HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.19.01 Council Packet
COUNCIL MEETING
REGULAR
March 19, 2001
RECEPTION FOR CITY ADMINISTRATOR ERAR 6:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVEAGENDA
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS
6. CITIZEN COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments)
a) Ms. Cheryl Retterath - Citizen Concerns
b) Ms. Sue Miller - Citizen Concerns
7. CONSENT AGENDA
a) Approve Council Minutes (3/5/01) (Regular)
b) Approve Grant Application - Metropolitan Regional Arts Council - Parks
and Recreation
c) Approve Private Development Street Sweeping Contract - Engineering
d) Approve Temporary On-Sale Liquor License - Administration
e) Acknowledge Interim City Administrator Designation - Administration
t) Capital Outlay - Public Works
g) Consider Resolution - Gambling Event Permit - Administration
h) Approve Bills
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. AWARD OF CONTRACT
a) Public Facilities - Grading Contractor Award - Administration
b) Public Facilities - Construction Contract Award - Administration
(Supplemental)
10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a) Laverne's Pumping Service Request - Engineering
11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a) Flagstaff Avenue Citizen Petition - Update - Engineering
12. NEW BUSINESS
a) Consider Resolution - 195th Street Feasibility Report - Engineering
b) Consider Resolution - Authorizing Bond Sale for Public Facilities - Finance
Action Taken
Information Received
Information Received
Approved
R28-01
Approved
Approved
Acknowledged
Information Received
R29-01
Approved
Approved
Approved
Information Received
Prepare Options
R30-01
R31-01, R32-01
c) Consider Resolution - Creating a Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund -
Finance
d) Consider Resolution - Authorizing Bond Sale Akin Road Improvement -
Finance
13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
14. ADJOURN
R33-0J
R34-01
0CG
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~
James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Citizen Concerns - Ms. Cheryl Retterath
DATE:
March 19,2001
INTRODUCTION
Cheryl and Scott Retterath expressed concerns and presented to the Council a letter dated March 5, 2001
regarding athletic fields in the City of Farmington.
DISCUSSION
The Parks and Recreation Commission did propose a referendum for an athletic complex a few years ago.
However, due to financial considerations, the referendum had to be delayed. The City Council and Parks
and Recreation Commission have continued to actively seek a site for a future athletic complex. The City
Council is committed to acquiring a site this year and construct within the next two to three years.
The concerns over the condition of the fields at North Trail Elementary School should be discussed with
the City ofLakeville. The fencing and organization issues will be reviewed by staff and a meeting with
the entire youth baseball and softball organization should be held in order to better understand the issues.
Staff has forwarded a copy of the Parks and Recreation section of the 2020 Farmington Comprehensive
Plan and the 2001-2005 Capital Improvement Plan to the Retterath's for their review.
ACTION REOUESTED
For Council information only.
Respectfully submitted,
J<--. O~
James Bell
Parks and Recreation Director
CC: Cheryl and Scott Retterath, 19232 Evenston Drive
I pm I
Farmington Youth Baseball
Farmington, MN 55024
March 05,2001
Field Concerns For The City OF Farmington
1. Number of fields.
We had 580 kids last year alone. This year already, there is a serious field shortage.
2. Condition/Quality of fields.
The North Trail fields which are under Lakeville control are in terrible shape.
3. Fencing.
Over throw and dug out fencing as well as homerun fencing eventually.
4.0rginazation.
Organization of all fields to allow FYBB to use the quality fields as well as the
traveling team.
Scott A. Retterath
FYBB Volunteer
Obviously we all know Farmington is growing at a fast & steady pace. Our concern
is that the park amenities are barely keeping up with the demand and will fall short
this year. We understand 2 new ball fields are underway. Neighborhood ballfields
are okay for kindergarten through third graders, provided there is adequate parking.
However, these fields are too small for any teams higher than third grade.
We haven't heard of any land acquisitions or plans to prepare for larger fields and
are know that our number of participants in all youth activities are increasing. This
includes Farmington Youth Baseball, Farmington Traveling Baseball and the girls
softball teams as well.
We would be happy to discuss this in more detail with council members. You may
reach Scott at 612-518-8542 or 651-463-3130.
Thank you for your time!
~6
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Mayor and Councilmembers
City Administratorf~
David L. Olson
Community Development Director
'FROM:
SUBJECT:
Citizen Concerns - Ms. Sue Miller
DATE:
March 19,2001
INTRODUCTION
Ms. Miller expressed concerns to the City Council at their March 5, 2001 meeting regarding the
fact that the City currently does not have a Tree Preservation or Replacement Ordinance.
DISCUSSION
The concerns expressed by Ms. Miller were a result of the clearing and removal of trees by the
developer for the Middle Creek Development east of the new alignment of Pilot Knob Road.
This is a Planned Unit Development being developed by DR Horton and Arcon Development.
While it is my understanding that this issue has been discussed in Farmington in the past, it
would be appropriate to discuss this policy issue dufing the discussions that are currently taking
place between staff, the consulting firm of Hoisington Koegler and the Planning Commission and
ultimately City Council. If Council is in agreement, it should direct staff to include this issue in
the Zoning Code update discussions.
BUDGET IMPACT
None
ACTION REOUESTED
Indicate to staff whether this is an issue that should be included in the Zoning Code Update
process.
n~
~Son
Community Development Director
cc: Sue Miller, 19962 Akin Road
/a-
COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR
March 5, 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
City Attorney Jamnik, City Administrator Erar, City Management
Team
4. APPROv.EAGENDA
MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS
6. CITIZEN COMMENTS
Ms. Cheryl Retterath, 19232 Evenston Drive, spoke to Council on behalf of youth
baseball. She was concerned with park amenities keeping up with demand, and was
wondering if there were plans for larger ballfields. Staff will respond.
Mr. Henry Iwerks, 1105 Sunnyside Drive, noted that City Administrator Erar would be
leaving in a few weeks. The tax capacity rate has been reduced every year for the last
four years and felt City Administrator Erar should be given some credit for that and
Finance Director Roland also had a lot to do with it. He wanted to recognize the Fire
Chief and Police Chief as their jobs are filled with danger. He stated Police Chief Dan
Siebenaler and Officer Ted Dau have been with the City a long time. They recently held
a meeting to bring parents attention to the use of drugs. 600 parents attended. Mr.
Iwerks learned there are other schools having similar meetings and the City should be
proud of that.
Ms. Elaine Donnelly, Flagstaff Avenue, stated she received a letter stating Flagstaff
Avenue would be discussed at this Council Meeting. City Engineer Mann stated the
issued will be addressed at the March 19,2001 Council Meeting.
Ms. Sue Miller, 19962 Akin Road, stated the new Pilot Knob Road is very nice. She
noticed in the Middle Creek development a wooded area was cleared. She would like
Council to consider a tree preservation ordinance. For the integrity of the community and
future generations it would be nice to preserve wooded areas.
Council Minutes (Regular)
March 5, 2001
Page 2
7. CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION by Strachan, second by Cordes to approve the Consent Agenda as follows:
a) Approved Council Minutes (2/20/01) (Regular)
b) Approved Therapeutic Massage License - Administration
c) Approved Appointment Recommendation - Fire Department
d) Authorized Corrective Deed for Outlot C, Tamarack Ridge - Administration
e) Received Information Capital Outlay Liquor Operations - Finance
f) Received Information Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation
g) Approved Joint Powers Agreement Empire Township Outdoor Warning Siren -
Police Department
h) Received Information Schools and Conferences - Fire Department
i) Received Information Schools and Conferences - Police Department
j) Approved bills
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a) Consider Resolution - Akin Road Project - Engineering
A presentation was given outlining the suggested improvements for Akin Road.
Improvements would include an overlay of the road, turn lanes, street lighting,
construction of interconnecting trail segments for pedestrian travel on the east
side of Akin Road, bridge culverts to improve storm water drainage, and
installation of a guard rail at the northern-most curve of Akin Road on the east
side. The total estimated project cost is $1,815,030. The County participation
will be $267,000, special assessment per household will be $332.26, and special
assessment per acre will be $930.31.
Mayor Ristow stated Council has received concerns expressed at the
neighborhood meeting. They are taken very seriously. He understands safety and
stop signs are a big concern. The City is capable of requesting additional studies
to justify these safety issues. Councilmember Soderberg stated there was a traffic
study done as part of the feasibility report when it was a County road. Do
parameters change when a study is done if it is a City street? Staff replied
parameters do not change. Councilmember Soderberg stated the sight lines at the
intersection of 193rd Street are terrible. Councilmember Strachan stated the latest
study at 193rd does not include the new development to the east, correct? Staff
replied the new study would include the new development and could change the
outcome.
Mr. Craig Stibbe, 20060 Akin Road, stated his family has waited for 12 years,
since their son was killed, for a safer road. The proposed project would not make
Akin Road safer, but increase the danger. It is proposed to install a bypass lane at
Dunbar Avenue in front of their house. It is dangerous now to get their mail.
They will lose the use of their turnaround and have to back into traffic. A 10-foot
wide path is proposed for the east side of the road. How will people on the west
side access the path? This road is designated as a collector road, not an arterial
Council Minutes (Regular)
March 5, 2001
Page 3
throughway. That is why Pilot Knob Road was constructed. Staff has stated the
road does not meet warrants for stop signs. He stated school and church zones
should be warrant enough. Staff wants to build the road and put in stop signs at a
later date. The residents have waited long enough. This will reduce property
value. Who would buy a house on a 50 mph street with bypass lanes. There have
been enough deaths and injuries already. He is opposed to spending $1.8 million
on a badly proposed project. He feels this project is a flagrant and serious breach
of the public trust by both elected officials and staff.
Mr. Dave Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, stated he understood when the sewer
project went through, the road would be turned back to the City. The road was
not supposed to be a freeway, it was to become a City road. The speed limit was
to be up to the City to determine. He has a hard time backing onto the road or the
shoulder now, and it will become harder. This will not be Akin Road, it will be
Akin Freeway. He feels the area residents have been lied to by the City Council
at that time. He will reserve judgment for the current Council to see if the
previous Minutes are upheld. The Police Department has improved traffic safety.
He does not want to see the project go through. If it does, safety issues have to be
met. It was said at the neighborhood meeting, if a stop sign is installed where it is
not warranted, cars will go through the stop sign. He does not agree with that,
and if that does happen, that is what the police are for. If stop signs are installed,
it will give him time to enter the road. If stop signs are not installed, with bypass
lanes there will be continual traffic flow. Install stop signs with the projects, and
let the residents come to Council and say they do not need stop signs. When the
sewer project was done, everyone said it was wrong to begin with. Why wasn't
the sewer put in when the City water was put in? If this project is done now,
install stop signs so people do not have to be re-educated. Residents are asking
for three stop signs and a safe road. As far as more traffic on the road, there will
be new developments adding traffic. Residents should make their own decision
when traveling the road to set the speed limit themselves at 40 mph, so other
traffic will take Pilot Knob Road.
Ms. Sue Miller, 19962 Akin Road, stated she does not disagree with the
comments made. She has the same situation turning south on Akin Road out of
her driveway. With the pending developments, any improvements on the road
should be welcomed by the people. The trails will get pedestrian traffic off the
road. There have been near misses with bikes, etc. on the shoulder of Akin Road.
A lot of people do not pay attention to the speed limit, or where they are going.
As far as stop signs, she wants to keep an open mind. Any kind of an upgrade to
the road will be an improvement.
Mr. Lyle Stratton 20210 Dunbar Avenue, stated making a left onto Akin Road
during rush hour is a challenge. The road is not a 50 mph road. Stop signs and
Dunbar Avenue and 203rd Street would make it much easier for people to get out.
If there are too many stop signs installed, let the residents come to Council. He
does not see 40-50 mph streets through other developments.
Council Minutes (Regular)
March 5, 2001
Page 4
Mr. Dan Simon, 18 Pine Street, when Pilot Knob Road was constructed, all the
fast and heavy traffic would be on Pilot Knob. Regarding the trail, he asked if the
school pays an assessment. Staff replied yes, the school pays an assessment. Mr.
Simon stated he is landlocked, and to use any of this he has to cross the athletic
field, over fences, and through a dugout to use a $75,000 trail that will go through
a slew. There are three houses this will not do one thing for.
Ms. Joanne Payne 20192 Akin Road, stated residents have made numerous pleas
to improve the safety of Akin Road. She stated the City has had jurisdiction over
Akin Road for two years and does have the authority to install stop signs. When
Pilot Knob was constructed, traffic was to be reduced on Akin Road. This has not
happened. How will children on the west side of Akin Road reach the trail on the
east side? Turn lanes will help turn off Akin Road, but plans do not address how
this will help traffic enter Akin Road. With the addition of more developments,
there will be more traffic on Akin Road. Part of the Council's job is to look out
for the residents' best interest. Stop signs would greatly increase safety and divert
the shortcut traffic to Pilot Knob. She presented a petition to Council containing
80 signatures of residents opposing the project.
Mr. Ed Ulvi, 19920 Akin Road, does not agree with project. Akin Road will
become a speedway with turn lanes. This will lower the value of property. He
has 150 feet of split rail fence. Will this be taken down? The Mayor replied it
depends if it is in the right-of-way.
Ms. Kerry Hanifl, 19927 Akin Road, stated the reason for improvements is to
increase safety. She asked how does installing turn lanes increase safety? A lot
of residents have problems turning in and out of their driveways, and cars passing
on the shoulder. Turn lanes allow traffic to go faster. Akin Road is in need of
being repaved, but does not think turn lanes should be included in the project.
She then asked how residents on the west side access the trail on the east side?
Children will not be able to cross the road and will still have to use the shoulder to
reach the ballfields or Akin Elementary. If project goes through, when will the
City request a speed study?
Mr. Frank Lamberty, 20345 Eaves Way, is glad to see improvement on Akin
Road and has no problem with assessment. He has a problem going north on
Akin Road and turning left on Eaves Way. The sign says no passing on shoulder,
but cars do. A turn lane on Eaves Way would be of great help to him.
Mr. Allen Wokson, 20255 Dunbar Avenue, is not for the project. Turn lanes will
increase traffic flow, and the bike path has no value to his family. Why does a
City street have to meet County requirements? Mayor Ristow stated it is not a
City street yet, until this project is approved. Staff replied whether it is a City or
County street, it has to meet warrants by the State. Mr. Wokson asked how the
stop sign on Dunbar and 203rd meet criteria? There is no traffic compared to Akin
Council Minutes (Regular)
March 5, 2001
Page 5
Road. There was no stop sign at that intersection until the sewer and new streets
were installed. Staff replied they would have to review project records. He was
assessed for his street then and people on Pilot Knob were not assessed for his
street. Since this is going to be a City street, he feels anyone who does not live on
Akin, their portion should come out of City budget, because those residents are
getting a double assessment. When school is in session, he has to wait a long time
to enter Akin. The only way to fix that is to deter traffic. Council needs to look
at issues raised before a decision is made on the project.
Mr. Al Corrigan, 19715 Akin Road, there are two turn lanes into new
developments. Will turn lanes be paid for by the developer or are they part of the
project? Staff reflied those turn lanes will be paid for by the developer. The
sight line at 193f Street was raised and the sight line at the Vermillion Grove
entrance needs to be addressed. He agrees with issues raised for stop signs and
speed.
Mr. Ed Ulvi, 19920 Akin Road, stated there is a curve on the road where cars go
off onto the shoulder. There should be a rumble strip along the road to keep them
off the shoulder.
Mr. Dave Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, stated the bypass lanes will make a non-
stop flow of traffic where he will not be able to safely get on or off the road. He
does not want the Police to have to report a bad accident. Not putting in stop
signs does not make sense whether they are warranted or not. If a pothole is
reported to the State or County they have to pay for repair to your car knowing the
pothole was there and not taken care of. The City will be liable for any accidents
or injuries because they are being told of how dangerous this road will be. As far
as snowmobiling, you need to travel the same direction as the traffic after dark.
What will happen on the trail side?
Mr. Leon Orr, 19161 Echo Lane, he was on the Council when County was
petitioned to put alignment into long term plans. It was envisioned then that Akin
Road would become a quiet street. It is unthinkable to have a 50 mph road with a
trail. Nice for residents on east side, but the west side has no access without a
controlled intersection. This is an invitation to the White Funeral Home.
Councilmember Strachan stated there are trails planned in the new developments
to the west. Staff replied there is a future bike trail going west on 208th Street,
going north to 195th Street, and going east on 195th Street. Along Pilot Knob, a
divided highway, there will be trails on the east and west sides. Councilmember
Strachan stated we are not disagreeing that much. We are talking about bad
driving behavior and getting in and out of Akin Road. The City has to justify
improvements for liability. Stop signs can also cause accidents. Council is
looking at ways to do traffic study for entering and exiting Akin Road, speed
limits, and stop signs. Council wants to find a way to do this, but needs to find a
Council Minutes (Regular)
March 5, 2001
Page 6
way to get there. Staff stated the studies will include effects of new
developments. Studies will be redone from last year in order to update them.
Councilmember Soderberg asked if the anticipated traffic from new developments
will be added to studies? Staff replied it can be factored into the study. He has
heard a lot about speed. What will the classification of the road be? Staff replied
that will be a collector road. Other collector roads are Everest Path, English
Avenue, and Embers. The layout of these roads differ from Akin. The City will
request a study, and forward it to the State. The State looks at design, speed,
development, and how traffic uses the road. Councilmember Cordes stated a
traffic study was done on TH3 and the speed was increased because of the type of
traffic. Councilmember Soderberg stated if the road is designed to move traffic
faster, the study would raise the speed. Staff stated that is potentially the case.
Mayor Ristow asked if the perception would be different if the road is a City
street rather than a County road? Staff will have to discuss that with the State.
City Administrator Erar stated the only thing that has changed is the road is under
City jurisdiction instead of the County. The use is still the same. Councilmember
Soderberg stated he understands we have to meet warrants, but speed is a big
concern. Council needs to consider what can be done in design to cause traffic to
slow down. City Administrator Erar stated this was considered in the feasibility
study. Adding turn lanes is traffic safety . We are trying to enhance and work on
areas that will generate the best return in terms of traffic safety.
Mayor Ristow stated if the studies come back showing the speed limits are
warranted and stop signs, the Council has the right to change the speed limits and
place stop signs. But if the City does that without meeting warrants, the City will
be liable. City Attorney Jamnik replied the City has more authority over stop
signs than speed limits. The insurance policies would not be lost, even for bad
placement of a stop sign. But the claim experience is taken into account in setting
premiums for future years.
Mr. David Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, stated a lot of work has been done to get
traffic off the road. What has been done to get traffic on the road? Staff replied
you are correct in that improvements do not help to get traffic on the road. Once
volume warrants are met at intersections, then traffic control would be
recommended. The issue with individuals entering the road from driveways, is a
similar situation throughout the City. With Akin Road, speed is an issue which is
different from other collector roads. There are not a lot of options to address
those types of issues. Issues with driveways and bypass lanes will be reviewed.
City Administrator Erar stated staff is limited as to what we can recommend with
information at our disposal. The direction Council has set is to make sure
arguments are made with regard to speed on Akin Road, continue to monitor
intersections and incorporate anticipated traffic increases due to new
developments into the study, and continue to identify issues that can lead to
enhanced traffic safety on Akin Road.
Council Minutes (Regular)
March 5, 2001
Page 7
Mr. Frank Lamberty, 20345 Eaves Way, if Akin Road is designated as a City
street, it is no different than 3rd Street or Ash Street. Speed limit should be
considered at 30 mph and call it a City street.
Ms. Joanne Payne, 20192 Akin Road, stated the City's liability increases if stop
signs are installed that are not warranted, but by not putting them in with all this
concern, could liability be increased. City Attorney Jamnik replied yes, it works
both ways. That is why the City relies on professional opinions.
City Administrator Erar stated the recommended improvements will not
necessarily aid in slowing the traffic on Akin Road. It will increase traffic safety
issues. There are no other recommended improvements to the road at this point.
This Public Hearing is to either reject improvements, table the project
indefinitely, or request another feasibility study which would be an enormous
cost.
MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to close the Public Hearing. APIF,
MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes adopting
RESOLUTION R22-01 ordering the project and authorizing the preparation of
plans and specifications contingent on the successful turnback of Akin Road, with
review of reducing speed, traffic control devices and safety. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
b) Consider Resolution - 2001 Sealcoat Project - Engineering
The 2001 Seal Coat project is part of the City's seven-year cycle seal coat
program established by the CiZ in 1994. The streets in Pine Ridge Forest
Addition, Nelsen Hills Farm 6 Addition, Charleswood 1 st Addition, and Dallas
Avenue from 208th Street to its northerly terminus are to be seal coated for the
first time this year. The streets of Hill Dee Addition, Westview Acres, 108th
Street from Akin Road to the east, Spruce Street from 4th Street east to the
frontage road ofCSAH 50/TH 3 and 5th, 6th, and 7th Streets for 1/2 block north
and south of Spruce Street are scheduled to be seal coated this year as part of the
7 year maintenance program cycle. The total estimated project cost is $85,200.
