Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCP 04-20-1993 . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, APRIL 20,1993,4:30 P.M. 4:30 PM 1. CalI To OrderlRoll Call. 2. Agenda Adoption. 4:31 PM 3. Review of Arden Manor Court Settlement Agreement Relating to SAC & WAC Charges - Attorney Jerry Filla. 4:45 PM 4. Review Request From State of Minnesota For Installation Of A 10 Inch Water Main Pipe. 5:00 PM 5. Review Possible Impact of Water Supplier Cost Increase On Water Utility Fee Schedule - City Accountant Terry Post and Councilmember Paul Malone. 5:30 PM 6. TIF Update - Developers Agreement. "The Cottages" - City Accountant Terry Post . 6:00 PM 7. Initial Report Of 1992 Audit Completed By Abdo Abdo & Eick. 6:15 PM 8. Everest Group - Brief Update of Initial Site. Landscape and Elevation Plans. 6:30 PM 9. Review Of Strategic Planning Session (As Time Allows). 6:45 PM 10. Administrator Comments. 6:50 PM 11. Council Comments. 7:00 PM 12. Adjourn. The above times may be subject to discussion of the issue. . . _______ _u_ CITlC OF 1lRD!2I" HILLS mKIU\NDOM . TO: MMtIl. AND CITlC COUN:::IL mcK: IXRmIY A. PEllSCti, CITlC 1\IJClIIS'mATCR DM'E: APRIL 16, 1993 SCBJEC'l': CITlC AIHINISl'RATCIl'S BllCKGROOND lllFCIlMATICH FCR COUN:::IL 1iCRKSESSICH OF 4/20/93 1- Arden Manor Court Settlement Agreement (attached) - 'lhis agreement has been approved by City Attorney Filla, MWCC, and the Park owners; and the Park owners have sent the initial check to the MWCC. All that remains is for the city to authorize the agreement and execution of the agreement by the Mayor and City lIdmini.strator. MWCC is holding the initial check from the Park owners until receipt of the agreement by the Mayor and City 1\dmini.strator. 2. The letter fram the state of Minnesota (see previous packet for copy of letter) brings up issues regard:in;J the ownership of and City !:loun:1aries of TC1\AP property. Attorney Filla will be reviewing various legal points for further investigation and Council input. 3. InqJact of Water Supplier Cost Increase On Water utility Fee Schedule - The Council has received the Finance Committee recommendation to forward the water supplier cost increase to water customers in the next billing cycle. (2Q93) . Notification of the unanticipated cost increase was sent . to utility customers as an insert in the 1st quarter of 1993 utility billings. Council direction is necessary to consider the timing and to what extent the cost increase should be passed on to water customers. 4. TIF Update - "The Cottages". A<=tmtant Post has details for Council review of "'Ihe Cottages", Developers Agreement. 5. 1992 Audit Report - Enclosed is a discussion draft of the 1992 General Fun:i financial statements for your review. Gary Groen of Al:xio, Al:xio & Eick will briefly discuss results of the recently completed audit. 6. Everest Group - Attached is the latest revision of the initial site, landscape and elevation plans for the Roun:i Lake Gateway Business District. A representative fram Everest will be atterrling the worksession to give a brief up:late (in color). However, he has been advised that the Council will need additional tilne to consider these changes . The letter attached is basically the same as their earlier letter with a continuance to specifically request expansive changes in the verhage relating to allowed uses in the GBD. 7. strategic Planning Session Initial Report is enclosed. During the month of May, we need to prioritize the issues and assign authority to inctividuals/conunittees for followup. Additionally, the next higher issues need similar ranking and assignment. The 1994 budget process will take into account these priorities and related resource requirements . . 