Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11/13/2012
LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2012 LAUDERDALE CITY HALL, 1891 WALNUT STREET The City Council is meeting as a legislative body to conduct the business of the City according to Robert's Rules of Order and the Standing Rules of Order and Business of the City Council. Unless so ordered by the Mayor, citizen participation is limited to the times indicated and always within the prescribed rules of conduct for public input at meetings. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVALS a. Agenda b. Minutes of the October 23, 2012, City Council Meeting c. Claims Totaling $98,302.07 4. CONSENT a. Third Quarter Investment Report 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS/RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS a. Canvas 2013 Election Results —Resolution 111312A 6. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATIONS / REPORTS a. Prosecuting City Attorney Katrina Joseph on Proposed Changes to Court Schedule —Resolution 111312B 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public hearings are conducted so that the public affected by a proposal may have input into the decision. During hearings all affected residents will be given an opportunity to speak pursuant to the Robert's Rules of Order and the standing rules of order and business of the City Council. a. Variance Request for 1746 Carl Street b. Revisions to the Open Burning Ordinance 5-7 8. DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS a. Variance Request for 1746 Carl Street b. Revisions to the Open Burning Ordinance 5-7 c. 2012-2013 Union Contract d. 2013 Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer, and Recycling Rates 9. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 10. ADDITIONAL ITEMS 11. SET AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING a. 2013 Budget and Levy b. Apply for 2013 Score Grant for Recycling c. Apply for Public Entity Innovations Grant for Recycling d. Billing Agreement with St. Paul Regional Water e. 2013 Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer, and Recycling Rates 12. WORK SESSION a. Opportunity for the Public to Address the City Council Any member of the public may speak at this time on any item not on the agenda. In consideration for the public attending the meeting for specific items on the agenda, this portion of the meeting will be limited to fifteen (15) minutes. Individuals are requested to limit their comments to four (4) minutes or less. If the majority of the Council determines that additional time on a specific issue is warranted, then discussion on that issue shall be continued at the end of the agenda. Before addressing the City Council, members of the public are asked to step up to the microphone, give their name, address, and state the subject to be discussed. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a whole and not to any member thereof. No person other than members of the Council and the person having the floor shall be permitted to enter any discussion without permission of the presiding officer. Your participation, as prescribed by the Robert's Rules of Order and the standing rules of order and business of the City Council, is welcomed and your cooperation is greatly appreciated. a. City Logo Revisions 13. ADJOURNMENT LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 1 of 4 October 23, 2012 Mayor Dains called the City Council meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Councilors present: Mary Gaasch, Roxanne Grove, Denise Hawkinson, Lara Mac Lean, and Mayor Jeff Dains. Staff present: Heather Butkowski, City Administrator; Jim Bownik, Assistant to the City Administrator; and Kevin Kelly, Deputy City Clerk. Mayor Dains asked for changes to the meeting agenda. Councilor Mac Lean moved to approve the agenda. Councilor Grove seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Councilor Gaasch moved to approve the October 9, 2012, City Council meeting minutes. Councilor Hawkinson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Councilor Hawkinson moved approval of the claims totaling $24,914.22. Councilor Mac Lean seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Councilor Grove moved to approve the consent agenda acknowledging the September finances and the PCIC Minutes. Councilor Gaasch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Informational Presentations/Reports: Halloween Party Bownik presented on the annual Halloween Party at City Hall. The Party lasts from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. on October 31. As in years past, food and beverages will be available along with trick -or - treat bags, a maze, and a photo slide show of past Halloween events. The City has received many generous cash and candy donations for the Party. Winter Parking Restrictions on Eustis Street Butkowski stated the Ramsey County Sign Shop will install posts/signs into the frozen ground if a parking ban needs to take effect. The Council discussed whether the County would be able to do that in a timely fashion. Butkowski will raise the issue with County staff. Sustainability Workshop Report No Councilor or resident from the City was able to attend the workshop on October 11. The next Sustainability Workshop is scheduled for November 1 from 6:00-8:00 p.m. at Silverwood Park in St. Anthony. LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 2 of 4 October 23, 2012 Discussion Items: Ordinance 5-9 Regarding Background Checks for City Employment Currently, there is no ordinance in place which would allow the St. Anthony Police Department (SAPD) to conduct background checks for the City. The draft ordinance is based on a model developed by the League of Minnesota Cities. The City of St. Anthony is updating their ordinance using the same model. Councilor Grove moved to adopt Ordinance 5-9 Regarding Criminal History Background Checks for Applicants for City Employment. Councilor Hawkinson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Ordinance 1-5 Regarding Mayor and City Council Compensation Council member compensation has not increased since 2002. Butkowski supplied the Council with comparative compensation data from small metro area cities. The Council settled upon a $600.00 yearly increase for council members and a $900.00 increase for the mayor. The new compensation will take effect January 1, 2013. Councilor compensation will be $3,000.00 annually; mayoral compensation will be $4,500.00 annually. Councilor Mac Lean moved to adopt Ordinance 1-5 Regarding Mayor and City Council Compensation. Councilor Grove seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. City Logo Revisions The Council debated different design features for the logo. Butkowski suggested inviting Colleen Dolphin to the next meeting so the Council can provide her input on the design. Bench Swing Donation A family in Lauderdale is willing to donate a handmade bench swing to the City. The park committee recommended accepting the donation. The Council suggested placing the bench swing at Skyview Park. The City is responsible for maintaining the bench swing after it comes into the City's possession. The Council thanked the anonymous donor for the generous gift. Councilor Mac Lean moved to accept the bench swing and place it at Skyview Park. Councilor Gaasch seconded the motion. It passed with Councilors Gaasch, Mac Lean, Grove, and Mayor Dains voting yea and Councilor Hawkinson voting nea. Additional Street Lighting Request Increasing the number of street lights in the City was discussed during the October 4 community meeting regarding the recent fires. Butkowski said Xcel Energy will add lights to existing polls at the Council's request. There would be no upfront costs, just the additional monthly cost per LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 3 of 4 October 23, 2012 light. The current monthly cost per street light is about thirteen dollars. The Council suggested getting resident input on the locations for new lights. Butkowski will contact Chief Ohl for his perspective on adding street lights as well. Grant Application for Sanitary Sewer Lining Project to Correct Issues Related to Inflow and Infiltration The Council had discussed the matter previously and had no further guidance for staff. Councilor Mac Lean moved to adopt Resolution 102312A Authorizing Application for the 2012 Municipal Infiltration and Inflow Grant Program. Councilor Gaasch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. TIF Fund Project Options Update Butkowski contacted Xcel Energy. Their engineers will evaluate whether they are able to move the electric utility line to the east side of Eustis Street south of Larpenteur Avenue to make room for a sidewalk on the west side of Eustis Street. Xcel will contact Butkowski within the next couple of months to discuss the options available. Agenda items for the November 13 council meeting will be establishing utility rates for 2013 and a new billing agreement with St. Paul Regional Water Services. There have been more incidents with the renters and others at 1954 Malvern Street since the Public Hearing. The owner provided the tenants with notice that they have to leave by November 30. Butkowski will send out notice of a public hearing on the property, if warranted, for the November 13 council meeting. Mayor Dains explained the Council was moving into the work session. Work sessions are a continuation of the meeting but not aired on community television. The Mayor asked if anyone present wished to address the Council. No one present addressed the Council. Recycling Rates for 2013 Bownik stated the city's recycling contract with Eureka! Recycling ends in 2013. Discussions are underway with Ramsey County to determine how the City will increase recycling rates to meet the new mandates imposed by the state. Any proposed change to our recycling service will need to be reflected in the new recycling contract. Recycling pick up currently costs each household $2.45 per month. Of the items collected, the City receives 50% of revenue generated by the paper and aluminum which is recycled in the City. The revenue sharing continues to keep LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 4 of 4 October 23, 2012 the recycling fund balance at a healthy level. Bownik did not suggest raising the recycling rates for 2013. The Council discussed including a community clean-up component in the next recycling contract. The discussion focused on "bulkies" which can be hard for residents to recycling. Staff will be working with the County to get additional funding for new recycling services. There being no further business on the council agenda, Councilor Hawkinson moved to adjourn the meeting. Councilor Mac Lean seconded the motion and it carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Kelly Deputy City Clerk CITY OF LAUDERDALE CLAIMS FOR APPROVAL November 13, 2012 City Council Meeting f;7 10/26/12 Payroll: Direct Deposit # 501456-501465 10/26/12 Payroll: Payroll Liabilities, e -payments #713E -716E 11/09/12 Payroll: Direct Deposit # 501466-501470 11/09/12 Payroll: Payroll Liabilities, e -payments #718-720 Vendor Claims 11/13/12 Claims: Check #'s 21437-21457 $8,251.16 $7,010.52 $7,568.32 $5,930.29 $69,541.781 SUBTOTAL $98,302.071 Total Claims for Approval $98,302.07 P , CITY OF LAUDERDALE 10/31/12 10:09 AM Page 1 *Claim Register© 102612pyrol OCTOBER 2012 Claim Type Direct Claim# 2952 NORTH STAR BANK, CHECKING S Ck# 000713E 10/31/2012 Cash Payment G 101-21701 FEDERAL TAXES 10/26/12 Payroll $1,124.91 Invoice Cash Payment G 101-21703 FICA WITHHOLDING. 