Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/27/2009
LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2009 7:30 P.M. LAUDERDALE CITY HALL 1891 WALNUT STREET 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 3. APPROVALS a. Minutes of the October 13, 2009, City Council Meeting b. Claims totaling $18,542.79 4. OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL 5. CONSENT a. 2010 Rental Housing Licenses b. PCIC Minutes c. Final Pay Request for Hockey Rink Improvements d. Third Quarter Investment Report 6. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS/RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATIONS a. Officer Sroga Commendation for Solving Burglary Cases 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public hearings are conducted so that the public affected by a proposal can have input in to the decision. 8. REPORTS a. NIXLE Presentation by Captain Cotroneo b. Halloween Event Preparations 9. DISCUSSION / ACTION a. Resolution 102709A - Amending the 2009 Budget by Transferring TIF Funds (405) to 2000 Debt Service Fund (302) b. Zoning Code Update / RFP 10. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 11. ADDITIONAL ITEMS 12. SET AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING a. 2010 Rental Licenses b. 2010 Storm and Sanitary Sewer Rates c. Acknowledge Halloween Donations and Volunteers 13. WORK SESSION a. Animal Control Ordinance Update 14. ADJOURN LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 1 of 3 October 13, 2009 The Mayor called the City Council meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Councilors present: Clay Christensen, Karen Doherty, Lara Mac Lean, Denise Hawkinson, and Mayor Jeff Dains. Staff present: Heather Butkowski, City Administrator; Jim Bownik, Assistant to the City Administrator. Mayor Dains asked for changes to the meeting agenda. There being none, Councilor Mac Lean moved to approve the agenda. Councilor Hawkinson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Councilor Christensen moved to approve the October 13, 2009, City Council meeting minutes. Councilor Doherty seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Councilor Hawkinson moved approval of the claims totaling $413,063.53. Councilor Mac Lean seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Mayor Dains asked if members of the public wished to address the Council. No one wished to address the Council. Mayor Dains asked if councilors wished to remove items from the consent agenda. There being none, Councilor Hawkinson moved the consent agenda approving PCIC minutes and the 2010 rental housing licenses. Councilor Mac Lean seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Bownik introduced the variance requests by Jeremy Newhouse, owner of 1728 Malvern Street. Newhouse requires a two foot variance to the 30' front yard setback requirement to build a covered entry way. The proposed structure would be four feet into the front yard setback area, but only requires a two foot setback using the average adjacent structures rule. Additionally, Newhouse would like to build a five by twelve foot mudroom on the back of his structure. The addition of the mudroom and covered entry necessitates a lot coverage variance of 1.7%. Mayor Dains opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. Newhouse addressed the Council. He said the addition of the entry way would complete the look of the structure, making it more aesthetically pleasing. He said the mud room LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 2 of 3 would help them as the entry is at grade which means they track in a lot of dirt from the backyard. No one else wished to address the Council; Mayor Dains closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Councilor Christensen said he felt the proposal was a practical solution to the problems mentioned. Councilor Mac Lean felt it would add value to the neighborhood. Councilor Hawkinson motioned to approve the variance requests for 1728 Malvern Street, granting the two foot front yard setback variance and 1.7% lot coverage variance. Councilor Mac Lean seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Kent Barnard from Mn/DOT addressed the Council. He said the Council could expect the TH280 Bridge to open within a week, depending upon the weather. Among the items to complete after that are the installation of street lights, signals, highway fencing, and the sound wall. The Mayor told Barnard that the Council has taken heat from residents since the bridge did not open on October 2. Councilor Mac Lean said the Council was promised that other area projects would not overlap with this one and that hasn't happened either. Additionally, the Council felt that the Como / Eustis intersection could have been handled better all summer. Tracey Koch, 1769 Walnut Street, questioned the sound wall completion and why Broadway was being closed before opening the bridge as that will increase truck traffic at Eustis / Como. Barnard said the issues regarding the sound wall were being worked out with the contractor but he expects the work will be completed this fall. Steve Monson, 1703 Malvern Street, asked about the installation of a right-of-way fence along the Malvern alley. Barnard said he could not address Monson's specific questions. The Mayor expressed concern about any delays with the installation of the traffic signals. Barnard said he would check on it as the Mayor thanked him for attending the meeting. Lauderdale Resident Bob Milligan volunteered for the Capitol Region Watershed District Advisory Committee. The committee's efforts to create a 10 -year plan for the District was about to conclude. The planning priorities Milligan felt would most impact or benefit Lauderdale were: • Increased cooperation with other watershed districts, especially as it relates to public education. LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 3 of 3 • Plans to "Bring Water Back to St. Paul" by opening former waterways. This would include the waterway that existed between Lauderdale and Falcon Heights near Rosehill Townhomes. Mayor Dains thanked Milligan for his work on the watershed district committee and the comprehensive plan committee. Butkowski told the Council that the Metropolitan Council approved the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan as it met the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA) and could be adopted. After adoption, the Council must begin working towards implementation of the plan and updating local controls. Councilor Mac Lean motioned to adopt the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Councilor Doherty seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Butkowski reviewed the preliminary agenda for the next meeting, which included commending Officer Sroga for solving the city's burglary cases, NIXLE presentation by Captain Cotroneo, budget amendment resolution, animal control ordinance update, and Halloween information. 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 8:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Heather Butkowski City Administrator CITY OF LAUDERDALE CLAIMS FOR APPROVAL October 27 2009 City Council Meeting Payroll 10/16/09 Payroll: Direct Deposit # 500834-500838 10/16/09 Payroll: Payroll Liabilities, e -payments 395E -397E Vendor Claims 10/27/09: Check #s 19900-19916 4th - Final Payment - Rink Improvements - Check #19899 $6, 900.32 $5,206.21 $6,436.26 SUBTOTAL $18,542.791 $1,876.48 Total Claims for Approval $20,419.27 CITY OF LAUDERDALE 10/20/09 3:53 PM Page 1 Payments Current Period: OCTOBER 2009 Batch Name 101609pyroll Payment Computer Dollar Amt $5,206.21 Posted Refer 1098 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Ck# 000395E 10/16/2009 Cash Payment G 101-21705 ICMA RETIREMENT 10/16/09 Payroll $1,388.08 Invoice Transaction Date 10/16/2009 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHEC 10100 Total $1,388.08 Refer 1099 PERA Cash Payment G 101-21704 PERA Invoice Transaction Date 10/16/2009 Ck# 000396E 10/16/2009 10/16/09 Payroll Due 0 NORTH STAR CHEC 10100 $1,349.38 Total $1,349.38 Refer 1100 NORTH STAR BANK, CHECKING S Ck# 000397E 10/16/2009 Cash Payment G 101-21703 FICA WITHHOLDING. 