Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-23-2018 Council Work Session PacketOrono City Council Work Session Monday, April 23, 2018 Council Chambers 5:00 p.m. AGENDA Police Pay Disparity — Discuss Temporary Fix with Discussion Towards Long -Term Solution 2. Process Discussion Dealing with Policy Around Private to Public Road Conversions 3. Land Acquisition / Sale Discussion Annual: • Budget: Part of June, All of July, August and October. • City Administrator & Police Chief Update (3 times per year for 15 minutes) Previous Work Session Topics April 9, 2018 • Navarre Area Plan Review March 20, 2018 • Planning Commission Interviews • Purchasing and Land Acquisition Policy Discussion • Met Council Overreach Discussion • Street Improvement District Discussion February 26, 2018 • Orono Schools Event Update • Hiring & Training Standards • Trails — Maintenance of Dakota Trail CITY OF ORONO MEMORANDUM DATE: April 23, 2018 TO: City Council Work Session FROM: Dustin Rief, City Administrator RE: Police Pay Disparity — Discuss Temporary Fix with Discussion Towards Long -Term Solution Issue: Deputy Chief base wages at the top of scale and the max Sergeants wages are displaying a compression between the pay ranges. Sergeants are non-exempt and eligible for overtime and Deputy Chief is exempt and ineligible. Background: In 2013 and 2014 the Police Officers Union and Sergeants Union receive base pay increase based on their appropriate contracts and the Non-union employees did not have increases to their base until 2015. The city conducted a wage study in 2015 and implemented it in 2016. This wage study excluded a review of wages for police officers and Sergeants, thereby did not provide a full picture of the city's overall wages by position. In 2017, three of the four Sergeants' year end wages were equal to or exceeded the year end wages of the Deputy Chief position at the top end of all wage ranges. Policy Considerations: Compliance of wage disparity act. Removing Non-union police from Non-union scale may create further disparities. Recommendations: Move Deputy Chief from Grade 14, Step 7 to Grade 15, Step 7 pending wage study (required for Local 12 Union Contract) Seek input from independent party on appropriate wage increase policy to ensure union based positions do not exceed non-union (supervisors of union positions) positions in future. Exhibits Exhibit A. Police Org Committee 2017 Memo Exhibit B. Annual Gross Wages 2017 Exhibit C. 2018 Non -Union Wage Scale Memo To: Organization Chart Committee (Council Member Printup and Council Member Seals) From: Police Chief Correy Farniok Date February 21, 2017 As newly appointed members of the Organizational Chart committee I wanted to make you aware of a recent wage survey/study (Tonka Bay) I would be more than happy to meet with you and discuss this study as well as our own study that was conducted in early 2015. As you can see from the Tonka Bay comparison, Orono by population and size of the department we are one of the largest, but in salary we are one of the lowest. Some background, in 2013 when we took over the Mound Police Department and we added 11 additional officers and 1 additional office staff. We changed our organizational chart. Prior to the Mound contract combined there was 2 -Chiefs, 1, Lieutenant and 5 Sergeants. We eliminated 1 Chief, 1 Lieutenant and 1 Sergeant position and we added a Deputy Chief position. Money has been budgeted since 2013 for a pay increase for the Chief and Deputy Chief. At the time our existing pay scale would not allow for an increase, these positions were restricted in our pay scale due to the fact that at the time an increase would have put the Police Chief and City Administrator at the same pay level. In the 2015 salary study, the officers and sergeants were not considered in the salary study and as a result, at the end of the salary study rather than a 10% difference between the Sergeants and Deputy Chief, the 2017 base pay difference between the Sgt. and Deputy Chief is about 4.5%. The Salary Study for the Chief position indicates Orono is well below the average. When you consider that Medina, South Lake and West Hennepin (border cities) Chiefs also have 100% of family medical paid by the city and Medina pays $4,500, West Hennepin pays $5,000 toward the deductible. This is additional 8,000-10,000 pay difference when compared to the benefits that Orono provides. The government agencies that were used for the Orono Market survey included; City # of Officers Population Circle Pine 16 Full time officers 10,000 Contract police services to Centerville and Lexington 5 Full time officers 8- Part time4882 Medina 13 Full time officers 6504 Oak Grove 8185 Spring Lake Park 11 Full time officers 6458 St. Anthony 23 Full time officers 8583 St, Francis 11 Full time officers 7325 St. Paul Park 9 Full time officers 5332 Victoria 8050 Lake Elmo 8178 Little Canada 10102 Arden Hills 9701 Wacoma 11490 Provides police services to Loretto ,noka County Sheriff's Office Provides police services to Falcon Heights and Lauderdale Carver County Sheriff s Office Washington County Sheriffs Ramsey County Sheriff's Office Ramsey County Sheriff's Office Carver County Sheriff's Office Those higl-lighted Yellow do not have a local police department and the County Sheriff provides police services. Those in highlighted in green contact with another local police department. At a work session I gave my opinion that the survey did not accurately take into account for our larger police department and the wages of neighboring police departments. The survey did not include police officers and Sergeants which may have impacted the results of the study. A proposal for a contract change for the Police Chief was presented to the Council in 2016. The proposal was for the city to provide 100% of family premiums and $5000 paid to an HSA for the deductible, but this did not receive a majority. I would like the committee to consider a grade increase for the Chief from grade 17 to grade 18 in the Non -Union Employees Pay Grade phis Full family Coverage (additional $3,024) with $5,000 going to an HSA (deductible) and the Deputy Chief from Grade 14 to Grade 15. Total cost for this would be approximately $20,734 for 2017. ($25,000) has been budgeted. Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to hearing back from you. 0 Page 2 Correy Farniok From: Correy Farniok Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 8:12 AM To: Aaron H. Printup Subject: RE: Wage and Salary Information Thank you. Please let me know if you have any other questions. From: Aaron H. Printup Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 6:11 PM To: Correy Farniok <CFarniok@ci.orono,mn.us>; Victoria Seals <vseals@ci.orono.mn.us> Cc: Doug Reeder <dreeder@ci.orono.mn.us> Subject: RE: Wage and Salary Information Chief, The Organizational Committee agrees that this should be brought up at the Work Session as part of the Budget Discussion. I do have 5 questions: 1.) Did I read and re -read accurately that the wage/salary/HSA dollars have been budgeted for since the inception of the Mound contract? So, that would mean no increase in budgets or taxes for residents? For 2017 it is, I did not put it into the 2018 budget yet. 2.) Why were the Officer's and Sgt's not included in the study? No sure, I can speculate. Didn't want the wage survey to be used against the city in future union negations if the officer and Sgt wages were low. 3.) Why was the pay scale restricted due to the Chief and CA being the same? In the pay scale for 2013 any increase would have put the Police Chief and City Administrator on the same pay scale, there was no separation as there is now with the current pay scale. 4.) Would this change be adjusted if the police department were to constrict in size? I would agree that this increase from Grade 17 to 18 for Police Chief and from Grade 14 to 15 for Deputy Chief can be associated with the Mound Contract, If Mound contract would be dissolved, the pay scales would be lowered back to Grade 17 for Police Chief and 14 for Deputy Chief, 5.) When does the City of Long Lake have an opportunity to "open" their Wayzata Police Contract? Two years Thank you, Aaron From: Correy Farniok Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 3:42 PM To: Aaron H. Printup; Victoria Seals Subject: FW: Wage and Salary Information Just checking to see if you have any questions regarding this. Please let me know and I can meet with you to discuss. Thank you Correy From: Correy Farniol( Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 8:57 AM To: Aaron H, Printup <aprintup ci,orono.mn.us>; Victoria Seals <vseals ci.orono,mn.us> Cc: Doug Reeder <dreeder ci.orono.mn.us> Subject: Wage and Salary Information Organizational Chart Committee, Attached is a memo explaining the information in the attached file. The other two documents were compiled by Tonka Bay and the Lake Area Chiefs, Thank you Police 'UliR'+r °r. ���a :F�,aliea Tie��r iota epi. Confidentiality Notice; This e-mail message, including any attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipients) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Deputy Chief/Sergeant Wage Summary 2014-2016 2014 Base Pay OT/other* Total Beek(Patrol) $80,038 $5,729 $85,767 Boris(Patrol) $80,038 $2,105 $82,143 Stensrud(Patrol)** $76,419 $2,678 $79,097 Wittke(Inv) $80,038 $2,678 $83,126 Fischer(Deputy Chien $89,248 0 $89,228 *Other includes Overtime, Special Details (119), Comp Time, Premium holiday pay and paid holidays (not used) **Not at top Sergeant Pay 2015 Base Pay OT/other* Total Beek(Patrol) $82,035 $7,662 $89,697 Boris(Inv) $82,035 $2,348 $84,383 Stensrud(Patrol) $82,035 $4,528 $86,563 Wittke(Patrol) $82,035 $4,450 $86,485 Fischer(Deputy Chief) $89,248 0 $89,248 *Other includes Overtime, Special Details (119), Comp Time, Premium holiday pay and paid holidays (not used) 2016 Base Pay OT/other* Total Beek(Patrol) $84,281 $5,182 $89,463 Boris(Patrol) $84,281 $1,969 $86,250 Stensrud(Patrol)** $84,281 $6,439 $90,720 Wittke(Inv) $84,281 $4,146 $88,427 Fischer(Deputy Chief)** $90,090 0 $90,090 *Other includes Overtime, Special Details (119), Comp Time, Premium holiday pay and paid holidays (not used) **Wage Study Froze the Deputy Chief position. Sergeants and Officers wages were not considered in this study 2017 Base Pay Sergeant $86,382 Deputy Chief $90,377 L C) L L L 2 L L 2 L 2 LO. .: o C) r h ❑' ro c c " O N O VN• •• O pNp M dr' N O O co N N N O O N t1' �1' m <O 00 r eF N O M N 00 N Ol N O O N -4 Q w 00 Q N O Q 00 N C ty O) r r r r r r O M M N 0 1 � � r r O Z co Z O Z N r" e+" r r r r e= r I r r Z Ro N •E .2I E m x ro o 0 a o 0 Ol M N M N � YEn Lo a �- > T E ~" N N r O NE o € € N V C m co W ft7 N O r N W T O V 00 0) U h c `m a a L a a a a a E E E E a a a E a Q E E E E E E c; E E E E E E E E E a� a� o 0 a 0 3 E E E a� E E a� a� m Q a� Q a� Q a� i z x�x ��C �x �x x�X x�X X�X x�x x�x �S x�x x�x x�x X�X x�x Z Z z W 3 W 3 W W W W W c c W W W W W c c C c c c Q 0 z 0 z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z w r l6 00 N -0 ONO r 00 N N Nhh h N 'O O O r M N O N 0) r N N N r O h N O T h M M� a��} d M 0 Ol M O N N 00 Q O r Q h M Q O M r � O r I N LO O at 00 00 O M O O N 0) r C r eM- r r M 0 M 0 M 0) 00 n M a h M r 00 C N 01 r 00 V' 00 N 00 Z N h Z r 00 Z Di h O% N` A) C:. o tm c e CO 41 o o c o C \° \�\ 'e \ \ e \' N 'p 0 0 N N h o 'D N h V C N O O W N N h O N N h NLq h e .. M NN M C i N tV N M MN 3"OF Q a M 0 N' M - tF;: �= 