HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.04.01 Council Packet
COUNCIL MEETING
REGULAR
September 4, 2001
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
SWEARING IN OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVEAGENDA
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a) Award Presentation - Safe and Sober - Police Department
b) Proclaim Pollution Prevention Week - Parks and Recreation
c) Community Survey Presentation - Administration
6. CITIZEN COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments)
a) Park Construction Update - Lake Julia Park - Parks and Recreation
7. CONSENT AGENDA
a) Approve Council Minutes (8/20/01 Regular) (8/22/01 Special)
b) Private Development Project Closeout - Engineering
c) City Participation in County Auction - Administration
d) Approve Bills
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a) Consider Resolution - Designating Farmington Heritage Landmarks -
Administration
9. AWARDOFCONTRACT
10. PETITIONS, REQUESTSAND COMMUNICATIONS
a) Middle Creek 4th Addition Development Contract - Engineering
b) Akin Road Speed Study Results - Engineering
c) Reschedule Council/Planning Commission Workshop - Community
Development
11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
12. NEW BUSINESS
a) Adopt 2002 Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy - Finance
3. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
14. ADJOURN
Action Taken
Information Received
Approved
R80-01; R81-01
Acknowledged
Aneroved
R82-0 1; R8J..Ol,'
R84-01
R85..01
Information Received
September 16. 2001
R86-01
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ciJarmington.mn.us
FROM:
Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~
Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager
TO:
SUBJECT:
Swearing In of City Administrator
DATE:
September 4,2001
INTRODUCTION
The City Administrator position includes the duties of City Clerk.
DISCUSSION
City Administrator Ed Shukle will be present to assume the duties of City Clerk.
ACTION REOUIRED
Mayor Ristow will administer the Oath of Office.
Respectfully submitted,
(~ g~~
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Services Manager
OATH OF OFFICE
I, _Ed Shukle do solemnly swear to
support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of
the State of Minnesota, and to discharge faithfully the duties of the
offices of City Administrator and City Clerk of the City of
Farmington, Minnesota, to the best of my judgment and ability, so
help me God.
Ed Shukle
I, _Gerald Ristow being authorized to take and
certify acknowledgements do hereby certify that I administered the
above oath to Ed Shukle , and that he did sign it in my
presence.
Gerald Ristow
File original with the City Clerk after execution.
95809
5a-
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.c:i.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Mayor, Councilmem~, and
City Administrator W
Daniel M. Siebenaler
Chief of Police
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Safe and Sober Award
DATE:
September 4, 2001
INTRODUCTION
As a result of active participation in a recent Safe and Sober seatbelt enforcement campaign the Farmington
Police Department will be awarded a new Speed Gun from the Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Bob O'Brien and Ms. Susan Palmer will attend the Council meeting of September 4t\ 2001 to make a
brief presentation about Safe and Sober and present a speed gun to the City. The goal of Safe and Sober is
to increase traffic safety through a combination of education and enforcement activity.
The Speed Gun being awarded is a Laser speed detector. While it serves the same function as conventional
speed radar it uses technology that can not be intercepted by radar detectors or "Fuzz Busters."
It should be noted that the local Safe and Sober Campaign is coordinated by Officer Brian Lindquist with
participation by all members of the Patrol Division. Full participation is an essential element of any
successful campaign so that a consistent message of safety and enforcement is delivered to the driving
public.
ACTION REQUESTED
Adopt the attached Proposed Resolution accepting the Laser Speed Gun from the Minnesota Office of
Traffic Safety, Safe and Sober Campaign.
Respectfully submitted,
Daniel M. Siebenaler
Chief of Police
RESOLUTION NO. R -01
ACCEPTING A LASER SPEED GUN FROM
THE MINNESOTA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 4th day of
September, 2001 at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following:
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety sponsors a Safe and Sober Campaign to
promote traffic safety through efforts of education and enforcement, and
WHEREAS, the Farmington Police Department actively participates in the Safe and Sober
Campaign, and
WHEREAS, the Safe and Sober Campaign awards equipment to those police departments that
demonstrate a commitment to traffic safety through education and enforcement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington accept the laser speed
gun being presented by the Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety, Safe and Sober Campaign for use
in its continued efforts to promote traffic safety through education and enforcement.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the
4th day of September, 2001.
Mayor
Attested to the _day of
2001.
City Administrator
SEAL
56
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.d.farmington.mn.us
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator(
FROM: James Bell
Parks & Recreation Director
SUBJECT: Pollution Prevention Week
DATE: September 4,2001
INTRODUCTION & DISCUSSION
The City of Farmington will be hosting its fifth annual Pollution Prevention Day on September 12,
2001. Pollution Prevention Day provides Farmington fourth grade students with a fun and
educational day of environmental awareness.
ACTION REQUESTED
Proclaim the week of September 9-15,2001 to be Pollution Prevention Week in Farmington.
Respectfully Submitted,
~~
J ames Bell
Parks & Recreation Director
City Ob CJ'a/unington
CP/tocQat'naHon
CU)gJ~: 9"lle peopQe o~ galunitlgtotl ta~e gfteat pftide itl Ouft Cit~' g natuwQ beaut~ atld
gUPpOftt a cQeatl atld ga~e etllJiftOtllnetl{:, atld
CU)gJ~: CPoQQuHotl pftevetlHotl, aQgo ~tlOWtl ag gouftce fteducHotl, ig a pftogfteggiVe
appftoach that eQiminateg Oft fteduceg poQQuHotl at itg souftce; atld
CU)gJ~: CPoQQuHotl pftevetlHotl ig tlle lnOgt etlViftOtllnetltaQQ~ goutld lnetllOd o~ pftotecHtlg
ouft natuwQ ftegouftceg; atld
CU)gJ~: CPoQQuHotl pltevetlHotl meagUlteg catl impftOVe etlViftOtlmetltaQ cOtldiHotlg and the
lleaQth and ga~et~ o~ woft~eftg itl the woft~pQace wlliQe inCfteaging cmnlneftCiaQ compeHHvenegg; atld
CU)gJ~: 9"llltougll itlClteased uge o~ poQQuHon pltevetlHotl, galtlnitlgtotl catl meet tile
chaQQetlge o~ llavitlg atl ecoQogicaQQ~ lteaQth~ commutlit~ atld a vigOItOug enViftOtllnetlt ~Olt itg CiH3eng;
u\f~CW. tffiJ~~CQ8. 9. g~ "C09gggcR" CQOOg~CW. uUagoll 0' tke
Cltg 0' tta/lhllllgtOIl, do kellebg p/lOcQalh\ ,geptehlbell 9-15, 200 1 to be
CPo~~uHon CPlteuenHon CUJeeb
4~
in the Cit~ o~ gaftmitlgtotl atld etlcouwge aQQ ciH3etlg to 10itl itl tilig obgeftvance.
9u\J CW.9'V~~ C\AJ9j.8CR.81'9<rJ', .9 Ilalle IIekeullto set
11I~ halld alld caused HIe geaQ o~ Hie C(t~ o~ <rJ'OkIIl(lIgtOIl to
be ~~~ed Oil tIle 4th da~ O~ ge~telllbek, 2001.
Cit~ Jdlll(lIi.stJtato~
vUa~o~
5e.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.cLfarmington.mn.us
FROM:
Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~
Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager
TO:
SUBJECT:
Community Survey Presentation
DATE:
September 4,2001
INTRODUCTION
Decision Resources will present to Council the results of the Community survey.
DISCUSSION
Bill Morris and Peter Leatherman will be present from Decision Resources. Copies of
the powerpoint presentation and the Executive summary are attached.
ACTION REQUIRED
This is for information only.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Services Manager
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
RESIDENTIAL SURVEY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Farmington
June 4, 2001
Methodology:
This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 400 randomly selected residents of the
. City of Farmington. Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers between
April 19 and May 9, 2001. The average interview took twenty-six minutes. In general, random
samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire universe of adult Farmington residents
within:l: 5.0 percentage points in 95 out of 100 cases.
Residential Demographics:
Thirty-three percent of Farmington residents reported moving to the community within the past
five years, while twenty-six percent had lived there for more than twenty years. The median
residential longevity proved to be 18.2 years, higher than the suburban norm, and unusually high
in view of the number of more recent residents. Ten percent reported they had always lived in
Farmington. Fourteen percent haled from Greater Minnesota, while sixteen percent had moved
to the community from out-of-state. The core cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul were the
. previous residences for another sixteen percent. A large thirty-two percent had moved from
other Dakota County suburbs. And, residents coming from other Metropolitan Area suburbs
accounted for twelve percent. Sixty percent of the residents anticipated staying for at least a
decade, if not longer; but, eighteen percent thought they would leave the community during the
next five years, a greater than normal transience among outer-ring communities. .
Senior households composed eighteen percent of the community's residences. School-aged or
pre-school children could be found in fifty-four percent of the households. The average age of an
adult resident was found to be 41.8 years old. In fact, fifty-four percent of the population laid in
the 25-44 year age range. Women outnumbered men by four percent in the sample.
Eighty-nine percent of the sample reported owning their current residence. Eighty-seven percent
lived in single-family homes, while six percent each reported living in either an apartment or a
townhouse/condominium.
While a White Collar majority exists in Farmington, Blue Collar households were twenty-eight
percent and retiree-headed households were eleven percent. ProfessioIlal- Technical and
Owner-Manager households numbered thirty-eight percent, while Clerical-Sales households were
another fifteen percent.
The precinct of each respondent was also noted. Twenty-five percent resided in Precinct One,
while twenty-one percent lived in Precinct Two. Twenty-six percent lived in Precinct Three, and
twenty-nine percent resided in Precinct Four.
Quality of Life:
Farmington citizens were very contented with their community. Ninety-three percent approved
of the quality of life there; thirty-one percent, strongly so. This level of satisfaction was among
the top quartile in the Metropolitan Area suburbs. When asked what they liked most about the
community, forty-one percent of the residents pointed to "small town ambience." "Convenient
location" was cited by fifteen percent, while "rural/open space" was posted by eleven percent.
"Quiet" was key to nine percent, while "nice people" was pointed to be seven percent. Only one
major serious issue facing the community was identified: "rapid growth," at forty-six percent.
Two moderate level concerns were also indicated: "taxes" and "education," both at nine percent.
A solid sixty-eight percent felt the community was headed in the "right direction." Only eighteen
percent disagreed, pointing to "too rapid growth," "poor planning," and "need for more
businesses." In fact, ninety percent would recommend living in the City of Farmington to others.
Characteristics of the Community:
Majorities felt the City of Farmington had "about the right amount" of six characteristics: the
number of people residing in the community, higher cost housing opportunities, affordable
housing opportunities, owner-occupied condominiums and townhouses, parks and open spaces,
and trails and bikeways. A solid plurality of forty-eight percent also felt the city contained
"about the right amount of rental units." While forty-six percent thought Farmington had "about
the right amount" of senior housing, forty-two percent rated it as "too little." Similarly, while
forty-eight percent felt the city had ''too few" light manufacturing businesses and jobs, forty-one
percent thought the number was "about right." Clear majorities, though, rated two characteristics
as ''too few" within the City of Farmington: service and retail establishments, as well as
entertainment and dining establishments.
Sense of Community:
Residents split in their ties to the city. Forty percent reported strong ties "to [their] region of the
city - either North or South - but not to the rest of the City of Farmington," while thirty-nine
percent felt "a real tie to the entire Farmington community." Another nineteen percent, though,
stated they "had neither strong ties to [their] neighborhood nor the community as a whole."
2
Eighty-six percent rated the general sense of community among Farmington residents as either
"excellent" or "good." Fourteen percent rated it lower. As a result of these strong ratings, only
thirty-two percent thought the City of Farmington should be doing more to promote a sense of
community. They recommended more community-wide special events and neighborhood block
parties as possible actions to foster a sense of community.
RecreationalOpporlunuks:
A solid eighty-seven percent felt the current mix of recreational opportunities in the city
sufficiently met the needs of their household members. Among the small number who regarded
them as insufficient, most saw the need for more children-oriented facilities, parks and trails, as
well as sports programs.
A very high forty-seven percent again reported members of their household had participated in a
city-sponsored recreational program. Among participants, ninety-six percent reported
satisfaction with the program(s). Non-participants pointed to "lack of time" and "lack of
interest" as the primary obstacles.
Eighty-two percent of the households reported using the community parks during the past year.
Just behind, seventy-five percent each reported household members had used the trail system
within Farmington or neighborhood parks during the past year. The outdoor swimming pool was
used by members of fifty-one percent of the city's households, while forty-eight percent used the
Senior Center and forty-seven percent, the Ice Arena. Each of these facilities received solid
positive evaluations of above ninety percent from its users.
Residents, however, were unwilling for the most part to support tax increases for additional
recreational development. By a 62%-28% margin, residents opposed a second sheet of indoor ice.
By a 62%-32% judgment, they opposed a second outdoor swimming pool. By a 51 %-44%
verdict, residents opposed a tax increase for ballfields, soccer fields and softball fields. By a
narrow 49%-44% margin, residents opposed an increase for a skate park. But, by a narrow 50%-
44% split, residents favored a tax increase for a community athletic facility, including an indoor
swimming pool, as well as basketball and volleyball courts. However, none of these proposals,
at the present time, could survive a referendum vote by the public.
An extremely high seventy-four percent felt either "very well informed" or "somewhat well
informed" about the Farmington Park System and its facilities. A similarly high seventy-three
percent felt the same way about programs sponsored by the Farmington Parks and Recreation
Department. Residents relied primarily on three sources for their information: "The Farmington
Independent," "This Week," and the city newsletter. Secondary sources included school flyers
and city flyers.
