Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/31/2004LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, AUGUST 31, 2004 CITY HALL, 7:00 P.M. 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 MEETING TO ORDER AT 7:00 P. M. 2. ROLL: Councibnembers: McCloskey _ Gill -Gerbig _ Mayor Dains Staff.- Getschow 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Christensen Giannetti 4. APPROVAL A. Approval of minutes of 8/10/04 City Council Meeting B. Approval of claims totaling $97,982.52 5. OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Any member of the public may speak at this time on any item NOT on the agenda. In consideration of 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 under Additional Items 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 Council's 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. City of Lauderdale Council Agenda August 31, 2004 Page 2 6. CONSENT 7. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESSIRECOGNITIONSIPROCLAMATIONSI CITIZENS ADDRESSING STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS 8 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. 9. ACTION A. Approval of the 2004-2005 City Insurance Policy B. Resolution 083104A: A Resolution Appointing an LMCIT Insurance Agent C. Resolution 083104B: A Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Certain Real Property (Karkoc Parcel) D. Consideration of a Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment Contract for Services with Ehlers and Associates 10. DISCUSSION 11. ADDITIONAL ITEMS 12. SET AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING 13. WORK SESSION DISCUSSION A. Organized Collection — Solid Waste and Recycling Proposals B. 2005 Budget (Funds 201-601) 14. ADJOURNMENT Lauderdale City Council Meeting Minutes August 10, 2004 1. Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. 2. ROLL Council present: Christensen, Giannetti, Gill -Gerbig, McCloskey and Mayor Dains Staff present: Administrator Getschow 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA A. Approval of Agenda. Motion by McCloskey, second by Gill -Gerbig to approve the agenda with the change of moving 9 (A)- Consideration of the Larpenteur Avenue Development proposals to 13 (C). Motion carried unanimously. 4. APPROVAL A. Approval of Minutes. Motion by Christensen, second by Giannetti to approve the minutes of the July 27, 2004 City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. B. Approval of Claims totaling $27,343.64. Motion by Gill -Gerbig, second by Giannetti to approve the claims totaling $27,343.64. Motion carried unanimously. 5. OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 6. CONSENT Lauderdale City Council Meeting Minutes, August 10, 2004 Page 2 7. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS/RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/ CITIZENS ADDRESSING STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. ACTION A. Appointment of three new members to the Park and Community Involvement Committee (PCIC). Motion by Gill -Gerbig, second by Giannetti to approve the three new members to the Park and Community Involvement Committee (PCIC) for two-year terms expiring December 31, 2006. Roll: Yes: all. Motion carried. B. Appointment of Election Judges for the 2004 Primary and General Elections. Administrator Getschow stated that Assistant to the City Administrator Bownik has prepared a list of residents for the Council to appoint to serve as election judges for the September 14, 2004 Primary Election and the November 2, 2004 General Election. Many of the proposed judges are returning again after serving for several years, but the list also includes new judges that will be working for the first time this year. Getschow also stated that according to State Statute 204C.03, a public meeting cannot be held between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Therefore, the starting time of the September 14, 2004 council meeting should be moved from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. This is the action that the Council has taken previously for the 2000 and 2002 September City Council meetings that occurred on primary day. Motion by McCloskey, second by Christensen to approve the included list of election judges for the September 14, 2004 State Primary Election and the November 2, 2004 General Election. Roll: Yes: all. Motion carried. C. Move the start time of the September 14, 2004 City Council meeting from 7:00 p.m. to 8: 00 p.m. Motion by Giannetti, second by Gill -Gerbig to change the start time of the September 14, 2004 council meeting from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Roll: Yes: all. Motion carried. Lauderdale City Council Meeting Minutes, August 10, 2004 Page 3 D. Resolution 081004A: Resolution Adopting a New Fee Schedule for the Rental of the Community/Social Room and Kitchen. Getschow stated that the Council has discussed changing the fees for the social room rental since the social room has recently undergone significant improvements and the fee has not been adjusted in any way for at least ten years. The Council has discussed a new fee structure at recent work sessions. The proposed fee structure is as follows: Resident $25.00 base fee $15.00 use of facilities/kitchen fee $50.00 set-up fee $75.00 refundable deposit Non -Resident $75.00 base fee $25.00 use of facilities/kitchen fee $50.00 set-up fee $100.00 refundable deposit Under this scenario, the base rental fee for city residents does not change. A new $15.00 fee is added