'a C OU 'O pC 'O pC '0 pCp U U U 4- U) U) F-` s r m m m m CD a) Q) di '.0E rr oc t r F a m F J rn a a D F m m a E a E E E m U U O U U U U J J D (n J (n (n J (n fn fn (n U w (n fn � d 0 F cn d IC lC .c J. a. l6 C �: yF7 U-: . ami CC N v Y T JC 109 120 Oc0 JrO p dcC ocO y o ca r c tba001 LvO Yy v 0 tm c c O 00 z N O 0 o O O O o u w 2 (on E O u❑ cn uO ❑ G7 NN N g W 0- O W m N u �o N C� O @ 6L za j! eN- M u ( 00• - N F n N h h W 00) n O O 00 N CMO, M O N r CNO M < Cl) N N -11 (N O• N O O (D Cl) Oa( G C M V• N O j N N p00 O r 0 M 0 M (C 0 N (() V• 0 N r (O N — r N « d n' Q O co (n 0 00 r r V' ((0 V' In � O 00 0) M r N 0 N 0) C:)O d' V' V• V' 0 L0 h (00 N h N 00 0) 0) O O r n � m N (0 V' O I- N O Mj V. m V• N N O m N r r M (O 0 rr 0) V; rM 0) 00 N O M W V; N M (+� Lo O 2 O N (0 N N N N NMMMMN M cam- � M VO' '�Y V' V' 0 tLO o 0 co N COO V' Cl) COO co 0) L N 0 <6 0 0 O O 0 0) r N r M V• O co OO O 0) Cl) O N (NO, N N O co (� (+') (C) 0) C 0 N N O M W N M M V, C6 r0 coO 0c} W OV' N VN' N V0• C (ij cl D Q M V' eV� V' dN' N COO V' 00 LO V• M d' S r M d0' N N N O tf) N VV' 0) N CSO r W CM co (00 (MO N N W W N 0) O sN- n (00 OND O) 0) aN- � r N OM 3 r O M N r (00 M O 0) W O N (NO r W N 0 N N O 2 00 r O N N (V N 'd' N N I� N N O co N (n N O o Ih co M co co <t er r} U) 0 0 0 eN- M u ( 00• - N F n N h h W 00) n O O 00 N O O O Cn CN R M < co CO OD O d) M M O C Q 00 � O M ((j 00 N (C V• M (NO <2 0M) O CMO V• N M OO d coCL V' V' V' V' In (n O 00 (n (NO (00 N h r 00 N 0) C:)O O r N m N (0 V' O I- N O Mj V. m V• N N O m N r W 0 N 0 r 2 0 O r N N N N N N M M (+� M M co N 0 N Ct M N r M VO' '�Y V' V' 0 tLO o 0 co N COO V' Cl) COO co 0) N N 0 V' CO !� N 0 0 Cl) V) �" N (O 1� M O co O M (C) 0) O C'j 0 0 0i W C5 (o V, C6 0) d' c W N N VN' N V0• C (ij N (n co (m M (� g M M M V' VN' (Oo (M0 (00 COO CSO r W co 0) N (00 OND O) 0) aN- � r N OM r r M N N o N C00 W n O 2 ll�(N 0 N N N N N N N M M M M coV O (o 7 oM0 U! O 0 W m r m N M r `- n M M 0 M OV' N N C C7 00 O CA I-- W NMN O O O O ^ O Cl) (� O N 0 0 N O LO M V• N ca M M VO' VM' 'Od' 'd (n ld 0 0 0 (V (0 O 0 O Cn O 0 CJ O) CO 0 r N 00 00 0) M O O N. M (n M co (n 0) 0 r N D) co N O 2 I� 00 0) r O N M (6 N c6 N 6 M M; (� f0 C� 0 � C00 M CO M N (O N V, O 00 O O 3 O CO N M N O N VO' COO m N � 000 M M Cl) O N O) N Q N W V' M M 0 O) (n CO V• (n 0) (O (00 OMO O �} M M Cl) V' V 0 (00 (0 ((O (00 N N ONO Oro M O O CA m 0 0 r M O r r0 (O NN W O 2 (O r� N N N N N N�MM ( M MN LO r O O O N 00 co O O It O (n 00 (O (O to N 0) N N O OD N W 0 0 L3" r N cr} 0 r O 0 c} Cr0 I� W V' W N r CO M 0 r if1 0 00 N N I� Lo (n h 0 N O Cr) 0 (NV Ill 0 Cl) ((j M CO M O V' M LO 00 U, LO CV (0(O (00 N N 00 0) (O O 000 0) (N M N N M O) V' r O rV m C00 N O N O W 2 T N N N 06 N M M0 O 00 M N m a) Cl) V V (0 O 0 N (n N M V, O CT n N ((j O e� N M M m to 3 CC, 0 M M r N M (0 N 00 N M ONO• N (M CV N r N a C00 OBD M M (00 O (0 L0 O CO (0 N N M �r} M M M V' c�� V' V' (00 LD (r0 COO h W W (O (00 Ire m m 3 r t INS N n V' O o .= M n r m w 2 0 r N _ N N N 0 N N N O N M M M M M N N 'O N M V' 0 (O N 0 0) O N M U 0 % Difference from Emp# Name gross wage -ins contr next closest Diff from DC 1011 FARNIOK, CO $ 121,020.63 32.07% 33.92% Police Chief 6111 WITTKE, ANT $ 91,636.71 0.89% 1.40% Deputy Chief 1018 BECK, KENNE $ 90,828.40 0.51% 0.51% Sergeant 4031 FISCHER, CH $ 90,367.75 0.01% 0.00% Officer 2131 STENSRUD, C $ 90,358.38 2.29% -0.01% 4061 DEMBOUSKI, $ 88,339.19 0.22% -2.24% 8181 BORIS, SCOT $ 88,147.25 2.66% -2.46% 123 SCHOENHERR, $ 85,862.66 0.69% -4.99% 3081 SCHULTZ, SU $ 85,278.37 0.78% -5.63% 5132 RUSSETH, KY $ 84,615.62 0.63% -6.37% 124 SPENCER, RY $ 84,083.79 0.06% -6.95% 8081 VARGAS, FRE $ 84,033.55 0.38% -7.01% 9261 STURM, STEP $ 83,715.61 0.63% -7.36% 127 WITTKE, JAM $ 83,193.62 1.51% -7.94% 126 SWANSON, AM $ 81,958.17 0.25% -9.31% 2111 SILTALA, MA $ 81,755.31 1.05% -9.53% 5111 WHITE, ANTH $ 80,902.64 4.95% -10.47% 1019 FOURNIER, M $ 80,778.32 0.11% -10.61% 7051 SONNEK, TIM $ 80,687.45 1.40% -10.71% 8292 BARNES, JAS $ 79,572.60 1.09% -11.95% 1017 SZCZEPANIK, $ 78,712.53 2.31% -12.90% 136 NEEDHAM, JO $ 76,935.76 3.74% -14.86% 142 RAZE, JOSHU $ 74,158.67 1.98% -17.94% 137 MCCOY, JAY $ 72,719.47 1.88% -19.53% 170 DATWYLER, T $ 71,377.72 6.44% -21.01% 132 KIRSCHNER, $ 67,056.97 10.91% -25.80% 186 CARSTENS, W $ 60,460.56 -33.09% CITY OF ORONO NON-UNION EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PLAN POSITION GRADES Grade Point Range Positions in Grade 1 0-76 2 77-89 3 90-103 4 104-113 5 114-127 6 128-143 7 144-164 8 165-186 9 187-233 Office Manager (E) 10 234-299 City Clerk (E) 11 300-345 12 346-398 Building Official (E) 13 399-458 14 459-517 Deputy Chief (E) 15 518-647 Community Development Director (E) 16 648-843 Public Works Director/City Engineer (E); Finance Director (E) 17 844-970 Police Chief (E) 18 971-1068 19 1069-1176 City Administrator (E) (E) = Exempt Compensation Plan Non -Union Employees Pay Grades and Steps For 2018 BUDGET Grade Start Step 1 Step 2 S ep 3 S ep 4 S ep 5 S ep 6 S ep 7 Hourly Annual Hourly Annual Hourly Annual Hourly Annual Hourl Annual Hourly Annual Hourly Annual Hourly Annual 1 16.10 33,484.76 16.596 34,520.37 17.11 35,588.01 17.64 36,688.68 18.18 37,823.38 18.75 38,993.17 19.33 40,199.15 19.92 41,442.42 2 17.13 35,622.09 17.66 36,723.80 18.20 37,859.59 18.76 39,030.51 19.35 40,237.64 19.94 41,482.10 20.56 42,765.05 21.20 44,087.68 3 18.22 37,895.84 18.78 39,067.87 19.36 40,276.16 19.96 41,521.82 20.58 42,806.00 21.22 44,129.89 21.87 45,494.74 22.55 46,901.79 4 19.38 40,314.72 19.98 41,561.56 20.60 42,846.98 21.24 44,172.14 21.89 45,538.29 22.57 46,946.69 23.27 48,398.65 23.99 49,895.52 5 20.62 42,888.00 21.26 44,214.43 21.91 45,581.89 22.59 46,991.64 23.29 48,444.99 24.01 49,943.29 24.75 51,487.93 25.52 53,080.34 6 21.94 45,625.53 