10/26/12 Payroll $1,767.65 Invoice Transaction Date 10/31/2012 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $2,892.56 Claim# 2953 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- 457 Ck# 000714E 10/31/2012r�m Cash Payment G 101-21705 ICMA RETIREMENT 10/26/12 Payroll $1,474.18 Invoice Transaction Date 10/31/2012 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $1,474.18 Claim# 2954 PERA �Ck# 000715E 10/31/2012 Cash Payment G 101-21704 PERA 10/26/12 Payroll $1,563.55 Invoice Transaction Date 10/31/2012 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $1,563.55 Claim# 2955 MN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Ck# 000716E 10/31/2012~F s Cash Payment G 101-21702 STATE WITHHOLDING 10/26/12 Payroll $1,080.23 Invoice Transaction Date 10/31/2012 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $1,080.23 Claim Type Direct Tota $7,010.52 Pre -Written Check $7,010.52 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $0.00 Total $7,010.52 CITY OF LAUDERDALE *Claim Register© 110912pyril NOVEMBER 2012 Claim Type Direct Claim# 2982 NORTH STAR BANK, CHECKING S Ck# 000718E 11/9/2012 Cash Payment G 101-21703 FICA WITHHOLDING. 11/09/12 Payroll Invoice Cash Payment G 101-21701 FEDERAL TAXES 11/09/12 Payroll Invoice Transaction Date 11/9/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Claim# 2983 PERA Ck# 000719E 11/9/2012 11/09/12 9:20 AM Page 1 $1,668.97 $1,175.25 Total $2,844.22 Cash Payment G 101-21704 PERA 11/09/12 Payroll $1,611.89 Invoice Transaction Date 11/9/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $1,611.89 Claim# 2984 ICMA Ck# 000720E 11/9/2012 Cash Payment G 101-21705 ICMA RETIREMENT 11/09/12 payroll $1,474.18 Invoice Transaction Date 11/9/2012 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $1,474.18 Claim Type Direct Tota $5,930.29 Pre -Written Check $5,930.29 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $0.00 Total $5,930.29 1�mynaoou�w ���Y ��F LAUDERDALE Page I *Check Detail Reg^ster@ NOVEMBER 2012 Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 NORTH STAR CHECKING Paid Chk# 021458 11/13/2012 AFSCME G1O1'z17o9 UNION DUES $109.18 1O02Union Dues City Logo Total xrnoMs $109.18 $150.00 Paid Chk# 021459 11/13/2012 AMERIPRIDE 11/13/2012 GOPHER -STATE E1U143000-228 M|GCREPAIRS MA|NTGUPPL|E __$1��V'__ ��T d1 B of Towels 1 box Pen ox Paper » Total GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL Total AMsm|pn|os $152.67 Paid Chk# 021465 Paid Chk# 021460 11/13/2012 CIRCO INNOVATIONS INC E201-4SOOO'37V HALLOWEEN EVENT $143.04 Tubing for Halloween Maze s1O1412O0'43O Total CIRCO INNOVATIONS INC $143.04 oO13HBMembership Dues Total |omA *832.25 E1U1'412OO'091 TELEPHONE/PAGERS *9540 11/1uPhone and |TServices E 101-41200'306 CONSULTING FEES $398.75 11/12 Phone and IT Services M|GCREPAIRS MA|NTGUPPL|E Total CITY oFnoosv|LLs $494.15 E1O1'43000'228 Paid Chk# 021462 11/13/2012 CITYOFSTANTHONY PVVgarage furnace repair Tmo| mATHFUEL OIL SERVICES E1O1'421O0'319 POLICE CONTRACT $49,672.43__ 11/12Police Contract Total CITY mpSTANTHONY $49.672.43 E1V1-U2OO442 MISC $150.00 City Logo Total ooLpmmOGmApnY $150.00 `i5aid Chk# 021464 11/13/2012 GOPHER -STATE E101'43400'386 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL $3770 10/12 Locates Total GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL $orJu PUBLIC INFO NOTICES Paid Chk# 021465 11/13/2012 ICMA E1O141uOO'438 DUES &SUBSCRIPTIONS $150.00 2O13KKMembership Dues s1O1412O0'43O DUES &SUBSCRIPTIONS $68225 oO13HBMembership Dues Total |omA *832.25 E001'48O0O'ccO M|SCREPAIRS MA|NTSUPPL|E $52.40 PVVgarage furnace repair E602-48100'228 M|GCREPAIRS MA|NTGUPPL|E $52.40 PVVgarage furnace repair E1O1'43000'228 M|GCREPAIRS MA{NTGUPPL|E $*19.20 PVVgarage furnace repair Tmo| mATHFUEL OIL SERVICES $524.00 Paid Chk# 021467 11/13/2012 KONICAMINOLTA E1O1412O04O1 COPIER CONTRACT __$216.41 11/12Copier Contract Total KONICA MINOLTA $216.41 Paid Chk# 021468 11/13/2012 LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWS E101-U5OD-3o2 PUBLIC INFO NOTICES $212.50 Public Notices ' Election Sample Ballot E1O1'41u00-3S2 PUBLIC INFO NOTICES $18025 Pub|icNmi000-twnordinanmm CITY OF LAUDERDALE 11/09/12 8:38 AM Page 2 *Check Detail Register© NOVEMBER 2012 Check Amt Invoice Comment Total LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWS $378.75 Paid Chk# �0,�-� 21469 11/13/2012 LMC E 602-49100-438 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS $410.00 MCSC annual dues E 101-41200-308 TRAINING\CONFERENCES $40.00 HB LMC regional meeting Total LMC $450.00 Paid Chk# 021470 11/13/2012 MET -COUNCIL EN,��:. VIRONMENTAL SER. E 601-49000-387 WATER TREATMENT SERVICE $9,765.51 12/12 Waste Water Treatment otal MET -COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER. $9,765.51 Paid Chk# 021471 11/13/2012NORTH SUBURBAN ACCESS CO®xu- fx4 �µj� Nµ9 urzy" a RP E 202-49500-327 OTHER SERV- SEWER/NPDES 1 $715.59 3Q12 Webstreaming/Programming Total NORTH SUBURBAN ACCESS CORP $715.59 Paid Chk# 021472 11/13/2012 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES INS PROGRAM G 101-21706 HEALTH INSURANCE $2,357.02 11/12 Health Benefits Total PUBLIC EMPLOYEES INS PROGRAM $2,357.02 Paid Chk# 021473 11/13/2012 RAMSEY COUNTY, PROP REC & REV E 101-42100-318 911 Dispatch $1,010.43 10/12 911 Dispatch E 101-41200-355 MISC PRINTING/PROCESS SER $25.00 11/12 Employee Insurance G 101-21706 HEALTH INSURANCE $429.15 11/12 Employee Insurance E 101-42100-442 MISC $6.24 10/12 800 MHz radio licenses Total RAMSEY COUNTY, PROP REC & REV $1,470.82 Paid Chk# 021474 11/13/2012 RAPIT PRINTING E 101-41200-353 NEWSLETTER PRINTING $630.00 4Q2012 Newsletter Printing Total RAPIT PRINTING $630.00 Paid Chk# 021475 11/13/2012 SAM S CLUB, E 201-45600-379 HALLOWEEN EVENT $132.16 Halloween Event Supplies E 101-41200-201 GENERAL SUPPLIES $51.92 Coffee for City Hall Total SAM S CLUB $184.08 Paid Chk# 021476 11/13/2012 ST PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICE E 101-43000-382 WATER $22.52 3Q12 Water Service - City Hall E 101-45200-382 WATER $22.52 3Q12 Water Service -Warming House E 101-43000-382 WATER $46.76 3Q12 Water Service - PW Garage 'otal ST PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICE $91.80 Paid Chk# 021477 11/13/2012 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA E 101-43400-308 TRAIN ING\CONFERENCES $175.00 DH -2013 Shade Tree Seminar Total UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA $175.00 Paid Chk# 021478 11/13/2012 WASTE MANAGEMENT f mrv1z— wz LLMs E 101-43000-384 REFUSE DISPOSAL $178.18 11/12 PW Refuse Disposal Total WASTE MANAGEMENT $178.18 4 CITY OF LAUDERDALE 11/09/12 8:38 AM Page 3 *Check Detail Register© NOVEMBER 2012 Check Amt Invoice Comment Paid Chk# 021479 11/13/2012 XCEL ENERGY, CITY HALL E 101-43000-381 ELECTRIC $179.47 10/12 City Utilities E 101-43000-383 GAS UTILITIES $76.61 10/12 City Utilities Total XCEL ENERGY, CITY HALL $256.08 Paid Chk# 021480 11/13/2012 XCEL ENERGY, STREET LIGHTING E 101-43000-380 STREET LIGHT UTILITY $43.28 10/12 Bridge Lights E101-43000-380 STREET LIGHT UTILITY $513.84 10/12 Street Lights Total XCEL ENERGY, STREET LIGHTING $557.12 10100 NORTH STAR CHECKING $69,541.78 Fund Summary 10100 NORTH STAR CHECKING 101 GENERAL $58,270.68 201 COMMUNITY EVENTS $275.20 202 COMMUNICATIONS $715.59 601 SEWER UTILITIES $9,817.91 602 STORM SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND $462.40 $69,541.78 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent X Public Hearing Discussion Action Resolution Work Session Meeting Date November 13, 2012 ITEM`_NUMBER 3Q12 Investment Report STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: The attached report and spreadsheet reflect the City's investment activity for the third quar- ter of 2012. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: By approving the consent agenda, the Council acknowledges the third quarter investment report for 2012. COUNCIL ACTION: City of Lauderdale Third Quarter Investment Report November 13, 2012 The quarter ended with a general fund balance of $544,421.39 and cash and investments totaling $3,147,024.12. That is the total of all fund balances including the 601 and 602 sewer enterprise funds. Since the City pools the fund balances for investment purposes, at quarter end $2,966,702.30 was invested. $1,366,681.30 was invested in money market funds and $1,600,021.00 in certificates of deposit (CDs). The City did not purchase CDs this quarter and only one CD matured. The money market rates remain lack luster. The month by month rates for the money market accounts follow. Table 1: Average Money Market Rates: January 2012 – September 2012 This quarter, the City earned $4,523.16 from investments compared to $5,140.74 last quarter (totaling $13,330.06 for 2012). In summary, the City earned $30,612.67 in interest in 2011 and $54,673.60 in 2010. Table 2 shows how the interest was divided between the funds and compares interest earned to the adopted budget. The funds with the largest balances get the greatest interest distributions. fable 2: Investment Earning Distribution by Fund 2012 As of Fund Budget September 30 101 – General Fund $6,000 $2,072.56 201 – Community Events $100 $30.00 January February March 4M Fund ___......_._...... 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% . .............. ..............._....._._.._......_ 4M Plus Fund : 0.05%0.05% 0.05% j SB Inst. MM 0.02% 0.04% 0.04% April May June 4M Fund 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 4M Plus Fund 0.05% 0.05% i 0.05% 3 SB Inst. MM 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% July August September 4M Fund .................__._.._..... 0.02% __.._.... --........._...—......................__.._.............._..........................._.......