for renters that use the kitchen or related facilities. For example, the fee would change if the renter uses the social room to host a party, but would not change if the room was only rented for a simple meeting. For the non-residents, the base fee would increase $25.00. The kitchen/facility fee would be $25.00 more. Motion by Christensen, second by Giannetti to approve Resolution 081004A: Resolution Adopting a New Fee Schedule for the Rental of the Community/Social Room and Kitchen. Roll: Yes: all. Motion carried. E. Resolution 081004B: Resolution Receiving the Proposed Assessment Roll and Providing for a Public Hearing For The 2003 Street And Utility Improvements. The City Administrator stated that at the July 27 City Council meeting, the Council ordered the preparation of proposed assessment rolls for the 2003 Street and Utility Improvements. He stated that the next step in the process is for the Council to adopt a resolution indicating receipt of the assessment roll and to set a public hearing for the proposed assessments. It is recommended that the public hearing be set for September 28, 2004. Motion by McCloskey, second by Christensen to approve Resolution 08100413: A Resolution Receiving the Proposed Assessment Roll and Providing for a Public Hearing on the 2003 Street and Utility Improvements. Roll: Yes: all. Motion carried. Lauderdale City Council Meeting Minutes, August 10, 2004 Page 4 F. City Code Revisions to Title 6- Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Chapter I- Parldng Regulations. Administrator Getschow stated that at the June 8 and July 13 City Council work sessions, the Council discussed revising the parking ordinance as it relates to winter parking and the length of time a vehicle can be parked on the street umnoved. This discussion culminated in three proposed changes to the City Code. 1. Eliminate odd/even winter parking restrictions that are in effect between December and March of each year; 2. Increase the snow emergency 2" parking fine form $25.00 to $40.00; and 3. Create new language stating how long a vehicle can be parked on the street without being moved- 3 days. Getschow stated that these proposed revisions have been placed on the city website as an information piece to residents. Also, an article was also published in the 3'"d Quarter newsletter on these same issues. Mayor Dains stated that he supported these revisions, but it is with caution that he approves the concept of eliminating the odd/even parking restrictions. These restrictions have worked very well and have resulted in positive compliance for several years. It is with reluctance that he agrees with this change, because more cars may be in the way of the plow on both sides of the street during snow emergencies. He realizes that the fine for violating the snow emergency regulations will rise, but will it be enough to keep snowplow operations ruining smoothly. Council member McCloskey stated that if the elimination of the odd/even regulations severely impact the snow removal operations this coming winter, the City Council could consider re -imposing them and/or possibly raising the snow emergency fee higher than the proposed $40.00. Getschow stated that if approved, the parking ordinance revisions would become effective following publication in the Roseville Review, with the exception of the snow emergency fine increase, which would be effective January 1, 2005. Motion by Christensen, second by McCloskey to approve the revisions to the Lauderdale City Code Title 6 (Motor Vehicles), Chapter 1 (Parking Restrictions). Roll: Yes: all. Motion carried. Lauderdale City Council Meeting Minutes, August 10, 2004 Page 5 G. Resolution 081004C: AResolutioiiAmendingtheLauderdale Snow Emergency Parking (2 "+ snowfall) Fine Amount. Motion by Christensen, second by Giannetti to approve Resolution 081004C: A Resolution Amending the Lauderdale Snow Emergency Parking (2" Snowfall) Fine Amount. Roll: Yes: all. Motion carried. 10. ITEMS REMOVED FORM THE CONSENT AGENDA 11. ADDITIONAL ITEMS 12. SET AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING 1. Karkoc Property Purchase 2. 2004-2005 City Insurance Policy Renewal 3. Work Session: 2005 Budget A break was taken at 7:40 p.m. to transition into a work session discussion. 13. WORK SESSION DISCUSSION The meeting resumed at 7:45 p.m. A. Consideration of the Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment Implementation Services Proposals. The City Council discussed the proposals received from Springsted and Ehlers and Associates for providing Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment Implementation Services. B. Organized Collection- Solid Waste and Recycling Proposals. The City Council continued to discuss the organized solid waste and recycling proposals. C. 2005 Budget Discussion. The City Council discussed the 2005 Budget. The discussion focused primarily on the General Fund Budget. V113101910\1U M 2M Motion by Christensen, second by Gill -Gerbig to adjourn at 9:45 P.M. Ayes: All. CITY OF LAUDERDALE Claims for Approval August 31, 2004 City Council Meeting Payroll 08/13/04 Payroll: Check # 7635-7639 $6,503.99 08/13/04 Payroll: EFT: Federal Withholding Taxes/FICA $2,624.71 08/13/04 Payroll: EFT: PERA $1,066.73 08/13/04 Payroll: EFT: ICMA Retirement Fund $1,137.52 08/27/04 Payroll: Check # 7641-7645 $6,520.53 08/27/04 Payroll: EFT: Federal Withholding Taxes/FICA $2,640.63 08/27/04 Payroll: EFT: PERA $1,072.90 08/27/04 Payroll: EFT: ICMA Retirement Fund $1,162.52 08'04 Payroll: EFT: State Withholding