3
City Services:
City service ratings proved to be within the top quartile among Metropolitan Area suburbs. Over
ninety percent approved of police protection, fire protection, park maintenance, the garbage
disposal service, and the curbside recycling service. Over eighty percent felt similarly about the
availability and quality of City drinking water, animal control, the condition of city trails, street
lighting, preservation of trees, and sweeping of city streets. The accommodation and control of
storm water run-off, building inspection, and snow plowing of city streets were rated highly by
over seventy percent. Pavement repair and patching on city streets received a sixty percent
positive rating, still above the Metropolitan Area suburban norm. When asked for the basis of
negative ratings, three key rationales emerged: "rusty/hard water," "loose animals," and
"flooding. "
City Government and Staff:
Forty-six percent, an unusually high number, felt they knew either "a great deal" or "a fair
amount" about the work of the Mayor and City Council. Fifty-eight percent expressed approval
of the job they were doing, while only seven percent disapproved. Positive evaluations were
based on "lack of complaints" and "good overall planning." Negative evaluations were related to
the growth rate of the city.
Thirty-seven percent reported having "quite a lot" or "some" contact with the Farmington City
Staff, nine percent above the Metropolitan Area suburban norm. Fifty-seven percent rated staff
job performance as either "excellent" or "good," while seven percent saw it as "only fair" or
"poor." This rating ranked within the top quartile of suburban communities. Higher ratings were
based upon "helpfulness," and "lack of problems in the community." The few lower ratings
stemmed from "perceived room for improvement" and "lack of listening."
Forty-one percent reported they had telephoned Farmington City Hall during the past year. The
bulk of the calls were directed to the Police Department, Public Works Department, General
Information Desk, Parks and Recreation Department, and Building Inspection. When the last
telephone call made was evaluated for the quality of service provided, over ninety percent gave
high ratings on each of three dimensions: "ease of reaching a staff member who could help
[them]," "courtesy of city staff," and "ease of [their] business transaction with city staff."
Neighborhood Issues:
A high ninety-six percent rated the general condition and appearance of homes in their
neighborhood as "excellent" or "good," while ninety-three percent rated the condition and
appearance of yards similarly.
4
A strong eighty-one percent felt City code and ordinance enforcement was "about right" in its
severity; three percent thought it was ''too lenient," while six percent saw it as ''too strict."
Critics cited "winter parking," "building inspection," and "junk cars" as their enforcement
concerns.
Public Safety Issues:
Ninety-two percent felt safe walking alone in their neighborhood after dark. Only seven percent
expressed concerns. Consistent with this perspective, eighty-one percent felt the amount of
police patrolling in their neighborhood was "about right."
Thirty-four percent reported they had contact with the Farmington Police Department during the
past year. Of those contacts, forty percent were "requests for assistance," and twenty-seven
percent were "casual." Nine percent reported they were "offenders being ticketed or arrested,"
while eight percent had a "meeting or informational contact," and seven percent were "victims of
crimes."
In assessing their last contact, ninety-two percent rated the officer highly as a "professional," and
ninety-one percent similarly rated him/her as "courteous." Eighty-eight percent rated the officer
highly as "responsive," and eighty-seven percent felt the same way about hislher as
"knowledgeable." An overwhelming eighty-one percent were "satisfied" with the results of that
contact, while fourteen percent expressed "dissatisfaction."
Sixty-eight percent reported awareness of the two or three patrol officers the Farmington Police
Department has on duty around the clock. Fifty-seven percent thought this number was
"adequate," while thirty-five percent disagreed. Sixty-six percent were also aware the City
provided a full-time Student Relationship Officer in the Farmington Public School District. A
fifty-six percent majority indicated they would support a property tax increase to hire more police
officers; but, forty percent expressed opposition to a tax increase for this purpose.
In judging the greatest public safety problem within Farmington, forty-two percent selected
''juvenile crime." Eighteen percent chose "traffic violations," while thirteen percent indicated
"drugs." A group often percent, however, thought there were "no serious public safety
problems" in the community.
City Taxes and Spending:
A solid seventy-five percent felt the value of city services for the taxes they paid was "excellent"
or "good." Twenty-two percent rated it lower. The typical Farmington resident thought that 19.2
percent ofhislher property taxes went to city government. But, thirty-four percent of the sample
had no idea about the size of the city share.
5
Additional property taxes to maintain city services at their current level polarized the community:
forty-five percent supported them, while forty-seven percent opposed them. Similarly, in
comparison with nearby areas, forty-one percent thought their property taxes were "high," while
forty-nine percent saw them as "about average."
Development Issues:
A high eighty-three percent thought the quality of city services had been able to keep pace with
the population growth of the community; only eleven percent disagreed. Among the relatively
small percentage of critics, "street repair," "snow plowing," "park and recreation services," and
"police patrolling" were viewed as the laggards.
Seventy-one percent thought residents were given an adequate opportunity for input into the
zoning and land use decision-making process; a minor thirteen percent disagreed. The latter
group were critical of the "little weight given to public opinion" and "lack of encouragement for
expressing divergent opinions."
Sixty percent felt City development was well-planned for the future of Farmington, while
nineteen percent disagreed and fourteen percent thought it was sporadic. Residents were
polarized, though, on the rate of community development: fifty percent saw it as "too fast," while
forty-six percent considered it to be "about right."
The principal retail shopping area for seventy-three percent of the sample was "Apple Valley."
Twelve percent cited "Burnsville," while six percent each pointed to "Farmington" and "Eagan."
Forty-seven percent reported shopping "weekly," while thirty-five percent did so "several times a
month" or "monthly."
If they could attract non-residential development to the City of Farmington, a majority prioritzed
restaurants: thirty-five percent sought a "family sit-down restaurant," while ten percent favored
"fast food restaurants" and seven percent wanted an "upscale restaurant." Nineteen percent
prioritized a "Wal Mart or Target Store." Seven percent suggested a "clothing department store."
Ninety-six percent rated their ability to get where they needed to go in Farmington in a
reasonable amount of time as either "excellent" or "satisfactory." Only five percent posted lower
ratings, based on a combination of ''traffic congestion," "poor roads and potholes," ''too many
stop lights," and ''train traffic." But, sixty percent considered the number of major traffic
corridors leading in and out of the community as a "very serious" or "somewhat serious"
problem.
The average commute time to job sites was found to be 19.8 minutes. While twenty-three
percent reported times of less than ten minutes, nineteen percent posted commute times in excess
of thirty minutes. A significant twenty-one percent reported working in Farmington, while sixty-
four percent of the respondents reported working outside the City. Destinations included
6
Minneapolis, for nine percent, Saint Paul, indicated by nine percent, Burnsville, for thirteen
percent, and EaganlInver Grove Heights, for eight percent. Only five percent did not drive alone
to and from work. Thirty percent reported they would be willing to commute using public
transit, if it were convenient. "More routes," "more frequent service," and "closer bus stops to
home" were key considerations. In light of commuting patterns and their reliance on the
automobile, Farmington residents rejected, by a 59%-35% margin, a property tax increase to
provide limited morning and afternoon bus service to the Twin Cities.
Communications Issues:
The "Farmington Independent" was mentioned by forty-six percent as their principal source of
information about city government and its activities. "Farmington Update," the city newsletter,
followed at twenty percent, while thirteen percent cited "This Week." Avery high seventy-one
percent felt either "very well" or "somewhat well" informed about it.
Seventy-eight percent recalled receiving the city newsletter, "Farmington Update" during the past
year. Ninety-two percent of this group reported members of their household regularly read it. A
solid ninety-one percent also felt the newsletter was "effective" in keeping them informed about
activities in the community. In examining electronic media, thirty-seven percent of the sampled
households had watched telecasts of the Farmington City Council Meetings during the past six
months.
Seventy-five percent of the community owned or had access to a modem-equipped personal
computer at work. Among those with access, sixty-three percent reported awareness of the City
of Farmington's home page; twenty-six percent had actually viewed the home page, seeking
either "general information" or "park and recreation services information." Seventy-three
percent of those accessing the web page found what they were looking for, while eighteen
percent did not. Users urged the placement of more "general city information," "development
information," and "events and activities schedules" on the home page.
If they could chose the best way to receive information about city government and issues facing
the community, twenty-five percent each indicated the "Farmington Update" or "mailings," while
twenty-eight percent preferred reading about it in the "Farmington Independent."
Conclusions:
Demographically, Farmington was a "high-growth community" on the "suburban periphery."
Residents tended to be young, had children, more White Collar than Blue Collar, and relatively
stable in their future intentions to remain. They valued the existing sense of connection -
whether to the city as a whole or their neighborhood area - and small town ambience, but also
wanted several types of suburban amenities, such as restaurants and large discount stores. They
have high expectations about city services and could be difficult task masters if these
expectations were not met; however, to date the City continues to meet or exceed most residents'
7
standards. As a result, both the job performance of the Mayor and City Council, as well as City
Staff, were positively rated.
Perspectives on yity taxes, however, revealed a fiscally conservative orientation. The city was
divided on a tax increase to maintain services at their current levels. They also viewed increases
for recreational facilities coldly. The only majority galvanized in favor of a tax increase was for
hiring additional police officers. And, since crime is not presently a serious concern, residential
willingness to pay for more officers may stem from a concern about the future.
The rate of growth of the community was found to be a key issue, if the key issue. Residents
split about the current rate of growth, with roughly one-half seeing it as "about right" and one-
half as "too rapid." The fallout can also be seen in the seriousness with which residents rated the
lack of access corridors into the community, traffic congestion and speeding, as well as pavement
repair and patching of city streets. Residents, however, were not just anti-growth: the frustration
revolved around residential development, not cDmmercial-industrial or retail development. This.
perspective reveals a "second-stage growth attitude" toward development - shifting from a
concern about its overall pace to a focus on desirable, non-residential, amenities.
The summary phrase reflecting the current mode of residents is "stability amidst change." In
other words, policies should reflect maintaining and improving upon the key values which define
Farmington, essentially its "small town" character, but should also address the new needs of the
community as demographic changes take place. Planning, for example, should aim more at
making the city more self-sufficient: attracting services and retail establishments in addition to
entertainment and dining opportunities. But, even with these attitudinal changes, the City of
Farmington is still among the best run and functioning suburbs within the Metropolitan Area.
8
City of Farmington
2001 Residential Study
Decision Resources, Ltd,
Prior Residence
2001 City of Farmington
NwaY8 In FanTinglon
Minneapolis
SaInt Paul
Lakevlle
Awl- Valey
BumsviUe
Real Hennepin
Rest Waahingtoo
Reat Dakota
Reat Metro he.
Out of Stata
Rural Miooesota
20
I_Pen:entage
DecISion Resources. lid
Most Serious Issue
2001 City of Farmington
Education 9
cattered S
OecisiOf'l Resources. lid
Quality of Life
2001 City of Farmington
Decision Resources, lid
Like Most about City
2001 City of Farmington
loQtiOft 15
SINI T_ F.., 41
IRK)pen Splice t1
PMpIe 7
Decision Resources. lid
Direction of City
2001 City of Farmington
Right Oiredion
66
Woog Track
16
Decision Resources. lid
1
Recommend to Others
2001 City of Farmington
Ve.
90
Decision Res~lrces. lid
Personal Ties
2001 City of Farmington
Entire COlTTD,mity
39
Unsure
3
Decision Resources. lid
Walking Alone in Neighborhood
2001 City of Farmington
Very Safe
5<4
Reasonably Safe
38
Decision Resources, lid
Community Characteristics
2001 City of Farmington
Number of People
Rental Units
Higher Cosl Houang
Attordable Housing
0v<<H)cc Condosn"ownhouses
Seniol Housing
PBlUIOpen Spaces
T railtl8Uc.eway.
Ug,1 Manu""",,""O
ServicelRetai
EntertalnmentlOininQ
DeCISion Resouroos. LId
.Too Many
DAbout Right
.Too Few
20 40 60 50 100 120
Sense of Community
2001 City of Farmington
.-.....--.....-.-.....-....--1.:: ..
--,
~ (J'._~-__~ ~:
Should City Do More to
Promote Seose of
CorrrRmity
Decision Resources, lid
Recoomended
Aclions
Amount of Patrolling
2001 City of Farmington
About Right
81
Decision Resource6, ltd
Excessive
4
Unsure
1
2
Condition and Appearance
2001 City of Farmington
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Excelent Good Only Fair Poor Unsure
I_Nelghbol11ood Homes _Nelghborllood Yaros
Decision Resources. lid
City Services
2001 City of Farmington
Police
Fire
Drinking Water
StofmWater
AnImal Contr~
Park Maintenance
Coo<ition of Tr'"
Street Lighting
BuIlding Inopec1ion
Preservation 0' Trees
G.-bage Oiaposal Service
Curbside Recycling
Pavement Repai'lPatchlng
Snowplowlng
Street Swe~ng
20 40 60 80 100 120
Decision Resources. lid
Taxes to Maintain Services
2001 City of Farmington
Favor
45
Oppose
47
Decision Resources. Lid
Number of Major Corridors
2001 City of Farmington
Somewhat Serious
44
Not At All Serlous
Not Too Serious
33
Oecision Resources. lid
Value of City Services
2001 City of Farmington
DecISion Resources. lid
Comparative Property Taxes
2001 City of Farmington
Somewhat High
33
Decision Resources. Ltd
3
Mayor and City Council
2001 City of Farmington
*--. -a_-.
-~~,: ~.,.,
......."
Knowledge about
Wor1<
Job Perfonnance of
Mayor and City
Council
Decision Resources. lid
Police Department
2001 City of Farmington
YK
".0
Knll'tlllllledge...
-
Pro"'....,
No
eo.
...