8. The following items will be distribrt:ed on April 20, but discussion of these issues is not necessary that evening: Water lDss Update Report; and Business Fee Recommendations from staff. ------------ , , -AnR'P.F.MENT . This Agreement is made and entered into by and between the Metropolitan Waste Centrol commission acting by and through its duly authori2:ed officers ("MWCC"). the city ot Arden Hills, a municipal oQrporation and political subdivision ot the St~te ot Minnesota ("City"), and S50 Associates, a Minnesota partnership ( "Landowner") . THE A.BOVE NAMED PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. "C~TA~8 AND azpaE8EHTA~10K8. 1.1 The MWCC is a metropolitan Agency responsible tor constructing. operating, and maintaining all interceptor sewers and. treatment works in the Minneapolis-st. Paul metropolitan area. The MWCC has established a Sewer Availability Charge . ("SAC") sYRum in order to pay tor reserve capacity in the interceptor and treatment works system. Under that syste=, communiti.. are ch~rq.d the current year's SAC rate fo~ each building permit or connection permit issue4 in the community After December 31, 1972 baesd en the number of residential equivGlent units ("REU") attributable to th. p8I'llli'ts. 1.2 Atter a SAC unit charge haa bean paid on a particular piece of property or lot, it a now use i. ..tablished on ~. property, crectit is allowed for SAC previously paid. 1.3 Lando~nQr is the owner of ~an Manor Mobile Ho~e Park whicn Is located in the City and a portion ot which contains 400 =anutactured home lots as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto. This particular property is hereinafter re- . ferred to as "the Property." The Property was developed after ---- December 31, 1972, but no SAC unit Cha~e5 were paid. According- . ly, there are no SAC oredits to be applied against future con- struction or ccmnections. on the Property. 1.4 The parties to this Agreement wish to settle arrange- ments whereby SAC chargee are paid and credits fer the Property are .stAblished to be applied against future construction or connection permits on the Property. 1..5 SAC charg.s are the responsibility of the Community in which the construction or connection ~ctivity takes place. The Community obtains the funds for paying such SAC charves by adding the KWCC's charge onto its own local conneotion or building plilr1llits. I. BloC CDRGI!l Ra'1'JI DD P1Yl1E1f~. 2.1. It 1s agreed among the parties that SAC payment for the . Property will be mad. in the followinq manner; 2.1.1 ~he co~t for each SAC unit will be ba.ed on the 1"5 SAC rat. Qf $32.5.00 per r8.i~.ntial equivalent unit. 2.1.2 Based on MWCC policy in 1975 regarding trail- er court units, SAC charges for units within the Property will be baaed on eighty percent (Bot) ot the residential equivalent unit cost ot $325.00, i... $260.00. 2.1.3 One Hundred Sixty (160) SAC reliidential equivalent credits viII be obtained by the pa~ent of $52,000.00 to the Commission pur- suant to this Aqre.ment. This number is calculated as follows: (200 lots x .8 REU/lot) x $325/REU = $52,000 2.2 The total principal SAC payment shall bear interest at the rat. Of 8~ per annum and 5hall oe9in to accrue from the date . 2 . hareof. The total prinai.pal SAC pa}'l!l8nt shall be paid 1n tive annual installments of $10,400.00, plus accrued interest thereon. The first principal SAC payment shall be due on the date hereof, and subsequent payments shall be due on the first day of Pebruary each year ther.a~t.r until the SAC cha~es, plus accrued inter8st- thereon, are paid in fUll. 3. RZapC~8IBI~ITY FOR PAYKXaT. 3.1 Landowner agrees that it shall be primarily responsible for the payment of the principal SAC charges and accrued interest tha:t"8on. Landowner shall make annual installment payments directly to ths !'