Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWK April 30, 1996 CITY of ANDOVER Special City Council Workshop - April 30, 1996 Call to Order - 7:00 pm 1. Meet with Developers a. Review Bonding Rates b. Discuss Transportation Fee c. Discuss Current Improvement Practices d. Wetland Ordinance 2. Meeting with Adolfson & Peterson a. Review City Hall Options b.Review Public Works Options 3. Adjourn ~ppY""C>-Jed ~};ll/q~ CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 30, 1996 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jack McKelvey on April 30, 1996, 7:04 p.m., at Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Dehn, Jacobson, Knight, Kunza Councilmembers absent: None Also present: City Planning, Jeff Johnson City Finance Director, Jean McGann City Building Official, Dave Almgren City Engineer, Scott Erickson City Administrator, Richard Fursman Others MEET WITH DEVELOPERS - REVIEW BONDING RATES The Council met with various Staff members and several developers in the community to discuss a proposal to increase the rate charged developers for bonding. . Mr. Fursman explained the City currently charges 1 percent above the bond rate for its costs to do the bond; however, all of the costs incurred before the bond is let are carried by the City. About half of that cost is recaptured from the 1 percent charge to developers. In researching what other cities charge for bond rates, it was discovered that most of the developing cities charge 1 1/2 percent to 2 percent above the bond rate; plus some also charge the developers a transportation fee as well. Jerry Windschitl, Ashford Development, stated the test would be if the City does not end up with a positive balance at the end. To his knowledge, all bonding done by the City has resulted in a positive balance, which includes recovering the initial costs of the City. The developers are still paying their costs and development is not being subsidized by the General fund. The bulk of the money transferred into the City PIR Fund is developer money over and above the amounts needed to meet debt obligations on bonds. Ms. McGann explained that often the bonding will not be done until a year after the project is completed because several projects are combined into one bond issue. Mr. Fursman agreed there has always been a positive balance for project bonds. The question is whether the City is using its resources wisely by fronting the costs for these bonds. If that money was invested instead, the City would see some opportunity costs associated with the up-front funding. Tony Emmerich, Bunker LLC, Inc., stated that in analyzing any project in the City, the income the City receives from it exceeds what is trying to be recovered with the proposal to increase the cost to developers for bonding. The developers are more than paying their way. He also noted that in other communities, the developers are given the opportunity to Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 30, 1996 Page 2 (Meet with Developers - Review Bonding Rates, Continued) do a private issue if they don't like the rates of the City. That opportuni ty is not available in Andover. Several other developers agreed the two really go together. Some felt it is time they be allowed to do their own improvements in Andover. Mr. Windschitl argued that the bond costs become a part of the bond, so the City isn't actually advancing any money ahead of the bond. Therefore, it is not really an opportunity cost; because City money is not actually being used. Councilmember Jacobson asked if the City is charging enough to cover itJ costs so it is not subsidizing the developers. Mr. Fursman stated yes. The issue here is opportunity cost, plus a flag was raised when doing the research since Andover's rate is lower than any of the other developing communities. After continued discussion on different scenarios and on the pros and cons of developers installing their own improvements and funding their projects, the Council suggested there be no change at this time on the rate charged for bonding. They did not wish to add to the fees if it would mean collecting over and above what is really needed. It was also suggested that Staff analyze several projects to determine the financial outcome on the bonding of developer projects. MEET WITH DEVSLOPERS - DIt CU~'S TRANSPORTATION FEE Mr. Fursr:1an reported en the concern with handling the financial aspects of the growing infrastructure problems as the City develops. With an incre'isinq popul ation, there will be needs for aèding traffic signals at some intersections, adding turn lanes, widening streets, etc. Transportation fees to the developers or building permits is illegal. The suggestion to collect monies to be able to do these upgrades ha~ been to either require a transportation impact study on each plat in which case fees can legally be charged for the impact of that development, or assess new developments their fair share for those street improvements, or have the City fund those improvements external to the developments from the General Fund or other resources. Mr. Emmerich noted their newest proposed development will mean an additional $8 million to Andover's tax base. '~on' t that bring enough tax revenue to pay for these upgrades? Mr. Fursman stated the taxes paid will go for police, firE, snow plowing, etc. The development also adds miles of roads to be maintained. The additional taxes just covers the additional services r2quired of that new development, and there is nothing additional left for the major transportation upgrades. Mr. Erickson explained a transportation impact study would look at the impact external to th2 development such as on other City streets and county roads. Even when the county upgrades its roads, it has asked the City to contribute a portion of the costs. It is being suggested the developers, whether for small 3-10t plats or a large 400±-10t plats, be Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 30, 1996 Page 3 (Meet with Developers - Discuss Transportation Fee, Continued) asked if they want to participate in the transportation fee. If they do not, they could have a transportation impact study done to determine whether or not a fee is required as a result of the transportation impact of the plat. The Staff sees a transportation crisis mounting, and the county has indicated they are not able to help. The developers commented that a transportation fee only adds to the cost of their developments. Their prices are market driven, and this is another fee on top of the additional sealcoating, additional bituminous and the trail fee that have recently been added. It is a fairness issue. The developers tended to feel the transportation fee should be added to the building permits, as it is the homes that