Loading...
6.6. SR 03-15-2004MEMORANDUM Item 6.6 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Pat Klaers, City Administrator DATE: March 15, 2004 SUBJECT: Discuss Sherburne County Government Center Expansion Project The city and county have been in somewhat of a stalemate situation ever since the City Council stated its position for requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the expansion of the county jail. In an effort to reach a compromise, Mayor Klinzing, Councilmember Kuester, and myself met with County Administrator Brian Benson, Sheriff Bruce Anderson, and County Attorney Kathy Heaney on Wednesday, March 10, 2004. At this time no CUP for the project has been applied for by the county. If the city is going to require that a CUP be approved prior to the project moving forward, it will likely add time and additional expenses to the project. I supported the Mayor/City Council asking the question and raising the issue as to if a CUP was or was not required for the jail expansion but now at this time, given the current circumstances and situation, I'm also in support of a compromise that would not require the county to apply for and receive a CUP before they move forward with their construction project. A proposed compromise to consider is for the City Council to conduct a public informational meeting on the jail expansion site plan at the April 5, 2004 City Council meeting. A site plan review can be conducted by city staff in March and this feedback can be provided to both the county and the City Council in ~vrifing prior to the April 5, 2004 meeting. At the April 5, 2004 meeting a county staff and city staff presentation can be made regarding the jail expansion project. Notices can be sent out to property owners within 350 feet of the county property and notices for this public informational meeting can be published in the StarNews on March 24 and 31, 2004. In this manner, there will be a public review of the project, which will address such items as landscaping, grading, building elevations, floor plans, and the overall site plan. If the site plan is reviewed on April 5, 2004, the City Council will have achieved one of its objectives with this project, which is to have the public become more informed about the expansion. S: \ Council~l'at\ 2004~J ailExpansion.doc It does not do the county or the city any good to be in this type of stalemate. This difference of opinion could ultimately lead to a legal batde, a delay in the project, and more expenses to the county when the project actually happens. It is the dissemination of public information regarding the project that is important at this time and we know that the project will at a minimum have to meet the city code requirements for such things as property line setbacks and landscaping standards. If these minimum code conditions cannot be met, then a variance would be requized. I have no reason to believe that the proposal will requize significant changes or that there will be staff, Council, or public concerns that are raised that can not be adequately ad&essed. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council resend its motion that it made on September 15, 2003 and that it conduct a site plan review of the jail expansion at the City Council meeting on April 5, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. at the school small theatre. This decision would then require the City Council to change the topic and meeting location of the special meeting that has already been called for April 5, 2004. S: ~Council\Pat~2004\J ailExpansion, doc County board agrees .to. se.ek ja l b' ds Project includes firing range for sheriff's department by Joni Astrup Associate editor Sherburne County com- missioners voted unani- mously last. week to seek bids for an expansion to the jail in Elk River. Btd~wili-be accepted until' March 5~5. Tha board,will cotmidor awarding them April: 6. Cor~.~u~tion is sch~a~d to l~gm around April 19. The project includes: · a 120-cell jail addition · a sheriff's department' training center and 12-lane firing range which will go under the jail addition · a stand-alone mainte- nance building · remodeling the medical facilities within the jail · a secure elevator going from the jail to the courts area for transporting inmates to court · several smaller jail proj- ects The county sold $15 mil- lion in bonds to finance the project in August. Estimates show the proj- ect cost at $15,998,000, about $650,000 over the target. "The. true, final number won't be known until the 25th," Mike McGowan told the board Feb. 17. McGowan is with Adolfson and Peterson Construction. In another building-related matter, the board als0 voted to seek bids for an addition to the county public works maintenance facility in Zimmerman. That project has a $550,000 budget. Those bids will also be pre- sented to the board April 6. Ad°lfs°n & Peterson Construction February S, 2004 Brian Bensen Sherbume County Administrator 13880 Highway 10 Elk River, Minnesota 55330.4601 RE: Additional costs for delaying the proposed Justice center e. xpsnsJon Dear Brian, Adolfson & Peterson Construction has been retained by ti~e county to provide Construction Management services for the upcoming Justice Center Expansion, ~'~s ym.