22.61 47,036.63 23.31 48,491.38 24.03 49,991.11 24.78 51,537.23 25.54 53,131.16 26.33 54,774.39 27.15 56,468.45 7 23.34 48,537.80 24.06 50,038.96 24.80 51,586.57 25.57 53,182.03 26.36 54,826.83 27.17 56,522.51 28.01 58,270.63 28.88 60,072.81 8 24.82 51,635.96 25.59 53,232.95 26.38 54,879.33 27.20 56,576.63 28.04 58,326.43 28.91 60,130.34 29.80 61,990.04 30.72 63,907.25 9 26.41 54,931.87 27.23 56,630.80 28.07 58,382.27 28.94 60,187.91 29.83 62,049.39 30.75 63,968.44 31.71 65,946.85 32.69 67,986.44 10 28.10 58,438.16 28.96 60,245.53 29.86 62,108.80 30.78 64,029.69 31.74 66,009.99 32.72 68,051.53 33.73 70,156.22 34.77 72,326.00 11 29.89 62,168.26 30.81 64,090.98 31.77 66,073.19 32.75 68,116.69 33.76 70,223.39 34.81 72,395.24 35.88 74,634.27 36.99 76,942.55 12 31.80 66,136.44 32.78 68,181.90 33.79 70,290.62 34.84 72,464.56 35.92 74,705.73 37.03 77,016.22 38.17 79,398.16 39.35 81,853.77 13 33.83 70,357.92 34.87 72,533.93 35.95 74,777.26 37.06 77,089.96 38.21 79,474.18 39.39 81,932.14 40.61 84,466.13 41.86 87,078.48 14 35.99 74,848.85 37.10 77,163.76 38.25 79,550.27 39.43 82,010.59 40.65 84,547.00 41.90 87,161.86 43.20 89,857.58 44.54 92,636.68 15 38.28 79,626.44 39.47 82,089.11 40.69 84,627.95 41.94 87,245.31 43.24 89,943.62 44.58 92,725.38 45.96 95,593.18 47.38 98,549.67 16 40.73 84,708.97 41.99 87,328.83 43.28 90,029.73 44.62 92,814.16 46.00 95,684.70 47.43 98,644.02 48.89 101,694.86 50.40 104,840.06 17 43.32 90,115.93 44.66 92,903.01 46.05 95,776.31 47.47 98,738.47 48.94 101,792.24 50.45 104,940.44 52.01 108,186.03 53.62 111,531.98 18 46.09 95,868.01 47.52 98,833.00 48.99 101,889.70 50.50 105,040.93 52.06 108,289.62 53.67 111,638.78 55.33 115,091.52 57.04 118,651.06 19 49.03 101,987.24 50.55 105,141.49 52.11 108,393.29 53.72 111,745.67 55.39 115,201.72 57.10 118,764.65 58.86 122,437.79 60.68 126,224.52 rolson\spreadsheets\asst\wages\Paysteps Non -Union CITY OF ORONO MEMORANDUM DATE: April 23, 2018 TO: City Council Work Session FROM: Dustin Rief, City Administrator RE: Process Discussion Dealing with Policy Around Private to Public Road Conversions Issue: On April 9, 2018 the City Council Tabled a request for transitioning a private roadway to a public roadway on Brackett's Point. Background: In 2014 the City of Orono reviewed all of the private roadways in Orono which consisted of 97 roads for a total 19.54 miles or roadway. Since 2014, new developments have added 6 more private roads. 23% of Orono households are on private roads. On Brackett's point a newly approved development is realigning the public roadway through the center of the peninsula and removing a current delineation or distinguishing line of demarcation between the public road section and private road section serving 3 residences at the end of the point. Homeowners at the end of the point have petitioned the City to accept the road, converting it from a private road to public. Policy Considerations: Establishing standards that would excessively change Orono's past practices Recommendations: Staff recommends direction to establish a private road acceptance police to include definitions, and standards which may include the following - Pavement condition index of 85 - Right of way and road width consistent with neighborhood - Road construction to city standards (depth and materials) - Road construction with at least 50% of life remaining. Current depreciation schedule is 50 years - Provide options for acceptance including a street assessment policy with limiting factors to only roads converting from private to public. - Provide a definitions section - Require necessary easements or right of way Exhibits Exhibit A. Council Action Item 21 from April 9, 2018 Council Meeting AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 21 Date: April 9, 2018 Item Description: Consideration of Petition Concerning a Portion of Bracketts Point Road Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department Development Director Section: Report 1. Purpose. Consider a petition requesting the city convert the private portion of Bracketts Point Road to a public road. 2. Background/ Summary. The three lots at the south end of Bracketts Point are served by a private road. This private road was created as part of the plat Bracketts Point 2nd Addition in 2007. The two owners of these three lots have petitioned the approximately 540 feet of the private road within Outlot B be converted to a public road, meaning that city would take over maintenance of the street. Upon receiving the petition, city staff reviewed the request and outlined findings in the attached Exhibit B. In general, the condition of the road is good, the road was built to city design standards (materials/ thickness), and the additional street length would not negatively impact snowplowing operations. However, the geometry of the road does not meet city standards: It is noted that the public portion of Bracketts Point Road is 21 feet wide within a 40 foot ROW. The Council should cautiously consider acquiring private road segments as the sheer number and miles of private roads, coupled with the aging infrastructure, and the costs to repair and replace this infrastructure will encourage more and more requests. This Brackets Point Road situation could be considered unique in that this private road is an extension of a public road. A review of the street network yielded only one similar situation, the northern end of Briar, north of Minnetonka Avenue. 3. Staff Recommendation. If the Council finds accepting this portion of Bracketts Point Road as appropriate, staff would recommend the following conditions: a. The road will be chip sealed prior to transfer. b. Outlot B should be transferred to the City. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Direct Staff to prepare a resolution of approval or denial of the petition to transfer Bracketts Point Road from Private to Public. Based on the terms of the original easement, all parties would need to sign the resolution if a change is made. Exhibits Required Actual Pavement width 28 20 Right of way width 50 30 Cul de sac radii 50 45 It is noted that the public portion of Bracketts Point Road is 21 feet wide within a 40 foot ROW. The Council should cautiously consider acquiring private road segments as the sheer number and miles of private roads, coupled with the aging infrastructure, and the costs to repair and replace this infrastructure will encourage more and more requests. This Brackets Point Road situation could be considered unique in that this private road is an extension of a public road. A review of the street network yielded only one similar situation, the northern end of Briar, north of Minnetonka Avenue. 3. Staff Recommendation. If the Council finds accepting this portion of Bracketts Point Road as appropriate, staff would recommend the following conditions: a. The road will be chip sealed prior to transfer. b. Outlot B should be transferred to the City. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Direct Staff to prepare a resolution of approval or denial of the petition to transfer Bracketts Point Road from Private to Public. Based on the terms of the original easement, all parties would need to sign the resolution if a change is made. Exhibits Exhibit A. Petition Exhibit B. Staff findings Exhibit C. Map of Area. Exhibit D. List of All private roads in the City Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: -Sb)R Approved By: -TV Authentisign 10: IIB49i".1�71F�f-4}/®gp.a[g�7gg� February 22, 2018 To: The City of Orono Mayor Orono City Council Members Orono Planning Commission Re: Bracketts Point Public Roadway We are the Owners of the three properties south of the Southways Plat: Bruce Paddock (1450 and 1500 Bracketts Point Road) and Mark & Laurie Headrick (1480 Bracketts Point Road). We hereby petition to the City of Orono to have the remaining 500' of our existing roadway changed to public roadway. We pay more than our fair share of property taxes, this roadway works very well and is in excellent condition in it's current state, it has curb & gutter and has been used by the neighborhood, general public and the City of Orono for many years. We briefly brought this up to the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 201h, and want to formally make this request. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, AuthentiAuihEnti Yaddack 02/22/2018 02/22/2018 819'9'19'89 ft141 t:9T L''bLOTST:3SZi9�FJIKi,`ST Bruce G. Paddock Mark C. Headrick Authenti -t,� 02/22/2018 tf ,=7Jr�iirri 849 1.41.99 PhA �T Laurie S. Headrick CITY OF ORONO Street Address:Mailing ,Address: iele,ohone (952)249-4604 2750 Kelley Parkway 1?a. Box 66 Fax (952) 249-4616 ly Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 www.d.ar©no.rnn.us March 19, 2018 Bruce Paddock 155 Lake Street E Suite 2000 Wayzata, MN 55391 Mark and Laurie Headrick 1480 Bracketts Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Re: Transition of Bracketts Point road from private to public Mr. Paddock, Mr. and Mrs. Headrick, We have received your request to transfer the private portion of Bracketts Point Road to a public street. Upon such requests, city staff reviews the geometry of the road and right of way, condition of the road and reports its findings to the Council for their review. The Council's review is scheduled for Monday, April 9th. You or an agent should plan on being present. An agenda and staff report will be available on Friday, April 6th Staffs findings include: 1. Geometry. The geometry of the roadway does not meet current city standards a. The pavement is 20 feet wide with curb where the current standard is 28 feet. b. The right of way is 30 ft where a local public road right of way should be 50 ft. c. The Cul -de -Sac Right of way is a 45 ft radius where a 50 ft radius is required. d. We note the Northern portion of Brackets Point Road, which is public has 21ft wide pavement and sits in a 40ft ROW easement. 2. Based on the plan set from the construction of the road it appears the road profile (thickness and material types) is consistent with current public road standards. 3. Maintenance. The segment is approximately 540 ft long. The pavement is 10 years old. a. Its addition to the winter maintenance program would not be significant. b. The addition of this pavement to the City Pavement Management Plan will cost approximately $157,000 over the life of the road. This assumes 4 chip seals, two overlays and a reconstruction over the next 40 years in today's $s. 4. Condition. a. The road is in good condition with little evidence of pavement surface distress. b. It does not appear that any preventive maintenance activities have taken place. c. The road does have curb and gutter which appears to be in good condition. 5. Considerations. If this road segment does become public: a. Staff recommends current owner to chip seal the surface prior to transfer. b. The stormwater easements / maintenance responsibilities will need to be adjusted. The city would take on maintenance of the portion within the street ROW. Please feel free to contact me at 952.249.4626 or by email at jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us if you have any questions. Sincerely, CITY OF ORONO `Irl Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Cc: George Stickney, via GStickney@Cbburnet.com Dustin Rief, City Administrator Adam Edwards, City Engineer e0 280 Feet QBOLTON & MENK Real People. Real Solutions. Disclaimer. This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information, and data located in various city, county, and state offices, and other sources affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City of Orono is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. © Bolton & Menk, Inc- Web GIS 4/3/2018 9:43 AM Public Road 40 Private Road Orono Private Roads as of October 2014 MPG 10-21-14 Road Name City Sewer or Water Length in Feet Length in Miles Paved or Gravel Cul-de-sac ? (DE=Dead End) Road in Outlot or ??? 