10/16/09 Payroll $1,684.26 Invoice Cash Payment G 101-21701 FEDERAL TAXES 10/16/09 Payroll $784.49 Invoice Transaction Date 10/16/2009 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHEC 10100 Total $2,468.75 Fund Summary BATCH Total $5,206.21 10100 NORTH STAR CHECKING 101 $5,206.21 $5,206.21 Pre -Written Checks $5,206.21 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $0.00 Total $5,206.21 CITY OF LAUDERDALE *Check Detail Register© OCTOBER 2009 Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 NORTH STAR CHECKING Paid Chk# 019900 10/27/2009 ABDO EICK &MEYERS LLP E 101-41200-301 AUDITING $200.00 GASB 45 Calculation E 602-49100-301 AUDITING $25.00 GASB 45 Calculation E 601-49000-301 AUDITING $25.00 GASB 45 Calculation Total ABDO EICK & MEYERS LLP $250.00 Paid Chk# 019901 10/27/2009 AHDN ATTORNEYS E 101-42100-305 LEGAL FEES $750.00 10/09 Legal Fees E 101-42100-355 MISC PRINTING/PROCESS SER $13.87 10/09 Legal Fees Total AHDN ATTORNEYS $763.87 Paid Chk# 019902 10/27/2009 CINTAS E 602-49100-425 CLOTHING $50.64 PW Clothing E 601-49000-425 CLOTHING $50.64 PW Clothing Total CINTAS $101.28 Paid Chk# 019903 10/27/2009 CITY OF ROSEVILLE E 101-41200-391 TELEPHONE/PAGERS $95.40 7/09 Phone Services Total CITY OF ROSEVILLE $95.40 Paid Chk# 019904 10/27/2009 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES E 101-48100-306 CONSULTING FEES $190.00 Consulting Services - TIF reports Total EHLERS & ASSOCIATES $190.00 Paid Chk# 019905 10/27/2009 EUREKA RECYCLING E 203-50000-389 RECYCLING CONTRACTOR $2,283.63 9/09 Recycling Contract E 101-41200-201 GENERAL SUPPLIES $220.94 5 cartons of paper Total EUREKA RECYCLING $2,504.57 Paid Chk# 019906 10/27/2009 INTEGRA E 101-41200-391 TELEPHONE/PAGERS $52.85 9/09 Fax Line Total INTEGRA $52.85 Paid Chk# 019907 10/27/2009 JIMMYS JOHNNYS INC E 101-45200-427 PORTA POTTY RENTAL $117.37 10/09 Park Port -a -Potty Total JIMMYS JOHNNYS INC $117.37 Paid Chk# 019908 10/27/2009 MAMA E 101-41200-308 TRAIN ING\CONFERENCES $25.00 HB Luncheon Meeting Total MAMA $25.00 Paid Chk# 01990910/227/2009 NORTH STAR BANK, PETTY E 201-45600-202 PERMENANT SUPPLIES $49.57 Air tight storage container E 601-49000-212 MOTOR FUELS $24.00 Sewer Jetter Gas E 101-43400-203 POSTAGE $3.24 Cert Mail - zoning E 101-41200-440 MEETING EXPENSES $5.75 coffee E 201-45600-440 MEETING EXPENSES $20.00 PCIC Meeting / Pizza E 201-45600-440 MEETING EXPENSES $25.00 PCIC Meeting / Pizza CITY OF LAUDERDALE *Check Detail Register© OCTOBER 2009 Paid Chk# 019910 10/27/2009 POSTMASTER - STAMPS E 101-41200-203 POSTAGE $176.00 4 rolls stamps Total POSTMASTER - STAMPS $176.00 �.-019911 10/.�m, Paid Chk# 27/2009 RAMSEY COUNTY, PROP REC & REV E 101-42100-442 MISC $505.92 9/09 Dispatch Services Total RAMSEY COUNTY, PROP REC & REV $505.92 Paid Chk# 019912 10/27/2009 RAPIT PRINTING E 101-41200-353 NEWSLETTER PRINTING $621.25 4g09 Newsletter Total RAPIT PRINTING $621.25 Paid Chk# 019913- 10%27%2009SPRINT PCS E 602-49100-391 TELEPHONE/PAGERS $10.24 9/09 PW Pager/phone E 601-49000-391 TELEPHONE/PAGERS $10.24 9/09 PW Pager/phone E 101-43000-391 TELEPHONE/PAGERS $47.75 9/09 PW Pager/phone Total SPRINT PCS $68.23 Paid Chk# 019914 10/27/2009 SUBURBAN ACE HARDWARE E 101-43000-228 MISC REPAIRS MAINT SUPPLIE E 602-49100-228 MISC REPAIRS MAINT SUPPLIE E 101-43000-225 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS Total SUBURBAN ACE HARDWARE $77.46 9/09 Purchases - garage/CH $26.16 9/09 Purchases - sewer $14.95 9/09 Purchases - fertilizer $118.57 Paid Chk# 019915 10/27/2009 XCEL ENERGY, PARK & GARAGE E 101-45200-381 ELECTRIC Check Amt Invoice Comment E 201-45600-202 PERMENANT SUPPLIES $49.27 Air tight storage containers E 201-45600-202 PERMENANT SUPPLIES $1.28 Soaker Cap E 101-41200-308 TRAINING\CONFERENCES $10.00 HB SRA Meeting E 101-41200-440 MEETING EXPENSES $19.07 coffee / filters E 101-43400-203 POSTAGE $33.24 Cert Itrs - cv E 101-41200-201 GENERAL SUPPLIES $26.93 Paper Total NORTH STAR BANK, PETTY $267.35 Paid Chk# 019910 10/27/2009 POSTMASTER - STAMPS E 101-41200-203 POSTAGE $176.00 4 rolls stamps Total POSTMASTER - STAMPS $176.00 �.-019911 10/.�m, Paid Chk# 27/2009 RAMSEY COUNTY, PROP REC & REV E 101-42100-442 MISC $505.92 9/09 Dispatch Services Total RAMSEY COUNTY, PROP REC & REV $505.92 Paid Chk# 019912 10/27/2009 RAPIT PRINTING E 101-41200-353 NEWSLETTER PRINTING $621.25 4g09 Newsletter Total RAPIT PRINTING $621.25 Paid Chk# 019913- 10%27%2009SPRINT PCS E 602-49100-391 TELEPHONE/PAGERS $10.24 9/09 PW Pager/phone E 601-49000-391 TELEPHONE/PAGERS $10.24 9/09 PW Pager/phone E 101-43000-391 TELEPHONE/PAGERS $47.75 9/09 PW Pager/phone Total SPRINT PCS $68.23 Paid Chk# 019914 10/27/2009 SUBURBAN ACE HARDWARE E 101-43000-228 MISC REPAIRS MAINT SUPPLIE E 602-49100-228 MISC REPAIRS MAINT SUPPLIE E 101-43000-225 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS Total SUBURBAN ACE HARDWARE $77.46 9/09 Purchases - garage/CH $26.16 9/09 Purchases - sewer $14.95 9/09 Purchases - fertilizer $118.57 Paid Chk# 019915 10/27/2009 XCEL ENERGY, PARK & GARAGE E 101-45200-381 ELECTRIC E 101-43000-381 ELECTRIC E 101-43000-383 GAS UTILITIES E 101-45200-383 GAS UTILITIES Total XCEL ENERGY, PARK & GARAGE $15.96 9/09 electric PW/WH $15.97 9/09 electric PW/WH $22.60 9/09 gas PW/WH $22.60 9/09 gas PW/WH $77.13 Paid Chk# 01991610/27/2009 µXCEL ENERGY, STREET LIGHTING E101-43000-380 STREET LIGHT UTILITY $501.47 9/09 Street Lighting Total XCEL ENERGY, STREET LIGHTING $501.47 10100 NORTH STAR CHECKING $6,436.26 CITY OF LAUDERDALE *Check Detail Register© OCTOBER 2009 Check Amt Invoice Comment Fund Summary 10100 NORTH STAR CHECKING 101 GENERAL $3,785.59 201 COMMUNITY EVENTS $145.12 203 RECYCLING $2,283.63 601 SEWER UTILITIES $109.88 602 STORM SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND $112.04 $6,436.26 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM TYPE OF REQUEST Consent X Action ❑ Resolution ❑ Information ❑ Work session ❑ MEETING DATE October 27, 2009 AGENDA NUMBER 5A Rental Housing Licenses DESCRIPTION 2010 Rental Housina Licenses I BACKGROUND OR PAST COUNCIL ACTION Attached is the list of rental property owners that successfully completed the rental housing inspection process or renewed their license for 2010 and do not need an inspection this year. OPTIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve rental housing licenses for 2010. MOTION BY STAFF ACTION COUNCIL ACTION SECOND LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Rental properties successfully completed the application process ❖ Malzer Property Management, 2443 Larpenteur Avenue ❖ Michael & Stephanie Drake, 1871 Walnut Street ❖ Mid Continent Management Corp, 1618, 1626 & 1630 Eustis Street And 1619 & 1622 Carl Street ❖ Jacob Malinka, 1791 Fulham Street ❖ Jeffrey Hermes, 1733 & 1737 Eustis Street ❖ SNS Properties, 1759 Pleasant Street ❖ Jan & Richard Gauger, 1799 Carl Street ❖ John & Matthew Ellingson, 1847-49 Walnut Street ❖ Rose Hill Investments, LLP, 1623-27-31 Carl Street ❖ And 2392 & 2384 Larpenteur Avenue ❖ Michael & David Tracy, 1811-1813 Eustis Street •S CCS Metro Properties, 1878 Walnut Street ❖ Dennis Bruwelheide, 1904 Malvern Street & 1928 Walnut Street ❖ Bruce & Michelle Bonine, 1785-87 Fulham Street ❖ CVC Investments, 1634 & 1642 Eustis Street & 2400 Larpenteur Avenue ❖ Rand & Barbara Claussen, 2345 Summer Street ❖ Jeremy Carr, 1898 Walnut Street ❖ Mike and Ann Piehl, 2367 Larpenteur Avenue ❖ Richard Swanson, 2375-2377 Roselawn Avenue ACTION REQUESTED LAUDERDALE COUNCIL Consent X MEETING DATE October 27, 2009 Special Public Hearing ITEM NUMBER PCIC Minutes Report Discussion/Action STAFF INITIAL Jim Resolution Work session APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: Attached are the minutes from the Park & Community Involvement Committee meeting of October 19, 2009. OPTIONS: 1) Approve as consent item. 2) Remove from consent for discussion. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to acknowledge receipt of and placing on file the attached minutes of the Park & Community Involvement Committee. COUNCIL ACTION: 10/19/09 PCIC Minutes MINUTES MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2009 PARK & COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT COMMITTEE CALL TO ORDER 6:35 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Kathy Lerfald, Trygve Hansen, Roxanne Grove, Bob Milligan Members Absent: Monica Gallagher, Gretel Keene, Peiju Picard Staff & Council Present: Jim Bownik, Denise Hawkinson Others Present: Crystal Wisen, Dalila Hansen 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Milligan motioned to approve the agenda, second by Grove. Motion carried unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2009 MEETING Hansen motioned to approve the minutes, second by Milligan. Motion carried unanimously. 