Contad with Farmington
poace Department
RnpoMi'l1
I_Po.illYl .fM;.tlvl
Rating of Contacted
Officer
Decision Resources, Ltd
Tax Increase for More Officers
2001 City of Farmington
Unsure
5
Decision Resources,lId
City Staff
2001 City of Farmington
_~._D A~' _.D _,
OrtyF.e
NclN2e F'oa'1
......."
First-Hand Contact
of elly Staff
Job Perfonnance of
Cny Staff
Decision Resources, Ltd
Police Department II
2001 City of Farmington
V..
No
I_percenlage
v..
No
Unsure
Ve.
No
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Decision Resources. lid
Greatest Public Safety Problem
2001 City of Farmington
Violent Crime
30
40
50
JwenU. CrIme
Burgl8IY
Drugs
Gangs
Traflc V1~tion.
I_percentage
Other
None Serious
Unsure
Oeci5ion Resources. Ltd.
4
Code/Ordinance Enforcement
2001 City of Farmington
nsure 8
Decision Rf>sources. lid
Sprinkling Policy
2001 City of Farmington
. -... .:;"'~-
,..Ill AboUIRll;tt
, M~ ~
10 :,: ~:,~
ItO'll.
Awareness
Reaction 10 Poley
Level of City
Enforcement
DecISion Resources. Ltd
Opportunity for Zoning Input
2001 City of Farmington
Adequate
71.0%
Inadequate
13.0%
Decision Resources. ltd
Snowmobiling
2001 City of Farmington
YH
-
814'P01t ~8upport
----
23 "
'"
Snowmobile
Ownership
Ban on Sno\\iDlObding in
Residential Areas
Decision Resources, lid
City Services Kept Pace
2001 City of Farmington
Decision Resources, Ltd
Development
2001 City of Farmington
Too flllt
......
.:::: -=:--e,:,:
'.O'l'o .
.....-
1..(N,
No ............
18. ....0-.
...
YVeI-Plannecl for Future Rate of Development
Decision Resources, Ltd
5
Shopping for Goods and Services
2001 City of Farmington
_v_. .-.,
..;', - ..."CI _~,
F~e:z.~'7
a.n-.. 12 ~ 18
Principal Shopping Area
Average Frequency of
Purchases
Decision ResoUfces. lid
Reasonable In-City Travel Time
2001 City of Farmington
DecISion Resources, lid
Commuting Patterns
2001 City of Farmington
~'".. 8::~=: .~"
No 70
Nannal CorrvroUng
Method
Use Convenient
Pubic Transit
Decision Resources. lid
Retail/Leisure Business Needs
2001 City of Farmington
lAo~Gr_fY4
UpecI,"".1t 7
Decision Resources, Ltd.
Average Commute Time
2001 City of Farmington
25
20
15
10
50IlAo"MIrUlt. 11-t5........ 21-30........... MotAppQ*
.,QMRa. 1~M""" 0,...30........
I_Percentage
Decision Resources. lid
Tax Increase for Public Transit
2001 City of Farmington
Support
29
Strongly Oppose
32
DecisIon Resources, Ltd
6
Information Levels
2001 City of Farmington
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
o
v~ V.llnIolTl'lH Not Too V.llnIo,.,..d
~IY*llInlormtd NotAlAlHQm.-d
_Park System & FaclUties
Decision Resources. LId
.City-Sponsored Programs
Telephone City Hall
2001 City of Farmington
Yn
.1
.
No
..
bl. RelIC,*" S...
~.~ofCIlyStd'
E... 01 T,.,...c:tion
During Past Year
I_ExcelentlGood ~ hil!Poof
Service Dimensions
DecisIon Resources, lid
Tax Increase for Recreational Facility
2001 City of Farmington
Second Ice Sheel
60 70
Skate Park
Athletic Fields
Second Outdoor Pool
Comm.mity Athletic Facility
Decision Resources. lid
Sources of Park & Rec Information
2001 City of Farmington
"The Farmington Independenf
"ThiaWeek"
Park and Recreation Bcochure
SohoolFly...
City Newsletter
Signboard near Arena
Fly...
Internet Website
20 40 60
I_USed 8S Sotln:a
80
100
Decision Resources, ltd
Park and Recreation Facilities
2001 City of Farmington
100
60
80
40
20
Trails Neigh Parb Senior Center
Corm1 Parks Outdoor Pool Ice Arena
I_Usage _Favorable Rating
Oecision Resources. lid
Recreational Programs Usage
2001 City of Farmington
Ves
47.0
No
53.
0%
DecisIon Resources, LId
7
Mix of Recreational Opportunities
2001 City of Farmington
Principal Information Source
2001 City of Farmington
-ns.pendenl"
..
Ves
87.0
%
Unsure
5.0%
........y c.bleTV
. .
Decision Resources. lid
Decision Resources, LId.
City Government Information
2001 City of Farmington
City Newsletter
2001 City of Farmington
Somewhat Wellnfonned
88.0%
No"
Very Wellnfonned
5.0%
Not At All We. Inform
.0%
Not Too 'NeD Informed
22.0%
Receipt of
Newsletter
Overs. Eft'edtveness
DeCISion Resources, LId
Decision Resources. ltd
City Council Meeting Viewership
2001 City of Farmington
Ves
37.0
Computer Capability
2001 City of Farmington
YesIYes
45
Accessed
AW8re1N;:e28
Unsure
o
Unaware
38
Decision Resources. ltd.
No
83.
0%
NoIYes
8
Access to Modem at
Homatat ~rk
DecisIon Resources, Ltd
Aware/Accessed City's
Home Page
8
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.cLfarmington.mn.us
c~
FROM:
Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~
James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director
TO:
SUBJECT:
Citizen Comment - Lake Julia Park
DATE:
September 4, 2001
INTRODUCTION
James Munro requested the City start developing Lake Julia Park.
DISCUSSION
The Parks and Recreation Commission is aware of the needs at Lake Julia Park and have instructed city
staff to work on a plan to develop Lake Julia Park. The site has had substaritial work already completed and
will undergo more construction this fall. The work schedule is as follows:
2000
Proiect
Playground Structure purchased and installed.
Graded and seeded most of the park.
Constructed and installed two park signs.
Trail Constructed from 187th St. to Embry trail.
Fishing Dock installed.
Curbing placed around the play equipment and park signs.
Ag-lime infield installed with the ballfield grading.
Seeded the newly graded portion and the previously seeded area.
Planted tlowerbeds and some trees.
Hired contractor to install a basketball court.
Ordered the backstop for the ballfield.
Staff will overseed the entire grass area of the park this fall.
~
1999
200 I Plans
The entire cost of the work through this fall will be approximately $128,000.00.
ACTION REOUESTED
For information only.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
James Bell
Parks and Recreation Director
Cc: James Munro, 18863 Embers Ave.
?~
COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR
August 20, 2001
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
3.
ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Also Present:
Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan, Verch
None
City Attorney Jamnik, Interim City Administrator Roland, City
Management Team
4. APPROYEA GENDA
MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
s. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a) Introduction of New Employee-Public Works
Mr. Ron Ley was introduced as the new Mechanic. He began employment on
June 25, 2001.
b) Introduction of New Employee - Community Development
Mr. Ken Lewis was introduced as the new Building Inspector. He began
employment on July 30, 2001.
6. CITIZEN COMMENTS
7. CONSENT AGENDA
Item 7a) Council Minutes (8/6/01 Regular) was pulled so Councilmember Verch could
abstain from voting as he was absent from that meeting. MOTION by Soderberg,
second by Cordes approving Council Minutes (8/6/01 Regular). Voting for: Ristow,
Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan. Abstain: Verch. MOTION CARRIED.
Item 7c) Appointment Recommendation - Parks and Recreation was pulled by
Councilmember Cordes for discussion. She wanted the item tabled until the new City
Administrator started. She felt the department was being restructured by approving this
position. Councilmember Verch stated we are creating a new position and we have never
done that before? He stated he has confidence in the staff. Councilmember Soderberg
asked if the Forester/Gardener was a new position. Interim City Administrator Roland
stated it was approved in the 2001 budget as an additional position. It is supported and
funded by the 2001 budget. Staff proceeded in the hiring process with internal candidates
as with all other positions. As the new City Administrator starts September 4, 2001,
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 20, 2001
Page 2
Councilmember Cordes felt this item should be tabled until the September 17, 2001
Council Meeting to give City Administrator Shukle time to review the situation. Interim
City Administrator Roland stated staffhas spoken with Mr. Shukle and advised him of
the position and the process and issues involved. He was supportive of it. Mayor Ristow
stated he also spoke to Mr. Shukle and at that time Mr. Shukle stated he would prefer to
wait. Mayor Ristow said there was an article in the newspaper regarding the budget, and
it talked about new positions and that more discussion was needed. Mayor Ristow stated
he did not recall having those discussions. Interim City Administrator Roland stated she
did not recall saying that. Mayor Ristow stated this needed to be discussed more because
of the budget cuts. MOTION by Cordes, second by Ristow to deny the appointment
recommendation - Parks and Recreation. Councilmember Strachan asked if delaying this
appointment would have an adverse affect on the department. Parks and Recreation
Director Bell replied it would mean the position would not be filled for 4 more weeks.
The position has been vacant since July 1,2001. Councilmember Cordes stated when
you say vacant, that means there has been no other person in the position. Parks and
Recreation Director Bell stated a park maintenance worker was authorized in the 2001
budget. There used to be a shared position between solid waste and parks and recreation.
The person filling that position went to the solid waste division. The parks part of it has
been vacant. Councilmember Cordes asked what staff has been doing since July 1,2001.
Parks and Recreation Director Bell replied they have been using summer staff, but they
will be losing summer help and will be short staffed for the next month. Councilmember
Strachan stated he is supportive of staff. However, if it would make Council more
comfortable to table this item, he would agree with that, as long as it is a structure issue
and not a personality issue. Voting for: Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan. Voting
against: Verch. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to approve the Consent Agenda as follows:
b) Accepted Donation - Pollution Prevention Day - Parks and Recreation
d) Approved Akin Road Project Right-of-way Acquisition - Engineering
(Supplemental)
e) Received Information Capital Outlay - Liquor Operations - Finance
f) Approved Civil Penalty Alcohol Compliance Violation - Police Department
g) Adopted RESOLUTION R73-01 Accepting Grant - Fire Department
h) Adopted RESOLUTION R74-01 2001 Sealcoat Project - Engineering
i) Received Information Park Improvements - Parks and Recreation
j) Received Information School and Conference - Administration
k) Received Information School and Conference - Fire Department
I) Received Information School and Conference - Community Development
m) Set September 4,2001 Public Hearing - Farmington Heritage Landmark
Designation - Administration
n) Approved Bills
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 20, 2001
Page 3
9. AWARD OF CONTRACT
a) Akin Road Project - Engineering
Bids were received for the Akin Road Project. McNamara Contracting Inc has
submitted the low bid for $1,077,177.50. Dakota Electric submitted a quotation
for $56,000 for their portion of the street lighting and XCEL Energy submitted a
quotation of $3,930 for their portion of the street lighting. The total construction
cost of the project based on the bid and quotations is $1,137,107.50. The total
estimated project cost including contingencies and legal, engineering and
administrative costs is $1,588,600. MOTION by Cordes, second by Verch
adopting RESOLUTION R75-01 accepting the base bid of McNamara
Contracting Inc. and awarding the contract. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION by Cordes, second by Verch adopting RESOLUTION R76-01
authorizing the contracts for the installation of the street lighting for the project by
XCEL Energy and Dakota Electric Association. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a) Consider Resolution - Riverbend PUD Schematic Plan Amendment -
Community Development
Astra Genstar Partnership proposes to amend the approved Riverbend Schematic
PUD from 272 single-family units to 140 single-family units retaining the R-2
PUD zoning designation. The property was redesignated from R-l and F-3 to R-2
PUD on February 5,2001. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
the amendment at their August 14,2001 meeting. Residents attending that
meeting wanted the proposed park located along the westerly property line
adjacent to Dakota County Estates to provide an additional buffer to the proposed
development. Staff will bring this request to the Parks and Recreation
Commission. A major concern by the City Council for approval of the project at
the preliminary plat stage was that Upper 1820d and Upper 183rd are local streets
constructed at 32 feet in width and were not built to minor collector standards of
38 feet in width. Because of the potential for increased volumes of traffic, on-
street parking would mostly be restricted to one side of the street and pedestrian
safety might be compromised because of the lack of sidewalks on the existing
streets that are normally required along one side of collector streets. The
Developer asked the Traffic Engineer how many units the development would
need to be reduced to in order to not exceed local street volumes. According to
the Traffic Engineer, the development would need to be reduced to a total of 150-
160 units to eliminate the need for minor collectors in Dakota County Estates.
Therefore, the Developer proposed reducing the number of units in Riverbend by
approximately one-half. The Developer proposes four accesses from its property,
two to the west through Dakota County Estates at Upper 1820d Street and Upper
183rd Street. Two southerly accesses are proposed through Meadow Creek
subdivision. The estimated daily traffic volumes are: 180th Street - 350; Upper
1820d Street - 165; 183rd Street - 80; Upper 183rd Street - 440.
Mr. James Munro, 18863 Embers Avenue, asked if that includes 1 car per house?
Staff replied it is average trips per household.
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 20, 2001
Page 4
The Developer proposes 75-foot wide lots with the average price range of
$170,000 - $200,000.Water access is available through Dakota County Estates. A
60-foot wide gas line easement runs from the southwest comer of the site to the
northeast near the central portion of the easterly half of the site. Councilmember
Verch stated he would like speed bumps on Upper 182nd and Upper 183rd for
speed control. Staff will discuss this with the Traffic Engineer and bring back to
Council past information on speed bumps. MOTION by Soderberg, second by
Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R77-01 approving the Riverbend PUD
Amendment. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
Item 11 a) was moved ahead to accommodate the audience.