1 O City Road Easement? (Henn. Co. Doc. No.) Approx Year Built Ultimate # of Homes Served Homes Served per 100 Lin. Ft. 1 - Abingdon Way 1550 0.29 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1984 9 0.58 2 - Bay Ridge Road S 950 0.18 P Partial RLS 1959 8 0.84 3 - Bayside Pri W of Tonkawa 1400 0.27 G DE Easemt 19505 5 0.36 4 - Bayside Trail 1100 0.21 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 2013 7 0.63 5 - Boulder Drive S -W 450 0.09 P Loop Common 2004 14 3.11 6 - Bracketts Point Rd ext. S 550 0.10 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 2008 3 0.55 7 - Bridgewater Drive S -W 675 0.13 P Loop Common 2006 17 2.52 8 - Brown Rd N "Homestead" S 1650 0.31 P DE RLS 1969 6 0.36 9 - Carriage Lane 400 0.08 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1999 5 1.25 10 - Cascade Lane S -W 550 0.10 P Thru Common 2005 19 3.45 11 - Christine Drive 800 0.15 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1989 8 1.00 12 - Cobblestone Court S -W 500 0.09 P DE Common 2007 4 0.8 13 - Colin Drive 1350 0.26 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1979 4 0.30 14 - Copper View Drive 250 0.05 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1996 3 1.20 15 - Countryside Drive W. 1550 0.29 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1994 14 0.90 16 - Countryside Drive (E) 1300 0.25 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1983 11 0.85 17 - Creek Ridge Pass S -W 800 0.15 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 2007 8 1.00 18 - Creekwood Trail 1000 0.19 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1989 7 0.70 19 - Cristofori Circle 1000 0.19 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1993 4 0.40 20 - Crystal Creek Road 1450 0.27 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1997 12 0.83 21 - Deborah Drive 2000 0.38 P Thru Outlot 1980 9 0.45 22 - Deer Run Trail 1200 0.23 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1994 9 0.75 23 - Deer Run Trail East 750 0.14 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 2000 8 1.07 24 - Devin Lane 1250 0.24 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1978 9 0.72 25 - Dickey Lake Drive 2300 0.44 P Thru Outlot 1983 15 0.65 26 - Edgewood Hills Road S 700 0.13 P DE Easemt 1964 6 0.86 27 - Ferndale N Unnamed S 2400 0.45 P Loop Multiple 1950 10 0.42 28 - Ferndale N Unnamed N 1700 0.32 P Undev Cul Multiple 1950s 19 1.12 29 - "Fox Run" 1300 0.25 G Undev Cul RLS 1968 5 0.38 30 - Fox St Ext W 1500 0.28 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1930s? 10 0.67 31 - Fox St (MacMillan etc.) 1900 0.36 P Undev Cul Multiple 1930s 8 0.42 32 - French Creek Dr/Cir 3300 0.63 P Cul-de-sac & Thru Outlot 1985 17 0.52 33 - French Lake Road 1350 0.26 P Undev Cul Outlot 1980 6 0.44 34 - Gander Road 450 0.09 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1979 3 0.67 35 - Golden View Drive 1100 0.21 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1987 10 0.91 36 - Graham Hill Road 1500 0.28 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 2007 13 0.87 37 - Green Trees Road 500 0.09 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1981 6 1.20 38 - Hartwood Pri Rd 1000 0.19 P DE Easemt 1976 7 0.70 39 - Hollander Road 2200 0.42 P Thru Outlot 1979 17 0.77 40 - Hunt Farm Road 1600 0.30 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1987 10 0.63 41 - Hunter Pass 750 0.14 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1997 4 0.53 42 - Jacobs Mill Road 1200 0.23 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 2000 6 0.50 43 - Jamestown Road S 1700 0.32 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1977 11 0.65 44 - Kintyre Lane 875 0.17 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 2011 6 0.69 45 - Knoll Manor Road 450 0.09 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1987 4 0.89 46 - Kokesh Farm Road 975 0.18 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 2001 4 0.41 47 - Landmark Drive S 200 0.04 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1993 5 2.50 48 - Little Orchard Way S 750 0.14 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1998 7 0.93 49 - Livingston Court S-W 400 0.08 P DE Outlot 1999 10 2.50 50 - Longview Circle 950 0.18 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1978 8 0.84 51 - Luce Line Ridge 900 0.17 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1985 9 1.00 52 - Lyman Ave Pri 800 0.15 P/G Undev. Cul Multiple 1970s 6 0.75 53 - Millston Road 600 0.11 P DE Outlot 1979 3 0.50 54 - North Arm Dr W Pri 800 0.15 P/G DE Multiple 1968 5 0.63 55 - North Farm Road S 900 0.17 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1978 9 1.00 56 - North Stream Road 550 0.10 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1986 5 0.91 57 - Northgate Road S -W 550 0.10 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1980 7 1.27 58 - Oliver Hill S 300 0.06 P Cul-de-sac Outlot (2014) 7 2.33 59 - Orono Oaks Drive 1750 0.33 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1979 9 0.51 60 - Oxford Road S 1100 0.21 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1979 10 0.91 61 - Pence Lane S -W 150 0.03 P DE Multiple 1970s 3 2.00 62 - Phillips Drive 500 0.09 P Thru Outlot 1986 2 0.40 63 - Pine Ridge Lane 200 0.04 P DE Outlot 1983 1 