5. REPORTS 6. DISCUSSION/ACTION A. Halloween (Saturday, October 31, 5 -7 -p.m) The committee discussed the set up, assignments, food and beverages, and donations. Set up will be Thursday, October 29, from 5-8 p.m. Bownik contacted key participants about helping at set up and the event, as well as participating in the planning meeting. Jack Barlow and John Treadwell cannot do the mini donuts this year, so we will have more potato chips. Snyders Drug Store at Larpenteur and Lexington donated some supplies. B. Proposed 2010 Meeting Schedule Bownik presented the proposed 2010 meeting schedule. The calendar shows the proposed meeting dates, event dates and newsletter dates. The calendar also identifies the focus of each meeting. 1 10/19/09 PCIC Minutes 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Lerfald 2010 Membership Status Lerfald announced she is not able to be on the committee in 2010 due to other commitments, but can help with events starting with Day in the Park. 8. SET PRELIMINARY AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING Lerfald read the preliminary agenda for the next meeting. 9. SET DATE FOR NEXT MEETING The committee meets on the first or third Mondays of the month depending on the needs and commitments of the committee. The next meeting will be Monday, December 7 at 6:30 p.m. 10. ADJOURNMENT Milligan motioned to adjourn the meeting, second by Grove. Motion carried unanimously and adjourned at 7:37 p.m. K ACTION REQUESTED Consent X LAUDERDALE COUNCIL MEETING DATE October 27, 2009 Special Public Hearing ITEM NUMBER Final Pay Req. Hockey Rink Improvements Report Discussion/Action STAFF INITIAL Jim Resolution Work session APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR BACKGROUND: The city engineer and the contractor for the 2008 Hockey Rink Improvements have come to an agreement on the final pay request. To close out the project, initiate the full one-year warranty, and to make the final payment to the contractor, the city council must motion to approve the final pay request. The final pay request is for $1,876.48. This cost is for releasing the 5% retainage for this project, minus $350, which the city can use to reseed the south and east side of the hockey rink if they choose. The final cost of $44,179.51 is $1,582.49 or 3.5% lower than the original contract amount. This is due to decreased material quantities. OPTIONS: 1) Approve as Consent Item 2) Do Not Approve as Consent Item STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1) By approving the consent agenda, the council is approving the final pay request to Dunaway Construction for the 2008 Hockey Rink Improvements. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY OF LAUDERDALE *Check Detail Register© OCTOBER 2009 Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 NORTH STAR CHECKING Paid Chk# 019899 10/27/2009 DUNAWAY CONSTRUCTION E 404-48404-527 GENERAL PARK IMPROVEMEN Total DUNAWAY CONSTRUCTION 10100 NORTH STAR CHECKING Fund Summary $1,876.48 4th and Final Pmt - Rink $1,876.48 $1,876.48 10100 NORTH STAR CHECKING 404 PARK IMPROVEMENT $1,876.48 $1,876.48 October 20, 2009 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Lauderdale 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Re: Lauderdale Ice Rink City of Lauderdale Bonestroo File No.: 532-07005-0 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: 2335 Highway 36 W St. Paul, MN 55113 Tel 651-636-4600 Fax 651-636-1311 www.bonestroo.com 'Transmitted herewith are three (3) copies of Request for Payment No.4 & Final along with the required -signed Minnesota Withholding Form IC -134 for the above-mentioned project. The work on this project has been satisfactorily completed with the exception of some seeding that didn't establish itself. We have estimated the value of the unacceptable seeding to be $350. We have prepared the final pay request so the City retains $350 (liquidated damages) to repair the seeding next spring. We recommend that the City approve the final pay request at this time and set aside the $350 in liquidated damages to establish the seeding next spring. Should you have any questions regarding this project, please feel free to contact me at 651.604.4863. Sincerely ;' 6� • ••• Enclosures St. Paul St. Cloud Rochester Milwaukee Chicago 4 A Bonestroo )wner: City of Lauderdale, 1891 Walnut St, Lauderdale, MN 55113 Date: October 19, 2009 or Period: 11/20/2008 to 10/19/2009 Request No: 4 AND FINAL :ontractor: Dunaway Construction, 17149 Notre Dame St, Forest Lake, MN 55025 CONTRACTOR'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT LAUDERDALE ICE RINK BONESTR00 FILE NO. 000532-07005-0 SUMMARY 1 Original Contract Amount 2 Change Order - Addition 3 Change Order - Deduction 4 Revised Contract Amount 5 Value Completed to Date 6 Material on Hand 7 Amount Earned 8 Less Retainage 0% 9 Subtotal 10 Less Amount Paid Previously 11 Liquidated damages - 12 AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO Approved by Contractor: DUNAWAY CONSTRUCTION 'AL Specified Contract Completion Date: 532070050R EQ4 F I NAL. xls A oNin PINioi $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Approved by Owner: CITY OF LAUDERDALE Date: $ 45,762.00 $ 45,762.00 $ 44,529.51 $ 0.00 $ 44,529.51 $ 0.00 $ 44,529.51 $ 42,303.03 $ 350.00 $ 1,876.48 TOTAL PART 1 - BASE BID: $34,644.51 TOTAL ALTERNATE N0. 1 - PAVING 10 FOOT WIDE TRAIL: $2,085.00 TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 2 - REMOVE AND STORE DASHERBOARDS: $1,600.00 TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 3 - REINSTALL AND MODIFY DASHERBOARDS: $4,900.00 TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 4 - ADD 12 FOOT EQUIPMENT GATE: $1,300.00 TOTAL WORK COMPLETED TO DATE , $44,529.51 532070050REQ4FINAL.ds .; Contract Unit Quantity Amount No. Item Unit Quantity Price to Date to Date PART 1 - BASE BID: 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 1500.50 1 $1,500.50 2 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION (P) CY 650 5.50 650 $3,575.00 3 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW TN 775 7.80 772 $6,021.60 4 4" POLYETHYLENE DRAIN TILE LF 580 5.50 601 $3,305.50 5 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 TN 390 14.85 417.3 $6,196.91 6 TYPE LV 4 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B) TN 184 70.00 164 $11,480.00 7 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 55 3.00 55 $165.00 8 SODDING, LAWN TYPE SY 310 5.00 375 0,875.00 9 SILT FENCE, MACHINE SLICED LF 200 2.50 210 $525.00 TOTAL PART 1 - BASE BID: $34,644.51 ALTERNATE NO. 1 - PAVING 10 FOOT WIDE TRAIL: 10 TYPE LV 4 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B) TN 40 68.00 30 $2,040.00 11 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 15 3.00 15 $45.00 TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 1 - PAVING 10 FOOT WIDE TRAIL: $2,085.00 ALTERNATE NO. 2 - REMOVE AND STORE DASHERBOARDS: 12 REMOVE AND STORE DASHERBOARDS LS 1 1600.00 1 $1,600.00 TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 2 - REMOVE AND STORE DASHERBOARDS: $1,600.00 ALTERNATE NO. 3 - REINSTALL AND MODIFY DASHERBOARDS: 13 REINSTALL AND MODIFY DASHERBOARDS LS 1 4900.00 1 $4,900.00 TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 3 - REINSTALL AND MODIFY DASHERBOARDS: $4,900.00 ALTERNATE NO. 4 - ADD 12 FOOT EQUIPMENT GATE: 14 ADD 12' EQUIPMENT GATE LS 1 1300.00 1 $1,300.00 TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 4 - ADD 12 FOOT EQUIPMENT GATE: $1,300.00 TOTAL PART 1 - BASE BID: $34,644.51 TOTAL ALTERNATE N0. 