Taxes $901.59 (Vendor Claims 08/31 /04 Claims: Check # 17091-17111 $74,351.401 Subtotal of Claims From Above $97,982.52 Total Claims for Approval $97,982.52 CITY OF LAUDERDALE Vendor Transactions CHECK Check Batch Nbr Date Name Invoice Amount Comments Search Name AFSCME 017091 8/31/04 083104claims 8/31 $75.90 8/04 union dues Search Name AFSCME $75.90 Search Name AT & T 017092 8/31/04 083104claims $2.09 8/04 long distance Search Name AT & T $2.09 Search Name AVENET, LLC 017093 8/31/04 083104claims 7344 $90.00 3g04 web hosting Search Name AVENET, LLC $90.00 Search Name RIFFS, INC. 017094 8/31/04 083104claims w229508 $80.91 park biffy thru 8/3 Search Name BIFFS, INC. $80.91 Search Name CINTAS 017095 8/31/04 083104claims 8/31 $79.89 8/12, 8/19, 8/26 pw uniforms Search Name CINTAS $79.89 Search Name CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS 017096 8/31/04 083104claims 8/31 $1,077.00 7/04 fire calls 017096 8/31/04 083104claims 8/31 $359.00 7/04 false fire calls Search Name CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS $1,436.00 Search Name CITY OF ST ANTHONY 017097 8/31/04 083104claims 1095 $20,068.17 9/04 police services Search Name CITY OF ST ANTHONY $20,068.17 Search Name CORNING DONOHUE 017098 8/31/04 083104claims 77723 $246.02 social room improvements 017098 8/31/04 083104claims 77905 $25.68 social room improvements Search Name CORNING DONOHUE $271.70 Search Name EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC 017099 8/31/04 083104claims 61303in $401.70 jake braking signs Search Name EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC $401.70 Search Name ESCHELON TELECOM, INC 017100 8/31/04 083104claims 8/31/04 $235.81 8/04 city hall phone Search Name ESCHELON TELECOM, INC $235.81 Search Name GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL 017101 8/31/04 083104claims 4070519 $19.55 7/04 utility locates Search Name GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL $19.55 Search Name KARKOC, PETER 017102 8/31/04 083104claims 8/31 $32,500.00 purchase land PIN#172923240024 08/27/04 11:16 AM Page 1 I CITY OF LAUDERDALE Vendor Transactions CHECK Check Batch Nbr Date Name Invoice Amount Comments Search Name KARKOC, PETER Search Name KENNEDY & GRAVEN 017103 8/31/04 083104claims 62575 017103 8/31/04 083104claims 62575 Search Name KENNEDY & GRAVEN Search Name LMCIT 017111 017104 8/31/04 083104claims 16981 017104 8/31/04 083104claims 16981 017104 8/31/04 083104claims 16981 017104 8/31/04 083104claims 16981 Search Name LMCIT Search Name MET -COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER. 017105 8/31/04 083104claims 779387 Search Name MET -COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER. Search Name RAMSEY COUNTY, PROP REC & REV 017106 8/31/04 083104claims risk739 Search Name RAMSEY COUNTY, PROP REC & REV Search Name ROTARY CLUB OF ROSEVILLE, MN 017107 8/31/04 083104claims 8131 Search Name ROTARY CLUB OF ROSEVILLE, MN Search Name SAFETY SIGNS 017108 8/31/04 083104claims 41308 Search Name SAFETY SIGNS Search Name SPRINT PCS 017109 8/31/04 083104claims 8/31 017109 8/31/04 083104claims 8/31 Search Name SPRINT PCS Search Name SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY 017110 8/31/04 083104claims 8/31 Search Name SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY Search Name XCEL ENERGY 017111 8/31/04 083104claims 8/31 017111 8/31/04 083104claims 8/31 017111 8/31/04 083104claims 8/31 017111 8/31/04 083104claims 8/31 017111 8/31/04 083104claims 8/31 $32,500.00 $9.58 7/04 print/process $194.50 7/04 legal services $204.08 $345.00 open meeting law insur thru 8/05 $3,308.40 liability/property/auto/bonds thru 8/05 $2,894.85 liability/property/auto/bonds thru 8/05 $2,067.75 liability/property/auto/bonds thru 8/05 $8,616.00 $8,232.07 9/04 wastewater services $8,232.07 $1,012.72 8/04 health benefits $1,012.72 $240.00 3g04 dues/meetings $240.00 $124.61 barricades for nat'I night out $124.61 $17.72 7/04 pw cell phone $17.72 7/04 pw cell phone $35.44 $150.00 2nd half dues $150.00 $13.02 7/04 garage utilities $4.34 7/04 garage utilities $18.12 7/04 garage utilities $6.04 7/04 garage utilities $433.24 7/04 street lighting Search Name XCEL ENERGY $474.76 08/27/04 11:16 AM Page 2 CITY OF LAUDERDALE 08/27/04 11:16 AM Page 3 Vendor Transactions CHECK Check Batch Nbr Date Name Invoice Amount Comments $74,351.40 FILTER: ( ( ([Period] in(8) and [Act Year] ='2004') and [Tran Nbr] in(20,21,22,23,25) and ([Vendor Nbr]>0)) ) and ((([Batch Name]="083104claims"))) Lauderdale City Council Memorandum Council Meeting Date: August 31, 2004 To: Mayor and City Council From: Rick Getschow, City Administrator Agenda Item: 2004-2005 Insurance Policy BACKGROUND: The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) has finally sent the 2004-2005 insurance policy renewal information. The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) Property/Casualty program is designed to operate through a local agent. Each jurisdiction must designate an agent as a condition of participating in the program. Engberg, Schaber and Welch have been the City's insurance agency for a number of years. Mr. Bob Welch has sent the attached premium summary for the 2004-2005. Also enclosed is the resolution that is needed to appoint our LMCIT agent for the coming year. Property, Liability, and Automobile Policy The premium costs for 2004-2005 have decreased $2,723 or 24% fi-om the last policy year. There were decreases in all categories, except for property coverage. The largest decrease was in the liability portion of the policy, which