Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-06-05 CITY OF LAKEVILLE COUNCIL MEETING • SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 Mayor Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The. pledge of allegiance to the flag was given. Roll call was taken. Present: Council Members Bellows, Wulff, Rieb and Mayor Johnson. Absent: Council Member Luick. Also present: R. Knutson, City Attorney; S. Mielke, City Administrator; K. Nelson, City Engineer; D. Olson, Community & Economic Development Director; D. Feller, Finance Director; S. Michaud, Parks & Recreation Director; S. Strachan, Police Chief; D. Volk, Director of Operations & Maintenance; D. Morey, Planning Director; B. Anderson, Assistant to City Administrator; C. Friedges, City Clerk. MINUTES The minutes of the August 15, 2005 City Council meeting and the August 8 and August 22, 2005 Council work sessions were approved as • presented. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS. ATTORNEY: None ENGINEER: None ADMINISTRATOR: Mr. Mielke asked the Council to consider, under New Business, a resolution declaring Ground. Lease and Development Agreement between the City of Lakeville, Minnesota, and KPAC, LLC, null and void. .DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: Don Volk .presented. the August Operations & Maintenance Department monthly report. PRESENTATIONS/INTRODUCTIONS Police Chief Strachan explained that Public Safety bay, which was scheduled to take place on September 15, 2005, has been postponed until spring of 2007. It has been postponed because squads from Dakota County are being deployed to the gulf coast to assist with hurricane recovery efforts. CITY OF LAKEVILLE COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 Page 2 Chief Strachan introduced and recognized Leigh Resner, a 16-year-old who found $50 on a park trail and turned it in to the Lakeville Police Department. The required time period for holding property (60 days) has elapsed; and since no one has claimed the property, it can now be returned. Chief Strachan presented the $50 bill to Ms. Resner. Arts Center Coordinator Tom Barnard presented the Lakeville. Area Arts Center 2005-2006 Playbill CITIZENS' COMMENTS None CONSENT AGENDA Council members added Items 8,10 and 11 to the consent agenda. 05.75 Motion was made by Wulff, seconded by Bellows to approve the consent agenda items as follows: a. Claims for payment. b. Receive minutes of the following advisory committee meetings: ? Planning Commission, August 18, 2005 ? Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Committee, August 17, 2005 ? Lakeville Area Arts. Center Board, August 11, 2005 ? Economic Development Commission, August 23, 2005 c. Resolution No. 05-128 accepting donation of $100 from Sterling State Bank for the 2005 Safety Camp. d. Tree service operator license for Dolphy's Tree Removal e. Agreements with independent contractors Kim Maxwell and Tom Malone for recreation program services. f. Resolution No. 05-129 approving Joint Powers Agreement establishing the Dakota Communications Center. g. Change Order No. 3 with McNamara Contracting, Inc., final acceptance and final payment for bituminous trail improvements and appurtenant work, Improvement Projects 00-15, 00-16 and 00- 22. CITY OF LAKEVILLE COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 Page 3 h. Sanitary sewer pipeline lease with Canadian Pacific Railway. i. Resolution No. 05-130 supporting Dakota County's 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Program. j. Three-year extension of a special home occupation permit to allow a massage therapy business at 17217 Idlewood Way. k. Receive liquor license application from Chart House Restaurant and call a public hearing to be held on September 19, 2005. I. Temporary liquor license for All Saints Catholic Church to sell beer and wine at the Hilltop Fall Festival on September 24, 2005. m. Resolution No. 05-131 amending the position classification plan. n. Resolution No. 05-132 approving an all-way stop control (stop signs) at Kingsway Path and Lamar Lane/Lamar Court. o. Change Order No. 2 with CM Construction Company, Inc. for the .Central Maintenance Facility. p. First Amendment to Amended and Restated Site Lease Agreement with Verizon Wireless for a backup generator at the Fairfield water tower site. q. City of Lakeville Emergency Operations Plan. r. Site Lease Agreement with Cingular Wireless LLC fora 140-foot monopole and freestanding building at the Cedar Highlands water tower site. s. Amendment to Site Lease Agreement with VoiceStream, d.b.a. T- Mobile, for cellular antennas at the Cedar Highlands water tower site. t. Amendment to Site Lease Agreement with Sprint Spectrum L.P. for cellular antennas at the Cedar Highlands water tower site. u. Resolution No. 05-133 accepting donation from the United States Army Electronic Proving Ground to the Police Department. CITY OF LAKEVILLE COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 Page 4 v. Gambling permit for VFW Auxiliary to Post 210 to allow bingo. on October 15 and November 12, 2005. w. Amended agreement for site grading, utility and street improvements for Spirit of Brandtjen Farm. x. Set a Council work session to be held on September 14, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. 8. Resolution No. 05-134 approving the preliminary and final plat of Creekside Village 2nd Addition. 