1 - PAVING 10 FOOT WIDE TRAIL: $2,085.00 TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 2 - REMOVE AND STORE DASHERBOARDS: $1,600.00 TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 3 - REINSTALL AND MODIFY DASHERBOARDS: $4,900.00 TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 4 - ADD 12 FOOT EQUIPMENT GATE: $1,300.00 TOTAL WORK COMPLETED TO DATE , $44,529.51 532070050REQ4FINAL.ds .; PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS OWNER CITY OF LAUDERDALE BONESTR00 FILE NO. 000532-07005-0 CONTRACTOR DUNAWAY CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS No. Date PAYMENT SUMMARY No. From Description Total Chanae Orders Amount To Pavment Retainaae Comnleted 1 06/09/2008 07/15/08 20,642.79 1,086.46 21,729.25 2 07/16/2008 08/06/08 18,879.78 2,080.14 41,602.71 3 08/07/2008 11/19/08 2,780.46 2,226.48 44,529.51 4 AND FINAL 11/20/2008 10/19/09 1,876.48 44,529.51 Material on Hand Total Payment to Date $44,179.51 Original Contract $45,762.00 Retainage Pay No. 4 AND FINAL Change Orders Total Amount Earned $44,179.51 Revised Contract $45,762.00 532070050R EQ4 F I NAL.xls . LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM E RequestedX_ gn Meeting Date October 27, 2009 ITEM NUMBER 3009 Investment Report STAFF INITIAL HAB APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: The attached report and spreadsheet reflect the City's investment activity from July through September 2009. Please let me know if you have any questions. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: By approving the consent agenda, the Council acknowledges the Third Quarter 2009 Invest- ment Report. COUNCIL ACTION: City of Lauderdale Third Quarter Investment Report September 30, 2009 The quarter ended with a general fund balance of $305,542.71 and cash and investments totaling $3,058,952.83. 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 $2,876,059.52 was invested. $858,242.74 was invested in money market funds and $2,017,816.78 in certificates of deposit. The City purchased six CDs in the third quarter. • Orange Bank of Florida at 2.20% for 30 months. • Community Bank of Pickens County (GA) at 2.0% for 27 months. • Discover Bank (DE) at 2.0% for 27 months. • Rockbridge Commercial Bank (GA) at 2.30% for 2 years. • Michigan Commerce Bank at 1.60% for 17 months. • Woodlands Bank (SC) at 1.85% for 1 year. Additionally, two of the banks the City had CDs through failed this quarter. The City held both CDs for over a year and they were about to mature. In these cases, the broker files the paperwork to get the funds back as they are all FDIC insured. We always receive the interest due. The money market rates slipped even further in the third quarter. I think the rates speak for themselves; they have no room left to drop. The month by month rates for the money market accounts follow. Table 1: Averaze Monev Market Rates: 2009 -To -Date July August September 4M Fund0.22% 0.14% 0.13% _ ..._..._....- - ._............. ............... _. ,. _ ._.._...._...................._...._..._......._.. _............._...._.........---....__......_..........__._.............................. - ._...........__.._.. 4M Plus Fund 1 0.32% 0.28% 0 33% _.. _ .._.. __..._........... _._.. --......._....._._............._..........._.__....__............................. _._...................---.........__..._.......�.......--......_..._.........................._............._....... SB Inst. MM 0.29% 0.24% 0.19% This quarter, the City earned $23,229.85 from investments compared to $6,483.30 last quarter. Additionally, the checkbook earned $452.74. The checkbook interest is deposited into the January February March 4M Fund s 0.38% i 0.44% 0.50% 4M Plus Fund ; 0.37% (- 0.51% 0.54% - _.— ....................._........_., ..........................77 SB Inst. MM 0.97% x_ ° /o i 0.67% _._....__._....._...._...._..__....__..........................._...._...._-...._...................................__... SB Inst. MM July August September 4M Fund0.22% 0.14% 0.13% _ ..._..._....- - ._............. ............... _. ,. _ ._.._...._...................._...._..._......._.. _............._...._.........---....__......_..........__._.............................. - ._...........__.._.. 4M Plus Fund 1 0.32% 0.28% 0 33% _.. _ .._.. __..._........... _._.. --......._....._._............._..........._.__....__............................. _._...................---.........__..._.......�.......--......_..._.........................._............._....... SB Inst. MM 0.29% 0.24% 0.19% This quarter, the City earned $23,229.85 from investments compared to $6,483.30 last quarter. Additionally, the checkbook earned $452.74. The checkbook interest is deposited into the April May June 4M Fund 0.48% 0.40% -._....................__..._........._._...... 0.27% _.._.._.__._....................._..__............._......; _ ._.._......—_.____-........_......._ 4M Plus Fund ....................._._.._.........................:.......... 0.53% 0.46% ....................... _ . 0.33% _._._.........__............_........... _........ _._....__._....._...._...._..__....__..........................._...._...._-...._...................................__... SB Inst. MM 0.52% 0.38% 0.34% July August September 4M Fund0.22% 0.14% 0.13% _ ..._..._....- - ._............. ............... _. ,. _ ._.._...._...................._...._..._......._.. _............._...._.........---....__......_..........__._.............................. - ._...........__.._.. 4M Plus Fund 1 0.32% 0.28% 0 33% _.. _ .._.. __..._........... _._.. --......._....._._............._..........._.__....__............................. _._...................---.........__..._.......�.......--......_..._.........................._............._....... SB Inst. MM 0.29% 0.24% 0.19% This quarter, the City earned $23,229.85 from investments compared to $6,483.30 last quarter. Additionally, the checkbook earned $452.74. The checkbook interest is deposited into the general fund and is not distributed among the other funds. This brings 2009's investment interest earnings to $53,240.93. Total interest budgeted for 2009 is $74,200.00. Table 2 shows how the interest was divided between the funds and compares interest earned to the adopted budget. The funds with the biggest balances get the greatest interest distributions. The TIF fund has the largest balance and continues to grow with the infusion of investment interest. The 2009 budget was set anticipating better money market returns. It is likely that investment returns will not meet budgeted expectations. Table 2: Investment Earninz Distribution by Fund Staff continues to ladder investments. At the end of the quarter, the average security was held 635 days or just shy of 21 months. Currently, investment maturity dates are staggered through early 2011. Most CDs are earning more than 4.0% through 2010. Unless rates improve, the maturities in 2011 and beyond will earn around 2.0%. Laddering is a strategy designed to help weather rough times and it has paid off as the City is still seeing good returns on CDs. Staff provides councilors the spreadsheet as an internal control procedure required by the auditor. As always, staff is available to answer questions and provide the Council with research related to the City's investments. 2 Fund 2009 Budget As of September 30 101 — General Fund $12,000.00 $7,493.40 201 — Community Events $100.00 $77.69 202 — Communication $800.00 $617.92 203 —Recycling $500.00 $1,185.04 302 — 2000 Street Improve $5,000.00 $836.67 303 — 2002 Street Improve $7,000.00 $2,652.47 304 — 2003 Street Improve $7,000.00 $5,642.47 401 —Capital Improve, Street $10,000.00 $6,806.91 402 — Capital Improve, Gen $2,500.00 $1,449.06 403 — Capital Improvement, Storm Sewer $8,000.00 $2,963.44 404 — Capital Improve, Parks $1,800.00 $2,666.50 405 —TIF Projects $10,000.00 $11,542.38 407 — Sewer Improvements $4,000.00 $5,943.34 601 — Sewer Enterprise Fund $5,000.00 $2,850.31 602 — Storm Sewer Enterprise Fund $500.00 $513.33 Staff continues to ladder investments. At the end of the quarter, the average security was held 635 days or just shy of 21 months. Currently, investment maturity dates are staggered through early 2011. Most CDs are earning more than 4.0% through 2010. Unless rates improve, the maturities in 2011 and beyond will earn around 2.0%. Laddering is a strategy designed to help weather rough times and it has paid off as the City is still seeing good returns on CDs. Staff provides councilors the spreadsheet as an internal control procedure required by the auditor. As always, staff is available to answer questions and provide the Council with research related to the City's investments. 