The estimated assessment based on the estimated project costs and the City's
special assessment policy is $62.28 per residential equivalent unit. MOTION by
Cordes, second by Soderberg to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg adopting
RESOLUTION R23-01 ordering the 2001 Seal Coat project, approving the plans
and specifications and authorizing the advertisement for bids. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
c) Consider Resolution - Vacate Sanitary Sewer Easement - Bristol Square 2nd
Addition - Engineering
As part of the platting for the approved Bristol Square 2nd Addition, the City
needs to vacate a portion of the sanitary sewer easement along the alignment of
the Southeast Trunk Sanitary Sewer. The easement was acquired for the
Council Minutes (Regular)
March 5, 2001
Page 8
installation of the Southeast Trunk Sanitary Sewer in 1995. The easement is
located along the westerly property line of the Bristol Square Development. As
part of the platting of the Bristol Square 2nd Addition, the developer agreed to
give the City additional easement over Outlot N for the trunk water main that was
installed as part of the 2000 Trunk Water Main project. In return, the developer
requested that the City vacate a portion of the sanitary sewer easement on Outlot
B. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to close the Public Hearing.
APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan
adopting RESOLUTION R24-01 vacating the described portion of the sanitary
sewer easement in the Bristol Square development. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
9. AWARD OF CONTRACT
10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a) Consider 2001 Council Goal Setting Workshop Considerations-
Administration
Council agreed to postpone the 2001 Council Goal Setting Workshop to a future
date coinciding with the appointment of the new City Administrator.
b) Consider Ordinance - Charleswood PUDlRezone - Community Development
Newland Communities is seeking a PUD Amendment to the Charleswood PUD to
incorporate 15.42 acres of property located directly east of the easterly property
line and extending to the right-of-way for Pilot Knob Road. The property is
currently zoned R-l (Low Density) and would be rezoned to R-3 PUD. These
parcels are remnant pieces of property that were split from the larger tracts of land
during the construction of Pilot Knob Road. These parcels are currently zoned R-
1, forming a sliver between the Charleswood development zoned R-3 PUD and
the Vermillion Grove and Middle Creek developments which are also zoned R-3
PUD. The developer proposes to amend the Charleswood PUD to incorporate
these parcels into the R-3 PUD. The developer proposes townhome development
to occur in this portion of the Charleswood development. MOTION by Cordes,
second by Strachan adopting ORDINANCE 001-460 rezoning the subject
property from R-l (Low Density) to R-3 PUD and amending the Charleswood
Planned Unit Development. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
c) Consider Resolution - Charleswood 5th Addition Preliminary Plat-
Community Development
Newland Communities is seeking Preliminary Plat approval for the 5th Addition
of Charleswood. The plat consists of 96 townhome units on 21 acres of land
located south and east of the existing single-family lots. The common lot shown
on Lot 17, Block 1 and Lot 9, Block 2 will be controlled and maintained by the
homeowners association. Common Lot 17 needs to be corrected, the plat
indicates 17 lots for the townhome units with Block 1, with Lot 1 being reserved
for a future well house site for the City. The developer is not proposing any
additional off-street parking within the proposed townhome development. Staff
Council Minutes (Regular)
March 5, 2001
Page 9
suggested that additional off-street parking be added within the private drive
roadways. Currently Dakota County Highway Department controls a 120-foot
right-of-way for CSAH 31; and additional 15-feet of right-of-way will be
conveyed to the County during the platting of the 5th Addition. This will serve for
the future widening of the roadway to four lanes and the future construction of a
bike trail along both sides of the roadway. The drives stemming off of200th
Street will be private roadways and be maintained by the homeowners
association. Wetlands are located to the north and south of the plat with a small
portion of a wetland being effected during the construction of 200th Street. The
developer is proposing boulevard trees at 40-foot spacing along 200th Street. Staff
proposed that additional trees be planted along the private driveways stemming
off of200th Street, and additional trees within the common areas and/or along the
wetland areas to the south, replacing trees that are being removed as part of the
proposed project.
Councilmember Strachan asked what the value of the homes would be. Steve
Volbrecht, Centex Homes; stated the based price would be $152,000 - $160,000.
Councilmember Soderberg asked if an effort will be made to save trees that do not
interfere with construction. Mr. Steve Juetten, Newland Communities, replied
there will be a large number of trees removed for elevation to work. They will be
planting new trees.
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R2S-01
approving the Charleswood 5th Addition Preliminary Plat/PUD with contingencies
as listed in the resolution. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
d) Consider Resolution - Revised Middle Creek 2nd Addition Final Plat -
Community Development
DR Horton and Arcon Development recently received final plat approval for 66
townhome units on one block and platted one outlot within the Middle Creek 2nd
Addition. The plat is located directly east of Pilot Knob Road. The developers
have determined that they would like to amend the plat from the Common Interest
Community format to platting each building as a lot. In the C.LC. type format,
each unit is platted separately, thereby requiring each unit to have separate utility
hookups. In a standard plat the entire building is platted as one lot and one
common service for each utility is stubbed to the building. MOTION by
Soderberg, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R26-01 approving the
revised Middle Creek 2nd Addition Final Plat contingent on the execution of a
Development Contract. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
e) Consider Resolution - Tamarack Ridge 2nd Addition Development Contract -
Engineering
The Development Contract for Tamarack Ridge 2nd Addition was presented for
Council's consideration. Conditions of approval are:
a) The developer enter into this Agreement
Council Minutes (Regular)
March 5, 2001
Page 10
b)
The developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms
of this Agreement.
The developer will be responsible for the construction of 209th Street
between Trunk Highway 3 and Cantata Avenue in accordance with Elans
and specifications approved by the City. The improvements to 209
Street include water main construction. The construction of 209th Street
will be completed by December I, 200 I. The developer will post a surety
for said improvements by April 1, 2001. The developer will be
reimbursed by the City for the 209th Street improvement costs apportioned
to the residents along the south side of 209th Street.
The developer will be responsible for the construction of Cantata Avenue
and 208th Street between Cantata A venue and Cambodia Avenue in
accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City.
c)
d)
MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R27-01
approving the execution of the Tamarack Ridge 2nd Addition Development
contract and authorize its signing contingent upon the above conditions and
approval by the Engineering Division. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
f) Ash Street Project Communication - Castle Rock Town Board - Engineering
Council received a letter from Castle Rock Township's engineer summarizing the
township's position on cost sharing in regards to the Ash Street project. Pond 8 is
the destination pond for all the runoff from the identified Ash Street project areas.
It is proposed that each area tributary to Pond 8, participate in the cost of Pond 8,
based on the additional storage needed due to adding the area to the system. Each
tributary area would pay their share of the costs if and when the area connects to
the system and the pond is expanded to accommodate the increase inflows. It is
proposed that areas west of the railroad tracks and the Fair Board area participate
in the costs of the storm sewer pipe in Ash Street only to the extent that pipe
needs to be upsized from the size necessary to serve the areas directly tributary to
Ash Street. The Town Board recognizes that properties served by City water or
sewer need to be annexed into the City. Cost and benefit is an issue between the
City and those property owners that desire services and should be addressed in the
annexation agreement. The Town Board is willing to enter into an agreement
with the City for the payment of the Town Board's costs if the City bonds for the
improvements. Engineering staff will be meeting with the Township's engineer to
review the township's proposal and determine the cost implications involved, as
well as complete the draft report for review by both agencies.
II. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a) Consider 19Sth Street Project Fundingffumback Settlement Agreement with
Dakota County - Administration
The City and Dakota County have reached a tentative agreement concerning the
revocation of Akin Road and associated project funding. The agreement provides
for the County to commit project funding in the amount of $267.000 to the future
construction of 195th Street, while allowing the City Council the discretion to
Council Minutes (Regular)
March 5,2001
Page 11
designate these same funds to public improvement costs associated with the
turnback of Akin Road. Dakota County also agreed to fund the final segment of
195th Street from the point at which the first segment is determined to end to
where it will connect with TH 3. In terms of project funding, the County
consistent with its Highway Transportation Policies, will underwrite funding of
this final segment of 195th Street which would include the railway overpass.
MOTION by Strachan, second by Cordes approving the Agreement for the
Resolution of Project Funding for 1 95th Street and the turnback of Akin Road, and
designating the application of County project funding in the amount of $267,000
to the Akin Road Turnback Project. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
b) Consider Executive Recruitment Options - Administration
Council was provided information regarding the executive recruitment options
available for the recruitment of a new City Administrator. The first option is to
forgo an external search process and interview any internal candidate who has
expressed interest in the position. Option two is to utilize City staff in the
recruitment process. Option three is to utilize an executive search firm to
implement the process. Councilmember Verch supported option three.
Councilmember Soderberg stated option two is not a good option for him. The
first option promotes staff development by offering opportunities for internal
promotion. Does option three do anything detrimental to that perception? Staff
replied, no, any internal candidates could apply through the recruiter.
Councilmember Soderberg stated as far as staff is concerned, does using an
outside search firm diminish the perception of opportunities for advancement?
Staff replied it could, but as long as the process is fair and the internal candidate
can apply and have the same opportunity as any external candidate it mitigates
that. Councilmember Soderberg supported option three.
Councilmember Strachan stated the most important thing a Council does is hire a
City Administrator. So much is driven by staff and the leader of that staff is a big
deal. Council is always fiscally prudent, but this is a big decision and will drive
the tone of the City for a long time. He supported option three. Mayor Ristow
stated we receive a $5,000 reduction for using the Brimeyer Group.
Councilmember Cordes stated she believes in promotion from within and wants
the full Council to be in support of that. Going out and reaffmning that we have a
qualified candidate on staff by going with a search firm validates the process. She
also supports option three.
Mayor Ristow stated he also supports promoting from within. He hopes it is not a
deterrent to external candidates to have an internal candidate. We want a good
view of all candidates. He supported option three and asked if Council would use
the Brimeyer Group or go out for RFP's. Councilmember Strachan stated he has
talked to other officials and they have uniformly had good comments about
Council Minutes (Regular)
March 5, 2001
Page 12
Brimeyer. So much of the process is driven by Council. He feels very confident
using that firm. Council agreed to use the Brimeyer Group.
City Administrator Erar stated the direction to the Brimeyer Group should be very
clear, stating this is an open process and Council has not made up their minds
relative to any particular candidate. That message should be made clear by Mr.
Brimeyer to any candidate. He presented a proposal to Council from the
Brimeyer Group in order to move the process forward. If Council is comfortable
with option three and want to use the Brimeyer Group, Council should make a
motion authorizing that. MOTION by Strachan, second by Cordes to accept the
Brimeyer Group. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
City Administrator Erar went through the proposal outlining the process. Mayor
Ristow asked if Council could exclude Brimeyer's database and go out for a wider
search. City Administrator Erar stated one advantage of going with a search firm
is that they have a database with qualified candidates. They would still go out
with an announcement allowing anyone to enter. Councilmember Strachan stated
they may also contact people who are not applying if they fit the proposal. City
Administrator Erar stated Council could request a larger selection of candidates.
That would assure the pool is large enough and would mitigate a recruiter
bringing you a selection of candidates of their choice. Council drives the process
entirely. The fee is $15,000 in addition to expenses. The process could take until
August. As this is a professional service Council is not required to go out for bids
or RFP's. A Council Workshop will be held with the Brimeyer Group on March
21, 2001. A Traffic Safety Workshop will also be held on that date.
12. NEW BUSINESS
13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
Council member Strachan: ALF Ambulance is interviewing paramedics for the 3rd
ambulance for Farmington.
Mayor Ristow: The next Council Meeting is March 19,2001, which is City
Administrator John Erar's last Council Meeting. He suggested a reception be held prior
to the meeting and Council agreed.
14. ADJOURN
MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to adjourn at 10:50 p.m. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
~ /?/~-<-/
CC;nthia Muller
Executive Assistant
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.cLfarmington.mn.us
7b
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator~
FROM: Renee Brekken, Recreation Program SupervisorJ {]
SUBJECT: Approve Grant Application for the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council
DATE: March 19,2001
INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION
Farmington Parks and Recreation Department's Senior Center would like to apply for a grant in the
amount of $1,442.43 from Metropolitan Regional Arts Council. Farmington Parks and Recreation has
applied for and received grant funds in 1998, 1999 and 2000. The grant application for the year 2001
is requested to fund 3 intergenerational music performances.
The Metropolitan Regional Arts Council serves organizations, art projects and arts audiences in the
seven county metropolitan area through programs and services that provide people with opportunities
to engage in the process of creating art as well as opportunities to enjoy the artistic accomplishments of
others.
BUDGET IMPACT
Metropolitan Regional Arts Council funds must be matched dollar for dollar from Senior Center
operating funds. At least 20 percent of the match must be in cash. Cash sources may include general
operating funds, past surpluses, donations, and earned income or revenue raised specifically for the
project. The remaining match may include cash and/or in-kind goods and services.
ACTION REOUIRED
Adopt a resolution authorizing application for the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council grant.
Respectfully submitted,
~UL~lX-l^-
Renee Brekken
Recreation Program Supervisor
RESOLUTION NO. R -01
APPROVAL OF GRANT APPLICATION
FOR THE METROPOLITAN REGIONAL ARTS COUNCIL
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 19th day of March
2001 at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following:
WHEREAS, Farmington Parks and Recreation Department's Senior Center would like to apply
for a grant in the amount of $1,442.43; and,
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council serves a diversity of organizations, arts
projects and arts audiences in the seven-county metropolitan area through programs and services
that provide all interested people, in their own and other communities in the region, with
opportunities to engage in the process of creating art as well as opportunities to enjoy the artistic
accomplishments of others; and,
WHEREAS, the grant money will go to fund 3 intergenerational music performances.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the grant application for the Metropolitan
Regional Arts Council is hereby approved.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the
19th day of March 2001.
Mayor
Attested to the _ day of
2001.
City Administrator
SEAL
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farminlrton.mn.us
7c.
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato1-
FROM: Tim Gross, Assistant City Engineer ~
SUBJECT: Private Development Street Sweeping Contract
DATE: March 19,2001
INTRODUCTION
Staff has solicited quotes for street cleaning services in the private developments for 2001. Requests
for proposals for street cleaning services was advertised in the Farmington Independent for two
weeks. In addition, proposal packets were sent to contractors that had submitted proposals for street
cleaning services in the past. Three quotes were received for street cleaning services.
DISCUSSION
It is stipulated in all private development contracts that the Developer is responsible to keep the
streets clear of soil and debris. It has proven to be very difficult to enforce this issue, and the amount
of soil and debris in the streets is significant at times. The City has the right under the Development
Contract to perform work and bill the costs to the Developer when there is a default of the contract.
Failing to keep the streets clean is considered a default of the Development Contract, and allows the
City to take proper remedial action.
The streets need to be kept clean for two main reasons. First, if the streets are not kept clean, soil and
debris is washed into the storm sewer system and holding ponds during rainfall events. If the debris
gets into a system downstream of the development, taxpayer dollars will need to be expended to clean
the system and ponds. Secondly, staff has received numerous complaints from residents regarding
the difficulties navigating streets coated in dirt and mud.
The procedure for street cleaning services will be the same as last year. The developments will be
inspected on Tuesdays and Thursdays after 12:00 p.m. The City's contractor will clean those streets
that are not clean by 12:00 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays, on the following day (Wednesday and
Friday). The cost for street cleaning services including an administrative fee will be billed back to
the Developer.
As in the past, it will be entirely up to the Developer as to whether or not the City assists him/her
with street cleaning. If all of the streets within a development are clean at 12:00 p.m. on Tuesdays
and Thursdays, the City's contractor will not be ordered to clean the streets in that development and
the Developer will not be billed for street cleaning at that time. The only exception to this is if staff
is made aware of a situation that needs to be addressed immediately and the Developer cannot
respond as necessary.
BUDGET IMPACT
The low quote for street cleaning was received from Hoffbeck Trucking (see attached). The cost to
the Developer (plus an administrative fee) will be $65/hour for skid loader work and $65/hour for
pickup broom work. There would be no budget impact to the City.
ACTION REQUESTED
Approve the attached contract for street cleaning services by Hoffbeck Trucking by motion.
Respectfully submitted,
J
/V 7::. l__-
Tim Gross
Assistant City Engineer
cc: file
2001 STREET SWEEPING BIDS
RECEIVED BY 2:00 PM
March 1, 2001
SWEEPER
2
SKID LOADER
TOTAL
85.00 $
65.00 $
150.00 $
140.00
80.00
220.00
STREET CLEANING CONTRACT
AGREEMENT dated this day of ,2001, by and between
the CITY OF FARMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and HOFFBECK
TRUCKING, INC., a Minnesota corporation ("Contractor").
IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL UNDERTAKINGS HEREIN, THE
PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Scope of Work.
A. The City hereby engages Contractor to provide street cleaning services within
private developments in the City. Contractor shall clean only those streets identified by the City
Engineer during the 24-hour period prior to the scheduled cleaning date.
B. Contractor will provide street cleaning services on those streets identified by the
City Engineer every Wednesday and Friday, at a minimum. All street cleaning shall be
performed during the hours of:
7:00 a.m. -7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday
9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Saturday
C. In performing the work under this Agreement, Contractor . shall use only those
hydrants approved by the City for Contractor's use. The City shall provide Contractor with a
water meter which Contractor shall use when obtaining water from City hydrants. Contractor
shall not be charged for City water used in performing work under this Agreement.
D. The City's Inspector shall verify that the work is completed to the satisfaction of
the City. Contractor's failure to clean streets to the City's satisfaction and in a timely manner
shall be cause for termination of this Agreement by the City without notice.
Section 2. Notification.
A. Lists of streets within the City that require cleaning which will be faxed by the
City to the Contractor prior to the scheduled day for cleaning. No verbal street cleaning list will
be supplied. If there are no streets that require cleaning on a scheduled day, the City inspector
will forward a fax indicating that there are no streets to be cleaned that day. If the scheduled
street cleaning day falls on a holiday or there is severe weather, as determined by the City, the
City shall designate an alternate day for performance of Contractor's services.
Section 3. Equipment.
A. Contractor shall perform the work required under this Agreement usmg the
following fully operational equipment:
1) Street sweeper: must be equipped with right and left gutter brooms with
G:\Gauge\Street Sweeping\1999\contract.doc
water discharge; and
2) A skid loader.
Each sweeper will be equipped with an anti-siphon device. Plastic brushes are acceptable.
B. When requested by the City, Contractor shall furnish a complete statement of
equipment condition and previous length of service on all equipment to be used in the
performance of the work under this Agreement. The City's Public Works Director or designee
may reject any equipment used to perform the work covered under this Agreement.
Section 4. Contract Term.
A. Contractor shall commence services April 1, 2001 through March 31, 2002. This
Agreement may be terminated earlier by either party without cause upon thirty (30) days' notice
to the other party, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement.
Section 5. Payment.
A. The City shall pay Contractor a unit price per hour as follows:
$65.00/hour for use of pickup broom with water discharge
$65.00/hour for use of the skid loader
B. The unit price per hour includes only time spent actually operating equipment and
does not include downtime. The unit prices per hour shall cover all of the City's costs associated
with the street cleaning. Contractor shall be responsible for all costs it incurs in the
transportation and disposal of materials off-site.
C. Application for payment shall be made monthly. Contractor shall invoice each
development in the City separately. Upon approval of the invoice by the City, the City will remit
the approved invoice amount directly to Contractor.
Section 6. Documentation.
A. Contractor shall be responsible for keeping and maintaining the following records
on a daily basis.
1) The total number of cleaning hours per development for each piece of
equipment identified in Section 2.
2) The number of dumps and estimated yards of debris per development.
B. These records shall be submitted weekly to the City's Public Works Director or
designee showing the dates, times and street locations where sweeping was done in each
development.
2
Section 7. Emer~ency Response. During the contract term it may be necessary to have
contract work done on an emergency basis. Upon the City's request for additional work,
Contractor shall respond to the City's request upon 24 hours verbal or written notice. If the
City's Public Works Director or designee determines it necessary, the City may hire another
entity other than Contractor for completion of the requested work.
Section 8. Independent Contractor. The City hereby retains Contractor as an
independent contractor upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Contractor is
not an employee of the City and is free to contract with other entities as provided herein.
Contractor shall be responsible for selecting the means and methods of performing the work.
Contractor shall furnish any and all supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary for
Contractor's performance under this Agreement. The City and Contractor agree that Contractor
shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Contractor or any of Contractor's agents or
employees are in any manner agents or employees of the City. Contractor shall be exclusively
responsible under this Agreement for Contractor's own FICA payments, worker's compensation
payments, unemployment compensation payments, withholding amounts, and/or self-
employment taxes if any such payments, amounts, or taxes are required to be paid by law or
regulation.
Section 9. Extra Service. No claim will be honored for compensation for extra services
or work beyond the scope of this Agreement without the written approval of the City.
Section 10. Insurance. Contractor shall furnish the City certificates of insurance from
insurers duly licensed with the State of Minnesota covering public liability insurance, including
general liability, automobile liability and bodily injury liability in an amount of at least $500,000
for injury or death of anyone person in anyone occurrence; and bodily injury liability in an
amount of at least $1,000,000 for injuries or death arising out of anyone occurrence. Property
damage liability shall be furnished in the amount of at least $200,000. Contractor shall comply
with all applicable insurance requirements of the Worker's Compensation Act. Contractor shall
provide proof of worker's compensation coverage. The City shall be named an additional
insured on the general liability policy.
Section 11. Unsafe Conditions Reportin~. Contractor shall promptly inform the City
by telephone and in writing of any unsafe conditions on City streets or property discovered
during the course of Contractor's duties, whether or not Contractor is able to remedy the unsafe
condition.
