital assets, which include property, plant, equipment, and infrastructure assets (e.g., roads, bridges, sidewalks, and similar items) are reported in the applicable governmental or business -type activities columns in the government -wide financial statements. Capital assets are defined by the City as assets with an initial, individual cost of more than $5,000 (amount not rounded) and an estimated useful life in excess of three years. Donated capital assets are recorded at estimated fair market value at the date of donation. In the case of the initial capitalization of general infrastructure assets (i.e., those reported by governmental activities) the City chose to include all such items regardless of their acquisition date or amount. The City was able to estimate the historical cost for the initial reporting of these assets through backtrending (i.e., estimating the current replacement cost of the infrastructure to be capitalized and using an appropriate price -level index to deflate the cost to the acquisition year). As the City constructs or acquires additional capital assets each period, including infrastructure assets, they are capitalized and reported at historical cost. The reported value excludes normal maintenance and repairs which are essentially amounts spent in relation to capital assets that do not increase the capacity or efficiency of the item or extend its useful life beyond the original estimate. Interest incurred during the construction phase of capital assets of business -type activities is included as part of the capitalized value of the assets constructed. Property, plant and equipment of the City are depreciated using the straight-line method over the following estimated useful lives: Assets Useful Lives in Years Buildings and improvements 10 - 40 Improvements other than buildings 15 - 30 Machinery and equipment 3 - 15 Infrastructure 20 - 60 Compensated absences It is the City's policy to permit employees to accumulate a limited amount of earned but unused personal time off. An employee leaving the service of the City in good standing will be compensated 100 percent for personal time off accrued, not to exceed 240 hours, to the day of separation provided the said employee has served at least twelve consecutive months prior to separation and has given the City at least two weeks notice prior to the effective date of such separation. In govermnental fund types, the cost of these benefits is recognized when payments are made to the employees. The General fund normally liquidates liabilities for governmental compensated absences, while the enterprise funds normally liquidate liabilities for business -type compensated absences. -56- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED Postemployment benefits other than pensions Under Minnesota statute 471.61, subdivision 2b., public employers must allow retirees and their dependents to continue coverage indefinitely in an employer -sponsored health care plan, under the following conditions: 1) Retirees must be receiving (or eligible to receive) an annuity from a Minnesota public pension plan, 2) Coverage must continue in group plan until age 65, and retirees must pay no more than the group premium, and 3) Retirees may obtain dependent coverage immediately before retirement. All premiums are funded on a pay-as-you-go basis. The liability was determined using the alternative measurement method, in accordance with GASB Statement 45, at January 1, 2009. Long-term obligations In the government -wide fmancial statements and proprietary fund types in the fund financial statements, long-term debt and other long-term obligations are reported as liabilities in the applicable governmental activities, business - type activities, or proprietary fund type statement of net assets. Bond premiums and discounts, as well as issuance costs, are deferred and amortized over the life of the bonds using the straight-line method. In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types recognize bond premiums and discounts, as well as bond issuance costs, during the current period. The face amount of debt issued is reported as other financing sources. Premiums received on debt issuances are reported as other financing sources while discounts on debt issuances are reported as other fmancing uses. Issuance costs, whether or not withheld from the actual debt proceeds received, are reported as debt service expenditures. Fund equity In the fund financial statements, governmental funds report reservations of fund balance for amounts that are not available for appropriation or are legally restricted by outside parties for use for a specific purpose. Designations of fund balance represent tentative management plans that are subject to change. Net assets In the government -wide and proprietary fund financial statements, net assets represent the difference between assets and liabilities. Net assets are displayed in three components: a. Invested in capital assets, net of related debt - Consists of capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation reduced by any outstanding debt attributable to acquire capital assets. b. Restricted net assets - Consist of net assets restricted when there are limitations imposed on their use through external restrictions imposed by creditors, grantors, laws or regulations of other govermnents. c. Unrestricted net assets - All other net assets that do not meet the definition of "restricted" or "invested in capital assets, net of related debt". Comparative datereelassifications Comparative total data for the prior year have been presented only for the individual enterprise funds in the fund fmancial statements in order to provide an understanding of the changes in the fmancial position and operations of these funds. Also, certain amounts presented in the prior year have been reclassified in order to be consistent with the current year's presentation. -57- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 2: STEWARDSHIP, COMPLIANCE, AND ACCOUNTABILITY A. Budgetary information Annual budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for the General fund. All annual appropriations lapse at fiscal year end. The City does not use encumbrance accounting. In August of each year, all departments of the City submit requests for appropriations to the City Administrator so that a budget may be prepared. Before September 15th, the proposed budget is presented to the Council for review. The Council adopts a preliminary maximum budget, Truth -in -taxation notices are mailed out to residents by Washington County. The Council holds public hearings and adopts a budget and tax levy in December. The appropriated budget is prepared by fund, function and departinent. The City's department heads may make transfers of appropriations within a department. Transfers of appropriations between departments require the approval of the Council. The legal level of budgetary control (i.e., the level at which expenditures may not legally exceed appropriations) is the department level. Budgeted amounts are as originally adopted, or as amended by the Council. No budget amendments were made during 2010, B. Deficit fund equity The following funds had deficits at December 31, 2010: Fund Maj or Village Project Nonmaj or Manning Avenue / Highway 36 2011 Street Improvements Amount $ 1,146,241 7,701 41,948 The City plans to eliminate the deficits through future taxes, assessments, transfers and other revenue collections. -58- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS A. Deposits and investments Deposits Custodial credit risk for deposits and investments is the risk that in the event of a bank failure, the City's deposits and investments may not be returned or the City will not be able to recover collateral securities in the possession of an outside party. In accordance with Minnesota statutes and as authorized by the Council, the City maintains deposits at those depository banks, all of which are members of the Federal Reserve System. Minnesota statutes require that all City deposits be protected by insurance, surety bond or collateral. The market value of collateral pledged must equal 110 percent of the deposits not covered by insurance or bonds. Authorized collateral in lieu of a corporate surety bond includes: United States government Treasury bills, Treasury notes, Treasury bonds; Issues of United States government agencies and instrumentalities as quoted by a recognized industry quotation service available to the government entity; General obligation securities of any state or local government with taxing powers which is rated "A" or better by a national bond rating service, or revenue obligation securities of any state or local government with taxing powers which is rated "AA" or better by a national bond rating service; General obligation securities of a local government with taxing powers may be pledged as collateral against funds deposited by that same local government entity; Irrevocable standby letters of credit issued by Federal Home Loan Banks to a municipality accompanied by written evidence that the bank's public debt is rated "AA" or better by Moody's Investors Service, Inc., or Standard & Poor's Corporation; and Time deposits that are fully insured by any federal agency. Minnesota statutes require that all collateral shall be placed in safekeeping in a restricted account at a Federal Reserve Bank, or in an account at a trust department of a commercial bank or other financial institution that is not owned or controlled by the financial institution furnishing the collateral. The selection should be approved by the City. At year end, the City's carrying amount of deposits was $1,483,489 and the bank balance was $1,485,998. Of the bank balance, $423,964 was covered by federal depository insurance. The remaining balance was covered by collateral held in the City's name. -59- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS - CONTINUED Investments Investments are carried at fair value, Investment and dividend income are recognized as revenue when earned. At year end, the City's investment balances were as follows: Type of Investment Pooled investments Brokered money markets Fair Value Credit Segmented and Quality/ Time Carrying Ratings (1) Distribution (2) Amount N/A Less than 6 months 462,258 Non -pooled investments Brokered certificates of deposit N/A Less than 6 months 485,902 Brokered certificates of deposit N/A 6 months to 1 year 297,167 Brokered certificates of deposit N/A 1 to 3 years 392,638 Brokered certificates of deposit N/A More than 3 years 100,456 U,S. Treasuries AAA 6 months to 1 year 26,132 U.S. Treasuries AAA 1 to 3 years 2,899,379 Municipal bonds AAA Less than 6 months 755,091 Municipal bonds AA2 Less than 6 months 151,112 Municipal bonds AA2 1 to 3 years 464,136 U,S. Government Agencies AAA More than 3 years 777,816 Total investments $ 6,812.087 (1) Ratings are provided by various credit rating agencies where applicable to indicate associated credit risk. (2) Interest rate risk is disclosed using the segmented time distribution method. N/A Indicates not applicable or available. The investments of the City are subject to the following risks: Credit Risk. Credit risk for investments is the risk that an issuer or other counterparty to an investment will not fulfill its obligations. Ratings are provided by various credit rating agencies and where applicable, indicate associated credit risk. Minnesota Statutes limit the City's investments to the list on page 54 of the notes. Custodial Credit Risk. The custodial credit risk for investments is the risk that, in the event of the failure of the counterparty to a transaction, a government will not be able to recover the value of investment or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. Concentration of Credit Risk. The concentration of credit risk is the risk of loss attributed to the magnitude of a government's investment in a single issuer. The City places no limit on the amount that may be invested in any one issuer. • Interest rate risk. The interest rate risk for investments is the risk that changes in interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an investment. The City does not currently have a formal investment policy that addresses the above mentioned risks. -60- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS - CONTINUED A reconciliation of cash and temporary investments as shown on the Statement of Net Assets for the City follows: Carrying amount of deposits $ 1,483,489 Investments 6,812,087 Petty cash 250 Total 8,295,826 Government -wide Cash and temporary investments 5,017,890 Cash with fiscal agent 2,962,542 Fiduciary Cash and temporary investments 315,394 Total 8,295,826 B. Deferred revenue Governmental funds report deferred revenue in connection with receivables for revenues that are not considered to be available to liquidate liabilities of the current period. Governmental funds also defer revenue recognition in connection with resources that have been received, but not yet earned, At the end of the current fiscal year, the various components of deferred revenue reported in the governmental funds were as follows: Fund Unavailable General Delinquent taxes receivable Debt Service Special assessments receivable Due from other governments - state contributions Nonmaj or governmental Special assessments receivable $ 99,757 93,992 400,000 113,011 Total 706,760 -61- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS - CONTINUED C. Capital assets Capital asset activity for the governmental activities for year ended December 31, 2010 was as follows: Governmental activities Capital assets not being depreciated Land Construction in progress Total capital assets not being depreciated Capital assets, being depreciated Buildings Improvements other than buildings Machinery and equipment Infrastructure Total capital assets being depreciated Less accumulated depreciation for Buildings Improvements other than buildings Machinery and equipment Infrastructure Total accumulated depreciation Total capital assets being depreciated, net Governmental activities capital assets, net Beginning Balance Increases Decreases Ending Balance $ 3,388,035 $ 51,951 $ 3,439,986 1,243,777 1,221,580 (568,594) 1,896,763 4,631,812 1,273,531 (568,594) 5,336,749 3,298,644 89,432 3,388,076 1,139,029 12,000 1,151,029 2,573,270 43,265 2,616,535 4,096,425 519,773 4,616,198 11,107,368 664,470 11,771,838 (478,246) (72,932) (551,178) (515,858) (62,331) (1,425,786) (177,820) (451,559) (272,798) (2,871,449) 8,235,919 $ 12,867.731 (585,881) 78,589 $ 1352.120 (578,189) (1,603,606) (724,357) (3,457,330) 8,314,508 (568.594) $ 13,651,257 -62- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS - CONTINUED Capital asset activity for the business -type activities for year ended December 31, 2010 was as follows: Beginning Ending Balance Increases Decreases Balance Business -type activities Capital assets not being depreciated Land 36,573 36,573 Construction in progress 398,859 383,414 (374,810) 407,463 Total capital assets not being depreciated 435,432 383,414 (374,810) 444,036 Capital assets being depreciated Machinery and equipment 282,860 282,860 Infrastructure 12,313,218 374,811 12,688,029 Total capital assets being depreciated 12,596,078 374,811 12,970,889 Less accumulated depreciation for Machinery and equipment (95,645) (20,638) (116,283) Infrastructure (1,585,061) (328,108) (1,913,169) Total accumulated depreciation (1,680,706) (348,746) (2,029,452) Total capital assets being depreciated, net 10,915,372 26,065 10,941,437 Business -type activities capital assets, net $ 11350.804 $ 409,479 (374.810) $ 11,385.473 Depreciation expense was charged to functions/programs of the City as follows: Governmental activities General government 35,622 Public safety 95,818 Public works 389,462 Culture and recreation 64,979 Total depreciation expense - governmental activities 585,881 Business -type activities Water 324,818 Sewer 8,740 Storm sewer 15,188 Total depreciation expense - business -type activities 348.746 CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS - CONTINUED Construction commitments The City has an active construction project as of December 31, 2010. At year end, the City's co contractor for this project is as follows: Proj ect Lake Elmo Park Shelter - Stillwater Blvd and 50th Street $ 415, D. Interfund receivables, payables and transfers The composition of interfund balances for the year ended December 31, 2010 is as follows: Receivable Fund Due from/to other funds Business -type Water Governmental General General Payable Fund Business -type Storm Sewer Governmental Village Proj ect Nonmajor governmental Total due from/to other funds Advance to/from other funds Governmental Governmental General Village Project Spent to date Purpose 2 Fund deficit cash balance Fund deficit cash balance Fund deficit cash balance Cash flow purposes t with the Remaining Commitment 22,118 Amount 56,226 63,418 24,711 144.355 $ 1,055,900 The City established an interfund loan in the amount of $1,055,900 from the General fund to the Village Project fund. The loan will then be repaid, with four percent interest through the years 2011 - 2012, Interfund transfers Fund Transfer out General Nonmajor Governmental Total Debt Service 237,848 237.848 Transfer in Nonmajor Governmental Funds Water $ 76,850 $ 50,000 $ 76,850 S 50.000 Total 126,850 237,848 364,698 -64- ) CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS - CONTINUED During the year ended December 31, 2010, the City made the following transfers: The 2009 Street Improvements and Tablyn Park Entrance nonmajor goverrunental funds were closed by transferring $29,248 and $8,600, respectively, to the 2009B G.O. Improvement Bonds Debt Service fund. The General fund made an $8,000 transfer of donations to the Fall Festival nonmajor governmental fund. A transfer in the amount of $200,000 was made from the City Facilities nonmajor governmental fund to the 2004 G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds debt service fund for a portion of the unused facilities' bond proceeds. The General fund transferred $68,850 to the Vehicle Replacement fund for future vehicle capital outlay. The General fund also transferred $50,000 to the Water fund to aid in offsetting a projected future deficit cash balance. E. Long-term debt General obligation (G.0) bonds. The City issues general obligation bonds to provide funds for the acquisition and construction of major capital facilities. General obligation bonds have been issued for both general government and proprietary activities. These bonds are reported in the proprietary funds if they are expected to be repaid from proprietary fund revenues. Additionally, general obligations bonds have been issued to refund general obligation improvement bonds and general obligation revenue bonds. General obligation bonds are direct obligations and pledge the full faith and credit of the City. General obligation improvement bonds The G.O. Improvement Bonds have been issued to finance improvements. They will be repaid with special assessment collections and ad valorem tax levies. Each year the combined assessment and tax levy equals 105 percent of the amount required for debt service. The excess of 5 percent is to cover any delinquencies in tax or assessment payments. General obligation improvement bonds currently outstanding are as follows: Authorized Interest Issue Maturity Balance at Description and Issued Rate Date Date Year End G.O. Improvement Bonds G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2002A $ 340,000 4.50 - 4.60 % 05/01/02 01/01/12 $ 40,000 G.O. CIP Bonds, Series 2004A 4,090,000 3.10 - 3.45 11/01/04 02/01/13 3,375,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 2009A 535,000 3.00 - 3.85 05/01/09 12/01/16 400,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2009B 575,000 2.00 - 3.05 10/01/09 01/15/20 575,000 G,O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2010A 710,000 0.75 - 2.80 11/15/10 02/01/21 710,000 G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Crossover Refunding Bonds, Series 2010B 1,970,000 1.00 - 3.20 11/15/10 02/01/25 1,970,000 Total G.O. Improvement Bonds $ 7,070,000 -65- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS - CONTINUED The annual debt service to maturity for general obligation improvement bonds are as follows: Year Ending December 31, 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Total Governmental Activities Principal Interest $ 300,000 360,000 3,225,000 335,000 350,000 1,525,000 975,000 $ 7.070.000 $ 201,939 208,911 140,996 74,708 68,773 238,350 72,153 Total $ 501,939 568,911 3,365,996 409,708 418,773 1,763,350 1,047,153 $ 1.005,830 $ 8,075.830 General obligation equipment certificates of indebtedness General obligation equipment certificates of indebtedness are direct obligations and pledge the full faith and credit of the City. The bonds have been issued to finance capital acquisitions. They will be repaid with ad valorem tax levies. General obligation equipment certificates of indebtedness currently outstanding are as follows: Authorized Interest Issue Maturity Balance at Description and Issued Rate Date Date Year End G.O. Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 2006A $ 443,000 3.65-4.00 % 03/08/06 12/01/15 8 240,000 The annual debt service to maturity for general obligation equipment certificates of indebtedness are as follows: Year Ending December 31, 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Governmental Activities Principal Interest Total $ 44,000 9,446 53,446 46,000 7,840 53,840 48,000 6,000 54,000 50,000 4,080 54,080 52,000 2,080 54,080 240.000 8 29,446 269.446 -66- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS - CONTINUED General obligation revenue bonds The City has issued the following G.O. Water Revenue Bonds for improvements to its water system. They will be repaid with the net revenues of the system. General obligation bonds currently outstanding are as follows: Description G.O. Revenue Bonds G.O. Water Revenue Authorized Interest Issue Maturity Balance at and Issued Rate Date Date Year End Bonds - 2005A $ 4,600,000 3.50 - 4.38 08/10/05 12/01/30 $ 4,200,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 2009A 515,000 3.00 - 3.85 05/01/09 12/01/21 480,000 Total G.O. Revenue Bonds $ 4.680.000 The annual debt service to maturity for general obligation revenue bonds are as follows: Year Ending Business -type Activities December 31, Principal Interest Total 2011 $ 40,000 $ 190,905 230,905 2012 40,000 189,705 229,705 2013 165,000 188,705 353,705 2014 190,000 183,130 373,130 2015 190,000 176,530 366,530 2016-2020 1,055,000 772,188 1,827,188 2021-2025 1,325,000 540,768 1,865,768 2026-2030 1,675,000 224,600 1,899,600 Total $ 4,680,000 $ 2,466,531 $ 7,146,531 -67- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS - CONTINUED Changes in long-term liabilities Long-tenn liability activity for the year ended December 31, 2010 was as follows: Beginning Ending Due Within Balance Additions Reductions Balance One Year Governmental activities Bonds payable G.O. improvement bonds $ 4,660,000 $ 2,680,000 (270,000) $ 7,070,000 300,000 G.O. equipment certificates of indebtedness 283,000 (43,000) 240,000 44,000 Total bonds payable 4,943,000 2,680,000 (313,000) 7,310,000 344,000 Unamortized premium on bonds 15,613 4,356 (2,416) 17,553 Other postemployment benefits payable 14,358 14,530 28,888 Compensated absences payable 60,685 57,971 (50,909) 67,747 13,549 Governmental activity long-term liabilities $ 5,033,656 $ 2,756,857 Business -type activities Bonds payable G.O. revenue bonds Unamortized premium on bonds Other postemployment benefits payable Compensated absences payable $ 4,715,000 (366,325) $ 7,424,188 357,549 (35,000) $ 4,680,000 40,000 8,530 (711) 7,819 2,571 2,601 5,172 18,931 16,318 (16,179) 19,070 3,814 Business -type long-term liabilities $ 4.745,032 18,919 (51,890) $ 4.712,061 S 43,814 Crossover refunding On November 15, 2010, the City issued $1,970,000 of General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Crossover Refunding Bonds, Series 2010B. Together with transfers from the City, the bonds issued will be used to call $2,845,000 of the 2004A General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds on February 1, 2013. The proceeds of the bonds were deposited into an escrow account and will be used to pay issuance costs and to purchase government obligations. The government obligations will bear interest rates that will provide sufficient funds to refund the old bonds. The escrow account will also provide debt service payments on the new bonds until the crossover date. The old bonds are not considered defeased until the crossover date, and therefore will not be removed from liabilities. As a result of the transfer and crossover refunding issue, the City will save $354,715 in debt service payments and achieve an economic gain (the present value of the difference between the old and the new debt service) of $94,158, -68- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS - CONTINUED F. Reserved/designated fund balance Fund balances in the various funds have been reserved and designated for the following purposes as of December 31, 2010: Fund- Purpose Amount Reserved Debt Service Debt service $ 3,605,250 General Prepaid items 13,050 General Advance to other funds 1,055,900 Total reserved fund balance 4,674.200 Unreserved - Designated 2010 Street Improvements Capital projects 39,669 Nonmajor Governmental Capital projects 1,633,003 Total designated fund balance 1,672,672 Note 4: DEFINED PENSION PLANS - STATEWIDE A. Plan description All full-time and certain part-time employees of the City are covered by defined benefit plans administered by the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). PERA administers the General Employees Retirement Fund (GERF), which is a cost -sharing, multiple -employer retirement plan. This plan is established and administered in accordance with Minnesota statutes, chapters 353 and 356. GERF members belong to either the Coordinated Plan or the Basic Plan. Coordinated Plan members are covered by Social Security and Basic Plan members are not. All new members must participate in the Coordinated Plan. PERA provides retirement benefits as well as disability benefits to members, and benefits to survivors upon death of eligible members. Benefits are established by Minnesota statute, and vest after three years of credited service. The defined retirement benefits are based on a member's highest average salary for any five successive years of allowable service, age and years of credit at termination of service. Two methods are used to compute benefits for PERA' s Coordinated and Basic Plan members. The retiring member receives the higher of a step -rate benefit accrual formula (Method 1) or a level accrual formula (Method 2). Under Method 1, the annuity accrual rate for a Basic Plan member is 2.20 percent of average salary for each of the first 10 years of service and 2.70 percent for each remaining year. The annuity accrual rate for a Coordinated Plan member is 1.20 percent of average salary for each of the first 10 years and 1.70 percent for each remaining year. Under Method 2, the annuity accrual rate is 2.70 percent of average salary for Basic Plan members and 1.70 percent for Coordinated Plan members for each year of service. For all GERF members hired prior to July 1, 1989 whose annuity is calculated using Method 1, a full annuity is available when age plus years of service equal 90. Normal retirement age is 65 for Basic and Coordinated members hired prior to July 1, 1989. Normal retirement age is the age for unreduced Social Security benefits capped at 66 for Coordinated members hired on or after July 1, 1989. A reduced retirement annuity is also available to eligible members seeking early retirement. -69- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 4: DEFINED PENSION PLANS - STATEWIDE - CONTINUED There are different types of annuities available to members upon retirement. A single -life annuity is a lifetime annuity that ceases upon the death of the retiree -- no survivor annuity is payable. There are also various types of joint and survivor annuity options available which will be payable over joint lives. Members may also leave their contributions in the fund upon termination of public service in order to qualify for a deferred annuity at retirement age. Refunds of contributions are available at any time to members who leave public service, but before retirement benefits begin. The benefit provisions stated in the previous paragraphs of this section are current provisions and apply to active plan participants. Vested, terminated employees who are entitled to benefits but are not receiving them yet are bound by the provisions in effect at the time they last terminated their public service. PERA issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information for GERF. That report may be obtained on the Internet at mnpera.org, by writing to PERA, 60 Empire Drive #200, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55103-2088 or by calling (651) 296-7460 or 1-800-652-9026. B. Funding policy Minnesota statutes, chapter 353 sets the rates for employer and employee contributions. These statutes are established and amended by the State legislature. The City makes annual contributions to the pension plans equal to the amount required by Minnesota statutes. GERF Basic Plan members and Coordinated Plan members were required to contribute 9.1 percent and 6.0 percent, respectively, of their annual covered salary in 2010. In 2010, the City was required to contribute the following percentages of annual covered payroll: 11.78 percent for Basic Plan GERF members and 7.00 percent for Coordinated Plan GERF members. Employer contribution rates for the Coordinated Plan will increase to 7.25 percent, effective January 1, 2011. The City's contributions to the General Employees Retirement Fund for the years ending December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 were $52,277, $56,136, and $57,801, respectively. The City's contributions were equal to the contractually required contributions for each year as set by Minnesota statute. Note 5: POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS OTHER THAN PENSIONS A. Plan description The City administers a single -employer defined benefit healthcare plan ("the Retiree Health Plan"). The plan provides healthcare insurance for eligible retirees and their spouses through the City's group health insurance plan until Medicare age, which covers both active and retired members. There are 9 active participants. Benefit provisions are established by City Council. The Retiree Health Plan does not issue a publicly available financial report. B. Funding policy The City has historically funded these liabilities on a pay-as-you-go basis. Contribution requirements are negotiated between the City and union representatives on a per contract basis. At the present time, no retiree benefits are provided except the allowance to continue health insurance that is mandated by Minnesota Law. The City does not contribute any of the cost of current -year premiums for eligible retired plan members or their spouses. For fiscal year 2010, the City did not contribute anything to the plan. Plan members receiving benefits contribute 100 percent of their premium costs. -70- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 5: POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS OTHER THAN PENSIONS - CONTINUED C. Annual other postemployment benefit cost and net other postemployment benefit obligation The City's annual other postemployment benefit (OPEB) cost (expense) is calculated based on the annual required contribution of the employer (ARC). The City has elected to calculate the ARC and related information using the alternative measurement method permitted by GASB Statement No. 45 for employers in plans with fewer than one hundred total plan members. The ARC represents a level of funding that, if paid on an ongoing basis, is projected to cover normal cost each year and to amortize any unfunded actuarial liabilities (or funding excess) over a period not to exceed thirty years. The following table shows the components of the City's annual OPEB cost for the year, the amount actually contributed to the plan, and changes in the City's net OPEB obligation: Annual required contribution 16,929 Interest on net OPEB obligation 846 Adjustment to annual required contribution (644) Annual OPEB cost (expense) 17,131 Contributions made Increase in net OPEB obligation 17,131 Net OPEB obligation - beginning of year 16,929 Net OPEB obligation - end of year $ 34,060 The City's annual OPEB cost, the percentage of annual OPEB cost contributed to the plan, and the net OPEB obligation for fiscal years ended 2010 and 2009 follows: Trend Information Percentage Year Annual Annual OPEB Net OPEB Ending OPEB Cost Contributed Obligation 12/31/10 $ 17,131 - % $ 34,060 12/31/09 16,929 16,929 D. Funded status and funding progress As of January 1, 2009, the actuarial accrued liability for benefits was $112,761, all of which was unfunded. The covered payroll (annual payroll of active employees covered by the plan) was $892,528, and the ratio of the unfunded actuarial accrued liability to the covered payroll was 12.6 percent. The projection of future benefit payments for an ongoing plan involves estimates of the value of reported amounts and assumptions about the probability of occurrence of events far into the future. Examples include assumptions about future employment, mortality, and the healthcare cost trend. Amounts determined regarding the funded status of the plan and the annual required contributions of the employer are subject to continual revision as actual results are compared with past expectations and new estimates are made about the future. The schedule of funding progress, presented as required supplementary information following the notes to the financial statements, presents multi -year trend information about whether the actuarial value of plan assets is increasing or decreasing over time relative to the actuarial accrued liabilities for benefits. -71- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 5: POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS OTHER THAN PENSIONS - CONTINUED E. Methods and assumptions Projections of benefits for financial reporting purposes are based on the substantive plan (the plan as understood by the employer and plan members) and include the types of benefits provided at the time of each valuation and the historical pattern of sharing of benefit costs between the employer and plan members to that point. The actuarial methods and assumptions used include techniques that are designed to reduce the effects of short-term volatility in actuarial accrued liabilities and the actuarial value of assets, consistent with the long-term perspective of the calculations. The following simplifying assumptions were made: Retirement age for active employees - Based on the historical average retirement age for the covered group, active plan members were assumed to retire at age 63, or at the first subsequent year in which the member would qualify for benefits. In addition, spouses of retired employees were assumed to continue on the plan for the lesser of eighteen months after the retired employee reaches Medicare age of until the spouse reaches Medicare age. Marital status - Marital status of members at the calculation date was assumed to continue throughout retirement. Mortality - Life expectancies were based on mortality tables from the National Center for Health Statistics. The 2004 United States Life Tables for Males and for Females were used. Turnover - Non -group -specific age -based turnover data from GASB Statement 45 were used as the basis for assigning active members a probability of remaining employed until the assumed retirement age and for developing an expected future working lifetime assumption for purposes of allocating to periods the present value of total benefits to be paid. Healthcare cost trend rate - The expected rate of increase in healthcare insurance premiums was based on projections of the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. A rate