Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-28-2013 CCM Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible Manner While Preserving the City’s Open Space Character NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North City Council Meeting Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:00 P.M. AGENDA Present: mayor, bloyer DZ, AB, JG, snyder [6:25] Klatt [6:28] A. CALL TO ORDER B. Call to order 6:18 PM C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA E. Smith/ park 4-0 F. AGENDA CA Zuleger provided a summary of the workshop agenda Intention of 3/12 workshop to discuss easements I. Security-based Developer Agreements – Jack Griffin, City Engineer Reviewed by Snyder. CM smith asked to discuss the metco discussion. Wants to be part of discussions. Only person who originally was involved. DZ said that is Discussion about 3/12 date for March workshop. Spring break. DZ stated. resched 3/12 to 6PM on 3/19 Park concerned not present at 2nd mtg in apr. asked if 3/5 could discuss. JG provided history of development in LE. 2007 development agmt devised, but no new developments. Been a few years. City Admin, CFinDir, Dir Plan, Eng, , Snyder, as well as Public Works Super reviewed it. Explained what the deve agmt was and its purpose. Developer gets reassurance on proposed developments not being affected by changes in code through time. City benefit is security and clear expectations… Security requirements. City have right to finish project. P35 P27 responsibility for costs. Provides Dev comm. High capital costs vs lower. Opened for qs. Bloyer asked about Irrevocable LOC. JG explained how it works. Snyder explained… what if LOC expires? Pull the line. Finance director either gets the money or the bank extends. Whose responsibility is issues such as grading deficiencies? JG explains that it is the dev. Does the agmt cover this? The process should include checks, including inspection and building permit process. Should not happen again. The process should have caught this, but may have not been followed in the past as thoroughly as it should. II. Cash Flowing Utility Fees & Charges – Tammy Omdahl, Northland Securities Tammy Ohmdahl gave presentation of the Northland sec was hired last year and now asked for an update due to dev/growth changes. Projections are different. Demand for expansion is driving the new projections. Staff has been conservative. Projections are half of what staff believes will occur. This is to cash flow. The differences between the various types of lines were explained. Explanations were given to what a lateral line was and what it did. Discussion on the intergovernmental grants. Some of this was MNDEED and some was EPA grants for groundwater issues. Debt service paid by utility funds. No property tax levy. Deve relatred fees estimates for 2013. It was clarified that they were per unit. Discussion of the cost for village properties. Estimated that costs should be less than $20,000 Difficult to compare currently projects to proposed future projects. Discussion on what needs to be done with old systems. Tanks can be left, but filled with sand. Comparison varies by city. Total usage/rates for water and sewer, storm water. LE is at higher end in communities. As growth occurs, rates should reduce. Smith asked about outlook of city. Tammy said city looks good based on conservative estimates. If growth does not happen, some rates may have to increase at higher rate than anticipated, but if growth is better than estimated, it will decrease. Cash balances will be important. Prepayment feature was discussed. Flexibility can be built in if growth is better and elect to call earlier. Types of bonds. General…bonds- lowest interest rates. Backed by city tax levy option. Current rates are 3…% DZ recommends 20-yr Discussed by staff is to borrow front end heavy because of so low interest rates. Last year charges were $14K, now propsing $8K. this make it competitive for east metro. The availability charge would provide instant funds. Discussion about the rate of dev.- building velocity and area-wide assessment as opposed to individual pay as you go direct assessment discussion about how many units would have to happen to justify borrowing more now. Discussion of survey used to Cautioned biting off more than we can chew. Need to be careful. Consensus of council agrees. Discussion about area wide assessments vs pay as you go. Area wide assessments are typically targeted and not simply city wide. Snyder suggested that doing pay as you go and then reconsidering the area-wide after. Nelson concerned about city risk with pay as you go. Paul offered that Discussion of the city wells. JG explained that #1 (Small old Village) planned to be used until it wears out and not repaired. III. Fair, Equitable Parkland Dedication Fees – Dean Zuleger, City Administrator Klatt gave overview and history of the park dedication. Explained that recommendations were through parks and planning commissions. 2010 private survey provided by Parks Chair Shane Weiss. Shakopee survey. Recommendation maintain current practice set % of comm. And residential. Leaves option for fee based on fair market value when city believes more appropriate. Residential fee $3,500/unit currently only for plans of 3 or less units. Smith – thing that sets LE apart is parks. Would like to see city actually spend some of the large fund balance. DZ would prefer council give more “pocket parks” as opposed to more opens space parks. Park survey will Noted that developers have challenged fees if funds are not used. Bloyer already have 17 parks. Challenge to maintain more parks. Need to consider younger users. Park asked about private neighborhood parks. Election of land or cash. Snyder if land, needs to be public. Publicly maintained. Mayor is good with residential, but would like a friendlier comm. rate. Experience with private parks is that the maintenance is not to the desired level. Would like the funds used instead of just sitting there. Asked about what other places/states do. Dena gave his experience. LE parks not proud. Don’t want commercial giving 10% land. Want fee. Bloyer/ park good with fee. Bloyer wanted 0% comm. To invite dev. Clarification was discussed regarding what the funds can be used for. Not maintenance. …… Staff rec is $4500/acre for comm. Nelson wants the total fee to be competitive. LE has higher water/sewer fee. Council is obliged to review if on annual basis. Smith wants explanation made to parks/planning so they understand why council made decision to vary from recomm. Bloyer wants the parks comm to take a more market driven approach. IV. Extraneous Cost of Growth – Utility Easements - Dean Zuleger, City Administrator Dean gave overview of gravity sewer proposal and needed 20 ft. easements. Landowners are reluctant to grant at no cost. …. Worked with Assessor Frank Langer Easement value is about $9K/acre. $35K total project cost. Area fees are usually about 25% of per acre value Owner not losing use of land. Already in set back. Park is in approval. Smith disagrees that owners should be paid when already receiving gravity sewer. Snyder pointed out that the fee will come back when the connection charges are assessed. Many owners normally grant at no charge or nominal fee because of this. V. Public_Comment G. ADJOURN 8:45 P.M.