decreased 44% from last year. This significant decrease in the liability premium year places us to where the premium was in 1999-2000. That is good news. As was the case the past five years, the City Council should once again take official action to waive the statutory tort limits. Worker's Compensation Policy The 2004-2005 policy premium before LMCIT audit is $4,541. The 2003-2004 premium was $3,674. This represents an $867.00 increase from last year. Overall, the premiums are still lower than what they have been in recent years. Agent's Compensation There are two methods of compensating the agent. One is based on a percentage of the premium and the other method is to determine a flat fee. The flat fee of $1045.00 proposed for this policy is identical to the policy fee that the city has paid its agent for the past five years. ENCLOSURES: 1. 2004-2005 Insurance Policy Summary 2. Resolution 083104A: A Resolution Appointing the City Agent for the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Motion to adopt Resolution 083104A: A Resolution Appointing the City Agent for the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. 2. Motion to waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability and to not purchase additional excess liability coverage for the coming year. 3. Motion to approve the 2004-2005 property, liability, automobile, and worker's compensation insurance policy Premium Summary 2003-2004 2004-2005 Property $1,310.00 $1,467.00 Mobile Equipment $ 142.00 $ 159.00 Commercial General Liability $8,708.00 $6,027.00 Public Officials Liability Public Employees Dishonesty Open Meeting Law $ 405.00 $ 345.00 Automobile Coverage $ 774.00 $ 618.00 Total Premiums $11,339.00 $8,616.00 Optional Coverage Quote Excess Liability Coverage $1,000,000 Limit Premium $1,400.00 Property 1891 Walnut 1891 Walnut 1917 Walnut 1885 Fulham City Park City of Lauderdale Insurance Breakdown Office Bldg Personal Property City Garage Warming House Play Equipment Mobile Property 1992 John Deere Tractor 2001 John Deere Skid loader Commercial General Liability Public Officials Liability Public Employee Dishonesty Open Meeting Law Automobile Coverage 1993 Chev 3/4T with plow 1999 Ford F375 1T truck 2003-2004 $507,870 $ 51,300 $ 27,189 $ 25,650 $ 39,135 Liability Personal Injury Protection Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage Comprehensive Collision $41,040 2004-2005 $516,504 $ 52,172 $ 27,651 $ 26,086 $ 39,800 $41,738 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $ 150,000 $ 20,000 $1,000,000 Basic $1,000,000 $250 Deductible $500 Deductible RESOLUTION NO. 083104A CITY OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPOINTING CITY AGENT FOR LMCIT WHEREAS, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust requires cities to use the services of an agent in order to participate in the LMCIT property/casualty program; and WHEREAS, Bob Welch of Engberg, Schaber and Welch has provided a quote to the City for the services listed below under the terms and conditions listed below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Lauderdale resolves the following: APPOINTMENT The City of Lauderdale hereby appoints Bob Welch as its agent for the purposes of the City's participation in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) property/casualty program. TERM This appointment shall remain effective for one year. COMPENSATION As compensation for services provided to the City as described below, the City will pay to the agent a fee of $1045.00. The City hereby directs LMCIT not to include any allowance for an agent's fee in quoting and billing the City's premiums for property, liability and automotive coverage. e The agent will perform for the City the following services: a) Advise and assist the City in assembling and accurately reporting underwriting data, including updating property values for rating purposes. b) Advise and assist the City in evaluating and selecting among coverage alternatives such as deductibles, limits, optional coverage's, alternative coverage fonns, etc. c) Review coverage documents and invoices to assure coverage has been correctly issued and billed. d) Advise the City on potential gaps or overlaps in coverages. e) Assist the City as requested in submitting claims and interpreting coverage as applied to particular claims. f) Review loss reports for correct reporting, appropriate reserves, etc. g) Assist as requested with safety and loss control activities. h) Assist the city in identifying risk exposures and developing appropriate strategies to address those exposures. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Lauderdale, Minnesota this 31" day of August, 2004. (ATTEST) (SEAL) Jeffrey E. Dains, Mayor Rick Getschow, City Administrator Lauderdale City Council Memorandum Council Meeting Date: August 31, 2004 To: Mayor and City Council From: Rick Getschow, City Administrator Agenda Item: Resolution 0831046: A Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Certain Real Property (Karkoc Parcel) BACKGROUND: Included in the packet is a memorandum from City Attorney Mary Tietjen regarding the settlement and the purchase of the property. In her opinion, everything is order to approve the purchase of the property. A closing date would be set at a later date following the approval of the purchase. A resolution is included in the packet that approves the purchase. Also, as a part of the settlement agreement there is language in the resolution honoring the memory of Lucy Karkoc. ENCLOSURES: 1. August 26, 2004 Memorandum from City Attorney Mary Tietjen 2. Resolution 083104B: A Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Certain Real Property (Karkoc Parcel) in the City of Lauderdale. