HomeMy WebLinkAbout7B - Public Hearing Rolling Oaks itO* 13111°4)
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
411NNEBo'cP
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: JUNE 23, 2014
AGENDA#: 7B
PREPARED BY: LARRY POPPLER, CITY ENGINEER/INSPECTIONS DIRECTOR
PRESENTED BY: LARRY POPPLER
AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION
ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ROLLING OAKS CIRCLE IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT, CITY PROJECT#14-013
DISCUSSION: Introduction
The purpose of this agenda item is to hold the Public Hearing to consider
approval of a resolution ordering the Rolling Oaks Improvement Project and
the preparation of plans and specifications. A super majority (4/5) is needed to
approve the resolution.
History
The City uses the Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to plan its
infrastructure improvements and the financing for capital improvements. The
Rolling Oaks Circle Improvement Project is part of the 2014 CIP and proposes
to extend utility connections to developed properties on Rolling Oaks and
ultimately serve undeveloped adjacent properties. Rolling Oaks Circle is
currently a gravel roadway that is experiencing erosion of the gravel roadbed
during rain events and requires additional maintenance.
The M.S. Chapter 429 process applies to all projects that will be financed in
whole or in part through special assessments or bond proceeds. At the
September 9, 2013 meeting, the City Council authorized the City to prepare the
Feasibility Report for this project.
The Rolling Oaks Circle neighborhood is considered in the report and includes
improvements to Eagle Ridge Acres. These properties were platted and
developed in 1959, fifty-five years ago. A map of the project area (Figure 1) is
included in the Feasibility Report. The proposed improvements include the
extension of sanitary sewer and watermain, street construction, storm sewer,
storm water quality, concrete curb and gutter, and appurtenant work.
The Feasibility Report includes total estimated costs, preliminary assessment
amounts, and a project financing summary. Also included in the report are
design criteria, estimates and information on watermain, sanitary sewer, storm
sewer, and streets. Details on each can be found in the Feasibility Report.
On October 28, 2013, the motion to accept the feasibility report for Rolling
Oaks failed on the basis that the city council was concerned about the
proposed assessments (an estimated $38,000 per unit) to benefiting
properties. Some councilors did not sense that there was any compelling
reason to proceed as no case was made regarding the septic systems. There
was concurrence with the councilors and the residents that the gravel roadway
needed work. Councilors also commented that consideration of this project
would be appropriate when the adjacent undeveloped property (Meadow
Lawn) developed since costs could be mitigated in this way.
On April 28, 2014, the City Council renewed the motion to accept the feasibility
report and call for the public hearing. A memo to the original feasibility report
was prepared.
On May 27th, at the request of area residents, the City Council continued the
public hearing.
Current Circumstances
The properties deemed to specially benefit from the improvements, in most
cases the properties abutting the streets located in the project area, are subject
to assessment. Each of the affected property owners have been notified in
accordance with the statute regarding tonight's Public Hearing.
A Public Information Meeting was held on May 20, 2014 to provide the property
owners an opportunity to discuss the project in an informal setting prior to the
Public Hearing. Staff presented the proposed improvements, project costs,
estimated assessments and answered general questions regarding the project.
Comments will be presented at the Public Hearing. Another well attended
neighborhood meeting was held on June 10th, to go over any final questions
heading into the Public Hearing.
Conclusion
City Staff is prepared to discuss each of the concerns presented at the Public
Hearing. If the Council deems the issues that have been brought up need to
be addressed in the project plans and specifications, direction could be given
to staff.
The purpose of this Public Hearing is to determine whether the project should
move forward to the next step, which is preparation of plans and specifications
which will provide greater information about expected project cost and,
therefore, the assessments associated with the improvements. Once the plans
and specifications are completed, they will be submitted to the City Council for
approval and authorization to advertise for bids. The Council could decide not
to continue with the project upon receipt of bids. A separate Assessment
Hearing will be conducted following review of the proposed assessments by
the City Council's Assessment Review Committee.
In summary, the project is feasible from an engineering and economic
standpoint. If the preparation of the plans and specifications is approved, the
work will be completed by City staff.
ISSUES: Property owners on Rolling Oaks Circle have communicated through e-mails to
the City, personal meetings with the City, letters to the editor, and the public
forum concern over the assessment amount and the proposed changes to the
2
roadway. As a result the Assessment Review Committee has proposed for city
council consideration various means of reducing the assessment amounts
which are outlined below.