!Wec. If the Landowner tails to make annual inBtall~ent payments, the city aqrees to make the payment to the MWCC or, in the alternative, the MWCC in its discretion and upon . written notice to the City may add the installment payment to the City'S annual sewer bill. 3.2 :tt the Oi ty is nq\4ired to IIlllke Clnnual instdlment payments to the MWCC, the City may, in it~ discretion, litter fourt.en days written notice to the Landowner and Landowner's failure to remit s~ch payment to the City or to the MWCC within 8uch fourteen day period, certify such annual installment payment as an assessment against the Property to the County for incl~sion on the subsequent year's tax roll. Such as.essment Ghall be levied on council Resolution without he~ring or further notice to the Landowner. The Assessment Re5olution shall direct the County to certity the annual in~tallmQnt, accrued interest thereon, a~ditional interest at the rat. ot B% par annum through Oecemner . 3 . 31st of the year in which the assessment will appear on the tax roll, ana an administrative fe. of $100.00. The Landowner aqr.es that such charqes are a reasonable and appropriate charqe aqainst the Property and agrees not to cont..t the validity of such char';le._ . 4. GJDa:RAL CONDI'l'IOn. 4.l Subject to the provisions of section 4.2, Landowner may at its option remit the entire principal balance and accrued interest to date to MWCC at any ti~e. 4.2 If the Property is sold or the current use of the Property 1s ~lscont1nu.d or converted to a different use and if Landowner desires to exercise its option to remit the principal balanc. and accrued interest pursuant to section 4.1, it shall do . eo prior to such sale, discontinuation, or conVersion. If 14nd- Owner chooses not to exercise such option, then all furthar payments under this Agreement ahall cease as of the date of such aale, discontinuation, or conver$ion and the provisions ot section 4.3 shall apply thenoeforth. 4.3 After payment of principal an~ accrued interest pursu- ant to this Agreement (including paymane pursuant to assessment in section 3.2) or in the event .uch payment cea.es purauant to the provisions of seotion 4.2, the following shall apply: 4.3.1 Future connections or building permits involvinq a SAC determination (including any suoh permits for lots remaining in use as ~rail6r units) will be paid at the then cur- rent SXC rate. 4.3.2 REO credits aocrued pursuant to payments under this Agreement shall be available for . 4 . ~ae to offaet new SAC ch4~es against the Property. The number of REU credits avail- able shall be equal to the total prinoipal sum actually paid pursuant to this A~reement divided by $325.00. 4.4 Any notices req~ired under this Agreement shall be d..med iiven ~hen mailed by First Class Hail to the respective party at the followinq address: Arden Hills city Administrator city o~ Arden Hills 1450 West Higbway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 SSO Associates 3570 Le~ington Avenue North, suite 32l St. Paul, MN ~5146 Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Attn: Chief A4ministrator Xsara Park Center 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 . 4.5 This ^9r..ment shall be binalng on the parties hereto, their SUccessors or assigns. IN WITNESS WH~REOF, the parties hereto haVe caused this A9r..mant to be executed on the dat.s indicated. METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION Dated: By Its CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Dated: By Its . 5 . 550 ASSOCIATES, ~ Minnesot~ partnership Dated: By , Pllrtner . . . 6 - ACSI ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES. INC. 3611 GRIMES . ROBBINSDALE. MN 55422 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICE/ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER CALL OUT PROCEDURE MAY 1, 1993. TO CONTACT ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER. 1) PAGER NUMBER #640-3516 (CITY OFFICIALS & DISPATCHER'S USE ONLY). DO NOT GIVE OUT TO PUBLIC. WHEN TO CONTACT AC.O. 2) A) DISPATCHER CALLS CITY HALL 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM. B) DISPATCHER CALLS RICK IF EMERGENCY. C) IF NON EMERGENCY CALL CITY HALL THE NEXT DAY OR RICK AT 588-3056. D) IF POSSIBLE ADVISE RESIDENCE TO CONTACT CITY HALL TO MAKE NON EMERGENCY COMPLAINTS DURING NORMAL HOURS. E) IF A RESIDENCE OF ARDEN HILLS WANT INFORMATION ON LOST/FOUND PETS HAVE THEM CONTACT #588-3056. F) ANIMALS IMPOUNDED IN ARDEN HILLS WILL BE TAKEN TO HILLCREST ANIMAL HOSPITAL 484-7211. . WHAT ARE EMERGENCIES 3) A) ALL INJURED ANIMALS. B) ALL ANIMAL BITES TO HUMANS. C) IF AC.O. IS REQUESTED BY RAMSEyeOUNTY DEPUTY. D) IF A RESIDENT WANTS A STRAY/LOST ANIMAL PICKUP UP AFTER NORMAL HOURS OF CITY HALL. WHAT ARE NON EMERGENCIES 4) A) HOLDING STRAY/LOST ANIMALS (IF THEY CANNOT WAIT UNTIL AC.O. IS TO BE IN ARDEN HILLS TO PATROL. B) WILDLIFE COMPLAINTS OTHER THAN BITES. C) BARKING DOGS. D) OR ANY OTHER NON EMERGENCY COMPLAINT. 