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Resolution 083104B: A Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Certain Real Property (Karkoc Parcel) in the City of Lauderdale. � i P 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www.kennedy-graven.com MEMORANDUM TO: Lauderdale City Council Rick Getschow FROM: Mary Tietjen, Attorney DATE: August 26, 2004 RE: Karkoc v. City of Lauderdale Settlement On July 27, 2004, we met in closed session to discuss the settlement that was reached in mediation on July 22, 2004. The Council approved the terms of the settlement, conditioned upon receiving title work or evidence from Mr. Karkoc that the City would be receiving "good title" to the property. Mr. Karkoc's attorney has provided us with a "Condition of Certificate of Title," as well as documentation indicating that a search for judgments and liens on the property was done. We have reviewed the documents provided by Mr. Karkoc's attorney, and have verified with the title company that the certificate of title is valid and shows no problems with title and no encumbrances on the property, such as outstanding mortgages, liens, judgments, etc. As a result, it appears that obtaining title insurance may be an unnecessary expenditure; however, that is still an option for the Council to consider. It is our opinion that the Council may approve payment to Mr. Karkoc in the amount of $32,500. After approval of payment, I will be meeting with Mr. Karkoc's attorney to finalize the documents that are necessary to close on the purchase of the property. RESOLUTION NO. 083104B THE CITY OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY (KARKOC PARCEL) IN THE CITY OF LAUDERDALE WHEREAS, the City desires to preserve significant portions of open space within the City for park, natural resources, recreation and open space purposes; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property contains approximately 0.25 acres, is partially wooded lake- front property adjacent to similar city -owned property and would be desirable for the City and its citizens to use for park, natural resources, recreation and open space purpose; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is currently guided for open space under the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City owns property adjacent to the Subject Property and thus, the acquisition of the Subject Property would provide a contiguous area of open space. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lauderdale, Minnesota, as follows: 1. It is convenient, desirable and necessary to acquire the Subject Property for the City for park, recreation, natural resources and open space purposes. 2. The City has been able to reach a negotiated agreement with the owner of the Subject Property. 3. The City Council determines that it is reasonable to acquire the Subject Property as legally described below for a purchase price of $32,500.00. 4. The City Attorney and staff are authorized and directed on behalf of the City to close on the purchase of the Subject Property. 5. The Subject Property is legally described as follows: GARCELON'S ADDITION TO ST. PAUL N 1/2 OF LOT 5 AND ALL OF LOT 4 BLK 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lauderdale, Minnesota, as part of the final resolution of this matter, the City Council wishes to publicly recognize and honor the memory of Lucy Karkoc, beloved wife of Peter Karkoc. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Lauderdale, Minnesota this 315 day of August, 2004. (ATTEST) Jeff Dains, Mayor (SEAL) Rick Getschow, City Administrator Lauderdale City Council Memorandum Council Meeting Date: August 31, 2004 To: Mayor and City Council From: Rick Getschow, City Administrator Agenda Item: Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment Services Contract with Ehlers and Associates BACKGROUND: At the August 10, 2004 meeting the City Council provided direction to city staff to pursue a contract with Ehlers and Associates for Larpenteur Avenue redevelopment services following a review of proposals from Ehlers and Springsted. Included in the packet for Council consideration is a contract for services with Ehlers. The scope of services and the appendix in the contract are identical to the elements of the proposal that the City Council has endorsed. As you know, 50% of the cost of the services will be funded through a Metropolitan Council LCDA Opportunity Grant. The remaining 50% of the potential $41,965 contract is funded through a portion of proceeds received from Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) in 2003 as a result of the sewer treatment cost error. ENCLOSURES: 1. Contract for Services between the City of Lauderdale and Ehlers and Associates for the Larpenteur Ave. Redevelopment Project COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the contract for services between the City of Lauderdale and Ehlers and Associates for the Larpenteur Ave. Redevelopment Project. , , , Contract for Services Between The City of Lauderdale And Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Purpose The City of Lauderdale has previously completed a planning process related to potential redevelopment in the Larpenteur Corridor. The City has received an "Implementation" grant from the Metropolitan Council. This contract is for services related to implementing a redevelopment process for the Larpenteur Corridor. Scope of Services Ehlers & Associates will provide the following Development Management Services. A detailed scope of work for each of these services is attached as Appendix A. 1. Review and affirm goals with elected officials, staff, and community 2. Prepare a preliminary concept plan 3. Prepare a preliminary financial feasibility analysis 4. Review market feasibility 5. Prepare a refined concept plan 6. Assist decision -makers in selection of development program. 