Section 12. Indemnification. Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its
officers, agents and employees, of and from any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of
action, including costs and attorney's fees, arising out of or by reason of negligence in the
execution or performance of the work or services provided for herein and further agrees to
defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of
asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising hereunder.
3
Section 13. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. Contractor warrants that it has not
employed any person to solicit or secure this Agreement for a commission, percentage,
brokerage or contingent fee.
Section 14. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State
of Minnesota.
Section 15. Notices. Pursuant to this Agreement, notices shall be hand-delivered or
mailed as follows:
AS TO CITY:
City Administrator
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
AS TO CONTRACTOR:
Hoffbeck Trucking
9745 215th Street W.
Lakeville, MN 55044
Section 16. Miscellaneous.
A. Contractor may not assign or subcontract any of the services to be performed hereunder
without the written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
B. This Agreement shall become effective only upon its execution by both the City and
Contractor. This Agreement shall not be modified, amended, rescinded, waived or terminated
without the approval in writing of the City.
4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement as of the day
and year first above written.
Dated:
,2001.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
By:
Gerald Ristow, Mayor
And
John F. Erar, City Administrator
CONTRACTOR:
Dated:
,2001.
HOFFBECK TRUCKING, INC.
By:
Its:
And
Its:
5
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.cLfarmington.mn.us
7c(
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~
FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager
SUBJECT: Temporary On-Sale Liquor License - St. Michael's Church
DATE: March 19,2001
INTRODUCTION
St. Michael's Church is requesting a Temporary on-sale Liquor License for aSpring
Festival and Fall Festival to be held May 1,2001 and September 15 and 16,2001.
DISCUSSION
This event will be held on St. Michael's property located at 22120 Denmark Ave. Per
State Statute, a Temporary Liquor license must first be approved by the City and then
forwarded to the State for approval. .
BUDGET IMPACT
A City fee has not been established for a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License. In
discussion with the Liquor Control Commission, staff was informed that the State of
Minnesota waives all fees for Temporary Liquor Licenses for non-profit organizations.
ACTION REOUESTED
Approve the attached application for a Temporary Liquor License for St. Michael's
Church, 22120 Denmark Ave., for their Spring Festival and Fall Festival, May 1,2001,
and September 15 and 16, 2001. As the City Council has not adopted a fee for this
permit, and the State of Minnesota waives all fees in this type of situation, Council may
waive any fees associated with this request. Accordingly, no license fee is proposed at
this time.
Respectfully submitted, .
~ 0/11. .^
,., r---t ..
.... . . ~- jJ0vt~
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Services Manager
7e..
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Acknowledge Interim City Administrator Designation
DATE: March 19,2001
INTRODUCTION
As my last effective working date with the City will be March 20, 2001, this office, in
accordance with City .ordinances and past practice, has designated Finance Director Robin
Roland to serve as acting administrator effective March 21,2001.
DISCUSSION
Finance Director Robin Roland has been designated as acting administrator effective March 21,
2001 until such time as Council selects and appoints a new City Administrator. Ms. Roland will
assume these duties subject to established administrative policies and protocols and City
ordinances.
Organizational issues associated with this acting designation have been discussed with Ms.
Roland and are in place to allow for uninterrupted service operations during this interim period.
Ms. Roland has, on various occasions, served as acting administrator and consequently is well
prepared to assume these additional duties during this transition period.
BUDOETIMPACT
Ms. Roland's current salary, in accordance with the City's compensation plan, will be temporarily
adjusted to appropriately reflect the change of duties during this interim period. These issues
have been discussed and agreed to by Ms. Roland in accordance with the City's personnel
policies.
ACTION REOUESTED
For Council information.
Respectfully submitted,
J;tl~
J0hn F. Erar
/
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farminsrton.mn.us
7~
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator.pl
FROM: Tim Gross, Assistant City Engineer ~
SUBJECT: Public Works Capital Outlay
DATE: March 19,2001
INTRODUCTION
The 2001 Budget provides for the acquisition of a color plotter and an engineering copier to be shared
by Community Development and the Engineering Department.
DISCUSSION
Three quotes were received for the color plotter. Copy Equipment Inc. provided the low quote for a
Hewlett-Packard 800 series 42" color plotter in the amount of $5,804.25 including tax.
Seven quotes were received for engineering copiers. Copy Equipment Inc. provided the low quote
for a Xerox 3040 Engineering Copier in the amount of $10,303.88 including tax.
BUDGET IMPACT
The 2001 Budget allows $37,276 for a new plotter, copier and scanner. Funding for this equipment is
to be shared equally between the Sewer, Storm Water, Water, and Private Capital Projects funds.
The total amount for these items ($16,108.13) is within the budgeted amount.
ACTION REQUESTED
For information only.
Respectfully submitted,
~ i
r .. . L-
" ( ,~: ,/' ,1'-.l"} 'L--
Tim Gross
Assistant City Engineer
cc: file
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.cLfarmington.mn.us
j-
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrat~
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Services Manager
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Gambling Event Permit - St. Michael's Church
DATE:
March 19,2001
INTRODUCTION
St. Michael's Church is requesting a Gambling Event Permit for their annual Spring Fundraiser
Dinner and their Fall Festival.
DISCUSSION
Per State Statute 349.166 and pertinent City Code, a Gambling Permit must be issued by the City
for this type of event. An application has been received, along with the appropriate fees. The
City Attorney has reviewed the application and the attached resolution approving the request.
BUDGET IMPACT
Gambling fees are included in the revenue portion of the 2001 budget.
ACTION REOUESTED
Consider the attached Resolution granting a Gambling Event Permit to St. Michael's Church at
22120 Denmark Avenue, on May 1, 2001 and September 15-16, 2001.
Respectfully submitted,
~/'\ ~
.... . J~.'-:
I
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Services Manager
RESOLUTION NO. R -01
APPROVING A MINNESOTA LAWFUL
GAMBLING EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION FOR
ST. MICHAEL'S CHURCH
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 19th day of March
2001 at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following:
WHEREAS, pursuant to M.S. 349.166, the State of Minnesota Gambling Boardmay not issue
or renew a Gambling Event Permit unless the City Council adopts a Resolution approving said
permit; and,
WHEREAS, St. Michael's Church has submitted an application for a Gambling Event Permit to
be conducted at St. Michael's Church, 22120 Denmark Avenue, for Council consideration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Farmington City Council that the Gambling
Event Permit for St. Michael's Church to be conducted at 22120 Denmark Avenue is hereby
approved.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the
19th day of March 2001.
Mayor
Attested to the
day of
2001.
City Administrator
SEAL
~'&f-0~/
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
www.cLfarmington.mn.us
FAX TRANSMITTAL MEMO
No. of Pages: 7
Date: 3/13/01 1 :24 PM
To: Joel Jamnik From: Cindy Muller
Company: Company: City of Farmington
Fax#: Fax #: (651) 463-2591
Telephone #: Telephone #: (651) 463-1803
Comments:
Please review the attached requests from St. Michael's Church for a Gambling
Event Permit and a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for their festivals.
These are on the March 19 Council Agenda.
Thank you
d ~~, /L~ 3~<3~1
C/ {/
9~
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Contract Award - Site Grading Contract Award
DATE: March 19,2001
INTRODUCTION
The City held a bid opening on March 14, 200 I to receive contractor bids for site grading work
associated with the construction of the new Central Maintenance and Police Facilities.
DISCUSSION
Proposed contractor work contained within Bid Package #1 included:
. Soils Corrections for the two facility building pads
. Mass Site Excavation and Grading,
. IGrading for the future expansion of both facilities; and
. Replacement of top soil.
The City received a total of seven competitive bids from qualified contractors for the above
described site work. The lowest qualified bidder was Enebak Construction at a total bid of
$325,000.
Bidder Bid Base Amount
Enebak Construction
Ingram Excavating
Veit & Company
Max Steininger
Friedges Landscaping
F.M. Frattalone
Imperial Developers
$325,000
$355,800
$493,969
$499,000
I
I $816,800
$934,900
· $1,187,194
I It should be noted that original estimates did not include grading for future expansion of the two facilities, and
consequently will also result in significant future cost savings when these two facilities are considered for future
space needs expansion.
BUDGET IMPACT
As Council is aware, cost issues associated with soil correction activities were estimated at
approximately $593,000 in light of findings that suggested existing soils were of poor quality
and would need extensive remediation.
City staff, along with the architect and construction manager, approached this issue using very
conservative cost estimates, along with several strategies designed to minimize excavation and
mass grading costs. The results of these efforts were rewarded with an extremely favorable bid
from the grading contractor at a savings of approximately $268,000 to the approved project
budget.
ACTION REQUESTED
Award Bid Package #1 for site grading and soils correction to Enebak Construction in the
amount of $325,000.
Respectfully~submitted,
~.'/ (/
. :---;: ---
-v'- -
John F. Erar
II
f
file
City of Farmington
325.0ak Street, Farmington, MN.55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO: Mayor & Councilmembers
FROM: John Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda
DATE: March 19,2001
It is requested that the March 19,2001 agenda be amended as follows:
AWARD OF CONTRACT
9 (b) Public Facilities - Construction Contract Award -Administration
A ward Bid Package #2 for the construction of the Police and Central Maintenance
Facilities to Rochon Corporation.
Respectfully submitted,
ohn Erar
City Administrator
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
7~
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Contract Award - Facilities Construction Award
DATE: March 19,2001
INTRODUCTION
The City held a bid opening for the Public Facilities Project on Wednesday, March 14,2001.
DISCUSSION
The City received a total of 12 competitive bids, of which the low bidder Merrimac Construction
has requested that their bid be withdrawn due to a significant material omission in their bid
proposal. Wold Construction is recommending, with City staff concurrence that Council allow
their withdrawal due to a significant material omission. The referenced disqualification by
Merrimac Construction is associated with their omission of structural steel costs in their project
bid.
The second low bidder, Rochon Corporation, has been reviewed by Wold Architects and is being
recommended for award on the basis of the total of their base bid and the selected three
alternates. The three alternates are referenced in the attached communication by Wold
Architects. All bids received were significantly below the project bid estimates of $6,171,571 for
bid package #2.
In light of the highly competitive nature of the bids, several project expenditure items which
were designated to be underwritten from other City funding sources have been re-included in the
approved project budget that will be funded by project bonds. These items include capital
equipment estimated at $97,000 and a portion of the interior street construction costs estimated
in the amount of $95,000. Notwithstanding, City staff was still able to significantly reduce the
amount of the lease revenue bonds by $800,000 (Please see Agenda Item 12.b for full details).
City staff is extremely pleased with the level of interest by qualified contractors and the highly
competitive nature of the bids received. It should be noted that the factors influencing the
competitive bid environment included the following: staffs efforts in the planning and design of
the facilities which kept costs low and quality high; the aggressive promotion of the projects by
Wold Architects; the timing of the bid solicitations relative to keeping the project on schedule;
and the overall slowing of the economy which made these two projects very attractive to
potential bidders.
BUDGET IMPACT
The award of the low bid to Rochon Corporation in the amount of $4,989,000 will result in a net
reduction of $800,000 in City bonding costs for the public facilities project.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend the following three actions:
1) Disqualify the actua1low bidder, Merrimac Construction for a material omission in their bid
proposal. This disqualification is being recommended by the project architect and requested
by Merrimac Construction (see attachment).
2) Award Bid Package #2 which includes the base bid and alternates 1-3 for the construction of
the Police and Central Maintenance Facilities to Rochon Corporation in the amount of
$4,989,000.
3) Reallocate $250,000 of existing budgeted project funds to the Public Facilities Project
contingency from $250,000 to $500,000 to allow for a review of potential modifications to
building components that were initially discarded due to budgetary considerations. The
requested increase in project contingencies of $250,000 does not increase the approved
project budget of $7,398,266 but simply reallocates existing project funding to the project
contingency. Special Note: Staff is also considering the possibility of re-designating any
unexpended contingency funds at the conclusion of the project to a special Municipal
Building Project fund for future facility capital and operating expenditures.
~~c~
~ ~
000 F. Erar
file
MAR 16 '01 07:56AM WOLD ARCHITECTS
P.2/7
i105 ST. r~n';I\ Sn~'.i':1
S'r. PAUL, MN 55102
('51.227.777?>
I'AX 6S 1.:)~3,5(i~6
March 16, 200 I
25 Sl.lllHI GllOV\, AHNl.Ill.
~U1H. SOO
E./.(;IN.lL 60120
8-i7.(,OH.2(jOO
~^X 1\47.(iOll.U154
. ..~. _. ........
". -, _.. ,-: .:. ; I
I; ..
.... .' ~::.' ~.:: ~"::.:: ..._.: - <
City Council
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, Minnesota 55024
WWW.WOLDAr.,(;OM
M^II.~lIW(IJ.ll^I,,1 :nM
Re: City of Farmington North Municipal Campus - Phase 1
Bid Package No.2 Building Construction
Commission No.: 00086
Dear City Council Members:
On March 14,2001 we received bids for the construction of the new Police Station and
Central Maintenance Facility. Three alternates were also bid as part of this project. A
total of II bids were received (see enclosed Bid Tabulation).
The apparent low bidder, Merrimae Construction is requesting to withdraw their bid due
to a bid error (see enclosed letter from Merrimac). We are recommending you allow
Merrimac Construction to withdraw their bid.
Award of the alternates will affect the next low bidder. Based on award of the alternates,
the apparent low bidder would be Rochon Corporation. The following is our
recommendation:
Base Bid - Building Construction S 4,926,000
The base bid includes site utilities, paving, landscaping and building construction for
the Police Station and Central Maintenance Facility.
Recommendation: Accept this Base Bid
Alternate No.1 - Folding Partition $ 8,000
This alternate is for a folding accoustical partition for the Central Maintenance
Facility training room. This folding partition will allow flexible use of this room.
The cost submitted is a fair value for the work the cost is within budget.
Recommendation: Accept this Alternate
Alternate No.2 - Painting in eMF $ 4,000
This alternate is for painting the walls and ceiling of the vehicle storage and solid
waste area of the Central Maintenance Fa.cility. The cost submitted is a fair value
for the work and the cost is within budget.
Recommendation: Accept this Alternate
Alternate No.3 - Fully Adhered [PDM Roofing $ 51,000
This alternate is to upgrade the rooting system tor both buildings to a fully adhered
roofing system io lieu of a. ballasted roof system. This roof will provide a higher
quality rooting system tor both facilities. The cost submitted is a fair value for the
work and the eost is within budget.
Recommendation: Accept this Alternate
EqHlrt
OllOft""i"
i"'pl.,..
" Ii (, II I I I' ( '" \" I) r" I, I "\ , I 1\ ,
MAR 16 '01 07:57AM WOLD ARCHITECTS
P.3/7
Letter to Cit.y Council
Page Two
The low bid reoeived is within your budget and we are recommending you approve the
, Base Bid and Alternates I through 3 and award a contract to Rochon Corporation in the
amount of $4,989,000.
Rochon Corporation is qualified to ptrrform this work and have successfully completed
similar projects for other public clients.
Sincerely,
WO~;R;;;;;=EERS
~~maral AlA
Assoc iate
Enclosure
cc: lohn Erar, City Administrator
Lee Mann, Public Works Director
Michael Cox
Kevin Sullivan
Scott McQueen
kat/00086/marO I
A Il ( II I I I ( I ..; , i t-. / I' I ,
MAR 16 '01
07:57AM WOLD ARCHITECTS P.4/7
,uJDlol
Project Name: FARMINGTON NORTH MUNICIPAl
CAMPUS.PHASE 1: BID PACKAGE 2
City of Ferminglon
Fal'tninQlon Minnesota
Comm. No.: 00086
Date: 3/14/01
Til'M: 2:00 PM
WOLD ARCHITECTS
AND ENGINEERS
-.
810 -.DDENDUM
Bidder'>! Name SECURITY RECEIVED BASe BID A11M1111c'1 A1tetn:lle t2 Altttnat. Ii REMARKS:
1-4 FoIOlng Jl'anilion Paintir1!l io eMF Fully Adhered
EPOM Rooflno TOTAL
--. Yes S~,125.000 $10,600-- $5,230,000
ArlQv Construetlon Yes $37,000 558,000
620 Mendel.sam AvrJ,
Mjnne;Jl>l>lis. MN 55427
't't::L: (7&3) ~~1
FAX: ("03) !i4ot-33lU
Borson CQt\$lruetlon Yr.s Ves ts, 1 99.000 $11,400 $046,000 $S2,ooo S5.308.AOO
2001 KilIcbt<::w Dr.
BlOOnlil1glOl1, MN 550(25
TeL.: (1'521 854.1\.444
FAX: (PS2) 854.6910
EFH Co. Yes Ves 56.274,000 $9,000 S49,000 S60.ooo SS.3il2,OOO
29G$J W. County Rd 42
Burl\$lIilfe, MN S530e
TEL: (9S2)S9o.&t!l0
FAX~ 1952\ 89().5476
Fulco ConstructlOll Yes Yes $04,909.000 sa,290 $30,500 SS5,OOO $5.002,7&0
1 SO Peavy Clrclo
Chask<l, MN 5~18
TEL: (952) 448.::120()
FAX: (952) 44a-6948
Jorg9nson C~""ct;on Yc~ Yes $!$,230,OOO S 10,000 $30.$00 $58,000 $5,328.soo
1822 . !l3rd Lane NE
Mil'lnft.)\lOIi&. MN
TEL.: (612) 7tl4-38rl
FAX: ($12)1$.4.1583
Martin Construction VC$ Yes $4.948,000 $10,(100 $5,000 S!l3,OOO $5,016.000
Randolptl 51. NE
, e,lpolis. MN
TEL: (6l2) 762-2250
FAX; (1).'2) 782.2287
Marrlmae COntilrLlCllon YeS v~:; $4,791,233 $10.540 $29,370 $60,085 S4,&gl,228
14533 Hwy cl.5 N.E
Molla. MN 5S304
iEL: r1G3) 4a.\.8857
FAX: (763) 4:j4..115611
Oakwood BullcHf'S Yes Ye~ W,12MY4 $7.3al $28.s04 554,000 55.218,&59
12901 Pioneer 1'raD
eden Prarit, MN 553A7
TEL: ('952) 941-11730
"A.X: 1952) 941,7715
Rochon Corpor~tlon Yas Ve$ M.926.0oo $a.000 54 .000 SS1,DOO $o4.!16B,OOO
:leSO AM3polls Lane N.
PlYmouth. MN ~544 7
TEL: (763) 559.9393
FAX: (763) 559.-4101
SI\aw Lundquist. Inc, Yes Yes S5, 134 ,300 $8,~ sa ,000 558.000 $5.208.500
::n 7 \Nos! Sll",iee Rd.
Sl. P'lul. MN 55121
TeL: (651) 454.0670
FAX; (U!l114~.79i2
The Bullden: hIe. Yea Yes $S,3~2,ooO $9,000 $47,000 S6B.OOO $5,437,000
8.100 Way231ll BlIIef.
Mlnnaapo/is. MN 5542e
TEL: (783) 545.'3209
FAX: (783) 545.3217
~
$1'f1......~~....
MAR 16 '01 07:58AM WOLD ARCHITECTS
P. 5/7). 1
.,
GENERAL CONTRACTORS
March 14,2001
City of Farmington
City Manager, Mr. John EraI'
325 Oak Slreet
Farmington, MN 55024
Re: North Municipal Campu::> - Phase 1
Dear Mr. Era!'
We arc respectfully asking that Our bid [or the above-mentioned. project be removed.
Division #5 Metals was missed on our bid. Enclosed are copies of our bid file showing
th~ missed di vision and bids from subcontractors for this division. As YOLl can see our
bid should have been increased by $237,988.00.
Please accept our apologies and allow us to wilhdr~w our bid and return our bid secUlity.
If you should have allY questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
;;;:
Mike Szurek
Vice President
MS/sl
Enclosures
cc: Wold Architects
Givens & Assoc.
File
\
14533 Highway 65 N.E., Ham Lake. MN 55304 · (763) 434-6857 · Fax: (763) 434-6568
This Company is an Equal OPPoliUoily Employer
,
E&V Consultants and Construction Managers
Construction Cost Estimates as of 02/06/01
Rev. 12/4/00 Orgina/
CMF: Estimate Budaet Variance Budget
Administration $ 61,047 $ 58,000 $ (3,047) 59,600
Fees $ 346,323 $ 346,323 $ - 547,200
Construction (building only) $ 3,233,061 $ 3,156,570 $ (76,491 ) 3,077,200
Furnishings $ 46,000 $ 46,000 $ - 46,000
Technology $ 31,750 $ 31,750 $ - 31,750
Sub-Total $ 3,718,181 $ 3,638,643 $ (79,538) 3,761,750
Applied Contingency $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 3,718,181 $ 3,638,643 $ (79,538) 3, 761, 750
Rev. 12/4/00
POLICE: Estimate Budaet Variance
Administration $ 57,203 $ 57,800 $ 597 61,350
,.