Assessment Review Committee
The Assessment Review Committee has spent a lot of time this year reviewing
several city projects. The committee has debated the costs of the
improvements, number of units, fairness of the assessments, and mechanisms
for assisting property owners. The City Council must weigh the precedence of
these projects, historical methods of assessments, and unique characteristics
of each project with the overall costs.
Project Costs
The Assessment Review Committee has spent time evaluating project costs.
The total project cost may be reduced by $30,000 by utilizing the existing
granular fill on the south portion of the project for reuse under the road section
in this area.
The committee also is recommending the allocation of additional funding from
the Water Quality Fund based upon the commonly acknowledged fact that the
road in its current condition degrades the adjacent wetland and is a
maintenance challenge.
Additional Trunk funds were allocated to the project and a developer's payment
of previous special assessments in the amount of$90,000.
Finally while the law strictly prohibits the city from mandating such action, the
developer has increased the voluntary contribution they are willing to donate to
the project from his initial offer of$85,000 to $110,000. Without the
development of this property, the city would not have $200,000 in funds to
mitigate project costs. At least financially speaking, because of the
contributions of the developer, and the fact that the improvements will not likely
be cheaper in the future, this is an opportune time to complete the project
These costs are further discussed in "Financial Impact".
Project Funding
The Rolling Oaks project is different than the Mushtown Road project. The
primary difference is the gravel nature of Rolling Oaks. Because of the lack of
pavement, this project is assessed at 100% for street and storm sewer costs
as dictated in the assessment policy. The Assessment Review committee has
reviewed the costs of similar types of projects in Prior Lake and other
surrounding communities. They have also reviewed first time improvement
costs for developments within Prior Lake. It was discovered that the cost of
these types of projects are large but not out of line with other City projects or
first time improvements on developments. The committee also reviewed
neighboring City policies for first time improvements. It was found that the
neighboring communities follow the same assessment formula (i.e. 100%) for
first time improvements.
The funding table discussed below was also reviewed by the Assessment
Review Committee. The use of different funding from the original feasibility
3
report can assist in reducing the assessment amounts. The original
assessment based on the feasibility report was close to $38,000 per unit. The
revised funding table suggests an assessment of$27,000 per unit.
A significant issue for several property owners, (five of the ten properties to
receive improvements) is the number of assessable units calculated as a part
of the assessment calculation. While property owners may not choose to
subdivide their property, once the sewer and water is available, these property
owners would have every right to subdivide the property into multiple units in
accordance with city minimum lot criteria. On one hand these property owners
may have no intention on subdivision. On the other hand, it isn't fair to only
assess one unit for those properties when subdivision is possible.
The Assessment Review Committee originally recommended an option of
administrative subdivision for these larger lots which would allow them to defer
the assessment for the undeveloped units. Staff has performed additional
research into this approach and has met with the Scott County Appraisers
Office. Unfortunately this option would mean a significantly higher immediate
cost to the property owner including: surveying costs, fees, and the perpetual
increase in taxes for the created lot.
As a result, the Assessment Review Committee is now recommending
assessing ten units at the proposed assessment rate ($27,000 a unit) and
when lots are subdivided, each new lot would incur a separate connection
charge in effect at the time of development. This connection charge is
currently $18,000 on the 2014 City Fee Schedule and is subject to change
each year.
Initially the funds necessary to pay for the project which are not reimbursable
by special assessment will be drawn primarily from the trunk fund. The future
collection of connection fees would be deposited back into the Trunk Fund.
Considering the proposed greater use of Trunk Funding and the use of the
Connection Charge for this project, the Assessment Review Committee is also
recommending that the Trunk Acreage Charges and City Connection Charge
be re-evaluated in the near future.
Lastly, the Assessment Review Committee is recommending that hookup fees
for the nine developed units in Rolling Oaks project as well as the Mushtown
Road project be allowed to be assessed over a 5 year period if the property
owner waives their right to appeal all the assessments on their property and
connects within the calendar year of the assessment. This option allows
property owners to spread out the connection charges over a five year period
which may assist them with cash flow for the initial year.