7. Preparation of RFQ/RFP and pre -proposal conference 8. Review and evaluation of development proposals 9. Developer interviews and selection 10. Preliminary development agreement with selected developer 11. Final development agreement with selected developer 12. Communications plan and preparation of newsletters and material for public open houses. The scope of work is flexible and the final design of the redevelopment process ultimately relies on the judgment of staff and elected officials. Project Staff Ehlers staff assigned to this project will include Jessica Cook, Jim Prosser and Dave Callister. Jessica Cook will be the lead Project Manager. Communications services will be provided by Jill Schultz of JMS Communications. It is proposed that a planning consultant would be added to the team. Selection of that consultant would be determined by the City staff and Council. Fee for Services The scope of services are expected to require approximately 15 to 20 hours per month for a ten to twelve month period, as estimated on Appendix B. Ehlers & Associates will bill hourly at the rates below: Jessica Cook $150/hour Jim Prosser $175/hour Dave Callister $150/hour Jill Schultz $125/hour Travel time between Ehlers and Lauderdale will not be billed. Billing for out-of-pocket expenses will be limited to the copying costs for the RFP/RFQ. The RFP/RFQ typically costs $25 per hard copy to produce. Most copies are distributed via the Ehlers website at no cost to the City. Bills for JMS Communications and the graphic design of communications material will be passed through to the City on the monthly Ehlers invoice. At the City's option, the contract for the planning consultant can run through Ehlers or be directly with the City. The total project cost is estimated not to exceed $41,965, including an estimated $5,000 for a planning consultant. It is recommended that these fees be recovered from development fees paid by the selected developer. Ehlers will submit monthly invoices for services incurred in the prior month. Cancellation This contract may be cancelled by either party by providing five days written notice. The undersigned hereby enter into this contract on , 2004. For the City of Lauderdale: Name Title For Ehlers & Associates, Inc.: Jim Prosser Executive Vice President Attachments APPENDIX A EHLERS & ASSOCIATES REDEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND SERVICES CITY OF LAUDERDALE, MINNESOTA What follows is the "blueprint' for the redevelopment process design subject to refinement with staff and elected officials. It includes 10 project steps. Throughout the process, Ehlers works closely with the City's designated project team (administration, planning, engineering, etc. as designated by the client) to accomplish the tasks in each step. 1. Review and Affirm Goals The first step is for the community to review its redevelopment goals with decision -makers, affirming not only what it wants to get done, but why. It is very important that the elected officials who will be primarily responsible for project oversight affirm project goals. Clearly understanding these goals and articulating them with the community, potential developers, and others throughout the process, is a critical step to realizing success in redevelopment. Many redevelopment projects get stalled or fail because projects fail to meet their original purpose, and goals are fuzzy or unclear or under- developed. 2. Prepare a Preliminary Concept Plan A planning consultant will prepare a preliminary concept plan with generalized building layout, site plans, public improvements and design features based on the development goals, site conditions, and land use regulations. The preliminary concept will be reviewed by the City Council. It will be used to gain public feedback and for assessing financial and market feasibility. It should be noted that the preliminary concept plan never reflects the final approved plan. It is used solely as a starting point for further refinement. 3. Prepare a Preliminary Financial Feasibility Analysis Ehlers will prepare a preliminary financial feasibility analysis. This includes assessing land assembly costs -- acquisition, relocation, demolition, site soils — and assessing estimated costs of public improvements - streetscapes, utilities, and parking. Ehlers will develop these costs through its work with an experienced appraiser, relocation firms, county staff, and others. Ehlers recommends land assembly estimates be prepared (rather than receive full appraisals and relocation statements). However, some clients prefer to seek full appraisals and relocation estimates. Based upon our experience working with qualified appraisals and relocation firms, we can develop a reasonable range of development and acquisition costs. These costs are compared to the projected development revenues including developer land payment, tax increment, and projected grants. Developer land payment is estimated based on market estimates applied to the development program for each development option. 