0.50 64 - Pine View Drive 400 0.08 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 2014 4 1.00 65 - Rainey Road 750 0.14 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1989 6 0.80 66 - Ridgewood Circle S (Pt) 700 0.13 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1980 3 0.43 67 - RuAnn Road S (Pt) 750 0.14 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1983 4 0.53 68 - Salem Court S -W 600 0.11 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1982 7 1.17 69 - Sandstone Lane S -W 600 0.11 P Loop Common 2003 14 2.33 70 - Sandstone Circle S -W 600 0.11 P Thru Common 2003 28 4.67 71 - Shadowood/CoxFarm Rd 1700 0.32 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1991 13 0.76 72 - Silver Meadow Drive 950 0.18 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1988 3 0.32 73 - Silver View Drive 1200 0.23 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1988 7 0.58 74 - Somerset Lane 1250 0.24 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1995 9 0.72 75 - Spencer Add Unnamed S (Pt) 1350 0.26 P DE Outlot 4 0.30 76 - Spring Hill Rd Pri 1100 0.21 P/G Cul-de-sac Multiple 6 0.55 77 - Stonebay Drive S -W 550 0.10 P Thru Common 2003 4 0.73 78 - Stronghold Pri Rd 1050 0.20 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1983 3 0.29 79 - Sugarwood Drive S -W 2800 0.53 P Thru Outlot 1989 25 0.89 80 - Sussex Circle 150 0.03 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1990 3 2.00 81 - Sussex Lane 500 0.09 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1990 4 0.80 82 - Sussex Road 2050 0.39 P Thru Outlot 1990 10 0.49 83 - Tanglewood Road 1200 0.23 G Undev Cul Outlot 1978 6 0.50 84 - Thoroughbred Lane 1400 0.27 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1995 11 0.79 85 - Truffula Trail 1000 0.19 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1994 8 0.80 86 - Wakefield Road 1400 0.27 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1981 8 0.57 87 - Walters Port Lane S -W 800 0.15 P DE Easemt 1960 6 0.75 88 - Wear Lane (South) 400 0.08 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1985 4 1.00 89 - West Farm Road Part S 1200 0.23 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1978 12 1.00 90 - White Oak Circle 1600 0.30 P Cul-de-sac RLS 1977 11 0.69 91 - Willow Hill Drive 550 0.10 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 2013 3 0.55 92 - Willow View Drive S -W 2600 0.49 P Thru Outlot 2000 25 0.96 93 - Wolverton Place 1300 0.25 P Cul-de-sac outlot 1990 5 0.38 94 - Woodhaven Drive 1100 0.21 G Cul-de-sac Outlot 1977 8 0.73 95 - Woodhill Avenue Pri 550 0.10 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1988 4 0.73 96 - Woodhill Road 1500 0.28 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1988 4 0.27 97 - Wyndmere Road 900 0.17 P Cul-de-sac Outlot 1980 5 0.56 Totals 97 Private Roads 103,175 lin. feet 19.54 mi. 783 0.76 (1) Private roads exist within a variety of defined corridors including: Outlots; RLS Tracts; Private Easements; `Commons' lots or outlots; and a combination of these. "Homes Served per 100 Lineal Feet of Road" gives a relative idea of the potential costs/benefits of maintaining one road vs another. Higher number means more homes served per foot of road maintenance. Examples: An urban neighborhood with 100' wide lots each side of the road would have 2.0 homes served per 100' of road. A rural neighborhood with 200' wide lots each side of the road would have 1.0 homes served per 100' of road. A rural neighborhood with 300' wide lots each side of the road would have 0.67 home served per 100' of road. ► 783 residences served by 103,175 ft. of private road = 132 lin. ft. of road per home ► Average number of homes served per 100 lineal feet of private road in Orono is 0.76 Average length of private road: 977 feet (calculation excludes 11 "through" private roads totaling 19,1501.f.) 97-11 = 86 dead-end or cul-de-sac roads. 103,175 — 19,150 = 84,025 84,025 l 86 = 977 feet Percentage of Orono residences served by private roads: 23% # of existing/approved Dwelling Units served by private roads: 783 # of existing/approved Dwelling Units as of Summer 2014: Approx 3350 783 / 3350 23% Orono Private Road Statistics Summary - October 2014 Number of Private Roads 97 Total Length of Private Roads 103,175' (19.5 miles) Average Length of Private Roads (Excludes Through Roads) 977 feet (0.18 mile) Number of Private Roads Exceeding 1000' Length Max. (Excludes Through Roads) 37/97 = 38% Average Width of Private Road Outlots or Tracts 50' Total Acreage of Private Road Right-of-ways 118 Acres Approx. Number of Private Roads that are Paved 90/97 = 93% Range in Paved Width 14'- 28' Number of actual developed Cul-de-sacs (includes cul-de-sacs and loops) 68 Number of private roads containing municipal sewer or water lines 29/97-30% From: Bruce Paddock To: Anna Carlson Subject: Letter to Mayor and City Council Members Date: Friday, April 20, 2018 4:08:34 PM Attachments: Dear Mayor and City council members.docx Dear City of Orono, Please send or distribute to the Mayor and City Council members at your earliest convenience before the Monday evening workshop meeting Please let me know if this is the proper venue. Jeremy Burnhardt, suggested that I write the letter and send to the city email address. Most respectfully Bruce G Paddock 612 889 2366 sharpbpPgmail.com Dear Mayor and City council members, It has been brought to my attention that you are planning a workshop to discuss establishing policies in the request to change Private roadways into Public roadways. Anytime there is a development proposal brought in front of the City Planning Commission and City Council there is a possibility of a request of this nature such as mine on Bracketts Point Road. As larger parcels