Fees $ 210,703 $ 210,703 $ - 368,850
Construction (building only) $ 1,935,913 $ 2,001,989 $ 66,076 1,740,000
Furnishings $ 112,500 $ 112,500 $ - 112,500
Technology $ 112,500 $ 112,500 $ - 112,500
Sub-Total $ 2,428,819 $ 2,495,492 $ 66,673 2,395,200
Applied Contingency $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 2,428,819 $ 2,495,492 $ 66,673 2,395,200
Rev. 12/4/00
SITE DEVELOPMENT Estimate Budaet Variance
Facility Site Construction $ 401,066 $ 420,320 $ 19,254 465,000
Soil Corrections $ 461,283 $ 593,811 $ 132,528 -
Sub-Total $ 862,349 $ 1,014,131 $ 151,782 465,000
Available Contingency $ - $ - 547,540
TOTAL $ 862,349 $ 1,014,131 $ 151,782 1,012,540
PROJECT SUMMARY
CMF $ 3,718,181 $3,638,643 $ (79,538) 3,761,750
Police Facility $ 2,428,819 $2,495,492 $ 66,673 2,395,200
Site Development $ 862,349 $1,014,131 $ 151,782 465,000
Contingency 547,540
TOTAL $ 7,009,349 $ 7,148,266 $ 138,917 7,169,490
Budgeted Contingency $ 250,000 $250,000 $ - -
Total Project Budget $ 7,259,349 $ 7,398,266 7,169,490
Total Available Contingency
$
388,917 $
250,000
o
Fnngtn C03-Summary
E&V Consultants and Construction Managers
Construction Cost Estimates as of 02/06/01
Buildings 2/6 12/4
CMF Equipment $ 97,700 101700
Total Buildings $ 97,700 101700
Site Infrastructure - Campus
Storm Sewer $ 73,196 73744
Sanitary Sewer $ 28,346 12130
Water Service $ 44,800 55880
"S" Road $ 175,905 175906
Total Campus Facilities $ 322,247 317660
Frmgtn CD3-Summary
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farminrton.mn.us
10 C\..
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~
FROM: Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: LaVerne's Pumping Service Request
DATE: March 19,2001
INTRODUCTION
On February 22, 2001 City staff received a letter from LaVerne's Pumping Service requesting
permission to discharge wastewater pumped from septic tanks within the city of Farmington into
the City's sanitary sewer system. Earlier this year, Metropolitan Council Environmental
Services (MCES) released a letter closing the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant to septage
haulers. Within this letter, MCES offered two alternate disposal sites: the Blue Lake WWTF in
Savage and the Metropolitan WWTF in St. Paul. Local septage haulers, LaVerne's Pumping
Service in particular, are concerned because these alternate sites are located outside of Dakota
County and may result in substantially higher disposal rates.
In a recent letter dated March 2, 2001, MCES has offered the Seneca WWTF in Eagan as an
additional disposal site for the next 60 days. This site was offered to mitigate the immediate
impact of the Empire facility closure, until an evaluation can be completed to determine whether
septage disposal can be continued at the Empire WWTF in the future.
DISCUSSION
City staff has rejected this company's request to discharge local septage into the City's sanitary
system for the following reasons:
1. MCES requires that all liquid waste be disposed of in an approved Liquid Waste
Hauler Disposal Site. Currently there are 11 approved sites in the 7 county
Metropolitan area. Farmington would need to go through the approval process with
MCES before a dump station could be set up in Farmington.
2. City staff currently does not have the manpower to supervise a dump station and the
quantity or type of waste being discharged.
3. With the Seneca WWTF in Eagan recently made available for disposal of septage,
there is a reasonable and cost effective alternate to disposing at the Empire WWTF.
4. Other communities have been surveyed of their response to this same letter, and have
also rejected the request for similar reasons.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
ACTION REQUESTED
None. For informational purposes only.
Respectfully submitted,
~/11~
Lee M. Mann
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
attachments: Letter from LaVerne's Pumping Service
March 2, 2001 letter from MCES
cc: file
Greg Gudbjartsson, owner/operator, LaVerne's Pumping Service
LaVcrnc.s Pumping $enlcc
24345 Highview Ave.
Lakeville, MN 55044
Phone: 952-469-2489
February 22, 2001
John F. Erar, City Administrator
City of Farmington
City Hall
325 Oak St.
Farmington, MN 55024
Dear Mr.Erar:
I previously wrote you about the changes the MCES is making at the Empire WWTP that
will prevent septic haulers from using the facility as of March 1, 2001. Following a
meeting on February 13, 2001, with participation from the septic haulers and the MCES
as well as other public officials, the MCES plans remain unchanged.
At this time I am asking permission to dispose of septic tank wastewater from homes
within your city limits into your municipal sewer lines. The MCES requires that the
wastewater be dumped into at least a 24-inch sewer line. LaVerne's would be happy to
use any site that you would select within your city. LaVerne's would also pay for the
use of the line, at a rate comparable to what we now pay to the MCES for the use of the
Empire WWTP.
As you know, the Metropolitan Council continues to require maintenance of these
systems every three years. Without a local dumping site, this septage will be hauled
outside the county at a significant increase in cost to the homeowner. If a local dumping
site cannot be obtained, customer questions about the large increase in the cost of their
service will be directed to your city, the county, the Metropolitan Council and those
responsible for the closing of the Empire WWfP.
I am enclosing a copy of Dakota County's pumping information for the year 2000 to
demonstrate how much septage from homeowners with septic systems within your city
was disposed of at the Empire plant last year.
A written response would be appreciated.
Sincerel~1J d~
Greg Gudbjartsson, owner/operator
LaVerne's Pumping Service
'0
!
es
sc
..w
>-'0
(l)c
--
i'Os
~s ~-
c..o
::J. U 0
0.......
U....a:o
s.co
o CDOO
,.lC"_N
.~...
0.5:
~5>
.-
::J c
'0-
-CD
~c
'0-
ce.
-5
::J
Q"
I~
,-
8
N
po.
"
..
N
CD
po.
..
...
:!
...
N
~
.
on
...
po.
..
...
po.
~
o
~
c
w
::i
a.
a.
c(
c
z
:3
w
C)
~
a.
w
I/)
~
o
~
~ Metropolitan Council
~ Working for the Region, Planning for the Future
March 2, 2001
Mr. Donald Pflaum
Eureka Township Board of Supervisors
5780 225th West
Farmington, MN 55024
Dear Mr. Pflaum:
I have received your letter of February 10, 2001 concerning the closure of the Empire
WVVTP to septage haulers. The decision to stop septage was based on operational
needs at the plant in order to help bring the plant back into compliance with its effluent
discharge permit. The impact on the haulers is an issue that the Council is concerned
with and we did provide the haulers with two other options, using either the Blue Lake
WVVTP in Shakopee or the Metropolitan WWTP in St. Paul.
We have recognized that these alternatives are outside of Dakota County and do result
in significantly longer hauling distances. In order to mitigate the immediate impact, the
MCES has now opened up the Seneca 'N'NTP in Dakota County to receive septage
during the next 60 days. All haulers have been advised of this third disposal option.
During this period, we will be evaluating the situation to determine whether septage
disposal can be continued at the Empire W'WTP and under what conditions.
As you can see, the MCES is working to develop alternatives and solutions for this
situation. We will advise all interested parties of the outcome of our evaluation in early
May.
Sincerely,
*Ik.-L.L-
Ted Mondale
Chair
cc: William G. Moore, General Manager,Wastewater Services Department
Keith Buttleman, Director, Environmental Planning & Evaluation Department
Leo Hermes, Manager, Industrial Waste, EPE
Jerry Stelzel- Chair of Dakota County Association of Township Officers
Eureka Town Board .
All Township Boards in Dakota County
All Rural Cities in Dakota County
Met Council Housing & Land Use Advisory Committee Members
Dakota County Commissioners
230 East Fifth Street SL Paul. Minnesota 55101-1626 (65!) 602-1000 Fax 602-1550 roD/TrY 291-0904 Metro Info Un" 602-1888
1\11 i';qllul O{Jportullity f.:tIll"(J~wr
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
/I~
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator1~
FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Flagstaff Avenue Citizen Petition - Update
DATE: March 19,2001
INTRODUCTION
At the November 6, 2000 City Council meeting, a petition was forwarded to the City Council
requesting improvements to Flagstaff Avenue. On January 25th, a neighborhood meeting was held to
allow residents and petitioners the opportunity to voice their concerns regarding the road.
DISCUSSION
Resident Comments
Attached is the compilation of comments received at the neighborhood meeting. Generally the
comments received were as follows:
. The quality of the road is unacceptable & dangerous
. The City should maintain the road at a higher level
. Put morel higher quality gravel on the road than has previously been used
. Make repairs to Flagstaff A venue that are more permanent
As has been identified in past discussions, the issues brought forward by the residents are, for the
most part, caused by the existing physical characteristics of the road. There are unsuitable soils under
the gravel surface which retain water and cause deterioration to the surface, especially in the spring as
the frost comes out. The lack of ditches in many areas inhibits drainage of water from the road which
amplifies the problems caused by the poor soils.
Some of the comments relate to the technique used to grade the road; staff will address those issues
as appropriate and feasible.
Current Maintenance Efforts
F or Council's information in review of this issue, the following summarizes current maintenance
efforts and costs. The City currently grades Flagstaff Avenue, on average, slightly more than once a
week. In 2000, Flagstaff was graded on 43 different days, relating to staff and equipment costs of
$18,000. Also, on average, approximately $6000 per year is expended on additional gravel on
Flagstaff between CSAH 50 and the City's border to the north. In 1998, a small test area was
excavated to remove and replace unsuitable soils costing $6,000, which included rental of a backhoe,
staff and equipment time.
BUDGET IMPACT
None at this time.
ACTION REOUESTED
Council review of the information presented. Council direction to staff regarding the following two
options:
1. Continue current maintenance levels.
2. Staff preparation and presentation of options regarding potential upgrades to the roadway.
Respectfully submitted,
';;t Yh ~
Lee M. Mann, P .E.,
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc: file
Flagstaff Residents
Flagstaff Avenue Neighborhood Meeting Notes
Flagstaff Avenue Neighborhood Meeting
Thursday, January 2St\ 2001
7:00 p.m.
Residents in attendance that signed in.
Name Address
Jay Christensen 20861 Flagstaff Avenue
Millie & Pat Pelach 19867 Flagstaff Avenue
Jerry Sayers 6886 Lakeville Boulevard
Robert J. Sayers 822 MacBeth Circle
Al Braun 28970 Flagstaff Avenue
Connie & Marlo Dahl 20520 Flagstaff Avenue
Elayne Donnelly 20080 Flagstaff Avenue
Terry Donnelly 18679 Flagstaff Avenue
Mark Schmidt 18672 Flagstaff Avenue
Teresa & Jerry Gregory 20940 Flagstaff Avenue
Ron & Diana Valek 20630 Flagstaff Avenue
Residents that submitted comments before meeting.
John Devney
Doug Malszycki
Meeting Summary
The public informational neighborhood meeting was held to solicit resident comments regarding
Flagstaff Avenue. A petition from the residents in the vicinity of Flagstaff Road was recently
received by City staff. The purpose of this meeting was to gather specific concerns and issues from
the residents along Flagstaff Avenue before the petition and the concerns addressed within were
reviewed by City Council.
Residents had the opportunity to comment in person at the meeting and were also encouraged to fill
out the comment sheets provided. Numerous comments were received from the residents in
attendance, which are summarized below and fully transmitted on the following pages.
. The quality of the road is unacceptable & dangerous
. The City should maintain the road at a higher level
. Put morel higher quality gravel on the road than has previously been used
. Make repairs to Flagstaff Avenue that are more permanent
Attached are the resident comments as they were received.
Page 2 of4
Flagstaff Avenue Neighborhood Meeting Notes
Comments as received at the Informational Meeting
Resident Comments
Terry Donnelly . Years of bad road with no or little gravel put down
18679 Flagstaff Avenue . Wants new gravel put down on the road
. The road should be graded more often
. Can't understand why the City doesn't put down gravel every year
. The road should be maintained at a higher level
Elayne Donnelly . Road needs to be improved; doesn't want blacktoD - that would
20080 Flagstaff Avenue only increase traffic to an already busy road
. Wants more gravel & better maintenance
. Tired of driving on Flagstaff; Co. Road 64 is solid
. Believes that City staff is doing a poor job of grading the road
. Someone needs to determine if the road can be fixed
. There are some serious accidents occurring because of the
washboards in the road - the towing company receives more
rollovers from Flagstaff than from anywhere
Connie & Marlo Dahl . The road is terrible in the spring - you are never sure if you are
20520 Flagstaff Avenue going to get stuck or have an accident
. The fabric is showing through the road
. The blade leaves a 4" - 12" drop at the driveway
. Blade leaves gravel in his yard and the City doesn't remove it.
. A local towing company has commented that Flagstaff Avenue
has the greatest incidence of rollovers in comparison to other local
streets
Millie & Pat Pelach . Whatever was done to Co. Rd. 64 is what needs to be done to
19867 Flagstaff Avenue Flagstaff
Al Braun . Gravel ends up on the shoulder & in the ditch
28970 Flagstaff Avenue . The City needs to grade the road more
Teresa & Jerry Gregory . The material that they are using on the road doesn't appear to be
20940 Flagstaff Avenue good material - it doesn't compact well
. The school bus wouldn't come one day because the road was in
such poor condition
. A good layer of Class 5 should be put down on the road
. Not happy with the previous solution -fabric with sand; the fabric
was showing through the first year
. Doesn't want the road paved; a good quality Class 5 needs to be
put down
. The new elementary school is going to increase traffic on the road
Jerry Sayers . Road is incredibly rough
6886 Lakeville Boulevard . Wants to know what is going to happen to Flagstaff in the next 5
to 10 years
Page 3 of4
Flagstaff Avenue Neighborhood Meeting Notes
Mark Schmidt . Why can't the soil work be done now since the road is designated
18672 Flagstaff Avenue to be used as a collector in the future?
. Concerned that the new school is going to increase traffic
Jay Christensen . Something needs to be done with the road
20861 Flagstaff Avenue . Existing surface will not hold up
Ron & Diana Valek . Worst road he has ever seen
20630 Flagstaff Avenue . Flagstaff Avenue is not a road / it's a washboard!
. Turns to mud in the rain and dries into a washboard
. The City needs to do whatever it takes to fix it
John Devney . Would not be in favor of upgrading Flagstaffifthe adjoining
5788 212th Street West neighbors are going to be assessed.
. It would take major improvements to fix the road correctly and the
adjoining property owners cannot afford the assessment.
Doug Malszycki . The blade is grading areas that have been sprayed and it doesn't
19585 Flagstaff Avenue appear to be helping the condition of Flagstaff at all- the areas
that have been sprayed will remain hard and smooth if the surface
starts out smooth and doesn't get graded.
. A limestone base needs to be put down on Flagstaff - graded and
packed down wet - similar to County Rd. 64
. The blade grades Flagstaff twice a week in the summer and the
road surface is just as rough 4 hours after grading as it is after a
weekend
. Something different needs to be done this year - the current
solution of grading twice a week isn't solving the problem
. The current condition of the road is dangerous
Page 4 of 4
Smooth Feed Sheets™
RONALD L & DIANA J VALEK
20630 FLAGSTAFF AVE S
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9209
JAY & P A TRIClA CHRISTENSEN
20861 FLAGSTAFF AVE W
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9242
Rus Norden
8635 206th S1. W.
Lakeville, MN 55044
Karen Donnelly
19224 Flagstaff Ave.
Farmington, MN 55024
Ryan Donnelly
18679 Flagstaff Ave.
Farmington, MN 55024
Patrick & Darlene Donnelly
20491 Flagstaff Ave.
Farmington, MN 55024
Ben Ward
6378 195th S1. W.
Farmington, MN 55024
Louie & Jean Juenke
3080 220th S1. E.
Farmington, MN 55024
8AVERY@
Address labels
DAVID J & SHAUN AMES
20982 FLAGSTAFF AVE
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9209
LMTD PTNSHP
AVEW
5024-9209
DAVID A & UTE S CHRISTOPHERSON
20993 FLAGSTAFF AVE W
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9242
JOHN M DEVNEY
5788 212TH ST W
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9621
BrianJ. Donnelly
19224 Flagstaff Ave.
Farmington, MN 55024
Terry Donnelly
18679 Flagstaff Ave.
Farmington, MN 55024
Cathy Donnelly
6611 200th S1. W.
Farmington, MN 55024
Bob & Bernice Jensen
17995 Flagstaff Ave.
Farmington, MN 55024
Judy & Chuck Bryant
5606 Upper 183rd S1. W.
Farmington, MN 55024
Use template for 5160@
BERNARD D MURPHY
6730 LAKEVILLE BLVD
LAKEVILLE MN 55044-8595
'~er""8 j-
~ EVELYN S SAYERS
6886 LAKEVILLE BLVD
LAKEVILLE MN 55044-8652
Bob McNearney
19356 Evening Star Way
Farmington, MN 55024
Adam Donnelly
18679 Flagstaff Ave.
Farmington, MN 55024
Debbie Donnelly
18679 Flagstaff Ave.
Farmington, MN 55024
Dave Donnelly
6611 200th S1. W.
Farmington, MN 55024
Jim McNearny
20281 Hamburg Ave.
Lakeville, MN 55044
June M. Raymond
421 Spruce St.
Farmington, MN 55024
Laser
5160@
Smooth Feed Sheets™
ROBERT J
DONNELLY
20080 FLAGS
T:' <\RMINGTO
ELLY
S
FAVE
55024-9209
ROBERT J JR DONNELLY
DONNELL Y FARMS
20080 FLAGSTAFF AVE
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9209
ROBERT~ JNNELL Y
20080 FLAG AF..F AVE W
FARMING . 55024-9209
DAVID E DONNELLY
6611 200TH ST W
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9616
JAY P & P A~TENSEN
20861 FLAGS F AVE W
F ARMINGTO 55024-9242
DONALD W & CHERYL A HAAN
19395 FLAGSTAFF AVE W
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9208
MATTHEW Q OCEL
19215 Flagstaff Ave.
FARMINGTON MN 55024
BENJAM~~
6378 195T W
FARMING N MN 55024-9038
JOHN T & ALEXIS GLYNN
20850 FLAGSTAFF AVE W
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9209
M~.r j 0
u-o V & CONNIE A DAHL
,,"v.J20 FLAGSTAFF AVE
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9209
aAVERY@
Address labels
MARK & TERRIE SCHMIDT
18672 FLAGSTAFF AVE
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9205
ROGER & KARLA DUFF
6567 190TH ST W
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9606
DAVID L TESKE
6660 190TH ST W
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9605
MILDRED PELACH
19867 FLAGSTAFF AVE W
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9208
MILDRE~DLACH
19867 FLA AFF AVE W
FARMING 0 55024-9208
DOUGLAS P & JANNELLE MALSZYCKI
19585 FLAGSTAFF AVE
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9208
ROBERT~R ONNELLY
20080 FLA AFF AVE
FARMING N MN 55024-9209
Robert Sayers
822 MacBeth Circle
Farmington, MN 55024
GERALD C & TERESA A GREGORY
20940 FLAGSTAFF AVE
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9209
DARCY A & PAMELA J ZEHNDER
20602 FLAGSTAFF AVE
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9209
Use template for 5160@
MARY A DEVNEY
5788 212TH ST W
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9621
TERRENCE & DEBORAH DONNELLY
18679 FLAGSTAFF AVE W
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9206
MATTHEW Q & JILL OCEL
19215 FLAGSTAFF AVE,
FARMINGTON MN 55024
ANTHONY J & MICHELLE JOSLYN
19713 FLAGSTAFF AVE
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9208
RICHARD D TESKE
6670 190TH ST W
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9605
RICHARD & MARY LOU NORDLING
7029 190TH ST W
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9608
HELEN M NORDSETH
PO BOX 95
FARMINGTON MN 55024-0095
~/Crjhe Odbnne)6
,;;l c0 e->"CO ,r 1a..Jsf.a...--<< Ave,
ALLEN J BRAUN
20970 FLAGSTAFF AVE
FARMINGTON MN 55024-9209
JOHN S TSCHOHL
4650 NINE OAKS CIR
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55437-1836
laser
5160@
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
Ida-
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~
FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: 19Sth Street Feasibility Report
DATE: March 19,2001
INTRODUCTION
Transmitted herewith is the feasibility report for the proposed 195th Street extension.
DISCUSSION
The report discusses the feasibility of constructing 19Sth Street east of Akin Road along with the
appropriate utilities. The proposed project would extend 195th Street from Akin Road to a point
approximately 2500 feet east. The Autumn Glenn development and future development to the south
of Autumn Glen will be served by the project; participation in the cost of 195th Street is a condition of
the Autumn Glen Development.
This proposed design of this roadway has been coordinated with Dakota County. This extension of
195th Street will become County Road 64 in the future when it is extended farther to the east to Trunk
Highway 3. The road and storm sewer design allows for the future transition to a County road.
As part of the report, the intersection at Akin Road was reviewed for traffic control, taking into
account the proposed east leg and the on-going development in the area. Volume warrants were not
met for all-way stop control, however, sight distance constraints at the proposed east leg do indicate
the need for all-way stop control. All way stop control would be introduced at the completion of
project construction.
BUDGET IMPACT
The following table outlines an estimate of the project costs involved with the proposed
improvements. There are three benefiting property owners that will be participating in the cost of the
improvements, the City, the developer of Autumn Glen and Tax Free Exchanges, Inc. (former
Reisinger property). The other properties abutting the proposed roadway have been previously
assessed for CSAH 31. Cost allocations are based on property front footage. Water main costs are
allocated 100% to the City as the water main proposed is trunk water main.