11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a) Consider Resolution - Meadow Creek Preliminary Plat - Community
Development
At the August 6, 2001 Council Meeting, the Council made a recommendation to
continue the Meadow Creek Preliminary Plat to this meeting. The Developer was
asked to propose an alternative solution to the traffic impact concerns. The
Developer and staff held a neighborhood meeting once a revision was proposed.
The revisions consist of proposing Eaglewood Trail as a continuous street through
the Meadow Creek development, beginning at Embers A venue on the east and
terminating at 195th Street to the south. Eaglewood Trail would be classified as a
minor collector at this location. Staff recommended the right-of-way be widened
to 70 feet in the Meadow Creek development to allow for a sidewalk along the
proposed minor collector. The revision to 187th Street consisted of terminating
the street at Eaglewood Trail rather than requiring 187th Street to be a continuous
route to 195th Street to the south. 187th Street will intersect with Eaglewood Trail
in the Meadow Creek development. The Traffic Engineer proposed 187th Street
from Embers A venue to Eaglewood Trail remain classified as a local street. From
Embers Avenue to Pilot Knob Road, the Traffic Engineer recommends that 187th
Street be classified as a minor collector.
In the original concept, 187th Street showed a projected traffic daily volume of
2,030. In the revised concept, the traffic count has been reduced to 1,300
projected daily volume. Eaglewood Trail originally showed a daily volume of
170. The revised concept shows a daily volume of 870. The Traffic Engineer
proposed 40 trips per day north and south on Embers Avenue south of Eaglewood
Trail, while 395 trips per day will be generated north and south between
Eaglewood Trail and 187th Street. It is projected that 520 trips per day will run
east and west along 187th Street between Embers A venue and Pilot Knob Road
and 250 trips per day both north and south of 187th Street on Embers Avenue.
At the neighborhood meeting, residents were concerned with construction traffic
and proposed routes used to reach the Meadow Creek development. These issues
will be concluded before the grading and construction plans are approved and any
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 20, 2001
Page 5
grading commences on the site. Residents also asked if a crosswalk could be
located on 187th Street near Lake Julia Park. The Traffic Engineer stated the City
only installs crosswalks at intersections of streets, and as there is not an
intersection at this location, he recommended against the crosswalk. He did
recommend placing park signs reminding vehicles to slow down near the park.
The residents also asked if the reclassification of 187th Street as a minor collector
would make it easier to gain stop signs. The Traffic Engineer stated the
reclassification carries more political clout to assist in making a positive
recommendation to approving a stop sign on a minor collector if it meets
warrants. Residents asked if east/west collectors such as 195th Street were
extended and connected to TH3, would this reduce some of the traffic on 187th
Street and Eaglewood Trail? The Traffic Engineer stated as more roads are built,
traffic counts would be reduced due to additional routes.
The Developer proposed to plat 178 single-family lots on 159.35 acres in the first
phase of Meadow Creek. The condition to plat approval concerning the need for
a variance to the cul-de-sac length has been dismissed because the cul-de-sac has
been eliminated due to the reconfiguration of Eaglewood Trail as a continuous
roadway through the development. Approval of the Meadow Creek Preliminary
Plat is contingent upon the following items:
1. The Developer seeks a variance to the minimum lot width for two lots on
the preliminary plat before approval of the final plat.
2. Any required revisions to easements and all engineering comments from
the June 27, 2001 memo that are relevant to the preliminary plat need to be
addressed on the plat.
3. Require corrections and improvements to the grading and drainage
problems in Prairie Creek 4th Addition and restore the affected properties.
4. Require the review of the storm water and pond design as recommended
by engineering.
5. Preserve the treeline along the northern border of the development.
Councilmember Soderberg stated he understands the need to designate a local
street as a minor collector, but it has a negative impact. As far as stop signs,
designating a minor collector protects the traffic flow so it is not impeded. Staff
replied if 187th is designated as a minor collector, and Embers Avenue already is a
minor collector, there would be a four-way stop sign. Councilmember Soderberg
asked based on projected traffic flows, if it meets warrants to place a stop sign at
that intersection. Staff replied the Traffic Engineer is not stating that at this time.
As development continues, it will be reviewed.
Mr. James Munro, 18863 Embers Avenue, stated there is already tons of traffic on
Embers Avenue. He stated he was not notified of the neighborhood meeting.
Staff stated the property owners along 187th Street and Eaglewood Way were
notified. When he moved in, his street was a cul-de-sac. He watches kids getting
potentially run over every day. They cannot get to the park, which is incomplete.
How do you slow traffic down to 30 mph? Cars are constantly passing on
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 20, 2001
Page 6
Embers. Police Chief Siebenaler stated a speed analysis was done one year ago.
There were no significant issues. The police have received a number of requests
for a radar display board and have placed it on Embers a number of times. Mayor
Ristow stated Elk River Trail will take some of the traffic. Mr. Munro stated he is
tired of calling the police and yelling at people. What can be done about the
speed? Councilmember Strachan stated Embers is classified as a collector street.
If the issue is speed, there has to be a balance of traffic calming devices.
Councilmember Strachan also has the same concern with Eaglewood Trail. He
asked if it would be possible to change the design in the next phase so it is not a
straight route? City Engineer Mann replied the entire layout would change. The
area to the east of Meadow Creek could be reviewed as a way to calm the traffic.
It will be discussed with the developer. Mr. Munro also asked that the trees not
be taken down, and make a nice trail along the trees.
Mr. Mike Olson, Progress Land, stated the area lies south of a drainage ditch.
Taking out trees is limited to the trail which will be constructed where the trees
are. The trees are not affecting the lots. What kind of boulevard would it be with
box elder and willow trees? It is a planning issue to think about species of trees
and long term effect. Willow and box elder are not wanted along the trail. Parks
and Recreation Director Bell stated when Dakota County Estates was developed,
the ditch was dug and piles left along the south side. There is growth in the piles.
We are not anti-tree. We had a Forester position on the agenda earlier tonight.
We look at the type of trees, and if they are not good, new trees will be planted.
Ms. Sherri Shultheis, 18891 Embers Avenue, stated she paid more for her lot
because of the trees, and the City tore half of them down and they have not been
compensated. Their lawn has been tom up for three years. The drainage has been
fixed, but it took three years. She is not thrilled about having a stop sign in front
of her house. There is a lot of speeding construction traffic.
Mr. Jim Rauscher, 18877 Embers A venue, feels the residents have been blind
sided by the change in the plat. They did not know about the neighborhood
meeting. No one on Embers Avenue was contacted. It has not been taken into
consideration all the traffic already on Embers A venue because of the
development to the south. It is time for 187th to eat more of the traffic. The
redevelopment of the plat is crazy. The first plat looked fine to him. How did it
get changed and how can Embers A venue residents change it? Mayor Ristow
stated there was only one route - 187th Street. The residents asked the City to
reconsider and look at other routes. Mr. Rauscher stated traffic will go on Embers
A venue. He will not live on that street if this happens and perhaps not in this
City. He knew it was a wider street, that there would be a development to the
south, and that his backyard would be tom up. Mayor Ristow stated before you
bought your house, if there had not been problems in litigation with drainage
these houses would have been there already. What do we tell them now? No,
when it is already in the Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Rauscher stated all he wanted
to know was how did the plat get changed from two weeks ago to today, and how
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 20, 2001
Page 7
do they get it changed again? Embers already is a freeway. The City wants
Embers to eat all of this traffic. Embers residents want the plat redone again,
because they were not notified of the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Rauscher asked
how many homes will be built in the first phase. Staffreplied 170. Mr. Rauscher
stated they already have 170 homes from the development to the south with the
traffic on Embers Avenue. Mr. Rauscher stated he would like to be involved in
changing the plat again.
Ms. Michelle Hesse, 18821 Embers Avenue, thanked the police for patrolling
their neighborhood. She is also concerned with the traffic situation. Cars are
passing and she is concerned about the kids. She wanted to know if it would take
someone being hit by a car before something is done. She agreed with
Councilmember Verch on the speed bumps. She does not think stop signs will
work. Patrol cars are a great idea, but that does not help. If the speed bumps are
approved, can the plows plow the snow without being damaged? Mayor Ristow
stated speed bumps are difficult to plow and ice and snow will compact. The
street sweeper can leave debris before and after the speed bumps. Ms. Hesse
asked if a recent traffic study could be done on Embers A venue? Mayor Ristow
replied if Council requests it. Ms. Hesse stated another route (19Sth Street) was
going to be constructed for traffic to go down Embers and head south. Would that
cause more problems for Embers? Staff stated 19Sth Street construction has
already begun. Ms. Hesse stated there is a lot of speeding traffic including
construction traffic.
Mr. John Kornmann, 18886 Eaglewood Trail, asked if Eaglewood would be
considered a minor collector from 19Sth to Embers. Mayor Ristow replied yes.
Councilmember Strachan stated a minor collector is a classification used to
support additional traffic control. In the future, if a stop sign is needed at
Dunbury, this would help support that. Mr. Kornmann stated in front of his
house, Eaglewood Trail is only 34 feet wide. Is it designed to handle the expected
traffic? Staff stated existing plans show it as 38 feet in width with a 60 foot right-
of-way. Mr. Kornmann stated when he built four years ago, he had his choice of
lots. He chose his lot because he could see 187th would be busy. He would like
to see the plat designed differently. City Engineer Mann stated streets are
measured face-of-curb to face-of-curb, so there is some of the curb included in the
width of the street.
Ms. Stacy Johnson, 18882 Embers Avenue, stated her house was supposed to
have some drainage going to the pond. This was supposed to be fixed before any
other houses were built. She wanted to know, is this happening, when is it
happening, and why isn't it happening. City Engineer Mann replied Progress
Land is in the process of designing the whole site. They will be fixing the
drainage issues along Meadow Creek.
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 20, 2001
Page 8
Mr. Mark Yerges, 18793 Embers A venue, stated the new plat does not change
much from the previous one concerning 187th Street. The numbers may look
different, but everyone is still going north to work. There will be 2,000 cars using
187th. Residents to the west of Embers are still going to take the brunt of traffic.
Unless there is a north/south route to the east and then going west to Pilot Knob,
how far does it develop to the east until there is another main north/south route?
Everyone cannot go through the neighborhoods to Pilot Knob.
Ms. Joanne Payne, 20192 Akin Road, stated this is just like a replay of Akin
Road. When Pilot Knob went through, there was not supposed to be the amount
of traffic on Akin Road. Addressing Council, she said these residents are here
telling you their concerns just like we did on Akin Road, and effectively, nothing
has changed. She appreciates the job Councilmember Soderberg does trying to
defend the people here, but he should not back down. There is nothing wrong
with voting no against any of this. All of Council will be up for re-election. If
Council does not start listening to the residents, people will be voting against
Council and they will not be holding their offices. If that is not an incentive to
start listening to what residents are saying, then maybe Council does not need to
be up there.
Mr. Mike Olson, Progress Land, stated it sounds like additional development in
the area is not wanted. This is not about traffic counts coming onto Embers,
because where else can it go? The north/south collector needed is not going to
happen all at once, because it is under separate ownership. It will happen in
increments. The sooner these developments are approved so they can all piece
together to create the north/south collector, the sooner this problem is solved.
What would be gained by redesigning the interior of the plat? The traffic will still
end up on Embers. Progress Land has made a very strong effort to mitigate the
traffic. There are only 2 stub streets to adjacent land.
Mayor Ristow stated he is not looking at political threats. He is here to represent
everyone in Farmington. It is a balancing act. With the latest comment, we have
to look at rules and regulations as a whole. When plans are identified in the
comprehensive plan, if they meet standards and are denied, the City would be set
up for lawsuits. We are not here to object and say we are not listening. I do not
know what connection Councilmember Soderberg has with Mrs. Payne, but we all
listen truthfully. We do what we feel is right.
Mr. Jim Rauscher, had a comment regarding the change between the first and
second plats. He said it was stated earlier that it would not change the traffic on
Embers A venue. That is dead wrong, it would change the traffic on Embers
tremendously. There is a ton of traffic there now, we do not need an additional
half of this other development just because some residents got together and said
let's put it on these residents and we were not notified. Mayor Ristow stated that
was not said at the neighborhood meeting. The residents were very concerned.
They asked if the traffic could be divided up in different areas. According to our
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 20, 2001
Page 9
Traffic Engineer, it was divided up equally. Mr. Rauscher stated the Embers
Avenue residents were not notified.
Ms. Christine Erickson, 5245 187th Street, stated the original plat for Prairie Creek
for 187th was supposed to loop around. They have traffic they did not expect.
They want their neighborhoods to stay local streets. Construction traffic goes too
fast. Mayor Ristow stated once the construction trucks are in there, the majority
will stay in the development while the work is progressing. There is a 60-day
limit to act on a plat. Community Development Director Olson stated there is 60
days for approval with the Planning Commission, and 60 days with the Council.
If not approved by then, it is approved by default.
Mr. James Munro, asked about Lake Julia Park. The ballfield was started last fall
and is in the same stage now. Did the City run out of money, did the people in
that area not pay enough taxes to get a decent park? Parks and Recreation
Director Bell stated the park has been seeded twice and because of the drought, it
will be seeded again this fall. The backstop has been ordered for the ballfield. A
basketball court is ordered. To get contractors in this time of year is tough, but
completion is anticipated this fall. Mr. Munro stated other developments have
their parks and trails and he was wondering what is the holdup in their
neighborhood. Parks and Recreation Bell replied your neighborhood is getting its
fair share. We are spreading our money around as much as we can. The Parks
and Recreation Commission is very much aware of the situation with the parks.