__.._...—_.........._...... 0.02% 0.02% ---- - –..........._..__ 4M Plus Fund 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% SB Inst. MM 0.06% 0.06% 0.05% This quarter, the City earned $4,523.16 from investments compared to $5,140.74 last quarter (totaling $13,330.06 for 2012). In summary, the City earned $30,612.67 in interest in 2011 and $54,673.60 in 2010. Table 2 shows how the interest was divided between the funds and compares interest earned to the adopted budget. The funds with the largest balances get the greatest interest distributions. fable 2: Investment Earning Distribution by Fund 2012 As of Fund Budget September 30 101 – General Fund $6,000 $2,072.56 201 – Community Events $100 $30.00 202 — Communication $300 $99.24 203 — Recycling $800 439.00 304 — 2003 Street Improve $3,000 $1,034.86 401 — Capital Improve, Street $4,500 $2,360.89 402 — Capital Improve, Gen $1,000 $221.08 403 — Capital Improvement, Storm Sewer $1,800 $802.81 404 — Capital Improve, Parks $1,200 $1,117.97 405 — TIF Projects $2,000 $1,527.16 407 — Sewer Improvements $4,000 $15936.81 601 — Sewer Enterprise Fund $25300 $1,426.50 602 — Storm Sewer Enterprise Fund $500 $261.18 Totals $27,500 $13,330.06 At the end of the quarter, the securities were held an average of 730 days or a full 24 months. Currently, investment maturity dates are laddered through May 2014. It seems doubtful rates will improve in the near future so staff will continue to ladder short-term CDs. If the rates rise, the City will be able to step up to the better rates with each maturity. Staff provides Councilors the investment spreadsheet as an internal control procedure required by the city's auditor. As always, staff is available to answer questions and provide the Council with research related to the City's investments. -i o S3 my rt)Nv�S X30' �at�aC>a N��m 3 t3 m Ar O N m O r. r r• r. r r r• i r r• + 9 zss aoa fm< - r • r• r r • r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r i r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r i r r m d m N - • r r r r• r r r r r r r r r r r r r r - r r r i r• '^ nxm � N m _ u 91 p v n 2 � z n n n n n� 3 A {a pv a�aCm _ D�O(np W m W N ormNotn N No V o0 o _ _ N 9 Wl. cn A NN 2N <N V NN W W o a S U N o O N t3 m Ar r. r r• r. r r r• i r r• + + zss aoa fm< - r • r• r r • r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r i r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r i r r m d m N - • r r r r• r r r r r r r r r r r r r r - r r r i r• '^ 91 p r. r r r r r r r r r r r r r r . r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r ^ o - r r r r n c w m • o� r r r r r r r r• �, F.i N z - F m 3 A m S m w N - m o m r r. r r r r r r r r r r r r r r• r W .• r• r• r N r r r r r r r r r m A r r ti r r r r r r r r r • r r i r r r r r r r i r r r r r r r• r r r r i � • r o • r • r r r r r r • r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r• r r r r• ^� V V o m A o r r r r r• r• r r r r r r r r r r r r r O - r r r r r•• n� 898t 9 898 m - _ _ _ _ N • • r • • r r r r !J � m`l° m S3 N N - • r r r . r r r r r r r r r r r • r• • - • u .r r. rr, rr rrrrrr rrr.r �rr,r.r � ' 13 ^a owp wpJ oo o_ m� r r. , r • N wm ia . N= zEY 52�3 o W 9 o m w m — r r r r r r w r r W m W r r r 51. r r• r r o a r r r r r r o W W o 1.118 • r o r r• r r r r r r r r r r p • r r r r r r i r r r r r ^ O — r. u m Z� — ➢ 0 f m m 3 0 0 D 0 w ^ mad - m — m om r r r r r m m r r �' • r m o r r r 0 r r r r 0 o . r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r. � r r r r i•. r r � ��,w Nw oo rr rrrrr rr rrrrrrrrr rrr N rrrrrr ^a o _ m wyssN z 3 ' ➢ o m� m y3 0 v o a r r rrr r rrrrrrr rrrr rrrr a rrrrrrrrr Ll o_ fF . , r . r � m • C A N f m 3 m m ? W mNco m o u to a i o_ I IS m oN a w z 5 5 2 3 a -^m magi m - - . . , . . , . . . a...... ....... o _ ppp w m a N o N ro z5- noa m m Im m 1 3 N m - m 85. m .imw w o - r wu a o _ v z5- m� m S3 m - m o . . . . . . . , r , . . . . . rn " m o y � ......... a r r ........ ...... o_ k888�m oNa • ? r N Z55 88 S o m S 3 m � � opm o o D m D D D o- 03 _ e a o 3 3 om W oa.m 3 v_ o� �m o� zs- Do fmm . ..r.... `a ......r m m ,3 m a m N 1 o _ . r . . • . • r . . . . . . r . . r . . . . . . . . . � . . . . . . . . . O _ N pp O m O O 4 O N • •. mN r m _ HC IT w m N o 0 o W8 9999899 o 0 o A• o e m opm o o D m D D D o- 03 _ e a o 3 3 om W oa.m 3 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion Action X Resolution X Work Session Meeting Date November 13, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 2012 Canvas of Election Results STAFF INITIAL: K.K. DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: Elections were held at City Hall on November 6, 2012, to elect a mayor and two city council members. According to Minnesota Statute section 205.185, the governing body of a city shall act as the canvassing board, canvas the returns, and declare the results of the election within three to ten days after a general election. The write-in candidates for City office are reported and are included in the official canvassing document. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to adopt resolution 111312A - certifying the election returns of the November 6, 2012, General Municipal Election. COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO. 111312A CITY OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE ELECTION RETURNS OF THE NOVEMBER 6, 2012, GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WHEREAS, the City of Lauderdale election judges have tabulated the votes in Precinct I for Mayor for a term of two years and two Council members for a term of four years effective January 1, 2013, with the following results: MAYOR VOTES Jeffrey E. Dains 948 Write -Ins 30 COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTES Lara Mac Lean 776 Denise Hawkinson 667 Write -Ins 24 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Canvassing Board that Jeffrey E. Dains is duly declared elected to the Office of Mayor for a term of two years beginning January 1, 2013, and that Denise Hawkinson and Lara Mac Lean are duly declared elected to the Office of City Council for a term of four years beginning January 1, 2013. BE IT ALSO RESOLVED, that the City Clerk be directed to certify such election returns to the Ramsey County Auditor. I CERTIFY THAT the above resolution was adopted by the City Council of Lauderdale on this 13th day of November, 2012. (ATTEST) (SEAL) Jeffrey E. Dains, Mayor Heather Butkowski, City Administrator 2012 Recipients of Write-in Votes Office of the Mayor Jeremy Carr — 2 Tony Goodmanson — 2 Anyone else — 2 Mickey Mouse — 2 Matthew Palin — 2 Paul Roufs — 2 Mark Salovich — 2 Andrea Aaserude -1 Adam Afseth - 1 Chad Brewer — 1 Clay Christenson — 1 Marvin Florek — 1 Amanda Gibson - 1 Mark Hawkinson - 1 Doug Jordahl — 1 Bob Lerfald - 1 Christopher Matthews — 1 Tony Mieloch - 1 Drew Miller (William III) -1 Richard D. Miller — 1 Captain Ron — 1 Han Solo - 1 Oval Filled and Left Blank - Office of the City Council Jeremy Carr — 3 Tony Goodmanson - 2 Pat Lyles — 2 Adam Afseth - 1 Dawn Bartylla - 1 Karen Doherty — 1 Kelly Dolphin - 1 Boba Fett — 1 Michael V. Hirt -1 Joe Hughes - 1 Jabba — 1 Kendra Kauppi -1 Lindsey Lo `svag - 1 Drew Miller (William III) -1 Mickey Mouse — 1 Paul Roufs — 1 Bill Silverman - 1 Hans Simons - 1 Chris Wilberts — 1 Oval Filled and Left Blank - 1 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion Action Resolution X Work Session Meeting Date November 13, 2012 ITEM NUMBER Court Schedule DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: Katrina Joseph stopped by on Thursday. She had just met with the other prosecuting attor- neys and police chiefs in Ramsey County to find out more about the proposed scheduling changes within the Ramsey County court system. The proposed changes are to the detri- ment of the suburban attorneys. Katrina will be at the council meeting to provide the de- tails. She would like the Council to consider passing the attached resolution in opposition to the change as it will increase the number of days city prosecutors will be required to be at the court house. As such, the cost for the representation will be passed on to the cities. OPTIONS: Decide whether to adopt the resolution after hearing Katrina's presentation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO. 111312B CITY OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT RETAIN THE CURRENT SCHEDULING SYSTEM FOR SUBURBAN CRIMINAL CASES WHEREAS, the City of Lauderdale has its gross misdemeanor and misdemeanor cases heard in Ramsey County District Court; and WHEREAS, the Ramsey County District Court has under consideration the adoption of a new criminal court assignment system for suburban cases; and WHEREAS, the new system will at least double the number of appearances required by the city prosecutor; and WHEREAS, the City of Lauderdale does not have the funds to provide for the staffing of the new system given the current economic conditions. NOW THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED that the City of Lauderdale requests that the Ramsey County District Court retain the current scheduling system for suburban criminal cases. CITY OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) ss STATE OF MINNESOTA 1 I, Heather Butkowski, being duly qualified and City Administrator for the City of Lauderdale, Ramsey County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Lauderdale on Tuesday, November 13, 2012, as the same appears in the minutes of said meeting on file and of record in City Offices. ADOPTED by the City Council of Lauderdale this 13th day of November, 2012. Jeff Dains, Mayor ATTEST: Heather Butkowski, City Administrator TOWN DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2012 TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: JIM BOWNIK RE: VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR 1746 CARL STREET APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER, AND LOCATION John Hazen 1746 Carl Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 PROPOSAL & VARIANCE REQUEST The applicant is proposing to raise the roof of the garage to accommodate a storage room above the garage. The proposed new height of the garage is 22.5 feet at the peak. The variance is being requested because the garage is located within the side setback area (3 feet from the north side property line), of which a previous variance had been granted. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR VARIANCE APPROVAL In reviewing this variance request, the Council should consider the Zoning Ordinance requirements as well as relevant State Statutes. These requirements are outlined on the attached Variance Checklist. Here is the general order of procedure. 