The project needs to be initiated pursuant to MS. 429 in order to allocate costs to the property owned
by Tax Free Exchanges Inc., however, their costs would be deferred until such time that the property
develops. The developer of Autumn Glen has waived their rights to object to assessments through
the development contract process. The Finance Director has reviewed the City's cost allocation and
potential deferred assessments and has verified that the City has the funds to finance the project.
Estimated Proiect Costs
Item Project Cost
Street Inaprovenaents $820,000
Trail Inaprovenaents $32,700
Wetland Mitigation $35,800
Water Main $158,500
Storm Sewer $210,200
Miscellaneous Costs $18,300
Total $1,275,500
Project Cost Allocations
City Autumn Glen Tax Free Exchanges
Inc.
Street Improvements $475,600 $246,000 $98,400
Trail Inaprovenaents $19,000 $9,800 $3,900
Wetland Mitigation $20,800 $10,700 $4,300
Water Main $158,500 $0 $0
Storm Sewer $121,900 $63,100 $25,200
Miscellaneous costs $10.600 $5.500 $2.200
Totals $806,400 $335,100 $134,000
ACTION REOUESTED
Adopt the attached resolution accepting the feasibility report, calling for a public hearing and
authorizing preparation of plans and specifications. As per the City's project process, staff will be
scheduling a neighborhood meeting to discuss the project with affected property owners.
Respectfully submitted,
~YJ1~
Lee M. Mann, P .E.,
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc: file
Arcon Development
Proposed RESOLUTION NO. R -01
ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT, CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND
AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS,
PROJECT 01-07, 19STH STREET EXTENSION
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 19th day of March at
7:00 p.m.
Members present:
Members absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following resolution:
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of the City Council adopted the 4th day of December 2000 a
report has been made by the City's Consulting Engineer with reference to the following
improvement:
Pro;. No.
01-07
Description
1 95th Street Extension
Location
from Akin Road 2500-feet easterly to the east
property line of the Autumn Glen 3rd Addition
;and,
WHEREAS, this report was received by the City Council on March 19th, 2001; and,
WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary,
cost effective, and feasible.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington,
Minnesota,
1. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility
report and should best be made as proposed.
2. Council accepts said report.
3. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 16th day of April, 2001,
in the Council Chambers at City Hall at 7:00 p.m. and the clerk shall give mailed and
published notice of such hearing and improvements as required by law.
4. Glenn Cook is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer shall
prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 19th
day of March, 2001.
Mayor
Attested to the 19th day of March, 2001.
SEAL
City Administrator
\\FARM]Sl\CITYWIDE\resolutions\2001\195th st accept feas ph ps 031901.rtf
Feasibility Report
for
195th Street
Extension
Farmington, Minnesota
March 2001
File No. 141-00-137
. fl. Bonestroo
.IUI Rosene
ii Anderlik &
1 \J 1 Associates
Engineers & Architects
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity
Employer and Employee Owned
Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E. . Marvin L. Sorvala. PE. . Glenn R. Cook, PE. ,.
Robert G. Schunicht, P.E. ' Jerry A. Bourdon. PE.
Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, PE. ' Joseph C. Anderlik, PE. ' Richard E. Turner, PE. '
Susan M. Eberlin, C.PA.
Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford. PE. . Keith A. Gordon, PE. . Robert R. Pfefferle, PE. '
Richard W. Foster. P.E. . David O. Loskota, PE. , Robert C. Russek, A.I.A. ' Mark A. Hanson, P.E. '
Michael T. Rautmann, PE. . Ted K.Field, P.E. . Kenneth P Anderson, PE. . Mark R. Rolfs, PE. '
David A. Bonestroo. M.B.A. . Sidney P Williamson, PE., L.S. . Agnes M. Ring, M.B.A. ' Allan Rick Schmidt, PE.
Offices: St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester and Willmar, MN ' Milwaukee, WI
March 15,2001
Website: www.bonestroo.com
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024-1358
Re: Feasibility Report
195th Street Extension
Our File No. 141-00-137
Dear Mayor and Council:
Enclosed, for your review is our feasibility report for the above referenced project in
Farmington. The proposed street is located east of Akin Road, south of the Limerock
Ridge and Autumn Glen developments.
This report describes the improvements necessary to construct the street to serve this
area. The proposed improvements are necessary to provide access to ongoing and future
development east of Akin Road. The improvements are cost-effective relative to general
construction practices. Cost estimates for the proposed improvements are presented in
the Appendices.
We would be pleased to discuss this report further with the City Councilor City staff at
any mutually convenient time.
Respectfully submitted,
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK AND ASSOCIATES, INe.
G.-...-- Ie ~
Darren T. Amundsen, P .E.
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Registered Professional
Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
~ R (;,.oL
Glenn R. Cook, P .E.
Date:
March 15.2001
Reg. No. 9451
2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113. 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-6~6-1311
Table of Contents
Page No.
Letter of Transmittal
1.
Table of Contents
2.
Introduction
3.
Discussion
4.
Cost Estimates
6.
Project Financing
6.
Conclusions and Recommendations
7.
Figure 1 - Location Plan
Figure 2 - Typical Sections
Figure 3 - 195th Street Extension
Figure 4 - Right-of-way and easements
Appendix - Cost Estimates
Project Cost Tracking Sheet
Traffic Control review memo - Sheldon Johnson
195m Street Extension
2
Introduction
This report discusses the feasibility of constructing 195th Street east of Akin Road along
with the appropriate utilities. The proposed project would extend 195th Street from Akin
Road to a point approximately 2500 feet east. The project location is shown in Figure 1.
The Autumn Glenn development and future development to the south of Autumn Glen
will be served by the project.
The utilities installed for the project will follow Farmington's comprehensive utility
plans. The road is on a district drainage boundary for the sanitary and storm sewer plan.
Therefore, there is no sanitary sewer is proposed as part of this project. The storm sewer
will serve only the road surface and immediate areas. Approximately 1660 feet of trunk
water main will be installed on the eastern portion of the project in accordance with the
Water Supply and Distribution Plan.
This proposed design of this roadway has been coordinated with Dakota County. This
extension of 195th Street will become County Road 64 in the future when it is extended
farther to the east to Trunk Highway 3. The road and storm sewer design allows for the
future transition to a County road.
195m Street Extension
3
Discussion
Background
The project is being constructed in conjunction with the Autumn Glen Third Addition.
19Sth Street is identified as a minor arterial in the Farmington Comprehensive plan and as
indicated previously, it will become County Road 64 in the future. The proposed design
incorporates future County road requirements.
Dakota County Road 64 Design Considerations
The Farmington Comprehensive Plan identifies 19Sth Street as a future County road and a
minor arterial. As development progresses easterly, 19Sth Street will need to be extended
to Trunk Highway 3 to provide access to the new developments. As the roadway is
extended to Trunk Highway 3, 19Sth Street will be turned over to the County and become
Dakota County Road 64.
The 19Sth Street design criteria meet future County road standards. Figure 2 shows the
19Sth Street and future County Road 64 typical sections. The current two-lane design
essentially builds the north half, or westbound lanes, of the future County road. When
the road is turned over to the County, they will build the south half of the road, or
eastbound lanes. Figure 2 shows that the current road design will not have the center
crown as is typical on Farmington streets. The pavement will slope all to the north side
of the road to accommodate the future centerline crown of the County road. Because the
road slopes all to the north side concrete curb and gutter will only be installed on that
side. A ditch will convey the runoff on the south side of road until it is turned over to the
County.
The vertical alignment design requirements for the road require a large amount of fill to
construct the road. The design of the road will meet County requirements as well as
minimize fill, easements, and wetland impacts.
Utilities
The storm sewer is designed with the capacity and provisions to serve the future County
road. The trunk storm line will be constructed along the north curb line of 19Sth Street.
Catch basin leads will be extended under the road for future connections. The storm
sewer will discharge into proposed storm water ponds east of the Autumn Glenn as
shown on Figure 3. The runoff from a large area between the Limerock Ridge and
Autumn Glen developments will be bypassed to a wetland south of the proposed 19Sth
Street, where the runoff currently discharges.
As according to the City's comprehensive plan, 20-inch and 16-inch water main will be
installed as shown on Figure 3. A 20-inch trunk water main will serve as a future loop
for 16-inch water mains installed through the Umerock Ridge and Autumn Glenn
developments.
195m Street Extension
4
The sanitary sewer comprehensive plan indicates that 195th Street as a district boundary
with no proposed trunk lines. The existing and proposed developments do not necessitate
sanitary sewer construction along 195th Street at this time.
Wetland Impacts
A portion of 195th Street will be built through an existing wetland. Approximately one
acre of wetland will be impacted by construction. The City is required to mitigate
wetlands at a 2: 1 ratio. The City will need to create 2 acres of wetlands as result of this
project. The mitigation cost is considered as part of this project. The City owns land at
the east end of the project that may be used for wetland mitigation. A 24-inch culvert
will channel runoff from the conservation area between the Limerock Ridge and Autumn
Glen developments to the wetland. This water should not need treatment and currently
drains to the wetland. The culvert will provide for the least disruption in water supply for
the wetland, reduce storm sewer pipe sizes, and increase the effectiveness of the storm
water treatment ponds.
Right-of-way and Easements
The project requires the City to obtain additional right-of-way and grading and drainage
easements. To meet the vertical design criteria for the future County road, a relatively
large amount of grading will need to be completed. The right-of-way requirement for the
future County road is 120 feet. The City will need to acquire the south 60 feet of the 120-
foot right-of-way. Currently, there is only 55 feet of right of way north of the section line
through the Limerock Ridge Development. The City will need to acquire the additional
five feet from this area. The easements and right-of-ways are shown in Figure 4. Right-
of-way and easement expenses are not presented in this feasibility report in order to avoid
influencing negotiations with property owners.
Intersection Analysis
Traffic control for the intersection of 195th and Akin Road was reviewed as part of this
report. An analysis of the intersection including the new east leg was performed, taking
in to consideration the future development in the area. Based on the projected traffic
volumes, warrants would not be met for four-way stop control. However, the sight
distance at the new east leg of the intersection does not meet MnDOT guidelines and
therefore, it is recommended that four-way stop control be installed when the extension
of 195th Street is constructed. The traffic engineer's analysis is included in the appendix.
195m Street Extension
5
Cost Estimates and Project Financing
The project costs for these improvements are outlined in this section. The itemized cost
estimates are provided in the appendix. Cost estimates for this report are based on 2001
construction costs and can be related to the March, 2001 ENR Construction Cost Index of
6280. A summary of the estimated costs for the proposed improvements is presented
below. The costs presented include 10% for contingencies and 27% for engineering,
legal and administration.
Estimated Project Costs
Item Project Cost
Street Improvements $820,000
Trail Improvements $32,700
Wetland Mitigation $35,800
Water Main $158,500
Storm Sewer $210,200
Miscellaneous Costs $18,300
Total $1,275,500
The following table identifies the project cost allocations between the City, Autumn Glen
and the property owned by Tax Free Exchanges Inc. The other properties abutting the
proposed roadway have been previously assessed for CSAH 31. Cost allocations are
based on property front footage. Water main costs are allocated 100% to the City as the
water main proposed is trunk water main.
Project Cost Allocations
City Autumn Glen Tax Free Exchanges
Inc.
Street Improvements $475,600 $246,000 $98,400
Trail Improvements $19,000 $9,800 $3,900
Wetland Mitigation $20,800 $10,700 $4,300
Water Main $158,500 $0 $0
Storm Sewer $121,900 $63,100 $25,200
Miscellaneous costs $10,600 $5,500 $2,200
Totals $806,400 $335,100 $134,000
195m Street Extension
6
Conclusions and Recommendations
The proposed improvements in this report are feasible and cost-effective as they relate to
general engineering principals and construction procedures. The feasibility of this project
as a whole is subject to a financial review. The proposed improvements are necessary to
provide access to ongoing and future development east of Akin Road in the project area.
19Sth Street has been identified as a future Dakota County alignment. Based on
information contained in this report, it is recommended that:
1. That this report be adopted as the guide for the street extension and described
utilities.
2. That the City conduct a legal and fiscal review of the proposed project.
3. The following tentative schedule is implemented for the project*:
Receive Feasibility Report, Schedule March 19,2001
Public Hearing, Authorize preparation of
Plans and Specifications
Hold Public Hearing, Order Project, April 16, 2001
Approve Plans and Specifications and
Authorize advertisement for Bids
*Bid Date May 2001
* Accept Bids - A ward Contract June 2001
*Begin Construction July 2001
*Complete Construction October 2001
*The construction scheduling of the project is dependent on the timing of the right-of-
way acquisition.
195tn Street Extension
7
"'\\
~H'~
!_~.~ "
~,.
~
Hmffi -
~
'\
!r~~~
r'
~
--.J U
t
- Iii<l Ir_- 11 / ~ PROJECT LOCA TIOI~
~'ol.~ \k:/
I ,i::IllIlIRIIDJ><I '"~" .-/
j C .~
~ "" :i &> III
1%1 I .~
If'~ L~
o .,.,1 I~ ~~~ ~
~j!;.~m ?t d~
_ l ~"/~~
ur\ ~~ ',II
:' S-I Ji ~ D _ . 'J ~
r; 0bH~~ ~W
~ ~11/~~_. n
ILU ~ /( ~ l~emffiliIlIIHW'1
I mml~fIffi
<; -~ ~,:"YI. c:lIllii51H1ill IIII11E .
I ,,1, mmQiil: i
__ ...... m III II ~ EE,~{J R C n
I I I -. '" ,-'WO', IlL ll~ r I '. IL' '...0
j ~ = DIe I
y< . m~ b
/ !REl~ c:f ,n'''~ _~_.
/I rr
'S<1L J I
.
~
.
L-,
I U 1lli
~ . I t:J::
?-[J
-
~
I
j
;=r-
~ ~ ,""
I
i..~, U
mr-
, '-
~,...' Ii-
1 ! Ie!
JC '.'Il ~;
-
--
CSAH 50
JJ
L
I
:
.,. .."."
.". .,.,,.., I
-
1
LOCATION PLAN
o 114m;!.
~
Scale in feet
1/2m;!e n B t
' ones roo
Rosene
G Anderlik &
. \J. Associates
Engineers & Architects
FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA
195TH STREET EXTENSION
FIGURE 1
141 01137R01 ,DWG
2/23/2001
141-01-137
--' ~ -l
.po (!) -<
0 (Jl :::0 -0
0 -; s:: -
t.J I - (")
-...J Z )>
..." C)
0 (J) r
N -; -; Q) N Q)N
0 :::0 0 : : : :
::i!: fTl Z U> OCU OCU
C) w rrl
fTl ' - ,-
-; (") }>-I }>-I
s:: UlC Ulc
- -l Ul~ Ul~
fTl Z 0 Z Z
X Z (J10 (J10
N -; fTl Z }>c }>C
...... fTl
N Z (J) GJUl GJUl
N 0
...... (J) C)~ C)~
0 ~ ;::Of"Tl ;::Of"Tl f"Tl
0 f"Tl}> f"Tl f"Tl}>
Z GJ;::o x C);::o x
}> Ul }> Ul
-10 :::! -10 :::!
f"TlO Z f"TlO Z
CD}> C) CD}> C)
}>;::o ;::0 }>;o ;::0
UlUl UlUl
f"Tlf"Tl 0 f"Tlf"Tl 0
t.N ~ t.N ~
() ,,-..."-'" ,,-..."-'"
0 -", -",
s:: 0< 0<
s:: o~ o~
~f"Tl ~f"Tl
-t>- -t>-
.po OU1 OU1
0 ;::00 ;::00
ct.N ct.N N
0 UlO N UlO
t.J -IOCU I}> -IOCU I}>
-...J -<C-t>- f"Tl'--" -<C-t>- f"Tl'--"
"""0;::0-" 0 """0;0-" 0
OCUex> '--" OCUex> '--"
}>~O }>~O
, 0 ex> ' 0 ex>
C)Z C)Z
cO cO
-1;::0 -1;::0
-If"Tl -If"Tl
f"Tl-l f"Tl-l
;of"Tl ;of"Tl (J)
(J) 0
ex> ex>
0
'1
C
-;
C
:::0
fTl
C -; -t>- -; -t>-
Z -< (!) -<
0 "'U (Jl "'U
< 0 r+ 0
)> :::J"" )>
0 r r ---- rB
fTl (J)
0 (J) -; (J)
fTl :::0 fTl
0 0 fTl 0
0 -; fTl -;
C N -; N
Z 0 N-"NN Ul 0 N-"NN f"Tl Ul
-; Z -t>-: N: : : f"Tl Z -t>-. ~ : : Xf"Tl
0 -0
-< cucu :::! . CUCU Ul-l
UlO-- UlO-- -I -
rB 0 -...-...-...-.. -... -0
:::0 f"Tl,-I-I --- f"Tl,-I-I -..- ~Z
r}>CC Z r}>CC
0 f"TlUl~~ f"TlUl~~
)> OUlZZ r OUlZZ ex> ;::oC
0 -I 00 Z -I (J10 0 OZ
U1CC f"Tl ~f"Tl
0'> C) N C) ,C C
;::o}>UlUl ;:o}>UlUl (J)
~ }>C)CU~ }>C)
ZC)CU~
ZC)}>f"Tl C;o}>f"Tl 0 ex>
C;:OUl}> rf"TlUl}> ,
rf"Tlf"Tl;o }>C)f"Tl;o }>
}>C) Ul
;O}>OO ;O}>OO Ul
~r;:jOO ~r;:j00 (J1
}>}> }>}>
}>CU;o;:o }>CU;::o;:o N
r;:j}>UlUl r;:j}>UlUl }>
C)
;::OUlf"Tlf"Tl -t>- ;:OUlf"Tlf"Tl GJ
:;f"Tl,,-...,,-... :; f"Tl,,-...,,-... ;::0
,,,-...r, r,,-...~rf"Tl
....<< -" < GJ
OZ~ OZ~ }>
0~f"Tl o ~ f"Tl -I
~t.N-t>- ~ t.N -t>- f"Tl
U1(J1 U1U1
000 000 Ul
;:ot.Nt.N ;ot.Nt.N I
COO COO 0 (J)
Ul}>}> (J) Ul}>}> C
I '--" '--" ex> 0 I '--" '--" r 0
f"Tl f"Tl 0
0 0 f"Tl
'--" '--" ;:0
,,-...
11 -"
- 0
C) 0
~
C 0
/0 ;::0
C
fTl Ul
~ I
}> f"Tl
X 0
N '--"
f~=~
CD
ijl ::t:.::t:.:o OJ
Ilo> ~ ~ 0 0
:t. 0 g.~ ~
~ C)~~([)
::;,- ;;::.::::- ([) en
~...~ !'"to
CD..... a
it ~ QQ 0
;:0
o
~
-rJ
C
-l
C
;:0
f"Tl
;:0
o
~
--1\
~
s:-
---
-z-
GJ
-\
o
-z-
(2
-\
.-(
o
--1\
9. -\
(J Y
:t-
~;
GJ ~
\A
---
-z-
(J
9. -\
(J Y-
:t-
~;
~~
l:' 0
---
D -Z-
it
~. (J
it
~ '"
0
8
'l~
G)8
~
~
VI~
I
tOl
U11
~I
:Y,
I
(f)J
=11
~I
f'Tl1
-ll
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
,
I
I
1
I
I
--t----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
~..~~....~_~.........._,.~~... J._
!
I
,
I
1
i
!
I
I
i
I
I
!
I
i
-UD :...wM....- _ _ _ _I
* I
: EMBERS AVENUe
z
~
co
o
~
,
t
,
I --1\ (J
, ---
i ~ -\
,0 .-(
I s:-
, 0
t ---
-Z- --1\
I GJ
, -\
i I 0
, I -Z-
I I
, I
L.......
FARMINGTON, MlNNESTOA
195TH STREET E~TENSION
195TH STREET EXTENSION
14100137f03.DWG
---- .----/-----A-........
/---_//-~ !
....,,"'........
I
I
I ~.
! [ '"
I 0
I
I
i
I
_.-J
l:' 0
D
it
I
i I
, ,
: I
,1 \
,
+1 I
------ //' . ----
____~ _---/ b ------
---- / ---$--
_-- ---- ___ --- I --------------
-------------- ---- ----
--
-
s:-
(J
-Z-
~
-,-."
SD
)7
--1\
~
s:-
---
-Z-
GJ
-\
o
z:
z
8
to
U1
~
:y
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
, ~ O'lOB NI)\'I __--
....."......- ----
i---------
(f)
-l
:;0
f'Tl
fT1
-l
o
E~OO~
I
/
\
c
~ 0
-l}>
-<-I
lJO
0:1:
~CO
'-"}>
(f)
Z
to
U1
~
:y
(f)
-l
:;0
f'Tl
f'Tl
-l
(2
-\
.-(
CONSERVA TION
AREA
o
-1\
I HEREBY CERTIfY TW.T THIS PlAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT SURVEY
WAS PREPARED BY UE OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROfESStONAl ENGiNEER DRAWN
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE Of MINNESOTA.