2 x , ? , ro r • .mmM-'m`oo N ' 0O0 , ' , , oovn'm.m-,�ry CC CO 00 O Vm Coo OO ` �� C N m b A Qr N aNCyy00 nNn roT mP^r r O m m O^�Or mm �AO^fT Oa�TT Nh ^ tam, N O r r r r N ci r r r r r r r r r r r r r G • r m ao'i r r r r r r r r r r r r N r N o N�y, (mO, iN�• —O r... r r r r r.... M �5 a o N lV r N N N m nmm n n Y N N N N M L" ' m N lV Cl N N N N N a F- aD abp I� r r r r r r r r r r , C m C c o � a Oo— N U a NW m y m n16 16 m N o ; m `53 16 a' O1 m n o', ' �� o m� n'o• , n mne cmi 00 It o o 0 0 a o r r 4' o r r t oS r g �� qn 1p��mi•r: " r qm cL tm�im otg �. o .; v v mu`�i m m 0 �r 0 ^ qr:n qc a N N r r r N r r r r r r r ry r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r o � T O �0 a N N � •- N r . r r r r r r r r r r r r r r. r r r r r r ,^n o no� nwrn NNM N N L" r r r r r r r r r r r r N r r r NIq r r r Y r r r r N 16 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r m 0 N w u M o « a m U -H m e m N N Cl N a' O1 ' ' ' ooIt oo e o S mC7 '- 01 N lk I=t CL N m Or O^i ^ N O^i TT M N mmrT 16 mm oalm Or Oat ONi ONi� Nti M O N N o m m m t O n mc�cc o°o eC� � m�m�m N r N V lV Y O OU'1~ Q c¢5 o n t°pn acme "'t^o 5 O 0 0 0 0 0 i � mCr'nnm � a a oCC�a oMumi� NlV ClYN F � c 6 uaom E o v'a $Z� E a E E= o c E o E U v m y U y e v « � «;�•m@u@ cm m gUK1 N 6 LL p^onq�mImg > ^m�a �. n°. Q - C^-- ooa���a���ma o�n mnn nrnnMMvt to vnia mnnam �bN M N� N�hN VmiN � � , r r � r r r r r r r r r r r b S r � r•, r r O C � F N N y .rrrrrrrrrr,rr rr O N dr r r r r r a' r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r pp t y S! 0 0 , N 8 m O O C O O T O G O N O G C r O a 0 r cL CO C � p q`� bNNN m � b T T O N P N , mm a � N C m r r r N r r r r r r r r r r r M , r r•• a _ Q n N r r• r r, r r r r r r ^ N N n o N O n r M N N V O N �^ $ fm rrrrrrrrrrrr N � r r r r r T r r r r r r r r r r r r N • r r r r F r r r r r r r r r r r r• m C r r r r r r r p N r r m r r r r r r r r r r r r r r m r r r r fi m a' E m o aNQ�imO, n 'oS, g e 00., ??, ANH A bm m m � N �T�T TT rl N TN N N r r oo b N C Pj N O T 00 8 ro r r r r r r• r r, r r r r n b N C 0 1 O r N trl T < a ry h r r r r r r r r r r r b r r ro r r r r r � o S ;igm Yrrm b b N M r r r r r v E F- r r r r r r r r r r• r r r Ncli 1. r N • r r r r • r r r r r r r r r r r r6 a' y �ororrr~�OOr N C N O m� eN N TOT TT m •^ n r r r r r r r r r r r r � O � o r rrrrrrrrrrr O rarer N V N b S y N . .rrrrrrrrrr,rr rr yo- N n � Pao m y0D r r r r r r r r r r r• r r r r r r r , r Wil` NbT 1% I It O t� m01 ON �F h m V b m m 01 01 m N T ONi O b n N r r• r r, r r r r r r ^ N N n o N O n r M N N V O N �^ $ N N N N rrrrrrrrrrrr N m C V o maa m d m E 0 annm� O m sn ey e m ynyn O m m A TTN 01 ONi Ir � 1� rl N r r, r r, r r r• r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r N N r r oo b N C Pj N O T 00 8 ro r r r r r r• r r, r r r r n b N 1 O m o m 14 N N N N N trl T < a ry m v N So qua m S ;igm Yrrm , r r r �NaOO O OOI�IYri� MO TT TTN.. O n b M N A N r r r r• r r„ r N r r n r r r r r r r r r r Y b � N r 01 d oo I $ cL It nH n n NN N`Cl ci V oo r r r• r r r r r r r m� Vr oo n U o m m m y E m ; 15 L Q _ s Z r r r r ro a�aaq}�?e� r y N ' ^�b�tV rp�NfO A In $$ e'pYm"-I e eo� n b Or O0i m m � oo W T N m .1Phi N r r m Pmi N Pni Ne C! r a r r r r r � r r � 1DMa o r r r •�� � v C � N t- N oa ro cs N a' O1 1D PP, WW ro 000 r m m o � o F b 'P T N N m W Phi A Y N r O m , r r O m r r r r r r r• r r m r r r r r Fm r r al LL$Q _EZ ��l`1`N AN W N m m e -O el�mn N m m ' O Hr r r r r r �i a' r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r P' eOo,op moo•a.m--• amn� o oo $ ee• oe, v"i a as r N m M1 eq eo, ee, Roo•a oo eCV Lv oeo_oo M cL ,p m,p16mm m� em mePm m p ry TNPmi m yr m� r r N m r r r r W r r r• � p r r r �O e 12 m .1O m v n n m cq r 4 q d 1- � T A O1 NTN Phi Phi T ' j a0 N A N �i Y N N . �Oy r r r r r r r r r O Y r h p m E f v N r r r r r r r r r r r r � n r IQ N N � uiOi- N N H^ g$ Np-of a' oro r r r r r r r r. vN b m r r r r ro a�aaq}�?e� r y N ' ^�b�tV rp�NfO A In m n T T N N A W T mmmmmmmmm �,� $ � N , r r r r r r• r r r r r r r r r r r r r r P r a P' vNi m N (bO v C � m t- N oa ro cs N a' O1 rrrrrrrrrrrrr PP, WW ro 000 r m r Oro�s AO , P� m Y1 b 'P T N N m W Phi A Y N r O m c 0 r r r• r r r r r r r % 5 o r r al r r r r ro a�aaq}�?e� r y N ' ^�b�tV rp�NfO A In mmmmmmmmm �,� $ � N , r r r r r r• r r r r r r �p o O a P' vNi • r r r r r r r r r r N (bO v rri o n on n o n P N N N N N r r r r r r r r r r r r r r n rn ci n N oa ro rrrrrrrrrrrrr r $ m ,§,o� N n m _ r r r r r r r r• r r r r r r r i r r al LL$Q _EZ ��l`1`N AN W N m m e -O el�mn Ota 1'Lro ' O N r r r, r r. r r r• r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r � r � N M m b O N m V � A N n N N N N (V N P) lV niyo r_rono t P 0 H N N N N � N N rrrrrrrrrr v"i a as r N m M1 m � N Who n e IS r m .1O m v n n m cq r 4 q � T A O1 NTN Phi Phi T ' j a0 N A N �i Y N N . �Oy r r r r r r r r r O Y r h p m v N r r r r r r r r r r r r � n r IQ v i�P uiOi- N N H^ g$ Np-of oro r r r r r r r r. vN b T Vgo g N n a a rrrrrrr rr rr m � Ugm mdm m m 0 N OI T O O 1l � NN TT Phim A PNi O n �„ � N ? r r r r r r r r P r r r V N 6 N O m v a e N m 0N b N N O N N N N r r r r r r r r r r r r r r O • r r r r r r r 0 O1 ! AP T m OrN OrT OYi 01 cli m m a N 011 b n r r r r r r r r r rrr rrr aoan m T Of m�.rD-wv�y�nm.o- r r r r b N 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 r r r r• r r r r r r r r . r r r r r• r moon 1 mONn 000000 R -So RO,00 r a m qq a. 969d �ot k$=� o� o e oSoOo woe oo oo 000 l "mmm ml. N mmm� m � N r r r r r r r r• r r r r r r r r r r r r r �O 0 a yY N �ry 1. o o 0 0 0 C O N r Obp (G o O V W• OO r C o C O r m OL'1 'o my T W N N mO^i N O N RrNA T y r r r r• r r r r r r• r r r r r r • r r r r r C Q • r r r r r r•• r r r r r r r • r r r• r r. i C o F � r r r r r r• r r r• r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r C F 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 N 000 O Nvl o $O r r r 0 , A1. oe r o e2 e; G 8 r n O W O e 0 0 0 m 0 00'S OO 0 c ro m Y i 1 r r O m m N tl� C •• r r r r. r r• • r r r r r r r r r r. _ 0 o F � r r. r r r r r r r r r r r r r • r r r r• f 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 fA { N 1 O 1 n O 1 r 0 r r r W n N S`omm�`ryo O1nwn �e 0 AP T m OrN OrT OYi �u� ro 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 •rrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrr r r r r r r r r r r rrr rrr aoan r • r r r r`Si r r r r r m�.rD-wv�y�nm.o- r r r r b N 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 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 � b TT 00t�1`jA N i 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 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 k § k lvzd ). - E - - A �wLr;w; ,M, ; `/(( ...� , .) k / .�tg ((�� �! }, |° ƒ_ k ! ... ....... ! |) (kk\} ■- ® ! [ (/ ) § k lvzd ). - E - - A �wLr;w; `/ `/(( (( }k k k / .�tg ((�� ® !& §...... § 1.,.., ! ... ....... ! qm „ ! ,mm�m, , .. §2-§\ ±� { ¢k/ & ) (mm, / } ( � lo So((( ( ] !§..l..S..,... � LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion X_ Action X Resolution X Work Session Meeting Date October 27, 2009 ITEM NUMBER 9A - Budget Resolution STAFF INITIAL h2 APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: The 2000A series bond has been called and paid! That means we know $260,329.46 needs to be transferred from the TIF Fund to the 2000 Debt Service Fund to cover the payment. The Council now has the option of devoting the remaining unpaid assessments from the 2000 project to the general fund or the 2002 and 2003 debt service funds. By devoting the money to the general fund, the Council will have the most flexibility in spending the money. When all is said and done, staff will make additional entries to zero -out the 302 Debt Ser- vice Fund. OPTIONS: The budget amendment must be done by resolution. The attached resolution devotes the remaining assessment money from the 2000 project to the general fund. This can be amended before adoption if the Council chooses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to adopt resolution 102709A - A Resolution Amending the 2009 Adopted Budget. COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION 102709A CITY OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2009 ADOPTED BUDGET WHEREAS, the City has funds from the Rosehill TIF District that can be used for debt service; and WHEREAS, the City Council called the 2000A bond series and paid the bond holders on October 15, 2009. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lauderdale that $260,329.46 be transferred from the 405 TIF Project Fund to the 302 Debt Service Fund. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council directs staff to make entries to close the 302 Debt Service Fund and deposit future 2000 street improvement assessment payments to the General Fund. CITY OF LAUDERDALE ) COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) ss STATE OF MINNESOTA ) 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, October 27, 2009, 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 27th day of October, 2009. Jeff Dains, Mayor ATTEST: Heather Butkowski, City Administrator LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion _X Action X Resolution Work Session Meeting Date October 27, 2009 ITEM NUMBER 9B - Zoning Update STAFF INITIAL - a& - APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council's adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan at the last meeting started the clock on the requirement to bring all official controls into compliance within nine (9) months (July 13). By and large this means updating the zoning ordinance to reflect a mixed use district for the southern third of the city and setting standards for acceptable develop- ment in that area. It is difficult to change one section of the zoning code without changing the others as they are interdependent. To that end, it seems to make sense to revisit all of the zoning code chapters (excluding the Home Occupation section which the city attorney recommends mov- ing out of the zoning code). By revisiting the entire section, other aspects of the zoning code can be updated or brought in line with state and federal law, particularly the sign ordi- nance. The current zoning codes also does not address "green" products on the market which staff are being asked about more often. In order to get a good start on the project and bring a consultant on board before the end of the year, the following would need to happen. 1. Tonight: Motion to allow staff to advertise the RFP for a zoning ordinance update. 2. November 16: All RFPs due. 3. November 17 or 18: Staff and 1-2 council members review proposals; select 2-3 to be interviewed by the frill Council. 4. November 24: Council interviews prospective consultants. 5. December 8: Council selects consultant. 6. Begin work after the holiday break. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Selection 1-2 council members to review proposals with staff. 2. Motion to allow staff to advertise the RFP for zoning ordinance update. COUNCIL ACTION: Lauderdale Zoning Code Update Request for Proposals The City of Lauderdale, Minnesota is requesting proposals from consulting firms to provide consulting services for a major revision to the City's Zoning Ordinance. The City is seeking qualified consulting firms that have experience in preparing and updating zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations for municipalities. The following request for proposals provides project background, project scope, and submittal requirements. 1. Introduction The City has not undertaken a comprehensive rewriting of its zoning code since its adoption in April 1974. Over the last 35 years, numerous revisions have been made to the original ordinance and the cumulative effect of this process is a code that is difficult to understand and often cumbersome to administer. A copy of the existing zoning code can be found at www.ci.lauderdale.mn.us. The objective of this project is to have a zoning code that: • Ensures that the new zoning code implements the goals and policies of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. • Consolidates the Zoning Ordinances and Subdivision Ordinances. • Removes Home Occupations from the zoning code and creates an updated Home Occupation Ordinance under Business Licensing in the City Code. • Interfaces the new zoning code with other ordinances of the City. • Creates a code that is understandable to the general public and administrable by city staff and elected officials. • Reduces and/or streamlines the caseloads of the city council and staff by crafting regulations that requite fewer requests for variances, conditional use permits, and rezonings. • Meets the requirements of Minnesota State Statutes. • Integrates graphics that illustrate regulations and makes the code easy to use, logically organized, easy to read and understand, and consistent in terms of processes and requirements. To achieve these objectives, the City anticipates that the zoning code must undergo a significant revision, including reorganization of the code, creation of a new mixed use zoning district for the southern third of the city, and setting standards for acceptable development in that area. Due to the breadth of the changes involved, it will be necessary to reach out to the public to keep them informed of the process. As Lauderdale is located within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Council, the City must make its zoning code consistent with its adopted plan within nine months of the plan's final approval; final approval of the Comprehensive Plan occurred October 13, 2009. Lauderdale Zoning Code Update RFP 1 October 23, 2009 2. Scope of Work The scope of work for the Lauderdale Zoning Code Update consists of four primary work elements, including: A. Review of the existing zoning code. B. Code reorganization, development, and revision. C. Zoning map amendments. D. Code adoption. Please note that Section 8 of this RFP outlines the submission requirements, including the need to describe public outreach through all elements of this process. The following provides an overview of the work elements. A. Review of the Existing Zoning Code The consultant will review the existing zoning and subdivision codes and related city documents, including the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and zoning maps. B. Code Reorganization, Development and Revision Code reorganization, revision, and development may occur in related groups. Upon completion of a draft, mock plan reviews need to be completed to demonstrate that the code is implementable. Final draft documents will be taken to the City Council for input prior to bringing them through the formal adoption process. C. Zoning Map Amendments The City has GIS capabilities through its consulting engineering firm. The consultant, city staff, and city engineer will cooperate on revisions to the city's zoning map and GIS files. D. Code and Map Adoption Process The consultant will lead city staff through the zoning code revision and adoption process. The adoption may occur incrementally with each topic or chapter (and related maps) having a separate public hearing and City Council consideration. 3. Final Product The consultant shall provide the City with an editable, electronic copy of the final zoning code, including text and graphic files. The graphic files shall be labeled in a manor consistent with that in the zoning code (e.g. the file name referencing Figure 1-A might be Figure 1-A). 4. Role of Consultant and City Staff in the Project The selected consultant will serve as lead planner, developing the planning process and drafting code language. Any requirements or work to be done by city staff should be highlighted in the proposal. The city administrator will serve as the designated city contact and will serve as the city's liaison with the consultant. Lauderdale Zoning Code Update RFP 2 October 23, 2009 5. Selection Process and Timeline Submittals will be reviewed by a selection committee, comprised of city staff and council members. Final consultant candidates will be interviewed by the full City Council. Proposals Due: Review of Proposals: Interviews with City Council Council Selects Consultant: Begin Work: Complete Work: November 16, 2009 by 4:00 p.m. November 17-18, 2009 November 24, 2009 December 8, 2009 January 4, 2009 May 28, 2010 6. Data The City will provide the selected consultant with a copy of the most recent land information data, to the extent possible. The consultant will need to sign a use agreement prior to receiving the data. In addition, the City will provide the consultant with copies of relevant documents and plans. 