Mr. Munro stated he sees the trails going between the other houses and does not
see much in their neighborhood that adds value to their house. Except maybe
Autumn Glen because the houses are more expensive. Mayor Ristow stated the
Parks and Recreation Commission meets the 4th Wednesday of the month. He
suggested Mr. Munro bring his concerns to them.
Councilmember Soderberg stated, talking about land rights issues, this land owner
has a right to do with his land as he sees fit, just like everyone of you has a right
to do with your land as you see fit if done in accordance with the law. Everyone
of us is concerned with the traffic through these developments and the speed. It is
your neighbors that are speeding. One resident said when he turns on 187th, he
speeds through someone else's neighborhood. Why doesn't he show the same
consideration that he would demand of everyone else? If everyone of us would
slow down a little bit then every neighborhood would be a better place to live in.
This developer has a right to do what he wants with his property as long as it is in
accordance with the law. There was only one exit out of this whole development
for 300 houses. They did a good job splitting it up so there are at least two exits
and six proposed. Embers Avenue is designed as a minor collector and to handle
the traffic. We are trying to disperse traffic as much as we can. While no one
likes to have development and everything that goes with it, he would support the
plat the way it is. For the record, he has no connection with Mrs. Payne other
than as a constituent. Mayor Ristow stated we all looked at Akin Road and voted
equally.
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 20, 2001
Page 10
Councilmember Strachan stated growth is difficult and any traffic is too much
traffic. We have to make it as well planned as we can. There will be increased
traffic on Embers and Council is committed to addressing that. He would like to
see as part of the motion Eaglewood Trail and 187th to the east in the next phase
be broken up so it is not a straight shot. Councilmember Soderberg asked if that
could be accepted as Council direction to staff. City Attorney Jamnik agreed.
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R78-01
approving the Meadow Creek Preliminary Plat with contingencies. APIF,
MOTION CARRIED.
10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
b) Approve Lease Contract Public Facilities
Backup generators are necessary at the new Central Maintenance Facility and
Police Station. These generators are necessary to provide 24-hour coverage in
case of loss of power. The Police Station will have a 200kW generator and the
Central Maintenance Facility, a 400kW generator. Based on the cost analysis, the
operating lease appears to be the best option. Complete maintenance
responsibility is born by the Energy Alternatives, a subsidiary of Dakota Electric,
and they are responsible for any no-start penalties. The lease of these generators
incorporates them in Dakota Electric's Peak Shaving program. This program
requires the City to revert to generator power upon request from Dakota Electric
during peak electrical usage periods. The reduction of electric costs is retained by
Dakota Electric and offsets the monthly lease amount charged to the City. The
annual lease payments of$30,035 for the generators will be included in the
operational costs for the two new facilities starting in 2003. MOTION by Verch,
second by Soderberg approving the Power Plus Lease Contract with Energy
Alternatives for a 200kW generator at the Police Station and a 400kW generator
at the Central Maintenance Facility. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
12. NEW BUSINESS
a) Storm Water Pond Maintenance Program - Engineering
The storm water pond maintenance/dredging program is identified in the 2001-
2005 Capital Improvement Program. The purpose of the SWUMP is to identify
and correct ponds that are losing capacity due to silt and sediment accumulation.
A second purpose is to identify structures that are either damaged or filled with
sediment and debris, and then repair or clean them. Inlet and discharge structures
from the storm sewer system are covered with grates to prevent animals and
debris from entering the storm sewer. This program will also make existing
ponds more erosion resistant and aesthetically pleasing through the planting of
naturally occurring wetland trees and grasses and the use of non-traditional pond
maintenance practices. Staff and the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation
District have identified the pond west of Pilot Knob Road between 187th Street
and Elk River TraillEuclid Path as a candidate for this year's program. Dakota
County SWCD currently has a 50% cost-share grant program available for
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 20,2001
Page 11
projects that preserve or restore natural resources in non-agricultural areas of
Dakota County with available funds of up to $5,000. A recommended future goal
of the SWUMP is to incorporate algae control for storm water ponds. Total costs
for the landscaping of the pond along CSAH 31 is estimated at $6,000 including
materials and planting costs, a portion of which will be funded through the cost-
share program. The total dredging cost is $51,425. MOTION by Verch, second
by Soderberg to implement the Storm Water Utility Maintenance Program.
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
Community Development
Director Olson: There is a MUSA Committee meeting on August 22, 2001.
Parks and Recreation
Director Bell: There was some vandalism to the new picnic shelter and
dock in East Farmington. There was also an incident at the pool. If any neighbors see
anything happening in the parks that should not be, they should call the police.
Mayor Ristow: The 11 th Annual Ramble and Amble was held at Dakota
City. Staff and residents participated. $39,192 was raised.
14. ADJOURN
MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to adjourn at 10:20 p.m. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
f7,J/~ 7Y7~
Cynthia Muller
Executive Assistant
MINUTES
BUDGET WORKSHOP
AUGUST 22, 2001
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7 :00 p.m.
Present: Mayor Ristow, Councilmembers Cordes and Soderberg
Absent: Councilmembers Strachan and Verch
Also present: Management Team
2. ADOPT WORKSHOP AGENDA
MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to approve the agenda. APIF,
MOTION CARRIED.
3. PROPOSED 2002 TAX LEVY
Finance Director Roland explained that the proposed 2002 tax levy is $3,607,016
representing an increase of$674,016 or 23% over the 2001 levy of $2,933,000.
Of this increase, $456,937 (15.6%) is to cover debt service on the City's new
Police Station and Central Maintenance Facility and $217,079 (7.4%) is proposed
to finance General Fund operating expenditures. Market values for 2001-2002 are
up 19.6% and the Tax Capacity Value is down 10.7%. The proposed budget
includes five additional full time employees, increase of a part-time to full time
and an additional part-time position.
4. REVIEW GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Proposed General Fund 2002 revenues are estimated at $5,216,271 with 50% of
those revenues from property taxes, up 11 % from the 2001 budget.
Intergovernment revenues are down 31 % from 2001 due to the elimination of
HACA.
5. REVIEW GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
Proposed General Fund operating expenditures for 2002 total $5,086,271, an
increase of 12.5% over 2001, and are due to the growth of the City. Increased
expenditures were anticipated by the Financial Performa staff has been using
since 1997. Due to emphasis on staffing, capital outlay requests for 2002 are
significantly reduced over prior years and total $47,087. The Capital Acquisition
Fund is proposed to fund a squad car, Fire vehicle, Public Works pick-up and a
brush chipper.
6. COUNCIL REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
· Farmington lost $360,000 in government aid
· Police dispatching costs increased approximately 25%
. Fuels, natural gas and health insurance costs have increased dramatically in
2001
· The Senior Center Coordinator's position will no longer be funded from
CDBG funds and will be included in the General Fund budget.
· In previous years some expenditures were funded from funds other than the
General Fund. In 2002 it is proposed to move these expenditures back to their
appropriate places in the General Fund.
· The proposed 2002 budget is a balanced budget.
· Representative Dennis Ozment was present for the meeting and explained his
opinions on the legislative changes.
· Property owners will likely see a decrease on the total tax statement.
· Staff explained that because of the J.D. Edwards conversion, some line items
were adjusted up or down, based on 2000-2001 actuals.
· Staff will provide Council with additional information on proposed new
positions.
6. ADJOURN
MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 8:58 p.m. APIF,
MOTION CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
c~~~
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Services Manager
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
/6
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~
FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolutions - Charleswood 2nd and Nelsen Hills 6th Addition Project Closeout
DATE: September 4,2001
INTRODUCTION
The improvements outlined in the Development Contracts for the Charleswood 2nd Addition and the
Nelsen Hills 6th Addition have been substantially completed.
DISCUSSION
The Charleswood 2nd Addition Development Contract was signed on May 17, 1999 between the City
and Astra Genstar Partnership, L.L.P.. The completion date for this project was July 1, 2001. The
project was substantially completed when minor work order items were addressed during July of this
year. The City will retain surety to cover the remaining project landscaping.
The Nelsen Hills 6th Addition Development Contract was signed on September 3, 1998 between the
City and Heritage Development. The completion date for this project was November 30, 1998. The
project was substantially completed when minor work order items were addressed during August of
this year.
BUDGET IMPACT
None
ACTION REQUESTED
1. Adopt the attached resolution accepting the street and utility improvements for the Charleswood
2nd Addition.
2. Adopt the attached resolution accepting the street and utility improvements for the Nelsen Hills
6th Addition.
Respectfully submitted,
Ozftm~
Lee M. Mann, P .E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc: file
Steve Juetten, Genstar Land Company
Tom Von Bische, Heritage Development
RESOLUTION NO. R -01
ACCEPTING CHARLESWOOD 2ND ADDITION
STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 99-17
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City of Farmington, Minnesota
was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 4th day of September, 2001 at 7 :00 p.m.
Members present:
Members absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following resolution:
WHEREAS, pursuant to a Development Contract signed with the City of Farmington on May
17th, 1999, Astra Genstar Partnership L.L.P. of Minnesota has satisfactorily completed the
requirements of the developers agreement for Charleswood 2nd Addition.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington,
Minnesota that the work completed under said agreement is hereby accepted by the City.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the
4th day of September, 2001.
Mayor
day of September, 2001.
Attested to the
City Administrator
SEAL
RESOLUTION NO. R -01
ACCEPTING NELSEN HILLS 6TH ADDITION
STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 97-14
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City of Farmington, Minnesota
was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 4th day of September, 2001 at 7:00 p.m.
Members present:
Members absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following resolution:
WHEREAS, pursuant to a Development Contract signed with the City of Farmington on
September 3, 1998, Heritage Development of Minnesota has satisfactorily completed the
requirements ofthe developers agreement for Nelsen Hills 6th Addition.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington,
Minnesota that the work completed under said agreement is hereby accepted by the City.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the
4th day of September, 2001.
Mayor
Attested to the
day of September, 2001.
City Administrator
SEAL
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
/6
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator ~
FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager
SUBJECT: City Participation in County Auction
DATE: September 4,2001
INTRODUCTION
Dakota County is again this year holding a public auction to dispose of surplus equipment and is
giving cities the opportunity to participate.
DISCUSSION
The auction is scheduled to take place on Saturday, September 22, 2001, on the grounds of the
Highway Garage on County Road 47 in Hastings.
Items to be sold include several police forfeiture vehicles, 41 bikes, and numerous items of
surplus equipment.
BUDGET IMPACT
Proceeds from this auction will have a positive impact on the budget. The Auctioneer's
commission is $65.00 per vehicle and 20% of the sale price for miscellaneous items. The City
will receive a proceeds check minus commissions and fees shortly after the sale.
ACTION REQUESTED
Acknowledge the City's participation in the County Auction to be held September 22, 2001.
Respectfully submitted,
~8~
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Services Manager
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.c:i.farmington.mn.us
cgcu
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator f
FROM:
Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager
SUBJECT:
Consider Resolution - Designating Farmington Heritage Landmark
DATE:
September 4,2001
INTRODUCTION
The City Council may designate individual historic buildings and sites as Farmington Heritage
Landmarks.
DISCUSSION
The Heritage Preservation Commission has determined that the following three properties meet
the eligibility criteria for designation as Farmington Heritage Landmarks under City Code 2-11-
4(A).:
· Farmington State Bank Building, 320 Third Street
· Masonic Temple Building, 324-328 Third Street
· Hamilton Clay House, 621 Oak Street
The HPC has submitted documentation supporting Heritage Landmark designation of these
properties in a report prepared by Robert Vogel dated July 31, 2000. Comments from the
Minnesota Historical Society expect to be favorable since documents meet the applicable
standards and landmark reports were done using grant funds. When comments are received they
will be incorporated in the landmark registration reports.
The property owners have all indicated their desire to go forward with this process and Robert
V ogel will be available at the public hearing to answer any questions you may have.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
ACTION REQUESTED
Adopt a resolution designating the Farmington State Bank Building, Masonic Temple Building,
and Hamilton Clay House as Farmington Heritage Landmarks, and noting the three properties as
heritage landmarks on the Official City Zoning Map.
Respectfully submitted,
~ (J;~
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Services Manager
cc: Todd Heikkila, Farmington State Bank Building
Doug Klemenhagen, Masonic Temple Building
Robert & Jeannie Hill, Hamilton Clay House
Robert Vogel, HPC Consultant
RESOLUTION NO. R -01
DESIGNATING THE FARMINGTON STATE BANK BUILDING, 320 THIRD STREET;
MASONIC TEMPLE, 324-328 THIRD STREET; AND
HAMILTON CLAY HOUSE, 621 OAK STREET
AS FARMINGTON HERITAGE LANDMARKS
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meetinl of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota,
was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 4 day of September 2001 at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following:
WHEREAS, the Farmington City Council has declared as a matter of public policy that the preservation, protection,
perpetuation, and use of significant historic buildings is a matter of public necessity; and,
WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission has determined that the Farmington State Bank Building, 320
Third Street; Masonic Temple Building, 324-328 Third Street; and Hamilton Clay House, 621 Oak Street, meet the
eligibility criteria for designation as Farmington Heritage Landmarks under City Code 2-11-4(A); and,
WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission has submitted documentation supporting Heritage Landmark
designation ofthe Farmington State Bank Building, Masonic Temple Building, and Hamilton Clay House in a report
prepared by Robert C. Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant, dated July 31, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed landmark designations was held in the City Council Chambers in
City Hall on September 4, 2001.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following properties be designated as Farmington Heritage
Landmark Sites:
I) Farmington State Bank Building, 320 Third Street
2) Masonic Temple Building, 324-328 Third Street
3) Hamilton Clay House, 621 Oak Street
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the same properties be noted as heritage landmark
sites on the official City Zoning Map.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 41b day of
September 2001.
