HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-30-2003 Council Work SessionCouncil Woric Session
5:30 p.m., Thursday, October 30,2003
Orono City Council Chambers
AGENDA
I. Landform Development Proposal
2. Sur&ce Water Management Plan-Additional Costs
3.2004 Compensation Adjustments
4.1nitiate City Administrator Annual Performance Review
5. Other
V
^ -V,
mmmI-
-t' *. - .
TO:
FROM:
Mayor Peterson and Council Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator ^
DATE:October 27,2003
SUBJECT: Landform Commercial Development Proposal for Willow and Highway 12
Description of Proposal
Landform has requested an opportunity to present a development proposal to the Council for the
property at Willow and 12. The development proposal is attached. The proposal includes three
commercial buildings on the outlot at the comer of Willow and 12, with a total of 29,560 square
feet. The buildings include a 14,560 sq. ft. pharmacy, a 2-story bank building with a total of 5,400
sq. ft., and a 9,600 sq. ft. retail building.
Kev Issues For Discussion
There are a number of key issues to be discussed regarding the proposal. These include the
proposal ’s compliance with the City ’s Comprehensive Plan, the compatibility of the proposal with
the overall development plan for the Highway 12 commercial area, and the traffic impact of the
proposal on Willow Drive and the Willow/12 intersection.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan
The City ’s Comprehensive Plan guides this property for office use, and allows retail uses accessory
to the office use. The 24,160 squai e feet of retail space is far beyond retail accessory to office. The
scale of the proposed development is much more consistent with a neighborhood retail center. The
scale of the proposed retail development requires an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Compatibility with the Development Plan for the Highway 12 Commercial Area.
One question to be addressed is whether the proposed location is the best site for this level of retail
use, and particularly the pharmacy, in terms of the long term development plan for the Highway 12
commercial area. Three legs of the Willow/12 intersection are currently developed for retail uses.
It would generally follow that the fourth leg would also be retail, unless there is a specific plan or
reason to do something different. Orono ’s Comprehensive Plan has guided this leg of the
intersection for office use due to two factors. First, to direct strong retail anchors to the areas in
which they will have the greatest impact in terms of facilitating retail development and
strengthening the retail market. Second, to manage the level of traffic on Willow Drive, and at the
Willow/12 intersection.
Since the City ’s development plan does not encourage retail development on the NW quadrant of
Willow and 12, locating a pharmacy at this location does not take the best advantage of this retail
anchor. However, there are two factors that, to some extent, offset this disadvantage. First, a
pharmacy building, with the corporate-required design and parking layout, does not meet the current
•AiBaiai
design guidelines of the Lx>ng Lake Downtown Master Plan. AH of the other intersection options
for a pharmacy use are located in Long Lake. Second, a pharmacy use located anywhere along the
Highway 12 commercial area will provide the benefit of drawing traffic fiom the new Highway 12
corridor into the Highway 12 commercial area.
It is not clear at this point in time what impact new Highway 12 will have on the retail uses in the
Highway 12 commercial area, whether the retail market will be strong enough to enable the types of
development and redevelopment anticipated in the Long Lake Downtown Master Plan, what role a
pharmacy use might play in that process, or whether creating a neighborhood retail center at Willow
and 12 will help or hinder the implementation of the Downtown Master Plan.
Traffic Impacts
The uses for which the property at Willow and 12 is guided reflect the City's desire to avoid
drawing substantial traffic to Willow Drive, and to avoid creating a congested intersection at
Willow Drive and 12. As part of the decision process regarding the Landform proposal, it is
important that a traffic study is conducted to deteimine the impact of the prq|x»ed development on
trahic levels on Willow Drive and at the WiIlow/I2 inteisection.
is*'
■r‘
y
5
i
OUTLOT A
----------------------------------------------------J
. ) i ■ 1. ' -• -- 4 ^ JT> ------ . ^
*=S=.
fCT
I (i
Kelley Parkway CSD
10,300 sf
Office Baildmg"
4
mm
<r^
r
%
14,560 sf
Pharmacy
1
H i g h w
lift:
t^[«f
PROPOSED OFRCE/BANK BfVAnON
:^<-'-.x
t ■'■
.-‘r •'?•^1. '-;4.,i
1
:^fmiiiiif>w»Bii«i*' ^*f}i
A'Sȣ!!i!.?JI!SS&IS^^
mm:lis;iiii
PK
•II
'•!Bi
MttI
SSA7SAV*''
im‘lltttIBllMBWIlIlt|lti^<»g
^•ll«BllttlBMaOTinilllB>N^
^fi|IIMMraill|lli|IIBir>
«>B1M5mBIWft|ll 111 111
nifriii»»<«iiirBiiit ^
ilWitpiMrBIHflUltl.BU.