of properties in the City are subdivided there becomes an increased demand on the city to provide a public roadway that serves all property owners equally such as the case on Bracketts Point Road. understand the City concern of setting a president in making these difficult decisions and changing private to public roadways and incurring additional repair, maintenance and snow removal services expense over the life of the roadway. Im a multiple site property tax payer in the City and I too want responsible spending for our City. might suggest that the additional repair and maintenance expense will generally be covered by the nature of the development project in hand. As an example, the Bracketts Point Development, is taking 13 acres that has one annual property tax After this development is complete you now have 5 separate properties paying property taxes and we can assume that the combined property taxes from the five separate properties generates considerable more revenue in annual property taxes than the one property tax before the development. The other consideration in changing Private to Public is the condition of the roadway. If the private roadway is in excellent condition and has been constructed to Public roadway standards it would seem to be an easy transition as there would be no additional cost to the city and the repair and maintenance would be covered by the additional annual property tax revenue generated by the subdivision of the larger property into smaller segments Another consideration in conversion of Private to Public roadway is the construction costs and who pays for the roadway. In my case, I was required to construct and pay for the roadway and paid for the City Engineering for inspection to comply with Public Road standards at no additional cost to the City. This should be another requirement in establishing a city policy in the future for request of Private to Public roadway. In my opinion there are only two general criteria for conversion of Private to Public roadway. 1. The petitioner should be required to pay for the construction of a roadway that meets Public roadway standards at no additional cost to the city. (As was my situation on Bracketts Point) 2. The repair and maintenance after construction for the life of the roadway should be paid for by a commensurate increase in annual property taxes or in the case of the Bracketts Point Development, the 5 subdivided properties will provide a significant increase in annual property tax revenues to easily cover the maintenance expenses. To review my petition to change my private roadway that serves the three separate properties to convert to a public roadway that connects with current and future Public roadway to be constructed. 1. The road profile, thickness, material types is consistent with current public road standards 2. The road is in good condition with little evidence of pavement wear. 3. The roadway does have curb and gutter which is in good condition that complies with current public road standards. 4. The private roadway is used by everybody driving through as a public road regardless of how its classified by the city. 5. We pay the same property tax rate that the other 9 property owners along Bracketts Point Road, therefore we should all have equal and same services. Therefore, I urge the City Council, in all fairness to all property owners on Bracketts Point Road to extend the public roadway from County Road 15 all the way to the end of the peninsula to serve everybody equally Respectfully submitted Bruce G Paddock 1500 Bracketts Point Road, Orono, MN 55391 CITY OF ORONO MEMORANDUM DATE: April 23, 2018 TO: City Council Work Session FROM: Dustin Rief, City Administrator RE: City Owned Land Sale/Acquisition Policy Discussion Issue: At the February Planning Commission a request for a Right of Way vacation was heard and ultimately pulled from the agenda to look at addressing a larger issue concerning pending public improvements and the intrusion of the local traffic turning around on private property on Elmwood Ave. The neighborhood was in attendance and expressed concerns related to the vacation. Background: Orono has many streets and corridors where streets, utilities and parks intrude onto private property. Many of these are difficult fixes, however there are instances where the impacts are great enough to warrant a review of city owned property or right of way would be a viable option towards correcting these instances. Policy Considerations: Standards for review, sale or acquisition of city owned property or right of way that is in the best interest of the community while treating property owners fairly and honoring their property rights as well as the City's Recommendations: Staff recommends direction to establish guidance related to the review of current city owned properties, the sale of any deemed no longer necessary for public use and the acquisition of new property in an effort to honor current property owners where public use may intrude on their rights Exhibits Exhibit A. Elmwood Ave Proposal 1� N L Q O L Q > �L Q O LL Ln N N _? 4J E X O Q Q. L O cu f6 U X N C C N p W O O 0 Rt rn v mC C X O L Q Q m N a-+ (6 U l0 > 0 3 a teak J9.90 �06-1,90 46 p Grand � �49. Bt Q) L C O v� rr � CP �5 II v ri O � W in y f ri 1 ^^ > _ ' ^ M / N Z 4r 1 1 � — t 1 .N L LU I � O U L � o Ln 0 ^X^, W c� I � 43 � I �06-1,90 46 p Grand � �49. Bt Q) L C O v� O � W ^^ > _ ' ^ M / N Z 4r 1 — .N L LU O U L � o Ln 0 ^X^, W �06-1,90 46 p Grand � �49. Bt I 11 pow - P N i C O I ca Q O L IF' O � o m 1 � U M1. 'in N ul c co 1 O 4-J tl✓ U I�qq��pp M1• N m i 10 II� I Q O IF' O � o m 1 � rj" k 1 co 1 T Ao • I�qq��pp Ap tk 4 tl Im r N m i II� I J OL o M mill D it fC s I G-pand tl r —49 mLciy�6 AM