4. Review Market Feasibility Ehlers will work with the City project team to identify developers that have experience with successful development comparable to the type and scope of your targeted development. Ehlers and other City project team members (planning, public works, finance, etc. as designated by the client) meet with about three to five developers and review their impressions of market feasibility and other redevelopment options. These one-hour interview and exchange sessions allow the developers to freely share their impressions of the market feasibility, design issues or questions, assess the need for public improvements and the costs, identify any barriers to potential redevelopment, and receive any suggestions they may provide to enhance the development and make it more market feasible. Under agreement with the developers, their comments are summarized but not attributed, allowing them to more freely share their opinions. Ehlers summarizes the findings from the developers for the client with recommendations and options for refining the plan to increase the market feasibility and financial feasibility prior to preparing the Request for Proposals (RFP). The project team refines the development concepts based on the summary of market feasibility, and Ehlers updates the preliminary financial feasibility analysis based on the refined concepts. Another option provided as part of this proposal for the client in this process is to conduct a market analysis update in addition and prior to market feasibility interviews. This step enhances the quality of information available to developers during this process. This information is provided to elected officials for review and potential refinements to the development options. Elected officials may also decide to delete one or more options from further consideration if those options do not appear feasible. The result of this market feasibility review effort is to increase the likelihood of responses to the RFP/RFQ from qualified developers and establishment of more realistic redevelopment program concepts. 5. Public Review of Refined Concept A public open house is held to reaffirm the project goals, the process, and to review the development concepts, or to get a first look at the refined redevelopment concepts. This open house provides useful feedback and is also a screen for any glaring community concerns or issues that need to be addressed in the process. During the open house, the community is able to view exhibits (boards) providing project information, ask questions in an informal setting, and provide feedback on comment forms. Prior to the open house, Ehlers works with the client on development of a project Q&A newsletter that is mailed to the entire community and a news release for the local newspaper. Ehlers has found the development of an overall redevelopment communications plan essential to public information and participation efforts. The plan identifies communications goals, target audiences, key messages, communications tools, tactics and strategies. The communications plan is an optional product in this process. 6. Selection of the Development Program by Decision -makers The decision -makers are presented with the community open house feedback, the market feasibility and refined preliminary financial feasibility analysis, and the refined concepts. Decision -makers are then able to evaluate the quality of the concepts and select a concept or concepts as their development program for inclusion in the Request for Proposals from developers. 7. Development of RFP/RFQ & Pre -Proposal Conference Once a development program has been selected by decision -makers, Ehlers works with the project team on the preparation of an RFP/RFQ. This document, compiled by Ehlers, contains all the relevant information about the market, site data, development goals, preferred concept or concepts, and all RFP/RFQ requirements. The draft RFP/RFQ is reviewed by the decision -makers prior to its release to developers. Ehlers works with the project team to identify and target experienced developers to receive the RFP/RFQ. Within one to two weeks after RFQ/RFQ has been released, Ehlers will set up and coordinate with the client a pre -proposal conference for developers. This provides an opportunity for key policymakers to articulate the specific goals and commitments to the project and an opportunity to clarify RFP/RFQ requirements and respond to developer questions. 8. Receive and Evaluate Development Proposals The RFP/RFQ provides an opportunity for the developer to prepare some initial preliminary concepts and non -detailed plans. A distinguishing feature of the process recommended by Ehlers is the requirement that developers not provide detailed architectural plans. This avoids the tendency for the selection to focus on design prior to determining market and financial feasibility. As part of the process of evaluating developer responses to the RFP/RFQ, Ehlers will gather and verify detailed background information on the developers related to comparable development experience, financial capabilities, ability to finance similar projects, and ability to gain and maintain community support, and ability to develop effective working relationships with community officials, property owners, and impacted parties. Ehlers will assess the financial feasibility of the proposals based upon a calculation that includes the estimated land assembly costs and public improvement costs compared with estimated developer land payments, projected tax increment, and other funding sources. Ehlers will then evaluate the developer's financial capability based on two separate factors. The first is their ability and willingness to provide adequate equity to fund project development costs. The second is their demonstrated ability to secure financing (including grants) for similar projects. Ehlers will review and independently identify and verify their references, talking to communities and bankers, to see how good of a job the developer has done. The planning staff will complete concept design review, consistent with the project goals and objectives. (See sample evaluation form attached at the back of this proposal.) 