BWiintBifKfiiiiiiiiii
'WMmtcviii liiif I
ifiiiiiiittiitiiiiiff
ilfillllfVlllfV’
IHU lllltlllll'
II = Bse lIu mmmm S»
1= E
<ii|ii(iiiii:iuiiBipif III.
''•IIIIIBIIIIIIIIIKIIIII^ - Hill |llil■llll■Ilill
f=^iSE aifiimi bii>s:«S555«5otiv«i»:^.Biiif iiiii iiit^casssSSSSS
irilllVIllflBlllfillllltlllllTKS^VMiMi
D■llllll>llf«ltlllilll;•lltfl■l^^7■S55
ll lllll Btlliillllf ■lllflBlltAVU^^^OSS
c «iiiBiiiriiHfiifiacBiiii
iflimitiWfmiiicBi^
I iiiif ■iitOT(iiaiiitf;iii?
'^liiiiimeiBiiifiBiiiiiiii
«lllHBI1lfIBlllflBlllf:i
^^hShhh>B8S t-:588S882. E-; I>-Z-2|
lOpnam figpirp PI FWATiQW
■ s-
L-'i
- •
TO: Mayor Peterson and Council Members
FROM: Ron Moorse, City Administrator
DATE: October 27,2003 f
SUBJECT: Bonestroo Associates Request for Additional Budget for Completion of Surface
Water Management Plan
In the mid 1 990*s the City contracted with Bonestroo Associates, the City ’s engineering consultant, to
develop a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) at a cost of $108,000. The process and timeline
for the development of the plan were extended significantly as Bonestroo experienced stafBng changes,
and as the rules and conditions under which the SWMP uas being developed were changed. This
resulted in a flnal product that is substantially beyond what was initially envisioned, but also doubled
the costs. Bonestroo has requested these additional costs be divided between the City and Bonestroo.
Two letters fix>m Bonestroo regarding the additional costs are attached. Representatives of Bonestroo
will attend the worksession to review the cost infoimation.
I
i__
1/1 Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik&
Associates
Engineers & Architects
I. Im. U sn Affifmntiv* Acllon/Cqu«i Opporlunity fmploytr■oncstroo. Rotene. Anderlik snd Asioci
4nd Employee Owned
Principelt: Otlo O Boncviroo Pt • M.rrvm L iorv«»f.i, PI • Gifon R Cook. Pt • O Schunithf, P| •
icrry A UourUon. Pt • M.tfk A H.unun. P£
Senior Consullunti: Robert W Roiene. Pfc • Joseph C Andcriik. P£ • Richard E. Tufnrr. PE • Swtan M Eberim C PA
Atiociaie Principeli: Kcilh A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferk* PE • Richard W Foster PE • David O Losfcota. PE •
Michael T Rautmann PE • fed K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Ma'k R Rods PE • David A Bonestroo. MB A •
Sidney P Willi.irhson. P£ . LS • Aijnes M Ring MU A • AD.wi Rick Schmdi. PE • Thomas W Pete'son. PE •
J.irresR Mai.ind PE • Miles B Jensen. PE • I Phillip Gravel lU. PE • Dai Mel J tdgerton. PE • Ismael Martme/. PE •
Thomas A Syfko PE • Sheldon j Johnson • Dare A Grove. PE • Thomas A Roushar. PE • Robert i Devety. PE
Officei: St Paul St Cloud. Rochester arsd Wilimar. MN • Miiw.iukee. Wl • Chic^sgo. It
M^biile; wwwDorsestroocom
May 21, 2003
Mr. Ron Moorse, Administrator
Gty ofOrono
2750 Kelley Parkway, PO Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066
Re: Additional Budget for the Orono Surface Water Management Plan
Bonestroo Project # 198-98-063
Dear Ron:
This letter is in follow-up to our meeting of March 12, 2003. At that meeting, we discussed
Bonestroo's request for additional budget/reimbursement for the Orono Surface Water Management
Plan (SWMP). At that time, it was determined that there were two primary groupings of tasks that
accounted for the additional costs associated with completing the SWMP. They are 1) determining the
stormwater utility and trunk/area fee schedules, and 2) transforming the SWMP from an engineering
document to an Implementable planning tool.