5) A.C.O. WILL CONTACT DISPATCHER FOR CASE NUMBER AND COMPLAINT INFORMATION WHEN NEEDED. ANY CITATION INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE FORWARDED TO RAMSEY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE. 6) AC.S.1. WILL PROVIDE RAMSEY COUNTY DISPATCHERS WITH A MONTHLY SCHEDULE. . WILDLIFE PROBLEMS 7) A) AC.S.1. WILL ADVISE ON ALL WILDLIFE TYPE COMPLAINTS. APR'-20-93 TUE 1:=: : 1 '3 SANDER A ~~ D ASSOC I ATE:::: P.02 , f-"""'- ~-,,"-"r-"",," X ~ ~-"-"-"0KJr;r '" ~'-"-" W -"'->CJ> X ""-.E~-"""'-"'-.E-"-""4 1t 1 ...,~ "" ~~" '" ~ ~'"", -~ ! ~ ' 1 I WACKER ", ARCHITECTS Sa,nt Paul, M,nnesol. 55101 I , , WEHRMAN AND 612-221-0401 1 BERGLY PlANNERS Fax: 612-297-6817 luJ lUll April 20, 1993 i , I , rJ ~I r~ Ms. Dorothy Person, Administrator , i W~ City of Arden Hills , i ! 1450 West Highway 96 ~/t! Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 , Z' I ~ RE: Everest's Proposal for the Gateway Business District I WI WJ Dear Ms. Person: WJ 1M As you requested, this letter will briefly compare the latest Everest proposal (April 14, 1993) with their earlier proposal (February 12, 1993) and with the GB District regulations. '" ~ On Monday March 1st, you and I met with Tim Nelson and Bill Franke of Everest to work out some of the issues raised at the Council's work-session of February 16th. I believe Everest was clearly dir,~ted to revise their proposal to more closely respond to GB District regulations. Z I feel that in some cases their latest proposal, by its greater specificity, deviates even farther from b the City's intent, e.g.: a. It is now proposed that masonry block be permitted on all rear walls ("masonry" is distinguished from "architectural decorative masonry. block), and that WI architectural decorative block be permitted on all walls lacking prominent freeway , exposure. z z b. It is now proposed that the required 15 % landscaped area in parking lots be removed. ~ c. It is now proposed that parking setbacks not be required for interior lot lines. ~ (The GB Ordinance allows the City to approve such type of parking if it WI accomplishes the purposes of the District). 11 ~lIl ~/l 'fIj WJ ~ Z =_._"" _"".Jr:..ilLf!F:~_""....i'!!T_"'-ff!'..~-'ff_'l!<~~ "" "" "" ~ _"" __,.,- ,.,-~~_~~_"'_>C_....~ _"'."" _"'. ",_l~ , MEMORANDUM . DATE: April 20, 1993 TO: Mayor and City council FROM: Dorothy Person, City Administrator RE: Recommendation for Additional License and Permit Fee Changes - (Items Identified for Further study at the 12/14/92 Council Meeting) 1. Staff has reviewed further committee recommendations regarding license fees and concurs with the following: 1. a) The city currently charges a $100.00 fee for police investigation of liquor license applicants and Fire Department personnel to inspect liquor establishments i this was instituted in 1988. It would be appropriate to increase the fee for the investigation/inspections for liquor establishments to $150.00 ($75.00 per agency to cover costs). b) The inspection of Fire Alarm Systems/sprinkler . Installation is included in the contract costs from Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Department~ Until such time as LJVFD establishes a fee for this service, it appears to be unnecessary for the city to charge a fee. c) If a special Event requires an inspection by the Fire Department it normally is in conjunction with a Community Event or Non-profit organization event and fees are normally waived. For other Special Events such inspection costs are normally requested by