PRINT NAIroIE: DESIGNED
Jl1. Bonestroo
..JI Rosene
-=- Anderlik &
1\N Associates
Engin69f5 & Arr::hitecls
Webslte: www.bonestroo.com
St. Paul otnca: IloChMter otnc:.:
Phone: 651.636-4600 Phone: 507-282-2100
Fax: 651-636-1311 fax: 507-2823100
MllwaukM orner.
Phone: 262-241-4466
Fall:: 262-241-4901
.It. Qoud ornc.: WUI....r 0IIk:e;
Phone: 320-251-4553 Phone: 320-214-9557
fax: 320-251-6252 fax: 320-214-9458
@80NESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2001
APPROVED
SIGNATuRE:
DATE
DATE
REG. NO.
PRQJ. NO.
en 0
n
D
ii"
S'
[ D>
o
.,,~
G)S
~
~~
z
g:
I
""U C)
:::u :::u
0 )>
""U 0
0 Z
(f) C)
/Tl
CJ /Tl
;U )>
(f)
0 /Tl
:E s:
/Tl
Z
-t
FARMINGTON. MINNESTOA
195TH STREET EXTENSION
RIGHT -OF -WAY AND EASEMENTS
J 'I I ----
:~
--- '
---- ..J .-.-
~------~ ---. 1-'-
/ . -,--- ---' : -'
//
/~
//
/'
J~. Bonestroo
.....\1 Rosene
.... Anderlik &
1\11 Associates
Engin9Sf'S & Architscts
1410D1J7FD4.DWG Webslte: www.bonestroo.com
---T-I-r-"-
1-
0'1
q
;u
o
::e
~
()
-z.
~
-;
)7
ELlINGTON TR.
I
CONSERVA TION
AREA
o
..-\
...L..
o
--II
--II
-;
~
Z-
G}
o
-z.
;u
o
::e
15'
o.
;u
>
o
Z
<:)
IT1
>
VI
IT1
i::
IT1
Z
EMBERS AVENUE
9-
Cj:
~
~
..-\
~
--II
?J
~
Z-
()
9-
Cj:
~
~
I.Jl
..-\
~
--II
~
ft"'I
Z-
()
0-
.-\
...L..
St. 'aul Olltau Jlochuter OffIca:
Phone: 651-63~600 1'hoM: 501-282-2100
Fax: 651-6]6.1311 F..: 507-2823100
Milwaukee Orne.:
Phone: 262-241-4466
filJC: 262-241-4901
It. Cloud DmCtlI Wll&....r 0Ift'*
Phone: 320-251-4553 fIt1o....: 320-214-9557
Fa: 320-251-6252 F..: 320-214-9458
@BONESTROa, ROSENE, ANDERUK &: ASSOCIATES, INC. 2001
I HEREBY CERTiFY THA.T THIS PLAN. SPECIFICATION. OR REPORT SURVEY
WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SuPERVISION
AND THAT I AM A OUL Y LICENSED PROfESSK>NAL ENGINEER DRAWN
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
PRINT NAME:
DESIGNED
SIGNATURE:
DATE
REG. NO.
APPROVED
DATE
PROJ. NO.
Appendix
195th Street Extension
A-1
Street Improvements
APPENDIX
CITY OF FARMINGTON
195th Street and Utility Improvements
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
FILE NO. 141-00-137
ITEM
Mobilization
Utility relocation
Clear and grub
Strip and stockpile topsoil
Common excavation
Common borrow
Subgrade prep
4" draintile
Select granular borrow
Class 5 aggregate base, 100% crushed
B418 concrete curb and gutter
Type 31 bituminous base
Type 41 bituminous wear
Bituminous material for tack coat
4" solid line, white paint
4" solid line, yellow paint
Sign panel, Type C
Temporay 8' barricades
Heavy duty silt fence
Wood fiber blanket
Sod
Seed w/mulch
Total Construction Cost
195th Street Extension
UNIT
LS
LS
LS
LS
CY
CY
SY
LF
CY
CY
LF
TN
TN
GAL
LF
LF
SF
LF
LF
SY
SY
AC
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
1
1
1
1
7000
32000
10700
2500
7200
3600
2500
950
950
400
2500
5000
25
16
5000
1400
1000
3
UNIT
PRICE
$ 15,000.00 $
$ 10,000.00 $
$ 15,000.00 $
$ 5,000.00 $
$ 4.00 $
$ 6.00 $
$ 1.00 $
$ 8.00 $
$ 14.00 $
$ 20.00 $
$ 8.00 $
$ 33.00 $
$ 35.00 $
$ 2.00 $
$ 1.00 $
$ 1.00 $
$ 25.00 $
$ 50.00 $
$ 2.50 $
$ 4.00 $
$ 3.00 $
$ 1,000.00 $
$
$
$
$
$
10% Contingency
Subtotal
27% Engineering, Legal, Administration
Total Estimated Cost
ESTIMATED
COST
15,000.00
10,000.00
15,000.00
5,000.00
28,000.00
192,000.00
10,700.00
20,000.00
100,800.00
72,000.00
20,000.00
31,350.00
33,250.00
800.00
2,500.00
5,000.00
625.00
800.00
12,500.00
5,600.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
586,925.00
58,692.50
645,617.50
174,316.73
819,934.23
A-2
Trail Improvements
ITEM
Class 5 aggregate base, 100% crushed
Type 41 Bituminous wear course
Total Construction Cost
UNIT
CY
TN
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
450
270
$
$
UNIT
PRICE
25.00 $
45.00 $
$
$
$
$
$
ESTIMATED
COST
11,250.00
12,150.00
23,400.00
2,340.00
25,740.00
6,949.80
32,689.80
10% Contingency
Subtotal
27% Engineering, Legal, Administration
Total Estimated Cost
Wetland Mitigation
ITEM
Mitigation excavation
Seeding, MnDOT mix 25A
Heavy duty silt fence
Total Construction Cost
ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMATED
UNIT QUANTITY PRICE COST
CY 3500 $ 6.00 $ 21,000.00
AC 1 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00
LF 850 $ 2.50 $ 2,125.00
$ 25,625.00
10% Contingency $ 2,562.50
Subtotal $ 28,187.50
27% Engineering, Legal, Administration $ 7,610.63
Total Estimated Cost $ 35,798.13
Water Main
ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMATED
ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE COST
6" DIP LF 50 $ 17.00 $ 850.00
16" DIP LF 1050 $ 50.00 $ 52,500.00
20" DIP LF 550 $ 65.00 $ 35,750.00
Fittings LB 3070 $ 2.50 $ 7,675.00
6" megalugs EA 4 $ 60.00 $ 240.00
16" megalugs EA 8 $ 180.00 $ 1,440.00
20" megalugs EA 7 $ 200.00 $ 1,400.00
6" gate valve EA 1 $ 600.00 $ 600.00
16" butterfly valve EA 2 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,000.00
20" butterfly valve EA 1 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00
Hydrant EA 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
Connect to existing watermain EA 2 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,000.00
Total $ 113,455.00
10% Contingency $ 11,345.50
Subtotal $ 124,800.50
27% Engineering, Legal, Administration $ 33,696.14
Total Estimated Cost $ 158,496.64
195th Street Extension A-3
Storm Sewer
ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMATED
ITEM UNIT QUANTITY PRICE COST
12" RCP LF 400 $ 21.00 $ 8,400.00
15" RCP LF 975 $ 25.00 $ 24,375.00
18" RCP LF 400 $ 29.00 $ 11,600.00
21" RCP LF 78 $ 33.00 $ 2,574.00
24" RCP LF 408 $ 37.00 $ 15,096.00
30" RCP LF 650 $ 45.00 $ 29,250.00
36" RCP LF 200 $ 60.00 $ 12,000.00
4' Dia. CBMH EA 10 $ 1,500.00 $ 15,000.00
6' Dia. CBMH EA 1 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00
Temporary 12" RCP plug EA 7 $ 1,200.00 $ 8,400.00
12" RCP FES w/trashguard EA 2 $ 800.00 $ 1,600.00
15" RCP FES w/trashguard EA 3 $ 1,000.00 $ 3,000.00
18" RCP FES w/trashguard EA 1 $ 1,250.00 $ 1,250.00
21" RCP FES w/trashguard EA 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00
24" RCP FES w/trashguard EA 2 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,000.00
36" RCP FES w/trashguard EA 1 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00
Rip Rap CY 115 $ 60.00 $ 6,900.00
Total $ 150,445.00
10% Contingency $ 15,044.50
Subtotal $ 165,489.50
27% Engineering, Legal, Administration $ 44,682.17
Total Estimated Cost $ 210,171.67
195th Street Extension
A-4
Preliminary
Project Cost Tracking
Project - 195th Streel Extension
Description of Projec1- Extend 195th Street easterly from Akin Road to Autumn Glen
Project No.- 01-07
Items Date Name of Company Cast
1. Construdion Costs $ 899,850.00
Total Construction Costs $ 899,850.00
2. Contingencies (10 %) $ 89,985.00
(Contingences and Total Construction Costs) Subtotal = $ 989.835.00
3. Engineering, Legal, Administration (27%) $ 267,255.45
(Total of Items 1-3) Subtotal = $ 1,257,090.45
4. Soil Borings $ 5,000.00
Subtotal = $ 5,000.00
5. SUlVey Work. Estimate $ 5,000.00
Subtotal = $ 5,000.00
6. Wetland Delineation Estimate $ 1,500.00
Subtotal = $ 1,500.00
7. Permits (list)
MPCA $ 250.00
Department of Health $ 500.00
Subtotal = $ 750.00
8. Change Orders $ -
Subtotal = $
9. Environmental Studies, testing and monitoring. EAW $
Subtotal = $
10. Testing Services Estimate $ 5,000.00
Sublotal = $ 5,000.00
11. EasemenVRight of Way Acquisition Estimated Right of Way acquisition
"TO BE NEGOTIATED-
Subtotal = $
12. Demolition/moving
Subtotal = $
13. OUtside Consultants $
Subtotal = $
14. SWCD - plats mainly - development cost NA
Subtotal = $
15. Street & Utility crew costs 20 Hours @ $50 per hour $ 1,000.00
$
$
Subtotal = $ 1,000.00
I Total Estimated Project Cost =
$ 1,275.340.45 I
.w
-
1\11
Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
and Employee Owned
Principals: Otto Bonestroo, P.E.. Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E.. Glenn R. Cook, P.E..
Robert G. Schunicht, P.E. . Jerry A Bourdon, P.E.
Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, P.E. . Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. . Richard E. Turner, P.E. .
Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A.
Associate Principals: Howard A Sanford, P.E. . Keith A Gordon, P.E. . Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. .
Richard W. Foster, P.E. . David O. Loskota, P.E. . Robert C. Russek, AI.A. . Mark A Hanson, P.E. .
Michael T. Rautmann, P.E.. Ted K. Field, P.E.. Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E.. Mark R. Rolfs, P.E..
David A. Bonestroo, M.B.A. . Sidney P. Williamson, P.E., L.S. . Agnes M. Ring, M.B.A., .
Allan Rick Schmidt, P.E.
Offices: SI. Paul, Rochester, Willmar and SI. Cloud, MN . Milwaukee, WI
Website: www.bonestroo.com
Engineers & Architects
Memorandum
TO:
Lee Mann
FROM:
Sheldon Johnson
Date:
March 13,2001
RE:
Akin Road /19Sth Street - Traffic Control
Previously analyses of existing traffic volumes have indicated that the volumes at the intersection of
Akin Road and 19Sth Street do not warrant the installation of all-way stop sign control. These
analyses were based upon 24-hour counts conducted on Akin Road in the year 2000 and on peak
period turning movement counts conducted at the intersection.
In order that an intersection can be considered for all way stop control, the Minnesota Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) states the following minimum volumes must be
present at the intersection:
. The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at
least SOO vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and
. The combined vehicle and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway must average
at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor street
vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour, but
. When the 8Sth percentile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour,
the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the above requirements.
It has been requested that an analysis of the 19Sth Street intersection be conducted with the extension
of 19Sth Street to the east to serve the Autumn Glen development. Additionally, the Vermillion
Grove and Murphy Farm developments, which are located west of Akin Road, are to be assumed as
in-place developments. Therefore, we have estimated the trips generated by the above referenced
developments and assumed that 19Sth Street is extended east beyond Embers Avenue. The Akin
Road/19Sth Street intersection would then be a four-legged intersection.
2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113. 651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311
1
195/h Street- Traffic Control memo
March 13,2001
Using the year 2000 data as base and adding the estimates of traffic generated by the three above
referenced developments, and assuming those at buildout, volume estimates for the Akin Road/l 95th
intersection have been prepared. The estimates are shown in the following tabulation:
Akin Road 195m Approach Intersection
Approach Totals Totals Approach Totals
Time Period (Estimated Volumes) (Estimated Volumes) (Estimated Volumes)
6:00 -7:00 AM 330 90 420
7:00 - 8:00 755 760 915
8:00 - 9:00 370 120 490
9:00 - 10:00 285 90 375
10:00 - 11 :00 265 50 315
11:00 - Noon 320 60 380
Noon - 1 :00 PM 375 50 435
1 :00 - 2:00 305 60 365
2:00 - 3:00 440 90 530
3:00 - 4:00 560 145 705
4:00 - 5:00 710 150 860
5:00 - 6:00 730 130 860
6:00 -7:00 530 100 630
7:00 - 8:00 390 70 460
8:00 - 9:00 PM 360 40 400
The volume estimates between 9:00 PM and 6:00 AM are minimal and not estimated because of the
low expectation on 19Sth Street during that time period. Applying the 70% factor from the
MMUTCD, the volumes above indicate that all way stop warrants for the minor street of I 95th would
be met for 3 hours; 3 other hours exceed 100 vehicles on 19Sth, but do not meet the 140 vehicle
minimum. Volume levels on Akin Road meet minimum requirement of 350 vehicles (70 percent of
500) during 14 hours of a day.
With the development of the three residential projects referenced above, the volumes become much
closer to warranting all way stop control at the Akin/19Sth intersection. The intersection is also the
intersection of an arterial with a collector street.
Sight distance at the intersection was also reviewed. The sight distance at the intersection, from a
stopped condition on the assumed new east leg (195th Street), will not be adequate to accommodate a
west to south left turn with vehicles approaching from the left and right concurrently. That sight
distance requirement is approximately 1,000 feet. Other site distance needs (crossing maneuver)
will be sufficient. The curvature of the Akin Road south leg creates this sight distance constraint.
We are assuming 50 mile per hour speeds on Akin Road. The sight distance restriction would
suggest that an all-way stop at this arterial/collector intersection can be justified when the east leg is
built. The stopping sight distance from northbound and southbound Akin Road will be sufficient for
stop signs on Akin Road.
2335 West Highway 36 II St. Paul, MN 55113 II 651-636-4600 II Fax: 651-636-1311
2
195th Street- Traffic Control memo
March 13, 2001
This analysis concludes the following:
. All-way stop control minimum volume warrants will probably be met in the future as
development continues to occur.
. The provision of the new 19Sth east leg will require all way stop control due to sight distance
restraints.
Recommendations are as follows:
. The construction of the east leg of the intersection should include the installation of all way
stop control at the time of the roadway construction.
. The volumes at the intersection should be counted at least on an annual basis to see when/if
signal warrants are met. When volumes meet established warrants, signal consideration will
need to be given.
. Accident data should be monitored on an annual basis to see if accident warrants are met.
2335 West Highway 36 II St. Paul, MN 55113 II 651-636-4600 II Fax: 651-636-1311
3
/r:J/;
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.cLfarmington.mn.us
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Mayor, City Council members, City Administrato~
Robin Roland, Finance Director
Consider Resolution - Authorizing Bond Sale Public Facilities
March 19, 2001
INTRODUCTION
Funding is necessary in order to construct the Central Maintenance Facility and Police Facility
which the City received bids for this evening.
DISCUSSION
As identified in the funding plan submitted to and approved by council on December 4, 2000, the
Facilities will be primarily financed by a $5,830,000 Public Project Revenue Bond (Lease Revenue
Bond) issued by the Farmington HRA. Repayment of this debt obligation will come from annual
appropriations by the City Council in the tax levy. The HRA, at their meeting on March 12, 2000
adopted a resolution approving the sale of these bonds.
The balance of the financing for the facilities will come from a $1,655,000 General Obligation
Utility Revenue Bond, These bonds would be repaid from revenues generated by the four City
municipal utility funds; Sewer, Solid Waste, Storm Water and Water.
In order to obtain the best interest rates possible on the debt, and because of the somewhat
complicated nature of the financing, staff has worked with Ehlers and Associates and Dain
Rauscher on a negotiated bond sale. A negotiated sale allows the bond underwriter (Dain) to
develop a base of bond buyers willing to purchase the debt, prior to the sale date, and to price the
bond issues on the sale date with the best interest rate based on what those buyers will support.
On the sale date, Ehlers and Dain will offer information to Council to demonstrate how the City's
Lease Revenue/G.O. Utility Revenue Bond package compares with other more traditional
competitive sales.
BUDGET
Copies of the preliminary Bond Sale Report for both the Public Project Revenue Bonds and the
G.O, Utility Revenue Bonds are attached with this memo. Both bond issues have a 20 year
repayment period. As previously identified, the Lease Revenue bonds will be repaid by tax
dollars levied as part of the City's annual budget and the Utility Bonds will be repaid from
municipal utility revenues.
Due to the extremely favorable bids the City received on the project, the amounts of the bond
issues have been reduced $800,000 from the original projections shared with the Council and the
HRA.
ACTION REQUIRED
1) Adopt the attached resolution calling for the sale of $5,830,000 Public Project Revenue
Bonds by the Farmington HRA on April 16, 2001.
2) Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the sale of $1,655,000 G.O. Utility Revenue Bonds
on April 16, 2001.
~~~
Robin Roland
Finance Director
RESOLUTION NO. R -01
Resolution Providing for the Sale of
$5,830,000 Public Project Revenue Bonds, Series 2001A
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 19th day of March
2001 at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following:
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "City Council") of the City of Farmington,
Minnesota (the "City") as follows:
1. Background
1.1. The City Council has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue
the City's $5,830,000 Public Project Revenue Bonds, Series 200IA (the "Bonds"), to
finance a portion of the construction of the Central Maintenance and Public Safety
Facilities Project.
1.2. The Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA") has agreed to
serve as the issuer of the Bonds.
1.3. The City has designated Ehlers & Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota ("Ehlers"), as
its independent financial advisor.
2. Action
2.1. The City Council approves the finance plan as presented in the Bond Sale Report
prepared by Ehlers, subject to changes needed to reflect finance costs and interest rates.
2.2. The City Council hereby ratifies the action of the HRA to authorize Ehlers to negotiate
the sale of the Bonds with Dain Rauscher.
2.3. The City Council will consider actions related to the issuance of the Bonds and approval
of a lease agreement and other related actions at its meeting on April 16, 2001.
2.4. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized
to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the
Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the upon its completion.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the
19th day of March, 2001.
Mayor
Attested to the _ day of
2001.
City Administrator
SEAL
BOND SALE REPORT
$5,830,000
Public Project Revenue Bonds, Series 2001A
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
City of Farmington, Minnesota
March 19, 2001
. I ~A~O~I~E~I~
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE i
OVERVIEW
This report describes the proposed plan for the to issue $5,830,000 Public Project Revenue
Bonds, Series 2001A. This report has been prepared by Ehlers & Associates, in consultation
with Staff and bond counsel. This report deals with:
$ Purpose and components of bond issue.
$ Structure.
$ Other considerations in issuing bonds.
$ Market conditions.
$ Issuing process.
PURPOSE
The $5,830,000 Public Project Revenue Bonds, Series 2001A (the "Bonds") are being issued
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 475 and 469 and Section 465.71. The Bonds are being
issued to finance a portion of the construction of the Central Maintenance Facility and Law
Enforcement Center Project. The remainder of the fmancing for this project will be provided by
the issuance of the City's G.O. Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2001B (the "Utility Bonds").
Financing these projects requires a bond issue in the amount of $5,830,000. The proposed
finance plan consists of the following sources and uses of funds:
SOURCES
Par Amount of Bonds
Up-Front Revenue
$5,830,000
o
USES
Project Costs
Costs of Issuance
Discount
Capitalized Interest
Debt Service Reserve
$5,003,000
88,900
75,800
207,700
454,600
Total Sources
$5,830,000
Total Uses
$5,830,000
The plan presented in this report is based on construction bids. The size and the structure of the
issue may be altered prior to sale as a result final finance costs (in particular bond insurance
premium), interest rates and debt service reserve.
Bond Sale Report
City has determined the portion of the maintenance facility that can reasonably attributed to the
municipal utility system. These costs will be fmanced with the Utility Bonds. As general
obligations of the City, the Utility Bonds will attract lower interest rates. In addition, the Utility
Bonds do not count against the City's debt limit.
STRUCTURE AND REPAYMENT
The Bonds are special obligations of the Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the
"HRA"). The Bonds are payable solely from lease payments received from the City of
Farmington (the "City") pursuant to a lease agreement between the HRA and the City. The City's
obligation to make payments under the lease is subject to annual appropriations by the City
Council. The Bonds are not general obligations of the City or the Authority. The Bonds do
count against the statutory limit on bonded indebtedness for the City
The annual appropriations provision of the lease allows the City to undertake the financing
without an election. It also creates the need for several elements that are not present in the
typical G.O. bond issue:
. A portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will be used to establish a debt service reserve
fund. The reserve will be in an amount equal to the maximum annual debt service on the
Bonds. Since the lease is subject to non-appropriation by the City, the reserve fund
provides additional protection for the bondholder. Interest earned on the investment of
the reserve fund will be used to reduce the annual tax levy needed to pay debt service.