Below are estimates for the value or cost of these tasks with a listing of the primary sub-tasks.
1. Fee Determination.$14,400
$25,6002. SWMP Transformation .......
> Redevelopment Issues
> Basis For Financing/Fee Determination
> Wetlands Section (other than inventory/assessment)
> Implementation S^tion
> Changes to Technical Section
> General, across the document
Ron, In the time since that meeting, we have been able to identify a few tasks that should be counted
as notable contributors to cost of the SWMP. These are in addition to the issues cited in our letter to
you dated September 19, 2002
$15,2003. Additional Tasks...............
> Highway 12 Coordination
> MCWO Rule Changes (not related to approval process)
> Ravine Stabilization Needs
> Mapping
4. Total.$55,200
2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 5SII3 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 65I-636-I3II f
These numbers are based on estimate s of hours needed to complete the tasks. We took a
conservative approach (to Orono's benefit) to estimating the hours, and did so after discussion with
the individuals involved at the time. In most cases, the work was intertwined with other aspects of
the project and therefore difficult to determine an exact amount.
Attached is a description of the tasks performed that did not fail under the original scope. Along with
the tasks/description provided in our letter of September 2002 (attached), this letter represents the
basis for our request for additional budget for completion of the SWMP. Please call if you have any
ns or concerns.
Respectfully submitted.
ROSENE, ANDERUK & ASSOCIATES, INCBOI^STROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK
Andrew M. Budelis, CPESC
Project Scientist
Attachments
cc: Mike Gaffron, Orono
Tom Kellogg, Bonest
File 139-98-063
t
< f ^•1111^ 11 it - Additional Budget LL-t af AiMm«inal Ta«k«
Migb)»9yJl^UDfkitPiCQQQUi»!tjQn
• The 1997 draft SWMP was based on pre*TH 12 conditions
• TH 12 predicated changes in watershed configuration and discharge rates
• Next draft SWMP nKxlified to reflect new ponding requirements, mapping, etc
• In 1996, MCWD adopted Rule B, wh;ch included Stormwater Management and ESC
• In 1998, MCWD adopted Rule N, which separated and updated both issues
• Both instances mandated review of the SWMP and some changes to models, and caused a
ripple effect to appendices, text, and mapping
Rayjnft staWlUfltiPP-Neefe.
• While locating pipes for conveyance of runoff, degraded or susceptible ravines were identified
aty initiated effort to inventory and prioritize all such ravines for the CIP
• As a result of the tasks/issues described above
• Also see the tasks/issues described in the September 2002 letter I
Stomwater/Afea Charge Determination
• Evolved from a single City-wide fee (original scope) to a watershed based fee
• Expansion of watershed fee to consider MUSA and Non-MUSA areas
• Final fee was calculated using QP indicator projects
Stormwater Utility
• Research, compilation of information, and determination done coincidental to SWMP development
• Performed gradually as compared to a separate study
SWdP.IiaritQnnftfjRn
Redevelopment Issues
• Qty identified a need to address stormwater Impacts associated with expansion and new
construction
• Led to the preparation of flow charts, guidelines, fee curves, and tables
• Addressed water quality requirements and/or cash contributions in lieu of improvements
W^nds Section
• Integrate a wetland section into the SWMP, including wetland inventory, mapping, restoration,
and management
Imf^ementation Section
• Expanded %o be more comprehensive
• Required a series of meetings to reflect the goals and objectives of the Council and SWMP task
force
Technical Section
• Expanded to provide guidelines for new developments including Bioretenbon and Biofiltration
• Curves and tables were prepared speciftcally for Orono's conditions.