Mayor
Attested to the
day of
2001.
City Administrator
SEAL
Corinthian Lodge No. 67 AF & AM
Chartered Oct. 23, 1867
P.O. Box 63
326 3rd Street
Farmington, MN 55024-0063
September 4,2001
Dear Preservation Committee,
On behalf of Corinthian Lodge, we look forward to our Masonic building entering
historic status.
Douglas H. Klemenhagen
September 4, 2001
Farmington City Council
325 Oak Street
Farmington, Minnesota 55024
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:
As property owner of the Farmington State Bank Building at 320 Third Street, I am
supportive of my property being designated as a Heritage Landmark site.
Sincerely,
Todd Heikkila
cr~
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farminsrton.mn.us
/Oa..,
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~
FROM:
Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT:
Consider Resolution - Middle Creek 4th Addition Development Contract
DATE:
September 4,2001
INTRODUCTION
The Development Contract for Middle Creek 4th Addition is forwarded herewith for Council's consideration.
DISCUSSION
The final plat for Middle Creek 4th Addition was approved by the Planning Commission on June 12,2001 and
by the City Council on June 18, 2001.
The contract has been drafted in accordance with the approvals and conditions placed on the approvals of the
Preliminary and Final Plat and has been reviewed by the City Attorney. Following are conditions of approval
for the development contract:
a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and
b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and
c) the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 75 days after City
Council approval of the final plat.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
ACTION REOUESTED
Adopt the attached resolution approving the execution of the Middle Creek 4th Addition Development
Contract and authorize its signing contingent upon the above conditions and approval by the Engineering
Division.
Respectfully Submitted,
~YYl~
Lee M. Mann, P.E.,
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc: file
RESOLUTION NO. R
APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
MIDDLE CREEK 4TH ADDITION
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington,
Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers in City Hall of said City on the 4th day of September, 2001
at 7:00 P.M.
Members present:
Members absent:
seconded the following resolution:
Member
introduced and Member
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. R67-00, the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat of
Middle Creek Estates; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. R60-01, the City Council approved the Final Plat of Middle
Creek 4th Addition subject to the following conditions.
a) The Final Plat approval is contingent on the preparation and execution of the Development
Contract and approval of the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the
Engineering Division.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
The Development Contract for the aforementioned subdivision, a copy of which is on file in the Clerk's
office is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and
b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and
c) the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 75 days after
City Council approval of the final plat.
The Mayor and Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to sign such contract.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 4th day of
September, 2001.
Mayor
Attested to this _ day of
, 2001.
SEAL
City Administrator
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
AGREEMENT dated this 4th day of September, 2001, by, between, and among the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal
corporation (CITY) and D. R. Horton - Minnesota, a Delaware corporation (DEVELOPER).
1. Reauest for Plat Aooroval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for Middle Creek Fourth Addition (also
referred to in this Development Contract [CONTRACT or AGREEMENT] as the PLAT). The land is situated in the City of
Farmington, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, and is legally described as:
Outlot J, MIDDLE CREEK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota.
2. Conditions of Aooroval. The City hereby approves the plat on the conditions that:
a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and
b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and
c) the Developer record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 75 days after City Council approval of
the fmal plat.
3. Develooment Plans and Ri2ht to Proceed. The Developer shall develop the plat in accordance with the following plans.
The plans shall not be attached to this Agreement. The plans may be prepared by the Developer, subject to City approval, after
entering into this Agreement but before commencement of any work in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this
Contract, subject to paragraphs 6 and 31 G, the plans shall control. The required plans are:
Plan A - Final Plat
Plan B - Soil Erosion Control and Grading Plans
Plan C - Landscape Plan
Plan D - ZoninglDevelopment Map
Plan E - Wetlands Mitigation as required by the City
Plan F - Final Street and Utility Plans and Specifications
The Developer shall use its best efforts to assure timely application to the utility companies for the following utilities:
underground natural gas, electrical, cable television, and telephone.
Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities public or private
improvements or any building until all of the following conditions have been satisfied:
a) This agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk,
b) The necessary security has been received by the City,
c) The plat has been recorded with the Dakota County Recorder's Office, and
d) The City Clerk has issued a letter stating that all conditions have been satisfied and that the Developer may proceed.
4. Sales Office Reauirements. At any location within the plat where lots and/or homes are sold which are part of this
subdivision, the Developer agrees to install a sales board on which a copy of the approved plat, final utility plan and a zoning
1
map or planned unit development plan are displayed, showing the relationship between this subdivision and the adjoining
neighborhood. The zoning and land use classification of all land and network of major streets within 350 feet of the plat shall
be included.
5. Zoninl!lDevelopment Map. The Developer shall provide an 8 1/2" x 14" scaled map of the plat and land within 350' of the
plat containing the following information:
a. platted property;
b. existing and future roads;
c. future phases;
d. existing and proposed land uses; and
e. future ponds.
6. Reauired Public Improvements and CSAH 31 Assessments. The Developer shall install and pay for the following:
a. Sanitary Sewer Lateral System
b. Water System (trunk and lateral)
c. Storm Sewer
d. Streets
e. Concrete Curb and Gutter
f Street Signs
g. Street Lights
h. Sidewalks and Trails
i. Erosion Control, Site Grading and Ponding
j. Traffic Control Devices
k. Setting of Lot & Block Monuments
1. Surveying and Staking
m. Landscaping, Screening, Blvd. Trees
The improvements shall be installed in accordance with Plans A through F, and in accordance with City standards, engineering
guidelines, ordinances and plans and specifications which have been prepared by a competent registered professional engineer
furnished to the City and approved by the City Engineer. Work done not in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications, without prior authorization of the City Engineer, shall be considered a violation of this agreement and a Default
of the Contract. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council and other agencies before
proceeding with construction. The Developer shall instruct its engineer to provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure
an acceptable level of quality control to the extent that the Developer's engineer will be able to certify that the construction
work meets the approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance. In addition, the City may, at the City's discretion
and at the Developer's expense, have one or more City inspector(s) and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part time
basis. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a pre-construction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at the City Council
chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the program for the construction work. Within sixty
(60) days after the completion of the improvements and before the security is released, the Developer shall supply the City with
a complete set of "As Built" plans as specified in the City's Engineering Guidelines.
If the Developer does not provide such information, the City will produce the as-built drawings. All costs associated with
producing the as-built drawings will be the responsibility of the Developer.
Before the security for the completion of the utilities is released, iron monuments must be installed in accordance with M.S.
~505.02. The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have been installed.
CSAH 31 Assessments
The parent parcels of Middle Creek Fourth Addition have been assessed for improvements to CSAH 31. The total levied
assessment amount for the parcels is:
Parcel Nos.
140250001131
140250001232
141650003000
140250001555
Total amount levied: $373,801.41
2
A portion of the levied assessment plus interest becomes due with the fmal platting of Middle Creek Fourth Addition. The
amount due with Middle Creek Fourth Addition will be calculated proportionally based on the area of Middle Creek being
developed in relation to the entire area of the property. The remaining balance of the levied assessment shall remain levied
against the unplatted portion of the parent parcel.
The Developer may elect to pay the assessment in cash at the time of final plat approval or have it prorated and reassessed to
the lots and blocks of Middle Creek Fourth Addition. If assessed, the assessments shall be spread over a 10-year period with
6.5% interest on the unpaid balance from the time of the initial adoption of the assessment to the parent parcel. The
reassessments shall be deemed adopted on the date this Contract is signed by the City. The Developer waives any and all
procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments, including but not limited to, hearing requirements and any
claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available
pursuant to M.S.A. 429.081.
7. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required public improvements by September 1, 2002, in accordance
with the requirements set forth in the City's Engineering Guidelines. The Developer may, however, request an extension of
time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to
reflect cost increases. An extension of the security shall be considered an extension of this contract and the extension of the
contract will coincide with the date of the extension of the security.
8. Ownership of Improvements. Upon the completion of the work and construction required to be done by this Agreement,
and written acceptance by the City Engineer, the improvements lying within public easements shall become City property,
except for cable TV, electrical, gas, and telephone, without further notice or action.
9. Warranty. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it pursuant to this Contract against poor
material and faulty workmanship. The warranty period for streets is one year. The warranty period for underground utilities is
two years. The warranty period for the streets shall commence after the fmal wear course has been completed and the streets
have been accepted by City Council resolution. The warranty period on underground utilities shall commence following their
completion and acceptance by the City Engineer in writing. It is the responsibility of the Developer to complete the required
testing of the underground utilities and request, in writing, City acceptance of the utilities. Failure of the Developer to complete
the required testing or request acceptance of the utilities in a timely manner shall not in any way constitute cause for the
warranty period to be modified from the stipulations set forth above. All trees shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality,
and disease free for twelve (12) months after the security for the trees is released. Any replacements shall be warranted for
twelve (12) months from the time of planting. The Developer shall post maintenance bonds or other surety acceptable to the
City to secure the warranties. The City shall retain ten percent (10%) of the security posted by the Developer until the bonds or
other acceptable surety are furnished to the City or until the warranty period has been completed, whichever first occurs. The
retainage may be used to pay for warranty work. The City's Engineering Guidelines identify the procedures for final
acceptance of streets and utilities.
10. Gradinl! Plan. The plat shall be graded and drainage provided by the Developer in accordance with Plan B.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, the Developer may start rough grading the lots within the stockpile
and easement areas in conformance with Plan B before the plat is filed if all fees have been paid and the City has been furnished
the required security. Additional rough grading may be allowed upon obtaining written authorization from the City Engineer.
If the developer needs to change grading affecting drainage after homeowners are on site, he must notify all property
owners/residents of this work prior to its initiation. This notification cannot take place until the City Engineer has approved the
proposed grading changes.
11. Erosion Control and Fees. After the site is rough graded, but before any utility construction is commenced or building
permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the
City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if it is determined that the methods implemented are
insufficient to properly control erosion. All areas disturbed by the excavation and back-filling operations shall be re-seeded
forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched and disc anchored as
necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not
comply with the erosion control plan and schedule, or supplementary instructions received from the City, or in an emergency
determined at the sole discretion of the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion
immediately, without notice to the Developer. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed
3
action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and the City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the
Developer does not reimburse the City for any costs of the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City may
draw down the letter of credit to pay any costs. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless
the plat is in full compliance with the erosion control requirements.
The Developer is responsible for Erosion Control inspection fees at the current rates. The Developer is also responsible for
a Water Quality Management Fee of $ 418 based upon the number of acres in the plat. This fee is due and payable at the
time of execution of this agreement.
12. Landscapinl!. The Developer shall landscape the plat in accordance with Plan C. The landscaping shall be accomplished
in accordance with a time schedule approved by the City. The Developer shall be solely responsible for the installation of all
project landscaping including but not limited to the boulevard trees. The responsibility for the installation of boulevard
trees will not be transferred to builders, homeowners, etc. Retaining walls with 1) a height that exceeds four feet or 2) a
combination of tiers that exceed four feet or 3) a three foot wall with a back slope greater than 4 to 1 shall be constructed in
accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a structural or geotechnical engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota.
Following construction, a certification signed by the design engineer shall be filed with the City Engineer evidencing that the
retaining will was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. All retaining walls that are part of the
development plans, or special conditions referred to in this Contract that are required to be constructed, shall be constructed and
certified before any building permit is issued for a lot on which a retaining wall is required to be built.
13. Phased Development. The plat shall be developed in one (1) phase in accordance with Plans A-F. No earth moving,
construction of public improvements or other development shall be done in any subsequent phase until a final plat for the phase
has been filed in the County Recorder's office and the necessary security has been furnished to the City. The City may refuse to
approve fmal plats of subsequent phases until public improvements for all prior phases have been satisfactorily completed.
Subject to the terms of this Agreement, this Development Contract constitutes approval to develop the plat. Development of
subsequent phases may not proceed until development agreements for such phases are approved by the City.
14. Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's
Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current urban service area, or removing any part thereof
which has not been final platted, or official controls, shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or
dedications or platting required or permitted by the approved preliminary plat unless required by State or Federal law or agreed
to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full
extent permitted by State law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan
(including removing unplatted property from the urban service area), official controls, platting or dedication requirements
enacted after the date of this Agreement and may require submission of a new plat.
15. Surface Water Manal!ement Fee. The Developer shall pay an area storm water management charge of$ 68.853 in lieu of
the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a
10 year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed
adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The
Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments
exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081.
Storm sewer charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the
Development Contracts for those phases are entered into.
16. Wetland Conservation and Mitil!ation. The Developer shall comply with the 1991 Wetlands Conservation Act, as
amended, and the Wetlands Mitigation Plan. The Developer shall pay all costs associated with wetlands conservation and the
Wetlands Mitigation Plan.
17. Water Main Trunk Area Chare:e. The Developer shall pay a water main trunk area charge of$ 15,571 for the plat in
lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat
over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment
shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any
time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the
assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA
429.081. Water area charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time
4
the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. A credit of $ 11,688 will be given to the Developer for Water
Main Trunk oversizing within the plat. The net result is that the Water Main Trunk Area Charge to be paid with this plat is
$3,883.
18. Water Treatment Plant Fee. The Developer shall pay a water treatment plant fee of $ 35,360 for the plat in lieu of the
property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten
(10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be
deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time.
The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the
assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA
429.081. Water treatment plant fees for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the
time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into.
19. Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Charl!e. The Developer shall pay a sanitary sewer trunk area charge ofs 12,376 for the plat
in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the
plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment
shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any
time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the
assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA
429.081. Sanitary Trunk Sewer charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at
the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into.