10. Receive Planning Commission's Findings of Fact and Recommendation and approve a conditional use permit amendment to allow the construction of an addition to the Parkview Elementary School building, located at 6795 Gerdine Path. 11. Receive Planning Commission's Findings of Fact and Recommendation and approve a variance to allow the construction of a single family home on a lot without sanitary sewer at a setback less than 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level of Orchard Lake, located at 17155 Kirben Avenue. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Bellows, Johnson, Wulff, Rieb. ITEM 9 Mr. Bob Wiegert of Paramount Engineering requested Council approval of the preliminary and final plat of Crescent Ridge. Mr. Kuennen presented the staff report for Crescent Ridge. The developer, LaFavre/Miller Development,. is proposing the development of seven single-family lots on approximately five acres located north of 195tH Street and east of Holyoke Avenue. The developer has submitted a ghost plat for the area to the north and east of Crescent Ridge, shown as Outlot B. The ghost plat includes the relocation of Holyoke Avenue to the east to better align with 190tH Street to the north. Outlot B will be platted into approximately 135 single-family lots in the future after the developer has obtained the necessary right-of-way needed for the relocation of Holyoke. Avenue. Mr. Kuennen explained that because the subject property was previously used for agricultural purposes, there are no significant trees or wetlands . on the site. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for low-density CITY OF LAKEVILLE COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 Page 5 residential development, and the proposed use and density are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously recommended approval. Staff recommends approval 05.76 Motion was made by Wulff, seconded by Rieb to approve Resolution No. 05-135 approving the preliminary and final plat of Crescent Ridge. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Johnson, Wulff, Rieb, Bellows. ITEM 12 Rob Wachholz, representing Tradition Development, requested Council approval of a resolution requesting variation from the Dakota County Uniform Street Naming and Addressing System for street names in Spirit of Brandtjen Farm and Spirit of Brandtjen Farm 2"d Addition. Mr. Wachholz requested consideration for unique public street names that are. intended to reflect the legacy of the Brandtjen family and the historic farmstead property. He stated they recognize that variation in street names can cause confusion for emergency service responders, and they will take that into consideration when suggesting specific street names. Mr. Morey explained that under the County's system, east/west streets are generally numbered, and north/south streets are generally named for places or things based upon an alphabetical grid. Mr. Morey stated staff has reviewed the developer's request and found that some proposed street names do not present street naming issues, while others could present public safety issues for emergency service responders. If authorized by the City Council, staff would work with Dakota County and the developer to come up with names that meet the desires of the developer without. posing public safety issues. County officials have indicated they would be willing to work with City staff and the developer, although they did not commit to supporting a street naming variance. Council Member Wulff suggested, when naming streets alphabetically, to choose names that are not found in other parts of the City. Council Member Bellows stated he is hesitant to consider street names that are not consistent with the County's system due to public safety issues and is concerned with setting a precedent for future developments. • CITY OF LAKEVILLE COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 Page 6 05.77 Motion was made by Rieb, seconded by Wulff to approve Resolution No. 05-136 requesting variation from the Dakota County Uniform Street Naming and Addressing System for street names in Spirit of Brandtjen Farm and Spirit of Brandtjen Farm 2"d Addition, subject to City staff working with the developer and Dakota County to assure that public safety issues are considered first and foremost. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Wulff, Rieb, Bellows, Johnson. ITEM 13 Mr. Olson presented aSub-recipient Agreement with the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) to utilize 2004 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for preparation of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. He explained that the Dakota County CDA previously approved an amendment to the 2004 CDBG allocation to allow up to $70,000 of funds that had been previously designated for downtown code improvement and clearance projects to be used for the preparation of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Approval of the Sub-recipient Agreement will allow the City to fund the cost of hiring a consulting firm to assist the City in the preparation of this plan. Mr. Olson also presented an agreement with Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. for preparation of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. He explained that two firms were interviewed; and based on the firm's experience with similar planning projects, and responses from other cities, the Economic Development Commission and staff are recommending approval of the agreement with Hoisington Koegler Group. Mr. Olson also provided a minor amendment to the Data Practices section of the Agreement (Page 10) as recommended by the city attorney and the attorney for Hoisington Koegler Group. Mr. Rusty Fifield, Project Manager, stated Hoisington Koegler Group is anxious to get underway. They expect to have a draft of the downtown redevelopment master plan available by May of 2006. Mr. Mielke stated he is confident that Hoisington Koegler, in conjunction with the task force, will not only create a vision for downtown, they will develop an implementation plan so that the vision can become reality. 