General/ Document
• Format and content of the document changed for readability and logic as a planning tool
• Modified after original draft approved by staff in 1997
#
September 19, 2002
Mr. Ron Moorse, Administrator
Oty of Orono
2750 Kelley Parkway, PO Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066
Re: Additional Budget for the Orono Surface Water Management Plan
Bonestroo Project # 198-98*063
Dear Ron:
As you are aware, the development of Orono's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) has
exceeded the original time and budget In this letter we have prepared a description of additional
services associated with runoff management planning in Orono, as well as the amount of additional
costs associated with the SWMP. Also, Mike Gaffron and 1 have recently completed work to resolve
issues for final approval from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). From the submittal of
the review draft to MCWD (May 2001) to the present, we have included hours spent on this project
under the "general” billing number, with detailed descriptions.
Descriotion of Additional Services
Because this SWMP has evolved over a six-year period, it has effectively had two lives. The first was
the draft approved by staff in 1997. Subsequent edits, updates, and changes to the SWMP have
resulted in a better, more implementation-oriented runoff management tool. It now has detailed
schedules, priorities, cost estimates, and strategies to approach a variety of surface water issues.
This means that Orono will realize immediate, tangible benefits from its investment in runoff
management. Some of these additional services have already been put to work, while others will
happen as the SWMP is implemented. Following is a brief d^ription of changes and updates to the
SWMP since the 1997 draft.
♦ GIS Maps and Databases
The originally approved GIS for system mapping was a UNIX-based system. Over the life of the
project, GIS has evolved into a PC-based sy^em. In order to be compatible with Orono's PC-based
system and to be able to keep up with current GIS technology, the entire data set for producing
maps and associated information was converted.
♦ Work Flow Interruption
There have been periods of time that work on the SWMP stopped. The lengths of time, source,
and reasons for interruption have varied. When the project resumed after an extended period of
time, "getting back up to speed ” resulted in additional hours. Consequently, some parts of the
SWMP had to be revised to reflect new information.
♦ Trunk Fee/Stormwater Utility
The research, compilation of information, and rate determination for the "trunk fee” and the
"stormwater utility” were done coincidental to SWMP development The method used to determine
i •
trunk fee rates was also devised as part of these tasks. The hours spent on these was charged to
the SWMP, which was then updated, as these issues were resolved.
♦ Changes In Scope
The originally approved scope was designed to meet the standards and requirements (at that time)
of reviewing agencies, notably MCWD. These standards and requirements have evolved over the
course of the project. For example, there is considerably more emphasis on the use of infiltration
as an on-site runoff management tool today than there was in 1996. Also, as the SWMP took
shape, both Qty and Bor>estroo staff saw ways to improve it to reflect the goals and objectives of
the Council and residents of Orono.
As a result, there have been several minor alterations to the scope, which, when incurred
individually, seemed to pose an insignificant impact to the budg^. When the changes are looked
at collectively, the impad to the budget was notable. Some examples of this are:
minor format/content changes as well as those described below
v' development of water quality treatment flowcharts
determination of CIP project priorities
♦ Additional Meetings
We have participated in several additional meetings with staff. Council, and MCWD to review and
discuss SWMP content and develop short-term strategies for moving forward. In particular, along
with City staff, we have spent time coordinating with MCWD staff to review comments and discuss
resolutions. Often, as suggested earlier, this coordination would lead to additional or modified
requests to be addressed in order to obtain approval.
Also because of the length of the SWMP process, there has been the need to familiaiire new
Council and Commission members with the content and objectives of the SWMP.
♦ Format and Content of the SWMP
Revisions, deletions, additions, and modifications to the format and content have been ongoing
throughout the second life of the project due to the issues discussed above. Along with many
minor editing changes, these majw editorial/fbrmat changes to improve readability, flow, and
appearance have created a document that is a notable improvement over the 1997 draft:
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
assimilation of the Executive Summary into the Introduction
reformatting and rewriting the Technical Background section
development of the current comprehensive Implementation Section
expansion of discussion of water quality treatment and wetland management
style/format of font, tables, paragraphs, footers, figures, and page setup
reconfiguring subject headings and numbering
Transitions
In addition to the SWMP improvements, Bonestroo has changed key personnel over the life of the
project. At tfiese transitions, time and effort needed for the new person to "ramp up” their familiarity
and proficiency to move the SWMP forward. The final transition was to put me in as project
manager, which began the SWMP's second life. Since then the SWMP has deveioped, through much
coordination with and effort by Mike Gaffron and others at the City, into the current document.