20. Park Dedication. The Developer shall pay a park dedication fee of $ 28,525 in satisfaction of the City's park dedication
requirements for the plat. The park dedication fee shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year
period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed
adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The
Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the assessments
exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA 429.081. The
park dedication fees for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the
Development Contracts for those phases are entered into.
21. Sealcoatinl!. In lieu of assessing sealcoating three years from completion of the road construction, the Developer agrees to
pay a fee of $ 585 for initial sealcoating of streets in the subdivision. This fee shall be deposited in the City Road and Bridge
Fund upon execution of this Agreement.
22. GIS Fees. The Developer is responsible for a Government Information System fee of$ 532 based upon the number oflots
within the subdivision.
23. Easements. The Developer shall furnish the City at the time of execution of this Agreement with the easements designated
on the plat.
24. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors, a license to enter the plat to
perform all necessary work and/or inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the installation of public improvements
by the City. The license shall expire after the public improvements installed pursuant to the Development Contract have been
installed and accepted by the City.
25. Clean UP. The Developer shall weekly, or more often if required by the City Engineer, clear from the public streets and
property any soil, earth or debris resulting from construction work by the Developer or its agents or assigns. All debris,
including brush, vegetation, trees and demolition materials, shall be disposed of off site. Burning of trees and structures shall
be prohibited, except for fire training only. The City has a contract for street cleaning services. The City will have the right to
clean the streets as outlined in current City policy. The Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for street cleaning costs.
26. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement, payment of real estate taxes including interest and
penalties, payment of special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements in the plat and construction of all
public improvements in the plat, the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow, irrevocable letter of credit, or
alternative security acceptable to the City Administrator, from a bank (security) for $ 502,660. The bank and form of the
5
security shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. The security shall be automatically renewing. The term of
the security may be extended from time to time if the extension is furnished to the City Administrator at least forty-five (45)
days prior to the stated expiration date of the security. If the required public improvements are not completed, or terms of the
Agreement are not satisfied, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of a letter of credit, the City may draw down the
letter of credit. The City may draw down the security, without prior notice, for any violation of this Agreement or Default of
the Contract. The amount of the security was calculated as follows:
GradinglErosion Control
Sanitary Sewer
Water Main
Storm Sewer
Street Construction
$ N/A*
$ 60,375
$ 91,125
$ 72,875
$ 183,500
Monuments
St. Lights/Signs
Blvd. Trees
Blvd. Sodding
Wetland Mitigation
$ 2,250
$ 9,375
$ 34,625
$ 4,125
$0
Two Years Principal and Interest on Assessments $ 44,410
This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security.
*The GradinglErosion Control is secured by a separate letter of credit.
27. Responsibility for Costs.
A. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the plat, including but
not limited to, Soil and Water Conservation District charges, legal, planning, administrative, construction costs, engineering,
easements, inspection and utility testing expenses incurred in connection with approval, acceptance and development of the
plat, the preparation of this Agreement, and all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting
the construction for the development of the plat.
B. The Developer, except for City's willful misconduct, shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from
claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development.
The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages or expenses which the City may
payor incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees.
C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including engineering and
attorney's fees. In the event that the City receives claims from labor, materialmen, or others that have performed work required
by this Contract, that the sums due them have not been paid, and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking payment from
the City, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of
Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the claim(s) and deposit
the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from
any further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that the Court shall retain
jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees pursuant to this Contract.
D. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not
paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days
shall accrue interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum. If the bills are not paid within sixty (60) days, the City has the
right to draw from the Developers security to pay the bills.
28. Trash Enclosures. The Developer is responsible to require each builder to provide on site trash enclosures to contain all
construction debris, thereby preventing it from being blown off site, except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
29. Existing: Tree Preservation. The Developer will walk the site with the City Forester and identify all significant trees,
which will be removed by on site grading. A dialogue between the Developer and City Forester regarding alternative grading
options will take place before any disputed tree is removed. All trees, stumps, brush and other debris removed during clearing
and grubbing operations shall be disposed of off site.
30. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the
City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the
6
City, provided the Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City or as otherwise provided for in this agreement,
is first given written notice of the work in default, not less than 72 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to
act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any
such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part.
31. Miscellaneous.
A. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be. The Developer may
not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall
continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it. Third parties shall
have no recourse against the City under this Agreement.
B. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold
to third parties.
C. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement.
D. Building permits shall not be issued prior to completion of site grading, utility installation, curb and gutter, installation of
erosion control devices, retaining walls, site seeding, mulching, disk anchoring and submittal of a surveyor's certificate
denoting all appropriate monuments have been installed. Only construction of noncombustible materials shall be allowed until
the water system is operational. If permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, the
Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public
improvements caused by the City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents or third parties.
Normal procedure requires that streets needed for access to approved uses shall be paved with a bituminous surface before
certificates of occupancy may be issued. However, the City Engineer is authorized to waive this requirement when weather
related circumstances prevent completion of street projects before the end of the construction season. The Developer is
responsible for maintaining said streets in a condition that will assure the access of emergency vehicles at all times when such a
waiver is granted.
E. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or
remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and
each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often
and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time
thereafter any other right, power or remedy. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the
provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by
written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a
waiver or release.
F. The Developer represents to the City, to the best of its knowledge, that the plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and that
an environmental impact statement is not required. However, if the City or another governmental entity or agency determines
that such a review is needed, the Developer shall prepare it in compliance with legal requirements so issued from said agency.
The Developer shall reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and attorney fees that the City incurs in assisting in
the preparation of the review.
G. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer represents to the City that the plat complies with all City, County,
Metropolitan, State and Federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances
and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow
any construction or development work in the plat until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer
shall cease work until there is compliance.
H. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. The Developer covenants with
the City, its successors and assigns, that the Developer is well seized in fee title of the property being final platted and/or has
obtained Consents to this Contract, in the form attached hereto, from all parties who have an interest in the property; that there
are no unrecorded interests in the property being fmal platted; and that the Developer will indemnify and hold the City harmless
7
for any breach of the of the foregoing covenants. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this
Agreement, at the Developer's request the City will execute and deliver a release to the Developer.
I. Developer shall take out and maintain until six months after the City has accepted the public improvements, public liability
and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out
of the Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for
bodily injury or death shall not be less than $500,000.00 for one person and $1,000,000.00 for each occurrence; limits for
property damage shall not be less than $200,000.00 for each occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional named
insured on said policy, the insurance certificate shall provide that the City must be given 10 days advance written notice of the
cancellation of the insurance and the Developer shall file a copy of the insurance coverage with the City prior to the City
signing the plat.
J. The Developer shall obtain a Wetlands Compliance Certificate from the City.
K. Upon breach of the terms of this Agreement, the City may, without notice to the Developer, draw down the Developer's
cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit as provided in paragraph 26 of this Agreement. The City may draw down this
security in the amount of $500.00 per day that the Developer is in violation. The City, in its sole discretion, shall determine
whether the Developer is in violation of the Agreement. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 30 hereof, this determination
may be made without notice to the Developer. It is stipulated that the violation of any term will result in damages to the City in
an amount, which will be impractical and extremely difficult to ascertain. It is agreed that the per day sum stipulated is a
reasonable amount to compensate the City for its damages.
L. The Developer will be required to conduct all major activities to construct Plans A-F during the following hours of
operation:
Monday - Friday
Saturday
Sunday and Holidays
7:00 A.M. until 7:00 P.M.
8:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M.
Not Allowed
This does not apply to activities that are required on a 24-hour basis such as dewatering, etc. Any deviations from the above
hours are subject to approval of the City Engineer.
M. The Developer is responsible to require each builder within the development to provide a Class 5 aggregate entrance for
every house that is to be constructed in the development. This entrance is required to be installed upon initial construction of
the home. See City Standard Plate ERO-09 for construction requirements.
N. The Developer shall be responsible for the control of weeds in excess of twelve inches (12") on vacant lots or boulevards
within their development as per City Code 6-7-2. Failure to control weeds will be considered a Developer's Default as outlined
in Paragraph 30 of this Agreement and the Developer will reimburse the City as defined in said Paragraph 30.
O. Third parties have no recourse against the City under this contract.
32. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its
employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified or registered mail at the following addresses:
Don Patton
D. R. Horton
20860 Kenbridge Court, Suite 100
Lakeville, MN. 55044
Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either and delivered to the City Administrator, or mailed to the City by
certified mail or registered mail in care of the City Administrator at the following address:
Edward Shukle, City Administrator
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmin~on,MN 55024
8
SIGNATURE PAGE
CITY OF FARMINGTON
By:
Gerald Ristow, Mayor
By:
Edward Shukle, City Administrator
DEVELOPER:
D. R. Horton
By:
Its: Sr. Vice President Land Development
Don Patton
Drafted by:
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, Minnesota 55024
(651) 463-7111
9
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
(ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 by
Gerald Ristow, Mayor, and by Edward Shukle, City Administrator, of the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by the City Council.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
(ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of
,20
by
, the
ofD. R. Horton - Minnesota, a
corporation under the laws of Delaware, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
10
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
/0)
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~
FROM:
Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT:
Akin Road - Speed Study Results
DATE:
September 4,2001
INTRODUCTION
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has completed the first speed study for Akin
Road.
DISCUSSION
MnDOT's recommendation based on the results of the speed study is to keep the speed limit at 50
mph at this time. The City's traffic engineer has reviewed the data and concurs with the
recommendation. As indicated in discussions with MnDOT and the attached letter, MnDOT will be
conducting another study after the improvements to Akin Road are completed. The results of the
future study will be forwarded to Council after the completion of the second study.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
ACTION REOUESTED
For information only.
Respectfully Submitted,
~111~
Lee M. Mann, P .E.,
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc: file
~(",\""EISO~ -to
l ;.
\~ i
,. OF T"p."
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road 82
Roseville, MN 55113
August 17, 2001
Mr. Lee Mann, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024-1374
Re: Speed Zoning - City of Farmington
Akin Road
Dear Mr. Mann:
It was agreed that Farmington City Council Resolution No. 38-01 would be interpreted as
a request for two engineering and traffic investigations to evaluate Akin Road speed limits,
both before and after the current improvement project.
The "before" evaluation has been completed. Based on engineering and traffic investigation
results, the existing 50 mph speed limit on Akin Road between 212th St. (CSAH 50) and Pilot
Knob Road (CSAH 31) is reasonable and safe for existing conditions.
Since no speed limit changes are recommended at this time and a second speed zoning
study will be conducted in the near future, we do not plan to issue a new speed limit
authorization for Akin Road at this time. We have however, asked MnIDOT's Office of
Traffic Engineering to review our findings.
Data obtained for the investigation is enclosed for your information. If there are questions
regarding the data or our conclusions, please contact either Ed Brown (651-634-2372) or
Jolene Servatius (651-634-2373) at the above address.
We would appreciate being informed when Akin Road is ready for the second speed limit
evaluation. We will monitor progress of the Akin Road project when in the area, but that is
not likely to be on a frequent basis.
Sincerely,
Oc.P6 ~
David B. Engstrom, P.E.
Division Traffic Engineer
Cc: Tim Gross, Assistant City Engineer
An equal opportunity employer
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.c:i.farmington.mn.us
IO~
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
City Administrator ~
FROM: David L. Olson
Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Request to Reschedule Joint City Council / Planning Commission
Workshop
DATE: September 4,2001
INTRODUCTION
The City Council previously approved the scheduling of a Joint Workshop with the
Planning Commission for Wednesday, September 19,2001 for Dakota County staff to
make a presentation on the status of East-West Corridor Study that is currently being
prepared.
DISCUSSION
County staff has requested that the workshop be rescheduled for Wednesday, September
26, 2001 presumably at 7:00 p.m. The CounZ Engineer unfortunately is no longer
available to attend the workshop on September 19 and thus the requested change.
The revised workshop date was discussed with the Planning Commission and is
acceptable to a majority of the Commission members. It is also suggested that time
permitting, an update on the status of the Zoning Code Update be presented at this Joint
Workshop.
ACTION REQUESTED
Approve the re-scheduling of a Joint Workshop with the Planning Commission for a
presentation by Dakota County staff on the East-West Corridor study and an update on
the Zoning Code update for Wednesday, September 26,2001. .
L. Olson
Community Development Director
AUG, 29, 2001 9:31AM
DAKOTA COUNTY PHYS DEV ADMIN
NO, 4063 P. I
Office of Planning
Lynn MoratzlQ.AICP
DI rector
D3l<ota County
Westltl'n ~ryice Center
1..f9SS Galaxie Avenue
Appt~ Valley. MN 55124
612.891.1030
Fax 612.991,7031
www.co.dakota.mn.us
n
\"I
Prtn..-d an ~od p~
...;[h )0% po'llo~onromlr "'~UAI.
ANtQ.IH.~T~EI'f\.OTlft
c9)~
Dave Olson
Community Development Director
City of Fannington
City Hall
325 Oak Street
Fannington, Minnesota 55024
Dear Dave:
A key member who planned to participate in the presentation and
discussion of the East-West Cross County Project with the City Council
and Planning Commission on September 19 will be unable to participate
in the meeting. Don Theisen, Director of the Department of
Transportation and County Engineer, has been called to a meeting in
Washington, D.C. If possible. we would appreciate the meeting being
scheduled for another date to allow for his participation.
We understand City Council workshop meetings are usually held on
Wednesday evenings. Our team will all be available the following
Wednesday evening, September 26. If that date is acceptable to the City
Council and Planning Commission, we would be pleased to meet at that
time.
We appreciate the Council's consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
~v
ene ranchett
Senior Transportation Planner
Cc: Joseph Harris, Susan Hoyt, Don Theisen, Lynn Moratzka
tlll .9 o.S ~
'1 "0 ~ EJ cu
~ C"l I:: >.
u cu 0
II.. &s:s!C"l
X '" cu
JCUI::~c..