Money in the reserve fund will be used to pay principal and interest in the final year of
the issue.
. The Ground Lease is another element of the underlying security for the Bonds. The City
owns the site of the Project. The City and the Authority will entered into a ground lease
for the site with a term of 50 years. The ground lease terminates upon retirement of the
Bonds.
. A qualified bank. will be named as Trustee. The Trustee stands between the City and the
bondholder in the transaction. The key role of the Trustee is to take action on behalf of
the bondholders in the event of non-appropriations. The Trustee also holds the bond
proceeds and the Reserve Fund. Monies held by the Trustee are invested at the direction
of the City.
It is the intent of the City to make lease payments and retire the Bonds through the levy of
general property taxes. The initial interest payment (due February 1,2002) will be paid from
bond proceeds. The City will make a tax levy in 2001 for taxes payable in 2002. This tax
revenue will pay debt service due on August 1,2002 and thereafter. Tax levies of the City are
not currently subject to statutory limitation. Levies for this purpose have been designated as
Page 3
Bond Sale Report
special levies for the payment of debt of another political subdivision. The ability to levy
without limitation is an essential element of the finance plan.
The preliminary projection of debt service and revenues for the Bonds appears below.
FIIaiI C8IlICIIIB .......111 OIW -r.
- I!IbiIIlI .. ..- I!Il mir .... - ..... LM
21112002 0 0.000% 208,821.56 208,821.56 2001 205,930 15,159
21112003 175,000 3.625% 278,428.75 453,428.75 2002 22,739 430,690
21112004 180,000 3.750% 272,085.00 452,085.00 2003 22,739 429,346
21112005 190,000 3.875% 265,335.00 455,335.00 2004 22,739 432,596
21112006 195,000 4.000% 257,972.50 452,972.50 2005 22,739 430,234
21112007 205,000 4.100% 250,172.50 455,172.50 2006 22,739 432,434
21112008 210,000 4.200% 241,767.50 451,767.50 2007 22,739 429,029
21112009 220,000 4.250% 232,947.50 452,947.50 2008 22,739 430,209
21112010 230,000 4.375% 223,597.50 453,597.50 2009 22,739 430,859
21112011 240,000 4.500% 213,535.00 453,535.00 2010 22,739 430,796
21112012 250,000 4.600% 202,735.00 452,735.00 2011 22,739 429,996
21112013 265,000 4.700% 191,235.00 456,235.00 2012 22,739 433,496
21112014 275,000 4.800% 178,780.00 453,780.00 2013 22,739 431,041
21112015 290,000 4.900% 165,580.00 455,580.00 2014 22,739 432,841
21112016 300,000 5.000% 151,370.00 451,370.00 2015 22,739 428,631
2/112017 320,000 5.100% 136,370.00 456,370.00 2016 22,739 433,631
21112018 335,000 5.200% 120,050.00 455,050.00 2017 22,739 432,311
21112019 350,000 5.200% 102,630.00 452,630.00 2018 22,739 429,891
21112020 370,000 5.200% 84,430.00 454,430.00 2019 22,739 431,691
21112021 390,000 5.300% 65,190.00 455,190.00 2020 22,739 432,451
21112022 410,000 5.300% 44,520.00 454,520.00 2021 22,739 431,781
21112023 430.000 5.300% 22.790.00 452.790.00 2022 452,790
1UI'. 5.830.000 3.910.342.81 9.740.342.81
DalIilll 510112001 CC5IS to tnarce 5.003,000
D81vBV Dale 510112001 CC5IS d Issl8nce 88,900
RIStC<MltI1 Dale 210112002 DlsaU1I: 75.800
C3IlItIIIzecllrmst 207,700
BO'1lI Y8lI' OdIalS 78,178 Olhlr 454.600
A'f83IIIl Lilll 13.410 Years TClaIISSue 5,830,000
A'f83IIIl C(MltI1 5.00188%
Net InBlItCCltINCl 5.09882% Maldnunarnal 456,370.00
True 1I1Best cast me 5.09924%
The Bonds will be sold April 16, 2001 and be dated May 1, 2001. The first interest payment on
the Bonds will be February 1,2002, and semiannually thereafter on August 1 and February 1.
Principal on the Bonds will be due on February 1 in the years 2003 through 2023. We
recommend that Bonds maturing in the years 2011 through 2023 be subject to prepayment at the
discretion of the City on February 1,2010 and any date thereafter.
OTHER CONSIDERAnONS
Bank Qualified Bonds
We anticipate that the City (in combination with any subordinate taxing jurisdictions or debt
issued in the City's name by 501(c)3 corporations) will not issue more than a total of $10,000,000
in tax-exempt debt during this calendar year. This will allow the Bonds to be designated as bank
qualified. Bank qualified status broadens the market and achieves lower interest rates.
Page 4
Bond Sale Report
Arbitrage
Rebate: Since the City anticipates issuing more than $5,000,000 in tax-exempt bonds in this
calendar year, the Bonds do not qualify for the small issuer exemption from arbitrage rebate. The
City may avoid rebate requirements by meeting the 2-year test for the expenditure of the bond
proceeds. The proceeds must be spent within the following limit:
Time Limit
6 months
12 months
18 months
24 months
Percent of Proceeds Spent
10%
45%
75%
100%
Ongoing: This exemption from rebate does not eliminate the need to comply with other arbitrage
regulations governing the investment of bond proceeds and debt service funds. In particular, the
City should become familiar with the requirements for maintaining a "bona fide" debt and the
potential need to restrict the investment of monies in the debt service fund. These requirements
will be explained in the bond record book received following closing.
Global Book Entry
The Bonds will be global book entry. As "paper less" bonds, you will avoid the costs of bond
printing and annual registrar charges. The City will designate a Paying Agent for the issue. The
Paying Agent will invoice you for the interest semi-annually and on an annual basis for the
principal coming due. You will be charged only for paying agent/transfer agent services
provided by the bank.
Insurance
At the present time, we expect to purchase bond insurance for this issue. It has yet to be
determined if the underlying credit of the City will be rated as part of the insurance process. The
City currently has a ABaal @ rating from Moody=s Investors Service on its outstanding general
obligation bonds. This type oflease obligation is typically rated one step below the G.O. rating.
Continuing Disclosure
Regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission on the continuing disclosure of
municipal securities apply to long-term securities with an aggregate principal amount of
$1,000,000 or more. Since aggregate amount of this issue is over $1,000,000 and the City has
more than $10,000,000 in total municipal obligations outstanding, you will be obligated to
comply with Full Continuing Disclosure requirements as required by paragraph (b)(5) of Rule
15c2-12 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. You will be required to provide certain financial information and operating data
relating to the Bonds annually and to provide notices of the occurrence of certain material events.
Ehlers will work with City Staff to make the Undertaking for this issue complement existing
Page 5
Bond Sale Report
continuing disclosure commitments of the City.
ISSUING PROCESS
It is proposed that the Bonds be sold through negotiated sale with the investment banking fIrm of
Dain Rauscher. Given the nature and underlying security of the Bonds, we believe that a
negotiated sale offers the City the best opportunity to achieve the lowest true interest costs. We
recently negotiated a similar transaction with Dain Rauscher on behalf of Nobles County with
very positive results.
Following is a tentative schedule for the steps in the issuing process.
Week of May 14
HRA approves fInance plan and sets special
meeting for bond sale.
Finance plan adjusted following receipt of
construction bids
City Council adopts resolution calling for the sale
of the Bonds.
Preliminary documents sent to insurance companies
Insurance confirmed
Documents fInalized
Market development
Bond sale
HRA approves sale of bonds
City Council approves sale and lease.
Bond closing (estimated)
Week of March 12
Week of March 19
Week of April 2
Week of April 7
April 16, 2001
C:\PROJECTS\FIRM\EHLERS\GENERALIPRESALE REPORT.DOC
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 1
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ISSUE
$5,830,000 Public Project Revenue Bonds, Series 2001A
DATE: March 19.2001
ISSUER: Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Minnesota
BOND NAME: $5,830,000 Public Project Revenue Bonds, Series 2001A
BOND ATTORNEY: Dorsey & Whitney (Lynn Endorf/Chris Smith)
PURPOSE: Finance a portion of the construction of the Central Maintenance
and Public Safety Facilities Project.
Sale Date: April 16, 2001
Est. Closing Date: May 15,2001
Type of Sale: Negotiated with Dain Rauscher
Bonds Dated: May 1,2001
Maturity: February 1 in the years 2003-2023
Term Bond Option: All dates are inclusive. Bids for the bonds may contain a
maturity schedule providing for any combination of
serial bonds and term bonds, subject to mandatory
redemption, so long as the amounts of principal maturing
or subject to mandatory redemption in each year
conforms to the maturity schedule set forth above.
First Interest: February 1,2002. Interest will be computed on the basis
of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months and will be
rounded pursuant to rules of the MSRB.
Call Feature: Bonds maturing in the years 2011 through 2023 will be
subject to redemption prior to final maturity on February
1, 2010 and on any date thereafter. Notice of such call
shall be given by mailing a notice thereof by registered or
certified mail at least thirty (30) days prior to the date
fixed for redemption to the registered owner of each
bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the
registration books.
Page 7
Record Date:
CUSIP Numbers:
Trustee/Paying Agent:
Book Entry:
Qualified Tax-Exempt
Obligations:
Continuing Disclosure:
Close of business on the 15th day (whether or not a
business day) of the immediately preceding month.
The Issuer will assume no obligation for the assignment
or printing of CUSIP numbers on the Bonds or for the
correctness of any numbers printed thereon, but will
permit such numbers to be printed at the expense of the
purchaser, if the purchaser waives any delay in delivery
occasioned thereby.
To be determined.
This offering will be issued as fully registered Bonds
and, when issued, will be registered in the name of Cede
& Co., as nominee of The Depository Trust Company,
New York, New York.
These Bonds WILL be designated as qualified tax-
exempt obligations.
Full Undertaking.
C:IPROJECTS\FIRM\EHLERSIGENERALIPRESALE REPORT.DOC
Page 8
RESOLUTION NO. R -01
Resolution Providing for the Sale of
$1,655,000 G.O. Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2001B
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Fannington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 19th day of March
2001 at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following:
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "City Council") of the City of City of
Fannington, Minnesota (the "City") as follows:
1. Background
1.1. The City Council of the City ofFannington, Minnesota, has heretofore determined that it
is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $1,655,000 G.O. Utility Revenue Bonds,
Series 2001B (the "Bonds"), to finance the portion Central Maintenance Facility and
Law Enforcement Center Project related to municipal utilities.
1.2. The City has designated Ehlers & Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota ("Ehlers"), as
its independent financial advisor.
2. Action
2.1. Authorization: Findim!s. The City hereby authorizes Ehlers to negotiate the sale of the
Bonds pursuant to the terms described in the Bond Sale Report dated March 19,2001.
2.2. Meeting. The City Council will consider the proposal of Dain Rauscher for the sale of
the Bonds at its meeting on April 16, 2001.
2.3. Terms ofProDOsal. The terms and conditions of the Bonds and the sale thereof are fully
set forth in the Bond Sale Report and are hereby approved and made a part hereof.
2.4. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City
are hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an
official statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon
its completion.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Fannington City Council in open session on the
19th day of March, 2001.
Mayor
Attested to the
day of
2001.
City Administrator
SEAL
BOND SALE REPORT
$1,655,000
G.O. Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2001B
City of Farmington, Minnesota
March 19, 2001
e I ~A~O~I~E~I~
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE i
Bond Sale Report
OVERVIEW
This report describes the proposed plan for the to issue $1,655,000 G.O. Utility Revenue Bonds,
Series 2001B. This report has been prepared by Ehlers & Associates, in consultation with Staff
and bond counsel. This report deals with:
$ Purpose and components of bond issue.
$ Structure.
$ Other considerations in issuing bonds.
$ Market conditions.
$ Issuing process.
PURPOSE
The $1,655,000 G.O. Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2001B (the "Bonds") are being issued
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475 and Section 444.075. The Bonds are being issued
to finance the portion Central Maintenance Facility and Law Enforcement Center Project related
to municipal utilities.
Financing these projects requires a bond issue in the amount of$1,655,000. The proposed
finance plan consists of the following sources and uses of funds:
SOURCES
Par Amount of Bonds
Up-Front Revenue
$1,655,000
o
USES
Project Costs
Costs of Issuance
Discount
Capitalized Interest
$1,597,000
36,500
21,500
o
Total Sources
$1,655,000
Total Uses
$1,655,000
The plan presented in this report is based on construction bids. The size and the structure of the
issue may be altered prior to sale as a result final finance costs (in particular bond insurance
premium), interest rates and debt service reserve.
The primary funding for the Project comes from the Public Project Revenue Bonds, Series
2001A to be issued by the Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority. From the outset,
financial planning for the Project has anticipated that 40% of the debt for the Central
Page 1
Bond Sale Report
Maintenance Facility would be supported with revenues from the City's water, sanitary sewer,
storm water and refuse utilities. This allocation is based on the proportion of the Facility used
for the maintenance of the municipal utility system.
During the planning process, it was determined that the City could issue general obligation bonds
for these costs under Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075. This approach offers the following
benefits to the City:
. The G.O. Bonds do not count against the City's statutory debt limit.
. The general obligation backing eliminates the need for a debt service reserve and reduces
the overall amount of debt.
. The G.O. Bonds will attract lower interest rates and reduce the overall debt service
expense.
STRUCTURE AND REPAYMENT
The Bonds are general obligations of the City and as such are secured by a pledge of the City=s
full faith, credit, and taxing powers. The City will pay all debt service from the net revenues of
the municipal utilities. The finance plan anticipates the following distribution: water (25%),
sanitary sewer (25%), water (12.5%), and refuse (37.5%). The initial interest payment will be
paid from net revenues. No capitalized interest is included on this issue. The preliminary
projection of debt service and revenues for the Bonds appears below.
I'IIaII C8IftIIB 2596 2596 12.596 17.596
.. BIaI;IgI .. .... !Ii :.- .... IdIIY - DIm ...
211f2002 0 0.000% 57,189.38 57,189.38 2001 0 14,297 14,297 7,149 21,.
2I1f2003 55,000 3.600% 76,252.50 131,252.50 2002 32,813 32,813 16,407 49,220
21112004 55,000 3.700% 74,272.50 129,272.50 2003 32,318 32,318 16,159 48,4n
21112005 60,000 3.800% 72,237.50 132,237.50 2004 33,059 33,059 16,530 49,589
21112006 60,000 3.900% 69,957.50 129,957.50 2005 32,489 32,489 16,2'5 48,734
2I1f2007 65,000 4.000% 67,617.50 132,617.50 2006 33,154 33,154 16,5n 49,732
21112008 65,000 '.150% 65,017.50 130,017.50 2007 32,504 32,504 16,252 48,757
21112009 70,000 4.20096 62,320.00 132,320.00 2008 33,080 33,080 16,540 49,620
21112010 70,000 4.30096 59,380.00 129,380.00 2009 32,345 32,345 16,173 48,518
21112011 75,000 4.40096 56,370.00 131,370.00 2010 32,843 32,843 16,421 49.284
21112012 75,000 '.50096 53,070.00 128,070.00 2011 32,018 32,018 16,009 48,026
21112013 80,000 4.625% 49,695.00 129,695.00 2012 32,424 32,424 16,212 48,_
21112014 85,000 4.750% 45,995.00 130,995.00 2013 32,749 32,749 16,374 '9,123
21112015 90,000 4.850% 41,957.50 131,957.50 2014 32,989 32,989 16,495 49,484
21112016 95,000 4.900% 37,592.50 132,592.50 2015 33,148 33,148 16,574 49,722
21112017 95,000 5.00096 32,937.50 127,937.50 2016 31,984 31,984 15,992 '7,9n
21112018 100,000 5.00096 28,187.50 128,187.50 2017 32,047 32,047 16,023 48,070
21112019 105,000 5.00096 23,187.50 128,187.50 2018 32,047 32,047 16,025 48,070
21112020 110,000 5.00096 17,937.50 127,937.50 2019 31,984 31,984 15,992 47,9n
21112021 120,000 5.00096 12,437.50 152,437.50 2020 33,109 33,109 16,555 49,164
21112022 125.000 5.150% 6,437.50 131.437.50 2021 32,859 32,859 16,430 49,289
mA. 1 655 000 1.010.049.38 2.665.049.38
D*I 5.0112001 CCIIS 1l1lrllrDl 1,597,000
DIIlI8Yoa. 5.0112001 CCIIS d Issune 36,500
FlntCQcD1 Dale 2.01f2l102 DlsallIt 21,500
QIPCIIllIlICIIfBIt 0
1KRI....Dd1ar5 20,_ 0lI1lr 0
Al8alJB LItI! 12.681 YlIIS TaallSSue 1,655.000
Al8alJBCQcD1 4.8121196
NetlfBltcatlNlO 4.11543%
TIUlliWnStClltmo 4.9213%
Page 2
Bond Sale Report
The Bonds will be sold April 16, 2001 and be dated May 1, 2001. The first interest payment on
the Bonds will be February 1,2002, and semiannually thereafter on August 1 and February 1.
Principal on the Bonds will be due on February 1 in the years 2003 through 2022. We
recommend that Bonds maturing in the years 2011 through 2022 be subject to prepayment at the
discretion of the City on February 1,2010 and any date thereafter.
OTHER CONSIDERAnONS
Bank Qualified Bonds
We anticipate that the City (in combination with any subordinate taxing jurisdictions or debt
issued in the City's name by 501 (c )3 corporations) will not issue more than a total of $1 0,000,000
in tax-exempt debt during this calendar year. This will allow the Bonds to be designated as bank
qualified. Bank qualified status broadens the market and achieves lower interest rates.
Arbitrage
Rebate: Since the City anticipates issuing more than $5,000,000 in tax-exempt bonds in this
calendar year, the Bonds do not qualify for the small issuer exemption from arbitrage rebate. The
City may avoid rebate requirements by meeting the 2-year test for the expenditure of the bond
proceeds. The proceeds must be spent within the following limit:
Time Limit
6 months
12 months
18 months
24 months
Percent of Proceeds Spent
10%
45%
75%
100%
Onaoing: This exemption from rebate does not eliminate the need to comply with other arbitrage
regulations governing the investment of bond proceeds and debt service funds. In particular, the
City should become familiar with the requirements for maintaining a "bona fide" debt and the
potential need to restrict the investment of monies in the debt service fund. These requirements
will be explained in the bond record book received following closing.
Global Book Entry
The Bonds will be global book entry. As "paper less" bonds, you will avoid the costs of bond
printing and annual registrar charges. The City will designate a Paying Agent for the issue. The
Paying Agent will invoice you for the interest semi-annually and on an annual basis for the
principal corning due. You will be charged only for paying agent/transfer agent services
provided by the bank.
Page 3
Bond Sale Report
Insurance
At the present time, we expect to purchase bond insurance for this issue. It has yet to be
determined if the underlying credit of the City will be rated as part of the insurance process. The
City currently has a ABaa1@ rating from Moody=s Investors Service on its outstanding general
obligation bonds.
Continuing Disclosure
Regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission on the continuing disclosure of
municipal securities apply to long-term securities with an aggregate principal amount of
$1,000,000 or more. Since aggregate amount of this issue is over $1,000,000 and the City has
more than $10,000,000 in total municipal obligations outstanding, you will be obligated to
comply with Full Continuing Disclosure requirements as required by paragraph (b)(5) of Rule
15c2-12 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. You will be required to provide certain financial information and operating data
relating to the Bonds annually and to provide notices of the occurrence of certain material events.
Ehlers will work with City Staff to make the Undertaking for this issue complement existing
continuing disclosure commitments of the City.
ISSUING PROCESS
It is proposed that the Bonds be sold through negotiated sale with the investment banking firm of
Dain Rauscher. The catalyst for the negotiated sale approach is the issuance ofthe Public Project
Revenue Bonds. Under normal circumstances, we recommend the competitive sale of issue like
the Utility Revenue Bonds of this issue. However, since the Public Project Revenue Bonds will
be negotiated we believe that the City will be best served by a single and coordinated approach to
the market. Following is a tentative schedule for the steps in the issuing process.
Week of March 19
City Council adopts resolution calling for the sale
of the Bonds.
Preliminary documents sent to insurance companies
Insurance confirmed
Documents finalized
Market development
Bond sale
City Council approves sale of bonds
Bond closing (estimated)
Week of April 2
Week of April 7
April 16, 2001
Week of May 14
Page 4
Bond Sale Report
ATTACHMENT 1
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ISSUE
$1,655,000 G.O. Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2001B
DATE: March 19.2001
ISSUER: City of Farmington, Minnesota
BOND NAME: $1,655,0000.0. Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2001B
BOND ATTORNEY: Dorsey & Whitney (Lynn Endorf)
PURPOSE: Finance the portion Central Maintenance Facility and Law
Enforcement Center Project related to municipal utilities.