of 2.0 percent initially, raised to an ultimate rate of 6.0 percent after six years, was used. Health insurance premiums — 2008 and 2009 health insurance premiums for retirees were used as the basis for calculation of the present value of total benefits to be paid. Inflation rate - The expected long-term inflation assumption of 4.09 percent was based on projected changes in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) in The 2008 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old -Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds for an intermediate growth scenario. Payroll growth rate - The expected long-term payroll growth rate was assumed to equal the rate of inflation. Based on the historical and expected returns of the City's short-term investment portfolio, a discount rate of 5.0 percent was used. In addition, a simplified version of the entry age actuarial cost method was used. The unfunded actuarial accrued liability is being amortized as a level percentage of projected payroll on an open basis. The remaining amortization period at December 31, 2010, was thirty years. -72- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 6: LAKE ELMO VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION A. Plan description All members of the Lake Elmo Fire Department (Department) are covered by a defined benefit plan administered by the Lake Elmo Firemen's Relief Association (Association). The plan is a single employer retirement plan and is established and administered in accordance with Minnesota statute, chapter 69. The Association maintains a separate Special fund to accumulate assets to fund the retirement benefits earned by the Department's membership. Funding for the Association is derived from an insurance premium tax in accordance with the Volunteer Firefighter's Relief Association Financing Guidelines Act of 1971 (chapter 261 as amended by chapter 509 of Minnesota statutes 1980). Funds are also derived from investment income. The Association issues a publicly available financial report that includes fmancial statements and required supplementary information. The report may be obtained by writing to Lake Elmo Firefighter's Relief Association, 3800 Laverne Avenue North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042. B. Funding policy The financial requirements of the Special fund are determined in accordance with Minnesota statutes, section 69.772, which requires the payment of pension benefits in a lump sum or optionally in annual installments. The benefits are payable after age 50, 20 years of service, and 10 years of Association membership or upon death. The City's annual pension cost for the current year and related information for the plan is as follows: Annual pension cost 55,081 Contributions made City State aid 18,928 36,153 Actuarial valuation date 12/31/10 Actuarial cost method Entry age normal Amortization method Level dollar closed Remaining amortization period Normal cost Prior service cost 20 years 10 years Asset valuation method Fair value Actuarial assumptions Investment rate of return 5% Projected salary increases N/A Inflation rate N/A Cost of living adjustments None -73- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 6: LAKE ELMO VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION Three Year Trend Information Annual Percentage Year Pension of APC Net Pension Ending Cost (APC) Contributed Obligation 12/31/10 $ 55,081 100 % $ 12/31/09 36,217 100 12/31/08 48,005 100 Required Supplementary Information Assets in Excess of Pension Actuarial Actuarial Actuarial (Unfunded) Benefit Valuation Value of Accrued Accrued Funded Per Year Date Assets Liability Liability Rate of Service 12/31/10 * * * * * 12/31/09 920,405 857,341 63,064 107.4 % 3,100 12/31/08 741,317 785,321 (44,004) 94.4 3,100 * Information unavailable at the time of publication. Note 7: DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS - STATEWIDE Plan description Under Minnesota statute 353.028, subdivision 2, City managers or administrators may elect to be excluded from membership in PERA. They must choose exclusion within six months of the day they begin employment. The law also provides for refunds of contributions made before the election. If they elect exclusion, they and their cities may agree that the cities will defer and contribute additional compensation on behalf of the employees to a deferred compensation program. The program must meet federal income tax laws. The City contribution cannot exceed the amount it would have made under the PERA contribution. The City Administrator is covered by deferred compensation plan 457(b) administered by ICMA-RC. The City contributed $6,759 and $1,428 for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. In general, any amount of compensation deferred, and any income attributable to the amounts so deferred, shall be includible in gross income only for the taxable year in which such compensation or other income is paid to the participant or other beneficiary. Under federal requirements, a plan meets distribution requirements if under the plan amounts will not be made available to participants or beneficiaries earlier than (i) the calendar year in which the participant attains age 70 'A, (ii) when the participant has a severance from employment with the employer, or (iii) when the participant is faced with an unforeseeable emergency (determined in the manner prescribed by the Secretary in regulations). ICMA-RC issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information for the 457(b) plan. That report may be obtained by writing to ICMA-RC Headquarters, 777 North Capitol Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 or by calling 202-962-4600. -74- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2010 Note 8: OTHER INFORMATION A. Legal debt margin In accordance with Minnesota statutes, the City may not incur or be subject to net debt in excess of three percent of the market value of taxable property within the City. Net debt is payable solely from ad valorem taxes and therefore, excludes debt financed partially or entirely by special assessments, enterprise fluid revenues or tax increments. The market value of taxable property totaled $1,201,213,400 for an allowable margin of $36,036,402. As of December 31, 2010, the City has $240,000 of debt subject to this limit. B. Risk management The City is exposed to various risks ()floss related to torts; theft of, damage to and destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; and natural disasters for which the City carries insurance. The City obtains insurance through participation in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT), which is a risk sharing pool with approximately 800 other governmental units. The City pays an annual premium to LMCIT for its workers compensation and property and casualty insurance. The LMCIT is self sustaining through member premiums and will reinsure for claims above a prescribed dollar amount for each insurance event. Settled claims have not exceeded the City's coverage in any of the past three fiscal years. Liabilities are reported when it is probable that a loss has occurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Liabilities, if any, include an amount for clahns that have been incurred but not reported (II3NRs). The City's management is not aware of any incurred but not reported claims. -75- THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK IN'l ENTIONALLY -76- REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION CITY OF LAKE ELMO LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 -77- THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -78- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION DECEMBER 31, 2010 Schedule of Funding Progress for the Postemployment Benefit Plan Unfunded Actuarial UAAL as a Actuarial Actuarial Actuarial Accrued Percentage Valuation Value of Accrued Liability Funded Covered of Covered Date Assets Liability (UAAL) Ratio Payroll Payroll 01/01/09 $ 112,761 $ 112,761 % $ 892,528 12.6 /0 -79- THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -80- COMBINING AND INDIVIDUAL FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SCHEDULES CITY OF LAKE ELMO LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 -81- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS COMBINING BALANCE SHEET DECEMBER 31, 2010 Total Nonmaj or Special Capital Governmental Revenue Projects Funds ASSETS Cash and temporary investments $ 29,484 $ 1,726,747 $ 1,756,231 Receivables: Special assessments Current - 741 741 Deferred 77,548 77,548 Special deferred - 34,176 34,176 Delinquent - 1,287 1,287 Due from other governments 1,371 1,371 TOTAL ASSETS $ 29,484 $ 1,841,870 $ 1,871,354 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES LIABILITIES Accounts payable Due to other governments Due to other fluids Deposits payable Deferred revenue TOTAL LIABILITIES 2,160 45,581 $ 47,741 213 213 24,711 24,711 75,000 75,000 113,011 113,011 2,160 258,516 260,676 FUND BALANCES Unreserved Designated 1,633,003 1,633,003 Undesignated 27,324 (49,649) (22,325) TOTAL FUND BALANCES 27,324 1,583,354 1,610,678 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES $ 29,484 $ 1,841,870 $ 1,871,354 -82- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MTNNESOTA NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31., 2010 REVENUES Intergovernmental Charges for services Special assessments Investment earnings Miscellaneous TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES Current Culture and recreation Capital outlay General government Public safety Public works Culture and recreation TOTAL EXPENDITURES DEFICIENCY OF REVENUES UNDER EXPENDITURES OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers in Transfers out TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES FUND BALANCES, JANUARY 1 FUND BALANCES, DECEMBER 31 Special Revenue 735 9,971 10,706 Capital Projects 4,976 10,800 52,503 34,187 49,556 152,022 Total Nonmaj or Governmental Funds 4,976 10,800 52,503 34,922 59,527 162,728 13,422 - 13,422 50,178 50,178 41,217 41,217 28,405 294,643 323,048 76,286 76,286 41,827 462,324 504,151 (31,121) (310,302) (341,423) 8,000 68,850 76,850 (237,848) (237,848) 8,000 (23,121) 50,445 27,324 (168,998) (160,998) (479,300) (502,421) 2,062,654 2,113,099 1,583,354 $ 1,610,678 -83- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS COMBINING BALANCE SHEET DECEMBER 31, 2010 203 204 Fall Development Festival Total ASSETS Cash and temporary investments $ 18,133 $ 11,351 $ 29,484 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES LIABILITIES Accounts payable $ 2,160 $ - $ 2,160 FUND BALANCES Unreserved, undesignated 15,973 11,351 27,324 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES $ 18,133 $ 11,351 $ 29,484 -84- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 REVENUES Investment earnings Miscellaneous Donations TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES Current Culture and recreation Capital outlay Public works TOTAL EXPENDITURES DEFICIENCY OF REVENUES UNDER EXPENDITURES 203 204 Fall Development Festival Total 542 $ 193 $ 735 9,971 9,971 542 10,164 10,706 - 13,422 13,422 28,405 - 28,405 28,405 13,422 41,827 (27,863) (3,258) (31,121) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Transfers in - 8,000 8,000 NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES (27,863) 4,742 (23,121) FUND BALANCES, JANUARY 1 43,836 6,609 50,445 FUND BALANCES, DECEMBER 31 $ 15,973 $ 11,351 $ 27,324 -85- CITYVOF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NONMAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS COMBINING BALANCE SHEET DECEMBER 31, 2010 404 409 410 Park Infrastructure Vehicle Dedication Reserve Acquisition ASSETS Cash and temporary investments 952,436 52,364 376,387 Receivables: Special assessments Current 741 Deferred 77,548 Special deferred 34,176 Delinquent 1,287 Due from other governments 1,371 TOTAL ASSETS 953,807 166,116 376,387 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES (DEFICITS) LIABILITIES Accounts payable . 4,462 8,960 13,375 Due to other governments Due to other funds Deposits payable Deferred revenue 113,011 TOTAL LIABILITIES 4,462 121,971 13,375 FUND BALANCES (DEFICITS) Unreserved Designated 949,345 44,145 363,012 Undesignated TOTAL FUND BALANCES (DEFICITS) 949,345 44,145 363,012 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES (DEFICITS) 953,807 166,116 376,387 -86- 411 City Facilities 414 Manning Avenue/ Highway 36 415 2009 Street Improvements 416 Tablyn Park Entrance 418 2011 Street Improvements Total 278,261 $ 67,299 $ _ $ - $ - $ 1,726,747 278,261 1,547 213 1,760 276,501 276,501 278,261 67,299 75,000 75,000 (7,701) (7,701) 67,299 17,237 24,711 41,948 741 77,548 34,176 1,287 1,371 1,841,870 45,581 213 24,711 75,000 113,011 258,516 - 1,633,003 (41,948) (49,649) (41,948) 1,583,354 $ 1,841,870 -87- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NONMAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES (DEFICITS) FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 REVENUES Intergovernmental Charges for services Special assessments Investment earnings Miscellaneous Refunds and reimbursements 404 409 410 Park Infrastructure Vehicle Dedication Reserve Acquisition 4,976 10,800 52,503 16,186 2,553 5,592 49,556 TOTAL REVENUES 31,962 55,056 55,148 EXPENDITURES Capital outlay General government Public safety Public works Culture and recreation TOTAL EXPENDITURES EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers in Transfers out 41,217 246,379 76,286 246,379 41,217 (44,324) (191,323) 13,931 68,850 76,286 TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) 68,850 NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES (44,324) (191,323) 82,781 FUND BALANCES (DEFICITS), JANUARY 1 993,669 235,468 280,231 FUND BALANCES (DEFICITS), DECEMBER 31 949,345 44,145 363,012 -88- 411 414 415 416 418 Manning 2009 Tablyn 2011 City Avenue/ Street Park Street Facilities Highway 36 improvements Entrance Improvements Total - $ - $ - $ $ $ 4,976 _ - 10,800 52,503 8,065 1,105 588 147 (49) 34,187 - - - - 49,556 8,065 1,105 588 147 (49) 152,022 50,178 - - - 50,178 - - 41,217 - 6,300 65 41,899 294,643 76,286 50,178 - 6,300 65 41,899 462,324 (42,113) 1,105 (5,712) 82 (41,948) (310,302) 68,850 (200,000) (29,248) (8,600) - (237,848) (200,000) - (29,248) (8,600) - (168,998) (242,113) 1,105 (34,960) (8,518) (41,948) (479,300) 518,614 (8,806) 34,960 8,518 2,062,654 276,501 $ (7,701) $ - $ - $ (41,948) $ 1,583,354 -89- ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS Cash and temporary investments CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS COMBINING STATEMENTS OF NET ASSETS DECEMBER 31, 2010 AND 2009 Governmental Activities - Internal Service Funds 701 702 Radio Replacement IT Replacement 2010 2009 2010 2009 20,334 $ 20,000 $ 18,253 $ 20,000 NONCURRENT ASSETS Capital assets Machinery and equipment 99,851 99,851 129,195 129,195 Construction in progress - - Less accumulated depreciation (28,430) (20,109) (68,809) (50,072) Total capital assets (net of accumulated depreciation) 71,421 79,742 60,386 79,123 TOTAL ASSETS 91,755 99,742 78,639 99,123 LIABILITIES CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts payable NET ASSETS Invested in capital assets 71,421 79,742 60,386 79,123 Unrestricted 20,334 20,000 18,253 20,000 TOTAL NET ASSETS $ 91,755 $ 99,742 $ 78,639 $ 99,123 -90- Governmental Activities - Internal Service Funds - Continued 703 FFE Replacement Totals 2010 2009 2010 9,147 $ 20,000 2009 47,734 $ 60,000 331,683 323,325 560,729 552,371. 18,512 18,512 - (195,676) (165,915) (292,915) (236,096) 154,519 157,410 286,326 316,275 163,666 177,410 334,060 376,275 15,706 .. 15,706 - 154,519 157,410 286,326 316,275 (6,559) 20,000 32,028 60,000 147,960 $ 177,410 $ 318,354 $ 376,275 -91- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS COMBINING STATEMENTS OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 AND 2009 Governmental Activities - Internal Service Funds 701 702 Radio Replacement IT Replacement 2010 2009 2010 2009 OPERATING EXPENSES Repair and maintenance $ $ - $ 2,058 Depreciation 8,321 - 18,737 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 8,321 - 20,795 OPERATING LOSS (8,321) (20,795) NONOPERATING REVENUES Investment earnings 334 LOSS BEFORE TRANSFERS AND CONTRIBUTIONS (7,987) 311 (20,484) TRANSFERS IN - 20,000 - 20,000 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTED FROM OTHER FUNDS - 79,742 - 79,123 CHANGE IN NET ASSETS (7,987) 99,742 (20,484) 99,123 NET ASSETS, JANUARY I 99,742 - 99,123 NET ASSETS, DECEMBER 31 $ 91,755 $ 99,742 $ 78,639 $ 99,123 -92- Governmental Activities - Internal Service Funds - Continued 703 FFE Replacement Totals 2010 2009 2010 2009 - $ 2,058 29,761 - 56,819 29,761 - 58,877 (29,761) (58,877) 311 (29,450) 956 (57,921) 20,000 - 60,000 157,410 316,275 (29,450) 177,410 (57,921) 376,275 177,410 376,275 - 147,960 $ 177,410 $ 318,354 $ 376,275 -93- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS COMBINING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 AND 2009 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Payments to suppliers CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Transfers from other funds CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Acquisition of capital assets CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Interest received on investments NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, JANUARY 1 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, DECEMBER 31 Governmental Activities - Internal Service Funds 701 702 Radio Replacement IT Replacement 2010 2009 2010 2009 (2,058) 20,000 - 20,000 334 334 20,000 (1,747) 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 - 20,334 $ 20,000 $ 18,253 $ 20,000 RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING LOSS TO NET CASH USED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES Operating loss $ (8,321) $ - $ (20,795) Adjustments to reconcile operating loss to net cash used by operating activities: Depreciation 8,321 - 18,737 NET CASH USED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES $ - $ - $ (2,058) SCHEDULE OF NONCASH CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Capital contributions Capital assets purchased on account $ 79,742 $ - $ 79,123 $ - $ -94- Governmental Activities - Internal Service Funds - Continued 703 FFE Replacement Totals 2010 2009 2010 2009 - $ $ (2,058) $ - 20,000 - 60,000 (11,164) - (11,164) - 311 956 (10,853) 20,000 9,147 (29, 761) 29,761 20,000 20,000 $ 157,410 15,706 $ (12,266) 60,000 47,734 (58,877) 56,819 (2,058) 60,000 60,000 $ 316,275 15,706 $ -95- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA GENERAL FUND SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 (With comparative totals for the year ended December 31, 2009) Budgeted Amounts Original Final 2010 2009 Actual Variance With Actual Amounts Final Budget Amounts REVENUES Taxes Property $ 2,355,453 $ 2,355,453 $ 2,371,784 $ 16,331 $ 2,272,949 Franchise 37,400 37,400 37,725 325 36,872 Total 2,392,853 2,392,853 2,409,509 16,656 2,309,821 Licenses and permits Business 10,260 10,260 15,030 4,770 11,685 Nonbusiness 147,500 147,500 246,420 98,920 213,481 Total 157,760 157,760 261,450 103,690 225,166 Intergovernmental State Property tax credits 37,518 37,518 7,022 (30,496) 6,015 MSA - maintenance 68,500 68,500 77,347 8,847 88,797 Fire state aid 40,000 40,000 36,153 (3,847) 36,217 Other 2,750 2,750 19,183 16,433 19,203 County/Local 15,000 15,000 15,588 588 15,476 Total 163,768 163,768 155,293 (8,475) 165,708 Charges for services 5,500 5,500 11,616 6,116 11,433 Fines and forfeits 52,000 52,000 68,897 16,897 54,052 Investment earnings 60,000 60,000 59,711 (289) 72,715 Miscellaneous 17,130 17,130 25,333 8,203 50,327 TOTAL REVENUES 2,849,011 2,849,011 2,991,809 142,798 2,889,222 -96- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA GENERAL FUND SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL - CONTINUED FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 (With comparative totals for the year ended December 31, 2009) 2010 2009 Budgeted Amounts Actual Variance With Actual Original Final Amounts Final Budget Amounts EXPENDITURES Current General government Mayor and Council Personnel services $ 17,692 $ 17,692 $ 17,692 $ $ 17,573 Other services and charges 16,300 16,300 17,202 (902) 15,352 Total 33,992 33,992 34,894 (902) 32,925 Election Personnel services 10,000 10,000 7,836 2,164 Supplies 600 600 56 544 Other services and charges 1,350 1,350 1,857 (507) Total 161 940 11,950 11,950 9,749 2,201 1,101 Administration Personnel services 334,641 334,641 321,808 12,833 302,743 Supplies 8,500 8,500 4,780 3,720 6,671 Other services and charges 67,250 67,250 54,250 13,000 71,746 Total 410,391 410,391 380,838 29,553 381,160 Communications Personnel services 12,917 12,917 7,463 5,454 9,672 Other services and charges 42,400 42,400 44,214 (1,814) 37,352 Total 55,317 55,317 51,677 3,640 47,024 Building Supplies Other sery s and charges 1,550 1,550 943 607 771 39,200 39,200 34,841 4,359 42,801 Total 40,750 40,750 35,784 4,966 43,572 Professional services Assessor 45,500 45,500 43,587 1,913 44,280 Accounting and auditing 59,500 59,500 75,371 (15,871) 67,337 Legal 60,000 60,000 55,739 4,261 45,882 Engineering 70,000 70,000 57,927 12,073 55,402 Total 235,000 235,000 232,624 2,376 212,901 -97- CIt'' OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA GENERAL FUND SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL - CONTINUED FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 (With comparative totals for the year ended December 31, 2009) 2010 2009 Budgeted Amounts Actual Variance With Actual Original Final Amounts Final Budget Amounts EXPENDITURES - CONTINUED Current - continued General government Planning and zoning Personnel services $ 142,870 $ 142,870 $ 135,704 $ 7,166 $ 137,882 Supplies 2,000 2,000 401 1,599 141 Other services and charges 37,750 37,750 39,919 (2,169) 73,254 Total 182,620 182,620 176,024 6,596 211,277 Total general government 970,020 970,020 921,590 48,430 929,960 Public safety Police Contracted services 474,935 474,935 481,243 (6,308) 470,605 Fire protection Personnel services 218,528 218,528 180,125 38,403 180,180 2% fire aid 40,000 40,000 36,153 3,847 36,217 Supplies 27,200 27,200 22,879 4,321 23,039 Other services and charges 149,991 149,991 165,689 (15,698) 136,435 Total 435,719 435,719 404,846 30,873 375,871 Building inspector Personnel services 79,650 79,650 78,525 1,125 79,637 Supplies 4,350 4,350 - 4,350 83 Other services and charges 11,200 11,200 33,219 (22,019) 6,673 Total 95,200 95,200 111,744 (16,544) 86,393 Animal control Supplies Other services and charges 150 150 150 12,700 12,700 10,996 1,704 10,345 Total 12,850 12,850 10,996 1,854 10,345 Criminal legal 51,000 51,000 48,549 2,451 44,868 Emergency communications Other services and charges - _ 6,798 (6,798) - Total public safety 1,069,704 1,069,704 1,064,176 5,528 988,082 -98- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA GENERAL FUND SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL - CONTINUED FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 (With comparative totals for the year ended December 31, 2009) 2010 2009 Budgeted Amounts Actual Variance With Actual Original Final Amounts Final Budget Amounts EXPENDITURES - CONTINUED Current - continued Public works General Personnel services $ 209,138 $ 209,138 $ 184,356 $ 24,782 $ 177,765 Supplies 124,500 124,500 142,304 (17,804) 98,277 Other services and charges 131,695 131,695 107,563 24,132 114,449 Total 465,333 465,333 434,223 31,110 390,491 Trees 10,000 10,000 15,665 (5,665) 17,882 Street lighting 24,000 24,000 23,405 595 22,459 Total public works 499,333 499,333 473,293 26,040 430,832 Culture and recreation Parks Personnel services 146,340 146,340 118,478 27,862 128,760 Supplies 12,550 12,550 5,931 6,619 3,907 Other services and charges 32,214 32,214 31,140 1,074 32,977 Total culture and recreation 191,104 191,104 155,549 35,555 165,644 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,730,161 2,730,161 2,614,608 115,553 2,514,518 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES 118,850 118,850 377,201 258,351 374,704 OTHER FINANCING USES Transfers out (118,850) (118,850) (126,850) (8,000) (349,735) NET CI-IANGE IN FUND BALANCES - - 250,351 250,351 24,969 FUND BALANCES, JANUARY 1 2,435,810 2,435,810 2,435,810 2,410,841 FUND BALANCES, DECEMBER 31 $ 2,435,810 $ 2,435,810 $ 2,686,161 $ 250,351 $ 2,435,810 -99- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA DEBT SERVICE FUNDS COMBINING BALANCE SHEET DECEMBER 31, 2010 ASSETS Cash and temporary investrne Cash with fiscal agent Receivables: Accounts Special assessments Deferred Due from other governments TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES LIABILITIES Accounts payable Deferred revenue TOTAL LIABILITIES FUND BALANCES Reserved for debt service TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES 312 2002 G.O. Improvement Bond 313 2004 G.O. CIP Bond 58,429 $ 465,693 2,925,511 21,242 79,671 3,486 21,242 24,728 54,943 2,783 3,393,987 3,393,987 314 2006 G.O. Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness 14,847 14,847 14,847 79,671 $ 3,393,987 $ 14,847 -100- 315 316 2009A G.O, 2009B G.O. Refunding Improvement Bond Bond Total 104,714 $ 643,683 37,031 2,962,542 2,783 72,750 93,992 400,000 400,000 400,000 $ 214,495 $ 4,103,000 $ 272 $ 3,758 400,000 72,750 493,992 400,000 73,022 497,750 141,473 3,605,250 400,000 $ 214,495 $ 4,103,000 -101- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA DEBT SERVICE FUNDS COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 REVENUES Property taxes Intergovernmental MSA contributions Special assessments Investment earnings TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES Debt service Principal Interest and other charges Bond issuance costs TOTAL EXPENDITURES EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUE OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Transfers in Refunding bonds issued Premium on bonds issued TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES FUND BALANCES, JANUARY 1 FUND BALANCES, DECEMBER 31 312 2002 G.O. Improvement Bond 313 2004 G.O. CIP Bond 220,000 23,538 1,326 18,247 24,864 238,247 40,000 165,000 3,640 137,095 48,004 43,640 350,099 (18,776) (111,852) 200,000 1,970,000 4,356 2,174,356 (18,776) 2,062,504 73,719 1,331,483 54,943 $ 3,393,987 314 2006 G.O. Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness 56,716 289 57,005 43,000 11,016 54,016 2,989 2,989 11,858 14,847 -102- 315 316 2009A G.O. 2009B G.O. Refunding Improvement Bond Bond Total $ 51,000 $ 327,716 78,975 78,975 58,216 81,754 514 20,376 78,975 109,730 508,821 65,000 313,000 13,975 11,094 176,820 48,004 78,975 11,094 537,824 98,636 (29,003) 37,848 237,848 - 1,970,000 4,356 37,848 2,212,204 136,484 2,183,201 4,989 1,422,049 141,473 $ 3,605,250 -103- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA AGENCY FUND COMBINING SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 Balance January 1 Additions Balance Deductions December 31 Escrow ASSETS Cash and temporary investments $ 325,694 $ 110,460 $ (120,632) $ 315,522 LIABILITIES Accounts payable $ 20,455 $ 110,711 $ (117,416) $ 13,750 Deposits payable 305,239 96,400 (99,867) 301,772 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 325,694 $ 207,111 $ (217,283) $ 315,522 Yellow Ribbon ASSETS Cash and temporary investments (deficits) $ - $ 545 $ (673) $ (128) LIABILITIES Accounts payable $ - $ 1,205 $ (1,333) $ (128) Total ASSETS Cash and temporary investments $ 325,694 $ 111,005 $ (121,305) $ 315,394 LIABILITIES Accounts payable $ 20,455 $ 111,916 $ (118,749) $ 13,622 Deposits payable 305,239 96,400 (99,867) 301,772 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 325,694 $ 208,316 $ (218,616) $ 315,394 104- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (UNAUDITED) CITY OF LAKE ELMO LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 -105- THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -106- CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA SUMMARY FINANCIAL REPORT REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR GENERAL OPERATIONS GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 AND 2009 Percent Total Increase 2010 2009 (Decrease) REVENUES Taxes 2,737,225 2,685,894 1.91 % Licenses and permits 261,450 225,166 16.11 Intergovernmental 239,244 288,881 (17,18) Charges for services 22,416 11,433 96.06 Fines and forfeits 68,897 54,052 27.46 Special assessments 134,257 73,013 83.88 Investment earnings 113,033 160,679 (29.65) Miscellaneous 84,860 61,533 37.91 TOTAL REVENUES $ 3,661,382 $ 3,560,651 2.83 % Per Capita 440 $ 424 3.61 % EXPENDITURES Current General government 921,590 929,960 (0.90) % Public safety 1,064,176 988,082 7.70 Public works 473,293 459,703 2.96 Culture and recreation 168,971 180,965 (6.63) Capital outlay General government 50,178 49,132 2.13 Public safety 41,217 57,262 (28,02) Public works 1,035,628 808,098 28.16 Culture and recreation 76,286 83,539 (8.68) Debt service Principal 313,000 361,000 (13.30) Bond issuance costs 74,580 45,056 65.53 Interest and other charges 216,820 229,175 (5.39) TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 4,435,739 $ 4,191,972 5.82 % Per Capita 533 $ 500 6.62 % Total Long-term Indebtedness 7,310,000 4,943,000 47.89 % Per Capita 878 589 49.01 General Fund Balance - December 31 2,686,161 2,435,810 10.28 % Per Capita 323 290 11.11 The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of financial information concerning the City of Lake Elmo to interested citizens. The complete financial statements may be examined at City Hall, 3800 Laverne Avenue North. Questions about this report should be directed to the City Finance Director at (651) 777-5510. -107- THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -108- OTHER REQUIRED REPORTS CITY OF LAKE ELMO LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 -109- THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY -110- ABDO EICK MEYERS LLP c'rtiffrd PubIc Accountants Et Conaltams 5201 Edeii Avenue Suite 250 Edina, MN 55436 REPORT ON MINNESOTA LEGAL COMPLIANCE Honorable Mayor and Council City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota (the City), as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010, which collectively comprise the basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents, and have issued our report thereon dated June 7, 2011. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the provisions of the Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Local Government, promulgated by the Minnesota Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota statute 6,65, Accordingly, the audit included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. The Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Local Government covers seven main categories of compliance to be tested: contracting and bidding, deposits and investments, conflicts of interest, public indebtedness, claims and disbursements, tax increment financing, and miscellaneous provisions. Our study included all of the listed categories except that we did not test for compliance in tax increment financing because the City has not established a tax increment financing district. The results of our tests indicate that for the items tested, the City complied with the material terms and conditions of applicable legal provisions. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Council, management and the Minnesota Office of the State Auditor and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. MI fait Afitem Iwo June 7, 2011 ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP Minneapolis, Minnesota Certified Public Accountants 952.835,9090 • Fox 952,835.3261 -111- CITY OF LAKE ELMO LAKE ELMO, M1NNESOTA MANAGEMENT LETTER FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 4". ABDO EICK & YE DO E CK )nbitc Accountants 5201 Eden Avenue Suite 250 !Willa, MN 55436 Management, Honorable Mayor and Council City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota June 7, 2011 We have audited the financial statements of the govermnental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota (the City), for the year ended December 31, 2010. Professional standards require that we provide you with infoimation about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards, as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing on our audit. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated December 29, 2010. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit. Our Responsibility under Auditing Standards Generally Accepted in the United States of America As stated in our engagement letter, our responsibility, as described by professional standards, is to express opinions about whether the financial statements prepared by management with your oversight are fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our audit of the financial statements does not relieve you or management of your responsibilities. Our responsibility is to plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that the financial statements are free of material misstatement. As part of our audit, we considered the internal control over financial reporting of the City. Such considerations were solely for the purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to provide any assurance concerning such internal control over financial reporting. We are responsible for communicating significant matters related to the audit that are, in our professional judgment, relevant to your responsibilities in overseeing the financial reporting process. However, we are not required to design procedures specifically to identify such matters. Significant Audit Findings Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that might be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses and therefore, there can be no assurance that all such deficiencies have been identified. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. A deficiency in internal control over financial reporting exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency or combination of deficiencies in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the City's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. 952.835.9090 Fax 952,835.326] www.pc.ineplIti.eom City of Lake Elmo June 7, 2011 Page 2 Compliance As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City's financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of compliance with certain provisions of Minnesota statutes. However, the objective of our tests was not to provide an opinion on compliance with such provisions. We noted no instances of noncompliance with Minnesota statutes. Summary of Prior Year Findings 2010-1 Limited Segregation of Duties Over Utility Billing Condition: During our audit we reviewed procedures over transaction cycles related to utility billing and found the City to have limited segregation of duties related to those procedures. Criteria: Cause: There are four general categories of duties: authorization, custody, record keeping, and reconciliation. In an ideal system, different employees perform each of these four major functions. In other words, no one person has control of two or more of these responsibilities. The City has hired an outside company to perform utility billing and the finance department reviews the utility billing registers. The finding is no longer considered a significant deficiency. Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit We performed the audit according to the planned scope and timing previously communicated to you. Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the City are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. No new accounting policies were adopted and the application of existing policies was not changed during the year. We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period. Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management's knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the fmancial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the financial statements were capital asset basis, depreciation, other postemployment benefits payable and the allocation of payroll expenses. Management's estimate of depreciation is based on the estimated useful lives of capital assets. For some infrastructure assets, the basis was estimated by deflating current values of similar assets to the year of acquisition. Other postemployment benefits payable and the actuarial accrued liability were determined by the alternative measurement method allowed for plans with less than 100 members. Allocations of gross wages and payroll benefits are approved by Council within the City's budget and are derived from each employee's estimated time to be spent servicing the respective functions of the City. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop these accounting estimates in determining that it is reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. The disclosures in the financial statements are neutral, consistent, and clear. Certain fmancial statement disclosures are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. 952.835.9090 • Nu( 952. 35.3261 www.ticincim.vom City of Lake Elmo June 7, 2011 Page 3 Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in perfai ning and completing our audit. Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Management has corrected all such misstatements. In addition, none of the misstatements detected as a result of audit procedures and corrected by management were material, either individually or in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole. Disagreements with Management For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor's report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit. Management Representations We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated June 7, 2011. Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a "second opinion" on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the City's financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor's opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants. Other Audit Findings or Issues We generally discuss a variety ofmatters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City's auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention. 952.935,9090 • litx 952.835.3261 www.neinepimeoiti City of Lake Elmo June 7, 2011 Page 4 Financial Position and Results of Operations Our principal observations and recommendations are summarized below. These recommendations resulted from our observations made in connection with our audit of the City's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2010. General Fund The General fund is used to account for resources traditionally associated with government, which are not required legally or by sound principal management to be accounted for in another fund. The General fund balance increased $250,351 from 2009. The fund balance of $2,686,161 is 92 percent of the 2011 budgeted expenditures. We recommend the fund balance be maintained at a level sufficient to fund operations until the major revenue sources are received in June. We feel a reserve of approximately 50 percent of planned expenditures and transfers out is adequate to meet working capital and small emergency needs. Minnesota cities must maintain substantial amounts of fund balance in order to meet their liquidity and working capital needs as an operating entity. That is because a substantial portion of revenue sources (taxes and intergovernmental revenues) are received in the last two months of each six-month cycle. Considering the general fund has advanced monies to other funds, the unreserved fund balance of $1,617,211 is a better measure of funds available to meet the needs of the City. This amount is 55 percent of the 2011 budgeted expenditures. The Office of the State Auditor (the OSA) has issued a Statement of Position relating to fund balance stating "a local government should identify fund balance separately between reserved and unreserved fund balance. The local government may assign and report some or all of the fund balance as designated and undesignated." The Office OSA also recommends local governments adopt a formal policy on the level of unreserved fund balance that should be maintained in the general and special revenue funds. This helps address citizen concerns as to the use of fund balance and tax levels. The purposes and benefits of a strong fund balance are as follows: Expenditures are incurred somewhat evenly throughout the year. However, property tax and state aid revenues are not received until the second half of the year. An adequate fund balance will provide the cash flow required to finance the General fund expenditures until these revenue sources are received. The City is vulnerable to legislative actions at the State and Federal level. The State continually adjusts the local government aid and property tax credit formulas. An adequate fund balance will provide a temporary buffer against those aid adjustments and levy limits. Expenditures not anticipated at the time the annual budget was adopted may need immediate Council action. These would include capital outlay, replacement, lawsuits and other items. An adequate fund balance will provide the financing needed for such expenditures. A strong fund balance will assist the City in maintaining, improving or obtaining its bond rating. The result will be better interest rates in future bond sales. 952.835.9090 • Fax 952.835.32fil w%vw.ninepas.corii A table summarizing the general fund balance in relation to budget expenditures and transfers out follows: Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $4,000.000 S3,500,000 S3,000,000 S2,500.000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000.000 Total Fund Balance December 31 S 2272,328 2,254,950 2,410,841 2,435,810 2,686,161 Unreserved Fund Balance December 31 S 1,768,505 1,251,127 1,395,088 1,403,240 1,617,211 Budget Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 General Fund Budget 3,551,355 2,932,718 3,241,795 2,849,011 2,919,223 Percent of Total Fund Balance to Budget Fund Balance as a Percent of Next Year's Budget (81,8 7 71858 7 78'7 858'7 P.? 3 ') .804 tzti ' 2006 2007 cY3 2008 2009 64 9/0 77 74 85 92 City of Lake Elmo June 7, 20 11 Page 5 Percent of Unreserved Fund Balance to Budget 50 % 43 43 49 55 2010 2011 Total Fund Balance —,, L7p-Unreserved Fund Balance 13 udget We have compiled a peer group average derived from information available on the website of the Office of the State Auditor for cities of the 411' class which have populations from 2,500 to 10,000. In 2009, the average General fund balance as a percentage of expenditures Nvas 63 percent. Based on comparison to the peer groups, the City's General fund balance is higher than average. 939.835,9(PM • EIN 952.835.3261 1111 {1,Z11`11111/a,‘J'1,111 A summary of the 2010 operations is as follows: Revenues Expenditures Excess of revenues over expenditures Other financing uses Transfers out City of Lake Elmo June 7, 2011 Page 6 Final Variance with Budget Actual Final Budget 2,849,011 2,991,809 142,798 2,730,161 2,614,608 115,553 118,850 377,201 258,351 (118,850) (126,850) (8,000) Net change in fund balance 250,351 250,351 Fund balances, January 1 2,435,810 2,435,810 Fund balances, December 31 2,435,810 2,686,161 250,351 The City did not amend the General fund budget during the year. Actual operations of the fund provided an increase of $250,351. Revenues were over budget and expenditures were under budget. Revenues were $142,798 over budget during 2010. The main factor of this positive variance relates to licenses and permits which were $103,690 over budget. The number of homes purchased as well as the amount of remodel -type projects was more than anticipated during the year. Other revenue variances occurred with taxes and fines and forfeit revenues which were over budget by $16,656 and $16,897, respectively. Expenditures were $115,553 under budget during 2010. All functions had expenditures that were less than budgeted. The major reason for the expenditures being under budget was that the City budgeted for personnel expenditures that were not incurred. Overall, the City was under budget by approximately $120,000 relating to personnel expenses in the General fund. 952.835.9090 • Fax 952.835,3261 www.tienieptis,com A more detailed comparison of General fund revenue with the prior years is as follows: Source Taxes Licenses and permits Intergovernmental Charges for services Fines and forfeitures Investment earnings Miscellaneous Total revenues City: of Lake Elmo June 7, 2011 Page 7 Percent of Per 2008 2009 2010 Total Capita S 2,146,818 242,074 179,888 15,623 60,919 78,028 28,365 S 2,309,821 225,166 165,708 11,433 54,052 72,715 50,327 S 2,751,715 S 2,889,222 The revenues summarized above are presented graphically as follows: S3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 S1,500,000 S1,000,000 S500,000 Revenues 2008 Taxes —43,— Licenses and permits 2009 S 2,409,509 261,450 155,293 11,616 68,897 59,711 25,333 S 2,991,809 Intergovernmental 80.6 % S 289 8.7 31 5.2 19 0.4 1 2.3 8 2.0 7 0.8 3 100.0 % 8 358 0 2010 952,83:00'111 • Eck 452.1;35.301 IN 11 W.:10111111a 4'0111 City of Lake Elmo June 7, 2011 Page 8 A more detailed comparison of expenditures with the prior years is as follows: Peer Group Percent of Per Per Prograrn 2008 2009 2010 Total Capita Capita General 2overament S 1„057,492 S 929.960 S 921,590 33,6 % S 111 129 Public safety 933.380 988,082 1,064,176 38.8 128 206 Public \volts 435,277 430,832 473,293 17.3 57 113 Culture and recreation 141,520 165,644 155,549 5.7 19 50 Capital outlay 19,655 - - - 22 Transfers out 8,500 349,735 126,850 4.6 15 Total expenditures and transfers $ 2,595,824 S 2,864,253 $ 2741,458 100.0 % S 330 $ 520 The above chart compares the amount the City spends per capita, in comparison to a peer group. We have compiled peer group average fund balance information from approximately 120 fourth class cities (populations of 2,500 to 10,000). The peer group average is derived from information available on the website of the Office of the State Auditor. The expenditures and transfers summarized above are presented graphically as follows: S 1,200,000 $1,000,000 5800.000 S600,000 $400,000 S200,000 2008 Expenditures 2009 —--GeneralgovernmentPublic safety W•,,,,,,- Publicworks 0 2010 9,52.8:16,90911 • Fa '62.835.3201 ti wit .4koll lc pa,,o,litt City of Lake Elmo June 7, 201 1 Page 9 Debt Service Funds Debt service funds are a type of governmental fund to account for the accumulation of resources for the payment of interest and principal on debt (other than enterprise fund debt). Debt service funds may have one or a combination of the following revenue sources pledged to retire debt as follows: Property taxes - Primarily for general City benefit projects such as parks and municipal buildings. Property taxes may also be used to fund special assessment bonds which are not fully assessed. Capitalized interest portion of bond proceeds - After the sale of bonds, the project may not produce revenue (tax increments or special assessments) for a period of one to two years. Bonds are issued with this timing difference considered in the form of capitalized interest. Special assessments - Charges to benefited properties for various improvements. In addition to the above pledged assets, other funding sources may be received by Debt Service funds as follows: • Residual project proceeds from the related capital projects fund • Investment earnings • State or federal grants • Transfers from other funds Debt Description 312 2002 G.O. Improvement Bond 313 2004 G.O. CIP Bond 314 2006 G.O. Equipment Certificates of Indebtness 315 2009A G.O. Refunding Bond 316 2009B G.O, Improvement Bond N/A 2010A G.O. Improvement Bond N/A 2010B G.O. CIP Crossover Refuding Bond Total All Debt Service Funds Total Cash 58,429 3,391,204 14,847 December 31, 2010 Total Assets 79,671 3,393,987 14,847 400,000 141,745 214,495 3,606,225 $ 4.103,000 Final Bonds Maturity Outstanding Date 40,000 2012 3,375,000 2013 240,000 2015 400,000 2016 575,000 2020 710,000 2025 1,970,000 2025 7,310,000 The 2004 G.O. CIP Bond has been refunded by the 2010B G.O. Crossover Refunding Bond. The cash with fiscal agent balance is primarily set aside for the future principal payment of $2,845,000 in 2013. 952.835.9090 • Fax . 35.5261 w.eumlepas,colii City of Lake Elmo June 7, 2011 Page 10 Special Revenue Funds Special revenue funds are used to account for revenue derived from specific taxes or other earmarked revenue sources. They are usually required by Minnesota statute or local ordinance to finance particular functions or activities of government, A summary of fund balances follows: Fund Nonmaj or Development Fall Festival Total Fund Balances December 31, Increase 2010 2009 (Decrease) 15,973 11,351 27,324 43,836 (27,863) 6,609 4,742 50,445 (23,121) The decrease in the Development fund was mostly due to public works capital outlay expenditures. The Fall Festival fund remained stable during 2010. Capital Projects Funds These funds accumulate resources to finance major capital acquisition and construction projects. A recap of each fund and fund balances (deficits) follows: Fund Fund Balances (Deficits) December 31, Increase 2010 2009 (Decrease) Major Village Project $ (1,146,241) $ (1,016,403) (129,838) 2010 Street Improvements 39,669 (19,037) 58,706 Nonmajor Park Dedication 949,345 993,669 (44,324) Infrastructure Reserve 44,145 235,468 (191,323) Vehicle Acquisition 363,012 280,231 82,781 City Facilities 276,501 518,614 (242,113) Manning Avenue/Highway 36 (7,701) (8,806) 1,105 2009 Street Improvements 34,960 (34,960) Tablyn Park Entrance 8,518 (8,518) 2011 Street Improvements (41,948) - (41,948) Total 476,782 1,027,214 (550,432) As projects are completed the City should transfer the remaining resources to the original funding source or to a permanent reserve fund. As mentioned above, all funds should maintain a balance sufficient to provide for project costs, A deficit indicates a shortfall and Council should monitor the original financing plans. 952,835.9090 • Pax 952.835,3261 IV$VW.111:111011115,e(1111 City of Lake Elmo June 7, 2011 Page 11 Enterprise Funds The Water Utility, Sewer Utility and Storm Sewer Utilities make up this fund type. Water Utility Fund A three year comparison for the Water Utilities fund follows: 2008 2009 2010 Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent Operating revenues 441,543 100.0 % 437,255 100.0 % 517,359 100.0 % Operating expenses 640,515 145.1 641,293 146.7 699,745 135.3 Operating loss (198,972) (45.1) (204,038) (46.7) (182,386) (35.3) Nonoperating expenses (112,887) (25.6) (70,465) (16.1) (64,768) (12.5) Transfers in - - 50.000 9.7 Capital contributions 669,031 151.5 411,553 94.1 187,401 36.2 Change in net assets $ 357,172 80.8 % 137,050 31.3 % 8 (9,753) (1,9)% Cash and temporary investments S 562,825 Bonds payable $ 4.730,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 S3,000,000 S2,000,000 81.000.000 s- 2008 $ 533,346 8 565,407 S 4,715,000 Water Utility Fund N Operating revenues LI Operating expenses Cash and temporary, investments $ 4,680.000 2010 El Bonds payable Net assets of the Water fund remained relatively stable when compared to the prior year; however, developer contributions and asset contributions from other funds have been decreasing. The fund incurred an operating loss for the sixth consecutive year. Cash increased approximately 830,000 due to cash provided by operations and interfund activity. Annual cash payments for debtservice are above 8225,000. We recommend that an annual rate study be completed to determine the adequacy of rates related to costs of the fund. 952AW00,10 • Fa%952=-0261 City of Lake Elmo June 7. 201 1 Page 12 Sewer Utility Fund A three year comparison for the Sewer Utility fund follows: 2008 2009 2010 Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent Operating revenues 44,568 100.0 % 5 45,146 100.0 % S 48,508 100.0 % Operating expenses 63,400 142.3 59,243 131.2 61,513 126,8 Operating loss (18,832) (42.3) (14,097) (31.2) (13,005) (26,8) Nonoperating revenues 2,636 5.9 3.083 6.8 3,032 6.3 Change in net assets (16,]96) (36.4) % (11014) (24.4) % (9,973) (20.5) % Cash and temporary investments 5 71,750 47,474 29,226 $80,000 S70,000 $60,000 S50,000 S40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 s- 2008 Sewer Utility Fund 2009 2010 r; Operating revenues L] Operating expenses Nonoperating revenues ra Cash and temporal). investments The Sewer fund showed an operating loss for the fourth consecutive year and a decrease in cash and temporary investments for the third consecutive year. The City needs to ensure their current rate structure is sufficient to cover operations of the fund. 059.1135,01011 • Ea 952.;;3.;i2() I tv$%,:1011111:1,,collf Storm Sewer Utility A three year comparison for the Storm Sewer Utility fund follows: Total 2008 Percent Total 2009 Percent Total City of Lake Elmo June 7, 2011 Page 13 2010 Percent Operating revenues 134,674 100,0 % 5 149,347 100.0 % S 185,425 100.0 % Operating expenses 123,902 92.0 140,365 94.0 151.384 81.6 Operating income 10.772 8.0 8,982 6.0 34.041 18.4 Nonoperating revenues (expenses) (3.426) (2.5) (3.188) (2,1) 32,638 17.6 Transfers in 100,000 67.0 - Capital contributions 85,900 63.8 336,624 225.4 158,546 85.5 Change in net assets S 93.246 69.3 % S 442.418 296.3 % 5 275,225 121.5 % Cash and temporary investments (deficits) (140.520) Due to other funds S500,000 S400,000 S300,000 $200,000 $100,000 S(100,000) S(200,000) 2008 80.154 S 56,226 Storm Sewer Utility Fund 2009 2010 Operating revenues nOperating expenses Change in net assets fel Cash and temporary investments Operating.- income increased as a result of revenues increasing at a higher rate than operating expenses, but the change in net assets was lower than the prior year due to less capital contributions. Although the fund is showing operating income, the fund has no cash balance. This improvement from a de -licit cash balance in 2008 is a result of an interfund loan from the Water fund. The City needs to review operations of the fund to ensure the future of the fund is positive. 95',M35.9( NI) • Lis, 052.J-ri5.3:2(i I i% City of Lake Elmo June 7, 201 1 Page 14 Ratio Analysis The following, captures a few ratios from the City's financial statements that give some additional information for trend and peer group analysis. The peer group averaae is derived from information available on the website of the Office of the State Auditor for City's of the fourth class, which have populations from 2.,500 -- 10,000. The majority of these ratios facilitate the use of economic resources focus and accrual basis of accounting at the government -wide level. A combination of solvency (ability to pay its lone. - term obligations), funding (comparison of financial amounts and economic indicators to measure changes in financial capacity over time) and common -size (comparison of financial data with other cities regardless of size) ratios are shown below. Ratio Debt to assets Debt service coverage Calculation Source Total liabilities/total assets Govemment-wide Net cash provided by operations/ Enterprise funds enterprise fund debt payments Debt per capita Bonded debt/population Government -wide Taxes per capita Tax revenues/population Government -wide Current expenditures per capita Governmental fund current Governmental funds expenditures / population Capital expenditures per capita Governmental fund capital Governmental funds expenditures / population Capital assets % left to depreciate - Governmental Capital assets % left to depreciate - Business-typc 1.4presems lit' Lake [bun Pt- Group ratio Net capital assets/ gross capital assets Net capital assets/ gross capital assets Debt -to -Assets Leverage Ratio (Solvency Ratio) overnincnt-Gde Government -wide 2007 2008 34.2% 36,2°6. .1139.996 16.7.399 . 1.275 S 1,155 ,3 6 73 2,6 7 262 S 310 5 337 S 4a/ S 331 .3 553 8 667 6 .0)7 S. 1 t01 ,/09 S: 32.3 S4,264, 33.2 70,•/"A 70,i8% 2009 2010 33378 31.3'r6 261.396 57,2% A'61 S 1.151 S 1,440 S 2,7 13 1\34 S ,320 8 321 S 5 305 S 316 S '65 .1\ ./.4 119 S 145 .3.0) ;'661 81.888 87.1 3'3 67'77,, 71) The debt -to -assets leverage ratio is a comparison of a city's total liabilities to its total assets or the percentage of total assets that are provided by creditors, It indicates the degree to which the City's assets are financed through borrowings and other long-term obligations . a ratio of 50 percent would indicate half of the assets are financed with outstanding debt), Debt Service Coverage Ratio (Solvency Ratio) The debt coverage ratio is a comparison of cash generated by operations to total debt service payments (principal and interest) of enterprise funds. This ratio indicates if there are sufficient cash flows from operations to meet debt service obligations, Except in cases where other nonoperating revenues (i.e, taxes, assessments, transfers from other funds, etc.) are used to fund debt service payments, an acceptable ratio would he above 100 percent. 952 J1:15.00911 • k 052.1135,3261 1A.;11.111111Z4, rt 1111 City of Lake Elmo June 7, 2011 Page 15 Bonded Debt per Capita (Funding Ratio) This dollar amount is arrived at by dividing the total bonded debt by the population of the city and represents the amount of bonded debt obligation for each citizen of the city at the end of the year. The higher the amount, the more resources are needed in the future to retire these obligations through taxes, assessments or user fees. Taxes per Capita (Funding Ratio) This dollar amount is arrived at by dividing the total tax revenues by the population of the city and represents the amount of taxes for each citizen of the city for the year. The higher this amount is, the more reliant the city is on taxes to fund its operations. Current Expenditures per Capita (Funding Ratio) This dollar amount is arrived at by dividing the total current governmental expenditures by the population of the City and represents the amount of governmental expenditure for each citizen of the City during the year. Since this is generally based on ongoing expenditures, we would expect consistent annual per capita results. Capital Expenditures per Capita (Funding Ratio) This dollar amount is arrived at by dividing the total governmental capital outlay expenditures by the population of the City and represents the amount of capital expenditure for each citizen of the City during the year. Since projects are not always recurring, the per capita amount will fluctuate from year to year. Capital Assets Percentage (Common -size Ratio) This percentage represents the percent of governmental or business -type capital assets that are left to be depreciated. The lower this percentage, the older the city's capital assets are and may need major repairs or replacements in the near future. A higher percentage may indicate newer assets being constructed or purchased and may coincide with higher debt ratios or bonded debt per capita. 952.835.9090 • Fax 952.835.3261 W' tvw.acincpus.suitil Items for Improvement Utility Billing Adjustments Condition: City of Lake Elmo June 7, 2011 Page 16 During analysis of revenues, we noted approximately $79,000 of adjustments recorded to the City's utility billing system in 2010, including one adjustment of nearly $41,000 to a single commercial utility customer who had been inadvertently over -billed for usage and then billed penalties for late payment. Roughly $13,000 was from delinquent bills certified to the County for collection, and approximately $21,000 was identified as necessary adjustments to correct other mechanical errors (ex. meter malfunction, software error from calculating usage, correction of estimated usage, etc.). There does not appear to be a clear written policy or procedure regarding how these adjustments are calculated or approved. Criteria: Internal controls should include standardized procedures on how adjustments are made as well as a process to catch these errors prior to the bills being sent. Cause: Lack of defined monitoring process. Effect: As evident in the amount of adjustments made in 2010, the City is exposed to the risk of billing error. Also, significant time has been spent by staff to identify and correct these errors. Recommendation; We recommend a documented procedures policy be adopted to ensure proper monitoring is in place. This has become more important as the City's utility function continues to grow and evolve. A few procedure to consider would be 1) setting a dollar limit of adjustments needing prior approval from the Finance Director, City Administrator, or even Council prior to being entered into the system, 2) having either the Finance Director or City administrator approve a monthly report of billing adjustments, and 3) review billing register summaries for reasonableness compared to previous register summaries prior to mailing the billing statements. Management Response: Management acknowledges that utility billing errors occur and are corrected via billing adjustments. Staff will work on internal controls to prevent these types of errors before they occur in the future and proper policies are documented and followed. Management will also review the above recommendations taking into consideration costs versus benefits. 952.835.9090 • Fa x 952.835.3261 www.8oincpas.C1101 City of Lake Elmo June 7, 2011 Page 17 Future Accounting Standard Changes The following Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statements have been issued and may have an impact on future City financial statements: GASB Statement No. 54 - Fund Balance This statement was issued in March of 2009 and is effective for periods beginning after June 15, 2010. This new standard is intended to improve the usefulness of information provided to financial report users about fund balance by providing clearer, more structured fund balance classifications, and clarifying the definitions of existing governmental fund types. GASB No. 54 distinguishes fund balance between amounts that are considered non -spendable, such as fund balance associated with inventories, and other amounts that are classified based on the relative strength of the constraints that control the purposes for which specific amounts can be spent. The following classifications and definitions will be used: • Restricted - amounts constrained by external parties, constitutional provision, or enabling legislation • Committed - amounts constrained by a government using its highest level of decision -making authority • Assigned - amounts a government intends to use for a particular purpose • Unassigned amounts that are not constrained at all will be reported in the general fund. In addition to the classifications of fund balance, the standard clarified the definitions of individual governmental fund types, for example, special revenue funds, debt service funds, and capital project funds. GASB Statement No. 59 — Financial Instruments Omnibus Summary The objective of this Statement is to update and improve existing standards regarding fmancial reporting and disclosure requirements of certain financial instruments and external investment pools for which significant issues have been identified in practice. This Statement provides for the following amendments: Statement 31 is clarified to indicate that a 2a7-like pool, as described in Statement 31, is an external investment pool that operates in conformity with the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Rule 2a7 as promulgated under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended. Statement No, 40, Deposit and Investment Risk Disclosures, is amended to indicate that interest rate risk information should be disclosed only for debt investment pools —such as bond mutual funds and external bond investment pools —that do not meet the requirements to be reported as a 2a7-like pool. The provisions of this Statement are effective for fmancial statements for periods beginning after June 15, 2010. Earlier application is encouraged, 952.8.'15.9090 • Fax 952.8353261, 11{, IVIV.111.! ine.1)118.00111 City of Lake Elmo June 7, 2011 Page 18 How the Changes in This Statement Will Improve Financial Reporting The requirements of this Statement will improve financial reporting by providing more complete information, by improving consistency ofmeasurements, and by providing clarifications of existing standards. Emphasizing the applicability of SEC requirements to 2a7-like external investment pools provides practitioners with improved guidance. Finally, limiting interest rate risk disclosures for investments in mutual funds, external investment pools, and other pooled investments to debt investment pools provides better guidance regarding the applicability of interest rate risk disclosures. This report is intended solely for the information and use of City Council, management, and the Minnesota Office of the State Auditor and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. Our audit would not necessarily disclose all weaknesses in the system because it was based on selected tests of the accounting records and related data. The comments and recommendations in the report are purely constructive in nature, and should be read in this context. If you have any questions or wish to discuss any of the items contained in this letter, please feel free to contact us at your convenience. We wish to thank you for the opportunity to be of service and for the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by your staff, tAti Mae" June 7, 2011 ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP Minneapolis, Minnesota Certified Public Accountants 952.835.9090 • F'ax 952.835.3261 ivww.ocrilcinui,cona CITY OF LAKE E AYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: REGULAR ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING RESOLUTION 2011-027 7/19/2011 13 AGENDA ITEM: Appeal Hearing on Denial of a Fence Permit Application for a Proposed 6 Foot High Solid Fence in the Side Yard of the Property at 12418 Marquess Way North. SUBMITTED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner THROUGH: Bruce Messelt, City Administrato REVIEWED BY: Dave Snyder, City Attorney Kyle Klatt, Planning Director SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: The Board of Appeals is respectfully requested to deteimine whether Staff s interpretation of the City Code related to the applicant's proposed fence construction at 12418 Marquess Way North, is in confoiiiiance with the existing regulations, as written. The property owner, Mr. Konop, has requested to build a solid 6 foot high fence around the perimeter of his rear yard. The applicants ask that the Board of Appeals consider Staff s interpretation of Section 154.120 Fence Height and Location and Section 154.125 Fences as Screening and Security, As Required. The recommended motion to act on this is as follows: "Move to approve Resolution 2011-027 confirming staffs denial of a fence permit to allow a solid, six foot high fence along the side property lines adjacent to other residential properties at 12418 Marquess Way North." BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On June 7'1', 2011, the City Council approved, by a vote of 4 to 1, to approve amendments to the Fence Ordinance. One applicable change to the ordinance added the following language: Section 154.120 (C) 2. "When the rear property line of a through lot abuts a public street classified as either a principal arterial. A minor arterial. or B minor arterial in the Citv's Transportation Plan. a fence Parallel to that Property line mav be constructed up to 72 inches in height. but is not reauired to be open to light and -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting Appeal Fence Permit Denid, 12418 Marquess Way N July 19th, 2011 Regular Agenda Item # 13 air. A comer lot must continue to meet safety reouirennents of 96.03 (B) 19 regarding the obstruction of view of traffic." This alteration in code allows a specific exemption to the requirement that fences in rear yards could be built up to 72 inches in height (6 feet), but that any portion of such fence above 42 inches measured from grade shall be open to light and air over 75 percent of the surface area. (Existing language, not changed at the June 7th meeting): Section 154.120 (B) Fence height in interior yards, "No fence shall be constructed exceeding 72 inches in height measured from grade in interior yards; and, any portion of such fence above 42 inches measured from grade shall be open to light and air over 75% of the surface area." AND (Existing language, with minor changes at the June 7th meeting): Section 154.120 (C) 1. Lots with frontage along improved public streets at both the rear yard and the front yard (through lots) may apply the standards of division (B) above for fences paralleling the rear yard. Another section of code regulates when solid fences are allowed for screening purposes as required by code. Examples of such are when residential lots share a common property line with commercial uses or when equipment and outside items such as boats must be screened. (Existing language, not changed at June 7th meeting): Section 154.125 Fences as Screening and Security, as Required "(A) Generally. The Lake Elmo City Code and this chapter include prescribed physical circumstances of a site where screening of uses, equipment, and outside storage is required. In those prescribed circumstances, fence not to exceed 72 inches in height measured from grade may be installed, subject to the following standards: (1) Required fences for screening and security purposes in Agricultural and Residential zoning districts shall be set back from all property lines equal to the required structure set back of the zoning district in which they are located, except where residential zoned lots share a common property line with commercial uses, or commercial zoning districts and only on the common property line between the residential and commercial parcels." This last section of code does not apply to Mr. Konop's property with regards to the side property lines adjacent to other residential property. IF it did apply, the fence would not be allowed to be constructed along the property line as requested, but would need to be 10 feet off the property line (the applicable structure setback). — page 2 -- City Council Meeting July 19th, 2011 Appeal Fence i amit Denial for 12418 Marquess Way N Regular Agenda Item # 13 STAFF REPORT: The Board of Adjustment and Appeals is asked to examine the finding of noncompliance with the existing code which resulted in denial of the fence permit. Determination that staff erred in interpreting the code, and that the fence permit should be issued for 12418 Marquess Way N without a variance, must be substantiated by findings of fact. When conducting this review, the Board is asked to keep the following in mind: I. This is not a policy decision by the Board of Adjustment and Appeal; it is a determination as to whether the City Code has been properly interpreted as written with regards to fence heights allowed in specific yard types. 2. The Board of Appeals cannot find the proposed fence is conforming to code based on what may or may not be present on other property within the City. The proposed fence either conforms to code as written or it does not. 3. This is not a policy decision about the clarity or appropriateness of zoning code sections related to the proposed fence. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments is not a policy making body. Such a finding must have no bearing on the determination as to whether the structure is conforming or nonconforming with current codes as written. Please note that the Board may recommend that the City Council direct staff to make changes to the ordinance to address any identified concerns or the Planning Commission to further review the ordinance. Mr. Konop has requested to build a solid 6 foot high fence around the perimeter of his rear yard. Staff has read and interpreted the City Code to not allow his request and therefore, denied his fence permit application for the following reasons: 1. A solid fence constructed in the interior side yard, adjacent to other residential properties would be allowed to be constructed up to 72 inches in height and any portion of such fence above 42 inches measured from grade shall be open to light and air over 75 percent of the surface area. Referencing Section 154.120 B. 2, The fence proposed along the rear property line (adjacent to State Highway 5) would be permitted by City Code up to 72 inches in height as a solid wall. State Highway 5 is considered an A Minor Arterial by code and would therefore be considered for this exception. This portion of the fence would be peimitted, Referencing Section 154.120 (C) 2. 