~r construction manager it is our duty to identify the costs associated wiLh not advm'tisir~g and soliciting for bids in late February as previously scheduled. The contracti6g schedule has in the past proven beneficial for the Owner to solicit bids for projects tn the late winter, Dudng late winter many c, ontrac[ors are attempting to get the first job of tt)u construction season on the books. If the project team misses the late winter bid wiz~,Juw the project costs could be 2% to 3% more expensive, Another cost to explore when reviewing ~he timing ot' cons[ruction start i,~3 the cost of construction in the winter months, This project is currently schedule for a 2?. mol project. By starting early May 04 the construction is o~<posing the county to the Iil:~t winter season of nora-completed shell construction. If [l~e contracts were d,,;layed to 90 days the shell would be less complete in the winter of 05 and woukJ n3qulre more protection in the winter of 06. Thus causing I:l~e additional expense, of wil fl~r co,rfdifionL', for constructing in an unprotected environment, The result of the above defined delays of 90 to i20 days could be in the l,mge (ff $1,250,000.00 to $1,750,000,00 The potential of delay claims from subcontractors could occur if the county proceeds with advertisement and bidding of bid packages and then the owner decktes to delay th(~ start of the project. This cost would be from contrac[om who were awarded'bid packages and then requested by the owner to delay constl~c[ion. This cos{ is difficuli b quantify however it could add hundreds of thousands of doti.3rs to tho finai project cosl. Sincerely Adolfson & Peterson Construction Mike McGowen Senior Project Manager 6701 West 23rd Sifter BI Mmneopohs, Mirmcsotu 55426 . P.O. Box 9377 , Mbn¢ok, c4;~, M~nnc:.~ok~ 55440 (952) 544-1561 ,, Fax: (952) 525-2333 ~ vw~,v,c,-p,com ~ .FEB, I2.2004 6:27PM EHLERS & ASSOCIATES N0.6918 P. 2 February 12, 2004 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC Brian Bensen County Administrator Sh~rbume County Courthouse 13880 Highway 10 Elk River, lVflq 55330-4601 Re: $15,000,000 G.O, Ia.il Bonds, Series 2003A You have inquired about the options available to the County if a Conditional Use Pen'nit (CUP) is required for construction of the jail expansion/'or which the above bonds were issued and if the CUP either requires changes to the plans or is denied. If the CUP requ/res significant changes in the or/ginal plans and more fund~ are needed to supplement the ofig/nal bond issue, the County does have authority to issue additional bonds for the project. In addition to the additional eomtmetion and architectural/engineering costs, of coarse, the County would incur additional issuance costs for the new issue, and the annual debt service requir~anents for the project would be increased. If the C~ application is denied, and the County is not able to build the jail expansion at all, the current balance in the Jail Comtmction Fund could be placed into an escrow account and inve~ted to the call date (8/1/09), at which time the remaining bond, could be called in using monies in the escrow account and other funds available to cover the balance. The mount currently in the Jail Construction Fund would be the net bond proceeds, as the County ha~ paid issuance costs, architectural/eng/neering fees, soils testing, etc. out of the original bond proceeds. It is unlikely that interest rates available in the escrow account will be a~ high ~ the average coupon rate on the bonds (about 4%). The result of these two factors will be that the County would need to levy to make up the shortfall each year caused by investing less than the full $15,000,000 of bond proceed, and receiving less than 4% p~ year in the escrow account. Let u~ know if you need more information or would like some projections nm based upon any estimated additional costs. Sincerely, Executive Vice President/Director L~AD£RS IN FINANCE 3060 Centre Point~, Dr~w, Roseville, MN 55113-1105 651.697.8500 fax 651,697,8555 www..hl-r$.in~.~om Ci~ Cotmcil Nfinutes Page 5 January 26,200g COUNCIL WITH CHANGES TO BE MADE AS NOTED. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 6. Other Business 6.1 Discussion of Conditional Use Permit for County building. Mayor Irdinzing explained that she had a discussion with the County Attorney and Sheriff regarding the conditional use perrmt (CUP) and the amendment to the ordinance regarding county buildings and that they are not happy with having to come forward for a CUP. Their main concern was the interpretation by staff earlier as to what would be necessary. The Planning Director had interpreted the ordinance that there was no need for a CUP. Council looked at this issue, discussing the intez-pretadon ~ven, and decided that dais was outside the normal jail function and needed a CUP. The County came back questioning the decision and the need to amend the ordinance. They indicated that daey wouldn't accept the CUP process and will challenge the City. Mayor K3inzing stated that the extension to the j,-dl is not part of a normal function and the feeling out there at the county that the Council is doing this out of spite is indeed in error. The Council is acting on behalf of the citizens of ]Elk River. She xvould like at this thee to have the council reconsider the interpretation of the Planning Director; and for any future building that would be done, to require a CUP if the request does not tall within normal functions. The ordinance amendment ~vas not published, so according to the City Attorney, the Council still has a window of opportunity and could agree with the Planning Director's interpretation: Mayor Klinzing suggested having a public hearing but stated we could not force the County to p~ticipate. She feels the citizens need to have a say