Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.02.06 Work Session Minutes COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES May 2, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Soderberg called the meeting to order at 5 :00 p.m. Present: Soderberg, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson Absent: Fogarty 2. APPROVE AGENDA Council approved the agenda. 3. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Discuss ISD 192 Litigation Council went into closed session to discuss ISD 192 litigation. 4. CITY HALL PLANNING Council reconvened into open session at 5:54 p.m. Mr. Mike Cox, Wold Architects, requested approval of the guiding principles and reviewed the list of goals. They included that City Hall should be located in the downtown area, it should serve as an anchor to the downtown and the Spruce Street corridor, there should be enough room for future growth for 20 years, it should be a multi-level building, it should preserve the Farmington image and be complimentary to downtown or set a new standard for downtown, the building should be a model, and it should strengthen the downtown. Staffwanted to make sure this Council was on board with these values and principles especially that City Hall should be located in the downtown area. The entire Council agreed it should be downtown. City Administrator Herlofsky felt the process that should take place based on those principles is have the City employees look at what they think the growth will be. You want to design the internal structure first and then design the outside. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked about City Hall being complimentary to the downtown or set a new standard. Mayor Soderberg noted Vermillion River Crossing is trying to compliment the downtown through architectural features and he would be disappointed if we did not do the same thing with City Hall. Use the prominent features, such as the arched windows and some of the facades on the older buildings. City Administrator Herlofsky stated in previous projects Wold has taken courthouses that have an interesting look and added to that campus with structures that complimented or blended with the current facility and still somehow provided direction of how things should be in the future. He suggested the idea of a green building that is energy efficient meaning lights go on and off when you walk in, things that make it less expensive to operate. Mr. Cox noted it is Wold's challenge to make it fit. Councilmember Wilson wanted it to be a foundation piece to re-vitalizing downtown. Councilmember Pritzlaffwould like to be involved in the layout and suggested touring other City Hall's. Mr. John McNamara, Wold Architects, noted they will be setting up a tour in the next couple months. Mr. Cox noted the library is close to the proposed Council Workshop May 2, 2006 Page 2 location. Councilmember Wilson stated a green building would have a lot of windows and natural lighting. Councilmember McKnight was on board with the guiding principles and was ready to move forward. Mayor Soderberg would like to see prominent architectural features in the downtown incorporated. Mr. McNamara distributed a new budget for the City Hall project. The cost would be $170 per sq. ft. which amounts to $6.6 million for the construction budget. There would also be the demolition of the Blaha building at 3rd and Spruce Street, fees, furniture, equipment, moving equals a total project cost of $8.6 million. There would also be revenue from the sale of the current City Hall building. Finance Director Roland stated the site was purchased by the former HRA. It was discussed to reimburse them from the proceeds of any bonding. The project could be financed through lease revenue bonds and lease the property from the EDA and the City would not need to pay them back for the land. City Administrator Herlofsky noticed the date on the estimate was April 11, 2006 and asked how long this is good. Mr. McNamara estimated out to the point of construction. Construction was scheduled for the spring of 2007. City Administrator Herlofsky suggested writing things down that people want to see in City Hall. The key is to look at the relationship between departments from a customer standpoint and make sure things are easily found by the public and accessible. The customer friendly items should be on the first floor. He suggested letting staff work with the architect on where things will be and Council will be kept informed. 5. CASTLE ROCK UPDATE In October 2004 meetings began with Castle Rock Township to improve the relationship. The Farmington Business Park was covered by an Orderly Annexation Agreement. Another piece of property to the south was annexed at the same time that was not covered by the annexation agreement. After that a Castle Rock Discussion Group was formed which included three township representatives and three City representatives. There was a road needed to access the business park and after discussions the road was annexed into the City. Also a couple properties have been annexed as a result of the Ash Street Orderly Annexation Agreement. The Castle Rock Discussion Group has been discussing a long term Orderly Annexation Agreement. There are a couple of basic provisions: 1. Owners have already approached the City about annexation. 2. There is a natural boundary. The agreement says that if the annexation is approved by the City and the Township any annexations that are requested by property owners within that area would not be contested by the Township. The parcels would be annexed by joint resolution. In exchange for that the City would not process annexations from other properties outside of the line in Castle Rock Township for a period of 10 years. This would be through December 31,2016. If half of the properties were annexed in the first five years and the remaining were annexed two or three years later, the 10 year period would remain in effect. There would be no agreement for anything beyond that time period. Council Workshop May 2, 2006 Page 3 There are some financial components ofthe proposal. The Ash Street Orderly Annexation Agreement does not address the issue of property taxes that would be paid on properties that were annexed pursuant to that agreement. The Township felt they were losing property tax revenue especially from commercial properties