individual property owners and the Fire Department would direct the billing to the property owner. NOTE: The only such request the city has experienced in the past was from McGuire's Inn for an inspection of a tent and heater installation, which was erected in conjunction with their st. patrick's Day celebration. Staff does not recommend instituting a fee for Special Events. d) Increase Dog License Fee from $10.00 to $15.00 i additional annual revenue of $1,050.00 per cycle. Most surrounding communities charge residents a $10.00 fee for dog licensing i the current fees related to dog licensing appear to be appropriate . to cover costs of issuing the license and purchasing the I.D. tags. No change recommended. . . . License/Permit Fees Page Two e) Establish fee for garage/boutique sales - $5.00/per sale. Issuance of a permit for three garage/boutique sales per year expends a minimal amount of staff time; staff does not recommend establishing a fee for such sales at this time, based on the limited amount of funds this would generate and due to the increases in utility fees which will be passed on to residents this year. f) Review possible change to General Business License versus licensing only Retail Sales operations and change fee structure to be based on hours of operation versus square footage. Institute a General Business License for those business operations which are not listed under a specific category in the current Ordinance; i.e., Beauty Shops, Medical Clinics, Auto Services, Offices, etc., and attach a $50.00 fee, same as the Retail Sales License. . g) Recommend the following amendments in conjunction with the recodification of Ordinances: 1- Deleting the following two Sections of the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 13 Licenses: Section 13-26, prorating of license fees. section 13-27. Minimum fees. It is extremely difficult to monitor prorating of fees and the fee amounts are not substantial to warrant prorating. II. Further details and discussion are necessary for the following items. With the vacancy of the Community Planning Coordinator on April 30, it seems to be wise to delay these items at this time, pending the hiring of a new person to fill this vacancy. These issues would then be addressed as soon as possible. a) Review Ordinance Definitions of Amusement Devices and , Cigarette Machines. It is staff intent to review definitions in conjunction with the recodification of the Code of Ordinances. . b) Review City Ordinance for Institution of City SAC and WAC Charges for New Construction on a per unit basis. . . . License/Permit Fees Page Three Initiation of SAC and WAC charges are still being reviewed with the Building Inspector and Public Works superintendent. Staff will be surveying other communities to determine reasonable fees. No formal recommendation at this time. c) consideration of the definition of drive-thru restaurants to be treated the same as other restaurants and consider hours of operation for restaurants as the basis for the fee rather than square footage. There are only two drive-thru restaurants, comparable in size, and the increased fee ($250.00 to $300.00) appears to be appropriate for the operation of such facilities. The fees for restaurants, based on square footage is $20.00 per 1,000 sq. ft. or fraction thereof; it may be more appropriate to increase the square footage fee $5.00 ($25.00) than to base the fee on hours of operation, since square footage is the same method used to establish liquor fees. ie: police service/public service. d) certain operations currently listed in Ordinance and . charged at a different rate, such as Restaurant, Hotel/Motel, Amusement Facility, would still be exceptions to the General Business License category and the current fee schedule remain, since such operations may generate health inspections or more requests for police service. Review further the use of "hours of operation" as a basis for the fee or consider increasing the square footage fee. DAP:rk .