about the County building expansion, which is a large addition and not for a normal county jail function. Councilmember Motin asked why are they afraid of a CUP? He stated that in November, Council passed an amench~nent to the code and' nothing has happened on the County's part since. He questioned what would be the burden on them if they have to come forward with a CUP? Mayor I<iinzing stated that she had heard that it would put their bond in jeopardy. Councilmember Motto questioned whether the bond would be in jeopardy and stated that the Council hasn't said, '%Ve would oppose the CUP, just that we would like for them to come forward." Counc~xxember Tveite stated that he could see rescinding this because of staff giving them this interpretation. Councilmember Dietz stated that he is surprised at the Mayor's position now. He felt that she was the leader in getting this process going and that the issue is that the CounU~ needs to spend some money to screen the jail from the residents. Mayor Klmzing stated that she had talked to staff at the County and they stated that they ~vould abide in the future by what is required. She admits that if d~e Council changes its position, then there is not any legal authority to have a public hearing. She is hearing that the cost for them for a CUP ~vould be about $250,000.00. Cit7 Council Nfinutes JanuaU, 26, 2004 Page 6 Councilmember Kuester stated that she felt the same xvay that, by having a publSc information meeting, xve could make a record of what was said. She felt that xve owe it to the citizens to have a meeting, not necessarily a public hearing, but a neighborhood meeung to keep a record of what was wanted and xvhat xvas said from the citizens. It 5vas stated that the Coun~ still hasn't contacted the City Staff Review Committee. It was stated that the Sheriff believes that there is no problem with the neighborhood. Council_member Modn once again inquired as to what is the burden on the CounU, for a CUP and would tkis indeed affect then: bond? He felt that Council should require a quorum of the County Commissioners to attend a neighborhood meeting. Mayor I<2inzing xvill talk to the Coun~ Attorney and staff was directed to get information to County Administrator Brian Benson that the City Council is considering action, but is in need of additional information from the County as to what would be the adverse affect of going through the CUP process. 7. Staff Updates 7.1 The City Administrator explained that minutes from the Special Meeting of January 20 were not in the packet for approval and had only been distributed to the Cit-y Council in draft form. He would Like to distribute to staff at the following morning's meedng and asked for comments from Council. Councilmember Motto suggested chan~ng in the please "feedback and evaluation of staff' to "feedback and evaluation ofiversonne/." 7.2 The City Administrator explained that he will not be at the February 9 meeting and that Building Administrator Steve Rohlf will have a memo regarding the Building Inspectors' position. He wanted the Council to be aware that the top pay for current inspectors is above what our pay classification calls for and that the Council can hire at any amount they wish for the top pay. He noted that pay' ranges might change when the salary study results are presented later in the year. 8. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor ICImzing adjourned the meedng of the Elk River City Council at 8:26 p.m. Joan Schmidt City Clerk Sherburne County Timeline February 3, 2003 KKE Architects contact Director of Planning for code interpretation regarding jail expansion. Interpretation under definition at that time is that jail expansion is a permitted use. July 8, 2003 County Board agrees to issue $15m in bonds for jail expansion. July16,2oo3 Artide in ER Star News, "Board agrees to issue jail bonds" August 18, 2003 City Council directs staff to research the need for public hearings for the jail expansion and bring back options for the Council's consideration. August 27, 2003 Artide in ER Star News, "Klinzing, council question input on jail plan" September 15, 2003 City Council over-roles Director of Planning's interpretation and determines that the expansion will require a Conditional Use Permit. Council directs staff to amend the ordinance clarifying the definition between jails and court holding cells. September 18, 2003 Letter sent to County Administrator Benson regarding Council's decision to require a CUP. September 24, 2003 Artide in ER Star News, "Board gives nod to jail addition design". October 28, 2003 Planning Commission considers zoning text amendment darifying the definitions of governmental buildings and facilities and governmental offices. November 17, 2003 City Council considers zoning text amendment clarifying the definitions of governmental buildings and facilities and governmental offices. Council approves Ordinance 03-17. Ordinance has not been published, therefore not in effect at this time. December 2003 Partial set of floor plans received in Building for review by Lead Inspector Zajac for preliminary code review. December 16, 2003 KKE Architects contact Director of Planning regarding variance process on parking lot expansion. Were informed of CUP requirement. December 18 & 19, 2003 Written request and response from and to KKE Architects regarding process for approval and building permit issuance. December 24 & 31, 2003 Letter from and to Kathy Heaney, County Attorney regarding City's position and requirement for CUP.