Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-16-15-WS 'It �-A EEN HILLS Approved: November 30, 2015 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 16,2015 5:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the City Council work session at 5:04 p.m. Present: Mayor Grant, Councilmembers Fran Holmes and Dave McClung Absent: Brenda Holden(Excused) Also present: Acting City Administrator and Director of Finance and Administrative Services Sue Iverson; Acting Public Works Director John Anderson; Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; City Attorney, Joel Jamnik; Attorney James Monge, Campbell Knutson; Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers and Associates; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; City Planner Ryan Streff; Finance Analyst Dave Perrault; Accounting Analyst, Ashley Bertrand; and Deputy Clerk Julie Hanson 1. AGENDA ITEMS A. Draft Public Use Dedication Ordinance Community Development Director Hutmacher noted Stacie Kvilvang of Ehlers and Associates and City Attorney Joel Jamnik were present, and she introduced Attorney James Monge also of Campbell Knutson. She said it has been on the TCAAP "to do list" to review both the park dedication ordinance and the park dedication fees to make sure the City has both the language it needs and that the right financial amount is established. While a large focus is placed on TCAAP, it was noted this is a city-wide ordinance, and so must address all redevelopment and reuse projects in the city. City Attorney Jamnik stated he is in favor of a new ordinance that clarifies redevelopment and reuse issues. Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated the draft public use park dedication ordinance breaks the park fee into two components: land dedication(which could be in the form of donated land or cash in order to acquire land) and a park development fee (dollars collected that would go toward capital improvements/development of the parks). ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—NOVEMBER 16, 2015 2 Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that in a reuse situation, the City could choose to waive the land dedication fee but still collect a park development fee. She also said that for commercial land dedication, 5% of the value of the land is required to be dedicated but residential land dedication would vary based on density as it is assumed a higher density residential area has a greater need for public open space. This would result in a greater land dedication requirement. She noted the density thresholds in the draft ordinance are aligned with the densities of the TCAAP zoning. Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated that the park development fee is a per unit fee; therefore, a multi-family development would pay a higher park development fee than a single family home. The draft ordinance language states that the park development fee may be reduced for developer installed public park improvements. In that situation, the City would consider the developer's proposed improvements and make proportionate reductions to the park development fee. She also said that some cities allow private improvements to be used to offset the park dedication fee but this is excluded in Arden Hills as the City is trying to develop a community park system. Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that during the development of the TCAAP Master Plan, there was an analysis of the City's existing park amenities and population, and the information was then extrapolated to determine the need for park space and amenities at TCAAP. Sample park layouts were presented to the PTRC and then reviewed by the City Council. Subsequently,the City contracted with HKGi to estimate park development costs. Community Development Director Hutmacher noted the draft ordinance states that if there is a subdivision occurring adjacent to a trail identified in the City's comprehensive plan (e.g., on TCAAP, the north/south trail and the trail along the natural resources corridor), the subdivider/developer must provide a connection to the City trail and there would be no reduction in park dedication fees. Stacie Kvilvang stated the goal of the proposed fee structure is to ensure the City gets what it needs for the types of park improvements desired. She said there must be a comfort level in the ordinance by both Legal and City staff that the City can make the determination if it wants to charge a fee versus acquiring dedicated land. The proposed fees are based upon unit counts (1431) and dedicated land requirements (24 acres) per the City's approved Master Plan. The following table represents the park land, improvements and financing costs: Category Park Land,Improvement&Financing Costs Park Land-Hill 11.5 $ 153,333 $ 1,763,333 Park Land-Creek 6.3 $ 141,667 $ 892,500 Park Land-B 3.4 $ 100,000 $ 340,000 Park Land-A 0.4 $ 158,189 $ 63,276 Park Land-Town NH 2.4 $ 147,750 $ 354,600 TOTALACRES 24 N/A $ 3,413,709 Improvements& N/A N/A $ 8,206,135 Financing Costs TOTAL COST N/A N/A $ 11,619,845 Councilmember Holmes asked for clarification of Park A and Park B. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—NOVEMBER 16, 2015 3 Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated that Park A is a small park on the west side of the spine road between the commercial and office area, and Park B is located by the water treatment facility. It was noted the Town NH park is along the pedestrian corridor and the two parks in the Hill area are combined in this table. Mayor Grant asked how the cost per acre was calculated. Stacie Kvilvang noted that while the improvement and financing costs listed in the table are approximately $8 million, her initial estimate was closer to $9 million and that the City had settled on $7 million. She said she is concerned $7 million may be too little if costs come in higher. The table includes $7 million in park development costs and approximately $1.2 million in financing costs. Stacie Kvilvang stated that to determine the per acre cost, she took the total land value of approximately$66 million and broke it out based on residential, office, retail, and commercial. She used the initial model from Ramsey County as far as what they were anticipating for land sale proceeds and the fair market value. The land dedication percentage would be based on an actual sale price. Stacie Kvilvang discussed the three fee structure scenarios: Land Dedicated r Land Dedicated& Scenariot .the Land r Park Develop Developmen Park Development ' Both Fees Imposed Fee Paid Fee Paid Park Dedication Fees $ 8,206,135 $ 8,272,272 $ 12,254,732 Land Acquisition $ 0 $ (3,413,709) Park Improvements $ (8,206,135) $ (8,206,135) $ (8,206,135) Over/(Under) $ - $ 66,136 $ 634,887 Per Unit Residential Fee $ 4,293 $ 2,900 $ 2,900 In Scenario 1, commercial and residential pay a park development fee but there is no land dedication fee. To reach the total needed for improvement and financing costs of$8.2 million, the residential park development fee would have to be approximately $4,300 per unit. This scenario does not work well as this formula nets 32 dedicated acres while the City has planned for 24 dedicated acres. In addition, it puts the burden on residential units to pay significantly more. Because the ordinance gives the City discretion on whether to accept cash or land, the City is able to avoid Scenario 1. In Scenario 2, the County or developer dedicates residential land and commercial pays a total land dedication fee of 10% of the land value. In this example, the residential park development fee is reduced to $2,900. She said this figure is common in the metro area and meets the City's goals. In Scenario 3, the City receives no dedicated land from the County or developer and so the City must purchase the land. The City would charge a land dedication fee for both residential and commercial and there also would be a park improvement fee. Mayor Grant asked what figures were used. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—NOVEMBER 16, 2015 4 Stacie Kvilvang stated she had to work with the County's figures from approximately 1'/2 years ago but also has had discussions with the Ramsey County Assessor. These numbers are still within the current market value and are typical in other current residential developments. Councilmember Holmes asked for clarification of Scenarios 2 and 3 and wanted to know why they must give the City land. Community Development Director Hutmacher said the City's ordinance offers both options as we want to make sure the ordinance works no matter what happens. Councilmember McClung stated that as there is no agreement with the County and also no developer, the City does not know if it must buy the land or if it will be dedicated; therefore, the new ordinance needs to work for both scenarios. City Attorney Jamnik stated this language must apply throughout the city for redevelopment and should be updated annually, if needed. Community Development Director Hutmacher proposed taking the draft ordinance to the Planning Commission for public hearing on December 9, 2015, and then to the City Council for adoption on December 14, 2015. Councilmember Holmes asked what the difference was between a cash contribution in lieu of land dedication and a park development fee. City Attorney Jamnik stated the difference is that cash in lieu of land dedication means the City would receive cash instead of land, and the park development fee relates to the cost to improve the park with amenities and facilities infrastructure. Councilmember Holmes asked why the old ordinance states "as reasonably required by the City" and the new draft states "as determined by the City", noting the difference between required and discretion. City Attorney Jamnik stated it is his view that it would be less beneficial to say "required" because a court could supplant its own logic and reason, whereas using "discretion" leaves the decision to the City Council. He stated this type of language is consistent with most of the park ordinances that have changed over last 10 or 20 years. Further discussion ensued regarding residential versus commercial and industrial dedication fees. Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated that the park development fee amount would be included in the fee schedule and not in the ordinance as the fee may need to be amended annually due to inflation. Councilmember McClung said his concern is the City is going on guesses and hopes it is capturing enough from the beginning without having to increase the fees further down the process. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—NOVEMBER 16, 2015 5 Mayor Grant agreed. He stated he prefers the parks to have amenities to help drive the sales versus not having enough funding to make it all happen. He said he does not want to "go over the top"but is concerned the amount may come up short. Stacie Kvilvang said fees would go up exponentially for another million dollars which would not get the City much more. She said depending on what the City decides the parks should look like, it may not be able to charge enough to get repaid and would have to make up the difference by using existing account balances or issuing a bond. Councilmember McClung asked Ms. Kvilvang what her personal comfort level is for the residential per unit charge. Stacie Kvilvang stated $4300 is the maximum but feels $3600 to $3800 per residential unit is fair based on the current market. City Attorney Jamnik stated that developers typically compare this fee to what other cities are charging without looking at the capital improvement plan, history, goals or community. He said if there is more than a $700 to $800 difference, they may request an explanation of the difference. He felt a $3500 residential unit charge is utilized by enough cities that there should not be many questions. Councilmember McClung said he is comfortable with this range. Mayor Grant stated this figure seems reasonable and that since City staff and the City Attorney have reviewed the ordinance's wording and have a relative comfort level, this item will be placed on the December 14, 2015, agenda. Stacie Kvilvang left the meeting at 6:53. Community Development Director Hutmacher asked if the Council had any questions for the City Attorney regarding the next agenda items. Councilmember Holmes asked the City Attorney if he has any problems with the City charging an administrative fee and an escrow fee. City Attorney Jamnik stated that other cities are doing this and it is growing in popularity for a number of reasons. City Attorney Jamnik left the meeting at 6:55 pm. B. 2016 Land Use Application Fees Community Development Director Hutmacher stated City staff collected data from adjacent cities (Roseville, Mounds View, New Brighton and Shoreview) as well as "development" cities (Blaine, Woodbury, Bloomington and Maple Grove), and discovered that fees and the way they are administered, vary widely. Brooklyn Park and Plymouth use an escrow approach and both cities said they have received no negative feedback regarding this system. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—NOVEMBER 16, 2015 6 Community Development Director Hutmacher said that in Plymouth, if multiple approvals are sought, only the largest escrow is charged. In Brooklyn Park, an administrative fee and an escrow fee are charged for each approval requested. City staff suggests following the Brooklyn Park model which keeps administrative fees and escrows low but charges for multiple approvals so that as requests come in that are more complicated and larger, the corresponding fees charged will be larger. Community Development Director Hutmacher explained that an administrative fee would cover overhead and an escrow fee would cover public hearings, engineering, planning, attorney, and consultant costs. She said there are several advantages to this system as it is a simpler approach for developers and also will help with incomplete or inaccurate submittals. She said the proposed fees have taken into consideration an inflation adjuster for City staff's hourly rate and benefits, which will change each year. Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated there are some challenges which include Planning staff tracking their time and Finance having a system in place to monitor the escrow accounts. It should be noted there is a system already in place for engineering projects. She said that staff will work with Finance regarding this new system. Councilmember Holmes asked for clarification of what the administrative fees cover and how the process would work. Community Development Director Hutmacher said the administrative fees cover overhead and include everything from the front desk answering the phone to training, IT, other staff time and office space. She said if the Council feels this fee is too high, it can be further reviewed. Acting City Administrator Iverson stated that Finance and Planning staff would work together to track the accounts and she does not think the proposed fees are out of line when compared to processing liquor and business licenses. There is already a process in place for Engineering, so the same process will be applied. A discussion ensued regarding how this new system would apply to the JDA. Mayor Grant requested that the Council receive a report regarding this new process and charges on a quarterly basis once they start. Acting City Administrator Iverson stated she will add this as another schedule to the quarterly report that the Council already receives. Mayor Grant stated this plan is defensible, easy to explain, and has the element of fairness. Community Development Director Hutmacher stated the new land use application fees will be updated and included in the December 14, 2015,packet for approval. C. 132/113 Design Standards and Facade Transparency Amendment ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—NOVEMBER 16, 2015 7 Community Development Director Hutmacher stated the 2015 Planning Commission Work Plan included a task to clarify transparent versus non transparent coverage. At their September 9, 2015, meeting, the Planning Commission questioned whether additional amendments to 132/133 Zoning Districts were necessary and asked that staff obtain City Council direction. She said a public hearing regarding the ordinance amendment was held on November 4, 2015. The Planning Commission voted to recommend the City Council approve the ordinance amendment, and staff recommends this item be placed on the November 30, 2015, agenda as an interim solution. Councilmember McClung supported moving forward with the ordinance amendment. Mayor Grant concurred but wanted a better understanding from staff as to the Planning Commission's direction in terms of other items in the 132/133 Zoning Districts. Associate Planner Bachler indicated the Planning Commission's main concerns were building setback requirements and placement of parking lots (currently, parking lots are to be located at the side or rear of a building). He said the Planning Commission suggested discussing this item at the joint Planning Commission/City Council Work Session in January 2016. Discussion ensued regarding the City's vision for the 132/133 Zoning Districts. Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated that City staff recommends that Council consider the proposed ordinance amendment at their next regular meeting, but can provide more in-depth information if the City Council wishes to further review as part of the 2016 Work Plan. The Council supported moving forward with the ordinance amendment. D. 2016 Fee Schedule Acting City Administrator Iverson explained that the City Council annually establishes a fee schedule. She provided the Council with a recap of the fee schedule changes in recent years. She stated that staff has reviewed the fee schedule and has also researched the "Municipal License and Permit Fee Survey" results on Metro Cities' website to evaluate Arden Hills' rates to determine if Arden Hills is comparable. A few changes as noted in red were recommended for the 2016 fee schedule. Mayor Grant asked about fees for impounding signs. Community Development Director Hutmacher stated staff removes signs that violate the City's ordinance and will return the sign to the owner upon payment of a fee. Councilmember Holmes requested the following language be added to the picnic table item: "Fee waived for Night to Unite and other public events open to all Arden Hills residents". She also asked for clarification of SAC and WAC fees. A discussion ensued regarding how SAC and WAC fees (Water Availability Fee) are calculated. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—NOVEMBER 16, 2015 8 Councilmember Holmes asked about the increase in water and utility rates and also for clarification as to why the figures in the proposed budget show a negative dollar figure. Acting City Administrator Iverson explained the rate setting process and also explained the budget and cash balances. A discussion ensued about the TCAAP development area and how it affects the figures in the 2016 proposed budget. It was noted a comprehensive rate study will be performed in the future once the City knows what the County is going to do with the property. The Council agreed to place approval of the fee schedule on the December 14, 2015, agenda. E. Budget& CIP Acting City Administrator Iverson reviewed changes made to the CIP as directed by City Council at their work session in August 2015. Acting City Administrator Iverson stated that some items will require further discussion and advised waiting for the new City Administrator and Public Works Director to be hired. She suggested the Council discuss future PMP prioritization at a future work session next spring. Acting Public Works Director Anderson discussed the proposed 2016 sidewalk additions along Highway 96 and County Road F. He said the two projects could be split (do the County Road F sidewalk project in 2016 and the Highway 96 sidewalk project in 2017 in conjunction with the TCAAP spine road) or both projects could be done in 2017, which would be more cost effective. The Council agreed to move both sidewalk projects to 2017. Mayor Grant asked about the status of the sanitary sewer lining rehabilitation program. Acting Public Works Director Anderson said progress has been made, he had no concerns, and that he will put together a summary of the status of the program for discussion in the future. Discussion then ensued regarding the operating budget and upcoming truth in taxation hearing on December 14, 2015. Acting City Administrator Iverson stated the Council adopted the preliminary levy of 3.5% which results in an approximate $8.00 increase on a median value home. She stated the 2016 budget proposal was prepared using a 3% COLA increase for City staff and noted union negotiations are currently in process. She stated there will be an increase of 6.5% in health insurance premiums and a 2.9% increase in dental premiums. A discussion ensued regarding the General fund and changes to Park and Recreation staff salaries' allocation from 2015 to 2016. It was also noted Public Works is requesting the addition of one seasonal staff member to perform duties solely related to public and private rain gardens in the surface water management fund. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—NOVEMBER 16, 2015 9 Councilmember McClung asked about the staff comment that the City newsletter could be moved from the Mayor/Council (general fund)budget to the cable budget. Acting City Administrator Iverson explained that according to the City's cable franchise agreement,the fees for the newsletter can be paid out of that fund as all criteria are met. The Council agreed to move this fee to the cable fund for both 2015 and 2016. Acting City Administrator Iverson will do a budget amendment to reclassify the newsletter expenses for 2015. 2. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND STAFF UPDATES Acting City Administrator Iverson stated that on Tuesday, November 17, she would hand deliver the materials regarding the special work session scheduled for 6:00 pm on Monday, November 23, 2015, and that the telephone will be set up in case Councilmember Holden cannot attend the meeting in person. Mayor Grant asked if the ramps at Highway 96 are open. He also asked about the tentative work session set for November 30 at 6:00 pm. He requested Community Development Director Hutmacher provide to the Council copies of the City's goals and the County's goals regarding TCAAP priorities. Community Development Director Hutmacher stated the December JDA meeting may be cancelled and requested that Mayor Grant speak directly to Chair Sand to confirm. A short discussion ensued regarding the City's goals and the County's goals as they pertain to the TRC. Mayor Grant cancelled the 6:00 pm, November 30, 2015, work session and stated this information will be discussed at the December 21, 2015, work session. Councilmember Holmes stated she will not be able to attend the December work session. Acting City Administrator Iverson asked for input regarding the Ramsey County Sheriffs' annual review and said she would email information to the Councilmembers. Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated that Associate Planner Bachler has passed the AICP exam, which is a big accomplishment. She will write up a short narrative regarding the AICP. ADJOURN Mayor Grant adjoi ed the City Council work session at 7:5 m. c ie Hanson David Grant puty Clerk Mayor