generate the additional traffic, not the developments themselves. Several developers also noted that the City of Ramsey only instituted a transportation fee a month ago, but it is on hold because of possible legal action. They do give a trail fee credit to projects. Lino Lakes is basically the same way, giving trails credit from park dedication. Councilmember Jacobson wondered if it would be sufficient to work with the developers to add the necessary turn lanes or whatever is needed to handle the increased traffic demands generated by the new developments. He was uneasy about taking over the duties of the county by subsldizing improvements on their roads. Mayor McK,Üvey noted legally the City cannot force the developers to do something outside of their development areas. Councilmember Knight felt most of the traffic generated along Hanson Boulevard C01""es out of Oak Grove and points further north, yet Andover is being asked by the county to help participate in upgrading costs such as adding traffic signals. After further discussion, it was agreed to table the item to another special meeting, a date to be determined. Those developers present were asked to consider ideas of things they would accept responsibility for and discuss those ideas with the Council at that special meeting. MEET WITH DEVELOPERS - WETLAND ORDINANCE AND CURRENT IMPROVEMENT PRACTICES Because of the late hour, it was agreed to table these two items to another special meeting. The Council recessed at 8:38; reconvened at 8:43 p.m. MEETING WITH ADOLFSON & PETERSON - REVIEW CITY HALL OPTIONS AND PUBLIC f'lORKS OPTIONS Craig Cronholm of Adolfson & Peterson and Jerry Putnam and K. C. Lim of LHB Engineers and Architects addressed the Council on a proposed layout of the City Hall campus and of the new City Hall building. Mr. Cronholm Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 30, 1996 Page 4 (Meet ~dth Adolfson & Peterson - Review City Hall and Public Works Options, ContirlUed) reviewed the proposal to construct a separate standing building right next to the existing one that would be connected by a covered corridor, to upgrade the existing one as needed for expanded office space and possibly on-site storage, with the new building housing existing office personnel and the Council chambers. Mr. Lim presented two layout options for the Council to consider, one with the Council chambers to the west and one with the Council chambers on the east side close to the main entrance. The intent was to design as many offices as possible around the perimeter to utilize as much outside lighting as possible. Storage and the Staff lunchroom would be in the existing building. Public parking would remain where it is. They have not addressed what the building will look like on the outside. That will be done once the interior layout is finished. Discussions noted it is no longer possible to construct a basement without an elevator to access it, so that is not an option because OL the cost. The building will be constructed of block so the areas away from the windows would be the storm shelter areas. The plans fall within the square footage guidelines, but the total cost will depend on the type of skylight conneci:Íng the two buildings plus other factors. The roof on the existing building is in need of repair. The decision is whether to spend about $10,000 to repair it, which would then exter.d the life for another 10 to 15 years; or to replace the roof for approxir.-tately $40,000 which would extend the life for 20 or more years. The intent would be to put the same facing on the existing building as the ne,' bui Iding so it appears to be one larger building. Mr. Cronholm estimated a cost of $200,000 to $300,000 to remodel the existing building. As proposed, there are shared spaces; and as the need arises for more office space, the existing facility could be remodled to accommodate it. Mr. Fursman thought the remodeling could be done as needed with some of the work done by Public Works Staff to save on costs. The entire remodeling doesn't have to be done at this time. Council asked that there be a glass wall leading into the Council chambers, that the Council chambers actually be a multipurpose area where other conferences and meetings could also be held, that the conference rooms have movable interior panels to either enlarge or reduce the size of the rooms as needed, that the ability to expand L! five years be considered now, that the building should be low maintenance and functional, that there be ample electrical outlets in the rooms plus some in the floor of the Council chambers to accommodate cabling if desired in the future, and that the project include meeting the new lighting standards in the parking lot. They also asked that more specific cost figures for remodeling the existing buildi~g be determined and questioned the need for another vault when there already is one in the existing building. The preference of the Council was the layout where the Council cha~bers are located to the east just off the parking lot. Mr. Lim stated they will continue to rework the spaces and come back to the City Staff and ~-- Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 30, 1996 Page 5 (Meet with Adolfson & Peterson - Review City Hall and Public Works Options, Continued) the Council with more detailed proposals. It was agreed to add this to the agenda of the May 21 meeting. Mr. Cronholm then reported he met with the committee reviewing the needs of the Public Works Department. He was asked to develop a conceptual budget to add 29,000 square feet to the building at Public Works. He estimated the cost would come to about $1,650,000, or $56 per square foot; however, then~ are a lot of issues that can be explored to meet the needs of the Department. The one issue they did not address completely was that of ponding on the property. Mr. Cronholm stated if the City Hall and Public Wor·ks expansions were of similar material, there would definitely be substantial cost savings by doing them together, especially on the roofing, concrete and masonry. ~'¡inGlc'''''' Holasek stated the corner stone at the front of the existing building has not been addressed. It is made out of the blocks from the original City Hall built on Round Lake Boulevard which was destroyed in 1939. He suggested that be set apart in some manner. Mr. Putnam stated that could be incorporated into the lobby area and given a place of. honor. Mr. Cronholm stated for the May 21 meeting, he will have some more accurate cost estimates on remodeling the existing building and have opt.ions available on the different types of finishes. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Kunza, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfull~hmitte~ ~~eò~~ Recording Secretary -