Sale Date: April 16, 2001
Est. Closing Date: May 1, 2001
Proposal Award: 7:00 p.m., City offices
Type of Sale: Negotiated with Dain Rauscher
Bonds Dated: May 1,2001
Maturity: February 1 in the years 2003-2022
First Interest: February 1,2002. Interest will be computed on the basis
of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months and will be
rounded pursuant to rules of the MSRB.
Call Feature: Bonds maturing in the years 2011 through 2022 will be
subject to redemption prior to fmal maturity on February
1,2010 and on any date thereafter. Notice of such call
shall be given by mailing a notice thereof by registered or
certified mail at least thirty (30) days prior to the date
fixed for redemption to the registered owner of each
bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the
registration books.
Re~ord Date: Close of business on the 15th day (whether or not a
business day) of the immediately preceding month.
CUSIP Numbers: The Issuer will assume no obligation for the assignment
or printing of CUSIP numbers on the Bonds or for the
correctness of any numbers printed thereon, but will
Bond Sale Report
Qualified Tax-Exempt
Obligations:
permit such numbers to be printed at the expense of the
purchaser, if the purchaser waives any delay in delivery
occasioned thereby.
To be named by the Issuer.
This offering will be issued as fully registered Bonds
and, when issued, will be registered in the name of Cede
& Co., as nominee of The Depository Trust Company,
New York, New York.
These Bonds WILL be designated as qualified tax-
exempt obligations.
Paying Agent:
Book Entry:
Continuing Dis~losure:
Full Undertaking.
DOCUMENT3
/~~
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
FROM:
Mayor, City Councilmembers, City Administrato~
Robin Roland, Finance Director
TO:
SUBJECT:
Consider Resolution - Creating a Permanent Improvement Revolving
Fund
DATE:
March 19, 2001
INTRODUCTION
The option exists for the City of Farmington to create a Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund
to enhance its ability to finance public improvement projects. Establishment of this fund offers
more flexible financing for future City projects.
DISCUSSION
Minnesota State Statute Section 429.091 gives the authority for establishment of the Permanent
Improvement Revolving Fund (PIRF). The statutory authority conveys the ability to issue general
obligation bonds, which are secured by the revenues of the revolving fund.
The difference from a traditional approach to improvement financing is the link between
assessment revenues and bonds. State Law requires all revenues from special assessments to
be paid into the debt service fund for the bonds issued to finance the improvements. Prepaid
assessments create large balances in many debt service funds. These resources cannot be used
until the bonds are retired.
A PIRF, as allowed by State Statute, creates an opportunity for the City to judiciously utilize these
funds. Special assessments (and other revenues) are paid into the revolving fund. Monies are
disbursed from th~ revolving fund, as needed for other purposes. This approach offers these
advantages:
1) Monies in the revolving fund are also available to finance the costs of public
improvements.
2) Improvement projects can be pooled into a single bond issue, minimizing the
costs of bond issuance.
3) Assessments from healthy projects can be legally used to support lagging cash
flows or deferred assessments.
The revolving fund proposed is established as a Capital Projects fund that receives all revenues
and bond proceeds. Interest income is credited to the revolving fund and the balance
accumulates in this fund. Monies are then transferred into capital project funds as needed to
support individual projects and into debt service funds as needed to pay principal and interest on
the bonds.
BUDGET
Commencing with the issuance of the bonds for the Akin Road Improvements, establishment of
the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund will offer a more flexible financing option for future
City improvement projects without creating the need to externally borrow funds and without
creating any additional liability in terms of meeting debt service funding requirements. This will, of
course, require continued fiscal vigilance in the area of revenue forecasting and cash flow
management.
ACTION REQUIRED
Adopt the attached resolution establishing a Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund.
~~~
,~and
Finance Director
RESOLUTION NO. R -01
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT REVOLVING FUND
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 19th day
of March 2001 at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following:
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "City Council") of the City of
Farmington, Minnesota (the "City") as follows:
1. Background.
1.1. Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.091, Subdivision 7a authorizes the City to
establish a permanent improvement revolving fund.
1.2. The use of a permanent improvement revolving fund provides the City with an
effective tool for financing public improvements and managing debt.
2. Fund Established.
2.1. Creation. The City hereby establishes a permanent improvement revolving fund
(the "PIR Fund"). The PIR Fund consists of a construction account (the
"Construction Account") and a debt service account (the "Debt Service
Account"). The City's attorney, bond counsel, consultants, and staff are
authorized and directed to take all other steps necessary to establish the PIR Fund
and its accounts and to establish and implement procedures related to the use and
management of the PIR Fund.
2.2. Use. Monies in the PIR Fund may be used (a) pay for the costs of any
improvement undertaken pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429, (b) any
waterworks systems, sewer systems, or storm sewer systems described in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075, (c) payment of any obligations issued to
pay the costs thereof and to refund obligations issued for those purposes, and (d)
any other lawful purposes. No funds may be expended for any improvement
unless at least 20 percent of the costs of each such improvement is to be assessed
against benefited property. No funds may be expended for a waterworks, sewer
system or storm sewer system, other than a sewer system described in Minnesota
Statutes, Section 115.46, unless the City Council estimates that the costs will be
recovered from the net revenues of the system or any combined waterworks,
sewer systems, or storm sewer systems operated by the City.
3. Accounts.
3.1. Construction Account. The City may establish any subaccounts within the
Construction Account that are necessary and advisable for the administration of
the PIR Fund. Funds in the Construction Account, and any subaccount
established therein, may be expended for any purpose authorized by, and in
accordance with applicable State Law.
3.2. Debt Service Account. For the purposes of this resolution, the Debt Service
Account is deemed to consist of the aggregate of the separate debt service funds
established upon issuance of and any obligations payable from the PIR Fund.
Funds in the Debt Service Account, and each component debt service fund
therein, will be used to pay the principal of and interest on the respective
obligations issued under the PIR Act and for any other lawful purpose.
3.3. Notwithstanding this resolution, the Finance Director may record the
Construction Account and the Debt Service Account as part of other capital and
debt service accounts on the City's books and records, provided that such
accounts are maintained in a manner that is consistent with this resolution.
4. Revenues.
4.1. PIR Fund Revenues. The City will deposit into the PIR Fund the following
revenues: (a) special assessments that are collected from improvements financed
by the PIR Fund, (b) net revenues of municipal utilities pledged to the PIR Fund
by resolution of the City Council; and (c) any other available funds of the City
appropriated to the PIR Fund.
4.2. Deposit of Revenues. PIR Fund Revenues may be deposited in either the
Construction Account or the Debt Service Account (or any specific debt service
fund therein) as the Finance Director may determine, having due regard for
anticipated collections of such revenues and taxes levied for the payment of any
obligations issued under the PIR Act. Revenues will be deposited into each
component debt service fund within the Debt Service Account, or transferred
from the Construction Account to the Debt Service Account, from time to time in
the amounts necessary to pay when due the principal of and interest on any
obligations payable from the PIR Fund.
5. Obligations.
5.1. The City may from time to time issue obligations primarily payable from the
Debt Service Account in accordance with State Law. Obligations of the PIR
Fund may include, without limitation, obligations issued to refund obligations
previously issued by the City under Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429, Section
115.46 or Section 444.075. All obligations issued under this Section will be
secured by the PIR Fund on a parity basis.
5.2. Deposit of Bond Proceeds. Proceeds of any obligations issued to finance eligible
improvements through the PIR Fund will be deposited in the Construction
Account, except to the extent any amount is directed for deposit in the Debt
Service Fund as capitalized interest pursuant to the resolution authorizing
issuance of the obligations.
6. Reports.
6.1. The Finance Director must from time to time, but at least annually, submit to the
City Council a written report describing the balances in the PIR Fund and its
accounts, anticipated revenues, and planned expenditures expected to be paid
from the PIR Fund for the relevant reporting period.
7. Reimbursement Intent.
7.1. In expending monies from the PIR Fund, the City will comply with United States
Treasury Regulations, Section 1.150-2 and City procedures for declaring intent to
make reimbursement from the issuance of bonds.
7.2. Prior to expending monies from the PIR Fund, the Finance Director shall
determine the potential to reimburse the PIR Fund for such expenditures from the
subsequent issuance of bonds or other obligations. If the Finance Director
reasonably expects such reimbursement, the Finance Director must file in City
records a written declaration of intent to make such reimbursement with Treasury
Regulations and City policies.
8. Effective Date.
8.1. This resolution is effective upon approval by the City Council.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session
on the 19th day of March, 2001.
Mayor
Attested to the
day of
2001.
City Administrator
SEAL
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.cLfarmington.mn.us
I~d
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayor, City Councilmembers, City Administrato~
Robin Roland, Finance Director
TO:
Consider Resolution - Authorizing Bond Sale Akin Road Improvement
DATE:
March 19, 2001
INTRODUCTION
Funding is necessary in order to construct the Akin Road Improvements, which Council ordered at
the March 5, 2001 Council meeting.
DISCUSSION
The bonds recommended are General Obligation Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund bonds
in the amount of $875,000 and the proposed sale date is April 16, 2001. These bonds are being
sold on the same day as the Public Project Revenue Bonds and G.O. Utility Revenue Bonds, and
are part of the negotiated sale.
BUDGET
A copy of the preliminary Bond Sale Report for the G.O. Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund
Bonds is attached with this memo. As identified, these bonds are issued under Minnesota State
Statute 429 and subsequently, special assessments will be used to repay the debt, along with
MSA revenues.
ACTION REQUIRED
Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the sale of $875,000 General Obligation Permanent
Improvemel'Jt Revolving Fund Bonds on April 16, 2001.
:Z4/j
Robin Roland
Finance Director
RESOLUTION NO. R -01
Resolution Providing for the Sale of
$875,000 G.O. Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund Bonds, Series 2001C
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 19th day of March
2001 at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following:
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "City Council") of the City of City of
Farmington, Minnesota (the "City") as follows:
1. Background
1.1. The City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, has heretofore determined that it
is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $875,000 G.O. Permanent Improvement
Revolving Fund Bonds, Series 200IC (the "Bonds"), to finance public improvements
undertaken by the City in 2001, including the Akin Road Project.
1.2. The City has designated Ehlers & Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota ("Ehlers"), as
its independent financial advisor.
2. Action
2.1. Authorization: Findings. The City hereby authorizes Ehlers to negotiate the sale of the
Bonds pursuant to the terms described in the Bond Sale Report dated March 19,2001.
2.2. Meeting. The City Council will consider the proposal of Dain Rauscher for the sale of
the Bonds at its meeting on April 16, 2001.
2.3. Terms of Proposal. The terms and conditions of the Bonds and the sale thereof are fully
set forth in the Bond Sale Report and are hereby approved and made a part hereof.
2.4. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City
are hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an
official statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon
its completion.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the
19th day of March, 2001.
Mayor
Attested to the _ day of
2001.
City Administrator
SEAL
BOND SALE REPORT
$875,000
G.O. Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund
Bonds, Series 2001C
City of Farmington, Minnesota
March 19, 2001
. I ~Att~I~E~I~
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE i
Bond Sale Report
OVERVIEW
This report describes the proposed plan for the to issue $875,000 G.O. Permanent Improvement
Revolving Fund Bonds, Series 2001 C. This report has been prepared by Ehlers & Associates, in
consultation with Staff and bond counsel. This report deals with:
$ Purpose and components of bond issue.
$ Structure.
$ Other considerations in issuing bonds.
$ Market conditions.
$ Issuing process.
PURPOSE
The $875,000 G.O. Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund Bonds, Series 2001C (the "Bonds")
are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 475 and 429. The Bonds are being
issued to finance finance public improvements undertaken by the City in 2001, including the
Akin Road Project
Financing these projects requires a bond issue in the amount of $875,000. The proposed finance
plan consists of the following sources and uses of funds:
SOURCES
Par Amount of Bonds
Up-Front Revenue
$875,000
708,870
USES
Project Costs
Costs of Issuance
Discount
Capitalized Interest
$1,548,030
24,440
11 ,400
o
$1,583,870
Total Sources
$1,583,870
Total Uses
The finance plan requires that the City establish a permanent improvement revolving fund
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.091, Subd. 7a. In the past, the City has issued
traditional "improvement bonds". With this approach, all special assessment revenues are
deposited into the debt service fund for the related bond issue. Once in the debt service fund, the
assessment revenue can only be used to pay debt service until the bonds are retired. The use of a
revolving fund breaks this link. Special assessments are deposited into the revolving fund.
Money in the revolving fund can be used to pay debt service and to pay costs of eligible public
improvements. This funding approach offers several benefits:
Page 1
Bond Sale Report
. The City has more flexibility in funding the initial costs of public improvements.
. The revolving fund may eliminate the need for debt on smaller projects.
. The City will have more flexibility in managing cash flows for debt.
. The City will be in a better position to maintain "bona fide" debt service funds in
compliance with federal arbitrage regulations.
To proceed with this finance plan, the City Council needs to establish the revolving fund by
adopting the resolution attached to this report.
STRUCTURE AND REPAYMENT
In structuring the bond issue, we have assumed that the City will use $408,870 from the Storm
Water Trunk Fund and $300,000 from municipal state aid (MSA) for roads to reduce the amount
of debt. The remaining costs will be financed through the Bonds.
The Bonds are general obligations of the City and as such are secured by a pledge of the City' s
full faith, credit, and taxing powers. It is the intent of the City to pay the entire amount of
principal and interest from a combination of special assessments and future MSA revenues.
The preliminary projection of debt service and revenues for the Bonds appears on the next page.
This analysis assumes that the City will assess $232,578, representing 27% of the bond issue.
We have assumed that the City will levy the assessments in 2001 for payment in the years 2002
through 2011. The assessment will be payable in equal annual installments of principal and
interest.
The City will use a portion of its annual MSA allocation to pay the remainder the debt service.
The analysis also assumes that MSA monies will be used to make the initial interest payment due
February 1,2001. Consequently, no capitalized interest is included in the bond issue.
The Bonds will be sold April 16, 2001 and be dated May 1, 2001. The first interest payment on
the Bonds will be February 1,2002, and semiannually thereafter on August 1 and February 1.
Principal on the Bonds will be due on February 1 in the years 2003 through 2012. We
recommend that Bonds maturing in the years 2007 through 2012 be subject to prepayment at the
discretion of the City on February 1,2006 and any date thereafter.
Page 2
Bond Sale Report
C",CfFa...~.
Goo. "11..l<lh..._'BlItReIIlNIVRnlBcnII, SlIIII2OO1C
JIIIaII
~ ~ !at .... !Ii ..
21112002 0 0.000% 26,820.00 26,820.00 2001
21112003 75,000 3.600% 35,760.00 110,760.00 2002
21112004 75,000 3.700% 33,060.00 108,060.00 2003
2/112005 80,000 3.800% 30,285.00 110,285.00 2004
21112006 80,000 3.900% 27,245.00 107,245.00 2005
21112007 85,000 4.000% 24,125.00 109,125.00 2006
21112008 90,000 4.150% 20,725.00 110,725.00 2007
21112009 90,000 4.200% 16,990.00 106,990.00 2008
21112010 95,000 4.300% 13,210.00 108,210.00 2009
2/112011 100,000 4.400% 9,125.00 109,125.00 2010
21112012 105.000 4.500% 4.725.00 109.725.00 2011
TOrIlL 875.000 242.070.00 1,117,070.00
DalI!d 5.0112001 ASSESSmrtASSu1llllCJ'l5
DelIY8V oaee 5.0112001 ASSem!ItPrlrdl1ll 232,578
FlIstC~ Dall! 2Al112OO2 Raile 6.00%
Tem (\tIIISl 10
BaaY8il'DdBS 5,746
flM!ng!LIIl! 6.567 YEIIr.i Taal J]Qect CXJl1S 1,548,030
AVfRJ.1JC~ 4.21266% StmTl tnJ1< ft.nI (408,8701
Net II1lnStCtstINlO 4.41062% MSA CbM11B'lfT'Bt (300,0001
True IrVrest Cm!T1C) 4.43% CC515 ~lsslliJl'Dl 24,440
DISCart 11,400
~lmllrVrest 0
TdaI t:xnt Issue 875,000
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
CIiIlIIIIIBI - .....
... .....
o 0
31,600
31,600
31,600
31,600
31,600
31,600
31,600
31,600
31,600
31.600
315.999
IlIA
26,820
79,160
76,460
78,685
75,645
77,525
79,125
75,390
76,610
77,525
78.125
801,071
Bank Qualified Bonds
We anticipate that the City (in combination with any subordinate taxing jurisdictions or debt
issued in the City's name by 501(c)3 corporations) will not issue more than a total of$lO,OOO,OOO
in tax-exempt debt during this calendar year. This will allow the Bonds to be designated as bank
qualified. Bank qualified status broadens the market and achieves lower interest rates.
Arbitrage
Rebate: Since the City anticipates issuing more than $5,000,000 in tax-exempt bonds in this
calendar year, the Bonds do not qualify for the small issuer exemption from arbitrage rebate. The
City may avoid rebate requirements by meeting the 2-year test for the expenditure of the bond
proceeds. The proceeds must be spent within the following limit:
Time Limit
6 months
12 months
18 months
24 months
Percent of Proceeds Spent
10%
45%
75%
100%
Page 3
Bond Sale Report
Ongoing: This exemption from rebate does not eliminate the need to comply with other arbitrage
regulations governing the investment of bond proceeds and debt service funds. In particular, the
City should become familiar with the requirements for maintaining a "bona fide" debt and the
potential need to restrict the investment of monies in the debt service fund. These requirements
will be explained in the bond record book received following closing.
Global Book Entry
The Bonds will be global book entry. As "paper less" bonds, you will avoid the costs of bond
printing and annual registrar charges. The City will designate a Paying Agent for the issue. The
Paying Agent will invoice you for the interest semi-annually and on an annual basis for the
principal coming due. You will be charged only for paying agent/transfer agent services
provided by the bank.
Insurance
At the present time, we expect to purchase bond insurance for this issue. It has yet to be
determined if the underlying credit of the City will be rated as part of the insurance process. The
City currently has a ABaal @ rating from Moody=s Investors Service on its outstanding general
obligation bonds.
Continuing Disclosure
Regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission on the continuing disclosure of
municipal securities apply to long-term securities with an aggregate principal amount of
$1,000,000 or more. Since aggregate amount of this issue is over $1,000,000 and the City has
more than $10,000,000 in total municipal obligations outstanding, you will be obligated to
comply with Full Continuing Disclosure requirements as required by paragraph (b)(5) of Rule
15c2-12 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. You will be required to provide certain financial information and operating data
relating to the Bonds annually and to provide notices of the occurrence of certain material events.
Ehlers will work with City Staff to make the Undertaking for this issue complement existing
continuing disclosure commitments of the City.
ISSUING PROCESS
It is proposed that the Bonds be sold through negotiated sale with the investment banking firm of
Dain Rauscher. The catalyst for the negotiated sale approach is the issuance of the Public Project
Revenue Bonds. Under normal circumstances, we recommend the competitive sale of issue like
the PIRF Bonds of this issue. However, since the Public Project Revenue Bonds will be
negotiated we believe that the City will be best served by a single and coordinated approach to
the market.
Page 4
Bond Sale Report
Following is a tentative schedule for the steps in the issuing process.
Week of March 19
City Council establishes revolving fund
City Council adopts resolution calling for the sale
of the Bonds.
Preliminary documents sent to insurance companies
Insuranceconfinned
Documents finalized
Market development
Bond sale
City Council approves sale of bonds
Bond closing (estimated)
Week of April 2
Week of April 7
April 16, 2001
Week of May 14
Page 5
Bond Sale Report
ATTACHMENT 1
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ISSUE
$875,000 G.O. Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund Bonds, Series 2001C
DATE: March 19. 2001
ISSUER: City of Farmington, Minnesota
BOND NAME: $875,000 G.O. Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund Bonds,
Series 2001 C
BOND ATTORNEY: Dorsey & Whitney (Lynn Endorf)
PURPOSE: Finance public improvements undertaken by the City in 2001,
including the Akin Road Project.
Sale Date: April 16, 2001
Est. Closing Date: May 1, 2001
Proposal Award: 7:00 p.m., City offices
Type of Sale: Negotiated with Dain Rauscher
Bonds Dated: May 1,2001
Maturity: February 1 in the years 2003-2012
First Interest: February 1,2002. Interest will be computed on the basis
of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months and will be
rounded pursuant to rules of the MSRB.
Call Feature: Bonds maturing in the years 2007 through 2012 will be
subject to redemption prior to fmal maturity on February
1,2006 and on any date thereafter. Notice of such call
shall be given by mailing a notice thereof by registered or
certified mail at least thirty (30) days prior to the date
fixed for redemption to the registered owner of each
bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the
registration books.
Record Date: Close of business on the 15th day (whether or not a
business day) of the immediately preceding month.
CUSIP Numbers: The Issuer will assume no obligation for the assignment
or printing of CUSIP numbers on the Bonds or for the
Bond Sale Report
Paying Agent:
Book Entry:
correctness of any numbers printed thereon, but will
permit such numbers to be printed at the expense of the
purchaser, if the purchaser waives any delay in delivery
occasioned thereby.
To be named by the Issuer.
This offering will be issued as fully registered Bonds
and, when issued, will be registered in the name of Cede
& Co., as nominee of The Depository Trost Company,
New York, New York.
These Bonds WILL be designated as qualified tax-
exempt obligations.
Qualified Tax-Exempt
Obligations:
Continuing Disclosure:
Full Undertaking.
DOCUMENTS