Budget Status
To date, invoices for 90% complete (of the original budget) have been submitted and paid by the
City. Another invoice, originally submitted July 1997, for an additional 5% ($5,410) has not been
paid, and is enclosed. Also at this time, we are submitting an invoice for the remaining 5% of the
original budget. Payment of these two invoices would complete remittance of the contracted budget
amount of $108,000.
The total amount charged [for the SWMP] to Bonestroo project number 139-98-063 is $201,600. The
original contracted budget amount was $106,000. Some of the factors contributing to this difference
have been beyond City or Bonestroo control. On the other hand, some can be directly attributable to
decisions, requests, and actions by the three primary parties involved - Bonestroo, the City, and the
MCWD. We feel that because we are responsible for a portion of the additional hours spent on the
Plan, we should accept responsibility for a portion of the excess budget.
The difference between the contracted amount and the costs for additional services is $93,400. This
represents our efforts up to subnritting the draft SWMP to MCWD and the Met Council (May 2001).
Again, work done since then, as part of the review and approval process has been charged to the
general billing number.
Considering ail factors, including those under our control, and our desire to provide the City with an
date, high qualiiy Surface Water Management Plan, we feel that a divi^ of the additional
costs [be twee n Orono and Bone stroo] is a reasonable approach. Therefore, we request your review
of this matter and a meeting in the near future to work out a solution.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Andrew M. Budelis
Project Scientist
Enclosures
cc: Mike Gaffron, aty of Orono
Gregg Gappa, Ofy of Orono
Glenn CO^ Principal - Bonestroo
Tom Kellogg, Borrestroo
Ismael Martinez, Bonestroo
File 139-98-063
------
TO:
FROM:
Mayor Peterson and Council Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
DATE:October 28,2003
SUBJECT: 2004 CompcnsatioB Adimttttf ats
Compensation Adjustment Criteria
An outline of the criteria on which pay and insurance adjustments are generally based is as follows:
A.Pay Adjustment Criteria
I. Cost of living increase
a.U.S. Consumer Price Index: annualized increase from September,
2002 to September, 2003 is 2.3%.
b.Minneapolis/St. Paul Consumer Price Index: annualized increase
from the first half of 2002 to the first half of 2003 (July 2002 to July
2003) is 1.3%. The increase for the first six months of 2003 was .9%.
This increase annualized over 12 months would be 1.8%.
2.Market comparison.
a. Cities in the metro area are providing pay adjustments of 1.75% to
3.25%.
Cafeteria Benefit Plan Contribution Adjustment
The insurance premiums for 2003 will inc.’- rase by 13.6%. Although this increase is significantly
larger than we had hoped, it is also significantly lower than the increases most other organizations
are experiencing. The magnitude of the premium increase was reduced by increasing the office co
pay from $15.00 to $30.(X).
The monthly family coverage premium increases for the three Medica options are as follows:
MedicaHigh: $117.96
Medica Elect: $ 108.21
MIC 1000: $149.77
The MIC 1000 plan is a high deductible plan that has had a 20% office visit co-pay. The premium
increase for the MIC 1000 plan could not be reduced by the increased office visit co-pay, because
the co-pay did not change in the MIC 1000 plan.
Recommendation
For 2004, it is recommended that the compensation adjustment be focused on pay rather than on the
cafeteria benefit plan contribution, and that pay levels be increased by 3%. and the cafeteria benefit
plan contribution remain at the 2003 level of $500.00 per month.I
•5, V‘ A
L
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
^'o**®* *s hereby given that the Orono City Council will meet in a worit session at 5:30 p.m. on
Thursday. October 30,2003, in the <>ono City Council Chambers, 2780 KeUey Parkway. Orono,
Mumesota. The purpose of the meeting is to review a commercial development proposal for the
northwest comer of Willow Dnve and Highway 12, review a request regarding additional costs for
development of the City’s Surface VV'ater Management Plan, review proposed compensation
adjustments for 2004, initiate the City Administrator performance review process, and
other issues of current interest
This meeting is open to the public.
(
Lin Vee, City Qerk