1) Staff presentation. Apply the Practical Difficulties Test 3) Public Hearing. 4) Approve or deny the variance. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TEST The municipal variance standard requires the city to apply a three -factor test for "practical difficulties" consisting of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. A variance should be granted if strict enforcement of the municipal variance standard as applied to a particular piece of property would cause the landowner a "practical difficulty." The landowner is generally entitled to the variance if and only if the applicant meets the statutory three -factor test for practical difficulty. If the applicant does not meet all three factors of the statutory test, then a variance should not be granted. 1) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls: • In general, one can conclude that "reasonable use" can be achieved without a variance. A storage room above the garage could still be built without special approvals, but not within the encroachment area of 2 feet on the north. The question then becomes, how would the garage look aesthetically? 2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: • A variance was granted in 1980 for the 2 -foot encroachment. Mr. Hazen was not the landowner that requested the variance when the garage was originally built. 3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality: • The City has granted variances to side yard setbacks for garages in the past. • Granting this variance request does not appear to impact the essential character of the neighborhood. ESTABLISHING THE FINDINGS OF FACT (Based on Answers to Questions on the Variance Checklist) The applicant has provided the following answers to the questions below: A) How does the proposal put your property to use in a reasonable manner? The applicant states he needs more storage in order to park his vehicles in the garage. B) What are the unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? The applicant states that a previous property owner built the garage 2 feet into the side yard setback. C) How will a variance, if granted, not alter the essential character of the locality? The applicant states the footprint of the structure (its location on the ground) will not change; only the height changes. D) How is granting of a variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? The applicant states the proposed height of the structure is within the height requirements of the ordinance. E) How are the terms of a variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The applicant states the Comprehensive Plan has information about new housing, but does not get into detail about attic and storage trusses. ENCLOSURES A) Original variance application, site plan and variance checklist. PUBLIC HEARING Adjacent property owners received notice of tonight's public hearing. CITY COUNCIL ACTION OPTIONS 1) Motion to approve the variance and direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval with findings of fact for the next meeting. • Conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. 2) Motion to deny the variance and direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial with findings of fact for the next meeting. If the variance is denied, state the rationale for the denial in the motion. 1 I g' I PIMP c ■ ■ 'ki Fee Escrow Tvpe of Request $100 $ 0 .. Lot Consolidation/Division $150 $ 0 Variance $200 $ 0 Conditional Use $500 $1,000 Zoning Amendment $500 $1,000 Subdivision $500 $1,000 PUD Applicant Information Name: e c n c,-Z-7� Address: C4 41 'S C, S, Z: Ply 5.11Z) Phone: 1DYYl�� Email: Signature:f- MAIN 651-792-7650 Description of Request ;,, Owner Information (if different) Name: Address: C, S, Z: Phone: 9 � � � `7 a � a J 713- (< Email: Signature: By signing above, the applicant agrees to pay the application fee and deposit an escrow fee to cover the city's consultants' costs associated with reviewing the associated request. Prior to having the request considered by the city, the applicant must deposit an escrow fee in an amount that is estimated to cover the city's consultants' costs as determined by the city administrator. If the city's consultants' costs exceed the initial escrow deposited by the applicant, an additional escrow fee will be required to cover the additional costs. The city shall use the applicant's fees to cover the city's actual consultants' costs in reviewing the request regardless of the city's action on the applicants request. If the applicant's escrow fees exceed the city's actual consultants' costs for reviewing the request, the remaining escrow fees shall be refunded to the applicant. Review Timeline: All applications, other than concept plans, must be complete before being formally reviewed. Minnesota Statute provides 15 days to determine the application's completeness. Completeness depends on whether or not the checklist items are fulfilled. Checklist: Please review the checklist for the type of application you are applying for. my PINS Application: tion: (approv( le: k-eG'e �vW /0-2 - j :a- kf (f, e is 1 Amount Paid: 6'— Receipt #: >eipt # Date Escrow Returned: ,ny) Meeting Date - 'i Action: (approved/denied) Meeting Date: • , 1 l l -; 1 The following requirements must be met in order for your variance application to be considered complete: 1) Have a pre -application meeting with city staff before submitting a variance application. Please bring the completed application and all required documents to this meeting. 2) Submit the following: A) Variance application and fee. B) Site Plan: ® Drawn to scale. YC -5 ® Delineating your property lines (by locating property stakes, submitting a Certificate of Survey, or other means). ® Showing lot lines, street names, locations and dimensions of all existing or proposed buildings, setback distances, parking areas, lot coverage percentage (as defined by structures covered by a roof) and any other pertinent site information. 3) es ribeour proposed project and why you are requesting a variance. ,5- ick J (,� 5 pa Ce- A b 6 J 4) Answer the following questions: �,1 �- �cLfje- 2 o -o Qv- se� v 5 A) How does the proposal put your pr peto use in a reasgnablemannT�� ? /" 'L>''� 5 jer SC) T Ce1c� ar P vc-?�' c C5 +� _,_ B) What are the unique circumstances to he, ro�erty not created by top landowner?J,0 ri- u5 ��ev �E �~ � ��c 0--\- 5c—i— ICC cK P C) How will a v riance if grante , not alter the essential character of the locality? D) How is granting of a variance in harmony with We purposes and irftent of they ZoningOrdinance Lauderdale's Zonin Ordi nce can be found onlif�e� atg��,� ( �y„� c� r, re- LLA 4 www.ci.lauderdale.mn.us)? ��=i", E) How ar the terms of a variance c nsistent with the Comprehensive Plan - 0C—S (Lauderdale's Comprehensive Plan can be f9 and onlin at DC -5 c V'h (�- www.ci.lauderdale.mn.us)? A f�,`e Sf -� z- 'S S / b l l�L✓ Information You Should Know ® The municipal variance standard requires the city to apply a three -factor test for "practical difficulties" consisting of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. ® Thus, the city is required to adopt findings based on the questions above. ® Conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. IA- ON .- Al� 0 Wall to Wall Construction Inc. 9475 Geneva Ave. South Cottage Grove MN 55016 Phone # 651-485-2605 Fax # 651-458-0529 E-mail Steve Leithauser @ aol.com Minnesota Contractor License # bc630484 Date 5-23-2012 Scope of work for John Hazens garage, l746 -Carl St Lauderdale MN Take off existing roof trusses off of the garage, rebuild the header wall with a continous 30 ft double 18 i v . LVL, take out concrete where both of the overhead doors meet and put a 3 ft X 3 ft footing in 16 inches deep with rebar in it, will hammer drill into existing cement with the rebar, install new attic and storage trusses 2 ft on center, plywood the roof and walls with %2 inch osb plywood, will be siding and roofing thc- garage the same as the house. All the existing walls will remain the same except the front wall. The foot print of the garage will remain the same. Building size will be 30 ft wide X 24 ft deep. peak height to be 22'6 10 ft wall height The footings are 1 ft perimeter thick around the entire garage, trusses to be hurrica i -v clipped, straps from the trimmers to header and the top plate. Contact Steve from Wall to Wall cons 651- 485-2605 K r 1, J, Gav n CA A C L11 T777 - v c JOD i russ j russ I ype city My QTRECO2i8O95 XMI MONO 15 Job Reference (optional), -MiTek industries, Inc.Inc.,ue May 2411:15:30 2011 Page 1 7.240s Jun 1620-1 6 ID:KElFo7u50WRFC� G3vUkGlzDODv-JGOn2tbBSVIVN?P7YCPaOM8!88YbOQYL7Qew3JzDlvF 0-0-05- 1-0 9-9-2 9-10-4 10-1-0 10-2-12 21-1-12 24-0-0 4-8-2-2-12 0- -12 10-11-0 j 2-10-4 3.00 12 4A 5x6 = Scale: 1/8"=1 5 6 2x4 i. 7xlO::7: 3 4 6 10.00 F1_2 14 12 2x4 2 3x6 44 1 1 6X10 'I IT 2 9 'N'j c5 0 3X109 ll V, 2x4 44 5x10MT18H= U!U' 6X6 0-0-0 5-1-0 10 x:9102-12. 21- ;-12 24-0-0 5-0-0 0- P!ate �-ji` ets �(X,Y): ["'0-1 0-2,0 1 -2-21, [3:0-7- -410-3- - 8), 13 - :0-3-12,0-2-01f LOADING (pbf) SPACING 2.0-0 CSI PLATES DEFIL in (10G) i!defl L/d PLAT P I'CLt.f\roof) 350 Plates Increase 1.15 TC 0.67 Vert(LL) -0.44 8-10 >6A4 240 NIT20 197/14 Snow (Ps/Pg) 32.2150.0 Lumber Increase ;A5 BC 0.95 Vert(TL) -0.68 8-10 >416 180 MT18H 197/14 TCDL 7Rep Stress Inc( YES WB 0.65 4orz(TL) 0.05 7 n/a n!a SCLL O.ct Code IRC2OO6/TPI2002 (Matrix) T ;"Atic -0.31 8-10 423 360 Weight 1821h F - RCDL 10.0 LUMBER BRACING TOP CHORD 2 X 6 SPF TOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing .4,sctly applied or 4-.:-7 oc purlins, BOT CHORD 2 X 6 SPF No.2 `,'�xcept* except end verticals. B2:2 X 6 SPF "1001' 1.8E BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 2-2-0 oc bracing. WEBS 2 X 4 SPF No.2 *Except* WEBS 1 Row at midpt 3-14, 13-14, 7-13, 6-13 W10. 2 X 6 SPF 210OF 1.8E, W7,W6AV5,W1,W2: 2 X 4 SPF Stud JOINTS I Brace at Jt(s)i 13,14 MiTek recommends thatSlabi!;zers and req uired cross bracing be installed during truss erection, in accord wee with Stabilizer Installation guide REACTION:; (IbMize) 1=1623/0-3-8 (min. 0-33-0), 7=2063i0-3-6 (min. 0-2-12) Max Horz'1=370(LG 8) Max Grav1=191 I(LC 3),7=2186(LC 2) rORC":L' (lb) -Max C * �G,,1p.3vI.,y: Ter,,. - All forces 250 (lb) or les& except when shown. TOP CHORD 1-15=-264- ' *!i * 5-6=-141/16,-j, 7-12=-143/2102, 6-12:-146/208,,) BoT 'HORD 1-1 1=-98i19-�4, 10-11=-98/1944, 9-10-35/1.b7' ' *, 8-9=-35/157- 7-8=-38/1558 WEBS 3-10=0/1075, 3-14=-2291/49, 13-14=_''184!189, 8-13=0/1300, 7-13=-5019/57, 5-13=-749/1 93, 6-13=-29511221, 5-14=-21 2/1;;55, 4-.,, --52811611 2-10=-50,41173 JOINT STRESS INDEX 1 z- 0.84, 2 = 0,50, 3 = 0.39, 4 =- 0.38, 5 = 0,72, 6 = 0.73, *.