The attached resolution incorporates the recommendations of the assessment
review committee. Since the developer is providing significant contributions,
the resolution awarding a contract for the improvements should be approved
after the Meadowlawn Development has received city council approval and
funding has been provided to the City. Per state statute, the resolution
awarding the improvement must be approved no more than 12 months from
the date of adoption of the resolution ordering the improvements.
4
FINANCIAL The funding table below for the Rolling Oaks Circle Improvement Project
IMPACT: shows contribution from the following sources: Assessments, Trunk Fund,
Street oversize Fund, grant, developer contribution, developer-paid deferred
assessment, and the Water Quality Fund. There is no question that if financed
in this manner this project will set a funding precedent for future projects.
Funding source amounts are shown for the original feasibility report and
current options:
Funding Source Original Amount Revised Amount
Assessments (Current) $819,431 $270,000
Street Oversize Fund $60,000 $60,000
Water Quality Fund $25,000 $100,000
Trunk Fund $8,000 $200,000
Grant $60,000
Developer Voluntary
Contribution $110,000
Developer Paid Deferred
Assessments $90,000
Project Total Cost* $912,431 $890,000
*The funding amounts shown on the above table are estimates. The final costs
would be determined based on final design and bidding. The Revised Amount
reflects the alternative roadway section which reduces the overall cost of the
project.
Considering that a major source of funding for this project comes from the
adjacent development, final approvals for the project should occur after final
platting of the adjacent property and collection of the appropriate contributions
by the developer. Once the City has ordered the improvements, the City has
one year to award the project unless the approving resolution specifies a
different timeframe.
ALTERNATIVES: 1. A motion and a second to approve a Resolution Ordering the
improvements and the preparation of plans and specifications for the
Rolling Oaks Improvement Project, City Project#14-013.
2. Deny this item for a specific reason and provide staff with direction.
3. Table this item until some date in the future.
RECOMMENDED Alternative#1.
MOTION:
5
oft PRJ01P
ti x
u �,y
4646 Dakota Street SE
44'N so'cp' Prior Lake.MN 55372
RESOLUTION 14-xxx
A RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROLLING OAKS (PROJECT#14-013); FINANCING THE ROLLING OAKS
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE CITY AND ESTABLISHING COMPLIANCE
WITH REIMBURSEMENT BOND REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Motion By: Second By:
WHEREAS, the Prior Lake City Council on its own initiative has determined that it desires to complete the
Public Improvement Project to Rolling Oaks Circle; and
WHEREAS, on April 28, 2014; the City Council adopted Resolution 14-070 accepting the Feasibility Report
and calling for a Public Hearing to be held on the Rolling Oaks Improvement Project which
includes sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter,
bituminous surfacing, and appurtenant work; and
WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the
hearing was held on the 27th day of May, 2014 and continued to the 23rd of June at the
resident's request, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to
be heard thereon; and
WHEREAS, since the project was initiated by the City Council it must be approved by 4/5ths vote in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes 429.031 Subdivision 1(f).
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA as follows:
1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report.
3. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution by the required statutory
4/5ths vote adopted the 23rd day of June, 2014.
4. The city's planning commission has reviewed the proposed capital improvement and reported in writing
to the Council its findings as to compliance of the proposed improvement with the comprehensive
municipal plan.
5. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer shall
prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement and is authorized to record
engineering expenses in the Construction Fund (#501-48380).
6. The city council declares its official intent to reimburse itself for the costs of the improvement from the
proceeds of tax exempt bonds.
7. The City Council authorizes the following preliminary funding sources and corresponding transfers to
the Construction Fund for the project:
Funding Source Amount
Assessments $270,000
Water Quality Fund $100,000
Street Oversize Fund $60,000
Trunk Fund $200,000
Grant $60,000
Developer Voluntary Contribution $110,000
Developer Paid Deferred Assessments $90,000
Project Total Cost $890,000
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 23th DAY OF JUNE 2014.
VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Soukup
Aye ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Absent E ❑ ❑ 0 0
Abstain 0 0 0 0 0
Frank Boyles, City Manager
2
Kelly Meyer
PS - 2011015Oaks Csrcfc
From: Pat Quinn <quipa1950@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday,June 19,2014 6:16 PM
To: Larry Poppler
Cc: Ken Hedberg;Rick Keeney;Vanessa Soukup;Monique Morton;Mike McGuire;Seng Thongvanh;Frank Boyles;Dave States;
resnul 1;Laquita Erickson;torn jarzyna;Eric and Edith Buchholtz;Tim Smith;Curt Stone;Margaret Sames;Mary Quinn;Kelly
Meyer
Subject: Re:Request to Postpone Public Hearing Scheduled June 23,2014
I strongly disagree with the recommendation Larry Poppler is planning to make on Monday June 23rd to proceed to
order improvements. We get very few official chances to speak and we need to be prepared and have all the facts to
make our best informed comments, criticisms and requests. Having the Public hearing under these new circumstances
will be very upsetting to our neighborhood that already feels excessively jerked around. Having the hearing at this
time is backward. We need to know what Pulte's move means to us, including the potential drastic changes in
financing BEFORE we can intelligently participate on Monday.. A postponement will also give time to determine
whether the grant is in play. According to Larry it will be known by the end of the month. In spite of Mr. Poppler's
planned recommendation there is no reason to rush at this point and more time can help clarify for us and the city
what might happen and what this all means. Ordering the improvement at this time seems irresponsible with so much
new information being released two days before the hearing. Please place yourself in our shoes at this point and hold
off on this hearing and ordering this project.
Patrick Quinn
June 19, 2014 6:15 pm
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Larry Poppler<lpoppler@cityofpriorlake.com>wrote:
In Frank's absence and after speaking with the Assistant City Manager Kelly Meyer, I will respond to Mr. Quinn's request for
postponement of the Public Hearing for Rolling Oaks.
The City can't postpone the Public Hearing ahead of June 23'. The Council could decide at the meeting to continue the Public
Hearing much like they did on May 27th,where it was continued to June 23rd. The agenda item would be opened at the
meeting and the City Council could deliberate on whether to continue the Public Hearing to a future date.
My recommendation will be to hold the Public Hearing, hear public testimony, and presumably proceed to order the
improvements. Ordering the improvements allows the City to proceed with design of the plans. Once completed the plans
will provide better clarity of the overall cost. While adjacent property is not under contract with a developer for the time
being, I don't get the sense this developer is totally out of the picture yet. After all,they have already invested significant time
and money into their project. Also the property owners seem motivated to sell. So if not this developer another developer
could be talking to us soon. It would prudent to have a design prepared so that we can begin to discuss real numbers instead
of Feasibility estimates. The plans are also needed as a part of the grant.
The City Council will have several other future decision points before any project is constructed. This will include an
Assessment Hearing which property owners will have an opportunity to speak to the Council again. By that time the final
numbers on the overall cost will be available.
1
Larry Poppler
City Engineer/Inspections Director
City of Prior Lake
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
952-447-9832
From: Pat Quinn [mailto:quipa1950@ gmail.com]
Sent:Thursday,June 19, 2014 1:03 PM
To: Larry Poppler; Ken Hedberg; Rick Keeney;Vanessa Soukup; Monique Morton; Mike McGuire; Seng Thongvanh; Frank
Boyles; Dave States; resnul 1; Laquita Erickson;torn jarzyna; Eric and Edith Buchholtz;Tim Smith; Curt Stone; Margaret Sames;
Mary Quinn
Subject: Request to Postpone Public Hearing Scheduled June 23, 2014
June 19, 2014
To the Prior Lake City Council, Mayor Hedberg, Frank Boyles, Larry Poppler and Seng Thongvanh,
The residents of Rolling Oaks Circle received notice from Larry Poppler this morning that Pulte Development is no
longer under contract to develop the neighboring property. With just a two day notice before the public meeting we
strongly believe the hearing scheduled for Monday needs to be postponed. The many possible repercussions of this
change put us in a position of not being able to prepare to comment on a confusing scenario that is in great flux. The
council and mayor were very understanding and postponed the meeting when another sudden and unforeseen change
was made known very shortly before our public hearing last month. We trust you will follow suit again.
Frank Boyles is on vacation and we are unable to contact him to facilitate this postponement. We respectfully and
strongly request that this meeting be postponed and also that someone take the ball on this and confirm with us by
Friday evening that the postponement is imminent.
Thank you.
Patrick Quinn
quipa1950@gmail.com
952-445-8726
2