3, The fence proposed along the property line adjacent to the property used for commercial purposes could be constructed up to 72 inches in height as a solid wall. In addition, it should be noted, that if Mr. Konop would proceed with applying for a fence (of any size) to be constructed within a City easement, an Easement Encroachment Agreement would be required to be signed by the applicant and approved by the City Council prior to construction of the fence. Should the City Council agree with staff that the ordinance does not permit the fence Mr. Konop is proposing, an alternate option would be for Mr. Konop to apply for a variance. A variance -- page 3 -- City Council Meeting Appeal Fence Pennit Denia 12418 Marquess Way N July 19th, 2011 Regular Agenda Item # 13 allows an exception to the rules in unique circumstances whereas an appeal states that staff is interpreting the city code incorrectly. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above background information and staff report, it is recommended that the City Council confirm Staff s interpretation that the proposed fence would not be allowed to be constructed up to 72 inches in height around the rear yard of Mr. Konop's property at 12418 Marquess Way N by undertaking the following action: "Move to approve Resolution 2011-027 confirming staff's denial of a fence permit to allow a solid, six foot high fence along the side property lines adjacent to other residential properties at 12418 Marquess Way North." Should the Board of Appeals agree with Staffs finding, the applicants are still able to apply for a variance to allow the proposed fence. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Applicants' Submittals 2. Copy of Letter from Planning Director Klatt Denying Permit; 6-20-11 3. Applicable Sections of Code 4. Resolution 2011-027 SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item .......... ........ .................. . .. . ..... ..... Report/Presentation ......... ......................... ........................ Questions from Council to Staff ......... ..... ...... ...... Public Hearing as Board of Appeals Call for Motion ..... City Administrator . Planning Department Mayor Facilitates Mayor Facilitates Mayor & City Council Discussion ....... ......... ....„..... .............................. . ..... ........ Mayor & City Council Action on Motion ........... ............. ...... ....... .............. .......... Mayor Facilitates --page4-- U11T re . LICE - Permit No, Date Lake Elmo City Hall I Fee 3800 Laverne Ave. No. Receipt # Lake Elmo,1VIN 55042 Voice: 651-777-5510 Fax: 651-777-9615 Applicant(s) Vc1) Property Address 1 OrVar Phone Numbers ()S1 t3I) Comrnents O'wner(s) Material Wood 0 Purpose *Privacy 41110 Height in Feet' retercbCor Abi," rkic—ii" Rear CITY * ELli „.. FENCE PERMIT AP . J.• • ,•• . . . Width in Feet ).21 Metal 0 Security IP Chain Link 0 Containment 440 Sicio I s Other 0 D.E.A. - Other RW, LIVA Describe " VALUE$t Cc) 7 Side 0?:3 Side 3 -2 Side 4 4/ * A Certificate of Survey by a Licensed Land Surveyor showing parcel boundaries may be required. * hereby ac4d1Oviiiediettiifeitiowiii4t. haVe, received,. readi, and Understand the reqtnreinentS of L,rike Elmo Ordinance 302 regEirding the nstructioti and maintenance of fencea,. I will build my fence in_acoordance with the Ordinance. I will build my permitted fen:0e 'emtirely on my property, and the fence will not enCroaeh on adj:aberit prepOi1i65; When installing atiyy part ofthis permitted fence Within a dedicated easement, written perrnisSibn of th grariter-Of'the easeiderit is reqUired.. By granting this perini't; the City is not guaranteeing the accuracy of the si the applicants regardt c1�atibn (Ala t.20:044.ri4. SignatUre•Of ift...eieessreseismee repesnttin of Fences will be inspected ONCE: 1) FINAL Inspection, Call the Building Dept. at least 24 hours in advance of an inspection request. 651-777-5510 To avoid underground utilities, telephone Gopher State One Call at 454-0002 before you digl I.R0i Date Chesterfleld Gates Personalize your fence design with decorative elements from Bufftech, Designed to coordinate with our 6Chesterfield style fence, Bufftech concave and convex style gates combine Victorian elegance with a durable design. Bufftech 's premium gate includes a heavy-duty internal aluminum frame and safety features such as self -closing hinges and lockable latches. Convex CHESTERFIELD STRAIGHT (NOT SHOWN), CONCAVE AND CONVEX GATE Straight Heights: 4' , 5' & 6' Straight Colors: White, Clay, Ian & Almond Concave and Convex Height: 6' Concave and Convex Color: White Concave PRIVAO1, . The:tre*cT:41DIe. available in Smooth 'nish: completeprivacy White Clay* CHESTERFIELD SMOOTH FINISH ACCENTS CHESTERFIELD WITH LATTICEACCENT Heights: 4' 8" plus 1' 4" Accent & 3' 8" plus 4" Accent Colors: White, Tan & Almond Picket Style: 7/8" x 7" Tongue & Groove CHESTERFIELD WITH HUNTINGTON ACCENT Heights: 4' 8" plus 1' 4" Accent Colors: White & Tan Picket Styles: 7/8" x 7" Tongue & Groove and 1-1/2" Square Swoop design with New England Cap Tan Almond CHESTERFIELD WITH VICTORIAN ACCENT Heights; 4' 8" plus 114" Accent Colors. White & lan Picket Style: 7/8" x 7" Tongue & Groove and 7/8" x 1-1/2" CHESTERFIELD WITH WESTMINSTER ACCENT Heights: 4' 8" plus 1' 4" Accent Colors: White Picket Style: 7/8" x 7" Tongue & Groove 40; SCm-sto design with Gothic Cop Coo L,s to rm .7)1" Julie Palmer 12432 Marquess Way N Lake Elmo, MN 55042-4428 July 15, 2011 Kyle Klatt Director of Planning and Development City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 RE: Konop Fence Permit Application Dear Mr. Klatt, Recently our neighbors, Rob & Jodi Konop informed us of their desire to build a fence in their backyard. They have a young son, Carson who enjoys playing in the backyard on his jungle gym. They also recently added a puppy to their family. They explained to us that the desire to build a six foot privacy fence has become a longer process than anticipated due to changes in the city ordinances and need to appeal the permit rejection to get a permit to build. Two of the three lots in Carriage Station that directly abut Highway 5 have existing six foot privacy fences that were built before the ordinance changed. In our conversation, they told us the biggest concern they had was for the safety of their son and new puppy. Although many large pine trees along the back lot line provide some privacy, a secure six foot fence is needed to ensure the safety of children and animals in the backyard. They asked us our opinion on the six foot fence to ensure that we felt it would not be an obstruction or distract from the aesthetically pleasing view of the neighborhood. As their lot is a walkout, the fence in the backyard would not be in view from the street or front of the house which is where the neighbors often gather socially. We also feel that allowing a 6 foot privacy fence in the back along the road but require them to install a 42 inch privacy fence on the sides would create a fence that is not appealing. We told Rob & Jodi that we would have no issues with a complete six foot privacy fence and feel that it would fit in with the already existing structures along the lots of Carriage Station abutting Highway 5. We are writing this letter in support of Rob & Jodi Konop's request to build a six foot privacy fence. Please consider our thoughts as you address this issue. Sincerely, Julie Palmer Robert and Jodi Konop 12418 Marquess Way N Lake Elmo, MN 55042-4428 June 2S, 2011 Kyle Klatt Director of Planning and Development City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 RE: Konop Fence Permit Application Dear Mr, Klatt, Recently our neighbors, Rob & Jodi Konop informed us of their desire to build a fence in their backyard. They have a young son, Carson who enjoys playing in the backyard on his jungle gym. They also recently added a puppy to their family. They explained to us that the desire to build a six foot privacy fence has become a longer process than anticipated due to changes in the city ordinances and need to appeal the permit rejection to get a permit to build, Two of the three lots in Carriage Station that directly abut Highway 5 have existing six toot privacy fences that were built before the ordinance changed. in our conversation, they told us the biggest concern they had was for the safety of their son and new puppy. Although inany large pine trees along the back lot line provide some privacy, a secure six foot fence is needed to ensure the safety of children and animals in the backyard. They asked us our opinion on the six foot fence to ensure that we felt it would not be an obstruction or distract from the aesthetically pleasing view of the neighborhood. As their lot is a walkout, the fence in the backyard would not be in view from the street or front of the house which is where the neighbors often gather socially. We also feel that allowing a 6 foot privacy fence in the back along the road but require them to install a 42 inch privacy fence on the sides would create a fence that is not appealing. We told Rob & Jodi that we would have no issues with a complete six foot privacy fence and feel that it would fit in with the already existing structures along the lots of Carriage Station abutting Highway 5, We are writing this letter in support of Rob & Jadi Konop's request to build a six foot privacy fence. Please consider our thoughts as you address this issue. Sincerely, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SURVEY AND LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISION r 4949 Mod Street Nat?, P,O. Box SILINAger, Mimosas ssnamoas (65f )4304975 surnyorgDoo.wasbirwtoamn.us owAtcawasignigoammus ONR PROTECTED WATERS • DNA PRoTECTED WETLAN D DNR PROTECTED WATERCOURSE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY PARK BOUNDARY NORTH SCALE: 1 Inch = 30 ft 31 sc2s2010502920I I- 7 -- 1-- 1202921 0702920 0902920 COUNTY IRCINTPT HAP SECTION VICINITY MAP 23 1 21 r 12 I 24 I) 14 42 41 33 34 4 44 PROPERTY rCENTIPICAllON saws FORMAT PTIEOCCDET OELIVI IMMO' 'ME CILYNIM OPECM IAMBI IN IMAM CUMITETI NAM of HO II OP 'lot —„.. liKi)•uorpous Cf PflOPFMT NOCIFIGIVNM43.91 THIS DR4WWG IS THE RESULT OF A COMPILATION AND flEPRODUC17ON OF LAND RECORDS AS THEY APPEAR PO VARIOUS WASHINGTON COUNTY OFF7CES. WASHINGTON COUNTY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE EDP ANY INACCURACIES PfiOPEI1TY LINOSA. SHOIVN, Anr PO/ t riEFoitnys Pormoso; ANI) Mt 6 REPRESEN7 ACTIMI OCA TfOW.5 MAP LAST UPDATED Januar y26, alfl NO ADDITIONAL CHANGES HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO DATE 0ATEOFOONTOURS; APrif, 2000 B.1 TEOFRNO7OGRARkr A4 200P Sic co • CITY OF LAKE ELMO City ke Elmo June 20, 2011 Robert Konop 12418 Marquess Way North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 RE: FENCE PERMIT APPLICATION Dear Mr, Konop: 651/777-5510 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Our office has reviewed your request to construct a six-foot solid wall privacy fence within the rear portion of your yard at 21418 Marquess Way North and determined that portions of the proposed fence do not comply with the City's fence regulations. Section 154.120 through Section 154.128 of the City Code (which was recently revised) specifies the requirements for fences, and includes the following provisions: [Section 154.120, Subd. B] Fence height in interior yards. No fence shall be constructed exceeding 72 inches in height measured from grade in interior yards; and, any portion of such fence above 42 inches measured from grade shall be open to light and air over 75% of the surface area, [Section 154.120, Subd. C] Fences on through lats. (1) Lots with frontage along improved public streets at both the rear yard and the front yard (through lots) may apply the standards of division (B) above for fences paralleling the rear yard. (2) When the rear property line of a through lot abuts a public street classified as either a principal arterial, A minor arterial, or B minor arterial in the City's Transportation Plan, a fence parallel to that property line may be constructed up to 72 inches in VtnT(C or recyck.K-' Dupe: height, but is not required to be open to light and air. A corner lot must continue to meet safety requirements of 96,03 (B) 19 regarding the obstruction of view of traffic. Based on this language, you would be allowed to construct a solid -wall privacy fence up to six feet in height along or near your property boundary with Minnesota State Highway 5 (which is classified as an "A -minor Arterial Road in the City's Transportation Plan), but you could not construct such a privacy fence within any other portion of your lot. There are additional provisions in the Fence Ordinance that allow for a screening fence to be installed along the border between commercial and residential zoning districts; however, the site plan you submitted does not show any portion of the proposed fence extending to the commercial property line that abuts your parcel. As depicted on your site plan, the fence that is planned along the eastern portion of your property (at the edge of the existing evergreen landscaping) is permitted; however, the additional portions of the fence that are shown along the property line separating your lot from the adjacent Lot 5, Block 1 of Carriage Station and additional extensions of this fence that would connect between the side property lines and your principal structure are not allowed to exceed 42 inches in height as a solid wall. For the reasons noted above, your request for permission to construct a six-foot high solid wall privacy fence at 12418 Marquess Way North is hereby denied. Please contact me at 651-233-5402 if you have any questions about the City Code, to further discuss the provisions cited in this letter, or if you would like to discuss options for bringing this request into compliance with the City Code. Since ely, Kyle Klatt Planning Director cc: Karl Horning, Acting Building Official Dave Snyder, City Attorney Ordinancep44k,..ity Council Version) City Council; 6/7/11 CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08-044A AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FENCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 154.120 THROUGH SECTION 154.128 TO ALLOW SOLID FENCES IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS AND TO CLARIFY THE INTENT OF OTHER SECTIONS SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, by amending the following language: § 154.120 FENCE HEIGHT AND LOCATION. (A) Fence height in street setbacks. No fence shall be constructed exceeding 42 inches in height measured from grade within any front, side (corner), or rear street setback. Fences constructed within the prescribed street setback areas shall be at least 50% open to air and light. (See Figure 154.120) Figure 154.120: Height of Fencing SIRM1- SIDE YARD Cwb Lint Property Llrot A. • Amor. • WOW. 0...“ 11.1.11” A* tkt .ftive Iss*. 42 In, Meueimorri-51" Opon tcv Pot & LIM 42a, - 42 In. SQIfd E. 7 ` Open to 72 Inthas 72 0 ' LI E s T R E E F R 0 T R C3 0) Fence height in interior yards. No fence shall be constructed exceeding 72 inches in height measured from grade in interior yards; and, any portion of such fence Ordinance 08-044A (City Colin( rersion) City Council; 6/7/11 above 42 inches measured from grade shall be open to light and air over 75% of the surface area. (C) Fences on doubic,front throuzh lots. (1) Lots with fr-enting-frontage along improved public streets at both the rear yard and the front yard (through lots) may apply the standards of division (B) above for fences paralleling the rear yard. (2) When the rear property line of a through lot abuts a public street classified as either a principal arterial, A minor arterial, or B minor arterial in the Citv's Transportation Plan, a fence parallel to that property line may be constructed up to 72 inches in height, but is not required to be open to light and air. A comer lot must continue to meet safety requirements of 96.03 (B) 19 regarding the obstruction of view of traffic. (D) Grade defined. The grade from which fence height measurements are calculated shall only be from either natural grade or grade modified responsive to a grading plan approved by the city; and, shall not include the height of berms or introduced increases in ground elevation that would raise the effective fence height over that which would be otherwise permitted by this subchapter, except that a combination of raised grade and fence that would exceed in sum the fence height permitted by this section may be specifically approved by the City Council as an element of a subdivision plat or commercial site plan approval establishing specific property grading and topography. (E) Easement encroachnient. Where allowed by other divisions of the fence ordinance and other applicable sections, a fence may be constructed up to one foot off a pronerty line unless an easement is present or it is determined a fence would obstruct a drainage area. An Easement Encroachment Agreement, along with a fence permit, allows a fence to be constructed within a city easement after it has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Council and the applicable fee has been received. (Ord. 97-137, passed 8-4-2004) § 154.121 MATERIALS. (A) Permitted fence materials. Permitted fence materials shall be limited to brick, stone, wood planks, split rail, wrought iron, and as regulated by § 154.123. Vinyl or composite material fences shall also be permitted. (B) Finished face offence. That side of the fence considered to be the face (finished side as opposed to structural supports and frame) shall face abutting property and public streets. (C) Chain link or cyclone ences. Chain link, and wire mesh fences are permitted to a maximum height of 72 inches measured from grade. No chain link, cyclone or wire 2 Ordinance 08-044 Ic3ity Council Version) City Council: fi/7// 1 mesh fence shall be permitted in any front, side (corner), or rear street setback, (See Figure 154.121) Figure 154.121: Cyclone/Chain Link Fencing STREET SIDE YARD •Vgr...1101/Me...1106•....141•VOMYtIOMOr Curb Lim Properly Lim 0 u E (ittagitt Link Formkttad Chem Lk* kn Black or (Ord. 97-137, passed 8-4-2004) Only R 0 T s T E T A R § 154.122 FENCES IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT. No fence shall be permitted in the OHW setback of any parcel located in Shoreland, as defined by § 11.01, except where the principal structure is entirely located within the OHW setback. Where the principal structure is at least partially located within the OHW setback, fences complying with the standards of § 154.120(B) may be constructed within the side yard area of the principal structure, but not extending beyond the front and rear exterior walls of the principal structure. Decks, porches and landings of any type shall not be considered a part of the principal structure for the purpose of determining allowable fence. (Ord. 97-137, passed 8-4-2004) § 154.123 TEMPORARY FENCES. (A) Defined. For the purposes of this subchapter temporary fences are those that are installed and removed on a seasonal basis, such as snow fences and garden fences. Ordinance 08-044A (City Counc4 ?rsion) City Council; 6/7/11 Temporary fences shall be open to light and air over not less than 40% of the fence surface area. (B) Duration and limitation. No snow fence shall or posts therefore shall be installed prior to November 1, and must be removed prior to April 15. (C) Height and location. Temporary fences shall comply with the fence and fence location standards of § 154.120, except that snow fences shall be set back at least 50 feet from any south or east property line, or such additional distance as may be required to prevent the accumulation of snow on public streets or adjoining property, as determined by the Building Official. (Ord. 97-137, passed 8-4-2004) § 154.124 AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION. Fences constructed on parcels in excess of 5 acres for the keeping of horses; and fences constructed on parcels in excess of 10 acres for the keeping of other livestock, as defined by § 11.01, are specifically exempted from the provisions of this subchapter. Any such agricultural fencing shall be at least 75% open to air and light. (Ord. 97-137, passed 8-4-2004) F41§ 154.125 FENCES AS SCREENING AND SECURITY, AS REQUIRED. (A) Generally. The Lake Elmo City Code and this chapter include prescribed physical circumstances of a site where screening of uses, equipment, and outside storage is required. In those prescribed circumstances, fence not to exceed 72 inches in height measured from grade may be installed, subject to the following standards: (1) Required fences for screening and security purposes in Agricultural and Residential zoning districts shall be set back from all property lines equal to the required structure set back of the zoning district in which they are located, except where residential zoned lots share a common property line with commercial uses, or commercial zoning districts and only on the common property line between the residential and commercial parcels. (Am. Ord. 97-169, passed 5-2-2006) (2) The provisions of § 154.120 regarding fence height measurement from grade shall apply. No combination of earthen berm and fence may exceed the 72-inch maximum height for screening. (3) Materials used for screening shall be limited to those specified by § 154.121. 4 Ordinance 08-04,4). ,City Council Version) City Council; 6/7/1 (4) No such screening shall be roofed or covered in any manner. (Ord. 97-137, passed 8-4-2004) (5) Solid fence not to exceed 72 inches in height measured from grade may be installed, subject to the following standards: (a) The total area of any parcel enclosed by solid fencing shall not exceed the maximum allowable area for an accessory structure in the zoning district in which the parcel is located, less the sum of the area of any accessory structures located on the same tax parcel. (b) The area enclosed by screen fencing shall maintain a ratio of width to length of no greater than 2:1. (See § 154.093). (c) A screening fence that is not enclosed may be allowed provided the total length of said fence does not exceed the perimeter of the largest accessory building permitted in the zoning district in which the parcel is located, less the sum of the area (or Perimeter) of any accessory structures located on the same tax parcel. (B) Outdoor living area extensions. Solid fencing to a maximum height of 72 inches may be used to enclose outdoor extended living areas of a principal structure, subject to the following standards: (1) The area enclosed by outdoor extended living area fencing shall not exceed an enclosed area of 500 square feet. (2) Fence utilized to enclose an outdoor extended living area shall be extended to a point not more than 6 inches from the principal structure at 1 fence termination point. (3) Fence utilized to enclose an outdoor extended living area shall not extend into side yard of a lot beyond the existing building line of the existing principal structure, nor shall such fences be located in any side or front street yard. (See Figure 154.125) Figure 154.125: Fencing for Outdoor Living Area Ordinance 08-044A (City Cou ?rsion) City Council; 6/7/11 Curb Line 1.... 1), ape rlY Litio-e • • .. • • •••• • .... • • mom" • mom . • .•••• • • ••••... ...., P11100 10 eriziose outdoor intInveruit shall dot emend ' I : ban ardor yard ot lot beyond marling building line, nor : shni au* Worn he 'pouted in any oldie or front mom 1 Solid tolef to nuninnom WOO or 72 irights. STREET SIDE YARD 131.1111din • Dian= frarnprh1 I airsounc not to me 6 imobni-, 11 0 u E Le • iris mom • • -1•10.1 •• "EOM r •.•,=• 4' .1., The IMIa enalased by avidoor !add %vier; mutt brown, Oat riot amend an onolosod ot SOO' imnsano feel. Foam oilliamd to endow) an outdoor eamandad Wog aria *Ma be, exteridadlo point Minors than imam Korn tha *nolo& enaction, atone Mann nintina- lion paint. (Am. Ord. 97-155, passed 4-19-2005) T R E E T F N R D 154.126 PERMITS REQUIRED. (A) Except as noted herein, installation of all fences requires a fence permit issued by the City of Lake Elmo. This permit shall be applied for on such fowls, include such documentation, and include such fees to the city for processing as may be prescribed from time to time by the City Council. Fences exempt from requiring an installation permit are limited to the following: (1) Fences of any type installed for the sole purpose of the keeping of domestic farm animals, as defined by § 11.01, and regulated by § 154,104(E) of this Code. All such fences shall be removed by the property owner within 6 months of the termination of the keeping of domestic farm animals, unless an extension is specifically authorized by City Council action; and (2) Fences of any type installed by municipal, county or state governments and public utilities for facility security or the delineation and/or protection of public rights -of - way. (B) Failure to obtain a city fence permit prior to the installation of any fence subject to this regulation shall result in an automatic double permit fee, in addition to any 6 Ordinance 08-04.4„;:ity Council Version) City Council; 6/7/11 corrective measures to bring the fence into compliance with the standards for fences prescribed by this chapter. (Ord. 97-137, passed 8-4-2004) § 154.127 FENCES AS NON-CONFORMING/HAZARDOUS STRUCTURES. Fences shall be considered to be structures for the purposes of applying the terms of the non- conforming structure provisions of this chapter, and the hazardous structures provisions of city code and state statute. (Ord. 97-137, passed 8-4-2004) 14 § 154.128 OTHER PROVISIONS; CONFLICTS. To the extent that provisions of this chapter may conflict with other provisions of the city code regarding the regulation of fences and screening, the provisions of this chapter only shall apply. (Ord. 97-137, passed 8-4-2004) SECTION 3. Effective Date This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo. SECTION 4. Adoption Date This Ordinance No. 08-044 was adopted on this 7th day of June 2011, by a vote of Li Ayes and f Nays. ATTEST: Bruce 114dsselt City Administrator Mayor Dean A. Johnston 7 CITY OF LAKE ELMO Washington County, Minnesota BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS RESOLUTION NO. 2011-027 A RESOLUTION STATING FINDINGS OF FACT RELATED TO AN APPEAL ON THE DETERMINATION NOT TO APPROVE A FENCE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY AT 12418 MARQUESS WAY NORTH WHEREAS, the owners of property at 12418 Marquess Way North, Robert and Jodi Konop, made application for a fence permit to construct a solid, 6 foot high fence in the rear yard of their property and; WHEREAS, the City staff determined that the fence permit could not be approved due to the following circumstances: 1) The residential property 12418 Marquess Way North abuts two residential properties along the interior side property lines — Lot 5, Block 1 to the north and Lot 3, Block 1 to the south. The applicant's property also abuts State Highway 5 to the east and has a small segment of property line on the north that is adjacent to property used for non-residential purposes. 2) The fence ordinance requires fences on through lots to follow those requirements of interior yards when listed exemptions do not apply. 3) When the listed exemptions apply, a solid fence is permitted to be constructed up to 72 inches in height. 4) The allowed exemptions are when screening is required by code or when a rear property line abuts a principal arterial, A minor arterial, or B minor arterial road in the City's Transportation Plan. 5) The listed exemptions do not apply to the proposed fence not parallel with State Highway 5. Therefore, a fence is allowed to be constructed up to 72 inches in height with any portion of such fence above 42 inches measured from grade and shall be open to light and air over 75% of the surface area in those areas. 6) As the proposed fence not parallel to State Highway 5 is proposed to be 72 inches in height and a solid fence, staff informed the applicants on June 20, 2011, that the fence permit could not be approved. WHEREAS, the applicants submitted an appeal to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals regarding the determination not to issue the fence permit for the proposed fence, and request that the Board find that the permit should be issued; and WHEREAS, the Board heard the applicants and the City's staff and counsel on July 19, 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 approve the issuance of the building permit for the proposed fence at 12418 Marquess Way North, as stated in 1) through 6) above. ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS of the City of Lake Elmo this 5th day of July, 2011. Dean A. Johnston, Mayor Attest: Bruce A, Messelt, City Administrator 1 AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: 4'1 CA TI DATE: 7/19/2011 REGULAR ITEM #: 14 MOTION Request to extend the deadline for submission of a Preliminary Development Plan related to a Senior Living/Farm School development at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Bruce Messelt, City Administrator Kelli Matzek, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: The City Council is respectfully asked to consider a request by Tammy Malmquist, 8549 Ironwood Trail North, for an extension to the deadline required to submit an application for a Preliminary Development Plan related to a Senior Living/Fan-n School project at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard. Mrs. Malmquist has requested an extension of one additional year from the date of the concept plan approval. The City Council approved the a concept plans for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and OP - Open Space Conservation Development at a meeting on July 20, 2010, and the City Code requires the submission of a Preliminary Development plan within one year of this date in order for the approved plan to remain valid. The recommended motion to act on this is as follows: "Move to approve a request to extend the deadline for submission of Prelimineny Development Plan .for the PUD/OP Development related to a senior living/farm school project at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North from July 20, 2011 until Jul)... 20, 2021" BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Please find attached a copy of Resolution No. 2010-036A approving an OP - Open Space Development Concept Plan and a Planned Unit Development General Concept Plan related to Senior Living/Farni School development, which contains a significant amount of the background information concerning this request. including the findings documented by the City Council at the time of approval. In addition to the concept plans. the City Council previously approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a Zoning Text amendment to allow the application to proceed at its proposed location. Should the City Council either deny the preliminary or final plans (or conversely allow the one-year deadline for filing the preliminary plans expire) the Comprehensive Plan City Council Meeting Senior Living/FarL ohoo1 Extension Request July 19th, 2011 Regular Agenda Item # 14 amendment would no longer be valid as well due to the conditions imposed on the applicant when the amendment was approved. A brief timeline of the City approvals that were granted to move this development forward is as follows: June 1, 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the future land use map designation of the subject property to RAD2 (Rural Agricultural Density — 2 units per acre) June 1, 2010 Adoption of an Ordinance adding an OP-2 Open Space Overlay District to the City Code. July 20, 2010 Approval of an OP — Open Space Development Concept Plan and a Planned Unit Development General Concept Plan related to Senior Living/Farm School development The City Code establishes the deadlines related to the approval of a Concept Plan for both an OP and PUD development as follows: Limitation of approval. Unless an OP development preliminary plan is submitted within 12 months from the date on which the City Council approved the OP development concept plan, the concept plan approval shall expire. The City Council, in its sole discretion, may extend the filing deadline for an OP development preliminary plan and conditional use permit if an application for extension is filed and approved by the City Council before the OP development concept plan approval expires. Limitation of approval. Unless a Development Stage Plan covering at least 10 dwelling units or the area designated in the General Concept Plan as the first stage of the PUD, whichever is greater, has been filed within 12 months from the date Council grants General Concept Plan. approval, or in any case where the applicant fails to file development stage and final plans and to proceed with development in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and of an approved General Concept Plan, the approval shall expire. The Council, at its discretion, may extend the filing deadline for a development stage plan, when, for good cause shown, the extension is necessary. STAFF REPORT: The City's consideration of the applicant's request for an OP/PUD Development Plan included a very lengthy review period to not only process the concept plans, but also the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments that were necessary for this project to move forward. The concept plan approval also included a long and detailed list of conditions associated with the approval, all of which will require significant effort by the applicant to prepare. Given the complexity of the original application and review, Staff does not believe that it would be unreasonable to grant the requested extension. The current market conditions have certainly not been favorable for the applicant, either, who is trying to promote a project that fits a very unique and specific niche within the local (and — page 2 -- ( City Council Meeting July 19th, 2011 Semur Living/Farm School Extension Request Regular Agenda Item # 14 regional) housing market. It would have been beneficial to neither the City nor the applicant for an application to be rushed for submission to comply with the deadlines noted above, especially since the City code only notes that an application has to be submitted (or filed) by the application deadline. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above background information and staff report, it is recommended that the City Council grant the request to extend the deadline for filing an application for a Preliminary Development plan by undertaking the following action Move to approve a request to extend the deadline for submission of Preliminary Development Plan for the PUD/OP Development related to a senior living/farm school project at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North from July 20, 2011 until July 20, 2021" Alternatively, the City Council may consider the following options as it deems appropriate: Grant an extension for an amount of time that differs from what has been requested by the applicant. Staff would suggest a timeline of three months (until October 20, 2011) or until the end of the year (December 31, 2011) as reasonable alternatives. • Deny the extension request based on reasons that the Council specifies at its meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter from Applicant Requesting Extension of Deadline for PUD Plan Application 2. Resolution No, 2010-036A SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item City Administrator Report/Presentation ........... ..................... ........ ...„,...,City Administrator Questions from Council to Staff ............. ............ ....... ...... ...... Mayor Facilitates Public Input, if Appropriate Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion Mayor & City Council Discussion Mayor & City Council Action on Motion Mayor Facilitates — page 3 -- July 12, 2011 Honorable Mayor and Council Members, This correspondence is regarding the PUD and Open Space preliminary plat deadlines for my Senior Living/Farm School project located at 9434 Stillwater Blvd. Since receiving City approval, great strides have been made to move the project forward. I have assembled a strong development team comprised of my general contractor, architect, engineer and sales/marketing. I also had a market analysis done to identify supply and demand, as well as what kind of housing options seniors are currently looking for. Finally, our team created a Broker Book to help attain financing. I am currently pursuing financial options that include grants and private investors to continue moving this project forward. As you can well imagine, given the current economic climate this is taking longer than expected. At this time I respectfully request a 12 month extension, which will allow time to secure financing. Thank You for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Tammy Malmquist Ja. CITY OF LAKE ELMO RESOLUTION NO. 2010-036A A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN OP — OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN RELATED TO A SENIOR LIVING/FARM SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Tammy Malmquist, 8549 Ironwood Trail North ("Applicant") has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo ("City") for a OP — Open Space Development Concept Plan and General Concept Plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), a copy of which is on file in the Lake Elmo Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the proposed OP — Open Space Development Concept Plan and General Concept Plan for a PUD is to construct a senior living complex consisting of a multifamily residential structure and separate townhouse units along with a farm-themed preschool that also preserves an existing single family residence and farm outbuildings on a 24.4 acre parcel at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 11, 2010 and continued this hearing until its May 25, 2010 and June 14, 2010 meetings to consider the OP Development Concept Plan and General Concept Plan for a PUD; and WHEREAS, on June 14, 2010 the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the OP Development Concept Plan and General Concept Plan for a PUD with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission submitted its report and recommendation to the City Council as part of a memorandum from the Planning Department dated July 13, 2010; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the OP Development Concept Plan and General Concept Plan for a PUD at a workshop meeting held on July 13, 2010 and at its regular meeting on July 20, 2010. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following: FINDINGS 1) That the procedure for obtaining approval of said OP Development Concept Plan is found in the Lake Elmo City Code, Section 150.182. 2) That the procedure for obtaining approval of said General Concept Plan for a PUD is found in the Lake Elmo City Code, Section 154.074. 3) That all the requirements of said City Code Sections150.182 and 154.074 related to the OP Development Concept Plan and General Concept Plan for a PUD have been met by the Applicant. 4) That the proposed Concept Plan would allow the construction of a senior living complex consisting of a multifamily residential structure and separate townhouse units along with a fann-themed preschool that also preserves an existing single family residence and farm outbuildings on property legally described on the attached Exhibit "A" and commonly known as 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North, 5) That the proposed OP — Open Space Development Concept Plan: a) Is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan for the City and that the uses proposed are consistent with the RAD2 — Rural Agricultural Development (2 units per acre) land use designation shown for the area on the official Comprehensive Land Use Plan, b) Satisfies the intent and purpose of City's land use, zoning, and subdivision regulations, with certain exceptions to these regulations as permitted in accordance with the City's PUD requirements. c) Would not negatively affect the public health, safety, and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. 6) That the proposed General Concept Plan for a PUD: a) Is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. b) Is consistent with the purpose of Section 150,175 et seq. of the City Code. e) Complies with the development standards of Section 150.175 et seq. of the City Code, 7) That the proposed PUD will allow a more flexible, creative, and efficient approach to the use of the land than if the applicant was required to conform to the standards of the existing zoning districts on this property. 8) That the uses proposed in the PUD will not have an adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of neighboring property and will not be detrimental to potential surrounding uses. 9) That the PUD is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that construction, marketing, and operation are feasible as a complete unit, and that provision and construction of dwelling units and open space are balanced and coordinated. 10) That the PUD will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, and other public facilities and utilities, which serve or are proposed to serve the development. 11) That the PUD is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing, the Applicant's OP — Open Space Development Concept Plan and General Concept Plan for a senior living complex consisting of a multifamily residential structure and separate townhouse units along with a farm-themed preschool that also preserves an existing single family residence and farm outbuildings is hereby approved, subject to the following: a. The Applicant shall provide the City with a statement of acknowledgement and consent from the holder of the power line easement that runs along the northern portion of the development site granting permission for the placement of a community septic system and trails within this easement. As an alternative, the Applicant may provide an agreement that permits certain encroachments into the easement. The homeowner's association must be made aware of any issues as part of its articles of incorporation that could require future maintenance or repairs (or other actions that could have financial implications) to the drainfield area because of its location within said easement. b. The applicant shall submit a storm water and erosion and sediment control plan as part of the preliminary plan submissions that complies with the City's recently adopted Storm Water and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. c. All storm water facilities and access required as part of the Storm Water Management Plan for the site that the City Engineer recommends be maintained by the City shall be platted as outlots and deeded to the City. The size and location of the outlots shall be sufficient to provide an adequate level of buffering from adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The pond areas shall be counted as part of the required open space for the project. d. In order to meet requirements for fire protection and adequate water service levels for the proposed buildings, the utility plans shall provide for an adequately sized connection back to an existing City water main. The plans for this connection will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with providing a minimum water service size of eight inches to an existing main of a larger size. The final plans and financing, including any potential oversizing above eight inches requested by the City, shall be included as part of a developer's agreement for the project. e. The applicant shall provide a secondary vehicular access to the proposed development in the form of a private road connection to Jamaca Court North, to be devised and developed in conjunction with the City Planner and City Engineer. The applicant shall also provide an easement for a future road connection to the property immediately to the north of the project site. f. The applicant shall be responsible for the installation of all improvements to Stillwater Boulevard North (State Highway 5) required by MnDOT and specified in a letter to the City of Lake Elmo dated April 19, 2010. These improvements shall be included as part of the construction plans submitted as part of a developer's agreement for the project. g. The interior City Streets shall meet all concerns provided by the City of Oakdale Fire Chief, acting on behalf of the City's emergency services personnel, in a letter to the City dated April 14, 2010. h. The preliminary plans shall incorporate appropriate Buffers, Setbacks and Building Heights, as determined by the Planning Commission and City staff, taking into consideration the necessity of a secondary vehicular access, the proposed massing of development structures, and the impact of such on adjoining properties, including, but not limited to, the following specific issues: 1) Front yard setbacks to the proposed roads within the development area. 2) Buffering between the proposed development and open space preservation areas and neighboring properties. 3) Setbacks from the proposed animal buildings and neighboring parcels. i. Any buildings required as part of the community septic system shall be screened from view from adjacent properties. The keeping of animals associated with the agricultural activities on the site shall comply with all applicable City and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements for the keeping of domestic faun animals. k. The open space preservation areas shall be reviewed for potential inclusion as part of a conservation easement protected by the Minnesota Land Trust. The preliminary plans shall incorporate the calculation of proposed development density calculations NOT utilizing right-of-way area dedicated for State Highway 5. m. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) and/or Development Agreement shall include specific definitions for Senior Housing and Farm School and incorporate provisions for any future changes regarding such uses to be reviewed and acted upon by the City Council as amendments to the PUD. n. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) and/or Development Agreement shall include specific development phases and/or expectations for timely onset of development and construction activity, beginning no later than 1 (one) year following final City approval of said development, and provision for any future changes regarding such to be reviewed and acted upon by the City Council and to include any future requirement(s) for participation in program designed by the City to transfer density or development rights in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and related ordinances, and development programs in effect at that time. o. A part of the preliminary (development stage) plans, the applicant will: P. q. 1) Maximize the setback of the communal septic system from neighboring property lines and provide necessary fencing and an additional landscape buffer around the perimeter of the drainfield site. 2) Maximize the road and structure setbacks from the property lines adjacent to the development as much as possible, focusing on the area west and southwest of the proposed townhouses and along the eastern property lines. The City will consider flexibility and variation for interior setbacks to facilitate the above exterior buffer setback minimizations. 3) Augment the vegetative buffer provided along external property lines. 4) Demonstrate the ability to provide adequate grazing areas for the animals that will be housed on the site in addition to providing suitable access to these areas. The maximum size permitted for the new barn structure shall be limited to 3,000 square feet consistent with the maximum accessory building size permitted in a Rural Residential zoning district. The areas surrounding the school, school accessory buildings, and new barn structure shall not be included in the residential density calculations for the site, currently estimated at 48 units plus one additional unit. Bonuses, if any, for density otherwise permitted in the City Code, including, but not limited to, flexibility allowed through a PUD submission, historic barn preservation, or other means, shall be taken into account before establishing the overall density for the project. r. The preliminary (development stage) plans shall include a PUD agreement that will incorporate the following provisions: 1) The new barn, existing farm structures, and storm water facilities shall be permitted within open space/conservation land. 2) The applicant will provide an accurate description of the proposed agricultural activities that will take place on the site. 3) The applicant will provide information concerning the farm school structure, the operation of the school, the state licensing requirements for preschools, the size of the proposed facility, and the qualifications for the instructors within the school. 4) The overall residential density (expressed in number of dwelling units) permitted on the site shall be specified. s. Detailed submissions for the preliminary (sketch) plan review phase will include, but not be limited to, plans addressing architectural design and materials, lighting, landscaping, grading, and storm water and erosion control, all of which are subject to review and approval by the City of Lake Elmo. t. The foregoing conditions shall be performed according to the satisfaction of the City of Lake Elmo. Passed and duly adopted this 2061 day of July 2010 by Minnesota. ATT T: Bruce Messelt,Adnu ator To: Mayor and Council From: Ed Nielsen and Larry Weiss Date:July 18, 2011 JUL 1 2011 CJI First — We heard that these are the reasons why the Council approved Tammy's project last July: 1. Immediate need for low maintenance, high density housing to serve a mixture of City residents over 55 who need to move, and want a rural feel. 2. Land not available in New Village soon enough to allow for fast -track development. 3. Anticipated market will not want to live in Old Village. 4. Fulfill a dream of longtime property owner Iry Friedrich to have his farmland developed and used for a place where residents over 55 could interact with toddlers. 5. Need for more and better early childhood learning. 6. Provide a mechanism for the heirs to the 23 acres to realize greater financial gain than allowed by the underlying zoning of either continued agriculture or subdivision for 2 houses on rninimum 10 acre lots. 7. Support from all adjacent property owners except one in a zoning dispute with the City. 8. July 2010 leiter to City from DNR about requirement to remediate loss of 110 acres adjacent to Sunfish Lake Park confiscated by MPCA was set aside, ,e 9. The council did not have the dimensions of the primary structure when the building was given Concept Plan approval. 10. Sound financial and engineering plans promised to enable groundbreaking by October 2010, if immediate Council approval of the Concept Plan was given, even though the Concept Plan was inadequate to meet Zoning Code requirements. 11. The applicant stated that the traffic on Hwy 5 would be partially "calmed" by the completion of the traffic circle at Jamaca, 12, The applicant met with most adjacent property owners and informed the Council that the nearby residents support her project. Second -- the existing application should be terminated per the following: 1. Market has dried up for proposed project at required sales prices. 2. New Village now being planned with Committee created by Council with senior housing a priority, particularly since most of the interested parties currently live in single family housing in the Old Village and the Committee is anticipating substantially more land in open space than some were suggesting last year. 3 The most interested buyers are now known to be in their 70s, not 50's and will need access to goods and services not available on isolated farmland. 4. Story about Iry Friedrich now known to be made up and false. 5. Efforts by Mahtomedi and Stillwater Area school districts to create early childhood centers has focused attention to the need for mind stimulating pre-school education rather than old fashioned day care that does not prepare children for Kindergarten. Model farm school is in West Lakeland where staff has college degrees and at least one has a teaching certificate. The overwhelming majority of nearby City residents now oppose this project. They see the project as a "bait and switch",where they were promised no change in neighborhood character and no change in traffic impacts and now we have learned that the final approved concept plan calls for a very visible complex with significant traffic concerns. 6. An example of misleading information follows: In early April, 2010 Tammy Malmquist asked to come to Ed and Vicki Nielsen's home to explain her senior living center. She pointed to a large oak tree approximately 100 yards away on a hill and said the land drops behind the tree, the parking garages will be below ground, and said "you will barely see the building". I asked for the length, width, and height of the apartment building. Tammy said the building dimensions are not set, but she will provide them. About 3 months later, at the 7/13/2010 Council Workshop I again asked Tammy for the length, width and height of the apartment building; Tammy gave no answer. At the meeting, Councilman DeLapp estimated that the building would be longer than the new City Maintenance Building. I said to Councilman Emmons, during a meeting break, that if the apartment building is the size defined by Councilman DeLapp, I am strongly opposed to the Project. About 6 months later, on October 26, 2010 Larry Wiess asked Tammy Malmquist to meet with us to answer lingering questions we have. She suggested we attend her sales event at Gorinans. At the end of the program Ed asked for the length, width and height of the apartment building. Her engineer said the building would be 1 '/2 times as long as the Maintenance Building (450 feet). The height would be between 42 and 52 feet and the width would be 62 feet. The engineer agreed this building would be very obvious. Tammy lied and deceived us and other residents for her gain. 7. July 2010 letter from DNR was reviewed in June 2011 and the City is now learning the consequences that can be expected to have the MPCA pay Lake Elmo to purchase an additional 110 acres of land adjacent to Sunfish Lake Park to remediate the loss of 110 acres due to the quarantined landfill. There are only 3 undeveloped properties adjacent to Sunfish Lake Park, and the one proposed for high density development is one of them. Obviously, the adjacent property owners would prefer this land to become parkland and Irvin Friedrich's heirs would have a guaranteed compensation. The soils ability to "perk" were questioned before concept plan approval was given. In the subsequent year, no testing has been accomplished at the site. 9. The applicant was asked to demonstrate to adjacent property owners the location and height of the proposed apartment complex by use of helium balloons or a truck with a 50 foot ladder. There was not enough time in summer 2010, but in the past 12 months nothing has been demonstrated. 10. The traffic circle at Jamaca has been completed and adjacent property owners do not detect any significant speed reduction at the location of the proposed highway access. 11. From the time of approval to October, 2010, the applicant did not accomplish a single promised part of the development. 12. Not only was work never started on the Preliminary Plat, needed before any construction or buyer down payments accepted, but the incomplete, but approved Concept Plan was not finished. 13. The apartment and townhouse buildings sizes and locations are not known and the size and scope of the daycare facilities is not known. 14. in the 12 months since Concept Plan approval was granted, the applicant has not contacted the City once. 15. The only reason the applicant is before the Council today is that the City contacted the applicant to inform her that her time to submit an accepted Preliminary Plat was about to expire. Third — Recommendation 1, No ground has been broken on this land. We recommend this land be incorporated into Sunfish Lake Park for landfill remediation purposes. 2. City Staff can find an appropriate location for Tammy Malmquist's development. r Cr. 4P'2 ?f' ( :17 it b c LriJ yet, d •-zti f AA) 37.4 (7, To: Mayor and Council July 19, 2011 I POLLED ALL THE NEIGHBORS RELATIVE TO THIS ISSUE, THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY ARE AGAINST THIS PROJECT. Here we are one year later and not as naive as we were when we were deceived with this senior living concept plan. The original concept plan was rushed by the people before anyone had any idea of what it all entailed. We definitely know at this time we do not want this project in our neighborhood. This project will ruin our rural lifestyle. This 450' long by 62' wide by 53' tall building will be intrusive in the country landscape. This building will be 1 times the size of the LE Maintenance Bldg. The light created by this 53' tall building will be easily in sight looking over our backyards. How does the landscape remain peaceful with this monstrosity in our area? We do not need the excessive amount of traffic this type of project will bring to our neighborhood. A project of this magnitude belongs nearer to the city not in our backyards. I urge you to listen to our points of view and reject the request for an extension permanently. Stop playing games and giving special privileges to certain people. The residents near this proposed project deserve to have the rural character of their neighborhood kept in tact, Larry E. Weiss Lake Elmo, MN resident SENIOR LIVING / FARM SCHOOL PROJECT The project is surrounded on three sides by long established residential dwellings. Can you believe the main building is expected to be three stories high? That would be a lot of intrusive light in our quiet, rural neighborhood. 54 ft. tall — 48 units. How did that happen? What about buffers? 30 ft., 10 ft. We can't let this go any further. Come on give us some real munbers. The traffic. . . We can expect to see as many as 400 cars and trucks -increase per day. Can you image that on an already busy Highway 5? How is it acceptable to also burden a peaceful cul-de-sac with any extra traffic? Think about it. . . You would not like it if you lived there. The City Council has to open their eyes. The applicant has manipulated the City Council into supporting this incompatible development. Pretty pictures of the project but way too vague. Give some real facts and numbers.. Not just promises that don't seem to mean anything at this point. We have to show the City Council our DISCONTENT with letting this Senior Living / Farm School Project be built on these 24 acres in Lake Elmo. If you are in agreement with this objeeon to this Senior Living Project please list you aine and address below: 71 ;/./4/417-,>27 laq•71 e8 114 Jr- 410 2,5- 0 /11 ti -46r tiv,1.. 4 1- ( / /if; .4/ greeinent with this objection to this Senior Living Project, please list you name and address belovv SENIOR LIVING / FARM SCHOOL PROJECT The project is surrounded on three sides by long established residential dwellings. Can you believe the main building is expected to be three stories high? That would be a lot of intrusive light in our quiet, rural neighborhood. 54 ft. tall — 48 units. How did that happen? What about buffers? 30 ft., 10 ft. We can't let this go any further. Come on give us some real munbers. The traffic...We can expect to see as many as 400 cars and trucks increase per day. Can you image that on an already busy Highway 5? How is it acceptable to also burden a peaceful cul-de-sac with any extra traffic? Think about it. . . . You would not like it if you lived there. The City Council has to open their eyes. The applicant has manipulated the City Council into supporting this incompatible development. Pretty pictures of the project but way too vague. Give some real facts and numbers.Not ,just promises that don't seem to mean anything at this point. We have to show the City Council our DISCONTENT with letting this Senior Living / Farm School Project be built on these 24 acres in Lake Elmo. Ryon are in agreement with this objection to this Senior Living oject, please list you name and address below: ,7411 a CA . (2-1 • 1010 r3(Y\C_,:1-,C. ji 61070 • 73" ,0 9 7( Aci , Air ement with thi objection to this Senior Livi a list you name and address below: ;:ia eq L r-7 ._ ... ...., / g oject 7)44' . , LAKE ELMO AYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 7/19/2011 REGULAR ITEM M 15 RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM: Accessory Building Variance — 5761Keats Avenue SUBMITTED BY; Kyle Klatt, Planning Director THROUGUI: Bruce Messelt, City Administrato REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Kelli Matzek, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider a variance request from Steve and Joan Ziertman, 5761 Keats Avenue, to allow the construction of a second 2,400 square foot accessory building on their property. A variance has been requested because the applicants already have built a 2,310 square -foot building on their property, and the RR — Rural Residential Zoning District only allows one such accessory building on their property. The proposed building would be used to house equipment related to the growing and selling of agricultural products (primarily pumpkins). The recommended motion to act on this is as follows: "Move adopt Resolution Number 2011-028 approving a variance to allow the construction of a new 2,400 square foot accessory building at 5761 Keats Avenue in addition to an existing 2,310 square foot building on the property" BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached Staff report includes a detailed review of the application along with a description of the Staff and Planning Commission recommendation. For variance applications, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate why this situation is unique and necessitates flexibility to code requirements. To make this case, a variance can only be granted by the city when 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. The criteria that are included in the City Code for making such a decision include the following: -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting 5761 Keats Ave. Variance July 19th, 2011 Regular Agenda Item # 15 Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board of Adjustment upon 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 propel ty 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. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner Character of locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. Adjacent properties 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. In reviewing the request against the four criteria listed above, staff determined that not of all of these criteria were met and recommended denial of the request based on the suggested findings included in the attached Staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT,: The Planning Commission reviewed the variance request at its Julyl 1, 2011 meeting and conducted a public hearing at this time. The Commission received four letters/emails in support of the variance prior to the meeting, and received two additional letters/emails of support that were read at the meeting. All of these comments are attached for consideration by the City Council. Because this application is the first that has been submitted under the updated variance standards, the Planning Commission spent a fair amount of time reviewing the application against the new criteria and findings that must be made before a variance can be granted. The Commission received a detailed presentation from the applicants describing their current operation and offering suggested findings to approve the variance. The Commission debated whether or not the proposed application met the new variance standards, and ultimately recommended approval of the request with the findings for approval as drafted by Staff and with two additional findings to support this recommendation. These findings specifically noted that the size of the produce being grown on the premises and the history of the farm in this area were factors unique to the applicants' site. -- page 2 — City Council Meeting 5761 Keats Ave, Variance July 19th, 2011 Regular Agenda Item # 15 The Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance request with two conditions of approval. Because she owns the land that is subject to the variance with her husband, Commissioner Ziertman excused herself from the proceedings, and therefore did not vote on this matter. The final vote of the Commission on this matter was 5 ayes and I nay. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above background information, staff report and Planning Commission recommendation, it is recommended that the City Council approve the variance request from Steve and Joan Ziertman, 5761 Keats Avenue, to allow the construction of a second 2,400 square foot accessory building on their property by undertaking the following action: "Move adopt Resolution Number 2011-028 approving a variance to allow the construction of a new 2,400 square foot accessory building at 5761 Keats Avenue in addition to an existing 2,310 square foot building on the property" Alternatively, the City Council may table taking action on the application and direct either staff or the applicant to provide additional information concerning the request. The Council may also consider denying the, variance and should develop findings of fact to support a motion for denial based on the evidence presented during the course of the City review and could use the draft findings for denial outlined in the staff report as a basis for this action. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No 2011-028 2. Staff Report 3, Application form 4. Applicants narrative and proposed findings (with Comprehensive Plan excerpts) 5. Site Plan 6. Site photographs 7. Aerial image of site 8. Comments and maintenance change worksheet from City Assessor 9. Letters of support (6) SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item ..,..... ..... ............ ..... ........ ........... City Administrator - Report/Presentation City Plarmer - Questions from Council to Staff Mayor Facilitates -- page 3 -- City Council Meeting 5761 Keats Ave. Variance July 19th, 2011 Regular Agenda Item # 15 Public Input, if Appropriate ..... ..,....,...............,...., .............. Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion ............,...... ........ ........ ....... ..... ....... Mayor & City Council DiscussionMayor & City Council Action on Motion Mayor Facilitates --page4-- CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2011-028 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING IN A RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Steve and Joan Ziertman, 5761 Keats Avenue (the "Applicants") have submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the "City") for a variance to allow the construction of a second 2,400 square foot detached accessory building on their property zoned RR — Rural Residential, a copy of which is on file with the City; and WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Ehno Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.017; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter on July 11, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated July 19, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its July 19, 2011 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following: FINDINGS 1) That the procedures for obtaining said Variance are found in the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.017. 2) That all the submission requirements of said 154.017 have been met by the Applicant. 3) That the proposed variance is to allow the construction of a second 2,400 square foot accessory building on their property. A variance has been requested because the applicants already have built a 2,310 square -foot building on their property, and the RR — Rural Residential Zoning District only allows one such accessory building on their property. The proposed building would be used to house equipment related to the growing and selling of agricultural products. 4) That the Variance will be located on property legally described as the North 425 feet of the South 1550 feet of the West 1100 feet of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 29, Range 21, Washington County, Minnesota. Subject to an easement over the West 33 feet thereof for Keats Avenue. Commonly known as 5761 Keats Avenue. 5) That the strict enforcement of Zoning Ordinance would cause practical difficulties and that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. Specific findings: a) The proposed use is reasonable because the applicants have demonstrated the need for additional agricultural storage on their property beyond what can be accommodated in the current buildings on the site. b) The accessory building is located on a portion of the site that is not directly visible from the any roads, and would be well screened from adjacent properties. c) Because most of the site is being used to grow agricultural products, the property functions as an operating farm which has different usage and storage requirements than a property that is only used for residential purposes. 6) That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Specific findings: a) The applicants are using the property for agricultural purposes and have been classified as such by the Washington County Assessor's office. Very few properties that are less than 20 acres in size are used and/or classified in this manner. b) Because nearly all of the property is being actively fanned, the equipment and storage needs for this parcel are much greater than other sites that are not under active agricultural production. c) The produce that is grown on the applicants' site, including pumpkins, is larger than typical agricultural crops and therefore has unique storage needs. d) The applicants' parcel was part of a larger, established family farm that has been in continuous operation for nearly 40 years. 7) That the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. Specific findings: a) The area surrounding the applicants' property has historically been used for active farming, including open space land that is part of an open space development to the north and east of this property. b) The proposed building will be located in such a manner that it will not be directly visible from surrounding properties, and will be located behind a row o evergreen trees that will provide year round buffering. c) Former farm sites with multiple accessory buildings are not uncommon in this area and many of these sites have been successfully incorporated into residential subdivisions. 8) That 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. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing, the Applicants' application for a Variance is granted with the following conditions: 1) That the use of the proposed accessory building be restricted to agricultural activities only, and that it not be used for the storage of personal automobiles, home based business activities, or other non-agricultural equipment. 2) That a substantial portion of the acreage will continue to be used for fanning. Passed and duly adopted this 19th day of July 2011 by the City Council of the City of Lake Ehno, Minnesota. Dean A. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator To: From: Meeting Date: Applicant: Location: Zoning: City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Variance Request City Council Kyle Klatt, Planning Director 7/19/11 Steve and Joan Ziertman 5761 Keats Avenue RR — Rural Residential Introductory Information Application The City of Lake Elmo has received a variance request from Steve and Joan Ziertman, Summary: 5761 Keats Avenue, to allow the construction of a new 2,400 square foot accessory building on their property. A variance has been requested because the applicants already have built a 2,310 square -foot building on their property, and the RR — Rural Residential Zoning District only allows one such accessory building on their property. The proposed building would be used to house equipment related to the growing and selling of agricultural products (primarily pumpkins). Property The applicants' property and neighboring property at 5699 Keats Avenue were split Information: from their family's farm in 1989, with houses being constructed on these lots a short time later. The original farmstead, including the house and barn, were later sold to the organization that built the Rockpoint Church in 2006; which also received approval at this time for a preliminary plat for an open space subdivision named Hidden Meadows. This 25-lot development has not yet received final plat approval from the City, and therefore, all property immediately to the north and west of the applicants' property is either vacant or being rented out for agricultural production (except for the church and parking lot). In the future, there will be residential lots to the east of the applicants' property, with open space/conservation land planned to the north. The applicants' property at 5761 Keats Avenue is approximately 10.7 acres in size, and in addition to the principal residential structure, there is a detached accessory building that was built in two phases at different times. These accessory buildings are now joined together by a breezeway, in which case they are viewed at one detached structure in accordance with the Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Most of the property located to the rear of the house is used for the growing of agricultural products, including pumpkins, gourds, hay, corn stalks, ornamental corn, and other products, which are then sold on the premises as part of an agricultural sales operation. There is currently some equipment being stored outside that does not meet the City Code requirements for such exterior storage, but most of this equipment is located Vorionce Reg WW1:: Zioronan Access Building: 761 Keats A venue C:ily Council Report: 7/19/11 behind a screening fence on near the northern property line, and because it is screened from view, it does comply with the City requirements. Because the Ziertmans requested time at the Planning Commission meeting to review their request with the Commission, Staff will not be providing a detailed description of the farming activity taking place on the site as part of this report. Applicable Section 150.017 Variances. Codes: (A-I1 Variances. Identifies procedures and requirements for the processing and review of a variance application. Please note that this section was recently updated by the City to comply with revisions to Minnesota State Statutes. Section 154.036 RR- Rural Residential. (A-F) RR — Rural Residential Zoning District. Specifies the permitted uses, district requirements, and minimum district requirements for the RR zoning district. Section 154.092 Accessory Buildings and Structures. Describes the types of accessory buildings and regulations based on building type. Section 154.093 Number/Size of Accessory Buildings Specifies the number and size of accessory buildings that are allowed in each zoning district based on the size of the property. Findings & General Site Overview Site Data: Lot Size: 10.7 acres Existing Use: Residential/Agricultural Existing Zoning: RR — Rural Residential; Property Identification Number (PID): 02.029.21.22.0001 Application Review: Applicable BUILDING. Any structure either temporary or permanent, having a roof and Definitions: used or built for the shelter or enclosure of any person, animal, or movable property of any kind. When any portion of a building is completely separate from every other part of a building by area separation, each portion of the building shall be deemed as a separate building, DETACHED RURAL STORAGE BUILDING. A 1-story accessory building used or intended for the storage of hobby tools, garden equipment, workshop equipment and the like, Exterior materials shall match the principal structure in exterior color or be of an earthen tone. AGRICULTURAL FARAI BUILDING. An accessory building used or intended 1..(ill ol .,576! .qi.(.. Ziyfrincinkei) p(14L: •arienlc, -..7 j. dor Variance Rgquest; Zicriman ,.icces,vory 1d .5761 Keats Vf.q7 City Council Rt.vori: 7/19/1 for use on an active commercial food -producing farm operation of more than 20 acres, a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency permit may be required. DWELLING, SINGLE-FAMILY. A residential structure designed for or used exclusively as 1 dwelling unit of permanent occupancy. 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. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner AGRICULTURAL SALES BUSINESS. The retail sale of fresh fruits, vegetables, flowers, herbs, trees, or other agricultural, floricultural, or horticultural products. produced on the premises. The operation may be indoors or outdoors, include pick - your -own or cut -your -own opportunities include pick -your -own opportunities, and may involve the ancillary sale of items considered accessory to the agricultural products being sold or accessory sales of -unprocessed foodstuffs; home processed food products such as jams, jellies, pickles, sauces; or baked goods and homemade handicrafts. The floor area devoted to the sale of accessory items shall not exceed 25% of the total floor area. No commercially packaged handicrafts or commercially processed or packaged foodstuffs shall be sold as accessory items. No activities other than the sale of goods as outlined above shall be allowed as part of the AGRICULTURAL SALES BUSINESS. WAYSIDE STAND. A temporary structure or vehicle used for the seasonal retail sale of agricultural goods, floriculture, and horticulture produced by the operator of the WAYSIDE STAND on site, which is clearly a secondary use of the premises and does not change the character thereof. AGRICULTURE. The production of livestock, dairy animals, dairy products, fur - bearing animals, horticultural and floricultural nursery stock, fruits of all kinds, vegetables, forage, grains, bees, and apiary products. AGRICULTURAL BUILDING. A structure on agricultural land, as defined below in the definition for FARM, RURAL of this section, designed, constructed, and used to house farm implements, livestock, or agricultural produce or products grown by the owner, lessee, or sublessee of the building and members of their immediate families, their employees, and persons engaged in the pickup or delivery of agricultural produce or products. FARM, RURAL. The portion of a 10 or more acre parcel ofland which is devoted to agriculture by the property owner or by a lessee of the property owner. Usel.Vorian(t:s.„'; 76 ! Jet.. Zie.yona,i ..4c( BdIg o1itic 7-/9-/ J. doe Page 3 Variance .Request., Zierrinan Acces,vdo "funding; .576/ Keats Avenue C:inCouncil Repon: /19/11 Variance Review: The applicants are proposing to construct a second accessory building on their property that would be 2,400 square feet in size and located 25 feet off of the southern property line. It would be situated in back of the existing buildings on the property and at a lower elevation than the existing structures as well. There is a fairly substantial buffer of evergreen trees between the proposed building location and neighboring property, which would greatly reduce the visibility of the structure from the south. The applicants have stated that they need additional space to store agricultural equipment used as part of their farming operation, partially because they are losing the use of the historic barn that was part of their family's original homestead. No driveway is proposed to provide access to the structure since it will be primarily be used to store equipment used in the adjacent fields, The City's Zoning regulations limit the number of accessory buildings that can be established in a Rural Residential District to no more than one such building with 2,500 square feet for parcels that are between 10 and 15 acres in size. The proposed accessory building would be the second such building on the site, and therefore would not be allowed under the terms of the RR Zoning District regulations and Accessory Building requirements. Please note that the City Code does include differing definitions and requirements for various agricultural buildings and activities. Specifically, the code contains three definitions that could fit this building, including AGRICULTURAL BUILDING, DETACHED RURAL STORAGE BUILDING, and AGRICULTURAL FARM BUILDING. Because the term used in the accessory building section of the Code is "agricultural farm building", it is Staff s interpretation that a farming operation would need to have at least 20 acres of land in order to be exempt from the City's zoning requirements (such agricultural buildings are exempt from the City's zoning requirements). Variance An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set Criteria: forth in Lake Elmo City Code Section 154.017 before an exception or modification to city code requirements can be granted. Because the City has not yet reviewed a variance under the ordinance, some of these required findings will be new to both staff and the City Council. These criteria are listed below, along with comments from Staff regarding applicability of these criteria to the applicants' request. Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board of Adjustment upon 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 S-j'inc?d ; kccItk T.:01inch 7ientnall nr RdI !'ro.icurce 7'-!11:-/Ldoc Page 4 Variance Request; Ziertman Accesscny BuiiA .6; 5761 Keats Averme Ciry Council .Report: 7/19/7 1 reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. The language concerning "practical difficulties" represents the bulk of the new provisions that were amended in the City Code. Under this standard, the City would need to find that the construction of a second accessory building at 5761 Keats Avenue is a reasonable use of the property not otherwise permitted under the zoning ordinance. Staff has found that the proposed building would exceed the number and size of permitted accessory buildings on the site, and therefore, the Planning Commission will need to consider the "reasonableness" of the proposal as submitted by the applicants. Under this criteria, Staff would suggest the following findings that could be made either in support or opposition to the variance: APPROVE: That the proposed use is reasonable because the applicants have demonstrated the need for additional agricultural storage on their property beyond what can be accommodated in the current buildings on the site. The accessory building is located on a portion of the site that is not directly visible from the any roads, and would be well screened from adjacent properties. Because most of the site is being used to grow agricultural products, the property functions as an operating farm which has different usage and storage requirements than a property that is only used for residential purposes. DENY: That the proposed use is not reasonable because the applicants already have a large accessory building in use on the property in addition to an attached garage. There are other alternatives to storing wagons and other agricultural equipment on the site, including renting out space from another agricultural property as they have been doing in the past. The operation of a farming operation of ten acres in size can be accommodated within the allowed building size limits. 2. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. This standard is relatively unchanged from the previous variance provisions, but represents the most problematic aspect of the variance request from Staff s perspective. In this case, the language is very specific to the "property" and not the 'use" of the property, and therefore, the City Council should be thinking about how this site is different and unique from any other property that is zoned RR in the City. Variances are typically used to address issues specific to the site, for instance, a property with a large ravine or irregular lot lines that make compliance with the zoning standards difficult. Again, some is suggesting some findings that could be considered by the City Council either in support or opposition to the variance: APPROVE: That the applicants are using the property for agricultural purposes and have been classified as such by the Washington County Assessor's office. Very few properties that are less than 20 acres in size are used and/or classified in this manner. Because nearly all of the property is being actively farmed, the Lt:;Land 7:;,-;,c,i,varicinc(s,,,S7,1 KentA Ave ZrtmarilRep Council Brilp Variahee 7- 10-1/, doo Page 5 Carianoc Request: llerimon City Council Rr.port: 7/19/1.1 "ding; .576.1 Keats Avenue equipment and storage needs for this parcel are much greater than other sites that are not under active agricultural production. DENY: That the plight of the land owner is not due to circumstances unique to the property (and not created by the landowner). There is very little that differentiates the applicants' 10,7 acre parcel from any other parcel of this size in the community other than how this property is being used, which is something directly under the applicants control. Any property owner in the RR — Rural Residential District can use their property for agricultural purposes, and therefore, the use of the property is not something that is unique to this parcel. 3. Character of locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. Depending on how the City Council interprets the term "locality", the proposed building may or may not meet this criterion. Staff is suggesting that the Commission focus on the land immediately surrounding the applicants' property since these parcels would be most directly impacted by the construction of a larger building on this site, If a broader view is used, the site may not be as appropriate for a larger structure given the existing and proposed residential development that ultimately will surround this land. Staff is again suggesting findings that could be used either in support or opposition of the request. APPROVE: The area surrounding the applicants' property has historically been used for active farming, including open space land that is part of an open space development to the north and east of this property. The proposed building will be located in such a manner that it will not be directly visible from surrounding properties, and will be located behind a row of evergreen trees that will provide year round buffering. Former farm sites with multiple accessory buildings are not uncommon in this area and many of these sites have been successfully incorporated into residential subdivisions. DENY: The area surrounding the applicants' property is guided for rural agricultural density (open space) development, and land to the north, east, and west of their property has already been developed in this manner. Large accessory buildings are not consistent with the current or future expected character of this area. 4. Adjacent properties 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. Staff has found that the proposed accessory building will comply with this provision since it is located in a manner that will minimize direct impacts to adjacent properties and will not create any additional traffic on the streets 1.:.cr'.f.'ariatiec'.1)ti K.,.•eits 4 ;.L. Zvman,,Re »1II74`i ; 7ienn:a 4c.f. !kJ's.? I7,7ru-c 7-1{)-11,doc Pap, 6 f'ariance &Nuys!: Zierunan..4ccessoly IiHil City Council RiTori: 71":1 9/11 57(11 Jeai,v A vi:trire surrounding the applicants' property. Considering the potential findings of fact as suggested in the preceding section, Staff is recommending denial of the variance request based on the findings noted under "denial" in items 1, 2, and 3 above. The most significant issue in this case concerns the uniqueness of the property, and Staff is not able to identify any particular factors associated with this site that are specific to the site under consideration and no other property. Should the City Council disagree with this assessment based on the information included with this report or other information presented and discussed the public hearing, Staff has included draft findings in the report that could be used as a basis for a recommendation of approval. The Planning Commission reviewed the request at its July 11, 2011 meeting and recommended approval of the request based on the findings for approval as drafted by Staff. The Commission also added additional findings to note that the size of the produce being grown on the premises and the fact that this farm has been in operation for a long period of time are unique to this site. Staff recommended at least two conditions of approval to help ensure that the intent of the Zoning Ordinance is upheld once the building is constructed. The Commission did not recommend one of these conditions related to screening, and instead suggested an alternate condition that would require a substantial portion of the acreage on the property continue to be used for farming. The recommended conditions therefore include the following: That the use of the proposed accessory building be restricted to agricultural activities only, and that it not be used for the storage of personal automobiles, home based business activities, or other non-agricultural equipment. That a substantial portion of the acreage will continue to be used for farming. Variance Based on the analysis of the review criteria in City Code, the Planning Commission Conclusions: recommends annroval of the accessory building request for 5671 Keats Avenue with two conditions of approval. Resident Staff has received four letters/emails in support of the variance. Two additional letter Concerns: were submitted and read at the public hearing. These are attached for review by the City Council. Additional The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed location of the building and has not information: expressed any concerns regarding the proposed construction site. )Land LC1Fi;trionees ;?; 761 Keao,4 c2iermiwrifiep Counci, Zirlwria 4cc Bdig l'arir:MOC 7-1 doe Page 2' Variance Request; Ziertman Acces,vor. Building: 5761 Kee.la Avenue Cio.Council Repori: 7/1 9/1 Conclusion: The applicants are seeking approval of a variance to allow the construction of a second detached agricultural farm building on their property at 5761 Keats Avenue. City Council The City Council has the following options: Options,' A) Approve of the variance request as per the Planning Commission recommendation and based on the findings as drafted by the Commission; B) Deny the variance request based on the findings suggested by Staff or other findings as deemed appropriate by the Council.; C) Table the request and direct staff or the applicant to provide additional information concerning this application. The deadline for a Council decision on this item is August 14, 2011, which can be extended an additional 60-days if needed. Rec; The Planning Commission is recommending approval of the variance to allow the construction of a second detached agricultural farm building on their property at 5761 Keats Avenue based on the findings documented as part of this report and with two conditions of approval. Approval To approve the request, you may use the following motion as a guide: Motion Template: I move to approve of the request for a variance to allow the construction of a second detached agricultural farm building on property at 5761 Keats Avenue ...(please site reasons for the recommendation) ...with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Approval To deny the request, you may use the following motion as a guide: Motion Template: I move to deny the request for a variance to allow the construction of a second detached agricultural farm building on property at 5761 Keats Avenue ...(or cite your own) cc: Steve and Joan Ziertman, 5761 Keats Avenue Lon Jarieinc.i6 lie h-71?'RCE) r-r,!Ind; r; A cz- Fa i(mco Page City of Lake Elmo DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM [1] Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning District Amendment Text Amendment [1] Flood Plain C.U.P. Conditional Use Permit Variance (See below) Minor Subdivision Lot Line Adjustment Residential Subdivision Sketch/Concept Plan Fee $ [1] Residential Subdivision Preliminary(Final Plat O 01 — 10 Lots O 11 —20 Lots O 21 Lots or More [1] Excavating & Grading Permit E Appeal PUD Ej Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P,) r: Site & Building Plan Review APPLICANT: SAceAfe —AaL1/1 ev'hMv 51 ( bAks (Nome) (Mailing Address) 2S.-LtigOD (awl TELEPHONES1 ( 5 4 (Home) (Work) bile) (Fax) FEE OWNER: (Name) (Meiling Address) TELEPHONES: (Home) (Work) (Mobile) PROPERTY LOCATION (Address and Compete (Long) Legal Description): DETAILED REASON FOR REQUEST: N-AirritAk (ZtP) (Fax) JUN 5 4/011 *VARIANCE REQUESTS As outlined in Section 301,060 C. of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code, the Applicant must demonstrate a hardship before a variance can be granted. The hardship related to this application is as follows: In signing this application, 1 hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined in the application procedures and hereby nree to iDaN all statements received from the r1 ertainirw to additional application expense, q/Vil ate 1 /22/2004 City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue Nortli Lake Elmo 55042 • 65 I -777-55111 • Fax 651-777-9615 Date 5761 Keats Avenue N Variance Application Information: Written Statements: A. Owners: Joan & Steve Ziertman B. Legal Description: PT NW1/4 BEING THE N 425 FT OF THE S 1550 FT OF THE W1100FTOFSDNW1/4OFSEC 2-SUBJTOSUBJTO EASEMENT OVER W33FT THEREOF FOR KEATS AVE SECTION 02 TOWNSHIP 029 RANGE 021 PARCEL ID #02.029.21.22.0001 PARCEL SIZE: 10.78 Acres or 466,092 Sq Feet Existing use of the land: Residential/Agricultural (Tax Class will be agricultural as we meet the state statute requirements) Current Zoning: Rural Residential C. The provision of the code that we seek a variance from is: 154.092 Accessory Buildings and Structures D. We are asking to build an additional 2400 Square foot building on our property (see site plan). In our zoning district, we are only allowed one 2500 square foot building, and we currently have a 2310 square feet. E. 1 spoke with Kyle and Bruce regarding our situation. We have been informed by Rockpoint Church that we can no longer store anything in their building. In order to continue with our farm, we need a building to store our farm equipment and produce. Staff informed us that we had a couple of directions to go. We could go for a zoning text amendment or a variance. At that time, the variance was not going to happen because of strict criteria. I then thought being rezoned might be an option and talked to staff about that. We were going to go that direction until we heard that Governor Dayton had signed the new criteria for varainces that gives us a better chance to get the building that we need to stay viable. We feel this is a better option as it doesn't make our lot non conforming. F. We will speak to the practical difficulties of the new variance standards. 1. Is the variance consistent with the comp plan? Yes. Very much so. Our 2030 Comp plan states this: "The following general planning and developement policies will guide developement in a manner that will allow reasonable growth to take place, while preserving and enhancing the rural character and features of Lake Elmo that make the City a unique and desireable community." The comp plan further talks about agricultural preservation. "In keeping witht the general policies enumerated above, existing operating agrucultural uses and qualifying alternative uses that preserve the open space within the community shall be supported. These uses shall be encouraged to continue operations and to retain large land holdings that contribute to operating efficiency. In keeping with the general policies enumerated above, the city shall affirmatively establish and pursue specific strategies and seek resources to assist existing agricultural uses in remaining a viable alternative to urbanization for landowners, consistent with the concept of right to farm. The provisions of municipal infrastructure and services to areas of the city where operating agriculture exists shall not be in a manner that results in an economic or operational disincentive to continue agricultural use of the land." In summary, the Comp plan requires the city to help us keep our farm viable which this building will do. 2. Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? Yes. This is a reasonable use for our property. Farming is an allowed use in RR. It is logical that an agricultural use would need a building to store farm equipment and produce. Every property in RR is allowed certain sized buildings for personal property whether they farm or not. It only makes sense that if someone farms and is allowed to farm by our code and is classified as agriculture by the county, they should be allowed to have an agricultural building. By state statute, what we do meets the criteria of agriculture and Washington County recently tax classified us as AG. The zoning in this city is somewhat random and there are properties zoned RR that should be AG based on size and AG properties that should be zoned RR based on size. If we look at the future zoning map for our part of the City, all the property whether it is currently AG or RR is all RAD and there was even talk of combining AG and RR into one zoning for performance zoning. I think in our situation it is reasonable to base this decision on the use of our property and not the zone. 3. WiII the variance if granted alter the essential character of the neighborhood. No. The proposed building will not be seen from Keats. There is an extensive tree line to the south as well as the neighbors own building to screen from their view. There are other parcels around us that either have more or larger buildings than is currently allowed because the buildings were not required to be taken down as property was subdivided. This is the rural portion of our city and people expect to see barns and buildings. 4. Are there unique circumstances to the property? Our farm has been around for a long time and is a unique part of the community. It was part of a. larger family farm that was also a pumpkin farm starting in 1972. Without this building, we can't continue with the farm. We are an integral part of the community and according to the comp plan, the City needs to assist us in remaining viable, which is allowing us the tools ie: the building to do so. In addition to the points already made, I would like to make a few more. I would like to speak to the point that is always brought up when talking about variances which is will this set a precedent. I do not feel that it will. We are truly asking to build an agricultural building based on the fact that the use of our property is AG. This is reaffirmed by state statute and Washington county agreed with us. In order for another RR parcel to ask for an additional "AG" building, they would need to prove that they are a true and existing agricultural use and be tax classified as such. Another point is that currently AG parcels of 40 acres or more can have a 20,000 square foot building in addition to unlimited AG buildings. That would equate to 5000 square feet on 10 acres without unlimited AG buildings. This is only 1% or the total square footage of the property which is pretty insignificant. The character of the neighborhood will not be affected as there are many other lots under 40 acres that have more than the currently allowed size or amount of buildings. We are in the rural part of the city and to the north of us all the way to highway 36 will continue to be open space with the Rockpoint church behind us. I would like to mention that all of our produce is grown on site. Therefore we have a lot of equipment we need to grow our produce. In the fall, the produce needs to be stored inside, or it is suseptible to damage from frost. Our property actually produces a lot of produce. We had many many wagons of regular pumpkins, pie pumpkins, squash, gourds, mini pumpkins, hay, corn stalks, ornamental corn etc. We also produced enough to sell to a local farm that had crop failure. The state spends alot of tax dollars every year for the Dept of Agriculture and MN Grown (which we are part of) to ensure that the small farm like ours remain viable. Buy local is huge!! We help to make Lake Elmo unique and contribute to our community. We have donated to the fall festival, regional arts center, regions hospital pediatric burn unit, our church and schools, Susan G. Koman and other organizations important to friends, family and neighbors. We would like to be able to preserve our farm to be able to pay it forward to our community. I think our situation is an example of why Cities, City officials and the League of MN cities fought so hard to get the variance standards changed. So that cities have a much greater say in what is acceptable outside the big box code that is not a one size fits all. Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Chapter!! — City- 6 -Janning Policy CITY-WIDE PLANNING POLICY The following general planning and development policies will guide development in a manner that will allow reasonable growth to take place, while preserving and enhancing the rural character and features of Lake Elmo that make the City a unique and desirable commun.' Develop land use and infrastructure plans corresponding to the 2030 population forecast of 24,000 in the 2030 Regional -Development Trainework. 2. Encourage the majority of the new households created in4rea.s:north of Oth Street North and outside ,of the yillageArea be,.effeiehtly treptextirrthe.-fornrof-Open'Space-:DeVel6iiitent Chister*neighborboods. 3. Guide new community growth in keeping with the geographic assignments and decennial household, population, .and employment targets establiShed by the Memorandum ofUnderstanding entered into by the City and the Metropolitan Council in January 2005. _ 4. Limit.Metropolitati Urban:Service Area (MUSA) expansion to the area that can he -served from the Regional WaStewater Interceptors specified, in the wastewater voluMes specified by the'afOremeiitioried'Memorandidin of Understanding, and staged consistent with a City adopted development Staging Plan. 5. Adopt a MUSA expansion development Staging Plan/schedule that will limit total annual City household and employment growth to a use, mix, and scale that remains sustainable in the 'context of providingmunicipal services/infrastruCture and local government fiscal responsibility. Agricultural Preservation In keeping with the general policies enumerated above, existing operating gricultural uses and qualifying alternative uses that preserve the open space within the community shall be supported. These uses shall be encouraged to continue operations and to retain large land holdings that contribute to operating efficiency. In keeping with the general policies enumerated above, the City shall affirmatively establish and pursue specific strategies and seek resources to assist existing agricultural uses in remaining a viable alternative to urbanization for landowners, consistent with the concept of "a right to farm." The provision ofmunicipal infrastructure and services to areas of the City where operating agriculture exists shall not be in a manner that results in an economic or operational disincentive to continue agricultural use of the land, Residential Development All residential units will be designed, sited, and constructed to conserve energy in ligbting, cooling, and heating processes. The primary style of residential dwelling unit within RAD, RED, RAD2, and NC land J 0 5 ..?•.AA- c--?k\Scs•S ))\\ i--"it'° • (1. -1F . . -i,,OliaeXon. „.„ _ elAgtfAligNikt: Kyle Klatt From- Frank Langer [Frank, LaN ngton.mn.uu] Sent: Friday, ,uull 12:29 PM /o: nyleruoo Subject: AY11 E ELMO ZIERTMAN.020.21.22.0001 CBAE.xlsx Hi Kyle, -Regarding our conversation this morning, it is my understanding that the zoning of property is the allowed legal use of a property. For property tax purpose the tax classification is based on the actual use of the property regardless of what the zoning is. An example of this could be a large agriculturally zoned piece of property where part of it is used for a gravel mining operation. This property would then have a split classification of commercial and agriculture for taxes. The only time vvelook aLzoning aaa guide to help determine the classification for taxes is when there is no use of a property and then we look at the most likely future legal use of the property and use it asaguideline for tax classification. Frank Coun Maintenance Change MUNICIPALITY: LAKE ELMO - 800 ParcellGeo Code: 02.029.21.22.0001 Property Address: 5761 KEATS AVE Map Factor: Lake Elmo SFR Comments: LAND IS USED FOR INTENSIVE FARMING OF AG PRODUCTS BY THE OWNER AND SOLD TO LOCAL MARKETS, Review APPROVED: Submit Date: 5/19/2011 Date: Manager DENIED Submitter Initials: FXL Initials: AMU YEAR: 2011 PAYABLE YEAR: 2012 REC'D: Name: ZIERTMAN STEVEN R & JOAN M GRM Mailing Address: General Class: Residential CAMA Proofed Arnd Notice ORIGINAL DATA: CHANGE TO DATA: Class Code Valuation Code Component/Detail Value Acres Class Code Valuation Code Component/Detail Value Acres Val Var AC Var i 100 Res 1 unit Homesite Land (EMV) 188,700 10.70 100 Res 1 unit Homesite Land (EMV) 96,000 1.00 (92,700) (9.70) 100 Res 1 unit Homesite Improvement (Bldg) 199,300 Linked Grp PIN Modifiers Homesite 100 Res 1 unit LinkediGrp P 200 Ag 2 Farm 200 Ag (2a) 200 Ag (2a) 200 Ag (2a) Unked Grp PIN 1104140:1' t 4,4 Linked Grp FIN Farm Farm Other Improvement (Bldg) 194,800 (4,500) 47Q,00 0 1100 0 0.00 0 1 0.00 in group, (97,200) (9.70) OT; nd (EMV) 94,000 9.40 94,000 2a Tillable Acres (EMV) 94,000 9.40 94,000 Improvement (Bldg) 4,500 4,500 2a Tillable Acres (EMV) 100 0.30 100 192,600 9.40 9.40 0.00 0.30 19 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 C:\Documents and Settings\kyle_klatt\ Local Settingsgemporary Internet Fifes\ ContentOutlook \8533A2DMAY11_LAKE ELMO_ZIERTMAN_02 029 21 22 0001_CBAE Revised 5/4/2010 . . . JUL 5 16 To the City of Lake Elmo July 2, 2011 9913 59th St. Ct. N. Lake Elmo In regard to the variance to build a 2400 square building on the Ziertman farm. I believe the Ziertman family to be good stewards of their land and good neighbors. If the building is not visible from Keats and all other requirements are met I have no problem with this structure. Thank you Carolyn Flock r, JUL 6 2011 Kyle Klatt From: Ronald Hawkins [hawkinsimpala@gmail,com] Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 8:08 PM To: Kyle Klatt Cc: ziertman@msn.com Subject: variance Kyle, We have been informated that our neighbor Steve & Joan Ziertman at 5761 Keats Ave. No. would like to build a building to house there farm equipment. They are very good neighbors and keep there property looking very nice.1 would much like to see them put the equipment in a building then setting outside.Its nice that they are keeping a little farm operations going along with the pumpkins. We as neighbor would hope that you can give them a variance to build . Thank you Ron & Sue Hawkins 9924 59th St. Ct. No. Lake Elmo Kyle Klatt From: JOAN ZIERTMAN [ziertman@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 7:15 AM To: Kyle Klatt Cc: Kelli Matzek Subject: Fw: variance for 2400 building Kyle, Here is a coy of an email that our neighbor wrote regarding our variance. He had the wrong email for you, so it bounced back. Thanks! Joan Original Message From: Steve Chlebeck To: kklahalakeelmo.ora Cc: ziertmarOmsn.com Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 6:40 AM Subject: variance for 2400 building i just want to voice my concern that I am in favor to let the Ziertman's build another building on their property. I do purchase Pumpkins and Corn stalks every year from the pumpkin farm and it very nice to have a small farm still left in our neighborhood. This would be a great lost for all of us if they would close the farm because of a building that they need to store the wagons and other equipment was not allowed. I saw were this building would be erected and this would not every be seen from Keats Ave.I hope the City see that giving the Ziertman's the variance is the correct thing to do. I live at 9692 57th just west of the Ziertman's. Thank you. Steve Chlebeck Territory Sales Manager Phone: (612) 867-2345 Cell: (612) 867-2345 Fax: (952) 895-5312 schlebeckeforceamerica.com FORCE America Inc. VariTech Industries PreCise MRM 601 East Cliff Road Burnsville MN 55337 www.forceamerica.com www.varitech-industries.com www.orecisemrm.com The Leading Innovator in Mobile Hydraulic Solutions The information contained in this message and any attachment may be proprietary, confidential, and privileged or subject to the work product doctrine and thus protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly pro�' d( `.'t�. If have received this co�ln�u.,/cation in error, please notify rna immediately by replying to this message and deleting it and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you. Disdmmoradded hyCoae-TwwoEochi,,peklulm� www.cuoacwu.com The information contained in this message and any attachment may be proprietary, confidential, and privileged or subject to the work product doctrine and thus protected from disdosuna. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have reco}wed this communication in error, please notify me immediately by replying to this message and deleting it and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you. 2 . . JOANZ|E n.coml Monday, .July 11,2O11 12:34P[N KveKlatt; Ke|iMatzek FW: Variance Kyle, Mena is another email that we received from a neighbor regarding our variance application. If you could share this with the commission tonight, Thanks! From: stevemodlerVahotnlaOxzon Tb:ziertmnnVDmsn.com Subject: Variance Date: Mon, 11Jul 2O11 17:19:14+0000 Dear loan & Steve: We received your letter about the building and the variance you will noed. We have no issues with this, and hope that it works out in your favor, We buy our pumpkins from you every year, and would like to continue todoso, Please use this email to show our support ofthe variance that is needed so you can continue your pumpkin farm. Heidi & Steve Moeller 9580 S3ndStreet North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Kyle Klatt From: Idjuran@q.com Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 9:10 PM To: Kyle Klatt Cc: Steve Ziertman Subject: Variance for Pumpkin Farm City of Lake Elmo Mr. Kyle Klatt Planning Directory 3800 Laverne Ave. Lake Elmo, MN. 55042 Dear Mr. Klatt & Planning Commission: Please accept this letter as support for Joan & Steve Ziertman's request for a "Variance" for an additional building on there property at 5761 Keats Avenue North. We understand that the new building will be behind there existing home, and will conform in design to existing buildings already on the property. This request is critcial to there continued effort to operate a farm in Lake Elmo, MN. The Ziertman's need to store there machinery on there property especially now they have lost there previous offsite location. If you need additional information from us, please do not hesitation to let us know. Sincerely; Bonnie & Leonard Juran 9784-57th St. No. Lake Elmo, MN. 55042 651-773-4883 r °LAKE - ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 7/19/2011 REGULAR ITEM #: 16 DISCUSSION Ordinance No. 08-047 AGENDA ITEM: Hotel/Motel Water Rates — Discussion & Proposed Ordinance No. 08-047 SUBMITTED BY: Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director REVIEWED BY: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: It is respectfully requested that the City Council receive an update on efforts to address issues related to water service to the Wildwood Lodge and discuss, if appropriate, 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. Additionally, 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 July 5th, 2011, the City Council tabled discussion of this item, pending additional discussion with the Wildwood Lodge relating to past and current water service to the property. Additional discussions were held on July 14th, 2011, resulting in a consensus to share further information and meet again, if necessary, during the week of July 18th. As such, Council action tonight may or may not be timely or appropriate, given ongoing discussions. 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. -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting July 19th, 2011 Ho el Commercial Water Rates Regular Agenda Item # 16 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 Commercial Water Rate Structure - The new commercial Water Rate structure for Hotels/Motels could be structured as follows: 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+ 0 — 15,000 Gallons $3.26 15,001 — 30,000 Gallons $3.26 30,001 — 50,000 Gallons $3.77 50,001 — 80,000 Gallons $3,77 80,001 — 150,000 Gallons $5.00 150,001 — 200,000 Gallons Over 200,000 Gallons (Quarterly domestic, non -irrigation usage only) $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. The identified Hotel/Motel customer has seen an approximately 100% increase in its water bill in both 2010 and 2011, as compared to 2009. 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. 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. 0S- 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 page 2 -- City Council Meeting butel/Motel Commercial Water Rates July 19th, 2011 Regular Agenda Item # 16 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 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. Original "Tiered — Bulk" Options — At the request of the customer, City staff has also analyzed in greater detail the original options presented to the City Council for their consideration and identified on June 21st, 2011 as Option A and Option B. These are shown below: loni 0 - 15,000 Gallons 15,001 — 30,000 Gallons 30,001 — 50,000 Gallons ton_ ons $3.11 0 — 15,000 Gallons $3.26 15,001 — 30,000 Gallons $3.77 30,001 — 50,000 Gallons $3,11 S3.26 $3,77 -- page 3 -- City Council Meeting 1-lote»1 tel Commercial Water Rates July 19t1i, 2011 Regular Agenda Item # 16 50,001 — 80,000 Gallons $5.00 50,001 — 80,000 Gallons S5.00 80,001 — 150,000 Gallons $6.63 80,001 — 150,000 Gallons $3.26 150,000+ $3.26 150,001 — 200,000 Gallons S3.26 Over 200,000 Gallons S3.26 (Quarterly domestic, non -irrigation usage only) Option A applies a modified Water Conservation Rate structure, as presented to the City Council on June 21st, with four five tiers, before dropping back to the Bulk Rate for usage over 150,000 gallons. Under Option A, 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 $14,900 to the Utility for the 2011 billing period, or an approximately 46% reduction in currently -estimated revenues from this customer for this period. The identified Hotel/Motel customer has seen an approximately 100% increase in its water bill in both 2010 and 2011, as compared to 2009. With the rate adjustment utilized in Option A, this customer's 2011 water bill is estimated to be 13% higher than 2009 (pre -water conservation rates). Option B applies a slightly modified Water Conservation Rate structure than Option A, with four tiers before dropping back to the Bulk Rate for usage over 80,000 gallons. Under Option B, again with only one currently -identified customer, the net revenue reduction is estimated to be $15,800 to the Utility for the 2011 billing period, or an approximately 49% reduction in currently -estimated revenues from this customer for this period. With the rate adjustment utilized in Option B, this customer's 2011 water bill is estimated to be only 7% higher than 2009 (pre -water conservation rates). A third similar option, Option C, was not further assessed, as it would have dropped back to a Bulk Rate for usage over 50,000 gallons and only marginally reduces the customer's water bill and impact to the Utility over that assessed in Option B. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive a brief update on the status of discussions with the Wildwood Lodge and, if appropriate, further 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 also wish to consider the following: "Move to approve Ordinance No. 08-047A, amending 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." -- page 4 -- City Council Meeting ,Ael/Motel Commercial Water Rates July 1911, 2011 Regular Agenda Item # 16 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: "Move to approve Ordinance No. 08-047A (or 08-047B), amending the 2011 fee schedule to include a Commercial Hotel/Motel Water Rate fas agreed upon at tonight's meeting]. 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 ..... ,___________ ..... ..... ..,.....,.. City Administrator Report/Presentation...., ....... ..... , .......... ......... ....... ...... ....... Finance Director Questions from Council to Staff... ..... ..... Facilitates Public Input .............. ....... ________ ........ ....... ........,....„Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion ......... ____________ „............. ....... Mayor & City Council Discussion.......... ...... ....... ..... ..„ ...... ,....... ..... . ........ , ..... . ............. Mayor Facilitates Action on Motion Mayor & City Council -- page 5 -- 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 5tb 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 Escrow or Additional Charge 2011 Accessory Bldg Forward of Primary Structure $80.00 Administrative / Fines -Amateur Radio Antenna Appeal (ta Board of Adjustment and A.ppeals) Assessment Search Building Demolition First 1000 Square Feet Each Additional 1000t 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 Sign Installer Solid Waste Hauler Tree Contract COPY SERVICES I, Copies (B8cW) Copies (B&W) 11 X 17 Copies (Color) Copies (Color) 11 X 17 City Map - colored City Street Maps 36 X 40 GIS Engineering 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 irrrpound Duplicate License cn Tag Driveway I Residential I Commercial Easement Encroaclunent 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 Pius 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) $11.00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) $45.00 $80.00 $100,00 $1,300.00 New $1,050.0D Wireless Communication Facilities Escrow $6,000.00 Amended $500.00 Plain Ordinance Escrow $500.00 $75.00 $76.00 $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 $100.00 Fee & Transaction Charge $125.00 $11 0 0 0 $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 F ce-20.00/Da.y Plus Boarding Fee-20.00/Day Pitts Boarding Fee-20.00/Day Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Staff & Recording Fee Erosion Contro on Flood or Letter of Credit: $1500.00 per acre. Pane 1 nf Appendix A Ci In excess of six false alarms within a twelve (12) month period Residential Commercial Fire Daycare inspection Fee Fric Alarm Systems Fire Sprinkler System (Inspection Fee) Fire Sprinkler System (Reirisrieetion Fce) Flood Plain District Delineation Fuel Tank Removal (Underground) Fuel Tank Install Heating New Residential Addition to Residential Commercial or Addition) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP)-Renewal :Interim Use Permit (IUP) AG Saks & -Entertainment Lawn Sprinlders Liquor Club On Sale Intoxicating Off Sale Intoxicating Off -Sale Non-Intoxicanng On -Sale Intoxicating On. Sale Intoxicating - 2nd Bldg On -Sale Investigation On -Sale Non -Intoxicating On -Sale Sunday Intoxicating Temporary Non-Intoxica6ng Wine Lot Line Adjustment Manufactured Home Parks New Move home out cf 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 tots) Parking Lots New Commercial Existing Commercial Platting Concept (PI,JD 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 of ake Elmo 2011 Fee Schedule Escrow or Additional Charge 2011 $185,00 $520.00 $60.00 $60.00 2% o f value of work $50.00 $500.00 $100.00 2% of value of work $150.00 $75.00 Minimum $175.00 01 1°/0 of total job $1,050.00 $300.00 $250,00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 19/s of Value Minimum $100.00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Minimum $100.00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Pius 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 $1,000.00 $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 band with amount to be determined by City wirecommendation from Building Official Plus Eacrow to be determined by the City w/recommendation 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 Plus 2.5% Administrative Fcc Development Agreement $150.00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) $75.00 Plus 5,00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Pius minimum 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) 175 $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 Right -of -Way Permits Annual Registration (1415.05 Subd,l) Excavation (1415,11 Subd. 1) Each Additional Excavation Trench Pee (boring or open cot) Overhead Installation Fee New Subdivisions (Alternate to per foot fee) Street Obsnuction Fee (1415.11 (Sub 2.) Permit Extension Delay Penalty Sewage Disposal On -Site Septic Systems New Alterations or P,epairs Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Sewer Wetland Treaunent 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 Deparment Equipment/Personnel iPublic Safetv 'Public Wotks 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 INV ater I Residential - Quarterly Rate I Plus Rate Per 1000 Gallons 1/-15,000 Gallons 15,001 - 30,000 Gallons 30,001 - 5000 Gallons 50,01)1 - 80,000 Gallons 130,001+Gallons Commercial -Quarterly Rate 1%5 Rate Per 100)1 Gallons 0-15.000 Gallons 15.001 - 30,000 Gallons 30,001 - 50,000 Gallons 50.001 - 80,00 Gallons 80,001+Gallons 2011 $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 $180.00 $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 $2.85 $3.77 $5.00 $6.63 $25.00 Base $3.11 $3.26 $3.77 $5,00 $6.63 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Pius 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) per SAC unit - 2230.00 to Met Connciii 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) Pius 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) As Per 'Washingtion County Sheriffs Dept. Fee Schedule Plus Materials 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 Comma raial :Hotel/Motel.. Plus'Rate P er'1000 Gallons 0-15,0(10:Gallons . - 15,001 •30;000 Gallons • 30;001 ='50,000:Gallons • .i50;001 =$0;000•Gallons 0.1-;150,fl00 Gallons ,001-- :200,00O .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 Fill Water Availability Charge (WAC) Existing Structures within Old Village New Development Wind Generator Wireless Communication Permit Zoning Amendment ( Text or Map) City of Lake Elmo 2011 Fee Schedule Escrow or Additional Charge 2011 425.00 Bast • -$3.11..: $3:Y1 . $'3:26 33.7,7 $3:77 '$5.00 $140.00 $300.00 6% per quarter $80.00 $80.00 $15.00 per day $5120 for first 5,000 gallons $01.20 for first 5,000 gallons Plus 25.00 or 8%, whichever is greater, if certified to County for collection with taxcB Plus 3.26 per additional1000 Gals Plus 3.26 per 1000 Gals & $15.00 per labor hour $800.00 $3,900.00 $850,00 $2000.00 Escrow $500.00 $2000.00 Escrow $1,245,00 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08-047B AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL FEES FOR CALENDARYEAR 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 Ehno 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 ofJuly, 2011. CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: ATTEST Sharon Lumby City Clerk PUBLICATION DATE: Dean A. Johnston Its: Mayor Appendix A City oq ake Elmo 2011 Fee Schedu e 2011 Escrow orAdditional Charge Accessory Bldg Forward of Primary Structure Administrative / Fines Amateur Radio Antenna Appeal (to Board of Adjustment and Appeals) AN sessment Search Building Demolition First 1000 Square Feet Each Additional 1000 sq feet or portion thereof Burning Permits Residential Commercial Illegal hum Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) anew 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 X17 Copies (Color) Copies (Color) 11 X 17 City Map - colored City Street Maps 36 X 40 GIS / Engineering Maps Existing Maps Custom (T'er 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 au -id 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 $80.00 $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 Conununication Facilities Escrow $6,000.00 Amended $500.00 Plain OrdinanceEscrow $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 $55.09 $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 3100.00 Fee & Transaction Charge $125.00 $110.00 $315.00 Sign Reinsfiection 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 of Lake Eimo 2011 Fee Schedule In excess of six false alarms within a twelve (12) month period Residential Commercial Fire - Daycare inspection Fee Frie Alarm Systems Fire Sprinkler System (Inspection Fee) Fire Sprinkler System (acimpection Fee) 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 Intoxica Off Sale Intoxicating Off -Sale Non -Intoxicating On-Saie Intoxicating On -Sale Intoxicating - 2ncl Bldg On -Sale Investigation On -Sale Non -Intoxicating Ou-Sale Sunday Intoxicating Temporary Non -Intoxicating Wine Lot Line Adjustrnent Manufactured Home Park New Move home out of City Move into City Minor Subdivision g -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 'Planing Concept (PUL) or (JP) Preliminary Plat (and Development Singe) Final Plat (and Final Plan) Plunabing 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 2011 $185.00 $520.00 $60.00 $60.00 2 % of value of work $50.00 $500.00 $100.00 210 of value of work $150.00 $75.0D Minimum $175,00 or 1% of total job $1,050,00 $300.00 $250.00 Escrow or Additional Charge Pius 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus 1% of Vail= 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 Pius 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 8310.00 $1,000.00 $1,200.00 $100,00 $150.00 $500.00 $52.0.00 $305.00 Per 1997 UBC (65% $3600.00 for each Pius 2500,00 Escrow Pius 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Pius 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Phis bond with amount to be determined by City Yr/recommendation from Building Official Plus Eserow to be determined by the City iv/recommendation 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 Plus 2.5% Administrative Fee Development AgrecmeoT $150.00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) $75.00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) Plus minimum 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) 175 $150.00 $800.00 Plus 5.00 Surcharge (State Mandated) 1500.00 escrow Page 2 of 4 Appendix A City at ,ake Elmo 2011 Fee Schedule Escrow or Additional Charge Right -of -Way Permits Annual Registration (1415.05 Subcl.1) Excavation (1415.11 Subd. 1) Each _Additional Excavation Trench Fee (borini,.i, or open cut) Overhead installation Fee New Subdivisions (Alternate to per foot fee) Street Obstruction Fee (1415.11 (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 Deparment Equirimmt/Persontiel 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 - 50,000 Gallons 50,001 - 80,000 Gallons 80,001+Gallons Commercial - Quarterly Rate Plus Rate Per 1000 Gallons 0-15,000 Gallons 15,001 30,000 Gallons 30,001 - 50,000 Gallons 50,001 - 80.000 Gallons 80,001+Gallons 2011 $100.00 $230.00 $40.00 .60 per font .60 per foot $100.00 $1.00.00 $100.00 25,00 per day $5,730.00 $9.50 per 1,000 gallon $100.00 $75.00 75.00 per unit per quarter $180.00 $75.00 $25.00 $980.00 $250/HR (Engine) $350/HR (Ladder) -NA $100.00 0,000.00 $50.00 per hour $50.00 $50.00 Per 1997 UBC $515.00 $515.00 $750.00 $35.00 825.00 Base $2.14 $2.06 $3.77 $5.00 $6.63 $25.00 Base $3,11 $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 ta Mr i Counci1;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 Sheriffs Dept. Fee Schedule Plus Meterials Portal to Portal from City Hall. Minimurre 1 hnur 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 of Lake Elmo 2011 Fee Schedule 2011 Escrow or Additional Charge Conunercial -'Hotel/Motel 'Quarterly Rate Plus.Comtnercia Rate Per 1000 Gallons .$25.00 Base 1 : Utiiizinglv1ultiple:Famlly Dwellings" -Calculation- Based Upon REC.(SliC). 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) $140.00 $300,00 6% per quarter $80.00 $80.00 $15.00 per day 561.20 for first 54100 gallons 561.20 for first gallons $8fift.U0 $3,900.00 $850.09 $51:10.100 $1,245.00 Plus 25.0D or 8%, whichever is greater, if certified to County for collection with taxes Pius 3.26 per additional 1000 Gals Plus 3.26 per 1000 Gals & $15.00 per labor hour $2000.00 Escrow $2000.00 Escrow Page 4 of 4 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 103G.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 conservationrate 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 volurne 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 fornresidential 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`)/0 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 = S4,00/1000 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 - S1.00/1000 gallons is added on top of the, regular 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. Summer use is higher than January use so a factor is applied to determine a summer 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 ---- S3.15/1000 gallons 12,000-24,000 gallons = $5.00/1000 gallons (Excessive Use Rate) Above 24,000 gallons=$7.50/1000 gallons (Excessive, Use Rate) 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 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 (Decreasinal 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 indefmite 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 Charae (Base Rate) that includes a Minimum Water Volume: The inclusion of a minnnure volume of water in the service charge (base rate) discourages conservation especially if the minimum volume exceeds average customer usage. Conservation Rates 3 1 201 0,pdf Ice Arena Shower (if lockers use Locker Room criteria) Team Room (plumbing fixture units) Bleachers Ice resurfacer (if discharge goes to the sanitary sewer) *17 fixture units 1 110 seats 1 1 reyurfauor 4 Laundromat (required water volume for cycle time x8cycles/day x#ofwashers) 274gal|ono 1 Library (subtract book storage areas, file areas; charge for common plumbing fixture units in *17 fixture units 1 public areas) Reception, book checkout, office Meeting room, board room Loading DockLocker Room (if showers) � 2,40D square feet 1 1.G50square feet 1 7,OU0square feet 1 14|uokom/hooka 1 *8amufaotmring (for remainder use other criteria (i.a.Office criteria) 7.000square feet 1 Shower (if lockers use Locker Room criteria) ~17fixture units 1 Process Discharge Contact MCES for Determination Marina (Dumping Station) 1 station 1 Areas Open to Public; see other criteria Massage Room 5atotionm 1 Shower °17fixture units 1 Meals to Go (prepared bulk meals) # meals prepared inone day x1.5gallons/meal (no dishwashing) 274go||ona 1 Meeting Room (conference room) 1.85Osquare feet 1 Memory Care (see Nursing Home) Mini -storage (storage nrea— noohonQo) Apartment 1apedmunt 1 Public Area "17fixture units 1 Mobile Home 1 Motel and Hotel (assume 2 people/room; no'nharga for pools, oouneo, whirlpools, game rooms, 2 rooms 1 orexercise rooms used exclusively byguests) Breakfast only (complimentary) 45 seats 1 Cocktail hour (onmp|imen(ory) 55aoatu 1 Kitchenette (number ofkitchenettes x10ga|lono/day) 274ga||ona 1 Museum 24OOsquare feet 1 Nail Salon (See Beauty Salon) Nursing Home 2beda 1 Office General office (deduct mechanical rooms, elevator shafts, stairwells, and reutroomareas) 2'4OOsquare feet 1 Shower (if lockers use Locker Room criteria) ^17fixture units I Meeting Room (conference room) 1,850 square feet 1 Dental and Oootor'm office, see 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 1 equivalent fixture units for Trench Drain base fixture unit assignments on outlet pipe(o) diameter, Vehicle Washing Contact K8CES for Determination 1 38 Projected based on 2010 actials 03-00000721-00-6 NON -IRRIGATION WATER ACTIVITY Proposed Proposed Usage @ Proposed Old QI-11 Actu1BiI1d 9P119fi P-1 Option D-2 55 rec factor Option Multi-Fam lbe-fler _ Enter Gallons Used 1,233230 Bill Amount, i''''9:19t9" "-WC4161 22,423.27 71AJIM9,11 P7 :-'7,7Current bill at prtar/flat rate structure New ine ter only__ U - 15.000 0.00311 15000 $70.75 * 0,0031 I 15000 $72.40 0.00311 15000 $71.65 0.00311 11049 55936 15.001 - 30.000 0.00326 15000 $43.90 0.00326 15000 S48.90 0.00311 15000 646.65 0.00326 0 $0.00 30.001 - 50,000 0.00377 20000 $75.40 0.00326 20000 $65.20 0.00326 20000 $65.20 0.00377 0 $0.00 50,001- 30.000 0.00500 30000 5150.00 0.00377 30000 $113.10 0.00326 30000 $97.30 0.00500 0 MOO 30,001 - 150.000 0.00663 70000 5464.10 0_00377 70000 $263.90 0_00377 70000 5263.90 0.00663 0 $0.00 150,001 -200.000 0.00663 50000 5331.50 0_00500 50000 5250.00 0_00377 50000 5138.50 0,00663 0 $0.00 over 200.000 0.00663 1,033,280 $6,850.65 0.00500 1,033,280 $5,166.40 0_00500 1,033230 $5,166.40 0.00663 0 $0.00 $7.991.30 $5,979.90 $5,900.10 times 55 $3,264.93 ST $56933 ST $426.07 ST $42038 ST $232.63 $8,560.68 $6,405.97 $6,320.48 $3,497.56 Enter Ga Onus Used 1,030.164 Q2-11 Bill Amour' 0 - 15.000 0.00311 15000 $.70.75 * 0.00316 15000 570,75 15.001 - 30.000 0.00326 15000 $48.90 0.00316 15000 $47.40 30,001 - 50,000 0.00377 20000 $75.40 0.00377 20000 $75.40 50,001 - 80.000 0.00500 30000 $150.00 0.00377 30000 5113.10 80,001 - 150.000 0.00663 70000 $464.10 0.00377 70000 $263.90 150,001 - 200,000 0.00663 50000 $331.50 0_00500 50000 $250.00 over 200.0110 0.00663 880,164 55,835A9 0.00500 880,164 54,400.82 $6,976.14 $5,22137 ST $497-05 ST $372.02 S7,473.19 $5,593.39 Enter Gallons Used 1,450,000 Q3-11 Bill Amount MULFATA 19,639.35 Pf;713:6@ark 0.00311 15000 $71.65 0.00311 15000 $71.65 0,00311 15000 546,65 0.00326 7952 $25.92 0.00326 20000 $65.20 0.00377 0 50.00 0 00326 30000 $97.80 0.00500 0 $0.00 0_00377 70000 5263 90 0,00663 0 50.00 0_00377 50000 5188.50 0.00663 0 $0.00 0.00500 880.164 54.400.22 0.00663 0 $0.00 $5,134.52 times 55 55,366.54 ST $365.83 ST $38237 $5,500.35 $5.748.91 26,363.64 ;TWIN 0 - 15.000 0.0031 I 15000 $70.75 * 0.00316 15000 $70.75 0_00311 15000 $71.65 0.00311 15000 $71.65 15,001 - 30.000 0.00326 15000 $48.90 0.00316 15000 $47.40 0.00311 15000 $46.65 0.00326 i 1896 $38.78 30.001 - 50.000 0.00377 20000 $75.40 0.00377 20000 $75.40 0.00326 20000 $6520 0.00377 0 $0.00 50.001 - 80,000 0.00500 30000 3150.00 0.00377 30000 $113.10 0.00326 30000 $97.80 0.00500 0 50.00 50.001 - i 50,000 0.00663 70000 $464.10 0_00377 70000 $263.90 0.00377 70000 $263.90 0.00663 0 150.001 -200.000 0.00663 50000 5331.50 0.00500 50000 5250.00 0.00377 50000 $188.50 0.00663 0 over 200,000 0.00663 1,250,000 $8,237.50 0.00500 1,250,000 56,250,00 0.00500 1,250,000 $6,250.00 0.00663 0 59,428.I5 $7,U70.55 $6,983.70 times 55 ST $671.76 ST $503.78 ST $497.59 ST $10,099.91 $7,574.33 $7,481.29 Enter Gallons Used 1,250.000 Q4-11 Bill AMOUnt „.1.7481:41w1 trlif.056:13 ammtg 22,727.27 0_,5,000 0.00311 15000 $70.75 ' 0_00316 15000 $70.75 0.003 l I 15000 571.65 0.00311 15000 571.65 15..001 -30.000 0_00326 15000 $48.90 0,00316 15000 54740 0.00311 15000 546_65 0.00326 8150 $26.57 30.001. - 50,0110 0.00377 20000 $75.40 0.011377 20000 $75.40 0.00326 20000 565,20 0.00377 0 MOO 50.001 - S0,000 0.00500 30000 $150.00 0.00377 30000 5113.10 0.00326 30000 $97.80 0.00500 0 $0.00 30001 - 150,000 0.00663 70000 $464.10 0.00377 70000 5263.90 0.00377 70000 $263.90 0,00663 0 50.00 150,001 - 200.000 0.00663 50000 $331.50 0.00500 50000 5250.00 0_00377 50000 $188.50 0.00663 0 $0.00 over 200_000 0.011663 1,050,000 $6.961.50 0.00500 1,050,000 $5,250.00 0,00500 1,050,000 55.250.00 0.00663 0 S0.00 S8,102.15 $6.070.55 $5,983.70 times 55 $5,402.05 ST 5577.28 543253 ST $426.34 ST $384_90 $3,679.43 $6,503.08 $6,410.04 $5,786.94 bill at prior/flat rate structure 0174i3/6661ctorent bill aprior/flat rate structuc Total projected annual amount to be billed 2011 -241i c„ Duller amount impact to amount billed E60h0 10iSg,1 % impact to a mount billed 2.5 1096 26.14% Dollar increase from 2009 rate structure % increase from 2009 . 16.856.06 3,700.69 10776%, ;; Actual DA, * Includes $25 base charge SO 00 $0.00 $0.00 $6.073.70 $432.75 $6.506.45 8,360.34 4,465.55 D-2 Multi -Pm 6'CWTOUI bill at prior/flat rate Current bill at prior/flat rate structure 03-00000721-00-6, NON -IRRIGATION WATER ACTIVITY Proposed Proposed Usage @ Proposed Old Q1-10 Actual Billed Option, D71 k 55 rec factor Option. Enter Gallons Used 607,716 Bill Amount PRTSPER§ ,,,`:$21g4g r- -1,7°1 iDii2M 11,94938 Multi-Fam Pre7tir e 41157g 1,.264§)j •;;f7ii-Ao.ii.,:o.-.7iCartrent bill at prionflat rate structu New Meter only... 0 - 15,000 0.00305 15000 570.75 * 0.00311 15000 $72.40 0.00311 15000 571.65 0.00305 11049 $59.36 15,001 - 30,000 0.00320 15000 $48.00 0.00326 15000 548.90 0,00311 15000 546.65 0.00320 0 $ 30.001 - 50,000 0.00370 20000 $74.00 0.00326 20000 $65.20 0.00326 20000 0_00370 0 $00:0000 50.001 - 30,000 0.00490 30000 5147.00 0.00377 30000 $113.10 0.00326 30000 9675..2800 0.00490 0 80,001 - 150,000 0.00650 70000 $455.00 0.00377 70000 5263.90 0.00377 70000 $263.90 0 150.001 - 200,000 0.00650 50000 5325.00 0.00500 50000 5250.00 0.00377 50000 °O.-016550 $188.50 0.00650 0 50.00000 50.00 over 200,000 0.00650 407,716 $2,650.15 0.00500 407,716 $2,038.58 0.00500 407,716 52,038.58 0 $ $3,769.90 52,852.08 52,772,28 times 55 53,264.93°° ST $268.61 ST $203.21 ST 5197.52 ST $232.63 54,038.51 $3,055.29 $2,969.80 Enter Gallons Used 1,262,373 Q2-10 Bill Amount tmirdjgg INFOVIEW 22,952-33 53,497.56 Ii:AVitP0,40fli gi'._:-:,--.T.Q.:0T3'.7c-rit bill at prior/flat rate structu 't0••iig,:ii,it o - 15,000 0.00305 115500000$70.75 * 0.00316 15000 570.75 0.00311 15000 571.65 0.00305 15000 $71.65 0 15.001 - 30,000 0,00320 543.00 0.00316 15000 547,40 0.00311 15000 546.65 0.00320 7952 525.45 30.001 - 50,000 0.00370 20000 $74.00 0.00377 20000 $75.40 0.00326 20000 $65.20 0 011.0Q0°43970° 50.001 - 80.000 0.00490 30000 $147.00 0.00377 30000 $113.10 0.00326 30000 0 5263.90 0.00650 0.00650 50.00 80.001 - 150.000 0.00650 70000 5455.00 0.00377 70000 5263.90 0.00377 70000 0_00650 0 $$00:0000 150.001 - 200.000 0.00650 50000 5325.00 0.00500 50000 $250.00 0.00377 50000 $188.50 0 SC)° over 200.000 0.00650 1,062378 $6,905.46 0.00500 1,062,378 $5,311.89 0.00500 1,062,373 $5,311.89 0.00650 0 SO.*00° $8,02521 $6,132.44times 55 $5,3 56,045.59 40.30 ST $571.30 ST 5436.94 ST $430.75 ST $380.50 $8,597.00 $6,569.38 56,476.34 $5,720.80 Enter Gallons Used . 1,479:297 Q3-10 Bill Amount TA::.,11 ,:lr.-NP•64! 1773;1$467:4 26,896.31 NINI7,41C/Agi V,;:"3'101:84;t1Cintent bill at prior/flat rate structu 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 30.001 - 150.000 150.001 - 200.000 met 200.000 Total annual amount billed Dollar impact to amount billed % impact to amount billed Dollar increase from 2009 rate stntcture % increase from 2009 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 0.003 1 I 15000 546.65 0.00320 11896 533.07 0.00370 20000 574.00 0.00377 20000 $75.40 0.00326 20000 $6520 0.00370 0 50.00 0.00490 30000 5147.00 0.00377 30000 5113.10 0.00326 30000 $97.80 0.00490 0 $0.00 0.00650 70000 $455.00 0.00377 70000 5263.90 0.00377 70000 $263.90 0.00650 0 50.00 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 $6,296.49 0,00500 1,279,297 $6,396.49 0.00650 0 $0.00 $9,435.18 57,217.04 57,130.19 times 55 $6,034.45 ST $67226 ST $514.21 ST $508.03 ST $429.95 $10.107.44 $7,731.25 57,638.21 $6,464.40 1,273,223 Q4-10 Bill Amoun INTW,..,. .?8186:61. FATMORL... 23,149.51 11!ii!IE,'$8'el'0,6! i;;e.,TR449.7,10Currrnt bill at prioeflat rate MIAMI, 0.00305 15000 570.75 * 0.00316 15000 $70.75 0.00311 15000 $71.65 0.00305 15000 571.65 0.00320 15000 $48.00 0.00316 15000 $47.40 0.00311 15000 $46.65 0.00320 8150 526.08 0.00370 20000 574.00 0.00377 20000 575.40 0_00326 20000 565.20 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 5325.00 0.00500 50000 $250.00 0.00377 50000 $188.50 0.00650 0 $0.00 0.00650 1,073,223 56,975.95 0.00500 1,073,223 55,366_12 0.00500 1,073,223 55.366.12 0.00650 0 $0.00 58,095.70 56,186.67 56,099_82 times 55 $5,375.15 ST $576.82 ST 5440.80 ST $434.61 ST $382.98 $8,672.52 $6,627.46 $6,534.43 55,75833 .2'2/8',12-1 /I ii,,,,/,,$MI},IOCurreut bill at prior/flat rate structu 1643 ti711: 16) ,1':1/:eft -23.66°,6 -24.82% -31.75% 14,895.89 57,958.12 ' 10323% ' ' 55.15% Actual D-I, * Includes 525 base charge 57,617.77 $5,584.73 5239% 38:70% 13-2 17-2 Projected based on 2010 actuals 8511 Hudson Hlvd, 03-00000721-00-6 NON -IRRIGATION WATER ACTIVITY 1, Q -11 Enter Gallons Used 1,233280: BillAmo New meter only... 0 - 15,000 0.00311 15000 15,001 - 30,000 0_00326 15000 30,001 - 50,000 0.00377 20000 50,001 - 80,000 0.00500 30000 80,001 - 150,000 0.00663 70000 150,001 - 200,000 0,00663 50000 over 200,000 0.00663 1,033,280 ST Enter Gallons Used 1,080;164 Q2-11 Blll Amo 0 - 15,000 15,001 - 30,000 30,001 - 50,000 50,001 - 80,000 80,001 - 150,000 150,001 - 200,000 ever 200,000 0.00311 15000 0.00326 15000 0,00377 20000 0,00500 30000 0.00663 70000 0.00663 50000 0,00663 880,164 ST Enter Gallons Used 1,450,000. Q3-11 131.11AMO 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 Actual 1311 a• $70.75 * $48.90 $75.40 $150_00 $464.10 5331.50 $6,850.65 $7,991.30 $56938 $8,560.68 Proposed Option A 11947igiA 0,00311 15000 572,40 0.00326 15000 $48.90 0.00377 20000 $75,40 0.00500 30000 $150.00 0,00663 70000 5464.10 0.00326 50000 5163.00 0,00326 1,033,280 $3,368.49 $4,342.29 ST S309.39 $4,651.68 0704;0,011 S70 75 * 0.00311 S48.90 0.00326 575.40 $150.00 1: 00500 S464.10 0,00663, $331.50 0:100326 $5,835.49 0.00326 S6,976.14 $497.05 $7,473.19 0.00311 15000 670.75 0.00326 15000 548.90 0.00377 20000 S75.40 0.0050U 30000 5150.00 0.00663 70000 5464.10 0.00663 50000 $331.50 0.00663 1,250,000 58.287.50 $9,428.15 ST 5671.75 510,099.91 Enter Gallons Used 1,250,000 Q4-11 Bill Anima' 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 0.00311 15000 $70.75 * 0.00326 15000 $48.90 0.00377 20000 675.40 000500 30000 5150.00 0.00663 70000 6464.10 0.00663 50000 6331.50 0.00663 1,060,000 $6.961.50 58,102.15 ST 5577.28 58.679.43 Total projected annual amount to be billed 2011 Dollar amount impact to amount billed % impact to amount billed Dollar increase from 2009 rate structure % inercaSe fcran 009 Proposed Usage ® Proposed Option 12 55 rec factor Option Multi-Fam 22,423.27 Old t bill at prior/flat rate structure 0.00311 15000 $71.65 0.00311 11049 $59.36 0.00326 15000 548.90 0.00326 0 $0,00 0,00377 20000 575.40 0.00377 0 60.00 0.00500 30000 $150.00 0.00500 0 50.00 0.00326 70000 6228.20 0.00663 0 $0.00 0.00326 50000 S163.00 0.00663 0 50_00 0,00326 1,033,280 65,368.49 0.00663 0 $0.00 S4,105.64 times 55 53,264.93 ST 6292.53 ST $232.63 $4,398.17 $3,497.56 19,63935 01171PL3,15A.*V PoRgEgi51d Current bill at prior/flat rate structure ,., 15000 $70.75 0,00311 15000 15000 $48.90 0.036, 15000 20000 575.40 0.037 20000 30000 $150.00 30000 70000 5464 10 0100326 70000 50000 $163.00 . 0:003261 50000 880,164 S2,869.33 0i00.34 880,164 S3,841_48 ST $273.71 54,115.19 511i1WIff 571.65 0.00311 15000 $71.65 545.90 0.00326 7952 525 92 $75.40 0.00377 0 50.00 $150.00 0.00500 0 $0.00 5228 20 0.00663 0 $0.00 $163.00 0.00663 0 $0.00 52,86933 0.00663 0 $0.00 53,606.48 times 55 $5,366 54 ST 6256.96 ST $38237 $3,863.45 $5,748.91 26,363.64 0.00311 15000 570.75. 0.00311 15000 0.00326 15000 548.90 000316 15000 : -.00007,1 20000 $75.40 . 0.003771 20000 0,00500 30000 $150.00 01.00500j 30000 00,0663 70000 $464.10 ::0046 70000 0:0326,, 50000 $163.00 0.00..6 50000 Ei!b*6 1.,250,000 $4,075.00 .: 000326' 1,250,000 S5,047.15 ST $359.61 S5,406.76 r1IIV.WIAN N.