05.78 Motion was made by Bellows, seconded by Rieb to approve a Sub- recipient Agreement with the Dakota County Community Development Agency to utilize 2004 Community Development Block Grant Funds for the CITY OF LAKEVILLE COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 Page 7 preparation of a Downtown Redevelopment Plan; and approve an agreement. with Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. for preparation of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, with the correction on Page 10 as recommended. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Rieb, Bellows, Johnson, Wulff. fTEM 14 Finance Director Dennis Feller presented a number of challenges that face the City of Lakeville with respect to the 2006 proposed budget and tax levy. (See attached. narrative) Mr. Feller then provided a detailed overview of the proposed budget and tax levy. He stated the City Council will hold a Truth in Taxation public hearing on Monday, December 12, 2005. The final budget and tax levy will be presented at that time. According to State law, the City Council may not adopt a final tax levy that is greater than the preliminary tax levy. The 2006 budget and tax levy will be adopted at the December 19t" City Council meeting. Council Member Wulff voiced her frustration with the State Legislature penalizing metro area growth cities that offer affordable housing. She stated her research of the Market Value Homestead Credit shows that half of the money cut to balance the State's budget came from 10 out of 800 Minnesota cities, Lakeville being one of the 10. Mr. Mielke stated this proposed preliminary tax levy will be the maximum levy the Council may adopt in December. In the coming months, City staff and Council members will further define the budget and review it in greater detail 05.79 Motion was made by Rieb, seconded by Bellows to approve the following: ? Resolution No. 05-137 adopting the preliminary 2006 General Fund Budget ? Resolution No. 05-138 adopting the preliminary 2006 Cable TV Fund Budget ? Resolution No. 05-139 adopting the preliminary 2006 Environmental Recycling Fund Budget ? Resolution No. 05-140 adopting the preliminary 2006 Employee Benefit Fund Budget Resolution No. 05-141 adopting the preliminary 2006 Surface Water Management. Utility Fund Budget ? Resolution No. 05-142 adopting the preliminary 2006 Oak Wilt Suppression Grant Fund Budget ? Resolution No. 05-143 adopting the preliminary 2006 Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund Budget CITY OF LAKEVILLE COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 Page 8 ? Resolution No. 05-144 adopting the preliminary 2006 Municipal Reserves Fund Budget ? .Resolution No. 05-145 adopting the preliminary 2006 Building Fund Budget ? Resolution No. 05-146 adopting the preliminary 2006 Equipment Fund Budget ? Resolution No. 05-147 adopting the preliminary 2006 Liquor Fund Budget ? Resolution No. 05-148 adopting the preliminary 2006 Water Operating Fund Budget ? Resolution No. 05-149 adopting the preliminary Sanitary Sewer Operating Fund Budget ? Resolution No. 05-150 adopting the preliminary 2006 tax levy ? Resolution No. 05-151 setting the budget public hearing date Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Bellows, Johnson, Wulff, Rieb. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Mr. Mielke presented a resolution declaring the Ground Lease and Development Agreement between the City of Lakeville and KPAC, LLC, Wulf and void. He explained that in October 2004 the City of Lakeville and KPAC, LLC, entered into a site lease and development agreement for construction of an athletic facility proposed at the northwest corner of Dodd Boulevard and 185th Street. Since that time, the City and KPAC have both been working to eliminate any contingencies outlined in the . agreement. The City and KPAC considered swapping uses with the Kings Park ball fields on the east. side of .Dodd Boulevard, but this required KPAC to fund the removal and installation of the ball fields, a cost that KPAC states is too expensive. KPAC officials have indicated in a recent meeting that the existing agreement is no longer workable for them. They indicated that they would like to reconsider the west side of Dodd, recognizing that it may require downsizing the facility, perhaps curtailing some of the anticipated improvements. KPAC is working to develop a different approach to this development project, although they have not yet submitted a specific proposal. KPAC and City staff both agreed that the current agreement should be nullified so as to allow for a new agreement to be drafted and reviewed. Mr. Mielke stated KPAC still wishes to begin construction in the spring of 2006, and they hope to negotiate a new agreement by mid-October of this year. Mayor Johnson stated that this action does not change the City's intention of constructing an athletic facility. i CITY OF LAKEVILLE COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 Page 9 05.80 Motion was made by Wulff, seconded by Bellows to approve Resolution No. 05-152 declaring Ground Lease and Development Agreement between the City of Lakeville, Minnesota, and KPAC, LLC, null and void. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Johnson, Wulff,. Rieb, Bellows. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next regular Council meeting, September 19, 2005 Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 8:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Charlene Friedges, City C rk Robert D. Jo on, Mayor Mayor and Council Before you tonight is the proposed 2006 budget and tax levy. The City' operating plan grants the City Council full authority over the financial affairs of the City. The City Administrator is charged with the responsibility of proposing the budget and for the enforcement of the provisions, which you adopt by resolution. There are a number of challenges which face Lakeville that affect service delivery objectives in the coming year •As one of the fastest growing cities in Minnesota, Lakeville is anticipated to grow by 600 residential homes per year. As such, the proposed budget must provide adequate financial resources to address the growth in such areas as police, fire, streets and park maintenance. •Second -cost of services. One of the best examples is energy prices. . The double-digit inflation for gasoline we have witnessed in the last year has a significant cost impact on snowplowing and police patrols. •In addition -the 2005 State Legislature passed abare-bones pension bill that includes employer and employee increases in contributions for pension plans in order to maintain the long-term fiscal health of those funds. •Third -The Capital Improvement Plan -which was approved in June - represents asignificant financial, engineering and development undertaking which provides a foundation for the continued economic growth and vitality of the City. Within the CIP are improvements to the County Road 50, 60 and 70 interchanges which are financed - at least in part - by property taxes. •Finally -the State Legislature, in its endeavors to address the State's budget issues, has imposed significant fiscal constraints that affect Lakeville residents. •Perhaps the most significant of which is the Market Value Homestead Credit program. Lets take a moment to discuss this . program. 1 •The Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) is a State aid for property tax relief program which replaced the homestead and agricultural credit aid in 2002. •The maximum credit is $304 for a home with a value of $76,000. •The credit is reduced by $9 per $10,000 of value in excess of $76,000 As such - homes that are valued at $414,000 or more do not qualify for or receive any of the MVHC credit. •The larger the value of the home -the less credit you will receive. • It should also be noted that as a home appreciates in value... as they have during the past decade... homeowners will receive less credit...hence... pay more taxes. •homeowners will NOT see the impact of the Market Value Homestead Credit on their tax statement or Truth in Taxation Statement- •It's a formula imbedded in the tax calculations. •The full amount of MVHC does not go solely to cities. Rather, it is proportionately distributed among the city -county - school district in which the home is located. 2 The Governor and the 2005 Legislature struggled to balance the State's budget. •The legislature concluded its special session in July with the imposition of a two-year extension to cuts in the market value homestead credit (MVHC) .that will reduce the state-paid credit to 103 cities by approximately $17 million per year. •These cuts reduce the MVHC reimbursements payable in 2005 and 2006. Lakeville will lose $656,230 of MVHC each year. •Lakeville residents will see a 5-7% increase in property taxes as a result of the Market Value Homestead Program. •Cities are not subject to state-imposed levy limits as they budget for the coming year. •Lakeville, therefore, has the opportunity to levy for the loss of the Market Value Homestead Credit rather than reduce service levels. •The irony is that the 2005 Legislature increased the Local Government Aid (LGA) by $48 million. • Lakeville does not receive any LGA and, therefore, did not benefit from the increase. 3 There are a number of outcomes that should be noted as a result of the Legislature's actions regarding the Market Value Homestead Credit. •First of a1T -the reduction in MVHC was not applied uniformly statewide. In other words, some cities, like Lakeville, lose all or nearly all of their MVHC while the majority of cities loss nothing. •Secondly -The Legislature's reaction to the State's fiscal challenges - by decreasing MVHC - is inconsistent with actions to increase LGA. In other words, some cities lost MVHC because of the State's budget challenges but other cities received increase through the LGA process. •Third -neither the tax statements nor the Truth- in-Taxation statements show the increase in taxes due to (a) the MVHC formula or (b) the tax levy to make up for loss of MVHC. •Fourth - It's a disincentive for an Affordable Housing. Program. The affordable home will receive a large credit based on the MVHC formula -but -the City will not receive the money to provide the services. •Finally - A1T Lakeville property owners will have a tax increase as a result of the Market Value Homestead credit loss. However, •Residential homes greater than $230,000 will pay more in taxes of the levy for MVHC loss than they will receive in MVHC credits and •Non-residential properties -such as commercial and industrial - will pay taxes for a credit they never received in the first place. 4