9. Developer Interview and Selection After the developer proposals have been evaluated, the decision -makers select finalists for interviews. They review the information provided by the developers and identify other questions and issues that have to be resolved before selecting a developer. We recommend that firms be interviewed at a public meeting and an opportunity be provided for a question/answer session with decision -makers. We recommend the decision -makers sleep on the decision and make a final selection at a subsequent meeting. 10. Preliminary Development Agreement Once a developer has been selected, a preliminary development agreement is negotiated and entered into with the developer, providing them with exclusive rights to prepare a final plan and also determine the level of assistance, if any, is required for the development. An open house would be held during this period to give the public an opportunity to review a preliminary concept plan. During this period, the developer will also work out land use issues. Ehlers would recommend that typically the developer would be required to fund all or a portion of the out-of-pocket expenses of the community for this period. During the latter half of this phase, final development agreement terms are negotiated, including final assistance, land use, and other important elements. During this period, the developer will work with the project team to refine a plan that is consistent with the goals established by the community, the development program as approved by the client, and one that addresses community concerns as identified by the community and is market and financial feasibility. The evolution of this plan requires frequent meetings with the project team and decision - makers. Ehlers and the project team will work with the developer to identify and pursue potential funding sources. Ehlers will also prepare a project financial pro -forma to assess financial feasibility and assess need and the level of financial assistance. 11. Final Development Agreement The final development agreement phase is the period where the developer and the client community complete land assembly, obtain necessary regulatory approves, secure financing, complete pre - construction contingencies, and initiate construction. Ehlers will work with the developer and project team to work through and resolve these contingencies to the extent appropriate. In addition to these project steps, Ehlers will hold regular meetings with staff to report on progress and provide ongoing project coordination. Laz ts' z 4 -irl �o yob b bye p N < W 'LOS '� '� b < vii 90 w W N (D N' CD nCCD CD. W :° CD a r/2 C7 d (ID> r+ a. cn o d o rn b (-h t=i til o b d cAD O ti C3 O (DEn N UQ W (� .d 7.' .� O O CD CD m CCD O UQ 11 0. '-1 0 � p 'Ls .-:. CDCD ' (D to d CD 14 pC�. ao u o o a� �� a .w C� a�.A (D o o 2:CD r0•r M p N. CD w CD " ac (D °w En P+ o c��D n a o (D o Fxi O CY w W (gyp N CD• p '� ,0 c�D w b n In R CSD `CS x '4 00 x o to D oC°� (D ° y0y • �y C G O O C nN y C3 I'D O p ?? O o o (D �. d O O on CD 0' 0 AD 0 a WEn C �' (n C � C cOi CD (n p cD CD � w C trJ �(n O � C) C] CD 0 0 a 41 H c�D c�D CD cCDD CD AD Laz ts' z 4 do r -r cy CD y n4 m aC a b oC/)bm ��b `ff° w w a r� o D w UQ En CD w is < CD p + co o n o 0 CD Id CD cD CD C b 0 0 0 0 M N '•d w Cn a w CD co c3 CCD CD y O � UIQ u) CD ''d Hw CD .° ° `CS CD CD CD < C(D CD �. •� ° CD CD CD CD .� w 0 O •"" UQ n ,(D.t H CD a � CD R' �. O � O � CD• 0 •'�1 0 CD UC7 CD a N "�' bQ Ci ° "A- C) (]. CDgo 'w ° ° a• n CD CD CD CD 0 ai Q CD O `+ �. CSD 0 M p, to CD a'C . EH R' a. w M a. UQ w O v'' 0 �' ,'� K• w N . a w o 0 C rn v' CD CD N a _ a a ° N w° N Oma�** 0 O N a'• W a CD w' r* a CD , cn o w O •-i `' 'd a. G (� a C •CSD CD r'r . CD b O w C CD A n 54 r3 a a ac wj N' o C arc 0 (D En CD 0 cok.cn co 00 � CD xa �a a xa a cn a oEn M O ro�zz0C d 0 �� ��� < Itl 0 ro . o o 10 N � En CD CD ~ N �. CCD 0 cD � 0 w n r+ 69 J 69 69 69 N N CA N W U 00 N 00 ll� W Vi O 00 00 N O vii t A� O O U1 C. 00C GA CN N GW y OO CCD CD CD CCD CD CCD CD• C m m r° 0 Lauderdale City Council Memorandum Council Meeting Date: To: From: Agenda Item: BACKGROUND: August 31, 2004 Mayor and City Council Rick Getschow, City Administrator Work Session Discussion A. Refuse Collection Task Force The City Council will further discuss the organized solid waste and recycling proposals. B. 2005 Budget Discussion Enclosed under separate cover are the: • The 2005Fund (Other than the General Fund) Budgets • The 2005Fund (Other than the General Fund) Notes and Narrative The work session discussion at this meeting will focus on all of the other funds (201-601) in the City Budget. Any questions from last meeting's discussion on the general fund can also be covered here in anticipation of setting the preliminary levy at the next meeting.