$.4-'417:0111A, $71.65 0.00311 15000 671.65 $48.90 0,00376 11896 538.78 575.40 0,00377 0 $0.00 $150.00 0,00500 0 $0.00 6228,20 0.00663 0 611.00 $163.00 0.00663 0 $0.00 $4,075,00 0.00663 0 $0,00 54,812_15 times 5.5 66,073.70 ST 5342.87 ST 5432.75 $5,155.02 $6,506,45 vging 22,727.27 rilitiggarg 0.00311 15000 $70.75 0.00311 15000 571.65 0.00311 15000 0.00326 15000 548.90 L.0.003216,, 15000 543.90 0.00326 8 /50 , .0'0037720000 673.40 0.00377 20000 $75.40 0,00577 0 0,0050g: 30000 $150.00 '000506' 30000 5 150_00 0.00500 0 0.00665 70000 $464.10 0_0.00326, 70000 5228.20 0.00663 0 ,, .6.9(0,-6 50000 6163.00 -000326* 50000 5163.00 0.00663 0 . 0,00326. 1,050,000 53,423.00 00.00,51.26: 1,050.000 53,423.00 0.00663 0 54,395.15 $4,160.15 times 55 ST 5313.15 ST $296.41 ST 54,708.30 $4,456.56 '11q$171:16N08 RW,ta.n.i.0 16,856,06 '107,76%, , 1. ' • Actual * Includes $25 base charge -45.76% -48.66% 1,984.40 1,042,75 4,465.55 12,69* :; : :1, ' , : :; 6_61% ',.; , :; ..1 i1: 1, ' , 11 1;2.S.55% A B Multi-Fam $71.65 526.57 50.00 $0.00 50.00 50.00 $0.00 $5,402.05 $384.90 $5,786.94 -3 8.13% Curreut bill roriflat rate structure Currant r/ bill at prionflat rate structure 4 CITY OF LAKE ELMO MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DA1E: REGULAR ITEM #: DISCUSSION 7/19/2011 17 AGENDA ITEM: Update Re: Library Service Considerations SUBMITTED BY: City Council (Follow-up from July 5th, 2011 Staff Report) THROUGH: Bruce A. Messelt, City Administrato - REVIEWED BY: - NA - SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: This item has 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 Elmo. 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. On July 5th, 2011, the City Council directed that County Library representatives be invited to attend an upcoming Council Workshop to further discuss this item. The County respectfully -- page 1 — City Council Meeting Update from Washington County Re: ary Service Considerations July 5th, 2011 Regular Agenda Item # 17 declined this invitation, pending County Board discussion of future Library services at its July 12th, 2011 Meeting and a stated desire for Lake Elmo to prepare a position statement for the County to consider. On July 12th, the County Board received a report from Library Director Conley (attached), which outlined budget scenarios for 2012. The County Board did not take further action on this item. STAFF REPORT: The Mayor, City Council Members, 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-temi 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 and Tuesday's Board presentation 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 prepare for Truth -in - Taxation hearings in September. For information, here is the 2009, Payable 2010, Levy collected by Washington County for Library operations and debt service. Library 12,580,838 Library debt $ 12,580,838 1.97180655% $ 248,070 0.23896744% $ 30,064 RECOMMENDATION: 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: --page2-- City Council Meeting July 5th, 2011 Update from Washington County Re; Library Service Considerations Regular Agenda Item # 17 Review and potential 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. ATTACHMENTS: 1, Washington County Board Briefing Paper — July 12th, 2011 2, Draft Position Paper (to be sent separately — still underpreparation) 3, Resolution 2010-031 & Resolution 2010-041 4, "Public Library Service in Washington County" — March 2011 5, Marine Library Committee Recommendation to Marine City Council — March 2011 6, Draft Resolution No. 2011-024 SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item & Brief Staff Report .......... ........ City Administrator Questions from Council to Staff._ ..... ..„....... ......... „..„ _ Mayor & City Council Public Input, if Appropriate ...... ......... ....... Mayor Facilitates Discussion ..„,.„....„, .............. „, ..... .................. ......... . ..... .Mayor Facilitates Direction or Action? .„ „......._______ ......... . ............. , Mayor & City Council -- page 3 -- Washineton 51=�:Cotinty DRAFT —FOR DISCUSSION ONLY Financially Sustainable Library Service Models 2012Library open hour options July l2.ZO1l Washington County Library Patricia Conley Director Goal Based on 1\ a 2012 levy target that is the same as 2011 o[2) a 3% reduction from the 2012 levy target there will be insufficient staff to support current library service at 9 branches at 349 open hours per week. The Library recommends that open hours be based on the number ofstaff that can be afforded. The challenge is to offer sufficient access to library resources and services, promote customer self- service Within an environment of shrinking workforce due to budget reductions, the library will... w Meet the library service needs ofcustomers bJgreatest degree possible • Use technology and innovation tgmaintain access tothe library whenever possible • Preserve essential library services • Preserve access tpthe library and togood customer service w Provide security for customers and employees ~ Adjust branch open hours to utilize available staff hours and preserve use[ access • Provide adequate, staff coverage for customer service during library open hours • Create public access and staffing parity among geographic regions within County Staffing patterns Staffing patterns for public service are based oOZO1Oactivity levels for each branch, Branches are organized into three service areas or reg|ons. Activity levels include number mfvisits, loans, reference transactions and public computer use, all of which require various staff responsibilities and customer assistance. Staffing patterns are also based on customer activity levels during particular times of the day, e.g. afternoons are busier than mornings and evenings. In addition, activities such asstory times, programs, classes, school visits, tours, marketing, collection maintenance and professional development require planning, community outreach and dedicated time away from public service desks. 8595Central Park Place, Woodbury, K4inneoota55125 Phony: 051'275'850D ^ Fox: 651'275'8509 ^ TTY: 051-480'6246 vmww.uo.*mnhingtonmn.uo Washington County Libr inancially Sustainable Service Models: 2 - July 12, 201 1 2010 Performance measures by branch and Group Library activity per hour by branch, 2010 RH Stallard Hardwood Creek & Hugo Express Park Grove Oakdale Wildwood Volley Marine R E Wahl Newport 'at 4.41 4,4 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Visits M Loans a,- Reference Si PC Use Source; Horizon Report, 2010; Cybrarian Report, 2010; Washington County Library Gate Count Report, 2010 OPEN rkt PEA"'vEMg-.---,-;'---i:-..--.-:- - ,....... -!--, ..lictEifikeit :::," - ,p04E ,,, f...Y.,:7-:.,-,A.'..!..--:--,, :.-f-•:,... 0:PkN----ii900 ',111460 :...,,-90EN ,.-----...:::; -.--z-,..-8,:ip-$: !-04:E019!.4 -414F1( ? " 1 ,...-:(0AN1',118848[A Ek86NC.REFERENCE IlOORS,., PER -7-...f PIE - --.F''..iiti:PVIEli -.-r20t6 .-:-,i-iiiLifi • .-.::-6tris::::#.0i;HOLiit SLZd ,,--- - 'FTE LOANS iiiiikiaiA Ftii . .i.i',ii,Criii.4 PER HOUR '.'.:4104:-.4iOtiii FL 11.61 58 2952 0.20 178,932 61 97,065 5.25 467,324 158 5.36 14,313 4.8 28,181 9,5 WW 4.65 46 2349 0.10 86,2261 37 41,931 2.5 188,1311 80 2.161 10,020 4.3 MA 0.56 201 996 0.03 15,3181 15 7,942 0 23,0011 23 0.551 3,949 4.0 HU I I Q 1,9701 0.001 0 0.0 N61;i8:'iLi6113 ;: :,Ef1.7.4 6297 ',:: r.,0j4 260,4761 r ' 1:45 I : 146,938 r 1r935 r 680,4261: :::,-.: :106 r., :,:; -.8.081;'T :-..: 28,202,1'-' .', r ,.:41.:.t ,,,,36,.944 WB 1 13.40 58 2952 0,23 427,3351 145 139,855 6.95 909,6711 308 6.451 29,9241 10.1 47,202 16,01 VA 1.42 20 996 0.07 22,655 23 13,410 0.9 39,4731 40 0.521 3,1941 3.2 1,314 1,31 NE 0.53 20 996 0.03 3,746 4 2,776 0 6,0391 6 0.531 7551 0.7 734 0.7 i'teilLriE; rr.4045: L :::: r ''.981' ' .4944 r; :L148 .:::'453:7361: 1 "92, '--150',15.43.:: US. r-; ,'.955i133 V: s :::493 7;501:::1-..r.::: ::7-33,11*#.;;;r",::- '::.;=;':64,:•?..:49;256 ,..':,-:10.0 PG 7.30 46 2349 0.15 158,659 68 ......,.,. 82,745 3,77 286,333 122 3.531 14,2261. 6.1 33,095 14.1 OA 5.94 461 2349 0.13 105,704 45 49,673 2,59 202,921 85 3.351 10,3551 4.4 11,480 4.9 LE 1 0.82 201 996 0.041 10,871 11 8,953 0.201 29,357 29 0.621 8071 0.8 576 0,6 1;;O:$ i-:::0'40'61,'.:5*011::::-rr: 01:2-r:':::1.:50::::'',.?.:'25,8943 ::.-f.%::,',1::41C.:415,I51 ? .r:::::;,1:0 60 444,350 . : 2,154,220 127 23.08 87,554 5.2 131,345 7.8 WCL 46.24 334 16,935 .0.14 1,609,446 8,360 3.6 403 0,4 na na NOTE: 2010 branch statistics reflect a reduction of 35 open hours a week from May 30 through September 4, 2010 (Summer Schedule), 2 Washington County Library FinanciIv.SustainabIe Service Models; 2012 July 12, 2011 Current 2011 Open Hours 9 locationst7days/349 open hours HOURS/ BRANCH SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY WEEK RH Stafford 1-5 9:30-8 930 8 . - . 0-8 9:30-5 9;30-5 61 1-5 9;30-8 9:30-8 9:30-8 9:30-8 9:30-5 9:30-5 61 1-5 9:30-8 12;30-8 12:30-8 12:30-8 12:30-5 9:30-5 49 1-5 9:30-8 12:30-8 12:30-8 12:30-8 12:30-5 9:30-5 49 1-5 9;30-8 12:30-8 12:30-8 12:30-8 12:30-5 9:30-5 49 closed 10-2 2-6 2-6 2-6 10-2 closed 20 closed 10-2 2-6 2-6 2-6 10-2 closed 20 closed 10-2 2-6 2-6 2-6 10-2 1 closed 20 closed 10-2 2-6 2-6 2-6 0-2 closed 20 Hardwood Creek Park Grove Oakdale Wildwood Valley RE Wahl Marine Newport HOURS/DAY 20 68,5 59.5 59.5 59.5 44.5 37.5 349 Five of nine branches open 7 days a week/52 weeks per year offering day, evening and weekend access to services, • RH Stafford and Hardwood Creek branches each open 61 hours. • Park Grove, Oakdale and Wildwood branches each open 49 hours. • Valley, RE Wahl, Marine and Newport branches each open 20 hours, Monday through Friday. • Hugo Library Express is open 24/7. Open hour options In order to maintain library operations and preserve essential functions, the library proposes to adjust locations, days and hours to levels that can sustain staffing levels that the 2012 budget scenarios support. The fewer open hours, the more staff can be deployed at larger branches. Staffing larger branches is preferable because of the ability to allocate resources more efficiently and offer services to a greater number of people, Washington County Libra 7'9nanda|k/Sustainable Service Models: 2 '~. Option Al —2012 levy target BRANCH RHStaffond Hardwood Creek Park Grove Oakdale VVUdwood Valley Lake Elmo K4ohne l-5 1~5 closed dosed closed closed dosed 9 locations/6 days/297.5 open hours closed 9,30-8 HOURS/ closed closed dosed closed dosed closed o|coed 9:3O-B 9:30-8 g:30-8 9:30-8 2-6 Z-6 2-6 9:3O-8 IZ:30-D 1Z:3O8 1Z30-8 2'5 Z-6 2-G 3:30-S | 930-S � l2:3O'5 12:30-5 12:30-5 10-2 1O'2 1D'Z 9;30'5 g:]V-5 9:30' 9:30-5 9:3U-5 1O'2 1O'2 1O'Z Newport o|uxed closed 2-6 2'6 2'5 10-2 10-2 20 Branches open 6 days a week offering day, evening and weekend access to services. a All branches closed Mondays, w RH Stafford a nd Ha rdwood Creek open hours each red uced 10, 5 hours per week. Open Sundays. * Park Grove open hours reduced 7.Shours, Open Sundays. * Oakdale and VVi|dvvoodopen hours each reduced 11.5hours per week, Closed Sundays, w Valley, Rosalie E Wahl, Marine and Newport branches open Saturdays, • Hugo Library Express is open 24/7. Option A2 — Levy minus 3% target 9 locations/5 days/243,5 open hours HOURS/ BRANCH SUN0AY N1DNDAY TgESDAV WEDNESQAY THUSD4Y FR|DAY SATU0DAY WEEK Hardwood Creek Park Grove Oakdale VVi|dwnod Valley Lake Elmo Marine dosed dosed closed closed closed closed closed dumd dosed closed dosed closed closed dosed g:30-8 12:3U'8 12:SO-8 lZ:30-8 2-6 2-6 2-6 12:3O'8 l2:30-8 I2:30-8 1Z:30-8 2-6 2-6 Z-6 1Z:30-S 12:30-5 1Z:30-5 lZ:30-5 2-6 2-6 2-6 12:3O-5 z2:3V-5 l2:3&-5 I2:3D-5 10-2 10-2 10-2 9:3O' 9:JO-5 g:30-5 g:30-5 l0-2 1U'Z 1D'2 Newport closed HOURS/DAY 0 closed 2-6 Z'O 2-6 10-2 10-2 20 Branches open 5 days a week offering day, evening and Saturday access to services. w All branches closed Sundays and Mondays. ~ RH Stafford and Hardwood Creek open hours each reduced by 26.5 hours per week, * Park Grove, Oakdale and Wildwood open hours each reduced 17.5 hours per week, * Valley, Rosalie E VVoh|, Marine and Newport branches open Saturdays. • Hugo Library Express is open 24/7. Smaller branches serve 13y6and larger branches 87%oflibrary customers. Staffing the four smallest branches means that fewer staff will be available at the five larger branches to serve a greater number of customers, 4 Washington County Library Financi Sustainable Service Models: 2012 JWy12,2Dl1 1 Option 131-2012 levy target HOURS/ BRANCH SUNDAY K0ON0AY TUESDAY UVEDNESDAY THURS0AY F0|DAY SATURDAY WEEK RH Stafford 1'5 9:30-8 12,30'0 12:30-8 12:30'5 13:30'5 9:30'5 46 Hardwood Creek 1'5 9:30-8 12:30-8 12:30'8 Park Grove dosed 12:30'8 12:30'8 12:30'8 Oakdale dcocd 12:30-8 12:30'8 12:30-8 VVi|dwood dnxnd 12:30'8 1230'8 12:30'8 TBD closed dosed 2'6 2-6 TBD closed closed 2'6 2'6 12:30'5 12:30'5 9.30'5 46 1I:30-5 12:30'5 9:30-5 39 12:30'3 12:30-5 930`5 39 12:30-5 1I80-5 930-6 39 2-6 10-2 10'2 20 2'6 10-2 10'2 20 43.5 45.5 45.5 30.5 30.5 45.5 249 Branches open 7 days a week offering day, evening and weekend access to services. * RHStafford and Hardwood Creek open hours each reduced 15hours per week. * Park Grove, Oakdale and VVi|dvvond open hours each reduced 10 hours per week, All are closed Sunday. * Two Boutique branches each open 30hours per week. Both are closed Sunday and Monday and open Saturday. w Two Boutique branches trans|t\Vned toalternative library service. * Hugo Library Express |xopen 24/7. Transitioning two small branches to alternative services that require fewer FTE allows available staff members tobedeployed atthe five larger branches. Option B2—Levy minus 3% target 7 locations/7 days/222.5 open hours HOURS/ BRANCH SUNDAY K8O00AV TUESDAY VV5DN[3OAY THURSDAV FR|DAY SATURDAY WEEK RH3taffmrd Hardwood Creek Park Grove Oakdale VVi|dxvood TBD 1'5 1-5 dosed o|oaod closed closed 9:9O'8 D:30'8 123O-8 12:3O-8 12:3O-8 closed l2:3D-8 12:3U-8 1Z3U'8 128O'8 12:30'8 1-5 12:3O'8 12:3O-8 1Z:3O'5 lZ:]O'5 12:3D-S I-5 1Z:30-5 12:38-5 12:3O'6 l2:3U-5 12:3D'5 1-5 12:3O'S 123O'5 12:3O'5 l2:3D'5 l2:30-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 B 1-S 1-S 1-5 42.5 42.5 32.5 32.5 33'S 20 TBD closed closed 1-5 1,5 1'5 1'6 I,5 20 R 43.5 455 35.5 30.5 30.5 28 222.5 � Branches open 7days aweek offering day, evening and weekend access tnservices. v RH Stafford and Hardwood Creek open hours each reduced 18.5 hours per week. * Park Grove, Oakdale and Wildwood open hours each reduced 16.5 hours per week. All are closed Sunday. ° Two Boutique branches each open 2Ohours per week, Both are closed Sunday and Monday and open Saturday. * Two Boutique branches t,ansitioned\nalternative library service, w Hugo Library Express is open 24/7. Tronxhdoningtwo small branches toalternative services that require fewer FTE allows available staff members tobedeployed atthe five larger branches. 5 Washington County Ubra�- 'inunnioUySustainable Service Models: 2n/^" Option Cl-2012 levy target 6 locations/7 days/236 open hours Hardwood Creek 1'5 Park Grove 1'5 Oakdale closed VVUdvvood closed TBD dosed 9:38-8 12:30-8 12:30-8 1230'5 12:30'5 9:30-5 46 9:30-8 1280'8 12:30-8 12:30'5 12:30-5 9:30-5 48 12:30-8 12:30'8 12:30'8 12:30'5 12:30'5 | 9:30'5 39 12:30-8 12/30-8 12:30-8 12:30-5 12:30'5 | 9:30-5 39 HOURS/DAY 1246.5 41.5 41'5 26.5 26.5 41.5 236 Branches open 7 days a week offering day, evening and weekend access to services. * RHStafford and Hardwood Creek open hours each reduced 1Shours per week, * Park Grove open hours reduced 3hours per week. w Oakdale and VVi|dvvoodopen hours each reduced 10hours per week. Both are closed Sunday, * One boutiques branch open 2Ohours per week, Closed Sunday and Monday, Open Saturday, * Three Boutique branches [rens|t|onedtoalternative library service, w Hugo Library Express ixopen Z4/7. Transitioning three small branches to alternative services that require fewer FTE allows available staff members 1obedeployed atthe five larger branches, Option C2— Levy minus 3% target 6 locations/7 days/208.5 open hours HOURS/ BRANCH SUNDAY YNOmDAY TUEDDAV VVEpN[8DAY THUKSQAY FR|DAY SATUKDAY WEEK Hardwood Creek Park Grove Oakdale VV||dvvood l'S 980'8 i 12:30`8 dosed 9:30-8 | I2:30-8 closed | II30'8 | 1I:30-8 i closed 12:30-8 1 12:30-8 | l2:3D-5 I2:30-5 l2:3D-5 | 128U-5 | 1-S 1,S 1-5 I'5 T8D closed HOURS/DAY 8 closed 46.5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 20 Branches open 7 days a week offering day, evening and weekend access to services. * KHStafford and Hardwood Creek open hours each reduced 1B.Shours per week, * Park Grove open hours reduced 10.5 hours per week. Closed Sunday. ° Oakdale andVVUdvvVod open hours each reduced 16.5 hours per week. Both are closed Sunday. * One boutique branch open 2Ohours per week. Closed Sunday and Monday. Open Saturday. * Three Boutique branches transhinnedtoalternative library service. Hugo Library Express is open 24/7, Transitioning three small branches to alternative services that require fewer FTE allows available staff members to be deployed at the five larger branches. Washington County Library Financ '"'3urtainabhe3prviue��odeb:2UI2 Ju�1Z,%011 x Option DI-2012 levy target 5 locations/7 days/230 open hours HOURS/ Hardwood Creek Park Grove Oakdale i|dVYnnd 9:30'Q 9:3U'8 9,3O-O 93O-8 9:30-8 12:50'8 12:30'5 12:30-5 12:30-5 46 9:30-8 12:30-8 1230'5 13:30`5 12:30-5 46 9:30'8 12:30'8 12:30'5 12:30'5 12:30'5 46 9:30-8 I2:30'8 12:30'5 12:30'5 12:30'5 46 HOURS/DAY 20 52.5 52.5 37.5 22.5 22,5 22.5 230 Branches open 7 days a week for same hours offering day, evening and weekend access to services. w RH Stafford and Hardwood Creek open hours each reduced 15 hours per week. • Park Grove, Oakdale and VVUdwoodopen hours each reduced 3hours per week. w Valley, Rosalie E Wahl, Marine and Nevyport branches transitinned to alternative library service. • Hugo Library Express is open 24/7, Available staff isdeployed 10the five larger branches. Larger branches are preferable because ofthe ability to allocate resources more efficiently and offer more services to a greater number of people, Deploying ovo||aWe staff members during fewer open hours, allows a higher level of service and customer satisfaction. All branches would have the same houm. Consistency creates equitabU|ty across geographic regions and has greater clarity for customers. Option D2— Levy minus 3% target 5 locations/7 days/188.5 open hours BRANCH SUNgAY KNON0AY TUESDAY VVEDNES0AY THUSDAY FR|DAY SATURDAY WEEK Hardwood Creek ` | Park Grove Oakdale 1,S o|msod closed 9:30-8 9:3O-8 9:3O-8 12:3D'O l280-8 1I:3U'8 12:30-8 12:30'5 13:30-5 12:30'8 12:30'5 12:30-5 12:30'8 | 12:30'5 12:30-5 1'S dosed dosed VVikjwood closed 9:30-8 12:30'8 12:30-8 12:30'5 12:30-5 dosed 34.5 Branches open 7 days a week offering day, evening and weekend access to services. * RHSteffond and Hardwood Creek open hours each reduced 18.3 hours per week, * Park Grove, Oakdale and Wildwood open hours each reduced 14.5 hours per week. * Valley, Rosalie E Wahl, Marine and Newport branches transitioned to alternative library service. * Hugo Library Express isopen 24/7. Available staff isdeployed tothe five larger branches, Larger branches are preferable because ofthe ability to allocate resources more efficiently and offer more services to a greater number of people. Deploying available staff members during fewer open hours, allows a higher level of service and customer satisfaction. Washington County Librq 9nandaUySustainable Service Models: Z�''` July I2,%O11 Distance from branches Most county residents live within 5miles ofat-least one branch and within l0miles ofat|eGsttvVV branches or the libraries in Stillwater and Bayport. i / Distance to branches from cities and townships including Hugo Experoo and AosociatgLibraries VVoodbury vViUwroino VVhii*Bemr Lake West Lake|andTowrmhip .Sd|kwnter 5candia SLPau|Park St. mary(6Point PineSphnp Oak Park Heiph\,, Oak daIo New»or� fvayTnwnuh.p Worineuo St. [no>* h1ahtomoni Landfali Loko S�.Croix Beach LnkdawdShons Loke|aod LakoE�mu Hugo NashnAs W= � 6neycloud Kaod—����� I Grant Fnnes/Lake Denmark Township Ddhmomd Cott oAe6rove 8irchwoodYi}|aXo Baytown Towosh/» Bayport Afton � ! ! ' ! � 0 Z 4 6 G Number of branches �Branches within 5mi 0 5rancheswithin lOmi ! ' ! ' 8 Washington County Library Financii",1 Sustainable Service Models: 2012 July 12, 2011 Open hours and FTE by metro -area libraries Among the 8 metro -area libraries, Washington County Library ranked 5th in number of open hours and 6th in number of employees (FTE) in 2010. 2010 open hours and employees by library Total II of Paid FTE Employees E* IIoursOpr Weekly Hennepin County Library St. Paul Public Library Dakota Con' Library Anoka County Library Washington County Library Ramsey County Library Scott County Library Carver County Library +3, Source: Minnesota Public Multiple Library Report, 2010 841 FTE per hour by library Among the 8 metro -area libraries, Washington County Library ranked 6th in FTE per open hours in 2010. 2010 FTE per open hour by library Hennepin County Library Ramsey County Library Dakota County Library Anoka County Library St. Paul Public Library Washington County Library Carver County Library Scott COUnty Library 0.1,7 0.17 0.3 0.34 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 02 0.25 0.3 0.35 OA Source: Minnesota Public Multiple Library Report, 2010 9 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2010-31 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM, A UTHORTZING 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 MinnesotaStatutes § 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 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 bythe 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 o'f 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 Countyto 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 bythe City Co Elmo, Minnesota. A. JobnstoiMayor ATTEST: Bruce Messelt, City 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. WIIEREAS, 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 establislunent 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. ) The City Council of the City of Lake Elrno 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 Elrno 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 funding 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 C unci Elmo, Minnesota, Dean. A. Johnston, Mayor ATT S Bruce Messelt, City,Administrator Public LibraryService hnWashington Cmuntv: Maintaining Access J&Qum|ltv inaTime ofFiscal Challenge, Changing Techno|osvand 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. As set forth in the Library's strategic framework, "2010 and Beyond," the vision of WCL is to provide 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 offiscal and social change, They are: 1\engage young readers; Z)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 isinthe air and inthe budget. This situation leads toare-examination ofsome ofbasic assumptions aboutwhat|ibrahesareondm/hattheydo. From community surveys'vve know that Washington County residents realize how important library services are to them. |nlight ofthe [ountvofinancial Situation, the rapid pace oftechnological changexthotpronmotenevv types bfaccess and changing user expectations as a result oftechnological innovations, ' change atVVCLis inevitab|e. Fortunately, it does not mean that library service will cease or that access to the Collection needs to6elimited. ltdoes mean that WCL must take advantage of the tools that technology and electronic resources have provided to it. It does mean that WCL 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: In 2009 VVCL began the year with an adopted budget nf$6.8 K4 Ofthis amount �6.5K8/909&\was from property taxes |nZD11VVCLbegan the year with anadopted budget of$G.5K4 Ofthis amount $6.1M(9496)isfrom property taxes |n2OO9VVCLhad astaff of113people [55.gFTEand 14she/vco] AsofMarch 1,2O11VV[Lhas astaff B8people including 3vacant positions /G1.7F7Eplus 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 as a result of staff reductions and other budEet reductions, As a result 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. 2812isprojected tosee further funding reductions. Specifically, the %O1lVVCLbudget asauthorized by the County Board was constructed to include an increase in the County Program Aid from the State of K4inneso1a. This state property tax aid is authorized in current statute at a certain amount; however, it >svnryunUke|ytheCountyvxU|necek/etheentineannountcertifiedgiventheexperienceofthe|astfew years. Ifthe 2OlOState budget reductions \nCounty Program Aid are made permanent nrsimply 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 of the total cut in state aid to the county. Based on current information about the state's budget situation, the County and WCL are starting to plan for this reduction in 2011; if it doesn't happen, so much the better but the Library must have a plan in'place. One final thought: |nplanning for the future oflibrary services inWashington County, there are other considerations ofamore long tennnoturethat will impact the future ofxbrahes|nVVeshingtonCounty and the nation other than the current �nancia|situatipn VVCL's|ong'nan�efacilities plan looks out to 2O3Oand attempts tn set ' in place a vision that encompasses the changes and challenges anticipated. F\rst,the population growth and its various shifts must baaccommodated. Second, the advances \n technology within the greater anc\' will 'impact how people read, how they learn and what types of virtual communities they will develop. All of these 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: AProposal for Partnership* Fora variety ofreasons, there ba 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 have low volume ofservice. In some instances the new models can be transitional models until an area's population grows dense enough to require a new library building;"in others 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 iocker systems to large vending machines (similar to Red Boxes) to other ideas still in development. There ionoone model that will fit all locations needing ordemanding service. in any case the L"ibrary must find partners who will support cooperative programming and house the 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 tothe entire library collection, the County Library could provide: * delivery services atleast once per week ° programs, such as summer reading programs and author presentations, on an occasional basis • public access computers with Internet connections 0 electronic access tuthe Library's collection w materials' return services. The partner could provide: * facility and all maintenance, e.g. refuse removal, cleaning, meeting nrprogram space telephones and other telecommunications services needed, such as a fiber or TI connection • technical support for the computers (fneeded • 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 Li.brary 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 the Village 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 depredated 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 of 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) $12,000 Friends of Library Annual Contribution $ 4,000 Washington County Support $ 3,000 Total Funding $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 Reeardin 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 certain 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. I 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 83500 n°"ui=s"oa county Minnesota z «° 2012 u°"i°° by omvr owzo/zz °""=s"`Lo` L°.°z ` v,.^z'"` For the Period Ending December 31, 2012 ov Library 2009 zmo 2011 2*11 ?mz 2012 n"zz 2012-2011 * Ach.al Actual. Adopted YTD Base Given Dept Popd 2d Adoptd Difference C".ge Real Estate Current 512000.HACA County Program Aid Total Levy Revenue s.mo.n^o- 5.v,1.mv' s'vss'nnv' v.v�o'vv� 1ov-^ syv',o^- o ^ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ___ 6.331.868' 5.871'400' 6'06o'600' 6^0e6.800 xvo'v ^ 513000. u°°z o"^"= Delinquent n'"n,- v w ------------ ------------ _______________________________________ n=t"z v"^"r Taxes e7_m77- o * Subtotal Federal Grants =soov.pILr SSR Pymt in Lieu of Tax n"utot°z S"°*" Grants ,,w"o'noum nsom Grant szsuoo ^zoc p/"" ayen=/"" Subtotal Local Grants Total InterVovernmental, Rev s^mn^. $^mov, 549000, Fees for Svcs -Other r°°" for c""t==t°a y.=s Collection service Fees Total Fees For Services ------------ ------------ ----------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ___ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ --- -------- ------------ ------------ ___ u,zso' o m ______ ______ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ___ o.z,o- o»'z,s' ez.r=- 122'000- 100'293- zvz'»xv' zv'moo' 84.4-22' n» 122'000 zvv-v m'vno zon'v ------------------------—-------------------------- 183'42v- 1a*'vm' cq'ovu' m'«7x' 192'000 mo'k zxx'vn^' m^_nyo' 192'0*0' m^.^`z- 192'oun zuv-« ,.oe' 4.773' 35' " ~ x,'*m' zx'zo' 25.000' ,'znz- 25`000 zoo'v «s.mv' 57.59* 71'000- 32'8e2' o'nvp 100'1k ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ --- ,v'sxo' 92'091' 96'000' ^o.nn' 96'000 100'1. ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------ Total Fines aForfeitures uw ssvovn, Interest s°,"/"v° 4.812- ,.zn,' 4.900' 2.022' 4.600 mo'~ '--� Total Tnvest.ent Earnings 4,9127 7'187- 4'600- 2'022' 4,900 1007x 113 ,o' 0 1. 83500 BD EUDDEPTLD7 LIE Library Washington County Minnesota 2 2012 Budget Review by DEPT 04/18/11 Level 7 09:42:03 For the Period Ending December 31, 2012 2009 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012-2011 5 Actual Actual Adopted YTD Base Divan Sept Propd Ed Adopcd Difference Change 982000. Restitution 1 Recovery 1112,523_ 84,230- 90.000- 26,483- 90,000 100-t 593000, Ni.sc Sales t7/0 Sales Tax 584000, Misc Sales W/Sales Tax 5e5000. Misc Other Revenue 586000. Donations & Contributions Toted Misc Revenue Total Non -Levy Revenue TOTAL REVENUE EXPENDITURES 600100. 600400. 600500. 601055. 601056. 602005, Direct Material Board meeting Per Diem Client Exp Reimb w/Recpts Dp Electrical ServiceS DP Electrical Repairs Oir Fmt Svcs - Misc Total Direct Payments 610800, 510900. 611400. 611500. 614920 Total Wages 615100. 615200. 616300. 61540o. 615500„ 615600, 615900 616000. Total aenefits Temporary Staff Special Project Staff Regular Pay Overtime ,ay Jury Duty Reimb FICA (Social Security] PERA (Public Retirement) Group Medical Insurance Employee Medical Pool Group Life Insurance Group LTD Inc Employer Liab Funding Unemployment Comp Total Wages & Benefits 45 147- 0 5 52,409- 58,373- 61,000- 14,379- 61,000 100-1 3,304- 2,500- 2,500 100-5 33,032- 46,551- 15,000- 34,208- 15,000 100-1 157,803- 192,655- 168,500- 75,070- /68,500 100-5 561,282- 476,013- 461,100- 201,758- 461,100 100-1 6,993,150- 5,347,413- 6,527,900- 201,758- 6,527,900 100-1 774,967 639,658 766,800 148,763 766,800- 100-1 140 245 500 500- 100-% 55 0 t 5,371 1,878 0 5 1,039 0 1 73.835 77,438 65,000 14,741 65,000- 100-1 - 855,407 719.219 832,300 163,504 832,300- 100-1 45,898 44,597 27,900 12,707 27,900- 100-1 10,359 D 5 2,932,650 2,885.982 2,951,700 , 697,682 2,951,700- 100-5 113 364 73 0 5 10- 0 5 2,984,010 2,930,943 2,979,600 710,462 2,979,600- 100-5 224.052 216,077 217,800 56,033 217,600- 100-1 197,149 200,913 204,500 54,213 204,500- 100-1 253,934 251,633 264,000 74,413 264,000- 100-t 70,990 67,274 67,300 21,260 67,300- 100-1 5,544 4,035 4,300 1,163 4,300- 100-1 15,777 9,507 9,800 2,298 9,800- 100-1 249,425 245,470 252,100 63,024 252,100- 100-5 275-, 0 t 1,016,593 994,909 1,019,800 272,404 1,019,800- 100-1 4,005,603 3,925,852 3,999,400 982,866 3,999,400- 100-1 $3500 Washington County Minnesota 3 et) 2012 Budget Review by DEPT 04/18/11 BODDEPTLia7 Level 7 09:42,03 For the Period Ending December 31, 2012 LIE Library 2009 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012-2011 k Actual Acrual Adopted YTO Base Given Dept Propd Ed Adoptd Difference Change ________ ----------------- _ ----------------------------- _--____ ___________- ---------- .._ ------ ----__ ----- _______ ____________ ____------.- -_-_ ----- Total Other Operating Expense 0 k 622100. Transportation 84 64 622500. Mileage 12,881 8,668 622600. Cell Moue Allowance 720 220 623000. Lodging & Meals 419 Total Employee Expenditures 8,000 36 '- /,915 • t 8,000- 100-t 0 % O t 14,104 8,952 8,000 1,951 9,000- 100-9 ------------ ---------------- --_-_-_-_-__ ----------------- Total County vehicle Expense 0 630100, Consultant Service 15,892 0 t 630400. Dues and Memberships 125 130 0 t 630470 Other Svcs & Chge Misc 21,297 22.891 25.900 5.295 ,.. 26,900- 1.0o-k ------ - ---------- ---_-__ ____________ -________::.- -...,___ ------ ____ -------------------------------------- Total Other Service$ 6, Chgs 37,314 23,021 25,900 5,295 25,900- 100-5 640000. Facilities 118,400 642000. Telephone 115,018 89,462 86,500 23,436 642900, Rent/Lease of Facilities 1.224,055 1,220,007 1,1015,380 303.382 643000, Electricity 2,696 3,194 701 644000_ Beet 2,447 2,119 1,140 645000. Refuse Collection 1,092 1,248 455 648000. main/Repairs-Facilities 9,888 7,472 1,611 Total Facilitie$ 118,400- 86,500- 1,105,300- 100-4 100-k 100-4 O t O t 0 O t 1,355,196 1,323,502 1,310,200 330,725 1,310,200- 100-9 651000. 50PPlY/9inor Equip Misc 89,237 76,400 67,000 17,491 67,000- 100-k 654000. Books & Periodicals 369- 10 10- 0 t 657100. Minor Equip (c$5000) 45.176 69,631 105.400 12,230 105.400- 100-9 657200. Rental/Lease of Equipment 9,152 8,870 14,700 3,465 14,700- 100-k 657400. Equip Repairs & Maiut 106,987 97,589 124,000 49,796 124,000- 100-k Total Supplies & Minor Equip Total Operating Expenses 674000. 674060_ 674110 _ 674210_ Office Furnishings & Eguip Office Equipment .$5,000 Computer Equip >$5,000 Computer Soft a$5.000 Total Capital Expenditures -___________ ------------ ------------ ____________ 250,183 - 252,300 311,100 82,972 311,100- 100-9 ------------ ------------------ -- ------------ ______________________________ 1,656,797 1,607,975 1,655,200 420,943 1,655,200- 100-9 8,903 17' 7,770 26,532 7.750 41,000 39,225 O t O 1 O V 41,000- 100-4 15,537 35,435 41,000 39,225 41,000- 100-k 83500 3D BUDDEPTLD7 LIR Library Washington County Minnesota 2012 Budget Review by DEFT Level 7 For the Period Ending December 31, 2012 4 04/18/11 ❑4:42;03 2009 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012-2011 % Actual Actual Adopted YTD Base Given Dept Propd Bd Adopid Difference Change Total Debt ServiCe TOTAL EXPENDITURES EXCESS REVENUE OVER EXPENSES OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Bond Par: Total Bond Par OTHER FINANCING USES Other Financing Sources/Uses FUND BALANCE ,344 6,288,481 6,527,900 1,606,538 354,806- 58,932- 1,404,780 O 1 6,527,400- 100-t O t O t O t 349,806- 58,932- 1,404,780 0 t ............ ssa=a=====aa =___..._____aa ===maws-ama=====masaasm as=======:aa wms=a=== =saaac== CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA 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 ofMinnesota; 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 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. 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 Ehno, 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 2010 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota, ATTEST: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator Dean A. Johnston, Mayor CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08- AN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THE CITY COUNCIL TO EXTEND THE "NO WAKE" REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE WATER SURFACE USE ORDINANACE FOR LAKE DEMONTREVILLE AND LAKE OLSON Section 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 97.21 subdivision (B) is hereby amended to read as follows: (B) Hours of operation, (1) Normal Conditions - No person shall operate any motorboat at a speed other than a slow, no -wake speed between sunset and noon the following day. (2) Hidi Water Conditions - No person shall operate any motorboat at a speed other than a slow, no -wake speed until, the lake level is six inches or less above the ordinary high water mark, (3) Other Conditions — Alternative no -wake time periods may be established by the City Council by Resolution as part of a special event or other condition, Section 2, Adoption Date This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elrno. This Ordinance No. 08- was adopted on this 19 day of July, 2011, by a vote of Ayes and Nays. Mayor Dean Johnston ATTEST: Bruce A. Messelt, City Administrator This Ordinance No, was published on the l9thl day of July, 2011