7. Compensation The City of Lauderdale retains consultant services on the basis of a lump sum cost -not -to -exceed contract. Following the selection of a firm, the scope of work, costs attributed to project elements, and contract for services will be finalized. 8. Submission Requirements The proposal package must include the following information: A. Firm description B. Project approach (including any recommended changes to the project scope as presented in the RFP). C. Scope of service: As part of your methodology to complete the elements described in Section 2, describe how you will: 1. Engage in public outreach throughout the process 2. Utilize city staff resources to complete these tasks D. Process and timeline / milestones E. Cost proposal F. Expectations of city staff G. Resumes of key team members H. List of billing rates I. Certification of appropriate insurance coverage J. Examples of two recently completed, relevant zoning projects (electronic copies only) along with project references. Lauderdale Zoning Code Update RFP 3 October 23, 2009 9. Consultant Selection Following a review of the proposals received, the selection committee will prepare a short list (2 or 3) of prospective consultants to be invited for an interview with the Lauderdale City Council. The City Council will make the final decision regarding the consultant selection. The RFP is not subject to a competitive bidding process; and any contract entered into as a result of any proposal will not be based on the concept of the "lowest responsible bidder." Selection will be based on the anticipated overall value to the City. The City has the right to reject any and all proposals, waive any irregularities, reissue all or part of the RFP, and not award any contract, all at its discretion and without penalty. Submission of a proposal constitutes express acceptance of all provisions of the RFP, including any addenda. 10. Additional General Information and Deadline • If it becomes necessary to revise any part of the RFP, an amendment will be issued to all prospective consultants who requested or otherwise received a copy of the RFP and provided the City with contact information. • Except where modifications are agreed upon in writing by the City and the selected consultant, the selected consultant will be requited to perform all responsibilities and complete all work described in the RFP. Further, the City will consider the selected consultant to be the sole point of contact with regard to contractual matters. • Send six paper copies and one electronic copy of the proposal package to: Heather Butkowski, City Administrator City of Lauderdale 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Proposals must be received no later than 4:00 p.m. on Monday, November 16, 2009. Late proposals will not be accepted. 11. Contact Information Please contact Heather Butkowski at (651) 792-7657 or heather.butl-,owsld@ci.lauderdale.mn.us with any questions or to request information. Lauderdale Zoning Code Update RFP 4 October 23, 2009 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion Action Resolution Work Session X Meeting Date October 27, 2009 ITEM NUMBER 13A Animal Control Ord. STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: There are three issues that have come up that the City's animal ordinance does not address. Staff is looking for direction on these issues as it would make sense to address them if the ordinance is revised. 1. Chickens. Staff issued one permit this year because the last revision to the ordinance no longer made it clear whether or not they are allowed. Public works staff suspect a few others have chickens. So far no neighbors have complained. If the council wants to al- low chickens (or any other farm animal), we may want to set parameters, such as no roosters, or requirements for their housing / care. I attached an article from last week's Pioneer Press regarding chickens in St. Paul and a list of the wide variety of require- ments implemented in Minnesota and beyond. 2. Kennels. The new ordinance does not address kennels (for boarding or breeding), but the price for a kennel license remains on our fee schedule. Similar to the chicken ques- tion, parameters for kennels should be set, if they are allowed or it may be best to con- sider them home based businesses. 3. Multiple Animal Permits. Most folks who inquire about kennel licenses aren't boarders or breeders but people who want more than two of an animal. An ordinance revision could clarify the difference. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: COUNCIL ACTION: A chicken in every yard? St. Paul City Council to vote on loosening restrictions - TwinCit. CouncilA chicken in every yard? St. Paul City • vote on •;• •' restrictions The St. Paul City Council votes today on a proposed ordinance that would loosen restrictions on owning chickens. By Patrick B. Anderson panderson@pioneerpress.com Updated: 10/14/2009 02:08:05 AM CDT Julie GebbenGreen watched her children chase four clucking hens around their back yard on a busy Page 1 of 2 corner in the middle of St. Paul's Hamline-Midway neighborhood. 'We're in a pretty public space here,' GebbenGreen said. Her yard is separated from the sidewalk by a low hedge, and passers-by can catch a glimpse of the hens at any time of the day. 'People walk by just so they can see and interact with the chickens,' she said. While St. Paul families like the GebbenGreens can already legally own chickens, they must meet certain requirements before they qualify for a permit. The St. Paul City Council is scheduled to vote today on a proposed ordinance that would loosen restrictions on owning chickens in the city limits. If it passes, residents would be able to get a permit for up to three hens without obtaining the approval of 75 percent of their neighbors within 150 feet, which is currently required. 'If you wanted more than three, then you would still have to get the petition,' said council member Russ Stark, who introduced the proposal. The cost of the permit would also drop from around $72 to around $27, according to the city's Department of Safety and Inspections. Owning the noisier roosters — which is currently discouraged but not illegal, according to the department — would be outlawed. Stark's proposal comes at a time when more and more people are applying for permits to own chickens within the city limits. The number of permits the city's animal control office issued rose from four in 2007 to 20 in 2008, according to the Department of Safety and Inspections. Print Powered By f girt a tpyt�amtc w http://www.twincities.comlci_13 555743?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twin... 10/23/2009 A chicken in every yard? St. Paul City Council to vote on loosening restrictions - TwinCit... Page 2 of 2 TwminCitmiesecom Department spokeswoman Angie Wiese said most people have renewed their permits for this year, and as of July, 10 more permits had been approved. When a group of citizens from GebbenGreen's neighborhood asked Stark to help make the permit process easier, he went to the department for help, Wiese said. GebbenGreen, who owns four chickens and would be unaffected by the change, had to go through the city's permit process in May. She said she was drawn to the birds because they were quirky and different—just like her. "We choose to live in the city, but we also are kind of this emerging funky urban population," GebbenGreen said. GebbenGreen and her husband, Phil, are co - pastors at Edgcumbe Presbyterian Church in the Highland Park neighborhood and have dedicated themselves to the simple life, she said. The family — including children Isaac, 9, Micah, 6, and Lydia, 4 — don't own a TV and frequently volunteer within the community. Before buying the chickens, which cost $3.50 each at the Anoka Ramsey Farm and Garden Center, GebbenGreen needed signatures from seven of nine immediate neighbors to get clearance from animal control. When one of them turned her down, she said she started to worry. "I just