-= 0.83, 8 = 0.40, 9 = 0.78, 10 = 0 7F, 1 U.38,12 0.38, 13 0.95 and 14=0.74 .lob truss I russ I ype Uty 1 Nly QTRECO218095 XM1E GABLE 2 1 1 Job Reference (optional) - 7.240 s Jun 18 2010 MiTek Industries, Inc. Tue May 24 11:16:08 2011 Pagel ID: KEIFo7u50W RFCLcG3vUkGlzDODv-Cah80t21 VAX6xrJQnA5UxNjPoSgOliMxsKrxO6zDlu 0-0-0 5-1-0 10-1-0 24-0-0 3.00 12 3x8 II Scale = 1:97.: 11 12 13 i i 3x4 = 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 2x4 II 2x4 i1 2x4 1! 2x4 II 2x4 II 3x8 11 2x4 !I 2x4 11 2x4 II 7x6 = 2x4 II 2x4 II 0-0-0 5-1-0 18-11-0 24-0-0 Plate Offsets (X -,Y)-: [6:0-3 0 0-0-11 [13:0-3-12,Ed9ej, [19:0-3-0,0-4-8j LOADING (psf) SPACING 2-0-0 CSI DEFL in (loc) I/deft Ud PLATES GRIP TCI -',.(roof) 35.0 Plates Increase 1.15 TC 0.46 Vert(LL) n/a n/a 999 MT20 197/14 Snow (PsIPg) 32.2/50.0" Lumber Increase 1.16 BC 0.28 Vert(TL) n/a n/a 999 TCDL 7.0 WB 0.30 � Horz(TL) Rep Stress Incr 'YES 0.00 14 n/a n/a BCLL 0.0 * i Code IRC2006/TP12002 (Matrix) Weight: 185 Ib r r BCDL10.0 _ .. LUMBER BRACING TOP CHORD 2 X 4 SPF No.2 TOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing Arectly applied or 6-0-0 oc purlins, BOT CHORD 2 X 6 SPF No.2 except end verticals. WEBS 2 X 4 SPF No.2 BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 6-0-0 oc bracing. OTHERS 2 X 4 SPF No.2 *Except* WEBS 1 Row at micipt 13-14, 12-15, 11-16, 10-17, 9-18, 8-19 ST4,ST3,ST2,ST1: 2 X 4 SPF Stud 7-20, 6-21 .: MiTek recommends that Stabilizers F:ui required cross I bracing be installed during truss er-ction, in accordance with Stabilizer Installation guide. REACTIONS All bearings 24-0-0. (lb) - Max Horz 1-372(LC 3) Max Uplift All uplift 100 Ib or less at joint(s) 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. 22, 23, 24 except 25=-101(LC 9) Max Grav Ali reactions 250 Ib or less at joints) '14 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25 except 1=265(LC 8), 21= 2i>2(LC 3), 22=355(1_C 3), 23=347(LC 3) FORCES (lb) - Max. Comp./Max. Ten. - All forces 250 (lb) or less except when shown. TOP CHORD 1-2=-385/60, 2-3=-328/56, 3-26=-289/0, 4-26=-283/101, 4-5=-252/100 W_BS 5-22=-316/93.4-23=-305/87 JOINT STRESS INDEX 1 = 0.50, 2 = 0.68, 3 = 0.68, 4 = 0.68, 5 = 0.68, 6 = 0.33, 7 = 0.68, 8 = 0.68, 9 = 0.68, 10 = 0.68, 11 = 0.68, 12 = 0.68, 13 = 0.76, 14 = 0.82, 15 = 0.38, 16 = 0.38, 17 = 0.38. 18 = 0.38, 19 = 0.18, 20 = 0.38, 21 = 0.38, 22 = 0.38, 23 = 0.38, 24 = 0.38 and 25 = 0.38 Continued on nane 2 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing X Discussion X Action X Resolution Work Session Meeting Date November 13, 2012 ITEM NUMBER Open Burning Ordinance STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: The ordinance reflects changes that needed to be made based on state law and the desire to make sure people use tiki torch type devices safely. The city attorney reviewed the open burning ordinance since our last discussion and his suggestions have been incorporated. OPTIONS: The Council may adopt the ordinance as it is or make changes as you see fit. Prior to adop- tion a public hearing will need to be held. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to adopt Ordinance 5-7 regarding Open Burning. COUNCIL ACTION: LA605 5-7 (1) CITY OF LAUDERDALE ORDINANCE NO. 5-7 An Ordinance Amending Section 5 — 7 of the Code of Ordinances Regarding Open Burning. The city council of the city of Lauderdale ordains as follows: SECTION I. The Lauderdale City Code is amended by deleting the stfieken material and adding the underlined materials as follows: CHAPTER 7 OPEN BURNING' SECTION: 5-7-1: Purpose 5-7-2: Definitions 5-7-3: Prohibited Acts 5-7-4: Conditions 5-7-5: Penalty 5-7-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of this ordinance is to: prohibit open burning, pfovide fegulation to and regulate the burning of-a-e�recreational fires and open flame decorative devices so t-luatthe—,tv---h activity does not pose a nuisance or safety concern to the homeowner or neighbors and is in compliance with the irate alio a' Minnesota State Fire Code as may be amended from time to time. 5-7-2 DEFINITIONS: Approved Material: approved material means dried wood from trees, twigs, small branches, pi:este logs, dur-a'affie-legs, charcoal, and cord wood and tinlreatedaime„sielial lii er, ineluding elea pallets. Combustible Material: combustible material is capable of catching fire and burning and includes such things as wood, paper, and plastic. Multiple -family Dwelling: includes apartments and condominiums but does not include duplexes or townhomes as defined by the state buildingcode. 1. M.S.A. § 412.221, subd. 6. I LA605 5-7 (2) Open Burning: means a fire burning in matter, whether concentrated or dispersed, which is not contained within a fully enclosed firebox, structure or vehicle, or does not meet the criteria established for a recreational fire, and from which the products of combustion are emitted directly to the open atmosphere without passingthrough hrough a stack, duct, or chimney. Open Flame Decorative Devices: are flame -producing devices used as decorations. Examples include "tiki" style torches, citronella candles, lamps, torches, and candelabras no matter the size of the device or flame. Prohibited Material: prohibited material includes, but is not limited to the following items: treated weedlumber materials, garbage, waste products, vegetable matter, plastic, construction material, leaves, grass clippings, particle board, chip board, *. eatea of stained cardboard, -of paper, and green timber. RecreationalofFire: as used herein, the term `Reerea4ion '' of `G mpfife' means a small fire that is no more then three (3') feet in diameter and does not exceed two (2') feet in height and is used for pleasure, religious, ceremonial, cooking, warmth, or similar purposes and is contained in an area of non-combustible, non -smoke and non -odor producing materials such as natural rock, cement, brick, tile, or block resting on the ground at least 6" deep or on a raised bed at least 6" high. Commercially purchased fire pits shall satisfy the contained area requirement of this Ordinance. The contained area shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any structure, vehicle, or combustible material. 5-7-3: PROHIBITED ACTS: A. No person shall permit or have an outdoor fire that does not meet the requirements of this ordinance. Other th€nthan recreational of and open flame decorative devices, no other open fires or outdoor burning shall be permitted. Only one recreational of eampfife—fire shall be burning in one location on a property at one time. B. Recreational fires and open flame decorative devices must be immediately extinguished if they pose a fire safety risk, if they are not in compliance with state law or city code, or when directed to do so by a police officer, firefighter, fire warden, or DNR officer. F�C. No person shall negligently or carelessly permit a recreational or ampfifefire or open flame decorative device on premises owned, occupied, or controlled by him to get out of control so as to require assistance of fire fighting equipment in the extinguishing of such fire. (Ord. 46, 5-1-1969) D. Recreational fires and open flame decorative devices are not permitted in the boulevard. E. Persons may only burn those items listed as approved materials in section 5-7-2. EF. Apartment Balconies: It is unlawful for any person to set, kindle, maintain, or permit any fire or open flame on any balcony of a multiple-fainily dwelling or apartment building in any LA605 5-7 (3) barbecue or similar heating, cooking, burning or lighting equipment or device, regardless of the source of energy for said equipment or device, except in buildings of all masonry construction where the equipment or device is permanently affixed to the balcony and has a permanently affixed hood. (Ord. 70, 6-17-1980; 1996 Code) 5-7-4: CONDITIONS A. A recreational onrefire is not permitted between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. B. A recreational onfe fire shall not burn when the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA) issues an air quality warning. C. The recreational of ampn=Mire must have extinguishing equipment such as a garden hose, fire extinguisher with a 4-A rating, sand,-etcr dirt owithin ' n'ef the firereadily available at all times. D. The recreational fires and open flame decorative devices must be tended to at all times by an unimpaired, responsible adult 18 years of age or older. E. The fire chief or fire marshal from the City's contracted fire department may call a burning ban in cases of exceptional fire risk. 5-7-5: PENALTY: Any person, violating of this rester shall, upon eonyiet on thefefoi!e,c be subjezc to penalty as py-evided in Seetion 1 4 1 of this Code. (Ord. 46, 5 1 1969; 1996 firm, or corporation who violates any provision of this code for which another penalty is not specifically provided shall upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor under Minnesota Statute section 609.03 as it may be amended from time to time by the Minnesota Legislature. The cost of brosecution may be added. A separate offense shall be deemed committed upon each day durin4 which a violation occurs or continues. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the city council of the City of Lauderdale this 13th day of November, 2012. Jeffrey Dains, Mayor ATTEST: LA605 5-7 (4) Heather Butkowski, City Administrator Published in the Roseville Review this 20t" day of November, 2012. LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion X_ Action X Resolution Closed Session Meeting Date November 13, 2012 ITEM NUMBER 2012-2013 Union Agreement _�%i_ STAFF INITIALl APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: The union agreed to the 2% wage increase proposed by the City Council for 2013. Attached is the addendum prepared by AFSCME. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the union contract addendum increasing wages by 2% for 2013. COUNCIL ACTION: P43 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED MEETING DATE November 13, 2012 Consent Special ITEM NUMBER 2013 Sanitary Sewer Rates Public Hearing Report Discussion X Action _X— STAFF INITIAL Jim Resolution Work session APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: Residential properties are billed a flat rate of $48.54 per quarter for sanitary sewer. Commercial properties are billed monthly based on $2.40 per unit of water consumption with a minimum monthly charge of $13.00. The rate was not increased for 2012. Sanitary sewer revenue is accounted for in Fund 601, the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund. Staff recommends keeping 55% of the next year's operating expenses in the fund and transferring the excess to the capital improvement fund. The fund appears to be at a stable or increasing level even after accounting for redistributed salary percentages and potential transfers out to Fund 407, the Sanitary Sewer Capital Improvement Fund. I have included a spreadsheet analysis for how various increases would affect the funds for 2013-2015. OPTIONS: 1) Leave sanitary sewer rates unchanged (staff recommendation). 