along hwy 3 and hwy 50. If the properties had been annexed by ordinance they would have been entitled to some additional property tax revenue. If you annex property by ordinance, in the first year following annexation the Township gets 90% of the property taxes that were paid to the Township in the year of annexation. The following year they receive 70%. After that it is 50%,30% and 10%. City Engineer Mann noted the fact that there were not accommodations for the tax issue in the Ash Street Orderly Annexation Agreement was fully contemplated. He recalled conversations with township members that the fact that the City was fronting money for improvements that benefited township properties without any real participation on the township side factored into the final Orderly Annexation Agreement. City Attorney Jarnnik stated the City intentionally did not extend the tax reimbursement scheduled phase in to match up with City services because the City was going to extend services immediately to those properties upon annexation and they were immediately going to be incorporated. The City did not give the Township any phase-in on their taxes nor did the City pay the Township anything to front end more of the road construction than the normal share that was discussed in the agreement. (Councilmember Wilson left at 6:35 p.m.). Community Development Director Carroll stated they performed the calculations on the properties that have been annexed and also for commercial properties that have not yet been annexed. A compromise was discussed whereby the City would pay the Township what it would have been entitled to under statute for only the commercial properties. If there was a conscious decision on the City's part to not have those property taxes paid to them, and Council is still in agreement, that portion can be removed from the agreement. The amount for the properties annexed so far is almost $11,000. City Attorney Jarnnik noted some of the factors such as the City's contribution to the Ash Street project argument for not extending the reimbursement will not be present here and the acreage annexed on a per annexation basis is probably larger so the City would have a greater impact on the township, both ofthese factors the absence of one and the presence of the other argues for including this in this agreement and it is not uncommon to add in that reimbursement. City Engineer Mann stated the issue of not having the graduated tax had to do with the fact the City up fronted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of infrastructure to benefit township properties. In addition the City paid $60,000 of the township's engineering costs for their engineers to review our plans to make sure they were okay. There is a significant amount of money the City put out for that project and that is why it was fully contemplated to not have this in the agreement. Councilmember McKnight felt we are too far along on this agreement to not do this part. Looking at the next part of potential money, this is pennies. Community Development Director Carroll noted the fundamental objection the Township representatives had was the impact on the Township financially by the cost involved in maintaining and improving roads that they believed would be necessary to serve the development occurring within the City. The agreement proposes the City would share with the Township 50% of the property tax revenue paid on improved properties in the first year after they were improved. This would be a one time payment from the City to the CouncilVVorkshop May 2, 2006 Page 4 Township. It would go into a special account established by the Township and characterized as a road and bridge account. This money could only be used for the purpose of improving the identified roadways in a certain sequence identified in the agreement. There is a provision that would allow the Township to retain a percentage of the payment as administrative costs. Ifthe funds were not used by the Township, they would come back to the City at the conclusion of the la-year period. The Township asked for a provision that ifthe City and the Township entered into another Orderly Annexation Agreement at the end of the 10 years for an area beyond this area, whatever funds left in the account could be retained for other roadway improvements within the newly annexed area. To calculate the amount staff has removed potential school sites, the fairgrounds, privately owned parcels that already have homes on them, and looked only at currently vacant properties and subject to redevelopment. The property taxes would amount to $832,644. The agreement says 50% ofthat would be transferred into the road and bridge account the first year. Staff proposed Council consider this type of revenue sharing. The benefit would be the City is looking at development on a regional basis and it is not unilateral development. The Township would be partners with the City. Councilmember McKnight noted even for properties inside the line annexation would be property owner driven. Council needs to decide if they are willing to look at this potential type of sharing and at what percentage. Mayor Soderberg agreed with the concept because it is being used for specific road improvements. He would like to find out more about the fund and if that would accumulate so they could use the entire fund to build segment A or will Castle Rock have some revenue sharing involved in the improvements. Councilmember McKnight replied if road A has to be built, this fund will not be the source of that, there will be a developer. For road B, that would be a school district issue. Roads C and D are a different story. Finance Director Roland noted ifthe interest accumulates it would be used for the road fund. Councilmember McKnight noted it is in the agreement they cannot spend anything over $1,000 without the City's consent. Community Development Director Carroll stated they have estimated 600 residential units being built on the east side ofhwy 3. Ifthere are roads that are improved that are in the township, but are adjacent to those developments, the primary beneficiaries of those improvements would be City residents. Council will review the information. 6. ADJOURN The meeting recessed at 7:07 p.m. and will reconvene at 6:00 p.m. on May 6,2006. Respectfully submitted, d~ ~?v7~~ ~a Muller Executive Assistant