felt there was a level of suspicion around chickens," GebbenGreen said. In addition to petitioning her neighbors, she had to pay the standard fee and agree to an inspection from animal control. Advertisement St. Paul is one of many municipalities in the state, including Minneapolis, Rochester and Duluth, that allow residents to own chickens. However, council president Kathy Lantry said she doesn't see a need for changing the permit process. "I think the system we have set up now is not onerous at all," Lantry said. "The city of St. Paul allows chickens." Concerned chicken owners are not troubled by the application process, she said, and taking it away would only make things easier for more negligent people. But Stark said interest in urban chickens reflected a demand for more locally produced, natural food sources in the city. He said the goal of his proposal is to encourage a "positive trend." GebbenGreen's chickens started laying eggs two weeks ago, five months after she bought them. The noise the chickens make, even under the duress of active children, is barely audible. They don't bother the neighbors, GebbenGreen said. In fact, most enjoy seeing the hens — even the neighbors who refused to sign the petition. GebbenGreen said raising the chickens has taught her and her family that food production is a process that needs long-term commitment. "It connects us into the food chain much more than going to the grocery store and having food automatically appear," she said. Julie GebbenGreen, on petitioning her neighbors to allow the birds in her yard Print Powered By (AW rr-natDynamic s http://www.twincities.com/ci—I 3 5 5 5743 ?IADID=Search-www.twincities. com-www.twin... 10/23/2009 chickenlaws.html MN Page 1 of 1 Blaine, MN. Domestic farm animals, including cattle, horses, sheep, goats and chickens are only permitted in Agricultural (AG) and Farm Residential (FR) zoning districts. Edina, MN. Chickens not allowed. Elk River, MN. Elk River defines an `animal' as a dog, cat, or other animal which is harbored, fed, or kept by any person. No dog, cat, or other animal shall be allowed by its owner to run at large: Minneapolis, MN. Unlimited. Applicant needs consent from 80 percent of neighbors within 100 feet of real estate. Chickens must be penned. Rosemount, MN. You can have up to 3 hens, no roosters. You must get written permission from all the neighbors whose yards border yours. You must keep them in a coop between 12 and 24 inches above ground and the legs of the coop must be sunk in cement footers. And there is a $25 annual fee to keep chickens. St Paul, MN. Can have one chicken without a permit, but more than one you have to get permission from 75% of neighbors 150 ft. around, or proof you have no neighbors for 150 feet. No roosters, and no selling eggs without a permit. S1.iFrancis, MN. No fowl may be kept on a parcel of real estate smaller in area than five acres, except for the keeping of pigeons and doves. �, if 1.(?fli 44i chickenlaws.html Page 1 of 1 Caledonia, WI. A recent fight with city hall here resulted in a no -chickens -allowed ordinance. There are a'number of articles on-line about the debate in this city. Ellsworth, WI. Pierce County has a medical officer do a visual check of your property. A permit of $50 is"required. Up to 10 hens allowed. Keeping birds in a chicken tractor would keep you from having to get'a building permit. Fond du Lac, WI. No chickens allowed in this city as they are considered a public nuisance. Greebay, WI. The law reads: May have 4 birds over 8 inches tall per residence plus a clutch or part of a clutch for 8 weeks. Madison, WI. Up to four chickens per household. Not allowed to roam free. Keep pen 25 ft. from neighbors. $10 annual permit required. Hens only; no roosters allowed. Shorewood Hills, WI. It is said that the village Clerk keeps six hens. Noise and smell are regulated, but not'the number of chickens. http://home.centurytel.net/thecitychicken/chickenlaws.html 10/9/2009 Ohiokenlaws.html < P4ge;2 iof 2 San Francisco, CA. Up to four chickens allowed. Up to four small animals total. Keep 20 feet from c doors or windows in a coop or enclosure of approved type. SanMateo, CA. Keeping chickens requires a permit here. Up to 10 hens per household. Chickens must be,:kept in an appropriate pen/coop. Temple City, CA. Basically it allows two hens per property, but no roosters. Vallejo, CA. You are allowed to keep up to 25 chickens if they are kept 15 ft. from neighboring dwellings. Roosters are allowed but subject to noise nuisance violations. Woodland, CA. It is OK to keep up to 6 hens provided they are kept over 40 ft. from neighboring residences. ',t;: http://home.centurytel.net/thecitychicken/chickenlaws.html 10/9/2009 chickenlaws.html CA Page 1 of 2 Araerican Canyon, CA. Must keep your chicken coop in the back yard, and 50 ft. away from other houses or dwellings where people reside. Anaheim, CA. Can keep 3 chickens on a 5,000 sq.ft. lot, 6 chickens on a 10,000 sq.ft. lot. Bakersfield, CA. Municipal code 6.08.010: Any chickens must be "kept securely enclosed in a yard or pen at all times." Berkely, CA. Chickens must be kept penned and 30 ft. away from any bedrooms. Campbell, CA. Not more than six animals in all, including hares, rabbits, guinea pigs, feline, bovine, sheep, goat, chickens, turkeys, geese, ducks, doves, pigeons, game birds, or other fowl or any combination thereof. Davis, CA. A total of not more than six chicken hens and you have to keep them penned no less than 40 ft. from neighboring houses. Downey, CA. Up to five chickens allowed per lot. El Cajon, CA. See: http://gcode.us/codes/elcajon/view.php?topic=6-6_04&frames=on... It's confusing to me. F,blsom, CA. Not more than any combination of two chickens, ducks, pigeons and rabbits shall be kept within any zoning district of the city other than agricultural or agricultural combining districts; and said mals skull be kept or maintained at least twenty feet from any property line. erial Beach, CA. The municipal code says no, but a feed store estimates around 500 chickens are kept as pets. t. trylne, CA. Two chickens max. allowed, kept in a sanitary, odor free enclosure. No roosters -are, ; { ,allowed. La,Puente, CA. Up to 20 chickens allowed for each ten thousand sq. feet of lot area in residential zones. Lafayette, CA. Residents can keep approximately 4 chickens. Long Beach, CA. Homeowners are allowed up to 20 hens. No roosters. Must be 20 feet from a dwelling and confined. Los, Angeles, CA. Unlimited. Chickens may not be within 20 feet of owner's residence, and must be at keast 35 feet from any other dwelling. Los,Altos, CA. 1 hen per 1,000 square feet of lot space. No restrictions on coop location. No roosters. Mission Viejo, CA. You are allowed up to two chickens, and roosters are not allowed. But city code ; 1.15-1 says no chickens allowed. M9,4ntain View, CA. Up to 4 hens without a permit. Keep 25 ft. from residences. Within 25:ftJs oik.. ti written consent from residences. No roosters. pjl�jari CA. Keep chicken enclosed, & 20 ft. from any dwelling, church or school. ,e aluma, CA. Up to twenty animals of mixed combination. Chickens must be kept five feet from a pgighbor's fence or property line, and they must be kept 20 ft. from neighboring dwellings. X,gdwood City, CA. Maximum of 3 chickens permitted; roosters were recently outlawed. Zgseville, CA. Maximum 10 chickens kept 20 ft. from any property line &/or building. They don't ,delineate hens or roosters. eta Rosa, CA. Up to 25. May have 25 chickens per 20,000 square feet. No chickens in residential areas zoned RL R2 or PRC. ,ramento, CA. Except for a few areas specifically spelled out in code, keeping chickens is not allowed in Sacramento. §4,cramento County, CA. As long as your yard is 10,000 square feet or more, you can keep chickens. San Jose, CA. 1-4 chickens must be kept 15 feet from neighboring structures. 4-6 chickens must be Dept; 20 feet away. A permit is required if you keep more than 6 chickens. In any area zgned ; , Tes�idential,' only hens are permitted; no roosters. ,4.d, Diego, CA. Currently undergoing debates in the city council, trying to get chickens itp be iepl in, 'tl "5,city• 0 1;j co; tt'p://home.centurytel.net/thecitychicken/chickenlaws.html '` 40/9/2009 sa