2) Increase or decrease the sanitary sewer rates. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Discuss sanitary sewer rates for 2013. Staff will plan to bring a resolution to the next meeting for adoption. COUNCIL ACTION: P45 r O to r_ LL m C Q _0 (6 U D L a) 3 d N ._ m -ia O 00 r N N O r O N O Ih O M N 0 '�Y "'' C O O O O "' C O (n OD O O C N f6 p M 00 O) 'd N O p 0 o 0 v) p O (D O 0 O M N O Vl i E64 EA to fH N ffl N E+9 N(V Efl 63 E _ _M rO M Vi N` o co N 66,M (MO N OMD O O 0 V' Vl O CO 69 C Vi M M N Vl E E N O C E M V>._ — o VT 6. % Vl Vi O U O6%.- U E E Lq c dN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 to 'a' O N (0i •c O N Q r y p O r r NO 0 0 V O 0 0 to Cl Vl (6 •- 0 O DO O O N 17 LO CO O: N Z O N (a (D O N N m a)MMM� 64 69 V3 V3 Vl A V' ffl V' Vi P E 69 O u� Oo m w- J Nye n E9 rW N 7 I- MIq � � ,n W M bs C Vl cq � Vl b9 c O, o X U o v + z + L E o N �_ V N 0 a7 W O O N O =3 O 0 V O O M o Vl 41 %' d) 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 C:, 0 0 N _ 0 O N y N CL 'd N al �- (V O (V N (D O `- p �j Vl r [O ^ = V) p c+i co r N N N N C�r N co a S _ N 7 CO V N O N c00 � (NO N co co N� N C N (6 ("� C � Vl Vl Vl O O N O N � V N a) c N N w J can LL ¢ a) N O S O 0 0 O 0 O O (A O O a1 l0 d OD n O N O V O p p O ffi O O p M O M O co O O W O d- r O fH O N` N N G 00 N N 0 Oct O N ti a n W N N a1 (O O (V fA M C N M (n N N V C aM- N O R N Vl M M C Vl co � a0 6 N 09, 11 n M Vl e di Vl Vi 6 o 40 Vl O O Vi 63 O A( V p p E9 O O 'MV N to Cl V O coLO O V' O al N (N N (D 00 O O Oco p to o n O 'OV M O V V' p N- N 06 N tf�n 'NC' O M W O 6 N V CNi (O 69 CO (D O M fU C N V1 M M C 69 Vi O O 0 N 61 co lD w M Vl o' V1 61 6% V1 V1 0 V1 V1 O O 0 Vl N V O O O i O O O O O O O to 0 O O� ON' VlO AdC N M to 0) N I O N N a7 V' � D mM N NVi O N ND Vl .9N N N Vl CN 6, d# 0 C o Vl Vi Vl 6% 0 Vl N O N O C9 611 N 10 O 0 0 O N N O IN6 N c 0 a (N � M O N (O') (O NVl (O O N M N C O N N N Vi e O � Vl Vl � Vl N N N m ct O O V' N N O p O O O O O N co CO O O M W O n N � S] 'a O N ld O O N O (D (n p p 0 69 ! V W r co 0 0 V (O O Vl N pOj N (O O O M N N O N 6, N N <Ycq N O M O n N m V CO N N N N n N N N O V C a-• N N N CO r M 61 01, Vl N Vl 6% cq o 6% Vl 49 O N w O N Vl co N l0 'V' O O V n p) V V' n N 0 Vl O V' O N O Vl r O Vl O � O N co a7 al N N O r (O V O �. N O 0 O p 0 O 0 O 0 O p O O O O V7 d1 v1 O) O V1 V V N p n O) n _ O n N 00 (MO V' M 03 N •a 3 a) L) O V' cV V1 W cq O N N (OD M (ODD t-: .Oa. ¢ N N C N N r V1 N N O (j f� C V1 N V O N N O w N Vl V3 M, Vl M Vl Vl CD 0 N j N O fA V1 C C (V r m r d 45O d C\[ cu O Vl O O a) (A a) E r '� a) .. N LLW a) o `CPI c� a) ¢ �2w ¢ = Cid to co C N d @ O X ca Q'CL y +(O+ � R � o J O '� „- w w if w *00 U p .� o (0 y6 m ..0.. C C Rf L N 0 a3 .@., m N C, 6JET NCN C C O w (� m ca N O N C (C9 C O C .O. (�o tn— LL oEE a) N 7 c a O OXCO caw N �� OCa)'X E c c ILLIN tm O N O N c N (6 (D O C (d .V O in O> ON lVcl NO CCQw CL m www z•= C O N O C C Q' W m O wC Ea> > — e C �oc0 O NE ) E c rn C >o�° — �co a I�n o a) o d a) o ? w w o B o c c � (n m E a' 0 W o m o 2 o o (n E m of a 0 t- t- LL w F- O¢ z U m a 0 1- t- LL(n-¢a)'O .1 aD O O N N N N M N V (O N N (O N r OD N N M O N M M N M M M V M O (O M M r M OD M O M O cr V N v �t COO1 V' 0 O Q LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED MEETING DATE November 13, 2012 Consent Special ITEM NUMBER 2013 Storm Sewer Rates Public Hearing Report Discussion X_ STAFF INITIAL Jim Action X Resolution Work session APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council adopted a Storm Water Utility Ordinance in 1994 that created a funding mechanism to help finance future improvements to the storm water system. Fees are calculated based on a residential equivalency factor (REF), which attempts to estimate the storm water contribution to the system. The base residential rate began at $2.50 per quarter. Fees increased $1.00 per year up to $6.50 through 1998 and remained at $6.50 though 2002 per quarter per residential unit and the equivalent REF increase for other property types. The fee increased to $7.50 per quarter per residential unit in 2003 based on the new NPDES permit and annual reporting requirements. Rates were increased 10% to $8.25 for 2010, 12.5% to $9.28 for 2011, and 12.5% to $10.44 for 2012. These were the first rate increases since 2003. Storm sewer revenue is accounted for in Fund 602, the Storm Sewer Enterprise Fund. Staff recommends keeping 55% of the next year's operating expenses in the fund and transferring the excess to the capital improvement fund. In order to keep the fund at stable or increasing levels to account for redistributed salary percentages and potential transfers out to Fund 403, the Storm Sewer Capital Improvement Fund, rates need to be increased again for 2013. • I have included a spreadsheet analysis for how various percentages would affect the funds for 2013-2015. OPTIONS: 1) Increase storm sewer rates 12.5% for 2013 (staff recommendation). 2) Increase storm sewer rates a different percentage for 2013. 3) Leave storm sewer rates unchanged. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Discuss storm sewer rates for 2013. Staff will plan to bring a resolution to the next meeting for adoption. COUNCIL ACTION: P47 �0000o •` Lo Lo Lo Lq Lo OLoo LON V' o N m omo •` N m Lo <t M � N W Cl) V V O 609 V (n o a ONi 0OD M O N r C1l r` (6 fV 2 (D W C- (D N .d. m M w ri m 0q Olt 0 E <» i» N v} N 69 Cl) fi3 M 69 V u9 V' is Lo 69 tN E v9 — Ef9 u> c fn `» fMn � 00 6 i» w d9 0 0 e U U u' e d (0 Lo Lo Loo Loo Loo N N O (f5 '� O to l0 'Q d Cl) N C0 o CD 00 N CO CD O o fA •_ C Loo N m �' N CO r OD O c O M 0 M 0 N` co M N M 4d 0 LQ O a N a) V3 vi 69 69 V3 V9 fA U) N r 69 (0D 69 fD coMNJ N ai tr 64 ER 64 64 vi C o U N w N � t) r _ N m 6~i O O O .- N J N V1 _ d N o Cl) M U') N o O M O rn co N 0 0Vi to o % M M M M N N N N N N= •� a = y (V O V S u0D M (�D N r (O ro W N 00 Cl) a5 d m V C fA fit (MD 69 (D fo 0 Cl) f19 W O a) (D c _ U NO o `- N -a0 N NW J 76 LOL >N > Q to O d N V' 0 M 0 0 O 0 fo 0O O Ov 1* O V 613- 0 MN o O LndD a0 Cl n O vO 11 O 9 OD ODN o (D O N N Cl CV h M U)0 Cl) Cl) CAf n f0 M O M N U Mo ( D O 0 U C41� M U) 69 69 03 C fA fA 49 6%69 69 6�9 o O � LV r N V 0 Ln O O 0 fo 0 W N M fig (D CD 69 Cl) N t` O 0) Op 0 O M L- O M (D 069 O N d [7 N N M L( t4 M LD N N N N (3i M N N M (0 (D V' (fl CA � CA W CD f�D n N W fo Ln M NN � Ln .� 69 <W M Cl) O CV V f9 fA 6 69 v c U) H C vi 0 u O N N T d N V' O M O O M O W N O (t) d y lD co (�M (D p 0 Eo ((7 t` m M O 0 0 0 D d L- C7 N V' N 0 Ln Cl) M N `- w m N ONO N C •C O d 07 to '•• WCl) N r (D O It Ln Oc W V Cl) m 69 LM fA LO M fA c W .CD Cl) CO C 69 fo 'NV fo co 69 O 69 69 69 co 49 Cl) fo V3 M 69 (o 69 fo M < O 0 0 N O N N /V N 00) V O 0 0 0 W r V' 609 � t` N` M Oi M O N� ((� N 00 M (> C � h Ui r fo W fR M fo V 69 69 W 0 O T ♦.. d V' O < 0 p 0 p 0 M O co N CO M O 09 O O 69 0 ,p N M O M O p 0 O Cp N M O M O fo M 'O V' N fMD O Lo LoD N V O co M N d N O LD O Ln n M Ln N O IN N M Ln N OD V' o V fri Cl) (D 69 M co M (DN M O C) m N61, 44 69 fo CA 44 fo U3 C fo 69 69 44 69 � w o N O 3 N OV Ln M N O 61� 00 (D T O , r- O N d W Cl)d d N co V. C'Io V. M a O M 60 O co co M 069 N O CO CA O (MO (D (o d• @ 0)O (D CoN OD d 'tS d r i� N W M O O r 69 co CD m 0 M N C N O l6 N a7 0V ON SOV •o N N CLL C CLL LL LL a) CL N R CL Ci (LC 6 Www ►- 'QEF- N "_ F '�E Li d O w c 7 c N ` d o c 3 o N V w c E 3 Q o m N m a) m w � o 0 O� m� m � o 0 O O O .O C C_ •(6 lC l0 Vl O O E Ezti [� '6 m C E N l0 a7 N E O = N N C w U' m N-8 N O N N O O O C N C N ..�.. (� m a) o a) O tqm ti aciEE c c c w N (� ti aciEE c c v C w rn C7 O o a> (v c a� O c m •� rn C7 y o a� > a> R c o O c N E o c c a� c o c CL x L� m LL rn Z -? c O O c C a� C > c af w A m a Z •p E C W .O C w V) O y 7 o C-" N :O E E C rn c .O C v rn O (/> c 7 o (n a� E o m d > a> to _ .• :° o :° c 0 o v c o u) E o 0 o d >> (D_ t . :° o 0 c o c cc Ln T E tr U m Lt CL 0 F- H U. w E- Lo E- Q z w U OD L 0 F- F- a w F- Lo F-11<1 d _I U) O r OD O O r r N M V' (n (D M Cn r ON N N N CO V N N M (D N N r. -N N N 0 Cl N M M N M M CO V CO LD CO O M CO a0 CO (n CO O V' V' N •d' V' d' V' V' V V' d• LD P48 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Consent Special Public Hearing Report Discussion Action Resolution Work session MEETING DATE November 13, 2012 ITEM NUMBER 2013 Recycling Rates STAFF INITIAL Jim APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR _ DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: The City charges residents $2.45 per household per month for recycling. The contractor's charge to the City was $2.40 per household per month from 2009-2011. This year, the charge increased to $2.47 per household per month, exceeding the monthly charge to residents. The charge increases to $2.54 for 2013, which is the last year of the City's current contract with Eureka! Recycling. Monthly charges from the contractor are currently $2,840.50. However, the revenue sharing from the contractor (as part of the contract agreement), lowers this cost. Revenue sharing varies depending on volume and the markets for paper and aluminum. So far in 2012, the city has received an average of $703 per month in revenue sharing. Thus, the Recycling Fund remains flush, with no need to increase recycling rates for 2013. The City could wait until next year to consider increasing rates after we know what the contractor's charge will be with the new contract. I have included a spreadsheet analysis for how a 0% increase would affect the fund for 2013- 2015. OPTIONS: 1) Leave recycling rates unchanged (staff recommendation). 2) Increase or decrease the recycling rates. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Discuss recycling rates for 2013. Staff will plan to bring a resolution to the next meeting for adoption. COUNCIL ACTION: P49 LO 0) to h O O O O M h r11 OCi R (V b OM0-0N 00 (D 'd N M61) N V N M� V C r (A fR 6k r di Efl 0 O at 07 (D N O O O O LO (n h r N d' N 0 0 0 0 O O N O IC N O O M O LO to U N EA M M N r VO' 66% 40 61) O O ai a) LO 000 O O O O M 04 N m N 'dt C M 00 — LO N O 3 i fR O `a M � 'd M N• T- C r (fl (f3 69 r r O e N O wW 0 V r O 0 00 O 000 "T M 00 -e � CN M0MN� W .aO m d' r 69 Efl (fl ER r 6% O N O N � _N O O M M N r O dLO ' m O U qt ui ti (C T a) M� N O CO Q 000 VO' r fi7 E!3 (fl (H di V- U O � N � 3 C C t6 0 Cl) -C M C O O L Q) ca .0 a o c 0 (mac E o Q- w m m c o a V) C7 m LO Na) N m N > LOL L `t N = N c N w X W m N in > to0 M M C ' C �0, m(ifn. U) F- I— LL W Z OO c N M V' LO (D r O d) �- �- r N �- M <- d' r uO �- O r n r NMd'LOO N N N N N J P50 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion Action Resolution Work ession X Meeting Date November 13, 2012 ITEM NUMBER City Logo STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: After a good brainstorming session at the last meeting, the Council came up with the idea of a skyline in the logo. Councilor Hawkinson sketched out on the computer what that could look like (attached). I think most of you read the email that Colleen sent after the meeting. If not, it is attached. I also attached a subsequent email. In hindsight, it probably would have been better to have a subcommittee of the Council meet with her to create the logo. At this point, the Council could continue to work with her and pay by the hour or hire another graphics design artist. The Council could also table creating a logo. Councilor Hawkinson knew another designer, Tara Thorenson, and she provided a quote for consideration. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: COUNCIL ACTION: P51 Heather Butkowski From: colleen@dolphinography.com Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 10:06 PM To: Heather Butkowski Cc: Jim Bownik; Mary Gaasch; Roxanne Grove; Denise Hawkinson; Lara Mac Lean Subject: re: City of Lauderdale Logo Dear Heather and Council Members: I was able to watch the live coverage of the October 23rd meeting. I had no idea the design was that far off the mark. After reviewing the feedback I received via email from earlier versions I sent, I am honestly surprised. I was told that everyone loved the trees in the park, so I stuck with that symbol and tailored it to the type and style of tree requested. We also discussed blue and green, so I included those options, as well as a black version to show what it would look like when it was printed in black and white. I assumed not everything printed would be in color. Watching the feedback it was obvious that my design taste is much different than what the Council is envisioning. Since I have completed the portion of the project that was agreed to for $150, I would need to start charging by the hour with any in-person meetings and continued design work. My hourly rate is $50/hour. I initially undercut my hourly rate for this project by two-thirds since I really hoped I could help Lauderdale achieve an iconic logo on a budget. Based on the numerous ideas presented by each Council member, I think the amount of time needed to complete the project might be cost prohibitive to the City of Lauderdale. I would certainly understand if I am too expensive. Heather, it was a pleasure working with you thus far. I will send out my invoice sometime this week. Thank you, Colleen M. Dolphin P53 Heather Butkowski From: Heather Butkowski Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 9:13 AM To: 'colleen@dolphinography.com' Subject: RE: Lauderdale Logo Invoice Hi Colleen, The meeting is on the 13th and I will let you know shortly after that. Thanks for all of your work. Heather From: colleen(adolphinography.com [ma ilto:colleen @dolphinography.coml Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 11:03 AM To: Heather Butkowski Subject: Lauderdale Logo Invoice Hi Heather, Here is my invoice for the 3 versions of the Lauderdale logo. Please let me know what the Council decides as far as any further work. Thank you! -Colleen P55 LAUDERDALE ACTION Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion _X_ Action X Resolution Closed Session Meeting Date November 13, 2012 ITEM NUMBER 2012-2013 Union Agreement STAFF INITIAL l APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: The union agreed to the 2% wage increase proposed by the City Council for 2013. Attached is the addendum prepared by AFSCME. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the union contract addendum increasing wages by 2% for 2013. COUNCIL ACTION: P43 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED MEETING DATE November 13, 2012 Consent Special ITEM NUMBER 2013 Sanitary Sewer Rates Public Hearing Report Discussion X Action STAFF INITIAL Jim Resolution Work session APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: Residential properties are billed a flat rate of $48.54 per quarter for sanitary sewer. Commercial properties are billed monthly based on $2.40 per unit of water consumption with a minimum monthly charge of $13.00. The rate was not increased for 2012. Sanitary sewer revenue is accounted for in Fund 601, the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund. Staff recommends keeping 55% of the next year's operating expenses in the fund and transferring the excess to the capital improvement fund. The fund appears to be at a stable or increasing level even after accounting for redistributed salary percentages and potential transfers out to Fund 407, the Sanitary Sewer Capital Improvement Fund. • I have included a spreadsheet analysis for how various increases would affect the funds for 2013-2015. OPTIONS: 1) Leave sanitary sewer rates unchanged (staff recommendation). 2) Increase or decrease the sanitary sewer rates. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Discuss sanitary sewer rates for 2013. Staff will plan to bring a resolution to the next meeting for adoption. COUNCIL ACTION: P45 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Consent Special Public Hearing Report Discussion Action Resolution Work session MEETING DATE November 13, 2012 ITEM NUMBER 2013 Storm Sewer Rates STAFF INITIAL Jim APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council adopted a Storm Water Utility Ordinance in 1994 that created a funding mechanism to help finance future improvements to the storm water system. Fees are calculated based on a residential equivalency factor (REF), which attempts to estimate the storm water contribution to the system. The base residential rate began at $2.50 per quarter. Fees increased $1.00 per year up to $6.50 through 1998 and remained at $6.50 though 2002 per quarter per residential unit and the equivalent REF increase for other property types. The fee increased to $7.50 per quarter per residential unit in 2003 based on the new NPDES permit and annual reporting requirements. Rates were increased 10% to $8.25 for 2010, 12.5% to $9.28 for 2011, and 12.5% to $10.44 for 2012. These were the first rate increases since 2003. Storm sewer revenue is accounted for in Fund 602, the Storm Sewer Enterprise Fund. Staff recommends keeping 55% of the next year's operating expenses in the fund and transferring the excess to the capital improvement fund. In order to keep the fund at stable or increasing levels to account for redistributed salary percentages and potential transfers out to Fund 403, the Storm Sewer Capital Improvement Fund, rates need to be increased again for 2013. I have included a spreadsheet analysis for how various percentages would affect the funds for 2013-2015. OPTIONS: 1) Increase storm sewer rates 12.5% for 2013 (staff recommendation). 2) Increase storm sewer rates a different percentage for 2013. 3) Leave storm sewer rates unchanged. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Discuss storm sewer rates for 2013. Staff will plan to bring a resolution to the next meeting for adoption. COUNCIL ACTION: P47 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Consent Special Public Hearing Report Discussion Action Resolution Work session MEETING DATE November 13, 2012 ITEM NUMBER 2013 Recycling Rates STAFF INITIAL Jim APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR — DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: The City charges residents $2.45 per household per month for recycling. The contractor's charge to the City was $2.40 per household per month from 2009-2011. This year, the charge increased to $2.47 per household per month, exceeding the monthly charge to residents. The charge increases to $2.54 for 2013, which is the last year of the City's current contract with Eureka! Recycling. Monthly charges from the contractor are currently $2,840.50. However, the revenue sharing from the contractor (as part of the contract agreement), lowers this cost. Revenue sharing varies depending on volume and the markets for paper and aluminum. So far in 2012, the city has received an average of $703 per month in revenue sharing. Thus, the Recycling Fund remains flush, with no need to increase recycling rates for 2013. The City could wait until next year to consider increasing rates after we know what the contractor's charge will be with the new contract. I have included a spreadsheet analysis for how a 0% increase would affect the fund for 2013- 2015. OPTIONS: 1) Leave recycling rates unchanged (staff recommendation). 2) Increase or decrease the recycling rates. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Discuss recycling rates for 2013. Staff will plan to bring a resolution to the next meeting for adoption. COUNCIL ACTION: P49 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion Action Resolution Work Session X Meeting Date November 13, 2012 ITEM NUMBER City Logo STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: After a good brainstorming session at the last meeting, the Council came up with the idea of a skyline in the logo. Councilor Hawkinson sketched out on the computer what that could look like (attached). I think most of you read the email that Colleen sent after the meeting. If not, it is attached. I also attached a subsequent email. In hindsight, it probably would have been better to have a subcommittee of the Council meet with her to create the logo. At this point, the Council could continue to work with her and pay by the hour or hire another graphics design artist. The Council could also table creating a logo. Councilor Hawkinson knew another designer, Tara Thorenson, and she provided a quote for consideration. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: COUNCIL ACTION: P51 Heather Butkowski From: colleen@dolphinography.com Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 10:06 PM To: Heather Butkowski Cc: Jim Bownik; Mary Gaasch; Roxanne Grove; Denise Hawkinson; Lara Mac Lean Subject: re: City of Lauderdale Logo Dear Heather and Council Members: I was able to watch the live coverage of the October 23rd meeting. I had no idea the design was that far off the mark. After reviewing the feedback I received via email from earlier versions I sent, I am honestly surprised. I was told that everyone loved the trees in the park, so I stuck with that symbol and tailored it to the type and style of tree requested. We also discussed blue and green, so I included those options, as well as a black version to show what it would look like when it was printed in black and white. I assumed not everything printed would be in color. Watching the feedback it was obvious that my design taste is much different than what the Council is envisioning. Since I have completed the portion of the project that was agreed to for $150, I would need to start charging by the hour with any in-person meetings and continued design work. My hourly rate is $50/hour. I initially undercut my hourly rate for this project by two-thirds since I really hoped I could help Lauderdale achieve an iconic logo on a budget. Based on the numerous ideas presented by each Council member, I think the amount of time needed to complete the project might be cost prohibitive to the City of Lauderdale. I would certainly understand if I am too expensive. Heather, it was a pleasure working with you thus far. I will send out my invoice sometime this week. Thank you, Colleen M. Dolphin P53 Heather Butkowski From: Heather Butkowski Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 9:13 AM To: 'colleen@dolphinography.com' Subject: RE: Lauderdale Logo Invoice Hi Colleen, The meeting is on the 13th and I will let you know shortly after that. Thanks for all of your work. Heather From: colleen(a)dolphinography.com[mailto:colleen(a)dolphinography.com] Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 11:03 AM To: Heather Butkowski Subject: Lauderdale Logo Invoice Hi Heather, Here is my invoice for the 3 versions of the Lauderdale logo. Please let me know what the Council decides as far as any further work. Thank you! -Colleen 1 P55 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion X_ Action X Resolution Closed Session Meeting Date November 13, 2012 1TEM NUMBER 2012-2013 Union Agreement STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: The union agreed to the 2% wage increase proposed by the City Council for 2013. Attached is the addendum prepared by AFSCME. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the union contract addendum increasing wages by 2% for 2013. COUNCIL ACTION: P43 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Consent Special Public Hearing Report Discussion X_ Action X_ Resolution Work session MEETING DATE November 13, 2012 ITEM NUMBER 2013 Sanitary Sewer Rates STAFF INITIAL Jim APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: Residential properties are billed a flat rate of $48.54 per quarter for sanitary sewer. Commercial properties are billed monthly based on $2.40 per unit of water consumption with a minimum monthly charge of $13.00. The rate was not increased for 2012. Sanitary sewer revenue is accounted for in Fund 601, the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund. Staff recommends keeping 55% of the next year's operating expenses in the fund and transferring the excess to the capital improvement fund. The fund appears to be at a stable or increasing level even after accounting for redistributed salary percentages and potential transfers out to Fund 407, the Sanitary Sewer Capital Improvement Fund. I have included a spreadsheet analysis for how various increases would affect the funds for 2013-2015. OPTIONS: 1) Leave sanitary sewer rates unchanged (staff recommendation). 2) Increase or decrease the sanitary sewer rates. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Discuss sanitary sewer rates for 2013. Staff will plan to bring a resolution to the next meeting for adoption. COUNCIL ACTION: P45 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED MEETING DATE November 13, 2012 Consent Special ITEM NUMBER 2013 Storm Sewer Rates Public Hearing Report Discussion X STAFF INITIAL Jim Action X— Resolution Work session APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council adopted a Storm Water Utility Ordinance in 1994 that created a funding mechanism to help finance future improvements to the storm water system. Fees are calculated based on a residential equivalency factor (REF), which attempts to estimate the storm water contribution to the system. The base residential rate began at $2.50 per quarter. Fees increased $1.00 per year up to $6.50 through 1998 and remained at $6.50 though 2002 per quarter per residential unit and the equivalent REF increase for other property types. The fee increased to $7.50 per quarter per residential unit in 2003 based on the new NPDES permit and annual reporting requirements. Rates were increased 10% to $8.25 for 2010, 12.5% to $9.28 for 2011, and 12.5% to $10.44 for 2012. These were the first rate increases since 2003. Storm sewer revenue is accounted for in Fund 602, the Storm Sewer Enterprise Fund. Staff recommends keeping 55% of the next year's operating expenses in the fund and transferring the excess to the capital improvement fund. In order to keep the fund at stable or increasing levels to account for redistributed salary percentages and potential transfers out to Fund 403, the Storm Sewer Capital Improvement Fund, rates need to be increased again for 2013. • I have included a spreadsheet analysis for how various percentages would affect the funds for 2013-2015. OPTIONS: 1) Increase storm sewer rates 12.5% for 2013 (staff recommendation). 2) Increase storm sewer rates a different percentage for 2013. 3) Leave storm sewer rates unchanged. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Discuss storm sewer rates for 2013. Staff will plan to bring a resolution to the next meeting for adoption. COUNCIL ACTION: P47 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED MEETING DATE November 13, 2012 Consent Special ITEM NUMBER 2013 Recycling Rates Public Hearing Report Discussion _�_ STAFF INITIAL Jim Action _ X Resolution Work session APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: The City charges residents $2.45 per household per month for recycling. The contractor's charge to the City was $2.40 per household per month from 2009-2011. This year, the charge increased to $2.47 per household per month, exceeding the monthly charge to residents. The charge increases to $2.54 for 2013, which is the last year of the City's current contract with Eureka! Recycling. Monthly charges from the contractor are currently $2,840.50. However, the revenue sharing from the contractor (as part of the contract agreement), lowers this cost. Revenue sharing varies depending on volume and the markets for paper and aluminum. So far in 2012, the city has received an average of $703 per month in revenue sharing. Thus, the Recycling Fund remains flush, with no need to increase recycling rates for 2013. The City could wait until next year to consider increasing rates after we know what the contractor's charge will be with the new contract. I have included a spreadsheet analysis for how a 0% increase would affect the fund for 2013- 2015. OPTIONS: 1) Leave recycling rates unchanged (staff recommendation). 2) Increase or decrease the recycling rates. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Discuss recycling rates for 2013. Staff will plan to bring a resolution to the next meeting for adoption. COUNCIL ACTION: P49 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion Action Resolution Work Session X Meeting Date November 13, 2012 ITEM NUMBER City Logo STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: After a good brainstorming session at the last meeting, the Council came up with the idea of a skyline in the logo. Councilor Hawkinson sketched out on the computer what that could look like (attached). I think most of you read the email that Colleen sent after the meeting. If not, it is attached. I also attached a subsequent email. In hindsight, it probably would have been better to have a subcommittee of the Council meet with her to create the logo. At this point, the Council could continue to work with her and pay by the hour or hire another graphics design artist. The Council could also table creating a logo. Councilor Hawkinson knew another designer, Tara Thorenson, and she provided a quote for consideration. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: COUNCIL ACTION: Psl Heather Butkowski From: colleen@dolphinography.com Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 10:06 PM To: Heather Butkowski Cc: Jim Bownik; Mary Gaasch; Roxanne Grove; Denise Hawkinson; Lara Mac Lean Subject: re: City of Lauderdale Logo Dear Heather and Council Members: I was able to watch the live coverage of the October 23rd meeting. I had no idea the design was that far off the mark. After reviewing the feedback I received via email from earlier versions I sent, I am honestly surprised. I was told that everyone loved the trees in the park, so I stuck with that symbol and tailored it to the type and style of tree requested. We also discussed blue and green, so I included those options, as well as a black version to show what it would look like when it was printed in black and white. I assumed not everything printed would be in color. Watching the feedback it was obvious that my design taste is much different than what the Council is envisioning. Since I have completed the portion of the project that was agreed to for $150, I would need to start charging by the hour with any in-person meetings and continued design work. My hourly rate is $50/hour. I initially undercut my hourly rate for this project by two-thirds since I really hoped I could help Lauderdale achieve an iconic logo on a budget. Based on the numerous ideas presented by each Council member, I think the amount of time needed to complete the project might be cost prohibitive to the City of Lauderdale. I would certainly understand if I am too expensive. Heather, it was a pleasure working with you thus far. I will send out my invoice sometime this week. Thank you, Colleen M. Dolphin P53 Heather Butkowski From: Heather Butkowski Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 9:13 AM To: 'colleen@dolphinography.com' Subject: RE: Lauderdale Logo Invoice Hi Colleen, The meeting is on the 13th and I will let you know shortly after that. Thanks for all of your work. Heather From: colleen (cbdolph inogra phy.com [mailto:colleen @dolphinography.com] Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 11:03 AM To: Heather Butkowski Subject: Lauderdale Logo Invoice Hi Heather, Here is my invoice for the 3 versions of the Lauderdale logo. Please let me know what the Council decides as far as any further work. Thank you! -Colleen 1 P55