= 0 0
.;;: .~ 'J:l ... V
G) tU ,;g :J C-l
~ ~ 8,.r-:8
....lo:l8.Vir-.
.5. '&.S ~ s
::::sCU .9
U.a....... 0.0
I:: ..01::><
is ci is '0 C5
u .9 "0 0.0 C"l
~~~~~~s
"'gOgfg....<::l
.5 ~~'a ~&]
bIlu.......l:aoo"'~
.~ ~ i II.. ... 'B g
c..J:l~"O~ ~
~C59a~.~0'"
~...... I:: I":!'-
~o:l"OCUCUI:<>.
=......B......b.O.....':l
iSg~~F.35E
ut::~J;l~~=:l.,j
cu <8 0..'0::1 & u ~
..q5"O .....lg Q(ij
cu ....Qo O~o::ICU
.s ~'J:l.S;;;...-5-5
'II "Cl "Cl
: '.ij f.tu~J' ~ i
1:{..;.. ~r t'.:l.-ol .~ .C
t- t.. i-L,I la;
-l ",._,. Q I::
\ . ..1. (, (,,/ eo
'. .j 0.0
.~ = t
'Q3 oS
..0 ~
~..o
"Cl ell
.E! E
ell ~
:s ~
:E. 8
I: =
Q 'Q
(oJ;:
.. eo
~t:
~ &.
.. ell
~ =
~ eo
=l::
eo ell
... ell
Qt
'5:g
Cl.(II
t's
(II ell
~ ~
= Q
~..=
..J ~ I::
o.o.!
._. Cl.
-; ~
~..=
(liE-;
~ .
"Cl ell
eo";
e .0
~e.;,
'C Q ""
~.t>B
t: = (,,/
eo ::I Q
";Q..=
;u..
= S ~
~. Q ""
'0...:.:: 0.0
Cl.(II~
~ Q (II
.- ~ ~
~...o ..=
Cl
::l
<(
~
w
oJ
U.
....r
~
;t,
t;~
5~
c"
Qr,.
~' ~.I.~ ~".~i li! !~~jli~ ~.ii
(I).", $..~l] ~ ~ cu t'o~.~ cS];B ~ .5 ~ ij ..8 l:a t:1.
C' ~ o:l .S :sa ~:: .Q'].9.9 ~ ~ g's ~ ~ II... .~
'0 .,'" - ;;; >. is 8, 0.. 0.0 0.0 U .S 0 0.. cu 0.0 '" "g ~
. "';...... .Q '.J:l.. ~ ~ gp a ~ ~ tl. cu '1 .S ib:&l .5 15 ~ ] ~ E:i
.- ~ 5 ] EJ '5 '" 1!l I:: '" ..s ~ ::I 8 >< u cu ~
+-',;,."1 .'0 (ij Q 0.0 I:: .:: .!2 = .......... 0 ....... '" o. ~ ~ ~. IE ~ F-
eu. '....".';~.~ o..~ e<+- &I::.~ ~~ ~8.s'~ ~8';;:S:.~ 0..::1 cu
+-'...,S 0 13 '5h 0 0 ~ B ~ '" 0.0 ~ ~ :.2 >. C"l cu t>il.~ ~ '6-
.~o.....' "~.'~'...s.cu .g ~ .g C5 u ~ @'.g ~ ~ e r- ~ ~ J ] ~ 8 i ~
"""'., ......-5 < CU'~. 0::1 "0 ~ U 0 0.. 0.0. cu o:d ..g 0]>' s U "0
~ . ,cu ~ cu .Sa 0 ~ 8.......6 a '1a .n 1=<... 0 ~ Q
CJ').' .s.. -5 ~. I:: ..0 ....... -5 ? ~ '" ... ;:l .5 u .- o::l
C.,.
cef
.'"-;
...-
...-
CJ')..:
(]) i
~.~
I '1iS I..
11), ~. ~~
ctj ~.,.~
W ~~'
~t')
S~ ~bIlo::l.9.9'EJ..o't;;:1:l ~
~.9: ]'~] cu Sf E 8..2, ~ ~
~...... ::I 0 1::]'0'" '" (;l~ 8-
~ -g ~ ~ .Q 0.0 .~ ~ -5 :g- 0
o o::l = .;: .g e;>.~ 0 :El "0 ~ ~
::Q ]o::I"o~::I= Q' :::E
..s ~ ~ -5 8 Q) ~.~ e o::l e;> Q)
_~ ... -5 0.. "0 .... ....... 0 '" cu -5
.9~ .s~::I~og.""B> .9
~cu O~""~&~ ~
]~ ~ ~.!ho ~ e '%. '"0 s e ~ ~
._ ~ - ~ ....::1 I... .::1. ~
",' ~. a.i "0 o:l '0 "0 s: .9 '0... s:l 8
s -6 >. ~ .S (;l > a 0::1 0.0 >"= ~ u
2 0::1. cu ~ ;lOa '<:;..d .0 Q) ~...d '" .- <
'" <I).::::l cu -.:> 0.0:;;1' > .~ 0.0 cu cu .
.~ ~' ~ -5.9 :El '= ~ ~:El .g .~
I I I.CU '.cuCU"O I 'S....
80.. ~'" 0.. ~ -5 ~ -5 -5 .~ .Eu ~ 0.9
s: 0 cu ~ =..sil 'oJ
cu ~ "'-5 0.0..0 = '0'0::1'8
~ > 'B ~ 0::1 '::::' .5 '0 8 ~ 0 0
:ocu.g:s ~::>el:: u
8 B ~.~ s a ~'.g 8 ~ ~ 5 ~
u c.E! '-' ~ .9 ~ 8 "0 . 0 -5 8
cu .... bIl.~ ~ 0.. t 0 ~ to is 0::1
-5 .g .= -5 -5 :El .9 1<. ell '€ ;>.. "0 '" ~
... .- i; '" 0.0 s: 0.0 0 'g '1a (;l cu
~ g]'S ~ ~ .5 ::I'@ 8:: ~ '" -5 I::
~ U 0.. ~ '" .9 ~ .; "0 5l ~Q ~.~
~ .9 .6 g .~ i ~ a E .9 '"0 .~ ~ ~
i ~ ~ ~ :t .~ .g ~ ~ 5 g ~ g' 8
.~ 8. 8. S 'O.E 8 ~ -5 '!il 'J:l U
~~I~ ~~~~-g .9~1::0~(;l~2~~
.~. ~ .,~ ~ .~ 5 -= ~.1!l ~ . Q) 1}l 0 g -5 ~ o:l 6.g
Obllo:lQ) "00:3"" e;> 0 "'''00..
.... ~ ~ Q .-.... u cu ~ 0 SS! .... >. '" '" "0 ....... 0
bIl.~ 1'" o::l 0 = u .<:; -.:> ...... cu l' = 0::1 .-
>.CU ....oo-.:>.....:OeQ)~.cu. Jcuo.B~
:-s.] ~ * . ~ 'j! = 0: 0 0 ~ ~ .5 l;l g; .... ~ 0
o.._o~s"O~cu~~ubllg~cuc..o::Icu=-5
~ ....~.6 u 2 5 8. 8. ~ <I) ~.S g.a u .S ..Q ~.g gp
o:l .~ 0 '" e '" 0 0 ~ E ~ I:< ~ ... -5 Q)'~
0.0 '" 2l ... ~.'~ a....... C"l .... c.E! '" 0 ~ ? a 5 ~ ~
.g :$ . 5 0 >..~ J:l ~ .9 0 .... .'" ... s = ~ S ~ 0 .J::
a~lS;i;;;.g~~<8-6~uo~gg.]:'"O
._ q:;;j 0 "0 ........J:l '" l+=I ::I "t:l O' 0 . 1:<....... ~ ..0 ...
uo Uo::lO'Qo::I...'O<1)"o-5 dOCU 05
=~~cu8cu2...Xv~0 Scu"'~~...'"
~ . .=."0 ..s ... ~ 8..s g ..0 ~. ~ :sa ~ .~ = "0 ~ gp ~
::I 0::1 ~ Q) Q <I) '-0::1 Q) 0.. o.~.......
88'"O~ ~~-5~t:1. .Bo~.9~]~~
~ ~ ii ~ ~ .s~.s .91 ~
,,~~~....l=l::s= ~'t;;..Q
~, Q) _ = 0 2 0 ._"' 0.0
W .J:: ... cu =0 0.0 ~ ~. ;""'.-
'A ... g -5 .- u 0 ~ \0 _? .....
.,=1:< "d'...Vio::l\O Qcu";
Oo5hg\OCU.....~ I::.J::~~
:.....Q):t 8~SQ)
a.s;~~]V)~;<( OOV),g
O:t ~:t~"OU V) r-OO 0'"
<g<~~o::I:€U :t~"'6
.. V) ~ r5 = ~ .;;: ~ gf < s gf C"l
a. U -5 ::I.... Vi -g 'J:l ] V) 0 'J:lVi
0'- = 0 0 C? 0::1 ~ .0::1 U U ~ "0
...~OU".........Q :t::I::Q
= "0 'B · == 0.0 ~ I:: ii. 0 = o::l
I.g a g ';;:.5 ~ 8 ~ ~ 8 s;
tn
III'
C
G) 6 ~ .S ~ g J:l 1: i6.9 .S u
E ....0::I...."s::: -.:> bIlu... cu
o..cuo~ Vi= ~V)~ "d'=
"0 C?o;..l.< ~ \0=
C 2 Q .8;>........ cu S 8
0::10::10= sC"'l :-Socuii"O
"'",0.0(,,/::1 o~ <..:::-50::10::10.0
v' ... Q Q UO ..::::> = Q) 0 =
._ ='2: 0 ? ~ 0 0 cu ~ '::)
_ cu bIl'J:l 0::1 tl ..Q 0::1 \0 ... -5 (;l
.. s'C:;; 0::1'" . Q).~ ... C"l S
'v .~.g 15 ~ ~ ~:t r; $ ~ g ~ =
~'. ;;; .... ~ 0 .9-52 Q <( .9 C"'l ::I 0
w o=Q'O ... ::I~""'>'Obo
> cu ~ g I" ~ lQ ~ UO ~ ~ ;u =
.~ "0 ... ,g '" ... ~... =..Q'E
._ II.. ~ '" = 0::1. .... >'0 01). t::
I&. 8. ~ ~ ~ .5 ~ ; (3 :E .~
0;;,
.~
.
.
.
;..
(
..
;a
sb'
Ej
~.. .
~...
~
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
/o? C1J
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Mayor, City Council, City Administrator
Robin Roland, Finance Director
Approval of Preliminary 2002 Tax Levy
September 4, 2001
INTRODUCTION
State statute requires a preliminary tax levy to be certified to the County by September 17, 2001.
Once the proposed tax levy is adopted, the City Council may lower the levy, but cannot increase it
DISCUSSION AND BUDGET IMPACT
The City Council was presented a copy of the Proposed 2002 Budget on August 20, 2001 and a
budget workshop was held on August 22nd. The preliminary tax levy is part of the proposed
budget and was discussed with Council at the August 22nd workshop.
The Tax Levy proposed as part of the budget is $3,607,016 and includes $1,006,937 for debt
service and $55,000 for the Fire levy. The State Department of Revenue has notified the City that
our Levy Limit for pay 2002 is $4,593,182. The proposed tax levy therefore, is $986,166 under
the City's statutory levy limit.
The requirement to hold a Truth in Taxation public hearing has been eliminated for payable 2002.
This does not prohibit a taxing authority from holding a Truth in Taxation hearing if they choose to
do so. If Council desires to hold a Truth in Taxation public hearing, staff proposes it be held as
part of the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on Monday, December 3rd. The City Council
could then adopt the 2002 Budget and Tax Levy immediately after the hearing.
ACTION REQUIRED
Adopt the attached resolution, certifying the 2002 Preliminary Tax Levy of $3,607,016 to Dakota
County .
If Council desires, establish December 3,2001 at 7:00 P.M. as the City of Farmington's Truth in
Taxation hearing for Tax Levy collectible 2002.
;;7;;;:/
Robin Roland
Finance Director
RESOLUTION NO. R -01
APPROVING PROPOSED 2001 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2002
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Farmington, Minnesota was held in the Civic Center of said City on the 4th day of September
2001 at 7:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member introduced and Member seconded the following:
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes currently in force require certification of the proposed tax levy to
the Dakota County Auditor on or before September 17, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, is in receipt of the proposed
2002 revenue and expenditure budget;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Farmington,
That the following sums of money by levied in 2001, collectible in 2002, upon the taxable property
in said City of Farmington for the following purposes:
Tax Levy
General Fund
Debt Service (see attached)
Fire Levy
Gross Levy
Less: Fiscal Disparities
Net Levy
$2,545,079
1,006,937
55,000
$3,607,016
(461,411)
$3,145,605
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a Truth in Taxation public hearing will be held on Monday,
December 3, 2001 at 7:00 P.M.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the
4th day of September 2001.
Mayor
City Administrator
2002 BUDGET
Summary of Debt Service Levy to be Attached
and Become part of Resolution Number -01
Fund Title
Levv Amount
Improvement Bonds of 1986A
Improvement Bonds of 1987
Improvement Bonds of 1992B
Improvement Bonds of 1993A
Improvement Bonds of 1994A
Wastewater Treatment Bonds 1995
Public Project Revenue Bonds 2001A
Certificates of Indebtedness 1999
Certificates of Indebtedness 2000
$ 63,688
38,364
32,394
13,963
81,591
60,000
456,937
100,000
160.000
Total
$1,006,937